During the Final Eneolithic the Corded Ware Complex (CWC) emerges, chiefly identified by its specific burial rites. This complex spanned most of central Europe and exhibits demographic and cultural associations to the Yamnaya culture. To study the genetic structure and kin relations in CWC communities, we sequenced the genomes of 19 individuals located in the heartland of the CWC complex region, south-eastern Poland. Whole genome sequence and strontium isotope data allowed us to investigate genetic ancestry, admixture, kinship and mobility. The analysis showed a unique pattern, not detected in other parts of Poland; maternally the individuals are linked to earlier Neolithic lineages, whereas on the paternal side a Steppe ancestry is clearly visible. We identified three cases of kinship. Of these two were between individuals buried in double graves. Interestingly, we identified kinship between a local and a non-local individual thus discovering a novel, previously unknown burial custom. ... The PCA revealed that despite geographical proximity there is a distinct genetic separation between CWC and BBC individuals from southern Poland. The genetic variation of CWC individuals from southern Poland overlaps with the majority of previously published CWC individuals from Germany while the eight published CWC individuals from the Polish lowland [10,11] more closely resemble BBC individuals (Fig. S21). This fact is not unexpected if we consider the CWC communities in Polish lowlands as representatives of north-western parts of the CWC world called as the Single-Grave culture (see supplementary information). The genetic variation of BBC individuals from south-eastern Poland overlaps with the broad variation of BBC individuals from Central Europe (Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, south-western Poland and Hungary) (Fig. S22) which corresponds well with archaeological data.Linderholm, A., Kılınç, G.M., Szczepanek, A. et al. Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from south-eastern Poland. Sci Rep 10, 6885 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63138-w See also... The Battle Axe people came from the steppe Is Yamnaya overrated? Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Friday, April 17, 2020
Corded Ware cultural and genetic complexity (Linderholm et al. 2020)
Open access at Scientific Reports at this LINK. Although very useful and broadly accurate, I'm really not sure what to make of this paper yet, especially in regards to its more nuanced inferences. I'll need to look at the genotype data at some point. Worthy of note is that most of the Corded Ware males sampled by the authors belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-M269, rather than R1a-M417, which is the dominant Y-haplogroup in previously published Corded Ware samples. From the paper:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
275 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 275 of 275Aesch21 also has 25% Yamnaya and Y Chr G2a, looks like they were mixing.
I already wrote that Spreitenbach-Moosweg is a very strange collective burial, which has no analogues in the CWC world, why it is referred to the CWC I did not understand at all, but analogies are looking for it to the east. In general, people of the same generation, two at most, are buried there. Now its strangeness is confirmed genetically (I2), it is assimilated by CWC outcasts.
Romulus said...
"Aesch21 also has 25% Yamnaya and Y Chr G2a, looks like they were mixing."
Aesch site is attributed as the Bell Beaker culture.
https://books.google.at/books?id=57OVD144tUIC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=Aesch
@Archi
You're confused as always.
Before the paper was published there was nowhere any info that MX265 is from the Iron Age, you just guessed it right. Fortune favours fools, you know.
On the other hand it was obvious from the pre-publication sample list that MX265 is from the district of Constance, like Davidski and I have told you. You babbled shit about it being from Petit-Chasseur. But now the paper shows: It's from Singen near Lake Constance. I was right, you were wrong, you buffoon.
And the false info about Iron Age specimens from Aargau came from Davidski, not from me. I just trusted that his info was correct. It turned out it was wrong. So what? No big issue.
2 of the Spreitenbach females (MX196 and MX198) have as much Yamnaya component in their Yamnaya proportion minimal model as Aesch25. MX195 is also very high. The I2a-L161 the one has is common in British Neolithic samples and found in the Funnel Beaker culture. The I2c is shared with Unetice. They look like Eastern migrants from the Pre-Unetice zone.
Whatever the exact cultural affiliation of the Aesch site may be, it's almost exclusively dominated by yHG G2a and by people with no steppe. Aesch25 is the only R1b individual there, all others with tested yDNA are G2a and subclades. I suppose this means that Aesch25 is the individual in crouched position from the southeastern corner of the grave which already the original excavator Fritz Sarasin regarded as a probable Bell Beaker burial. There's indeed nothing suggesting Corded Ware here, except the autosomal similarity to Corded Ware people.
@copper
That article is hogwash. PIE might have been an EHG language, but Anthony's consensus on Maykop speaking Northwest Caucasian is based on weak evidence, he did not research the whole situation thoroughly.
Northwest Caucasian, evidently, was brought to Northwest Caucasus by the Dolmen culture AFTER the end of the Maykop culture, and neither did Darkveti-Meshoko give rise to Maykop, the general consensus is that Leyla Tepe was responsible for it, and they must've brought their language with them (which is unlikely to have been NWC, since they must have been very Iran_N-rich).
