To burn or not to burn: LBA/EIA Balkan case

[TetaEglantina]

Not sure why they used so few samples but here is how some of the Tollense warriors match with modern populations, there will never be a 100% match because modern central/east Europeans have less WHG autosomal than Tollense warriors did - https://imgb.ifunny.co/images/8a45f...516248e7612d5ae9bef3c151eccef6b54f3386_1.webp

It is unlikely they spoke a modern Slavic language but it is possible that Slavs are descendents of Lusatians who were part of the Urnfield culture and also outlasted it into iron age.

 

[TetaEglantina]

Urnfield transported Nau 2 swords to South Scandinavia after winning Tollense -
"What we can say though is that after Tollense, and probably starting around 1200BC, trade and mobility between the north and the Carpathians increased dramatically, there are two concentrations of the dominant warrior sword Nau 2 in the Carpathians (mostly in hoards and rivers, bogs) and in south Scandinavia (mostly in burials)."

They couldn't drink milk -

https://www.science.org/content/article/warrior-skeletons-reveal-bronze-age-europeans-couldn-t-drink-milk

 

[Hawk]

Decorating with impressed concentric circles con-
nected by tangents and “S” stamps, arrived from the
territory of Bulgaria, in the region of the Stara Planina
mountain range,
106
and is believed to have reached the
central Morava Valley from P{eni~evo towards the end
of Iron Age I.
107
An almost identical motif, with local
differences, appears on pottery of the Babadag type.
108
The ceramic finds decorated with tremolo represent an
additional problem, since this manner of decorating
occurs in the territory of Bulgaria together with im-
pressed circles, while this is not the case in the Morava
Valley. On the urn from tumulus 1 at Seli{te, the tongue-
like handles are surrounded by concentric flutings and
triple tremolo lines, with concentric circles impressed
between them (Fig. 7/4), which bears a resemblance to the
older finds from P{eni~evo and the Sakar mountain.
109
The closest analogies for deformed urns of large dimen-
sions (Pl. V/6) are observed in the Thracian traditions of
the Late Hallstatt necropolis of Ravna,
110
as well as at
Mokranjske Stene in north-eastern Serbia.
111
In contrast,
richly ornamented urns – pithoi, from the pits at Crkvi-
{te (Pl. VI/10, 11), have characteristics reminiscent of
decorating associated with the Gáva cultural influences,
and analogies exist on the pottery from horizon III at
Telak,
112
the “Somotor” type finds from [umen, Sava,
113
Babadag
114
and Ostrovo.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292072864_Settlements_and_necropolises_of_the_Early_Iron_Age_along_the_middle_course_of_the_Nisava_river

Winder place of the whole Balkan-Carpathian complex

 

[PaleoRevenge]

Obviously, those are the inspections you're conducting here. Let's teach you what haplogroups are: clusters of shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) found in the male Y-DNA or female mtDNA. Haplogroups are useful in reconstructing ancient migrations and population movements because they don't recombine like the rest of the DNA. They are passed on unchanged which enables scientists to follow a trail. They don't tell us anything about phenotypes but populations with a certain haplogroup dominance share a similar autosomal "baggage."

Gibberish first sentence.

Haplogroups are useful in reconstructing ancient migrations and population movements because they don't recombine like the rest of the DNA. They are passed on unchanged which enables scientists to follow a trail.

Let me tell something, that the sky is blue and the earth rotates west to east.

They don't tell us anything about phenotypes but populations with a certain haplogroup dominance share a similar autosomal "baggage."

They don't mean anything to you, no more than an traffic sign would mean anything to a bear. In your country haplogroup I has a strong undeniable correlation to height.

 

[Ghurier]

I has a strong undeniable correlation to height.

Did you have any scientific paper able to prove that some specific I-related SNPs are connected to height ? I mean real studies done at the SNP-level and controlling that the correlation is not induced by other shared traits.

To clarify the reasons behind my request :
An observed correlation didn't imply the existence of a causal relation.
A well known exemple is the anti-correlation between Pirate number and Climate evolution.
Do you think that this correlation proves a causal relation ?

