Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Shift from G2 to I2 dominance and WHG resurgence between the Early_N and the Late_N

  1. #1
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    1,974
    Points
    34,718
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,718, Level: 57
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 732
    Overall activity: 99.1%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.

    Shift from G2 to I2 dominance and WHG resurgence between the Early_N and the Late_N

    Has there been any published or ongoing effort to understand where the WHG resurgence and boom of I2 to the detriment of Anatolia_N lineages like G2, T and H2 originated and spread from, and how profound its overall genetic (autosomal) and sociocultural impact must've been between the Middle Neolithic and the Early Neolithic? Was the change toward more agro-pastoral economies in several parts of Europe even well before the westward expansion of steppe people related to that genetic shift? Sometimes I feel that the fact that what happened involved basically the same autosomal admixtures, but in different proportions (less ANF and more WHG), is a complicating factor and causes most people (including scholars) to completely ignore what happened, but it must've been nearly as important as the arrival of steppe admixture in parts of Europe.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    From what I gathered, there are things we know by now, as the general informed public, and those we don't know. It is known that early farmers were overwhelmingly G2a, with some E1b1b, T and H thrown here and there. These early farming colonists largely replaced the Neolithic inhabitants, but failed on various biogeographic borders.

    One could even see the shift from EEF to Middle Neolithic with increased WHG to the steppe expansion as a three stage model of improved adaptation of the initial, Near Eastern Neolithic package on every level to use the European habitat more efficiently and to be able to survive and even flourish in zones which were largely uninhabitable before.

    Two times when the initial colonisers reached a borderzone and failed to take it, those living in the borderzone had enough time to learn and to adapt, also because the borderzone was very favourable for foragers, supporting larger than elsewhere hunter gatherer, especially hunter-fisher populations. The first borderzone was Northern Europe, the second the European steppe and for the steppe people themselves it was the Mongolian forest steppe, were in turn the local East Asian foragers could do what they did before, adapt and improve the lifestyle of the colonisers.

    TRB (Funnel Beaker Culture) and GAC (Globular Amphora Culture) are the two most obvious cases of a partial to full takeover of forager clans from the borderzone. They became the dominant element in the Neolithic community and there was a shift to a more warlike and agro-pastoralist way of life in the North.

    But now it gets complicated for me, because even though its obvious that I2a clans with increased WHG ancestry spread throughout Europe, even to Sardinia, whether such a shift happened once, twice or even more often, where exactly, is not well researched (?). Because there were big increases of I2a and WHG ancestry in different places throughout Europe. This was for sure not just the result of local assimilation, because for this it was much too strong and fast, but the exact sources and movements are (to me) not always clear.

    I think the problem is somewhat similar to the Bell Beaker and Celtic question, because even if there was a fairly big immigration of Iron Age Celts which established their culture in Western Europe and on the British Isles, there is no reason to assume they were all that different from Bell Beakers to begin with. It is obvious there was no large scale replacement, but even if there was a significant immigraiton on fairly big scale, it might be hard to detect with the samples and methods available.
    Yet for the Middle to Late Neolithic situation, its even more difficult. Because unlike the steppe expansion, it was not about completely different people at all. Most of their ancestry came from the preceding EEF. Some studies even portray the pre-steppe people as if they were sitting on their farm like a duck, waiting for the slaughter. But that was not the case at all. There were huge military conflicts, migrations and campaigns, long term competition between major, obviously ethnocultural groupings.

    The study on Sardinia is one of those which go the furthest on the issue, writing:
    When projecting ancient individuals onto the top two principal components (PCs) defined by modern variation, the Neolithic ancient Sardinian individuals sit between early Neolithic Iberian and later Copper Age Iberian populations, roughly on an axis that differentiates WHG and EEF populations, and embedded in a cluster that additionally includes Neolithic British individuals (Fig. 2).
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6

    So Sardinians and early Iberian Neolithics moved closer to Central Europe and British Neolithics, all of which got transformed by the shift described above. I think more data is needed to fully explore what happened and how exactly in the Middle Neolithic period. The shift is only in some places almost as drastic as with the steppe expansion, whereas in others the survival rate for preceding Neolithic lineages was higher.

  3. #3
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    I'm not sure I'd call 15-20% WHG showing up eventually in LN farmers in Europe is nearly as important as percentages ranging from 55% down to 25-30% for steppe admixture. Plus, that 15-20% admixture would have come from HG women as well.

    If I recall correctly, in Gambas et al there was one I1a who was hunter-gatherer autosomally, but he was lower status, perhaps a servant, and there was no admixture in any of the other inhabitants from that time period.

    Also, from what I can tell, we're seeing I2a showing up relatively early in western Europe where there's no indication of "pastoralism" before the arrival of steppe people to my knowledge; domesticated animals, yes, and maybe some transhumance as all farmers practice, but not pastoralism. Yes, there's I2a in the border areas of central Europe, among people who might have traded animals to the steppe and maybe even did some initial pastoralism, but I doubt it was a Europe wide phenomenon, or at least I've seen no papers indicating that it is.

    @Riverman,

    "TRB (Funnel Beaker Culture) and GAC (Globular Amphora Culture) are the two most obvious cases of a partial to full takeover of forager clans from the borderzone. They became the dominant element in the Neolithic community and there was a shift to a more warlike and agro-pastoralist way of life in the North."

    Could you please provide academic papers supporting this contention.


    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

  4. #4
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm not sure I'd call 15-20% WHG showing up eventually in LN farmers in Europe is nearly as important as percentages ranging from 55% down to 25-30% for steppe admixture. Plus, that 15-20% admixture would have come from HG women as well.
    Its the same as it is in Sardinia and their steppe contribution. If the incoming conquerors and/or colonists were already mixed with a similar component, it might not look that much at first sight, but if you consider e.g. Southern French or North East Italian/Dalmatian coming in, which were already heavily EEF mixed steppe, this means it was a big shift, no complete replacement at all, but a big shift. The same can be said for the Middle Neolithic. We are not dealing with an almost complete replacement, not even the steppe people did this in most places (exception: British Isles), but how big it really was will be proven with future, more detailed and fine grained data and research.

    Also, from what I can tell, we're seeing I2a showing up relatively early in western Europe where there's no indication of "pastoralism" before the arrival of steppe people to my knowledge; domesticated animals, yes, and maybe some transhumance as all farmers practice, but not pastoralism. Yes, there's I2a in the border areas of central Europe, among people who might have traded animals to the steppe and maybe even did some initial pastoralism, but I doubt it was a Europe wide phenomenon, or at least I've seen no papers indicating that it is.
    @Riverman,

    "TRB (Funnel Beaker Culture) and GAC (Globular Amphora Culture) are the two most obvious cases of a partial to full takeover of forager clans from the borderzone. They became the dominant element in the Neolithic community and there was a shift to a more warlike and agro-pastoralist way of life in the North."

    Could you please provide academic papers supporting this contention.
    The quotation and the following lines from the Sardinian paper make it clear - if Sardinia itself could prove it with more data: Intial LBK and Cardial Ware vs. Middle Neolithic almost throughout Europe -> big shift to I2a and WHG. If you count all known samples so far, I2a was present among predominantely G2a communities indeed, but at what percentage? Not much stronger than that of E, C, H etc. Yet in the Middle Neolithic, you have a dominance of I2a in Britain, Iberia, France, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, Pannonia and some G2a still standing on their own in just a few places and as a minority element in TRB & Co.

    Globular Amphora were, like all Neolithic people in Europe carefully looked at so far, patriarchal and patrilocal. Gimbutas even believed that they were directly related to Corded Ware, which is not that far fetched even from their skeletons, yet they, as you know, they had no significant genetic influence at all. They were cattle herders and used animal remains for their burials. Wikipedia writes about them:
    The inclusion of animals in the grave is seen as an intrusive cultural element by Marija Gimbutas. The practice of suttee, hypothesized by Gimbutas is also seen as a highly intrusive cultural element. The supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis point to these distinctive burial practices and state this may represent one of the earliest migrations of Indo-Europeans into Central Europe. In this context and given its area of occupation, this culture has been claimed as the underlying culture of a Germanic-Baltic-Slavic continuum.
    This was the emergence of the hunter-warrior tradition from the forager cultures, which transitioned easier and more successfully to a more pastoralist way of life and economy, which was also better suited for the Northern European habitat. I think we can say, with little doubt, that these agro-pastoralists influenced, one way or another, the Corded Ware people and the steppe people as a whole, but particularly those of the forest steppe. They were quite alike, in many ways, even though GAC was overwhelmingly from EEF, especially on the maternal side.

    But the WHG shift is clearly noticeable, for convenience, Wikipedia again:
    Of the eight samples of Y-DNA extracted, all were found to belong to I2a-L801. The fifteen samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to various subclades of T, H, J, K, HV. The skeletons were determined to have about 70% Neolithic farmer ancestry and 30% Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, meaning they had no steppe ancestry. The archaeological and genetic evidence collected from the grave indicated that the Globular Amphora culture was patriarchal and kinship-oriented, which appears to have been the norm for Late Neolithic communities in Central Europe.[6]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

    The shift was on the way even before TRB, but in TRB we find the climax of an evolution. I think this quotation is very informative:
    It therefore seems that we are involved here with a
    subsistence (agriculture vs. hunting/gathering) and cultural
    (Neolithic vs. Late Mesolithic) dualism, enriched by
    transitional phenomena (Paraneolithic). The dualism of this
    kind began to change around 4000 BC due to the appearance
    of the Funnel Beaker culture (TRB). Over the first half of
    the 4th millennium BC, the TRB gradually encompassed
    Southern Scandinavia, the northern part of Central Europe
    from the Netherlands to the Polish lowlands, and – something
    which is at times neglected – considerable areas of the
    southern, upland part of Central Europe. Its “bearers” settled
    all the ecological zones and not only those which were the
    most favourable for farming. Roughly speaking, with this
    archaeological culture most of the territory of Poland came
    irreversibly within the orbit of the Neolithic. This is why the
    spread of the TRB may be referred to as the second stage
    of neolithisation (Figure 2) which finally proved to be even
    more important than the first one
    .

    On the other hand, TRB populations surely did not
    encompass the entire territory under discussion. There still
    existed groups whose subsistence was based on hunting
    and gathering. As in the previous period, they frequently
    possessed, adopted, and adapted selected Neolithic elements,
    in the first place pottery. They consistently and firmly resisted,
    however, the adoption of farming and animal husbandry as
    basic sources of food. They should still be referred to as the
    Paraneolithic (Figure 2). Interestingly, abundant remains of
    groups of this kind have been discovered primarily in North-
    East Poland but also locally within the formal range of the
    TRB. Paraneolithic societies were incorporated into the
    agricultural formation only during the Late Neolithic (into
    the Globular Amphorae and Corded Ware cultures)
    and the
    Early Bronze Age (into the Trzciniec culture?), i.e. within the
    3rd millennium BC and the first half of the 2nd millennium BC.

    Neolithisation in Polish Territories: Different Patterns, Different Perspectives, and Marek Zvelebil’s Ideas

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316291685_Neolithisation_in_Polish_Territories_Dif ferent_Patterns_Different_Perspectives_and_Marek_Z velebil's_Ideas

    This development which started in Central Europe, found its way in TRB and culminated in GAC was brought to its final stage with the steppe people. Because they introduced the innovations which were needed to finally colonise most of Europe up to the arctic and deserts with a higher, producing culture. The initial farming societies which came with their toolkit from the Near East were not as good in crossing the ecological barrier. Because of this, the borderzone could develop its own adaptations under the influence of foragers or "paraneolithic" cultures like in the paper.

    Their biggest advantages were less dependence from wild food (hunting, fishing, gathering), yet still a protein rich diet (milk products!) and greater mobility than both crop farmers with small droves, less animals and foragers too.

    But the change did go much further, it reached Iberia and Sardinia, but also Pannonia and the Balkans. I don't want to search long, so I stick with Wiki for this. A survivor of the older layer was for quite some time the Lengyel culture, yet:
    It was associated with the cover-term Old Europe by Marija Gimbutas, though may have been undergone "kurganization" by the Proto-Indo-Europeans and become integrated into the successor Globular Amphora culture.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengyel_culture

    So we have a culture which was under pressure from the North, from GAC, and started to become more agro-pastoralist, warlike etc. too. Like later in the Baden culture under the influence of warlike agro-pastoralits from both directions. Like with the steppe expansion, even if some groups were not overwhelmed, that was because they adapted themselves while trying to make alliances with steppe groups. I think that's the way various male lineages and non-IE languages survived well into historical times. Those were adapting in time and only disappeared later, with the next big waves from the Northern agro-pastoralists, in Roman times.

    The data from France in particular will prove the changes: First G2a initial Neolithisation, then 2nd stage with I2a spread and increased WHG, third the spread of BB and R1b. I'm not saying complete replacement or replacement at all everywhere, but the Europe-wide shift will be very noticeable on every ancient DNA map with more data. The spread won't be brought into accordance with the idea of local Neolithic communities assimilating only single forager males. This happened too, from the earliest period on, but the big shift, with the additional increase of WHG, was brought by the general shift in subsistence and way of life, it was the spread of a new culture, most likely people, even if from within the Neolithic framwork.

  5. #5
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    So the answer is no; it's all speculation.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    So the answer is no; it's all speculation.
    No, its not, its all in papers which are well known on this board.

    The shift from EEF/G2a to I2a/increased WHG or the transition to a agro-pastoralism, cattle farming on a larger scale, with a still more patriarchal, warlike society is proven.
    Its an Europe wide phenomenon ranging from Britain to the Ukraine and from Scandinavia to Sardinia.
    GAC in particular did yield exclusively I2a with strongly increased WHG and all the cultural attributions I mentioned which put culturally fairly close to the later Corded Ware people of steppe descendence.

    From the paper, if you don't like to rely on Wikipedia:
    The results indicate that the Globular Amphora/Złota groupindividuals harbor ca. 30% western hunter-gatherer and 70% Neolithic farmer ancestry, but lack steppe ancestry.[...] Złota group individuals can be modeled as a mix ofwestern European hunter-gatherer (17%) and Anatolian Neo-lithic farmer (83%) ancestry...
    ...at Koszyce, mito-chondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis revealed the presence of sixdifferent maternal lineages, whereas analysis of the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome showed that all malescarried the same Y chromosome haplotype: I2a-L801 (Table 1).
    This pattern might point to polygyny with women from one bride exchange network or a second serial marriage from this:
    Using genome-wide patterns of IBS,we were also able to reconstruct more complex relationships:individuals 5, 10, 11, and 15 all appear to be brothers, and yet they do not have the same mother (individual 14 is the mother of individuals 5 and 15, but not 10 and 11), suggesting that theymight be half-brothers. However, all four of them share the samemitochondrial DNA haplotype, suggesting that their mother smight also have been related.
    Also note that not a single mtDNA is clearly of forager origin, but all males are I2a. In any case, they were clearly patriarchal, patrilinear, patrilocal:

    The presence of unrelated females and related males in thegrave is interesting because it suggests that the community atKoszyce was organized along patrilineal lines of descent, addingto the mounting evidence that this was the dominant form ofsocial organization among Late Neolithic communities in CentralEurope (11, 12). Usually, patrilineal forms of social organizationgo hand in hand with female exogamy (i.e., the practice of women marrying outside their social group).
    The change in the subsistence pattern from LBK to GAC being noted as well:

    Social organization is most often aligned with settlement andsubsistence patterns, and several studies (1315) suggest that Globular Amphora communities and other related groups specialized in animal husbandry, often with a main focus on cattle, and that they moved around the landscape to seek new pasturesfor their animals at different times of the year
    From supplement text:
    The economy of the GAC was based mainly on animal husbandry, with crop cultivation playing a minor role. The importance of animal husbandry is shown by several lines of evidence, including bone remains reflecting meat consumption in settlement contexts and, notably, abundant depositions of animals or animal parts in ritual contexts, e.g. joints of meat as accompanying food in human burials, and of more or less whole animals –often cattle –in “animal burials”, most often associated with human graves.

    The dominant form of GAC settlement remains found represent single homesteads and camp sites, whereas larger settlements, potentially consisting of several contemporary houses, are rare. Both economic and settlement evidence indicate that GAC groups were relatively mobile (3–5).
    That's where they are too cautious:
    One ethnographically known culturalresponse to this situation is to adopt an aggressive strategy towardcompeting groups in which male dominance, including patrilinealkin alliance, and warrior-like values prevail (18). Although we cannotbe certain that the people at Koszyce shared these values, weshow that they were organized around patrilineal descent groups,demonstrating that this form of social organization was alreadypresent in communities before the expansion of the CordedWare complex in Central and Eastern Europe (13, 14)
    Everything from:
    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...10116.full.pdf

    Being warlike and patriarchal was the norm before already and during the transition, we have hints for big scale head-hunting and human sacrifices from Central Europe from earlier periods. Nothing exceptional. More important is the shift to the more pastoralist side of things.

