PDA

View Full Version : Northern-Centrism: Just Stop It!!



Fire Haired14
28-06-15, 00:57
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.

Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from. If you post on Genetic forum your goal should be figuring out the facts, not proving what you want to be true. Your ancestry doesn't define who you are at all. I think it's unhealthy to care a lot about origins if you think it defines yourself and others. It's okay to be proud of your origins, but at the same time not let it define you and be open to whatever the evidence shows.

I think the motivation for the North European-centrism on genetic-forums is what I just described. People want to be more "Hunter Gatherer" and "Steppe", because they like the ideas and characters we have surrounding those people, and they think it affects who they are. There isn't just North European-centrism, I've seen posters with other centrisms. I don't think most of the smarter Posters like Davidski, Maju, Dienkes and others have much of an agenda. I think they're looking mostly for the facts.

One last thing. Put yourself in the shoes of the Pre-Historic(sometimes Historic) peoples discussed on these forums. They didn't know much about anything outside of their own village and small region. The concepts of WHG, ANE, ENF, etc. were alien to them. For the most part they didn't care about their own ancestry, and just lived for the here and now. They weren't supremacist and raciest(Maybe against a neighboring tribe, who were usually close relatives). They didn't have the same ideas about pigmentation people do today(unless neighbors were totally differnt from each other, but the characteristics behind it were probably differnt from today). Even if they did and had the same concepts genetic concepts, it doesn't justify people today making the same mistakes.

Sile
28-06-15, 01:33
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.

Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from. If you post on Genetic forum your goal should be figuring out the facts, not proving what you want to be true. Your ancestry doesn't define who you are at all. I think it's unhealthy to care a lot about origins if you think it defines yourself and others. It's okay to be proud of your origins, but at the same time not let it define you and be open to whatever the evidence shows.

I think the motivation for the North European-centrism on genetic-forums is what I just described. People want to be more "Hunter Gatherer" and "Steppe", because they like the ideas and characters we have surrounding those people, and they think it affects who they are. There isn't just North European-centrism, I've seen posters with other centrisms. I don't think most of the smarter Posters like Davidski, Maju, Dienkes and others have much of an agenda. I think they're looking mostly for the facts.

One last thing. Put yourself in the shoes of the Pre-Historic(sometimes Historic) peoples discussed on these forums. They didn't know much about anything outside of their own village and small region. The concepts of WHG, ANE, ENF, etc. were alien to them. For the most part they didn't care about their own ancestry, and just lived for the here and now. They weren't supremacist and raciest(Maybe against a neighboring tribe, who were usually close relatives). They didn't have the same ideas about pigmentation people do today(unless neighbors were totally differnt from each other, but the characteristics behind it were probably differnt from today). Even if they did and had the same concepts genetic concepts, it doesn't justify people today making the same mistakes.

The LBK Neolithic samples in Germany ( and elsewhere ) are not northern european, they are from Anatolian areas ( haak paper)

Finalise
28-06-15, 01:39
I've noticed 90% of people in genetics/anthro forums have a personal agenda of some sort, be it northern, western, eastern, southern, martian, etc... Davidski tries to glorify R1a because he belongs to that group, Dienekes tries to give the Anatolian IE theory credit because he's a Greek from Turkey, don't even get me started on that Maju guy.

Fire Haired14
28-06-15, 02:51
I've noticed 90% of people in genetics/anthro forums have a personal agenda of some sort, be it northern, western, eastern, southern, martian, etc... Davidski tries to glorify R1a because he belongs to that group, Dienekes tries to give the Anatolian IE theory credit because he's a Greek from Turkey, don't even get me started on that Maju guy.

Yeah, I agree. There's nothing wrong with focus on your own group to a point. I think those guys for the most part aren't biased.

Sile
28-06-15, 04:27
I've noticed 90% of people in genetics/anthro forums have a personal agenda of some sort, be it northern, western, eastern, southern, martian, etc... Davidski tries to glorify R1a because he belongs to that group, Dienekes tries to give the Anatolian IE theory credit because he's a Greek from Turkey, don't even get me started on that Maju guy.

He is basque

dodona
28-06-15, 10:51
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it. never noticed that. Maybe you're wrong!

Maleth
28-06-15, 10:52
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.

Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from. If you post on Genetic forum your goal should be figuring out the facts, not proving what you want to be true. Your ancestry doesn't define who you are at all. I think it's unhealthy to care a lot about origins if you think it defines yourself and others. It's okay to be proud of your origins, but at the same time not let it define you and be open to whatever the evidence shows.

I think the motivation for the North European-centrism on genetic-forums is what I just described. People want to be more "Hunter Gatherer" and "Steppe", because they like the ideas and characters we have surrounding those people, and they think it affects who they are. There isn't just North European-centrism, I've seen posters with other centrisms. I don't think most of the smarter Posters like Davidski, Maju, Dienkes and others have much of an agenda. I think they're looking mostly for the facts.

One last thing. Put yourself in the shoes of the Pre-Historic(sometimes Historic) peoples discussed on these forums. They didn't know much about anything outside of their own village and small region. The concepts of WHG, ANE, ENF, etc. were alien to them. For the most part they didn't care about their own ancestry, and just lived for the here and now. They weren't supremacist and raciest(Maybe against a neighboring tribe, who were usually close relatives). They didn't have the same ideas about pigmentation people do today(unless neighbors were totally differnt from each other, but the characteristics behind it were probably differnt from today). Even if they did and had the same concepts genetic concepts, it doesn't justify people today making the same mistakes.

well said:clap:

arvistro
28-06-15, 13:01
Nah, I am keeping my North East Euro, Baltic and at last Latvian bias with me :)

bicicleur
28-06-15, 14:05
some people are obviously biassed, for some others it's not obvious
for those who are, it's stupid to try to argue against them, it won't help, they actually create a problem for themselves
I think everybody has their preferences, it's innate
I try to be critical with an open mind, I hope I am
prejudices won't help anyone here who tries to find the trueth

Angela
28-06-15, 15:50
Well said, Bicicleur.

It's natural to have preferences; it's just human nature. The problem is when those preferences interfere with an objective analysis of the material. It's even one thing if that biased interpretation of data, such as one where all haplogroups originate in one's own country, is just a sort of harmless eccentricity. It's another thing if data is deliberately misinterpreted, or in the worst cases actually distorted, to prove the superiority of one group over another. It may sound melodramatic, but when it's animated by some sort of hateful ideology like neo-Nazism, whose purpose is to degrade and defame other people, it rises to a dangerous level.

The best way to approach all these hobbyists and their interpretations, in my opinion, is the same way you would do it in any other sphere of life when you're trying to evaluate claims: analyze the person's work carefully, not just what they write today, but what they wrote yesterday, their track record, if you like; check whether their methodology is published and transparent, because something as simple as which dataset was used or which populations were included can change everything; see if there are others, hopefully academics with a reputation to lose, who have reached similar conclusions, or who were able to follow their methodology and reach the same conclusions ; and, yes, figure out, if you can, their past associations and background. Wouldn't you want to know if the author of a study telling you how good alcohol is for you was funded by the Whiskey seller's association? That doesn't make them wrong necessarily, but it's important to know it.

That said, while I don't think you can defame anonymous people, I think it's best to keep names out of the discussion. It's a bit unseemly, and leads to all sorts of unpleasantness, even threats in the past. So, let's keep it to generalities, please.

Alan
28-06-15, 17:06
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.



Good that you now realized it. Angela and me tried to tell you. We know some of these members for long now. Hopefully you will now also see that the "Near Eastern" portion in many of those calculators are tried to be deluted as much as possible.

But again you are still trusting too much in some bloggers and them not having an agenda. But Angela and I know them for longer and have seen allot of statements of them which not only are genetically but also politically motivated.

mihaitzateo
28-06-15, 17:37
Well I thought that even at Southern Europeans most of their ancestry comes from Steppe and Hunter Gatherer people.
Which were Northern people.
Besides,Caucasian admixture which makes another large part of Europeans ancestry,is also a region were climate is most closed to North Europe,because very high altitudes.
So Caucasian admixture is also rather towards Northern Europe admixture,than towards Anatolian admixture.
EDIT:
If you take how white skinned people from Georgia are,they are almost as white as Central Europeans.
Why should we deny our genetics?

Angela
28-06-15, 18:44
Well I thought that even at Southern Europeans most of their ancestry comes from Steppe and Hunter Gatherer people.
Which were Northern people.
Besides,Caucasian admixture which makes another large part of Europeans ancestry,is also a region were climate is most closed to North Europe,because very high altitudes.
So Caucasian admixture is also rather towards Northern Europe admixture,than towards Anatolian admixture.
EDIT:
If you take how white skinned people from Georgia are,they are almost as white as Central Europeans.
Why should we deny our genetics?

EVERYONE is descended 100% from hunter-gatherers. Natufians were hunter-gatherers as much as the WHG were hunter-gatherers. The people in the Near East who invented agriculture and animal husbandry were hunter-gatherers. I think it's safe to say that in certain quarters being descended from the WHG is preferred to being descended from the Natufians and other Near Eastern hunter gatherers. Perhaps the reason is because the WHG are held to be "native" Europeans. Perhaps it was felt that they were "whiter", which is ironic given their snp pigmentation profile.

I've said before and I'll say again that Europe is a sink for population flow, not a source. Everyone came from somewhere else. Where is the dividing line temporally? Is some WHG who arrived in Europe from somewhere in the Near East in, say 22,000 BCE, more "European" than an EEF who arrived 8,000 years ago? What about the EHG? We don't know when they arrived, but part of their ancestry seems to have come from somewhere far to the east.

"Europeans" didn't exist, in my opinion, until around 2,000 BC at the earliest, and they were formed from a combination of three ancient population groups: WHG, EEF, and Yamnaya. Here is the graphic, once again:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBk/1Zqfpb20B08/s1600/Untitled3.pnghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBk/1Zqfpb20B08/s1600/Untitled3.png

Perhaps a new one should be done using an actual early Near Eastern farmer in the analysis instead of Stuttgart, but it seems that the samples we have so far are not sufficiently high coverage. Until we find one, given that the Barcin sample is almost identical to Stuttgart (a 4-5 point difference in the Dodecad K7), I don't see what the problem is in using that genome to represent the people who brought farming into Europe from the Near East.

(Yes, I know there are people who claim Barcin is 20%WHG. So what if WHG was present in the Near East at that time? That suddenly makes Barcin and similar early farmers from the Near East not Near Eastern? By that logic, maybe it just makes WHG not "European". Honestly, I don't know and I don't care. All I was ever interested in was if agriculture was spread by people or cultural diffusion, and how much of our ancestry comes from the people who brought it.)

As to your question about southern Europeans, Lazaridis has been out for a while, and it's clear from his paper that the amount of Yamnaya ancestry in them is obviously less than in northern Europeans. I understand you're Romanian...the Bulgarian results should be reasonably close for you. If you don't want to deny your ancestry, then how about you start by acknowledging and celebrating your almost 60% EEF ancestry. You could even use the EEF/WHG/ANE computation under which the EEF in Bulgarians is 70%.

All this discussion of "whiteness" just proves my point regarding the underlying motivations and pre-occupations of many hobbyists. I am not going to get into another pigmentation discussion. Please avail yourself of the search engine and read up on it.

epoch
28-06-15, 19:04
I don't think most of the smarter Posters like Davidski, Maju, Dienkes and others have much of an agenda. I think they're looking mostly for the facts.


Davidski has a typical polish anti-german bias:


Honestly, I doubt there were any Germanics in Poland prior to the Viking mercenaries who settled there during the Medieval period.
http://polishgenes.blogspot.nl/2013/05/polish-goths-enjoyed-their-millet-while.html

Dienekes has a colossal "west asia is the womb of nations bias". His nickname is Dienekes Pontikos, meaning "from the pontes".

Maju's bias you already found yourself.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31065-Is-Maju-a-Political-Extremist

I myself have hundreds of agenda's. Most of them contradictory. I keep changing agenda's every so many hours, to keep a fresh perspective. But also to confuse the enemy...

epoch
28-06-15, 19:20
O, and Alan, as a Kurd you obviously promote West-Asian ancestry as more important.

So I have a suggestion. Let us all have biases - mine is that I consider mesolithic and neolithic cultures the Rhine land and the North Sea Coastline far more ancestral to our current culture than some - but lets keep it to an acceptable level.

One thing is absolutely sure. I can SEE neolithic continuity in my surroundings. Wheatbread is still a staple food. The way farms were build by the LBK was practiced where I live until two generations ago: A house and stables in the same building.

http://www.historietilburg.nl/tijdschrift/images/2003/2003.2_nr_35_langgevel_Liemde_600_x_387.jpg

Silesian
28-06-15, 19:38
never noticed that. Maybe you're wrong!
Here is a nice thread, complete with pictures.
R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts: Rulers and conqueres of Bronze-Iron age west Europe
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe

http://coffeetimeromance.com/CoffeeThoughts/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/holoce77_late-iron-age-celts.jpg

Fluffy
28-06-15, 19:58
Here is a nice thread, complete with pictures.
R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts: Rulers and conqueres of Bronze-Iron age west Europe


http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe

http://coffeetimeromance.com/CoffeeThoughts/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/holoce77_late-iron-age-celts.jpg

lol what the hell, are you seriously saying R1b= some type of master race?

Sile
28-06-15, 20:04
EVERYONE is descended 100% from hunter-gatherers. Natufians were hunter-gatherers as much as the WHG were hunter-gatherers. The people in the Near East who invented agriculture and animal husbandry were hunter-gatherers. I think it's safe to say that in certain quarters being descended from the WHG is preferred to being descended from the Natufians and other Near Eastern hunter gatherers. Perhaps the reason is because the WHG are held to be "native" Europeans. Perhaps it was felt that they were "whiter", which is ironic given their snp pigmentation profile.

I've said before and I'll say again that Europe is a sink for population flow, not a source. Everyone came from somewhere else. Where is the dividing line temporally? Is some WHG who arrived in Europe from somewhere in the Near East in, say 22,000 BCE, more "European" than an EEF who arrived 8,000 years ago? What about the EHG? We don't know when they arrived, but part of their ancestry seems to have come from somewhere far to the east.

"Europeans" didn't exist, in my opinion, until around 2,000 BC at the earliest, and they were formed from a combination of three ancient population groups: WHG, EEF, and Yamnaya. Here is the graphic, once again:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBk/1Zqfpb20B08/s1600/Untitled3.pnghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NoGN9ni1kms/VOSGkPjblNI/AAAAAAAACBk/1Zqfpb20B08/s1600/Untitled3.png

Perhaps a new one should be done using an actual early Near Eastern farmer in the analysis instead of Stuttgart, but it seems that the samples we have so far are not sufficiently high coverage. Until we find one, given that the Barcin sample is almost identical to Stuttgart (a 4-5 point difference in the Dodecad K7), I don't see what the problem is in using that genome to represent the people who brought farming into Europe from the Near East.

(Yes, I know there are people who claim Barcin is 20%WHG. So what if WHG was present in the Near East at that time? That suddenly makes Barcin and similar early farmers from the Near Easat not Near Eastern? By that logic, maybe it just makes WHG not "European. Honestly, I don't know and I don't care. All I was ever interested in was if agriculture was spread by people or cultural diffusion, and how much of our ancestry comes from the people who brought it.)

As to your question about southern Europeans, Lazaridis has been out for a while, and it's clear from his paper that the amount of Yamnaya ancestry in them is obviously less than in northern Europeans. I understand you're Romanian...the Bulgarian results should be reasonably close for you. If you don't want to deny your ancestry, then how about you start by acknowledging and celebrating your almost 60% EEF ancestry. You could even use the EEF/WHG/ANE computation under which the EEF in Bulgarians is 70%.

All this discussion of "whiteness" just proves my point regarding the underlying motivations and pre-occupations of many hobbyists. I am not going to get into another pigmentation discussion. Please avail yourself of the search engine and read up on it.

On LBKT_EN .............the many samples are all found in Central upper Germany ( Saxony ), the are 100% EEF ( as per the graph ), yet the theory that others bring to other sites on the internet is that they did not come from Anatolia as per what Haak states, but came via the steppe .............this is why they are noted as northern european.
I follow that they came via Anatolia

Alan
28-06-15, 20:15
(Yes, I know there are people who claim Barcin is 20%WHG. So what if WHG was present in the Near East at that time? That suddenly makes Barcin and similar early farmers from the Near Easat not Near Eastern? By that logic, maybe it just makes WHG not "European. Honestly, I don't know and I don't care. All I was ever interested in was if agriculture was spread by people or cultural diffusion, and how much of our ancestry comes from the people who brought it.)



WHG was definitely/absolutely found in Western Asia before. At least in Anatolia, Caucasus and Nearby regions. EEF at least evolved in Anatolia we can assume that from the Vinca sample which is basically Barcin+some more WHG. Therefore it is save to assume that Anatolian farmers were already Barcin like and some(not all) of them absorbed WHG in the Balkans on their way into Central and West Europe.

Alan
28-06-15, 20:18
O, and Alan, as a Kurd you obviously promote West-Asian ancestry as more important.

Sure I have my own prefferences(almost anyone has some). I even mentioned in one of my posts about Yamna dark pigmentation that of course as a Kurd I will have a slight bias towards my people and region. But in contrast I do not create my own calculators and try to manipulate other people and their minds :)

epoch
28-06-15, 20:33
On LBKT_EN .............the many samples are all found in Central upper Germany ( Saxony ), the are 100% EEF ( as per the graph ), yet the theory that others bring to other sites on the internet is that they did not come from Anatolia as per what Haak states, but came via the steppe .............this is why they are noted as northern european.
I follow that they came via Anatolia

Do you have an example of that? Link, quote?

Angela
28-06-15, 20:50
On LBKT_EN .............the many samples are all found in Central upper Germany ( Saxony ), the are 100% EEF ( as per the graph ), yet the theory that others bring to other sites on the internet is that they did not come from Anatolia as per what Haak states, but came via the steppe .............this is why they are noted as northern european.
I follow that they came via Anatolia

I'm afraid you are confused. No one thinks that the LBK farmers came from the steppe. They came from the Near East.

Sile
28-06-15, 20:56
I'm afraid you are confused. No one thinks that the LBK farmers came from the steppe. They came from the Near East.

I am not confused as per what I said in the last sentence. The confusion is made by these people who want to ensure that central Germany and all of its ancient findings remain northern-european.
You do realise how far north these ancient samples where, don't you ! ...........you do realise what that means to northern European theory, don't you!

Angela
28-06-15, 20:58
I already said that I won't let this thread degenerate into a place to trash genome bloggers or posters on other websites. If you disagree with someone's opinion on a certain topic, find the relevant thread, and demonstrate how it is wrong.

People have their biases. The question is whether or not they have let their biases distort their analyses of data. Every person has to make up his or her own mind about the intellectual honesty or lack of it of other people.

LeBrok
28-06-15, 21:08
Do I have observable bias favoring a race, ethnicity, culture, religion or phenotype?

Angela
28-06-15, 21:16
Do I have observable bias favoring a race, ethnicity, culture, religion or phenotype?

Absolutely not! You are a paragon of objectivity and good sense. The only bias I can see is a bias toward reason and science which is the right bias to have...

We're lucky to have you, as I've told you before.

epoch
28-06-15, 22:44
Do I have observable bias favoring a race, ethnicity, culture, religion or phenotype?


You have an observable bias favoring political correctness. That is a tunnel vision just as any bias. Most of us are aware of our biases. I'm not sure if you are, though.

arvistro
28-06-15, 23:09
Do I have observable bias favoring a race, ethnicity, culture, religion or phenotype?
You seem to look for and preach farmers superiority.

Fluffy
29-06-15, 00:27
You seem to look for and preach farmers superiority.

But farmers are superior. :wink:

LeBrok
29-06-15, 01:06
You seem to look for and preach farmers superiority.
Did you check my thread about what we got from HGs?:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30658-What-We-Inherited-From-Hunter-Gatherers-(The-genetic-memory-of-the-past)
If anything, it says that we all came from HGs.

LeBrok
29-06-15, 01:11
You have an observable bias favoring political correctness. That is a tunnel vision just as any bias. Most of us are aware of our biases. I'm not sure if you are, though. So I guess your answer to my question is "No".

LeBrok
29-06-15, 01:19
Absolutely not! You are a paragon of objectivity and good sense. The only bias I can see is a bias toward reason and science which is the right bias to have...

We're lucky to have you, as I've told you before.
Thanks Angela. You said too much, I'm blushing. ;)

To be honest I'm catching myself often being somewhat biased, and have to fight the "demon". Though from being a child, I was always more curious than scared about different people and their cultures. What I mean is that it comes naturally easy to me.

Angela
29-06-15, 01:45
But farmers are superior. :wink:

To be serious for a minute, I've never thought of it as superior/inferior. Plus, we're all descended 100% from hunter-gatherers, and unless you're a pygmy or an Amazon Indian you're descended from farmers too.

However, I'm definitely for any line of cultural development that leads to flush toilets, hot showers, lots of diverse, delicious foods, and a stable home site so that women, including me, don't have to go traipsing around for weeks at a time pregnant and dragging a line of children along behind them. :smile: Oh, you could add any number of other things to it like silk blouses and high heels, make-up, my washing machine, my tv and computer, i-phone and on and on.

Does this constitute a bias?

Maybe you guys are just fantasizing about being on a Scouting trip forever. One of the major problems with this whole hobby is that there aren't enough women in it. :grin:

bicicleur
29-06-15, 08:20
You have an observable bias favoring political correctness. That is a tunnel vision just as any bias. Most of us are aware of our biases. I'm not sure if you are, though.

I'm sorry, Lebrok, but I have the same impression
Just want you to be aware of that

bicicleur
29-06-15, 08:25
To be serious for a minute, I've never thought of it as superior/inferior. Plus, we're all descended 100% from hunter-gatherers, and unless you're a pygmy or an Amazon Indian you're descended from farmers too.

However, I'm definitely for any line of cultural development that leads to flush toilets, hot showers, lots of diverse, delicious foods, and a stable home site so that women, including me, don't have to go traipsing around for weeks at a time pregnant and dragging a line of children along behind them. :smile: Oh, you could add any number of other things to it like silk blouses and high heels, make-up, my washing machine, my tv and computer, i-phone and on and on.

Does this constitute a bias?

Maybe you guys are just fantasizing about being on a Scouting trip forever. One of the major problems with this whole hobby is that there aren't enough women in it. :grin:

we all like to go on a hunting trip
but we're allways happy to return to the cave where the women are

LeBrok
29-06-15, 08:30
I'm sorry, Lebrok, but I have the same impression
Just want you to be aware of that
Why are you sorry for that I feel empathy for all humanity? Again, sounds like a positive answer to my question, isn't it?

Maciamo
29-06-15, 09:32
To be serious for a minute, I've never thought of it as superior/inferior. Plus, we're all descended 100% from hunter-gatherers, and unless you're a pygmy or an Amazon Indian you're descended from farmers too.

I agree. We all descend from hunter-gatherers who become farmers at one point several millennia ago, and who later adopted bronze, then iron tools and weapons. All Europeans ultimately have most of their ancestry hailing from the Middle East at various points in history.

Instead of categorising people by nationality, ethnicity, language group or even haplogroups, it may be more useful to look deeper into the genes that each individual inherited. It can vary tremendously even within a same family. Obviously we cannot have inherited genes from all our genealogical ancestors. The gene set we inherit from any given ancestor is sliced in half at each subsequent generation, and as DNA is inherited in long chromosomal segments, the DNA of some ancestors is completely lost after less than ten generations - let alone the hundreds of generations that separate us from out Neolithic or Mesolithic ancestors.

What ultimately matters and differentiate all of us (even between siblings) is which variant of each gene we inherited. For example, all of us descend from farmers, and indeed Near Eastern Neolithic farmers are the single largest genetic contributor to the European gene pool. Natural selection favoured genes that prevented the development of diabetes and of gluten intolerance among cereal farmers, and genes for digesting lactose among dairy farmers. But even if we descend from a long line of both dairy and cereal farmers going back at least 6000 years on every side of our family tree, it does not guarantee that we inherited genes for digesting lactose or gluten. Natural selection is slow, and particularly so when the advantage of one gene variant over another is small, or when a same variant carries both advantages and disadvantages. In the particular case of gluten intolerance, the relevant gene is HLA-DQ. People who inherited the HLA-DQ2 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31153-HLA-DQ2-distribution-map-subtypes-SNPs-and-associated-medical-conditions) and/or HLA-DQ8 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31165-HLA-DQ8-distribution-map-subtypes-SNPs-and-associated-medical-conditions) variants are more likely to become gluten intolerant sometime during their lifetime. But most carriers do not become intolerant. It's not a clear cut black or white situation. It depends on environmental factors and possibly of the relation with other genes in one's genome. Additionally, HLA-DQ2 and DQ8 may confer stronger resistance to some diseases, which may explain why they were positively selected in some populations (e.g. over 80% of Native South Americans have HLA-DQ8, and 60% of Sardinians have HLA-DQ2 despite having the highest percentage of Neolithic farmer ancestry in Europe).

Very often each gene variant has adaptive pros and cons that will depend on the local environment and circumstances (such as one's culture) in which an individual grows up. Very few polymorphisms are always good or always bad, otherwise the bad allele would quickly disappear from the gene pool.

Keeping all this in mind, we should cherish genetic diversity rather than hope for some kind of genetic homogeneity.

arvistro
29-06-15, 11:14
I have nothing against farming per se :)
One of Latvian self identifications is nation of ploughmen. Arāju tauta. Despite being mostly WHG genetically (Altentoft gave what 0.x% of ENF to us?).

But, when it goes like - only farmers are capable of this or that innovation or passing language.. Nah.. Especially when farmer is treated as genes not as profession, then it feels like "only Whites are capable of.." statements.

Sile
29-06-15, 12:07
I have nothing against farming per se :)
One of Latvian self identifications is nation of ploughmen. Arāju tauta. Despite being mostly WHG genetically (Altentoft gave what 0.x% of ENF to us?).

But, when it goes like - only farmers are capable of this or that innovation or passing language.. Nah.. Especially when farmer is treated as genes not as profession, then it feels like "only Whites are capable of.." statements.

A question to be asked is - who likely would be potters ( pot makers ), Farmers or Hunters !........
Since we know the LBK_EN farmers have 100% EEF and aged between 5200BC to 5600BC and are in Central germany and none are ,( so far ) from the R1a or R1b family, then who created the "first pots" in this area?
Clearly a farmer has more use for a pot than a hunter ..................my views

arvistro
29-06-15, 13:11
Baltics was the only region in Europe where pots arrived without agriculture.

Also
Pottery originated before the Neolithic period, with ceramic objects like the Gravettian culture Venus of Dolní Věstonice figurine discovered in the Czech Republic date back to 29,000–25,000 BC,[7] and pottery vessels that were discovered in Jiangxi, China, which date back to 20,000 BC.[8]

Early Neolithic pottery have been found in places such as Jomon Japan (10,500 BC),[9] the Russian Far East (14,000 BC),[10] Sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

sparkey
29-06-15, 17:19
Hey guys, what's my bias? :wary2:

Angela
29-06-15, 17:29
we all like to go on a hunting trip
but we're allways happy to return to the cave where the women are

Ah...but if a farmer comes along and builds a snug little house with plank or smooth stone floors that you can keep clean and that no wild animal can enter, a nice legume and grain patch and a few fruit trees so you don't have to walk 5-10 miles a day foraging, some cows for milking so you don't have to nurse the children till they're 4 years old, and maybe even some wool from sheep and linen from flax so you don't have to just wear furs...well, you might find the little woman is in that house, not waiting in the cave. Not that the farmer wouldn't go hunting occasionally too, of course, it's just that he wouldn't be alternating all his time between hunting, raiding nearby groups, and laying around telling stories with his buddies. He'd be farming too. :smile:


http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by epoch http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461103#post461103)
You have an observable bias favoring political correctness. That is a tunnel vision just as any bias. Most of us are aware of our biases. I'm not sure if you are, though.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by bicicleur http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=461132#post461132)
I'm sorry, Lebrok, but I have the same impression
Just want you to be aware of that

I think there's some confusion here. To me, political correctness is when you espouse an opinion because it's the majority opinion in your culture, or in some cases the prevailing opinion of the center left political spectrum, not because you believe it, but because it's expedient to do so. If you believe in something that the larger culture now believes and say so, you're not being "politically correct", you're being honest about your opinions.

I think I know LeBrok well enough to say that he's an honest man, and the opinions he states stem from his belief system. For what it's worth, I would say the same thing about myself.

If you go with the definition of the term as "language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society", I don't think he's "politically correct", and neither am I.

If you take it to mean being against racism and religious bigotry, and for dealing with other human beings out of respect for our common humanity, and giving people equal rights, then I guess I'm politically correct. I wouldn't call that political correctness, however. I'd call it common decency. One could also call it simple Christianity.

However, for what it's worth, I'm totally against the kind of thought control that is taking over places like college campuses; it's liberal, Marxist fascism and a denial of free speech.


arvistro
I have nothing against farming per se :)
One of Latvian self identifications is nation of ploughmen. Arāju tauta. Despite being mostly WHG genetically (Altentoft gave what 0.x% of ENF to us?).

But, when it goes like - only farmers are capable of this or that innovation or passing language.. Nah.. Especially when farmer is treated as genes not as profession, then it feels like "only Whites are capable of.." statements.




With all due respect, I think you've misinterpreted what's been written. I don't want to rehash the whole argument here because it's not the thread for it, and we've gone over it all before ad nauseam. To summarize it briefly, although the hypothesis didn't originate with me, I do think there is some validity to the idea that hunter-gatherers adopt farming with great difficulty, and it may be not just because it is a culturally different life style, but also because there may be some variation in allele frequencies relating to the ability to focus for long periods of time, plan, delay gratification, and do repetitive tasks between the two groups, which were selected for over time.

I'm not saying those differences were there in the first groups of hunter-gatherers who started to develop farming. I'm saying they might have been selected for over the thousands of years it took to develop farming and animal husbandry. I also don't think anything in the history of the Neolithicization of Europe disproves that. It took a long time for hunter--gatherers to adopt farming there as everywhere else. There's no indication that after a few generations whole bands of hunter-gatherers just suddenly adopted farming, which used to be the model of cultural diffusion. So far it looks as if there was a hiatus of at least a thousand years, and when it took place, it seems to have taken place in the context of at least some gene flow.

I wouldn't take Allentoft's ENF number very seriously. He thinks it's all down to Kostenki.


Arvistro:Baltics was the only region in Europe where pots arrived without agriculture.

Also
Pottery originated before the Neolithic period, with ceramic objects like the Gravettian culture Venus of Dolní Věstonice figurine discovered in the Czech Republic date back to 29,000–25,000 BC,[7] and pottery vessels that were discovered in Jiangxi, China, which date back to 20,000 BC.[8]

Early Neolithic pottery have been found in places such as Jomon Japan (10,500 BC),[9] the Russian Far East (14,000 BC),[10] Sub-Saharan Africa and South America.

Agreed.

LeBrok
29-06-15, 18:42
Hey guys, what's my bias? :wary2:
Definitely skewed towards people with head coverings. Not mentioning exclusive celebration of I2 famous individuals. ;)

bicicleur
29-06-15, 18:55
Ah...but if a farmer comes along and builds a snug little house with plank or smooth stone floors that you can keep clean and that no wild animal can enter, a nice legume and grain patch and a few fruit trees so you don't have to walk 5-10 miles a day foraging, some cows for milking so you don't have to nurse the children till they're 4 years old, and maybe even some wool from sheep and linen from flax so you don't have to just wear furs...well, you might find the little woman is in that house, not waiting in the cave. Not that the farmer wouldn't go hunting occasionally too, of course, it's just that he wouldn't be alternating all his time between hunting, raiding nearby groups, and laying around telling stories with his buddies. He'd be farming too. :smile:

and when you're tired of milking the cows everyday
and sitting between the shit and the flies
and a knight comes with shining armor
and he offers you a place on his horse
what would be your next move?

