Sunday, March 31, 2019
Map of pre-Corded Ware culture (>2900 BCE) instances of Y-haplogroup R1a (updated)
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...
Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health
The Poltavka outlier
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
230 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 230 of 230To keep captured males alive has a lot do with economic complexity and division of labour.
Hunters and gatherers dont need them, they are a burden. Mobile pastoralists can use some for special duties, but not many. Small scale farmers, largely the same thing.
But more complex productive societies have a lot of hierarchy, low status or special works to do.
Thats why early HG, early farmers and most pastoralist groups finished off the males and the most drastic genetic shifts happened in this period rather than late.
Unetice might be one of the first cultures in Europe North of the Alps for which the exclusive male lineage was not as decisive any more,because you can send the captured in the mines and on the fields.
LBK, Yamnaya, CWC and BBC show the fights of male lineages which allowed little to no unrelated males in their community.
It's not Europeans being more cruel, even on the contrary. Its their own high moral standard and "tax and convert" mentality which created their own guilt.
Others did the same and more, but cared less.
The only thing special in this respect is the magnitude of the expansion and exploitation, which was made possible by the technological edge they had.
Give just one Papuan tribe automatic weapons, watch and learn what happens next...
@zardos
Good point. agree on everything
@Kriistina, as I understand the best Spanish linguists (De Hoz, Orduña, Villar) are practically in agreement on the existence of a relationship between the Iberian and the Basque for their obvious phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical connections. Manuel Gomez Moreno managed to decipher the Iberian language (1943), and although it can not currently be translated, I suppose the linguists will find a solution. For me, the relationship is obvious
In addition now we also have genetic arguments, because all of Iberia was inhabited for 2000 years (Bronze Age and Iron Age) by R1b-Df27, which is overwhelmingly the majority in all Iberian cultures. These men may speak different languages (Basque, Iberian and Tartessian) and even, if they had lived in isolation perhaps, they did not understand each other, but this is very unlikely, the origin of these languages must be common.
An example is my haplogroup Df27/Z225. First it appears in a late campaniform (BB) site (Valdescusa, La Rioja, near the province of Alava, where my father's family originates), and then in an Iron Age site belonging to the Iberian Ilerkavones (Province of Castellón), which are a branch of the tribe of the Ilergetes, who are absolutely Iberians.
In the Ascoli's Bronze (89 BC) appear the names of 9 Basque knights, 3 Ilergetes and other 18 Iberians, and their respective parents. The Ilergetes knights were already romanized and their names appear in Latin, but the name of their parents is in iberian.
Basques- Sosinasae/Luspanar/Biurno/Enneges/Bennabels/Agerdo/ArbisKar/Luspangubas
Ennegensis-(Also Basques)-Umarbeles/Adimel/Burdo
Ilergetes-Suisetarten/Nesille/Enesagin
Libenses- Adimel/Tarbantu- These knights, come from Iulia Líbica-Llivia village of the Ceretanos, who inhabited the Western Pyrenees north of the Ilergetes.
We already have a Basque-Ennegensis, and an Iberian-Ceretanum that are called equal (Adimel).
We know that Ennegensis are Basque because in ancient Basque there is Enneco (Enneconis/Enneges/Iñiguez), which is now Eneko (Iñigo in Spanish)
@zardos- It's not Europeans being more cruel, even on the contrary. Its their own high moral standard and "tax and convert" mentality which created their own guilt.
Have you tried explaining that to someone who is not European?
Formerly the Hispanic-Americans spoke of Spain as the Motherland, now they are demonstrating in front of our embassies blaming us for the Indian genocide. Obviously, it is a mistake to judge history with our current moral values, but that is what is happening all over the world.
Genetics is helping to solve the problem, because many of those people who manifest have American mitochondrial haplogroups and Y-European haplogroups, then they should actually blame themselves and not us who never moved from our land. In any case, most Spaniards feel proud of their history and these countries have already had 200 years of independence, enough time to stop blaming us for all their problems.
