Indo-Europeans: mass migration from the steppes into Europe after 3000 BC (new study)

[Agent327]

R1 haplogroup - more precisely R1a1 and R1b1a - are usually linked with Indo-Europeans.

< snip >

Yes, thanks. Mass migration?

 

[Domen]

Yes, mass migration. There is both a large degree of genetic discontinuity and archaeological, cultural, linguistic discontinuities.

Europe was simply colonized the same way as later a few continents after 1492 (and by descendants of those who had colonized Europe).

Though Europeans are rather like Mestizos of Central & South America, than like North Americans - for we have also indigenous ancestry.

But Northern Europeans have more of ancestry from that migration, and less of pre-migration ancestry than Southern Europeans. On the other hand, Southern Europeans have more ancestry from previous immigration of Neolithic farmers (from the Middle East), and less from aboriginal Mesolithic hunters.

PIE immigrants from the steppe also had more of Eastern European Mesolithic ancestry, than Near Eastern ancestry (see my previous post).

===================================

What was that < snip > for if you actually cut the most important part ???

 

[Domen]

Lactase persistence gene in European populations was spread during the last few thousand years:

"High frequency of lactose intolerance in a prehistoric hunter-gatherer population in northern Europe":

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/10/89

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1471-2148-10-89

Here we investigate the frequency of an allele (-13910*T) associated with lactase persistence in a Neolithic Scandinavian population. From the 14 individuals originally examined, 10 yielded reliable results. We find that the T allele frequency was very low (5%) in this Middle Neolithic hunter-gatherer population, and that the frequency is dramatically different from the extant Swedish population (74%).

We conclude that this difference in frequency could not have arisen by genetic drift and is either due to selection or, more likely, replacement of hunter-gatherer populations by new immigrants.

The most probable reason for this, is the population replacement in Scandinavia - as revealed by genetic studies:

"Ancient DNA Reveals Lack of Continuity between Neolithic Hunter-Gatherers and Contemporary Scandinavians":

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)01694-7?cc=y

Lactose tolerance was spread by Indo-Europeans, who were pastoralists and whose diet largely consisted of dairy (milk):

Lactase persistence gene allows you to consume more dairy products and drink more milk. That's what PIE pastoralists did.

Archaeology only confirms this conclusion, that Scandinavia was colonized by IE immigrants:

http://dienekes.blogspot.fi/2015/02/scandinavian-team-looking-for-indo.html

&#8220;Two thousand years ago, we started having Kurgan graves in Scandinavia,&#8221; said Ellingvag. The commonalities between burial mounds in Norway and Scythian/Saka mounds in Kazakhstan are striking, he said. &#8220;[The Scythian people] had these ornaments, these animal ornaments, which are very, very important in Scandinavian art &#8230; and the ornaments are actually quite similar, which is striking, it&#8217;s very special.&#8221;

 

[Domen]

Lactase persistence is more common in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe today.

This is in agreement with recent findings that Northern Europeans have more of Indo-European ancestry.

By contrast Southern Europeans have more ancestry from Middle Eastern Neolithic farmers.

 

[Agent327]

Yes, mass migration. There is both a large degree of genetic discontinuity and archaeological, cultural, linguistic discontinuities.

None of these data says anything about mass migration. FYI, til industrial times most of Europe was rather sparsely populated. My point is that 'mass migration' should be taken with a rather large grain of salt. To be true, the fact that there were migrations as such is not in dispute.

 

[Domen]

Well I must admit that with Indo-Europeans spreading Lactase Persistence I could be wrong. It seems that Lactase Persistence mutation increased in frequency long after Indo-European migrations. It could travel with early Indo-Europeans but was also rare among them, and only later increased in frequency.

Below is a set of ancient individuals from several time periods and cultures, including a few Indo-European cultures, and only two of them had Lactase Persistence mutation - both were from Indo-European cultures, but not from the earliest known stage of IE cultures. And both lived in Central Europe:

Lactase persistence is another issue. Yamnaya [Indo-Europeans] and EHG [hunter-gatherers] were lactose intolerant as were the Neolithic farmers. The gene first shows up in central Europe. This is the data from the genetiker site. Only the bold is the derived allele.
CM6, rs182549, ability to digest milk
Alberstedt LN I0118 CC
Corded Ware LN I0103 CC
Esperstedt MN I0172 CC
LBK EN I0054 CC
Spain EN I0410 CC
Spain EN I0412 CC
Spain MN I0408 CC
Unetice EBA I0047 CC
Yamnaya I0231 CC
Yamnaya I0443 CC
MCM6, rs4988235, ability to digest milk
Alberstedt LN I0118 GG
Baalberge MN I0560 GG
Baalberge MN I0807 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0108 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0111 GG
Bell Beaker LN I0112 GA
Bell Beaker LN I0806 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0058 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0059 GG
BenzigerodeHeimburg LN I0171 GG
Corded Ware LN I0103 GG
Corded Ware LN I0104 GG
Esperstedt MN I0172 GG
Halberstadt LBA I0099 GG
Karelia HG I0061 GG
LBK EN I0022 GG
LBK EN I0025 GG
LBK EN I0026 GG
LBK EN I0046 GG
LBK EN I0054 GG
LBK EN I0100 GG
LBK EN I0659 GG
LBK EN I0821 GG
Motala HG I0011 GG
Motala HG I0012 GG
Motala HG I0013 GG
Motala HG I0014 GG
Motala HG I0015 GG
Motala HG I0016 GG
Motala HG I0017 GG
Samara HG I0124 GG
Spain EN I0409 GG
Spain EN I0410 GG
Spain EN I0412 GG
Spain EN I0413 GG
Spain MN I0405 GG
Spain MN I0406 GG
Spain MN I0407 GG
Spain MN I0408 GG
Unetice EBA I0047 GG
Unetice EBA I0114 GG
Unetice EBA I0116 GG
Unetice EBA I0117 GG
Unetice EBA I0164 GA
Yamnaya I0231 GG
Yamnaya I0357 GG
Yamnaya I0370 GG
Yamnaya I0429 GG
Yamnaya I0438 GG
Yamnaya I0443 GG
Yamnaya I0444 GG

Only one individual from Bell Beaker culture and one from Unetice culture had Lactase Persistence.

Both of those cultures were Indo-European, but as you can see this mutation was rare among them.

So perhaps this gene increased its frequency only later and due to selection.

 

[Domen]

None of these data says anything about mass migration. FYI, til industrial times most of Europe was rather sparsely populated.

It is saying about mass migration. What do you imagine as mass migration? Everything is relative, after all.

And your second statement (about allegedly low density of population in Europe) is not correct.

Even in Neolithic times some parts of Europe were densely populated - check:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlements_of_the_Cucuteni–Trypillian_culture

(...) The Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, which existed in the present-day southeastern European nations of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine during the Neolithic Age and Copper Age, from approximately 5500 to 2750 BC, left behind thousands of settlement ruins containing a wealth of archaeological artifacts attesting to their cultural and technological characteristics. In terms of overall size, some of Cucuteni-Trypillian sites, such as Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of some 450 hectares &#8211; 1100 acres) in the Uman district of Ukraine, are as large as (or perhaps even larger than) the more famous city-states of Sumer in the Fertile Crescent, and these Eastern European settlements predate the Sumerian cities by more than half of a millennium. The reason that academicians have not designated the gigantic settlements of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as "cities", is due to the lack of conclusive evidence for internal social differentiation or specialization.[4] However, there is some debate among scholars whether these settlements ought to be labeled as proto-cities.[4] The Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were usually located on a place where the geomorphology provided natural barriers to protect the site: most notably using high river terraces or canyon edges. The natural barriers were supplemented with fences, earthworks and ditches, or even more elaborate wooden and clay ramparts.[5](p103) The role of the fortifications found at these settlements was probably to protect the tribe's domestic animal herd from wild predators.[6] Other hypotheses are that the fortifications were for protection against enemy attacks, or as a means to gather the community.[5](p112) The role of these fortifications, however, is still debated among scholars.(...)

As you can see already Stone Age Europe had settlements inhabited by thousands of people each.

Though of course it also depends on which area of Europe are we talking about.

North-westernmost part of Europe was sparsely populated because farming reached that area late.

=============================================

Here is a map of population density (expressed not in absolute, but relative units) in Neolithic Europe:

"Expected Regional Patterns of Mesolithic-Neolithic Human Population Admixture in Europe based on Archaeological Evidence":

Table showing estimated population density in various parts of Europe during the Stone Age:

https://www.academia.edu/677271/Exp...re_in_Europe_based_on_Archaeological_Evidence

And here is this map:

It is really a map of population density (and of expected ancestry - but reality was different than expectations, as next map below shows):

Darker = higher population density in Neolithic times; lighter = lower population density in Neolithic times:

OK so above you have "expected" genetic contribution of Neolithic farmers - based on population density. And here is their real contribution:

North-Central Europe has a much smaller contribution of Neolithic ancestry than was expected, based on high population density in these regions during the Neolithic period. It shows that Neolithic population was perhaps to a large degree replaced by some new immigrants.