LeBrok
29-06-15, 19:05
I think there's some confusion here. To me, political correctness is when you espouse an opinion because it's the majority opinion in your culture, or in some cases the prevailing opinion of the center left political spectrum, not because you believe it, but because it's expedient to do so. If you believe in something that the larger culture now believes and say so, you're not being "politically correct", you're being honest about your opinions.

I think I know LeBrok well enough to say that he's an honest man, and the opinions he states stem from his belief system. For what it's worth, I would say the same thing about myself.

If you go with the definition of the term as "language, actions, or policies seen as being excessively calculated to not offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society", I don't think he's "politically correct", and neither am I.

If you take it to mean being against racism and religious bigotry, and for dealing with other human beings out of respect for our common humanity, and giving people equal rights, then I guess I'm politically correct. I wouldn't call that political correctness, however. I'd call it common decency. One could also call it simple Christianity.

However, for what it's worth, I'm totally against the kind of thought control that is taking over places like college campuses; it's liberal, Marxist fascism and a denial of free speech. Absolutely Angela, I gave them a benefit of a doubt, that they meant Politically Correct, as an inclusive and egalitarian accommodation towards others.

One thing should be noticed and emphasized, that we don't shy from talking and pointing differences between races or sexes, at all. I started many threads specifically dedicated to the differences, and even their genetic causes. How politically correct is this? Not very in most common meaning of this word, but it is from one angle. It is all expressed in spirit of tolerance, understanding, equality and respect to all involved and implicated. We are different, yet equal and worth the same.

Angela
29-06-15, 19:30
and when you're tired of milking the cows everyday
and sitting between the shit and the flies
and a knight comes with shining armor
and he offers you a place on his horse
what would be your next move?

Well, we're jumping a couple of thousand years, aren't we, all the way to the Middle Ages? A knight in shining armor, adept at troubadour love poetry, and with a nice castle and silk clothes and jewels to offer is not exactly the same thing as a herder of cattle and sheep who would expect his women to live out of wagons. Particularly when the native culture is more advanced.

Still, if these steppe herders, if this is the group you had in mind, had just burned down the whole village and killed off most of the men, or even if the culture was just disintegrating because of climate change, most women might go along even if they were still surrounded by **** and flies (herding is a messy business, too), because their survival was at stake.

I should be clear though that we're not talking about me, my dear Bicicleur. I'm faithful and loyal to an absolute fault, even when, in the beginning, it was definitely against my economic advantage. :smile: In these kinds of situations, whatever the cultures involved, if my man, assuming he hadn't been maltreating me, of course, had been killed by some invader, for instance, I'd be the type to put some water hemlock in the killer's food! The promise of a softer life would certainly not make me stray from a beloved mate.

Ed. Of course, if the survival of one's children is at stake, then it's a whole new ballgame, with different rules.

Salmon
29-06-15, 22:16
first came hunter/gatherers
then came hunter/gatherers that probably tended to some root plants or leafy plants.
then came hunter/gatherers that domesticated hunting partners/wolves
then came hunter/gatherers that took their experience with dogs and applied it to goats.
these hunter/gatherers did less hunting with semi-tame goats and other small animals around.
these hunter/gatherers had to feed their non-carnivorous animals plant material. They had to move around, learn where good plants grew.
these hunter/gatherers gave up on hunting full time... they retained their hunting skills as pests like predators were still around.
these early pastoral people would wander around with the dogs and ungulates.
these people noticed that some flat pieces of land always had a lot of food for their plant eating animals. They grew plants there that they would consume from time to time. It worked.
these people started chewing on the weed their goats ate. They found some had seeds in them.
over time they grew more plants, grew food for their plant eating animals, and used their dogs for help.
after some time certain farmers got bold and wanted to domesticate the big plant eating animals. They succeeded.

Tomenable
09-07-15, 03:08
Davidski has a typical polish anti-german bias:

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by davidski

Honestly, I doubt there were any Germanics in Poland prior to (...)

And you have a serious pro-German bias if you equate Germanics = Germans.
(which you just did if you called that anti-German bias, instead of anti-Germanic bias)

It would be like saying, that Slavs = Poles and Moscow is a Polish city.

You can't say that all Germanics are the same and share common ancestry, because there are large genetic differences both in frequencies of uniparental markers (Y-DNA plus mtDNA) and in autosomal DNA, within and between distinct Germanic-speaking populations, like for example the Swedes on one hand, the Austrians on the other hand, or the Dutch on one hand, the Norwegians on the other hand.

I'm not saying "there were no any Germanics in Poland during the Iron Age", but I'm disappointed that nobody is willing to pay more attention to East-Central European aDNA samples from Allentoft's study (and from other studies too), both when it comes to autosomal DNA and uniparental markers. I would do this myself but I have no experience in calculating admixtures or determining subclades.

BTW - in this recent dissertation by Anna Szécsényi-Nagy:

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

In point 4.3.5 the author writes about the Test for Population Continuity (TPC). It is calculated with a 2013 formula:

https://github.com/joepickrell/tpc
(https://github.com/joepickrell/tpc)
Genetics should provide answers, because languages can change without much gene flow and archaeological cultures can also change as the result of cultural transition instead of demic diffusion. On the other, it is impossible to transmit genes culturally.

For example African-Americans speak a Germanic language (English), so technically they are Germanic too (being Germanic has always been defined by one's language). Mexicans speak Spanish, yet most of their ancestry is Native American (or Native Mexican, to be precise). Egyptians speak Arabic, yet according to Joel Irish they are mostly descended from Ancient Egyptians. Etc.

Empires such as Roman Empire, Arab Caliphate, Turkish Empire, the Holy Roman Empire or the USA - spread languages via cultural transition. Empires mentioned here, were spreading respectively Latin, Arabic, Turkish, German and English languages. Nobody claims, that all people in modern Iberia and France are descended from Latin-speaking colonists from Italy who settled there.

Nobody also claims, that all of English-speaking Americans are descended from people from England. Etc.

During the Bronze Age some kind of Proto-Germanic language was spoken only in Scandinavia, while in East-Central Europe people used other languages. We now have got a lot of Bronze Age DNA from East-Central Europe, including Y-DNA.

Now of those Bronze Age samples from Central and East-Central Europe were people who spoke Germanic.

It will be interesting to check whose genetic ancestors those people were, which of modern populations descend from them.

Greying Wanderer
09-07-15, 03:55
I myself have hundreds of agenda's. Most of them contradictory. I keep changing agenda's every so many hours, to keep a fresh perspective. But also to confuse the enemy...

Same here, keeps it fun :)

Tomenable
09-07-15, 04:02
In case of Kennewick Man, the recently published study has established, that his most direct modern descendants, are people of the Colville tribe. If such a precise conclusion was possible with Kennewick Man, why should it be any harder to establish e.g. whose ancestor was RISE [put a number here]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colville_tribe

Here is what authors of the study on Kennewick Man wrote about this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html


Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. (...) Kennewick Man has ancestry proportions most similar to those of other Northern Native Americans (Fig. 1c, Supplementary Information 7), especially the Colville, Ojibwa, and Algonquin. (...) among the groups for which we have sufficient genomic data we find that the Colville, one of the Native American groups claiming Kennewick Man as ancestral, show close affinities to that individual or at least to the population to which he belonged. (...) These findings can be explained as: (1) the Colville individuals are direct descendants of the population to which Kennewick Man belonged, but subsequently received some relatively minor gene flow from other American populations within the last ~8.5 thousand years, in agreement with our findings above; (2) the Colville individuals descend from a population that ~8.5 thousand years was slightly diverged from the population which Kennewick Man belonged or (3) a combination of both.


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colville_tribe)

Tomenable
09-07-15, 04:14
In case of Kennewick Man, the recently published study has established, that his most direct modern descendants, are people of the Colville tribe. If such a precise conclusion was possible with Kennewick Man, why should it be any harder to establish e.g. whose ancestor was RISE [put a number here]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colville_tribe

Here is what authors of the study on Kennewick Man wrote about this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14625.html


Among the Native American groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of Kennewick Man, including the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Colville), one of the five tribes claiming Kennewick Man. (...) Kennewick Man has ancestry proportions most similar to those of other Northern Native Americans (Fig. 1c, Supplementary Information 7), especially the Colville, Ojibwa, and Algonquin. (...) among the groups for which we have sufficient genomic data we find that the Colville, one of the Native American groups claiming Kennewick Man as ancestral, show close affinities to that individual or at least to the population to which he belonged. (...) These findings can be explained as: (1) the Colville individuals are direct descendants of the population to which Kennewick Man belonged, but subsequently received some relatively minor gene flow from other American populations within the last ~8.5 thousand years, in agreement with our findings above; (2) the Colville individuals descend from a population that ~8.5 thousand years was slightly diverged from the population which Kennewick Man belonged or (3) a combination of both.

^ So now I expect something like this:


Among the European groups for whom genome-wide data are available for comparison, several seem to be descended from a population closely related to that of RISE [number] including the [ethnic group name], one of the five ethnic groups claiming RISE [number]. (...) RISE [number] has ancestry proportions most similar to those of other Europeans (Fig. 1c, Supplementary Information 7), especially the [ethnic group name], [ethnic group name], and [ethnic group name]. (...) among the groups for which we have sufficient genomic data we find that the [ethnic group name], one of the European groups claiming RISE [number] as ancestral, show close affinities to that individual or at least to the population to which he belonged. (...) These findings can be explained as: (1) the [ethnic group name] individuals are direct descendants of the population to which RISE [number] belonged, but subsequently received some relatively minor gene flow from other European populations within the last ~[number] thousand years, in agreement with our findings above; (2) the [ethnic group name] individuals descend from a population that ~[number] thousand years was slightly diverged from the population which RISE [number] belonged or (3) a combination of both.

When will we see results like this ???

Twilight
12-08-15, 22:31
I don't know, personally I welcome all my ancestors. I even have an evolving graph of my ancestry; Prehistoric, Ancient Civilizations and Geneological ancestry.
If I come across as a Nornthern European Centrist, I really don't mean it and apologize you are more than welcome to PM me about it and mention what I can do better. ^_^

moore2moore
14-12-15, 00:09
This is an important thread. I hope my reply doesn't come across as too simplistic, and I hope it doesn't crush too many people's dreams. But I ask everyone do to the following exercises:

1. Imagine a pedigree chart. I trust many of us, interested in genealogy, have done them. 14 generations back, by the year 1600 AD or so, each of us has 16,384 ancestors. The ancestor who bears your mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroup, at that point in time, you share 0.01% of your DNA with him or her. And that is by 1600 AD. It is far less with those from prehistory. I always get a good, math-based chuckle at those who cherish their Haplogroup above all else. It's a tiny fraction of your DNA.

2. Imagine said pedigree chart again. By the time you get 25-30 generations back, your number of ancestors would number in the millions or billions. So many, in fact, that it would outnumber the people who were on the earth at the time. At some point, we will all have so many ancestors that we are related to everyone who had children at that one point in time, whose lines survive to the present. By most mathematicians' estimates, in Europe, that window ranges from 2000 BC - 800 A.D. I want this to sink in. I get a large, hearty belly laugh by those who are obsessed with the Haplogroups of European royalty. Or by some odd claim that they are descended from Steppe Overlords. Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.

3. Read the history of the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. Apply it to your genetic theories. Challenge yourself.

People used to think the Goths were bad-ass, uncivilized, warlike, mighty (insert "supreme" adjective here) Germanic overlords who conquered much of the Roman world. But anyone who knows the history understands that the truth is a little kinder to them (kinder, depending on if you believe being peaceful and not purposefully killing people is a good thing).

The Goths were not some mighty tribe hell-bent on destruction, who willfully took over the Roman Empire. Just the opposite: they started out from modern South Sweden because of FAMINE. They were so weak, they were forced to WANDER for centuries. Finally, they invaded the Roman Empire, because the Huns EVICTED them from their steppe lands in modern Ukraine.

In other words, one of the baddest-ass people in most people's minds were refugees, forced to emigrate not because they wanted to conquer, but because they themselves had been evicted from their homelands by famine (first) and then another people (the Huns).

What does this do to the R1b Steppe fantasies? Surely any logical person could admit it's a possibility.

4. If that is too hard on you, let's imagine something happening today. The population of Lebanon is about 2 million people. Aside from the districts controlled by terrible people, many of the coastal folks are pretty wealthy, modern, and diverse. They don't have extraordinarily high birthrates.

All hell has broken loose near them, in a country you may have heard a lot of recently. It's called Syria. In the last two years, Lebanon...has been swamped with 2 million Syrian refugees.

In other words, the population of the country has doubled, in a generation, from an influx of refugees.

Now imagine the Lebanese bear Haplogroup L, we will call it. Imagine like many wealthier people today, they're not having 20 kids each. More like 1 or 2.

Imagine the Syrian refugees bear Haplogroup S, we will call it. Imagine like many poorer people today, they DO have many kids...

The "old" samples within this area we call Lebanon will all be Haplogroup L. A future archaeologist would find that to be the case.

The "new" samples, after a few generations, will be like 75-25%, with Haplogroup S clearly "winning out." The cause is a mix of migration -- plus different cultural attitudes toward having kids.

Is it safe to say that the Syrian refugees were "selected for?" (No).

That the Syrian men were "more attractive" to women? (No).

That they bore some kind of genetic advantage, that made them fitter? (Again, no.)

What does this do to the cherished R1b theories?

In many instances, mathematical modeling and common explanations destroys much of the aDNA snobbery.

Fire Haired14
14-12-15, 01:14
"Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne."

This was media-sensationalized claimed. It isn't true and would take a lot to prove.

Besides that I agree with your post and a big reason I made this thread. There's ethnocentrism on genetic-blogs and its usually Northerncentrism. Even non-Northern posters, want to say they're people are northern. You can't discuss ancestry without the image we have of people and ethnic-egos getting involved. This is why genetic blogs are cursed with racism.

It makes sense to change the way you see someone when you're talking about recent ancestry because it actually does affect someone's behavior. However when you're talking about distant ancestry it isn't relevant, and most people don't understand this.

Ancient ancestry is more a biological subject then a origin of who we are subject. None of us popped out of no where. We have parents who have parents and so on. So, ancient ancestry tells us who those very distant parents were. That's it. Ancient ancestors are nothing more than sperm-donors.

Alan
14-12-15, 02:21
This is an important thread. I hope my reply doesn't come across as too simplistic, and I hope it doesn't crush too many people's dreams. But I ask everyone do to the following exercises:

1. Imagine a pedigree chart. I trust many of us, interested in genealogy, have done them. 14 generations back, by the year 1600 AD or so, each of us has 16,384 ancestors. The ancestor who bears your mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroup, at that point in time, you share 0.01% of your DNA with him or her. And that is by 1600 AD. It is far less with those from prehistory. I always get a good, math-based chuckle at those who cherish their Haplogroup above all else. It's a tiny fraction of your DNA.

2. Imagine said pedigree chart again. By the time you get 25-30 generations back, your number of ancestors would number in the millions or billions. So many, in fact, that it would outnumber the people who were on the earth at the time. At some point, we will all have so many ancestors that we are related to everyone who had children at that one point in time, whose lines survive to the present. By most mathematicians' estimates, in Europe, that window ranges from 2000 BC - 800 A.D. I want this to sink in. I get a large, hearty belly laugh by those who are obsessed with the Haplogroups of European royalty. Or by some odd claim that they are descended from Steppe Overlords. Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.

3. Read the history of the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths. Apply it to your genetic theories. Challenge yourself.

People used to think the Goths were bad-ass, uncivilized, warlike, mighty (insert "supreme" adjective here) Germanic overlords who conquered much of the Roman world. But anyone who knows the history understands that the truth is a little kinder to them (kinder, depending on if you believe being peaceful and not purposefully killing people is a good thing).

The Goths were not some mighty tribe hell-bent on destruction, who willfully took over the Roman Empire. Just the opposite: they started out from modern South Sweden because of FAMINE. They were so weak, they were forced to WANDER for centuries. Finally, they invaded the Roman Empire, because the Huns EVICTED them from their steppe lands in modern Ukraine.

In other words, one of the baddest-ass people in most people's minds were refugees, forced to emigrate not because they wanted to conquer, but because they themselves had been evicted from their homelands by famine (first) and then another people (the Huns).

