This direct evidence that most Corded Ware ancestry must have genealogical links to people associated with Yamnaya culture spanning on the order of at most a few hundred years is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Steppe-like ancestry in the Corded Ware primarily reflects an origin in as-of-now unsampled cultures genetically similar to the Yamnaya but related to them only a millennium earlier.This is basically a straw man argument, because it's easy to debunk. So why put it in the paper? Well, as far as I can see, to make the idea that the CWC is derived from Yamnaya look more plausible. This idea, that the CWC is an offshoot of Yamnaya, seems to be the favorite explanation for the appearance of the CWC among the scientists at the David Reich Lab. However, I'd say they're facing a major problem with that, because the CWC and Yamnaya populations have largely different paternal origins. That is, CWC males mostly belong to Y-haplogroups R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, while Yamnaya males almost exclusively belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-Z2103. Indeed, as far as I know, there are no reliable instances of R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 in any published or yet to be published Yamnaya samples. But it is possible to reconcile the Y-haplogroup data with the ancIBD results if we assume that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware, Yamnaya and also Afanasievo cultures expanded from a genetically more diverse ancestral gene pool, each taking a specific subset of the variation with them. This gene pool would've existed somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably at the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, at most a few hundred years before the appearance of the earliest CWC burials in what is now Poland. Moreover, the split between the CWC and Yamnaya populations need not have been a clean one, with long-range contacts and largely female-mediated mixing maintained for generations, adding to the already close genealogical links between them. Citation... Ringbauer, H., Huang, Y., Akbari, A. et al. Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA. Nat Genet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-w See also... On the origin of the Corded Ware people
Wednesday, December 20, 2023
Dear Harald #2
The ancIBD method paper from the David Reich Lab was just published in Nature (open access here). It's a very useful effort, but the authors are still somewhat confused about the origin of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) population. From the paper (emphasis is mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
399 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 399 of 399I dont understand Gaskas point. RZ2103 is a sibling clade closely related to L51. Theyre both L23s.
Is he saying one is steppe the other not?
@ DragonHermit
"I dont understand Gaskas point. RZ2103 is a sibling clade closely related to L51. Theyre both L23s.
Is he saying one is steppe the other not?"
We could, for the same reason, say that they are both from western Europe (central, northern, around the Alps etc) because the first R-L23-Z2103* in Samara was found after at least 400 years of its formation. Look at the letters I wrote also here.
@Gaska,
Yes the Dutch models fails, just like the Iberian model fails. Because they were to lineair.
No one way streets and a lot of interaction. And a mobility on a pan European scale. That is fuzzy. Doesn't fit in the outdated models.
And yes you are sharp there was also an adaption to previous cultures in the case of the Dutch BB the coastal ones with the previous Vlaardingen culture (with ties to Northern France) and in the inland with the FBC that had ties with the western part of the Baltic Sea. Copper Axe every time tries to spin it to a LBK derived group but that's nonsense it were Ertebølle types that rushed all over the North German Plain about 3400 BC, and especially towards the West. They brought a radical change in material and culture.
So we see gross that on a European scale in the BB culture some features were shared. But also a lot regional/local variety. And yes especially the SGC (Protruding Foot Beaker) derived BB of Inland Netherlands took the Grand Pressigny Flint which is pretty SW wards in France. And yes my mother who is at the top hits (nr 1 in modern, with bg distance to nr 2) in closeness to all available G25 samples towards the BB NE Dutch proxy of Davidski (Lech Wehr). And yes she had H10e that has 100% hits with samples from the Rhineland, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. And the oldest sample of H10e was indeed in Portugal..... She is deeply rooted in thé hotspot of the Dutch inland BB (Hondsrug, Drenthe).
So indeed I guess you got some points here. Nevertheless as Ringbauer shows there is a IBD share with GAC. So no one way streets!
OT: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-023-01524-4 - "Koban culture genome-wide and archeological data open the bridge between Bronze and Iron Ages in the North Caucasus"
I think this has been on ENA for a while but only just published now.
@Арсен
L23 is a European marker just like Z2103, L51 and its ancestors M269, P297, L754, V1636, M73 etc. That L23 basal map is strange, how do you explain those percentages in Morocco or India?
@weure
The Iberian model does not fail with respect to the origin of this culture in the Tagus estuary because the dating is definitive.
El Campaniforme en Portugal-Michael Kunst
Absolute chronology of the Beaker phenomenon north of the Tagus estuary: demographic and social implications-Joao Cardoso
Campaniforme:chronology, pottery, and contexts of a long term phenomenon in the Portuguese Douro Basin-Maria de Jesus Sanches and Maria Helena Barbosa
What happens is that this model can explain a first phase of this culture and its expansion (international maritime style) along the Atlantic coast up to Brittany, British Isles and southern Scandinavia and then southwards to North Africa and the Spanish, French and Italian Mediterranean coast. But in successive phases things get more complicated and Sangmeister may be right with his Reflux theory because there are movements of population and therefore of customs, culture, etc., between both sides of the Pyrenees. Nor should we deny the important expansion of the German BBs towards the East (Bohemia, Moravia, Poland, Hungary) the Dutch towards the British Isles and Iberians to Sicily, Liguria and Sardinia. Population movements of both men and women, otherwise, it would be inexplicable that some forms and decorative motifs of German ceramics are identical to the Iberian ones. It was the women who traveled and continued to make the pottery that their mothers and grandmothers taught them.
Exogamy has been the best reproductive strategy of mankind since the Paleolithic and absolutely all European cultures practiced it regularly and constantly until the Iron Age. And of course Iberia was no exception to this "exogamic rule".
And of course this has already been demonstrated by genetics because there are at least 30 mtDNA markers shared by Iberia and other domains of the BB culture.
@weure
Regarding your mother's mtDNa, H10 & H10@16093 are markers of European neolithic cultures (the former oldest in Croatia, the latter in Austria), but H10e (for the moment) has Iberian origin (Cova de Bom Santo, 3.735 BC) and undoubtedly migrated north of the Pyrenees and joined the German chalcolithic cultures Eulau (CWC), Alburg (BBC). On its way north, I would not be surprised if it appeared in early chalcolithic sites in France or Switzerland like many other Iberian markers-I will give you an even more distant example.
mtDNA-V3
Iberia, Cueva de la Paloma, chalcolithic-I3214 (3.250 BC)
Bohemia, Radosevice, BB culture-I7290 (2.350 BC)
Hungary, Bekasmegyer, BB culture-I2365 (2.335 BC)
But beware, if you dare to claim in certain blogs or forums, that Iberian migrations took place you may end up banned. It is one of the dogmas of faith of the kurganist rednecks who try to impose their fairy tale (Origin of the BBC in the CWC, No Iberian migrations, steppe origin of M269>L51>L151>P312 etc) They will cite Olalde, and ignore the scientific papers that have shown that these migrations existed, that is, they will continue making a fool of themselves for years.
@ Gaska
I've written many times in the blogs that through MyTrueAncestry I understood that Sicilian BB of 4200 years ago matches my daughter-in-low Flemish and 100% Frankish and not me neither my wife from western Sicily even though with Norman uniparental markers (mt K1c1f3 and Y R-L21). How do you explain that? Not Iberians but Germans.
@ Gaska
H10e as to YFull has non sign of an Iberian origin.
https://www.yfull.com/mtree/H/
@Gaska
Of course, I’m not an expert in this and I won’t say anything, since I myself asked you a question about its origin above, maybe it originated in the territory of the Zagros Mountains or the Armenian Highlands or eastern Anatolia, partly went through the Caucasus to the steppes there and multiplied heavily in the pie of pastoral crops , partly went to Africa and so on... but of course now everyone will attack me
@Gio
-The Arrival of steppe and Iranian related ancestry in the Islands of the western Mediterranean-Daniel Fernandes (2.019)-
“The presence of Steppe ancestry in Early Bronze Age Sicily is also evident in Y chromosome analysis, which reveals that 4 of the 5 Early Bronze Age males had Steppe-associated Y-haplogroup R1b1a/1a2a/1a2. Two of these were Y-haplogroup R1b1a/1a2a/1a2a/1 (DF27>Z195) which today is largely restricted to Iberia and has been hypothesized to have originated there 2500-2000 BCE. This evidence of west-to-east gene flow from Iberia is also suggested by qpAdm modeling where the only parsimonious proximate source for the steppe ancestry we found in the main Sicily-EBA cluster is Iberians”
Iberian colonies or factories in Sicily exist since 2.400 BC, and that old genetic substrate lasted at least until the Iron Age (we also have a Sicani-DF27)
-The diverse genetic origins of a Classical period Greek army-“The potential connection to Spain_IA is intriguing, as structural similarities in EBA fortifications have been documented at Castelluccio near Syracuse and artifacts, such as Bell Beakers, have been found at BA sites near Palermo”.
The Sicani in the study come from two sites: Polizzello and Baucina. The first dates to the Iron Age and the second overlaps with the classical period. The samples cluster very much like the Bronze Age Sicily samples already in the G25. Most of them are female; almost all of the males at the site belong to G subclades, though there is one R1b (R1b-DF27>FT40455) at the Baucina site
When you talk about other markers (L21 or K1c1f3) you are talking about much more modern genetic influences (maybe Normans, Germans etc....).
Regarding mtDNA-H10e, I have said that (for the moment) it has Iberian origin because the oldest sample has been found in Portugal (3735 BC), of course if an earlier sample appears in Italy, France, Switzerland or Germany, then we would have to think differently.
@Арсен
Nobody is going to attack you for saying your opinion (I will never do it), what happens is that all the R1b samples we have are European (Italia, Francia, Noruega, Baltico, Balkanes, Iberia, Ucrania, Rusia.....), nothing to do with Iran or Armenia. R1b in South Caucasus is an early Iron Age issue due to population movements from North Caucasus (especially Z2103).
@Gaska
Now everything is so difficult to find out the roots of different branches of haplogroups, their migration, movement, all because we have very little data on ancient samples of the Neolithic, Mesolithic, Stone Age and Paleolithic ... I hope soon we will have big discoveries, well, we'll see
Większość ludzi spod znaku R-CTS1450 zajmowała się handlem również R1b-Y14300. Stąd to rozproszenie.
R1b-Y14300 prowadził handel z Kaukazem , w Azji środkowej. Dobrym węzłem komunikacyjnym były Morawy. (YFuLL) R-Y14300-> R-Y225811
Wait. I didn’t get it straight between CopperAxe and weure. Are the Dutch Beakers, ancestral to all Bell Beakers Blattenhole WHG rich and GAC poor, or vice versa?
@Gaska, yes I guess H10e was introjected in the BB circuit (initial from Iberia).
I guess it's no coincidence that here subclade has only 100% matches with the Rhineland, Ireland, Wales and Scotland.
Eulau (with 1 H10e) is in this respect a nice example. Harald Meller, the guy of the Nebra Sky Disc, did some CSI. And his reconstruction was that although it was found in a CW community, it was an act of revenge because the man of the Eulau CW community took woman from the Schönfelder culture, these culture was influenced by BB.
The magnificent CSI (pimped archeology ;):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWJlTEJbMo8
And about the connection between Schönfelder culture and the Meseta Region. Flux and reflux!
"Summary: The following article is based on articles by E. Sangmeister and H. Behrens from the 1960s and focuses on supraregional similarities among the Bell Beaker phenomenon especially between Central Germany and the Meseta
region.
Not only the „Beaker Package“, but also decoration motifs and the Begleit-/Komplementärkeramik of the younger Bell Beaker phase illustrate interrelations between these regions.Especially decoration motifs might be interpreted as a form of reflux from Central to Southwest Europe. 14C data support an earlier implementation of the two-zone decoration in Central Germany and these elements reached the Iberian Peninsula and the Meseta region along the Upper Rhine region and Southern France.
Moreover, the Iberian Bell Beaker phenomenon and the Schönfelder culture are also interconnected. Carinated bowls and Kalottenschalen reveal the influence of the Iberian Beaker phenomenon.
Throughout Europe, network centres can be identified within the Bell Beaker phenomenon which illustrate the importance of the exchange of material and immaterial resources. Absolute chronological data indicate that these centres arose
in a very short time and stood in constant communication to each other. Regarding current research (aDNA), the culturaltransmission is more likely based on the diffusion of ideas than migration, possibly connected with the exchange of goods
and with marriage practices."
Full of insights about the interaction of CW and BB. And of Central Europe and Iberia.
https://www.academia.edu/52396069/Glockenbecherbez%C3%BCge_zwischen_Mitteldeutschland_und_der_Meseta_Region_mit_Blick_auf_die_Sch%C3%B6nfelder_Kultur
@ Gaska
I don't want to enter now in the Sicani question, but when I examined that paper I concluded that the Sicani belonged to hg G old even 7000 years, probably already in Sicily, and anyway Sicani and Siculi were Italic peoples as the Elymians were probably linked to the Ligurians, not certainly come from Iberia but probably the other way around (don't ever forget the migration of Zilhao 7500 years ago from Italy to Iberia and not the other way around).
About mt H10e I tried to exam the haplotype, but I didn't find it and only if I have the whole test I may say my opinion and this H10e isn't in any place, except what you quoted, i.e. only the "H10e" sign. But the data? I frequently didn't agree with the YFull tree just for the heteroplasmies question.
It is clear that the uniparental markers of my wife's family are recent (Norman time), but it is clear that her autosome doesn't match the autosome of Buffa BB whereas my daugther-in-low's clearly matches it.
@Rob
The Chalcolithic collapse of Balkans followed by a resurrection, did that extend to the shores of the sea of Marmara and Troas in the same time frame? I recall reading that Kumtepe was abandoned and repopulated only long afters, just like Tell Yunatsite.
