During the Final Eneolithic the Corded Ware Complex (CWC) emerges, chiefly identified by its specific burial rites. This complex spanned most of central Europe and exhibits demographic and cultural associations to the Yamnaya culture. To study the genetic structure and kin relations in CWC communities, we sequenced the genomes of 19 individuals located in the heartland of the CWC complex region, south-eastern Poland. Whole genome sequence and strontium isotope data allowed us to investigate genetic ancestry, admixture, kinship and mobility. The analysis showed a unique pattern, not detected in other parts of Poland; maternally the individuals are linked to earlier Neolithic lineages, whereas on the paternal side a Steppe ancestry is clearly visible. We identified three cases of kinship. Of these two were between individuals buried in double graves. Interestingly, we identified kinship between a local and a non-local individual thus discovering a novel, previously unknown burial custom. ... The PCA revealed that despite geographical proximity there is a distinct genetic separation between CWC and BBC individuals from southern Poland. The genetic variation of CWC individuals from southern Poland overlaps with the majority of previously published CWC individuals from Germany while the eight published CWC individuals from the Polish lowland [10,11] more closely resemble BBC individuals (Fig. S21). This fact is not unexpected if we consider the CWC communities in Polish lowlands as representatives of north-western parts of the CWC world called as the Single-Grave culture (see supplementary information). The genetic variation of BBC individuals from south-eastern Poland overlaps with the broad variation of BBC individuals from Central Europe (Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, south-western Poland and Hungary) (Fig. S22) which corresponds well with archaeological data.Linderholm, A., Kılınç, G.M., Szczepanek, A. et al. Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from south-eastern Poland. Sci Rep 10, 6885 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63138-w See also... The Battle Axe people came from the steppe Is Yamnaya overrated? Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Friday, April 17, 2020
Corded Ware cultural and genetic complexity (Linderholm et al. 2020)
Open access at Scientific Reports at this LINK. Although very useful and broadly accurate, I'm really not sure what to make of this paper yet, especially in regards to its more nuanced inferences. I'll need to look at the genotype data at some point. Worthy of note is that most of the Corded Ware males sampled by the authors belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-M269, rather than R1a-M417, which is the dominant Y-haplogroup in previously published Corded Ware samples. From the paper:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
What are these lost Iberians doing in Poland?ReplyDelete
Looking at table SX9, many appear to be under P312ReplyDelete
I think these Polish R1b Corded Ware lineages are mostly a dead end.ReplyDelete
It's probably true that Bell Beakers came from the west, but of course they were paternally derived from a Corded Ware group that moved west fairly early.
So like I've been saying for a while now: Corded Ware Culture > Single Grave Culture > Bell Beakers.
David have you seen the below paper:
it looks likce pcw040, pcw041, and pcwo70 are all under L21? correct me if I am wrong but that's what SX9 implies to meReplyDelete
Every good ancient DNA sample I'v ever seen, regardless of haplgroup I, G, R etc. always has many positive reads below L21. Most is related to damage and some is related to L21 being the most widely tested group in the world, so there are bound to be SNPs found in it that recur in other haplogroups.ReplyDelete
I hate when PCA is upside down! For what?ReplyDelete
Here you can see the process of assimilation of early Bell Beakers groups in the CWC environment. This is how the Indo-Europeanization happened.ReplyDelete
"The genetic variation of CWC individuals from southern Poland
overlaps with the majority of previously published CWC individuals from Germany while the eight published CWC individuals from the Polish lowland10,11 more closely resemble BBC individuals (Fig. S21). This fact is not unexpected if we consider the CWC communities in Polish lowlands as representatives of north-western parts of the CWC world called as the Single-Grave culture"
Therefore it is BBC from Dania/Netherlands. No SG culture in Malopolska.
"Unlike in other Central European CWC groups, at Małopolska there are numerous
116 burials of men equipped with triangular arrowheads (up to 30 pieces). In other areas, the archery sets as an important element of the burial equipment of the deceased appears about 100-200 years later associated with the appearance and spread of the BBC ritual."
It's from BBC ritual.
"The south-eastern Polish CWC individuals are significantly more closely related to Yamnaya than to CWC individuals from the Polish lowland supporting the differentiation between various CWC groups from Central Europe. This is in coincidence with archaeological finds that show differences between lowlands and uplands materials of CWC."
"The genetic specificity of the population associated with this process shows similarity to the features of the BBC complex in Central Europe"
"According to f4-statistics on individual level CWC individuals from south-eastern Poland are equally different to published CWC and Yamnaya individuals"
Therefore it is from BBC.
"Building on the idea that the CWC complex identity is founded on the type of burial rituals performed, the study of graves and the double burials"
It's not CWC ritual.
"The two young boys buried in the double grave from Łubcze
their similar Y chromosome haplogroup (Haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a) leaves room for a possible shared ancestry on the male linage."
"The most unusual signal identified is the one between the CWC and the Afanasievo complex."
Remember about Mongolians' Afanasievo R1b-L52.
ADMIXTURE in this paper is very badly done, you can hardly see anything on them. Yamnaya has 60% WHG, etc, uuuuuuu, etc.
About the Single-Grave culture it is only their assumption which there is no confirmation.
Boundary BB groups are assimilated along CWC boundaries.
Late Yamnaya / early catacomb > middle phase malopolska cwc > Beckendorf > AOC phase Dutch beaker > BB
That's very unlikely. Read this again:
The PCA revealed that despite geographical proximity there is a distinct genetic separation between CWC and BBC individuals from southern Poland. The genetic variation of CWC individuals from southern Poland overlaps with the majority of previously published CWC individuals from Germany while the eight published CWC individuals from the Polish lowland [10,11] more closely resemble BBC individuals (Fig. S21). This fact is not unexpected if we consider the CWC communities in Polish lowlands as representatives of north-western parts of the CWC world called as the Single-Grave culture (see supplementary information).
Also during middle phase cwc in Moravia a group of distinctive burials appearsReplyDelete
So, infiltration ~ 26oo
A new BBC group emerges thereafter
I want to note that there are no hypotheses about any origin of BBC from Malopolsk CWC at all in this paper, because they can only cause a smile. The BBC with R1b is spreading before this group appears.
There's no indication that the early Bell Beakers from around the Rhine weren't anything but the desendants of a local Single Grave group.
Of course, new cultural influences did come from the east, but that's different to positing a mass migration from Catacomb to the Lower Rhine.
It’s not a mass migrationReplyDelete
It’s an infiltration and rise to dominance
In fact the GW data proves that they were the link
Ultimatley; chronology proves me. So what are you debating ?
There’ll be no R1b west of Poland before 26oo
I see, so all of the ~2,600 Corded Ware/Single Grave samples that are coming from western Germany, The Netherlands and France are going to be R1a?
OK, we'll see. :)
Yep let’s see ;)ReplyDelete
Btw Which “French CwC” ??
There are early CWC-like burials with battle axes as far west as around Pressigny in France. At least one of the skeletons from these burials is being tested now.
I can’t think of any CwC burials at GP itself
GP exported its flint through the middle Neolithic; and into the cwc period to Netherlands
It came to an end during BB
But There a handful of burials in the Paris basin, but they date to 25oo BC
And they were females burial in cwc orientationReplyDelete
That's OK. Just wait and see. Lots more samples are coming from around the Rhine. Let's get ready for all that R1a, to add to all of that R1a that we already have from around there. :)
''Let's get ready for all that R1a, to add to all of that R1a that we already have from around there. :)''
Yes Im sure there will be, if they actually sample early CWC, and not BB, or non-diagostic burials from 2500 BC like ALT4
@FrankN, you made a impressive journey of SGC/CW from Ems-Weser area (starting in Drenthe) to Switzerland, What is your supposed relationship between Tiefstich-TRB and SGC? The Kristiansen theory?ReplyDelete
Early Single Grave will be predominantly P312 and U106.
Yeah sweet. Let’s see those samplesReplyDelete
So the paper detected R1b1a1b-M269 (ISOGG 2019) and R1b1a2a1a-L52/L11/ L151 (ISOGG 2019) in Corded Ware in South Poland. I checked from Myres et altri, 2010 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010146) that there are indeed interesting rare upstream subclades in Poland. One of them is M412(xL11) in South Poland. Its frequency is 0,045%. This line is rare everywhere, and a higher frequency was detected only in Eastern Ireland, 0,063%, and in Alpes de Haute Provence 0,065%.
A high frequency of another fairly rare, subclade L11(xU106xS116), is also in Poland, 0,059%. The frequency is higher only in South Switzerland, 0,063%. In any case, Myres et al detected this line in North Poland and not in the south.
Therefore, R1b1a1b-M269 could be M412(xL11), if it is not R1b1a2a1a-L52/L11/ L151 without enough markers. R1b1a2a1a-L52/L11/L151 could be L11(xU106xS116).
These lines were not part of the big R1b expansions.
@Kristina, Yes, it is interesting, I do remeber R1b l151* being present in Eastern Europe. Now, we know this can definitely could be from R1b clans which weren't so expansive as their relatives who created Bell Beaker.ReplyDelete
These lines were not part of the big R1b expansions.
Someone should and probably will take a really close look at the relevant BAM files, but yes, I think that's correct.
If this Polish CWC R1b is not R1b P312, does not cluster with Central European Bell Beaker......That would mean there is no way they are Beaker folk assimilated by Corded Ware.ReplyDelete
It is amazing to see a Corded Ware R1b clan this far east. I thought maybe R1b L151 Corded Ware lived only by the Rhine river, while the rest of Corded Ware was R1a. But, this R1b clan lived in Eastern Poland. It is amazing to see this, and changes how we see Corded Ware.
On the issue of triangular arrowheads as already discussed at the end of the previous thread:ReplyDelete
"Unlike in other Central European CWC groups, at Małopolska there are numerous 116 burials of men equipped with triangular arrowheads (up to 30 pieces)."
Triangular arrowheads weren't uncommon in older TRB burials. They were, e.g., found in a Baalberge burial from Quenstedt/ Anhalt. They are equally attested from Baden burials such as Wagram o.d. Traisen (Upper Austria)
https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/ANNA_86A_0071-0087.pdf (p. 4)
TRB-Tiefstich and GAC (at least GAC-West, uncertain about GAC-C/ GAC-E) shifted towards transversal arrowheads. As such, Malopolskan CW arrowheads are unlikely to relate to GAC influence. While I wouldn't rule out influence from the Carpathian basin, the most parsimonious explanation IMO is take-over from the well-known Baden settlement chamber around Cracow.
The BB West Group is known for its (barbed and) tanged arrowheads that are easily distinguishable from CE_MN triangular arrowheads as described above. The geographic origin of that form has been the object of intensive discussions. We certainly can exclude Chalcolithic SW Iberia that focused on triangular forms with concave base (https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/30494/1/CPR.pdf; Fig. 8).
Current thinking goes towards the LN Artenac Culture (SC/ SW France), well known for substantial arrowhead concentrations in burials, that provides linkages to SOM (Grand Pressigny blades), but also to Dutch SG and Swiss CW
From http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/33580/7/NICOLAS_2017_PPS_Author_version.pdf :
"Arrowheads with squared barbs and tang (type 43) have been long recognised to be typical of the users of Bell Beakers. They are found mainly in north-western Europe (Bailly 2014). The genesis of this type has formed part of the debate about the origin of Bell Beaker use, being cited in support of both the ‘Dutch model’ (Lanting & van der Waals 1976) and the ‘Portuguese model’ (Case 2004b). (..)
