PDA

View Full Version : Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Ag



Helgenes50
10-01-2016, 01:35 AM
A new paper

Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/30/078360.article-info

Observer
10-01-2016, 01:45 PM
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DaalKaB8WZM/V-8Zbik2-YI/AAAAAAAAE6s/GNZJ8X_zAUUfutZj_qxg0FYm3J_IryDEQCLcB/s1600/Goldberg_Fig_3.png

"Neolithic transition was driven by mass migration of both males and females in roughly equal numbers, perhaps whole families, whereas the later Bronze Age migration and cultural shift were instead driven by male migration, potentially connected to new technology and conquest."

Interesting sex ratios, looks like steppe women were not as mobile as their men were.

MitchellSince1893
10-01-2016, 02:58 PM
I know this is an apples to oranges comparison, but when you look at the spread of European Americans across the North American Continent during the 18th and 19th Centuries you see a similar situation where the men going West far outnumbered the women. Even today in Alaska "the last frontier" you see this discrepancy. As a single male in Alaska in my 20s I experienced it first hand. The men had a saying up there. "You don't loose you girlfriend...you lose your turn". :biggrin1:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521611/Wild-West-tamed-MAIL-ORDER-BRIDES.html

Tomenable
10-01-2016, 11:09 PM
This is very easy to explain, if you know how early Indo-European societies worked. Indo-Europeans commonly practiced polygyny, which means that one man could have many wifes. The most powerful and influential men had the largest number of wives.

For example, chieftains could have 10 wifes each (or at least several).

However, the proportion of males to females in every population is always close to 50:50. So if only 1 man married 10 women, it means that 9 other men had to remain "singles". There were just not enough women in the population for them to marry.

And in my opinion, that was one of driving forces of Indo-European expansions.

Those low-status men, who could not find native Steppe wifes on the Steppe, had to:

1) Either kidnap wifes from somewhere else, and then bring them back to the Steppe;

OR:

2) Emigrate from the Steppe, invade another tribe, and capture their women as wifes.

In fact, genetic and archaeological data provides evidence, that both happened. The increase of CHG admixture among Steppe people, was due to kidnapping wifes from the Caucasus region, and then bringing them back to the Steppe. Later on, they stopped kidnapping & bringing wifes to the Steppe, and instead started emigrating from the Steppe in search of wifes to conquer. That was most likely due to improvements in technology (they acquired metals, horses, wheels and wagons - becoming more mobile). Before acquiring those technological advantages, they were only able to organize raids for women (quickly surprise-attacking a settlement of farmers, kidnapping women and food, then quickly running away back to the Steppe).

But after gaining an advantage in military power, they could conquer sedentary populations.

Megalophias
10-02-2016, 12:22 AM
Kidnapping Caucasian women seems logistically problematic.

I think more likely the Z2103 tribe did unto the other steppe tribes what the R1a guys did unto EEF.

kosmonomad
10-02-2016, 01:29 AM
Kidnapping Caucasian women seems logistically problematic.

I think more likely the Z2103 tribe did unto the other steppe tribes what the R1a guys did unto EEF.

Ahm, You may be overcomplicating. One of my ancestors, while riding, simply grabbed a woman. Actually, they had a normal church wedding. I am one of direct mtdna descendants of that woman. I absolutely love this line. My mom is a good lawyer and she is wonderful at home. And miss my grandma.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-02-2016, 02:08 AM
I think some further clarification of their methodology is required

vettor
10-02-2016, 02:25 AM
A new paper

Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Age in Europe inferred from ancient X chromosomes

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/30/078360.article-info

Looks like all the women stayed behind in the crimea and the north Caucasus ...............to become what the Greeks historians note as the ...........Amazons ( or , the land of Women )

Helgenes50
10-02-2016, 04:32 AM
However, the proportion of males to females in every population is always close to 50:50. So if only 1 man married 10 women, it means that 9 other men had to remain "singles". There were just not enough women in the population for them to marry.



The vikings were in the same case, a lack of wives due to a polygyny.
Some people think that it was the cause of their expansion.

Sammy Andrews
10-02-2016, 06:27 AM
No one should be getting the idea Steppe people migrated with only or a vast majority of men. One method of this paper suggests essentially only Steppe men came which is absolutely impossible. Just look at LNBA European mtDNA. I gathered their frequency of Steppe-related mtDNA last year (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GToouHMsUnoUpGSY91OIMA3bjc86bhNRSzknZ_BKLYE/edit#gid=462265126), they have about half as much as Yamnaya.

I can't imagine lone Steppe men forcing themselves upon MN villages alone and making the genetic impact they did. Men alone can't change language btw. Think about it, who is contact with babies learning language the most, women or men? Steppe people(madeup of men and women) made settlements in Europe, their men didn't immigrate into native populations and then make themselves the rulers that's crazy. Steppe communities, with all ages and genders, must have migrated there's no other possibility imo.

Quote from paper,

We find evidence of ongoing, primarily male, migration from the steppe to central Europe over a period of multiple generations

Or more likely there were continuing waves of MN women marrying Steppe men and moving into their husband's villages.

vettor
10-02-2016, 07:07 AM
No one should be getting the idea Steppe people migrated with only or a vast majority of men. One method of this paper suggests essentially only Steppe men came which is absolutely impossible. Just look at LNBA European mtDNA. I gathered their frequency of Steppe-related mtDNA last year (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GToouHMsUnoUpGSY91OIMA3bjc86bhNRSzknZ_BKLYE/edit#gid=462265126), they have about half as much as Yamnaya.

I can't imagine lone Steppe men forcing themselves upon MN villages alone and making the genetic impact they did. Men alone can't change language btw. Think about it, who is contact with babies learning language the most, women or men? Steppe people(madeup of men and women) made settlements in Europe, their men didn't immigrate into native populations and then make themselves the rulers that's crazy. Steppe communities, with all ages and genders, must have migrated there's no other possibility imo.

Quote from paper,


Or more likely there were continuing waves of MN women marrying Steppe men and moving into their husband's villages.

the zulu army in the 19th century marched into tanzania or uganda or anywhere north............killed all the men and impregnated the women
source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washing_of_the_Spears

the same could happen to the early neolithic farmers of Central europe ...........where common mtdna where found with uncommon ydna

Tomenable
10-02-2016, 09:34 AM
No one should be getting the idea Steppe people migrated with only or a vast majority of men. One method of this paper suggests essentially only Steppe men came which is absolutely impossible. Just look at LNBA European mtDNA. I gathered their frequency of Steppe-related mtDNA last year (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GToouHMsUnoUpGSY91OIMA3bjc86bhNRSzknZ_BKLYE/edit#gid=462265126), they have about half as much as Yamnaya.

I can't imagine lone Steppe men forcing themselves upon MN villages alone and making the genetic impact they did. Men alone can't change language btw. Think about it, who is contact with babies learning language the most, women or men? Steppe people(madeup of men and women) made settlements in Europe, their men didn't immigrate into native populations and then make themselves the rulers that's crazy. Steppe communities, with all ages and genders, must have migrated there's no other possibility imo.