What does this do to the R1b Steppe fantasies? Surely any logical person could admit it's a possibility.

4. If that is too hard on you, let's imagine something happening today. The population of Lebanon is about 2 million people. Aside from the districts controlled by terrible people, many of the coastal folks are pretty wealthy, modern, and diverse. They don't have extraordinarily high birthrates.

All hell has broken loose near them, in a country you may have heard a lot of recently. It's called Syria. In the last two years, Lebanon...has been swamped with 2 million Syrian refugees.

In other words, the population of the country has doubled, in a generation, from an influx of refugees.

Now imagine the Lebanese bear Haplogroup L, we will call it. Imagine like many wealthier people today, they're not having 20 kids each. More like 1 or 2.

Imagine the Syrian refugees bear Haplogroup S, we will call it. Imagine like many poorer people today, they DO have many kids...

The "old" samples within this area we call Lebanon will all be Haplogroup L. A future archaeologist would find that to be the case.

The "new" samples, after a few generations, will be like 75-25%, with Haplogroup S clearly "winning out." The cause is a mix of migration -- plus different cultural attitudes toward having kids.

Is it safe to say that the Syrian refugees were "selected for?" (No).

That the Syrian men were "more attractive" to women? (No).

That they bore some kind of genetic advantage, that made them fitter? (Again, no.)

What does this do to the cherished R1b theories?

In many instances, mathematical modeling and common explanations destroys much of the aDNA snobbery.


That's actually close to what I have been saying some time ago. I don't think the PIE were some kind of raiders who came across the world. I rather see them as your typical "refugees ", herders leaving, or more precisley being forced out of their home cultures/lands for search of new home for their animals to grass. No one in the ancient times left their home out of adventurousness, it was far too risky cause you couldn't know what even just hundreds of miles away was awaiting you.

No one takes such a risky journey if he doesn't has a serious reason.

LeBrok
14-12-15, 06:11
This is an important thread. I hope my reply doesn't come across as too simplistic, and I hope it doesn't crush too many people's dreams. But I ask everyone do to the following exercises:

1. Imagine a pedigree chart. I trust many of us, interested in genealogy, have done them. 14 generations back, by the year 1600 AD or so, each of us has 16,384 ancestors. The ancestor who bears your mtDNA or Y-DNA haplogroup, at that point in time, you share 0.01% of your DNA with him or her. And that is by 1600 AD. It is far less with those from prehistory. I always get a good, math-based chuckle at those who cherish their Haplogroup above all else. It's a tiny fraction of your DNA.

2. Imagine said pedigree chart again. By the time you get 25-30 generations back, your number of ancestors would number in the millions or billions. So many, in fact, that it would outnumber the people who were on the earth at the time. At some point, we will all have so many ancestors that we are related to everyone who had children at that one point in time, whose lines survive to the present. By most mathematicians' estimates, in Europe, that window ranges from 2000 BC - 800 A.D. I want this to sink in. I get a large, hearty belly laugh by those who are obsessed with the Haplogroups of European royalty. Or by some odd claim that they are descended from Steppe Overlords. Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne.
I believe, the numbers were mentioned few times on Eupedia.
In second paragraph you mentioned that after going few generation back we are starting to have more common ancestors. Typically in villages, wayback, population was very well mixed after few hundred years of seclusion, unless there was some new population influx for some reason. In such villages going back few generations practically everyone was related, had same ancestors. It is like they all were at the distance of third cousin, if they were tested by 23andMe.



4. If that is too hard on you, let's imagine something happening today. The population of Lebanon is about 2 million people. Aside from the districts controlled by terrible people, many of the coastal folks are pretty wealthy, modern, and diverse. They don't have extraordinarily high birthrates.

All hell has broken loose near them, in a country you may have heard a lot of recently. It's called Syria. In the last two years, Lebanon...has been swamped with 2 million Syrian refugees.

In other words, the population of the country has doubled, in a generation, from an influx of refugees.

Now imagine the Lebanese bear Haplogroup L, we will call it. Imagine like many wealthier people today, they're not having 20 kids each. More like 1 or 2.

Imagine the Syrian refugees bear Haplogroup S, we will call it. Imagine like many poorer people today, they DO have many kids...

The "old" samples within this area we call Lebanon will all be Haplogroup L. A future archaeologist would find that to be the case.

The "new" samples, after a few generations, will be like 75-25%, with Haplogroup S clearly "winning out." The cause is a mix of migration -- plus different cultural attitudes toward having kids.

Is it safe to say that the Syrian refugees were "selected for?" (No).

That the Syrian men were "more attractive" to women? (No).

That they bore some kind of genetic advantage, that made them fitter? (Again, no.)
Mathematical modeling of genetic mixing makes sense in first couple of generations, after two distinct populations encounter. After that, natural selection takes over and weeds out bad combinations, and rewards better fitted genes and their combinations, and new mutations. This slowly changes and evolves genome with generations, drifting away from point of initial mixing.
For example, this Amazon tribe, as many others came to existence from mixing of ancient Siberian and East Asian populations, not mentioning Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture, and who know what else. After few thousand of years of separation in the jungle, they became genetically very uniform, well mixed. They all look like brothers and sisters, because their genome is almost identical. Surely, some bottlenecking effect helps uniformity in these smaller groups, from time to time. The rest is in hands of natural selection, and some luck or lack of it.








What does this do to the cherished R1b theories?
You know that R1b was rather common in the Steppe during Mesolithic, and still is?

LeBrok
14-12-15, 06:20
That's actually close to what I have been saying some time ago. I don't think the PIE were some kind of raiders who came across the world. I rather see them as your typical "refugees ", herders leaving, or more precisley being forced out of their home cultures/lands for search of new home for their animals to grass. No one in the ancient times left their home out of adventurousness,
I agree that there is usually underlying reason for huge migrations. However from recent history we know that adventurous parties of IE reach Americas, India and the rest of the world. And there was a time when IE could say that they conquered and owned the whole planet. I'm not sure if genetic predisposition to adventure, traveling, and war could be so easily dismissed.





it was far too risky cause you couldn't know what even just hundreds of miles away was awaiting you.
Once they had horses they could easily check what is hundreds miles away. Likewise, they could quickly escape on horseback in case of danger.


No one takes such a risky journey if he doesn't has a serious reason.And what reason Alexander the Great had to go to India?

moore2moore
14-12-15, 07:39
For some reason, those who cling to the horses and swords theory are always R1b.

sparkey
18-12-15, 19:26
IMO we'd expect different expansion patterns from European R1b if we were looking for a "swamped with refugees" model versus a "rapid expansion of a smaller migrant population" model. The first would tend to produce a transplantation of the existing haplogroup diversity, no? Certainly in the case of Syrian refugees, the imaginary version of Haplogroup S in moore2moore's example would maintain its apparent ancientness that it had back in Syria. Not so with European R1b, where its calculated TMRCAs cut close to its approximate time of introduction.

That's not to say that the European R1bs were all desirable, fit warriors cut from the elite of their homeland. Just that the patterns seem to fit them having certain relative advantages over the existing European populations, even if they were originally from the bottom of their own society.

Alan
19-12-15, 02:42
And what reason Alexander the Great had to go to India?

1. Ideological reason, expansional reasons. We are talking of a different timeframe and two different cultural environments. Thats why I was specifically speaking about PIE not Indo Europeans at all.

The PIE expanded as herders and had therefore completely different reasons. While later big empires/cultures expanded as warriors/soldiers to conquer lands.

For example the Medes and Persians came as simple nomads in search for new land for their animals and farming. Just the aggressive expansions plans and oppressing of the Assyrians forced the Medes to unify the tribes into a tribal confederation and build an empire. They didn't came as conquerers but simply as herders searching for new grassland for their animals and horses.

Same can be said about Tocharians.

LeBrok
19-12-15, 08:45
1. Ideological reason, expansional reasons. We are talking of a different timeframe and two different cultural environments. Thats why I was specifically speaking about PIE not Indo Europeans at all.

The PIE expanded as herders and had therefore completely different reasons. While later big empires/cultures expanded as warriors/soldiers to conquer lands.

For example the Medes and Persians came as simple nomads in search for new land for their animals and farming. Just the aggressive expansions plans and oppressing of the Assyrians forced the Medes to unify the tribes into a tribal confederation and build an empire. They didn't came as conquerers but simply as herders searching for new grassland for their animals and horses.

Same can be said about Tocharians.
We know that IE were highly structured society with distinct ruling class, and powerful-unstoppable armies. You want to say that their leaders had only well being of their tribes in mind, and they never had bigger ambitions?
For the amount of IE tribes expanding West and East, led by many leaders, I'm pretty sure that their were few ambitious conquerors who only thought about their glory, battles, and riches of the world. There are many examples of such steppe peoples, among them Mongols under Chinggis Khan. Interesting example are Germanic tribes, who need to emigrate to South Europe, due to famine and wars, but it didn't stop them from conquering and building new empires.
What I'm saying is that human nature and warrior psyche didn't change much in few thousand years. There is no reason to imagine IEs as some different kind of people and their leaders as only peaceful and caring folks.

Alan
19-12-15, 16:51
IMO we'd expect different expansion patterns from European R1b if we were looking for a "swamped with refugees" model versus a "rapid expansion of a smaller migrant population" model. The first would tend to produce a transplantation of the existing haplogroup diversity, no? Certainly in the case of Syrian refugees, the imaginary version of Haplogroup S in moore2moore's example would maintain its apparent ancientness that it had back in Syria. Not so with European R1b, where its calculated TMRCAs cut close to its approximate time of introduction.


I don't think so, in fact the refugee theory fits better with a bottle_neck effect than, let's say a "warrior class rading the regions". We are not talking about war scenario as today in Syria but migrations based on hunger and lack of grass land. Those families who were rich in the Elite would stay, but those who did not have much would leave. (therefore Bottle_Neck effect).

Isn't this scenario also slightly supported by the fact that we find Steppe type ancestry reaching slowly the local cultures of Europe before any singificant movement of early Indo Europeans. Seems to me like first a few risked the jorney, later it became more and more.

Alan
19-12-15, 16:56
We know that IE were highly structured society with distinct ruling class, and powerful-unstoppable armies. You want to say that their leaders had only well being of their tribes in mind, and they never had bigger ambitions?


I am only saying what has been said by archeologists. Certanly the Medes and Persians did not came as big "warriors" they were immediately under Assyrian rule when the arrived. They came with their animals and horses. The same can be said about Tocharians. There is absolutely no indication that they reached West China in "conquer style". They came as traders searching for new homeland and grassland for their animals. Only the oppressive stance of the Assyrians forced the Medes into action and formation of the Median empire.

But those are also the only early Indo Europeans of whom we have reliable accounts of how they moved into new territory. Later the Indo Europeans adapted quickly to warfare and conquering lifestyle. As seen on the Scythians how they conquered Cimmerian land and later Sarmatians conquering the Scythian land just so them being conquered by the Hunnoi.

sparkey
21-12-15, 18:32
I don't think so, in fact the refugee theory fits better with a bottle_neck effect than, let's say a "warrior class rading the regions". We are not talking about war scenario as today in Syria but migrations based on hunger and lack of grass land. Those families who were rich in the Elite would stay, but those who did not have much would leave. (therefore Bottle_Neck effect).

Isn't this scenario also slightly supported by the fact that we find Steppe type ancestry reaching slowly the local cultures of Europe before any singificant movement of early Indo Europeans. Seems to me like first a few risked the jorney, later it became more and more.

I think we're actually agreeing pretty closely. My main point of contention with moore2moore's argument isn't that I think that the migrants were a special warrior class; in fact I find that very unlikely, and you make a good point here. My point is more that we can't look at it like a region being swamped with refugees a la modern Syrian refugees. A big reason for that is that even the bottom rung of migrants back then would likely have certain relative advantages over the native population, whereas modern Syrian refugees would start at the bottom.

Maciamo
21-12-15, 21:42
"Every European alive today is a descendant of Charlemagne."

This was media-sensationalized claimed. It isn't true and would take a lot to prove.


I agree, it's a stupid claim made by some mathematician who doesn't understand that the European population isn't just a theoretical matrix of people freeing mixing with one another and that given enough time all people end up descending from anybody who has living descendants today. Such people do not understand the realities of life. They don't that Europe has deep national, linguistic and geographical boundaries that prevent movement and intermarriages. Even within these constricted boundaries, people have traditionally married within their own community, and as most people were farmers, that meant within their little village or the one next door. Only royalties frequently had international marriages.

Then even if we could prove with a paper trail that someone was descended from Charlemagne, and that the paper trail was right and that no infidelity happens on the way, it still wouldn't mean that that person inherited any DNA from Charlemagne. Once again genetic inheritance isn't mathematical. I was taught in biology classes that we inherit 25% DNA from each grand-parent and 12.5% from each great-grand-parent, but this is bullshit. It never happens like that in reality. It may be 24.2%, 27.1, 25.8%, but very rarely just 25%. And the further we climb the family the bigger the proportion gaps between ancestors of the same generation, until at one point, maybe just a dozen generation ago, some ancestors contributed nothing, while others contributed twice their statistical share.

Unfortunately modern universities teach linear thinking based on pure mathematical reasoning without taking all elements in consideration. That is why most geneticists are so bad at predicting historical population movements. That's also why most medical doctors can't deal with diseases they have never encountered and typically resort to prescribing antibiotics for all and everything. They haven't learned to think by themselves but just to repeat what they have memorised by heart to pass their exams.

Alan
21-12-15, 23:14
certain relative advantages over the native population, whereas modern Syrian refugees would start at the bottom.

I wouldn't be so sure about this point actually, I can't think of any advantage the Indo European herders could have brought upon the cereal farmers, who were imo more advanced to that time.
But I agree in the point that you can't compare exactly the Indo European expansion to the Syrian refugee crisis today. I don't see any major war as today in Syria causing the expansions of most Indo European groups (sure for some later expansions war might have also played a role, as Cimmerians were pushed out from their close Scythian cousins).

IMO the Indo European expansion could be more similar to the first waves of British and German immigrants into America. People who were not so "successful", poor, probably also "petty criminals", searching for new live and chance somewhere else. Just with the difference that technologically the European settlers were advanced compared to Native Americans, but I don't think early Indo Europeans had any advantage over the local European cultures.

moore2moore
22-12-15, 06:50
IMO the Indo European expansion could be more similar to the first waves of British and German immigrants into America. People who were not so "successful", poor, probably also "petty criminals", searching for new live and chance somewhere else.

Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.

Alan
22-12-15, 16:26
Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.


You are making it for yourself more simple. We know from the Anatolian cereal farmers genomes that they were also lactose tolerant by around 50%. This was almost the same percentage as among the farmers. There was absolutely no advantage to bring from the Indo Europeans.

And yu also completely ignored other parts of my points, and you have a big mistake in your thinking.

The first Indo European waves didn't simply skip Central Europe for Ireland, if you haven't noticed all the Indo European expansions into Western Europe were drasticly later in the Iron Age. The Celts are said to have formed in Central Europe around Hungary, Austria and so on. Only quite some time later they expanded into the British Island.

Also how do you know, how the Steppe lands looked like 5000 BC?

And you are not taking into account the rest of the argument. It was not only hunger but also the social status, rivalising groups, politics which forced other groups/families into diaspora. the Elite probably took most of the land too.

What I think is the reason we are only encountering R1b L23 and "I"(so far) lineages in Yamna instead of any of the lineages under L51, is most likely because L23 were the "Elite" while R1b L51 were not and probably forced out to immigrated into Central Europe much earlier.

Later in the successing cultures of Yamna we suddenly don't come across any L23 lineagea anymore and it is completely replaced by R1a Z93 (Change of Elite?).


And you are taking the population sizes far too important. We have ALLOT of examples were people simply expanded out of hunger and search for better grassland far further away despite in between also being farming land. Minoans for example.

Who tells you that there wasn't any people in between the regions? For example next to Yamna was the CT culture in the West, To the Northeast was the Eneolithic Samara culture and to the South the Maykop culture. It was land of other people already. You are seing those people as far too social. Do you really think any of these cultures would have thought "Well we have so much land, let those newcomers have some of it too". They
were far too cautios. Having more land was saver for survivial.