If you take a look at modern NWC speakers (and even the ones that do not speak NWC but are geographically located in Northwest Caucasus), then you'll see autosomally they lack an important component that Maykop harbored, which is Neolithic Iranian ancestry. In fact, NWC are the only Caucasians who completely lack it.
There were female exchanges between Maykop and Yamnaya/WSH from both sides. The Yamnaya Ozera outlier is a female with half Yamnaya half Maykop ancestry, while some late Maykop individuals showed 10-15% Yamnaya/WSH while carrying one of the more typical Maykop YDNA - L. The female mediated Steppe signal was seen in Armenia even in the Chalcolithic, before the appearance of the Maykop culture, its presence is pretty old in the Caucasus and could be one of the possible explanations for the Caucasus-PIE linguistic similarities.
It is also unrealistic to imagine that CHG language remained (as a fully evolved language and not as a substrate) in the Caucasus, because they, the CHG, moved from the Caucasus to the Steppe at Mesolithic or earlier, while the Caucasus has been a subject to massive settling from the East and South ever since. Those Steppe CHG themselves could have spoken language from totally different "language families", since there must have been a division between Western/Colchian CHG and Eastern/Caspian CHG (the latter could have carried more ANE and possibly Hotu-related ancestry).
As for MX265: I'm of the opinion that the central European Celts were not wiped out by the Romans and still provide a substantial proportion of ancestry to south-central Europeans like the Swiss, South Germans and Austrians, but also to Belgians and the French. Hence I expect Hallstatt and La Tène samples to enable sensible models for said modern populations. However, MX265 doesn't fulfill this requirement. So I suppose he wasn't overly typical for western Hallstatt and western La Tène at least. So far we have autosomal DNA from 3 Hallstatt samples: DA111 and DA112 from Bylany and now MX265 from Singen. DA111 is Occitan-like, DA112 is Austrian-like and MX265 is Serbian-like. So in any case there at least seems to be an important non-R1b Austrian- to Serbian-like eastern element in the pot, mixing with rather western-like people with low steppe and lots of R1b.
@Simon_W
In the table in Supplementary info 4 , more than half of the Aesch samples can be successfully modeled as having steppe ancestry, so it doesn't quite look like it was dominated by people with no steppe.
Simon_W said...
You're confused as always.
You said he was from Aargau, and on that basis you shouted that he could not be from La Tene time. You gave as an argument the information where the samples were stored without understanding anything about the subject, where the samples were stored and by whom they were provided, and how it did not relate to where they were found. You were wrong about everything without exception, you were wrong about everything without exception, and you shouted boorishly in all the messages. I was right about everything, except where they were found because they had their own unique numbering, but you were being boorish again.
@Archi
No, I never said MX265 was from Aargau! I said he was from the district of Constance, Germany! Either your memory is crap or you're a disgusting lier. Go and read in the other thread.
And the reason why I argued that he cannot be from the La Tene culture is what I just outlined in my previous post: He doesn't make sense in modelling
modern Swiss, South Germans, French etc.
@Simon_W
You're confused as always. You shouted that it couldn't be from La Tene time! Shouted quote "Not, definitely not!".
Books on Google Play
Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European
https://books.google.com/books?id=DHnEDwAAQBAJ
I was able to read four articles in the free preview.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DHnEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian split: Anthony.
https://books.google.com/books?id=DHnEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian split: Anthony.
Check out Anthony's Kamasutra in Figure 1.2
@Simon_W, "DA111 is Occitan-like, DA112 is Austrian-like and MX265 is Serbian-like."
DA111 is the only ancient Celt whom we have DNA from.
DA112 is a 'Scythian' not a Celt, by that I mean his DNA matches Scythians from Hungary. They're not really Scythians only partially. They are mostly Eastern European, similar to Hungary BA and Welzin_BA.
His DNA was sequenced by Damgaard 2018 on Eurasian Steppe, who sequenced this Hallstatt DNA because the site showed Scythian cultural influence. Which explains DA112's Central Asian admix and affinity to Scythian in Hungary.
It is a bummer two of three Iron age Celtic DNA samples, are East European migrants.
@Archi
You brought up the idea he was an Iron Age individual from Sion-Petit-Chasseur. Arza believed it and suggested he'd probably be typical La Tene (the culture, the people). I argued against this idea for the said reasons. Did you finally get it now?
@Romulus
"In the table in Supplementary info 4 , more than half of the Aesch samples can be successfully modeled as having steppe ancestry, so it doesn't quite look like it was dominated by people with no steppe."
