search this blog

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Is Yamnaya overrated?


Four years after the publication of the seminal ancient DNA paper Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe by Haak et al., we're still waiting for some of its loose ends to be finally tied up with new samples. In particular...

- if the men of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) were, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1a-M417, the main CWC Y-haplogroup?

- if the men of the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) were also, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1b-P312, the main BBC Y-haplogroup?

- and, most crucially, if R1b-L51, which includes R1b-P312, and is nowadays by far the most important Y-haplogroup in Western Europe, arrived there from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, then why hasn't it yet appeared in any of the ancient DNA from this part of Eastern Europe or surrounds, except of course in samples that are too young to be relevant?

I'm certainly not suggesting that, in hindsight, the said paper now looks fundamentally flawed. In fact, I'd say that it has aged remarkably well, especially considering how fast things are moving in the field of ancient genomics.

But those loose ends really need tying up, one way or another. It's now time.

So someone out there, please, let us know finally if you have the relevant Yamnaya samples. And if you don't, that's OK too, just tell us what you do have. Indeed, it'd be nice know a few basic details about the thousands of samples that have been successfully sequenced in various labs and are waiting to be published. A lot of people would appreciate it.

See also...

Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya (Anthony 2017)

Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?

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

1,046 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1046   Newer›   Newest»
Archi said...

I always take all the data from direct scientific works, in contrast to Mammoth_Hunter, which takes from some indirect outdated children's books, and still not knowing how to read. Here is the map made on dating from the fundamental research "RADIOCARBON NEOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY OF EASTERN EUROPE IN THE VII-III MILLENNIUM BC'' 2016.

https://ibb.co/d4bySxH

There is all the data, everything is strictly according to the dates. I will explain, the Neolithic in Eastern Europe only Pottery (Pottery=Neolithic, Non-Pottery=Non-Neolithic=Mesolithic in Eastern Europe), Non-Pottery Neolithic she did not know. Of course, at this time there is no Pottery anywhere in the rest of Europe. (Even the Bug-Dniester ceramics is older than the Сrish ceramics, although then the Bug-Dniester culture switches to the Сrish ceramics). Everything, this topic is closed, more on a shouting that everything is not right and I'm not going to answer everything, I'm tired, argue with the scientific data is useless.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"Bug-Dniester culture ... The remnants of the population migrated to the area of the Dnieper-Donets culture, where they played a role in the creation of srednestogovskaya culture."

It's only in the imagination, there's no evidence to support this assumption.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archi


Yes, that image which you link is correct. It shows the pottery Neolithic of Eastern Europe c. 6300 BC (+/- reservoir effect)

This is what you siad:
''Learn archaeology and don't shame yourself.
In Europe first pottery was appeared at 8500-7000 BC in the Elshanskaya culture. In Anatolia this time is Pre-Pottery Neolithic.''

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter "It shows the pottery Neolithic of Eastern Europe c. 6300 BC (+/- reservoir effect)"

Don't write you fantasies, there's nothing like it. There is no hypothetical reservoir effect from 7014BC, there are earlier dates up to 8500 BC, so I indicated the range for the Elshanskaya culture, unlike you, I am not lying, you always do that.

And 6300BC is already all other Volga and Don cultures, this map shows the cultures with ceramics until the end of the 7th millennium, the end of the 7th millennium already on another map "Map 2. Sites of the turn of the 7/6 - 6th mill BC due to radiocarbon dating".

Arza said...

@ Davidski

I think that you're right. It's not the L51 that was brought to Bohemia by this Narva-like wave.

Check this out:
https://i.postimg.cc/HkL2JDXK/bohemia.png

We know that the "Balto-Slavic drift" was sometimes accompanied by the ordinary Iron_Gates-like WHG (Spiginas2, CWC_Poland). If this HG-population that has reached Bohemia was mixed in such way it would explain why Narva was the most similar one in their analysis. Beyond any doubts they didn't try Baltic_BA as a source. They are also incapable of differentiating between those two WHG kinds. There is a huge chance that they don't know what they hold in their hands.

Such migration of HGs responsible for the "Balto-Slavic drift" would neatly explain the occurrence of this "drift" in Kuyavian CWC, Czech, Hungarian and Bavarian Bell Beakers, Welzin (isotopes pointing to Moravia and artefacts pointing to Silesia), Hungary_BA (or rather southern fringes of the Lusatian Culture), some Wielbark samples (Przeworsk actually?)... and finally... Slavs.

I hope that they'll release the data soon.

epoch said...

@Arza

"They are also incapable of differentiating between those two WHG kinds. There is a huge chance that they don't know what they hold in their hands."

Iron Gates like WHG have a large affinity to Anatolian farmers when compared to other WHG's and it's not Basal Eurasian, nor EHG. See the AHG paper.

Vladimir said...

@Archie nevertheless archaeologists this argue. "It is considered to be proved the fact of the beginning of Neolithic late Mesolithic cultures of Ukrainian
Polesie under the influence of the population of the samchinsky phase of the Bugo-Dniester culture (BDK) at the beginning of the VI Millennium BC " (E. V. NOGIN (Institute of archaeology of NAS of Ukraine, Kiev) Neolithic PROBLEMS between the DNIEPER and DESNA. page 17). He refers to the work of L. L. Zaliznyak in particular to the work of the Final Paleolithic and Mesolithic of continental Ukraine. http://elib.psu.by/bitstream/123456789/1557/1/Nogin_2014-1.pdf

Arza said...

@ epoch
was sometimes accompanied by the ordinary Iron_Gates-like WHG

"-like" from the POV of G25: https://i.postimg.cc/tC9dfZRW/IGlike.png

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archie

It’s all pretty clear; I’m not sure why you’re struggling with understanding :

In the Caspian region:
“In the steppe Povolzhye date from 6500–5500 cal BC, In the forest-steppe zone of Middle Povolzhye, the Neolithic period is dated from 6500–4700 cal BC, and in the forest zone of the Middle Povolzhye, the Neolithic period lasted from 6000–4300 cal BC.””
From said authors

In west steppe ;
bug-Dniester is also c. 6300 BC; and by then there’s Neolithic in Balkans.

It’s just
Flows of ideas amongst hunter gatherers on the north frontier of agropastoralist sphere. Nothing to do with Palaeolithic East Asia

Andrzejewski said...

@Vladimir Starčevo was Anatolian immigrants into Serbia. Not HGs. But I don’t agree w/@Archi about Bug-Dniester and Dnieper-Donetsk completely disappearing.

We just saw when it comes to Cucuteni Tripolye that it played a role in the ethnogenesis of Usatovo so I’m happy to see that it did NOT vanish. Commentators used to say stuff like “Farmer admixture in CWC came exclusively from GAC, because the latter were rich in WHG, although people gloss over the fact that CT was just as rich in WHG as GAC - lots of mtDNA HV, R01, etc which are due to foragers. The fact that Corded Ware was rich in farmer aDNA is partly because of CT culture.

Archi said...

Vladimir said...
" @Archie nevertheless archaeologists this argue. "It is considered to be proved the fact of the beginning of Neolithic late Mesolithic cultures of Ukrainian
Polesie under the influence of the population of the samchinsky phase of the Bugo-Dniester culture (BDK) at the beginning of the VI Millennium BC "

There is no way this V statement can be deduced from this ^.

Vladimir said...
"Bug-Dniester culture ... The remnants of the population migrated to the area of the Dnieper-Donets culture, where they played a role in the creation of srednestogovskaya culture."



Mammoth_Hunter said...
"It’s all pretty clear; I’m not sure why you’re struggling with understanding :
In the Caspian region:
“In the steppe Povolzhye date from 6500–5500 cal BC, In the forest-steppe zone of Middle Povolzhye, the Neolithic period is dated from 6500–4700 cal BC, and in the forest zone of the Middle Povolzhye, the Neolithic period lasted from 6000–4300 cal BC.””


Finally, you will learn to read, you are constantly able to read and understand.

And compare it with what I have written.

"And 6300BC is already all other Volga and Don cultures this map" "other" this does not means the Elshanskaya culture.

And you wrote it.
Mammoth_Hunter "It shows the pottery Neolithic of Eastern Europe c. 6300 BC (+/- reservoir effect)"

"In west steppe ;
bug-Dniester is also c. 6300 BC; and by then there’s Neolithic in Balkans."

No, in Balkans there is not pottery in this time. It is maybe only in appearing in Greece territory, first pottery is appeared there in Non-Eastern Europe from Levant.
The Bug-Dniester pottery was appeared later other culture in this map.

Davidski said...

@Arza

Can you do anything with these genotype files? I'm getting an error.

https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/woFcMTgRKNqe4Nzm

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi @Mammoth “This is what you siad:
''Learn archaeology and don't shame yourself.
In Europe first pottery was appeared at 8500-7000 BC in the Elshanskaya culture. In Anatolia this time is Pre-Pottery Neolithic.''

No. Pre-Pottery Neolithic is associated with Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages in the Fertile Crescent and also included South Eastern Anatolia. They may be the source of 20% Levant_N in Ciftlik samples, but that sort of ancestry is lacking in Barcin_N type which moved to populate Europe 2-3 millennia earlier.

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski
"No. Pre-Pottery Neolithic is associated with Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages"

NO No. Pre-Pottery Neolithic = Semitic languages it is full anti-scientific nonsense and fantasies.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski We need to look at the obscure culture Comb Ware or Comb Ceramic: they seem to be the source of an EHG/WSHG in Narva Culture and perhaps have something to do with Volosovo and the EHG non-Uralic substrate in the Saami languages; it seems that prior to IE and Uralic languages there used to be unrelated group of languages which may have been the substrate of Baltic HGs and perhaps also shared it with Erteboelle culture. It’s hard to tell if the forager admixture in TRB/GAC ultimately was mediated via Baltic HG or SHG and if the source of both was identical. But it looks as if Combed Ceramic was another missing jig in the puzzle

Arza said...

@ Davidski
.ind doesn't match .geno

## qpDstat version: 712
fatalx:
OOPS indiv file has changed since genotype file was created

Andrzejewski said...

I’m wondering if the R* (Basal R) split into R1 and R2 and later R1 —> splintering into R1a and R1b was accompanied by a language shift.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
It doesn't pass the hash check:
https://github.com/DReichLab/AdmixTools/blob/master/src/mcio.c#L2820

The workaround is to use convertf with hashcheck: NO. Although there is a risk that samples were not just renamed, but rearranged.

https://github.com/DReichLab/AdmixTools/tree/master/convertf

hashcheck: If set to YES and the input genotype file is in PACKEDANCESTRYMAP
format, check the hash stored inside the file to make sure that individual
and SNP files have not changed since the file was made. If they have, then
exit in error. The default value for this parameter is YES. Note: Caution
should be exercised in turning off hashcheck, as misapplication,
e.g., reordering a SNP file, may silently produce bad data.
It is recommended that if a dataset fails the hash check (for instance
because input sample names have been changed, convertf is run with
hachcheck: NO, and the output used for further processing. The output file
will pass hashcheck.

Vladimir said...

@Archi Many Ukrainian archaeologists write about it. Here is the opinion Kotova N. "Probably, aridization has pushed for the resettlement to the East on the right-Bank Ukrainian forest-steppe carriers early Tripoli culture, which about 5300-5200 BC reached southern pobuzhya put an end to the existence of monuments there Bugo-Dneprovskaya cultures. Part of the Bugo-Dniester population was assimilated by the newcomers, and some were displaced to the right Bank of the forest-steppe Dnieper, where later it was also assimilated by the local Kiev-Cherkassy population." http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/89591/03-Kotova.pdf?sequence=1

Archi said...

@Vladimir
Do you see a word "Probably"? This is an assumption only that has no evidence now, I wrote about that.

Gabriel said...

@Andrzejewski

Commentators used to say stuff like “Farmer admixture in CWC came exclusively from GAC, because the latter were rich in WHG, although people gloss over the fact that CT was just as rich in WHG as GAC - lots of mtDNA HV, R01, etc which are due to foragers. The fact that Corded Ware was rich in farmer aDNA is partly because of CT culture.

If this is so, then how much do you think GAC contributed to CWC/modern Europe, and if nothing, then how do you explain modern European pigmentation? What could have been the source?

Archi said...

Well, it's funny when persons who doesn't know anything in archeology write such fantastic statements like "exclusively" based only on themselves personal fantasies.

Vladimir said...

If not from Bugo-Dniester, where else in Sredniy Stog were people with haplogroup I2a?

Desdichado said...

