Neolithic migration was family-based, Bronze Age invasion was male-dominated

there were not so many men coming from the steppe

allmost all Central and western European R1b are R1b-L51 and very little steppe R1b is R1b-L51

so just a small steppe tribe of R1b-L51 came to Central Europe and expanded within Central and western Europe

the same can be said about R1a1a-M417, which was a European tribe, except one tribe, R1b-Z93 which went back to the steppe as the Sintashta and Srubnaya tribe

somehow these few steppe males reproduced themselves very fast in Central and western Europe while other males didn't

as I mentioned above, the same happened when Chinese farmers moved south into Indochina 4ka
the haplo O farming males reproduced, while HG haplo C1b and K2 didn't allthough HG females were involved in the reproduction
the HG males ended up deep in the forest as Aeta HG or Negritos or moved further south into Australia

But that's not what the paper is implying, is it? Aren't they positing a massive flow of men into central Europe?

If it wasn't a big group of mostly men taking lots of local wives, but just the movement of a small tribe, then how did it happen?
 
But that's not what the paper is implying, is it? Aren't they positing a massive flow of men into central Europe?

If it wasn't a big group of mostly men taking lots of local wives, but just the movement of a small tribe, then how did it happen?

It can't be plague, or whatever, unless it affected native women less than native men?

In Latin America the Spanish and Portuguese were few in number as well, but they had a big advantage in terms of weaponry. In Europe, Corded Ware, at least, didn't. As I said, they barely had copper. Plus, as Bicicleur pointed out, there are no signs of mass warfare and destruction. Unless the Central Europeans were starving, ill, demoralized, and also few in number? If the more pastoralist lifestyle of these newcomers originally was more optimal for survival, and thus attracted the women the their settlements, would this explain it mathematically?
 
There are a lot of ancient H ( mtdna ) samples found and tested in central Europe from early Neolitihic times who have no R1 ( ydna ) union
 
Well, Paraguay is not the best example for language replacement...: " It is one of the official languages of Paraguay (along with Spanish), where it is spoken by the majority of the population, and where half of the rural population is monolingual."

From the paper there are other inconsitencies that are hard to meet empiricaly: from 16 samples with Steppe admixture, 4 display a 100% of autosomal steppe ancestery but a 0-30% steppe ancestry in the X chromosome, other 3 samples display a level of a 60% but their X displays only a 0-10%. My few neurons apt for maths are burning out, maybe some more smart can explain?

I think that the issue is more cultural than migratory, maybe it has another explanation that is not taken into account in the paper:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

or with its modern counterpart

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-selective_abortion
 
This is very easy to explain, if you know how early Indo-European societies worked. Indo-Europeans commonly practiced polygyny, which means that one man could have many wifes. The most powerful and influential men had the largest number of wives.

For example, chieftains could have 10 wifes each (or at least several).

However, the proportion of males to females in every population is always close to 50:50. So if only 1 man marries 10 women, it means that 9 other men had to remain "singles". There were just not enough women in the population for them to marry.

And in my opinion, that was one of driving forces of Indo-European expansions.

Those low-status men, who could not find native Steppe wifes on the Steppe, had to:

1) Either kidnap wifes from somewhere else, and then bring them back to the Steppe;


OR:

2) Emigrate from the Steppe, invade another tribe, and capture their women as wifes.

In fact, genetic and archaeological data provides evidence, that both happened. The increase of CHG admixture among Steppe people, was due to kidnapping wifes from the Caucasus region, and then bringing them back to the Steppe. Later on, they stopped kidnapping & bringing wifes to the Steppe, and instead started emigrating from the Steppe in search of wifes to conquer. That was most likely due to improvements in technology (they acquired metals, horses, wheels and wagons - becoming more mobile).

Before acquiring those technological advantages, they were only able to organize raids for women (quickly surprise-attacking a settlement of farmers, kidnapping women and food, then quickly running away back to the Steppe).

But after gaining an advantage in military power, they could conquer sedentary populations.
I completely agree with every point u made, I just simply didn't choose to call those events marriages and those women wives lol

i believe in most of the cases they were not holding the respectful status of a wife, not since the beginning of the newly acquired lands at least, hence I prefer to go with the rape/forced procreation option.
 
Interesting paper. I haven't had time to check it in detail yet. Just a quick observation on mtDNA.

BTW, it seems that Goldberg, Rosenberg et al. underestimate Steppe female immigration.

This spreadsheet shows the frequencies of Steppe-related mtDNA in various populations:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GToouHMsUnoUpGSY91OIMA3bjc86bhNRSzknZ_BKLYE/edit#gid=0

Only U5a, U4, U2e, T1a, J2b1a, J1b1a1, I, N1a1b, H-16362, H2a1 and H2a2b were counted as Steppe-related there. What about U2d2, U5b2a1a1, K1b, T2a1, T2c1, H6a1, H5, H13, J2b1, W6, W3a1a, X2b, R1, C4a3 - weren't these mtDNA haplogroups also Steppe-related? On the other hand, it seems that only U5a1 was typically Steppe (U5a2 was not) and only I3 (not all of I), but all of N1a1 and J1b (not just N1a1b and J1b1a1).