@Davidski
"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."
For it to be a fluke survival would introduce the necessity that at least one of these language was adopted by Beaker folk in Iberia. But what is then the necessity for the other to be brought by Beakers rather than being an adopted local language? In other words, such a scenario would prove that Beakers switched to a local language while taking over male lineages, and thereby show that such a process actually is conceivable.
A later introduction would require another source for the introduction. But what would that be? The next genetic upheaval according to the paper is the coming of Central Europeans and they map on Celto-Iberian speaking area's.
(Updated version)
Most non-Europeans know that very well and there is no need for an explanation. Its just when those non-Europeans get educated by modern, politically correct and postcolonial environments, they start what you described.
Its normal for people that they want to feel superiour and to have an advantage in the face of others.
Europeans are so used to the Christian guilt, shame and repentence rituals, thats just the modern version.
All those excuses and repentence make you superiour relative to the others with guilt.
Its an occidental defect, but make no mistake, others dont have it (so far) and most people never had it.
Which means this occidental defect is an advantage others can and will abuse.
But to blame them for using an advantage you gave away yourself is just part of the defect. What else to expect if you make yourself the moral ly inferiour and distribute presents.
Most people are not that stupid that they miss an opportunity for an advantage in life.
And economically speaking the average European is just better off and many others try to catch up.
The Africans clan profiting from slave trade had no issue selling foreign tribals to Arabs, Jews and Europeans.
But even the clan which got rich and powerful through this kind of trade wont neglect an opportunity to use Euro-guilt to get an advantage now.
In any case, postmodern ideas of Western moral are a recent construct. You can look at and judge the past that way,but you will fail to explain it. Because those artificial norms which can only exist in a very specific modern context dont do well in reality in general.
@zardos-I suppose you are right, we would do the same if we were in their situation. The migrants quickly learn the advantages of the Welfare State in Europe, and also the political advantages granted by their status as economic migrants. The same happens in international relations between states and in the discourse that many indigenous politicians use to capture support in their countries. I suppose they themselves will be in charge of destroying the European political system, or maybe a generation later they will not feel as generous with the new migrants that will surely continue to arrive, as we are, because they will have eliminated (or never developed) that guilt complex.
Did the Carthaginians leave a trail through Southern France and the Alps on their way to conquer Italy ? Did Romans immediately during Julius Caesars Campaign through Gaul force the Gauls to speak Latin, or were they Romanized gradually after the initial Conquest ? If an Armies initial goal was not to Settle everywhere but to crush potential threats throughout a new territory and only settle in specific areas after the campaign, then maybe this scenario can explain the survival of languages from a militaristic point of view.
Ric, all the explanations we can find are valid, anything could have happened. All of you are looking for explanations that fit with a theory that you have accepted previously. So if you are happy with that explanation then congratulations. Nobody is going to convince you otherwise. Only ancient dna can help us to solve the problem.
Apparently Gaulish survived until the 6th century in some parts of France. That is about +-600 years after the initial Conquest by the Romans started. So it all depends on the objectives of the Conqueror and if social and economic pressures were constantly applied. If there were no collective vision of what should happen after a Campaign (Maybe including raping and looting on the way to the objective) then I doubt that Language change would have persevered.
@ Gaska
I'm just throwing ideas out there. I'm not banking on any specifically. Anything from Acquiring High Status through marriage with Cattle as Brideprice, Fosterage, or a Military Campaign without any longterm goals etc. etc. Many possibilities.
@Ric: Carthaginians & Co. were urban people, but cities were quite often like islands in a sea of other peopler at that time. If the city dwellers were themselves conquered, they usually completely vanished.
BB in Iberia on the other hand moved through the land and took both the countryside and the cities. So did Celts. But not Carthaginians, Greeks and Romans to the same extend.
