The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
The Indo-European Völkerwanderung
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Fst between selected populations
Armenian Bas Cord Czech EHG Eng Fren Gre LBK Lez Lith Sard Sin WHG
Basque 0.017
Corded_Ware_LN 0.023 0.025
Czech 0.011 0.009 0.015
EHG 0.067 0.060 0.034 0.043
English 0.011 0.008 0.014 0.002 0.045
French 0.009 0.006 0.015 0.001 0.048 0.001
Greek 0.004 0.010 0.019 0.004 0.057 0.005 0.003
LBK_EN 0.023 0.024 0.035 0.024 0.084 0.024 0.020 0.016
Lezgin 0.005 0.018 0.017 0.010 0.052 0.011 0.009 0.007 0.032
Lithuanian 0.019 0.014 0.016 0.003 0.043 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.034 0.015
Sardinian 0.014 0.013 0.033 0.013 0.074 0.012 0.009 0.009 0.015 0.021 0.021
Sindhi 0.016 0.032 0.029 0.022 0.057 0.023 0.022 0.020 0.049 0.014 0.028 0.035
WHG 0.086 0.062 0.070 0.056 0.078 0.058 0.058 0.070 0.091 0.082 0.053 0.074 0.087
Yamnaya 0.030 0.034 0.011 0.020 0.028 0.021 0.022 0.026 0.052 0.019 0.022 0.044 0.028 0.076

Update: Nick Patterson writes: Much ancient DNA genotype data is “pseudo-diploid” with just one allele given for a sample at each SNP. If you want to compute F_st values for such data, the easiest way is to run smartpca (see http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Software.html) with inbreed: YES set in the parameter file.

The downside is that this option requires at least 2 samples for each population while the default option (inbreed: NO) works on a single sample.


The above table is a selection of F ST values I culled from the preprint Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. To get an intuition, the F ST value comparing Northern Europeans and Nigerians is ~0.15 using SNP data. Before I get to the meat of the argument above, let’s take that in for a moment. You see above that the pairwise values between WHG, “Western Hunter-Gatherers,” and the LBK, the first farmer culture of Central Europe, is on the order of ~0.10. That’s about the value between Europeans and East Asians today. We also know that it is possible there was a difference in color between the hunter-gatherers and the first farmers. The meeting of farmer and hunter-gatherer in early Neolithic Europe, and down to the Bronze Age, may best be thought of as analogous to a long term racial conflict and coexistence. Rather than a gradual wave of advance I envisage that the farmers hopped from point to point along fertile stretches of maritime littoral, and pushed their way up into the heart of Europe’s ancient forests by felling the wilderness around the great rivers which issue forth from the uplands. In a world of “isolation by distance” and “clines” this sort of recourse to a term like “race” would be anachronistic, but the model of genetic disruption being reported in these results using ancient DNA strong suggests punctuated demographic transitions across a wide range of localities which would result in biologically and culturally distinct groups persisting for many generations cheek by jowl. Over time admixture resulted in amalgamation, but it was almost certainly a millennia long process.

More specifically, the authors report unequivocally that the arrival of cultures like the Corded Ware in Northern Europe 4,500 to 5,000 years ago was accompanied by massive demographic replacement. Not only were these bands of warriors traversing the landscape, but it was a whole people on the move, men, women, and children. These were akin to the Goths fording the Danube and bursting into a new landscape of conquest. But the lands of the first farmers were not like those of Rome, heavily settled, further human cattle for the steppe agro-pastoralists to extract rents from. The preprint is not clear as to the timescale of the arrival of the eastern genetic influence across Southern Europe, but in the North the conclusion is without nuance or qualification: during the early years of the Egyptian Old Kingdom the lands of the north were being roiled by migration.

admix But in this post I want to turn the focus away from Europe for a bit. In the text they note that “An interesting pattern occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of the “light green” component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations….” I’ve edited and uploaded a version of the admixture plot. One must be cautious when interpreting these plots, but with all the other information in the paper it is quite informative. As far back as Noah Rosenberg’s 2005 paper, and later on in the blogger Dienekes Pontikos’ analyses, there were suggestions of affinities between a subset of Europeans and South Asians, as well as a connection to the Caucasus. In the F ST results above I note that the Sindhi population is closer to the Lezgins (Northeast Caucasians) and Yamna samples than they are to Armenians. The details are difficult to parse though. Otherwise they would have done so in this monumental paper.

