search this blog

Sunday, March 31, 2019

Map of pre-Corded Ware culture (>2900 BCE) instances of Y-haplogroup R1a


Below is a map showing the global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a prior to the expansions of the R1a-rich Corded Ware culture (CWC) people and their descendants across Europe and Asia from around 2900 BCE. I'll be updating this map regularly and using it to help me narrow down the options for the place of origin of R1a, and also to counter the misinformation about this topic that has appeared in print and online over the years, including in many scientific publications and popular websites such as Wikipedia.


Incredibly, as far as I know, there are just six reliably called instances of R1a in the now ample Eurasian ancient DNA record dating to the pre-CWC period. To put this into perspective, consider that R1a is today the most common Y-haplogroup in much of Europe and Asia. How did that happen I wonder? However, please note that I chose to base the map only on samples sequenced with the capture and shotgun methods, rather than the PCR method, which is susceptible to producing contaminated results and no longer used in major ancient DNA studies.

See also...

The beast among Y-haplogroups

The Poltavka outlier

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

234 comments:

1 – 200 of 234   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Please let me know if I should correct this map in any way and I will do so ASAP.

Mikkel Nørtoft said...

That's all I have found too :)
Here in a tree structure:
http://homeland.ku.dk/CSS/images/R1_tree_sign.png


Michał said...

What about the two R1a1-M17 hunter-gatherers from the Lokomotiv cemetery in the Baikal Region?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X16306927

Davidski said...

@Michał

Yep, but those are from PCR tests. I would need to see the same samples tested with capture/shotgun methods.

Alexander said...

Dear Davidski

Two small comments:
1) maybe one R1a in Yamna should be inluded. One R1a WAS!!
2) One R1a from Maykop. It was detected in your blog in December 18

and date for Kudrukula was more broad 3950–1850

Can they be included?

Davidski said...

@Alexander

Can they be included?

Nope, the map is based on capture and shotgun data from peer-reviewed papers.

But I'm sure many more samples will be on it soon. :)


Sofia Aurora said...

@Alexander

Which Kudrukula sample you are reffering to?
Please remind the article.

@Davidski

Ha,ha,ha!
Alas with these R1a and R1b haplogroups already (lol)!!!

Can't you see that you are destroying poor Carlos Quiles hallucinations?

lol

https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/r1a-z280-and-r1a-z93-shared-by-ancient-ugric-populations-n1c-tat-expanded-with-micro-altaic/

https://indo-european.eu/2019/03/how-the-genocidal-yamnaya-men-loved-to-switch-cultures/

https://indo-european.eu/2019/03/the-pazyryk-culture-spoke-a-uralic-altaic-language-because-haplogroup-n/

Arza said...

Licence for the base map, source of it and compatible licence for your map is missing if you want to publish it in the Wikipedia.

But there is a much bigger problem - I1819 most likely is not R1a.

Data from Jones:
Ukraine_HG1 StPet2 9193-8641 calBCE U5b2
Ukraine_N1 StPet12 4519-4343 calBCE U4

Data from Genetiker:
Ukraine_HG1 belonged to Y haplogroup I2a2a-M223
Ukraine_N1 belonged to Y haplogroup R1a1-M459*

Data from Mathieson (preprint):
I1819 StPet12, inv. 6462/25 8825-8561 calBCE U5b2 R1a

Data from Mathieson (published):
I1819 inv. 6462/25 8825-8561 calBCE U5b2 R1a
I1378 StPet2 4519-4343 calBCE U4b I2a2a1b1

Data from Wang:
I1819 StPet12, site 9, collection 6462, individual 25 8825-8561 calBCE U5b2 R1a
I1378 StPet2, collection 1/1/04 4519-4343 calBCE U4b I2a2a1b1
Ukraine_HG1.SG StPet12, site 9, collection 6462, individual 25 U4 R1a
Ukraine_N1.SG StPet2, collection 1/1/04 4519-4343 calBCE U5b2 I2a2a

Note how IDs, alternative IDs and mtDNA are switched in Mathieson and Wang.

I1819 most likely is the same sample as Ukraine_HG1 with mtDNA U5b2 and Y-DNA I2a2a. This is corroborated by your West Eurasian PCA where in PC1/PC2/PC6 both are nearly the same (there is a difference in PC3). Although mismatch in radiocarbon dates between Jones and Mathieson needs an explanation.

I1378 possibly is the same sample as Ukraine_N1 with mtDNA U4 and Y-DNA R1a. Here the dates are the same, but there is a big mismatch in the PCA. In both, your WE PCA and the PCA from Jones, N1 is shifted towards Baltic_BA when compared to HG1 (and this shift is real, N1 takes in nMonte both Baltic_BA and my UHG ghost and is clearly linked to them, so that's definitely not a noise or any random skew; BTW my Baltic_BA-ghost that worked perfectly was built upon RISE568 and Ukraine_N1).

I1378 in your PCA behaves differently. Moreover, according to Mathieson, he's a son of I1732, but radiocarbon dates don't match:

While this article was in press, we identified genetically that that I1732 is likely the mother of I1378, although we note that the radiocarbon dates for these samples are inconsistent with this identification. We therefore retained I1378 in the analysis, even though it is likely a first-degree relative.

TL;DR:

I1819 is either Ukraine_HG1 with I2a2a or a different sample due to radiocarbon date mismatch.
I1378 is either Ukraine_N1 with R1a or a different sample due to mismatch in the PCA as well as due to mismatch between radiocarbon dating of him and a sample of his alleged mother - I1732.

Davidski said...

@Arza

I haven't heard anything about I1819 not belonging to R1a, and this sample is labeled consistently as Ukraine_HG1 from the Vasil’evka site in Jones, Mathieson and Wang.

The mtDNA HG is also shown consistently as U5b2 in Jones and Mathieson. So it seems like there's a typo in one of the entries from Wang showing U4 instead of U5b2.

It's possible that the BAM files that Genetiker tested were mixed up, in which case he got the same Y-haplogroups for these two samples as Mathieson.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Not only mtDNA/Y-DNA is mixed up in Mathieson and Wang, but most importantly archaeological(?) IDs are reversed:

Jones:
StPet2 - mesolithic
StPet12 - neolithic

Mathieson:
StPet2 - neolithic
StPet12 - mesolithic

JuanRivera said...

Karelia_HG, Ukraine_Mesolithic, Ukraine_N, Ukraine_Eneolithic, and Khvalynsk_Eneolithic are confirmed examples of pre-Corded Ware R1a. Lokomotiv_N, Maykop and Baltic_HG are tentative pre-Corded Ware R1a.

Davidski said...

@Arza

You're putting too much stock in the results reported by Genetiker.

The IDs and Y-haplogroup calls reported for those two samples in Mathieson et al. 2018 are correct.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
It's not just about Genetiker, but contradictory information in theoretically reviewed publications.

Anyway, I1819 is R1a, I've just checked that by myself:

M6473 B2a1a1a1~
FGC17629 C1b2b
Z3722.1 D1b
Z15384 E1a2a1b1a
Z15225 E1a2a2
CTS11602 E1b1a1a1a1c1b
Y6172 E1b1b1b2a1a1a1a1e1~
Z6228 G2a2a1a2a1b1~
M2713 H
F3564.2 H1a1a4b4
Z14134 H1a2a
S247 I1a2a1a4a1
Y23089 I1a2a1a4a1a1a2b~
Y23575 I1a2a1a4a1a1a2b1~
L870 L2~
F6765 N~
Y16319 N1a1a1a1a3a
F3145 N1a3~
SK1631 O1b1a1a1a2
Z39486^ O1b1a1a1b1b
CTS3135 P
M1207 P
CTS3446 P
CTS3697 P
CTS11295 Q1a2a1b
CTS3622 R
CTS3123 R1
CTS3321 R1
L145 R1a
L62 R1a
L63 R1a
L146 R1a
CTS11795.2 R1b1a1a2a1a2b1a1a~
A2070 R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a4d1~

Secondary IDs in Jones must be swapped, Wang has mtDNA reversed in shotgun sequences and Genetiker mixed up bam files.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Secondary IDs in Jones must be swapped, Wang has mtDNA reversed in shotgun sequences and Genetiker mixed up bam files.

Yep, the secondary IDs being swapped in Jones is why Genetiker got the wrong calls.

JuanRivera said...

R1a, R1b and Q1 (former Q1a) are old enough to be present in peninsular Europe, however, the most basal lineages and diversity of all three peaked in the steppe and northwestern Asia (Kazakhstan and Western Siberia) until the Bronze Age. The haplogroups in peninsular Europe before the Bronze Age were R1b1*, R1b-V88, old clades of R1a and Q* (last two not yet found and probably never going to be found), after the Bronze age are, for example, R1b-L51, R1a-Z93, Q1a-F1096 and Q1b-L56 (past Q1b is now Q2-L275), all from the steppe.

Mem said...

@Davidsky

https://indo-european.eu/2019/04/r1a-z280-and-r1a-z93-shared-by-ancient-ugric-populations-n1c-tat-expanded-with-micro-altaic/

Carlos posted new genetic papers in his blog.In second paper say R1a-z280 and z93 aged at Mesolithic Era.

Those are true, or just BS I don't know. Can you confirm that accuracy of those ages?

Davidski said...

@Mem

There's no reliable way to determine the precise ages of Y-haplogroups, but based on full sequence data it seems that most of the main subclades under R1a-M417 split roughly during the Copper and Bronze Ages.

So no, it's not possible that R1a-Z280 and R1a-Z93 date back to the Mesolithic.

And it's not a good idea to link to Carlos' blog, because all you're doing is helping to popularize his crackpot ideas.

Davidski said...

@Arza

I appreciate your eye for detail, but it seems that in this instance we got into a rather lengthy discussion mainly because your basic assumption was that Genetiker was correct.

But keep in mind that this is the guy who claimed that ancient Amerindian mummies from Peru had European ancestry.

So your basic assumption should have been that Genetiker was wrong, for some reason that may or may not be worth looking at, and the details reported in Mathieson et al., a major paper checked at multiple levels by many people before and after publication, were correct.

sds said...

I know at one point cremation was the norm for many who were R1a. Was this the common practice throughout prior to the CWC and therefore the reason for so few samples?

Davidski said...

@sds

There's zero chance that cremation was common among hunter-gatherers who belonged to R1a and, on top of that, lived throughout different parts of Eurasia.

Bob Floy said...

OT, but, speaking of Genetiker, does no one have any idea what happened to him? From what I can see he vanished without a trace, and it's been over a year now. I thought maybe it had to do with his "paper" being rejected, which I'm sure it was.

Lee Albee said...

@Davidski

I do not agree with Genetiker's obvious political bend when it comes to the ameticas.

Despite that, something funky is going on with eastern native american genetics, also in some Andean populations, and even perhaps some northwest genetics.

I am not at all convinced that the data to date can exclude paleolithic western eurasian or perhaps paleolithic north African genetics.

Until we have quality ancient DNA from the east north america, that is well documented as 13k or older. And or actually firmly associated with Clovis culture, unlike Anzick-1. We cannot be certain of the ancestry of north american native Americans. We cannot exclude a non berinigian population source.

Lee

Davidski said...

@Bob

Honestly I couldn't care less what Genetiker was up to nowadays. Whatever it is, it's probably nothing good.

@Lee

I can't see anything "funky" in the ancient data from the Americas, unless you mean that some of it is low quality, but those sorts of issues affect ancient data from all over the world.

Bob Floy said...

@David

Fair enough, and, neither do I really, just thought it was funny that he was promoting this Earth shattering paper he was about to publish, and then he was just gone. Lol.

Davidski said...

I'm predicting a similar scenario for Carlos.

Bob Floy said...

That goofy Dienekes' blog has been a ghost town for a few years now, too. I remember when he was all the rage and getting cited as a source for Wikipedia articles and such. Hah.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Kristiansen-"The most violent group of people who ever lived: Horse-riding Yamnaya tribe who used their huge height and muscular build to brutally murder and invade their way across Europe than 4,000 years ago"

The Spanish newspapers have also been speaking for 15 days about massacres, violent conquests and that Spanish men are the descendants of the Russian steppe shepherds. Whatever happens in the future, the official truth has already triumphed, everyone thinks that R1b originated in the steppes, and that he was in charge of expanding the IE language throughout Europe.
I suppose you will be satisfied.

Toby_P said...

After these new studies, is there any new finds for R1b-U106 ? Last post I saw, it appears in the post-Beaker period in central & northern Europe. So it must be related to I.E. groups liek Germanic, maybe even be a Celtic marker.

Davidski said...

@Diego

Much of this thing will blow over soon and then there will be detailed discussions about how to interpret these sorts of ancient DNA results in more subtle ways.

Logically, the results from Iberia aren't really compatible with a brutal, violent conquest scenario if the people from the east were Indo-European speakers.

That's because there's no plausible explanation why they would kill most of the local Iberian men and then switch to the non-Indo-European languages of their local Iberian brides, and on such a scale too.

A brutal conquest is logically a process in which there is very little passed on by the vanquished people.

So it's like this: if this was a conquest, then these weren't Indo-Europeans, but rather the precursors of Basques, Iberians, Tartessians etc., and if these were Indo-Europeans, then this wasn't a violent conquest but largely some sort of social and demographic process basically agreed upon by both sides.

Matt said...

It seems to me (and may would say naively or wishfully) that there is an excluded middle between ideas where there was simply a conquest of Iberia, and ideas where people were simply interacting peacefully and equally.

What Beaker is supposed to be in Iberia is a non-geographically contiguous set of cultures who are found densely in particular regions of the peninsula, then we build to the Bronze Age when steppe ancestry and R1b-M269 really become ubiquitous by groups who don't clearly continue that same cultural practices.

I would guess that for many parts of Iberia there was a movement of people from Central European Beaker which brought culture and invasion and violence (though it's possible they did not), but for other groups there was probably more organized alliance between local political hierarchy and outsider groups, which probably involved a bias towards marriage between male migrating offshoots from Beaker and female locals. Outsider males could be particularly valuable if they carried military skills that could be useful to local groups in struggles with their local enemies. Elite recruitment (using the David Anthony term) of the outsider male, who are a geographically scattered phenomenon (to the extent Maju tended to describe them as "surely a mercenary phenomenon", if I remember correctly). The idea being that often first they come as "mercenaries" (of a sort) who get married off to the daughters of the local big men and assimilate linguistically, then their R1b-M269 male children continue their skills and local dominance (but lose of course without the language, burial rite, myths, etc). That would also get the founder effects seen within Iberia. Not a case necessarily of unified intrusive Central European Beaker groups vs unified Iberian groups.

Bell Beaker blogger seems to think that all the Beaker offshoots would have been very scrupulous about keeping a shared language to unify the bloc, and that may be so for the sites we can see, but it maybe doesn't tell us about all the offshoots that would happen as some group of males split off to do their own thing, and as the unity of the Bell Beaker network degraded over time.

(Similar phenomena could have been seen in Britain, but since there we'd be talking about Late Neolithic Southern Britons who were basically a low density pastoralist people with necessarily far flung, opportunistic burial who practiced cremation at the major sites with a good density of burials, it would be hard for us to see any of this happening, and plus all this would have less persistence through later history.)

Ultimately, we need "the archaeologists' reply" on all this, comparing the precise sites, and estimates for sites and critical examination of Olalde's methodology, with what they have pretty signals of from the archaeology. The fine detailed synthesis will need their attention. One way or another we're talking about a process biased to male migration from outside, then their success of their descendants with local Iberian women, but the close dynamics need more attention (and in my opinion, a better model of the limited transitional sample period samples than Olalde 2019 does).

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Davidski-

I believe that now more than ever, everyone has to make an effort to see the situation in a neutral way. Recently I took a look at the blog that you have commented previously and unfortunately although the person who writes is Spaniard, like me, the truth is that many of the things he says don't make any sense. Until we know the truth of what happened, we have to be prudent, there are people who will not mind being ridiculous, but there are many other people with prestige in the world of archeology and genetics who are saying all kinds of stupid things. I can not explain how an experienced man like Kristiansen can write that nonsense, I can not even guess what his intention is, except to become famous. You will see how there will be many more surprises in Spain, Germany, France and Italy and I hope that it can help us clarify the origin of R1b. Respect to R1a, I believe that more than ten years ago everyone knows that the CWC is fundamentally R1a, it is also obvious that it has a steppe origin and it seems clear that it can be related to some kind of expansion of Indo-European towards Central Europe and India. But the story of R1b is quite different ...

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Matt said "Ultimately, we need "the archaeologists' reply" on all this, comparing the precise sites, and estimates for sites and critical examination of Olalde's methodology"

Archeology says the opposite of what Olalde tries to demonstrate 4 years ago. His maximum obsession in his first two papers (2.015 and 2.018) was to de-link Iberia from any type of genetic relationship with the rest of the BB regions. Obviously both he and the archaeologists in favor of the theory of the Kurgans (Heyd....) needed to discredit the previous studies of the German geneticists, and the Swiss anthropologists who clearly linked Iberia with many central-European BBs deposits.

The funniest thing about the study on the European BB culture is that Olalde's main argument for denying that genetic link was to say that he had not found evidence of the mitochondrial haplogroup H3 in Iberian BB deposits, which according to him was the definitive proof of that genetic disconnection . Unfortunately Olalde did not study in depth the mitochondrial haplogroups of the BBC, because otherwise he would have realized the obvious connection and would have realized that H3 is only documented in Iberia since the mesolithic, and has also been found in Spanish and German BB sites.

