search this blog

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

EAA 2016 abstracts

The abstract book for this year's meeting in Vilnius can be gotten here. I'm hoping there's a paper coming real soon based on this talk on the genetic history of the East Baltic. Emphasis is mine.

Recent studies of ancient genomes have revealed two large-scale prehistoric population movements into Europe after the initial settlement by modern humans: A first expansion from the Near East that brought agricultural practices, also known as the Neolithic revolution; and a second migration from the East that was seen in a genetic component related to the Yamnaya pastoralists of the Pontic Steppe, which appears in Central Europe in people of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware and has been present in Europeans since then in a decreasing North-East to South-West gradient. This migration has been proposed to be the source of the majority of today’s Indo-European languages within Europe.

In this paper we aim to show how these processes affected the Eastern Baltic region where the archeological record shows a drastically different picture than Central and Southern Europe. While agricultural subsistence strategies were commonplace in most of the latter by the Middle Neolithic, ceramic-producing hunter-gatherer cultures still persisted in the Eastern Baltic up until around 4000 BP and only adopted domesticated plants and animals at a late stage after which they disappeared into the widespread Corded Ware culture.

We present the results of ancient DNA analyses of 81 individuals from the territory of today’s Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that span from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age. Through study of the uniparentally inherited mtDNA and Y-chromosome as well as positions across the entire genome that are informative about ancient ancestry we reveal the dynamics of prehistoric population continuity and change within this understudied region and how they are reflected in today’s Baltic populations.

Mittnik et al., A genetic perspective on population dynamics of the pre-historic Eastern Baltic region, EAA 2016 presentation, TH4-11 Abstract 06


Rob said...

Oh boy

Nirjhar007 said...

We present the results of ancient DNA analyses of 81 individuals from the territory of today’s Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that span from the Mesolithic to Bronze Age. Through study of the uniparentally inherited mtDNA and Y-chromosome as well as positions across the entire genome that are informative about ancient ancestry we reveal the dynamics of prehistoric population continuity and change within this understudied region and how they are reflected in today’s Baltic populations.
Magnificent coverage , now that is a good example of how to do it .

Samuel Andrews said...

The paper will be interesting. It won't change our view of the makeup of Balts, it'll give us an idea how they got that way. The big questions IMO are,

>Did mostly Anatolia_Neolithic farmers ever settle the East Baltic, and if so is the Anatolia_Neolithic ancestry in modern Balts from them or farmers who were absorbed by Steppe groups further south.

>Where is the extra dose of WHG-heavy blood in Balts from; local Baltic hunter gatherers or others?

>Where is N1c from and how come people who carry it in Europe are so related to IE-speaking Europeans with R1a/R1b/I1.

BTW, here's decent looking ancestry percentages for West Eurasians using Early Neolithic/Mesolithic genomes using David's most recent D-stat spreadsheet.

In D-stats Balts always get at least 30% Anatolia_Neolithic and 20% or less WHG. However in ADMIXTURE oracles I've seen they get much smaller amounts of Anatolia_Neolithic and larger amounts of WHG. I don't know which is correct.

Unknown said...

Is ANE_K7 the most current Ancient North Eurasian admixture test?

Davidski said...

No, that's an old test. It's the first attempt at an ANE calc.

Shaikorth said...

@Samuel Andrews

When Broushaki et al. modeled them as a mix of high-coverage ancients (based on total variation distance):

Balts and in fact most northern and eastern europeans prefer to be modeled as mixes of Loschbour and Kotias in both datasets even though both high coverage European and Anatolian Neolithics are available as sources. Hard to tell without a high coverage EHG sample or a steppe sample, but this could mean a lot of farmer ancestry is steppe derived, not directly from Central or South European farmers.

Unknown said...

What's the newest one that's available?

Karl_K said...

That one sounds pretty boring.

But, I am very interested in how ~99% of modern Estonians have blue eyes.

FrankN said...

Before it gets lost, as everybody is focusing on this post: I have under the previous post prepared a quite extensive summary of a recent German language article on the archeological roots of Maikop. Bottom lines:
a.) No significant Mesopotamian (Uruk/Ubaid) and Syro-Anatoliam influence; instead
b.) Maikop derived from the late 5 M BC Leyla-Tepe Culture in the E. Caucasus (Kura-Araxes predecessor);
c.) Maikop and Leyla Tepe based on innovations originating in Merhgarh (cotton, lost-wax casting etc.), and NE Iran/ Central Asia (hammered gold/ silver); trade links w. the a/m areas demonstrated by Turquoise, Lapis Lazuli and Carneol beads in Maikop graves.

I guess this explains the "South Asian" mtDNA M52 in Maikop, which in fact is rather Pakistani/ Western Indian, and most frequently ocurring among Indian Muslims:

Samuel Andrews said...


No one is mostly WHG+CHG. Those are the least important ancestors of Europeans. Anatolia Neolithic and then EHG are the most important.

There's no exact definition of what "farmer ancestry' is. In terms of Basal Eurasain Yamnaya had very little and is not an important source for Europeans.

There's confirmation beyond genome-wide data that Anatolia Neolithic is an important ancestor. About 75% of Baltic mtdna is from West Asia and most of that 75% falls under clades typical for Neolithic Europeans. The mtdna impact of Anatolia Neolithic in Europeans is huge. U5, U4, and U2e the lineages of EHG/WHG aren't popular.

Shaikorth said...

The addition of an EHG reference might change things (especially reduce WHG) but the high coverage data we have indicates Anatolian Neolithic and LBK are not direct contributors in the north. One of the EAA abstracts implies there never were any true neolithic farmers in Estonia because non-HG mtdna does not appear until Late Neolithic, with Corded Ware.

Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Human Remains from Estonia –
Insights and Challenges
"Here we reconstructed the complete mitochondrial DNA of 20 individuals from different archaeological sites of Estonia
covering the timespan from the Late Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic. By determining the haplogroups of the individuals, we show
that the typical European hunter-gatherer maternal lineages are represented exclusively in all individuals from all sites until the
Middle Neolithic. From the Late Neolithic on we see the inclusion of haplogroups that are linked to the Neolithic farming cultures
in Central and South Eastern Europe. The results indicate a late arrival of people genetically associated to other early European
farmers in Estonia with the Corded Ware culture."

Now, is LBK or Anatolia the source of farmer ancestry in Estonian Corded Ware and thus Estonia or is something else, perhaps from the western steppe?

Because there are zero high coverage EHG samples to use in TVD-based models Loschbour scores are inflated, but even in D-stats all Europeans are closer to WHG than to EHG. If the Anatolian Neolithic and LBK were important in the North they'd be donors like they are in the South. As it is, the Near Eastern part there prefers CHG.

FrankN said...

This EAA Abstract also looks promising:

TH1-04 Abstract 07
Signs of migration in the megalithic graves of Western Sweden?
We use the gallery grave at Torbjörnstorp as a model site for investigation of mobility. Here the individuals analysed all date to around 1800 BC cal, the second half of the Late Neolithic period in Scandinavia. However, the megalithic graves have been used for successive burials over a long time and even though the skeletal remains are fairly well preserved, the bones have been moved to make way for new burials and the bone material is often fragmented. The aDNA analyses can in this case be important for sex determinations that coupled to isotopic results can be used for discussing mobility patterns.
Using the combined knowledge gained from archaeology, isotope analysis and ancient genomes we can address questions of migration and mobility in the late Scandinavian Neolithic.

Several abstracts deal with substantial consumption of aquatic ressources in the middle and lower Danube basin during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. This may imply a need to review AMS datings for possible reservoir effects.

Samuel Andrews said...

"Anatolian Neolithic and LBK are not direct contributors in the north.'

Corded ware Estonia was at least 30% Middle Neolithic. If you count the Anatolia_Neolithic they got from Yamnaya they were at least 30%, which is a lot.

Look back at my first post. One of the mysteries about East Baltic is whether their EEF blood is from farmers who settled there or Cotded ware who picked up a lot of EEF further south.

No doubt Anatolia Neolithic is an important part of ancestry for East Baltic, very important. It doesn't matter if pure breed EEF/WHG never lived there.

Shaikorth said...

I basically think that either the lack of EHG/ANE (which can not be helped because all current samples are low coverage) causes huge distortion in Broushaki results when it comes to ENF, or the preference for Kotias and WHG haplotypes over Anatolian farmers and LBK indicates that farmer ancestry North/East Europeans have split off from LBK/Anatolian branch before the Anatolian Neolithic population lived.

ArtemisVentus said...

4 examples of mtDNA U5b from Baltic Narva culture, I would say they're WHGs up until that point. But I suppose it is equally likely to find R1a there.

Davidski said...

@Jacob & Luke Bower

Latest test is this. It's not available yet. Will be soon.

Basal-rich K7

Rob said...

Frank N

Thanks for summary
There is an English version by same author

But there are still some who point to Uruk, eg Uruk Migrants in the Caucasus
Konstantine Pitskhelauri

Rob said...


It's hard to conclude just on the basis of mtDNA U5b where the Narva culture will lie on the WHG - EHG- SHG curve

If - as commonly presumed- the Baltic was recolonised from Central Europe in the terminal Pleistocene, the post-Swiderian developments, Kunda, etc, show links to Butovo and other Volga cultures, which could imply strong eastern gene flows

This study by Krause's team will hopefully resolve these archaeological questions

Chad said...

They'll probably be a little closer to SHG than EHG.

Matt said...

