PDA

View Full Version : Is the Globular Amphora Culture the clue to R1b-L51 into Central Europe?



TigerMW
11-13-2017, 06:29 PM
Is the Globular Amphora Culture the clue to R1b-L51 into Central Europe?

I can't find the posts, but it has been brought up that there are autosomal DNA commonalities between GAC and the East/Northwest Bell Beakers. The Olalde paper had
"the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 3.18E-08)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globular_Amphora_culture

Perhaps this is just more evidence.

"Electronic Supplementary Information from Genome diversity in the Neolithic Globular Amphorae culture and the spread of Indo-European languages" by Tassi, et. al. (incl. David Reic)
https://figshare.com/articles/Electronic_Supplementary_Information_from_Genome_d iversity_in_the_Neolithic_Globular_Amphorae_cultur e_and_the_spread_of_Indo-European_languages/5594287

"nuclear (six individuals typed for 597 573 SNPs) and mitochondrial (11 complete sequences) DNAs from the GAC appear closer to those of earlier Neolithic groups than to the DNAs of all other populations related with the Pontic steppe migration ... These results are not in contrast with Late Neolithic gene flow from the Pontic steppes into Central Europe. However, they add nuance to this model, showing that the eastern affinities of the GAC in the archaeological record reflect cultural influences from other groups from the East, rather than the movement of people."

Western and Central Europe is 50% plus filled with R1b-L151 types (P312 + U106 + etc.). Tis is Bell Beaker land which we know is dominated by P312.

R1b-L23>L51>L151 lineage is an enigma. We have the one MRCA (Most Recent Common Ancestor) man with L151+ that passed through this bottleneck. As I've said and I'm sure others, this is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Who brought the cultural influence from the East into GAC? This new paper is calling this a non-people movement, but may be it is just a very limited male only movement. This new paper may be just be confusing their inability in finding the needle in the haystick with a lack of folk movement. The implication is a male only hegemony.

rms2
11-13-2017, 09:07 PM
I got excited at first when I saw rozenfeld's post about it in the ancient DNA in the news discussion thread. I thought the title might indicate they had found some genomic diversity within GAC. Now I think that by diversity they mean GAC people differed from steppe people in being like Old Europeans.

Apparently the Eastern influence in GAC was cultural and not genetic.

TigerMW
11-13-2017, 09:29 PM
I got excited at first when I saw rozenfeld's post about it in the ancient DNA in the news discussion thread. I thought the title might indicate they had found some genomic diversity within GAC. Now I think that by diversity they mean GAC people differed from steppe people in being like Old Europeans.

Apparently the Eastern influence in GAC was cultural and not genetic.

We may need to look much harder at GAC ancient DNA, in other words we need more samples and from the late GAC periods right as Corded Wares and then East Bell Beakers and Unetice started to prevail.

Just a few L51>L151 lineage folks may have had the cultural influence, before their male lineages expanded greatly. The cultural influences were probably not exclusive of folk movements altogether.

rms2
11-14-2017, 01:11 AM
Gimbutas thought GAC was a mix of Kurgan elites and Old Europeans, but it doesn't sound like this paper has found those elites, if they in fact existed. It sounds like they're saying there were cultural influences from the steppe in GAC but that genetically GAC people were like the old Neolithic farmers. That's basically what the Mathieson et al paper showed, as well. All the GAC men were I2a, as I recall, and there was no steppe dna in GAC.

Reminds me of the Remedello results: a culture that looks like it had been kurganized, but without steppe dna or any R1b or R1a.

I don't think we're going to find L51 in GAC. I think it will show up in Yamnaya or in Corded Ware or both.

The farmer component in Bell Beaker is closest to a combination of GAC and TRB because Bell Beaker moved through GAC and TRB territory and acquired wives from people descended from those peoples.

Gravetto-Danubian
11-14-2017, 02:11 AM
Gimbutas thought GAC was a mix of Kurgan elites and Old Europeans, but it doesn't sound like this paper has found those elites, if they in fact existed. It sounds like they're saying there were cultural influences from the steppe in GAC but that genetically GAC people were like the old Neolithic farmers. That's basically what the Mathieson et al paper showed, as well. All the GAC men were I2a, as I recall, and there was no steppe dna in GAC.

Reminds me of the Remedello results: a culture that looks like it had been kurganized, but without steppe dna or any R1b or R1a.


The 'barrows' of GAC are of wholly different character to steppe graves (the former seem an extension of Megalithism, incorporating cattle-rituals from Hungarian cultures , proto-Baden & the like), and the steppe has no central role in the emergence of pastoralism and elaborate graves, but was one region amongst several, which then came to dominate.
Similarly, the emergence of warrior graves in Italy is connected to Caucasus & Balkan influences, not the steppe directly.

rms2
11-14-2017, 12:47 PM
That would certainly explain the lack of steppe dna and R1 in both GAC and Remedello thus far.

