Take my wife, please !

There’s a new paper out in Science – ” The genomic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the past 8000 years” .  It discusses genetic change over time, from hunter-gatherer days, the arrival of the Anatolian-ancestry farmers, and the coming of the Indo-Europeans.

The chart above shows what happened when the Indo-Europeans show up. Autosomal steppe ancestry goes from zero to ~40%, but on the Y-chromosome, it goes from zero to 100% over a few hundred years.  As quoted in the New York Times, archaeologists ruled out violence as a possible cause. [ ” I cannot say what it is,”said Roberto Risch, an archaeologist from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who was not involved in the new studies/ But he ruled out wars or massacres as the cause. “It’s not a particularly violent time,”, he said.

Instead, Dr. Risch suspects “a political process” is the explanation. ]

For background: archaeologists have saying things like this for many years. They denied that there had been  major migrations and population replacements in prehistory [proven wildly wrong ]. They could find a Neolithic fort in England covered with scattered bone fragments and suggest that it must have been a place where bodies were exposed for excarnation, like the Parsee Towers of Silence.

They’re nuts.

To those who like the notion that the Indo-Europeans triumphed because they carried in bubonic plague ( or some other pathogen) that blasted immunologically naive EEF farmers: find me a plague that only kills men – all of them.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to Take my wife, please !

  1. John Engelman says:

    When this process takes place, human evolution advances. A similar process explains and justifies the state of Israel.

    • Esso says:

      Nobody needs justification for taking their own side and standing up for themselves.

      • NobodyExpectsThe... says:

        Yes you do. Usually, when conditions demand that you have to justify yourself to third parties.

        • Esso says:

          If you go along with a process where you have to argue for your existence or physical integrity they’re going to get your lunch money every time.

          • jb says:

            It’s not like you have a choice. There are always going to be third parties who have power over you, like it or not.

          • just a lurker says:

            If you want some third party paying for your lunches for all eternity, you definitely need to make up some justification that will persuade them.
            It helps when the third party is dumber than pile of rocks, you can then invent any fairy tale about “demoncrazy” “freedum” or “holy sand” and they swallow it whole.

    • jbbigf says:

      That human evolution advances is tautological. The essential nature of “evolution” is, “That which is best suited to prosper prospers”. This explains much, but justifies nothing.

  2. Polynices says:

    When I saw those moronic comments I know you’d have something to say. Thank you for not disappointing. Amazing that someone (or a whole field) can be so willfully ignorant.

  3. Ἀλέξανδρός says:

    “a plague that only kills men – all of them”

    The only foreign body that ever does something like this is …. other men. But to get all them? I haven’t seen any evidence that the EEF, unlike Amerindians, were particularly susceptible to disease, but sticking a shovel anywhere within a hundred yard radius of one of those Neolithic forts and you’ll find plenty of evidence that they were particularly susceptible to Indo-Europeans.

    Greg, how do you think the Mongols rank against the Indo-Europeans? I’m trying to think of instances where the Mongols might have done something like this. They well-night exterminated all the men after conquering the Tanguts (and maybe of the odd delusional city like Samarkand, Baghdad) but I’m pretty sure they wiped out the women, too.

    You don’t meet many Tanguts nowadays, and the good money isn’t on an epidemiological explanation. The Hazara must skew heavily Mongol but, like the Mesitzo, I bet they’re pretty far from hitting total replacement.

  4. dearieme says:

    When I first read about archaeology as a teenager two things stuck out.

    (i) Based on no evidence at all archaeologists were prone to rule out invasion/migration as an explanation for anything.

    (ii) Faced with any discovery they did not understand they attributed it to religious ritual.

    I once joked to a school teacher that archaeology was the study of cracked pots by crackpots. He had the decency to smile.

    It is deeply satisfying to see my adolescent scepticism so well justified by the recent science of ancient DNA.

    It would also be satisfying if someone were to do respectable science on Goebbels Warming and on the nutrition/CVD/statin nexus.

    • David Chamberlin says:

      I love this “expert” talking about how it wasn’t a particularly violent time so a 100% replacement of males was a political process. Stunningly stupid. The same dumb argument has been made in multiple places at multiple locations. “Where are all the cracked skulls? It must have been a peaceful transition.”

      Um….murdered people aren’t given formal burials. They are left where they were murdered and their bones are scattered by wild beasts. We don’t find their bones. Furthermore these so called experts on all these pre written history peoples aren’t experts at all, they know next to nothing about these lost cultures. It isn’t surprising that new evidence, real evidence, ancient DNA, is correcting their very bad guesses.

      • Ashraf says:

        “Autosomal steppe ancestry goes from zero to ~40%, but on the Y-chromosome, it goes from zero to 100% over a few hundred years.”

        How wide was the area of study? It strikes me that Spain was occupied by Moors for about 700 years. Were the Muslims, presumably Arabs and Berbers, Indio-europeans? Did they leave no significant genetic contribution?

        The “100% over a few hundred years” might be comparing a period of a few hundred years, rather then the final result.

      • No Age of Crushed Skulls then? says:

        I don’t really like this position that much, as it seems a bit inconsistent with claims that there really is extraordinary evidence of violence in say, Sweden in an “Age of Crushed Skulls”.

        You cannot have “Extreme violence happened and we have clear evidence of it in a small scale, scatted, rural society that shows it did” (i.e. that we did in fact “find their bones”), along with “And where we don’t have evidence, I assert it happened anyway and the evidence is just somewhere out there”. It’s not really a consistent position, whether high levels of violence seems likely (it does) or not. It seems rather “Heads I’m right, tails I’m right”.

        • Rory says:

          “… where we don’t have evidence, the evidence is just somewhere out there.”

          Well if literally 100% of the male population dying without reproducing isn’t evidence enough, how could smashed skulls be? It’s not just that that’s exceptional evidence of conquest (much better evidence than a pile of skulls in fact), it’s that every proposed alternative is ludacris. A peaceful political process whereby all the native males are prohibited from mating? Give me a break, maybe aliens abducted all the men to be lab experiments, that’s more believable.

          Sometimes it’s “heads I’m right, tails I’m right” because there’s only one right answer, and as far as I can tell 100% replacement of all males in the gene pool is as good as evidence gets for this particular position (save perhaps 100% replacement of the males and the females, but that would probably be harder to detect).

          • Alternatives says:

            I don’t know exactly, but would suggest one possibility is incoming groups that fused between Central European / Southern French males and Iberian females could’ve been better competitors in most venues and placed population pressures on others without massacres, etc. taking place much.

