Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70

Thread: Familial migration of the Neolithic contrasts massive male migration during Bronze Ag

  1. #21
    Registered Users

    Ireland England Ireland Munster European Union
    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.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bas For This Useful Post:

     Judith (10-03-2016)

  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Kristiina View Post
    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.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sammy Andrews For This Useful Post:

     Jean M (10-03-2016), Tomenable (10-03-2016)

  5. #23
    Registered Users
    Colorado, USA

    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.

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to GailT For This Useful Post:

     GMan71 (10-03-2016), Jean M (10-03-2016), lgmayka (10-03-2016), Táltos (10-03-2016)

  7. #24
    Registered Users
    Virginia, USA
    DF27, FGC15733

    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.

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to razyn For This Useful Post:

     Cascio (10-03-2016), GMan71 (10-03-2016), Illyro-Vlach (10-03-2016), Jean M (10-03-2016), Judith (10-03-2016), lgmayka (10-03-2016), Raskolnikov (10-26-2016), Saetro (10-03-2016)

  9. #25
    I2a1-L621- PH 908
    H 47

    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
    Last edited by Gravetto-Danubian; 10-03-2016 at 02:46 AM.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Gravetto-Danubian For This Useful Post:

     Tomenable (10-03-2016)

  11. #26
    Gold Class Member

    Australia Cornwall England Scotland Germany Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Saetro; 10-03-2016 at 01:00 AM.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Saetro For This Useful Post:

     leonardo (10-03-2016), parasar (10-03-2016)

  13. #27
    Registered Users
    Italian Alpine
    Australian and Italian
    T1a2b- Z19945
    H95a- Ostrogoth

    Australia Italy Veneto Friuli Italy Trentino Alto Adige Italy Sweden Finns
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean M View Post
    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 ......

    European - 99.2%............Central Asian - 0.8% .............Yfull - 1460BC
    Father's Mtdna .....T2b17.......1735 Porcellengo Veneto Italy
    Sons Mtdna .....K1a4 ...........1710 Carnic Alps

    My Path = ( K-M9+, TL-P326+, T-M184+, L490+, M70+, PF5664+, L131+, L446+, CTS933+, CTS54+, CTS8862+, Z19945+, A339+ )

    The main negatives = ( M193-, P322-, P327-, Pages11- , L25- , CTS1848- )

  14. #28
    Registered Users

    United Kingdom Italy
    Quote Originally Posted by vettor View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Cascio; 10-03-2016 at 07:50 AM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Cascio For This Useful Post:

     Saetro (10-03-2016)

  16. #29
    Registered Users

    Poland Poland Pomerania European Union

    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?
    Last edited by Tomenable; 10-03-2016 at 02:21 PM.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Tomenable For This Useful Post:

     lgmayka (10-03-2016)

  18. #30
    Registered Users
    Armenian Urartian

    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.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Arame For This Useful Post:

     Gravetto-Danubian (10-03-2016), palamede (10-04-2016)

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 856
    Last Post: 06-01-2017, 07:54 PM
  2. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-29-2016, 04:11 PM
  3. New Bronze Age Irish Migration Paper
    By castle3 in forum R
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2015, 11:57 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2015, 09:58 PM
  5. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-14-2015, 09:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts