Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 64

Thread: The Spread of Haplogroups in Europe, Especially R1b

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    2 out of 4 members found this post helpful.

    Lightbulb The Spread of Haplogroups in Europe, Especially R1b

    There are some lively discussions going on elsewhere on this board, discussing with specificity some of concepts below. I thank everyone for their thoughts, and Eupedia for the forum. This post is intended to be a more general foray into what I call "The Two -Ics" that explain modern haplogroup distributions: demographics and mathematics. IMO, both are poorly understood.

    It's been said, "to be an R1b Fantasist, you have to believe that I2-M26 came to predominate Sardinia by chance (e.g., Founder Effect and Drift) -- but that R1b came to predominate other locales (e.g., Ireland or Spain) by merit (e.g., military superiority or sexual selection)."

    It's also been said, "to be an R1b Fantasist, you have to now believe that R1b marks the spread of the first pastoralists, equestrians, and herders, and that you're now 100% correct that is right -- when just 2-3 years ago, you were 100% that Hg G2 was the mark of the first pastoralists and herders."

    With respect to the first saying, I believe that most of the R1b apologists understand the former concepts (of chance as they apply to archaeogenetics), so this post is designed to build upon that knowledge, and add some demographics and mathematics too.

    With respect to the second saying, I believe what is most key in a discipline like archaeogenetics is to recognize that theories and findings change from year to year, but the underpinnings of solid scientific method do not.

    Let's get into it:

    First, it is crucial to outline the possible outcomes. Every generation, every clade and subclade of every Haplogroup has three "options" (or three outcomes). Those are:

    1. Mutate (i.e., become something else)
    2. Propagate -- and, in more or less the same form, by having a male child who survives
    3. Die out, by having only daughters, or by having male children who fail to themselves breed

    The "stakes" were more pronounced during prehistory than today, because the population sizes were so profoundly lower. If you don't grasp this and accept it as fact, you can't grasp what I will detail later.

    Population of Europe Over Selected Times (YBP = Years Before Present)

    ~50,000 YBP: No more than 10,000 (Neandertals)

    ~38,000 YBP - 19,000 YBP: No more than 37,000, likely population just 5,000

    ~12,000 YBP: About 28,000

    ~2000 YBP: About 35,000,000

    -0 YBP: About 743,000,000

    You can read more at: http://www.evolhum.cnrs.fr/bocquet/jas2005.pdf

    In essence, you must remember that the population of Europe at the beginning of the time we are discussing (the post-glacial-maximum recolonization through the Bronze Age) was about 28,000 and peaked at maybe 100,000. This is hard for the modern mind to comprehend, I know. There were less people from Spain to Ukraine then, than there are in one city block in London now.

    There are two takeaways:

    1. This made the population more susceptible to chance events, like a plague outbreak, or a famine in an area.

    2. This made the population more susceptible to massive dilution, when population started on its massive upward trajectory, after people started drinking milk, wine, and beer, when they started making cheese, when they started farming cereals and living in one spot, and when they started herding animals and having meat at will.

    Going back to our three outcomes for Y Haplogroups, every generation: the first "takeaway" above should inform several likely mechanisms of how R1b spread over time. If they entered a territory and had different disease resistance, it could have meant that large numbers of a tiny starting population would die off.

    Similarly, because the initial population was so small, when larger populations migrated for whatever reason, indeed possibly even as refugees from other regions, the other haplogroups would seem to have shrunk in size, whereas it really is different population sizes.

    All this is just build up. Our main focus, however, is the simple application of mathematics to Outcome 3 above.

    This is what you need to know before we start:

    1. Hunter/gatherer women space babies on average 4.5 years apart, whereas farmers and moderns space them 1.5 years apart.

    2. The average paleolithic woman would have about 3.8 children.

    3. Infant mortality among hunter/gatherers is 30 times higher than among "civilized", and reached approximately 25% at many points during history.

    4. If the average hunter/gatherer family consisted of 3 children to live to adulthood, the odds of each family having just female kids survive was 12.5% each generation. (.5 x .5 x .5)

    Read more: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fm...0women&f=false

    https://condensedscience.wordpress.c...-other-groups/

    Now just these numbers by themselves (HGs having fewer kids than farmers or pastoralists) explain a LOT.

    But the main point is thus: when I have posted before that "older" non-mutated Y-chromosome haplogroups are found in lesser numbers simply because they are...older...you hopefully can understand what I mean. Every generation that a Hg exists and doesn't change, there is a 12.5% chance that those bearing it, in any one family, will not pass it along. To be very clear: if a Hg does not mutate into something else -- or does not die entirely -- its numbers and distribution will decrease over time. This applies to all except the most recent arrival, which is currently breeding like rabbits. For example:

    Many people believe that C1a was the first Y Hg in Europe. There were probably just 5000-15,000 of them at any time. By definition, the Hg C1a are folks that did not go on to mutate into any of the downstream clades. Over time, the odds will catch up.

    Many people believe that I2 was the next Y Hg in Europe. There were probably just 10,000 - 50,000 of them at any time. By definition, these are members of the IJ branch, and not members of F or K who mutated. Over time, the odds will catch up.

    These very simple concepts explain much of the modern distribution of haplogroups in Europe. Is it more complex than this? Sure. Were there other factors? Absolutely. But over time, you cannot escape mathematics and demography being the biggest factors. And they were and are the biggest factors.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-07-13
    Location
    Ticino
    Posts
    138
    Points
    5,103
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,103, Level: 21
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A7992

