search this blog

Sunday, December 28, 2014

UISPP Burgos 2014 abstracts book


This really isn't much more than a big tease, but here's the download link anyway: UISPP Burgos 2014 abstracts book. The conference website is here. I'd like to see the following papers online ASAP:

THE UNUSUAL HUMAN CONSUMPTION OF EQUIDS FROM THE EARLY BRONZE AGE OF THE EL PORTALÓN SITE (SIERRA DE ATAPUERCA, BURGOS, SPAIN)

Galindo-Pellicena et al., page 54

The horse has played an important role in the prehistoric societies along the time. During the Paleolithic the horse was frequently hunted and consumed by man. In the Iberian Peninsula, the horse was a common element at the end of the Late Pleistocene, after which there was a long period during the Early Holocene when sites containing horse remains were very rare. It was not until the Chalcolithic or Bell Beaker culture when more equine remains were found in certain regions. The horse was exploited for various reasons in the Iberian Peninsula during the Bronze Age. In some cases, horses were used for their meat. They were also used as pack or draft animals, and only after they fulfilled this purpose, were eventually consumed. Another possible purpose of horse exploitation could be to obtain milk. Nonetheless, no evidence has been found at any site in Iberia that indicates mare’s milk consumption.

Lastly, during the Bronze Age, horses could have been considered goods that represented prestige. The possession and consumption of horses could have served to distinguish between different social classes living in settlements in that period. This is difficult to verify with the zooarchaeological record. In this study, an exceptional consumption of horse remains in Early Bronze Age is documented. These remains were discovered during the sixth excavation campaign of the El Portalón site directed by J. M. Apellániz in 1979. The material consists of 103 bones and teeth, belonging to a minimum number of six individuals of Equus sp., recovered in a thin stratigraphic interval (around 70 centimeters) and a 2 m2 of area (called Horse stratigraphic unit: HSU). It is dated c. 2000 yr cal B.C. The mortality profile (three of the six individuals were slaughtered before reaching four years of age), butchery marks (on 27.18% of the bone remains), thermal alteration and the percussion marks suggest horse meat as an important resource for the inhabitants from the Bronze Age of El Portalón. This is unusual among other Iberian sites where ovicaprines, bovids and suids provide the majority of the meat. The high percentage of equid remains identified in the HSU (43% of total NISP) makes this place one of few Holocene Iberian sites (with Cerro de La Encinaand the phase III of Pic del Corbs) where the horse is the most abundant species.

The mentioned evidences and the low representation of the equid remains in the other levels of the whole site’s stratigraphic sequence bring forward the exceptional character of equid consumption represented in this site, and, together with other contextual evidences, suggest that this accumulation of horse remains could be the result of a feast.


ONCE UPON A TIME IN THE WEST? NEW ANCIENT DNA DATA FROM PREHISTORIC IBERIA

Roth et al., page 980

Ancient DNA studies focusing on the Iberian Peninsula have mainly investigated the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in few areas due to the limited data available. Within a comprehensive international project founded by the German Research Foundation, we genetically analysed more than 300 Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula. Altogether, mitochondrial results of 250 individuals could be successfully reproduced.

Together with published data from the Iberian Peninsula, results were pooled into 19 groups of different chronological and regional context all over the research area. We applied several statistical methods to reveal continuities and discontinuities among populations on chronological as well as spatial level and will here present the results for the first time.


CHALCOLITHIC MITOCHONDRIAL DNA DIVERSITY IN IBERIAN HORSES FROM EL PORTALÓN SITE (ATAPUERCA, BURGOS): INSIGHTS INTO HORSE DOMESTICATION

Lira et al., page 1013

Horse domestication was a complex process with a principal episode in the Eurasian steppes around 5.000 years BP, enriched with recurrent introgression events from local wild populations through Eurasia. Archaeological studies as well as genetic analyses with modern samples have pinpointed the Iberian Peninsula as an important area involved in the horse domestication process. Mitochondrial DNA analyses with horse ancient remains have supported this hypothesis. In this context, a Bronze Age sample sequences from El Portalón site (sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos), showed the significance of a specific maternal lineage among others, a lineage currently found exclusively on Iberian horse populations and horses from Iberian origin.

With the aim to know in detail the presence and diversity of this Iberian lineage in Iberian Peninsula in earlier times, in this study we analyse the mitochondrial DNA from 22 Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age horse remains recovered from El Portalón site. Furthermore, we study their relationships with the 19 Iberian Bronze Age Portalón samples previously published, and the persistence of their maternal lineages in the Iberian populations through the time.


TRACING THE GENETIC HISTORY OF FARMING POPULATIONS OF EL PORTALÓN CAVE IN THE SIERRA DE ATAPUERCA, SPAIN

Valdiosera et al., page 1016

One of the most important and influential changes in human behaviour has been the change from small hunter-gathering/fishing bands to sedentary agrarian societies. This transition is generally characterised by the contrast between the two subsistence strategies and the accompanying cultural, technological and behavioural changes that occurred, and can be generalised (in Eurasia) as the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition. One of the characteristic features of this transition is how quickly the agrarian lifestyle spread and its impact on the demographic patterns of Europe; however, the nature of how it was spread remains open to debate. Ancient genomics applied to human skeletal remains from well-dated contexts allow us a precise understanding of population origins, genetic variation, migrations and admixture and comparisons between populations over time. Previous studies have shown close relationships between early Scandinavian and modern-day southern Europeans, as well as strong differences between hunter-gatherers and early farmers. However, with migration routes from the south and the modern mitochondrial DNA composition on the Iberian peninsula, the population history of southwestern Europe appears to have been different.

We sampled bone remains corresponding to 10 individuals excavated from El Portalón Cave. Radiocarbon dates were obtained for each sample. DNA was isolated using a conventional silica-based extraction method. DNA extracts were further converted into multiplexing illumina libraries and shotgun sequenced on a HiSeq platform.

Five of the 10 individuals analysed have not yielded sufficient coverage for genomic analysis. We present low coverage genomic sequences (average depth between 0.2 and 1%) of five early Iberian farmers dated to between 4,000 and 5,000 years old, from El Portalón. These individuals display a similar pattern to that observed for central and northern European farmers and all show genetic similarities to modern-day southern Europeans, particularly to Sardinians, in contrast to the recently published 7,000 year old hunter-gatherer from near-by La Brana in Spain.

Our results are important to uncover the genetic origin of farming populations in the Iberian peninsula as well as the impact on demographic patterns. Moreover, these results will contribute to the clarification of the complete demographic picture of the neolithisation in Europe. This is an on-going study and we are currently increasing genome coverage and sample numbers to obtain a higher resolution of the patterns observed.

241 comments:

1 – 200 of 241   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

It looks like the pre-Beaker Chalcolithic people of El Portalón were rather typical Sardinian-like farmers.

The Bell Beakers arrived at the site during the early Bronze Age.

Nirjhar007 said...

On Bell Beakers their origins are from North Africa right?

Davidski said...

In my opinion it's likely that the maritime Bell Beakers of Portugal were partly of Northwest African origin. There are hints of this in the Bell Beaker archeology and modern Iberian DNA. But I have no idea how big this contribution from Northwest Africa was. It might have been only minor.

In any case, I have to say that there's something strange about the Bell Beaker story, because a simple model of an expansion of Neolithic Iberians from Portugal to the rest of Europe during the Copper Age doesn't make much sense for a number of reasons, including the eastern character of R1b. Ancient DNA will blow the case wide open within a year or so, and I think the results will surprise a lot of people, probably including me.

Nirjhar007 said...

The most ancient finding of R1b in Europe is in Bell Beaker site in Kromsdorf, Eastern Germany, not far in time (middle 3rd mill. BC) and space from Eulau where Corded Ware R1a was found. So, R1b appears to be connected specifically with the Bell Beaker. We have seen that this culture apparently derives from Morocco. And so, we can give an answer to the strange concentration of R1b in western Europe, although it is clearly a Near/Middle Eastern Hg: it spread in western Europe through Africa and then Iberia, thanks to the great phenomenon of the Bell Beaker. The next step is to investigate the Afro-Asiatic elements not only in Basque and Sardinian, but also in English or Celtic languages, a topic that has a long tradition and a revival at present.

Davidski said...

I don't think R1b is a Near/Middle Eastern hg. It seems to have arrived in the Middle East along with the ANE-rich populations that shifted the genetic structure of the ENF to the east along the "fateful triangle"

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/the-fateful-triangle.html

Krefter said...

I'm blown away.

It's good that the controversy over the Portalon guy is resolved. Him being Tuscan-like instead of Sardinian-like, didn't make sense.

Iberians may have some recent Near eastern and NW African ancestry, but they're are overwhelmingly Neolithic European. They simply survived the spread of CWC and BB-like Indo Europeans than northern Europe did.

There could be several near eastern farmer lineages in Iberia and mainland Europe that have been separated for over 8,000 years, if Iberians trace most of their blood to Iberia's first farmers.

Krefter said...

Davidski, do you have evidence in modern Y DNA variation that R1b originated north of the Caucasus? That makes sense to me. Maybe east European and central Asian R1b hasn't been analyzed enough to reveal it's great R1b diversity.

Nirjhar007 said...

@krefter,
i have made a request in your blog please consider it as its important!
@David,
R1b surely has its ultimate origins in Iran/West Asia from it went to Near East, Africa etc and We should expect West Asia/Iran area to be ANE rich surely also in aDNA findings....

Krefter said...

I don't have a blog.

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

I really don't see why we should expect Iran to have been ANE-rich during the Neolithic when the Fertile Crescent, which is where Neolithic farmers came from, obviously wasn't.

Krefter,

The strongest evidence to date is Mal'ta boy with his R and the North Eurasian RQ clade.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
Also on Iranian Hgs you should remember this great research-
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252#s3
@Krefter
''I don't have a blog.''
Then What is this?
http://bgcjdwbvfekhvfebk.blogspot.in/

Krefter said...

I made that a year ago and don't care about it.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''I really don't see why we should expect Iran to have been ANE-rich during the Neolithic when the Fertile Crescent, which is where Neolithic farmers came from, obviously wasn't''
The basal subclades are from West Asia with High variations and Components are much less reliable specially in case of admixture which decreases or increases a component without much clarifications moreover we DON'T HAVE aDNA from Near East to verify their ancient ANE Status....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''I made that a year ago and don't care about it.''
But do care about my plead its important otherwise i wouldn't ask!

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

Here's a map of the Neolithic expansion into Europe, which did not bring with it any ANE whatsoever. Not even a drop.

http://imageshack.com/a/img673/3261/yzlkeS.png

This Neolithic expansion started from very close to present-day Iran.

Krefter said...

Nirjhar

reich@genetics.med.harvard.edu


Nirjhar007 said...

Thanks for the map but you are missing the point i wasn't talking about the neolithic expansion from Iran to Europe BUT R1b Expansion from West Asia/Iran to Near east and then Africa which probably happened much earlier than neolithic About Migrations From Iranian area to Europe it happened much later around 4000 BC which brought the IE Folks as anthropological data agree.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
Thank you so much!

Davidski said...

How could the supposed ANE and R1b expansion from Iran to the Near East have happened earlier than the Neolithic, when the Neolithic farmers who migrated from the Near East to Europe didn't carry any ANE nor R1b?

By the way, a part of the Fertile Crescent where farming originated is actually in Iran.

Nirjhar007 said...

''How could the supposed ANE and R1b expansion from Iran to the Near East have happened earlier than the Neolithic, when the Neolithic farmers who migrated from the Near East to Europe didn't carry any ANE nor R1b?''

The R1b of BB mostly comes from Africa and they most likely didn't come to Europe DIRECTLY from NE other wise European languages wouldn't show any Afro-Asiatic features! Taking that point ANE is not the issue but R1b is!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Nirjhar,
R1b L51 is obviously European. There is nothing ancestral to L11, in Africa.
M269 highest diversity is Albanian, for some reason. L23 z2103/2105 is Bulgaria. Pre L11 highest diversity is again Bulgaria. L51 is not West Asian, so, it's brother L23 should not be either.
Now, R1b v-88 may have a route through Iran, but questionable.

