Saturday, June 15, 2019
Not Bell Beaker, not Corded Ware, but...the SGBR complex
I'd be very grateful if someone could explain to me what this new paper at the Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society journal was actually about.
Citation...
Furholt, Martin, Re-integrating Archaeology: A Contribution to aDNA Studies and the Migration Discourse on the 3rd Millennium BC in Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, Published online: 10 June 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
See also...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
276 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 276 of 276@Matt
' If not much migration into South Netherlands from rest, then I guess we can say that probably doesn't explain much of why that region converges with the rest.'
I guess this is somewhat Eindhoven (former Philips stronghold) is a knowledge brainport. So attrects more people,. But most of the time in history North and South were kind of seperate circuits. Hallstatt/La Tene most probably has had more effect on the South Dutch (and Belgians) than above the Rhine.
By the way on average I think that big parts of the South the GDP is higher than in Friesland/Groningen/Drenthe. In the past the situation was different.
Sure, although for the height topic, differences in GDP/cap within the Netherlands shouldn't matter too much, as all the regions in question are well above the thresholds at which GDP has an influence on height (the low bounds which only some of the most poor parts of Eastern Europe are still at). It looks like GDP only matters for height at low bounds so is only really an important influence in height on the world as a whole, where there is still lots of poverty and material deprivation about, not really so much in Europe.
Matt: Grasgruber e.a. suggest in an antropomorphic study: "Together with the Dutch, Montenegrins and Dalmatians, men from Herzegovina (183.4 cm) can be regarded as the tallest in the world. Because both nutritional standards and socioeconomic conditions are still deeply suboptimal, the most likely explanation of this exceptional height lies in specific genetic factors associated with the spread of Y haplogroup I-M170."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316070723_The_mountains_of_giants_An_anthropometric_survey_of_male_youths_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
This might also explain your reported British cline, with S. English being slightly taller. In Germany, the gradient runs from Schleswig-Holstein & Hamburg (avg. male height 180 cm) to the Saarland (177 cm), again consistent with yDNA I being related to above-average height.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Gesundheit/Gesundheitszustand-Relevantes-Verhalten/Publikationen/Downloads-Gesundheitszustand/koerpermasse-5239003179004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=4 [p. 15]
A connection to yDNA seems plausible. IIRC, WHG males were almost 10 cm larger than EEF, a difference hardly explainable alone from nutrition.
A British cohort study looked at yDNA influence on physical parameters. They didn't check for body height, but for the BMI, where they couldn't establish significant differences between yDNA I and R1 (all other hgs were too rare to allow for comparison). As such, while yDNA I may be associated with exceptional tallness, R1 might not fall far behind, which could explain the Spanish pattern.
In theory, possibly, Y-haplos could be related to these things.
I dunno, if so, they're probably the easiest sort of thing to test with large sample sizes - we've got about 11% I1 and 7% I2 in British samples in the 200000 male strong UK Biobank, and anthropometric measurements on all of them. If there's a statistical difference in height, esp. controlling for autosomal population structure, you'll find it.
Using a between population measure to infer anything about a haplogroup sort of sucks when you can just look at the correlation of the group within a population. It'd be pretty easy for Grasgruber to do this with the publicly available data, so not sure why it hasn't been done yet.
I kind of think it's probably not going to exist after all the opportunities to identify this not resulting in anything yet. Or all the people studying the genetics of height are really bad at missing the low hanging fruit. You'd hope the forensics folk would've noticed something as well.
In terms of existing studies, a mixed Dutch population sample, hap I had no association with BMI - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021915017300631 (I: 26.3, R: 26.4), and also no link to BMI in a British population https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5793196/. Unfortunately no raw weight or height provided.
A study of Poles from 2013 checked about 2652 samples https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0068155. "N=446-451" hap I males had height 173.9 cm against hap R1a1 ("N=1403-1528") at 174cm. All groups fairly close together, sample size close to meaningless for the others, and a larger sample would be good for all of them. ("In conclusion, our study shows that in humans Y chromosome genetic polymorphism, in particular the widely studied HindIII variant, does not influence blood pressure, lipid traits or anthropometric measures, such as height, weight or waist/hips circumference.")
On a population level, I is modal in the tallest Europeans in SE Europe, more frequent in taller groups in NW Europe, but also more common in groups who are today not especially tall (East-Central Europe) and modal in the shortest as well, Sardinians.
I guess that there will be nothing going forward, but a big test on biobank scaled populations would at least make it much clearer. My stance at the moment would be that there's no within population evidence for it, and the only evidence is against it, and between population evidence isn't much evidence (not when you can tightly control for autosomal structure / environment / history and easily identify any causal effects of the haplogroup simply by looking within populations!).
Frequencies of haplos in UK Biobank - https://imgur.com/a/kgYDgp9
Btw all, another random little adna study out this earlier month - "East Anglian Early Neolithic monument burial linked to contemporary Megaliths" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03014460.2019.1623912
"In the fourth millennium BCE a cultural phenomenon of monumental burial structures spread along the Atlantic façade. Megalithic burials have been targeted for aDNA analyses, but a gap remains in East Anglia where Neolithic structures were generally earthen or timber. An early Neolithic (3762 – 3648 cal. BCE) burial monument at the site of Trumpington Meadows, Cambridgeshire, U.K. contained the partially articulated remains of at least three individuals.
To determine whether this monument fits a pattern present in megalithic burials regarding sex bias, kinship, diet, and relationship to modern populations, teeth and ribs were analysed for DNA and carbon and nitrogen isotopic values respectively.
Whole ancient genomes were sequenced from two individuals to a mean genomic coverage of 1.6 and 1.2X and genotypes imputed. Results show that they were brothers from a small population genetically and isotopically similar to previously published British Neolithic individuals, with a level of genome-wide homozygosity consistent with a small island population sourced from continental Europe, but bearing no signs of recent inbreeding. The first Neolithic whole genomes from a monumental burial in East Anglia confirm that this region was connected with the larger pattern of Neolithic megaliths in the British Isles and the Atlantic façade."
Perhaps someone else has mentioned before and I did not see.
@Frank N isn't length connected with auDNA in stead of Y-DNA. I'm E-V22 and 6 feet 4 (1.93), not from the paternal line (all below average in the North) but certainly from my grandmother (of my father) an ostrich woman. When she married my grandfather she was 'forced' in an almost impossible posture to look as tall as her husband on the wedding picture ;)
Yes that BMI thing doesn't work for me. Below 110kg and I feel absolutely fatigued and powerless...
Weure: I know such wedding photos. My Flensburg-born grand-grandmother was also a couple of cms taller than my grand-grandfather from the Middle Elbe ..
So, I aggree, there is more to height differences than can be explainded by yDNA, the maternal side, and ultimately auDNA, certainly also plays a role. But when people try to connect height differences to "steppe" ancestry, it should be noted that the same applies to WHG ancestry (yDNA I). Hermanussen 2003 reports a mean height of 179 cm for Upper Paleolithic European males, 173 cm for the E. European Mesolithic, below 165 cm for the LBK, and even only 161.3 cm for the E. Mediterranean MLN (5-3 mBC).
Interesting there: BA mean height in the E.Med. was 166 cm, while "kings" measured 172.5 cm in average. If there was an incursion of "steppe" ancestry during the early 2nd mBC into the E.Med., it didn't affect average male body height, which stayed almost constant around 166.5 cm from 3,000 to 650 BC.
http://www.hormones.gr/pdf/Stature_europeans.pdf
Matt-relating to one of your earlier comments:
Many (including Rob in his recent paper) tend to overlook recent AMS dates for N. German Megaliths. The Büdelsdorf-Borgstedt Dolmen (n. Rendsburg, on the Eider) date to ca. 3960 – 3740 calBC (charred Rosacea from the interior) - earlier than all dates so far available from the British Isles or Iberia.
http://www.monument.ufg.uni-kiel.de/fileadmin/projekte/common/fmsd11/FMSD_11_1.pdf p. 183f
For lack of any credible land connection (Belgian and Dutch Megaliths are considerably younger, even though the Borgstedt pottery displays similarities to the Emsland and Drenthe), I still think the phenomenon arrived in Holstein over sea, meaning there should probably have been some earlier prototypes in SE England. AFAIK, the earliest Megaliths have been found in Brittany (Carnac), from where the phenomenon appears to have spread in all directions.
@Matt,
"Perhaps someone else has mentioned before and I did not see."
No, this is the first time I've seen that study on Anglian burial monument. Thanks for sharing. The burial was used for 70 years, contains four people. Two of the individuals had their DNA tested, they were brothers.
All individuals from Irish, Gotaland Megaliths were 2nd-degree relatives. So, I guess this confirms Megalith burials were family/clan burials.
@weure,
"I really think the 'deep ancestry' makes the difference between North and South Dutch. "
"The deep ancestry, long before the Germanic movements, had made IMO the difference. "
What, pre-Iron age, pre-Germanic people do you think create the ancient difference between South Dutch/North Dutch?
Sam: "So, I guess this confirms Megalith burials were family/clan burials."
Almost certainly in Denmark and N. Germany. The original number of Megalith burials on the Danish Isles is estimated at around 50,000. Even if each only served one farmstead, this would - at an estimated average household size of 6 persons - yield a population of ca. 300,000, more than 20 inhabitants/km2. For comparison: 4th mBC Mesopotamia is estimated to have had a population density of 7.1 p/km2, Classical Greece 17.5 p/km2, Roman Italy 27.4 p/km2 (Source: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56680286.pdf).
Most likely, the Danish Isles were Europe's (Eurasia's?) most densely populated area during the MN. Such a density - for all aquatic food complementing agricultural production - was of course not sustainable, hence the TRB-N (Tiefstich) expansion into the N. European plain and beyond (Franconia, also Britain?).
In view of these calculations, it is unthinkable that Danish/N. German Megalith burials might have served larger communities as communal graves - one would arrive at much higher, certainly unrealistic population estimates. Asides, in spite of the high population density, there weren't any (proto-)urban settlements. At best we are talking about hamlets of 4-5 longhouses, as in Büdelsdorf-Borgstedt, but predominantly of dispersed farmsteads. Moreover, a typical Megalith burial chamber measured some 90x160 cm, which looks appropiate for a family vault, but rather small for a Village/ clan burial site.
For those wants to read pay-walled papers
https://sci-hub.se/
@ Samuel 'What, pre-Iron age, pre-Germanic people do you think create the ancient difference between South Dutch/North Dutch?'
The Funnelbeaker (TRB).
See:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/x7p7t8f3dgz8v.png
In the square my auDnA region. That was their hotspot.
And see the info of FrankN ^^^^ The West TRB was a North TRB (Southern Scandinavia) derivative, a mix or Ertebølle HG and Neolithic Farmer. Probably rich in I1 (the tall ones;)
You can see clearly that's it was only a North Dutch phenomenon.
@FrankN,
"Almost certainly in Denmark and N. Germany. The original number of Megalith burials on the Danish Isles is estimated at around 50,000. Even if each only served one farmstead, this would - at an estimated average household size of 6 persons - yield a population of ca. 300,000, more than 20 inhabitants/km2."
That's surprising. Do have a source which says there were 50,000 Megalith burials in Neolithic Denmark?
"hence the TRB-N (Tiefstich) expansion into the N. European plain and beyond (Franconia, also Britain?).
"
Uh. I doubt they went to Britain considering Neolithic Brits appear to descend from a single founding population from mainland Europe (probably France). But a high population size looks like a good explanation for their success in Germany, Poland. ALso, it explains why LBK/Danube farmers left a small legacy in Bronze age central/northern Europe but TRB/GAC left a big one.
@Sam the North Dutch TRB is obviously a result of this Tiefstich invasion from the Danish area.
Just one more point on the y-dna haplogroup and height aspect, two more reasons to doubt an influence of y-dna haplo on a phenotype is the distributions of phenotype in a population and when considering male vs female heights.
1) If you had a situation where you had Haplo A at 20% and then Haplo B-E at 80%, and Haplo A members had a 4cm greater height with B-E the same, then you'd see a population height distribution with two peaks in it, and those two peaks would show exclusively on the male side, with no parallel on the female side.
This would be even more apparent in populations with 50% of Haplo A and 50% Haplo B-E.
To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been described or reported in height distributions in European male populations.
(E.g. if Grasgruber sampled Croatians and half had I2a and half other groups, but he found a single, smooth distribution of height within them, statistically there's no way that I2a could have much to do with height within that population, even before we tried to directly measure the height of I2a vs non-I2a bearers).
(This is true for any phenotype that you could propose is influenced by y-dna and also true on the mtdna side, though much harder to test on that side due to the much greater numbers of mtdna groups per pop).
2) If you look at the male vs female height in populations that might be proposed to have male height boosted by I2a, in 4 out of 5 countries (Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro), the male height increase over female is exactly the same as in all other world countries.
(The remaining 1 country, Macedonia, is a massive outlier to the world trend and the slope of their increase in male height is also extremely strange, so I suspect that their data is recorded badly).
See : https://imgur.com/a/ri8l4Q3
If I2a or I1 was increasing height, this would of course only be active in males that bear them, not females who by definition don't. Unless there is some different but exactly complementary mechanism in females (which is unnecessarily complex and unlikely), it looks like whatever boosts height much be present for both sexes, and y-haplogroups don't meet that criteria.... (unlike mtdna and autodna).
(Again, this is true for any phenotype - if something doesn't show an unusual sex dimorphic pattern in a population but both females and males in a population have it relative to other populations, ain't nothin to do with y-dna variants).
@Sam, cheers, yeah, it seems part of a trend (and as Frank notes, a trend that probably is what would be expected given the sort of scale of societies we're talking about) but still cool. I expect there will be a lot more little site specific studies like this one flying under our radar in future.
In Roman times there lived people in coastal NW German that were called Chauci or Chauken (later on part of the Saxon). The speculation about their name is, seen the discussion about tall, interesting:
" It is generally assumed that Chauci, like the spellings of Cauchi and Cauci, is a latinization of Old German * Hauhōz, the plural of * hauhaz, the predecessor of Dutch hoog, German hoch and English high. The Chauci are therefore literally the "high ones". However, it is unclear in what sense. The first possibility is spatial, namely that the name initially applied to the coastal residents among those who lived high up who were not to be washed away by the flood. Otherwise, the name probably struck their shape. Although it was common among the Romans that the Germans were tall, it is notable that Caius Velleius Paterculus - serving under Tiberius - wrote about the "enormous physique" of the Chauci against whom he had fought. But in line with the description of Tacitus, it is also possible that "high" here should be interpreted as "exalted" and "noble". "
Source Taalaandacht (google translate)
Slightly longer / larger data series showing consistency of male-female height: https://imgur.com/a/k77UMUs
(Data above was restricted for observations (Year+Country) that have GDP/capita measurements, but that's not necessary here so full set of Year+Country observations going back to 1896).
Data from paper from "A century of trends in adult human height" - https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410 (available via http://www.ncdrisc.org and https://ourworldindata.org/human-height).
Height has zero to do with yDNA. For all regions considered male : female height differences are not that different and females tall or short as well. Other arguments being mentioned already.
In Europe there seem to be two main factors:
- Mesolithic European hunter gatherer vs Neolithic and East Asian ancestry.
- Selection. For example well nutritioned pastoralists in the temperate climate being taller on average. Lack of proteins results short term in phenotypical and long term genotypical size reduction.
Thats why Eastern Mediterranean farmers became shorter early on.
Sometimes with marked social differences, like the significantly taller and more robust warriors in Syrian graves for example.
East Asian ancestry probably doesn't matter very much for populations beyond the Volga Ural.
Say Northeast Asians are about 5-6 cm shorter after nutrition is considered, which seems reasonably likely enough in the data, and consistent with historical reports of the Mongols being taller than Europeans and so on (due to nutrition, disease, etc). Finns for'ex have about 5-10% East Asian, so you would guess about 0.6cm / 0.2 inches lower height.
And that may well be offset by any slightly greater selection for height or body size in Volga-Ural populations, just as ancient East Asian ancestry in the Baltic region seems to have been correlated with blonde hair, as the Volga-Ural populations who brought it seem to have had more derived SNPs on that then the preceding Baltic Bronze Age.
Maybe would matter more for populations on Volga-Ural with higher proportions of ancestry from that source. (But even a person with 25% East Asian ancestry would probably only be about 0.5 inch shorter on average given the above assumptions).
The East Asian factor is small in Europe and much less important than Neolithic ancestry and selection, but should be still significant.
So like how significant are you thinking? What are your expected numbers of how much height should change with the single digit values of East Asian ancestry in Finland and Russia?
I think the most significant impact of selection and East Asian ancestry is visible in the Saami, especially if you consider their high proportion of European hunter gatherer ancestry.
Data on Sami women, from a 60 year old cohort in Northern Norway, from 2018 present under https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/22423982.2018.1463786
Male and female Sami are 5cm shorter than Norwegians, are 2 inch. (Male Norwegians 5'9", 5'7"). N=2268 and about 40:60 Saami / non-Saami.
I think that's unlikely to scale up to being totally led by East Asian ancestry though, as if you scale up and assume Saami 15% East Asian ancestry that would suggest a genetic difference between East Asian and European populations of 13 inches... At least some of that must be nutrition (they are a relatively poor group who probably suffered more hunger and deprivation) or simple random ethnic group differences that are not causally due to East Asian ancestry.
@Zardos - 'Mesolithic European hunter gatherer vs Neolithic and East Asian ancestry.'
In the case of the TRB there could be big differences in the amount of Neolithic Farmer vs HG, Gokhem TRB Sweden has a very high amount of Neolithic farmer in Denmark and their expansion into NW Germany and North Dutch could be the amount be different with an higher HG, FrankN has elaborated this elsewhere.
May be the Single Grave Culture makes also a difference? Some Steppe groups were also tall....
@Matt: Saami have shorter legs and higher upper bodies also. So the EA proportions were selected too.
Selection is key in their case, but some of it was based on the higher Asian genetic ancestry.
@weure: All steppe groups were taller than the European average because of all the factors mentioned:
- higher Mesolithic ancestry
- better nutrition
- selection
Most of the tallest Europeans today were among the tallest 100 years ago.
There are just the exceptions of extraordinary rich and poor nutritioned people.
Today environmental factors are present individually, mainly diseases, but on the population level they are largely zero now. Only some Roma groups and Moldavians probably can gain something of significance through nutritional improvements.
@zardos and what about the (S)HG? See Frank N: 'Hermanussen 2003 reports a mean height of 179 cm for Upper Paleolithic European males, 173 cm for the E. European Mesolithic, below 165 cm for the LBK, and even only 161.3 cm for the E. Mediterranean MLN (5-3 mBC).'
At the Camino de las Yeseras site, there is an Iberian Pre-BB with an estimated height of 2.05 meters and there are several brachycephalic BBs P312, measuring more than 1.85 meters- A giant over 2 meters is not normal, he may have acromegaly.