            Maybe not much violence happened but there was a good deal of threat of it and hostility, so Iberian groups under pressure from R1b newcomers slowly migrated into a small part of the peninsula then died out. Maybe they bullied them off their land. The Trail of Tears is not exactly a new idea. Or perhaps the disruption just broke up their farming systems so badly that many of them starved to death.

            The world of the past is full of natural limits, extinction and death, well before we consider genocide, or androcide. I doesn’t take very much imagination to think of alternatives. Again it’s best to consider what is possible within the evidence rather than simply assert that a certain thing happened and is the only possible history.

          • Alternatives says:

            To boot, “Take my wife, please” is stupid, yes.

            “Take my daughter, please (especially an alliance with you provides me with defense against my local competitors, whom I certainly don’t have any of the least sort of ‘ethnic genetic interests’ with)” is at least somewhat less so.

            Not to mention “Take my female slaves, please” is pretty f**king common as well (look at the Slavs, at least), and that’s a thing that hierarchical Iberian chiefdoms could have which brideless Central European immigrant males would want.

            Lots of nasty willingness to use daughters and low ranking females as tools for alliance between families and groups in the past. The alternative to “mass bride raiding” is not only “free female choice of invaders”*. There’s some evidence of continuity of languages in Iberia (to the extent that we can estimate from direct evidence 2000 years later!), so we might want to consider that there are ways this could happen despite ultimately marginalizing native males y haplogroups.

            Mass androcide could have happened and is not improbable at all, but it seems a poverty of the imagination and use of evidence to just point blank count out a mix of other scenarios and forces.

            *Female mate choice being anyway something which barely existed through history – https://twitter.com/Evolving_Moloch/status/1104532961657942017. Even outside of violence, marriage for females usually controlled by older males.

            Even male mate choice, though more so than female, probably did not really exist frequently, with most marriages being arranged by older males in the lineage – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313851502_Why_people_stay_single_An_evolutionary_perspective – “anthropological and historical evidence indicates that, in ancestral human societies, mate choice was regulated, with parents choosing spouses for their children and not their children for themselves”

            • random observer says:

              That actually sounds like the compromise position, since it can be interpreted as part of either side, or a refinement of either side.

              I had not had the impression that the mainstream archaeologists’ position on something like “a political process” was intended to convey what you are getting at. Since what you are getting at goes very far into the territory of conflict and conquest, it just doesn’t require complete genocide. If they are aiming at such conclusions, good for them but they need much more explicit communications because it’s not coming across. It sounds more like care bears showed up and developed a set of village welfare programs that just happened to alter the DNA of the male population.

              Whether or not our hosts or other critics automatically mean there was complete genocide all the time or that is more of a rhetorical gambit against the seeming obtuseness of the mainstream, I can’t say. But what you lay out here probably encompasses the bulk of major population replacements in recorded history. Some initial violence, sporadic thereafter, room for occasional skull heaps, but total replacement takes time and is only occasionally total.

              I’m curious what the latest is on England. Last I heard, there was ample violence, but there was also the kind of “political process” and selective pressures you describe. The Normans were few but managed to put their DNA widely into circulation, and probably mostly male lines. Earlier, the Saxons were more numerous and did so more effectively, but the British element was not eliminated. I don’t recall what if anything was said about male line British persistence, or if it was all female.

              • Frau Katze says:

                Tribal style fighting typically meant the men of the losing tribe were all killed, the females and children kept as slaves. I’m going by Homer, but it seems to agree with real life accounts.

                I don’t think the Norman invasion was this style of fighting.

                I don’t know about Norman male DNA, do you have a reference? Don’t forget that the Normans were originally Norse themselves.

                My understanding was the bulk of population was left alone, with the Normans being royalty. There weren’t that many of them.

                Vocabulary relating to every day life of the plebs remained Germanic. French was the language of the royalty. This pattern persists in the English language to this day.

        • David Chamberlin says:

          We can blather back and forth till the hogs come home and it won’t make a damn bit of difference. What does the genetic evidence say? It says in this instance that one group of males were completely replaced by another. If their was a universal Henny Youngman attitude in real life by Spaniards in this time frame than by God you are right. Ain’t likely is it.

  5. Reblogged this on The Daily Walk and commented:

    This is a very interesting read! The key to our present and future is in the past! I highly recommend checking out this article and the topic addressed!

  6. jb says:

    Heh. When I originally read the article, in my head I misattributed the “not a particularly violent time” comment to David Reich, a co-author of the paper, rather than Roberto Risch, who is some random anthropologist that Zimmer reached out to for some reason. So now instead of being embarrassed for Reich I’m embarrassed for Zimmer.

    • albatross says:

      If a reporter seeks out a reputable expert in a relevant field for a quote, and the relevant expert is an idiot and his field is largely peddling bullshit on this topic, it seems like the reporter is not the main problem there.

  7. teageegeepea says:

    Outside of sub-saharan Africa I would think AIDS is one of the more male-skewing deadly diseases. And despite the warnings of the World Health Organization, it didn’t break out of the “4-H club” into the mainstream.

  8. Yes, just like how to archaeologists call the weapons they find were “Status symbols, not meant for actual use.”

  9. X-chromsome also confirms sex-bias admixture. Check out Table S14.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Kristian Kristiansen said it was the plague that decimated the European Neolithic population and their weakened state is what allowed them to be swiftly conquered and annihalated.

    • Alex says:

      How would that plague be transmissible so easily in a low population density area? The only way I can think of is if it was carried by a resistant migrant population, like a conquering army.

      • albatross says:

        Wouldn’t that be similar to some of what happened to American Indian tribes post Columbus? The plague comes through and wrecks the civilization (lost skills and knowledge from the graveyards being filled with indispensible men, cities withering away, trade routes disappearing), and a few generations later, the invaders finish you off?

        • Alex says:

          Exactly. These were place with high population density because of cities and productive agriculture, high levels of trade, good infrastructure, centralized empires. Europe of that time was none of these.

      • R. says:

        Plagues killed off most of North American hunter gatherers. Settled neolitihic societies had higher population densities.

  11. Cpluskx says:

    They moved after plauge hit and weakened the Europe. Rest of the story must be obviously very violent .

  12. J says:

    I wonder why in Spain the male replacement was total while in the rest of Europe, Anatolian farmer Y genes are still around.

    • Zimriel says:

      Much of Spain is like Arizona. Semiarid horse-and-ranch country. Northern Spain and Portugal have more hills and forests, so I’d bet the male replacement wasn’t total there. (Yet. Around the Pyrenees you have to factor in later movements of Aquitanian Basques southward during Late Antiquity / The Dark Age.)
      I do believe some American Westerns were filmed in Spain. (Sicily too.)

