Violence in the Corded Ware Advance against GAC

Fascinating - where would modern Europeans (or anyone else in the modern world) be on that principal component plot?

The modern populations are the gray background dots.
M3cjz2F.png
[/IMG]

You can figure it out a bit using the modern PCA:

nature13673-f2.jpg
 
Thank you very much!

The colors are difficult to make out, but it looks like there is a long band of mid-Easterners from the bottom right blending into southeastern Europe (Turkey, Armenia, etc) towards the top, with the Yamnaya between these southeastern Europeans and the Russian/Baltic samples in yellow. The bronze age transition samples are close to southern Europeans, while the Scandinavian hunter gatherers are on the left side of the Estonians and Icelanders. The western European hunter-gatherers are not well represented anymore, being far to the bottom left corner, but most akin to the Basques.

Very interesting.
 
Slaves probably aren't that valuable in the absence of a sophisticated economy. If you peruse the accounts of tribal warfare in the Vedas or the Old Testament, the things that stand out as being most desired by the herdsmen are livestock and shiny objects.

I agree a massive use of slave workforce may not be necessary in an unsophisticated economy, but I really doubt slavery and forms of servitude, caste and all sorts of class and labor oppression did not exist in societies that already showed a very clear notion of socioeconomic hierarchy and class stratification such as even the early steppe tribes, and certainly the CWC too. I recently learned that even the Northwest Pacific hunter-gatherers, who had a somewhat complex socioeconomic order even without agriculture and pastoralism, also had a nobility and, yes, a distinction between free commoners and slaves. Therefore I don't doubt many men might have survived, but they just couldn't afford to have large families (or even any family) at all in the new social order, just like it happened in the Americas. The men weren't all annihilated immediately, many of them became canon fodder as lowly soldiers, many others as slave or free, but not much better than a slave, workers. They became basically beasts of burden who wouldn't be "good husbands" (dowry and everything else) for the daughters of male-ruled households of a patriarchal society They just became "uninteresting" as partners as society changed, and economically, even psychologically broken.
 
Most of what he asks them about we've discussed.

I do find it interesting that when questioned more specifically about what the archaeologists found in terms of GAC vs Corded Ware, they said that there was basically no difference in terms of economy or subsistence strategies. For example, the GAC "farmer" people also had lots of cattle; they used them for transporting things in wagons; and, in fact ,some men were buried with numerous cattle, for perhaps some ritual purpose. They were mobile, moving from site to site, practicing a type of pastoral agriculture. They were also clearly patrilineal and patrilocal.

So, I don't see how the Corded Ware "package" would have given them an economic advantage. Are we back to a combination of plague and warrior mentality? Corded Ware barely had copper, much less bronze at these early periods, and very few horses have been found. The archaeologist being questioned, however, says that the Corded Ware burials were more individualistic, as we've heard for a long time, more stratified, and had a lot more weapons than the GAC ones, although still stone weapons. He also cleared up for the umpteenth time that chariots weren't invented for close to a thousand years and that the use of horses for anything but food even in the Yamnaya at these early periods is still very much an "open questions".

As to who committed the massacre, they punted, although to me it seemed as if when pressed by Khan one of them was leaning toward it being a manifestation of the change in genetics in northern and central Europe. As Kristiansen pointed out in his speech, they have found other massacres which were clearly committed by the new steppe admixed people.

It is what it is.



Also, are some of those papers correct which posit that this "mixed" farming/pastoral type package moved not west to east but east to west?
 
Thank you very much!

The colors are difficult to make out, but it looks like there is a long band of mid-Easterners from the bottom right blending into southeastern Europe (Turkey, Armenia, etc) towards the top, with the Yamnaya between these southeastern Europeans and the Russian/Baltic samples in yellow. The bronze age transition samples are close to southern Europeans, while the Scandinavian hunter gatherers are on the left side of the Estonians and Icelanders. The western European hunter-gatherers are not well represented anymore, being far to the bottom left corner, but most akin to the Basques.

Very interesting.


i always wonder what these pca's actually show and how usefull they are when you want to look at genetic relations. since they only show two components i guess they aren't really usefull for this. they can give you a very rough overview. in this case it seems like one component is CHG-like admixture while the other one is WHG-like. all other admixtures and differences there are not visible here.
and it only captures a part of these ancestries not all of it. so beeing on the far left doesn't mean beeing 100% WHG. it just means you are similar to WHG in this particular component. else it wouldn't be possible to be on the same vertical line as WHG but beeing shifted away from them. this is how i interpretate these graphics. is this wrong?
 
