Talk:Ahrensburg culture

Untitled

'German state of Schleswig-Holstein where wooded arrow shafts and clubs have been excavated.' TYPO= I think you meant "wooden" not "wooded"

November 27, 2007: About this quoute:

"Genetic investigations suggest the culture was linked to the Hg R1a1 gene theorized to have expanded from the Dniepr-Don Valley and Ukrainian LGM refuge between 13 000 and 7 600 years ago, and confirm archeological evidence of the reindeer hunters to have started their spread from the Dniepr valley in Ukraine to Eastern and Central Europe and to have reached Scandinavia 12 000 years ago.[1]"

It should be noted that among archaeologists there's actually a lack of consensus (despite what some geneticist say or even cite) concerning the origins of Arhensburg culture. The exact arival of R1a to northern Europe is also uncertain among geneticists.

For example Lithuanian archaeologist Egidijus Šatavičius explains that the tanged points which are a hallmark feature of Arhensburg culture show up only as stray finds in Belarus' ancient Grensk culture. Grensk itself likely derives from Eastern Europe's local mammoth hunters (or at least that's where research currently focuses on as the origin point). He points out that some mistake these stray finds w/in Grensk as sufficient reasoning for an Eastern European origins of Ahrensburg culture. Furthermore, he mentions that other archaeologists consider Lingby culture (the blanket term for Brommian and Ahrensburg cultures) as part of the "Baltic Magdalenian" which seems to have its origins in France. Thus Lingby culture would be derived from western European hunters and gatheres rather than eastern. Essentially you would have more reasoning to derive Y-chromosome HG R1b's earliest appearance in Scandinavia under a Lingby cultural context rather than R1a but we can't be certain of this either. See the following link for more info:

http://www.istorija.lt/la/satavicius2004en.html

Other sources to consider are Hoffecker's "Desolate Landscapes" and Klein's "Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine". Both books deal with the earliest appearance of modern homo sapian hunter gatherer populations in Eastern Europe and make no mention of any archaeological evidence suggesting an eastern European migration of hunters and gatherers into Scandinavia (male or female for that matter). Ultimate origins of eastern European hunter gatherer cultures is unclear though Gravettian and even Aurignacian culture did leave its influence (more so with Gravettian) according to both authors. Hoffecker seems somewhat reluctant to draw a clear conclusion though Klein does mention at the end of his book that Ukraine's paleolithic hunter gathers left behind rather unique cultural artifacts that may not be best compared to Aurignacian at all.

As for what geneticists say, a study by Dupuy et al. (2005) actually states that R1a may have arrived in Northern Europe under the guise of the Corded Ware culture which would constitute as a Neolithic migration. Also, the Perii et al. study (2005) suggests in addition to a Paleolithic mirgration, that R1a could very well have populated Europe during the Neolithic, or even via historic Slavic migrations.

This section of the article needs an overhall and perhaps should be in sync more w/ the wiki on R1a which does a better job of presenting all the possibilities that this haplogroup may have spread by. Since genomics and archaeology have not been synthesized properly concerning the spread or R1a here (and since this actually is an archaeology article rather than a genetic wiki) it really is best to leave this out all together until archaeologists and geneticists actually get together and extract R1a from a male specimen w/in one of the cultural contexts that this lineage is believed to have spread under. Because of this I will be taking out this info and suggesting that it be added to the R1a article for further discussion if it hasn't already.

~Geog1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geog1 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Geog1, the confusing bit of bad english you linked to focus on cultures older than Ahrensburg, mostly Paleolithic. This is way to far back to understand the postglacial spread of Ahrensburg and the gene. Grensk was before Ahrensburg, and the spread of the R1a gene is linked to post glacial expansions from the LGM refuge in the Ukraine.

Quote: (on the question whether or not the Grensk Culture has its source at the Dnieper River:) This is not logical. Firstly, in the Grensk Culture tanged points of this type are rare stray finds and they are not characteristic to this culture. Secondly, those widely detected tanged of points are of different type, though they are attributed to unilateral points. They are much smaller and are produced sidelong to the blank, after removal of its basic part; the top of artefact is often formed in the proximal end of the blank, with surface retouch of the straight side, etc. Unifacial points of this kind are artefacts of the later Ahrensburgian Culture or the Post-Ahrensburgian Cultures

Please rethink your edits, your references might give valid information on how Ahrensburg originated, still they don't support your contradiction of what genetic scientist have stated on the post-glacial spread of R1a. Rokus01 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What the article really wants to say is: "In the opinion of most explorers, representatives of the Brommian Culture came to the southeastern Baltic Region from territories of the western Denmark - the northern Germany." What is contested is the origin of the Bromme culture in Gdenks regions. This is different from the origin of the Ahrensburg culture. Rokus01 (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry too. That article dealt specifically with Lingby which is both Brommian and Ahrensburgian. Thus the time frame is relevant. I recall Šatavičius also discussing how Lingby is Magdelanian which points to more western origins in Europe regardless. A study by Carpelan (2006) seems to suggest the Ahrensburg culture develops from more western/central European origins as well. Again all this may suggest movement from the west of Europe. Those other sources I recommend also see no movement in archaeological terms from eastern Europe to northern Europe.