Nirjhar007 said...

''R1b-M343 is believed to have arisen in southwest Asia and today its sublcades are bound in various distributions across Eurasia and Africa.''
''R1b1a2-M269 is estimated to have arisen approximately 4,000 to 8,000 years ago in southwest Asia and to have spread into Europe from there. The Atlantic Modal Haplotype, or AMH, is the most common STR haplotype in R1b1a2a1a-L11/PF6539/S127 and most European R1b1a2 belongs to R1b1a2a1a1-M405/S21/U106 or R1b1a2a1a2-P312/PF6547/S116.''
http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
The M269 is should be connected with IE folks and M343 with earlier expansions to NE and Africa i think though not an expert a drift is in play here and for associating components with Hgs that is laughable for example they may be totally or almost totally unrelated. For example Irish, Uyghurs and some Chadic peoples have high frequencies of R1b (various subclades) but their overall genome is otherwise unrelated (beyond what is normal between those regions in general terms.

Davidski said...

Nirjhar, your sources are outdated.

And I think there's a much better explanation for the inconsistencies in your theory: quite simply, it sucks donkey's rump.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

M343 is from Central Asia, as well as some basal m-269 stuff. M335 is also in Central Asians.

Colin Welling said...

nirjhar.

Bell beaker did not "originate" in north africa. And because you equate the origin of a culture to the dominant ydna of the eventual cultural horizon I would ask that you think about what originate actually means. Its very plain to see that north african influence in the bell beaker could not be more than minimal. In other words, most cultural elements in the bell beaker world could not have come from north africa. The cultural connection between the guys at kromsdorf and north africa is even weaker and far far weaker than the connection between kromsdorf and eastern regions which are candidates for the source of r1b.

The worst part of your theory is not the bad assessment of cultural connections between regions but the fact that your theory is the least likely when it comes to modern r1b frequency, modern r1b diversity, linguistics, and both modern and ancient admixture. Its as if you get an idea and just run with it at all costs.

Nirjhar007 said...

THINGS THAT CAN'T BE CHANGED
1.Archaeology confirms North African Origins of BB the area around Morocco.
2. Linguistics confirms clear Afro-Asiatic influence on western European IE-Languages as well as Basque and Sardinian going in agreement with the African origin of BB culture.
3.Components are not compatible with Hgs.
On R1b: Basal R1b clades are from West Asia/Central Asia area and for example Kurds and Iranians have high percentages of R1b-M343*, the ancestral haplogroup of R1b. Kurds from Kazakhstan, mainly deported there from Soviet Caucasian countries, have 13% of this haplogroup, a frequency with no match in other populations. However, this haplogroup is found also in Iranian populations: 4.3% in Persians of Yazd, 3.2% in Azeris,
and R1b-M269, the most common R1b in Europe, was not found among the 59 Kurds sampled in the big Grugni et al study, whereas it is quite frequent among Assyrians (14 on 48, 29.2%), Lurs (23.5%), who live on the central and southern Zagros, Armenians of Tehran (23.5%). So, it seems that the M269 mutation happened not among the Kurds of the Zagros. It is impressive that the paragroup R1b-M269* is found at 15.4% in Zoroastrians of Tehran. As Grugni et al. write: "the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau, although more complex scenarios can be still envisioned because of its non-star like structure." They give in fact for the M269* of Iran 11.5*+/- 3.3 kya, and for Turkey 10.9+/-2.6 kya.
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
'', it sucks donkey's rump''
Thank god its not Kangaroos rump ;)
BTW do Slon means Elephant in your language David?

Nirjhar007 said...

I have found these researches On African origins of Beakers that you guys can read-
1.https://www.academia.edu/1988928/Turek_J._2012_Chapter_8_-_Origin_of_the_Bell_Beaker_phenomenon._The_Moroccan_connection_In_Fokkens_H._and_F._Nicolis_eds_2012_Background_to_Beakers._Inquiries_into_regional_cultural_backgrounds_of_the_Bell_Beaker_complex._Leiden_Sidestone_Press
2.http://www.prehistoricsociety.org/files/reviews/Background_to_Beakers_final_review.pdf
With more study on african parts i.e. Radio Carbon Dating and more excavations there should not be an inch of doubt!.

Colin Welling said...

"1.Archaeology confirms North African Origins of BB the area around Morocco."

says one researcher... Turek

"Linguistics confirms clear Afro-Asiatic influence on western European IE-Languages"

So does IE... interestingly, Italo-Celtic which given by the IE phylogeny mirrors the high frequency of r1b in west europe.

"Components are not compatible with Hgs."

kinda obvious

"On R1b: Basal R1b clades are from West Asia/Central Asia"

After West/Central Asia it falls to eastern europe then western europe then north africa. north africa is not a source for west european diversity.

You keep on choosing what is least likely to the point of absurdity.

Nirjhar007 said...

''says one researcher... Turek''
The Number is not important what is said is and obviously more research is needed.
''interestingly, Italo-Celtic which given by the IE phylogeny mirrors the high frequency of r1b in west europe.''
So you are saying what?
'' north africa is not a source for west european diversity. ''
Archaeological+Linguistic connections are there we just now need the aDNAs from N Africa...

Alberto said...

"...we genetically analysed more than 300 Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula. Altogether, mitochondrial results of 250 individuals could be successfully reproduced."

Looking forward for this, though I hope that the data includes more than just mtDNA haplogroups which wouldn't be very informative. If at least of those 250 individuals some 10% could have a genome wide sequence this could be really interesting. We'll see.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Hahaha.. Nirjhar, you obviously don't know anything about R1b or Bell Beaker. Surfing the web until you find some dipshit theory that closely mirrors yours, is not research. Go away...

Nirjhar007 said...

Chad, You know what Misoneism is?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

M343 Kurds of Kazakhstan are of local origin. There is no m343 in west Asia. M343 is also found in Kazakhs, Mongols, Uighurs, hui, and more.

Misoneism has nothing to do with the fact that you pull old stuff off of the internet and pass it as gospel. Go do more and thorough research, next time.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
Why should i do the research i'm not David! who stitches his nose on things he is not expert of.....BTW From Turek who is an academic researcher we find-
''it Should be borne
in mind that the ornaments, design and in decoration of the Bell Beaker pottery techniques are
based on decoration motives of the Saharan Late Neolithic pottery (Camps-Fabrere 1966). Finds
of decorated ceramics from the western Moroccan burial sites of El- kiffen and Skirrat were probably the archaeotypes of the Bell Beaker Ornamentation(Case 2004; Turek, 2008; 2012a).''
There is much more just see the Academics researches-
https://www.academia.edu/7174464/From_Copper_to_Bronze._Cultural_and_Social_Transformations_at_the_Turnof_the_3rd_2nd_Millennia_B.C._in_Central_Europe._Gewidmet_PhDr._V%C3%A1clav_Moucha_CSc._anl%C3%A4sslich_seines_80._Geburtstages._Herausgegeben_von_Martin_Bartelheim_Jaroslav_Pe%C5%A1ka_Jan_Turek

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

Here's something from the experts for you that you can put on your reading list next year.

The Indo-European Controversy - Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics

http://www.cambridge.org/es/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/historical-linguistics/indo-european-controversy-facts-and-fallacies-historical-linguistics

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
'' There is no m343 in west Asia.''
That is wrong-
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.in/2014/10/kurdish-y-dna-part-xi.html

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
Well You are surely a member of the Catholic church aren't you? I mean isn't earth is the Center of the universe???

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Basing m343 on haplogroup predictors from 4-11 years ago, is not a good source. Ftdna has no Kurds at m343.

Krefter said...

R1b diversity is highest in west Asia, till further notice.

Chad, M269 isn't R1b. Besides M269 is most diverse in west Asia.

How does anyone ignore that modern variation suggests R1b and L23 are from west Asia? Making connections to MA-1, R1a, Indo Europeans, etc., can't explain away greater R1b diversity in west Asia.

Western Asia is a big place, not everyone must have had 0% ANE, just because Neolithic Europeans coming from the western edge of west Asia did.

Matt said...

On the topic of Neolithic Iberian mtdna
http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1660/20130373 - Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the northern fringe of the Neolithic farming expansion in Europe sheds light on the dispersion process.

"Pairwise FST-estimates show that Scandinavian farmers were most similar to Central European farmers (FST = −0.141 (95% CI: −0.280, −0.002); the negative FST-estimates suggest that there is no differentiation between these groups; figure 2).

Both these groups were significantly differentiated from the third group of farmers analysed, the Iberian farmers (FST = 0.292 (95% CI: 0.083, 0.500) and FST = 0.306 (95% CI: 0.181, 0.431) for Scandinavian and Central European farmers, respectively).

Note, however, that in the neighbour joining tree based on pairwise genetic divergence between groups, all three farmer groups form a joint cluster compared with all hunter–gatherers (figure 3).

The Scandinavian farmers were also distinct from both Neolithic Scandinavian and Mesolithic Central European hunter–gatherers (FST = 0.206 (95% CI: 0.026, 0.385) and FST = 0.222 (95% CI: 0.0586, 0.386)). The small sample size for the Iberian hunter–gatherers hindered direct comparisons with this group.

The Scandinavian as well as the Central European farmers display high within-group nucleotide diversity (π = 0.014 (95% CI: 0.008–0.019) and π = 0.016 (95% CI: 0.013–0.020); figure 4).

Further, all hunter–gatherers show within-group homogeneity relative to the farmers of Scandinavia and Central Europe (π between 0.007 and 0.010; figure 4).

Interestingly, the Iberian farmers show a similar within-group homogeneity as the hunter–gatherer groups, in contrast to the other farmers tested

.... Even though the Iberian individuals span from the early to the late Neolithic, they are much more homogeneous than the other investigated farmer groups, which would contradict admixture"


Interesting...? If autosome should follows mtdna Iberian farmers should be definitely, clearly Neolithic farmer, yet more differentiated from TRB and LBK than they are from one another TRB and LBK samples (and TRB to LBK seem differentiated by a fair old slice of WHG if nothing else).

More autosomal dna from Neolithic Iberia will be cool.

And especially on a non-projected plot -

http://z5.ifrm.com/30470/13/0/p1191914/Portalon_ancient_Iberian_.png Portalon seems to overlap Tuscans here.

But, remember that 1) the Bronze Age Hungarian sample overlapped French on the projected plot, when not projected it sat to the west of Basque, 2) that Gokhem TRB samples seem to sit south of Basque despite being far north or west on them on non-projected plots (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQUGRmcURIV3BiOFU/view?pli=1 more or less fitting a Near East-Loschbour cline), 3) Oetzi also placed to the west of Sardinians when not projected(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQN1VHd25UOHgzdWs/edit?pli=1), and 4) La Brana also seemed to placed much more west when not projected as in the above Portalon graph.

Portalon could have a different position when not projected.

Gaspar said...

@krefter
Does your west-asian refer also as part of the areas:
Gedrosian
Balochi
Ariana
Balkh
??

Richard Rocca said...

@Nirjhar007... for every Moroccan=BB origin you can find, I can find dozens for the Low Countries, dozens for Iberia and dozens for Central Europe. Your lack of knowledge on the subject is quite obvious.

Richard Rocca said...

Nirjhar007 said...
@David
Well You are surely a member of the Catholic church aren't you? I mean isn't earth is the Center of the universe???

Yes, which isn't nearly as creative as coming up with Mount Meru. Grow up.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Krefter,

R1b diversity is higher in Bulgaria, based on 67 markers. m269 is highest in Albanians and Southern Italy. L23 and pre L11 is Bulgaria.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Go speak with Mark Jost and the other guys at Anthrogenica if you won't take my word for it.

ZeGrammarNazi said...

Check out:

FROM THE TOMB TO A MONUMENT: THE EXCEPTIONAL PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION OF THE MEGALITHIC GRAVE OF LA MINA (ALCUBILLA DE LAS PEÑAS, SORIA)

pg. 847

It appears we have ancient DNA coming from an Iberian site with two building phases, the first beginning 6,000 years ago, that was eventually reused as a Bell Beaker burial site during the Early Bronze Age.

Someone should email one of the people involved and see if they can give any info or a possible release date?

Mike Thomas said...

Nihar, sorry but you're so very wrong . Not only did the BB phenomenon NOT start in Nth Africa, but you're supposed linguistic facts are also wrong . No one except Theo Vennemen and other pseudo -scholars see a Semitic influence on western Eurpean languages, a a laughable premise based on a mere 2 or 3 toponyms.

In fact your entire platform is wrong . BB phenomenon is understood these days as a broad ranging network of interaction, and surely with movement of groups of peoples, but not from a single source region, neither Iberia , nor the Netherlands, and certainly not morocco, which was entirely peripheral to the hole affair .

Marnie said...

Mike,

I read this paper the other day on Bell Beaker:

Jan Turek 2014: Social and symbolic foundations of the Beaker Phenomenon. Besse M. (ed.): Around the Petit-Chasseur Site in Sion (Valais, Switzerland) and New Approaches to the Bell Beaker Culture Proceedings of the International Conference (Sion, Switzerland – October 27th – 30th 2011), 285-293.

It suggests, as you state, that Bell Beaker was a wide ranging phenomena that could have arisen in place (not by a massive wave of external invaders.)

It's open access on the Academia.edu site.

The Academia.edu "Bell Beakers (Archaeology)" thread is definitely worth a look.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RR
'' for every Moroccan=BB origin you can find,''
I need only one which has-
a)An Acceptance from an Academic.
b)Clinical Data as provided by Jan Turek.
''Yes, which isn't nearly as creative as coming up with Mount Meru. Grow up.''
Which standard are you from? 7th? Mt. Meru is a mythological concept like Dantes Purgatory OTH The Catholic notion of Earth was a dull model which they tried to prove as scientific they do it even today! BTW Indian Astronomical Concepts were much better-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

Krefter said...

Davidski, what percentage of Spaniard's ancestry would you guess recently came from the Near east and NW Africa?

Do you think there's significant non-Stuttgart-like Near eastern ancestry in Europe outside of Iberia, Italy, and the Balkans?

Are you able to take a Near eastern with no South Asian or African ancestry, suck out his ANE, and add WHG, then see if the zombie scores in Mediterranean components?

I'm wondering if Near eastern ancestry in all of west Eurasia is indistinguishable, and that the reasons Europeans score in Mediterranean rather than SW Asian components, is only because of excess WHG.

If this is partly true it may be difficult to know what basal Eurasian is Neolithic and what isn't.

Krefter said...

Now that we know Neolithic Iberians, Swedes, Germans, Hungarians, and North Italians were Near eastern(50-72)+WHG(28-50), we can easily create a non-Neolithic farmer ancestor proxy for most Europeans.

Reich and Laz's are right that during the Neolithic mostly-Yamna people caused a ginormous population turnover throughout Europe.

It's very obvious now that the people who came to western Europe after the Neolithic, had a lot of WHG and ANE, and little Near eastern, and were probably similar to people who live around the North sea and Baltic sea today.

This is exactly what many people including myself have believed for over a year. We were wrong about PIEs being like this, but we were right about bronze age IE immigrants who moved into western Europe being like this.

The admixture between North-Baltic sea type people and EEF-type people could have been recent in France and Iberia, because of the Basque/Aquit, non-IE Iron age Iberians, and majority EEF-type ancestry there.

In Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia the EEF-type people must have been pretty much erased.

That sounds crazy, but how else do we explain British-Irish and Scandinavians being so similar to the first IEs of central Europe, before those IEs ever migrated to the British isles and Scandinavia?

Mike Thomas said...

Yes Marnie.

There are actually numerous such papers. Eg see the various of Marc van Der Linden - also on Academia. There are quite a lot of young scholars producing very nuanced work.
Its just that genetic bloggers are simply ignorant of them becuase they are focussed on 'genetic evidence' and its apparent infallibility.

Moreover, they often have an axe to grind, thus (mis)using the evidence to push their perspective of the 'origins' of a culture without actually actually striving toward a higher understanding of the intricate complexities of the Beaker phenomenon, or the post-Neolithic changes in eastern Europe, for example.

Krefter said...

I found mtDNA H and R(not teted for R0, HV, or H SNPs, likely H) from France and Spain dated to the Mesolithic, Jean Manco doesn't have on her site.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HcAhe7QvggT792VruuoZX6IsTg4LhWXV-Z_ZfTk2KGA/edit#gid=1562774546

source

http://thesesups.ups-tlse.fr/1392/1/2011TOU30177.pdf

Do control search: Téviec

BTW, just about every major Near eastern mtDNA haplogroup was found in Mesolithic Greece, and no U(K-) was found. That's not a suprise because Greece is in the east meditreaen, but it proves that Near eastern ancestry existed in hunter gatherers who lived outside of the range of where farming began.

Davidski said...

Krefter,

You're probably picking up old false positives caused by contamination.

If I were you, I'd only focus on data from the last couple of years.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''If I were you, I'd only focus on data from the last couple of years.''
Can you date components of individuals?For example if a person in K=3 shows 15% ANE 40% EEF and 45% WHG will you be able to calculate the Ages of them?

Nirjhar007 said...

@Mike Tomas
''Its just that genetic bloggers are simply ignorant of them becuase they are focussed on 'genetic evidence' and its apparent infallibility. ''
That is their ultimate stupidity its just not genetics but Linguistics and Archaeology which is more reliable though genetics helps but NOT WITHOUT agreement with the first two.
And yes Genetics is way more variable and unstable.....

Davidski said...

Historical linguistics points to the late Neolithic Eastern European steppe as the Indo-European homeland.

Ancient DNA shows that West Eurasians by and large became less Near Eastern and more steppe-like from the late Neolithic onwards, during the presumed early Indo-European expansions.

So there's no problem. I'd say everything fits better than anyone ever expected.

Nirjhar007 said...

''Historical linguistics points to the late Neolithic Eastern European steppe as the Indo-European homeland.''
No sir it was Iran-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
''Ancient DNA shows that West Eurasians by and large became less Near Eastern and more steppe-like from the late Neolithic onwards, during the presumed early Indo-European expansions.''
What that have to do with Lsanguage and Archaeological data Do component speak languages David?

postneo said...

@davidski
http://www.cambridge.org/es/academic/subjects/languages-linguistics/historical-linguistics/indo-european-controversy-facts-and-fallacies-historical-linguistics

Heres a talk by the duo.

For these guys empiricism has a very fluid meaning. No language has ever been sampled from the pontic steppe at the relevant time depth. All IE reconstruction can be placed in any location and still work. The same goes for computational models they can be tweaked any which way.

Asya Pereltsvaig who comes second is coherent, she genuinely exposes weaknesses in the fledgling computational approach.

Martin Lewis's spouts fluff covertly linking "white pride" and funding. His only real point is the "wheel line".

Why so threatened by this coarse analysis? Some linguists themselves have proposed an Anatolian homeland. Even with all is failings the computational model is not too bad. It can only improve. why not help in such efforts instead of whining?

Nirjhar007 said...

Hi,Postneo.
If we analyse the Indo-Hittite proposal it has certain FUNDAMENTAL HOLES as Giacomo has shown and of course 'Archaic' features like of Laryngeals are still found among Kurdish languages,
I will give an interesting research on Substratum issue on Vedic to you it is quite genuine if you already haven't seen it BTW....

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

So who was moving all over Eurasia at this time and leaving their DNA all over the place, like R1a-M417, and shifting the genetics of all of these regions? What language did they speak?

And if these weren't the early Indo-Europeans, then how did the Indo-Europeans spread their language? Via the internet?

postneo,

The criticism was necessary, and don't worry, the work is continuing, albeit now with more input from historical linguists. See here...

http://www.shh.mpg.de/dlce

Grey said...

@Krefter

"In Britain, Ireland, and Scandinavia the EEF-type people must have been pretty much erased.

That sounds crazy, but how else do we explain British-Irish and Scandinavians being so similar to the first IEs of central Europe, before those IEs ever migrated to the British isles and Scandinavia?"

I think that's probably correct but I don't think they were necessarily erased exactly because if they were restricted to only coastal settlements then if/when BB (or whoever) expanded dramatically into the interior the EEF-like fisher-farmers might have simply been swamped by numbers.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''So who was moving all over Eurasia at this time and leaving their DNA all over the place, like R1a-M417, and shifting the genetics of all of these regions? What language did they speak?''
I think you have to exclude Asia and those basal clades of R1a are actually also found in Iran-
http://kurdishdna.blogspot.in/
Moreover People of Sredny-Stog-2 and Yamnaya came from S Caspian as shown in various anthropological data in the new-indology blog which is BTW run by an ACTUAL academic not freelance nerds like you!

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

So called "basal" lineages of R1a are found all the way from Western Europe to Tibet. They mean nothing.

What matters are the basal splits between the main clades, and these happened in Europe, because there are two main clades of R1a:

Northwest European R1a-CTS4385

Eastern European R1a-Z645

Guess what? South Asian R1a-Z93 fits under R1a-Z645.

Mike Thomas said...

Post-Neo, you are of course correct.

You cant make definite conclusions based on modern languages, just as you can't make conclusions based on modern DNA. The 7 or so major groups of IE languages today are just surviving twigs of many earlier languages. Nevertheless, the way the modern IE languages sit compared to each other virtually allows any of the proposed homelands to work.

In fact, linguistically, PIE can have originated anywhere between central Europe and central Asia.

Moving onto so-called "paleo-linguistics", river names, etc - they certainly do not resolve to any greater degree the exact location of PIE 'homeland'. Arguements claiming that they can rely on circular reasoning and rather suspect archaeological reconstruction, which was not analyzed on its on right, but rather worked-into a pre-existing story.

Whether we support a Kurgan homeland, or Neolithic, or Armenian or out of India, all models, although proposing different locations, ultimately work within the same (flawed) model of reasoning.

Then comes the genetic evidence which David tirelessly champions (and not taking anything away from his obvious aptitude and perseverance).

Clearly , something was happening at the end of the Late Neolithic, But then again, genetically, Europe has always been changing ! Sure, David focuses on this ANE-ization in the post-Neolithic period, but what he fails to admit that this might have little if anything to do with the spread of IE languages.

So, although some like to cling to the pots=people=genes =languages equation of the 1920s, the expansion of languages is a far more complex phenomenon than some horseman from the East of Europe arriving in hordes and settling vast exapanses - something which almost certainly did *not* happen.

There are many different mechanisms for the expansion of langauge, and to reduce it to one simple process is absurd.

As a final comment, people keep thinking that what happened with the Roman Empire was something of a late exception where a language (Latin) can spread without mass movement of people. Sure, it can be argued that earlier in prehistory, there were not states with a beaurocratic apparatus to spread language, like the Romans; however, there are several other mechanisms of language expansion and language contact.


Nirjhar007 said...

''Guess what? South Asian R1a-Z93 fits under R1a-Z645''
And how that helps your theory? What is the age of that mutation? tell me first before i continue...

Krefter said...

"I think that's probably correct but I don't think they were necessarily erased exactly because if they were restricted to only coastal settlements then if/when BB (or whoever) expanded dramatically into the interior the EEF-like fisher-farmers might have simply been swamped by numbers."

All this new info about Yamna, CWC, BB, and Unetice is good news for me, because it will shut up people who dismiss genetic evidence to solve a historic mystery, because they say it's not scientific.

Maju and others bashed people for claiming it's possible that any Europeans mostly descend from bronze age Indo European invaders.

The argument they'd always use is where are the bodies of natives massacred by Indo Europeans, and no one in the bronze age had the military capability to largely replace already existing gene pools.

To them everything has to be complicated and through cultural-exchange. But there's no arguing anymore whether populations were mostly exterminated in Europe during the bronze age by Indo Europeans, and the only question now is how.

I doubt most of it was through genocide and war, but mostly through complex circumstances, and gradual change.

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike Thomas,
'' all models, although proposing different locations, ultimately work within the same (flawed) model of reasoning.''
Not if you correlate other fields of studies i.e. Archaeology, Anthropology as Prof. Giacomo Benedetti has done in case of showing that Actual PIE area was in S caspian/Iran.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''. But there's no arguing anymore whether populations were mostly exterminated in Europe during the bronze age by Indo Europeans, and the only question now is how.

I doubt most of it was through genocide and war, but mostly through complex circumstances, and gradual change. ''
Well CLIMATE was the main trigger behind the expansions for Example for Europe the 5.9 Kyo Event played the leading role....

Alberto said...

@Krefter

"The argument they'd always use is where are the bodies of natives massacred by Indo Europeans, and no one in the bronze age had the military capability to largely replace already existing gene pools. [...] But there's no arguing anymore whether populations were mostly exterminated in Europe during the bronze age by Indo Europeans, and the only question now is how."

But are you referring to the North East of Europe or to all of Europe?

The "military capability" to replace a population largely depends on the population numbers of the invaders and of the invaded.

We can guess that the population of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe 5000 years ago was pretty scarce, given the difficult climate conditions and the social development. However those people replacing the North Eastern populations was perfectly possible. Simply put, like a dwarf beating a midget.

A whole different story is when comparing those populations to the ones in Southern Europe, with good climate conditions and 4-5 thousand years of successful Neolithic development.

The explanation for both events (if the second event did happen), necessarily has to be very different. And it would be interesting to hear your hypothesis about it.

Marnie said...

@Mike Thomas

I really appreciate your last comment.

Here's the URL for the Marc Vander Linden paper you mentioned:

http://www.academia.edu/840055/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_BC_Europe

Do you have a blog?

Colin Welling said...

@david

The evidence that steppe like populations overturned much of europes genetic composition is mounting up, but are there any papers that can explain how this happened? Ive already seen papers on the weakened state of late neolithic farmers. I also know steppe like cultures could have been better adapted for the changing climate in the late neolithic including having mobile food vendors (cows) but still... Its hard to imagine steppe peoples directly, and indirectly, massively changing the genetic composition of europe.

Do you know of any papers that can be used to estimate the actual demographic advantage of steppe peoples over local farmers? Do you think there were ever that many steppe peoples, or do you think that they settled east central europe then grew a lot faster than the locals?

georgy chich said...

@Nirjhar:
"Moreover People of Sredny-Stog-2 and Yamnaya came from S Caspian as shown in various anthropological data"

As far as I know ukranian anthropologist Inna Potekhina said: "The process of the genesis of Sredny-Stog people, obviously, should be associated with the tribes of the Dnieper-Donets culture...The mapping method x2 reveals a high probability of their similarities...It should be added that the circle close to Sredny-Stog forms not limited to the territory of Ukraine. A similar set of characteristics possessed also the early Neolithic population of the East Baltic states"

Krefter said...

The conference was last September?

Davidski said...

Colin,

I haven't seen any papers spelling out in detail how all of this happened. But like you say, based on recent archeological evidence, it seems that parts of East-Central Europe, particularly the Carpathian Basin, Bohemia and present-day southern Poland, could well have been the staging points for the almost complete re-population of much of Western and Central Europe during the Bronze Age.

So the steppe people who moved west from the late Neolithic onwards need not have been very numerous to explain the phenomenon we're seeing with ancient and modern DNA. What might have happened is that a few bands of steppe nomads took over the key areas around the Carpathians, partly mixed with the locals there, and created societies that were more mobile and better adapted to the new Europe of the metal ages than those of their neighbors, and so basically they multiplied much faster than they did.

In any case, these people arrived in Western Europe from somewhere, and they came in fairly big numbers for those times. When the Single Grave culture arrived in Denmark, for instance, most of the forests were cut down within a few generations to provide pasture lands for cows. These forests didn't just disappear on their own accord. There was a massive effort to get rid of them, and it wasn't just the result of a cultural change because modern Danes are significantly more eastern in terms of genetic structure than the Neolithic farmers of North and Central Europe.

Anyone who still doesn't believe that much of Europe was almost totally repopulated by a people from the east from the late Neolithic onwards, who brought with them a new culture and social organization, clearly has denial issues.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That paper on the possible late Neolithic repopulation of Europe by, I believe Bohemia and Moravia, is probably a good starting point. They kept pushing out kids, while almost everyone else dropped significantly. Ireland had 4x population explosion at around the time Beakers migrated to Ireland.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Between 2500-2000BCE, the population of England and Wales more than doubled. Perfect again, for Beakers.

Mike Thomas said...

No Marnie I don't, but hope to write a paper on the topic.

David and Krefter, you might call it 'denial issues', but i call it justifiable scepticism and sound scholarship.

Your 'cowboys and indians" version of history is simplistic. That in itself certainly does not invalidate it. But you keep overlooking other threads of evidence.

Actually, *some mass graves have been discovered*, but (if i recall correctly) they are from the earlier Neolithic, not the LN or EBA.

Perhaps it you chaps read some decent quality papers in addition to your penchant for spreadsheets and PCA plots, you might actually realize that the data as your modelling it requires a far greater amount of caution.

One example further, - some scholars see the Copper - Early Bronze period as one of peace, compared to the Neolithic and the conflict over territoriality it brought; ie not an era of rampaging north Pontians.

Yes, Collin, no papers exist explaining this apparent 'mass extinction event' because no such event happened expect in the imaginative minds of many people on this blog :) Unless one appeals, as David often does, to special pleading about 'archaeologically invisible nomadic populations".

To quote Colin "demographic advantage of steppe peoples over local farmers?"
Again this typifies the poor undesrtanding which prevails on this blog. Playing off 'Old European' farmers ve "nomadic' steppe peoples is to wholly fail to understand that within so-called 'settled Neolithic populations' lay the roots of a more mobile, pastoralist ,dispersed mode of living. There was a continuum, which the clever communities could adapt and adopt to.

When one fails to have such basic anthropological understandings, then to boastfully trumpet conclusions based a 1 -dimensional understanding of the issues is either sheer arrogance or utter blind -sightedness.

Davidski said...

Yeah, OK, and so the eastern influence that shifted almost all Europeans a few thousand miles east genetically wafted in with the air currents. Or maybe via the water supply?

Mike, did you learn about the birds and the bees at school?

ZeGrammarNazi said...

Mike, which scholars believe the Copper and Early Bronze Age was more peaceful than the Neolithic, exactly?

Everything I've read points the other way. Are there any articles or other resources freely available online that argue for a relatively peaceful transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age?

Nirjhar007 said...

==Gentlemen see how David Sūdātĭo, Configatur a Maju==
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.in/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html
@georgy chich
''As far as I know ukranian anthropologist Inna Potekhina said..''
As far i see you haven't seen or verified my reference, see it first!

Mike Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZeGrammarNazi said...

Thank you.

Now, if you will excuse me, I must go listen to "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Metallica.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It looks like the neolithics were severely outbred, for a lot if the replacement.

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

Both yourself and Maju might at some point find it useful to learn the correct phylogeography of R1a.

When you do you'll see that R1a did not enter Europe from Anatolia or Iran.

Here's a hint...

NW Euro R1a-CTS4385 split from E Euro/Asian R1a-Z645 about 6,000 years ago

E Euro R1a-Z282 split from Asian R1a-Z93 about 5,000 years ago

These splits happened in Europe, because there's no hint of anything resembling R1a-CTS4385 in Asia.

Good luck with that.

Krefter said...

Mike,

"One example further, - some scholars see the Copper - Early Bronze period as one of peace, compared to the Neolithic and the conflict over territoriality it brought; ie not an era of rampaging north Pontians. "

When did I ever say IEs were conan barbarian-types who simply swept acroos Europe on war-chariots erasing most of the already existing gene pool? You assumed this romanticized idea appeals to me so much that I center my view on IEs around it.

I know that IEs made a big genetic impact because of DNA. There's no disputing this fact. What evidence in genetics can you gather to dispute heavy Indo European gene-flow throughout Europe?

You're a good thinker, but denying something that makes sense and doesn't hurt your brain to think about isn't wrong.

Being skeptical of everything that makes sense isn't logical or scientific. It's okay to say, this looks very possible.

Colin Welling said...

@mike thomas

Nobody is talking about rampaging pontics. That theory was spearheaded by Gumbitas who projected all sorts of strange fantasies into her theories, which seem to be narrow minded and highly sexist towards men. Most modern academics outright reject the duality she set up and the violent nature of indo-europeans.

In general I think only those with a lack of imagination think that violence is needed to explain population replacement. Ill give one counter example that refutes the idea that replacement requires violence, and also refutes your idea that cultural shift don't represent population shifts. It has already been shown via ancient dna that hunter gatherers and farmers had been living side by side in sweden for hundreds of years maintaining distinct genetics and culture.

This example refutes the violence prerequisite because it shows that newcomers can live side by side with nearby locals for hundreds of year which is plenty of time to outbreed those locals. It also directly refutes your idea that cultural shifts don't represent genetic shifts.

Nirjhar007 said...

''These splits happened in Europe, because there's no hint of anything resembling R1a-CTS4385 in Asia.''
The Age of R1a-Z93 you provide is baseless as Maju has shown also Palisto showed it.

You very well know that the age of R1a-Z93 is much higher than your Putative Theory which is also retardic since it has no data on the other hand the Iranian Projection has tons of Actual data and moreover it works perfectly for Europe and Asia.

Colin Welling said...

The example in my last comment is very pertinent to the spread of yamnaya in hungary who initially kept, primarily, to the steppe like lowlands of hungry which was mostly unoccupied by the local farmers. Over time, the yamnaya could have outbred the nearby farmers (to put it simply).

Davidski said...

Nirjhar,

My age estimate for R1a-Z93 is based on full Z93 sequences and calibrated with the R Mal'ta boy sequence. It is the best one to date.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
'' It is the best one to date.''
No and of course no plus you are not geneticist plus those ages you provide has nothing to do with ACTUAL Archaeological and Anthropological data, So sorry....
On dating if want to create any Basic Stand please sanction it from an Academic if you can BTW.

ryukendo kendow said...

If the invading nomads imposed themselves as less-mobile elite over local agricultural populations, taking advantage of local social structures, elite overproduction and higher death rates among children of those with low social status could cause a large turnover in population over a long period without widespread signs of genocide. Gregory Clark and Ron Unz have uncovered such a mode of population change in societies around the world, e.g. norman elites in England, austronesians in Tanzania, Tais in SE Asia, the nobility in Scandinavian countries, and China and Japan throughout history.

Sure, the phenomenon of IE-ization from a cultural or anthropoligical/sociopolitical point of view might be very complex, but the genetics and the liguistics are pretty much fait accompli. The question is not really whether, but how.

Davidski said...

Sure thing Mr N.

The estimates provided in the recent Hallast et al. paper, by full on academics with PhDs coming out of their asses, for R1a-M198 are about the same as the estimate for the downstream R1a-Z93 that I gave (6.2 KYA). This would make R1a-Z93 even younger than what I claimed it was. That's because these awesome academics didn't calibrate their dates with ancient genomes like MA-1 and Ust'-Ishim. Nevertheless, their work is based on SNPs, not STRs, like the outdated papers you often like to quote here.

See Table 2. It's open access, enjoy...

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/11/26/molbev.msu327.abstract

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you Mr.D as the age 6.2 KYO fits PERFECTLY with the Anthropological data of SC Asia which shows movements from West Asia/Iran To Mehrgarh Area around 4500BC!!
With Regards,
N.

Davidski said...

The 6.2 KYA estimate is for R1a-M198, not for R1a-Z93, which is surely younger, and the Indian R1a-Z93 younger still.

Nirjhar007 said...

@D
But it have to be that date at least for Indian R1a other wise those dating will not make sense on Anthropological+Archaeological grounds which is FAR more reliable than Indirect Dating WITH the absence of aDNA....

Davidski said...

No, see what you failed to realize all these months while posting on my blogs is that your theory is totally screwed.

Indian R1a is very young. It could only have arrived in South Central Asia during the Iron Age from the steppe.

You'll have to deal with this sooner or later. The sooner the better I'd say.

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter
" know that IEs made a big genetic impact because of DNA. There's no disputing this fact. What evidence in genetics can you gather to dispute heavy Indo European gene-flow throughout Europe?"

Perhaps, but that gene flow might not have anything to do with "indo-Europeans". That is my point. Im not disallowing the obviuos pact that some genetic shifts were happening in the Late Neolithic, but this might have *nothing to do* with the language spread which could have been a later phenomenon. There is nothing 'Indo-European' about that DNA, a priori. You're just isolating one of several instances of gene flow into Europe.

Colin "It also directly refutes your idea that cultural shifts don't represent genetic shifts."

Yet again you're talking in black and whites. Just because something happened once doesnt mean it applies universally to *all other phenomena*. Yes, there are many instances where language expansion occurred due to a more or less "mass" migration - many part of Slavic Europe, colonziation of Iceland by Scandinavians, possibly A-S England, etc. However, many other cases, perhaps even a majority, when this was NOT the case - the Bantu expansion, Celtic, perhaps Germanic, and Berber in north Africa to list but a few.

I know that you all dont seriously think that the Pontics were shoot-em up cowboys, im just saying that tongue in cheek. Nevertheless , my critique stands. You have no proof that these steppe dwellers outbred anything or anyone. In fact, there is no evidence for a pastoralist economy west of the Tisza. Even in the region of Poland, much of the preceding cultural elements and subsistence modes continued on from the Late Neolithic. This is not consistent with a movement of pastoralists from the steppe, in whichever scenario of advantage one wishes to paint - whether its their capacity for war, milk-drinking, love/ fertility, etc.

you're just painting scenarios devoid of archaeological support.

Nirjhar007 said...

@D
''Indian R1a is very young. It could only have arrived in South Central Asia during the Iron Age from the steppe.''
This is where your Idiocy starts AS you can't match your Indirect Dating with the Prominent Data of Archaeological, Anthropological data which has long proven the Failure of Steppe Theory, Dude grow up at least see the evidences by breaking out from your flawed Genetic Bubble world!!
Even in Linguistic grounds its a failure see here-
https://books.google.hr/books?id=_eqr833q9qYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=it#v=onepage&q&f=false
and there is not A SINGLE academic who have pointed R1a as the I-A marker TO INDIA with conclusiveness.
''You'll have to deal with this sooner or later. The sooner the better I'd say.''
No Sir its you! Just wait for the Rakhigarhi aDNA to come out then you will see what you are facing-----
Let me give a clue there will be A SOUND of undetectable EXPLOSION:)

Krefter said...

"Perhaps, but that gene flow might not have anything to do with "indo-Europeans". That is my point."

We can bin point the origin of the genetic shift in Europe during the bronze age, to Russia, where PIE was supposed to be.

CWC were practically modern north-central Europeans, can be fit as having majority Yamna ancestry, and are believed by many to have been Indo European. Add to that R1a-Z93 in bronze age north Asia(along with similar mtDNA to Yamna, in supposed Indo European cultures)), and R1a in CWC.

What else do you want?

How can we have people belonged to supposed Indo European cultures 5,000 years ago, with majority eastern ancestry, being just like modern central-north Europeans, and Indo European languages spreading later with little gene flow?

postneo said...

@davidski
"Yeah, OK, and so the eastern influence that shifted almost all Europeans a few thousand miles east genetically wafted in with the air currents. Or maybe via the water supply?"

water supply is correct. It governs most biological populations not warfare. It explains how Europe was populated in greater measure by people originally found on the eastern shores of the medit. sea and southern shores of the black, and caspian seas. It explains the splits and drifts in IE languages of europe.

R1a-Z645 first arose in eastern Europe? Whats the proof? Just like reconstructed PIE, its so far up the tree you can put it anywhere.

Heres a scenario. haplogroups I(anatolia) G(Iran) came to europe from the west asia. Later R1b(anatolia) and R1a(Iran) came to europe and central asia also from similar locales. In Iran these populations were greatly replaced by additional waves from the levant but descendants survived in greater numbers in Europe and south asia.

@NIrjhar
finally northwest Iran is just a good guess. Just like the Kurgan hypothesis there is no attested language from the area just guesswork. Archeology provides a material trail but no language.

More direct reflexes of Laryngeal reflexes in Kurdish is interesting. Wanted to point out similarity btw asthi(bone in sanskrit) and haDDI, hAR in mordern indo-aryan. Are these also remnants of laryngeals. More examples are needed.

Krefter said...

Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages can be traced to bronze age IE cultures in Europe. If Italic and Celtic languages came latter, the people who caused the eastern genetic-shift during the bronze age, were probably a different type of Indo European.

We'll probably see a bronze age Danish genome from Bredtoftegård eventually, which will probably be just like CWC and Unetice.

There are three bronze age mtDNA samples from Denmark; U4c1, U4, U5a2a. There's also bronze age mtDNA from Ireland and Scotland, including T1a and U5a. Most of them had typical EHG mtDNA, which was popular in Yamna, BB, Andronovo, and CWC.

Davidski said...

postneao,

No way is European R + ANE from West Asia.

If it was, it would've made it to Europe by the middle Neolithic, with the early Neolithic waves from the Fertile Crescent or the secondary products revolution from south Balkans/western Anatolia.

Also, for the umpteenth time, the deep splits around R1a-Z645 happened in Europe (between R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645), with one of these lineages, R1a-Z93, dominating Asia from the Bronze Age onwards.

It makes no difference if there's R1a* or R1a1a2*, or whatever else you want, in Asia or deep in Central Asia, because, as per above, the splits around R1a-Z645 happened in Europe.

postneo said...

@davidski
''Indian R1a is very young. It could only have arrived in South Central Asia during the Iron Age from the steppe.''

This is highly improbable:

Z93 has a parsimonious distribution in south asia. There is no overarching regional structure. Only some young jewish branches are not represented.

On the other hand in central asia and europe there is no parsimony instead there are bottle necked regional pockets.

You would need a very special bus/plane service to making multiple stops in central asia to fake this "iron age migration"

z93 outside india and iran is modeled better as a sort of "proto gypsy" migration.

Davidski said...

postneo,

R1a-CTS4385 is a deep European lineage and the sister clade of R1a-Z645.

It has never been recorded in Asia, or even near Asia, nor have any lineages that look even vaguely similar.

So here's what you need to do to prove the Asian origin of R1-Z645: you need to find R1a-CTS4385, a derived lineage, or a closely related lineage somewhere in Asia.

Till then, almost all of Asian R1a, which falls under R1a-Z645, looks very much like it had a major European episode dating back to the Copper Age.

Do you understand?

And by the way, there are very unusual looking R1a-Z93 lineages in Europe that don't cluster with Asian Z93. So the subclade has a long history there, and the fact that it didn't expand in Europe as it did in Asia doesn't mean it didn't originate in Europe. Do you understand this also?

Proto-gypsy. Hilarious shit. Do you even know when the gypsies migrated to Europe? It doesn't sound like you do.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Postneo

''finally northwest Iran is just a good guess. Just like the Kurgan hypothesis there is no attested language from the area just guesswork. Archeology provides a material trail but no language.''
The best guess which explains Asia+Europe with neutral point of view.
About Language the IIr area of SC+W Asia has no evidence of language prior to IE.
''More direct reflexes of Laryngeal reflexes in Kurdish is interesting. Wanted to point out similarity btw asthi(bone in sanskrit) and haDDI, hAR in mordern indo-aryan. Are these also remnants of laryngeals. More examples are needed.''
Good observations post them to the Maestros blog!.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''It has never been recorded in Asia, or even near Asia, nor have any lineages that look even vaguely similar.''
Recently In England L664 was found i think very interesting.
''So here's what you need to do to prove the Asian origin of R1-Z645: you need to find R1a-CTS4385, a derived lineage, or a closely related lineage somewhere in Asia.''
No need for that we just need the aDNA as there is no explanation for HOW the STR diversity can be that high in 3.5ky when the material evidence is not present+Contradictory.
'' the fact that it didn't expand in Europe as it did in Asia doesn't mean it didn't originate in Europe. Do you understand this also?''
That is nonsense the truth is Europe never had the Z-93 diversity as it came there from Central Asia which if i'm not wrong is much more diverse!

Davidski said...

Cut the crap. STR diversity is useless.

The key to finding the origins of most of the R1a present across Eurasia today is locating the place of the split between R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645.

If you don't think this split happened in Europe, then please post your arguments and evidence.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''No way is European R + ANE from West Asia.

If it was, it would've made it to Europe by the middle Neolithic, with the early Neolithic waves from the Fertile Crescent or the secondary products revolution from south Balkans/western Anatolia.''
The data is undeniable that people of SrednyStog-II phase and Yamnaya at the same period around 4000 BC came from Dzhebel/S Caspian area as Anthropology suggests we already know that the Mtdna is West Asian prone at Samara that time with possible affinities to Armenians? So it goes with the direction coming from the PIE homeland in N Iranian Area so far at least....

Nirjhar007 said...

''The key to finding the origins of most of the R1a present across Eurasia today is locating the place of the split between R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645.''
I understand but you understand also that the age is the issue here and the Complete lack of aDNA from SC+W Asian sites! plus complete failure in other fields of studies, so at the moment your argument is nothing but useless.
''Cut the crap. STR diversity is useless. ''
Show me the areas around Eurasia corresponding to the Highest STR diversity to the lowest please its a request....

Davidski said...

The Indus Valley was invaded by a number of different groups carrying R1a-Z93.

So the reason it has the highest R1a STR diversity in the world is because it's a migration sink. There are no other sublades there like in Europe, just Z93.

Grey said...

@Colin Welling

"The evidence that steppe like populations overturned much of europes genetic composition is mounting up, but are there any papers that can explain how this happened?"

The process doesn't need to be the same everywhere. If you look at the distribution of LBK then there's clearly a western and northern edge with - I assume - HGs on the other side.

In these regions pastoralists would have been displacing (or amalgamating with) *lower* population density HGs not farmers.

And if you look at the the LBK range and the range of highest LP you see that the regions outside the LBK range almostl completely correlate with the highest LP regions.

LBK range

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/LBK_culture.png

LP map

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.11661.1375182095!/image/lactase-hotspots2.jpg

There is also evidence of a complete shift from coastal maritime to interior dairying both from Denmark's tree clearance and from dietary evidence from Britain.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/neolithic-peoples-from-britain-and.html

"These new findings ... unequivocally confirm rejection of marine resources by early farmers coinciding with the adoption of intensive dairy farming."

.

So at least along the northern and western edges of Europe *outside* the range of LBK there is no need for any Conan stuff - just people expanding into a newly available ecological niche.

(That doesn't mean there wasn't lots of Conan stuff just that it wasn't necessary.)

.

Now elsewhere - where it was pastoralists against more densely populated farmers it may have been different but I think it makes sense to divide it into two parts as the first part - the northern and western edge seems pretty simple and clear cut.

The only question on the first part is what route did those expanding pastoralists take?

Was it
1) maritime to Iberia and then via BB along the Atlantic coast
2) west into the forest zone from Ukraine then along the Atlantic coast
3) south from Ukraine then along the Danube to the Hungarian plain then north west from there and then along the Atlantic coast
4) a mixture of two or all of the above

.

Either way the first part, the western and northern edge of Europe outside the LBK range doesn't require anything except that herding provided a higher population density than HGing.

The herder vs central channel farmer part (Danube to southern Germany and non-coastal France) part is a separate issue.

imo

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Yes, Collin, no papers exist explaining this apparent 'mass extinction event' because no such event happened"

Britain, Ireland and the Atlantic coast from northern Iberia to Denmark and along the forest zone north of the LBK range doesn't require any kind of mass extinction event.

It only requires that herding provided a higher population density than HGing.

"In fact, there is no evidence for a pastoralist economy west of the Tisza"

There is in Britain.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/neolithic-peoples-from-britain-and.html

Atlantic megalith reliant on fishing and so restricted to the coast. BB (or someone) come along and fill the interior using dairying.

No Conan, no extinction, just cows.

postneo said...

