Friday, February 1, 2019
The Boscombe Bowmen
I'm thinking that the Boscombe Bowmen site in Wiltshire, southern England, might be a valuable case study of how the Bell Beaker population, and thus also the present-day western European gene pool, came to be.
Dated to 2500–2140 BCE, this isn't an especially early Bell Beaker grave, but its inventory is intriguing. It includes seven All-Over-Cord (AOC) beakers and one Cord-Zoned-Maritime (CZM) beaker.
Maritime beakers are quintessential Bell Beaker gear, and they're named as such because most of them have been recovered from sites along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts. However, strictly speaking, AOC beakers aren't Bell Beaker artifacts. Rather, their origin is said to be in the Single Grave culture, which is, of course, the northwestern European variant of the Corded Ware culture.
Genotype data for two samples from the Boscombe cemetery were analyzed in and published along with last year's Olalde et al. Beaker paper. In tune with the archeological data, one of these individuals came out very Corded Ware-like, with a lot of steppe ancestry, and the other rather southern, with among the lowest level of steppe ancestry for a Beaker dated to later than ~2500 BCE.
To take a closer look at their genetic affinities, I put together the graph below based on a couple of D-stats of the form D(Mbuti,X)(Yamnaya_Samara)/D(Mbuti,X)(Barcin_N,WHG). The bowmen are labeled I2416 and I2417, and the relevant datasheet is available here.
Considering these results, I2416 and I2417 may have been migrants, or the descendants of migrants, from such relatively far flung places as, say, what are now northern Germany and western France, respectively. [Edit: as per the comments below, these individuals are probably third-degree relatives, which makes it unlikely that they're migrants to the region, although it's still possible that their recent ancestors may have been migrants]
Note also that almost all of the populations are basically sitting between the two bowmen. This indeed suggests to me that the cultural processes and resulting population mixtures that took place at the Boscombe site also played out across the width and breadth of the Beaker realm, giving rise to heterogeneous Beaker groups almost everywhere within it and, eventually, the present-day western European gene pool.
Most of the Scandinavians, as well as the closely related British Anglo-Saxons, are slightly pulled above the red trend line by their excess genetic affinity to Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG). This phenomenon appears to date back to at least 2275-2032 BCE, because Nordic_LN:RISE98 is clearly affected by it and dated to this period.
My guess is that Single Grave populations from what is now Denmark and surrounds harbored much higher levels of WHG-related ancestry than the more easterly Corded Ware (aka Battle-Axe) Scandinavian groups, and they passed this onto present-day Scandinavians. Nordic_LN:RISE98, although from a burial site in what is now southern Sweden, might well be of Danish Single Grave origin.
See also...
Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Dutch Beakers: like no other Beakers
Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
218 comments:
1 – 200 of 218 Newer› Newest»That explains why so many Germanic people have Y-Hap I, close to 35%, probably a heritage of Erteboelle Culture which folded into Funnelbeaker. Current nordics are closer to Motala than to Goeken.
Also there used to be (now obsolete and outdated) speculations how Proto-Germanic used to contain up to 1/3 of its vocabulary from HG Erteboelle and farmer LBK/TRB related groups, but nowadays no serious linguists gives a credence to a substantial non-IE substrate in Germanic languages or its unique position within IE tree, rather attribute it to an admixture of R1b speakers (BB related) and a Satemish Single Grave/Battle Axe R1a1 groups close to Balto-Slavic groups.
@Andrzejewski
I2417 is a Bell Beaker of very likely Single Grave (Corded Ware) origin and he belongs to R1b-L21.
I understand but 35% of Scandinavian harbor Hunter Gatherer ydna I. But I don’t think that anything in Germanic languages is not Beaker (read:non-IE) derived.
How do these stats look substituting D(Mbuti,X;Barcin_N,WHG) for D(Mbuti,X;Barcin_N,GlobularAmphoraPoland) and (Mbuti,X;Barcin_N,IberiaChl)? To substitute the BarcinN->WHG axis for a correlated one.
(Off topic, but a lot of the heterogenity of the Beaker horizon makes me wonder about how easy it will be to find any signatures of male biased sex admixture that are seen on y-dna on excess on x-chromosome.
If these patterns are really extensive, you can end up with ratios between X:Autosome that are quite high... but only represent small amounts of ancestry, so hard to reconstruct statistically due to measurement error, and vulnerable to reverses from back admixing with females from earlier in the admixture process, or small amount of groups with the reverse admixture bias).
The truth is do Scandinavians even have SHG? Also Andrzejewski the message's that R1b-L151 is from Corded Ware not Yamnaya or other steppe group. Also didn't Battle Axe have R1a-Z284? Or could Danish Single Grave people had a mix of R1a and R1b sufficient to create modern Germanics?
Gus Kroonen of Univeristy of Copehagen has actually revived the non-IE substrate theory found in PG derived from TRB/Neolithic farming groups:
http://ku-dk.academia.edu/GuusKroonen
He gives a fairly good lecture on the matter too entitled 'The linguistic heritage of the European Neolithic' - Guus Kroonen :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvoaZbV6ak
I haven't seen much criticism emerge of his stance at the moment.
A Neolithic farmer substrate has to affect all modern Europeans anyway.
Do not forget that I2416 and I2417 are second or third-degree relatives!
@Them meee Corded Ware are 75% Yamnaya according to Haak and Lazaridis 2015 paper
Why would it be a farming rather than HG lexicon?
(Not that I think IE Languages have any non-IE substrate in them anyway).
SHG/WHG ranges between 25%-40% of Germanic people, probably attributed to Erteboelle forager Culture, whereas TRB/LBK is much more Southern, traditionally inhabited by para-Celtic groups (Halstaadt) which Germans later displaced or assimilated. The córę of Proto-Germanic tribes originated with the Nordic Bronze Age more of less where Erteboelle used to be, North of the shores of the Baltic.
It’s akin to all the South-of-Caspian PIE origins of PIE. The more EEF/CHG/WHG component, the less scientists would justify a Nordic-looking Eastern-European derived IE extraction. It’s all in the name of debunking the Third Reich’s race theories, on the same vein, so less “Kurgan” and less-Euro PIE is better for some people’s conscience.
Because HG types are hunter gatherers who for centuries would have obviously not practiced a Neolithic life style.
Kroonen mentions many domesticated plant type terms that are likely candidates derived from Neolithic farmers. The plant types mentioned are unlikely to be found in a Mesolithic context.
BTW, this is a reconstruction of the Etruscan language, what a CHG - derived tongue sounds like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfuYN1szknM&app=desktop
Certainly nothing resembling a PIE dialect. This, PIE is likely a North Eurasian language.
I read the original theory in which words like “rudder”, “carp” or “eel” were not IE. So if it’s true I assume Erteboelle.
PS: how likely is Erteboelle similar to SHG and/or to the non/pre-Uralic substrate in Saami Laap languages?
So Rathlin looks a bit closer to Single Grave than Britain Bell Beaker....interesting...
"Most of the Scandinavians, as well as the closely related British Anglo-Saxons, are slightly pulled above the red trend line by their excess genetic affinity to Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG).
My guess is that Single Grave populations from what is now Denmark and surrounds harbored much higher levels of WHG-related ancestry than the more easterly Corded Ware (aka Battle-Axe) Scandinavian group....."
Could be also the case for some North Dutch, this is G25 web runner, my mother (and I) exceed the early Anglo Saxon WHG (though some more neolithic, some less Yamna).
See:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ih92tvwlq9.21.38.png
Where does Beaker Italy, Sicily or Iberia land on this graph?
It looks obvious that Beaker was a mix of populations.
The genetic information around these guy is definitely odd when in context with the origin of Beaker culture in Iberia.
It is obvious that not much or any genetic transfer came from Iberia into the rest of the Beakers. SO it is a cultural package picked up by another genetic population(s).
Central Beakers became the cultural center and subsequently the genetic center. As the spread, the obviously mixed with local populations. This is really obvious when looking at Britain. Significant variability in British populations with differing levels of British Neolithic and Central Beaker genetics
Interestingly, most of the British Neolithic populations were highly related to Iberian Neolithic--so Did the British mix happen in britain or in an unsampled location on the mainland?
I wish Physical Anthropologists could reconstruct the appearance of WHG, Anatolia_N, CHG and EHG independently, and then we could see how the admixture of the 4 hitherto distinct populations produced modern European looks.
So is there a familial-genetic relationship between I2416 and I2417? I understand they are vastly different in terms of steppe ancestry, but the skeletal analysis suggested relatedness of some of the individuals. Are you suggesting these boys and the man are maybe generationally related despite the difference in Steppe ancestry?
The idea that Etruscan is a CHG-derived language is completely and totally speculative. There's not a shred of evidence to suggest that that might be true.
Yes, I2416 is the British Beaker with the lowest steppe ancestry and I2417 the one with the highest steppe ancestry (Figure S2a), and they are definitely closely related (Supp Table 1), most likely 3rd degree. This is not crazy because cousins can have very different ancestry profiles. One could think that they were cousins through their paternal lines, and I2416 had a mother with very low or none steppe ancestry. Of course, there are many other possible scenarios that could fit the data.
Genetics dictate that Etruscans are CHG Hap J1 rather than Early Neolithic farmers G. Also, Oetzi has 15% CHG drift. Georgians/Kartvelians are more likely EEF/ANF language speakers rather than a CHG one. And the reason that North Caucasus people look more "Europoid" is due to their Steppe drift.
No, genetics does not indicate that the Etruscans were J1 CHGs rather than ENFs. That's not true at all, as near as I can tell. What study are you citing for that claim? Everything I've ever seen, as recently as 2017 and 2018, all suggest an autochthonous origin for the Etruscans, with their closest relatives among the EEF population.
@weure
Do you realize that the north Dutch are of overwhelmingly Germanic origin and not from people like the Oostwoud dude who was R1b-U106, right?
@Andrzejewski - "I understand but 35% of Scandinavian harbor Hunter Gatherer ydna I. But I don’t think that anything in Germanic languages is not Beaker (read:non-IE) derived."
I wouldn't assume all Beakers were IE speaking, given the significance of Beaker Y-DNA among the Basque.
@them Yes the North Dutch are partly Anglo-Saxon, But my WHG exceeds that of the Anglo-Saxon, so the “indigenous” must have had high WHG too....my mother is from Drenthe that’s the part of the North Dutch with the oldest opulation from Ertebølle/Swifterbant, TRB.....you stumble over the dolmens there....
That R1b U106 dude had certainly influence too.....;)
I haven't seen autosomal results for Etrebolle and am not sure about surviving Mesolithic substratums in western IE languages. Sounds interesting though....
As for Etruscans, I know there has been various studies with differing methodology that throw out varying data and conclusions derived from DNA. From an archaeological standpoint, some have felt that Villanovan I was Italic and that Villanovan II Etruscan. Essentially in this scenario, proto-Italics were ousted from the north by Etruscans who were thus later invaders. Also, depending how the Lemnos stelae is interpreted, that very object could lend weight to that scenario, that is if it represents a more archaic form of Etruscan.
The above was gathered from various discussions over at Anthrogenica, so if you want to track down the papers that people were citing that came to those conclusions, I'd recommend going over there and doing some poking around. It was a fairly decent discussion.
Makes sense. Thanks, Inigo.
@Iñigo
Do not forget that I2416 and I2417 are second or third-degree relatives!
Thanks, I missed this.
So it's unlikely that they're first generation migrants to the region, although they may have been the descendants of fairly recent migrants.
Could I2416 have British Neolithic ancestry or is he too recent a generation for that?
@Dragos
Where do you think U106 came from?
Also Weure thinks R1b-U106 is from Bell Beakers, so...
@ them meee
“Do you realize that the north Dutch are of overwhelmingly Germanic origin and not from people like the Oostwoud dude who was R1b-U106, right?”