True Fact: The Lack of Pirates Is Causing Global Warming

It's true. This extremely scientific graph proves it: Photo via http://bama.ua.edu/ You can see that as the number of pirates in the world has decreased over the past 130 years, global warming has gotten steadily worse. In fact, this makes it entirely clear that if you truly want to stop global...

www.forbes.com

Now regarding the claimed correlation about height and haplogroup I, yes it exists (but it depends how you look at it),

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332465617_The_coast_of_giants_an_anthropometric_survey_of_high_schoolers_on_the_Adriatic_coast_of_Croatia

1) Is it that significant ?
If I look at populations with "low" (< 30%) I-fractions, there is no clear correlation in fact.
2) The correlation is carried by Scandinavia and north-western Balkans.

First, Balkans and Scandinavia exibit different kind of haplogroups, I2 and I1 respectively.
Haplogroup I is defined by some ~200 SNPs on YFULL, if you have an effect shared by the two branch I1 and I2, then it has to happen on one/some of these ~200 SNPs.

A more scientific analysis, particularly by 2019, would have been to not select defferent world population, but to select individuals from the same population carrying different haplogroups ! Is a German I-carrier significantly taller than a German R-P312 carrier from the same region & same social class ?

Why such test would be needed ?
The major reasons is that you can't consider that populations on the European continent are sharing all their DNA aspect but the Y-DNA. Therefore, when performing a correlation analysis, to evaluate if the correlation is really between the two variables you study you need to control all other variables (as much as possible). In the study I quoted, it is definitely not the case.
Therefore, from their data, it is impossible to know if the correlation is real, or if the correlation is in fact an artefact arrising from the existence of another genetic/environnemental parameter that is driving the height and that is also geographically locallised around north-western Balkans and Scandinavia.

To be convincing such analysis have to made a the level of SNP (with as much of the other SNPs being identical) on a large amount of individuals ... not with population averages ... The guys who did that have little to no knowledge about statistical analysis. If I was the referee, such paper would have been refused (after, I used to be known as a pain in the ass for the authors when they had the bad luck to fell on me as a referee).

3) What happen when we zoom on geographical regions ?
-For Scandinavia alone (Island, Denmark, Norway, Sweden) ... in fact, it shows a slightly anti-correlation of height and I-haplogroup.
-For Western-Balkans alone (Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia) it also shows an anti-correlation of I-fraction and height.
-When looking at ancient URSS (Russia, Bielorussia, Ukrainia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia) and adding Poland, Romania, Bulgaria for the fun ... there is a huge anti-correlation signal.

If the signal disapear (or can even be inverted) when you zoom on local regions it is a very a bad indication ... sounds like if you go at the scale of the individual carrying I-haplogroup, you will just see nothing.

4) Germany is scoring as high for height than Denmark or Norway despite having way less I-carriers.
Latvia and Estonia are also scoring very-high as all countries around the Baltic-sea, while they have relatively low I-fractions.
Therefore, it seems that nearby countries either sharing ancestry histories or environnemental conditions have a similar height average independently of the I-fraction.
To me this figure proves the exact opposite of the author claim.

Anyway, this kind of study is totally unable to prove their claim ... to do so, they would need to do it at the scale of SNPs.
An exemple of a way better work, while significantly older :

Evidence of widespread selection on standing variation in Europe at height-associated SNPs

Strong signatures of positive selection at newly arising genetic variants are well-documented in humans[–] , but this form of selection may not be widespread in recent human evolution[] . Because many human traits are highly polygenic and partly ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I will conclude by that : a correlation is not the proof of a causal relation, particularly if you have many other variables out of control in your analysis.

 

[Hawk]

There is no denial that Paleolithic Europeans were considerably tall, approximately 179cm, but Paleolithic Europeans were also more diverse on Y-DNA, then when Y-DNA I starts dominating in Mesolithic times the height decreases. Not necessarily involved with Y-DNA change, but just a random fact. Hundreds of combined reasons involved.

Steppe pastoralists like Yamnaya were tall as well.

