Female dominated societies in Europe..... . I told you so!!!

[djoser-xyyman]

Why Am I writing about European people? Why is this paper important? This is the first paper that outright suggested there were female dominated societies in Europe up until the Bronze Ages. I have said so all along. The data has made that clear. I believe the same applies to Africa. E-M2 is relatively young but is the most dominant male lineage in Africa south of the Sahara. The same pattern is observed in Europe. In North Africa the dominant male lineage are sub-clades of E-M35. But as recent aDNA has shown. The upstream clade E-M35 seems to be dominant up until ...yes, 4000 years ago. The Bronze age. So it seems like there was a major shift in power from female dominance to male dominance during the Bronze Age in BOTH Africa and Europe. Is it a societal cultural thing?


Also interesting is as Busby et al has suggested with yDNA R1b-M269. There is a latitudinal cline but no longitudinal . And like George Busby. They stop on the southern shores of Europe and refuse to sample North Africa which has one of the highest frequency of H1 and H3 mtDNA.

--

Population resequencing of European mitochondrial genomes highlights sex-bias in Bronze Age demographic expansions -Chiara Batini & Mark A. Jobling Sept 2017

Quotes:

Our understanding of European prehistory has been revolutionized by the availability of new DNA sequencing
technologies1, which have allowed the unbiased characterization of sequence variation in modern and ancient
human genomes. Genome-wide ancient DNA (aDNA) data have shown a clear discontinuity between Paleolithic
hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers2–5. Patterns of diversity suggested low Paleolithic population sizes, with
regional differences among Western and Scandinavian groups6. This picture has been further refined by the study
of the DNA of ancient Yamnaya herders from the region of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the apparent source of
Bronze Age migrations into Europe and Asia7–9, and a debated region of origin for Indo-European languages10.
These studies highlight an introgression into Europe at around 4.5 thousand years ago (KYA) from the East, followed
by development of genetic structure in Bronze Age Europe7,8.

Ideas on European prehistory have been strongly influenced by studies not only of autosomal DNA, but also of
uniparentally-inherited markers, which can provide information about sex-biased processes11. Analyses of aDNA
show that today’s most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1b-M269) is very rare in Europe until 4.5 KYA5
(see summary elsewhere12), while it is present in all the Yamnaya samples8,9. This had initially suggested a major
introgression of males from the Pontic-Caspian steppe; however, the R1b sublineage (R1b-L11) now common in
Europe has not so far been found among Yamnaya sequences13.

Ancient DNA data on uniparentally-inherited markers therefore suggest a strong sex-bias in recent demographic changes in Europe.
Resequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY)17 in modern

[djoser-xyyman]

20 KYA. The Turkish and Palestinian samples differ from the majority in showing considerably more ancient population
expansion, at >40 KYA. These patterns contrast sharply with the BSPs ****for MSY12*** in the SAME populations
(Fig. 2), which in most cases (13/17 populations) show demographic histories featuring a minimum effective
population size around 3 KYA (late Bronze Age for many of the populations studied), followed by rapid expansion
to the present. In all comparisons except those in Basques and Danish, current point estimates of effective population
size are higher for mtDNA than for MSY.


We also calculated diversity indices for each population (Table 2). In agreement with the observation of a
limited number of haplogroups in Saami, and the corresponding BSP, this population shows the lowest value for
all diversity measures. The highest values are seen in the Palestinian and Turkish samples, which again is concordant
with the ancient population growth seen in the BSPs. We observe negative values of both D and FS for all
populations except the Saami, which can indicate population growth; however, both values are significant for only
twelve of the remaining populations. At a glance, there appears to be more diversity in southern than northern
populations (Fig. 1b; Table 2). To formally test this, we carried out a correlation analysis between genetic diversity
(number of polymorphic sites, and nucleotide diversity) and latitude, longitude and ******overland distance**** from the
Franco-Cantabrian and Near-Eastern glacial refugia (Table S2). When all populations are included, both measures
show a statistically significant correlation with latitude and distance from the Near-Eastern refugium, but
not with longitude. These correlations are lost when we remove the outlier populations described above (Saami,
Turkish and Palestinian), demonstrating the lack of any pattern of mtDNA diversity in most of Europe.