    Other data from another study you well know:
    We also report the firstgenetic data associated with the Late NeolithicGlobular Amphora296Complex. Individualsfrom two Globular Amphora sites in Polandand Ukraine form a tight cluster, showing high similarity over a large distance (Figure 1B,D). Both Globular Amphora Complex groups of samples had more hunter-gatherer-relatedancestry than Middle Neolithic groups from Central Europe7(we estimate 25% [CI: 22-27%] WHG ancestry, similar to 300Chalcolithic Iberia, Supplementary.
    We provide the first evidence for sex-biased admixture between hunter-gatherers and farmers in Europe, showing that the Middle Neolithic “resurgence”of hunter-gatherer-related ancestry in central Europe and Iberia wasdriven more by males thanby females
    There was no equal share - it was mostly forager males taking over in Neolithic communities. Different by region and time, again, a clear link for the pattern in Western and Central Europe, a weaker in the Balkans, where the EEF had a stronger base:

    In the Balkan Neolithic there is no evidence of sexbias (Z=0.27where a positive Z-354score implies male hunter-gatherer bias),nor in the LBK and Iberian_Early Neolithic (Z=-3550.22and 0.74). In the Copper Age there is clear bias: weakin the Balkans (Z=1.66), but stronger in Iberia(Z=3.08) and Central Europe (Z=2.74). Consistent with this, hunter-gatherer mitochondrial haplogroups (haplogroup U) are rare and within the intervals of genome-wide 358ancestry proportions, but hunter-gatherer-associated Y chromosomes (haplogroups I, R1 and 359C1) are morecommon: 7/9 in the Iberian Neolithic/Copper Age and 9/10 in Middle-Late Neolithic Central Europe (Central_MN and Globular_Amphora)(Figure 3C).
    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...616v4.full.pdf

    You know these papers, but its about their interpretation, yet there is little room for speculation, because most of it is settled down by now. If you want I can provide you more papers and links to the character of the GAC, proving their cultural position concerning subsistence and ideology. Its also possible to trace the same influences down to other cultural groups of Europe, all affected by the same shift in uniparentals and autosomals.

  7. #7
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,711
    Points
    56,950
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,950, Level: 73
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 members found this post helpful.
    this is an interesting subject which hasn't been studied properly yet
    I'd say farmers and HG had 2 different economies and needed different resources
    HG needed good fishing waters and some hunting grounds
    farmers needed light fertile lands which could be easily worked with simple hand tools - no ploughs yet
    so they could live seperatly on different soils
    in some places they mixed, like in the Balkans, others like LBK didn't mix at all
    in the Balkans R1b-V88, I1 and I2a2a2 became minorities under the farmers, but some moved along with the farmers to Sardegna and Iberia
    I believe they met other HG on the Iberian SW coast estuaries
    those HG learned ca 7 ka about herding and dairy production and mixed with farmers daughters - just like the Globular Amphora would do much later
    these HG were I2a1b, I2a2a2 and I2a1a1
    they are found everywhere in the megalithic tombs, in neolithic Britiain and in Nuragic Sardegna
    they were not a minority, they became an elite dominating other farmers
    they also whiped out other HG, like they did in the British Isles
    no HG survived on the British Isles when these megalithic farmers arrived 6,1 ka,
    yet today Y-DNA of those farmers still survives on the British Isles
    so turnover was more complete when those farmers arrived than when Bell Beakers arrived there

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    I'd say farmers and HG had 2 different economies and needed different resources
    HG needed good fishing waters and some hunting grounds
    farmers needed light fertile lands which could be easily worked with simple hand tools - no ploughs yet
    so they could live seperatly on different soils
    That's the crucial point. Because they had to live on different soils and the foragers were more mobile than the farmers. So the sedentary farmers sat in the small places cleared from wood surrounded by smaller, but quite mobile forager groups. To me it is absolutely clear that about prey, domesticated animals and stored resources, but also women and dominance in general, conflicts must have been came up on a regular basis. The most common cause might have been hunters stealing or robbing food, especially living animals from the herds of the farmers.

    The more pastoralist agro-pastoralists which emerged had the edge over both sedentary farmers as well as foragers. This is why the LBK was not able to get rid of the forager threat, but the Megalithic colonisers of Britain were. They knew how to deal with the local threat and had a more solid economic base, as is shown in the survival rates of local foragers, which approach close to zero.

    With the second stage of the Neolithisation the parallel existence of early farming communities with foragers at the coasts and in the woods ended. Both had to fight for their place in the newly emerging, more mobile agro-pastoralist societies. And it seems that in a lot of places the hunters prevailed, also because sedentary farmers need, to make a stand, a good network and organisation, which the late LBK had not in the North. That region was at the limits of their subsistence ecologically and they also were in fairly isolated, inbred communities, with many signs of malnutrition and diseases. For an emerging, better adapted agro-pastoralist community of former hunter warriors they were fairly easy prey. And after mainly the women were taken over, most males not, quite obviously, they expanded on resulting in cultures like the GAC.

  9. #9
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,711
    Points
    56,950
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,950, Level: 73
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm not sure I'd call 15-20% WHG showing up eventually in LN farmers in Europe is nearly as important as percentages ranging from 55% down to 25-30% for steppe admixture. Plus, that 15-20% admixture would have come from HG women as well.

    If I recall correctly, in Gambas et al there was one I1a who was hunter-gatherer autosomally, but he was lower status, perhaps a servant, and there was no admixture in any of the other inhabitants from that time period.

    Also, from what I can tell, we're seeing I2a showing up relatively early in western Europe where there's no indication of "pastoralism" before the arrival of steppe people to my knowledge; domesticated animals, yes, and maybe some transhumance as all farmers practice, but not pastoralism. Yes, there's I2a in the border areas of central Europe, among people who might have traded animals to the steppe and maybe even did some initial pastoralism, but I doubt it was a Europe wide phenomenon, or at least I've seen no papers indicating that it is.

    @Riverman,

    "TRB (Funnel Beaker Culture) and GAC (Globular Amphora Culture) are the two most obvious cases of a partial to full takeover of forager clans from the borderzone. They became the dominant element in the Neolithic community and there was a shift to a more warlike and agro-pastoralist way of life in the North."

    Could you please provide academic papers supporting this contention.
    are you refering to KO1, the I1 100 % EEF from the Carpathian Basin?

    Euro Neo LBK Eastern LBK LBKT Hungary Balatonszemes-Bagódomb [BAB 5] I1 M253 H Szécsényi-Nagy 2014

    or is it another sample which was I1a?

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    are you refering to KO1, the I1 100 % EEF from the Carpathian Basin?
    Euro Neo LBK Eastern LBK LBKT Hungary Balatonszemes-Bagódomb [BAB 5] I1 M253 H Szécsényi-Nagy 2014
    or is it another sample which was I1a?
    Was that sample even safe? Thought I heard about it being too low quality, not?

  11. #11
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,711
    Points
    56,950
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,950, Level: 73
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    That's the crucial point. Because they had to live on different soils and the foragers were more mobile than the farmers. So the sedentary farmers sat in the small places cleared from wood surrounded by smaller, but quite mobile forager groups. To me it is absolutely clear that about prey, domesticated animals and stored resources, but also women and dominance in general, conflicts must have been came up on a regular basis. The most common cause might have been hunters stealing or robbing food, especially living animals from the herds of the farmers.
    there is no proof of violence between early farmers and HG, alltough I would be surprised if it didn't happen at all
    however there is plenty proof of intertribal violence amongst LBK farmers in Germany and Austria
    this indicates that early farmers didn't see HG as a thread, nor vice versa, because both exploited different resources

    I think it was to their disadvantage that the farmers didn't go hunting and fishing anymore
    the HG gaterers that adopted farming or dairy production still combined it with fishing and hunting as we see in TRB
    in the EN Carpathian Basin, hunting and gatering seems to be combined, but it is in these areas we see I1, I2a2 and R1b-V88 appearing amongst the farmers

  12. #12
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, 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 Riverman View Post
    No, its not, its all in papers which are well known on this board.

    The shift from EEF/G2a to I2a/increased WHG or the transition to a agro-pastoralism, cattle farming on a larger scale, with a still more patriarchal, warlike society is proven.
    Its an Europe wide phenomenon ranging from Britain to the Ukraine and from Scandinavia to Sardinia.
    GAC in particular did yield exclusively I2a with strongly increased WHG and all the cultural attributions I mentioned which put culturally fairly close to the later Corded Ware people of steppe descendence.

    From the paper, if you don't like to rely on Wikipedia:




    This pattern might point to polygyny with women from one bride exchange network or a second serial marriage from this:


    Also note that not a single mtDNA is clearly of forager origin, but all males are I2a. In any case, they were clearly patriarchal, patrilinear, patrilocal:



    The change in the subsistence pattern from LBK to GAC being noted as well:



    From supplement text:


    That's where they are too cautious:


    Everything from:
    https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/ea...10116.full.pdf

    Being warlike and patriarchal was the norm before already and during the transition, we have hints for big scale head-hunting and human sacrifices from Central Europe from earlier periods. Nothing exceptional. More important is the shift to the more pastoralist side of things.