Personal genomics are separate from what the academic labs are doing with ancient dna, where there is general agreement on the major issues, I think.

You're right that the results are very different by company when we're talking about personal genomics. The actual raw data is, of course, the same: it's your genome. The difference is the algorithms and how they group the reference samples, and indeed which reference samples they use, and then how they interpret the results. There's also a difference in what precisely they are marketing.

They would each say, doubtless, that their method is better, so why should they change it?

In their defense, I think it's an almost impossible task.

There are too many layers, and most importantly political boundaries, often only a few hundred or even a thousand years old do not always equate to genetic boundaries. Take my own area as an example, what might be called the hinterlands of the ancient town of Luni on the coast of the Mediterranean in Northwest Italy. It was settled by Neolithic/Cardial farmers, then various Indo-European admixed Bronze Age groups, then Iron Age Gauls, then "Romans" from further south, then some Langobard lords. Let's not forget the Greek traders too. Politically, the people were first part of a "Ligurian" group, then part of Rome, then ruled by Langobards, then split between various medieval kingdoms: some areas ruled by Genova, the capital of Liguria, some by Modena of Emilia, some by the Tuscans under the Medici, some by all three. So, what are the people of the Lunigiana? Are they Emilians, Liguri, Toscani, all three or none of the above? I have ancestry from both Emilia and the heart of the Lunigiana, and even some from La Spezia itself, which has a lot of similarities to Tuscans. On every test I come out as half way between the Lombards of Bergamo and the Tuscans, but not very close to either. So, who is to blame that my fits aren't very good and some are downright terrible?

In terms of Italy again, some of the personal genomics companies have a Southern Italian/Greek cluster. That means that northern Italians would get some of that but also quite a bit of French or German and a lot of northern Balkan. If a company looks at the spread of the data and sets up a separate Greek and and also a separate Italian cluster you're going to get some southern Italians with a lot of "Greek", and some Greeks, especially Greek Islanders and people of the Peloponnese, with a lot of "Italian". Is one better than the other? I don't honestly know. Looking back on my example, if a company created a "Northern Italian" cluster instead of a Balkan cluster, a lot of Balkanites would get a lot of "Italian".

Do you see what I mean?

Or let's look at the people of the "Low Countries" versus England. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is which. Northern Europeans as a whole are more homogeneous than Southern Europeans. In Britain, for example, none of their specific WHG survived and almost none of the British Neolithic. So, the big bulk of their ancestry is Beaker, which is a combination of about 50% Late Neolithic (majority EEF/minority WHG) and 50% "steppe", with maybe 60% EHG and 40% Caucasus/Iran like ancestry. That's the same group that went into the Low Countries and France, but perhaps in France more of the EEF survived. There's a cline even in the Low Countries. Then England was invaded by the Angles/Saxons/Jutes, a related people with lots of "steppe", but with more "eastern" ancestry perhaps and drifted enough so that they can perhaps be labeled "Germanic" vs "Celtic". In some areas that becomes 30-40% of the ancestry. Then the Danes/Vikings arrive, who were thought to be very different, but were also Germanics. Then the French arrive, some from areas very "Celtic" like, like Brittany, some with a bit of "Viking" ancestry like Normandy, some from northeast France, and so more "Germanic", but some also from Aquitaine and other southern areas, who are a bit different.

Can you see where there might not be much difference between someone from eastern England and Jutland, or Holland? Or someone from Brittany versus Cornwall? Or looking south, someone from Aquitaine and someone from far northern Spain?

France is particularly difficult because so little genetic testing has been done there. There's an old sample taken from students at the university in Lyon and a few from somewhere in southwestern France. So, how are the French going to test? Well, given that a lot of them have quite a bit of "Beaker"ancestry and the British have as well, they're going to get a fair percentage of "English" or British. The ones in the southwest as going to have a lot of "Spanish" perhaps, and the northern Spanish might get a lot of French.

Those country designations are just names, arbitrary names drawn on a map. Yes, they are barriers to gene flow to some degree, more so in places isolated by the Alps and Sea like Italy, and therefore create some drift, and they're certainly different culturally, but genes are no respecters of lines on a map.

It's my opinion that we're almost asking these companies to do the impossible. If you want to know the genealogy of your family, where they came from for hundreds and hundreds of years, then a family tree is the best bet. You get more understanding of your genetics by learning of the different migrations to your ancestral areas than by some of these tests.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

I've been at this for more than ten years and that's what I've concluded. As for which companies are "better", imo ancestry and 23andme are the most reliable. At least with 23andme they don't just rely on the few samples in academic papers, but include the genomes of their customers. I think perhaps Ancestry is also starting to do that? I think My Heritage is terrible, and so is Living DNA, but again, that's just my opinion.

