PDA

View Full Version : Violence in the Corded Ware Advance against GAC



Angela
07-05-19, 19:51
Well, we knew it had to happen. We don't know, of course, if any women were spared.

See:
Hannes Schroeder et al (Willerslev certainly doesn't go for international teams.)

"Unraveling ancestry, kinship, and violence in a Late Neolithic mass grave"https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116


"SignificanceWe sequenced the genomes of 15 skeletons from a 5,000-y-old mass grave in Poland associated with the Globular Amphora culture. All individuals had been brutally killed by blows to the head, but buried with great care. Genome-wide analyses demonstrate that this was a large extended family and that the people who buried them knew them well: mothers are buried with their children, and siblings next to each other. From a population genetic viewpoint, the individuals are clearly distinct from neighboring Corded Ware groups because of their lack of steppe-related ancestry. Although the reason for the massacre is unknown, it is possible that it was connected with the expansion of Corded Ware groups, which may have resulted in violent conflict.

AbstractThe third millennium BCE was a period of major cultural and demographic changes in Europe that signaled the beginning of the Bronze Age. People from the Pontic steppe expanded westward, leading to the formation of the Corded Ware complex and transforming the genetic landscape of Europe. At the time, the Globular Amphora culture (3300–2700 BCE) existed over large parts of Central and Eastern Europe, but little is known about their interaction with neighboring Corded Ware groups and steppe societies. Here we present a detailed study of a Late Neolithic mass grave from southern Poland belonging to the Globular Amphora culture and containing the remains of 15 men, women, and children, all killed by blows to the head. We sequenced their genomes to between 1.1- and 3.9-fold coverage and performed kinship analyses that demonstrate that the individuals belonged to a large extended family. The bodies had been carefully laid out according to kin relationships by someone who evidently knew the deceased. From a population genetic viewpoint, the people from Koszyce are clearly distinct from neighboring Corded Ware groups because of their lack of steppe-related ancestry. Although the reason for the massacre is unknown, it is possible that it was connected with the expansion of Corded Ware groups, which may have resulted in competition for resources and violent conflict. Together with the archaeological evidence, these analyses provide an unprecedented level of insight into the kinship structure and social behavior of a Late Neolithic community."

Angela
07-05-19, 20:15
"The results indicate that the Globular Amphora/Złota group individuals harbor ca. 30% western hunter-gatherer and 70% Neolithic farmer ancestry, but lack steppe ancestry. To formally test different admixture models and estimate mixture proportions, we then used qpAdm (7 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-7)) and find that the Polish Globular Amphora/Złota group individuals can be modeled as a mix of western European hunter-gatherer (17%) and Anatolian Neolithic farmer (83%) ancestry (SI Appendix, Table S2 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental)), mirroring the results of previous studies (4 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-4), 5 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-5))."

" At Koszyce, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis revealed the presence of six different maternal lineages, whereas analysis of the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome showed that all males carried the same Y chromosome haplotype: I2a-L801 (Table 1 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#T1)). We then estimated genomic runs of homozygosity (ROH) and found that the Koszyce individuals were not particularly inbred. Although a slightly larger section of the Koszyce genomes is contained within ROH compared with typical modern European populations (SI Appendix, Fig. S7 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental)), this signal is mainly driven by an increased fraction of short ROH (<2 Mb), which is indicative of ancestral restrictions in population size rather than recent inbreeding. On the basis of genome-wide patterns of allelic identity-by-state (IBS), we computed kinship coefficients between all pairs of individuals and applied established cutoff values for possible kinship categories (Materials and Methods (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#sec-7)). We find that the Koszyce burial represents a large extended family connected via several first- and second-degree relationships (Fig. 3 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#F3) and SI Appendix, Fig. S9 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental))."

"Data on phenotypic traits based on imputed genotypes (Dataset S5 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental)) revealed that the individuals had mostly brown eyes, dark or dark-blonde hair, and intermediate to dark skin."

"Interestingly, the older males/fathers are mostly missing from the grave, suggesting that it might have been them who buried their kin. The only father present in the grave is individual 10, whose partner and son are placed together opposite him in the grave. In addition, there is a young boy (individual 7), aged 2–2.5 y, whose parents are not in the grave, but he is placed next to other individuals to whom he is closely related through various second-degree relationships. Finally, there is individual 3, an adult female, who does not seem to be genetically related to anyone in the group. However, her position in the grave close to individual 4, a young man, suggests that she may have been as close to him in life as she was in death. These biological data and burial arrangements show that the social relationships held to be most significant in these societies were identical with genetic and reproductive relationships. However, they also demonstrate that nuclear families were nested in larger, extended family groups, either permanently or for parts of the year."

Probably attacked when the men were hunting or tending the animals. The Americans did the same to Indian villages.

"Social organization is most often aligned with settlement and subsistence patterns, and several studies (13 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-13)⇓ (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-14)–15 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-15)) suggest that Globular Amphora communities and other related groups specialized in animal husbandry, often with a main focus on cattle, and that they moved around the landscape to seek new pastures for their animals at different times of the year (see SI Appendix, section 1 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental) for a more detailed discussion). This form of mobility is likely to have included fission-fusion dynamics in which a larger social unit, similar to the extended family, would split up into smaller groups, perhaps nuclear families, for certain purposes and parts of the year (16 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-16)). This dynamic could explain the relatively high variation we observe in the 87Sr/86Sr isotope signatures at Koszyce. Similar to strongly patrilineal modes of social organization, such pastoral economic strategies have often been linked to Corded Ware groups that introduced steppe genetic ancestry into Europe (7 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-7), 17 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-17)), and the two (social organization and economic strategy) are probably linked: Pastoral ways of life involve a high level of mobility within vaguely defined territories and with the groups’ main economic capital, their animal herds, exposed across the landscape, and thus harbor a significant potential for conflict with neighboring groups. One ethnographically known cultural response to this situation is to adopt an aggressive strategy toward competing groups in which male dominance, including patrilineal kin alliance, and warrior-like values prevail (18 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-18)). Although we cannot be certain that the people at Koszyce shared these values, we show that they were organized around patrilineal descent groups, demonstrating that this form of social organization was already present in communities before the expansion of the Corded Ware complex in Central and Eastern Europe (13 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-13), 14 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-14))"

Well, they were already mostly herders, and mobile, and patrilineal. So much for the newcomers brought a better adapted life style for survival.