If this is so, then how much do you think GAC contributed to CWC/modern Europe, and if nothing, then how do you explain modern European pigmentation? What could have been the source?

GAC did not have modern northern European pigmentation. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/22/10705

Apparently, the WHG population did, though--given that the Black Chedder Man hoax has now completely unraveled.

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/7zi904/ancient_darkskinned_briton_cheddar_man_find_may/duohm8i/

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-05-ancient-dna-northern-europeans-languages.html

Archi said...

@Vladimir
"If not from Bugo-Dniester, where else in Sredniy Stog were people with haplogroup I2a?"

I2a was already in the Ukraine in Mesolithic. In the Neolithic period it was probably numerous in different cultures, in particular, in the Azov-Dnieper.

But in Sredniy Stog I2a is unknown.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “I2a was already in the Ukraine in Mesolithic. In the Neolithic period it was probably numerous in different cultures”

So maybe GAC acquired their I2a from Ukraine Mesolithic and not vice versa; either way, Bug Dniester and/or Dnieper Donetsk live on!

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski "So maybe GAC acquired their I2a from Ukraine Mesolithic and not vice versa; either way, Bug Dniester and/or Dnieper Donetsk live on!"

What are the fantastic assumptions? Why make them at all? I2a was widespread in Europe, and to assume some fantasy unconfirmed by nothing is simply unnecessary.
Where are R1bs&EHG from the Ukraine Mesolithic and the Dnieper-Donetsk culture in GAC?

Slumbery said...

@epoch

"Iron Gates like WHG have a large affinity to Anatolian farmers when compared to other WHG's and it's not Basal Eurasian, nor EHG. See the AHG paper."

Can they tell apart an Anatolian shift in the HG source from the mixture of non-shifted HG + Neolithic European farmers? I would not be sure.

Also I tried what G25 based nMontes tell about Anatolian affinity in these HG-s.

"sample": "Baltic_LTU_Narva:Average",
"fit": 6.6326,
"WHG": 90.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 9.17,

"sample": "ROU_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 6.175,
"WHG": 89.17,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 10.83,

"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 4.6901,
"WHG": 92.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 7.5,

In two way models Iron Gates HG does not seem to be more Anatolian shifted than Narva.
Let's see three way models.

"sample": "Baltic_LTU_Narva:Average",
"fit": 3.0572,
"WHG": 75,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 22.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 2.5,

"sample": "ROU_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 2.902,
"WHG": 74.17,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 20.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 5,

"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 2.7097,
"WHG": 81.67,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 15,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 3.33,

Well, based on this it would be at least not trivial to tell them decisively apart when they are a minority admixture into a dominantly EEF-based population.

Archi said...


The new article seems to be a continuation of this article

Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in central Europe.

Knipper C., Mittnik A., Massy K., Kociumaka C., Kucukkalipci I., Maus M., Wittenborn F., Metz SE., Staskiewicz A., Krause J., Stockhammer PW.
Curt Engelhorn Center for Archaeometry gGmbH, 68159 Mannheim, Germany; corina.knipper@cez-archaeometrie.de krause@shh.mpg.de philipp.stockhammer@lmu.de.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114(38): 10083-10088 (2017 Sep)

Human mobility has been vigorously debated as a key factor for the spread of bronze technology and profound changes in burial practices as well as material culture in central Europe at the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. However, the relevance of individual residential changes and their importance among specific age and sex groups are still poorly understood. Here, we present ancient DNA analysis, stable isotope data of oxygen, and radiogenic isotope ratios of strontium for 84 radiocarbon-dated skeletons from seven archaeological sites of the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker Complex and the Early Bronze Age from the Lech River valley in southern Bavaria, Germany. Complete mitochondrial genomes documented a diversification of maternal lineages over time. The isotope ratios disclosed the majority of the females to be nonlocal, while this is the case for only a few males and subadults. Most nonlocal females arrived in the study area as adults, but we do not detect their offspring among the sampled individuals. The striking patterns of patrilocality and female exogamy prevailed over at least 800 y between about 2500 and 1700 BC. The persisting residential rules and even a direct kinship relation across the transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age add to the archaeological evidence of continuing traditions from the Bell Beaker Complex to the Early Bronze Age. The results also attest to female mobility as a driving force for regional and supraregional communication and exchange at the dawn of the European metal ages.

DOI: .1073/pnas.1706355114

Matt said...

@Davidski, I'm sort of mentally playing with that possibility... but more so that if we have some sort of steppe enrichment in Western Asia that is attributed to non-Indo-European groups, it wouldn't seem to leave as much wiggle room for anything further from Indo-Europeans, and associating enrichment of steppe ancestry in these regions with Indo-European at all becomes then more questionable (unless we posit that available samples are outliers and unrepresentative and so on).

"This seems like an unusual proposition, because it would mean that the migrations of Andronovo groups into Turan, and indeed into areas that are seen as the earliest Iranian and Indo-Aryan speaking regions, didn't have anything to do with the spread of Indo-Iranian languages and, along with Corded Ware, aren't really the linguistic link between Balts and Indo-Iranians."

There are lots of problems with structuring higher order Indo-European languages discussed upthread. It doesn't necessarily seem implausible to explain any shared innovations between Balto-Slavic (which are attested thousands of years later) and II by the presence of Iranian speakers later in history in Russia and steppe confederations promoting convergence of certain features. And there are plenty of convergences between Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian to explain (hence suggestions by Hamp and others noted here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenians#Origin).

"All the best with that, but it looks like a lost cause to me, especially also in the context of forthcoming ancient DNA results from the western end of the steppe."

Considering the above, it really depends more on what comes through in Iran and Armenia - will there ever be a sudden pulse of y and autosomal change that can be associated with R1a, and which can only be explained by a historical migration of speakers? Rather than slow and continuous migration with South Central Asia. At the moment this is an open question.

@Gabriel - "Why do Bronze Age Armenians have more steppe ancestry than modern Armenians?"

I know this was a question to Davidski, but it is worth considering that Bronze Age Armenian populations other than Kura-Araxes (e.g. the pops labelled ARM_LBA, ARM_MBA, ARM_Lchashen_MBA) basically overlap with the ARM_Areni_C population (around 4250-3700 BCE), and with the single RUS_Maykop sample: https://imgur.com/a/Y4tGyYA (see red circle).

So these BA Armenians may just represent a local culture, and be more steppe related because their Copper Age forebears were, while shifted Kura-Araxes may represent possibly Hurro-Urartian impulses from the direction of NW Iran and Hajji Firuz CA / or CHG shifted survivor populations from the Caucasus mountain flank.

Moderns Armenians possibly more effected by empires with much deeper penetration into the Armenian hinterland and effect on overall genetic composition than the likes of K-A and Maykop. Armenia (and this part of the world generally) has a fairly rugged topology, so you may get quite a few islets of genetic variation.

Whether they represent a "re-emergence" that never went away or a re-admixture, certainly the Armenian MBA samples (RISE413, RISE416, RISE423) already show any required shifts (1906 - 1211 BCE), and the LBA samples don't really change (1209 - 855 BCE).

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archie

“No, in Balkans there is not pottery in this time. It is maybe only in appearing in Greece territory, first pottery is appeared there in Non-Eastern Europe from Levant.
The Bug-Dniester pottery was appeared later other culture in this map.”

Neolithic pottery in Greece begins 6500 BC
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322231446_Neolithic_Thessaly_radiocarbon_dated_periods_and_phases


“And 6300BC is already all other Volga and Don cultures this map" "other" this does not means the Elshanskaya culture.”


What it means is that the idea of pottery-making spread rapidly around the north P-C steppe in the latter half of the seventh millennium. It wasn’t just sitting ik Elshanka for 1500 years and then spread everywhere else after 1500 years . Those dates from that you brought up at 8500 is nobody supporting
There is no genetic support for Siberian origin of pottery because there in fact WHG- shift during Ukraine Neolithic. There is no extra WSHG in Samara R1b-M73 man

@ Andrzejewski
You’re confusing 2 different things: Pre-Pottery of Fertile Crescent & hunter-gatherer pottery in northwest Eurasia
They’re 2 diffrent things . Pottery developed natively in steppe

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

"Neolithic pottery in Greece begins 6500 BC"

In fact, this is a rounded date obtained from only one place in Greece, it is extremely doubtful. In any case, in Anatolia and in non-Eastern Europe, the ceramic age began a thousand years later.

"What it means is that the idea of pottery-making spread rapidly around the north P-C steppe in the latter half of the seventh millennium. It wasn’t just sitting ik Elshanka for 1500 years and then sprayed everywhere else. Those dates from that you brought up at 8500 is nobody supporting
There is no genetic support for Siberian origin of pottery because there in fact WHG- shift during Ukraine eneolithic"

Nothing of the kind, nothing of such genetics did not establish, do not fantasize not true.
It was established by archeology, as well as all ceramics it came from China, only the way was through Siberia/North Asia and East European ceramics has no connection with the Middle Eastern traditions. You don't understand anything about ceramics at all, you just fantasize.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

## qpDstat version: 712
number of quadruples 1
0 Tauber_CWC 2
1 Lech_EBA 34
2 Lech_MBA 9
3 Lech_BBC 10
jackknife block size: 0.050
snps: 1100288 indivs: 55
number of blocks for jackknife: 555
nrows, ncols: 55 1100288
result: Tauber_CWC Lech_EBA Lech_MBA Lech_BBC 0.0008 0.114 3023 3018 62260
## end of run

M.H. _82 said...

Archie

Pfft. The only thing that’s “rounded up” is your Elshanka claims; and your Opinion of yourself
You’re a pathological liar. Can never bring data to support his claims.

Archi said...

Mammoth_Hunter said...
" Archie

Pfft. The only thing that’s “rounded up” is your Elshanka claims; and your Opinion of yourself
You’re a pathological liar. Can never bring data to support his claims."

Wow. And that's what a person who lies pathologically in every message, whose messages are all false and erroneous, who is shamed here in literally every message.

Davidski said...

@Arza

The workaround is to use convertf with hashcheck: NO. Although there is a risk that samples were not just renamed, but rearranged.

Yep, that works, but the samples might be out of order.

I've sent an e-mail to the lead author.

M.H. _82 said...

Archie

From the latest Russian research
“The earliest Neolithic sites on the border between the steppe and forest steppe in the Volga River basin are indicated by complexes of Elshanka-type pottery (Fig. 1). Elshanian culture had two stages, an earlier and later. The most important sites of the early cul- tural stage are at Ivanovskaya in the Samara River basin and Chekalino in the Sok River basin. The pot- tery was made of silt clay; the bases are pointed and decoration sparse, with pits and incised lines. The 14C dating of different materials (charred crusts, bones, pottery) confirms the appearance of this pottery as early as the beginning of the 7th millennium BC .
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322253813_Radiocarbon_chronology_of_the_Neolithic_in_the_Povolzhye_Russian_Eastern_Europe

Not in 9th millennium

You need psychiatric help.

Archi said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

"The 14C dating of different materials (charred crusts, bones, pottery) confirms the appearance of this pottery as early as the beginning of the 7th millennium BC."

Learn to read! I've written true, you didn't always.

"Not in 9th millennium

You need psychiatric help. "

You're a psychopathic liar, I've never written about her originating in the 9th millennium BC, I've given a range of given dates of origin. You yelled that she was not there in the 7th millennium BC. You lied then, you're lying now, you are brain inadequate.

M.H. _82 said...

Obviously you’re too daft to understand the difference between 9th and 7th millennium

From same paper: “characteristics of the Elshanka pottery type show their non- local origin. The closest analogues to this type can be found on the eastern coast of the Caspian and the Central Asian interfluves, at the Uchaschy, Daryasay, and Dzhebel sites (Kholmatova 2012.106–110). Radiocarbon dates on the earliest Neolithic materials in Central Asia are of the same age (Brunet et al. 2012.118–124).

Nothing about north china.

Archi said...



In any case, judging by the dates of these samples, the disclosure of BBs' secret origin is not expected in the future paper.

BBC (Bell Beaker Complex)
Augsburg – Hugo-Eckener-Straße (HUGO) 2562-2345 2270-2039
Haunstetten – Unterer Talweg 58-62 (UNTA) 2470-2310 2455-2204
Haunstetten – Unterer Talweg 85 I (northern group) (UNTA) 2465-2300 2397-2149
Haunstetten – Unterer Talweg 85 II (southern group) (UNTA) 2456-2155 2290-2141
Wehringen – Hochfeld (WEHR) 2463-2215 2463-2215
Königsbrunn – Ampack (AMPA) 2476-2310 2476-2310

EBA (Early Bronze Age)
Haunstetten – Postillionstraße (POST) 2197-2034 1939-1772
Haunstetten – Unterer Talweg 58-62 (UNTA) 2031-1900 1971-1776
Haunstetten – Unterer Talweg 85 (UNTA) 2025-1895 1960-1774
Königsbrunn – Obere Kreuzstraße (OBKR) 2136-1977 2011-1780
Wehringen – Hochfeld (WEHR) 2029-1916 1918-1772

Archi said...