Angela, we may disagree on some political issues, but this is for me the hammer on the nail!
Especially the bold lines could be my conclusion after gathering lots of information and analysis of samples. Thanks for that!

Regarding the topic there is a relationship with my private samples. I always wondered why my mother has a higher EEF and certainly higher HG than my father (both are North Dutch, but from differentiated subregions). Father seems to be more Bell Beakers, more modern Dutch/ English-like.

The solution lays probably in this mixture of Funnelbeaker and Single Grave Culture/ Bell beaker mixture. It's most likely that when the pastoralist 'rushed in' they began to dominate the Funnelbeaker folk. The violence act doesn't stand on his own.

My mother is from Drenthe she has even only ancestry from a small but significant zone (called Hondsrug), significant because almost all megalithic funnel beaker findings of the Netherlands are concentrated here.....

Drenthe is in red. The maps are from the archeologist Fokkens (2013), TRB and BB and Beckerman (2015) in the case of SGC.

I. The Funnelbeaker/TRB situation, about 3400 the Funnelbeaker came from the South Baltic room to Drenthe (Tiefstich Expansion as the Germans say). These TRB folks were genetically a combination of ENF and highly HG (Ertebølle). You see it's very dense (even today every child at primary school is learning that Drenthe was a funnel beaker hotspot.....).


cvt5sobf8.18.36.png



II. The Single Grave Culture, is due to incoming pastoralist about 2900 BC, they 'settled' along the TRB folks:
bebhb9lkdet5.18.01.png



III. According to the Davidski theory out of SGC folks developed the BB (BB Dutch was already partly TRB ):
6yijq6uz.57.29.png


So of course as the topic already shows the SGC-pastoralist began to dominate the farmer population. Into a kind of tribute system?
Their genes prevailed, in the end, but an echo of the funnel beakers (gives her in most PCA's and calculators a pretty Baltic touch) is especially left in my mothers mixture.....
 
Last edited:
Angela, we may agree on some political issues, but this is for me the hammer on the nail!
Especially the bold lines could be my conclusion after gathering lots of information and analysis of samples. Thanks for that!
Regarding the topic there is a relationship with my private samples. I always wondered why my mother has a higher EEF and certainly higher HG than my father (both are North Dutch, but from differentiated subregions). Father seems to be more Bell Beakers, more modern Dutch/ English-like.
The solution lays probable in this mixture of Funnelbeaker and Single Grave Culture/ Bell beaker mixture. It's most likely that when the pastoralist 'rushed in' they began to dominate the Funnelbeaker folk. The violence act doesn't stand on his own.
My mother is from Drenthe she has even only ancestry from a small but significant zone (called Hondsrug), significant because almost all megalithic funnel beaker findings of the Netherlands are concentrated here.....
Drenthe is in red. The maps are from the archeologist Fokkens (2013), TRB and BB and Beckerman (2015) in the case of SGC.
I. The Funnelbeaker/TRB situation, about 3400 the Funnelbeaker came from the South Baltic room to Drenthe (Tiefstich Expansion as the Germans say). These TRB folks were genetically a combination of ENF and highly HG (Ertebølle). You see it's very dense (even today every child at primary school is learning that Drenthe was a funnel beaker hotspot.....).
cvt5sobf8.18.36.png

II. The Single Grave Culture, is due to incoming pastoralist about 2900 BC, they 'settled' along the TRB folks:
bebhb9lkdet5.18.01.png

III. According to the Davidski theory out of SGC folks developed the BB (BB Dutch was already partly TRB ):
6yijq6uz.57.29.png

So of course as the topic already shows the SGC-pastoralist began to dominate the farmer population. Into a kind of tribute system?
Their genes prevailed, in the end, but an echo of the funnel beakers (gives her in most PCA's and calculators a pretty Baltic touch) is especially left in my mothers mixture.....
are you aware that there are 2 stages in TRB ?
TRB originated ca 6,3 ka
but only ca 5,95 ka megalithism started to spread amongst TRB
those megalithic rulers relied very much on male kinship
they were intruders who became the TRB elite
their Y-DNA was I2a1b, the same Y-DNA as identified in the Gökheim passage grave
but of course, like all incoming elite, they mated with the local daughters

check this out :
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/
 
are you aware that there are 2 stages in TRB ?
TRB originated ca 6,3 ka
but only ca 5,95 ka megalithism started to spread amongst TRB
those megalithic rulers relied very much on male kinship
they were intruders who became the TRB elite
their Y-DNA was I2a1b, the same Y-DNA as identified in the Gökheim passage grave
but of course, like all incoming elite, they mated with the local daughters

check this out :
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

thanks bicicleur!