Did you also take the standard deviation into account? Most Aesch samples show very low steppe in the models, and considering the standard deviation may well have 0. Except Aesch25 and Aesch21 who at least has 25.4%. The Admixture Analysis in the Supplement also shows the large majority of Aesch samples without steppe.
@Simon_W
Arza had nothing to do with it, you were the one who yelled to me that "that's nonsense" on my quote "La Te`ne period".
@Simon_W
That's all true but suffice it to say that it isn't as black and white as the grave containing a single high steppe outlier with R1b. The fact that an indigenous G2a sample has 25% Yamnaya is evidence of 2 way admixture between a Steppe and Swiss Neolithic community.
@Romulus and all
The fact that this paper is biased is that they didn't even mention that Aesch is attributed as the Bell Beaker culture! Although even on their rather bad Admixture you can see 2 samples of Aesch with steppe ancestry perfectly! Some others have it too, but very bad visibility.
@CRM: The Yamnaya Ozera outlier is a female with half Yamnaya half Maykop ancestry
As a tangent, interestingly, to me anyway, in G25, Ozera doesn't seem to exactly fit as simply Yamnaya+Maykop.
She seems to have more Anatolian ancestry than this formation would.
In PCA terms: https://imgur.com/a/3A27bk1
Which either means:
1) Her non-Yamnaya related ancestor had more Anatolian, and is somewhere intermediate Western-Central Anatolia and the Caucasus.
2) Her Yamnaya related ancestor had more ancestry from the Balkans than is typical of Yamnaya, and is somewhere between Yamnaya_Ukr and Yamnaya_Bulgaria.
This is presuming one of her ancestors is Yamnaya - she's kind of an outlier with no similar people, and no grave goods, so I wonder if she was formed from an unusual population.
Now back to the current paper.
David and Richard.
It's coming. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Buckle down.
Slight caution on taking some of their Steppe ancestry proportions as accurate:
Their method: Supplementary Data 4:
pLeft: "Test : WHG, Anatolia_Neolithic, Yamnaya_Samara"
pRight: "Using the right outgroups: Mbuti, Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, MA1_HG.SG, Villabruna, Papuan, Onge, Han, Karitiana"
Yeesh. So the modelling in Fig2b looks pretty cool (and estimates an arrival time without assuming that arrivals were 100% Yamnaya, just whatever best fits the linear trend over time... although assuming a linear trend is a bit dubious?).
But it seems a bit to me like they've maybe wasted it a little bit on data points formed by using qpAdm in ways that Harney's recent paper (and experience) would suggest is not the best practice - using pRight that are not the most informative for the populations in question, and which are confounded by a mix of different ascertainment and damage levels. There's probably quite a bit of signal there, but I bet it's pretty noisy.
Looking at the results directly, there's clearly a robust trend of real Yamnaya ancestry, but also some odd things like a good number of the LN samples having Yamnaya ancestry before they "should" (e.g. I2629, male from Scotland Neolithic at around 3000 BCE approx 47% Yamnaya; not correct!). The neolithic groups oscillate around 0 Yamnaya, so it's maybe not wrong for them as groups and may not invalidate the overall analysis, but for individual samples it may be dodgy.
E.g. - https://imgur.com/a/D02Nhtd
@Matt,
Yes it is always important to look at the details than to assume Maykop+Yamnaya. Option two makes sense to me.
@Archi,
Aesch25 is 2800-2500 BC. Apologize.