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    2 out of 5 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore View Post
    There are some lively discussions going on elsewhere on this board, discussing with specificity some of concepts below. I thank everyone for their thoughts, and Eupedia for the forum. This post is intended to be a more general foray into what I call "The Two -Ics" that explain modern haplogroup distributions: demographics and mathematics. IMO, both are poorly understood. It's been said, "to be an R1b Fantasist, you have to believe that I2-M26 came to predominate Sardinia by chance (e.g., Founder Effect and Drift) -- but that R1b came to predominate other locales (e.g., Ireland or Spain) by merit (e.g., military superiority or sexual selection)." It's also been said, "to be an R1b Fantasist, you have to now believe that R1b marks the spread of the first pastoralists, equestrians, and herders, and that you're now 100% correct that is right -- when just 2-3 years ago, you were 100% that Hg G2 was the mark of the first pastoralists and herders." With respect to the first saying, I believe that most of the R1b apologists understand the former concepts (of chance as they apply to archaeogenetics), so this post is designed to build upon that knowledge, and add some demographics and mathematics too. With respect to the second saying, I believe what is most key in a discipline like archaeogenetics is to recognize that theories and findings change from year to year, but the underpinnings of solid scientific method do not. Let's get into it: First, it is crucial to outline the possible outcomes. Every generation, every clade and subclade of every Haplogroup has three "options" (or three outcomes). Those are:
    1. Mutate (i.e., become something else) 2. Propagate -- and, in more or less the same form, by having a male child who survives 3. Die out, by having only daughters, or by having male children who fail to themselves breed
    The "stakes" were more pronounced during prehistory than today, because the population sizes were so profoundly lower. If you don't grasp this and accept it as fact, you can't grasp what I will detail later.
    Population of Europe Over Selected Times (YBP = Years Before Present) ~50,000 YBP: No more than 10,000 (Neandertals) ~38,000 YBP - 19,000 YBP: No more than 37,000, likely population just 5,000 ~12,000 YBP: About 28,000 ~2000 YBP: About 35,000,000 -0 YBP: About 743,000,000
    You can read more at: http://www.evolhum.cnrs.fr/bocquet/jas2005.pdf In essence, you must remember that the population of Europe at the beginning of the time we are discussing (the post-glacial-maximum recolonization through the Bronze Age) was about 28,000 and peaked at maybe 100,000. This is hard for the modern mind to comprehend, I know. There were less people from Spain to Ukraine then, than there are in one city block in London now. There are two takeaways:
    1. This made the population more susceptible to chance events, like a plague outbreak, or a famine in an area. 2. This made the population more susceptible to massive dilution, when population started on its massive upward trajectory, after people started drinking milk, wine, and beer, when they started making cheese, when they started farming cereals and living in one spot, and when they started herding animals and having meat at will.
    Going back to our three outcomes for Y Haplogroups, every generation: the first "takeaway" above should inform several likely mechanisms of how R1b spread over time. If they entered a territory and had different disease resistance, it could have meant that large numbers of a tiny starting population would die off. Similarly, because the initial population was so small, when larger populations migrated for whatever reason, indeed possibly even as refugees from other regions, the other haplogroups would seem to have shrunk in size, whereas it really is different population sizes. All this is just build up. Our main focus, however, is the simple application of mathematics to Outcome 3 above. This is what you need to know before we start:
    1. Hunter/gatherer women space babies on average 4.5 years apart, whereas farmers and moderns space them 1.5 years apart. 2. The average paleolithic woman would have about 3.8 children. 3. Infant mortality among hunter/gatherers is 30 times higher than among "civilized", and reached approximately 25% at many points during history. 4. If the average hunter/gatherer family consisted of 3 children to live to adulthood, the odds of each family having just female kids survive was 12.5% each generation. (.5 x .5 x .5)
    Read more: https://books.google.com/books?id=Fm...0women&f=false https://condensedscience.wordpress.c...-other-groups/ Now just these numbers by themselves (HGs having fewer kids than farmers or pastoralists) explain a LOT. But the main point is thus: when I have posted before that "older" non-mutated Y-chromosome haplogroups are found in lesser numbers simply because they are...older...you hopefully can understand what I mean. Every generation that a Hg exists and doesn't change, there is a 12.5% chance that those bearing it, in any one family, will not pass it along. To be very clear: if a Hg does not mutate into something else -- or does not die entirely -- its numbers and distribution will decrease over time. This applies to all except the most recent arrival, which is currently breeding like rabbits. For example: Many people believe that C1a was the first Y Hg in Europe. There were probably just 5000-15,000 of them at any time. By definition, the Hg C1a are folks that did not go on to mutate into any of the downstream clades. Over time, the odds will catch up. Many people believe that I2 was the next Y Hg in Europe. There were probably just 10,000 - 50,000 of them at any time. By definition, these are members of the IJ branch, and not members of F or K who mutated. Over time, the odds will catch up. These very simple concepts explain much of the modern distribution of haplogroups in Europe. Is it more complex than this? Sure. Were there other factors? Absolutely. But over time, you cannot escape mathematics and demography being the biggest factors. And they were and are the biggest factors.
    What's wrong with you? You opened two threads on the same argument to spread misunderstanding with offensive aim against a haplogroup. There's no thing as "many believe that, many believe this..."... there are only scientific results and they are very clear, at least now. If you have problem accepting those, I suggest you to change your area of interests.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Brennos View Post
    What's wrong with you? You opened two threads on the same argument to spread misunderstanding with offensive aim against a haplogroup. There's no thing as "many believe that, many believe this..."... there are only scientific results and they are very clear, at least now. If you have problem accepting those, I suggest you to change your area of interests.
    Easy on the ad hominem please.

    The raison d'etre of this Board is to be a Marketplace of Ideas. I did not cross post. While the themes are the same, both posts presented vastly different evidence and science to our dear readers.

    If you have a problem with someone expressing their theories or opinions, might I suggest you are in the wrong place.

    Your next lines, "the scientific results are very clear for now" is laughable. It just further emphasizes my point, about the need for a little caution and skepticism in a field where the dominant paradigm shifts every 2-3 years.

    This is a post about demographic and mathematical explanations for the spread of Haplogroups in Europe. I know it's long, but clearly you did not read it in its entirety. If you have some scientific criticism, feel free to post it. If you take issue with the studies I cited, which evince clearly my points, then post that. A Board is about healthy debate, and such debate is welcome.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-07-13
    Location
    Ticino
    Posts
    138
    Points
    5,103
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,103, Level: 21
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A7992

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    3 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore View Post
    Easy on the ad hominem please. The raison d'etre of this Board is to be a Marketplace of Ideas. I did not cross post. While the themes are the same, both posts presented vastly different evidence and science to our dear readers. If you have a problem with someone expressing their theories or opinions, might I suggest you are in the wrong place. Your next lines, "the scientific results are very clear for now" is laughable. It just further emphasizes my point, about the need for a little caution and skepticism in a field where the dominant paradigm shifts every 2-3 years. This is a post about demographic and mathematical explanations for the spread of Haplogroups in Europe. I know it's long, but clearly you did not read it in its entirety. If you have some scientific criticism, feel free to post it. If you take issue with the studies I cited, which evince clearly my points, then post that. A Board is about healthy debate, and such debate is welcome.
    Paradigm? For which haplogroup? We believed from the beginning, for example, that G2a was responsible of the Neolithic revolution in Europe and nothing changed. As for R1a, from the beginning it was the responsible of Indoeuropization of Europe and nothing changed. We saw an evolution in understanding halogroup J2 and J1, but also haplogroup R1b. As for the latter, we all know that there are partisans who hate that haplogroup. Your topics are somewhat a provocation in that direction. To deny patency is childish by your side. And, of course, I don't see any "healthy debate" when you say "R1b fantasists". I see only a way to close the question with ridiculizing a party. If there are "R1b fantasits", then it would be interesting to investigate about it and... surprise! You will find also R1b haters.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    3 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Brennos View Post
    Paradigm? For which haplogroup? We believed from the beginning, for example, that G2a was responsible of the Neolithic revolution in Europe and nothing changed. As for R1a, from the beginning it was the responsible of Indoeuropization of Europe and nothing changed. We saw an evolution in understanding halogroup J2 and J1, but also haplogroup R1b. As for the latter, we all know that there are partisans who hate that haplogroup. Your topics are somewhat a provocation in that direction. To deny patency is childish by your side. And, of course, I don't see any "healthy debate" when you say "R1b fantasists". I see only a way to close the question with ridiculizing a party. If there are "R1b fantasits", then it would be interesting to investigate about it and... surprise! You will find also R1b haters.
    I second this. Eupedia really lacks threads dedicated to glorifying R1b or expressing their supposed superiority. There is no reason to come strong and put down haplogroup R1b on Eupedia, and yet from time to time posters show up here with this only mission.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-11-14
    Posts
    177
    Points
    4,291
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,291, Level: 19
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 359
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b U152 L2 L20
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1n

