Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

It might be a good idea to look at the burial contexts of known BB samples. There was no caste system and no concubinage - this is completely impossible, though instances of polygamy there might have been.

You need to accept what the data says. The same thing that happened in the UK and Ireland also happened in Germany/France/Iberia. The BBs replace everyone else, and in some places the complex societes vanish annd give way to more primitive groups. No aristocracies/castes/centralization of power and women.

I have no problems with the truth - I'm not R1b or ethnically European in the strict sense - but where did L51 come from then? It sure wasn't Yamnaya or Corded Ware, given they have exposed elites we'd have found L51 by now. Also, if it came with Suvorovo where did it go after the Danube, there must be a cultural trace. Perhaps this is of relevance, where unexpectedly deep connections are brought to the fore regarding Iberian BB and the Steppe.

 

[halfalp]

I have no problems with the truth - I'm not R1b or ethnically European in the strict sense - but where did L51 come from then? It sure wasn't Yamnaya or Corded Ware, given they have exposed elites we'd have found L51 by now. Also, if it came with Suvorovo where did it go after the Danube, there must be a cultural trace. Perhaps this is of relevance, where unexpectedly deep connections are brought to the fore regarding Iberian BB and the Steppe.

One overshadowed point is that, Bell Beaker and Kura Araxes were originally not Steppe related in ancient dna but became later. Baden and Lengyel Cultures were always thought by archeologists to be related with some of the Steppe package. And datas for both cultures are non-concluent with R1b... Some times datas are weird, away of the excpectations even if it should make sense on the paper. One culture that could fit in is the Funnelbeaker wich curiously enough, we dont have y-dna for.

 

[Pip]

It might be a good idea to look at the burial contexts of known BB samples. There was no caste system and no concubinage - this is completely impossible, though instances of polygamy there might have been.

You need to accept what the data says. The same thing that happened in the UK and Ireland also happened in Germany/France/Iberia. The BBs replace everyone else, and in some places the complex societes vanish annd give way to more primitive groups. No aristocracies/castes/centralization of power and women.

How do we know there was no caste system in BB? What is the data to demonstrate this?

Do you have another explanation for why the Iberian late CA women are autosomally more steppic than the men, when the men are all 'steppic' R1b, and the population is autosomally more EEF than it is steppic?

 

[CrazyDonkey]

I would like to return to this suggestion, pretty much overlooked. It provides a rational explanation; and if correct, would imply that the level of 'Steppe DNA' in the Iberian late Chalcolithic is probably significantly overstated, with the skeletons found in the cemeteries only being those from the elite Steppic lineages. The samples analysed could be unrepresentative of the general population, with non-Steppic people excluded.

The important question is - is it true? Is this sex-specific pattern replicated in other Steppic populations? If it is, then this would provide convincing circumstantial evidence that what Crazy Donkey suggested is actually what was happening. What does the data have to say about Corded Ware samples, for instance - are the females more Steppic on average? And Yamnayan samples - are the females less CHG-infused?

The "newcomers" are still steppe-admixed, while the "old-timers", if you will, aren't. How much really doesn't matter. There is a clear demarcation. Dilution is to be expected, unless migrating directly, by boat. That the Lower Danube, Carpathian Basin, Hungarian Plains, and Low Countries were ethnic/genetic "mixing bowls" does not mean that elite lineages weren't guarded (by some degree of endogamy), a preferred language was not faithfully transmitted, or closely held cultural traditions were not maintained.

That non-steppic populations persisted as a "ghost" population remains to be seen. I suspect a combination of:

* A depopulating event (drought, famine, plague).

* Intrusion by herders into the vacuum (previously farmed areas turned to "scrub").

* Possible seizure by the invaders of the copper mines, which were the real source of Iberian wealth.

* Breaking of the connection of "town and country", with "cities" (if villes with a thousand residents can be called such) turned into isolated "islands".

* Further population loss due to conflict, warfare, sieges, etc. This could also help explain the even ratio of men/women in the cemeteries, rather than the expected male surplus, in that many bodies of warriors lost in battle might never have been recovered or were buried on the spot.

* Leading to 1) dispersal/emigration to neighboring regions and/or 2) assimilation into the dominant group and economy, resulting in the distribution of steppic genetic admixtures (along with further dilution) across the remaining population. For another example of mass migration/assimilation resulting from "crofters" being replaced by herders, see the Highland Clearances.

Note, however, that this did not lead to language loss/conversion in much of Iberia, despite ruling elites or cliques being replaced, with Iberian surviving along the southeast coast until Roman times and Basque in the north until now.

 

[Alyan]

There is no evidence the Greek samples that clustered with Myceneans were low caste or otherwise not nobility.