Weure is correct here ; and it seems youve missed the point
Contrary to the “pan -Corded Waria “ narratives in fashion here, and the Copenhagen school, (real) Germanics are characterised by U106, I1 and I2a2; none of which are directly associated witg cwc or BB
@Them meee
Could I2416 have British Neolithic ancestry or is he too recent a generation for that?
It's possible, but I think the chance that British Neolithic ancestry survived at such high levels past 2500 BCE among the British Beakers, which have so much steppe ancestry, is pretty low.
I'd say it's more likely that his mother was from France. I guess this might also explain the presence of the Maritime beaker in the grave.
@Andrzejewski/John Johnson
We have one possible Ertebølle genome, reported here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/493882v1
It's from a woman who lived on the Danish island of Lolland 5,858-5,661 cal. BP. This was at a point in time when TRB had almost completely replaced Ertebølle in the area, but she was autosomally purely WHG.
As all TRB genomes we have are distinctly EEF (though with high WHG admixture), she basically has to have been an Ertebølle survivor. And thereby it seems like SHGs didn't reach the Danish islands.
@Dragos
(Real) Germanics didn't suddenly migrate from far away into southern Scandinavia.
They were the result of various forms of population mixtures in this region that mostly included the descendants of local TRB farmers and Single Grave people.
Let's wait and see where U106 is from. At this stage it doesn't look to have suddenly jumped into that post-TRB/Single Grave melting pot.
Doesn't surprise me if that's the case. Most of the archaeological literature ascribed Etrebolle to a population with Mesolithic roots in the area. TRB genetic structures are of course essentially EEF and most archaeologists tied the population to the LBK in some way or another for TRB' group's eventual development on the North European Plain.
Also, R1a-Z284 was found in Battle Axe wasn't it? Or could it also be from Single Grave? Just asking because I'm really curious.
@Andrzejewski
You're going off on some major tangents again.
There's no evidence that Etruscan was a CHG language. At best, it comes from an Anatolian or Aegean population with relatively high CHG-related ancestry compared to the earliest European farmers. But this is just speculation too, so there's no point delving too deeply into it until we at least see some good quality early Etruscan genomes.
And obviously Scandinavians have very little SHG ancestry. This has been covered in at least a couple of papers.
@Them meee
Also, R1a-Z284 was found in Battle Axe wasn't it? Or could it also be from Single Grave? Just asking because I'm really curious.
It was Battle-Axe. There are no confirmed Single Grave genomes available yet.
Some people have speculated that Nordic_MN_B:RISE61 was from a Single Grave burial, but this hasn't been confirmed.
Basques have 25%-30% Steppe Kurgan autosomal component which explains their R1b marker perfectly.
Their language remains a mystery, as it’s. It not even close to the Etruscan/Lemnian language family, originally and putatively Anatolia_N derived.
Could Basque be the lingua of La Braña rather than EEF?
Etruscans/Villanova were related to Raetians, so a direct lineage to Ötzi’s group could not be ruled out of order.
For some reason (plague?) apparently 90% of British Neolithic has been replaced by Dutch Beakers within a few centuries. Turns out they were (Stonehenge builders) much more swarthy than the Beakers.
That’s my whole point: I1 and I2a2 are Mesolithic Haplogroups. Probably farmers with male sex bias (forager males marrying female farmers?)
@Andrzejewski
I deleted your last comment because it was way out there. I can't have comments like that here.
Try to be more realistic when posting here and please don't ever again mention physical anthropology.
@Matt
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z5Hun_PR4g5dlix2dV2QZ4DvHNNJ19hX/view?usp=sharing
@All
I've introduced a new rule for comments here:
- do not discuss or cite any outdated physical anthropology work unless it's just the raw measurement data in the context of discussions about archeology and/or ancient DNA
New rules for comments
New post, may be related to farmer ancestry of Northern Europe. This covers Megalithism and I also look at asymmetry between Africans and Eurasians that can cause issues.
http://populationgenomics.blog/2019/02/01/of-stone-blood-the-demography-of-the-megalithic-expansions-work-in-progress/
@ Davidski
''(Real) Germanics didn't suddenly migrate from far away into southern Scandinavia.
They were the result of various forms of population mixtures in this region that mostly included the descendants of local TRB farmers and Single Grave people.
Let's wait and see where U106 is from. At this stage it doesn't look to have suddenly jumped into that post-TRB/Single Grave melting pot.''
If CWC/ BAx migrated to Scandinavia, then there's no reason why others did not subsequently.
My point is - BAx in Sweden appears to have arrived via the East Baltic c. 27/2600, whilst the following period (2200 BC onward) is marked by new links with the south, esp. the Jutish variant of late BB , called the Flint Dagger horizon. Then the Nordic Bronze Age emerges under influecnes of Unetice culture. It is only after all these events that we can reasonably start hypothesizing about proto-Germanics emerging. And so whilst they are indeed all variations of CWC/BB and north-central European MNE, simply ascribing it as CWC + TRB isnt exactly correct'; and in fact isn't born out by the evidence.
@Dragos
If CWC/ BAx migrated to Scandinavia, then there's no reason why others did not subsequently.
That's not a real argument.
My point is - BAx in Sweden appears to have arrived via the East Baltic c. 27/2600, whilst the following period (2200 BC onward) is marked by new links with the south, esp. the Jutish variant of late BB, called the Flint Dagger horizon.
Why do you keep going on about BAx? I'm pretty sure that Single Grave didn't arrive in Scandinavia from the East Baltic.
Try a little harder. Go ahead and prove that Nordic_LN:RISE98 had recent admixture from the south and his U106 lineage isn't native to Scandinavia.
Simply ascribing it as CWC + TRB isnt exactly correct'; and in fact isn't born out by the evidence.
That's not what I said, so don't misrepresent me. Here's what I said...
They were the result of various forms of population mixtures in this region that mostly included the descendants of local TRB farmers and Single Grave people.
'' TRB genetic structures are of course essentially EEF and most archaeologists tied the population to the LBK in some way or another for TRB' group's eventual development on the North European Plain.''
In ''essence'' TRB are quite different to LBK in their material culture, ideology, and probably language. The qpGraph in the P.G. link demonstrates this also from a genetics perspective, to which we might add uniparentals - so far being wholly I2 c.f. G2a
This is why some proposals which attempt to link pre-steppe Europe in being all Vasconic or some Aegean-like EEF language seem rather dubious: each region was rather different & Europe in 3000 BC was probably quite polyglot. This only changed after 2500 BC with the Bell-Beaker-effected cultural wipe-out in the Atlantic
@Dragos
You're conflating Battle-Axe with Single Grave.
@ Davidski
'' Davidski said...
@Dragos
If CWC/ BAx migrated to Scandinavia, then there's no reason why others did not subsequently.
That's not a real argument''
Of course it is, it's called precedent; but that's not even the thrust of my arguement.
But apparently, you seem to think that after EEFs cam along, CWC were the only people to migrate through Europe, and this is simply erroneous.
''Why do you keep going on about BAx? I'm pretty sure that Single Grave didn't arrive in Scandinavia from the East Baltic.''
Because it is the Battle Axe variant which arrived in Sweden & Norway, not single Grave culture (which is generally restricted to the Netherlands and lowland Germany).
The archaeological directions seem to point toward the east, as do some of the Stats in Mittnick et al. East Denmark & the islands were a TRB stronghold, so CWC didn't arrive to Sweden via Denmark; but the later U106 probably did.
@Dragos
You always seem so very angry about stuff.
But what are you going to do when it's shown beyond any doubt that R1b-L51 was a Single Grave marker, and Germanics mostly came from Single Grave? Get really, really mad, stomp your feet and organize a petition against it?
Not much point getting mad about something that has already happened, is it? And we'll find out soon if that's what happened. So relax and wait, and discuss things in a cool and relaxed manner until then.
@ Dragos
The material culture among TRB is very different indeed, even among the sub-groups within this macro-grouping (compare Baalberge groups to Northern then Eastern groups), although one must be a little flexible here and realize that material and culture and the people of the culture(s) creating them can change these things overtime. Yamna is partly derived from Sredny Stog and other steppe pre-Yamna groups with similar autosomal DNA yet Yamna culture is not exactly like those material wise. However, they are generally all cultures that follow the PIE linguistic continuum within those who ascribe PIE to those cultures of the steppes.
Coming back to TRB, However, the earliest dates are from Kujavia, a small part of the East Group, from a destroyed long-barrow of Sarnowo, Wloclawski, Kujawsko-Pomorskie, Poland (see Bakker et al. 1969). This is commonly used to date the beginning of the TRB as early as 4455 cal. BC (see e.g. Midgley 1992, Whittle 1996). There are some reservations among many TRB specialists, including Bakker about the Sarnowo 14C date (e.g. Bakker 2002 and then Milisauskas 2002) but regardless the culture probably started no earlier than 4100/4000 cal BC in a much broader region (see Baldia, 1995, 2004).
Ultimately the TRB’s use of domesticated animals, appearance of settlement, sickles, stone axes, and burial customs appear to stem from traditions of the Neolithic Lengyel culture particularly during the Saranowo phase in Polish territory (see Whittle 1996).
Although some material culture traditions rooted among Mesolithic groups are present as well (see Midgley 2005).
It should be stressed here that The Lengyel group however has roots that lie within the southerly LBK horizon, and these cultural groups, also known as the “Danubian Sphere” among some archaeologists, are associated with the spread of agriculture throughout Europe (see yet again Midgely 2005).
Regarding Vasconic, no one really takes that seriously and that's certainly not Kroonen's stance who has done the best job at the moment resurrecting the case for a Neolithic substratum language. Likewise, an Aegean-like EEF language should be thrown out here as well because ultimately Neolithic farmers coming into Europe have older roots in Anatolia.
I don't think Neolithic substratum languages have any relation to any of the macro-linguistic group ideas people keep throwing out here on this board. Like I keep stressing, Kroonen's work addresses this subject the best and he does not mention Vasconic, or Aegean or anything remotely like that. However, he does point to the TRB as being the likely vector for these seemingly non-IE words found in PG.
John,
You may want to look at the blog entry. TRB does not look like some of those papers describe. They look much more like French and English farmers.
@ Chad
Which blog exactly? Got a link? Or maybe I should simply ask here wow much do those farmer groups stray from the overall EEF genetic signature?
I posted a link a few comments prior
So they have Danubian admixture but is what shifts them essentially an extra addition of WHG? I did mention that TRB is a conglomeration of Meso and Neo characteristics and EEF is that as well.
Anyway, I'm curious as to what they'd look like at say a Gedmatch nowadays assuming enhanced reference populations would add greater resolution to TRB autosomal break down.
No. Read the entry.
Yeah I see now its advocating the Michelsberg origin point theory for TRB and related groups. Interesting.
They look very "Western".
It seems like Neolithic farmers are not a homogenous population, and besides G1a there used to be also E1b1b, T and other vectors, also associated with Middle Eastern origins. How else can we account for the modern Greeks having 30% of their y-dna as J1/J2 (Afro-Asiatic + Non-Steppe CHG), besides the fact that the Balkan including CT having many E1b1b and T, which are also common amongst Levant_N and modern Semites.
So, does the fact that Anatolian farmers were not just G2a means that also CHG and Levant_N were involved in settling of the Aegean?
I also read a paper which I will find and post link thereof here which points out that the original mtDNA of MN Europe (6500 YBP and onward) started to change with a large influx of a non-Steppe CHG into Anatolia and eventually Central Europe, which overran the original Anatolia_N (EEF) farmers and increased the mtDNA H ratio from 19% (which is the average in contemporary Middle East) to 45%. I believe that the second wave of Middle East invaders as non-Steppe non-IE CHG is responsible for the jump in mtDNA H from 19% to 45%.
So, here are the facts:
1. MtDNA H jumps from 19 —> 45.
2. Anatolia_N is almost exclusively G2a but contemporary Hellenics are at least 30%. Plus, Balkan has always been rich in Afro-Asiatic Levant_N Haplogroup E1b1b including Cuceteni Triploye Culture and today’s Bulgarians and Romanians.