I still stay by my theory, for some reasons it was becoming too uncomfortable for these early Indo Europeans in their homeland and they were somehow forced to search for new lands.

moore2moore
23-12-15, 06:37
Alan, you're a good guy, but ancient demography is what it is. The entire population of Europe during the time we are discussing was in the neighborhood of 25,000 - 50,000 people. That, by itself, obliterates any fantasy about "people needing to seek new lands" or "people needing to conquer" or "people needing new farmlands."

You're not picturing Europe, an area of 4m square miles, with fewer people than now live on one city block in Berlin.

Your comments on the Celts are anachronistic, and there is not even an accepted definition of Celt (versus Gaul), etc.

Maciamo
23-12-15, 09:25
Except the modern immigration to America was...modern.

These were people SEEKING FARMLAND -- people who had large ships, guns, and densely populated motherlands.

Invading the territory of another is always costly. War is always crappy. Even if a people are the supermen that these wacky R1b folks fantasize about: some...will...DIE.

It is critical to understand ancient and prehistoric demography. There were FAR fewer people alive at any given time than most people think.

For example, you understand that there were only about 10,000 Neandertals alive at any one point, all throughout Europe? And that similar populations during prehistory were of similar size?

That is instructive for two reasons:

1. It shows that a newer population of even 100,000 could breed with them, and swamp them genetically, without any drama or ideas about conquest. Just math.

2. It illustrates what I am trying to say about the mythical R1b immigrants and supermen: if you were to tell me that the Neandertals "immigrated" anywhere, to seek a better life, I would tell you that you were nuts.

And we would all agree. 10,000 individuals splitting up...Europe (and large chunks of the Middle East). They needed more room???

By 10,000 BC, the population of Europe might have been 50,000 - 100,000. Note: most of the oft-cited, reputable scientists in this field often say it was far fewer!!!

I have never heard one good reason why some R1b guys would travel from Ukraine to Ireland, warring with every band of everyone on the way, when much of the land in between was sparsely populated.

Are you going to seriously tell me they needed more room?

That makes about as much sense as you breaking into your neighbor's home tonight. You don't need to, and there is a huge risk to you if you do.

Broken record: the real story was far less interesting. Smaller host populations, invaders with different resistances to disease, coupled with multiple expansions of people who had the ability to digest milk or wine (more calories), which supported a culture of slightly more children. It's that simple.

Interesting reasoning. But by that logic Native Americans should never have waged war with one another as they had more than enough room and war was too costly and stupid to fight for land. Unfortunately that isn't human nature. And we are talking essentially about Mesolithic tribes here (apart from some Neolithic agriculturalists in the southern USA or Mexico as far as North America is concerned). The reason is that hunter-gatherers need a huge territory to feed a small population, and even more so when the main animals they hunt have migratory habits.

Back to Europe, the Neolithic expansion happened because farmers need more land - once again because early agriculture was highly inefficient and crops failed often. It was also easier to seek fertile land that was already cleared or sparsely wooded than to clear land. Well, actually the only way to clear land fast when all you have is stone axes, is to burn forests (even today, with seesaws and heavy machinery that is still the preferred method to expand fast into the Amazon forest, to every environmentalists' dismay). But if you didn't use the land for farming, forests grew back within a generation. So the bottom line is that there was very little open, usable land for farmers.

Then come the R1b cattle herders who can't just burn forests to feed their stock, but need open pastures. Their ideal enthrone is the steppe, which is why I theorized that R1b were the people who domesticated cattle then moved to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and the "green" Neolithic Sahara (more like the Sahel or the savanna today) to feed their cattle, and soon afterwards also horses. From the time they developed bronze weapons, these R1b Steppe people started coveting the copper rich Balkans, which explain why R1b tribes wandered off the Steppe in the first place. It wasn't about land, but about natural resources (actually not just copper, but also silver and gold) and the prestige they conferred.

Then, as they ventured further west, they realised that there were regions that were well suited to cattle herding in Northwest Europe, particularly in rocky regions that were more sparsely wooded, like Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and northern England. Brittany and Cornwall had the additional attraction of being two of the few places in Europe where tin could be easily mined. Other regions included the Austrian and Swiss Alps (think Hallstatt and La Tène), the aptly named Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) of Saxony, the Black Forest, central France, Tuscany, Galicia and northern Portugal. So I believe that what really drove R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans to seek land outside the steppes was the search for "El Dorado", but a tin El Dorado (or El Estañado if you will).

moore2moore
23-12-15, 19:41
OK, I'll bite. :-)

Yes, the Mesolithic tribes of North America (and elsewhere) waged wars on each other, but we are talking small, ritualized battles.

Here is what they looked like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzqwOBneC4

You brought up the other continents: why was there no equivalent to R1b in North America? Answer: the reasons I cite: vastness of open space; limited population. Same for Australia, Asia, etc. It is just too hard for one small tribe to expand to Roman-empire-like proportions during prehistory.

It's time to admit it: the R1b numbers we see today are due to an expansion of people during a starvation event, where a genetic advantage (ability to digest milk) was the difference between life and death, perhaps so much so that they made ritualized drinking vessels in the shape of cow teats (or bell beakers), and buried themselves with them, so important was this innovation.

moore2moore
23-12-15, 19:45
Then come the R1b cattle herders who can't just burn forests to feed their stock, but need open pastures. Their ideal enthrone is the steppe, which is why I theorized that R1b were the people who domesticated cattle then moved to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and the "green" Neolithic Sahara (more like the Sahel or the savanna today) to feed their cattle, and soon afterwards also horses. From the time they developed bronze weapons, these R1b Steppe people started coveting the copper rich Balkans, which explain why R1b tribes wandered off the Steppe in the first place. It wasn't about land, but about natural resources (actually not just copper, but also silver and gold) and the prestige they conferred.

Then, as they ventured further west, they realised that there were regions that were well suited to cattle herding in Northwest Europe, particularly in rocky regions that were more sparsely wooded, like Brittany, Cornwall, Ireland, Scotland and northern England. Brittany and Cornwall had the additional attraction of being two of the few places in Europe where tin could be easily mined. Other regions included the Austrian and Swiss Alps (think Hallstatt and La Tène), the aptly named Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge) of Saxony, the Black Forest, central France, Tuscany, Galicia and northern Portugal. So I believe that what really drove R1b Proto-Indo-Europeans to seek land outside the steppes was the search for "El Dorado", but a tin El Dorado (or El Estañado if you will).

You're a brilliant guy, oft-cited, and much of your stuff here can't be found anywhere else.

But do you realize the sheer implications for time and reality of what you are outlining?

How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

This is starting to sound like "R1b Forrest Gump" theory: these mythical people were on the forefront of every innovation in prehistory (metalworking, cattle domestication, etc)? Like Forrest, who was there at Watergate, Vietnam, Woodstock, etc., they were the prime mover or a main participant in all events.

Sorry but LOL! It's claims like this that make so many agree that the OP has a valid point.

MOESAN
23-12-15, 21:11
@Angela
I agree for the most - I agree partly with Fire Haired too about agendas and boring tendancies of some bloggers and forumers -
that said, concerning Europeans, to split hairs I will say EEF and WHG don't have the same depth as Yamnaya for the reason that their admixture is older and cannot easily be split into too evident more ancient components, when for Yamnaya we know with evidence their are a relative new crossing of at least two other older admixtures, so we cannot do with the 'yamnaya' as basic component, only an historic population with its role in Europeans formation. The difference between the successive Samara populations help to show this. That said, I repeat I agree concerning your philosophy about what ought to be a correct forum...

Athiudisc
23-12-15, 21:26
How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

It is entirely unnecessary for predominantly-R1b population groups to "remain pure" to eventually display the modern distribution of R1b. Look at (to remove whatever "north-centric bias" one imagines) the R1b-dominant populations in sub-Saharan Africa. The Chadic-speaking peoples around Cameroon have similar rates of R1b to western Europe (though completely different types, obviously), yet they very obviously haven't "stayed pure" to any degree. They didn't know what Y-DNA was for thousands of years, and mixed with other groups around them, yet R1b lineages obviously won the great game of reproducing/succeeding. For all we know, their ancestors thousands of years ago were half R1b and half E1b, and the E1b simply didn't do as well for any of dozens of reasons.

Going back to Eurasia, Indo-European cultures have generally been patrilineal/patriarchal far more often than not. Assuming such people brought other, previously non-Indo-European men into the fold (which we know they did), it really doesn't take much for such minorities to generally be lost over time, especially if we're talking about something as specific as Y-DNA mutations that require direct descent from father to son in perpetuity to propagate. If your villages in Ireland thousands of years ago had a bad few years, whether due to crop failure, livestock plague, war, etc., half the people (easily) could die. All it takes is one break in the chain if you're already outnumbered, and that particular lineage of I2 or G or whatever is dead in that area. R1b lineages were clearly socially dominant; they're simply more likely to survive such scenarios.

bicicleur
23-12-15, 22:50
Going back to Eurasia, Indo-European cultures have generally been patrilineal/patriarchal far more often than not. Assuming such people brought other, previously non-Indo-European men into the fold (which we know they did), it really doesn't take much for such minorities to generally be lost over time, especially if we're talking about something as specific as Y-DNA mutations that require direct descent from father to son in perpetuity to propagate. If your villages in Ireland thousands of years ago had a bad few years, whether due to crop failure, livestock plague, war, etc., half the people (easily) could die. All it takes is one break in the chain if you're already outnumbered, and that particular lineage of I2 or G or whatever is dead in that area. R1b lineages were clearly socially dominant; they're simply more likely to survive such scenarios.

do you mean the following : the IE tribes had a layered society where prestige and wealth were important but also with many social networks, where someone with bad luck got a second chance, albeit started from a somewhat lower status?
it were those networks then which allowed IE tribes to dominate other tribes and to survive or resurge after local calamities had happened

Athiudisc
24-12-15, 01:15
do you mean the following

No, I meant what I said.

Maciamo
24-12-15, 12:58
You're a brilliant guy, oft-cited, and much of your stuff here can't be found anywhere else.

But do you realize the sheer implications for time and reality of what you are outlining?

How long did this take? Was it 20 years?

Was it 300? 1000?

But they stayed pure during that entire time?

This is starting to sound like "R1b Forrest Gump" theory: these mythical people were on the forefront of every innovation in prehistory (metalworking, cattle domestication, etc)? Like Forrest, who was there at Watergate, Vietnam, Woodstock, etc., they were the prime mover or a main participant in all events.

Sorry but LOL! It's claims like this that make so many agree that the OP has a valid point.

The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest) through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.

The royal lineages identified in the skeletons inside the kurgan of Yamna have so far shown that this Proto-Indo-European elite was already overwhelmingly R1b, and this R1b dominance among the elite clearly continued when Steppe people invaded the Bell Beaker culture in Germany around 2500 BCE. Even the Hinxton genomes from Iron Age England, who once again represent mostly elite burials, belonged exclusively to R1b, be it for the Celtic or the Anglo-Saxon remains. So far all the evidence points toward an amazing continuity of R1b among the elite lineages of Centum Indo-European cultures (Germanic, Celtic, Italic) for the last 6000 years. The only rare cases of other lineages than R1b among the early elite all belonged to haplogroup I2a2 (found in Yamna, Vatya, Unetice, Urnfield) as well as two R1a individuals in Urnfield (Lichtenstein Cave, 1000 BCE), which was already 2500 years after Yamna and in a region that overlapped with the R1a-dominant Corded Ware.

Twilight
25-12-15, 21:51
The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest) through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.

The royal lineages identified in the skeletons inside the kurgan of Yamna have so far shown that this Proto-Indo-European elite was already overwhelmingly R1b, and this R1b dominance among the elite clearly continued when Steppe people invaded the Bell Beaker culture in Germany around 2500 BCE. Even the Hinxton genomes from Iron Age England, who once again represent mostly elite burials, belonged exclusively to R1b, be it for the Celtic or the Anglo-Saxon remains. So far all the evidence points toward an amazing continuity of R1b among the elite lineages of Centum Indo-European cultures (Germanic, Celtic, Italic) for the last 6000 years. The only rare cases of other lineages than R1b among the early elite all belonged to haplogroup I2a2 (found in Yamna, Vatya, Unetice, Urnfield) as well as two R1a individuals in Urnfield (Lichtenstein Cave, 1000 BCE), which was already 2500 years after Yamna and in a region that overlapped with the R1a-dominant Corded Ware.

Dont get me wrong, you have a preety good point. Although playing devil's advocate, the earliest "predominantly R1b culture" I can find is the Maykop culture. I don't think we have a name for the R1b cultures who lived in the Neolithic nor Mesolithic yet.

MOESAN
26-12-15, 01:39
I agree that there is usually underlying reason for huge migrations. However from recent history we know that adventurous parties of IE reach Americas, India and the rest of the world. And there was a time when IE could say that they conquered and owned the whole planet. I'm not sure if genetic predisposition to adventure, traveling, and war could be so easily dismissed.



Once they had horses they could easily check what is hundreds miles away. Likewise, they could quickly escape on horseback in case of danger.

And what reason Alexander the Great had to go to India?

I agree, spite I'm not sure concerning genetic heredity.
I cherish no special ancestor and I'm not biased: I'm still open to new discoveries even if I'm tempted to keep on with my LAST old theories before a new true evidence would came to change it. I'm even obliged to live with opposite theories in my mind when the data I have doesn't permit me to take a sound conclusion, it's why I put so often a ? sign in my posts, what could be unpleasant to some forumers.
concerning heroes, stealy warroirs and co, I'm not sure they have been so dense at any period of History. But we habe to know that in ancient times when life was short letal diseases so common, people had surely less fear than us in front of death. to go back to History, we know that adventure was attractive for young males; surely the whole population was not rambling here and there for the pleasure, but we know gangs of young warriors solded them as mercenaries far from their lands, and spite that kept relations with their original tribes (the Galates in east Europe at Iron and after, and others) . By the way the nomadic or semi-nomadic people having less skills for well organized sedentary social life knew their mobility was an advantage over other populations and they took advantage of it more than a time. So I can figure out a tribe living in some lands can send young or older warriors or prospectors to far countries and according to the report of these travels could decide to collectively move, men, women and children. It occurs more than a time. Natural climatic or other kind of pressure were not always necessary to push theom to do it. It's ture it concerns for the most the herding semi-nomadic tribes... Not an unique truth there, again.

moore2moore
26-12-15, 19:30
The transition of R1b population from the steppes to Western Europe took thousands of years. The migration itself happened from c. 4000 BCE to c. 2000 BCE, but it could have taken many more thousands of years for R1b to become the dominant male lineage in Western Europe once R1b tribes settled there. If R1b became dominant as I have theorised (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest) through the establishment of a political dominance, with royal and noble lineages (probably with polygamy or concubines) who produced more children surviving into adulthood, then the the percentage of R1b lineages in the population would have increased slowly but constantly in the last 4000 years in Western Europe. The fact that practically all royal European lineages tested to date belong to R1b (Habsburgs, House of Bourbon, House of Oldenburg, House of Wettin, most Scottish and Irish clans, etc.) confirms that R1b has had political dominance in most of central, northern and western Europe for at least 1000 years.



Except there has not been one example in ALL of recorded history, from ALL regions in the world, of one "ruling class" or "elite" or "ruling family" or "oligarchy" of staying in power beyond say ~500 years at the most extreme (let's put aside San Marino and Monaco). I find this theory not plausible.

Maciamo
27-12-15, 09:29
Except there has not been one example in ALL of recorded history, from ALL regions in the world, of one "ruling class" or "elite" or "ruling family" or "oligarchy" of staying in power beyond say ~500 years at the most extreme (let's put aside San Marino and Monaco). I find this theory not plausible.

You couldn't be more wrong. Just look at the French royal family. It's was always the same family (and the same Y-DNA lineage) from Hugues Capet until Louis XVIII, nearly 1000 years later. The family was divided in various branches over time (Valois, Valois-Orléans, Orléans-Angoulême, Bourbon), but they all descended from the same patrilineal ancestor.

It is almost impossible to go back more than 1000 years using a paper trail as there are few written sources left from the Dark Ages, and also because Germanic people overthrew the Roman Empire.