North African Paleolithic-Mesolithic people carrying high ANA and E-M78 were likely one of the tallest( 178cm tall on average, a very slight difference with Paleolithic Europeans who were slimmier/skinnier than them though) and most robust humans on earth skeletally until they were gracilized with Dzudzuana admixture. There was a clear sexual dimorphism involved since Dzudzuana females were more gracile and feminine than ANA females who were robust.

Now back to modern times, Northern Europeans on average clearly are taller than Southern Europeans, i haven't seen any clear indication yet on Y-DNA considering none of autosomal is in its pure form, rather on EEF, WHG and EHG various combinations on Europe. Also diet is a factor as well, high dairy/meat consumption means more protein.

 

[TetaEglantina]

There is no denial that Paleolithic Europeans were considerably tall, approximately 179cm, but Paleolithic Europeans were also more diverse on Y-DNA, then when Y-DNA I starts dominating in Mesolithic times the height decreases. Not necessarily involved with Y-DNA change, but just a random fact. Hundreds of combined reasons involved.

Steppe pastoralists like Yamnaya were tall as well.

North African Paleolithic-Mesolithic people carrying high ANA and E-M78 were likely one of the tallest( 178cm tall on average, a very slight difference with Paleolithic Europeans who were slimmier/skinnier than them though) and most robust humans on earth skeletally until they were gracilized with Dzudzuana admixture. There was a clear sexual dimorphism involved since Dzudzuana females were more gracile and feminine than ANA females who were robust.

Now back to modern times, Northern Europeans on average clearly are taller than Southern Europeans, i haven't seen any clear indication yet on Y-DNA considering none of autosomal is in its pure form, rather on EEF, WHG and EHG various combinations on Europe.

Height has greatly increased due to nutrition, having a lot of (good) food available makes a difference. It looks like haplogroup I men are a bit taller genetically on average though it is mostly to do with nutrition as 100 years ago even south Slavs were 170cm - if everyone ate the exact same when they were young maybe haplogroup I people would maybe be a couple of centimetres or inches taller than everyone else on average.

Those paleolithic people that were tall were successful hunters that were able to feed their children, I'm sure height varied at the time depending on how successful the parents were at feeding their children - farming which was introduced later made it easier to do that.

 

[mount123]

There is no denial that Paleolithic Europeans were considerably tall, approximately 179cm, but Paleolithic Europeans were also more diverse on Y-DNA, then when Y-DNA I starts dominating in Mesolithic times the height decreases. Not necessarily involved with Y-DNA change, but just a random fact. Hundreds of combined reasons involved.

Yep the older the more it's the C1a-Y11591+ carrying Paleolithic European specimen. I noticed that especially anthrofora people treat the prehistoric "birth" of Upper Paleolithic I-M170 as if it split from its literal paternal ancestor IJ-M429 some million light years ago. Whenever I see discussions on prehistoric Eurasia, Siberia/Central Asia and ANE folks they never make the same kind of distinction between R-M207 and Q-M242. Whatever the precursor of the CHG is, is the source for IJ-M429 and therefore both I-M170 and J-M304.

Indeed, during the Mesolithic times when I-M170 haplogroups start dominating, the folks become shorter. Why not propose a causality there And those likely brown/intermediary skinned Mesolithic men were certainly no obstacle for the expanding Farmers.

 

[Hawk]

Yep the older the more it's the C1a-Y11591+ carrying Paleolithic European specimen. I noticed that especially anthrofora people treat the prehistoric "birth" of Upper Paleolithic I-M170 as if it split from its literal paternal ancestor IJ-M429 some million light years ago. Whenever I see discussions on prehistoric Eurasia, Siberia/Central Asia and ANE folks they never make the same kind of distinction between R-M207 and Q-M242. Whatever the precursor of the CHG is, is the source for IJ-M429 and therefore both I-M170 and J-M304.

Indeed, during the Mesolithic times when I-M170 haplogroups start dominating, the folks become shorter. Why not propose a causality there And those likely brown/intermediary skinned Mesolithic men were certainly no obstacle for the expanding Farmers.

Yeah, i agree, Mesolithic Europeans were still tall especially in comparison with EEF farmers, but i wanted to make a point to Tiktok for trying to exclusively reserve being tall to himself. It's more complex than that.