"Although it is impossible to identify the culprits of the massacre that took place at Koszyce around 2880–2776 BCE, it is interesting to note that it occurred right around the time when the Corded Ware complex started to spread rapidly across large parts of Central Europe, and it seems plausible that the group from Koszyce fell victim to some violent intergroup conflict related to the territorial expansion of Corded Ware groups or another competing group in the area. If the general interaction between Globular Amphora people and neighboring, steppe-related cultures (including early Corded Ware) was primarily hostile, it would explain why Globular Amphora individuals carry no steppe ancestry and, in part, why Europe experienced such a dramatic reduction in Neolithic genomic ancestry at this time (7 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-7), 17 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-17))."

Of course, such violence occurred between Neolithic groups as well in times of scarcity. This is how human beings behave.

bicicleur
07-05-19, 21:15
so, the Globular Amphora had the same lifestyle as the later Corded Ware people in similar environments
it seems to be an adaptation of Yamna lifestyle to a forested environment
the difference is that Corded ware had autosomal DNA similar to Yamna, and Globular Amphora didn't

the Y-DNA I2a-L801 didn't become extinct
as Maciamo pointed out, I2a-L801 is a Germanic branch which formed out of a merger of several different lines in the Nordic Bronze Age

hrvclv
07-05-19, 21:45
Gimbutas thought that the GAC was a mixed culture with a superstrate of Steppe people (like Vucedol or Baden). Genetics proves her wrong in that, but if GAC people and CW had very similar subsistence strategies, grazing cattle around, some distance from "home", it is easy to understand she could have been misled by what evidence she had.

The phenotypes are interesting. For some time, I had entertained the idea that the blond hair and fair skin in northern Europe might be GAC-derived. It doesn't seem to be the case.

Incidentally: Killing a two-year-old child... that's hardly my definition of warrior-values!

Joey37
07-05-19, 22:12
Grampa, no! And the R1a brutal conqueror stigma lives on.

halfalp
07-05-19, 22:28
Maybe the father escaped and survived. Then he came back honored its pairs, then avenged them with fierce violence.

halfalp
07-05-19, 22:30
Gimbutas thought that the GAC was a mixed culture with a superstrate of Steppe people (like Vucedol or Baden). Genetics proves her wrong in that, but if GAC people and CW had very similar subsistence strategies, grazing cattle around, some distance from "home", it is easy to understand she could have been misled by what evidence she had.

The phenotypes are interesting. For some time, I had entertained the idea that the blond hair and fair skin in northern Europe might be GAC-derived. It doesn't seem to be the case.

Incidentally: Killing a two-year-old child... that's hardly my definition of warrior-values!

Previous GAC individuals from studies showd average Blonde Hairs.

berun
07-05-19, 22:30
Gimbutas thought that the GAC was a mixed culture with a superstrate of Steppe people (like Vucedol or Baden). Genetics proves her wrong in that, but if GAC people and CW had very similar subsistence strategies, grazing cattle around, some distance from "home", it is easy to understand she could have been misled by what evidence she had.
The phenotypes are interesting. For some time, I had entertained the idea that the blond hair and fair skin in northern Europe might be GAC-derived. It doesn't seem to be the case.
Incidentally: Killing a two-year-old child... that's hardly my definition of warrior-values!

and there was a child executed without his mother, the fate of the mother could be even worse.

hrvclv
07-05-19, 22:32
Grampa, no! And the R1a brutal conqueror stigma lives on.

Depends... For all we know, the "culprits" could just as well have been a rival GAC clan.

halfalp
07-05-19, 22:51
Previous GAC individuals from studies showd average Blonde Hairs.

Actually i dont know why i thought it was in previous studies. It was on Genetiker calls he had almost 100% of GAC people with Blonde Hairs. Well Never mind.

Angela
07-05-19, 22:56
The authors seem to see it as a symptom of new arrivals. The archaeological data show there were nearby Corded Ware communities. When newcomers are on your doorstep it would seem strategically stupid to fight among yourselves. However, nobody ever said groups of people are always intelligent.

As to the "lifestyles" or subsistence strategies, there have been more than a few papers proposing that initially the lifestyle changes originated among eastern European "farmers" and then moved onto the steppe, including the "carts" which they put to good use. We've discussed them before.

Baden was also a "farmer" culture, btw.

As to phenotypes, I looked at their charts, the hair was brown, not black, eyes brown. Either this family group just happened to be a bit darker, or genetiker was wrong. I never understood whether he used an actual forensic calculator or just used his own idiosyncratic "method". It would be nice if the authors of this paper actually released the snps.

halfalp
07-05-19, 23:14
The authors seem to see it as a symptom of new arrivals. The archaeological data show there were nearby Corded Ware communities. When newcomers are on your doorstep it would seem strategically stupid to fight among yourselves. However, nobody ever said groups of people are always intelligent.

As to the "lifestyles" or subsistence strategies, there have been more than a few papers proposing that initially the lifestyle changes originated among eastern European "farmers" and then moved onto the steppe, including the "carts" which they put to good use. We've discussed them before.

Baden was also a "farmer" culture, btw.

As to phenotypes, I looked at their charts, the hair was brown, not black, eyes brown. Either this family group just happened to be a bit darker, or genetiker was wrong. I never understood whether he used an actual forensic calculator or just used his own idiosyncratic "method". It would be nice if the authors of this paper actually released the snps.

The calls for Blonde Hairs in GAC from Genetiker came with the old The genomic history of Southeastern Europe Mathiesen paper.

Ailchu
07-05-19, 23:41
Grampa, no! And the R1a brutal conqueror stigma lives on.

we know of similar scenarios in neolithic europe so chances aren't that low that thisvwas done by someone else and not corded ware people.

Angela
07-05-19, 23:54
Yes indeed, all the Neolithic male y was almost wiped out (but not the mtDan) by some special disease that only afflicted Neolithic men. Please!

Goodness, what happened to all the Eurogenes type bragging about all the blonde, Conan like barbarians from the steppes who killed all the men and took all the women? Is everyone trying to clean up their act?