Let's compare this to the Corded Ware culture (which according to Haak 2015 was mostly inhabited by new Indo-European immigrants):

================================

On the other hand, by the end of the Holocene climatic optimum (aka the Atlantic period) there was a sharp population crash in Europe (it seems that population declined to around 50% or maybe slightly more of the pre-crash level). That demographic decline probably preceded the dispersal of Indo-Europeans in Europe. But decline of population to 50% of previous level is still not enough to explain what happened - a migration also had to take place (especially that according to the new 2015 study by Haak, people of the Corded Ware culture in North-Central Europe were in 75% of this new immigrant ancestry, and only 25% old ancestry - so even if population declined by 50%, then it still required a mass migration, because population density was high even after that decline by 50%).

Check this graph showing relative population density:

"Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe":

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/pdf/ncomms3486.pdf

Here is a graph which shows this population crash, prior to 5000 years ago:
(note, this "density" is not in people per 1 km2, but in some other unit)

 

[Agent327]

It is saying about mass migration. What do you imagine as mass migration? Everything is relative, after all.

And your second statement (about allegedly low density of population in Europe) is not correct.

Even in Neolithic times some parts of Europe were densely populated

Errr, no. First off, you can't have dense population without agriculture (enabling cities). Secondly, agriculture is only one prerequisite for a denser population. Lastly, until the industrial revolution most people would be living in the countryside (i.e. not in cities).

Mass migration would as a necessary prerequisite have the existence of masses of population. Then, of course, there would have needed to be evidence of such masses of population actually migrating. I'm kind of misisng any data relating to such phenomena in your postings:

On the other hand, by the end of the Holocene climatic optimum (aka the Atlantic period) there was a sharp population crash in Europe (it seems that population declined to around 50% or maybe slightly more of the pre-crash level). That demographic decline probably preceded the dispersal of Indo-Europeans in Europe. But decline of population to 50% of previous level is still not enough to explain what happened - a migration also had to take place (especially that according to the new 2015 study by Haak, people of the Corded Ware culture in North-Central Europe were in 75% of this new immigrant ancestry, and only 25% old ancestry - so even if population declined by 50%, then it still required a mass migration, because population density was high even after that decline by 50%).

Those are some quite remarkable conclusions on a period (well before the 19th century) of which we have literally no population figures at all.

 

[Domen]

First off, you can't have dense population without agriculture

Sure, but there was agriculture in Neolithic Europe.

BTW - the USA in 2015 have a population density of 34 people per km2.

By comparison France in the 1500s had 36 people per km2.

For that time (1500s) we already have reliable data on population in Europe - censuses of households (for the purpose of tax collecting). All you need to do is multiply number of households by average family size and you get estimated population. In Central Poland it was around 30 people per km2 in the 1580s.

China under the Han dynasty had a census of households in year 2 AD and they counted 12,233,062 households, while Chinese territory was much smaller than today (less than 6,5 million km2) and there was also some undercount in that census, since they did not count households located some remote areas. Based on data from that census John Durand estimated the population of Han China as about 74 million people - so on average almost 12 people per km2.

By comparison the USA in 1900 AD had 76 million people and the same area as today. Which gives just over 8 people per km2.

So China in 2 AD had a higher average population density than the USA almost two thousand years later - in 1900 AD.

That was also long before industrialization. And - by the way - what is "high" density ???

China in year 2 AD:

Mass migration would as a necessary prerequisite have the existence of masses of population.

What is "masses of population" ??? 50 thousand, 100 thousand, 250 thousand, 500 thousand ???

of which we have literally no population figures at all.

Population density can be estimated basing on archaeological research. Including settlements, bones and pollen data.

Humans re-shape their natural environment. Pollen data can tell you about agriculture. Bones of animals, humans. Etc.

 

[Domen]

While most of paternal lineages (Y-DNA) in Britain seem to have Indo-European origin, only 20% - 35% of maternal lineages seem to have this origin:

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml#introduction

(...) between 20% and 35% of maternal lineages can be traced back to Indo-European invaders, be them Celtic, Roman or Germanic. The disparity between paternal and maternal Indo-European lineages is not surprising considering that Proto-Indo-European speakers advanced across Europe, from the Black Sea shores, as military conquerors, and progressively blended with the conquered populations by taking local wives or concubines. Consequently, whereas their paternal lineages spread like a wild fire in all conquered regions, we observe a slowly declining gradient from east to west for maternal haplogroups. (...)