Quote from paper,

(...)

Or more likely there were continuing waves of MN women marrying Steppe men and moving into their husband's villages.

So it seems that Goldberg and Rosenberg et al. underestimated Steppe female immigration.

But when it comes to your spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GToouHMsUnoUpGSY91OIMA3bjc86bhNRSzknZ_BKLYE/edit#gid=0

Only U5a, U4, U2e, T1a, J2b1a, J1b1a1, I, N1a1b, H-16362, H2a1 and H2a2b were counted as Steppe-related there. What about U2d2, U5b2a1a1, K1b, T2a1, T2c1, H6a1, H5, H13, J2b1, W6, W3a1a, X2b, R1, C4a3 - weren't these mtDNA haplogroups also Steppe-related? On the other hand, it seems that only U5a1 was typically Steppe (U5a2 was not) and only I3 (not all of I), but all of N1a1 and J1b (not just N1a1b and J1b1a1).

Of course only haplos common in the Steppe but uncommon among European Farmers can be securely labeled as Steppe-related.

===============

Yamnaya mtDNA haplogroups:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7671-Mitochondrial-links-between-Yamnaya-and-Corded-Ware

Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka mtDNA should also be included.

Corded Ware mtDNA was already partially of MN Farmer origin.

Kristiina
10-02-2016, 10:40 AM
Identification is problematic, in Sammy's Excel file and probably in the paper itself (I have not really read it).

U5a has probably originated in Europe in the Upper Paleolithic, and there is a lot of U5(xU5b) in Neolithic and Mesolithic contexts. The Yamnaya U5a1 seems to be U5a1d, U5a1i and U5a1 with 16399 (probably U5a1a1a1) and with 16270 16362, so not all U5a in Western and Northern Europe is Yamnaya-related as also Tomenable pointed out. U4a is probably eastern, but there is still some U4 in Europe in Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts. H6 (16362) was frequent in Yamnaya, but there is also H with 16363 in Mediterranean Neolithic. J2b1a has been detected in Neolithic Schöningen and TRB and in Gökhem Sweden who was fully Neolithic. T1a has been detected in Starčevo Hungary, LBKT Hungary and in Minoan BA Ayios Charalambos Cave in Crete. I1a has been found in Yamnaya, Unetice, Bell Beaker and Srubnaya, but it is not in the list.

Yamnaya mtDNA is not completely different from the European Neolithic mtDNA, and it is not easy to tell the origin of a haplotype detected in BA European burials. Of course, this is possible if we get the full details of a haplotype, but at the moment that is not the case, and there is lot of Neolithic mtDNA data that is defined only as H, J and T etc.

Tomenable
10-02-2016, 10:43 AM
I1a has been found in Yamnaya, Unetice, Bell Beaker and Srubnaya, but it is not in the list.

It could also be I3d:

https://s31.postimg.org/h12f4uxyh/CWC_YAM_mt_DNA.png

Observer
10-02-2016, 11:31 AM
Or more likely there were continuing waves of MN women marrying Steppe men and moving into their husband's villages.

This seems like most likely scenario, there was a journal about this few months ago. Women in CW were highly mobile, moving from the village of their birth to another, and perhaps taking their dietary (farmer) preferences with them.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155083

http://www.archaeology.org/news/4498-160527-germany-women-mobility

The authors suggest that their evidence of varied diet and mobility supports the possibility of a stable system of female exogamy, where women married outside of their social group and moved to their husbands' settlements, in Corded Ware Culture.

Jean M
10-02-2016, 03:43 PM
Looks like all the women stayed behind in the crimea and the north Caucasus ...............to become what the Greeks historians note as the ...........Amazons ( or , the land of Women )

So the women left behind in 3000 BC lived long enough to be found by the Greeks in the 8th century BC? I don't think so somehow. :biggrin1: Here is what I say about the Amazons in AJ.


On the steppe east of the Don River early Greek travellers located the Sauromatians, later known as Sarmatians. These were yet more Iranian-speakers - related in language and culture to the Scythians settled on the European steppe. The Sarmatians crossed the Don at the end of the 4th century BC and surged westward, subjugating the Scythians and giving the new name of Sarmatia to the European steppe.

Herodotus had a wondrous tale to tell of the Sauromatians. He had heard that they were the descendants of a band of young Scythian men who had taken to wife a group of Amazons who insisted on retaining their way of life: hunting, riding and going to war. Perceiving the potential for conflict if the combined group settled with the other Scythians between the Danube and the Don, they found a territory for themselves east of the Don.

The fighting female Amazons, living without men, appear in Greek literature from the 8th century BC in so confusing a variety of locations and stories that they are often regarded as pure invention, the symbolic enemy of Greek patriarchy. Yet the graves of warrior women are found on the European steppe, one of the two places most strongly associated with the Amazons by ancient Greek authors. The other location was beside the Thermodon River, which is modern Terme in Turkey. According to one account the Amazons lived originally beside the Don River, but moved to Themiscyra on the Thermodon on the opposite shore of the Black Sea. Herodotus reverses the flow. In his story Amazons taken prisoner by Greeks at the battle of Thermodon had drifted by ship onto the Scythian shore of the Back Sea, after overpowering their captors. To stress their foreign origin, he tells us that the Sarmatians spoke Scythian, but ungrammatically, because the Amazons had never learnt it properly. This may be the earliest account of language contact as a cause of language change.

It is a pity that it can't be true. Certain Sarmatian women were buried with armour and weapons. Yet, contrary to the story by Herodotus, such burials do not appear only in the Volga-Ural region inhabited by the early Sarmatians, but also in the Scythian region between the Danube and the Don. In a kurgan near Akkerman contains an impressive example. The woman buried there owned bronze and silver bracelets, a bronze mirror, a necklace of glass beads and a lead spindle-whorl; so far so feminine. Yet she also had a quiver with twenty bronze arrowheads, two spear-heads, and a massive battle-belt of leather covered with iron plaques. This weaponry was not just for show. The redoubtable woman had suffered several head wounds from cutting blows, and had a bronze arrowhead lodged in her knee joint. More damaging still for the credibility of Herodotus are the warrior women of the Asian steppe. The Iron Age grave of a 16-year-old girl at Ak-Alakha in the Altai Mountains contained an iron battle axe and other weapons. Furthermore she was dressed in male attire.8 The Scythians had brought a heritage of fighting females with them from the Asian steppe.

Some 20 per cent of Scythian-Sarmatian graves containing weapons and harness are those of women. To put it another way, 80 per cent of warrior burials were of men. This was no gender role reversal. The pattern suggests a female home guard. Greeks coming across Scythian women minding the home fires while their mobile males were away herding or raiding might have thought them a tribe without men. Imagine their surprise when apparently defenceless females whipped out weaponry in a business-like fashion. Thus are myths born.