Swiss qpAdm sorted by Yamnaya_Samara, output tail_prob(000 including Yamnaya) >> tail_prob(001 excluded Yamnaya)
Individual_Name Site_Name Label Sex date_upper data_lower WHG Anatolia_Neolithic Yamnaya_Samara SD(WHG) SD(AnatoliaN) SD(Yamnaya) tail_prob(000) tail_prob(001)
Aesch25 Aesch Aesch m 2864 2501 0,113 0,089 0,798 0,032 0,071 0,072 0,922792 1,98E-23
MX251 Singen Singen f 2197 1981 0,213 0,103 0,683 0,053 0,123 0,123 0,195872 3,52E-07
MX195 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach m 2470 2050 0,153 0,169 0,678 0,034 0,073 0,072 0,48349 8,54E-18
MX199 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2409 2197 0,067 0,273 0,66 0,031 0,071 0,069 0,812467 1,55E-17
MX196 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2580 2290 0,103 0,25 0,647 0,03 0,071 0,072 0,892866 8,92E-15
MX198 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2900 2300 0,107 0,259 0,634 0,031 0,076 0,075 0,819279 8,99E-13
MX279 Singen Singen m 1882 1745 0,215 0,154 0,631 0,034 0,081 0,081 0,679478 1,89E-12
MX191 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach m 2570 2190 0,123 0,322 0,555 0,032 0,073 0,073 0,110263 8,23E-13
MX197 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2490 2294 0,146 0,318 0,536 0,033 0,073 0,075 0,245099 2,61E-10
MX188 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach m 2495 2399 0,214 0,255 0,531 0,029 0,073 0,073 0,284348 3,59E-11
MX194 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2489 2344 0,074 0,398 0,529 0,041 0,094 0,093 0,153814 4,63E-07
MX192 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach m 2571 2513 0,204 0,278 0,518 0,033 0,071 0,071 0,626267 1,06E-09
RA64 Zurzach Zurzach m 2206 2126 0,154 0,329 0,517 0,032 0,078 0,076 0,728875 2,37E-08
MX286 Singen Singen m 2029 1892 0,198 0,287 0,514 0,032 0,075 0,074 0,222022 2,18E-10
MX189 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach f 2105 2036 0,176 0,316 0,508 0,031 0,073 0,073 0,67698 1,30E-08
SX32 Lingolsheim Lingolsheim m 2463 2208 0,137 0,368 0,495 0,035 0,076 0,076 0,473048 4,84E-08
MX190 Spreitenbach Spreitenbach m 2860 2460 0,118 0,405 0,477 0,032 0,074 0,074 0,297381 4,34E-08
MX280 Singen Singen f 2035 1910 0,211 0,314 0,475 0,03 0,073 0,074 0,21649 9,75E-09
MX270 Singen Singen m 2199 1774 0,183 0,37 0,447 0,038 0,082 0,086 0,629838 2,54E-05
MX288 Singen Singen m 2199 2028 0,2 0,379 0,421 0,029 0,072 0,072 0,0789893 1,19E-07
MX275 Singen Singen m 2135 1961 0,244 0,336 0,42 0,034 0,075 0,074 0,656103 3,39E-06
SX23 Wartau Wartau f 1883 1749 0,147 0,443 0,409 0,031 0,069 0,07 0,922796 1,12E-05
MX283 Singen Singen m 2116 1926 0,221 0,376 0,403 0,031 0,068 0,069 0,707837 3,73E-06
MX254 Singen Singen m 2199 1774 0,199 0,412 0,389 0,028 0,067 0,069 0,42196 1,83E-06
MX257 Singen Singen m 1879 1696 0,175 0,436 0,389 0,032 0,077 0,074 0,530695 3,66E-05
RA63 Zurzach Zurzach m 2046 1946 0,143 0,472 0,385 0,034 0,079 0,078 0,159692 2,24E-05
SX20 Wartau Wartau m 1693 1609 0,152 0,473 0,375 0,028 0,072 0,072 0,615233 3,72E-05
MX265 Singen Singen m 763 431 0,136 0,505 0,359 0,032 0,071 0,072 0,241124 2,74E-05
MX252 Singen Singen m 1941 1774 0,151 0,521 0,328 0,034 0,077 0,076 0,235314 0,000469029
I5755 Sion-Petit-Chasseur, Dolmen XI Bell_Beaker_Switzerland M 2470 1985 0,125 0,553 0,323 0,049 0,106 0,1 0,882829 0,0859189
MX258 Singen Singen m 2028 1903 0,151 0,529 0,32 0,044 0,101 0,1 0,602343 0,0418094
SX18 Wartau Wartau f 178 0 0,134 0,58 0,286 0,03 0,07 0,07 0,841225 0,00747321
Aesch21 Aesch Aesch m 3000 2500 0,201 0,545 0,254 0,032 0,073 0,07 0,790502 0,0211293
not plausible tail_prob(000 including Yamnaya) > tail_prob(001 excluded Yamnaya), but not >>
MX298 Wartau Wartau m 2620 2448 0,199 0,237 0,564 0,138 0,308 0,269 0,407506 0,0989266
MX259 Singen Singen m 2456 2203 0,146 0,313 0,541 0,039 0,09 0,089 0,0473436 1,53E-08
MX256 Singen Singen f 2132 1922 0,13 0,429 0,441 0,07 0,167 0,175 0,713634 0,184375
MX310 Burgaeschisee Burgaeschisee m 2862 2581 0 0,7 0,3 0,064 0,161 0,169 0,467033 0,262963
Aesch16 Aesch Aesch f 3090 2918 0,2 0,563 0,237 0,044 0,116 0,111 0,177101 0,0558625
Aesch20 Aesch Aesch m 2913 2878 0,264 0,543 0,193 0,032 0,07 0,07 0,916729 0,216347
Aesch9 Aesch Aesch f 2917 2882 0,23 0,622 0,148 0,035 0,086 0,079 0,125682 0,0550512
@Samuel Andrews
Aesch25 is 2800-2500 BC. Apologize.
BTW interesting how the steppe admixed later samples, including the CWC from Spreitenbach, have a lower incidence of light eye colours than the Middle Neolithic samples without steppe. This is in line with previous evidence and underlines that the PIE don't conform to Nordicist convictions, even though Corded People are metrically Nordic
@Davidski, Can you please ban Archi and Gaska.
@Sam, yes, that one seems a bit more plausible out of the two options I could see. This is just very rough though - exhaustive qpAdm / vahaduo could probably sort out better what's going on with her and eliminate the worse option.
@all, re upthread comment about Yamnaya ancestry proportions in this paper, part of what I'm saying is that I wouldn't get *too* firmly attached to any of the relatively low or high ancestry proportions as being 100% correct. It's very unlikely that any sample with well above 30% Yamnaya has 0%, but I could see some of the Swiss very late Neolithic like Aesch21/MX310/MX304 potentially not even having any when re-checked. They may still show the same, but there's probably enough noise in the proportions that it's worth checking out again with less noisy method.
@Samuel Andrews
You're the one who deserves a ban for your lies. I only write the truth that you can't tolerate.
@Matt " I could see some of the Swiss very late Neolithic like Aesch21/MX310/MX304 potentially not even having any when re-checked."
On the ADMIXTURE Aesch also has two samples with a high steppe ancestry. MX310/MX304 have a not high probability of having a steppe component and a high probability of excluding that component.
@Rob, those Germanic tribes did indeed spread R1b U106. It's reasonable that for example typical 'Scandic lines' like Z18 got a spread around the North Sea.
Nevertheless there were large parts of for example the southern parts of the Netherlands that were never target of the Germanic spread still got plenty R1b U106.
What we do know is that about 1800 BC @Oostwoud there was already a R1b U106 sample so pretty pre-Germanic.
@Matt
Yes, you're right, I wasn't aware of any additional sources, but the signal is there.
Some quick G25 modelling.
https://i.imgur.com/SnJ6Oon.png
@Samuel Andrews
We need Gaska on here to have somebody to make fun of for being stupid. No need to ban him.
@Archi, fair enough that does seem to be so, there are two samples in that ADMIXTURE. Aesch25 seems certainly likely to be one of them. Not clear to me who the other is.
@CRM, cheers, that's interesting.
@Matt
It became fashionable to display data very badly, incompletely, misunderstood, incomprehensible. Although there is a postulate in statistics that half of the statistics is a perfect display of data.
Need to find context of Aesch 25
Seems a like re-deposit in megalithic dolmen
“
The dolmen burial of Aesch was excavated in 1907 and 1909. The megalithic burial consisted of one rectangular grave chamber 4m long and 3m wide with a flagged floor. Skeletal remains of 33 adult individuals and 14 children were recovered. 25 of the skeletons comprised petrous bones, which were used for DNA analysis and radiocarbon dating. Samples were provided by the Archaeological Service of the canton of Basel Landschaft.”
Pretty non descript summary
Posture ? Position ? Goods ?
Ah. - https://edoc.unibas.ch/55691/1/Chronologie_und_Regionalitaet_neolithischer_Kollektivgräber_in_Europa_und_in_der_Schweiz.pdf
Pp 148-9
@Archi, yes, the way the ADMIXTURE is presented seems poor for no real reason. They easily had the space to print a more legible ADMIXTURE chart (with better colour contrasts, well labelled) and chose not to.
....
On the neolithic samples, quick comment:
- "Four of these sites contained more than two closely related individuals, which allowed us to reconstruct family trees spanning three generations for Oberbipp, Aesch and Singen(Fig. 4). In these multiple burials, only a few female individuals (four individuals) were buried together with one of their parents or their sons, compared with a higher number (21 individuals) of males buried with their father, brothers or sons, indicating that males likely tended to stay where they were born, while females were likely mobile. This pattern is observed both before and after the arrival of the YAM-related ancestry and is indicative of patrilocal societies during Late Neolithic times in the studied region, consistent with previous results from Neolithic times throughout Northern and Western Europe".
Another brick in the wall of LN patrilocality and male kindred societies. (One of the Oberbipp burials seems to have a man with two wives and then some of his sons and grandsons).
- Neolithic source population for the admixing event - this is reasonably clever section; to try and identify the source for EEF ancestry in Yamnaya related populations, they add different MN populations into their pRight for their standard qpAdm.
The idea is that if the model returns failing values for a given MN population, that indicates that the target shares drift with the MN pop that is not captured well by AnatoliaN+WHG. They find that the model returns passing for Iberia and French Neolithic (though the p-value for passing does not look very good to me, still), but fails when GAC / LN Switzerland are added.