Funny that, i always though the Mesolithic Euros with Y-DNA I being more brownish was because of more Western admixture with previous Y-DNA C1(WHG still hides some unknown earlier substrate anyways). But the paper from Mesolithic-Neolithic Serbia Lepenski Vir, still notes the higher height of Mesolithic Europeans but with browner skin and smaller stature Neolithic people with occurrences of blondism lol.

 

[TetaEglantina]

Yeah, i agree, Mesolithic Europeans were still tall especially in comparison with EEF farmers, but i wanted to make a point to Tiktok for trying to exclusively reserve being tall to himself. It's more complex than that.

What are you on about Pigeon, I literally posted the data that shows height is mostly determined by nutrition, I people are only slightly taller on average.

 

[Ghurier]

I people are only slightly taller on average.

Do you have any paper really demonstrating that ?
I mean by identifying the involved SNPs.

Papers I saw with a quick search didn't used a methodology able to separate SNP on Y-chr (related to I-haplogroup) or any autosomal SNPs partially spatially correlated with I-haplgroup (either due to shared ancestry or adaptation-drift).

In fact, if you look independently among Western Balkans or ex-URSS countries you see an anti-correlated trend between I-haplogroup fraction and mean height.

Sounds like a classical "correlation is not causal relation" issue on this topic !

PS : a clear demonstration would involve comparing the height of individuals from similar global origins and similar lifestyles ... and see if there is really a correlation between height and I-carriers.

 

[TetaEglantina]

Yep the older the more it's the C1a-Y11591+ carrying Paleolithic European specimen. I noticed that especially anthrofora people treat the prehistoric "birth" of Upper Paleolithic I-M170 as if it split from its literal paternal ancestor IJ-M429 some million light years ago. Whenever I see discussions on prehistoric Eurasia, Siberia/Central Asia and ANE folks they never make the same kind of distinction between R-M207 and Q-M242. Whatever the precursor of the CHG is, is the source for IJ-M429 and therefore both I-M170 and J-M304.

Indeed, during the Mesolithic times when I-M170 haplogroups start dominating, the folks become shorter. Why not propose a causality there And those likely brown/intermediary skinned Mesolithic men were certainly no obstacle for the expanding Farmers.

Nice troll attempt by this inferiority complex weirdo, haplogroup I was born in Europe 30,000+ years ago and wiped out the few C people which are related to Native Americans. I-M170 has nothing to do with CHG it is only WHG and responsible for blue eyes, CHG were J people, brown skin, black hair and eyes. ANE (farmers) were olive skinned with mostly black hair and dark eyes like you see in most southern european people today.

Populations with a lot of haplogroup I are the tallest today -
"This haplogroup reaches its maximum frequency in the Western Balkans (with the highest concentration of I2 in present-day Herzegovina). It may be associated with unusually tall males, since those in the Dinaric Alps have been reported to be the tallest in the world, with an average male height of the range 180 cm (5 ft 11 in)–182 cm (6 ft 0 in) in the cantons of Bosnia, 184 cm (6 ft 0 in) in Sarajevo, 182 cm (6 ft 0 in)–186 cm (6 ft 1 in) in the cantons of Herzegovina mostly populated by Croats."

 

[Ghurier]

Nice troll attempt by this inferiority complex weirdo, haplogroup I was born in Europe 20,000+ years ago and wiped out the few C people which are related to Native Americans. I-M170 has nothing to do with CHG it is only WHG and responsible for blue eyes, CHG were J people, brown skin, black hair and eyes. ANE (farmers) were olive skinned with mostly black hair and dark eyes like you see in most southern european people today. Populations with a lot of haplogroup I are the tallest today.

C peoples have been wiped out of Europe ? Great news some modern paternal descedents will be happy to learn that :

C-Y11591 YTree

www.yfull.com

I-M170 responsible for blue eyes ??? ... I know many women with blue eyes ... I take the bet that they are not I-haplogroup .

All you speak about imply spatial correlation between Y-DNA distribution and other traits on the autosomal DNA ...
But it didn't proves any direct causal relation between Y-DNA and phenotype.