===============================

More hypotheses:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#R1b-conquest

How did R1b come to replace most of the older lineages in Western Europe ?

Until recently it was believed that R1b originated in Western Europe due to its strong presence in the region today. The theory was that R1b represented the Paleolithic Europeans (Cro-Magnon) that had sought refuge in the Franco-Cantabrian region at the peak of the last Ice Age, then recolonised Central and Northern Europe once the ice sheet receded. The phylogeny of R1b proved that this scenario was not possible, because older R1b clades were consistently found in Central Asia and the Middle East, and the youngest in Western and Northern Europe. There was a clear gradient from East to West tracing the migration of R1b people (see map above). This age of the main migration from the shores of the Black Sea to Central Europe also happened to match the timeframe of the Indo-European invasion of Europe, which coincides with the introduction of the Bronze-Age culture in Western Europe, and the proliferation of Italo-Celtic and Germanic languages.

Historians and archeologists have long argued whether the Indo-European migration was a massive invasion, or rather a cultural diffusion of language and technology spread only by a small number of incomers. The answer could well be "neither". Proponents of the diffusion theory would have us think that R1b is native to Western Europe, and R1a alone represent the Indo-Europeans. The problem is that haplogroup R did arise in Central Asia, and R2 is still restricted to Central and South Asia, while R1a and the older subclades of R1b are also found in Central Asia. The age of R1b subclades in Europe coincide with the Bronze-Age. R1b must consequently have replaced most of the native Y-DNA lineages in Europe from the Bronze-Age onwards.

However, a massive migration and nearly complete anihilation of the Paleolithic population can hardly be envisaged. Western Europeans do look quite different in Ireland, Holland, Aquitaine or Portugal, despite being all regions where R1b is dominant. Autosomal DNA studies have confirmed that the Western European population is far from homogeneous. A lot of maternal lineages (mtDNA) also appear to be of Paleolithic origin (e.g. H1, H3, U5 or V) based on ancient DNA tests. What a lot of people forget is that there is also no need of a large-scale exodus for patrilineal lineages to be replaced fairly quickly. Here is why.

1) Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.

2) Status & Power. Equipped with Bronze weapons and horses, the Indo-Europeans would have easily subjugated the Neolithic farmers and with even greater ease Europe's last hunter-gatherers. If they did not exterminate the indigenous men, the newcomers would have become the new ruling class, with a multitude of local kings, chieftains and noblemen (Bronze-Age Celts and Germans lived in small village communities with a chief, each part of a small tribe headed by a king) with higher reproductive opportunities than average.

3) Gender imbalance. Invading armies normally have far more men than women. Men must therefore find women in the conquered population. Wars are waged by men, and the losers suffer heavier casualties, leaving more women available to the winners.

4) Aggressive warfare. The Indo-Europeans were a warlike people with a strong heroic code emphasising courage and military prowess. Their superior technology (metal weapons, wheeled vehicles drawn by horses) and attitude to life would have allowed them to slaughter any population that did not have organised armies with metal weapons (i.e. anybody except the Middle-Eastern civilizations).

5) Genetic predisposition to conceive boys. The main role of the Y-chromosome in man's body is to create sperm. Haplogroups are determined based on mutations differentiating Y-chromosomes. Each mutation is liable to affect sperm production and sperm motility. Preliminary research has already established a link between certain haplogroups and increased or reduced sperm motility. The higher the motility, the higher the chances of conceiving a boy. It is absolutely possible that R1b could confer a bias toward more male offspring. Even a slightly higher percentage of male births would significantly contribute to the replacement of other lineages with the accumulation effect building up over a few millennia. Not all R1b subclades might have this boy bias. The bias only exist in relation to other haplogroups found in a same population. It is very possible that the fairly recent R1b subclades of Western Europe had a significant advantage compared to the older haplogroups in that region, notably haplogroup I2 and E-V13. Read more

