Ancient genomes reveal social and genetic structure of Late Neolithic Switzerland

People need to check out ..Hammurabi code of laws in regards to women .............these laws made women unequal to men , before these laws, men and women where equal in society ...... the introduction of laws forced use of veiling for women , only prostitutes and slave women could ( not allowed ) not were the veil, all others had to. The rights of women decreased under the Code of Hammurabi, established sometime around 1752 BCE along with the rise of urban society in Mesopotamia.
for one.......The Veil ............Prostitutes and slaves were not forced to don the veil. Instead, if they were found wearing a veil, they could be arrested, whipped, publicly stripped, and have their ears cut off. These rules divided women into different types of property and commodification.

the "boys club" religious institutions of judism, christianity and islam all took these unequal laws against women as their own ............and to this day they still persist in these instituations.

very many papers on this topic alone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vD023dn4cp8wF2lRntcQ7L/is-gender-inequality-man-made

The 282 code of laws are currently held in the British museum for all to see and study.
 
Which truth? Evidence?

Yes the evidence, because there existed no modern Northern people phenotypically or genotypically before the mixture of Northern European farmers with Corded Ware. You have blondism in TRB and GAC and you have similar phenotypes in these Northern farmers, but they were not all light pigmented to begin with.

The difference is that you hang on to the Steppe Pastoralist as a kind of 'proto Nordic'. Yes they were tall (like many Northern Europeans today) but they were 'tall, dark and handsom' ;)))
So contrary to the old meme!

According to the preliminary results, they were dark haired and eyed in their majority, that's true, but they were tall, more robust and had larger measurements beside a lot of skeletal details. Their genetic profile too was different as we know and included EHG:CHG which was largely absent from the preceding populations of the North. So their input created the modern Northern phenotype through mixture and subsequent selection. I don't see what's your problem with that assertion? Before the Bronze Age you simply didn't have the full package around anywhere, or at least not in larger numbers.

What is the need? The Saami have a pretty dark pigmentation around the outmost northern hemisphere so I don't see the need.

Good you mention this, because the Saami are not dark in global comparison, not even for all of Europe necessarily, but only for Scandinavia. They are short statured and lived as hunter gatherers for most of their time and as reindeer herders only later, with a lot of fresh, even raw meat in their diet and most of the day outside. You see the difference to the Germanic and Baltic people? They relied on agricultural products for the most part since the Bronze Age.

As such I can underline it, although I would say that the SHG played also a part in it....but I don't share the way you described it. The Steppe brought not 'extra light features' on the contrary.....

Just to give you an idea of how this is working out: If you would create a mixed population of Europeans, Northern Chinese and Ainu, its common sense that the resulting mixed people would be darker skinned than Northern Europeans, right? Ok, but all these 3 populations are lighter than most of their neighbours and the vast majority of humanity South of them. Yet the allels for light skin they have are not the same, the genetic architecture is not always the same. So they reached a fairly light skin, for world standards, on their own, with their own evolutionary path. Like some East Africans acquired lactase persistence with a different mutation. Also, even the Europeans are not all equally light skinned, so if you create a mixed population of these three people, the only limiting factor is selection. If the selection is strong enough on them, these mixed people will become lighter than all their parent groups were.

Now my assumption is not that Corded Ware people were necessarily lighter pigmented in their actual phenotype, but that they possessed genetic variation which made them fairly light too, which the, otherwise lighter, Northern farmers did not possess, which were simply not part of their genetic variation. So you can mix up a lighter with a darker population and the result after selection can be lighter than both were afterwards, if new genetic variations got introduced in the mixed gene pool. This was true then and it could be true for modern mixtures of let's say Europeans with Chinese. There is the possibility that a specific recombination could make the offspring lighter than both parents are.

No the BB British were vey diversified, see https://genetiker.wordpress.com/pigmentation/ they were on the whole not lighter than TRB or GAC. SO no 'further in the trend'.

Sorry, my bad. I was speaking of BB relative to CW!