I wonder if we'll have some other progression in the Baltic region from: SHG>Pitted Ware Culture (Ajvide samples like)>PWC admixed with Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (modern).

(SHG>Increase in Anatolia_Neolithic and also WHG ancestry>Further increase in Anatolia_Neolithic combined with proportionately much greater increase in EHG and CHG).

Shaikorth: even in D-stats all Europeans are closer to WHG than to EHG.

Not specifically commenting on the validity of the haplotype / TVD method here, but bear in mind, this D-stat result is going to be linked to Euro_MNChl being modelled as, what, close to 80% WHG, 20% Basal Eurasian in Lazaridis's newest estimates, while Anatolia_N is 75% WHG*, 25% Basal?

So you'd need a whole bunch of EHG to break the pattern of closer relationship to WHG established there, more than Europe got. (Direct ANE would be a stronger break to the pattern since it increases relatedness to EHG relative to WHG at a greater clip, but Europe never really got that much of that I don't think).

* Though I'm not 100% sure about this, given some of the stats for Barcin for AG3 vs Villabruna Davidski has posted up. And the WHG in Anatolia_N has some divergence from European WHG. And with Laz's estimates, I do suspect they may be off in some way for some populations...

Still, if the Baltic was 35% Euro_MNChl, 15% WHG, 50% Yamnaya, then that would work out 28% Anatolia_N, 22% WHG, 33% EHG, 22% CHG? (Assuming a mode of Yamnaya as 66% EHG, 44% CHG). Wouldn't be too surprising if WHG+CHG might model that better with haplotypes, maybe, for some reason?

Rob said...


"I wonder if we'll have some other progression in the Baltic region from: SHG>Pitted Ware Culture (Ajvide samples like)>PWC admixed with Corded Ware and Bell Beaker (modern)."

Yes I saw a poster at the SMBE this year abstracting something along those lines; ie a string PWC admigration into BA south Sweden (high mtDNA U5). Can't recall all details

Shaikorth said...

Matt, yes a high quality EHG sample would be great also for the sake of testing its effect on EHG modeling, to see if WHG+CHG proxying for farmer+EHG or not. South-Central Asian models seem to dislike Kotias, even in the case of Pamiris, and Kotias is WHG-shifted (more like Euro farmers) compared to Iran_N.

The Basal ghost keeps shrinking...wasn't long ago when Stuttgart was supposed to be 50%.

FrankN said...

@Rob: That English language Ivanvova paper om Maikop chronology linked by you is valuable on its own, but nothing like an "English Version" of her German language paper that I summarised under Dave's previous post.

Grey said...

Good stuff - i think the swampy or ex-swampy parts of the Baltic will have been a refuge (like the mountain regions and the swampy bits of the Low Countries / Eastern England) so they might have lots of "sedimentary" layers of past populations.

Some of the things this might help with are separate from ancestry for example were light eyes an adaptation *for* something or were they simply the result of dark eyes no longer being needed to protect against the sun?


Samuel Andrews

"The mtdna impact of Anatolia Neolithic in Europeans is huge. U5, U4, and U2e the lineages of EHG/WHG aren't popular."

I wonder if that is something to do with metabolism - cold adapted higher metabolism being selected against because of the higher energy cost.



"I have under the previous post prepared a quite extensive summary of a recent German language article on the archeological roots of Maikop"


Rob said...

Frank N

Yes I didn't mean it was a carbon copy, but similar themed for some of us monolingual Anglophones
Thanks again

Samuel Andrews said...

"I wonder if that is something to do with metabolism - cold adapted higher metabolism being selected against because of the higher energy cost."

That could be. D-stats model all Europeans as 50%+ West Asian(EEF, CHG). Rarelly does anyone get under 60%. So, 75-85% West Asian mtDNA for Northern Europe isn't too inconsistent with that number. Maybe all you need is gender bias admixture in ancestors who lived in the Steppe, so that they are 60% EHG but have 70% West Asian mtDNA.

FrankN said...

@Rob: Don*t worry too much about being a "monolingual Anglophone". I myself, being used to communicate in English, wonder some times about how much German still seems to be the Central European lingua franca when it comes to Czech, Hungarian, Polish or Baltic publications. Russian, apprehension of which I lack unfortunately, is another of those languages that are used for scientific publication far beyond the area covered by native speakers.
Some "technically informed translation" will be needed here and there. I am happy to provide it when it comes to German, others have done it in the past for Russian, and I assume native Spanish, French or Italian speakers will contribute their part when there is occasion to disseminate scientific results beyond the limits set by the original publication language. ´´

Rob said...

I wasn't speaking about myself ;)
In all seriousness, it would be nice if other languages are also kept as international academic languages, not just English

Rob said...

"....after which they (=Baltic foragers) disappeared into the widespread Corded Ware culture."

Reading in between lines, I wonder what this might mean ?

Davidski said...

It's interesting that they didn't mention anything about N1c or Uralics showing up late in the region, like during or after the Corded Ware phase.

Maybe the results show that N1c was already present among the local Baltic foragers, who were then subsumed by the Corded Ware newcomers from the east belonging mostly to R1a.

Matt said...

Shaikorth: The Basal ghost keeps shrinking...wasn't long ago when Stuttgart was supposed to be 50%.

True. I would think this is maybe because those first estimates rely on differential relatedness to ENA, which I gather may contrast slightly more radically among Near Eastern and European paleolithic populations than the relatedness to Ust Ishim and Kostenki, which seems to be the driving forces behind those current estimates.

Rob said...


Hg N in northeastern Europe looks very young, c. 2500 y BP
Curiously the oldest N in Eurasia is in some ex-Yugoslavs samples (!), and it belongs to an extremely divergent branch to that in modern Balts/ Finns

Davidski said...

Yeah, I know, but maybe we're dealing with a late founder effect of an ancient local forager lineage that almost went extinct in the region before its recent massive expansion.

Kristiina said...


Maybe the results show that N1c was already present among the local Baltic foragers, who were then subsumed by the Corded Ware newcomers from the south or even from the southwest belonging mostly to R1a.

It is great if we are finally able to reconstruct the genetic history of populations in this corner of Europe.

Rob, where do you get that 2500 BP? According to yfull, TMRCA of the predecessor of N-L550 is 3300 years and TMRCA of the predecessor of N-VL29 is 4100 years. This line is centred around the Baltic Sea. TMRCA of N-L1026 which is concentrated in Northeast Europe is 4500 years. According to the new Estonian N paper, N-M2126 started to expand exponentially c. 5000 years ago.

Gioiello said...

@ Nirjhar007

It would be important for your expectations about aDNA from India if you could find a free access to this paper about Ladakh people. I have a grammar of Ladakhi in English and published in India. It seems that hg. R is 22% and, even though they are above all R-Z93 downstream, demonstrating perhaps all our theory that the haplogroup came recently from North, it seems that there are also R-P25 and even R-M335, demonstrating that these old Western and Siberian hunter-gatherers left witnesses also on Jammu & Kashmir.
That the paper says twice the presence of M479 could be understood like a mistake for also M459 (that there is R-M479 is discounted there).
Ladakh, India: the land of high passes and genetic heterogeneity reveals a confluence of migrations
Diane J Rowold, David Perez Benedico, Ralph Garcia-Bertrand, Shilpa Chennakrishnaiah, Miguel A Alfonso-Sanchez, Tenzin Gayden and Rene J Herrera
Eur J Hum Genet 24: 442-449; advance online publication, May 13, 2015; doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.80

Nirjhar007 said...

Do you have it ? :)

Gioiello said...

Nirjhar007 said...
Do you have it ? :)

Of course I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you. The paper isn't for free, but it will be soon, after six months from the first outcome I think, but it was published last year on line. Unfortunately it seems that there aren't the STRs...

Nirjhar007 said...

I have it :) . Well its not very revealing but good.

Kristiina said...

Check out this map on Baltic hydronyms:

If we compare the area with archaeological maps covering the core Baltic area and its surroundings, it is not obvious to which culture the Baltic languages should be assigned.

Anonymous said...

I guess this explains the "South Asian" mtDNA M52 in Maikop, which in fact is rather Pakistani/ Western Indian, and most frequently ocurring among Indian Muslims:

M52 doesn't seem to exclusively favour northwest South Asia. The study you mention found all 9 of their 472 Indian Muslim samples to be somewhere under M52a: Supplementary Table S2 and Figure 3. 6 were Shia and 3 were Sunni, one of the 9 was M52a1 and the other 8 were all under M52a2: Supplementary Table S1 and Figure 3. The same paper mentioned M52 was already found in "the Tharus of Nepal and in the Andhra Pradesh population".

I've found an earlier discussion at anthrogenica, citing the paper you mentioned, on how there's no discernible pattern of distribution.

Eaaswarkhanth et al. (2010) could not detect a pattern:

"All nine samples were found to share common coding region variants,
which enabled us to define a new autochthonous South Asian-specific
haplogroup M52, which turned out to share a common origin with
one of its sister branches, labeled here as M52a (Figure 3), detected
among Indian non-Muslims. The same haplogroup has been recently
reported in the Tharus of Nepal and in the Andhra Pradesh population.
50 All nine sequences of Muslims are nested within the M52
lineage (Figure 3). Considering this phylogenetic structuring, the
newly characterized haplogroup M52 is most likely to have an Indian
rather than West Asian or Arabian origin. AMOVA yielded no
statistically significant results for any group distinctions on the basis
of religion (Indian Muslims and non-Muslims), geography (North
India, South India and West India) or other criteria investigated
(Supplementary Table 3)."