@half alp,
Nobody's results about anything should be taken at face value. The snps used and the methodology used should be published, i.e. transparent, so that others can see if the results can be duplicated.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

Ailchu
08-05-19, 00:05
Yes indeed, all the Neolithic male y was almost wiped out by some special disease that only afflicted Neolithic men. Please!

i don't know what wiped out neolithic y. violence certainly happened. that this particular case has something to do with corded ware is probable looking at the time. but we can't say for sure here. killing everyone and taking the women ist not just a "steppe" thing.

08-05-19, 02:33
@half alp,
Nobody's results about anything should be taken at face value. The snps used and the methodology used should be published, i.e. transparent, so that others can see if the results can be duplicated.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

This is my issue. I'm trying to understand what the autosomal DNA results are telling me, but it's difficult when every site has a different algorithm and gives decidedly different results. Trueancestry.com says I'm most closely related to kit #---, GEDmatch says I've got no match at all! Rather than discussing, "oh look, I'm a Roman," or "golly, I'm a blond haired descendant of the Steppe," we ought to be figuring out how to get consistent, replicable results from the resources we have. If we can't, it ain't science.

Angela
08-05-19, 04:27
i don't know what wiped out neolithic y. violence certainly happened. that this particular case has something to do with corded ware is probable looking at the time. but we can't say for sure here. killing everyone and taking the women ist not just a "steppe" thing.

Of course not, Ailchu. No need to be defensive. I never said or implied anything of the kind. In fact, I've pointed out on numerous threads what happened in Latin America and its similarity to what happened in Europe.

Angela
08-05-19, 04:54
This is my issue. I'm trying to understand what the autosomal DNA results are telling me, but it's difficult when every site has a different algorithm and gives decidedly different results. Trueancestry.com says I'm most closely related to kit #---, GEDmatch says I've got no match at all! Rather than discussing, "oh look, I'm a Roman," or "golly, I'm a blond haired descendant of the Steppe," we ought to be figuring out how to get consistent, replicable results from the resources we have. If we can't, it ain't science.

I don't think we should be putting gedmatch results or results from consumer genomics companies on the same level as the kind of analysis that was done here.

Every paper I've seen analyzes the late neolithic farmers, who were the European "natives" prior to the arrival of steppe admixed people like Corded Ware people, as majority Anatolian farmer or EEF, depending on whether they use a sample from Anatolia or one from Europe when they took on a little WHG pretty soon after arrival, and a minority component related to WHG people like Loschbour.

There's no confusion or controversy about it. It's about as settled science as anything can be.

If another group of scientists used the published ADMIXTURE program they would get the same percentages if they were using the same reference samples. In fact, all of these Late Neolithic farmers all over Europe are somewhere between. say, 15-30% WHG.

ADMIXTURE isn't the only tool, however. As the authors state, "we then used qpAdm (7 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-7)) and find that the Polish Globular Amphora/Złota group individuals can be modeled as a mix of western European hunter-gatherer (17%) and Anatolian Neolithic farmer (83%) ancestry (SI Appendix, Table S2 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental)), mirroring the results of previous studies ."

If they release the raw data of these samples, someone using the same tool should get the same result.

There's fst analysis too, and PCAs, and new statistical tools are being created.

What I was referring to is the fact that genetiker never, to my knowledge, published the name of the forensic prediction tool for physical traits which he used, or if he didn't use one, he never published his actual method. I don't trust any phenotype results where that hasn't been done, just on general principles.

You can't do that. The analysis has to be able to be reproduced to see if it's accurate. Now, it may be that different GAC groups had different phenotype traits. It may be genetiker did use a recognized, tested program. He just should have published it.

Now as to the amateur analysis you see floating around on the internet, that's another story. These tools are difficult to use, and easily manipulated, and have been. Now, in terms of this paper, for example, presumably the sample data will be released. In the extensive methodology section, I hope they show precisely what they did. For example, I would want to know exactly what populations they input.

I hope I made my original comment somewhat clearer.

As to something like mytrueancestry, yes, it was fun. However, I don't take that 3.4 something similarity to "Central Romans" completely seriously. First of all it's apparently based on a calculator made by Eurogenes, who, when all is said and done is an amateur working out of a basement somewhere who won't release his real name and where he works and who is paying him. The similarity to modern populations which that K15 of his provides is terrible for me, a 5 and a 6 "fit", although they are, to be fair, my two ancestral populations. MDLP is better. I get an almost 4 and an almost 5. Mytrueancestry is even worse: a 6 and a 7.

So, all the amateurs are circling around the right values, but not very close. There are so many reasons for that. It could write a chapter on it.

More importantly, yes, it was very interesting to see that using standard Admixture Calculators, even if they are Eurogenes', I'm pretty close to such an ancient sample in terms of similar ancestry. Is it really a ROMAN sample, and central Roman at that? I don't know. The only way to absolutely know that for sure would be if we had ancient samples from ancient Rome from the area of modern day central Italy from the same time period for comparison.

What they're really saying is that people very similar to modern people from north/central Italy were living in Europe all those hundreds and hundreds of years ago in areas where there were Roman settlements.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think that's the reality.

Angela
08-05-19, 05:59
Forgot to post these:

https://i.imgur.com/pXiGHXw.png

https://i.imgur.com/XAk8jRo.jpg

hrvclv
08-05-19, 09:13
I don't think we should be putting gedmatch results or results from consumer genomics companies on the same level as the kind of analysis that was done here.

Every paper I've seen analyzes the late neolithic farmers, who were the European "natives" prior to the arrival of steppe admixed people like Corded Ware people, as majority Anatolian farmer or EEF, depending on whether they use a sample from Anatolia or one from Europe when they took on a little WHG pretty soon after arrival, and a minority component related to WHG people like Loschbour.

There's no confusion or controversy about it. It's about as settled science as anything can be.

If another group of scientists used the published ADMIXTURE program they would get the same percentages if they were using the same reference samples. In fact, all of these Late Neolithic farmers all over Europe are somewhere between. say, 15-30% WHG.

ADMIXTURE isn't the only tool, however. As the authors state, "we then used qpAdm (7 (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/04/30/1820210116#ref-7)) and find that the Polish Globular Amphora/Złota group individuals can be modeled as a mix of western European hunter-gatherer (17%) and Anatolian Neolithic farmer (83%) ancestry (SI Appendix, Table S2 (https://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1820210116/-/DCSupplemental)), mirroring the results of previous studies ."

If they release the raw data of these samples, someone using the same tool should get the same result.