In Spain there are more than 3000 BB sites and more than 10% have human remains to analyze. Olalde in his two works has analyzed 12 sites (2,500-2,000 BC), and in them, half of the men (10) were P-312, with a case that is the oldest in Europe (Ehu002) after Osterhofen, with which we can not rule out anything, not even an origin of P312 in the Franco-Cantabrian region, which is what many Spanish geneticists say.

An experienced archeologist would tell you that it is absolutely amazing that if P312 conquered Iberia, how is it possible that those 10 cases discovered in Spain, all of them, are buried with Ciempozuelos type ceramics, which as you know only exists in Iberia. That is, R1b-P312 appears in the CWC, kidnaps the BBC in Central-Europe, then arrives in Iberia, hijacks the Ciempozuelos style, then abandons his native language at the same time he murders all Iberian men and stays with their women because they are very beautiful.

Do you think this makes any sense?

Dragos said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Davidski said...

@Diego

The Olalde et al. Iberia paper was a collaboration between many specialists, including Iberian archeologists. So I find it extremely unlikely that you know something significant about some of the ancient samples that they missed.

And the close correlation between R1b-P312 and genome-wide steppe ancestry in the Copper Age Iberian samples associated with the Bell Beaker culture, plus the close phylogenetic relationship between R1b-P312 and the Yamnaya-specific R1b-Z2103, means that the chance that R1b-P312 is native to Iberia is zero.

You've probably got a better chance arguing that Basque is an Indo-European-related language that came from the steppe.

https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/proto-basque/

zardos said...

The idea of the incoming R1b lineages adopting the local language is an idea born out of desperation for keeping up a link between those lineages and IE speech at all cost.
Also this whole scenario doesnt work out without violence and mass killings. The only question which remains is when and how exactly it was done. But male lineages dont just disappear like that, they never do so peacefully in a premodern context.

That the preceding Iberians gave the steppe Beakers their language in Iberia so unlikely, its not worth to be considered.
Of all steppe expansions in Europe, Britain and Iberia are the most complete male lineage replacement. Why in gods name should this result in a reversibel language transfer from the captured brides?
Its more likely GAC people were able to transmit their language and even being IE than any incoming BB in Iberia.
Actually there is a faily long list of possible language transfers to steppe derived people being more much more likely than in Iberian Beakers.

If steppe BB acquired their non-IE tongue secondly, they did so outside of Iberia. Even if they got it from Iberian colonisators, they got it North of the Pyrenees. But even then all or the majority of them should have been of the same tongue, in and outside of Iberia.


Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Davidski-The Olalde et al. Iberia paper was a collaboration between many specialists, including Iberian archeologists. So I find it extremely unlikely that you know something significant about some of the ancient samples that they missed.

What I understand extremely unlikely is that Olalde and Reich are right.We are preparing a doctoral thesis on the Iberian Chalcolithic with more than 500 samples that will undoubtedly be very interesting, the archaeologists who have collaborated with Olalde have made our work much easier. We'll see what the conclusions are, too bad we have to wait a couple of years to know.

The possibilities of P312 to be native to the Franco-Cantabrian region (ie south of France, north of Spain) are infinitely greater than that it originated in the steppes. But that is not the important thing, what really interests us is to make clear, how, when and why, the connection between P312 and BB culture took place.

Regarding the non-Indo-European languages ​​of Iberia, we have known for a long time that they have nothing to do with the steppes. We do not need to invent arguments, we just find it fun to read the opinions about their origin.


Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Dragos I find some of your posts interesting, but I think you need a lot of information, especially in relation to the dates of the BB culture in Iberia.

Dating by luminescent techniques of tomb 3 and BB package- la Pijotilla (Badajoz, Spain) -Regarding ceramics, sample PS-27 (BB Maritime style-2,665 BC), sample PS-13 (2,601 BC) and sample PS-37 (2,396 BC).

Deposit of Cueva de la Mora (Somaén, Soria) - Absolute Data (2780 ± 130 BC and 2620 ± 130 BC) - Incised Pottery. There were no stratigraphic alterations- (Ignacio Barandiarán, 1975: 160)

Deposit of La Atalayuela (Agoncillo, Ebro Valley, La Rioja) - (2,887-2,492 BC) - Human bone-Funerary context-2,689 BC- Important site with a collective burial of more than 50 simultaneous burials in which four varieties of BB pottery was found-Maritime / Maritime-CZM / Puntillado Geométrico / Inciso-Ciempozuelos. Mª Teresa Andrés Ruperez, I. Barandiarán Maeztu (2,004)

Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon North of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications- Joao Cardoso (2.014)- Deposits of Porto Torrao (MHV / AOC / AOO) - (2,823-2,658 BC) - 2,740 BC, Castro de Leceia (2,825-2,654 BC) - 2,739 BC-

Campaniforme: chronology, pottery, and contexts of a long term phenomenon in the Portuguese Douro Basin-Maria de Jesus Sanches and Maria Helena Barbosa (diciembre 2.018)-

We highlight here four case studies and conclude that all styles are present –classic Maritime (linear, herringbone), combgeometric, Palmela/Ciempozuelos, AOC and mixed CZM styles–and that these styles have grosso modo the same chronology, i.e., they are dated to at least as old as the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC. Bell Beaker pottery continued to be used in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC in this region, making this phenomenon one of long duration. Recent studies did not find direct genetic links (“steppe ancestry”) between Chalcolithic Iberia and contemporaneous Central Europe populations (e.g. Bell Beaker users), but rather continuity/homogeneity within endogenous Chalcolithic populations. However, the authors of this paper are cautious in accepting these results and suggest that further studies focused on the comparison of individuals from the beginning and the end of the Chalcolithic period (about 3000–2200 BC) would be needed.


Probably you will continue thinking that BB culture originated in Hungary or the Czech Republic 300 years after these dates, but at least you will have interesting studies to consult. The only possible explanation is a kind of reflux as Sangmeister defended many years ago. In this back-migration, R1b-P312 could be involved, but that still needs to be proven.

Dragos said...

The funny thing is Iberian archaeologists had already predicted the outcomes long ago, and it is aDNA which provides the final clarification.

I quote Valera - 2014 - discussing Portugal.

''We are, then, confronted of a social system, but with an abrupt end of huge, highly complex societies. .The coincidence of the abrupt ending of large and long-term enclosures with the general disinvestment in architecture and the collapse of long distance trade networks may suggest the existence of event-like situations...''

For Southeast Iberia (Sanjuan 2018):

''Indeed, from c. 2400 cal BC onwards, funerary activity at Valencina becomes difficult to discern at all. It is at around this time when, marking the end of the Copper Age funerary ideology and the beginning of the Bronze Age, primary individual inhumations in cists, small pits and covachas appear at the neighbouring sites of Jardín de Alá, Salteras, of SE-K and SE-B, Gerena (Hunt Ortíz et al. 2008), the Las Canteras tholos, at El Gandul (Hurtado Pérez and Amores Carredano 1984), and Carmona (Belén Deamos et al. 2015), all within a 35 km radius of Valencina. Thus, it seems conceivable that at the beginning of the 25th century cal BC, the social relations that had given rise to the funerary complex at Valencina around 700 years earlier were in crisis or threatened by dissolution. This is in line with the ‘twilight of enclosures’ (Valera 2015) and indeed with what has been termed the ‘collapse’ of the Copper Age way of life in southwest Iberia as a whole (Soares and Tavares 1998)—but that is a much wider question, which must be pursued elsewhere.''

And Lull 2016.
''Southern Chalcolithic communities disappeared completely by 2200 BCE, while the Argaric society emerged between c. 2200 and 2000 BCE in the coastal and pre-littoral areas of Almería and Murcia. The first individual and double burials in the vicinity of inhabited areas can be dated shortly before 2200 (Molinos de Papel 1, Cerro de la Virgen 30, Gatas 11 and 13), setting the regional precedent of the characteristic Argaric rituals“

It’s hard to make a case for patron- client situation or cultural admixture.

Davidski said...

Yeah, there's strong archeological evidence of a collapse in Iberia at the end of the Copper Age, so even if there wasn't an invasion per se, R1b-P312-rich groups may have come from the east to fill a vacuum. Chances are that there was some violence involved in this.

I'm having a hard time imagining how local languages would have been passed on in such a scenario of collapse and foreign takeover...across practically all of Iberia???


Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

It's very simple, because there was not a foreign take over.

The collapse to which all archaeologists and paleoclimatologists refer is the 4.2 event, but for those dates P312 had already been 300 years in Iberia, meaning that this haplogroup had to be immersed in the collapse. Maybe he was the only survivor. But it seems strange that all mitochondrial lineages survived and all men died, except P312, probably Iberian women better withstand heat and drought. Los Millares collapsed due to the reduction of natural resources and drought. The Iberian peninsula is very large (twice the size of the Italian peninsula) and has 600,000 km2 of territory, it may not be as populated as we believe and migrant groups settled in unpopulated territories even if they were less fertile and productive.

Davidski said...

@Diego

Maybe he was the only survivor.

Well yeah, obviously, the P312 males didn't cut off their own heads and stick them on pikes. For one, that's physically impossible.

zardos said...

@Diego: " Iberian women better withstand heat and drought"

Are you joking?

It doesnt matter if tribal groups were neighbours for longer period of time, one can still eliminate the other.
Its actually neighbours which fight the most for obvious reasons.

As a rule,climatic events can weaken one group more than another and causing opportunities for an easier conquest. But conquest there will be, if one lineage swallows the other.
Again, Britain and Iberia are among the most extreme conquest scenarios known so far in Europe.
There were many similar ones, but the results cant be much more unambiguously.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

Or perhaps, the invasion occurred backwards, as happened in Sicily and Iberian men P312 migrated with their women to other BB regions and those who stayed in Iberia had more reproductive success than the rest of Y-Haplogroups.

Mit-Haplogroup K1a4/a1
I6467-Cueva Verdelha-Vialonga, Portugal-BB culture-2.500BC
EHU002-El Hundido, Monasterio de Rodilla, BB culture-2.434 BC
I0825-Cerdañola del Vallés, BBC-2.387 BC
I6585-Humanejos-Madrid, BB Culture-2.240 BC
I3484-Castillejo del Bonete, Ciudad Real, BB culture-2.127 BC
Keb1- Kehf el Baroud, Casablanca-2.600 BC
I2418- Amesbury, England, BB culture-2.320 BC
I7287- Radosevice, BB culture-2.350 BC
Haunstatten- Germany-Bronze Age-2.030 BC
S1249- Sardinia, Grutta Bituleri- Bronze Age-1.750 BC

When do you see this what do you think? Because I have not heard your opinion yet, I guess you'll think it's a coincidence, or you just prefer not to talk about it, because it does not fit what you think. Or do you think that this haplogroup originated in the steppes?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@ zardos-

Of course I am joking, because I think that your theory of violent conquest does not make any sense. What happened in the isles has nothing to do with Iberia, and I will also tell you that some British neolithic mitochondrial haplogroups are in the first BBs that reached England, what proves that there was a mixture between both. There is also I2a in the British Isles in BB sites coexisting with R1b-P312.

zardos said...

The female lineages might prove the existence of networks, but they dont explain the disappearance of the indigenous male lineages, nor the appearance of steppe related ancestry in Iberia. Better search for the R1b and steppe Beaker stepping stone to Iberia and the ultimate source of this people. That is key.
Neither P312 nor DF27 can be traced to Iberia, steppe ancestry even less so.
The cultural base and probably even physical type is another matter, so is mDNA.

zardos said...

"There is also I2a in the British Isles in BB sites coexisting with R1b-P312."

Percentages and how long?
Even a mixed group in the early phase wont prove a non-violent change if the next wave swallows them all.
But so far I see no proof for any significant integration of local males.

FrankN said...

@Dave: "Yeah, there's strong archeological evidence of a collapse in Iberia at the end of the Copper Age, so even if there wasn't an invasion per se, R1b-P312-rich groups may have come from the east to fill a vacuum. Chances are that there was some violence involved in this."

It seems to be even more complicated than just "collapse and foreign takeover". El Argar has all signs of takeover, including possibly violent destruction of Los Millares (that by that time had already substantially declined). As per Lull e.a. 2015, "different features would imply links [of early El Argrar] with northern Italy, south-eastern Europe, and the Aegean." Unfortunately, we don't yet have aDNA from the Argaric core for the time in question that can be used to somewhat better trace whether such links manifested themselves also gentically.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298972517

For (South) Portugal, Valera 2014 describes the 2,200 BC collapse as follows: "The networks trading in flint, in particular the large blades, cinnabar, variscite, ivory, amphibolite, limestone, marble, and other less common exotic raw materials are no longer active in the early 2nd millennium BC." OTOH, he describes "occasional extension of use of some walled enclosures like Zambujal or, further north, Castelo Velho or Castanheiro do Vento". Apparently, the collapse was massive, but not complete. Typical El Argar features apparently "trickled in", but not instantly and with the abruptness seen in the early Agraric core. The 2200–2000 BCE La Navilla pastoralists with Agraric pottery from outside that core (I8048/13: I8141/7: I8142/8) might deserve a closer look in this context. I4229 from near Zambujal might also fall into the transition phase.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284438017

The Meseta, finally, provides a very different picture. Here, BB elements appeared comparatively late, acc. to Delibes e.a. 2015: "Interestingly, [in the Villafafil pollen diagram] c. 235o–215o BC (sub­zone PAZ­3a), human impact decreases significantly (..). This first sub­zone (PAZ­3a), culturally speaking, corresponds to the Chalcolithic – Early Bronze Age transition c. 22oo BC, a time in our study area where the number of Chalcolithic sites with Bell Beaker pottery (24oo–22oo BC) is significantly reduced, compared to the previous Chalcolithic period without this pottery (32oo–22oo BC)".
BB culture continued there at least until the early 2nd mBC, and a/o "brought a renewal of equipment, with the emergence of new ceramic and metallic types, some of them common to most of Europe."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296483635
I6604 and I6608 both date to the EBA and - interestingly - are in Olalde e.a. 2018 listed as "non-Steppe".

In summary - rather than generalising, each region deserves its specific analysis.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...


@zardos

Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick-A middle adult female (Sk 1) and a young-middle adult male (Sk 2) were recovered unaccompanied from earthen graves. Sk 1 and Sk 2 had been disturbed by a digger, but reconstructions of their positions suggested that Sk 1 had been buried flexed on their right side with their head to the southwest whilst Sk 2 was buried lightly flexed on their left side with their head to the southwest. Histological analysis of a femur from Sk 2 suggested that this individual had originally been mummified

I1767/Sk2: 2200–1970 (2.085 BC)- Haplogroup Y- I2a2a/1a. Mit- U5a1/a1-
I5382/Sk 4: 2280–1980 (2.130 BC) - Haplogroup Y-R1b-P312. Mit- T2b

That's just an example you have to bear in mind that it is a BB burial and that it is 300 years after the arrival of that culture to the isles. Same site, same culture, contemporary dating- this means coexistence or annihilation?

@zardos- "Neither P312 nor DF27 can be traced to Iberia, steppe ancestry even less so"

The only thing you are right about is the steppe ancestry. Although there are still many doubts about how it entered Europe, Because it was already in Greece during the Neolithic.

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@FrankN

We already have enough data on the Argar culture (Szecsenyi, 2.017, and Olalde 2.019) to know that the Argar culture is a continuity of the lineages related to the BB culture, both in male and female haplogroups. We are waiting for the results of La Bastida and La Almoloya. The village of El Argar that gave name to the culture has not yet been analyzed. The men analyzed (3- Cabezo Redondo, 1- Pirulejo are all R1b-P312). The interesting thing will be to find out if R1b-P312 was the dominant class, because it was a very hierarchical society.

Regarding the Castilian plateau, as they are discovering deposits, they offer older dates for the culture (Valle de las Higueras, Humanejos, Cerro del Bú). You are right in one thing each region had to live totally different experiences, because for example in Asturias there are hardly any BB sites and also R1b-P312 has been found although in a cave where there was not this type of pottery.

Lee Albee said...

@davidski

the "funky" ness of Native american data comes from the way both ancient and modern samples are actually analyzed.

Here is one example;

these studies relationships to Western Eurasians is deliberately suppressed (Malaspinas et al. 2014b, Gravel et al. 2013, Raghavan et al. 2015, Reich et al. 2012). Reich et al. (2012; SI p14) removed Western Eurasian genetic components from analysis (mask) in a manner that was deliberately restrictive to confidently eliminate modern admixtures events or they selected individuals/populations with no apparent Western Eurasian or African genetics. They claim that the methodology gives an unbiased masking of the data (Reich, et al. 2012, SI p15). However, the Reich masking method can be shown to eliminate more genetic elements from analysis than would be predicted by ADMIXTURE analysis (Reich et al. 2012) and analysis of the individual masking data demonstrates a non-random and disproportionate over-masking bias towards Northern North American populations (S. Oppenheimer, personal communication). In Raghavan et al. (2015) Western Eurasian alleles in both whole genome sequences and SNP genomic data was masked and they state: “The uneven distribution of the western Eurasian genetic components across individuals from Native American populations suggests that the admixture is relatively recent. For this reason, admixed samples were masked for the western Eurasian (European) genetic component…”

Now this was done for good reason--as modern Native american absolutely do have modern Western Eurasian admixture.

However, in one study by the Willserlev group they actually apply a similar masking to ancient samples--specifically 939.

Also the investigators are totally ignoring the fact that North Eastern Native americans--and recently termed ancestry Anc-B can be modelled as having a basal influx of ancestry: Two models were proposed that were consistent with the Aznick-1 genome in comparison to modern populations (Rasmussen et al. 2014). The first model suggests that that divergence between NA/SA populations was an early separation of NA from SA such that the Aznick-1 genome is subsequent to the split and ancestral to the SA populations. The second model, also supported by the data, was that the split between NA and SA populations occurred by admixture of the SA genome with gene flow from an unknown population temporally proximal to the death of the Aznick-1 boy (Rasmussen et al. 2014).