    Other data from another study you well know:




    There was no equal share - it was mostly forager males taking over in Neolithic communities. Different by region and time, again, a clear link for the pattern in Western and Central Europe, a weaker in the Balkans, where the EEF had a stronger base:



    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...616v4.full.pdf

    You know these papers, but its about their interpretation, yet there is little room for speculation, because most of it is settled down by now. If you want I can provide you more papers and links to the character of the GAC, proving their cultural position concerning subsistence and ideology. Its also possible to trace the same influences down to other cultural groups of Europe, all affected by the same shift in uniparentals and autosomals.
    Do you realize that not one single quote supports your assertion?

    You said the I2a men "dominated" the later Neolithic because they practiced "agro-pastoralism". Every quote you provided is about the fact that in certain places animal husbandry dominated. There is a HUGE difference between sedentary people who practice animal husbandry, even one predominantly centered on cattle, and PASTORALISM.

    Plus, we've known for years from the papers that in lots of parts of southeastern Europe cattle farming dominated, and that was from the very beginning, when the men were almost all G2a. Do I also have to remind you of how important cattle were to the Anatolian farmers? If nothing else, all the bull's heads all over their dwellings and holy places should provide a hint.

    You also specifically said that Funnel Beaker and other cultures became more aggressive and warlike when the yDna changed. Where is the archaeological evidence for that? To assert that and expect it to be convincing you need papers or independent analysis of the archaeological record.

    What you're doing is showing the change in yDna. We get it. We've gotten it for years. Everybody knows that.

    You haven't convincingly shown WHY.

    To return to my original assertion, I don't think a 15-25% change in HG total dna is earth shattering, especially not considering it took place over thousands of years, as numerous papers have shown, and that HG mtDna contributed to it. Idon't know where you got the idea that the farmers didn't take HG mates. The data is there in numerous papers. Just go look for it.

    Now, I'm out. I'm beyond bored debating things over and over again with no new paper giving us new data to clarify things.

    Believe what you want, but this is just unsupported speculation.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    there is no proof of violence between early farmers and HG
    What kind of proof do you need? It will be hard to find, but Els Trocs might be an example, but there are others, can't link to papers ad hoc however. For Els Trocs, at which site the male victims were early Neolithics:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58483-9

    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    You said the I2a men "dominated" the later Neolithic because they practiced "agro-pastoralism". Every quote you provided is about the fact that in certain places animal husbandry dominated. There is a HUGE difference between sedentary people who practice animal husbandry, even one predominantly centered on cattle, and PASTORALISM.
    Whether the GAC were full blown pastoralists is up to debate, but by most accounts they were not. They were just agro-pastoralists which shifted in the direction of pastoralism in comparison to the preceding early Neolithic cultures in particular. They were no nomadic herders with no crop farming and without houses, even if the buildings found so far were rather poor in comparison to LBK houses. Besides, it makes little difference for the principal argument.

    Plus, we've known for years from the papers that in lots of parts of southeastern Europe cattle farming dominated, and that was from the very beginning, when the men were almost all G2a. Do I also have to remind you of how important cattle were to the Anatolian farmers? If nothing else, all the bull's heads all over their dwellings and holy places should provide a hint.
    Its true, but the shift in GAC is still remarkable and even more so in comparison to the preceding Central European cultures. Do you have similar ritual burials everywhere in Neolithic Europe?

    You also specifically said that Funnel Beaker and other cultures became more aggressive and warlike when the yDna changed. Where is the archaeological evidence for that? To assert that and expect it to be convincing you need papers or independent analysis of the archaeological record.
    We have a general problem with the documentation of violence and war, even more so since a lot of archaeologists tried to play this aspect of human behaviour in pre-metal age societies down, as you know. Els Trocs and Tollense are lucky finds. Even many huge historical battles, which date and rough place is known couldn't be found archaeologically so far and there are disputes whether it was here or there, or just some kilometers aways behind the next two hills, with little to no finds so far. Now imagine the same for prehistoric, most of the time rather small scale battles and the dead being left for the scavengers out, with the valuables being taken away. Its pure luck to find something of significance. Yet we have a lot of wounds on those which survived blows or died from it and were buried by there relatives (like Zlota or Eulau).

    Genetics is the much safer way to go, because there you see "the change" actually taking place, whether one small battle was lost or won.

    What you're doing is showing the change in yDna. We get it. We've gotten it for years. Everybody knows that.

    You haven't convincingly shown WHY.
    That's no question, because no sane clan will give up its position, its terrain and women for free, just like that and at this rate. The why is clear as daylight.

    To return to my original assertion, I don't think a 15-25% change in HG total dna is earth shattering, especially not considering it took place over thousands of years, as numerous papers have shown, and that HG mtDna contributed to it. Idon't know where you got the idea that the farmers didn't take HG mates. The data is there in numerous papers. Just go look for it.
    I don't say they had no HG wives, especially at the start, when they were dominant themselves, but no, the increase in WHG and I2a was no accompanied by anything coming even close on the maternal line. If you have a proof for that, please show it, I don't know of any.

    Now, I'm out. I'm beyond bored debating things over and over again with no new paper giving us new data to clarify things.

    Believe what you want, but this is just unsupported speculation.
    Its speculation supported by evidence if you are critical
    It might not be bullet proof yet on every level and in every detail, and some might refuse the idea because "bad, violent guys" need to have been the result of "bad ideology" for some, but with new data it will become a safe bet. I actually would bet on it. Without data manipulation, they won't get another result.

    The only open question that remains to me is whether a similar takeover happened more than once, in different regions, probably even under somewhat different circumstances. But like you say, probably new data will convince you and I can't wait for it to come.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    What I want to add however is the evidence for
    - Violence and warfare in the Neolithic
    - The increase of both in the Middle Neolithic.

    I can't prove who slaughtered whom, which is hard to do if most people buried were so by their relatives and allies. But you see the general pattern.

    Lets start with this fairly new paper from 2018 which adds to the evidence from Els Trocs and the brutality of LBK warfare:
    The later phase of the Central European Early Neolithic witnessed a rise in collective lethal violence to a level undocumented up to this date. This is evidenced by repeated massacres of settled communities of the Linearbandkeramik (ca. 5600–4900 cal bc), the first full farming culture in this area. Skeletal remains of several dozen victims of this prehistoric warfare are known from different sites in Germany and Austria. Here we show that the mass grave of Halberstadt, Germany, a new mass fatality site from the same period, reveals further and so far unknown facets of Early Neolithic collective lethal violence. A highly selected, almost exclusively adult male and non-local population sample was killed by targeted blows to the back of the head, indicating a practice of systematic execution under largely controlled conditions followed by careless disposal of the bodies.

    [...]

    It is assumed that kinship and membership in probably pioneering lineages played an important part in the organisation of LBK communities2, 3, 9, 10. Specific patterns known so far from biomolecular studies include differentiation in the funeral rite connected to the place of origin and very likely virilocal residence patterns in addition to the large-scale genetic changes during the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition

    [...]

    The highly intense manipulation of corpses and possible ritualistic cannibalism practised at Herxheim represent behaviours that are still difficult to unravel, but knowledge about them has affected the interpretation of other sites that have long been considered as evidence for LBK warfare and, more specifically, massacres18, 19. These sites are the mass grave of Talheim, Germany and the enclosure at Asparn/Schletz, Austria
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58483-9

    Paper about the massacre of Schöneck-Kilianstädten:
    To these two clear-cut conflict sites we can now add another with unequivocal osteoarchaeological evidence of indiscriminate lethal violence, torture and mutilation, and disposal of the corpses in a commingled and chaotic mass grave (Fig. 1).
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4568710/

    This is how they treated even fellow LBK people from different tribes in a situation of conflict. I now we contemplate about the peaceful inclusion of a majority of non-LBK males in a short period, in a couple of generations, resulting in a near replacement of all original founding lineages.

    The timing is also interesting, because in the late early Neolithic, at the time of the posited transition, violence was at its peak. This might interest you in particular, Angela, as its about Neolithic Italy and documented violence over different time periods:

    Surprisingly, although actually more cases are known from later periods, the rate of cranial traumas per capita turns out to be far higher in the Neolithic
    On the long run, the male centered, hierarchical societal structure with the known Bronze Age warrior cult did not lead to an increase of actual violence, but to its control and better organisation.

    From p. 134 ff., Troubled Times: Violence and Warfare in the Past herausgegeben von Debra L. Martin, David W. Frayer.