Also there's still the issue that there is no real concensus among geneticists as to what the exact temporal process was regarding how R1a spread into Europe. Again the Perii and Dupuy study present different perspectives on how this lineage spread. Spencer Wells (2002, 2006) has his own opinions which go against the notion of an Ahrensburgian arrival of R1a. The estimation of haplogroup ages are actually based on Hypothetical calculations which have yet to prove themselves. Basically this isn't the soundest methodology in the world.

A similar problem was discussed regarding the association of R1a with Scythian expansion in the Scythian wiki. The end result was a fairer discussion which basically concluded that there is no certainty in associating haplogroups with any type of archaeological, prehistoric, or even historic migrations of any type of people associated with a certain culture. Essentially there is no study archaeological or genetic which proves beyond a doubt that the spread of R1a is associated with any specific cultural context as to its initial spread. Again there needs to be a proper synthesis of archaeology and genetics here which is lacking. The spatial pattern here of an Ahrensburgian arrival of R1a to northern Europe does not even add up since neither archaeology or genetics firmly support an east to northwest movement of R1a at the time of the Arhenburg culture.

In closing associating R1a unequivocally as Ahrensburgian is a mistake on several different levels. We're simply jumping the gun here too much with different data sources that don't add up. I must defer to my original position and suggest that this be properly discussed elsewhere namely the R1a wiki.

Geog1 (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Geog1

So? The notion that genes spread during and shortly after the last glacial is pretty mainstream. Sure, some early investigations on the haplogroups tried to extract explicit support to various existing linguistic theories. Some conclusions turned out te be premature, or of limitted significance. More detailed investigations, for instance, revealed a distribution of subclades to the R1a gene that pointed to a much older origin of scandinavian R1a than Corded Ware or Kurgan intrusions could possibly account for. All genes have an "age", and even though Ahrensburg may eventually derive from the early glacial Magdalenian period and linked to the Aurignacian of Western Europe, the gene only developed much later and spread after deglacialization. You are inserting anachronisms here. I don't know what you are up to or want to prove, anyway your inacquaintance with genetics might be an opportunity to improve on the article rather than to distort the comprehension reached by investigation, or by ignoring facts. Or even worse, by removing sourced information. Like I said, I don't see any contradiction between the information you forwarded and the genetic report.

"neither archaeology or genetics firmly support an east to northwest movement of R1a at the time of the Arhenburg culture." Here you are just making up things. I don't see how the poor english of the link you forwarded could be considered a proper source, still I recommend at least reading before using it to prove your personal point of view. Rokus01 (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

So to you as well. First off I'm not ignoring facts regarding genes and their alleged ages, which really aren't facts at all. This is quite apparent from the myriad of different opinions that several geneticists postulate regarding haplogroups and their ages which I have mentioned earlier. Consider that Spencer Wells dates R1a anywhere from 15,000 to 10,000 years ago BC (see the online genographic project at the National Geographic web site). If 10,000 years ago is in fact the right age than were're talking about 8000 BC as the first appearance of R1a. Ahrensburg ends at 9500 BC. Thus you would be upholding an anachronism if in fact the later date was correct. I don't even see how what I brought up is an anachronism on any level. Bottom line is all genes have an age but what they are is still up in the air (I thought this was evident by now). Like I said I'm not ignoring facts. However you seem to be ignoring the scholarly opinions of all the others authors I have mentioned. I was never calling for a total disregard of one theory but to discuss it properly and your citation elsewhere (namely the R1a article). You shouldn't be making such an accusation in the first place as it's rather unscholarly and seems to show intent of escalation. Still let's consider the source you cited in proper context:

The analysis of many Ahrensburg sites and the related lithic tools has suggested that this culture started from the Dniepr valley in Ukraine,20 one of the sites were humans found refuge during the LGM. The analysis of Y chromosome polymorphisms in present European populations has indicated that Eu 19 (that is also characterised by other Y chromosome markers: 49a,fht11, SRY 1532G35) expanded between 13 000 and 7600 years ago from the Dniepr-Don Valley area, probably when groups that initially sought refuge in that area during the LGM were allowed to migrate by the improved climatic conditions to those regions of Europe previously covered by ice.7,37 In fact this Y chromosome lineage, is by far more frequent is eastern Europe with a decreasing westward gradient. In addition it is much more diversified in eastern European populations. The highest degree of diversification was observed in Ukranians. It is then possible that Ahrensburgian men, as well as most of the men descending from the Ukranian LGM refuge bore Eu19 Y chromosomes.