Of course only haplos common in the Steppe but uncommon among European Farmers can be securely labeled as Steppe-related.

Most of these lineages are linked to the Proto-Indo-Europeans and especially to R1a tribes. In fact, many match exactly the mtDNA lineages corresponding to haplogroups R1a and R1b, which I isolated since 2010.

Among the above, I have linked these lineages to R1a tribes: C4a, H2a1, H6, K1b(1b), T2a1, U2e, U4, U5a1, W3 and W6.

I have linked these to R1b: I and J1b1a (one of the strongest association, an almost certain marker of PIE R1b-M269).

These are unclear : H5a (could be Neolithic or linked to R1b), N1a1 (found in Yamna, but overwhelmingly Near Eastern Neolithic in origin), N1a1b, R1 (mostly Caucasian), T1a (could be PIE is T1a1a), X2b

These are not PIE and came from Neolithic farmers: H13 (mostly Caucasian, but not PIE), J2b1a, T2c1 (strongly Middle Eastern Neolithic, but not European Neolithic)

These are not PIE and came from other Mesolithic Europeans: H2a2b and U5b2a
 
Only U5a, U4, U2e, T1a, J2b1a, J1b1a1, I, N1a1b, H-16362, H2a1 and H2a2b were counted as Steppe-related there. What about U2d2, U5b2a1a1, K1b, T2a1, T2c1, H6a1, H5, H13, J2b1, W6, W3a1a, X2b, R1, C4a3 - weren't these mtDNA haplogroups also Steppe-related? On the other hand, it seems that only U5a1 was typically Steppe (U5a2 was not) and only I3 (not all of I), but all of N1a1 and J1b (not just N1a1b and J1b1a1).

Of course only haplos common in the Steppe but uncommon among European Farmers can be securely labeled as Steppe-related.

Fire Haired, what do you think about these additional haplogroups (which could also be Steppe-related) that I listed?

I don't believe it is possible to know the percentage of Steppe mtDNA in a population. I do believe a collection of mtDNA lineages are 90% of the time of Steppe origin and that those lineages greatly underestimate the actual percentage of Steppe mtDNA. All the lineages you listed except H5, H13, J2b1, X2b, and C4a3 are probbaly Steppe as well. aDNA actually makes it obvious J2b1(a) is from EEF. I don't trust the C4a3 results an old study reported from Neolithic Ukraine.
 
If the more pastoralist lifestyle of these newcomers originally was more optimal for survival, and thus attracted the women the their settlements, would this explain it mathematically?

I would think something like that could have happened. There may have been some bad years for both the steep herders and the European farmers. The herders moved South and West to find better grazing ground, they found suitable lands around the farmers. Some herders took wives among the farmers. Then, the bad weather lasted quite a few years, maybe even something like the little Ice Age, the farmers barely made it through, somehow managing to just keep their number, while herders thrived and their population exploded. After a few centuries, the herders outnumbered the farmers by 10 to 1.

No massacre, no harem, just one land usage that was more adapted to a temporary rough time.
 
I would think something like that could have happened. There may have been some bad years for both the steep herders and the European farmers. The herders moved South and West to find better grazing ground, they found suitable lands around the farmers. Some herders took wives among the farmers. Then, the bad weather lasted quite a few years, maybe even something like the little Ice Age, the farmers barely made it through, somehow managing to just keep their number, while herders thrived and their population exploded. After a few centuries, the herders outnumbered the farmers by 10 to 1.

No massacre, no harem, just one land usage that was more adapted to a temporary rough time.


yes I would also think about bad climate for the farmers, except afaik there is no proof of that
somehow the farmers were not faring well at that time
 
I was thinking about the eternal fight of nomadic vs farming population,

to reveal,
have you thought that if you want to 'kill' a farmer all you have to do is send some goats/sheeps at his field?
they will eat the grass, and nno crop will grow,

even at 18th century we have seen that at nw world,
cow boys vs farmers for the fences,
 
With Bronze age migration increased J2 imo.
 
there were not so many men coming from the steppe

allmost all Central and western European R1b are R1b-L51 and very little steppe R1b is R1b-L51

so just a small steppe tribe of R1b-L51 came to Central Europe and expanded within Central and western Europe

the same can be said about R1a1a-M417, which was a European tribe, except one tribe, R1b-Z93 which went back to the steppe as the Sintashta and Srubnaya tribe

somehow these few steppe males reproduced themselves very fast in Central and western Europe while other males didn't

as I mentioned above, the same happened when Chinese farmers moved south into Indochina 4ka
the haplo O farming males reproduced, while HG haplo C1b and K2 didn't allthough HG females were involved in the reproduction
the HG males ended up deep in the forest as Aeta HG or Negritos or moved further south into Australia

I think the key is mobility and empty spaces. Europe wasn't all that populous at the end of the Neolithic. If large parts were uninhabited a group that had the means and will to move over large distances could spread very fast. Older groups, stuck in isolated old settlements with little impetus to move would miss the boat. R1b just got lucky, living in the right place to adopt new ideas and methods brought west by steppe folk, and for some reason they started moving and found lot's of empty space in between existing settlements, leading to a quick boom.
 