The anthrogenica discussion says there's M52a and M52b. Although only M52a was found in those 9 Indian Muslim samples, in the rest of the South Asian population, M52b also occurs.

Links to GenBank samples came up with some M52 in Nepalese and other South Asians. One of these cited a paper on external genetic inflow into Arabia from historic migrations, which traced among such external contributions some mtDNA to "Indian ancestry", including one in GenBank which has been resolved to M52.

M52a is also found in a couple of Filipino groups: "Two mtDNA sets, M52'58 and M52a, that both originate from Indian populations were found in the Aetas of Zambales and the Agtas of Iriga in the Philippines. These shared common haplogroups show a link between the populations of India and the Philippines that is about 5,000 to 20,000 years old." (In the absence of aDNA.) It also says that this mtDNA link to "Indian origins" "is not found in other Southeast Asian groups. This connection.. is unique to the Philippines."

AWood said...

I look forward to seeing these results. I expect large amounts of R1a, I2a, and maybe N1c and I1? Very exciting.

Ariel said...

I'm anticipating the hysteria after R1b is going to show up in some of these samples.

Azarov Dmitry said...

It's interesting that they didn't mention anything about N1c or Uralics showing up late in the region, like during or after the Corded Ware phase.

It would be more reasonable to expect I1 and R1a (subclade R1a-YP1272) haplos (I1 > R1a) in results from Baltic region (Corded ware, Narva and Comb Ceramic cultures). N1c folks came in Baltic region only 2500 - 2000 years ago.

capra internetensis said...

The present N1c1 in the Baltic seems almost entirely under the western branches of N1c1a1a1a-L1026, and most likely only arrived from the Volga-Urals during the Bronze Age. But that doesn't mean that earlier branches of N1c1, now very rare or extinct, could not have been found there earlier.

That said I don't know of anything that would be plausibly an earlier remnant of such. The branches that split prior to N1c1a1a-L708 have been found only in the Altai and eastward, but this is over 10 000 years ago. L708 has a TMRCA of ~6000-8500 years, but its branches seem to be centred around 4500-5000 years old and are typically spread far across North Eurasia. N1c1a1a1*-M2110 is most common in Yukaghirs, found from Ukraine to Chukotka, but not reported from the Baltic. N1c1a1a2-B211/Y9022 is most common in Central Uralic people and only 3000-5500 years old, could be same age as L1026. N1c1a1a1b-M2118 is found from Bhutan to the Baltic and likewise same age.

batman said...

According to the basic mapping of y-dna N, done by Richard Villems et al, it seems haolgrupp N spread from west to east, rather than the oposite:

batman said...

Present finns are 63% N1c and 30% I1 and some odd G, J and R1a/R1b.
Similar values in the other Baltic states (Estonia,Latvia,Lithuania), except for the amount of R1a growing exponentially.

Finns maternally have some 40% H, whereof 20% are H1+H3, close to most Europeans. Besides there's 25% mtdna U, most of it (20%) being U5.

The Asian mt-hgs C/Z (known from Carelia 7000 BP) and D5 are still is less than 4% of the maternal Finns, with a peak among the late heathen Saamis - at the fringes of the 'christian' Europe.

Thus there's a longer and stronger relation between the late heathen Siberia/Ural and the present Saamis - as these connections where vital to small populations that escaped the dictatorial rulers and teocratic taxcollectos at the arid, northern tiers of Eurasia - honoring some east-west trade-connections and genetic relationships that are far older than the 'christian' Roman Empires and Marco Polo's travels to China.

batman said...

Concerning the Butotovo-culture there is clear-cut connection to the older Volga-culture, which appears as a result of the Swidrien-Pulli-Suomoussalmi-Ladoga-line of "flaked points" known from "The Bromme Industry", as well as the Swidrien, from which the Bjepr-Donets-culture as well as the Butovo-culture had it's origins.

Thus there's a line along the most important highway of mesolithic Eurasia, the Volga river, originating in the temperate facade of the Atlantic to populate and fertilize the cold, arid steppes of Caucasus and Samara.

The leading researcher on Russian epi-glacial cultures, Michail Zhilin, talks of a "Nordic Industry", connecting the first populations of northern Eurasia - from the Ural to NW Europe:

Analyzing the post-glacial cultures of the Baltic countries and eastern Europe Mark Zwelebil was looking along the rivers leading south and east to explain the roots of the Swidrien techno-complex.

Looking for a "Black Sea refugia" Zvelebil et al came up empty, as the cultures known from early Mesolithic in the surroundings of the Black Sea seem to be younger than Swidrien.

Thus the Swidrien became a "twin" of the Ahrensburg industry - to which it's paralel in time. Which means they are both part of the "Bromme technology" - known to have passed through the Older and Younger Dryas in the area of Bromme-Lyngby-Ahrensburg - to continue the industrial traditions known from the Solutrean/Magdalenien/Hamburg-cultures, after the end of the YD and a rise of Europe's median temperature of about 9 degree C, in less than a handfew generations...

As Dr. Terberger started to check for an eastern origin of the Volga-Swidrien-culture he sought out the northern high-way of Volga. Together with Dr. Zhilin he compiled a very useful study, where the eastbound migration of the early-mesolithic "Bromme/Swidrien-industry" a late-mesolithic development of eastern "microlithics" seems to have moved the other way.

Dr. Terberger concludes that a frequent communication between east and west, would reach both the Urals and the Atlantic facade during the Mesolithic, already. Thus, threre's no question that the Butovo-culture had roots in the Sidrien/Bromme-cutlure - and not the other way around...

Since the discovery of 7.500+ years old y-dna R1 in Onega and cultivated crops of similar age from SE Finland, the "way-out-east" - from Ladoga/Onega to Volga, Samara, Bactria and Caucasus were obviously of interest to both mesolithic and neolithic migrations. Since the discovery of a 7.500+ old mt-dna C/Z in the same, early-neolithic site at Onega, we may conclude that the inter-actions along the russian rivers - such as Dvina/Djepr, Volga/Ob, Jakartes and Oxus - have it's origins in a epi-paleolithic boat-cutlure that survived the Late Glacial Maximum (OD+YD) in the temperate waters of the Western Baltics...

batman said...

One may inflict that a parallell tool- and weapon-industry have been found at the west-coast of California, where a seaborne boat-culture is dated 11.400 - 12.200 yrs BP.

The very same tool are found as late as LN/BA in the flint-rich parts of Scandianvia.

A pioneering population in the post-glacial re-population of North America were obviously marine and seaborne. Besides it was also paralell in time with the first mariners that populated the shores of the North Atlantic, as well as the Baltic Sea, Biscay, the Meds, the Black Sea and - with time - the Caspian Sea...

Thus the start of Holocene marks the first, lasting re-population of Eurasia after ice-time - as the first 'Natufians' settles around the fertile Bay of Iskander and the frist Anatolians erect of the first known megaliths - precautionally sculptured and decorated. One may add that the interpreatation of these facts - and the aspects thereof - have been under debate within the EEA-conferences over the past decade.

FrankN said...

A few more interesting EAA abstracts, dealing with the Baltics in Feneral and Coastal Lithuania more specifically (emphasis is mine):

TH1-20 Abstract 06
A Boreal Mesolithic wooden leister prong from Sise, Ventspils County, western Latvia
The Stone Age site Sise is situated in the valley of the River Užava on the Kurzeme Peninsula in western Latvia. Next to the site is the former river mouth, where during the transgressive phases of the Ancylus Lake and Littorina Sea it entered a large bay. In the subsequent regressive phases the bay was transformed into lagoons that subsequently developed into freshwater lakes and peatlands. (..)Excavation on the riverbank in 2012 has brought to light wooden objects from stratified context as well: part of an eel clamp and a tool handle with preserved resin showing imprints of a binding material, which are dated to c. 8200–8600 BC. The wooden leister prong from Sise is the oldest find of this tool type up to now in the Baltic region. The present paper will give an overview of the chronology and distribution of this tool type in the Baltic region.

TH1-20 Abstract 04
Written sources as a way of understanding Danish prehistoric eel fishing methods
Archaeological and archaeozoological data show that eels have been part of Danish food culture for the past 8000 years. In 1988 and 1990, remains of fishing structures dating back between 4500 and 7000 years were investigated. These archaeological structures were interpreted as so-called ålegårde – eel Weirs, which the fisher-farmers of historical times built on the coast and out into the sea. They were used to catch the shoals of silver eels which, then as now, migrated each year from Baltic and Danish waters to the Sargasso Sea to mate and reproduce.

Similar subsistence strategies in the E and W Baltics - Mesolithic Lithuania shouldn't come in as too different from Motala.

TH1-20 Abstract 09
Subneolithic fishing in the southeastern Baltic in the light of recent research at Šventoji 43
Šventoji 43 is distinguished from later Subneolithic sites of Šventoji by the presence of blades and microliths in the lithic assemblage and pottery which bears close resemblance to the typical Comb Ware. It is also evident that amber was worked directly on the site and shaped into ornaments, whose forms are identical to those found at Comb Ware sites in the Eastern Baltic.(..) The greatest number of identified [bone] fragments come from seals among mammals while the majority of fish bones belong to pike and zander.

Seal hunting was also a major Ertebolle activity (and Ertebolle ceramics are generally seen to have been imported from the Narva culture), so I expect some continuity from Mesolithic. Comb Ware influence should manifest itself through R1a.

batman said...

@ Frank

"Several abstracts deal with substantial consumption of aquatic ressources in the middle and lower Danube basin during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. This may imply a need to review AMS datings for possible reservoir effects."

That's a neccesary precaution needed whenever paleolithic sites are concerned, since the reservoir-effect may appear inside caves and under (moving) glaciers, as well as under sea-water and due to a diet of seafood...

I just wonder how the level of precaution have been in the final "calibration" of sites like Bichon, Villabruna and Satsurblia.

Any clue?

Rob said...


Please stop with your 'Baltic refuge' pseudo-science. Neither PalaeoAmericans, nor Natufians, came from the Baltic.

FrankN said...

More interesting EAA stuff:

TH4-06 Abstract 08
The enigmatic Dolmen on the Island of Gotland
Previous genomic research has shown that hunter-gather individuals from the Middle Neolithic Pitted Ware culture on Gotland had different biogeographic affinity to that of contemporary TRB individuals from the Swedish mainland (Skoglund et al. 2012; 2014). Here we use genomics to investigate the relationship of individuals from these two different cultural contexts on the same Island, over time.
Finally a bit more of TRB aDNA, aside from the Skoglund data that obviously represented a Michelsberg colonisation attempt.

TH4-07 Abstract 07
Deconstructing the conception of pre-Neolithic farming in SE Baltic
This paper is a critical evaluation of zooarchaeological, macrobotanical, palynological and archaeological data and their earlier interpretation in Lithuania, which served as the basis for constructing the concept of pre-Neolithic or Subneolithic low intensity agriculture and/or animal husbandry in the Eastern Baltic region. (..) According to the latest research, the substantial part of, or even the whole of the earlier “evidence“ was wrongly forged because of the mistakes in the identification of plant and animal species and imprecise dating. The mistakes in dating were largely due to the ignored fresh water reservoir effect when dating bulk samples of lacustrine sediments, unrecognition of the impacts of bioturbation and palimpsest on the formation of the archaeological strata, and low attention paid to stratigraphic and spatial documentation during very extensive excavations carried out in the second half of the 20th century. So far, there is no reliable evidence that domestic plants and animals were adopted in Lithuania prior to the appearance of the Globular Amphora and Corded Ware cultures in 3200/2700 cal BC.

Guess we shouldn't expect much EEF aDNA in Lithuania prior to 3200 BC.

TH4-11 Abstract 09
Kivutkalns bronze-working centre in light of archaeology and natural sciences
Kivutkalns complex of cemetery and hillfort has been considered as the largest Late Bronze Age bronze-working centre in Latvia. One third of the archaeological artefacts found at Kivutkalns hill- fort in the lower Daugava river are related to bronze working (..)
[W]e present new data on dietary habits and discuss genetic affiliation of the people based on 13C, 15N isotopic data and ancient DNA measurements on human bones, respectively. Particularly, possible genetic connections between Kivutkalns and ancient and present populations of eastern Fennoscandia are discussed.

TH4-11 Abstract 15
Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of Human Remains from Estonia –
Insights and Challenges

Here we reconstructed the complete mitochondrial DNA of 20 individuals from different archaeological sites of Estonia covering the timespan from the Late Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic. By determining the haplogroups of the individuals, we show that the typical European hunter-gatherer maternal lineages are represented exclusively in all individuals from all sites until the Middle Neolithic. From the Late Neolithic on we see the inclusion of haplogroups that are linked to the Neolithic farming cultures in Central and South Eastern Europe. The results indicate a late arrival of people genetically associated to other early European farmers in Estonia with the Corded Ware culture.

CWC propagating EEF genes into the E. Baltics? Interesting...

batman said...

@ Rob

I'm sorry if you can't relate to plain facts and due logic - but please stop producing strawmen, scarecrows and inuendoes.

Rather you could be trying to understand that A refugia of the Late Glacial Maximum is actually proven to have existed - around the straight of Oresund, where the Danish islands used to benefit from the temperate waters of the N Atlantic.

No whining and complaining can change that.

@ Frank

One may add the oldest known fishing-net, found in the same area:

The oldest dog-sledge known, dated 10.000 BP from Heinola, belong to the same techno-complex:

On that backgroud an estimate from UCLA, claims "Dogs May Date Back 60,000 to 100,000 Years"

Which again begs John Hawks old question about who colonized the European Arctic...

batman said...

Forget propagating 'interpretations' as understanding and 'consent' as facts. One may think that your comprehension of scientific methodology are congruating towards omnipotence.

If you can't provide some logic and reason bassed on facts - to encounter the facts and arguments I've been adding - your exclamations are of no use to anyone.

If you want to make a difference you may start by explaining the identical tools found within the mesolithic industry of the Californian Channel islands and the European neolithic. Just ex-claiming that there isn't any just don't bite.

Perhaps you could even try telling us what exactly it is that you think this signature have no understanding of - from the last 5 years of aDNA-analyzis...

Chad said...


The Ahrensburg era samples we have are Magdalenian like. Those people were replaced before 9000BCE by the Villabruna group. Swiderians likely suffered the same. Villabruna is much closer to EHG. aDNA has shown this group disappeared rather than contributed much to modern Euros. You are incorrect in all claims, so shut it.

Rob said...

Let's note a similar panoramic study is being done on the Crimea by GeoGenetics. Can't wait

Slumbery said...


The Oresund was a land _and_ was under ice during the LGM. The refuge there is pure fiction. You don't even need DNA to see that.

Olympus Mons said...


“CWC propagating EEF genes into the E. Baltics? Interesting...”

Hey, apparently you Olympically ignore the NonMetric Deltal study about bell beakers I gave you, right?.
It’s fine. It pretty much closes the issue of the origins of the bell beakers. Actually it was closed all along it just sets it in stone (being that in some aspects NmD studies even beat ADNA).


That study from J. Desideri also raise another very interesting issue related to that paragraph does it not? Which is the Importance of Bell beaker WOMEN and CWC MEN.
If I interpret correctly it shows a strong exchange of females in boehmia (Czech) between CWC and BB. So it would not be a surprise if that population arriving in Baltic would be carring a lot of EEF coming from Iberia girls form Mtdna H. Right?

Rob said...

The EEF in CWC probably came more directly, from the Carpathians and north Balkans

FrankN said...

@Rob: "The EEF in CWC probably came more directly, from the Carpathians and north Balkans."

That's one possibility. There is quite some archeological evidence of contact between Eastern FB and the Carpathian Basin around and after 4000 BC, and Narva pottery has been linked to CT.

Another possibility is those Michelsberg colonisers that Skoglund sampled in Gökhem. They left Gökhem after some 100 years (the area reverted to Pitted Ware), at about the time Neolithisation of East Central Sweden (Stockholm & surroundings) set in. IIRC, Alberto has demonstrated Estonian CW to look quite "western", i.e. preferring Loschbaur over Motala or Hung_HG. [Has somebody ever run stats on Estonian CW that compare Gökhem with Germany_MN or Hung_LBKT?] The upcoming Gotland_FB aDNA will be interesting in this respect.

That Estonian MtDNA abstract says: "we see the inclusion of haplogroups that are linked to the Neolithic farming cultures in Central and South Eastern Europe." I wonder whether this dual reference is accidental, or they actually want to imply that both sources played their roles.

Nirjhar007 said...

More on our beloved Iceman :

A whole mitochondria analysis of the Tyrolean Iceman’s leather provides insights into the animal sources of Copper Age clothing

Niall J. O’Sullivan, Matthew D. Teasdale, Valeria Mattiangeli, Frank Maixner, Ron Pinhasi, Daniel G. Bradley & Albert Zink

The attire of the Tyrolean Iceman, a 5,300-year-old natural mummy from the Ötzal Italian Alps, provides a surviving example of ancient manufacturing technologies. Research into his garments has however, been limited by ambiguity surrounding their source species. Here we present a targeted enrichment and sequencing of full mitochondrial genomes sampled from his clothes and quiver, which elucidates the species of production for nine fragments. Results indicate that the majority of the samples originate from domestic ungulate species (cattle, sheep and goat), whose recovered haplogroups are now at high frequency in today’s domestic populations. Intriguingly, the hat and quiver samples were produced from wild species, brown bear and roe deer respectively. Combined, these results suggest that Copper Age populations made considered choices of clothing material from both the wild and domestic populations available to them. Moreover, these results show the potential for the recovery of complete mitochondrial genomes from degraded prehistoric artefacts.

FrankN said...

@OM: I didn't ignore the Desideri study. In fact, I read it with a lot of interest (thx for the link), and had a longer reply virtually finished when Internet Explorer decided to reset everything because of an internal error, so my comment got lost.
I will come back on it when the occassion arises (we surely have more posts on BB coming up). As quick feedback: I don't think it is possible to use the study for determining the origin of the BB phenomenon. It didn't sample presumed proto-BB cultures on the Lower Rhine/ Elbe, and it didn't differentiate between early coastal Iberian BB (from 2800 BC on) and later Iberian inland sites, where BB only took foot by ca. 2,500 BC, at about the same time when Czech BB emerged. Similarly, it didn't consider that Swiss BB was split, with SW Switzerland belonging to the "Western", and NE Switzerland (Zürich/ Constance lakes) to the "Eastern" sphere.
Hence, what we can take from the study is that BB was non-autochtonous in S. France, Switzerland and Hungary. Anything beyond will require further, more fine-grained analysis.

Note also that BB isn't the first case of (genetic) interaction between Iberia and CE. Rössen (named for a Leipzig suburb) emerged west of the Rhine. Brotherton/ Haak 2013 demonstrated Rössen mtDNA in the Elbe-Saale Region to point towards the southern Gulf of Biscay, in a statistically significant break with preceding LBK mtDNA.
Then, we have the MN Michelsberg expansion out of the Paris Basin, but with genetic and cultural backward links to Brittany and the Basque Country. Michelsberg was instrumental in neolithicising the British Isles, Netherlands/ NW Germany, and Scandinavia around 4000 BC, and obviously comprised a strong maritime element, signified e.g. by early 4m BC cultural parallels between England and Denmark. Thus, martime communication along the Atlantic facade should already have commenced some 1000 years before we see the emergence of Lower Rhinish AOC/OOC, and Iberian Maritime Beakers.

Hector said...

Batman is almost as entertaining as Davidsky. He dug up 12-15 years old papers just to insist on the now-hopeless theory of West to East unilateral paternal genetic influence. The idea of "Eastern men" mating with "White women" must be so traumatic as to render these remnants of "Asatru" comically sublime.

Rob said...

Frank N

Yes "more local" TRB sources could be another option, but i Favour the non-local

what if TRB did not *contribute to the formation of cwc* but did ADMIX later ?

Angantyr said...


Slightly OT, but why do you believe that the Gökhem farmers were Michelsberg colonists? They were all found in passage graves, which to my knowledge is not a Michelsberg signum. All the passage graves in the area also appear to have been constructed around or after 3300 BCE, which is after the disappearance of Michelsberg, right?

The area was not unused before this - there are a few earlier dolmens in the area too, so farmers had already settled the area. The Swedish literature on the passage graves that I have found online state that they were used intensively for about 300 years (after this, some were used sporadically by succeeding cultures well into to Bronze Age). I haven't seen anyone mention any sign of that the area was completely abandoned by farmers, There are stray finds of PWC items in the area (some, like arrow heads, also inside the passage graves), but this was not PWC-heavy area.

The neolithic had already reached South East Sweden by then - the oldest calibrated C14 dates from the TRB site at Resmo, Öland, are from before 3600 BCE.

The sudden appearance of the passage graves does indicate that there was some sort of colonisation going on, and a theory proposed by Swedish archaeologist Lars Bägerfeldt, and which I find more likely, is that it came from Denmark/Jutland, where megalith activity decreased at the same time as it surged in this area (and only this area!) in Sweden.

batman said...

@ Rolfsen

"The Ahrensburg era samples we have are Magdalenian like."


The Lyngby-Ahrensburg as well as Pertuna/Swidrien were obviously descendant to the tanged-point-industry known as the "Hamburg-culture" or the "Havelte-Hamburg-culture".

The Hamburg culture is known as the NW European AMHs that had survived the LGM and the last part of the Weichsel, until the BILLEROED and ALLEROED interstadials (17,500-13,000 BP) - when they again could thrive and spread along the northern tiers, together with mammoths, cavebears annd giant deers.

(Seemingly there was a number of y-dna CT/F and mt-dna U8 amongst them.)

The Hamburg-culture (along with chisel-chopped tanged points of flint from the flint-mines of Poland, Scania, Jutland and Belgium) actually spread south to France and west to Brittain (Creswell) and the Channel Islands - as well as east to Poland and Finland, as well as southern Scandinavia. According to later repports they even travelled far north along the coast of southern and middle Norway, presumably during summers only.

Their skills as boatbuilders and mariners were obviously developed to a level permitting them to practice deep-water-fishing and cross smaller parts of the high-seas.



"Those people were replaced before 9000BCE by the Villabruna group."

Villabruna R1b and U5b replacing who - to create I2 in Motala, Stora Forvar, Ajvide, Gokhem, Louschbour and Bichon?

Another jester with a softsware-program?


"Swiderians likely suffered the same."

Which is why the Swidrian indsutry - with clear roots in the Solutrean techno, came to develop around the Polish flint-mines and spread across the eastern Baltics - turning into Pulli/Kunda/Volga as well as Djepr/Donets?


"Villabruna is much closer to EHG".

Than what?


"aDNA has shown this group disappeared rather than contributed much to modern Euros."

Which group is "this group"? Bichon?!


"You are incorrect in all claims, so shut it."

Well said.

Given that you're able to let yourself, too - have the benefit of your wise, constructive and heartful criticism.

Olympus Mons said...

Its fine. We all stick to our pet theories. However I find it very difficult to believe that you stick to your arguments.
Just to summarize. Regarding BB from Portugal, I bring to the table:
1. Earlier dating (2900) in places with staggering amounts of bell beaker pottery, with a natural evolution from “Copos” beakers (which ceased to exist upon surging of bell beakers). So whoever was making copos started to make Bell shaped beakers.
2. Then showing that the earliest BB were found, in huge quantities nonetheless, just 4 meters away from the walls of one of the most belic and military powerhouses of its time the fortification of Leceia. So I M P O S S I B L E to be a population that the “military” didn’t consider local (note that the all Tagus basin is the place with the most bell beaker pottery). No way an exogenous population from the Rhine or elsewhere would ever be allowed to settle there. And that the place had copper and lots of archery and blade making, bone buttons, etc. so all that is was not absent from the area (although not buried with them afaik).
3. Local (Iberia) dating shows a clear path out of central Portugal (north P, Galiza, Basque, etc) .
4. The fact that even Davidsky puts German Bell beakers 2500/2400 BC as at least 35% Iberia chalcolithic genome.

Then, all that not being enough…

5. I threw in one of the most ignored studies regarding bell beakers. NonMetric Dental is really the closest you have with dna. And Jocelyn Desideri 2008 is the best. Over 2000 individuals (so, not just a single found In some cave) , over 250,000 observations for dental traits on lots of different sites, Bootstrapping to find directionality, etc. What does it show?
a. Of the 5 regions (Iberia, South france, Switzland, Hungary , Czech) only in two of them local population contributed to the formation of bell beaker men and women. Iberia (where final Neolithic and Chalcolithic population both contribute) and then on the far east of the bell beaker map in the bohemia part of the Czech republic where there is mild contribution of CWC pop to the BB. Actually women exchange it apparently was. Here she uses BB, CWC and later Unetice for population. Not really much at all BB to Unetice. Actually Just CWC men do that bridge to Unetice.
b. Local population of South France, Switzerland and Hungary did not contribute to the local bell beakers.
c. Bootstrapping to give directionality clear sets it from Iberia - to south france – Switzerland – Hungary - and then Czech group.

So, Frank…. Believing a point of origin based in the not that solid beaker pottery evolution it’s too meager for a match. Following that reasoning Morocco beats it all. :=)

Rob said...

Morocco was a trade outpost
It has little to do with the genesis of beaker

batman said...

@ Slumbery

Please learn the difference between "The Last Glacial Maximum and "The Late Glacial Maximum".

The first appeared 25-17.000 years ago, pushing the ice-margins to their maxima, creating a decimation of human and other population througout Eurasia, especially the eastern and central parts.

The second appeared 15-12.000 years ago ending with the coldest plunge on record, known as the 1000 year long period called "The Younger Dryas", when the median temperatures were 9-10 Celsius below todays average.

The LGM are known to have decimated most terrestial species of Europe and northern Eurasia. The disappearance is obviously hardest in the eastern and central part of Eurasia, but even the western populations of larger land-animals starts disappearing from the milder climate, of W Europe, too.

The cold-shocks of the Younger Dryas are known to have causes the final decimation - which became the "big, megafaunal extinction event", both in northern Eurasia and northern America.

In spite of the decimations of the LGM, there were several refugias across Eurasia that survived the LGM - of both mamoths, horses, auroxes, deers, bears and humans.

The critical point, known as the bottle-necks of several surviving species, was the terminal phase of ice-time, known as the Younger Dryas, 12.900 - 11.800 BP.

The only place were a continuum of inhabitants are known to have existed DURING and throughout the Younger Dryas is the area around todays Straight of Oresund, between Scania and Denmark - recoded at 12.900, 12.700, 12.500, 12.300 and 12.100:

From this 'core' area they actually spread north to Norway as early as 11.900, reaching NW Norway at 11.500 and North Cape at 11.200, simulatniously with the first pioneers arriving in the Botnic Bay and Finland. Apparently the Swidrien started of around 11.800, too, to repopulate the post-glacial landscape of the Baltics, Finland, Russia and Ukraine - while their early cousins from the Lyngby-Ahrensburg moved south, to repopulate Be-Ne-Lux and Brittain, as well as the continental Europe.

Looking at the distribution of y-dna there's obviously an CT/F involved in the pioneer-group. In northern Europe a descendant of CF, hg I seemto be the dyantical line, while its 'brother-lines' of G, H, J and K seem to spread to various regions doown south and east respectively - defining the basic patrilinear socieaties (dynasties) known to be constituted of and by the 'modern men' of post-glacial Eurasia.

Seemingly, the spread of the IE and Uralian languages seem to congruate with the mesolithic/neolithic distribution of these (modern) descendants of hgs F/GHIJK.

Olympus Mons said...

Screw Morocco... did you read the all comment? - What can beat those facts as the origin of the BB? Virtually Nothing.

Now, about R1b... well if you read Desideri carefully there are other options then BB being that linked to R1b. At least on out of Iberia phase... One option where my thesis should be "From Shulaveri Shomu 2 Bell beaker" (and drop the R1b of the equations). :)

Hell, but I am still confident!