Only a few European regions could claim to be the area of origin of type 43 arrowheads. Britain and Ireland, central Europe, Sardinia and the Iberian peninsula can be ruled out, as the type is too rare in these regions, and/or was clearly introduced from outside. (..) The oldest radiocarbon dates for this type of arrowhead come from graves in and around the Rhine valley, between c. 2700 and 2300 cal BC. (..)
In western France, finds from several settlements suggest the existence of similar arrowheads during the Late Neolithic (c. 2900–2600 cal BC), especially in the Artenac culture (Roussot-Laroque 1990; Fouéré 1994; Hamon 2006; Burnez 2010; Blanchard & Guyodo 2015). The Artenac culture is known too for its abundant production of barbed-and-tanged arrowheads (Fouéré 1994). It is probably in this area that we should locate the origin of this type of arrowhead. "
or an in-Depth discussion, see
@Kritina, I sure you did notice but just in case you did not. Finnish-specific mtDNA H1f1 was found in Corded Ware Estonia dating 2440–2140 BC in the study Malmstrom 2019.ReplyDelete
Also, U5b1b1* has been found in Mesolithic Poland & Lithuania. U5b1b1* is common in Easter Europe today, but is rare in other parts of Europe. Which I think reveals the root of Saami U5b1b1a is from Baltic States.
Accept the hard reality. BBC is from CWC.
Very interesting stuff.ReplyDelete
Seems like it may support either / both of:
"Steppe Beaker from Corded Ware" - the samples with R1b-M269 are assigned to a variant of Corded Ware Culture. Just looking at it straightforwardly with no looking at any of archaeological details.
"Steppe Beaker from EMBA Steppe" - the samples with R1b-M269 are from a subvariant of CWC that shows connections with the EMBA steppe ("new elements appeared in the funeral ritual of the Małopolska CWC societies, indicating contacts with the rites and practices of the Eastern European communities") and burial inventories that maybe 'foreshadow' BBC ("burials of men equipped with triangular arrowheads (up to 30 pieces). In other areas, the archery sets as an important element of the burial equipment of the deceased appears about 100-200 years later associated with the appearance and spread of the BBC ritual.").
Some fusional scenario.
(Or alternatively, if the dates are wrong, these similarities could be partially due to a reversed influence from established Beaker->CWC variant.
In any case it seems unlikely for the similarities to be due to chance.).
Judging by PCA, these samples seem on average marginally richer in steppe related ancestry than the German_CWC samples. They probably have more steppe ancestry than the previous four CWC_Pol samples from Fernandes paper, which consisted of the two I2a boys with enriched HG ancestry, and the two women with steppe ancestry on the low end of CWC_DEU.
Median dates from range provided seem very comparable to the earliest chronological Beakers from Olalde's study. This study CWC: 8/10 have median date 2420-2405 BCE and 2/10 median date 2290 BCE. Oldest Olalde "Beaker" samples with computed steppe ancestry proportion and/or demonstrated R1b-M269 are: I0521 (R1b, Bavaria, 2571-2341 BCE, median 2456 BCE), I0108 (Sachsen-Anhalt, 2575-2299 BCE, median 2437 BCE), I3528 (G2a, Hungary, 2559-2301 BCE, median 2430 BCE), I5748 (R1b, Netherlands, 2579-2233 BCE, median 2406 BCE).
I know very little about nuances of western european genetics, linguistics & archaeology.ReplyDelete
SO are these CWC & BBC both IE speakers or only one of them is?
It's not reality, it's a fiction. Everybody expected the CWC to have different groups of BBs assimilated by them, since this is what archaeology shows. There was assimilation, not a branch. So nothing surprising happened, most branches of R1b BB are extinct, only R1b-U106 and P312 are left mainly.
The Małopolska naturally cannot be a precursor of BB R1b because at that time they were already everywhere.
Copper Bell Beaker Germany Osterhofen-Altenmarkt [RISE563 / I4144] 2572-2512 calBCE (3955±35 BP, Poz-84553) M R1b1a1a2a1a2 [P312 / PF6547 / S116]
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I5748, skeleton 575 (Jan) M22] 2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Germany Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Bavaria [I5021, RISE563, F0234, obj. 8, grave 3 ] 2571–2341 calBCE (3955±35 BP, Poz-84553) M R1b1a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Spain Paris Street, Cerdanyola, Barcelona [I0257 / 10362A, 1656] 2572–2348 calBCE (3965±29 BP, MAMS-25937) M R1b1
You've been told that the Sandomiercz variant of CWC group emerges by 2600 BC.
FYI, the Swiss paper will be published on Monday.ReplyDelete
The oldest H1f is from Öland Island: Pitted Ware Köpingsvik Öland KOP32/GE44 5200–4850 cal BP H1f
Estonian Corded Ware sample is H1f1a (2440–2140 calBCE). According to Översti, the Finnish H1f1 is 5000 years old, so it is older than the Estonian sample. On the basis of the Öland sample, I rather think that H1f arrived to Finland from the west. It is possible that H1f1a in Estonian CW came from Finland as there were tight contacts between Estonia and Finland during the Corded Ware.
As for U5b1b1a, I am waiting for more samples. At the moment, the only published early sample is Narva Lithuania Kretuonas4 4400 BC U5b1b1a. Of course, U5b1b is ultimately from the European Mesolithic.
Maybe one day, we will get Comb Ceramic mtDNA from Finland from ancient chewing gums as in Denmark.
Thanks, that's awesome.
So there were 2 waves within the CWC migration, the first bringing R1b-M269 from the Forest Steppe, the second bringing R1a from Ustaovo (originating in Sredny Stog?).ReplyDelete
The first wave became the Single Grave Culture of the Corded Ware horizon. An offshoot of that culture developed into the BBC through close cultural contact and female exogamy (Lech Valley) with farmers from the Carpathian Basin.
The Yamnayans were cousins of the Forest Steppe tribe who descended from the Samara population, hence Z2103. The Corded Ware ancestors differ from the Yamnayans in that they were admixed with the GAC people whose migration into the Forest Steppe preceded the CWC migration out of it.
@Kristina, The Pitted Ware H1f is low coverage, almost for sure not H1f. Only his HVR1 region is covered. The H1f label is based on 16093 mutation which is a common mutation and therefore not reliable for basing haplogroup labels on. The original study which labelled him H1f made a mistake, which is frustrating I am sure.ReplyDelete
Plus, ancient DNA documents well that mtDNA H1 is of Anatolian farmer origin. So, there's no mtDNA H1 clades indigenous to Fennoscandia. PWC only had H1 if they got it from admixture with Funnel Beaker. Finnish hunter gatherers didn't carry H1.
There's a 99% chance this Corded Ware Estonia H1f1 is ancestral to Finnish H1f1. H1f1 isn't very old. This Corded Ware sample dates 2400 BC, he is as close to the source as you can get.
Well, TRB is dated to 3300-2800 calBCE in Sweden, and the Pitted Ware sample is from ca 3000 BC, so it could very easily have entered Pitted Ware from Swedish TRB. We do not have many samples from Swedish Neolithic. Instead, we do have plenty of samples from Corded Ware and Bell Beakers and they have not yielded any H1f except for this Estonian sample.ReplyDelete
Moreover, here you are the burial context of this H1f1a sample:
"The particular type of battle axe, the Karlova-type, was named after this burial and is thought to have been developed locally in western Estonia although having influences from the Finnish CWC (58). The second item in the grave was a Pyheensilta or Nylev type arrowhead made from phyllite. These are distributed in Finland, Norway, the Kola Peninsula and as single finds in the Baltic countries and date to the Late Neolithic, and are also associated with the Comb Ceramic Culture [see (16,58) and references therein]."
So both burial items have connections with Finland.
The article is interesting, but at no time does it suggest a CW origin for BBK. The hypothesis of the assimilation of some R1b in specific regions is also possible. It takes more sampling and contexts from different regions to draw any really objective conclusions.ReplyDelete
@Kristina,"So both burial items have connections with Finland."ReplyDelete
Yes, but her genetic makeup is standard for Corded Ware. And Finland at this time was inhabited by hunter gatherers.
@ Rich . Sweet. Maybe Davidski will be celebrating ?ReplyDelete
PWC did have EEF admixture from TRB, that's obvious both from their autosomes and their mtDNA.
And are you saying Finland didn't have CWC by 2400 BCE? Read for instance Holmqvist, Larsson, Kriiska, Palonen, Pesonen, Mizohata, Kouki & Räisänen 2018: Tracing grog and pots to reveal Neolithic Corded Ware Culture contacts in the Baltic Sea region
Are we sure that SGC samples from the Netherlands are sampled? The only one I know of is one barrow with a female burial, which was looked at for DNA a decade ago and considered too degraded but which is now under renewed investigation.
Good correction. I forgot Corded Ware did exist in Finland. However, I don't think there is any reason to say this Corded Ware Estonia sample is from Finland or ultimately from Sweden which is really what Kristina is arguing.
Obviously, H1f1a haplotype of this Estonian Corded ware sample is not ancestral to Finnish H1f and H1f1 haplotypes, but, instead, H1f1 is ancestral to H1f1a. You have the whole series in Finland, and none of them in Estonia, or Baltics as per Ian Logan. I agree that you may be right when and if H1f is found in Estonian Corded Ware or somewhere between Poland and Estonia 4000-2500 BC or earlier.
" Patterns of the CWC (SG) spread
The entrance point into Germany apparently lay on the North Sea coast (c.f. the Drenthe AMS date above)."
I would say with a fringe population like the Hondsrug Drenthe is, this most probably has left it genetic traces doesn't?
On the sandy ('Geest') grounds of NE Dutch and NW Germany, and the Hondsrug zone par excellence were the place were the incoming CW subvariant called Single Grave Pastoralist, that due to the publication about Poland could have had Y-DNA R1b M269 and R1b U106, came in about 2800 BC mixed with the Tiefstich TRB aka Funnelbeaker heirs. It were the SGC man (reason of R1b dominance nowadays in our area's) that took Funnelbeaker woman. This mixture that just started within the Single Grave continued under the Bell Beakers (and until today?). There is at least no 'genetic break' between the SGC and BB.
The big G25 affinity between the Lech Valley BBC sample and my mothers sample even tough more recent samples are usually much much closer give a glimp that from places like Hondsrug Drenthe the 'SGC/TRB' mixture obviously migrated all over the North European room and Isles....
Not related to the original post but now that people are talking about mtDNA, the discussion reminds me of something that I have thought while back. There is a lot of mtDNA U5b in comparison to U5a in the Baltic regions + Finland, however it is the other way around in Norway, southern Sweden and Denmark which have more U5a than U5b, at least as far as I know.ReplyDelete
Is this because of recent population movements or does it go back to the Maglemosian vs Kunda differentiation from the original Ahrensburg-Swiderian background, some 10,000+ years ago?
Here are these triangular arrowheads in the Malopolska BBC, from where they were brought by the assimilated BB to the CWC burial.
I do not know where they got their nonsense about dating the Malopolska BBC, but it has long been known that it dates from 2600BC.
In any case, their reasoning about the 100-year difference goes into the pipe as it is not true. All dates there are at least 100-150 years older, but they just got a later sample casually.
Finland has more U5b than U5a because of U5b1b1a and U5b1b2 which are to fairly young lineages. So, yeah this is because of recent population movements.
It is clear looking at ancient mtDNA, that U5a and U5b derive from two different WHG populations who separated from each other in the Paleolithic and who settled in different parts of Europe.
Kunda, Narva in Lithuania have mostly U5b. While Latvia Mesolithic has mostly U5a. And, in Narva is probably the ancestor of Finnish U5b1b1a and U5b1b2.
Y-hg D1a2a1 has come to the Caucasus! Clearly from the east, but from where?