This study concludes there was a population collapse around 3000BC, might indicate that farmers were struggling: "Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe", Shennan et al., 2013 (I'm not allowed to link, but you can google it).
 
MarkoZ,

You mentioned only the Corded people, but Y-DNA of the Beaker people also came from the Steppe.

Excuse-me, probably, I lost something... when did you change your mind? Weren't you a fiercely against a steppe origin for R1b?
 
This study concludes there was a population collapse around 3000BC, might indicate that farmers were struggling: "Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe", Shennan et al., 2013 (I'm not allowed to link, but you can google it).

thx, it's exactly what I was thinking

yes I would also think about bad climate for the farmers, except afaik there is no proof of that
somehow the farmers were not faring well at that time

I have no time to read it now, but I will
 
This study concludes there was a population collapse around 3000BC, might indicate that farmers were struggling: "Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe", Shennan et al., 2013 (I'm not allowed to link, but you can google it).


thx, here it is

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

and I've read it.

this graph says it all

ncomms3486-f2.jpg


there is the initial expansion of farmers into Eruope some 8 ka, then an additional TRB expansion some 6 ka on top of that and then a big bust ca 5.5 ka, some 6-700 years before the arrival of the CW and Bell Beaker people

the neolithic societies were simply unstable by themselves, it wasn't the IE that caused their decline, they merely came in and filled up the empty spaces

but why then would neolithic females have survived while males didn't ?


I suspect the same thing happened in SW Asia, a big bust of the neolithic societies followed by the expansion of the Semitic tribes. They even replaced the Summerians.
 
thx, here it is

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

and I've read it.

this graph says it all

ncomms3486-f2.jpg


there is the initial expansion of farmers into Eruope some 8 ka, then an additional TRB expansion some 6 ka on top of that and then a big bust ca 5.5 ka, some 6-700 years before the arrival of the CW and Bell Beaker people

the neolithic societies were simply unstable by themselves, it wasn't the IE that caused their decline, they merely came in and filled up the empty spaces

but why then would neolithic females have survived while males didn't ?


I suspect the same thing happened in SW Asia, a big bust of the neolithic societies followed by the expansion of the Semitic tribes. They even replaced the Summerians.

Yes, as I mentioned in the German magazine thread, we probably see the same process in the Near East. However, given the clues in their subsequent cultural practices, I can easily believe that polygamy played an important role. I'm not so sure about Europe.

Polygamy was not, to my knowledge, a prominent part of eastern European or Celtic and Germanic practices, was it? Perhaps it came down to the fact that the pastoral life style was more suited to the changed climate and they could take advantage of previously unwanted lands. They just out-bred the farmers, as the farmers had previously out-bred the hunter-gatherers? Perhaps the native women were more easily absorbed?

I don't know if this process would result in the kind of quick change envisioned by the authors of the paper, however.
 
If I read the paper correct they used "Central_LNBA" to estimate the steppe migration. As far as I see this category corresponds to a number of samples from Germany and Poland where the majority of Y-DNA was R1a. I do think here it worked a little different in that R1a seems very connected to the sudden arrival of Corded ware. I could believe a steppe population with a majority of men spreading real fast around 2900BC in this region. I think the idea that they propose, that steppe migrations would be more suited to groups of men would fit well here (but not for R1b).
 
If I read the paper correct they used "Central_LNBA" to estimate the steppe migration. As far as I see this category corresponds to a number of samples from Germany and Poland where the majority of Y-DNA was R1a. I do think here it worked a little different in that R1a seems very connected to the sudden arrival of Corded ware. I could believe a steppe population with a majority of men spreading real fast around 2900BC in this region. I think the idea that they propose, that steppe migrations would be more suited to groups of men would fit well here (but not for R1b).

when looking how it is plit into different areas, the biggest expansions ca 4.5 - 5 ka happened in Jutland, Scania and S-Germany
in S-Germany it is a very thin peak, as if people were just passing through
it would have been interesting to see how the picture was in Poland and Bielarus

ncomms3486-f3.jpg
 
Polygamy was not, to my knowledge, a prominent part of eastern European or Celtic and Germanic practices, was it?
That is a good question. Quick google gave me a lot of links. It was definitely present for elites. But how deep it was in regular society, not sure.
 

This thread has been viewed 47129 times.

Back
Top