3. Some linguists theorizing that there was a “NorthWestern Branch” of Afro-Asiatic languages stretching into the Balkan.
4. Dr. Iosif Lazaridis commenting that Anatolian_N were ~25% Levant_N and the rest being UHG + Basal Eurasians.
Now we do the math!
I wonder then what the Kujavian TRB groups look since they for years were regarded as the earliest TRB sites? Then again the Polish GAC sample could be a proxy for determining this that is if its around from Kujavia.
Earliest dates for Michelsberg culture are roughly contemporary to earliest TRB dates.
All the stuff dated after 2006 has dates in the post 4000BCE timeframe for Kujawy.
@Andrzejewski
There were various waves of CHG-related ancestry after the early Neolithic into different parts of Southern Europe that didn't come with steppe ancestry, but there was no major wave of CHG into Central Europe.
That's because Central Europeans don't show any extra CHG over what they have as part of their steppe ancestry.
And there is no evidence that the rise of mtDNA H in Europe is linked to an influx of CHG ancestry. Rather, it appears to have been due to selection and expansions within Europe of local populations rich in mtDNA H.
@ Davidski
Geez, talk about misrepresenting & tangentiality. Instead, you should show gratitude for my educating you ? Yes, I have favoured a Hungarian origin of L51, but it its indeed from CWC, it doesn't affect me one bit. And petitions have nothign to do with it, evidence, intelligence & honesty do. These models you & others propose are just introductions. They'll be superceded in due course by superior ones. There's little you can do about it, as you know.
@Andrzejewski
There was no massive CHG wave into Europe outside of the east Med and surrounds. The high rate of H in modern Europeans is probably due to certain EEF and steppe groups, and while CHG may form part of that, nothing points to a huge CHG wave into Europe that raised H from a fifth to two of European lineages. That is almost scandalous.
@All
Is it true that, as Chad says, TRB is more Western and Iberian/French-like than earlier groups, or is this BS again? Can someone else confirm this or test if this is likely?
This was already pointed to when Esperstedt came out, showing just as much shared drift with Iberia EN as with LBK. Other TRB and Globular Amphora are the same.
Chimp England_N Iberia_EN LBK_Austria -0.000650 -3.053 922319
Chimp France_MN Iberia_EN LBK_Austria -0.000890 -3.519 877516
Chimp Germany_MN Iberia_EN LBK_Austria 0.000082 0.311 927867
Chimp Gokhem2 Iberia_EN LBK_Austria 0.000096 0.253 232081
Chimp MN_Iberia Iberia_EN LBK_Austria -0.001163 -4.727 888929
Chimp Globular_Amphora Iberia_EN LBK_Austria 0.000024 0.103 923159
Simple D-stats aren't great, but they can provide hints. qpGraph work seems solid. Avoiding using England N and France in the equation, Germany MN still likes Iberia.
And again we see how Y-DNA rules over all. The CWC-like British samples matter not a single bit, but their Y-DNA does.
I guess Bell Beakers can't be from Corded Ware because they belong to R1b-M269. Just like how humans can't be animals, even though we are fleshy beings who depend on food and water to survive and act out on instincts... and it turns out animals have feelings...
I'll take questions over at my entry. I don't want to hijack the thread here on Beakers.
@Dragos
Honestly, I don't know what point you're trying to make anymore.
But if you still believe that the L51 in British and Dutch Beakers is from the Carpathian Basin, then take a look at the graph I posted and explain how Brit Beaker I2417 and his kind ended up with L51(L21+), considering their Corded Ware genomic profiles and AOC (ie. Corded Ware inspired) beakers in their graves.
That's what you should've been trying to do from the start here, and you still haven't even attempted it. Nothing that you said explains away these sorts of data and instead points to the Carpathian Basin.
Care to have a go? Be my guest, but make it good.
@ Davidski
As I said, i take your points, I really do. But you have to be a little more forthright here too, acknowledge when you're corrected on minor points. In fact, I don't think we're disagreeing much here. And pardon, if I don't bow & courtsie everytime i address you, sometimes Im just in a hurry.
"But I don’t think that anything in Germanic languages is not Beaker (read:non-IE) derived."
I thought I read that there is a theory that all the sea and seafearing based words in Germanic languages arent Indoeuropean in origin.
Ship, boat, Strand (German for "beach") and some other parts of ships/boats suposedly cant be found in any other IE language.
@ them “Also Weure thinks R1b-U106 is from Bell Beakers, so...”
No. I only see that in the Oostwoud case it came after the Bell Beaker.
It was from this period that archeologist Fokkens describes:
Harry Fokkens (1998):
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example.It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture)represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."
I suspect that this could have a relationship with R1b U106, because the timing of this Sōgel spread is congruent with the Oostwoud R1b U106.
This North Dutch area, especially the Drouwen area/ Drenthe was an area with an Ertebølle, TRB, Single Grave/ BB population but WHO can set this Sōgel warriors in context????? What are the roots of them???
My point is that Neolithic Farmers were already a diverse population both on their Y-dna and their mtDNA, with Lazaridis claiming that Anatolia_N was already at least 25% Natufian/Levant_N. Apparently 30% of Greeks are J1/J2 so either J (and T) came with the original farmers (and NOT just G2a!) or it cake later with either Eastern Mediterraneans and/or CHG-rich populations.
I’m going to post the link to the paper re: mtDNA H frequency and turnover from LBK to
TRB/MN:
@ Dragos
"...not single Grave culture (which is generally restricted to the Netherlands and lowland Germany)"
There is a Whole Section dedicated to the Single Grave Culture in a Museum in Denmark. And as you know Denmark is not far from Sweden...so "restricted to the Netherlands and lowland Germany)" is not accurate.
@ Ric
why you’re wrong is already addressed above
@Andrzejewski
There are all sorts of Y-haplogroups in the earliest European farmers, not just G2a. There's J2 in LBK, for instance.
Greece did indeed experience gene flow from several populations from across the Aegean rich in CHG-related ancestry, which is what I alluded to above, but these streams of ancestry didn't affect Central Europe in any significant way.
The rise of mtDNA H across Europe from the LBK period to the TRB and later periods isn't connected to any migrations of groups rich in CHG-related ancestry. Rather, it's the result of selection and/or the expansion of Middle Neolithic farmers, possibly from Western Europe, rich in Western European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) ancestry.
What is interesting for me is the similarity between Iron Age Britain, Irish and Scottish. I wonder when this homogenous characteristics took place. Looks to me that there could have been an event during the Late Bronze Age that caused this...Did the collapse of the Bronze Age cause this homogeneity ? Or did this happen a bit earlier ? Maybe this is when Insular Celtic started to form....
Haak 2013, not Lazaridis:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/
“ Early Neolithic hg H mt lineages brought in from the Near East by Central Europe’s first farmers do not appear to have contributed significantly to present-day Central Europe’s hg H diversity, instead being largely superseded during the Mid and Late Neolithic (with the process starting around 4000 BC), after which there appears to have been substantial genetic continuity to the present-day in Central Europe. These developments have been revealed by comparative full mt genome sequencing and would have remained obscure using standard HVS I data.“
@ Dragos
https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-neolithic-period/the-single-grave-culture/
@Dragos
Battle Axe is not Single Grave. So Battle Axe could be more R1a-rich than Single Grave which could be more R1b-rich. Not all Corded Ware was the same. Or were BAxe dudes R1a-Z93 or Z92? And just because all Corded Ware samples recorded to date belong to R1a or farmer hgs does not mean they didn't also have R1b men in their ranks, especially if we see a population that shows all the signs of being derived from them, like, autosomally and culturally. Just like how BAxe isn't Z93 or Z92, again. In fact a Chalcolithic Ukrainian sample already belonged to Z93, a millenium before the rise of Corded Ware. Thus it was speculated by David that maybe Sintashta isn't from CWC, so by that logic, then Beakers aren't all that likely to come from Yamnaya if Yamnaya keeps showing up as Z2103. What if we found a pre-Corded Ware sample belonging to Z283? L664? Rare subclades of L151 in Eastern Europe?
If Yamnaya belonged to I2a2 too then I can't see how there can't be R1b can't be from Corded Ware. Just really. In fact if they aren't from Corded Ware they must be from a closely related group since I already really doubted Hungarian Yamnaya or Vucedol were ancestral to Beakers. They seemed more like a group they moved straight to Central Europe, not through the Balkans. Like towards Slovakia and Poland.
@Andrzejewski
You shouldn't try to extrapolate too much from old papers like that, even if they're generally correct, because 2013 is prehistory in this area of study.
Most of all, pay attention to the latest data and understand its significance.
@Dragos
Ric is absolutely correct when he says that the Single Grave culture was present in Denmark. In fact, it had a big presence in the Jutland peninsula.
And there were some significant differences between the Single Grave groups there, with those in eastern Jutland showing links to Battle-Axe and Corded Ware Baltic groups, while those in west Jutland being more independent.
Is it still possible the commonness of H is due to HGs? I thought it was obvious that the utter dominance of U would debunk this, but maybe some groups were H-rich? I would assume selection and drift/founder effects in the steppe and admixed farmers (ANF > WHG) followed by expansions of these populations would do the trick.
Is it still possible the commonness of H is due to HGs?
Nope.
The point I was making though, was that Middle Neolithic farmers were rich in WHG ancestry, rather than CHG ancestry, which they basically lacked.
Also, if R1a-Z284 is from BAxe and not Single Grave, and eastern Single Grave groups showed more links to BAxe, with RISE98's residence in Scania, is it possible that eastern Jutish Single Grave is the cradle of the Germanic peoples? They are often assumed to have expanded from a small area in Denmark and southern Sweden/Scania.
''Ric is absolutely correct when he says that the Single Grave culture was present in Denmark. In fact, it had a big presence in the Jutland peninsula.''
Is Denmark not in the north German lowlands ? Sure.. today its called a different country, nut Netherlands, north Germany & Denmark are virtually the same geographical unit - the western part of North European plain.
And here is what I wrote
''Because it is the Battle Axe variant which arrived in Sweden & Norway, not single Grave culture (which is generally restricted to the Netherlands and lowland Germany). '' in reply to the original discussion point about Z284 and Battle Axe culture above.
The links of Sweden are eastern originally, then they shift southward c. 2200 BC. This entailed a new migration, from Denmark, and was probably characterised by U106.
Following ?
The oldest sample of U106 comes from the Unetice culture from Czech Prague.
David, I'm sorry that I'm asking you again ... Did you try to locate the Dutch BB on the Celtic-Germanic PCA?
@Davidski, @Inigo
The isotope data for the Boscombe Bowmen point towards them being a group born in Wales and also moving around together during life.
The Y DNA and paternal family connections suggest the main male line were an L21 paternal group - despite the missing calls to show this conclusively.
The large single generation shifts I have found across the G25 Celtic-Germanic PCA from our FGC5494 mini projects supports the idea of interpreting the dramatic shift in the post as 'local farmer mother'.
So, perhaps it looks like a mobile R1b-L21 (paternal line) band mixing with local females and also pulling the odd 'maternal line related?' I2a2 male into the group.
?Are the mixed in females and I2a2 male lineage local farmers or a merged band of Maritime Beaker people? There is evidence elsewhere for conflict between 'Maritime (non-Steppe) Beaker and Steppe Beakers but....?
@ambron
The oldest sample of U106 comes from the Unetice culture from Czech Prague.
Nope.
Czech_EBA (Unetice) I7196 R1b-U106 2200–1700 BCE
Nordic_LN RISE98 R1b-U106 2275-2032 calBCE
And there's some good reason to believe that U106 moved from Scandinavia into the Unetice population, because there's isotopic evidence of migrations from southern Sweden to Unetice sites in western Poland.
@Bob Kenyon
The British Beakers are generally very similar to the Dutch Beakers in that they're relatively homogeneous and show high levels of steppe ancestry.
I2416 is quite an unexpected type of Beaker for a British Beaker, especially considering his fairly late dating. Such individuals are more easily seen in the other Beaker populations, except among the Dutch Beakers.