I do want to add one final thing though. It’s been assumed in the past, including by me, that once farmers were established in a locale that future demographic perturbations were unlikely. By this, I mean that farmers are more useful alive to generate economic surplus for incoming elites than they are eliminated. But that is predicated on the idea of a complex specialized society where the elites view all non-elites in an almost Marxian sense of being objects of exploitation. It could very well be that this sort of cosmopolitan globalism only became common in complex societies later, and that in pre-state tribal groups even dense populations did not prevent extermination, because expropriation of vital resources necessary for survival was far more viable an option for these societies than exploitation.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Indo-Europeans 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. I think the link between Yamnaya, the north Caucasus and South Asia is ANE.

    Here’s a spreadsheet of a supervised ADMIXTURE analysis using ancient genomes, which includes estimates of ANE ancestry, with Karitiana Indians at 42%, Lezgins at 28%, Lithuanians at 18%, etc. So very similar to scientific literature to date.

    But note also the peak in ANE of around 33% in South Central Asia (Burusho and Pathans), which hasn’t yet been reported anywhere, but probably soon will.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?usp=sharing

    However, I don’t think this means that the proto-Indo-Europeans came from South Central Asia or even West Asia, because, among other things, the Haak preprint has two Eastern Euro foragers with R1a1 and R1b.

    So it looks like R1 bifurcated on the Eastern European steppe, and expanded from there with the Indo-Europeans. ANE was certainly part of the Indo-European package, but probably predates it in much of Asia.

    • Replies: @CupOfCanada

    So it looks like R1 bifurcated on the Eastern European steppe, and expanded from there with the Indo-Europeans.
     
    R1a1 and R1b are both present in Canada today yet we're not the site of this bifurcation. :3 Not saying you're wrong, just that the case isn't settled yet. This quote from the paper is particularly relevant re: the EHG's relationship with R1b and R1a1:

    Two hunter-gatherers from Russia included in our study belonged to
    R1a (Karelia) and R1b (Samara), the earliest documented ancient samples of either
    haplogroup discovered to date. These two hunter-gatherers did not belong to the derived lineages M417 within R1a and M269 within R1b that are predominant in Europeans today18,19, but all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.
     
    They also mention that the R1a found in eastern Turkey/Iran are more basal than the ones found on the Steppe, and that the two most basal R1b samples are from the early Neolithic in Spain and hunter gatherers in Samara. The Spainish R1b is dated to 5178-5066 BCE and the Samara R1b from 5650-5555 BCE. So at the very least, the data shows that the basal R1a in eastern Turkey/Iran is not descended from any of the R1a samples from the Steppe. Now it may be that the ancestor of this Turkey/Iran basal R1a is buried somewhere in the Steppe, waiting to be found and tested. That hasn't happened yet though.

    In the paper they describe WHG/SHG/EHG as a cline. Wouldn't it make sense if the Y chromosomes shared a similar pattern? IE the frequency of R1 decreases from east to west, but doesn't vanish.

    One thing I'd appreciate clarification on from anyone is the following couple quotes:

    The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2)
     
    Am I correct then in understanding that the Samara R1b1 is not ancestral to R-V88 (R1b1c)?

    And for the Spanish Early Neolithic:

    We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1* xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3).
     
    Am I correct in understanding this to mean that the Spanish R1b1 is a possible ancestor of the V88? I'm not suggesting that means R1b1 spread from Spain to Cameroon, but rather that the two may have shared a common source, and that that dispersion would have had to pre-date the spread of Indo-European languages substantially.

    Or am I off base?
  2. yes, the pakistani pops shared drift on the poster at ASHG. the kalash popped right now. labeling it “ANE” seems like it is skewing the discussion.

  3. It’s an expansive cluster alright, and as a result difficult to categorize, but it seems to be a fairly robust cluster in ADMIXTURE when flushed out properly (in fact, by getting rid of problem groups like the Kalash who skew the results).

    Interestingly, I found three major peaks; among the Burusho, north Caucasians and Kets. That looks more Sino-Caucasian than Indo-European. Here’s a map…

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQOS1YODhvOWpWNzg/view?usp=sharing

    The descendants of the Ancient North Eurasians are still doing well up north, it seems.

  4. By the way, the colloquial German expression would be “Voelkerwanderung” – migration of peoples (not of one people).

  5. The correct Germanism to use is Völkerwanderung. Volkswanderung just sounds wrong.

  6. My own theory was that the Botai culture of Kazakhstan was the origin of European R1b but that most Yamna were R1a, with the Samara Yamna being a mix of both because of proximity. I’m sticking with it for now although R1b in Europe is clearly much older than pony riding.
    The ancient R1b in Neolithic Spain will give BB blogger enough hope for an African origin to dismiss the Samara results I guess.