    Ethnic group
    Dutch / French
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I second this. Eupedia really lacks threads dedicated to glorifying R1b or expressing their supposed superiority. There is no reason to come strong and put down haplogroup R1b on Eupedia, and yet from time to time posters show up here with this only mission.
    It's because of the R1b mentality. Were Indo European so were better than everyone, it gets annoying.
    Species adapt to their environment,
    and those who do so best (the fittest) survive and prosper the most.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    15-07-13
    Location
    Ticino
    Posts
    138
    Points
    5,103
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,103, Level: 21
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 447
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A7992

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    As for healthy debate... well, I answered to your other post about R1b question... but you don't say a word about it.

  8. #8
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,346
    Points
    36,232
    Level
    58
    Points: 36,232, Level: 58
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 418
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    OK concerning the need to take mathematics and demography in account, in fact maths rules applied to population number.
    I have no problem with this. But maths don't explain everything: human deportment, climatic crisis and so on are factors to take in account too.
    By example, I think the number of bearers of a SNP has a big importance concerning the possibiliies to give birth to seldom or numerous downstream SNPs: here we have to separate absolute numbers and relative ones (%s). in a relatively big enough population I suppose its rather the middlestream SNPs which are always the more dense, the older ones condamned to disappear slowly, the new "downstremER" ones showing great variety of SNPs but few people bearing everyone of them, before some of them became later the new "middlestream" SNPs: schematic I know. But History does not ru like this all the time. Some frontier subgroups of population centered around a clan with a peculiar distributions of SNPs can by expansion in new territories lost a first some diversity, loosing inits own peculiar distribution some seldom SNPs an increasing after that its number by chance and new life conditions and promoting then a SNP which was mean in the subgroup and even was rare in the whole previous total group. Sorry for my "circumvolutive" english and my naive hypothesis. Concerning R1a and R1b we are in front of a huge historic increase we have still to explain, surely not only by maths.
    That said, I have the impression you 're taking the majority of forumers for two weeks old rabbits babies. Only an impression? No offense. I like humor and it's the Christmas period.

    by the way happy Christmas to all of us (and the others).

  9. #9
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,504
    Points
    59,044
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,044, Level: 75
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 30.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    ~2000 YBP: About 35,000,000
    -0 YBP: About 743,000,000
    Both numbers are far too large - but especially the latter.

    There were around 50 million people in Europe in year 1 AD.

    743 million is MORE than population of Europe even today! ^^

    ~12,000 YBP: About 28,000
    This number is 10x too small - at least 300,000, I would say.

  10. #10
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tomenable View Post
    Both numbers are far too large - but especially the latter.

    There were around 50 million people in Europe in year 1 AD.

    743 million is MORE than population of Europe even today! ^^



    This number is 10x too small - at least 300,000, I would say.
    I agree with that.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    Greetings everyone from Arkansas! Yes, I am visiting relatives and stole away for a minute to post here, being the nerdy gal that I am. Merry Christmas, to all who celebrate!

    Some thoughts on recent replies:

    @Brennos: Saying that a theory "evolved" is a post hoc way of saying that it was initially wrong. And when folks defended it with the equal passion that R1b seems to evoke now, then yes, they kind of owe the world an apology, and should have a little humility going forward.

    As for the term "fantasies," here are but a few examples of the "Everyone Is a King" "Everyone Is Descended from Nobility" "R1b Males Were Sexually More Attractive" posts, on Eupedia, that can only be termed fantasies by any serious scientist:

    http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spai...ugal_dna.shtml
    ("foreign invaders turned monarchs and nobles tend to procreate more by having multiple sexual partners (if not multiple wives, at least mistresses or concubines")

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...1b-M73-Etc-%29
    ("when Indo Europeans won they could force as many native women to be their wives. So they had way more offspring with the native women than Indo European women had with native men and in pretty much all cultures women are only allowed to have one husband while in some and alot of ancient ones men could have about as many wives and mistresses as they wanted. High ranking people and Chiefs sometimes had over 1,000 women.")

    Yes, every R1b male from Ukraine to Spain has 1000 women. Fantasies...

    As for being an "R1b hater," I can tell you that one of my grandpas, the only one I've ever tested, was R1b. I assure you I am not a hater of grandpa, or any other R1b-bearing male. But I do dislike the more absurd stuff that appears sometimes, and the pseudo-scientific stuff. That is all.

    @LeBrok I agree. Generally Eupedia is NOT as bad as other fora, where they pounce on anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy. But as you can see, I did a post on MATH and DEMOGRAPHICS. I posted raw numbers, and and SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED mechanism on how R1b COULD HAVE MAYBE spread. And you see the passion that even MATH evokes. It's almost funny, right? Grown men and women being so attached to a Haplogroup?

    People who challenge the orthodoxy have always been shunned, indeed, burned as heretics many times during our history.

    But here is an important point: we are ALL interested in a field where the orthodoxy changes every 3-5-10 years. 10 years ago, R1bwere "the original Europeans" and everyone else was "from somewhere else" and "impure." Those posts are archived for all to see. I suspect many of us remember them well. When it became apparent R1bs were exotic to Europe, it now became this "well, original Indo-Europeans" and all these mass-killing, many-wives theories took off.

    Simply stating a fact, which is all around the world, on all continents, at all places and times, Hunter Gatherers have had less children than Agriculturalists (including tribes practicing Animal Husbandry), which could be one of the mechanisms making it look like HG lineages largely "disappeared" is not something too many people have evidently considered, judging by the reactions. So there is a little of that here too. People have their cherished theories.

    But I generally agree: Eupedia rocks, and so many of us have a genuine appreciation for the science, and a respect that allows us to carefully consider others theories. Thank you all of you for that!

    @Tomenable, the figures I cited for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic came from the scientific article in my original post. It, in turn, cites similar other such studies. I stand by those figures, and to my knowledge, they have not been seriously questioned by other scientists. At any rate, it's a range. The point remains the same: the pop in Europe during pre-Neolithic times was stunningly small.

    As for the modern or historical stats, I got them off Google and such. I think there may be some confusion though, and I apologize if I caused it! My dates are YBP, Years Before Present. When I say "zero years before present," I mean now. The pop of Europe in 2013 by worldbook estimates was 742.5 million. I stand by those stats too.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-11-14
    Posts
    177
    Points
    4,291
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,291, Level: 19
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 359
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b U152 L2 L20
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1n

    Ethnic group
    Dutch / French
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore View Post
    Greetings everyone from Arkansas! Yes, I am visiting relatives and stole away for a minute to post here, being the nerdy gal that I am. Merry Christmas, to all who celebrate!