Mammoth_Hunter

"Obviously you’re too daft to understand the difference between 9th and 7th millennium "

Nobody can say you have a mind. I have written diapason scientific data, but for you the concept of scientific data does not exist.

"Nothing about north china. "

Learn! Ceramics was invented in China (or maybe in Japan, it doesn't matter), and it has been spreading for thousands of years, not just one throw. Naturally, Eastern European ceramics is like Western North Asian ceramics, not Chinese ceramics. But in the West of North Asia, ceramics came from the Middle of North Asia, which came there from the East of North Asia/North China.
Learn to read! I did not write that it is from Chine direct.
However, it is pointless to explain to you, you do not understand any words in any text.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Archie

'Ceramics was invented in China (or maybe in Japan, it doesn't matter),''
Which is not directly relevant for the topic at hand


''In Europe first pottery was appeared at 8500-7000 BC in the Elshanskaya culture.''
^ Is what your lies claimed.

This is what the experts write -> ''Thus the chronological period of the spread of Early
Neolithic Elshanian culture is from 6500–5500 cal BC”

Calibrated dates, based on Bayesian modelling of dozens of samples.
You can't keep bullcrapping & then abusing people when they pull you up on it.

-----------
Im keeping a list of Archie's finest one-liners

'' There are no seafood in them''
'' Sit on Puddle''
'' TRB is full of G2a"'

Archi said...

Mammoth_Hunter

''In Europe first pottery was appeared at 8500-7000 BC in the Elshanskaya culture.''
Yes, it is. This radiocarbon dates exist in the Elshanskaya culture, and pottery dates beginning with 7000BC.

"You can't keep bullcrapping & then abusing people when they pull you up on it."
Lies, you insult people, you are a man who knows nothing, but shouts lies in order to deceive other people. It's not just mistakes, it's intentional atrocity.

In the fundamental collective paper that I have cited, it is written that the formation of the eastern version of Elshansk culture is the beginning of the 7th millennium BC. It also says that there are cautious dates of some scientists who bear the beginning of this culture to the middle of the 7th millennium BC. Nobody cares what you think about it.

You are lying in every message, here are only shameful examples of some of these lies.
1. You cried that there was no pottery in Eastern Europe in the 7th millennium BC.
2. That it is borrowed from the Balkans.
3. that Elshan ceramics is not the oldest in Europe.
4. That there is no reservoir effect on the seashore in Greece.
5. That in the TRB there is not G2a.
6. That the Mycenaean civilization begins in 2300BC.
7. That I wrote invented lies by you.
8. etc.
....
100.

Andrzejewski said...

@Gabriel “If this is so, then how much do you think GAC contributed to CWC/modern Europe, and if nothing, then how do you explain modern European pigmentation? What could have been the source?”

How about the influence of Baltic HG? Scandinavian HG as in Motola? Erteboelle? We all know that Motola/SHG and Baltic HG both had light pigmentation. I don’t know if Erteboelle was WHG or SHG but it was responsible for the light pigmentation of some Northern TRB groups.

Now, among the Anatolian derived tribes, why should GAC be unique and stick out? EEF groups had up to 30% odds of having the derived alleles for blondism and light skin, so you can’t tell me that Cucuteni Tripolye was completely lacking in it while a genetically almost identical ethnic group ie the GAC was the only blond group?

And besides, when we look at the massacred GAC families, they were far from light pigmented.

What I believe happened was that among all 3 macro-constituent groups: foragers, farmers and pastoralists there were people of all types of phenotypes, whereas the cold climate eventually facilitated the commonality of blondism.

Davidski said...

@Arza

I fixed up the rs numbers for chromosomes 1-22 and ran the samples through the Global25. The results make sense, so it looks like the samples are in order.

Can you check the Y-haplogroups for these two Bell Beakers?

UNTA58_68Sk1

WEHR_1192SkA

Arza said...

@ Davidski
Sure! But I need to write a custom script to do this, so I don't guarantee that I'll be faster than actual publication.

Davidski said...

@Nirvana

Please don't ever link to Carlos' idiotic Indo-European website here.

Nirvana said...

@Davidski

Got it. Never know you have beef with the author of that site but no prob. :)

You should make the "right" IE expansion map because there're so many of it through out Google search, most newbies probably pic the one they believe to be true or like the most without knowing the drawler's true agenda.

Desdichado said...

What I believe happened was that among all 3 macro-constituent groups: foragers, farmers and pastoralists there were people of all types of phenotypes, whereas the cold climate eventually facilitated the commonality of blondism.

The cold climate also limited the extent that EEF farmer ancestry was able to proliferate relative to the HGs and pastoralists. I suspect that the phenotype is most common in the area not because of the weather or climate directly but rather indirectly, since the EEF macro-group seems to have the least percentage of that phenotype in their genetics, and their economic model was least productive in the colder climates. In other words, fewer darker "Mediterranean" phenotypes around the Baltic, Scandinavia and the North European Plain (and by extension, Britain) because relatively fewer EEF people replaced the HGs there, and the EEF contribution to the genetics was less.

Even today, the European populations with the lowest percentage of EEF genetic signature are the Estonians, Lithuanians and other people of that general vicinity. Various British and Scandinavians are also relatively low on that angle relative to Balkan or southern European populations.

Vladimir said...

as I understood there there is one an interesting copy ALT_4. Is this CWC L151 ?

Andrzejewski said...

I just don’t understand where @Gabriel linked blondism with GAC?

Desdichado said...

There was an older paper, before the GAC mass grave, that seemed to suggest that a few GAC people were blond and blue-eyed, so the credulous jumped right into believing that the GAC were the blondest people in history (I think someone actually said that, or almost exactly that, in the comments here.) Given that they were descended from the same EEF stock that makes up the majority of Mediterranean populations such as we find in Anatolia, the Balkans, the Italian peninsula and islands and Iberia, I thought that unlikely based simply on parsimony; the peoples today in Europe with the least blondism are exactly the people who are highest in EEF ancestry. But that's what one paper in the past had suggested. Always a cautionary tale to not let one or two data points wag the entire dog, especially if its conclusions are unexpected.

Davidski said...

@All

I had to remove the Lech Valley post for the time being.

Feel free to continue the discussion here though. The PCA files are still at the same links.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-QzNSd2kQvAE/XZe0fE-ksZI/AAAAAAAAIQc/CiizbPBh0XwZIUxm7gQHfpwE09FaASI9gCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Lech_Valley_BBC-EBA-MBA_PCA.png

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1wU3SDyIc0hBb_oSp3eS90R3JxmoYaDgr

Simon_W said...

Where did the latest blog post go? It's melted into air, into thin air.

Davidski said...

@Simon

It was too early for its time.

Gabriel said...

@Simon_W

I asked you on the Lech Valley thread if you could model southern Germans and their Hallstatt vs. Lech Valley ratios, can you do that?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre,
"Corded Ware doesn't have a lot of Globular Amphora ancestry. Its farmer ancestry is from Cucuteni." (paraphrase).

The evidence CWC's farmer admix is from GAC comes more than from G25 PCA. It also is a good assumption based on archaeology. Most of Central Europe switched from GAC in 3000 BC to Corded Ware in 2800 BC.

Globular Amphora had a huge territory encompassing most of Central Europe. GAC territory stretched from eastern Germany to western Ukraine in 3000 BC. All of Poland belonged to GAC. They were the main farmers who Corded Ware encountered.


Corded Ware did include a lot of territory that wasn't in Central Europe. CWC was in Russia forest zone, Baltic States, Scandinavia. DNA & archeaology shows CWC in forest zone Russia came from Central Europe This is why later Srubanaya/Sintashta have Central European GAC ancestry.

Andrzejewski said...

@Andrews what about Cucuteni?

M.H. _82 said...

@ Sam

''DNA & archeaology shows CWC in forest zone Russia came from Central Europe This is why later Srubanaya/Sintashta have Central European GAC ancestry.'

However, the 'proto-Corded' sample I6561 lies on cline with Tripolje, as there was no GAC in 4000 BC

JuanRivera said...

Here's the best model so far that I ran of Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:(Baltic_Comb_Ceramic_Low_Res+Karelia_HG+Yamnaya_Ukraine+Poland_Globular_Amphora, 2.6864, Baltic_Comb_Ceramic_Low_Res 4.17% Karelia_HG 8.33% Yamnaya_Ukraine 80% Poland_Globular_Amphora 7.5%). Interesting is that it suggests that Narva-like HGs were slowly replaced by EHG (beginning in the MN, and especially noticeable in the Estonian Combed Ware sample) in that part of the Baltic prior to the arrival of a mixed EEF-Steppe population.

JuanRivera said...

Also, models of French and Dutch Bell Beakers suggest that they are more than half German Corded Ware-like (80% for the Dutch Beakers), which is to be expected.

Samuel Andrews said...

@mammoth_hunter,
"However, the 'proto-Corded' sample I6561 lies on cline with Tripolje, as there was no GAC in 4000 BC"

True. It's questionable how much of this Tripolie farmer admixture was carried into Central Europe. Many R1a M417 carriers who formed Corded Ware didn't have any farmer ancestry. Corded Ware Baltic early is only 5-10% farmer. G25 PCA fits Corded Ware as only having Globular Amphora & Funnel Beaker farmer admixture.

Davidski said...

It's unlikely that Proto-Corded Ware derives from Sredny Stog II. That's too early.

The Proto-Corded Ware expansion started around 3,500 BC north of the Black Sea, probably from populations that were mixtures of local post-Stog groups and more easterly early Pit-Grave groups.

Early Pit-Grave is something like Repin rather than Yamnaya proper.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Sam

'' It's questionable how much of this Tripolie farmer admixture was carried into Central Europe. Many R1a M417 carriers who formed Corded Ware didn't have any farmer ancestry. Corded Ware Baltic early is only 5-10% farmer. G25 PCA fits Corded Ware as only having Globular Amphora & Funnel Beaker farmer admixture.''

That's true. So, if the CWC -R1a is continuous with that in Sredni-Stog; then the founding population of CWC had first shifted genomically eastward (most likely with some Repin-ike group, as per Davidski), thus 'losing' their earlier farmer-admixture. The other alternative is that there is a frank discontinuity, & the Alexandria R1a-M417 is a dead0end, somewhat unlikely, because the archaeological evidence exactly demonstrates mixture of post-Stog & proto-Repin like groups on either side of the Dnieper.

The second issue is if in fact GAC is the major source of admixture in CWC; because the 2 groups seem to have avoided each other, for the most part, & lived in distinct ecotones (perhaps until much later, in the proto-Trziniec period). Certainly, if we think that BB formed in northwest Europe, the GAC was never very prominent there c.f. Poland. Instead the major source of admixture could be a TRB-West group.

@ Davidski
''It's unlikely that Proto-Corded Ware derives from Sredny Stog II. That's too early.''

Hence the inverted commas. Agree that 3,500 BC is closer to the mark.



Slumbery said...

@Davidski

Were you asked to take down the post about the German Bronze Age samples by the authors of that article, because it was too early? Or is it not visible now for some technical reasons?

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

The lead author didn't ask me to take it down, just to hide some of the info because of a media embargo, but I decided to take it down anyway.

I'll put it back up soon.

Gabriel said...

@David

How is that congruent with Yamnaya being non-IE? Didn’t they also have SSII admixture?

Davidski said...

@Gabriel

My main point is that Yamnaya appears to be overrated as a source of Indo-European languages.

So I'm not saying that it wasn't an Indo-European speaking culture, although even if it was largely derived from Sredny Stog II then there's no guarantee that it was Indo-European.

Samuel Andrews said...

Am I right about this?

The gender specific burial position (women on left side, men on right side) was only practiced by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. If Yamnaya didn't do this, this is a specific burial custom Bell beaker shares with Corded ware. It supports the idea R1b P312+ Bell Beaker was of Corded Ware origin.

Anyways, the new R1b L51 Corded Ware sample with 70% Kurgan ancestry is enough to proof BBC is of CWC origin.

Vladimir said...