In the book "men of the old stone age" they report heights for several paleolithic european skeletons from Gravettian and Aurignacian, they are all very tall, if I remember correctly some above 6 foot and average around there.
https://m.imgur.com/a/vyZo5x2
Some time ago this has been mentioned:
“Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24132230-200-story-of-most-murderous-people-of-all-time-revealed-in-ancient-dna/
I didn’t read it because I don’t have ‘newscientist’ subscription
Now K. Kristiansen has uploaded this article:
https://www.academia.edu/38744439/History_of_Violence
“The collaboration revealed that the origin and initial spread of Bell Beaker culture had little to do – at least genetically – with the expansion of the Yamnaya or Corded Ware people into central Europe. “It started in western Iberia,” says Heyd. It is in that region that the earliest Bell Beaker objects – including arrowheads, copper daggers and distinctive Bell-shaped pots – have been found, in archaeological sites carbon-dated to 4700 years ago. Then, Bell Beaker culture began to spread east, although the people more or less stayed put. By about 4600 years ago, it reached the most westerly Corded Ware people around where the Netherlands now lies. For reasons still unclear, the Corded Ware people fully embraced it. “They simply take on part of the Bell Beaker package and become Beaker people,” says Kristiansen.”
So they suggest what David has been writing about here i.e. that BB people are derived from CWC people.
Which IE cultures are not derived from CWC?
(Forget Hittites because they are hardly IE and we know nothing about their origin.)
I'm pretty sure now that the physically (brachycephalic) and genetically (lots of steppe ancestry) archetypal Bell Beakers were derived from very specific post-Single Grave (and thus CWC) groups, or a group, from the Lower Rhine region.
The Bell Beaker cultural package is a somewhat different matter though. I guess some aspects of it may have originated in Iberia, but I'm very skeptical that the Bell Beaker ethnos originated there. I think it also came from the Lower Rhine, and the people who were part of it quickly picked up various cultural and economic traits as their networks expanded across Europe and into North Africa.
Early Italic speakers look precisely like a two-way mix between early farmers and CWC/Bell Beakers. So I think Italic is in the bag.
Dave
I think it’s more complex than you imagine. Indeed; I don’t need think anybody here really has much of an understanding about Italy
Moreover, the linear CWC narrative is becoming a bit funny now; because it now seems that you’re suggesting that Mycenaeans and italics etc came from the Netherlands; which is obviously ridiculous
I didn't say anything about Mycenaeans deriving from Bell Beakers. But yes, as far as I know, the idea that the Mycenaean language is derived from the forest steppe, and thus at least from CWC-related groups, isn't exactly a new one.
Re: Italic
Latin: Fur videt novam domum. Mater sedet tres noctes.
Russian: Vor vidit novy dom. Mat' sidit tri nochi.
English: The thief sees the new house. The mother sits for three nights.
;)
source: https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/etymology-eyes-in-slavic-languages-borrowed-from-latin.169694/#post-5577913
@ Samuel Andrews
My preferred explanation for why Neolithic Pottery was important to include in burials cane be found in this book featuring collections of essays by the late Andrew Sherratt:
https://www.amazon.com/Economy-Society-Prehistoric-Europe-Perspectives/dp/0748606467/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=andrew+sherratt+economy+and+society&qid=1561329528&s=gateway&sr=8-2
The essay entitled "Cups that Cheer..." is a particularly compelling look into the importance these vessels had among Neolithic societies. Essentially, it all has to do with drinking rituals. Sherratt is a pretty good read overall, his writing style and explanations rather fun to read unlike the miserable explanations (or lack thereof) that emerged onward.
@Davidski
You need to ask the following question: "What is the location of the oldest Bell Beaker archaeological material"?
If the oldest Bell Beaker archaeological materials are found in Iberia and Northern Africa, then how can we say that the Bell Beaker ethnos originated in Central Europe with the Corded Ware?
@Dragos
Do you think that the Mycenaeans, Etruscans and Italics will have a similar genetic paternal ancestry?
@Davidski
Could the Indo European Greek language have come into the Hellenistic civilization by influence of people related to the Celts(Galatian?) from Central Europe(originated from the Steppe originated Corded Ware culture)? So maybe, an inner group in the Mycenaean population spoke the Etruscan language(which went in the Iron Age into Latium), and then with the influence of the Celts from Central Europe the modern Greek language was formed (just like in the Late Bronze Age of Latium were the Celts formed the Italic dialects?).
@John Johnson,
"My preferred explanation for why Neolithic Pottery was important to include in burials cane be found in this book featuring collections of essays by the late Andrew Sherratt:"
Thanks for sharing.
@Suyindik
The idea that the oldest Bell Beaker archeological material is found in Iberia is based on allegedly the oldest radiocarbon dates for such remains in Iberia, but these radiocarbon dates may or may not be correct.
And even if they are correct, then keep in mind that there's no way that that the archetypal Bell Beaker male, with his brachycephalic skull and CWC-like genetic structure, can be derived from any Copper Age population native to Iberia.
This is important, because what it means is that the backbone of the Bell Beaker population wasn't from Iberia, but from Northern Europe. And, obviously, you can borrow pots and weapons, adopt religions, and learn new languages, but you can't change your family, physical type and genetic structure in the same way.
Sam: "Do have a source which says there were 50,000 Megalith burials in Neolithic Denmark?"
The figure was taken from memory, which sometimes may be deceiving. "Official" estimates are 23-25 thousand dolmen, plus 5,000 passage graves, plus an unknown number of Megalithic long barrows. The latter number should be rather small, as most long barrows were non-megalithic wood-earth constructions.
http://www.megalithicroutes.eu/en/danish-megaliths
https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-neolithic-period/the-megalithic-tombs-of-the-stone-age/long-barrows-dolmens-and-passage-graves/
This yields a total of around 30,000 Megalith burials across all of Denmark, the vast majority of which is found on the Danish Isles, albeit Jutland's east coast (plus the German Baltic Sea coast) also bears substantial concentrations. Using these figures, my rough 3500-3000 BC population density estimate needs to be revised downwards to around 9-10 p/km2 for the Danish Isles, and 4.2 p/km2 for all of Denmark - still extremely high for the Neolithic, compared to, e.g., an estimated LBK density in Central European loess areas around 1.4 p/km2.
"it explains why LBK/Danube farmers left a small legacy in Bronze age central/northern Europe but TRB/GAC left a big one."
Müller 2013 (link below) estimates a population of around 3 million in late 4th mBC Central Europe and S. Scandinavia, which would have been half or more of the total European population of that time. Müller's CE is roughly delineated by Paris, Budapest and Kaliningrad, and as such in addition to TRB/GAC a/o also includes post-Michelsberg (SOM, Wartberg, Horgen etc.), western Baden, and Mondsee-Altheim. I don't have much of an idea about the latter's population numbers/densities. While SOM appears to have been much less populous than preceding W. Michelsberg, Wartberg and Horgen could still have accumulated considerable population numbers, and the same may apply to Baden along the Middle Danube. Nevertheless, it seems a fair assumption that TRB/GAC accounted for at least a quarter, maybe even a third of Europe's total population during the late 4th mBC.
[Müller btw estimates just 1 million inhabitants for contemporary SE Europe, made up of Greece, the Balkans, the Carpathian Basin (E. Baden), and Moldova/ W. Ukraine (CT). As concerns the latter - they had the "megacities", but those were few, less populous than originally assumed (rather 2,000 than 10,000 inhabitants), and not associated to any sattelite settlements).]
https://www.academia.edu/10872287/8_Million_Neolithic_Europeans_Social_Demography_and_Social_Archaeology_on_the_Scope_of_Change_from_the_Near_East_to_Scandinavia
Otherwise, Brotherton/ Haak 2013 already demonstrated LBK mtDNA replacement by Rössen in the MES region. I remember an older Hungarian study showing that most of the LBK mtDNA there had died out. Replacement of LBK yDNA (G2) by WHGs is anyway obvious. Add to that the well documented, yet so far poorly understood LBK collapse in the Rhineland, and to a lesser, but still substantial, extent also in MES, and it becomes obvious that LBK fell victim to a major demographic shock. My pet theory is that they caught the flu (historically the biggest killer among all epidemics, before the plague, smallpox, measles etc.). More specifically the seal flu, for which seal-hunting Ertebölle/ Swifterband HGs should have had acquired immunity that LBK EEF lacked.
@Dragos
Nope, apparently those early Italic samples are from Stanford.
@Davidski
This is what David Reich says about the Bell Beakers:
"So, in contrast to what happened with the spread of the Corded Ware culture from the east, the initial spread of the Bell Beaker culture across Europe was mediated by the movement of ideas, not by migration."
So, the Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia and Northern Africa (invented by EEF), and from here the ideas of it went into the newcoming Central European people from the Corded Ware culture (not replacing the major genetic paternal ancestry). And the Corded Ware culture people used the technologies of the Bell Beaker and added pieces of their own original culture and made new migrations. The same kind of situation happened during the Maykop cultural migration. The Southern people(from Southern Caucasus until Mesopotamia) which initialy invented the Kurgan culture migrated into the Steppe regions of Northern Caucasus, and the ideas of them were past over to the natives of the Steppe(while maintaining a major paternal ancestry), which formed the Yamnaya culture in the following period, which later formed the Corded Ware culture.
@ Frank
“Brotherton/ Haak 2013 already demonstrated LBK mtDNA replacement by Rössen in the MES region. I remember an older Hungarian study showing that most of the LBK mtDNA there”
Rössen will still be very much LBK - like
It’s not until TRB that things change
@Suyindik
Well I don't agree with David Reich when he claims that the Bell Beaker cultural package originated in Iberia or that the Kurgan tradition originated in the Maykop culture.
My opinion is that the radiocarbon dates showing that the supposedly oldest Bell Beaker graves are in Iberia are bogus one way or another, and that the Kurgan tradition existed on the steppe before Maykop.
But he's probably right when he says that the Bell Beaker population by and large is derived from Corded Ware, or rather, more precisely, from its Single Grave variant.
What’s the difference between LBK and TRB/GAC? I thought TRB are linear descendants of the LBK.
Sam: "I doubt they [TRB-N] went to Britain considering Neolithic Brits appear to descend from a single founding population from mainland Europe (probably France)."
Fair point. As I have made clear above, I think that Megalithism arrived in Holstein (from where it spread across the TRB-N sphere) via SE England from Brittany. As such, I don't disaggree with your assessment of a "single founding population from mainland Europe (probably France)" for the British Neolithic.
However, there is indication for cultural exchange across the North Sea, e.g. as concerns long barrows (see link). Many other features of the British Neolithic also appear to have derived from continental traditions that were rather typical for the N. European plain east of the Rhine, than for (NW) France. Examples are causewayed enclosures, henges, plank roads/ trackways (earliest attestation from the mid 5th BC hunter-pastoralist Dümmer Culture, SW Lower Saxony), and herringbone pottery decoration.
http://www.jna.uni-kiel.de/index.php/jna/article/view/46
This means that while the original impulse went from/via England to the CE lowlands, we should seriously consider the possibility of not just cultural, but also genetic backflow from the CE lowlands into Britain. [To extend the point: There is obvious similarity between Scandinavian Pitted Ware and Shetland/ Scottish Grooved Ware].
Most British Neolithic samples date to the Early Neolithic, i.e. prior to ca. 3,500 BC when TRB-N (Tiefstich->Bernburg) started its expansion. I haven't yet seen an analysis to which extent the few British MN samples display continuity to the EN, or might reflect genetic interaction with the TRB N/W sphere. Given that we don't have much TRB-Tiefstich aDNA except possibly Esperstedt_MN, which geographically is rather removed from potential TRB-British_MN contact lines, such analysis also poses technical problems.
@Davidski
I have respect for other opinions, but I agree with the statements of David Reich about the Maykop and Bell Beaker cultures. And there are traces of the Chalcolithic Southern Caucasus Kurgan culture in the Neolithic period of the Fertile Crescent, dating before the oldest Steppe Kurgans.
There is a study named "Le Néolithique nord-atlantique du Maroc: premier essai de chronologie par le radiocarbone", this is a quote from their paper:
"Nine 14C dates, compared to previous data, are used to propose a chronological framework for the North Atlantic Neolithic in Morocco. The Cardial established late, from 5300 B.C., over a poorly-known autochthonous population, and spread to the south. The scarcely-evidenced Middle Neolithic followed, from 4500 B.C., with Saharian influences. Circa 3700 B.C., the upper Middle Neolithic expanded over the entire area studied, with a pottery industry of the Proto-Bell-Beakers type. The final phase of the Middle Neolithic was a favourable environment for the birth of local metallurgy. At about 2700-2500 B.C., it participated in the emergence of the Iberic Bell-Beakers civilization which would return its products to Morocco."
"14C dates BP are calibrated at a 95% confidence interval and thus expressed B.C.".
So the radiocarbon dating seems quite reliable.
What’s the difference between LBK and Rössen’s mtDNA? And where did Rössen come from?
@Suyindik
There are kurgan burials on the steppe that pre-date Maykop by almost a thousand years. This isn't a matter of opinion but a simple fact.
