1. Intro
  2. Pre-Corded Ware Eneolithic
  3. Corded Ware
  4. Bell Beaker
  5. Únětice
  6. Conclusion
  7. TL;DR Summary
  8. Graphics (PCAs etc.)


1. Intro

A new archaeogenetic study titled ‘Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe’ was published a few days ago in Science Journal. While previous studies on ancient European genetics have conducted continent-wide analyses, this study focuses exclusively on the small region of Bohemia in Central Europe, from ~5000 BC to ~1500 BC, providing a more in-depth analysis.


The study aimed to:

  • Link changes in culture to changes in genetics (driven by migration and the impacts thereof)
  • Characterize the “genetic diversity” (ethnic makeup) of Central Europe immediately before the appearance of the Corded Ware Culture
  • Date the arrival of “Yamnaya-like” ancestry in Europe and pinpoint its origin
  • Characterize the nature of genetic interactions between locals and migrants

The study deals with four main populations:

  • Various Pre-Corded Ware Eneolithic peoples (Early European Farmers plus Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers)
  • Corded Ware
  • Bell Beaker
  • Únětice (labeled “Early Bronze Age,” for some unknown reason).

Note: I’m going to call “Yamnaya-like” ancestry ‘Western Steppe Herder’ (WSH), since the Yamnaya are not the original source of this ancestry. It’s found in multiple older steppe cultures, such as the Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog. By the Yamnaya period, WSH ancestry was a 60/40 mix of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG).


2. Pre-Corded Ware Eneolithic

The amount of Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry in Bohemian Early European Farmer (EEF) populations increased throughout the Neolithic, from 7% among Stroked Pottery Culture (STK) to 25% among Globular Amphora Culture (GAC) — the final EEF population before the Corded Ware invasion.


WHG admixture in the EEF Řivnáč population dated between ~4800 BC and ~3700 BC, which means that WHG were living alongside EEF in Central Europe as late as the 4th Millennium BC, less than 1000 years before the Proto-Indo-European expansion.

Previous studies have consistently discovered that a male-dominated WHG resurgence took place throughout the entirety of Europe, from Spain to Ukraine, beginning around 4500 BC. For example, a study on Neolithic France reported that distinct WHG and EEF populations were still intermixing around 3800 BC.

It’s likely that this intermixing was not always a peaceful process. Firstly, “male-dominated” usually means “rape and murder.” Secondly, we have archaeological evidence of conflict between various Mesolithic hunter-gatherer populations and EEF. For example, the Scandinavian Hunter-Gather (SHG) Pitted Ware Culture, which arose around 3500 BC, ethnically cleansed the EEF Funnelbeakers of Southern Scandinavia (see PWC Wiki for more info).

The study also found genetic evidence to support the theory that EEF populations ethnically replaced one another via invasive migrations, leading to changes in material culture. Again, archaeological evidence indicates that this was likely not a peaceful process. Multiple mass graves have been discovered throughout Europe, stemming from EEF tribal warfare. This behavior dates back to some of the earliest EEF cultures, see the Linear Pottery Culture (LBK) ‘Talheim Death Pit’ from around 5000 BC.

  • “GAC individuals […] constituted a recent, nonlocal incursion in Bohemia”
  • “[Cultural changes] involved large genetic shifts over short time periods, likely explained by migrations” …combined with ethnic replacement, warfare, genocide, etc., no doubt.


3. Corded Ware

The origin of the Corded Ware (CW) — who were widespread across Bohemia by 2900 BC — has been an unsolved mystery in Indo-European studies for centuries. Although some argue that CW was a direct offshoot of Yamnaya, others theorize that CW and Yamnaya were sister populations (described as being literal cousins by the Harvard Reich Lab), that descended from earlier WSH peoples (e.g. Khvalynsk, Repin, Sredny Stog, etc.).

In 2015, a study by Haak et al (‘Massive migration from the steppe’) warned that:

“the sampled Yamnaya individuals from Samara might not be directly ancestral to Corded Ware individuals from Germany. It is possible that a more western Yamnaya population, or an earlier (pre-Yamnaya) steppe population may have migrated into central Europe”

Early CW people were genetically very similar to Yamnaya, with 75-80% “Yamnaya-like” ancestry. However, they probably didn’t descend directly from the Yamnaya themselves, for the following reasons:

  1. CW and Yamnaya were largely contemporaneous cultures, dated 2900–2350 BC and 3300–2600 BC, respectively.
  2. They were adapted to completely different habitats; Yamnaya lived on the steppe, while CW lived in the forest-steppe zone to their north.
  3. Their material cultures were notably different.
  4. Most importantly, CW and Yamnaya men descended from distinct (but closely related) male lineages: R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, and R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699, respectively.

It’s certainly possible that some Yamnaya migrated into the forest-steppe zone and founded the Corded Ware Culture, but current genetic data indicates that this is not the case.


Unfortunately, this study did not solve the CW origins mystery, but did provide some other interesting information.

Early CW in Bohemia were found to have 5-15% ancestry from hunter-gatherer populations similar to those of Neolithic Ukraine, Latvia, and Pitted Ware Culture, all of whom were a mix of WHG and EHG. Admixture from these specific northeastern hunter-gatherer populations has not been found in any known Yamnaya samples. A 2018 study also found that people of the Baltic Comb Ceramic Culture (4200–2000 BC) had 20% WSH ancestry, demonstrating two-way admixture between CW and northeastern hunter-gatherers.

Although CW men in Bohemia were initially split between five main haplogroups (R1b-L151, R1b-U106, R1a-M417, Q1b2a, and I), by 2400 BC the population was dominated by one single lineage: R1a-M417. These males were found to have 15.79% more surviving offspring per generation, relative to males of other Y-haplogroups. The study suggests that this may have been caused by “selection, social structure, or influx of nonlocal R1a-M417(xZ645) lineages.”

Regarding CW/EEF interactions: CW had ancestry from EEF populations (namely GAC), which increased over time. However, EEF populations had insignificant or “possibly nonexistent” amounts of WSH ancestry, indicating completely asymmetric geneflow between the populations. The study found that 100% of people in CW society without WSH ancestry were female, and up to 50% or more may have been non-local in origin.

PCA of selected CW samples:

The study’s conclusion is filled with Leftist propaganda (as usual). The authors claim that EEF women living among the CW population was evidence of a “diverse” “polyethnic or plural society,” and that the asymmetric gene flow was because the CW benefited from “incorporating people with important local knowledge into their communities.” They also claimed that EEF women being buried in regular CW graves, with all of the usual grave goods and honors, was proof of “full integration of genetically, and likely ethnically, diverse individuals within the same archaeological culture.”

In reality, what this actually shows is that CW men kidnapped or somehow acquired EEF women from neighboring societies, who they then regarded as belonging to their own culture. That’s it. How exactly the women were treated is another matter, but EEF/CW interactions were certainly not multi-culti, happy-clappy pluralism. These people were exterminating each other, which we know for a fact due to the near-extinction of EEF Y-haplogroups in Europe, proving that their men were being completely removed from the genepool. Attempting to frame this as all-loving, “tolerant” pluralism is completely insane — but what else can you expect from modern academia?


4. Bell Beakers

Early Bell Beakers (BB) occupied a similar principal component analysis* position to Late CW, suggesting genetic continuity. This changed over time due to additional EEF admixture (~20% on average), and Late BB had diverged significantly from Late CW.

* Note: All PCAs are featured in section 8.

The study reported that the Y-DNA of BB and Early CW was much more closely related than that of BB and Late CW or BB and Yamnaya. One Bohemian CW individual was found to have a Y-haplogroup ancestral to R1b-P312, the dominant BB lineage. The ancestral R1b haplogroup common to both British BB and Bohemian BB was hypothesized to have originated somewhere in the Rhineland region, which was home to the CW Single Grave Culture, theorized to be the origin of Northwestern BB.


5. Únětice

The transition from Late BB to Únětice was characterized by a mixing of multiple male lineages:

  • R1b-P312 from Late BB
  • R1b-U106 and I2 from Early CW
  • R1a-Z645 from Bronze Age Latvia

The paper suggests an influx of CW-derived northeastern peoples, resulting in around 50% of male BB lineages being replaced in Bohemia, and a significant increase in WSH ancestry.

As with BB, Late Únětice had additional EEF ancestry. However, their varied Y-DNA remains similar through Early and Late phases, indicating a change in cultural practices.


6. Conclusion

So, there was definitely a lot of genocide and probably a lot of rape in ancient Europe. These continual cycles of ethnic cleansing are framed in a politically correct manner in the study — “we show that the spread of Funnelbeaker and GAC, as well as the origin of Únětice, involved large genetic shifts over short time periods, likely explained by migrations“ — but at least academics are finally willing to acknowledge that “diversity” leads to conflict between “locals” and “migrants.”


7. TL;DR Summary

  1. Cultural change in prehistoric Europe was driven by genetic change, which in turn was primarily driven by violence.
  2. WHG ancestry increased across Europe beginning around 4500 BC in a male-dominated resurgence.
  3. Unmixed WHG populations existed in Europe as late as the 4th Millennium BC.
  4. Interactions between Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and EEF were not always peaceful.
  5. EEF ethnically cleansed each other; they were not matriarchal pacifists, as claimed by the feminist Marija Gimbutas.
  6. Haplogroup evidence indicates that the Corded Ware probably did not descend directly from Yamnaya, but were very closely related nonetheless.
  7. Early CW had 5-15% ancestry from northeastern hunter-gatherers, similar to Baltic Neolithic HG.
  8. Some Baltic HG also had WSH ancestry, demonstrating two-way admixture.
  9. Early CW men of Bohemia had five main haplogroups (R1b-L151, R1b-U106, R1a-M417, Q1b2a, and I) but this was reduced to one lineage (R1a-M417) via selection pressures and ethnic displacement.
  10. Children of R1a-M417 CW men were over 15% more likely to survive.
  11. One Bohemian CW male had a haplogroup ancestral to R1b-P312, the dominant Bell Beaker lineage.
  12. CW had ancestry from EEF, but EEF had no ancestry from CW.
  13. EEF ancestry in CW was 100% female, and up to 50% or more may have been non-local in origin. Bride kidnapping is the most logical explanation.
  14. EEF women without CW ancestry were buried in regular CW graves among CW sites. [Note: The study uses this fact to peddle Leftist nonsense but the simple fact is that these populations were exterminating each other, as evident from the near-total extinction of EEF male lineages in Europe].
  15. The transition from CW to BB to Únětice was characterized by the replacement of male lineages from non-local sources. I.e.: The local men were genocided and ethnically replaced.


8. Graphics (PCAs etc.)

Here’s all of the PCAs in one image:


Admixture analysis and timeline:


Common haplogroups in Europe (not from study):