Corded Ware did include a lot of territory that wasn't in Central Europe. CWC was in Russia forest zone, Baltic States, Scandinavia. DNA & archeaology shows CWC in forest zone Russia came from Central Europe This is why later Srubanaya/Sintashta have Central European GAC ancestry» To this assert need to find in Europe Z93. They're not there. I think that Z93 West of Ukraine were not. I think that they after Sredniy Stog II together with all R1a-Z645 moved to Kiev area (it is possible to call this culture differently: Northern ancient yamnaya, late Dnepro-Donetsk, early average Dneprovskaya, Kiev-Cherkassk), not in it an essence. The point is that it was the turn of the IV and III millennia. Modern Belarusian archaeologists nowdivide Srednedneprovskuyu culture (turn IV and III) millennia, which came from the North of Ukraine and went towards the Vistula and Srednestogovuyu culture corded ceramics (middle III Millennium and later) really came (returned?) from Poland. These are different cultures, but in this culture there were only Z283 without Z93. Z93 is probably artistic Fatyanovo and Abashevo culture accurately and then Subna culture.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Sam

''The gender specific burial position (women on left side, men on right side) was only practiced by Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. If Yamnaya didn't do this, this is a specific burial custom Bell beaker shares with Corded ware. ''


The idea of gender-differentiated burial was acquired from some Eneolithic farmer groups around the Carpathian region; which developed when the Old Anatolian tradition of burial under the House was abandoned, due to shifts in Ideology.
The actual positioning & orientation could vary, most classically, the orientation to East in CWC, whilst north in BBC

Ric Hern said...

What does the direction of orientation mean ? Does it point to the direction of origin of their Ancestors ?

Vladimir said...

Apparently in mid-late IV millennia clan R1b-Z2103 was the most strong and squeezed out from steppes in forest DM R1A-645 together with R1b-L51. Maybe that's why in subsequent Z93 destroyed Z2103, displacing them from the steppe. Since then, the Steppe has always been controlled by steppe peoples until the 18th century ad.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Ric
Slight mistake on my part, CWC males mostly faced West; not East. Otherwise would have been a great solution

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

Apparently in mid-late IV millennia clan R1b-Z2103 was the most strong and squeezed out from steppes in forest DM R1A-645 together with R1b-L51.

This is nonsense. There's too much of this sort of fantasy online.

Please wait a little longer for more ancient DNA from the pre-Yamnaya western steppe, and then you'll be able to come up with more realistic and coherent scenarios.

Davidski said...

Heh...

Distance to: Tauber_CWC:ALT_4_d

0.05486593 KAZ_Kairan_MLBA
0.05506078 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.05619548 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul
0.05621031 KAZ_Chanchar_LBA
0.05691675 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA
0.05724999 Corded_Ware_CZE
0.05741167 KAZ_Aktogai_MLBA
0.05744813 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.05831892 KAZ_Lisakovskiy_MLBA_Alakul
0.05847928 KAZ_Taldysay_MLBA1
0.05873923 KAZ_Kyzlbulak_MLBA1
0.05887632 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.05908533 KAZ_Karagash_MLBA
0.05970758 TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA
0.05983986 Scythian_UKR
0.06021946 BGR_MLBA
0.06036334 UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
0.06093108 Corded_Ware_POL
0.06117169 KAZ_Mys_MLBA
0.06182045 KAZ_Shoendykol_MLBA_Fedorovo
0.06195641 KAZ_Bylkyldak_MLBA
0.06219237 KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1
0.06238292 POL_Chopice_Wesele_Culture
0.06344015 CZE_EBA
0.06373271 POL_EBA

,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Tauber_CWC_scaled:ALT_4_d,0.1161,0.105615,0.051666,0.065892,0.005847,0.020917,0.00188,0.008077,-0.011862,-0.043919,-0.015914,-0.019033,-0.002379,-0.019267,0.016694,0.004773,0.004433,-0.003421,0.005154,-0.018259,0.020339,0.001607,-0.001356,-0.0194,-0.004191

Pleas keep in mind though, that the _d suffix stands for "damage".

Vladimir said...

Of course this is a fantasy. But in ancient times, the place remained a stronger clan, and the weaker went to the side. So who knows ... can and not fantasies. Unless they split even earlier, on the lower don from where Z2103 went to Sredniy Stog, and L51 to Sredniy Don (Repino) or even earlier in Khvalynsk, from where L51 went to the Middle Volga, and Z2103 to the Lower don. It is bad that in Russia paleogenetics is not engaged at all. Need to explore the Lower and Middle don, Middle Volga, Kama, Upper Dnieper, Upper Volga

Gabriel said...

So, is the Corded Ware Tauber dude the bullet of the smoking gun?

Davidski said...

@Gabriel

So, is the Corded Ware Tauber dude the bullet of the smoking gun?

Nope, when the bullets come, and they should be coming soon, they'll knock you out.

Bob Floy said...

So Tauber looks like he just walked off of a Srubnaya settlement, and had L151(at least)?

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

So I guess he is the bullet that missed, but evidence that R1b-L151 was a Corded Ware lineage, I suppose.

when the bullets come, and they should be coming soon, they'll knock you out.

Do you have heard anything or received info (you don’t have to tell me the details, y’know) on any upcoming early Corded Ware R1b-L51 samples coming, or is this a guess?

Davidski said...

Yeah, L51 samples from Corded Ware burials already exist and I suppose they will be published at some point if they pass the usual checks including peer review.

Gaska said...


I think you are giving too much importance to that sample of R1a in Germany. I remember that Olalde (2018) already found another beaker in Poland with that haplogroup-Dzielnica-I6531/HB0068, feature 243: 2287-2039 (2.163 BC)-R1a1a-At least that's what Olalde published, although I don't know if he has been reassigned to another haplogroup. By this I mean that it is normal that there are R1b outliers in the CWC and r1a outliers in the BBC, because both cultures were in contact for centuries.

Davidski has long thought that L51 has to appear in the SGC, and now it seems that it is confirmed that there is L51 in the CWC. The interesting thing will be to find out how this lineage joined that culture and of course which of the CWC subcultures we are talking about. When I say that L51 did not participate in the first (and main) migration movement of the CWC it is because obviously L51 is elsewhere before the Yamnaya culture. No one has yet shown that L51 is a corded ware lineage

Matt said...

Some Euclidean distance comparisons using individual samples rather than pop means:

Top 20 - Least Euclidean Distance in West Eurasia 9 for Tauber CWC ALT_4_d (individual samples, ancient only):

--------------

1: I2163:BGR_MLBA - 0.0153
2: I7208:CWC_CZE - 0.0155
3: I3767:KAZ_Ak_Moustafa_MLBA1 - 0.0158
4: N17:POL_EBA - 0.0160
5: I6561:UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En - 0.0162
6: I1012:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA - 0.0164
7: I1064:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA - 0.0164
8: I11538:KAZ_Chanchar_LBA - 0.0165
9: I1063:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA - 0.0165
10: I1090:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA - 0.0170
11: I4790:KAZ_Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA - 0.0171
12: N45:CWC_POL - 0.0171
13: I3395:RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA - 0.0183
14: I0232:RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA - 0.0183
15: I0943:RUS_Sintashta_MLBA - 0.0184
16: I4262:KAZ_Karagash_MLBA - 0.0185
17: I4318:KAZ_Kairan_MLBA - 0.0187
18: I4884:CZE_EBA - 0.0188
19: I1532:CWC_DEU - 0.0188
20: I5519:Bell_Beaker_Bavaria - 0.0193

--------------

If early Beaker and Corded Ware are somewhat segregating gene pools though, I would note you could easily get an individual who is closer to CWC samples, but male lineally Beaker. If you have a guy with a male line Beaker grandfather, but all other sources of ancestry are from CWC, you wouldn't really be able to tell him from CWC cluster, autosomally.

-----------------

Lowest sample euclidean distance from the eastern shifted Bell Beaker female 3: https://imgur.com/a/UHu2iEf

Of the 3 Beaker females who are east shifted, 2/3 fit mostly with England Beaker->England CA-EBA, though note that we have lots more samples and earlier than is the case for say, Netherlands, and there are plenty of Central European Beakers up the list too. It seems possible that the females could come from Beaker territory with more steppe ancestry than is typical for local males at Lech Valley, alternatively to necessarily being from Corded Ware settlements? (Along with other alternatives like local structure, etc.)

-------

Differences of euclidean distance, Beaker females vs Tauber CWC: https://imgur.com/a/ENcfiQe (to detect relative shift)

Most steppe shifted female Beaker is shifted CHG-wards relative to Tauber, while the two other females are generally shifted towards Beakers, particularly in Iberia for HUGO_190_d, and away from Baltic_BA/IA, despite being shifted in that direction on West Eurasia 9 PC1. Tauber is shifted towards Baltic_BA / IA against all 3, despite a "lower " (less HG shifted) position on West Eurasia PC1.

(These distance comparisons are all ancients only - if you include moderns you mostly just get the comparisons stacked with North Caucasus (for most steppe shifted female Beaker), Saami/Chuvash/Finnish (for Tauber), and Basques/Irish(for other two Beaker females).

Davidski said...

It'll be interesting to see what Beaker-related explanations people come up with when they see L51 pop up in Russia.

Gaska said...

Obviously I wanted to say that sample of R1b in the CWC-Germany, that can be qualified as an outlier just like R1a in the BB culture in Poland that I mentioned.

For L51 to be a CWC lineage, it would have to be very frequent in that culture and that so far has not occurred. Even in Brandysek the CWC is mostly L51.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

You appear to be making less sense than usual in your last two comments.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

I guess the explanation will be that Central Europe was already inhabited by L51 when the BB culture arrived and that they adopted a new ideology, with new customs and technology.

It'll be interesting to see what IE explanations people come up with when they see L51 pop up in Russia, or maybe the origin of this language is no longer in the steppes but in the North of Russia?

Davidski said...

@Matt

What's your take on UNTA58_68Sk1, the G2a guy? Some sort of farmer survival near the Alps or an elite Beaker from somewhere in the south?

The context of his burial will be very interesting and important I suppose. He was featured in this paper, but I can't really make out what his isotopic signature means.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/38/10083

Gaska said...


It must be the hangover, we all have bad days.

Matt said...

@Davidski: Not sure, he seems like SE European/Hungarian BA-IA samples, in general, in an ancient context? And closest to N Balkans / N Italy in a modern context. Obviously most south shifted of Beaker male set, where WEHR_1192SkA is most north.

Minimum distance, distance vs Tauber_CWC: https://imgur.com/a/O215N7U

The signal in contrast is dominated by bulk neolithic/Anatolian vs EHG related ancestry, but still is identifying source as mostly SE European like neolithic.

Another example of how Beaker interactions in Central Europe tend to involve wider array of y lineages? Like Bell Beaker in Bavaria, Czech, etc. As consequence of more intense interactions/trade. Rather than what looks more like male+local female mixture, then massive expansion demographically, with less subsequent interaction.

The unusual str.isotope ratio probably does suggest some migration like you say. I can't find the info about his grave in the paper - the supplement gives Grave 8 at Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg, but I can't see any treatment of the grave in the paper?

I'm a little confused actually as supplement for Olalde gives a treatment of double grave at Haunstetten, Unterer Talweg 58-62, "Feature 68" (https://media.nature.com/original/nature-assets/nature/journal/v555/n7695/extref/nature25738-s2.pdf) as "E09537_d/Feature 68 Skeleton 2: 2464–2212 calBCE (3870±30 BP, MAMS-29075); E09538/Feature 68 Skeleton 1: 2471–2300 calBCE (3909±29 BP, MAMS-29074)". ("Close to the back of the male individual, a bowl was placed in the burial pit and a wristguard was placed on one of his lower arms. A decorated Bell Beaker was found close to the back of the female individual. Seen from a stylistic and relative chronological perspective, the beaker and the wrist-guard point to a rather early time within the Beaker Complex, which is also consistent with the radiocarbon dates.")

The y (you've given) and mt haplo (J1c) from the paper for 68 SK 1 matches E09538 at AmtDB (https://amtdb.org/records/322), and the almost match in the data for West Eurasia 9 (E09538 is top match for UNTA58!). His co-burial "68 SK 2" match mt haplo for E09537_d at AmtDB (https://amtdb.org/records/321).

But these are different samples? Is this not just the same dude again?

Davidski said...

@Matt

This is the same pair of samples. Good catch!

So they're early Beakers, but the male looks like he's from the south, while the female is more Corded Ware-like than the German Beaker average.

JuanRivera said...