    There are multiple accounts about the violent crisis of late LBK in Central Europe and the increase of violence and warfare from earlist to Middle Neolithic. In the later phase of the Neolithic, in TRB-GAC, we deal, once again, more with border conflicts than internal clan wars, which seem to be less deadly overall, even if their consequences for the genetic make up of a region are far more important.

  15. #15
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran50000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,711
    Points
    56,950
    Level
    73
    Points: 56,950, Level: 73
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    yes, I forgot about the Els Trocs massacre, in a remote area of EN herders
    I mentioned intertribal LBK warfare

  16. #16
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    yes, I forgot about the Els Trocs massacre, in a remote area of EN herders
    I mentioned intertribal LBK warfare
    I just wanted to make clear that the idea of peaceful and matriarchal Neolithic people is completely wrong (even though the two aspects are probably unrelated, real matriarchy did not exist, but less patriarchal and more matriarchal leaning societies do, of which some are quite violent) and that practically all major changes observable were related to violent acts, to major migrations and replacements.

    What do you think was the main source of the I2a/WHG shift? Do you have one or two main source groups in mind (you mentioned the situation in the Carpathian region, Lengyel and Baden are highly interesting and important cases) or do you propose a more general, uniform trend of hunter males becoming dominant? The latter is highly unlikely in my opinion, because this would mean that in most of Europe I2a males were superiour, as individuals, to G2a males, which is absurd. I also don't think that the advantage of the foragers was generally big, but we deal with quite specific settings in which the takeover, the rise to dominance was made possible. So it must be about a very limited number of events in which local hunter gatherers gained the upper hand from outside or from within the Neolithic communities. Specific places and times. Single male individuals don't matter, that's more.
    Your take?

  17. #17
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Riverman;602964]What kind of proof do you need? It will be hard to find, but Els Trocs might be an example, but there are others, can't link to papers ad hoc however. For Els Trocs, at which site the male victims were early Neolithics:
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58483-9
    El Trocs has absolutely nothing to do with any switch in ydna to more violent hunter gatherer I2a dominated cultures. It's early Neolithic. Your point was that the I2a men took over violently and when they did the LN cultures became more violent.

    What use is proving EN men were violent? It's irrelevant and a straw man argument.


    Whether the GAC were full blown pastoralists is up to debate, but by most accounts they were not. They were just agro-pastoralists which shifted in the direction of pastoralism in comparison to the preceding early Neolithic cultures in particular. They were no nomadic herders with no crop farming and without houses, even if the buildings found so far were rather poor in comparison to LBK houses. Besides, it makes little difference for the principal argument.
    Please provide me with papers which show, based on the archaeological evidence, that GAC were NOMADIC, and had no crop farming, or stop saying it.

    You might also want to check the archaeological record for Iberia. Their % of HG was among the highest, and they were not NOMADS of any variety. They were farmers.


    We have a general problem with the documentation of violence and war, even more so since a lot of archaeologists tried to play this aspect of human behaviour in pre-metal age societies down, as you know. Els Trocs and Tollense are lucky finds. Even many huge historical battles, which date and rough place is known couldn't be found archaeologically so far and there are disputes whether it was here or there, or just some kilometers aways behind the next two hills, with little to no finds so far. Now imagine the same for prehistoric, most of the time rather small scale battles and the dead being left for the scavengers out, with the valuables being taken away. Its pure luck to find something of significance. Yet we have a lot of wounds on those which survived blows or died from it and were buried by there relatives (like Zlota or Eulau).
    This is all totally irrelevant. It's long been known there was violence in Neolithic societies, early and late. There are numerous papers. I'VE MENTIONED IT MYSELF NUMEROUS TIMES. Nobody is arguing anything different.

    Do I have to remind you over and over again what you said? You said the yDNA I2a men killed the G2a men and the ensuing LN cultures dominated by them were MORE aggressive and violent.

    Prove it, or stop saying it.

    Saying Neolithic societies were violent is a different thing and nobody here is or was disputing it.



    That's no question, because no sane clan will give up its position, its terrain and women for free, just like that and at this rate. The why is clear as daylight.
    That's fine. Show me evidence that I2a men were in a battle with G2a men. Otherwise it's just unsupported speculation. I have no skin in this game. I don't have yDna, and my father's is U-152, so I don't care either way. I'd be happy to see proof and have more clarity here.


    I don't say they had no HG wives, especially at the start, when they were dominant themselves, but no, the increase in WHG and I2a was no accompanied by anything coming even close on the maternal line. If you have a proof for that, please show it, I don't know of any.
    I'm tired of doing all the actual work in most of these kinds of discussions. You're the one asserting that there wasn't a significant change in the mtDna. Prove it. The papers are there. Look it up.

    Honestly, all this fuss for a change of about 15% autosomal dna in some areas.


    As for the Gimbutas claim that the Neolithic of Old Europe was a peaceful matriarchy, no one has argued for that for five years or more, most certainly not here since I've been involved.

    What do you think we do here? Rely on decades old formulations? Stop beating a dead horse or presenting straw man arguments, or whatever you want to call it.

    Dogmatically insisting you have the one and only answer when you clearly don't doesn't go down very well here. Nor does assuming we haven't talked these issues to death. When you think you have some earth shattering hypothesis, check the search engine first. Unless it's a new paper, odds are we've discussed it.

    Of course, if you've made some earth shattering new discovery, we're all agog to hear it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    875
    Points
    18,142
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,142, Level: 41
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 808
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Has there been any published or ongoing effort to understand where the WHG resurgence and boom of I2 to the detriment of Anatolia_N lineages like G2, T and H2 originated and spread from, and how profound its overall genetic (autosomal) and sociocultural impact must've been between the Middle Neolithic and the Early Neolithic? Was the change toward more agro-pastoral economies in several parts of Europe even well before the westward expansion of steppe people related to that genetic shift? Sometimes I feel that the fact that what happened involved basically the same autosomal admixtures, but in different proportions (less ANF and more WHG), is a complicating factor and causes most people (including scholars) to completely ignore what happened, but it must've been nearly as important as the arrival of steppe admixture in parts of Europe.
    That's a good question. I was wondering about this WHG resurgence in another thread, and Angela shared some good insights about it.

    I don't intend to explain the so-called WHG resurgence, but if this post could help some way, here it is. :)

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    But now it gets complicated for me, because even though its obvious that I2a clans with increased WHG ancestry spread throughout Europe, even to Sardinia, whether such a shift happened once, twice or even more often, where exactly, is not well researched (?). Because there were big increases of I2a and WHG ancestry in different places throughout Europe. This was for sure not just the result of local assimilation, because for this it was much too strong and fast, but the exact sources and movements are (to me) not always clear.
    (I won't quote all what you wrote, but here we go.)

    All samples from Neo UK belong indeed to Y-DNA I, but those farmers were replaced in the fashion of Iberian farmers, no? IIRC, all - or almost all - samples from BA UK belong to R-L21, and Steppe component became then really strong in there. That, or Steppe migrants/invaders found an almost empty area, as Angela suggested, if I got it right. (The factor of diseases, if it played a role, was perhaps more important in other parts of Europe such Balkans?)
    If my memory serves me correctly, from Iron Age the EEF component increased again in UK, maybe in association to the arrival of Celtic speaking groups from Central Europe (possibly carrying lineages such R-U152, I2, G-L497...). Really not sure.

    Anyway, the subject is WHG resurgence.
    In regards to LBK vs. WHG, the paper titled "Admixture between early LBK and HGs" may provide clues. It was discussed here:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ly-LBK-and-HGs

    Perhaps it's important to consider that in some areas the G2a was replaced directly by R1b, such in LN Switzerland, as we saw in a recent paper. Few Y-DNA I, if any. As I posted in another thread, they were almost all G2a2a, whereas those ~10% of G2a in modern Switzerland are almost all G2a2b2a1, which makes me wonder if most of the latter arrived in there even after R-U152 did? Curiously, while those G2a2a were still in Switzerland, where they were replaced by R1b, I2 was already in N. Italy probably as dominant Y-DNA, as evidenced by the Remedello samples (afaik, modern Italians have no or few extra WHG, curiously).

    So, I think it may help considering the types of G2a that predominated in different parts of Europe in Neolithic - as evidenced by ancient DNA - and after that, since it was mentioned by you guys that I2 "resurged" in some parts but not in others.