So most likely the Steppe Pastoralist were pretty tall and 'darkish' (brown/ dark haired) but with light skin. And they mixed with the TRB/GAC that was somewhat lighter featured (=not all!). The sexual selection might be strong but took the whole Bronze Age.

Imo this comes closer to the 'truth'.

Agreed, but with the remarks from above: New genes from the EHG:CHG gene pool were introduced most likely which made even lighter tones possible, plus selection for the habitat and nutrition in the North.

One of the remarkable things is that the BB had a phenotype that was most probably very differentiated from that of TRB/GAC and the majority of the Corded Horizon: brachycephalic and with a flat occiput. May be something that popped up and was cultivated among (a dominant) Protruding Foot Beaker clan?

I agree that superficially Bell Beakers were more different from CW than TRB/GAC was. But they had some traits in common as well. I also agree with you on a dominant clan taking over, and spreading its phenotype by social selection.

So I differ with you on the point of the supposed 'Nordic' and 'light featured' Steppe pastoralist and I see some differentiation in the evolution.....

Evolution needs to have a starting point, like birds could develop wings from ancestors which already used their upper limbs in a similar fashion before actually flying.

The same is true for blondism. It might increase in different ways first, like related to general depigmentation, becomes favourable for small children, being, as such a neotenous trait, transferred to females, spreading in a group and becoming a social ideal for the ethnic group as a whole and so on.

But depigmentation in general, as we see it in Northern Europe, is clearly correlated to climate/UV radiation and nutrition. That's the ultimate starting point. And it was always a variation present in the North, because the most depigmented phenotypes were nowhere fixed it seems, at least in no larger region. They are probably the result of a normal distribution around an ideal variant for the selective regime, because strong depigmentation has advantages and disadvantages at the same time. With so many genes involved, a stable "very light" without "extremely light" or "somewhat darker" variants in the population couldn't be stabilised. With so many allels involved, a normal distribution with extreme ends meets the expectation.
 
by the way
any of you experts know : :unsure:
which language did those late neolithic individuals spoke ?
a pre- indo-european language close to basque?

Nobody can know. Chances are high they spoke a now extinct language. And where Basque was coming from, which languages Bell Beakers spoke, is still open to debate.

People need to check out ..Hammurabi code of laws in regards to women .............these laws made women unequal to men , before these laws, men and women where equal in society ......

On what do you base this assertion? Also, I think that equality talk is nonsensical anyway, because what do you mean with "equal in society"? Men and women had different functions in the group, even among the most primitive hunter gatherers, even among Neandertals. So what do you mean with "made women unequal"? Before the law? What makes equal or unequal before the law?
If a female witness counts 1/2 of a male this is the kind of inequality you mean? Then I would say, yes, such matters varied from one society to another. Whether women could inherit or sell property on their own? Yes, that varied too. For such a debate you need to be informed and precise, with one community having different rules than another, with or without a written law.

the introduction of laws forced use of veiling for women , only prostitutes and slave women could ( not allowed ) not were the veil, all others had to.

The veil was obviously a sign of dignity and protection in the urban context. This was not to make women "inequal" from a modern Feminist perspective, but because in the cities there were a lot of troubles with males and females, with men attacking and raping "decent women". So the law introduced a sign for the higher protection of "good women" with status by the law and the visual effect of the disguise should be obvious.

The rights of women decreased under the Code of Hammurabi, established sometime around 1752 BCE along with the rise of urban society in Mesopotamia.
for one.......The Veil ............Prostitutes and slaves were not forced to don the veil. Instead, if they were found wearing a veil, they could be arrested, whipped, publicly stripped, and have their ears cut off. These rules divided women into different types of property and commodification.

The difference before and after is mainly that in a small scale group everybody knows each other. You don't need as much special protection or rules. Even Arab muslim Bedu women rarely disguised themselves as did those in the urban centres. So you are right about the way of life in the city being the cause for this concrete rules, but if you want to prove that the situation was fundamentally different before, you need to come up with other evidence.