As said on Anthrogenetica:
The first and most important anomaly is the preservative Agean_BA auDNA for the total of 3 male and 2 female samples.

We can deduce a caste-like separation 150-200 after the colony was established. The female samples also prove that no open mixing with the aboriginals (exclusively R1b) encountered since the establishment of the colony occurred.
This can have two reasons: The classical elite dominance situation in which the colonists that found the colony are a minority that wants to preserve ethnically. Or they are a slave-like population imported from Greece, Helots, Pelasgians with which no one wants to mix for some reason.

The latter idea can almost certainly be excluded: Greek colonists were usually children of free Greek families/clans which could not make a living in the their fathers land, because their older brothers were already promised the land. Hence they grouped with other young people and went out to create new cities as they got sufficiently organized and structured. They hence had no luxury of slaves when they set out to create a colony, but once their colony was set up, they could acquire slaves from the aboriginal population there.
In this case we can trace the origin of those colonists very far back to a quite desirable region of ancient Greece: Phocis , near ancient Delphi. Those young people went to the Ionian coast and created the colony Phocaea , after their success there and as pioneers of Greek seafaring they went on to create Empuries and other colonies.
Therefore it becomes likely that the 5 colonist samples are direct descendants of the original Greek mainland tribe of the Phocians. This is due to the colonist concept and the very patriarchal structure of such ancient Greeks. They would not have slaves when traveling to the new colony as said and they all would be of core tribal origin, just not lucky enough to get a piece of the land of their fathers.
Hence the Y-DNA haplogroups we see in the three samples are almost certainly proper ancient Greek ones: No slaves, no local Anatolians or even non-Greek Phoenicians (despite their high J2a presence).

So there is a high degree of confidence that these are upper class, free or better said mainland tribal Greek J2a samples. Just as the Mycenaean J2a sample was a ordinary tribal Mycenaean , even if it was not a elite grave.

I would like to see what those 3 samples in between Agean_BA and Iberia-IA are. If they are females, we can deduce that a elite dominance hierarchy was in place in the colony. If they are male R1b, then it was not a typical colony like situation, something not unheard of given how successful Iberian R1b was against H, G and I...

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I knew it was you before I even clicked lol. Fact is though, this Y DNA J among Mycenaeans is clearly of the same origin as the Minoans - i.e. Pelasgian. I don't doubt the existence of plenty of Mycenaean elites with Y DNA J, but it's obvious as a best-guess that Z2103 played a larger role on that front given it was surely the language bearer and, if castes were involved (which they were!), predominant at the top. Don't confuse that with White supremacism, as that's how I knew it was you (I'd bet my life something like Ramses II being Y DNA E1b1a would put a smile on your face), as Indo-Europeans were never particularly culturally sophisticated despite e.g. advanced weapons technologies.

 

[Angela]

There is no evidence the Greek samples that clustered with Myceneans were low caste or otherwise not nobility.

As said on Anthrogenetica:
The first and most important anomaly is the preservative Agean_BA auDNA for the total of 3 male and 2 female samples.

We can deduce a caste-like separation 150-200 after the colony was established. The female samples also prove that no open mixing with the aboriginals (exclusively R1b) encountered since the establishment of the colony occurred.
This can have two reasons: The classical elite dominance situation in which the colonists that found the colony are a minority that wants to preserve ethnically. Or they are a slave-like population imported from Greece, Helots, Pelasgians with which no one wants to mix for some reason.

The latter idea can almost certainly be excluded: Greek colonists were usually children of free Greek families/clans which could not make a living in the their fathers land, because their older brothers were already promised the land. Hence they grouped with other young people and went out to create new cities as they got sufficiently organized and structured. They hence had no luxury of slaves when they set out to create a colony, but once their colony was set up, they could acquire slaves from the aboriginal population there.
In this case we can trace the origin of those colonists very far back to a quite desirable region of ancient Greece: Phocis , near ancient Delphi. Those young people went to the Ionian coast and created the colony Phocaea , after their success there and as pioneers of Greek seafaring they went on to create Empuries and other colonies.
Therefore it becomes likely that the 5 colonist samples are direct descendants of the original Greek mainland tribe of the Phocians. This is due to the colonist concept and the very patriarchal structure of such ancient Greeks. They would not have slaves when traveling to the new colony as said and they all would be of core tribal origin, just not lucky enough to get a piece of the land of their fathers.
Hence the Y-DNA haplogroups we see in the three samples are almost certainly proper ancient Greek ones: No slaves, no local Anatolians or even non-Greek Phoenicians (despite their high J2a presence).

So there is a high degree of confidence that these are upper class, free or better said mainland tribal Greek J2a samples. Just as the Mycenaean J2a sample was a ordinary tribal Mycenaean , even if it was not a elite grave.