In short the absence of adult males that so surprised Greeks who came into occasional contact with steppe Iranian-speakers was not permanent. Or at least it was not intended to be. But Scythian raiding parties could be away for years. Herodotus (book 4, 1-3) tells a story of Scythians returning to their homeland after 28 years in part of Iran, only to find a sizeable army opposing them. After so long without their husbands, their wives had taken partners from among their male slaves. Their offspring initially resisted the return of the wanderers.

Jean M
10-02-2016, 03:46 PM
Indo-Europeans commonly practiced polygyny, which means that one man could have many wifes.

Where is your evidence of this?

vettor
10-02-2016, 05:25 PM
Where is your evidence of this?

hmm............it still happens today..........what kind of question is this?

Is it not time we force gender equality in our secular society and not accept these religious practices against women? .........I loathe this inequality

vettor
10-02-2016, 05:26 PM
So the women left behind in 3000 BC lived long enough to be found by the Greeks in the 8th century BC? I don't think so somehow. :biggrin1: Here is what I say about the Amazons in AJ.



In short the absence of adult males that so surprised Greeks who came into occasional contact with steppe Iranian-speakers was not permanent. Or at least it was not intended to be. But Scythian raiding parties could be away for years. Herodotus (book 4, 1-3) tells a story of Scythians returning to their homeland after 28 years in part of Iran, only to find a sizeable army opposing them. After so long without their husbands, their wives had taken partners from among their male slaves. Their offspring initially resisted the return of the wanderers.

Neither do I believe the Ancient Greek historians

Jean M
10-02-2016, 06:17 PM
..it still happens today..........what kind of question is this?

Anthropologists have recorded a variety of marital/partnering habits of human cultures across the world now or in the recent past. Herodotus noted a variety just in the areas of the world with which he was familiar in the 5th century BC. It is simply not the case that polygyny has been the norm in all human societies for the whole of recorded time, without exception, so we could safely assume it in prehistory.

So we would need some specific evidence in the language of PIE itself. Laura Fortunato, Reconstructing the History of Marriage Strategies in Indo-European–Speaking Societies: Monogamy and Polygyny (2011), concluded:


Explanations for the emergence of monogamous marriage have focused on the cross-cultural distribution of marriage strategies, thus failing to account for their history. In this paper I reconstruct the pattern of change in marriage strategies in the history of societies speaking Indo-European languages, using cross-cultural data in the systematic and explicitly historical framework afforded by the phylogenetic comparative approach.

The analysis provides evidence in support of Proto-Indo-European monogamy, and that this pattern may have extended back to Proto-Indo-Hittite. These reconstructions push the origin of monogamous marriage into prehistory, well beyond the earliest instances documented in the historical record; this, in turn, challenges notions that the cross-cultural distribution of monogamous marriage reflects features of social organization typically associated with Eurasian societies, and with “societal complexity” and “modernization” more generally. I discuss implications of these findings in the context of the archaeological and genetic evidence on prehistoric social organization.

Bas
10-02-2016, 08:05 PM
I think it's probably a bit extreme to say women didn't accompany men coming from the steppe at all, but at the same time, I think we all know the nature of Indo-European society, empahasizing warfare and 'heroes'.

And I think in opposition to the view that language cannot change only from a male-dominated invasion, there are many examples in history of male-dominated invasions completely changing languages. The clearest would probably be somewhere like the conquest of Mexico, where the (mostly male) invaders mixed with the native population and also to some extent kept to their own until relatively late. And of course what happened was that the Spanish having the power, controlling the trade, meant that to get anywhere, you had to speak Spanish-even if your own family wasn't of partial Spanish descent.

Although of course it isn't exactly the same scenario, I do think there are a lot of similarities between the conquest of Mexico and the coming of Indo-European languages into Central and Western Europe. Just as in the Americas, there would have been many languages and nations, some of which would have helped the newcomers, in return for favours, women, knowledge. And others who would have resisted at all costs. So I can easily see how invading groups with new technology and a certain status due to power, can change the language of a whole continent.

Sammy Andrews
10-02-2016, 10:38 PM
Identification is problematic, in Sammy's Excel file and probably in the paper itself (I have not really read it).

U5a has probably originated in Europe in the Upper Paleolithic, and there is a lot of U5(xU5b) in Neolithic and Mesolithic contexts. The Yamnaya U5a1 seems to be U5a1d, U5a1i and U5a1 with 16399 (probably U5a1a1a1) and with 16270 16362, so not all U5a in Western and Northern Europe is Yamnaya-related as also Tomenable pointed out. U4a is probably eastern, but there is still some U4 in Europe in Mesolithic and Neolithic contexts. H6 (16362) was frequent in Yamnaya, but there is also H with 16363 in Mediterranean Neolithic. J2b1a has been detected in Neolithic Schöningen and TRB and in Gökhem Sweden who was fully Neolithic. T1a has been detected in Starčevo Hungary, LBKT Hungary and in Minoan BA Ayios Charalambos Cave in Crete. I1a has been found in Yamnaya, Unetice, Bell Beaker and Srubnaya, but it is not in the list.

Yamnaya mtDNA is not completely different from the European Neolithic mtDNA, and it is not easy to tell the origin of a haplotype detected in BA European burials. Of course, this is possible if we get the full details of a haplotype, but at the moment that is not the case, and there is lot of Neolithic mtDNA data that is defined only as H, J and T etc.

Typical Yamnaya mtDNA lineages existed in Neolithic Europe. However they were very rare in Neolithic Europe and very popular in Yamnaya. Their rise in frequency in LNBA Europe is clearly because of Steppe women migrating into Europe.

GailT
10-02-2016, 11:06 PM
I don't think we have enough have ancient samples to characterize with any certainty the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups in the Steppe, eastern Europe and western Europe 5000 years ago. Also, the slow mutation rate makes mtDNA very imprecise for describing migrations on the time scale of the last several thousand years.

razyn
10-02-2016, 11:54 PM
Very few people seem to be noticing that the paper that started this thread is about the evidence from the X chromosome, which is not mitochondrial; and it's irrelevant what Y haplogroup the steppe guys bore (they were guys, and they bore one). It's based on, or exploits, a rather neat statistical anomaly about the X itself. All of the ancient corpses, male and female, had one or more X per generation; but the proportions in men and women are (always) different, and always in the same ratio because women get an X from each parent, and men only get one from the mother. This has implications over long stretches of time (and thus generations), whether migrating or not, that can be untangled by people who have very good math chops. Untangling them, in these separate populations that migrated independently from different places and times, demonstrates that the neolithic Fertile Crescent farmers came in very nearly equal numbers of men and women; whereas the Bronze Age steppe migrants came in highly skewed ratios: a minimum of 5 men to 1 woman, and a maximum of 14 to 1.