This is a reasonable test, but I think it's on shaky ground given the questions about base model, and also not really explicit about what exactly is causing the p-value to shift. It's anyway not really a substitute for describing the affinity of LN EEF Switzerland pop directly.
@Weure
To be pre-Germanic doesn't excude to be part of the Germanics genesis -
Like for Celts, I don't think Germanics were arrived as late as their language was indentied as Germanic; Germanic languages are not arrived allmade from far elsewhere, born by brand new newcomers. They formed in place by osmosis and linguistic late enough drift.
Archi is right - the CW burial were I2 guys
R1b seems like an early steppe migrant burial in a communal dolmen.
This is a bit odd
It's not really that odd. Aesch25 represents the very early stages of steppe influence spreading into the region. Sort of like a pioneer. So no wonder he was forced to adapt.
The Corded Ware-proper samples are more mixed, and represent a well formed Corded Ware culture that took hold in the region.
@Davidski "The Corded Ware-proper samples are more mixed, and represent a well formed Corded Ware culture that took hold in the region."
It took not hold in this region, it is a burial of one generation of people, it is a one-time collective burial. These are obviously outcasts before this coming from the CWC area, apparently assimilated by CWC genetic, but culturally from CWC they have very little. In general, they disappear immediately, as do their unassimilated ancestors in CWC.
@Archi
Clearly, you have some serious mental issues.
You're like Russia's version of Carlos Quiles.
Get off the internet and get some fresh air. It might do you some good.
It is odd because it doesn’t quite fit cultural practice
As in Petit-Chasseur , BB guys reused dolmens after clearing out earlier bones ; which date to 2800
It seems odd that Aesch25 dates to the same time as the Neolithic guys
I’m gonna look deeper
Aesch25 seems to have been part of this early mixed community.
@ Davidski
I wrote you the conclusions of the archaeologists. They are the ones who claim that people of the one generation are buried there and that CWC is disappearing in Switzerland. They're the ones who claim it's a collective burial.
Dave .
Could be .
What I like about this paper is it doesn’t make dubious sweeping conclusions of the earlier papers
It seems early steppe people didn’t just wipe out others
But something happened after 2500 , with BB especially
Samuel Andrews
Relating culture to biology is extremely stupid. There is such a thing as 'assimilation' and cultural development is much more influenced by geographical factors and other needs
Specific genes can have an influence on specific things, but in general culture develops in a social way.
Look at some of the WHG-ANF proportions (Yamnaya excluded) in their qpADM:
Aesch25 0,113 WHG; 0,089 ANF ~ 56% WHG
MX251 0,213 WHG; 0,103 ANF ~ 67% WHG
MX279 0,215 WHG; 0,154 ANF ~ 58% WHG
Those ratios look implausible to me. I mean - how could they have come across? Straight from the Steppe to Wartberg, marrying there your brother's daughter (who had arrived somewhat earlier there to marry a local Woman), to then send your son down to Switzerland?
There's something fishy with the whole 3-way WHG-ANF-Yamnaya approach. Obviously, the ANF already incorporated in Yamnaya is driving the ANF ratio downwards to unrealistically low levels. IMO, we need to
(i) look for a less ANF-loaded Steppe source than Yamnaya -probably genetically close to the Elbrus piedmont samples (SSII might maybe work, but I fear even that sample might already incorporate too much ANF);
(ii) introduce an additional WHG-heavy source in the modelling. That source could have a good dose of EHG, i.e. be rather SHG-like, in order to balance out the extra CHG in the piedmont samples; and
(iii) blend the result with with a rather WHG-heavy MN sample.
Anybody here wanting to try some modelling with Elbrus piedmont, SHG/Narva/PWC, GAC Kujawy, plus some Alpine MN (Iceman, Remedello, France_MN etc.)?
@Rob,"But something happened after 2500 , with BB especially"
Yep, I agree. A highlight from wew Swiss & Poland ancient DNA is there that there was population discontinuity from the Coded Ware to Bell Beaker transition in Central Europe.
@Henrique Paes, "Relating culture to biology is extremely stupid."
I wasn't saying cultures are different because of different genes. I was saying that usually people of the same culture are the same ethnicity and therefore have the same genes.
And, that ancient DNA confirms that in prehistoric Europe this was usually the case. But, European archaeologist are very skeptical of this idea of linking culture to ethnicity. I am saying they need to change this view because ancient DNA shows they are wrong.
Otherwise, this study is another illustration of the paradoxon discussed by Furholt 2019:
- On one hand, CWC (or maybe better SGBR) presents itself as a phenomenon of highly mobile (R1a/b) men, which were able to spread across thousands of kilometers in very short time (150 years, i.e. 5 generations, from the Lower Vistula to Zurich lake);
- OTOH, study after study demonstrates MN/LN patrilocality, and a higher mobility among women than men.