I was mostly inspired by this blog article:
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

hahahah.....
zwei Seelen einer Gedanke!
 
are you aware that there are 2 stages in TRB ?
TRB originated ca 6,3 ka
but only ca 5,95 ka megalithism started to spread amongst TRB
those megalithic rulers relied very much on male kinship
they were intruders who became the TRB elite
their Y-DNA was I2a1b, the same Y-DNA as identified in the Gökheim passage grave
but of course, like all incoming elite, they mated with the local daughters

check this out :
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

My impression. Before 3400 BC was Drenthe only populated by Swifterbant types.
The incoming TRB folks made the shift. Karsten Wentink has stated that the Tiefstich invasion contained an Ertebolle component.

Anyhow 500 years later the SGC-pastoralist rushed in already......
 
are you aware that there are 2 stages in TRB ?
TRB originated ca 6,3 ka
but only ca 5,95 ka megalithism started to spread amongst TRB
those megalithic rulers relied very much on male kinship
they were intruders who became the TRB elite
their Y-DNA was I2a1b, the same Y-DNA as identified in the Gökheim passage grave
but of course, like all incoming elite, they mated with the local daughters

check this out :
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

I want to exemplify my 'picture story' with some figures based on G25. Finn (my avatar on anthrogenica) is Northerner.


I know it stays a kind of hobby, a model is a simplification of the reality (inherent) and so all taken with lots of salt.


Nevertheless with the basic assumption in the back of my mind that in NW Europe people are mostly a mixture of funnel beaker and single grave/bell beaker folks I constructed this.


I took three proxy's:
1. Narva Lituania as a proxy for a North European HG population;
2. Barcin Neolithic as a proxy for Early Neolithic Famer;
3. Yamna Samara as a proxy for the Steppe pastoralist.


Then I took as test pops:
- Dutch Bell Beaker
- The whole Scottish range: Bell Beaker, EBA, MBA, LBA
- Two Germanic migration time samples: Hinxton 2 (recognized as the most fresh from the boat Saxon) and Rise 174 from Scania
- Modern Dutch, English, Norwegian and Dutch population
- The Finn family


Webrunner of Poi, cycles= 750, batches= 500, pen=0,001, filter= 40%


The result:



5dg02f6qrq.00.23.png


Analysis:

The obvious one is that based on the three proxy's the Bell Beakers are most close in distance, then the EBA and MBA and that from LBA via Migration time until now the distance is quite constant. Of course we can see here the effect of drift, mutations, IBD etc etc.
We see also a pretty sharp fall of the Steppe pastoralist amount from nearly 60% in the Dutch BB to about 50% in the Bronze Age and migration time and 45-50% in modern age.
The ENF amount makes a reverse movement from about 25% in the Bell Beakers, about 31-33% in the Bronze Age and migration time about 32%-35% in the modern age.
The Northern HG seems quite consistent from Bell Beaker time, through Bronze Age and Migration time until modern time 17-18%! Only modern Sweden passes the 20%....

In the case of the Finn's we see a TRB effect. Most heavily in the Finn Mom sample her HG amount is 25% higher than Dutch average, and surpluses also the migration time Anglo-Saxon and Swede, only modern Sweden is slightly higher. Her ENF is tiny lower than the average 35%. The Steppe pastoralist is with 45,6% lowest of all samples.
Finn Dad has also some enhanced HG compared to the rest but the ENF and Steppe pastoralist are in line. The son (Finn) got the HG level of mom and the Steppe pastoralist level of Dad, it goes at the expense of the ENF amount.


No wonder that in all PCA kind of stuff especially Finn and Finn mom are constant plotted with the Swedes. And it's not what often is the conclusion because of a Swedish migration movement. In my paper trail there is no Swede. And based on these result this is not due to a Swedish influx during germanic migration time because based on that (see the Rise 174 result) the HG percentage of Finn and Finn mom is evident higher....(for what 1 sample is worth though).


So my tentative conclusion in the "grand mix" of TRB folks and SGC/BB folks we can find a TRB impact along the Finn's and especially along Finn Mom and Finn.


Feel free to comment!
 
Last edited:

This thread has been viewed 31890 times.

Back
Top