Can't you put the pieces togehter or are you simply being coy? They're basically saying that the origins of the Ahrensburg culture corresponds with the spread of R1a. They don't even expand on or name what the related culture would be. Don't you find this discussion a bit insufficient? Yet I have named several prominent archaeologists who would not agree with an east to west difussion of Ahrensburg culture and discuss the problem and/or aspects related to it in greater detail such as Carpelan, Klein, Hoffecker, and Šatavičius...yes he's an actual archaeologist with a PHd so there's no reason to try and discredit his link on any grounds (google his name yourself). Besides I have read many published archaeological texts that were translated into English from a different language and found that grammatically things don't always come out right so that's simply par for the course. We're lucky to even get such texts translated in the first place.

Back to your quote concernining R1a's asociation w/ Ahrensburg culture...It suggests that it expanded 13000 years ago along the Dnieper River Valley. I've already brought up how the author's you cite are basically assigning the creators of Arhensburg to the R1a lineage. The date for the beginning of Ahrensburg culture according to the wiki is 11200 BC. Thus R1a would have arrived in Scandinavia at 11000 BC, 200 years after the beginning of Ahrensburg culture. While this discrepancy may not seem that significant, it should be noted that 200 hundred years would constitute quite a few generations of human beings. This lack of precision leaves me far from confident that you can effectively match verified radio carbon dating w/ the inferred or hypothetical calculations of geneticists. Being so content in assigning a particularly cultural context to the arrival of an HG in a certain area is a mistake since as if now the methodolgy employed does not produce solid fact. What needs to be done is to have geneticists actually extract the DNA from a sufficient sample size of male skeletons found within the Ahrensburg culture. If a significant number of these male human remains possess the R1a lineage then we could be more certain of an actual link between eastern European hunter/gathers with Ahrensburg culture. Right now it's just guess work but you don't seem to understand that.

Then there's also this:

anyway your inacquaintance with genetics....

I am not unacquainted (not "inacquainted") with genetics. Furthermore I have read many articles on genetics (some of which I have mentioned already). Obviously you shouldn't critique the English of other scholars with valid points so harshly especially since wiki policy states to keep in mind that translations aren't always going to come out right.

I don't know what your're up to or trying to prove. As for myself I am "up" to making sure that information is disseminated properly and justly and to encourage better research methods. I don't have anything to prove. I simply give things proper analysis and put the pieces of the puzzle together. Right now, the pieces of the puzzle aren't fitting together due to conflicting opinions among leading scholars which I am not sure you are aware of.

I am currently discussing this issue with some professors. I ask that you refrain from accusing me of making up stuff (which I am clearly not doing), as well as all other unscholarly remarks, and seemingly escalate things which are against wiki policy. This is not a POV thing. In the meantime this section of the article will be flagged as disputed.

Geog1 (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Geog1

I am aware of conflicting opinions on almost any field. The purpose of inserting this piece of information was not a complete overview of all competing views. You are right, we have to be grateful some of the work of scholars is translated at all and available, although the little paragraph on Grensk culture is virtually unintelligible. I don't have the slightest idea what the writer thinks is logical here, I can only assume his good intentions. I don't think his arguments were very convincing, since - as far as I get him - he admit to a genetic relationship between Ahrensburg and Bromme (or doesn't he?) and also to a "classical" Bromme style, and still he relates the influence of Havelte to something more than cultural: to Bromme migrating to the east. Something has gone amiss at the translation indeed. In other words, a coincidental contrary view to sourced information should in my opinion not necessarily result in an inmediate deletion of all once said or written before. To the contrary, a balanced article should incorporate as much views as possible within the existing text. I tried to make an assessment of the views I could gather for creating a proper context for the genetic information. As you see, this is the hard way and deleting is the easy way. Only now, the rest of the article has to expand as well in order to keep balance.

One more thing on genetics: a new gene always need tome time to spread and to predominate within some tribe or population. This accounts for the chronological difference between mutation and the gene starting to spread. I think it is amazing this R1a gene did not cross the gene-barreer of the Vistula to the west, while genes on the west side crossed so easily to the east. Sure, Hamburgian, Federmesser, Bromme and Ahrensburg could all have migrated to the east, but according to genetics they did not or hardly return. At least one of these groups must have done a good job in spreading the R1a gene from Poland to India, or at least must have done some extensive preparations, whether or not actually coming from the west. I don't think it is logic to assume even one of these groups picked up the new gene while crossing Eastern Germany to the east, and we don't know of any other contemporary archeological culture that would have spread the gene in the east "from within". All these questions would have to be solved by logic, and the most logical thing to do is to gather as much facts as possible before even trying to do so. Rokus01 03:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Šatavičius uses the term "allied" to describe the relationship between Grensk and Bromme cultures. Since he later says that Grensk cultural origins are sought among local mammoth hunters he is essentially, I would say, using "allied" synonymously with "cooperative". Therefore any similarity between Grensk and Bromme would most likely be the result of cultural exchange rather than arising from people of a common stock migrating from the same common origins point. So he's likely not admitting to a "genetic" origin in that sense. The tanged points with a straight retouched side are of "classical" Brommian type and are stray finds within Grensk. Thus, he is saying, attributing their origins to Grensk is not logical. Essentially he is demonstrating the spatial influence of Bromme and how it influenced local eastern European hunter gather cultures. Another point regarding Grensk is that Robert Klein dates Grensk Horizon-2 in Ukraine 20,750 + or - 430 years ago. Either way this predates Bromme by nearly 10,000 years (see dates given in the Bromme wiki article). The Grensk date can be found in the following source:

Klein, R. 1973. Ice-Age Hunters of the Ukraine. University of Chicago Press. Chicago

Šatavičius' verbage may be cumbersome at times in that article, almost certaintly due to translation, but I wouldn't say the article is "virtually unintelligble", besides he brings up some good points. Again, you need to be more forgiving here as I can't always say that some of what you write is always crystal clear. Case in point :

Sure, Hamburgian, Federmesser, Bromme and Ahrensburg could all have migrated to the east, but according to genetics they did not or hardly return.

I did not know what you meant intitially by "hardly return". I'm not trying to be nasty here and I assume you meant "hardly returned" but it's like the "pot calling the kettle black" so please enough already. Let's move on to another round of genetics.

Here's a study I found recently done by geneticists:

Dupuy, B. et al. 2006. Geographical heterogeneity of Y-chromosomal lineages in Norway. Forensic Science International. 164: 10-19.

Let's read:

Genealogical depths of haplogroups in Norway have been calculated using lineage specific mutation rates(DYS385 omitted) [28] and a generation time of 20 years. We estimated a date for Norwegian P*(xR1a) coalescence of 4000 (95% CI 19,900–2200 BP). For BR(xDE, J, N3, P), R1a and N3 coalescences of 5000 (95% CI 15,000–3000 BP), 2500 (95% CI 5700–1600 BP) and 2100 (95% CI 0–700 BP) were estimated, respectively. All confidence intervals overlap and do not support different waves of settlers. However, postglacial population expansion from Franco-Cantabria could have contributed mainly BR(xDE, J, N3, P). The spread of Ahrensburgian and Swederian Mesolithic technologies associated with the recolonization after the last glacial maximum could have brought P*(xR1a) to the population, while R1a might represent the spread of the Corded Ware and Battle-Axe cultures from central and east Europe. Finally, N3 is interpreted as a signature of Finno-Ugric speaking males migrating to the north.

Here, these guys are saying P*(xR1a) porbably would have entered Norway under the guise of Ahrensburg and Swiderian culture (whatever...). R1a on the other hand would have possibly represented the CWC (great, whoopee...), yet Passarino and company say R1a is Ahrensburgian (wha?!?!...). In case you can't tell by now, I find these genetic findings and how they allegedly relate to archaeology quite silly. The problem here is you have geneticists who have little or no archaeological training trying in vein (at least from what I have seen) to synthesize archaeology and genetics under methodolgy that doesn't produce the clearest results. Therefore who's to say for sure which archaeologcial paradigm is correct based on the way these genetic studies are conducted.

I still maintain that all this genetic info should be left out since its not really archaeological at all. The Ahrensburg article is of course an archaeological wiki not a genetic. The Passarino article is genetic and therefore all of its contents concerning R1a should be discussed along with all its problems and competing claims properly in the R1a wiki, which by the way needs some serious clean up. True encyclopedic entries aren't so wishy washy and are suppose to draw from sources that are more authorative due to proper research methods but now I'm going to have to throw in the Dupuy article to make it balanced as well as some other changes. So leaving things out probably would have been better because now we have two articles that need clean up as well as a few more I suspect.

No I'm afraid "logic" or inserting our own inference here or there isn't going to answer and effectively solve these ancient riddles. Havn't we already seen the "logic" of several different competing scholary claims and how it doesn't really solve anything? What will solve the problem is implementing proper research methodology (namely the type I keep mentioning) that may actually produce some facts. Again these early "findings" aren't facts (they're barely even "findings" as far as I'm concerned). They're more like scholarly suggestions or opinions that have a very limited amount merit but cannot be accepted as correct beyond doubt due to questionable methodology. If they were correct beyond doubt then they would constitute them as facts. As of now they're not. Any Anthropologist would tell you the same thing and now I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

For the record you can even find R1a in Spain though its frequency is about 3% there, but please let's not add our own inference here as to how it got there. The source:

Zoe, H. et al. 2000. Y-Chromosomal Diversity in Europe Is Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by Language. American Journal of Human Genetics 67: 1526-1543.

I also ask that in the future you do not remove the disputed tag unless an actual agreement is made. I still don't agree to this text as its not what it should be but I intend to change that.

63.3.0.129 00:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Geog1

Feel free to expand on text you consider disputed. Just hanging the disputed tag on any phrase that needs some more explanation would not resolve anything but your desire to make your point. For this we have the Talk page.

I'm afraid you are giving your own interpretation here on Grensk culture, since Egidijus Šatavičius himself explicitly located this one within the territory of Bromean culture. I labelled his account of Grensk culture "unintelligible" because it raises more questions than it solves.

