search this blog

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Two new papers on ancient Iberia


Olalde et al. 2019 (Science) at this LINK...

Abstract: We assembled genome-wide data from 271 ancient Iberians, of whom 176 are from the largely unsampled period after 2000 BCE, thereby providing a high-resolution time transect of the Iberian Peninsula. We document high genetic substructure between northwestern and southeastern hunter-gatherers before the spread of farming. We reveal sporadic contacts between Iberia and North Africa by ~2500 BCE and, by ~2000 BCE, the replacement of 40% of Iberia’s ancestry and nearly 100% of its Y-chromosomes by people with Steppe ancestry. We show that, in the Iron Age, Steppe ancestry had spread not only into Indo-European–speaking regions but also into non-Indo-European–speaking ones, and we reveal that present-day Basques are best described as a typical Iron Age population without the admixture events that later affected the rest of Iberia. Additionally, we document how, beginning at least in the Roman period, the ancestry of the peninsula was transformed by gene flow from North Africa and the eastern Mediterranean. DOI: 10.1126/science.aav4040

Villalba-Mouco et al. 2019 (Current Biology) at this LINK...

Summary: The Iberian Peninsula in southwestern Europe represents an important test case for the study of human population movements during prehistoric periods. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), the peninsula formed a periglacial refugium [1] for hunter-gatherers (HGs) and thus served as a potential source for the re-peopling of northern latitudes [2]. The post-LGM genetic signature was previously described as a cline from Western HG (WHG) to Eastern HG (EHG), further shaped by later Holocene expansions from the Near East and the North Pontic steppes [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. Western and central Europe were dominated by ancestry associated with the ∼14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna, Italy, which had largely replaced earlier genetic ancestry, represented by 19,000–15,000-year-old individuals associated with the Magdalenian culture [2]. However, little is known about the genetic diversity in southern European refugia, the presence of distinct genetic clusters, and correspondence with geography. Here, we report new genome-wide data from 11 HGs and Neolithic individuals that highlight the late survival of Paleolithic ancestry in Iberia, reported previously in Magdalenian-associated individuals. We show that all Iberian HGs, including the oldest, a ∼19,000-year-old individual from El Mirón in Spain, carry dual ancestry from both Villabruna and the Magdalenian-related individuals. Thus, our results suggest an early connection between two potential refugia, resulting in a genetic ancestry that survived in later Iberian HGs. Our new genomic data from Iberian Early and Middle Neolithic individuals show that the dual Iberian HG genomic legacy pertains in the peninsula, suggesting that expanding farmers mixed with local HGs. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.006

See also...

Migration of the Bell Beakers—but not from Iberia (Olalde et al. 2018)

Single Grave > Bell Beakers

CHG or no CHG in Bronze Age western Iberia?

185 comments:

a said...

Anti-steppe game over.Deal with it.

Samuel Andrews said...

Unbelivable amount of samples. mtDNA haplogroup H was still at 25% in the Bronze age/Iron age. It reaches 40% in the Middle Ages. That looks like natural selection. I've been saying some kind of natural selection explains high H frequencies in Europe.

@ Dragos
"But weren’t you suggesting mtdna H expanded form Iberia ?
What are your current thoughts ?"

Not H itself. Some common H clades in Europe today might originate in Iberian farmers. Most have origins in farmers.

Them meee said...

@a

Diego is claiming otherwise. Looks like they’re already doubling down, like you predicted.

Rafs said...

It is probably a mistake to identify the Basque country in the Bronze Age as non-IE. As European linguists well know, there's a high concentration of Alteuropäisch place names in that region.

Dave the Slothtopus said...

I remember other previous samples that had J2a1a1 mtDNA from Iberia. It seems none of them are in this study? Or are they just not in the graphic?

Dragos said...

heaps of Mesolithic data, although most of it is odl samples resequenced

Matt said...

Fig S7 looks fairly interesting - https://imgur.com/a/MD774Vh

Highest probability centre of that plot looks around Iberia_BA - 25% Iberia_CA Male, 75% Central_Beaker Male, 100% Iberia_CA Female, 0% Central_Beaker Female. That can't literally be true as you have a female 100% Central_Beaker migrant show up in their transect, but I guess it has a flavour.

I really want to know if it holds true in modern Basque samples. If not, something has happened in the intervening time.

(Probably won't hold strictly true for Spain as a whole, as influence from the east between Iberia_IA->Roman seeks likely to be male mediated bias which would offset this pattern).

Fig S11 shows that even lots of samples isn't that many samples for any particular period for determining distribution - https://imgur.com/a/WJve9hm

It seems like of their late samples, post-migration period, relatively few individuals overlap with modern Spanish, after accounting for shrinkage, only sites in NW? Not many SE sites. Is this a signature of Reconquista having major effects in present day south Spain?

Samuel Andrews said...

Back when, only mtDNA was available I said Bell beaker EHU001 with mtDNA U5a1b1 has Steppe ancestry. U5a1b1 is a standard Steppe mtDNA haplogroup. Now we have genome data from EHU001. He is 90% "German Beaker" so about 50% Steppe. Also his Y DNA is R1b P312.

Dragos said...

Some interesting points

* Magdalenian ancestry continually diminished from the Late Glacial, probably movement from the east.

* Elevated Goyet in Individuals from ''thus (Olalde, and others) argued for an Iberian contribution to the Neolithic in Britain''
In reality, the British Neolithic came from France and low countries, not Iberia

Seems like Iberia was the proverbial cul-de-sac

Meso/ Neolithic Y-Hgs;

BAL003 : c. 13,000 ybpBC (FInal Paleolithic): C1a1; U2-8
BAL0051: 13,000 yBP I1; U5b2

Then early Neolithic
Trocs/ C Chaves : I2a1b & R1b-P343 .
This probably corresponds to the central European late Meso / early Neolithic migration Olalde paper mentions.

Dragos said...

Olalde
'' Therefore, we can rule out Britain as a plausible proximate origin since contemporaneous British males are derived for the L21 subtype''

Das Dutch hypothesis not looking good

Samuel Andrews said...

@Dragos,
"* Elevated Goyet in Individuals from ''thus (Olalde, and others) argued for an Iberian contribution to the Neolithic in Britain''
In reality, the British Neolithic came from France and low countries, not Iberia "

Until, Neolithic samples from there are available the best option for authors will be Iberia.

Davidski said...

@Dragos

Das Dutch hypothesis not looking good.

Exceedingly stupid comment.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Dragos,

Of course, there was no movement from Britain into Spain. If we are right, Rhine Single Grave didn't only belong to L21. Indo European clans all belonged to a different paternal lineage. Some, Rhine Single Grave had L21, some had DF27, some had U152. The ones who had L21 went to britain, the ones who had Df27 went to Spain.

Dragos said...

@Sam.

''Of course, there was no movement from Britain into Spain. If we are right, Rhine Single Grave didn't only belong to L21. Indo European clans all belonged to a different paternal lineage. Some, Rhine Single Grave had L21, some had DF27, some had U152. The ones who had L21 went to britain, the ones who had Df27 went to Spain.''

Except the Netherlands isn't the source either, because they are synonymous with the British ones.
Iberian R1b-L51 moved via southern France, & then from Switzerland, Bavaria

@ Davidski

''Exceedingly stupid comment.''
Thanks

Romulus said...

Roman and Greek samples are all R1b and 2 J. J probably Minoan/Etruscan/Phoenician.

Dragos said...

Seems like they (rightly) support an MLBA IE into Iberia, although they still frame it within the Vanilla steppe = LPIE framework.
One issue with Reich's analysis is he only focuses on autosomes, therefor fails to understand the implications of the data. The major shift (in totality) occurs with the BB - BA transition. This might have introduced Basque, Iberian & other non-IE languages.
The later Urnfield/ Celtic migrations were elite dominance

@ Rafs
UNlike DNA or archaeological artefacts, toponyms cannot be dated accurately. So there is a large element of ''hocus pocus' with such linguistic endeavours from the 1900s
In any case, the ''old (indo-)European' toponyms cluster in Lusitania, not the Basque region. Lusitania is just down the rivers from the concentration of Urnfield finds in northern Iberia

Arza said...

Olalde re: Visigoths

These individuals, archaeologically interpreted as Visigoths, are shifted from those at L'Esquerda in the direction of Northern and Central Europe (Figs. 1D and 2C and table S18), and we observe the Asian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup C4a1a also found in Early Medieval Bavaria (20), supporting a recent link to groups with ancestry originally derived from Central and Eastern Europe.

Table S18. Best 2-way and 3-way models for NE_Iberia_c.6CE_PL (Pla de l'Horta). The models
in bold were used for Fig. 2C.


Selected model (p-value 9.20E-02):

NE_Iberia_c.6-8CE_ES 0.732 ±0.067
Bavaria_EarlyMedieval.SG 0.226 ±0.050
TSI 0.041 ±0.054

Bavaria -> Pannonia -> Northern Italy -> Spain?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza. Sweet! So we have DNA from Visogoth & Greek & Moorish migrants. Three foreign rulers in Spain's history.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Dragos,

British Bell Beaker clusters nicely with Dutch Bell Beaker for a simple reason. The migration into Britain was neat & clean. It was a uniform ethnic group from contiental Europe, who moved in, made their own settlements & stayed isolated from the native inhabitants.

In, Bavaria, Morovia, and Hungary is more diverse & dynamic. Every single grave yard includes a diverse collection of people with different ancestry. It wasn't a uniform population like in Britain. But, many individuals do cluster with Dutch & Britain Bell Beaker. We think they represent the original strand that moved from Rhine down to Danube.

Matt said...

@Dragos: "Seems like Iberia was the proverbial cul-de-sac"

The signal of Iberia_Chl / Iberia_EN to North Africa looks pretty good still using f3, and there may be some more stuff going on in later periods.... but yes, it seems like cross Med hopping to Iberia then north to France and Britain, just works less well than through Europe to Southern France, then separately north and into Iberia without much need for too much later exchange between regions (in either direction).

Separately, I think that the Mesolithic stuff is interesting in showing the low levels of Magdalenian contribution even to WHG... but I would like to see if Villabruna is really the minimally admixed appropriate reference to cross check. (Balkan and Italian glacial maximum transect needed).

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


I will not have time in a few days to read Olalde's work but Prof V. Villaba's results are spectacular.

Chaves Cave (Huesca, Aragón, Pyrenees)-CHA002 was assigned to haplogroup R1b-M343, Cardial Neolithic Mit Hap-K1a2/a

K1a2/a- (Sweden, Neolithic, CWC-RISE94-2.596 BC
K1a2/a- (Italy Via Guidorossi-Parma-BBC-I2478-2.065 BC
K1a2/a- (Germany, Koningsbrunn, Bronze Age-1.957 BC
K1a2/a- (Hungary, Bronze Age-RISE373-1.791 BC

The rest of the haplogroups of this cave are identical to those of the late Neolithic in the British Isles.Example

HV0+195- (Iberia, Cueva de Chaves, Neolíthic, Pyrenees-CHA001- HapY-I2a1b-5.132 BC
HV0+195- (reat Britain-I3137-Neolíthic-3.500 BC
HV0+195- (Irland, Ballynahatty, Neolíthic-Bally- 3.181 BC

The Neolithic migration of cardial culture from Italy along the coast reached the Ebro valley and continued to the Pyrenees, then sailing to the isles.

You know the saddest thing? the owner of the property where the cave is, razed the site with a bulldozer when only 10% of the deposit had been excavated. Obviously he is in jail.





Dragos said...

@ Sam
I take your point. But I still think it'll be more data from Germany , Swiss, etc that'll clarify everything.

@ Matt
Agree, it is hard to come with complete models using Iron Gates & Villabruna, as they are themselves admixed, and a little too late on.


@ All
Iron Age males:

- 3 Celtiberians (Celtic speakers), 1 male: I2a1a1a

- 16 Iberians (Iberian, non-IE speakers), 11 males: All 11 R1b-L51

- 4 Tartessian samples (? non-IE speakers), just 1 male: R1b-L51

Dragos said...

@ Diego
Note that all the R1b-V88 in Iberia is on the east coast. Might have arrived via Italy in the Late MEsolithic/ early Neolithic.
M269 only arrivbes c. 2500 BC, with the earliest propper Beaker burials

Samuel Andrews said...

Looks like they didn't test for DF27 SNP. They only tested popular downstream subclades of DF27. It is very important to see whether earliest R1b M269's are Df27. If, so the ones with 100% North Beaker are representative of DF27 wave into Iberia.

Richard Rocca said...

The Iberian Cardial sample CHA002 is anything but "spectacular", but rather typical Neolithic R-V88:

R-V88 >> FGC20972+
R-V88 >> Y7777 >> Y8451 >> FGC21030+

And of course, it is also negative for a handful of M269 equivalents (PF6452- PF6462- CTS10451- PF6426- L265-

Samuel Andrews said...

Supp info.
"Empúries, the most important Greek colony in the Iberian Peninsula and later occupied by the Romans."

"Empúries2 was least differentiated from populations from the central and eastern Mediterranean region and was dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup J"

"Empuries2 and the Mycenaean samples form a clade with respect to the rest of the groups in the populations set to the limits of our resolution"

Arza said...

Re: Greeks
https://twitter.com/almittnik/status/1106267539405975552

Now there is a question - if these samples (500BCE and later) will indeed cluster with Mycenaeans in a good PCA (read: G25) - who the modern Greeks are?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Absolutely spectacular, we can demonstrate female migrations in the Neolithic to the British Isles and France, and in the chalcolithic with BB culture to many regions of Europe.

Ryan said...

I think there are 2 possibilities for Basque left:

1 - Basque is a Steppe language too, and the steppe expansion was multilingual on its western fringe. Possible - multilingual tribal confederations definitely happened in historic times.

2 - Basque is a Chalcolithic Iberian language that conquered a local IE-speaking substrate.

Thoughts?

Romulus said...

The Visigoth Y DNA isn't very helpful to understand the origins of those people. I have doubts this is even really Visigoth Y DNA:

BT
..
E1b1b1a1b1a
R1b1a1a2a1
I
..
J2a
..
..

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

The Kurganists seem increasingly nervous, they can begin to explain how the R1b-L51 speak non-Indo-European languages ​​and the I2a speak Indo-European languages. Would not it have to be the other way around? Or now you are going to say that the invaders of the steppes abandoned their language, they taught to speak Indo-European to the native I2a of Iberia and they started to speak Basque, Iberian and Tartessian?

Yamnaya Delenda Est.

Dragos said...

@ Matt
Thet mention Goyet signal even in GAC. I recall you & Arza were focussing on that a while back, although it seems Chad recently covered it in great detail

Arza said...

@ Romulus
Sup. p. 33
The grave goods and the typology of the tombs point to a Visigothic origin of the individuals.

IMHO Y-DNA E1b or J2a perfectly matches a product of the Roman frontier - the Goths.

Them meee said...

@Diego

If R1b-M269 (not M343) is native to Iberia, how come CHA002 is negative for it, and it only appears after it appears in the steppe?

Try to solve that one for yourself.

Ric Hern said...

So the origin of U5b was to the East of Iberia....?

JuanRivera said...

EHG (ANE+WHG+CHG) shows R1a, R1b and J*. Ukraine_Mesolithic/N (EHG+WHG+CHG) shows R1a, R1b (including R-V88) and I2a. Piedmont (CHG+EHG+ANE) shows R1b. Khvalynsk (EHG+Piedmont+West_Siberia_N) shows R1a, R1b and Q1a. Sredny Stog/Ukraine_Eneolithic (Ukraine_N+GAC-like farmer) shows R1a, R1b and I2a. Yamnaya (Khvalynsk+Ukraine_Eneolithic+Piedmont) shows R1b and I2a. If anything, both subclades of R1 are the most numerous haplogroup in steppe, followed in descending order by I2a, Q1a, J* and G2a.

JuanRivera said...

It's an example of the triple european-siberian-paleolithic near eastern origin of steppe populations. As I must repeat, R1a and R1b are the most common Y-DNA haplogroups in steppe.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Them meee

Keep calm, Nobody has said that M269 is native to Iberia or western Europe, we have always said that both R1b-L51 and P312 are Western and have nothing to do with the steppes.

Prof Villalba has qualified CHA002 as R1b-M343, and mentions the proximity of Chaves and the cave of Els Trocs, then it is likely to be V88. We will check it.

The ridiculous theory that R1b-P312 brought the Indo-European language to Western Europe has proved absolutely wrong.

Prof Reich said that there had been a massacre of Iberian men at the hands of R1b-P312. JA Ja Ja Ja Mamma Mia

When I have time to read Olalde's paper we will talk.

So far I have said that these papers are very important for Spain because we already have more than 1,500 prehistoric genomes, more than any other country in Europe.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

U5b2/a- Iberia, Balma de Guilanyá, Lérida, Azilian- HapY-I1-Bal0051-11.020 BC
U5b2/a- France, Iboussieres, Epipaleolithíc-Ib25-1-9.775 BC
U5b2/a- Germany Felsdach, Mesolíthic-7.770 BC
U5b2/a- Scotland, Raschoille Cave, Neolíthic-I3135-3.511 BC.
U5b2/a- Sardinia, Bronze Age- Monte Gastea-MA86-1.990 BC

JuanRivera said...

Actually, several at molgen try to claim R1b-M269 as native to western europe. Anyways, there are evidently some R1b clades introduced by steppe people.

Them meee said...

R1b-L51 is a subclade of M269.

Try again.

AWood said...

@Diego

"Prof Reich said that there had been a massacre of Iberian men at the hands of R1b-P312. JA Ja Ja Ja Mamma Mia "

Massacre, or good old population replacement, take your pick. You can't argue the data. The appearance of M269+ is linked with the arrival of Steppe ancestry and fits German Beaker ancestry. Linguistics can never be proven definitively one way or the other.

AWood said...

@ Diego

The Kurganists seem increasingly nervous, they can begin to explain how the R1b-L51 speak non-Indo-European languages ​​and the I2a speak Indo-European languages. Would not it have to be the other way around? Or now you are going to say that the invaders of the steppes abandoned their language, they taught to speak Indo-European to the native I2a of Iberia and they started to speak Basque, Iberian and Tartessian?


That's absurd if you think a single I2-M26 is representative of the Celtiberians. It's very disappointing that only 1 male is in the sample, but it's clear that this lineage existed in Spain as early as the Neolithic or before.

Dragos said...

@ AWood
I-M26 isn’t present before the chalcolithic in Iberia
It links to Italy, alps and NW Balkans

Richard Rocca said...

@Diego said... "Prof Villalba has qualified CHA002 as R1b-M343, and mentions the proximity of Chaves and the cave of Els Trocs, then it is likely to be V88. We will check it."

Chuckle. I've already checked and already proven it is V88, but by all means, the raw data is publicly accessible, so by all means check it again and make sure to post the results:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB30985

JuanRivera said...

Found an R1a clade in spain whose TMRCA predates the Visigoths by several millenia. It's R-Y86945.

Ric Hern said...

@ Diego

It is time to celebrate your Steppe Ancestry, like you said you will do....

JuanRivera said...

Another R1a clade in Iberia predating the Visigoths: R-Y86945.

JuanRivera said...

R-Y86945 is shared with Greece. R-Y86945 is shared with Scotland. Dates of origin for both at 4700 years ago and TMRCAs of 2700, making the europe-wide BA steppe wave the only plausible explaination.

Ric Hern said...

I2a probably spread with U5b into Iberia and France from the Balkans or Italy starting around 19 000 years ago...

JuanRivera said...

*2700 years ago

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@Sam- "Back when, only mtDNA was available I said Bell beaker EHU001 with mtDNA U5a1b1 has Steppe ancestry. U5a1b1 is a standard Steppe mtDNA haplogroup. Now we have genome data from EHU001. He is 90% "German Beaker" so about 50% Steppe. Also his Y DNA is R1b P312"

That is not a haplogroup of the steppes, check your databases, you may find it in the Maykop culture (and according to the experts Maykop and the steppes have nothing to do) and of course in the Iberian Chalcolithic.

The site of El Hundido is a collective chalcolithic grave with more than 90 buried individuals. The archeologists' dating for that Iberian R1b-P312- EH001 is 2,434 BC which makes it the oldest case in Europe after a case in Germany. We are getting closer to the final solution of the mystery. Only in that grave can we analyze another 88 individuals to continue looking for older cases. Everyone must have patience.

My Kurganist friends from Anthrogenica are a little nervous, they have to feel quite frustrated.

The more they insist on denying the evidence, the harder the fall will be.

Delenda est Yamnaya

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Interesting. So where do you think R-Y86945 originated ?

JuanRivera said...

It originated in the Beakers, likely the Dutch ones.

Ric Hern said...

@ JuanRivera

Thanks. Very interesting. What was MtDNA of the Scottish one ?

Samuel Andrews said...

Mycenaean-like people in Greek colony in Spain. Why are we surprised. Maybe, many classical Greeks were like those few Mycenaean samples.

One site from Early Medieval Spain is 25% "East Med." They say it is different from the Greeks in the Greek colony. Is it from Italy or maybe somewhere else in Roman empire?

JuanRivera said...

I don't know, as I only searched for Y-DNA.

Leron said...

To be honest the papers were sort of a nothingburger in relation to what’s already known.

JuanRivera said...

Except for the mixed Villabruna-El Mrirón affinities of Iberian HGs and the new samples.

JuanRivera said...

*Mirón

Mike the Jedi said...

@ Samuel

Dr. Lazaridis was also floored by the continuity, but I'm not surprised at all. It seems quite likely now that most classical Greeks were very similar to Mycenaeans and that modern mainland Greeks have been significantly shifted by Slavs (or the like) during the Middle Ages.

It remains to be seen when and from where Aegean Greeks got their Levantine ancestry from, but an Iron Age Phoenician origin for it still seems quite likely to me. It's possible that Phoenician gene flow completely missed mainland Greece (and maybe even Anatolia) but managed to find its way to Crete, the Dodecanese, Italy, Iberia, etc. It is known that Western Anatolia was colonized by Aegean Greeks later during more recent historical times so that might be why descendants of Mikrasiates cluster with Aegeans today. A paper on Greece and Italy done in the same spirit as this Iberian paper would resolve a lot of these questions.

Of course, many of those Iberians with East Med ancestry may not be direct Greek descendants at all but instead Roman-mixed. Judging by Hannah Moots' presentation, it might be a challenge to tell who is Greek and who is a Roman-era Italian because of the East Med affinities that many Romans apparently showed during the Republic and Imperial periods. Still a lot of questions, but this is a great paper overall. There is much to be digested.

Samuel Andrews said...

It's official Phoenicians were Levantie.

Biagini 2019
People from Ibiza: an unexpected isolate in the Western Mediterranean
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-019-0361-1

I remember people supposing they were European (Aegean, Greek-like) & that Jews received European admixture from them before coming to Europe. Not true.

Mike the Jedi said...

^ Uhhh... Lol. Oversimplify much, man?

Anyway, the revelation of high North African admixture in Southern Iberia as early as the Roman period is the most interesting and unexpected finding of this paper for me. It looks like the Reconquista had a huge impact on Southern Spain and Portugal.

Did the expelled Muslims survive in North Africa or did their genetic legacy disappear into population sinks? Based on Nmonte runs I've seen, there seems to be very minor Yamnaya or Beaker-related ancestry in Northwest Africans. We can't assume it's from the Middle Ages, but it's possible some of it is. North Africa needs a lot more attention in general.

Simon_W said...

@ Sam
"It's official Phoenicians were Levantie.
I remember people supposing they were European (Aegean, Greek-like)"

:D What an outlandish theory. They originated in the Levant and spoke a West Semitic language. Would have been a huge surprise to me if they had been Greek-like.

Folker said...

@Mike
North African admixture in Iberia before Al Andalus is no surprise to me. You are right, North Africa should deserve better coverage, and you’ll see there will be other surprises. One aspect which is not taken with proper consideration is its demographic history, with a probable lower point in the early XIXth century, and the high level of consanguinity (most mariages are between 1st or 2d cousins and it was already the case centuries ago).

epoch said...

@JuanRivera & @Leron

"Except for the mixed Villabruna-El Mrirón affinities of Iberian HGs and the new samples. "

Exactly. An inkling of that could be seen with Chan being modeled as almost pure El Miron in the Dzudzuana preprint. The consequences are that the origin of Villabruna/WHG type of ancestry can't have been far from Iberia. also, it must have been in some contact to the East for it's AG3 admixture and its deep relation with Dzudzuana.

Secondly, the Y-DNA I1 is a major surprise.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@ Mike- "Anyway, the revelation of high North African admixture in Southern Iberia as early as the Roman period is the most interesting and unexpected finding of this paper for me. It looks like the Reconquista had a huge impact on Southern Spain and Portugal"

No wonder, North Africa belonged to the Roman Empire and also the Carthaginians were North Africans. It was expected.

The last study done in the province of Granada-3-4%-E1b and J1, and that after 700 years in the hands of the Muslims. Obviously the war ended as it started, it is to say with the majority of Muslims returning to Africa.

Those who stayed rebelled in the Alpujarras a century later and those who converted were settled in North-Western Spain. They revolted again in the XVII century and were definitively expelled.


I have been told that there is a lot of work interpreting Olalde's data, I think the conclusions will be interesting especially for P312 and Df27

@epoch

Yes I1 is a big surprise, but the relationship between Italy and Spain was obvious, because they were the only two Western refuges during the last ice age.

Ric Hern said...

This makes me wonder if IJK split up North of the Caucasus rather than South of it.....or maybe I split from J in the North ?

Dragos said...

The earliest “steppe migrations” were Hg I

Ric Hern said...

@ Dragos

Yes maybe... And G and H split away South of the Caucasus...

Salden said...

"North Africa should deserve better coverage"

Well, there's a study with an Early Middle Kingdom Egyptian mummy being worked on. It's on the same mummy that was found with an European haplogroup.

epoch said...

Yfull has the split of I1 at 27.500 years ago. That is the tail part of the Gravettians.

Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said...

The interesting thing about the samples from Empuries is that they were colonists from Phocaea (which is in western Anatolia), who were themselves descended from people from Phokis (mainland Greece).

Thus there were multiple opportunities for them to be different than the published Mycenaean samples from the Peloponnese

(1) Because they were later
(2) Because they were from a different part of Greece
(3) Because people from Phokis may have admixed when they founded Phocaea
(4) Because people from Phocaea may have admixed when they founded Empuries or in the centuries thereafter down to the Roman era

So, while we don't have the missing links, we can infer (indirectly) a lot about what was going on in the Aegean and western Anatolia from these faraway western Greek samples.

André da Costa Bento said...

One important quote from the study is this

"Finding a Bell Beaker-related group as a plausible source for the introduction of steppe ancestry into Iberia is consistent with the fact that some of the individuals in the Iberia_CA_Stp group were excavated in Bell Beaker associated contexts (9). Models with Iberia_CA and other Bell Beaker groups such as France_Beaker (P-value=7.31E-06), Netherlands_Beaker (P-value=1.03E-03) and England_Beaker (P-value=4.86E-02) failed, probably because they have slightly higher proportions of steppe ancestry than the true source population."

Ric Hern said...

@ André

Is that France_Beaker Group from in and near Brittany ? Or along the Rhone River ?

epoch said...

@Iosif Lazaridis

Wasn't it the case that (some) Greek colonies maintained a relation with the founder cities, some being more like trading colonies? If so, the latter type may have attracted constant fresh blood and therefore a "pure" Greek is to be expected. More or less like Germans in the Steelyard may be expected to be unadmixted Germans.

Ric Hern said...

@ losif Lazaridis

Very interesting.

Samuel Andrews said...

I remember looking at the grave contexts of the Spanish Bell Beakers with Steppe admixture. Several of them were buried in tumili, the arch-typical Indo European burial. Also, some of them had the full Bell beaker package of burial goods unlike earlier Iberian Bell Beakers. Full-fledged Bell Beaker culture looks like creation of an Indo European people from the Rhine.

@Ric
French Beaker samples are from along the Rhine river except for a few from near Italian border.

Davidski said...

@All

Most of the Olalde et al. samples are now in the Global25 datasheets.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

Thanks.

epoch said...

@Davidski

Will you add the updates GoyetQ-2 as well? Or maybe a cluster of all the non-Iberian Magdalenians?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Olalde has barely studied typical BB sites. El Hundido (Burgos) and La Paloma (Asturias) are Chalcolithic sites with collective burials, although it is true that in the first one, there are two intrusive BB burials. Both have R1b-P312. We are going to check the archaeological dates because they can be even older (2.600-2.500 BC).In another BB site (2,700-2,500)- La Vital (Valencia) only two women have been analyzed.

In any case, we must thank Professor Olalde for the work, because there is a great amount of information, although I think he was wrong in the previous paper denying the obvious genetic connection between European BB regions. The Avalanche of mitochondrial DNA confirms it totally.

There are Df27 (Z225 and Z195) in the ancient Bronze Age, good news, and the fact that for the moment L21 and U152 have not appeared can close the door to Central-European migrations.

+ Bal051-Balma de Guilanyá (11.020 BC)- HapY-I1- Mit-Hap- U5b2/a. It's intriguing because it is an Azilian site, which represents the continuity of the Magdalenian, ergo probably I1 is much older in the peninsula,

Craig Faber said...

In the Science article Olalde wrote: "Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages, our results indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages."

This seems pretty reasonable. In recent history, the British decided that their colonial administrators in Tanganyika would learn Swahili, though they imposed English in other colonies. The Dutch made a similar decision in the East Indies. The Western and Eastern parts of the Roman Empire had different language policies which are reflected in the present-day distribution of Romance languages. The Scandinavian invaders that founded the founded the kingdom of Normandy learned French.

There's no reason to assume that Celtic invaders couldn't have made similar decisions in different parts of Iberia.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

The cultures of the Iberian Bronze Age are, mainly R1b- Culture of Las Motillas (2.200-1.200 BC), Culture of Las Cogotas, Atlantic, Andalucian and Mediterranean Bronze Age. Failure to know data of the large villages of the culture of El Argar (La Bastida, La Almoloya), and of course the cultures of Los Millares and the Chalcolithic sites of Valencina and Humanejos (3,200-2,000 BC).

In the Science article Olalde wrote: "Unlike in Central or Northern Europe, where Steppe ancestry likely marked the introduction of Indo-European languages, our results indicate that, in Iberia, increases in Steppe ancestry were not always accompanied by switches to Indo-European languages."

Olalde can not say otherwise because the evidence is overwhelming, the Iberians, the Tartessians and the Basques were R1b and none of them spoke Indo-European. We have always said that linking an uniparental marker to a language does not make much sense.

You are always thinking about invasions, imposing languages ​​etc, it is much easier to think that if R1b-P312 entered the peninsula before 2,500 BC, what it did, was adapt to local cultures that were much more developed than those in central Europe .

Leron said...

We have to realize that IE didn’t start out as a major language family but a dialect that merged with other similar dialects and distinct languages. Our models that call IE simply a steppe language are also a simplification, not the absolute truth, but it’s the best one we have so far.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Diego,
"You are always thinking about invasions, imposing languages ​​etc, it is much easier to think that if R1b-P312 entered the peninsula before 2,500 BC, what it did, was adapt to local cultures that were much more developed than those in central Europe ."

This paper proves R1b P312 entered Iberia in 2500bc with people rich in Steppe ancestry. End game. Let's move on. You're ok with calling all humans 'African' but not ok with R1b P312 originating in eastern Europe. Ridiculous.

Ric Hern said...

@ Craig

Maybe it was a move to obtain connections to Mediterranean Trade Routes ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Diego,

If anyone thinks Deigo has an ounce of integrity. Read this.....
"There are Df27 (Z225 and Z195) in the ancient Bronze Age, good news, and the fact that for the moment L21 and U152 have not appeared can close the door to Central-European migrations."


Philippe said...

@JuanRivera

“Ukraine_Mesolithic/N (EHG+WHG+CHG) shows R1a, R1b (including R-V88) and I2a.”

Which study is that from?

JuanRivera said...

It's on the G25 datasheets of Ukraine_Mesolithic and Ukraine_N.

ambron said...

Arza, one Visigoth is clearly located with Hungary. Close to Poles. It seems to me that on the northern European PCA will land among the Slovaks.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

Point taken.

Matt said...

Obligatory G25 reprocessing exercise:

- Straight high West Eurasian subset of G25: https://imgur.com/a/cnkt2Us
- Limited "scaffold" set of ancient West Eurasians with Iberian samples: https://imgur.com/a/z5BAWOG
- Even more limited pre-Neolithic Europe focused scaffold: https://imgur.com/a/6P4ZeeT

Hard to tell much other than Iberia_Northwest_Meso is pretty distinctive and extreme sample, high on WHG related dimensions and high on Iberia related dimensions + Iberia_Southeast_Meso is between Iberia_Northwest_Meso and Goyet2.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Sam said- "His paper proves R1b P312 entered Iberia in 2500bc with people rich in Steppe ancestry. End game. Let's move on. You're ok with calling all humans 'African' but not ok with R1b P312 originating in eastern Europe. Ridiculous"

In case you have not noticed, I repeat that there is currently only one case in all of Europe older than P312 del Hundido.

Where was P312 between 2,800 and 2,600? in the steppes ?, in the CWC ?, in the moon? in the SGC ?. in MAykop, in Catacomb, in Yamnaya? In the Balkans? When you find it then you can tell what its origin is, for the moment it is with total security- WESTERN

@ Sam said- "If anyone thinks Deigo has an ounce of integrity. Read this.....
"There are Df27 (Z225 and Z195) in the ancient Bronze Age, good news, and the fact that for the moment L21 and U152 have not appeared can close the door to Central-European migrations."

Do you think it's bad news to find two important subfunds of Df27 in Iberia in the ancient Bronze Age? Many people will be happy to find their ancestors.

Perhaps you have not understood that L21 has not been found at the moment in Central-Europe, and that the BBs are mostly L2. If there was a migration from Central Europe to Iberia, why there is no L2 in Iberia? I suppose that when crossing the Pyrenees they would ask for the passports and only Df27 entered and then L2 had to go to Italy.

Where was L21 hidden before traveling to the islands? You know it?
If they continue analyzing deposits and cases of U152 and L21 appear in Iberia, then we will have to admit a migration, but meanwhile, that hypothesis is in quarantine.

The truth is that to have its origin in the steppes, Df27 was not very faithful neither to its language, nor to its women, nor to its culture, because nothing else to enter Iberia, forgot all that.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Diego,

Check out age estimates in R1b p312's tree at yfull.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

P312's sons: L21, U152, DF27 are about as old as P312. This means, about 4,500 years ago P312 split into three major branches. This split occurred in just a few generations.

Kurgan societies were broken up into patrilineal clans. That means, every single male in a clan belonged to the same paternal lineage (had the same Y DNA). They formed new clans very often. Within a few generations the P312 clan, broke up into the DF27 clan and the L21 clan and the U152 clan.

Strict, patrilinisim & quick split into new clans explains the different P312 subclades in different parts of western Europe starying in the Bell Beaker period. Each clan, took up a different territory. The DF27 clan settled in Spain, L21 clan in britain, U152 clan in Italy & Central Europe. This is why all the central European Beakers have U152.

Richard Rocca said...

It is most likely that small pockets/clans of different R-P312 were already present in places like Germany, Alsace, Netherlands and the Paris Basin by around 2600 BC. If the finding of DF27 in Quedlinburg is any indication, DF27 likely moved from somewhere in Central Germany into Eastern France, down the Rhone and into Iberia after 2500 BC. And of course, all three dates from the Kromsdorf cemetery where M269 has already been found is 100 years older than the oldest Iberian M269 sample.

R-L11 before that was likely somewhere in Single Grave/Corded Ware territory from say 2800-2600 BC. R-L51 was likely on the Danube before that, but is too old to not have been on the steppe.

AWood said...

@Diego

The cultures of the Iberian Bronze Age are, mainly R1b- Culture of Las Motillas (2.200-1.200 BC), Culture of Las Cogotas, Atlantic, Andalucian and Mediterranean Bronze Age. Failure to know data of the large villages of the culture of El Argar (La Bastida, La Almoloya), and of course the cultures of Los Millares and the Chalcolithic sites of Valencina and Humanejos (3,200-2,000 BC).


I think what you will find is that sites like El Argar will be R1b-M269 and the predecessor culture Los Millares will be I2a. Based on the time like < 2500 BC = non-M269, > 2500 BC = M269+ and suggest heavy militarism from the direction of central Europe, west-Central Europe if you prefer. Finding data from eastern France and Switzerland might answer some questions regarding our DF27+ origins, in fact I'm certain they will.

Kristiina said...

The Basque language shows some unusual features that are rare in modern European languages. The syntax is based on ergative - absolutive pattern and not in a more common nominative - accusative pattern. WALS distinguishes three types: ergative-absolutive; tripartite; active-inactive, and in this classification Basque is defined as active-inactive together with Georgian (https://wals.info/feature/98A#2/13.0/143.0). Another unusual feature is marking of both A and P arguments on the finite verb (https://wals.info/feature/102A#2/16.6/148.7). These unusual features are probably the main reason why Basque has been compared with the Caucasian languages and a common origin has been proposed by many researchers. Other features that connect Basque with Caucasian languages are for example the following: an elevated number of cases (https://wals.info/feature/49A#2/16.6/148.4), SOV word order (https://wals.info/feature/81A#2/18.0/152.9), zero copula impossible for predicate nouns (https://wals.info/feature/120A#2/16.6/153.6), different copula for locational predicates (= is somewhere) and nominal predicates (= is something) (https://wals.info/feature/119A#3/36.17/36.74), and the lack of M-T pronouns with the exception of Georgian (https://wals.info/feature/136A#3/40.31/58.89).

Therefore, it is not at all an impossible scenario that the Vasconic languages were introduced to Iberia by R1b-L51 rich in Steppe ancestry, in particular in CHG.

Samuel Andrews said...

The quick, expansion of R1b P312 in 3rd millenium bc western Europe is reminiscent of typical ancient origin stories. Like Romulus founding Rome or a pair of brothers founding Poland, Ukraine, and Russia.

It is that simple. P312 is Adam. DF27, U152, and L21 are his three sons. Each settled in a different place in a very short period of time.




Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Richard

You know that Virgazal and Humanejos P-312 in Iberia are more than likely Df27 and one of them is older than Quedlinburg, so we can not speculate with the date of entry of that haplogroup in the peninsula. R1b-P312 can be in the Paris Basin, in the German Neolithic cultures, in the Alps or in the Pyrenees, no one knows for sure at the moment.

Be careful, we have to check the dates of the cave of la Paloma (Pre-BB chalcolithic with current dating 2,350 BC) and el Hundido (2,434 BC), because I think that may be older. We are not so far from Kromsdorf

@Richard-"R-L51 was likely on the Danube before that, but is too old to not have been on the steppe"

A few months ago you all thought that L51 was in Yamnaya, do you still think the same? Keep thinking that is closing your eyes to reality. The Danube? where? when? In what culture?

@Sam

It is strange that different clans of P312 raze in different territories practically at the same time, the explanation of the patrilineal societies is not satisfactory. I believe that if P312 originated in Central Europe, (which is still to be proven), would migrate to all those regions, and in them, the different clades would develop.It is the only reasoning that occurs to me to explain the absolute absence of Df27 and U152 in the isles (even in the Bronze Age), and the absolute absence of L21 and U152 in Iberia (although a case in the Magdalena I think it was considered L2).

@Aaron-

The Argar culture is also absolutely R1b-M269, we know it from three analyzed sites. You may be right and the Millares be I2a, or you may be wrong and R1b appears in abundance. When the geneticists analyze the site,we will know it, because there are more than 1,000 skeletons, waiting for someone to pay attention to them.

@Kristina- "Therefore, it is not at all an impossible scenario that the Vasconic languages were introduced to Iberia by R1b-L51 rich in Steppe ancestry, in particular in CHG"

If I have not misunderstood your reasoning (which seems to me intelligent), you think that the resemblance of Basque and Georgian or any other Caucasian language or even the language of the Anatolian farmers, would have brought Basque to Iberia through Neolithic or Chalcolithic migrations?

What does L51 have to do with that? I do not understand.

Was L51 in the steppes or in Anatolia?

I guess you'll be thinking that L51 was in the Italian or Greek Neolithic during the Neolithic and migrated to the West.

If you think that, of course it is possible, it sounds much more plausible than thinking that L51 spoke Indo-European and stopped speaking it when arriving in the peninsula.

Dave the Slothtopus said...

@Sam "It is that simple. P312 is Adam. DF27, U152, and L21 are his three sons. Each settled in a different place in a very short period of time."

Well, technically they are P312's grandkids (L21) along one line, and great-grandkids (DF27 and U152) along another, and their uncles along still other lines are P312's sons, DF19 and L238. But with that stated, I don't think Diego's making a lot of sense.

JuanRivera said...

Complex and more populated societies existed in the Mediterranean. Sometimes steppe-admixed peoples integrated into them, explaining the preservation of Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan and several others (hattian, hurro-urartian, dravidian, etc.). In the less developed interior and north (having less people), in contrast, IE languages tended to displace other languages (similar to Northern Europe, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, Northern Iran and Northern India, with the only exception being east of the Altai).

Matt said...

@Juan, it seems pretty difficult to know if there's much truth in that or not. Without written evidence, it would be hard to know that many of the non-IE languages of Southern Europe and Asia Minor were even spoken at all, and writing comes to Northern Europe late.

It's not like it's impossible that some non-IE languages persisted in the north and were only leveled out later by expansion of Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, just as Latin and Greek (at least) leveled isolates out of the linguistic landscape in S Europe.

Dragos said...

Northwest Iberia , Lusitania etc are the sparsely populated
Small movements / migrations could have large cultural / linguistic impacts

Grey said...

Ryan said...
"I think there are 2 possibilities for Basque left:...snip...Thoughts?"

3rd possibility, immigrant minority who adopted the local language but somehow took over later - kinda hittite-ish but different, less successful linguistically but more successful genetically?

Ryan said...

@Grey - That's not a third scenario. That's just a variation on my Scenario 2 - a Chalcolithic Iberian language imposed on an IE substrate.

Grey said...

@Ryan

i may be missing something but in my scenario there wouldn't be a substrate?

Grey said...

another thought - seems unlikely but might it be possible for the steppe male mixture to have happened elsewhere?

like some R1b dudes invited into Georgia for some reason and taking local wives (and adopting the language) and the descendants of that mixed population somehow getting to Spain later?

i mention this cos i recall reading sources (Roman or medieval i forget which) who thought there was some kind of connection between Iberian in Georgia and Iberian in Spain?

Samuel Andrews said...

Iosif Lazaridis says they came from city Phocaea. Interesting up until 200bc, there were still people 'EEF' origin living near the 'EEF' homeland.

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

1.9298"

Greek_Iberian colony

Balkans_N,44.1
Anatolia_MLBA,28.4
Peloponnese_N,9.9
Yamnaya_Samara,9.7
Maykop_Novosvobodnaya1,6.6
Kura-Araxes_Kaps,1.3

Romulus said...

Looks like the Myceneans and their Greek descendants only have Y-DNA J.

The presence of two genetically distinct populations is further
supported by different patterns of FST estimated with present-day populations (Fig. S8)
and by Y-chromosome haplogroup composition (Table S4). Empúries2 was least
differentiated from populations from the central and eastern Mediterranean region and
was dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup J, present in high frequencies precisely in
those regions, whereas Empúries1 was least differentiated from western European
populations and contained only R1b lineages, similar to the Bronze and Iron Age
populations from Iberia.
We find the two clusters in the three periods of the site for which
we have genetic data: the Greek, Hellenistic and Roman periods. This demonstrates that
the ancient town of Empúries was inhabited by local Iberians as well as by colonists from
the Eastern Mediterranean, which agrees with historical sources and archaeological
evidence.

Romulus said...

NE_Iberia_Hel (Empúries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
NE_Iberia_Hel (Empúries2) J
NE_Iberia_Hel (Empúries2) J
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R1b1a1a2
NE_Iberia_RomP (Empúries1) R1b1a1a2a1a
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
NE_Iberia_RomP (Empúries2) J
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R1b1a1a2a1a2
NE_Iberia_Greek (Empúries1) R1b1a1a

Everybody in the Greek cluster Empuries 2 is J.

n=1 Mycenean Y DNA is also J.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews "Unbelievable amount of samples. mtDNA haplogroup H was still at 25% in the Bronze age/Iron age. It reaches 40% in the Middle Ages. That looks like natural selection. I've been saying some kind of natural selection explains high H frequencies in Europe."

Yes. There's an anomaly here. mtDNA H increases from 25% to 40% from Bronze Age to current times. Curious in light of what I'm going to post next...

Andrzejewski said...

@Arza "Olalde re: Visigoths

"These individuals, archaeologically interpreted as Visigoths, are shifted from those at L'Esquerda in the direction of Northern and Central Europe (Figs. 1D and 2C and table S18), and we observe the Asian mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroup C4a1a also found in Early Medieval Bavaria (20), supporting a recent link to groups with ancestry originally derived from Central and Eastern Europe."

Here's what perplexes me: The Visigoths came originally from Sweden, but had long sojourned around the Crimea peninsula, where they apparently picked up this mtdna by mating with local women. Assuming that this particular mtDNA c4 which is Ancient North Eurasian was very common in Eastern Europe particularly in Ukraine and Western Russia, what happened to the mtDNA's almost non-existent prevalence among modern Iberian populations? The Visigoths, unlike the Moors, were not expelled from the Iberian peninsula. And they were a ruling elite, numbering in 15% of the population. Did they all migrate to the Americas after Columbus?

Andrzejewski said...

@Mike the Jedi @Matt "Anyway, the revelation of high North African admixture in Southern Iberia as early as the Roman period is the most interesting and unexpected finding of this paper for me. It looks like the Reconquista had a huge impact on Southern Spain and Portugal."

So basically what you say explicitly or implicitly is that the North African signal was strong and prominent in Southern Spain since Roman era, but the Andalusian population was almost completely replaced by Northern and Central Spain sans-NW African admixture during the reconquista?

@Samuel Andrews "One site from Early Medieval Spain is 25% "East Med." They say it is different from the Greeks in the Greek colony. Is it from Italy or maybe somewhere else in Roman empire?"

So, Samuel, what happened to the 25% Eastern Mediterranean ancestry all over Southern Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire? Did they get exterminate or did they get diluted by the influx of Germanic invaders?

Andrzejewski said...

@All Now, researching further about the Visigothic mtDNA c4 sample, I've encountered an interesting fact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_(mtDNA)

" In Eurasia, Haplogroup C is especially frequent among populations of arctic Siberia, such as Yukaghirs and Nganasans.[3] Haplogroup C is one of five mtDNA haplogroups found in the indigenous peoples of the Americas..."

...Which makes it an Ancient North Eurasian marker.

Now, "In 2010, Icelandic researchers discovered C1e lineage in their home country, estimating an introduction date of year 1700 AD or earlier, indicating a possible introduction during the Viking expeditions to the Americas. A Native American origin for this C1e lineage is likely, but the researchers note that a European or Asian one cannot be ruled out...In 2014, a study discovered a new mtDNA subclade C1f from the remains of 3 people found in north-western Russia and dated to 7,500 years ago. It has not been detected in modern populations. The study proposed the hypothesis that the sister C1e and C1f subclades had split early from the most recent common ancestor of the C1 clade and had evolved independently. Subclade C1e had a northern European origin. Iceland was settled by the Vikings 1,130 years ago and they had raided heavily into western Russia, where the sister subclade C1f is now know to have resided. They proposed that both subclades were brought to Iceland through the Vikings, however C1e went extinct on mainland northern Europe due to population turnover"

So an ANE mtDNA managed to survive in Western Russia until 900 AD for about 6,500 years only to disappear completely over the last 1,000 years. What population turnover are they talking about? How come was this haplogroup so common in Eastern and Northern Europe to be common among both Vikings and Visigoths, along with the population the Viking raided in Western Russia but suddenly it went extinct. HOW??? Were the Slavs in Western Russia replaced by some other invading population??

Romulus said...

We know about the Reich Lab CHG hypothesis. Iosif came here just to point out the Empurius samples and how they are so similar to the Myceneans, and also sharing so far exclusively Y-DNA J.

Davidski?

Andrzejewski said...

Taken together, all these developments pointing to population replacements are pointing to:

1. There were more than just 3 major waves of populations: WHG, EEF and Kurgan: Visigoths had ANE maternal admixture, Semites were at least 1/4 of the population of parts of Italy, Spain and other Mediterranean European countries, Berbers were a major mainstay of Southern Spain's population.

2. All of the sudden, allegedly all this Semitic Eastern Med gets displaced in Spain and Italy, the Asian admixture in Visigoths goes the way of the dodo, Berber DNA is none existent in modern Andalusian populations. And a major mtDNA in Western Russia among Eastern Slavs gets wiped out COMPLETELY. -> All in a time span of 1,000-1,500 years.

Is this a coincidence? Or was @Samuel Andrews up to something when he said that the increase in mtDNA H ratio from 25% to 40% is due to "natural selection"? Was there any subliminal homogenization of European populations in which "exotic" looking people were shunned from marriage? In case of the Visigoths, unlike the Moors, they integrated in Spanish society and assimilated, but even the Moors weren't completely deported. And how about Western Russia? They Slavs assimilated Finno-Ugric populations via maternal side and inherited their mtDNA. What happened to that long lasting C1e/c1f lineage that was so common among them and passed into their Varangian conquerors?!

Andrzejewski said...

@Kristiina "Therefore, it is not at all an impossible scenario that the Vasconic languages were introduced to Iberia by R1b-L51 rich in Steppe ancestry, in particular in CHG."

But according to @Davidski CHG in the Steppe grew LOCALLY so it might not be close to Kartvelian (which in my opinion is an Anatolian Farmer language rather than a CHG one anyway).

Now, in light of what I posted above regarding the Moors, Visigoths, Eastern Med and ANE ancestry disappearing completely over the last 1,000 years from European populations, it does NOT surprise me at all that the Basques are a non-IE speaking people with overwhelmingly Steppe Y-DNA.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

You're out in the weeds again in a big way.

At least some Eastern Germanic tribes had a lot of Asian ancestry, which they acquired from their allies or enemies, depending on the situation, such as the Huns and Avars, and this has been obvious for a while now. See here...

Exotic female migrants in Early Medieval Bavaria (Veeramah et al. 2018)

For whatever reason, these heavily admixed Germanic groups didn't contribute a lot of ancestry to any present-day European populations. They just seemed to have vanished. Going by historical accounts, a large proportion of them may have been killed in wars and struggles with new power groups. That's often been the fate of military elites, so I'm not saying anything really controversial here.

But unusual lineages like mtDNA C4a1a are still found at very low frequencies all over Europe, and probably derive from various sources, including perhaps minor gene flow from Eastern Germanics, or even Huns and Avars.

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Now, in light of what I posted above regarding the Moors, Visigoths, Eastern Med and ANE ancestry disappearing completely over the last 1,000 years from European populations, it does NOT surprise me at all that the Basques are a non-IE speaking people with overwhelmingly Steppe Y-DNA.

What the hell are you on about now?

ANE-related ancestry is found all over Europe, and reaches very high levels in Northern Europe, because of the high levels of Yamnaya/Corded Ware ancestry there.

Davidski said...

@Romulus

We know about the Reich Lab CHG hypothesis. Iosif came here just to point out the Empurius samples and how they are so similar to the Myceneans, and also sharing so far exclusively Y-DNA J. Davidski?

Yeah, I expect that we'll see a lot of Y-DNA J in ancient populations from the Aegean region and Anatolia, such as those from archeological sites associated with the pre-Greeks, Hattians, Hurrians, and so on.

ANF with heavy CHG-related admixture and high frequencies of Y-DNA J appears to have been the non-Indo-European substrate in this region, just like ANF with heavy WHG-related admixture and high frequencies of Y-DNA I was the non-Indo-European substrate in much of Europe.

Ric Hern said...

If you take R1b and R1a out of the Indo-European picture, what is left ?

Ric Hern said...

How can we connect Ireland to India without R1b and R1a ?

Tone said...

I'm not saying I believe this --- but shouldn't it be considered that the Beaker-folk who brought R1B to Western Europe were speakers of a Vasconic language? And maybe it wasn't until fairly recent times, when the Celts exploded out of Central Europe, that IE was finally brought to France, Spain, and Britain.

We see this IE "Celtification" process going on in Iberia at the dawn of history when the Romans invade Iberia. The peninsula at the time was divided between an IE Celtic area and various non-IE peoples. Also in the British Isles, there is over a thousand year gap between when the islands were settled by R1B Beaker folk and when the Celts arrive around 700bc. It was assumed that pre-Celtic Britain spoke a proto-Celt language...which seems odd to say... that the people before the Celts spoke Celtic (?) Maybe the entire Atlantic Bronze Age was a Vasconic, Beaker, R1B event.

So maybe it was the Celts and later the Germans (both groups from the Corded Ware frontier) who brought IE to the West in much more recent times.

Who knows? There are obviously several scenarios. I find this one interesting.

Ric Hern said...

@ Tone

About 1% of all Western European R1b Males speak Basque. 99% Speak Indo-European Languages.

Ric Hern said...

@ Tone

1 Out of Every 35 R1b Males in Spain speaks Non-Indo-European (Basque).

Ryan said...

@David - "But unusual lineages like mtDNA C4a1a are still found at very low frequencies all over Europe, and probably derive from various sources, including perhaps minor gene flow from Eastern Germanics, or even Huns and Avars."

C4a is found in early kurgans. I think a decent chunk of C4 in Europe is an old ANE lineage from the steppe that could have spread with any IE language.

Davidski said...

@Ryan

C4a is found in early kurgans.

Yep, but this doesn't mean that C4a1a isn't a marker of Hun-admixed Goths and other Eastern Germanics moving west from the steppes only during the Migration period.

Davidski said...

@Tone and Ric

Considering the data in this latest paper, I think it's possible that the R1b-L51-rich Beaker-derived groups with steppe ancestry that moved into Iberia during the Bronze Age spoke a wide range of Indo-European and Vasconic languages.

Is there anything in the data that prevents this scenario from being plausible? I don't know? I think we need someone with a very good grasp of the language and substrate language histories of Iberia to look at this data and point us in the right direction.

One thing I would say, though, is that the dominance of Romance languages in Atlantic Europe today can't be used to argue that Indo-European languages spread into Iberia during the Bronze Age, because obviously Romance languages didn't spread into Iberia until the Romans arrived there.

Heck, it's even hard to link the earliest of these Beaker-derived movements into Iberia with Celtic languages, which probably came later with the expansion of Urnfield groups.

Samuel Andrews said...

Yeah, extra layer of northern European admix in iron age Iberia is evidence Celtic language did not originate in Bell Beaker.

Davidski said...

Considering the similarity of the Hallstatt_Bylany samples to eastern Beakers, and their high level of steppe ancestry, it's very likely that Celtic originated in a Central European Beaker-derived population.

But yep, it doesn't look plausible to me that Celtic languages actually arrived in Iberia with any sort of Bell Beakers.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

I do not dare to make a reasonable interpretation about the Iberian languages ​​(more than 30 different peoples spoke it in the western half of the peninsula, some fought with the Romans bravely and others agreed.) Several of these peoples have been analyzed by Olalde and are Absolutely R1b, and whe know that their mitochondrial haplogroups are absolutely Iberian which also closes the door for foreign women. Regarding the Tartessian,Strabo tells us that they have laws, and verses with 6,000 years of antiquity, but a little later he tells us that they are Celts because the name of its king "Arganthonium" is Indo-European (It could be a fashion or a custom.) All the scripts for deciphering these languages ​​have been unsuccessful at the moment although there are hundreds of inscriptions on bronzes, stones and ceramics.We need a Rosetta stone.
We also know that the Lusitanian is older than Celtiberian, because he maintains the initial P in toponyms and anthroponyms, while the Celtiberian has already eliminated it. Ergo the Celtiberians entered the Iron Age with complete certainty (maybe that explains why now it turns out which apparently are I2, at least in the deposits analyzed). And the Lusitano ?, I think it can not be very old (late Bronze Age, urnfield).

When Julio Cesar came to Hispania to liquidate cantabros and astures, he described how a great Celtic tribe with wagons, women and children (more than 10,000 people) was crossing the eastern passes of the Pyrenees. The migrations from the north were constant during the 1st millennium BC.

Exactly the same thing happened in the isles with the Celtic, it had to arrive later, so the language of the BBs remains unknown.

The age at which those languages ​​were separated is an indication and only anexpert could give us some clue

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Obviosly "eastern half of the peninsula was No-Indoeuropean and western half (Galicia, Asturias, Leon, Portugal)Indo-European This does not make sense because the Indo-European comes from the north that is to say, the invaders had to cross the mountains and the territories dominated by Basque-Aquitanians and Iberians. It may be that Iberia was not very populated, the Celts crossed the Pyrenees and settled in the most poor and mountainous savage areas of the peninsula, while the Iberians and Tartessians continued to live on the Mediterranean coasts and in Andalusia, much more fertile regions and with better weather.
Everyone prefers to live near the beach than on a rainy and snowy mountain

ambron said...

David

The East Germans formed the elite of the local demographic base. Genetically, however, they rapidly melted in the local element. Just like the Russes later.

Kristiina said...

@Diego ”If I have not misunderstood your reasoning (which seems to me intelligent), you think that the resemblance of Basque and Georgian or any other Caucasian language or even the language of the Anatolian farmers, would have brought Basque to Iberia through Neolithic or Chalcolithic migrations?”

It is very difficult to determine the nature of the Anatolian farmer languages. We cannot identify any modern language with Anatolian farmer languages. Caucasian languages are not Anatolian farmer languages. Caucasian populations are autosomally clearly different and they carry a high amount of CHG which is different from AEF or EEF.

We know that there is CHG in southeast Europe before Yamnaya. We have now heard that there is CHG already in the Italian Neolithic. Of course, Western Yamnaya will, with all probability, be full of CHG. Vasconic languages could be related to Neolithic CHG in southeast Europe. They could also be related to Western Yamnaya and the southern Bell Beakers. When we know the origin of R1b-L51, we are a lot wiser.

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

But R1b-L51 isn't linked specifically to CHG, but rather to EHG, and thus indirectly to CHG via EHG/CHG Yamnaya-related steppe ancestry.

Btw, not sure if you've heard but Hajji_Firuz_ChL I2327 will be Hajji_Firuz_IA in the paper. That's what I've been told recently anyway.

ur coron said...

@David
You still keep repeating about the Hajji_Firuz sample, do you know when it finally will be published?

Heraus said...

It is fair to say we don't really know what BB's languages were like. I have been convinced for a long time that the BB universe might have been multilingual and that one successful pidgin (a Neolithic basis with proto-IE influences born in modern France ?) might have been the language whose last descendant would be modern-day Basque but I cannot prove it (no-one can).

The issue here is that ancien Sardinian placenames are so Vasco-Iberian-looking that we cannot evacuate this fact : did Bell Beaker Sardinia get its language from the continent after all ? Was ancient Sardinian born in the Neolithic ? Is Basque a remnant of Neolithic languages or the last descendant of BB's languages ? Were those two families cousins ?

What is pretty sure though is that a Vasconic-speaking BB universe would explain many similarities when it comes to West European toponymy such as old river and mountain names.

Let's remember that in the long run what Iberian genetics show is a relative resistance of Neolithic-like genetic variation. That Iberia is relatively the area least affected by "Kurgan" genetic variation except for Sardinia where Bascoid placenames are to be found is a hint that we must find a link between a lower imput from central Europe and the existence of pre-indo-european languages.

Above all, what we need is a genetic sampling of France/Belgium, from where Bell Beakers both conquered the British Isles and Iberia. Unfortunately, France is ideologically against genetic studies.

Davidski said...

@ur coron

You still keep repeating about the Hajji_Firuz sample, do you know when it finally will be published?

The paper might be out within a couple of weeks.

But the Hajji Firuz sample was published last year and I can tell you that this individual has steppe ancestry, and is very similar to Hasanlu_IA F38, so the new Iron Age date makes good sense.

@Heraus

Above all, what we need is a genetic sampling of France/Belgium, from where Bell Beakers both conquered the British Isles and Iberia.

Nope.

British Beakers came from the Lower Rhine in what is now The Netherlands and Germany. That's why they're also referred to as Rhenish Beakers.

Kristiina said...

@ David "Hajji_Firuz_ChL I2327 will be Hajji_Firuz_IA"

That makes much more sense phylogenetically.

The autosomal origin of R1b-L51 is open until we find an early R1b-L51, i.e. in an archaeological context dated to c. 4000 BC.

Matt said...

Bunch of PCA reprocessed Global 25 data using only Iberians and some proximate populations: https://imgur.com/a/27CnLP2

Possibly useful for anyone interested in the detail of different samples.

Fab said...

Entonces, quienes traen ese r1a a la península?Creo que es el haplotipo de un familiar. Su mtdna es u5b2. Podéis decirme si han encontrado r1a en las muestras ibéricas?

Richard Rocca said...

Ireland remained IE speaking with no migration since the Bronze Age. No sign of any non-IE substrate there, not even in toponyms. No Urnfield, no Hallstatt and only minor La Tene influence. No Romans. Then there is Sardinia, which retained it's Basque like language until the Roman period. They remain to this day the best representatives of the Western European Copper Age autosomally. They harbor the greatest amount of Copper Age Y-DNA (I-M26) in Western Europe and the least amount of R1b in Western Europe. Non-IE languages survived in pockets in Italy and in Spain, exactly the two peninsulas where the pre-Bell Beaker autosomal components weren't wiped out. One has to have a real big agenda to take all of those data points collectively and not see a clear link between the spread of M269, steppe autosomal ancestry, Steppe Bell Beaker and the spread of IE languages into Western Europe.

Arza said...

@ Richard Rocca
There is no proof that Bell Beakers were Indo-European.

Slumbery said...

@Arza

One could say there is no proof that the Beaker folks could speak any language. That is of course very unlikely, but still, there is no absolute proof for their ability to speak.
But we are talking about probabilities here, even if we do not put that word into every comment. There are circumstantial/indirect evidences suggesting that the Beaker people were mostly Indo-European and a general "there is no proof" is not sufficient to dismiss it. After all, there is no proof for them being non-IE either.

Andrzejewski said...

@Kristiina " We cannot identify any modern language with Anatolian farmer languages. Caucasian languages are not Anatolian farmer languages. Caucasian populations are autosomally clearly different and they carry a high amount of CHG which is different from AEF or EEF."

Caucasus populations have 30% - 35% ANF/EEF. So how can you determine their languages don't come from ANF but from CHG?

Arza said...

@ Slumbery

So, if we are talking about probabilities, don't you think that people, who are taking part in a scientific discussion and who are pointing out inconsistencies in an overly simplistic hypotheses, should not be accused of pushing an agenda?

BTW these words are not mine. They were written here on Eurogenes, just before the publication of the Behemoth, by Nick Patterson, who said that he believes that BB were IE, but actually there is no proof for that.

Matt said...

R. Rocca: Non-IE languages survived in pockets in Italy and in Spain, exactly the two peninsulas where the pre-Bell Beaker autosomal components weren't wiped out.

That seems a bit imprecise though. Autosomal survival seems if anything stronger in Greece and the Balkans than Iberia and Italy (all the way up to Balkans IA and the Mycenaean clone Greek colonists here).

Arza said...

@ Romulus
We know about the Reich Lab CHG hypothesis. Iosif came here just to point out the Empurius samples and how they are so similar to the Myceneans, and also sharing so far exclusively Y-DNA J.

Now there is a question - were Mycenaean elites Indo-European at all?

Contrary to India, where an established civilisation collapsed just before the arrival of IE, Dark Ages in Greece post-date the influx of Indo-Europeans.

There was no reason why firmly established elites should give up everything to the newcomers. Maybe it was like in Early Middle Ages where the rulers didn't care who they are ruling (as long as they had the power) and common folk didn't care by whom they are ruled (as long as they were not overly exploited).

Of course you will say that the we have Proto-Greek inscriptions in Linear B... but aren't they in majority just a very prosaic writings used in a communication between administrating elites writing in Linear script and peasants speaking Proto-Greek?

In this scenario Mycenaean and Empúries samples are maybe representative for Aegean shores (post-Minoan elites), but not much for the ancestors of modern Greeks in the mainland.

Them meee said...

Why the hell are people here reverting to the “R1a is IE, R1b is not” mentality?

Basque could have been brought by an admixed Beaker group or brought from the steppe, but the fact is, all roads lead to Beakers coming from an IE population.

Matt said...

Doesn't have a bearing on the topic under discussion at the moment, or mean anything particularly much, but just realized that this all means that you probably have one of the only verifiable instances at this time in Spain where people who weren't IE speaking were interacting with IE speakers, and the former had more steppe ancestry! (As Iberia IA apparently > Steppe ancestry than Mycenaean and post-Mycenaean Greek colonists). Unusual!

Ric Hern said...

@ Slumbery

I agree. Let's just say that Indo-European did not arrive in Western Europe before the first writers.....and then it is still controversial because we do not know if those Alphabets used contained all symbols needed to describe all sounds. And we do not even know if the writer was a top performer in his class....Heheheeh...etc.

Slumbery said...

@Arza

This is still the comment section of a blog spot, the comments here are not scientific articles and they have unwritten context (that is, a context not written out in every comment). And really, I do not deny that there is no hard proof for the Indo-European language within Bell Beaker. This is technically correct, but what of it? We are talking about unwritten prehistory, so it is impossible to acquire hard evidence of languages. Should we just be content with a "we do not know and there is no way to know" approach? I do not think so, because there are indirect evidences and probabilities and those have their use. Even the authority you summon, Patterson, said that he believes BB to be IE. He just acknowledged the technical fact that there is no absolute proof for that, but still formed an opinion, made an educated guess.

JuanRivera said...

I think some beakers could have spoken proto-Lusitanian.

Slumbery said...

@Matt

I think Hungarians have more Steppe ancestry that Southern Slavs and Romanians and this was possibly true for 10th century Hungarians too.

Arza said...

@ ambron

Close to Poles. It seems to me that on the northern European PCA will land among the Slovaks.

Nope and nope. After the first look at the data only the I12031 seems to have 20% of Polish admixture that pops up if all samples from G25 are used.

Generally they seem to originate from a West Germanic - Balkan mix with steppe and Asian intrusions that were present not only in Pannonia, but also in Bavaria. In other words the link between Germanic Goths and Wielbark/Chernyakhov culture is getting weaker and weaker with every new publication. They are basically Longobards 2.0.

Ric Hern said...

I think Proto-Celtic, Proto-Italic, Proto-Ligurian and Proto-Lusitanian formed out of Bell Beaker Dialects.

Grey said...

I think there will have been a time period when people(s) who first figured out how to mine/smelt soft metal were moving around and settling as intrusive populations in regions with a lot of soft metal.

Iberia had a lot of soft metal.

routes to Iberia from vicinity of Caucasus/Ukraine
- rivers to Baltic/North Sea and then down the Atlantic coast
- Danube to central Europe (then Rhine?)
- island hopping across the Med.

I used to think IE speakers took all three routes from that source region but maybe the island hopping route was taken by a more maritime inclined and Caucasus related population?

(This might imply different groups arriving in Iberia at different times from different directions and fighting it out over gold/silver/copper mines.)

The other thing is I've read the personal names on a lot of the non-IE Iberian inscriptions are Celtic sounding names which is odd and makes me wonder if they originally came from the same root population who eventually developed Celtic but they were separated earlier through taking a different route to Iberia?