But genetic genealogy is a powerful enough tool to tell us that all these R1b-L11 derived lineages in European royal families descend from a common ancestor who lived about 5000 years ago. So it doesn't matter if we can't connect them through a paper family tree, DNA doesn't lie (and for that matter a paper trail can lie or be mistaken or suffer from non-paternity events).

Fire Haired14
27-12-15, 13:03
But genetic genealogy is a powerful enough tool to tell us that all these R1b-L11 derived lineages in European royal families descend from a common ancestor who lived about 5000 years ago. So it doesn't matter if we can't connect them through a paper family tree, DNA doesn't lie (and for that matter a paper trail can lie or be mistaken or suffer from non-paternity events).

By the time those families had power R1b was already 50%+ in West Europe(xGermanic). Even in Germans, especially the ones by France, R1b is very popular. There's no way to prove or disprove these royal families had R1b lines because R1b had been the line of royal families for over 4,000 years.

100% of Eastern Bell beaker so far are R1b, and all tested for P312 are positive. So, R1b was more than a royal lineage, there were R1b nations who migrated into Western Europe. It was probably a mixture of royal R1b lineages and R1b nations who made it so popular.

moore2moore
28-12-15, 02:23
You couldn't be more wrong. Just look at the French royal family. It's was always the same family (and the same Y-DNA lineage) from Hugues Capet until Louis XVIII, nearly 1000 years later.

But genetic genealogy is a powerful enough tool to tell us that all these R1b-L11 derived lineages in European royal families descend from a common ancestor who lived about 5000 years ago.

You must forgive me. Sometimes I am a little slow, since I am new all of this DNA business. I am just a humble scholar (in history) at a university.

If R1b is widespread (indeed over 80% in parts of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Spain), then what exactly again makes it rare and special?

Or maybe we should talk in mathematical terms: when a population of horses is, say, 75% bay colored, and a bay horse wins 75% of the races, what is the impact value of being bay?

Help me understand. Most of Europe is R1b. Most of the rulers (particularly those in the window of time you have chosen, who are part of the same family) are R1b. I don't understand why this is shocking.

moore2moore
28-12-15, 02:36
Indeed, come to think of it, I just looked this up and found that Napoleon was apparently E1b, the early royal houses of Sweden were I1, some of Scotland's early clan chieftains were R1a, and that several royals in France and England were G2.

I'm very impressed that these relatively rare lineages (like G2) produced any royals at all!

Back to the horse race analogy: if grey horses are only 10% of the population, but win 20% of the races, isn't that more impressive than the most common type winning a lot of races?

Maybe I don't understand this.

Twilight
30-12-15, 04:13
You must forgive me. Sometimes I am a little slow, since I am new all of this DNA business. I am just a humble scholar (in history) at a university.

If R1b is widespread (indeed over 80% in parts of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Spain), then what exactly again makes it rare and special?

Or maybe we should talk in mathematical terms: when a population of horses is, say, 75% bay colored, and a bay horse wins 75% of the races, what is the impact value of being bay?

Help me understand. Most of Europe is R1b. Most of the rulers (particularly those in the window of time you have chosen, who are part of the same family) are R1b. I don't understand why this is shocking.
it's quite alright :) , just because I am R1b doesn't mean I am special per say; since ydna R is the most common in Europe. However if you were a ruler living in pre-Christian Europe, you as King/cheif can have more woman (usually of Mesolithic European Neolithic Farmer descent) than your People and in consequence you simply have more direct descendants. Maciamo talks about his theory of Polygamy in his R1b article.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest

A king could have more wives but the king's men were known to have set limits on how many woman the king could take; Childerec Merovingian is a good example. Childerec Merovingians had a repudiation forgoing after all of his female subjects and got temporarily got kicked out of his kingdom temporarily. By allowing the people to set limits on the number of his spouses, the king's men were allowed to pass on their Ydna; be it Ydna I, G, T, J, etc.

Source: Gregory of Tours, in Libri Historiarum(Book ii.12),

Plus as later generations of kings go by, you have an issue with the Queen being swept away by somebody else to put it in a casual term. Before Paternaty tests were invented, there was no way you could tell if your son is actually your "biological son" so the Royal Ydna gets altered as a consequence; The mid evil Legend of King Arthur is the most famous example fiction or not with the Queen Guinevere x Lancalot and Morgan La Fay fiasco.

moore2moore
30-12-15, 06:27
Hmm. You lost me again. Are you proposing that entire nations are descended from a small number of kings? How many were allowed to have kids?

No one ever rose up because they were denied this basic human right? Like the way Caligula was killed?

How many descendants do you propose these kings had?

Wouldn't there be horrific inbreeding after a few generations?

Twilight
30-12-15, 07:25
Hmm. You lost me again. Are you proposing that entire nations are descended from a small number of kings? How many were allowed to have kids?

No one ever rose up because they were denied this basic human right? Like the way Caligula was killed?

How many descendants do you propose these kings had?

Wouldn't there be horrific inbreeding after a few generations?


No, not necessary kings other factors come into play but Cheifs is one of them. Of course no one could say for sure if there was any uprisings but since Chimpanzees tend to go to war on occasions; just like us, there were no doubt uprisings. However any uprising that took place in prehistory have gone to either the mists of legends/mythology or not recorded at all.

like it says In the sources I showed you, R1b could have also spread by your ability to conceive boys, Agresive warfare and how many men vs woman are in your area as well as Chiefs/kings.

The information could get changed or tweaked as new archeological and genetic discoveries arrive.

Maciamo
30-12-15, 09:40
You must forgive me. Sometimes I am a little slow, since I am new all of this DNA business. I am just a humble scholar (in history) at a university.

If R1b is widespread (indeed over 80% in parts of Ireland, England, Scotland, and Spain), then what exactly again makes it rare and special?

Or maybe we should talk in mathematical terms: when a population of horses is, say, 75% bay colored, and a bay horse wins 75% of the races, what is the impact value of being bay?

Help me understand. Most of Europe is R1b. Most of the rulers (particularly those in the window of time you have chosen, who are part of the same family) are R1b. I don't understand why this is shocking.

Who said that R1b was rare or special ? Why would you think it is shocking that European royal families are all R1b ? It's just the way it is.

From a historical perspective, however, it is interesting that the very people who "invented" elite dominance, class distinction and patriarchalism happen to be the Indo-Europeans (R1a + R1b), and that after imposing this new societal order on Europe and South Asia during the Bronze Age their paternal lineages managed to remain in power for over 4000 years. It is true that in Western Europe most of the male population now carries an Indo-European Y-chromosome, so it is to be expected that the aristocracy should also be predominantly R1b. But what is more surprising is that R1a managed to remain the predominant elite lineage in India (Brahmin and Kshatriya castes) despite being in the minority for 4000 years (Brahmins make up 5% of the Hindu population). Other examples of minority lineages in power are the Ottoman Sultans (R1a in a country where R1a only makes up 7.5% of the population), the Czars of Russia (R1b, which is only at 6% in Russia), and even the Habsburgs of Austria (R1b, which is at 32% in Austria itself, but only around 17% if we consider the whole Austro-Hungarian Empire).

Maciamo
30-12-15, 10:20
By the time those families had power R1b was already 50%+ in West Europe(xGermanic). Even in Germans, especially the ones by France, R1b is very popular. There's no way to prove or disprove these royal families had R1b lines because R1b had been the line of royal families for over 4,000 years.

Actually many of the royal families who were confirmed R1b come from region with well under 50% of R1b:

- Russia : R1b = 6%
- Norway : R1b = 32%
- Denmark : R1b = 33%
- North Germany (House of Oldenburg) : R1b = 36%
- East Germany (House of Wettin) : R1b = 36%
- Austria : R1b = 32% (Austro-Hungary = 17%)
- South Italy (House of Bourbon, Kingdom of Two Sicilies) : R1b = 27%

These are modern percentages. If R1b has been in power in those region for many centuries in the past 1000 years, chances are that the percentage of R1b is now higher than it was before all those emperors, kings, archdukes, princes and their paternal cousins starting sowing their seeds around.



100% of Eastern Bell beaker so far are R1b, and all tested for P312 are positive. So, R1b was more than a royal lineage, there were R1b nations who migrated into Western Europe. It was probably a mixture of royal R1b lineages and R1b nations who made it so popular.

You mean that the elite burials of the Eastern Bell Beakers were 100% R1b. What does that tell us about the rest of the Bell Beaker population in that area ? For all we know only a small elite (1% of the population) was R1b and the rest were Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages. You can't extrapolate frequencies for a whole region (e.g. Germany) based on only 6 samples, which happen to be exclusively elite samples. It would be like opening the tombs of the kings of France at the Basilica of Saint Denis or that of the Kings of England at Windsor and guess that because the samples are 100% R1b then the people of France and England since the Middle Ages must have been overwhelmingly R1b. You see the problem with that kind of assumptions, don't you ?

Fire Haired14
30-12-15, 15:06
You mean that the elite burials of the Eastern Bell Beakers were 100% R1b. What does that tell us about the rest of the Bell Beaker population in that area ? For all we know only a small elite (1% of the population) was R1b and the rest were Mesolithic and Neolithic lineages. You can't extrapolate frequencies for a whole region (e.g. Germany) based on only 6 samples, which happen to be exclusively elite samples. It would be like opening the tombs of the kings of France at the Basilica of Saint Denis or that of the Kings of England at Windsor and guess that because the samples are 100% R1b then the people of France and England since the Middle Ages must have been overwhelmingly R1b. You see the problem with that kind of assumptions, don't you ?

The studies that sampled them give descriptions of the burials, not all were elite burials. Now, 3/3 of Irish LNBA are R1b-L21 and 10/10 East Bell Beaker are R1b. R1b was already the lineage of entire nations. The elite theory makes sense for Spain, France, and Italy where they can't be fit as 70%+ East Bell Beaker but for the British Isles it looks like a R1b-L21 nation replaced the previous people.

We see the same trend in Scandinavia. All LNBA Scandinavian Y DNA falls under Germanic-specific subclades(R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and I1 have all been found). These weren't royal people, they were ordinary people. Chances are the elite are going to carry R1b and not the Y DNA of foreigners, which will cause it rise in frequency. Howecer R1b would have already been the majority haplogroup.

Maciamo
30-12-15, 18:29
The studies that sampled them give descriptions of the burials, not all were elite burials. Now, 3/3 of Irish LNBA are R1b-L21 and 10/10 East Bell Beaker are R1b. R1b was already the lineage of entire nations. The elite theory makes sense for Spain, France, and Italy where they can't be fit as 70%+ East Bell Beaker but for the British Isles it looks like a R1b-L21 nation replaced the previous people.

We see the same trend in Scandinavia. All LNBA Scandinavian Y DNA falls under Germanic-specific subclades(R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and I1 have all been found). These weren't royal people, they were ordinary people. Chances are the elite are going to carry R1b and not the Y DNA of foreigners, which will cause it rise in frequency. Howecer R1b would have already been the majority haplogroup.

In Scandinavia, the samples that you say were ordinary people belong to the haplogroups that are the three that are dominant today in that region (R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and I1). That makes sense. But keep in mind that the The Nordic Bronze Age samples date from 1000 years after the German Bell Beaker samples. That's a long time for Neolithic lineages to be replaced. In contrast, if you look at Germany circa 2500 BCE, R1b could not have replaced all the Neolithic Y-DNA lineages within a few generations. Even if it did, how would you explain that R1b is only around 45% in Germany today, and that potentially Mesolithic + Neolithic lineages make up between 25 and 38% ? (depending on whether you include E1b1b, J1 and J2 as Neolithic or Iron Age, Roman, Jewish, etc.) Are you saying that all the I1, I2, E1b, G2a, J, T were reintroduced by later migrations, like the Germanic expansion from Scandinavia, the Roman conquest of southern Germany, and so on ?

moore2moore
01-01-16, 01:33
Maciamo, I respect what you have created here a lot. Your maps are incredible sources for so many of us; I appreciate this forum; and you clearly have a passion and a lot of knowledge.

But you are dealing with someone who knows a thing or two about history.

1. You are significantly over-representing the case about modern monarchs. The Czar of Russia, the King of England, and the Kaiser of Germany were first cousins in 1918. So of course they will be the same Hg. One German family had taken over the thrones of three large countries, and indeed, many more.

To include them as evidence of a trend is misleading.

We have no data on most of the Czars of the past, or the Kaisers of the past. The Kaisers' immediate predecessor, the Holy Roman Emperor, wasn't even hereditary, but elected!

The French monarch controversy is still debated: G2 or R1b? And there is not enough data to make these claims, particularly about native Greek monarchs, Roman emperors, Albanian kings, etc. That's why they are a little "northcentric," as someone else put it.

2. On your R1b theory, in general. You cite ancient Indo-European sources, like the Norse sagas, the Gaelic tales, and the Sanskrit chronicles for exploits in warfare, and use this to support your theories.

However, you ignore the fact that EVERY SINGLE INDO EUROPEAN SOCIETY WAS MONOGAMOUS and founded upon the marriage bond. I know a thing or two about classical history -- and all of the talk on this board, on this thread and others, which talks about Indo Europeans choosing multiple wives -- is so contra to history that I am routinely shocked that any serious person would post it.

We have a huge corpus of Sanskrit, Greek, Hittite, Latin, Oscan, Gothic, Slavonic, Tocharian, Gaelic, and Armenian texts, many of which date from not too far after the Indo European migrations, and several later ones which in some fashion relay the facts about these societies.

Within all of those texts, many of which I have read in their original form, there is ZERO evidence for the "chieftain mating" or "polygamy" or "imbalanced male migration" or theories that people post.

If anything, it is just the opposite: in the oldest Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin texts, we hear tales of the higher classes having strict arranged marriages and far fewer children than the others.

If the texts themselves don't convince you, we also have studies that reconstructed early Indo-European society and even Proto-IE society which also find no evidence of these theories.

For example:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/04/proto-indo-european-monogamy.html

I've posted on other threads the demographic cases for why certain HGs are found in greater numbers in certain places. I would love it and appreciate it if you would give them some honest thought.

Maciamo
01-01-16, 12:08
1. You are significantly over-representing the case about modern monarchs. The Czar of Russia, the King of England, and the Kaiser of Germany were first cousins in 1918. So of course they will be the same Hg. One German family had taken over the thrones of three large countries, and indeed, many more.

To include them as evidence of a trend is misleading.


I am not sure why I even bother replying to such stupidity. Yes, these monarchs were cousins, but not on their paternal lines ! These are three distinct Y-DNA lineages. So what's your point ?


We have no data on most of the Czars of the past, or the Kaisers of the past. The Kaisers' immediate predecessor, the Holy Roman Emperor, wasn't even hereditary, but elected!

I never mention the Kaiser's Y-DNA because the Hohenzollern's haplogroup hasn't been tested yet. I mentioned the Habsburgs (R1b-L2), who were hereditary emperors of Austria (then Austro-Hungary). You said above that you were a historian. I can't believe you graduated without knowing that. Additionally, the Habsburgs were also elected Holy Roman Emperors from 1440 until the dissolution of the Empire in 1806, apart from a brief interlude in 1742-45. So even if the title was officially an elected one, it effectively became hereditary one from 1440.



The French monarch controversy is still debated: G2 or R1b?

It's not controversial anymore. They were R1b-U106. The two G2a samples were from unreliable sources: blood from a stained handkerchief that could have belonged to anyone, and a presumed severed head of Henry IV that had been lost for centuries.



However, you ignore the fact that EVERY SINGLE INDO EUROPEAN SOCIETY WAS MONOGAMOUS and founded upon the marriage bond. I know a thing or two about classical history -- and all of the talk on this board, on this thread and others, which talks about Indo Europeans choosing multiple wives -- is so contra to history that I am routinely shocked that any serious person would post it.

We have a huge corpus of Sanskrit, Greek, Hittite, Latin, Oscan, Gothic, Slavonic, Tocharian, Gaelic, and Armenian texts, many of which date from not too far after the Indo European migrations, and several later ones which in some fashion relay the facts about these societies.

Within all of those texts, many of which I have read in their original form, there is ZERO evidence for the "chieftain mating" or "polygamy" or "imbalanced male migration" or theories that people post.