The fact that their Y lineages now dominate central and western Europe demonstrates that they nevertheless found someone with whom they could, and did, produce offspring. They had some material wealth, skills, muscles, and a great travel story; they didn't pine away as lonely hermits. The extent to which these relationships were based on violence is debatable. It certainly wasn't unrelated to economic interests, marriage still isn't; but the level of crassness of the transaction is also debatable. Some of the fresh new non-steppe wives may have been stolen, some bought for trade goods, some acquired to seal treaties of nonaggression, and some simply wooed and won. Anyway, they were mostly not brought from back in the Ukraine or wherever.

Read the paper, really. It's not rocket science, but it's good science.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-03-2016, 12:14 AM
I imagine that that archaeologists are going to have difficulty swallowing this, even dismissing it as another looney theory by geneticists
Many still see BB and CWC as a superficial epi-phenomenon

Saetro
10-03-2016, 12:58 AM
This is very easy to explain, if you know how early Indo-European societies worked. Indo-Europeans commonly practiced polygyny, which means that one man could have many wifes. The most powerful and influential men had the largest number of wives.

One man with many wives produces lots of sons with only one haplogroup, and children with whatever mtDNA haplogroup the wives had.
This surely would tend to eliminate much of the YDNA variability and increase the mtDNA variability.
This study was with XDNA and presumably the comparison works in a different way.
But Tomenable's scenario would still result in LESS of the father's X chromosome material being transmitted.
If similar numbers by sex arrived, then this showed polyandry, not polygyny.

I think Occam's Razor is probably in favour of male migration and replacement.
Rather than family migration with one sex dominant.
There are enough recorded historical examples of incomers slaughtering males.
Or being more attractive prospects as husbands, so making the change peaceably.

vettor
10-03-2016, 06:17 AM
Anthropologists have recorded a variety of marital/partnering habits of human cultures across the world now or in the recent past. Herodotus noted a variety just in the areas of the world with which he was familiar in the 5th century BC. It is simply not the case that polygyny has been the norm in all human societies for the whole of recorded time, without exception, so we could safely assume it in prehistory.

So we would need some specific evidence in the language of PIE itself. Laura Fortunato, Reconstructing the History of Marriage Strategies in Indo-European–Speaking Societies: Monogamy and Polygyny (2011), concluded:

I cannot see how any society accepted any form of mono or poly as a strict guidance to marriage.

The Etruscans in the iron-age where mono in marriage, but the wife could bed any man she wanted at any time...............conclusion was that the husband was not necessary the father.
There was not any specific rule in marriage, in the past or in the present ..................If you want to stop a Poly system person in your nation, then do not let these people with poly systems in your country or jail them or ......

Cascio
10-03-2016, 07:42 AM
I cannot see how any society accepted any form of mono or poly as a strict guidance to marriage.

The Etruscans in the iron-age where mono in marriage, but the wife could bed any man she wanted at any time..

How do we know that this was not just a typical Greek or Roman slander on the relatively high position of women in Etruscan society?

How can we prove that no Greek or Roman women cuckolded their husbands?

Obviously they did.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 07:54 AM
Razyn,

Ancient DNA from Eastern European (but to the west of Russia) hunter-gatherers will be published soon. Including Kunda and Narva cultures. I wonder whether we will see changes in Y-DNA and in autosomes in that region between the Mesolithic and the Early Bronze Age?

Arame
10-03-2016, 08:08 AM
There is no evidence of polygyny among Slavs. Yet the Slavic Y dna expansion is the most spectacular recent ( example ~2000 ybp for I2a1-CTS...) founder effect/expansion.
On the other side hordes of male dominated nomades entered Europe in late antiquity. What is their genetic legacy? Did anybody heard something about Hunnic cluster in Europe with the appropriate age? Or where is the Ottoman sultan's cluster with his harem?

The same rhetoric questions can be posed for Finnic founder effect of N and many other recent attested cases.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:10 AM
There is no evidence of polygyny among Slavs

There is, in Pagan times Slavs had polygyny. After Christianization they stopped practicing it.


Yet the Slavic Y dna expansion is the most spectacular recent ( ~2000 ybp for I2a1) founder effect/expansion.

Yeah but some of typically Slavic mtDNA lineages are also very young. So it's not just Y-DNA.

vettor
10-03-2016, 08:13 AM
How do we know that this was not just a typical Greek or Roman slander on the relatively high position of women in Etruscan society?

How can we prove that no Greek or Roman women cuckolded their husbands?

Obviously they did.

we do not know...........but how we know all other ancient history is not slanderous either !

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:20 AM
See Litvinov 2015, "Resurgence of hunter-gatherer mtDNA ancestry" (that resurgence was probably related to expansions of PIE):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4623-Litvinov-resurgence-of-hunter-gatherer-mtDNA-ancestry


Detailed analysis of complete mtDNAs allowed us to identify a number of mitochondrial lineages that seem specific for Slavic- and Germanic-speaking peoples or both. These subhaplogroups consist of similar haplotypes revealed in different ethnic groups of modern Slavic or Germanic peoples. Evolutionary age of Slavic-specific subhaplogroups (such as U2e1b1, U3b1b, U5a1c1, U5a2a1b, U5b1a1) varied from 1.3 to 3.9 kya, according to the mutation rate for the entire mtDNA molecule. Subhaplogroups frequent among Eastern Europeans (U3a1a, U4a2a, U4a2g, U4d1, U5a1a2a) dated to 4.6-7.7 kya. Subhaplogroups found mostly among the Germanic-speaking populations (U5a1a1d, U5a1h, U5b2a1a1, U5b2a2, U5b2b4) were slightly older, with the age varying from 3.5 to 10.7 kya. The age of subhaplogroups, which are characteristic for both Slavic and Germanic populations (U2e1g, U2e2a1, U4a2b, U4c2, U5a1b1c, U5a2b1, U5b1e, U5b2a2b1), varied from 2.9 to 8.4 kya. The results obtained indicate that a resurgence of hunter-gatherer ancestry (in the form of mtDNA lineages belonging to haplogroups U2e, U4, U5a and U5b) had occurred in Central and Eastern Europe beginning from the [Late] Neolithic period, consistent with recent genome-wide data from ancient Europeans.

Arame
10-03-2016, 08:21 AM
Tomenable


Yeah but some of typically Slavic mtDNA lineages are also very young. So it's not just Y-DNA.
Huh? Why they were marring their own females when it is more easy to organize mass killing of other males and get thousands of females?

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:25 AM
On the other side hordes of male dominated nomades entered Europe in late antiquity.

In Late Antiquity Europe had many dozens of millions of inhabitants.

By contrast, Neolithic Europe had only a few or few millions of inhabitants.

Also the size of these hordes is vastly exaggerated in written sources.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:27 AM
Huh? Why they were marring their own females when it is more easy to organize mass killing of other males and get thousands of females?

They were marrying foreign females (presumably after killing males) as well.