    Some thoughts on recent replies:

    @Brennos: Saying that a theory "evolved" is a post hoc way of saying that it was initially wrong. And when folks defended it with the equal passion that R1b seems to evoke now, then yes, they kind of owe the world an apology, and should have a little humility going forward.

    As for the term "fantasies," here are but a few examples of the "Everyone Is a King" "Everyone Is Descended from Nobility" "R1b Males Were Sexually More Attractive" posts, on Eupedia, that can only be termed fantasies by any serious scientist:

    http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spai...ugal_dna.shtml
    ("foreign invaders turned monarchs and nobles tend to procreate more by having multiple sexual partners (if not multiple wives, at least mistresses or concubines")

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...1b-M73-Etc-%29
    ("when Indo Europeans won they could force as many native women to be their wives. So they had way more offspring with the native women than Indo European women had with native men and in pretty much all cultures women are only allowed to have one husband while in some and alot of ancient ones men could have about as many wives and mistresses as they wanted. High ranking people and Chiefs sometimes had over 1,000 women.")

    Yes, every R1b male from Ukraine to Spain has 1000 women. Fantasies...

    As for being an "R1b hater," I can tell you that one of my grandpas, the only one I've ever tested, was R1b. I assure you I am not a hater of grandpa, or any other R1b-bearing male. But I do dislike the more absurd stuff that appears sometimes, and the pseudo-scientific stuff. That is all.

    @LeBrok I agree. Generally Eupedia is NOT as bad as other fora, where they pounce on anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy. But as you can see, I did a post on MATH and DEMOGRAPHICS. I posted raw numbers, and and SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED mechanism on how R1b COULD HAVE MAYBE spread. And you see the passion that even MATH evokes. It's almost funny, right? Grown men and women being so attached to a Haplogroup?

    People who challenge the orthodoxy have always been shunned, indeed, burned as heretics many times during our history.

    But here is an important point: we are ALL interested in a field where the orthodoxy changes every 3-5-10 years. 10 years ago, R1bwere "the original Europeans" and everyone else was "from somewhere else" and "impure." Those posts are archived for all to see. I suspect many of us remember them well. When it became apparent R1bs were exotic to Europe, it now became this "well, original Indo-Europeans" and all these mass-killing, many-wives theories took off.

    Simply stating a fact, which is all around the world, on all continents, at all places and times, Hunter Gatherers have had less children than Agriculturalists (including tribes practicing Animal Husbandry), which could be one of the mechanisms making it look like HG lineages largely "disappeared" is not something too many people have evidently considered, judging by the reactions. So there is a little of that here too. People have their cherished theories.

    But I generally agree: Eupedia rocks, and so many of us have a genuine appreciation for the science, and a respect that allows us to carefully consider others theories. Thank you all of you for that!

    @Tomenable, the figures I cited for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic came from the scientific article in my original post. It, in turn, cites similar other such studies. I stand by those figures, and to my knowledge, they have not been seriously questioned by other scientists. At any rate, it's a range. The point remains the same: the pop in Europe during pre-Neolithic times was stunningly small.

    As for the modern or historical stats, I got them off Google and such. I think there may be some confusion though, and I apologize if I caused it! My dates are YBP, Years Before Present. When I say "zero years before present," I mean now. The pop of Europe in 2013 by worldbook estimates was 742.5 million. I stand by those stats too.
    One of the best posts I've ever read on this forum. Great post!

  13. #13
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    0 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore View Post

    @LeBrok I agree. Generally Eupedia is NOT as bad as other fora, where they pounce on anyone who disagrees with the orthodoxy. But as you can see, I did a post on MATH and DEMOGRAPHICS. I posted raw numbers, and and SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED mechanism on how R1b COULD HAVE MAYBE spread. And you see the passion that even MATH evokes. It's almost funny, right? Grown men and women being so attached to a Haplogroup?

    People who challenge the orthodoxy have always been shunned, indeed, burned as heretics many times during our history.
    The only thing is that there is on orthodoxy yet to challenge, just hypothesis. Some of them seem to be more likely, than others. I'm sure we are to see few new surprises before the dust settles.

    But I generally agree: Eupedia rocks, and so many of us have a genuine appreciation for the science, and a respect that allows us to carefully consider others theories. Thank you all of you for that!


  14. #14
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation Second ClassVeteran50000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-14
    Posts
    4,504
    Points
    59,044
    Level
    75
    Points: 59,044, Level: 75
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 1,006
    Overall activity: 30.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6

    Ethnic group
    Polish
    Country: Poland



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore
    My dates are YBP, Years Before Present.
    Sorry, my mistake - for some reason I read that as YBC, not BP.

    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore
    @Tomenable, the figures I cited for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic came from the scientific article in my original post. It, in turn, cites similar other such studies. I stand by those figures, and to my knowledge, they have not been seriously questioned by other scientists. At any rate, it's a range. The point remains the same: the pop in Europe during pre-Neolithic times was stunningly small.

    [the scientific article from your original post: http://www.evolhum.cnrs.fr/bocquet/jas2005.pdf ]
    They have been questioned by other scientists. Europe could support several hundred thousand hunter-gatherers, as was the case with Australia (which remained populated only by hunter-gatherers all the way until the European colonization few centuries ago).

    Though in links below, you can see similar estimates as those that you quoted, for period 42-13 thousand YBP:

    http://www.ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/pag...quet-Appel.pdf

    http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009...leolithic.html


    I have posted these estimates before in another thread (see posts #10 and #11 linked below):

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post454611

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post454612

    But already back then, I considered those estimates as too low. And now I think so even more strongly.

    One possible flaw of these estimates is that they are based on archaeological findings. It may be, that currently known archaeological findings comprise just a small fraction of all prehistoric traces of humans which are in the ground, but haven't been found so far.

    The author of Leherensuge blog also does not understand what is "effective female population size", which is why he thinks that if effective female population size of Neanderthals was 3500, then their total population was 10,000. But in reality "effective female population size" is no more than 1/10 of the total population size - therefore the size of Neanderthal population was closer to 35,000. I have seen also other estimates which put the number of Neanderthals much higher - at ca. 70,000 - but in all parts of Eurasia where they lived.

    Authors of this study estimate total pop. size of Andamanese Islanders as 5,000 and their effective female pop. size as 500:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/

    Coming back to those estimates of population size of Paleolithic Europe:

    Those estimates seem rather low, considering for example that large wild animals can support much higher populations - for example in year 1900 there were ca. 100,000 wild tigers in Asia. Today there are 300,000 - 350,000 wild mooses in Sweden alone.

