Post-Neolithic Population Collapse in Europe Caused by Plague

 

Neolithic population collapse may have been caused by plague, researchers say

This article is more than 6 months old

DNA studies suggest disease was central to devastating collapse of northern European population 5,000 years ago

The Guardian published a powerful article 6 months ago, that relayed the latest theory as to why the population turned over in parts of Europe after the Neolithic.  

A devastating population collapse that decimated stone age farming communities across northern Europe 5,000 years ago may have been driven by an outbreak of the plague, according to research.

The cause of the calamity, known as the Neolithic collapse, has long been a matter of debate.

Studies based on DNA from human bones and teeth excavated from ancient burial tombs in Scandinavia – seven from an area in Sweden called Falbygden, one from coastal Sweden close to Gothenburg and one from Denmark – now suggest that disease played a central role.

The remains of 108 people – 62 males, 45 females and one undetermined – were studied. Eighteen of them, or 17%, were infected with plague at the time of death.

This could explain why Steppe DNA introgressed into the European genome in certain locations.  Plagues often came into Europe from the East.

R1b Was NOT Spread by Yamnaya and The Whole Theory of Steppe/Indo European Must Be Called Into Question

R1b-L23 is the key branch in Western Europe, with huge numbers of Welsh, Spaniards, Irish, and Western French (among a long list) bearing descendants of this clade. 

People who claim that it spread with Indo European languages like to say that it "likely originated in the East."  But as many have noted: almost everything in Western Europe technically originated in the East, because that is the way genetics migrate into Europe.  Haplogroups I and G and J, etc. -- they all "originated in the East."

The same people who are sure that L23 is Indo European from the Steppe also used to say that they were sure the Yamna/Yamnaya were the mechanism.  Wikipedia still contains this bad information.  Now however, the Yamnaya are NOT considered any more to be a candidate for the R1b prevalence in Western Europe, because their clade is actually a brother clade that did NOT spread into Western Europe at any large scale.

There's a lot of evidence that R1b-L23 did NOT spread with Steppe people from the East.

-Huge numbers of Western Hunter Gatherers all around Europe bore R1b. There could easily have been a small pocket of WHGs somewhere that carried the precursor to R1b-L23.  Indeed, certain of the key samples I listed above were not tested for terminal/downstream SNPs.  

-The people with the most "Steppe" ancestry today are the Saami of Northern Finland.  They are almost absent R1b-L23.  

I continue to believe that the notion that every crag and corner of Wales and Spain and Western France and the Pyrenees was ALL completely replaced by people from the East is so much horse malarkey as to defy all common sense.

New Theory on Indo European Origins Posits the Steppe Migrations Produced Bronze Age Languages Like Basque and Etruscan

Alberto over at A DNA Era has posted a long, quite detailed theory about Indo European origins.  We give him major kudos for thinking outside the box, and for challenging the dominant paradigm.  Too often, people accept the current theory without criticism, only to eat crow as they are exposed to be an unthinking sheep.

You can read his long post by clicking this link.  A summary is: Alberto has an interesting theory to explain why Basque's apparent closest kin language is in the Caucasus, and why Basques and Etruscans bear high concentrations of R1b: that the Steppe migrations brought non-Indo-European Bronze Age languages, instead of Indo European.

To see why his theory has appeal, he includes a map of Eurasia from 2000 BC or 4000 before the present:

As anyone who has followed this issue knows, the above map is a real problem.  We have Steppe ancestry in places that simply didn't speak an IE language.  Kudos to the author for thinking against the grain.

It's an interesting theory.  However, a lack of true cross-disciplinary knowledge (of HISTORY) is the main barrier to theorists lacking the real-world examples of how to model these things.

Imagine a scientist from 2500 years from now trying to understand the complex movements into DELAWARE.  I'm going to simplify things in the below example, but if you bear with me, you'll learn an IMPORTANT point.

"A DNA analysis of the Y Chromosome from burials dated to approximately 1500AD showed predominantly Haplogroup Q" (Native Americans)

"A DNA analysis of the Y Chromosome from burials dated to approximately 1700AD showed predominantly Haplogroup I1" (New SWEDEN colony).

"A DNA analysis of the Y Chromosome from burials dated to approximately 2000AD showed the plurality of Haplogroup R1b with significant admixture" (MEXICAN immigrants).

This is three changes, in 500 years.

As it turns out, the The Swedes, although apparent conquerors during their era, were largely interlopers.  Hard to guess by their dominance of New Sweden in 1650, but they left no lasting linguistic and little genetic evidence.

The Mexicans who streamed into the place in modern times were not conquerors.  They are refugees.  Economic refugees, and some real refugees.  

The reasons why they show up in greater numbers is due to complex cultural and economic reasons -- simply put, they have more kids and others moved away rather than live close to poor people.

If you understand this, you understand the "male-mediated Steppe migrations" blah blah blah.  

The Mexican immigrants will show lots of R1b, but to call them "descendants of conquerors" while perhaps accurate, but it's not a term that anyone would use, just 500 years after the Spanish conquest.  Why?  Because the reason they are outpopulating Delaware in this example (and much of the American Southwest like Los Angeles, in real life) is NOT due to any superior weaponry, linguistic preferences, metallurgy, or anything.

It's just because.

The same reason some non-Mexicans marry Mexicans is because they're present in proximity.

The same applies to the Steppe movements.  After the initial 1-5 generations and the initial encounters (in Poland?  Czechia?), the people were a Mestizo.  They were children of conquerors and conquered.  

But as they spread West across Europe, there is no sign in the record of conquest.  It was more likely just overpopulation.

This (*yawn) boring explanation explains population movements, from Syrians into Lebanon, from Ukrainians into Poland, from Mexicans and Central Americans into California, from Goths into the Roman Empire.  It is almost always NOT conquest.  It was overpopulation combined with fleeing wars.

Within a few hundred years of the Spanish conquest of the Americas, people would LAUGH if you called the humble Central American immigrant a conquistador.  They'd laugh if you explained Central American migrations to modern U.S. cities as "partly male-mediated elite dominance" (i.e., conquering).

If you grasp this, everything comes into focus.