      • NobodyExpectsThe... says:

        Pluviometry doesnt really follow a clear cut north-south axis. Rainiest place in Spain is on Cadiz, close to Gibraltar, while some sections of the Ebro Valley, way up north are semi-arid. The only region generally like Arizona in Spain is the south east, Alicante, Murcia and Almeria.

        In Almeria is where they filmed most of the spagetti western movies in 60s-70s, but not only that. Much to the point of this post, the first Conan movie was filmed there. At least the semi-desert parts. The Conan as a child part, village massacre at the begining, is a mountain forest in Segovia, near Madrid. The same with Patton, but in reverse. Early part of the movie is Almeria-Tunis, late is Segovia-Ardennes.

        And the Basques… R1b is the strongest in the Basque Provinces.

        • Frau Katze says:

          The genetic evidence certainly suggests a total replacement of the men.

          One thing confuses me. The Basque language (not linguistically related to any other known language) is definitely not Indo-European.

          IE languages took total control in the rest of western Europe, in what is now Great Britain and France.

          Nobody knows about the original languages apart from the existence of the Basque language. Why would it survive if the males were completely eliminated?

          • Armaghan says:

            Why would it survive if the males were completely eliminated?
            Because “Strong independent Basque woman who don’t need no man!”

          • gregor says:

            Yeah, it’s a little counter-intuitive that the only group that speaks a pre-IE language in Europe is 90% R1b Y lineage. But even given a situation of near total male replacement, it really isn’t so unbelievable that the “mother tongue” might win out over the paternal language. Maybe the more surprising thing is that it didn’t happen anywhere else. In fact, it did in that Basque was not the only non-IE language to survive initially; it’s just the only one still around today. Without the Romans, there’d probably be more.

            • J says:

              It is counter-intuitive that a group that speaks a pre-IE language in Europe is 90% R1b Y lineage. Yet there are others – Hungarians are Europeans and speak an Asiatic language; Finns are pure Yamaya (West Hunters if you want) and speak a non European language.

              • gregor says:

                The Uralic languages are non-IE but not really pre-IE. The Magyars settled the Carpathian basin in the 9th century AD.

              • ThirdWorldSteveReader says:

                Do we know whether Basque is pre-IE in the region it currently occurs, though?

              • Frau Katze says:

                @ThirdWorldSteveReader Yes, we know it existed prior to the incoming of IE speakers.

                We also know there was a non-IE language in Italy called Etruscan, and that the Romans copied some of language, including the odd way Romans constructed names.

                The Greek alphabet also reached Rome via the non-IE Etruscans. In Etruscan it seems “g” and “k” were not distinct in their language.

                So the Romans had the third letter “c” and they also had “k” but now no “g-sound” and they needed both. By the time it was noticed everyone was used to “C” pronounced like “K” so they added a brand new character “G” by adding a bit to “C”. “K” was pretty much dropped. The confusion persists in many languages including English. Damned Etruscans.

              • Jaakko Raipala says:

                Uralic peoples are typically northern European with an Asiatic component (like Finns). They’ve dug up DNA from the Hungarian conquest of Hungary and that’s a mixture of northern European + Mongoloid, not pure Asians.

                Uralic languages have very early links to Indo-European, linguists just can’t get a consensus on whether Uralic and Indo-European are the closest relatives or whether the links are loans (presumably from proto-IE to proto-Uralic). So we expect the Uralic homeland to be near the IE homeland which means that the peoples could have well been relatively close to each other genetically, perhaps the proto-Uralic people as northeastern neighbors of proto-IE were “90 % Yamnaya-like and 10 % Mongoloid” or something like that.

                If so then the identification of “Yamnaya” ancestry in Uralic speaking populations is very likely incorrect as any proto-Uralic ancestry would show up as mainly “Yamnaya” unless you have a model of proto-Uralic ancestry in your study (which no DNA study so far has even attempted). Out of the standard European model that assumes that genes come from Yamnaya invaders, Middle Eastern farmers and the original hunter-gatherers, the one that’s going to match Uralic most closely is definitely Yamnaya.

                In fact, if you try to model peoples like Finns who have a Mongoloid genetic component with the standard European model that assumes those three source populations then even those genes of Far Eastern Mongoloid origin are likely to show up as Yamnaya simply because Yamnaya is the easternmost component and probably the closest match for Mongoloid out of those three (even if it’s not very close).

          • NobodyExpectsThe... says:

            Maybe the key for the loser side language to survive, is not having only invader men, but having only conquered women.
            If there are no women of the conqueror culture, all children will be raise by the women of the vanquished.

            Why it didnt happen in the Spanish Empire, if there were (almost) only indian women. Maybe when you have writting, written laws, a state structure, a burocracy, and the Catholic Church… that rule is only valid for neolithic times conditions.

            • Frau Katze says:

              The new world is far too big and the ships of Spanish too precarious to get major settlement of Europeans going. I don’t think the Spanish even saw it as a goal. Extracting silver, that was an early goal.

              Settlement of Europeans really took off once safe steamships were developed. The Titanic notwithstanding, these steamships were overall safe and reliable. That caused a huge influx and led to laws to curtail immigrants to US and Canada,

              By then the Spanish were in decline. Some Europeans did move to the most climate friendly Argentina and Chile.

              In Canada and the US, that saw heavy immigration, the native languages are all but extinct.

            • Emilia says:

              Perhaps it’s a case of “Father Knows Best.” What happened in Latin America happened, on a smaller scale of course, with mixed groups in European ex-colonies even where Whites had a limited genetic/demographic impact. For example, in Europe’s former colonies in East and South Asia, small mixed groups developed – ex. Indos in Indonesia, mestizos in the Philippines and Anglo-Indians in India – who spoke European languages among themselves. However, because they were numerically fairly insignificant, they didn’t have much of an effect on their countries as a whole. Similarly, in South Africa there is a group called the Coloureds formed by relationships with European men and native women. The Coloureds speak Afrikaans, the same language as White South Africans.

            • DataExplorer says:

              Regarding the survival of pre-IE languages like Basque and Iberian. These early IE men were nomadic conquerors who were probably trying to conquer and control a large territory, with multiple wives and children in villages all over that territory. They probably just did not have time to insure that all of their offspring from all of their wives, were learning their language.