There's fst analysis too, and PCAs, and new statistical tools are being created.

What I was referring to is the fact that genetiker never, to my knowledge, published the name of the forensic prediction tool for physical traits which he used, or if he didn't use one, he never published his actual method. I don't trust any phenotype results where that hasn't been done, just on general principles.

You can't do that. The analysis has to be able to be reproduced to see if it's accurate. Now, it may be that different GAC groups had different phenotype traits. It may be genetiker did use a recognized, tested program. He just should have published it.

Now as to the amateur analysis you see floating around on the internet, that's another story. These tools are difficult to use, and easily manipulated, and have been. Now, in terms of this paper, for example, presumably the sample data will be released. In the extensive methodology section, I hope they show precisely what they did. For example, I would want to know exactly what populations they input.

I hope I made my original comment somewhat clearer.

As to something like mytrueancestry, yes, it was fun. However, I don't take that 3.4 something similarity to "Central Romans" completely seriously. First of all it's apparently based on a calculator made by Eurogenes, who, when all is said and done is an amateur working out of a basement somewhere who won't release his real name and where he works and who is paying him. The similarity to modern populations which that K15 of his provides is terrible for me, a 5 and a 6 "fit", although they are, to be fair, my two ancestral populations. MDLP is better. I get an almost 4 and an almost 5. Mytrueancestry is even worse: a 6 and a 7.

So, all the amateurs are circling around the right values, but not very close. There are so many reasons for that. It could write a chapter on it.

More importantly, yes, it was very interesting to see that using standard Admixture Calculators, even if they are Eurogenes', I'm pretty close to such an ancient sample in terms of similar ancestry. Is it really a ROMAN sample, and central Roman at that? I don't know. The only way to absolutely know that for sure would be if we had ancient samples from ancient Rome from the area of modern day central Italy from the same time period for comparison.

What they're really saying is that people very similar to modern people from north/central Italy were living in Europe all those hundreds and hundreds of years ago in areas where there were Roman settlements.

It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think that's the reality.

I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

halfalp
08-05-19, 11:20
I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

I'm not sure it is the good methodology. Reich and Jena already have Hundred of pluridisciplinary Researchers that aligned on a same idea. But how does it tell us if they are right?

If a group of people start to aligned themselves in a same direction, at some point, the idea they promote gonna be Formalized and become standard for everyone. Once again What if they are wrong?

Btw, most of Physics and Mathematics theories are sometimes challenged by Amateurish 12 years old kids, i'm not sure why we should be that focus on " official " scientifical teams. As the exemple of Genetiker, do we know him? what if he is a Master in Genetic or Genomic? What if he have the abilities to do what all big laboratories can, but being independant? I'm not sure with all the values bring into professionnal teams here, they are not different than amateurs in terms of potential Bias, but worst, they have financers...

markod
08-05-19, 16:56
Genetiker lists all the SNP calls. Same methodology as HIrisPlex for pigmentation. His haplogroup calls are generally better and more transparent than those in most papers.

His autosomal work is really bad though.

08-05-19, 23:07
I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

Thank you, this was exactly my point.

Angela
09-05-19, 00:31
I agree on ALMOST everything you wrote, and certainly amateur calculators have to be used with a degree of circumspection. The Gedmatch calculators, for example, make more sense if you take a really close look at the spreadsheets. But still, different calculator, very different results - some of them hard to reconcile.

What I find much more troublesome is that the genetic LABS themselves don't seem to agree on much. 23andme says I am 49% Central Europe, when FTDNA makes me 69% British Isles (in Auvergne?). They don't even agree with... themselves sometimes! They change their chips, update your results, and what you get is light-years away from the previous version. Is that science? Science to me means: same causes, same consequences, mechanically, and indefinitely. OK, it's a science which is currently "under construction". But still.

Concerning very deep ancestry, to be fair we must also concede that at some point it must be hard to distinguish between, for example, WHG proper, the Villabruna-like WHG genes that back-migrated to Anatolia before the farmers started moving, the WHG gene substrate in EHG, the CHG inherited by westerners from Kura-Araxes migrations via Anatolia, the CHG inherited via the steppe... It's all the same basic "bricks" that reappear in various places in our genetic buildup.

Why don't those guys sit around a table, discuss things, and homogenize their procedures? They might lose in creativity, but also gain in credibility. And we people might begin to look at our results as reasonably reliable.

Personal genomics are separate from what the academic labs are doing with ancient dna, where there is general agreement on the major issues, I think.

You're right that the results are very different by company when we're talking about personal genomics. The actual raw data is, of course, the same: it's your genome. The difference is the algorithms and how they group the reference samples, and indeed which reference samples they use, and then how they interpret the results. There's also a difference in what precisely they are marketing.

They would each say, doubtless, that their method is better, so why should they change it?

In their defense, I think it's an almost impossible task.

There are too many layers, and most importantly political boundaries, often only a few hundred or even a thousand years old do not always equate to genetic boundaries. Take my own area as an example, what might be called the hinterlands of the ancient town of Luni on the coast of the Mediterranean in Northwest Italy. It was settled by Neolithic/Cardial farmers, then various Indo-European admixed Bronze Age groups, then Iron Age Gauls, then "Romans" from further south, then some Langobard lords. Let's not forget the Greek traders too. Politically, the people were first part of a "Ligurian" group, then part of Rome, then ruled by Langobards, then split between various medieval kingdoms: some areas ruled by Genova, the capital of Liguria, some by Modena of Emilia, some by the Tuscans under the Medici, some by all three. So, what are the people of the Lunigiana? Are they Emilians, Liguri, Toscani, all three or none of the above? I have ancestry from both Emilia and the heart of the Lunigiana, and even some from La Spezia itself, which has a lot of similarities to Tuscans. On every test I come out as half way between the Lombards of Bergamo and the Tuscans, but not very close to either. So, who is to blame that my fits aren't very good and some are downright terrible?

In terms of Italy again, some of the personal genomics companies have a Southern Italian/Greek cluster. That means that northern Italians would get some of that but also quite a bit of French or German and a lot of northern Balkan. If a company looks at the spread of the data and sets up a separate Greek and and also a separate Italian cluster you're going to get some southern Italians with a lot of "Greek", and some Greeks, especially Greek Islanders and people of the Peloponnese, with a lot of "Italian". Is one better than the other? I don't honestly know. Looking back on my example, if a company created a "Northern Italian" cluster instead of a Balkan cluster, a lot of Balkanites would get a lot of "Italian".