See for example: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:30 AM
Procopius, III.3.9-19 (about Slavs capturing the Byzantine town of Toperus):


(...) They took it in the following manner. Most of them hid themselves in hilly country opposite the walls, and a few of them, going up before the eastern gates, annoyed the Romans on the parapets. The soldiers who were on guard there, thinking that they (Slavs) were no more numerous than those whom they saw, all immediately taking up their weapons, went out against them. The barbarians retreated, giving the appearance to their pursuers that they retreated out of fear. Those in ambush came out now, behind the pursuers, no longer allowing them entry into the city. Those who appeared to be fleeing now turned about and placed the Romans in a position of double attack. Having slain all of them, the barbarians attacked the wall. The inhabitants of the city, deprived of the soldiers, were at a great loss and defended themselves against the attackers with those that remained. First, heating oil and pitch, they poured it on the besiegers and, all of them hurling stones against them, came close to repulsing the danger. But then the barbarians, having driven them back from the parapets by a multitude of arrows and having placed ladders against the wall, took the city by storm. The Slavs slew all 15,000 men, plundered all the wealth, and enslaved all the women and children. (...)

It was this town:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=nt0KDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT4103&lpg=PT4103&dq=Toperus+town&source=bl&ots=uWwEZ-JZWL&sig=hlGMLgLX7U_6yj2EJ_yljYPgnBE&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBj4Krnb7PAhVJhywKHWI9D4kQ6AEIHDAA#v=on epage&q=Toperus%20town&f=false

https://s22.postimg.org/jpp14n7qp/Toperus.png

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 08:57 AM
Let's wait for the East Baltic aDNA paper.

They have ~80 samples from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age, including Kunda & Narva hunter-gatherers and also Baltic Corded Ware.

So we will see what was the Corded Ware migration like.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 09:01 AM
There is no evidence of polygyny among Slavs.

As I wrote, there is.

One example: Mieszko I of Poland had seven Pagan wives (all at once) in 965, shortly before he converted to Christianity.

Helgenes50
10-03-2016, 09:10 AM
Let's wait for the East Baltic aDNA paper.

They have ~80 samples from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age, including Kunda & Narva hunter-gatherers and also Baltic Corded Ware.

So we will see whether only Y-DNA or both Y-DNA and mtDNA was replaced, suggesting male-dominated or family-based migration.

I wonder whether I1 is present in all these samples

Kristiina
10-03-2016, 09:38 AM
The model used in this new paper is too mathematical for me, and I do not have time to focus on trying to understand this kind of methods. Therefore, I do not really understand the model, but could somebody confirm that they did not test any ancient steppe populations but they tested Europen Neolithic farmers and Bronze Age farmers and found out that the ratio of X-chromosomal ancestry is different in the Bronze compared to the Neolithic. Does this only mean that there was more contribution originating from males in the Neolithic period compared to the Bronze Age, i.e.in the Bronze Age some males had significantly more offspring while in the Neolithic period having offspring was more evenly distributed among males. What does all this have to do with the steppe?

If someone could explain in simple terms the result of this paper, I would be delighted and I am probably not the only one.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 09:38 AM
So we would need some specific evidence in the language of PIE itself.

Polygamy is limited only to the privileged males of any society, while the less-privileged classes are by necessity monogamous. So the fact that the PIE had some words suggesting that many of them (those of lower status) practiced monogamy, is understandable.

But Fortunato assumed that:

http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1322&context=humbiol


(...) The correspondence of the Middle Irish (Celtic sub-group, c. 900–1200 CE) and Avestan (Iranian sub-group, first millennium BCE) terms for “concubine, wanton woman” suggests that PIH society recognized some form of polygynous mating, if not polygynous marriage; this interpretation is supported by the use of specialized terms to designate legitimate children (Huld and Mallory 1997, p. 123). A second line of evidence relates to the concept of widowhood: while it is possible to reconstruct a PIH term for “widow,” there is no corresponding term for “widower.” One interpretation of this pattern is that male widowhood was not recognized in PIH society because men married polygynously, such that the death of one wife did not affect their marital status (Huld 1997, p. 642). Implicit in this interpretation are, however, a number of unrealistic assumptions, for example that all PIH men married multiple wives and that they rarely, if ever, outlived their wives; both represent demographic impossibilities (...)

Why this scepticism ??? Why does Fortunato think that these represent "demographic impossibilities" ???

Genetic data shows, that those were not at all "demographic impossibilities" or "unrealistic assumptions".

It was perfectly possible, and realistic - you just had to conquer or capture your wifes. Genetics prove it.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 09:45 AM
This second line of evidence is IMO most convincing:


while it is possible to reconstruct a PIH term for “widow,” there is no corresponding term for “widower.”

They had so many wives that they just could not "run out of wives". Hence - there were almost no widowers at all.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-03-2016, 09:56 AM
The model used in this new paper is too mathematical for me, and I do not have time to focus on trying to understand this kind of methods. Therefore, I do not really understand the model, but could somebody confirm that they did not test any ancient steppe populations but they tested Europen Neolithic farmers and Bronze Age farmers and found out that the ratio of X-chromosomal ancestry is different in the Bronze compared to the Neolithic. Does this only mean that there was more contribution originating from males in the Neolithic period compared to the Bronze Age, i.e.in the Bronze Age some males had significantly more offspring while in the Neolithic period having offspring was more evenly distributed among males. What does all this have to do with the steppe?

If someone could explain in simple terms the result of this paper, I would be delighted and I am probably not the only one.

That's how I understood it (but maybe someone else can elaborate on the technical specifics)
Really, what they're actually detecting is the rise of Bronze Age hereditary chiefdoms within Europe . Of course, the origins of such lineages could have been originally outside (although it is important to remember that the Moldavo-Ukrainian steppe is within "Europe" ;))

Jean M
10-03-2016, 10:40 AM
Very few people seem to be noticing that the paper that started this thread is about the evidence from the X chromosome, which is not mitochondrial; and it's irrelevant what Y haplogroup the steppe guys bore (they were guys, and they bore one). It's based on, or exploits, a rather neat statistical anomaly about the X itself..... It's not rocket science, but it's good science.

However the sample numbers used were small and restricted by region: 20 early Neolithic and 16 LNBA human remains from Central Europe. It seems reasonable to compare these results with what we know already from ancient mtDNA and Y-DNA for Europe as a whole.

Given the marked difference between WHG and EE samples across Europe in both Y-DNA and mtDNA (and autosomally), it would be hard to deny that early farmers arrived in Europe as families and continued to spread as families. So the results from this paper fit the expected pattern.

The population turnover in the Copper/Bronze Age is more tricky to divide by gender. The really dramatic change is from the Y-DNA haplogroups typical of EE to the R1 derivatives which now predominate. So a male arrival is obvious. But the mtDNA haplogroups in Yamnaya were a mixture of those already present in WHG and EE. (I would be willing to bet that U2e1a spread with the Indo-Europeans, but this is quite rare.) So studies of the X-chromosome are very welcome therefore. But I think we should await broader studies across Europe before settling on a figure for gender proportions.