I would like to see what those 3 samples in between Agean_BA and Iberia-IA are. If they are females, we can deduce that a elite dominance hierarchy was in place in the colony. If they are male R1b, then it was not a typical colony like situation, something not unheard of given how successful Iberian R1b was against H, G and I...

It's just the same old t-rolls who can't stand that not only the Mycenaeans, but also the classical era philosophers and mathematicians and scientists and dramatists and poets and artists, were not Nordic or Eastern Europeans of any description, but very much like the Sicilians and Aegean Greeks of today.

Even if there was a bit more steppe in the highest levels of society, what these people clearly also don't understand, because they don't have any background in classical history or literature, is that most of those people would not have been from the highest levels of society anyway. Yet, those are the people who are remembered by posterity, and who helped form Western Civilization, not the petty tyrants and rulers of various city states.

Such ignorant people should just be ignored. They have nothing of worth to add to the conversation because they don't know anything.

 

[davef]

It's just the same old t-rolls who can't stand that not only the Mycenaeans, but also the classical era philosophers and mathematicians and scientists and dramatists and poets and artists, were not Nordic or Eastern Europeans of any description, but very much like the Sicilians and Aegean Greeks of today.

Even if there was a bit more steppe in the highest levels of society, what these people clearly also don't understand, because they don't have any background in classical history or literature, is that most of those people would not have been from the highest levels of society anyway. Yet, those are the people who are remembered by posterity, and who helped form Western Civilization, not the petty tyrants and rulers of various city states.

Such ignorant people should just be ignored. They have nothing of worth to add to the conversation because they don't know anything.

Yes and they'll do magic tricks with gedmatch calculators or "d-stats" to convince (trick) people into thinking they have little to do with S. Italians or the Aegean Island Greeks

 

[johen]

As said on Anthrogenetica:
The first and most important anomaly is the preservative Agean_BA auDNA for the total of 3 male and 2 female samples.

We can deduce a caste-like separation 150-200 after the colony was established. The female samples also prove that no open mixing with the aboriginals (exclusively R1b) encountered since the establishment of the colony occurred.
This can have two reasons: The classical elite dominance situation in which the colonists that found the colony are a minority that wants to preserve ethnically. Or they are a slave-like population imported from Greece, Helots, Pelasgians with which no one wants to mix for some reason.

The latter idea can almost certainly be excluded: Greek colonists were usually children of free Greek families/clans which could not make a living in the their fathers land, because their older brothers were already promised the land. Hence they grouped with other young people and went out to create new cities as they got sufficiently organized and structured. They hence had no luxury of slaves when they set out to create a colony, but once their colony was set up, they could acquire slaves from the aboriginal population there..

As I already posted in anthrogenica, looks like this adventure is related with yamna culture and also explain yamna expansion, doesn't it?

When it comes to understanding the origin of European culture, there’s another reason for looking at the Yamnaya. The very foundation of Rome may be steeped in their traditions. According to studies of Indo European mythology, young Yamnaya men would go off in warlike groups, raping and pillaging for a few years, then return to their village and settle down into respectability as adults. Those cults were mythologically associated with wolves and dogs, like youths forming wild hunting packs, and the youths are said to have worn dog or wolf skins during their initiation. Anthony has found a site in Russia where the Yamnaya killed wolves and dogs in midwinter. He says it’s easy to imagine groups sacrificing and consuming the animals as a way to symbolically become wolves or dogs themselves. Bodies in Yamnaya graves on the western steppes frequently have pendants of dog canine teeth around their necks. Anthony says that all this offers solid archaeological evidence for the youthful “wolf packs” of Indo-European legends – and sees a link to the myth of the foundation of Rome. “You’ve got two boys, Romulus and Remus and a wolf that more or less gives birth to them,” he says. “And the earliest legends of the foundation of Rome are connected with a large group of homeless young men who were given shelter by Romulus. But they then wanted wives, so they invited in a neighbouring tribe and stole all their women. You can see that whole set of early legends as being connected possibly with the foundation of Rome by youthful war bands.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11538-Genetic-origins-of-the-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page80
(#796)

 

[davef]

Yes and they'll do magic tricks with gedmatch calculators or "d-stats" to convince (trick) people into thinking they have little to do with S. Italians or the Aegean Island Greeks

Oh plus the paper shows that the fst of s.italians and sicilians vs the Iron Age Greek is bleeding red so that's more evidence that these populations are extremely close

 

[markod]

The "newcomers" are still steppe-admixed, while the "old-timers", if you will, aren't. How much really doesn't matter. There is a clear demarcation. Dilution is to be expected, unless migrating directly, by boat. That the Lower Danube, Carpathian Basin, Hungarian Plains, and Low Countries were ethnic/genetic "mixing bowls" does not mean that elite lineages weren't guarded (by some degree of endogamy), a preferred language was not faithfully transmitted, or closely held cultural traditions were not maintained.