  7. Someone, perhaps a commentor at Dienekes blog, suggested the Indo-European expansion into to Europe was facilitated by a climatic shift to cool, dry conditions, which would have hurt the farmers and assisted the IE pastoralists. The cooling/drying occurred at the same time as the expansion.

  8. “But that is predicated on the idea of a complex specialized society where the elites [?] all non-elites in an almost Marxian sense of being objects of exploitation.” You missed a verb.
    Maybe the Yamna were not organised as a steppe empire, who could subjugate and tax the sedentary people, but rather like small clans raiding and looting villages, but also fighting between themselves and that would make it impossible for locals to bribe them all.
    Something like this happened during the Slav invasions of the Balkans where small bands avoided Roman defences and targeted the towns and the villages gradually depopulating most of the peninsula and settling in the new areas. Of course in the Balkans some locals survived in defendable positions like the mountains and the coastal areas, but they had the help of imperial armies and diplomacy.

  9. That’s a fascinating admixture diagram. But one of my many observations is how different Greeks and Turks are. Turks are noticeably “noisier” than other populations, which seems to suggest they’re quite the genetic hodgepodge.

    Do you think it would have changed much to have included modern Iraqi, Syrian, and Egyptian data? Seems a little odd that they were omitted.

  10. I envisage that the farmers hopped from point to point along fertile stretches of maritime littoral, and pushed their way up into the heart of Europe’s ancient forests by felling the wilderness around the great rivers which issue forth from the uplands.

    It may be worth adding that the alluvial plains along Europe’s rivers, large and small, must have had the best soils and pastures and didn’t require deforestation? Flood meadows are described as a fully natural phenomenon; of course modern flood control measures makes us forget that the floodplain grasslands had been there “before us”.

  11. “It could very well be that this sort of cosmopolitan globalism only become common in complex societies later, and that in pre-state tribal groups even dense populations did not prevent extermination, because expropriation was far more viable an option for these societies than exploitation.”

    There has been pretty continuous selection for size of crops for the last thousand years. I’d put good money that the crops of the time weren’t nearly as productive per acre as the later times, so extermination and replacement by pastoralists would be more likely the further you go into the past. The theory put by “bob sykes” would go really well with this.

    .”…there were suggestions of affinities between a subset of Europeans and South Asians, as well as a connection to the Caucasus”

    I’d love to read more about this. I’m not a huge fan of Eurasiatic proto-language theory, but some sort of sprachbund from the southern Caucasus/Mesopotamia that spread out North and East ~15kya appeals to me. Not that I’d put good money on it yet.

  12. Do you think it would have changed much to have included modern Iraqi, Syrian, and Egyptian data? Seems a little odd that they were omitted.

    there are data from those groups in the full plot. nothing too surprising. they are different.

    Flood meadows are described as a fully natural phenomenon; of course modern flood control measures makes us forget that the floodplain grasslands had been there “before us”.

    also, hunter-gatherers used fire to reshape landscape. someone who knows more human paleo-ecology should comment.

  13. Right, there must be a good deal of paleobotanic data on European alluvial plains. The first paper which I came across is at an admittedly fringe location (inland Great Britain) . First of all, it indicates that the interplay woodlands and shrub/grasslands strongly depended on climate changes. The deforestation of the alluvial meadows is evident after 4000 BC and the author hypothesizes that it is linked with Neolithic agriculture, but actually the grassland plant community which followed shows no impacts of grazing, undermining the claims that the floodplain has been cleared for agricultural use.
    ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239918827_The_paleoecology_of_alluvial_hay_meadows_in_the_Upper_Thames_valley )

  14. once farmers were established in a locale that future demographic perturbations were unlikely

    Timing maybe. If the IE had been further east and hit the Chinese first instead of the LBK – thus stalling the Chinese farmer expansion and giving LBK more time to densify (new word) – history may have been a mirror image.

    @Bultare

    My own theory was that the Botai culture of Kazakhstan was the origin of European R1b but that most Yamna were R1a

    Mine was the other way round – that R1a started in Kazakhstan and R1b further west and R1a pushed R1b westwards – either way quite a story.

