R1b-M269 / L23 and the diffusion of early metallurgy

And that's why modern Europe is entirely dominated by Hunter-Gatherer Y-DNA haplogroups - R1b, R1a, I1 and I2 ???

All those haplogroups were part of WHG, SHG, EHG (perhaps also CHG): none of them came with Early Neolithic Farmers.

ENF males failed in Europe, they almost got exterminated by descendants of Hunter-Gatherers, who took their women.

Even your and my Y-DNA comes from either EHG, WHG or CHG - despite your Pro-Farmer attitude... :)))
Y is only 2% of DNA, responsible for making a man, not making a farmer or not. All Europeans have at least 40% of EEF genes, and this is where farming predisposition is. Prove me wrong and find pure HG community who took to farming. All existing HGs were exposed to farmers and their knowledge of farming for few hundred years now. You shouldn't have a problem finding them, right? All it takes, according to you, is to learn how. It should be easy. :)))
 
It prove your point you would need to present data that haplogroups of Kowalski or Smiths are substantially different from haplogroups of general population. Are there Kowalski or Smith families projects, and results available online?

Difficult in Europe but in places like Nepal there are groups which still contain caste based professions and some of those groups have been dna tested but as far as i'm aware there wasn't any attempt to see if the group dna had professional structure within it i.e. if the copper workers were one thing and the saddle makers something else.
 
There is a difference. Spreading farming required spreading farming genes. So far there was no HG genetic community in Eurasia who learned to farm without genetic transfer, not even recent prairie Indians or Australian Aborigines. Don't take me wrong, they can understand the concept, they just don't care for it. And of course some individuals in these communities will be up for it, but not the general population.
Now unlike farming, spread of metallurgy didn't require spreading genes with knowledge. Sure a trade used to run in family as hereditary thing, but I'm not sure if it had trans-cultural effect. However if it is true, then we need to find out who had spread clay pots and ceramic in general into all hunter gatherer communities of Eurasia?

Personally I think that is maybe where the East Asian admixture comes from. There were pottery using sedentary HGs around the Black Sea before pottery reached the middle east.

edit: which hints at the route taken
 
I think it was easier to inherit smith profession than chieftain's. If we talk about military democracy societies?
Or so I heard. Happy to be proven wrong.
 
Fun Fact. In late medieval / early modern Greek we used the term 'γύφτος' (='gypsy') with the meaning "smith, ironworker". I wonder where they got their "metallurgical genes".
 
I think it was easier to inherit smith profession than chieftain's. If we talk about military democracy societies?
Or so I heard. Happy to be proven wrong.

Yes. If there were metal working castes in the copper age like the existing ones in India, Africa etc then you'd imagine they wouldn't stay completely endogamous forever especially if that caste system broke down - but maybe they did for a while?

In which case evidence might show up in ancient dna or in cultures where the caste system lasted longest? For example the Newars of Nepal have a variety of ydna and also profession castes. It would be interesting if there was structure to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newar_people#Castes_and_communities

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...ptions-of-one-of-Nepal-s-most-important-races
 
Difficult in Europe but in places like Nepal there are groups which still contain caste based professions and some of those groups have been dna tested but as far as i'm aware there wasn't any attempt to see if the group dna had professional structure within it i.e. if the copper workers were one thing and the saddle makers something else.
Perhaps there is some validity to it.
 
to Greying Wanderer:
your #32 post is a good starting point, I think
 
BTW - it is clear that modern so called "EEF" admixture in Europe is not in fact EEF, but something which came later.

Because G2a in Europe is almost extinct today, but EEF is not. Probably more "EEF-like" admixture came with R1b.

Unless you believe that all of EEF admixture in Europe today was mediated via women!

But Steppe admixture could be mediated to Western Europe via CWC women as well.

None of that is clear at all. In fact, the data points to the exact opposite conclusion.

See the following analysis which has two "farmer" clusters and a Yamnaya cluster as well. Look at the "farmer" numbers for the Nordic Bronze Age. You can even see when the Yamnaya came in and the drop in the farmer numbers began. They're not very different at all from the Haak et al numbers for the ancient samples. They're also not far from from modern levels.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ObXiVfL-Rza0VDbDFGZzJzRzQ/view?pli=1

Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png


Areas to the south are going to have higher levels in part because there wasn't as large a refugia or reservoir for the WHG, and partly because of population crashes in central Europe.

Whether some people like it or not, the Near Eastern farmers had a large input into the genomes of all Europeans.