Do you see what I mean?

Or let's look at the people of the "Low Countries" versus England. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Northern Europeans as a whole are more homogeneous than Southern Europeans. In Britain, for example, none of their specific WHG survived and almost none of the British Neolithic. So, the big bulk of their ancestry is Beaker, which is a combination of about 50% Late Neolithic (majority EEF/minority WHG) and 50% "steppe", with maybe 60% EHG and 40% Caucasus/Iran like ancestry. That's the same group that went into the Low Countries and France, but perhaps in France more of the EEF survived. There's a cline even in the Low Countries. Then England was invaded by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, a related people with lots of "steppe", but with more "eastern" ancestry perhaps and drifted enough so that they can perhaps be labeled "Germanic" vs "Celtic". In some areas that becomes 30-40% of the ancestry. Then the Danes/Vikings arrive, who were thought to be very different, but were also Germanics. Then the French arrive, some from areas very "Celtic" like, like Brittany, some with a bit of "Viking" ancestry like Normandy, some from northeast France, and so more "Germanic", but some also from Aquitaine and other southern areas, who are a bit different.

Can you see where there might not be much difference between someone from eastern England and Jutland, or Holland? Or someone from Brittany versus Cornwall? Or looking south, someone from Aquitaine and someone from far northern Spain?

France is particularly difficult because so little genetic testing has been done there. There's an old sample taken from students at the university in Lyon and a few from somewhere in southwestern France. So, how are the French going to test? Well, given that a lot of them have quite a bit of "Beaker"ancestry and the British have as well, they're going to get a fair percentage of "English" or British. The ones in the southwest as going to have a lot of "Spanish" perhaps, and the northern Spanish might get a lot of French.

Those country designations are just names, arbitrary names drawn on a map. Yes, they are barriers to gene flow to some degree, more so in places isolated by the Alps and Sea like Italy, and therefore create some drift, and they're certainly different culturally, but genes are no respecters of lines on a map.

It's my opinion that we're almost asking these companies to do the impossible. If you want to know the genealogy of your family, where they came from for hundreds and hundreds of years, then a family tree is the best bet. You get more understanding of your genetics by learning of the different migrations to your ancestral areas than by some of these tests.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

I've been at this for more than ten years and that's what I've concluded. As for which companies are "better", imo ancestry and 23andme are the most reliable. At least with 23andme they don't just rely on the few samples in academic papers, but include the genomes of their customers. I think perhaps Ancestry is also starting to do that? I think My Heritage is terrible, and so is Living DNA, but again, that's just my opinion.

hrvclv
09-05-19, 01:55
Personal genomics are separate from what the academic labs are doing with ancient dna, where there is general agreement on the major issues, I think.
You're right that the results are very different by company when we're talking about personal genomics. The actual raw data is, of course, the same: it's your genome. The difference is the algorithms and how they group the reference samples, and indeed which reference samples they use, and then how they interpret the results. There's also a difference in what precisely they are marketing.
They would each say, doubtless, that their method is better, so why should they change it?
In their defense, I think it's an almost impossible task.
There are too many layers, and most importantly political boundaries, often only a few hundred or even a thousand years old do not always equate to genetic boundaries. Take my own area as an example, what might be called the hinterlands of the ancient town of Luni on the coast of the Mediterranean in Northwest Italy. It was settled by Neolithic/Cardial farmers, then various Indo-European admixed Bronze Age groups, then Iron Age Gauls, then "Romans" from further south, then some Langobard lords. Let's not forget the Greek traders too. Politically, the people were first part of a "Ligurian" group, then part of Rome, then ruled by Langobards, then split between various medieval kingdoms: some areas ruled by Genova, the capital of Liguria, some by Modena of Emilia, some by the Tuscans under the Medici, some by all three. So, what are the people of the Lunigiana? Are they Emilians, Liguri, Toscani, all three or none of the above? I have ancestry from both Emilia and the heart of the Lunigiana, and even some from La Spezia itself, which has a lot of similarities to Tuscans. On every test I come out as half way between the Lombards of Bergamo and the Tuscans, but not very close to either. So, who is to blame that my fits aren't very good and some are downright terrible?
In terms of Italy again, some of the personal genomics companies have a Southern Italian/Greek cluster. That means that northern Italians would get some of that but also quite a bit of French or German and a lot of northern Balkan. If a company looks at the spread of the data and sets up a separate Greek and and also a separate Italian cluster you're going to get some southern Italians with a lot of "Greek", and some Greeks, especially Greek Islanders and people of the Peloponnese, with a lot of "Italian". Is one better than the other? I don't honestly know. Looking back on my example, if a company created a "Northern Italian" cluster instead of a Balkan cluster, a lot of Balkanites would get a lot of "Italian".
Do you see what I mean?
Or let's look at the people of the "Low Countries" versus England. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Northern Europeans as a whole are more homogeneous than Southern Europeans. In Britain, for example, none of their specific WHG survived and almost none of the British Neolithic. So, the big bulk of their ancestry is Beaker, which is a combination of about 50% Late Neolithic (majority EEF/minority WHG) and 50% "steppe", with maybe 60% EHG and 40% Caucasus/Iran like ancestry. That's the same group that went into the Low Countries and France, but perhaps in France more of the EEF survived. There's a cline even in the Low Countries. Then England was invaded by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, a related people with lots of "steppe", but with more "eastern" ancestry perhaps and drifted enough so that they can perhaps be labeled "Germanic" vs "Celtic". In some areas that becomes 30-40% of the ancestry. Then the Danes/Vikings arrive, who were thought to be very different, but were also Germanics. Then the French arrive, some from areas very "Celtic" like, like Brittany, some with a bit of "Viking" ancestry like Normandy, some from northeast France, and so more "Germanic", but some also from Aquitaine and other southern areas, who are a bit different.
Can you see where there might not be much difference between someone from eastern England and Jutland, or Holland? Or someone from Brittany versus Cornwall? Or looking south, someone from Aquitaine and someone from far northern Spain?
France is particularly difficult because so little genetic testing has been done there. There's an old sample taken from students at the university in Lyon and a few from somewhere in southwestern France. So, how are the French going to test? Well, given that a lot of them have quite a bit of "Beaker"ancestry and the British have as well, they're going to get a fair percentage of "English" or British. The ones in the southwest as going to have a lot of "Spanish" perhaps, and the northern Spanish might get a lot of French.
Those country designations are just names, arbitrary names drawn on a map. Yes, they are barriers to gene flow to some degree, more so in places isolated by the Alps and Sea like Italy, and therefore create some drift, and they're certainly different culturally, but genes are no respecters of lines on a map.
It's my opinion that we're almost asking these companies to do the impossible. If you want to know the genealogy of your family, where they came from for hundreds and hundreds of years, then a family tree is the best bet. You get more understanding of your genetics by learning of the different migrations to your ancestral areas than by some of these tests.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
I've been at this for more than ten years and that's what I've concluded. As for which companies are "better", imo ancestry and 23andme are the most reliable. At least with 23andme they don't just rely on the few samples in academic papers, but include the genomes of their customers. I think perhaps Ancestry is also starting to do that? I think My Heritage is terrible, and so is Living DNA, but again, that's just my opinion.