So I'd be surprised if both of his parents were of local British stock, and one of them simply had a high level of local Neolithic ancestry. I have a strong feeling that his mother was a Beaker migrant from western continental Europe, or even from southwestern Europe. But I suppose I could be wrong.
David, you're right! I did not exactly confront these dates.
And what about the Dutch BB and Celtic-Germanic PCA? If I'm obtrusive, I'm sorry.
@ Davidski
You’re pulling the old confidence interval error again :)
The Unetice culture is carpathian. The Sogel culture warriors seem similar. They are different to cwc and BB; different weapons, different burials, etc; and seem to have moved them aside as they conquered swathes of central to Nordic Europe . The BB and CWC hung on in the peripheries like England and Iberia; and the Baltic
@ambron
The Dutch Beakers cluster somewhat with western Scandinavians, perhaps because western Scandinavians are the most direct descendants of the Single Grave population.
Celto-Germanic PCA - Dutch Beakers
@Dragos
There's absolutely no evidence that Nordic_LN:RISE98 and his U106 are of Central European origin.
In fact, the northern genetic character of this individual plus his similarity and affinity to the Dutch and British Beakers suggest that they all come from basically the same gene pool, which I'm guessing was the Single Grave gene pool.
David, thank you!
@ Davidski
And as we saw 2 related BB men from Britain had different autosomal affinities ; so much for that.
What matters are lineages, male cultural items and context
It’s no coincidence the U106 appears Unetice and the post-BB and post-CWC horizons in northern & Central Europe
These even might have been the first (real) IEs in Northern Europe.
@Davidski
Yes, you are probably right. If I recall correctly, the Amesbury Archer companion Isotopes showed evidence of Isles birth then travel to the continent and back again. There is every possibility of such travels resulting in both high Steppe ancestry wives and low/no Steppe ancestry wives in to Isles Beaker communities - creating some extreme positions on the PCA.
Chad's analysis is interesting. I think the idea that all European neolithic farmers were speaking languages of Near Eastern origin should be revisited. There are real life examples when hunter gatherer languages survived despite the massive influx of farmers.
One such a case is the Sandawe who assimilated a lot off Bantu ancestry, yet they speak a language that could be linked to Khoe.
Using the analogy we can imagine that Iberian farmers were like Khoisan people. Speaking a language of European (from France?) origin yet harboring a large amount of Near Eadtern ancestry.
@Dragos
What matters are lineages, male cultural items and context.
These even might have been the first (real) IEs in Northern Europe.
Right, so now try to explain how those R1a-M417-rich and CWC-like people in the East Baltic, whose ancestors not long ago buried their warriors with horses, came to speak among the most archaic languages on the Indo-European tree.
Are people still trying to connect RISE98 with Unetice/Central Europe? This connection did not even make sense to begin with:
While the Nordic LN II period (after 2000/1950-1750 BC) has strong overlap with the Nordic Bronze Age, as some Scandinavian archaeologists even group Nordic LN II and the Nordic Bronze Age together, they still seperate Nordic LN I from the Nordic Bronze Age, because this period was relatively stable and it was still related to the preceeding cultures. If we look at RISE98's age, (around 2150 BC) he falls within the Nordic LN I period (around 2350-1950 BC) perfectly.
Autosomally, there are also no links with Central Europe. The most likely scenario is that RISE98 has a Scandinavian origin (either Danish Single Grave or Swedish Battle-Axe). The only alternative I can think of is a Jutish Bell Beaker origin.
Perhaps then analysing CWC from Jutland, Mecklenburg, the Oder group would be useful
I've seen these claims that Czech_EBA/Unetice might be ancestral to Germanics on several occasions now at different places.
But the Czech_EBA sample set is quite diverse, with some individuals showing a lot of southern ancestry, and its Y-haplogroups include G2a2a1a2, I2a1 and I2c1. There's no evidence that Nordic R1b-U106 comes from this type of population from Central Europe.
And the two samples with calBCE dates are dated to well past 2000 calBCE.
Hmmm...interesting. Czech_EBA is actually shifted significantly towards Yamnaya/WHG in my graph relative to Beaker_Czech, suggesting that there was gene flow into Bohemia from the north after the Beaker period.
BBC vs NW_Euro D-stats graph 2
This, I suppose, is line with my comments about the isotopic evidence showing migrations into Unetice from Scandinavia.
@Davidski, "There's absolutely no evidence that Nordic_LN:RISE98 and his U106 are of Central European origin."
I'm not so sure about this, because there was about 2000 BC much turmoil especially in the Malmo area (exactly in the area were Rise 98 is found).
Studies speak about a MASSIVE Central European influence!!!
Per Cornell Encounters:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/djmme7xl3h50.10.16.png
Second fragment:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/a8thsnw5.18.53.png
@weure
The text you posted talks about "massive" influences from Central Europe during the LN II period, but RISE98 is dated to LN I, no?
And like I just said, it's Czech_EBA that shows variable admixture from the north, rather than RISE98 any admixture from the south.
I'm pretty sure that the U106 in Czech_EBA represents paternal gene flow into Bohemia from the north.
@Davidski,
Could you check I7196, the Czech_EBA U106 sample, specifically?
The text you posted talks about "massive" influences from Central Europe during the LN II period, but RISE98 is dated to LN I, no?
The range of this sample is broad enough to cover the "about 2000 BC". I will have a look what this samples ranges are....
catch:
Grave 49 was excavated by Hansen 1934. It constitutes a N–S oriented subsurface oval stone construction with pointed edges, measuring about 4.5×2 m, where flat stone slabs form a roof over a chamber with an original height estimated to about 0.6–0.7 m. Fragments of wood indicate the presence of planks in the chamber. On the stone paved floor of the chamber three adult individuals had been placed in a line in sitting crouched positions facing southwest. Between the northern and middle skeleton fragmented remains of three children (initially only two were identified), representing two infants and a juvenile, were recovered. Further, some very brittle diaphyses of a fourth adult have been identified. The only recovered find is a bone needle deposited next to the northern skeleton (Hansen 1934; Malmer 1962:162p ; During unpublished notes). According to Malmer (2002:141) the grave can be dated to Period 4, and an unpublished radiocarbon date from the northern skeleton falls within the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC (2σ, 3850±105 BP, Ua-2758, During unpublished notes).
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:439410/FULLTEXT01.pdf
So 2580-1980 BC!! Reason enough NOT to exclude that Rise98 came from Central Europe, especially when in this period the Malmø area changed under influence from Central Europe. When you see Lilla Beddinge on a map than this is one of the first places where you encounter southwest Scania coming from the Oder!
And simply said I have more reason to believe that the ' Bronze Age innovation' came from Central Europe (following the Oder, so Western Polen to Moravia) to Scandinavia than the other way around....
@ Tesmos "they still seperate Nordic LN I from the Nordic Bronze Age, because this period was relatively stable"
Except this small coastline around nowadays Malmo! Here the changes of the EBA started for Scania!!!
Basic lesson for a historian that kind of timelines are not rigid!!! Uppsala is not Malmo ;) etc
@weure
And simply said I have more reason to believe that the ' Bronze Age innovation' came from Central Europe (following the Oder, so Western Polen to Moravia) to Scandinavia than the other way around....
I think you're conflating cultural influences with gene flow.
RISE98 looks very Scandinavian. On the other hand, Czech_EBA looks mixed, with significant admixture from the north, maybe even from Scandinavia.
So I'm still going for a north to south movement of U106, especially considering all of that L51 in northern Europe during the earlier Beaker period, and probably the Single Grave period too.
@Tesmos
Could you check I7196, the Czech_EBA U106 sample, specifically?
This sample looks more or less like a Czech Beaker, but considering the genetic heterogeneity shown by Czech_EBA, including one instance of a pure farmer genotype, it's possible that I7196 had very recent local farmer-like ancestry.
BBC vs NW_Euro D-stats graph 3
@weure,
As Davidski pointed out, Per Cornell is speaking about the Nordic LN II period (see my previous post for the timeline).
Btw, the unpublished radiocarbon date is from the northern skeleton, but RISE98 is the southern skeleton from grave 49 in Lilla Beddinge. The radiocarbon date from RISE98 is 2275-2032 calBCE.
@ Davidski
I think you're conflating cultural influences with gene flow.
Of course I see the difference. But in case of gene flow I think in terms of migration. Massive migration brings more often another culture....
So was here a migration from Central Europe to Scandinavia or the other way around. Of course this is mostly never one way street. But I guess that the Bronze Age power house sat in Central Europe and from there spread to NW Europe.
Why would they speak about Malmo area changed modelled by Central Europe??? (and not the other way around).
If I'm well the evidence the other way around is a publication about some Scandinavians that end up in Central Europe and seen their graves they were some kind of outcasts (slaves?).
IMO it's simpler to draw lines from Moravia to EBA Scania and Oostwoud Sögel Wohlde than a spread from Scania to Moravia and to Oostwoud, what would be bearers of this migration? The Sögel warriors didn't came from Scania! The thing is that Northern Jutland, Zealand and Scania were never affected by the Sögel warriors!!
And I guess you have some time line problems, the Moravian R1b U106 is much older than the Scania and West-Frisian....
So I guess the lines coming from Scania to the rest of Europe have something to prove ;) In fact I see no single evidence.....
Well its possible that Unetice was a confederation-type culture. No reason why some weren't Nordic, some central European.
Still, whilst Scania and C.E. do belong to heuristically different periods at this time ("LN vs EBA"), the coincidence of the absolute dates 2200 BC is perhaps more important.
And I'd be surprised if future Battle Axe individuals are U106.
" As Davidski pointed out, Per Cornell is speaking about the Nordic LN II period (see my previous post for the timeline."
This is rigid thinking. Such time lines are not covering laws!!!
Around 2000 BC archeologist detect that in the Malmo, Lille Beddinge area, elements of change, what we fist saw in Central Europe, sat foot in Scania around Malmo. And they say it's a massive influence. So when this type of scientists speak about massive then it's not a thin line....So could it be possible that people from the Oder area went to southwest Scania? Or is this fata morgana?
Your reasoning is it's LN II, this was a stabile period, so this can't be true? Strange reasoning....
"The radiocarbon date from RISE98 is 2275-2032 calBCE."
OK, thanks, that does correspondence with changes about 2000 BC.
@Davidski, re; my earlier comment on using D(Mbuti,X;Barcin_N,MN_Europe) stats, I guess I'm thinking this may help find a signature of MN admixture vs direct HG admixture unmediated by MN.
(Exploiting that Barcin-MN will be correlated to Barcin-HG, as MN had more HG admixture, but there will also be an element of a separate drift path. Albeit Koros_N might be better than Barcin here).
Example: https://imgur.com/a/m2D30ra
Using the f3 stats you ran for me before to create a kind of "pseudo" f4 stat exploiting the difference between them, it seems like in modern populations, such a signal can be just about found in modern populations. (That is, SW Europe looks to have more WHG mediated by MN, while the rest of Europe doesn't show such a strong signal, with NW Europe and NW Italy intermediate).
Though it's tougher finding this signature in ancient dna data - very slight signature and heavily confounded by marginal quality in ancients compared to moderns!
My hope from these stats that they could find clear differences between GAC and Iberia_Chl in ancient and modern populations was kind of dashed - there's a bit of one, but they seem too close to really tell the difference in ancients with the aforementioned data issues compared to moderns (and even some moderns are marginal).
(Related, as linked to topic of MN Europeans, comment to Chad on his blog about the Megalithic stuff that I thought I'd mirror here:
"kudos. I remember debating this topic (Cardial vs Danubian in the megalithic sphere and shared ancestry across the megalithic sphere) with you before in the Eurogenes comments, where you were pretty adamant that the Globular Amphora Culture and Funnelbeaker was of Danubian inspiration, on the lines of archaeology.