As for this question of uniparental markers, haven't we learned, with J2 EHGs, Spanish farmer R1bs, and now an R1b WHG that they are unreliable in terms of total genetic make-up?

In terms of this association of certain yDna lines with certain professions, it's possible, but I'm personally wary of generalizing what may be the case in India, for example, to the situation everywhere in the world. They're quite mad for divisions of people into multiple isolated breeding groups, with the unavoidable consequences for genetic fitness.

Generally, also, it's important to keep in mind, I think, that civilization grows by increments. Farming was a huge leap forward. Actual metallurgy arose in that context.
 
Y is only 2% of DNA, responsible for making a man, not making a farmer or not.

But this 2% makes you who you are.

Your identity is not based on your liver or intestine,
which can be even 100% genetically pygmies, but
you are who you are, becasue of your sex 2% gene.
98% id about flesh form. 2% is about humanity.
And this is most important part of you, not toes.
 
But this 2% makes you who you are.

Your identity is not based on your liver or intestine,
which can be even 100% genetically pygmies, but
you are who you are, becasue of your sex 2% gene.
98% id about flesh form. 2% is about humanity.
And this is most important part of you, not toes.
Oh now I understand, 2% makes your humanity, which is your penis and mustache, lol. The rest, 98% of "inhumanity" genes give you brain with logic and emotions, skin colour, handsome face (or not), coordination, sense of rhythm or lack of it, digestive preferences for certain foods, traits of character, ability to speak and love, etc. However in your case, your 98% definitely lacks logic, kindness and good manners. Perhaps, your 2% can help you with it. ;)
 
Oh now I understand, 2% makes your humanity, which is your penis and mustache, lol. The rest, 98% of "inhumanity" genes give you brain with logic and emotions, skin colour, handsome face (or not), coordination, sense of rhythm or lack of it, digestive preferences for certain foods, traits of character, ability to speak and love, etc. However in your case, your 98% definitely lacks logic, kindness and good manners. Perhaps, your 2% can help you with it. ;)

As always...

172636.gif
 
It is only a thought newly come to my mind:
Metals could be linked to Y-R1 or Y-J2 fellows, even if I think that the Y-R1 fellows were perhaps not the best placed to promote them; it's true Y-R1a or Y-R1b are large bags and were in fact a family whose children lived very different lifes.
But I begin to see that at Chalcolithic and Early BA in Central Europe Y-I2 of any kind (but more some of the Y-I2a2) begun to improve their health or their reproductive rate, as in Hungary or in Unetice (not speaking of too "familial" Liechtenstein Cave/Untrut); Would it be a resurgence at metals after Neolithic? Linked to what precisely? more attrait or skills for metallic weapons send by others? I 'm eager to see more ancient Y-DNA of these times.
 
I tend to agree. I see some people still pushing the whole "metallurgy in western Europe came from Yamnaya people" scenario. Have they forgotten that Yamnaya was initially very primitive in terms of metallurgy, and borrowed the technology from others?

Concerning the Yamnaya steppe scenario.Let 's note that Corded Ware people are so far mostly R1a and Yamnaya R1b. Furthermore, all R1b-L51 aDNA are in Western Europe in Bronze Age but nothing in Pontic Steppe. It's look like that the strange Yamnaya migration scenario had wheels, horses but, more importantly, it missed the men and his Y-DNA.
 
Last edited:
It is only a thought newly come to my mind:
Metals could be linked to Y-R1 or Y-J2 fellows, even if I think that the Y-R1 fellows were perhaps not the best placed to promote them; it's true Y-R1a or Y-R1b are large bags and were in fact a family whose children lived very different lifes.
But I begin to see that at Chalcolithic and Early BA in Central Europe Y-I2 of any kind (but more some of the Y-I2a2) begun to improve their health or their reproductive rate, as in Hungary or in Unetice (not speaking of too "familial" Liechtenstein Cave/Untrut); Would it be a resurgence at metals after Neolithic? Linked to what precisely? more attrait or skills for metallic weapons send by others? I 'm eager to see more ancient Y-DNA of these times.

Speculating

if ydna I
- was associated with mountainous regions for some reason
- in the metal ages, miners and metal workers moved to those mountainous areas looking for ore
that might have led to a local alliance between ydna I and R1 in one or more regions

then

if miners and metal workers were generally the first to get a good supply of
- copper weapons
- bronze weapons
- iron weapons
you might see dramatic expansions of ydna R1 and I together from ore producing regions at various times.
 