Quite thorough, and quite convincing. Maybe I expected too much of them. But look at my own case: I know I inherited genes from La Tène and Haslstatt Celts, and beyond that from Bell Beakers. I know southern Germany inherited a share of the same. I know Beakers invaded Britain. But I also inherited much from an Iberian-like farmer substrate. This should make it possible for a company to place me on a map more precisely than by saying I am 49% German-like, or 69% Irish-like. Maybe they shouldn't call it "ancestry", but specify it's a "ratio of shared ancestry" with given populations. It would be clearer. But of course, it might not sell so well.

To be fair, in spite of all the inconsistencies I mentioned upthread, I have somehow managed to work my way through that muddle to fairly clear conclusions in terms of my own ancestry. Maybe Halfalp is right somehow, and by combining the approximations of the various calculators, we can sketch out something satisfactory in the end. But I have been hard at it for months, cross-checking data and results, reading papers and comments, etc. I am not sure every customer of these genomic companies goes to such lengths to sort it all out. Some people can end up feeling perplexed, or sceptical, or unsettled.

I also agree that a family tree is a precious thing to have. Mine reaches back to the mid 1500s. But I'll never get beyond that, for lack of archives. Genetics has to take over at some point.

Angela
09-05-19, 02:55
Quite thorough, and quite convincing. Maybe I expected too much of them. But look at my own case: I know I inherited genes from La Tène and Haslstatt Celts, and beyond that from Bell Beakers. I know southern Germany inherited a share of the same. I know Beakers invaded Britain. But I also inherited much from an Iberian-like farmer substrate. This should make it possible for a company to place me on a map more precisely than by saying I am 49% German-like, or 69% Irish-like. Maybe they shouldn't call it "ancestry", but specify it's a "ratio of shared ancestry" with given populations. It would be clearer. But of course, it might not sell so well.
To be fair, in spite of all the inconsistencies I mentioned upthread, I have somehow managed to work my way through that muddle to fairly clear conclusions in terms of my own ancestry. Maybe Halfalp is right somehow, and by combining the approximations of the various calculators, we can sketch out something satisfactory in the end. But I have been hard at it for months, cross-checking data and results, reading papers and comments, etc. I am not sure every customer of these genomic companies goes to such lengths to sort it all out. Some people can end up feeling perplexed, or sceptical, or unsettled.
I also agree that a family tree is a precious thing to have. Mine reaches back to the mid 1500s. But I'll never get beyond that, for lack of archives. Genetics has to take over at some point.

Mine too, although in my father's case there are scattered references back a couple of hundred years. We're both very lucky.

What does that tell me? It tells me I'm Italian, more particularly an Italian with ancestry from right where I surmised, mostly the area between Parma, La Spezia and Toscana. I know just from the papers on ancient dna that means I'm heavily EEF, with some later steppe ancestry.

The ancient dna papers, and even just archaeology and history also tell me generally what groups went into the mix in my area(s). It would be interesting to know how much Gallic I have, how much "Roman", how much Etruscan, do I have some of that Langobard etc. Perhaps upcoming papers will fill in some of the gaps. It's all very interesting, but it's not essential to me, because it doesn't change the only identity that matters to me.

We're all different, and we all want different things from this.

davef
09-05-19, 06:58
it's sad that Neolithic farming communities experienced terrible tragedies such as this one

bicicleur
09-05-19, 12:18
it's sad that Neolithic farming communities experienced terrible tragedies such as this one

nature is cruel and so was human history, it is a universal truth

Ygorcs
09-05-19, 17:07
Yes indeed, all the Neolithic male y was almost wiped out (but not the mtDan) by some special disease that only afflicted Neolithic men. Please!

Goodness, what happened to all the Eurogenes type bragging about all the blonde, Conan like barbarians from the steppes who killed all the men and took all the women? Is everyone trying to clean up their act?

@half alp,
Nobody's results about anything should be taken at face value. The snps used and the methodology used should be published, i.e. transparent, so that others can see if the results can be duplicated.

I don't see how anyone can argue with that.

But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.

berun
09-05-19, 18:14
don't blame nature, today even many people have not problems with massacres, they just are well shrouded by high egos delivering unsane supremacism which delivers racism, so that even not having hunger or any blood revenge they act against other races like against rats or somelike.
http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-namibian-genocide/

Angela
09-05-19, 18:53
But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.

Yes, I agree with that. I just think it's clear that violence was a part of it. If nothing else, it's just the pattern everywhere in almost every place and era. Terrible but true, as Bicicleur said.

Kristiansen has something to say about it in general terms. You can start around eleven minutes in because first he discusses the plague pandemics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi1C1XMYU2Q


As to whether this is inter-GAC violence or CW versus GAC we may never know, but this is the time of the CW advance. They were around them. My profession taught me one thing, coincidences are almost always suspect. :) As for why women were killed, maybe they did take some of the younger ones with them, maybe not. I'm sure it depended on how many they needed at a particular time. CW wasn't a sophisticated culture with huge latifundia to be farmed or monumental structures to be built, for that matter. I think there would have been a limit on how many they could absorb. Enough, eventually, so that most northern Europeans are about half steppe, but not all. Plus, we know from that paper and note from the Reich Lab last year, and from the mtDna that they brought some women with them.

