PDA

View Full Version : Inequality in Bronze Age Europe



Angela
12-10-19, 17:50
It's based on samples from Corded Ware, BB, and early Bronze southern Germany. I'm trying to figure out some way of getting access to the whole paper.

See:
Alissa Mittnick et al (Krause and Haak)

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/10/09/science.aax6219

"AbstractRevealing and understanding the mechanisms behind social inequality in prehistoric societies is a major challenge. By combining genome wide data, isotopic evidence as well as anthropological and archaeological data, we go beyond the dominating supra-regional approaches in archaeogenetics to shed light on the complexity of social status, inheritance rules and mobility during the Bronze Age. We apply a deep micro-regional approach and analyze genome wide data of 104 human individuals deriving from farmstead-related cemeteries from the Late Neolithic to the Middle Bronze Age in southern Germany. Our results reveal that individual households lasting several generations consisted of a high-status core family and unrelated low-status individuals, a social organization accompanied by patrilocality and female exogamy, and the stability of this system over 700 years."

bicicleur
12-10-19, 20:47
it's in line with what they already found out about megalithic farmers
and it probably already existed long before

Angela
13-10-19, 02:16
Exactly.

Story as old as time...well, practically.

Angela
13-10-19, 15:55
Razib Khan posted a graphic.

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

As we've discussed before, all the initial talk about "wipe outs" or replacements as the result of steppe intrusion were very overblown. At least in Southern Germany, already by the Middle Bronze Age steppe ancestry was down to what, 27%? Add in the WHG, and these people were still majority Anatolian Neolithic, something like a 60% Anatolian Neolithic/40% other split.

kingjohn
13-10-19, 16:11
https://sci-hub.se/10.1126/science.aax6219

bicicleur
13-10-19, 17:35
Razib Khan posted a graphic.

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

As we've discussed before, all the initial talk about "wipe outs" or replacements as the result of steppe intrusion were very overblown. At least in Southern Germany, already by the Middle Bronze Age steppe ancestry was down to what, 27%? Add in the WHG, and these people were still majority Anatolian Neolithic, something like a 60% Anatolian Neolithic/40% other split.

Something that has dissapeared can't come back.
So it didn't dissapear. But maybe it became invisible for the record.
Maybe the record are just elite burials.
And after time local DNA seeped through to the elite.

kingjohn
13-10-19, 18:10
table : 1 in supplemental
y haplogroup and mtdna types in lech valley
on y haplogroup: i see majority r1b and 3G cases and some I

https://i.imgur.com/UFp4EtP.png

continue of this table :

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


https://i.imgur.com/Ztdb8PO.png

kingjohn
13-10-19, 21:40
i think of the CT/ BT cases could infact be j2 or other G :thinking:
so those CT /BTcases are probably low coverage individuals

elghund
14-10-19, 02:22
For quick reference of geographic locations, cultures, and haplogroups...

#

Sample Name
Country
analysis label genetics

Cluster PCA/Admixture
genetic sex
mtDNA haplogroup
Y haplogroup
genetic comments


1

AY2001.A0101.TF1.1
Russia
Steppe Maykop
Steppe
F
T2e




2

AY2003.A0101.TF1.1
Russia
Steppe Maykop
Steppe
F
H2a1




3

I1720
Russia
Maykop
Caucasus
M
HV
?



4

BU2001.A0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
M

R1b1a2a2


5

GW1001.A0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
M
U2e1b
R1b1a2a2


6
I1723
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
M
U5b2a1a
R1b1a1a2a


7
IV3002.A0101
Russia
Steppe Maykop outlier
Steppe
M
X1'2'3
?



8
KBD001
Russia
Late North Caucasus
Steppe
M
I4a
R1b1a2
2nd degree relative of KBD002


9
KBD002.A0101
Russia
Late North Caucasus
Steppe
F
W1+119

2nd degree relative of KBD001


10
ARM001.A0101
Armenia
Kura-Araxes
Caucasus
F
R1a1




11

ARM002.A0101; ARM003
Armenia
Kura-Araxes
Caucasus
M
K3
G2b
same individual, merge bams!