The 282 code of laws are currently held in the British museum for all to see and study.

The advantage of a code should be obvious: Not every strong man or group of men could act like they want, without having to fear punishment. Without a law, you have just "the right of the strongest". If you think the situation for women in the Mesopotamian cities was so much better shortly before the code was introduced, you are wrong. Also, if you read the letters from that time, you see that the role of women was not that bad and helpless in all matters after all. Not to forget that the rights and position of many males was very bad - like that of slaves, just to give you a hint, or the poor. However, there were differences between different ethnicities, like Sumerians and Akkadians if its about the position of women in society.
 
Yes the evidence, because there existed no modern Northern people phenotypically or genotypically before the mixture of Northern European farmers with Corded Ware. You have blondism in TRB and GAC and you have similar phenotypes in these Northern farmers, but they were not all light pigmented to begin with.

Agree but that's also the case with Neolithic Greece!

They are short statured and lived as hunter gatherers for most of their time and as reindeer herders only later, with a lot of fresh, even raw meat in their diet and most of the day outside. You see the difference to the Germanic and Baltic people? They relied on agricultural products for the most part since the Bronze Age.

As it comes to the Ertebølle and Narva HG not, I guess they swallowed some seals and ate (raw) fish. Dutch still eat lots of raw herring (yak ;) Ok it's not 'whale mud' or something like that....but nevertheless. And these HG components are really prominent in North Germanic and Baltic people. And also with farming means that you live mostly outside.

Sorry, my bad. I was speaking of BB relative to CW!

I guess it's SGC>BB Dutch>BB British. See Eurogenes blog.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html

Just to give you an idea of how this is working out: If you would create a mixed population of Europeans, Northern Chinese and Ainu, its common sense that the resulting mixed people would be darker skinned than Northern Europeans, right? Ok, but all these 3 populations are lighter than most of their neighbours and the vast majority of humanity South of them. Yet the allels for light skin they have are not the same, the genetic architecture is not always the same. So they reached a fairly light skin, for world standards, on their own, with their own evolutionary path. Like some East Africans acquired lactase persistence with a different mutation. Also, even the Europeans are not all equally light skinned, so if you create a mixed population of these three people, the only limiting factor is selection. If the selection is strong enough on them, these mixed people will become lighter than all their parent groups were.

Now my assumption is not that Corded Ware people were necessarily lighter pigmented in their actual phenotype, but that they possessed genetic variation which made them fairly light too, which the, otherwise lighter, Northern farmers did not possess, which were simply not part of their genetic variation. So you can mix up a lighter with a darker population and the result after selection can be lighter than both were afterwards, if new genetic variations got introduced in the mixed gene pool. This was true then and it could be true for modern mixtures of let's say Europeans with Chinese. There is the possibility that a specific recombination could make the offspring lighter than both parents are.

Agree for the most part of it.
My question is what kind of (hidden) light features they possessed that were not represented in TRB/GAC (as mixtures of ENF and (S)HG)?


Evolution needs to have a starting point, like birds could develop wings from ancestors which already used their upper limbs in a similar fashion before actually flying.
The same is true for blondism. It might increase in different ways first, like related to general depigmentation, becomes favourable for small children, being, as such a neotenous trait, transferred to females, spreading in a group and becoming a social ideal for the ethnic group as a whole and so on.

But depigmentation in general, as we see it in Northern Europe, is clearly correlated to climate/UV radiation and nutrition. That's the ultimate starting point. And it was always a variation present in the North, because the most depigmented phenotypes were nowhere fixed it seems, at least in no larger region. They are probably the result of a normal distribution around an ideal variant for the selective regime, because strong depigmentation has advantages and disadvantages at the same time. With so many genes involved, a stable "very light" without "extremely light" or "somewhat darker" variants in the population couldn't be stabilised. With so many allels involved, a normal distribution with extreme ends meets the expectation.