And another thing to keep in mind is that the so called kurgans, or rather burial bounds, south of the steppe are actually very different from the kurgans on the steppe, and probably had a very different meaning.
Kurgans on the steppe are usually single burials, while the burial mounds south of the steppe contain multiple burials.
Suyindik
The BB really doesn’t have anything to do with Morocco
The supposedly early dates from Portugal which Cardoso published; and keep getting echoed uncritically; come from cow bones, mixed and ground up. This isn’t very solid archaeology; and if this were a crime scene investigation; they’d be dismissed from evidence
The earliest clear context BB in the Tagus (where they’re associated with identifiable human remains) date to 24/2300 BC.
Furthermore; your idea that Mycenaeans derive from Galatians is sheerly comical
@ Andre
Rössen , SBK; Brzec-Kujawsky are Post-Linear cultures stretching from France to Poland, after 5000 BC. Some admixture with HGs had already begun (hence brothertons mtdna); but they otherwise look of the LBK tradition
Whilst LBK “collapsed” in some zones , such as the upper - middle Rhine; it otherwise continued in the above mentioned zones
As I mentioned, the real change comes with TRB; who certainly aren’t “linear descendants of LBK”, but instead look like hunter-gatherers who adapted farming ; then spread south into the old LBK heartland
@Andrzej:
"What’s the difference between LBK and TRB/GAC? I thought TRB are linear descendants of the LBK."
TRB is generally believed to have emerged from amalgamation of three cultural traditions, whereby the impact of each of these traditions differs by region and possibly also changed over time. These traditions were:
(1) Lengyel - originally from Hungary, displaced a/o into Poland by the Baden-Boleraz expansion, and generally credited with having spread copper metalurgy across Central Europe plus the Alps (Mondsee, Remedello). For a/o the metalurgical element, Lengyel is ultimately regarded as Vinca-derived, i.e. with roots in the Iron Gates area.
(2) Michelsberg, originating from the Paris Basin, w. backward linkage to Brittany, and going back to an admixture of Paris Basin TRB with Cardial Pottery derived French hunter-pastoralists (NMBP). Michelsberg's main innovation was a mix of transhumating cattle pastoralism/ dairying and "slash-and-burn" wheat agriculture that allowed to extend farming beyond the loess zones, a/o into the CE plain, low mountain ranges, and the Alps.
(3) Erteboelle from N. Germany/ S.Scandinavia. While generally regarded as HG culture, Erteboelle appears to have had quite a horticulturalist element, a/o represented by hazelnut cultivation and possibly domestication of cabbage (kale), celery and beet roots. It is also a likely candidate for duck domestication, the European origin of which is yet unclear. Ertebölle otherwise had highly developed aquatic technologies, e.g. fish traps and fences, allowing for effective exploitation of wetlands (Kujawy, Havelland etc.).
So, essentially, TRB combines three of the four main European traditions: Danubian (Lengyel), W. Mediterranean/ Cardial (Michelsberg), and Nordic (Erteboelle) [the fourth European tradition was EHG/CHG "steppe" entering with CW], while LBK was just Danubian EEF-derived. I haven't yet fully understood what caused the TRB->GAC transition It wasn't a fundamental transition, as late TRB Bernburg and GAC-West apparently got along very well. My hunch is towards some (south-)eastern element, maybe CT, maybe Narva, in the GAC genesis out of TRB.
"What’s the difference between LBK and Rössen’s mtDNA? And where did Rössen come from?"
Rössen mtDNA in Brotherton/Haak 2013 was overwhelmingly H, with sub-haplotypes nowadays most frequent around the southern Gulf of Biscay. The origin of Rössen is still disputed among archeologists, but the majority seemingly now tends to assume entrance from west of the Rhine.
We have a single piece of Rössen aDNA (I2012) that is commonly but IMO completely inadequately lumped together with much later Germany_MN samples. I'd love to see a detailed analysis of that sample, e.g. for possible traces of Iberian_HG ancestry, to throw more light on the Rössen origins.
@ FrankN
Thanks. I think the transition to GAC had something to do with the adoption of a more Mobile lifestyle maybe due to a more animal centred economy or maybe to escape the negative effects of overpopulation in an area, like competition for resources,internal conflict, diseases etc.
Which may or may not indicate a Steppe pastoralist influence
The influeneces GAC have more to do with Baden -Boleraz influences than Narva (Baltic Fisher foragers) or even C-T
No steppe influence required, because GAC predates the movement of CWC into Europe. Indeed; CWC must have go their cattle from adjacent communities to their west rather than vice Vera
But I’m not sure why frank believes Iberian _HGs are going to be relevant for Rössen. Seems like a very odd hypothesis
@FrankN,
"TRB is generally believed to have emerged from amalgamation of three cultural traditions, whereby the impact of each of these traditions differs by region and possibly also changed over time"
That makes a lot of sense when looking at TRB DNA. TRB & GAC fit well in nMonte as western European farmer, Danube/Hungary farmer, plus minor eastern/northern hunter gatherer.
You're right Michelsberg's mtDNA results look very western European farmer (high frequencies of H1, K1a). Older mtDNA from northern France, 4500bc, was also sequenced. It too looks western European farmer but also carries N1a1a. So, I think as early as 4500bc, there were farmers of mixed "Iberian" & "Danube" origin.
@Davidski
There are kurgans in Mesopotamia (Halaf, Hassuna, Jarmo, ...) even predating those found in the Steppe. And there are Kurgan Stelae found in Mesopotamia in the Pottery Neolithic period, this is thousands of years before the oldest Steppe Stelae.
Also the migration of the Southern people into the regions of the Steppe people starts within the late 6th millennium BCE(David Reich writes about this). Before the arrival of the Southern people there were no kurgans and no stelae in the Steppe regions, there were different totally distinct cultures.
@Davidski-"And another thing to keep in mind is that the so called kurgans, or rather burial bounds, south of the steppe are actually very different from the kurgans on the steppe, and probably had a very different meaning."
This is exactly the same situation in the Bell Beakers culture, new ideas and original preceding cultures are being mixed together. Thats why the Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers are distinct from each other.
@Dragos
I mentioned the source of the study(with Bell Beaker data of Northern African and Iberian), and quoted the reliability of their radiocarbon dating. We cannot just assume that the radiocarbon dating is not correct just because it makes the situation more complicate than expected.