That non-steppic populations persisted as a "ghost" population remains to be seen. I suspect a combination of:

* A depopulating event (drought, famine, plague).

* Intrusion by herders into the vacuum (previously farmed areas turned to "scrub").

* Possible seizure by the invaders of the copper mines, which were the real source of Iberian wealth.

* Breaking of the connection of "town and country", with "cities" (if villes with a thousand residents can be called such) turned into isolated "islands".

* Further population loss due to conflict, warfare, sieges, etc. This could also help explain the even ratio of men/women in the cemeteries, rather than the expected male surplus, in that many bodies of warriors lost in battle might never have been recovered or were buried on the spot.

* Leading to 1) dispersal/emigration to neighboring regions and/or 2) assimilation into the dominant group and economy, resulting in the distribution of steppic genetic admixtures (along with further dilution) across the remaining population. For another example of mass migration/assimilation resulting from "crofters" being replaced by herders, see the Highland Clearances.

Note, however, that this did not lead to language loss/conversion in much of Iberia, despite ruling elites or cliques being replaced, with Iberian surviving along the southeast coast until Roman times and Basque in the north until now.

The ruling cliques weren't replaced, the entire population was. You might want to read the paper.

 

[markod]

How do we know there was no caste system in BB? What is the data to demonstrate this?

Do you have another explanation for why the Iberian late CA women are autosomally more steppic than the men, when the men are all 'steppic' R1b, and the population is autosomally more EEF than it is steppic?

The simple explanation is that after the mixed Iberian population coalesced they kept exchanging women with eastern groups.

 

[berun]

losing also the CHG and EHG share in the path

 

[halfalp]

Speculating that much with less than 10 samples. It's pretty obvious that the Myceanean samples are remnants of the previous Minoans or local Neolihic both on y-dna and mtdna. People are very too sensitive.

I'm not sure how people can still dream that Anatolians and Myceanean contexts are the exception of the IE rule. Because IE clearly comes from Steppe, if people here would brainstorm like the guys on ADNA, Anthrogenica or Eurogenes it would already be a certainty. But how would you explain that a LBA Anatolian heavy CHG J2a people would have shifted to IE languages? It's that or the samples doesn't matter.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

It's just the same old t-rolls who can't stand that not only the Mycenaeans, but also the classical era philosophers and mathematicians and scientists and dramatists and poets and artists, were not Nordic or Eastern Europeans of any description, but very much like the Sicilians and Aegean Greeks of today.

Even if there was a bit more steppe in the highest levels of society, what these people clearly also don't understand, because they don't have any background in classical history or literature, is that most of those people would not have been from the highest levels of society anyway. Yet, those are the people who are remembered by posterity, and who helped form Western Civilization, not the petty tyrants and rulers of various city states.

Such ignorant people should just be ignored. They have nothing of worth to add to the conversation because they don't know anything.

How many times do I have to explain this to people?!! I have said and have always said that the products of ancient civilisation reached their greatest heights amongst West Asians and West Asian-influenced Mediterraneans? Somewhere on this thread I even called IEs culturally unsophisticated, which isn't really that fair to be honest, but they were obviously culturally a rung below those they conquered outside of non-East Mediterraneans and West Asians. It is just undeniable that virtually everywhere they went, they made up the elites. Tartessians in Spain - the elite have Celtic names, Mitanni - the elite have Iranian names, not to mention the existence of the Celts and Iranians themselves is down primarily to elite domination, and there's plenty more cultures and civilisations both IE and non-IE not mentioned such as the ancient Greeks themselves.

Sometimes I just think these kind of reactions are made out of boredom.

 

[markod]

How come there's no evidence of this elite in the DNA record? Who were the elites of the R1b-L51 Tartessians and Iberians?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

How come there's no evidence of this elite in the DNA record? Who were the elites of the R1b-L51 Tartessians and Iberians?

The Tartessians had elites with Celtic names despite either being non-IE or incredibly distantly IE

 

[markod]

The Tartessians had elites with Celtic names despite either being non-IE or incredibly distantly IE

There could be some Celtic names in Tartessian inscriptions, but there's no evidence these were 'elite'. You're reading too much into it.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

There could be some Celtic names in Tartessian inscriptions, but there's no evidence these were 'elite'. You're reading too much into it.

It’s the consensus I’ve seen from academics. In any case, do you also deny that IEs very often made up the elite of ancient civilisations? It’s just undeniable. It doesn’t mean they’re superior or anything, but it’s a fact. If i had enough time I’d make a big list but it’s just a waste of effort

 

[berun]

Much sight into Argantonios, but also there were other Tartessian kings much less Celtic, Habis and Gargoris...