Ok.
One but: blondism doesn't follow the sunshine because in area's with 1600-1800 hours of sunshine there is more blondism than in area's with less than 1200 hours.....
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_sunshine_hours_map.png
 
I have brought up the appearance of B4c1b2c2 on Eurogenes too. From what the posters Samuel Andrews and Simon_W had to say based on the analysis of this individuals autosomal DNA profile, this sample's mtDNA is no doubt contaminated. Firstly the apperance of mtDNA B4c1b2c2 in the sample TU905 (SX18), dated to the Iron Age (178 BC-2 AD), is simply impossible due to how modern the subclade is, and how it is essentially exclusive to Southeast Asia. Samuel Andrews had this to say on Eurogenes: "The mtDNA files from this Swiss paper are available. I looked at all of them. TU905 really does carry B4c1b2c2. But, I believe her mtDNA is contaminated by an Asian researcher who handled her bones. Her autosomal DNA is 100% European, basically identical to Iron age Latins in Central Italy during the same time period, so she appears to be from an Italic or Raetic pop living in Switzerland. No signs of Asian ancestry. B4c1b2 is basically exclusive to SE Asia, is especially common is Malayasia and Tawian. There's no way ancestry from that area was carried into Iron age Western Europe. This is contamination for sure...The C4, C5, G1a1 reported in Neolithic Europe 12 years ago are false results. Ancient mtDNA studies dating before 2010 should be seen as false results. mtDNA C1 is the only 'Asian' mtDNA found in ancient Europe." Another user Simon_W pointed this out from the supplement as well: "'The human remains are located in a natural cave. In the 1970s and 1980s, several inspections by the archaeological service of the Canton St. Gallen took place. The cave was accessible to the public at all times and in the 1970s some human remains were recovered illegally and were transferred to the archaeological service in 2001.' That might explain how the mtDNA could have been contaminated." This like in other papers published in the past, makes me question all of the Y-DNA and mtDNA calls/results. Surprised this passed through peer review, that is if there was one done at all, especially with how blatantly false this result is.
 
In regards to Raetic

The term "Raetic" refers to a few hundred inscriptions found mainly in the Trentino and in South and North Tyrol, as well as sporadically in the Veneto, in Graubünden, and in Slovenia. These inscriptions, written with North Italic alphabets, are roughly dated between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, and are the only documents of the Raetic language, a non-Indo-European language of the Alpine region.
The name Latin raeti / Greek ῥαιτοί goes back to ancient historiography, being attested as a designation for certain Alpine tribes (see Ancient sources). According to Livy, the language spoken by these raeti was similar to Etruscan. In the early 19th century, Conte Benedetto Giovanelli, historian and mayor of Trento, applied the term "Raetic" to two inscription finds made in the Val di Cembra and Matrei am Brenner, whose language he judged to be similar to Etruscan (see Modern research on Raetic). This was a bit of a wild guess, but turned out to hit the right thing. The corpus of relevant inscriptions has since increased considerably (see Raetic epigraphy). It could be delimited in relation to the other script provinces of Northern Italy (see Script) and associated through its distribution area and find types with the archaeologically defined Fritzens-Sanzeno culture (see Archaeology in the Raetic area).



The Raetic language as documented in inscriptions written in the alphabets of Sanzeno (Bolzano) and Magrè has turned out to be much more homogenous than expected (or hoped) (see [[index::Modern research on the Raeti and Raetic]]). Despite the fact that its uniformity, though long suspected, has been demonstrated only in the 1990ies, linguistic criteria today make for a better basis for the definition of the Raetic corpus than epigraphic parameters.