[djoser-xyyman]

Here, we have carried out whole mtDNA sequencing in a European and Middle Eastern population-based
sample set of 340 individuals, in which MSY resequencing12 had previously been undertaken. The spectrum of
haplogroups we observe (Table S1, Fig. 1a) is compatible with previously published data21. The population-based
design of this study and the unbiased nature of variant ascertainment means that European mtDNA and MSY
diversity can be compared fairly. The phylogenies and demographic reconstructions concur in showing a marked
difference between female and male population histories, with Paleolithic expansions for mtDNA contrasting
with Bronze Age expansions for MSY. While this is in agreement with continental-level differences observed
previously18,19, here we also show that this difference holds for most of the individual populations, and reflects a
lack of geographical pattern in Europe. The most ancient mtDNA expansions we detect, dating close to the early
peopling of Eurasia (40–50 KYA), are in the Near and Middle East


Our data are consistent with ancient DNA data14–16 in supporting sex-biased processes in recent European
demographic changes: patterns of modern mtDNA diversity show no signal of the Bronze Age expansion, while
much of the modern European MSY diversity has been shaped by this process12. Howeve

[djoser-xyyman]

So in short. The paper is stating that since the lLGM the female popualtion have been very large throughout Europe....and the Near/Middle East. The female lienage has remianed unchnaged also with current MtDNA remaining unchanged. Since LGM. The story is not true for the male lineage. The oyunger lianeg llike subclades of R1b-M269 5.5K yo being dominant. What brought about that change. The leveling off of male and female numbers. The also the shift to a younger male sub-clades. The same applies to FArica. We see from aDNA in Africa. E-M2 is non existent in SSA up to about the Bronze age and later. But the female line and distribution had already been established. Were boys killed off at birth? The male dominance change that? Did the growth of agriculture have anything to do with it? Talk dark and handsome? We know that AIM were darkl as was Europeans and Levantine up to the Bronze age and before. In fact the genetic reults of Nenderthals and Denisovans along with La BRana and Loschbour shows that black was the dominant color amongst humans and humanoids for over 400,000years!!!!!!!! I will interested toi see the pigmentation data on aDNA of Malawi_hora-8100BP and others like her.

[djoser-xyyman]

What. No age for sub-clades of E-M2?

[djoser-xyyman]

Do you understand why the use the statement "overland distance". Understand the game and nuances. They are CYA, in other words, this is their "get out jail free" card. They can always defend there hypothesis just in case they are caught...lying. Overland distance? yes, they are correct. But not oversea distance. Get it?

quote:
"correlation analysis between genetic diversity (number of polymorphic sites, and nucleotide diversity) and latitude, longitude and ******overland distance**** from the
Franco-Cantabrian and Near-Eastern glacial refugia (Table S2). "

Read more: egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/2546/female-dominated-societies-europe-told#ixzz4uP5ftdLB

[zarahan]

This is the first paper that outright suggested there were female dominated societies in Europe up until the Bronze Ages.

To what do they attribute the higher female pop sizes?


These studies highlight an introgression into Europe at around 4.5 thousand years ago (KYA) from the East, followed
by development of genetic structure in Bronze Age Europe7,8.

This tracks with info we have known for a bit- of an influx
into Europe from the East in relatively recent times.


today’s most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1b-M269) is very rare in Europe until 4.5 KYA5
(see summary elsewhere12), while it is present in all the Yamnaya samples8,9. This had initially suggested a major
introgression of males from the Pontic-Caspian steppe; however, the R1b sublineage (R1b-L11) now common in
Europe has not so far been found among Yamnaya sequences13.

This calls into question some claims of massively ancient
European derived R1b presence in Europe.


But the female line and distribution had already been established. Were boys killed off at birth? The male dominance change that? Did the growth of agriculture have anything to do with it? Talk dark and handsome? We know that AIM were darkl as was Europeans and Levantine up to the Bronze age and before.

COuld warfare have reduced the male presence somewhat?


Overland distance? yes, they are correct. But not oversea distance. Get it?

How do sea routes via Gibraltar figure into the equation?

[djoser-xyyman]

This is the first paper that outright suggested there were female dominated societies in Europe up until the Bronze Ages.

To what do they attribute the higher female pop sizes?

No explanation given. But the fact is there were a lot more females than males up to the Bronze Age


These studies highlight an introgression into Europe at around 4.5 thousand years ago (KYA) from the East, followed
by development of genetic structure in Bronze Age Europe7,8.

This tracks with info we have known for a bit- of an influx into Europe from the East in relatively recent times.

Understand the context. They are making a pop culture statement which they then proceeded to debunk. There is no “tracking”


today’s most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup (R1b-M269) is very rare in Europe until 4.5 KYA5
(see summary elsewhere12), while it is present in all the Yamnaya samples8,9. This had initially suggested a major
introgression of males from the Pontic-Caspian steppe; however, the R1b sublineage (R1b-L11) now common in
Europe has not so far been found among Yamnaya sequences13.

This calls into question some claims of massively ancient European derived R1b presence in Europe.
?? don’t understand your comment or concern. Here they are again critiquing pop culture of the supposed “invasion” because they acknowledge R1b in Steppe Yamanya is NOT of the same derived version of R1b found in Western Europe. Thus no migration occurred from the Steppes to Western Europe




But the female line and distribution had already been established. Were boys killed off at birth? The male dominance change that? Did the growth of agriculture have anything to do with it? Talk dark and handsome? We know that AIM were darkl as was Europeans and Levantine up to the Bronze age and before.

COuld warfare have reduced the male presence somewhat?