12
I6268
Russia
Maykop Novosvobodnaya
Caucasus
M
R1a
J2a1



13
I6267
Russia
Maykop Novosvobodnaya
Caucasus
F
T2c1




14
I6270
Russia
Maykop Novosvobodnaya
Caucasus
M
U1b
?



15
I6266
Russia
Maykop Novosvobodnaya
Caucasus
M
X2f
J2a1



16
I6272
Russia
Maykop Novosvobodnaya
Caucasus
M
U1b1
G2a2a



17

KDC001.A0101
Russia
MBA North Caucasus
Caucasus
M
X2i
J2b



18

KDC002.A0101
Russia
MBA North Caucasus
Caucasus
F
HV1a1




19
LYG001.A0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
M
H13a1a2
R1b1a2



20
I2051
Russia
Dolmen LBA
Caucasus
M
H6a1a2a
J



21
MK3003.A0101
Russia
Catacomb
Steppe
F
U4a2




22
MK5012.A0101
Russia
Catacomb
Steppe
M
U5a1b1e
?



23
MK5008.B0101
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
M
T1a2
?
42K SNPs


24

MK5004
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
M
T2al
L
2nd degree relative of MK5001


25

MK5001
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
M
K1a4
L
2nd degree relative of MK5004


26
MK5007.B0101
Russia
Maykop
Caucasus
M
U5a1b1




27
MK5009.A0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
M
R1a1a
R1b1a2



28
MK5005.C0101
Russia
Steppe Maykop
Steppe
F
two lineages

Steppe Maykop , but mtDNA contamination


29
NV3001
Russia
Lola
Steppe
M
R1b
Q1a2



30
OSS002.B0101
Russia
Maykop
Caucasus
M
I5
J
X contaminated !


31

OSS001.A0101
Russia
Maykop
Caucasus
F
J2a1




32

PG2001
Russia
Eneolithic steppe
Steppe
M
I3a
R1b1



33
PG2004
Russia
Eneolithic steppe
Steppe
M
H2
R1b1



34
PG2002.A0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
F
U1a1a3




35
RK1003.C0101
Russia
North Caucasus
Steppe
F
R1a1a




36
RK1007.A0101
Russia
Yamnaya Caucasus
Steppe
F
T2a1




37
RK1001.C0101
Russia
Yamnaya Caucasus
Steppe
M
U5a1d
R1b1a2



38

RK4002.B0101
Russia
Catacomb
Steppe
M
U4d3
R1b1a2



39

RK4001.A0101
Russia
Catacomb
Steppe
M
U5a1i
R1b1a2



40

SA6003.B0101
Russia
Catacomb
Steppe
M
U2e3a
R1b1a2



41

SA6001.A0101
Russia
Steppe Maykop
Steppe
F
U7b




42
SA6004
Russia
Steppe Maykop
Steppe
M
U7b
Q1a2



43
SA6013.B0101
Russia
Steppe Maykop outlier
Steppe
M
I5b
R1



44
SA6010.A0101
Russia
Yamnaya Caucasus
Steppe
M
U5a1g
?



45
I6278
Russia
Dolmen BA
Caucasus
M
T1a2
..



46
I6281
Russia
Dolmen BA
Caucasus
F
U2e1
..



47

SIJ003.A0101
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
F
U4c1

1st degree relative of SIJ002, 1st degree relative of SIJ001


48

SIJ002.A0101
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
M
U4c1
L
1st degree relative of SIJ003, 2nd degree relative of SIJ001


49
SIJ001.A01(SA6002.A01)
Russia
Late Maykop
Caucasus
F
U4c1

1st degree relative of SIJ003, 2nd degree relative of SIJ002


50
I2055
Russia
Eneolithic Caucasus
Caucasus
M
R1a
J
1st degree relative of I2056


51
I2056
Russia
Eneolithic Caucasus
Caucasus
M
R1a
J2a



52
I1722
Russia
Eneolithic Caucasus
Caucasus
F
R1a

1st degree relative of I2056


53
VEK006.A0101
Russia
Kura-Araxes
Caucasus
F
U4a2

1st/2nd degree relative of VEK007/VEK009?


54

VEK007.A0101; VEK009
Russia
Kura-Araxes
Caucasus
M
U4a2
J1
VEK007=VEK009, merge bams, 2nd degree relative of VEK006?


55

VEK008.A0101
Russia
Kura-Araxes
Caucasus
M
U4a2
?



56
VJ1001
Russia
Eneolithic steppe
Steppe
F
T2a1b




57
I2057
Russia
Maykop
Caucasus
U


Questionable, coverage too low


58
ZO2002.C0101
Russia
Yamnaya Caucasus
Steppe
F
[email protected]

Angela
14-10-19, 03:51
I would suggest checking the archaeological information for status versus non status burials and then comparing to yDna before jumping to all sorts of conclusions.

Dagne
14-10-19, 11:59
Exactly.

Story as old as time...well, practically.

Not with Hunter Gatherers, I suppose

Dagne
14-10-19, 12:23
double post

Angela
14-10-19, 15:13
Not with Hunter Gatherers, I suppose

I'm not so sure.