  15. My theory on ANE is it’s related to an archaic hominid that initially got pushed back to the mountains – Himalayas but also possibly Caucasus, Balkans, Norway – and then mixed with the various adjacent populations hence the wide but erratic spread with the IE most consistently having that component but not the only ones.

  16. Someone, perhaps a commentor at Dienekes blog, suggested the Indo-European expansion into to Europe was facilitated by a climatic shift to cool, dry conditions, which would have hurt the farmers and assisted the IE pastoralists.

    Isn’t that similar to current thinking about IE migration into Northern India / Indus Valley Civilization land?

    As in, the IVC was already greatly weakened by climatic and hydrological shifts, to the effect that the Aryans didn’t have much “active” invading to do – they just moved in and took control of the disorganized remnants.

    I guess sedentary farmers are just plain more dependent on climatic and geological stability than semi-nomadic pastoralists. Grass will always grow *somewhere*. But if your culture relies on wheat-growing conditions right here and right now, or else, at some point you’ll hit a snag – and somebody will be there to take advantage.

  17. @Davidski
    I think the link between Yamnaya, the north Caucasus and South Asia is ANE.

    Here's a spreadsheet of a supervised ADMIXTURE analysis using ancient genomes, which includes estimates of ANE ancestry, with Karitiana Indians at 42%, Lezgins at 28%, Lithuanians at 18%, etc. So very similar to scientific literature to date.

    But note also the peak in ANE of around 33% in South Central Asia (Burusho and Pathans), which hasn't yet been reported anywhere, but probably soon will.

    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8pm8sVcHqceiNFJMO082kxaBF5ePr4__bAK05VQRFw/edit?usp=sharing

    However, I don't think this means that the proto-Indo-Europeans came from South Central Asia or even West Asia, because, among other things, the Haak preprint has two Eastern Euro foragers with R1a1 and R1b.

    So it looks like R1 bifurcated on the Eastern European steppe, and expanded from there with the Indo-Europeans. ANE was certainly part of the Indo-European package, but probably predates it in much of Asia.

    So it looks like R1 bifurcated on the Eastern European steppe, and expanded from there with the Indo-Europeans.

    R1a1 and R1b are both present in Canada today yet we’re not the site of this bifurcation. :3 Not saying you’re wrong, just that the case isn’t settled yet. This quote from the paper is particularly relevant re: the EHG’s relationship with R1b and R1a1:

    Two hunter-gatherers from Russia included in our study belonged to
    R1a (Karelia) and R1b (Samara), the earliest documented ancient samples of either
    haplogroup discovered to date. These two hunter-gatherers did not belong to the derived lineages M417 within R1a and M269 within R1b that are predominant in Europeans today18,19, but all 7 Yamnaya males did belong to the M269 subclade18 of haplogroup R1b.

    They also mention that the R1a found in eastern Turkey/Iran are more basal than the ones found on the Steppe, and that the two most basal R1b samples are from the early Neolithic in Spain and hunter gatherers in Samara. The Spainish R1b is dated to 5178-5066 BCE and the Samara R1b from 5650-5555 BCE. So at the very least, the data shows that the basal R1a in eastern Turkey/Iran is not descended from any of the R1a samples from the Steppe. Now it may be that the ancestor of this Turkey/Iran basal R1a is buried somewhere in the Steppe, waiting to be found and tested. That hasn’t happened yet though.

    In the paper they describe WHG/SHG/EHG as a cline. Wouldn’t it make sense if the Y chromosomes shared a similar pattern? IE the frequency of R1 decreases from east to west, but doesn’t vanish.

    One thing I’d appreciate clarification on from anyone is the following couple quotes:

    The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2)

    Am I correct then in understanding that the Samara R1b1 is not ancestral to R-V88 (R1b1c)?

    And for the Spanish Early Neolithic:

    We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (M415:9170545C→A), with upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, the individual was ancestral for R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C), R1b1a2 (PF6399:2668456C→T, L265:8149348A→G, L150.1:10008791C→T and M269:22739367T→C), R1b1c2 (V35:6812012T→A), and R1b1c3 (V69:18099054C→T), and could thus be designated R1b1* xR1b1a1, R1b1a2, R1b1c2, R1b1c3).

    Am I correct in understanding this to mean that the Spanish R1b1 is a possible ancestor of the V88? I’m not suggesting that means R1b1 spread from Spain to Cameroon, but rather that the two may have shared a common source, and that that dispersion would have had to pre-date the spread of Indo-European languages substantially.

    Or am I off base?