@ Zardos
Yes, possibly, but an Army on the move could leave their DNA behind in the territory they moved through without the biological father staying behind. The father moves with his language and the mother stays behind with her language and the father's DNA....
@ Zardos
Carthaginians & Co. were urban people, but cities were quite often like islands in a sea of other peopler at that time. If the city dwellers were themselves conquered, they usually completely vanished.
From Olalde et al: "The impact of mobility from the central/eastern Mediterranean during the Classical period is also evident in 10 individuals from the 7th to 8th century CE site of L'Esquerda in the northeast, who show a shift from the Iron Age population in the direction of present-day Italians and Greeks (Fig. 1D) that accounts for approximately one-quarter of their ancestry (Fig. 2C and table S17). The same shift is also observed in present-day Iberians outside the Basque area and is plausibly a consequence of the Roman presence in the peninsula, which had a profound cultural impact and, according to our data, a substantial genetic impact too."
Where in the world are you getting these fact-free assertions?
@ Matt and Epoch
Completely agree that the entire hypothesis rests on the assumption that Iberian, Basque and Tartessian are related, which we can assume just to make things easier for David's point of view, but isn't true necessarily.
Romans did settle veterans and they did found settlements indeed, but that was a longer term process and presumably didn't affect all regions the same way. The impact seems to have significant in Iberia accourding to the recent study, yes.
Remind you however on the Greek colony in which you could find Celtic people among its inhabitants and we know from many settlements of Greeks and Phoenicians that they countryside was inhabited by other ethnicties. The direct Roman, not just imperial, impact was not that huge with one quarter anyway and surely didn't shift male lineages the same way BB did for example.
Carthaginians were surrounded by Berber people for example and you might know the stories of their alliances and conflicts with Numidians.
That the impact of Romans was not everywhere the same can be seen in the East, but also in Britain were a full scale Romanisation didn't took place like in Iberia and Gaul.
Whether all Iberian non-IE languages were of the same language group or not says little to knothing about whether BB were IE or not. If they were of the same language groups, from what we know now, it makes a non-IE background of all steppe Beakers just more likely than otherwise.
But its no decision either way.
Zardos: "The change came with states which preferred to "convert" and tax people from above, but letting them live as workforce."
I agree - albeit the extent to which non-state like, tribal groups are able to effect an yDNA shift beyond the local scale may be questionned.
The funny thing, now, is that for all we know, El Argar was a state. It replaced local storage pits as still common during the CA (and in Portugal also the EMBA, see my comment on Monte da Cabida 3) with central grain silos including milling facilities, and established a grain re-distribution system by means of 150 l amphorae. The shift from CA mixed farming (Emmer, Einkorn, barley, pulses) to Argaric barley monoculture was certainly also not accidental.
As Lull e.a. 2015 note about La Bastida: "The population established here must have been perfectly aware of its protected and prominent topographic situation in the mountains, but also that the economic resources of the surrounding terrain were insufficient to feed a population equivalent to the size of the fortified area, which we estimate to have been around 1ooo inhabitants. The founding of a settlement in this location implies that the exploitation of a large territory had already been organised. The marked scarcity of sickle elements implies that the local population was not directly involved in agricultural production." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298972517
So, if there was a part of Iberia where to expect genetic diversity, it would be the Argaric sphere. However, available aDNA shows the opposite: 100% R1b in all Argaric samples so far contrast with a decreasing but still detectable presence of other HGs elsewhere.
The more I look at the picture, the less it seems to make sense...
Los Millares culture was one of the most advanced in chalcolitic Iberia. So it is important to know how and why it came to an end. The 4.2 event may have weakened it. But it is a bit boring to have to repeat that Los Millares dissapeared abruptly, suddenly and violently. All Los Millares settlements were destroyed and set on fire by someone and then replaced by El Argar. This has nothing to do with the climatic event. There is no soft transition, no continuity.