Jean M
10-03-2016, 10:48 AM
The model used in this new paper is too mathematical for me, and I do not have time to focus on trying to understand this kind of methods. Therefore, I do not really understand the model, but could somebody confirm that they did not test any ancient steppe populations but they tested Europen Neolithic farmers and Bronze Age farmers and found out that the ratio of X-chromosomal ancestry is different in the Bronze compared to the Neolithic.

Yes. They tested only 20 early Neolithic and 16 LNBA human remains from Central Europe.


Does this only mean that there was more contribution originating from males in the Neolithic period compared to the Bronze Age, i.e.in the Bronze Age some males had significantly more offspring while in the Neolithic period having offspring was more evenly distributed among males.

No. The finding has nothing to do with how many male offsping people had. They were looking for admixture (with the previous population) on the X-chomosome vs the mean admixture on the autosomes in each sample.

Jean M
10-03-2016, 11:07 AM
Polygamy is limited only to the privileged males of any society, while the less-privileged classes are by necessity monogamous. So the fact that the PIE had some words suggesting that many of them (those of lower status) practiced monogamy, is understandable.

A very sensible conclusion Tomenable. Polygamy is typically restricted to those who can afford it. This is highly unlikely to tie up all the available women in a society, leaving none for any other male. Chiefs would soon run out of followers if they practised any such folly.

Left to itself, nature ensures a small surplus of females in any society. More girls survive infancy (unless the society practices female infanticide). Women tend to live longer (making more widows than widowers.) That tendency increases where the males more than females engage quite often in warfare or other dangerous activities (e.g. mining, deep-sea fishing, trading by sea.) So a society can usually incorporate some polygyny without serious strain on gender balance.

It seems far more likely to me that the migrations from the steppe were driven by climate and economic issues, for example the search for good grazing land and mineral resources. It seems highly likely that male-dominated groups would act as initial path-finders and scouts, returning home with news of discoveries and/or to trade and in some cases to collect their families. But it would not be at all surprising for some migrating males to take local wives.

Kristiina
10-03-2016, 11:31 AM
As I am not a specialist in statistics or mathematical models, I still struggle to understand the model.

I tried to find information on the samples used in the paper, but I could not find a list of the cultural context and gender of these 20 early Neolithic and 16 LNBA human remains. I think that in order to interprete, for example, fig 2 on p. 16, it would be interesting to know the archaeological context and gender of the samples.

razyn
10-03-2016, 02:27 PM
In case it's helpful, I posted this to the Yahoo group for R1b a couple of days ago:

They didn’t need to do Y-DNA testing on the samples, it had already been done where possible and was not the subject under investigation. From p. 6 of the study:

"We analyzed published (6) ancient samples that have been genotyped for a set of 1,240,000 SNPs, including 49,711 on the X chromosome."

Source (6) is Mathieson, et al. (2015). Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature, 528 (7583), 499-503.

The individual samples that were selected from the Mathieson et al. (2015) paper, and were actually used, are identified in supplementary table S2, on unnumbered p. 24 of 26 in the PDF. They are the samples not in italicized rows. Using ID numbers (such as I0231) one may look up their respective Y haplogroups, if they were males, in the cited paper and in subsequent sources (including blogs and forum posts) that have included those samples.

Tomenable
10-03-2016, 02:42 PM
(although it is important to remember that the Moldavo-Ukrainian steppe is within "Europe" ;))

Geographically, Europe is anything west of the Ural and north of the Caucasus (some definitions of Europe include also Georgia or even Armenia, but it is probably based on modern cultural factors - i.e. these countries are predominantly Christian, unlike their southern neighbours).

A map of WHG (Loschbour-like) ancestry posted below, also gives a surprisingly good idea of where Europe is, even 8000 years after the Mesolithic period:

http://s12.postimg.org/g6uqolblp/WHG.png

Kristiina
10-03-2016, 02:51 PM
In order to make judgments, we should also know the archaeological culture, place and date. It would be useful to know the age of the samples compared to others. Admixture is a process and it would be useful to locate it in place and time.

If for example the presumption is that there were new fresh male IE migrants coming from the east, males should be, on average, autosomally more eastern than females. If the presumption is that IE males had already arrived by the first samples, we should see that, with time, later samples are more evenly admixed than early samples.

In any case, 16 LNBA samples are not so many, and may cause random results.

Megalophias
10-03-2016, 02:54 PM
Huh? Why they were marring their own females when it is more easy to organize mass killing of other males and get thousands of females?

"Mass killing of other males" is very rarely easier than marrying the girl next door; it's generally very difficult and dangerous, on account of the "other males" enthusiastic and ingenious attempts to kill you first. Risking your life to drag home a sullen concubine, forsooth.

Heber
10-03-2016, 02:56 PM
Plague may have facilitated rapid expansion of Yamnaya from the East.
We also have the earlier expansion of CHG from the South and Caucasus and the rapid expansion of Bell Beaker from the West as described by Desideri.

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/dbbc/when-beakers-met-bell-beakers.html

Bronze Age skeletons were earliest plague victims
Deadly disease suspected to have driven mass migrations across Europe and Asia.

Ewen Callaway
22 October 2015
Article toolsRights & Permissions

Mikhail V. Khalyapin
Bronze Age skeletons, including this one from Bulanovo (modern-day Russia) that dates back to 2000BC, contain DNA from the bacterium that causes plague.
The Black Death notoriously swept through Europe in 1347, killing an estimated 50 million people. Yet DNA from Bronze Age human skeletons now shows that the plague had first emerged at least as early as 3,000 bc. The earlier outbreak probably did not spread as ferociously, the analysis reveals — but it may nonetheless have driven mass migrations across Europe and Asia1.

http://www.nature.com/news/bronze-age-skeletons-were-earliest-plague-victims-1.18633

razyn
10-03-2016, 03:09 PM
In any case, 16 LNBA samples are not so many, and may cause random results.

I believe the small sample size was dictated by the selection criteria. That's all the samples available to them that met those criteria, and addressed the demographic problem (whether there was, or wasn't, sex bias in those two specific migrating populations). They were investigating it with their tricky new approach, using high quality X-chromosome data from ancient samples (and probably sequenced with the same equipment). Most of the aDNA in the Mathieson et al. paper did not meet all of those criteria. They only selected 36 out of 230 ancient Eurasians.