For the second model to be true it was a basal sample not related to east asian or siberian samples. It also does not really look related to USR1.

What is really odd is that the AncB ancestry is high in the North Eastern US and in Chilote. but is found at minimal levels in any people in between. This suggests to me that a population high in AncB ancestry spanned the North East to the tip of south america. That the population between-especially in central America and the midwest was then replaced by a population high in Anc-A.

Where ancestry for AncB comes from is not confirmed. The Northeastern tribes-especially the Ojibwa are high in X2. Specifically X2a and X2g. Haplogroups isolated to North America. How the haplogroup ended up in North American is at this point a huge guessing game.

Lee

FrankN said...

Lee:
For an in-depth discussion of your issues, see
https://adnaera.com/2018/11/27/early-human-dispersals-within-the-americas-moreno-mayar-et-al-2018/

As concerns AncB ancestry, see
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326211519_The_evolutionary_history_of_dogs_in_the_Americas
While Dogs are good swimmers, crossing over the Bering Strait without human assistance was most likely beyond their powers.

Matt said...

@Dragos and Diego, now, see, the fact that you two are both presenting me with diametrically obverse visions of Spanish archaeological opinion* as evidence supporting your cases**, confirms to me that this is why we need an archaeological synthesis from unbiased and reputed experts.

*Dragos seeming particularly in the form of likely highly selected excerpts that refer to regional or site situations, and particulary by presenting a picture that is fairly incompatible with articles like this - https://www.vozpopuli.com/altavoz/next/nadie-extermino-hombres-peninsula-hace_0_1178883504.html - which suggest a different view on changes in this period as seen by at least a good amount of the Spanish academy ("What happened then in the peninsula in that period of transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age? Between 4,000 and 4,500 years ago the archaeological evidence shows that there was a change in some cultural and structural manifestations of the societies, but they point out that it was in a gradual way").

**Dragos: A Steppe-Basque-Beaker conquest of Iberia and really I would assume then it would have to be the entire Bell Beaker horizon from Poland to Ireland and Portugal, invisible except in a small linguistic minority living in North Spain today and a historical Iberian people from Southwest Spain, and Diego: R1b-M269 from Iberia, despite lack of any relatives coalescing with a date earlier than >10000 years before in the ancient dna record, the former perhaps marginally less eccentric but equally invisible in academic literature.

Aniasi said...

I think there is a tendency to think of the Steppe Indo-Europeans as one monolithic entity. We do not know much of them, but it seems likely, based on archaeology and reconstructions, that both Yamnaya and the Corded Ware Culture were made up of smaller tribes and confederacies. There were also clans, lineages, or moieties based on paternal lineages. I think this might explain why it looks like R1a was higher in CWC and R1b in Yamnaya.

With that in mind, I think that it is possible that these lineages may represent different groups. Some may not have been as strong as others, and I think it is quite possible that a group of steppe males, from an R1b lineage etc may have lost out amongst other IE groups and been forced out. They then enter another society, and experience some cultural change (such as picking up a non-IE language), but still maintain a male-warrior-lineage culture.

At some point they have enough of an advantage where they can take either control of said society and exterminate the males, or leave that group, and then proceed to exterminate the males of Iberia and take the women.

Dragos said...

& Matt

Yes key excerpts are selected for you to summarise; because I’m aware you’re unfamiliar with literature / consistently disregard it
. The picture holds true - one way or another- for every region
You have the gall to call it eccentric despite the weight of evidence which were
Predictable years ago ; whilst you on the other hand, have presented nothing excerpt the inane speculations of amateurs like BB blogger ?
Where’s your data Matt?
You think you understand Europe because you can plot a few graphs ?
Stop embarrassing yourself with your fools arrogance

Matt said...

I called it eccentric within the published academic literature because no one in 'the literature' has ever believed or published such a theory to my knowledge, and so it is of course reasonable to call 'fringe' (or rather beyond the fringe).

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"I'm having a hard time imagining how local languages would have been passed on in such a scenario of collapse and foreign takeover...across practically all of Iberia???"

Non-IE languages of Iberia weren't related to each other. Plus, I don't think anyone sees Iberian or Basque substrate in Celtic languages. If Bell Beaker R1b p312+ all derived from a recent common ancestor who lived in Rhine region they all probably spoke the same language. If, that language was non-IE, where is its substrate in Celtic languages? Where's close relation between Iberian & Basque?

Maybe, Iberian is from Rhine P312+. Maybe Basque is. Can both be derived from it? It is also possible Rhine P312+ spoke IE and Its substrate inside Celtic languages hasn't been identified.

Matt said...

Dragos, as far as I am aware you have no qualifications or reputation, in anything.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

There is indeed a relatively close relationship between Basque and Iberian. You can read about it here...

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

There's no consensus why this relationship exists, because it may be due to close contacts and/or their origins in the same ancestral language, but there's no dispute that it does exist.

Davidski said...

@Aniasi

At some point they have enough of an advantage where they can take either control of said society and exterminate the males, or leave that group, and then proceed to exterminate the males of Iberia and take the women.

But why would they adopt the language of the women in such a scenario?

Diego Arroyo de Lagasca Encinas said...

@Sam

Have you heard about Ascoli's Bronze? It is granted in the year 89 BC, the Roman citizenship to 30 riders of the Turma (Cavalry Unit) Saluitana. If you read the names of the 9 Basque horsemen of the city of Segeda (Segiensis) and compare them with the names of the rest of the knights coming from Iberian cities, such as the Ilergetes, (Iltirta-Ilerdenses, current city of Lérida), you will notice that the languages ​​are very similar. The Basque-Iberian was spoken not only on both sides of the Pyrenees, also in the Mediterranean region.

@Matt

I have never said that M269 has its origin in Iberia, you should simply read something about the chalcolithic in Western Europe.

Palacista said...

@Davidski,
If the incoming males come over a period, say a generation, and were fewer in number at the start, the next generation could very well have grown up speaking the mother's language. They quite clearly din't kill the women.

Matt said...

@Dragos, am I perfectly a neutral, unbiased individual? No. But I doubt many people are going to be any more convinced that I'm enormous biased by simply describing that facts of the matter. No-one with any academic linguistic reputation considers it good evidence that the Bell Beaker horizon spoke an early form of Basque because of a couple of languages in Iberia about 2000 years later (one of which is questionably related to Basque) and all other evidence of this has just happened to vanish beneath a later Indo-European onslaught. Much less that in a version of this where Basque is from the steppe and associated with the Corded Ware or Yamnaya horizons. If you have any evidence to the contrary of this, any support at all within academia, why not cite it?

"Celtic From The West" (clearly a minority viewpoint) is obviously less fringe, and so is even Beaker Celtic. This is the same as what anyone will tell you.

Not that I'm really particularly attached to any theory of an expansion of Celtic (if such an expansion ever did take place rather than a convergence of dialects - Garrett 1999). I simply don't think modelling Iberia_North_IA with Halberstadt_LBA admixture, an ancestry profile which is not unique to Central Europe nor even typical of the Halstatt samples we have, mostly in line with geographical expectation anyway, offer any additional evidence convincing me of a Central European model. (Rocca has quite handily described the lack of any particular confirming evidence of a major migration particularly from Central Europe in the y as well). Again this is the same as what any who is familiar with the issues will tell you, whatever theory of the emergence of Celtic they favour; the Celtiberians wouldn't really change their opinion on way or another.

Dragos said...

@ Matt
You’re making straw man statements- I have not made anything of what you claim; eg “Polish BB spoke Basque”, in fact I did not broach linguistics; but the archaeolgenetic & paleoanthropolgocal implications are nevertheless highly problematic for BB being IE. whether this extends to the rest of BB is more difficult to say, and rather irrelevant; because the earliest attested languages in NW Europe are 2500 years after BB, for which there is plenty of scope to establish vectors of Celtic spread
So let’s establish honest discussion to begin with- and what topic we’re talking about: Iberian BB & it’s descendans in SW europe. And frankly, I see no point in further discussing an issue which is straightforward.
Ive delineated what the conclusions are here; and your perception that my interpretation is fringe speaks of a worrying disconnection with reality.

Davidski said...

@Palacista

If the incoming males come over a period, say a generation, and were fewer in number at the start, the next generation could very well have grown up speaking the mother's language. They quite clearly din't kill the women.

I don't know who they killed, if anyone, but the genetic data show a rather sudden change in the Iberian population structure, with local Y-chromosomes essentially disappearing across Iberia within about 500 years. So we're not talking about one locality, but about a large and varied peninsula, which is what makes all of this so hard to comprehend.

Keep in mind also that not all of the Iberian-like ancestry that was carried by the migrants or invaders from the east came from Iberia, but rather from other parts of Western Europe. That's why it's difficult to say based on the genetic data alone how widespread the mating between the newcomers and Iberian women was, especially initially, because it usually takes time for different populations to start mixing in a big way.

So the idea that Bell Beakers brought with them a language or languages ancestral to Aquitanian, Basque and Iberian to Iberia can't be simply dismissed at this stage, especially not in favor of a scenario in which all Bell Beakers spoke an Indo-European language and the descendants of Iberian and some French Beakers switched to speaking Aquitanian, Basque and Iberian, but failed to retain any Indo-European languages.

Aniasi said...

@Davidski

But why would they adopt the language of the women in such a scenario?

We are not talking about the same generation here. Generation 1 marries a group of local women, and is sufficiently surrounded by the local culture and males that they switch language. That said, their 2nd and 3rd generation males speak the local language, but still hold to certain elements of their paternal culture, and go on to drive off the other males and obtain dominance.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Diego,
"f you read the names of the 9 Basque horsemen of the city of Segeda (Segiensis) and compare them with the names of the rest of the knights coming from Iberian cities, such as the Ilergetes, (Iltirta-Ilerdenses, current city of Lérida), you will notice that the languages ​​are very similar."

Ok sure. I did not know the languages were similar.

@Davidski,
"not in favor of a scenario in which all Bell Beakers spoke an Indo-European language and the descendants of Iberian and some French Beakers switched to speaking Aquitanian, Basque and Iberian, but failed to retain any Indo-European languages."

That makes more sense.

Davidski said...

@Matt

There are a couple of issues here that shouldn't be confused...

- the idea that the Bell Beakers who moved into southern France and Iberia spoke a language or languages ancestral to Aquitanian, Basque and Iberian is a reasonable one considering all of the available data and various academic theories related to this issue, including the linguistic theory that Basque and Iberian derive from the same source and the academic consensus that Celtic spread into Atlantic Europe only during the Iron Age (and if you actually think that Richard has come anywhere close to debunking this consensus with Y-DNA data then I don't really know what to say to that)

- the idea that the Basque language came from the steppe or nearby is just a wild idea, but a wild idea that can be discussed and shouldn't be simply dismissed, especially since a professional linguist has proposed recently that Aquitanian and Basque languages were closely related to Indo-European

https://julietteblevins.ws.gc.cuny.edu/proto-basque/

By the way, I'll take this opportunity to remind Dragos that badgering people who don't agree with us in the comments here isn't allowed, even if it's not specifically mentioned as a transgression in the blog rules.

Davidski said...

@Aniasi

See my reply to Palacista above.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/map-of-pre-corded-ware-culture-2900-bce.html?showComment=1554244778215#c2841970380126910428

JuanRivera said...

Proto-Vasco-Aquitano-Ibero-Indo-European? I sense that the same that happened in Iberia also happened in Italy. If so, only two options: all BB non-IE speaking or a Proto-Vasco-Aquitano-Ibero-Etrusco-Indo-European language.

Dragos said...

“Rocca has quite handily described the lack of any particular confirming evidence of a major migration particularly from Central Europe in the y as well”

Chuckle
What about the U106 in Roman Brittons ?
Mind you; this is the proponent of Basque & Sardinian are related ; on the basis of distinctly different Y Hg profiles


Romulus said...

A connection between Basque and Georgian has been suggested for a long time, if Basque did come from the Steppe then probably from nearby.

FrankN said...

@JuanRivera, Dave:
"Proto-Vasco-Aquitano-Ibero-Etrusco-Indo-European language"?

Or the effect of language contact...

Take the Visigoths (Olalde e.a. 2019 downplay their genetic influence - the PCAs tell a somewhat different story). A patriarchic elite, yet with little linguistic impact. There are a few borrowings from Germanic, such as Guardia (from warden, c.f. warrior), but essentially Romance languages derive some 90% of their vobulary from Latin.

However, the morphology (grammar) of Romance languages is very different from Latin: Use of articles, tense-building with auxiliary verbs, loss of noun cases, SVO order instead of the Latin SOV, and many more differences. All these features are shared with Germanic. In a way - certainly exaggerated and simplified - one might classify Spanish or Italian as a structurally Germanic language with strong Latin substrate.

Now, let's suppose that P. Shrijver (see my comment in the preceding post) is correct in interpreting certain morpholgical features of N. Celtic, namely the so-called "verbal complex", as deriving from language contact with post-EEF languages, or at least some language(s) structurally related to Minoan/ Linear A and Hattic. How come Celtic encountered these "Anatolian" features in N. Gaul, but not in Italy and Iberia? Were Mediterranean post-EEF and more northerly post-EEF languages morphologically from the outset very different? [Mind you - I am not talking about N. Europe here, where substantial WHG/ EHG linguistic influence is a plausible assumption. This is about regions with some 75%-90% EEF ancestry prior to ca. 2,500 BC.]

Alternatively, we may think about a scenario comparable to early medieval Goths and Lombards. Their CA analogy would, of course, be BB. Similar to the way Germanics during the migration period transformed Latin into Romance, BB (assuming that they incorporated a substantal IE element) could have transformed post-EEF languages in Iberia and Italy. With limited exical impact, but morphologically bringing them close to IE. The Basque, Aquitanian and Iberian grammar has eluded me so far, but from what I have read, Etruscan was morphologically quite similar to IE.

That's food for thoughts, nothing more than a working hypothesis, and any criticism is welcome.

Ric Hern said...

If it is difficult to distinguish migrations between Northwestern Europe and the Isles during the Bronze Age it could be difficult to distinguish migrations between France and the Iberian Peninsula during the Neolithic and Early Bronze Ages especially on the MtDNA side...So my bet is that Ancient Samples from France will clear up this issue.

Halfalp said...

So do you believe R1a was alongside R1b in the whole Eastern Europe or was R1a further North with instances of it coming down south? Also, were could we expect R1 origin previous to Eastern Europe? Coming from an Afontova Gora outpost in Bolling-Allerod periods? Did R1a and R1b came at the same time in EE, or did R1b came a little bit earlier while R1a was still in Siberia?

old europe said...

Frank

one might classify Spanish or Italian as a structurally Germanic language with strong Latin substrate.

Are you for real? What's this obsession that endures since 19 century romanticism to make everything germanic?

Davidski said...

@Halfalp

You've taken "hypothetical" to a whole new level there.

Halfalp said...

Well i have learn about the Hypothetical Afontova Gora origin for R1 on Eurogenes, so i'm just going along the already established consensus from this Community. As for Bolling-Allerod it's just a reference in time.

Bob Floy said...

Has anyone considered that both Basque and Iberian, if they are genetically related, could be descendants of an eastern Farmer language? Maybe some Beaker clans spoke a language related to whatever, say, GAC spoke, rather than the steppe language?

Dragos said...

@ Frank

“”Alternatively, we may think about a scenario comparable to early medieval Goths and Lombards. Their CA analogy would, of course, be BB. Similar to the way Germanics during the migration period transformed Latin into Romance”

Really ?
Elite integration into continuing social structures vs population & cultural replacement
Where’s the similarity ?

Davidski said...

@Bob

There's no way to really know how the direct Iron Age and modern descendants of the Beakers all over Iberia and southern France ended up speaking non-Indo-European languages, like Aquitanian, Basque, Iberian and Tartessian.

That's what most of the discussions, whaling and carrying on has been about here recently.

The idea that they switched from unattested Indo-European languages to the native languages of Iberia seems to be generally the working hypothesis, but this obviously doesn't gel very well with the massive and rather sudden Y-chromosome replacement in Iberia after the migration of northern Beakers there, let alone the claim that this was a violent invasion, because vanquished peoples generally don't pass on much, especially not their languages.

The reason that this seems to be the working hypothesis is because there's no evidence of any reliable impact by Basque or related languages outside of Iberia and southern France. But of course there's no way to be sure if the ancestral language to Aquitanian, Basque and Iberian wasn't spoken on the steppe, somewhere west of the steppe in Europe outside of Iberia, or even in the Caucasus.

We'll have to wait for more ancient DNA from attested ancient Indo-European and non-Indo-European speakers from across Europe to see what this reveals, because it seems to me that things have become more complicated now thanks to the new Iberian data.

zardos said...

@Bob: Thats an idea I had too. Steppe derived BB seem to be no simple offshot of CWC, which IEness is hard to question. So which migration path did the R1b lineages take, when and where? Even if they were IE from the steppe originally, they could have many contacts to other people before coming to Western Europe.
The cultural influence of the earlist Beakers too, if we assume the steppe Beakers were "converts", could have been significant.
Remind you we might deal with a religious context and possibly a ritual language. It just seems that steppe Beakers made their own thing at some point and started something radical. They kept the distance to locals, might have felt superiour and took what they wanted, including women, if they could, by force.