What happened to all the C that the Paleolithic Europeans carried once the I2 "Mesolithic" men arrived? There's barely a trace of that Paleolithic HG genetic material left in Europeans.

We could also take a look at what happened to Neanderthals.

Almost makes me rethink the whole "toxic masculinity" thing.

Angela
14-10-19, 15:25
Something that has dissapeared can't come back.
So it didn't dissapear. But maybe it became invisible for the record.
Maybe the record are just elite burials.
And after time local DNA seeped through to the elite.

Yes, that was my point, as it was my point way back when the Haak paper first came out when I said the title of the paper was probably over the top and they might come to regret it as an overstatement.

You only had to look at the percentages of Anatolian Neolithic in modern central and northwestern Europe. There was no new colonization. It had to have been there all along, although the female/male skew in uniparentals tells its own tale.

The only places in Europe where Anatolian Neolithic drops way down are in Northeastern Europe where practically no one was living before the arrival of the steppe people.

kingjohn
14-10-19, 15:55
i am a little surprised that there is no E
not even the european e-v13 ?????
in the table 1 i posted

Angela
14-10-19, 16:27
i am a little surprised that there is no E
not even the european e-v13 ?????
in the table 1 i posted

I've always wondered whether the E-V13 in Southern Germany, Austria and the Tyrol, and the corresponding high levels of "Dinarics" phenotypically was the result of hangovers from the Neolithic Age or whether it was Roman Era incursion. Perhaps for uniparentals it's more the latter. There's also all those very "Roman" looking ancient samples in Szolad to consider. I'm closer to them than to a lot of modern Italian populations.

elghund
14-10-19, 17:32
I'm not so sure.

What happened to all the C that the Paleolithic Europeans carried once the I2 "Mesolithic" men arrived? There's barely a trace of that Paleolithic HG genetic material left in Europeans.

We could also take a look at what happened to Neanderthals.

Almost makes me rethink the whole "toxic masculinity" thing.

The earliest populations are on the bottom of the dogpile of population replacement. Using a 90/10 split for each fused population after a successful demic replacement, the original host population genetics remaining would work out this way:
Pop A (prior to first wave)-- 100%
100 * .1
After first wave-- 10%
10 * .1
After second wave-- 1%
1 * .1
After third wave-- .1%

There is likely very little left from homo sapien sapien populations from Paleolthic, maybe nothing from Neanderthals of Western Europe, for this reason.
Most of our Neanderthal was picked up >60 kya in the Levant as part of the founder OOA population. The Neanderthal of <30 kya in Western Europe may have been annihilated without genetic issue at this point. There's barely a trace of Paleolithic hunter gatherers, a little bit more for the more recent mesolthic migrants, and then more from Neolithic and Bronze Age newcomers. Now, there are new major demic movements, birth rate differences among populations, etc. It goes on and on. Right now, Paleolithic Europeans' genetic legacy is on the bottom of the dog pile (Western European Neanderthal already crushed beneath them) and new pops are piling on everyday. Sorry to see them go.

Angela
15-10-19, 16:10
Razib Khan posted a graphic.

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

As we've discussed before, all the initial talk about "wipe outs" or replacements as the result of steppe intrusion were very overblown. At least in Southern Germany, already by the Middle Bronze Age steppe ancestry was down to what, 27%? Add in the WHG, and these people were still majority Anatolian Neolithic, something like a 60% Anatolian Neolithic/40% other split.

You have some objection to statements of fact, Messier? You have some data which contradicts the above?

Do share.

CrazyDonkey
15-10-19, 17:53
So then G2a and J2a were most likely slaves?

Peasants, whose elites had been lopped off. Tenants, not slaves, who owed a portion of their production to their "laird".

MOESAN
15-10-19, 21:38
The earliest populations are on the bottom of the dogpile of population replacement. Using a 90/10 split for each fused population after a successful demic replacement, the original host population genetics remaining would work out this way:
Pop A (prior to first wave)-- 100%
100 * .1
After first wave-- 10%
10 * .1
After second wave-- 1%
1 * .1
After third wave-- .1%

There is likely very little left from homo sapien sapien populations from Paleolthic, maybe nothing from Neanderthals of Western Europe, for this reason.
Most of our Neanderthal was picked up >60 kya in the Levant as part of the founder OOA population. The Neanderthal of <30 kya in Western Europe may have been annihilated without genetic issue at this point. There's barely a trace of Paleolithic hunter gatherers, a little bit more for the more recent mesolthic migrants, and then more from Neolithic and Bronze Age newcomers. Now, there are new major demic movements, birth rate differences among populations, etc. It goes on and on. Right now, Paleolithic Europeans' genetic legacy is on the bottom of the dog pile (Western European Neanderthal already crushed beneath them) and new pops are piling on everyday. Sorry to see them go.

a bit simplistic, isnt it?

elghund
16-10-19, 00:41
a bit simplistic, isnt it?