Olympus Mons said...

Hey, Where is alberto?

Chad said...


You're very out of touch with reality. Just because a couple papers say it was Swiderian, doesn't make it so. There are just as many that say it wasn't. Genetic evidence now says it wasn't. You really should read this, and just let it sink in. You're very wrong.

Ice Age Europe paper from Fu et al. (2016)

Here, we see that German Epi samples (16-14.1K Cal BP) are very close to Aurignacian, unlike the mesolithic pops (9.4-8K Cal BP). The Hamburg group in Germany was replaced by the group occupied by Villabruna, Loschbour, Bichon, and others. Pay attention to how your Hamburg group was replaced before 9.4K Cal BP. They disappeared and did nothing afterwards.

result: Chimp GoyetQ116-1 German_Epi German_Mesolithic -0.1510 -6.285 739 1002 19405
result: Chimp GoyetQ116-1 ElMiron German_Epi 0.0475 3.407 3334 3032 75001
result: Chimp GoyetQ116-1 ElMiron German_Mesolithic -0.0895 -5.525 2264 2708 55416

Here, German Hamburg era stuff is Magdalenian, unlike later Germans, again. They're very much more related to the other European mesolithic samples.

result: Chimp ElMiron German_Epi German_Mesolithic -0.1093 -4.579 795 990 19924
result: Chimp Loschbour German_Epi German_Mesolithic 0.1366 6.606 1143 868 22070
result: Chimp Villabruna German_Epi German_Mesolithic 0.1262 5.387 1128 876 22134

Here, EHG and SHG are closer to the later cluster and not Hamburg.

result: Chimp Karelia_HG German_Epi German_Mesolithic 0.0195
0.834 977 939 22309
result: Chimp Karelia_HG German_Epi Loschbour 0.0522 4.840 5186 4672 103843
result: Chimp Karelia_HG German_Epi Villabruna 0.0301 2.610 5196 4893 101099
result: Chimp Motala_HG German_Epi German_Mesolithic 0.0791 4.165 1067 911 22378
result: Chimp Motala_HG German_Epi Loschbour 0.1010 11.835 5581 4557 104905
result: Chimp Motala_HG German_Epi Villabruna 0.0766 8.330 5522 4736 101967

Same pattern for Yamnaya. As you can see, your Hamburg group was replaced. Genetic evidence trumps and horseshit paper you quote. Game, set, match... You can't refute this, so don't even bother.

result: Chimp Yamnaya_Samara German_Epi German_Mesolithic 0.0319 1.646 997 935 22146
result: Chimp Yamnaya_Samara German_Epi Loschbour 0.0488 5.702 5151 4672 104000
result: Chimp Yamnaya_Samara German_Epi Villabruna 0.0304 3.222 5154 4850 101119

Now, you can just put away your bullshit papers and move on.

FrankN said...

@Angantyr: Thx first for some new information on the Gökhem context.

Alberto had shown Gökhem in nMonte to prefer Loschbaur, IIRC even LaBrana, over Motala. So, they were a complete break with preceding populations not only as concerns their EEF, but also their UHG portion. The Skoglund paper had demonstrated affinity to today's Basques, and - in contrast to PWC - hardly any genetic continuity to current Swedes. Hence my qualification of Gökhem as ultimately failed/ aborted colonisation attempt.

(Late) Michelsberg is credited with having spread gallery graves (allées couvertes) from the Paris Basin to the Netherlands (Drenthe) and N/C Germany (c.f.; "Emsländer Kammer", "Holsteiner Kammer"), and I assume Danish gallery graves belong into the same category. But, of course, I have been sloppy in speaking about "Michelsberg colonisation". It was a "Michelsberg-derived" colonisation by the TRB Volling Group, which from W. Jutland also neolithicised/ colonised S. Norway (Oslo area), and generally shows much less cultural parallels to Ertebolle than the Scanian/Danish Isles/ Holstein TRB Oxie Group.

As you state correctly, the Neolithic had reached SE Sweden by 3600 BC latest, possibly already by 3900 BC. But the timing is less clear as concenrs E Middle Sweden (Södermanland). There seem to be a handful of early C14 datings from burnt cattle (or Aurochs?) bones. But according to the following paper (p.11; 27), cereals only appear in EM Swedish pollen diagrams from 5200 BP (3250 BC) onwards:

This corresponds to a demographic upswing in EM Sweden that peaks around 3100 BC, while at the same time there is a remarkable population drop in South Central Sweden (Vättern/ Vänern Lake area, incl. Gökhem, see Fig.3 in the link). Both trends may of course be unrelated, but it smells like typical Neolithic "boom and bust": After soils have been exhausted from unsustainable cereal monoculture, a process typically taking 100-150 years, farmers move on.

@batman: Do you have any links for your purported Öresund Refugium? From all I have read, the area should have been glaciated. If there was a "Nordic Refugium", it should rather have been Doggerland, as the Scandinavian glaciation ended somewhere along a line Hamburg-Flensburg-Herning, while the western Cimbrian peninsula stayed ice-free. So Doggerland might have provided for a decent (though probably Vitamin C-poor) aquatic diet.

Kristiina said...

It is natural that after the Ice Age there were people from the southeast Europe expanding northward as the population numbers should have been bigger in the south. However, it is not necessary that there was a complete replacement of earlier inhabitants. My understanding is that If statistics show that there is geneflow between Loschbour and German Mesolithic rather than between German Epi and German Mesolithic, it does not mean that there was not any continuity at all between German Epi and German Mesolithic.

In the absence of big genetic upheavals, contemporary samples should naturally be closer to each other than samples that are temporarily more distant. However, in this case, I agree that after the Ice Age there probably was a big genetic change in Europe because few earlier inhabitants were surely outnumbered by newcomers and maybe the newcomer had a technical advantage and/or were more resistant for example to new diseases.

Alberto said...


I'm here, did I miss any comment addressed to me?

I didn't comment about your opinion on the paper about the Bell Beaker chronology in Portugal. I guess that if you say that the people that appear outside the fortified settlements making Bell Beaker pottery and the people who had been living inside the fortified settlements for centuries without making Bell Beaker pottery are the same people I'll have to take your word until we get DNA.

As for the dental trait studies, I wish they were half as informative as you say. Then we wouldn't need ancient DNA, since we would already know everything. If you're interested you can check several ones done these last few years by Anahit Khudaverdyan, for example this one:

I prefer to wait for DNA from the missing areas because I don't find these too helpful.

One option where my thesis should be "From Shulaveri Shomu 2 Bell beaker" (and drop the R1b of the equations). :)

Yes, that probably would help to gain some credibility, because of the genetic front you have a hard sell with R1b and ANE coming through North Africa. The problem is: once you drop R1b, you'd have to argue for an out of Iberia female migration to marry those R1b guys, who in turn would have to get to Iberia at some point. So you'd be in the same boat at everyone else is, mostly because there seems to be no way around that.

Olympus Mons said...

The reason I asked for you is because of Anahit Khudaverdyan precisely!
A long Time ago while looking for Nonmetric Dental I found a comment of yours on Eurogenes on Khudaverdyan work and that is what I wanted to talk to you about. I remember you urging people to look for meaningfull relationships between populations because some had shotly after being proof by Adna. However I remember looking into it and the dates were "all Wrong" for my shulaveri o bell beakers so I dropped it.

However... because of this comments here, I checked again. And something caught my eye. The Georgian samples! those two names (Tkviavi and Kiketi samples) really ring kind of familiar because those two places, even if they are more them 800 hundred years after the disappearance of the Shulaveri if I had to choose a place to still look for “them” it would be exactly, Exactly there. Those two places are on the only passage of the lesser Caucasus Mountains and are the place and actual only route where the Southern part of the Shulaveri (Aratashen and Aknashen) crossed to meet the north part (and the bulk) of the Shulaveri kindship. So Tkviavi and Kiketi could very well still be “truth” Shulaveri people albeit being dated to the IV millennia.


What did I find when I follow your advise? – Those two samples cluster on the dendogran with, … Lo and behold … EGYPTIAN PRE-DINASTIC Samples (WTF!) and also with, …. Lo and behold…. THE Abashevskaya culture which are the descendants of the Samara Yamnaya R1b Davidsy and friends so much love here.

And also, cherry on top please, with samples from Catal Huyuk where we know by dna probably their cattle came from…

Truly amazing right?

Olympus Mons said...

Man, when you want you can be disingenuous like mad! 

First what is important. Look, don’t really know how good craniometrics are… so just found interesting that so many of seemingly absurd or not expected links are coming truth (like with Yamnaya and Allentoft about Afanasievo). And naturally having some form of validation that specific Shulaveri stock clustering with ancestral Egypt Delta Nile and Guys at samara R1b grounds… it just warmed my blood because that is just my take on all that.

Now about Nonmetric Dental traits…. No, no, no. My interest in Nmd cames from a work of Ana Maria silva in Perdigoes where by dental traits she could distinct population from 2 different sites of Perdigoes form people just across the river in La pijotilla or whatever! So, nobody can tell me that it’s not relevant to address populations. No surprise there are so many new Nmd studys currently undergoing (more than the ones currently exist). Nmd can be measured in terms of accuracy in living populations, in twins and so forth and its massively precise on doing it. And truth is from the 50 up until now archeology as being under the influence of the “evil” empire of the “left”… so lost all adherence to reality and made “illegal” anything that pointed to population movement and not cultural movements. Thank God we’ve just being saved by DNA.