It is a bit boring repeating once and again the same thing. Los Millares was one of the most developed cultures in chalcolitic Iberia. The 4.2 event may have weakened and altered it. But all Los Millares settlements were destroyed and set on fire by someone
It is a bit boring repeating once and again the same thing. Los Millares culture was one of the most advanced cultures in chalcolitic Iberia. Thats why its so important to know how it came to an end. Well, all Los Millares settlements were abruptly and violently destroyed and set on fire by someone. And then El Argar started. This has nothing to do with the climatic event. There is no continuity, no soft transition, no similarity between both cultures.
It is a bit boring repeating once and again the same thing. Los Millares culture was one of the most advanced cultures in chalcolitic Iberia. Thats why its so important to know how it came to an end. Well all Los Millares settlements were destroyed and set on fire by someone, abruptly and violently. Then el Argar started. There was no soft transition, no continuity. Both cultures were completely different
For all of you who are now concerned about the issue of the language of the BBs, remember that not only is the Iberian problem (Basque, Iberian and Tartessian-R1b), but throughout the south of France were spoken non-Indo-European languages-
Western Pyrenees, the Aquitanian that reached the Garonne River
Eastern Pyrenees, the Iberian Language that reached the Rhone river, in fact one of the best texts written in the Iberian language north of the Pyrenees has been found in Ensérune, Department of Herault (Occitania).
You have to realize that throughout the Franco-Cantabrian region (Cantabria, Aragón, Catalonia, Navarra, Basque Country, Aquitaine, Occitania) were spoken non-Indo-European languages at the arrival of the Romans. It is much reasonable to think that P312 originated in that region and that it always retained its native language, than all those fantastic theories that try to seek explanations for the failure of the Indo-European in those regions.
@Urki
it is true that there was violence at the end of Los Millares, but it does not have to be due to a conquest, but to a revolution of the oppressed classes of that society, caused by the depletion of natural resources.
@Frank: "I agree - albeit the extent to which non-state like, tribal groups are able to effect an yDNA shift beyond the local scale may be questionned."
Not really. Before we had modern yDNA, it could have been questioned, but since we got it, no longer. After we the first ancient DNA results came in, there can be no doubt at all, because the vast majority of cultural expansions being demic and the more clearly demic-ethnic diffusions almost always resulted in a homogenous male group replacing the preceding male lineages. Whether they took the local females or not, whether they accepted some survivors sooner or later or not, but generally speaking, the victorious group decided what to do with the vanquished. And more often than not, they decided to get rid of the hostile male population.
Its not restricted to Europe, its the same in the Near East and all of Asia. Look at the Chinese male lineage distribution and the various population of which we have just hints so far, but which no longer or just in a diluted form exist any more.
Its the same everywhere and only a question of magnitude, scale and survival rate for locals in detail. Oftentimes it seems to have depended on whether they preceding population had places to hide and sit the initial impact out for longer periods of time.
Look at the Neolithic borderline in Northern Europe with organised farmers moving up and being pushed down again more than once. And what do we see as a result? Hunter gatherers with farmer wives which produced there pottery and their Neolithic male counterpart being gone. Finally some groups which being overtaken by HG males completely, with the male Anatolian lineages being largely annihilated long before the steppe impact in large parts of Northern and North Western Europe.
In other places the LBK managed to get rid of local HG populations which might have raided them, again at another location there was a fusion, sort of an alliance with the HG, probably because they profited from each other or one side couldn't finish off the other, they had a common enemy etc. There is no general rule, but yes, the ancients were capable of genocidal acts not just from a moral point of view, but also in a practical sense. They just did, we see it in the record and the results left for us.
@ Gaska
You had stated that '' 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”''
Then you provide the following case:
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 I2a2 males and a women. Where is the R1b and I2a2 side by side ?
@Dragos I have already sent you the data, in the site of Humanejos there are tombs of P312 and I2a side by side and contemporary. I don't know why everyone is engaged in a violent conquest and I don't know where you see violence. The cases of skeletons with war wounds are relatively frequent throughout Europe since the Neolithic, but they are always a minority.