Replacement of patrilineal lineages following this model quickly becomes exponential. Imagine 100 Indo-European men conquering a tribe of 1000 indigenous Europeans (a ratio of 1:10). War casualties have resulted in a higher proportion of women in the conquered population. Let's say that the surviving population is composed of 700 women and 300 men. Let's suppose that the victorious Indo-European men end up having twice as many children reaching adulthood as the men of the vanquished tribe. There is a number of reason for that. The winners would take more wives, or take concubines, or even rape women of the vanquished tribe. Their higher status would garantee them greater wealth and therefore better nutrition for their offspring, increasing the chances of reaching adulthood and procreating themselves. An offspring ratio of 2 to 1 for men is actually a conservative estimate, as it is totally conceivable that Bronze-Age sensibilities would have resulted in killing most of the men on the losing side, and raping their women (as attested by the Old Testament). Even so, it would only take a few generations for the winning Y-DNA lineages to become the majority. For instance, if the first generation of Indo-Europeans had two surviving sons per man, against only one per indigenous man, the number of Indo-European paternal lineages would pass to 200 individuals at the second generation, 400 at the third, 800 at the fourth and 1600 at the fifth, and so on. During that time indigenous lineages would only stagnate at 300 individuals for each generation.

Based on such a scenario, the R1b lineages would have quickly overwhelmed the local lineages. Even if the Indo-European conquerors had only slightly more children than the local men, R1b lineages would become dominant within a few centuries. Celtic culture lasted for over 1000 years in Continental Europe before the Roman conquest putting an end to the priviledges of the chieftains and nobility. This is more than enough time for R1b lineages to reach 50 to 80% of the population.

The present-day R1b frequency forms a gradient from the Atlantic fringe of Europe (highest percentage) to Central and Eastern Europe (lowest), the rises again in the Anatolian homeland. This is almost certainly because agriculture was better established in Eastern, then Central Europe, with higher densities of population, leaving R1b invaders more outnumbered than in the West. Besides, other Indo-Europeans of the Corded Ware culture (R1a) had already advanced from modern Russia and Ukraine as far west as Germany and Scandinavia. It would be difficult for R1b people to rival with their R1a cousins who shared similar technology and culture. The Pre-Celto-Germanic R1b would therefore have been forced to settled further west, first around the Alps, then overtaking the then sparsely populated Western Europe.

======================================

Fathers with some haplogroups seem to have on average a higher proportion of boys among offspring:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-count-influenced-by-Y-chromosome-haplogroups

The haplogroup with the highest sperm count in the study was hg1, which unsurprisingly is R1b, followed by hg3 (R1a). This supports my hypothesis that R1a and R1b became dominant in Europe, in spite of their late Bronze-age arrival, thanks to a genetic predisposition to father more boys compared to other haplogroups. Indeed, a higher sperm count is one of the principal factors in raising the chances of having a boy rather than a girl.

But are these differences really significant?

If so then for example in Ireland or in Wales (where great majority of fathers are R1b) boys should significantly outnumber girls...

Is this the case - are boys more numerous among children there?

 

[Agent327]

Historians and archeologists have long argued whether the Indo-European migration was a massive invasion, or rather a cultural diffusion of language and technology spread only by a small number of incomers. The answer could well be "neither".

So, we have a misleading thread title?

Sure, but there was agriculture in Neolithic Europe.

Small scale, low density agriculture, yes.

By comparison France in the 1500s had 36 people per km2.

Conjecture. We actually do not know the population density of France (which area?) in the 1500s.

For that time (1500s) we already have reliable data on population in Europe - censuses of households (for the purpose of tax collecting). All you need to do is multiply number of households by average family size and you get estimated population. In Central Poland it was around 30 people per km2 in the 1580s.

Again: conjecture. All available data are partial and regional at best. The only known exception is the English Domesdaybook.

China under the Han dynasty had a census of households in year 2 AD and they counted 12,233,062 households, while Chinese territory was much smaller than today (less than 6,5 million km2) and there was also some undercount in that census, since they did not count households located some remote areas. Based on data from that census John Durand estimated the population of Han China as about 74 million people - so on average almost 12 people per km2.

Again: estimate. (12 people per km2 isn't exactly high density.)

By comparison the USA in 1900 AD had 76 million people and the same area as today. Which gives just over 8 people per km2.

So China in 2 AD had a higher average population density than the USA almost two thousand years later - in 1900 AD.

Flawed comparison: the USA in 1900 contained vast areas of non-agricultural and even uninhabitable land, while most the agricultural land had a very high yield, necessitating a relatively small labour force. In addition: how many million-sized city did China contain in 2 AD? We do not know, but probably none.

And - by the way - what is "high" density ???

If you don't know that, why are you arguing about population density?

What is "masses of population" ??? 50 thousand, 100 thousand, 250 thousand, 500 thousand ???

Good question. One which should probably have been answered in the OP.