    Nowadays G2a2a is very rare in Europe, except perhaps in Sardinia. That said, the waves associated to Cardial and LBK seemed richer in G2a2a and poor in G2a2b2a1 (by memory). The former is the one apparently more linked to this WHG resurgence? That's a question. Theoretically, a later wave in Neolithic would have brought most of these G2a2b2a1 we see nowadays, and they were likely associated more strongly to those cultures from SE Europe. I wonder then if most of the modern Europeans belonging to G2a descend in patrilinearity from these groups that were settled in SE Euro (or close to) till perhaps the Bronze Age, when they could have migrated West for any reason, as pushed by other group(s). If so (if they did arrive later), what groups would have pushed them, considering R1b was already in Central Europe?
    For example, G-L497 (G2a2b2a1a1b) predominates among Gs in Switzerland nowadays, and I know there's a G-L497 ancient DNA from Baden Culture (likely older than the first R1b in Swtizerland though). There was one G-L497 also in Trypillia (the "outlier"), but the assignment was deleted from the sheet for some unknown reason (perhaps contamination?). There's also that G2a2b2a1a1 (prediction based on his STR markers) from Mitterkirchen, Austria, your country, from 700 BC.

    This is an interesting (old) paper that may provide some clues about the early Gs, and may confirm some hints in this thread.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460020/


    Apparently it didn't consider Y-DNA, but it looks coherent with what we know based on the ancient DNAs already available. Actually it used mtDNA as reference, reason why it suggests genetic discontinuity related to the first wave through "Danubian route" (linked to LBK). All waves must be very similar in Autosomal, but few differences would be possible, I guess. Perhaps it explains the supposed division in Western and Eastern farmers? Or the following map?


    Some quotes from the paper, indirectly related to the G2a issue:
    "On the other hand, it has also been proposed that the mtDNA variability in the Cantabrian Fringe (nine archaeological sites of both Hunter-Gatherers and Farmers) is best explained by a model of random rather than clinal dispersal of Neolithic farmers in Europe, with different genetic influence in different geographical regions and in different periods of time [12]."

    "While much has been learned by the aforementioned studies, two crucial aspects have not been taken into consideration. Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]."


    "mtDNA data from Early Neolithic farmers of the Starčevo Criş culture in Romania (Cârcea, Gura Baciului and Negrileşti sites), confirm their genetic relationship with those of the LBK culture (Linienbandkeramik Kultur) in Central Europe, and they show little genetic continuity with modern European populations. On the other hand, populations of the Middle-Late Neolithic (Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures), supposedly a second wave of Neolithic migration from Anatolia, had a much stronger effect on the genetic heritage of the European populations."
    (...)
    "Based on these findings, we propose that permeation of mtDNA lineages from a second wave of Middle-Late Neolithic migration from North-West Anatolia into the Balkan Peninsula and Central Europe represent an important contribution to the genetic shift between Early and Late Neolithic populations in Europe, and consequently to the genetic make-up of modern European populations."


    "While much has been learned by the aforementioned studies, two crucial aspects have not been taken into consideration. Firstly, archaeological data show that the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia was not a single event but was represented by several waves of migrants [24]. In this respect the Proto-Sesklo culture in Greece, from which directly Starčevo-Criş in the North Balkans and indirectly LBK in Central Europe originate [2526] represents only the first great wave of Neolithisation of Europe [27]. A later great wave of migration from North-West Anatolia led to important cultures of South-Eastern Europe such as Vinča and Boian cultures [28]. Secondly, there is a total absence of aDNA data from South-East Europe in the current models."

    "While this idea is certainly possible, none of the models studied to date have taken into consideration another possible and obvious explanation, namely a new wave of Neolithic migration into Europe through the ‘traditional route’ of the Balkan Peninsula. This new wave of Neolithic migrations are represented by Vinča and Dudeşti cultures (5500–5000 BC), that trace their origin in North-West Anatolia on the basis of ceramics features [28]. The Boian, Zau and Gumelniţa cultures from Middle-Late Neolithic (M_NEO) from Romania are the direct continuation of this cultural complex; the M_NEO group from Romania displayed differences in haplotype (S5 Fig) and haplogroup distributions (S4 Fig) with the Middle Neolithic from Central Europe."

    "The above mentioned data allow us to suggest that the populations of this putative second wave of Neolithic migration from Anatolia caused a much stronger impact on the genetic make-up of the European populations than the earlier farmers of the Starčevo-Criş and LBK cultures."

    Unfortunately, I lack knowledge to working better these informations, but I thought it might help someway.
    Last edited by Regio X; 06-05-20 at 03:05.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    El Trocs has absolutely nothing to do with any switch in ydna to more violent hunter gatherer I2a dominated cultures. It's early Neolithic. Your point was that the I2a men took over violently and when they did the LN cultures became more violent.
    My real point was that the early Neolithic got more violent and in the transitional period the even more aggressive and warlike hunter-derived clans took over.

    What use is proving EN men were violent? It's irrelevant and a straw man argument.
    It proves that most changes were caused by violent, aggressive behaviour, by wars. Why should the transition from I2a/WHG at the end of the early Neolithic, in one of the most brutal times of European history, be any different? That's what my argument was about. The LBK fought with their teeth and claws against each other, mutilated, utterly annihilated their enemies, even the young and women more than once, but suddenly they say friendly hello to the new forager males and tell them to take their land and wives?

    Please provide me with papers which show, based on the archaeological evidence, that GAC were NOMADIC, and had no crop farming, or stop saying it.
    I can't stop saying what I never said. I said they were not nomadic and they did crop farming too, but at a lower rate in comparison to animal husbandry than LBK, that's what I said. They were more mobile and pastoralist than early farmers, but they were still agro-pastoralists with houses and no pastoralists living only in tents and caves.

    You might also want to check the archaeological record for Iberia. Their % of HG was among the highest, and they were not NOMADS of any variety. They were farmers.
    True nomadism is exceptional, semi-nomadism and transhumance is more common. The GAC practised, most likely, transhumance, its written in the paper I quoted. But they were not nomadic, I NEVER EVER said so, this is what you quoted from me yourself, I will bold what's decisive:
    Whether the GAC were full blown pastoralists is up to debate, but by most accounts they were not. They were just agro-pastoralists which shifted in the direction of pastoralism in comparison to the preceding early Neolithic cultures in particular. They were no nomadic herders with no crop farming and without houses, even if the buildings found so far were rather poor in comparison to LBK houses. Besides, it makes little difference for the principal argument.
    So probably my wording was bad, I wanted to say that they did have (smaller, poorer) houses and were no nomads and they did practise crop farming. If the sentence was wrong, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

    Do I have to remind you over and over again what you said? You said the yDNA I2a men killed the G2a men and the ensuing LN cultures dominated by them were MORE aggressive and violent.
    I wouldn't say they killed all G2a men everywhere, but the shift was happening violently and was drastic enough. There was an increase of violence and competition from the start to the end of the early Neolithic. When the dust settled, better organised, more mobile and warlike agro-pastoralist societies emerged, dominated by I2a. The earlier Neolithic people might have been as violent, but they were not as good at it, at least that's what the end result is suggesting. Of course, part of the reason for the increase in violence is their failure to pacify the border ones and to fully exploit the ecological zone of Northern Europe. The situation must have been pretty dire in some places, especially if the climate changed just a little bit, with, like I said, malnourished and inbred people surrounded by foragers in the woods and fighting with each other for what's left.
    That's when the second stage of the Neolithisation with increased livestock breeding kicks in.

    That's fine. Show me evidence that I2a men were in a battle with G2a men. Otherwise it's just unsupported speculation.
    Like I said, the few battle sites with different combatants left are archaeological rare gems. However, even in this book with its alternative interpretations the most common, most realistic interpretation of events being mentioned and described: The end of the uniform LBK horizon in particular was a very violent process, this is exactly the increase in violence and warfare I referred to, in which the forager clan led Neolithic groups got the upper hand.

    I'm tired of doing all the actual work in most of these kinds of discussions. You're the one asserting that there wasn't a significant change in the mtDna. Prove it. The papers are there. Look it up.
    The GAC samples which I quoted were all I2a (forager) yDNA and the complete mtDNA variation was Neolithic. It is also crucial when and where the mtDNA was acquired. I know of no place where the drastic increase of I2a/WHG correlated with a synchronous rise of HG mtDNA. I'm sorry, I don't have that information and couldn't find it. Whether some Iberian Neolithics got local mtDNA in a preceding period is not relevant, its about the timing. Of course, the GAC had mtDNA of foragers too, like U5b, and I wouldn't say that it was only males coming in, but the its the ratio. The ratio is completely on the paternal side, even more so if considering that the preceding and not as I2a dominated groups had U lineages as well. So the presence doesn't explain the change.

    Honestly, all this fuss for a change of about 15% autosomal dna in some areas.
    You are right if you look at the WHG alone, but I'm pretty sure its much more. However, my assumption is that a people which was probably more around 50:50 expanded on. Similar to a comparison of Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> CE Bell Beaker -> Iberian Bell Beaker. At the end of the chain of expansions the steppe was already fairly low. But my assumption would be more like the original WHG led group being probably 30-40 percent additional WHG. This means its no big deal in terms of the big ancestral components, but it could mean a quite drastic regional replacement nevertheless.