    One decade ago, at the beginning of the 21st century, wild population of lowland gorilla - which has been considered to be a critically endangered species - was estimated as 170,000 - 225,000. Number of chimpanzees in 1900 is estimated as few millions.

    Did prehistoric humans really require so much more resources for survival, than do various other species of large mammals? Aren't humans more intelligent than lowland gorillas? So humans should be able to support a larger population from a similar territory.

  15. #15
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,346
    Points
    36,232
    Level
    58
    Points: 36,232, Level: 58
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 418
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Tomenable,
    I find your post sensible. Not to criticize the mooretomoore's one. Estimations of this kind are always uncertain.
    It recall me people thinking LGM had been an unlivebable period for Mankind, everybody refuged in Southern Europe. IN fact we have a quantity of settlements as high as Belgium at the peak of cold, and at the end, in a still cold period about the 16000 BC, we have huge numbers of settlements in Denmark and South Baltic. I know some of the settlements were not permanent, depending on season but?
    How many people were living not too far ago, with ancient modes of life, in Taiga and Toundra winters, or on full ice? I lack data but I would be glad to know: surely more than a few thousands...
    let's keep cool, like say the Inuits in front of today climate change (bad humor I know, but in this year end, my lever use to have bad influences on my brain)

  16. #16
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,932
    Points
    256,054
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,054, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    There are sites where one can find this “glorification” of Rib and others where you have R1a aficionados. On anthrogenica there used to be regular wars over it. Frankly, I’ve never understood it.

    I don't think this site is at all like that. One of the reasons I started posting here is because Maciamo allows for a healthy debate about ideas. Yes, we have posters with obvious agendas, but we also have reasonable, knowledgeable posters who present sometimes opposing points of view in a civilized manner.

    I'll just repeat here some points I've made before which address some of these issues. This is too long as it is, so I won't repeat all the citations for the various positions. They can be found through the search engine.

    In so far as I can see with the evidence we have at present, I would agree with David Anthony that the Indo-European language and culture coalesced on the steppe around 4200-3000 BC.

    As to said culture, which is reflected in the language, David Anthony has long held that the steppe people got their domestic animals, their knowledge of herding, and their agriculture-which only took root in some river valleys west of the Don-from the Balkans. I have yet to see really persuasive archaeological studies which show that agriculture came through the Caucasus or that herding came by that route or from further east, whether it came with the apparently devastatingly attractive women from south of the Caucasus as some sites would have us believe, or with men and women of unknown origin.:) That doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s just there hasn’t been very much published about it.

    Neither were these people master metallurgists, as used to be claimed regularly. At the beginning of this period, the only metals they had were some copper trinkets traded for with the Balkan cultures. All indications seem to be that Bronze Metallurgy came from Maykop.

    The wheel and cart were "invented" either in the Near East or in Europe by MN people. The stratification of society based on wealth was already beginning when the steppe people were still hunter-gatherers living in yurts. The only real innovation which can be unequivocally attributed to them is the domestication of the horse, and then later, about 2000 BC, the invention of the first spoke-wheeled chariots in Sintashta. Even the "kurgans" may have been adopted from Maykop. Their "genius" lies, in my opinion, in the ability to adopt all these disparate advancements, and, when the climate changed, their use of them to their advantage. (more about that later).

    Now, these steppe people, from the evidence we have so far, were R1b, but not L51+ Now, perhaps there was L51+ on the western steppe, or perhaps a predecessor clade moved into the border areas to the Balkans earlier on; we just don't know yet.

    The papers that have been published so far claiming that "new" people brought the Balto-Slavic languages to Europe (along with ANE), focused on Corded Ware, who were mostly although not only R1a. Now, I've opined before that in my view if we start calling every group that spoke an Indo-European language and had adopted some of the hall marks of that culture "The Indo-Europeans", then the term can become rather meaningless. So, in my view, Corded Ware was an Indo-Europeanized group, "related" genetically to, but not the original Indo-Europeans.

    However, I don't really care one way or another. The important point is that when Corded Ware groups started to move into Europe they had agriculture, and they herded animals, but they barely had any metallurgy, and what they did have was copper. Oetzi and other Middle Neolithic groups also had copper tools and weapons. Bronze came much later for everyone. Corded Ware people did have carts, but it seems from the remains that most of them were probably oxen drawn. While some horse remains have been found, they were few in number. Evidence for actual horse riding is scarce. The only actual "proof" is a horse bridle relied upon by Anthony that is from a slightly later period. Regardless, I think we need to keep in mind the topography of Europe at the time. Riding horses may have been a good idea on the steppe, but once they got to the rest of Europe, we're talking about heavily forested regions and mountains where horses would have been a hindrance rather than an advantage.

    So, why would there be in all of Europe such a change in yDna? I think it's clear that, in my opinion, and based on more recent scholarship, they didn’t have many "advantages", in terms of weaponry in those early periods, or much ability to use horses once in the major parts o Europe etc.


    I would also submit that there's nothing in the evidence I've seen so far that the steppe people had any advantage in terms of LP. (Let's forget about cheese; MN people had been eating cheese for a long time.) The last time I checked, the steppe people lacked the LP alleles and so did Central European MN. We do have positive results from some Iberian farmers, but there's some controversy over the testing, so we can't say for certain if it was already in Europe. The first time it shows up in Central Europe is in a Bell Beaker sample. Now, if it turns out the Iberian results are correct, it might have come from farmers. I think there’s a case to be made that some groups were moving east before the arrival of steppe related populations. It's also possible it was present in as yet untested remains in the western steppe, and therefore did come from the steppe, or somewhere in the Carpathians, in which case it was from the farmers. I really don't know, but until we do know I don't see how claims that LP gave steppe people a huge "advantage" are supported given the evidence showing that they didn't possess those alleles. I personally find all these claims for the huge advantage LP gives rather overblown and always have done. The hundreds of millions of Chinese would seem to belie that claim.

    So, what happened at this critical juncture? I would speculate that the papers which have shown that central Europe experienced a series of population crashes are probably correct. The original Neolithic package was not optimal for the soil types and climate in parts of continental Europe at the best of times, although the increasing reliance on cattle helped. Still, depletion of the soil, the vagaries of weather, etc. all had their part to play. Then there was a big episode of climate change. We are discovering that many civilizations are stressed by climate change, from the Bronze Age palatial cultures, to Rome etc. The "farmer" populations of Europe may have experienced population decline with those who remained malnourished and weakened. Add to that the fact that we have discovered that plague was present among the steppe populations. They might have had some degree of immunity, but the Central European farmers certainly did not.

    When Corded Ware and related peoples, fleeing their own documented climate changes on the steppe, as speculated by David Anthony, started moving into Europe looking for better grasslands, but with their plague germs and their heavier reliance on herding and mobility they were probably in a better position to thrive.