 

[TetaEglantina]

C peoples have been wiped out of Europe ? Great news some modern paternal descedents will be happy to learn that :

C-Y11591 YTree

www.yfull.com

I-M170 responsible for blue eyes ??? ... I know many women with blue eyes ... I take the bet that they are not I-haplogroup .

All you speak about imply spatial correlation between Y-DNA distribution and other traits on the autosomal DNA ...
But it didn't proves any direct causal relation between Y-DNA and phenotype.

If that is all then yes C was pretty much wiped out. I2 WHGs had blue eyes, other populations didn't. I am talking about ancient populations, blue eyes have been naturally selected in Europe because more attractive.

What do south Slavs and Scandinavians have that's special in autosomal to make them taller?

 

[Ghurier]

If that is all then yes C was pretty much wiped out. I2 WHGs had blue eyes, other populations didn't. I am talking about ancient populations, blue eyes have been naturally selected recently in Europe because more attractive.

By 10 kyr bp ... 37 surviving branches of I2 and 7 surviving branches of C-V20 ... such 80/20% repartition if we assume equal probability of survivance post ~10kyr bp.
I won't call that nearly wiped out.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that blue-eyes SNP are not on the Y-chr ... it is just spatial adaption and spatial correlation of traits. Any haplogroup finding its way into blue-eyed population would have ended with the same probability of having blue eyes than I-peoples.

Same for the height ... women and men are showing roughly the same height distribution in Europe.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Average_height_of_female_19-year-olds_by_country_in_2019.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/19_Year_Old_Male_Height_in_2019-NCD_RisC.png

Which means that height-related SNP are not localised on the Y-chr but are only partially correlated with I-distribution (either for shared ancestry reasons or adaption drift).

 

[TetaEglantina]

By 10 kyr bp ... 37 surviving branches of I2 and 7 surviving branches of C-V20 ... such 80/20% repartition if we assume equal probability of survivance post ~10kyr bp.
I won't call that nearly wiped out.

What I'm trying to explain to you is that blue-eyes SNP are not on the Y-chr ... it is just spatial adaption and spatial correlation of traits. Any haplogroup finding its way into blue-eyed population would have ended with the same probability of having blue eyes than I-peoples.

Same for the height ... women and men are showing roughly the same height distribution in Europe.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Average_height_of_female_19-year-olds_by_country_in_2019.svg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/19_Year_Old_Male_Height_in_2019-NCD_RisC.png

Which means that height-related SNP are not localised on the Y-chr but are only partially correlated with I-distribution (either for shared ancestry reasons or adaption drift).

Nice numbers you made up there, list the 7 Vs 37 surviving branches. Surviving branches do not equal to number of people, anyway the C people were continually wiped out after 10kyp BP by I2 WHG. I2 (and i1) also had a resurgence during bronze age and recently.

Your male chart shows that Scandinavians and Slavs are taller than everyone else on average so not sure what your point is.

 

[Ghurier]

You are dodging many thing ... not a very good indication .

Nice numbers you made up there, list the 37 Vs 7 surviving branches

If you like to count by hand ... :

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

Personnally, I use automated tools ... and I don't see the point of this silly discussion to extract the clade names.

Surviving branches do not equal to number of people

In fact, the later presence of founder effects of I2 imply that their real surviving rate will be better than C even if we assume an equiprobable haplogroup disparition by drift.
As such, the ratio I gave is an under-estimation for C-carrier fraction.

they were continually wiped out after 10kyp BP by I2 WHG and I2 (and i1) had a resurgence during bronze age and recently.

Typical narrative fantasy ... if any I/C blending occured pre-LGM ... the idea of I2 actively wiping out C-peoples by 10 kyr is laughable.
Paleolithic peoples didn't had genetic test on in their pockets (did they had pockets ?) to start genocides .

Good monologue !

 

[TetaEglantina]

You are dodging many thing ... not a very good indication .



If you like to count by hand ... :

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I2/

Welcome to FamilyTreeDNA Discover

Discover more about your paternal ancestry and join in on the research!

discover.familytreedna.com

Personnally, I use automated tools ... and I don't see the point of this silly discussion to extract the clade names.



In fact, the later presence of founder effects of I2 imply that their real surviving rate will be better than C even if we assume an equiprobable haplogroup disparition by drift.
As such, the ratio I gave is an under-estimation for C-carrier fraction.



Typical narrative fantasy ... if any I/C blending occured pre-LGM ... the idea of I2 actively wiping out C-peoples by 10 kyr is laughable.
Paleolithic peoples didn't had genetic test on in their pockets (did they had pockets ?) to start genocides .

Good monologue !

The 7 branches you are talking about didn't spread like the 37 I2 branches (we have ancient DNA to prove it), this means they didn't travel together and were continually wiped out. Maybe a couple of branches travelled with the i2 WHG but the rest were in separate tribes and were wiped out by the 100% I2 WHGs that encountered them.

 

[Ghurier]

The 7 branches you are talking about didn't spread like the 37 I2 branches (we also have ancient DNA to confirm), this means they didn't travel together and were continually wiped out.

Nope, founder-effect didn't work like that.
I2 started to significantly expand by ~4000 BCE, it is totally unrelated with a paleolithic imaginary "war".
I2 real success comes from its participation to WSH-population expansions.
But pre-4000 BCE the diversification rates for C and I is consistent with their relative number ... none of them exihit a clear preferential expansion.

Maybe a couple of branches travelled with the i2 WHG but the rest were in separate tribes and were wiped out by the 100% I2 WHGs that encountered them.

You model is even worst ... if I2 was tracking C-peoples to exterminate them (First, how to they know ? Good question), it means that C-survivance rate is even lower, and that the fraction of C-peoples in that past need to be way higher ...
It is not really consistent with sampled populations up to now.

This is just some fantasy story ...

 

[PaleoRevenge]

There is no denial that Paleolithic Europeans were considerably tall, approximately 179cm, but Paleolithic Europeans were also more diverse on Y-DNA, then when Y-DNA I starts dominating in Mesolithic times the height decreases. Not necessarily involved with Y-DNA change, but just a random fact. Hundreds of combined reasons involved.

Steppe pastoralists like Yamnaya were tall as well.

North African Paleolithic-Mesolithic people carrying high ANA and E-M78 were likely one of the tallest( 178cm tall on average, a very slight difference with Paleolithic Europeans who were slimmier/skinnier than them though) and most robust humans on earth skeletally until they were gracilized with Dzudzuana admixture. There was a clear sexual dimorphism involved since Dzudzuana females were more gracile and feminine than ANA females who were robust.

Now back to modern times, Northern Europeans on average clearly are taller than Southern Europeans, i haven't seen any clear indication yet on Y-DNA considering none of autosomal is in its pure form, rather on EEF, WHG and EHG various combinations on Europe. Also diet is a factor as well, high dairy/meat consumption means more protein.

Gracilization is also the result of diet. If you put any haplogroup though millennia(s) stress of slave diet, you will breed them smaller. I am talking about the differnces on the ground today, not ice age primordial times.

Yep the older the more it's the C1a-Y11591+ carrying Paleolithic European specimen. I noticed that especially anthrofora people treat the prehistoric "birth" of Upper Paleolithic I-M170 as if it split from its literal paternal ancestor IJ-M429 some million light years ago. Whenever I see discussions on prehistoric Eurasia, Siberia/Central Asia and ANE folks they never make the same kind of distinction between R-M207 and Q-M242. Whatever the precursor of the CHG is, is the source for IJ-M429 and therefore both I-M170 and J-M304.

Indeed, during the Mesolithic times when I-M170 haplogroups start dominating, the folks become shorter. Why not propose a causality there And those likely brown/intermediary skinned Mesolithic men were certainly no obstacle for the expanding Farmers.

Haplogroup I once dominated in the Caucacus area, which is a very reliable refuge that protects the population from certain disasters. They didn't wipe out haplgroup C, haplogroup C was decimated by certain natural events and haplogroup I simply was able take advantage of the new reality and take over the depopulated lands. The J2s today will be the future version of I. History is repetive. Haplogroup C in turn was the forerunner of the R's, both expanded out the Altay refugee(events seperated by almost 24k years).