Šatavičius mentions the Grensk "tanged points" to be rare stray finds of a different type, still he forgot to explain how this would contradict tanged points having originated locally within the Bromean cultural complex, at the source of the Dnieper River. Moreover, he connects this stray finds rather to the "later Ahrensburgian Culture or the Post-Ahrensburgian Cultures (Fosna, Komsa Yenevo)". So, while holding the Grensk culture "not absolutely defined typologically-technologically", he already makes a statement to strip Grensk culture from tanged points altogether and to attribute the tanged points actually found to Ahrensburgian cultures instead. The view that Grensk culture probably does not belong to the Bromean culture complex thus is of his own derivation and only supported by what could be a hypercritical scrutiny for lack of information.

However, assuming good thinking and good faith, and departing from Šatavičius' point of view, quote "tangs of points were formed by propeller retouch [....] This method is not characteristic of the "classical" Brommian Culture. By the same method tangs for points were formed only in the Havelte Stage of Late Hamburg Culture and later discussed in the following Ahrensburgian Culture. " would imply a departure altogether from the common view that Bromme and Ahrensburg were genetically related, and would have the Ahrensburg culture to be a direct descendent of the Havelte culture instead. Even admitting that such a view would be attractive and in line with early Ahrensburg in Lower Germany, this would even enhance the arguments of the Bromme culture to be an eastern phenomenon. Correspondingly, this does not invalidate the argument to an initial spread of the gene from Grensk territory. Moreover, such a pre-Ahrensburg spread would fit the contemporary genetic barreer that R1a never crossed convincingly to the west. To keep in line with the gest of the genetic review (and now without recurring to strenuous attempts to interpret conflicting information that could be mistaken for OR), I would rather plead for changing the specific identification with Ahrensburg to a more general interpretation of Younger Dryas migrations. Some archeologists might choose to remain agnostic of such migrations, still it would be very single minded to leave evidence based on published genetic information out altogether. More so, since such agnostic position would not contribute whatsoever to the discussion on the spread of R1a.

Next, the possibility of an enhanced spread of the gene by Neolithic, Chalcolithic or Slavic migrations is not excluded by any investigation, nor by myself. This should not be of any relevance to this discussion. Still, I think it is funny that investigators like Dupuy seek to explain away all previous inconsistencies and genetic stratifications by introducing founder effects due to geographical isolation, historical epidemics, trading links and population movements. At least I am grateful he summarized this type of speculation within a chapter labelled "Discussion". Genealogical depths to dates that "coalescenes" of 4000 to the R1a gene, or 5000 to "the" R1b gene as for the most recent common ancestor would render all conclusions on origin to statistical nonsense. Also, it contradicts all that has been sustained on the age of genes. I don't think models that focus on a reduced set of genetic variation will contribute much to a reliable estimation of age. I vehemently object to such simplyfied models that take advantage of mathematic tricks that fail to fully represent actual data. The interpretation of such low genaelogical depths is even more precarious: 4000 BC would probably fit a derivation from some kind of Corded Ware Adam, even though for sure this person would have predated the culture in Scandinavia or anywhere else. Similarly, 5000BC would rather fit Mesolithic Ertebolle than the Epipaleolithic Swiderian culture or, even worse, the Ahrensburg culture. I agree with you this kind of speculation hardly advertises the credibility of genetic investigation and urge for reservation.

Finally, my "unintelligible" statement "Sure, Hamburgian, Federmesser, Bromme and Ahrensburg could all have migrated to the east, but according to genetics they did not or hardly return" refers to the inconsistency of highly mobile nomads that would have crossed northern europe without restriction, in relation with the existence of a gene barreer that demonstrates an inhibited spread of (virtually contemporary) R1a west of the Vistula. Only the expansion of Bromme probably stopped short of crossing this barreer to the west, at least it didn't in significant porportions (assuming that any Bromme origin from Havelte was effectively followed by extinction in the west). Hamburg, Federmesser and Swederian demonstrate migrations to the east, while the direction of Ahrensburg is disputed. I propose to wait for publications that address this blatant contradiction in a more comprehensive way.

A proper synthesis of genetics and archeology that includes all relevant publications would probably have to give credit to both main alternatives: the current R1a distribution explained by migrations going back to Late Paleolithic reindeer hunters that originated in the Ukraine, versus the current R1b distribution explained by migrations going back to Late Paleolithic reindeer hunters that originated in Lower Germany. Rokus01 17:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been busy...

No the dispute tag does not show a desire to make a point. That would be be your own interpretation.

I find it funny how my overall assesment of what Šatavičius is ultimately getting at rings very similar (if not the same) to what you wrote up at one point in the body of the article. He's referring to a certain type of tanged point (straight retouched) as Brommian stray finds. He isn't trying to draw common origins between, Bromme, Ahrensburg and Grensk culture, that's ultimately why he says Grensk culture is derived from local mammoth hunters. Furthermore if Grensk predates Bromme by nearly 10,000 years (again see Klein 1978) then how could it be Brommian? He doesn't explicitly assign Grensk to Bromme but rather lists it with other cultures where Bromme artifacts are found territorally. I don't even think Podol III "culture" is considered Brommian proper per say as I came across an article which treats it as somewhat distinct.