The cultural aspects are also extremely interesting. As I said, GAC culture was very Yamnaya like, so Yamnaya like that Gimbutas thought they were steppe people. Quite a few papers recently have proposed that many of these adaptations to a changing climate, like more mobility, more reliance on herding, etc. actually started in "Europe" and moved onto the steppe before moving back.

It's also interesting that although apparently patrilineal and patrilocal, there was great care taken in burying children near their mothers. I don't remember anything like that from the steppe burials all the way down to the Langobards, although maybe there were some.

Ed. Meanwhile, on the sites you would guess, the obsession, with tens and tens and maybe a hundred posts is their damn pigmentation. It never ends.

halfalp
09-05-19, 19:49
don't blame nature, today even many people have not problems with massacres, they just are well shrouded by high egos delivering unsane supremacism which delivers racism, so that even not having hunger or any blood revenge they act against other races like against rats or somelike.
http://en.lisapoyakama.org/the-namibian-genocide/

Are GAC and CWC supposed to be different Races? Why are you infusing Racial Prejudice into this topic?

markod
09-05-19, 20:27
But in this specific case the women were also killed, so it doesn't look like the typical thing like "they came, killed the males and took the women as wives or sexual slaves".

In any case, I believe there was a lot of warfare and post-war violence heavily skewed towards the males during the IEization of Europe (and elsewhere), but I also think that a significant part of that reduction in pre-IE Y-DNA lines came through "subtler" forms of violence like a strong social hierarchy, slavery or servitude, lower social and economic status, loss of property to the incoming males and so on (all of that is particularly harmful in a society with well accepted polygamy), which severely reduced their reproductive success along several generations.

Slaves probably aren't that valuable in the absence of a sophisticated economy. If you peruse the accounts of tribal warfare in the Vedas or the Old Testament, the things that stand out as being most desired by the herdsmen are livestock and shiny objects.

Carlos
10-05-19, 04:08
Almost always things are not as they seem. An assault by surprise would have shown generalized blows in many parts of the body and nevertheless the corpses presented all blows to the head. An assaulting group at that time with that degree of perfection I doubt would incline me more for a murderer or murderers of the same group than the victims. Perhaps a man or two who had been rejected by the group for X reasons and then knowing the customs of the group would have agreed with some deception to the group after absent men and would have committed mass murder in a perfectionist way and by surprise with blows to the head since a surprise assault I believe would have caused different types of widespread injuries in different parts of the body of the victims.

So my conclusion is that the murderer or murderers belonged to the same family or very close group that would have taken revenge for some offer received perhaps expulsion from the group and if they could not enjoy the advantages of the group they would leave the group without men who had expelled them from the group that should be the men who had gone out to hunt etc

Cescut
10-05-19, 12:30
Considering the execution like death and the respectful burial, couldn't it be a sacrifice?

Carlos
10-05-19, 13:53
A sacrifice I think would have involved a kind of ritual and a different staging where they would have sacrificed only to women or children or some man, but just as a whole family is something very dirty, it would not be to the liking of the Gods. Killing blows on the head is very atavistic, very familiar, and I think that the executor or executors must have felt very offended, hurt and humiliated with this murdered tribe and for that reason they crush their heads, the structure from which the thoughts and ideas that must have offened the murderer who must be closely related to them.

Angela
10-05-19, 17:11
Gentlemen,

A huge majority of the ancient samples we have who met a violent death were first beaten over the head with either an ax or a club. Other than an occasional arrow or dagger wound that's all they had. There's nothing unusual about it. This was still basically the stone age, with copper and bronze just starting to make an appearance, and the property of only the very elite.

There are no defensive wounds. This was not a battle or even much of a struggle. These people, predominantly women and children of a small settlement, were clearly unaware of their danger, captured, perhaps when sleeping or eating and going about their work, and then executed, as there are no defensive wounds on the corpses.

It's highly unlikely there was anything ritualistic about it, as nothing was done to the bodies. The heads were not removed, as was often done by the later groups called "Celts", to skin and dry and make drinking cups, or just to hand on belts or put on stakes around their homes. Their chests don't seem to have been ripped open to get at the heart and on and on.

It happened often between various human groups. There's nothing "warriorly" about it no matter who did it. You should read the accounts of what was done to American Indian villages.

The butchery went in both directions.
"n 1782, a group of Moravian Protestants in Ohio killed 96 Christianized Delaware Indians, illustrating the growing contempt for native people. Captain David Williamson ordered the converted Delawares, who had been blamed for attacks on white settlements, to go to the cooper shop two at a time, where militiamen beat them to death with wooden mallets and hatchets."


"Annuities and provisions promised to Indians through government treaties were slow in being delivered, leaving Dakota Sioux people, who were restricted to reservation lands on the Minnesota frontier, starving and desperate. After a raid of nearby white farms for food turned into a deadly encounter, Dakotas continued raiding, leading to the Little Crow War of 1862, in which 490 settlers, mostly women and children, were killed. President Lincoln (http://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/abraham-lincoln) sent soldiers, who defeated the Dakota; and after a series of mass trials, more than 300 Dakota men were sentenced to death.While Lincoln commuted most of the sentences, on the day after Christmas at Mankato, military officials hung 38 Dakotas at once—the largest mass execution in American history. More than 4,000 people gathered in the streets to watch, many bringing picnic baskets. The 38 were buried in a shallow grave along the Minnesota River, but physicians dug up most of the bodies to use as medical cadavers."

There's nothing "romantic" or "honorable" about this kind of warfare.

Ailchu
10-05-19, 20:02
we know of european early neolithic mass graves with men, women, old people and children. sometimes women age range 15-30 are underrepresented. this always happened andbit's not something tied to a specific culture. i highly doubt those late neolithic people weremuch more peacefull people. there is certainly a possibility that they were also fighting among each other and did not unite against CWC. actually maybe them fighting each other could have been a cause for CW success who knows. looking at human history this happened very often when people wre fighting each other or they did not want to unite and then a third one uses it as an advantage.