To be fair my arguments to the reverse did not exactly have strong evidence in favour - as I recall Davidski's Global 25 and other PCA, haplotype chunk sharing in present day and ancient peoples, shared D-stat behaviour between all northern MN like populations relative to other samples, possibly others.
So big kudos going back and being able to look at the evidence, reexamine assumptions and take a rigorous, formal look at the genetic evidence, carefully examine for possible inflators and biases in models, and revise your own ideas."
@Davidski
Thanks!
@weuro
"Your reasoning is it's LN II, this was a stabile period, so this can't be true? Strange reasoning...."
Nope, Nordic LN I being stable is just one of the arguments why it's unlikely that RISE98 was a migrant from Central Europe. There is really nothing to connect RISE98 with Unetice: based on it's grave, burial, age (average date is around 2150 BC) and autosomal dna; the Lilla Bedinge cemetery as a whole does not have signs of Central European influences either. What you are doing is a classic case of special pleading
@tesmos ? Archeologist have clearly stated that for the area of rise 98 during his lifetime the situation was NOT stabile but dynamic, and that the changes occurred following Central European model!
So you accusation is some kind of projection, you once have read this period was qualified as stabile, this is fixed in your mind, so when the archeologist come up wit a description that shows that in that specific area the situation was at that time dynamic, you state no no this can’t be the case because this time is seen as stabile....
So what sources I could bring up I guess it’s like bringing water to the sea.....
"There is really nothing to connect RISE98 with Unetice: based on it's grave, burial, age (average date is around 2150 BC) and autosomal dna; the Lilla Bedinge cemetery as a whole does not have signs of Central European influences either."
You can't derive much from that grave....some nails If I am well so this makes us not wiser. The cemetery as a whole doesn't say a thing is no evidence.
We only know that he was buried in Lilla Beddinge around 2275-2032 calBCE.
And for what it's worth, the admixture of Rise 98 (MDLP K11):
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374
2 Nordic_IA @ 3.582424
3 Nordic_LBA @ 3.928257
4 Nordic_LN @ 4.502528
5 British_AngloSaxon @ 5.399951
6 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 5.870515
7 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 6.590644
8 Nordic_MN_B @ 6.909945
9 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 7.470246
10 Corded_Ware_Estonia @ 7.549924
11 Nordic_BA @ 7.819039
12 Halberstadt_LBA @ 8.454908
13 British_IronAge @ 8.576622
14 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 9.304104
15 Alberstedt_LN @ 9.426414
16 Nordic_BattleAxe @ 9.779591
17 British_Celtic @ 10.391397
18 Unetice_MBA @ 11.311208
19 Poltavka_MBA_outlier @ 11.978459
20 Sintashta_MBA @ 12.140077
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Nordic_LBA +50% Unetice_EBA @ 1.648179
That's unlike the Danish CW (Rise 61). No connection.
Global 25 nMonte Webrunner
1 Battle_Axe_Sweden:RISE94 BCE:2546 fit 2.424
Barcin N 27.5
WHG 10
Yamna Samara 62.5
2 Beaker_Czech:Average fit 1.8995
Barcin N 38.33
WHG 14.17
Yamna Samara 47.5
3 Oostwoud R1b U106Netherlands_BA:I4070 BCE:1768 fit 2.8415
Barcin N 31.67
WHG 12.5
Yamna Samara 55.83
4 Nordic_LN:RISE98 BCE:2153 fit 2.8223
Barcin N 30
WHG 20
Yamna Samara 50
5 Unetice:Average fit 2.4285
Barcin N 30
WHG 15.83
Yamna Samara 54.17
My impression is that Scania Rise98 is not closest to Sweden Battle Axe Rise 94.....
@Wwure
"Archeologist have clearly stated that for the area of rise 98 during his lifetime the situation was NOT stabile but dynamic, and that the changes occurred following Central European model!
So you accusation is some kind of projection, you once have read this period was qualified as stabile, this is fixed in your mind, so when the archeologist come up wit a description that shows that in that specific area the situation was at that time dynamic, you state no no this can’t be the case because this time is seen as stabile....
So what sources I could bring up I guess it’s like bringing water to the sea....."
Dude, you are not getting it and I have the feeling that you completely ignored my first post about the timelines etc, so I am going to explain it one more time:
Recently, several Scandinavian archaeologists agree that Nordic_LN II and the Nordic Bronze Age are very closely related and should be grouped together. For example the sources you mentioned and the Scandinavian archaeologist Rune Iversen also posted an excellent paper about this topic. So you are right that it was already dynamic during the Nordic_LN II period in Southern Scandinavia.
However, they still seperate the first half of the Nordic Late Neolithic aka Nordic Late Neolithic I from the Nordic Bronze Age, because things cooled down after the Late Middle Neolithic period has ended and Nordic LN I was still related to it's preceeding cultures. Indeed, there was a period of stability until 2000/1950 in southern Scandinavia (except BB northern Jutland of course). And guess who falls within the Nordic LN I period perfectly? RISE98.
And it's not like I made this shit up; this is the current view of most Scandinavian archaeologists.
Here is the general Neolithic and Early Bronze Age chronology of southern Scandinavia:
Early Neolithic (FBC) 4000-3300 BC
Early Neolithic I 4000-3500 BC
Early Neolithic II 3500-3300 BC
Middle Neolithic (FBC, PWC, SGC) 3300-2350 BC
Early Middle Neolithic 3300-2850 BC
Late Middle Neolithic 2850-2350 BC
Late Neolithic (BBC, LNC) 2350-1700 BC
Late Neolithic I 2350-1950 BC
Late Neolithic II 1950-1700 BC
Early Bronze Age 1700-1100 BC
Period IA 1700-1600 BC
Period IB 1600-1500 BC
Period II 1500-1300 BC
Period III 1300-1100 BC
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opar.2017.3.issue-1/opar-2017-0023/opar-2017-0023.pdf
So the core argumentation is LN II is 2000 BC>
They estimate Rise 2275-2032 BCE That's LN I.
= proven case Rise 98 lived in a LN I period that was stabile.
Hear hear!
That's at least a generalized kind of reasoning ;)
But:
For such prehistoric times it's not done to be so exact (it's not like the outbreak of WWI). That's alway a matter of marges.
The fact is that the archeologist state that in specific the Rise 98 area the chances began ABOUT2000 BC.
Rise 98 was ABOUT 2275-2032 BCE. Within ranges I dare to say we are speaking about the same kind of period.
So indeed with the chronometer in the hand it looks completely wrong....but I guess this is not a chronometer thing. ROFLOL.
Few more things I'd like to bring up about the Middle Neolithic here:
1) Concerning this quote from Chad's site: "Not only are the samples from Southern France and England alike, they are basically identical! Both are probably rooted in the Paris Basin, showing Danubian, Cardial, and Mesolithic roots."
So does this mean if we were to do three way modeling, Michelsberg culture remains would perhaps show up as WHG+Card. ware+LBK?
I find this interesting since I've always wondered what the genetic contributions of Cardial Ware would have been to Europe over time. Cardial Ware's origins seem to stem from the Levant if I recall some of the stances correctly of other archaeologists in the past on this matter whereas LBK's theoretically can be traced in part back to Anatolia although with a few degrees of separation most notable with Stracevo-Koros-Kris.
2) Amazes me going through all the literature that constantly attacked Gordon V. Childes over the years yet we do see time and time again how quite a bit of these aDNA findings buttress various positions he expressed on Europe's prehistory as well as more traditional archaeological interpretations of migration and movement in order to explain other cultures and how they developed.
"Far-reaching contacts were part of people’s lives in south- west Scania. This is particularly visible in the well-known Pile hoard (Oldeberg 1974, 125-126; Vandkilde 1996) found about 5km south of the Hyllie area (Figure 4). The hoard dates to c. 2000 CalBC and consists of almost 30 metal objects, axes, daggers and fragments of bracelets and silver wire. External contacts were evidenced by large two-aisled buildings in the area. Large houses suggest con-tact with eastern Central Europe, where similar construction were connected to high-status individuals (Artursson 2005, 2009; Egelund Poulsen 2009; Vandkilde 2005)."
see:
https://www.academia.edu/20256587/Farms_and_Villages_in_the_Late_Neolithic_and_Earliest_Bronze_Age_of_Southernmost_Scandinavia_Examples_from_Southwest_Scania_Sweden
@weure
Davidski:
But the Czech_EBA sample set is quite diverse, with some individuals showing a lot of southern ancestry, and its Y-haplogroups include G2a2a1a2, I2a1 and I2c1. There's no evidence that Nordic R1b-U106 comes from this type of population from Central Europe.
How many times does this have to be repeated?
@weure
Look, I am not in the mood for endless discussions about datings and stuff. And of course there were transition periods in prehistoric times. The transition period between Nordic LN I and II is c.2000-1950 BC.
Anyway, I also considered the possiblity that RISE98 had a Central European origin a few years ago. But after seeing the current evidence and failing to see obvious links between Unetice/Central Europe and this specific sample, I now favour Davidski's theory aka a Danish Single Grave origin for this sample.
@ weure
There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, keep up the creative thought! I enjoy seeing different ideas put forth.I can say everyone makes mistakes; no one leaves the washroom smelling like roses :)
@Them How many times does this have to be repeated?
"It's not in the repeat but Rise 98 hasn't all the way a clear Nordic profile....Because of the intense contacts between East Central European room en southwest Scania much is possible (even a mix)."
@Tesmos." Look, I am not in the mood for endless discussions about datings and stuff. And of course there were transition periods in prehistoric times. The transition period between Nordic LN I and II is c.2000-1950 BC."
Wow ok in these fifty years pffff ....sorry I can't takes this real serious. The exact timing doesn't matter. it's about what the real changes and connections in the Malmo were in the LN/EBA phase. The fixation on the precise time line is your thing (kind of mechanical world view).
@ weure
There is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind, keep up the creative thought! I enjoy seeing different ideas put forth.I can say everyone makes mistakes; no one leaves the washroom smelling like roses :)
Thanks! True....
@weure
I said c.2000, which means approximately/circa 2000-1950, because the exact date is unknown indeed.
@weure
But the Czech_EBA sample set is quite diverse, with some individuals showing a lot of southern ancestry, and its Y-haplogroups include G2a2a1a2, I2a1 and I2c1. There's no evidence that Nordic R1b-U106 comes from this type of population from Central Europe.
@Dragos
Wow, calm down man.
Battle Axe isn't Single Grave. You mentioned Sweden became more like Denmark, which was Single Grave, not Battle Axe. That's where the U106 could come from.
@Dragos
No-one here is saying that U106 comes from BAC. Realize that in English, "Scandinavia" includes Jutland and the Danish Isles.
@weure
RISE61 is not from SGC - there are no Single Graves on Zealand. Obviously, he can't be descended purely from TRB, but (late and) post-TRB Zealand received influences from Scania BAC, from Jutland SGC, from the "various CWC" southern Baltic Coast, as well as from the PWC eastern Swedish coast, so we can't easily trace is ancestry. (Well, we can probably exclude PWC...)
So, what's more likely? That Single Grave and Battle Axe mixed to create Germanics, or Single Grave had a mix of R1b and R1a and mostly displaced BAxe?
@weure
If you look at my graph again, you'll see that Nordic_LN:RISE98 doesn't show a very close relationship to any of the other ancients, and especially not to Battle-Axe (labeled Corded_Ware_Sweden), because of his high ratio of WHG.
That's why it's also very difficult to model this sample in two-way models.
But the closest population to Nordic_LN:RISE98 in my graph appears to be Ireland_Rathlin_Island_EBA. And guess what? One of the best two way models using G25/nMonte for Nordic_LN:RISE98 is this...
Ireland_EBA,91.2
Blatterhole_HG,8.8
[1] "distance%=2.4026"
So what does this suggest? It suggests that Nordic_LN:RISE98 is of local Northwest European origin, and probably with a higher ratio of Northwest European forager ancestry than any other Bronze Age sample in the ancient DNA record.