Your assesment of the Dupuy article is not correct. The dates are in parenthesis. While I don't think this solves the problem (and I'm sure Dupuy et al. would agree) at least they attempted to use some type of methodology for this suggestion. This is more than what Passarino et al. did which essentially involved only checking into one source (I don't even think Otte's stance is all that mainstream) and then basing the spread of R1a from just that and then a very brief statement of how certain polymorphs allegedly support all this. Still both statements aren't proven but I think all parties involved know that by now (I hope). Regardless we now have a genetic section in an article that deals specifically with archaeology which is still rather ridiculous at this point in the game.

Also the idea of an alleged "gene barrier" based on modern population samples is at best dubious. I really shouldn't have to go into why.

You probably would have had a better chance of assigning Swiderian to R1a since some archaeologists actually feel that the aforementioned "culture" might represent an actual movement of hunter gathers from Kostenki derived industries of Ukraine onto the North European Plain. However we will have to wait for another premature genetic "investigation's" conclusion before that can be crammed into the Swiderian wiki.

Another thing to consider is the words of a dear archaeologist friend of mine"

"...reexamine such notions as "origin" and "spreading" because what we call prehistoric cultures are merely constructs of early archaeologists who had to start from scratch. ...just because you get a bunch of projectile points from unstratified sites with mostly mixed-up soils, resulting from permafrost, they do not make a culture or ethnic group."

This is typically why the term Techno-Complexes is used instead for such flint based industries which is most likely all they really are. However you seem really committed to the Passarino data and I suppose after cramming it into some of the most dubious of places (IE linguistic related wiki's? Really? ...please) your're pretty much stuck with over agressively defending the data. Anyway my counter proposal would be to remove all genetic info out of archaeological and linguistic Wiki's until proper methodology is implemented. Otherwise people are really being misinformed/misled. Geog1 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Geog1

I am not committed to Passarino, at least not in my edits since I gave equal rank to the findings of Dupuy. Also, I don't mind to represent investigation even when I don't agree with it or think it is irrelevant. It is my ambition to represent multiple views, and to compile information as encyclopedic as possible. This means I'll be inclined to search for data that would supply more information to the subject, especially when it helps to make sense out of it. Things like genetic barriers I'll keep for the talk pages as long the collected information does not give a good reason to include this without becoming suggestive. Thus, the genetic section does not pretend to interfere with the archeological section, or vice versa. Though I agree the reader would be invited to make a comparison. This comparison, however, is the full responsability of the reader. In order to facilitate the reader in this process all views should be treated equally. It would be serious if genetics would have been "crammed" into the archeological section to give credulence to something that has never been published in that way, what I did not. Still I think an encyclopedia should never limit itself to one discipline in describing a subject, and should at least make some reference to the other disciplines it relates to. Readers would deceive themselves if they would only find for what they were searching for, without increasing their horizon. Rokus01 (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you are not committed to Passarino since you have placed that article in many Wiki's as well as from your over aggresive critique of the Dupuy article. Regardless both have about the same amount of relevance to this discussion which is none. So really Dupuy's study shouldn't be in Swiderian either. The only genetic studies that have any significant relevance to archaeology are ones like Spencer Well's where he took Y-DNA from a Phoenician skeleton and actually found that the lineage was still in Lebanon and the one on MtDNA results of skeletal remains of the Linear Ware Culture. I like interdisciplinary studies and I am glad to see geological info included in the Wiki but that's because geology and archaeology are very much intricately intertwined just by their complimentary nature to one another. So I also find it hard to believe that people wanting to learn more about paleolithic artifacts in Scandinavia are really searching for genetic information determined from modern population samples. It would be more deceitful at this time to leave the information in as people would most likely become even more confused on multiple levels. Having genetic info in its own section does not make it any better. It's still in an archaeological Wiki. It's good to represent multiple views but the views should be intricately related to the relevant discipline. So if you wanted to compare and contrast Otte's views vs. just about everyone else's that would be acceptable. It's clearly irresponsible to leave the genetic info in. Encyclopedic entries typically do not entertain data that's so preliminary anyway. Therefore leaving it in is not encyclopedic. I do not agree that the reader should be invited to make a comparison between data in an entry written in such a fashion.

Remember out of linguistics, archaeology, and genomics only archaeology has an actual means of assigning proper temporal ascpects to data.

The proposal stands: Remove all genetic info out of archaeological and linguistic Wiki's until proper methodology is implemented. Geog1 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Geog1

I think you are exaggerating. You are talking about a few lines here that found their place in a separate section and are not suggestive about or interwoven with the rest of the article in any way. Moreover, contrary to what you try to make believe, in this section equal weight is given to both investigations:

"Genetic investigations suggest the advent of Ahrensburg culture may be associated with two different Y-chromosome Haplogroups, each related to another possible geographic origin.