Carlos
11-05-19, 16:16
How a whole family died in their Minnesota mansion
The father shot each of his three children in their rooms in their heads. The wife heard the shots and wanted to call 911, but could not: she was also shot. Finally, the man committed suicide.
https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/m
innesota-minneapolis-mansion-familia-asesinada-muerta-eeuu_0_Bye_MQYDXe.html (https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/minnesota-minneapolis-mansion-familia-asesinada-muerta-eeuu_0_Bye_MQYDXe.html)

Spooky: reveal how they massacred 8 relatives
As confirmed by the preliminary forensic report, released last week, all the victims received several bullets, mostly in the head.
https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/minnesota-minneapolis-mansion-familia-asesinada-muerta-eeuu_0_Bye_MQYDXe.html

There are hundreds more cases all over the internet of blows to the head or head as a target to kill and in most cases are ex, ex-boyfriend, e.t.c. or people who have had a very close relationship with the family.


I still think that killing blows to the head at present with bullets is very familiar and involves a lot of aggression and a very big feeling of offering in the murderer for having been related to strong ties with relatives or the group he has murdered.

markod
11-05-19, 17:45
You guys are giving late neolithic people too much credit. Even in antiquity no one had any qualms about killing people and taking their stuff, which is the most likely what happened here.

It was almost universal, and West Eurasia looks comparatively tame even. Research, for instance, the mass graves in MLBA China for a more impressive and gruesome archaeological record of male-driven expansion.

MOESAN
12-05-19, 23:53
Considering the execution like death and the respectful burial, couldn't it be a sacrifice?

are we sure the killers were the "buriers"? of same family? of same tribe? of same ethny?

Vandemonian
13-05-19, 01:06
Forgot to post these:
Fascinating - where would modern Europeans (or anyone else in the modern world) be on that principal component plot?

Angela
13-05-19, 02:44
Fascinating - where would modern Europeans (or anyone else in the modern world) be on that principal component plot?

The modern populations are the gray background dots.
https://i.imgur.com/M3cjz2F.png

You can figure it out a bit using the modern PCA:

https://images.nature.com/m685/nature-assets/nature/journal/v513/n7518/images/nature13673-f2.jpg

Vandemonian
13-05-19, 23:36
Thank you very much!

The colors are difficult to make out, but it looks like there is a long band of mid-Easterners from the bottom right blending into southeastern Europe (Turkey, Armenia, etc) towards the top, with the Yamnaya between these southeastern Europeans and the Russian/Baltic samples in yellow. The bronze age transition samples are close to southern Europeans, while the Scandinavian hunter gatherers are on the left side of the Estonians and Icelanders. The western European hunter-gatherers are not well represented anymore, being far to the bottom left corner, but most akin to the Basques.

Very interesting.

Ygorcs
14-05-19, 23:31
Slaves probably aren't that valuable in the absence of a sophisticated economy. If you peruse the accounts of tribal warfare in the Vedas or the Old Testament, the things that stand out as being most desired by the herdsmen are livestock and shiny objects.

I agree a massive use of slave workforce may not be necessary in an unsophisticated economy, but I really doubt slavery and forms of servitude, caste and all sorts of class and labor oppression did not exist in societies that already showed a very clear notion of socioeconomic hierarchy and class stratification such as even the early steppe tribes, and certainly the CWC too. I recently learned that even the Northwest Pacific hunter-gatherers, who had a somewhat complex socioeconomic order even without agriculture and pastoralism, also had a nobility and, yes, a distinction between free commoners and slaves. Therefore I don't doubt many men might have survived, but they just couldn't afford to have large families (or even any family) at all in the new social order, just like it happened in the Americas. The men weren't all annihilated immediately, many of them became canon fodder as lowly soldiers, many others as slave or free, but not much better than a slave, workers. They became basically beasts of burden who wouldn't be "good husbands" (dowry and everything else) for the daughters of male-ruled households of a patriarchal society They just became "uninteresting" as partners as society changed, and economically, even psychologically broken.

Jovialis
16-05-19, 18:18
https://insitome.libsyn.com/neolithic-massacre

Here is a new Insight podcast on this paper.

Angela
17-05-19, 01:47
Most of what he asks them about we've discussed.

I do find it interesting that when questioned more specifically about what the archaeologists found in terms of GAC vs Corded Ware, they said that there was basically no difference in terms of economy or subsistence strategies. For example, the GAC "farmer" people also had lots of cattle; they used them for transporting things in wagons; and, in fact ,some men were buried with numerous cattle, for perhaps some ritual purpose. They were mobile, moving from site to site, practicing a type of pastoral agriculture. They were also clearly patrilineal and patrilocal.

So, I don't see how the Corded Ware "package" would have given them an economic advantage. Are we back to a combination of plague and warrior mentality? Corded Ware barely had copper, much less bronze at these early periods, and very few horses have been found. The archaeologist being questioned, however, says that the Corded Ware burials were more individualistic, as we've heard for a long time, more stratified, and had a lot more weapons than the GAC ones, although still stone weapons. He also cleared up for the umpteenth time that chariots weren't invented for close to a thousand years and that the use of horses for anything but food even in the Yamnaya at these early periods is still very much an "open questions".

As to who committed the massacre, they punted, although to me it seemed as if when pressed by Khan one of them was leaning toward it being a manifestation of the change in genetics in northern and central Europe. As Kristiansen pointed out in his speech, they have found other massacres which were clearly committed by the new steppe admixed people.

It is what it is.



Also, are some of those papers correct which posit that this "mixed" farming/pastoral type package moved not west to east but east to west?

Ailchu
22-07-19, 03:41
Thank you very much!

The colors are difficult to make out, but it looks like there is a long band of mid-Easterners from the bottom right blending into southeastern Europe (Turkey, Armenia, etc) towards the top, with the Yamnaya between these southeastern Europeans and the Russian/Baltic samples in yellow. The bronze age transition samples are close to southern Europeans, while the Scandinavian hunter gatherers are on the left side of the Estonians and Icelanders. The western European hunter-gatherers are not well represented anymore, being far to the bottom left corner, but most akin to the Basques.

Very interesting.


i always wonder what these pca's actually show and how usefull they are when you want to look at genetic relations. since they only show two components i guess they aren't really usefull for this. they can give you a very rough overview. in this case it seems like one component is CHG-like admixture while the other one is WHG-like. all other admixtures and differences there are not visible here.
and it only captures a part of these ancestries not all of it. so beeing on the far left doesn't mean beeing 100% WHG. it just means you are similar to WHG in this particular component. else it wouldn't be possible to be on the same vertical line as WHG but beeing shifted away from them. this is how i interpretate these graphics. is this wrong?