  18. I don’t think we can necessarily see the interface between the HGs and farmers of Europe as a racial conflict. What evidence would you base that framing on, Razib? What archaeological evidence would be relevant here?

    EDIT: To elaborate, my issue is with the “conflict” part, mostly. I agree that “race” as a shorthand here to delineate these two groups would be quite useful, even informative. But implicitly implying that the peoples in question saw it that way? Can we even know?

  19. What archaeological evidence would be relevant here?

    the stuff you see in *war before civilization*

    But implicitly implying that the peoples in question saw it that way?

    if i mean racial conflict in the way someone in 1910 in the west would recognize, i agree it’s misleading. the type of scientific racism which gained currency in the west in the late 19th and early 20th century has to be predicated on a biological science which is the heir of linneaus and darwin.

    BUT, folk biology predates this. ancient people did have an understanding of race, though it was somewhat different. for example, it seems clear that the dehumanization of nearby groups as barbarians was pretty typical. this was often cultural, because the two groups were physically similar, but in some cases the groups were different enough that biological variation was drafted into the xenophobia. for example, the libyan descended rulers of lower egypt depicted their upper egyptian nubian rivals as monkeys in a crude racist fashion we’d understand today.

    i assume it is the norm for human groups to be somewhat suspicious of each other. but in an isolation-by-distance model the differences are mediated through culture, which can produce huge inter-group differences even when the genetic distance is minimal. but when we have punctuated population admixture/migration, i think the physical difference starts to play into the conflicts, even if it isn’t dominant or the driving component. the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today. they seem to have coexisted around each other for thousands of years. i suspect that the physical difference was one way that barriers were imposed, though over time that changed due to genetic admixture and selection through introgression….

    (i’m using as a model here the interactions between HG and bantus in southern africa; the khoisan do view themselves as racially distinct)

    • Replies: @Kothiru
    Interesting. Do you have a source for the Egyptian depiction of Nubians you're talking of?

    I think when we say race, we should just base it on the biological, more than the cultural. That's a bit more useful, even though race was predicated on cultural grounds, like the idea of different European nations constituting different races, delineated by language and religion, even before Europeans could travel far enough to see very different looking peoples which changed their idea of race. The situation we are talking of here is decidedly much different, mostly in that we just don't know much of the social dynamics; what it was like on the ground. If admixture was slow to come, guess we can guess that some sort of conflict was there. Sort of like a "color line." But that's just speculation, I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.
    , @CupOfCanada

    the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today.
     
    If I'm reading this, Sindhi and Norwegians are more closely related to one another than either is to the hunter gatherers that were living in Sweden 8,000 years ago.

    Thanks for blowing my mind Razib.
  20. @Razib Khan
    What archaeological evidence would be relevant here?

    the stuff you see in *war before civilization*

    But implicitly implying that the peoples in question saw it that way?

    if i mean racial conflict in the way someone in 1910 in the west would recognize, i agree it's misleading. the type of scientific racism which gained currency in the west in the late 19th and early 20th century has to be predicated on a biological science which is the heir of linneaus and darwin.

    BUT, folk biology predates this. ancient people did have an understanding of race, though it was somewhat different. for example, it seems clear that the dehumanization of nearby groups as barbarians was pretty typical. this was often cultural, because the two groups were physically similar, but in some cases the groups were different enough that biological variation was drafted into the xenophobia. for example, the libyan descended rulers of lower egypt depicted their upper egyptian nubian rivals as monkeys in a crude racist fashion we'd understand today.

    i assume it is the norm for human groups to be somewhat suspicious of each other. but in an isolation-by-distance model the differences are mediated through culture, which can produce huge inter-group differences even when the genetic distance is minimal. but when we have punctuated population admixture/migration, i think the physical difference starts to play into the conflicts, even if it isn't dominant or the driving component. the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today. they seem to have coexisted around each other for thousands of years. i suspect that the physical difference was one way that barriers were imposed, though over time that changed due to genetic admixture and selection through introgression....

    (i'm using as a model here the interactions between HG and bantus in southern africa; the khoisan do view themselves as racially distinct)

    Interesting. Do you have a source for the Egyptian depiction of Nubians you’re talking of?

    I think when we say race, we should just base it on the biological, more than the cultural. That’s a bit more useful, even though race was predicated on cultural grounds, like the idea of different European nations constituting different races, delineated by language and religion, even before Europeans could travel far enough to see very different looking peoples which changed their idea of race. The situation we are talking of here is decidedly much different, mostly in that we just don’t know much of the social dynamics; what it was like on the ground. If admixture was slow to come, guess we can guess that some sort of conflict was there. Sort of like a “color line.” But that’s just speculation, I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    source:The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson. i read this recently so that's why it's fresh.

