search this blog

Friday, May 12, 2017

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...


All of the post-Middle Neolithic samples from the recent Mittnik et al. and Saag et al. preprints on the ancient population history of the Baltic region belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a. And most of them belonged to the R1a-M417 (R1a1a) subclade that makes up almost 100% of the R1a lineages in the world today. This is what the results look like in a table (the sample IDs are of my own design):


Earlier samples from the same region belonged to Y-haplogroups I2a and R1a, but this was a subclade of R1a defined by the YP1272 mutation that is extremely rare today even in Northeastern Europe.

And now shifting our focus west of Scandinavia: all but two of the post-Middle Neolithic samples from around the North Sea from the recent Olalde et al. preprint on the Bell Beaker phenomenon and ancient population history of Northwest Europe belonged to Y-chromosome R1b, and more specifically to the R1b-M269 (R1b1a1a2) subclade, which makes up almost 100% of the R1b lineages in the world today. Here's a table:


Earlier samples from the same region belonged to Y-haplogroups I2a, I, G2a and CF, and most of the instances of I and the CF would probably be classified as I2a if not for missing data.

Interestingly, despite the R1a vs R1b dichotomy between these post-Middle Neolithic obvious newcomers to the Baltic and North Sea regions, respectively, they were very similar in terms of overall genetic structure, obviously closely related, starkly different from Middle Neolithic Northern Europeans, and in all likelihood mainly derived from the same homeland that was not located in Northern Europe.

So can we locate this homeland with any degree of certainty, you might wonder? In fact, you might ask, isn't this a futile search for the time being, as we await ancient DNA from many prehistoric Eurasian populations?

Not at all, because when attempting to answer this question we're bounded by two key constraints: the exceptionally high frequencies of R1a and R1b in the post-Middle Neolithic Baltic and North Sea samples, and their close genetic affinity to earlier and contemporaneous populations from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, part of which is due to significant Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) admixture that was lacking in Middle Neolithic Northern Europeans.

Indeed, to date, the Pontic-Caspian Steppe is the only region where both R1a and R1b have been found in ancient remains from the same sites dating to the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Eneolithic. Here's a table based on results from Mathieson et al. 2015 and 2017. The R and R1 might really be R1a or R1b if not for missing data.


The Pontic-Caspian Steppe also abuts the Caucasus foothills, and we know that CHG admixture was a major feature of its inhabitants from at least the Eneolithic. So odds are, and make no mistake, these are indeed excellent odds, that the homeland we're looking for was on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

But of course I2a has also been recorded in prehistoric samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. So, you might ask, why did the populations migrating out of the steppe belong to R1a and R1b, and why did some of them seemingly carry only R1a while others only R1b? This can be explained by local founder effects on the steppe due to patrilocality. Moreover, it's possible that some groups moving out of the steppe did carry high frequencies of I2a, but they're yet to enter the ancient DNA record. [Edit: Maybe they already have? See here]

Now, the aforementioned post-Middle Neolithic newcomers to the Baltic and North Sea regions are most certainly in large part the direct ancestors of modern-day Northern Europeans, speaking languages belonging to the three daughter branches of Late Proto-Indo-European (PIE): Balto-Slavic, Celtic and Germanic. It's highly unlikely that languages ancestral to these present-day languages were spoken by Middle Neolithic farmers, nor introduced into Northern Europe after it was colonized by the migrants from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

What this strongly suggests is that the Pontic-Caspian Steppe was also the late PIE homeland.

But, you might argue, the Pontic-Casian Steppe may have just been the expansion point for some of the late PIE language branches. No, that won't work. For one, modern-day populations speaking languages belonging to all other late PIE branches, such as Armenian, Greek, Indo-Iranian and Italic, show signals of the same population expansion from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe that gave rise to modern-day Northern Europeans, in the form of Yamnaya-related genome-wide genetic admixture and appreciable frequencies of Y-chromosome haplogroups R1a-M417 and/or R1b-M269.

Some of these signals are certainly due to fairly recent admixture from Northern Europeans, like in much of Greece as a result of the Slavic expansions during the Early Middle Ages, but most cannot be explained in this way.

Secondly, Balto-Slavic, Celtic and Germanic are not more closely related to each other than to some of the other late PIE branches. For instance, Balto-Slavic is considered far more closely related to Indo-Iranian than to Celtic, which is generally seen as a sister branch to Italic. Therefore, if Balto-Slavic and Celtic derive from a homeland on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, then logically this is also where we should look for the origins of Indo-Iranian and Italic.

So as far as the late PIE homeland is concerned, thanks to ancient DNA, the debate is now practically over. But the PIE homeland debate is still wide open, or so we're told.

Apparently, Mathieson et al. 2017 aren't comfortable with putting the PIE homeland on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe because they can't find any evidence in their ancient DNA dataset of a significant migration through the Balkans that would potentially bring Anatolian languages from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to Anatolia. From the paper:

One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo European languages developed in the steppe north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE, as part of the same incursions from the steppe that coincided with the decline of the tell settlements. [51] If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristic steppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG/Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date [20] , nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic (Figure 1A, Supplementary Data Table 2, Supplementary Information section 1). This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia [11] and later in Copper Age Anatolia [23], suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

And this...

On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus.

But I'd say the authors are taking that one particular version of the Steppe Hypothesis way too seriously. They might even be implying things that the creator(s) of the said hypothesis never posited.

Why do they seemingly expect a massive surge of steppe admixture into the Balkans during the Copper Age? If the steppe people are just shooting through the Balkans on their way to Anatolia, why would they leave a lot of admixture along the way? And if the locals are abandoning their tell settlements and running for the hills as far away from the oncoming steppe invaders as they can, how exactly would they acquire steppe admixture? Osmosis or what?

The Balkans is not Northern Europe, and the hypothesized migration of the proto-Anatolians from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to Anatolia through the Balkans was never, as far as I know, meant to parallel the massive Corded Ware expansion across Northern Europe. In other words, why should all of the early Indo-European expansions have been of the same character, especially considering that they moved into such starkly different areas of Eurasia?

Indeed, as Mathieson et al. 2017 point out in the quote above, the evidence for the fleeting presence of steppe peoples in the Copper Age Balkans is in their dataset. For instance, in their Varna 1 sample set from Bulgaria, three out of the five individuals show significant steppe admixture. One of these individuals is almost 50% Yamnaya-like. Surely, there's really no need to expect anything more than that when looking for signals of a proto-Anatolian migration from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe to Anatolia.

In fact, even though I do appreciate the incredible work these guys are doing and the data they're making available to myself and everyone else, I suspect that there's a little bit of, shall we say, schadenfreude going on here.

They sequenced all of three Early Bronze Age Anatolians of obscure origin (are they actually suspected Anatolian speakers, like Luwians?), and apparently it's a big deal that they can't find any steppe admixture in Early Bronze Age Anatolia. Come on.

And then we're offered just three Yamnaya samples from the Pontic Steppe in Ukraine. One happens to be a massive outlier towards the Caucasus. Wow, what are the chances of that? And guess what, all three of these Yamnayans are females, so of course we're left wondering about the Y-haplogroups of the Yamnaya males on the Pontic Steppe. What happened to the males? Next paper, that's what.

Update 19//05/2017: Please note that the authors are not holding back any Yamnaya males from Ukraine for a future paper, as per my claim in the last paragraph above. They used what they had for the time being.

Update 21/05/2017: Actually, I suspect that we already have a population from the Bronze Age steppe in the ancient DNA record with a high frequency of Y-haplogroup I2a. See here.

See also...

Eastern Europe as a bifurcation hotspot for Y-hg R1

Globular Amphora people starkly different from Yamnaya people

437 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 437   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

@JohnP

R is unlikely to be an CHG lineage originally, as the earliest samples belonging to R don't carry any Basal Eurasian admixture, while CHG is rich in Basal Eurasian ancestry.

The only exceptions to this rule are the two Neolithic Iranian samples that belong to R2 and pre-R2. But it's likely that these markers appeared in their gene pool along with ANE (MA1-related) ancestry, not CHG or anything like CHG.

Also, there's no native R1 in the Americas. It all arrived there after Columbus.

@postneo

You're positing too many "broken chains" for me to take you seriously. As pointed out in my blog entry, the genetic trail and its correlation with linguistics are solid.

Ric Hern said...

What is the maximum estimated timedepth of the formation of Proto-Indo-European ?

If it is 10 000 years we already see the relative Haplogroups R1a and R1b together at the same place near the Dnieper River from +-8000 BCE. They remained in that region for at least 3000 years afterwards.

So according to the majority of age estimates previously proposed by Linguists we see the Relative Haplogroups near the Dnieper River and nowhere else.

It usually takes a long time for admixture to standardise throughout a widely distributed population. This can not be done within one generation. So therefore the Dnieper River population is an excellent choice.

Davidski said...

The generally accepted IE time depth, if we ignore the kooky theories of Grey, Atkinson and Heggarty, is about 4,000 BC.

But yeah, whatever, the time depth, these latest results from the Dnieper surrounds cover it all, as far back as the Mesolithic.

Gökhan said...

Very true.

Nirjhar007 said...

Mathieson et al re-assigned Ganj Dareh as R Y-DNA , instead of R2 .

R is also present in Mesolithic France , who gives a shit about dead and basal lineages?.

The thing is M-417 , it is somewhat can be suggested with PIE , the previous and dead nodes were possibly too old to be proper PIE by any means .

What David speaks is basically trying to logical the dogma of steppe hypothesis that he bears , for guys like me, who follows stats and facts, they are free and know whats going to happen very soon.

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

Mathieson et al. use the outdated ISOGG tree to assign Y-haplogroups, but whatever.

Show us both R1a and R1b from pre-Bronze Age Iran and then we'll talk.

Rob said...

@ Nirj

Thanks for posting that abstract.
It also mentioned "We are also testing the pervasive founder events and gradient of recessive genes accumulation by comparing the ancient genome with the modern human population of India. "

What do you suppose they are referring to there (wrt. 'founder effects) ?

Nirjhar007 said...

Rob,

Founder events were there , quite possibly around 4000 BC and after de-urbanization brought migrations of Harappan people, to the other parts of the subcontinent .

The thing is their reach of samples, Mesolithic to Bronze age is a huge platform, so perhaps not just the Indo-European issue but also other more archaic issues will get a huge boost of understanding .

David,

Your CHG/Iran_ Neo wife theory has failed, no one is buying it .

You should be specific , say M-417 and M-269 .

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

Your CHG/Iran_ Neo wife theory has failed, no one is buying it.

And this comment is based on what exactly?

Maybe the Ukrainian Eneolithic and Yamnaya females with elevated admixture from the Near East including Near Eastern mtDNA?

How do these samples not back up my theory? Care to elaborate?

Matt said...

@ Rob: IMO, I'd guess, they're talking about the caste/jati related genetic differentiation patterns.

Differentiation between local area "high" and "low" Caste populations in India is generally moderate, e.g. Fst 0.005 between Uttar Pradesh Brahmins to Uttar Pradesh Low Caste, per Chaubey (about comparable between Polish-Spanish, Scottish-Albanian, Japanese-Northern Han Chinese).

But differentiation can be quite a bit higher among some subgroups, because of more extreme patterns of inbreeding, over at least 2000 years since caste is theorised to have come into practice as a religious norm.

My guess is Rai et al will be explicitly testing models with admixture between different populations to better quantify the "real" effect of founder effects / inbreeding in differentiation of Indian populations, net of admixture differences.

This seems like a pretty interesting question for Indian researchers, earlier attempts to tackle the question - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3769933/ 2008 (" Restricting to the 9 pairs of groups that were from the same state and traditional caste level, the average inbreeding-corrected FST was 0.0069") and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/ 2013 (press coverage of 2013 paper - http://www.livescience.com/38751-genetic-study-reveals-caste-system-origins.html).

It should be easier to correct for all the inbreeding / founder and date them when you can simulate the ancestral populations better, with real data. That could be helpful for genetic disease, etc.

Rob said...

Well it looks like an awesome spread of samples. It'll hopefully give a lot of data points beyond the mere PIE question.

Azarov Dmitry said...

@Davidski
Show us both R1a and R1b from pre-Bronze Age Iran and then we'll talk.


There’s no need for it. All R1 aDNA samples from Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age Eurasia can be divided in two groups: group CHG+ (mostly from the PC steppe and Central Europe) and group CHG- (mostly from Western Europe and Asian steppe). Such distribution pattern can be easily explained if we presume that R1 folks survived LGM somewhere on the Iranian Plateau and later migrated from there by four major routes: via North Africa (R1b-V88 = CHG-), via Kazakhstan (R1b-M73 and xR1a-M417 = CHG-), via Anatolia (R1b-L51 and R1a-YP1051 = small CHG and Iran Neo admixture) and via Caucasus (R1b-Z2103 and R1a-M417 = strong CHG and Iran Neo admixture).

Richard Holtman said...

@Slumberry

Thanks for the explanation. Was wondering what the hell he was talking about.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gioiello... as you know quite well, I am no longer an active administrator of the Italy because of idiots that sought my help, got it, and then would insult me on public message boards. If you have a gripe, send a note to FTDNA.

Richard Rocca said...

No mention of this so far because it seems to be an inconvenient truth... the oldest R1b1a2 (aka V88) is now from a Ukrainian hunter-gatherer dated to 7446-7058 calBCE. That sample is more than two thousand years older than the Iberian Neolithic sample.

batman said...

Davidski,

# "The generally accepted IE time depth, if we ignore the kooky theories of Grey, Atkinson and Heggarty, is about 4,000 BC."

This was the first stockastic modelling made of the I-E languagefamily, where advanced data-power was utilized to run comparisions of the IE language-three - using some "2.449 lexes" from 87 limbs of of the three.

As this 'evolutionary' new method finally were completed (2003) we could finally have a degree of objectivity hereto unknown in assesing the age and evolution of the IE language-three.

When the maths were all done they could determine a time-span of the first 'bifuricatios' with a degree of probability hereto unknown in the linguistical sciences.

As their results were 'calibrated' (actually 'down-scaled') they could publish a time-zone estimating a MINIMUM date of "7.800 - 9.800 years BP."

Since statisitc modelling seems to a part of your profession - one would like to know what you consider as "kooky" about their results.


# "But yeah, whatever, the time depth, these latest results from the Dnieper surrounds cover it all, as far back as the Mesolithic."

If that is a fact, what implications may this new insight actually have to:

1. The bifurication of R1a/R1b?
2. The spread of R1a/R1b?

The other side of these questions - still remaining to be nailed - is if the origin and distribution of R1a/b can be linked to:

1. The spread of agriculture.
2. The spread of the PIE language-base.

What Say Ye, Davidski?

epoch2013 said...

"For instance, in their Varna 1 sample set from Bulgaria, three out of the five individuals show significant steppe admixture. One of these individuals is almost 50% Yamnaya-like."

Varna is reputed (by Anthony if I read well) to be involved with Anatolian languages so I think this is more than coincidental.

epoch2013 said...

And there is one Varna sample with Y-DNA R1.

batman said...

Perhaps time to re-adress the larger picture of the post-glacial genetics of Eurasia, as the first distribution of y-dna GHIJ still seems to be a milennia older than the spread of the extant R1a/R1b.

According to the present collection of aDNA we have some mesolithc origins followed by a continous predominance of these y-lines, that pioneered the re-population of post-glacial Eurasia. They even founded dynastical societies in various areas - as following:

1. Y-dna J in Iranian-Indian area.
2. Y-dna G in the ME/North Mediterranean area.
3. Y-dna I in Northern Europe.

From the graveyards found from the mesolithic, neolithic and BA Eurasia we know that these three y-lines did interact with each other, at a rather frequent an friendly basis. More over we have to include their cousin-lines of y-dna H and N/O in these networks.

As the first cattle-farmers were established we find R1a or R1b appearing alongside the pioneer-groups, as their new economy - based on cattlefamring, wheatproduction and creamed cakes - became a highly popular complementation to the fried fish, porridge and goat-milk of the pioneering economies.

Thus we find early graveyards within the area of the G-dyansty, like Trielles, honoring guestworkers from y-dna I. As we find three different lines of pioneerering cattle- and horsebreeders at neitghbouring graves in the far east - in Khvalynsk at the Volga bend - where R1a and R1b found common ground with Q1a - the eastern dynasty that took horses and oxen to Mongolia and China. As some may know, this graveyard is less than three stone-throws from Elshanka, whee the very oldest pottery in Eurasia is found, so far.

Between the semi-tropic Trielles and semi-arctic Khvalynsk we find similar collections at the end of major river-routes. Not the least in the ( fertile grounds between the Baltic, Caspian and Black Seas - where several river-routes provides borth irrigation and transportation. Thus we have the archalogically well-known 'cultures' of Volga-Oka, Volga-Don, Prypat-Dnjepr, Dvina-Djepr, Dniepr-Donets and Dniester-Bug.

The later one perhaps the very earliest, as it connects to the great Djepr in the east as well as to the the grassy lowlands of Vistula and the western Baltics, where the oldest known 'domesticates' of aurochs and horse is found. It may even be worth mentioning that the Vistula-Bug-Dniester and the Dvina-Djepr-connesctions are the oldest known trade-routes between North-European and the Mediterranean civilizations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper

batman said...

Richard Rocca,

"...the oldest R1b1a2 (aka V88) is now from a Ukrainian hunter-gatherer dated to 7446-7058 calBCE. That sample is more than two thousand years older than the Iberian Neolithic sample."

Very interesting.

The first cattle-farmers adjusted to the semi-tropics entered Ethiopia some 5.500 BC. This seems to correspond quite well with the assumed age of the African Lactose-allele. The entrance-route is alledged to be the Nile.

Though, your term "Ukrainian hunter-gather" is a bit off-side. There's no reason to assume that he was anything but a "farmer" - being part of the (first) R1b-clad that were able to adapt, themselves as well as their cattle, to a semi-tropical climate.

Besides that - pls note that you're 50% of the o-n-l-y personal correspondance taking place on this blog. Don't any of you have normal e-mail?

batman said...

Rob,

"No, Varna is not reputed, according to the Kurgan hypothesis, to have spread Anatolian."

Is that according to Gimbutas original hypo?!

"Quite the contrary, Varna is considered part of the 'Old Europe" non-IE Farmers."

Today, perhaps - showing up as y-dna G.

Another question is - of course - what other than (a branch) of I-E that can be attributed to the dynasty of G2a2 - who predominated the ME and the southern part of the Black Sea - north to Donau - as well as Greece, southern Balkan, Italy and mediterranean Spain.

If they were not 'prto-Greek', 'proto-Italian' and 'proto-Iberian', then what?!

Rob said...

@ Epoch

No, Varna is not reputed, according to the Kurgan hypothesis, to have spread Anatolian. Where did you come up with that ?
Quite the contrary, Varna is considered part of the 'Old Europe" non-IE Farmers.

In fact Varna shows higher EHG admixture than the following Early Bronze Age (3000 BC) samples, which is when the kurgan conquerors are alleged to have spread through Balkans. And yes, he was already R1b. So the data quite doesn't fit any classic described scenario. But of course, that is why aDNA helps.

batman said...

Ric Hern,

"It usually takes a long time for admixture to standardise throughout a widely distributed population. This can not be done within one generation. So therefore the Dnieper River population is an excellent choice."

Yes - it's and eccelent example. But it's not the only one... ;-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bug_River#/media/File:Man_statue_in_Lazenki.JPG

Richard Rocca said...

@batman...the sample is labeled "Ukraine_Mesolithic" and is dated to at least 1000 years before framing showed up in the Ukraine. So, it's not my label... he "is" a hunter-gatherer.

Rob said...

@ Batman

Which Mesolithic European samples have come back G2 ?

zardos said...

At least late Varna is considered transitional and shows steppe derived influences.

"@ Zardos
They had multiple profiles. The whole package is only observed in the off-spring. Trying to pinpoint where all those lines come together in one particular location at one particular point in time is probably like chasing a ghost."

Even Hittites show in their ideology and laws influences which can hardly be explained by Balkan farmers, even less so Anatolian ones. It is quite clearly the value system of warlike, patriarchal pastoralists. The same is even more pronounced in all other IE branches we know of.

So if the Hittites are the oldest, and mixed branche line, but still show it very clearly, you can bet PIE had the package too. How many early branches don't show it?
CWC, BBC and Indo-Iranian cultures clearly fit the bill.

Where is the deviation in an important early IE branch? And Hittites show signs of strong admixture and foreign influences to begin with, yet like I said, the original package is still clearly recognisable in their culture.

The second best bet after directly in the steppe would be Maikop imo. But then Maikob should be EHG admixed and heavy in R1x already, so in a way between Caucasian and EHG steppe HG. More Southern Caucasian people were Caucasian speakers for sure and an origin from there or the Iranian plateau would require, unless there was some kind of strange and totally unlikely special development, a strong presence of J in all or at least many early IE branches. But so far its clealry R1x which is at the core of the whole development from one end of Eurasia to the other.

Gioiello said...

@ Richard Rocca

"@Gioiello... as you know quite well, I am no longer an active administrator of the Italy because of idiots that sought my help, got it, and then would insult me on public message boards. If you have a gripe, send a note to FTDNA".

Did you leave FTDNA? Yes and you know that I know you know that I know.. but you left up there one of your "scagnozzi": Palozzi. But you were intoxitaded from more then ten years of being a lackey of the criminal firm and its agendas, that you need many years for coming back to reason lackey-free. How many useless tests and useles SNPs did you promote towards the FTDNA customers? Where were you when I said that L150 was a fake SNP, and how many people tested the familial SNP of Belgieri, L228? Anyway if you think that one of those idiots was I, you are very far from the truth,and don't say that you left FTDNA for those reasons. You are very likely not so corrypted for continuing that behaviour...but you need some yera syet for becoming a free thinker.

"No mention of this so far because it seems to be an inconvenient truth... the oldest R1b1a2 (aka V88) is now from a Ukrainian hunter-gatherer dated to 7446-7058 calBCE. That sample is more than two thousand years older than the Iberian Neolithic sample".

I am glad that R-V88 has been found in Ukraine, so no one will think that it came from Middle East (read above also the foolish posts of Azarov Dmitry!). Anyway Ukraine and eastern Europe has to-day no one of these old haplogroups of R-V88, R-L389 etc, which Italy has till the Isles, and there very likely the refugiun was.

epoch2013 said...

To be honest it is the succeeding Ezero-culture which the Indo-European encyclopedia mentions as possibly connected to Anatolians. IIUC both cultures situated at Lake Varna.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA188&lpg=PA188&dq=Encyclopedia+of+Indo-European+Culture+Ezero

Rob said...

@ Zardos

Finally I agree with you. :)
The systems which influenced the classic kurgan package were the East Balkan Chalcolithic & Majkop (and wrt the latter, whichever 'southern' influences which impacted on it, in turn).
But the more proximate one is Majkop, temporally, because there is a big gap between the demise of Varna (44/4200 BC) and the emergence of early/pre-Yamnaya/ REpin/ Mihkailovka (3600 BC). Perhaps the gap was filled by Svobodnoe-Majkop (4000 BC->).

epoch2013 said...

@Rob

Still, as they occupy exactly the same region, if I understand correctly, it's interesting, wouldn't you say?

Matt said...

Re: Varna, I thought it was interesting that ANI152 ("Varna Man" aka grave 43) with these wealth and theoretically patriarchal culture markers (mace, etc.), doesn't seem to have an excess of steppe ancestry, while the sample that does have plentiful steppe ancestry (essentially placing nearest to Ukraine among moderns) is ANI163, the female child, though again richly interred.

Somewhat contrary to naive expectations we might have, where we'd expect the male, on the basis of grave goods to have the ancestry from a patriarchal steppe culture, and the young female to have ancestry more in line with the in theory egalitarian culture of "Old European" of the Balkans. (Of course, not to read too much into it, because few samples, and weak coverage).

The admix analysis is pretty unclear, and in some K he presents a link to the Peloponnese Neolithic. qpAdm on this sample could be cool. Or even just labeling the samples on their PCA. (As an aside, seems odd that the Peloponnese Neolithic present some level of the orange "Yamnaya component" when they are supposed to be a more basal version of Europe_EN..)

(Skeletal height for Varna Man was 170-173 cm. Would be interesting if they are able to test "Goliath", the 200cm tall sample from Varna Necropolis, and see if he were particularly high in HG ancestry, since Martiniano et al believe that HG ancestry is associated to height).

zardos said...

@Matt:
In hindsight, the evidence is compelling. When I ask Slavchev about the conclusions drawn by Gimbutas, who died in 1994, he shakes his head. “Varna shows something completely different,” he says. “It’s clear the society here was male dominated. The richest graves were male; the chiefs were male. The idea of a woman-dominated society is completely false.”

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/varna-bulgaria-gold-graves-social-hierarchy-prehistoric-archaelogy-smithsonian-journeys-travel-quarterly-180958733/

Obviously the culture of the PIE didn't came out of nothing and there are influences going in both directions between them and their neighbours. However, when the package was at its final stage, things seem to have become very one sided because they had the edge over all but the very strongest neighbours.

zardos said...

My idea of the whole process is that steppe clans were like apprentices which didn't lost their very own identity and culture while eventually overcoming their former masters. If you think about the Germanic tribes and how they developed under Roman influence, especially in their material culture, there are obvious parallels, even though demographially the situation was worlds apart.

Grey said...

Ric Hern said...
"We see in with the Celts and Germanic tribes that some migrated through other tribes territories without hostility. Could it be that Steppe people reached some kind of agreement with some Balkan tribes to move through their territories without disturbance to Anatolia ?"

part 2

another thing that might relate to cattle herders hopping from one suitable region to another bypassing unsuitable regions is something noted from a while back

map (accurate?) of numbers of kurgans in different parts of Serbia

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kurgans_in_Serbia_on_topographic_maps#/media/File:Status_of_kurgans_in_Serbia.png

note how the kurgans map correlates with the lowland region north of the Danube on the physical map

http://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/europe/physical-map-of-Serbia.gif

it pretty much exactly follows the river line

Matt said...

@Zardos, thanks. The Varna Necropolis graves generally seems to span a short length, and no trend is evident in the Yamnaya related component with the female child with heavy Yamnaya influence occuring at the earliest stage; not sure if that's relevant (esp as over such a short space of time, any admixture would not have evened out much).

Also for anyone, on the topic of individual graves, one possible error, I was wondering if it would be worth raising with the paper authors:
Vucedol Tell sample I4175 is listed as a "15-17 year old male, found in a double burial" in Supplementary Notes and marked as female in the Supplementary Table, while Vucedol Tell sample I2792 marked as "40-45 year old female, found in a multiple burial" in notes is marked as male in the table.

For which of these correspond to samples labelled I4175 and I2792 in autosomal analysis, these two are significantly differentiated in the Yamnaya component. I would guess the multiple (family) burial female is the high Yamnaya (essentially clustering with Corded Ware), as she has mtdna U4, while the double burial male should be the low Yamnaya, as he has mtdna T2c2 and y G2a2a1a2a.

Blasonario Cremonese said...

@ Richard Rocca

Again I ask: did the authors confirm that R-V88 from Ukraine, or was it another bogus like that R1a from Ust'Ishim?

Grey said...

"In fact Varna shows higher EHG admixture than the following Early Bronze Age (3000 BC) samples, which is when the kurgan conquerors are alleged to have spread through Balkans. And yes, he was already R1b. So the data quite doesn't fit any classic described scenario."

If an originally steppe derived population (ehg, R1 etc) killed off all the mammoth and settled down among a pre-existing sedentary wetlands HG population on the north and west shores of the Black Sea what if the north shore ones eventually became yamnaya-ized and and the west shore ones didn't?

batman said...

Rob,

You should know that I refered to the beltway of y-dna G from Iran to Spain, where the ME . short for Middle East - lies just east of centre...

Regarding the age of the G's found in this area we know they're from the mesolithic throughout the neolithic and BA.

Personally I'm used to 7.000 BP as the basic divide between MESO and NEO. Thus I group the oldest known samples of G from this area - from Turkey and Hungary - to the 'mesolithic'. Eventhough they may have utilized dogs and goats/sheep - if not cattle or ceramics - already 9.000 years ago. Today we may label the period between 7.000 and 9.000 as "the mesolithic-neolithic transition".

To avoid further ado and refocus on the major concerns I'll rephrase the question:


Rob: "Quite the contrary, Varna is considered part of the 'Old Europe" non-IE Farmers."

Today, perhaps - they show up with y-dna G.

The question is - of course - what other than a branch of I-E can be attributed to the dynasties of G2a2 - who predominated the MIDDLE EAST and the southern part of the Black Sea - north to Donau and Balkan - as well as Greece, Italy and mediterranean Spain...?!

If they were not 'prto-Greek', 'proto-Italian' and 'proto-Iberian', then what?!

Matt said...

Btw, a few new things, to me, in Mathieson's paper in y-dna news, which I'm not sure if anyone commented on yet:

- Earliest Western European R outside Villabruna - Iboussieres31-2, France, estimated date 9725 BC.

- Central_MN Baalberge_MN confirmed to be R1b1a(xR1b1a1a2) and not R or R*

As a complement to the pie charts I made for Iberia based on Olalde 2017 (http://i.imgur.com/eSDQ6mb.png), a similar set of pie charts for Germany-Austria, based on Mathieson 2017 and Lipson 2017: http://i.imgur.com/L9T18zV.png.

(We still have the question of where I1 has come from prior to its recent star like expansions in Northern Europe. I do wonder if we will find it in some northern WHG at some point... There are a few uncertain I / IJK around that haven't been assigned.)

Rob said...

Hold on, Varna dates to 4500 BC, which is several hundred years earlier than Khvalysnk.
It is also the earliest & largestevidence of "steppe" admixture - even cf samples from the steppe itself. The Khvalysnk (42000-3600) individuals only showed minor amounts, only the later and R1b one showed more significant steppe
In other words this seems to be the earliest evidence of "CHG" in Europe - at least by admixture graph.

The distinctness of Varna has been long predicted by archaeologists, the supine or crouched burials are not seen in other more regular Balkan Neolithic; but is rather a feature of Mesolithics in iron gates and nearby Dniester-Danube region. Clearly, Mesolithic admixture --although uneven- permeated Varna society and impacted burial customs.

batman said...

Grey,

"The mamoth-hunters" is a constucted term. No one even knows if the meat is digestable - in practical terms...

What we do know is that elephants - including mamoths - are flock-animals with strong internal relationships. Any specie ready to keep attacking a flock of mamoths with deadly weapons would have a major problem continuing their evolution.

Which is why all African hunters prefers antilopes and birds. Just as the ice-age hunters prefered ducks and hare, deer and roe-deer, besides ovids and capras. Besides seals and brownbears, for both skin and meat. Besides the fish and the sea-food, whithout which a life in the arctic is impossible.

Thus there's (still) no rationale to assume that the paleolitics should risk life and limbs by aggrivating flocks of grassing mamoths to fight for their lives. The kill-rate would probably be higher among the hunters than the hunted...

What we also know is that the paleolithic mammoths had specific locations to which they went at high age, to die. Thus the Russian zoologists have spotted various 'graveyards'. Visiting those places to collect ivory was obviously not that hazardous.

During the LGM there was a serious decimation of the mamoths. The most gracile, known as European Mamoths, actually died out - leaving the western grasslands to the Russian sub-specie, who managed to survive by moving west. After the LGM it multiplied to populate Carelia, Finland, the Baltic states and the south side of the Baltic ocean - all the way to Denmark and Scania.

The final exinction of these, last mammoths happened suddenly - with the onset of the Younger Dryas, swhen the median temperature dropped with 9-10* C across the northern continent. Along with the mamoths another 22 large animals (of 39) disappeared from the European continent. In North America 45 of 61 terrestial mammals disapeared, at the very same period.

Following the history of the known dwellings of human beings during the last 50.000 years we find the same evolution. Today the decimation of the LGM can be recognized as a 'bottle-neck', as several y- and dna-lines went extinct. The ones surviving where all found in the western part of the continent - within the warmest zone of the northern paralells, known as the Atlantic or occidental climate-zone.

http://www.mappedplanet.com/karten/klima/januar_temp-eu.png

Jaap said...

@ Zardos
Pastoralism, wheat, patriarchy, horse-domestication, carts (and later chariots), R1a, R1b, warlike (? Perhaps, but certainly there was also trade, politics and diplomacy). All the ingredients were there, but hardly in one place at one specific time. All the lines come together in one geographical area, but try to focus and the lines get fuzzy. And the area is vast. Majkop must have been very important for the whole process as a centre in a far-reaching trading network. So was Kvalisnsk, the Altai and the Iranian plateau. Narrowing it down still further is going to be arduous, but at this point still worth it as some vexing points need to be cleared up.

zardos said...

@Jaap: Considering the homogeneity of the earlist archaeological populations, there might have been a very small original homeland actually. I considered a more "process-like" PIE development as well, without a clear cut original population. But the genetic profile of the LPIE populations tells something different. It might have been just a small number of clans which adopted the already fully developed package and these exploded demographically, with the growing rates going high with their exogamous tendency to take foreign women from the defeated tribes they conquered.

I always had such a scenario in mind, but that the male lines were that close and purified from non-relatives surprised even me. Probably we will never find those orignal clans or know how many they were, but we speak about a clsoe knit small group.

Matt said...

@ Rob, hmmm... good question. What does having a supervised ADMIXTURE Yamnaya component mean if this is well before the Yamnaya mix is found to exist?

In their unsupervised ADMIXTURE lots of weird stuff is present. At the highest K 11 (the point whena robust WHG and EHG component emerges), the Chalcolithic Balkans outliers don't have a Yamnaya component, but Yamnaya is mixed between EHG, CHG and a component that is model in the Varna outlier, otherwise at highest frequency in Corded Ware. In the low K5 there is a CHG component, but none of the marginal EHG specific component.

A few screencaps of the unsupervised ADMIXTURE analysis with adjustments (cropping, rotating, moving labels) to try and make them more comprehensible: http://imgur.com/a/HP3Lb

batman said...

Several descendants of the Soluteans survived the LGM. to become the Magdalenien-Hamburg-culture - known from sites in France, Be-Ne-Lux, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Denmark and Scania. Besides several sites in southern England and the fortunte Channel Islands, were a refugia from YD was long supposed to have existed. By the onset of the YD - 13.000 years ago - they all disappear within the same century - even at the Channel Islands.

The LGM made a first 'reshufling' of the Eurasian genome, when only a few western societies of Cro-magnons survived along with some mammoths, rhinos, tigers and lions.
Thus we see a 'new set' of y- and mt-dna predomianting the interlude bewteen LGM and YD.

The worst bottle-neck came 12.930 calC-14 years ago - when the yearly median dropped by 9-10 degrees in a few decades - causing the worst mass extinction since the start of the Tertiary, 50+ million years ago. The YD killed off 59% of the European land-animals, and 74% of the North American - in a gross cold-wave. And close to all "mammoth-hunters"...

During the YD all Eurasian mammals became scarce, as only the lucky ones - existing within some climate-pocket (refugia) produced by the Gulf-stream - had any chance, whatsoever, to survive.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-8793-6_2

At the break of a climate-catastrophe only the most lucky, sturdy and knowledgeable were able to find themselves a refugia in time - and create the facilities and food-production needed to survive - for no less than 1.000 years.

Only a handfew people from the Magdalenien-Hamburg culture would turn up after the cataclysm - to restart and multiply as soon as the climate improved. Which it did around 12.100 BP - when the annual medians rose with 8-9 degrees over ca. 300 years - reaching a level comparable to our time only after 11.700 BP.

During the frist millenia of Holocene the survivors could spread to some of their old habitats, such as Swidrien and Ahernsburg. Organizuing their efforts already from the start, they were able to re-populate the arctic climate-zone. Thus they spread in no less than five different lines - eventually evolving into the dynastical baselines of y-dna GHIJ/NO. Later also R1a/b and Q1a...

It's known that at least ONE line from Magdalenien-Hamburg culture survived the YD between the English Channel and the Western Baltic. Several sites of the paleolithic Hamburg-Bromme even endured into the YD and re-appeared before its very end - in the same area. From which Bromme-Lyngby was recreated at the very end of YD.

From which the first, mesolithic sites were founded - like Swidrien west of Vistula, Stellmoor at the shores of NW Germany, Hensbacka in Scania and Darbu in Norway - no later than 11.900 BP.

Please note that the northern Meds were re-populated at the same time - by another line of palefaced caucasians. As was the waterways to the east and south-east, reaching the milder lowlands of Volga, Don, Djepr and Donau no later than 11.500 BP. The famous Gobekli Tepe was initiated 11.600 BP.

Which is why there's a direct fenotypic connection between the pleistocene Cro-Magnons and the first, holocene Caucasians. One millenia later - as the "Atlantic climate-period" starts - they got accompanied by two new, dynatical y-lines of R1a and R1b - specializing in cattlefarming and horse-breeding. Besides finer wheat, fruity juices and creamy cakes. To clebrate their old ancestors - who developed the domestic plants and animals, producing something called 'abundance' and 'luxus'.

Which could be why they got all the help they needed from the pioneers already settled in these areas - to enrich their economy and ensure a better quantity as well as quality of life. No weapon of war needed. Or found. In those days any good man's life must have been the most precious thing on earth.

batman said...

Zardos,

"...we speak about a clsoe knit small group."

Definitly yes.

"Probably we will never find those orignal clans or know how many they were"

Side-bet. Just keep watching... ;-)

Grey said...

batman

"Thus there's (still) no rationale to assume that the paleolitics should risk life and limbs by aggrivating flocks of grassing mamoths"

https://youtu.be/UtwgGmSyt-0?t=735

"an elephant of this size will feed 80 people for two weeks"

the rationale (if it existed) would be calorie density - LGM calorie density declining away from water (cos fish are cold blooded) making the interior uninhabitable unless the low calorie density is compensated for by the calories coming in giant packages so that one kill lasts a month or more. if cave lions could survive in that environment why not a primate version?

batman said...

Matt,

"What does having a supervised ADMIXTURE Yamnaya component mean if this is well before the Yamnaya mix is found to exist?"

Nice to see that someone else is formulating this question, too. Since the Davidskis clearification of the "close to identical" relationship between the mitos of Yamna (R1b) and Narva (R1a) it's clear that the term "YAMNA-component" is a co-incidental theme, rather than a formative.

Again: Relation never defines causation. Yamna can be from evrywhere - as women where travelling criss-cross and around, before returning in the oposite cross-over to be re-introduced, after a slight mutation, where their grand-grand-grannie came from. Which in turn were from xyz. Or yzx.

Mito circulates. Only Y-dna stay straight, mutating downsterams.

The odd claim that the Yamna-culture of the scarcely populated steppes could be 'causative' to denser populations of the larger CWC-horizon was always doubtful. *

Add that Yamna was based on the lowlander-cattling of the R1B, while the CWC was built by the valley- and woodlandwellers of R1A - and you need to reduce your common sense not to smell the coffe.

batman said...

Grey,

Compare to the efort it takes to catch a rabbit or trap an antelope - and the mamoth-hunters are already gravely loosing out.

"Thinking big" rather than qualitative is a step-child of the industrial age.

Grey said...

Matt

"the Chalcolithic Balkans outliers don't have a Yamnaya component, but Yamnaya is mixed between EHG, CHG and a component that is model in the Varna outlier, otherwise at highest frequency in Corded Ware. In the low K5 there is a CHG component, but none of the marginal EHG specific component."

interesting - teal people part 2

Grey said...

batman

"Compare to the effort it takes to catch a rabbit or trap an antelope"

right but how many total calories to kill a mammoth one day and then sit on your butt eating mammoth steaks for a month?

(even less if scavenging)

Gioiello said...

Answering a letter of Stoeni/Vettor/Pretotto on www.emg.molgen.org but here dedicated to
@ Richard Rocca
"Italians in the north of italy derive from Gallic, eastern europe and ancient thracian areas in majority.............considering that gallic was in france and southern germany in ancient times , the natural migration of these Gallic would be north-italy
Thracians where pushed west into central europe by Iranic/west asian peoples
south italy is a different story
and central Italy are the true "pure" italian people"

Some time ago I said to you that I dind't want to speak you again. After you wrote to me and I answered. I did my bad. This morning I have been to a Latin concourse for students as a Professor, and they had to translate a letter of Plinius the Young where he spoke of a friend of his from Brixia, thought a Celtic town, and he came from the actual Como in Lombardy, but he wrote "Brixia [...] ex illa nostra Italia". I don't want to say you more, but I consider you one of the most stupid persons whom Italy gave birth to, thus from now onward don't write anymore to me, because in the world of the future that I dream you would be amongst those people I'd want to see ad metalla et ad circenses.

Rob said...

Matt
Thanks
I did not mean that that Varnna individual has the highest steppe component of *any* Sample; just unusually high for such an early period. But I see on the other admixture it's not strictly speaking "steppe"!; just a high amount of that light green component. Do you think this is something like CHG?

batman said...

Rob,

Supine single-graves with ochre is known from all over the European mesolithic. The oldest grave in the Levant (PPNE) was such, 9.000+ BP. Then there are quite a few from Skateholm, Ajvide, Zvejniki and other graveyards around the Baltic waters.

This one is close to 9.000 years old:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frau_von_B%C3%A4ckaskog

Davidski said...

@batman

Since the Davidskis clearification of the "close to identical" relationship between the mitos of Yamna (R1b) and Narva (R1a) it's clear that the term "YAMNA-component" is a co-incidental theme, rather than a formative.

What are you blathering about here? There's no close relationship between Yamna and Narva.

But obviously there is a very close relationship between Yamna and CWC.

It seems that there's something very wrong with the wiring in your brain; arguments and data go in, and garble comes out.

Olympus Mons said...

@davidski
Hi, back in Portugal,
Already commented in Rui work.

Now, how can we ask reich and Olalde the following : how come there is a mentioning in last supplement of the Portugal samples of Galeria da Cisterna, Almonda (yes, a proper bell beaker) of two samples that they manage to extract new gemome, but then---- the paper only mention Cova da Moura (those are as bell beakers as I am conan the barbarian).

Davidski said...

You should e-mail the authors about this. If you don't sound too crazy they're likely to reply.

EastPole said...

K11 in Mathieson paper is very interesting.

Green component peaks in Varna outlier:

http://s22.postimg.org/ehp7ayos1/screenshot_192.png

It comes somewhere from Khvalynsk:

http://s22.postimg.org/ot1k3mghd/screenshot_193.png

It is found in Tripillia outlier:

http://s22.postimg.org/h1pfit1pt/screenshot_194.png

and in Balkans_Chalcolithic outlier:

http://s22.postimg.org/8xhbe2fap/screenshot_195.png

Notice: there is no purple CHG here, so it is not from Yamnaya.

http://s22.postimg.org/g1z4n3mk1/screenshot_197.png

Then we have lots of it in CWC but in CWC there is some purple which indicates that part of the green could’ve come from Yamnaya Samara:

http://s22.postimg.org/4e52sjxf5/screenshot_198.png

We find it in Ukraine_Eneolithic Dereivka with little purple. Notice that some Yamnaya don’t have it:

http://s22.postimg.org/677zgvilt/screenshot_199.png

http://s22.postimg.org/9s3v03n5d/screenshot_202.png

So CWC only partially comes from Yamnaya, but mostly from that culture which gives green component, probably related to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog.

Olympus Mons said...

@davidski.
Ask for those two samples, ask their ID and lets test those. Is it possible?

Davidski said...

The samples will be released when the paper is formally published in a journal; probably in a few weeks in Nature.

So if those two samples are in the data that comes out, I can test them.

Rob said...

@ Batman

""Supine single-graves with ochre is known from all over the European mesolithic. The oldest grave in the Levant (PPNE) was such, 9.000+ BP. Then there are quite a few from Skateholm, Ajvide, Zvejniki and other graveyards around the Baltic waters."


Yes that's true; but odds are these Meso admixed R1b guys in Varna are from local forager groups in Serbia/ Bulgaria/Ukraine

EastPole said...

I am sorry I got PCA drawing for Varna outlier wrong. It should be like this:

http://s22.postimg.org/nbkp5t14h/screenshot_203.png

It has little purple CHG component so it is not like typical Yamnaya:

http://s22.postimg.org/ncumz82y9/screenshot_204.png

Rob said...

@ Epoch

"Still, as they (Ezero) occupy exactly the same region, if I understand correctly, it's interesting, wouldn't you say"

Of course it's interesting. However, the Ezero culture appears almost 1000 years after Varna-Karanovo VI. The period in between seems to be very sparsely populated in the East Balkans & also Anatolia (an episode of severe climate, 6.2 ky event). So, in theory, Ezero could be a different population living in the same areas - say arriving from Greece and Hungary, mixing, and settling down.

This is also why I find it hard to see any migration from Balkans to Anatolia. It's not because of any personal or academic preference, but simply, there doesn't appear for anyone around to have migrated through during this crucial period (4500-3500 BC); unless we argue there was a migration straight from Ukraine to Anatolia. In which case, this should come up in the Anatolian aDNA, because it was be a notable & sizeable founder effect.

Rob said...

Olympus mountain man, BBB has a blog up about one of the Iberian BB girls with African mtdna. Don't forget the lotion

Rob said...

^To clear some probable confusion, not the same Rob as the one above the last post.

Davidski said...

The new Rob might want to get a new nick in that case, otherwise things might get really confusing.

Rob said...

Hadn't thought of the confusion before I posted until I saw Rob's post above mine. It's the current email I'm in. I generally don't post from this pc anyway.

BTW what do you make of the U106 Netherlands Beaker? Since the Netherlands beakers are regarded to be the closest to the Brit ones, would you guess that increases the chances of a percentage of non Germanic U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo Saxons (and possibly, though tenuous, be related to the Roman U106 "gladiators" who were autosomally native)?

Richard Holtman said...

Did anyone hear about all that G2a found in the Ukraine? They had Steppe admixture.

Davidski said...

@Rob

BTW what do you make of the U106 Netherlands Beaker? Since the Netherlands beakers are regarded to be the closest to the Brit ones, would you guess that increases the chances of a percentage of non Germanic U106 in Britain prior to the Anglo Saxons (and possibly, though tenuous, be related to the Roman U106 "gladiators" who were autosomally native)?

Yes, it seems likely now that there was some U106 in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain that had nothing to do with Germanics.

Possibly it also suggests that a significant number of modern-day U106 lineages in Britain are Celtic rather than Germanic.

But someone would have to take a detailed look at the Dutch Beaker U106 to work that out, and even then we'd need direct conformation from ancient British remains.

@Richard

There's no G2a from the steppe in the latest round of data.

Richard Holtman said...

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31334-What-is-the-main-haplogroup-of-Cucuteni-Trypillian-(Tripolye)-culture/page3

Have a look here Dave.

Richard Holtman said...

Results from Cucuteni-Trypilli.

Richard Holtman said...

These G2a farmers according to Maciamo had some Yamnaya in them.

Richard Holtman said...

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...35616.full.pdf

is the official link.

Davidski said...

They have some Yamnaya-related admixture. But that's not surprising, since the burial site is near the steppe (it's actually in the forest steppe).

Richard Rocca said...

Olympus Mons... both samples from Galeria da Cisterna, Almonda (I0840 and I0839) are females. As with the other Iberian Bell Beaker samples, they lack steppe ancestry.

Rob said...

@Davidski

Thanks. People on Anthrogenica who I usually agreed with and believe put a lot of effort into reconstructing plausible scenarios of immigration into western Europe and the British Isles were, I thought on this subject, far too dismissive of the idea of Pre AngloSaxon U106. It need not be initial BB (mostly L21) or related to the Netherlands individual per se, but could be later Bronze age or iron age, such as the attested Belgae influx. The fact that there was U106 in an area related to the BB move to Britain and the fact that it was not all located in Scandinavia or later Jastdorf or Germanic areas seems pretty telling (the main argument used against it) and raises doubts about their conclusions (which I sometimes wondered were colored in response to 1 PITA individual). And sure it will depend on more findings (as always). But given that, I believe the majority of U106 is connected to Anglo Saxon or Scandinavians. I just think there's a good chance some is pre Germanic in the British.

BTW what do you make of the Malopolska BB? Check Anthro first since there seems to be a question on the age

Richard Holtman said...

@Rob

I'll check it out.

mooreisbetter said...

So many are so guilty of such broad assumptions.

Here are some facts. Prove me wrong:

1. We don't know if this "expansion" was due to refugees, overpopulation, "poorer" people needing to leave their homeland, or differences in birthrates.

2. In fact: We have absolutely nothing, zip, zero, zilch, in the massive archaeological record, to demonstrate conquest. There are no mass graves, no evidence of war wounded, nothing.

3. We have not solved the mystery of how R1a and R1b were side by side in some cultures for MILLENNIA, and then mysteriously separated. Yeah, but no. Founder effect doesn't cut it. Way too simplistic as an explanation.

4. We also have this logically incomprehensible theory of elite dominance, but then "everyone is the elite." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to claim that genes spread from elite dominance, but then you also had massive numbers of "elites." Elite, is, by definition, a small number of folks more sophisticated than others.

5. No one can disprove that the spread of R1b was similar to the spread of Latino genes in the Southwestern United States, like Los Angeles. You have the existing populations (wealthy Anglos) having far fewer children. You have mass immigration by people seeking better economic opportunities (and greater safety) than what is offered back home. You have cultural differences with birthrates. So, someone 3000 years from now would note that Los Angeles went from 90% Anglo in 1950 to 40% Anglo in 2010.

So keep with the overgeneralizations. But if you don't grasp these concepts, you should probably look to broaden your knowledge.

Rob said...

@Richard Rocha

I believe You mentioned P312* weren't checked well for downstream markers and raised the question about DF27? (I could be remembering wrong) What's the chance DF27 lagged behind the other P312 and went a different route then entered Iberia much later as a much more farmer mixed group?

Rob said...

Mooreisbettor

! agree
2 agree
3 Dnieper & patrilineal cultures
4 see above
5 Possible but probable only in a modern politically correct matriarchal influenced culture like western liberalism. If the intruders posed a threat they would likely be met by war or withdrawal.
But I agree somewhat, BB may have been like a criminal gang, Latin Kings, imposing on others.

Davidski said...

@mooresibetter

1. We don't know if this "expansion" was due to refugees, overpopulation, "poorer" people needing to leave their homeland, or differences in birthrates.

It was probably due to increasing aridity, overpopulation and resulting increase in violence in the steppe and forest steppe.

There's direct evidence for increasing aridity and maybe for increasing violence, with the discovery of mass graves of young combatants in the forest steppe dating the Middle Bronze Age.

2. In fact: We have absolutely nothing, zip, zero, zilch, in the massive archaeological record, to demonstrate conquest. There are no mass graves, no evidence of war wounded, nothing.

It was a conquest, but not like your straw man argument is positing. The migrants from the steppe appear to have had some advantages in terms of subsistence strategy, social organization and technology, and over time simply dominated the territories that they found to their liking. There were no mass killings, at least not on a large scale; the previous inhabitants were absorbed to some degree and perhaps pushed out.

3. We have not solved the mystery of how R1a and R1b were side by side in some cultures for MILLENNIA, and then mysteriously separated. Yeah, but no. Founder effect doesn't cut it. Way too simplistic as an explanation.

Yes, it was due to strong founder effects on the steppe. We have direct evidence of this from ancient DNA, and it totally fits what we know about the early Indo-Europeans.

4. We also have this logically incomprehensible theory of elite dominance, but then "everyone is the elite." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to claim that genes spread from elite dominance, but then you also had massive numbers of "elites." Elite, is, by definition, a small number of folks more sophisticated than others.

In all likelihood, the Bronze Age Indo-Europeanization of much of Eurasia was a mixture of folk movements, male dominated migrations, and elite dominance.

But yes, the Y-chromosome lineages that experienced massive founder effects during the Bronze Age probably originally belonged to elite males, and eventually became common in all classes of society due to what is often called the Genghis Khan effect.

5. No one can disprove that the spread of R1b was similar to the spread of Latino genes in the Southwestern United States, like Los Angeles. You have the existing populations (wealthy Anglos) having far fewer children. You have mass immigration by people seeking better economic opportunities (and greater safety) than what is offered back home. You have cultural differences with birthrates. So, someone 3000 years from now would note that Los Angeles went from 90% Anglo in 1950 to 40% Anglo in 2010.

Yeah, sure.

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-USDqjVz6A4Y/WRkjED5l91I/AAAAAAAAFl4/eVWNZNjJHEAyfw5c8_VJCNI6EeegbbbHwCLcB/s1600/East_vs_West.png

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274569552_LEMERCIER_O_2015_-_European_Bell_Beakers_Phenomenon_Data_Problems_and_Prospects_Talk_in_Harvard_Medical_School_Department_of_Genetics_ReichLab_Boston_MA_USA_march_23_2015

Rob said...

@ New Rob

I agree with Dave. PLease get a distinguisher. And welcome

Derek said...

Of course history is replete with examples of fertile immigrants who, over the course of 10 generations or so, peacefully came to outnumber the natives inhabitants of their land 13 to 1 over an area of 110,000 square miles.

Rob said...

Thanks Rob, It didn't offer me one when I went to post, as it did before when I used Joukowski Transform.

I apologize, it seems to be tied to this particular google ID that is associated with this email and I probably used it as such on some commentary some time back and that I guess is why.

OTOH spent some time in an east Asian country where coming across the same given name was rare but of course, surnames were very common


Rob, Not that Rob

Rob said...

Derek,

or brought diseases ala the English who killed most of the New England natives before any colony via rats from fishing ships and personal meetings

Rob, Not that Rob

postneo said...

""Possible but probable only in a modern politically correct matriarchal influenced culture like western liberalism. If the intruders posed a threat they would likely be .."

An inbred, myopic view of so called western liberalism. societies have oscillated btw liberalism and authoritarianism before independent of the west. Western sosciety is not matriarchal?!. political correct pretensions and spoutings do not make a society liberal, it is still a learnt, superficial behavior often a veiled response to a dynamic only subconsciously understood. Similar tropes exist outside of the west , its a constant dynamic.

As for anglos vs latinos in the US, the driver is not some liberalism or tolerance, but its market driven equilibrium based on demand for labor. the liberalism is cosmetic. rome needed its slaves and the slaves had demographic impact.

Rob said...

Thanks for your informative response postneo. OM next time you go to CHI take postneo and drop him in the south side

epoch2013 said...

@mooreisbetter

"1. We don't know if this "expansion" was due to refugees, overpopulation, "poorer" people needing to leave their homeland, or differences in birthrates."

If they were leaving their homelands as refugees we don't know. They entered the new areas as conquerors though. See the Goths for a historical example. Or the Huguenots in South-Africa. We can also tell a thing about fertility as these IE were quite healthy. Their remains look healthier. Check Kristian Kristansen's video.

Gioiello said...

This letter to demonstrate why people like Richard Rocca or Pretotto has nothing to do with our Latin ancestors. They certainly descend from wandering spores brought from a wuthering wind. Rocca disproves also his Spanish maternal side from what he writes about Iberian Bell Beakers. Hope that he at least likes the Polish fatherland of his children.
"ex illa nostra Italia" isn't just "one of those provinces in Italy ", but, as Davdiski says, I am prone in believing conspiracies!
C. PLINIUS IUNIO MAURICO SUO S.
1 Petis ut fratris tui filiae prospiciam maritum; quod merito mihi potissimum iniungis. Scis enim quanto opere summum illum virum suspexerim dilexerimque, quibus ille adulescentiam meam exhortationibus foverit, quibus etiam laudibus ut laudandus viderer effecerit. 2 Nihil est quod a te mandari mihi aut maius aut gratius, nihil quod honestius a me suscipi possit, quam ut eligam iuvenem, ex quo nasci nepotes Aruleno Rustico deceat. 3 Qui quidem diu quaerendus fuisset, nisi paratus et quasi provisus esset Minicius Acilianus, qui me ut iuvenis iuvenem — est enim minor pauculis annis — familiarissime diligit, reveretur ut senem. 4 Nam ita formari a me et institui cupit, ut ego a vobis solebam. Patria est ei Brixia, ex illa nostra Italia quae multum adhuc verecundiae frugalitatis, atque etiam rusticitatis antiquae, retinet ac servat. 5 Pater Minicius Macrinus, equestris ordinis princeps, quia nihil altius volvit; allectus enim a Divo Vespasiano inter praetorios honestam quietem huic nostrae — ambitioni dicam an dignitati? — constantissime praetulit. 6 Habet aviam maternam Serranam Proculam e municipio Patavio. Nosti loci mores: Serrana tamen Patavinis quoque severitatis exemplum est. Contigit et avunculus ei P. Acilius gravitate prudentia fide prope singulari. In summa nihil erit in domo tota, quod non tibi tamquam in tua placeat. 7 Aciliano vero ipsi plurimum vigoris industriae, quamquam in maxima verecundia. Quaesturam tribunatum praeturam honestissime percucurrit, ac iam pro se tibi necessitatem ambiendi remisit. 8 Est illi facies liberalis, multo sanguine multo rubore suffusa, est ingenua totius corporis pulchritudo et quidam senatorius decor. Quae ego nequaquam arbitror neglegenda; debet enim hoc castitati puellarum quasi praemium dari. 9 Nescio an adiciam esse patri eius amplas facultates. Nam cum imaginor vos quibus quaerimus generum, silendum de facultatibus puto; cum publicos mores atque etiam leges civitatis intueor, quae vel in primis census hominum spectandos arbitrantur, ne id quidem praetereundum videtur. Et sane de posteris et his pluribus cogitanti, hic quoque in condicionibus deligendis ponendus est calculus. 10 Tu fortasse me putes indulsisse amori meo, supraque ista quam res patitur sustulisse. At ego fide mea spondeo futurum ut omnia longe ampliora quam a me praedicantur invenias. Diligo quidem adulescentem ardentissime sicut meretur; sed hoc ipsum amantis est, non onerare eum laudibus. Vale.

Gioiello said...

You desire me to look out a proper husband for your niece: it is with justice you enjoin me that office. You know the high esteem and affection I bore that great man her father, and with what noble instructions he nurtured my youth, and taught me to deserve those praises he was pleased to bestow upon me. You could not give me, then, a more important, or more agreeable, commission; nor could I be employed in an office of higher honour, than that of choosing a young man worthy of being father of the grandchildren of Rusticus Arulenus; a choice I should be long in determining, were I not acquainted with Minutius Aemilianus, who seems formed for our purpose. He loves me with all that warmth of affection which is usual between young men of equal years (as indeed I have the advance of him but by a very few), and reveres me at the same time, with all the deference due to age; and, in a word, he is no less desirous to model himself by my instructions than I was by those of yourself and your brother.
He is a native of Brixia, one of those provinces in Italy which still retain much of the old modesty, frugal simplicity, and even rusticity, of manner. He is the son of Minutius Macrinus, whose humble desires were satisfied with standing at the head of the equestrian order: for though he was nominated by Vespasian in the number of those whom that prince dignified with the praetorian office, yet, with an inflexible greatness of mind, he resolutely preferred an honourable repose, to the ambitious, shall I call them, or exalted, pursuits, in which we public men are engaged. His grandmother, on the mother's side, is Serrana Procula, of Patavium: you are no stranger to the character of its citizens; yet Serrana is looked upon, even among these correct people, as an exemplary instance of strict virtue, Acilius, his uncle, is a man of almost exceptional gravity, wisdom, and integrity. In short, you will find nothing throughout his family unworthy of yours. Minutius himself has plenty of vivacity, as well as application, together with a most amiable and becoming modesty. He has already, with considerable credit, passed through the offices of quaestor, tribune, and praetor; so that you will be spared the trouble of soliciting for him those honourable employments. He has a fine, well-bred, countenance, with a ruddy, healthy complexion, while his whole person is elegant and comely and his mien graceful and senatorian: advantages, I think, by no means to be slighted, and which I consider as the proper tribute to virgin innocence. I think I may add that his father is very rich. When I contemplate the character of those who require a husband of my choosing, I know it is unnecessary to mention wealth; but when I reflect upon the prevailing manners of the age, and even the laws of Rome, which rank a man according to his possessions, it certainly claims some regard; and, indeed, in establishments of this nature, where children and many other circumstances are to be duly weighed, it is an article that well deserves to be taken into the account. You will be inclined, perhaps, to suspect that affection has had too great a share in the character I have been drawing, and that I have heightened it beyond the truth: but I will stake all my credit, you will find everything far beyond what I have represented. I love the young fellow indeed (as he justly deserves) with all the warmth of a most ardent affection; but for that very reason I would not ascribe more to his merit than I know it will bear. Farewell.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Could that MtDNA H13 in the Mesolithic Balkans be connected to CHG ?

Davidski said...

No idea. I'd need to test that sample.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Thanks

Ryan said...

" and more specifically to the R1b-M269 (R1b1a1a2) subclade, which makes up almost 100% of the R1b lineages in the world today."

Uh. Eurocentric much?

For the king said...

R1b is probably some WHG related lineage from Europe(obviously). They(the hunter-gatherers) were probably assimilated by Anatolian farmers in the Balkans, and those farmers eventually made their way into Yamnaya and whatnot(Which explains the constant 8-15% Anatolian farmer in Yamnaya).

EastPole said...

@Davidski
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274569552_LEMERCIER_O_2015_-_European_Bell_Beakers_Phenomenon_Data_Problems_and_Prospects_Talk_in_Harvard_Medical_School_Department_of_Genetics_ReichLab_Boston_MA_USA_march_23_2015

It is suggested there that people (BB) who came out of the Spain 3000 BC brought with them the secret of beer-making.

I find it highly unlikely. Spain was a wine producing area from ancient times, France as well.
BB probably learned the secret of beer-making from CWC (and probably also became indoeuropeized in the process).

Davidski said...

@For the king

I'm guessing you didn't read the blog post and you missed this image.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bll6hSrB1n0/WRUQY2kqQiI/AAAAAAAAFlY/0QH0-BaKKCQKHj3AU4vSvO_RjdtAuQA7wCLcB/s1600/PIE_Pontic-Caspian.png

Note where it says Mesolithic. That's nothing to do with any Anatolians.

Gioiello said...

@ For the king

"R1b is probably some WHG related lineage from Europe (obviously)".

Say that to Mr Rocca and his friends, very likely he didn't realize that so far, and say that the oldest sample of R1b1 has been found (so far) at Villabruna, Belluno, Italy, of 14000 years ago.

Fanty said...

@Batman:

Indoeuropeans arriving in the steppe by boat?

I think it has a meaning that Germanic is full of maritim words that are non-indioeuropean. Words for sea vessels, parts of sea vessels and the border between land and water in general.

So it doesnt seem that those guys who traveled Northsea and Baltic sea, spoke Indioeuropean from the start and it also seems as if the indioeuropean speakers that arrived there, did not know anything about maritim matters, so that they kept the terms of the farmer guys who lived there.

For the king said...

@David

you're right, the Anatolians might have nothing to do with them but Ukraine Mesolithic + Neolithic seem to have a shit load of WHG based on the admixture table on page 25 (K11). Some Iron Gates samples had R1b, but it seems like most of them lacked EHG. WHG origin of R1b is still a big possibility IMO.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf

Olympus Mons said...

@richard rocca,
Regarding those Galeria da Cisterna, Almonda.
Don't care about steppe. I am looking for CHG without much EHG.
So, never know if by steppe it immediately excludes finding isolated CHG. by the Martiniano paper it apparently is different... so I am looking for a small amount of CHG in them but without EHG.

but if those are females...then a big shit!
- if something I have learned with this papers is that the Bell beakers were a male migration and they didn't ferry women from other Bell beaker settlements (as I think Rob was telling me), as I thought, but took some from the areas around (but not local as per surroundings of settlement).

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
regarding Postneo, my next trip is to Reykjavik, Iceland, so I can drop him directly in eyjafjallajokull vulcano. There sure is no coming back from that one!

Arza said...

Extended Data Figure 3:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzuotSparaF-dVRERDlhQzk0Nms/view

It needs a basic check and someone who has slept in the last 24 hours to add individual labels.

Gioiello said...

@ For the king

"WHG origin of R1b is still a big possibility IMO.
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf "

Of course.

Tesmos said...

@Davidski
''
Yes, it seems likely now that there was some U106 in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain that had nothing to do with Germanics.

Possibly it also suggests that a significant number of modern-day U106 lineages in Britain are Celtic rather than Germanic.

But someone would have to take a detailed look at the Dutch Beaker U106 to work that out, and even then we'd need direct conformation from ancient British remains.''


It's possible there is some pre-Anglo Saxon U106 in Britain but the U106 Dutch Bell Beaker grave seems to be atypical according to a post on Anthrogenica.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10492-Largest-study-of-Bell-Beaker-aDNA-coming&p=235133&viewfull=1#post235133

Arch Hades said...

So whats up with this crap about Neolithic Iranian ancestry coming to the steppe? I thought Lazardis 2016 showed that the Southern admixture ob the steppe was not Neolthic Iranian...but instead Caucasus Hunter Gatherer and CHALCOLITHIC Iranian..which is very different from Neolithic Iranian?

Davidski said...

It's not even Chalcolithic Iranian.

Yamnaya has no South Caspian ancestry whatsoever. If it did, it's be easy to spot in the mtDNA.

Karl_K said...

@Ryan

' " and more specifically to the R1b-M269 (R1b1a1a2) subclade, which makes up almost 100% of the R1b lineages in the world today."

Uh. Eurocentric much? '

Of course, he is definitely 'Eurocentric' and exaggerating. However, I believe the numbers are not so far off. The fact is that very likely >85% of living men with Y haplogroup R1b have (more specifically) a R1b-M269 Y haplogroup.

There are many other lineages, but not as many people have those lineages. There is very little chance that there are many millions of additional African or Italian men with R1b-V88, but who knows, maybe it is just sampling bias.

Arza said...

Intriguing differences between farmers (based on a spreadsheet linked above):
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hkQBg9rF0tU/WRmzoDapHlI/AAAAAAAAAJI/ExZ5lOOyzyMabzYBcUyTUuxV3IbhANGtgCLcB/s1600/plot2.png

Olympus Mons said...

@<Arza,
Any idea why Iberia Neo is so distance from Iberia Chalc?
Look at Iberia chalc 2.

Gioiello said...

@ Karl_K
"There are many other lineages, but not as many people have those lineages. There is very little chance that there are many millions of additional African or Italian men with R1b-V88, but who knows, maybe it is just sampling bias".

Actually Italians belonging to hg. R-V88 are a few towards Africans or Middle Easterners. I found only a few cases within the people tested, like Marchesi, even though wrongly tested from FTDNA as M269. More samples are in Sardinia and Corsica, above all the subclades M18 and V35, but this fact, i.e. that Africans and Middle Easterners are much more, brought many people to think that that hg. was originated in Middle East or Africa. What is important in understanding the origin of an hg., is to find where the oldest haplotypes are, and without any doubt they are in Italy and Europe, as the YFull tree largely demonstrates, and that I foresee with my analyses already ten years ago. Of course I may say that just because perhaps no one like me has been able to undestand the haplotypes. This is the last, and you should understand all my analysis for understanding why very likely I am right:
Of curse I presuppose that Avery is of European descent, if his ancestors were in Canada already in 1850, but it isn't said. Anyway my analysis would stand up for all the other reasons:
Gioiello Tognoni
Robert Avery Kind admins... my V88 SNP came back and appears to be negative on the certificate, but V88 now shows as my confirmed haplogroup on my profile. I'm very confused. Would one of you please take a look when you have a moment? Kit 586752... best regards, Bob
Joe Bork Hi Bob, You are V88+. Click the DNA Results link on the of left side of this page. Then click the SNPs link. It's is a good time to consider the Big Y test to better develop the R1b-V88 haplogroup.
Robert Avery Thank you Joe, I just ordered BigY thanks to the excellent sale price, Cheers.
Of course [...] Joe Borkmann deleted my post as Giorgio Tognarelli ( but how can you be with him, Sergey?): Your haplotype has all the carachteristics of being R-V88: 586752 Archibald Avery, B. before 1850 Canada R-V88 13 24 15 11 13-15 12 12 11 14 13 30 19 8-10 11 12 28 14 18 26 13-13-14-15 11 12 21-23 15 17 18 19 32-35 12 12 12 8 15-16 8 10 10 8 10 11 12 21-23 14 11 12 12 15 8 12 22 20 12 12 11 13 11 12 12 13 32 15 9 16 11 24 26 19 14 11 13 12 10 9 11 11 10 11 11 31 12 13 24 13 11 11 23 15 19 11 23 15 12 15 26 12 23 18 11 14 19 10 12 11 I'd be very surprised if it weren't and if V88 negative weren't a mistake or a back mutation.
I'd have asked him the same, as Avery is very likely an R-V88-Y7771, i.e. from the European R-V88 migrated from Italy to Iberia 7500 years ago and which is at the origin of all the African subclades. We'll see through his Big Y.

Gioiello said...

These are tyhe Big Y results:
V88+, BY12416+, BY14096+, BY14098+, BY14102+, BY1493+, BY2186+, BY889+, BY890+, BY891+, CTS3063+, CTS3358+, CTS3654+, CTS4244+, CTS4368+, F115+, F1209+, F1329+, F1704+, F1714+, F1753+, F1767+, F2048+, F2142+, F2155+, F2587+, F2688+, F2837+, F2985+, F3111+, F313+, F3136+, F3335+, F3556+, F3692+, F47+, F719+, F82+, FGC20963+, FGC20968+, FGC20970+, FGC20971+, FGC20972+, FGC20975+, FGC20976+, FGC20978+, FGC20979+, FGC20984+, FGC20991+, FGC20992+, FGC20996+, FGC20998+, FGC20999+, FGC21000+, FGC21009+, FGC21010+, FGC21011+, FGC21012+, FGC21013+, FGC21015+, FGC21017+, FGC21018+, FGC21027+, FGC21028+, FGC21029+, FGC21030+, FGC21033+, FGC21034+, FGC21036+, FGC21041+, FGC21051+, FGC21056+, FGC21063+, FGC21064+, FGC21066+, FGC21835+, FGC32963+, FGC39720+, FGC39725+, L1090+, L132+, L138+, L15+, L16+, L278+, L350+, L468+, L470+, L498+, L506+, L729+, L747+, L754+, L761+, L768+, L779+, L82+, M168+, M173+, M207+, M213+, M235+, M294+, M299+, M306+, M343+, M415+, M42+, M45+, M526+, M74+, M89+, M9+, M94+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P224+, P225+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P231+, P232+, P233+, P234+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P239+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P294+, P295+, P316+, PAGES00026+, PAGES00081+, PAGES00083+, PF2591+, PF2608+, PF2611+, PF2615+, PF2745+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2749+, PF2770+, PF5869+, PF5871+, PF5882+, PF5886+, PF5888+, PF5953+, PF5956+, PF5957+, PF5964+, PF5965+, PF5982+, PF6246+, PF6249+, PF6250+, PF6263+, PF6270+, PF6271+, PF6272+, PF6287+, PF6289+, PF6290+, PF6292+, PF6293+, PF6304+, PF6307+, PF6310+, PF6324+, PF6328+, PF6330+, PF6332+, PF6333+, PF6338+, PF6339+, PF6343+, PF6344+, SK2071+, V1589+, V168+, V186+, V189+, V205+, V221+, V241+, V250+, V3599+, V52+, V9+, Y7779+, Y7788+, Y8435+, Y8436+, Y8438+, Y8439+, Y8440+, Y8441+, Y8443+, YSC0000075+, YSC0000186+, YSC0000224+, YSC0000288+, YSC0000207-, V69-, PF6145-
And here it is where Avery very liley will be in the YFull tree
R-Y7771 Y7790 * Y8439 * SK2071/V1944+12 SNPs 5900 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 6300 4500 ybp""formed 7000 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp
R-Y7771*
R-Y18458 Y18464 * Y18459 * Y18462+20 SNPs 4500 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 2800 1300 ybp""formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 1950 ybp
⦁ id:YF04579 -
⦁ id:YF02325 - NGA [NG-KN] [Awalu Musa from Nigeria]
[AVERY: BY14102+ but V69-]
R-V69 FGC39700/Y17711 * Y17712 * Y21722+1 SNPs 4500 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 5800 3600 ybp"" class=""age"" formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-V69*
⦁ id:YF02333 - ASAU [SA-01]
R-FGC39691 FGC39709 * FGC39712 * FGC39691+32 SNPs 3600 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 600 150 ybp"" class=""age"" formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 350 ybp
R-FGC39691*
⦁ id:YF04200 - AKWT [KW-KU]
R-Y24712 Y24712150 ybp, TMRCA CI 95% 700 100 ybp""formed 350 ybp, TMRCA 275 ybp
⦁ id:YF07053 - ASAU [SA-05]
⦁ id:YF05672 - ASAU [SA-01] "
Thus Avery is downstream Y7771 but upstream V69, as I foresaw from his haplotype!
I have published many times where the upstream haplotypes are and why I think that the refugium was in Italy.

Arza said...

@ OM
Samples are numbered in the order as they appear in the table (page 25.) so you can compare them there. Ib_Ch_2 lacks the Peloponnesian shade of grey on K11 in contrast to other Iberian samples. But don't ask me what does that mean. Maybe someone else will elaborate.

Josep Coderch said...

@Olympus Mons

Iberia_Calcolithic_2 is located among the neolithic individuals, just slightly further south than the other chacolithics samples. I don't see what's strange about this.

Matt said...

So, based on these papers, I have a current tentative scenario to explain autosomal and y makeup (and their incongruities), and would love to have anyone tell me why it is both insane and wrong? :) (If it is!... and provided the reasons are not actually insaner and wronger, so plz no xxybatmanman type folks).

Current scenario I see in North, Central and Western Europe, is probably something like three phases across the range:

Phase 1. A Yamnaya-like population mixes with 25% Central European farmers. Over time, the top 5% clan or whatever of the mix, who'll come from their ethnic majority, replaces everyone so they're all R1 whatever. Result: Corded Ware (maybe a para-Corded Ware group with distinct y, somehow).

Phase 2. Corded Ware (75:25 Yamnaya:Central Europe farmer) absorbs about 25% more early farmer, both French (Atlantic Neolithic) and German (LBK descended). Again, elite reproductive advantage means statistically it inevitable that no Y from the latest round of farmer intake survives, pretty soon after absorption. Result: Central European Bell Beaker, and that's mostly it for Britain and Central Europe.

Phase 3.Final step, Bell Beaker fuses into Iberia, picking up another 25% Atlantic Neolithic. Elite repro again, so the result mostly almost exclusively has R1. You get various Basque like populations in Iberia, who may or may not speak an IE dialect (most probably do, some might be language and culture switchers who do not). Currently tentatively represented by the Portugese Bronze Age samples from Martiniano 2017. Autosomally they're roughly 50% Atlantic Farmer, 25% Central Europe Farmer, 25% Steppe. That's gets us Basques, who are today a "survivor" population of a type that was de rigeur for Iberia in the Bronze and Iron Age.

Southeast Europe to me looks quite a bit different at the moment. You have mixes of minority "steppe" and majority EEF from the beginning (not late, like in the West), and their males don't really seem to have R1 haplogroups.

This suggests to me that the steppe cultures were incorporated as minorities here, not as a minority that could maintain its elite, and their R1 ancestry either did not survive, being supplanted instead by other more prestigious and common male haplogroups, or was stuck around at about 20-30%, matching the overall autosomal fraction of steppe ancestry. That's Bronze Age Greece and the Balkans, and this dynamic prevails about as far north as Hungary (Hungarian BA so far also generally lacking R1 haplogroups).

Then Spain and Italy are transitional between the Basque-likes and Bronze Age SE Europe (both population who have a primary Anatolian basis, but quite distinct y-profiles, a slight variation in ratios for Yamnaya:WHG:Anatolian). The historical movements of Greeks out of Hellas and Latins out of Italy may explain a fair amount of this.

For SE Europe itself, later on, the documented Slavic expansion and genetic isolation by distance adds a little blur to all this, bringing in some more actual R1.

You probably don't *need* sex biased migrations for any of this, but they could speed things up a bit and aren't incompatible. The important difference between the regions NCW and SE is that the admixture is phased in the North-Central-West, allowing time for elite stability from phase of admixture to phase, while in the Southeast it happens as periodic infusions of a minority into non-steppe societies, and the steppe fraction does not form an elite in the mixed society.

(Would be particularly interested in a comments from "Original Rob" ;), if you have any)

Samuel Andrews said...

BTW, I'm pretty sure the Dutch U106 is Early Bronze age not Bell Beaker. He dates to 1881-1646 BC, Bell Beaker ended in around 1800 BC.

The paper mentioned no Beaker pottery in the tumulus-cemetery he was buried in.

His tumulus-cemetary is 200+ years younger and resides in close proximity to a Bell Beaker tumulus-cemetary the study also took DNA from. Of course he certainly descends directly from Bell Beaker like EBA British.

Keep in mind we have 16 new R1b-P312 results from Bell Beaker/BA Britain. 10 are confirmed to be S461-L21.

P Piranha said...

Elite reproductive bias could not have operated in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker, who were socially extremely egalitarian. Between males, that is.

Simon_W said...

@ Gioiello
Rocca disproves also his Spanish maternal side from what he writes about Iberian Bell Beakers.

^^ this just proves your perverted understanding of science. So in your opinion the main purpose of science is to prove the grandeur and autochthony of one's own people. But believe it or not, there are people out there who don't give a shit about these things and instead are interested in what really happened. In other words, they want to learn about *the truth*.

Simon_W said...

As for the question of the ultimate early PIE homeland, to me the absence of J2 and J1 from EMBA steppe and LNBA Europe samples is quite convincing. A homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus, be it in Azerbaijan or eastern Anatolia, would inevitably involve the presence of at least some J2 and perhaps also J1 on the steppe and in Corded Ware and Bell Beakers. This line of reasoning is more convincing to me than the early abundance of R1a and R1b in Chalcolithic and earlier steppe samples, because this doesn't completely rule out similar concentrations elsewhere.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Simon_W,

Let's not kid ourselves. No one just wants the truth. Everyone has an agenda that involves admiring their ancestry.

André de Vasconcelos said...

Speak for yourself Sam, I don't need the deeds of someone who's been dead for 4000 years to feel good about myself

Gioiello said...

@ Samuel Andrews

"@Simon_W,

Let's not kid ourselves. No one just wants the truth. Everyone has an agenda that involves admiring their ancestry".
Samuel, beyond the preferences that each of us may have, I don't agree with what you say, because from the beginning of my research during the 2007 on Rootsweb I said that I wanted to discover the origin of my Y, being it Etruscan, Roman, Gernman, Jewish or everything else. And when lastly an Armenian and a Kuwaitian appeared linked to me, I continued to do many hypotheses about the origin of my Y, and when this Kuwaitian was taken off from YFull because he didn't pay the fee, I wrote toYFull saying that I would have paid it, because his haplotype is important for understanding the origin of my Y. Thus, perhaps speak for you but not for me, because this isn't the truth.

Simon_W said...

@ Samuel Andrews

But if you proceed wisely you first you have to find out what really happened, in order to know what cultures you're descended from. Otherwise you risk to delude yourself. And personally I would like any type of ancestry if it really was mine. I know well, apparently, everyone here wants to be a pie, except Maju, who's descended from pies. But people seem to forget that non-IE peoples also created fascinating cultures. I'd love to have Minoan ancestry or ancient Egyptian. Alas, I don't seem to have a lot if anything from these peoples.

epoch2013 said...

@Samuel Andrews

"BTW, I'm pretty sure the Dutch U106 is Early Bronze age not Bell Beaker. He dates to 1881-1646 BC, Bell Beaker ended in around 1800 BC.

The paper mentioned no Beaker pottery in the tumulus-cemetery he was buried in."

Correct, but there was enough BB pottery found in the neighbourhood to be pretty sure. The dating is simply on the tail end.

Grey said...

Derek said...
"Of course history is replete with examples of fertile immigrants who, over the course of 10 generations or so, peacefully came to outnumber the natives inhabitants of their land 13 to 1 over an area of 110,000 square miles."

Maybe it is but we don't see it.

I keep going back to the Akkad-Sumer model which iirc involved herders moving into the *gaps* within an existing farmer culture because farming wasn't fully developed yet and so had a lot of gaps.

The eventual balance of population would depend on the balance of viable cropland to marginal cropland. For example if you had a region with 50% viable farmland for neolithic farmers then if herders arrived and filled up the other half then the final balance might be 50/50.

On the other hand if you had an island with a low population of farmers because it only had 10% viable farmland (for neolithic farmers) and some herders arrived and filled up the other 90% then the final population balance might be 9:1.

Conflict might break out at some stage or maybe one day the herder's animals develop a virus and half the farmers die - but the initial stage wouldn't necessarily have to be violent.

(It probably was from time to time but if there was empty land then it's not a necessary condition - at least not until all the initially unused land was full up.)

Maybe something like this happened to BMAC, IVC and LBK as well as Sumer - a model that was only possible in the early days of farming?

Grey said...

just to be clear - i think ydna turnover implies there was conflict at some point but i don't think it necessarily had to be at the beginning.

Grey said...

@Matt

if Britain is a simple extension of corded ware then how come the dramatic ydna turnover?

would an initial R1b cattle herder expansion followed by a secondary R1a elite conquest type expansion that didn't reach as far fit the data?

if the R1a/R1b autosome was similar to start with then all that would change would be the ydna

Simon_W said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Sorry, I forgot you appear to have a personal antipathy towards Richard Rocca. Well, so be it. I on the other hand was just upset by that sentence I quoted from Gioiello - that Richard was sort of a traitor to the Spanish part of his ancestry because he had held a certain opinion on Iberian Beakers. Which is nonsensical, because his ancestry has no influence on what Iberian Beakers were like. And it would be a sad world if scientists were constrained by requirements like to make their ancestry look as autochthonous as possible in order to keep it in good honour.

zardos said...

@moore is better you raised interesting questions:
"1. We don't know if this "expansion" was due to refugees, overpopulation, "poorer" people needing to leave their homeland, or differences in birthrates."

It must have been a combination of factors, but what we see is that whole scale clan structures of related males moved as a whole. They were numerous and strong enough to move in different directions and essentially completely outcompeting the local males. Whether they killed them at first contact or drove them to extinction by putting so much pressure on them after their conquest doesn't really matter.
But there is no way, I repeat no way, that this process in Europe could have gone peacefully.

Would any reasonable human society accept foreign newcomers to take their land, take their wives, take their ground, take their power, replace their culture and ideology in a generation without a fight? The big difference between early IE cultures and later conquests was, that the farmers were rather unproductive and the clans didn't need them. They had their own very successful subsistence pattern.

"2. In fact: We have absolutely nothing, zip, zero, zilch, in the massive archaeological record, to demonstrate conquest. There are no mass graves, no evidence of war wounded, nothing."

What do you expect? Just one thing to remind you: Most burials of killed people were made by relatives or people which had at least some kind of respect for the death. Alternatively, they wanted to occupy the ground and its not nice having corpses lying around in your new home.

If you just raid them and take what you can need with you, without having any kind of special relationship, you don't do the work of making graves. And what is usually left of unburied corpses after thousands of years?


"3. We have not solved the mystery of how R1a and R1b were side by side in some cultures for MILLENNIA, and then mysteriously separated. Yeah, but no. Founder effect doesn't cut it. Way too simplistic as an explanation."

We just need a place where R1b and R1a lived side by side and acquired similar ratios of EHG : CHG admixture. Because that's the PIE profile. The most successful clans expanded and at some point went on in different directions.

PIE to IE people were patriarchal, patrilinear and agnatic clans which, while expanding, constantly branched off. So the further you go, the more you will see the male descendents of one patriarch, which is related to an older patriline and so on. So there is a pretty clear cut IE tree genetically. There must be. You just need to find the trunk - the root is actually not as easy, because there might be quite a lot of roots. But there was a trunk which had the full package.

"4. We also have this logically incomprehensible theory of elite dominance, but then "everyone is the elite." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to claim that genes spread from elite dominance, but then you also had massive numbers of "elites." Elite, is, by definition, a small number of folks more sophisticated than others."

It depends on the people they met. If the foreign culture was not strong and productive enough, but occupied a territory similar to what they were specialised for, they replaced, oftentimes completely.

Matt said...

@Grey, I'm probably not explaining this right.

The model I'm thinking is:

"Rule" 1) In the Bronze Age, elite y lineages tend to replace all other y lineages over time.

"Rule" 2) Elite lineages tend to be the most common for their group (simple probability).

That combines with movement into Central, then Southwest Europe as follows:

Phase 1) A Yamnaya group with R1b mixed with 25% MN farmer, to make an autosomally Corded Ware like group. (May not literally be Corded Ware, if we define all Corded Ware groups as being exclusively R1a. Which I would perhaps doubt). No sex bias initially. But as "Rule" 1) and "Rule" 2), the group came to be almost totally R1b, but 75% steppe, 25% MN.

Phase 2) The Corded Ware-like group picks up 25% more Atlantic/Central European farmer ancestry. Again no sex bias. But "Rule" 1) kicks in, and you now have a 50% steppe, 50% MN group that is totally R1b. This is Central European Bell Beaker in the model.

Phase 3) Central European Bell Beaker like group expands to Iberia, picks up final 25% more Atlantic farmer. Rule 1) and you have a 75% MN, 25% steppe group with almost total R1b.

In this model, no real sex biased admixture at any phase, or really an elite dominance by steppe groups over non-steppe. (Though either of those could also be true). Just periodically incorporating low fractions of non-steppe into the society, and constant filtering down of elite lineages (almost always steppe), then their descendants and so on to higher frequencies.

Contrast: In SE Europe, I'm theorising, this did not happen. Instead you have direct introgression of 30% steppe into the Balkans, as a minority component from the start, and the whole process with sweeping elite R1 lineages can't happen.

Make any sense?

Davidski said...

Please all note, the Vasil'evka Mesolithic I1734 sample actually belongs to R1b1a not R1b1a2. I made the change in the table above.

André de Vasconcelos said...

Matt, how does the lack of CHG in MBA southern Portugal fit in your model? Can't get my head around that "have steppe, no CHG" thing from Martiniano 2017

Matt said...

@ Andre, to be honest, my take from that paper was that they actually did think the MBA Portugal had real late steppe ancestry (as in CHG+EHG, in about Yamnaya proportion) and not just EHG / WHG increase, but that there was something up with ADMIXTURE as to why it was not showing up there.

IRC there was some stuff in a recent correction by Amy Goldberg about how ADMIXTURE can perform in over / under estimating components, in the presence of certain problems with quality and very low levels of a particular component.

I think we will know more for sure when the samples are released and can be subjected to qpAdm, and see if models with just EHG+Iberia_CA / EHG+Portugal_CA work or models with Yamnaya+Iberia_CA / Yamnaya+Portugal_CA work better (plus models with the Olalde 2017 samples, etc.), and we could look at the D-stats. At the moment it still seems like a bit of a head scratcher.

Atriðr said...

@Samuel Andrews
Let's not kid ourselves. No one just wants the truth. Everyone has an agenda that involves admiring their ancestry.

All genetic blogs and forums on the internet in a nutshell. Well put.

Atriðr said...

And I'd add to my last, even some very visible academics.

@Simon_W
As for the question of the ultimate early PIE homeland, to me the absence of J2 and J1 from EMBA steppe and LNBA Europe samples is quite convincing.

Absolutely. A strong argument, but not the end of the search.

Grey said...

Matt

"Make any sense?"

That's more or less how i see it except i imagine conflict breaking out once population density reaches a tipping point.

#

"Contrast: In SE Europe, I'm theorising, this did not happen. Instead you have direct introgression of 30% steppe into the Balkans, as a minority component from the start, and the whole process with sweeping elite R1 lineages can't happen."

Yes - partly a function of terrain and climate maybe - i.e. maybe Greece was better suited to the neolithic package and as a result had a denser farmer population to start with?

Grey said...

@Samuel Andrews
"No one just wants the truth. Everyone has an agenda that involves admiring their ancestry."

However lots of competing agendas is the best way to get the truth because there's always someone ferreting out any mistakes - so practically speaking it's good imo.

Josep Coderch said...

@Matt

I agree with everything you said but in SE Europe I think it is more complex.
In the Balkans the different groups (WHG, EHG, neolithic, steppe) began mixing earlier due to close proximity with each other.
Then in the bronze age the region received considerable inflow of steppe ancestry like the rest of Europe (less than NCW but more than Iberia). The reason of why there was no yDNA turnover can be explained by the Balkans being a mountainous zone thus hard to conquer so steppe newcomers couldn't subdue the natives and had to live in a more equal society. Or the newcommers were rich in yDNA I2 like Unetice.
And during the iron age and later, populations from western Asia brought CHG and middle eastern-like ancestry and their yDNA J and E (these pops spread further into central and southwestern Europe, rather than greeks or romans), diluting steppe ancestry slightly but being increased again during slav expansions.

zardos said...

@Josep: The Balkan region was demographically and culturally quite different. There were long lasting contacts between LPIE and local Balkanic cultures.
The region is much harder to cleanse from foes and they had more to win from local farmer communities, which were culturally advanced and quite productive.
Also many localities were not as attractive to their way of life as the German-Polish lowlands, Southern Scandinavia, the British Isles and so on.

Probably they had much earlier, more intensive contacts with the SEE locals and rather wanted to be on top of the existing structures. That was not the case in the North and West, were they really replaced the local population in every respect and just took the women if they liked to.

Actually, the Mongols considered destroying China and making the land a pasture, but after seeing the riches of the farmland and greatness of the Chinese culture, they rather wanted to be on top of what they conquered, rather than replacing it.

But the farmers North of the Alps had little to offer but land and women. Their way of life was worse and less productive than the CWC pastoralism. CWC and BBC people were healthier, less inbred, better nourished, one head taller and more robust. Culturally, the local farmers weren't really ahead as well, so you don't even need a plague or big catastrophy for the IE success. Add to that the mobility of the herd vs. the immobility of the field.

Rob said...

@ Matt

Yeah fair summary. I think the easiest to piece is CWC, but I'm not quite sure we have a full handle on BB yet in C.E., yet alone Iberia. But once we get our hands on the raw data and trace where the MNE ancestry of BB mostly comes from (if at all one region), then we can make firmer conclusions. Iberia is different. Some have raised doubts as to whether the sampled individuals are truly BB, as archaeologically one has to be definite that they come from Beaker period, and not some old Megalithic grave where BB pottery was later placed, then jumbled around losing the stratigraphic context. In Iberia, there are ongoing collective graves, and new, individual graves. In the recent Heyd paper, we see the appearance of a Yamnaya-like burial down south (the site at Val. de la Concepcion) c. 2800 BC. In the Masseta plain, the pre-BB period (3000-2500 BC) sees a breakdown of the old Megalithic cultures, fragmentation and sharp rise in conflict, then back to re-integration and relative peace in the BB period. A lot denser sampling is required to really figure out what's going on- and how it relates to arrival of IE in Iberia vs Basque, and other linguistic issues.

Italy is going to be equally complex, not least because we are going to see movements from the East Mediterranean and from the Balkans directly; as well as complex demographic shifts during the post-Terramarre culture phase, ongoing connections to Alpine Europe/ the Danube, the question of Etruscans, etc.

For SEE, it'll be most complex of all: a myriad of cultures instead of a sweeping CWC horizon, long-term connections to the east/ Caucasus but seemingly biologically individualised; couple with significant demographic cycling (1) in the post Starcevo phase and (2) the post-Varna phase. That female with 'steppe' ancestry will be interesting to analyse further, because it potentially signifies early & direct connections between 2 major cultural centres on either side of the Black Sea- varna & Majkop. If & when the Mycenean genomes & the new Laz paper appear, we should have some more solid data points to integrate.

P Piranha said...

In Harrison and Heyd 2007, he offers us a three-tiered mental structure to understand the scope and nature of social transformations in Bronze Age Europe: at the continent-wide level, which can be represented as blocks of colors on a map, with generalised sweeping statements, which is where most of the conversation in the blogosphere is at the moment; at the regional level, which sees local interactions in say a single river valley, and at the local level, where single sites, with their record of social transformation and the interaction between individuals or groups with different cultural and genetic origins, and dialogue in terms of power and claims to legitimacy, cultural mixing and competition is visible. For clear understanding of social processes, its very necessary to dig down into the weeds, like Harrison and Heyd do in the 2007 paper for a single site during three phases of transformation during the Bell Beaker period, only one of which is related to the introgression of Steppic cultures and genetics, while at the same time keeping in mind large scale processes occurring regionally. Talk on any other level, e.g. general statements like Bell Beaker are 'wandering metallurgists' or 'dynasties of Y chromosomes since ice-time' or 'R1b spread metallurgy', which confuses short term and long term processes and completely lacks sense of scale, is just stupid and inappropriate. This is not to mention that we actually have no idea what Y chromosomal transformations across multiple generations look like in social terms; Heyer et al attempt to address this, tying in Y chromosomal composition to ethnogenesis of tribal groups, but our quantitative and qualitative understanding of Y chromosomal gene pools and their relationship to social processes is so tenuous as to be useless. This is at the cutting edge of current inquiry, and there will need to be a lot more work.

Davidski said...

@P Piranha

It seems like you're missing the forest for the trees.

A lot of people don't have a clue yet about what the ancient DNA is showing and how powerful the evidence is in regards to the Indo-European expansion.

That's OK, we've just started, and for those of us clued in, it's basically over, but imagine where we'll all be in 1, 2, or even 5 years from now.

Point is, even if you don't get it now, you will soon.

P Piranha said...

I have no doubt the Pontic Caspian, Kurgan theory for PIE will be proven correct, or at least 80% of it will be correct. Just pointing out that some of the social and genetic scenarios proposed here are just retarded.

Gioiello said...

About my post above on R-V88. Of course Davidski deleted many posts of mine, and I understand why and have to agree with him, but so the debate isn't free and we cannot go deep in the question, thus I avoid in replying to some posts that concerned me, but I take into account what Davidski said: "Please all note, the Vasil'evka Mesolithic I1734 sample actually belongs to R1b1a not R1b1a2. I made the change in the table above". Thus, so far, only old subclades of R1b1a in Eastern Europe, no R-L51, and I think I may say that German BB as derived from Yamnaya or nearby is undemonstrated (so far).
But I would add how truth may be falsified. Dirk Struve of the R-M343 (xU106, P312 ) project at FTDNA says about the resulst of Avery:
"Robert, Looks like you belong to an extremely rare lineage. Family Tree DNA has placed you as BY14102/V69. According to YFull this SNP is about 4700 years old and mostly found in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (https://yfull.com/tree/R-V69/). Please make sure that Sergey gets your BAM file (contains Big Y raw reads) for a more detailed analysis. You might also consider submitting your results to YFull".
I.e. it isn't said that an European, once more, is the oldest found so far in a subclade, and it isn't said that people from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait derive from Europe, but seems that the other way around happened.
This said to all who wrote that I am a "Mandarin" and don't know the scientific method and all what I say is understood as due to my "conspiracy agenda".
I may you note that I interpreted once more perfectly the haplotype long before that a Big Y confirmed that at the SNPs level.

Rob said...

Piranha is correct. In addition to understanding the global genomic shifts, we need local sociocultural aspects, which is where much work remains to be done. Such questions won't have the general impact factor because it'll only appeal to specialists & expertised enthusiasts . But it is very much needed in topics & regions where complexities abound.
For example, i think Krause et al study of Lech valley which includes a local diachronic sample set coupled with isotopes might be even more enlightening henceforth

bellbeakerblogger said...

@Matt @Andre,

Something I'm curious about is how Olalde differentiates Atlantic (Iberian) Neolithic from Northern Neolithic is the added HG like Motala. So what if there is something EHG shifted with less or no CHG in Southern and Western Iberia?

And do the previous Bell Beaker genomes have excess HG input?

Nirjhar007 said...

Piranha is correct. In addition to understanding the global genomic shifts, we need local sociocultural aspects, which is where much work remains to be done. Such questions won't have the general impact factor because it'll only appeal to specialists & expertised enthusiasts . But it is very much needed in topics & regions where complexities abound.
For example, i think Krause et al study of Lech valley which includes a local diachronic sample set coupled with isotopes might be even more enlightening henceforth


I agree .

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave ,

It will be basically all over for your camp (IINPW) with those SE Anatolian ,Mycenaean and Subcontinental data . No need to wait for years to reach somewhat workable definition .

a said...

Skipping the narrative/no right or wrongs-European samples.
It would be nice to view all results both ancient/ modern living samples in a [preconceived notion] bias free format. Without having to read the endless posts about varying subjects
[(myself included)speculations] and accusations of unpleasant nature. Those who enjoy like minded intellect can relish the company and exchange ideas with one another. Those who just like to see the results, without any added frills can quickly look at reference table/s and parse the European stats/data for themselves to see where their ancestors come from. \\\\\\\Win win enjoyable and time saving format for everybody!
How about setting up separate tables in Eurogenes-with the following information in relation to European genetic structure?
1)positive snp +
2)Age of sample
3)Coordinates-latitude and longitude
4)World-wide placement on PCA both ancient and or modern
5)Pertinent European autosomal/ancestry-informative markers (AIM) like [Neaderthal for example]

Davidski said...

@Nirjhar

If there's enough of the relevant ancient DNA data, and there will be eventually, and it's properly analyzed and interpreted, and I will ensure that it is, then no, I don't expect it to be over for my camp.

The annoying part is that people like you will try to shift the goal posts at every opportunity.

I told you that there'd be R1a and R1b on the steppe all the way from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. You argued vehemently that I was wrong, because you knew that if I was right it'd be game over for your camp.

Now that I've been proven right, you say you don't care. And when I'm proven right about the Bronze Age entry of Z93 and steppe admixture into South Asia, even though you're arguing with me about it now, you'll say that you don't care.

At that point I expect you to discard ancient DNA as a source of evidence in this debate and argue entirely based on your own interpretations of archaeological and linguistic data.

Why not just cut to the chase and start ignoring ancient DNA now?

Nirjhar007 said...

If there's enough of the relevant ancient DNA data, and there will be eventually, and it's properly analyzed and interpreted, and I will ensure that it is, then no, I don't expect it to be over for my camp.

Its already getting over for your camp in case you didn't notice .


The annoying part is that people like you will try to shift the goal posts at every opportunity.

I told you that there'd be R1a and R1b on the steppe all the way from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. You argued vehemently that I was wrong, because you knew that if I was right it'd be game over for your camp.


Unfortunately you logic is absurd . R1a-M417 is the key , you find it , you win it all .

Now that I've been proven right, you say you don't care. And when I'm proven right about the Bronze Age entry of Z93 and steppe admixture into South Asia, even though you're arguing with me about it now, you'll say that you don't care.

Wishful thinking and bullshit , R1a will be there from Mesolithic India also , but again the key is M-417+ .

At that point I expect you to discard ancient DNA as a source of evidence in this debate and argue entirely based on your own interpretations of archaeological and linguistic data..

I don't discard anything but I am not a poet like you either.

Why not just cut to the chase and start ignoring ancient DNA now?

Sorry not gonna happen...

Davidski said...

R1a is on the steppe from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age.

Early Baltic Corded Ware belong to R1a-M417 and obviously come from the Early Bronze Age Steppe.

So where do you think M417 is from? Surely this is not a wild guess.

Nirjhar007 said...

So where do you think M417 is from? Surely this is not a wild guess.

Its not an imaginative guess either , you will see soon, yawwnnn.

BTW, Is there anyway you can process that Afghanistan sample?. It can be a cornerstone of the debate between us .

Davidski said...

The Afghan sample is too degraded and contaminated to worry about.

A wide range of ancient Pakistani and Indian samples are now ready and the papers are either in submission or about to be submitted, so it won't take long for the results and data to come out. And then you'll have to quit the internet.

Nirjhar007 said...

Not worry , just do it!.

No no Dave , you are wrong . For now Expect Pakistan , I will not quit , there will be and is nothing to quit , except delusions , generated by wishful thinking (from your part mostly), but I also know you will change when the data comes , I am not your enemy, I am enemy of vandalism and Eurocentrism ....

Davidski said...

How'd those GAC samples from Poland and Ukraine work out for you?

Are they what you expected, with the Y-hg I2 and Middle Neolithic farmer genotypes?

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave please run that Afghanistani sample , yes I wait for the Maykop results . It can be a root for both Asian and European M-417 .

zardos said...

Even if Maykop is the trunk, that wouldnt change AIT. The EHG:CHG element with Indo-Aryan R1a came from the steppe even then and OOI is no serious alternative.

Nirjhar007 said...

AIT is changed and not taken seriously, by any scholar who have worked in S Asia or on S Asia , that is not the issue , we are trying to find a reliable pattern over all for PIE , there are already some hints , the next Lazaridis 2017 paper is going to be very important .

Also Greek IE aDNA is coming .

Arza said...

@ Local interactions

Hint of things we will see in the Lech Valley paper:

Beaker paper, supplement, page 18 for description of a double burial, page 75 for Yamnaya ancestry levels.

BB_Germany_BAV E09537_d ......... K1a 2464-2212 calBCE Germany F
BB_Germany_BAV E09538 G2a2a1a2a1a J1c 2471-2300 calBCE Germany M

G2a2a1a2a1a = Ötzi

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
I Agree. At some of this caves that were used for this studies, for instance in Carenque ( a couple miles from Cova da moura), for the same period we have people that goes from Hiper-dolichocephalic (8%) to ultra- Brachycephalic (4%). It can be all the same stock!

like I write in my thesis....


Only 50% of them reach 30 years old and 20% of them got to be old age. But it surely must have beat the life expectancy and harshness of the one left behind.
About 8% were Hiper- dolichocephalic, 34% Dolichocephalic, 46% mesencephalic, 8% Brachycephalic and 4% ultra- Brachycephalic (*333). So majority were Mesencephalic but found in environments that if Brachycephalic Shulaveri were an elite and higher hierarchical layer that led to Bell beaker folks...

Davidski said...

There are no signs of any Shulaveri elite or otherwise in any of the Bell Beakers.

Rob said...

I don't know about Shuvaleri, but one thing interesting is that BB males in central Europe were craniometrically distinctive - brachycephalic with flattened occiput, stereotypically. Thus they were indeed distinct from CWC males, who tended to be more robust and heterogeneous. The former (BB) were thought to come from somewhere around Italy or the Mediterranean; and indeed at the Chalcolithic a novel material culture appears in sights around Portugal, etc.
I know aspects of typological P.A. are outdated, and at odds with aDNA, but one can see where O.M. might have got his inspiration from.

Gioiello said...

@ Rob
"The former (BB) were thought to come from somewhere around Italy or the Mediterranean"

Don't say Rocca&Co that you are a friend of mine!

Nirjhar007 said...

For all my lovely Italian poets and friends and warriors and ....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4

Arza said...

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Sjh7xSlIWZs/WRrYGQHS4SI/AAAAAAAAAJY/x19ScMTa6r02O8uqpAxXi93nl0b_D7niwCLcB/s1600/oranges.png

SE paper, K11 grey component (X axis) vs. orange component (Y axis).

Grey apparently is connected to the earliest farmers - Peloponesse, some Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic farmers are pure gray.

Orange on the other hand tops in Iberia and there is no Iberian sample without it.

One sample of Iberia Chalcolithic completely lacks the grey component.
Peloponnese, Levant Neolithic, some samples of Balkan and Anatolia Neolithic are completely lacking the orange one, but at the same time it is present in the region.

Orange is present in LBK, GAC and Central MN.

Orange component is not related to WHG.

Question:
Do anyone have an idea who is represented by the orange component?
There is no orange in CWC, so a side-question - from who CWC acquired its farmer ancestry?

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007

"For all my lovely Italian poets and friends and warriors and ....

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01802-4 "

I thank you for the link, but these scholars are publishing the same data that I broke in pieces every time. I'll look at if they learnt something from the past. Boattini is in my mail list... Not gkad tat Wells is amongst them, knowing who is behind him...

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski
"There are no signs of any Shulaveri elite or otherwise in any of the Bell Beakers."

Well There is no sign of Bell beakers in this papers more like it. Period. that is the shame of it!

Algan mardi said...

Indoeuropean question. What about that?.
PIE Indoeuropean homeland was around Fertile Crescent-Anatolia. Pre-Indoeuropean languages spread with Neolithic Iran or related towards steppe, and then yamna->CWC->BBC in North Europe. On the other side, from anatolia->west mediterranean sea. Why i say that?.
1. Look at "Molecular genetic investigation of the Neolithic population history in the western Carpathian Basin", Genetic distance mapping, eg. figures 33 & 34 Sopot and Lengyel have neolithic component. The most distant places are basques and east Iberia(non-indoeuropean until historic times).At figure 37 & 38 relative to Y-chromosomal genetic distances. All that is, grosso modo, the indoeuropean languages distribution map, seems related with some kind of neolithic component.
2. D-stats of "Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent".
Despite of they said "and some level of Near Eastern ancestry was previously inferred in southern Russian pre-Yamnaya popu-lations (3). However, our analyses suggest that Neolithic Iranians were unlikely to be the main source of Near East-ern ancestry in the Steppe population (table S20), and that this ancestry in pre-Yamnaya populations originated pri-marily in the west of SW-Asia ". Note relation betwen Yamna-Iranian Neolithic (CHG always prefer the later before Yamna). eg (Yamnaya_Kalmykia,AH1,CHG,Khomani,-0,0866,-15,641). We can see that too sorting out the Admix K 8 spreadsheet of davidski, the lessers amounts of iran neolithic found betwen europeans is in sardinians(Paleosardo) and basques. Yamna have much of it.
3. "Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family", Anatolia is the key.
4. F. Villar, an spanish linguistic postules an arqueo-indoeuropean languages/s across mediterranean sea-Fertile Crescent-Anatolia "Indoeuropeos, iberos, vascos y sus parientes", then, in Iberia attest non-indoeuropean layers. (could be that "arqueo-indoeuropean" the base for post indoeuropean layers?)

5. In regards of the 'steppe component' distribution, this could explain some questions "Principal Component Analysis under Population Genetic Models of Range Expansion and Admixture" & "A Pre-Existing Isolation by Distance Gradient in West Eurasia May Partly Account for the Observed “Steppe” Component in Europe".

6. The mediterranean sea may be much more important in the indoeuropean expansion that we think, like the proposed for neolithic in "Reconciling evidence from ancient and contemporary genomes: A major source for the European Neolithic within Mediterranean Europe"

The basque-iberian language question, in relation with distribution of R1b-DF27, may be:
a)adoption of non-indoeuropean language of preLN population for R1b-DF27(origined in north-central europe)
b)R1b-DF27 is vasconic and predates in his way to south the arrival of CWC, then romans brought latin.

There could be something not well understood in all that, may be me.

Arza said...

K10 this time, beige X vs. pink Y

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oQ3h0EbVdek/WRrozVbwASI/AAAAAAAAAJo/OhKjG_5Y5HMJQ4qDN1Elw579_4J2aWPpwCLcB/s1600/pinky.png

Varna and Tripillia outliers are apparently pulling up some CWC samples, but the overall image is very similar to the previous one.

Olympus Mons said...

So with all this CHG Pie talk when are people going to stop it?!
Cut it out - we don't say EHG was PIE, or WHG was pie, do we?

So when will people start to say that "my" Shulaveri Shomu were PIE?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

North Africa, Iberia, and France are out. Time to face it.

Olympus Mons said...

@Chad.
Might be. Really might be.
But all else is intact and looking good. Shulaveri, and I am aaaalllll about shulaveri, is looking really good. Now steppe, that shit is ready to the trash bin isn't?

Does not matter how much you all spin it baby, spin it baby!

In fact, I can be right about all, but Iberia, and still would be awesome. Shulaveri are reall y the best canditate to be the source of PIE and even of L23. so, buckle up!

Now, about Iberia.
Don't be surprise if the stanford guys will find L51 in North Africa when their results come out in a couple months, dont really be surprise. - And I am saying this, because calling the samples used both by Reich as by Rui Martianiano as really representative of bell beaker or arriving populations to end 4th millennia to Iberia... is a Joke.

They jump from Neolithic context people to middle bronze age samples. So missing all chalcolithic, copper age...


Ric Hern said...

I wonder if that MtDNA H13 in Mesolithic Ostrovul Corbului can be linked to the Trialetian Culture ? It preceeded Shulaveri Shamo in roundabout the same area.Maybe they were the source of CHG ?

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski.
A simple question that you might be able to give the answer. It helps to clarify these stuff.

Imagine a group of Iberian bell beaker man (mostly males) moved by 2750bc from Lisbon to say north Iberia and took local women then their sons and some newly arrivals from Lisbon moved south of south of France just past the pyrenes.. There they settle and took local (south france) women and beer children. Their children, so by 2675 BC would be adults and have children with local women and those original Iberia BB grandchildren by 2650 were adults and then moved to further north, say Switzerland and took local wives, and in return their , this great grandchildren of the original of the original, children by 2600bc (see just 150 years have passed) were moving to north Switzerland and took lots of local wives, and then moved to south Bavaria and have local wives, and then by 2500 BC meet corded ware and have children (so just 200 years) . And let me tell you, the bell beaker phenomena was really a fast movement!

No, explain me on the data we have that this was not the case.

because is pretty much what reich is saying,

Arza said...

@ David

!!!

The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe
Supplementary Tables

RISE568.SG RISE568, F0525, A01623, gr. 16 tooth 1 Shotgun AllentoftNature2015 .. 1200 600-900 CE Czech_Early_Slav.SG Czech_Early_Slav.SG .. Brandysek .. Czech Republic 50,19 14,16 F H44a .. .. .. 0,053 60816 minus All

RISE569.SG RISE569, F0527, A01643, gr. 35?' tooth 1 Shotgun AllentoftNature2015 .. 1235 660-770 calCE (1300±30 BP, Poz-84461) Czech_Early_Slav.SG Czech_Early_Slav.SG .. Brandysek .. Czech Republic 50,19 14,16 F H1af .. .. .. 0,98 708529 minus All

epoch2013 said...

@Nirjhar007

"I am not your enemy, I am enemy of vandalism and Eurocentrism"

And that is exactly why you can't be trusted with this subject.

Arza said...

As a reminder about RISE568:
https://s23.postimg.org/rgsavi6ex/image.png
https://s29.postimg.org/fpiwcfgb9/multidimensional.png
Balto-Slavs in blue.

Algan mardi said...

@Olympus Mons
could have L51 in North Africa, but in Iberia it 'must' have come from the north, at least most of it.

Algan mardi said...

who´s older in West Iberia, U6mtdna, E-M81 or R1b?

Olympus Mons said...

@Algan mardi

Under which rock in north? sure no lack of sampling in "north" is there?
now south... they find a couple dudes in caves and call them Bell beakers... well close enough, those will have to do.... tha seems to be the prevailing logic.

So, lets see what the Stanford is going to pop out from marroco. Bell beaker dates and what adna it comes out... and pointing to unsampled places like balkans and western steppe sure was fair ground for expectations was it not?

Algan mardi said...

Honestly, I have not had time to read the paper of BB and the one about south east europe, but this is my logic. Basques are full of r1b and lack any traces of african mixture, if r1b reached Portugal, which have african admixture, after that u6 or em81, then its not posible leave it plenty in the way into a people like basques, fully of r1b. The other way r1b arrived before and spread too before africa arrived at Portugal

Kristiina said...

@ Matt

“I would guess the multiple (family) burial female is the high Yamnaya (essentially clustering with Corded Ware), as she has mtdna U4, while the double burial male should be the low Yamnaya, as he has mtdna T2c2 and y G2a2a1a2a."

How come! :) I checked that T2c2 is a rare haplogroup in Europe and it has not been found in ancient European mtDNA before Vucedol, and according to my notes, today, T2c2 is found in IE caste Indians (e.g. Uttar Pradesh Upper-Caste) which means it should be an Indo-Aryan haplogroup. By contrast, U4 is not so rare in Indian Dravidian and Tribal groups.

Alberto said...

@OM

The sampling in the BB paper was indeed a let down for many of us. With so many samples I guess we all expected much more. But we got what we got...

That said, you have to be realistic. There are samples from around Lisbon from 2500 to 2100 BC, chalcolithic samples from SE Iberia (related to Los Millares, which is related to VNSP) from the middle 3rm mill. (Camino del Molino), other Bell Beakers from Spain,... All by a time when the R1b guys were all over Central Europe, France and British Islands. And in Iberia there is no R1b-L23+ nor CHG admixture. That mass migration of R1b-L23 CHGs from North Africa around 3500 BC didn't happen. The Chalcolithic/EBA Iberians are just the same people as the Neolithic ones. There's no way to hide this under the sampling not being from the exact right places.

Now for the Shulaveri... Hard to say if they have any connection to PIE. Maybe. At least from their land (though quite later), you can find interesting clues. I'm sure you've seen the tanged daggers that the R1b Bell Beakers from Western Europe have from around 2400-2300 BC in their graves, made of Arsenic copper. So if you look at the land of the Shulaveri, you can find something like this:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/286182086_fig2_Fig-8-Soyuq-Bulaq-The-dagger-and-the-sceptre-at-the-time-of-their-discovery-at-the

If you read the article, that's from Kurgan 1 at Soyuq Bulaq (Azerbaijan), dated to 3951-3759 BC. Basically an identical dagger, but 1500 years earlier. And in a kurgan with a stone sceptre with a equid head. And even some gold beads.

So maybe there's still some kind of connection between the Bell Beakers and the land of the Shulaveri-Shomu culture after all. Time will tell.

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007
"Analogously to what occurred in other European countries, we may hypothesize that Neolithic farmers largely replaced Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers, albeit without reaching a complete substitution. Admixture projection (Supplementary Fig. S3) and outgroup-f3 (Supplementary Fig. S9) analyses indeed revealed modest signs of Mesolithic ancestry. In particular, D-statistics suggest this Mesolithic substratum as mainly related to a Western European Hunter Gatherer (WHG)-like ancestry (Supplementary Table S8, Supplementary Information). The most recent literature demonstrated significant impact of Caucasus-related ancestry in the Central European Late-Neolithic and Bronze-Age through the migrations of Yamnaya/Pontic-Steppe herders4.
Accordingly, our results confirm that Caucasus-related admixture via Yamnaya is present in Eastern and Central-Western European clusters (i.e. Continental Europe; Supplementary Table S8, Supplementary Information). However, among our Mediterranean groups, evidence of Yamnaya (and EHG) introgression seems to be present at a lesser extent and was detected mainly in Balkan-related groups (Supplementary Table S8, Supplementary Information), which in turn display traces of admixture with Eastern Europe (Fig. 4, Supplementary Fig. S2). In addition, outgroup-f3 values for Late Neolithic/Bronze Age samples (especially Yamnaya) appear lower in all our newly analysed Mediterranean populations (Supplementary Fig. S9). These results suggest that the genetic history of Southern Italian and Balkan populations may have been, at least in part, independent from that of Eastern and Central Europe, involving specific migratory events that carried Caucasian and Levantine genetic contributes along the Mediterranean shores (see Supplementary Information). This picture may bring important implications for our understanding of the cultural history of Europe, and in particular for the diffusion of Indo-European languages. The Steppe in the Early Bronze Age has been supported as a source of at least some Indo-European languages entering North-Central Europe at that time4. In southern Mediterranean Europe, however, our results suggest lower impacts. Any significant Steppe/northern component may have arrived in the south Balkan mainland and southern Italy only later, by which time Indo-European languages of the Italic, Greek and various Balkan branches had already established themselves there. This would suggest that a Bronze Age Steppe source may be not highly consistent with all branches of the Indo-European family (see also Broushaki et al.40)" (Sarno et al. 2017, p. 7)

Be sure, Nirjhar007: R-L51 came from Tyrrhenian Italy through Rhone-Rhine to central Germany!

Grey said...

@Arza

"Grey apparently is connected to the earliest farmers - Peloponesse, some Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic farmers are pure gray. Orange on the other hand tops in Iberia and there is no Iberian sample without it."

yeah - the orange in Iberia and the teal around the Black Sea / Balkans are the bits that are most intriguing to me.

iirc there was an "iberian" component found in earlier samples from western anatolia which iirc was deemed an artifact - maybe it wasn't.

implies to me either
- some movement from Iberia
- some movement to iberia from an unsampled farmer pop
- remnants of a once more widespread population
?

wild speculation time ...

i recall reading about iberians from iberia being considered the same as iberians in the west caucasus (iirc Georgians) for some reason - forgotten the context though, can't recall if roman era or medieval

i wonder if there's some kind of connection between the orange and teal?

capra internetensis said...

@OM

Hopefully there are further studies planned on VNSP and Los Millares, it would be very disappointing if this is all we get.

Any thoughts on the Cova de Moura sample I4229? Y haplogroup I2a1a1-L158 is shared not only with Remedello and a northern Iberian Copper Age sample but with the Csepel BB with no Steppe.

Gaspar said...

@zardos

Before the hittites , the north-Levant and all of Anatolia except coastal black sea anatolia was IE peoples

Black sea coastal anatolia was non-IE inhabited by the Kaskian people

Matt said...

@Kristiina: How come! I checked that T2c2 is a rare haplogroup in Europe and it has not been found in ancient European mtDNA before Vucedol, and according to my notes, today, T2c2 is found in IE caste Indians (e.g. Uttar Pradesh Upper-Caste) which means it should be an Indo-Aryan haplogroup. By contrast, U4 is not so rare in Indian Dravidian and Tribal groups.

Hmmm... Not so convinced, but! I'm not much of an expert on uniparental groups, so perhaps this is one worth me to drop comment on bioRxiv about after all.

@Bell Beaker Blogger: And do the previous Bell Beaker genomes have excess HG input?

Just looking at Mathieson's latest estimates from the Supplementary Table 5 characterise Bell_Beaker_Germany as WHG:AN:Yamnaya of 15:37:48, which cashes out to Yamnaya mixing at 52:48 with a MN population of 29:71 WHG:AN. That matches the WHG in their estimate of Iberia_Chal (28.3%) and is a little higher than the estimate for Globular Amphora (24.9%) but well within error for either.

Corded_Ware is characterised as WHG:AN:Yamnaya 11:20:69, so equivalent "MN" would be 35% WHG (somewhat richer).

Balkans_BA WHG:AN:Yamnaya 11:59:30, so pre-Yamnaya of 15% WHG. These are diverse samples, but none seem to have a whole lot of WHG, even the more Yamnaya heavy Croatian_BA.

They're all a bit diverse and varying as groupings, so hard to get a clear handle on it I think.

Though on this point of WHG ratios, I'm aware that there are a few theories floating about on Anthrogenica (and other places?) about Bell Beaker or the pre-Bronze Age North/Central Europe having a portion or wave of ancestry from the Chalcolithic Balkans.

But I think you'd assume that the ratios in Central European Bell Beaker and pre-Bronze Age Atlantic and Central European Neolithic would suggest almost no admixture from Balkans Chalcolithic groups, who tend to have around 6% WHG (even the outlier cultures only have 15%).

The North-Central European and Atlantic ratios make more sense, both to model the Central European Bronze Age, and to model the populations just prior to the Bronze Age (who seem mostly continuous in WHG level).

To get the ratio for Bell Beaker Germany, the simplest two population combination in Mathieson's Supplementary Table 5 is about 70:30 CWCG:Iberia_Chal / 70:30 CWCG:GAC.

Looks like a bit of a strike against "Bell Beaker from / influenced by the Balkans" (As Mathieson says really, it looks like the Balkans Neolithic contributed fairly little to later populations of North and Central Europe!).

Also true for Chalcolithic Hungary, again unlikely to have much autosomal influence on Bell Beaker, without a big WHG introgression to balance it (they were at around 15% WHG, per Lipson).

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto.
I have already conceded that I can not keep arguing that north Africa route. But that is because this people would not understand. But you as an Iberian I can tell you the following,

First a favor. Whatever happen please test yourself the I0839 and I0840 . those two females are the only ones I recognize as remotely, remotely connected to Bell beaker.

Second, remember that the Barcelona BB were R1b.

Thirdly, --- BB beaker from Iberia went from Lisbon, to north Iberia into rest of Europe. Those were the ones to keep an eye on.

Now,


a. In this caves around Lisbon, like cova da moura and Carenque from that same period the skeletons range from Hiper dolichocephalic to Hiper brachycephalic in the same cave in the same period. Which one is this sample? And do you believe that the same stock of people would have this range of crania index? This is indication of very diferent people coming to this area.
b. Remember that 10% of people in Zambujal were actually born in the Alentejo lowlands.
c. Bell beaker in Lisbon lived hundreds of years not more than 100 meter from others that had different pottery and never seemed to have mixed. Never. Actually those was the earliest Bell beakers by dating. So did they sample Zambujal? Did they sample this people around VNSP near Muge and Tagus river? – No they didn’t. …. So what bell beakers are they talking about?
d. No, Los millares was not related to Vnsp… Vnsp was a warrior complex. They were not erecting fortifications for trade. Usually at those times, enemies were the different ones.
e. Then they jump to middle Bronze age. To inhumations clearly related to El argar and we all know that those were kinda greek and Mycenaean , do we not? And those they sample in Alentejo are all very much related to Argaric culture and at a time after even Porto torrão and Perdigoes were all abandoned and climate change had made the area a wasteland. Anyway Even the bronze found was from Argar.


So, yes samples are what they are. But those bronze age were R1b and without steppe at all. what does that tell you?

Arza said...

Matt said...
70:30 CWCG:Iberia_Chal / 70:30 CWCG:GAC

Heh, I calculated this in the exact same moment as you posted.
So I will add something else - I dropped tables 3.2.1 and 3.3 into nMonte and this is the result:

Bell_Beaker_Germany
Corded_Ware_Germany 61
Iberia_Chalcolithic 23.9
Varna_outlier 12.7
Globular_Amphora 1.1
Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier 1
Trypillia_outlier 0.3

Alberto said...

@OM

I have already conceded that I can not keep arguing that north Africa route

Ah, sorry, I missed that.

But what are you arguing then? I can agree with you that the samples are not the ones we'd like to see. But what kind of a difference do you think they will make?

(I'll look at those 2 samples when Davidski adds them to Global 10, if does. But in the paper there are some D-stats with them and they look as "western" as any other).

Olympus Mons said...

@capra internetensis

I dont know... its just that, cova da moura, Carenque and so forth...I cant phantom any Bell beaker being buried there. Its just weird!


Arza said...

I've added Yamnaya (0,0,100) and repeated this for CWC:

Corded_Ware_Germany
Yamnaya 69.85
Iberia_Chalcolithic 30.15

But the distance is significantly bigger than for BB %=3.469 vs. %=0.0075

Olympus Mons said...

@arza,
But that is the opossite of what this papers are stating. so according to "them", Bell beaker germany as 25% Iberian chalc is something they do not see as possible.
Me, I think the great grand-son of an Iberian BB (males travelling and marrying local) would actually look like that, would they not?

Olympus Mons said...

@alberto,
Bell beakers were like Jews today. so a minority, really minority. so if you go to poland 1930, either you sample near a synagogue or...

Alberto said...

@OM

I think I'll wait till you have time to explain whatever theory it is you have now. If you dropped the basic R1b-L23+ from Shulaveri -> Levant -> Egypt -> Morocco -> Portugal -> Europe thing, then I see no reason to disagree (unless you're proposing something different from everyone else, but I don't know what exactly).

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto,
I confess my ignorance. does looking for steppe masks CHG? because I just would like to see if there is some strange signal on those two females related to CHG (xEHG) and a EEF admix that is different...

Just a tiny hope to find a bit of shulaveri in them. :=)

Shulaveri were a mix of eastern balkan HG and thrace HG, a bit of Barcin and CHG. later one can see it as a bit of Iran_chalc...

Olympus Mons said...

@Alberto,
Unless something new comes up, and Rui Martiniano explains how there is not CHG but clearly a steppe signal (wtf) and its not a blunder on their part, then....

Shulaveri was always my focus... so, shulaveri dispersal ( and they were
many) went to steppe and were PIE, went back to north Anatolia and spill back into eastern balkans (and them I dont know), and el-omari and Merimde came back to levant and anatolia and south caucasus (as I thought they also did) but never west into Iberia.

However, lets wait and see what comes out north africa, shall we?


Kristiina said...

@Matt
If you do not believe me, check
T2c2 in India (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-015-1547-4, see supplementary material 439_2015_1547_MOESM1_ESM.xls and 439_2015_1547_MOESM2_ESM.ppt)

Vucedol U4a was probably local development as U4a has been found in the following: Iron Gates HG Serbia I5234 U4a, Iron Gates HG Serbia I4878 U4a, Iron Gates HG Serbia S5773.E1.L1 U4a, Ukraine Neolithic S5953.E1.L1 U4a, Ukraine Neolithic Dereivka S5883.E1.L1 U4a, Ukraine Neolithic Dereivka S5886.E1.L1 U4a.

Apparently, U4a1g and U4a1f have spread from the Balkans/Ukraine to Pakistan and India at an early date, maybe with R1a1. :)

If you go to Ian Logan site (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/t2c-d_genbank_sequences.htm), you see that T2c2 is today so rare that there is not one sample in Ian Logan mtDNA bank.

For the sake of honesty, I admit that we have recently got some ancient T2c2 samples: MN Hungary ALPc Szakalhat Pusztataskony-Ledence I2355 T2c2, Hungary CA Balaton Lasinja Tolna-Mözs TO3 I2351 T2c2, Hungary LCA Hungary Baden Vámosgyörk MHAT telep I2785 T2c2, but it is interesting that all samples are from Hungary!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 437   Newer› Newest»