Material culture and archaeological groups in the Raetic area

Prehistory

Within the area of settlement that has yielded Raetic inscription finds, three major parts must be kept apart from an archaeological perspective:
1. the northern East Alpine area, i.e. the Inntal and its tributaries north of the Brenner pass (maybe including the Wipptal down to Franzensfeste),
2. the southern East Alpine area, including the Unterengadin, the Eisack- and Pustertal, Osttirol, and the Adige valley from the river's source down to Rovereto,
3. the Alpine foothills between Trento and the Padan plain.
The local Middle Bronze Age culture of the eastern Alps is the Inneralpine Bronzezeitkultur, an inhomogenous entity formed by the input of various migrant groups in the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age (Sperber 1992: 79) which extends roughly over the Inntal (Nordtirol), the Engadin and the Alpenrheintal (Graubünden) and possibly parts of Südtirol (Sperber 1992: 55; Rageth 1992: 196). In Nordtirol, this culture is succeeded by the Late Bronze Age Nordtiroler Urnenfelderkultur. In Südtirol, the Nordtiroler Urnenfelderkultur triggers the emergence of the Laugen-Melaun culture, extending from the Unterengadin and Münstertal over Süd- and Osttirol and the Trentino to Rovereto. During the Late Bronze Age, the archaeological groups of the Alpine area are unified by the common source of their wealth, their richness in copper. While Laugen-Melaun A reflects the dependence on the northern Urnfield cultures, Laugen-Melaun B and C (Early Iron Age) show a reorientation towards the south-east Este culture (Gleirscher 1992: 119): in the 10th century BC, the mining of copper, and with it the inner-Alpine populations, lost in economic importance with the rise of iron working (Gleirscher 1991: 12). The Venetian Alps and Alpine foothills between the rivers Adige and Brenta in the Late Bronze Age belong with the southern Proto-Villanova culture (Leonardi 1992: 136).
Late Iron Age

A slow convergence of the three areas can be observed from around the turn of the Early (Hallstatt C–D) to the Late (La Tène) Iron Age, though they never consolidate to form a homogenous "Raetic" culture. From the late 6th century BC onwards, triggered by the Etruscan and Greek presence in the Padan plain, a new horizon emerges, first manifest in the Southern Alps: the Fritzens-Sanzeno group. The north in the Early Iron Age remains more closely associated with the northern Alpine foreland; Marzatico 1992: 224 f. sees a reorientation towards the south indicated by the ceramics already in the middle of the 5th century, but more recently Gamper 2006: 32, 85 argues for a later date at the turn from the early to the middle LT period around 300 BC. In the south, the Venetian Alps and foothills see an increase in settlement in the 6th century, the relations with the Fritzens-Sanzeno culture becoming more evident in the course of the 5th century (Lora & Ruta Serafini 1992: 267).



Val di Non

The oldest inscribed find from the Raetic core area between Trento and the Bozen basin appears to be the astragalos from the Ciaslir on the Monte Ozol, the only high-altitude site to yield Raetic inscriptions. The bone comes from a layer dated to Retico A (middle of the 6th–middle of the 5th century; Perini 2002: 767).


 
Blondism has a stronger sexual and social selection behind its spread in comparison to pigmentation.

That's true. I guess the Bronze (and Iron) Age society in Northern Europe had a, in my eyes a very disgusting discriminating, social system that indeed was associated with phenotypes:

According to the Rigspula, a mythic-ethnologic poem collected by Saemund Sigfusson at the end of the 11th or beginning of the 12th century CE, Heimdal, the sun god sometimes called Rigr, created the social classes at the beginning of time, when the earth was lightly populated. In the tale, Rigr visits three houses and engenders the three classes in order.


Rigr first visits Ai (Great Grandfather) and Edda (Great Grandmother) who live in a hut and feed him husk-filled bread and broth. After his visit, the child Thrall is born. The children and grandchildren of Thrall are described as having black hair and an unsightly countenance, thick ankles, coarse fingers, and of being a low and deformed stature. Historian Hilda Radzin believes this is a direct reference to the Lapps, who were reduced to a state of vassalage by their Scandinavian conquerors.


Next, Rigr visits Afi (Grandfather) and Amma (Grandmother), who live in a well-built house where the Afi is making a loom and his wife is spinning. They feed him stewed calf and good food, and their child is called Karl ("freeman"). Karl's offspring have red hair and florid complexions.