Megalophias
10-03-2016, 04:12 PM
Sorry about the terrible formatting but tables are a pain

Central_LNBA samples (3/4 female!):
ID Source Culture Date Location Country Sex mt hg Y hg
I0047 Haak Unetice 2111-1891 calBCE Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld Germany F V9 -
I0049 Haak Corded Ware 2464-2210 calBCE Esperstedt Germany F X2b4 -
I0059 Haak Bell Beaker? 2337-2138 calBCE Benzingerode-Heimburg Germany F H1 -
I0099 Haak Late Bronze Age 1193-979 calBCE Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld Germany M H23 R1a1a1b1a2
I0103 Haak Corded Ware 2578-2468 calBCE Esperstedt Germany F W6a -
I0104 Haak Corded Ware 2559-2296 calBCE Esperstedt Germany M U4b1a1a1 R1a1a1
I0115 Haak Unetice 1954-1760 calBCE Esperstedt Germany F U5a1i -
I0116 Haak Unetice 2134-1939 calBCE Esperstedt Germany M W3a1 I2c
I0117 Haak Unetice 2272-2039 calBCE Esperstedt Germany F I3a -
I0118 Haak LNBA unknown 2471-2246 calBCE Alberstedt Germany F HV -
I0164 Haak Unetice 2023-1894 calBCE Quedlinburg VIII Germany F U5b2a1b -
I0803 Haak Unetice 2132-1942 calBCE Eulau Germany F H4a1a1a -
I1532 Mathieson Corded Ware 2500-2050 BCE Esperstedt Germany M J1c2e R1a1a
RISE00 Allentoft Corded Ware - Sope Estonia F H5a1 -
RISE150 Allentoft Unetice 1885-1693 calBCE Przeclawice Poland F U5a1b1 -
RISE577 Allentoft Unetice - Velke Prilepy Czech Republic F T2b -

(Looks to me like 2/5 Corded Ware and 3/8 Unetice have typical steppe type mtDNA, though being steppe type doesn't mean it necessarily comes from the steppe of course.)

vettor
10-03-2016, 04:38 PM
Yes. They tested only 20 early Neolithic and 16 LNBA human remains from Central Europe.



No. The finding has nothing to do with how many male offsping people had. They were looking for admixture (with the previous population) on the X-chomosome vs the mean on the autosomes in each sample.

Did they intentionally leave out the H ( mtdna ) which was prevalent in the ancient early neolithic samples found so far from previous papers ? ................

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656

There is too much pick and choose for me to accept as fact in recent papers ( past year )

Jean M
10-03-2016, 05:12 PM
Did they intentionally leave out the H ( mtdna ) which was prevalent in the ancient early neolithic samples found so far from previous papers ? ................

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656

The paper to which you link points out that:


Haplogroup H dominates present-day Western European mitochondrial DNA variability (>40%), yet was less common (~19%) among Early Neolithic farmers (~5450 BC) and virtually absent in Mesolithic hunter-gatherers.

I have not counted the number of mtDNA H in the early Neolithic samples used by the paper we are discussing here. Is it important?

Kristiina
10-03-2016, 05:16 PM
Thanks, Megalophias.
Am I right that there is no way to know which sample is which in figure 2?

11983

In any case, half of the samples (8/16) are from Unetice. Unetice yDNA is the following: K(xLT), I2, I2a2b, I2c2. I doubt that they were IE speakers. We also know that Unetice already had East Euro + West Asian (steppe ancestry). Should the conclusion also apply to them?

There are few samples that on X chromosome are very Neolithic, even fully Neolithic, but on autosomes fully Pontic steppe. I would like to know if these are the Corded Ware samples. Then, it would be interesting to know the cultural context of the last three samples who on X chromosome are most Pontic steppe.

If the 5 most Pontic Steppe samples are the Corded Ware samples, we see that they have a high Neolithic contribution on the X chromosome side. The last most Pontic Steppe sample is probably from Estonia, and this female is not relevant for the genetic turnover in Western/Central Europe.

Dewsloth
10-03-2016, 05:37 PM
However the sample numbers used were small and restricted by region: 20 early Neolithic and 16 LNBA human remains from Central Europe. It seems reasonable to compare these results with what we know already from ancient mtDNA and Y-DNA for Europe as a whole.

Given the marked difference between WHG and EE samples across Europe in both Y-DNA and mtDNA (and autosomally), it would be hard to deny that early farmers arrived in Europe as families and continued to spread as families. So the results from this paper fit the expected pattern.

The population turnover in the Copper/Bronze Age is more tricky to divide by gender. The really dramatic change is from the Y-DNA haplogroups typical of EE to the R1 derivatives which now predominate. So a male arrival is obvious. But the mtDNA haplogroups in Yamnaya were a mixture of those already present in WHG and EE. (I would be willing to bet that U2e1a spread with the Indo-Europeans, but this is quite rare.) So studies of the X-chromosome are very welcome therefore. But I think we should await broader studies across Europe before settling on a figure for gender proportions.

Where is J2a1a1 hiding? It showed up in Spain (3900-3600 BC Spain J2a1a1; 2880-2630 BC Spain J2a1a1) and then you never hear about it anywhere else. Now it's all over the place; originating in the Mediterranean (?) but spread all over northern Europe?

Judith
10-03-2016, 05:42 PM
I would like to check that that I have understood this paper properly. So I am taking the risky tactic of posting my understanding.
They compared the steppe x chromosome with the steppe autosomal and found there was considerably less Steppe X in subsequent BA generations. So from that you can infer the relative proportions of men and women who migrated and the answer is between 5:1 to 14:1and the total steppe ancestry need a continuous on going migration of steppe males. But it does not say for how long but possibly 40 generations or 1000years?
The female Central Europeans were approximately stationary and were the mates of the incoming males. half of each generation's children were fathered by the incomers. That implies a complete change of power and hence total conquest, and effective dominance of reproduction considerably more than happened in England after the Norman conquest where the Normans took power for 100s of years but had minimal impact on DNA.
Contrastingly the Neolithic migration was by a mixed band of migrants.

If you go from this paper to Haak (2015) where he proposes complete changes on population for the Neolithic, but the Hgs recover and after the BA becomes modern Europe, then that is 50% correct for the YDNA on the Ba transition but the mtDNA should be barely affected. Haak et al's modelling on make up of all the modern populations using the autosomal data, but from this paper it gives too much weight to the male contribution (by virtue of the number of chromosomes).
Have I got this the right way up?

Megalophias
10-03-2016, 05:44 PM
Am I right that there is no way to know which sample is which in figure 2?

Not on that figure I don't think, but the individual ancestry proportions are listed by sample on the supplementary tables near the end of the preprint.

I don't know if there's a large enough sample size that you can meaningfully break it down by time period or culture though.

Kristiina
10-03-2016, 06:08 PM
The information you provided helps a lot to understand the result. In the Corded Ware samples there probably is a lot of female Neolithic input. Unetice is clearly more recent than Corded Ware, and is less eastern and more local. It could be argued that most of their steppe ancestry is from gene flow from the Corded Ware females and the like.