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome diversity of the prehistoric Koban culture of the North Caucasus
"Btw Which “French CwC” ??"
Bernard of AG mentioned that the remains of this burial are being sampled:
If you are interested in Finnish mtDNA lines, the study by Översti from 2017 is informative: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5522469/
In this paper, it was estimated that the age of Finnish-specific U5b1b2* is ca 6000 years. This line has not yet been found anywhere in the ancient samples. Apart from this line, Finns also carry U5b1b2a, U5b1b2b. Unfortunately, U5b1b1a (T16144C) which is found on a wider area was excluded from this study. It is most of all distributed in Uralic populations or close to them. The age of its Finnish subgroup, U5b1b1a1a, is 3200 years.
I think it is important to note that the Saami-like Iron Age samles from Levänluhta carried plenty of U5b haplotypes: U5b1b1a, U5b1b1a1, U5b1b1a1a. These lines have probably been evolving in Finland since the Comb Ceramic period. Instead, the Finnish-specific U5b1b2 was not detected in this Saami-like population in Levänluhta. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51045-8)
Unfortunately, we do not have as much data as in Scandinavia where even Mesolithic mtDNA is available.
"Here are these triangular arrowheads in the Malopolska BBC (..)
Compares well to Hungarian arrowheads from Bodrogkeresztúr through Baden and Csepel to Vatya, see https://mafiadoc.com/jaeger-wwwvp_5ca67f1e097c47fd0f8b45ac.html (Fig. 3.1.).
IMO pretty unspecific. The typology apparently was present in the circum-Carpathians since the early 4th mBC at latest, and might have entered Malopolska at any time and from any direction (except Kujawia). As it lacks the tangs commonly associated with BB arrowheads, I find a connection to BB rather tenuous. I'd rather place the Malopolskan arrowheads alongside the "Begleitkeramik" (accompanying pottery) phenomenon, which equally to a good extent represents Carpathian influence on the BB East Group, often transmitted via CWC, to ultimately via "backflow" reach as far west as at least Burgundy.
[On that backflow, see e.g. the discussion in Harrison/Heyd 2007 for Sion-Petit Chasseurs, and, more recently
@ FrankN "As it lacks the tangs commonly associated with BB arrowheads, I find a connection to BB rather tenuous."ReplyDelete
The connection with the BBC is indisputable, as we have genetic connections and archaeological, it was in the BBC burials before Malopolska CWC. And where that came from in the BBC is another question.
"Finland has more U5b than U5a because of U5b1b1a and U5b1b2 which are to fairly young lineages. So, yeah this is because of recent population movements."
Okay, that answers the main question of whether it is ancient or recent.
"It is clear looking at ancient mtDNA, that U5a and U5b derive from two different WHG populations who separated from each other in the Paleolithic and who settled in different parts of Europe."
How old do you think this separation is in terms of thousands of years and do you think this separation of populations into a U5a group and U5b group also corresponds to cultural transition of some kind?
Thanks for the info.
"It is clear looking at ancient mtDNA, that U5a and U5b derive from two different WHG populations who separated from each other in the Paleolithic and who settled in different parts of Europe."
What does WHG have to do with it? The division between U5b and U5a is the same level as between WHG and EHG.
It's the oldest U5a in Europe
Mesolithic Russia Sidelkino, Samara region [Sidelkino441] 9836 ± 48 BP, UBA-31465 U5a2
@TLT, I think they separated 20,000-25,000 years ago, because that's roughly when U5a and U5b formed. Which means the origin of the WHG genetic signal is much older than the Mesolithic, even though we've grown to think of it as a Mesolithic era thing.ReplyDelete
I think Epigravitean is the culture of WHG. Its extent in Italy and Southeast Europe I think shows the original home of WHG. Italy home of U5b, Southeast Europe home of U5a.
I think you already know that the Mesolithic transition in Western Europe, coincides with a WHG expansion out of Italy. That's a well documented example of cultural changes in hunter gatherer Europe which coincides with migrations.
Weure, Matt (and others):ReplyDelete
One of the most important, yet so far poorly digested contributions is Furholt's recent (2019) attempt to console aDNA analysis with archeological findings (including an IMO well-founded criticism of Kristiansen 2017):
(full paper is open access)
"It is argued that a polythetic classification of the archaeological material in Central Europe in the 3rd millennium reveals the presence of a new complex of single grave burial rituals which transcends the traditional culture labels. Genetic steppe ancestry is mainly connected to this new kind of burials, rather than to Corded Ware or Bell Beaker materials. "
[Actually, the Linderholm et al. 2020 study under discussion here, while not explicitly referring to Furholt, seems to promote a similar conclusion, in this case relating to the apparent polythetic character of S. Polish CWC (aDNA-wise)]
More specifically (p 117ff):
"From a polythetic perspective (..) it is much a more stringent practice to identify (..) the single burials of the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age periods (2900–1400 BC) in Central Europe, southern Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and the British Isles as one overall unit of burial forms, which is much more distinct from previous, neighbouring, and following burial forms than there are differences between these graves, or between the graves connected to different archaeological cultures. (..) This is a complex of burials that highlights individual interments, gender differentiation, male warriors, and mostly strict rules of orientation of the dead (Fig. 1), as opposed to the mainly collective burials of the preceding periods and neighbouring regions. I would like to name it the ‘Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Single Grave Burial Ritual Complex’ (SGBR) (..) In the beginning, burials subsumed under SGBR are connected to Corded Ware materials (Fig. 2),but a few centuries later, other styles of material culture (Bell Beakers and the different Early Bronze Age materials) become more popular (Fig.3) (..)
The identification of this distinct complex of burial forms is of special significance because it is these graves that are most strongly associated with the biomolecular finding of steppe ancestry, much more so than Corded Ware or Bell Beaker material objects. (..) As Olalde et al. (2018) have shown, steppe ancestry is predominantly connected to SGBR with Bell Beaker materials in Central Europe, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland, while in Spain, Portugal, and Italy SGBR is uncommon and most individuals show no or very little steppe ancestry. (..) In addition, several of the few incidences of steppe ancestry in Spain and France are connected to at least some elements of SGBR (eg, in El Virgazal: Olalde et al. 2018, I5665; La Magdalena: Olalde et al. 2018, I6471; La Fare: Olalde et al. 2018, I2575). (..)
Overall steppe ancestry is most strongly connected to SGBR type burials. As SGBR shows parallels with the burials connected to steppe-based complexes like Sredni Stog, Usatovo, and Yamnaya, ie, the single burial under a kurgan and some form of rules for orientation of the dead (Frînculeasa et al. 2015), the connection in the biological ancestry is paralleled by connections in burial ritual.
I could continue here with a dozen more quotes (e.g. sampling bias towards SBGR->over-estimation of steppe impact in Haak e.a. 2015; over-simplified "male Yamnaya pastoralists" migration model in Kristiansen 2017).
This paper is absolutely readworthy, and IMO essential for anyone who intends to seriously discuss (Central) European aDNA for the period in question, i.e 2,900-1,400 BC. I'll comment separately on some implications that I see when it comes to your - Weure and Matt - issues concerning Drenthe and BB genesis/ aDNA.
@Samuel Andrews "Southeast Europe home of U5a."ReplyDelete
You are mistaken as always, the homeland of U5a is Eastern Europe, in Southeast Europe it got together with the EHG admixture.
"The narrative of Yamnaya males migrating westwards severely undervalues the complexity of processes indicated by this single burial mound."
"This polythetic view of the 3rd millennium indicates that the narrative of Steppe-derived migration creating ‘Corded Ware Culture’ and later ‘Bell Beaker Societies’ is misleading."
"Thus, the suggestion of mixing between those labelled as ‘natives’ and ‘locals’ should not be seen as especially remarkable, or exceptional. Rather, it should remind us that what we often casually refer to as ‘migration’ is likely a summary term for a multiplicity of individual local and regional histories of movement, mixture, and secession, probably over many generations."
This should make a lot of people happy. Particularly Vasant Shinde and Niraj Rai.
Were you serious about R1a-m458+ spreading with Celts? What is that based on>
Now, onto implications of the Furholt 2019 paper presented above.ReplyDelete
The first question is whether the underlying theory of (spread of) Steppe ancestry correlating with his "Single Grave Burial Rite" (SGBR) really holds. Furholt has provided a number of (primarily archeologically motivated) examples, but empirical tests still need to be conducted. You, Dave, provide the tools required via your G25 analysis, and will most likely conduct and post various analyses in this respect. But there are in addition a number of other members of the community here that will certainly contribute.
Verification or falsification of Furholt's theory will become cumbersome, as it requires a complete re-interpretation of the aDNA record in question, away from cultural - spatio-temporal averages (e.g. "Iberia CA_EBA") towards a sample-by-sample re-examination of the archeological background, and the extent to which it may be considered as SGBR-related or not. If there is any community able to do this, its probably to be found here, rather than at Harvard, Eupedia, or whatever else might come to mind. I am curious about what you gals/guys here will uncover - otherwise I am out now [I have quite a reputation for strong skills when it comes to "agenda setting" and "delegation", I'd rather not discuss my associated weaknesses..]
Furholt is basically claiming that the individuals that can be sampled are expected to have steppe ancestry, while those that can't be sampled lack it. But how does he know that they lack steppe ancestry if they can't be sampled?
@Frank,"Verification or falsification of Furholt's theory will become cumbersome, as it requires a complete re-interpretation of the aDNA record in question"ReplyDelete
Furholt wrote that paper because he is upset that ancient DNA documents that in Europe's history often archaeological cultures represent ethno-lingustic groups. It isn't so much about migration. He is mainly concerned about the idea cultures are ethnic groups.
He is upset about this, because it dis agrees with his philosophy on the social sciences, on the nature of human society and culture.
European archaeologists concluded decades ago culture=/=ethnicity without substantial evidence to back it up. They concluded this even though it is common sense that culture=ethnicity.
They call the idea culture=ethnicity, the simplistic outdated transitional view. Well, it is not outdated anymore. Ancient DNA shows it is basically most of the time.
@Frank, This is what I mean. This is really what his paper is about. He doesn't like that ancient DNA supports the traditional view of 'Nature of societies, ethnic identities, and biologic relatdness.'ReplyDelete
“"By integrating such residues of Kossinna-like ethno-essentialism and biologism, whether intentional or not, into models of population history that are combined with cutting-edge scientific methods, we run into the danger of providing supposedly scientific support for political forces who build their demagogies on exactly those assumptions about the nature of societies, ethnic identities, and biologic relatedness"”
A material culture can be polythetic whilst the people which created it unitary
Needs case by case analysis , eg
-LBK : ~ unitary
- TRB : polycentric
-BB ~ unitary
Furholt's position is this because he is an autochthonist. So he has to save old hypotheses by inventing new explanations to hide migration from Eastern Europe somehow. But in one thing he's right, CWC has assimilated many people, including Bell Beakers. What it shows in CWC burials with BBC elements different from classic CWCs, which it shows for this area of Malopolska.
Y-DNA calls (without Group IV):ReplyDelete
pcw040 R1b R-L52 (xL151)
pcw041 R1b R-M269 (xL151)
pcw070 R1b R-L51 (xL151)
pcw110 R1b R-L23 (xS264)
pcw160 R1b R-M269 or R-A2153 (single derived call under M269 with a bunch of no-calls in between)
pcw250 R1a R-Z645
pcw420 R1a R-M417 (xZ645)
pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988)
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
pcw040_2bams_merged R1b1a1b1a1 R-CTS7650/etc*(xL11) 18816092 50688 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
pcw041_5bams_merged R1b1a1b R-PF6438/etc*(xL151, PF7575, PF7558) 4676473 11578 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
pcw070_2bams_merged NA NA 9495075 24428 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
pcw110_3bams_merged R1b1a1b1 R-L23*(xS264, JFS0002, FGC6196, FGC17308, S6926, A574, S5245, S20054, A2148, S18632, S18208, L1245, Z276, FGC22963, FGC22503, FGC5541, L719, A8043) 785768 1693 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
pcw160_5bams_merged R1b1a1b1a1a1f R-A2153 735382 1451 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
pcw250_3bams_merged R1a1a1b R-PF6162*(xAMM271, BY27343, VK01, Y68969, YP1698, Y42738, Y16758, YP4365, CTS3402, YP1155, FGC11915, YP1440, BY29919, S6819, YP5469, YP4453, YP4256, BY30798, YP5696, YP6312, YP990, YP4810, YP6463, AM00559, YP5868, YP5004, YP4887, FGC28668, YP1375, YP3900, YP710, YP5974, Y892, Y34239, YP6244, BY3873, YP5562, Y2437, Y943, Y20652, Y2633, Y29455, Y19835, FGC10227, FGC22473, FGC59421, FGC48792, YP1556, YP1350, FGC13805, FGC113, Y2169, Y20794, YP5596) 1356184 2998 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
pcw420_4bams_merged NA NA 763679 1616 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0
pcw430_3bams_merged NA NA 2173992 4969 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Dave: Fair point. Actually, we'll probably need either a lot of luck (thinking of the Halberstadt IA guy that for some reason wasn't cremated) and/or substantial advances in aDNA determination (e.g. from cremations) to be able to tell how "steppic" people from Schönfeld, Rivnac, Cham, Goldberg III and other CE cultures in question really were. OTOH, the GAC samples we have so far provide some indication on what to expect from GAC-related cultures such as Schönfeld and Rivnac...ReplyDelete
Moreover, Furholt has proposed a more realistic benchmark, namely Steppe admixture in EBA samples, e.g. Unetice and, ultimately, modern Central Europeans. You know these percentages much better than I do, and I would actually start searching your posts in order to come up with numbers, but I am pretty certain that we land below the Haak e.a. 2015 levels.
The most important test, however, relates to comparing steppe admixture from within his "SGBC" zone to outside of it. The western demarkation of the SGBC zone seems to be the Saone - Marne-Seine line (not the Rhine! - more on this tomorrow, its getting late here). We already have a bit of aDNA from both west and east of this line to base testing upon. Add to this the fresh Swiss / Alsatian /SW German stuff (with CW Switzerland certainly non-SGBC, Alsatian BB certainly SGBC), plus the new aDNA from Malopolska (in all likelyhood non-SGBC)..
The work ahead should be clear (as I have said - I am good in agenda setting and delegating, w/o becoming emotionally involved as concerns the outcome - hope you don't mind :))
Thanks. So, Polish CWC R1b is R1b L51 (xL151). Definitely not Bell Beaker assimilated by Corded Ware.
"pcw160_5bams_merged R1b1a1b1a1a1f R-A2153"
Is that a brother of R1b L151? I don't see it on yfull. I bet all the Polish CWC belong to it. Are they all tested for it?
Definitely Bell Beaker assimilated by Corded Ware. Bell Beakers had many branches of R1b of which only those in the west survived.
R-L51 PF6414 * PF6535 * CTS10373/PF6537/FGC39+1 SNPs formed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybp
id:ERS257000 ITA [IT-CA] Italy
R-L52 P310/S129/PF6546 * YSC0001249/CTS10353/S1175 * L52/PF6541/A19949+3 SNPs
id:YF66329 FRA [FR-11] France
Those are Bell Beakers.
If these R1b-L51 SE Polish CWC are merely assimilated Beaker men, then shouldn't they look like BBC autosomally? But they don't.ReplyDelete
Of course they're not assimilated Beakers, nor ancestral to Beakers in any way. They're not even especially close relatives of Beakers.ReplyDelete
Archi is on very thin ice here.
Samuel Andrews said... So, Polish CWC R1b is R1b L51 (xL151)ReplyDelete
Arza did not list the Group IV samples yet. Two of the Group IV samples were L151.
After all, this group is probably the entry point of R1b-L51 to Europe. The fact that there is no P312 or U106 in it is quite understandable, these subclades went further through Moravia and further along the Danube to southern Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In the same group, the remains of those who remained in southern Poland were found. This division of subclades is not uncommon. Look at N-Z1936 on YFull, there is a clear straight line from the southern Urals to Finland. Z1936(xZ1934) southern Urals, Z1934(xZ1928) Central Russia, Z1928 (xZ1925) Northern Russia, z1925 Finland. So it is in this study. One gens remained, and the other gens went on. Now it remains to find out where R1b-L51 came from in southern Poland and where they went next, as well as what populations surrounded them. To the North, through Central Poland, apparently, there were R1a-CTS4385 (poz81). With R1a-Z645, there is no clarity yet. It is also unclear where the R1b-L51 came from in southern Poland. The answers to these questions seem to lie in unexplored areas of Northern Ukraine, Belarus, and the European part of Russia.ReplyDelete
After all, this group is probably the entry point of R1b-L51 to Europe.
No, it's not. There are Bell Beakers with P312 in The Netherlands and surrounds older than this group.
By the way, I'm not aware of any Z645 from the LNBA in northern Ukraine or Belarus.ReplyDelete
There is a Z645 sample with steppe ancestry dated to the Eneolithic from Bulgaria and now we have one from CWC in southeast Poland, so...
pcw250 R1a R-Z645
@Davidski “No, it's not. There are Bell Beakers with P312 in The Netherlands and surrounds older than this group.”ReplyDelete
It's just a matter of chance. An older specimen was found in the Netherlands, but not in Poland. Samples of the remaining group were found in Poland. This doesn't change anything in principle.
“By the way, I'm not aware of any Z645 from the LNBA in northern Ukraine or Belarus.”
This is natural. Because there wasn't one! Researches.
«There is a Z645 sample with steppe ancestry dated to the Eneolithic from Bulgaria and now we have one from CWC in southeast Poland, so...
pcw250 R1a R-Z645»
All this is still haphazard. Here's a sample there's a sample. Conclusions are not yet suggested.
Y-DNA calls (Group IV):ReplyDelete
pcw350 R1b R-L52
pcw361 R1b R-L52 (xL151)
pcw362 R1b R-L52 (xL151)
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
pcw361_2bams_merged NA NA 20119986 54088 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
pcw362_2bams_merged NA NA 22135421 60198 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
pcw350_3bams_merged R1b1a1b1a1 R-PF6540*(xFGC3865, L1, S5520, S16433, S16994, FGC12316, JFS2006, S4056, FGC6184, Z159, Z348, S9355, S10271, S19342, FGC426, A2150, FGC35808, S11493, S181, CTS7768, Z266, BY129, DF84, L594, PF6601, Z260, V1864, Y18210, A8046, FGC37115) 3493823 8624 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
chry 3274923 L478 R1b1a1b1 A->C A C 3 100 C D
chry 6753511 L23 R1b1a1b1 G->A G A 2 100 A D
chry 8502236 L51 R1b1a1b1a G->A G A 3 100 A D
chry 18907236 P310 R1b1a1b1a1 A->C A C 2 100 C D
chry 9084870 PF6540 R1b1a1b1a1 G->T G T 2 100 T D
chry 18248698 P311 R1b1a1b1a1 A->G A G 3 100 G D
chry 17844018 L11 R1b1a1b1a1a T->C T C 3 100 T A
chry 16492547 L151 R1b1a1b1a1a C->T C T 3 100 C A
chry 8796078 M405 R1b1a1b1a1a1 C->T C T 4 100 C A
chry 8876940 FGC36478 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ A->G A G 1 100 A A
chry 7189712 FGC36477 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ G->T G T 3 100 G A
chry 9925446 FGC36479 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ G->A G A 1 100 G A
chry 6753511 L23 R1b1a1b1 G->A G A 2 100 A D
chry 3389980 PF6404 R1b1a1b1 T->C T C 3 100 C D
chry 8502236 L51 R1b1a1b1a G->A G A 3 100 A D
chry 14641193 L52 R1b1a1b1a1 C->T C T 7 100 T D
chry 9084870 PF6540 R1b1a1b1a1 G->T G T 2 100 T D
chry 18248698 P311 R1b1a1b1a1 A->G A G 5 100 G D
chry 17589518 CTS7650 R1b1a1b1a1 C->T C T 2 100 T D
chry 18907236 P310 R1b1a1b1a1 A->C A C 5 100 C D
chry 16751825 PF6543 R1b1a1b1a1a G->A G A 5 100 G A
chry 17844018 L11 R1b1a1b1a1a T->C T C 1 100 T A
chry 16492547 L151 R1b1a1b1a1a C->T C T 2 100 C A
chry 8796078 M405 R1b1a1b1a1a1 C->T C T 5 100 C A
chry 8876940 FGC36478 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ A->G A G 5 100 A A
chry 7189712 FGC36477 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ G->T G T 5 100 G A
chry 9925446 FGC36479 R1b1a1b1a1a1~ G->A G A 4 100 G A
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
So from Moscow > ? > Polish Lowlands > ? > Denmark > Northern Netherlands.ReplyDelete
Read the paper more carefully.
These samples are often migrants according to their isotopic signatures and show foreign influences.
They also don't cluster with Bell Beakers or Polish lowland CWC.
Perhaps the secondary but demographically main expansion occurred from the rhineReplyDelete
It's been obvious for a while what happened and more relevant data are coming soon.
Single Grave > Bell Beakers
I don’t think it’s quite that obviousReplyDelete
For a start, how did L151 get to the Rhine when they’re absent in the entire middle ground during early cwc
If one looks at the concentration of settlements , it implies chain migration
So there must be a link in between , first
It seems to me you lads think they just walked along the Baltic shores. But there’s no evidence for that
The German Corded Ware samples we have don't belong to the Single Grave variant.
ALT_4 is about as close as it gets in terms of geography and intra-CWC cultural relationships.
Hopefully, the Swiss paper sheds some light on this tomorrow, but really we need samples from the Single Grave culture, as well as the Single Grave/Bell Beaker transition.
I believe that such samples are on the way.
Single grave/ EKG is just cwc with a different nameReplyDelete
Same with battle axe
In fact, id do away with all these regional names and look at chronological phases
Of course, if L151 appears in any early phase group then that’s fine
re: Samuel Andrews' quotation of FurholtReplyDelete
""By integrating such residues of Kossinna-like ethno-essentialism and biologism, whether intentional or not, into models of population history that are combined with cutting-edge scientific methods, we run into the danger of providing supposedly scientific support for political forces who build their demagogies on exactly those assumptions about the nature of societies, ethnic identities, and biologic relatedness""
Oh dear. Looking at prehistory with a political agenda isn't a good idea. Furholt should realise that no matter what prehistory and ancient DNA tell us, we are free to create the society and politics we want.
@Gaska-Linderholm 2.020- Best Paper Ever, Thanks again ArzaReplyDelete
1-“Interestingly, in contrast to CWC individuals from south-eastern Poland (Group I, II and IV), they share (BB group) significantly closer affinity to Neolithic Iberian, Italian, Hungarian, Swedish, Polish TRB and Brześć Kujawski group populations”-Scientific confirmation of BB Iberian migrations to southern Poland (No one can deny now that the expansion of that culture was west-east) and scientific confirmation that BBC did not originate in the CWC- We already have archaeological, anthropological and genetic evidence of Iberian BB migrations to Morocco, Sicily, Sardinia, the Balearic Islands, Liguria, southern France, Switzerland, Germany, the British islands, Bohemia, Hungary and Poland-
2-“Despite geographical proximity there is a distinct genetic separation between CWC and BBC individuals from southern Poland-The genetic variation of BBC individuals from south-eastern Poland overlaps with the broad variation of BBC individuals from Central Europe (Bohemia, Moravia, Germany, south-western Poland and Hungary) which corresponds well with archaeological data” Sooner or later you will have to accept it-BBs in Poland came from the West-Last year we talked about this many times on this blog-The CWC and the BBC in southern Poland were genetically different-
3-Seven cases of R1b-M269 (NOT P312)-Late CWC-Southern Poland-That mean nothing because they are much more modern than the R1b BBs in Germany and they have been found in a contact area with the BB culture (same case as Alt_4), it is very likely that they are assimilated BBs in the CWC-The best way to find out their origin is to check the percentage of steppe ancestry of these individuals (has anyone done it?) - We already have many Polish BBs in Silesia and Malopolska (Olalde, 2,018) -*Samborzec (Małopolska, Poland)-Contact person: Piotr Włodarczak-“Anthropologically, the skeletons from Samborzec show very characteristic morphological traits distinguishing them from other Neolithic and Early Bronze groups from SE Poland. The skulls are classified as short or very short. Their main characteristic is the shape of the back part, namely the distinct flattening of the upper part of the occipital bone and of an area of the parietal bone. Such a morphology suggests that this population was genetically foreign to the territory of Małopolska (Same opinion that Elzbieta Haduch)-” Obviously those Polish BBs are R1b-M269 and contemporary of those published by Linderholm (2.020)-It is very difficult that sharing male lineage, some are brachycephalic and others are not, an anthropological analysis would end with these discussions-We have R1b in southern Poland on both the BBC and the CWC, considering that the rest of Western Europe is full of R1b it seems clear that they are assimilated individuals-
4-Definitive demolition of the Yamnaya culture.Now everybody start talking about Afanasievo (due to L52 in Western Mongolia?). I don't think Harvard thinks that it can work-ReplyDelete
5-Magic again –Linderholm (2.020)-CWC are definitely different from the BBC in southern Poland (although they share male lineages) and the BBs in southern Poland are very similar to the BBs in the rest of Europe-Bohemia, Germany, France (These two groups do share male lineages- On the other hand, the CWCs in southern Poland are identical to the German CWCs, while the 8 cases published by Allentoft (2,015) and Fernandes (2,018) belonging to the Polish lowlands are very similar to the BBs of central Europe, and that, despite not sharing male markers and being very close in time-So how does magic work? - Everyone who knows something about archeology knows that the CWC of Polish lowlands and the SGC are closely related, then it is evident that if we link northern Poland with the BBs of Central Europe, there must be a link in common. And which one is it?-SGC-It is a wonderful theory because they do not have ancient SGC genomes to compare, they do not even know if they were R1a or R1b, so I guess everyone will agree that it is better to wait to analyze individuals from that culture to get out of doubt-
6-What a sub-Saharan female marker does at a CWC site in southern Poland. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation?
I'm not really up on this whole "SGC -> Beaker" conversation, so apologies if I'm blundering in here, but should R1b-L51 have been "walking from the Baltic to the Netherlands" and early (rather than going via the absolute centre of Europe at some time) would we naively expect to find it well represented in the by now fairly voluminous (I think?) Scandinavian CW/"Battle-Axe"/"Scandinavian MN/LN" record?ReplyDelete
Assimilation is always a mixture, so descendants are not identical to ancestors. Corded Ware are not identical to either WSH or EEF. Therefore, assimilated Bell Beakers mixed with CW are not identical to either CW or BB.
That's the way it should be.
@Gaska "Samborzec Obviously those Polish BBs are R1b-M269 and contemporary of those published by Linderholm"ReplyDelete
Copper Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253, RISE1124 / Grave 13] 2456–2207 calBCE (3850±20 BP, PSUAMS-2339) M R1b1a1a2
You're thinking about this in a flawed way.
Obviously, both R1a and R1b spread across the North European Plain with the earliest Corded Ware migrations, but then local founder effects happened.
In some areas, like southeastern Poland, there was both R1a and R1b for one reason or another, while in other areas only R1a or R1b.
And just because R1a dominated much of the Battle-Axe complex in Sweden and surrounds doesn't mean that R1b couldn't have dominated much of the Single Grave complex further west.
Of course, that's exactly what happened, and anyone betting on Single Grave samples being mostly R1a is betting on the wrong horse.
Therefore, assimilated Bell Beakers mixed with CW are not identical to either CW or BB.
That's the way it should be.
Read the paper carefully you dumbass.
Your so called assimilated Bell Beakers are identical to certain groups of Corded Ware people, while the real Bell Beakers are identical to other Corded Ware people, namely those associated with the Single Grave variant.
@Davidski Read the paper carefully you dumbass.ReplyDelete
Read for yourself, the funny thing is, I brought excerpts from the paper way before you did (see previous topic and this). The fact that you didn't notice them is just an indication of your bias. The fact that these samples show nothing ancient but a late mixture of WSH+EEF and more precisely CW+BB is a fact.
Generally it would be more parsimonious not to assume a founder effect than to assume a founder effect, which so far would seem to have had to hit in R1a direction everywhere else (not too close to a random founder effect).ReplyDelete
But, if you've seen the samples and they have the right dates (even earlier than these ones, as SGC apparently persists 2,800 BC to 2,200 BC), then that will a strong point in your model's favour.
I'm mostly just interested here from a Brit perspective in if there is a build up of any more early samples prior to 2500 BCE in the Netherlands (including mention of early Dutch Beakers) which can help form a more plausible vector for migration to the BI, than the late Dutch Beaker samples which Olalde uses. If there is a more steppe rich population living in NLD at this early time which can provide a plausible set of ancestors, then more local absorption of late Neolithic farmers may be possible and that might make the archaeological continuities (low level, but apparently more than would be expected for near total replacement and a small resurgence up to 8% over time - https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2020/02/beaker-ghosts-carlin-2020.html) make more sense. There's basically a total gap in the Olalde record between 3000 BCE to 2400 BCE, other than a couple samples in Orkney and one low quality sample in SW Britain, so it would seem to me there's a bit of potential for steppe related people to show up a little sooner and with a little more purely steppe ancestry than Olalde's paper presumes.
What's funny is that in this case we don't see a single grave tradition, but a double grave tradition. Well, how do we connect it to Single Grave?
Agree. They should look to the data, and critique that; instead of cataloguing the usual cliches about Kossina, 1930s, and the Nazis
Well, your idea that there must have been a wave of R1b rich groups that left a trail of descendants across the entire North European Plain and Scandinavia, with few founder effects, isn't very parsimonious though, considering that these were actually unorganized movements of relatively small groups that quickly fanned out across very large areas.
And to be honest, that's a rather charitable characterization of it. :)
If you want to believe that the Single Grave complex was full of R1a males who suddenly just vanished during the Bell Beaker transition, then feel free to do so. However, there are new samples coming from around the North Sea, including from Single Grave and early Beaker burials, and I'm not aware of any R1a in them.
In the same post you seem to be implying that founder effects are frequent and common in this period (as they likely were), and that they are uncommon (Corded Ware as moved across Northern Europe preserved lots of y diversity... *until* founder effects happened within each region, impossible for "R1a males (to) suddenly just vanished during the Bell Beaker transition" following a founder effect).ReplyDelete
Anyway, we'll see if the samples show up and support your argument by their direct dates, or not. There is no need for petty bitterness in this discussion, which can remain in a positive spirit if there is a will to do so.
Rob “ It seems to me you lads think they just walked along the Baltic shores. But there’s no evidence for that”ReplyDelete
Given the fact that very old samples of R1a-Z283 were found in Sweden, they probably went along the shores of the Baltic. That is, it was the northernmost wedge.
As far as mainland northern Europe goes, the main concentration of finds goes Podolia -> Malopolska -> Kyuavia which show denser cluster of burials.
Then it is just a dispersal of single finds (isolated barrows), during the early phase.
So that outlines the expansion
There is one Single Grave Genome published from Denmark. He has R1a M417, also has 48% farmer ancestry making him the most farmer Corded Ware person.ReplyDelete
But, I do think most Single Grave will turn out R1b L151.
Until we see data that says otherwise, we have to assume that sometime around 2800/2700 R-L52 males crossed into Little Poland from the Forest Steppe. These samples (some a couple of hundred kilometres apart and not all from a single cemetery) likely represent the descendants that stayed. Others (likely already full formed L11), in what I described as a "mad-dash" in the past, likely treked through Central Europe to form the Single Grave Culture. We are still talking east to west. Western influences and female genetics make their way into SGC and R-P312 explodes into single grave Bell Beaker (the non-Iberian kind) and expands in all directions with P312+L21 crossing the channel, DF27 going into France>Iberia and U152 moving into Bavaria, Moravia, Italy etc. Bell Beaker in Little Poland is Moravian Bell Beaker derived and almost entirely P312+ L2+ and is and always have been an archaeologically west to east movement.ReplyDelete
The Corded Ware > Single Grave Culture narrative seems to be the only narrative that is still standing.
I reread what I wrote and I honestly can't see any contradictions in it.
Like I said, your comment was kind of dumb, because founder effects were probably very common back then. But, at the same time, surely it's possible for a variety of Y-haplogroups to travel far along with early expansions from their original homeland?
And if R1a was the most common Y-haplogroup in far western Single Grave/Corded Ware, then I would expect it to have popped up by now in at least a few samples.
For example, given such an assumption, ALT_4 should have belonged to R1a. Also, considering that the Rhenish (Dutch and British) Beakers are known to show obvious archeological influences from Single Grave, then at least one or two should have belonged to R1a as well.
The Swiss data are also quite telling, with just one R1a sample that probably dates to well after the Corded Ware and Beaker periods.
So I'm not really sure what we're discussing here? If you believe that R1a was a common marker across much of West-Central Europe during the Corded Ware period then prove it.
There is one Single Grave Genome published from Denmark. He has R1a M417, also has 48% farmer ancestry making him the most farmer Corded Ware person.
That sample comes from a communal grave, so definitely not a "single grave". LOL
The reason it was classified as Single Grave was because the Single Grave culture was present in the area, but of course, isotopes show that this person wasn't a local.
@Davidski “ These samples are often migrants according to their isotopic signatures and show foreign influences.ReplyDelete
They also don't cluster with Bell Beakers or Polish lowland CWC.”
This is absolutely logical. They have just separated from the General group with R1b-Z2103 and have not yet mixed with the local population of haplogroups I2a and G2a or with other steppe newcomers from R1a-CTS4385. They should be very similar to their recent tribesmen R1b-Z2103 from the Repino/Yamnaya/Cotacomb cultures.
"Y-hg D1a2a1 has come to the Caucasus! Clearly from the east, but from where?
Mitochondrial and Y-chromosome diversity of the prehistoric Koban culture of the North Caucasus
I suppose they probably have intended to refer to D-M533, which was given the alphanumeric name D1a2a1 in the ISOGG 2018 phylogenetic tree of human Y-DNA.
That subclade pretty clearly originates from a population ancestral to Tibetans, though at least one lineage derived from it has spread widely among Turks and Mongols of the steppe.
Looking at early CWC / SGC barrows in the Polish lowlands (dots), we note that there arent actually that many (making the claims in Haak et al all the more problematic)ReplyDelete
But the main point here is observing the direction of spread.
All those sites on the coast (+) and (▢) are TRB & GAC
They have just separated from the General group with R1b-Z2103 and have not yet mixed with the local population of haplogroups I2a and G2a or with other steppe newcomers from R1a-CTS4385. They should be very similar to their recent tribesmen R1b-Z2103 from the Repino/Yamnaya/Cotacomb cultures.
From the paper...
The genetic variation of CWC individuals from southern Poland overlaps with the majority of previously published CWC individuals from Germany while the eight published CWC individuals from the Polish lowland [10,11] more closely resemble BBC individuals (Fig. S21).
Jesus Christ, learn to read.
These southern Polish CWC samples are not proto-Beakers! They're just eastern Corded Ware people obviously with non-Beaker R1b lineages.
It seems that your brain stopped working right after you saw that they were mostly R1b.
Rob “ But the main point here is observing the direction of spread.ReplyDelete
All those sites on the coast (+) and (▢) are TRB & GAC”
I once said that the real mainland CWC is R1a-4385. They were the ones who broke through the GAC's defenses. I think that R1a-Z283 went through Scandinavia (Scandinavian CWC), then through Denmark to the mainland have already left R1a-M458 and R1a-Z280. Apparently they formed Unetic and Tshinetic cultures. And perhaps R1a-Z280 did not go anywhere at all, but remained on the South-Eastern coast of the Baltic, where it formed the Tshinetic culture.
@Ebizur "That subclade pretty clearly originates from a population ancestral to Tibetans, though at least one lineage derived from it has spread widely among Turks and Mongols of the steppe."ReplyDelete
D1a2a1 is not Turks or Mongols because it is Koban culture of VIII-VII BC.
@Davidski. “ These southern Polish CWC samples are not proto-Beakers! They're just eastern Corded Ware people obviously with non-Beaker R1b lineages.”.ReplyDelete
This is obvious because it is a side branch from what would later become the BBC much further West. However, can you guarantee that 100-200 years before the found people lived, their ancestors did not live there, which were the ancestors of both the found samples and future beakers, for example, the ancestors of the German ALT-4?
Kurganists have been defending the Yamnaya>Carpathian Basin>Eastern Bell Beakers>Western BBs theory for 10 years (2.010-2.020)-They had never had to resort to the CWC to make their theory credible. Harvardians took up the issue (Olalde 2.018) of removing Iberia from the debate using the absurd argument that Mit-Hap-H3 did not exist in German and Iberian BBs(absolutely false)
After the disaster, it took 16 months to develop a new theory that I suppose will be the one that everyone will be debating for the next ten years (2.020-2.030)-Now the path is totally different Afanasievo?>Forest Steppe?>CWC>SGC>BBC-It seems that the problem is still Iberia, and Linderholm has used the same absurd and wrong argument as Olalde to try to bring R1b-L51 out of the steppes.In this case, the alleged exogamy has led CWC men to marry women from local Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures-Ignorance?, Another Big Lie? - If anyone is curious, look at the percentages of steppe ancestry of these R1b in the south from Poland
The BBC originated in Iberia and from there spread to all of Europe-I'm sorry Mr Rocca you've always been wrong and you're not humble enough to recognize it
David have you seen the below paper:
Yes, but I generally don't blog about papers anymore that are based solely on mtDNA sequences.
Let's wait for the Y-DNA and genome-wide data.
Just because these Corded Ware samples show mostly (but not exclusively) R1b doesn't mean they're especially closely related to Bell Beakers.
They're obviously more closely related to their local brethren who carry R1a, but also more similar to central/eastern German Corded Ware people.
Bell Beakers are instead more similar to the lowland Corded Ware people from northern Poland.
The reasons for this will hopefully become clear to you when you see more samples from Corded Ware and early Bell Beaker from The Netherlands, western Germany and eastern France.
"D1a2a1 is not Turks or Mongols because it is Koban culture of VIII-VII BC."
That does not change the fact that extant D1a2a1-M533 is clearly rooted in Tibetans, or at least in some population that has contributed more (at least patrilineally) to Tibetans than to any other extant population.
I would like to know whether this individual from the Koban culture of the first millennium BCE belonged to the extant (apparently Tibetan-derived) D-M533 clade or rather to an extinct (or at least not yet detected) collateral/basal branch.
@Gaska,"6-What a sub-Saharan female marker does at a CWC site in southern Poland. Does anyone have a reasonable explanation?"ReplyDelete
Good eye, I noticed that too. It is low coverage mtDNA not Sub Saharan. It is only Sub Saharan if it is negative for Eurasian mHGs N and M. It is not negative. It is just low coverage.
@Davidski,"They're obviously more closely related to their local brethren who carry R1a, but also more similar to central/eastern German Corded Ware people."ReplyDelete
They're more similar overall in Steppe/farmer ratios to other Corded Ware who carry R1a, but the fact they carry R1b L51 means they share direct paternal ancestry with Bell Beaker. On the other hand, they might not share any direct ancestry with R1a Corded Ware groups, and if they do it was female mediated.
They're more similar overall in Steppe/farmer ratios to other Corded Ware who carry R1a, but the fact they carry R1b L51 means they share direct paternal ancestry with Bell Beaker.
But how far back? The Eneolithic on the steppe perhaps.
On the other hand, they might not share any direct ancestry with R1a Corded Ware groups, and if they do it was female mediated.
It would be pretty strange if they didn't share any direct ancestry with R1a Corded Ware groups, considering they're basically identical to them in terms of genome-wide ancestry and buried a few miles away.
Closely related males from the same gene pool can carry different Y-haplogroups. It's a common enough phenomenon.
I belong to R1a, but I have close relatives who belong to R1b and I2. Crazy, huh?
What this really shows is that a lot of variation from within the Corded Ware horizon is below the radar. If this strange crossover is possible, we might detect even more of what pops up later in CWC. What was known so far was in part just sampling bias.ReplyDelete
Davidski is right, he is almost always right. BBC came out of CWC and seeded W. Europe. The Iberian theory is kind of moot with this new data.ReplyDelete
@Davidski, The way I see is different Y DNA represented different gene pools aka different ethnic groups. But, I know this couldn't have been how it worked to the extreme and would make sense the two Polish CWC pops share recent maternal common ancestry.ReplyDelete
Anyways, this is not an important detail. The see the important point you're making is there is no sign a close relationship between Polish CWC R1b and Bell Beaker R1b. And that, Beaker's R1b L151 migrated into Rhine region in early Corded Ware period.
@ Epoch, Thanks for the linkReplyDelete
Leron said "Davidski is right"ReplyDelete
No, we're looking at the typical assimilation that took place at CWC borders. Here was assimilated a small group of early BBs who buried their relatives in double graves. You can see that in the cemetery with no signs of BB buried R1a, and the rest with double graves and arrows BB buried assimilated R1b. But these R1b were not any ancestors for BB and so to claim that R1b were from CWC is wrong. It is precisely the borderline R1b on the borders with the BBC, perhaps pre/early-BBC, but not CWC, in the group where all signs of the BBC have not yet been formed and therefore were assimilated by CW.
In this case the situation is the same as with assimilated I2a in CWC.
Copper Corded Ware Poland Pikutkowo [N47] 2570-2340 calBC [2500-2300 BC] M I2a2a
Copper Corded Ware Poland Pikutkowo [N49] 2570-2340 calBC [2500-2300 BC] M I2a2a
Copper Corded Ware Czech Republic Brandýsek, Grave 23 [I7272] 2900–2200 BCE M I2a2a2
The BBC were not Indo-European and were not speaking Indo-European languages.
"The Corded Ware > Single Grave Culture narrative seems to be the only narrative that is still standing"
Indeed. No pasaran.
In addition, this affinities reveal a kind of 'Celto-Germanic' core!
A short survey. Admitted some get already bored...again those Finn Mom but ok
She, with only Hondsrug/Drenthe ancestry, is just the departure point. I took her unscaled sample, vahaduo distance, pre-modern samples:
Distance to: FinnMom
BB Lech Valley on 2: that's remarkable, mostly the more recent ones are quite more close than the older ones, certainly with thousands of years in between!
This is what Davidski said about this sample:
'WEHR_1192SkA is very similar to Bell Beakers from the northern Netherlands with whom he shares the R1b-P312 Y-haplogroup, suggesting that he was part of a population that moved into the Lech Valley from potentially as far away as the North Sea coast,'
When I take this sample and compare it with the other pre-modern samples:
Distance to: DEU_Lech_BBC:WEHR_1192SkA
Besides that we recognize much of the Finn Mom chart we see Bell Beaker England and Ireland. And we see samples that are usually seen as 'Celtic' or 'Germanic'.
To finish it, ok a bit anachronistic, and to make the party complete, the distance to modern samples:
Distance to: DEU_Lech_BBC:WEHR_1192SkA
Dutch, Orkney, Norway, Cornwell, Scotland, England, Wales.....euhm indeed a kind of Celto-Germanic core? And besides that it underlines BB Dutch as a kind of BB hub!
@Sam Andrews said-"They're more similar overall in Steppe/farmer ratios to other Corded Ware who carry R1a, but the fact they carry R1b L51 means they share direct paternal ancestry with Bell Beaker. On the other hand, they might not share any direct ancestry with R1a Corded Ware groups, and if they do it was female mediated.ReplyDelete
Sam you are right and that is the correct reasoning, you just have to keep going a little bit to realize what is happening. Mrs. Linderholm has acted unprofessionally??????, speaking about CWC mit haps in southern Poland-She claims that those female lineages are typical of the Neolithic/Chalcolithic Polish cultures, but that is absolutely false-Why? because if she doesn't, she couldn't keep alive the SGC myth as the origin of L51/P312
I suppose you can check those lineages and then you will realize that except for a couple of them, we can follow their trail to the steppes with perfect precision-In other words, these assimilated R1b are descendants of western BBs with lesser steppe ancestry which increased it thanks to exogamy. That also confirms the assimilation hypothesis-
*Pcw110 (Szczytna-2.420 AC)-Hap Mit T1-Pcw350 (Łubcze-2.405 BC)-Pcw250 (Mistrzejowice-2.380 AC)-Hap Mit-T1a1-
Romania Glăvăneşti-Glav14-HapY-R1a-Z93-3.250 BC
Ukraine-Vinogradnoe, Shevkenko, Yamnaya Culture-3.000 BC
Germany- Karsdorf, CWC-2.520 BC
Russia-I0418-Bronze age-1.947 BC
That's a Polish Neolithic marker? Absolutely not, it's a typical steppe marker-This is how R1b-P312 acquired most of its steppe ancestry- If you follow the trail of that lineage you will obviously find it in the Bb culture
Germany- Bell Beaker culture-I6624/I5660-2.250 BC/Haunstetten-Post50-2.112 BC
Then the fairy tale Rocca has told about L52 in northern Poland leaving relatives on his way to the west is not credible - it is much more likely that R1b-M269/L51 was somehow in some Neolithic culture in Germany (even in the culture of Vlaardingen-Nethrlands or even in Scandinavia- The longer they take to recognize it, the harder the fall will be
@Weure-"The Corded Ware > Single Grave Culture narrative seems to be the only narrative that is still standing" Indeed. No pasaran.
That narrative only works in your dreams-Hace mucho tiempo que hemos pasado y además hemos ganado-Do not be afraid of the Basques/Spaniards, we are not so ugly and we do not eat the children
@Gaska, the only thing you can do is gaslightning, no serious connection with reality....ReplyDelete
PCW 362-.859 brown eyes,.731 brown hair-pcw362; 2459-2351 BC; Łubcze; CWC_Sokal_Ridge; R1b-L51>L52* (xL151)
PCW 361-.8394 brown eyes, .617 brown hair,pcw361; 2459-2351 BC; Łubcze; CWC_Sokal_Ridge; R1b-L51>L52* (xL151)
PCW 070-.983 brown eyes,.41 brown hair, .39 black hair
PCW 040-.738 brown eyes, .587 brown hair, .237 black hair pcw040; 2479-2349 BC; Święte; CWC_Rzeszow_Foothills; R1b-L51>L52* (xL151)
I7044-Bell Beaker, 2500-2200 BCE R1b-Z2109+Genetiker has Light skin- Blond/ D-blond- Blue eyes
I2787-Bell Beaker-Hungary,2457–2201-Light skin, Red hair- Brown eyes
I'm reading the Myers data differently. Those 2 groups you cite, L51+ and L11+ in modern Poland go from south to north which seems to be the direction of these plausible southern Corded Ware groups to SGC (south to north). Obviously since these burials in the paper ~2550 BC from Lesser Poland were not direct progenitors of any major group, this is understood, and probably the case from most burials exhumed thus far. However, what seems likely to me is that at some point, a few centuries earlier, some successful male ancestors positive for L51+ or L11+ did move further west and north. Alternatively there could be another CWC northern group who was R1b, but they have not yet turned up.
I have a suspicion that the northern CWC groups, including areas like the Baltic and regions of the Battle Axe culture, were strictly R1a. This seems to be the trend today with the R1a distribution as well.
AWood said... "these burials in the paper ~2550 BC from Lesser Poland"ReplyDelete
No, < 2450 BC. Read more carefully.
"I belong to R1a, but I have close relatives who belong to R1b and I2. Crazy, huh?"
But doesn't this mean, in patrilinear thinking, that you and your relatives belong to different tribes?
To me patrilinear thinking is fun, and convenient, but I would never mistake it for reality. It's convenient because it reduces complexity. Even if your ancestry is very mixed, your yDNA is only one and simple. Recently I discovered that my paternal ancestors were probably descended from the Burgundians. That's why I have that new Burgundian Avatar beside my name. But it would never occur to me that my Etruscan ancestors didn't matter just because they were not from the purely male lineage.
@ AWood / kristiinaReplyDelete
The current distribution of R1b & R1 in east Central Europe; has nothing directly to do BB or CWC
@Gaska, so all the scientists are pushing a fantasy narrative even though their jobs are on the line? C'mon, look yourself in the mirror and stop with your nonsense. I can understand psychopaths like Gioiello spouting off because they have mental problems, but you are just being a stubborn child. Anyone on this forum please reply 'Yes' if you think Gaska's "L51 is from pre-Steppe France" and 'No' if you think he is just a biased Basque who can't see past his own national pride.ReplyDelete
Re pre-Beaker Britain
As you have pointed out, there is a shift cremation rite sometime after 3000 BC, which would explain the relative Death of samples in that transition period. It seems to have been part of broader societal changes, which sees dispersed communities brought together by some unifying features such as an island-wide use of “grooved wear” pottery & the building of large monuments such as Stonehenge, which would have required a large labour force
However I don’t think that overall Impacts the data that BB arrived only around 2400 BC to the islands
"And if R1a was the most common Y-haplogroup in far western Single Grave/Corded Ware, then I would expect it to have popped up by now in at least a few samples."
this is good logic, too bad you stop applying the same when swat valley is concerned.
Not sure what you're babbling about?
R1a is found at basically 100% frequency in Steppe MLBA, but missing in Central Asia, and then it suddenly shows up in Central Asia and the Swat Valley, and is now one of the most common Y-haplogroups in Central Asia, Pakistan and India.
If you can't figure out what that means, then another hobby beckons for you.
"R1a is found at basically 100% frequency in Steppe MLBA, but missing in Central Asia, and then it suddenly shows up in Central Asia and the Swat Valley, and is now one of the most common Y-haplogroups in Central Asia, Pakistan and India."ReplyDelete
the important question is when. The answer is 'not by the time of the swat iron age samples'. youre probably too stupid or too biased to get it.
Well, at least I'm smart enough to understand that the R1a diversity in South Asia doesn't date to an Iron Age founder effect from a handful of people.
There's too much depth in South Asian R1a for that. Obviously, it arrived there in big numbers and with a lot of diversity well before those Swat Valley people were alive.
There’s R1a ~ 1000 BC Swat Iron Age
There even I2a in there
How do you suppose this y D got to the Caucasus? I'm still surprised there isn't more D in Central/South Asia.
" it arrived there in big numbers and with a lot of diversity well before those Swat Valley people were alive."ReplyDelete
Too bad the actual samples fked up your hypothesis completely davidski.
Different rules for diff regions, that's all you are good for.
Rumor has it that the Chaubey paper has been held up.ReplyDelete
What's in the Chaubey paper?ReplyDelete
And was this paper ever released?
Wonder if Hg D can be tentatively linked to southern coastal dispersal
As he said - “ Tibetans, though at least one lineage derived from it has spread widely among Turks and Mongols of the steppe.”
Isn't that sample from the 8th Centur BC? Isn't that too early for Turko Mongols?ReplyDelete
Why don't you apply the same rules to South Asia and Western Europe and see what you get?
R1a is common in South Asia, and it shows up in the ancient DNA record there at exactly the right time, along with the right kind of genome-wide ancestry to link it to Sintashta.
Is R1a common in Western Europe? Does it show up in ancient DNA from Western Europe? Is any ancient population rich in R1a linked to Celtic expansions? Nope.
So grow a brain or get a new hobby.
Which sample is it exactly ? ID ..
"How do you suppose this y D got to the Caucasus? I'm still surprised there isn't more D in Central/South Asia."
This depends on whether the Koban culture Y-DNA D1a2a1 individual belongs to the extant (para-)Tibetan-derived subclade of D1a2a1-M533 or whether he belongs to an extinct or rare basal branch of D1a2a1 as I wrote in my previous comment.
If he is simply another member of extant D1a2a1-M533, then he is almost certainly a descendant of some migrant from what is now the western parts of the PRC (Xizang, Yunnan, Sichuan, Gansu, Qinghai, Xinjiang) or a nearby part of the circum-Himalayan region (e.g. Bhutan, Nepal).
If he belongs to a branch of haplogroup D1a2a1 that is basal to the clade found among present-day Tibetans (and some neighboring folks), then his origin would be more mysterious, but still probably rooted in eastern Asia; D-P47(xM533) has been found in 1/97 of a sample of present-day males of northwestern Mongolia (cf. di Cristofaro et al. 2013), and D-P99(xP47) has been found in 8.62% (203/2354) of a pool of samples from Tibet, especially from the Lhasa region (156/1028 = 15.18%) and the Shannan (South Tibet) region (10/156 = 6.41% among "normal" Tibetans from Shannan, but as high as 10/35 = 28.57% among Monpa from Shannan; cf. Qi et al. 2013).
Rob: "Looking at early CWC / SGC barrows in the Polish lowlands (dots) .."ReplyDelete
Great map! Have a link?
One of these Kujawian dots (Kruszyn, 2878–2696 cal. BC, 1σ) is discussed in Pospieszny e.a 2015 (emphasis is mine):
"The ceramic vessel from the grave in Kruszyn can be identified as pot of WLT-type (German “Wellenleistentopf”, “Wulstleistentopf”, or “A-Topf”, English “coarse beaker” with „short-wave moulding”) [..] This type of decoration is mostly encountered on vessels from settlement sites in the Alpine zone, absolutely dated to the first half of the 3rd mill. BC, for example, Zürich-Mozartstraße or
Meilen-Rorenhaab [Zurich lake]. (..) In the Polish Lowland, WLT-type vessels are mainly recorded on settlement sites and are a form common to both the Funnel Beaker and the Corded Ware culture. (..)
In Kujawy, fragments of one such a vessel were discovered in a heavily damaged ritual feature in Krusza Podlotowa. It also contained fragments of a type A beaker, a few human bones of an adult, animal bones [..] Animal remains produced a date Gd-1983 4250±70BP, 2926–2679 cal. BC, 1σ. Due to the syncretic features of
the grave goods, the assemblage is classified as belonging either to the Corded Ware or the Funnel Beaker culture. [..]
These pots were used in some cases as urns in cremation graves, i.e. in Karbow in Mecklenburg or in Ekmäs in Finland.
So, we are having here a clear archeological connection between Kujawy via Vorpommern/Uckermark (your map) and Mecklenburg towards ultimately the Zurich Lake. Its equally becoming clear why the path, which presumedly started on the Curonian Lagoon (see below) avoided the coast: As you have remarked, "All those sites on the coast (+) and (▢) are TRB & GAC". So a southerly bypass via Kujawy, the Notec-Wartha-Oder waterway, and the Stettin-Schwerin (Ostorf)-Elbe route already well established for TRB (and also the Slavic oeriod) makes quite some sense.
If the archeology in the Elbe-Weser triangle wasn't in such a shitty state (credits go to the 2003-2013 CDU/FDP state government that under the pretexts of "decentralisation" and "refocusing Universities/ research onto economically promising fields" virtually completely destroyed Lower Saxony's archeological infrastructure), we in all likelyhood should by now also know about "Wellenleistentöpfe" from there. Unfortunately, we'll need to wait for the Kiel University team (Müller, Furholt etc.) that has tried to pick up some sherds from that destruction and mobilised federal funds for excavations in the Elbe-Weser triangle, results of which so far have only been published as concerns TRB, but not yet Single Grave.
Let's add some chronology:
Piličiauskas/ Heron 2015 (DOI: 10.2458/azu_rc.57.18447)
"[In Lithuania], the Rzucewo [Bay Coast, Curonian Lagoon] culture starts ~3200 cal BC, while the earliest Corded Ware culture graves appear only around 2900/2700 cal BC in the southeastern Baltic (..) [This] is in good agreement with very old 14C dates obtained from the Pribrezhnoye site, Kaliningrad oblast, Russian Federation. Here, pottery with elaborated “corded” designs was found within slightly deepened long houses. Ten 14C dates belong to the period 3500–3000 cal BC, with only two dates in the period 3000–2700 cal BC. All dates were made on charcoal and wood, thus excluding any FRE."
Zyglad, W. Prussia, CW burial (charcoal dating): 2910–2879
cal. BC (Pospieszny e.a 2015, see above). Just where it needs to be in time and space in order to lend credibility to a SGBR expansion out of the Bay Coast via Kujawy and Mecklenburg to ultimately a/o Zurich Lake.
Eastwards, we get:
- Zvejniki, Latvia, grave 137: 2,889 +-100 calBC (Zagorska 2006)
- Narva-Jõesuu IIb, Estonia: 2,811 +- 73 (Kriiska e.a. 2014, https://arheoloogia.ee/ave2014/AVE2014_03_Kriiskajt_Narva-Lauga.pdf)
Yep - Living with Ancestors: Neolithic Burial Mounds of the Polish Lowlands
By Łukasz Pospieszny
those dates for Lithuanian CWC seem too old - “charcoal effect”
Otherwise it would be cut & dry that cwc expanded from the Baltic
So Moscow > Belarus/Lithuania > Polish Lowlands/Lower Vistula > Notec/North Central Poland > Elbe > Denmark > Northern Netherlands/Veluwe.ReplyDelete
Rob: Thx! Apparently, we are both relying on the same author :). Let's hope he know's what he is doing (I think, he certainly does..)ReplyDelete
"those dates for Lithuanian CWC seem too old - “charcoal effect”
Don't you rather mean the charcoal-based data from Kaliningrad Oblast for "corded designs" within Rzucewo? Here, I would agree and like to see a bit more evidence being published (ideally in English, my Russian language skills have massive room for improvement..).
Piličiauskas' datings are rock-solid, absolutely "state or the art" - actually the most extensive and diligent assessment of possible freshwater/ seawater reservoir effects I have seen so far. IIRC, he has also done some in-depth reviews on the AMS dates of Lithuanian inland (often lakeshore) CWC sites, and concluded on a starting date for Lithuanian CWC proper around 2,840 BC, but I have been unable to retrieve the publication in question - maybe you have better luck...
RRocca posted a link to an actual paper that radiocarbon dated some of the graves to possibly be slightly earlier (as early as 2550 BC). Obviously still within some margin of error. That paper also referred to those graves as CWC. I
Not sure what you're arguing here. Are you making that claim that modern distribution doesn't reflect what things were like 4500 years ago? Or are you making the statement that "steppe" ancestry is the commonality rather than culture?
U106/P312+ are dated to about 2800-2600 BC, making them strong candidates as originating in SGC. The dates are just too convenient. We also have P312->L238 which is strongly linked to the migration period and the north German plain Of course, L51(xL52), and L52/P310, P311 were still among them as well. You will note that P310/P311 are actually quite numerous in Europe still today, if anyone cared to look.
The former group (L51) is a fascinating one to me. Every living member I have seen has DYS426=13, and one of the subclades has been found in Italian aDNA, as well as among moderns of the same region.
''Not sure what you're arguing here. Are you making that claim that modern distribution doesn't reflect what things were like 4500 years ago''
yep- the current distribution frequency / distribution of R1b & R1b in east Central Europe is not due to CWC or BB expansions
U106/P312+ are dated to about 2800-2600 BC, making them strong candidates as originating in SGC. The dates are just too convenient. We also have P312->L238 which is strongly linked to the migration period and the north German plain Of course, L51(xL52), and L52/P310, P311 were still among them as well. You will note that P310/P311 are actually quite numerous in Europe still today, if anyone cared to look.''
Maybe in Scandinavia, but northern Germany east of the Rhine experienced marked demographic shifts during migration Era. East of the Elbe even more so
Neues zur „Odergermanischen Gruppe“: Das innereReplyDelete
Barbaricum an der unteren Oder im 5.–6. Jh. AD
Armin Volkmann, Universität Heidelberg
In the early Migration Period (Period D), the climate worsened dramatically and weather
became very cool and dry in the course of only a few decades. Very poor conditions for land
cultivation and animal husbandry resulted from this, which withdrew their livelihood in many
places from the Germanic groups engaged in subsistence agriculture. On this limited scale, this
could be buffered by more intensive trade, like the piled material found on the site and
documented by geomorphology on the aforementioned trade and transit routes Settlements in
micro regional favoured areas with a guaranteed supply of water such as kettle lakes, for
example, could continue to exist. Spatial analysis of settlements shows a strong shrinking of the
settlement clusters to remaining areas in which agricultural activity was still possible. Thus,
there is a great disparity of a juxtaposition of extremely unequal small scale economic potential,
which led to the widespread disintegration of settlement clusters and the accompanying
dismantling of settlements in the subsequent late Migration Period (Period E). Simultaneously,
the areas of the extensive natural, potential forest communities that are not influenced by
humans increased greatly, whereas in Period E only “islands of remnant settlements” still
existed in the surrounding woodlands
It is quite interesting to note that the East Asian admixture present in the Sami, Finnish, Estonians, and to a lesser extent, in some of the populations of the Baltic and Northwestern Russia, didn't appear until at least 3500 ybp, with Y-DNA N1 not appearing in the Baltic until the Iron Age. What is the earliest apperance of this East Asian/Siberian ancestry in Northwestern Europe? I do find it amusing now that much of the maps present at the Eupedia site depicting the Kunda, Narva, and Comb Ceramic Cultures as bearers of Y-DNA N and this East Asian ancestry, are now completely false.ReplyDelete
"RRocca posted a link to an actual paper that radiocarbon dated some of the graves to possibly be slightly earlier (as early as 2550 BC). Obviously still within some margin of error. That paper also referred to those graves as CWC"
He didn't publish anything. But this is not important, since we are talking about detected R1b, but not about the earlier CWC with R1a there. The BBC is already there with 2600BC.
swiss plateau paper is out
Apparently R1b and steppe dna arrived there around 2700 BC
The Aesch25 sample is dated to 2864-2501 cal BC.ReplyDelete
I knew Aesch25 was kinda special, with all that steppe DNA.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
There's two other R1b1a2-M269 samples dating to the Corded Ware period! So looks like this confirms R1b L151 colonized western end of Corded Ware very early on. Then, wait 300 years before invading Western Europe.ReplyDelete
MX265 from Singen is also very interesting, should be another specimen from the Hallstatt culture! I hope it has enough coverage to be added to the Global25?ReplyDelete
BTW, no samples from Sion-Petit-Chasseur, lol@Archi.
Supplementary note 4...ReplyDelete
In the younger site of Spreitenbach associated with the Corded Ware complex only haplogroups of the clades I2c and I2a are present. In the contemporaneous sample from Lingolsheim R1b could be determined.
I guess this sort of helps to explain the I2 in the Swat Valley.
Also very intersting: TU905(SX18) from Wartau, dated to the early Roman era. I suppose that's probably still a local.ReplyDelete
Yeah, I'll add these guys to the G25. Here are the preliminary coords for MX265 if you missed them.
Thanks. You seem very knowledgable on the peopling of Eurasia. Can I ask you a few more questions? If you prefer we can take it offline but I'm namely interested in the populating of South/Central Asia and the origins of ANE and y P. Thanks.
So, Late Neolithic Switzerland released. Seems to be suggesting an early dating of 2700 BCE as estimate of arrival time (actual earliest time is approximately 2600 BCE as a median date).ReplyDelete
Here's where that dates sits relative to the sequences in Olalde, on a graphic provided by Reich and a list of samples from Olalde: https://imgur.com/a/2w34RPJ
Their Fig 2B seems to show 1 migrant in Britain at 3000 BCE with 100 Yamnaya ancestry... Wonder where that comes from. Some questions to me about these proportions (seems to suggest some 100% Yamnaya ancestry individuals in Britain, for'ex, at dates they shouldn't be, and I can't see the presence of the early British outlier I2416 with low steppe ancestry there).
This will need some careful looking at to think in context of other samples from region precisely between 3000 BCE - 2500 BCE (however many there are), to think about what it means for questions as to whether there was a compact interaction of steppe ancestry and MN European ancestry in one specific place (Holland, Poland, etc), that then expanded suddenly at 2500 BCE, or whether a bit more gradual and multi-regional process took place over a few hundred years.
(Of course archaeologists will be vital to this, and I have not enough archaeological knowledge to really be a voice in that debate from that side of it!)
"Here are the preliminary coords for MX265 if you missed them."
Thanks, I noticed myself, that's the supposed R1a from lake Constance area we've been discussing about.
The Aesch25 sample is dated to 2864-2501 cal BC.ReplyDelete
And Aesch25 is the only Aesch sample that plots with Corded Ware and has the highest steppe ancestry (79.8%) of any sample in the entire study.
Samuel Andrews said...ReplyDelete
"There's two other R1b1a2-M269 samples dating to the Corded Ware period! So looks like this confirms R1b L151 colonized western end of Corded Ware very early on. Then, wait 300 years before invading Western Europe."
What nonsense, the Corded Ware period is the same as the Bell Beaker period, the difference is only 100-200 years. There's only the BBC, of the CWC there's only the Spreitenbach CWC (CH) 47,255 8,2158 2500 - 2100 (I2!!!!, no R1b).
So what's the precise cultural period/affiliation of MX265?
Aesch25 is not Corded Ware! It's just the first alien from the steppe, probably one of the ancestors of the BBC, the early BBC. Aesch was attributed to the BBC.
Sample MX304 is very strange: is it downstream V1636 or M269?ReplyDelete
In the Supplementary info there is CTS5330 as SNP, but in the table from Supplementary 1 there is R1b1a1a2a etc...
I said I don't expect western Hallstatt or La Tène people to have been anything like this, Serbian-like. Now it came out he's really from the Hallstatt era. I take this as a valuable datapoint - but due to the scarcity of other Hallstatt samples the question how typical he really was remains open. And is he really R1a-M458? According to the table S1 the yDNA is too low coverage.
What was the EHG/CHG percentages of Aesch25? Or that of Yamnaya_Samara as it is used as a source population.ReplyDelete
“I guess this sort of helps to explain the I2 in the Swat Valley.”
These guys are Celto-Germanic associated I2
Swat I2a is the Mariupol-Danube one
The alpine -carpathian I2c , is found in BA-IA Armenia
His C14 date is compatible with Hallstatt and La Tène, but according to the paper he's early Iron Age, hence Hallstatt. But I don't find any info on cultural markers in his burial. Is there any isotopic info?ReplyDelete
Figure 2 is interesting. Apparently there was a large depopulation around 60 BC - 20 AD as well.
He has the basic same EHG/CHG as what Yamnaya has. There might be slight differences. Looks like Corded Ware, Bell Beaker derive from a population basically identical to Yamnaya.
Yeah, MX265 is R1a-M458. The BAM file has been checked for that.
The dating of Aesch25 is comparable to the earliest Corded Ware sample in the ancient DNA record, from Oblaczkowo in north-central Poland.ReplyDelete
Aesch25 - 2864-2501 calBCE
poz81 - 2880-2630 calBCE
Interesting. I was under the impression that CWC had slightly less CHG ancestry than the Yamnaya had (in relation to the EHG ancestry), but I might've been wrong there.
You're right Corded Ware and Bell Beaker do have slightly less CHG to EHG than Yamnaya does. But, it doesn't a significant difference. So, basically the same.ReplyDelete
Soon, special analysis will be done on Polish CWC (R1a M417) and Swiss CWC (R1b L151), to test exactly what their relationship to Yamnaya is.ReplyDelete
Samuel Andrews said...ReplyDelete
" Soon, special analysis will be done on Polish CWC (R1a M417) and Swiss CWC (R1b L151), to test exactly what their relationship to Yamnaya is."
Stop lying, there is no Swiss CWC R1b L151.
So I wonder how long it will be before the Steppe Hypothesis presents a half-decent model for the expansion of the IEs which is consistent with the vast amount of data available to us from the different fields.ReplyDelete
Have you guys even come to a consensus on whether it is an EHG or CHG language?
I mean we don't want this going on for another hundred years.
What subclade of I2 was found in Swat? Has there been any I2c found east of Armenia in ancient aDNA? WHat about R1a-Z93-?ReplyDelete
From an archaeological point of view, this paper is the most illiterate in all, one of the worst. They didn't even bring the attributes of archaeologists, because they are disgustingly biased. It's funny when they call CWC the Late Neolithic culture and BBC the Bronze Age culture. Although they are cultures of the same period (the Eneolithic). In general, they just pour water on the mill of deceivers.ReplyDelete
It is interesting that the authors just hate Bell Beakers, they were not even shown in PCA, although these samples are autosomal Bell Beakers, which is perfectly visible on qpAdm and ADMIXTURE.
For Auvernier R1b1a2a1a 2866-2601 BC a small amount of WSH is shown and no WHG is shown at all.
Singen (D) 47,767097 8,872239 763-431 BC MX265
Yes, I was right, they changed the designations from archeological sites, and it's from Iron Age and not from Aargau and there are no other Iron Age specimens.
LOL Simon_W is wrong about everything, and his insults "fucking idiot" to me about it have not been erased. And this guy squeals, but he doesn't get his head sprinkled with ashes.
David W. Anthony makes a good case for PIE to have been an EHG language.