Clearly, prevailing narratives ("Steppe herders") can't explain this paradoxon (btw., men travelling together with their herds would hardly be able to move/ spread at the observed speed).
The "conquer, kill the men, rape the women" scenario does also not seem to fit particularly well (obviously not for Switzerland). I mean - the Romans raped the Sabinians, and returned home with their prey, which would confirm with the "patrilocal / higher female mobility" aspect. However, at least during the Republican period, they did not establish themselves in substantial quantities thousands kms away from Rome (if they had, there wouldn't be any Basque, Greek or Albanian still spoken in Europe).
We seem to still miss an important aspect on the functionning of those SGBR societies, which explains the paradoxon described above.
@ FrankN
"Clearly, prevailing narratives ("Steppe herders") can't explain this paradoxon (btw., men travelling together with their herds would hardly be able to move/ spread at the observed speed)."
Looks like you forgot about the Mongol Empire...
@FrankN
"On one hand, CWC (or maybe better SGBR) presents itself as a phenomenon of highly mobile (R1a/b) men, which were able to spread across thousands of kilometers in very short time (150 years, i.e. 5 generations, from the Lower Vistula to Zurich lake)"
R1b in Switzerland does not belong to SGBR, especially to CWC.
@weure
"Nevertheless there were large parts of for example the southern parts of the Netherlands that were never target of the Germanic spread still got plenty R1b U106."
South of the Netherlands (Noord-Brabant and the area's where the Batavi lived) and the Belgian Kempen completely were abandoned round 300 and resettled. This is attested historically (wars with the Franks after which they are allowed to settle as foederati) and archaeology confirms this. There is no settlement found that doesn't show this hiatus.
@Rob
Tancoigné could be a similar case as the Aesch sample, with the difference that we can suggest that he was here because of trade, with Grand Pressigny - Daggers of its flint were found in Dutch SGC barrows - so close.
The SGBR only belongs to those Bell Beakers' burials which are actually within the CWC or densely along the border and in Britain which have obviously migrated from the Netherlands border with the CWC. All other BBCs do not belong to the SGBR, and they are the vast majority.
MX265 explains how the Roman name Lacus Venetus was created.
@Moesan,
'To be pre-Germanic doesn't excude to be part of the Germanics genesis'
Indeed fully agree.
But 'traditional' R1b U106 is seen in respect to the Germanic genesis.
But it's history is older than the Germanic genesis.
Besides that what is Germanic? Yes a cultural label, but there is no such thing as a 'common Germanic genome' ;) (nor Celtic etc).
@ FrankN
How about Tanged Arrow Heads from the Pitted Ware Culture ? Connection to Bell Beaker maybe ?
As far as I can remember there were also some double burials in Single Grave Denmark...
And Amber Discs and Beeds...Baltic connection just like the probable tanged arrowheads of Pitted Ware and Bell Beaker ?
@Ric Hern
Double burials were also reasonably common in Swedish Battle Axe (including undisputed ones with actual Battle Axe artifacts, not just dubious grave goods free burials that could be post-Battle Axe), so they're nothing foreign to CWC.
@ Angantyr
Indeed.
Ric, Argantyr - re: Double burials
It's useful to recall Furholt's (2019) definition of the SGBR:
1. individual interments,
2. gender differentiation,
3. male warriors, and
4 (mostly) strict rules of orientation of the dead
as opposed to collective burials of preceding periods and adjacent areas, and the cremating cultures of the MBA/EIA.
As such, a double burial that contains a man equipped with a battle axe certainly counts as belonging to the SGBR complex. The same, btw., applies to the El Argar "double burials", where grave goods were clearly gender-differentiated (men with halberds/daggers, women with awls), and also to the Eulau burials (partly combining a female with genetically-related infants). Those Danish "double burials" would require checking on a case-by-case base, but I guess many of them would equally qualify as belonging to the SGBR.
Even when it comes to Aesch25, one could argue that his crouched position and spatial separation from the other interred reflects a SGBR element (orientation) within an otherwise (still) non-SGBR context.