"Hg R1a1 gene, is postulated in a study by Passarino and several other geneticists to have expanded from the Dniepr-Don Valley and Ukrainian LGM refuge between 13 000 and 7 600 years ago. On the other hand Dupuy and his colleagues proposed Ahrensburg culture to have brought Haplogroup Hg P*(xR1a) or R1b (Y-DNA) to the population and stressed genetic similarity with Germany.

Then you say: Remove all genetic info out of archaeological and linguistic Wiki's until proper methodology is implemented. We are not the judge of the implemented methodology employed by scholars in their publications. You are free to tell your opinion at the talk pages, though the article has to remain free from personal points of views. Yes, I am critical to the study of Dupuy. Why shouldn't I? My stance does not impel me to quell the contributions of Dupuy, even though inconsciously I would not grab for this reference as automatically as somebody else would. It is not up to me to come up with all points of views, though it would be unfair to accuse me of resisting multiple views. In my opinion Dupuy works towards an answer to explain for the Scandinavian DNA to be found so different from what you'ld expect of the "cradle of people" that many still want to believe it was. Indeed, for this reason I see this study essentially as an answer to the other study on Scandinavian DNA presented by Passarino. Maybe it was even meant as a polemic? Personally, I don't think Dupuy is convincing enough in his proposals for historic founder's effects. True foundering would occur in small groups, typically ancestral, and won't effect main population bodies in such a short time. Still, you could propose mathematical models that defy statistics and demonstrate virtual realities that would suit all your wishes. In this I could agree with you that the current methodology won't protect us from biased results. Still, this is the current state of the art we can't negotiate. Again, an encyclopedia is not the judge of scholarly publications. All we can do is to put things in the proper context. The context is the Ahrensburg culture, not the kind of methodology that supplies our information. Rokus01 (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not "exagerating" things, but rather you are misunderstanding things again. I noticed you have placed the Passarino data in other Wiki's and again you are proving that you have a peculiar bias to the Passarino data by actually suggesting that the Dupuy article was polemic which is a highly subjective point of view which only serves to create a degree of inuendo. Regardless you fail to understand that neither Dupuy's or Passarino's findings actually have a significant relevance to the discussion due to the fact that they are not archaeological studies as the methodolgy clearly illustrates. Therefore it has nothing to do w/ actually judging the methodology but rather has all to do with the methodology having no significant or actual bearing to the archaeological problem whatsoever. People who professionally put together encyclopedic entries and are actual subject matter experts would hardly entertain putting such "findings" in their article in the first place. So they are in fact judging the value of the methodology. Who are you to say that we shouldn't anyway or make up up the rules? Not judging indicates a clear lack of responsibility and intellectual forsight. And why not judge especially if the methodology produces no coherent insight to the problem. If the context is Arhensburg culture and not genetics then why is there a genetics section and if the genetics section does not "pretend to interfere" with the archaeological section then why is it even there in the first place? All of the genetic info should be left in the appropriate genetic Wiki.

The proposal stands: Remove all genetic info out of archaeological and linguistic Wiki's until proper methodology is implemented.

Geog1 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)Geog1

I don't have to misunderstand things to disagree with you. It is your responsability to invalidate scholarly research, not the responsability of Wikipedia. I would even say: opposition against scholarly results is against Wikipedia WP:NOR politics at all. Editors of Wikipedia can not and should not claim the professionality to judge scholarly investigation or to give opinions: this is what distinguish professional encyclopedias from Wikipedia. Encyclopedias such as Brittanica, Elsevier and Oxford are appreciated for their original contributions and points of view, though these institutions can count on recognized and representable professional and -above all- known editors. It is just ridiculous to compare anonimous internet accounts to "people who professionally put together encyclopedic entries and are actual subject matter experts". Any such claim of any of us would deserve serious scrutiny and will be utterly unproductive. Your evaluation of "the methodology having no significant or actual bearing to the archaeological problem whatsoever" is your evaluation, not mine. Somehow archeology, genetics, paleogeology or whatever methodology should be up to date and in harmony with each other, though there is not any garantee they would and tampering with the available information won't help and won't favour a neutral representation of the issue.

In summary, my opposition to your proposal stands as well and your unwarranted personal attack claiming I am actively publishing my personal opinion against the assumptions of Dupuy in Wikipedia articles induce me not to continue this discussion any further. It is my opinion you are here pushing your personal point of view. Rokus01 (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that my stance is not against Wiki policy at all as it even says in the link you posted the following:

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The genetic info that is in this article at the moment is not directly related to the archaeology of paleolithic Scandinavia. Furthermore it is not ridiculous to compare internet encyclopedic entries to professional journals because, truthfully, more people these days are getting their encyclopedic info from net sources like Wikipedia than through the publisher based encyclopedia series. It is actually forecasted that sources like Britanica, and World book will one day be obsolete, though I've never read articles in these series that gave their "points of view". That's why there is all the more reason to be cautious when posting information. But what I really find amazing is your following statement:

It is your responsability to invalidate scholarly research, not the responsability of Wikipedia.