Population density can be estimated basing on archaeological research. Including settlements, bones and pollen data.

No, it can not. It might, if we had universal data from across the world dating back to prehistoric times. This, sadly, is lacking.

 

[Swammerdami]

1) Polygamy. Unlike women, men are not limited in the number of children they can procreate. Men with power typically have more children. This was all the truer in primitive societies, where polygamy was often the norm for chieftains and kings.

This is a key point. A "royal caste" can expand its genetic contribution quickly. Not only do the elite procreate more (especially without alternate entertainment sources like game consoles or cable TV ) but the children of elite are more likely to thrive. Look at the Mongolian Khans for an example of how a single man's genes (Genghis Khan's) can be amplified quickly. Genetic fanout from early Irish Kings is another well-known example. (The overwhelming preponderance of R1b-L11 in Western Europe suggests that "genocidal" killing also played a role.)

Focus on male (agnatic) inheritance may be essential to the "amplification" of a Y-chromosome. Irish inheritance was based on the Derbfine, with only the agnatic great-great-great-grandsons of a Chief being eligible to be Chief. (This is why memorized genealogies are so prevalent in Gaelic culture.) In India, where caste inheritance is also from father, not mother, the correlation between R1a haplogroup and Brahmin caste is very strong. A small group of adventurers preaching Hindu religion almost 4000 years ago had a huge effect on Indian genes.

About half of Western Europeans are agnatic descendants of a single chieftain of the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker culture. Bell Beaker itself may have largely spoken a non-Celtic language and had a non-L11 chromosome but a L11, probably Celtic-speaking, chieftain and his descendants (royal caste or sept, Derbfine) enjoyed rapid conquest at some point.

The point where R-L11 suddenly fans out is very clear in a Y-chromosome clading chart. It may have been about 3000 BC, but more careful comparison with DNA extracted from ancient skeletons is needed to be sure. The early chief probably lived near the Rhine but I don't think this is certain. (Some conjecture that the early Bell Beaker elite in Iberia may have arrived by sea from the Eastern Mediterranean.)

 

[Domen]

Agent327:

Again: estimate. (12 people per km2 isn't exactly high density.)

12,233,062 households is not an estimate but a census figure. Multiply this by 6 (average family size) and you get 74 million.

12 people per km2 is high enough to make it impossible to replace the population without a mass immigration or removing that population.

Again: conjecture. All available data are partial and regional at best. The only known exception is the English Domesdaybook.

English Domesday Book is by no means an exception, it is only the most famous example, and one of the earliest ones.

By the way, I was talking about the 1500s, and you reply with a thing from 1086.

All available data are partial and regional at best.

Nope. There is a complete list of settlements (villages & towns) from 16th century Poland-Lithuania, for example.

And not only settlements but also how many households were in each settlement in a given year.

That data was necessary for tax collecting and the Domesday Book is not exceptional.

Such documents were made in all of Europe. The only problem is that not all of them survived to our times.

We actually do not know the population density of France (which area?) in the 1500s.

We do know, or at least people who researched this do know. Oh, and this refers to entire France on average.

Flawed comparison: the USA in 1900 contained vast areas of non-agricultural and even uninhabitable land

Not flawed: China in 2 also contained vast areas of non-agricultural and even uninhabitable land.

There is no country or region where all of land is agricultural and habitable.

12 per km2 is average for China in 2 AD but that population was obviously not evenly distributed throughout all of China.

In 16th century Poland pop. density was also not even - it ranged from fewer than 10 to over 40 per km2 depending on region.

 

[Domen]

Swammerdami:

This is a key point. A "royal caste" can expand its genetic contribution quickly. Not only do the elite procreate more (especially without alternate entertainment sources like game consoles or cable TV ) but the children of elite are more likely to thrive. Look at the Mongolian Khans for an example of how a single man's genes (Genghis Khan's) can be amplified quickly. Genetic fanout from early Irish Kings is another well-known example. (The overwhelming preponderance of R1b-L11 in Western Europe suggests that "genocidal" killing also played a role.)

Focus on male (agnatic) inheritance may be essential to the "amplification" of a Y-chromosome. Irish inheritance was based on the Derbfine, with only the agnatic great-great-great-grandsons of a Chief being eligible to be Chief. (This is why memorized genealogies are so prevalent in Gaelic culture.) In India, where caste inheritance is also from father, not mother, the correlation between R1a haplogroup and Brahmin caste is very strong. A small group of adventurers preaching Hindu religion almost 4000 years ago had a huge effect on Indian genes.