As to the PWC tanged arrowheads: I don't think they have much to do with BB, because their general shape is lanceotic, not triangular, see
https://alvastrapiledwelling.historiska.se/projectile-points-in-the-pile-dwelling/
Otherwise, they appear to pre-date BB (2,900-2,600 BC), and to have entered Battle Axe and Final (Danish Isles) TRB contexts. It is yet unclear whether that "diffusion" relates to cultural exchange, or actually certifies armed conflict between PWC and their neighbours. Recent thinking seems to tend towards the latter.
https://www.academia.edu/15174438/Cultural_identity_The_Middle_Neolithic_Pitted_Ware_complex_in_southern_Scandinavia
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311217072_Arrowheads_as_indicators_of_interpersonal_violence_and_group_identity_among_the_Neolithic_Pitted_Ware_hunters_of_southwestern_Scandinavia
Apel (2014) has tried to trace back the origins of the different projectile types that during the LN re-converge around the North Sea, and comes up with three lines:
1. Triangular, tanged (and barbed) arrowheads originated in the 6th mBC Levante, spread together with agriculture through N. Africa, from where they entered first Iberia, that the Artenacien, to ultimately become typical of BB.
2. Lanceotic or leaf-shaped points (arrowheads) arose somewhere in Central Asia, to more-less simultaneously around 5,000 BC appear in Djebel (W. Turkmenistan), the pre-Caspian Culture and Khvalynsk, and the Atbasar Culture in NC Kazakhstan (plus subsequent Botai). Somewhere between Volga and Dniepr, they split into two substreams:
a) elongated forms travelling up the Volga with Combed Ceramics, arriving maybe as early as 4,600 BC on the Arctic Sea, and during the late 5th mBC on the Gulf of Finland, from where they ultimately reached PWC.
b) more rhomboid forms, eventually evolving into (non-tanged) triangles, finding their way into CT and from there into the Danubian MN and ultimately (Lesser Polish) CWC.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/5981499/7991559.pdf
individual interments, gender differentiation, male warriors, and mostly strict rules of orientation of the dead
@Angantyr "Double burials were also reasonably common in Swedish Battle Axe"
Don't you confuse double burials with paired burials? They're different things. Pair graves are the norm in CWC everywhere.
In CWC there is a distinctive feature, men always lie on the right side, although the orientation on the sides of the world may vary depending on the local group, but in the central CWC is always west-east. In the Eastern BBC, which has been heavily influenced by CWC, men lie on the left side mostly head north. Interestingly, in Swedish Battle Axe they also lie head north, but on the right side.
@FrankN
"b) more rhomboid forms, eventually evolving into (non-tanged) triangles, finding their way into CT and from there into the Danubian MN and ultimately (Lesser Polish) CWC."
In the Lesser Polish CWC they are from a BB.
https://lup.lub.lu.se/search/ws/files/5981499/7991559.pdf
"1. Triangular, tanged (and barbed) arrowheads originated in the 6th mBC Levante, spread together with agriculture through N. Africa, from where they entered first Iberia, that the Artenacien, to ultimately become typical of BB."
@Archi
"Don't you confuse double burials with paired burials? They're different things. Pair graves are the norm in CWC everywhere"
The word "double" is used in the literature I have read. "Pair", not so much, but I guess you mean a pair of man and woman? Yes, those certainly exist, they might even be the norm, but the problem is that the vast majority of the (presumed) Battle Axe double graves lack skeletal remains due to bad preservation conditions, so they're classified as double graves based on having seemingly double sets of grave goods. And many don't have clearly one male and one female set - there's at least one grave with what looks like two male sets.
@ Archi
That is a very confusing article...
@ Archi
Another article I have read claim that the tanged arrowheads of the Levant can not be properly dated properly because of the re-use of material sights throughout the ages...could be as late as the Chalcolithic in that area...
@Angantyr "but the problem is that the vast majority of the (presumed) Battle Axe double graves lack skeletal remains due to bad preservation conditions, so they're classified as double graves based on having seemingly double sets of grave goods. And many don't have clearly one male and one female set - there's at least one grave with what looks like two male sets."
Such graves cannot be qualified as double burials within this culture. Double burials within this culture are only same-sex burials without gender opposition, all the rest are paired. If the gender is not defined in them, then this is not our case and it cannot be given as an example and comparison with Swedish Battle Axe is incorrect.
Pair burial: burial of male and female in gender opposition.
Double burial: burial of two male or female without gender opposition. Kids don't count.
@Archi
"Arza had nothing to do with it, you were the one who yelled to me that "that's nonsense" on my quote "La Te`ne period"."
That's a blatant lie. I added right in the next post that this latter comment was rather directed @Arza.
@Archi
"Pair burial: burial of male and female in gender opposition.
Double burial: burial of two male or female without gender opposition. Kids don't count."
That terminology is obviously not used by Swedish archaeologists.
Anyways, I did some reading and both variants are attested (male + female in gender opposition and male + male without gender opposition).
About MX265: What's the context of his burial? What was written so far fits well into the concept of a Thraco-Cimmerian upper class among Hallstatt. At the end of Hallstatt this elite was largely overthrown by the commoners with possible new influences (steppe-Scythian and Greek), resulting in the early La Tene culture of more clearly Celtic affiliation.
Post a Comment