Mouthful said...

@Arza

Correct me if I'm wrong but the few samples that were (leaked?) or published
a few years back from Wielbark culture from Kowalewko Kow_55 and Kow25 iirc were heavily Germanic and Cherhnyakhov culture even by archaeologists was regarded as melting pot of different cultures, peoples and influences so if there were some Goths there, they likely were a minority.

Grey said...

"who first figured out how to mine/smelt soft metal "

or maybe even just people(s) who knew about panning for gold from rivers?

golden fleece
- the people in distant country x have golden fleeces
or
- the people in the next valley who come from distant country x have golden fleeces
?

Ric Hern said...

After 1500 to 2000 years of progression the earliest Germanic and Celtic writing still shows connections to those Language Families. So why would 1000 BCE Cultures not have Linguistic similarities to 2000 BCE Bell Beaker Dialects or Languages ?

Arza said...

@ Mouthful

K36 can't handle ancient samples that are outside of modern day genetic diversity and it projects Steppe_MLBA and Europe_LNBA on "Germanic" clusters. Moreover even if they were Germanic it doesn't automatically mean that they were Gothic.

With regard to Chernyakhov:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/catacomb-armeniamlba.html?showComment=1551060173155#c7181772873437157971

Ryan said...

@Grey - The Steppe immigrants are the substrate.

Ryan said...

@Richard Rocca - "No sign of any non-IE substrate there, not even in toponyms. No Urnfield, no Hallstatt and only minor La Tene influence"

Except, you know, the whole speaking Celtic language thing being a Hallstatt influence. By all means, ignore that.

And for non-IE there are some remnants of vigesimalism.

Mouthful said...

@Arza

I see, thanks. I als seeo some of those samples in your linked post GoldenHordeEuro pops up often, is there any PCA with or models with it? Is this the DA29 sample? I think it's rather a late sample if I remember right from like 13-14th century.

Arza said...

There are no IDs in the poster, but there is only one sample with such name, so it must be DA29.

Groo Salugg said...

@Ric
I think the native language of Beakers was the parent language of Germanic.
Celtic IMHO developed either from Hungarian Yamna or from the Beaker language heavily influenced by Yamna.

@All
Participating in the trade network, Beakers certainly knew Iberian languages.
Marrying Iberian women, they might spoken Iberian at home, effectively performing a language switch.

Davidski said...

@Groo Salugg

Participating in the trade network, Beakers certainly knew Iberian languages. Marrying Iberian women, they might spoken Iberian at home, effectively performing a language switch.

Keep in mind that the genetic shift in Iberia during the Bronze Age was greater than can be inferred via the levels of Yamnaya-related and German Beaker-related ancestries in Bronze and Iron Age Iberians, because the populations that brought steppe ancestry to Iberia already had Western European ancestry from outside of Iberia.

So your suggestion relies on the assumption that the relatively few native Iberian women who were initially incorporated into the new Iberian societies, most certainly led by R1b-L51-rich male populations, had a disproportionate impact on the languages of these societies.

That seems unlikely to me. More likely, I'd say, is a scenario in which Beakers and Beaker-derived groups spoke a wide range of languages from different language families, including Indo-European and Vasconic.

Germanic doesn't really fit into this picture. It's a language that formed in a very mixed Northern European population, probably with some Beaker ancestry, but not necessarily a lot of it.

Dragos said...

@ Slumberry
''One could say there is no proof that the Beaker folks could speak any language. That is of course very unlikely, but still, there is no absolute proof for their ability to speak.
But we are talking about probabilities here, even if we do not put that word into every comment. There are circumstantial/indirect evidences suggesting that the Beaker people were mostly Indo-European and a general "there is no proof" is not sufficient to dismiss it. After all, there is no proof for them being non-IE either.''

I was not aware that MPI also had a Department of Philosophy ;)

Ric Hern said...

@ Groo Salugg

I think the Single Grave Culture had something to do with Proto-Proto-Germanic (For lack of a better word) and Northernwestern Beaker Dialects. As I see it Proto-Baltic-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Lusitanian was spoken in Poland on the Notec River. Proto-Germanic-Celtic-Italic-Lusitanian was spoken in Northern Germany and Denmark. Proto-Celtic-Italic-Lusitanian was spoken in Northwest Germany and the Netherlands. And Proto-Italic-Lusitanian was spoken along the Rhone River.

Ric Hern said...

What is interesting for me is that there aparently were Q-Italic and P-italic Languages the same as there were Q-Celtic and P-Celtic. And apparently some Ancient Pre-Roman Languages in Iberia shows the same Q-P characteristics. This and other similarities for me points towards a common Ancestor of Celtic, Italic and some languages of Iberia and the possibilty that it originated within the Nortern Beakers from Denmark to Belgium.

Davidski said...

It's very likely that some or most of the northern Beaker groups that moved into Iberia spoke Indo-European languages. That's because there's no other plausible way to explain the presence of Indo-European languages in pre-Celtic Iberia.

And there may have been some cases of language switching in Bronze Age Iberia from Indo-European to non-Indo-European.

But the genetic data obviously and strongly contradict the scenario that this was a common occurrence across much of Iberia, because surely this couldn't have been possible in a climate where there's practically a 100% change in Y-chromosome haplogroup frequencies in favor of a new, foreign haplogroup.

Clearly, local males were at a heavy disadvantage in some way, and it's extremely unlikely that the few native women who were initially incorporated into the new Iberian societies could dictate what languages were to be spoken by the newcomers.

So the only plausible, realistic scenario is that the R1b-L51-rich Beaker and Beaker-derived groups with steppe ancestry that moved into Iberia during the Bronze Age spoke both Indo-European and non-Indo-European languages.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Yes Ancient DNA from the Aquatanian region I think will be instrumental in solving this problem. Maybe there were less probable violent interaction between Steppe related and people from the Aquatanian region. Maybe some kind of Military Elite Ruled over that area without significant linguistic impact forced upon them, only tribute to be paid in some form or the other....

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur

Dragos said...

@ Davidski

There is no “pre-Celtic IE” to account for

Lusitanian is nothing more than a slightly more “aberrant” form of Celtic (eg some sounds)

The Lusitanian names in the inscriptions as AMBATVS, CAELOBRIGOI and VENDICVS
sound pretty clearly Celtic

Most economical explanation is a late BA divergence; with additional inflow during La Tene to account for some minor sound laws / local substrata / drift etc

Davidski said...

@Dragos

Let's be honest, there's actually no consensus about the precise affinities of Lusitanian. It might well be a pre-Celtic, but also Celtic-related, language of Beaker origin.

Tartessian is also something of a mystery, although probably not Indo-European.

Still, I agree with you to the point that Basques basically look like the direct descendants of Iberian Beakers in terms of overall genetic structure, rather than just a peculiar isolate community that experienced a sharp recent founder effect in R1b-L51.

So it's quite likely that they also got their language from their Beaker ancestors.

ambron said...

Arza

Thank you! I can see it now. Łukasz and Tomenable also analyzed these genomes.

Mouthful

From Kowalewko there were only screens. Three of them looked Slavic: Kow 45, 55 and 57.

David

There's going to be paper about Y-DNA from Kowalewko soon. Do you know anything more?

Davidski said...

@ambron

Yeah, apparently the Y-DNA looks sort of Danish.

ambron said...

David, did you see any R1a, because that's about 20% for Danes.

Davidski said...

As far as I know there's no R1a or even R1b. There's just I1, maybe I2, and some sort of E.

ambron said...

David, thank you.

Heraus said...

"Still, I agree with you to the point that Basques basically look like the direct descendants of Iberian Beakers in terms of overall genetic structure, rather than just a peculiar isolate community that experienced a sharp recent founder effect in R1b-L51."

@Davidski :
Indeed, they just look like standard Iberian Beakers. The issue would now be to know whether areas where Indo-Europeans languages are known to have been spoken actually show a relatively more impressive increase in "Central European" admixture in the Iron Age.

That is what the study seems to imply with the results from La Hoya (in modern-day "Basque Country" BTW, more precisely in the Ebro valley in modern-day Alava, but it has been known for centuries that this area was not typically Basque) : on the PCA, if I'm not mistaken, Iron Age Iberians from la Hoya are the most standard European-looking of all Iron Age Iberians. And we know for sure those were Celtiberian lands (which might have been repopulated by Basque people later in History).

It is plausible that Indo-Europeans languages were introduced rather "lately" in the Iberian peninsula during the Urnfield culture. And that the Franco-Iberian Beaker world was Vasconian-speaking : I might insist too much on that but France needs sampling and genetic testing.

Heraus said...

Mea culpa. The samples from La Hoya are not the most Central European admixed of Iron Age samples.

Groo Salugg said...

@Davidski
So your suggestion relies on the assumption that the relatively few native Iberian women who were initially incorporated into the new Iberian societies, most certainly led by R1b-L51-rich male populations, had a disproportionate impact on the languages of these societies.

That seems unlikely to me. More likely, I'd say, is a scenario in which Beakers and Beaker-derived groups spoke a wide range of languages from different language families, including Indo-European and Vasconic.


Ultimately, Beakers derive from an IE speaking CW population, so a language switch had to happen at some point.
I am trying to speculate a sensible mechanism that would allow for that to happen.

Beakers engaged in active trade. It is in fact one of the defining elements of the culture.
They had elevated farmer autosome admixture and mtDNA frequencies.
- knowing a new language from the trade would pave the way for its adoption
- having someone around who only spoke that language would provide an incentive for its day-to-day use

The language switch did not have to happen universaly, just enough to have an impact.
Right, a more northern location and earlier timeframe, when the population was still small and the potential for the impact bigger, is more sensible then the timeframe of expansion into Iberia.

Fab said...

No están estas muestras ibéricas de la edad del hierro, antigüedad y alta edad media incluidas todavía en nmonte global 25?