As for the presence of Anatolian ancestry in Balkan HGs, they prefer Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG over Barcin_N (tested that with models containing both). SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_o is more than half Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG

Davidski said...

@All

Does anyone know if Tauber_CWC:ALT_4_d is actually a Single Grave sample?

Obviously, if he is then my prediction of R1b in the Single Grave population has come true.

Matt said...

Cheers. Yeah between the two of them (as interred together), they don't reach to 2500 BCE, but they do get to around 2360 BCE, which is still relatively early compared to most of the sequence. (See: https://imgur.com/a/rkipV6X based on, if I remember, the Olalde Europe Beaker transect).

Looking at the samples for some more:

- HUGO_180Sk1_d may match E09568_d Bell Beaker Bavaria
- HUGO_190 may match E09614_d Bell Beaker Bavaria
- HUGO_168_d may match E09613_d Bell Beaker Bavaria
- UNTA85_1343 may match E09569 Bell Beaker Bavaria

In all cases, same site, feature[grave] number, sex, mt (on AmtDB).

I think that is it, but may be some more matches I haven't seen. As an aside, it's cool that the PCA reproduce almost the same positions despite I think different sampling methods here.

So there may not be as many new Beakers as thought, but the EBA->LBA set look new?

M.H. _82 said...

@ Davidski
There wouldn’t be Single Grave as far south as Bavaria

epoch said...

The Tauber samples seem to have been identified:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=607780&viewfull=1#post607780

The "Althäuser Hockergrab" from Althausen, near Bad Mergentheim in the Taubertal.

Slumbery said...

@JuanRivera

"As for the presence of Anatolian ancestry in Balkan HGs, they prefer Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG over Barcin_N (tested that with models containing both). SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_o is more than half Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG"

Yes, because Pinarbasi HG is WHG admixed (or, given the age of the sample, more like proto-WHG admixed). The AHG paper where it was published also noted that. So of course it is preferred against Barcin when a dominantly WHG population is modelled with it. But it is anachronistic as a source.

"sample": "Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG:Average",
"fit": 2.3882,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 92.5,
"WHG": 7.5,

BTW, at least in G25 nMontes that outlier is half Anatolian even when modelled with Barcin.

"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 2.7097,
"WHG": 81.67,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 15,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 3.33,

"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_o:Average",
"fit": 1.8143,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 53.33,
"WHG": 40,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 6.67,

"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG_o:Average",
"fit": 1.0955,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 52.5,
"SRB_Iron_Gates_HG": 47.5,

So I5232 is indeed a very Anatolian sample. He looks like a child of local HG man and a woman with fully Anatolian background. However other than that I think the AHG paper overestimated the Anatolian admixture into Iron Gates HG. Iron Gates HG is pretty much the western end of the EHG-WHG cline we can see in HG-s from Ukraine (Ukraine Mezo and Ukraine Neo) with a low level Anatolian admixture (in average). The AHG paper got an elevated Anatolian ancestry for them similarly to the two way G25 nMonte runs I copied above, because they did not consider EHG admixture.

Matt said...

Probably something no one is interested in but me, but using the fact that there are pairs of the same Lech BB samples to compare how each projects onto West Eurasia 9 PCA: https://imgur.com/a/fvnv8ko

Only systematic tendency I can see, is it looks like the samples from the new paper project slightly north towards Europe / HG relative (or at least negative on PC1) to the Olalde versions of the same samples. Samples vary in how affected (G2a guy basically isn't affected at all).

So this may be slightly systematic comparing the whole set of samples. It's not huge though.

Couple examples of slight euclidean distance shifts between samples at end.

Arza said...

epoch said...
The "Althäuser Hockergrab" from Althausen, near Bad Mergentheim in the Taubertal

They are mentioned in The Stone Age Plague and Its Persistence in Eurasia:

Sampling and extraction
Sampling of a total of 563 tooth and bone samples (Russia (n = 122), Hungary and Croatia (n = 139), Lithuania (n = 27), Estonia (n = 45), Latvia (n = 10), and Germany (Althausen n = 4, Augsburg n = 83, Mittelelbe-Saale n = 133)) took place in the clean room facilities of the Institute for Archaeological Sciences at the University of Tübingen, the Institute of Archaeology RCH HAS in Budapest and of the MPI-SHH in Jena.

Samuel Andrews said...

Does anyone know the date of the specific Tauber_CWC:ALT_4_d R1b L151 sample? Not the date of 100 different Corded Ware burials found in the Tauber Germany which range from 2800 to 2400 BC but this specific sample.

Gabriel said...

@Desdichado

What do you think of other WHG samples who came out dark, like Brana and Loschbour? Are their results BS too?

Simon_W said...

@Gabriel

I was just writing a reply to you when that thread was deleted. There's the difficulty that there is no South German sample in the Global25 sheet. But the German Swiss are 28.2% Lech_MBA vs. 2.3% Hallstatt_Bylany. The French_East, likely from Alsace, are 27.3% Lech_MBA vs. 1.5% Hallstatt_Bylany. My maternal grandmother, 3/4 Swabian German and 1/4 German Swiss by descent, is 16.7% Lech_MBA and 0% Hallstatt_Bylany. The West German sample in the Global25 sheet is 20.1% Lech_MBA and 0% Hallstatt_Bylany.

What's really curious is that the East German sample is 14.9% Hallstatt_Bylany and 0% Lech_MBA. This Hallstatt_Bylany can't be from Slavic admixture I suppose. So I'm thinking it might be from the Thuringians. Physically they have some Celtic-like tendency. Maybe the ancestors of the Thuringi assimilated some eastern Hallstatt folks in central Germany.

Bob Floy said...

@epoch

So the Tauber samples are definitely CWC, and not Single Grave.

Davidski said...

@Bob

Yeah, they're CWC, but I asked about the Single Grave connection because they're from Baden-Württemberg, and actually pretty close to what is generally assumed to have been Single Grave territory.

vAsiSTha said...

does anyone know how to plot a west eurasian PCA plot instead of an all eurasian one? one that is not sensitive to AHG proprtions. thanks.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

There might be a C14 date for Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 in this paper. But anyway, the CWC burials in that area are dated to the middle of the CWC period. When they say middle they mean ca 2600–2500 BC.

18 individuals from Lauda-Königshofen were sampled for our project, seven of which have been dated. The 14 C dates place the cemetery in the middle part of the German CW, contemporary with Bergrheinfeld (S1 Table).

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0155083

Samuel Andrews said...

It's disappointing there's no date for Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 available right now. Because that, he isn't enough evidence to proof R1b L51 is of Corded Ware origin. Anyways, it is key that now there is a Corded Ware R1b L51 with typical Corded Ware genetic makeup.

@mammouth_Hunter,
"But this is not a 'collective burial' but a family unit.
Interesting
"

I doubt that family burial is the only Corded Ware burial in Tauber Germany. Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 probably comes from an individual burial.

M.H. _82 said...

Question is which one is ALT 4 . The adult male or one of the children ?
Doesn't seem like the classic 'BB warrior burial''; if the R1b-L51 status is confirmed

From Furholt 'Totality'' - 'In the southern German Tauber valley, there is no gender differentiation detectable in the orientation: west–east prevails, as do collective burials (Dornheinet al. 2005)

However, this is not really a 'collective burial' but a family unit, so still individualised. The male & Female are oriented in same direction
Interesting.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Sam

''I doubt that family burial is the only Corded Ware burial in Tauber Germany. Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 probably comes from an individual burial.''

I'm just basing it on what some German dude from AG said; from Epoch's link ''Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 is almost certainly a sample from the Taubertal in the northeast of southwestern Germany(Baden-Württemberg). The Taubertal is the most important CWC region in all of southern Germany.

It's in all likelihood a sample from the "Althäuser Hockergrab" because the ALT abbreviation would obviously fit that. Also, there are four Tauber_CWC:ALT samples and that flexed burial (Hockergrab) had 4 people in it, an adult man, an adult woman and two children''

And as per the previous quote- in this region, the main form of burial was colective (Family)

We don't know if that's the guy, or indeed hes even R1b.

Davidski said...

@Arza

What's the most reliable manual Y-haplogroup assignment that you can get for Tauber_CWC:ALT_4?

Arza said...

@ Davidski

+ L754 R1b1
+ L150.1 R1b1a1b
+ L757 R1b1a1b
+ P310 R1b1a1b1a1
- M405 R1b1a1b1a1a1
- L165 R1b1a1b1a1a2a1b2
- S359 R1b1a1b1a1a2a5~
- L1358 R1b1a1b1a1a2b6~
- DF106 R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a1a1a1a1a
- L744 R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a1d1a

R-L52 (P310) but not R-U106 (M405)

Samuel Andrews said...

@Mammouth_Hunter, I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.

Samuel Andrews said...

A German museum has exhibit on Corded Ware in southern Germany which includes the burial Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 was apart of....

https://www.zum.de/Faecher/G/BW/Landeskunde/franken/museen/mergenth/ausst/dauer/jungsteinzeit/index.htm

"The DNA analysis used to determine the relatives' relationship with the burials revealed a surprising result: For decades, the four individuals had been considered a family of father, mother, and two children. Now we see a patchwork family "in front of us, lovingly in their arms."

Davidski said...

This Tauber Valley Corded Ware "family" burial is very similar to the suspected Battle-Axe human sacrifice burial at Lilla Beddinge, Sweden...

Commoner or elite?

Davidski said...

@Arza

R-L52 (P310) but not R-U106 (M405).

Thanks.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"This Tauber Valley Corded Ware "family" burial is very similar to the suspected Battle-Axe human sacrifice burial at Lilla Beddinge, Sweden..."

Who belonged to R1b U106.....So you are saying there might be a linkage between the two Corded Ware R1bs buried in a similar way.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe people seemed to have a strange habit of burying adults and children as if they were families, even though they probably weren't, at least not in a biological sense.

Richard Rocca said...

@Samuel, in the assignments Arza posted, he has a negative in front of M405 and then also posted “NOT M405 (U106)”.

Davidski said...

@Richard

Samuel was referring to RISE98, who does belong to U106.

I reckon the claims that RISE98 wasn't associated with the Battle-Axe culture were wrong.

These claims were based on the assumption that the relevant burial wasn't typically Corded Ware/Battle-Axe, but that's not true.

Bob Floy said...

Really can't wait to hear about this L51 in northern Russia.

epoch said...

According to the Deutschordensmuseum in Bad Mergentheim, where the remains are displayed, they are dated to 2500 BC.

Davidski said...

Alright, so it looks like we have an L51 from the middle phase of the Corded Ware culture in western Germany.

Who's surprised? I'm not.

Richard Rocca said...

@Sanuel... sorry, I completely misread your comment. Been in and out of airplanes the past two weeks and I'm getting a little loopy. Haha. Thanks for the correction David.

epoch said...

@All

How well established are burial practices connected with "ritual platforms" in pre-BA Europe? I'm trying to search for an overview, but can't find any.

Also, is the use of these platforms the laying out of the dead? Can we be sure of that, or is it an accepted view?

Richard Rocca said...

@David, while this sample does not belong to SGC, I think (not positive) that it might be the westernmost Corded Ware DNA tested sample to date. If that is the case, 1 of 1 Corded Ware sample from a single site being P310 may be a sign of things to come for Corded Ware groups to the west of this sample (SGC, Alsace Corded Ware and Auvernier Corded Ware).

M.H. _82 said...

@ Rocca
I bet that if early CwC samples are analysed from west of Germany; they’ll also be R1a-Z645
Indeed to this day there is some ~10% L664 in Netherlands

Davidski said...

Let's wait for those Swiss CWC samples. I don't know what to expect to be honest. But I guess they'll probably be L664 and/or L51.

I have a feeling that we might be waiting forever for Dutch SGC samples, but a few more CWC males from western Germany should be enough to settle this L51 issue in any case. Also, there might be some useful SGC samples from Denmark coming soon.

Gaska said...


@Mamooth Hunter

"It seems that you know the Prehistoric cultures of Eastern Europe very well and that is why I wanted to ask you which of them is the first that adopted the custom of burying their dead in Kurgans (mounds, barrows, tumuli) which was its maximum geographical extension and if there are exact dates about it"

The importance of this paper is that it helps to understand the formation of the BB culture-Ethnogenesis implies the emergence and diffusion of specific cultural and socio-political features that differentiate members of an ethnic group from other related ethnic groups.In this sense-

"Causes for its pan-European distribution from the Iberian Peninsula to the Carpathian Basin may have included human mobility, increasing transregional connectivity, or social differentiation- The combination of Sr and O isotope data identified 22 of 83 investigated individuals (26.5%) as nonlocal or temporarily living away from the Lech River valley during childhood. Among them were 17/28 (60.7%) females, 3/27 (11.1%) males, 2/27 (7.4%) subadults, and 0/1 (0%) adult individuals of indeterminate sex. Systematic individual movements are an important factor in third millennium BCE societies in Eurasia and force us to reexamine evidence of “migration” that may actually be the result of large-scale institutionalized and possibly sex- and age-related individual mobility"

This paper will confirm the migration of Iberian women to Germany, as some geneticists before Olalde had defended and as evidenced by the fact that Germany and Spain share a large number of mit-haps related to BB culture. The Mediterranean domain decisively contributed to the formation of that culture in Central Europe.