@weure and Copper Axe
There has been an attempt to sample Dutch TRB from tiny fragments that survived the sour conditions of the soil of the recent Dalfsen cemetery but it failed to yield anything useful.
@ Epoch
'The Chalcolithic collapse of Balkans followed by a resurrection, did that extend to the shores of the sea of Marmara and Troas in the same time frame? I recall reading that Kumtepe was abandoned and repopulated only long afters, just like Tell Yunatsite.''
Yes that is the case for many sites in western Anatolia.
In fact, in Anatolia there are two 'transitions' after the early Anatolian Farmer horizon. The first occurs ~ 5300/5000. This period (5000-4000) is poorly known and extremely poorly sampled , there is so far only sample to this horizon - Kumtepe 6 (the decent coverage one).
Then after 4200/4000 there is another change in Anatolia, with disapperance of many sites, and then reappearance of sites ~ 3800 bc, Barcin_Ch dates ~ 3700 bc, Camlibel Taralist similar, then appearance of Ikztepe, Ilipinar, etc
Understanding these phases is crucial, and i believe there is more work being undertaken.
@Davidski ,how soon will it be possible for people to resurrect ancient people based on the remains of their genomes? For example, the same Yamnayas, sredne stog, hunter-gatherers of anatolia, and so on? You could answer as a mathematician and geneticist 🤓 is there such a prospect of growing people in artificial wombs based on genes?
@Арсен ; that's a somewhat sci-fi-ish idea that's bait to me. The issues would be:
1) Most ancient genetic dna is only "capture", which is to say that it just samples across the genome a set of common polymorphic common variants (which were common in the population ancestral to all living humans, but some of which their descendants may have lost). This allows it to avoid the expense and irrelevant information you might otherwise get from ancient dna damage (which mean you have to spend a lot of money per "real" bit of ancient human dna). But this will miss any rare mutations which are generally specific to an individual, and which are disproportionately likely to affect how their body actually was (even though in mostly negative ways on average).
2) The ancient dna that is not capture is shotgun, and that may some degree of "false" mutations in it due to dna degradation (e.g. the sequence has errors in which depart from the consensus human genome just due to damage and contamination in the ground).
So although these forms of ancient dna are good enough to reconstruct population genetic relationships, and may be good enough to understand certain questions about human evolution and medical problems, they may not be good enough to reconstruct a true person's real sequence.
That said, you might be able to edit a living person's sequence to approximate an ancient person, if you understood the ancient genomes well enough. So this is like taking a living European and then editing in a representative set of the variants from an ancient European that would've affected the population genetic relationships and their phenotype, to approximate the ancient European. A pseudo-ancient person. (It's like the idea from Jurassic Park of taking frog dna and then editing in the bits that actually make the dinosaurs the dinosaurs, only plausible, because humans are closely related enough to be viable while frogs and dinosaurs not really, even if you had dinosaur dna).
As for whether anyone will ever do this, 1) the exo-womb technology is far off, if it's feasible to ever happen, 2) there is a moral question of whether it is justified to de-extinct people when that opens the door to creating people for scientific curiousity.
There also wouldn't be much point in all this expense, if you can just predict what they would look like and so on using computer models, pretty well.
I can't see any government actually allowing this to happen, and a secret project would require extreme private wealth and willingness to risk government action, for at least the foreseeable future. Some Russian figure once talked about resurrecting Scythian people from ancient dna, but I can only assume this is some off the cuff idea of either scaring foreign nations or exciting Russian citizens by some notion of "super-soldiers", and not actually anything that would be allowed as policy, even if they got technological capability.
@Gio
"About mt H10e I tried to exam the haplotype, but I didn't find it and only if I have the whole test I may say my opinion and this H10e isn't in any place, except what you quoted, i.e. only the "H10e" sign. But the data? I frequently didn't agree with the YFull tree just for the heteroplasmies question."
Did some strolling around.
Starting point, wiki.
"Haplogroup H10e has been found at a neolithic site, namely the Bom Santo cave near Lisbon, Portugal. This is the oldest sample of H10 which has ever been found and it has been dated to 3735 BCE (+- 45 years). Out of 14 individuals analyzed there was only a single sample belonging to haplogroup H, namely a migrant male belonging to haplogroup H10e.[2]"
Ok never heard of, were lies Bom Santo Cave? Ok found this on researchgate, the black star it is:
https://postimg.cc/sM2c6rG9
Ok filled the black star of Bom Santo Cave on to the BB heatmap:
https://postimg.cc/K4yC91GP
BAM, BB bull's eye, get me loose! if this ain't a connection with Bell Beakers I eat my heart out!
@weure said-"Germany_Lech_BellBeaker:WEHR_1192SkA- harbors lots of GAC. But the Dutch BB samples from the other Dutch area's have a way lot less"
*NLD_BB-I5748
0.353-Eastern_HG
0.214-TUR_Barcin_N
0.209-Caucasus_HG
0.112-Levant_PPN
0.112-Western_HG
*DEU_BB-WEHR_1192SkA
0.312.TUR_Barcin_N
0.260-Caucasus_HG
0.235-Eastern_HG
0.177-Western_HG
0.015-Levant_PPN
@Rob
From what I read there are clear links between the Balkan sites and Troy. I have the impression this could mean that the resurrection after the collapse in the Balkans and in Troas and along the coast of the sea of Marmara all were part of the same event.
That could mean IMHO that the Penske paper sealed the debate of the IE Urheimat. Because it clearly showed that the resurrection coincided with incoming steppe admixture (Cernavoda I) even if some sites showed no steppe ancestry (EBA Yunatsite).
I think the paper makes the case - and genetically substantiates this - that after the Chalcolithic many sites in the Balkans were genealogically connected to Sredny Stog and those who weren't were at least culturally connected. In other words, it is probable that a language was spoken associated with the steppe. That means Sredny Stog.
The linked chain suggested for the transfer of language to Anatolia is Sredny Stog -> Suvorovo -> post-eneolithic collapse Balkans. Penske showed that the suggestion works well. And we know from substantiated "leaks" Suvorovo has steppe ancestry as well.
@ weure
I like Grossman but his article is the same old Acopia by many west European historians “BB spread by diffusion of ideas”. They must know what the data shows but still twist the facts.
Obviously there was a migration from the upper Danube to Iberia & elsewhere (as the DNA and C14 shows) , and the mobile
P312 Clans spread pottery design ideas from node to node
@ Arsen
“ For example, the same Yamnayas, sredne stog, hunter-gatherers of anatolia, and so on? You could answer as a mathematician and geneticist 🤓 is there such a prospect of growing people in artificial wombs based”
Yes it’s well underway, one woman is 7 months pregnant . It’ll be out soon in Jurassic Park 6
@Matt ,wow, thank you for such a great detailed answer, but I think there is nothing fantastic in this. Scientists are already creating processors based on the 2-nanometer technical process, that is, they are already approaching atomic sizes, these developments in the future will help to quickly and accurately sequence not just one DNA genome of an ancient person, but carry out simultaneous sequencing of tens and hundreds of genes of this person from different parts of the body, which will reduce to zero the likelihood of any error since everything can be compared... well, you understand my point, I hope... I can’t wait for these days
@ Epoch
'The linked chain suggested for the transfer of language to Anatolia is Sredny Stog -> Suvorovo -> post-eneolithic collapse Balkans. Penske showed that the suggestion works well. And we know from substantiated "leaks" Suvorovo has steppe ancestry as well.''
The Suvorovo scenario doesn't quite work
1. its too early in time. 4500 bc is pre-collapse
2. Suvorovo-era individuals, like Smyadovo, were a drop in the Ocean, and culturally assimilated into Bulgarian Chalcolithic society.
A more likely scenario is Cernavoda-Usatovo, because these guys moved en masse toward the Rhodope, as a fresh wave of northern migrants, this time bringing in their own native culture/ ideology.
They also had fancy daggers created (at least in part) with near eastern technology and metal isotope analysis suggests they used metal ores from Anatolia. This might have ''pulled'' them toward Anatolia, and carved out a 'hub' in the Troad. As you know, Kumtepe IV is pre-Troy, and these communities then moved a few miles away and erected Troy. They then became immersed in Anatolian networks and by the time they conquered central Anatolia (e.g. during an opportunistic political takeover/ ''2200bc crises'') there is 'no evidence of foreign invasion', as Hittitologsts tend to say.
'' even if some sites showed no steppe ancestry (EBA Yunatsite).''
This is extremely interesting. Yunatsite has no steppe ancestry but they are not native, nor are they steppe-low Cernavoda people. At least from the male-perspective, their lineages are non-Balkan, non-steppe, type of pre-Slavic I2a. This means that it was not only steppe people migrating after 4000 BC. Even more interesting is their adaptation of pithos burials, which must signal at least some form of Neolithic continuity.
@Matt ,when it comes to such scientific breakthroughs and the ability to resurrect any people of ancient times and modern times, not one politician will interfere, you can resurrect people like Einstein Stalin Hitler Pharaoh...what can I say, it’s unimaginable how much money will be circulating in this business, how many parents there are relatives girls and boys will be ready to give any means to resurrect their loved ones
But the clearest links between Balkans & Anatolia is between 5000 and 4000 BC, which is known as the Kumtepe VI-Beşik-Sivritepe horizon in west Anatolia. But we see no evidence of unidirectional migrations from Balkans or steppe to Anatolia, it is a multi-pronged network which includes rise in CHG and EuroHG, a southern analogue of the diverse early Sredni Stog.
So at present we must admit 3 possible models for the spread of Hitto-Luwian.
@weure said-"Germany_Lech_BellBeaker:WEHR_1192SkA- harbors lots of GAC. But the Dutch BB samples from the other Dutch area's have a way lot less"
@Gaska said:"
*NLD_BB-I5748
0.353-Eastern_HG
0.214-TUR_Barcin_N
0.209-Caucasus_HG
0.112-Levant_PPN
0.112-Western_HG
*DEU_BB-WEHR_1192SkA
0.312.TUR_Barcin_N
0.260-Caucasus_HG
0.235-Eastern_HG
0.177-Western_HG
0.015-Levant_PPN"
Indeed look at Ringbauer (IBD), they picked GAC (high EEF: about 80%) in Eastern Europe.
NOT from TRB-West (= NE Dutch), that was mainly Ertebølle HG derived.
So no one way street!
Here is a PCA focusing on Western BA Anatolia. I've had to do some (rough) relabeling to clarify clusters. I tried to avoid samples too close to the Hellenistic period(the Halicarnassus samples that made G25 don't form a neat cluster, some looking Greek admixed).
https://imgur.com/a/HOkHvLt
https://pastebin.com/WWrbgGTD
Some thoughts:
-EBA Bulgaria samples chosen exclude any that look obviously recently Yamnaya-mixed (not descendant of ChL Balkans). These look descendant of Cernavoda, and many of them share I-L701>I-L699 with Cernavoda, and several are I-L701>I-P78.
-Western Anatolia IA Degirmendere (subgeometric) forms a cluster with BA samples like I5733 Izmir and MA2203 Kalehoyuk, the latter from Central Anatolia, which is notable as it differs from all preceding samples in the area.
-Further, the MBA Izmir sample (The I-L701>I-P78 individual) is midway between this cluster and the pre-greek Aegean.
-It's difficult to tell for sure, given the few ChL Western Anatolia samples we have, but if the cluster is pulling anywhere, it's somewhere toward the EBA Balkans.
-A few samples with Steppe ancestry like MBA_West and Barcin_ChL appear to have more CHG than the main western cluster.
My view is that the evidence we already have is consistent with a Balkan route ~3500-3000BC. I also think it's likely that more Anatolian I-P78 will show up in future, given that partial and fully Anatolian individuals like R6750 from Roman Viminacium carry it. I am not sure there are any other strong candidate lineages for Anatolian speakers, with the exception of maybe G-L13.
@ Ethan
Interesting how Izmir_MBA is pulled toward Greece. Cycladic EBA has small amounts of steppe ancestry (~9%, when I looked at it with qpAdm), I’ll double check that at some point.
@wuere
Just now I don't remember the percentages of WHG in TRB, are they much higher than GAC (or Iberia_ChL)?
See the Ostorf TRB, Ertebølle types that took partly the Neolithic package but were especially adapted to coastal area's.
Estimation of EEF in TRB West is 80% HG and 20% EEF, TRB Swe (Gökhem) and GAC Poland is 80% EEF and 20% HG (for sure).
@weure
That is, you think that the Dutch BBs had different autosomal composition depending on the region they inhabited, right?
I hope someone will analyze more Dutch genomes from that culture because the Olalde samples are very late (early bronze age).
Dutch BB is not Dutch BB. There is a difference between the coastal (West-Dutch) and the inland (NE-Dutch) (see also Furholt 2019).
When we have a look at the NE Dutch BB proxy (Lech BB Wehr) and the West Dutch BB that has samples, there is a lot of distance (in G25) between them! Seem almost unrelated or at least only fare related. My mother and I are autosomal incredible close related to this Lech proxy! Remarkable thing.
NE Dutch are a Protruding Footbeaker-subset of SGC- offshoot. When SGC came in (2900-2850) they met TRB West (presumably high Ertbølle HG, TRB Tiefstich expansion 3400 BC), this TRB subtype share the red Helgoland flint.
Ringbauer has shown that SGC (so CW) related groups share IBD with GAC from Ukraine and Poland. So it's likely that the ancestors of SGC picked this already up in Eastern Europe.
And it's also likely that-seen the spread of something like H10e- it derived some EEF from the interaction with the SW Beakers (from which they-NE Dutch- share the Grand Pressigny Flint for example).