@davidski
"R1a-CTS4385 is a deep European lineage and the sister clade of R1a-Z645"

Don't completely agree. The skewed distribution of branches does not support an even split btw R1a-CTS4385 and z645 in Europe but separate waves. You have a descendant of r1a1a (cts4385) and a descendant of z645 (z283).

I agree, cts4385 most likely split from r1a1a in western Europe.

R1a1a1 arrived in western europe via a southern european route perhaps along with r1b.

z645 arose in asia from r1a1a1 and gave rise to z93. z645 arrived in eastern europe separted from earlier r1a1a1 migrants by the black and med. seas.

Only today have these disparate branches started rubbing shoulders in Europe and are still not well mixed.

I know very well that actual gypsies came to Europe after 1000 AD. What I am implying here is that its a well trodden path open to other prehistoric groups.

Davidski said...

You seem to be in some serious denial.

R1a did not arrive anywhere in Europe via southern Europe, unless you mean the few odd R1a-Z93 lineages that came late with the Islamic invasions.

Almost all R1a arrived in Europe from the western steppe, along with ANE and the descendants of the Yamnaya people.

It did not come from West Asia, because if R1a and ANE were in West Asia during the Neolithic, then they would've showed up after the Secondary Products Revolution in middle and late Neolithic genomes from Europe.

The lineages that gave rise to R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645 did not enter Europe separately. The bifurcation in R1a-417 that resulted in R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645 happened in the same area of Europe and at basically the same time, during the Copper Age expansions of certain Indo-European steppe groups.

Almost all of the R1a seen in Asia today comes from this bifurcation on the European steppe.

Nirjhar007 said...

@DW
''The Indus Valley was invaded by a number of different groups carrying R1a-Z93.

So the reason it has the highest R1a STR diversity in the world is because it's a migration sink. There are no other sublades there like in Europe, just Z93.''
Yeah i was talking to the Ancestors of mine the Rishis via the time machine they said that after using Vimaanas and coming to the Sindhu area they fall in love of the Area and to the fact that They came repeatedly using the machine hence the STR Variation.
''There are no other sublades there like in Europe, just Z93.''
But isn't according to your dating that you call L-657 is around 3000-2500 BC?

Nirjhar007 said...

''Almost all of the R1a seen in Asia today comes from this bifurcation on the European steppe.''
Europe appears to be ''THE SINK'' because apart from the Anthropological data which you are not what can i say fond of or want to see of there are large number of SNPs which may reflect tribes entering there since in common sense on SNP i.e. the Z93+ 'covers' all the Aryan lineages so similarly those SNPs of Europe covers for the different tribes of Europe you know the the Slavs,Celts etc....

Davidski said...

L657 is a subclade of Z93, so it's younger than Z93, and it didn't originate in India anyway. So what's your point?

Hey Krefter, here's some more ancient Eurasian steppe mtDNA for you.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22690/suppinfo

Nirjhar007 said...

''657 is a subclade of Z93, so it's younger than Z93, and it didn't originate in India anyway. So what's your point?''
Whats the date?

Davidski said...

Z93 is estimated at ~3,500 BC and L657 at ~1,500 BC.

Nirjhar007 said...

What is the 'basis' of that estimation again?

Davidski said...

Lots of STR markers, like 67, and even full Y-chromosome sequences, and calibrated with ancient DNA.

But don't worry, there's a major paper on the way about major European Y-chromosome lineages like R1a and R1b. You'll see even more recent estimates for R1a subclades in that study.

Nirjhar007 said...

What is the age of R1a1a1b1a2 S466/Z280 then?

Chris Davies said...

Y DNA haplogroup R1a found in Herero of Namibia and Angola at 4% :-
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/abs/5201408a.html
[see supplementary information]

Back migration or previously un-sampled origins?

Davidski said...

Haplogroup R was found recently in a 24,000 year-old Siberian genome, so no, definitely not previously unsampled origins.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
You didn't answer my question! Happy 2015 BTW..

Chris Davies said...

How did R1a reach 4% in the Herero of Namibia? They also have two forms of R1b as well. Africa is chronically under-sampled. Is it possible that some Eurasian markers found in Africans are not actually due to recent back-migrations, but rather they might have always been knocking about in there but hadn't turned up yet due to poor sampling?

georgy chich said...

@Nirjhar007

There's nothing informative about anthropology.
Potekhina said about Sredny-Stog skulls: "Sredny-Stog and the closest population who left monuments Novodanilovsk type has characteristics typical of proto-europoid type. They have a large, mostly dolichocranic significant height brain box and broad and medium broad (rare narrow) faces... The orbit is low, rarely medium-high (Igren), the nose often broad, sharply protruding. The lower jaw is massive."
Also antropologist Alexey Kazarnitski:"Generalizing the results of multivariate comparisons, we can make certain tentative conclusions. Apparently, two populations existed in Eastern Europe from the Mesolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The first evidences continuity between the Mesolithic people, those of the Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog cultures, and Pit-Grave people living throughout the distribution range of this culture, from the northern Pontic to the southern Urals. The Neolithic populations of Eastern Europe, on the other hand, were apparently unrelated to their Mesolithic predecessors. Neolithic people of what is now the Saratov Province and Kalmykia were ancestral to the Chalcolithic people of Khlopkov Bugor and Dzhangar as well as to the Pit-Grave people of Kalmykia, Astrakhan and Stavropol Provinces. Descendants of the Neolithic population, who inhabited a much wider area from the northern Pontic to the Baltic and the Upper Volga, lived in relative isolation on the steppes of the northwestern Caspian until the middle of the 3rd millennium BC."
Now give me the data of the Dzhebel people. I agree with that fact, that Sredny-Stog people had some southern women, and even people of Dnieper–Donets culture had also southern women (little bit) according to their skulls.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Georgy
The skulls actually were of typical Iranid type and various other factors are also exist and get your privileged data here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
and if you have ANY objections then please show that there as he is the expert...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Chris, there was a migration to Africa, after IE arrivals to the Near East, then more with Islam, 700 years ago. Forget Africa, seriously guys...

Davidski said...

The R1a in South Africa is probably English or Dutch R1a-Z284 or R1a-L664.

Btw, no such thing as the Iranid skull type.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''Btw, no such thing as the Iranid skull type.''
Technical term is 'mediterranoid' BTW As an Australian would you like to take a Bet Against me? Don't worry money is not involved with it.....

Grey said...

Chris Davies

"Y DNA haplogroup R1a found in Herero of Namibia and Angola at 4% ... Back migration or previously un-sampled origins?"

I don't know but I do know there were/are a lot of gold mines in west/central Africa so if gold miners went in that direction they'd likely bring stuff back with them as well - including dna.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Sorry,
1300 years ago for Islam. ... All those migrations back to Africa, happened after 2000BCE. After IE arrivals to the Near East.

postneo said...

@davidski
"The lineages that gave rise to R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645 did not enter Europe separately. The bifurcation in R1a-417 that resulted in R1a-CTS4385 and R1a-Z645 happened in the same area of Europe and at basically the same time, during the Copper Age expansions of certain Indo-European steppe groups."


Then why is the the distribution skewed? Where's the proof. the splits are both temporally and spatially separated. R1b and the eastern european R1a(z283) show a similar separation as well. You may at most claim that R1a-CTS4385 and later z645 followed similar paths but thats about it.

''657 is a subclade of Z93, so it's younger than Z93, and it didn't originate in India anyway. So what's your point?''

as for L657 it may have arisen in eastern India even east of nepal. see m780 distribution. Its not the supposed direction of entry of R1a. Even if you assume its only 1500 BC. That alone rules out an iron age entry from the west. In fact it even makes a bronze age entry dubious.

http://thebigone.stanford.edu/papers/Underhill_phylogenetic_March-2014.pdf

Chris Davies said...

R1A-SRY1532.2 is the form of R1a found at 4% in the Herrero of Namibia. Note that this, as far as I know, has never been sampled in English, Dutch, or Germans. So not likely due to colonial era European admixture. Plus they have the two forms of R1b also. Some considerable distance from the other African Y DNA haplogroup R populations in Chad, Cameroon and Sudan.

Davidski said...

Chris,

R1a-SRY1532.2 makes up the vast majority of R1a in the world, and includes the Northwest European R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664.

And as I've already said, R* has been recorded in ancient DNA from Upper Paleolithic Siberia, so neither R1a nor R1b are native to Africa.

Davidski said...

postneo,

It's obvious that Peter Underhill needs to stop putting out papers on R1a.

Nirjhar007 said...

The thing is When STR variations showed that the Steppe model was a failure the focus changed now even though SNP wise Z-93 clearly has West Asian origins with aDNA waiting from important areas the forced attempts continues.....

Nirjhar007 said...

''And as I've already said, R* has been recorded in ancient DNA from Upper Paleolithic Siberia, so neither R1a nor R1b are native to Africa.''
Nonsense Do we have upper paleolithic aDNA from Africa? To show that it didn't existed then?

Nirjhar007 said...

@Postneo
'' Even if you assume its only 1500 BC. That alone rules out an iron age entry from the west. In fact it even makes a bronze age entry dubious''
Rajarshi, you very well know that that period i.e. 1500-1000BC don't have a single dust particle of data for any kind of movements into SC Asia on the Contrary Archaeotextual evidences show movements OUT of there! See this famous lecture of a reputed archaeologist-
http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms
You must remember also that the scholar was an Invasionist just like David but eventually he saw the light....

Mike Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ryukendo kendow said...

Happy NY from Asia!

@ Mike Thomas
Drift and selection do not cause, say, African american gene freqs to steadily resemble European or Native American gene freqs; it does not cause one population to steadily become more like another one. That African americans can be modeled as 20% European can hardly be caused by 'drift or selection' from the temperate environment.

All drift in one pop is orthogonal, 'at right angles' to all other drift in other pops. This is, mathematically speaking, a sure thing. For one pop to become more like another we need admixture, which in this case was definitely quite massive, and testify to population movements that were in physical terms very real.

As to how complex the phenomenon was, I think we can lose the forest for the trees here. One can go on and on about whether the Roman Empire did collapse, or whether the 'networks of empire' got 'sublimated' by 'periphery processes', but what's the point?

@ Nirjhar
You ignore the fact that it is quite obvious from autosomal DNA that South- or South-Central Asian populations have not been contributing populations to any groups outside of South or South-Central Asia in more recent periods, i.e. after ASI became a distinct population genetically. ASI is old and obviously native to India, represented in all S- and SC- Asians, but there is no ASI contribution in any part of Europe or the Mediterranean, while there is quite obviously a great deal of autosomal contribution from Europe-like and Mediterranean-like populations into South and South-Central Asia.

Not all of this into-India contribution came from IE, but the absence of flows in the other direction is quite indicative.

Davidski said...

We have genomes from the middle Neolithic and Copper Age Carpathian Basin. They all look like typical Neolithic farmers.

You'd need a genetic chasm between these people and the Tripolye farmers to make your theory work. But this is highly unlikely.

By the way, I've seen PCA results of two Bulgarians from the Bronze and/or Iron Age. They were featured in an ASHG poster, and I think both were high coverage, or at least decent coverage. They clustered more or less between modern Italians and Sardinians, but closer to the former.

So I can agree that the spread of ANE across Europe didn't happen in a single sweep. Its frequencies were probably still shy of modern figures in many parts of the continent until the late Iron Age. But the initial push from the steppe must've been huge and the key part of the process.

You can forget drift and selection in all of this, because there wasn't enough time for either, and we're mostly dealing with neutral markers anyway.

Marnie said...

@Mike Thomas

"Apart from my skepticism in that this is solely due to exogenous sources (ie the steppe ). , I have previously argued for first of all looking within Europe itself (esp the Tripolye culture) ."

Agree.

Shift could be from a population within Europe itself.

Still, the fact that Davidski uses Loschbour to define his "pure" "WHG" (while ignoring the Mesolithic Scandinavian samples) means that he's over emphasizing the shift.

Mike Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nirjhar007 said...