Pretending that the CWC is the origin of the BBC makes no sense archaeologically speaking among other things because northern Europe was much lower technologically speaking, so much that it was the beakers who took the metallurgy to Denmark, The Netherlands, northern France and British Isles, and obviously these techniques were not learned by the CWC, who continued to manufacture stone axes at the end of the Chalcolithic.

epoch said...

@Mammoth Hunter

"Indeed to this day there is some ~10% L664 in Netherlands"

Where does that number come from?

M.H. _82 said...

@ epoch
Sorry - 11% in Denmark; split between L664 & Z284
Netherlands is 6% - L664
(Underhill 2014)

M.H. _82 said...

@ Gaska
Thanks for the kind words. But I don’t quite understand- are you asking me , quoting me or telling me ?

epoch said...

@Mammoth Hunter

No, the *total* incidence of R1a in the Netherlands is 5.7% according to that paper. From the excel sheet:


Netherlands:
Numbers total:87 Numbers R1a (all)5 R1a %: 5,7

Gaska said...

@MHunter

I am asking you if you know for sure what was the first culture of Eastern Europe (Ukraine, Russia ..) that adopted the custom of burying their dead in Kurgans, tumuli, mounds, etc., their maximum geographical extent and the oldest reliable dating. I am not an expert in Eastern Europe prehistory and I suppose you can inform me well.

Matt said...

@vAsiSTha, I don't think there is really a way to do this, since AHG proportion is correlated and can't be disentangled from the West Eurasia PCA position? It may be possible that the best you can do is using ADMIXTURE, or perhaps better ALStructure (https://www.genetics.org/content/212/4/1009) and then extracting AHG, and projecting the remaining samples.

@Davidski: All I'm saying is that the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe people seemed to have a strange habit of burying adults and children as if they were families, even though they probably weren't, at least not in a biological sense.

There may not even be a religious reason for these instance - in collective burials (family or not), individuals have often died separately, and then been treated separately and individually in death, with their remains later gathered and reburied together (although these may accompany a primary burial) or have been sequentially deposited at the same site over time.

(If it is a large scale site with a lot of use by a community, like a megalith, often the remains are re-organised and dis-articulated at the site over time, probably due at least in part for the space to accommodate them, akin to medieval ossuaries).

These aren't usually people who've died at once.

(https://tinyurl.com/yykemrop - "Changing Perspectives on Mortuary Practices in Late Neolithic / Copper Age and Early Bronze Age Iberia" - "At least four different processes can be responsible for the formation of collective deposits: (a) contemporaneous death — simultaneous multiple deposition; (b) sequential death — successive individual deposition; (c) sequential death — simultaneous multiple deposition; and (d) exhumation — simultaneous multiple redeposition. ")

It may be that in some cases, the people doing the burying have simply got it wrong about where the relatives were buried and the kinship relations between a particular grave and the people who died.

Davidski said...

@Matt

These aren't usually people who've died at once.

Fair enough, but do you think that the mass Battle-Axe/Corded Ware burials in Lilla Beddinge and the Tauber Valley qualify as such cases?

Lilla Beddinge, grave 49, page 63...

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/52637

M.H. _82 said...

@ epoch
So 6%. But it’s not M458 etc like in Germany. Look at the R1a ftDNA project
It’s mostly ‘old corded R1a’

Richard Rocca said...

@David said..."Let's wait for those Swiss CWC samples."

From what I was told, there is no R1b in those Swiss Corded Ware samples. It shows up with Bell Beaker and all the samples resolved are U152. Another words, there seems to have been a U152 founder that spread from somewhere in Corded Ware territory south of the Danube into Bavaria, northern Italy and SE France. It likely also used the Danube to move east into the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland.

Matt said...

@Davidski, so Grave 49 is - https://www.archaeology.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.166262.1392032716!/menu/standard/file/Fornander.JONAS18.pdf - "In Grave 49, Three adult males had been placed in line, sitting in crouched positions in a chamber covered by flat stone slabs. Further, fragmented remains of two infants, one juvenile and an adult have been identified. The only identified find was a bone needle". Looks less like a family.

There's some slightly different estimate of time depth on two of the three males that were dated, nothing on the juveniles, so I don't know if it's certain that they happened at the same time or not; it's probably beneath the resolution of radiocarbon dating and the features of the grave might give some clue. I'm not one to gainsay the other paper saying that "According to Malmer, this grave may also be interpreted as human sacrifice (Malmer 2002, 141)." though.

Hopefully this paper will have an archaeological supplement for this grave in the Tauber Valley which we can look at, for *that* grave (if it is the "Althäuser Hockergrab" that looks to plausibly have been identified).

M.H. _82 said...

@ Gaska
The earliest phase of the Kurgan culture is the Ochre Grave Complex found in the northwest & north Black Sea region(4700 BC). Suvorovo-Novodanilovka is phase 3; where it reaches greatest expanse & into carpathians north Caucasus (c. 4250 BC)

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Where precisely is Northern Russia situated ? Any borders that can give a hint ? Are you talking about Belarus or some other place ?

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski I read on a couple of blog entries dating from 2018, that the PIE had approximately 30% EEF, most specifically the Sredny Stog people. Do you still stand by this statement, and could it be therefore that the source of EEF in PIE and CWC is Cucuteni Tripolye rather than GAC?

FrankN said...

Dave [Matt]: "What's your take on UNTA58_68Sk1, the G2a guy? Some sort of farmer survival near the Alps or an elite Beaker from somewhere in the south?
(..) He was featured in this paper, but I can't really make out what his isotopic signature means.
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/38/10083


The Sr isotope ratio is extremely high, 0.71384 for the lower 3rd molar (wisdom tooth), and even 0.7105 for the upper 3rd molar. Such high ratios are rare, and point to an origin (in his case rather youth) in an area with geologically very ancient bedrock. If you compare Fig. S1, the only region in/around SE Germany regularly providing such a high signature is the Bavarian Forest (Cham Culture). Occasionally, they have also been reported around the Middle Inn, where they possibly relate to transhumance towards high mountain pastures.
IIRC, such high ratios are also typical for the Eifel, the Black Forest and the Vosges. Otherwise, the Vercors, the Massif Central, W. Normandy/E. Brittany, the Cote d'Azur and the E. Pyrenees may be considered (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0883292717304134-fx1_lrg.jpg).
Further candidate regions are NW Iberia, Sardinia, E. Wales and NE Scotland. Moravia hasn't yet been analysed in this respect, but seems to have the right geology. Poland, Bohemia, the Balkans, Carpathian Basin and Italy (except for the Alps) OTOH may be safely ruled out. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.469.6898&rep=rep1&type=pdf).

Unfortunately, his oxygene isotope ratio wasn't measured, which otherwise could have helped to narrow down the location.

vAsiSTha said...

Thanks @matt. Do you know what Narsimhan used to make the all Eurasian and west Eurasian PCA plots that can be seen on the tableu data visualizer?

Gaska said...

@MHunter

Thanks, it is interesting to set the oldest limits of this cultural "horizon"

Romulus said...

Much much better study on Dutch Y DNA:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0496-0/tables/1

R1a at 4%

Gabriel said...

@Mammoth_Hunter

That R1a could be of later Germanic origin, like in England. Or do you think most of it is from Dutch Corded Ware/SGC?

@Davidski

Do you think there was any R1b in Battle Axe, given you think that guy was Battle Axe-associated, or could have he been SGC-related?

Samuel Andrews said...

IMO, E09538 with y DNA G2a2 and with isotopes which show he is a migrant, is not from a farmer tribe who stayed isolated from Kurgan invasion.

He has 40% Kurgan ancestry. So, there's no way he's a pure farmer. He is also 60% Danube/Balkan farmer. So, there's no way he is part Bell Beaker (who had Northern Farmer ancestors). Instead, he is probably from Balkan farmer+Kurgan mixed population from Southeast Europe. Vucedol in Hungary/Croatia is the best candidate for where he comes from.

I've counted at least 10 other likely Vucedol immigrants in Bell Beaker. E09538 is not the only one. Also, Several other Beaker samples look like they have a Vucedol parent or grandparent. This means Bell Beaker and Vucedol were in lots of contact/intermarriage with each other.

The best example of another Balkan/Vucedol immigrant is I3594. She is 20% Kurgan, 80% Balkan farmer. She had very rich grave goods, more wealthy than anyone else in her cemetary. Her son was also buried in the cemetary. He had a Beaker dad. Meaning I3594 was a Vucedol "Bride immigrant" who migrated into Beaker in order to marry a Beaker person.

Romulus said...

Blogger Samuel Andrews said...

That is really interesting, nice observation.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, besides extending the corded decorations down to the bottom of the beaker, what other cultural trait were inherited from Western Europe?

Certainly what you said about BBC metallurgy is wrong. From Merkl's study on Bell Beaker metallurgy:

"It seems that the differences that we determine between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker using communities is based more on burial rites or “religion” than on copper technology."

source: https://www.iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2010-01-02-merkl.pdf

Davidski said...

@Gabriel

Do you think there was any R1b in Battle Axe, given you think that guy was Battle Axe-associated, or could have he been SGC-related?

Considering RISE98, it seems like there was some U106 in Battle-Axe.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

I've counted at least 10 other likely Vucedol immigrants in Bell Beaker. E09538 is not the only one.

Can you make a list?

Bob Floy said...

@Richard Rocca

"Certainly what you said about BBC metallurgy is wrong."

I don't think Gaska knows that those axes were mostly ceremonial and/or status objects, but he's going through a rough time right now, take it easy on him.

Gabriel said...


@Davidski

Considering RISE98, it seems like there was some U106 in Battle-Axe.

Given the high ratios of R1a in modern Scandinavians, does this mean Germanics, or at least modern Swedes, are mostly Battle Axe-derived? Or is Single Grave still the key to Germanic origins?

Davidski said...

@Gabriel

Too many questions.

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

Well, I saw this coming. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Samuel Andrews

That reeks of Marija Gimbutas’ theory that Bell Beakers came from the merger of Yamnaya and Vucedol. Obviously she was wrong on that front, but guessed right on Vucedol influence on Bell Beakers... if they’re from Vucedol, that is.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Frank
I think you might be putting too much belief in Isotopic data, which is best served (1) for dietary analysis (2) suggestions of local/ vs non-local signature rather than specific locale of origin.

The genomic data points to UNTA58_68Sk1 lying on a cline between Vucedol-Z2013 & BB- Elbe-Saale; the same cline that all other Czech & Bavarian Beakers line on

Other points to note
1. Outlying CWC samples - early Baltic (Yamnaya shifted), whislt other Blatic & Polish CWC are HG-shifted toward a Ukr -Baltic cline
2. What differentiated Elbe-Saale/ Ned BB from CWC is pull toward a 'mystery population', which is not GAC, yet somehow one of the Hungarian Beakers (male Y-Hg G2a lies on that cline)
3. The diversity of Hungarian BB.
4. The most southern of the BB Pol/Ned/Saale group is the Samborzec Z2013 guy

Samuel Andrews said...

These Beaker samples to me fit the profile of what would be expected from Western Yamnaya and Vucedol. Some only exist in WE9 PCA not the G25 PCA.

Czech I7250 Female WE9 PCA
Czech I7270 Female WE9 PCA
Czech I5025 Female
Czech I5024 Male R1b L51
Czech I4890 Male R1b L51 WE9 PCA
Germany I3594 Female
Germany E09538 Male G2a2
Germany E09537 Female WE9 PCA
Germany I5017 Female
Germany I6482 Female
Poland I6538 Female WE9 PCA

Samuel Andrews said...

@Gabriel,
"That reeks of Marija Gimbutas’ theory that Bell Beakers came from the merger of Yamnaya and Vucedol. Obviously she was wrong on that front, "

But she seems to have not been good at tracking the origins of cultures. I don't take her theories on origins of cultures seriously. She not only wrongly linked Bell Beaker & Vucedol. But, she also wrongly called many Neolithic farmer cultures Kurgan/IE.

Davidski said...

Gimbutas was working with what she had, which, compared to what we've got now, wasn't much.

My mind is still not clear how the Bell Beaker civilization took shape exactly, but I'm pretty sure now that initially the Corded Ware populations from the Lower Rhine and surrounds were a key part of this process.

However, after the Carpathian Basin was "kurganized", both from the north by the CWC and east via Yamnaya, the Bell Beaker complex was affected by gene flow and cultural impulses from this part of Europe.

I'm guessing that's how the Begleitkeramik phase of the Bell Beaker culture came about.

Davidski said...

By the way, the other genetically southernmost and Vucedol-related Beaker from the Lech valley, HUGO_169Sk1_d, also belongs to Y-haplogroup G2.

Bastian Barx said...

I didn't read the comments until here yet, but just what give a heads up about this paper, although you guys probably saw it already, and it's not really news per se, since we always new CWC had EEF admixture.
It made me think, how it gives credence to the idea, that some ancestral form of proto-basque or proto-iberian could have been spoken by the local GAC or TRB women who became a part of the western corded ware, and who in some way had their language passed on to their sons. And that it was this fusion of cultures that the BBC grew out of before they expanded across Europe.

"Mitochondrial genomes reveal aneast to west cline of steppe ancestryin Corded Ware populations":

https://www.academia.edu/37173604/Mitochondrial_genomes_reveal_an_east_to_west_cline_of_steppe_ancestry_in_Corded_Ware_populations?email_work_card=view-paper

Bastian Barx said...

@Mammoth hunter
You asked in the other thread why I clumped you together with Archi, music lover, Gaska and other annoying commenters.

it's because you might be more knowledgeable than other people (I don't know if you even are? Maybe you just think so) but it doesn't matter when you engage in long, petty and childish fights with people like Archi. It makes the threads annoying to read when it's constantly neccesary to skip long vitriolic rants, and comments about how stupid other people are.

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca said-Certainly what you said about BBC metallurgy is wrong.

Gaska said-Pretending that the CWC is the origin of the BBC makes no sense archaeologically speaking among other things because northern Europe was much lower technologically speaking, so much that it was the beakers who took the metallurgy to Denmark, The Netherlands, northern France and British Isles-

Matthias Merkl said-"In north-western Europe the introduction of metallurgy was likely connected with the Bell Beaker phenomenon, as both emerge for the first time in archaeological contexts that are dated more or less contemporaneously.

In other words, Richard, the source you have quoted proves me right.

Rocca said-After more than 10 years of debate, this seems to be the unbiased consensus: The Front Runners:

Yamnaya > Steppe Bell Beaker (highly likely)
Yamnaya > Vucedol (moderately likely)
Yamnaya > Corded Ware > Steppe Bell Beaker (moderately likely)

Do you still think that the Yamnaya culture (3.300-2.600 BC) is the origin of R1b-L51 and the BBC?

M.H. _82 said...

@ Bastian
Well thanks for the advice but if I do lose patience every now & again; then it’s probably because pretty much laid out everything which is unfolding 10 years ago already; & gets irritating being told you’re a layman or don’t understand genetics when you have 5 degrees.
But in any case; you’re probably right - sometimes it’s best to ignore; or wait for the effects of the Double-Shot coffee to settle down

Gabriel said...

Whoever said Yamnaya was very likely to lead to Bell Beaker or Corded Ware, well, I don’t think it’s very likely. Other, earlier steppe groups are the key now.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, anyone who knows anything about overall European pre-history (and not just their own region) knows that metallurgy was introduced INTO Britain and Ireland FROM Rhenish Bell Beakers, which we now know have nothing to do with Iberia. We now know that Rhenish Bell Beakers are practically indistinguishable generically from Coded Ware. Given that their metallurgy was identical to Corded Ware as the study proves, of course they didn’t learn it from Iberian Bell Beakers as you are so desperately trying to claim. By the way, L51 coming from cultures right to the north of Yamnaya around 3000 BC is a whole hell of a lot closer to what I was thinking than your claim that L51 was in Western Europe before Bell Beaker and then P312 expanded from Iberia or SW France with Bell Beaker. You have a lot of nerve trying to call people out.

Gaska said...

@Bob Floy said-I don't think Gaska knows that those axes were mostly ceremonial and/or status objects, but he's going through a rough time right now, take it easy on him.


Ha ha ha, Have you read the name of the thread in which you are participating? I remind you Is Yamnaya Overrated?

In other words, we have just ruled out Yamnaya as a source of L51, R1a, BB culture and even probably as an Indo-European culture, which is exactly what I have been defending for 10 years and the one that is going through a rough time is me? Let me tell you that those who have made a sidereal ridiculous, are those who have been saying these 10 years - There is L23/Z2103 in Yamnaya, ergo there is certainly L51-That is to say approximately 95% of the people who participate in these genetic forums.

Your imagination has no limit, you should try to contribute interesting things and stop worrying about me, I am more than satisfied with everything that is happening. Numantia Victrix

@Gabriel-Whoever said Yamnaya was very likely to lead to Bell Beaker or Corded Ware, well, I don’t think it’s very likely. Other, earlier steppe groups are the key now.

Which other steppe groups?

Gaska said...


Bastian what you should do is show us all the great knowledge you have, instead of insulting the people who participate in this Forum. We are still waiting for you to make some interesting contribution, and if you don't do it, the best thing you can do is find another hobby and stop bothering.

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca said-"Anyone who knows anything about overall European pre-history (and not just their own region) knows that metallurgy was introduced INTO Britain and Ireland FROM Rhenish Bell Beakers, which we now know have nothing to do with Iberia. We now know that Rhenish Bell Beakers are practically indistinguishable generically from Coded Ware. Given that their metallurgy was identical to Corded Ware as the study proves, of course they didn’t learn it from Iberian Bell Beakers as you are so desperately trying to claim"

I really didn't expect such an unintelligent comment from you because I am not desperately trying to claim anything, I simply follow the ideas of the best European archaeologists-

+ Moving into the Metal Ages: The Social Importance of Metal at the End of the Neolithic period in France- Laurent Carozza-"The Paris Basin is a vast sedimentary zone totally lacking in any copper resources, and extractive copper metallurgy (the transformation of ore into metal) was never practised there"

+Le metal et la metallurgie campaniforme en France au IIIe millenaire av. n. e – Mathieu Labaune-Pour autant, contrairement aux poignards qui possèdent une diffusion européenne plus large, les pointes de Palmela semblent caractériser plus particulièrement le monde ibérique.

+The origin of French metallurgy may have to be found in Spain, Ambert and Carozza, 1996.

+ Moving Metals II: Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotope and elemental analyses- Johan Ling, Zofia Stos-Gale, Lena Grandin- "Apart from a steady supply of copper from the Alpine ores in the North Tyrol, the main sources of copper seem to be ores from the Iberian Peninsula and Sardinia"

+ Earlier Bell Beakers. Migrations to Ireland and Britain- C-5 / The arrival of the bell beaker set in Britain and Ireland. Andrew P. Fiztpatrick (2.011). Amesbury Archer (2.380-2.290 BC). In general the typological similarities of the objects in his grave are with Western, not central Europe. 2 knives could be from northern Spain, the third from western France. Although the style of the gold ornaments is British, it may have Iberian origins or represent a fusion of Iberian and central European styles- The gold they are made from, may also be continental European.

+ On the Ocean: The Mediterranean an the Atlantic from the Prehistory to AD 1.500- Barry Cunliffe- In the west, copper was first began to be produced in significant quantity in Iberia towards the end of the IV Millenium BC, and from there the technology spread along the metal rich Atlantic façade reaching the south west of Ireland about 2.400 BC and western Britain at the end of the III Millenium.

I could recommend more works that link the metallurgy of BB culture with Iberia, but you can start with these because it seems you did not know them.You can talk to Prof Fitzpatrick and Prof Cunliffe to explain your theory about Rhenish Bbs, you can surely convince them.




Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

The problem with your reasoning about Yamnaya not being relevant is that you didn't provide a reasonable reason why that was the case especially Genetically because we still see "Yamnaya-Like" Ancestry reaching Western Europe during the Early Bronze Age. This still makes Yamnaya Closer to a hypothesis that will work being it Proto-Yamnaya or any other Steppe or Forest Steppe Culture with the same Shared Ancestor as Yamnaya....

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocca-"L51 coming from cultures right to the north of Yamnaya around 3000 BC is a whole hell of a lot closer to what I was thinking than your claim that L51 was in Western Europe before Bell Beaker and then P312 expanded from Iberia or SW France with Bell Beaker. You have a lot of nerve trying to call people out"

Pathetic, desperate, absurd and counterproductive, that is what I can think of regarding this unfortunate comment.

1-You have not dared to answer my question- Do you still think that since there is L23 / Z2103 in the Yamnaya culture we will find L51 in that culture?- The answer is very simple Yes / NO

2-I remind you that the Yamnaya culture started around 3,300 BC, so what is the culture north of Yamnaya where you say we are going to find L51 in 3,000 BC?

3-Where is that culture, in the steppes? In northern Russia? Are you talking about a culture that spoke an IE language? Could you clarify what you are thinking?

I remind you that you were one of the ultra-Kurganists who said that no one who had prestige in the world of genetics could deny that the descendants of L23 expanded from the Yamnaya culture in the first half of the III Millennium-Your hatred of everything that Iberia represents seems pathetic to me.

I still have not had to change my way of thinking that I will summarize in case you don't remember-

1-Origin of the BB culture in Iberia (2.800-2.750 BC)- Cardoso (2.014)
2-Cultural, technological, commercial and demographic superiority of the Chalcolithic cultures of southern Europe (Iberia and Italy) over those of northern Europe
3-Western origin of P312, probably in the Franco-Cantabrian region (Northern Spain, Aquitaine and Occitania in France)
4-Iberian Origin of Df27
5-Iberian Migrations to other European regions during the BB culture (both men and women)- Fernandes et al 2019
6-Genetic continuity in Iberia linked the P312 lineage between at least 2,500 and the Roman conquest. Doubts about the language spoken by BB culture, of course, in Spain, IE was never spoken until the Iron Age.

I have always said that the origin of L51 is an unresolved problem and that it can appear in German or French Neolithic cultures, the Baltic Countries, the Balcans ..

Ric Hern said...

@ Gaska

And you can not simply move past the TMRCA of 5700 ybp for R1b L51. So show us any Ancient R1b sample closer to R1b L51 at 3700 BCE in Central or Western Europe. While in Yamnaya we see its Closest Relatives at very close to that date....

Kristiina said...

@ Davidski

Do you have 60-OBKR_117_d on your G25? In case you have, could you tell the label. The yDNA assignment is perplexing so I would like to check its autosomal makeup.

Ric Hern said...

Personally I can not wait for those R1b L51 in "Northern Russia ?" like Davidski mentioned and its Date to come to light.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, of course you tried to deviate my post about metallurgy because now your ignorance on the spread of it has been exposed. Hopefully you've learned something you obviously didn't know before.

Of course, what I have written in the past was about levels of probability, and I was never arrogant enough to think that I knew that any one origin in Eastern Europe was the starting point, but I sure as hell knew it wasn't anywhere you were proposing. So the answer now, after being presented with some data, it is not likley that L51 was in Yamnaya and that's why I started the CWC origin thread on Anthrogenica years ago. it's more than you did in your time there. But me not being correct on Yamnaya is OK, because it is at least in easternmost Europe, which is many times closer to where it is found than your insistence, against all logic, that it is going to magically appear in French Neolithic for example. And that was your preferred location, not the Balkans or anything else. And yeah, you mentioned many areas of Europe for L51, but the one you left out is the one where it pops up, so you are the biggest loser in these debates.

As a reminder, here is the thread I started about a P312 CWC>Eastern Bell Beaker origin while you were still insisting on Late Neolithic Iberia and France:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312

Gaska said...

@Ric said "The problem with your reasoning about Yamnaya not being relevant is that you didn't provide a reasonable reason why that was the case especially Genetically because we still see "Yamnaya-Like" Ancestry reaching Western Europe during the Early Bronze Age. This still makes Yamnaya Closer to a hypothesis that will work being it Proto-Yamnaya or any other Steppe or Forest Steppe Culture with the same Shared Ancestor as Yamnaya...."

From my point of view, geneticists, archaeologists and amateurs who for 5 years have tried to revive the corpse of the Yamnaya culture have failed miserably. First they realized that the autosomal component that Haak and after Lazaridis had identified (CHG) existed in the steppe long before the existence of the Yamnaya culture, then they realized that this culture had a strong autosomal component of the EEF that had not previously been located, then ended for failing because they did not find L51 and R1a in Yamnaya with what was impossible to link these haplogroups with the supposed massive migrations and expansion of IE. In other words, an absolute disaster caused by pretending to square the genetic data with previously established theories, that is to say to fulfill a certain agenda.

We have humbly contributed to ending this absurd myth, and now everyone talks about "Yamnaya related ancestry" or "Yamnaya Horizon" to try to remain right. Ok no problem if L51 appears in Northern Russia, Siberia, Scandinavia or the Baltic Countries we will have no problem recognizing it, simply researchers have to provide convincing evidence. Meanwhile and considering the precedents we will continue to doubt their ability to relate genetics to archeology and linguistics.

I also think that everyone is going to have big surprises with L51

Davidski said...

@Kristiina

60-OBKR_117_d doesn't have enough data to be run in any of my tests reliably.

The lack of data is probably also why the automatic Y-hg assignment looks perplexing. You would need to get someone who knows what they're doing to check it manually, and then it'll probably just come out I or at best I1.

Kristiina said...

Thanks! So, I hope that somebody checks it manually. The age of L258 on yfull is only 1800 years and this guy seems to date to 1953-1894 cal BC.

Gaska said...

@Rocca

1-Deviate the metallurgy debate?, how can you say that if I sent you 6 interesting papers for you to consult?
2-"It's not likely that L51 was in Yamnaya"-Ok then you are giving me the reason because that is what I have been saying in Anthrogenica and in this Forum for two years. I'm glad you finally noticed
3-"But me not being correct on Yamnaya is OK, because it is at least in easternmost Europe"

With everything that has happened since the publication of Olalde's paper in 2018, I would be much more cautious when it comes to setting an exact origin of L51. The debate is still open and R1b still has many lights and shadows, even if L51 appeared in Northern Russia we would have to see the dates, the culture to which it belongs and its autosomal components to check the most remote origin of this lineage.

4-Richard this is not a competition about who is the winner or the biggest loser of these debate or what are my geographical preferences (Iberia, France) . It's just about knowing the truth, something that many people don't seem interested in. You can keep ignoring Iberia, but the truth always triumphs

Numantia Victrix-

Bob Floy said...

@Gaska

"we have just ruled out Yamnaya as a source of L51, R1a, BB culture and even probably as an Indo-European culture, which is exactly what I have been defending for 10 years and the one that is going through a rough time is me?"

Yeah, because when you talked about "Yamnaya" in the past, you were clearly referring to steppe cultures in general, you're not really going to deny that, right? After 100+ uses of the term "kurganist"?
What you always meant, and have explicitly argued here before, is that L51(and it's close derivatives) is somehow from the west, and that BB is not steppe-derived.
You've argued for both of these things over and over again, usually in long, rambling tirades. Both of those ideas are looking worse and worse, and have been for awhile.

Now, try to understand something. No one(especially me)cares that Yamnaya turned out to be(probably)not directly relevant to PIE or the spread of L51. This is because the next culture over, Corded ware, which is two-thirds identical to Yamnaya, definitely is directly relevant to the IE and(bronze age) R1 expansions, and this has been obvious for a long time. The idea that R1a, R1b(relevant strains), and IE expanded in the bronze age with one or more steppe related cultures is stronger than ever, Yamnaya is just one such culture, and a lot of us have moved on from it. I personally have thought for awhile now that everything important probably happened further west.

So when you keep crowing about L51 and BB being unrelated to "Yamnaya", it dosen't make any sense, because it dosen't help your arguments at all, since Corded ware is obviously from the same gene pool as Yamnaya. Now, you're aware that L51 was in Corded ware. David has hinted that there's a lot more, and that it's also been found further east, in Russia. Did women from Iberia bring it? They didn't have Y chromosomes, so probably not.
There's good evidence that BB grew out of CW, and it's been shared above, in previous comments. You can look at it if you want, but you're emotionally attached to the idea of BB coming from Iberia, even though central and northern European BBs are clearly not from Iberia.

When you say "the origin of L51 is an unresolved problem and it can appear in German or French Neolithic cultures, the Baltic Countries, the Balcans(sic)", what is that supposed to mean, in light of your other arguments? You know that DF-27 is derived from L51, and that it happened within a relatively short time period, so if L51 is from eastern Europe, in what sense did DF-27 "originate" in Iberia? Do you just say that to make yourself feel better? These are the sort of arguments that OIT supporters like to use, and they're obnoxiously stupid.

M.H. _82 said...

Bob; you seem pretty passionate about proving BB is from CWC. Any reason for that ?

Bob Floy said...

@Mammoth Hunter

No.
I think it looks *likely*, but talking to someone who refuses to consider the evidence for that is frustrating.
I'm not passionate about proving anything, if we had found out that L51 came from north Africa, I wouldn't care.

M.H. _82 said...

@ Bob
Yeah. I tend to agree; you’re just following the data

Bob Floy said...

@Mammoth Hunter

Yes, and wherever the evidence points is where I'll be.
All things considered, a CWC origin for BB looks likely, but if signs pointed to Iberia then I'd be arguing for that.

Gaska said...


@Bob Floy-"You were clearly referring to steppe cultures in general"

1-What I have always said is that the Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink and that they would never find R1b-L51 and R1a there- So I'm right

2-I have also said that at the moment L51 has not been found in any other culture related to the Steppes/Kurgans, ie Repin, Catacomb, Khavlynsk, Sredni Stog, Maykop etc. So far I am right

3-I have also said that L51 can appear not only in the French or German Neolithic but also in the Baltic Countries (as descendants of the Narva culture), or in the Balkans where there are large numbers of R1b mesolithic hunter gatherers

4-I agree with you that the CWC has remained the only culture capable of linking R1a, the steppes and the expansion of IE. There is no problem in recognizing this because I have always thought the same.

5-L51 and BB culture have absolutely nothing to do with the Yamnaya culture, either genetically, linguistically, archaeologically and anthropologically. Not only does what I am saying make sense, it is simply the truth.

6-Yes, we have a sample of P310 in the CWC and? Does that prove anything? You need much more to suppose that BB grew out the CWC. We will wait to see how many samples of L51 they find in this culture, and where exactly in Northern Russia they have found this lineage. Don't rush, I guess it won't take long to find out

7-I guess you'll know what a founder effect means in genetics right? That is exactly the case of Df27 in Iberia

8-I don't care what the OITs arguments are, they are entitled to defend what they think, just like all of us, to consider their arguments stupid and compare them to ours, it just shows that you are rude

It's funny to see dozens of people who have been wasting time for years building myths about the Yamnaya culture, how suddenly they have come to consider that this culture means nothing and that the CWC is really important to explain the origin of L51- JA JA JA

Davidski is trying to save L51 from the stake for months, it will be interesting to see what his arguments are to prove when L51 joined the CWC, how L51 expanded from the CWC, the way the CWC became the BB culture and the reason why R1a gave up moving around Western Europe letting his L51 relatives go.


Hodo Scariti said...

@ Gaska

"I also think that everyone is going to have big surprises with L51"

May you elaborate?

a said...

The strength of evidence for linguistic use of copper(Balkan)within the various ydna groups including R1a and R1b Q J etc...of Khvalynsk region should well exceed the of time/age Beaker R1b use in Iberian peninsula.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, the papers on metallurgy you quoted are opinions based on archaeological typology. The one I linked is from Matthias Merkl who is a renowned metallurgic scientist who actually tested fahlore metal from different sites. It is not an opinion like the ones you posted, his findings are facts.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

Davidski is trying to save L51 from the stake for months, it will be interesting to see what his arguments are to prove when L51 joined the CWC, how L51 expanded from the CWC, the way the CWC became the BB culture and the reason why R1a gave up moving around Western Europe letting his L51 relatives go.

My position on these issues is clear and has been for a while. You can read about it here...

Single Grave > Bell Beakers

I think L51 moved into Western Europe with the Single Grave variant of the Corded Ware culture and eventually became the main marker of the Bell Beaker males.

So far so good, and even if half of the reports and rumors about the pre-publication results turn out to be false, it looks like I'll be proven correct.

Tauber_CWC is no longer just a rumor, and a damn good start.

Matt said...

Note, Vucedol are three samples who are quite diverse at the moment; I4175 female 2800 BCE ("A 40-45 year old female, found in a multiple burial together with six other individuals") is pretty much like Bell_Beaker:E09537_d / Yamnaya Bulgaria:Bul4 and to a lesser extent most Corded Ware; I2792 dated 2677 BCE is a G2a male who isn't distinguishable from the main mass of Copper Age Balkan samples; I3499 with R1b-Z2103 at 2725 BCE is intermediate the two.

I4175 is probably about equally plausible as an ancestor for most Bell Beaker influenced populations as Corded Ware are. But I think you would probably need other Northern Beakers to branch off a population generally similar to what she is, with R1b-L51, and then later samples accumulate more Copper Age Balkan ancestry over time.

(Note that the description for the two Vucedol samples I4175 and I2792 seems to be backwards in the online supplementary data, but I think this should be correct for dates and affinities).

Need more Vucedol samples!

Davidski said...

@Matt

I4175 is probably about equally plausible as an ancestor for most Bell Beaker influenced populations as Corded Ware are.

Hmmm...I wonder why?

Distance to: HRV_Vucedol:I4175
0.01191344 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1065
0.01604525 DEU_BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN:I0171
0.01912642 RUS_Petrovka_MLBA:I0946
0.02013877 CWC_CZE:I6696
0.02117003 Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7250
0.02156664 KAZ_Solyanka_MLBA:I3864
0.02173338 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul:I6793
0.02179541 Bell_Beaker_FRA:I1390
0.02207782 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1055
0.02246976 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1084
0.02251311 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul:I6796
0.02267091 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1011
0.02282323 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul:I6790
0.02283616 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul:I6797
0.02284929 England_CA_EBA:I5441
0.02284995 CWC_Baltic:Plinkaigalis241
0.02286482 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0939
0.02292313 CWC_DEU:I0104
0.02300804 RUS_Potapovka_MLBA:I0419
0.02304951 POL_Chopice_Wesele_Culture:I6537
0.02318448 Bell_Beaker_English:I6778
0.02332681 CWC_DEU:I0103
0.02349702 TJK_Dashti_Kozy_BA:I4257
0.02362985 KAZ_Bylkyldak_MLBA:I6707
0.02368903 KAZ_Kairan_MLBA:I4567

Here's a map that might be useful...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Cultural-geography-of-the-Carpathian-Basin-in-the-first-half-of-the-third-millennium-BC_fig1_263660899

Davidski said...

Yep, bidirectional migrations between Corded Ware/Bell Beaker and late Vucedol.

Synome said...

I would speculate that the later influence on Beaker culture emanating from late Vucedol and other cultures immediately succeeding Vucedol in the Balkans has to do with the introduction of Bronze metallurgy, marking the transition from the Chalcolithic to the Bronze Age proper in central and western Europe.

It might also have involved the introduction of new horse breeds, or a new hybridization of southeastern and northwestern European horses. I'm thinking of the Csepel island horse remains here.

Bob Floy said...

@Gaska

This might be helpful to you:

https://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

Samuel Andrews said...

I didn't know of a Corded Ware immigrant in Vucedol!

Matt said...

@Davidski, maybe, though as I say Vucedol:I4175 is relatively early in Vucedol (not late) and is explicable as intermediate Yamnaya and the Balkans CA (though with relatively little ancestry from the latter). She, R1b-Z2103 and G2a Vucedol are all pretty much exactly on a cline.

Samuel Andrews said...

I took a look at I4175. Yeah, her farmer ancestry doesn't match Globular Amphora. It matches Balkan farmers better. She probably isn't a corded Ware immigrant. She is Vucedol person really similar to Corded Ware.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Matt, Vucedol I4175 does fit as an ancestor of Bell Beaker. But the evidence for Corded Ware origin of R1b P312+ Beaker is coming from multiple that lines that I think it is basically proven. I mean, we just found a R1b L52 (xU106 so probably P312) in Corded Ware.

Bob Floy said...

Yep, the writing is on the wall.
All of that P312 on the Atlantic seaboard ultimately came from CWC, via Bell Beaker.
Anyone wishing to deny this is going to find themselves engaging in special pleading more and more, and finally will have to either admit it or get a new hobby.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 800 of 1046   Newer› Newest»