    None of this means, in my opinion, that there wasn’t present in some of the steppe peoples (although not in Corded Ware to any great extent that I can see although maybe I just haven't seen the right papers) a certain “raiding” culture where groups of young men, perhaps second sons, or sons of poorer fathers, would have been eager to scout out opportunities over the horizon. These were people not all that long removed from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle of some of their ancestors. Look at the Indians of North America. Yes, you had the Maya and the Aztecs and the Pueblo Indians, sedentary people with advanced civilizations for that area and time, but you also had the Plains tribes, who engaged in rather constant if ritualized warfare and who harried their more settled neighbors.

    Now, I wish that were the end of the story, because given the ydna present in my area, these men are my ancestors too, but I don't think that it is. Yes, when these people moved into relatively empty, peripheral areas, a young" clade could come to dominate. I think that's what happened in Britain and probably along the Atlantic, where farming per se never really thrived. However, that wasn't the case in central Europe and probably not in parts of southern Europe where population density would have been higher, although we have almost no test results as of yet for Italy or the southern Balkans at that time, so we can’t come to any firm conclusions.


    Most importantly, we can’t ignore the fact that there's a huge disparity in terms of what happened to the yDna versus the mtDna following the steppe migrations. There isn't the "wipe out" of the mtDna that we see with the yDna; far from it. So, to some extent, either the men whom the steppe people encountered were killed or they were somehow placed in situations where they didn't have as much access to breeding women. I don't see any way around it. I don’t like the idea, and as for the men interested in this field who fantasize about these events, I wouldn’t wish to have a relationship with them. Heck, I wouldn’t even want to talk to them. However, facts are facts. It gives me no pleasure to say so but almost every invasion and war has led to the victimization, the rape, or at least the appropriation of women. Look at Berlin when the Russians arrived, look at the Rape of Nanking, look at the Balkans barely twenty-five years ago.
    I could go on and on. You don’t even need wars and invasions. How much sex trafficking went on from Eastern Europe?

    Or, go back to the conquest of the Americas. Yes, there are pockets where the "natives" were rather isolated and their y lineages survived, and densely populated farming areas where they do form part of the landscape, but they are still the minority lineage. The pattern is still European yDna and Native American mtDna.


    So, no, I don't think in the beginning the steppe people had any big technological "advantages", although that changed with time. Nor do I think they were supermen, either the R1b men or the R1a men or whatever other yDna groups went along for the ride. From the data on some of the Corded Ware people, they were pretty malnourished and weakened by the time they reached Europe. However, everything is relative. All they had to be was less sick than the natives and with a slightly better "survival" package for the climate. Add the mayhem and struggle for dominance that often accompanies the encounter between two cultures , and I think you had the perfect storm.


    The only other possibility, which I’ve raised before, is that perhaps that study which proposed that “R” ydna carriers have a slightly higher tendency to father boys is correct. Even the smallest “advantage” in that regard could, over two thousand years, totally change the percentages. I think mtDna “H” also has certain “fitness” advantages in terms of sepsis. The meeting of the two may have been another perfect storm.

    Well, that's how I see it so far. If the evidence changes I always change my theories.


    Oh, as to the population figures for pre-Neolithic Europe, the numbers must have been pretty small. It just takes too much land to support the hunter gatherer lifestyle, and their fertility is too low. There are many well-known studies that compute the figures based on the available land mass and formulas derived from other hunter-gatherer societies. We’re not totally in terra incognita here. We also have to remember that by the Mesolithic the era of roving bands going after mammoth were long gone along with their preferred prey. The hunter-gatherers were pretty sedentary, moving mainly to seasonal camps, dependent on small game, and, very often, fish. That’s why one of the biggest concentrations of them was around the Danube Gates. It's only with farming that populations increased to the point that the human race wasn't always on the point of extinction.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  17. #17
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,346
    Points
    36,232
    Level
    58
    Points: 36,232, Level: 58
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 418
    Overall activity: 32.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    good "état-des-lieux", Angela.
    Only I disagree in part about HGs number. They were not too dense but not so poorly provided by nature. Surely they became more and more sedentary, I agree (their more and more local subtypes could illustrate it) but the seas provided a lot to some of them too as do valleys. the lack of settlements in the more easy-to-live regions of Europe could be due to the sea level rising. In Brittany we have the Teviec dwarfy island off the today shores: how many settlements have been concealed by this sea rising? Cro-Magnon skeletons found i cave 40 m under the today sea level. The sepultures of the HGs were surely not so safe as the Neolithic people ones... ancient stable Neolithic and later periods settlements permit us to extrapolate numbers of "hearths", but what about the fires made at the caverns "doorsteps"?

  18. #18
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    As usual a great post Angela. I'm in agreement, except:


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Riding horses may have been a good idea on the steppe, but once they got to the rest of Europe, we're talking about heavily forested regions and mountains where horses would have been a hindrance rather than an advantage.
    Ancient horses were smaller and well suited to traverse great distances with their fast trot.

    Mike Loades presented it in one historical documentary.

    I really don't know, but until we do know I don't see how claims that LP gave steppe people a huge "advantage" are supported given the evidence showing that they didn't possess those alleles. I personally find all these claims for the huge advantage LP gives rather overblown and always have done. The hundreds of millions of Chinese would seem to belie that claim.
    Actually, nature itself made a huge statement about helpful role of LP in parts of Europe, up to 90%. By nature standards it is as strong statement as it gets.

    So, what happened at this critical juncture? I would speculate that the papers which have shown that central Europe experienced a series of population crashes are probably correct. The original Neolithic package was not optimal for the soil types and climate in parts of continental Europe at the best of times, although the increasing reliance on cattle helped. Still, depletion of the soil, the vagaries of weather, etc. all had their part to play. Then there was a big episode of climate change. We are discovering that many civilizations are stressed by climate change, from the Bronze Age palatial cultures, to Rome etc. The "farmer" populations of Europe may have experienced population decline with those who remained malnourished and weakened. Add to that the fact that we have discovered that plague was present among the steppe populations. They might have had some degree of immunity, but the Central European farmers certainly did not.
    Let's mention that these were climate changes for the cooler and usually the dryer type, which creates the food shortages and drastic population decline. Warming up climate was always associated with higher food production and population expansion.
    If it comes to climate change we should be more concerned about climate cooling and new ice age, than climate warming up, making our planet greener.

    Have to run. More later.


  19. #19
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,932
    Points
    256,054
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,054, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    As usual a great post Angela. I'm in agreement, except:


    Ancient horses were smaller and well suited to traverse great distances with their fast trot.

    Mike Loades presented it in one historical documentary.

    [FONT=&amp] Actually, nature itself made a huge statement about helpful role of LP in parts of Europe, up to 90%. By nature standards it is as strong statement as it gets.

    Let's mention that these were climate changes for the cooler and usually the dryer type, which creates the food shortages and drastic population decline. Warming up climate was always associated with higher food production and population expansion.
    If it comes to climate change we should be more concerned about climate cooling and new ice age, than climate warming up, making our planet greener.

    Have to run. More later.

    I'm going to look him and his research up. I've never seen it. Would they still have been much good in all the heavily forested areas? I have to take a look at some of the maps I have of European topography at that time.