@Rob
I think the one Cycladic sample definitely does have steppe ancestry. I know there are links between the Cyclades and Usatovo/the Balkans more generally. It would be interesting to have more samples from this period.
There is at least one sample from Nea Strya EBA from the Skourtanioti paper which seems to have some steppe ancestry too.
NeaStyra_EBA:NST010
@weure
The interaction with the Iberian SW-BBs (exogamy) is a scientific certainty, for example;
mtDNA-H4a1/a@195
Iberia, Humanejos, BBC, Madrid (2.250 BC)
Sardinia, Anghelu Ruju, BBC-I15942 (2.337 BC)
mtDNA-H1@16239
Iberia, Bom Santo, Alenquer, Estremadura-BS12 (3.600 BC)
England, Neale's Cave, Paington, Devon-I5441 (1.800 BC)
mtDNA-T2b3@151
Iberia, Sima del Ángel, Córdoba-I7587/I8149/I8148 (2.700 BC)
Iberia, Humanejos, BBC–I6539 (2.251 BC)
Morocco, Cueva de Kehf el Baroud cave (2.800 BC)
Italy, Via Guidorossi, Parma, BBC-I2477 (2.065 BC)
mtDNA-U5a1a2b
Iberia, cueva de la Paloma, BBC-I3243 (2.350 BC)
Bulgaria, Shekerdjia-SM8.1 (2.329 BC)
Germany, Irlbach, BBC-I4250-GR5 (2.250 BC)
Bohemia, Jinonice, Unetice-I7201/Grave 88 (1.950 BC)
-Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in central Europe-Corina Knipper
@Gio
Every single person with a haplogroup/subclade that descends from R-L23 literally means that they descend from the very first person that had the mutation for R-L23 which didn't form until about 6400 years ago. A single male is the ancestor of all of those descendants. That person is a ~200x great-grandfather of us all.
When it comes to these discussions about R1b all I care about right now is where did that person, that we all descend from, live and whether or not he had Steppe autosomal DNA because he is the single male ancestor of all of us that are derived for R-L23. I do not care about Villabruna. I do not care about branches of R-M269 or branches of other upstream SNPs.
@Арсен
"most likely, the Mesolithic r1b in Europe is a hunter-gatherer from Siberia who accidentally came to Europe, probably hunted with some kind of animal"
I never asked about anything that would have caused that comment. You missed the point of my posts.
@weure
Germany_BBC:I3601
Alburg-mtDNA-H10e
Distance:2,3015%
53.12-Yamnaya_Samara
35.94-Iberia_Central_ChL
7.03-Ukraine_Eneolithic
3.91-Yamnaya_Kalmykia
@Gaska
"L23 is a European marker just like Z2103, L51 and its ancestors M269, P297, L754, V1636, M73 etc. That L23 basal map is strange, how do you explain those percentages in Morocco or India?"
It's not really strange at all. L23* is just random L23 branches that we haven't properly classified. They are just lesser knowns siblings clades of Z2103 and L51, and the reason why they're lesser known, is they're not in areas we expect them to be in high frequencies (i.e. Morocco or India).
So most R1bs are L23s, and the lesser known ones are in lesser known places. We just haven't bothered classifying them due to their scarcity. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
@ Dospsaises
"@Gio
Every single person with a haplogroup/subclade that descends from R-L23 literally means that they descend from the very first person that had the mutation for R-L23 which didn't form until about 6400 years ago. A single male is the ancestor of all of those descendants. That person is a ~200x great-grandfather of us all.
When it comes to these discussions about R1b all I care about right now is where did that person, that we all descend from, live and whether or not he had Steppe autosomal DNA because he is the single male ancestor of all of us that are derived for R-L23. I do not care about Villabruna. I do not care about branches of R-M269 or branches of other upstream SNPs".
Ahhhhh, of course. So none of us is an "out of Africa", none of us is linked with any animals or any plant, and it is wrong to say that 14.750.000 in the US, 8.750.000 in Argentina, 4.820.000 in Italy (only Sicily), 1.030.00 in Brazil, 940.000 in Venezuela, 220.000 in Australia, 200.000 in Germany, 150.000 in Canada, 110.000 in Belgium have a Sicilian ancestry, thus my two grandchildren with a Sicilian grandmother who are among those 110.000 in Belgium (among more than 1 million Italians) lost their grandmother or have to forget her.
@ Dospsaises
"I do not care about Villabruna. I do not care about branches of R-M269 or branches of other upstream SNPs".
But I didn't say only that these people very likely descended from Villabruna, but that the same R-L23*, and even R-L23-Z2103* could come from western Europe and have migrated to Yamnnaya in the about 400 years between the formation of the haplogroup and the first survived lines found so far. Do you understand this?
@Dospaises
And why stop at L23 (6,400 years ago), you are not interested in what our ancestors did from R-M207 in Siberia? How and when did they arrive with the epigravettian culture to Italy, where was the first M269? our history does not start at L23, we could go back to when we were P226 instead of R*.
We will all end up in Africa my friend, this may not be very glamorous for some, but it is the truth.
@DragonHermit
The fact that L23 and Z2103 were found in Lopatino (about 3,200 BC) does not mean that L51 or M269 also originated in the steppes. To prove it, it is necessary to find those markers there, everything else is an unscientific debate. One Z2103 arriving from the Balkans and a massive founder effect may have started the history of that marker in the steppes.
As the oldest DF27 is at the moment in Narbonne (French Mediterranean coast), does it mean that L21 or U152 also have their origin in France?
It is possible, that branches of L23 have not been investigated because they are scarce and insignificant, but I do not believe that these branches are in Morocco.
@Gaska
There is no Steppe autosomal DNA in western Europe until R-L23 subclades simultaneously appeared in western Europe. I have repeatedly told you the same thing and you continue to post comments that ignore these basic facts. I2a & G2a samples in western Europe prior to the Bronze Age lack Steppe autosomal DNA. I do not care about I2a & G2a with Steppe autosomal DNA. I care about R-L23 without Steppe autosomal DNA which does not exist. You know this, or at least should, because you have not been able to cite a single specimen that is R-L23 without Steppe autosomal DNA. You ignore that and continue on with a hypothesis because you have nothing concrete.
You lack deductive reasoning. Villabruna is not the logical ancestor because the remains of most ancient people that had R1b will never be found. Are you actually so delusional that you think all ancient specimens will be found? Do you really not realize that huge number of mutations between Villabruna and R-L23 and large number of ancients that will never be found. A single haplogroup R ancient specimen that far removed that isn't even R-M269 cannot be used to prove continuity in the region. Only more recent specimens with younger verifiable SNPs can be used to provide the likelihood of region of birth.
You refuse to accept SHT001 because it doesn't fit your belief system. You probably haven't even looked at the SI of Jeong et al. 2020. The authors of the study that is was published in marked it as R1b1a2a1a (R-P311). I analyzed the BAM file myself. Not only is it derived for R-P311 it has 3 hits on R-P311 with a 100% result of derived. It is also derived for R-P310 and multiple upstream SNPs. There are not any contradictory calls that would call into question the results. The authors that published SHT001 show in mmc2.xlsx that the contamination level is too low for it to be an issue. Furthermore, SHT001 was used in the study that caused this thread that included the authors Olalde, Patterson and Reich. Check for the SI at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-w They wouldn't include SHT001 if it were contaminated.
C3341, which was also found in an Afanasievo burial, is also derived for both R-P310 and R-P311 and upstream SNPs and no contradictory calls. This is further proof that R-P310,R-P311 existed in the Afanasievo culture. Do you know what else SHT001 and C3341 have in common? They all have Steppe autosomal DNA just like the CWC R-L23 specimens. C3341 is not a contaminated specimen.
You do not have sufficient data to prove that R-L23 didn't already have centuries in a culture with Steppe autosomal DNA.
If it weren't for the hundreds of samples we now have you would be claiming R-L23 is originally from western Europe and the Baltics and Balkans wouldn't even be considered by you.
@ Dospaises
I explained your same concept when I said that what is important is the "formation" of an ethnos, that against who pretended that the part of me who came from the eastern Alps is Illyrian, Albanian etc etc. The part we have in common with others is just "common" and not their property. The concept is of Massimo Pallottino about Etruscans. My fight for Villabruna R1b1 many years before that he was found, and by examining only the STRs at our disposal then, was against the tentative to impose that "Ex Oriente lux" thus we Italians (and Europeans) were nothing. I foresaw what is now the "Southern Ark" theory and its ideology, and, as I am above all an historian, I foresaw also the actual wars and the next to come too.
@Gio @ Gaska
I am going to waste some time on something that you guys mention but is irrelevant. Villabruna can only be reliably determined to be derived for R-L761 which is from 20400-17100 ybp and he is ancestral for every single phylogenetic equivalent of R-M269 that is a reliable mutation. There are at least 4800 years between the reliably tested Y-DNA mutations and the C14 dating of Villabruna. He is so far removed from R-L23 you guys are crazy for ever mentioning him. If you are going to mention him at least mention the Afasanievo SHT001 and C3341 as well as MA-1 from Siberia which is the oldest specimen derived for haplogroup R. The burial location of MA-1 as well as the shared autosomal DNA with Native Americans who are mostly derived for haplogroups Q-M3 and Q-Z780, show that the origin of haplogroup R is from Siberia or northern Asia and not Europe. Definitely not the Balkans, the Baltics or the Alps. It does not matter that there was a person whose ancestors were derived for haplogroup R that made their way to Italy from northern Asia. I have cousins all over the world from a common direct paternal ancestor. That does not prove that I am from those countries. FTDNA understands the basics. Just take a look at the migration path of R-L23 at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/migration Anyone can see from that graph how Villabruna is irrelevant.
is it true that Michael Jackson had a European French branch of R1b?and Muhammad Ali? The latter's grandfather is Irish, like
@Dospaises
FTDNA understands the basics. Just take a look at the migration path of R-L23 at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/migration Anyone can see from that graph how Villabruna is irrelevant.
Terrible.
Whoever came up with this map is trying hard to not make it too obvious that M269 came from Europe and had a massive impact on Asia.
It's sort of like, yeah, M269 is from Europe, but look, it's really from Asia.
@Dospaises judging by this map, the M269 appeared on the territory of the Volga , I wonder on what grounds they decided that this was so ?
@Gaska
We have IBD graphs that show gene flow from Yamnaya -> Corded Ware -> Bell Beaker. The genetic flow in EBA Europe is clearly east-to-west from the steppe, and it's strongly associated with R1b-L23s/R1a. This is also coupled with archeological evidence, horse DNA, spread of diseases and specific genetic mutations (like lactose tolerance), etc...
Yes, R1b was a pan-European Y-DNA, just like I2, and you find them both in Mesolithic Europe and EBA steppe/Yamnaya. But the SPECIFIC clades that spread during EBA like L23 are clearly originating from the EBA steppe (in fact RZ2103/L23 are only a few hundred years after L23). We can confirm this in 200 different ways.
Some pretend to understand phylogenetics but like to ignore the tons of Stone Age data we now have Siberia and Europe.
They keep claiming things like “Yhg R is from Siberia” (which is perhaps distantly true), but ignore the fact that R3 in Mal’ta Siberia became extinct.
Look at all the Mesolithic Siberian, Altai, TTK samples from Allentoft, Yang, etc - there’s not a single Mesolithic R1b to be found. If R1b is from Siberia, why isn’t there any in native Americans ? The “west Eurasian” component in native Americans came via yhg Q.
Mesolithic Siberian are characterised by Yhg C and W.
With the possible exception of R1b-PH155, L754 expanded from Europe to Siberia. West Siberian HG even have WHG in them.
And even PH155 is older west of the IAMC than east.
@Ethan & Rob
In regards to your PCA and models above, Proto-Anatolians moved into Anatolia via Greece?
Or do you think that it was a two-pronged pre-Mycenaean migration, with one part moving into Greece and the other into Anatolia along the Marmara coastline?
Either way, this would require some evidence of Proto-Anatolians being present in Greece.
@Davidski
I don't think it arrived primarily via Greece. Maybe some pre-proto-anatolian or related speakers ended up making it into Greece via related movements but they must have died out.
I believe they primarily went through the Dardanelles and initially stayed close to the western coast.
There is Minoan, Cycladic, and later Mycenanean influence on Western Anatolia but these postdate the existence of I5733 (2800BC Izmir/Yassitepe). The MBA Izmir sample is one of the few with obvious Minoan-like admixture, and I don't think his I-P78 is from Greece.
@Gio @Gaska
I have to correct an error. The difference between R-L761 and Villabruna is about 2800 years and not 4800 years. Regardless, there is a large difference in time between the TMRCA of R-L761 and the C14 date of Villabruna.
@Арсен
Don't take the full path literally. I posted a link to it as a general idea of the path of the R haplogroups from east to west in Europe. The path is based on ancient specimens and modern samples. More info of the ancient specimens can be seen by clicking on the shovel icons. One of which is Shatar Chuluu R-P310. If you change the haplogroup in the URL then more relevant ancient samples will appear in the map. I assume FTDNA made the map to compete with http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html or maybe they had an agreement to use his idea.
@Rob
You're missing the point. Gaska and likes to use the R1b haplogroup of Villabruna as "proof" that R1b is in the Steppe is from that area originally. The counter is that R is also found in Siberia at an earlier date. He needs to equal consideration of the samples.
R3 is not even a haplogroup. MA-1 is considered to be just R and is derived for R-M207 per FTDNA or R* per YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/ It's unlikely. although possible, any ancient specimen really is a direct ancestor of anyone alive today MA-1 can't be verified to be on a branch that did not have descendants. Same as Villabruna. Both due to degraded DNA and due to limited specimens. That still does not negate that older R is found in Siberia and the only R in western Europe is a single specimen without Steppe autosomal ancestry.