          • Spangel says:

            A sort of comparable situation occurred during the fall of the Roman Empire when the Slavs became vassals to the avars in present day Austria. The avars, who originated further east, would come in to collect tribute and have their way with local Slavic women and then leave. This lasted only a couple of generations before the avars were overthrown by their resentful Slavic half brothers and forever pushed out of Europe. Today those descendants are culturally Slavic, not avarian (who are mostly in Dagestan and Chechnya).

            It’s possible that indo Europeans quickly conquered a proto basque speaking area, killed nearly all of the men and kept the women for a relatively short period and then suddenly had to move. Perhaps there was a more pressing battle elsewhere. The bastard children were then left to be raised by the basque women, who maintained the settlement until their sons grew up and could then protect them from further encrosion from their indo European speaking half brothers.

            • Frau Katze says:

              They’re very determined that they’re not IE invaders but indigenous. Of course that could be political.

              Wiki entry on them, no doubt written by Basque, starts “The Basques (/bɑːsks/ or /bæsks/; Basque: euskaldunak [eus̺kaldunak]; Spanish: vascos [ˈbaskos]; French: basques [bask]) are an indigenous ethnic group[6][7][8] characterised by the Basque language, a common culture and shared genetic ancestry to the ancient Vascones and Aquitanians.[9] Basques are indigenous to and primarily inhabit an area traditionally known as the Basque Country (Basque: Euskal Herria), a region that is located around the western end of the Pyrenees on the coast of the Bay of Biscay and straddles parts of north-central Spain and south-western France.”

          • Jaakko Raipala says:

            Basque could also have a steppe origin so that R1b would be their original lineage. There is really nothing that proves it to be one of the farmer languages and there is nothing to prove that IE was the only language spoken at the steppe, in fact we know that early steppe IE had neighbors that still survive today (Uralic and various Caucasian languages, some of which have inconclusive speculative links to Basque).

            The Basques would have been an early invasion wave and the original Basque-like people at the steppe would have been absorbed by the IE expansion, in fact perhaps this is the reason why there are two IE-associated Y-lineages that don’t always go together.

            • Frau Katze says:

              See one comment. I answered the wrong entry.

            • jovien says:

              Prodigious comment !
              I had always thought that there are two big testimonies of the first peasants of Europe : the megaliths, and the Basque language.
              I discover that, for the latter, it is dubious, so I had been wrong…

        • Frau Katze says:

          This, from Razib Khan in 2010, presents data that suggest that the Basques are not particularly genetically different from the surrounding Spanish and French.


  13. kamas716 says:

    Isn’t there a term for women choosing higher status men? This seems likely to be a voluntary event rather than some mysterious plague.

    • gcochran9 says:

      You have got to be kidding.

    • Emilia says:

      Look at what happened in Latin America: Native women chose to pair off – sorry, “J” – with Spanish men, abandoning their Native husbands in the process. As a result, mestizos and European Y chromosomes dominate the Latin American population. I think a similar process would have occurred in the Philippines if more Europeans had gone there.

      • gcochran9 says:

        Step one in Spanish colonization was military defeat of the Amerindians. Then you had a strongly male-biased immigration – not that many guys, but the Indians were simultaneously dying off from newly-introduced Eurasian and African diseases. The Spaniards were in a position to use force to get women, and they surely did, exact extent unknown to me. Some women voluntarily mated with Spaniards, who were on top, commanded more resources, and whose kids were far more resistant to those new diseases. Hell, maybe they made those Amerindian girls laugh.

        Did the Amerindians Y-chromosomes disappear? Generally not – depends on how severe the Amerindian population crash was. Something like ~30% of Y-chromosomes in Mexico are Amerindian.
        Amerindians did better at high altitudes and in hard-to-get-to places.

        I can imagine that the EEF farmers in Spain has trouble from some pathogen carried by the Indo-Europeans. But it couldn’t possibly have been similar to what happened to the Amerindians, who had been completely isolated from more than 10k years [ had not experienced selection for resistance] and then had all the plagues in the world dumped on them at once.

        Suppose that the Amerindians had not been militarily defeated & had not experienced nuclear-war level plagues. Would their women have chased after Spanish visitors and traders? Not much: the braves wouldn’t have allowed it.

        • syonredux says:

          Puerto Rico saw total Amerind Y-Chromosome replacement:

          “Our Genographic team learned some key pieces of information that helped us gain more insight into the peopling of the Caribbean. Most surprisingly, we found that roughly 60% of Puerto Ricans carry maternal lineages of Native American origin. Native American ancestry, higher than nearly any other Caribbean island, originated from groups migrating to Puerto Rico from both South and Central America. Analysis of the Y Chromosome DNA found that no Puerto Rican men (0%) carried indigenous paternal lineages, while more than 80% were West Eurasian (or European).”

        • syonredux says:

          RE: Spanish Mating habits in the New World during the Conquest/post-Conquest phase,

          Where Amerind women were concerned, there was a lot of de facto concubinage and polygyny (the Church just looked the other way).

        • The almost total absence of female companions in the early expeditions to America forced the Spanish military to obtain numerous wives and concubines to establish effective political control over the territory. The excesses of the soldiery were vehemently denounced by the Church, in fact the marriages with the pagan Indians were forbidden by default, but due to the immediate needs of the sociopolitical situation, they had to be more flexible in terms of allowing marriages of Spaniards with indigenous women (not without being duly evangelized).

          • syonredux says:

            “but due to the immediate needs of the sociopolitical situation, they [the Church] had to be more flexible in terms of allowing marriages of Spaniards with indigenous women ”

            Yeah, as I said, the Church looked the other way….

        • Emilia says:

          In the last-case scenario (Amerindians not military defeated or subjected to nuclear-level plagues), we might have a similar situation to Japan during the times of the East India Company: Dutchmen were allowed to visit Japanese prostitutes but not marry Japanese women on a large scale. Then again, the number of European men in Asia was limited, so even in places in Asia under European control (ex. Philippines) where women had a motive to pair off with White men, European contact and/or colonization didn’t result in a dramatic demographic shift.

        • a-non says:

          Thanks, the 30% number for Mexico was what I was wondering about.

          The overlap in the graph is about 500 years. Can we read much into this period? I learned here that Iceland had a 500-year anti-Irish purification, which was about social class not slaughter, the underclass not quite replacing themselves. How different would this look on a similar graph? I would guess that very few Irish-decent men would marry up (and thus anyone with an Irish Y would be at 0% viking) but some women would (and thus the average nordic Y guy would become less viking with time).

          • Frau Katze says:

            I was under the impression that there is a lack of Irish Y-chromosomes because the settlers were largely Norse men and Irish women.

            • The early Irish says:

              They did some adna sampling; sampled skeletons contained more male individuals of ancestry matching Ireland than would be predicted from the autosomal dna of Iceland today (based on assumption of roughly Norway+Ireland+Drift=Iceland). Conclusion then is that enslaved Irish were along for the ride and did not reproduce so much.

      • Hugh Mann says:

        “Native women chose to pair off – sorry, “J” – with Spanish men, abandoning their Native husbands in the process.”

        When the now-forgotten Tschiffeley was making his epic horseback ride from Buenos Aires to Washington in the 1920s, he witnessed a police officer raping a native Indian wife who had come to visit her imprisoned husband. This was 1928. Imagine what it was like in 1628.

        Tschiffeley was a tough guy, but he was sure the officer would shoot him if he intervened. He was out in the boondocks and no one would miss him.


        • Emilia says:

          This is one incident. It doesn’t prove that the majority of European male-Amerindian female relations were non-consensual.

          • J says:

            Another incident is the Spanish conquest of Cuzco and the rape of the Virgins of the Sun. Subsequently it was repeated in Pachacamac (Lurin) by Pizarro’s brother who arrived with only 14 soldiers.

            • Emilia says:

              I’m not saying that such rapes didn’t occur; I just don’t think there’s any hard proof the majority of Spanish male-Amerindian female relationships were non-consensual. For example, Bernal Díaz del Castillo says in the True History of the Conquest of New Spain that there were claim Indian women were being held against their will by Spanish men. Cortes ordered these women to be returned to their fathers and/or husbands. However, only three women chose to return to their original families. Díaz del Castillo did not always approve of the things that Cortes or the other Spaniards did (for example, he opposed the execution of Cuauhtemoc), so I think he (Díaz del Castillo) would have spoken out if he felt the majority of these women were being raped.

              • JerryC says:

                On the Cortez expedition, a lot of the women the Spaniards were given were slaves captured from other tribes, who probably would have ended up being sacrifices to the gods, had they not been given to the Spanish.

              • Young says:

                Nice comment and great source. I wish more people would read Bernal Diaz.

              • albatross says:

                I’m sure the whole spectrum of human relationships took place there–straightforward rape and slavery on one end, and completely voluntary pairings where the man took the native woman as his wife and treated her about as well as he would have treated a Spanish wife on the other.

          • Frau Katze says:

            Just one more anecdote: when Cortes took on the Aztecs, he first found some native allies who helpfully gave him and his group several women. They learned Spanish and Cortes’ woman Malinche became his interpreter. No doubt she also enlightened Cortes about the Aztecs so he would better take them on.

            At no time did the women attempt to leave. Several opportunities for leaving them occurred.

            Maybe the men were smart enough not to blow this gift by mistreating the women. Or maybe the women were given to Cortes because the women were outcasts. In such a case, they would have no motive to return.

            Cortes’ woman, Malinche, currently has a bad reputation among Mexican natives.

            • Emilia says:

              A somewhat similar scenario played out in the Pitcairn Islands, where Polynesian women sided with the White men from The Bounty against the Polynesian men.

              While, again, I believe rape occurred in Spanish male-Amerindian female relations, I don’t think that a.) there’s any hard proof the majority of such relationships were non-consensual, or b.) that these relationships were any more violent, non-consensual, exploitative than these women’s relations with Native men.

              Sometimes the “White men behaving badly” archetype gets out of hand. One forum, for example, was asking if Asian women (not Asian women in European ex-colonies but, say, a Chinese-American student at a US university) who dated White men were being “oppressed” – as if such relationships were not voluntary.

    • Anonymous says:

      Yes,and what can be more low status than being dead.

    • Lior says:

      They say they come west of the Ural,
      Across Europe raising hell.
      But pray tell who can say,
      That foreign women for them not simply fell.

      Not raining arrows from up above,
      They spread Indo-European, the language of love.

      Riding horses wearing wolf’s hides
      Which chick does not like a fur coat and a nice ride?

      Met peaceful people who love the earth quite a bit,
      For they were quickly placed in it.
      And their great wide trenches and wide canals,
      Surrounding their walled out villages on raised out tells.

      Increase in arrow heads and bashed skulls were part of their culture,
      Who took great care of feeding vultures.
      And of fire raised houses for explanation we need not range,
      For it was simply climate change.

  14. syonredux says:

    ““I cannot say what it is,” said Roberto Risch, an archaeologist at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, who was not involved in the new studies. But he ruled out wars or massacres as the cause. “It’s not a particularly violent time,” he said.”

    Yeah, what could be the reason? Let’s see….

    Mutant fungus in the grain turns the farmers gay?

    Video game addiction?

    Skoptsy time travelers journey to neolithic Iberia and start a self-castration fad?

  15. lhtness says:

    I first learned about the bubonic plague hypothesis from David Reich’s book, but it never occurred to me to think that that possibility should be considered mutually exclusive with violence playing a role. Thinking of an example from historical times where both were important is…a lot easier than not being able to think of an example…

    And not being able to think of how a newly introduced disease could aid in military victories, that requires virtual complete ignorance of warfare. (Who knew that, in battle, it helps to have more people than your enemy?)

  16. The (bubonic) Plague of Justinian facilitated a wave of barbarian conquests: Arabs, South Slavs, Lombards, and the later stages of the Anglo-Saxon expansion. The 14th C Black Death facilitated the Ottoman conquest of the Balkans. Massive disease mortality (but not bubonic plague) facilitated the European conquest of the Americas. So an earlier wave of bubonic plague might have softened up Neolithic Europe for Indo-European invaders. But no, the plague itself isn’t what annihilated farmer patrilines.

    • Anonymous says:

      In each of the cases you cite, it is the better fed Barbarians who presumably weather the plague differentially better. We know the Turks pastoralism was highly effective in Anatolia, core part of the Turkish nation, was eating much like the Yamnaya, for example in the 1300s. Works every time!

  17. Jokah Macpherson says:

    “…find me a plague that only kills men – all of them.”

    That would make for an interesting science fiction novel, but I’m sure a half dozen people have already thought of it.

    • Young says:

      A few years ago there was a novel about a scientist who lost his wife in an IRA bombing and took revenge on the whole world by creating a disease that killed almost all the women.

      Re above, I don’t think plague and slaughter are mutually exclusive explanations for the destruction of the huge communities established by the first farmers. Plague and other factors could initiate a system collapse that made it easier to kill the men, burn the homes and rape the women which, I suspect, is what happened. The archaeological evidence of violence is substantial anf, besides, it is what one could probably expect with evolution.

    • R. says:

      There was a middling fun Canadian-origin thriller based around some viral bioweapon that only kills fighting aged men, presumably by somehow testing for T-levels. Gets released in a small American town due to car crash and then of course military tries to hush it up.

      Hey, I was like twelve at the time, of course I liked it. You can see why it was one of the select few western books that was allowed to be translated and published in Czech during the commie era. Basically, anything that portrayed American military in a negative light (got us Catch-22, a very popular novel) or was threw some sort of shade on capitalism.

      Seems the author is kinda unknown, despite publishing something like 30 thrillers not one hit on name on TVTropes.

  18. Kot says:

    There is a silver lining: the study had 100 authors but Zimmer had to find someone not associated with the study to get the quote he wanted. So not all of them are that stupid.

  19. Anonymous says:

    If you look at this graph you can see that the major Neolithic population decline occurred before the beginning of the Corded Ware Culture. Both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultures correspond to a population decline of their own, but it’s much less significant than the initial Neolithic population crash.

    • JP Irwin says:

      This downswing from 6k to 5.5k years ago reminds me of the population swings in Medieval England documented by Gregory Clark. These bean- and bread-eaters weren’t terribly healthy. They ran up to their Malthusian limit at 6k ybp, got softened for a disease to knock them back toward higher per capita calories, just in time to get their heads smashed in by the glorious Steppe Barbarians. Hail Deywows Patar!

  20. Peripatetic Commenter says:

    Wait. Why would Dr Risch and others lie?

    Were they able to get lots of pussy if they supported feminists and supporters of the narrative?

  21. RT says:

    just curious: Do you think that “violent replacement events” such as this, where the Indo-European males conquered and took over a whole country, lend some credibility to the hypotheses of e.g. Marija Gimbutas of a mother goddess / partially matriarchical culture that existed before? Or would we assume that the culture before the Indo Europeans was about as patriarchal, just that they were not as good at defending themselves?

    • Pre-IE Matriarchy? says:

      Political male dominance and warfare is plentifully documented as a human norm in all societies at all scales. The Bronze Age was not some “watershed” event when patriarchy was born.

      See – https://traditionsofconflict.com . A particularly relevant article – https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/8/9/taking-a-wife: “One aspect of bride capture that may surprise many readers is how prevalent the practice was among hunter-gatherer societies in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In The Bushmen of South West Africa (1920), ethnographer Louis Fourie described bride capture during intergroup conflict, writing that, “Women are never killed intentionally during the course of these feuds but it not infrequently happens that when one group overwhelms another the women are made captive and taken in marriage. …. In The Uttermost Part of the Earth (1948), explorer E. Lucas Bridges wrote about the Ona hunter-gatherers of Tierra del Fuego, noting that, “Most of the marriages I knew amongst those primitive people were brought about either by conquest or by abduction.””

      Saying that wasn’t the case in pre-IE Europe would require extraordinary and strong evidence. What Marija Gimbutas got is a few statues of unclear religious significance and her hunches, backed by some feminist ideology and weak anthropological basis (nonsense about the sequential development of society from “primitive matriarchy” to “advanced patriarchy”). Extraordinary and strong evidence that ain’t.

      • albatross says:

        At least two bits of biology seem to force this result:

        a. Men are way stronger and tougher and bigger than women. In a world of muscle-powered weapons, that’s a huge advantage. (One of the great things about firearms is that a 100 lb woman can defend herself against a 200 lb man.)

        b. The potential fitness returns to battlefield success for a man are really big–if I can leave a trail of pregnant wives and daughters of my recently-deceased foes, that’s lots and lots of copies of my genes to survive into the next generation. For a woman, there is no payoff beyond maybe being able to attract the highest-status man in your tribe.

        (b) says that young men should be relatively easy to talk into going off to war (which is consistent with what we can see)–genes that encourage young men to go to war probably provide a fitness benefit. (a) says that women mostly won’t be able to do very well in war, and (b) says their genes won’t benefit. So we’d expect selection for genes that sent young men off to war but kept young women home.

  22. J says:

    I don’t blame Emilia for believing that the Spanish conquest of America was a big lovefest. That is how today’s history books and Google and the Ministry of Truth describe it.

    • Emilia says:

      No, I don’t think it was a big lovefest, just as the fact that I don’t adhere to the late Andrea Dworkin’s belief that every instance of male-female intercourse is an “act of war” doesn’t mean I don’t believe there’s no such thing as rape.

      I guess I’m just one of the benighted.

    • Emilia says:

      Please disregard my previous response. I think it’s possible to admit that yes, there were rapes of Amerindian women by Spaniards and other Europeans while also acknowledging there is no hard proof they constituted the majority of interracial relations (or at least those between Spanish and Indians) in the New World. Even our moderator is “agnostic” on this issue, saying, “The Spaniards were in a position to use force to get women, and they surely did, exact extent unknown to me.”

      • Iberian and Latin American Comparisons says:

        The Latin American thing is: mostly male migrants, encountering a population that was materially poorer at the baseline and then smooshed by disease to boot, disproportionately killing native males as most likely to resist conquest, which reduces the pool of viable high status males again.

        Probably little “rape”, in the sense of wife stealing and abduction, but a situation where native females had few other options, and those options with Native Males were mostly more dangerous for any potential children they have? Certainly.

        You also probably find that Mestizo descendants were more likely to survive plagues, from that European genetic disease resistance advantage, so that’s another reason that male Iberia:native female look high today.

        All same kind of thing probably true in Iberia, without wealth differences, but with a system where the incoming males were more mobile in war and where particular male lineages within the incoming males had really high levels of social prestige and patrilineal kin allies supporting them (where this sort of system had faded out much more by time of Latin American conquest).

        • gcochran9 says:

          We don’t have evidence that the EEF farmers were significantly more vulnerable to disease, or to some particular disease, than the invading Indo-Europeans. Since the two groups had not been isolated from each other, had traded for a long time, it’s unlikely. The idea isn’t crazy, but the main attraction seems to be that it has the IEs winning for some other reason than being effective warriors. Sure, everything we know does suggest that they WERE warlike…

          • Iberian and Latin American Comparisons says:

            Disease is fairly questionable, yes, particularly in SW Europe, though at least it’s testable. To qualify I don’t think anyone’s thinking about them being more vulnerable to disease in a generalized way, but some particular crowd pathogen that emerged and was less lethal on the steppe, and the sort of large but highly mobile, low density populations that environment seemed to generate post-Yamnaya, compared to sedentary farmers in their pockets of cultivation.

            In terms of more IEs who were more “warlike”, in terms of cultural attitudes, it seems hard to know anything like that with any certainty – ideology leaves no fossils, so how do you test it? It seems like you end up in vast guessing game of trying to interpret differences in burial ritual, scraps of preserved myth, etc.

            We can probably know whether they had better weapons, or were more mobile, or could raise larger bands of males together, and that can tell us something about “effective warriors” and the role of that, potentially, but it seems hard to go any further than that.

            • gcochran9 says:

              The Indo-Europeanists have made a lot of efforts to reconstruct IE society, and I think it mostly makes sense. In their reconstruction, very warlike.

              • Iberian and Latin American Comparisons says:

                Their re-construction of IE society makes some sense*, with a lot of ifs (and a lot of that falls by the wayside if Yamnaya are not the pIE but rather an earlier culture that led to both Corded Ware and Yamnaya, since a lot of their assumptions come from Yamnaya elite burial rite). The re-constructions of pre-Indo European Europe as non-warlike are a lot more dubious.

                *With some difficulties. For ex’ David Anthony reconstructed supposed correspondences between the archaeology of the Eastern Yamnaya culture and Indo-Iranian (preponderance of male graves in Eastern Yamnaya parallels prominence of male dieties in Indo-Iranian). But we know that the Corded Ware from North East-Central Europe pretty much seems to have completely replaced Eastern Yamnaya, though perhaps with a bit of female admixture. Certainly with no Eastern Yamnaya R1b type left in the successor Sintashta. So that can’t have been quite right.

            • Young says:

              I was thinking along the same lines. The EEF populations need not be less immune to disease than IEs to be more vulnerable to disease if their crowded, sedentary, rodent infested, and probably dirty, villages created more opportunities for infection than are likely to occur with mobile people on the steppes.

              • Iberian and Latin American Comparisons says:

                Rodent infested I don’t know about. How many rodents show up in similar neolithic level villages in China, Americas, etc that parallel their stage of development? Plus probably fair amount of rats stowing away in the filth encrusted wagons of the Indo-Europeans. But certainly differences in density, if not hygiene, seems plausible for a difference in the impact of crowd diseases.

              • Young says:

                ‘First Farmers of Europe…’ mentions evidence of rodents moving in with farmers very early on and riding along with them during the very early colonization of Cyprus.

              • Iberian and Latin American Comparisons says:

                Yes, of course rats came with the farmers (and with herders with waste and stored food as well – brown rats came to Europe from the Mongolian steppe and Central Asia with herders and traders on the move, after all). Just pushing back at what we mean by “rodent infested” a little here.

        • Emilia says:

          It makes me wonder: I’ve always thought that the relatively “unmixed” population of the Philippines (another Iberian ex-colony) stemmed from the fact that few Spaniards or other Europeans actually settled there. On the other hand, mixed Spanish-Filipino offspring probably would not have had any immunological advantage over pure Filipinos since the Philippines wasn’t devastated by imported diseases as Latin America was. Of course Filipina women may have been attracted by the Spaniards’ social status, but I wonder whether that would have been enough to create a demographic transformation if, again, more Spaniards had gone to the Philpipines.

      • J says:

        …La mayoría de los mexicanos se describen como “hijos de la Chingada” … Ref.: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chingada_(Veracruz) . In fact “Hijos de la Gran Chingada“.

        • Anonymous says:

          “Chingar” means (excuse my vulgar language) “screw” or “fuck.” For “rape,” you have “violar”

          • J says:

            My parents were penniless refugees and I grew up in a very bad barrio. Learned all the bad words. As we used to say: Nihil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio.

    • Emilia says:

      Actually, I read about Amerindian women voluntarily pairing off with European men (Spanish in most of Latin America, Portuguese in Brazil) in a history book I saw in a library in 1982. That was long before Google came on the scene. And the “Ministry of Truth?”

      • Young says:

        Similarly I have read of Indian women preferring to pair with white trappers because they were treated better by them than by men of their tribe. I did not get that from one of those ridiculous ‘studies’ that infect academia these days but as an aside in a book about fur trappers, probably ‘Deaths of the Bravos’. Could be true, don’t really know, but the pairings occurred.

        • Emilia says:

          What do you mean by those “ridiculous studies” (just curious)?

          About “other” men treating Indian women better, I’ve never heard that said explicitly about women in Latin America, although there’s no indication that Spanish or Portuguese men were any more (or less) likely to abuse their Amerindian women than Native men were.

          • Young says:

            I mean that the information did not come from one of those all-too-common studies that are done with a pre-conceived idea of what the result should be. Instead it was an aside in a history focused on another subject and the author didn’t seem to care one way or another and was simply making an observation from what he learned in passing. If more authority were to show he was wrong I suspect he would simply shrug and say, “Oh, okay,” and not give a crap one way or the other. Neither do I.

    • Frau Katze says:

      No they don’t. They portray the whole thing as an extremely awful thing, just more white male European bad behaviour.

      Here in Canada it reached an extreme level. My sister who teaches at a university in BC gets sent emails reminding to be sure to include that the university is on “stolen land” and thanking current native for hosting it.

      Meanwhile, academic course are being “indigenized”, even though it’s not clear how say, Mathematics, can be indiginized.

      More like the total opposite of what you’re saying.

      • Emilia says:

        Sorry, who are “they” and what don’t “they” do?

        Thank you

        • Frau Katze says:

          I responded to the wrong comment.

          Should have responded to “J”, who said “I don’t blame Emilia for believing that the Spanish conquest of America was a big lovefest. That is how today’s history books and Google and the Ministry of Truth describe it.” Sorry.

          • J says:

            Ministry of Truth refers to “1984” and to the internet of today, that is constantly being rewritten. In these days, almost all references to mass violence have been censured (Facebook, Google, Wiki, etc.). On the other hand, voluntary pairing also abounds when people meet, it is happening everywhere and always did. The media loves those love stories.

      • albatross says:

        This bit about “stolen land” makes me wonder: how many people on Earth are there who aren’t living on stolen land? I’m thinking maybe the inhabitants of a few remote islands and maybe some folks living in the very far northern parts of North America? Most everyone else got their land the old-fashioned way–they took it at spear-point from the previous occupants, who usually didn’t need more than a burial plot’s worth of land at that point anyway.

  23. lhtness says:

    Relevant, but only in a pedantic sense: Wolbachia.

  24. Jock says:

    Can someone please explain to we outsiders why the idea of violent replacement of males is anathema to archeologists? I would have thought that the idea that white males behaved poorly would be popular in the social science departments of the 21st century.

    • Young says:

      Tales of white males behaving poorly are meat (or tofu) for academia but not when they come out as king of the mountain and with all the girls.

  25. Capra Internetensis says:

    To be fair, given the typical background level of violence in prehistory, “not particularly violent” may just mean “not everything was burned down at once”.

  26. epoch says:

    “To those who like the notion that the Indo-Europeans triumphed because they carried in bubonic plague ( or some other pathogen) that blasted immunologically naive EEF farmers: find me a plague that only kills men – all of them.”

    That is why this is so different from England. Here the men took the women. In England they didn’t.

  27. DataExplorer says:

    Normally Leftist academics love to display whitey as the evil oppressor, rapist, and colonizer. It is interesting that they are not jumping on this as more proof.

  28. DataExplorer says:

    Does anyone have a map if where the samples fir this study came from? When the Romans conquered Spain, the far south of the peninsula was populated by the Iberians, a pre-Indo European language people who made some amazing art (the Dama de Elche for example). Did these people also have the steppe derived Y chromosome?

    • DataExplorer says:

      I found the answer to my question:

      “For the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to Northern and Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age (Figs. 1, C and D, and 2B). The increase was 10 to 19% (95% con- fidence intervals given here and in the percent- ages that follow) in 15 individuals along the Mediterranean coast where non-Indo-European Iberian languages were spoken”

      Click to access 2019_Olalde_Science_IberiaTransect_2.pdf

      • dearieme says:

        “For the Iron Age, we document a consistent trend of increased ancestry related to Northern and Central European populations with respect to the preceding Bronze Age”

        What rotten English. Don’t they edit their stuff?

  29. dearieme says:

    An old newspaper cutting took me to this. Any relevance?


  30. Reparaz says:

    Replacement took 500 years!! In modern times in america 200-400 years!!
    Diseases +massive immigration

    • albatross says:

      Would that be consistent with wave after wave of invasions? Even if there are some forted up villages that survive the first wave, the same population pressures just keep pushing those {gentle, friendly, peace-loving} steppe barbarian excess males onto your territory, looking for plunder and a chance to apply their proto-Indo-European version of Game on the local women.

  31. J says:

    The discovery of the total male replacement that took place in Spain is taboo for well-thinking people here too. The left-wing Israeli paper HaAretz dedicates a whole page to the issue, but reading it, one cannot understand if the Anatolian farmers EEF replaced the original, “first” Europeans or if they were replaced in Spain. It is just an example of the conscious, desperate effort to confuse and bury the discovery. The opposition to Darwin never died.

  32. brokenyogi says:

    Interesting paper out on human origins in East Africa. Seems that there was a contribution of South Africa DNA to the mix:

    “The Huddersfield-Minho team of geneticists, led by Professor Martin Richards at Huddersfield and Dr. Pedro Soares in Braga, along with the eminent Cambridge archaeologist Professor Sir Paul Mellars, have studied the maternally-inherited mitochondrial DNA from Africans in unprecedented detail, and have identified a clear signal of a small-scale migration from South Africa to East Africa that took place at just that time, around 65,000 years ago. The signal is only evident today in the mitochondrial DNA. In the rest of the genome, it seems to have been eroded away to nothing by recombination—the reshuffling of chromosomal genes between parents every generation, which doesn’t affect the mitochondrial DNA—in the intervening millennia.”

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2019-03-modern-humans.html#jCp


  33. Pingback: "Take my wife, please !"

  34. jovien says:

    [English is not my native language]
    We are said that in Iberia with the Indo-European conquest autosomal steppe ancestry went to 40%.
    But from the steppe to Spain it is a long way and a long time and many indigenous women…
    So, the steppe ancestry in autosomal DNA should have decreased from Yamnaya Urland through Europe. If it is 40% in Spain, it should have been, say 60% in France, 80% in Central Europe, 100% in Romania or Poland, and 120% in Western Ukraine…
    So, when they talk of autosomal steppe ancestry, what do they refer to ? Do they really refer to bones found in Yamnaya territory before the invasion started (and, if it is the case, what is their geographical definition of Yamnaya, and the definition of the beginning of the expansion) ? Or do they refer to bones of Spain invaders from French territory (so, bones found in France just before the invasion of Spain) ? Or do they refer to something vague and in between (and in that case, to what) ?

    And when 23andMe tells you that you are 40% steppe invader, do 23andMe really refers to the bones found in Yamnaya Urland in, say, 4 000 BC ?

    • Steppe Ancestry in Iberia says:

      For Iberia, when they say 40% they’re talking about ancestry of Bell Beaker people in Germany and Central Europe at around the same time, who were about 50-60% steppe ancestry. So from that Iberians after BA really have about 20-25% steppe ancestry.

      Note, the 40% figure also includes Iron Age groups with slightly higher Central European ancestry, reduced through the Roman and Moorish periods (probably through male biased migrations from southern males moving into the more genetically northern Iberian population), so it’s probably really like 30-35% Central European for the BA, and about 15-17% Steppe.

      The steppe ancestry refers to the Yamnaya community, yes. The Yamnaya community themselves are around 10% European farmer and 90% earlier people from steppes just north of Caucasus mountains (not too far to the north though, probably slightly south of the latitude of Ukraine, around the latitude of the Balkans). If you want to know how much ancestry the BA Iberians have from these early pre-Yamnaya steppe people then, it’s probably about 13%.

  35. jovien says:

    An extremely interesting answer…

    1° I do not understand you completely. BA Iberians about 15-17% Yamnaya, and Yamnaya 90% pre-Yamnaya, so BA Iberians 13% pre-Yamnaya. Isn’t it rather : 14,5-15,3% ?

    2° From your second paragraph, I understand that present-day Iberians have the same percentage of Central European ancestry the BA Iberians had, (after an increase during the Iron Age, and a decrease during the Roman and Moorish periods). Am I right ?

    3° How long did it take to go from Yamnaya to Gibraltar ? Twenty five centuries ?

    4° It is not 23andMe, but FamilyTreeDNA, who gives percentages of BA invaders. For my mother and her full brother, they gave significantly different percentages.
    I would be happy to know how they make their calculations… Do they compare a present day European with BA Europeans ? What do they call a BA invader ? An invader of Spain, of France, of Germany, of Romania ?
    And is it possible that brother and sister have different percentages ?Should not these origins be so scattered on DNA that brother and sister should have the same percentages ?

  36. Pingback: The Ubiquity of Violence | evolutionistx

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s