Concerning the Yamnaya steppe scenario.Let 's note that Corded Ware people are so far mostly R1a and Yamnaya R1b. Furthermore, all R1b-L51 aDNA are in Western Europe in Bronze Age but nothing in Pontic Steppe. It's look like that the strange Yamnaya migration scenario had wheels, horses but, more importantly, it missed the men and his Y-DNA.

If the R1b in modern Europeans did start on the steppe then it seems they must have expanded first and were then displaced on the steppe by the R1a expansion.
 
If the R1b in modern Europeans did start on the steppe then it seems they must have expanded first and were then displaced on the steppe by the R1a expansion.
This does not solve the fact that there is no R1b-L51 in the Steppes at all so far but only among early Bronze Age Bell Beakers in Western Europe. If R1b came from the Steppes in 4500 bp we should find this 6000 years old mutation R1b-L51 there, this is not the case so far then I doubt. I would wait for an R1b-L51 in the Steppe aDNA first to clear these doubts.
 
This does not solve the fact that there is no R1b-L51 in the Steppes at all so far but only among early Bronze Age Bell Beakers in Western Europe. If R1b came from the Steppes in 4500 bp we should find this 6000 years old mutation R1b-L51 there, this is not the case so far then I doubt. I would wait for an R1b-L51 in the Steppe aDNA first to clear these doubts.

true enough
 
Speculating

if ydna I
- was associated with mountainous regions for some reason
- in the metal ages, miners and metal workers moved to those mountainous areas looking for ore
that might have led to a local alliance between ydna I and R1 in one or more regions

then

if miners and metal workers were generally the first to get a good supply of
- copper weapons
- bronze weapons
- iron weapons
you might see dramatic expansions of ydna R1 and I together from ore producing regions at various times.

I red this suggestion some time ago. I suppose it was yours?
All the way, it's not stupid at all and deserves attention.
Mountains? Curiously enough, a lot of the today peaks in Europe are in mountainous regions. But we would need to have more detailed subclades of y-I2a2. The mountainous aspect could look evident enough if we consider that during first developments of Neolithic way of life, the newcomers could have pushed or induced the "autochtonous population" (Y-I2 for the most) into remote corners of the lands, far from fertile plains. What puzzles me is the very spotty distribution of Y-I2a2 compared to big bits of lands occuped by Y-I2a1b as a whole. Which I2a2 took part in the metals story? I don't know for sure. The L28 one? (if I don't mistake the subclade name): I think into the big concentration of I2a2 in Switzerland (Celts?) but I'm not sure it's the same dominant clade in Northern Germany. I 'll have to go deeper if I find data.
 
I red this suggestion some time ago. I suppose it was yours?
All the way, it's not stupid at all and deserves attention.
Mountains? Curiously enough, a lot of the today peaks in Europe are in mountainous regions. But we would need to have more detailed subclades of y-I2a2. The mountainous aspect could look evident enough if we consider that during first developments of Neolithic way of life, the newcomers could have pushed or induced the "autochtonous population" (Y-I2 for the most) into remote corners of the lands, far from fertile plains. What puzzles me is the very spotty distribution of Y-I2a2 compared to big bits of lands occuped by Y-I2a1b as a whole. Which I2a2 took part in the metals story? I don't know for sure. The L28 one? (if I don't mistake the subclade name): I think into the big concentration of I2a2 in Switzerland (Celts?) but I'm not sure it's the same dominant clade in Northern Germany. I 'll have to go deeper if I find data.

Yes. It struck me some time ago if you subtracted the ydna I1 that is thought to have been carried along with the Germanic expansion then what you have left correlates quite strongly with mountainous regions.

If that correlation was correct then it made me think ydna I might be connected to refuge survival and then later in some places (Pyrenees? Harz? Scandi?) a later movement into those mountains of miners/metalworkers might have forged an alliance with the local variety of ydna I.

In other regions maybe that mining connection was never made and so the local variety of ydna I never expanded out of the refuge.

If correct it will very much be a local sub-clade thing rather than ydna I as a whole (although the pattern may have repeated more than once).

#

edit

I was thinking something similar with G and J a while back (as IJ are related). I was thinking J in mountain refuges somewhere getting picked up by a farmer expansion somehow and carried along with it like rocks in a glacier - although not so sure about that now.
 

This thread has been viewed 58401 times.

Back
Top