    Dogmatically insisting you have the one and only answer when you clearly don't doesn't go down very well here. Nor does assuming we haven't talked these issues to death. When you think you have some earth shattering hypothesis, check the search engine first. Unless it's a new paper, odds are we've discussed it.

    Of course, if you've made some earth shattering new discovery, we're all agog to hear it.
    Ok, I just think there is no better explanation out there. If there is, I never heard about it and the question was raised, once more, not even by myself. The alternatives are heard are all far fetched. Definitely not more probable than my proposition - at least to me and for the moment. I'm however open to all arguments and facts which might contradict the hypothesis I deem the most probable and hoping for new inputs to the discussion. Peace

  20. #20
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    If my memory serves me correctly, from Iron Age the EEF component increased again in UK, maybe in association to the arrival of Celtic speaking groups from Central Europe (possibly carrying lineages such R-U152, I2, G-L497...). Really not sure.


    Perhaps it's important to consider that in some areas the G2a was replaced directly by R1b, such in LN Switzerland, as we saw in a recent paper. Few Y-DNA I, if any. As I posted in another thread, they were almost all G2a2a, whereas those ~10% of G2a in modern Switzerland are almost all G2a2b (or G2a2b2a1a1, more specifically), which makes me wonder if most of the latter arrived in there even after R-U152 did?


    Late Bronze Age and Iron Age showed the regional increase of EEF ancestry indeed and there was movement of people from the Carpatho-Balkan region to the West especially in the Hallstatt Culture, with further dispersion through the Celts. The Hallstatt time elite burial with G2a from Mitterkirchen, Austria, which you mentioned, seems to be one possible first proof for this:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ybrid&langid=4
    and in Iberia haplogroup I2 appeared even more frequently with Celts again, than among Bell Beakers it seems. But more samples being needed, like most of the time, to come to final conclusions.

    So, I think it may help considering the types of G2a that predominated in different parts of Europe in Neolithic - as evidenced by ancient DNA - and after that, since it was mentioned by you guys that I2 "resurged" in some parts but not in others.
    Isn't it more likely that the explanation is they moved around older G2a strongholds and allied up with others? Exactly like the Corded Ware did with GAC!

    Unfortunately, I lack knowledge to working better these informations, but I thought it might help someway.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    ThirdTerm's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-16
    Posts
    113
    Points
    4,446
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,446, Level: 19
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 204
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Times of Neolithic Transition along the Western Mediterranean

    Editors: García Puchol, Oreto, Salazar García, Domingo Carlos (Eds.)

    ​Discusses the expansion of farming at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Western and Central Mediterranean
    Highlights the most recent advances in archaeological and scientific research aimed at better understanding the neolithisation process in the Mediterranean
    Focuses on the Neolithic transition in the Western and Central Mediterranean regions
    Brings together different novel methods and techniques applied to research assessing the neolithisation of the Mediterranean

    https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319529370


    This 2017 book looked into the demographic transition from G2a to I2a. G2a is present in studied Anatolian populations and also in Western, Central and Southeastern Neolithic cultures. However, basal levels of hg I and its subclade I2a are also detected, which are present in Mesolithic Scandinavia (Motala, Loschbour). I and I2a are both present in the Anatolian Neolithic, making it difficult to ascertain if they were introduced through demographic diffusion or if they signify acculturation of local hunter-gatherer groups. One of the samples from the Körös culture (KO2) is more closely related to the Anatolian and Greek Early Neolithic, while the other skelton from the same culture displays a strong Metholithic signature with hg I2a, clustering with Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (Gamba et al. 2014).
    Давайте вместе снова сделаем мир великий!

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    875
    Points
    18,142
    Level
    41
    Points: 18,142, Level: 41
    Level completed: 11%, Points required for next Level: 808
    Overall activity: 35.0%


    Country: Italy



    @Riverman
    This supposed movement West would be kind of a little "G2a resurgence" then. Lol
    If true, these people may have helped to brought this type of farmer component which is supposedly stronger in N. Italy and Sicily nowadays, more shifted to East (Balkan) than to West, I suppose.

    Ygorcs started an interesting thread about it, by the way. His findings seem to fit well with the map I posted above.
    He also mentions Remedello as a "Western" type, which also makes sense imo. Here:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...om-Tyrrhenians

    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Isn't it more likely that the explanation is they moved around older G2a strongholds and allied up with others? Exactly like the Corded Ware did with GAC!
    Could you elaborate this?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    205
    Points
    1,374
    Level
    10
    Points: 1,374, Level: 10
    Level completed: 12%, Points required for next Level: 176
    Overall activity: 72.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    @Riverman
    This supposed movement West would be kind of a little "G2a resurgence" then. Lol
    Yes, that is true actually and its not the only case. Many haplotypes survived in a refuge, just to come back big time afterwards, if their position was not that bad for a big comeback after all. In Europe some of the best examples are I1 and E-V13. Almost dead, but coming back again.

    If true, these people may have helped to brought this type of farmer component which is supposedly stronger in N. Italy and Sicily nowadays, more shifted to East (Balkan) than to West, I suppose.
    Ygorcs started an interesting thread about it, by the way. His findings seem to fit well with the map I posted above.
    He also mentions Remedello as a "Western" type, which also makes sense imo. Here:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...om-Tyrrhenians
    Ygorcs might be onto something and knows for sure more than me about this. My idea is too for some time that Etruscans might have come from a group within the Baden sphere with Yamnaya influences. But that's just speculation really. Yet I think a great deal of the linguistic diversity, even of the one which made it to the far west, was born in the area between Pannonia-Carpathians and Balkans, were the mixtures and alliances of the post-steppe world were particularly complicated and interwoven. Yet when and how exactly the modern Eastern Mediterranean/Levantine influences spread is also open to debate (?).

    Could you elaborate this?
    If a new player enters a region, he has three choices how to deal with locals:
    - attack and subjugate or destroy them
    - ally up and try to make a deal, especially if you need allies, probably against other foes
    - trying to avoid them altogether, exploiting niches the others don't occupy or moving on, to new pastures so to say.

    Yet what you do will always depend on how strong you are and how strong the others seem to be. If you reign supreme, the first option will be your first choice most of the time. But if you are not as sure, you might try the second and if that doesn't work out or you have a better destination in mind try to fall back to number three.

    This is what the Corded Ware people did as well, and the reason why there was, initially, such a patch-work of cultures after the big first steppe expansion. Actually even more of a patchwork before. Because the newcomers did cut into the soft parts and most valuable parts for them, while bypassing all areas not interesting or with a strong and hostile population. The Corded Ware people seem to have done all three things in relation to GAC, depending on the circumstances. They did annihilate some tribes, they did ally up and assimilated some others, while bypassing other groups where it seemed to have been the better option. These were sometimes much later integrated into the broader steppe sphere.
    An example might be from the perpetrators of the Eulau massacre, most likely coming from the Schnfelder Culture, which was part of this TRB-GAC related horizon and persisted for quite long beside their Corded Ware neighbours, even if violence seems to have errupted occasionally, as is evidenced by finds in Eulau.

    What I wanted to propose is that whereever this I2a/WHG enriched Middle Neolithic movement started (I'd assume in the North but with new South Eastern influences coming up as well), the logical assumption is they acted the same, using all three options where it seemed suitable. E.g. in parts of Bohemia, Switzerland, Sardinia and so on, the local G2a Neolithic communities were strong enough for option 2 and 3, resulting in more mixed communities with a lower share or even a relative persistence of the locals. In some other places and groups, especially for the GAC/KAK groups, it seems to have been a more exclusive club.

  24. #24
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, 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 ThirdTerm View Post
    Times of Neolithic Transition along the Western Mediterranean

    Editors: García Puchol, Oreto, Salazar García, Domingo Carlos (Eds.)

    ​Discusses the expansion of farming at the beginning of the Neolithic in the Western and Central Mediterranean
    Highlights the most recent advances in archaeological and scientific research aimed at better understanding the neolithisation process in the Mediterranean
    Focuses on the Neolithic transition in the Western and Central Mediterranean regions
    Brings together different novel methods and techniques applied to research assessing the neolithisation of the Mediterranean

    https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319529370


    This 2017 book looked into the demographic transition from G2a to I2a. G2a is present in studied Anatolian populations and also in Western, Central and Southeastern Neolithic cultures. However, basal levels of hg I and its subclade I2a are also detected, which are present in Mesolithic Scandinavia (Motala, Loschbour). I and I2a are both present in the Anatolian Neolithic, making it difficult to ascertain if they were introduced through demographic diffusion or if they signify acculturation of local hunter-gatherer groups. One of the samples from the Körös culture (KO2) is more closely related to the Anatolian and Greek Early Neolithic, while the other skelton from the same culture displays a strong Metholithic signature with hg I2a, clustering with Scandinavian hunter-gatherers (Gamba et al. 2014).
    Great info, Third Term. Thanks. :)

  25. #25
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,836
    Points
    388,745
    Level
    100
    Points: 388,745, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    My real point was that the early Neolithic got more violent and in the transitional period the even more aggressive and warlike hunter-derived clans took over.
    The Neolithic people became more violent during the times of scarcity after climate change and crop failures. That happens in every culture. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that it was because of battles between I2a "clans" and G2a "clans".