So there are a lot of possibilities for language transfer on the way, before Iberia. Even the language of the Iberian Beakers is a possibility.
But chances are high all steppe Beakers spoke the same language and they are extremely low for a language transfer in Iberia through captured brides. The idea is ludicrous and the proposed explanations even more so.
Goths and Lombards never exterminated the male population. The impact of their lineages was on the contrary very limited and their was no significant population replacement whatsoever.
They just replaced the elite and settled down. BB from the steppe and their descendents annihilated the vast majority of the preceding male lineages.

Dragos said...

we have the opportunity to understand all European languages.
There’s no place for Celto-centrism, occidento-autochthonism, neo-immobilism
Some here mention “consensus” on Basque. Last I checked some of the consensus was talking about the Stone Age . Maybe haplogorup C1a La Braña man elite conquered BB lol

zardos said...

@David: What is really, I mean really known for certain about steppe Beakers true origins and the migration and history of R1b before BBC in Western Europe? Not that much at all.
When they finally appear, they show relationships to other people, culturally, genetically and physically.
But going two generations back in time and there is just a gap, nothing for certain at all.
That must be adressed.

Bob Floy said...

@Davidski

"this obviously doesn't gel very well with the massive and rather sudden Y-chromosome replacement in Iberia after the migration of northern Beakers there"

No, it dosen't, and for me the that idea has always seemed kind of desperate. It's hard to picture, given what we do know about the IE expansions. "Proto-Vasco-Aquitano-Ibero-Indo-European" seems like an even worse idea, whether or not something like that has support from a few linguists, lol.

"there's no evidence of any reliable impact by Basque or related languages outside of Iberia and southern France"

If I'm not mistaken, we know next to nothing about the languages spoken by Neolithic cultures like GAC, TRB, Cucuteni, etc., correct me if I'm wrong. So how can we rule out some Bell Beaker groups, who had definitely picked up a bunch of EEF type ancestry, speaking some eastern farmer language? There could have even been western Yamnaya groups who spoke one of those languages, before they made it to central Europe. If that was the case, we wouldn't necessarily see the kind of impact that the experts are looking for outside of Iberia.

" things have become more complicated now thanks to the new Iberian data."

That's for sure.

Bob Floy said...

@Zardos

"...we might deal with a religious context and possibly a ritual language"

Yeah, I definitely think that something like that could be a factor here. God only knows what was going on between these steppe groups and the MN farmers as the former moved west, in terms of cultural exchange, it clearly wasn't a simple slaughter-and-replace scenario, or else the Beakers wouldn't have, what, twice as much EEF type ancestry as Yamnaya, generally speaking?

Aram said...

Zardos

Before we have new ancient DNA the only way to know the answer to Your questions is to look at modern distribution of L51.
Now the modern distribution + the aDNA are saying that.
1. R1b-L51 has never been in Carpathian region or Balkanes. Because it doesn't have any Balkanian specific branch. It entered into main Europe via Poland or Czechia at best. Prior entering into main Europe it was in_forest_ steppe. Finding an L51 in Pontic steppe.would be a big surprise.
2. According Rocca most P312 found east of Alpes are L2 which means very poor diversity of P312 in East. This is another argument that many P312 branches were moving from West to East and the main bifurcuation of P312 started in NW Europe. Probably somewhere in Germany north France. And again no much space for Balkanes.

Aram said...

Bob Floy

Picking up language in Eastern farmers do not solve the problem but complicates the whole thing and make the genetics basically useless.
Basically picking up language among eastern farmers when steppe ancestry was not diluted means that some 20% of EEF ancestry can change the language. This is ironic because 20% can change the language but 60% of EEF in Iberia France can't. :)
And if R1b can change his language the why R1a in CWC can't shift to EEF language?


Dragos said...

Something happened to BB near the alps or Central Europe. Probably their defeat by proto-Unetice & Nagyerev groups made them more “desperate” as they dispersed toward the Atlantic. Hard times drives hard ideology

Davidski said...

@Aram

Picking up language in Eastern farmers do not solve the problem but complicates the whole thing and make the genetics basically useless.

It might make more sense for the northern Beakers to have picked a non-Indo-European language during their ethnogenesis or Beakerization outside of Iberia, rather than on their arrival in Iberia.

By the way, the figure of 60% Iberian admixture in early Iberian Beakers isn't certain, because the ancestors of Iberian Beakers may have picked up a lot of Western European ancestry north of the Pyrenees.

Bob Floy said...

@Aram

"Picking up language in Eastern farmers do not solve the problem but complicates the whole thing and make the genetics basically useless."

I really don't see how. You think that Basque and Iberian being related to IE(an idea which, as far as I know, no one here was considering prior to this new data coming out)is less complicated?

"steppe ancestry was not diluted"

But the steppe ancestry of these Yamnaya-related groups was diluted, they picked up significant ancestry from those farmers(Y-chromosomal replacement notwithstanding) and clearly had extensive contact with them. All sorts of exchanges could have happened which we wouldn't necessarily see in the archeological record.

"This is ironic because 20% can change the language but 60% of EEF in Iberia France can't"

It depends on the circumstances, which may well have been different in Iberia than were in eastern or central Europe.

Dragos said...

Davidski
Why don’t you do a qpAdm model for Iberia BB steppe with S France / North Iberia CA ?
Then model SE Iberia Bronze Age with Iberian BB steppe and SE Iberia CA
That’ll give you accurate population demography; and hopefully end some rather pointless debate; and those willing can move on with the evidence

Aram said...

Davidski

I was imagining the shift to non IE somewhere in France. So I would tend to agree that it was not in Iberia. Anyway if the TMRCA of Basque R1b-M153 is informative then this could mean that the Basques had a successful expansion in Iron Age. Probably it is the period when they crossed the Pyrenean mountains.

Dragos said...

Bob
The EEF in BB is not from one major admixture episode (despite the “GAC model”), but is rather from the women of various different groups they moved passed as L51 moved from east to west.
Therefore it’s highly unlikely they shift their language to these outside women

Aram said...

Bob Floy

If language shifting is depending on socio-religious circumstances and not to gene transfer then one can say that Maykop transferred it's language to Yamnayans. Tracer dye.
Maykop was predominantly J2-M67.
Bronze age Anatolians were predominantly J2-M67
And most of this ancient Greeks are probably J2-M67.
And the J2-M67 is the most frequent type of J2 anong Armenians.
Etc etc

Basically what Reich and Wang was saying using different terminology.

Bob Floy said...

@Dragos

"The EEF in BB is not from one major admixture episode (despite the “GAC model”)"

I understand that, and I don't take the "GAC model" as gospel.
But the steppe/farmer contact was extensive and happened over a long period of time. All sorts of cultural exchanges could have taken place. They certainly exchanged a lot of goods and technology, for example. This leaves all kinds of scenarios open.

Dragos said...

@ Bob
Yeah that’s true
BB interacted differently during its inception compared to the final destination

@ Aram
Which Iron Age movement / culture would you link the movement of Vasconic from France to Iberia?

Bob Floy said...

@Aram

"If language shifting is depending on socio-religious circumstances and not to gene transfer then one can say that Maykop transferred it's language to Yamnayans."

Again, it depends on the circumstances, which are different in different situation. Ancient populations were as complex and eccentric as modern ones, things don't happen the exact same way every time, lol.

The case for Maykop-to-Yamnaya language transfer is weak for a number of reasons, but explaining this new Iberian data is a different thing altogether.

Aram said...

Dragos

No idea. :) I only know the age of M153 and it's modern distribution which gives me an impression that it moved from North to South.

Bob

500 years of peaceful cohabitation of R1b males with EEF males is the ideal situation of language shift. So the answer is in Olalde's paper.
Later reeaxpansion of R1b also can have an explanation. What is the meaning of Basque phrase Aitor's semen? Do it mean that the true Basque is the one who descends from Aitor?


zardos said...

Since we dont know too much of R1b's journey to the West, not even the exact time frame, we dont know whether a pure tribe of R1b was there from the start.
Steppe Beakers are almost pure R1b carriers, but probably the lineage expanded from a group which was 50:50 R1b:I2a at some point.
Thats the problem for Iberia, the local male lineages had no significant impact on post-steppe populations of the region but were close to extinction.
The same cant be said for Northern-Central Europe with GAC, variants of I1 and I2 having a huge impact even shortly after CWC and until now.
If a minority lineage gives a language, it must be still significant in its percentage and socially dominant. But Iberian lineages were neither, even on the contrary they were on the brink of complete annihilation and never recovered.
I also doubt steppe Beakers were males only.
From the Rhine region I know that they took foreign females, but they also brought their own.
So the Iberian females were most likely integrated in a complete clan structure.
The admixture rate rose because the BB constantly robbed females or got them otherwise from the local people whereever they moved.
So they got admixture from their way through France before reaching Iberia. Not all of course, because like dringend reconquista they got new "recruits" from the related "Beakersphere", but the majority.

zardos said...

In some regions of Central Europe it almost seems as if Beakers were themselves hunted down by other people, had to adapt and integrate or sought refuge in rather isolated places.
Probably it had a lot to do with the technological edge they had, but largely lost at the end of their prime time.
This is apparent from the shift of BB to Unetice and the fact that the full Bronze Age saw more of an European wide standard of technology.
In Iberia, contrary to Central Europe, the BB position was much stronger, more stabile and the continuity of Basques speak for itself.
Beakers became a mass culture with much less of the predecessors, which were the cultural masters ironically, left.
I see a lot more potential for language shifts in former Beaker territory North of the Pyrenees than in Iberia and thats for sure.
Thats true for steppe Beakers before enteringt the peninsula, but also at the end of the BB period.
For steppe Beakers there is continuity and for Iberian Beakers too. So yes, I would bet on steppe Beakers speaking a language related to Vasconic.

Dragos said...

@ Aram
I see
Are there any specific L51 sublineages which distinguish IE iberians from Basque ?

zardos said...

If DF27 is considered alone, Basque was once much more widespread.

zardos said...

Take a look:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5544771/

Interestingly the study proposes an expansion of I2 at the same time or later than DF27.
This alligns perfectly with a model of few survivors which were integrated by BB steppe and successors, with the majority being annihilated.

Bob Floy said...

@Dragos

"Yeah that’s true
BB interacted differently during its inception compared to the final destination"

This is what I mean. It could have even happened, dare I say it, before the formation of BB proper, with western fringe steppe groups adopting a farmer language long before the fabled conquest of central and western Europe.

Bob Floy said...

@Zardos

Interesting. And on that note, maybe it's even time that we start thinking differently about the big presence of I2 in Yamnaya related groups. This Iberian business kind of throws a monkey wrench in the view most of us have had up to now.

Bob Floy said...

Whether everyone wants to admit it or not, it's probably be time for us to start considering some new scenarios regarding the early interaction between steppe and farmer groups, going back to the Chalcolithic. Yamnaya and Co. got the wheel from the farmers, they were buying copper and possibly learning metallurgy from the farmers, and are there not big spikes in steppe ancestry in some of those Balkan MN groups? This could all be relevant to the Iberian question, although we'll probably be stuck in the realm of speculation for the foreseeable future, at least.

zardos said...

It is worth to note that most non-R1 lineages North and West of the Alps seem to have expanded at the same time or later whereever they are of significance today.
The older,true pre-steppe variants are everywhere rare.
So we deal with lineages which managed to hop on the steppe derived train and expand from within its successors, or post-steppe newcomers to Europe.
Examples are especially I1, I2 in Central and South Eastern Europe and E-V13.
Typically, where BBC and largely unaltered successors dominated, you find little else but R1b. Thats Britain and Iberia before all others.
DF27 in particular is practically restricted to the Western fringe of Europe.
We will find post Beaker migration to the West explaining IE there. We just need more detailed data.

Gaska said...

We Basques are a species of Iberians concentrated in the mountains, nothing special with respect to other Iberian peoples, except the percentage of R1b-P312 (93% Basque Country, 70% Spain) that is due to the historical circumstances of Spain. The famous Basque marker R1b-M153 is more frequent in Aragon than in the Basque Country.

We do not pretend that Euzkera or Vasconic was spoken throughout Europe, although it is probably some kind of language related to EFE.what I have clear is that the BB culture and R1b-P312 are Western and therefore did not speak an IE language.

@Bob Floy said "Whether everyone wants to admit it or not, it's probably be time for us to start considering some new scenarios regarding the early interaction between steppe and farmer groups, going back to the Chalcolithic"

What everyone has to consider is that there is no direct relationship between any culture of the steppes and Western Europe. Only the steppe signal remains of the old theory of the Kurgans. There is no genetic relationship (Yamnaya Z2013-V1636, I2a ... BB culture-R1b-P312. Neither mitochondrial haplogroups coincide), there is no cultural relationship (neither in the types of pottery, nor in the burials, nor in the metallurgical techniques) and there is no linguistic relationship because R1b spoke non-Indo-European languages.

Obviously P312 arose somewhere in Western Europe and was commissioned along with his descendants and relatives to spread the BB culture throughout Europe.We can start to free ourselves from the yoke of the steppes, to look for coherent alternatives to explain the diffusion of the Indo-European languages, and start to value the BB culture as it deserves, that is, the first Pan-European culture.

Gaska said...


It is interesting that everyone understands that, in the first phase of the BB culture (2,800-2,550 BC) we DON'T know any case of P312. In the second phase (2,550-2,400 BC) we only know 6 samples in Europe. I5021/Osterhofen (Bavaria), EHU002/EHU001-El Hundido-Iberia, I5478/Oostwoud (Frisia) (2.431 AC) and because of its proximity to the Alps, I include in this group the two brothers P312 of Sierentz (Alsace) although the dating is a little later.

Then, with the data we have today is from 2,400 BC when P312 and his descendants take the decision to colonize other territories. First they go to the isles, and also simultaneously to the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.

I5379/Canada Farm (2.380 BC)
I7205/Radosevice, Czech Republik (2.350 BC).
I7044/Szigetzenmiklós, Hungary (2.350 BC).
I4253/Samborzec-Malopolska, Poland (2.332 BC).

Then from Iberia, they went to the Balearic Islands, Sicily, Sardinia and other Western European territories. We must bear in mind that the life of the BB culture in some of these territories was very short, especially in Central Europe, where Unetice's culture erased the BBs from the map around 2.200-2.100 BC

We probably do not have older P312 data because we are looking directly at the time when the founder effect of this haplogroup and its descendants in different parts of Europe was produced. Maybe the studies that have to be published in France and Switzerland extend the dates a little in those regions but I think it is impossible for them to go beyond 2,500 BC. Then between 2,600 and 2,500 P312 was born, probably in some mountainous area of ​​Western Europe (Alps-Pyrenees). Without a doubt, his story, which is ours, is an example of reproductive success. I hope that people stop considering our ancestors as genocide.


Grey said...

Davidski said...
"But why would they adopt the language of the women in such a scenario?"

small, all-male migration e.g. miners/traders moving into a region as outsiders and adopting the local language.

(isn't Ashkenazi ethnogenesis supposed to be men from the Levant moving to Italy and marrying Italian women?)

seems to me that part is easy as there are numerous historical examples.

the complicated aspect of that scenario is how they could have ended up dominant afterwards - some possibilities
1) if they were originally copper miners then maybe easy access to Cornish tin gave them a military edge (bronze weapons)
2) if they were originally horse traders maybe that gave them a military edge
3) if they were originally horse/cattle herders maybe that gave them a biological edge

seems to me there's maybe a pattern here: Hittites, Akkad vs Sumer, Bantu expansion etc

Ric Hern said...

I wonder if the practice of Fosterage had something to do with what we eventually see in Iberia ?

Grey said...

Bob Floy said...
"they were buying copper and possibly learning metallurgy from the farmers"

the interesting thing about that is apparently all the peoples who ended up importing copper from the Balkans adopted the Balkan style of metal-working except the steppe which had their own earlier tradition of (soft) metal working which implies to me the possibility they'd been making jewelry for a long time from a source of native copper which eventually ran out e.g. Kargaly (or perhaps more likely they ran out of wood).

(there was a medieval copper mine in NW Africa that closed down because they ran out of local wood)

if so the down river trade routes from Kargaly lead to Samara and/or the Caspian.

if so seems or me Kargaly or a node along a trade route to Kargaly are likely spots for a bit of chalcolithic ethnogenesis.

zardos said...

@Grey:
"small, all-male migration e.g. miners/traders moving into a region as outsiders and adopting the local language"

Where do you see that? They came in as compact units, transfering their clan and customs to new places.
They were the dominant group. Why you people insist on language transfer through robbed brides in Iberia?
It can only be because of the reluctance to accept non-IE steppe derived Beakers.
There is no reasonable argument at all, just excuses.

alobrix said...

@Dragos

"Are there any specific L51 sublineages which distinguish IE iberians from Basque ?"

Yes. In short, western iberian populations (Gallaecian language, Lusitanian, Atlantic Bronze Age...) are more similar to continental western european populations.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x

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

Grey said...

zardos said...
"Interestingly the study proposes an expansion of I2 at the same time or later than DF27."

iirc population structure in Sardinia has I2 in the central mountains and a while back one of my pet theories was I2 as paleolithic yeti survivors but sadly it's not paleolithic so...

what if I2 were the copper miners (Balkans/Urals?) and R1b were the food suppliers (cattle) and they hooked up at some point in the vicinity of the steppe and spread together on that basis?

with R1b exploding along the Atlantic edge cos it has a distinct climate which is (or was) much better for cattle than neolithic crops?

(floristic regions of europe)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Floristic_regions_in_Europe_(english).png

the latter might also explain the prevalence of lactose tolerance along the Atlantic coast.

(lastose tolerance map)

https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2013/08/lactasemaps.jpg?itok=jRFN8Isx

the lactose tolerant map is basically the atlantic floristic region plus a large bulge down the rhine (i think that's the rhine?)