However, on the basis of this paper, we do not know how far this steppe is.

ffoucart
10-03-2016, 06:39 PM
I would like to check that that I have understood this paper properly. So I am taking the risky tactic of posting my understanding.
They compared the steppe x chromosome with the steppe autosomal and found there was considerably less Steppe X in subsequent BA generations. So from that you can infer the relative proportions of men and women who migrated and the answer is between 5:1 to 14:1and the total steppe ancestry need a continuous on going migration of steppe males. But it does not say for how long but possibly 40 generations or 1000years?
The female Central Europeans were approximately stationary and were the mates of the incoming males. half of each generation's children were fathered by the incomers. That implies a complete change of power and hence total conquest, and effective dominance of reproduction considerably more than happened in England after the Norman conquest where the Normans took power for 100s of years but had minimal impact on DNA.
Contrastingly the Neolithic migration was by a mixed band of migrants.

If you go from this paper to Haak (2015) where he proposes complete changes on population for the Neolithic, but the Hgs recover and after the BA becomes modern Europe, then that is 50% correct for the YDNA on the Ba transition but the mtDNA should be barely affected. Haak et al's modelling on make up of all the modern populations using the autosomal data, but from this paper it gives too much weight to the male contribution (by virtue of the number of chromosomes).
Have I got this the right way up?

Yes, this is more or less what this paper says.

But I don't think they needed 40 generations to fix the Steppe admixture in BA people. It is also difficult to imagine some "pure" Steppe men coming at each generation to make 50% of the childs during 1000 years.

I think the model must be recalculated with more samples, and we will see what happened.

But I also think that it means that several groups of Steppe people took power in Central Europe, and this migration was not a singular event but occured an indertiminate number of times.

It could also be guessed that there were some regional differences, in Central Europe, but also in all Europe, with perhaps different stories. Corded Ware were far more Steppic, meaning perhaps a different story, with more Steppe women.

Heber
10-03-2016, 07:04 PM
Plague may have facilitated rapid expansion of Yamnaya from the East.
We also have the earlier expansion of CHG from the South and Caucasus and the rapid expansion of Bell Beaker from the West as described by Desideri.

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/dbbc/when-beakers-met-bell-beakers.html

Bronze Age skeletons were earliest plague victims
Deadly disease suspected to have driven mass migrations across Europe and Asia.

Ewen Callaway
22 October 2015
Article toolsRights & Permissions

Mikhail V. Khalyapin
Bronze Age skeletons, including this one from Bulanovo (modern-day Russia) that dates back to 2000BC, contain DNA from the bacterium that causes plague.
The Black Death notoriously swept through Europe in 1347, killing an estimated 50 million people. Yet DNA from Bronze Age human skeletons now shows that the plague had first emerged at least as early as 3,000 bc. The earlier outbreak probably did not spread as ferociously, the analysis reveals — but it may nonetheless have driven mass migrations across Europe and Asia1.

http://www.nature.com/news/bronze-age-skeletons-were-earliest-plague-victims-1.18633

"This chapter presents both the different regions and samples integrated in this research. While far from representing the entire range of variability in the Bell Beaker complex, an attempt has been made to cover a large portion of this variability. Five regions representing five different portraits of the Bell Beaker occupation during the 3rd millennium BC have been chosen....."

East: Bohemia, 500 individuals in 64 sites.
East: Hungary, 100 individuals in 15 sites.
South: S France, 700 individuals in 5 sites.
South: N Spain, 180 individuals in 18 sites.
Center: Switzerland: 520 individuals in 8 sites.

"More than 255’000 observations were recorded on more than 2000 individuals....."

"Thus, to understand the modalities for the establishment of the Bell Beaker phenomenon, we must dissociate the diffusion of southern elements from the exogamic diffusion of women in the eastern domain into two distinct points in times. On the basis of currently available radiocarbon dates suggesting a southwest-northeast gradient for the expansion of the Bell Beaker, we propose the following:
Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware culture.
Part of the Corded Ware on the edge of the phenomenon was individualized and adopted, by borrowing, some of the southern Bell Beaker traditions. Diffusion of this new society – the Beakers – continued toward the east. At the same time, certain eastern elements were diffused toward the west....."

Lots of discussion on male and female impact on migration patterns.

https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/files/downloads/18125/unige_18125_attachment01.pdf

Sammy Andrews
10-04-2016, 04:31 AM
I don't think we have enough have ancient samples to characterize with any certainty the distribution of mtDNA haplogroups in the Steppe, eastern Europe and western Europe 5000 years ago. Also, the slow mutation rate makes mtDNA very imprecise for describing migrations on the time scale of the last several thousand years.

We have enough ancient mtDNA the migrations of A. Neolithic Anatolians and B. Steppe.

Tolan
10-04-2016, 08:09 AM
Yes, this is more or less what this paper says.

But I don't think they needed 40 generations to fix the Steppe admixture in BA people. It is also difficult to imagine some "pure" Steppe men coming at each generation to make 50% of the childs during 1000 years.

I think the model must be recalculated with more samples, and we will see what happened.

But I also think that it means that several groups of Steppe people took power in Central Europe, and this migration was not a singular event but occured an indertiminate number of times.

It could also be guessed that there were some regional differences, in Central Europe, but also in all Europe, with perhaps different stories. Corded Ware were far more Steppic, meaning perhaps a different story, with more Steppe women.

There needs two generations for the paternal X chromosome (and thus Steppes) is gone. But the daughters of the first generation must not have descendants, or return to the Steppes.

I wonder if we can see the difference in the modern European populations.
Unfortunately, the X chromosome is not integrated in the admixture calculators.
23andMe test it in autosomal, but don't recognize the components of the Steppes

ffoucart
10-04-2016, 08:41 AM
There needs two generations for the paternal X chromosome (and thus Steppes) is gone. But the daughters of the first generation must not have descendants, or return to the Steppes.

I wonder if we can see the difference in the modern European populations.
Unfortunately, the X chromosome is not integrated in the admixture calculators.
23andMe test it in autosomal, but don't recognize the components of the Steppes


that's exactly why more than one migration is needed. A single event is statiscally impossible.

23andme want to test the last 500 years. The Steppe admixture is a bit too old for them.

but we also need more ancient samples, because it will be needed to know in which kind of european population the Steppe people settled.

Some surprise are expected, as for the East Baltic genomes (which are not EHG, not SHG, but WHG, dixit David).

Inigo Montoya
03-15-2017, 01:27 PM
The result might be spurious after all
Lazaridis, I., Reich, D. (2017) Failure to Replicate a Genetic Signal for Sex Bias in the Steppe Migration into Central Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/14/114124.full.pdf)


See also:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2017/03/failure-to-replicate.html

anglesqueville
03-15-2017, 04:43 PM
The result might be spurious after all
Lazaridis, I., Reich, D. (2017) Failure to Replicate a Genetic Signal for Sex Bias in the Steppe Migration into Central Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/03/14/114124.full.pdf)


See also:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.be/2017/03/failure-to-replicate.html

:biggrin1: Too bad for all those friends who love to speculate on the basis of fragile results. As my normand grand-mother used to tell : " Réfléchis et te tais!". Think and keep quiet. Wise advice.

JenV
11-16-2017, 03:23 PM
And MtDNA H6a1a and H6a1b should be added to Steppe MtDNA