About half of Western Europeans are agnatic descendants of a single chieftain of the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker culture. Bell Beaker itself may have largely spoken a non-Celtic language and had a non-L11 chromosome but a L11, probably Celtic-speaking, chieftain and his descendants (royal caste or sept, Derbfine) enjoyed rapid conquest at some point.

The point where R-L11 suddenly fans out is very clear in a Y-chromosome clading chart. It may have been about 3000 BC, but more careful comparison with DNA extracted from ancient skeletons is needed to be sure. The early chief probably lived near the Rhine but I don't think this is certain. (Some conjecture that the early Bell Beaker elite in Iberia may have arrived by sea from the Eastern Mediterranean.)

It seems that in the link below R-L11 is called R-L151, and they estimate that it started to spread (TMRCA) around 3000 BC indeed:

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

They estimate that with 95% confidence interval it was between 3500 BC and 2500 BC (5500 - 3500 years ago; or 5000 years ago):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/

During the next 400 years (5000 - 4600, or with 95% CI in period 5500 - 4100), "major" descendants of R-L11 (L151) start to spread:

Especially successful among those "major" descendants who started to spread their seed at that time, were these four:

R-U106 (S21): http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U106/

Spoiler :

R-L21: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L21/

Spoiler :

R-DF27: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Spoiler :

R-U152 (S28): http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-U152/

Spoiler :

Check also this link:

http://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/R1bsousgroupes.htm

Relative proportions to each other (not as % of total male pop.) of U106 (red), L21 (blue), DF27 (yellow) and U152 (green):

 

[Domen]

You have pretty much the same thing with R1a haplogroup.

Except that the single chieftain in question was R-M417 and he lived ca. 5400 years ago (with 95% CI in period 6100 - 4700 years ago):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M417/

Then we have among his descendants chieftains R-Z282 (5000 years ago; 5600 - 4400) and Z93 (4600 years ago; 5300 - 3800):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z282/

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/

Offspring of Z282 expanded mostly in Europe, while offspring of Z93 mostly in Asia (this includes the Brahmin caste you mentioned).

Among descendants of Z282 you have several very successful lineages who started to expand 4800 - 4300 (5400 - 3700) years ago:

R-Z280: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z280/
R-M458: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M458/
R-Z284: http://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z284/

As ancient DNA samples prove, 4600 - 3800 years ago descendants of R-M417 already lived from eastern Germany to western China...

 

[Swammerdami]

It seems that in the link below R-L11 is called R-L151, and they estimate that it started to spread (TMRCA) around 3000 BC indeed:

They estimate that with 95% confidence interval it was between 3500 BC and 2500 BC (5500 - 3500 years ago; or 5000 years ago):

Yes, L11, L151, P311/S128 and some other SNPs (mutations) are always found together. Be careful NOT to refer to the clade with its clade designation R1b1a2a1a1, as such designations are frequently changed as the clading chart is refined.

It strikes me as remarkable how a single "royal family" was able to conquer huge territory in Western Europe in a short time about 4500 years ago. It might be that the royal clan established itself over a wide area in the Bell Beaker Copper Age, and then went on secondary expansions from several points during the Bronze Age or even Iron Age. But Occam's Razor and the mixing of the subclades makes it likely that the main expansion was in a single epoch, I think.

 

[Domen]

About half of Western Europeans are agnatic descendants of a single chieftain of the Corded Ware or Bell Beaker culture.

He could as well be part of the earlier Yamna culture, while his descendants could be expanding as Beaker peoples.

Corded Ware actually had much more of R1a than R1b, at least in ancient samples found to date.

But since Corded Ware = mostly Yamna immigrants, then logically both R1b L51 and R1a M417 had to be present in Yamna.

Especially that Andronovo culture was 9/10 R1a, and Andronovo were perhaps as well Yamna immigrants (rather than Corded Ware immigrants). Also all samples of Andronovo R1a found so far were Z93 - so it is unlikely that they were descended from Corded (Europe is dominated by Z282).

Then you have Proto-Tocharians, who were R1a M417 but - surprisingly - not Z93 (according to a recent Chinese study).

All those clades were apparently present within Yamna. It is just that different Y chromosomes took different routes of expansion.

Also out of 7 males of Yamna culture discovered so far, all 7 were R1b but no of them was R-L51 (M412) - which is the main branch in Western Europe today - and as many as 5 of them were R1-Z1203, which is nowadays most common in West Asia. But let's remember that all these Yamnaya samples come from Samara Oblast, that is from south-eastern part of that culture. It seems logical that those south-eastern groups later expanded towards West Asia.

We should expect to find R1a in northern and north-eastern parts of Yamna culture, while R1b M412 in western and south-western regions.

 

[Agent327]

12,233,062 households is not an estimate but a census figure. Multiply this by 6 (average family size) and you get 74 million.

Since we seem to like bolded:

Based on data from that census John Durand estimated the population of Han China as about 74 million people - so on average almost 12 people per km2.

So, that is literally conjecture.

English Domesday Book is by no means an exception, it is only the most famous example, and one of the earliest ones.

By the way, I was talking about the 1500s, and you reply with a thing from 1086.

Yes, because the English Domedaybook is the only example of a nationwide census prior to the 19th century providing more or less accurate data for population numbers. There are no comparative data available from either before or after 1066 until the 19th century.

Nope. There is a complete list of settlements (villages & towns) from 16th century Poland-Lithuania, for example.

And not only settlements but also how many households were in each settlement in a given year.

That data was necessary for tax collecting and the Domesday Book is not exceptional.

Yes, it is. You just provided the other known exception useful for population estimate purposes. The Domesday Book is a single database for 1 year; since we do not have such data for previous or following years it really only tells us of the population numbers in the particular year the census was undertaken: 1066.

Such documents were made in all of Europe. The only problem is that not all of them survived to our times.

This is, quite literally, nonsense.

We do know, or at least people who researched this do know. Oh, and this refers to entire France on average.

Again, this is nonsense. There are no nationwide population data for France from this time period.

Not flawed: China in 2 also contained vast areas of non-agricultural and even uninhabitable land.

That's not the issue though. Comparing two figures from different time periods collected in different ways is always a flawed comparison. This is a major problem even in modern comparative statistics.

In 16th century Poland pop. density was also not even - it ranged from fewer than 10 to over 40 per km2 depending on region.

I think I already referred to 1 million-inhabitant-cities. Population density is always relative - it's a relative number.

In conclusion: we are still waiting on any data concerning mass migration.

 

[Domen]

Yes, because the English Domedaybook is the only example of a nationwide census prior to the 19th century providing more or less accurate data for population numbers.

Of course the Domesday Book did NOT provide accurate data for population numbers:

http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/life.html

"The total population of England in 1086 cannot be calculated accurately from Domesday for several reasons: only the heads of households are listed; major cities like London and Winchester were omitted completely; there are no records of nuns, monks, or people in castles. The population of England at the time of Domesday has been tentatively estimated at between 1,25 and 2 million."

Only the heads of households were listed (so you still need to estimate the size of each household), and not all households were included.

So there is nothing exceptional about it, because similar censuses of homesteads were carried out in much of continental Europe.

There are no comparative data available from either before or after 1066 until the 19th century.

Censuses which list heads of households (like the Domesday Book) or simply count homesteads are plentiful before the 19th century.

In all countries where property taxes or personal taxes existed, there existed also censuses of homesteads or families.

In Poland-Lithuania for example there was "roof tax" (homestead tax) and "head tax" (personal tax), but the former was more common.

So, that is literally conjecture.

In 2 AD the Chinese census carried out in 103 commanderies and principalities, subdivided into 1314 xian districts, 32 dao marches and 241 marquisates, registered 12,233,062 households with a population of 59,594,978 persons. But the census did not count certain categories of persons and also undercounted the number of households - so John Durand, "Historical Estimates of World Population: An Evaluation", estimated that China had ca. 74 million people in 2 AD.

In any case, that Chinese census of 2 AD was much more accurate than the English Domesday Book.

But just like the English Domesday Book, it also did not count some categories of people and some households and settlements.

However, the Domesday Book only counted heads of households, while the Chinese census counted most of inhabitants.

Comparing two figures from different time periods collected in different ways is always a flawed comparison.

What can be these "different ways" in such a simple thing as counting the number of people... ???

Was there a different definition of what is a human in ancient times? Were dogs counted as humans? Come on...

If that was the case, then it could only understate the size of population, due to some people (e.g. slaves, homeless, etc.) not being counted.

 

[Domen]

Population density is always relative - it's a relative number.

How massive a migration is, is also a relative measure. If 50,000 people come to area inhabited by 50,000 people then it's massive (proportion of immigrants to locals being 50:50 already at first contact). But if the same number of people come to area inhabited by 1 million then it's not massive.