What happened?? I will leave that to the imagination of the masses. I don’t discuss hypotheticals. There could a 1001 reasons. But we know for a fact that there were a lot more women than men. We also know for a fact boy/girl ratio at birth is 50/50. So For some unknown reason more women survived to maturity(procreate). I speculate it was cultural. There are several studies I saw on ancient Levantine population that suggested the same scenario of a lot more females than male exiting Africa. But when you think about it. Females are lot more important to the survival of our species. We do not need many men. A lot more women are needed. Nature or nurture”?


Overland distance? yes, they are correct. But not oversea distance. Get it?

How do sea routes via Gibraltar figure into the equation?

Look at their sampling plan. It is obvious what they do. Most of these researchers use the same MO , even the “liberal” “progressives”. They all consistently do the same thing.
1. Sample between Europe and middle East
2. Sample between MidEast and Africa.
But never a three way sampling plan or Europe and Africa. Why? It will skew their conclusion or results they want. Whenever they use Africa. They either use frequency or high level resolution. Or they issue “ documented “ from books then use the middle/Near East as origin. Never a straight up genetic comparison. Understand the sleight of hands. The game.

Few researchers acknowledge the Gibraltar crossing when it is obvious this is what happened when DNA Europe/Africa/Levant is compared. And they know this. Read all Lazaridis papers. He is one of the few that subtly acknowledge it. He states the Natufians are NOT ancestral to Europeans. And also acknowledge EEF has a North - South cline and not an East to West cline.

[djoser-xyyman]

new paper that support my view.



Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck - Tian Chen Zeng1,2

1:17 male/female ratio. This had to be a cultural phenomenon!! Because our species do NOT need as many males s we do females. I know this may hurt some your European male egos… but Nature don’t care. Keep in mind the ration is about 50/50 at birth.

----------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
“However, such effects are small and cannot account for the **1:17 disparity **between male and female population sizes inferred from the uniparental data.

diversity of both Y and mitochondrial chromosomes than huntergatherer populations, which tended to have very homogeneous uniparental markers22,23. In fact, **MOST MITOCHONDRIAL LINEAGES IN MODERN EUROPEANS DERIVE FROM FIRST FARMERS, AND HAVE A NEOLITHIC TIME-DEPTH**24. Therefore, this hypothesis cannot be accurate, **AT LEAST FOR WEST EURASIA, AS THE POPULATION OF NEOLITHIC FOUNDING MALES WAS COMPARATIVELY LARGE**, and greater diversity in mitochondrial lineages in modern populations was not produced by retention of local hunter-gatherer maternal lineages. Genomes from ancient hunter gatherers in East Asia25, Neolithic farmers in Iran16,17, and **ANCIENT AFRICAN HUNTER GATHERERS**26,27, allow us to infer, through ancient–modern comparisons, that the genetic contribution from Neolithic populations to present-day farming or pastoralist Africans and South and East Asians is greater than that from hunter gatherers. This suggests that extensive migration of post-Neolithic agropastoralists with larger population sizes is likely to have occurred in other regions of the Old World.

Finally, this hypothesis should cause us to expect maximal bottleneck intensity just before the founding population of Neolithic males began to expand—in other words, just before the initial Neolithic. However, the BOTTLENECK INFERRED FROM THE DATA PEAKS 1 TO 2 MILLENNIA **AFTER** THE INITIAL NEOLITHIC IN EVERY REGION of the Old World.”
-----------------------------------------------------

[kel]

The ratio doesn't necessarily mean female dominated societies. It means that for survival reasons which became cultural, females were more valuable for survival and continuation and of the tribe/group.

So a tiny group of men limited the births of other males and hence reproductive competition. Each man had multiple women.

we see remnants of such a system in certain societies where the elite men maintain harems where as the non-elite are sent off to war. The natural extension of that - pre pre civilization - is to kill off the non-elite males at birth. sacrifice/rituals/ etc.

a kind of early feminism. Under feminism, female status is raised, but women dont really run anything. They administer for a small group of men who own/control everything. Non-elite men are disposable.

think Weinstein, Cosby, Matt Lauer, Schneiderman, athletes with groupies, rock stars with groupies - but on steroids.

maintain heavy ratios of females and kill off any excess competition.

Perhaps, the advent of agriculture changed the dynamic: you need more hands on deck to farm and protect the crop from those who would want to steal it: animals and other tribes.

[djoser-xyyman]

Agreed it could be cultural. After all the birth rate between boys and girls babies is about 50/50. So something in society back then results in an excess of females. We also know that female babies survive naturally more than boys...SIDS, diseases etc. But that doesn't account for the 1:17 ratio. What a time to be alive!!!! Just kidding...of course

[kel]

What a time to be alive ! ...... if u were an elite man.....

[kel]

nypost.com/2018/05/31/men-nearly-caused-human-extinction-7000-years-ago-new-theory-states/


the writers here theorize that the cause of the distorted ratios where group/clan warfare .................

but that sounds more like white lies to me.