@ ryukendo kendow
''You ignore the fact that it is quite obvious from autosomal DNA that South- or South-Central Asian populations have not been contributing populations to any groups outside of South or South-Central Asia in more recent periods, i.e. after ASI became a distinct population genetically. ASI is old and obviously native to India, represented in all S- and SC- Asians, but there is no ASI contribution in any part of Europe or the Mediterranean''
Yes i agree though we need the Sindhu Civilization aDNA to know how much 'ASI existed' then in NW Indian populations which should be minimum as last study on the matter indicated BUT this has NOTHING to do with the most fitting PIE homeland that i'm pointing of and as presented here-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2014/10/can-we-finally-identify-real-cradle-of.html
Enjoy!

Davidski said...

Just forget drift and selection. It didn't have any perceptible role in this.

The sudden appearance of ANE throughout continental Europe west of the Black Sea after the final Neolithic was obviously due to a massive population movement that affected much of the continent directly and abruptly, and most of the rest of it indirectly during the Bronze and Iron Ages.

And there's no point pretending that indigenous Europeans west of the Black Sea were like Motala12, since they were obviously like Loschbour, La Brana-1 and KO1. You can argue that there was a fair whack of ANE in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe before the steppe invasions, but so what? No one ever said there wasn't.

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

"Drift and selection do not cause, say, African american gene freqs to steadily resemble European or Native American gene freqs; it does not cause one population to steadily become more like another one. That African americans can be modeled as 20% European can hardly be caused by 'drift or selection' from the temperate environment."

The shift needed to go from an even admixture between Stuttgart and Motala12 to modern Northwest Europeans is about the same genetic distance between Greeks and French today. Not very far at all. It's kind of BS to say that couldn't happen over five thousand years.

"All drift in one pop is orthogonal, 'at right angles' to all other drift in other pops. This is, mathematically speaking, a sure thing. For one pop to become more like another we need admixture, which in this case was definitely quite massive, and testify to population movements that were in physical terms very real."

Definitely quite massive? Not really. Have you thought about the fact that this population shift could have occurred simply as Mesolithic Eastern Europeans moved up the Danube and mixed with Western Europeans?

Maybe those Mesolithic Eastern Europeans where originally skewed further toward the right on Davidski's plot.

With admixture, the entire European population could have pulled together. (Not just east).

Davidski said...

For god's sakes, like I've already said, we have middle Neolithic and Copper Age genomes from Hungary and the Alps.

They don't resemble any modern Europeans except Sardinians, and probably not all Sardinians at that.

There was a profound genetic shift in East-Central Europe during and after the Copper Age, which then spread to most of the rest of Europe. Eastern European hunter-gatherers didn't cause this, especially not during the Copper Age.

Mike Thomas said...

Fair enough , point taken
But I'm still keen to see the more data you've mentioned to be coming soon .

Chad Rohlfsen said...

You can't mix Stuttgart and Motala to make a nw European. They would be short 5% on the ANE to even reach the British. Plus, the fact that there are no mass migrations from Scandinavia. Archaeology supports Eastern Europe.

There's no way the mass swamping of R1b came from West Asia. You can't have a massive genetic change over by an Armenian type, with a gok2 type, and make anything western or nw European. It's obvious that Beakers were like modern NW euros. Plus, bell beaker has no affinity to west Asian, Mediterranean, or African mtDNA. It's like the Neolithic, pitted Ware, Karelian, and Pontic, mixed into one. They had to have a good amount of WHG, on the way in.

Couple this with the fact that we have no migrations from west Asia that match the ages of L23 and L51. Even m-269 is a stretch.

Mike Thomas said...

But Chad, you're writing as if 5% is a highly significant shortfall. COnfidence intervals ?

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie

There is no point disputing what I said; the evidence is solid on these.

"With admixture, the entire European population could have pulled together. (Not just east)."

Not only did the entire population pull together, leaving outliers like basques and sardinians, and aDNA like Motala to testify to how widely spread it was previously, it also pulled east. So admixture in both cases, with intrusive eastern elements.

"Maybe those Mesolithic Eastern Europeans where originally skewed further toward the right on Davidski's plot."

That is not possible, because 1) WHG has a tree-like split w.r.t ANE, and thus all WHG are pretty much in the same place compared to the massive shift we're talking about, and 2) those Europeans who did have ANE in eastern Europe did not enter into Central Europe in Mesolithic times. KO1 did not have ANE, and it was very very late.


"The shift needed to go from an even admixture between Stuttgart and Motala12 to modern Northwest Europeans is about the same genetic distance between Greeks and French today. Not very far at all. It's kind of BS to say that couldn't happen over five thousand years."

This is the kind of stuff that literally exposes your ignorance. How do all populations in Europe drift to become more like the Mal'ta genome in Siberia? Do Greeks drift to become like French?

Polemics will not help you when you don't know the basic mechanisms.

Marnie said...

@Davidski

"And there's no point pretending that indigenous Europeans west of the Black Sea were like Motala12, since they were obviously like Loschbour, La Brana-1 and KO1."

Motala12 is from Sweden, which is west of the Black Sea, last time I checked.

Dates for the Motala samples: 7,013 ± 76 and 6,701 ± 64 BP (6,361-5,516 cal BC), corresponding to the late Middle Mesolithic of Scandinavia.

Motala12's ydna was I2a1b.

Laz paper defines Motala12 as a pre-Neolithic European.

Motala12 is defined (in the Laz paper) as a forager.

See for yourself:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1312/1312.6639.pdf

Furthermore, there's plenty of archaeological evidence for a differentiation between southern and northern European groups during the late Paleolithic/Mesolithic.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to say that "indigenous" Europeans were genetically identical.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Nrijhar

ASI is present throughout South-Central Asia, Iran, and Kurdistan. Unless you would like to propose another expansion from India that was dominated by ASI-carriers into a South-Central Asian/Iranian homeland, this piece of evidence counts against whatever you're suggesting. If you think that the Indus Valley was devoid of ASI in the past, then this expansion doesn't just start in India, it must start in the South. Not very plausible is it?

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

"That is not possible, because 1) WHG has a tree-like split w.r.t ANE, and thus all WHG are pretty much in the same place "

All WHG (you mean Loschbour, La Brana, and ignoring the Motala samples, plus all the other Mesolithic Euro samples you don't have yet), have I got that right?


"compared to the massive shift we're talking about, "

The "massive" shift?

The genetic distance between Loschbour and Stuttgart is about the same genetic distance between someone from Jordan and someone from Siberia. So much for your "massive" genetic distance.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie
Yes. Except for non-pure WHG samples from Scandinavia, all WHG samples in mainland Europe to date have a tree-like split from ANE. With similar genomes from over a large area together with extreme homogeinity and low effective population size over that area, and etc., I don't expect there to be very different populations close by or interspersed.

For the shifts, we can see it as massive or as small as we like, but the fact is its immediately noticeable, so much as to attract comment from academic researchers in papers not directly addressing this phenomenon.

Marnie said...

@Chad

"You can't mix Stuttgart and Motala to make a nw European. They would be short 5% on the ANE"

It actually pains me watching you guys try to algebraically add up these components without allowing for some kind of statistical variation.

You're right that there's a little bit of error. And yes, there's probably a third (or many) population that come into the mix. However, the contribution from that third population is probably not more than about 20%.

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

"Except for non-pure WHG samples from Scandinavia"

I don't know who is paying your salary, but the whole "pure" thing is pretty pathetic.

But don't worry, there will be more Paleolithic samples, and I'm pretty sure you will have trouble making them all "pure".

Good luck with that.

Mike Thomas said...

"So admixture in both cases, with intrusive eastern elements".

SO there was a whole lot of genetic interchange going on, even 'evolution' (not just admixture, but biological adaptation). The beginnings of a widespread langauge expansions also marked by this (and I emphasize *beginnings*). But there is no compelling reason to lay this at the doorstep of the Ponto-Caspian steppe.

Davidski said...

There's nothing that would give Scandinavian hunter-gatherers the demographic impact of Neolithic farmers across West-Central and Northwestern Europe.

At best, their contribution to the modern Scandinavian gene pool was minor.

People like Gokhem2 had a much more profound impact on the present-day genetic structure of Northwestern Europeans.

Nirjhar007 said...

@ ryukendo kendow
''. If you think that the Indus Valley was devoid of ASI in the past, then this expansion doesn't just start in India, it must start in the South. Not very plausible is it?''
I didn't say SSC didn't had ASI but in Minimum levels day ~10-12%.
That expansion happened in Bronze age from SC Asia to the Iranian and Central Asian area there are Archaeotextual evidences also as i pointed to Postneo above it happened after the 4.2 KYO Event when Sindhu Civilization Declined and people also while migrating started mixing rapidly with ASI populations (Also the date is pointed by the P. Moorjani paper on the ANI-ASI Mixing)of NE and S India the ASI were hunter gatherers mostly and in 2nd millennium bc there were movements out side SC Asia by that time ASI was in notable level among N Indian populations though aDNA is absent that is confirmed by Archaeology and Archaeotextual and Linguistic data, it is also described well in the blog if you take the look that you need to....
BTW Again N Iran was the PIE Homeland and the Happening after the 4.2 KYO Event has nothing to do with the major IE Expansions from there which happened much much earlier....

Marnie said...

@Davidski

"People like Gokhem2 had a much more profound impact on the present-day genetic structure of Northwestern Europeans."

That's not what you're graph says.

You're graph indicates that Modern Southern Europeans are very close Stuttgart and Gokhem2, while Northwest Europeans are intermediate between Motala12 and Stuttgart (with a little shift toward Eastern Europe.)

Davidski said...

A little shift toward Eastern Europe? That's very funny.

Northwest Europeans are practically Eastern Europeans compared to Stuttgart and Gokhem2.

Marnie said...

@Davidski

Well, I'm glad you clarified that you excluded Motala12 from your Western European Hunter Gatherers and turned him into an "Ancient North Eurasian" arriving into Europe in the Bronze Age.

That's quite inventive.

Davidski said...

Motala12 isn't a Western European Hunter-Gatherer. He's a Western European Hunter-Gatherer with around 16% of ANE.

This is probably why I can't find a pure cluster that corresponds to this sample and others like him.

And it's impossible for modern Scandinavians to be a mixture of Motala12 and Stuttgart, because Motala12 doesn't have a high enough ratio of ANE.

Marnie said...

"And it's impossible for modern Scandinavians to be a mixture of Motala12 and Stuttgart, because Motala12 doesn't have a high enough ratio of ANE."

Why don't we just talk about the PCA plot, instead of these rather questionably defined "components" that were dreamed up?

On YOUR PCA plot (second one, above), Scandinavians, if originally intermediate between Gokhem2 and Stuttgart, would need to shift about 0.8 units along the horizontal axis (component 1) in order to reach their current position. That's not very far, when we're talking about 5000 years.

It's equivalent to the genetic distance between Southwest Europeans and the Northern French.

Marnie said...

Oops . . .

Meant to say

On YOUR PCA plot (second one, above), Scandinavians, if originally intermediate between Motala12 and Stuttgart, would need to shift about 0.8 units along the horizontal axis (component 1) in order to reach their current position. That's not very far, when we're talking about 5000 years.

It's equivalent to the genetic distance between Southwest Europeans and the Northern French.

Davidski said...

I feel like I'm having a debate with a creationist.

Nirjhar007 said...

Interesting i also felt the Same with someone recently he is a genomeblogger who has R1asis....

Marnie said...

Creationist? Nope. Not me.

Minor admixture over a long timescale along the Danube into Western Europe can account for the shift you are talking about.

No need at all for Kurgan horsemen and massive replacement from the Ponto-Caspian steppe.

Mike Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

Marni might have a point about what? The 5,000 year trek up the Danube Valley by Eastern European hunter-gatherers? Can you point me to some literature about this phenomenon? I've never heard of it before.

And if this indeed was a 5,000 year trek, then how do we explain the sudden shift east away from the Loschbour-Stuttgart line in the Danube Valley from the middle Neolithic/Copper Age to the Bronze Age?