If anything, it is just the opposite: in the oldest Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin texts, we hear tales of the higher classes having strict arranged marriages and far fewer children than the others.

By monogamous do you mean a man that has only one sexual partner (like modern Christians) or that has only one official wife but is allowed concubines or mistresses ? When I say polygamous, I don't care about whether the wives are official or not. I include concubines and mistresses, which is why I often write 'wives/concubines'. What matters in terms of population genetics is whether men could have spread their Y-DNA lineages quickly by having children with many women. History shows that this was always the case. Even Christian kings had more often than not many illegitimate children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_bastard) from mistresses (think Henry I, Henry VIII and Charles II in England, or Henry IV, Louis XIV and Louis XV in France). And your claim that in all historically recorded Indo-European societies men only had one wife is equally wrong anyway. Hinduism clearly allowed polygamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Hinduism) and the practice was only abolished by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955. The ancient Celts also practised polygamy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Celtic_traditions), and even though Germanic people were more often monogamous, polygamy was sometimes practised. Mind you, even Charlemagne, the great defender of Christianity, had ten known wives or concubines and children with most of them.

Ukko
01-01-16, 14:08
I expect Maciamo and others to defend this position also in relation to N1c?

Maciamo
01-01-16, 16:36
I expect Maciamo and others to defend this position also in relation to N1c?

Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by that ?

Ukko
01-01-16, 16:46
Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by that ?

That N1c was spread by elite dominance as evidenced also in relatively large numbers in nobility.

Fire Haired14
02-01-16, 02:16
In Scandinavia, the samples that you say were ordinary people belong to the haplogroups that are the three that are dominant today in that region (R1a-Z284, R1b-U106, and I1). That makes sense. But keep in mind that the The Nordic Bronze Age samples date from 1000 years after the German Bell Beaker samples. That's a long time for Neolithic lineages to be replaced.

One is from Corded Ware period(R1a-Z284) and two are from 2000 BC(I1, R1b-U106*). By LNBA I meant Late Neolithic and Bronze age. The Bronze age ones were all R1b and I1.

Maciamo
02-01-16, 09:24
That N1c was spread by elite dominance as evidenced also in relatively large numbers in nobility.

Yes, most probably, although the Uralic population was always very small historically (Finland had only a few thousands inhabitants 1000 years ago), so it wouldn't have been a fairly quick replacement.

Maciamo
02-01-16, 09:27
One is from Corded Ware period(R1a-Z284) and two are from 2000 BC(I1, R1b-U106*). By LNBA I meant Late Neolithic and Bronze age. The Bronze age ones were all R1b and I1.

And yet modern Scandinavians have both Corded Ware R1a and Nordic Bronze Age R1b + I1. That's what I was trying to explain to you. The tombs tested typically represent only one small part of society, either the elite or a group of newcomers that haven't mixed with the earlier inhabitants yet. In the case of the German Bell Beaker, both are true, and that's why you get 100% R1b (when in fact society was much more diverse than that).

Ukko
02-01-16, 15:10
Yes, most probably, although the Uralic population was always very small historically (Finland had only a few thousands inhabitants 1000 years ago), so it wouldn't have been a fairly quick replacement.

The population at the end of Viking Age was even in the lowest estimates at 50-80.000 and they are going to publish much higher estimates soon as new settlements are found in increasing numbers.

Estonia and Livonia was more populous before the "Northern Crusades" than Finland.

That leaves the rich Karelia also without much studies done after it went to Russia.

One problem is that most people dont really know anything about Baltic Finns or Finnic in general in these forums.

RobertColumbia
02-01-16, 16:14
You couldn't be more wrong. Just look at the French royal family. It's was always the same family (and the same Y-DNA lineage) from Hugues Capet until Louis XVIII, nearly 1000 years later. The family was divided in various branches over time (Valois, Valois-Orléans, Orléans-Angoulême, Bourbon), but they all descended from the same patrilineal ancestor.

It is almost impossible to go back more than 1000 years using a paper trail as there are few written sources left from the Dark Ages, and also because Germanic people overthrew the Roman Empire.

But genetic genealogy is a powerful enough tool to tell us that all these R1b-L11 derived lineages in European royal families descend from a common ancestor who lived about 5000 years ago. So it doesn't matter if we can't connect them through a paper family tree, DNA doesn't lie (and for that matter a paper trail can lie or be mistaken or suffer from non-paternity events).

Have we been able to identify all these R1b-U106 French royals as clearly descending in father and son relationships, or do we only know that all the royals that we have tested so far are R1b-U106? We know that R1b-U106 was a common lineage in France (though arguably not as common as it was in (Germanic-speaking) Germany and England) and was of Germanic origin, so isn't it possible that there was a non-paternity event that has not been detected yet because the "intrusive" y-chromosome was from one of the King's fellow R1b-U106 kinsmen?

Maciamo
03-01-16, 11:34
Have we been able to identify all these R1b-U106 French royals as clearly descending in father and son relationships, or do we only know that all the royals that we have tested so far are R1b-U106? We know that R1b-U106 was a common lineage in France (though arguably not as common as it was in (Germanic-speaking) Germany and England) and was of Germanic origin, so isn't it possible that there was a non-paternity event that has not been detected yet because the "intrusive" y-chromosome was from one of the King's fellow R1b-U106 kinsmen?

Here is the study by Larmuseau et al. (2013) (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/full/ejhg2013211a.html) that identified the true Y-DNA signature of the House of Bourbon based on results from several branches whose common ancestor was either Henry IV or Louis XIII. Their subclade of R1b-U106 is Z381.

RobertColumbia
18-01-16, 05:27
...
We have a huge corpus of Sanskrit, Greek, Hittite, Latin, Oscan, Gothic, Slavonic, Tocharian, Gaelic, and Armenian texts, many of which date from not too far after the Indo European migrations, and several later ones which in some fashion relay the facts about these societies.

Within all of those texts, many of which I have read in their original form, there is ZERO evidence for the "chieftain mating" or "polygamy" or "imbalanced male migration" or theories that people post.

If anything, it is just the opposite: in the oldest Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin texts, we hear tales of the higher classes having strict arranged marriages and far fewer children than the others.

If the texts themselves don't convince you....

It is not so simple either way. First of all, obviously those who wrote those tales were biased to tell them in a way that was most flattering to those in power. On the other hand, very few "tales" are complete and utter fiction, as getting people to believe a complete and total fabrication is far more difficult than getting them to accept a slightly altered or "enhanced" version of the truth. Take King Arthur, for example. Was there a literal guy named Arthur who was running around with a sword named Excalibur and sitting around a literal round table with his knights? No, most likely not. Are the tales of King Arthur inspired by real tales of Celtic, Roman, and/or Germanic chieftains, generals, knights, etc. and the deeds that they performed? Of course they are, and mixed with some elements that medieval storytellers thought would make the tales more appealing and/or make them more money.

Huitzilopochtli
27-10-16, 13:58
Alan, you're a good guy, but ancient demography is what it is. The entire population of Europe during the time we are discussing was in the neighborhood of 25,000 - 50,000 people. That, by itself, obliterates any fantasy about "people needing to seek new lands" or "people needing to conquer" or "people needing new farmlands."

You're not picturing Europe, an area of 4m square miles, with fewer people than now live on one city block in Berlin.

Your comments on the Celts are anachronistic, and there is not even an accepted definition of Celt (versus Gaul), etc.

Cucuteni-Tripolye had towns with more than 10,000 people in Western Ukraine in the 4th millennium B.C. The total population of Europe must have been at least an order of magnitude larger than what you're suggesting. Farming techniques were much less advanced so the carrying capacity of Europe would have been much smaller. I doubt the farmers let large swaths of good farmland lay fallow or that the population was that far below carrying capacity.

LeBrok
29-10-16, 18:43
I already said that I won't let this thread degenerate into a place to trash genome bloggers or posters on other websites. If you disagree with someone's opinion on a certain topic, find the relevant thread, and demonstrate how it is wrong. Use reply button under each post to copy the citation. Otherwise we don't know what post and who you are referring to. Welcome to Eupedia WilsonLower.

Northener
05-11-16, 12:27
Fire haired, I agree with your appeal! But I think the only remedy for Nordicism (http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Nordicism) is a just reconstruction of the past. Nordicist are obsessed with homogeneity, purity, they dislike and can't stand mingling, diversity. The findings of the last years underline the mingling, the mixture, of the European people.
If this last story is not told, the old Nordicist story's stay alive, as I've stated here http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32511-Viking-phenotypes-and-old-racial-thought!
So indeed stop with Nordicism but not with a right reconstruction of the past, because this would mean that Nordicism is easily kept alive.....


I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.

Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from. If you post on Genetic forum your goal should be figuring out the facts, not proving what you want to be true. Your ancestry doesn't define who you are at all. I think it's unhealthy to care a lot about origins if you think it defines yourself and others. It's okay to be proud of your origins, but at the same time not let it define you and be open to whatever the evidence shows.

I think the motivation for the North European-centrism on genetic-forums is what I just described. People want to be more "Hunter Gatherer" and "Steppe", because they like the ideas and characters we have surrounding those people, and they think it affects who they are. There isn't just North European-centrism, I've seen posters with other centrisms. I don't think most of the smarter Posters like Davidski, Maju, Dienkes and others have much of an agenda. I think they're looking mostly for the facts.

One last thing. Put yourself in the shoes of the Pre-Historic(sometimes Historic) peoples discussed on these forums. They didn't know much about anything outside of their own village and small region. The concepts of WHG, ANE, ENF, etc. were alien to them. For the most part they didn't care about their own ancestry, and just lived for the here and now. They weren't supremacist and raciest(Maybe against a neighboring tribe, who were usually close relatives). They didn't have the same ideas about pigmentation people do today(unless neighbors were totally differnt from each other, but the characteristics behind it were probably differnt from today). Even if they did and had the same concepts genetic concepts, it doesn't justify people today making the same mistakes.

Tomenable
06-11-16, 01:34
"Europe is mostly a dark-haired land": http://vocaroo.com/i/s0zEhq3RAx27

PS: I didn't record it, just found it. :grin:

Joey D
26-11-16, 08:45
What remains of my hair is now white, but I believe the hair around my backside remains appropriately dark (not that I have had a chance to view it of late).

georgematthewdaly
30-11-16, 03:46
Well, I believe the paper on male mediated migration from the steppe via the x chromosome from earlier this year lends support to the multiple wives and concubines theory. I think people also get hung up on the idea of "royal lines". We are talking about bronze age chieftains that were probably little more then local "strongmen", and had access to more women. Its not hard to see how this can change the genepool in a few centuries in a patriarchical society, especially if we are talking about an initial demographic event that is a conquest, and many native males lines are stamped out. This
has little to do with modern royal families.

Fire Haired14
30-11-16, 22:39
Well, I believe the paper on male mediated migration from the steppe via the x chromosome from earlier this year lends support to the multiple wives and concubines theory.

Not only were 90%+ did Neolithic European male lines disappear, 90%+ of Steppe male lines disappeared. The Mega Father phenomana of LN/BA Europe can't solely be explained by gender bias admixture between Steppe newcomers and Native Neolithic/Mesolithic descended Europeans. The cultural practise which causes this to happen originated in the Steppe. A single male line in Steppe or heavily Steppe admixed populations became the dominate male line in entire populations in a course of less than 500 years.

All Steppe male lines didn't become popular, only 1 did. Y DNA I1 in Scandinavia is an example of a native Neolithic/Mesolithic European lineages which became a Mega Father. After Steppe people admixed with Native Europeans and acquired some of their Y DNA, a Native lineage became a mega father a long with Steppe R1as and R1bs.

Gender-bias admixture did occur but that can't explain the Mega father lineages of LN/BA Europe.


I think people also get hung up on the idea of "royal lines". We are talking about bronze age chieftains that were probably little more then local "strongmen", and had access to more women.

I don't buy this hypothesis at all. Tough guys can't force 1,000s and 1,000s of men to stop having kids. Steppe men weren't genetically physically superior; more attractive, bigger, more agressive, than Neo/Meso European men. If they were, it was very slight. If so we should expect Udmurts or Lithuanians to be far better athletes than Sardinians or Basque. I doubt there's a noticeable difference. Steppe men weren't gods who could convince droves of Neo/Meso women to chose a Steppe man instead of one of their own. There were ugly Steppe men, ugly Neo/Meso men, etc. They couldn't force them to do it either.

The macho Steppe man theory isn't very likely. Culture alone couldn't make them so superior to the native men that they stole all their women. In the case of Corded Ware, which conquered almost half of Europe, it's obvious they migrated with whole populations not just men. They became the dominate population in NorthEastern Europe. Looking at their DNA, it looks like they gradually admixed with local people who by that time were a minority. Looking at X-chromsomes it looks like they mostly brought foreign women into their communities. By 1500-2300 BC the admixing stopped and you had people similar to modern NorthEastern Europeans. Maybe the smaller numbers of natives were gradually absorbed into Indo European speaking Corded Ware.


Its not hard to see how this can change the genepool in a few centuries in a patriarchical society, especially if we are talking about an initial demographic event that is a conquest, and many native males lines are stamped out. This
has little to do with modern royal families.

Agreed. But I got to say just about every single human society is patriarchal. It doesn't make Steppe people unique. There's almost no point in mentioning they were patriarchal. Maybe they were just slightly more masculine/violent/aggressive.

Huitzilopochtli
30-11-16, 23:08
Not only were 90%+ did Neolithic European male lines disappear, 90%+ of Steppe male lines disappeared. The Mega Father phenomana of LN/BA Europe can't solely be explained by gender bias admixture between Steppe newcomers and Native Neolithic/Mesolithic descended Europeans. The cultural practise which causes this to happen originated in the Steppe. A single male line in Steppe or heavily Steppe admixed populations became the dominate male line in entire populations in a course of less than 500 years.

All Steppe male lines didn't become popular, only 1 did. Y DNA I1 in Scandinavia is an example of a native Neolithic/Mesolithic European lineages which became a Mega Father. After Steppe people admixed with Native Europeans and acquired some of their Y DNA, a Native lineage became a mega father a long with Steppe R1as and R1bs.

Gender-bias admixture did occur but that can't explain the Mega father lineages of LN/BA Europe.



I don't buy this hypothesis at all. Tough guys can't force 1,000s and 1,000s of men to stop having kids. Steppe men weren't genetically physically superior; more attractive, bigger, more agressive, than Neo/Meso European men. If they were, it was very slight. If so we should expect Udmurts or Lithuanians to be far better athletes than Sardinians or Basque. I doubt there's a noticeable difference. Steppe men weren't gods who could convince droves of Neo/Meso women to chose a Steppe man instead of one of their own. There were ugly Steppe men, ugly Neo/Meso men, etc. They couldn't force them to do it either.

The macho Steppe man theory isn't very likely. Culture alone couldn't make them so superior to the native men that they stole all their women. In the case of Corded Ware, which conquered almost half of Europe, it's obvious they migrated with whole populations not just men. They became the dominate population in NorthEastern Europe. Looking at their DNA, it looks like they gradually admixed with local people who by that time were a minority. Looking at X-chromsomes it looks like they mostly brought foreign women into their communities. By 1500-2300 BC the admixing stopped and you had people similar to modern NorthEastern Europeans. Maybe the smaller numbers of natives were gradually absorbed into Indo European speaking Corded Ware.


1) Steppe men were significantly taller than Neolithic and Mesolithic people.
2) In the case of Corded Ware, roving war parties of R1b men may have cleared the future Corded Ware territory of farmers, absorbing the hot farmer girls. They were later pushed West by R1a populations who brought their women with them.

Fire Haired14
01-12-16, 00:53
1) Steppe men were significantly taller than Neolithic and Mesolithic people.

"Significant", I doubt it was very significant. Even if it was I think it's impossible for Steppe men to had been genetically significantly physically superior to Neo/Meso Men. I think this because the variation in physique among Europeans today is small. The variation among most of humanity is small.


2) In the case of Corded Ware, roving war parties of R1b men may have cleared the future Corded Ware territory of farmers, absorbing the hot farmer girls. They were later pushed West by R1a populations who brought their women with them.