    I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.

    confused on this. we have plenty of evidence of cultural differences between HG and LBK. do you mean something specific?
  21. Would be interesting to know about the pigmentation of the EHG and Yamna.

  22. @Kothiru
    Interesting. Do you have a source for the Egyptian depiction of Nubians you're talking of?

    I think when we say race, we should just base it on the biological, more than the cultural. That's a bit more useful, even though race was predicated on cultural grounds, like the idea of different European nations constituting different races, delineated by language and religion, even before Europeans could travel far enough to see very different looking peoples which changed their idea of race. The situation we are talking of here is decidedly much different, mostly in that we just don't know much of the social dynamics; what it was like on the ground. If admixture was slow to come, guess we can guess that some sort of conflict was there. Sort of like a "color line." But that's just speculation, I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.

    source:The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson. i read this recently so that’s why it’s fresh.

    I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.

    confused on this. we have plenty of evidence of cultural differences between HG and LBK. do you mean something specific?

    • Replies: @Kothiru
    Yeah, sorry, I meant explicit evidence of the cultural context. Even with evidence of cultural differences not readily apparent how the conflict manifested. But it would be plausible. I suppose that archaeological and material cultural evidence could help there. Conflict was definitely there as per genomic evidence, but we can't say if it was "racial" in nature in the way you described earlier.
  23. @Razib Khan
    What archaeological evidence would be relevant here?

    the stuff you see in *war before civilization*

    But implicitly implying that the peoples in question saw it that way?

    if i mean racial conflict in the way someone in 1910 in the west would recognize, i agree it's misleading. the type of scientific racism which gained currency in the west in the late 19th and early 20th century has to be predicated on a biological science which is the heir of linneaus and darwin.

    BUT, folk biology predates this. ancient people did have an understanding of race, though it was somewhat different. for example, it seems clear that the dehumanization of nearby groups as barbarians was pretty typical. this was often cultural, because the two groups were physically similar, but in some cases the groups were different enough that biological variation was drafted into the xenophobia. for example, the libyan descended rulers of lower egypt depicted their upper egyptian nubian rivals as monkeys in a crude racist fashion we'd understand today.

    i assume it is the norm for human groups to be somewhat suspicious of each other. but in an isolation-by-distance model the differences are mediated through culture, which can produce huge inter-group differences even when the genetic distance is minimal. but when we have punctuated population admixture/migration, i think the physical difference starts to play into the conflicts, even if it isn't dominant or the driving component. the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today. they seem to have coexisted around each other for thousands of years. i suspect that the physical difference was one way that barriers were imposed, though over time that changed due to genetic admixture and selection through introgression....

    (i'm using as a model here the interactions between HG and bantus in southern africa; the khoisan do view themselves as racially distinct)

    the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today.

    If I’m reading this, Sindhi and Norwegians are more closely related to one another than either is to the hunter gatherers that were living in Sweden 8,000 years ago.

    Thanks for blowing my mind Razib.

    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    i already knew these results from talking to some people working on this paper. but when i looked at the matrix i did a double take. yes, Fst between WHG vs. LBK = 0.9. sindhi vs. norwegian = 0.20.
  24. @Razib Khan
    source:The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson. i read this recently so that's why it's fresh.

    I think we will be able to make a better guess if we have evidence of cultural differences.

    confused on this. we have plenty of evidence of cultural differences between HG and LBK. do you mean something specific?

    Yeah, sorry, I meant explicit evidence of the cultural context. Even with evidence of cultural differences not readily apparent how the conflict manifested. But it would be plausible. I suppose that archaeological and material cultural evidence could help there. Conflict was definitely there as per genomic evidence, but we can’t say if it was “racial” in nature in the way you described earlier.

  25. @CupOfCanada

    the HG and EFF groups were genetically very distinct, more distinct than most west eurasian pairs of populations were today.
     
    If I'm reading this, Sindhi and Norwegians are more closely related to one another than either is to the hunter gatherers that were living in Sweden 8,000 years ago.

    Thanks for blowing my mind Razib.

    i already knew these results from talking to some people working on this paper. but when i looked at the matrix i did a double take. yes, Fst between WHG vs. LBK = 0.9. sindhi vs. norwegian = 0.20.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS