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...
1,027 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1027 Newer› Newest»@Ric
"...even further North than that along the Northern Belarus latitude..."
Like where this "north Russian" L51 was found, maybe.
Yeah.
Another thing that struck me a while back was how similar the Rathlin island guys are to Sintashta. I remember that in one of David's PCAs they were literally sitting on top of one another.
@ Bob Floy
Yes that confused me at one stage when a spread along and up the Danube were proposed...
@Ric
If you think that Irish and Baltic mythology have interesting similarities, you should compare Irish and Hindu mythology(certain aspects of it, at least) sometime. Rathlin island and Sintashta really are close.
@ Bob Floy
Yes indeed. The thing that caught my attention about Lithuanian is the almost word for word similarities of a lot of mythical stories in Lithuanian and Irish...
You guys are definitely on the right track now, and you might find this Dutch newspaper article interesting...
https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/op-de-veluwe-woonden-eens-misschien-wel-honderdduizend-russen-en-oekrainers~b916bf75/
@Dave
Thanks.
@Ric
In fact, it when when I saw a detailed comparison of the Irish "Tuatha De Danann" to the Indian "Danavas", many years ago, that I first got really interested in the subject of PIE.
@ Bob Floy
Interesting, yes and the Similarities of the Old Irish word Déisi and Desi/Desa in India...
Gaska
If you believe that anyone here thinks that you contributed with anything meaningfull, then you are deluded.
I'm pretty sure most people skip you overly long and super biased nationalistic posts. I know I do.
Moscow/Veluwe. Breathtaking...
And the amount of people who lived in the Netherlands at that time...certainly looks like David's proposed later expansion from the Northwest got some serious meat on the bone there...
Maybe my Geography is a bit rusted, but I wonder why later GAC moved Southeastwards while an expansion directly from Southwestern Ukraine would have pushed them West and Northwards ? It seems to me as if Proto-Corded Ware moved Southwestwards from plus/minus Belarus/Northeastern Poland into Central Poland and cut through the middle of GAC territory ? Or maybe cut through the middle from the Middle Vistula River region pushing some GAC Southeastwards ?
Davidski
Have any of the Baltic CWC samples come back as Z280 or M458 ?
@Sam, at the moment it's only one sample, so I have less confidence in this than if it had sampled a large population with many of the right R1b. You may well be right; we'll see what denser sampling of the more southern half of East-Central Europe in 3000-2500 BCE shows, and also whether the right clade shows up elsewhere in NE Europe as early.
@Mammoth_Hunter
There's Z280 in both Baltic CWC and Baltic BA. No M458.
@ Davidski
Mittnik et al reported Z645. Where can one find further elaboration of calls ?
The article on the Veluwe is quite interesting, although typically written for laymen. The investigation is done by Quentin Bourgeois, who also is involved in the attempt to get DNA from one the barrows described in this article, a late CWC grave from a large alignment called the Epe-Niersen alignment. It was excavated early 20th century, but the actual grave with bones was cast in plaster and stored in the attic of a museum (Rapelenburg). it is now investigated to see if they can sample DNA
To start with the disappointment: It's a female.
The barrow is one of the very few that yielded bone material and the female buried is likely a secondary burial. There might be bone material left from the previous burial.
There is also a bone from either cattle or a horse. Investigation will also be done to determine what exactly that bone is.
By the wat, barrows were added to the Epe-Niersen alignment from early SGC up until the onset of the Iron Age. The archaeologists see continuity.
@ Ric
''Maybe my Geography is a bit rusted, but I wonder why later GAC moved Southeastwards while an expansion directly from Southwestern Ukraine would have pushed them West and Northwards ?''
That is correct, GAC migrated into Southwestern Ukraine, & their contact appears to have been with Yamnaya.
At the moment it might seem confusing, because the information & maps provided such as featured in the lede of this post aren't particularly detailed or useful beyond the narrow aim of their research - to demonstrate that steppe ancestry swept through Europe c. 2800 BC
@Dave
Great article.
It's almost as if some kind of "Kurgan" culture moved into western Europe en masse during the bronze age. Who knew?
@Ric
"and the Similarities of the Old Irish word Déisi and Desi/Desa in India..."
Yeah, and there's tons more stuff like that.
@Mammoth_Hunter
I had a spreadsheet of the Y calls from the BAM files from that paper, but that was ages ago. It might still be linked in the comments below the relevant post, but I'm not sure.
You might have download the BAM files and sift through them.
@all
The archaeologist mentioned in that article wrote a book on barrow landscapes.
https://www.academia.edu/3644724/Monuments_on_the_Horizon_The_formation_of_the_Barrow_Landscape_throughout_the_3rd_and_2nd_Millennium_BC?auto=download
See chapter 5 for a detailed description of the Epe-Niersen alignment.
@Mammoth_Hunter
I'm not claiming that the Rathlin men spoke Celtic, or even that the Baltic Corded Ware people spoke Baltic. Nor am I inviting such claims.
Balto-Slavic-specific drift picks up in the East Baltic during the late Corded Ware period and really shoots up during the Bronze Age.
So I'm assuming that West Baltic arrived in the Baltic region during the Bronze Age, although these people came from the Corded Ware complex anyway, but from further southeast.
Having said all that, it's very difficult not to notice the strong genetic relationships between all of these groups, like the Rathlin guys, Sintashta, Corded Ware practically everywhere, Baltic BA, modern Balts, myself, etc.
@Bob
What's Carlos scribbling about in his latest paper?
Please don't link to it here, I'm just wondering which topic he's massacring at the moment.
@Gabriel
What do you think of other WHG samples who came out dark, like Brana and Loschbour? Are their results BS too?
Don't know. As the one paper I pointed to said, the white pigmentation (and associated blondism and blue-eyedism) was attributed to the WHG element, but those were a later WHG than Loschbour or La Brana.
And that was less a scientific paper and more a review. My point, though, is that with so few data points, when data points seem to contradict expectations of parsimony, they should be looked at skeptically, and more data is needed to resolve the apparent contradiction. I think there's a tendency to jump on a single data point and try to use it to tell an entire population story that may or may not be justified.
@Dave
"What's Carlos scribbling about in his latest paper?
Please don't link to it here, I'm just wondering which topic he's massacring at the moment."
The last thing you ever need to worry about is me linking to anything Carlos does, don't worry.
As far as I can tell, it's take on the "nordwesetblock" idea, which I'm sure is riveting.
*his* take, I mean.
And he wants to tell us all about Yamnaya's amazing journey up the Danube. Lol.
@ natsunoame
Well as far as I can remember donkeys and horses were sometimes put behind a cart, pushing rather than pulling, in Celtic Europe. This cart was used like a combine harvester as shown on some coins if memory serves me right. Heheheeh...;)
@ natsunoame
Gallic Reaper... I'm mostly interested in R1b L51 origins. Doesn't really matter to me which Language they spoke. However Lithuanian Myths and Fairytales similarities is striking for me doesn't matter what Language was spoken and caused this similarities to Gaelic Myths and Fairytales.
@Ric Hern
No doubt the links between Irish and Eastern Indo-Europeans is stronger than many think, especially now that it seems that Bell Beakers came from Corded Ware, although we should keep in mind that a lot of Irish religion came from later Celtic influence.
@ Davidski
“like the Rathlin guys, Sintashta, Corded Ware practically everywhere, Baltic BA, modern Balts, myself”
How do you envisage that ? Baltic BA has its own drift; and Rathlin does not lie on the Baltic-Slavic cline
The similarity goes to middle CWC period ; from what we’ve got so far ; and even that’ isn’t completely explained atm
@Mammoth_Hunter
You're talking about fine scale differences. But these populations are still very similar and obviously largely derive from the same gene pool.
@Arza
Can you check the Y calls for this guy? Apparently he's I1, but his subclade is too young for his 1953-1894 calBCE date.
Lech_EBA OBKR_117_d
@ Gabriel
So how do you link generally accepted most probable
Celtic Culture (Urnfield, Hallstatt or La Tene) with Lithuania or the Lithuanians ?
@ Davidski
+ IJ FGC1564
+ I CTS5650
+ I CTS8963
- I1 M450
- I1 CTS4130
- I1 CTS4790
- I1 CTS5643^
- I1 CTS8394
- I1a1b1a1c2a1~ FGC22154
+ I1a1b1a4a1a1 L258
- I1a2a1a1d2a1c L803
- I2a1a1a1a1 CTS11229
- I2a1a1a1a1a1a1e5~ PF4398
+ I2a1a1a1a1a1a2a~ S294
- I2a1a1b2~ Y21979
- I2a1a2~ Z2587
- I2a1a2~ AM01283
- I2a1a2b S10302
- I2a1a2b CTS10494
- I2a1b1~ FGC3551
In the previous comment I overlooked that S294 is contradicted by xCTS11229, so all that can be safely said is that he's I(xI1).
Ric & Gabriel
The explanation is simple and not a secret.
Lebor Gabala Erenn claims that some of Ireland's earliest colonizers were ancient Eastern Europeans. They came under the leadership of Nemed (Neved), whose ancient kingdom was in the lands of Scythia.
“The Thracian party become the ancestors of the second colonizing race, Firbolgs” (Encyclopedia Britannica, Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and General Literature, 9th ed. Vol.V, Henry G. Allen and Co, 1833, p.299)
ancient artifacts from the British Isles - axes, spears, swords, knives ... are defined by specialists as imported from outside and have a prototype in Scythia and Thrace.
There are some interesting words and personal names parallels too; grain pits,
typical for the Thracians during the Bronze Age, Druidic rituals...
About last mentioned according to the Greek chronicler Hippolytus, the doctrine of the Getae Zalmoxis for the immortality of the soul became the basis of Druidism.
The Firbolgs are credited with introducing highly productive agriculture, creating the first laws and destroying lies, fraud and dishonesty. Even the supreme gods of the ancient Irish are related to the Bolgs.
So L51 is from the area labeled as R1a-Z645/Proto Uralic on that map?
Wouldnt that make it fall within the Middle Dnieper-Fataynavo-Balanovo-Abashevo range of cultures?
Wouldn't it have spread east to Asia in that case or at least be found in Eastern Europe?
Also are there any samples from the cultures mentioned above coming out?
Who says L51 isn't found in Eastern Europe? There are plenty of Komis who belong to L51, and they live just west of the Urals.
So if L51 is confirmed to be from CWC, I guess my hunches for its spread are completely busted. Mea culpa.
What do we think the implications are for Basque then though?
I think there's 3 scenarios:
1 - An R1b-heavy population is assimilated by proto-Basque locals in Iberia.
2 - R1b-heavy CWC culture members were assimilated into proto-Basque speaking Beaker culture, and then re-expanded.
3 - The steppe (and potentially CWC and BB) had multiple languages, and Basque was one of them.
Do others see it that way? Any inkling as to which scenario is favoured?
L51 is found in the Komi but isn't it just one recent subclade of U152 that underwent a founder effect?
You're thinking of Bashkirs.
@natsunoame
Or you're just not very perceptive.
Just wondering, is Abashevo still a candidate for pre-proto-Indo-Iranians?
What kind of R1b L51 do Komi carry? In small groups like them it could be a founder effect of a recent lineage in Russia from western Europe. So, if they have a preeminent of ancient R1b L51 native to Russia it'll evident in whatever subclade they belong to.
@Ryan
I don't know if this relates to Basques, but clearly there was quite a bit of influence from the Carpathian Basin on the Bell Beaker complex. As I mentioned above, this may have led to the Begleitkeramik phase of the Bell Beaker culture. You can read more about that here...
Békásmegyer Begleitkeramik Beakers (I2364) and (I2365)
The gene flow to the north from the Carpathian Basin was mostly female mediated, and it involved the minor spread of southern Y-haplogroups like G2a, rather than the originally "northern" R1b-P312, but it's possible that it was also associated with language change. That's because the migrants from the south were by and large of high status origin.
So here's one more possibly crazy idea to add to the list: Proto-Basque may have been the language of the Carpathian Basin elites who influenced the Bell Beaker complex after its initial expansion.
@Samuel Andrews
What kind of R1b L51 do Komi carry?
Apparently all sorts of subclades, but also some really basal lineages that aren't likely to be from Western Europe.
Bob Floy
...and that is written by someone who, after so many years of searching and running after the wrong theory is still below the pear curve and obviously with zero knowledge about European history...
Shouldn't some of it have moved to Central/South Asia if it was found between the Middle Dnieper and Abashevo and near the Urals? So far we have Z2103,N1a and I2a in Indo-Iranian samples but not L51.
Apparently it decided to move west instead.
In Myres; Komi are overwhelmingly M269 but non-L51; so likely Z2103 (12 of 13%)
So this is not recent Russian influence
And this is interesting in light of Hg N appearing in Poltavka
EVen if it moved west I would expect it at low frequencies in Cimmerian and Alan samples.
I thought the N was in Sintashta not Poltavka.
@natsunoame
"after so many years of searching and running after the wrong theory"
????
LoL.
All jokes aside, though, you truly have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else, which is no surprise considering that you're confused about so much else.
@ natsunoame
After reading your interpretation of events I think I will rather stick to mine. I think I'm safe.
Wasn’t there an N in Poltavka in the new Narasimhan?
The Hg N in Sintashta are outliers; so I’m not sure they were ‘Indo-Iranians’
There's no Y-hg N in the currently sampled Sintashta remains. There is some in a couple of Poltavka samples though.
That's right - Sintashta outliers were Q1a, like an EBA sample from NW Kazakhstan (Aktobe Province, c. 3000 BC); also appear in Shamanka BA (2500 BC); & of course in Okunevo; but absent in Eneolithic Botai.
Is this some migration we're still not fully characterised ?
Dali EBA, steppe Majkop...
So Northern parts of the Middle Dnieper Culture or Fatyanovo Culture for R1b L51 before migration to the West ? Or were they splinters groups from the Main migration or totally unrelated to the Moscow Single Grave ?
I was wondering if "northern Russia" maybe referred to Abashevo.
Abashevo is very closely related to Sintashta. Might even be ancestral to it.
Re links between the Irish and the Europe.
When 1st reading about the weapons recovered from the Tollense Battle site, particularly the wooden clubs, I was immediately struck as to their similarity with Irish war clubs (see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shillelagh_(club) ) and also see the early pics of Tollense clubs. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/slaughter-bridge-uncovering-colossal-bronze-age-battle
No doubt, like flints, there is a commonality, but, the Irish are well known for their mastery and like for the Shillelaugh.
@ dsjm1
Very interesting and also made of the preferred Blackthorn like the Shillelagh. However this could have been a widespread practice all over Europe since the Blackthorn is found from the Lower Don to Ireland. And some African clubs looks basically the same .
@Ryan and Davidski
On the topic of basque, another possibility is that the proto-vasconic language was a north European farmer language. If for instance the steppe migrations that led to the formation of the western CWC tribes, was mostly male mediated (roaming warbands) the males would have taken local GAC wives, since they didn’t bring any, and this fusion of cultures would later lead to the formation of the BBC. Since it's the mothers that raises the kids, it's mainly their language they learn, and that could have been proto-vasconic, which then later spread with the BBC as they expanded. Later becoming basque and aquitanian (Maybe even Iberian?)
The purported huge non-PIE substrate in Germanic could then basically be there for the same reason. Compared to Balto-Slavic for instance, where there doesn't seem to really be a substrate, as I understand it. Which would then be explained by the steppe migrations that led to the eastern CWC were more or less migrations of whole tribes. Men, women and children. And any one accepted into these tribes would then have been forced to completely switch language.
I just recently saw a study that found indications of this difference between eastern and western CWC based on MtDNA. I also remember a study some years back, finding that steppe migrations were generally male driven (which it turns out wasn’t completely true in all cases, I guess)
Obviously it’s just pure speculation, and probably wrong on several points.
So, could Bell Beakers’ ancestors have originated in eastern Corded Ware, bordering the pre-proto-Indo-Iranians, or were they just related to these guys from east of the Baltic?
If Lech_EBA OBKR_117_d is I2a1a1 then that’s got a solid finding in Baden, Hungarian BB; but also Remedello (Also Iberia but that’s probably too far away; & wouldn’t match the other auxiliary evidence)
RE: Bell Beaker. If they were marrying into CWC women & people from the Carpathian basin, there doesn't seem to be much pointing to them adopting the language of north European farmers (presumably implied TRB & the like). Indeed, the latter seem to have been largely excluded from interaction. The site data shows that BBC communities were family homesteads based on cattle farming, which implies a relatively settled mode of settlement, & the basic unit was the nuclear family. Hence i don't find much credence in Kristiansens model
Ric Hern
That's not interpretation but facts, already written in books by scientists and containing conclusions based over the comparison of archaeological data.
pictures with imported bronze objects:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8af7n7xkr7p2t35/AABnV0LXVCbhUTDHHsT4NoQHa?dl=0
P.Harbisson, Pre-Christian Ireland, Thames&Hudson, 1998;
S.James, Exploring the world of Celts, Thames&Hudson, London, 1993;
C.Mattews, The Celtic Tradition, Element Books, Longmead, MCMXCV;
T.G.E. Powel, The Celts, Thames&Hudson, London, 2000;
@ natsunoame
This blogs name is Eurogenes, so I suggest you start there preferably 2015 and younger studies.
@Bastian Barx said "On the topic of basque, another possibility is that the proto-vasconic language was a north European farmer language-Obviously it’s just pure speculation, and probably wrong on several points"
Maybe you could speculate and say nonsense about issues you knew best because you have no idea what you're talking about. Or do you have some deep knowledge of euzkera to dare to make those claims?
You said you don't read my posts, don't miss me, you can't understand them-
For all those who suddenly think that the CWC is the Rosetta stone of L51, you would have to think that this haplogroup is too old to find itself in that culture and that it was also in that region of Europe much long before the Bb culture. Therefore, it is not strange that P310/P311/P312 also appears in some CWC sites. We know nothing about ancient genomes belonging to the SGC and of course the CWC in southern Germany is not precisely the prototype of that culture
Dornheim et al (2.005)- In the Southern German Tauber Valley, there is no gender differentiation detectable in the orientation; west-east prevails AS DO COLLECTIVE BURIALS
The CWC in southern Germany and Switzerland represents the most western end of that culture, as weakened in its traits as the BB culture in Hungary and Poland. They are two sides of the same coin, it is not strange that they appear outlier R1b in the German-CWC and R1a in the BB culture in Poland, Moravia etc.
Caska
But your theory about Iberia can only be taken seriously when L23, L51, L52, L151 are found in Africa along the entire migration route
What theory? what migratory route? what are you talking about? What does Africa have to do with this issue? Have you lost your mind?
I have never said that these haplogroups have Iberian origin. But of course they also have no origin in the steppes-
This new article re: Battle Axe Culture in Scandinavia settles the debate:
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-dna-people-neolithic-axe-culture.html
Casca
Ok. How do you think they got to Iberia? P337-Siberia, the mouth of the Lena river, R-Siberia, lake Baikal, R1 (probably Sidelkino Siberia), R1B Samara. How did P312 or their ancestors from Samara get to Iberia? Your opinion?
Andre's link is a article on this study:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528
Two Swedish Battle Axe Culture Y-DNA: R1a-Z283 and R1a-M417. One Funnel Beaker Y-DNA IJ-M429*
Villabruna 14000 BC, and Malta, Siberia 24000 BC. Still, the question of the route remains, not to mention the autosomal data
@Epoch,
The R1a-M417 sample is from CWC Obłaczkowo, Poland. It's kinda disappointing that they didn't have more Y-DNA samples from the Swedish Battle Axe Culture.
@All I-L158 (I2a2) was listed somehow as common and frequent in as many as 40% of the Sardinia patrilineal lines. How could that be if the WHG ratio in Sardinians is just below 10% and is as common as Yamnaya Samara (both are at 10%)? Does it imply a late Neolithic resurgence like what happened in TRB and GAC due to pestilence?
I have a question for Davidski. You see, I am not very well versed in European UP genetic relations, my knowledge is shaky on the topic and IDK when I might find the appropriate thread to discuss this with you, so here it goes. Please correct me if my current understanding is wrong:
-In the early UP there was the Goyet cluster and the Vestonice cluster which were relevant. There was Oase as well but not much came out of his population group. Sunghir and Kostenki could be grouped in the Vestonice cluster thus making it the most important early to middle UP genetic group, perhaps with Kostenki 14 and 12 representing an early version of it. Other characteristics include them being U2 carriers and the possible place of origin for U5*. The Goyet cluster was defined by being distinct from Vestonice and it also had the mtDNA M (they also had mtDNA U2).
-Then later on, Sunghir and Kostenki-like people (Vestonice cluster) go on to become important contributors to the ancestry of ANS and ANE (about 70% autosomal DNA) and by the time of the late UP there is another player in Europe known as the Villabruna cluster. The Villabruna cluster also mixes with a Goyet-like population in a ratio of ~1/3rd vs 2/3rd to make the El Miron cluster.
-The Villabruna custer is the main ancestor of most WHGs (though they also seem to have minor ANE as well) meanwhile the far western WHGs have more El Miron ancestry than other WHGs. Ultimately however, almost every WHG either has more Villabruna than Goyet or at most an equal amount of Villabruna and Goyet.
My question is as follows: What is the likelihood of Villabruna being simply yet another descendant of Vestonice- one that experienced an extreme bottleneck + later drift? (based on what I know, Vestonice does not have a high affinity to Villabruna, but could this be an explanation for it?)
If this is true, then that could mean that Vestonice/Vestonice-like people form the most important ancestral cluster to: ANS, ANE, EHG (in the form of 70% ANS/ANE and most of the eastern WHG they mixed with) and (most) WHG along with possibly other groups as well.
@Gaska
The CWC in southern Germany and Switzerland represents the most western end of that culture, as weakened in its traits as the BB culture in Hungary and Poland. They are two sides of the same coin, it is not strange that they appear outlier R1b in the German-CWC and R1a in the BB culture in Poland, Moravia etc.
What do you think of the R1b-L51 samples from east of the Baltic?
@epoch, interesting point from the supplementary on one the Polish CWC samples:
poz44: An almost complete although fragmented skeleton of a child (feature E8-A*). AMS radiocarbon dated to 2870-2580 cal BCE (95.4%) (table 1, table S1, Supplementary Section Radiocarbon dating and stable isotope analyses). Two mandibular teeth (I2 and C) and the petrous portion of the temporal bone were sampled for DNA. *We note that RISE1 (48) is also described as the individual from Obłaczkowo feature E8-A. However, their genetic results differ from ours. They present this individual as a molecularly determined male that belongs to Ychromosomal haplogroup (hg) R1b and to mtDNA hg K1b1a1 (48) while our results show this individual to be female, carrying a mtDNA hg U3a’c profile (table 1, table S4). We have backtracked all our handling of this sample and are therefore sure that we present data belonging to the child from Obłaczkowo feature E8-A
This is the early R1b1 sample presented by Allentoft ("RISE1, from Oblaczkowo (Greater Poland), ca. 2865-2578 BC, shows haplogroup R1b1").
It seems if this data is correct, the sample they've identified is not actually an R1b1 male, and there may be a mix up due to intrusion from a later layer or something.
I think this is possibly one of the three R1b in a CW context cited from "a smaller fraction belonged to R1b [3/24] or I2a [3/24] lineages (Tiefbrunn and Esperstedt in Germany, Pikutkowo and Łęki Małe in Poland, and Brandýsek in the Czech Republic)". The paper also cites two/three further R1b.
One of these is the pretty late Corded Ware - "Corded Ware/Proto-Únětice culture of R1b1a-L755 lineage at Łęki Małe - 2170 BCE". Another seems to be an R1b1-L278 from Tiefbrunn at 2725 BCE, but this is quite basal R1b, while the final(?) is a sample I1534 from Esperstedt, median date around 2250 BCE, again not the earliest.
The most interesting thing from a pan-European perspective seems to be that the relatively early CWC finds in the west of Poland push forward position to which relatively Yamnaya-like CWC with little EEF ancestry in Europe, which tends to confirm that, as you'd rationally expect, the earliest CWC were more like CWC_Baltic_early and not like CWC_DEU.
The temporal relationship with LBK like ancestry - https://imgur.com/a/Am4YMwI - though of course this needs to be checked out with WHG as well, is cool, as shows that most appropriate to compare CWC samples to others of their time (are they outliers in neolithic related ancestry relative to their time, even if they overlap late Corded Ware samples?).
As another note, it's noteworthy that they mentioned that Battle Axe had less steppe related ancestry than other CW populations. We probably see a bit of a "reversal of fortune" in steppe ancestry in which populations far from the steppe like Ireland or Norway or Lithuania may have tended to be more admixed during initial waves in line with wave of expansion expectations, but then relatively preserved from later movements or resurgence.
Can we classify the Lapps (=Saami) as remnants of the SHG (Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers), or are they just a separate population of a mixed ANE and WHG, just like the EHG in Steppe populations? Can we say that they are descendants of either the PWC or the Combed Ware cultures?
@Tesmos
You're right
@Matt
That's quite interesting. That R1b was already considered suspect by some of the non-scientists. The Tiefbrunn sample must be the one that Richard Rocca determined to be R1a, but that was assigned R1b in the Mathieson paper: RISE436. I emailed Iain Mathieson about it and he stated it was based on L1349, but that's a C->T mutation and the sample is not UDG-treated so it could just be damage.
I think Esperstedt is considered Bell Beaker.
@Jatt_Scythian
R1a in ancient DNA from India isn't proportional to the amount found there today, so obviously the aDNA samples of Swat valley aren't the answer to the modern frequency or the missing link for current R1a distribution. I2-M223 and R1b, in this case Z2103 probably played a minor role in South Asia, but both came from the steppes and both are in India and Pakistan today in minor frequency.
@Vladimir said-Villabruna 14000 BC, and Malta, Siberia 24000 BC. Still, the question of the route remains, not to mention the autosomal data
Vladimir I believe that Villabuena has about 8%-ANE, then it is clear where part of his ancestry comes from. Since the Epigravettian R1b is a marker linked to the Whg even the Latvian hunter gatheres of the Narva culture are 70% WHgs, then we do not need Samara or the steppes to explain the history of this lineage in mainland Europe-You also have Vk531 in Norway (2,400 BC) without a drop of blood from the steppes. R1b's life is much more complex, it is no use trying to reduce it to Eastern Europe
TLT said-"What is the likelihood of Villabruna being simply yet another descendant of Vestonice- one that experienced an extreme bottleneck + later drift? (based on what I know, Vestonice does not have a high affinity to Villabruna, but could this be an explanation for it?)"
All Iberian HGs, including the oldest (19.000 year old individual from el Mirón) carry dual ancestry from both Villabruna and the Magdalenian related individuals. Iberian HGS form a cline between the GoyetQ2 and Villabruna clusters. This cline also includes el Mirón, which had previously been considered representing its own el Mirón cluster together with all individuals of the GoyetQ2 cluster-The relationship between the Hgs of Italy and Spain that Villabruna represents is evident. Of course, this R1b-L754 lineage did not become extinct because it is also found in Iberia.
@Gabriel-"What do you think of the R1b-L51 samples from east of the Baltic?"
At the moment I do not know any, I have commented with Davidski the rumors that there is L51 in Northern Russia, but I have to see published papers to comment on it. I have already said that we will have to check dates, to which culture it belongs, and its autosomal composition to be able to comment. Do you know any case that we do not know?
@Andrzejewski
Apparently, the I2-M26 is a more recent founder effect. Recall that I2-M26, or its direct ancestor and R1b-V88 lineages were WHG because this was the ancestry that formed after the retreat of the glaciers in Europe. It's a combination of two sets of foragers, one very ancient in Europe, and the other arriving from the east (R1b-Ukraine). That said, these foragers mixed with the incoming farmers around 6500 BC from the Balkans and their autosomes ultimately became more like the newcomers through breeding with them.
@Matt
Are we sure these early branches of R1b in late corded ware aren't derived for L51+ and beyond SNPs? Couldn't it just be damage or low quality?
@AWood, sorry, something probably lost in translation there. It's possible that maybe they are and that may be thought to be true if damage suggests that they simply couldn't call it - I've just reported what I could find, when it was specific.
@Bastian Barx
"On the topic of basque, another possibility is that the proto-vasconic language was a north European farmer language."
This is what I think, for now. And I think that it was probably spoken up and down the Atlantic coast until the Iron age.
@JuanRivera "The Saami are mixtures of post-Corded Ware populations, local HGs (Narva-like, Combed Ware-like and EHG) and Nganassan-like siberians. They bear the most similarity to Levanluhta_IA and modern Finns (especially Eastern Finns; Finns are the same composition as the Saami although with different ratios of each ancestry)."
I'm having a hard time attempting to distinguish between the Baikal_BA and the Oleny Bolshoy. I'm not sure if Uralic people are descendants of the former or the latter, and what the relationship and the split trees are between Olenyi Bolshoi, Combed Ware and Volosovo, and how Uralic people are considered EHG. I'm also having on the same vein a hard time to follow the ancestry of Native Americans compared to East Europeans, as the model I subscribe to is on the marco level of ANE and Transbaikal populations (Magadan, Ulchi?) mixing somehow before hitting Beringia. However, the EXACT attribution of language vis-a-vis genetics is beyond me.
Botai, for example, seem to be the same ratio as Kett (90%-96% WSHG) so perhaps their language and physical appearance don't deviate that much from those of the Yenniseyans?
@AWood It seems like the WHG ratio might've been underestimated in EEF populations like Sardinians. After all, Oetzi turns out to be descendant from a Serbian HG tribe via his maternal side (mtDNA K1f, similar to ones common to many Ashkenazi Jewish women, for some reason!).
What Neolithic culture could Oetzi have been a part of? Vudecol? Baden?
@Bob Floy "@Bastian Barx
"On the topic of basque, another possibility is that the proto-vasconic language was a north European farmer language."
This is what I think, for now. And I think that it was probably spoken up and down the Atlantic coast until the Iron age."
Could it be that the languages of Farmers migrating via the Western maritime route (Cardial Pottery) spoke a completely different language than did their more northerly counterparts, who took the Cris-Koros-Surcevo to LBK/TRB route?
Plus, does that fact that EEF farmers had so much mtDNA diversity as manifested in the range of N1a, H1, HV, X, Z, T, J, K1a and so many others but on the other hand their paternal uni-parental markers were strictly G2a (overwhelmingly!) and to a lesser extent CHG and Semitic ones like E1b1b and J1/J2 - mean that Anatolian farmer migrants into Europe were far from being and constituting a homogeneous populations? If not, then how do you otherwise explain it?
Could GAC be attributed to some Erteboelle or other WHG group making a resurgence and along with their I2a1 genetic markers also imposed their language on the farmer TRB women?
@JuanRivera So Lapps were by-and-large similar genetically to SHG, aren't they?
What do you think is the source of their considerable non-IE non-Uralic (up to 30%)of their ancient vocabulary? Combed Ware? Pit Ware Culture (PWC)? EHG?
A few more Battle Axe folks
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528
@Andrzejewski
Pure speculation, of course, since that's all we can do when it comes to EEF languages, but I suspect that Iberian farmers and northern populations like GAC were not speaking the same language at the beginning of the bronze age. I also suspect that whatever langauge GAC was speaking may have come with all that WHG input, yes.
@Mammoth_Hunter Not GAC or TRB but Atlantic farmers females.
@Floy et al Basque is not close to Etruscan in spite of both being BB languages so something is up here
The Swedish labs are onto it “Individuals from the Pontic–Caspian steppe, associated with the Yamnaya Culture, carry mostly R1b and not R1a haplotypes”
@ Andreas
There’s no such thing as “Atlantic farmers”.
The Atlantic before BB had a multitude of heterogeneous groups; usually in minimal if any contact with each other
@Andre
"Basque is not close to Etruscan in spite of both being BB languages so something is up here"
No, they're not close, and something is indeed, as you say, "up".
Clearly something is missing from view.
I'm fascinated with Neolithic Farmers and their colonization of Europe, as well as with their contribution to modern gene pool:
1. Can it be that mtDNA N1a currently quite common in the Middle East originate with Neolithic Farmers, or is it due to a shared common UP uni-parental marker among Anatolia and Levant populations? (N1a was very common among both Cardial Pottery and LBK).
2. How can you explain the fact that unlike original G2A Y-DNA marker (and lesser common E1b1b, J1, J2 and T) which was the overwhelming Early and Middle Neolithic marker for Anatolian farmer in Europe, the female mtDNA lines were very diverse: X, T, K, N, Z, W, H, HV, etc? Does it indicate that the Anatolian farmers basically spread across Anatolia and exercised exogamous relationships like the Steppe populations were known for?
3. Does the fact that Sardinian populations turned out to be the closest ones to West Eurasian populations which back-migrated and colonized Ethiopia and Somalia ~1,000BCE, could it be likely the the Anatolian Farmers spoke some version of Afro-Asiatic languages (Somali and Amhara are Hamitic and Semitic languages, respectively).
4. If GAC spoke, as @Bob Floy suspects, a WHG forager language of some sort (either mediated via Baltic HG or Erteboelle or both) - is it likely then that the non-IE substrate within Germanic languages, English included - be of WHG rather than an Anatolian origin? Or could it be that both TRB languages AND WHG Erteboelle-derived or Baltic HG-derived ones are part of the English language?
@Andrzejewski
3. Does the fact that Sardinian populations turned out to be the closest ones to West Eurasian populations which back-migrated and colonized Ethiopia and Somalia ~1,000BCE, could it be likely the the Anatolian Farmers spoke some version of Afro-Asiatic languages (Somali and Amhara are Hamitic and Semitic languages, respectively).
It’s extremely unlikely, given that Anatolian farmers aren’t the best candidate for proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers, and the Middle Easterners who migrated to East Africa weren’t exactly Sardinian-like.
Also, that’s the kind of stuff Eupedia was claiming in regards to a possible farmer substrate in Europe.
@Andre
I personally don't think that ANF spoke Afro-Asiatic languages, which very likely hadn't even developed in any recognizable way at the time when the farmers started heading to Europe.
But, about that Germanic substrate...we've talked about this before, and, I don't think it's a sure thing. I'm not against the idea, but would like to see more good evidence for it. If it is a real thing, though, then you may be on to something. If Germanic substrate idea is correct, my hunch would definitely be that it has to do with one or more WHG languages, rather than farmer. Of course, nothing is known about the languages of either group, so we can only speculate.
@Bob Floy @Gabriel "Ancient Ethiopian genome reveals extensive Eurasian admixture in Eastern Africa" - Gallego Llorente et al. 2016
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6262/820
Abstract: "The genetic information from Mota suggests that present-day Sardinians were the likely source of the Eurasian backflow. Furthermore, 4 to 7% of most African genomes, including Yoruba and Mbuti Pygmies, originated from this Eurasian gene flow."
In the body of the article, "In this analysis, contemporary Sardinians and the early Neolithic LBK (Stuttgart) genome stand out (Fig. 2A). Previous analyses have shown Sardinians to be the closest modern representatives of early Neolithic farmers, implying that the backflow came from the same genetic source that fueled the Neolithic expansion into Europe..."
They are also talking about links between Ethiopia and Anatolia.
I myself was very skeptical when I read it today, and therefore I'm posting the link here. We do know that Sardinians are roughly 60% Anatolians, 10% WHG and Yamnaya each and 20% CHG or Levantine (CHG independent of Yamnaya or a related Steppe population, that is).
@ Andrzejewski
I think the Broader Language Family thing doesn't really have any relevance. Most of us average guess needs linguists to point us to similarities between Languages within the Indo-European Group. Can the average guy connect the Most Northern Swedish dialects to English only by listening ? Most can only see the similarities when it is written down on paper. So in short I think most Neolithic Cultures spoke their own Languages that could not easily have been linked by Ear....
@ Andrzejewski
Eg. Listen to Dialects within the Netherlands and see how much Languages can differ within a very small area even if they are all within the Germanic Language Group, and the same group within that group.
@Mammoth hunter
"RE: Bell Beaker. If they were marrying into CWC women & people from the Carpathian basin, there doesn't seem to be much pointing to them adopting the language of north European farmers (presumably implied TRB & the like). Indeed, the latter seem to have been largely excluded from interaction. The site data shows that BBC communities were family homesteads based on cattle farming, which implies a relatively settled mode of settlement, & the basic unit was the nuclear family. Hence i don't find much credence in Kristiansens model"
Having a sedentary lifestyle and being organized in family units doesn't exclude exogamy, so I don't see how this makes contact, and a language transfer, unlikely. On the contrary I thought that it was a fact that GAC and TRB added to the corded ware, depending on location, and thus rhenish BBC genepool? Or maybe I don't understand you correctly.
Regarding the question what the Gaulish Celts of the Western Hallstatt and Western La Tène culture were like, there's the problem that we haven't seen any autosomal samples from them. The ancient proxies so far are: Hallstatt Bylany DA111, which however is from Eastern Hallstatt. Second, there is the Tumulus culture individual from the Lech valley, which however dates to the MBA, and third there are some Bell Beakers from eastern/southeastern France, which predate even the Bronze Age proper.
But looking at these more closely it becomes apparent that their steppe ancestry is modest, around 30%, and their WHG rather high in comparison, up to 17% and more:
Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111
Barcin_N 48.7
Yamnaya_Samara 33.6
WHG 17.7
DEU_Lech_MBA
Barcin_N 57.9
Yamnaya_Samara 29.8
WHG 12.3
Bell_Beaker_FRA
Barcin_N 52.4
Yamnaya_Samara 30.5
WHG 17.1
However, the modern French are quite different: they have more Steppe and less WHG.
French
Barcin_N 48.4
Yamnaya_Samara 39.7
WHG 11.9
Even the Southern French have more Steppe and less WHG:
French_Provence
Barcin_N 51.6
Yamnaya_Samara 38.1
WHG 9.5
Iberomaurusian 0.8
The population from the Aosta Valley (which is Franco-Provencal speaking) is quite similar:
Italian_Aosta_Valley
Barcin_N 51.8
Yamnaya_Samara 39.9
WHG 8.3
So this might make you think that the ancient samples we've got so far are not good proxies for the ancient Gaulish Celts from the Western Hallstatt culture and that the latter had more Steppe and less WHG than the ancient samples. And that therefore a modern population like the Aosta Valley would provide a better proxy.
However, I tested this idea on the Celtiberians from Iron Age Northern Spain:
[1] "distance%=1.644"
Iberia_North_IA
CZE_Hallstatt_Bylany:DA111,42.7
Iberia_North_BA,34.1
Bell_Beaker_FRA,22.8
DEU_Lech_MBA,0.4
Italian_Aosta_Valley,0
They clearly prefer Eastern Hallstatt and some French Beaker over modern Aosta Valley!
@ Andrzejewski
So even if there was any Unity in broad areas in Europe it would have been because of Trade networks and less about Language.
I've also done some rethinking about Italy and the Italics. I always surmised they came from central Europe or Hungary, because the Terramare culture may be from MBA Hungary. And Gimbutas claimed the Protovillanovans came from LBA Bavaria or Upper Austria. Particularly striking to me: The typical Protovillanovan and Villanovan helmets look identical to some eastern Hallstatt helmets.
But, judging from what we know about modern Italian DNA and the ancient DNA from MBA southern Germany, eastern Hallstatt and Bronze Age Hungary, these ideas won't work. Because modern North Italians (and also the very North Italian-like CL36 from Collegno) have a bit more Steppe and much, much less WHG than Hallstatt_Bylany, Lech_MBA and Hungary_BA. Instead they resemble HRV_IA (which is dated to c. 1200 BC in the paper) very closely.
Now, archaeologically, there is some close cultural affinity of the Protovillanovans to the contemporaneous cultures of coastal Slovenia and northern Croatia. So to me it looks like the Protovillanovans (and hence at least one important part of the Italics) came from there and were HRV_IA-like.
Of course if the Gaulish Celts were really as WHG-rich as I suggested, then it's clear that modern North Italians can't have lots of Celtic ancestry.
@ Andrzejewski
I think if there is a Scale which can show the percentage of PIE influence in Each Current Indo-European Language it will be great. With that we can calculate how much PIE descended words from Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Franks, Romans, Brythonics, Normans etc. contributed to the English Language and how much WHG in each and from where those WHGs hailed, contributed to the formation of English.
@ Bastian
''Having a sedentary lifestyle and being organized in family units doesn't exclude exogamy, so I don't see how this makes contact, and a language transfer, unlikely.''
I agree there was obviously exogamy, but the question is with who ?
'' On the contrary I thought that it was a fact that GAC and TRB added to the corded ware, depending on location, and thus rhenish BBC genepool?''
They did but TRB & GAC in turn relationship to CWC & BB might be different for each. It depends if alternative (a) BB grew organically from CWC via accretion of TRB ancestry; or (b) R1b-L51 / proto-Beaker were an independent unit with its own migratory path & t/f genomically distinctive.
The point I understood from from what is being implied by this German middle CWC, if correct, is that the females marrying into BB society were CWC & Carpathian Eneolithic groups. Archaeologically, BB appears on corners of, or across the river from CWC settlements, not TRB.
Kind of returning to my own point above, on "The genomic ancestry of the Scandinavian Battle Axe Culture people and their relation to the broader Corded Ware horizon", I have annotated the position of some of the Polish Corded Ware samples on their PCA fig: https://imgur.com/a/BgBu0IQ
Note that one of the Polish Corded Ware samples, and I would speculate from the f4 stats that this is one of the two earliest, overlaps perfectly with Yamnaya, rather than later Corded Ware, or even the slightly HG shifted Baltic early Corded Ware. I'd also speculate it's the sample with better coverage, poz81 (Obłaczkowo, Poland, CWC, 2880–2630).
The two Polish CWC earlies also overlap in terms of ADMIXTURE results... (No EEF component).
Together with the Baltic samples, that seems to me to be suggestive that some notional models where a Corded Ware population* branches from a population that already has a noticeable excess of European farmer, and suggestively positioned well west of Yamnaya, with Baltic early Corded Ware explained by other means, may be wrong, and the earliest Corded Ware may just have been autosomally Yamnaya like, and branching from a y founder effect in essentially autosomally the same population**.
Also note that I'd guess the later Polish Corded Ware are the HG shifted ones, like Baltic samples, which mirrors what Fst seems to show, which suggests that enriched HG ancestry (of some kind), was not just the preserve of the Baltic, and that the enriched HG ancestry of early proto-Balto-Slavic groups may not even have happened very near the Baltic...
*all standard caveats about how archaeological horizons may not necessarily spring from one population in one place and time etc.
**all standard caveats about how two autosomally identical populations may speak different languages, and practice different material culture, and could have formed through different processes.
It'll be interesting to see what sort of ancestry samples from Usatovo kurgans show, because the Usatovo culture moved west from the steppe at around the same time that the Corded Ware culture was expanding into Northern Europe.
If Usatavo and Dereivka, other Eneolithic samples are R-M417, & given that they already have CWC features, then the closer relation to Yamnaya is still fine with earlier origins before the Yamnaya horizon. Certainly it appears that it is Z645 xZ93 which is particularly Yamnaya-like in its early stage. This gives clues about its possible zone of origin, path of migration, or admixture. Its still not entirely clear, so it would seem premature to suggest otherwise (esp. if such models have tended to be based on a less nuanced understaanding of the data)
Here is the answer to one of the questions raised here: "the arrival of the comb pottery culture (CCC ) is related to the genetic lineage of the Eastern hunter-gatherer (EHG)."Multiple waves of settlement in northeastern Europe: ancient DNA research from the Mesolithic to the middle ages.
Authors: M. Metspalu; L. Sahagin; K. Tambets
From myself I will risk to add pit-comb ceramics = EHG = R1a
S15.O11 Genome-wide ancient-DNA investigation characterizes a genetic contact point in the Eneolithic southwestern Russia
Majander et al.
Abstract
Recent ancient-DNA studies have described substantial gene flow from Bronze-Age populations of the Eurasian steppe. However, their origins and later dispersals to the northwestern end of Eurasian steppe zone remain less understood. In northeastern Europe, the Neolithic and Eneolithic (Chalcolithic) periods witnessed the transition of subsistence strategies of local populations from the foraging lifestyle into pastoralism. These changes both caused and encouraged large-scale environmental modifications and substantiated divisions between boreal forests, temperate grasslands, and the intermediate belt of forest-steppe. Whether the genetics of human populations reflect these environmental zones, is yet to be explored.
Here we target the population-genetic transition processes through genome-wide next-generation sequencing data of 30 Eneolithic to Bronze-Age individuals from seven archaeological sites in southwestern Russia. We observe a consistent signal of the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) -like ancestry, proposing its status as the erstwhile predominant genetic substrate in the region. In close geographic and temporal vicinity, we also show the earliest detected occurrence of mixed EHG and Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry (previously described as ‘steppe ancestry’). In addition, remnants of the genetic ancestry from early Siberian populations, today mainly prevalent in the Native Americans, are present in the region. These results provide novel insight to an integral contact zone between major cultural movements, illuminating the role of the forest-steppe populations in Eurasian prehistory. Furthermore, the gradual integration of a genetic component associated with the Eurasian agro-pastoralists into the forest-steppe gene pool suggests a close contact between these two groups at that time.
S15.O1 Modern Tools for Ancient Data: Quantifying Evolution from Paleogenomes
Link et al.
Abstract
While the sequencing of DNA extracted from fossils has been attempted since 1983, several technological revolutions such as rigorous lab practices and the availability of next-generation sequencing now make it possible to obtain high-quality ancient DNA data for many organisms. This presents an exciting opportunity to include data from multiple time points when studying evolutionary processes such as past demographic events or the action of selection.
However, analyzing ancient DNA data is statistically challenging due to generally low endogenous DNA content and the presence of post-mortem damage (PMD), a process that causes the replacements of cytosine with thymine and hence leads to mutations not reflective of a sample’s diversity.
Here we will present a series of robust statistical tools to quantify and compare genetic diversity across and between ancient and modern samples. Our probabilistic methods explicitly account for genotyping uncertainty as well as PMD and perform well even at very low mean sequencing depth (at or below 1x) as we show using simulations as well as downsampling experiments of real data.
To illustrate the power of these tools, we used them to infer the origin of 18 soldiers from a colossal Bronze-age battlefield in norther Germany. This battlefield, which involved thousands of warriors, challenges the view of a lack of large-scale social organization in norther Europe during that era. As these soldiers died on a single day, they also constitute an ancient population sample, which we use to quantify the strength of selection among Europeans on various phenotypic markers, including lactase persistence.
Sessions were streamed, but unfortunately Majander et al. wasn't recorded as it's under embargo.
https://www.rajulive.fi/stream/eseb/
https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/events/653/program-app/program
The only valuable information about the Tollense is that all of 18 analysed samples represent a single population.
They are toying with low coverage sequences and lactase persistence, but the most important data is still kept secret. Annoying.
Majander et al.
"Iranian Neolithic-related ancestry"
Will they really give us proof that these are Neolithic, not CHG? Lately everyone has been brazenly substituting the concepts, inserting the words "Iranian Neolithic ancestry" instead of CHG without any proof of it. You can see the machine of ideology propaganda.
------------------------------------
The Usatovo culture cannot be ancestral to CWC because it is the culture of mass use of stone in burials, and CWC did not use stone.
@Gaska
>All Iberian HGs, including the oldest (19.000 year old individual from el Mirón) carry dual ancestry from both Villabruna and the Magdalenian related individuals. Iberian HGS form a cline between the GoyetQ2 and Villabruna clusters. This cline also includes el Mirón, which had previously been considered representing its own el Mirón cluster together with all individuals of the GoyetQ2 cluster-The relationship between the Hgs of Italy and Spain that Villabruna represents is evident. Of course, this R1b-L754 lineage did not become extinct because it is also found in Iberia.
I know this and this doesn't answer my question regarding a potential relation between Vestonice clusteers (includes non-Vestonice samples on the cluster) and the later Villabruna cluster. Is a connection between Vestonice and Villabruna clusters plausible or are they really 2 very different things (like Vestonice vs Goyet)?
@Arza
"ancient population sample" =!= (not equal) "a single population" absolutely.
It means a sample of the populations.
@Arza @Vladimir I have always believed that EHG and R1a were the autochthonous populations of Eastern Europe. Wouldn’t surprise me that PIE arose among Ukraine_EN or even Sredny Stog I.
But - aren’t the Ancient Siberian populations referred to here as closest to Native Americans the same EHG inhabiting ancient Eastern Europe? The abstract made a distinction between the two...
@ Archi
"Samples" as in "18 DNA samples" - "18 soldiers". I was referring to the recorded presentation, not the abstract.
Go to 23m 00s
https://www.rajulive.fi/streams/session4-friday-morning/
@Andrzejewski
"Sredny Stog I"
What's he got to do with it?
@Arza
"ancient population sample" has not "samples"
There is
"sample" means "fetch"
"samples" means "exemplars"
What other populations were there? 30,000 years ago haplogroup P337, ancestral to R and Q lived in Eastern Siberia (Yana site). Apparently there in Siberia Q separated from R and for the most part went to America, and R went to the West. Except R no one in Siberia and not was. There same where the in Siberia seceded R2 and plummeting has on South, and R1 continued go on the West. Again, somewhere in Siberia, they separated. R1b went the southern route across the steppe and R1a North through the woods. In Eastern Europe they opt met as EHG and CHG
@ Archi
I know! "18 analysed samples" ("exemplars") are my words, not a quote from the abstract - "an ancient population sample" ("fetch").
The information about them being from a single population comes from the linked video.
Paper is out: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/10/09/science.aax6219
So the Southwestern Russia Eneolithic population did contribute to other Steppe populations...
@Ric Hern "So the Southwestern Russia Eneolithic population did contribute to other Steppe populations..."
Yes, but we don't know *which* one. @Vladimir and I are more or less on the same page that it was the R1a1 EHG people of western Ukraine who may have been the first ever post-LGM people to speak the PIE in its earliest form or shape. The problem I'm having to discern here is WHAT population exactly was the FIRST one, the original if you will, to constitute. We know that the Combed Ware Ceramic people were EHG and they spoke a non-IE non-Uralic language. We also know that a Combed Ware population was responsible for the switch from Kunda (all WHG) into Narva (20% EHG, 80% WHG) among the Baltic HG populations; there was a population continuum from Pit Ware Culture of the SHG in prehistoric Scandinavia all they way to Oleniy Bolshoy and Volosovo. Now, in addition, there's a split between the ancestors of Yamnaya and Sidelkino sometime 7kybp but it's all in the details, the fine tuning.
Khvalynsk DID have samples for the populations close to Native Americans but apparently they ended up at the bottom of the totem pole.
ALT_4 Tauber_CWC 6-7 years Althausen ALT cal BC 2570-2458 U5a1a1 R1b1a2a1a
On the other hand, one individual associated with the Corded Ware complex (ALT_4) could be
assigned to R1b-L11/P310 (R1b1a2a1a) and did not have the derived downstream allele defining
P312/S116.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2019/10/09/science.aax6219.DC1
@Vladimir "What other populations were there? 30,000 years ago haplogroup P337, ancestral to R and Q lived in Eastern Siberia (Yana site). Apparently there in Siberia Q separated from R and for the most part went to America, and R went to the West. Except R no one in Siberia and not was. There same where the in Siberia seceded R2 and plummeting has on South, and R1 continued go on the West. Again, somewhere in Siberia, they separated. R1b went the southern route across the steppe and R1a North through the woods. In Eastern Europe they opt met as EHG and CHG"
Here's the rub: Yana and MA1/Ancient North Eurasians (ANE) are some sort of sister ghost populations. It's supposed that EHG descend directly from ANE + some WHG admixture, whereas OTOH CHG/"Iran Neolithic" somewhat derive a significant amount of ancestry (35% in CHG, 50% in Iran Neo) from Yana populations.
Yamnaya which was an almost an even admixture of EHG:CHG ratio 1:1 was ~50% ANE, as it's estimated that EHG contributed 75% and CHG was 35% so the average was more or less 50% Ancient North Eurasian.
However, in my opinion it could be that the researchers picked the wrong signals, and somehow mistook Yana to be ANE or vise versa. If that case hold water, then Steppe populations may be entirely descendants of Yana population instead of traces of ANE/AG3, or it could be that Steppe populations were only ANE/EHG and the CHG contribution was misguided or erroneous.
Just thinking...
@Andrzejewski
No one knows which language the Combed Ware Ceramic people spoke, and it is impossible to claim that they spoke a non-Indo-European language, but it can only be said that they did not speak Uralic.
It'd be nice to see the Alexandria Sredny Stog II R1a-M417 I6561 put on Kivisild's tree - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-017-1773-z
The sample is radio-carbon dated to 6010 BP, which is pretty much at the exact time of the split point within all extant R1a-M417 on Kivisild's tree. (Technically Kivisild's tree splits them at 5750 BP, so I6561 is a little early for that split, but it's probably not that exact.) All extant R1a-M417 essentially have a rake phylogeny, indicating more or less uniform dispersal from a single ancestor, at this point.
So it would be interesting to see if he fits as shallowly branching from extant R1a-M417 at this time, or is a more basal R1a-M417, diverging from extant R1a-M417 at 8500 BP, and not on the ancestral line for any extant M417.
More Sredny Stog II samples would be useful for this end, also, as a robusticity check on dates, etc for the single sample.
@Matt
This sample from Alexandria has never been attributed to the Sredniy Stog II either archaeologically nor temporally.
@ Andrzejewski
Seems to me that you missed the possibility of an Expansion from the Lower Don. This expansion could have moved up the Don and Volga and another up the Dnieper and mixed on their way to form Proto-Yamnaya and Proto-Corded Ware....
as toponymists claim on the Russian European plain before the Indo-European and Fino-Ugric there was some language, maybe Lapland? On the other hand, as Bomhard writes Indo-European is a mixture of Uralic and Sino-Caucasian, so who knows ...
If R1b L51 was part of this expansion and ended up on the Moscow Latitude, which path did it take ? Up the Volga, up the Don or up the Dnieper ?
If to accept for axiom, that pit-comb ceramics this R1a, then most Northern that could be L51 this culture nakolchatoy ceramics: the Average Volga-the Average don-North Dnepro-Donetsk - North Sredniy StogII, North drevne Yamnay (1 phase), the Average Dnepr and forth on Poland or Baltic
From Arza's quote, so Tauber CWC male sample approx. 2514 BCE, ALT_4, is basically dated at the terminus of CWC and entry of BBC in this region?
From supplement "CWC; ca. 2800–2500 BC)" in the Lech Region where "The Lech Valley seems to have been one of the peripheral regions of the CWC (similar to the Munich Gravel Plain)", then "Bell Beaker Complex (BBC; ca. 2500–2150 BC)" appears "Around 2500 BC, burials of the BBC appeared in Southern Germany and also in the Lech Valley, e.g. at Wehringen (individual WEHR_1192SkA), Haunstetten, Augsburg and Gerbishofen (84, 89)"
Didn't expect that as thought the samples in the graphic in Alex Kim's tweet I had thought were in chronological order (https://twitter.com/amwkim/status/1042316978231369728) and though the series would start before that but he seems to be the earliest sample, so guess I'm wrong and thought their sequence would be slightly longer than it is (still very long!).
That's certainly very slightly earlier than the earliest sample in a Beaker context, I think, which would be I5021 at 2456 BCE (2571-2341 BCE, so it's mainly longer uncertainly on how young the date could be), also in Bavaria. Though it's just pretty far removed from a sample hundreds of years earlier, or a lot of them in CWC context.
*It looks like four but is more clearly two in the paper, only one strong enough to PC project.
I understand correctly that they attribute ALT_4 as P310 only by one(1) Y-call of R1 level?
@Archi
„This sample from Alexandria has never been attributed to the Sredniy Stog II either archaeologically nor temporally”
Alexandria is Dereivka Sredny Stog II according to Rassamakin, Mallory and others.
Might be interesting to some, plots of the male and female data from Table S1 (sample details) and S5 (Yamnaya-Anatolia f4 stat) separately, rather than in one graph as in paper: https://imgur.com/a/8jgAeDO
The male and female samples basically reach the same equilibrium in relatedness to Anatolia and Steppe over time (both hit f4=0.001 at about the same time in AD/BCE and would be equal by 1500 BCE), but the slope is much sharper in females, probably representing a shift from more steppe heavy female exogamy sources initially (CWC like people?), with more steppe than the males, to more Anatolian heavy sources exogamy sources with slightly more Anatolian than the males through the BBC to Bronze Age. Though this is probably pushing the margins of their data. Basically as Davidski called it. Be interesting to see what this does to X chromosome based patterns (if the paper has enough data to cover it).
Now to actually read the paper...
@EastPole
No, Alexandria cemetery had many different cultures, Sredniy Stog II, Dereivka, Konstantinovka, Neolithic and Bronze Age burials, many burials do not bear any attribution of any archaeological culture. Alexandria Village is located on the borders of many cultures, so the unattributed can belong to any of them. Therefore, to invent that this non-attribute sample belongs to the Sredniy Stog II culture when it did not exist anymore, you don't have to.
This burial site does not belong to the Sredniy Stog II culture.
Just wrt “Overall, for CWC-associated individuals, there is a clear trend of decreasing affinity to Yamnaya herders with time (fi”
Small sample size ; was a statistical power offered ?
New link to the dataset (md5 hashes have changed):
https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/Yyb4Cv3zp8Gqwkg
@Matt-2) Table S9 shows that top ranking MN populations to produce the Lech Valley sets are Globular Amphora, Iberia_CA, France_MN (and all passing), while bottom ranked are Balkans_Chl and Hungary_CA.
It is wonderful to see how someone is able to confirm Iberian migrations to Germany as we have been saying for two years. You only have to look at the female markers to see that there are more than 30 exact matches between German BBs and Iberian Bbs. We were just right.
@ Gaska
The movement was from France to Iberia and from France to Central Europe c. 4000 BC. That shared ancestry between GAC; France MN; Iberia CA.
I agree that it is unlikely SWAT represents the Indo-Iranian population that contributed to most South Asians. They probably represent Nuristani speakers which I believe is its own branch of Indo-Iranian on the level of Indo-Aryan and Iranian and the first to seperate from Proto Indo-Iranian.
Seems kike R1a-Z283,I2a,Q1a, N1a, R1b-Z2103, R1b-L51, R1b-M73 were in the right place to have made an impact in Central/South Asia and Iran but didn't. It is also strange how ydna E and J1 have turned up in ancient samples from the region but in modern South Asians represent MENA ancestry. Also I wonder if H1 and H3 are West Eurasian or not and if they are does that mean the AASI side in India is all maternal via mtdna M?
Actually that is really disappointing to me. Would have been cool for those haplogroups to be present in South Asia.
I wonder what subclade of R1a the Tarim mummies belonged to.
Who were the helots and who were the masters in the Lech Valley study? I can't find the paper anywhere just news articles.
@Archi According to khokhlov Skulls from Alexandria displays a striking similarity to the Khvalynsk ones.The earliest burials are really similar to this culture. But available information casts more doubt than light on the cultural background of the sample. Could you give us more information about it?
@All
Please don't quote large portions of text from copyrighted sources, because whole papers will end up in the comments here, which isn't allowed.
@Mamooth Hunter-"The movement was from France to Iberia and from France to Central Europe c. 4000 BC. That shared ancestry between GAC; France MN; Iberia CA"
You are again very wrong and you are beginning to resemble the Kurganists in their obsession to ignore Iberia. There are Mit Haps in the BB culture of Germany that are ONLY registered in the Spanish databases. If you add to this that the only ceramic style common to all of Europe is the Maritime style and that it was originated in Iberia, it seems very simple to explain the initial movement of at least Iberian women to the north. The one who doesn't want to see or understand it is because he is blind. And of course there were also constant movements of people in the Neolithic because the megalithic culture is common to the entire Atlantic façade, but these movements continued to occur during the Chalcolithic (including the time of the BB culture) in both directions.
The absence of U106 and DF27 in Bavaria during the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age means that the first must be sought further north and the second further south
Seriously, does anybody know how get access to this new paper.
Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2019/10/09/science.aax6219
@ Gaska
“You are again very wrong and you are beginning to resemble the Kurganists in their obsession to ignore Iberia.”
By highlighting the role of France for MN Western Europe ? Your claim doesn’t make much sense
“There are Mit Haps in the BB culture of Germany that are ONLY registered in the Spanish database”
That’s because France is relatively under-sampled. Itll makes sense when French data comes forth
The rise in WHG in Iberia since the early Neolithic to the pre-BB CA is due to continued intorgression from France ; not La Brana type foragers .
“is the Maritime style and that it was originated in Iberia, i”
No. Cardoso’s dates are incorrect. Iberia was a receiver during the BB period
Yeah, more and more the old idea about BB originating in Iberia is slipping away, and the recent genetic evidence makes it even less likely. Why anyone would want to cling to this idea is beyond me.
@Mamooth Hunter-That’s because France is relatively under-sampled. Itll makes sense when French data comes forth-The rise in WHG in Iberia since the early Neolithic to the pre-BB CA is due to continued intorgression from France ; not La Brana type foragers.
1-What the Whgs have to do with what we are talking about?
2-Yes France is under-sampled, but we are talking about migrations during the BBc and the markers are the same in Germany and Spain, and I'm talking about rare subclades that have not been found in any other European region. Taking into account that the BBc in France is fundamentally Iberian (pottery styles, Palmela points, metallurgy, etc.) it seems clear from where that culture comes. You just have to read Lemercier and Guilaine.
@Mamooth Hunter-No. Cardoso’s dates are incorrect. Iberia was a receiver during the BB period
Ja JA JA-The only thing you do is try to confuse people who don't know Bb culture. Cardoso's dates are perfectly valid and have been accepted by the vast majority of European archaeologists (except for some that only have "steppe" in the brain)
+ Campaniforme: chronology, pottery, and contexts of a long term phenomenon in the Portuguese Douro Basin-Maria de Jesus Sanches and Maria Helena Barbosa (december 2.018)-
"We highlight here four case studies and conclude that all styles are present –classic Maritime (linear, herringbone), combgeometric, Palmela/Ciempozuelos, AOC and mixed CZM styles–and that these styles have grosso modo the same chronology, i.e., they are dated to at least as old as the second quarter of the 3rd millennium BC"
Crasto de Palheiros-The upper half of the occupation Layer, the same layer in which the Bell-Beaker “Maritime” ceramics were found (2.677 BC).
+ The Campaniform in Portugal- Michael Kunst (2.005)- "R. Harrison had already mentioned the existence of multiple similarities between pre-campaniform pottery and BB culture in the Chalcolithic of central Portugal. The ceramics evolved from local forms and techniques, there are no influences from other regions of Europe, that is, the Maritime style is absolutely autochthonous.
Pretending that this culture has its origin in Eastern Europe makes no sense
The exogamy in the Lech Valley is absolutely demonstrated, but there are Mit-Haps from both Iberia and the German and French Neolithic cultures as well as the CWC-Many of these results we already knew from previous papers but two or three very interesting cases have appeared that serve to confirm the relationship with Iberia.
@Gaska
The word is "Mammoth", FFS.
@Romulus,
"Who were the helots and who were the masters in the Lech Valley study? I can't find the paper anywhere just news articles."
It doesn't sound like they found any helots. Lefty archaeologist obsession with social inequality makes it sound like they found an oppressed underclass. But they didn't.
What they found were realtivly 'wealthy' families who passed down property from father to son and who married women from foreign tribes not from the local populations.
They may have found a few slaves (who came from the local population) buried on the 'wealthy' family's land. But, it doesn't sound like they found an underclass.
Relatively wealthy families who preserved their wealthy over many generations in the Bronze age isn't significant "SOCIAL INEQUALITY."
I think it's important to note, that there's no evidence in Bell Beaker of a caste system like what Indo Europeans created in India. There's no evidence of a Kurgan, R1b elite.
Some people might expect an upper caste with lots of Kurgan ancestry existed. But, the DNA proofs this didn't exist in Bell Beaker. Many, samples with low Kurgan ancestry have rich grave goods.
There are immigrants (one 100% farmer) and people of mixed ancestry with rich grave goods.
Many, samples of standard Beaker ancestry makeup (60% Kurgan, 40% Northern Farmer) have poor grave goods.
@Davidski, is this @me? re; too much text. Here's the truncated version:
@MH, if you think I6561 lacks sufficient coverage to be assigned a position beyond M417 on the tree, simply say so. No need to be oddly passive aggressive and oblique about it.
(Re; Yamnaya, it only seems to me that the data from the earliest samples look to be pointing to most likely initial Corded Ware and initial Yamnaya as relating to y-dna founder effects within an autosomally undifferentiated and likely unstructured population. There is no stable "Corded Ware genotype" that differs from Yamnaya and goes back to the earliest Corded Ware, who seem Yamnaya-like and autosomally undifferentiated or barely so.
Not Corded Ware as a branch off from a different population with substantially more Anatolian/WHG ancestry. Other scenarios seem possible, but this seems most likely.
The archaeological detail and whether this population "is" best designated Yamnaya/Pit Grave, archaeological question to be worked out, remaining.)
Back on the Lech Valley paper, few more interesting tidbits:
1) "Sex-bias in sources of ancestry .... In the CWC population the X chromsome carried a significantly lower proportion of steppe ancestry when compared to the autosomes (Z-score=3.11) while the later Lech valley populations don’t show a directed or significant sex bias (Fig. 2C; table S7)....This sex bias might have been either diminished over time through admixture with populations with lesser sex bias or did not exist in the more southern Lech Valley"
These sort of reversals and eliminations of sex-bias in the X chromosome signature are quite possible, even with complete replacement of y chromosomes, if admixture occurs in a complex manner (e.g. X male+Y female, for a few generations, followed by back-admixture with Y females, null detectable within the margins of standard error).
2) Table S9 shows that top ranking MN populations to produce the Lech Valley sets are Globular Amphora, Iberia_CA, France_MN (and all passing), while bottom ranked are Balkans_Chl and Hungary_CA.
I had thought this was because their model was only sensitive to HG level in farmers, not different streams of farmer ancestry, but they do actually use "Right populations the nine outgroups: Mbuti.DG, Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG, Mota, MA1_HG.SG, Villabruna, Papuan.DG, Onge.DE, Han.DG, Karitiana.DG " plus "LBK_EN and Iberia_EN" "To gain greater resolution in differentiating different European Neolithic source populations".
So it seems that for better or worse, the approach of Olalde 2018 which excluded Iberian contribution / "Atlantic farmer" is super sensitive to using Iberia_Meso / El_Miron as an outgroup, and stats using the actual early farmers themselves like f4(Villabruna,X;Iberia_EN;LBK) don't cut it to exclude that contribution.
@Gaska, I don't think it necessarily demonstrates that Iberian populations necessarily contributed to Beaker outside Iberia, just commenting that selecting the best European MN population is sensitive to sources, and using the earliest branching farmers themselves does not distinguish.
The oldest Corded Ware samples, from Poland & Latvia, with 90-100% Kurgan ancestry have poor grave goods.
But, for decades left archaeologists explained Kurgan invasions as the takeover of *elites* who made themselves master of an *underclass.* But, this isn't what happened.
When, I look at the grave goods of Corded Ware & Bell Beaker I don't see a lot of possibility for massive inequality. Some people got a arrowheads & golden hair rings and some people only got a bowl. Therefore, archaeologist conclude the person with the arrowheads & golden hair rings was some kind of Neolithic billionaire in an evil unequal society.
@All
Are there any BAM files available yet?
@Matt said-@Gaska, I don't think it necessarily demonstrates that Iberian populations necessarily contributed to Beaker outside Iberia, just commenting that selecting the best European MN population is sensitive to sources, and using the earliest branching farmers themselves does not distinguish.
That is because you have not bothered to check the Mit-Haps in Germany and Spain or you simply do not have access to the Spanish databases, if you knew them you would think otherwise. I'm gonna put an example
H1+152-only exists in Iberia, France (Heggenheim, BB woman with 0% steppe ancestry) and Germany
X2b + 226, only exists in Iberia, Morocco, Germany, all of them in BBs burials, and England (Neolithic)
Do you think this is a coincidence? - I don't believe it because all the samples are related to BB sites.
Do you know cases of these lineages anywhere else in Europe or in the steppes? - If you know them, I would be grateful if you would tell me, maybe I was wrong or there is simply a case that I do not know.
There are many more similar cases, some may be ruled out because they are too common, but others are typical of BB culture throughout Europe.
It is true that France and Italy remains to be analyzed, but the migratory movements are very clear. Central Europe is a genetic cocktail shaker with many haplogroups of the CWC, other local Neolithic and other with Iberian origins. The former would increase the percentage of steppe ancestry and the latter would decrease it.The Bbs moved east, not the other way around. I believe that women traveled along with important aspects of their culture (pottery, metallurgy) and of course there were also male migrations (Df27 in BB sites-Sicily) -
@ Sorry Mammoth Hunter- From now on I will write MH to not be mistaken
Mike said...
" @Archi According to khokhlov Skulls from Alexandria displays a striking similarity to the Khvalynsk ones.The earliest burials are really similar to this culture. But available information casts more doubt than light on the cultural background of the sample. Could you give us more information about it?"
There are very different populations in the Alexandria burial ground. Surnina examined two proto-Europeoids belonging to the Dnieper-Donetsk culture type Zasuxa, they are sharply-dolichocephaly, and thus unlike other "Ukrainians".
Shepel(1985) believed that there are two completely different groups of the population, one dolichocephaly massive proto-Europeoid, the other more graceful similar to the Vykhvatinsky burial ground and the burial ground Syezzheye.
I don't know what Khokhlov wrote, could you give me a reference where he studied the burial ground of Alexandria?
@ Gaska
I5366 in Britain Pre-Date all samples from Spain and is from the Neolithic and not from Bell Beaker. There are even samples is Spain which Pre-Dates Bell Beaker by several hundred years...So Neolithic is the answer.
@ Gaska
But the oldest X2b sofar found is from Hungary...
@Samuel Andrews
I agree.
I posted the y DNA from the Lech Valley paper but I guess I pasted too much.
37/40 samples from Lech Valley belong to R1b. 2 G2a from Beaker and 1 I from the EBA.
1 CWC belongs to L11*. There are other L11*. Lech Valley could very well be the Beaker homeland, in terms of DNA at least.
Farmer ancestry increases over time. Grave goods are from individuals with the most amount of relatives.
Farmer ancestry comes from GAC. Females come from Unetice.
The 2 G2a come from far away and show higher Farmer autosomal.
The I is from the OBKR group who represent a discontinuity from previous burial traditions and may be from a migration from the north, as per the paper.
Both high and low status burials contain R1b clades but the ones showing familial relationships to earlier burials are more likely to be high status.
Basically it looks like a traditional monarchy system where the first born son inherits the kingdom and daughters are sent off.
@Romulus
"Farmer ancestry comes from GAC."
Why for what reason? How do you know that?
They say it in the paper that the best approximation for the farmer ancestry source in the Beakers is GAC. I would paste the quote, but I guess that's a no-no for this one. I think it's already well understood here that farmer ancestry in Beakers came from GAC though...
@Romulus
GAC *or* Funnelbeaker, is what Olalde stated.
@Archi Here: Агапов С.А. (науч. ред.) Хвалынские энеолитические могильники и хвалынская энеолитическая культура. Исследования материалов https://www.twirpx.com/file/1980969/
@Romulus
"Basically it looks like a traditional monarchy system where the first born son inherits the kingdom and daughters are sent off."
No, it's just the usual Anatolian power transfer system on the women's line, just like Hattis. The Hittites inherited it by marrying the Hatti queens, though the Hittites were a purely patriarchal/patrilineal society, but their royal power was being transferred from the mother to her son in a matriarchal manner from the mother, and the queen had great power and wealth, which led to constant described conflicts.
In the Anatolian system, power was inherited from mother to daughter, while in the Hittite Empire it was transformed into mother to son inheritance, while the Hittites themselves transferred power from father to son.
Mike said...
"@Archi Here: Агапов С.А. (науч. ред.) Хвалынские энеолитические могильники и хвалынская энеолитическая культура."
And this one's very old, I thought he wrote something newer. But there he didn't find much closeness between Alexandria and Khvalynsk, there are several skulls in Khvalynsk that are close to Alexandria, but this is rather an exception.
@Archi
The women in this paper were all foreign, mtdna does not persist for more than 1 generation (except in 1 case it's 2). Only males are local.
Women were bought and sold just like everywhere else in the ancient world. Property.
If R1b L51 ended up near Moscow then a split of R1b L51 and Z2103 could have happened with a Migration up the Don to the Middle Volga and then a split going further up the Don to its source not far from Moscow...
@Romulus
There is there very big diapason:
"The best fitting models were obtained with the farmers of the Globular Amphora culture, the Middle Neolithic population of France and Chalcolithic Iberia"
@All
What is the precise date of the Repin Culture ?
Romulus said...
" The women in this paper were all foreign, mtdna does not persist for more than 1 generation (except in 1 case it's 2). Only males are local.
Women were bought and sold just like everywhere else in the ancient world. Property. "
What kind of purchase and sale of women before the existence of money, market and civilization? Women became property only in the civilized world after the invention of slavery and money. The power was inherited in the Anatolian system by the mother not in place, but by the right to power (status), i.e. a man could receive royal power only by marrying a woman of the royal family, and the royal family (status) was transferred from mother to daughter and with her wealth. Power and wealth were the bride's dowry. Inherited the status of the female line, not the place of government. That's why Straubing women took on foreign women of high birth in order to raise their status, in general, they were all non-Indo-Europeans.
Was the measure of wealth in the Bronze Age not connected to the amount of cattle a person owned ? The bling was basically a side issue...?
Maybe the ones without Grave Goods had many children to whom usable objects could be left ? Others with more grave goods maybe didn't have children ?
@Ric Hern
In the Bronze Age, the main value was bronze, which was a scarce commodity and which was needed by everyone. Bronze was more expensive than gold and those who it owned and distributed it had power.
The expansion of elitism in the Bronze Age was due to the lack of access to bronze and trade routes for its delivery.
How similar are GAC and Neolithic France?
I want to emphasize that the data say only THAT CWC ASSIMILATED R1b-P310 FROM BBC and Nothing more else.
The R1b-P310, if it is true (1 y-call), of the BBC was assimilated by CWC.
@Romulus
Mit-Hapls related to the GAC are actually CWC men and women descendants of GAC women, there is no direct influence of the Globular Amphorae culture on the BBC, just lineages recruited on their trip to the West. Other mitochondrial lineages of the CWC come directly from the steppes. If you study the results carefully you will understand. Regarding BB culture, its Mit Haps are (as I have already said) a mixture of local Neolithic lineages, others from the CWC (GAC and steppes) and others from the West (BB culture in Iberia, maybe also in France when we have more ancient dna from that country)-That's why the best models are with GAC and then with Iberia-
@Ric- The story of X2
A- Mesolithic
X2-I1290-Ganj Dareh (7.896 BC)
B-Neolithic-
X2b- Greece-Revenia, Neolithic (6.351 BC)
X2b+226- Fuc003-Fuente Celada (Burgos, Spain). Iberian Neolithic (5.033 BC)
X2b+226- I5366- Cissbury, England Neolithic (3.513 BC)
It seems clear what is its origin and the path that followed- Neolithic farmers took him to Greece and then to Spain and from there with the Megalithic culture went to the isles (because I guess you won't think it originated in England, right?)-At the moment there are no more cases of this lineage in the European Neolithic, if they appear obviously I will have to change my opinion.
C-Chalcolithic
Coveta Emparetá (Spain)- I858/I857-3.426 BC
Cerdanyola (Spain) BB culture-2.600 BC
Morocco- Kehf el Baroud Casablanca- BB culture (2.800 BC)
Germany-BB culture and early Bronze Age-Germany- Haunstetten and Kleinaiting- Between 2.100-1.500 BC
There is also a sample of X2b + 226 in England (BB culture-Carsington Pasture-2,088 BC) Is it not more logical to think that this woman is a descendant of the English Neolithic farmers? - Despite being a site of the BB culture no one can think that they are beakers from continental europe.
But where do you think the X2b + 226 samples in Morocco and Germany come from? From the English Neolithic?. It is no more logical to think that they are Iberian migrations related to BB culture?
I know I'm not going to convince you, but surely many other people who read this will understand this reasoning because it is very simple. In addition there are more than 20 cases similar to this.
@All why are BB considered a homogeneous population when we all know that they mixed with female farmer populations along the way?
@Romulus, here are a few comparisons of the relatedness of GAC_Poland and France_MLN to different groups using f3 outgroup stats (Mbuti based), which Davidski has previously run and put in a different sheet:
1) f3 stat for Iberia_Meso_SE and El_Miron vs Iron_Gates and WHG: https://imgur.com/a/zpQLAsA
You can see that GAC_P has slightly less affinity to Iberian Magdalenian HG and such ancestry remaining in Iberia_SE_Meso, compared to France_MLN, but the difference is quite slight, and GAC_P doesn't really separate from France+England+Scotland_N that well, and is not too close to GAC_Ukraine on this measure.
This signal really differentiates IberianMN+Chl groups, but there is quite a lot of variation within IberianMNChl groups in affinity to Iberian Magdalenain and proxies.
2) f3 stats between IberiaN and LBK_N and IberiaN and AlpMN: https://imgur.com/a/Ne0B0RR
This clearly separates into Atlantic and East-Central European farmer. Though poss confounded by HG ancestry difference between LBK and Iberia.
3) f3 stats between England_N and GAC_Ukraine: https://imgur.com/a/q7qDGKG
GAC Poland an outlier to all other pops.
Also comparing EHG vs Iron Gates / El_Miron: https://imgur.com/a/MPfVZIr . France and GAC_Poland don't really separate in EHG vs Iron Gates, but do somewhat in EHG vs El Miron.
@ Gaska
My point is that it was widespread during the Neolithic and not specific to Bell Beakers only. So it could have been in France also...
@Archi
This was posted by Arza before the paper came out, based on the data for Tauber_CWC:ALT_4 here.
+ L754 R1b1
+ L150.1 R1b1a1b
+ L757 R1b1a1b
+ P310 R1b1a1b1a1
R-L52 (P310) but not R-U106 (M405)
And there's no evidence that ALT_4 had any Bell Beaker ancestry, or that there was any Bell Beaker influence in the Tauber Valley at the time.
@Davidski
They don't write anything about ALT at all. They don't study them at all, it's a by-product included in the article. It turns out to be a very strange result, as if ALT_1 was the mother for ALT_4, and the father was not in the burial at all.
@Archi
Corded Ware burials in the Tauber Valley have been studied for over a hundred years. The Tauber Valley is a very important Corded Ware burial region in Germany.
The mass burial with ALT_4 has also been studied very closely, and it was known for a while that ALT_4 wasn't the biological child of the other male in the grave.
Apart from showing that Central European R1b was eventually Indo-europeanised by elites from Balkans; this paper fails to document anything about CWC- BB tradition
Netherlands is irrelevant
But maybe the danish study will show something
@Davidski
This is the western boundary of the spread of the CWC, it should be kept in mind that since 2600 BC the BBC lives right next door in Marktbergel.
@Archi
There's no evidence that ALT_4 had any Bell Beaker ancestry, and there are more Corded Ware samples on the way with L51, including from places where there never were any Bell Beakers.
You'll have to accept this sooner or later.
@Davidski
Well, There's no evidence that ALT_4 had no any Bell Beaker ancestry, and there are no more Corded Ware samples with L51 where there never were Bell Beakers.
'document anything about CWC- BB tradition'
-> transition.
Shame that the 2 early CWC male burials didnt have much DNA. Pretty sure theyd have been R1a-L664
@Archi
"Well, There's no evidence that ALT_4 had no any Bell Beaker ancestry"
????
"there are no more Corded Ware samples with L51 where there never were Bell Beakers"
But...you've been told over and over again that there are, so...
Is ALT_4 part of the single grave culture? Is Tauber CWC?
@Romulus
Tauber is CWC.
There are two old R1b-L151 lines that did not expand much but remained mostly in populations that became Germanics:
R1b-A80039
R1b-A8053
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1/
As the TMRCA of these lines is 4400 and 4300 years, respectively, they could have arisen in German/Dutch/Danish Corded Ware, and evidently did not take part in the Bell Beaker expansions.
Interestingly, two samples of R1b1a1b1a1a3b1a-A8041 under R1b-A80039 were detected in the Vikings paper:
Faroe_1 Church2 Faroes 16-17th AD VK25
Faroe_2 Church2 Faroes 16-17th AD VK234
Post a Comment