    Once again, please point me to the papers which show that hunter-derived "clans" murdered the G2a clans to take over.

    I keep asking, and you keep failing to do it, and the reason is that no such evidence exists. You are just hypothesizing that it "must have" happened that way.


    It proves that most changes were caused by violent, aggressive behaviour, by wars. Why should the transition from I2a/WHG at the end of the early Neolithic, in one of the most brutal times of European history, be any different? That's what my argument was about. The LBK fought with their teeth and claws against each other, mutilated, utterly annihilated their enemies, even the young and women more than once, but suddenly they say friendly hello to the new forager males and tell them to take their land and wives?
    Who says they didn't just absorb the people whom they encountered? They took forager women as wives, why not include some I2a forager men too? They needed strong backs. What else was that hg male doing in the Hungarian Neolithic village in Gambas et al.


    I can't stop saying what I never said. I said they were not nomadic and they did crop farming too, but at a lower rate in comparison to animal husbandry than LBK, that's what I said. They were more mobile and pastoralist than early farmers, but they were still agro-pastoralists with houses and no pastoralists living only in tents and caves.

    True nomadism is exceptional, semi-nomadism and transhumance is more common. The GAC practised, most likely, transhumance, its written in the paper I quoted. But they were not nomadic, I NEVER EVER said so, this is what you quoted from me yourself, I will bold what's decisive:

    So probably my wording was bad, I wanted to say that they did have (smaller, poorer) houses and were no nomads and they did practise crop farming. If the sentence was wrong, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

    Apologies accepted. For the record this is just cut and paste.

    "Whether the GAC were full blown pastoralists is up to debate, but by most accounts they were not. They were just agro-pastoralists which shifted in the direction of pastoralism in comparison to the preceding early Neolithic cultures in particular. They were no nomadic herders with no crop farming and without houses, even if the buildings found so far were rather poor in comparison to LBK houses.


    I wouldn't say they killed all G2a men everywhere, but the shift was happening violently and was drastic enough. There was an increase of violence and competition from the start to the end of the early Neolithic. When the dust settled, better organised, more mobile and warlike agro-pastoralist societies emerged, dominated by I2a. The earlier Neolithic people might have been as violent, but they were not as good at it, at least that's what the end result is suggesting. Of course, part of the reason for the increase in violence is their failure to pacify the border ones and to fully exploit the ecological zone of Northern Europe. The situation must have been pretty dire in some places, especially if the climate changed just a little bit, with, like I said, malnourished and inbred people surrounded by foragers in the woods and fighting with each other for what's left.
    That's when the second stage of the Neolithisation with increased livestock breeding kicks in.
    You apparently haven't read the literature, and you didn't read my comments carefully. Livestock breeding was extremely important in the Balkans from the earliest days of the Neolithic. Some areas were almost completely dependent on livestock herding of cattle. NO, the I2A men did not introduce it. They were virtually all G2a at that point. So, you're wrong.

    As for the rest of the paragraph it's sheer speculation. What are you basing it on? What papers? What archaeology shows this?

    The GAC samples which I quoted were all I2a (forager) yDNA and the complete mtDNA variation was Neolithic. It is also crucial when and where the mtDNA was acquired. I know of no place where the drastic increase of I2a/WHG correlated with a synchronous rise of HG mtDNA. I'm sorry, I don't have that information and couldn't find it. Whether some Iberian Neolithics got local mtDNA in a preceding period is not relevant, its about the timing. Of course, the GAC had mtDNA of foragers too, like U5b, and I wouldn't say that it was only males coming in, but the its the ratio. The ratio is completely on the paternal side, even more so if considering that the preceding and not as I2a dominated groups had U lineages as well. So the presence doesn't explain the change.
    All you had to do was look on our own site.

    This looks like a genocidal wipe out to you? The mtdna is 14% HG.

    'No Y-chromosomal DNA from the Funnelbeaker itself has been tested to date. The following samples are from the related Baalberge and Salzmünde cultures in central-east Germany, but may not necessarily reflect the paternal lineages found in Scandinavia and northern Germany at the time. Indeed the mtDNA of these various groups displays considerable differences.
    • Baalberge group (5,800 to 5,350 ybp ; central Germany): I, R1
    • Salzmünde group (5,400 to 5,000 ybp : East Germany): G2a2a (x2), I2a1b1a (x2)

    mtDNA


    • Funnelbeaker Culture (samples from Sweden) : H (x3), H1, H24, J1d5, J2b1a, K1a5, T2b
      • Baalberge group (c. 5,800 to 5,350 ybp ; central-east Germany): H (x3), H1e1a, H7d5, HV, J, K1a (x2), N1a1a, T1a1, T2b, T2c (x2), T2e1, U5b2a2, U8a1a, X, X2c
      • Walternienburg-Bernburg group (c. 5,100 to 4,700 ybp ; central-east Germany): H, H1e1a3, H5, K1, K1a (x2), T2b, U5a, U5b, U5b1c1, U5b2a1a, V, W, X
      • Salzmünde group (5,400 to 5,000 ybp : central-east Germany): H (x2), H3 (x2), H5, HV, HV0, J, J1c (x2), J2b1a, K1, K1a, K1a4a1a2, N1a1a1a3 (x2), T2b (x2), U3a, U3a1, U5b, V, X2b1'2'3'4'5'6
      • Outliers from Gotland, Sweden (5,300 to 4,700 ybp): H7d, HV0a, J1c5 (2x), J1c8a, K1a2b (2x), K2b1a, T2b8"


    Globular Amphora: Let's remember where they were located please.

    "In a 2017 genetic study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the fifteen samples of mtDNA was extracted. The majority of the samples belonged to subclades of U and Haplogroup H (mtDNA), while J, W and K was also detected. The remains were found to closely related to Neolithic European farmers and Western Hunter-Gatherers, with little genetic relations to the Yamnaya culture in the east. The authors of the study suggested that the Globulara Amphora culture was non-Indo-European-speaking, but with cultural influences from Yamnaya.[4]

    A February 2018 study published in Nature included an analysis of eight males of the Globular Amphora culture. Three of them carried haplogroup I2a2a1b and a subclade of it; two carried I2a2; one carried I2; one carried BT and one carried CT.[5]

    In a 2019 genetic study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 15 skeletons from the Koszyce mass grave in southern Poland, which is ascribed t
    to the Globular Amphora culture. The individuals were all shown to be members of an extended family...all were found to belong to I2a-L801."

    Please look at the autosomal dna of Globula Amphora...now look back at LBK. You see evidence of genocide and take over there between the two periods?? You have to be kidding.


    From Shroeder et al 2019...

    As per data set 2, no cattle remains, only pig.

    Look at data set 5. These people were not fair haired and blue eyed. Have no idea about the ones from the prior papers.

    The reason that they were mobile is unknown. Did they learn it from the steppe people with whom they were in contact? Did the influence go the other way? There's no way of telling at the present time. There's certainly no proof that the male ancestors of these people killed all the G2a men with whom they came into contact. Maybe they just liked EEF women better, and kept on mating with them, and that's how they wound up 70% EEF.

    Be aware too that GAC is not Iberian Neolithic or English Neolithic.

    You are right if you look at the WHG alone, but I'm pretty sure its much more. However, my assumption is that a people which was probably more around 50:50 expanded on. Similar to a comparison of Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> CE Bell Beaker -> Iberian Bell Beaker. At the end of the chain of expansions the steppe was already fairly low. But my assumption would be more like the original WHG led group being probably 30-40 percent additional WHG. This means its no big deal in terms of the big ancestral components, but it could mean a quite drastic regional replacement nevertheless.
    There's no need to respond. You're right. It's all assumptions.


    Ok, I just think there is no better explanation out there. If there is, I never heard about it and the question was raised, once more, not even by myself. The alternatives are heard are all far fetched. Definitely not more probable than my proposition - at least to me and for the moment. I'm however open to all arguments and facts which might contradict the hypothesis I deem the most probable and hoping for new inputs to the discussion. Peace
    Well, that's certainly a more measured approach.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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