Keep in mind also that Ireland_EBA represents recent migrants to Ireland very similar to British Beakers, rich in R1b-L51, and probably of AOC Beaker/Single Grave origin.
So I'm pretty sure for now that Nordic_LN:RISE98 is also of Single Grave origin, unless I see some direct evidence to the contrary.
And where does Czech_EBA/Unetice fit into this? Well, it appears to be a very mixed population, and, in fact, in large part of Northwest European origin, because one of the best two way models that I can get for it is this...
Beaker_The_Netherlands,77.8
Beaker_Czech,22.2
[1] "distance%=0.918"
Thus, what appears to have happened is that there was continuous gene flow from R1b-L51-rich Northwestern Europe into Central Europe during the Bell Beaker and Unetice periods, creating a heterogeneous but very northern-shifted population there.
This of course doesn't contradict the fact that Central Europe was much more of a cultural hub than Northwestern Europe at this time, and that cultural influences moved from Central Europe to Scandinavia, probably along with migrants. But of course you realize that people also migrate to cultural hubs when seeking opportunities.
Also, the question here is not whether there were migrations from Central Europe to Scandinavia during the Bronze Age, but whether the presence of Nordic_LN:RISE98 and his R1b-U106 in southern Sweden was due to such a migration. I see no evidence to suggest this at present.
To reiterate : there were multiple movements into Scandinavia
TRB, BAx/ SGC (which are regional variations of the same R1a-Z645) , then BB in 2400 BC; which expanded to Britain and Norway; then further with Unetice
You guys are becoming the new immobilists
@Dragos
Three questions:
- how come Rhenish (British & Dutch) Beakers are so similar to Corded Ware culturally (with Single Grave-like beakers and burial traditions) and genetically?
- how did Rhenish Beaker males end up with so much R1b-L51 if they didn't get it from their Single Grave ancestors?
- how come Rhenish Beakers don't look like a mix of Corded Ware and other Beakers, but rather other Beakers look like they have ancestry from Rhenish Beakers?
@ Davidski
One question: how is it that Bell Beakers in het Noordse thuisland are 400 years younger than in the Carpathian basin ?
https://imgur.com/a/o9lp76b
As to your questions, there all very easily answerable, and I 've done so on several occasions already.
Some Carpathian Beakers look like they came from Remedello. I2a1a1, and no steppe ancestry.
Also Beakers were the first IEs in Northern Europe? That almost sounds like some Carlos Quilles kinda stuff.
Aside from the fact he reminds me of a "former" user (but I'd rather not delve on that here), I will adress this point briefly.
You guys are becoming the new immobilists
Claiming Corded Ware stomped over most of Europe in a massive way and that Scandinavians migrated into Central Europe is immobilist?
@Dragos
There's no point getting into a debate about the earliest Bell Beaker C14 dates, because of a technical issue known as fluctuations in atmospheric C14 fractions, which affects the Bell Beaker period.
This is covered in the Olalde et al. 2018 supplement on page 4, and I'm sure you're aware of it.
As a result, the Bell Beaker culture is roughly dated to 2500-2000 BCE in many parts of Europe, with no Bell Beaker population looking clearly older than any other. And that goes for the Carpathian Basin Bell Beakers too.
That's why ancient DNA is so valuable now, and thanks to ancient DNA it's already very difficult to explain the strong archeological and genetic links between Corded Ware and the Rhenish Beakers without noticing that the latter might well derive from the former. But if it turns that there was R1b-L51 and/or R1b-P312 in the Corded Ware/Single Grave population, then it's basically game over.
I'm sure you understand all of this.
@ Davidski
If that turns out to be the case, I'll (happily) accept it, don't worry.
@Davidski, ok clear, let's widen the scope, I can lay this link.
In LN/EBA the coastal strip of Scania developed as a kind of hub. Connected with Central Europe but also....
For NW European Bronze Age was JJ Butler an eminent scholar. He states this:
"We have suggested above that Later Beaker people were still current and in occupation of substantial territories in Britain as well as on the opposite side of the North Sea during the period of the Irish axe-and-halberd trade with the NetherIands and Central Germany, and that some of these Beaker folk are likely to have played a role in the actual trade itself. The same ought to be true of the Northern trade.
...
The Beakers overlap with the Northern Late Neolithic. These, together with the increasing evidence for the existence of Late Beakers in Ireland (O Riordain, 1954) strengthen the case for believing that the Beaker folk were a trading people and were present in the right place and at the right time to serve as intermediaries in the trade to Scandinavia.
If our view of the chronology and course of the Beaker invasions is correct the North Sea must have been virtuaIly a Beaker lake during the Northern Upper Grave period and the earlier part of the Northern Late Neolithic. Close continental relatives of the British Later Beaker people were certainly present in the Netherlands and North-West Germany during this time; their colonies existed not only in Drenthe and the Veluwe but along the major rivers of North-West Germany and even in Schleswig-Holstein, as recent German research has increasingly emphasized. According to Struve, 'Western' Bell Beakers may survive in Schleswig Holstein into the period of the Northern Type I and II daggers, and a number of examples have been cited of Beakers dosely related to Later Beakers of Britain which are dearly contemporary with the Upper Grave period through association with characteristic battleaxes.
Since the Beaker folk had the habit of negotiating the seas and rivers along our principal trade routes, it might be supposed that they had a substantial part of the carrying trade in their hands. While Beakers of specificaIy Western origin, as opposed to North and Central German types, have not been found in Denmark itself, this in itself need not be a barrier to believing that South Scandinavian harbours were occasionally visited by Beaker folk from across the North Sea.
(in a following note he lays a connection with BB and Single Grave!)
...
In the Northern Late Neolithic there is considerable evidence for a Western European influx into parts of South Scandinavia."
https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/24793
So was Rise98 indeed a 'NW Beaker'' (of SGC origins)!? Seems like these phrases of Butler can support this possibility.
So where did R1b in Corded Ware come from ? If the GAC finds in the Steppe are late and expanded from Wolhynia and Podolia and if that areas were not a mixture containing R1bs and the area between the Elbe and Vistula were occupied by Globular Amphora then the only thing left will be somewhere East of the Vistula River and North of Wolhynia. So along the Upper Dnieper and Lower Vistula will be my guess. So it seems as if Corded Ware/Proto Corded Ware cut into the Globular Amphora territory North of Wolhynia just before or during the time Globular Amphora migrated into the Steppe towards the Dnieper. Just a thought...
@Ric
So where did R1b in Corded Ware come from?
The Don-Caspian steppe.
And from the same population R1a is from. Not Suvorovo unless Suvorovo was ancestral to Corded Ware, and I mean as the steppe group Corded Ware is from. But most likely it wasn't, and it was a Post-Stog or Yamnaya-related group in the steppe.
So the question is, which route did Corded Ware take?
@ Davidski
Sorry what I actually meant was migration route. So from the Don-Caspian up the Dnieper and West from somewhere along the Lower Vistula.
@Chad- Obviously you are right, the French Neolithic cultures are Western, not only because of their geographical location but also because; 1-Archaeologically have Southern influences and 2-Genetically they are a mixture of mitochondrial haplogroups from Anatolia, K1, X, J1, J2, I etc (like the rest of Europe). ... and of totally Western haplogroups that survived during the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic in Iberia, Italy and the south of France. The diversity of group H has nothing to do with the steppes.
Mit-Haplogroups H1, HV0, HV, V, H3, U5b U3, which are seen in the Neolithic Alsatian cultures (Michelsberg ...) has never been found in the steppes, because they are Western (Iberia, southern France, Atlantic façade and the British Isles).
German geneticists have studied well the influence of these haplogroups in the German Neolithic cultures (LBK, TRB, Roesen, Baalberge, Salzmunde etc), especially related to the variability of haplogroup H in Central Europe. That variability was transferred to mitochondrial haplogroups related to BB culture in Germany that are a mixture of western haplogroups (H1, U5b.....), oriental haplogroups (CWC), and other haplogroups typical of the German Neolithic cultures.
Western Neolithic influence is evident in both archeology (individual burials and position of bodies in French Neolithic cultures)and genetics, now the great mystery is how this situation influences when determining the origin of R1b-L51 and R1b-P312 ?. Unfortunately, despite the fact that we have a good number of samples from French Neolithic sites, in most of them, geneticists have not been able to determine the male haplogroups.
In my opinion the SGC is not a good solution because archeologically it is a culture of the Stone age that acquired its technological improvements thanks to the BB culture.
All those who know the European Prehistory should know that the CWC was NOT a uniform culture, have documented more than 10 regional variants, with different customs, different habitats, different technologies etc. Assuming that this culture is the origin of any Pan-European language does not make any sense.
The opinions are diverse, there are people who remain committed to an origin in the Yamnaya culture (big mistake), others who think about the Hungarian plains, others who think about the SGC and others who think that L51 and P312 are totally Western as for another part also indicates its current dispersion. Determine the exact place is almost impossible task, could be the German Neolithic cultures and their descendants who adopted the fashions of BB culture (Example Kromsdorf-R1bM343), or could be the French Neolithic cultures (Michelsberg), or the Neolithic cultures of the south from France and north of Spain. In any case, any western solution is possible.
@ All- When you comment about Boscombe Bowmen it seems you always forget what the British archaeologists say.
Not only are there cousins (third degree) in the burial, but also-Andrew P. Fiztpatrick-2.011-
1-The formulation of the ‘Out of Iberia’ argument is not dissimilar in its emphasis on an earlier regional tradition. The radiocarbon dates from Iberia and also a small number of stratigraphic sequences demonstrate that Maritime Bell Beakers which have zones of opposed ‘herring bone style’ decoration had emerged by the 27th century BC (e.g. Kunst 2001). The very existence of a phase when the Maritime beaker was the most common type in the Low Countries has also been challenged (e.g. Drenth & Hogestijn 2007) and the emerging consensus is that the Bell Beaker first appeared in Iberia
2-Burials- The earliest British beakers placed in graves were influenced by a range of Continental styles rather than a single region. “The mortuary rituals in Britain and Ireland include collective and individual burial, which, in general terms, are typical of Southern and Western Europe, and central Europe respectively. This suggest that the BB set, may have been introduced to these islands from more than one region of continental Europe in a time of rapid change that involved the wide and rapid movement of people and ideas, and materials and objects.”
3- Boscombe Bowmen- 24th century BC- Unlike most graves in Wessex and southern England, which are single graves it is a collective grave. The strontium isotopes indicate that the geologies that underlay those locations comprised very ancient rocks. The nearest region that provides comparable biosphere values is Wales, but France (Brittany-Massif Central), Portugal and Germany (Black Forest) are all also possible. The Beakers from the grave were mainly AOC beakers (7 samples) and 1 sample CWZ. All the pots were made locally. There are similarities between the pots and AOC beakers from the Lower Rhine, but also with some finds from northern and western France (Barclay 2.011). However the isotopes analyses exclude the biosphere of the Lower Rhine as one of the childhood residence of the Boscombe Bowmen
4-Amesbury Archer (2.380-2.290 BC). In general the typological similarities of the objects in his grave are with Western, not central Europe. 2 knives could be from northern Spain, the third from western France. Although the style of the gold ornaments is British, it may have Iberian origins or represent a fusion of Iberian and central European styles. The gold they are made from, may also be continental European.
5- Lara Cassidy’s Thesis- Ireland-Substancial contributions from both Mediterranean farming groups and north-western hunter gatherers are evident in the Neolithic Irish population. Haplotypic affinities and distributions of steppe related introgression among samples suggest a potentially bimodal introduction of Beaker culture to the island from both Atlantic and Northern European sources, with southwestern individuals showing inflated levels of Neolithic ancestry relative to individualized burials from the north and east
6-Ireland- A. Fitzpatrick- “In Ireland, copper mining started at Ross Ireland (2.400 BC) and it appears to have been introduced directly from continental Europe by Bell Beaker groups.
And the big question is, how the hell were the Dutch BBs going to introduce the metallurgy on the isles if the SGC was a culture that did not know about metals?