R and Q both descend from P-P226. Not all Q is Native American but since some Q did migrate to the Americas through Siberia and since R was in Siberia 22,621-22,171 BCE it is only logical that both Q and R was in that area before they went to eastern Europe. People migrate and when they die the haplogroups they have at the time appear in the area they migrated to and their ancestors haplogroups show in the areas they were in as long as we can find their remains. We won't find all of the remains of everyone that ever lived and humans can travel long distances in a short time especially when they are conditioned for travel. That is why haplogroup R is no longer in Siberia if that is where it really had it's birth. Meaning, if so, some of their descendants left and those who stayed have no descendants in the direct male line.
All of this came up just to waste time with Gio and Gaska. Not that I really care about it. I am not going to waste anymore time on the older specimens and where they were. I care about R-L23 and not so much about older haplogroups.
@ Dospaises
"@Gio @ Gaska
I am going to waste some time on something that you guys mention but is irrelevant. Villabruna can only be reliably determined to be derived for R-L761 which is from 20400-17100 ybp and he is ancestral for every single phylogenetic equivalent of R-M269 that is a reliable mutation. There are at least 4800 years between the reliably tested Y-DNA mutations and the C14 dating of Villabruna. He is so far removed from R-L23 you guys are crazy for ever mentioning him. If you are going to mention him at least mention the Afasanievo SHT001 and C3341 as well as MA-1 from Siberia which is the oldest specimen derived for haplogroup R. The burial location of MA-1 as well as the shared autosomal DNA with Native Americans who are mostly derived for haplogroups Q-M3 and Q-Z780, show that the origin of haplogroup R is from Siberia or northern Asia and not Europe. Definitely not the Balkans, the Baltics or the Alps. It does not matter that there was a person whose ancestors were derived for haplogroup R that made their way to Italy from northern Asia. I have cousins all over the world from a common direct paternal ancestor. That does not prove that I am from those countries. FTDNA understands the basics. Just take a look at the migration path of R-L23 at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/migration Anyone can see from that graph how Villabruna is irrelevant".
In fact I never denied that probably the hg R, linked with Q and above with P, did come from the Siberian corridor. They were the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor and before from South-east Asia or nearby India. The same I think are their languages if Indo-European is linked with the Nostratic of the Siberian corridor, but about the modern hg R1 I said that perhaps only R-PH155 may be old in Asia, all the others came from Europe and I think from the R1 of the Alpine region, i.e. the Villabruna tribe present at least from 17000 years ago and linked with the hg I2a of Tagliente 2. But also R-PH155 could have come to Asia in the same time that certainly R-M73* came from the Baltic region.
About what you say about FTDNA and its agenda I write the great part of my 20000 letters, and its Phylogeographer has the same value of the original one invented by Hunter Provyn that I broke in pieces many times. Those calculoators use an algorithm which lacks the history of our ancestors and is worth nothing. It is only plenty of their agendas, clear for all in these last times, if someone is able to look at the facts.
@ Dospaises
“ R3 is not even a haplogroup. ”
It has been depicted as R3 because it’s an out group to R1 & R2 , but whatever
“ MA-1 is considered to be just R and is derived for R-M207 per FTDNA or R* per YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/ It's unlikely. although possible, any ancient specimen really is a direct ancestor of anyone alive today MA-1 can't be verified to be on a branch that did not have descendants. Same as Villabruna. Both due to degraded DNA and due to limited specimens. That still does not negate that older R is found in Siberia and the only R in western Europe is a single specimen without Steppe autosomal ancestry”
The difference between MA1 and Villabruna is that MA1 is a pre-Ice Age dead end , whilst VB exists on a post-Ice Age chain of extant lineages . That’s why there’s no Mesolithic or epipaleolithic R1 in Siberia (at least so far) , and afontova Gora is Q.
The presence of R in late glacial Europe has nothing to do with steppe ancestry, it’s got to do with the arrival of ANE
So I’m not sure what you’re arguing, because even Gio admits that P/R* are deeply from Siberia, but it really doesn’t like like R1 is.
On the contrary, it quite clear that R1 refuged in Eastern Europe and then branched out form there. In fact, R1b-P297 probably migrated from the upper Volga to western Siberia.
It’s important to be accurate, don’t you think ?
@DragonHermit
You go jumping from one topic to another constantly,
we have shared IBDs showing the obvious relationship of Lithuania_N with early Bohemian CW, the Yamnaya signal in the BB culture is very very weak
and I repeat, to say that M269 and L51 are steppe clans you first have to find those markers there, meanwhile, all are theories or rather fairy tales.
By the way L23 has nothing to do with Morocco, Арсен’s map is another joke.
It is difficult to say as much nonsense as Dospaises has said in his last comments. The FTDNA map is another joke or simply an attempt to confuse their customers, the only thing they get right is our African origin and locating R-M207 in Lake Baikal, everything else is fantasy because the path of R>R1>R1a/R1b is very different (It is also possible that they do not know what Gravettian and Epigravettian culture is or that they do not know where Italy is)
1-It is easy to understand, this gentleman does not want to hear about L754, P297, M73, V1636, V88 & M269 and considers that we will never find our ancestors simply because he does not like the geographical origin of these markers.
Try to deal with it, actually, L754 is Italian, P297 from Northern Russia, M73 Baltic, V88 & M269 from the Balkans, L51>L151 & U106 from Bohemia, P312 from Germany, nothing to do with Siberia, China, Mongolia, America, India or Kazakhstan. The history of WHGs and EHGs is our family history, what the hell does it have to do with Alaska or India?
All R1b markers in Asia have their origin in Europe including PH155. Kurgan fanatics only have steppe on the brain, it is normal that for them the history of R1b starts in L23, but even this lineage can have Balkan origin because the first M69 is a neolithic Bulgarian farmer.
2- P310 in Mongolia or China?, I have already told you many times what I think, even if it were true, it would have its origin in the Baltic not in Mongolia, and would be irrelevant to the debate because Yamnaya is not the paternal origin of either CWC or BB culture.
3-Congratulations, four falsehoods in one-
It is simply false that the Yamnaya signal is exclusively property of the male gender,
it is false that it is exclusively property of the R1b marker,
it is false that it arrived in mainland Europe with L23
and it is false that all R1b have that signal.
-First, because we all know the importance of exogamy in the history of humankind and because the joint migration of men and women from the steppes has already been more than demonstrated.
-Second, because we have I2a-L699 and other non-R1b markers in Yamnaya
-Third, you can reread Furtwängler's paper on Switzerland and you will see acceptable qpAdm models like these (none of them are L23 and all of them predate even the existence of Yamnaya)
*Britain_N (3.230 BC)
I0520:Banbury Lane
HapY-I2
0.516-Anatolian_Farmers
0.247-YAMNAYA_SAMARA
0.237-Western_HG
*Iberia_Neolithic (3.750 BC)
I0405-Mina3
HapY-I2a1a/1
0.662-Anatolian Farmers
0.192-Western_HG
0.147-YAMNAYA_SAMARA
*France_Neolithic (3.500 BC)
I4308:Collet Redon
0.673-Anatolian_Farmers
0.221-Western_HG
0.106-YAMNAYA_SAMARA
-Fourth, because when L754, P297, M269 etc. were formed, there was not the EHG+CHG+EEF composition typical of steppe cultures, but the ANE component derived from MA1,
and because even using qpAdm there are samples that do not have that signal at all (regarding your “steppe ancestry” argument, I don't think you even understand how autosomal tools work)-You can see how Arzelier has modeled the second oldest P312 (and first DF27) in Europe (2,434 BC)
Iberia_ChL:EH002
El Hundido (2.434 BC)
HapY-R1b-P312>DF27
0.771-Anatolia_N
0.229-Villabruna_HG
Pvalue-0611938
Everything is as relative as we want to make it, trying to impose a dogma of faith by force is not typical of intelligent people and for me the new Kurgan theory proposed by Harvard is one of the greatest scientific nonsense I have read, until they find L51 and M269 in the steppes-
@ Davidski
'Proto-Anatolians moved into Anatolia via Greece?
Or do you think that it was a two-pronged pre-Mycenaean migration, with one part moving into Greece and the other into Anatolia along the Marmara coastline?
Either way, this would require some evidence of Proto-Anatolians being present in Greece.''
That Izmir sample is just a single, relatively late man. He could have an Aegean/ Greek ancestro which made him pull toward Greece. ALone, it doesnt mean much.
However, some have proposed that the -nth- /-ss- toponyms in Greece are linked to pre-Greek IE such as Anatolia, whilst others saw them simply as non-IE formations. So much for toponyms ....
But from a population perspective, if most scholars place 'coming of the Greeks' to ~ 2400 BC, then there does seem to be an earlier northern horizon called the Petromagoula-Doliana horizon c. 3200 BC. (The Petromagoula-Doliana Group and the Beginning of the Aegean Early Bronze Age)
@ Dospaises
very interesting, on your map http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html literally the same place of origin of M269, the distance differs by no more than 100 kilometers, which means that those others have reason to consider the Volgodonsk region the place where a person was formed by the R269 mutation, the only difference is in the way they got there. On the first map it can be associated with EHG, and on the last one with IRAN/CHG
@Gaska
Lithuania_N is Baltic Corded Ware and almost 100% Yamnaya-like.
So it's from the steppe.
@ Dospaises also , for some reason they localize the first male Z2103 in the Alps
The maps are bullshit.
@EthanR
The MBA Izmir sample is one of the few with obvious Minoan-like admixture, and I don't think his I-P78 is from Greece.
So how do we reconcile these two things?
New linguistic study.
Inferring language dispersal patterns with velocity field estimation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5
Here, we introduce the language velocity field estimation, which does not rely on the phylogenetic tree, to infer language dispersal trajectories and centre. Its effectiveness and robustness are verified through both simulated and empirical validations....Specifically, the inferred dispersal centre of Indo-European languages was located in the Fertile Crescent which is the earliest ancient agricultural homeland in the world. This observation favours the Anatolia origin hypothesis7 of Indo-European languages rather than the alternative competing hypothesis of Pontic steppe region origin.
Their graph places PIE north of Fertile Crescent. I'm not convinced but there's considerable recent push towards West Asia/south Caucasus homeland for PIE in linguistic studies recently.
@Rob and David
The Karanova site has a hiatus after which it seemed reoccupied with a new type of housing: The so called apsical houses and megara. These megara (Singular "megaron") are sometimes described as something which resembles the Germanic "hall" to me. And they seem to occur all over the Aegean at the time, e.g. Troy I and II. But also in the rest of West-Anatolia.
@Davidski
Female exogamy? I'd be more convinced if this type of admixture were more prominent, or if anything close to I-P78 was found in our now dense sampling of Greece (the only I-L701 found is the 2200BC sample from Theopetra cave which is on a distant branch).
Target: Turkey_MBA_Izmir
Distance: 2.4825% / 0.02482484
58.4 Turkey_EBA_Izmir
41.6 Greece_Minoan_Lassithi
@Andrzejewski
" Wait. I didn’t get it straight between CopperAxe and weure. Are the Dutch Beakers, ancestral to all Bell Beakers Blattenhole WHG rich and GAC poor, or vice versa?"
We have in the Dutch two kind of BB, the coastal ones in the West and the inland in the NE Dutch area (See Furholt 2019). West Dutch BB has samples, BB NE Dutch not, due to the acid sandy soil.
The NE Dutch proxy of Davidski (Lech Wehr BB) has about 1/3 EEF.
The NE Dutch BB are mostly derived from SGC that entered the NE Dutch area about 2900-2850 BC. According to Ringbauer's IBD a part of the EEF in these SGC c.q. CW is GAC Poland/Ukraine derived.
In the NE Dutch area SGC met TRB West. TRB west is according to archeologist Wentink an Ertebølle colonization. This is as add by FrankN he talks about the TRB Tiefstich expansion by "Ertebølle TRB" via:
https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/
My assumption is that BB NE Dutch besides the GAC amount in the original SGC they couldn't have their EEF derived much from TRB West because they were in essence Ertebølle HG (low EEF).
This could be transmitted by interaction with BB from SW Europe, with an higher level of EEF.
There is a nice symbolic (= also sense of belonging) along the NE Dutch BB, they used the Grand Pressigny flint (yellow flint) that belonged to the SW Beakers of France. AND they still you used the Helgoland Flint (red) of TRB-West!
''https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/migration
Terrible.''
You can't take these kind of low-resolution, bot-generated maps from ftDNA, "Pathfinder" or other amateur modules seriously. They're illlustrative at best
@ MaxT
'''Inferring language dispersal patterns with velocity field estimation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5
Im not convinced but there's considerable recent push towards West Asia/south Caucasus homeland for PIE in linguistic studies recently.'
Calling those guys 'linguists' sounds like wishful thinking.
@ MaxT
"New linguistic study.
Inferring language dispersal patterns with velocity field estimation
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44430-5"
This calculator is the same as to the Phylogeographer of Hunter Provyn for the path of the haplogroups, i.e. it lacks of history and is worth nothing. Look at the expansion of the Bantu languages. We know for certain that they didn't expand through the central African forest (it was impossible) but by passing around that and through the coastal Africa around the Indian sea to southward.
The same happened to the expansion of the IE languages that is clearly described by the expansion of hg R1a.
We know that already Underhill wrote papers about the origin of R1a in the Iranian plateau, papers that I broke in pieces many times. Are someone up there who remembers Underhill?
Ahahah, we have the Harvardians now and their "Southern Ark theory"... and two wars more than in the past.
@Gaska
Read what I said. I said the gene flow is Yamnaya -> CW -> BB, not Yamnaya -> BB. That's how IBD graphs work because over 1000 years even ancestral populations would not share any significant amount of IBD segments. There is a clear migration east to west in post 3000 BC Europe. Denying this is plain stupidity as we've proved this in 20 different fields from genetics to archeology.
But as for L51, we also have this in Afanasievo who split earlier and went east instead. They are identical to Yamnaya autosomally and share absurdly high IBD, so I don't get your point. We also have RZ2103 in CW.
I am very annoyed by Rob’s aggressive self-confidence, without any hesitation he criticizes everyone with whom his narcissistic point of view does not coincide, people write entire articles, people engage in scientific work, make discoveries, display their results, and this is not one or two people, often Hundreds of people are involved in the creation of such articles. But no, in Rob’s opinion, they cannot even be called linguists. Learn to respect the opinions of scientists, the opinions of linguists, geneticists, you can’t imagine how much I respect all scientific geneticists, no matter what unscientific conclusions they make, how their conclusions would not be far from the truth, but the fact is that the person studied his profession at the institute and publishes articles, pictures, graphics, and does not sit on a leaky sofa and criticize everyone
@Арсен
The authors produced impossible results by using a faulty dataset that was heavily criticized by many linguists in recent years.
For the origin and dispersal of Indo-European languages, Bouckaert et al. (2012)7 supported the Anatolia hypothesis by revealing that Indo-European languages originated in Anatolia approximately 7000-10,000 years ago. In contrast, Chang et al. (2015)48 declared that Indo-European languages originated approximately 6000 years ago, which strongly supported the steppe hypothesis, by reanalysing datasets provided by Bouckaert et al. (2012). Note that Chang et al. (2015) modified several time calibrations according to linguistic evidence but did not apply phylogeographic reconstruction. Therefore, the homeland of Indo-European languages remains controversial. Following these two works, we utilised the same dataset provided by Bouckaert et al. (2012).
@Davidski
Be that as it may, dear Mr. Davidski, no matter what theory they propose, the way Rob addresses them is as if he knows everything and they know nothing. I'm not just talking about this article, he constantly criticizes everyone. What about languages, I really agree with you, and I think Indo-European languages were formed in Ukraine or in the Ciscaucasia
@Davidski
"Following these two works, we utilised the same dataset provided by Bouckaert et al. (2012)."
I think this could be the best they can do with Boukaert el al. (2012) data, that's important anyway. But of course, since 2012 many other aspects have to be considered.
@ Arsen
“them is as if he knows everything and they know nothing”
Get it right- I know everything, you known nothing , they’re just mediocre
@MaxT
Their graph places PIE north of Fertile Crescent. I'm not convinced but there's considerable recent push towards West Asia/south Caucasus homeland for PIE in linguistic studies recently.
This trend is part of a sociopolitical effort to "decolonize" academia, and especially controversial topics such as the origins of PIE.
https://the-footnote.org/2021/10/04/on-decolonizing-academia/
So, for instance, by putting the PIE homeland in Iran instead of Eastern Europe, geneticists are supposed to be "decolonizing" the topic from European/white influence and making it more "inclusive".
This is seen as a positive change by left wing academics (most academics), whether it reflects reality or not.
See that's why papers claiming that PIE is 11,000 years old and spread out with Neolithic farmers across Europe are making it past peer review. Otherwise they wouldn't even make it to the review stage because it's such a ridiculous suggestion.
And that's why it's useful to be skeptical and even cynical about academic works that cover such topics.
@ Arsen
''Be that as it may, dear Mr. Davidski, no matter what theory they propose, the way Rob addresses them is as if he knows everything and they know nothing.''
The article by Yang & Wang is a nothing burger. Just because they claim to be 'scientists' it doesn't make their work scientifically credible.
In fact, the pretension that they can decipher Global Linguistic history with some sham statistical exercise in one article is offensive, and should draw critique by real intelligentsia like myself.
And I only critice justifiably, what I say is correct and evidence-based. You're just a useful idiot with a bizarre obsequiousness to "Mr Davidsky".
@Rob
«And I only critice justifiably, what I say is correct and evidence-based. You're just a useful idiot with a bizarre obsequiousness to "Mr Davidsky".»
I just endlessly respect Mr. Davidsky for his invention of autosomal calculators, I went every day for the past year to look at different mixtures of different ancient and modern peoples, you can’t imagine how many people use his calculators and how much it popularizes genetics. if not for Mr. Davidsky I wouldn't be interested in genetics
@Rob 👋
@Davidsky I wanted to ask you about a sample from ancient Italy of 480 BC from Sicily,
Target: ITA_Sicily_Himera_480BCE_5:I10951
Distance: 2.4506% / 0.02450580 | R3P
47.6 Hinukh
47.2 Georgian_Svaneti
5.2 Lithuanian_PZ
is this a low-quality sample? or mistakenly written in Italy, otherwise I can’t understand what this half-Dagestan half-Georgian lost there?
@Арсен
The model is statistically overfitted because you used too many reference populations, so you won't get realistic results, even with the R3P setting.
You have to limit the number of highly plausible reference samples to around 8 for most samples, or even less in some cases, for realistic results.
The modeling algorithm isn't Artificial Intelligence, or anything like that, so it'll just look for the best statistical outcome, even if the result is nonsense.
@ Arsen
“just endlessly respect Mr. Davidsky for his invention of autosomal calculators, I went every day for the past year to look at different mixtures of different ancient and modern peoples”
I’m sure your results are quite meaningless. As you’ve shown, you can’t even manage to use idiot-proof automatic calculators
See, I can be nice :)
@DragonHermit
Read what I said, Beakers DO NOT show links to Yamnaya and the link to Corded Ware and Lithuania_N is fairly weak i.e. Ringbauer has failed to genetically link (IBD segments) Yamnaya-Afanasievo with the BB culture which as everybody knows is overwhelmingly P312.
Even the relationship between CWC and BBC is very weak (which is also not surprising because CWC is overwhelmingly R1a-M417).
For years no one has denied that this steppe migration took place, what we deny is the genetic and linguistic interpretation made by Harvard.
The alleged L51 sample you mention in Afanasievo has absolutely no IBD segment shared with either the CWC or the BBC.
David Anthony: The origin of Indo-Europeans
@18 minutes connecting Yamnaya with Altai with Eastern Slovakia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtcjMS2AvKA&t=1133s
18:47 / 1:04:30
Corded Ware cultural and genetic complexity (Linderholm et al. 2020)
Connecting L51 South East Polish Corded Ware
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/04/corded-ware-cultural-and-genetic.html
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.
@DragonHermit
Since you're so sure that Yamnaya > Corded Ware, then you should be able to give me convincing answers to these two questions:
Why did the Z2103-rich Yamnaya keep strictly to the steppe ecology, even when it moved into Central Europe, despite the fact that the non-Z2103-rich Yamnaya (that is, Corded Ware) was able to easily expand into the forests?
If class structure explains the lack of R1a and L51 in Yamnaya burials on the steppe, then how come we see exactly the same pattern in Catacomb, which was clearly a different culture but genetically derived from Yamnaya? Don't you think it's strange that both Yamnaya and Catacomb remain Z2103-rich with no instances of R1a or L51 being able to break through the supposed class boundary for over 1000 years?
And like I said, please try to be convicting and realistic. I'm not interested in special pleading just to make Anthony's storytelling seem passable.
no Mr. Davidski, I don’t think that g25 calculated incorrectly, if the same sample from Sicily is modeled in different Neolithic calculators, it shows a lot of Caucasian hunters and steppe herders, you can check for yourself I10951
Four basal maps of Y haplogroup R, based on the data of 2.2 million men in the 23andme data leak.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SouthAsianAncestry/comments/18zkyv2/four_basal_maps_of_y_haplogroup_r_based_on_the/
I know that this is an Indian reddit channel and they are quite biased when it comes to their genetics, but it is worth recognizing that they have a large number of basal haplogroups of different branches of R, as in general in Western Asia
I wonder if this is due to the fact that they have a population of a billion people and different basal branches are more likely to be preserved there?
@Davidski
Why did the R1a rich CW strictly stick to Central/Eastern Europe, even when it moved into Western Europe, despite the fact that non-R1a rich BB was able to easily move into Western Europe?
All we're arguing here is definitions that those ancient people never called themselves, because in reality it's just one steppe tribe dominating other steppe tribes, pushing them to a new region, and then the minority elites become the majority. Thats been the steppe even deep into Roman/Byzantine times. Goths took down the Roman Empire because they were pushed out by the Huns.
I have no doubt that R1a/R1b-L51 dominated the forest steppe. The question is how this came to be? You assume a peaceful divorce from SS as if though SS was the EU and R1a/RL51 were the UK looking for a Brexit option. And I'm telling you that doesn't match IBD, language or basic logic analysis, since Yamnaya and CW share a SINGLE point of origin. PIE wasn't some giant conglomerate where each subdivision became independent. It was a single point (albeit with a mixture of Y-DNAs). Otherwise PIE doesnt make sense as a theory and neither do the IBD hits hundreds of years later between CW/Yamnaya.
I’d rather side with Anthony over Lazaridis and his Out of Caspian drivel. However, Anthony gets under my skin with his “PIE being an EHG language conspiracy theory. WRONG! PIE = language created when the Steppe component was created. Aka, WSH.
Even if they eventually discover/uncover R1b steppe Y-dna in Hittites or Luwians, Reich Lab BROAD would still cling to the stupid notion that the most putative PIE originally came from either the Caucasus or even worse - from Iran or Armenia. They are capable of claiming deadpan that R1a and R1b arose in Anatolia and spread millennia later to the Pontic Caspian Steppe. 😂
There has been a firm bias for an Iranian/South of the Caucasus PIE homeland for a long time within the Paleo-genetics community. Take for instance this snippet from Mathieson 2018:
"One version of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-European language origins suggests that Proto-Indo-European languages developed north of the Black and Caspian seas, and that the earliest known diverging branch – Anatolian – was spread into Asia Minor by movements of steppe peoples through the Balkan peninsula during the Copper Age around 4000 BCE. If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of steppe-related ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula, and then in Anatolia. However, our data show no evidence for this scenario. While we find sporadic steppe-related ancestry in Balkan Copper and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is rare until the late Bronze Age."
Well, that thoroughly changed since the Penske paper this summer. Yet nothing in the Penske paper about how their findings more or less does fit the steppe theory better than previously reported. Yet Johannes Krause and Wolfgang Haak co-authored both.
Mathieson's argument never made any sense. For one, because it was obvious that since there were Copper Age/Early Bronze Age Balkan samples with steppe ancestry, then with more sampling the number of Copper Age/Early Bronze Age Balkan samples with steppe ancestry would increase accordingly.
I actually emailed him and Patterson to explain that.
Plus, who said that Anatolian languages penetrated the peninsula 4000BCE? Hittite only dates back to 1700BCE.
Allentoft et al 2014:
"Ancestry related to Danish Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (Denmark_10500BP_6000BP) is found in smaller proportions (less than around 10%) and only in a subset of the FBC individuals from Denmark (Extended Data Fig. 6). Moreover, this tends to occur in more recent individuals (dated to around 5,400 cal. BP onwards= TIEFSTISCH EXPANSION!? -Weure) who are also showing the overall largest amount of total hunter-gatherer ancestry (for example, NEO945 and NEO886; Fig. 3 and Extended Data Figs. 3 and 6a,b). Using DATES44, we found that admixture times for a large proportion of Danish Neolithic individuals predates 5,900 cal. BP when FBC emerged in Denmark, particularly for the earliest individuals (Extended Data Fig. 7).
More recent admixture times (post dating the arrival of FBC in Denmark) were mainly observed in individuals dated to after about 5,400 cal. BP (= TIEFSTICH EXPANSION !?- Weure),
and were associated with overall higher hunter-gatherer proportions. These observations were in marked contrast to FBC-associated individuals from Sweden, where admixture times and hunter-gatherer ancestry did not change over time, and no admixture with local Swedish hunter-gatherers was detected."
Anthony off-handly implied in his book that Suvorovo rode directly into Anatolia, so it's not completely unheard of, but obviously ridiculous to suggest is necessary for a Balkan route to be plausible.
Hopefully at some point a study will acknowledge the now obvious - persistence of Cernavoda ancestry in the Balkans. It's very difficult to engage with people on Anatolia if they expect individuals with majority Steppe ancestry to be showing up in Anatolia itself.
Anyway, now that Allentoft is published, Harvard should hopefully get to giving us the samples they've been hoarding for 5 years.
@ Andrze
''Even if they eventually discover/uncover R1b steppe Y-dna in Hittites or Luwian''
But I dont think they will
That's why I originally proposed Hittites/Luwians come from an EEF-rich population.
@ weure
Just be careful with Allentoft's claims. Run-of-the-mill PopGenists tend to over-state the degree of turnover because they ignore Y-hg and population demography.
@ Ethan
We’d need to look for additional links between G2 and J2 . Not all of them are recent Iranian lineages
This is interesting
“However, we know that steppe ancestry was present 200 years later in SGC-associated skeletons from the Gjerrild grave57. The age of the Gjerrild skeletons (from around 4,600 cal. BP) matches the earliest example of steppe-related ancestry in our current study, identified in a skeleton from a megalithic tomb at Næs (NEO792). We estimated around 85% of Steppe-related ancestry in this individual, the highest amount among all Danish LNBA individuals (Extended Data Fig. 6a). Notably, NEO792 is also contemporaneous with the two most recent individuals in our dataset showing Anatolian farmer-related ancestry without any steppe-related ancestry (NEO580, Klokkehøj and NEO943, Stenderup Hage) testifying to a short period of ancestry co-existence before the FBC disappeared”
But Naes is from a Megalithic tomb and is I2a ! So he’s obviously a local FBC person at least in part, yet 90% of his autosomal ancestry is “steppe like”
That’s why you can’t just hang on coarse grained admixture calculations.
If the Y-DNA turnover in Denmark occurred closer to 2400 than 2800, that’s more to do with issues after the arrival of Corded Ware than due to their arrival
And there’s still no “native” I1 in Scandinavia. A lot of people were pushing for that against my exogenous position. Apart from one old, crap sample -which is too old to be relevant (Staro Forvar)-, there’s no sign of it
Allentofts view on I1
“Y chromosome haplogroup I1 is one of the dominant haplogroups in present-day Scandinavians, and we here document its earliest occurrence in an approximately 4,000-year-old individual from Falköping in southern Sweden (NEO220). The rapid increase in frequency of this haplogroup and associated genome-wide ancestry coincides with increase in human mobility seen in Swedish Sr isotope data, suggesting an influx of people from eastern or northeastern regions of Scandinavia, and the emergence of stone cist burials in Southern Sweden, which were also introduced in eastern Denmark during that period””
So where is all the I1 in pitted ware culture , Motala or East Baltic HG ?
So far there is none.
The GW shift in Dagger Grave period points to an EEF region
what a fellow, what a handsome man this Allentoft is, he does so much good for his country, for his people, for the Danes, for Europe and the world as a whole, more than 100 Mesolithic-Neolithic genomes from one small Denmark, how they found so many, just like us the Caucasus needs people like Allentoft to find at least one Mesolithic hunter from the North Caucasus, well done Allentoft
Has Allentoft published the genotype dataset anywhere?
It looks like its just the same set as the mega-Pre Print, just subdivided into papers.
@Rob “ So where is all the I1 in pitted ware culture , Motala or East Baltic HG ?
So far there is none.
The GW shift in Dagger Grave period points to an EEF region”
Probably from GAC.
On a tangent here, whereas Modern Scandinavians descended from Vikings and from their Nordic Bronze Age predecessors possess a small portion of their ancestry from Pitted Ware (SHG), the Sami notably have none. It brings up the mystery of where did the Paleo-Laplandic vocabulary in Sami come from? Is the most plausible argument for a post-Swiderian WHG language related to Erteboelle culture?
Does anyone have an opinion on the pre-Indo-European substrate in Proto-Germanic controversy?
Some serious people, including Ygor Coelho in Quora weighed in on it with an affirmative answer. The crux here is the unique position of the branch allegedly seeming like a cross between a Bell Beaker (R1b) language to a Corded Ware (R1a) Satem language, related to the Balto-Slavic branch (what East Pole likes to deem “Indo-Slavic). What some folks, me included, believe that Proto-Germanic was created as a “creolization” of 2 IE branches, many others, including in academia hypothesize about Germanic absorbing vocabulary from substrate language: FBC, GAC, Baltic HG, Cucuteni, Erteboelle- the last three must be an absurd - rather than realize that Germanic does not have a significant non-IE substrate at all.
I’ve also read that since 2000 there’s a consensus about the non-existence of such so-called substrate.
Is there anyone on this blog who actually does champion that idea?
@Davidski
Has Allentoft published the genotype dataset anywhere?
Maybe here: https://erda.ku.dk/archives/917f1ac64148c3800ab7baa29402d088/published-archive.html
@ Andrze
''Probably from GAC.''
lol There's no I1 in GAC, either. GAC males are all a specific lineage of I2a-Z178. Theyre the most patriarchal group ever sampled
Looks like I1 is from continental western Europe, and moved into Scandinavia from there.
@Rob
The claim of migration from northeastern Sweden on isotopes refers to this:
But this is what that article actually refers to this:
"The majority (71%) of the buried individuals in Fredriksberg gallery grave had Sr isotope ratios that are not present in Falbygden. Most of the individuals with non-local ratios probably spent part of their childhood in the outskirts of Falbygden or in the surrounding Precambrian area. Some of the Sr isotope ratios might be a result of repeated movements in and out of Falbygden, perhaps related to herding. However, this must be confirmed by multiple analyses of teeth from the same individuals. **The three individuals with the youngest radiocarbon dates had very high Sr isotope ratios and most likely spent part of their childhood years in eastern or more north-eastern parts of Sweden.** Non-local ratios were suggested to represent people who moved into the area in their younger years and settled for different reasons, including exogamous marriage alliances between local groups and groups from outside of Falbygden. Compared to Sr isotope data from the previous Middle Neolithic period, an increased human mobility in the Late Neo-lithic was observed."
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opar-2018-0001/html
So just a few indivduals from around 1500-1400 bc. The issues of telephone games in the context of ancient dna is very real...
@ Copper Axe - Was going to snoop deeper into that, but you did it already, Good pick up
@ Epoch
''The so called apsical houses and megara. These megara (Singular "megaron") are sometimes described as something which resembles the Germanic "hall" to me. And they seem to occur all over the Aegean at the time, e.g. Troy I and II. But also in the rest of West-Anatolia.''
Sorry missed your comment. Yes this is another sort of trace-dye
@Rob & Copper Axe
There is more from the main paper, just wanted to add it.
LNBA phase I: an early stage between around 4,600 and 4,300 cal. BP, in which Scandinavians cluster with early CWC individuals from Eastern Europe, rich in Steppe-related ancestry and males with an R1a Y chromosomal haplotype (Extended Data Fig. 8a,b). Archaeologically, these individuals are associated with the later stages of the Danish SGC and the Swedish Battle Axe Culture.
LNBA phase II: an intermediate stage largely coinciding with the Dagger epoch (around 4,300–3,700 cal. BP), in which Danish individuals cluster with central and western European LNBA individuals dominated by males with distinct sub-lineages of R1b-L51 3 (Extended Data Fig. 8c,d). Among them are individuals from Borreby (NEO735, 737) and Madesø (NEO752).
LNBA phase III: a final stage from around 4,000 cal. BP onwards, in which a distinct cluster of Scandinavian individuals dominated by males with I1 Y-haplogroups appears (Extended Data Fig. 8e). Y chromosome haplogroup I1 is one of the dominant haplogroups in present-day Scandinavians, and we here document its earliest occurrence in an approximately 4,000-year-old individual from Falköping in southern Sweden (NEO220). The rapid increase in frequency of this haplogroup and associated genome-wide ancestry coincides with increase in human mobility seen in Swedish Sr isotope data, suggesting an influx of people from eastern or northeastern regions of Scandinavia, and the emergence of stone cist burials in Southern Sweden60, which were also introduced in eastern Denmark during that period54,61.
Using genomes from LNBA phase III (Scandinavia_4000BP_3000BP) in supervised ancestry modelling, we find that they form the predominant ancestry source for later Iron and Viking Age Scandinavians (Extended Data Fig. 6d) and other ancient European groups with a documented Scandinavian or Germanic association (for example, Anglo-Saxons and Goths; Extended Data Fig. 6e). When projecting 2,000 modern Danish genomes62 on a PCA of ancient Eurasians, the modern individuals occupy an intermediate space on a cline between the LNBA and Viking Age individuals (Fig. 4). This result shows that the foundation for the present-day gene pool was already in place in LNBA groups 3,000 years ago, but the genetic structure of the Danish population was continually reshaped during succeeding millenia
There are 4 R1b L51 samples from Denmark but they are dated to 2200 BCE.
@ Romulus - what exactly is your point. ?
Did you take into account this?
"Population genomics of post-glacial western Eurasia"
http://tinyurl.com/krnfkb3b
It's really interesting that these Borreby males belong to R1b-L51. The Borreby archeological site is famously associated with Brachycephaly just like Beakers. Alpine race indeed, these old anthropologists identified all this without DNA and never get any credit in these papers. Just because some people took their work, without their consent or participation, and included it in their wartime political ideology. It's a massive injustice they don't get credit.
this is from a book written in 1899
Race of Borreby-Another brachycephalic race, but of tall
stature and with a broad high face, has been found in several
localities, notably in Denmark and the British Isles. This race
appears only at the very end of the neolithic epoch. It is
probably the result of a cross between H. Europcaus and some
brachycephalic race of tall stature analogous to H. Dinaricus.
Some remains in central Europe may be assigned to this last
race. These tall brachycephalics have been wrongly associated
with certain mixed Mongolian races. There is nothing in com-
mon between them except the characteristics resulting from the
presence of Acrogonus among the common ancestors of these
races
Yeah, obviously, Beakers and Borrebys were a mix between H. Europcaus and H. Dinaricus.
"The neolithic remains of NEO792 (HapY-I2a1a/2-2.546 BC) are interesting as this individual carried the highest proportion of steppe-ancestry among the Danish individuals"
"It isn't until the phase of the Nordic Late neolithic, when Beaker-influences appear in Denmark, that R1b-L51 enters the picture and a new cluster is formed (exemplified by NEO092 and NEO870)"
I.e. that first wave of L51>L151 & U106 in early Bohemian CWC also did not travel north (Denmark) because the male genomes of the SGC-CWC in Denmark are I2a (as in Switzerland) and R1a (as in Poland, Germany etc....). R1b-U106 appears in Denmark around 2,300 BC.
@Romulus
This is the first P312>DF27 in Iberia (2,434 BC) in a campaniform site with Ciempozuelos style pottery
-"Tumba3 was located in the southern part of the burial chamber, and contains the remains of a man over 50 years of age and 1.86 meters tall. All three individuals are brachycephalic with a wide or short jaw and present strong muscular impressions in the long bones that denote high physical activity in both the upper and lower extremities. Small enthesopathies have been identified in the articular facets of the ribs and steophytes in the calcaneus, in the muscular insertion of the Achilles tendon, which is evidence of habitual WALKING in rough areas. Despite the high age of the individuals, the osteoarthritis processes are very mild"
And the Second P312>DF27 in Sicily;
I3123 (2.165 BC)-Buffa-Grave 3031-Skull, with the left portion of the frontal bone missing, extremely brachycephalic “planoccipital”-The skull sutures are open.
1-It is evident that these men did not conquer Iberia or Sicily on horseback ....
2-It is evident that racially (if cranial dimensions can be considered a racial issue) they have nothing to do with Yamnaya, brachycephaly is a matter of the Alps (and to a lesser extent the Pyrenees).
Poland
Bell beakers and Corded Ware people in the Little Poland upland, an anthropological point of view- Elzbieta Haduch-“The Corded Ware culture skeletons, includes medium robustness of bones and dolichomorphic stature, associated with previous populations such as the FBC. Most skeletons from the BBC graves are distinct in that they have a set of characteristics differing from those commonly observed in Neolithic populations and the early Bronze period, demonstrating high uniformity of many morphological traits and proportions. Skulls are short or very short (breadth/width index above 80.0) with a non prominent or weakly prominent occiput, usually accompanied by a flattened rear part of the neurocranium in the obelica and lambdoidea section of the intraparietal suture and the upper part of the occipital squama
Allochthonous origin of BB means that the groups of the BB people are the stranger ethnic element not only in Central Europe (Desideri, Eades, 2.002)-There is no doubt, from the anthropological point of view, that the BB communities are distinguished from the Corded Ware culture people. In particular, these differences are visible in the physical traits. This concerns the metrical parameters and skull proportions as well as morphological characteristics. The BB skulls are short (brachycranial) with flat of the nape area, in contrast the CWC people had the longer ones (meso or dolichocranial) with concave occipital region.
@ Gaska
Those findings mean that BB is indeed exogenous to Poland. Those 2400 bc groups came from the west.
But the precursor to P312 is from the east. In fact they probably passed via Poland to the upper Rhine , where Beaker eventually emerged.
@Rob,
you may all be right, but you will agree with me that we then have to do gymnastic mental exercises to interpret the genetic, anthropological and archaeological data at our disposal.
That is to say, the R1b-L51>L151 from the east arrive in Bohemia, separate from their colleagues I2a-L699, R1b-Z2103 and R1a-M417 and instead of continuing to participate in the CWC, they become independent, reach Belgium, Switzerland, France and Iberia, become Brachycephalians, invent the BBC, return eastward and are not reintegrated in the CWC but share border with that culture for 300 years.
Do we have any anthropological data of the R1b-L51 in Bohemian-CWC?
The extreme brachycephalic head shape of the Beaker type is first recorded in the Upper Rhine region.
This is where Single Grave (western Corded Ware) was located and mixed heavily with local groups with very high ratios of hunter-gatherer ancestry (the samples are yet to be published).
So it looks like the Beaker head shape is derived from some type of Rhine foragers, or farmers with a lot of local forager ancestry.
@Gaska Is the anthropology and appearance of a person influenced by his haplogroups, influenced by his Y chromosomes? Isn't it the mixture of ancestors in one's ancestry that determines a person's appearance? that is, in other words, not autosomal markers?
The mixture of ancestors in one's ancestry includes our autosomal DNA, and so autosomal DNA is correlated closely with how how we look.
However, this doesn't mean we'll look like the autosomal mixture of our ancient ancestors, due to factors like genetic selection (which can be very rapid) and environmental factors.
For instance, head shape has changed in Central Europe from the Beaker period several times over from round to long. This is due to rapid selection and poorly understood environmental factors.
Hahah I'm still a representative of this all: very big headed, brachycephaly and a flat occiput!
And autosomal like two drops of water with the BB NE Dutch proxy BB Lech (Davidski).
Comparative osteoarchaeological perspectives on health and lifestyle of neolithic, chalcolithic and early Bronze Age populations from Slovakia, Moravia and Bohemia-Zuzana Hukelova (2.016)-
"The cultures to which the skeletal remains belong include the neolithic Lengyel culture, the chalcolithic Bell Beaker culture, and the Early Bronze Age Únětice and Otomani cultures-Both the neolithic and the EBA populations are dolichocephalic (long-headed), especially the latter. On the contrary, the chalcolithic population was clearly brachycephalic (short-headed), although the index of female skulls was close to mesocephalic (medium-headed)"
And the PFB, NE Dutch Bell Beakers had some TRB West blood. TRB West was according to archeologist Karsten Mentink a colonization of Ertebølle HG (Tiefstich expansion 3400 BC>). Imo confirmed by Allentoft 2024.
So the BB NE Dutch were a mix of SGC of NE Dutch (went up to Denmark) and the previous TRB West people, that were on their turn for a big part an Ertebølle offshoot.
@ Romulus
The stone cists are captivating. Nordic Bronze Age elites were often laid to rest in stone cists placed inside mounds of considerable size.
Possibly of interest to @ambron,
We previously discussed the values of Steppe/Neolithic/etc ancestry from the models in the preprint of "The selection landscape and genetic legacy of ancient Eurasians" using their Chromopainter model on a large sample people of different national origins in UK Biobank (who are confirmed to fall into that country's main ancestry cluster)
Now that the paper's been published (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06705-1) with slightly higher resolution figures, I thought I'd extract exactly what those values are from the figures by using a regression equation (example of how this works here; https://i.imgur.com/QrTfRLa.png - you can regress on the RGB values for the proportions in the legend and thereby extract the approximate values from the figure).
So this is what this looks like: https://i.imgur.com/wIhlnVN.png
This recreates a lot of the features we're used to. E.g. Steppe is peaking north to south and combined Neolithic+Steppe vs extra HG is more W->E, and Steppe:Neolithic ratio peaks in Lithuania/Finland.
But note that it includes Late Neolithic farmers like GAC within the model for the Neolithic proportion, which hides some of the WHG ancestry in Europeans (so the real level of WHG might be slightly higher). Also note that CHG combines CHG+IranN and that EHG probably contains some ANE.
"So it looks like the Beaker head shape is derived from some type of Rhine foragers, or farmers with a lot of local forager ancestry"
I wouldnt really say so as neither of these populations were significantly brachycephalic, and when they were it wasn't due to extremely flat occiput like with beakers. You can make the case for Borreby perhaps but I think the Beaker brachycephalism is more likely due to a "phenotypic founder effect" that occured with an expansion of initial populations (although there definitely is a phenotypic relation between BB and Borreby if you look at other cranial traits, which also matches some Corded Ware skulls from the Netherlands and Denmark (which could be due to influence from populations with high WHG ancestry). You had brachycephalic types in the steppes as well, although a minority of the main population.
A similar case is how despite Sintashta/Andronovo being mainly dolichocephalic and quite narrow, derived groups such as Irmen, Karasuk and some late Srubnaya populations were mostly brachy and had broader craniums. It is not admixture that changed their cranial shapes but internal variation and subsequent nottlenecks which caused this.
@Gaska
Thanks for sharing that about the early P312. Very interesting. My belief is that Brachycephaly in Beakers is an artifact of ANE ancestry that was preserved in them.
@Copperaxe, I go with you with regard to:
"there definitely is a phenotypic relation between BB and Borreby if you look at other cranial traits, which also matches some Corded Ware skulls from the Netherlands and Denmark (which could be due to influence from populations with high WHG ancestry)."
But in fact this is not that fare from what Davidski describes. Imo it is SGC that fuzes with Ertebølle HG (fare nephews of the Blatterhöhle types)/ WHG.
Archeologist Wentink already stated that TRB West (=NE Dutch), was a colonization by Ertebølle HG, and in Allentoft (2024) I see a genetic confirmation of that.
See this map (by FrankN):
https://postimg.cc/d79dbYCJ
@Davidsky ,thank you, dear Davidski, that is, external anthropological signs can change over thousands of years without additional admixtures from outside? Again, this requires strong selective external conditions? How and when do you think the first people with a hump on the nose appeared? It was the Armenian highlands in the Paleolithic ?because this is a distinctive feature of Armenians.as in other things, it is often found in the northern Caucasus (eagle nose)
@Matt ,well, what nonsense, why is there so much Caucasian component on your screen in India, even if it is logical to judge, then they cannot have Caucasian components higher than Iran 😁
Published yesterday in the Swiss Tages-Anzeiger: An article (in German) dealing with the origin of various genetic variants associated with different diseases in different ancient populations and the possible selective causes that explain this, given that these genetic variants also had positive effects in some environments.
https://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/evolution-warum-europaeer-fuer-krankheiten-anfaellig-sind-239522415903
It's based mostly on this article and this paper published the day before yesterday:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00024-9
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06705-1
Unfortunately the Tages-Anzeiger article parrots the narrative that Yamnaya was from Eurasia, not really from Europe. I corrected that in the comments section.
@ Gaska
''you may all be right, but you will agree with me that we then have to do gymnastic mental exercises to interpret the genetic, anthropological and archaeological data at our disposal.''
No, it's just following the complex evidence in a competent manner.
btw what evidence are you talking about ? there's 0% R1b-M269 in any C14-dated samples from Neolithic western Europe, it's even missing in Central Europe.
@ Matt
''Possibly of interest to @ambron,
We previously discussed the values of Steppe/Neolithic/etc ancestry from the models in the preprint of "The selection landscape and genetic legacy of ancient Eurasians" using their Chromopainter model on a large sample people of different national origins in UK Biobank (who are confirmed to fall into that country's main ancestry cluster)''
Really ? I couldnt see any sham lexical analyses and misinterpreted palynology in there
Does anyone understand what point weure is trying to make ?
30-60% IranN in south asia....
"The CHG-related ancestries probably reflect affinities to both CHG and Iranian Neolithic individuals, explaining the relatively high levels in South Asia[14]."
In India IranN ancestry peaks in Dravidians.
It's a Dravidian marker.
Can't be....
It's IranN+AASI (high) with y haplo H which is the best bet for ancient proto dravidian males...
People bearing haplogroup R2, J2 and L1a in Iran and BMAC weren't dravidians....
Also no garuntee that dravidian was spread by males....it could be a women driven language adopted by incoming IVC males....
Don't be a moron.
IranN ancestry in India peaks in Dravidians, especially in Dravidians that have relatively low levels of ASI ancestry.
So it's clearly a Dravidian marker.
No one knows whether Proto-Dravidian was spoken in Iran or somewhere nearby, but what is clear is that Indo-European was not spoken in Iran before the Bronze Age.
Other people were there, like the Elamites.
It seems that Proto-Dravidians were very similar to Elamites genetically, even if the Dravidian and Elamite languages aren't related.
AASI is probably no longer required as a concept now that we have Laso-Hoabinhian and Indonesia_Sulawesi. I think theyll be similar to native south Indian foragers
Western Iranians were quite different from Eastern Iranians(much more anatolian)...Just because elamites were in Iran...no reason to believe they were similar to IranN derived population of Helmand-SiS and Turan_C and BMAC.
And some of the high IVC dravidian groups also have high NI y haplos...
Eg: Nairs
31% R1a-Z93
19% H1a + H1b
15% Q1a + Q1b
Brachycephaly spread throughout the Bell Beaker regions thanks to the migrations of P312 and its descendants L21, U152 & DF27.
In the eastern domain of the BBC we have already seen Poland, Bohemia and Moravia, now Hungary
-Anthropological examination of the Bell Beaker cemetery at Szigetszentmiklós-Felső-Ürge-hegyi dűlő-Klaus Köhler-"Based on the results of the metrical and morphological examination we may establish that we can for the first time demonstrate the presence of the brachycranial, so called Glockenbecher Taurid type in the Bell Beaker populations from the Carpathian Basin-Previously, the presence of this anthropological component in this region could be demonstrated only indirectly, through its appearance among human remains of somewhat later Bronze Age cultures”
In the western domain in addition to Spain and Sicily, there is England
The Beaker people: Isotopes, mobility and diet in prehistoric Britain-M.Parker Pearson et al-“Statistical analyses of the Peak District sample reveal significant differences in cranial length between early neolithic (3.800–3.400 cal BC) and Beaker-Bronze Age (2.500-1.500 cal BC) individuals, confirming the transition from dolichocephalic (long-headed) to brachycephalic cranial forms.”
The Alps are the epicenter of brachycephaly, but its origin is not in the chalcolithic (Beakers P312) but the WHG populations of western Europe (perhaps ANE ancestry as Romulus says).
-Las poblaciones del Holoceno inicial en la región cantábrica: cambios ambientales y microevolución humana-L.Drak Hernández (2.016)-7.59% of the WHGs (Spain, Portugal, France and Italy) brachycephalic and 31.65% mesocephalic.
Then a minor trait since the paleolithic that becomes more frequent in the mesolithic and absolutely dominant with the BB culture and R1b-P312 at the end of the chalcolithic.
Matt
Two things stand out:
1. Only Poles have exactly the same share of the steppe and Neolithic.
2. The excess of WHG among Lithuanians, Finns, Poles, Ukrainians and Russians correlates perfectly with the spread of the Balto-Slavic drift: https://i.imgur.com/35nbEzp.png
@Rob
1-Understanding complex evidence competently requires fairness, when you say that the origin of P312 is in the east, which region do you mean Bulgaria-Balkans, Baltic, Ukrainian-steppes, Russian-steppes, forest-steppe?
2-Those findings mean that anthropologically Beakers are exogenous to Poland, Bohemia, Moravia, Hungary, Scandinavia, England & the Netherlands and also that the dimensions of their skulls are different from those of most of the European neolithic cultures, the CWC and of course Yamnaya.
3-Of course, if you are right, the invasion or colonization of central & western Europe by M269 steppe peoples was not a linear process, but a strange and picturesque one. During that process and after arriving in Bohemia, L51>L151 disappeared from the CWC and their descendants P312 became brachycephalic, invented the BB culture and migrated backwards.
@ Gaska
Not sure we can pin-point exact geographic origins of P312, but its not Bulgaria. Could be just east of Don
btw do you or & JS have link to the Belgian DNA thesis (? by Fischer) ?
@Rob
This?
https://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/35254/1/FINAL%20THESIS%20-%20FICHERA.pdf
@ Rob
"However, different R1b sublineages were already present in Europe before the arrival of the Yamnaya, during the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age, such as R1b-V88, found in two individuals from Italy (Epigravettian) and Iberia (Early Neolithic) (Haak et al. 2015; Fu et al. 2016)" (Fichera, 2020, pp. 29-30). Second victory to me after Villabruna.
@ Ethan- yes, thanks
@Rob
Ethan's link is correct-The interesting aspect of this thesis are two individuals that appeared in the oldest level of the Trou Al’Wesse site (chimney burial) related to the Seine-Oise-Marne culture (layer 4a). Again R1b-M269 found in a neolithic collective burial (like in Switzerland-Aesch, Auvernier and Burgaschisee).
*AF023 (5310-5080 cal BP) (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse-NEO-B-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-mtDNA-H1e2
*AF025 (5310-5080 cal BP) (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse-NEO-B-HapY-R-mtDNA-T1a1/n
And this sample
*AF007 (2.777 BC)-Grotte Mont Falise-Belgium-HapY-R1b-M269
These three papers may also be useful
La Grotte du Trou Al’Wesse (province de Liege) fouilles et decouvertes de 1.993-F.Collin (1.994)-
Multiple choices, mortuary practices in the Low Countries during the mesolithic and the neolithic, 9000-3000 cal BC-Louwe Kooijmans (2.007)-
Radiocarbon dating of mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg-Christopher Meiklejohn (2.014)-
@ Gaska
Nothing there to sway the prevailing data.
- Aesch is an intrusive burial and genetically distinct to the locals.
- the Belgians with R1b are also clearly distinct to Neolithic-A, having steppe ancestry and R1b, whilst the others lack steppe ancestry and Y-hg I.
- the chimney burials Trou Al’Wesse are younger and separate to the terrace at the same site. There's no direct correlation between the dates and the individuals analysed. Can't see anything about SOM pottery. The thesis needs to do a better job correlating the individuals, C14 dates and archaeologicall context.
IN fact, Fichera says, ''In particular, the newly obtained date for AF007 (4,828-4,626 cal BP), makes this the oldest ancient individual from Western Europe having Steppe component
and carrying R1b-M269 as Y-chromosome haplogroup marker.''
Grotte du Mont Falise is a cave with 5 different habitations dating from Paleolithic to Middle Ages. You see R1b/Beaker guys deposited in caves elsewhere .e.g Iberia
The more interesting is actually the chimey burials from Trou Al’Wesse. If these bodies were dumped there, they might have lost a battle to local SOM groups.
@Rob
Well we can agree that 99% of the published theses are clearly improvable, mainly because those who write them are led by people who try to maintain a certain narrative and then they are not able to draw independent conclusions. This is the same case of what Villalba Mouco did in Spain with CLL007 (3.300-2.300 BC)-R1b-L51 and DF27, despite the fact that this individual was found in a collective burial (all the other men in the site were H2), as his paternal marker is R1b he considers it intrusive when what he should have done is to order the sample to be dated immediately.
I think there is a lot to discuss about the R1b-M269 in Belgium and Switzerland
1-Auvernier and Burgaschisee are R1b-M269 contemporaneous with Aesch25 and have hardly any steppe ancestry (Furtwangler's qpAdm models are a joke and even they are only assigned between 20-30%).
2-You can see the drawings in the thesis-Stratigraphic representation of the chimney burial located at the back of the cave in Trou Al’Wesse. (1) 2 m high empty layer; (2) 0.5 m high layer; (3) 5.5 m high layer; (4) 2 m high scree cone inside the cave; (5) Limestone cave (modified from Masy 1993). Stratigraphic information was available only for the samples from Trou Al’Wesse: two individuals, AF023 (HapY-R1b1a/1a2) and AF025 (HapY-R) were found in the deepest layer of the chimney burial (4), AF020 (mtDNA-T1a1/n) was found in layer 3 and AF017 (HapY-R1b1a/1a2) in layer 2-
3-La Grotte du Trou Al’Wesse (province de Liege) fouilles et decouvertes de 1.993-F.Collin (1.994)-I sent you this paper (French) because it is an archaeological information about the site and it says textually ”During excavations carried out between 1875 and 1877 by Ivan Braconier, assisted by Julien Fraipont and Max Lohest, the remains of a collective burial site were discovered in a chimney in this cave. The remains of at least 9 individuals, most of them adults, with a clear predominance of males, were deposited in a vertical chimney. It was accompanied by some twenty ceramic fragments well described by Fraipont and probably attributable to the S.O.M. (ph. Masy, àparattre).
4-Radiocarbon dating of mesolithic human remains in Belgium and Luxembourg-Christopher Meiklejohn (2.014)- Diagnosis and Discussion: Stratigraphic analysis so far shows the possibility of a layer between 4a (Early Neolithic) and 4b (Late Neolithic) that would contain the La Hoguette sherds. This may be an occupation separate from both the underlying Late Mesolithic and overlying Early Neolithic. Work is underway to present new dates and geological results, and proposes an interpretation of the La Hoguette presence at Trou Al’Wesse.
@Gio
These are the R1b samples and their dates
*AF023 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse-NEO-B-HapY-R1b1a/1a2
*AF025 (3.245 BC)-Trou Al’Wesse-NEO-B-HapY-R
*AF007 (2.777 BC)-Grotte du Mont Falise-HapY-R1b1a/1a2a/1a2c/1a5b/1a1a
*AF011 (2.742 BC)-Abri Sandron, neolithic-HapY-R1b1a/1a2a/1a
*AF029 (2.739 BC)-Grotte du Mont Falise-HapY-R1b1a/1a2a/1a1c/1a
*AF017 (72 CE)-Trou Al’Wesse-Iron Age-HapY-R1b1a/1a2-
The first is M269, the second has low coverage, the third (despite what Fichera says) is also M269, the fourth is P310, the fifth is U106, and the sixth is an Iron Age specimen.
There are no V88 in the Belgian sites studied in the thesis
A.Fichera-“Analysis on the Y chromosome supported the scenario, described previously, of shared ancestry between Yamnaya-related populations and Neolithic-B Belgians, since five Neolithic-B males out of six belong to the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b-M269. The coverage of the remaining individual, AF025, was too low to obtain an accurate haplogroup classification, currently is classified as R. The R1b-M269 lineage has been already described as the marker of the Yamnaya migrations and the genetic replacement of Y chromosome haplogroups G, J and I to mainly R1b (Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al. 2015; Fu et al. 2016; Olalde et al. 2018; Olalde et al. 2019)”
@Gaska ,Are all your samples of steppe origin? and what does low coverage mean? poorly read gene? They can’t just find successful preserved DNA and then publish the data? Scientists need to make every effort to learn how to completely restore ancient DNA. This is very important.
Here is something Lazaridis et al wrote on pages 332-333 of the Supplementary Material of their paper, "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe". Note that where they write "Z2013" that's a typo. Z2103 is meant.
"Given that within the phylogeny of R-M269 (R-PF7562, (R-L51, R-Z2013)) both R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 have their earliest examples in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north, the most likely hypothesis is that the entire R-M269 clade originated there as well, with R-L51 representing a lineage that eventually became highly successful in mainland Europe, R-PF7562 a lineage that did not achieve the prominence of its relatives, and R-Z2013 became highly successful (briefly) as part of the Yamnaya culture and its offshoots . . ."
So, Lazaridis et al, free of the taint of idiotic ethno-nationalist bias, conclude that probably the entire R1b-M269 clade originated "in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north".
That makes sense, given that both Z2103 and its brother clade, L51, turn up in cultures thought to be composed of steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans: Yamnaya (in the case of Z2103), Corded Ware (in the case of L51), and Afanasievo (both).
Thus far, there is no evidence whatsoever that M269 or L23 and its offspring originated west of the steppe and moved east into it.
@Rich S.
interesting information, that’s probably why it’s on the sites
http://scaledinnovation.com/gg/snpTracker.html
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/migration
localize the first person R-M269 between the Caucasus and the Volga Don, based on the opinion of Lazaridis
@Rich
...both R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 have their earliest examples in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north...
Do you know which samples Lazaridis is talking about here?
I'm not aware of any early examples of R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 from the North Caucasus.
Davidski wrote:
@Rich
...both R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 have their earliest examples in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north...
Do you know which samples Lazaridis is talking about here?
I'm not aware of any early examples of R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 from the North Caucasus.
My response:
Honestly, I don't know. I don't think they were being too careful by including "North Caucasus". I took that to just mean the steppe north of the Caucasus. Why they threw "North Caucasus" in there I'm not sure, perhaps as a hat tip to people who make too much of the Caucasus region.
I wonder if that Derivka outlier R1b-M269 which is ~ 80% Ukr_N like is mis-dated and is in fact much older.
@Rich
Yep, the North Caucasus claim is nonsense.
It'd be interesting to know who put that in Lazaridis' paper, and if it was Lazaridis himself.
@Rob
There is no reason for you to avoid GenArchivist. I was banned at Anthrogenica in 2021 but was allowed to join GenArchivist with no trouble. I hesitate to mention that, because I don't want to attract the ethno-nationalist riff-raff who will go there and in short order get themselves banned at yet another venue. But I think you (and Davidski and a few others) would be really valuable additions.
@Davidski ,sad ☹️, but I was hoping
chronology of the spread of IE languages
https://youtu.be/sMdhcpjNHLk?si=iGtyG0xmEz6CHPA7
The Caucasus held on to the last
@ RichS - GeneArchiver is run by a queer kabbal of liars and losers pretending to be experts
Rob wrote:
@ RichS - GeneArchiver is run by a queer kabbal of liars and losers pretending to be experts
My response:
They seem okay to me, and so far they let me freely say what I want. It would be great if you and some of the others here were participating there.
I'm certainly no expert. I don't pretend to be one.
@ RichS
They are nice to anyone gullable enough to believe their BS. But beware, those liars who give you advice about ANE and R1 are those very people I speak of, and you will be criticised strongly if you perpetuate their mistruths here.
@Rob said-"GeneArchiver is run by a queer kabbal of liars and losers pretending to be experts"
I don't know this new forum, but the only thing they are trying to do is to erase the trail of all the nonsense they have written in anthrogenica for years, to pass themselves off as experts, to propagandize their Kurganist fairy tale and give a false image of credibility. They have to remember that all those threads were recorded and everyone knows what each one of them wrote. Who is in charge?
My money is on "Vaudeville" Anglesqueville, "Borrico" Ruderico and "Magic" Rocca, with the invaluable help of "Sitting Bull" Stevens, "Chiricaua" Razyn, "Mr Bean" JDean, "Michelin" Michalis & "Moonhowler" Alan. I'm sure they have already sent thousands of posts about the origin of M269 etc etc in the steppes, the origin of the BBC in the CWC, ha ha ha ha ha ha.
If someone participates there, please remind my friend Rocca that we are waiting for him (and for Alex Williamson) to explain in detail his theory that I0806 quedlinburg is DF27, and that there were no Iberian migrations to other European regions during the BB culture.
Gaska - actually the BB thread is the only one which isn’t garbage , but I agree with you about the little Mademoiselle
Well, that's your opinion and I respect it because at least you know what you're talking about, but they are partisans trying to impose a dogma of faith.
"Mademoiselle" Anglesqueville????? ha Ha Ha ha, surely thinks he is a great expert in archeology, anthropology, linguistics and genetics.
I understand, Mr. Davidsky, that my comment on the post on the topic of the war in Ukraine, except for you and some random passerby, no one will see, my efforts were in vain)
@Davidski ,why in ethnic calculators like "Harapa World" or eurogenes k13, the people of the Yamnaya culture are shown as a mixture of Lithuanians and Baluchis?
@Rich
@Davidsky
"So, Lazaridis et al, free of the taint of idiotic ethno-nationalist bias, conclude that probably the entire R1b-M269 clade originated "in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north".
My PF7558 ears perk up when I read mention of this line and its relatives. There's very little info about it online. The earliest PF7562 dates from the early Bronze Age and was found in Lysogarskaya, Stavropol Krai (North Caucasus piedmont if I can refer to its location as such).
If I understand the issue here correctly, Lazaridis is using data to postulate an origin for M269 in the 'North Caucasus and steppe to the north' and Lazaridis would do well to scratch 'North Caucasus' which is misleading and simply say this PF7562 guy's line came here from the steppe to the North; right?
When I hear early Bronze Age North Caucasus, I think of Maikop Culture and its extensive mountain terracing in the Western North Caucasus itself.
Stavropol Krai includes the Southern most area of the Don river drainage which to me at least hints of the source of this early R-PF7562 fella's line if it came from the North. By extension we can hypothesize that R-M269 is also located somewhere to the north just before this time (& possibly east of the Don as Rob says - I would be very interested to hear more about that.)
Rob wrote:
@ RichS
They are nice to anyone gullable enough to believe their BS. But beware, those liars who give you advice about ANE and R1 are those very people I speak of, and you will be criticised strongly if you perpetuate their mistruths here.
My response:
Ah, well. I was hoping you might consider contributing, but if you don't want to, that's fine.
I'll continue to read your posts here and respect the opinions expressed in them, along with, of course, what Davidski and a few others have to say. I am also enjoying my relatively new discipline of ignoring the couple of rank nutjobs who post here. It's pretty obvious who they are.
@Steppisch
It's stupid to suggest that any form of R1b, including M269 and downstream clades, may have come from the North Caucasus.
Obviously that's because there's no R1b in the North Caucasus until it got there from the steppe with populations clearly of steppe origin.
I have no idea if the claim made in the Lazaridis paper is wishful thinking or what?
@Арсен
Why in ethnic calculators like "Harapa World" or eurogenes k13, the people of the Yamnaya culture are shown as a mixture of Lithuanians and Baluchis?
It's a technical problem.
These calculators are based on Admixture output which offers only a limited number of so called ancestral clusters, and these limited ancestral clusters are usually based on modern populations.
So when you try to model an ancient population with these modern ancestral populations you'll get results that look backwards and usually only make sense very broadly.
You would need to find an admixture analysis that is based on ancient populations, or at least one that features ancestral components that closely approximate ancient populations.
In this Admixture test Yamnaya scores 100% Yamnaya.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/03/yamnaya-related-ancestry-proportions-in.html
@Daviski ,thank you for your answer, your knowledge is limitless
@Steppisch, it is very similar that PF7558 is associated with the steppe since the frequencies in different countries are proportional to Z2103, that is, it is just like Z2103 distributed in the Balkans, Armenia and Dagestan, although in smaller proportions
but this R-M269, which is the main one among steppe populations, it didn’t fall from the moon, it didn’t fall from the sky, it penetrated the steppe and multiplied very much, divided into many branches, the vast majority of modern Europeans and many other peoples of the Indo-European language groups, and not only, descends from this man. He was probably a cattle breeder, had many women, and they, in turn, had many children from him, the children continued this patriarchal tradition. But how did this proto-Indo-European get to the steppe? Siberia? maybe the Caucasus? After all there are no other options
M269 is from Eastern Europe.
Definitely not from Siberia and not from the Caucasus.
@ Davidski
Perhaps you are right, but so far we may be certain that subclades of R-M269* were in Poland about 4300 years ago (id:PCW070POL [PL-18], id:PCW040POL [PL-18], id:PCW362POL [PL-06], id:PCW361POL [PL-06]) but R-M269* formed 6400 ybp, i.e. 2000 years before. You have no proof that the ancestor was in Poland or eastern Europe 6400 ybp, and the oldest subclades upstream are elsewhere.
@Davidski , R1b-V1636 and Q1-L472-M25 is also from Eastern Europe? I’m also interested in your opinion about the J1-CTS1026, do you think it is connected with the NEC Mesolithic? for me yes
@ Arsen
' but I was hoping R1b-M269 is from Caucasus"
Very strange. Are you unhappy with your reality, that you wish to falsify that of others ?
Although you're probably incapable of doing so, it would be more objective for you to follow the evidence & make yourself a list of all the Mesolithic R1b-P297 in the Caucasus and Siberia. i.e. read the results of the scientists whom you perfidiously glorify.
@Rob ,I don’t care about this R1b-M269, it was just a joke, it’s clear that it has nothing to do with the Caucasus. I'm more concerned about my J1-Z1842
Why are you so nervous? How old are you? Don't be nervous friend
@ Arsen : yeah right, nice deflection. Dumb and dishonest
“How old are you? ”
The question is how old are you ? Because, aside from your malfunctions, grown men don’t use Emjois in every sentence 🤡
@NEVILLE
No historical migration could explain the Slavic haplogroups in Iberia, apart from Eastern European populations assimilated by the Goths before the 4th century.
That's false.
There are historical records of Slavic mercenaries in the western Mediterranean during the Roman period.
And we now have ancient DNA from Slavic-related people in Sicily.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/10/balto-slavs-and-sarmatians-in-battle-of.html
There are even Slavic ydna in Mexico !
@Davidski, I’m sorry for constantly tormenting you with my questions, but what about my question about the origin of R1b-V1636, Q1-L472-M25 and J1-CTS1026? I asked above
I came across various discussions, but they were quite a long time ago. Maybe there is something new on this topic
Post a Comment