Grey said...

zardos said...
"Where do you see that?"

i'm just taking different possibilities one at a time and looking for historical examples that might fit.

one of the possibilities is: ydna arrives from outside, changed language but ended up dominant somehow.

i'm saying the first part of that is easy as there are lots of historical examples and the hard part is coming up with a mechanism by which minority outsider ydna becomes dominant afterwards.

#

what i'm doing is if the options are
- indigenous or outsiders
and
- spoke IE language or non-IE
then the four cases are
1) indigenous and spoke non-IE
2) indigenous and spoke IE (celtic from the west)
3) outsider and spoke non-IE
4) outsider and spoke IE

my understanding (which may be wrong) is
(1) has a problem with the steppe dna signal
(2) has linguistic problems (and Celtic seeming names points more at (4) imo)
(3) fairly straightforward (with more complicated implications?)
(4) needs some mechanism for why they would change language if they ended up dominant?

i'm just taking option (4) as a premise and looking for a plausible model that might fit.

i'm not saying either the premise or the model are correct - it's just an exercise in exploring possibilities.

zardos said...

I2 was not new to Iberia most likely, but was butchered by incoming R1b in Iberia and Western Europe. After the conquest, some of the local lineages suvived however and were integrated in the post conquest population.
It is then that they moved and expanded with the new, predominantely R1b population.
The percentages between R1b and I2 changed little afterwards, so neither had a significant advantage in Iberia.
It was just that in the formation period most I carriers disappeared in Iberia after the conquest. Be it immediately or in the longer term aftermath.
They were in any case annihilated and there was no regional resurgence like in many other parts of Europe where I1, I2 or E-v13 rose again.

Gaska said...

@Grey said... "the complicated aspect of that scenario is how they could have ended up dominant afterwards - some possibilities"
1) if they were originally copper miners then maybe easy access to Cornish tin gave them a military edge (bronze weapons)
2) if they were originally horse traders maybe that gave them a military edge
3) if they were originally horse/cattle herders maybe that gave them a biological edge

1)The Iberian metallurgy was totally different from that of the rest of Europe because archeometalurgy has shown that the annealing technique was barely used. This was true throughout the chalcolithic, that is, Pre BB and BB culture. Then P312 did not bring any metallurgical innovation to the peninsula.The truth is that the BB culture took the metallurgy to the Netherlands, northern France and England, but not to Iberia that used arsenical copper 500 years before BB
2)-In Iberia there is evidence of the domestication of the horse at least as a pack animal and as food since the end of the Neolithic, but there is no evidence of the usual practice of horsemanship until the culture of El Argar (2,200-1,500 BC). What's more, the analyzed P312 skeletons have injuries to the Achilles tendon that show great physical effort and long walks in mountainous terrain.
3- Agriculture and livestock in some Iberian chalcolithic cultures was highly developed, there is evidence of irrigation systems, crop rotation and the practice of transhumance.

So R1b-P312 did not bring anything novel to the iberian chalcolithic, in any case, that does not mean that it could not enter into small groups (only man or small families) and that they quickly adapted to richer and more evolved societies. It is certainly more pleasant to live near the beaches of Andalusia than in the forests of northern Europe.

Perhaps new studies show that this replacement of the male population was not as radical as Olalde's paper says, or perhaps they had more reproductive success, or perhaps P312 originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region and was simply at home.

Kristiina said...

@ Davidski
”The reason that this seems to be the working hypothesis is because there's no evidence of any reliable impact by Basque or related languages outside of Iberia and southern France.”

The article «Basque in Western Europe: some arguments for a Vasconic substratum» by Rebecca Tollan is quite informative (except for the genetic claims which are problematic/outdated). Among others, she notes that «Basque and Celtic both use vigesimal counting, periphrastic verbal forms and noun-adjective ordering». The linguistic part is of special interest and I recommend it to everybody.

It is also relevant to mention in this context the Goidelic substrate hypothesis which refers to the hypothesized language or languages spoken in Ireland before the Iron Age arrival of the Goidelic language. There are some interesting comparisons between Irish and Basque:
Old Irish eó 'salmon', Middle Welsh ehawc 'salmon', Gaulish *esoks (borrowed into Latin as esox); has been compared with Basque izokin.
Middle Irish ainder 'young woman', Middle Welsh anneir 'heifer', perhaps Gaulish anderon (possibly connected with Basque andere 'lady, woman').
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goidelic_substrate_hypothesis

While googling, I also found the article «Substrates in Celtic» in which it is argued that «Some Celto-Germanic words without cognates in other Indo-European languages have Afro-Asiatic or North-Caucasian parallels.» These etymologies are worth a look.
https://www.academia.edu/30877421/SUBSTRATES_IN_CELTIC

I think that the issue of substrates in the European languages is not yet properly addressed and there is still a lot to be discovered.

@ Aram ”R1b-L51 has never been in Carpathian region or Balkans. Because it doesn't have any Balkanian specific branch. It entered into main Europe via Poland or Czechia at best.”

I think that the ancient yDNA is by far the best way to determine the origin, but if we go by modern yDNA, the oldest R1b-L51 split took place in Sardinia:

R-L51PF6414 * PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39+1 SNPs formed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
ERS257000ITA [Italy-Cagliari].

JuanRivera said...

Prior to steppe groups, there was only R1b-V88. Following steppe groups, there were also R1a-Z93, R1b-L51, R1b-Z2103 and Q1b-L56, among others. R1b-Z2103 has been found in Yamnaya samples.

Kristiina said...

Vigesimal counting is indeed an interesting feature, and I include here a link to the distribution of languages with vigesimal numeral systems:
https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/vigesimal.png

There seems to be a link between Basque, Western Europe and Caucasus.

Grey said...

Gaska said...
"Then P312 did not bring any metallurgical innovation to the peninsula."

my model doesn't require innovation only easiest access to Cornish tin for making stronger bronze weapons.

so for example say there were six different groups of copper miners in different parts of Iberia all of a similar level of development but the group with the best access to Cornish tin eventually won cos they had a harder edge.

"or perhaps P312 originated in the Franco-Cantabrian region and was simply at home"

i don't have a problem with that in principle but my understanding is there's a steppe signal in the dna which contradicts that and would need to be explained away some how.

Grey said...

@myself
"the lactose tolerant map is basically the atlantic floristic region plus a large bulge down* the rhine (i think that's the rhine?)"

(*should have been up the rhine)

now i think of it i suppose it could be the other way round - starting somewhere around Switzerland and then spreading down the rhine to the coast and from there along the coast to iberia and scandi.

https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/import/2013/images/2013/08/lactasemaps.jpg?itok=jRFN8Isx

(as iirc switzerland has the same issue of heavy rainfall leaching the soil and making it acidic i.e. better for cows than wheat)

Urki said...

I find it a bit irritating the way Gaska and Diego address this issue. Your autochtonism does not seem based only on true scientific data, but on some type of nationalist or autochtonist prejudice. You may be right at the end. But for now I find it is reasonable to trust Olalde's conclusions and not yours. After all he has published his conclusions in Science and you, as far as I know, have not yet. On the other hand, you should not got so emotionally involved in this narrative, as if it had happened yesterday and we had to defend our fathers from the accusation of genocide. I am a purely basque Spaniard and don't care about that. Davidsky's approach is more balanced, scientific and sensible in an issue that is becoming so tricky. Agur

Gaska said...

There are many people who doubt the relationship between the Basque and the Iberian, however Prof. Caro Baroja translated many years ago Iberian texts thanks to the current Basque.

Iberian- ARE TAKE SIKEDUNINEBAN NEREILDUN- to the memory of SiKedunin my dead beloved

reminding us that in Basque AUR means "child" translates

ADINBELAUR as "son of Adinbel" and BELAGASIKAUR as "son of Belaga" name that is in Basque territory in the Middle Ages;

ILTIRBIKISEN SELTAR = I am the tomb of Iltirbikis "

Now the genetics is beginning to show the close relationship between Iberians and Basques and although it is true that with the current Basque we can not translate most of the Iberian language, this is because the Basque has 2,000 years acquiring words from the Celtic, Latin , Spanish and French.

For people who are not used to it, it sounds strange, but it is certainly very similar to the language spoken by our ancestors of the BB culture. We should not to say that the Basque is descendant of the Iberian, but of the possibility that both languages ​​come from the same "Substratum" spoken in the non-Indo-European Hispania. Which we have been calling the Iberian language disappeared with Romanization, while the Basque language, fortunately, has arrived up to us strongly transformed, but conserving its own characteristics. This treasure of our culture It forces us all to ensure its continuity and more pure conservation.

Gaska said...

@Urki "Your autochtonism does not seem based only on true scientific data, but on some type of nationalist or autochtonist prejudice"

Gaska and Diego are the same person who has realized that one of their children has hijacked his computer.

I hope I have not given an ultranationalist image, because if there is something that the genetics has taught us, it is that the Basques are very similar to the rest of Spaniards and Europeans, much more than some people wanted us to believe.But that does not mean that I have to agree with Dr Iñigo Olalde, especially in his conclusions about BB culture.

Bob Floy said...

@Urki

"I find it a bit irritating the way Gaska and Diego address this issue. Your autochtonism does not seem based only on true scientific data, but on some type of nationalist or autochtonist prejudice."

This is a problem we see a lot wherever these topics are discussed.

@Gaska

"Gaska and Diego are the same person who has realized that one of their children has hijacked his computer."

That's a new one. Honestly.

Arza said...

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/datasets
Genotypes of the world’s published ancient DNA data (Note: We intend to continue to update this dataset over time and welcome suggestions for improvements.)

Currently it asks for a password. Hopefully in the future it will not.

Davidski said...

Let's try and crack the password.

Matt said...

Interesting little paper on the Basques, albeit back from 2012 and using y-str - https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/29/9/2211/1077096 - "Evidence of Pre-Roman Tribal Genetic Structure in Basques from Uniparentally Inherited Markers" -

Despite the multidisciplinary efforts performed to address the questions of the origin, uniqueness, and heterogeneity of Basques, the genetic studies performed up to now have suffered from a weak study design where populations are not analyzed in an adequate geographic and population context. To address the former questions and to overcome these design limitations, we have analyzed the uniparentally inherited markers (Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA) of 900 individuals from 18 populations, including those where Basque is currently spoken and populations from adjacent regions where Basque might have been spoken in historical times.

y-dna frequencies (835 samples, quite a large sample) suggest: 81.5% R1b-M269, 10% I2 (notably 6.8% I-M26, the "Sardinian" frequent y-haplogroup), 3% J2, 1.3% E1b1b and miscellaneous other. (Supplementary Table S3). 81.5% is still quite high, but this should be closer to ground truth than the 93-88% R1b-M269 numbers that have showed up in smaller sample sizes (less than 100).

The coalescence dates they present are pretty off for haplogroups, so it would interesting to see this reinterpreted from a 2019 understanding of correct dating of the y tree.

(I'd guess 1000-3000 is about the right sample size to start getting fairly accurate population frequencies. Data from British and Dutch at 2000-3000 males - https://imgur.com/a/LShG1aM - for the British doesn't yield too much difference in overall frequencies from the population scale Biobank with about the same frequency of 20% I (I2 7.5%, I1 12%) and R1 70%, with only very slight inflation of R1. So this is better than the low sample count estimates of frequency).

They note:

Basque-speaking populations show lower levels of diversity in their Y chromosome (haplogroup diversity and mean number of pairwise differences) compared with their surrounding populations. Likewise, low levels of diversity have been observed in some populations along the Pyrenees (Lopez-Parra et al. 2009). Levels of consanguinity in the Basque country, especially in Gipuzkoa, have been shown to be very high, particularly in rural areas (Alfonso-Sanchez et al. 2005). This could have contributed to the low levels of diversity in this area in addition to the reduced external gene flow and is in accordance with demographic isolation proposed for these and other Basque populations due to geographic or cultural reasons (e.g., Lopez-Parra et al. 2009). This suggested demographic isolation might have yielded some genetic heterogeneity among Basque samples with respect to non-Basques as shown in the Y chromosome but not in mtDNA lineages (as seen in networks of haplotypes, data not shown), which might suggest a patrilocal pattern in the area.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

These speculations still fail to acknowledge the following:

1. There is no evidence that the replacement was "abrupt and complete" at the beginning. The fact that an unadmixed male persisted somewhere in Iberia 600 years after the introduction of BB ancestry, an unadmixed female in Central Iberia 450 years after the introduction BB ancestry, and the absolute majority of the individuals in the early period after the first BB introgressions have no steppe whatsoever (so they have 0% BB ancestry, despite the fact that BB may have brought Neolithic ancestry from elsewhere with them) implies that entire and conherent non-BB populations survived, and an ethnic mosaic is likely to have existed in many places, with many centuries' worth of social scenarios playing out in the meantime. The only "abrupt and complete" phenomenon is the final disappearance of unadmixed Neolithic populations, that coincides with a rise in EEF ancestry and the final disappearance of native Y-chromosomes, but this takes place ~500 years after the initial introgression of BB ancestry and cannot be plausibly linked to the social processes at the beginning of BB entry.

2. The ancestral BB group were essentially patrilineally homogeneous and very likely (if we accept the "Netherlands BB hypothesis", justified right now using PCA plots only) autosomally homogeneous, with extreme patrilineal continuity outside of their area of origin. BB social groups are porous, even to males, to some degree after the initial spread. BB social groups maintained complete patrilineal continuity as they spread rapidly. This makes it likely they were speaking only a single language, from Poland to Iberia, at least just after the initial spread into each region.

3. Lusitanian, Celtic, Ligurian, Italic, Venetic-Liburnian, and "Belgic" and maybe "Sorothaptic" (if they exist as distinct languages), stretching from Iberia to the Balkans, descend from the movements of ancestral population speaking a language with pre-Iron-Age time depth, or are part of a "wave of advance" such that they share linguistic features, but not in a purely phylogenetic pattern, with such a time depth.

4. There are pre-Celtic Indo-European languages in Iberia (Lusitanian) which descended from the the aforementioned language with pre-Iron-Age depth.

Its extremely clear to me the theory of an IE affiliation of BB in its entirety is equally or more parsimonious than the theory of partial non-IE affiliation of BB since its genesis, and definitely more parsimonious than the complete non-IE affiliation of BB.

The BB as non-IE theory has to account for the following: 1) if the ancestral BB community is only partially IE, why was there partial switching to non-IE language at the initial stage of Beaker in the Netherlands in such a tight community, with even less genetic and social differentiation between the presumably IE and non-IE groups than in Iberia, where there is at least some autosomal variation in late BB by geography? 2) On the other hand, if BB is entirely non-IE, where is the evidence for a Vasconic substrate to Poland if BB is Vasconic-Iberian?

3) Whether or not BB switching in France to Vasconic-Iberian is plausible requires more aDNA data. I bet that, when the aDNA emerges, it will not be, or at least be no more plausible than switching in Spain or the Northern Spain-France border.

Davidski said...

@ANI EXCAVATOR

Which sample is the unadmixed male from 600 years after the arrival of Bell Beakers?

By the way, not sure if you're aware, but one of the earliest, if not the earliest, Bell Beakers with a calBCE date is a female from eastern France with no steppe ancestry. And this sample looks very similar to Copper Age Iberians.

So I don't see how anyone can be certain that there was widespread early admixture, or at least significant early admixture, between Beaker migrants and Iberian women that may have led to Iberian Beakers adopting local languages.

You really need to somehow prove this, or at least put forward a strong case that it happened, before claiming that it's a given and saying that the pressure is to prove that the ancestral language or languages to Aquitanian and Iberian were spoken by the Beakers who moved into Iberia.

Davidski said...

Also, Lusitanian was a language closely related to Italic and Celtic, and attested in Iberia during historic times, so it's easier to link it to the population movements that brought the Celtiberians to Iberia rather than to Iberian Beakers.

Ryan said...

My personal opinion on Lustianian is that it's a Late Bronze Age language brought to Iberia with the Urnfield culture, which is the ancestor of Lustanian, Italic, Celtic, and probably some dead languages northern Europe.

Dragos said...

Zardos
They would need to split the I2 into distinct lineages , instead of clumping them all together
Some might be new arrivals in the LBA, eg with Indo Europeans / Celts

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@ Davidski

The origin of Beakers in a pre-steppe Neolithic context is well known; its not clear to me how the female changes anything.

For the unadmixed male, look at figure 2b in the paper; its the last unadmixed neolithic individual to appear in the record.

As for proving aspects of the social processes, yes, this must be done, but note that the sampling is currently too sparse (all samples with Steppe ancestry come from sites with several more samples only, like one to three more); there is no sampling that would allow for a detailed sociodemographic scenario to be built, though I'm sure the researchers in aDNA are moving towards both site-dense and site-broad sampling and will reach such a point eventually in places where knowing the process is important, e.g. Iberia and India.

I must say this is not a question of "being sure" because evidence exists for the process I suggest; this is a "being sure" because the alternative you seem to like--BB as entirely Vasconic--is supported by even less evidence, and outright contradicted by some signals that we should expect to see, e.g. single Vasconic-Iberian substrate West of the Adriatic and Denmark, massive replacements in Central Europe and the Netherlands afterwards, etc.

The alternative picture--IE and non-IE groups being autosomally and patrilineally indistinguishable in Iberia, is very common, results from all kinds of processes and is seen in, for example, the Caucasus, where Ossetians have the same autosomal structure as their neighbours and if anything even less patrilineal Iranian contribution than non-Iranian groups like the Chechens and Kabardins.