@Diego
Both I2416 and I2417 have Corded Ware and steppe ancestry, and I2417 belongs to R1b-L21, so I2416 probably belongs to R1b-L21 too.
I suppose I2416 might have a mother from France or Iberia. That's about as close to Iberia as they come.
@ Them meee
Corded Ware streches in a Banana Shape, with the Baltics plus minus in the Middle. My guess is that Proto-Corded Ware people were more concentrated around Northeastern Poland/Kaliningrad area from where the pushed Westwards into Globular Amphora and reached Late TRB people in Denmark around 2800 BCE....
@ All
Olalde et al , 2.018-Boscombe Bowmen- Because of the nature of the grave it is difficult to directly associate any of the grave goods with a particular individual with complete confidence. Among the British individuals dated to after 2450 calBCE in our dataset, the skeleton from burial 25004 has the lowest amount of steppe-related ancestry
I2416/25004: 2470–2200 (2.335 BC). Haplogroup Y- R1b-P312. Mit-K1b1a1
Do you know where mitochondrial haplogroup K1b1/a1 has been documented? I guess it will be interesting to know who was the mother of this man-
K1b1/a- Croaita- Neolithic- Neba-I3947-5.886 BC
K1b1/a1
Spain-
Dolmen de la Mina-I0407-3.750 BC
El Mirador, Atapuerca, Burgos-I1272-2.676 BC
El Juncal-2.651 BC
Cueva Verdelha, Vialonga, Portugal-BB culture-I6466-2.500 BC
England-
Neolíthic-I2637/I2978-3.499 BC/3.179 BC
Amesbury-Boscombe Bowmen, BB culture-I2416-2.303 BC
Yarnton-I2446-2.297 BC
Amesbury-I2566-2.119 BC
Flying School-I4951-2.150 BC
Germany-Bruck-2.300 BC/Weichering, BB culture-I5530/I5019-2.250 BC
Sweden-Neolithic-Nesc-RISE98-2.153 BC
Anyone can deduce that K1b1 was born in Anatolia, arrived in the Balkans around 6,000 BC and from there it spread to Spain (3,750 BC), from where it crossed to the British Isles (3,500 BC). When the BB culture appeared it was sufficiently dispersed in Iberia and England to be considered an indigenous haplogroup in those regions. The same does not happen in Germany and Sweden, where it has not been documented in the Neolithic with which it is to be supposed that it arrived at those regions with the BB migrations. The fact that Boscombe Bowmen has an autochthonous mitochondrial haplogroup could explain his low percentage of steppe ancestry.
What about I2417 and others in Amesbury?
I2566/13385: 2210–2030 (2.120 BC). Haplogroup Y- R1b-P312. Mit-K1b1a1
I2417/53535_25005: 2500–2140 (2.320 BC). Haplogroup Y- R1b-L21. Mit-J1c
I2596/5289: 2280–2030 (2.155 BC). Haplogroup Y-R1b-L21. Mit-J1c1
J1c1- Macedonia, Neolíthic NEBA-I0676-5.857 BC
Iberia
Cova da Moura-3.400 BC
el Portalón-3.400 BC
Chabola de la Hechicera-I1975-2.947 BC
Alto de la Huesera, Álava-I1981-2.900 BC
Camino del Molino, Caravaca, Murcia-Calcolitico Precampaniforme-I0457-2.630 BC
El Mirador, Atapuerca, Burgos-Mir17-I1280-2.623 BC
Scotland-Distillery Cave-I2691-3.669 BC
Lesser Kelco Cave-I6759-3.586 BC
Amesbury Down, BB culture-I2596-2.153 BC
Over Narrows, Bronze Age-I7571-1.335 BC
Same case as the previous one although here the steppe ancestry is higher and we can not think that J1c1 has contributed to these percentages. Ergo there is something that fails in those steppe percentages.
@ Davidski- "I suppose I2416 might have a mother from France or Iberia. That's about as close to Iberia as they come".
Obviously these men did not have French or Spanish mothers, but English, unless those mitochondrial haplogroups had become extinct in the isles, which seems unlikely. However there are many other cases of British BBs Mit-aplogroups that only exist in Iberia with which the migrations of women did exist.
The connection from the Neolithic throughout Atlantic Europe is so obvious that only a blind man could deny it. Those connections do not solve the issue that has brought us here that is to find out the origin of L51 and P312. I sincerely believe that it is very complicated to link a single haplogroup Y to any European Prehistoric culture.
In the CWC there are R1a mostly but I2a has also appeared, in the BB culture there are mostly M269, but there are also R1b-V88, G2a, I2a ... And what to say about Yamnaya (Z2013, I2), Baalberge, Remedello, Cucuteni, Vinca Repin, Khvalinsk, Sredni Stog etc...
I think that R1bL51 will appear in the West (German Neolithic cultures, CWC, French Neolithic cultures or the Franco Cantabrian region). The process of P312 becoming an absolutely dominant haplogroup in BB culture and in Western Europe was neither quick nor total. Soon we will see it.
SGC is also Northwestern Poland. It can be a knot between Scandinavia and the Czech.
@ Dragos- Of course you do not offend me, we are used to Iberia being ignored and to have hundreds of opinions about the Basques without taking into account our opinion.
Regarding the metallurgy, I'm going to tell you some things so you can take them into account.
1-The first evidence of copper metallurgy in Iberia goes back to the Neolithic (4000 BC)
2-The alloy of copper and arsenic was an intentional alloy sought by the Iberian metallurgists to give more hardness to the copper
3-In the British Isles, northern France and the Netherlands metallurgy was introduced by the BB culture
4-The Iberian metallurgy is totally different from that of Europe because it used the short chain of production, ie cold forging without annealing.
5-The archeometallurgical analyzes that have made the Spanish universities regarding the metals used in Spain and Hungary during the Bb culture have revealed that the procedures were different because the Hungarians used techniques inherited from the Balkan metallurgy.
5- In Iberia there are thousands of copper objects from the Pre-BB chalcolithic, not only tanged copper daggers, but Palmela spearheads, halberds, axes, punches. During the BB culture this production was increased and exported to Morocco, Sicily, Sardinia, Liguria, southern France, Atlantic façade and the British islands.
6-The findings of copper in the rest of the BB European regions are so scarce that they seem a joke compared with the abundance in Spain and France.
7- The arsenical copper technique was exported to the rest of Europe, although more archaeometric analyzes are needed in Germany to demonstrate this Iberian influence.
8- In the British Isles metallurgy is totally Iberian, you only have to consult the opinions of Fitzpatrick and his colleagues.
9- Do not be offended, but the technological superiority of Iberia and Italy during the Chalcolithic with respect to their neighbors of northern Europe, can be compared to the superiority of the Roman Empire over the barbarians of the north.
@ Diego
We should not assume the supriority of south Europe any more than one should automatically assume the north are better warriors. It's highly dependant on which Era is being discussed.
Anyhow, my understanding is that there is a significant change in Iberia just with the onset of the BB period, manifest across all lines of evidence. Seems counter-intuitive that it should have begun there. I might be wrong, personally I'd be very happy if BB began in Iberia, I go there every year.;)
I have to correct the previous statement- the Daggers influence arrived in multiple directions. Perhaps, Maybe the multi-regional model is the best...
"...barbarians of the north." Mmm....
@ For the supporters of the theory of "Pots not People" I will give you a clear example of what the BB culture means.
H1+16189-Iberia, Humanejos, Madrid, BB culture-2.600 BC
H1+16189-Hungary, Szigetszentmiklós, BB culture 2.331 BC
H1+16189- Czech Republic, Prague, Jinonice, BB culture-2.160 BC
H1+16189-England, Low Hauxly, Bronze age-1.751 BC
1-Can anyone think that this is a coincidence?
2-Can someone deny Iberian migrations to at least women?
3-Has this mitochondrial haplogroup previously been found in the steppes, the Balkans or anywhere else in Europe or the world?
The Czech, Polish and Hungarian BBs only represent the maximum limits reached by the Western BBs (I always speak of Germany as the West following the custom in Europe since the Cold War). These guys are later in time and seem a mixture of Eastern and Western haplogroups (both male and female). The migration of the steppes seems a political operation of some scientists to convince the current Western Europeans that we are also migrants and that we must accept the current policy of the European Union.
Ric-I could also have said barbarians from the west because my Celtiberian ancestors were exterminated by the Romans.
By the way, when you speak of languages I see everyone obsessed with finding a convincing explanation about the dispersion of the Indo-European language. I believe that a certain male haplogroup can not be linked to a certain language. At least in Spain at the time of the Romans there were 3 non-Indo-European languages (Basque-Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian) that occupied the entire western half of the peninsula. However since the Bronze Age the male population was overwhelmingly R1b-P312. The languages derived from the ancient Indo-European (Celtiberian and Lusitanian) entered Spain during the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, in the same way that the Celtic entered the islands very late.
We can speculate that the CWC or the BBC spoke a certain language, but they will only be speculations. The French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians and Romanians speak languages derived from Latin and I do not believe that Roman legionaries were an example of genetic uniformity.
@ Diego
At least 4500 of Steppe Relatedness in Western Europe pretty much make them indigenous to that area. No need to accept immigrants if you don't want to especially when they create problems where there were none before....the natural order of things is after all, protect what is close or related to you.
Ric you know what happened in Europe with the controversy about the blue eyes and the dark skin of the WHG. La Braña, Loschbour, Cheddar man and recently a case in Denmark. This has been used politically to make us see that we are also immigrants. It is a pity that science is used politically but that is the reality. The same thing happens with the migrations of the steppes. If we go back to the Paleolithic all Europeans are migrants, but that does not have to be mixed with the current situation. I know that I have inherited my blue eyes from the WHG, my white skin from the Anatolian farmers and what happens with my R1b-P312?
@ Diego
Yes I understand your frustration more than you realise....But if Steppe people migrated to Western Europe and the evidence points to it, then it is not wise to overlook this fact just because current political agendas missuse this info. The best a person can do is to inform the uninformed about How, Why, etc.
@ Diego
After all, there is a difference between migrating into depopulated areas vs. migrating into densely populated areas.
My current view is that Steppe People mostly migrated into depopulated areas.
@Ric- No my friend, that is one of the main criticisms that European archaeologists make of the migrationist theories that have become fashionable for Harvard geneticists. The European population calculated in chalcolithic ranges between 1-2 million people (see Martin Furholt). The question is very simple, how is it possible that some steppe nomad cultures whose exact population density is not known will invade and drastically substitute the autochthonous population? It does not make any sense, if you add to that that L51 and P312 have never been found in the steppes, the argument is totally debunked.
The process was much slower, perhaps many people have been impressed by the findings of Olalde last year and the situation in the British Isles. However, if you study the dates well you will see that the drastic substitution occurred during the Bronze Age, because during calcolithic there are several British BBs that are I2a. The same happens in the Netherlands where there is only one old case (we have talked about here) dated at 2,400, the rest of cases are from the Bronze Age. And the same happens in Spain where the substitution was much less dramatic and only during the Bronze Age. However, these geneticists are still talking about conquests, massive migrations, absolute replacement of male haplogroups. Why? That has confused many people and everything for political correctness.
Reich has come to say that Iberian men were exterminated, and women semi-enslaved. That has provoked the protest of more than a hundred prestigious archaeologists including the President of the European Association of Archaeologists. They have to be very careful with their conclusions.
R1b-P312 from Ukraine ? No way. We prefer the Pyrenees and Western Europe, I hope that time will prove us right.
@ Diego
It does not take a Plague hundreds of years to do significant culling....
@ Diego
How many GAC finds are there within the whole territory that they occupied ? How many Cucuteni-Tripolye sites looked like they were simply abandoned ?
@Ric-I suppose your question refers to the possibility that these cultures would disappear because of the plague. I have no idea.