Nevertheless, yes, as long as adna is being made in fancy Harvard labs , over years of work to get the dna of one guy that for all I know can be the son of a girl snatched 2000 miles way and gang raped from there too here, lets ALSO take current knowledge with a bit of salt. And Cranio or NMd are made with thousands of ancient individuals while as good as it is with DNA you are reading the history of that guy, that individual, and how he related to certain population (s) while with Nmd its THIS populations related to THAT population. See the difference?

Chad said...


You keep repeating the same nonsense. Your idea doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being correct. L51 isn't from Africa and there was no migration of hundreds of thousands of people. The largest CA sites in Spain only had about 1000 people. Just give it a rest.

Olympus Mons said...

My gosh. Why didnt you say so already!
Should I anounce to world that Chad rolfsomething has spoken?

Rob said...

Your hypothesis is wrong- genetically & archaeologically

Olympus Mons said...

@ Rob,
Bullshit. :)

You are just doing a red herring here for the audiences of Steppeaddictsgenes.

Archaeologically I am right on the money.

batman said...

@ Frank

You keep confusing the period called "Last Glacial Maximum" (25-17.000 yrs BP) with the Dryas-glaciations (15.500 - 12.000 yrs BP).

The difference concerning the "Scandinavian Ice-Sheet" is gross. Please check you sources.


The map you refer to, where an a-l-l-e-d-g-e-d ice-sheet is covering the entire area of Fenno-Scandia and the Baltic bassin, including it's eastern and southern lands - from Estonia to Friesland - belongs to the first period and the first period only.

There are NO serious quanternary geologists or glaciologer that draws an ice-sheet for the YD - 4000 warm years later - even close to those proportions.

Ever since the end of LGM and the occurance of the Billeroed/Alleroed-warmth, 17.000 - 13.000 yrs BP, the southern part of Sweden, including Gotland, Oland, Bornholm and Denmark are all ice-free. As well as the Baltic, Polish, German and Danish shores of the Baltic.

From archaological remains we know there were people there to - in ALL the mentioned areas, during this period.

Chad said...


aDNA says your idea is shit. Move on.

batman said...

Frank et al

Over the last decades there occured a lot of problems for the proponents of "The Giantic Scandinavian Ice Sheet-hypothesis".

The drill-tests carried out to measure the water-temperatures of the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea during the last 70.000 years have shown that the (hot) Gulfstream passed the North Sea and the SW coast of Norway during ALL this period.

Moreover, the same tests tells that the (by far) worst drop in the NE Atlantic water-temperature is found at the Younger Dryas - NOT the LGM.

Another difficulty appeared when from Polish geologers got their morraines across Pomeria and Samland methodically reconstructed and duely dated.

Their conclusion is that the polish morraines from the Late Paleolithic - found across northern Samland and Pommeria - is a result of glaciers that moved FROM the higher elevations of southern Poland and nortwards - towards the Baltic Sea. By 16.000 BP the last of them seem to have melted away - which tells that the LGM represent the last N. Carpatian/Vistulan glaciers collapsing - to slipp and slide downhills and into the ocean. Which means that A prescence of A (hypothetical) giantic ice-sheet strethcing across the Ocean from Sweden and Finland to Poland and Germany - is not "in demand" anymore - to 'explain' the existence of the Pommerian and Samogetian morraines...

hich have led some geologists back to an older model of the "de-glaciation" of Fenno-Scandia" - where "The Scaninavian Ice-sheet" is covbering the Fenno-Scandinavian landmass - only. (From the thicker paqrt of the inland massive this landbased SIS would be filling the Baltic Ocean with loads of drift-ice at the end of long melting-phases, which would fill the Baltic with meltwater and ice - and duely reduce the temperature of the entire North Europe, duely.)

The level of "coverage" known from the LGM can be compared to the present ice-sheet (continental glacier) covering Greenland, which means that the southern shores are open - serving as "melting-zones" for the massives of the inland ice-sheet.

Due to the altitude of the Scaninavian Mountain-ridge there were nunataks popping up along western Scandinavia long before and during the LGM. Which means that the ice-sheet of inland Norway/Sweden was already thinning - and large areas were ice-free, as high as 800 above the present sea-level.

Since then a number of plants - from mosses to pine-threes - have been discovered to have survived the LGM (as well as the late Weichsel) - on the lowlands of west-coast Norway.

Today the entire construction (d-r-a-w-i-n-g) of the SIS, made in the early 1980-ties, is known to be flawed - based on insufficent data and ditto opinions. (

Please note that the Weichsel-period halts at its coldest, as its last and coldest of cold-waves occurs 13.000 yrs BP, to disappear 12.000 yrs BP.)

Please also remember that it is the YD at 13.000 yrs ago and NOT the LGM at 23.000 years ago that created "The Megafaunal Extinction-event", when a majority of the terrestial species across Eurasia went extinct. ("Decimated by the LGM, extinguished by the YD.")

For any specie succeeding to survive - at some numbers - the YD can be viewed as a historical event that had to produce a strong bottle-neck. Consequently we can't handle a comparision of Paleolithic genomes and Mesolithic genomes without considering the strong bottleneck inbetween.

I wrote some more about this already, just above your last comment.

Olympus Mons said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

@ OM

"You are just doing a red herring here for the audiences of Steppeaddictsgenes.

Archaeologically I am right on the money."

Not really, I am somewhat a skeptic actually.
Maybe it's your odd writing style, and misplaced self-assuredness, but Neolithic enclosures first appeared in west -central Europe, in the Michelsberg culture (as I think Frank_N has pointed out), in the post-LBK phase, c. 5000 BC. A flow from Alpine Europe certainly dovetails with the subtle but evident mid-Neolithic genetic shift seen in Iberia.

Doesn't this make sense instead of imaginary 'hundreds of thousands of snake people" which finds no archaeological support, and in fact, has already been irrevocably controverted by aDNA ?

Olympus Mons said...

Assuming you have English as a mother language, do you note the "Odd writing style" in the thesis itself or just here? give it a try and read it. First couple pages is me ranting but then it gets real.

next I will answer your comment.

Olympus Mons said...

So by your comment you haven’t read even a paragraph of what I have written.
Let me give you an honest shot in trying to explain. Its all about people. A population can change many things over time, but there are two things you need a dramatic and overpowering event to see them change: The way you bury or love one and the way you build the house where you bed your family. This is basic human behavior. All I did with my thesis was follow that.

a. First thing you learn about Iberia is that it was the arrival of people with carenated pottery and Arrows. There is no prior to what happened in south Iberia 3400bc. You go from practically no arrows to arrows as a litter. Lots, staggering. How did they built their houses and how did they bury their dead? - on a small hill usually over a river, average 4.6m round huts with an inhouse hearth, with 1.5 to 2 m storage silos and bend walls connecting them making a central middle courtyard for work with usually a larger hearth. See how precise it is! Them they bury their dead inside those huts in a flex position and also with dog and cattle taxa.

b. See if you apply Fletchers model for prehistoric population, you get 300-600 people per hectare in settlements and the notion human interaction breaks down if over 100ha. So simple version. Now take just a small less the 50 km radius near the Guadiana river, in south Iberia and don’t even count with even 300 and just make it 200(!): La Pijotilla (80 ha), San Blas (50ha), perdigões (50ha) and Porto Torrao ( Singa like I prefer to call it -200ha at least, official number is reaching 400ha). Around this there are hundreds of 2ha settlements, ok. - So, just in this small range in south Iberia, left side of crossing Gibraltar and you get 100,000 people (make the math) . Apparently what is being found under the marsh waters really after cross passage will yield another at least 100ha settlement area. So, how did all this guys show up in the WESTERN most part of the Iberia peninsula? Where do you find their trail all over Europe?

b. Back to subject. After my point a. where did I find this same stratigraphy drawings? Exactly the same? – In shulaveri-shomu settlements near the Kura river. Not talk about the rest. Apart from the same houses and silos and architectures for settlements, Same horses, and dogs, and cattle, pigs and Spelt and overall (could had 20 more). The same pastoral behavior, binge party places of cattle slaugther…

Look that is my thesis and I could go on. So, forget all the rest and just regarding settlement organization just show me in Europe the same package in 5th and 4th millennia Europe. It should be easy. Why don’t you or anyone else here does it?

Olympus Mons said...

Just to finish. Do you know where you find that same settlement drawings? in truth the same cultural package!:
- 4.800 BC in Tell tsaf for a brief 200 years in the middle of a prior of rectangular houses and a after of the same rectangular houses (actually where the oldest copper awl has been found and the copper was from Arukhlo in shulaveri land).
- In Merimde, El-omari and Maadi in Nile delta from 4800 bc to 4000 bc.

- then in South Iberia in newly made settlements from 3300 bc.

So, it really should be easy to find this people trough out Europe, right? Oh, no I see, they rode overnight or used boats to shoot trough the Mediterranean ocean... yeah right! Real solid archaeological footing!

Rob said...

Sorry OM, your position is untenable
Move along bud

Rob said...


"Which just about explains why the new, mesolithic populations of Germany and the rest of northern Eurasia, is determined by a new and massive founder-effect."

The YD made little impact apart from in Northern Europe .
Look at Daves PCA - look at the pretty dots.