About Lusitanian, it makes no sense to state that because "they are close to Italo-Celtic languages" they must be part of the Iron Age process that spread the branches within Italic and Celtic, e.g. Celtiberian, separately. Lusitanian is outside of Celtic and Italic, and these latter pair are about as distant as Indic and Iranic, if we use distance proxied by lexical traits in Chang and Garrett's tree. Splits within Celtic and Italic are much, much younger than their mutual split. Using the Indic-Iranic split as a gauge (i.e. comparing with Sintashta), the split responsible for spreading the daughters of the Italo-Celtic family is dated to the Bronze Age and overlaps with Bell Beaker and not later.

Really this is an underestimate of the split time because unlike the case with Indo-Iranian, there are no regular shared sound changes between Italic and Celtic pointing to a unambiguous Italo-Celtic subfamily.

FrankN said...

Dragos: You questionned my earlier working hypothesis on Basque/ Iberian (by extension also Etruscan) representing EEF languages that had morphologically been "indo-europeanised" by BB as follows
"Elite integration into continuing social structures vs population & cultural replacement
Where’s the similarity ?
"
If you re-read Valera 2015, cited by yourself above, you will realise that at least in Portugal BB didn't effect cultural replacement, but blended well into earlier CA traditions. In fact, some of the BB trademarks such as "wrist-guards" (actually whetstones) or Palmela points are clearly derived from SW Iberian CA traditions, and were unknown to Single Grave culture. [The pots and the arrowheads I see derived from Single Grave, the daggers find their best parallels from around the Alps (Remedello, Mondsee), amber beads and boar tusk pendants may be traced back to GAC.].

Population replacement? Certainly not on the autosomes. As concerns yDNA, this is what we have so far for the Iberian late CA (2,500-2,200 BC):
- I1970, Lisbon area, 2,700-2,300 BCE: yDNA I
I3238, Asturias, 2500-2200 BCE: yDNA R1b1a1a2a
I3243, Cueva de la Paloma (Asturias), 2500–2200 BCE: yDNA P1
I3238, Cueva de la Paloma (Asturias), 2500–2200 BCE: yDNA R1b1a1a2a
I5665, Burgos area, 2280-1984 calBCE: Y-DNA R1b1a1a2a1a2
I0458, Arroyal I (Burgos), 2458–2206 calBCE; Y-DNA I2a2a
I0460, Arroyal I (Burgos), 2348–2200 calBCE; Y-DNA I2a2a
EHU002, El Hundido (Burgos), 2562–2306 cal BCE: yDNA R1b1a1a2a1a2(xR1b1a1a2a1a2a5)
I1976, I2467, I2473; Dolmen “El Sotillo” (Álava), 2900-2200 calBCE: yDNA I2a2a (3x)
I6472, La Magdalena (Madrid), 2500–2000 BCE: yDNA R1b1a1a2
I6542, Camino de las Yeseras (Madrid), 2500–1750 BCE: yDNA F
I4246, Camino de las Yeseras (Madrid), 2473–2030 cal BCE: yDNA E1b1b1a(xE1b1b1a1)
I6539, Humanejos (Madrid), 2500–2000 BCE: yDNA R1b1a1a2a1a2(xR1b1a1a2a1a2c)
I6587, Humanejos (Madrid), 2500–2000 BCE: Y-DNA I2a2a

I hope I haven't overlooked anything. Nevertheless, the above yields 6/16 = 37.5% R1b (44% if I3243 yDNA P1 is believed to ultimately also belong here) vs. 7/16=44% yDNA I. Certainly a massive change compared to older Iberian aDNA (and, I concede, also more substantial than what Visigoths effected), but far from complete „population replacement“. And I4246, Olalde e.a. 2019's „African Beaker“, illustrates how absurd the idea of „incoming northeners killing the men and raping the women“ is. ANI EXCAVATOR's observation that „BB social groups are porous, even to males, to some degree after the initial spread“ is pretty much to the point.

Jim said...

"Davidski said...
"But why would they adopt the language of the women in such a scenario?"

small, all-male migration e.g. miners/traders moving into a region as outsiders and adopting the local language."

That's not the only way that can happen. There is a solid, recent, well-documented historical example of a completely different mechanism. It can happen gradually over a period of generations, with the initial generation of foreign men never learning the new language.

This happened with the Garifuna people, who were a mixed community of Taino women and Carib men. The Carib men did in fact kill off all the Taino men. What ensued was that children learned the mothers' language, boys and girls, but then the boys learned the men's language as they matured, and for a coupe of centuries there was a stable linguistic regime where women spoke their own ancestral language and men could speak both. Eventually though the male language died out. In the case of the Garifuna this took less than five centuries.

Davidski said...

@Jim

From my reading, the Garifuna case seems like a very complex and specific one. And, as far as I know, the Carib language did make a significant impact there, including on the new version of the Taino language that developed.

Also, this case pertains to an island community, while Iberia is a large peninsula which was inhabited by some highly developed civilizations during the Copper Age.

So I think that it's logical to expect that in some cases, or at least one case, the language of the male dominated population that invaded Iberia during the Beaker period would be very conspicuous for a long time and able to survive and even thrive in at least a part of the peninsula.

What are the odds that the Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian languages were all indigenous to Iberia, and not in any significant way derived from the language spoken by the said invaders? Very small I'd say.

Dragos said...

@ Frank

Your summary isn’t quite accurate, delving deeper. To mention but a couple of illustrative examples, which you claim are B.B individuals:

I1790, I2a1 - Lisbon Portugal
Olalde Suppl ''Unfortunately, the location of the skeletons within the cave is unknown ''

I0460, & I0458, both I2a2, Arroyal . This was a long-used Megalithic graves, since the Neolithic, with several phases. These 2 come from a non-Beaker phase, and the Megalith was finally closed when one (different) individual buried with a BB set, was placed near the entrance.

I4246 (E1b male) - Camino d Yasera
Comes from Funerary area 3 - comes from a collective burial, not from the graves with BB set in Area #2. The aforementioned collective grave feature goods are predominanlty non_Beaker, apart from a Beaker sherd deposited, mostly like * after the fact*

On the other hand, all individuals which *do* have clear association with BB set, are R1b-L51, and have steppe/ central Euro ancestry. You couple this with the finding that early - Mid Bronze Age (post-22/2000 BC) individuals are also R1b-L51, then the only conclusion is that BB effected a population & cultural turnover. As I have mentioned , this was over a 2-300 year where different groups co-existed in time & space, but the interaction was hostile/ oppressive & one directional.

You further claim
''will realise that at least in Portugal BB didn't effect cultural replacement, but blended well into earlier CA traditions.''

So when Valera & others speak of a “twilight”, cultural rupture and ''event horizons', I'm not sure how you managed to deduce a ''blending of traditions''. In fact, the 2 cultures appear to have been polar opposites.
There's good introduction for you in the Oxford Hand book of Bronze Age Europe - ''Further south the crisis of the flourishing Copper Age societies of the lower Tagus and the southwest brought about a drop in population and a change in social & other relations''

I respect your pacifist inclinations, and all this talk of shifts might sound rather morbid, but that's what happened.

Halfalp said...

I remember to have saw that Kitoi Neolithic had few R1a's on the Tables of Jean Manco. Were those wrong calls?

Davidski said...

@Halfalp

From my blog entry above...

However, please note that I chose to base the map only on samples sequenced with the capture and shotgun methods, rather than the PCR method, which is susceptible to producing contaminated results and no longer used in major ancient DNA studies.

Dragos said...

@ ANI Ex
Would you deem it a huge coincidence that, prior the LBA Celtic expansions and historical Germanic migrations, non-IE languages are predominant in Western Europe, including western parts of Italy & Sicily (Etruscan, & possibly Sicinian) - Just where BB happened to leave big legacies ?

FrankN said...

Dragos: I indeed have pacifist inclinations, but they don't affect my interpretation of things - El Argar was surely violent, and I have stated this clearly above.

Now, let's get substantial:
1. 1790, I2a1 - Lisbon Portugal: While your "location unknown" quote from the Olalde e.a. 2018 SupMats is correct, you forgot to quote the initial sentence there "This site is a small natural funerary cave with 44 Bell Beaker burials".
2. The Arroyal I samples (3x I2a) were in Olalde e.a. 2018 assessed as Steppe-admixed and consequently included in their BB panel. I have followed their assessment.
3. The Camino de Yesera E1b male is in the Olalde e.a. 2019 Tab S1 marked as "Bell Beaker". Acc. to the Olalde e.a. 2018 SupMats, the grave goodes from Funerary area 3, where he was found, "include a copper awl, one Bell Beaker, two incised cups, one undecorated vessel, one granite millstone and one sandstone mortar."

So, please stop bullshitting. What I have done was following the assignment in the published papers, and my conclusion of Iberian BB having more yDNA I(2a) than R1b stands, as long as no new samples become available.

Otherwise, you really need to re-read Valera 2015. The "cultural rupture" he speaks about has nothing to do with BB - he talks about the EBA, somewhat after 2,200 BC, when BB disappears from the Portuguese archeological record.

You apparently want to ignore that BB weren't the culprits, they (as non-BB CA Iberians) fell victims to something that happened during the BA - probably not even the EBA, but around the EBA-MBA transition (I'll separately post Iberian EBA yDNA that will clarify this).

Have, you, btw, noted the genetic replacement BBs caused on Sardinia? Or in N. Italy? No? Well, because there wasn't such replacement. Strange that these bad guys suddenly learnt to behave, once they moved from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean, isn't it?

Dragos said...

Frank,

You're merely repeating your same errors , so i won't waste my time with you too much, only to again re-iterate - Iberian BB re-used Megaliths and caves which had a long & complex occupation histories, often with mixed deposits , whose relations to individuals are not clear sometimes. Sampling just any old person from this cave will not do, and only clear associations with the BB set (tanged-daggers, arrows, hallberds, wrist guards) will do. These individuals are the BB people . Do you think these weapons were symbols of peaceful hippies ?

Now let's see what you wrotea bout the E1b individual, from a non-Beaker style communal grave with ''include a copper awl, one Bell Beaker, two incised cups, one undecorated vessel, one granite millstone and one sandstone mortar." These are not BB people. They might have been workers, then killed off.

You further suggest: ''The Arroyal I samples (3x I2a) were in Olalde e.a. 2018 assessed as Steppe-admixed ...''

Beaker_Iberia_no_steppe:I0459 Arroyal
Iberia_Central_CA 89.7%
Baden_LCA 5.5%
Yamnaya_Samara 0%

Beaker_Iberia_no_steppe:I0460 Arroyal I2a2.
Iberia_Central_CA North 99.7%
Loschbour 0.3%
Yamnaya_Samara 0%



“”somewhat after 2,200 BC, when BB disappears from the Portuguese archeological record”

Incorrect
BB evolves directly into the Iberian EBA. Let’s consult the Handbook again
“Prominent further south, as in the northwest, were cist cemeteries with BB influenced metal grave goods. .. the development of these cemeteries is connected to the Bronze Age proper”.


''Have, you, btw, noted the genetic replacement BBs caused on Sardinia? Or in N. Italy? No? Well, because there wasn't such replacement. Strange that these bad guys suddenly learnt to behave, once they moved from the Atlantic into the Mediterranean, isn't it?''

Because that's not what happened.


Frank, it's one thing that you're simply not very good at this, but now you're just being intentionally deceptive, at every point you've been corrected you've just dodge and swerved around the facts because of you're deluded by ideology & your own stuborness.

FrankN said...

Dragos: It is probably useless to discuss who of us two is stubborn.

I have provided my assessment of the literature in question here -it includes Valera 2015, but goes beyond it:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/map-of-pre-corded-ware-culture-2900-bce.html?showComment=1554211603908#c3606940082286780632

Read these papers, or ignore them. The El Argar break with BB was brisk, Portugal followed with some delay, while on the Meseta BB traditions continued.

You are correct in stating that, for the recycling of megalithic burials by BB, not any bone found there is neccessarily of BB origin. However, if the literature (aDNA studies and the sources cited there) qualify a site/ sample as being BB, and AMS dating confirms a respective chronological position, I take him as being BB. And even if he wasn't - the fact that he was buried within a BB context signifies he wasn't killed in order to allow his wife/ daughter being raped.

Let's ask the question differently: How would you determine whether someone was a BB or just "workers, then killed off", yet being buried in a BB context? [My leftist touch has btw me ringing an alarm bell for the "killed-off worker" scenario being proposed for the single BB sample of African descent. I am probably oversensitive - I assume you weren't aware that your statement could be misinterpreted as being racist, and certainly didn't mean it this way.]

Matt said...

Re: My previous post on "Evidence of Pre-Roman Tribal Genetic Structure in Basques from Uniparentally Inherited Markers" paper, for accuracy, have to revise those y-dna frequencies slightly. It's actually:

Basque Speaking (n=539): R1b-M269 84.6%, J2 2.6%, I2 8.35% (I-M26 6.7% ), E1b1b 1.1%

Spanish bordering Basque speaking (n=138): R1b-M269 71%, J2 7%, I2 12% (I-M26 8.7%), E1b1b 2.2%

French bordering Basque speaking (n=158): R1b-M269 81%, J2 2.5%, I2 12.6% (I-M26 5.7%), E1b1b 1.2%.

My main interest in this paper was their suggestion of patrilocal norms among Basques (which must be fairly long standing to result in structure). The y-dna genetics on a fine scale is probably the right way to study this.

@epoch, if you're reading this thread, I noticed you made a comment on a similar thread on Anthrogenica on how differentiation between paleoHispanic languages, or Basque and Iberian, presuming they're related, could provide a check on the dates we'd expect them to enter the peninsula.

Roughly as I understand it, if we take Iberia and Basque as (questionably) related, and as first attested and medieval Basque don't look like they are languages which are as separate in their basic lexicon as IE languages which are diverged at 2,500 years (2000 years of development on Iberian side, 3000 on medieval Basque), then that provides some further evidence against them being introduced in Beaker period. If there's a lot more divergence between them than that, then they probably weren't introduced then.

(You could dodge around this by saying that incoming groups might have adopted languages outside the Peninsula which were already highly differentiated, but this is inconsistent with the posited dynamics where R1b-M269 male clan from what was at the time a young founder, did not switch languages. Unless you wanted to say they switched around outside Iberia but not within it, which is pushing parsimony.).

I agree with that argument, and it seems to make good sense. (Of course because rates of lexical divergence aren't "hard" and constant, this is approximate, but it can provide some extra weight).

I'd also add though, that if they did look as if they were only as divergent as 2,500 years, then that still isn't inconsistent with scenarios where a language was adopted, and then the Iberian and Basque developed from that, or where there were language spreads within Iberia just before Beaker and genetic shift. So that language argument can disconfirm external origin, but doesn't actually disconfirm in the other direction.

This all also presumes that Tartessian is related to Basque and Iberian. If it's not, and neither is it Indo-European (particularly as Koch suggests), then the incoming groups must have adopted at least one different language (they can't be both proto-Aquitanian-Iberian and proto-Tartessian if these are of different descent), then the whole argument for suggesting that incoming groups never language switched becomes completely internally inconsistent.

(And if Tartessian is IE, then it seems hard to explain without an IE intrusion well before Urnfield, since Tartessian is contemporaneous with late Urnfield and doesn't come from an area Urnfield intrusion into Iberia covers.).

Gaska said...

@Frank N and Dragos

1-In Spain there are 3,000 BB deposits, and at least 10% have human remains. In his two works Olalde has analyzed 12 deposits (8 in 2,018 and 4 in 2,019). I know other Iberian BB sites analyzed by other geneticists but none have studied Y-Haplogroups. This means that aprox 4% of the Iberian deposits have been studied.

2- In those 12 deposits, 25 men have been analyzed. Haplogroup Y Y R1b-P312 (8)-Haplogroup Y-I2a (7)- Haplogroup G2a (2)- R1b-V88 (1) Failed samples (F/BT/CT/P)-(6)- I6471 (Hap-Y-CT)can not be excluded as R1b-P312 because of its high percentage of steppe autosomal component. If we eliminate the 6 cases with insufficient coverage- R1b-P312 (42,10%)+ I6471 Total R1b-9 samples (47,37%), I2a (36,8%), G2a (10.52%), R1b.V88 (5,26%)

3.- FrankN you have forgotten

EHU002- El Hundido (2.434 BC)- HapY-R1b-P312- Mit- K1a4/a1
I3485- Castillejo del Bonete

4- Dragos, Frank is right, all burials are related to the BB culture, i2a men are buried in tombs next to men R1b-P312 with the same type of grave goods. There are no distinctions between them, that is, they were all BBs. The conquests are far from the archeological reality.

5-The BB package, including pottery, is a trend that spread throughout the Iberian peninsula very early (second quarter of the III Millennium-.2750-2.500 BC). In the large Chalcolithic settlements appears around 2,500 BC as a commercial import, there are no conquests or population replacement (Los Millares, Las Pijotillas, San Blas).

6-It was extended by sea along the Atlantic and Mediterranean coast of the Iberian Peninsula, and by land, following the course of the Guadiana and Tagus rivers to the North.

7-The first BBs as the case that Davidski mentioned in Hegenheim had ZERO steppe ancestry

Everyone can draw their own conclusions, and is free to give their opinion. Mine is that if P312 came from the north of the Pyrenees, it did so in small groups, did not contribute anything substantial to the Iberian chalcolithic culture and it integrated perfectly into the Iberian communities. Another possibility is that R1b-P312 was at home, probably we will find cases of this haplogroup in Iberia close to 2,550-2,600 BC. In fact, the only thing that makes me doubt a Franco-Cantabrian origin is the famous steppe autosomal signal for which I have no coherent explanation at the moment.

zardos said...