I really have to be honest here Mike and say that Marni seems to be talking out of her ass.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Anybody
''And if this indeed was a 5,000 year trek, then how do we explain the sudden shift east away from the Loschbour-Stuttgart line in the Danube Valley from the middle Neolithic/Copper Age to the Bronze Age?''
I have question If Samara area was''mostly'' ANE then Why People of that area show the Highest levels of Hunter Gatherer WHG type Component now? Reich Told That he found ANE there which is also explained by Prof. Benedettis model.
But Was there a massive Surge of WHG folks in Bronze age in that area? If someone please clarify me then it will be great....

Davidski said...

Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) from Karelia and the Samara Valley carried ANE at high levels (ie. higher than Motala12).

I very much doubt that Prof. Benedetti's model can explain why EHG carried ANE, since the EHG died out as a distinct population in the Samara Valley more than 6,000 years ago, after mixing with Armenian-like Neolithic farmers (who, in all likelihood, didn't carry any ANE).

During the Mesolithic ANE was probably found in Scandinavia, right across Russia, including Siberia, and Central Asia. The ANE in South Asia probably derives from several pulses from the north, including the Aryan invasion which had its origins in the Andronovo horizon, which spanned wide areas of Central Asia and south Siberia.

This is where South Asia R1a-Z93 mostly comes from. Deal with it.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
EHG indicates probably the Uralic people,
with more or less IE elements (as we see from loanwords with the Substratum in Balto-Slavic). the Armenian-like population is similar to,
but not exactly the same as, the European First Farmers (EFF) corresponds well to the Zagros/Armenia
and Iranian PIE people.
''The ANE in South Asia probably derives from several pulses from the north, including the Aryan invasion which had its origins in the Andronovo horizon, which spanned wide areas of Central Asia and south Siberia.''
This is the result of retardic attitude Andronovo HAD nothing to do with SC Asia and with BMAC it had just connections and for example The Tazabagyab tradition is also a good example between the relation of the Superior Southern Civilization with the less developed northern ones...
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
The ANE well already there surely from Neolithic times in SC Asia so i don't see your point, Sorry...

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie
"I don't know who is paying your salary, but the whole "pure" thing is pretty pathetic."

You're being wilfully misconstrusive here. Nobody is being a racial supremacist, and nobody is being paid to do it.

If the genetic constitution of WHG indicates descent from a population that split cleanly along a tree-like split from ANE, what's there to stop us from calling it 'pure'? Sure, we can use politically correct paraphrasing, but some people have a busy life.

Its actually quite funny the amount of emotional investment you have in this debate, especially when the evidence is staring you in the face. No matter, I'm not the one having an aneurysm.

Good luck when the paper comes out.

Davidski said...

Indian R1a-Z93 comes from these people.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/r1a-z93-from-bronze-age-mongolia.html

Respect your ancestors Mr N.

Nirjhar007 said...

Respect the Fact that You have no data to prove that R1a was not present in SSC civilization other than your Indirect dating, Other fields of studies all agrees that R1a was! so with that comes my Bet With You, Would you like to take it against me Mr.D?

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"You've misunderstood the detail, Grey."

The detail was you saying there's no evidence for pastoralism west of wherever - which is completely wrong.

There is plenty of evidence of Atlantic megalith being restricted to coastal settlements until they or somebody else suddenly switched to the interior and started dairying.

You're trying to deflect from being wrong again.

.


"True nomadism idn't exist in the west."

So you're switching your argument from "pastoralism" to "true nomadism" then? That's fine. I don't think anybody would argue that Britain ever had true nomadism. There wouldn't be enough pasture for it. That would be why the Atlantic coast version of pastoralism would have to rely on milk rather than meat.

.


"Cattle herding in UK , eg, was a mere shift in the already existing cultivation- animal husbandry continuum which already existed within Neolithic economic strategies"

If you'd read the article you'd know that was completely wrong and that cattle herding and dairying allowed a dramatic shift from the coast to the interior.

.

"When you can't grasp such basic tenets, how do u pretend to engage in polemics?"

Is using ad homs whenever you're wrong why you use ad homs so often?

.

"But you're right"

Yeah I know.

.

"I have previously argued for first of all looking within Europe itself (esp the Tripolye culture)."

I'm not sure I see the western steppe as exogenous personally but I agree the displacement of Cucuteni farmers by PIE into the northern forest zone, becoming slash and burn semi-nomadic herders in the process and then drifting (or being pushed) west to the Atlantic coast is one plausible route for how the northern and western edges of Europe got a large influx of ANE.

Although I also think BB (both maritime version and river version) may have been involved in this process as well in a maritime hare, danubian tortoise and northern harey tortoise sort of way.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It is significant when that mix makes someone 65% WHG. Drop that to nw Europe levels, and you're now about 9% short. It's very significant. Let's not even get started on Southern Europe. Scandinavian hunters aren't the culprit. Use your heads people.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I already explained your 20% theory doesn't work Marnie. Let's stop going through this. I keep going over the math, because it's obviously not a strong point for some that keep doing this.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

One last time, then I don't want to hear it again.

50% Gok2/ 50% Motala is

25%NE/ 65%WHG/ 10%ANE

Then add in 20% of someone that is 39/35/26, that only makes someone that is 28/59/13. Not even close to what you need for NW European ancestry. You can't even get to Finns with that, because it's not enough ANE, and maybe not enough Near East.

If you can't make that with people who already had ANE, there's no god damn way you can make that mix work for folks that had no ANE prior to IE arrival. It's impossible to make a NW or NE European with that kind of mix, let alone someone that is Italian, Southern French, Spanish, and so forth. Let's end this non-sense and move on, shall we?

Chris Davies said...

Regarding Y DNA haplogroup R in the Herero of Namibia again.
-R1a [clade unknown, old nomenclature]at 4%;
-R1b R-V88 [well-known African clade] at 4%;
-R1b R-M269 at 8%.

So the R1b R-V88 we know entered the Herero from within Africa.

Yet somehow it is assumed to be impossible for the R1a and the R1b-M269 in the Herero to also be African-derived, they can only be colonial-era admixture right?

Taking into consideration the fact that Africa is chronically under-sampled relative to Eurasia.

Plus of course R1b R-M269 is also found within Africa anyway.

I suspect that if somebody would actually go ahead and sample the hell out of Africa over the next few years then some more R1a and perhaps even some R* might begin to turn up.

Davidski said...

The phylogeography of R and its sister clade Q are clearly Eurasian. There's no point debating this.

mickeydodds1 said...

The Germans fought a majorvwarvwith the Herero in the 19th century.
Germany was the colonial power in that part of the world.
I suspect that the r1a is of German provenance.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Chris,
There's nothing between m269 and L11 in Africa. You'd be better off picking Mongolia, with m343, m335, m269, and L23. You don't understand the philogeny up to v88. Clearly, if R1b was in Africa, it would've been in the Neolithic with E.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

BTW, Africans have the youngest MRCA for v88, by far. No one is going from Central Asia/Siberia, through West Asia, and not end up in the Neolithic expansion, and not leaving ANE in the farmers.

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

"Good luck when the paper comes out."

Yeah, more cooked data from the Reich lab. I'm waiting for it.

postneo said...

"http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/r1a-z93-from-bronze-age-mongolia.html"

You are like an ostrich burying its head peeking only at a single late bronze age sample in your preferred cloud cuckoo land.

Central asia does not have parsimonious distributions of snps downstream of z93. South asia and the persian gulf region do.

R1a-z93, R2, L etc in central asia are clearly derived from more southern areas.

Also L657 diversity and spread from within interior India is not just from the Underhill paper but reflected by individual tests as well.

Malta boy in in siberia is an outlier as far as R1 and R2 split is concerned. Clearly the split did not happen there. Similarly based on surviving branches the split btw the r1b and r1a occurred near the persian gulf with r1b dominating western regions and r1a the east.

A small group of r1a was able to squeeze in with early r1b migrations into western europe. then there were different migrations into europe via central asia dominated by r1a.

In south asia something similar happened. Miniscule amounts of r1b were able to make its way and survive in eastern pockets(nepal and bhutan). This was followed by much larger r1a component via Baluchistan.

You also ignore the fact that R1a(L664, z283) in europe don't show an even split but rather mirror the R1b and R1a(z283) distributions.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Mike Thomas
Those snapshots would be insufficient were they just snapshots; but they aren't, because they tell us something about the population history of WHG pops. That is enough for us to infer a great deal. They reveal a highly homogenous and homozygous population with lower heterozygosity than any present-day human population, over a wide area. The inferred pop size for Loschour was absolutely tiny:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/fig_tab/nature13673_SF2.html

If there were populations close by or interspersed which did not share the topology of WHG in loschour/Brana/KO1/the WHG portion of Ajvide, they would almost definitely have introgressed into at least some WHG samples--its not like the hunter-gatherers had a lot of choice for partners. But they have not.

@ Marnie
I am going to be quite frank here. I actually read your blog quite often, but your ignorance of things like how genetic drift affects estimates of relatedness, and your suggestion that drift alone could account for the parallel convergence of allele freqs in all of Europe towards allele freqs in Mal'ta, is quite disconcerting.

I suppose thats why there's so little quantitative analysis in your blog? If you used your engineer mind a bit more and did what Davidski does, you'll agree with him--and academic geneticists--a lot more I'm sure.

Marnie said...

@ryukendo kendow

I'm going to be quite frank here as well.

"your ignorance of things like how genetic drift affects estimates of relatedness, and your suggestion that drift alone could account for the parallel convergence of allele freqs in all of Europe towards allele freqs in Mal'ta, is quite disconcerting. "

I didn't say that. Your putting words in my mouth.

You can reread my comments above to see that while I briefly mentioned drift, that is not central to my concern with the Kurgan/Pontic steppe invasion argument.

What you and Davidski still have not explained is

1. Why you are rejecting the Motala12 samples as representing pre-Neolithic Europeans, when, clearly, even the Laz paper of a year ago says that the Motala samples are Mesolithic. (The specifics, I've written above.)

2. Why are you rejecting the now plentiful archaeological evidence that there was probably "feedthrough" by way of the epi-Gravettian/Swiderian/Hamburgian technocomplex amalgamation during the late Paleolithic? Surely some (but not all) of the Mal'ta influence you are seeing in Europeans comes from this.

3. Why are you rejecting evidence of a probable influence coming west (Vinca? Balkan?) along the Danube during the Neolithic/Bronze age.

Sure, there may be something from the Steppe during the Bronze age, but to say that is solely the cause for the "eastward" shift in many Europeans is not supported by the weight of current (and mounting) archaeological evidence.

It does appear based on some initial plots that I've seen that there is an influence/relationship with Mal'ta. But to say that this is all due to Bronze age invaders from the Steppe isn't supportable.

Regarding my blog, it's for fun. Really, just a way for me to follow topics of interest.

I spend all day, usually about ten hours a day, doing design in the highly quantitative area of analog/mixed signal design. I don't need to do that off hours on my blog.

If you don't like my blog, or if you think it its not "quantitative" enough for you, then don't read it.

Happy New Year!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The Balkan chalcolithic didn't have ANE, or CO1 from Baden, would have some. KO1, loschbour, and La Brana are from the same timeframe as Motala. They all lack ANE.
Every argument you make is defeated by science... Moving on....

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Willful ignorance is not going to win any arguments

Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
Have you tried plotting all of those numbers? All requirement should be met now.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It should be 50% Armenian, while corded can be modeled as 73% yamnaya, and 27% of something that it 24/76.

Marnie said...

@Davidski
@ryukendo kendow

regarding Baden (C01), and you should know, its closely related to Oetzi.

If the whole theory about Bronze Age kurgan invaders from the Steppe rests only on Baden, C01 not having this mythical Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, then what can I say?

At a minimum, it looks like a very unrigorous approach.

Do keep in mind that some people, who work in more rigorous fields are watching.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Nothing with Oetzi or Baden, then 900 years later there is, with BR1. Don't be a troll.

Colin Welling said...

@chad

Do you know of a site the summarizes all the ancient autosomal dna data we have that is relevant to europe? I would like to see all the original plots that came with the studies on one page. Adding in ydna and mtdna summaries would be good too.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 241   Newer› Newest»