TigerMW
11-14-2017, 03:39 PM
I don't think we're going to find L51 in GAC. I think it will show up in Yamnaya or in Corded Ware or both.

The farmer component in Bell Beaker is closest to a combination of GAC and TRB because Bell Beaker moved through GAC and TRB territory and acquired wives from people descended from those peoples.

I don't know the answer, but is this the way it happened? ... The Bell Beaker moved through GAC and TRB territory.
That presumes the Bell Beaker people existed at the time of the GAC and TRB people and must have formed elsewhere.

We don't have a such a thing and don't know if there ever was such a thing as a Bell Beaker with pure steppe ancestry. Essentially they appear have formed out of a couple of other cultures include a steppe heavy ancestry culture, one with an R1b-L23>L51>L151>P312 lineage in it.

Who are the other cultures that merged with a steppe culture and was that steppe ancestry culture a CW or a Yamanaya?

rms2
11-14-2017, 09:13 PM
TRB and GAC were contemporaneous, but both preceded Bell Beaker, which is why I said BB acquired wives from people descended from people of those cultures.

rms2
11-14-2017, 09:27 PM
But I guess you are talking about or exploring the possibility of an L51 Corded Ware group mixing with GAC and/or TRB, with the result being Bell Beaker.

TigerMW
11-14-2017, 09:43 PM
TRB and GAC were contemporaneous, but both preceded Bell Beaker, which is why I said BB acquired wives from people descended from people of those cultures.
Right, but we don't understand the formation of NW/E Bell Beaker. It may have been gradual, similar to the Mycaenean take-over of Minoan civilization to form the new and true Greek society.

This is why it is very important to have various timeframes and locations surveyed with the ancient DNA. Otherwise, it is extremely precarious to assume that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It could be, but our R1b-L23>L51>L151 lineage is a needle in a haystack anyway

We see the eastern geographies of GAC had a different physical type, indicating some difference in people.

"Encyclopedia of Ind-European Culture", Mallory, (pp.226-7)

The Globular Amphora culture arises in discussions of Indo-European origins and expansions because of its apparently mobile economy (or at least transitory settlement), presence of (presumably) domestic horse, and distinctive pottery. The ceramics have been sometimes associated with that of the Maykop culture of the north Caucasus and the Lower Mikhaylovka Group of the middle Dnieper and some form of direct connection between the Caucasus and the north European plain has been controversially argued, especially with the context of the "Kurgan theory". Burial ritual has been regarded as extremely important in linking the Globular Amphora culture with the Indo-Europeans. Here special emphasis is place of the evidence for suttee, the execution of the wife on the death of the husband, which may be suggested from a number of Globular Amphora burials. The burial of livestock, particularly teams of oxen, has also been regarded as an Indo-European trait as well as the presence of amber "sun-discs". Finally, the physical type of the Globular Amphora population, at least those in the easternmost territories, has been seen to be similar to those of the steppe region.

I think there is great emphasis on the sun in the East Bell Beakers. Looks like a commonality with the GAC.

"Symbolism and tradition in the society of Bell-Beaker Csepel group", Endrodi and Pasztor, 2006.

The orientation of the houses according to the winter solstice at Albertfalva and the existence of a territory enclosed by a round ditch between the houses render the role of the Sun in the daily and religious life of the population of the Csepel group even more emphatic. The representation of the Sun in various forms (gold discs, incised Sun motives) can be observed on nearly the entire territory of the Bell Beaker culture yet we do not want to interpret this phenomenon as a Sun cult. The religious beliefs of the Bell Beaker culture are extremely complicated, complex and colourful, and Sun, an environmental factor that defines daily life, could only be an element in it
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233530056_Symbolism_and_tradition_in_the_society_o f_Bell-Beaker_Csepel_group


But I guess you are talking about or exploring the possibility of an L51 Corded Ware group mixing with GAC and/or TRB, with the result being Bell Beaker.
Right, although GAC is adjacent to the Carpathian Basin also so the Danubian Yamnaya are not out of the question either.

moesan
11-14-2017, 09:49 PM
Gimbutas thought GAC was a mix of Kurgan elites and Old Europeans, but it doesn't sound like this paper has found those elites, if they in fact existed. It sounds like they're saying there were cultural influences from the steppe in GAC but that genetically GAC people were like the old Neolithic farmers. That's basically what the Mathieson et al paper showed, as well. All the GAC men were I2a, as I recall, and there was no steppe dna in GAC.

Reminds me of the Remedello results: a culture that looks like it had been kurganized, but without steppe dna or any R1b or R1a.

I don't think we're going to find L51 in GAC. I think it will show up in Yamnaya or in Corded Ware or both.

The farmer component in Bell Beaker is closest to a combination of GAC and TRB because Bell Beaker moved through GAC and TRB territory and acquired wives from people descended from those peoples.

I would have said the same thing.

TigerMW
11-14-2017, 10:20 PM
Right, but we don't understand the formation of NW/E Bell Beaker. It may have been gradual, similar to the Mycaenean take-over of Minoan civilization to form the new and true Greek society.

our R1b-L23>L51>L151 lineage is a needle in a haystack anyway

We see the eastern geographies of GAC had a different physical type, indicating some difference in people.

I think there is great emphasis on the sun in the East Bell Beakers. Looks like a commonality with the GAC.

GAC is adjacent to the Carpathian Basin also so the Danubian Yamnaya are not out of the question either.


But I guess you are talking about or exploring the possibility of an L51 Corded Ware group mixing with GAC and/or TRB, with the result being Bell Beaker.


Right, although GAC is adjacent to the Carpathian Basin also so the Danubian Yamnaya are not out of the question either.

Some of Alan's thinking is rubbing off on me but here is one a speculative scenario.

The R1b-L23>L51>L151 pre-U106 pre-P312 lineages are a small but farflung group that led a trade and scouting network. Perhaps they came from early Corded Ware excursions into Central Europe but let's go with them as scouts for the Danubian Yamnaya...

Corded Wares people filled with R1a lineages came from the east and northeast into GAC lands, putting severe pressure on them. This motivates the GAC people to ally with the Yamnaya traders/scouts from the Danube Valley.

L51 basal lineages from the Danubian Yamnaya helped influence and change the GAC culture, but they were an elite group. They were not an all out group of colonizers and settlers. The alliance grows but eventually succumbs to CW and R1a incursions into Central Europe. The GAC is now just a scattered remnant, but somewhere a long their southern and eastern edge, they held together and reformed and merged with people from the headquarters for the Danubian Yamnaya scouts and traders. This would be the birth of the East/Northwest Bell Beakers.

The E/NW Bell Beakers was a new society with aggressive, expansionist and apparently polygamous ways. L151 arose as the new society was born. U106 branched off immediately before or as this was happening. I don't know if they fall into Unetice or were just a flavor of CW or part of an early merge with some CW peoples.

The E/NW Bell Beaker P312 led cultures smashed Central Europe leaving some people to see something that was a reflux but it was never a reflux originating in Southwest of Europe. Its predecessor was just a far flung group gathering ideas to relaunch through out Central, Northwestern, Southwestern Europe and the Alpine Region. I think their base was the Danube Valley near the Alps, probably due north of Italy or slightly northeast along the Middle Danube.

Finding ancient L23* pre-L51, L51*, L151* basal lineages may be near impossible because they were never a large, concentrated colony in the first place.

BTW... I may have described the French and Indian War against the British, but in this case the French (or the mixed group i.e. Cajuns) won.:)

moesan
11-14-2017, 10:28 PM
BB had absorbed more neolithik DNA fromCentral Europe than did CWC as a whole so it could witness longer contacts and a gradual elaboration as said by Mikewww, and rather a relatively more southern or say central position as opposed to first CWC, in Western Europe - concerning Y haplos I think the cut off between CWC and BB was neat enough, so almost no R1b among CWC, or very few.
I could suppose first L51+recent L11 were somewhere between Poland, Slovakia and N-W Ukraina, and for the most of them were pushed southwards by coming CWC - maybe some others stayed in a corner not too far from the Baltic, in a rather Y-I1 environment, future ancestors of U106??? Unneasy to say, because it seems that at those times among previously nomadic tribes, clans didn't intergrate so easily others and in relatively little territories distinct lignages could live almost side by side -

aside this, GAC was maybe not homogenous on it all territory?

rms2
11-15-2017, 01:31 AM
. . .


I think there is great emphasis on the sun in the East Bell Beakers. Looks like a commonality with the GAC.

. . .



The sun and solar motifs were a steppe thing that occurred in Yamnaya and in earlier steppe cultures like Mikhailovka I. It is not likely BB acquired that from GAC.

rms2
11-15-2017, 01:42 AM
If Gimbutas is right, and BB was the product of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, then BB's ancestors and BB itself came up the Danube Valley and thus through a region more heavily populated with Neolithic farmers than CW did, thus the greater Neolithic farmer admixture in BB than in CW.

If BB was an offshoot of CW, then one must recall that BB is slightly younger than CW and had more time to mix with Old European farmer populations, thus diluting its steppe ancestry a little more than CW did. In addition, if BB came from CW, it was from the western vanguard of CW, which abutted Old European farmers and would have been in a better position to mix with them.

Time will tell on GAC, but thus far it doesn't have any R1 or steppe dna. If it had been mixing with steppe peoples, one would expect to see at least a little steppe dna.

alexfritz
11-15-2017, 01:56 AM
If Gimbutas is right, and BB was the product of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, then BB's ancestors and BB itself came up the Danube Valley and thus through a region more heavily populated with Neolithic farmers than CW did, thus the greater Neolithic farmer admixture in BB than in CW.

If BB was an offshoot of CW, then one must recall that BB is slightly younger than CW and had more time to mix with Old European farmer populations, thus diluting its steppe ancestry a little more than CW did. In addition, if BB came from CW, it was from the western vanguard of CW, which abutted Old European farmers and would have been in a better position to mix with them.

Time will tell on GAC, but thus far it doesn't have any R1 or steppe dna. If it had been mixing with steppe peoples, one would expect to see at least a little steppe dna.

in mathieson et al the farmer admix was higher on X-chr than by autosome analysis in BB_Germany hence it came via the maternal side, with total higher farmer than CW and lower yamnaya than CW and vucedol itself X values being completely AN(farmer) so i guess one can construct something either way yet olalde et al also rejected central farmers (germany/hungary) as a source of farmer admix in favor of the northern TRB/GAC in beakers;

rms2
11-15-2017, 02:05 AM
in mathieson et al the farmer admix was higher on X-chr than by autosome analysis in BB_Germany hence it came via the maternal side, with total higher farmer than CW and lower yamnaya than CW and vucedol itself X values being completely AN(farmer) so i guess one can construct something either way yet olalde et al also rejected central farmers (germany/hungary) as a source of farmer admix in favor of the northern TRB/GAC in beakers;

Thanks for that. I must confess I only gave Mathieson a kind of cursory reading and spent much more time on Olalde et al, so I did not notice that X chromosome info you mentioned above, which strikes me as pretty significant.

TigerMW
11-15-2017, 03:59 AM
aside this, GAC was maybe not homogenous on it all territory?
Absolutely, our ancient DNA surveys are horribly limited. Plus we can see with the Bell Beaker (Early West/Iberian versus East/NW continental) that there was not just one type of people in something that looks like a culture. It may be more of an horizon than a culture, as David Anthony explained about the Yamanaya.


The sun and solar motifs were a steppe thing that occurred in Yamnaya and in earlier steppe cultures like Mikhailovka I.

This gets a little more specific than general sun motifs and also involves some human physical differences.


the presence of amber "sun-discs". Finally, the physical type of the Globular Amphora population, at least those in the easternmost territories, has been seen to be similar to those of the steppe region.

The representation of the Sun in various forms (gold discs, incised Sun motives) can be observed on nearly the entire territory of the Bell Beaker culture.


It is not likely BB acquired that from GAC.

It may have been the other way around, but earlier. It may have been that GAC acquired this from the Danube Yamnaya scouts/traders.


If Gimbutas is right, and BB was the product of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, then BB's ancestors and BB itself came up the Danube Valley and thus through a region more heavily populated with Neolithic farmers than CW did, thus the greater Neolithic farmer admixture in BB than in CW.

I'm not saying this is much different in my speculative scenario than Gimbutas although Vucedol may have had less influence than Gimbutas thought, maybe very little.


Time will tell on GAC, but thus far it doesn't have any R1 or steppe dna. If it had been mixing with steppe peoples, one would expect to see at least a little steppe dna.

If you look at the clues closely and do not assume that GAC is monolithic, we might consider that GAC was influenced by cultural practices from a steppes people on its eastern edges.

Hence, on the eastern edge, there were physical differences in the people to be more steppes-like (per Mallory).

Keep in mind the Mycenean influence over pre-Greek society. At first they moved in with a purely elitie/hegemonious relationship but over time something happened and eventually everyone spoke an IE language, proto-Greek, which came from the Myceneans.

In this case, my speculation is that R1a came in with CW cultures and started to overtake the GAC cultures, which were Yamanaya influenced but had little people/steppe DNA. However, the CW incursions retreated or disappated.

What caused the demise of the CW expansion was what others thought was a reflux starting from SW Europe. It was not. It was just a re-launch with a vengence of the new society, the E/NW Bell Beakers, which had a heavier does of steppe DNA since it came from the R1b-L51 pre-L151 headquarters.

rms2
11-15-2017, 12:25 PM
Absolutely, our ancient DNA surveys are horribly limited. Plus we can see with the Bell Beaker (Early West/Iberian versus East/NW continental) that there was not just one type of people in something that looks like a culture. It may be more of an horizon than a culture, as David Anthony explained about the Yamanaya.

Well, thus far it looks like Bell Beaker had two kinds of people: 1) early Iberian Neolithic farmers of Mediterranean physical type who buried there dead in collective tombs with some BB pottery and who had no steppe dna or R1b L23, and 2) kurgan type non-Iberian Bell Beaker people who buried their dead steppe fashion in single graves covered by a round tumulus and who had plenty of steppe dna and R1b-L23.

I'm not convinced we are really even talking about the same culture, let alone the same people.



This gets a little more specific than general sun motifs and also involves some human physical differences.

Really? How specifically are the solar motifs in Bell Beaker and GAC alike and yet differ from the overall use of the same kinds of motifs in Yamnaya and earlier steppe cultures like Mikhailovka?

I was aware that a few GAC skeletons look like steppe skeletons. Gimbutas mentions that in The Civilization of the Goddess. It was one of the reasons she felt GAC had a ruling steppe elite. She mentioned Olga Necrasova's work with GAC skeletons and said that most GAC people were physically like TRB people (i.e., Neolithic farmers) but that a few at the eastern end of GAC's range had more robust skeletons and were like steppe people.

Some of the GAC samples in Mathieson et al were from Ukraine, however, and they did not differ essentially from the samples in Poland: I2a and no steppe dna.

Maybe steppe dna and R1 will eventually turn up in GAC, but they haven't thus far.



It may have been the other way around, but earlier. It may have been that GAC acquired this from the Danube Yamnaya scouts/traders.

That's probably right. GAC acquired its use of solar motifs from its steppe neighbors.

Indo-Europeans worshiped the "Shining Father" (Dyaus Piter, cf. Jupiter and Deus Pater), i.e., the sun, hence the prevalence of solar motifs among them. IMHO, Bell Beaker came by theirs naturally, while GAC borrowed them via trade contacts.



I'm not saying this is much different in my speculative scenario than Gimbutas although Vucedol may have had less influence than Gimbutas thought, maybe very little.

Gimbutas had some pretty good reasons for believing Bell Beaker was the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol. I've listed them before. They can be found in her works, especially in The Civilization of the Goddess.



If you look at the clues closely and do not assume that GAC is monolithic, we might consider that GAC was influenced by cultural practices from a steppes people on its eastern edges.

Nobody is assuming anything. I am aware of steppe influences in GAC, but this new paper seems to be saying they were cultural rather than genetic, and thus far we don't see any evidence of steppe dna or R1 in GAC.

I think Bell Beaker, or whatever steppe people became Bell Beaker, took wives from among the GAC people or their descendants. Alexfritz already mentioned a few posts back the X chromosome evidence from Mathieson et al showing that most of the Neolithic farmer stuff in German BB came from the distaff side.



Hence, on the eastern edge, there were physical differences in the people to be more steppes-like (per Mallory).

Already noted above (also per Gimbutas, as I noted). As I said, Mathieson et al has samples from GAC's eastern range, but thus far no steppe dna or R1. Maybe the steppe skeletons in GAC really were few and far between, and the scientists just have not tested the right ones yet.



Keep in mind the Mycenean influence over pre-Greek society. At first they moved in with a purely elitie/hegemonious relationship but over time something happened and eventually everyone spoke an IE language, proto-Greek, which came from the Myceneans.

No doubt that sort of thing was a relatively common occurrence. But right now all we really know about GAC is that its people were genetically like Old European Neolithic farmers. We can guess there might have been IE elites among them, but thus far those elites have not shown up in the ancient dna results.



In this case, my speculation is that R1a came in with CW cultures and started to overtake the GAC cultures, which were Yamanaya influenced but had little people/steppe DNA. However, the CW incursions retreated or disappated.

What caused the demise of the CW expansion was what others thought was a reflux starting from SW Europe. It was not. It was just a re-launch with a vengence of the new society, the E/NW Bell Beakers, which had a heavier does of steppe DNA since it came from the R1b-L51 pre-L151 headquarters.

Maybe things will change with more ancient dna evidence, but thus far I don't see any sign that a steppe people mingled with GAC and the result was Bell Beaker, not in the sense of the two cultures and peoples meeting, mixing and forming a new hybrid.

It seems to me Bell Beaker males or males of whichever steppe culture became Bell Beaker took wives from among the Old Europeans they encountered as they moved here and there. In Central Europe a lot of the women were descendants of TRB and GAC people, so Bell Beaker acquired most of its farmer dna from them.

Either way, we've got mixing going on, but you seem to be saying GAC + CW, or GAC + Yamnaya, = Bell Beaker. Am I wrong?

I just think GAC as a culture had less to do with it than that.

moesan
11-15-2017, 02:38 PM
It's at the mergins and not a too scientific approach, but, after having red a blog report of results from Mathieson concerning CWC and (northern) BB, which are :
autosomes: CWC : 10,6% WHG // 20,2% AN(EEFlike) // 69,1% Yamna
BB : 15,0% WHG // 37,0% AN // 48,0% Yamna
chromoX CWC : 25,3% WHG // 25,5% AN // 49,2% Yamna
BB : 14,9% WHG // 51,3% AN // 33,8% Yamna
we can consider, roughly, that among the local pops which crossed with the Steppes newcomers (overwhelmingly through their females), the ones which took part in the CWC final result were less EEF oriented than the ones picked by BB - sure the %'s here are not to be taken too precisely concerning true ancestry, but the difference is clear enough and it could confirm the more southern route taken by BB - or that BB crossed more effectively with the "southern" pops they found on their route (lower speed of emigration, with halts?): Cucuteni-Tripolye here?

TigerMW
11-15-2017, 08:12 PM
I don't think we are in much disagreement. It's more of a matter of proportions of people versus social influence only and the related nuances. I'm definitely not committed that R1b-L23>L51>L151 basal lineages were ever in GAC. It is just a proposal since we haven't found R1b-L51>L151 basal lineages in ancient DNA yet. We do see the L151>P312 lineages in East/NW Bell Beakers have GAC autosomal DNA in their mix and we see East/NW Bell Beakers showing up with a vengence in old GAC territories.


Well, thus far it looks like Bell Beaker had two kinds of people: 1) early Iberian Neolithic farmers of Mediterranean physical type who buried there dead in collective tombs with some BB pottery and who had no steppe dna or R1b L23, and 2) kurgan type non-Iberian Bell Beaker people who buried their dead steppe fashion in single graves covered by a round tumulus and who had plenty of steppe dna and R1b-L23.

I'm not convinced we are really even talking about the same culture, let alone the same people.

I agree 100%, in fact I think there may be more than two kinds of Bell Beaker people. I doubt if we really have a good survey of the Italic Bell Beakers. I've always said we should consider the Bell Beakers as an horizon rather than homogeneous culture.


Really? How specifically are the solar motifs in Bell Beaker and GAC alike and yet differ from the overall use of the same kinds of motifs in Yamnaya and earlier steppe cultures like Mikhailovka?

I agree that Yamnaya, Mikhailovka, East/NW Bell Beaker and GAC could all have shared cultural practices related to the sun. I am not proposing this originated with GAC. We see that Heyd (?Harrison) felt the sun related practices were particularly important in East Bell Beakers, which would be in old GAC territories. I don't think he ever felt the CW culture's sun related practices were of the same type or emphasis. I don't know. I may have just been reading too much Heyd.


Maybe steppe dna and R1 will eventually turn up in GAC, but they haven't thus far.

Right, and R1b-L51>L151 basal lineages aren't turning up anywhere yet but we know it existed somewhere. Please don't misread that as saying that I propose that R1b-L51 originated in GAC. R1b-L51>L151 basal lineages may have existed in GAC as only a small minority elite or specialist type in the culture.


That's probably right. GAC acquired its use of solar motifs from its steppe neighbors.

Agreed, as noted above.


Gimbutas had some pretty good reasons for believing Bell Beaker was the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

I'm not proposing anything exclusive of this. What I have been calling Danube Yamnaya may have had significant doses of Vucedol in them.

I don't think we can yet say when or where the Proto-East Bell Beaker culture arose. We can't really say a Proto-Bell Beaker occurred on the east/northeast side of the Adriatic Sea, can we? Perhaps it did, but we know East Bell Beaker expanded in full force in old GAC lands.


I think Bell Beaker, or whatever steppe people became Bell Beaker, took wives from among the GAC people or their descendants. Alexfritz already mentioned a few posts back the X chromosome evidence from Mathieson et al showing that most of the Neolithic farmer stuff in German BB came from the distaff side.

Can you or Moesen explain this a little more? I'm not following the whole logic chain here. If you are just saying the GAC autosomal ancestry in East Bell Beakers came only from the maternal side - I agree, at least at the outset.
...


Either way, we've got mixing going on, but you seem to be saying GAC + CW, or GAC + Yamnaya, = Bell Beaker. Am I wrong?

I just think GAC as a culture had less to do with it than that.

Yes, but I would not exclude Vucedol and again I'm not committed to this. The proposal being assessed is:

GAC + Yamnaya (+ Vucedol) = the initiation of the East Bell Beakers.

Central Europe Neolithic atDNA + Yamnaya atDNA with L51>L151 Y DNA + (perhaps Vucedol atDNA) = begets East Bell Beaker with L151>P312 Y DNA

I'm not saying the GAC had R1b-L51>L151 lineages at its beginnings, but may have on the eastern edge or as the culture adopted some steppe practices, some L51 types may have been infiltrating. The needle in the haystack. Not much people integration until L151>P312 and full fledged East Bell Beaker.

It's just an idea.

MitchellSince1893
11-15-2017, 08:48 PM
This Yamnaya + ? + ?? = Bell Beaker reminds me somewhat of the situation in Latin America where you have y dna dominated by European sources and mt dna often from native sources, and in some areas African Ancestry for either or both. The overall admixture percentages vary greatly depending on where you are in Latin America.

http://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/enea9nl.png

parasar
11-27-2017, 01:56 AM
"At the nuclear level, there is a recognizable genealogical continuity from Yamna to Corded Ware. However, the view that the GAC people represented an intermediate phase in this large-scale migration finds no support in bi-dimensional representations of genome diversity (PCA and MDS), ADMIXTURE graphs, or in the set of estimated f3-statistics...

...possibility that GAC sites other than those investigated in this study might show different genomic features, but at this stage, this is only a matter of speculation. Therefore, either the GAC people pre-existed and were extraneous to the Pontic Steppe migration process envisaged by Gimbutas, or the Pontic steppes migrants' contribution was represented by few individuals, too few indeed to leave a trace in the genetic makeup of the GAC population."
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20171540

RCO
11-27-2017, 12:39 PM
Renfrew’s hypothesis strikes back, but what about the Y-DNA from the article ? If they were R1 the impact of the article would be even more challenging. Silence in the Steppe lobby for now. Let's wait as usual, nothing definitely conclusive.

Generalissimo
11-27-2017, 01:02 PM
Renfrew’s hypothesis strikes back, but what about the Y-DNA from the article ? If they were R1 the impact of the article would be even more challenging. Silence in the Steppe lobby for now.

The same individuals were analyzed months ago as part of Mathieson et al. 2017. All the males belong to Y-hg I2. That's why this new paper is being largely ignored.

The results from Mathieson et al. don't support Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. They support the steppe hypothesis, because they show that there was no steppe ancestry even in the forest steppe of Ukraine until Corded Ware got there from the steppe.

Globular Amphora people starkly different from Yamnaya people (http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/globular-amphora-people-starkly.html)

And whether Globular Amphora was influenced culturally by the steppe peoples or not makes no difference to the PIE homeland debate.

RCO
11-27-2017, 01:30 PM
That's the second result of some of the first archaeologically presumed Indo-European peoples in Europe The analysis of ancient DNA also has revealed that Ancient Minoans and Mycenaens were genetically similar with both peoples descending from early Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, so the results are accumulating suggesting that movement.

Generalissimo
11-27-2017, 08:01 PM
That's the second result of some of the first archaeologically presumed Indo-European peoples in Europe The analysis of ancient DNA also has revealed that Ancient Minoans and Mycenaens were genetically similar with both peoples descending from early Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean, so the results are accumulating suggesting that movement.

You seem confused.

Mycenaeans are the first attested Indo-European speakers in the ancient DNA record, and they had steppe ancestry.

Minoans aren't generally thought to be Indo-Europeans, and they didn't have any steppe ancestry. They were a mixture of early Anatolian farmers and later populations from Anatolia rich in Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) admixture.

So things are looking good for the steppe hypothesis.

Net Down G5L
11-28-2017, 07:10 AM
The same individuals were analyzed months ago as part of Mathieson et al. 2017. All the males belong to Y-hg I2. That's why this new paper is being largely ignored.

The results from Mathieson et al. don't support Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. They support the steppe hypothesis, because they show that there was no steppe ancestry even in the forest steppe of Ukraine until Corded Ware got there from the steppe.

Globular Amphora people starkly different from Yamnaya people (http://polishgenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/05/globular-amphora-people-starkly.html)

And whether Globular Amphora was influenced culturally by the steppe peoples or not makes no difference to the PIE homeland debate.

This paper and the general arguments supporting it have a huge assumption built in to them. The assumption is that any migration coming out of the 'Steppe' pre-Yamnaya must have had Yamnaya like autosomal profile containing a high quantity of CHG.

This assumption is clearly a wrong assumption to make. The Mathieson samples show that CHG did not get to Dereivka before c.4,200 BCE - then only in isolated samples. So early Steppe migrations from this part of the Steppe would not have had a CHG component.

The data in Tassi et al can be interpreted in different ways. For example, is there any evidence that there could not have been an axis from Novosvobodnaya to Globular Amphora c.3,600 BCE that was free from CHG? This could provide a Steppe Fringe connection Globular Amphora between the East Coast of the Black Sea and Globular Amphora and address a lot of the unexplained archaeology connections.

I am not saying that Tassi et al are definitely wrong and the above is correct. I am saying the Tassi analysis is based on assumptions that may be incorrect - and that there are other conclusions that could equally be drawn using different assumptions.
The Tassi and different assumptions need to be tested/checked to rule out the incorrect ones.

The Tassi data is very useful. The Tassi et al conclusions should be viewed as, at best, provisional.

I personally think that the evidence is very clear that Gimbutas was correct about there being Kurgan migrations before her wave 3. Until people take the blinkers off and see that such migrations do not have to contain CHG, they will just not see or understand them. I have tried to explain that evidence in simple terms here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/i6pk166dddlrbjc/Gimbutas%27-smile%20Draft_3_7%20261117.pdf?dl=0), for anyone who can be bothered to read it.

rms2
11-28-2017, 12:23 PM
I don't have the data handy, since I am not at home, but, as I recall, the GAC samples were a mix of Anatolian Farmer and WHG. So, although Gimbutas was plainly right about there being a couple of waves of steppe migration before Wave 3 and Yamnaya, and the earliest of them might have lacked CHG, shouldn't we expect the migrants to at least have been carriers of EHG and not so much ANF and WHG? The GAC profile makes it look like something that drifted east from Old Europe rather than something that drifted west from the steppe.

Besides, what Gimbutas said about GAC is that it was in fact essentially an Old European people led or at least influenced by steppe elites, who, if she was right, were evidently so small in number as to be thus far undetectable.

There are actually Wave 1 and 2 kurgans in the Carpathian basin that have nothing to do with GAC. I wish Reich et al would test the skeletons in those. There are also kurgans from the Eneolithic steppe cultures that preceded Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe, especially those from Mikhailovka and Kemi-Oba, that seriously need genetic testing.

archlingo
12-01-2017, 10:53 AM
Genome diversity in the Neolithic Globular Amphorae culture and the spread of Indo-European languages
Francesca Tassi et al.:
“It is unclear whether Indo-European languages in Europe spread from the Pontic steppes in the late Neolithic, or from Anatolia in the Early Neolithic. Under the former hypothesis, people of the Globular Amphorae culture (GAC) would be descended from Eastern ancestors, likely representing the Yamnaya culture. However, nuclear (six individuals typed for 597 573 SNPs) and mitochondrial (11 complete sequences) DNA from the GAC appear closer to those of earlier Neolithic groups than to the DNA of all other populations related to the Pontic steppe migration. Explicit comparisons of alternative demographic models via approximate Bayesian computation confirmed this pattern. These results are not in contrast to Late Neolithic gene flow from the Pontic steppes into Central Europe. However, they add nuance to this model, showing that the eastern affinities of the GAC in the archaeological record reflect cultural influences from other groups from the East, rather than the movement of people.”

Note: It is not allowed to conclude from such few, by far not representative results upon any migrations of Indo-Europeans, in whatever definition. In particular mistaken is already the second sentence, in fact saying that the complete GAC population should represent "Eastern ancestors, likely representing the Yamnaya culture.” In fact, they cannot earnestly assume that before an objected "Yamnaya" migration all or a representative part of the later GAC population should have vanished, in a manner as if replacing the "aboriginal" population. Moreover, and naturally, we all meanwhile know that the LBK/Linear Pottery populations contain significant genes from the Neolithic migrations. Now finding these, can never exclude any further migrations, e.g., from the east or south. In addition, most of all the Pit Grave culture (Russian, yamnaya cultura) is now dated between c. 3400 (Anthony 2007:321) /3300 BC (Mallory) and 2600/2500 (e.g., Kaiser 2010) and existed parallel to the GAC. The First Indo-European expansions, however, occurred more than half a millennium earlier.

Further, the authors claim to teach us that, "In principle, language change does not need to be accompanied by migration, because cultural contacts, or a combination of cultural and demographic changes, may also lead to changes at the linguistic level." The sentence is shortening reality, because it excludes the examples of colonialism (e.g., India adopted English as a lingua franca due to colonialism). This scenario, however, cannot be applied to an Indo-European immigration. Most normally, people only change their mother tongue after long-lasting strong influence from a sufficient number of powerful and prestige-carrying native speakers of the new language. Cf., e.g. that the Norman invaders of Britain only influenced, but not replaced, the native Germanic language.

TigerMW
12-01-2017, 02:31 PM
Archlingo, welcome to the forum. Can you summarize how you think R1b-L51 subclades came to dominate old GAC lands? and from where L51 actually launched?

These discussions seem to assume GAC was monolithic and and homogenous. Do you agree or disagree?