search this blog

Thursday, November 14, 2013

The story of R1b: it's complicated


Ancient DNA is painting a remarkable picture of the period of European prehistory known as the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age. It's showing that after the collapse of genetically Near Eastern-like farming populations of middle Neolithic Central Europe - probably as a result of climate fluctuations, disease, famine and increasing violence - the vacuum was filled by genetically much more European-like groups from the eastern and western peripheries of Neolithic Europe.

First came the settlers from the east, belonging to the vast archeological horizon known as the Corded Ware Culture (CWC). About three hundred years later they were joined in Central Europe by migrants from the Atlantic Fringe, belonging to the Bell Beaker Culture (BBC). During the early Bronze Age, the CWC disappeared, and was replaced by the Unetice Culture (UC), which briefly overlapped with the late BBC.

Ancient DNA recovered to date suggests that the Bell Beakers were genetically the archetypal Western Europeans, characterized by Western European-specific mtDNA H subclades and Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b. Interestingly, R1b has also been found among remains of aboriginals from the Canary Islands, just off the coast of northwest Africa. It might be a stretch to attribute this directly to the Bell Beakers, but they were certainly capable sailors, so perhaps not?

On the other hand, the CWC and UC populations appear to have been Eastern Europeans to the core, carrying relatively low levels of mtDNA H, and showing strong mtDNA affinity to Bronze Age Kurgan groups of Kazakhstan and South Siberia.

Here are a couple of figures from recent studies, Brandt et al. and Brotherton et al., respectively, illustrating much of what I just said.




So it seems everything is falling into place, with ancient DNA, archeology, and modern European genetic substructures all showing basically the same phenomenon.

However, for a while now the ever more precise present-day phylogeography of R1b has been hinting that this haplogroup might not have expanded across Europe from the west. That's because the most basal clades of R1b are found in West Asia, and its SNP diversity decreases sharply from east to west in Europe. Below is a schematic of the latest phylogeography of R1b. It was presented at the recently held 9th Annual International Conference on Genetic Genealogy by Arizona University population geneticist Dr. Michael Hammer.




And here is another map shown by Hammer at the same conference, illustrating the frequencies of various R1b subclades across Europe.




I didn't see the presentation, so I don't know what Hammer actually said. But it appears as if his theory is that R1b spread across Europe from the Balkans during the late Neolithic or later, and then exploded in-situ from certain areas of Central and Western Europe during the metal ages. If true, this scenario obviously doesn't match the presumed west to east expansion of the Bell Beakers.

But here's yet another slide from Hammer's talk, which shows the frequency peaks of the most common European subclades of R1b: U106, L21 and U152. Curiously, these peaks are all located in and around former Bell Beaker territory (second image below, from Wikipedia).





Admittedly, we only have two Y-chromosome results from Bell Beaker remains, both from the same site in Germany dated to around 4500 YBP, but both belonging to R1b. Based on that, plus all of the indirect evidence outlined above, it's already very difficult to shake the association between Bell Beakers and R1b. So I'm thinking there are three possible explanations why the latest R1b phylogeography doesn't support a Bell Beaker-driven expansion of this haplogroup in Europe.

1) The current mainstream theory positing the origin of the Bell Beaker Culture in Portugal is wrong, and the earliest Bell Beakers expanded from East Central Europe, as was once thought.

2) The latest R1b phylogeography is based on limited sampling, and many more individuals need to be tested from former Bell Beaker areas in Iberia and France to catch the basal R1b subclades in these regions.

3) The people who were to become the Bell Beakers in Iberia originally came from the southern Balkans, via maritime routes across the Mediterranean, and then dominated Western and Central Europe via a series of migrations and back migrations. The latest R1b phylogeography is simply not intricate enough to properly describe this complicated process.

The first option basically ignores ancient mtDNA data which shows that the Bell Beakers of Central Europe were of Iberian origin, at least in terms of maternal ancestry. So for now, I'm going with the third option, and looking forward to more ancient DNA results.

A lot can be said about what might have pushed the Balkan proto-Bell Beakers to Western Europe during the late Neolithic, if they actually existed. At the time Bulgaria was being invaded by steppe nomads from just north of the Black Sea, and its agricultural communities were disappearing rapidly. I suppose the ancestors of the Bell Beakers might have been refugees trying to escape these nomads. Then again, perhaps they were the descendants of the nomads who learned to sail after reaching the Mediterranean? I might revisit the issue when I have more data to work with.

Citations...

Michael Hammer, Origins of R-M269 Diversity in Europe, University of Arizona, FamilyTreeDNA, 9th Annual Conference

Guido Brandt, Wolfgang Haak et al., Ancient DNA Reveals Key Stages in the Formation of Central European Mitochondrial Genetic Diversity, Science 11 October 2013: Vol. 342 no. 6155 pp. 257-261 DOI: 10.1126/science.1241844

Brotherton et al., Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans, Nature Communications 4, Article number: 1764, Published 23 April 2013, doi:10.1038/ncomms2656

92 comments:

spagetiMeatball said...

David, how do you think this still fits in with your working thesis of R* being the main haplogroup in the north eurasian steppe-tundra? If the oldest clades of R1b are found in the near east, that doesn't really contradict your theory: I'm thinking about something Peter Frost said a few days ago, that modern middle easterners aren't the same people who lived there 25,000 years ago, but a back-migration from europe during the late ice age. This still doesn't explain how J came to dominate the supposed last-detectable place of origin of R1b, and where the hell I come from. (btw nobody talks about I, it seams to be a pretty interesting weird haplogroup...)

andrew said...

I think the truth is closest to your scenario three, but not necessarily a maritime folk migration. I think that one has to rely most heavily in archaeology to tell the story of the Bell Beakers and use genetics to infer that they are R1b/H dominant. As I see it:

1. R1b/H proto-Bell Beakers originate probably in West Asia/Caucasus or nearby and make a folk migration to Iberia, possibly maritime, but I don't think we can rule out an Alpine route via Central Europe either (and the Conference data seems to favor that) in the Copper Age. Some combination of copper metallurgy and agricultural technology (particularly involving cattle) probably drive this. Early metal age civilization in Southern Portugal where the second European center of metal mining develops is probably important. Bell Beaker ethnogenesis as a distinct culture relative to the source culture is influenced by substrate influences, founder effects, and limitations imposed by local resources happens around this time.

A possible "pull factor" could have been word of the metal resources in the region which few people other than West Asians could exploit at the time - a "copper rush". You've hit on some of the possible "push" factors.

2. Bell Beaker expands from Southern Iberia across Western Europe in a maritime and riverbed based migration. It becomes a superstrate culture that transforms pre-existing megalithic cultures in the region.

3. After expanding into Western Europe, the members of the Bell Beaker culture in Northern France/low countres acquire the lactose persistance gene and experience selective pressure for it. Thus modified, they back migrate to Basque Spain which is more LP and more R1b than any other European population.

4. We infer from the Basque and from linguistic substrates in Celtic languages (e.g. base twenty numbers), and European place names, that the Bell Beaker were linguistically Vasconic. Thus, Basque's most likely modern linguistic relative (at a time depth of about 5000 years) is probably in the Northern Caucasian languages (one of the more plausible of the myriad linguistic affiliation efforts).

5. Ancient DNA evidence confirms that Bell Beaker, and not the subsequent post-Bronze Age Collapse Indo-European Celts, had the predominant population genetic impact on Western Europe with the Celtic superstrate having far more cultural than genetic impact. Note that Vasconic Bell Beaker derived cultures in Western Europe were at a militarily maintained impass with Indo-European Corded Ware derived cultures in Eastern Europe for about 1000 years until the CW finally prevailed and overran Western Europe after Bronze Age collapse.

Colin Welling said...

We are now talking about population movements without about the past 4,000 years. R1b appears in the Caucasus by the early Neolithic. By the end of the Neolithic, it is still isolated to pockets in Eastern Europe. Then in the Early-Mid Bronze age about 4500-4000 years ago, R1b was found in central Europe. By about 4000-3500 years ago, R1b begins to reach western Europe. In the Iron Age 3200-3000 years ago there was a period of differentiation in centers of renewed expansion. It is possible that this continued through the Iron Age and can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago. There is a lot left to be learned and the ancient DNA contribution will be very large to determine the R1b overtaking of the Neolithic chromosomes.

its pretty obvious to me what they are saying. r1b was isolated in pockets of eastern Europe, presumably not effected by the continental wide neolithic expansions into western (Levant origin?) and central Europe (Anatolian origin?). Then it spread west during the bronze age.

I admit some bias but I can't think of much else besides the steppe expansion.

anyways its very nice to see someone go against the idea that bell beakers spread r1b from the west simply because the earliest bell beakers spread from the west... over and over we see the evidence that there were east to west movements in the BB world, which includes male lineages. that evidence is so strong! sooo, genetic changes associated with bell beakers certainly does not imply west to east.

Davidski said...

Yes, it's possible that the R1b in the Middle East is from Europe, and modern DNA can't detect this yet, maybe because the older R1b clades in Europe were swamped by younger clades during the rapid population expansions of the metal ages.

A single ancient Y-chromosome from a forager from the Atlantic Fringe might change everything.

Davidski said...

Yes, I think the Bell Beakers were basically anti-Indo-Europeans rather than early Indo-Europeans like the Corded Ware. But eventually they gave in.

barakobama said...

"It's showing that after the disappearance of genetically Near Eastern-like farming populations of middle Neolithic Central Europe - probably as a result of climate fluctuations, disease, famine and increasing violence - the vacuum was filled by genetically much more European-like groups from the eastern and western peripheries of Neolithic Europe."