Finally, Rigr visits Fadir (Father) and Modir (Mother) living in a mansion, where he is served roast pork and game birds in silver dishes. Their child is Jarl ("Noble"). The noble's children and grandchildren have blond hair, bright cheeks, and eyes "as fierce as a young serpent."

https://www.thoughtco.com/viking-social-structure-living-norse-world-173146

Of course the reality was more differentiated (like in the case of Halfdan) but this indeed a kind of 'societal myth' that caused a kind of strong social and sexual selection. I am not christian but I guess that christianity meant a break in thought....

The effect of this strong social and sexual selection was indeed clear, see this movement from LNBA to now, based on the Utah population a kind of proxy for a NW European amalgam, that caused a rise of lighter features:
br83eiwm8diq7.59.24.png


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/03/13/016477.full.pdf
 
BTW the respective % of diverse principal mutations leading to red hairs are not the same ones in West and in East: not without consequence concerning origins.
 
Well, my U2e2 is one final letter different, but it confirms what I knew: it reached Italy with Indo-European admixed people. So, that's a double whammy as my father is R1b U-152.

Still don't identify with them at all.

i identify with E-M84
i feel much more attached to my father and my paternal line ( even look like my father)
but yes along with y dna , autosomal dna, mtdna is also important and part of the big picture .....:unsure:
 
People need to check out ..Hammurabi code of laws in regards to women .............these laws made women unequal to men , before these laws, men and women where equal in society ...... the introduction of laws forced use of veiling for women , only prostitutes and slave women could ( not allowed ) not were the veil, all others had to. The rights of women decreased under the Code of Hammurabi, established sometime around 1752 BCE along with the rise of urban society in Mesopotamia.
for one.......The Veil ............Prostitutes and slaves were not forced to don the veil. Instead, if they were found wearing a veil, they could be arrested, whipped, publicly stripped, and have their ears cut off. These rules divided women into different types of property and commodification.

the "boys club" religious institutions of judism, christianity and islam all took these unequal laws against women as their own ............and to this day they still persist in these instituations.

very many papers on this topic alone
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/4vD023dn4cp8wF2lRntcQ7L/is-gender-inequality-man-made

The 282 code of laws are currently held in the British museum for all to see and study.

Hammurabi's Code was the first step put by humanity. There was no law before that lool.
 
All off topic pigmentation posts have been moved to a new thread in the pigmentation section of the Board.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39968-Evolution-of-fair-pigmentation-Again?p=602533#post602533

Please, in the future, go to that thread for yet more detailed discussion of fair pigmentation in Europe.

They will be removed from this thread.


I avow Angela I have posted on this question rather to answer my friend Northerner, I was hesitating between that and send him private messages. Agree with you, finally.
 
I avow Angela I have posted on this question rather to answer my friend Northerner, I was hesitating between that and send him private messages. Agree with you, finally.

Not a problem, Moesan.

It's just that when we have 19 off topic posts in a thread, it can become irritating to people who are interested in the original topic, so I moved them to their own thread.
 
[h=4]Tracing the origins of the Longobards[/h]The Longobards appeared during Roman times as a barbarian tribe who lived north of the Danube in present-day Hungary. From there, they established themselves in the Roman province of Pannonia at the beginning of the sixth century CE. They subsequently invaded Italy in 568 CE and were eventually conquered by Charlemagne in 774 CE (35). A total of 10 samples were excavated from Pannonia at Szólád, a site considered to be of a Longobard type in terms of grave goods, location, and burial practices (36). Amorim et al. (36) suggested that the graves of nine of the samples (SZ2-SZ5, SZ11, SZ15, SZ36, SZ43, SZ45) are from the mid-sixth century after radiocarbon-dated one individual (SZ43: 1,475-1,355 BP). We TPS-dated all the nine individuals. TPS confidence intervals overlapped with the sixth century Longobardian association (1,415-1,199 BP), with an intermediate confidence score in the range of 3-3.91 (Table S4). Amorim et al. assigned the tenth individual SZ1 to the older Bronze Age (3,800-2,900 BP) (36), likely based on the archaeological context. TPS, instead, dated SZ1 along with the first nine individuals between the sixth and eighth centuries.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/828962v2.full#ref-31
 
Am I having deja-vu? We discussed the paper on the Langobards ages ago.
 
This is slightly off topic my friends but does anyone here have any knowledge regarding these latest Khvalynsk samples? This nonsense on Eurogenes is driving me crazy. The blogs host and creator Davidski out of nowhere in the last day or so, went from believing Khvalynsk is one of the ancestors of Yamnaya, something which has been stated in practically every study done on WSH, to now believing some undocumented, unpublished, ghost population to the west actually contributed to Yamnaya. He seems to believe this because he claims there is minor WSHG admixture in one of the samples, the Q1a sample to be exact. The problem I see with this is simple, unless there is something wrong ultimately with the interpretation of the WSHG samples, and there is a ANE ghost population in Central Asia we do not know about, Khvalynsk cannot have WSHG, because the former has no ANA or East Asian ancestry to speak of, while the latter supposedly does at around 20%. That is pretty significant. WSHG is also incredibly similar made up of about 50% ANE, with 30% EHG. How could they claim WSHG as a source population with such similar ancestral components, up to 80% EHG/ANE in fact? I could just as easily claim Karelia HG or Pit Ware HG as the source of Khvalynsk. Funny how only a week ago, he claimed that making definitive statements on ancestry between ancient populations made up of such similar sources is too difficult, to now being 100% in on this more than likely, cooked up WSHG in Khvalynsk. Seems to me these guys not only just play with computer models until it suits their agenda, but they actually think as hobbyists, they know more than the scientists and researchers in the actual labs with the data, you know the people who have been researchers in this field for decades, some of whom for over 25 years. Yes these researchers make mistakes and are corrected eventually, some are a little archeologically ignorant. I am aware of these facts, however, call me crazy, but for some reason I am more inclined to believe David Anthony’s results and opinions on said results, over some guy who plays with models to suit his agenda on some random internet blog.
 
This is slightly off topic my friends but does anyone here have any knowledge regarding these latest Khvalynsk samples? This nonsense on Eurogenes is driving me crazy. The blogs host and creator Davidski out of nowhere in the last day or so, went from believing Khvalynsk is one of the ancestors of Yamnaya, something which has been stated in practically every study done on WSH, to now believing some undocumented, unpublished, ghost population to the west actually contributed to Yamnaya. He seems to believe this because he claims there is minor WSHG admixture in one of the samples, the Q1a sample to be exact. The problem I see with this is simple, unless there is something wrong ultimately with the interpretation of the WSHG samples, and there is a ANE ghost population in Central Asia we do not know about, Khvalynsk cannot have WSHG, because the former has no ANA or East Asian ancestry to speak of, while the latter supposedly does at around 20%. That is pretty significant. WSHG is also incredibly similar made up of about 50% ANE, with 30% EHG. How could they claim WSHG as a source population with such similar ancestral components, up to 80% EHG/ANE in fact? I could just as easily claim Karelia HG or Pit Ware HG as the source of Khvalynsk. Funny how only a week ago, he claimed that making definitive statements on ancestry between ancient populations made up of such similar sources is too difficult, to now being 100% in on this more than likely, cooked up WSHG in Khvalynsk. Seems to me these guys not only just play with computer models until it suits their agenda, but they actually think as hobbyists, they know more than the scientists and researchers in the actual labs with the data, you know the people who have been researchers in this field for decades, some of whom for over 25 years. Yes these researchers make mistakes and are corrected eventually, some are a little archeologically ignorant. I am aware of these facts, however, call me crazy, but for some reason I am more inclined to believe David Anthony’s results and opinions on said results, over some guy who plays with models to suit his agenda on some random internet blog.