Sort of like your response. That post wasn't meant to be more than a simplified illustration of how the genetic contribution of original inhabitants diminishes or even perishes following successive migrations of later populations, each with reproductive advantages to the current, native populations they are subsuming. What do you want, an essay?

nornosh
18-10-19, 16:41
IE tribes who colonized W.Europe themselves were minority lineage in E.Europe so how did they manage to wipe out the local farmers to near extinction? IMHO it must have been founder effect of small tribe at the top of the power pyramid becoming dominant lineage over time instead of local farmer tribes being killed by invaders because its extremely hard to wage war from village to village which must have spread over thousands of miles of area. So popular beliefs of polygamy, mass killings of locals by new settlers in BA must be completely wrong for local farmers could have had advantage of 10-1 in numbers which would make it extremely strong defense-wise. When we talk of complete dominance of ydna E-M81 in N.Africa we always say founder effect phenomena yet in IEs case I don't know why people come to baseless conclusions of things like polygamy, mass murders which holds no weight IMHO. I even question the Yamna connection of bronze age IE settlers because they could well be from southern Balkans who could have been farmers themselves migrating with the ydna G tribes but in extremely low numbers we see some Caucasian admixture together with farmer admixture in Neolithic Balkans too so its not just yamna who possessed Caucasian admixture. If questoins of how 1% of population could become half of population without much bloodshed then please study Mtdna H's history in Europe which from 1% in Mesolithic became 22% in Neolithic then 44% in Iron age wow!

Angela
18-10-19, 17:48
So how come the farmer mtDna survived but the farmer yDna didn't?

It won't wash, friend.

Plus, it didn't just happen in Europe, it happened all over the world: Africa, Near East (not lots of G2a there except in the strongholds of the mountains is there?), China, Japan, you name it.

MOESAN
18-10-19, 18:47
Sort of like your response. That post wasn't meant to be more than a simplified illustration of how the genetic contribution of original inhabitants diminishes or even perishes following successive migrations of later populations, each with reproductive advantages to the current, native populations they are subsuming. What do you want, an essay?

Not an essay, of course. But this "mathematic" approach of yours was very theorical. But thanks, I think I catched your reasoning. Was it necessary to us under this naked form? No problem. I see you have some kind of humor (a bit acid?).

nornosh
18-10-19, 19:51
So how come the farmer mtDna survived but the farmer yDna didn't?

It won't wash, friend.

Plus, it didn't just happen in Europe, it happened all over the world: Africa, Near East (not lots of G2a there except in the strongholds of the mountains is there?), China, Japan, you name it.
I thought scenarios in which IE tribes inter-marrying with farmer tribes on equal bases(ydna, mtdna equally transmitted) then one tribe gets purely accidental reproductive advantage due to many social aspects like higher social standing, hierarchy which encourages population growth as in Amish, Hutterites finally result in skewed ydna\mtdna in the population who then become dominant, let's see today R1b lineage is not utterly dominant they just make 51% of the population. My doubts arose because early R1b subclades were so rare in BA only in later times they expanded several centuries after initial settlement.

Angela
18-10-19, 21:15
I thought scenarios in which IE tribes inter-marrying with farmer tribes on equal bases(ydna, mtdna equally transmitted) then one tribe gets purely accidental reproductive advantage due to many social aspects like higher social standing, hierarchy which encourages population growth as in Amish, Hutterites finally result in skewed ydna\mtdna in the population who then become dominant, let's see today R1b lineage is not utterly dominant they just make 51% of the population. My doubts arose because early R1b subclades were so rare in BA only in later times they expanded several centuries after initial settlement.

I doubt that is an explanation for world wide instances where, after a mass migration, the yDna of the invaders just happens to be the one which survives, while the local mtDna does survive. It's happened too many times, in too many places, in too many eras. It can't be coincidental, although all my job training probably does incline me to view "coincidences" as an explanation for human behavior more than skeptically.

Personally, I don't like it, and would prefer that wasn't the case, particularly, perhaps, because I carry both the invader ydna and mtdna, while my autosomal dna is much more local.

However, facts are facts, and those are facts which are very difficult to explain away in a PC manner.

CrazyDonkey
28-10-19, 20:57
And whether yDNA strains were eliminated at the start (ethnic cleansing) or relegated to the sidelines and weeded out over time (due to privilege), the result is the same. Ultimately the information transmitted via yDNA is very limited (paternal lineage, mostly) - language and cultural transmission is much more powerful.