The "true Beaker" are always those with the typical inventory. This was apparent from the physical type in Central Europe already. I wouldnt call anything else as being a representative. Surely those with the poor graves were not the dominant people nor the language givers, but a subaltern caste.If they were truly contemporous to begin with.

However, if they lived together with steppe Beakers, even if just as slaves, thats still of significance.

Just out of curiosity, if you say the extinction of the majority of local Iberian male lineages cant be attributed to Beakers, but later processes in the Bronze Age, what scenario and Agent do you have in mind and how does that fit into what we have right now?

Mouthful said...

Off topic: but Y-DNA from Carpathian basin from Hun, Avar and Hungarian period nomadic people of Carpathian Basin got published.

"Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the
Carpathian Basin"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/04/03/597997.full.pdf

Gaska said...

@FrankN- R1b in Iberia (2.500-2.100 BC)- You forgot Castillejo del Bonete and EH001, that in fact according to the archaeologist who made the excavation has a dating of 2,413 BC (not 2,165 BC)- EHU001/UE 750: 2287–2044 cal BCE (3760±30 BP, Beta-492280)- (2.165 BC)- C14 -Tomb I (Human Bone)-(3.933-CSIC 1996) calibrated- (2.492-2.334 cal BC-84%)- (2.413 BC)-

I0257-Cerdañola del Vallés (2.460 BC)-BB culture- HapY-R1b1-V88-Hap Mit- H1ax
EHU002-El Hundido (2.434 BC)- BB culture Ciempozuelos style- HapY- R1b-P312-Mit- K1a4/a1
I3238-la Paloma (Asturias) (2.350 BC)- Chalcolitic NOT BB- HapY-R1b1a/1a2a-L49- Mit-H3+152
I6539-Humanejos (2.301 BC)- BB culture Ciempozuelos Style-HapY-R1b-P312-Mit-T2b3+151
I6588-Humanejos (2.250 BC)- BB culture-Ciempozuelos HapY-R1b-L151/P311- Mit-U5b2/b3
I6472- La Magdalena (2.250 BC)- BB culture, CiempozuelosHapY-R1b-U152/L2- Mit-HV0b
I3485-Castillejo del Bonete (2.200 BC)- BB culture. Ciempozuelos-HapY-R1b-CTS2229 Mit-J1c1
EHU001-El Hundido-(2.165 BC)- BBC-Ciempozuelos-HapY-R1b-L5- Mit- U5a1/b1
I5665-Virgazal (2.133 BC)- BB culture- Ciempozuelos Style-HapY- R1b-P312-Mit- K1a24/a

1-It is important to understand that almost all are related to Ciempozuelos pottery that as you know has officially its origin in the Castilian plateau, although recently have been discovered older deposits in Portugal (2,750-2,500 BC).This pottery does not exist in the rest of the BB European regions.

2- All its mitochondrial haplogroups are absolutely Iberian, documented in many burials from the Neolithic and others from the Mesolithic.

Gaska said...

@Zardos

P312 did not have the demographic, cultural, social or technological capacity to conquer a territory of 600,000 km2 with more than 300,000 inhabitants. The most advanced Iberian chalcolithic societies collapsed due to climatic causes. I have already said that if they come from the north of the Pyrenees they had to settle in free or sparsely populated territories.

Dragos said...

@ FrankN & anyone else

This discussion is rather pointless; as we have one group of people claiming R1b-L51 is from western Europe; and on the other hand, another group trying to claim that the disparate non-IE langauges in poroto-historic western Europe relate to cultures long vanquished (although they have now invented a new narrative- an imaginary Iron Age invasion; whilst they decry the obvious BB one); and both are claiming conspiracy theories, missing samples, etc. So it's hard being the chad centrist here.

Given the futility of discourse here, we can at least look at pictures of the Y-Hg distribution

https://imgur.com/hXRoMK9

It speaks for itself, we don't need to invent UFOs. And for those who pay lip service to ''most economical theories'' should have a good long look at the continuity of DF27 in Iberia;

zardos said...

Steppe Beakers and their descendents were not the first to eliminate the majority of the preceding male lineages. They stick out because they are genetically more different than the inner-Neolithic upheavals before.
The first Neolithic wave largely eliminated the Mesolithic males in the West and became themselves the victims of the next wave with more Mesolithic input.
Its remarkable that Basques survived all the later newcomers so well and show such a great genetic continuity.

Dragos said...

Frank N
One more thing- take note of the El Pirulejo sample from Valdiosera, it is a founder burial of an El Argar site dating from 2100 BC (R1b-M269).

Kristiina said...

@ Matt «Roughly as I understand it, if we take Iberia and Basque as (questionably) related, and as first attested and medieval Basque don't look like they are languages which are as separate in their basic lexicon as IE languages which are diverged at 2,500 years (2000 years of development on Iberian side, 3000 on medieval Basque)»

What languages are you comparing? We cannot compare Basque with the possible Vasconic language which was introduced in the Beaker period because it is not available. We can only compare modern Basque and medieval Basque. We know something about Iberian, but that form of Iberian is not very old either (c. 2000 years ago). I could not find any Iberian Swadesh list and I doubt that such a list could be compiled, so we cannot really measure the lexical differentiation between Basque and Iberian.

What languages do you mean when you write about IE languages that diverged at 2500? Celtiberian? To my knowldge, you cannot compare the lexicon of Lusitanian and Celtiberian.

Are you talking about the basic vocabulary of all IE languages that span the area from Portugal to Xinjiang (if we include Tocharian)? Do you think that the rate of differentiation is the same in an area with a diametre of 600 kilometres and 7000 kilometres?

Ric Hern said...

Ag, For the sake of all round irritation, let's just say R1b = Proto Basque and R1a = Proto-Uralic. So congratulations I2a you take the Proto-Indo-European Cake.

Ric Hern said...

Let's say Proto-Basque came from the Steppe and were 100% Yamnaya. What does it make Corded Ware who apparently were up to 75% Yamnaya like ? So was Corded Ware 75% Proto-Basque ?

Ric Hern said...

So are you saying a Mix of Proto-Basque and Proto-Uralic created Indo-European ? Hopefully someone can see how nutty all these ideas are....

Ric Hern said...

Are we going to say Proto-Basque and the Afanasevo Culture had something in common and that Burushaski are these survivors because of the Vegisimal Counting System ?

Ric Hern said...

Here is an example of what can happen in a very limited time:

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

zardos said...

CWC is not just a simple offshot of Yamnaya, and steppe Beaker are a mystery.
We cant know whether all steppe people spoke the same language, but I'd say you can get around BBC quite easily, but CWC is central in every respect as a source for so many known IE groups.

BB could have used a different tongue on the steppe, could have taken it up on the way or in Western Europe. R1b could even be a pre-Yamnaya offshot of an earlier phase. All possible and about equally likely.
BUT the language transfer happening very late in Iberia alone through captured brides is the least probable scenario.

After all, Iberia had the least influence of pre steppe Beakers after Britain.
Where BB tradition changed less of the population and other strains with steppe ancestry often replaced BB we see IE, while the people with the greatest and longest steppe Beaker impact are non-IE?
Britain and Iberia were at no point before Celts securely Indo-Europeanised,even on the contrary.

I really want to see more of Italy, because we have a better picture of the Italic tribes early history.
Lets see if we find something of a discernible steppe ancestry Basques and related pre Celtic Iberians lack.
Same goes for proven IE in Iberia, where such a tendency at least is visible.
Only comparisons like that will improve our understanding of the prehistoric situation.

Leron said...

So the Basque are like the Jews of Western Europe. Not particularly different from the people around them but distinct in culture and some history. Their ancestors replaced an older strata but were themselves swamped by livestock riding cousins who almost universally changed the language of the region except they got to preserve theirs because they were “useful” to the invaders.

John Thomas said...

OT.

David, any thoughts or opinions on the newly released 'Hun' genomes?

Were they by any chance admixed with a Sintashta type population?

Arza said...

Dataset is now online:

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-worlds-published-ancient-dna-data

1240K (1.6Gb) 5081 individuals (2107 ancient, 2974 present-day)
1240K+HO (1.2Gb) 7744 individuals (2107 ancient, 5637 present-day)

epoch said...

@Matt

That is exactly my point. The chances that an expansion that large and swift carried more than one language is pretty slim, the chances that it left several unrelated languages in Iberia even slimmer.

Come to think of it, all area's high in R1b with pre-IE languages clearly surviving until historical times also share another feature: The rise of a warrior cult, of a hierarchical society in cultures now known to be full blooded unadmixted farmers.

It made Maria Gimbutsas call it the first wave of Indo-European warriors. The burial of the prince with the crystal dagger, and 20 wives, in Spain that Volker Heydt mentioned in "Kossinna's Smile" is such an example. Not tested, but dated 2800 BC so we can be pretty sure. Remedello seems another such culture.

These things - IE incursions and the rise of an autochtoneous warrior culture - could somehow be related.

Arza said...

"We would be grateful if users of this dataset could alert us to any errors they detect and help us to fill in missing data. This could include: (1) errors or missing information for location, latitude, longitude, archaeological context, date, and group label, (2) concerns about Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA haplogroup determinations, and (3) evidence for other problems in the data or annotations for individuals. Please write to Swapan 'Shop' Mallick and David Reich with any suggestions. We would also be grateful if members of the community could suggest additional content that would be helpful to add to this page to make it maximally useful. Finally, please let us know if there is any ancient DNA data we should be including that we have missed."

Davidski said...

@John Thomas

David, any thoughts or opinions on the newly released 'Hun' genomes?

Were they by any chance admixed with a Sintashta type population?


Unfortunately, they're not genomes, just some PCR calls. Hopefully the genomes are coming soon.

But anyway, yeah, these warrior groups look like they're derived from Germanic, Iranic, Slavic, Turkic and Ugric communities and mercenaries that one way or another wound up in the Carpathian Basin. The R1a-Z93 lineages that were recovered are no doubt originally Iranic and from Sintashta, and may even represent males who still spoke Indo-Iranian languages.

I've got a blog post coming about this today or tomorrow.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Sorry, we have changed the debate, but I imagine that maybe you are suggesting that R1a and CWC, is exclusively responsible for the dissemination of IE in central and northern Europe?

Davidski said...

@Gaska

Sorry, we have changed the debate, but I imagine that maybe you are suggesting that R1a and CWC, is exclusively responsible for the dissemination of IE in central and northern Europe?

No, of course not, that'd be ridiculous.

Dragos said...

Leron
The Dutch are the Jews of Europe

FrankN said...

I am still in the process of compiling and commenting on a list of Iberian EBA yDNA. It should be ready in a few hours, so check in here again if you are interested.

Gaska: "You forgot Castillejo del Bonete and EH001". No, they will be in the EBA list, since their published median dates are after 2,200 BC. I5665, Burgos area, 2280-1984 calBCE: Y-DNA R1b1a1a2a1a2 should actually also have gone into the EBA list.

Zardos: "Just out of curiosity, if you say the extinction of the majority of local Iberian male lineages cant be attributed to Beakers, but later processes in the Bronze Age, what scenario and Agent do you have in mind and how does that fit into what we have right now? "

Good question. Actually, I don't have a clear idea right now. That finding took me as unprepared as anybody else. One factor that most likely contributed was the apparent demographic collapse around 2,200 BC that is archeologically well attested at least for S. Iberia and the Meseta [If anybody has information whether N. Iberia suffered a comparable decline, please share it.] Climate change and plague(s) seem to be plausible explanations for such a collapse.
However, this can't be the full story, because there is still quite some non-R1b yDNA from the EBA. For the time being, I will focus on sighting the relevant data. Only when the facts are established, we can go into exploring plausible scenarios.

Dragos - I don't really like what kind of strawmans you are building up here. I for myself never claimed that R1b-L51 was from western Europe. Your reminder on the PIR001 El Argar sample, however, was welcome. May I in the interest of a future fruitful discussion suggest that you familiarise yourself with the recent publications on EL Argar and its relation to BB..

Dragos said...

@ Frank
If I were making a strawman argument I’d claim that El Argar men don’t descend from BB; despite the complete synonimity of their Y- haplogroups
You’re not making any sense. Please check your vitamin D levels

Dragos said...

Frank
Where is all the non-R1b from Bronze Age Iberia ?
Which individuals . List them ...

Samuel Andrews said...

@Dragos, David.

Interesting discussion. After, a century of debate, Celtic after all isn't a race even if western Europeans are largely of Kurgan stock. Early Celts were the genetic brothers of pre-Celtic western Europe. It would, be a twist if Iberian & Basque language is true language of R1b P312+.

David's argument, it is unlikely R1b P312+ men adopted the language of their Iberian wives therefore Basque & Iberian are from their R1b P312+ fathers, makes sense. But I dis agree because....


1st: Safe to assume, the original language of R1b L151 was IE considering they are closely related to Corded Ware, Andronovo, Yamnaya. If, Bell Beaker in western Europe didn't speak IE they acquired it from 'farmer' mothers.

When R1b P312+, arrived in western Europe they were already 40-50% 'farmer.' They were a hybrid population, formed by mixture between northern 'farmer' mothers & 'Russian pastorals' fathers. What happened, in Iberia was a repeat of what happened earlier somewhere in the north European plain.

If, Iberian/Basque isn't from Iberian 'farmer' moms, then it must be from northern 'farmer' moms. It's either or. Which ever one, the idea it is impossible for the mothers to change the language is falsified.

Dragos said...

@ Sam
Maybe
Or maybe Iberia-Vasconic is from their “steppe dads “; because BB was a patriarchal culture where the first borns were revered
Indeed; I have a filling there won’t be any L51 in any early attested IEs

Davidski said...

@Samuel

If, Iberian/Basque isn't from Iberian 'farmer' moms, then it must be from northern 'farmer' moms. It's either or. Which ever one, the idea it is impossible for the mothers to change the language is falsified.

Nope, it might be from northern I2-rich farmer dads before the bottleneck and drift that caused all Bell Beakers to carry R1b-P312.

Take a look at Yamnaya and Corded Ware Y-haplogroups; they include sporadic instances of I2. So if you say that Bell Beakers derive from Yamnaya or Corded Ware, then they derive from populations that carried some, maybe quite a bit of, I2.

The same argument can't be made for Copper Age Iberia, because it's after the R1b-P312 founder effect.

Davidski said...

@epoch

That is exactly my point. The chances that an expansion that large and swift carried more than one language is pretty slim, the chances that it left several unrelated languages in Iberia even slimmer.

But this doesn't preclude Aquitanian and/or Iberian from being derived from a Beaker language.

For instance, if Aquitanian and Iberian aren't closely related, then it's possible that Beakers brought the ancestral language to one or the other, rather than both, and one would be either a fluke survival or a later introduction into Iberia. The same can be claimed for Tartessian.

I can't see any dilemmas there whatsoever pending more detailed knowledge about how Aquitanian, Iberian and Tartessian are related exactly, and when they arrived in Iberia.

Dragos said...

@ Gaska

“Dragos, Frank is right, all burials are related to the BB culture, i2a men are buried in tombs next to men R1b-P312 with the same type of grave goods. There are no distinctions between them, that is, they were all BBs. The conquests are far from the archeological reality”

Can you specify which location & sample IDs this is true for ?

Matt said...

Kristiina, I'll restate for your clarification; yes, I'm talking about comparing divergence of basic lexicon between Iberian and the first attested Basque, then seeing how consistent it is with lexical divergence between attested groups known to have been diverging for the same depth (e.g. within IE, Austronesian, Afro-Asiatic, etc.). Rates clearly do vary, but most linguistic opinion believes that at least an impression and general tendency can be seen. If there's sufficiently little lexical sharing between Iberian and earliest Basque, we have a high probability estimate that they are not both being daughters of a late Copper Age wave.

As to the other question, I would naively expect lexical divergence to be lower for two daughter languages within Iberia than with larger separation*, so that would be another reason to expect earliest Basque and attested Iberian to have a lot of lexical sharing if they are both founded from the same "intrusive" Copper Age wave.

Whether there is actually enough lexical evidence for this, to get a good Dyen type list, I do not know. But if there is not, it becoems very difficult to say anything useful.

If there is so little lexical relationship between them that Basque is of virtually "no help" in deciphering Iberian (as Larry Trask, an authority on Basque has stated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_language#Iberian_and_Basque), then I would tend to doubt they are daughters from the same late Copper Age wave.

(Analogously, can be imagine Breton being "no help" in translating an undeciphered Gaelic, or English being "no help" in translating an undeciphered Swedish?).

If they (Tartessian, Iberian, Basque; presuming non-IE Tartessian) are not all recent daughters from the same wave, then the populations migrating into Iberia must have switched at least once, and probably twice (if Iberian and Basque are either unrelated or related at a such a deep level that it would be unlikely for them to have recently split). To admit that they even switched once defeats completely the argument for intrusive "paleo-Vasonic" associated to Beakers, which is entirely rested on the premise that they would never switch at all, even once. (If once, then why not twice, or if twice, then why not three times? Saying "Oh, this other one or two cases of switching happened... just not Basque" isn't much more than a random choice, and some might even say special pleading.)

*although there is some theory to suggest that speakers of diverging varieties can deliberately shift lexicon, to distinguish identity.

@epoch, yeah, yours is a good way to analyze the premise and take it back to the linguistics I think.

I don't know about talk of spread of warrior ideology associated with Indo-European and so on though. I am inclined to think that the development of this is fairly independent from IE (see - https://www.academia.edu/36876527/JEUNESSE_C._2017_From_Neolithic_kings_to_the_Staffordshire_hoard._Hoards_and_aristocratic_graves_in_the_European_Neolithic_the_birth_of_a_Barbarian_Europe or comments on suggestions in archaeology in the construction of Neolithic elites who commanded military power in pre-Beaker Britain - https://imgur.com/a/NE7Dy1A).