I don't know why Davidski changed his mind but it is pretty clear that Khvalynsk is culturally the ancestor of Yamnaya while the Autosomal DNA is a bit different. Yamnaya has more CHG than Khvalynsk and some EEF but that's it. Maybe discuss this topic in this thread:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...American-assoc-phys-anthropol-abstracts/page2

I also wrote some posts about the Steppe cultures based on the information David Anthony wrote in a Book few months ago and an unpublished paper about the Eneolithic Steppe. Btw, you are right WSHG has too much EA ancestry while if I am not mistaken you don't find these in the early steppe samples I know of and the published papers I know of mention EHG and not WSHG.
 
This is slightly off topic my friends but does anyone here have any knowledge regarding these latest Khvalynsk samples? This nonsense on Eurogenes is driving me crazy. The blogs host and creator Davidski out of nowhere in the last day or so, went from believing Khvalynsk is one of the ancestors of Yamnaya, something which has been stated in practically every study done on WSH, to now believing some undocumented, unpublished, ghost population to the west actually contributed to Yamnaya. He seems to believe this because he claims there is minor WSHG admixture in one of the samples, the Q1a sample to be exact. The problem I see with this is simple, unless there is something wrong ultimately with the interpretation of the WSHG samples, and there is a ANE ghost population in Central Asia we do not know about, Khvalynsk cannot have WSHG, because the former has no ANA or East Asian ancestry to speak of, while the latter supposedly does at around 20%. That is pretty significant. WSHG is also incredibly similar made up of about 50% ANE, with 30% EHG. How could they claim WSHG as a source population with such similar ancestral components, up to 80% EHG/ANE in fact? I could just as easily claim Karelia HG or Pit Ware HG as the source of Khvalynsk. Funny how only a week ago, he claimed that making definitive statements on ancestry between ancient populations made up of such similar sources is too difficult, to now being 100% in on this more than likely, cooked up WSHG in Khvalynsk. Seems to me these guys not only just play with computer models until it suits their agenda, but they actually think as hobbyists, they know more than the scientists and researchers in the actual labs with the data, you know the people who have been researchers in this field for decades, some of whom for over 25 years. Yes these researchers make mistakes and are corrected eventually, some are a little archeologically ignorant. I am aware of these facts, however, call me crazy, but for some reason I am more inclined to believe David Anthony’s results and opinions on said results, over some guy who plays with models to suit his agenda on some random internet blog.

It could definitely be that it fits his agenda in some way, but also, given his track record, he could have been tipped off about some as yet unpublished samples, by **** or others. It's happened before that when he does an abrupt shift with no lead up that not too long after a paper comes out supporting it.

Totally dishonest, of course, but that's how he operates.
 
Last edited:
Tracing the origins of the Longobards

The Longobards appeared during Roman times as a barbarian tribe who lived north of the Danube in present-day Hungary. From there, they established themselves in the Roman province of Pannonia at the beginning of the sixth century CE. They subsequently invaded Italy in 568 CE and were eventually conquered by Charlemagne in 774 CE (35). A total of 10 samples were excavated from Pannonia at Szólád, a site considered to be of a Longobard type in terms of grave goods, location, and burial practices (36). Amorim et al. (36) suggested that the graves of nine of the samples (SZ2-SZ5, SZ11, SZ15, SZ36, SZ43, SZ45) are from the mid-sixth century after radiocarbon-dated one individual (SZ43: 1,475-1,355 BP). We TPS-dated all the nine individuals. TPS confidence intervals overlapped with the sixth century Longobardian association (1,415-1,199 BP), with an intermediate confidence score in the range of 3-3.91 (Table S4). Amorim et al. assigned the tenth individual SZ1 to the older Bronze Age (3,800-2,900 BP) (36), likely based on the archaeological context. TPS, instead, dated SZ1 along with the first nine individuals between the sixth and eighth centuries.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/828962v2.full#ref-31


how would people read the above update summary in regards to sample SZ1
 
how would people read the above update summary in regards to sample SZ1

That's a huge difference. I thought carbon dating had a much smaller variance.
 

This thread has been viewed 55550 times.

Back
Top