Davidski i totally agree that at least some people who spread Indo European languages had much more pre Neolithic European ancestry than Otzie, Gok4, and probably most farming Europeans during Neolithic. Definitely the ones who spread Y DNA R1a1a1b2 Z93, Indo Iranian, and Tocharian languages. The Dodecade results of Neolithic farmer Gok4 and early copper age farmer Otzie. Show that there was maybe a migration in the last 5,000 years throughout most of Europe. Which raised North Euro in globe13 and K12b and Atlantic Baltic in K7b and also changed the percentages of Middle eastern groups. Which would explain the difference between between modern Europeans and the farmers. This means these migrators had more pre Neolithic European ancestry to. Gedorsian in K12b can definitely be connected with all R1b L23 in Europe. There was also maybe a huge migration into Italy and the Balkans from Middle east or just a lot of inter marriage in the last 5,000 years. Italy and the Balkans mainly southern Italy, Sicily, and Greece have much higher percentages of middle eastern groups than the rest of Europe and Gok4 and Otzie. I think they got it from the same source since in globe13 their southwest Asian vs west Asian percentages are the same while it is different in most regions of Europe.

Is there any evidence that during the Neolithic farmers from Atlantic coast of Europe had more hunter gather ancestry. Or are you just assuming that? I know very very little about ancient cultures because i cant learn that much from Wikpedia. But i do know there is a lot of debate whether Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia i have heard many say it could have been in central Europe.


spagetiMeatball said...

What about haplogroup I, do you still think it's a neolithic expansion remnant?

Davidski said...

Yes, Southern Europe was also affected by this genetic shift from Near Eastern-like to North Euro-like, but it also experienced later gene flow from the Middle East, which didn't affect Northern Europe. See here...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/recent-gene-flow-from-africa-and-near.html

And I think the Bell Beakers migrating from the Atlantic Fringe to Central Europe certainly had some hunter-gatherer ancestry from southwestern Europe. You can see that clearly in these diagrams.

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/4497/r4sf.png

BBC = Bell Beakers, NPO = Neolithic Portugal, NBQ = Neolithic Basque Country, HGS = Hunter-Gatherer South Europe, HGC = Hunter-Gatherer Central Europe.

Also, the West Asian/Gedrosian autosomal admixtures in modern Europeans can be explained in a variety of ways, including left overs from the Near Eastern-like farmers of Central Europe, who were of Anatolian origin (unlike Oetzi and Gok4, who were more Mediterranean), as well as contacts between the early Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe and groups from the North Caucasus, like the Maykop Culture.

Davidski said...

Yes, I still think it's basically a Megalithic haplogroup. But I could well be wrong.

Davidski said...

If R1b came from the east during the late Neolithic, and that's still a big if considering all the recent Bell Beaker aDNA, then it came from Europe rather than Anatolia, because it had to have come with one of the populations that shifted the genetic structure of Europe from Near Eastern-like to modern North European-like. The two main options in that case are the eastern Balkans and the area just north of the Caucasus.

barakobama said...

Davidski you do know age estimates for Y DNA I range from 25,000-30,000 years old well before Megalithic cultures. It is pretty much believed as a fact Y DNA I existed in Europe at the begging or even before the LGM. We know through ancient DNA I2a1 P37.5(probably M26) existed in Megalithic and Neolithic people in France and probably all of west Europe but they got it through inter marriage with European hunter gathers.

barakobama said...

"On the other hand, the CWC and UC populations appear to have been Eastern Europeans to the core, with low levels of mtDNA H and showing mtDNA affinities to Bronze Age Kurgan groups of Kazakhstan and South Siberia."

Davidski mtDNA H is very old and has many many many many many subclades. Overall it is about as popular in eastern Europe(even Finland) as western Europe. It ranges at about 40-50% in eastern Europe you can look at a great list of mtDNA frequencies in Europe at Eupedia.com. So low levels of mtDNA H would not be showing affinities to any modern Europeans. It is true the bronze and iron age Indo Europeans in Asia had a high amount of Euro hunter gather U5a, U4, and U2e and also 16 out of 17 had Y DNA R1a1. Since there are under 30 mtDNA samples from both Corded ware and Unetice is not even close to enough to say if they were more related to western or eastern Europeans.

Davidski there needs to be many more DNA results not just mtDNA from Unetice culture to say what modern Europeans they are probably most related. I am still thinking it is probably modern western Europeans mainly British Celts(Gaelic Irish, Scottish, and Brittonic Welsh, Cornish, and Brittany's). Unetice culture possibly was apart of still the early stages of the spread of Y DNA R1b L11 in western Europe and definitely connected with Celtic, Italic, and Germanic languages. I would bet 1,000,000 dollars that Y DNA results from Unetice culture, Tumulus, Nordic bronze age, Urnfield, and Hallstat will be full of R1b L11.

I know little about Bell beaker I will have to get book's to learn about them. What I have heard is there Beakers developed from Beakers in western and central Europe that existed in the Neolithic. I doubt Bell beaker is the original source of R1b in west Europe I think they got it from Indo Europeans migrating from eastern Europe. 22 5,000 year old Y DNA samples in SW France had no R1b. Instead it had 19 G2a's and 2 I2a1's. G2a was also dominate in early Neolithic European Y DNA so far. R1b probably didn't make it there yet and Otzie autosomal and Y DNA results is evidence it didn't make it to the alps around 5,000ybp either. R1b P312 and U106 I think spread mainly in the bronze age but more specifically in the last 4,000 or so years. So many people lately have predicted it was spread by Germanic's, Italic's, and Celts I still think it was.

barakobama said...

"The first option basically ignores ancient mtDNA data which shows that the Bell Beakers of Central Europe were of Iberian origin, at least in terms of maternal ancestry"

They showed similarities to modern Iberians but it is not a fact the mtDNA proved they came from Iberia. There are only 18 mtDNA samples from Bell beaker overall they showed similarities to all western Europeans in my opinion because of the H1 and H3. But still it is only 18 samples I don't think it is good evidence they came from Iberia. Maybe it is a stereotype only Iberians have very high H and subclades H1 and H3 when they so far from samples are about as popular in Norway and Sweden as in Iberians. There is a about 6,000 year old H1e7 rom Germany and one from bell Beaker evidence if at least one H1 line that did not arrive from Iberia.

barakobama said...

Eupedia.com probably has the best collection of European, near eastern, and north African mtDNA and Y DNA frequencies. and has many Y DNA and mtDNA maps that are based on at least as much data as the map that guy made. The Author Maciamo also made his own R1b migration maps going all the way back to R1b M343 and with years, It is basically the same as what this guy made but he claimed R1b P297 is a proto Indo European haplogroup and all R1b spread downstream it was by indo Europeans.

barakobama said...

"Also, the West Asian/Gedrosian autosomal admixtures in modern Europeans can be explained in a variety of ways, including left overs from the Near Eastern-like farmers of Central Europe, who were of Anatolian origin (unlike Oetzi and Gok4, who were more Mediterranean), as well as contacts between the early Indo-Europeans of Eastern Europe and groups from the North Caucasus, like the Maykop Culture."

How do you know central European farmers had a Anatolian origin and different ancestry than Otzie and Gok4. There was G2a3 L30 found in LBK and G2a is the dominate Y DNA haplogroup so far from western European farmers including Otzie.

Davidski said...

Check out the position of the Unetice (UN) samples in these diagrams based on dental traits, especially in figure 5. They're even more eastern than Corded Ware (CW).

http://www.fondationlatsis.org/plpdf/Prix_Latsis/UNIGE_2008.pdf

Davidski said...

Because archeology shows that the LBK and related farmer groups like Rossen arrived in Central Europe via the Balkans and Hungary. This matches their mtDNA, which is very Anatolian, but not very Mediterranean (ie. not Sardinian). Check out this video.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/1241844s1.mov

On the other hand, Oetzi and Gok4 arrived in Europe via the Mediterranean. That's why they cluster with Sardinians and Basques.

http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/3460/skopca.png

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9971/skoadmix.jpg

Davidski said...

Full mtDNA H genomes from Bell Beaker remains obviously cluster with those of Iberians and Basques, and are clearly separated from those of other Europeans. This means they came from Iberia.

http://imageshack.us/a/img844/1840/3kqw.png

barakobama said...

I am happy to know that a very smart person like Davidski has also noticed that autosomal DNA from Otzie and Gok4 show that there was a huge increase of hunter gather aka North Euro like ancestry in all of Europe possibly starting about 5,000ybp. I think new middle eastern ancestry probably also came from these migrations. There was also huge increase of middle eastern ancestry in Balkans and Italy in the last 5,000 years.

I think R1b did arrive in west Europe in the late Neolithic and originally came through Anatolia-Balkans or Caucasus-Russia-Ukraine.

Davidski is probably right that there was not a very Anatolian R1b people that arrived in western Europe in the late Neolithic then spread. Because the spread of R1b might be connected with the increase of north European like ancestry in west Europe. The R1b that came out of the middle east to Europe in the Neolithic would have had to of blended in with Europeans. A mainly R1b L23 population in eastern Europe during the Neolithic that later spread to west Europe probably had mainly pre Neolithic European ancestry. Gedorsian in K12b is very connected with the distribution of R1b L23 in Europe and could be the middle eastern ancestry that was brought to Europe with R1b.

barakobama said...

That is still not proof. Sure Iberia is closer in mtDNA H subclade percentages I don't care if it is also deep subclades that is only evidence they came from Iberia not proof. I am not sure what that graph is showing. Is it based on percentages of H subclades? If Bell Beaker culture began in Iberia i doubt after 100's of years of migrations all the way to Germany they stayed mainly pure Iberian on the maternal side. Since Bell beaker culture spread in so many areas of western and central Europe. It would have been a total mix of so many different people including invading R1b L11 Indo Europeans. I doubt a Bell Beaker man and definitely not a chief would care if one of their multiple wives did no come from the original homeland of their culture. If they came from Iberia after not living in Iberia for 100's of years I doubt they knew they originally came from Iberia. There is a H1e7 from pre Bell beaker Germany and from bell beaker Germany there is a chance that is at least one maternal line not from Iberia.

barakobama said...

"Because archeology shows that the LBK and related farmer groups like Rossen arrived in Central Europe via the Balkans and Hungary. This matches their mtDNA, which is very Anatolian, but not very Mediterranean (ie. not Sardinian). Check out this video."

Please don't get frustrated with me it is just a try to be critical with everything. I think there is a good chance what your saying is true but usually I will only post what I have to citizen and dis agree about it.

I trust you their culture originally came from Anatolia. I have not been able to study them so I don't know really anything about them besides their DNA results. 3 out of 7 of the LBK mtDNA H samples with subclades had H1 that makes them seem very European. Only one of their J's had identified subclade and it was J1c(like most Neolithic Euro J) also very European. Their T with identified subclade was all T2 and under that all T2b also very European.

Are you sure their mtDNA is very close to modern Anatolians? I know that the overall haplogroup percentages where not very much like any modern Europeans. Thee was to little H 25.7%, to little U 4.5%, way to much N1a 12.12%, to much T 21.21%, and to much K 16.6%. But their subclades of those haplogroups is very European. It seems to me looking at ancient DNA Neolithic farmers brought the vast majority of modern European maternal lineages. But how can you explain so many different haplogroups came form the middle east just 9,000 years ago? They were already developed with many subclades 7,000 years ago in Germany and Spain. Figuring out the origin of modern European mtDNA is so freaking complicated but I think Neolithic farmers have a lot to do with it.

It is proven modern Sardinia have been very unchanged since the Neolithic and are in the same farmer race(or what ever you want to call it) as Otzie and Gok4. Their samples so far show a very high amount of mtDNA H1 and H3 like Iberia, Norway, and Sweden. Overall what I have heard is they are closest to Iberians but I don't think you can put all Meditreaen people like Italians, southern French, Greeks, Egyptians, Berbers, Jews, etc in the same category for mtDNA or even European Meditreaen people.

Gok4 4 lived in Sweden around 5,000 years ago. He was apart of funnel beaker culture which originated in central Europe. How connected is Funnel Beaker culture with the cultures that Otzie may have been apart of? Otzie had y DNA G2a2a2 L91 and G2a dominates all Neolithic Euro Y DNA so far including in early Neolithic Spain and there is a G2a3 L30 from LBK. It makes the most sense to me that Otzie, Cardiel culture, Funnel Beaker culture, and LBK somehow had a lot of common ancestry. But it is probably a lot more complicated than to say all or most farmers in Europe came from one common ancestor group.

Davidski said...

You're ignoring the totality of evidence. Let me just reiterate the main points...

a) Archeology shows an expansion of the Bell Beaker package from Iberia to Central Europe.

b) Dental traits of Bell Beaker folk from Iberia to Central Europe are very similar, and very different from those of Corded Ware and Unetice, unless in clearly mixed zones.

c) Bell Beaker mtDNA is very Western European, while Corded Ware and Unetice mtDNA more Eastern European than even that of modern Russians.

d) mtDNA H is the most important Bell Beaker haplogroup, and their full H sequences cluster with those of Iberians and Basques, and are clearly differentiated from those of other Europeans.

e) People didn't mix much back then, and in Central Europe they often lived only miles from other groups who were culturally and genetically very different.

f) Genetic evidence of some mixing between the Bell Beakers and Corded Ware/Unetice groups might be the mtDNA U2e sequence at the Kromsdorf site.

barakobama said...

"Yes, it's possible that the R1b in the Middle East is from Europe, and modern DNA can't detect this yet, maybe because the older R1b clades in Europe were swamped by younger clades during the rapid population expansions of the metal ages.

A single ancient Y-chromosome from a forager from the Atlantic Fringe might change everything."

Its possible that R1b in the mid east came from Europe but of course very unlikely. Obviously non of the old R1b lines in Europe from what we know has survived. I cant wait till there is finally Y DNA and autosomal DNA results from people in Europe from over 15,000 years ago. We could get an idea who the people that made the Lascux cave paintings were. Y DNA I definitely existed in Europe during that time but who knows how popular it was. There may have been a lot of F and C and maybe other major extinct lineages. It would be awesome to get Dodecade results from them and will tell if they are ancestral to the later Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gathers which they probably are.

barakobama said...

I know there is a lot of evidence Unetice was more related to modern astern Europeans than western. I consider all of what you say. Until many many mtDNA, Y DNA, autosomal, and pigmentation gene from Unetice come in will I totally side with you. I still think Unetice may have been very R1b L11, Germanic Italo Celtic, and western European like it seems central European Bell Beaker was 4,500 years ago. If they are not the ancestors to the western European indo European tribes or at least some who is?

Do you know when "Hundreds of prehistoric North European skeletons to be genotyped for Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA" results will come in? and when the DNA results of 3,000-4,000bc Pontiac steppe will be public?

Davidski said...

The results from the Yamnaya and Catacomb study should be out in a few weeks.

The late Neolithic/early Bronze Age, including Unetice, results from Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Hungary and Russia will be out next year, or the year after.

barakobama said...

"People didn't mix much back then, and in Central Europe they often lived only miles from other groups who were culturally and genetically very different."

If we went back in time and saw Corded ware and Bell Beaker people in central Europe 4,500 years ago they would seem very simple and rural to us. I would assume they were very spread out and lived in small huts in small farming villages. There were probably close family ties and inter marriage with other tribes may have been looked down on. But that doesn't mean after migrating for hundreds of years out of Iberia? they didn't inter marry with foreigners who probably became apart of their culture.

We don't know everything about the culture of all the different Bell beaker people over 100's of years. You can study how different ethnic groups living in the same areas today and in history interact and maybe get an idea of how Iberian? Bell Beaker people would deal with inter marriage with central Europeans. I can give many examples of major inter marriage between ethnic groups in modern times. Inter marriage between Indo Iranian and Tocherian speakers in the bronze and iron age with native east Asians(proven by ancient DNA), south Asians, and west Asians is a good example too. Everyone in the world today(there may be some rare examples) is a result of inter marriage with many different tribes over 10,000's of years. Inter marriage between central Europeans and Iberian? Bell beaker had to have happened at least a little.

.

Davidski said...

I posted this before, and it's in my blog entry above, but just in case you missed it.

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/4497/r4sf.png

Bell Beaker from late Neolithic Germany (BBC) clusters with the earlier Neolithic Portuguese and Basque samples (NPO and NBQ). Why don't any of the other German samples cluster in that part of the tree and PCA?

The resolution in that study wasn't the greatest, but it's tough to ignore this result as coincidental, especially with all the other evidence, like the archeological and dental data.

barakobama said...

I don't think mtDNA H and R1b are totally connected. It is true R1b(L11) is the typical Y DNA haplogroup of west Europe and mtDNA H(there are many many subclades) is the main mtDNA haplogroup. But mtDNA H is very common in Neolithic Europeans who's y DNA results are vast majority y DNA G2a with also E1b1b V13 and I2a1(probably M26).

I cant agree or dis agree with you theory Andrew that Bell beaker originated in the Caucasus since I have not been able to study Bell Beaker culture. I think that R1b probably L23 subclade migrated to Europe through Caucasus-Russia-Ukraine or Anatolia-Balkans. I think it was spread to western Europe by Indo European Germanic's, Italic's, and Celts though. We know that Indo European Corded ware culture made their paternal lineages R1a1a1b1 Z283 dominate where they settled same with Indo Iranian and Tocharian R1a1a1b2 Z93. Wouldn't it make sense another Indo European group with probably with similar war traditions did the same in west Europe and made their paternal lineage R1b L11 dominate. Even Arizona University population geneticist Michael Hammer says that R1b in west Europe mainly spread in the metal ages not Neolithic. Perfect timing for it being spread by Indo Europeans. Very important cultures of west and central Europe in the metal ages: Unetice, Urnfield, Tumulus, Nordic bronze age, Hallstat, La Tene all are probably connected and were very Indo European like.

barakobama said...

I hear you Daivdski. I know there is a lot of evidence they had Iberian ancestry. I don't think it is proven yet though just a good evidence. Lately I have tried to organize all of the Y DNA and mtDNA results in FTDNA as I can and all of the results from Dodecade spreadsheets and compare modern people to ancient DNA.

There is a lot of mtDNA and Y DNA for many countries in Europe, mid east, and north Africa on Eupedia.com to compare to Bell Beaker or whoever.

Here is the mtDNA results from Neolithic Iberia, Bell Beaker, and Neolithic Germany.

Neolithic IBeria
mtDNA=130
H=48 37%(H? reported as H=10, ? reported as H=3, H?=3, H1a1? reported as H3=2)
U=26 20%(U5=3, U4=1, U*=1, U? reported as H=1)
K=23 17.7%(K1a=3, K reported as K1a=3)
J=14 10.77%
T2=5 3.8%(T2b=2)
N*=3 2.3%
T or X=3 2.3%
X=2 1.5%(X1=1)
I=2 1.5%(I1c1=1)
W1=1 0.77%
HV? reported as HV=1 0.77%
V=1 0.77%
H11a or L1b=1 0.77%

Cardiel Spain
Total
mtDNA= 10: H=3, N*=3, K=2, U5=1, X1=1
Can Sadurni 5,475-5,305bc
mtDNA =7: N*=3, K=1, H=1, U5=1, X1=1
Chaves 5,329-4,999bc
mtDNA=3: H=2, K=1

Impressed ware Portugal 5,500-4,750bc
mtDNA=4: U=2(U*=1, U5=1), H=1, V=1

Epicardiel culture Avellaner cave, Catalonia, Spain 5,000bc
mtDNA=7: K1a=3, T2b=2, H3=1, U5=1
Y DNA=6 G2a P15=5, E1b1b V13=1

Total Navarre Spain
mtDNA=36: H=16 44.4%(H? reported as H=10),(? reported as H=3),(H1a1? reported as H3=2), U=10 27.7%(U? reported as H=1), K=4 11.1%(K reported as K1a=3), J=2 5.5%, T2=1 2.77%, X=1 2.77%, I=1 2.77%, HV? reported as HV=1 2.77%

Nerja, Malaga mtDNA=1: H11a or L1b=1

Camıi de Can Grau Granollers, Barcelona Spain 3,500-3,000bc mtDNA=11: H=4(H?=3), T2=2, J=2, U4=1, W1=1, I1c1=1

San Juan Ante Portam Latinam, Araba Spain 3,300-3,042bc mtDNA=61: H=23 60.5%, K=14 36.8%, U=11 29%, J=10 26%, T or X=3 7.9%


Bell Beaker culture Germany
Total Bell Beaker Germany
mtDNA=18: H=11 61.1%(H1=3(H1e7=1), H3=2 (H3b=1), H5a3=1, H13a1a2c=1,H4a1=1),U=2(U2e=1, U5a1=1), W5a=1, I1a1=1, K1=1, T1a=1, J=1 5.5%
Y DNA hg=2: R1b=2(R1b1a2 M269(XR1b1a2a1a1 S21/U106)

Neolithic Germany
mtDNA=101
H=34 33.6%(H1=7(H1e=3(H1e7=1, H1e1e5=1), H1j=1, H1bz=1), H*=4, H3=2, H?=2, H2=2, H10i=1. H23=1, H26=1, H46b=1, H88=1, H7d5=1, H5b=1, H16=1, H89=1)
T=18 17.8%(T2=9(T2b=3(T2b reported as T2=2, T2b23a reported as T2=1, T2 reported as T=1)
K=15 14.8%
N1a=9 9%(N1a1=8(N1a1a=7(N1a1a1=2, N1a1a2=1, N1a1a3=1), N1a1b=1)
J=7 7%(J1c=1, J*=1)
HV=6 6%(HVO=4(HVO reported as HV=1)
W=3 3%
X=3 3%(X2=2(X2j reported as X2=1)
U=3 3%(U5a1a=1, U3=1)
V=3 3%(V?=1)

barakobama said...

Wow I cant wait to see the results for Yamna and Catacomb culture. Especially the 6 Y DNA results from the bronze age Kurgens they can be the following in my opinion R1a1a1 M417, R1b L23, I2a1b, E1b1b V13, J2b(other J2), J1, or G2a. How do you know when the results are suppose to come in is it just experience with this stuff or have you heard new information.

Davidski said...

I e-mail the scientists and editors of journals occasionally.

Fanty said...

"I doubt a Bell Beaker man and definitely not a chief would care if one of their multiple wives did no come from the original homeland of their culture. If they came from Iberia after not living in Iberia for 100's of years I doubt they knew they originally came from Iberia."

Well, they could have had religion/tribal legends about where they are from originaly. (Through there are examples of tribes who just claim achestry to tribes for whatever reason. A very old example is, that in the Bible the Jews claimed a 1500 years (!) old relationship with the Babylonians. (claim from: 500BC, Migration of the Proto-Jew (Abraham) from Iraq to Israel: 2000 BC)

In that story about those supergrandfathers of the Jews is that part about one of them sending someone all the way from Palestine to Iraq to get him a "wife from OUR people" because he did not want to mix with a local wife from Palestine or Egypt because those people are strange and evil and the people claimed, how you behave is in the blood and is handed down to the children by blood.

Later the descants of the southern Kingdom refuse to mix or to even deal with descants of the northern kingdom because they say, the people of the northern kingdom arent of pure blood anymore but admixed with assyrian blood.

As for mixing in ancient times, the bible has some more "strange" (almost Nazi-Like) ideas. It suggests that there are civilisations who intermix only with people of stronger/superior civilisations to integrate this superior blood into their bloodbase.

If middle easterners of 3000 ybp had ideas like that, one could assume others thought like that aswell.

Kristiina said...

If the Bell Beaker mtDNA comes from Iberia and R1b from the Balkans, does it mean again that mtDNA is more local than yDNA, i.e. men are moving longer distances and taking local wifes. Of course, if R1b is old in Iberia, we do not have this problem.

I am not so convinced about the link between the Bell Beakers and the North European like ancestry, as there are many areas with a lot of North European ancestry but not that much R1b. If the Bell Beakers are not linked with the Mediterranean ancestry component, who would be?

Davidski said...

Please note that I implied a shift from Near Eastern-like genetic structure in Central Europe to a more North European-like genetic structure with the arrival of populations with high frequencies of R1a and R1b, not just R1b.

Groups with high frequencies of other haplogroups, like I1 and I2, might also have been involved in the process by expanding in-situ across Northern Europe, as opposed to migrating in. But maybe they also migrated in, because latest SNP info suggests Scandinavian I1 has an Eastern European origin.

Also, yes, the Bell Beakers were probably significantly Mediterranean, but I'd say that like modern Basques they were also significantly North European.

spagetiMeatball said...

So, David, what's the consensus on who europeans are descended from now: Are they a mixture of neolithic near eastern groups (impressed ware) and paleolithic europeans? Or are they almost entirely descended from paleo's? Different for different european groups? Is it possible to make a test to see how paleo/neo someone is?

barakobama said...

You can't generalize all Beaker people. The first I think may have been most like Otzie and Sardinia people which you can simply say I guess Meditreaen. Modern Basque may be significantly North Euro in autosomal DNA because of admixture with R1b L11 Indo Europeans.

"But maybe they also migrated in, because latest SNP info suggests Scandinavian I1 has an Eastern European origin."

I don't understand how SNP's are used as evidence of where a haplogroup originated can you explain?

Y DNA I1 is not only Scandinavian I think figuring out the origin of I1 is much more complicated than R1b. Almost all I1 is under subclade I1a Df29 its very rare brother subclade I1b Z131 has only been found in central Europe never in Scandinavia. About 60% of Norwegian I1 is under subclade I1a2 L22 I don't know about Swedish but I am sure its very similar. About 80% of Finnish I1 is also under I1a2 L22 but are under specifically Finnish-Sami subclades rarely found anywhere else.

I1a3 Z58 takes up another big chunk of Swedish and Norwegian I1 about 30-40% and the majority is under deep subclade I1a3a1b Z73. I1a4 Z63 and I1a1 M227 are extremely extremely rare in Sweden and Norway. I don't really know any info about I1 subclades in non Scandinavian Europe. I have heard from people who have looked at their subclades that I1a3 Z58 is their main subclade and next most popular is I1a2 L22. Also that very Norwegian and Swedish I1 subclade I1a2a P109 is found in areas Vikings had raided.

I bet once there is more info on the distribution of I1 subclades. It will be found that I1a3 Z58 in Scandinavia is mainly in the south and may have the same origin as R1b S21 and I2a2 P217 in Scandinavia( proto Germanic migrations 3,500-4,000ybp) and in Finland probably found in the same areas as I2a2 P214, R1b S21, and typical Swedish and Norwegian I1a2 L22 subclades.

Y DNA I1a2 L22 I think is definitely pre Germanic in Scandinavia since it takes up 80% of I1 in Uralic Finland which has a total of about 25-30% I1, higher than anywhere in non Scandinavian Europe. It may also be pre Corded ware because R1a is only about 5% in Finland but there is 20-30% Corded ware descended R1a1a1b1a1 Z283 in Norway and Sweden. I1a2 L22 in non Scandinavian Europe may be bale to be explained by Germanic(R1b L11, I2a2 M223, I1 Z28, Z63, M227, Z131?) and native Scandinavian(I1 L22, R1a Z284) inter marriage about 3,500-4,000ybp and so I1a2 L22 was then spread with later Germanic tribes mainly in the iron age to other parts of Europe. Non I1a2 L22 subclade may have been brought to Scandinavia with central European proto Germanic's.

barakobama said...

"I am not so convinced about the link between the Bell Beakers and the North European like ancestry, as there are many areas with a lot of North European ancestry but not that much R1b"

North European type ancestry was also dominate in Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gather samples it originated probably in Palaeolithic Europe and originally had nothing to do with Y DNA R1b. I am not sure what Davidski means by North European like ancestry. What I mean is that in Dodecade autosomal DNA tests there are groups called North European or Atlantic Baltic and are very popular in pre historic European hunter gathers.

Results from pre historic European farmers was very different they had majority what certain tests called Meditreaen or Atlantic Baltic and also pretty significant Southwest Asian and west Asian. They are extremely close match's to modern Sardinia people and next closest to Basque then Iberians then the rest of southern Europe: Italy and Balkans. All the ancient ethnicity's modern Europeans descend from except Sami were farmers and all but Uralic and Basque speakers were Indo Europeans.

Then why is there so much north European in modern European Indo European speaking farmers like Germans and Ukrainians. There was probably for some reason a increase of hunter gather north European like ancestry in Europe in the last 5,000 years. Since there was a rapid spread of y DNA R1b L11(western) and R1a Z283(eastern) in Europe during that time it would make sense it is connected. Bell Beaker(western) and Corded ware(eastern) cultures dominated Europe about 4,500ybp. Two Y DNA samples from Bell Beaker about 4,500 years old both had R1b two Y DNA samples from Corded ware about 4,500 years old both had R1a1. Those two cultures are in someway connected with the spread of those y DNA haplogroups and may be connected with increase of North European like ancestry. Maybe Bell beaker originally was very Meditreaen like pre historic farmers Otzie, Gok4, and modern Sardinia. And it was invaders from eastern Europe maybe Indo Europeans(proto Germanic, Italic, and Celtic) brought R1b L11 and more north European like ancestry.

barakobama said...

"If the Bell Beakers are not linked with the Mediterranean ancestry component, who would be?"

I don't know the science between autosomal DNA but I do know Meditreaen ancestry component or whatever you want to call it is very very old probably from the Palaeolithic age. In Europe it probably mainly spread with farming starting about 9,000 years ago but maybe not for all of Europe. I would guess it originated in the middle east where it is a little less popular than in western, central, and southern Europe. Gok4 a about 5,000 year old farmer from Swedish Funnel Beaker culture was more Meditreaen than any modern populations same with 5,3000 year old farmer from the alps Otzie the iceman. The Meditreaen like ancestry did not originate and spread with Bell beaker.

barakobama said...

I am not sure if the Bible ever says Abraham specifically came from Babylon only he came from Ur of the Chaldeans in Mesopotamia. I am also not sure if there are exact dates of when Abraham lived I have heard estimates of about 1,800bc-2,000bc. Abraham may have spoken proto Hebrew I guess or maybe he wasn't even Semitic. His descendants may have adopted languages of people they meet in Israel. They definitely did not keep mainly Mesopotamian ancestry.

You make a good point that Abraham wanted his son to have a wife from Mesopotamia non Canon. I know the Bible mentions mixing with other people and we know it happened a lot. Of course not just middle easterns 3,000 years ago looked down on inter marriage with foreigners its human. Prejudice and thinking your people are better than another people is perfectly natural.

We will never know exactly what the culture and rules all the different Bell beaker tribes went by unless we go back in time. We can only use modern humans, ancient DNA, and historical records as examples of how they may have dealed with inter marriage with foreigners.

barakobama said...

Thank you very much for the information. Do you know if there is any autosomal DNA from Yamna and Catacomb cultures? Is there Y DNA from Catacomb culture too? Getting autosomal DNA would be very important because Yamna might be the source of more North European like ancestry that grew in Europe after the Neolithic. It depends though did the Yamna samples come from southwest areas then they may be admixed with the cultures of "Old Europe" who I would assume had a lot of Y DNA J2 and E1b1b and also very Meditreaen, west Asian, and southwest Asian.

Is there autosomal DNA from the R1a1 bronze and iron age kurgen people in Asia? The "Hundreds of prehistoric North European skeletons to be genotyped for Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA" will probably show extremely similar results In autosomal DNA to modern Europeans in their area or where they later migrated.

Maju said...

It's funny how so many people still believe (against all the archaeo-logic) that the Bell Beaker phenomenon represents MASSIVE demographic flows that (against all common sense of your average prehistorian) changed the reality of Europe. The Bell Beaker, I'm bored of repeating it, was a minorities' phenomenon, which almost invariably appears in the context of other locally rooted cultures, such as Western Megalithism or Central European Corded Ware and successors. When we talk of Bell Beaker we talk of something like a guild and/or sect, not masses of migrants - please!

We know for a fact that Basques and Portuguese did not experience any notorious demic changes in the Chalcolithic (Portuguese to some extent later on but no major change is apparent in Basques since Neolithic or so till present day).

Therefore the traits found among SOME Bell Beaker cultural carriers of Central Europe (only) must be attributed to some other source, for example (I've been insisting on this) Dolmenic Megalithism. For example, the map that shows U106 shared between the Atlantic Islands and Brittany (but it's also found in Occitania, aka Southern France, what that map does not show clearly) is consistent with the NEOLITHIC of the Islands and the peculiar "proto-druidic" variant of Megalithism in Brittany and other parts of West France, and not with "post-Neolithic" anything.

R1b among Guanches is more consistent, in principle, with an import from North Africa, where it should have existed since Oranian times (but receded to near-extinction before the Capsian E1b-M78 and J1 migrations - mtDNA still attests to that SW European link however). There's not only no known Bell Beaker nor Megalithism in the Canary islands and actually the colonization of these is not older than what in Europe is the Bronze Age, quite advanced.

(continues)

Maju said...

(cont.)

"The current mainstream theory positing the origin of the Bell Beaker Culture in Portugal"...

It has never been "mainstream". The mainstream theory has always been that of an origin in Bohemia, probably with some sort of underdog Danubian origins in the new Indoeuropean CW order. It was soon welcome in Portugal, which became a major center in the second period (Maritime or International style). Much as Medieval Jews were able to move between two worlds (Christianity and Islam) taking advantage of it, the Bell Beaker minority was able to do so between the Indoeuropean areas East of the Rhine and the pre-IE (Vasconic?) areas West of it. Their economic and surely diplomatic interethnic bridge must have helped to the thousand years or so of apparent peace (or at least stability) between these two European blocs, only broken well into the Bronze Age.

In other words: there was not change with Bell Beaker but continuity, at the very least in the West. The change would only come with late Bronze and Iron Age Celtic conquest campaigns (Urnfields-Hallstatt-La Tène).

Hammer seems obfuscated by "molecular clock" noise. I agree in rough terms with his map of R1b distribution in Europe (similar to Myres) but I cannot agree with the chronology proposed at all, notably because there is no such geography of demic/cultural flows in the archaeological record, neither in "post-Neolithic" times nor in the Neolithic even. It can only be interpreted in Paleolithic terms but accepting that would break his precious "molecular clock" construct.

"So for now, I'm going with the third option"...

It has a serious problem because it's almost impossible to place Iberia at the origin of S116: the origin seems to be Southern France instead. And Southern France is quite irrelevant since the Paleolithic (however in that age it was the very heart of Europe). Another problem is that all SW Europe was unaffected by flows from Central Europe in the Neolithic: the immigrant farmers actually arrived from Italy and "Illyria" (but their known patrilineages were G2a, E1b-V13 and I2a, not R1b).

I think that the key is the presence of high frequencies of H in Magdalenian and Epipaleolithic Iberia: Megalithism represents a backflow of some of the aboriginal peoples, now with farmer technology adapted to the wet climate of much of Europe. R1b re-expanded with them but its main expansions are actually quite older.

Davidski said...

Maju, your protests are duly noted, and I look forward to seeing how archaeo-logic stands up to future ancient DNA surveys of late Neolithic/early Bronze Age Europe.

barakobama said...

"We know for a fact that Basques and Portuguese did not experience any notorious demic changes in the Chalcolithic (Portuguese to some extent later on but no major change is apparent in Basques since Neolithic or so till present day)."

I agree Maju that mtDNA from Neolithic Iberia is very similar to modern Iberians I think we can also say it is similar to many Europeans. Y DNA though is not similar to modern Iberians. Six Y DNA samples from Epicardiel culture Avellaner cave, Catalonia, Spain 5,000bc five had G2a and one had E1b1b V13. 22 Y DNA samples from Trellis southwestern France 3,000bc 20 had G2a and two had I2a1(I think probably M26). We all know the dominate Y DNA haplogroup of modern Iberians and Basque is R1b P312 mainly Df27 subclade. Like with the rest of west Europe R1b L11 did not arrive in Iberia till the bronze age I think with Celts or maybe another Indo European people somehow connected.

Autosomal DNA from Neolithic Swedish farmer Gok4 and early copper age alps farmer. Have nearly identical results in Dodoecade globe13, K12b, and K7b to modern Sardinia and second closest to modern Basque then Iberians. There is a extra North European like ancestry in Iberians(more in Basque) and not in those farmers and also different percentages of middle eastern like ancestry. The 0% Gedorsian in those farmers and its connection with R1b L23 in Europe is more evidence that Iberians are not exactly the same as they where in the Neolithic.

The only Europeans we can say pretty much are identical to what people in their area were in the Neolithic are Sardinia. I do think modern Iberians have mainly Neolithic Iberian ancestry but that is not completely proven. I have been really confused by Dodecade results for Basque. They have pretty much no obvious middle eastern ancestry and higher Meditreaen and North European like ancestry than Iberians and French. Do Basque only marry Basque and I am pretty sure their language family 2,000 years ago took up most of west France so why don't modern west French match them.

barakobama said...

" for example (I've been insisting on this) Dolmenic Megalithism. For example, the map that shows U106 shared between the Atlantic Islands and Brittany (but it's also found in Occitania, aka Southern France, what that map does not show clearly) is consistent with the NEOLITHIC of the Islands and the peculiar "proto-druidic" variant of Megalithism in Brittany and other parts of West France, and not with "post-Neolithic" anything."

Are you trying to argue U106 was in Neolithic Europe. Most or all can be explained by Germanic peoples especially in Britain.

barakobama said...

"I think that the key is the presence of high frequencies of H in Magdalenian and Epipaleolithic Iberia: Megalithism represents a backflow of some of the aboriginal peoples, now with farmer technology adapted to the wet climate of much of Europe. R1b re-expanded with them but its main expansions are actually quite older."

I have heard the H's in Mesolithic and Palaeolithic Iberia are still debatable. The origin of mtDNA H dominance in Europe is still unsolved. I am right now trying to get as much mtDNA and Y DNA from FTDNA as I can to see how deep subclades are spread out. So far Finland, Germany, and Italy seem very similar in their H subclades and subclades of their H subclades including H1 and H3. I think the origin of H1 and H3 is a lot a lot more complicated than Palaeolithic Iberia and spread after glaciers retreated. It seems many deep subclades of H1 and H3 migrated together. If H1 and H3 today is a results of a spread over 10,000 years ago wouldn't there be unique subclades for certain areas of Europe. If not wouldn't it make sense to track the spread of H1 and H3 with the deep subclades that are very spread out.

Not just H but the origin of all non U5, U4, and U2e in Europe is very confusing.

Ama Anti said...

Those R1b Centers are labeled as 'Post-Neolithic'
Since both Corded-ware and Bell-beaker cultures are Post-Neolithic (Chalcolithic) - than with which culture did they spread (app. out of Anatolia with)?; Now either the Indo-Europeans of the Corded-ware culture picked up certain R1b lineages further East (Carpathians/Lower Danube) like U106/U152 (Germanic/Keltic/Italic) and dragged them into western Europe with the sub-sequent Culture expansions of (Unetice/Tumulus/Urnfield) or they were a part of the Indo-European lineages from the beginning (Globular Amphora/Corded-ware);

Davidski said...

All those post-Neolithic R1b expansion centers are in Chalcolithic Bell Beaker hotspots.

And if R1b entered Europe from Anatolia, then it did so well before the Chalcolithic, because at that time there's a shift in mtDNA and autosomal DNA in Europe from Near Eastern-like to more European (ie. a clear rebound in Mesolithic European ancestry across the continent).

Ama Anti said...

Of course;
The Bell-beaker complex would be the only logical conclusion based on the scenario that all R1b lineages are Post-Neolithic and non-(pre)-Indo-European; And hybrid areas from such as the Unetice or Lusatian emerged from would explain why U106 and U152 are than the most dominant elements among the Bronze-age and Iron-age Indo-European civilizations of the Germanic/Keltic/Italic realms;

Unfortunately pre-Indo-European culture zones that have never been examined such as Funnel-beaker and Baden are than automatically ruled out with the Post-Neolithic stress;

As for the autosomalDNA and mtDNA shifts;
Judging by the atDNA results of Neolithic farmers Gök4 and Ötzi in comparison to Neolithic hunter-gatherers Ajv52 and Ajv70 (also Brana) than that shift also existing within the Neolithic era between the 2 pops.;

Also mtDNA; Corded-ware Eulau family was Father R1a/U and Mother K1a and the Kids being R1a/K1a other kids were X2 and other female H;
mtDNA K was also Neolithic Ötzi (K1ö) ~3300BC and the Neolithic Spanish cave Avellaner (~5000BC) 3 of 7 were K1a;
Seems to be more an intermixing of emerging Indo-Europeans and remnant Neolithic populations;

Ama Anti said...

I just want to add that i consider also an alternate scenario (thats based on on Archaeological/Historical grounds) and that is that R1b lineages like U106 and U152 were a part of the Indo-European lineages emerging from steppes (which would equally be Post-Neolithic) and hence them being dominant elements among the Indo-European Germanic/Keltic/Italic realms;

Keeping in mind that U106 peaks in Friesland was also part of the Corded-ware and U152 in the Alps/S Germany(S of the Danube)/N Italy(Po-valley) was never a part of the Bell-beaker complex; But heavily of the later Indo-European Bronze-age Urnfield complex;

Davidski said...

The chronological DNA studies have so far not gone beyond the early Bronze Age Unetice Culture, which looks surprisingly eastern based on current sampling, and thus unlikely to be a mix of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, but rather a fresh wave from east of Germany probably loaded with R1a.

So it looks like there was yet another significant shift in genetic structure across Central Europe with the emergence of the Urnfield Culture during the middle or late Bronze Age. I think it's from then on that Bell Beaker-derived R1b became so common in Central and Northern Europe outside of the Chalcolithic Bell Beaker hot spots.

Ama Anti said...

Chronologically the earliest appearance of R1b in Europe is indeed in Post-Neolithic ~2500 BC Kromsdorf Bell-beaker site - (as far as i know);

This Bell-beaker site at Kromsdorf corresponds to the Eastern most areas of the Bell-beaker complex in Bohemia and Moravia; Which is the area out of which the proto-Unetice culture emerged from; ~2000 BC the Unetice culture underwent a substantial transformation; And it was out of this classcial Unetice that Tumulus and Urnfield emerged from - keeping in mind that Lusatian is a (one of many) branch of Urnfield and also the Nordic-bronze-age is influenced and identical with Urnfield in Weaponry and Burial-rites; The major expansions also occurred during Tumulus and Urnfield;

Two R1b lineages (U106/U152) are strongly connected to these cultures/continuity and expansion; Out of which ultimately the Indo-European civilizations of the Germanic/Keltic/Italic realms emerged and formed from;

I personally only see two options:
Either U106/U152 are Indo-European lineages themselves or U106/U152 are pre-Indo-European lineages of the eastern most Bell-beaker zones (with the Indo-Europeans subjugating these lineages further east in the Unetice complex and expanding with them in the sub-sequent Tumulus and Urnfield complexes);

The R1b in Kromsdorf was R1b1b2(M269+) the other just R1b (app. failed M269);
and app. the M269+ was U106- / yet U106+ was tested at Lichtenstein (Urnfield); Which would somewhat corr. to the Post-Neolithic Indo-European scenario;

barakobama said...

It makes the most sense to me that R1b L11(father of P312 and U106) spread with Germanic, Italic, and Celtic tribes I have said it like 1,000 times. I know it may be more complicated than that and we cant assume. But we know Indo Europeans made their paternal lineage dominate in eastern Europe R1a Z283 and in many parts of Asia with R1a Z93 why couldn't other Indo European people done the same in western Europe. The age estimates of when the expansions of R1b L11 occurred are in the bronze age perfect timing for spread of Germanic, Italic, and Celtic tribes.

"yet U106+ was tested at Lichtenstein (Urnfield)"

Is this for sure? I put the STR's of the Urnfield R1b and it did say every time it is U106 but it still may not be.

Davidski said...

That's what I'm saying: Bell Beaker shows links to Urnfield via high levels of mtDNA H as well as the presence of R1b.

But neither Bell Beaker nor Urnfield can be said to have any strong links to Unetice, unless we're talking about some female exogamy between the Bell Beakers and Corded Ware/Unetice, which probably happened because there was U2e are the Kromsdorf site.

Apart from overall mtDNA profiles, the Bell Beakers are also very different from Unetice in terms of dental traits. See figure 5 here.

http://www.fondationlatsis.org/plpdf/Prix_Latsis/UNIGE_2008.pdf

I'm convinced now that the link between Unetice and Celtic/Germanic peoples has already been totally busted. The Unetice population was replaced in Germany by largely Bell Beaker-derived Urnfield. You'll see this when we get Y-DNA and autosomal DNA from Unetice remains, which is on its way.

Ama Anti said...

from a purly Archaeological stand-point the cultural-continuity is clearly
Unetice ~1900-1400 > Tumulus 1400-1200 > Urnfield 1200-800
And all stemming from one another and all expanding from the East;

If we look at the second map (Sachsen-Anhalt) in the Blog-post above we see that Sachsen-Anhalt was a Hybrid area in the Chalcolithic of Bell-beaker and Corded-ware sites and with sub-sequent numerous Unetice sites; Same scenario occurred in the Eastern most Bell-beaker areas in Bohemia and Moravia; Now just to make it clear Unetice was undoubtably Indo-European but it emerged from an area that was occupied by the Bell-beaker complex (or Hybrid Corded-ware/Bell-beaker areas);

Which (and that was my logic behind it) if U106 and U152 is not Indo-European than they must have been subjugated by the Indo-Europeans in this area (with/in Unetice complex) and than dragged across Europe with Tumulus and Urnfield; Since all the societies (Germanic/Keltic/Italic) that emerged out of Urnfield were in turn Indo-European branches/societies;

Essentially meaning that if U152/U106 are non-Indo-European lineages than all these societies (Germanic/Keltic/Italic) are pseudo (subjugated Bell-beaker) Indo-European societies - and not proper-Indo-European societies (i.e. from the Steppes); Making only R1a and the Slavic/Iranian realm the only proper Indo-European (i.e. from the Steppes) socities;

But whether U106/U152 emerged from the steppes and were proper Indo-European lineages or if they were subjugated Bell-beaker lineages and all Indo-European societies that emerged from them tehrefor pseudo will only be known when finally extensive testings and extensive data about Bell-beaker/Corded-ware and the sub-sequent Bronze-age cultures finally exist;

PS: I really do not think that mtDNA lineages are much of a stable ref. concerning population movements/shifts in the Chalcolithic;
Most of the mtDNA lineages (still present in modern-day Europe) have been in Europe at least since the Neolithic (results of Treilles/Avellaner/Ötzi) and are always very diverse ate every site - Bell-beaker site Kromsdorf [K1,T1,W,I,U2,U5] (all except U2 already found in Neolithic sites) - Corded-ware site Eulau [U,K1a,X2,H] also found at the neolithic sites of Treilles and Avellaner;

Ama Anti said...

not sure if it is 100% sure but those are the sources i took it from;

Uni. of Göttingen (2006) -
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf
analysis by D. Schweitzer (2008) - p.3
http://dirkschweitzer.net/LichtensteinCaveAnalysis0804DS.pdf

Davidski said...

Yes, I'm referring to the same Urnfield mtDNA results. On a PCA they cluster with the Central and North European Bell Beakers.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8420/euadnapca12.png

Urn = Unrfield, BB = German and Danish Bell Beaker, Une = Unetice, CW = Corded Ware.

Brandt et al. didn't test any Urnfield samples, but this is what they had to say at the end of their article..

"Notably, the CEM (Central European metapopulation) clusters with the Late Neolithic cultures and individuals of the BBC in particular, suggesting that the Western European mtDNA variability had a stronger influence than the contemporaneous eastern CWC/EBA complex, implying yet another shift after the EBA".

The CEM was made up of Austrians, Czechs, Germans and Poles. But even modern Russians are more western in terms of mtDNA than Unetice.

So Unetice might have had a major impact on Central and Northern Europe in terms of linguistics and culture, but its populations mixed into a Bell Beaker-like Central European majority by the late Bronze Age. The late Indo-European groups that then expanded during the Iron Age and later, like the Celts, Germans, Balts and Slavs, were all Bell Beaker-like in terms of mtDNA, and they shifted Eastern European genetic structure to the west, including in Russia.

Ama Anti said...

That clearly illustrates the inter-mixture with the pre-existing (female) populations - which is simply the natural progression the further the cultures expanded; With the maternal-lineages of Urnfield (maximum expansion) practically being from the pre-existing (Neolithic/Bell-beaker) populations;

Further evidence of this is also given in Linguistics as all Indo-Euopean languages (incl. also the now extinct Lepontic) contain non(pre)-Indo-European elements; which stem from the distinctly subjugated and absorbed pre-existing populations;

The female lineages in Corded-ware and Unetice are (naturally) still the most archaic - but overall the female lineages are not much revealing given the fact the Indo-European societies were patriarchal; So none of it explains why Bronze-age cultures (of the Urnfield complex) produced Indo-European societies despite not being of any substantial Y-DNA Indo-European lineage (and also def. not mtDNA) - unless at least certain R1b lineages [U106/U152] were indeed Indo-European or made pseudo-Indo-European earlier;

PS: Are there any PCA plots that factor the Krasnoyarsk (Kurgan) mtDNA with the direct Unetice and Corded-ware mtDNA?

Keyser et al 2009 -
http://www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf

Ama Anti said...

Is Krasnoyarsk still Andronovo - i always thought it was already Afanasevo;
Either way def. not as close as i thought; prob. shows that everywhere the local female populations were absorbed into (as also by the sheer presence of certain mtDNA Hg's);

A recent study found out that the maternal side of the Etruscan civilization is identical with Neolithic-Farmers and modern-day Bavarians;
Who would have thought;

Ghirotto et al 2013 -
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055519

About Time said...

I'm starting to wonder if some of this apparently "West European" or "SW European" mtDNA structure (looking at modern populations) was originally based somewhere else. Would be nice to see some mtDNA from Neolithic Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia.

andrew said...

Urnfield, (late) Nordic bronze age, Hallstat, and La Tene are very likely IE indeed. The evidence is less definitive in the other cases.

andrew said...

We know from ancient DNA that there was a major demographic upheaval in Western Europe sometime after the initial Neolithic and sometime before the Celts. If not Bell Beaker, who was it?

andrew said...

While there is clear evidence of gene exchange between NW Africa and SW Europe, it is pretty clear that NW Africa was only a minor source of the stereotypical Western Europe and SW European mtDNA mix.

barakobama said...

The only areas you find typical north African Y DNA E1b M81 is Iberia(mainly western and southern), parts of France, Italy, and Greece. It is the same story for Northwest African in K12b and African in K7b. There is very little obvious admixture between Europeans and north Africans.

barakobama said...

"A recent study found out that the maternal side of the Etruscan civilization is identical with Neolithic-Farmers and modern-day Bavarians;
Who would have thought;

Ghirotto et al 2013 -
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055519 "

There are multiple problems with what you said. There are not nearly enough mtDNA samples from Etruscans to say they are identical to Neolithic farmers(which ones) and modern Bavarians. Also the samples are from the iron age. Etruscans may have arrived in the Bronze and age and those maternal lines may be from native Italians not invading Etruscans. No offense to the people who worked very hard on that Etruscan project but the results are almost completely useless in my opinion. It would make the most sense to me Etruscans came from the middle east.

The reason is almost every person in their paintings has very brown skin with rare exceptions of people who could be visitors. Many people criticize me when ever I include skin color into genetic's. Yet they are okay with talking about any other physical feature. It is very important because the modern people of Tuscany or anywhere in Europe are not nearly that dark skinned.

It is probably not just a style because there are some examples of light skinned people and people with blonde or red hair next to brown skinned people so it was probably meant to be realistic. We know that Sardinia people who have nearly identical autosomal DNA results to what we have so far from Neolithic Europe are light skinned much lighter than Etruscans. There is no doubt those Neolithic Europeans you claim Etruscan's mtDNA was identical to had light skin. DNA samples from Pontiac steppe from 5,000 and 6,000ybp were shown to have light skin and 5,300ybp Neolithic farmer Otzie was described as much paler than Ma'lta but that is all the info there is that could describe is skin color.

I think it is possibly modern Tuscans don't descend mainly from those brown skinned Etruscans. But from lighter skinned people who were not as high ranked and not in the paintings. Because the darker skinned were high ranking people who kept more original Etruscan blood from the middle east. Similar to how high ranking people in Latin America often have mainly Spanish ancestry. But then of course I would have to find out what type of people were in those paintings and a lot of other evidence to back that up.

Ama Anti said...

"Etruscans may have arrived in the Bronze and age and those maternal lines may be from native Italians not invading Etruscans"


Thats exactly the point - and as the study also clearly writes:
''As for the Etruscans’ origins, ancient DNA is of little use, because pre-Etruscan dwellers of Central Italy, of the Villanovan culture, cremated their dead, and hence their genetic features are unknown''

That means that the maternal-lineages of the Etruscan civilization could be from the pre-existing population and not from the new conquer population;

Historically (Herodotus/Dionysius) recorded that the Etruscans emerged from the East Mediterranean (Thessaly/Anatolia) and were Pelasgians (Tyrsenoi); The folks that existed before them in Italy were the Indo-European Umbrians of the Bronze-age Urnfield (Villanova I) culture;

And the study clearly shows that the Etruscan mtDNA samples (30 samples from 6 dff. sites) are identical with Neolithic-Farmers (71 samples - Central Europe / Table S2) and modern-day Bavaria;

That tells us that the female population remained largely stable since (at least) the Neolithic and therefor hardly conclusive about pop.-shifts in the sub-sequent Chalcolithic and the Bronze-age;

Davidski said...

The mtDNA gene pools of the Chalcolithic/early Bronze Age groups in Central Europe are a very bad fit for the earlier Neolithic mtDNA gene pools of the region.

Instead, the Chalcolithic/early Bronze Age mtDNA shows high correlation with these groups' presumed geographic origins based on archeology. So the female population in Central Europe didn't remain stable at all. It was replaced to a large degree, with the newcomers only adsorbing some Neolithic survivors, and then mixing with each other.

It seems that you're ignoring these facts. Why is that?

Ama Anti said...

''DNA samples from Pontiac steppe from 5,000 and 6,000ybp were shown to have light skin and 5,300ybp Neolithic farmer Otzie was described as much paler than Ma'lta but that is all the info there is that could describe is skin color.''

Neolithic Ötzi (3300BC) already had the rs1426654 (light-skin) mutation;

Keller et al 2012 - p.4/Table1
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v3/n2/pdf/ncomms1701.pdf

And Ötzi and the Neolithic expansion originated from the Near East (Anatolia/Caucasus) area; And Ötzi, the Etruscans and the modern-day Sardinians are all of the Mediterranid (Caucasoid) sub-race;

Ama Anti said...

Didnt you quote from the Brandt et al paper:

"Notably, the CEM (Central European metapopulation) clusters with the Late Neolithic cultures and individuals of the BBC in particular, suggesting that the Western European mtDNA variability had a stronger influence than the contemporaneous eastern CWC/EBA complex, implying yet another shift after the EBA"

So what exactly are you talking about now?

Obviously the local female populations were absorbed in the cultural expansions - more and more so as time and expansion went on;

Davidski said...

The CEM clusters with the Bell Beakers, and not anywhere near the early and middle Neolithic samples. The latter basically went the way of the dodo.

When Brandt et al say "late Neolithic" cultures, they actually mean Chalcolithic cultures, in other words Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. This is specifically what they're referring to:

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6268/q7me.jpg

There are two populations there, made up of a) Near Eastern-like early and middle Neolithic groups, and b) European-like Chalcolithic, early Bronze Age and modern Central European groups.

The only native Neolithic sample that falls in the Chalcolithic/early Bronze Age cluster is the one from the Funnel Beaker derived Bernburg culture (BEC), which shows an unusually high level of North European-specific haplogroups, so it looks like some sort of local hunter-gatherer revival, or perhaps represents a migration from Scandinavia. The rest are certainly all newcomers to Central Europe from the peripheries of Neolithic Europe.

You should look carefully at this PDF. It's open access...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/Brandt.SM.pdf

Ama Anti said...

Judging by a careful look at the PDF file;
Than none of the Neolithic cultures correspond to the Chalcolithic or Bronze-age cultures or any of the modern-day Europeans;

But as for the Chalcolithic cultures: Bell-beaker is the most distant to all modern day Europeans and Corded-ware is closest to Portugal and Romania - i.e. countries it never even existed in; What does that tell us?

Either way the maternal lineage (mtDNA) of the Iron-age Etruscans cluster closest with the Central-European Neolithic farmers and modern-day Bavarians; And there is a good chance that it stems from the Bronze-age Urnfield Villanova I of the pre-existing Umbrians;
Thats what i was actually referring to before;

Davidski said...

Obviously you don't know how to interpret the data shown in that PDF. That's what you need to learn before moving on. Maybe get a hold of the full study and read it carefully. You can probably access it here...

http://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/11_october_2013?pg=134#pg131

And I have no idea why you're using that small and low resolution Etruscan sample to try and find a link between Neolithic farmers and modern Bavarians? That's some crazy methodology. Why not just learn how to directly compare Neolithic Europeans to modern Germans from the data in the Brandt et al study?

Ama Anti said...

I have no idea what your interpretations are or why you need any;
I think both Brandt and Ghirotto explain themselves perfectly;
Not much extra interpretation needed;

And what is it exactly that you want to demonstrate with your personal interpretations again?

Davidski said...

Brandt et al don't say that there's genetic continuity in Central Europe from the Neolithic to the present. If you think that they do, and you've actually read the study I linked to, then you must have very serious comprehension problems.

Ama Anti said...

It also shows no continuity between modern Germans/European and Corded-ware, Bell-Beaker and Unetice and with Bell-beaker being the most distant;

Maybe you can teach me the methods of distorting interpretations before moving on;

Davidski said...

Obviously it's not the most distant if it's the best fit for modern European mtDNA in most of the tests except one, which is the one you're fixating about. But that test just shows that the BBC is very distant from Near Eastern and Neolithic mtDNA, rather than being non-European. In other words, it's ultra European. Pretty much the same thing can be said about the Unetice mtDNA.

Indeed, the authors say very clearly that there was a very strong shift at the end of the Neolithic in Central Europe from Near Eastern mtDNA to European mtDNA, with the latter best represented by the BBC.

Ama Anti said...

What exactly is the definition of 'European mtDNA' or 'ultra European' and from which magical place did it come from?

Or is that just your very own interpretation based on studies that absolutely dont support your special way of interpreting their data;

Davidski said...

Actually, there were three magical places, on the northern, eastern and western peripheries of Neolithic Europe, represented by population movements below as events B2, C and D.

http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/1851/pgep.jpg

The reason these places were ultra-European is because they were far away from the influences of the Neolithic farmers of Southeastern and Central Europe, who came from the Near East (event A).

When these three waves (BEC, CWC/UC and BBC) from the peripheries mixed, we eventually got the modern Central European mtDNA gene pool, although closer to the BBC than to any of the others. Like so...

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6268/q7me.jpg

It's all explained in the main article.

Ama Anti said...

But thats just based on another of your twisted interpretations;

So lets look at the Reality of the magical place called Event B2;
Event B2 is clearly (also labeled as such) the Funnel-beaker culture zone - which is a Neolithic farming culture of North Europe (- ever heard of Gök4 and the Carpathian impact?) so its not periphery its core Neolithic;

It only appears to be magical if you have no clue about either History or Archaeology and only rely on distorted views and false interpretations;

And im not sure if you noticed but all of those mtDNA Hg's were already present in core Neolithic sites such as Treilles and Avellaner which was my original point before you had to entertain me with your fantasy world of ultra-european and 3 magical places;


PS:not a single culture listed in the 3 pics. clusters with each other or modern-day Europeans - acc. to the study itself;

Davidski said...

You have to read the study more carefully before continuing, otherwise there's no point, because you're just making false assumptions.

Here's an example of a false assumption: "Event B2 is clearly (also labeled as such) the Funnel-beaker culture zone - which is a Neolithic farming culture of North Europe (- ever heard of Gök4 and the Carpathian impact?) so its not periphery its core Neolithic."

But if you actually read the study and the supplementary material, you would know that the culturally Funnel Beaker-derived Bernburg (BEC) sample is very different from Gok4 genetically, and obviously in large part of North European Hunter-Gatherer origin. So it's nothing like the Central European LBK and derived cultures, which are very Near Eastern in comparison.

Here's another wrong assumption: "not a single culture listed in the 3 pics. clusters with each other or modern-day Europeans - acc. to the study itself."

Oh really? Then why do I see Corded Ware with Eastern Europeans here?

http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/5711/eb6g.png

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/1395/41av.png

And why I do I see BBC with modern Central Europeans here, and not too far away from BEC, CWC and UC?

http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/6268/q7me.jpg

You've obviously got a major problem with these results, so you're blocking them out mentally and accusing me of making them up. But everything I'm saying is also said in plain English in the original study, and supported by the data, so you're shit out of luck.

Read the study before commenting again.

Ama Anti said...

This is not about the study its about your twisted interpretations of it and your complete distorted view of the Historical and Archaeological reality;
The results of the study are very clear and perfectly presented and well put in the quote (you quoted) above;
Unfortunately you had to interpret it acc. to your standards again as also the genetic charts of Calculated Distances;

And the Gök4 and the Carpathian-impact reference was to illustrate that Event B2 (1 of your 3 magical areas) is in fact as the Neolithic as Neolithic can be; and nothing else than the Funnel-beaker complex; What makes that area magical again?

I hope you are shit full of luck because you sure are shit out of brains;

Davidski said...

So you agree with this quote from the study summing up the results?

"These shifts are also visible in the genetic distance maps and Procrustes-projected PCAs, where the Near Eastern affinity of the LBK and its subsequent regional derivatives switches to a clear European affinity in the later Neolithic/EBA cultures, with distinct geographic orientations."

If so, then you agree with me, and there's no problem.

Ama Anti said...

I 100% agree with this -
but than again i have never even equated the Neolithic with Near Eastern (thats your illusion and interpretation);

I just pointed out that modern-day as also post-Neolithic cultures and populations still reflected lineages of the Neolithic - especially coming via the female (maternal/mtDNA) populations;

Brandt et al 2013 even evaluates that 31.2% of CEM (500 Cen. Europeans) are of a Neolithic maternal-lineage; I do not think i have to mention the other studies as well again;

This all (and that was my original point) simply reflects that the new emerging populations inter-mixed with the local (especially Female) pre-existing populations;

But my question was a completely diff. one; It concerns post-Neolithic Europe and the emergence of Indo-European societies out of app. non-Indo-European lineages; Is it therefore all pseudo or are some lineages in fact proper-Indo-European; The answer is in Y-DNA and testing the non-Indo-European Bell-beaker complex in comparison to the Indo-European Corded-ware complex;

Davidski said...

Well we already have some Y-DNA from Corded Ware, which is R1a, and also Bell Beakers, which is R1b.

I have a very strong feeling that these groups were two different sides of the same coin; peripheral European Neolithic populations with significant local hunter-gatherer admixture, and they finally got their chance when the LBK derived communities of Central Europe collapsed.

They then rushed into the vacuum in Central Europe, bringing with them R1a and R1b, as well as Eastern European-like and Western European-like mtDNA gene pools, respectively, which were both much less Near Eastern-like than what was in Central Europe previously.

One of these groups was Indo-European, and that was probably the Corded Ware. I'd say the Bell Beakers were Vasconic, and they blocked the Indo-Europeanization of Western Europe for a long time, until they themselves finally became Indo-Europeans, and migrated back west as the early Celts.

Ama Anti said...

Yes; There is a grand total of 3 Y-DNA from corpses Eulau/Kromsdorf;
i have posted some stuff about those studies above;

Its all fundamentally a question of whether R1b-U106 and R1b-U152 are Indo-European or not; Those are the major lineages in modern-day areas of the former Keltic/Italic/Germanic realms - R1a being largely absent and a drastic minority;

If U106 and U152 are absent from from Bell-beaker sites (U106 already minus at Kromsdorf) and only present in Indo-European zones - than its Indo-European; if not than its all (Germanic/Keltic/Italic) pseudo-Indo-European; which would than raise the question of when and where they were made and emerged as pseudo-Indo-European;

But for now based on Archaeology and History i am convinced that they are Indo-European;

Davidski said...

New images of the slides from Hammer's talk are up, including an extra one that wasn't seen before.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3555/i6np.png

It seems to me like the vast majority of Western European R1b could well be a subset of the diversity seen in Portugal.

Grey said...

@Davidski

"I have a very strong feeling that..."

That's pretty much how i see it. The only point I'd make related to various comments above is I don't think there is any need to imagine a massive folk migration at least for the part of the story that took place along the Atlantic coast.

If the Atlantic coast wasn't well suited to the standard neolithic agricultural package and therefore thinly populated the homogeneity of y DNA in places like Ireland and parts of Britain implies the possibility of very small groups coming by sea and having a very large founder effect.

So small groups coming from the east by sea acting as a seed which eventually leads to large groups in the west.

Grey said...

I also wonder if R1b has a dual source i.e. an early R1b (southern route?)(displaced by PIE?) wave and a later or later-arriving (northern route?) R1a/R1b wave where they are mixed with IE.

V Robazza said...

The Bell Beaker is the creation of the celtic people after the arrival of R-U152 in modern central Germany as per Hammer map.

U152 is purely only celtic ( not italic nor germanic ).
Celts formed from these people who brought U152 to central germany.

andrew said...

Re Maju's argument that R1b spread with the Megalithic culture.

The problem is that multiple sites with ancient DNA that are megalithic show no R1b, lots of G2, and low levels of H. All of this is a good fit with other first wave farmers, but a poor fit to Bell Beaker and beyond.

K said...

Well, it looks more and more like R1b and Bell Beakers were Indo-European, perhaps of Anatolian or Illyrian branches. Anatolian/Illyrian would've eventually become somewhat diluted or modified by the native substrate, with the resulting language later itself becoming substrate for the Celtic languages millenium and a half later...

ANONYMOUS said...

Hi i have a question i read that a woman inherits an x chromosome virtually unchanged from her fathers mother from her father but the x from her mother gets recombined. So.if her paternal grandma has H1A and her maternal grandma has K1A4 then van she have kids one with K and one with H? My fathet is H m DNA and G2A Y we are from the north italian alps. But my maternal Grandfather wad R1B.