Obviously already by 12 yBP Epipalaeolithic groups were highly divergent (CHG, Bonkoglu, SHG, Natifians, Hutu cave Iran). This means they're not due to a "massive founder effect" form one place (your imagined "Atlantis"). In fact, it appears the population in north Germany was (significantly) replaced by Villabruna like groups from Balkans or Italy.
Please learn some basic genetics and archaeology

batman said...

@ Chad

"Ice Age Europe paper from Fu et al. (2016)

Here, we see that German Epi samples (16-14.1K Cal BP) are very close to Aurignacian, unlike the mesolithic pops (9.4-8K Cal BP)."

No wonder. There's a grave bottle-neck inbetween. Pinhasi as well as older papers have pointed to such a phenomenon.

Most repports places this bootle-neck within the well-known extinction event called "Younger Dryas", when both northern Asia, northern Europe and northern America saw a sharp demise and several extinctions of terrestial mammals.

@ Chad

"The Hamburg group in Germany was replaced by the group occupied by Villabruna, Loschbour, Bichon, and others."

Your term "replaced" may be a bit inaccurate. What we know is that the de-populaated Germany, along qwith the rest of Europe, got 're-populated' - as soon as the climate sharply improved, as of 12.000 years ago.

The first known "re-settlers", known as the "pioneer-group" are the Lyngby-Ahrensburg-pops, who obviosyly shared ancestry with the Havelte in the west and the Swidrien-Pulli-Ladoga-pops in the east. Who in turn made the Djepr/Donets- and Butonovo-pops. As well as the Lengyel-pops and the Fosna-Hensbacka-pops. All well established as separate 'lines' at about 11.000 BP - forming the genotypes known from Bichon, Villabruna and Loschbour - as well as Stora Forvar, Motala, Kyrös, El Miron, etc...

Which means that the refugiants that survived the YD bottle-neck were the only one (known) to re-populated all these areas - with new-founded lines and outliers - as soon as the Holocene set in.

@ Chad

"Pay attention to how your Hamburg group was replaced before 9.4K Cal BP. They disappeared and did nothing afterwards."

I think most scholars agree that the late-paleolithic populations of northern Eurasia disappeared during the LGM, 23-18.000 yrs BP.

We know that there were numerous groups of refugiants surviving the LGM in Italy, France and Germany, as well as around the Black Sea.

During the Billeroed/Alleroed oscilations they are found in France, England, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and western Russia.

Thus you may call some "aurignac" and some "gravettien", according to their tool-making-styles and techniques.

Their genetic composite is repported to have been very "homozygotic". Obviously they were descendants from the high-arctic populations that survived the LGM. Who in turn shared a common ancestor some 45-60.000 yrs BP.

When the terminal bottle-neck appears, at 13.-12.000 yrs BP, we get again a new 'set-up' - as the genome that are to repopulate Eurasia this time, after the YD Megafaunal extinction event - would contain only a 'basic' part of the Alleroed/Billeroed-populations.

Which just about explains why the new, mesolithic populations of Germany and the rest of northern Eurasia, is determined by a new and massive founder-effect.

@ Chad

"Here, EHG and SHG are closer to the later cluster and not Hamburg.

Impressive and important.

That means the post-glacial SHG and EHG obviously shared origin with the (new) WHG. Thus we may search for a common source of origin in the geografical middle between these groups.

@ Chad:

"Same pattern for Yamnaya. As you can see, your Hamburg group was replaced."

Most definitly. That's exactly what I've been pointing to - for some years, already.

Just remember that the cousins of Hamburg, known as "Bromme-Lyngby" were the only population KNOWN to have survived the mentioned "extinction event". Thus we have a homozygotic group of the LP Eurasians, known as the Magdalenien-, Cresswell-, Hamburg- and Pertuna-cultures - from which only ONE small group survived - to recreate the post-glacial demography of Europe and arctic Eurasia.

batman said...

@ Chad: "Genetic evidence trumps and horseshit paper you quote."

Your genetical rundown seem to explain quite exactly what other and older professionals have suspected for some time already.

Congratulations. Out of the mud emerges the lotus.

batman said...

@ Rob

Please follow your own advice. You have a lot of quartenary geology, glaciology and climatology left to learn. Not to mention paleo-botanics, archeology and history. Meanwhile you may refrain using this blog as a chat-room for ad hominems and inuendos.

Rob said...

We don't care about your rocks
And be assured - there's no inmuendo- we're telling you straight up- you're constructs are devoid of reality; and we've been actually very patient
Same with Stooge number 2 (Olympus).

Olympus Mons said...

Lol. Yes. P E R F E C T L Y clear what your role is in here. Lol and lol again. we just have to increase the difficulty level one small notch and you loose any footing.

batman said...

@ Rob

Eventhough I've tried to patiently explain and re-explain some basic facts about the palaolithic/mesolithic transition you seem to remain in denial about obvious facts.

I wonder if my english is all that lousy or if it may be that you're struggling with some cognitive dissonance - in need of critisizing whatever you can't understand.

In the face of new facts and views you keep repeating certain ready-made views. Rather than meeitng these facts and arguments, to discuss their validity, context and significance you keep dropping premature conclusions and ad hominems.

That you trust yourself is all fine. But it doesn't mean you're always right - about anything. Implying that a few persons already have had to be patient too, with you.

Chad said...


You don't have any facts. Just interpretations of tools. I gave you facts. Magdalenian/Hamburg people were replaced from the south and east. They're gone before 9000bce and did not mix with EHG. The new group did.

Rob said...


Let's recall that your "thesis" stated that women have Y chromosomes
Pretty much sums it up.

batman said...


"You don't have any facts."

Sorry - you're projecting.
I have nothing but facts.

"Just interpretations of tools."

What tools?

"I gave you facts."

You gave med some interpretation, based on the fst's of a software-program that were fed with a few individual aDNAs.

"Magdalenian/Hamburg people were replaced from the south and east."

That was NOT what I could read out of your stats. So - what's your source for such claims? From WHERE did this "southern" and "western" replacements come?

What FACTS exists to prove such claims?

"They're gone before 9000bce and did not mix with EHG. The new group did."

Obviously, there's no disagreement that the Paleolitic populations ended at 13.000 BP - creating the 1000 yers long bottleneck that produced the basic groups that produced the first mesolithic populations (*pioneers') that branched out in Europe and Asia. Some of them obviously made it as far as America, too - given that the phylogenic structure of the Human Genome is correct and y-dna Q is a derivation of K2, as a brother-line of y-dna R.

I'm not sure what you think of the EHG. But to my knowledge they're a product of the very same pop that produced the WHG and the SHG.
Even the EEF and the LNE are basically derived from this "Basal Europeans".

A few years ago Dieneke re-examined the old idea of a "Womb of Nations" based on the present facts - and a due software (K12). You may benefit from reviewing his conclusions - and the final comments he got...

The first to describe such a "Womb of Nations" were the Roman historian Cassiodorus, from which his adept Jordanes copied in the famous work "De Origine Antibusque Gothorum".

The idea of a regugia in Skandza, aka Scania, is obviously far older than me. So are also the Russian researchers placing the origin of the caucasian fenotype in N Europe.

I just brought some new discoveries along to check it out - from the fields of climatology, archaeology and genetics. Since Pinhasi's study it's been clear that also the genetics is now giving evidence to the claims from the classical sources and ditto researchers.

Thus I've been communicationg these FACTS as commentaries to this blog, to make sure that serious analysts are aware of these facts - to analyze the (possible) impact of a Scanian refugia through the Younger Dryas.

Whatever one may believe - as new information hits the van it would usually call for a reconsideration of old assumptions and outdated beliefs. If science is to be scientific, rather than socio-politic.

batman said...

@ Kristiina

"It is natural that after the Ice Age there were people from the southeast Europe expanding northward as the population numbers should have been bigger in the south."

What one may find "natural" others may consider "questionable", "simplistic" or "naive".

Before you start drawing maps of alledged populations and projected migrations it's a basic need to base your presumtions on SOME known, verified facts.

So what population "from the south-east" do you KNOW about (from proof rather than allegations) that survived the massive extinctions of the Younger Dryas? Any, at all?

Rob said...


You know, you're right on the money. We've been wrong to dismiss you.
You should write up your new path-breaking 'discoveries' in Nature, ASAP.

Rob said...

Also this video is good for you
Esp. from 2:00 min onward

Chad said...


These new people existed in Italy, Switzerland, and France before Northern Germany. You aren't paying attention. To top it off, you dismiss the formal stats I gave you for some bullshit Admixture run? You're completely out of your depth. Find a new hobby. I don't have time for dipshits.

batman said...


You're obviously up in emotions.

1. I didn't "dismiss" anything. I just refered to a study by another, well-known blogger.

2. The studies I've been linking to all concludes that the first people to populate Scandianvia AND Northern Germany (after the Younger Dryas) appeared at the latest 11.800 years ago - already. Which is at the very end of the Younger Dryas, just about the sharp climate-improvement that kicked off the Holocene climate and the 'mesolithic' re-population of ALL of Europe - AS WELL AS Northern Eurasia.

Still you keep insisting that the first mesolithic Germans came from "Italy, Switzerland and France"?

Then you tell me I'm the one that haven't been paying attention?!

3. Not even a jester with a software-program can prove the location of origin of ancient populations, by the mere use of human genomes only.

Which is why your blunt claims begs the question of what archeological repports you refer to, proving there were continous refugias existing throughout the Younger Dryas and into the early Mesolithic - in Italy, Switzerland and France.

Do YOU have any answer to that?

Nirjhar007 said...

No leaks? come on! .