@Dragos-"Furthermore; your idea that Mycenaeans derive from Galatians is sheerly comical"
Greek language and Celtic language are both of Indo European origin. How are they related to each other, how can an Indo European language come into a region which is not related to Indo Europeans? I think that, just like the Celts are related to the Latin/Italic, they are also related to the Greek language, which shows a connection and migration route between Central Europe, Southern Europe and the Aegean Region. The Etruscans and the Pelasgians should also be considered in this route, and the contacts between the Etruscan speakers and the Indo European speakers(Celtic, Italic, Greek) shows relations beginning from the period when people from the Steppe started migrating into Central Europe and meeting the Early Farmers there.
@Suyindik
Also the migration of the Southern people into the regions of the Steppe people starts within the late 6th millennium BCE (David Reich writes about this).
There was no migration like that into the steppe. I wrote about this fact many times...
Yamnaya isn't from Iran just like R1a isn't from India
Big deal of 2018: Yamnaya not related to Maykop
On Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya
@Dragos
Baltic_HG has a firm tad of Magdalenian admixture and Polish GAC has 3% Magdalenian admixture. Now, I realize this isn't proof, but it is at least feasible from a genetic point of view.
Suyindik said...
"If the oldest Bell Beaker archaeological materials are found in Iberia and Northern Africa, then how can we say that the Bell Beaker ethnos originated in Central Europe with the Corded Ware?"
things may change with more evidence but currently maybe one way to square the circle is...
1) atlantic civ rooted in southern Portugal (western edge of med. climate zone) with extensions along the atlantic coast more for resource extraction than settlers (soft metals in Britain and Brittany, flint and amber in Denmark) and maybe various safe harbors along the roots e.g. rhine mouth - key point here being culturally strong but relatively low population density
coming into contact with
2) some group from somewhere somehow finding themselves in the rhine mouth also possibly initially small in number but adapted to dairying which turned out to be ideal for the atlantic coast climate zone so they came to outnumber the people from the original civ.
@Dragos said-"But I’m not sure why frank believes Iberian _HGs are going to be relevant for Rössen. Seems like a very odd hypothesis"
What Frank says, Brotherton, Haak and others have said for at least 6 years. If you study carefully the typical Mit-Haps of the German, Spanish and French Neolithic cultures you would realize that they are all brothers. That is what we say about the Iberian migrations related to the Bb culture, which are absolutely obvious. The problem is that our friends at Harvard needed to disassociate Iberia from any genetic relationship with BB culture in Central Europe so that their theory of massive migrations from the steppes was minimally credible. Olalde and his colleagues have been working on this for five years and I have already said many times that their arguments are at least ridiculous
Regarding the origin of the BB culture neither you nor Suyindik are right in what you are saying and only shows lack of knowledge of the Iberian chalcolithic. But since it is shown that you will never accept our arguments, it is better that we let you continue thinking what you want, at least that way you will be happy.
@ Epoch
'' Baltic_HG has a firm tad of Magdalenian admixture and Polish GAC has 3% Magdalenian admixture. Now, I realize this isn't proof, but it is at least feasible from a genetic point of view. ''
I don't have any issue with that.
But my point is, what everybody here is calling ''Iberian farmers'' is actually Cardial farmers from southern France
This ancestry diffused its way to the East, from Chassen, then Michelsberg then TRB. All this post-dated Rossen
GAC emerged (somehow) from polish TRB due to Baden superstrate infliuences.
The Cattle burials the the tell-tale sign
@Davidski-"I'm pretty sure now that the physically (brachycephalic) and genetically (lots of steppe ancestry) archetypal Bell Beakers were derived from very specific post-Single Grave (and thus CWC) groups, or a group, from the Lower Rhine region"
When you speak of the Lower Rhine region, do you always refer to the CWC or do you think that R1b-P312 may have originated in some German Neolithic culture?
@Dragos-
I'm sorry to have to contradict you but what you are saying is not true
Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origin of Europeans- Paul Brotherton- "The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations is striking and throws fresh light on long disputed archaeological models. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE".
Human paleogenetics of Europe. The known knowns and the known unknowns- Guido Brandt, Anna Szecsenyi-Nagy, Christina Roth, Kurt Werner Alt, Wolfgang Haak (2.015) “As a consequence, the contrasting mtDNA compositions of the Late Neolithic cultures result in distinct geographic affinities when compared with data from extant populations. The Corded Ware and Unetice individuals show highest similarities to modern-day Eastern Europeans, whereas the Bell Beaker individuals show greater affinities to Southwestern Europeans. In light of the geographic distribution of each culture, this led us to suggest Late Neolithic migration event C (~2800 cal BC) and D (~2500 cal BC) had brought additional genetic diversity to Central Europe. Intriguingly, some of the characteristic haplogroups of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker people, such as U2, U4, U5a and H, appear to match the respective Mesolithic substratum of Eastern and Southwestern Europe”.
This is what Harvard and Olalde have tried to combat, from my point of view in a grotesque way, because I repeat that their arguments are a joke-In any case, it is clear that these forums lose much of their effectiveness if we are not able to contrast our ideas with open minds.
To continue debating at this point the origin of the BB culture will not solve our problems, only rigorous studies of ancient dna will do it. Then we can only wait and meanwhile save effort, energy and time, because if every time we read a new theory we go to refute it, then we will continue to waste time. That is to say, you will continue thinking that the BB culture originated in Hungary in spite of what I tell you, therefore it is not worthwhile to continue debating about it.
Harvard and Kristiansen are very respectable, but from my point of view they are absolutely lost in simplistic and unconvincing arguments.
@Frank what's your opinion about the genetic effect of the TRB Tiefstich expansion on the genepool of the Northern Netherlands (specific Drenthe)?
In G25 I belong to the Nordic LNBA cluster and in good old Eurogenes admixtures I get Danish even above North Dutch result.
Of course there is SGC (also in both regions) and the 'Anglo-Saxon' influence during the migration period. Nevertheless..... (I filled it in somewhat..... the questions stays!!).
Weure: "what's your opinion about the genetic effect of the TRB Tiefstich expansion on the genepool of the Northern Netherlands (specific Drenthe)?"
Difficult to say without a decent aDNA transsect. Some kind of - let me call it "Wadden Sea" - cultural unit appears to have existed since the Younger Dryas, via Ahrensburgian, Maglemose-Kongemose, and strong parallels between Swifterband and Erteboelle (the main factor setting both apart was that Erteboelle had pottery, which Swifterband lacked, but otherwise, subsistence and burial habits look very similar). As such, I think the HG substrate of the N. Netherlands should have been similar to Denmark/ N. Germany throughout the Mesolithic.