For those who have doubts about where the eastern BBs come from (at least in part)
K1a+195-
Iberia-Dolmen del Arroyal, Burgos, BB culture-I0462-2.456 BC
Camino de las Yeseras, Madrid-I6610-1.858 BC
Czech Republic- Jinonice-BB culture-I7196-1.950 BC
K1a2/a
Iberia-Cova Bonica, Vallirana, Barcelona-Neolithic-CB13-5.398 BC
Els Trocs-5.181 BC
Cueva del Toro, Antequera-TOR11-5.030 BC
El Mirador, Atapuerca, Burgos-I1300-2.600 BC
Cerdañola del Vallés, BB culture-I0260-2.550 BC
K1a2/a- Sweden, Neolithic- RISE94-2.596 BC
K1a2/a- Italy, Via Guidorossi-Parma-I2478-2.065 BC
K1a2/a- Germany, Koningsbrunn, Bronze Age-1.957 BC
K1a2/a- Hungary- Bronze Age-RISE373-1.791 BC
K1b1/a-Iberia-Dólmenes de Fuente Pecina, Sedano, Burgos-F.Pecina I-4.042 BC
dolmen de Ansiao, Portugal-Chalcolithic-3.250 BC
El Juncal, Getafe-BB culture, 2.600 BC
Lorca, Murcia, ARgar culture-1.875 BC
K1b1/a- Czech Republic, Morasevka-BBB culture-I5044-2.100 BC
K1b1/a- Czech Republic, Bronze Age, Unetice-RISE586-2.050 BC
K1a26-Iberia, Cueva del Mirador, Chalcolithic-I5838-2.623 BC
K1a26- England, Wilsford Down, BB culture-I6778-2.200 BC
Yarnton, BB culture-I2447-2.013 BC
The evidence is so clear, that astonishes to think how it is possible that Olalde said that there had been no genetic relationship between Iberia and the rest of European BB regions. The Spanish databases are large enough to check all mitochondrial haplogroups and the coincidences are amazing.
@All
I would like to hear your (respectful) opinions on this. I may have gone crazy and interpreted everything backwards.
@ Diego
I assume that you talk about Europe excluding the Steppe ? From the Urals to the Atlantic Europe is just over 10 Million km2. So excluding the Steppe maybe about 7 Million. According to your 2 Million people that is 3km2 per person which is very low....
@ Ric- Look what Daniela Hoffman says
"The main critique revolves around the equation of archaeological cultures and biological/genetic population distinctiveness, and three main aspects are highlighted: a) the (lack of) representativeness of the studied samples; b) the lack of biological/ genetic homogeneity of the members of a particular archaeological culture; and c) the ambiguous use of the term migration in those publications. It comes at a time when the popularity of ancient DNA studies has transcended the scientific community to seize the holders of popular media in a time of economic and political instability, where the debate on immigration and its subsequent ramifications are on the table"
And Martin Furholt "Although we do not know how many people actually lived in central Europe towards the end of the Middle Neolithic, we might assume that it was somewhere around 1 or 2 million (Müller, 2015). A sudden turnover of the whole population, as suggested by Haak et al. (2015), would be a truly dramatic, even genocidal, event, which is a possibility. But it is also a quite extreme scenario, for which one would like to have some additional arguments. One could ask how many newcomers would be required to create a population turnover of 79 %, or even a total exchange of populations by 2500 cal BC, assuming 1 million inhabitants in central Europe around 3000 cal BC. Forexample, if we have a 3.5 % annual growth rate in the newcomer population, 200 newcomers would be enough to reach a population of 1 million after about 250 years, and after 300 years it would exceed 6.5 million. Such an annual growth rate is rather high (Hassan, 1981) and it being continuous over 300 years is probably also unrealistic; nevertheless, this calculation illustrates that there is a possibility that this population turnover does not have to involve the kind of massive migration suggested by Haak et al. (2015)"
A further issue is that the current debate concentrates too much on the Yamnaya culture as the only possible source for the eastern European genetic component in central Europe. Other potential routes of migration are not considered. For example, in their Supplementary Information 2, Haak et al. (2015) demonstrate that three individuals connected to the Pitted Ware culture in Sweden (taken from Skoglund et al., 2012) are clearly under that eastern genetic influence.
@Diego
PWC completely lacked the CHG genetic component as well as most uniparental markers common today. They are at most responsible for a tiny bit of the ancestry of today's Scandinavians.
And speaking of PWC and areas where they lived, and what could happen to neolithic farmers: On the island of Gotland, which was colonized by TRB farmers around 3300 BCE, the neolithic farmers disappeared all by themselves around 2700 BCE without any signs of steppe people taking over the island. The island was then just inhabited by a shrinking PWC population until when about 500 years later a LN "Bell Beaker like" population arrived and established a lasting presence.
@ Diego
To give you a Modern Comparison to what 2 people per square kilometre looks like, it is basically the same population density as the Western Sahara or Mongolia.
(Sorry, a small correction to my latest post: TRB farmers established themselves on Gotland around 3800 BCE, not 3300 BCE. It doesn't change the story though.)
@ Ric-We should calculate how many square kilometers of pasture a family of 10, needs to survive for a year. Keep in mind that in Europe there are weather stations and that therefore the grass available for livestock does not grow spontaneously throughout the year, but there are seasons when food simply does not exist. This problem was solved in Anatolia with agriculture but the cultures of the steppes did not. Given that the Iberian peninsula has 600,000 km2, the population in Iberia alone would be 1,200,000 people (2x600,000 people). I think this data is even too high.
@Diego
Well, too bad because the data shows Corded Ware stomping over most of Europe in a major way.
R1b-P312 from Ukraine ? No way. We prefer the Pyrenees and Western Europe, I hope that time will prove us right.
So you basically fear that your country's dominant haplogroup isn't native to the region? Too bad, because the data shows that too.
This is OIT-level stuff.
Why oh why must all genetic history sites sooner or later become infested with rabid ethno-chauvinists?
Why oh why must the aforementioned chauvinists behave like 5 year old children, scream, shout and stamp their feet when things don't go their way?
The only thing more virulent to an Iranian/Kurdish/Indian chauvinist it seems is a Spanish chauvinist.
It's all really quite pathetic. Some people come here for the science, and not to endure chauvinists stinking-up the comments section.
@Them meee
Which data shows CWC stomping over most Europe in a major way?
Which CWC are you talking about?
Małopolska Corded Ware ?/Zlota Culture?/ Rzucewo Culture?/Middle Dnieper Culture?
Fatianovo Culture?/Battle-Axe Culture?/Bohemian-Moravian Corded Ware?/Corded Ware of the Alpine Pile Dwellings?/Central German Corded Ware Culture?/Single Grave Culture?
All together?
@ mickey dodds1
That's all you can say, really?
I was hoping you were going to share your genetic wisdom with us.
Do you know the genetic characteristics of these cultures to affirm that they were stomping over Europe?
I have left for the end the most important of all. The Protruding Foot Beaker Culture-
It is clear that what is unacceptable is to recognize any type of relationship with Iberia, even with France and Italy. You will know what your motives are. If so, it seems to me that in the future many people will have nightmares.
@ Diego
Well looking at Mongolia which is mostly pasture and people mostly eat meat and cheese a population of 2 persons per km2 looks like a viable population size for pasturalists. Europe I think has a higher grass yield than Mongolia so the pasturalists could have doubled their numbers at least...
@Diego
Might as well just scream VIVA ESPANA!!!! because the genetic data isn't going well for you.
You asked which data. I don't know, maybe the one that shows widespread steppe ancestry in Europe and Europeans often clustering with Corded Ware and Bell Beakers?
And the fact you mentioned all of these cultures just proves my point, because they are all subgroups of Corded Ware, and all autosomally very similar.
At some point we'll actually be able to reconstruct population density dynamics from genomes with some degree of success and these questions will be over (especially if integrated into the archaeology in an effective way).
I suspect the use of land by Middle Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures was waaaaay more limited than some believe, and that their subsistence / political / etc. technology limited surplus from this land waaaaay more than some believe. Even in southern Europe.
People used to think the enclosed settlements in south Iberia were complex states, but they were still pre-chiefdoms , with some redistributive Abilities. However Diego is right that the population seems to have been quite bustling in the period before the arrival of BB.
So I don’t know if it was the hepatitis they thought along, the 4.2 ky event or just the fact that they were quite warlike, but they end result is rather striking
@Matt- Population density is a very interesting debate for genetics because it influences the founder effects , especially in male uniparental markers.You also have to take into account the fertility of the land and obviously the climate. I do not know if you use the hectare (10,000 m2) as a unit of land measurement
The Chalcolithic settlements were located in the vicinity of the rivers, land was prepared for the cultivation by clearing and burning, and given the absence of fertilizers, they are abandoned when they cease to be productive. Estimates of cereal consumption for a village of 40 people (lineage or family) are 400 grams/day/person (330 grams of flour), that is, 5,480 kilograms / year, with a productivity index of 250 kgr/hª, it means that they needed a 25-30-hª cultivation extension of cereal. According to the fallow system the village would need a territory of 300 hª, of which 30 would be for cereal and 270 for livestock and forest use, that is, a perimeter of one kilometer around the settlement. It would take 85 hª of pasture to maintain 12 cows (60 hª), 35 sheep (18 hª) and 5 pigs (5 hª).
Iberian peninsula has 600,000 km2x100-60,000,000 hª: 300 hª-200,000 hªx40 people-8.000.000 people
Assuming that all the territory is fertile land to plant cereals and livestock.
@Diego https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/spanish-men-were-completely-wiped-out-by-the-arrival-of-a-new-tribe-4000-years-ago/
Spanish Men Were Completely Wiped Out By The Arrival Of A New Tribe 4,000 Years Ago
“It appears there was some sort of “violent conquest”, notes New Scientist, where local males were either killed or enslaved and the females claimed by the Yamnaya. This is evidenced by a “complete Y-chromosome replacement,” according to Reich. In other words, Spanish men disappeared completely from the gene pool.”
90% of Neolithic “British” have been replaced by “Yamnaya” according to the paper (they meant Bell Beaker); in Spain it was close to 100%.
And according to a paper cited by Davidski, Basques originally came from the Balkan.
Totally off-topic I know, but did anyone see the Nature paper on the Salkhit calvarium? They redated it to ca. 34.5kya. They also found it to be an anatomically modern human, instead of the other species of human it has been linked to in the past. Its mtdna was basal N. I know it is much harder to extract Y dna, but does anyone know if Paabo's team tried?
I know this an extremely naive question, but can anyone tell me how useful this data may be?
@Neil B Basal N mtDNA is from Anatolia_N
@Andrzejewski
In the absence of users like Batman and Gioiello, your comments are delightful to read.
Also, did you read this:
They redated it to ca. 34.5kya.
So I guess Anatolia_N existed during the Palaeolithic, or had time travel?
Media reports dramatize DNA papers. The "genocide out of native men" was not a weird event or unique to Spain. They're unaware that what happened in Bronze age Spain was apart of a phenomenon happening all over Bronze age Europe.
Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6
Kurgan cultures might have had strict patrlineal laws which caused these 'whipe outs' to happen. Most Kurgan Y DNA was also "whipped out." In all likely hood, Kurgan cultures treated men from the same background but of a different paternal lineage the same way they did 'native farmer' men.
Bell Beaker Rhine, had 45% northern European 'farmer' ancestry but 100% Steppe Y DNA. Like how how Bronze age Iberians had 60% Iberian 'farmer' ancestry & 40% Rhine ancestry but 100% Rhine Y DNA. The exact same practices caused this sex bias admixture to happen in both places.
Or look at Baltic BA. 45% Steppe DNA but 90% Steppe Y DNA. 30% BalticHG ancestry, 10% BalticHG Y DNA. Over 50% 'farmer' mtDNA but 23% 'farmer' ancestry.
@Samuel Andrews well, let’s see what @Diego has to say about that. That’s probably how IE languages spread out.
@Them meee mtDNA N in modern European populations is due to Anatolia_N, I don’t care when it originated
Post a Comment