(Not totally sure what you mean by "Remedello seems another such culture" either really - they look like completely EEF?)

Bob Floy said...

So now, more and more it's looking like BB did not bring IE languages to western Europe, but rather something related to Vasconic, which may or may not have something to do with the I2 we see in Yamnaya and other steppe related groups. IE only came to western Europe centuries later, with groups derived from Urnfield and Hallstatt. Who'd have thunk it? Not me.

Karl_K said...

That's not true. There is zero genetic evidence of anything funky in pre-Columbian America. Perhaps the Andaman-like signal, but that likely came the Bering route like the rest.

Davidski said...

@Bob

There's no way to really know what Bell Beakers spoke. They may have spoken different languages, both IE and non-IE, but used a lingua franca between themselves. We can only infer these sorts of things.

But what I'm doing is approaching the problem from the angle that we know what the direct descendants of Iberian and nearby French Beakers, with little admixture since the late Copper Age, spoke and are still speaking.

So even if we say that there are good arguments for language switching and hence native Iberian language survival, or the appearance of new languages in Iberia in the post-Beaker Iberia, then we can still work within the framework that these were Proto-Basque, Iberian and Tartessian and related languages, rather than anything IE.

To bring in IE into this discussion requires moving away from the attested link between Iberian Beaker-like genetic structure and non-IE languages in Iberia, and trying to figure out extra unknowns.

By the way, the mainstream theory has basically always been that Celtic arrived in Atlantic Europe as a result of the expansions of the Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene cultures.

Matt said...

@epoch, sorry, yeah, I missed your point there re: "The rise of a warrior cult, of a hierarchical society in cultures now known to be full blooded unadmixted farmers", and yeah, I think I actually mostly agree.

Ric Hern said...

How far did Corded Ware penetrate into France ? Why ?

Bob Floy said...

@Davidski

"There's no way to really know what Bell Beakers spoke. They may have spoken different languages, both IE and non-IE, but used a lingua franca between themselves. We can only infer these sorts of things."

Sure, that's why I try to use guarded language when talking about it. But Vasconic coming from the east with certain R1b clans is looking like a good possibility now, is it not?

"By the way, the mainstream theory has basically always been that Celtic arrived in Atlantic Europe as a result of the expansions of the Urnfield, Hallstatt and La Tene cultures."

Yes, but if we're honest most of us thought that BB were probably Indo-European speaking, whether or not they spoke Celtic. This is why things like the "north west block" idea exist. Now it's looking less likely.

Davidski said...

@Bob

But Vasconic coming from the east with certain R1b clans is looking like a good possibility now, is it not?

Honestly, I don't have a clue.

I suppose it's a possibility, but to say that it's a good possibility might be stretching it, since we don't have any direct evidence one way or the other.

And I'm pretty sure that a reasonable argument can be made with indirect linguistic evidence why this doesn't work. But only in theory, because, as I said, there's no direct evidence either way.

Bob Floy said...

"I suppose it's a possibility, but to say that it's a good possibility might be stretching it, since we don't have any direct evidence one way or the other"

Hopefully many more samples are on the way.

FrankN said...

Here comes the list of Iberia_EBA yDNA that I announced above. For clarification: I define EBA as 2,200-1,800 BC, in line with German standards, but others may draw the chronological line differently. I furthermore only consider samples which have their median AMS or estimated dated still falling into that period. E.g., this ignores the Cogotas I samples from Olalde e.a. 2019, dated there to 1850–1150 BCE, or the 2000-1400 BCE Can Roqueta II, Sabadell, Barcelona samples from the same source.

This is what I have found:


- I3484 Castillejo del Bonete, Castilla-La Mancha, 2271–1984 cal BCE, R1b1
- I3756, Castillejo del Bonete, Castilla-La Mancha, 2014–1781 cal BCE, R1b1a1a2a1a2
- I12855/ I12809, Castillejo del Bonete, Castilla-La Mancha, 1880–1770 BCE, R1b1a1a2 (x2)
- I6604, Camino de las Yeseras (Madrid), 2127–1905 calBCE, G2a2a1
- EHU001, El Hundido (Burgos), 2287–2044 cal BCE, R1b1a1a2a1a2
- I5665, Burgos area, 2280-1984 calBCE, R1b1a1a2a1a2

- I3494, Coveta del Frare, Valencia, 1920–1753 cal BCE, R1b1a1a2a1a2
- PIR001, Pirulejo, Granada, 2100-1450 BC, R1b-M269

- I4229=CDM3, Zambujal area, 2289-2135 calBCE, I2a1a1
- I8048, La Navilla, Granada, Andalusia, 2200–2000 BCE, I2a1b
- I8142, La Navilla, Granada, Andalusia, 2200–2000 BCE, CF(xI)
- I7691, Monte da Cabida 3, Évora, 2200–1700 BCE, R1b1a1a2a1

That's 9/13=69% R1b. Certainly an increase compared to the late CA, but still far from total yDNA replacement. Note that the Castillejo del Bonete site, with 4 out 13 total samples, all R1b, is overrepresented and may somewhat skew the findings.

The spatial distribution is intriguing:
1. Castilla is predominantly R1b. Since there was BB continuity on the Meseta from the late CA into the EBA, here the yDNA replacement may be plausibly attributed to BB. However, I6604 (G2a) demonstrates that the replacement wasn't completed yet around ca. 2,000 BC.

2. PIR 001 is an EL Argar founder grave. I3494, Coveta del Frare lies outside the early EL Argar core, but well within its MBA area of control. Accompanying finds are undiagnostic, and may well relate to the preceding CA context (29th cBC)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260293782_Los_restos_humanos_de_la_Coveta_del_Frare_La_Font_de_la_Figuera_Valencia
While one- and a half Argaric heartland EBA samples are still a somewhat slim base for conclusion, 100% R1b, in combination with 100% R1b from Argaric MBA sites, and strong archeological indication for a militaristic and violent nature of that culture makes me feel that the El Argar genesis, and its possible role in „promoting“ R1b, deserves further analysis. aDNA from La Bastida and other early Argaric centers should help for better understanding. In the meantime, someone might want to test with G25 which „Steppe“ sample (e.g. BB UK, BB NL, BB Bavaria, BB France, Vucedol) could be a likely source of PIR001.

3. West of the El Argar core, non-R1b yDNA appears to have dominated for quite long. The earliest Portuguese appearance of R1b is I7691, Monte da Cabida 3, Évora, 2200–1700 BCE. That dating, in fact, is quite problematic. The „pit burial“ the sample is from was actually a storage pit, later re-used to dump all kinds of waste including occasionally a corpse (mostly infants). Accompanying sherds, to the extent they were not from the Roman period, were typically from undecorated household pottery. The lack of any decorated pottery in the 64 excavated pits allows to rule out BB, the excavator also notes the lack of LBA-typical „cerâmica de ornatos brunidos“, but otherwise, these „burials“ may have occured any time during the EMBA.
https://biblioteca.edia.pt/BiblioNET/Upload/PDFS/M02531.pdf

Dragos said...

@ Frank

Not surprisingly, you're incorrect again, as you have included samples which are Late Chalcolithic
Eg. I4229=CDM3
''This cave was used as collective burial place between 3700 and 2200 BCE (Middle Neolithic to the Copper Age), according to the results of seven radiocarbon dates obtained on human bones.''

Moreover, you're counting poor coverage/ non-delineated samples (marked as CF* and CT*) as evidence of non-R1b. Do you really think the Paleo-Arabian lineages were kicking around in Iberian Bronze Age ? Indeed, not so long ago you were claiming to Davidski there was haplogroups P in corded ware

Simply look at the summary already done by the professionals

https://imgur.com/eElfe9x

Here are additions from Martiniano & Valdiosera


Martiniano
Monte do Gato de Cima 3
1700 B R1b

Torre Velha 3 x 2 individuals
17-1500 BC

Valdiosera
PIR001El Pirulejo c. 2100 BC R1b-M269. Founder burial
El Agar

ESP005; R1b-P312
Cueva de los Lagos
Cogotas culture 1400Bc

Quite amazing - 100% R1b-M269, all round.

FrankN said...

Dragos: I repeat here from my previous post "I define EBA as 2,200-1,800 BC, in line with German standards, but others may draw the chronological line differently."

And you come up with stuff like "Monte do Gato de Cima 3
1700 B R1b", and link to the Olalde Tab S1 that doesn't make any distinction between EBA, MBA and LBA.

You seem to have a reading skills issue - ever thought about consulting professional assistance about it?

FrankN said...

Dragos: I concede that I4229=CDM3 is a borderline case. I have cited it from UMap as 2289-2135 calBCE - averaged to 2214 BCE, which would still render it as Chalcolithic. Olalde e.a 2017 actually have a date of 2336–2063 calBCE that averages to 2199,5 BCE.

I have put it into the EMBA list for two reasons:

1. Zambujal rubbish dumps have delivered lots of fish bones and mussel shells, suggestive of a strong maritime element in the diet, and consequently a possibility of reservoir effects resulting in too old AMS dates [This btw could also have lead to very early dates for BB presence in Zambujal that contrast with dates from elsewhere in Iberia].

2. It was missing from my Late CA list further above, but is too important (after all Zambujal is one of the major Iberian BB sites) to go unnoticed.

Irrespectively of whether I4229=CDM3 belongs into the CA or the EBA list - several centuries after BB arrived in the area, I2a males were still buried in quite exclusive contexts. From the Olalde e.a. 2017 SupMats: "In terms of material culture, Cova da Moura is by far the richest burial known in the region. Grave goods include limestone and bone idols, green stone pendants, gold artefacts, engraved slate plaques, bone, ivory, and variscite rabbit figurines, beads, and pre-Beaker and Beaker ceramics." The richest burial known in the proximity of one of the most outstanding BB sites...

This, btw, should also answer your question further above to Gaska about cases where I2a men were found to be buried in similar contexts as R1b men. Oh, wait - we don't yet have any R1b attestation from around Zambujal..

Dragos said...

FrankN
Absolutely ; these men were wealthy and had impressive contacts
Some of them- eg the tholoi further southeast - even had spears and other weapons. But this BB does not them make. Indeed, even the BB ceramics are not directly associated with the burials of these men. Rather, They are post-burial; epithetic deposits; as part of closure ceremonies (perhaps to guard against the ghosts and spirits of the vanquished?). Very different context to when BB pots are deposited in direct association with R1b men, alongside ranged daggers, the wrist guards, so forth..

The wealth of southern Iberia led most archaeologists to have erred. They presumed that BB must come from southern Iberia because of the wealth here. But in fact everything about BB points to Central Europe.

So, as Matt & Epoch have observed (no doubt following my illustrious lead); we have several warrior cultures developing in Europe- most of them in the east; but one group even began to develop in the south of Iberia. Of course; when the northern BB clan defeated the Iberian chalcolithics, it is most likely that they simply kept their own language. Going to the effort to learn another culture’s language requires sufficient benefits; but in this case none such existed - because Los Millares and VSNP (sadly & unfortanely) perished.

Kristiina said...

@ Matt

Our knowledge is based on inscriptions that are being interpreted. One can probably propose a cognate in Basque for most Iberian words, if that's the purpose. On the other hand, the opponents would refute the proposed connection. My guess is that the result would be a big disagreement in which defenders look for cognates in Vasconic languages and opponents argue that the presented cognates are false. However, if someone comes up with such an analysis between Basque and Iberian, on the one hand, and two IE languages on the same branch (modern and historical) that would have separated c. 4000 years ago, on the other, I am willing to have a look at it.

Dragos said...

Kristiina
Recent work from Iberia (little known in English works) proposes similarity of Iberian and Vasco-Acquitanian. I’d bet buoyed by these findings; research will accelerate and they’d find they began to diverge c 25-2000 BC :)

Gaska said...

@Dragos said....Can you specify which location & sample IDs this is true for ?

I0460/Roy3/SU25- (2.335 BC)- HapY-I2a2a- Mit-H45
I0458/Roy1/SU25- (2.332 BC). Hap-I2a2a- Mit-K1a1/b1
I0462/Roy5/SU25- (2.456 BC)- Mit-K1a+195 This woman is the oldest case of steppe ancestry in Iberia in the Olalde study (2.018) and is in an I2a site

"two BBs of international maritime style and two smooth vessels. Ciempozuelos style BB ceramics, and maritime fragments"

I6587 / Hume15-Tomb 2.014- (2.350 BC) - Campaniform burial with two adult men- Haplogroup Y-I2a2a- Mitochondrial Haplogroup-K1a1b1

Tombs with BB ceramics where they combine-Maritime Style ILM variety, Lace-Geometric style, Smooth style without decoration, and Ciempozuelos style

The BB culture is not an invention of P312, in the oldest Iberian deposits (2,700-2,600 BC) there are only I2a and G2a. These same haplogroups are also found in German, English and Hungarian sites.

There were no conquests Dragos, simply peaceful coexistence among diverse male lineages.The vision of P312 as conquering genocides, is only in the minds of people who do not know the European chalcolithic. Sooner or later we will find R1b-P312 between 2,700-2,500 BC. Maybe in Valencina de la Concepción, Los Millares, Pijotillas, San Blas, Humanejos, Valle de las Higueras........ We'll see. BB culture is absolutely western and P312 also, therefore did not speak IE

Gaska said...

Frank, I do not understand very well what you mean. The genetic continuity in uniparental markers is evident in Iberia from the chalcolithic to the iron Age. All cultures of the Bronze Age are overwhelmingly R1b ​​(at the moment).

1- Atlantic Bronze Culture (Galicia, Portugal, Asturias) is R1b (Monte da Cabida, Monte do Gato etc ... Martiniano et al)
2-Cogotas Culture (Northern Plateu) is an evident continuation of the BB culture (there are deposits that have both types of ceramics, here the BB culture endured until 1700-1,600 BC) It is also overwhelmingly R1b (Valdescusa-Proto-Cogotas). This culture developed in the Iron Age, giving rise to the culture of Soto de Medinilla and the historical peoples we know (Vacceos, Vettones ...)
3- Castillejo del Bonete, Humanejos etc. are in the southern plateau, and belonged to the culture of Las Motillas. It is also currently R1b, although there are many deposits to be analyzed, such as the Motilla del Azuer with more than 300 skeletons recovered. This culture is the typical example of the consequences of the climatic event 4.2, with great strengths and very deep wells (the oldest in Europe) to capture subsurface water resources.
4- The Iberian-Valencian Bronze culture and the Bronze culture of the Guadalquivir are also R1b
5- The culture of El Argar (Almeria, Murcia, Granada, Alicante) is undoubtedly one of the most advanced of these cultures of the Bronze Age. Clearly hierarchical, it is also R1b, although the results of La Bastida and La Almoloya (90 analyzed skeletons) and those of the Argar village that gave its name to this culture are still to be published. I suppose that I2a and G2a will appear here (I hope that also in Las Motillas)


If what you try is to find the reasons for this drastic substitution of male haplogroups, you may have to take into account that the current Spanish population is at least 7% I2 and 3-4% G2a. These haplogroups did not arrive in historical times, I believe they are survivors of Iberian hunter-gatherers (I2a) and Neolithic farmers (G2a). No doubt they will appear sooner or later in the Bronze Age. In fact we have G2a in La Sima del Ángel (aprox 1600 BC).

Matt said...

@Kristiina, yes, there would be disagreement about cognacy as is always the case; and hence the need for consensus among a group of experts. So this would be a significant undertaking in addition to being limited by available corpus.

Also to stress again, we are looking at cognacy in basic vocabulary to assess the relationship - cognancy in words like town, silver, battle, the number system, names etc. are fairly likely to be borrowed / sprachbund effects and are not much value to assign a family relationship. (Not to mention close correspondences in grammar). And we are looking to see if the relationship is fairly clearly on the order of 2000-3000 years split, not a faint, deep (questionable) Indo-Uralic type of linkage.

At the moment, there seems not much suggestion of this sort of relationship in English language accessible literature, and I have a skeptical stance that anything will emerge that has not through the 20th century and to date.

Generally the picture does not seem to have moved on since Trask's "Towards a History of the Basque Language" - https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5TdIAAAAQBAJ, which describes the investigation of languages since a stable understanding of Iberian orthography was formed thus - https://imgur.com/a/S8SYdQo (I include an excerpt from recent published academic text on paleohispanic languages published last month summarizing the field (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UMKKDwAAQBAJ) which seems to demonstrate largely consistency of this view.)

zardos said...

Remnants and scattered survivors just prove the impact of steppe Beaker conquest. Actually it speak for itself that you have to search for non-R1b males with magnifiers and quote bad samples with low resolution.
I2a from Granada is like the last Moors at the and of the Reconquista.
Even if you find I2a later, which is so low, you dont even know for sure its truly local or one from further North, one of the few happy chaps they seem to have needed and tolerated.
But ANY kind of peaceful and slow change would look very different from what we see.
Natural disasters can only explain a weaker position of the locals, but the results still need conquerers which used their daggers and arrowheads excessively.

zardos said...

@Diego: Even if Iberian R1b is from France and existed there from Neolithic times, what else would that matter for your narrative? There would still be a bloody conquest of Iberia by incoming, strongly steppe derived R1b males.
It would just mean that they, before robbing CA Iberian females, the R1b clan did the same to CW in the North before heading South.
So moving around from North to South doing everywhere the same.
And thats what we see in the record, regardless of the clans ultimate source.
A Western, earlier and pre CW origin, which I dont dem more likely, but a possibility, would just make the language quest even easier to solve.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 234   Newer› Newest»