The Neolithisation impulse for both Swifterband and Ertebölle seems to have come from Michelsberg, so the MN EEF part should also have been similar. WHG/EEF ratios, however, may have differed: While Swedish TRB (Gokhem) was predominantly EEF, Blätterhöhle suggests strong survival of HGs close to the Rhine, and Sorsum-Tiefstich indicates a substantial WHG element in Tiefstich.
Cultural relations continued during Single Grave/ BB (a.o. Danish flint dagger import into the N. Netherlands). I haven't yet looked into the BA in this respect, but I suspect one will also find connections there.
I don't know about the extent of population continuity in the NW Netherlands during the Migration Period. Many Chaucan settlements further east, e.g. Feddersen Wierde, were given up in favour of migration elsewhere, most notably England.
During the Middle Ages, the NW Netherlands were closely tied to the "Wadden Sea". Groningen was part of the Hanseatic League, and 13th to 15th Hamburg port books indicate Groningen as a major origin of incoming ships. The Gröningerstrasse in Hamburg's Old Town points towards substantial NW Dutch settlement, as does the "Alte Land" (corrupted from "Holland") in the Elbe marshes SW of Hamburg. Probably, that wasn't a one-way road but mirrored by respective N. German (Hamburg, Bremen, etc.) settlement in NW Holland. West and North Frisians should also maintained contact. Last but not least, there is an estimated 10-25% share of N. Germans (Holstein, Mecklenburg) among the initial settlers of Nieuw Amsterdam (->New York).
In view of all this, I find it difficult to pinpoint one specific event, like the TRB-Tiefstich expansion, as having shaped the genepool of the N. Netherlands. Interaction along the Wadden Sea commenced much earlier, and continued long afterwards.
Re discussion about about Iberia Mesolithic / Late Upper Paleolithic affinities in EN-MN farmers, some plots using f3 statistics uploaded by Davidski that may be interesting - https://imgur.com/a/8G4OoNZ
I get the impression that the relationship of the Iberia MLN-CHL groups to Iberia Mesolithic / Late Upper Paleolithic relative to WHG / Iron Gates HG look quite variable (although all more related to them than GAC groups), and more variation in other groups. There's a lot more variation.
Directly comparing f3 stat affinities to GAC_Ukraine vs other MN farmers looks like there is more simply, clean division and less variability. For whatever statistical reason. Groups like GAC Poland->GAC Ukraine and British Neolithic seem to have affinities that are clear and detectable in direct f3 stats, but are noisy at best to infer from the HGs.
Wait a second: are you guys telling me that haplogroup H mtDNA came from the WEST ie the Atlantic shore? As far as I know, both LBK and Cardial had mostly K1a, J2, W and even U5 Mesolithic, as well as mostly N1a1a. So, did Haplogroup H arrive from Spain? I’m trying to figure out how come mtDNA H became so prevalent within extant European populations since MN but something is too vague here, akin to a missing link.
The earliest mtdna H in/ near Europe is from Iron Gates Mesolithic & Kotias cave
@Frank N thanks!
A few reactions, in an anachronistic way.
1. The Hanseatic legua is indeed responsible for the fact that I speak a kind of Lower Saxon language in stead of a Frisian one (just like it's with the East-Frisians is the case, they speak Platt/ Lower Saxon and not Frisian).
2. The 'Anglo-Saxon' especially from the Elbe-Weser influx is along archeologist quite sure. First (in Roman times) in Groningen en North-Drenthe, later on (in migration time) to the fourth century (almost) abandoned Westergo (most western part of Friesland).
See:
http://jalc.nl/cgi/t/text/get-pdfd43e.pdf?c=jalc;idno=0402a03
3. LNBA, I cluster very clear in the Nordic LNBA cluster obviously the TRB/SGC are the basic layers in the gene pool around the North Sea? Isn't SGC, see Rise 98, a common thing in Denmark, NW Germany and North Dutch, the cause of the basic R1b U106 spread?
4. The Ertebølle thing intrigues me. According to Karsten Wentink (2006) the TRB expansion to the North Dutch area coming from the Danish/ Schleswig side, see the red Helgoland flints, also because of the fact that according Wentink the transition went fast and also because TRB west has more Ertebølle than Swifterbant features.
But according to this site the Ertebølle people were kind of in Australian verbs "little fellas" not people around 1.80m or higher.....is this site wrong?
http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-dk-historie7.htm#fem
weure: Thx for the links!
1. N. Netherlands in the Migration Period: Your link confirms my suspicion that there was little population continuity in the N. Netherlands between the 4th and 7th cAD. As such, the origin of affinity to Nordic LNBA lay probably further to the (North-)East, e.g. the Elbe-Weser triangle or Dithmarschen [As concerns the latter, pollen diagrams point to substantial population density during the 5th/ 6th cAD, as if everybody from East Holstein had gathered there waiting for the next boat to England (or the Netherlands?)..].
2. Erteboelle stature: I wouldn't really call mean male body height of 166 cm "little fellas", especially not in comparison to only 162 cm in ME SE Europe. There seems to have been quite a variation: For Skateholm in southernmost Scania, Mats Larsson "Life and Death in the Mesolithic of Sweden", p. 31 reports a male mean of 168 cm, but some individuals measuring 181 cm. Groß Fredenwalde males (near the lower Oder) from the Kongemose-Ertebölle transition phase (and their utmost periphery) just measured 161-162 cm (http://quartaer.eu/pdfs/2015/2015_06_terberger.pdf).
A caveat here, as possibly with all such data, is that there seem to be two competing approaches for estimating body height, namely Pearson 1899 and Trotter & Gleser 1952. Both extrapolate from the Femur (upper thigh bone) length, but use different factors. With the Trotter & Gleser method, the a/m Groß Fredenwalde males were estimated at 167-168 cm. Unfortunately, most publications that I have seen didn't specify the method used, so the possibility of apples-to-oranges comparisons cannot be excluded.
In any case, the apparent variation in Ertebölle body height is yet another indication that yDNA alone cannot satisfactorily explain a difference in stature.
@FranN, N. Netherlands in the Migration Period
The thing is that the more westwards along the North Sea Coast the bigger the population decline in the fourth century.
Drenthe is the most continuous but it's the Drenthe side of my ancestry that has the biggest Nordic LN/BA. So my educated guess is that Drenthe before the migration period had a Nordic LNBA like population (=TRB/SGC mixture). Or may be my Drenthe ancestry has a big NW Germany chunk (=Germanic migration influx). Difficult to disentangle.
Those Ertebølle types have very sloping forehead, that's another type than the Coonian Borreby although it's based on that. Those old anthropologist made it a mess and were obviously very biased.
Post a Comment