    I don't doubt, by the way, that the ability to digest fresh milk can come in handy when crops fail, or that it wasn't selected for, because that obviously happened. I'm just saying there's no indication yet that it was present in steppe people or originated with them. It's also absolutely possible to grow huge populations without it, although I don't know off hand if the heavily populated areas of China extend far enough into the north for the failure of wheat crops to be a problem.

    Wasn't it mostly european R1b type? It makes me really think that Y R1b chromosome gives offsprings couple of percentage point survival advantage over other types.
    Indeed it was, which totally makes sense in terms of Central and South America, since the settlers were Iberians, but strangely enough, even in tribes like the Ojibway it's mostly R1b. You would think there'd be some "I" or a bit of "R1a" when we're talking about the English and the Scots, if not the Irish.

    However the farther south one goes the lesser genetic input "steppe IEs" shows. And this is after additional invasions of Celts, Germans and Slavs of historical times.
    That's one of the big questions for me. Was it just the fact that southern Europe was more densely populated because of fewer population crashes? Or was it a case of different kinds of Indo-Europeans going to Greece and Italy, much more CHG heavy "Indo-Europeans". Or was it both?

  20. #20
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    So, what happened at this critical juncture? I would speculate that the papers which have shown that central Europe experienced a series of population crashes are probably correct. The original Neolithic package was not optimal for the soil types and climate in parts of continental Europe at the best of times, although the increasing reliance on cattle helped. Still, depletion of the soil, the vagaries of weather, etc. all had their part to play. Then there was a big episode of climate change. We are discovering that many civilizations are stressed by climate change, from the Bronze Age palatial cultures, to Rome etc. The "farmer" populations of Europe may have experienced population decline with those who remained malnourished and weakened. Add to that the fact that we have discovered that plague was present among the steppe populations. They might have had some degree of immunity, but the Central European farmers certainly did not.

    When Corded Ware and related peoples, fleeing their own documented climate changes on the steppe, as speculated by David Anthony, started moving into Europe looking for better grasslands, but with their plague germs and their heavier reliance on herding and mobility they were probably in a better position to thrive.
    Definitely Yamnaya and Corded represent new type of genetic hybrid of farmer-herder-hunter, much better suited to deal with colder climate of northern Europe. When crops failed they went hunting. Some sort of survival versatility. Surely there is more to it, like hardy crops, new cultivation technique, dirt houses, etc, but the idea is the same. Suitability for colder climate farming and way of life.
    So, no, I don't think in the beginning the steppe people had any big technological "advantages", although that changed with time. Nor do I think they were supermen, either the R1b men or the R1a men or whatever other yDna groups went along for the ride. From the data on some of the Corded Ware people, they were pretty malnourished and weakened by the time they reached Europe. However, everything is relative. All they had to be was less sick than the natives and with a slightly better "survival" package for the climate. Add the mayhem and struggle for dominance that often accompanies the encounter between two cultures , and I think you had the perfect storm.
    I don't think they had much of technological or numerical advantage, especially in early conquests of 4-1 millenia BC. They had good package to deal with farming and live up north. However the farther south one goes the lesser genetic input "steppe IEs" shows. And this is after additional invasions of Celts, Germans and Slavs of historical times.



    Or, go back to the conquest of the Americas. Yes, there are pockets where the "natives" were rather isolated and their y lineages survived, and densely populated farming areas where they do form part of the landscape, but they are still the minority lineage. The pattern is still European yDna and Native American mtDna.
    Wasn't it mostly european R1b type? It makes me really think that Y R1b chromosome gives offsprings couple of percentage point survival advantage over other types.
    The only other possibility, which I’ve raised before, is that perhaps that study which proposed that “R” ydna carriers have a slightly higher tendency to father boys is correct. Even the smallest “advantage” in that regard could, over two thousand years, totally change the percentages. I think mtDna “H” also has certain “fitness” advantages in terms of sepsis. The meeting of the two may have been another perfect storm.
    I wonder if 23andMe could pull some statistics in this regard. Something statistically relevant should pop up.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post

    I don't think they had much of technological or numerical advantage, especially in early conquests of 4-1 millenia BC.

    And this folks, is why folks are working so hard to inject science back into the debate. The use of the word "conquest" presupposes the outcome. It is no longer a hypothesis at that point, but a conclusion. And it is a conclusory statement, in and of itself.

    This started out as a thread on mathematics and demographics. The material on horses and such is slightly off topic.

    But when someone just says, "no, so there" like above without any evidence or citations, it is a bit frustrating.

    Let's try again: imagine for a moment there wasn't a conquest. Imagine instead that there were people who fled for whatever reason. Maybe it was the onslaught of R1a people into where R1b people originated. Then entertain me by imagining that they picked up a genetic advantage on the way, which was the ability to digest milk (or simply a ready supply of meat when the megafauna that others relied on were in short supply). Or simply that they had greater initial numbers, and that their lifestyle allowed for more children to be born.

    This model is far, far more consistent than the notion that after wandering for centuries, the tribe was pure enough to "conquer" Ireland (by boat!, these steppe nomads!) in such numbers that Ireland is 80+% R1b.

    No way. Drift and demography explain what conquering and conquest cannot.

    A far better model is the one originally proposed in this post. It relies on math and logic.

    I suggest a re-read and I welcome comments on point.

  22. #22
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,932
    Points
    256,054
    Level
    100
    Points: 256,054, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Well, I for one would welcome a little more civility on your part, and a little less aggressiveness and dismissiveness toward a valued member of this site like Le Brok, or toward the forum owner, Maciamo, from both of whom, by the way, you could learn a great deal about genetics and the Indo-Europeans and the movement of R1b in Europe, whether on foot or on horseback.

    I also have some suggestions of my own to make. How about you do some close reading of the articles to which you link so that time doesn't have to be wasted showing you as indirectly and politely as possible that you don't understand them, and, while we're at it, it would greatly help matters were you to actually pay attention when people are politely hinting that your knowledge of this material has some obvious gaps, as is clear from the fact that you quoted that ridiculous statement about Charlemagne when anyone who knows anything about the field knows that pedigree collapse and the regional population structure of Europe make nonsense of that statement, or the fact that you continue to harp on the advantage the steppe peoples had in being able to digest dairy products when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that they didn't have the derived alleles.

    We all know the papers that prove these things because we've discussed them over and over again. We've all seen the spreadsheets drawn from all these ancient dna papers that have been put together by numerous posters including Fire-Haired. The fact that no one disagrees with certain assertions is proof of that. That you don't know these things is your problem, not that of the members of this Board. If you want the names and links to the papers ask politely and if people have time they'll give them to you. Otherwise, do the work yourself by using the search engine.

    If I were to see some progress being made in these matters then maybe I might consider posting again on this thread. Or maybe not...How much can be said about your little math exercise? We read it, we get it, in fact we got it a long time ago. It's been pointed out to you nicely that it's only one possible piece of a much bigger puzzle. If you've got nothing else there's nothing more to be said about it.