Guess what...We are Wikipedia! You can't seperate a web based encyclopedic entity that's whole premise is built around user contributions from the user(s).

Not surprised you accuse me of point of view publishing since you seem to accuse everyone of that but truthfully I feel that POVP is more your thing as well as invalidating other scholarly studies on your own terms. Just so you know, when someone disagrees w/ you that does not automatically count as POVP. Furthermore my actions hardly constitute as POVP. I think your ever so implicit suggestion of me "tampering" w/ info is also silly as again that seems to be more your forte as well.

It's a shame really that we got off to such a bad start as I was expecting polite discourse and actual coherent counter arguments but alas it seems things just went around in circles and into rather negative territory. In the future though you shouldn't be so hard on everyone else and attack them (including myself) which is something I see you do quite a bit on variouse pages (especially after this experience). Remember strong words usually indicate a weak cause. So perhaps we should end our conversation here. But in the meantime...

The proposal still stands: Remove all genetic info out of archaeological and linguistic Wiki's until proper methodology is implemented. Please feel free to discuss this on my talk page as more opinions and consensus building need to be gathered/made on this topic as I feel the conversation here only scratches the surface. I appreciate all well thought out, meaningful and polite discourse. Remember we are Wikipedia and have to work as a team to provide well written balanced articles. Thanks and I hope to hear from all interested in pursuing this matter.

Geog1 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Geog1

The synthesis of genetics and archaeology is a major focus of scholarly research and in my view one of the most exciting scientific and intellectual endeavors today. Wikipedia should deal with the uncertainly by qualifying the statements and signaling the uncertainty, not by attempting to separate fields working hard to come together. That said, the review by Soares et al. (2010) has this to say on the spread of Y-DNA R1:

More surprising is the status of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1, which, unlike mtDNA haplogroup I, is not indigenous to West Eurasia but appears to have originated in South Asia, possibly in the early settlements associated with the southern route dispersal [64]. This appears better substantiated than the alternative suggestion of a Central Asian origin [65]. Two major subclades of R1 appear in Europe: R1b in the west and R1a in the north-east. It has been suggested that R1b mirrors mtDNA haplogroup H and the forerunner of V in arriving from the east shortly after the LGM. Then, with the Late Glacial, its main subclade R1b1b2 expanded into western and central Europe [66–68], with a possible expansion at the same time from Anatolia [69]. R1a might then represent an expansion from an eastern refuge, perhaps in the Ukraine, although it might also have been the result of more recent dispersals [62,66,70–72].

This explicitly and unproblematically signals uncertainty. Liontooth (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we know this already. Hence, why movements have been finally made to purge genetic info based on the sampling and methods concerning modern population studies from archaeological articles, and if there is any uncertainty why this must be the case just swing on over to the Hittites article and go to some of the older edits regarding the origins section and watch the madness unfold. As for archaeology and genetics being two fields working hard together, I can't fully agree with this, as it seems some geneticists often times pull haphazardly for archaeological paradigms to fit their research/opinions that many in Anthropology departments consider outdated and unreliable to account for any firm directional evidence of human migration whatsoever. Moreover, many Anthropology departments have been moving away increasingly from such types of research. Believe it or not, if you're a prospective Anthropology student with an interest in prehistoric human migrations, many departments won't give you or you're statement of purpose the time of day. Many departments fervently moved away from the "origins" of things and migration since these topics in the past were so highly politicized.

Also, I can't even say that some of the studies which analyze A-DNA are free from bias as perhaps signaled by sampling selection (dare I say purposefully?) as was the case with the TRB/PWC A-DNA article. Even articles that discuss a haplogroup's origins & migrations based on modern population samples are wrought with confusion and uncertainty (just take a look at the R1a article...there are still sections that I can't make heads or tails out of due to the vagueness of the research). Part of the problem is a lack of archaeologists who co-write this paper which again underscores the whole theme of why Anthro. departments back off from this type of research.

Bottom line, we have too many opinions/theories yet way too little reliable data to start accounting for such things or synthesizing ideas. The Ahrensburg culture article is just another in a long line of archaeological articles underlining this persistent theme here on Wikipedia and till this day because of the misguided focus of accounting for human migrations during this archaeological horizon, the article remains skewed, poorly written, and largely unfocused.

Best regards.Geog1 (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

References

can someone define the time and geographical ranges normally given for this culture?

Would be handy--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahrensburg in Scandinavia

Hello. The image for this article excludes the Ahrenburg in Scandinavia. Can we change it?

The Ahrensburg roamed in Denmark and Southern Sweden from around 10,500 BCE and when the pre-Boreal began around 9,500 BCE, they settled the rest of Scandinavia as well. It is important to include, because they were the first people to live in the northern parts of Scandinavia after the last Ice Age. RhinoMind (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Can someone insert these refs in their right place?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahrensburg culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416151401/http://www.istorija.lt/la/satavicius2004en.html to http://www.istorija.lt/la/satavicius2004en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)