For us it is increasingly evident the western origin of P312 and the Iberian migrations to other European regions. It seems that you know well the Iberian chalcolithic, but in reality what do you propose? Can you explain it to me? Maybe I find some reasonable proposal.
The attempt to link R1bL51/P312 with migrations from the steppes and the diffusion of the IE has turned out to be a real disaster, when we have results from France and Italy, everyone will understand it definitively. The BBs did not change the language when they arrived in Iberia, because they were already in it.
@ Gaska
Whilst you are correct that the idea that P312/L51 being the ''original'' vector of IE into Europe is clearly problematic, it does not mean that it came from Western Europe. Western Europe is now the best sampled region in the world, at not a single reliable P312 has come through before the BB period, after which it appears to rapidly appear from far & wide regions, stretching from Iberia to Germany.
Moreover, your overview of Humanejos is problematic. Yes, P312 & I2 are contemporary there, they are not side by side, but are found in different burial regions within the site (which is rather huge); and different phases. So yes, these groups co-existed for a couple of generations, but clearly relations were inmical and oppositional.
If I were you and Diego, I would celebrate these findings, even if alarming. At least now Vasconic is not so isolated, and a new era of research into linguistic prehistory can begin.
@ Zardos
''In other places the LBK managed to get rid of local HG populations which might have raided them''
Here, the case seems to have been that simply there were not many HGs around, which were concentrated further north.
''Unetice might be one of the first cultures in Europe North of the Alps for which the exclusive male lineage was not as decisive any more,because you can send the captured in the mines and on the fields.''
Indeed, it represents a significant cultural shift. For all the said CWC- BB substrate (e.g. in some pottery), this group displays new markers of male elite identity. Different weapons, different styles of tumuli, different burial positions. They were probably organised alliances with large armies, and created a system of alliances, exchange and vassalage through Europe, with offshoots in Elp culture, Nordic B.A., Mierznowice, Polada, etc. which had broader effects than the clan like structures seen in GAC, BB, CWC (which were limited to in-clan effects). It is perhaps at this point and place where the idea of patron-client can be properly used
@ Dragos, I'm Diego. And yes, we are celebrating that Spain is one of the best studied countries genetically speaking (although there are hundreds of deposits to be analyzed). We find interesting that more and more linguists can use Basque to understand the Iberian, so it seems that Vasco-Iberianism is probably the best solution to explain our issue with languages.
L51/P311 may be Central European, but P312 is clearly Western. I've already told you that geneticists have only analyzed 12 BB Iberian sites, much remains to be known. Remember what I tell you- the Ciempozuelos style and the deposits where this type of pottery is found, will be key to deciphering the mystery of the BBC once and for all. The chalcolithic cultures of Andalucia and Extremadura are super-interesting too and there can be many surprises. Another important thing is the genetic continuity until the Iron Age and even to the present, it is amazing taking into account the history of Spain.
In any case, you have limited yourself to doubt part of what I say, but you have not explained what your opinion is.
@Kenneth
Ancestry tests aren't the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss GEDmatch tests and your results then try this forum...
https://anthrogenica.com/forumdisplay.php?22-Autosomal-(auDNA)
Ancestry tests offered as part of this blog aren't at GEDMatch. They're described in a variety of posts at this blog as well as here...
https://bga101.blogspot.com/2017/10/genetic-ancestry-online-store-to-be.html
@Simon
The Y-haplogroup for SA6013.B0101 in the relevant paper, Wang et al. 2019, is listed as R1. See here...
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-08220-8/MediaObjects/41467_2018_8220_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx
It's possible that he does belong to R1a, but I've chosen to base my map on unambiguous results reported in the relevant papers.
Often these sorts of samples are re-sequenced as methods improve, so we might see a new version of SA6013.B0101 published at some point, with enough data for an unambiguous Y-haplogroup classification.
Post a Comment