    Oh, and stop with the straw man arguments. No one regularly posting here is proposing some Superman R1b scenario.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Well, I for one would welcome a little more civility on your part, and a little less aggressiveness and dismissiveness toward a valued member of this site like Le Brok, or toward the forum owner, Maciamo, from both of whom, by the way, you could learn a great deal about genetics and the Indo-Europeans and the movement of R1b in Europe, whether on foot or on horseback.

    I also have some suggestions of my own to make. How about you do some close reading of the articles to which you link so that time doesn't have to be wasted showing you as indirectly and politely as possible that you don't understand them, and, while we're at it, it would greatly help matters were you to actually pay attention when people are politely hinting that your knowledge of this material has some obvious gaps, as is clear from the fact that you quoted that ridiculous statement about Charlemagne when anyone who knows anything about the field knows that pedigree collapse and the regional population structure of Europe make nonsense of that statement, or the fact that you continue to harp on the advantage the steppe peoples had in being able to digest dairy products when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that they didn't have the derived alleles.

    We all know the papers that prove these things because we've discussed them over and over again. We've all seen the spreadsheets drawn from all these ancient dna papers that have been put together by numerous posters including Fire-Haired. The fact that no one disagrees with certain assertions is proof of that. That you don't know these things is your problem, not that of the members of this Board. If you want the names and links to the papers ask politely and if people have time they'll give them to you. Otherwise, do the work yourself by using the search engine.

    If I were to see some progress being made in these matters then maybe I might consider posting again on this thread. Or maybe not...How much can be said about your little math exercise? We read it, we get it, in fact we got it a long time ago. It's been pointed out to you nicely that it's only one possible piece of a much bigger puzzle. If you've got nothing else there's nothing more to be said about it.

    Oh, and stop with the straw man arguments. No one regularly posting here is proposing some Superman R1b scenario.
    OK, let's bring it down to dry facts.

    1. Lots of people have accused you of being "uncivil" Angela, on this board. I'm disappointed that you resort to that accusation about me. I haven't engaged in any of the ad hominem common on these boards. I haven't called anyone "stupid" or poked at them. I've kept to the facts. Accusing someone of being "uncivil" is often the last resort of someone who has nothing to say. I've seen you post the same thing on other threads!

    2. Maciamo appreciates dialogue. He wouldn't have started a board if he didn't. He knows that debates bring readers, which increase hits. And he's not so egotistical that he needs an echo chamber of his ideas.

    3. The Charlemagne statement is your Straw Man. The point, which any serious mathematician or demographer agrees on is this: the number of ancestors we all have greatly exceeds the number of people on the planet, for most points in prehistory. I know you understand this. There is no need for the Straw Man.

    4. I've read plenty of R1b supermen statements on this thread and others, and so have you. Need I remind you of the request for a "special forum for those bearing R1b only" that you just roundly criticized?

  24. #24
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by moore2moore View Post
    And this folks, is why folks are working so hard to inject science back into the debate. The use of the word "conquest" presupposes the outcome. It is no longer a hypothesis at that point, but a conclusion. And it is a conclusory statement, in and of itself.
    I suspect that farmers didn't want to share their land with steppe invaders. Fighting had to be inevitable.

    This started out as a thread on mathematics and demographics. The material on horses and such is slightly off topic.
    It's been proven by many historical battles that warrior on a horse has advantage over warrior on foot. Don't you agree?
    Even if first IE didn't fight on a horse yet and used horse only for locomotion, by riding horses they could outmaneuver infantry of locals, and they could gather warrior from afar or bring supplies much quicker in case of a battle.

    Let's try again: imagine for a moment there wasn't a conquest. Imagine instead that there were people who fled for whatever reason. Maybe it was the onslaught of R1a people into where R1b people originated. Then entertain me by imagining that they picked up a genetic advantage on the way, which was the ability to digest milk (or simply a ready supply of meat when the megafauna that others relied on were in short supply). Or simply that they had greater initial numbers, and that their lifestyle allowed for more children to be born.
    Should I go with this conclusory statement or you want to bring some citation for support?
    As Angela mentioned many times, there is no evidence of widespread of LP among early IEs. All your other statements are open for a game. Keep in mind that displaced people don't mean necessarily peaceful immigrants. Actually if anything, history is teaching us otherwise. Check recent history of displaced Germanic and Slavic tribes after the fall of Roman Empire. Eventually they conquered and took over Roman Empire and most of Byzantium. Why should it be different with IE invasion? After all we know that they were highly structured warrior societies.
    Am I sure of it? No. I'm just thinking, based on all we know about them, that this is most likely scenario of IE invasion and conquest.

    This model is far, far more consistent than the notion that after wandering for centuries, the tribe was pure enough to "conquer" Ireland (by boat!, these steppe nomads!) in such numbers that Ireland is 80+% R1b.

    No way. Drift and demography explain what conquering and conquest cannot.

    A far better model is the one originally proposed in this post. It relies on math and logic.
    Yes, we know about the numbers and they were at work at some degree, but why are you blantly ignoring a process of natural selection, possible advantageous mutation on Y chromosome or other positive adaptation which could have help build up IEs in numbers faster? We know how you like to invoke natural selection in LP case for IEs, though misplaced in this case. How about other, still unknown, mutations giving R1b folks a helpful hand? Impossible?
    In nature it is not just a number game.

    I suggest a re-read and I welcome comments on point.
    Do you mean we can't discuss other points relevant to "Spread of Y haplogroups in Europe" beside points you made?

  25. #25
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class31 days registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    12-12-15
    Posts
    73
    Points
    1,238
    Level
    9
    Points: 1,238, Level: 9
    Level completed: 44%, Points required for next Level: 112
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Country: USA - California



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    I suspect that farmers didn't want to share their land with steppe invaders. Fighting had to be inevitable.

    It's been proven by many historical battles that warrior on a horse has advantage over warrior on foot. Don't you agree?
    Even if first IE didn't fight on a horse yet and used horse only for locomotion, by riding horses they could outmaneuver infantry of locals, and they could gather warrior from afar or bring supplies much quicker in case of a battle.

    As Angela mentioned many times, there is no evidence of widespread of LP among early IEs.
    Let me see if I understand you correctly: I have seen posted here that the R1b "conquest" took 2000 years.

    Do you posit that during those 2000 years, only R1b people had the horse? That no one else used a horse, during 2000 years? Did the horses do a Y-STR test on their handlers to make sure they were R1b?

    I don't mean that to be flippant -- truly. I am trying to understand your POV.

    Because that would be rather extraordinary. I am unaware of ANY technology, from farming to iPhones, that was not adopted pretty fast by people who initially didn't have it.

    And actually, for large epochs in human history, cavalry was eschewed in favor of heavy infantry. I lecture on the Macedonian and early Roman armies. If you want to get into that, let me know.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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