Corded Ware arrived in NorthEastern Europe before any R1b did. "hot farmer girls", this is fantasy talk. Farmer girls shouldn't have been any hotter than Steppe girls. You guys are trying to make history a Hollywood movie. I don't know about you but for other Northern Europeans I've seen post here there's a dose of racial-centrism. That's why I started this thread. They're ok with the idea Steppe people were superior because they have more Steppe than anyone. You guys are also half or more from the Meso/Neo Europeans who you apparently think were weaklings but also had super hot women who Steppe men stole.

I think it's very possible Steppe groups or heavily admixed Steppe groups in Europe were aggressive raiding tribes like the Huns or Slavs were in early European history. However, I don't think it is possible that they simply man handled their way to dominate Europe and native European women. Biologically speaking that sounds impossible. The difference between them and Native European men would have been tiny. That explanation is too simple.

Angela
01-12-16, 02:45
I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no point in posting data or papers, or critiquing theories. Almost everyone in this hobby, and in some countries even the academics, have a racialist "bent", a story in their heads about their own superiority, and they'll ignore anything that doesn't comport with it, or even distort the analysis, anything to maintain their fantasy.

If you think you can get people to use reason and logic, you're mistaken, Fire-Haired. They won't.

Alan
01-12-16, 14:47
I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no point in posting data or papers, or critiquing theories. Almost everyone in this hobby, and in some countries even the academics, have a racialist "bent", a story in their heads about their own superiority, and they'll ignore anything that doesn't comport with it, or even distort the analysis, anything to maintain their fantasy.

If you think you can get people to use reason and logic, you're mistaken, Fire-Haired. They won't. Recent studies are showing that plague killed off a big part of the Neolithic population of Europe and everything points to the Steppe being the source for these new plagues. There are archeological proves that Neolithic Central European communities actually hunted for the new arrived Corded Ware people. There are mass graves of Corded Ware people proving this. Someone posted the links to these archeological studies back than in the Eurogenes comment section. There are historical accounts of famous early Indo European groups and how they spred. For the early West Iranics the Near Eastern accounts speak of nomadic people in search of new herding/farming land far from being superior or dominant in any way to the existing cultures. In fact they went directly under opression and rule. Urartians and Mannaeans even regulary went on Scythian hunting and had them as slaves.

In ancient Greek accounts they speak of " backward uncivilized Mycaeneans who breed like rabbits." And some of these Indo European most likely didn't even came from the Steppes. But facts don't matter to some people.

Indo Europeans were basically a second wave of agricultural migrants in search for new farming/herding land far from a conquest.

davef
01-12-16, 15:29
I've come to the conclusion that there's almost no point in posting data or papers, or critiquing theories. Almost everyone in this hobby, and in some countries even the academics, have a racialist "bent", a story in their heads about their own superiority, and they'll ignore anything that doesn't comport with it, or even distort the analysis, anything to maintain their fantasy.

If you think you can get people to use reason and logic, you're mistaken, Fire-Haired. They won't.

Can I up vote this more than once?

We desperately need a comedic youtube series called "Steppe Warriors"

Tomenable
04-12-16, 11:24
In southern Europe, the Indo-European speakers were apparently not very steppe like by the time they reached the area, because although in the place where I was born perhaps 50% of the men are R1b, and it’s well over 60% where my father was born, with some yDna I thrown in on top of that, the "Yamnaya" percentage is about 25%, and in addition includes, no doubt, what was contributed by the Celtic migrations of the first millennium BC and the Lombards after the fall of the Empire.

On the other hand, Recent Admixture from the Levant and Africa undoubtedly lowered the % of IE ancestry in Italy.

This map shows proportions of recent (roughly from the last ~2000 years?) Non-European admixtures in Europe:

http://i.imgur.com/i7bsjCF.png

http://i.imgur.com/i7bsjCF.png

Source:

"The Role of Recent Admixture in Forming the Contemporary West Eurasian Genomic Landscape", 2015:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215009495

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4714572/

^ During Roman times, there was indeed a lot of immigration from Non-European provinces of the Empire to Italy:

https://www.toqonline.com/archives/v5n4/54-Frank.pdf

There were also a lot of foreign slaves imported to Roman Italy - mostly from the Middle East and from North Africa.

Something more about immigration to Italy in Roman times:

http://s4.postimg.org/jk7dfs73x/Rome_4.png

http://s23.postimg.org/ptmg37797/Rome_5.png

http://s10.postimg.org/yn6oleyqx/Rome_6.png

The (Late) Roman Empire had problems with low fertility, similar to these in modern Europe.

Cassius Dio (155 - 235 AD) wrote this about "the Romans of the original stock":

"(...) Yet not even so, by threatening or urging or postponing or entreating, have I accomplished anything. You see for yourselves how much larger a mass you constitute than the married men, when you ought by this time to have furnished us with as many more children, or rather with several times your number. How otherwise shall families continue? How can the commonwealth be preserved if we neither marry nor produce children? Surely you are not expecting some to spring up from the earth to succeed to your goods and to public affairs, as myths describe. It is neither pleasing to Heaven nor creditable that our race should cease and the name of Romans meet extinguishment in us, and the city be given up to foreigners, - Greeks or even barbarians. We liberate slaves chiefly for the purpose of making out of them as many citizens as possible; we give our allies a share in the government that our numbers may increase: yet you, Romans of the original stock, including Quintii, Valerii, Iulli, are eager that your families and names at once shall perish with you. (...)"

Angela
04-12-16, 18:03
Yada, yada, yada. It seems that some people get upset when they're ignored. :) Those are the breaks, though. Once someone tears off his mask, other people can't un-see the ugliness they've seen. Got it? I would suggest that in the future people with certain attitudes exert more self-control, and exhibit less impulsiveness.

I always find it interesting that depending on the situation certain people drastically change their opinions of certain studies. When these papers came out, the prior poster was very vocal about the fact that their conclusions were "strange", especially, of course, with regard to recent "Caucasus" admixture in Poles.

The papers are incorrect about Poles, but are correct about Italians, apparently. :)

For the record, people really have to wrap their heads around the fact that everyone doesn't look at the world in the same way. Most particularly, everyone doesn't look at the world from the "nordicist" perspective so beloved on racist anthrofora. So, if the goal is to "get" or "provoke" or "degrade" someone by saying they have more "Near Eastern" ancestry than might be the average in, say, let's say, Poland, I'm afraid that tool is "blunted" in my case. I couldn't care less, rather to the contrary, in fact. :)

I have absolutely no problem with the fact that during the Roman Empire some slaves may have survived, perhaps been manumitted, and their genes might have formed part of the nascent "Italian" gene pool. I mean, if we have African slaves in York, and a whole community in London, as recent papers have shown, I'm sure similar finds will be made in Italy, as well as of slaves or manumitted freedmen from other parts of the Roman world.

As far as the "Italia" of those times is concerned, anyone who has any knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire knows that the slaves taken by Rome included just as many, if not more slaves from Britain, and Gaul, and Hispania, and Germania, and Dacia, and Pannonia as there were more educated and valuable slaves from Greece, or Anatolia, or Syria, or Palestine, or Egypt or perhaps the occasional oddity from the Sudan. My God, some of you people need to do some reading of history. Caesar's slaves from Gaul alone, glutted the market and depressed the value for years. Just as an aside I don't take kindly to people misrepresenting history no matter the topic.

So, my point has always been that this cannot explain the south/north cline in Italy. After all, I've yet to see anything in the history of the period indicating that all the slaves from the Near East were sent to the south and all the slaves from northern and eastern and western Europe were sent to the north. Should any such evidence ever come to light, I would of course amend my view.

If this had been thought through it would also be clear that this cannot really affect the overall percentages of northern versus southeastern ancestry in Italy because, to repeat once again, just as many if not more slaves came from "Europe" rather than the Near East. So it's a wash as far as the impact of slavery is concerned. I hope this mathematics isn't too difficult for some of our posters.

It also doesn't explain the Alder date for some of this admixture (even supposing that Alder dates are precise, which most scholars indeed do not believe).

Now, I don't want to drag this thread even more off topic than the poster Tomenable already has, as this is not a thread about Italian genetics, after all, but a recent Italian paper, which does an exhaustive analysis of Italian genetics based on modern autosomes addresses the Hellenthal and Busby papers and the dates they provided, suggesting that if such an additional admixture took place in the post-Roman period, which is, after all, what the dates suggest, it may be tied to the Byzantine period and perhaps unrecorded settlements related to that period, settlements which may indeed, in terms of quantity and duration, have had a bit of a south/north cline. It may also partly explain why the Greeks and the people of the southern Balkans have equally high if not sometimes higher "Caucasus" or Asia Minor percentages.

Given the mind set of this prior poster let me be clear that this is not some dread news to me. Honestly, people, some of you need to open your eyes and understand that the whole world doesn't share your point of view. This also applies to the irrelevant comments about how the "old" Roman families died out. Am I supposed to care? Why? Is it because they were more "steppe"? Please! By those standards, the Malatesta barons of my area were more "Germanic" so presumably more "steppe" than the common people. It doesn't matter a damn to me. They were blood suckers one and all and it's my earnest wish that the people in my trees who bore their name were retainers who adopted the name. I would find it abhorrent to think that their "blood" runs in my veins.

Now, I'll go back to ignoring certain posters.

Any further posts on this off-topic subject will be removed. I may, however, start a thread on this recent Italian paper if I have enough time.

Tomenable
05-12-16, 14:11
I always find it interesting that depending on the situation certain people drastically change their opinions of certain studies. When these papers came out, the prior poster was very vocal about the fact that their conclusions were "strange", especially, of course, with regard to recent "Caucasus" admixture in Poles.

I was surprised because I'm not aware of any migrations from Caucasus to Poland in the last 1000 years. What I did not think about immediately (why would I?) was that "Caucasus" admixture is not necessarily from Caucasus itself.

Recently I have changed my opinion because I know more than I used to know when it was published.

Now I think that this Caucasus (or Caucasus-like) admixture in Poles is most likely due to Slavic expansions ca. 1500 years ago. Because I think that Proto-Slavs could be modeled as 75% Lithuanian + 25% Circassian, precisely because they carried a lot of that elusive "Caucasus" admixture. I have come to this conclusion based on some GEDmatch analyses.

Surprisingly when I use software called Admix 4 (with which I can do Oracles in various GEDmatch calculators for fictional people with fictional admixture proportions), my hypothetical Proto-Slav (who could be 75% Lithuanian + 25% Circassian) with "Caucasus" admixture is getting "Mixed East Slav" as 1st result in Single Population Sharing in MDLP K23b.

Also "Kuban Cossacks" are similar to my hypothetical Proto-Slavs. Likely because they mixed with Caucasians.

Interestingly, the authors of that Busby et al. paper modeled Slavic expansion as Lithuanian + Ukrainian admixtures. And people were surprised why did they choose Lithuanians (?!) as a proxy for Slavic migration into the Balkans? It makes sense to me after I realized that Proto-Slavs had to be very Lithuanian-like, but with extra Caucasus-like admixture.

What does it tell us about the location of Proto-Slavic homeland? I don't know.

People with such admixture proportions could live anywhere in Eastern Europe.

Angela
05-12-16, 16:49
Do I have to write things in bold and capitalize them? Perhaps we have an unusual number of dyslexic people here?

READ THE TOPIC TITLE OF THIS THREAD. IT IS NORTHERN CENTRISM_JUST STOP IT!!! GET BACK ON TOPIC!

This is not a thread for another endless discussion of the steppe migrations (how many current threads do we have, anyway, twenty, more?) and how much "steppe" ancestry is in various ethnicities, and most importantly, of course, how more of it makes you superior to other Europeans.

Have some of you no sense of irony? You put up post after post like that in a thread addressed to the problem in these discussions of "northern-centrism"?

@Tomenable, You are two points short of an automatic ban. Did you think you could avoid getting them by keeping your disgusting comments off the main board? You harass me again by sending me another insulting, racist personal comment and you'll get them. Are we clear?

Just for your information, as a general proposition I have no problem with any non-Italian European ancestry in me. I have no problem with any of my ancestry period. (I except any possible ancestry from our local barons, who never did anything except wring every possible penny from us.) You're the one who disdains a big chunk of his ancestry. Ever heard of projection? I have a very healthy sense of self-respect, thank you very much, so whatever mix created me, from whatever part of the world, it's obviously the optimal one. Now, don't bother me again with nonsense of that type. This isn't the apricity or stormfront.

Tomenable
05-12-16, 20:30
IT IS NORTHERN CENTRISM_JUST STOP IT!!! GET BACK ON TOPIC!

How am I supposed to get back on topic when the topic itself is very vague?

What are we actually supposed to discuss here ??? Polar Bears? Eskimos?


Are we clear?

Yes. I'm sorry for that Off-Topic.

http://i.imgur.com/oeEoOzH.gif

Huitzilopochtli
05-12-16, 20:41
Angela, if this isn't the place, could you move our discussion to an appropriate thread?

Angela
05-12-16, 21:08
Angela, if this isn't the place, could you move our discussion to an appropriate thread?

Yes, of course, no problem. Do you have a preference as to which steppe migration related thread it is? There are a lot of options.

Tomenable
05-12-16, 22:13
I'm tired of the North European-centrism on several genetic-forums including this one. Posters aren't blatantly obvious about their sentiments, but there's a trend I've noticed. It seems posters attempt to dilute their Neolithic West Asian, Pre-IE European, etc. blood as much as possible, increase Mesolithic European and "Steppe" ancestry as much as possible, etc. And some posters even argue their ethnic group is paler pigmented than the stero-type. I'm fed up with it.

Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from. If you post on Genetic forum your goal should be figuring out the facts, not proving what you want to be true. Your ancestry doesn't define who you are at all. I think it's unhealthy to care a lot about origins if you think it defines yourself and others. It's okay to be proud of your origins, but at the same time not let it define you and be open to whatever the evidence shows.

I think the motivation for the North European-centrism on genetic-forums is what I just described. People want to be more "Hunter Gatherer" and "Steppe", because they like the ideas and characters we have surrounding those people, and they think it affects who they are.

I never (or only occasionally) see Northern Europeans trying to deny that they have some more southern or some "exotic" admixtures, if they really do. It is usually Latin Americans, Southern Europeans or people with some recent "exotic" admixtures who try to underline that a huge amount of their ancestry is "White". At the same time, they try to convince Northern Europeans that we are descended from "them". We are like "OK, cool". On this forum I could also read comments such as: "you people cannot farm because you have not enough of southern Farmer DNA". I was like: "OK, cool, I don't plan to farm anyway".


Facts are facts. Whoever people descend from is who they descend from.

Yes. Telling someone their ancestry is XYZ instead of ABC won't change who they are. You are who you are.

Tomenable
05-12-16, 22:34
But what I really like about DNA ancestry tests, is that they "tell it like it is" (like Donald Trump).

So for example someone can say: "you Poles are Mongol-admixed" and then I can give him all of my results which show virtually zero percent of East Asian admixture and in Gedrosia K3 I'm more Caucasoid than, for example, Scottish people.

Gedrosia K3 has only three components (West Eurasian, East Eurasian and Sub-Saharan African):

1) Here is my result (Polish):

Population
E_Eurasian 2.83
SSA -
W_Eurasian 97.17

2) Here an ethnic Swedish guy:

Population
E_Eurasian 5.00
SSA 0.20
W_Eurasian 94.80

3) Here a North Dutch guy:

Population
E_Eurasian 2.21
SSA 0.20
W_Eurasian 97.59

4) Here a Scottish guy:

Population
E_Eurasian 3.98
SSA -
W_Eurasian 96.02

5) Here a Sicilian guy:

Population
E_Eurasian 2.01
SSA 3.95
W_Eurasian 94.04

Angela
05-12-16, 22:43
@Huitzilopochtli,

Would this thread suit?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32889-Neolithic-migration-was-family-based-Bronze-Age-invasion-was-male-dominated/page3?p=493367&highlight=steppe%20migrations#post493367

Huitzilopochtli
05-12-16, 23:27
@Huitzilopochtli,

Would this thread suit?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32889-Neolithic-migration-was-family-based-Bronze-Age-invasion-was-male-dominated/page3?p=493367&highlight=steppe%20migrations#post493367

That thread would be fine.