PDA

View Full Version : R1b-L11: Where from?



Pages : [1] 2

rms2
03-17-2018, 08:27 PM
Thus far the oldest R1b-L11 has been found in two ancient cultures of the 3rd millennium BC: Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. (I use the appellation Kurgan Bell Beaker to distinguish it, the Bell Beaker with R1b-M269 and steppe dna, from the early Iberian Bell Beaker of the collective Neolithic tombs that was mostly I2a and had no steppe dna.)

Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas attributed Kurgan Bell Beaker to the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev.

So, where did R1b-L11 come from?

alan
03-17-2018, 09:16 PM
It's interesting given Vucedol's big interest in metals and the v high status of the metallurgist that it did extend into the Czech area. Perhaps Gimbutas was half right and Vucedol influenced CW people around Moravia and gave rise to P312 beaker in Moravia and the appearane of a concentration of high status metalurgist graves there. It would make sense as , although bell beaker has a lot of echos of CW culturally, CW mostly lacked that emphasis on metal working as a high status thing. However, so far, ancient DNA favours L11 as travelling west from the steppes north of the Carpathians. The only way L11 or P312came from Vucedol would be if it moved in a tiny group north and lost its original autosomal signal by 2500BC. Not impossible but..

Speed reading a few papers it appears both CW and Vudecol were late arrivals in Moravia around 2500BC. That is close to the date the classic bell beaker culture linked to P312 and steppe genes forms. Did a meeting of the mature/late stages of 2 cultures there at that time create the classic bell beaker culture. Or perhaps in south Poland where the CW has some beaker like aspects which does not appear true for Czech CW

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 05:37 AM
Thus far the oldest R1b-L11 has been found in two ancient cultures of the 3rd millennium BC: Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. (I use the appellation Kurgan Bell Beaker to distinguish it, the Bell Beaker with R1b-M269 and steppe dna, from the early Iberian Bell Beaker of the collective Neolithic tombs that was mostly I2a and had no steppe dna.)

Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas attributed Kurgan Bell Beaker to the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev.

So, where did R1b-L11 come from?

My thoughts from another thread on the Balanovo Culture possibly being the source for L11 and/or his immediate ancestors.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=365590#post365590


For the following reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if L11 (or immediate ancestors) was hiding out north of the Caspian Sea, West of the Urals e.g. Balanovo Culture, before rapidly heading west.

1. We have L23+ at Lopatino I, Sok River, Samara, Russia, 3300-2700 BC

2. ~250 miles north of Lopantino I site, we have the Udmurt people with the highest percentage of red hair variants in a non Celtic-Germanic European population.

3. Udmurtia is located in the same area as the Corded Ware related Balanovo Culture

4. We also have three U152 samples from different subclades (L2, Z36, Z56) in this area. They could be relatively recent arrivals, but these subclades appeared between around 3000 and 2500 BC.

5. When Davidski ran his analysis on RISE563 (oldest P312/U152) sample; it came out closest to the Kargopol people who are located within the old Balanova Cultural area.

Balanova Culture in Pink. Udmurtia (red hair folks) in Red.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/90/44/2d/90442df60117e0ef0182c2502a83675a.png


Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture, 3200 BC–2300 BC, is an eastern extension of the Corded Ware culture into Russia...It is really two cultures, the Fatyanovo in the west, the Balanovo in the east...The Balanovo culture occupied the region of the Kama–Vyatka–Vetluga interfluves where metal resources (local copper sandstone deposits) of the region were exploited...Balanovo burials (like the Middle Dnieper culture[6]) were both of the flat and kurgan type, containing individual and also mass graves...The Balanovo also used draught cattle and two wheeled wagons...Copper ornaments and tools have been found in Balanovo burials. Burial goods depended on sex, age, and social position. Copper axes primarily accompanied persons of high social position, stone axe-hammers were given to men, flint axes to children and women. Amulets are frequently found in the graves as well as metal working implements.

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 06:01 AM
I have previously posted about other possibilities too https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=358746&viewfull=1#post358746

The Budzhak culture
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=245590&viewfull=1#post245590
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266451&viewfull=1#post266451

The Mikhailovka I and Kemi Oba Cultures https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=267687&viewfull=1#post267687

Maybe it's all the above...e.g. a group from the Balanovo Culture swung southwest, above the Black Sea into the above cultural regions before entering central Europe.

alan
03-18-2018, 11:54 AM
I think the autosomal dna evidence is 99% clear that in at least the last couple of centuries prior to the c2500BC appearance of the P312 beaker culture the ancestors of the latter had lived north of the Carpathians as they totally lack the admixture of a more southerly route. Even modern distribution seems to reflect that L11 only reached the Danube by passing through the Moravian gate and largely left the downstream part of the Danube to Z2103. The Csepel Island beaker site is really a trade outpost of the Moravian group.

The only way L11 could have that autosomal signature and come west using the Danube would be a lightening move along it without any mixing then through the Carpathians passes to the north. I doubt that because the other Yamnaya groups who moved by Danube route seem to have heavily intermarried local women there and indeed certainly in beaker times marrying out was a beaker trait. It’s much more likely they went west north of the Carpathians and did their admixing there.

The only question I think that remains is timing and cultural identity. I wouldn’t rule out L11 being a late thrust west from the forest steppe zone. The beaker preference for north-south orientation is similar to eastern CW groups in the middle Dnieper, and the nw Ukraine/south Poland border area and Fatyanovo thrust north rather than the classic CW east-west with face to south orientation (who seem to be R1a men). Then again the wiki entry for CW says this ‘Burial occurred in flat graves or below small tumuli in a flexed position; on the continent males lay on their right side, females on the left, with the faces of both oriented to the south. However, in Sweden and also parts of northern Poland the graves were oriented north-south, men lay on their left side and women on the right side - both facing east’. That is basically the beaker burial right!

rms2
03-18-2018, 12:55 PM
I don't think Gimbutas' idea is that Bell Beaker came from Vucedol. Her idea is that Bell Beaker came from the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya.

I am less than confident in autosomal comparisons, since we have only two ancient Vucedol samples to work with, no western Yamnaya (with the exception of one Bulgarian I2a), and only one Baden sample. The current idea that the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker has a best fit in Globular Amphora and TRB might mean Bell Beaker arose out of a steppe population that went around the north side of the Carpathians, or it might mean something else, like that is the best fit we have right now, given the limited number of samples we have to compare with Bell Beaker. The surest thing we get out of it is that Kurgan Bell Beaker is not Iberian.

In the meantime, in terms of y-dna, we have plenty of R1b-L11 in Kurgan Bell Beaker, so much so that Kurgan Bell Beaker appears to be a done deal. Okay, so now we're wondering how Bell Beaker came to be.

So, where else does R1b-L11 show up in the 3rd millennium BC? Thus far, only in Proto-Nagyrev on Csepel Island in Budapest, Hungary, circa 2500-2200 BC. Not a smoking gun, but not nothing, since Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev.

We don't have anything similar with Corded Ware. On the contrary, it seems almost as solidly R1a as Bell Beaker is solidly R1b-M269.

Elsewhere in Hungary, a few miles north of Csepel Island, in the cemetery at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja, pottery from the Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév cultures was more frequent in inhumation burials than Bell Beaker beakers. The one male from that site with y-dna results, I2365 (2465-2205 BC), an R1b-L2, was buried with a bell beaker, an urn, and a Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév jug. This is from pages 131-132 of the Olalde et al Supplementary Information:



The inhumation burials of the Békásmegyer cemetery contained jugs of the southern type rather than the Bell Beakers type. No more than four of the 30 inhumation graves yielded genuine Bell Beakers, while five contained various elements of the Beaker package such as stone wrist-guards, stone arrow-heads and bone buttons with V-shaped perforation. Jugs of the southern, Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév type were deposited in 15 inhumation burials; nine inhumation graves did not contain any grave goods. Eighteen of the 28 scattered cremation burials contained genuine Bell Beakers, while three yielded locally made copies or bowls with a stamped rim.

R.Rocca
03-18-2018, 02:14 PM
"Nagyrev" jugs, may not be aptly named. This is likely why Piguet & Besse (2009) refers to them as Type 34/35 handled pitchers after finding older samples in Makó-Kosihy-Čaka. In Peska & Kralik 's very thorough study on handled pitchers, their age seems to infer a north to south movement. Its presence in Moravian Corded Ware seems to be older than in the Carpathian Basin. See part of the conclusion below. These labels are used earlier in the paper

MCWC = Moravian Corded Ware
CWC = Corded Ware Culture
MKC = Makó/Kosihy-Čaka Culture
BBC =Bell Beaker Culture
SOV = Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture
NgC = Nagyrév Culture

“Nagyrév Jugs” and Their Archaeological Context
JAROSLAV PEŠKA – MIROSLAV KRÁLÍK (2013)

Comparing Moravia and Carpathian Basin, SOV and MKC have a tendency to be relatively younger than MCWC. At the same time, both SOV and MKC have on average, slightly younger absolute dates in our database than the MCWC, but we are aware of the limited number of absolute dates from the Carpathian Basin. Provided that in the combined seriations (i.e. Moravia and the Carpathian Basin), the Carpathian Basin objects are placed at the end of the CWC group sequence (in seriations with a comparable number of cases from each of the two regions), the differences in the distributions of Nagyrév jugs (in Moravia and the Carpathian Basin) are real, and the detected tendencies (middle values of MKC and SOV absolute dates in the Carpathian Basin are roughly equivalent to those in the Moravian BBC), a possible interpretation is as follows: The MCWC developed in Moravia, where it was strongly influenced by the incoming BBC. It was either pushed out into the Carpathian Basin, or it ceased to exist and the SOV and MKC concurrently developed in the Carpathian Basin. The NgC appears in this territory at the same time. The origin of the NgC is closely associated with the origin of the PÚC and its reoccupation of Moravia. The Únětice culture then immediately follows (no absolute dates were included in this study). Relatively sharp boundaries between the three Late Eneolithic cultures in Moravia create the impression of a discontinuity in the local development. The association between MCWC and PÚC should be sought in the Carpathian Basin.

razyn
03-18-2018, 02:23 PM
a possible interpretation is as follows: The MCWC developed in Moravia, where it was strongly influenced by the incoming BBC.
Do they still think BBC is incoming from the southwest? Or to put that another way, is there any association of genetics (especially YDNA) with their refinement of the ceramic series?

Just noticed it's a 2009 paper, so, I assume not.

rms2
03-18-2018, 02:46 PM
The archaeologists on the Olalde et al team designated the jugs found at Békásmegyer as Somogyvár–Vinkovci/proto-Nagyrév, whatever the ultimate origin of the style, and that is not Nagyrev, which would be later. It's the transition from late Vucedol (i.e., in this case, Somogyvár–Vinkovci) to early Nagyrev.

The cemetery at Brandýsek in Bohemia yielded three Corded Ware skeletons that produced y-dna results:

I7272/Grave 23: 2900–2500 BC, y-dna I2a2a2

I7279/Grave 74: 2900–2500 BC, y-dna R1a1

I7280/Grave 78: 2900–2500 BC, y-dna R1a1a

That's only three samples from Czech Corded Ware, but thus far we don't have any R1b-L11 from any kind of Corded Ware.

Note: I thought at first that Brandýsek was in Moravia, but evidently there is more than one Brandýsek, or I misunderstood a reference to it. Anyway, it's in Bohemia in the Czech Republic. Guess we still need some Moravian Corded Ware, although I have my doubts it will be anything other than R1a.

rms2
03-18-2018, 03:15 PM
Notice how patriarchal and patrilocal these steppe-derived, early Indo-European cultures were? They are very nearly monolithic on the y-dna side. All the diversity seems to have come in their choice of females, i.e., on the mtDNA side of things.

I think that is surprising to us moderns, who are so used to the mixing and mingling of peoples.

But that is what makes finding R1b-L11 in a second, contemporary, 3rd millennium culture potentially so significant.

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 03:58 PM
This map is a little late in time frame for this discussion, starting in the third millennium (3000-2000 BC), but it does show routes from eastern to central Europe, including routes charted by Maria Gimbutas

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/aa/3b/32/aa3b326da3e7a0d944df0e679b21b450.png

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 04:12 PM
Alan,

When I read this, I thought of your idea of L11 being a niche group within Corded Ware


Complex of Metal Goods between the Vistula and Dnieper Rivers at the turn of THE 4TH/3RD to THE 3RD MILLENNIUM BC.
Concept of the Carpathian – Volhynia “Willow Leaf” Metallurgy Centre

This study aims at identifying a complex of metal objects at the turn of the
4th/3rd to 3rd mill. BC in the region between the Vistula and the Dnieper Rivers,
based on hoards, grave materials and random finds, providing analysis of the main
features of that complex, their origin and chrono-typology. The study is based on
hoards and finds from graves that are traditionally viewed as those of the Corded
Ware culture. The metalware complex of the Corded Ware culture has not been an
object of a specialized research so far. A major number of finds, which thus need
to be introduced into scholarly discussion, significantly expand the contemporary
base of sources and allow raising the issue of identifying a new Carpathian-Volhynia
metallurgy centre at the turn of the 4th/3rd to 3rd mill. BC in the region
between the Vistula and the Dnieper Rivers.page 40/41 of this study http://archeo.edu.pl/bps/BPS18.pdf


Conclusions
The study of the complex of metallurgical goods from the region between the rivers of the Vistula and Dnieper shows that from the end of the 4th mill. BC a metallurgical centre had emerged in the Pre-Carpathian and Volhynia Regions, based on local deposits of copper [Klochko et al. 2000; Kloczko et. al 2003]. The centre was founded by metallurgists of the late Tripolye culture and migrants from central Europe. From the early 3rd mill. BC, that centre became the main producer of metal goods (the “willow leaf” metal complex) for the Corded Ware cultures between the rivers of the Vistula and Dnieper (Fig. 22). The “willow leaf” metal complex includes the objects referred to above: “willow leaf” temple pendants and other pieces of jewellery, flax axes with flanges of the Dunakomlod-Sokal type, Stublo-type axes and daggers of the “Proto-Únětice” type. The Carpathian-Volhynia centre had connections with the Carpathian basin and the Eastern Mediterranean. Probably, the theory of the development of metallurgy in the late Neolithic – Early Bronze Age in Europe, in the form of the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province as defined by Evgenij Chernykh [1992], requires revision. First, a new Carpathian-Volhynia centre emerges within the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province that served the Corded Ware cultures. Second, the formation of the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province was determined primarily by direct immediate connections (most probably, maritime trade) of Central and Eastern European Regions with the Middle East and not the relations with the Caucasus, as suggested by Evgenij Chernykh.
Translated by Inna Pidluska

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 04:48 PM
So maybe you end up with something like this to help explain the ancient dna locations/present day distribution i.e. U106 and other L11 subclades concentrated in the North near the Baltic; and P312 more to the south near the Danube

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/19/c3/29/19c3299790a15c8ce155849c2065eb44.png

rms2
03-18-2018, 04:57 PM
Our Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11, I7043, was xP312,U106. I7041 was his brother, but they could only get as far as R1b-M269 with him. He was R1b-L11xP312,U106, too, unless they were only half-brothers and had different fathers. Evidently they had the same mother at least, because both were mtDNA H1b1. Olalde et al just says they were brothers and doesn't get any more specific than that.

MitchellSince1893
03-18-2018, 08:10 PM
"Nagyrev" jugs, may not be aptly named. This is likely why Piguet & Besse (2009) refers to them as Type 34/35 handled pitchers after finding older samples in Makó-Kosihy-Čaka. In Peska & Kralik 's very thorough study on handled pitchers, their age seems to infer a north to south movement. Its presence in Moravian Corded Ware seems to be older than in the Carpathian Basin....

...a possible interpretation is as follows: The MCWC developed in Moravia, where it was strongly influenced by the incoming BBC.


a certain influence of the Yamnaya culture on the formation of a pottery complex in some groups of the Corded Ware culture. The Yamnaya population served as the intermediary that enabled the Corded Ware communities to absorb the types of amphorae that were typical for Carpathian cultures, as well as some elements of the funeral ritual. The Yamnaya influence is the most visible in the Moravia group
[Włodarczak 2010: 302]. http://archeo.edu.pl/bps/BPS18.pdf pp 105/106


Conclusion
A specific feature of the cultural – historical genesis of the North-Western Pontic Region at the turn of the 4th to the 3rd mill. BC is manifested by relations of its population with a foreign cultural environment. This concerns, first and foremost, the Budzhak culture that is a component of the Yamnaya cultural-historical region. The Budzhak culture represents connections with the Carpathian and Danube, the Corded Ware and the Globular Amphora cultures. The contacts were reflected in two aspects: imports, imitations and parallels in the Budzhak pottery and the occurrence of the Yamnaya burials found in other territories. http://archeo.edu.pl/bps/BPS18.pdf pp 119/120


During the Bell Beaker, the handled pitcher appears first in eastern Europe, in Hungary (Hollandistrasse), and Moravia (Horní pole and TvoŻihráz I), before 2500 BC...The Handled Pitcher in Pre-Bell Beaker Groups Type 34/35 appeared in the Final Neolithic in eastern Europe, in the Makó-Kosihy-Caka group in Hungary and Slovakia and in the Zlota group in southeast Poland. It rapidly spread across the Balkans (Nyirség-Zatin and Glina III-Schneckenberg groups) and then eastern Europe by the intermediary of the Corded Ware, perhaps from Moravia, and the Bell Beaker... The first appearance of the handled pitcher in the Bell Beaker was probably in Moravia or Hungary, as confirmed by the 14C dates. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3536/3051 pp 3-4

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:20 PM
I'm going to hazard a guess and say that I think R1b-L11 shows up in both Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev because it came with Yamnaya rather than Corded Ware. I would be tickled pink if a bunch of L11 were found in Moravian Corded Ware. I would celebrate along with everyone else, but I just don't see it. On the other hand, at my last count, we have only 28 y-dna results from Corded Ware. Compare that with the over 100 results from Kurgan Bell Beaker, at least 109 of which are R1b-M269. So, we definitely need a big Corded Ware behemoth paper.

I would really like to see a big Yamnaya behemoth paper that includes the Pontic steppe and the Carpathian basin.

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:40 PM
By the way, this kind of thread really piques my interest. I'm hoping we can bring up all kinds of ideas relative to the source of R1b-L11 in Bell Beaker.

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:50 PM
By the way, this kind of thread really piques my interest. I'm hoping we can bring up all kinds of ideas relative to the source of R1b-L11 in Bell Beaker.

I've got to say, however, that I would rather not see us go down the rabbit hole of anti-R1b screeds (you know the kind I'm thinking of).

rms2
03-18-2018, 08:59 PM
"Nagyrev" jugs, may not be aptly named. This is likely why Piguet & Besse (2009) refers to them as Type 34/35 handled pitchers after finding older samples in Makó-Kosihy-Čaka. In Peska & Kralik 's very thorough study on handled pitchers, their age seems to infer a north to south movement. Its presence in Moravian Corded Ware seems to be older than in the Carpathian Basin. See part of the conclusion below. These labels are used earlier in the paper

MCWC = Moravian Corded Ware
CWC = Corded Ware Culture
MKC = Makó/Kosihy-Čaka Culture
BBC =Bell Beaker Culture
SOV = Somogyvár-Vinkovci Culture
NgC = Nagyrév Culture

“Nagyrév Jugs” and Their Archaeological Context
JAROSLAV PEŠKA – MIROSLAV KRÁLÍK (2013)

Comparing Moravia and Carpathian Basin, SOV and MKC have a tendency to be relatively younger than MCWC. At the same time, both SOV and MKC have on average, slightly younger absolute dates in our database than the MCWC, but we are aware of the limited number of absolute dates from the Carpathian Basin. Provided that in the combined seriations (i.e. Moravia and the Carpathian Basin), the Carpathian Basin objects are placed at the end of the CWC group sequence (in seriations with a comparable number of cases from each of the two regions), the differences in the distributions of Nagyrév jugs (in Moravia and the Carpathian Basin) are real, and the detected tendencies (middle values of MKC and SOV absolute dates in the Carpathian Basin are roughly equivalent to those in the Moravian BBC), a possible interpretation is as follows: The MCWC developed in Moravia, where it was strongly influenced by the incoming BBC. It was either pushed out into the Carpathian Basin, or it ceased to exist and the SOV and MKC concurrently developed in the Carpathian Basin. The NgC appears in this territory at the same time. The origin of the NgC is closely associated with the origin of the PÚC and its reoccupation of Moravia. The Únětice culture then immediately follows (no absolute dates were included in this study). Relatively sharp boundaries between the three Late Eneolithic cultures in Moravia create the impression of a discontinuity in the local development. The association between MCWC and PÚC should be sought in the Carpathian Basin.

I gave you a thanks for that post, Rich, and I've got to say that is just the kind of thing we need. It represents the sharp edge of knowing what came from where and when.

I would throw up my hands and say all these steppe types were just intermingling and borrowing like mad were it not for the crazy fact that the separate cultures are so damned monolithic when it comes to y-dna.

alan
03-18-2018, 09:01 PM
It’s not actually the Moravian CW group as the significance of the Moravian gates to access the Danube it your moving west along the north side of the Carpathians. The CW groups in south Poland, north-west Ukraine, the Dnieper etc seem to use a more beaker like burial orientation not Czech. So perhaps P312 really is a late thrust west. But I do suspect the route west was along the north flanks of the Carpathians then through the Moravian gate to the Danube. Even if details are unknown a Northern route west to and from any point between NW Ukraine and the Rhine for P312 at any time 2800-2500BC would mean it was in some CW variant somewhere as there are simply no other options given what we know about GAC being non steppe.

P312/L11simply has to have been in another culture c 2800-2500BC as the P312 beaker culture simply didn’t exist much before 2500BC when it appeared. Beaker sometimes looks like a magpie culture but I think that is down to its networking and longer distance exogamy that has been detected in ancient DNA and is probably reflected in the companion ware pottery. I think as it’s a male lineage spread it’s best to not seek origins in pottery. Pottery just tells you where their wives were from.

It’s best to strip P312 beaker down to the bare bones of the part of the culture that males dominated and look for what pre-beaker group that most closely resembled. But if beaker is a moment in time of unique fusion then that is tricky

rms2
03-18-2018, 09:09 PM
It’s not actually the Moravian CW group as the significance of the Moravian gates to access the Danube it your moving west along the north side of the Carpathians. The CW groups in south Poland, north-west Ukraine, the Dnieper etc seem to use a more beaker like burial orientation not Czech. So perhaps P312 really is a late thrust west. But I do suspect the route west was along the north flanks of the Carpathians then through the Moravian gate to the Danube. Even if details are unknown a Northern route west to and from any point between NW Ukraine and the Rhine for P312 at any time 2800-2500BC would mean it was in some CW variant somewhere as there are simply no other options given what we know about GAC being non steppe.

P312/L11simply has to have been in another culture c 2800-2500BC as the P312 beaker culture simply didn’t exist much before 2500BC when it appeared. Beaker sometimes looks like a magpie culture but I think that is down to its networking and longer distance exogamy that has been detected in ancient DNA and is probably reflected in the companion ware pottery. I think as it’s a male lineage spread it’s best to not seek origins in pottery. Pottery just tells you where their wives were from.

It’s best to strip P312 beaker down to the bare bones of the part of the culture that males dominated and look for what pre-beaker group that most closely resembled. But if beaker is a moment in time of unique fusion then that is tricky

You make some good points, but the bone in the throat of your hypothesis thus far is the near monolithic presence of R1a in Corded Ware and that pesky R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev.

I know I repeat myself, but a Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 is nearly as good as a Vucedol R1b-L11.

alan
03-18-2018, 09:15 PM
If we now know we can discount all the pre-2500BC beaker dates west of the Rhine as being unrelated to the steppe P312 beaker group then where does that place the earliest reliable RC dates? Bearing in mind the problems with firm context, Old wood effect and isotope issues on bone and of course the limitations of RC dating to date anything without a substantial confidence interval.We can rule out Poland and Hungary as beaker there derives from Czech. We can also rule out Scandinavia and the isles as they are later Rhenish derivatives. So that leaves Czech, German and Rhenish I think. Which is earliest in RC dates?

rms2
03-18-2018, 09:21 PM
As I recall without busting my butt and searching like mad, RISE563 is our earliest R1b-L11, c. 2572-2512 BC. He was Bell Beaker and R1b-U152 (I think), from Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany. (Jean M has him listed as R1b-P312.)

alan
03-18-2018, 09:52 PM
You make some good points, but the bone in the throat of your hypothesis thus far is the near monolithic presence of R1a in Corded Ware and that pesky R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev.

I know I repeat myself, but a Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 is nearly as good as a Vucedol R1b-L11.

It’s very hard to interpret that as Late Vucedol was clearly mixing with beaker after 2500BC as can be seen at Vucedol sites with beaker. Possibly mixing for 200 years or so in the final phase of vucedol. the burial and settlement traditions of Central European Beaker and vucadol are very different and I think burial traditions were very much make controlled. The one thing Vucedol prefigures in Bell beaker is the high status of the metallurgist-warrior figure- sometime virtually unknown in CW so I think there could have been a cultural influence - not surprising when you consider late Vucedol influence can be seen penetrating through the Moravian gates and as far as Prague. By the time of that L11 guy, beaker and Vucedol had been sharing the Danube between Bucharest and Budapest for a couple of centuries. It’s also possible that the two cultures - one being very metallurgy centred and the other highly mobile horse riders had a symbiotic friendly relationship

rms2
03-18-2018, 10:00 PM
Maybe, but I think if you accept that R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev at face value, it represents R1b-L11 in the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev. Consider also that it was xP312,U106 at a time when P312 was already dominant in Bell Beaker and near the time when U106 was showing up in Sweden in Battle Axe.

You have to explain it away to make it anything except what it is, and despite all that, you're still not getting any R1b-L11 in Corded Ware.

alan
03-18-2018, 10:03 PM
As I recall without busting my butt and searching like mad, RISE563 is our earliest R1b-L11, c. 2572-2512 BC. He was Bell Beaker and R1b-U152 (I think), from Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany. (Jean M has him listed as R1b-P312.)

That’s interesting and Kromsdorf also had a date centred around 2550BC it I recall correctly too I am all but certain he was P312 too although he was only proven M269xU106. I don’t know the details of the exact materials and context though but it seems unlikely to me that a marine or riverine diet would be present to artificially age the dates if they are from the human bone.i am not clear what the exact latest thinking on the dating of Rhenish beaker is now but I think it is 50+ years younger c 2500BC or a bit younger still.

rms2
03-18-2018, 10:13 PM
The context of the Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev burials on Csepel Island does not indicate friendly intermingling. Here's what Olalde et al have to say on page 135 of the Supplementary Information:



The observations made at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor, namely the buried vessel depot of eight intact vessels from the Feature 779, the graves containing bodies in an unusual position forming a distinct cluster at the edge of the cemetery, separate from the Bell Beaker–Csepel burial ground, the grave pottery deposited with the mouth downward suggest that the individuals belonging to proto- (early) Nagyrév community were presumably treated as “enemies”.

alan
03-18-2018, 10:20 PM
Maybe, but I think if you accept that R1b-L11 in Proto-Nagyrev at face value, it represents R1b-L11 in the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev. Consider also that it was xP312,U106 at a time when P312 was already dominant in Bell Beaker and near the time when U106 was showing up in Sweden in Battle Axe.

You have to explain it away to make it anything except what it is, and despite all that, you're still not getting any R1b-L11 in Corded Ware.
It is interesting - no doubt about that. It’s curious isn’t it that L11xP312 appears over a wide area in several cultures at the end of the beaker period c 2200-1800BC but is not noted anywhere prior to that. It’s probably telling us something about the location of P312’s closest relative. Central European beaker network was breaking down around 2200BC and somehow this seems to have allowed L11xP312 to step out of the shadows and appear all over the place. It could have some link to the reorientation of Central European trade to proto-Unetice and if so it would suggest L11 was in an area close to the Unetice core but outside the former bell beaker network. If one overlaid a map of them it might reveal a likely spot. Maybe Slovakia? A location near Bratislava gives access to the Danube as well as the Oder. I think from memory Slovakia had little beaker in contrast to Moravia to the west

alan
03-18-2018, 11:19 PM
The other thing about this L11xP312 is it’s not in Bell beaker but you could argue that it’s apparent ability to spread far and wide across parts of Europe 2200-1800BC after beaker fell does echo on a smaller less extensive scale what P312 had done 2500-2200BC. In other words it may have taken over the beaker P312 role on the eastern periphery of the former beaker network. A position in the eastern half of Czechoslovakia allows linking to the Danube via the Moravian gate as well as the Oder and Elbe which flow north to the sea either side of Denmark and towards the future Germanic U102-rich area. So perhaps the ultimate root of the Germanics relates to this U106 line taking over the eastern part of the Old beaker network and spreading like beaker has previously done but this time primarily moving up the Oder and Elbe toward the north European plain. The Danube-Moravian gate-Oder part of that route was of course used in the amber route between the Adriatic and the Baltic a bit later too.

However, I don’t think Unetice was all U106. The burial rite of the eastern part of Unetice has CW roots while the western part in south Germany and most of the Czech Republic has burial trads derived from beaker. Back in beaker times it could simply be that P312 jealously controlled the Key routes into the Danube and Elbe from the Czech Republic while the rest of L11 was nearby to the east but not able to access the key routes. But perhaps around 2200BC or so they got hold of the Moravian gate and the Elbe route north (and developed the Oder route) as the Beaker network overstretched and broke.

rms2
03-18-2018, 11:29 PM
I'm guessing Unetice will turn out to be mostly R1b-L2. I know we don't have any R1b-L2 Unetice yet, but we sure have a lot of Czech BB R1b-L2. Watch and see if I'm right.

R.Rocca
03-19-2018, 04:05 PM
That’s interesting and Kromsdorf also had a date centred around 2550BC it I recall correctly too I am all but certain he was P312 too although he was only proven M269xU106. I don’t know the details of the exact materials and context though but it seems unlikely to me that a marine or riverine diet would be present to artificially age the dates if they are from the human bone.i am not clear what the exact latest thinking on the dating of Rhenish beaker is now but I think it is 50+ years younger c 2500BC or a bit younger still.

Alan, I think you are definitely onto something here. Here are the two Kromsdorf tested males:

Grave 5 = R-M269+ (not radiocarbon tested)
Grave 8 = R-M343+ 2678–2547 cal BC(65.7%) [KIA42883]

We have an additional radiocarbon dating from Grave 1 (male, Y-DNA not tested) from the same site of 2573–2511 cal BC(55.3%) [KIA42882]. When the Lee et al. paper was published, these dates did not seem like a big deal. However, now that we know about the genetic distinction between Steppe Bell Beaker and Iberian Bell Beaker, these dates are very important. The Grave 8 date is older than the RISE563 U152+ sample by roughly 100 years! The Grave 1 date is almost identical to RISE563. That Kromsdorf belongs to the Mittelelbe-Saale group which was deep into Corded Ware territory is interesting as well. As a reminder, a little further to the east we have the very low coverage RISE1 R1b1-L1345+ Corded Ware sample:

RISE1 2865-2578 calBC (4117±28, UBA1663), Oblaczkowo, Poland

At the very least, these samples could be L11 and either P312 and/or U106. Kromsdorf could be Z2103 and RISE1 could even be V88, but these scenarios are less likely IMO.

ADW_1981
03-19-2018, 04:40 PM
Thus far the oldest R1b-L11 has been found in two ancient cultures of the 3rd millennium BC: Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. (I use the appellation Kurgan Bell Beaker to distinguish it, the Bell Beaker with R1b-M269 and steppe dna, from the early Iberian Bell Beaker of the collective Neolithic tombs that was mostly I2a and had no steppe dna.)

Archaeologist Marija Gimbutas attributed Kurgan Bell Beaker to the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev.

So, where did R1b-L11 come from?

Yamnaya, eastern Ukraine.

alan
03-19-2018, 11:05 PM
Alan, I think you are definitely onto something here. Here are the two Kromsdorf tested males:

Grave 5 = R-M269+ (not radiocarbon tested)
Grave 8 = R-M343+ 2678–2547 cal BC(65.7%) [KIA42883]

We have an additional radiocarbon dating from Grave 1 (male, Y-DNA not tested) from the same site of 2573–2511 cal BC(55.3%) [KIA42882]. When the Lee et al. paper was published, these dates did not seem like a big deal. However, now that we know about the genetic distinction between Steppe Bell Beaker and Iberian Bell Beaker, these dates are very important. The Grave 8 date is older than the RISE563 U152+ sample by roughly 100 years! The Grave 1 date is almost identical to RISE563. That Kromsdorf belongs to the Mittelelbe-Saale group which was deep into Corded Ware territory is interesting as well. As a reminder, a little further to the east we have the very low coverage RISE1 R1b1-L1345+ Corded Ware sample:

RISE1 2865-2578 calBC (4117±28, UBA1663), Oblaczkowo, Poland

At the very least, these samples could be L11 and either P312 and/or U106. Kromsdorf could be Z2103 and RISE1 could even be V88, but these scenarios are less likely IMO.

If I have the right Kromsdorf (near Weimar?) then the two early beaker German samples are sort of on either side of Bohemia . Not as far apart as I thought. The dates did strike me as v early by the normal 2500BC date usually given as the start of central European beaker. In general the trend has been to eliminate (deservedly in most cases) the once claimed older dates such as Csepel (unsafe context) etc. So those come out as exceptionally early apparently safe dates. Obviously given RC dating's limitations and the rapid spread of beaker after 2500BC it's always been tricky to feel confidence in concluding on direction of movement re non Iberian beaker dating. However I cannot think of any non Iberian beaker dates that are considered 100% safe that are older than those German two. All the other old ones seem to have been considered dubious for one reason or another. Can anyone else think of any? It appears that noone in the most recent regional literature even believe the south French and north Italian pre-2500BC dates. So this issue needs revisited.

alan
03-19-2018, 11:27 PM
Yamnaya, eastern Ukraine.

Perhaps ultimately but there is no beaker east of Czech republic other than south Polish and Csepel that are considered to be derived from Czech (Moravian) beakers. Moravia is a long way from Yamnaya. Also as we just discussed above, the German beaker dates of c 2550BC to the north and west of the Czech republic respectively look like the earliest know steppe beaker dates. That leaves Slovakia and Poland between the likely earliest central European beaker zone and Yamnaya. That suggests a culture other than Yamnaya aftercare an intermediary or stepping stone between Yamnaya and beaker. The common ware that was borrowed into beaker of central Europe also tends to point to the Carpathian zone rather than the Danube if it provides any clues as to the route west of P312/L11. I tend to think a Ukraine to south Poland and west across the north side of the Carpathians route looks likely and that pretty well dictates a soujourn in CW territory. I am as convinced of that as I've ever been although obviously not 100% as there is always doubt with no actual DNA data for L11 pre-2550BC.

ADW_1981
03-19-2018, 11:59 PM
Perhaps ultimately but there is no beaker east of Czech republic other than south Polish and Csepel that are considered to be derived from Czech (Moravian) beakers. Moravia is a long way from Yamnaya. Also as we just discussed above, the German beaker dates of c 2550BC to the north and west of the Czech republic respectively look like the earliest know steppe beaker dates. That leaves Slovakia and Poland between the likely earliest central European beaker zone and Yamnaya. That suggests a culture other than Yamnaya aftercare an intermediary or stepping stone between Yamnaya and beaker. The common ware that was borrowed into beaker of central Europe also tends to point to the Carpathian zone rather than the Danube if it provides any clues as to the route west of P312/L11. I tend to think a Ukraine to south Poland and west across the north side of the Carpathians route looks likely and that pretty well dictates a soujourn in CW territory. I am as convinced of that as I've ever been although obviously not 100% as there is always doubt with no actual DNA data for L11 pre-2550BC.

I think it's still quite possible though. Sredny Stog II -Alexandrian R1a1 5000-3500 BC springs Corded Ware in NE Europe and the Baltic, the earlier phases due west show no CHG admixture.
However, I don't see any evidence this is the exact same group as the 11-12 R1b Yamnayan males who turned up 3300 BC further east, despite showing similar overall genomes to CWC. Despite some of the Yamnayans turning up Z2103, at least several of them have turned up xZ2103, there is no reason to rule out L51+ or L11+ in this region.
It should be noted that Yersinia Pestis was probably a large factor which triggered the migration westwards, and the steppes have since been populated by different people.

alan
03-20-2018, 12:30 AM
Yamnaya, eastern Ukraine.

Perhaps ultimately but there is no beaker east of Czech republic other than south Polish and Csepel that are considered to be derived from Czech (Moravian) beakers. Moravia is a long way from Yamnaya. Also as we just discussed above, the German beaker dates of c 2550BC to the north and west of the Czech republic respectively look like the earliest know steppe beaker dates. That leaves Slovakia and Poland between the likely earliest central European beaker zone and Yamnaya. That suggests a culture other than Yamnaya aftercare an intermediary or stepping stone between Yamnaya and beaker. The common ware that was borrowed into beaker of central Europe also tends to point to the Carpathian zone rather than the Danube if it provides any clues as to the route west of P312/L11. I tend to think a Ukraine to south Poland and west across the north side of the Carpathians route looks likely and that pretty well dictates a soujourn in CW territory. I am as convinced of that as I've ever been although obviously not 100% as there is always doubt with no actual DNA data for L11 pre-2550BC.

The autosomal evidence for a GAC or TRB related admixing in beaker also appears impossible except if they had a significant stay within that arc from NW Ukraine through Poland, East Germany and the Czech republic. It was certainly not picked up further west or on the Danube route. Incontinence think a very clear signature of that sort in central European , Rhenish and isles P312 bell beaker could have happened without P312 living in that zone for a century or two prior to the main breaker expansion phase after 2500BC. If they had gone by a Danubian route west with Yamnaya it's really hard to explain the autosomal signature attached to P312 unless they literally lived on the Danube and didn't marry out of their own between 2900 and 2550 BC or they moved all the way in one go and entered Germany/Czech sort of area invisibly and remained invisible for 400ys. I just cannot see that especially given P312's exogamy tradition. I think it really must have gone around the north side of the Carpathians. Timing wise they surely had to had to moved west while GAC/late TRB type groups still existed.

alan
03-20-2018, 12:47 AM
I think it's still quite possible though. Sredny Stog II -Alexandrian R1a1 5000-3500 BC springs Corded Ware in NE Europe and the Baltic, the earlier phases due west show no CHG admixture.
However, I don't see any evidence this is the exact same group as the 11-12 R1b Yamnayan males who turned up 3300 BC further east, despite showing similar overall genomes to CWC. Despite some of the Yamnayans turning up Z2103, at least several of them have turned up xZ2103, there is no reason to rule out L51+ or L11+ in this region.
It should be noted that Yersinia Pestis was probably a large factor which triggered the migration westwards, and the steppes have since been populated by different people.

Although culturally different the early CW are like clones of Yamnaya genetically except for the dominant y line? I think the favoured model of the origins of CW in Poland doesn't tally with the DNA evidence. They look to me like they totally avoided the zone with a lot of Balkans farmer genes in western Ukraine, remaining in east Ukraine zone and headed north before turning west to the Baltic and beyond.

R.Rocca
03-20-2018, 01:52 PM
If I have the right Kromsdorf (near Weimar?) then the two early beaker German samples are sort of on either side of Bohemia . Not as far apart as I thought. The dates did strike me as v early by the normal 2500BC date usually given as the start of central European beaker. In general the trend has been to eliminate (deservedly in most cases) the once claimed older dates such as Csepel (unsafe context) etc. So those come out as exceptionally early apparently safe dates. Obviously given RC dating's limitations and the rapid spread of beaker after 2500BC it's always been tricky to feel confidence in concluding on direction of movement re non Iberian beaker dating. However I cannot think of any non Iberian beaker dates that are considered 100% safe that are older than those German two. All the other old ones seem to have been considered dubious for one reason or another. Can anyone else think of any? It appears that noone in the most recent regional literature even believe the south French and north Italian pre-2500BC dates. So this issue needs revisited.

Disregard the U152+ samples on this map and focus on the three blue stars. They represent the two earliest P312+ samples and M269+ Kromsdorf:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15zJwudMOPqf20VVXXNXkm4qydzTP3VW0&usp=sharing

ADW_1981
03-20-2018, 02:20 PM
Although culturally different the early CW are like clones of Yamnaya genetically except for the dominant y line? I think the favoured model of the origins of CW in Poland doesn't tally with the DNA evidence. They look to me like they totally avoided the zone with a lot of Balkans farmer genes in western Ukraine, remaining in east Ukraine zone and headed north before turning west to the Baltic and beyond.

Yamnaya is about 55%EHG and 45%CHG, and CWC works out to something very similar, yet one culture is almost exclusively R1b and the other R1a. Both Y lineages were present in the steppe and forest steppes in ancient times. If we are able to get a couple of high coverage Maykop reference samples, I think that will help strengthen our understanding of both CWC and CE Bell Beaker ancestries.

alan
03-20-2018, 08:16 PM
Negative evidence is useful too. The lack of L11xP312 looks real for beaker of Central European, Rhenish and isles and also by inference Danish and Norwegian as they derive from Rhenish. Csepel and south Polish beaker are believe to derive from Moravian Czech beaker so it seems unlikely L11xP312 was in them either. That really leaves very little space for L11x P312 in the beaker network. It’s pretty close to being able to conclude they were not involved. And yet at the end of beaker they start to appear all over Europe east of the Rhine in a way that suggests expansion from a part of Central Europe with access to both the northern seas and the Danube. In some ways it spreads a bit like a little brother of P312 that has grown up and take a slice of the network from its mighty older brother. It seems v likely to me that it comes from the north/eastern part (central Germany, Poland and Slovakia)’of Unetice who bury in the CW tradition rather than the western part of that culture in the Czech Republic and Bavaria who clearly are beaker derived and probably P312. As an aside this phenomenon of a culture with two halves could relate to the phase of unique sharing of vocab between pre-proto Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic (but not with Italic) - not to be confused with the Celtic look words in Germanic which were likely Iron Age.

My guess is L11xP312 c 2200BC was located somewhere non-beaker that permitted access to both the Danube and the north. Probably near enough to the sources of the Oder and Elbe and the Moravian gate that they could wrestle the monopoly P312 seemed to have in beaker times. Somewhere like Slovakia fits the bill. It had little beaker but around Bratislava you get access to the Danube as well as being not far from the Moravian gate and the Oder route north. So I am thinking L11xP312 was within Slovakia CW or very closeby. If so then this does point to Carpathian route west for all L11 in earlier times. A movement west by an upland route makes sense if metal sources are a major interest - in contrast to the majority of. CW which settler the plains and never developed the importance cultures like beaker did to metals.

alan
03-20-2018, 09:06 PM
I just was reading in the oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age that amber from the Baltic started to appear in Slovakia and Hungary during the Unetice phase. That is interesting given that U106 and L11XP312xU106 appear across those three areas in that phase too. Interestingly the same book states that Slovakia and Moravia were settled by epi-CWfolk (east-west burials) from southernmost Poland at the end of the beaker period. Given that Slovakia, Poland and Moravia between them kind of commanded a lot of the Amber route from the Danube to the Baltic via the Oder, that is v interesting. It also sounds like this epi CW from little Poland were the non-beaker part of Unetice and that they may have been the source of L11xP312 that started to circulate in the Unetice era. So that would put L11xP312 in CW of Little Poland in the beaker era and perhaps before it.

rms2
03-21-2018, 01:32 AM
I think you're jumping the gun and making too much of Olalde et al's GAC and Swedish TRB as the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component of Bell Beaker. You're acting as if that's the final word on the route taken into central Europe by whoever the pre-Beaker people were. In the meantime, we don't have much western Yamnaya or Baden or very much Vucedol (only two samples) for comparison, and the only R1b-L11 comes from Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. And that Proto-Nagyrev doesn't come from north of the Carpathians but from Csepel Island near Budapest. Add to that the fact that we don't have any R1b-L11 or even a hint of any L11 from Corded Ware.

R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev does more to make Gimbutas' ideas look good than it does to support a Corded Ware origin for Bell Beaker.

R.Rocca
03-21-2018, 01:37 AM
I just was reading in the oxford handbook of the European Bronze Age that amber from the Baltic started to appear in Slovakia and Hungary during the Unetice phase. That is interesting given that U106 and L11XP312xU106 appear across those three areas in that phase too. Interestingly the same book states that Slovakia and Moravia were settled by epi-CWfolk (east-west burials) from southernmost Poland at the end of the beaker period. Given that Slovakia, Poland and Moravia between them kind of commanded a lot of the Amber route from the Danube to the Baltic via the Oder, that is v interesting. It also sounds like this epi CW from little Poland were the non-beaker part of Unetice and that they may have been the source of L11xP312 that started to circulate in the Unetice era. So that would put L11xP312 in CW of Little Poland in the beaker era and perhaps before it.

The areas of the earliest steppe Bell Beaker versus the L11xP312 of the Early Bronze Age...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RGQV96ErhMg29ydPzWbW8DFfPdeE8v9C&usp=sharing

R.Rocca
03-21-2018, 06:08 PM
I think you're jumping the gun and making too much of Olalde et al's GAC and Swedish TRB as the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component of Bell Beaker. You're acting as if that's the final word on the route taken into central Europe by whoever the pre-Beaker people were. In the meantime, we don't have much western Yamnaya or Baden or very much Vucedol (only two samples) for comparison, and the only R1b-L11 comes from Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev. And that Proto-Nagyrev doesn't come from north of the Carpathians but from Csepel Island near Budapest. Add to that the fact that we don't have any R1b-L11 or even a hint of any L11 from Corded Ware.

R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev does more to make Gimbutas' ideas look good than it does to support a Corded Ware origin for Bell Beaker.

We have four Vucedol samples so far, two Croatian and two Hungarian.

Sample: I3499
Y-DNA: R-Z2105
Age: 2884-2666 calBCE (4176±28 BP, BRAMS-1304)
Beli Manastir-Popova Zemlja, Croatia 45.76 18.57

Sample: I2792
Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a
Age: 2872-2582 calBCE (4130±35 BP, Poz-90126)
Vucedol Tell, Vukovar, Croatia

Sample: M6-116.8
Y-DNA: R-M343
Age: 2860-2580 calBCE (4120±22 BP, MAMS-14129)
Location: Lánycsók, Csata-alja, Hungary

Sample: M6-116.10
Y-DNA: I2a2
Age: 2860-2570 calBCE (4113±23 BP, MAMS-14131)
Location: Lánycsók, Csata-alja, Hungary

While the Proto-Nagrev sample is pretty intriguing, and likely tips the scales in favor of the Danube route, the Danube route still has a lot of red flags:

1. Vučedol Y-DNA looks like haplogroup soup. Even if the one R-M343 sample is L11, that leaves 75% of the samples that don't belong to L11. We need to find a culture (or a sub-group within a culture) that is close to 100% for it to maintain its L11 in the former Corded Ware territories and Britain.

2. Vučedol begins before Yamnaya's infiltration into the Balkans and is dated to between 3100–2500 BC. Vučedol pottery has so many more unique pottery styles that are nothing like Bell Beaker that it is a stretch to say one derived from another. Also, Vučedol is known for its hillforts. Steppe Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Yamnaya are known for their almost complete lack of settlements. This is to be expected of a mobile culture.

3. We only have one western Yamnaya sample thus far and he is the Bulgarian I2a2a1b1b.

Regarding Gimbutas, she was completely wrong about three big Copper Age cultures being Indo-European: Baden, Globular Amphora and Remedello. At best, they were culturally influenced by steppe ideas and nothing more. We already have samples from the Baden Culture. Of the nine males, five were G2a and four were I2a. Baden's predecessor Protoboleraz has one G2a and two I2c. We know Remedello were all I2a plus Otzi's G2a. Lastly we have Polish and Ukrainian Globular Amphora being completely I2a. That is not a knock on Gimbutas as her studies were pre-genetics and she got the big picture correct. Even if we don't find L11 in Vučedol, it does not mean that its influences weren't spread into the alps (Remedello) and all the way into non-steppe Iberian Bell Beaker.

rms2
03-21-2018, 06:55 PM
I think maybe you're putting too much emphasis on Vucedol itself. Gimbutas did not say Kurgan Bell Beaker came from Vucedol alone but from the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya. So, what we need to look at is late Vucedol well after the Yamnaya incursion into the Carpathian basin if we're looking for signs that Gimbutas might have been right. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev, so the appearance of R1b-L11 in it might be what we should expect, if R1b-L11 arrived with Yamnaya.

If Vucedol looks like Y-DNA soup, at least it's a soup in which one of the ingredients was R1b-L11. Corded Ware is looking almost like a solid block of R1a stone.

I also wouldn't say that Gimbutas was totally wrong about Baden, Globular Amphora and Remedello either. Maybe I'm mistaken, but as I recall she never claimed they were 100% kurgan but rather that they were kurganized cultures.

Here is what she said about the Baden physical type, on page 375 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



[P]redominantly Mediterranean . . . A steppe type was also identified, however, and a certain facial flatness in some individuals seems to reflect eastern relations. At Budakalasz, the steppe type predominated, while at Alsonemedi the Mediterranean was mixed with a European brachycranial type.

This is from page 372 of the same work:



The Baden complex, composed of indigenous and alien elements . . .

Since she said its physical type was predominantly Mediterranean, we should expect that Baden was predominantly populated by indigenous Old Europeans rather than steppe people.

Here's what she said about the physical type of Globular Amphora people, which is interesting, from page 384 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



The physical type of this population is not yet satisfactorily known. In Romania, only seven skeletons have been examined which were characterized by Olga Necrasov as 'attenuated proto-Europid with some brachylization'. The broad-headed skulls from the stone-cist graves in western Ukraine are very similar to those from Romanian Moldavia, and the skulls from Poland are also broad-headed . . . a certain gradation within the Globular Amphora population in which [skull] breadth measurements decrease from east to west. The eastern groups are very similar to the Kurgan type, while the western resemble the central German TRB people.

The remarks about brachylization are interesting, since BB mtDNA and GAC mtDNA are similar. Perhaps BB acquired its brachycephaly from marrying GAC women? That would also account for the Neolithic farmer component in BB resembling GAC and Swedish TRB.

R.Rocca
03-21-2018, 07:24 PM
I think maybe you're putting too much emphasis on Vucedol itself. Gimbutas did not say Kurgan Bell Beaker came from Vucedol alone but from the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya. So, what we need to look at is late Vucedol well after the Yamnaya incursion into the Carpathian basin if we're looking for signs that Gimbutas might have been right. Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev, so the appearance of R1b-L11 in it might be what we should expect, if R1b-L11 arrived with Yamnaya.

If Vucedol looks like Y-DNA soup, at least it's a soup in which one of the ingredients was R1b-L11. Corded Ware is looking almost like a solid block of R1a stone.

I also wouldn't say that Gimbutas was totally wrong about Baden, Globular Amphora and Remedello either. Maybe I'm mistaken, but as I recall she never claimed they were 100% kurgan but rather that they were kurganized cultures.

Here is what she said about the Baden physical type, on page 375 of The Civilization of the Goddess:

This is from page 372 of the same work:

Since she said its physical type was predominantly Mediterranean, we should expect that Baden was predominantly populated by indigenous Old Europeans rather than steppe people.

Here's what she said about the physical type of Globular Amphora people, which is interesting, from page 384 of The Civilization of the Goddess:

The remarks about brachylization are interesting, since BB mtDNA and GAC mtDNA are similar. Perhaps BB acquired its brachycephaly from marrying GAC women? That would also account for the Neolithic farmer component in BB resembling GAC and Swedish TRB.

Again, more questions than answers. If Z2103 was already mixing in Vucedol starting around 2884 BC and mixing for several hundred years until the appearance of Proto-Nagyrev, then how come they unmixed on their was up the Danube? Also, Proto-Nagyrev in Hungary looks younger than steppe Bell Beaker there and certainly younger than the Kromsdorf German R1b+ samples by quite a bit.

rms2
03-21-2018, 07:42 PM
Again, more questions than answers. If Z2103 was already mixing in Vucedol starting around 2884 BC and mixing for several hundred years until the appearance of Proto-Nagyrev, then how come they unmixed on their was up the Danube? Also, Proto-Nagyrev in Hungary looks younger than steppe Bell Beaker there and certainly younger than the Kromsdorf German R1b+ samples by quite a bit.

I don't know the answers, and obviously our Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 guy isn't the smoking gun we need, but look at what Corded Ware has yielded thus far in terms of L11: zip.

Olalde et al's work on Bell Beaker is great, but I kind of wish they had backed up a bit and gone into the making of Kurgan Bell Beaker and done a big steppe and Carpathian basin behemoth.

Regarding those four Vucedol samples including one I2a and one G2a, we would have similar results for Bell Beaker if we had started with Hungarian Bell Beaker (including a couple of Z2103's).

Things would be even worse had we just accidentally had these four as our first Bell Beaker results:

1. I2364 Y-DNA: H2 2470–2060 calBCE Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (former Vöröshadsereg útja) (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Bud1)

2. I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

3. I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

4. I3528 Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a1 2559–2301 calBCE Budakalász, Csajerszke (M0 Site 12) (Hungary) Low/no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_HUN)

alan
03-21-2018, 09:47 PM
I am a real greenhorn on autosomal stuff but I just can’t see how a Yamnaya-Vucedol blend could possibly create the bell beaker signature that emerges 2550BC. I also can’t see this in the archaeology. Vudedol is really nothing like bell beaker. The only thing I see in common between beaker and vucedol is the very high status of the metallurgist and trade. But only in a very generic sense not in any specifics. It is possible proto beaker groups around Czech and Carpathians could have witnessed the Vucedol network in action though as a paper on RC dating Vucedol influence did suggest a late expansion north as far as Prague.

I’ve been reading up a lot on the north Carpathians from Ukraine/Moldova to morovia recently and there appear to be some very odd CW groups in south Piland with all sorts of other actual steppe culture influences in that area that puts them well outside the type CW norms - including north-south orientations , archery sets with arrowheads resembling Central European beaker hollow based types (from 2600BC), a lot more knives than is usual in CW, burials of craft specialists catacomb type tombs too. Thry also have more metals than any other CW group. The general gist is that in south Poland the CW were close enough for ateppe contact to keep flowing long after the CW genesis and the great CW dispersal c 2800bC. It’s complex and I’ll post more later when I’m not on an iPhone

alan
03-21-2018, 10:15 PM
The areas of the earliest steppe Bell Beaker versus the L11xP312 of the Early Bronze Age...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RGQV96ErhMg29ydPzWbW8DFfPdeE8v9C&usp=sharing

Yeah that is a good map and it is suggestive that L11 took over the eastern fringes of Bell beaker network and may be represented by the CW derived part of Unetice and came to control the Oder-Moravian gap route that brought BaltiCAmber to Slovakia and Hungary in the Unetice phase and then the full blown Amber trade that developed later. It actually seems from L11xU106 at both Budapest and Sweden shortly after 2200BC that they had control of that route almost as soon as the beaker network was ending. The Oder part was not apparently a big deal in beaker times so perhaps they already had that route in beaker times but the key thing may have been them getting hold of the Moravian gate route to the Danube. That suddenly may have opened up all sorts of opportunities they didn’t have when P312 beaker commanded the gate and they could only head up and down the Oder. Whether they were CW or a hyper peripheral beaker group totally confined to some obscure eastern corner is not clear. You could argue either way.

alan
03-21-2018, 10:34 PM
I don't know the answers, and obviously our Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11 guy isn't the smoking gun we need, but look at what Corded Ware has yielded thus far in terms of L11: zip.

Olalde et al's work on Bell Beaker is great, but I kind of wish they had backed up a bit and gone into the making of Kurgan Bell Beaker and done a big steppe and Carpathian basin behemoth.

Regarding those four Vucedol samples including one I2a and one G2a, we would have similar results for Bell Beaker if we had started with Hungarian Bell Beaker (including a couple of Z2103's).

Things would be even worse had we just accidentally had these four as our first Bell Beaker results:

1. I2364 Y-DNA: H2 2470–2060 calBCE Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (former Vöröshadsereg útja) (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Bud1)

2. I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Very low/no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

3. I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

4. I3528 Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a1 2559–2301 calBCE Budakalász, Csajerszke (M0 Site 12) (Hungary) Low/no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_HUN)

I agree it’s just balance of probability but what sways me to rule out the Gimbutas model of beaker is that ALL the cultures south of the Carpathians (and Alps) c 2900-2500BC seem to have a habit of admixing With Balkans/Danubian/south Carpathian non- steppe people. The overall pattern just looks wrong while a route to the north fits the admixture v well.

I will post a link soon but the key thing about the CW groups in south Poland is they never moved out of range of steppe influence and movement continuing to flow into them long after the CW big migration west c 2800BC had put most of the CW groups far away from further steppe contact. Those south-eastern CW groups close to the starting point remained interacting with the steppe for 2-300 years after it was no longer an option for those who had moved far to the west and morth c2800BC. The SE CW groups stayed in contact with actual Yamnaya, middle dnieoer and even catacomb. This is all very clear in their archaeology and could be reflected in their yDNA not retaining the R1a dominance that probably was true c. 2800BC when the great migration happened. The striking thing is that south Polish CW groups slowly gathered a number of traits that by 2600BC really seem to prefigure beaker ones.

rms2
03-21-2018, 11:08 PM
I am a real greenhorn on autosomal stuff but I just can’t see how a Yamnaya-Vucedol blend could possibly create the bell beaker signature that emerges 2550BC. I also can’t see this in the archaeology. Vudedol is really nothing like bell beaker. The only thing I see in common between beaker and vucedol is the very high status of the metallurgist and trade . . .

As I understand it, we only have two Vucedol genomes for which autosomal data are available. We have one Baden genome and no western Yamnaya except for a single Bulgarian I2a, which is a long way from the Carpathian basin. It seems to me we're a little short on enough autosomal data to test a possible Yamnaya/Vucedol mix.

If the Yamnaya that went into the Bell Beaker mix came across the Carpathians via the Tisza river valley, then it could have easily mixed with GAC women before taking that route, because GAC extended into what is now western Ukraine east of the Carpathians. As I understand it, that was the route taken by Budzhak (a Yamnaya subculture), which went from the old Mikhailovka territory on the NW Black Sea coast north to the headwaters of the Tisza and thence southwest across the Carpathians into Pannonia. Mikhailovka practiced burial rites that were a lot like those of Bell Beaker.

A number of scholars have commented that late Vucedol was nearly indistinguishable from Bell Beaker. There's this, for example, from Aleksandar Durman, page 1 of "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex" (Radiocarbon, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1003-1009).



The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.

Gimbutas said pretty much the same thing on page 391 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures.

alan
03-21-2018, 11:45 PM
This paper opened my eyes to how the CW groups at the eastern part of the northern flanks of the Carpathians were close enough to the steppes to be different to all other CW groups. The difference is all other groups basically spread out in a massive pulse shortly after 2800BC (thereby conforming to the genetics and dominant yline and cultural traditions of that moment in time wherever they went) except the CW groups at its eastern end in south Poland etc who remained close enough to have a continuing constant stream of influences and likely human movement from non-CW cultures on the steppes for a further 2-300 years after the main CW had departed.

Archaeologically this led to those CW groups absorbing a lot of cultural traits that were not like your classic R1a carrying east-west orientated burials with a battle axe and CW pot. Thid created a number of oddities in the CW culture of that zone as it absorbed further steppe trends that prefigure bell beaker including north-south orientation (albeit reversed from beaker norm) , archery kit burials , hollow based arrowheads, the prominence of flint knives, craft specialist burials, a tradition of a beaker cup and amphorae in burials, a lot more cooper artefacts than any other CW groups etc. By 2600BC these CW groups seem to have accrued a lot of traits that prefigure central European beaker. I suspect that actual flow of people was involved in this post-2800BC flow of ideas into these CW groups because these were not just the sort of things a bit of trade or wives moving would bring. They were major changes in beliefs shown in burial and also a changes towards thr cut of the archer warrior and an emphasis on craft specialism.
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/14923/1/1PW.pdf

I looked at Slovakia too but it seems that it's CW was a rather late intrusion from CW groups in Germany and used the east-west classic CW burial. These a surely R1a people descended from the big wave west. So Slovakia seems to me to be of less interest than I thought in terms of L11.

In summary this paper quite vividly describes a number of traits that appears to have been coming from the steppe into the south-east of the CW world 2800-2600BC after the great CW migration but before the earliest bell beaker dates. Although this paper is focussed on the changes c. 2900-2600BC jn south Polish CW and nearby neighbours to the east, what it describes also sounds like they move in the direction of beaker culture before central European beaker existed.

That gives me a bit of a Eureka moment that bell beaker looks like an accumulation of late steppe influences on south Polish CW in the century or so leading up to 2600BC. If this was echoed in yDNA then it might suggest that P312 or L11 in general moved with these influences from the steppe into south Poland CW at some point c. 2800-2600BC just after the great classic CW east-west buried chaps did their lightning spread west. They missed that boat. Hence most CW is R1a. The paper is quite elaborate regarding the origins of each steppe influence on south Polish corded ware so take your pick as to which might have brought L11 or P312.

EDIT-another thing that the south Polish CW having continuous links with the steppes after other CW groups had departed at to the west and north could have acquired is horse riding. It really only appears convincingly with beaker itself so t could have been a late final ingredient aquired c2600-2550BC.

rms2
03-21-2018, 11:56 PM
Maybe, alan, but we actually have R1b-L11 in the transition period from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev (Proto-Nagyrev), and at least two reputable scholars who say that late Vucedol is virtually indistinguishable from Bell Beaker. But you're still deriving Bell Beaker from a culture that thus far is solidly R1a.

Okay . . .

alan
03-22-2018, 12:31 AM
The Tisza alternative is worth exploring. Regarding Vudedol, one interesting aspect of it I discovered in reading up on it a bit is that it was quite confined in extend until a sudden northern expansion of its influence around the same time beaker appears. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/1232/1237

Regarding the Tizsa theory, were there unmixed Yamnaya groups the Tisza late enough to have fed into the beaker ethnogenesis?

rms2
03-22-2018, 12:49 AM
As I understand things from Svitlana Ivanova's Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture, Budzhak made the trek from the NW Black Sea coast to the headwaters of the Prut and Tisza, and from there southwest into the Carpathian basin. They had time to mix with GAC females along the way.

Budzhak had a burial rite like that of BB and CW, and beakers like BB, as well.

22258

alan
03-22-2018, 12:52 AM
Maybe, alan, but we actually have R1b-L11 in the transition period from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev (Proto-Nagyrev), and at least two reputable scholars who say that late Vucedol is virtually indistinguishable from Bell Beaker. But you're still deriving Bell Beaker from a culture that thus far is solidly R1a.

Okay . . .
In think it's possible that the bell beaker horsemen may have had a relationship with Vudedol in their overlap zone. It's noticeable that the radicarbon dating off the big expansion north of Vudedol artefacts into Czech etc almost coincides with the start of Bel beaker. Vudedol was certainly a primary producer of metal objects but most certainly not ultra mobile types in mode of living so I wonder if the Vudedol culture's late expansion is linked to them hooking up with the highly mobile beaker guys on horses. The timing and the mixing in late Vudedol would beautifully tie up in that scenario.

rms2
03-22-2018, 12:59 AM
I'm thinking Gimbutas was probably right in this case, and deriving Bell Beaker from CW is barking up the wrong R1a tree.



The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.




There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures.


Proto-Nagyrev from the Csepel Island burial site at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary):

I7040 (2500-2200 BC) 11-12 year-old female, mtDNA K1a4b

I7041 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7043, y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA H1b1

I7042 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna I2a1, mtDNA H

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

rms2
03-22-2018, 01:03 AM
I know no one is giving me any "thanks", but I got used to that back in 2006, when I was one of the very few arguing that R1b was Indo-European and not in the FC Ice Age Refuge.

alan
03-22-2018, 01:40 AM
I know no one is giving me any "thanks", but I got used to that back in 2006, when I was one of the very few arguing that R1b was Indo-European and not in the FC Ice Age Refuge.

I’m just glad there is no need to account for Iberian RC dates or look to an out of Iberia scenario of an elaborate into then out of Iberia type models. At least all we are debating now is which side of the Carpathians beaker developed on - that’s progress!

Dewsloth
03-22-2018, 03:08 AM
I know no one is giving me any "thanks", but I got used to that back in 2006, when I was one of the very few arguing that R1b was Indo-European and not in the FC Ice Age Refuge.

Don't mind me: I'm still just trying to understand it all. :lol:

R.Rocca
03-22-2018, 10:37 AM
I’m just glad there is no need to account for Iberian RC dates or look to an out of Iberia scenario of an elaborate into then out of Iberia type models. At least all we are debating now is which side of the Carpathians beaker developed on - that’s progress!

Speaking of not needing Iberian RC dates, I ran the oldest Dutch Bell Beaker through nMonte. His good preservation and being found at the lowest/oldest layer of the cemetery made him a pretty special find, so much so that archaeologists named him "Jan Van Oostwoud". He was buried in an east-west orientation, on his left side and in a crouched position under tumulus II. He is great fit for Germany Corded Ware with and additional 6.8% from the early non-steppe Alsacian Bell Beaker woman (I1392). Removing her, the non-Corded Ware ancestry preferred Globular Amphora over Iberian Bell Beakers with non steppe ancestry.

P312+ Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748
2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C)
De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland

[1] "distance%=2.3113"
CWC_Germany, 92.3%
Beaker_Central_Europe_no_steppe:I1392, 6.8%
Baltic_HG, 0.9%
Globular_Amphora, 0%
Vucedol, 0%

"distance%=2.3391"
CWC_Germany, 92.6%
Globular_Amphora, 7%
Baltic_HG, 0.4%
Vucedol, 0%
Beaker_Iberia_no_steppe, 0%

I suspect Dutch Single Grave samples will be very similar to "Jan Van Oostwoud".

R.Rocca
03-22-2018, 11:18 AM
We can safely put Baden and its predecessor Protoboleraz to bed as far as having contributed to R1b:

Sample Culture Y-DNA
I2788 Protoboleraz_LCA G2a2b2a
I2789 Protoboleraz_LCA I2c
I2791 Protoboleraz_LCA I2c
I2366 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a1b1
I2367 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a
I2369 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a1c1a
I2371 Baden_LCA G2a2a
I2752 Baden_LCA I2a1
I2753 Baden_LCA I2a1a1
I2368 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a
I2754 Baden_LCA I2
I2755 Baden_LCA I

alan
03-22-2018, 04:44 PM
Speaking of not needing Iberian RC dates, I ran the oldest Dutch Bell Beaker through nMonte. His good preservation and being found at the lowest/oldest layer of the cemetery made him a pretty special find, so much so that archaeologists named him "Jan Van Oostwoud". He was buried in an east-west orientation, on his left side and in a crouched position under tumulus II. He is great fit for Germany Corded Ware with and additional 6.8% from the early non-steppe Alsacian Bell Beaker woman (I1392). Removing her, the non-Corded Ware ancestry preferred Globular Amphora over Iberian Bell Beakers with non steppe ancestry.

P312+ Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748
2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C)
De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland

[1] "distance%=2.3113"
CWC_Germany, 92.3%
Beaker_Central_Europe_no_steppe:I1392, 6.8%
Baltic_HG, 0.9%
Globular_Amphora, 0%
Vucedol, 0%

"distance%=2.3391"
CWC_Germany, 92.6%
Globular_Amphora, 7%
Baltic_HG, 0.4%
Vucedol, 0%
Beaker_Iberia_no_steppe, 0%

I suspect Dutch Single Grave samples will be very similar to "Jan Van Oostwoud".et a

The way I am viewing typical autosomal beaker dna is that there are only two options:

1. It developed after a Yamnaya like group that left the steppes then had a period of mixing with GAC/TRB types in north Central Europe in the period c. 2900/2800BC and 2550BC between the migration out the steppes and beaker emerging as a distinct culture.

2. The ancestors of beaker lived for a time in north-west forest steppe Ukraine mixing with GAC/TRB type farmers before they entered ‘Old Europe’ AND then did not mix with any Balkan/south Carpathian/ Danubian farmers.

The first option is essentially the northern route west (though the upper Tisza might be possible).The second option could be either the northern or Danube route but the latter route is possible only if they did not mix with local farmers throughout the period of their exit from the steppes until beaker arose. Not impossible but not the impression I get so far (exogamy seems v popular with steppe groups and L23 derived men so far).

I also think this is not a simple CW v Yamnaya deal. While the big early wave of CW west to the Rhine c2800BC does look like an R1a group with very Yamnaya-like autosomal DNA, some CW groups stayed close enough to the steppes to experience further steppe influence and probably geneflow after 2800BC and indeed the paper I linked to on this thread shows they got phases of steppe influence right up to my 2600BC on the cusp of the the bell beaker era. Those influences are not just wives bringing pottery traditions etc, they effect the male sphere of burial rites and warrior/hunter/craft kits. So who is to say that there was not an intrusion of new y lines and other DNA shifts away from the situation of pan European big wave c 2800BC? There are even CW/ Yamnaya hybrids.

Finally looking further back in time, the beaker signal does not look like one reflecting an origin or long period in the south-west Ukraine steppes where ancient DNA has backed up the Cranial evidence of a significant Balkans farmer component. The steppe groups at the Lower Dnieper, Crimea etc like Kemi Oba and a could of others have long been noted for their Neolithic farmer type crania as indeed have the part of the Sredny Stog culture nearest the Dnieper. I just cannot see beaker roots in that area. As Davidski tentatively suggested on his run, the beakers look like their steppe genes came straight from Volga Yamnaya or some similar group who had avoided Balkans farmer mixing.

MitchellSince1893
03-22-2018, 10:55 PM
To add to this discussion, Richard Rocca has just discovered the oldest U106 so far; and on top of that it's a Bell Beaker sample 30 miles North northwest of Prague, Czech Republic.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=368497&viewfull=1#post368497


Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.

Isidro
03-22-2018, 11:13 PM
Very noteworthy, but what does it mean?. It is worthy?, I mean; before we get a "gallizion" it's just anecdonall and possibly a fluke, time will tell though.


To add to this discussion, Richard Rocca has just the discovered the oldest U106 so far. and on top of that it's a Bell Beaker sample 30 miles North northwest of Prague, Czech Republic.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=368497&viewfull=1#post368497

Isidro
03-22-2018, 11:19 PM
I just have a hard time understanding how a Bell Beaker thrust coming from Iberia or Northern africa for that matter becoming a Yamnaya ubber alles Continental colonization... some weird ideologies at play for sure.

alan
03-22-2018, 11:52 PM
I just have a hard time understanding how a Bell Beaker thrust coming from Iberia or Northern africa for that matter becoming a Yamnaya ubber alles Continental colonization... some weird ideologies at play for sure.

Basically it looks like two totally unrelated groups have been called beaker people. It’s as simple as it that. There was no out of Iberia beaker movement that made it beyond SW Europe

Isidro
03-23-2018, 12:18 AM
Are we talking about genetics or cultural groups...
Beaker movements are not the same as genetic ones are they?.

Basically it looks like two totally unrelated groups have been called beaker people. It’s as simple as it that. There was no out of Iberia beaker movement that made it beyond SW Europe

MitchellSince1893
03-23-2018, 02:29 AM
Bell Beaker settlement pattern in Bohemia and Moravia


ABSTRACT

IN THIS PAPER WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT INTRODUCTION OF BELL BEAKERS INTO THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF ENEOLITHIC POPULATIONS DID NOT BRING ANY GREAT CHANGE IN THE SETTLEMENT PATTERN IN CENTRAL EUROPE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN FORMAL DIFFERENCES IN BETWEEN THE CORDED WARE AND BELL BEAKER MATERIAL CULTURE AND BURIAL RITES, HOWEVER THESE CHANGES OCCURRED WITHIN THE SAME SYMBOLIC SYSTEM. IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE BELL BEAKER CULTURE IN BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA IS AS A RESULT OF INTERNAL CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SOCIETY. IT SEEMS THAT SOME CORDED WARE CULTURAL NORMS, SUCH AS STRICT BURIAL CUSTOMS OR A TABOO OF DIGGING UNDERGROUND FOR OTHER THAN FUNERARY PURPOSES WERE GRADUALLY BECOMING LESS ORTHODOX DURING THE BELL BEAKER PERIOD AND SUBSEQUENT EARLY BRONZE AGE.

IN THE LATE E NEOLITHIC THE PATTERN OF NEOLITHIC SETTLEMENT NUCLEATION CHANGED INTO A PATTERN OF SMALL SETTLEMENTS AND DISPERSED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS


The Bell Beaker Culture in Bohemia and Moravia we understand mainly as a result of local development based on the Middle Eneolithic cultural background, preceding Corded Ware Culture and influences from the Carpathian Basin(Somogyvár-Vinkovci, mainly so-called Begleitkeramik), as well as from western Europe (decorated bell beakers,"Beaker Package", prestigious objects, cf. SHENNAN, 1976).


The Corded Ware and Bell Beaker periods represent a specific phenomenon in prehistory of Bohemia and Moravia. Their settlement patterns are different to the Neolithic or Bronze Age one.


The Bell Beaker settlement pattern.
There seems to be continuity between the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker settlement pattern. However the Corded Ware Culture habit not to dig below the surface for profane reasons became less orthodox in the Bell Beaker period. This change seems to be more obvious in the case of Moravian settlements, as number of the Bell Beaker settlement sites in Bohemia is considerably lower


The sites of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker periods show a high preference for areas suitable for an agricultural economy...Corded Ware and Bell Beaker sites rarely occur above 330 m a.s.l. (see figs. 3a,3b). The average height above sea level is 254 m for Corded Ware sites and 256.5 m for Bell Beaker sites. The sites of both periods are concentrated on the Vltava River terraces and slopes above its tributaries


The settlement patterns of the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker periods are very similar. They seem to represent a settlement network of small settlements with close spatial relationships to funerary areas. The size and distribution of cemeteries suggests a model of small hamlets maintaining few families or one extended family.


https://www.academia.edu/503317/Bell_Beaker_settlement_pattern_in_Bohemia_and_Mora via

MitchellSince1893
03-23-2018, 02:40 AM
Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is [U106>]Z9+...2500–2200 BCE ...

Just a reminder that Richard Rocca also found U152>L2 in the same area and same time frame.

Sample I7287: P312+ L2+ Z258+ Z367- 22432368- Radovesice, Czech Republic, ~2500–2200 BCE

U152 & U106 in the same community?

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:49 AM
We can safely put Baden and its predecessor Protoboleraz to bed as far as having contributed to R1b:

Sample Culture Y-DNA
I2788 Protoboleraz_LCA G2a2b2a
I2789 Protoboleraz_LCA I2c
I2791 Protoboleraz_LCA I2c
I2366 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a1b1
I2367 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a
I2369 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a1a1c1a
I2371 Baden_LCA G2a2a
I2752 Baden_LCA I2a1
I2753 Baden_LCA I2a1a1
I2368 Baden_LCA G2a2b2a
I2754 Baden_LCA I2
I2755 Baden_LCA I

Of course, I never thought of Baden as a source of R1b, but rather as a possible contributor to the Neolithic farmer component in BB. Has anyone used the autosomal data from these folks for any comparisons?

I guess those come from Mathieson. I was looking at Jean M's web site, which I guess hasn't been updated in awhile, because last time I looked it had just one Baden sample, which I believe was a female.

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:51 AM
To add to this discussion, Richard Rocca has just discovered the oldest U106 so far; and on top of that it's a Bell Beaker sample 30 miles North northwest of Prague, Czech Republic.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=368497&viewfull=1#post368497



Bell Beaker sample I7288 from Radovesice, Czech Republic is Z9+. As you guys know, U106 is a pretty large group under U106 > L48. He is dated to 2500–2200 BCE. YTree has Z9 forming around 2700 BC. There are very few reads in this sample aside from the already published CTS11468 which is at the same level as M269.


How sure is Rich of that? It sounds pretty weak.

rms2
03-23-2018, 12:02 PM
Bell Beaker settlement pattern in Bohemia and Moravia


. . . THERE ARE CERTAIN FORMAL DIFFERENCES IN BETWEEN THE CORDED WARE AND BELL BEAKER MATERIAL CULTURE AND BURIAL RITES, HOWEVER THESE CHANGES OCCURRED WITHIN THE SAME SYMBOLIC SYSTEM. IT IS PROBABLE THAT THE ORIGIN OF THE BELL BEAKER CULTURE IN BOHEMIA AND MORAVIA IS AS A RESULT OF INTERNAL CHANGES WITHIN THE SAME SOCIETY . . .


https://www.academia.edu/503317/Bell_Beaker_settlement_pattern_in_Bohemia_and_Mora via

That makes sense, given the obvious similarities between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker, and it is nice to see a straightforward statement of that hypothesis.

The problem right now is that one of those "internal changes" appears to have been a complete switch in y-dna haplogroups.

I wish the researchers would tackle Corded Ware the way Olalde et al tackled Bell Beaker. While they're at it, they could take on Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin, as well.

Dewsloth
03-23-2018, 05:58 PM
Of course, I never thought of Baden as a source of R1b, but rather as a possible contributor to the Neolithic farmer component in BB. Has anyone used the autosomal data from these folks for any comparisons?

I guess those come from Mathieson. I was looking at Jean M's web site, which I guess hasn't been updated in awhile, because last time I looked it had just one Baden sample, which I believe was a female.

Male.
Jean's site seems to be down at the moment, but I remember the Baden sample and had quoted it earlier because he shares a similar mtDNA:

ID Population Site Date Sex Mt Hap Y Hap Cov. HG% ALD Ref
GEN15a Baden Budakal´asz-Luppa cs´arda 3367–3103 M J2a1a1 G2a2b2a1a1c1a 1.66 10.9±1.7 22±9.2
3.-K11 Iberia CA La Chabola de la Hechicera 3627–3363 F J2a1a1 .. 0.12 24.7±2.5 30±12
LY.II.A.10.15067 Iberia CA Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 F J2a1a1 .. 0.30 24.1±2.0 ±

^^I have not seen J2a1a1 (or any of its subclades) show up in anything central/north Beaker or CWC although it's very present in the Baltic region now ... it does show up in an Egyptian mummy dated to 1388 BC. No idea what that's about...

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:28 PM
As I recall, the Baden entry at Jean M's web site had no y-dna info.

Dewsloth
03-23-2018, 10:32 PM
It's from "Parallel ancient genomic transects reveal complex population history of early European farmers" Mark Lipson, et al

rms2
03-23-2018, 10:37 PM
Bell Beaker settlement pattern in Bohemia and Moravia . . .

https://www.academia.edu/503317/Bell_Beaker_settlement_pattern_in_Bohemia_and_Mora via

I printed that paper out at work and read it on my train ride home today. I think I may have read it before a couple of years ago, but it made more of an impact today, with all we've learned.

I found this interesting.


The relative abundance of the Bell Beaker settlement sites in Moravia may be reflection of the closer relation of this group to the environment of Carpathian Basin, where contemporary settlements with numerous sunken features are common (Cf. KALICZ-SCHREIBER, 1976; ENDRÖD1, 1998).


Something weird was going on between Moravia and the Carpathian basin.

rms2
03-24-2018, 02:26 AM
I guess you all have caught the new developments in Bell Beaker via Rich Rocca and his magic computer: a Czech BB U106, I7288 from Radovesice (R1b-Z9), and another U106 from Csepel Island in Hungary, I4178 (R1b-Z18).

That makes Budapest the champ in ancient R1b-L23 diversity -

Proto-Nagyrev from Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Csepel Island, Hungary):

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

Bell Beaker from the same site:

I7044 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2109, mtDNA U5b1d1b

Bell Beaker results from the nearby Csepel Island site of Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary):

I4178 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z18 (downstream of U106), mtDNA J1c1b1a

I2787 (2458-2202 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2105, mtDNA T2b

From just a few miles away at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:

I2365 (2465-2205 BC) male, one bell beaker, one urn, one bowl, and one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug; y-dna R1b-L2, mtDNA V3

So we have two different kinds of Z2103 (Z2105 and Z2109) and three different kinds of L11 (P312, U106, and L11xP312,U106) all there in the Budapest area.

And all of them have plenty of steppe dna.

rms2
03-24-2018, 06:14 PM
. . . (I use the appellation Kurgan Bell Beaker to distinguish it, the Bell Beaker with R1b-M269 and steppe dna, from the early Iberian Bell Beaker of the collective Neolithic tombs that was mostly I2a and had no steppe dna.) . . .

I mentioned my use of the term Kurgan Bell Beaker in the OP. No one else has adopted it, and that's fine, but I would point out that when I use it you know exactly what I am talking about. There's no confusion and no need to go into a long-winded explanation about the differences between early Iberian, Neolithic, collective tomb, gracile-Mediterranean-type-skeleton Bell Beaker and non-Iberian Bell Beaker.

And the term non-Iberian Bell Beaker is not good precisely because Iberia eventually acquired Kurgan Bell Beaker of its own which was Iberian because there it was, in Iberia.

I think it makes things easier to understand, but to each his own.

R.Rocca
03-24-2018, 07:04 PM
I guess you all have caught the new developments in Bell Beaker via Rich Rocca and his magic computer: a Czech BB U106, I7288 from Radovesice (R1b-Z9), and another U106 from Csepel Island in Hungary, I4178 (R1b-Z18).

That makes Budapest the champ in ancient R1b-L23 diversity -

Proto-Nagyrev from Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Csepel Island, Hungary):

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

Bell Beaker from the same site:

I7044 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2109, mtDNA U5b1d1b

Bell Beaker results from the nearby Csepel Island site of Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary):

I4178 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna R1b-Z18 (downstream of U106), mtDNA J1c1b1a

I2787 (2458-2202 BC) y-dna R1b-Z2105, mtDNA T2b

From just a few miles away at Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja:

I2365 (2465-2205 BC) male, one bell beaker, one urn, one bowl, and one Vinkovci-Somogyvar/Proto-Nagyrev jug; y-dna R1b-L2, mtDNA V3

So we have two different kinds of Z2103 (Z2105 and Z2109) and three different kinds of L11 (P312, U106, and L11xP312,U106) all there in the Budapest area.

And all of them have plenty of steppe dna.

To add to the complexity, we also have these non-R1b haplogroups, with the G2a sample being the oldest:

I3528 G2a2a1a2a1 2559–2301 calBCE Budakalász,*Csajerszke (M0 Site 12)*
I2364 H2 2468–2063 calBCE Budapest-Békásmegyer
I2786 I2a2a 2458–2205 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós,Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő
I2741 I2a1a1 2457–2153 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós,Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő

This one is from the same site as the Proto-Nagyrev samples but was buried in an odd way:

I7042 I2a1 2500–2200 BCE Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor

rms2
03-24-2018, 07:06 PM
Yeah, and some of those have little or no steppe dna. Apparently some of the local farmers were getting with the program and converting to the steppe religion, probably worshiping Dyaus Piter (aka Jupiter) the shining Sky Father and Taranis/Thor/Indra the thunder god.

They were probably also learning to speak Indo-European and say the gods' names the right way when sacrificing the bull and tossing back the mead.

jdean
03-24-2018, 07:14 PM
I guess you all have caught the new developments in Bell Beaker via Rich Rocca and his magic computer: a Czech BB U106, I7288 from Radovesice (R1b-Z9), and another U106 from Csepel Island in Hungary, I4178 (R1b-Z18).

Excellent !!

Where has Richard posted about the Z18 sample ?

rms2
03-24-2018, 07:19 PM
Excellent !!

Where has Richard posted about the Z18 sample ?

Here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=369075&viewfull=1#post369075) it is.

It's a better sample than the Czech BB Z9.

uintah106
03-24-2018, 07:46 PM
Here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC&p=369075&viewfull=1#post369075) it is.

It's a better sample than the Czech BB Z9.

I'm a little dubious. Especially of Z18. Seems odd that the most northern branch shows up in Hungary that early.

rms2
03-24-2018, 07:50 PM
I'm a little dubious. Especially of Z18. Seems odd that the most northern branch shows up in Hungary that early.

Rich is a very smart guy and I would add pretty conservative about stuff like this. I don't think he would go with it if he wasn't sure. If he wasn't sure, he would have added a caveat or two.

jdean
03-24-2018, 08:11 PM
Rich is a very smart guy and I would add pretty conservative about stuff like this. I don't think he would go with it if he wasn't sure. If he wasn't sure, he would have added a caveat or two.

Second that

rms2
03-24-2018, 08:15 PM
Yeah, I think we can take it to the bank that there was some U106 in Kurgan Bell Beaker. It just makes sense, anyway, especially given that U106 result in Unetice.

It strikes me as very interesting, with Z2103, P312 and U106 all in Bell Beaker together. Now, how did that happen, unless all those were in Yamnaya?

rms2
03-24-2018, 08:44 PM
Psst . . . If Rich could find some L21 in continental Bell Beaker, I wouldn't mind at all, but I guess the DF27 guys are probably really frustrated, with U106 showing up in the Olalde et al results but nary a DF27 yet. Just one DF27 BB thus far: I0806 from Quedlinburg, Germany. At least there's one.

British Kurgan Bell Beaker is loaded with R1b-L21 (and DF13 below L21), and it's also high in steppe dna, higher than most of the central European BB.

Too bad Olalde et al didn't include a bunch more Irish BB samples and some more Welsh BB samples, as well.

Then, of course, there's the Amesbury Archer, the lack of whose genome almost brings tears to my eyes.

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:02 PM
BTW, I've updated my Google spreadsheet of R1b Kurgan Bell Beaker results:

Kurgan Bell Beaker (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K4UrW2A2vCGkM5jJVwO75K-dd5s2bLyLNRaQBahy0II/edit?usp=sharing)

The yellow highlighted ones are those with osteological evidence of horseback riding, and you know you have to do a heckuva lot of riding for it to show up in your doggoned bones.

Don't tell me Kurgan Bell Beaker people didn't ride horses.

Dewsloth
03-24-2018, 09:26 PM
Psst . . . If Rich could find some L21 in continental Bell Beaker, I wouldn't mind at all, but I guess the DF27 guys are probably really frustrated, with U106 showing up in the Olalde et al results but nary a DF27 yet. Just one DF27 BB thus far: I0806 from Quedlinburg, Germany. At least there's one.


>:(



:lol:

uintah106
03-24-2018, 09:37 PM
>:(



:lol:

These two u106 samples seem to have changed the paridgm. I think its premature.

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:42 PM
I wouldn't say they've changed it totally. What they've done is broadened it, and that U106 in Unetice already did that, really.

Now we see a broad spectrum of R1b-L23, and especially R1b-L11, in Kurgan Bell Beaker, which probably is representative of Yamnaya.

MitchellSince1893
03-24-2018, 09:43 PM
. The steppe groups at the Lower Dnieper, Crimea etc like Kemi Oba and a could of others have long been noted for their Neolithic farmer type crania as indeed have the part of the Sredny Stog culture nearest the Dnieper. I just cannot see beaker roots in that area. As Davidski tentatively suggested on his run, the beakers look like their steppe genes came straight from Volga Yamnaya or some similar group who had avoided Balkans farmer mixing.

Let’s explore this point further

Is this cranial difference so widespread and distinct that these cultures can be safely ruled out as the source of L11?


If so great. We can look elsewhere.

uintah106
03-24-2018, 09:47 PM
Why does U106 inhabit the east and p 312 the west if they came out of yamnaya together?

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:48 PM
Gimbutas mentioned broad skulls in GAC, so BB might have acquired that trait from mixing with GAC females (or from cradleboarding).

uintah106
03-24-2018, 09:49 PM
U106 in british bell beaker, not there, Why?

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:51 PM
Why does U106 inhabit the east and p 312 the west if they came out of yamnaya together?

Good question, but BB villages (note the paper posted by MitchellSince1893 earlier) consisted of only a few families or possibly one extended family, probably based on patrilineal kinship. Maybe the U106 kinfolk went north, while the P312 kinfolk went west and northwest.

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:53 PM
U106 in british bell beaker, not there, Why?

British BB appears to have come from the Lower Rhine. Apparently U106 wasn't there to go to Britain at that time but came later in the form of Anglo-Saxons.

rms2
03-24-2018, 09:56 PM
Even the different varieties of P312 have different distributions.

MitchellSince1893
03-24-2018, 09:57 PM
As to the absence of L11 in corded ware and domince of R1a it’s not a show stopper for me. R1a was around for 13000 years when L11 came on the scene and is going to be more numerous. L11 was just getting going in the Corded ware age. So We shouldn’t expect to find it for a while. It only took a year after U152 L2 appeared in Bell Beaker to find U106 there too. But but before that, it didn’t appear that U106 was in Bell Beaker

rms2
03-24-2018, 10:02 PM
As to the absence of L11 in corded ware and domince of R1a it’s not a show stopper for me. R1a was around for 13000 years when L11 came on the scene and is going to be more numerous. L11 was just getting going in the Corded ware age. So We shouldn’t expect to find it for a while. It only took a year after U152 L2 appeared in Bell Beaker to find U106 there too. But but before that, it didn’t appear that U106 was in Bell Beaker

It's not a show stopper, but it's a show hesitater for me.

But we only have 28 CW y-dna results thus far, at my last count. That's far less than the over 100 BB results we have.

We're also way way low on Yamnaya y-dna results, with none from the Pontic steppe or the Carpathian basin.

ArmandoR1b
03-24-2018, 10:34 PM
Psst . . . If Rich could find some L21 in continental Bell Beaker, I wouldn't mind at all, but I guess the DF27 guys are probably really frustrated, with U106 showing up in the Olalde et al results but nary a DF27 yet. Just one DF27 BB thus far: I0806 from Quedlinburg, Germany. At least there's one.

I think that most of the Bell Beakers do not have reads for DF27. It might partly be because of the positions included in the 1240K capture array. I hope that someday they are sequenced for DF27.

R.Rocca
03-24-2018, 11:33 PM
As to the absence of L11 in corded ware and domince of R1a it’s not a show stopper for me. R1a was around for 13000 years when L11 came on the scene and is going to be more numerous. L11 was just getting going in the Corded ware age. So We shouldn’t expect to find it for a while. It only took a year after U152 L2 appeared in Bell Beaker to find U106 there too. But but before that, it didn’t appear that U106 was in Bell Beaker

It is also interesting that not a single R1a has shown up in Bell Beaker, not even in it's youngest samples. It seems to have been in retreat in the wake of Bell Beaker's advance. While we can come up with valid scenarios for L11's trek along the Danube versus around the Carpathians, there is no doubt that R1a was not on the Danube.

Kwheaton
03-24-2018, 11:47 PM
I just want to give Rich Rocca a shut out :cheer2:for letting me know about I7202 who is U152> L2> FGAC22501> FGC22500> FGC22538. We went from a Roman Era York burial FGC22501 about 100-300 CE to 2200-1700 BCA in Prague, Czech.
Can't wait to here more.

I need to post over in the 106 thread to see if and S15663 have surfaced.

Thanks to all for the info you are sharing.

GoldenHind
03-25-2018, 12:11 AM
Even the different varieties of P312 have different distributions.

This is quite true. At lest three P312 subclades (L238, DF19 and DF99) do not have a distribution that is any more westerly than that of U106. In fact the combined distribution of the three together is remarkably similar to that of U106 as a whole. Also I would characterize P312 subclade DF27 as ubiquitous throughout Europe, east as well as west.

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 01:19 AM
This is quite true. At lest three P312 subclades (L238, DF19 and DF99) do not have a distribution that is any more westerly than that of U106. In fact the combined distribution of the three together is remarkably similar to that of U106 as a whole. Also I would characterize P312 subclade DF27 as ubiquitous throughout Europe, east as well as west.

IMO, when German and British bias is removed, DF19 is probably relegated mostly to the Low Countries, L238 to Scandinavia, so west and north of U106 respectively. Still, there is a lot of U106 territory where these two will likely not show up. As far as DF27, there is nothing ubiquitous about its modern distribution as it has been academically tested by Solé-Morata (2017). As the title suggests however, most of DF27 in Iberia "originated recently".

Analysis of the R1b-DF27 haplogroup shows that a large fraction of Iberian Y-chromosome lineages originated recently in situ.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x

http://i.imgur.com/aWLHezn.png

I still think when testing bias is removed, DF99 will be most frequent in the NW Alps. As razyn likes to remind us, frequency does not correlate with phylogenetic origin, but it is important to represent it well so we know where P312 splits may have occurred.

MitchellSince1893
03-25-2018, 03:06 AM
... As far as DF27, there is nothing ubiquitous about its modern distribution as it has been academically tested by Solé-Morata (2017). As the title suggests however, most of DF27 in Iberia "originated recently".

Analysis of the R1b-DF27 haplogroup shows that a large fraction of Iberian Y-chromosome lineages originated recently in situ.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x

I got to be honest Rich. When I saw this study a few months ago and read that their methodology made them come to the conclusion that
the age of R1b-DF27 is estimated at ~4,200 years ago and that it originated in Iberia; it makes me question the rest of their conclusions.

If I0806 is DF27 then we know it was in North Central Germany around 2300 BC +/- 150 years. And odds are I0806 wasn't the 1st,2nd, or even 3rd generation of DF27. I could see DF27 in Iberia being dated to 4200 years ago, but not DF27 itself.

DF27 has to be at least as old as brother U152, I0805 (2542 BC)

Yfull (which typically provides younger dates) says 2500 BC,
McDonald gets 2973 BC,
Alex Williamson gets 2565 BC

Looking at table 2 of the study, the 2nd highest location for STR diversity is Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Pyrenees came in 1st), but there are only 7 samples. A few more samples and it could have easily been the top local for STR diversity.

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 03:27 AM
I got to be honest Rich. When I saw this study a few months ago and read that there methodology made them come to the conclusion that and that it originated in Iberia; it makes me question the rest of their conclusions.

If I0806 is DF27 then we know it was in North Central Germany around 2300 BC +/- 150 years. And odds are I0806 wasn't the 1st,2nd, or even 3rd generation of DF27. I could see DF27 in Iberia being dated to 4200 years ago, but not DF27 itself.

DF27 has to be at least as old as brother U152, I0805 (2542 BC)

Yfull (which typically provides younger dates) says 2500 BC,
McDonald gets 2973 BC,
Alex Williamson gets 2565 BC

Looking at table 2 of the study, the 2nd highest location for STR diversity is Nord-Pas-de-Calais (Pyrenees came in 1st), but there are only 7 samples. A few more samples and it could have easily been the top local for STR diversity.

I mentally threw out the entire paper, but frequency is fact, and that's why I brought it up.

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 04:12 AM
If you guys want a nice read on the two prominent cultures in Hungary before Bell Beaker showed up, read this great work on the Makó–Kosihy–Čaka and the Somogyvár–Vinkovci Cultures. Probably best to start with the "Afterword" on page on page 355 and then start from the beginning. Plenty of mentions about Vucedol, Bell Beaker, Moravian Corded Ware, Proto-Nagyrev and of course Yamnaya. What seems to be certain is that nothing is certain. The areas seems to be a cross road where cultures influenced each other for hundreds of years. From what I gather, MKO may have originally come from Vucedol and/or been a later mix with incoming waves of Hungarian Plain Yamnaya. The change in Vucedol seems to be due to influences from the southern Balkans (Macedonia? Thessaly?), but it does not seem to be clear if this brought about Proto-Nagyrev. All the while Yamnaya waves likely continued to pour into the Hungarian plain, perhaps even via Transylvania. Whatever the role of Yamnaya, its importance is clear:


Another equally important issue is how these eastern groups integrated into the local milieu, seeing that not one
single independent Yamnaya settlement has yet been found. It is possible that the eastern groups
blended into the local population and that for some, as yet unknown reason, they played a prominent
role in these mixed communities, reflected by the “prestige” tumulus burials. This interpretation is
supporter by the grave goods of the late burials (Graves 4, 7, 7a, 9) under the Sárrétudvari kurgan. The
analogies to the metalwork and the pottery suggest that the burial site represented an integration point
in the vast territory extending from the eastern steppe through Transylvania and eastern Hungary to
central Germany in the mid-3rd millennium BC.


The Beginnings of the Bronze Age in the Carpathian Basin. The Makó–Kosihy–Čaka and the Somogyvár–Vinkovci cultures in Hungary.
by Gabriella Kulcsár

https://www.academia.edu/2523227/The_Beginnings_of_the_Bronze_Age_in_the_Carpathian _Basin._The_Mak%C3%B3_Kosihy_%C4%8Caka_and_the_Som ogyv%C3%A1r_Vinkovci_cultures_in_Hungary._Varia_Ar chaeologica_Hungarica_23_Budapest_2009

Dewsloth
03-25-2018, 04:14 AM
It's not a show stopper, but it's a show hesitater for me.

But we only have 28 CW y-dna results thus far, at my last count. That's far less than the over 100 BB results we have.

We're also way way low on Yamnaya y-dna results, with none from the Pontic steppe or the Carpathian basin.

I am struggling to remember which paper I read, but iirc they were bemoaning the fact that prime coastal southern Baltic sites from CWC/early B.B. are now underwater.

alan
03-25-2018, 11:39 AM
Are we talking about genetics or cultural groups...
Beaker movements are not the same as genetic ones are they?.

I think when you break down classic beaker culture into components then very little comes from Iberia other than maybe some pottery influences.I think there was some minor contact and exchange of pottery idea between Iberia (and perhaps Iberian colonies is south and Atlantic France around 2500BC) and Central Europeans in both directions c 2800-2500BC). Likely involving a few chiefs taking a few wives with their pottery skills but the gene flow out of Iberia was so low it is undetectable. This light contact probably started along the Grand Presigny grade route that stretched from the French-Spanish border to Germany and later may have happened through Iberian beaker colonists in France at the Rhine-Rhône axis and Atlantic France. However ancient DNA backs the Sion evidence that the Rhône and adjacent Iberian beaker colonists were rapidly overrun by P312 beaker groups.

alan
03-25-2018, 11:52 AM
I think though we must avoid seeing the Csepel group as a beaker source. They were an outpost of Moravian beaker and developed a weird culture that Is very unlike all other beaker groups due to their position deep beyond beaker lines and within a melting pot of non-beaker populations. Their genetics and those y lines that are absent or v rare in most of the beaker World shows this status as an oddball outpost. I suspect the outpost was set up to acquire horses from Z2103 groups on the Danube and trade them back through the Moravian gap to the core beaker zone. Csepel probably rapidly became a hybrid population of beaker and other local groups. Their main burial practices and houses are way off the beaker norm

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 01:53 PM
I think though we must avoid seeing the Csepel group as a beaker source. They were an outpost of Moravian beaker and developed a weird culture that Is very unlike all other beaker groups due to their position deep beyond beaker lines and within a melting pot of non-beaker populations. Their genetics and those y lines that are absent or v rare in most of the beaker World shows this status as an oddball outpost. I suspect the outpost was set up to acquire horses from Z2103 groups on the Danube and trade them back through the Moravian gap to the core beaker zone. Csepel probably rapidly became a hybrid population of beaker and other local groups. Their main burial practices and houses are way off the beaker norm

I agree, Csepel looks like a sink, not a source.

alan
03-25-2018, 05:35 PM
I agree, Csepel looks like a sink, not a source.

There are a lot of pretty new papers on the area between the Dnieper and the north- east Carpathians 3500-2500BC online and none of them ring proto beaker bells as much as south Poland does. If I had to guess a staging Post between the steppes c. 2900BC and Central European beaker c2550BC it would be southern Poland CW groups infused with latter steppe input

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 06:01 PM
There are a lot of pretty new papers on the area between the Dnieper and the north- east Carpathians 3500-2500BC online and none of them ring proto beaker bells as much as south Poland does. If I had to guess a staging Post between the steppes c. 2900BC and Central European beaker c2550BC it would be southern Poland CW groups infused with latter steppe input

Two more Corded Ware from Poland and still no more R1b though:

PL_N47 Corded Ware Pikutkowo, Poland 2563BC-2350BC
Haplogroup: I2a2a1

PL_N49 Corded Ware Pikutkowo, Poland 2563BC-2350BC
Haplogroup I, some I1 and I2 calls before my computer crashed (after 8 hours of processing!).

167273
03-25-2018, 07:47 PM
Thank you for this. Could you also check other samples from poland? Do you know if these samples are steppe like or eef outliers like i7272 czech cw sample?

R.Rocca
03-25-2018, 08:18 PM
Thank you for this. Could you also check other samples from poland? Do you know if these samples are steppe like or eef outliers like i7272 czech cw sample?

If they were in BAM format I would do it, but unfortunately the FASTQ format tied up most of my computer's memory for two days, so I will not be processing any more.

rms2
03-25-2018, 11:21 PM
I think though we must avoid seeing the Csepel group as a beaker source. They were an outpost of Moravian beaker and developed a weird culture that Is very unlike all other beaker groups due to their position deep beyond beaker lines and within a melting pot of non-beaker populations. Their genetics and those y lines that are absent or v rare in most of the beaker World shows this status as an oddball outpost. I suspect the outpost was set up to acquire horses from Z2103 groups on the Danube and trade them back through the Moravian gap to the core beaker zone. Csepel probably rapidly became a hybrid population of beaker and other local groups. Their main burial practices and houses are way off the beaker norm

You may be right, but I wouldn't be too quick to say that. A couple of things I think are quite striking or at least cautionary. First, despite a growing number of Corded Ware y-dna results (30, now, I think), not a one of them is R1b-L11. Most are R1a. Csepel Island is the only place thus far in which we have R1b-L11 outside of Bell Beaker during the mid-3rd millennium time period contemporary with Bell Beaker.

We know Yamnaya people settled in the Carpathian basin. There are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans there. We know that Yamnaya had at least one variety of R1b-L23 in it: Z2103. I suspect the other variety, L51, was represented, as well. Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin, and especially in the Tisza River valley, may be the ultimate source of the R1b-L51>L11 in the steppe-derived milieu that led to Bell Beaker.

rms2
03-25-2018, 11:29 PM
Two more Corded Ware from Poland and still no more R1b though:

PL_N47 Corded Ware Pikutkowo, Poland 2563BC-2350BC
Haplogroup: I2a2a1

PL_N49 Corded Ware Pikutkowo, Poland 2563BC-2350BC
Haplogroup I, some I1 and I2 calls before my computer crashed (after 8 hours of processing!).

Do you know what their mtDNA haplogroups were? I am keeping a Google spreadsheet of CW results, and I want to update it.

ADW_1981
03-25-2018, 11:47 PM
Why does U106 inhabit the east and p 312 the west
That's not really accurate.

For instance, a study of YDNA from Austria in 2016 found 50% of the male samples as R1b, and it was about 1/3 U106, 1/3 U152, and 1/3 P312xU152.

rms2
03-25-2018, 11:50 PM
That's not really accurate.

For instance, a study of YDNA from Austria in 2016 found 50% of the male samples as R1b, and it was about 1/3 U106, 1/3 U152, and 1/3 P312xU152.

I think he was talking about the ancient y-dna results thus far.

alan
03-26-2018, 12:16 AM
You may be right, but I wouldn't be too quick to say that. A couple of things I think are quite striking or at least cautionary. First, despite a growing number of Corded Ware y-dna results (30, now, I think), not a one of them is R1b-L11. Most are R1a. Csepel Island is the only place thus far in which we have R1b-L11 outside of Bell Beaker during the mid-3rd millennium time period contemporary with Bell Beaker.

We know Yamnaya people settled in the Carpathian basin. There are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans there. We know that Yamnaya had at least one variety of R1b-L23 in it: Z2103. I suspect the other variety, L51, was represented, as well. Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin, and especially in the Tisza River valley, may be the ultimate source of the R1b-L51>L11 in the steppe-derived milieu that led to Bell Beaker.
Just to clarify my current ideas re south Poland. I don’t think L11 was a CW lineage per se. I am thinking it might be a late intrusive lineage from the steppe or forest steppe into the CW groups will of that area. It’s really a theory based on archaeology rather than genetics. The archaeology shows that unlike other CW groups, the Malopolska area saw further contact with several groups on the steppe and forest steppe c 2800-2600BC. Because those changes affected burial traditions and brought in a strong archery trait I think men moved/ I can’t deny that the dna evidence is not supporting the theory though!

Bottom line is the L11 has not yet turned up in either of the two big steppe gene carrying cultures who moved west c3000-2750BC and if I was to take that at face value then L11 must be a line that left the steppe 2-300 years after the main waves west of Yamnaya and CW. If we look at all the cultures L11 or the classic beaker autosomal signal is absent c 3000-2550BC in both north-central Europe and on the Danubian route we can rule out a quite long list.

That is why it could be that L11 really genuinely did come out of the steppe late -say 2600BC. The autosomal picture could be seen to back the idea that L11 remained in the part of Ukraine with a GAC/TRB substrate until almost the beaker period - it doesn’t seem like it went through a busy area with a large Balkans farmer substrate in the centuries before beaker. The only two ways I can. See that happening is 1. It arrived move west by a northern route with that type of substrate or 2. It left somewhere in the steppe with a similar substrate just before the beaker culture appears.

It is interesting that many academics see a very dry period around 2500BC so that could have been a push factor if L11 was in an arid area. I did read recently that the GAC culture expanded south into the Dniester and maybe the Bug around 2900BC so that’s another where area a Yamnaya related group could have mixed with a Yamnaya related group to produce a proto-beaker type signal

alan
03-26-2018, 12:24 AM
You may be right, but I wouldn't be too quick to say that. A couple of things I think are quite striking or at least cautionary. First, despite a growing number of Corded Ware y-dna results (30, now, I think), not a one of them is R1b-L11. Most are R1a. Csepel Island is the only place thus far in which we have R1b-L11 outside of Bell Beaker during the mid-3rd millennium time period contemporary with Bell Beaker.

We know Yamnaya people settled in the Carpathian basin. There are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans there. We know that Yamnaya had at least one variety of R1b-L23 in it: Z2103. I suspect the other variety, L51, was represented, as well. Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin, and especially in the Tisza River valley, may be the ultimate source of the R1b-L51>L11 in the steppe-derived milieu that led to Bell Beaker.
How many separate cemeteries are the 30 from though? Given patrilocality the appearance of several men with tha same yDNA doesn’t mean a lot more than if just one guy was found. Ai suspect that the number of different CW cemeteries/ sites is a lot lower than 30.

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:26 AM
Interesting theory. I wonder how R1b-L11 and Kurgan Bell Beaker became so successful in central and western Europe, while Corded Ware (with a two or three century head start) faded, and R1a was mostly confined to eastern and east central Europe. If the Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin wasn't R1b-L11 but was instead mainly R1b-Z2103, why did Yamnaya and Z2103 evidently fizzle out and fail to spread much to central and western Europe? We see some of it in Vucedol and Hungarian and Polish Kurgan Bell Beaker, but then it drops off.

If R1b-L11 was a relative latecomer from the steppe, its success contra its other steppe rivals is surprising.

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:32 AM
How many separate cemeteries are the 30 from though? Given patrilocality the appearance of several men with tha same yDNA doesn’t mean a lot more than if just one guy was found. Ai suspect that the number of different CW cemeteries/ sites is a lot lower than 30.

I count 12 separate sites. And I was off when I said 30. I included two with inconclusive y-dna results, miscounted by one, and also included two from Nordic Battle Axe (one of which was U106). So, really, we have only 25 solid CW y-dna results.

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:43 AM
Here is something puzzling.

Where does ancient R1b-L23 show up thus far?

Answer: In Yamnaya, Vucedol, Proto-Nagyrev, and Bell Beaker.

R1b-L51 (in its R1b-L11 guise) shows up in Proto-Nagyrev and Bell Beaker, but Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev, so that's pretty close to having R1b-L11 in Vucedol.

In the hunt for ancient R1b-L11, that leaves Yamnaya, and, like I keep saying over and over, we have no y-dna yet from Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe or in the Carpathian basin, which is precisely the kind of Yamnaya that went west. Thus far we have Caspian steppe Yamnaya and one Bulgarian Yamnaya.

We don't have any R1b-L23 in Corded Ware yet, not even a Z2103.

Call me a sucker, but it looks like the L23 thus far comes from the steppe via the Carpathian basin mixing bowl.

But let's get a look at ancient Moravian and Malopolskan y-dna while we're getting some from the other likely suspects on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin.

alan
03-26-2018, 12:45 AM
Interesting theory. I wonder how R1b-L11 and Kurgan Bell Beaker became so successful in central and western Europe, while Corded Ware (with a two or three century head start) faded, and R1a was mostly confined to eastern and east central Europe. If the Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin wasn't R1b-L11 but was instead mainly R1b-Z2103, why did Yamnaya and Z2103 evidently fizzle out and fail to spread much to central and western Europe? We see some of it in Vucedol and Hungarian and Polish Kurgan Bell Beaker, but then it drops off.

If R1b-L11 was a relative latecomer from the steppe, its success contra its other steppe rivals is surprising.

It’s definitely a mystery. I think the idea of a late entry is worth exploring as it is undeniable L11 is absent so far in Yamnaya, CW, GAC and the various groups c 3000-2550BC in which a large farmer element is suspected like Baden etc. One further possibility that could explain the sort of Yamnaya+GAC beaker mix being present c2550BC is simply if they moved west from somewhere like NWUkraine or Moldova and didn’t mix with locals again, keeping seperate and living in different environmental niches from the local substrate.

alan
03-26-2018, 12:52 AM
I count 12 separate sites. And I was off when I said 30. I included two with inconclusive y-dna results, miscounted by one, and also included two from Nordic Battle Axe (one of which was U106). So, really, we have only 25 solid CW y-dna results.

12 sites is still a v low sample covering Europe from the Rhine to Ukraine and Finland to the Carpathians and Alps and lasting quite a number of centuries.

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:52 AM
The route from the headwaters of the Prut and Tisza through the north end of the Carpathians via the Tisza River valley would have been a path through GAC territory, perhaps with a long enough stay to pick up some GAC wives and GAC autosomal dna (GAC broads and GAC broad skulls?).

The Yamnaya subgroup Budzhak took that route into Hungary, and they came ultimately from the NW Black Sea coast, where their predecessors (and likely ancestors), the Mikhailovka people, had burial rites a lot like Bell Beaker. And Budzhak beakers looked a lot like BB beakers.

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:09 AM
Take a look at the picture of this Budzhak burial, crouched on the left side BB style in a stone-lined cist, complete with archer's equipment. It's from Svitlana Ivanova, Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344, "Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture".

I had to enlarge it a little, so it's somewhat blurry.

22338

alan
03-26-2018, 01:10 AM
Here is something puzzling.

Where does ancient R1b-L23 show up thus far?

Answer: In Yamnaya, Vucedol, Proto-Nagyrev, and Bell Beaker.

R1b-L51 (in its R1b-L11 guise) shows up in Proto-Nagyrev and Bell Beaker, but Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition period between late Vucedol and early Nagyrev, so that's pretty close to having R1b-L11 in Vucedol.

In the hunt for ancient R1b-L11, that leaves Yamnaya, and, like I keep saying over and over, we have no y-dna yet from Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe or in the Carpathian basin, which is precisely the kind of Yamnaya that went west. Thus far we have Caspian steppe Yamnaya and one Bulgarian Yamnaya.

We don't have any R1b-L23 in Corded Ware yet, not even a Z2103.

Call me a sucker, but it looks like the L23 thus far comes from the steppe via the Carpathian basin mixing bowl.

But let's get a look at ancient Moravian and Malopolskan y-dna while we're getting some from the other likely suspects on the Pontic steppe and in the Carpathian basin.

I think a Yamnaya Dsnubian route isnt impossible but with two provisos 1. They aquired the additional GAC/TRB in the steppe area before they headed west and 2. After they moved west they lived apart from and did not mix with the large Balkans/Danubian farmer substrate. Both are not impossible. The interesting thing is if the GAC/TRB mix did happen to the L11 line while it was still on the steppes then that could only have happened in the in a area where Yamnaya realated groups and GAC overlapped (in the area between the Dnieper and the east Carpathians)

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:17 AM
This route would have been through GAC territory.

22339

rms2
03-26-2018, 01:56 AM
Take a look at the picture of this Budzhak burial, crouched on the left side BB style in a stone-lined cist, complete with archer's equipment. It's from Svitlana Ivanova, Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344, "Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture".

I had to enlarge it a little, so it's somewhat blurry.

22338

Besides the up-the-Prut-down-the-Tisza route, here's something from page 113 of Ivanova I had forgotten:



Probably, the Budzhak population migrated westwards to central Europe across Malopolska and northern slopes of the Carpathians. The evidence of such connections could be found in the presence of Yamnaya graves in the central European area (Fig . 15), as well as in the similarity of individual shapes of pottery and ornamental motifs (Fig. 11, 12, 18-20).


There you go. Maybe that's how R1b-L11 came in: with Budzhak archers who buried their important male dead BB style.

jdean
03-26-2018, 08:50 AM
There you go. Maybe that's how R1b-L11 came in: with Budzhak archers who buried their important male dead BB style.

So is this BB style burials minus BB pots ?

Also is that a compound bow on the right, I thought people were arguing like crazy there was no evidence of these until much later ?

jdean
03-26-2018, 10:01 AM
Take a look at the picture of this Budzhak burial, crouched on the left side BB style in a stone-lined cist, complete with archer's equipment. It's from Svitlana Ivanova, Baltic-Pontic Studies vol. 18: 2013, 86-120 PL ISSN 1231-0344, "Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture".

I had to enlarge it a little, so it's somewhat blurry.

22338

I found the paper and managed to get a better screen grab.

22343

Thought these interesting too

22344 22345

rms2
03-26-2018, 11:45 AM
So is this BB style burials minus BB pots ?

Also is that a compound bow on the right, I thought people were arguing like crazy there was no evidence of these until much later ?

Budzhak had some beakers that looked a lot like bell beakers (as you saw and posted).

I'm not sure how much of that bow they found: maybe just traces. It's been awhile since I read that paper. If they found a composite bow intact, that would be huge news.

It's interesting that apparently Budzhak men were buried with archer's equipment and on their left sides in a crouched posture. That's BB style. CW men were buried on their right sides for the most part, as I recall.

Could Budzhak be the mysterious pre-BB culture? Might it have been the vehicle of R1b-L11 from the steppe into east central Europe?

jdean
03-26-2018, 12:15 PM
Budzhak had some beakers that looked a lot like bell beakers (as you saw and posted).

I'm not sure how much of that bow they found: maybe just traces. It's been awhile since I read that paper. If they found a composite bow intact, that would be huge news.

It's interesting that apparently Budzhak men were buried with archer's equipment and on their left sides in a crouched posture. That's BB style. CW men were buried on their right sides for the most part, as I recall.

Could Budzhak be the mysterious pre-BB culture? Might it have been the vehicle of R1b-L11 from the steppe into east central Europe?

And have they any DNA samples on the Reich lab convener belt : )

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:21 PM
And have they any DNA samples on the Reich lab convener belt : )

I wish. None that I know about.

rms2
03-26-2018, 12:35 PM
. . .

Also is that a compound bow on the right, I thought people were arguing like crazy there was no evidence of these until much later ?

I would say they could probably shoot them from horseback, but last time I ventured to say that, a number of people jumped all over me.

MitchellSince1893
03-26-2018, 04:20 PM
... I am thinking it might be a late intrusive lineage from the steppe or forest steppe into the CW groups will of that area. It’s really a theory based on archaeology rather than genetics. The archaeology shows that unlike other CW groups, the Malopolska area saw further contact with several groups on the steppe and forest steppe c 2800-2600BC. Because those changes affected burial traditions and brought in a strong archery trait I think men moved/ I can’t deny that the dna evidence is not supporting the theory though!

Bottom line is the L11 has not yet turned up in either of the two big steppe gene carrying cultures who moved west c3000-2750BC and if I was to take that at face value then L11 must be a line that left the steppe 2-300 years after the main waves west of Yamnaya and CW. If we look at all the cultures L11 or the classic beaker autosomal signal is absent c 3000-2550BC in both north-central Europe and on the Danubian route we can rule out a quite long list.

That is why it could be that L11 really genuinely did come out of the steppe late -say 2600BC. The autosomal picture could be seen to back the idea that L11 remained in the part of Ukraine with a GAC/TRB substrate until almost the beaker period - it doesn’t seem like it went through a busy area with a large Balkans farmer substrate in the centuries before beaker. The only two ways I can. See that happening is 1. It arrived move west by a northern route with that type of substrate or 2. It left somewhere in the steppe with a similar substrate just before the beaker culture appears.

It is interesting that many academics see a very dry period around 2500BC so that could have been a push factor if L11 was in an arid area. I did read recently that the GAC culture expanded south into the Dniester and maybe the Bug around 2900BC so that’s another where area a Yamnaya related group could have mixed with a Yamnaya related group to produce a proto-beaker type signal
A late arrival say ~2600 BC would work well with RISE563 (oldest P312 & U152 at 2542 BC +/- 30 years) being closest autosomally to present day Kargopol Russians and explain why we have 3 present day samples in this area from 3 different U152 subclades (I know there are plenty of other explanations of why they could be there)
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/67/3d/2f/673d2f10b9fdc3667cced2805a9ce383.png

McDonald has U152 starting around 2700 BC but he has brother clade DF27 at ~3000 BC, so somewhere in this range.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html

TigerMW
03-26-2018, 04:44 PM
If R1b-L11 was a relative latecomer from the steppe, its success contra its other steppe rivals is surprising.

I don’t think it is that surprising. We are talking about male lineages and there could have been some advantage. What made the East/Dutch/NW (Kurgan) Beaker males so successful? .. spreading into Corded Wares lands and old Western Bell Beaker lands? The advantage came from somewhere. We just don’t know where.

Just the same as I have said and we have found out, Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers; the same is true for Yamnaya, there were multiple cultures spread over a vast territory. We should not see them as monolithic.

rms2
03-26-2018, 05:12 PM
I don’t think it is that surprising. We are talking about male lineages and there could have been some advantage. What made the East/Dutch/NW (Kurgan) Beaker males so successful? .. spreading into Corded Wares lands and old Western Bell Beaker lands? The advantage came from somewhere. We just don’t know where.

The big advantage might have been horse-borne archery, but I'm just throwing that out there.



Just the same as I have said and we have found out, Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers; the same is true for Yamnaya, there were multiple cultures spread over a vast territory. We should not see them as monolithic.

Well, I would like to see Kurgan Bell Beaker called Kurgan Bell Beaker or Steppe Bell Beaker to differentiate it from the Neolithic, collective tomb, gracile-Mediterranean-skeleton Bell Beaker that many people still think was the original Bell Beaker. If we find out that Budzhak was the original Kurgan Bell Beaker, maybe we could move to calling Kurgan Bell Beaker Budzhak or Budzhak Beaker.

For multifarious cultures, they sure were pretty monolithic when it comes to y-dna.

alan
03-26-2018, 08:10 PM
Besides the up-the-Prut-down-the-Tisza route, here's something from page 113 of Ivanova I had forgotten:



There you go. Maybe that's how R1b-L11 came in: with Budzhak archers who buried their important male dead BB style.
I think we are knocking on the right row of a doors in this thread even if we are not sure which one is the right house. That Malopolska paper I posted earlier agrees with this general picture in that it sees it as unique in the CW zone as an area first settled by CW maybe c 2900BC but subject to long term flow of further influence and almost certainly people from non-CW steppe related groups to their east and south east. The paper talks about multiple steppe cultural influences in Malopolska 2900-2600BC as a long term thing rather than one event.Budzak can fit nicely into that sort of picture.

alan
03-26-2018, 08:23 PM
I don’t think it is that surprising. We are talking about male lineages and there could have been some advantage. What made the East/Dutch/NW (Kurgan) Beaker males so successful? .. spreading into Corded Wares lands and old Western Bell Beaker lands? The advantage came from somewhere. We just don’t know where.

Just the same as I have said and we have found out, Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers; the same is true for Yamnaya, there were multiple cultures spread over a vast territory. We should not see them as monolithic.

I think the horse was key but the real advantage (probably linked to the horse) was they were networkers over vast areas who could draw on non-localised allies/clients and resources over large areas while other groups like CW appear from their marriage patterns to stick to their nearest neighbours and marry the girl next door. That sort of unstratified or hyper localised society where each little hamlet was a bit inward looking could have been at a catastrophic disadvantage when up against a group who networked widely and could get allies and resources from large distances. Imagine your army of 20 or 30 guys from a small cluster of hamlets up against 200 horsemen called in from a long distance network of clients and allies.

alan
03-26-2018, 08:32 PM
Yokels whose favoured weapon was a lump of stone on a stick against Europe’s greatest networking culture up until the Roman Empire, metallurgists with copper axes, knives and halberds who also rode horses and were almost cultish about archery skills? Is it any wonder L11 obliterated the R1a CW lines from most of their lands between the Rhine and Oder and left them hanging on at the margins on the worst land?

GoldenHind
03-26-2018, 09:43 PM
IMO, when German and British bias is removed, DF19 is probably relegated mostly to the Low Countries, L238 to Scandinavia, so west and north of U106 respectively. Still, there is a lot of U106 territory where these two will likely not show up. As far as DF27, there is nothing ubiquitous about its modern distribution as it has been academically tested by Solé-Morata (2017). As the title suggests however, most of DF27 in Iberia "originated recently".

Analysis of the R1b-DF27 haplogroup shows that a large fraction of Iberian Y-chromosome lineages originated recently in situ.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x


I still think when testing bias is removed, DF99 will be most frequent in the NW Alps. As razyn likes to remind us, frequency does not correlate with phylogenetic origin, but it is important to represent it well so we know where P312 splits may have occurred.

If DF19 is relegated largely to the Low Countries, I believe that is also the area where U106 reaches its greatest density. L238 and U106 are both well represented in Scandinavia. You may be correct about DF99 being most frequent in the Alpine area, as there is no doubt it has a presence there. However current data would suggest it has a higher frequency father north, in the Rhineland and SW Germany. I suspect this could be due to much of the FTDNA database for Germany apparently being comprised of Americans of German ancestry, and those were the areas from which I believe much of the emigration from Germany to the USA came from. The DF99 who are European nationals tend to have much more northern and eastern origins. I definitely think an origin or even a major expansion of DF99 from the NW Alps is untenable, as this is essentially the western extent of where on the continent they are found in any significant numbers. Nor do they extend much father south beyond that- Tuscany seems to be the limit. But they are present much father to the north and east, to Sweden and the Baltic.

I believe what is important is that these three P312 subclades have little to no presence along the Atlantic coast, from Ireland to Iberia. Thus I think it is a mistake to characterize P312 as western and U106 as eastern. That is only partly true. I have long thought that the emphasis on the differences between the distributions of modern P312 and U106 tends to be misleading. Instead I think their similarities are more significant. So finding U106 in BB comes as no surprise to me.

razyn
03-26-2018, 09:45 PM
Sometimes, along with Mike's favorites (Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers, and We don't know what we don't know); my favorite Heat maps don't indicate Origins; and the old standard, Pots are not People -- I think it needs also to be suggested that YDNA subclades are not archaeological cultures. They just seem to align well, in some periods, in the excavated graves of cultures that had graves.

There were also cremation, exposure to the buzzards, water burials (with or without a boat, that was or wasn't set ablaze), and other ways of parting with honored colleagues who had begun to stink. Mummification and interment (in soils that weren't too wet, nor too acidic) may be giving us a considerable sample "bias" in favor of the cultures (some aligning, for a while, with YDNA) that engaged in the more preservationist sorts of funerary practices.

So cowboys are represented more completely than specialists in the contemporary riparian trade networks (for example). I'm fairly sure that early L11+ migrant "cultures" included many of the latter, as well as rms2's galloping archer types. Clan-based occupational specialties, which might well have been patrilineal, could be skewed in the aDNA record, for similar reasons.

rms2
03-26-2018, 09:56 PM
. . .

I believe what is important is that these three P312 subclades have little to no presence along the Atlantic coast, from Ireland to Iberia. Thus I think it is a mistake to characterize P312 as western and U106 as eastern . . .

P312 and U106 are both eastern, in the sense that that is where they came from, and they brought steppe dna with them.

But the modern distribution of P312 is more western than that of U106. DF19, DF99 and L238 may be relatively northeastern, but they also appear to be the smallest of P312 subclades. The bulk of P312 is west of them.

rms2
03-26-2018, 10:03 PM
Sometimes, along with Mike's favorites (Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers, and We don't know what we don't know); my favorite Heat maps don't indicate Origins; and the old standard, Pots are not People -- I think it needs also to be suggested that YDNA subclades are not archaeological cultures. They just seem to align well, in some periods, in the excavated graves of cultures that had graves.

There were also cremation, exposure to the buzzards, water burials (with or without a boat, that was or wasn't set ablaze), and other ways of parting with honored colleagues who had begun to stink. Mummification and interment (in soils that weren't too wet, nor too acidic) may be giving us a considerable sample "bias" in favor of the cultures (some aligning, for a while, with YDNA) that engaged in the more preservationist sorts of funerary practices.

So cowboys are represented more completely than specialists in the contemporary riparian trade networks (for example). I'm fairly sure that early L11+ migrant "cultures" included many of the latter, as well as rms2's galloping archer types. Clan-based occupational specialties, which might well have been patrilineal, could be skewed in the aDNA record, for similar reasons.

All those things may be true, but things that are only possibly true but impossible to verify aren't much good. I think we can only go by what we can actually find.

When nearly every time they dig up a Kurgan Bell Beaker man he turns out to be R1b-M269 (and mostly R1b-P312), now that's something concrete.

razyn
03-26-2018, 11:30 PM
I think we can only go by what we can actually find.

When nearly every time they dig up a Kurgan Bell Beaker man he turns out to be R1b-M269 (and mostly R1b-P312), now that's something concrete.

But only about the guys who had the cult that made them attractive to later seekers after high-end grave goods.

rms2
03-26-2018, 11:41 PM
But only about the guys who had the cult that made them attractive to later seekers after high-end grave goods.

We can only guess about the rest. Did they even exist? Guess so: probably there were a lot of people who lived and died whom we'll never know about because they decayed into the dust and left nothing behind.

I'm guessing a lot of those we don't know about may not have been successful enough to have left a whole lot of descendants behind. Maybe one of the reasons we can't find their burials is in part because they left no kids or grandkids behind to memorialize them. Others practiced cremation, but I think even that left some charred bones that might be capable of yielding some test results.

I don't think it does much good to lament what we cannot ever know or to think it might make some big difference and possibly contradict what we're actually learning.

TigerMW
03-26-2018, 11:55 PM
For multifarious cultures, they sure were pretty monolithic when it comes to y-dna.
Not necessarily, but I don’t consider even R1b-L151 or R1b-P312 to be monolithic, U106, U152, L21, DF27, DF19, DF99 and L238 each have clear regional preferences.
I am not saying they don’t spring from the same base but it is obvious Bell Beaker factions quickly appeared and probably there were similar factions among the Yamnaya. Of course the factionalization occurred. It was a vast territory, the people were mobile, it was an ancient time (communication-wise) and the chieftains were no doubt zealous about their domains.

rms2
03-26-2018, 11:56 PM
I seem to recall a woman who was here at Anthrogenica a couple of years ago, one of whose chief arguments was that, if we could only know what we cannot possibly know, we would see that she was right, that R1b was native to western Europe. She used to argue that it was likely there were whole tribes of Paleolithic and Mesolithic western European people whose males were R1b but who perished and then completely disappeared beyond recall and the reach of y-dna testing due chiefly to their practice of cremation.

I guess their Neolithic successors must have maintained that tradition, as well.

rms2
03-26-2018, 11:59 PM
Not necessarily, but I don’t consider even R1b-L151 or R1b-P312 to be monolithic, U106, U152, L21 and DF27 each have clear regional preferences.
I am not saying they don’t spring from the same base but it is obvious Bell Beaker factions quickly appeared and probably there were similar factions among the Yamnaya,

Mike, when you get a culture like BB that is almost exclusively R1b-M269, and that mostly P312, that is pretty monolithic. The difference in subclades is like parsing out family groups.

When Corded Ware turns out to be overwhelmingly R1a, as it has thus far, that's pretty monolithic.

When almost the only real y-dna differences in BB are mainly differences in P312 subclades, that's not exactly a lot of diversity.

TigerMW
03-27-2018, 12:19 AM
Mike, when you get a culture like BB that is almost exclusively R1b-M269, and that mostly P312, that is pretty monolithic..,.

When almost the only real y-dna differences in BB are mainly differences in P312 ......
We are just arguing semantics and definitions now which is not helpful.
I just think we need to guard against overgeneralization in thinking about these things like P312 or Bell Beaker or Yamnaya.

One subgroup of Yamnaya may have had significant advantages over the others.

rms2
03-27-2018, 12:25 AM
We are just arguing semantics and definitions now which is not helpful.
I just think we need to guard against overgeneralization in thinking about these things like P312 or Bell Beaker or Yamnaya.

I don't think that is the case at all. If there were many different y-dna haplogroups that were well represented in Kurgan Bell Beaker, not all of them R1b-L23 and most of them R1b-P312, then one could say it was diverse and not monolithic.

Even Olalde et al remarked on the startling prevalence of R1b-P312 (which they called S116) in non-Iberian Bell Beaker.

One of the surprising things about these steppe-derived groups is the dominance of a particular y-dna haplogroup, apparently due to their patriarchal and patrilocal traditions. I think it is helpful to notice things like that.

ArmandoR1b
03-27-2018, 12:48 AM
Mike, when you get a culture like BB that is almost exclusively R1b-M269, and that mostly P312, that is pretty monolithic. The difference in subclades is like parsing out family groups.

When Corded Ware turns out to be overwhelmingly R1a, as it has thus far, that's pretty monolithic.

When almost the only real y-dna differences in BB are mainly differences in P312 subclades, that's not exactly a lot of diversity.

Interestingly they were mostly distant cousins through the direct paternal line.

rms2
03-27-2018, 12:53 AM
Please delete. Useless fluff from me.

Romilius
03-27-2018, 04:31 PM
I remember (I hope well) that a year (or two) ago there was an abstract of a paper about Carpathian basin from Neolithic to Chalcolitic... I wonder if it has been published... because it would help a lot to understand the place of origin of L11.

Anyway, I also remember, but not in which blog entry on Eurogenes, that Davidski said in comments that L11 was in Moldova kurgans... I also wonder if that rumour has been prooved or not...

dsm
03-30-2018, 02:03 AM
Sorry - wrong thread - Shifted to correct thread. (Oldest Steppe Bell Beakers).
Doug Marker

razyn
03-30-2018, 04:00 PM
The one thing Vucedol prefigures in Bell beaker is the high status of the metallurgist-warrior figure- sometime virtually unknown in CW so I think there could have been a cultural influence - not surprising when you consider late Vucedol influence can be seen penetrating through the Moravian gates and as far as Prague. By the time of that L11 guy, beaker and Vucedol had been sharing the Danube between Bucharest and Budapest for a couple of centuries. It’s also possible that the two cultures - one being very metallurgy centred and the other highly mobile horse riders had a symbiotic friendly relationship

I recognize that in preliterate societies, it's hard to look for mentifacts -- just as it's hard to to look for artifacts, let alone the aDNA, of people whose occupational specialties (or other cultural peculiarities) did not lend themselves to pit burials of their heroes, under mounds. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist, or even that they can't be found. It's just hard, and one must look in more out-of-the-way places.

One such out-of-the-way place is oral tradition. With respect to incoming metallurgists of the Bronze Age, that's already been suggested, and even noted here on Anthrogenica: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7069-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy&p=154976&viewfull=1#post154976

There has also been a very slight discussion here of the maritory, as distinguished from territory. The L21 guys interred on Rathlin Island were maritime travelers; and it has previously been suggested (not by me) that that haplogroup may have been somewhat specialized in that line of work. Likewise, I have previously thought that early DF27 engaged in river transport -- although when I mentioned it, we were still talking about Z196 (DF27 not having been identified, at the time). That was, btw, when I chose my keelboat avatar.

The current aDNA census of Bell Beaker folk seems to favor U152>L2; and if that's real, it may just mean that those L2 guys were practicing some patrilineal occupations that tended to be more landlocked (and thus better suited to kurgan burials) -- such as dairy pastoralism, viticulture, cavalry warfare, and smithing (but not prospecting).

I don't believe it matters a lot whether we find aDNA to prove that these alternative lifestyles existed, in the Bell Beaker population outside the kurgan burial scene. Clearly somebody was filling those slots; and clearly some clades are underrepresented in the aDNA record retrieved from drawers in museums, filled after the excavation of mounds. Those facts seem to me to be related. I've suggested a few potential reasons for it.

dsm
03-30-2018, 10:11 PM
Re L11 and its origins. Some thoughts & ideas.

There seems to be two main aspects as to this - did L11 emerge before the Yamnaya migrations or did it emerge around the region associated with Western Cordedware / Únětice cultures. Like most of us, am wondering why no trace of L11 seems to be showing up in convincing patterns in the Hungarian Plains or the northern route that would have gone through the Ukraine to Poland & Bohemia. So far the evidence says L11 came after, or out of, the Yamnaya migrations.

The dilemma re L11 is that if it did emerge well before 3000 BCE, then why can't we find it. And then, if it did, it opens a can of worms as to possibilities. i.e. if L11 was well established on the Pontic Caspian Steppes, did P312 emerge as well. Perhaps P312 could have emerged with the southern Yamnaya who are known to have moved through the Danube Valley & into the Hungarian Plains. If true that P312 emerged in this southern route, it would provide a neat explanation as to why proto-Celtic PIE (Proto Indo European) differs so much from R-U106 proto-Scandinavian/Germanic PIE. L11 from the Steppes could allow both R-P312 and R-U106 (and even R-S1194) to have mutated between the Steppes and Bohemia, no matter what path they took to get there.

Interestingly Prof David Anthony in his latest paper (link below), is arguing for L11 & P312 to have arrived via the Hungarian Plains. This scenario would allow R-U106 to have arrived/emerged north of the Carpathians and again explain why proto-Germanic PIE is so different to proto-Celtic PIE. It would also offer explanations as to the markedly different areas of influence of the subsequent Germanic and Celtic tribes. A dual nth sth migration split offers such nice answers. It is a pity the evidence is not there yet.

Most people studying PIE hit a challenge as to the differences between these two main European variants. Some argue proto-Germanic is the older of the two whereas others try to argue the reverse. Proto-Germanic PIE appears to have close links to Balto-Slavic. And others point out that Germanic PIE has many words from a more archaic language and not shared in Celtic PIE variants. There isn't a clear and firm consensus that I know of as to which of the 2 PIE languages is older or when and where they split.

So a dual migration of Yamnaya around the Carpathians (north for R-U106 and south for P-312), offers some answers if only the evidence will show up. David Anthony hopes it will. I remain skeptical despite the dual nth/sth migration solution tidying up so many loose ends.

Doug

Link to Prof David Anthony's latest writing on PIE and L11 via Hungarian Plains - the link is to a document that contains a set of essays, the one to read is #2 starting page 39. The link will deliver the full PDF, it may take a short time to show.

https://www.academia.edu/35405459/Archaeology_and_Language_Why_Archaeologists_Care_A bout_the_Indo-European_Problem--in_European_Archaeology_as_Anthropology_Essays_in_ Memory_of_Bernard_Wailes_ed_by_P.J._Crabtree_and_P ._Bogucki

rms2
03-31-2018, 01:11 PM
I recognize that in preliterate societies, it's hard to look for mentifacts -- just as it's hard to to look for artifacts, let alone the aDNA, of people whose occupational specialties (or other cultural peculiarities) did not lend themselves to pit burials of their heroes, under mounds. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist, or even that they can't be found. It's just hard, and one must look in more out-of-the-way places.

One such out-of-the-way place is oral tradition. With respect to incoming metallurgists of the Bronze Age, that's already been suggested, and even noted here on Anthrogenica: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7069-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy&p=154976&viewfull=1#post154976

There has also been a very slight discussion here of the maritory, as distinguished from territory. The L21 guys interred on Rathlin Island were maritime travelers; and it has previously been suggested (not by me) that that haplogroup may have been somewhat specialized in that line of work. Likewise, I have previously thought that early DF27 engaged in river transport -- although when I mentioned it, we were still talking about Z196 (DF27 not having been identified, at the time). That was, btw, when I chose my keelboat avatar.

The current aDNA census of Bell Beaker folk seems to favor U152>L2; and if that's real, it may just mean that those L2 guys were practicing some patrilineal occupations that tended to be more landlocked (and thus better suited to kurgan burials) -- such as dairy pastoralism, viticulture, cavalry warfare, and smithing (but not prospecting).

I don't believe it matters a lot whether we find aDNA to prove that these alternative lifestyles existed, in the Bell Beaker population outside the kurgan burial scene. Clearly somebody was filling those slots; and clearly some clades are underrepresented in the aDNA record retrieved from drawers in museums, filled after the excavation of mounds. Those facts seem to me to be related. I've suggested a few potential reasons for it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to disagree. I just want to ask an honest question. What evidence is there that Kurgan Bell Beaker people were great sailors?

We know that apparently quite a few of them went to Britain and Ireland, but beyond that, a fairly short sail or row across the Channel, how do we know they were any good at maritime or even riverine travel or went in for it much?

razyn
03-31-2018, 01:32 PM
If you insist on calling them Kurgan Bell Beakers, probably no evidence. I have yet to hear of a kurgan in or under water. But "Somebody" was using the rivers as trade routes, and the seas as superhighways, during the epoch in question. Also, every steppe migrant had to cross some wide rivers that were not bridged for at least a couple more millennia.

This thread is about R1b-L11, not one burial rite. River routes are a major part of the story, including the one Gimbutas told.

rms2
03-31-2018, 02:13 PM
If you insist on calling them Kurgan Bell Beakers, probably no evidence. I have yet to hear of a kurgan in or under water. But "Somebody" was using the rivers as trade routes, and the seas as superhighways, during the epoch in question. Also, every steppe migrant had to cross some wide rivers that were not bridged for at least a couple more millennia.

This thread is about R1b-L11, not one burial rite. River routes are a major part of the story, including the one Gimbutas told.

I can see you interpreted my question as an attack on your idea, despite the care I took in prefacing it with "Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to disagree."

Okay, so the only way I can interpret that is that there is no evidence. You are merely speculating, which is also fine.

Kurgan Bell Beaker is simply a term useful for differentiating steppe-derived, mostly R1b-M269 Bell Beaker from the early Iberian, Neolithic-collective-tomb, gracile-Mediterranean-skeleton type of Bell Beaker. If you don't like it, fine. I like it and will continue to use it, even if I am the only one. The Kurgan in it refers not just to round burial mounds but to the whole cultural, anthropological, and genetic ensemble. I like it better than the equivalent term Steppe Bell Beaker because, although derived from steppe people and their cultures, Kurgan Bell Beaker is not actually found on the steppe but in east central, central and western Europe. Kurgan is also a tip of the hat to Marija Gimbutas, who, although not infallible, was mostly right at a time when most of her colleagues were wrong.

rms2
03-31-2018, 03:51 PM
Here are some questions for no one in particular. Suppose for a moment there were Kurgan Bell Beaker people who were chiefly sailors. If they really were Kurgan Bell Beaker people, would their burial rite have differed substantially from that of other Kurgan Bell Beaker people? Is there any reason to think they would have just thrown their dead overboard, that is, if they had the opportunity to get on dry land to bury them in the usual KBB style?

I understand burial at sea when sailors are from far land and it is a matter of expeditiously ridding themselves of the potential health hazard that corpses soon become. But would KBB people have gone far out to sea? Isn't it more likely that, if they did much on water, it was never very far from the coast?

If there was a maritime people, related to Kurgan Bell Beaker people, but whose burial rites differed so substantially from Kurgan Bell Beaker people that we are never likely to find evidence of their existence, can they be said to have been Bell Beaker people at all? And if we can't find them, how do we even know they existed? How will we ever know?

rms2
03-31-2018, 04:33 PM
Re L11 and its origins . . .

Since you are R1b-S1194 (DF100), I guess you caught the news from Olalde et al of an R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev (the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev).

Proto-Nagyrev from the Csepel Island burial site at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary):

I7040 (2500-2200 BC) 11-12 year-old female, mtDNA K1a4b

I7041 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7043, y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA H1b1

I7042 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna I2a1, mtDNA H

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

I'm not saying he was derived for S1194, but it is interesting that he was L11 but neither P312 nor U106.

razyn
03-31-2018, 06:31 PM
If there was a maritime people, related to Kurgan Bell Beaker people, but whose burial rites differed so substantially from Kurgan Bell Beaker people that we are never likely to find evidence of their existence, can they be said to have been Bell Beaker people at all? And if we can't find them, how do we even know they existed? How will we ever know?
There was actually one kurgan burial with a small, upside down boat as the lid, instead of stone slabs or plain boards. But it was in Ukraine, and not associated with Bell Beakers as such. I think it was so exceptional, compared with the thousands that don't have boats or maritime grave goods, it sort of proves the rule: those things are mostly associated with the pastoralists and horsey types. And they probably weren't the whole steppe-derived, beaker-guzzling population.

rms2
03-31-2018, 08:10 PM
I know the one you're talking about, at Semenovka on the Black Sea coast, but it shows that even steppe sailors and fishermen buried their dead in kurgans, even if they sometimes added vocational touches to the general rite. Semenovka is a Budzhak site, btw.

The man was buried Yamnaya style, on his back with his knees bent, but in a stone-lined cist.

22412 22413

I'm guessing the final e in Semenovka is an ë, so the name should be pronounced Semyonovka.

dsm
03-31-2018, 09:22 PM
Since you are R1b-S1194 (DF100), I guess you caught the news from Olalde et al of an R1b-L11xP312,U106 in Proto-Nagyrev (the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev).

Proto-Nagyrev from the Csepel Island burial site at Szigetszentmiklós-Üdülősor (Hungary):

I7040 (2500-2200 BC) 11-12 year-old female, mtDNA K1a4b

I7041 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7043, y-dna R1b-M269, mtDNA H1b1

I7042 (2500-2200 BC) y-dna I2a1, mtDNA H

I7043 (2500-2200 BC) brother of I7041, y-dna R1b-L11xU106,P312, mtDNA H1b1

I'm not saying he was derived for S1194, but it is interesting that he was L11 but neither P312 nor U106.

rms2 - thanks - I did see that but haven't seen anyone attempt to delve deeper on it. Iain McDonald did alert me to an Olalde B/B E09568_d being called as S1194 by 'Genetiker' but when we asked Genetiker about this could not get any replies or confirmation. I raised that again in Anthrogenica a couple of days back. Am hoping Richard might take a look at it.

Cheers

Doug

rms2
03-31-2018, 10:32 PM
I think I'm the only one who got excited about that Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106, since to me it's almost as good as finding a Vucedol L11. Not old enough for the rest of the guys, I guess (2500-2200 BC).

alan
03-31-2018, 10:35 PM
Here are some questions for no one in particular. Suppose for a moment there were Kurgan Bell Beaker people who were chiefly sailors. If they really were Kurgan Bell Beaker people, would their burial rite have differed substantially from that of other Kurgan Bell Beaker people? Is there any reason to think they would have just thrown their dead overboard, that is, if they had the opportunity to get on dry land to bury them in the usual KBB style?

I understand burial at sea when sailors are from far land and it is a matter of expeditiously ridding themselves of the potential health hazard that corpses soon become. But would KBB people have gone far out to sea? Isn't it more likely that, if they did much on water, it was never very far from the coast?

If there was a maritime people, related to Kurgan Bell Beaker people, but whose burial rites differed so substantially from Kurgan Bell Beaker people that we are never likely to find evidence of their existence, can they be said to have been Bell Beaker people at all? And if we can't find them, how do we even know they existed? How will we ever know?

The Csepel beaker folk buried in weird boat shaped houses which does make me wonder if maritime or rather riverine symbolism was a factor. They were on a trading post island in the Danube.

dsm
03-31-2018, 11:09 PM
duplicated see follow-on

dsm
03-31-2018, 11:11 PM
I think I'm the only one who got excited about that Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106, since to me it's almost as good as finding a Vucedol L11. Not old enough for the rest of the guys, I guess (2500-2200 BC).

It is challenging when we see such tantalizing finds. I have seen 3-4 other aDNA finds that were listed as P310 or P311 essentially same as L11 (which could also mean S1194 or A8051) but without the deeper analysis, we can only file the names away for future reference. It is too risky to assume a lower clade find.

Below are 4 such finds identified by Iain McDonald. But all we can do is wait for someone who can analyse them to a deeper level of certainty.
The P310/P311 in question are ringed in red.

Cheers Doug

22418

rms2
03-31-2018, 11:27 PM
My interest in it is chiefly because it is an L11 outside of Kurgan Bell Beaker yet contemporary with Kurgan Bell Beaker. It's also from a culture representing the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev. To me that says a lot, since Gimbutas believed Kurgan Bell Beaker was a cross between late Vucedol and Yamnaya. Whether she was right or not isn't the important part. What is important is the shared source of L11 in both late Vucedol and Kurgan Bell Beaker. I think that shared source is Yamnaya, which is why I got excited about that Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106.

ArmandoR1b
04-01-2018, 02:04 AM
rms2 - thanks - I did see that but haven't seen anyone attempt to delve deeper on it. Iain McDonald did alert me to an Olalde B/B E09568_d being called as S1194 by 'Genetiker' but when we asked Genetiker about this could not get any replies or confirmation. I raised that again in Anthrogenica a couple of days back. Am hoping Richard might take a look at it.

Cheers

Doug

I hope that Rocca does look at E09568 which is what it is called in the site that hosts the BAM files. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMEA104407778

I ran E09568 through BAM Analysis Kit (http://www.y-str.org/2014/04/bam-analysis-kit.html) and it shows E09568 to be positive for L52 and P311 but negative for L151.

Astrid Krahn had told me in July that they just recently learned that L151 and P310/P311 are not equivalents so that result is not so surprising.

I would call the SNPs that Genetiker reported as belonging to S1194 as false positives or recurring mutations but experts are needed to confirm that.



Position
Genotype
SNP and synonyms
Result
Ancestral
Derived
2017 Longhand Haplogroup


15510064
G
YSC0001279/CTS4244/PF6257/V2997
+
T
G
R1b1a


22889018
A
L754/PF6269/YSC0000022
+
G
A
R1b1a


16183412
A
PF6463
+
C
A
R1b1a1a


18656508
C
PF6398/P297
+
G
C
R1b1a1a


19020340
C
L502/PF6487
+
G
C
R1b1a1a


21312064
A
PF6498
+
C
A
R1b1a1a


23403749
A
CTS11985/PF6523
+
G
A
R1b1a1a


23444054
T
M478
-
T
C
R1b1a1a1


14522828
A
PF6455/F1794
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


18167403
T
PF6480/CTS8728/L1063/S13
+
C
T
R1b1a1a2


18180446
A
PF6481/L500
+
C
A
R1b1a1a2


18381735
G
YSC0000203/PF6482
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


20811307
A
PF6494
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


20828795
A
PF6495
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


22739367
C
M269/PF6517
+
T
C
R1b1a1a2


23124367
T
PF6520/CTS11468
+
G
T
R1b1a1a2


8070532
A
PF6430
+
T
A
R1b1a1a2


8149348
G
L265/PF6431
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


8194310
A
PF6432
+
C
A
R1b1a1a2


8411202
G
PF6434
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


14641193
T
PF6541/L52
+
C
T
R1b1a1a2a1a


16492547
C
PF6542/L151
-
C
T
R1b1a1a2a1a


18248698
G
PF6545/P311/S128
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2a1a

TigerMW
04-01-2018, 02:55 AM
If you insist on calling them Kurgan Bell Beakers, probably no evidence. I have yet to hear of a kurgan in or under water. But "Somebody" was using the rivers as trade routes, and the seas as superhighways, during the epoch in question. Also, every steppe migrant had to cross some wide rivers that were not bridged for at least a couple more millennia.

This thread is about R1b-L11, not one burial rite. River routes are a major part of the story, including the one Gimbutas told.
We know about the ancient DNA from the East Bell Beakers and the Northwest Bell Beakers but I have not seen much about the other non-Iberian Bell Beakers.

Have we determined what autosomal and Y DNA the Italic Bell Beakers were? or the Beakers of the American Penisula? or Sardinia? If those on Sardinia were not of the Iberian type then I don’t think they are accounted for. Those on Sardinia were seafarers for sure. Whoever it was that crossed the Bay of Biscay was very capable.

MitchellSince1893
04-01-2018, 03:23 AM
I previously posted about the Amesbury Archer and oxygen isotropic values in the old (now closed) Olade thread, postulating a possible Czech region origin (in addition to the often mentioned Alps). Today I came across the article on the subject


the earliest—and perhaps most famous—of these migrants was the Early Bronze Age individual known as the Amesbury Archer, who was interred in the richest Bronze Age burial known from Britain at Amesbury, near Stonehenge, in c. 2300 BC. Given his gravegoods and the fact that he seems to have consumed drinking-water with an oxygen isotope value of perhaps -10‰ in childhood, it has been argued that it is extremely unlikely that the man spent his childhood in Britain and he instead probably grew up in a mountainous part of central Europe, perhaps Austria, Hungary, parts of Germany or the Czech Republic (see the map included above for an illustration of areas with water oxygen isotope values of -10‰ and lower). Interestingly, the 'Companion' burial found with him had results which suggest he consumed water with an only slightly higher value than the Archer in later childhood, but that he had spent his early childhood somewhere with water values more akin to those found in southern Britain where he was buried.

If the companion was indeed the Archer's son then we have a pretty good idea of the time frame for their arrival i.e ~2300 BC and possibly from whence they came. It's been suggested that Bell Beaker in Britain was coming from the Lower Rhine, but based on his oxygen isotopic values, this area isn't where the Archer was from.

http://www.caitlingreen.org/2016/01/oxygen-isotope-scandinavia.html

rms2
04-01-2018, 12:30 PM
It's too bad she didn't discuss the isotopic values for the rest of the Kurgan Bell Beaker burials at Amesbury and elsewhere in Britain.

rms2
04-01-2018, 12:38 PM
We know about the ancient DNA from the East Bell Beakers and the Northwest Bell Beakers but I have not seen much about the other non-Iberian Bell Beakers . . .

Here is the Google spreadsheet I've been keeping on Kurgan Bell Beaker (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1K4UrW2A2vCGkM5jJVwO75K-dd5s2bLyLNRaQBahy0II/edit?usp=sharing). Only the R1b results are included.

Here are the non-R1b results for non-Iberian Bell Beaker. I hesitate to call all of those Kurgan, since only one of them, I2786, had any steppe dna.

1. E09538 Y-DNA: G2a 2471–2300 calBCE Unterer Talweg 58-62 (Augsburg, Germany) no steppe dna (BB_Germany_BAV)

2. I1767 Y-DNA: I2a 2200–1970 calBCE Windmill Fields, Ingleby Barwick (Stockton-on-Tees, County Durham, England) no steppe dna (BB_England_NOR)

3. I2364 Y-DNA: H2 2470–2060 calBCE Budapest-Békásmegyer, Királyok útja (former Vöröshadsereg útja) (Hungary) no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Bud1)

4. I2741 Y-DNA: I2a1a1 2458–2154 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) no steppe dna (BB-Hungary_Szi1)

5. I2786 Y-DNA: I2a2a 2459–2206 calBCE Szigetszentmiklós, Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő (Hungary) Normal BB steppe dna (BB_Hungary_Szi2)

6. I3528 Y-DNA: G2a2a1a2a1 2559–2301 calBCE Budakalász, Csajerszke (M0 Site 12) (Hungary) no steppe dna (BB_Hungary_HUN)

alan
04-01-2018, 01:50 PM
I think I'm the only one who got excited about that Proto-Nagyrev R1b-L11xP312,U106, since to me it's almost as good as finding a Vucedol L11. Not old enough for the rest of the guys, I guess (2500-2200 BC).

This paper clearly derives Csepel beaker from Czech which probably implies a start c 2500BC. The Balkans influences appear to be secondary. Interestingly it notes no Vudecol influence is present in Csepel beaker metalwork.

https://www.academia.edu/9257335/Effects_of_cultural_contacts_on_the_burial_rites_o f_the_Bell_Beaker-Csepel_Group

The writer sometimes used ambiguous language but seems to be saying at the end that the Balkans arrivals may have push out the Csepel group northwards and beyond the island. Ive found it hard to find a solid date for the end of beaker occupation on Csepel island. Certainly the parent Czech group was coming to an end about 2200BC and Unetice replacing it. The paper uses horrobly vague date windows. I think Gimbutas is wrong about beaker being a Yamnaya-Vucedol mix. However she was right that Steppe elements reached late Vudecol by the looks of it.

MitchellSince1893
04-01-2018, 02:43 PM
This paper clearly derives Csepel beaker from Czech which probably implies a start c 2500BC. The Balkans influences appear to be secondary. Interestingly it notes no Vudecol influence is present in Csepel beaker metalwork.

https://www.academia.edu/9257335/Effects_of_cultural_contacts_on_the_burial_rites_o f_the_Bell_Beaker-Csepel_Group

The writer sometimes used ambiguous language but seems to be saying at the end that the Balkans arrivals may have push out the Csepel group northwards and beyond the island. Ive found it hard to find a solid date for the end of beaker occupation on Csepel island. Certainly the parent Czech group was coming to an end about 2200BC and Unetice replacing it. The paper uses horrobly vague date windows. I think Gimbutas is wrong about beaker being a Yamnaya-Vucedol mix. However she was right that Steppe elements reached late Vudecol by the looks of it.

Yes the paper is sometimes not clear on its intent but it does say
In our opinion, the inhumation burials (sometimes surrounded circular ditches) of the Bell Beaker Csepel Group, can be explained by traditions stemming from the Moravian territories (or the West), which is supported by strontium isotope analysis

And this chart 22422

rms2
04-01-2018, 03:22 PM
This paper clearly derives Csepel beaker from Czech which probably implies a start c 2500BC. The Balkans influences appear to be secondary. Interestingly it notes no Vudecol influence is present in Csepel beaker metalwork.

https://www.academia.edu/9257335/Effects_of_cultural_contacts_on_the_burial_rites_o f_the_Bell_Beaker-Csepel_Group

The writer sometimes used ambiguous language but seems to be saying at the end that the Balkans arrivals may have push out the Csepel group northwards and beyond the island. Ive found it hard to find a solid date for the end of beaker occupation on Csepel island. Certainly the parent Czech group was coming to an end about 2200BC and Unetice replacing it. The paper uses horrobly vague date windows. I think Gimbutas is wrong about beaker being a Yamnaya-Vucedol mix. However she was right that Steppe elements reached late Vudecol by the looks of it.

This is an interesting quote from page 98 of Svitlana Ivanova's article, "Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture":



The Yamnaya population moves far westwards, Yamnaya graves bearing local features (Vucedol) are known in Gönyü in the West of Hungary, Neusiedl-am-See in eastern Austria; Essling near Vienna and Bleckendorf, Saxony-Anhalt [Harrison, Heyd 2007; Heyd 2011].


This is from page 1 of Aleksandr Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex" (Radiocarbon, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1003-1009).


The late phase of the Vucedol culture, particularly its Mako type, is closely related to the Bell Beaker culture, from which it is sometimes difficult to distinguish.

Gimbutas said pretty much the same thing on page 391 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures.

Even the Endrodi paper you cited above mentions the pretty obvious close connections between Kurgan Bell Beaker and the cultures derived from late Vucedol.

Given the early date of that paper (2011), it strikes me as predisposed to find Spanish connections and differences between Bell Beaker and other cultures of the Carpathian basin. Take this quote, for example, from page 273:



Based on comparative archaeometallurgical examinations it can be stated that there is no proof of a direct connection between the groups of the Bell Beaker culture in Spain and those in the surroundings of Budapest given the diverging metallurgical techniques employed. From a typological perspective, however, it can be assumed that these metal objects had a common origin (Reményi et al. 2006).

Despite the lack of proof of a direct connection between Iberian and Kurgan Bell Beaker metallurgical techniques, the author is at pains to assume, based on typology, that Kurgan Bell Beaker metal objects and Iberian Bell Beaker objects have a common origin (and, yes, I realize she cites a source).

I am not knocking Endrodi. She knows a lot more than I do. But I have noticed a tendency in papers on Bell Beaker that predate Olalde et al to assume an Iberian source for all of Bell Beaker and to try to squeeze everything into that template. Gimbutas and Jeunesse are notable exceptions, and Olalde et al vindicates both of them.

alan
04-01-2018, 05:39 PM
This is an interesting quote from page 98 of Svitlana Ivanova's article, "Connections Between the Budzhak Culture and Central European Groups of the Corded Ware Culture":



This is from page 1 of Aleksandr Durman's "Radiocarbon Dating of the Vucedol Complex" (Radiocarbon, Vol. 31, No. 3, 1989, pp. 1003-1009).



Gimbutas said pretty much the same thing on page 391 of The Civilization of the Goddess:



Even the Endrodi paper you cited above mentions the pretty obvious close connections between Kurgan Bell Beaker and the cultures derived from late Vucedol.

Given the early date of that paper (2011), it strikes me as predisposed to find Spanish connections and differences between Bell Beaker and other cultures of the Carpathian basin. Take this quote, for example, from page 273:



Despite the lack of proof of a direct connection between Iberian and Kurgan Bell Beaker metallurgical techniques, the author is at pains to assume, based on typology, that Kurgan Bell Beaker metal objects and Iberian Bell Beaker objects have a common origin (and, yes, I realize she cites a source).

I am not knocking Endrodi. She knows a lot more than I do. But I have noticed a tendency in papers on Bell Beaker that predate Olalde et al to assume an Iberian source for all of Bell Beaker and to try to squeeze everything into that template. Gimbutas and Jeunesse are notable exceptions, and Olalde et al vindicates both of them.

In think all she was really saying if you strip out the Spanish stuff is that a large chunk of the Csepel beaker metal styles come from the bell beaker culture and some from other sources but not Vudedol. The real issue I see in coming to really firm conclusions is that the radiocarbon dating is not up to the standards of other areas. I tend to think when the late (but not early) phases of other cultures are said to resemble bell beaker that the influence is coming from beaker not to to it. You could argue for a common third component shared by them all but Csepel is so peculiar it really doesn't feed the traits it absorbed much back into the rest of the beaker world. It's a derivative of Czech beaker and we already know that P312 in beaker in Germany almost certainly predates the existence of the Csepel outpost. So any contact with Balkans or indeed any other groups by the Csepel group is too late to explain P312 in beakers. So unless L11 or P312 is found on the Danube pre-dating Csepel (for which there are no reliable date before 2500BC) then it seems more likely that L11 on the Danube and southwards came from the beaker people and hence probably via the have Czech Republic. I actually suspect that the procuring of steppes type horses at Csepel c 2500BC and sending them back into the beaker core was their main function and could have been the key to the sudden ability for beaker to to expand over the next 100 years. Also cannot ignore that Csepel is an island in a very large river and those beaker people must have had the boating skills to navigate it too. Their unique boat shaped houses might reflect how important that was symbolically.

I think Csepel is a side show to the Czech/south-east German area where the final ethnogenesis of the beaker people likely took place. I would look to that sort of area as a potential location where a number of influences coalesced just before 2500BC. That is where Gimbutas could be party right. The late Vudecol zone of influence extended through the Moravian gate and north-west as far as Prague around 2500BC or shortly before. Personally though I think Czech CW lacked some of the incipient beaker traits that we see in groups in Malopolska and Moldova c 2600 BC and the proto beaker folk likely moved west from those areas at some point before 2550BC

rms2
04-01-2018, 07:37 PM
I'm guessing that the reason we are seeing R1b-L11 in both Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev is not because the latter got it from the former but because both of them got it from Yamnaya.

I am also open to a Budzhak source crossing from the steppe into east central Europe via Malopolska and also via the Tisza River valley, but Budzhak is simply a Yamnaya subgroup. It could be the source of L11 in Moravian Kurgan Bell Beaker and also in late Vucedol in the Carpathian basin.

rms2
04-01-2018, 07:45 PM
I'm guessing that the reason we are seeing R1b-L11 in both Kurgan Bell Beaker and Proto-Nagyrev is not because the latter got it from the former but because both of them got it from Yamnaya.

I am also open to a Budzhak source crossing from the steppe into east central Europe via Malopolska and also via the Tisza River valley, but Budzhak is simply a Yamnaya subgroup. It could be the source of L11 in Moravian Kurgan Bell Beaker and also in late Vucedol in the Carpathian basin.

Here's another curiosity to point out. We don't actually have any L11 in Csepel Island Kurgan Bell Beaker thus far. The y-dna results for KBB there are R1b-Z2105, R1b-M269, and two I2a's. The only L11 thus far on Csepel Island comes from Proto-Nagyrev.

And remember that Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev. It's like finding an L11 in Vucedol.

alan
04-02-2018, 12:26 AM
Here's another curiosity to point out. We don't actually have any L11 in Csepel Island Kurgan Bell Beaker thus far. The y-dna results for KBB there are R1b-Z2105, R1b-M269, and two I2a's. The only L11 thus far on Csepel Island comes from Proto-Nagyrev.

And remember that Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev. It's like finding an L11 in Vucedol.
Certainly L11 is old enough to have spread into more than one culture and by more than 1 route . It had been around for centuries before steppe beaker existed

ArmandoR1b
04-02-2018, 06:07 AM
rms2 - thanks - I did see that but haven't seen anyone attempt to delve deeper on it. Iain McDonald did alert me to an Olalde B/B E09568_d being called as S1194 by 'Genetiker' but when we asked Genetiker about this could not get any replies or confirmation. I raised that again in Anthrogenica a couple of days back. Am hoping Richard might take a look at it.

Cheers

Doug

I also ran I ran E09568 through Yleaf (https://www.erasmusmc.nl/genetic_identification/resources/Yleaf/) and it also shows E09568 to be positive for L52 and P311 but negative for L151. It also shows E09568 to be negative for PF6543/S1159/YSC0000191 If those aren't false negatives, which I don't think are, then that makes L52 and P311 older than L151 and possibly does the same for L11 but there is no read for L11 according to these programs. It is now even more unlikely that E09568_d is positive for a subclade of S1194.

dsm
04-02-2018, 06:18 AM
I hope that Rocca does look at E09568 which is what it is called in the site that hosts the BAM files. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMEA104407778

I ran E09568 through BAM Analysis Kit (http://www.y-str.org/2014/04/bam-analysis-kit.html) and it shows E09568 to be positive for L52 and P311 but negative for L151.

Astrid Krahn had told me in July that they just recently learned that L151 and P310/P311 are not equivalents so that result is not so surprising.

I would call the SNPs that Genetiker reported as belonging to S1194 as false positives or recurring mutations but experts are needed to confirm that.



Position
Genotype
SNP and synonyms
Result
Ancestral
Derived
2017 Longhand Haplogroup


15510064
G
YSC0001279/CTS4244/PF6257/V2997
+
T
G
R1b1a


22889018
A
L754/PF6269/YSC0000022
+
G
A
R1b1a


16183412
A
PF6463
+
C
A
R1b1a1a


18656508
C
PF6398/P297
+
G
C
R1b1a1a


19020340
C
L502/PF6487
+
G
C
R1b1a1a


21312064
A
PF6498
+
C
A
R1b1a1a


23403749
A
CTS11985/PF6523
+
G
A
R1b1a1a


23444054
T
M478
-
T
C
R1b1a1a1


14522828
A
PF6455/F1794
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


18167403
T
PF6480/CTS8728/L1063/S13
+
C
T
R1b1a1a2


18180446
A
PF6481/L500
+
C
A
R1b1a1a2


18381735
G
YSC0000203/PF6482
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


20811307
A
PF6494
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


20828795
A
PF6495
+
G
A
R1b1a1a2


22739367
C
M269/PF6517
+
T
C
R1b1a1a2


23124367
T
PF6520/CTS11468
+
G
T
R1b1a1a2


8070532
A
PF6430
+
T
A
R1b1a1a2


8149348
G
L265/PF6431
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


8194310
A
PF6432
+
C
A
R1b1a1a2


8411202
G
PF6434
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2


14641193
T
PF6541/L52
+
C
T
R1b1a1a2a1a


16492547
C
PF6542/L151
-
C
T
R1b1a1a2a1a


18248698
G
PF6545/P311/S128
+
A
G
R1b1a1a2a1a






Thanks very much for this info - am now downloading the file & tools and will try using it. I really appreciate your effort on this. Doug M

R.Rocca
04-02-2018, 09:31 PM
I just checked Latvian Hunter Gatherer sample I4628, which Narasimhan et al. labeled as R1b1a1a2a1 (aka L51), and their assignment is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, it is ancestral (negative) at the following M269 level SNPs:

CTS10349-
CTS11468-
CTS12478-
CTS12972-
CTS3575-
CTS4608-
CTS6532-
CTS7400-
CTS8627-
CTS894-
L1350-
L1351-
L1353-
L150.1-
L265-
L749-
L753-
L757-
L777-
M520-
PF6399-
PF6434-
PF6438-
PF6452-
PF6462-
PF6482-
PF6494-
PF6495-
PF6497-

When I checked L51 itself, it has three ancestral calls and one derived. So, it seems like their program is determining the haplogroup based on any single derived read for the lowest-most SNP, even if it has mixed ancestral/derived reads or even if upstream SNPs totally contradict the assignment.

I hope nobody is hanging their favorite pet theory on any of these assignments because they may be in for a very big letdown.

rms2
04-02-2018, 10:08 PM
I just checked Latvian Hunter Gatherer sample I4628, which Narasimhan et al. labeled as R1b1a1a2a1 (aka L51), and their assignment is completely and utterly wrong. In fact, it is ancestral (negative) at the following M269 level SNPs:

CTS10349-
CTS11468-
CTS12478-
CTS12972-
CTS3575-
CTS4608-
CTS6532-
CTS7400-
CTS8627-
CTS894-
L1350-
L1351-
L1353-
L150.1-
L265-
L749-
L753-
L757-
L777-
M520-
PF6399-
PF6434-
PF6438-
PF6452-
PF6462-
PF6482-
PF6494-
PF6495-
PF6497-

When I checked L51 itself, it has three ancestral calls and one derived. So, it seems like their program is determining the haplogroup based on any single derived read for the lowest-most SNP, even if it has mixed ancestral/derived reads or even if upstream SNPs totally contradict the assignment.

I hope nobody is hanging their favorite pet theory on any of these assignments because they may be in for a very big letdown.

I can think of a few people who are doing just that and are pretty vocal about it. Over on the thread dealing with that paper in the ancient dna subforum, I and a number of other people warned them not to get carried away, but they're too anxious to grasp at any straws that might bring down the connection between L51 and the steppe.

ArmandoR1b
04-03-2018, 01:15 AM
Thanks very much for this info - am now downloading the file & tools and will try using it. I really appreciate your effort on this. Doug M

I emailed Ińigo Olalde and he said that the specimen has contamination but that he does not think that is causing false results. He said that they also found E09568 to be derived for R-L52 and R-P311 but ancestral for R-L151 and R-S1159. I agree that the results are completely against contamination causing false results because then there would be a lot more contradicting reads. So I would give up on E09568_d being positive for a subclade of S1194. However, this find should be a very big deal since it breaks up the block of L11 into a group of 7 SNPs instead of 9 SNPs.

TigerMW
04-03-2018, 05:37 PM
The principle concept of an super conducting super-collider (atom smasher) is that you measure the aftermath of the collision to try to determine what happened in the collision and what atoms consist of. The same precept is used in evaluating traffic accidents.

It's hard to understand L151's earliest expansion without understanding P312's earliest expansions. We see U152 and specifically L2 in the East Bell Beakers. We see L21 slight later in the British Isles Bell Beakers. We don't really have Z290 early on the continent, though.

Perhaps more importantly, DF27 is missing in action. Even if it is hard to read there must be Z195/Z196 or one of the other early branches out there somewhere in Early Bronze Age ancient DNA. It has to be about as old as U152 and L2.

On the Bell Beaker regional side of things we don't seem to know alot about the earliest Amorican Peninsula Beakers nor the North Italian Bell Beakers and their DNA.

Do we know if this guy is U152- and DF27- or are these just no calls?
I2478 BB_Northern_Italy BB_Italy_Par R1b1a1a2a1a2 K1a2a 2200-1930 calBCE Italy

I'm not saying DF27 comes out of the north of Italy but this is another piece of the expansion of P312 that I think is critical.

"When the West Meets the East" by Heyd, 2008.

Without stirring much attention they could be hidden among the accompanying pottery of the East Group and the north Italian Bell Beaker province. In contrast, the Eastern Adriatic region lacks genuine Bell Beakers. Their sherds can be traced as far as the head of the Adriatic and the karst lands around Trieste; beyond that only two imitations or ‘beaker derivates’ are known: one beaker from Ljubljanska Barje and another from a grave assemblage in Kenëte, Albania. 16 Both demonstrate contacts to the Adriatic variant of the Vučedol culture, in case of the beaker from Slovenia indicated by its context; the Albanian one is actually a strange blend of basic beaker shape and Vučedol ornaments that also feature rudimentary zonal ideas. Still, the Bell Beakers are strongly underrepresented compared to the other categories. The more so, as some of the sherds, that have been repeatedly mentioned in this context, appear to be rather fragments of classical Cetina vessels.
A possible explanation for this disparity can again be derived from the chronological aspect of those peripheries. Apparently, the emergence of Proto-Cetina coincides with that of ESKK around the 24th century BC, i.e. the middle Bell Beaker period, when in vast parts of Central Europe, as well as in parts of northern Italy, the decorated beakers are increasingly replaced by the so-called accompanying pottery. Genuine Bell Beakers from around 2500 BC on would then be contemporary with the preceding Adriatic variant of the late Vučedol culture, as confirmed by the two ‘beaker derivates’. Further material of the Adriatic Vučedol also shows this Bell Beaker influence, as, for example, the unequivocal comb-stamp decoration on Vučedol vessels from the Vela Špilja and Tradanj Špilja caves, or from Otišić-Vlake. Nevertheless Vučedol does seem to have shown a reserved attitude towards the Bell Beaker phenomenon at first. Only at the transition Vučedol/Proto-Cetina an observable change occurs and those Bell Beaker elements become accepted, even merged with the local tradition to form a new unity. Against this background Proto-Cetina proves to be not only another Bell Beaker periphery, but a syncretistic culture in its own right. Linking it to the Bell Beaker development is also helpful for the understanding of the otherwise rather schematic inner development and chronology of Proto-Cetina/Cetina: numerous stamped decoration in the assemblages, namely with comb-stamp still, might be at the beginning, followed by the classic Cetina vessels among which incised decoration more or less prevail, to be eventually superseded by largely undecorated assemblages like that of Krajicina Spilja on Vis.
...
Therefore, the finds from the small Adriatic island of Palagruža published to date might represent the very beginnings of the Proto-Cetina development. Here, the Bell Beaker elements are predominant: several fragmentary wristguards, along with comb-stamp decorated pottery sherds showing a Bell Beaker-like decoration syntax and, finally, a flint inventory that comprises many of the characteristic arrow heads featuring all the common types of Mediterranean Bell Beakers. Palagruža does also play a crucial role in terms of geography, not only for its yielding flint deposits – otherwise rare in the Circum-Adriatic region – but also as a central hub for an ‘island hopping’ from Dalmatia and its off-shore islands of Vis-Lastovo-Sušac to Pianosa, Tremiti and further on to Apulia on the other side; or just the other way round. This indicates another route besides the connection to the head of the Adriatic, on which Bell Beaker elements could have entered into Vučedol and Proto-Cetina assemblages.
...
As the syncretistic cultures Iwno/Trzciniec and ESKK have already been termed the northeastern periphery of the Bell Beaker phenomenon by the Polish colleagues, it seems appropriate to summarise the archaeological cultures and groups adjoining to the south – Pitvaros/Maros, Proto-Cetina/Cetina and Laterza-Cellino San Marco – and among those especially syncretistic artefacts as from the Grotta Cappuccini – as a southeastern periphery of the Bell Beaker phenomenon. A glance at their distribution presents a fairly regular spacing between the respective centres, whereby it does not matter if they belong to the East Group or the Italian Bell Beaker groups. Geographically they are located on a string from north to south between the 15th-20th degree of eastern longitude. Equally remarkable is the dating of their emergence, as repeatedly discussed above, commencing 100-200 years after the core centres that have been assigned a date around 2500 BC.


Was this a frontier line for the L151 expansion? There must be an early Z195+ guy around somewhere.

Note: ESKK is the Epi-Corded Ware Carpathian Culture

alan
04-03-2018, 06:50 PM
While I consider them a totally seperate people, I still suspect the Iberian beaker groups did send out colonies that reached SE France and perhaps the south Alpine fringes of Switzerland and north-west Italy. They might even have sent some colonists along the Atlantic coast of France. This group was quickly displaced by the Central European group. So it may have been a brief phase. I suspect that while megaliths can be reused or even built to contain individual burials, there was from my past reading a collective burial Maritime beaker group in SE France that does look like it’s from Iberia.

When you have an aim to test beaker DNA, sampling collective burials is the stuff of nightmares and would tend to be avoided as you could end up having to RC date a lot of bones to find the ones associated with any disturbed beaker pot and other artefacts . Even if you find a bone that RC dates to the right period, which bones the cultural relics are linked to will often remain uncertain. Often it is only the latest burials which are sufficiently undisturbed to be clearly linked with specific artefacts.

So we are IMO probably missing a limited out of Iberia movement restricted to SW Europe which was non-M269 and non-steppe and short lived (a century or two at most).

TigerMW
04-03-2018, 08:23 PM
While I consider them a totally seperate people, I still suspect the Iberian beaker groups did send out colonies that reached SE France and perhaps the south Alpine fringes of Switzerland and north-west Italy. They might even have sent some colonists along the Atlantic coast of France. This group was quickly displaced by the Central European group. So it may have been a brief phase. I suspect that while megaliths can be reused or even built to contain individual burials, there was from my past reading a collective burial Maritime beaker group in SE France that does look like it’s from Iberia.
...
Alan, what do you think about the Bell Beakers on the Amorican Peninsula and those on Sardinia? Would they more like the Iberian Beakers from a material culture point of view? or something different? We seem shy of ancient DNA from those places.

R.Rocca
04-04-2018, 01:12 AM
While I consider them a totally seperate people, I still suspect the Iberian beaker groups did send out colonies that reached SE France and perhaps the south Alpine fringes of Switzerland and north-west Italy. They might even have sent some colonists along the Atlantic coast of France. This group was quickly displaced by the Central European group. So it may have been a brief phase. I suspect that while megaliths can be reused or even built to contain individual burials, there was from my past reading a collective burial Maritime beaker group in SE France that does look like it’s from Iberia.

When you have an aim to test beaker DNA, sampling collective burials is the stuff of nightmares and would tend to be avoided as you could end up having to RC date a lot of bones to find the ones associated with any disturbed beaker pot and other artefacts . Even if you find a bone that RC dates to the right period, which bones the cultural relics are linked to will often remain uncertain. Often it is only the latest burials which are sufficiently undisturbed to be clearly linked with specific artefacts.

So we are IMO probably missing a limited out of Iberia movement restricted to SW Europe which was non-M269 and non-steppe and short lived (a century or two at most).

Sardinian and Sicilian Bell Beaker were culturally extremely similar to Iberian Bell Beaker. The Sicilian Bell Beaker samples from Olalde have no steppe ancestry. Outside of Lake Garda in North-Central Italy (R-U152 territory), Sardinia has the largest amount of Bell Beaker finds. Given the very high I-M26 and low steppe ancestry in modern Sardinians, it is very likely that all of Sardinian Bell Beaker was non-M269. Given that Basque had words for metallurgy and wheels, I imagine that Paleosardinian and Proto-Basque were spoken in the entire SW Mediterranean prior to the arrival of Steppe Bell Beaker.

rms2
04-04-2018, 05:31 PM
This is an aside about the ongoing argument that pops up every now and again that R1b-L51 did not originate on the steppe but was native to Europe west of the steppe, perhaps as an aboriginal HG-gone-farmer population, perhaps in the Baltic (since that is where some Mesolithic P297 was found). An advocate of that position, who shall remain nameless here, claimed that we have zero L51 from the Carpathian basin.

That is not true, however, since we have I7043, that R1b-L11xP312,U106 from Proto-Nagyrev, and I2365, an R1b-L2 from Kurgan Bell Beaker, both from the Budapest area.

So, not only do we in fact have two L51's from the Carpathian basin thus far, but we have them from two different steppe-derived cultures. It would be beyond baffling if the two of them represented migrating Baltic farmers whose ancestors acquired the substantial steppe dna both of them possess by marrying Corded Ware or Yamnaya women.

It seems far more likely to me that their L11 came from the same source: Yamnaya.

jdean
04-04-2018, 07:19 PM
This is an aside about the ongoing argument that pops up every now and again that R1b-L51 did not originate on the steppe but was native to Europe west of the steppe, perhaps as an aboriginal HG-gone-farmer population, perhaps in the Baltic (since that is where some Mesolithic P297 was found). An advocate of that position, who shall remain nameless here, claimed that we have zero L51 from the Carpathian basin.

That is not true, however, since we have I7043, that R1b-L11xP312,U106 from Proto-Nagyrev, and I2365, an R1b-L2 from Kurgan Bell Beaker, both from the Budapest area.

So, not only do we in fact have two L51's from the Carpathian basin thus far, but we have them from two different steppe-derived cultures. It would be beyond baffling if the two of them represented migrating Baltic farmers whose ancestors acquired the substantial steppe dna both of them possess by marrying Corded Ware or Yamnaya women.

It seems far more likely to me that their L11 came from the same source: Yamnaya.

Talking about Hungary

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=239672&viewfull=1#post239672

rms2
04-04-2018, 07:51 PM
Here's something very interesting Radboud pointed out over on that thread about U106 and Unetice.

I6537/HB0049 – grave 1: 2291-2042 calBC from Olalde et al, y-dna R1b-L151, belonged to the Chłopice-Veselé culture. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, on page 817, says that Chłopice-Veselé was the oldest of the epi-Corded Ware cultures.

The burial site was Racibórz-Stara Wieś (Cegielniana Street, woj. śląskie, Upper Silesia/Górny Śląsk, Poland).

Here's the description of the burial, which does not sound at all like Kurgan Bell Beaker:



The site is located on the left bank of the Odra river, in northwest part of Racibórz. The grave was uncovered as an accidental discovery during agricultural work in 2012 and then excavated by the team of the Museum in Racibórz (Romuald Turakiewicz, Marcin Rezner). It contained a 41-47-year-old male in flexed position lying on its right side with northeast–southwest orientation and the head to the southwest. The grave goods consisted of one stone battle axe, an unornamented cup, a flint arrowhead, two Štramberk points, a flint perforator, retouched blades and a flint retouched flake. The burial is considered to belong to the Chłopice-Veselé culture.


That makes yet another R1b-L11 (I understand L151 is now thought to be downstream of P311/L11) in a steppe-derived culture outside Kurgan Bell Beaker.

So now we have R1b-L11 in the following:

1. Kurgan Bell Beaker

2. Proto-Nagyrev

3. Chłopice-Veselé

Too bad the last two finds aren't quite old enough to serve as smoking guns, but they aren't exactly nothing.

R.Rocca
04-04-2018, 08:21 PM
This is an aside about the ongoing argument that pops up every now and again that R1b-L51 did not originate on the steppe but was native to Europe west of the steppe, perhaps as an aboriginal HG-gone-farmer population, perhaps in the Baltic (since that is where some Mesolithic P297 was found). An advocate of that position, who shall remain nameless here, claimed that we have zero L51 from the Carpathian basin.

That is not true, however, since we have I7043, that R1b-L11xP312,U106 from Proto-Nagyrev, and I2365, an R1b-L2 from Kurgan Bell Beaker, both from the Budapest area.

So, not only do we in fact have two L51's from the Carpathian basin thus far, but we have them from two different steppe-derived cultures. It would be beyond baffling if the two of them represented migrating Baltic farmers whose ancestors acquired the substantial steppe dna both of them possess by marrying Corded Ware or Yamnaya women.

It seems far more likely to me that their L11 came from the same source: Yamnaya.

R-L2 looks like a founder effect from somewhere further west (Bavaria? Moravia?) making its may east into Bohemia, Little Poland and Hungary, so it is not very informative IMO.

That said, it is nearly impossible to attach steppe ancestry to Z2103 and detach it from L51. I get that Yamnaya and Corded Ware have more steppe ancestry than L51, but that is a product of time as Yamnaya and Corded Ware are older than Bell Beaker. If you look at the earliest L11 samples (RISE563 from Bavaria and I5748 from The Netherlands), they have almost Corded Ware like steppe levels. As L51 samples get younger and move into newer territories like Iberia and Italy, their steppe ancestry seems to go down.

For argument's sake, let's entertain the idea that Z2103 had steppe ancestry and L51 had none around 2900 BC. What it means is that Z2103 men moving to the west would have to have deliberately sought out a small clan of L51 men to carry on their genetic legacy and carry it further west. They would have to have taught them their burial ritual and metallurgy. They would have to have let the L51 men marry their women. And honestly, with all of the other haplogroups hanging around Europe at that time, those Z2103 men chose to get chummy-chummy with the only other L23 clan on the entire planet? The very small clan of L51 men who were so small in numbers that they have eluded the genetic record thus far after a thousand or so ancient DNA samples?

"If" L51 was somewhere to the north of Yamnaya, let's say something more realistic like the Budzhak Group or the Middle Dnieper Culture, then they most certainly would have had steppe ancestry equal to that of Yamnaya before moving west.

rms2
04-04-2018, 08:24 PM
I said something similar here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10779-PIE-Homeland-in-Western-Asia-a-plausible-theory&p=375284&viewfull=1#post375284):



Not to re-stir the pot here, but things aren't simple with Bell Beaker either, because, to start with, the moniker Bell Beaker is too imprecise. There are different kinds of Bell Beaker. The main two divisions are 1) early Iberian, Neolithic-collective-tomb, gracile-longheaded-Mediterranean-skeleton, non-R1b-M269 Bell Beaker, and 2) the Kurgan Bell Beaker of single graves under round burial mounds, R1b-M269, etc.

The first type spread a bit outside of Iberia. For example, those Sicilian Bell Beaker skeletons, all of them females (mtDNA H1e, R0a, and K1a), were recovered from a collective tomb of the Neolithic type and in use since the Neolithic. What does their lack of steppe dna tell us? It tells me that those three women were probably not a part of Kurgan Bell Beaker but were buried with a BB pot. If they did more than marrying into Bell Beaker, they were probably BB people of Type 1.

Elsewhere, Kurgan Bell Beaker sometimes moved into areas where the native Neolithic farming population was quite large, especially in southern Europe. Physical proximity to the steppe is irrelevant in this case, because there were places very near the steppe that had large Neolithic farming populations. The Balkans, for example, was chock full of Neolithic farmers. Where Kurgan Bell Beaker people encountered and mixed into very large Neolithic farmer populations, the percentage of steppe dna in their descendants decreased and the percentages of EEF and WHG increased.

In parts of northern Europe where there were fewer farmers, Kurgan Bell Beaker retained more of its steppe dna. At any rate, Kurgan Bell Beaker moved farther west than did Corded Ware and was slightly later than Corded Ware. It moved deeper into territory occupied by larger numbers of people lacking in steppe dna and was there longer than Corded Ware.

rms2
04-04-2018, 08:35 PM
Here's something very interesting Radboud pointed out over on that thread about U106 and Unetice.

I6537/HB0049 – grave 1: 2291-2042 calBC from Olalde et al, y-dna R1b-L151, belonged to the Chłopice-Veselé culture. The Oxford Handbook of the European Bronze Age, on page 817, says that Chłopice-Veselé was the oldest of the epi-Corded Ware cultures.

The burial site was Racibórz-Stara Wieś (Cegielniana Street, woj. śląskie, Upper Silesia/Górny Śląsk, Poland).

Here's the description of the burial, which does not sound at all like Kurgan Bell Beaker:



That makes yet another R1b-L11 (I understand L151 is now thought to be downstream of P311/L11) in a steppe-derived culture outside Kurgan Bell Beaker.

So now we have R1b-L11 in the following:

1. Kurgan Bell Beaker

2. Proto-Nagyrev

3. Chłopice-Veselé

Too bad the last two finds aren't quite old enough to serve as smoking guns, but they aren't exactly nothing.

That kind of thing strikes me as pretty exciting, since it is like collecting more and more clues at the scene of the crime. At one end of things, in the Carpathian basin, we've got one L11 who points at late Vucedol. At the other end, in Polish Silesia, we have another L11 who points at Corded Ware.

What the heck? Were our ancestors purposely trying to confuse the hell out of us?

rms2
04-04-2018, 09:01 PM
. . .

So now we have R1b-L11 in the following:

1. Kurgan Bell Beaker

2. Proto-Nagyrev

3. Chłopice-Veselé

. . .

It just occurred to me that I could add a fourth to that list, Nordic Battle Axe, as represented by poor RISE98, the R1b-U106, but almost no one wants to let him into Nordic Battle Axe, despite the fact that he was buried in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden and died sometime around 2300 BC.

As I mentioned elsewhere, he is The Skeleton Without a Culture (subtitle: Nobody Wants the Poor Bastard).

I'd like to claim him for Nordic Battle Axe though.

jeanL
04-04-2018, 09:33 PM
For argument's sake, let's entertain the idea that Z2103 had steppe ancestry and L51 had none around 2900 BC. What it means is that Z2103 men moving to the west would have to have deliberately sought out a small clan of L51 men to carry on their genetic legacy and carry it further west. They would have to have taught them their burial ritual and metallurgy. They would have to have let the L51 men marry their women. And honestly, with all of the other haplogroups hanging around Europe at that time, those Z2103 men chose to get chummy-chummy with the only other L23 clan on the entire planet? The very small clan of L51 men who were so small in numbers that they have eluded the genetic record thus far after a thousand or so ancient DNA samples?

"If" L51 was somewhere to the north of Yamnaya, let's say something more realistic like the Budzhak Group or the Middle Dnieper Culture, then they most certainly would have had steppe ancestry equal to that of Yamnaya before moving west.

I think that L51 certainly had EHG ancestry from the get go; namely because its parent P297 which has been found in Latvian Hunter Gatherers had a sizable portion of EHG. The question becomes is when did they acquired their CHG? Did it come in the form of Steppe (50/50 EHG/CHG) or was it straight up CHG. It is interesting to note that Basques when modeled as a mixture of WHG+Barcin_N+EHG+CHG have a ratio of over 4/1 EHG/CHG. If Yamnaya were ~50/50 where did the extra EHG come from?

[1] "distance%=4.0371"

Basque_Spanish:BAS31

Barcin_N,61.9
EHG,22.2
Loschbour,10.5
CHG,5.4
Iron_Gates_HG,0
WHG,0

[1] "CORRELATION OF ADMIXTURE POPULATIONS"
CHG EHG Loschbour Barcin_N
CHG 1.00 0.11 0.05 -0.39
EHG 0.11 1.00 0.36 -0.65
Loschbour 0.05 0.36 1.00 -0.18
Barcin_N -0.39 -0.65 -0.18 1.00

Iberian_Beaker nearly get 7/1 EHG/CHG ratio:

[1] "distance%=3.064"

Beaker_Iberia:I5665

Barcin_N,64
WHG,17.8
EHG,15.4
CHG,2.8
Iron_Gates_HG,0
Loschbour,0

[1] "CORRELATION OF ADMIXTURE POPULATIONS"
CHG EHG WHG Barcin_N
CHG 1.00 0.11 0.03 -0.39
EHG 0.11 1.00 0.36 -0.65
WHG 0.03 0.36 1.00 -0.16
Barcin_N -0.39 -0.65 -0.16 1.00

jeanL
04-04-2018, 09:47 PM
Beaker_Central_Europe

[1] "distance%=2.7036"

Beaker_Central_Europe

Barcin_N,47.6
EHG,35.3
CHG,11.3
Iron_Gates_HG,4.2
Loschbour,1.6
WHG,0

[1] "CORRELATION OF ADMIXTURE POPULATIONS"
CHG EHG Iron_Gates_HG Loschbour Barcin_N
CHG 1.00 0.11 0.04 0.05 -0.39
EHG 0.11 1.00 0.47 0.36 -0.65
Iron_Gates_HG 0.04 0.47 1.00 0.99 -0.24
Loschbour 0.05 0.36 0.99 1.00 -0.18
Barcin_N -0.39 -0.65 -0.24 -0.18 1.00

Nibelung
04-04-2018, 10:12 PM
Like the ancestors of the Insular Celts, they have less CHG because while having an extremely close relationship with (so far sampled, classic) Yamnaya, they weren't in such close proximity to the admixture event, and so were primarily a product of Samara-like EHG and ANF/EEF. THE CHG counts but mainly via admixture from their cousins, it would seem.

jeanL
04-04-2018, 10:47 PM
To be consistent here is Corded Ware Czech Republic modeled using the same populations:

[1] "distance%=3.3356"

CWC_Czech

EHG,52.7
Barcin_N,29.8
CHG,17.5
Iron_Gates_HG,0
Loschbour,0
WHG,0

[1] "CORRELATION OF ADMIXTURE POPULATIONS"
CHG EHG Barcin_N
CHG 1.00 0.11 -0.39
EHG 0.11 1.00 -0.65
Barcin_N -0.39 -0.65 1.00

Note the ratio of EHG/CHG is 52.7/17.5=3.00. Which is about the same as seen in Beaker_Central 35.3/11.3=3.12, but much lower than Beaker_Iberia 15.4/2.8=5.5, or even modern day Basques 22.2/5.4=4.11. So something is causing an excess of EHG in some populations relative to what we see in Central European Bronze Age populations.

rms2
04-04-2018, 10:54 PM
Regarding the notion that L51 stems from the P297 HG's up in Latvia (on the Baltic in NE Europe), alan posted something interesting here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10779-PIE-Homeland-in-Western-Asia-a-plausible-theory&p=374643&viewfull=1#post374643):



Seeing as the Latvian Mesolithic starts in the Boreal about 10500 years ago and was a human desert prior to that and thay P297 is about 16000 years old, it simply had to be somewhere else - maybe several stepping stone locations for the previous 5500 years. Indeed the period between the Latvian early Mesolithic and the birth of P297 saw both a warm phase, the older dryas, another warm phase and the younger dryas and the warmer pre boreal. So it clearly will have had a very long history of shifting geography with climate swings prior to arriving in Latvia.

I won't pretend to be able to guess where P297 was between 14000BC and 9500BC- it may have moved in many directions due to the two dryas events intervening. However, tne arrival in Latvia of that culture corresponds roughly with the start of the boreal c 8500BC. It bore a district technological stamp of the Butovo culture which arose on the middle Volga at the end of the younger dryas/start of the pre boreal c 9500BC. There are also a couple of geographically intermediate Butovo- like offshoot cultures firming a path between the middle Volga and Latvia. So, for me, the route that culture took to Latvia seems very clear. They basically moved up the Volga as the better conditions of the Boreal commenced. It's very very hard [not] to believe that P297(only part of it - it was already 5500, years old by then) moved to Latvia following the Volga route.


I added the word not (in brackets) because it's obvious that was what alan intended.

As you can see, it's very likely the P297 found in the Mesolithic Latvian HG's came up the Volga from the steppe or forest/steppe.

However, be that as it may, we have to spend our time working down at the L23 level rather than up at the P297 level. It doesn't do much good to leap over the Neolithic directly to the Mesolithic. And this thread is really directed at the L11 level.

jeanL
04-04-2018, 11:15 PM
Regarding the notion that L51 stems from the P297 HG's up in Latvia (on the Baltic in NE Europe), alan posted something interesting here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10779-PIE-Homeland-in-Western-Asia-a-plausible-theory&p=374643&viewfull=1#post374643):



I added the word not (in brackets) because it's obvious that was what alan intended.

As you can see, it's very likely the P297 found in the Mesolithic Latvian HG's came up the Volga from the steppe or forest/steppe.

However, be that as it may, we have to spend our time working down at the L23 level rather than up at the P297 level. It doesn't do much good to leap over the Neolithic directly to the Mesolithic. And this thread is really directed at the L11 level.

The oldest Latvian P297 is dated to over 7000 BC and is model to be about 56% WHG and 44% EHG. Their mt-DNA profile is very similar to other EHG, so given the findings from Villabruna and Iron Gates I am inclined to believe that R1b-P297 came from the Southwest of Latvia not Southeast. This can be seen by the fact that SHG are about 50/50 WHG/EHG yet they don't have any R1b-P297 or any R1b for that matter, so if we assume that R1b was the vector that came from the Volga and it was EHG, then how can we have two vastly different populations in terms of paternal profile namely SHG and Latvian_Hg, yet both have EHG and WHG. Moreover the first R1b-P297 derived lineage Samara_HG who was R1b-M73 in the east was 100% EHG, so it is likely that he was a descendant from a Western migrant. The P297 level tells us the likely place of origin for R1b-M269 which would then lead to R1b-L23. If the Iran R1b-Z2103 sample tells us something, is that R1b-Z2103 is at least 7500 years old, then the Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 at 3300 BCE is >2000 years removed from its parent R1b_L23, which means that its location in Yamnaya is not informative as to the location of the origin of R1b-L23 since is too far removed.

rms2
04-04-2018, 11:17 PM
I'd like to point out that the distances on the steppe are pretty vast. From Lviv in western Ukraine (where my mother-in-law was born) to Samara is 2171 kilometers or about 1349 miles.

Who thinks such distances could not accommodate more than one R1b-L23 subclade?

Maybe I'm bragging, but I've been to the steppe, and it stretches a long way. I've swum in the Volga (lots of good-looking young girls in thong bathing suits there) and been to the Mamayev Kurgan where the Scythians and later steppe people encamped.

rms2
04-04-2018, 11:23 PM
The oldest Latvian P297 is dated to over 7000 BC and is model to be about 56% WHG and 44% EHG. Their mt-DNA profile is very similar to other EHG, so given the findings from Villabruna and Iron Gates I am inclined to believe that R1b-P297 came from the Southwest of Latvia not Southeast. This can be seen by the fact that SHG are about 50/50 WHG/EHG yet they don't have any R1b-P297 or any R1b for that matter, so if we assume that R1b was the vector that came from the Volga and it was EHG, then how can we have two vastly different populations in terms of paternal profile namely SHG and Latvian_Hg, yet both have EHG and WHG. Moreover the first R1b-P297 derived lineage Samara_HG who was R1b-M73 in the east was 100% EHG, so it is likely that he was a descendant from a Western migrant. The P297 level tells us the likely place of origin for R1b-M269 which would then lead to R1b-L23. If the Iran R1b-Z2103 sample tells us something, is that R1b-Z2103 is at least 7500 years old, then the Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 at 3300 BCE is >2000 years removed from its parent R1b_L23, which means that its location in Yamnaya is not informative as to the location of the origin of R1b-L23 since is too far removed.

You're completely ignoring what alan, a professional archaeologist, wrote.

The Z2103 from Hajji Firuz has no C14 date from bone (or anything else).

You only show up here and post when there is some straw you can grasp at to deny L51 steppe origin. The Iron Gates HG's are turning out to have been V88.

How do you explain the R1b-L11 outside of Kurgan Bell Beaker? Wandering Latvian Neolithic farmers? In Proto-Nagyrev from late Vucedol and in Chłopice-Veselé from Corded Ware, as well as Kurgan Bell Beaker?

jeanL
04-04-2018, 11:43 PM
I'd like to point out that the distances on the steppe are pretty vast. From Lviv in western Ukraine (where my mother-in-law was born) to Samara is 2171 kilometers or about 1349 miles.

Who thinks such distances could not accommodate more than one R1b-L23 subclade?

Maybe I'm bragging, but I've been to the steppe, and it stretches a long way. I've swum in the Volga (lots of good-looking young girls in thong bathing suits there) and been to the Mamayev Kurgan where the Scythians and later steppe people encamped.


Ukraine has failed to produced a single R1b-M269 in its 20+ samples dated from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. So, where was it? Where was R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Because if it were in Ukraine, it was very rare. The closest thing we have to R1b-M269 is the Latvians_HG.

rms2
04-04-2018, 11:51 PM
Ukraine has failed to produced a single R1b-M269 in its 20+ samples dated from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. So, where was it? Where was R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Because if it were in Ukraine, it was very rare. The closest thing we have to R1b-M269 is the Latvians_HG.

Apparently you think Dereivka is all of Ukraine. We have no Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe and no Yamnaya y-dna from the Carpathian basin.

Where is the R1b-M269 in Neolithic central and western Europe? How the hell did it get into Proto-Nagyrev and Chłopice-Veselé, not to mention Kurgan Bell Beaker, and maybe Nordic Battle Axe, all steppe-derived cultures?

What Neolithic farmer culture of the Baltic wandered to Sweden, Polish Silesia, and the Carpathian basin, not to mention all the places Kurgan Bell Beaker is found?

jeanL
04-04-2018, 11:54 PM
You're completely ignoring what alan, a professional archaeologist, wrote.

The Z2103 from Hajji Firuz has no C14 date from bone (or anything else).

You only show up here and post when there is some straw you can grasp at to deny L51 steppe origin. The Iron Gates HG's are turning out to have been V88.

How do you explain the R1b-L11 outside of Kurgan Bell Beaker? Wandering Latvian Neolithic farmers? In Proto-Nagyrev from late Vucedol and in Chłopice-Veselé from Corded Ware, as well as Kurgan Bell Beaker?

Argument by authority huh? You two are completely ignoring the Stochastic nature of mutation rates and the likelihood of the dates obtained from yFull to be erroneous to the point of arguing against the date of Z2103 from Hajji Firuz because it contradicts the yFull estimate. As for the C-14 date, it comes from a layer that is directly dated to 5900 BCE to 5500 BCE. All three Samara eNeolithic genomes were not C-14 dated, neither was the Yamnaya R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103), where is your skepticism about those samples? Double standard?

So what if R1b-L11 was found in Proto-Nagyrev? Vucedol, the putative parent function has only produced R1b-Z2103. The R1b-L11 was contemporary with Beakers that were R1b-L11 already and was in fact younger than some of the Beakers R1b-L11. So until you find R1b-L51 in Vucedol and in a Chronological timeframe preceding Bell Beaker, then you haven't found anything. Vucedol has only produced R1b-Z2103, granted 2 samples tested, 1 R1b 100% R1b-Z2103. Afanasievo was nearly 100% R1b-Z2103, the sole R1b-L23 was not tested for R1b-Z2103. Yamnaya has been uniformly R1b-Z2103 with the exception of the sole R1b-L23(xZ2103,L51) and I2 is the other lineage. Even the highest Steppe Beaker which was an R1b-Z2103.

From Eurogenes:

[1] distance%=3.0892

Beaker_Britain

Yamnaya_Samara,52.8
Barcin_N,26.8
Blatterhole_HG,17.6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,2.8

[1] distance%=2.3366

Beaker_Central_Europe

Yamnaya_Samara,43.4
Barcin_N,37.2
Blatterhole_HG,16
Ukraine_Mesolithic,3.4

[1] distance%=3.0011

Beaker_The_Netherlands

Yamnaya_Samara,55.4
Barcin_N,24.6
Blatterhole_HG,16.4
Ukraine_Mesolithic,3.6

[1] distance%=1.9191

Beaker_Hungary

Barcin_N,49
Yamnaya_Samara,31.8
Narva_Lithuania,11.4
Blatterhole_HG,6
Ukraine_Mesolithic,1.8

[1] distance%=4.9659

Beaker_Hungary_no_steppe

Barcin_N,76.2
Blatterhole_HG,23.8

[1] distance%=2.4992

Beaker_Hungary_outlier (R1b-Z2103 fellow)

Yamnaya_Samara,76
Barcin_N,19
Koros_HG,4.4
Blatterhole_HG,0.6

jeanL
04-04-2018, 11:56 PM
Apparently you think Dereivka is all of Ukraine. We have no Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe and no Yamnaya y-dna from the Carpathian basin.

Where is the R1b-M269 in Neolithic central and western Europe?

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UpSCKI8xd2I/WjGk5ei7SVI/AAAAAAAAF7s/AueVg2Wxvdg2yds5e_dz803nNJcBJznrgCLcBGAs/s1600/Strawman.png

Latvia_HG=/=Neolithic central and western Europe. But keep going at it.

rms2
04-04-2018, 11:56 PM
What archaeologist or prehistorian has ever posited a migration out of Latvia or anywhere in the Baltic that would have impacted so many steppe-derived cultures?

Rhetorical question.

Obvious answer: none.

rms2
04-04-2018, 11:58 PM
You like like to cry strawman, jeanL, but it's just one more thing among many or at least several that you do not understand.

rms2
04-05-2018, 12:08 AM
Argument by authority huh? You two are completely ignoring the Stochastic nature of mutation rates and the likelihood of the dates obtained from yFull to be erroneous to the point of arguing against the date of Z2103 from Hajji Firuz because it contradicts the yFull estimate . . .

If YFull's estimate is wrong, it only makes alan's argument more powerful. Duh.

You like the date given by that messed up paper because it gives you a straw to grasp. No Iberian R1b Refuge, so at least I can show that the people who deprived me of that pride-of-ancestral-place were wrong, too.



So what if R1b-L11 was found in Proto-Nagyrev? Vucedol, the putative parent function has only produced R1b-Z2103 . . .

Two whole Vucedol samples thus far, one of them Z2103. Yeah, that's ironclad.

Now a Proto-Nagyrev L11 has shown up, which represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev. That's about as good as an L11 in Vucedol but you won't admit it.

You like arguments that allow you to obfuscate, like those from autosomal dna comparisons, which for individuals are good for a few generations, maybe as much as 150 years.

Where is that Baltic L51 Neolithic farmer culture that all the archaeologists say drifted south to become Kurgan Bell Beaker, Proto-Nagyrev, and Chłopice-Veselé?

jeanL
04-05-2018, 12:14 AM
If YFull's estimate is wrong, it only makes alan's argument more powerful. Duh.

You like the date given by that messed up paper because it gives you a straw to grasp. No Iberian R1b Refuge, so at least I can show that the people who deprived me of that pride-of-ancestral-place were wrong, too.



Two whole Vucedol samples thus far, one of them Z2103. Yeah, that's ironclad.

Now a Proto-Nagyrev L11 has shown up, which represents the transition from late Vucedol to early Nagyrev. That's about as good as an L11 in Vucedol but you won't admit it.

You like arguments that allow you to obfuscate, like those from autosomal dna comparisons, which for individuals are good for a few generations, maybe as much as 150 years.

Where is that Baltic L51 Neolithic farmer culture that all the archaeologists say drifted south to become Kurgan Bell Beaker, Proto-Nagyrev, and Chłopice-Veselé?


Why would someone who has "pride-of-ancestral-place" be claiming as early as 2012 that R1b-L23 originated somewhere near Ukraine (https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10715.140;wap2). Project much. The guy with a Russian wife, who has been to Russia multiple times and has been proposing an origin of his haplogroup in Russia in spite of all evidence to the contrary is accusing me. Now that's thick! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 12:19 AM
BTW we have been exactly over this same arguments in October of 2017, and you then like now brought up the exact same strawmans, and also brought up the accusation of my ancestry somehow having something to do with my scientific observations.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=300114&viewfull=1#post300114

rms2
04-05-2018, 12:20 AM
Argument by authority huh? . . .

I like that because I like the smell of dairy farms.

Let's suppose for a minute alan is a third grader rather than an archaeologist. You still ignored what he had to say, which shoots your argument full of holes.

rms2
04-05-2018, 12:21 AM
BTW we have been exactly over this same arguments in October of 2017 . . .

You were wrong then, like you were wrong in 2012, and you are wrong now.

But now the evidence against you is even more overwhelming.

BTW, I'm not Russian, except by way of Kurgan Bell Beaker, like you, and my wife's ancestry is mostly Ashkenazi Jewish.

22520

jeanL
04-05-2018, 12:32 AM
I like that because I like the smell of dairy farms.

Let's suppose for a minute alan is a third grader rather than an archaeologist. You still ignored what he had to say, which shoots your argument full of holes.

Well genetic evidence as it relates to human migrations trumps any archaeological evidence, since sometimes pots are not people and sometimes they are. Alan, and other have also ignored the shortcomings of the dating methods, and have ignore the countless times I have argued against using estimates vs ancient evidence. So what if the culture of Latvia did come from the Volga? That does not mean that their R1b came from the Volga. I explained the genetic evidence that I think shows that from a genetic point of view the simpler hypothesis is that R1b-P297 came from Southwest of Latvia not from the Volga. You know why it is an argument by authority. Because instead of engaging like I have, I can simply seat back, ask if any of you has taken a single class about Stochastic Processes or Probability Theory and then use the number of classes and the years of Research that I have spent in my professional life dealing with Stochastic processes to argue why the dating are crap. But I am not doing that, because that would be a logical fallacy, hence why there is no need to bring up his profession, just like I do not need to bring up my Research, nor professional training.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 12:43 AM
You were wrong then, like you were wrong in 2012, and you are wrong now.

But now the evidence against you is even more overwhelming.

BTW, I'm not Russian, except by way of Kurgan Bell Beaker, like you, and my wife's ancestry is mostly Ashkenazi Jewish.


What evidence is more overwhelming. Like the Yamnaya 0 R1b-L51, vs what has to be at this point easily some 20+ R1b-Z2103. Yup, definitely lot of evidence against me. You remember when Villabruna was just one single loner, then came Iron_Gates, Romania, Latvian_HG. Well now Iran is also a loner., a graps at straws. I remember the loner ATP3 too, which you like to not bring up because of poor quality. All these loners! This is not about being wrong or right, it's about the pursuit of objective truth, that's what Science is about. I have been wrong in the past, the fact that you can read my 2012 hypothesis:


Neither do I, I noticed you keep bringing that up, and even assigning it to the hypothesis I’ve proposed, so I’m going to take this opportunity to once more, make one thing clear. I proposed that R1b in its M269 and likely L23 derived form was widespread in Europe prior to the Neolithic arrival, in fact I doesn’t even need to be widespread, it could have been sitting around the Northern portion of the Balkans or Western Romania. With the arrival of the Neolithic in the Balkans, that is 8000 ybp, not during the LGM, the R1b populations are separated, one takes refuge in the Steppes, the other one(The one that gives rise to all R1b-L150+ clades) is driven to the Western most parts of Europe by the agriculturists, they get holed up in Western Europe, but not during the LGM, but during the early Neolithic. I hope that makes it clearer.

So let's see, I was right about the presence of R1b in pre-Neolithic Europe. I was somewhat right about the presence of R1b in the Balkans and Romania. I was also right about the Neolithic displacing the R1b lines from the Balkans(indeed you see this in the movement of the Iron_gates and WHG lineages into Ukraine_N), however I was wrong about R1b-L51 taking refuge in Western Europe. It apparently took refuge in the Baltic. I was right about R1b-L23*(xL51) as it was known back then, now known as R1b-Z2103 being the vector that spread IndoEuropean languages into Central and Western Europe from the Steppe. This was in part to explain the absence of R1a in Western Europe. My hypothesis has changed obviously, it has adapted to the new evidence.

What exactly has your hypothesis been for the last 12 years? R1b-L51 came from the Steppe!

But ATP3 might be R1b-M269?

Contaminated! R1b-L51 came from the Steppe.

But we haven't found R1b-L51 in Yamnaya?

It hasn't been tested enough, 40+ samples is not enough. R1b-L51 came from the Steppe.

But Iran 5500 BCE is R1b-Z2103 and ergo the close relationship between R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51 cannot be used to argued that R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya circa 3300 BCE implies that R1b-L51 came from the Steppe?

Not C-14 dated. R1b-L51 came from the Steppe.

Yeah! Think about that!

rms2
04-05-2018, 01:07 AM
No L51 from Neolithic central or western Europe despite the large and growing number of samples.

L51 in steppe-derived cultures at the same time Indo-European languages were spreading to central and western Europe, and L51 was replacing the previous occupants to a large extent.

But why haven't we found R1b-L51 in Yamnaya?

Well, hell, because we haven't looked at the part of Yamnaya that actually went west. We have no Yamnaya y-dna from the Pontic steppe or the Carpathian basin.

And you weren't right about R1b in Neolithic Europe, because it's all turning out to be R1b-V88.

rms2
04-05-2018, 01:11 AM
Well genetic evidence as it relates to human migrations trumps any archaeological evidence . . .

Your "evidence" has a perfectly reasonable archaeological explanation, i.e., that P297 HG's came up the Volga River valley to the Baltic.

You don't like that because it doesn't fit your erroneous narrative, but it hasn't been trumped by anything you have written.

Villabruna, recovered just north of the headwaters of the Adriatic, was R1b-L754 and not even L389 at a time when P297 was already in existence. Big deal. Stray R1b HG's are going to show up at one end of Eurasia or another. They wandered widely in search of game, and Villabruna was part of an autosomal cluster that was mostly I2. He wasn't the ancestor of any R1b-M269 man, and certainly not of any R1b-L23 man.

rms2
04-05-2018, 01:31 AM
I was kind of hoping this thread would be for folks who accept the basic premise that R1b-L11 is steppe Indo-European in origin and that we wouldn't have to spend time arguing with people who are behind the 8 ball and cannot see what is going on.

Moderator
04-05-2018, 01:41 AM
MODERATOR: This thread is being monitored.

Please keep forum rule 3.10 in mind when posting

3.10 Certain standards of quality control will be enforced to ensure a productive forum atmosphere. Invectives and posts devoid of substance (e.g. threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content or triviality)

Users who violate the rules posted here or in the Terms of Service will receive infractions. The posts containing the violation(s) will also be removed. The progression is as follows:

· 1st Infraction - Formal warning and one week suspension

· 2nd Infraction - Permanent ban

Silesian
04-05-2018, 01:46 AM
What evidence is more overwhelming. Like the Yamnaya 0 R1b-L51, vs what has to be at this point easily some 20+ R1b-Z2103.

Place the Bell Beaker {RISE563 Bell Beaker, Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany }choices 1-5

Afansievo
Yamnaya
Malta, Afontogora 2, and Afontogora 3,--cluster
Khvalynsk
Samara
Bell Beaker

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/bwrUdPvAPbCgkv62-Region.png


http://images.devs-on.net/Image/NnFrq0o4KeKxtzCC-Region.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/LRFZCC2YvCMZK8N6-Region.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/xHwk4IfOfwVN7Qb6-Region.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/H8Vm8lz3xCJO0deh-Region.png

http://images.devs-on.net/Image/Kw2vNZjk7S4Oql6U-Region.png

rms2
04-05-2018, 01:51 AM
Funny that thus far R1b-L51 (R1b-L11 really) has only been found in steppe-derived cultures.

Odd coincidence, eh?

Guess those L51 Baltic HG's-gone-Neolithic-farmers were mad for steppe chicks.

Maybe it was the shapely bow legs they acquired from riding horses all day long.

alan
04-05-2018, 02:43 AM
Given all L23 has a TMRCA date of 4100BC according to yfull, it’s kind of preposterous to imagine L51 and Z2103
Having radically different stories. L51 and Z2103 appears to have both hit a bottlekneck so their own TMRCAs were around 3700BC. That bottleneck roughly coincides with the period known as ‘the steppe hiatus,.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 02:59 AM
Given all L23 has a TMRCA date of 4100BC according to yfull, it’s kind of preposterous to imagine L51 and Z2103
Having radically different stories. L51 and Z2103 appears to have both hit a bottlekneck so their own TMRCAs were around 3700BC. That bottleneck roughly coincides with the period known as ‘the steppe hiatus,.

It's quite easy Alan. The TMRCA is wrong! The estimate is derived using modern day genomes. Ancient DNA data supersedes modern estimates. Iran was already R1b-Z2103 by 5500 BCE. So that means that R1b-L51 is probably older than 5500 BCE.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 03:03 AM
I was kind of hoping this thread would be for folks who accept the basic premise that R1b-L11 is steppe Indo-European in origin and that we wouldn't have to spend time arguing with people who are behind the 8 ball and cannot see what is going on.

Well you shouldn't have called the thread "R1b-L11 where from?". The Steppe origin of R1b-L51 is anything but a given; yet you want no dissenting opinion. Talk about wanting a echo chamber. Also the elephant in the room that is not being spoken about is that David Reich is now placing the homeland of Indo-European languages South of the Caucasus and coincidentally they have found that R1b-Z2103 in Iran circa 5500 BCE.

Romilius
04-05-2018, 07:43 AM
It's quite easy Alan. The TMRCA is wrong! The estimate is derived using modern day genomes. Ancient DNA data supersedes modern estimates. Iran was already R1b-Z2103 by 5500 BCE. So that means that R1b-L51 is probably older than 5500 BCE.

I thought as many others that the calls from the last South and Central Asian paper have to be revised... But it's interesting that you take for Gospel everything you need to support your idea, even if not peer reviewed.

alan
04-05-2018, 09:21 AM
It's quite easy Alan. The TMRCA is wrong! The estimate is derived using modern day genomes. Ancient DNA data supersedes modern estimates. Iran was already R1b-Z2103 by 5500 BCE. So that means that R1b-L51 is probably older than 5500 BCE.

I seriously doubt that date is correct. Not even those who think yfull would push the date that far back. Also I thought they had not even radiocarbon dates the bone and simply extrapolated the date from other material.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 10:11 AM
I thought as many others that the calls from the last South and Central Asian paper have to be revised... But it's interesting that you take for Gospel everything you need to support your idea, even if not peer reviewed.

The authors have been kind enough to provide a list with the actual calls of the SNPs for all samples tested:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l2fevb2yjbyg5wj/Ycalls.xlsx?dl=0

I actually took the time to manually check the calls for the Iran, Hajji Firuz 5900-5500 BCE are consistent with R1b1a1a2a2.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13904-Central-and-South-Asian-DNA-Paper&p=374231&viewfull=1#post374231

So what exactly is my idea?

You know what else is interesting that you took the time to join the echo chamber of the "R1b-L51 must be from the Steppe at all cost" band without informing yourself about as much as the fact that the calls are readily available to the public and can be easily checked. For example the Afghanistan sample is clearly not R1b-L51; neither is the Iron age Pakistan sample a highly derived clade of R1b-L11. Who is taking what as Gospel? The person who actually took the time to read through the facts and exposed them in an orderly manner or the one who is ganging up and accusing others of having an agenda without any substantial proof.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 10:19 AM
I seriously doubt that date is correct. Not even those who think yfull would push the date that far back. Also I thought they had not even radiocarbon dates the bone and simply extrapolated the date from other material.

Alan you do know it is common practice to not radio carbon all the bones for example:

I0370 I0370 SVP10 bone (long bone) S0370.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 (1240k of same same sample with 390k in HaakLazaridis2015) n/a (previously reported) 4950 3300-2700 BCE Steppe_EMBA Yamnaya_Samara Forest / Steppe EMBA Ishkinovka I, Eastern Orenburg, Pre-Ural steppe, Samara Russia 51.27 58.18 M H13a1a1 R1b1a1a2a2 1.043 695086 All PASS .. .. half 0.067 H13a1a1 0.975

Not C14 dated.

I0443 I0443 SVP57, Kurgan II bone (long bone) S0443.E1.L1,S0443.E2.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 (1240k of same same sample with 390k in HaakLazaridis2015) n/a (previously reported) 4950 3300-2700 BCE Steppe_EMBA Yamnaya_Samara Forest / Steppe EMBA Lopatino, Sok River, Samara Russia 53.38 50.39 M W3a1a R1b1a1a2a 5.317 995838 All PASS (Xcontam=0.003) .. .. half,half 0.057,0.05 W3a1a,W3a1a 0.999,0.98

The infamous R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) well not C-14 direct dating.

All three Samara eNeolithic:

I0122 I0122 SVP35 bone (long bone) S0122.E1.L2,S0122.E2.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M H2a1 R1b1a2a1a1b1a1a 0.723 569453 All PASS .. .. plus,half ..,0.101 H2a1,H2a1 0.952,0.995

I0434 I0434 SVP47 bone (long bone) S0434.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M U4a2orU4d Q1a 0.053 61851 All PASS .. .. half 0.107 U4d 0.991

I0433 I0433 SVP46 bone (long bone) S0433.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M U5a1i R1a1 0.476 431545 All PASS .. .. half 0.064 H1b1g 0.971

No C-14 dating and yes haplogroup assignment is wrong.

As you can see this is not uncommon; moreover all the other Iran Neolithic sample were C14 direct dated and all yielded similar dates but with a narrower timeframe. Their autosomal profiles are very similar as is their position in the PCA.

Also I have not seen any pronouncement from people who are regularly claimed that yFull dates are flawed? So not sure where you are getting your information from? You know very well that the only thing right now preventing you from having to reformulate all of your theories including the one where R1b-Z2103 did not come from the South is clinging to the idea that the C14 date of Iran is wrong.

rms2
04-05-2018, 12:16 PM
Well you shouldn't have called the thread "R1b-L11 where from?".

I should have made it clear that this thread was for discussing the steppe origin of L11 and not for rehashing all the tired old arguments we have been through time and time again that are usually started by someone who wants to deny that any kind of L51 came from the steppe.

When that happens, instead of getting closer to figuring things out, we go off the rails into things that all but a few diehards agree on and are a drag to repeat (yet again).



The Steppe origin of R1b-L51 is anything but a given; yet you want no dissenting opinion. Talk about wanting a echo chamber.

I wanted an interesting, reasonable discussion of the likely origin of L11, not another episode of desperate flailing about intended simply to deny L11 a steppe origin because someone doesn't like the way things have gone with ancient dna over the last several years.



Also the elephant in the room that is not being spoken about is that David Reich is now placing the homeland of Indo-European languages South of the Caucasus and coincidentally they have found that R1b-Z2103 in Iran circa 5500 BCE.

I know the Hajji Firuz Z2103 is the chief reason you have shown back up. You seem to think its alleged early date just sinks the idea that L51 came from the steppe with the early Indo-Europeans. Well, you are mistaken there. Even if that date were confirmed by C14 dating (a big if), it still wouldn't change the basic facts. L51 has only been found in steppe-derived cultures thus far and not at all in Neolithic Europe west of the steppe, despite the growing number of samples. It occurs in steppe-derived cultures in the third millennium BC as Europe was beginning to make the switch to Indo-European languages. Before that time, no L51 and no Indo-European languages in Europe west of the steppe. After that time, L51-carrying males have replaced a large percentage of the previous occupants, and most of Europe is speaking Indo-European languages.

We see that demonstrated in the British Isles as chronicled by the Olalde et al Bell Beaker paper. We see that early Iberian Bell Beaker was western and Neolithic and lacking R1b-M269 and steppe dna.

Before and after pictures. Europe west of the steppe before: no R1b-M269, no steppe dna, no IE languages. Europe west of the steppe after: plenty of all three.

David Reich is not a linguist, and we don't have any ancient dna from actual Indo-Europeans south of the Caucasus. Even if the very earliest vestiges of Indo-European were spoken south of the Caucasus (which isn't true and makes no sense from a linguistic point of view), the spread of Indo-European into Europe came via the steppe.

rms2
04-05-2018, 05:19 PM
I seriously doubt that date is correct. Not even those who think yfull would push the date that far back. Also I thought they had not even radiocarbon dates the bone and simply extrapolated the date from other material.

That's right. The Hajji Firuz Z2103 has not been C14 dated. The date for it is an estimate from the archaeological context. Normally that would be okay, but in cases in which a find is unexpected, out of the ordinary, and controversial, the utmost care should be taken to make sure its date is accurate.

I suspect it's substantially younger than the current estimate, but maybe not. We won't know for sure until some bone from it is C14 tested. It seems to me that nearly always, when something is really odd, almost unbelievably odd, the reason for that is that it's not so.

alan
04-05-2018, 05:33 PM
That's right. The Hajji Firuz Z2103 has not been C14 dated. The date for it is an estimate from the archaeological context. Normally that would be okay, but in cases in which a find is unexpected, out of the ordinary, and controversial, the utmost care should be taken to make sure its date is accurate.

I suspect it's substantially younger than the current estimate, but maybe not. We won't know for sure until some bone from it is C14 tested. It seems to me that nearly always, when something is really odd, almost unbelievably odd, the reason for that is that it's not so.
Yes if something unusual or which makes a big claim is undated then it really does need radiocarbon dated. It’s very easy for later material to intrude into older layers in such a way that it’s not obvious. A classic case is the horse bone at a beaker settlement the was excavated outside the ruins of newgrange passage tomb. For many many decades it was considered the earliest evidence of horse in Ireland, nicely tying in with Continental evidence but radiocarbon dating it showed in fact it was Early Medieval

R.Rocca
04-05-2018, 05:36 PM
Alan you do know it is common practice to not radio carbon all the bones for example:
As you can see this is not uncommon; moreover all the other Iran Neolithic sample were C14 direct dated and all yielded similar dates but with a narrower timeframe. Their autosomal profiles are very similar as is their position in the PCA.

Also I have not seen any pronouncement from people who are regularly claimed that yFull dates are flawed? So not sure where you are getting your information from? You know very well that the only thing right now preventing you from having to reformulate all of your theories including the one where R1b-Z2103 did not come from the South is clinging to the idea that the C14 date of Iran is wrong.

Based on prior ancient DNA examples, poster Michał has shown that YFull dates are about 15-30% younger than they should be.

Regarding the samples from the Hajji Firuz site, the authors already threw out sample I4243 because radiocarbon testing dated it to 2465-2286 cal BCE. The reason why it's relevant is because it was found in burial unit F11 which produced samples I4349 (5887-5724 cal BCE) and I4351 (6056-5894 cal BCE). Z2103+ sample I2327 is labeled as being from Phase F-G, which according to their classification scheme should be older than these other samples (Phase A3). Counter intuitively, they chose to label it with a younger age of 5900-5500 BCE. So obviously some caution is justified here.

Also, we know they labeled Latvian Hunter Gatherer sample I4628 as R1b1a1a2a1, which as per ISOGG is R-L51. Since the BAM file is available and shows no SNPs at the R1b1a1a2a1 level, then there is obviously something wrong with their haplogroup naming scheme. So yes, the spreadsheet they provided says that R1b1a1a2a2 has 3 derived reads, but we have no idea that their R1b1a1a2a2 is even correctly referencing Z2103.

So, lets wait a little longer for the radiocarbon dating and raw data to be released as either could alter I2327's significance to the overall L23 story.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 05:43 PM
FWIW: 5500 BCE =7450 ybp; 5900 BCE 7850 ybp. 4200 BCE =6150 ybp

7450/6150=1.21 or 21% older. 7850/6150=1.27 or 27% older. So consistent with Michal's observations of the dates being some 15-30% younger.

R.Rocca
04-05-2018, 05:50 PM
FWIW: 5500 BCE =7450 ybp; 5900 BCE 7850 ybp. 4200 BCE =6150 ybp

7450/6150=1.21 or 21% older. 7850/6150=1.27 or 27% older. So consistent with Michal's observations of the dates being some 15-30% younger.

And like I said, the sample may or may not be radiocarbon dated to that age and may or may not be Z2103, so let's wait and see what the real data tells us.

alan
04-05-2018, 06:05 PM
Alan you do know it is common practice to not radio carbon all the bones for example:

I0370 I0370 SVP10 bone (long bone) S0370.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 (1240k of same same sample with 390k in HaakLazaridis2015) n/a (previously reported) 4950 3300-2700 BCE Steppe_EMBA Yamnaya_Samara Forest / Steppe EMBA Ishkinovka I, Eastern Orenburg, Pre-Ural steppe, Samara Russia 51.27 58.18 M H13a1a1 R1b1a1a2a2 1.043 695086 All PASS .. .. half 0.067 H13a1a1 0.975

Not C14 dated.

I0443 I0443 SVP57, Kurgan II bone (long bone) S0443.E1.L1,S0443.E2.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 (1240k of same same sample with 390k in HaakLazaridis2015) n/a (previously reported) 4950 3300-2700 BCE Steppe_EMBA Yamnaya_Samara Forest / Steppe EMBA Lopatino, Sok River, Samara Russia 53.38 50.39 M W3a1a R1b1a1a2a 5.317 995838 All PASS (Xcontam=0.003) .. .. half,half 0.057,0.05 W3a1a,W3a1a 0.999,0.98

The infamous R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) well not C-14 direct dating.

All three Samara eNeolithic:

I0122 I0122 SVP35 bone (long bone) S0122.E1.L2,S0122.E2.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M H2a1 R1b1a2a1a1b1a1a 0.723 569453 All PASS .. .. plus,half ..,0.101 H2a1,H2a1 0.952,0.995

I0434 I0434 SVP47 bone (long bone) S0434.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M U4a2orU4d Q1a 0.053 61851 All PASS .. .. half 0.107 U4d 0.991

I0433 I0433 SVP46 bone (long bone) S0433.E1.L1 1240K.capture n/a (no date) MathiesonNature2015 n/a (previously reported) 6550 5200-4000 BCE Khvalynsk_EN Khvalynsk_EN Forest / Steppe N Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara Russia 52.22 48.1 M U5a1i R1a1 0.476 431545 All PASS .. .. half 0.064 H1b1g 0.971

No C-14 dating and yes haplogroup assignment is wrong.

As you can see this is not uncommon; moreover all the other Iran Neolithic sample were C14 direct dated and all yielded similar dates but with a narrower timeframe. Their autosomal profiles are very similar as is their position in the PCA.

Also I have not seen any pronouncement from people who are regularly claimed that yFull dates are flawed? So not sure where you are getting your information from? You know very well that the only thing right now preventing you from having to reformulate all of your theories including the one where R1b-Z2103 did not come from the South is clinging to the idea that the C14 date of Iran is wrong.
Take a chill pill. In fact I have pointed out in several previous posts that the Maykop culture stretched from a centre on the north Caucasus to the steppes and also south to Lake Urmia in NW Iran ever Maykop Barrows have been found. I also was pretty approving of a paper in German which indicated the roots Maykop included a big northern Iranian and Turkmenistan Connection rather than Mesopotamian direct links. Maykop in its formative phase and also its later phases c3300BC included a network that linked the north Caucasus, NW Iran, the east Caspian and the steppes. People would have moved about that network in several directions. We also know that some southern autosomal genes of the sort that creates the Yamnaya mix were already arriving in the steppe before Yamnaya. So Z2103 within that network including NW Iran would not be a surprise. In fact a stray Z2103 has already turned up in the South Caucasus hasn’t it? I am by no means a steppe prinordalist. But I just don’t think that date will stand. The listings are a mess and it could be just one of several mistakes in the preprint.

ADW_1981
04-05-2018, 06:09 PM
Ukraine has failed to produced a single R1b-M269 in its 20+ samples dated from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. So, where was it? Where was R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Because if it were in Ukraine, it was very rare. The closest thing we have to R1b-M269 is the Latvians_HG.

I hope you're not suggesting M269+ sprung from the north eastern corner of Europe. M269+ is probably from the territory that would become Maykop. The only culture I am aware of who moved east of the Balkans would have been much earlier foragers who settled in the Balkans during the LGM, or the CT culture of the Balkans who moved east considerably later. I've yet to see solid evidence that M269+ spread from there or was EEF related. In the event they were earlier Balkan foragers, most likely were M269- before moving east, and long before the EEF guys arrived. The Iberian Refugium is long dead, and still has no support, none.

I believe: R1b = steppe, R1a = forest-steppe.

R.Rocca
04-05-2018, 09:11 PM
In reading about R-L2+ sample I6581, who was not only a horse rider but also likely a bowman, I came upon the following...

Source:Furmanek et al (2015) New data for research on the Bell Beaker Culture in Upper Silesia, Poland
https://www.academia.edu/24783276/New_data_for_research_on_the_Bell_Beaker_Culture_i n_Upper_Silesia_Poland


The unsatisfactory state of research on the 3rd millennium BC period in Upper Silesia, both in the archaeological and environmental aspects, makes it difficult to characterize the changes taking place during that time. Particularly important questions regarding the relationships between Bell Beaker Culture and autonomous groups. It seems the appearance of Bell Beaker Culture communities in the region occurred simultaneously with the transformation of the Corded Ware Culture into the Chłopice-Veselé Culture. Certain Bell Beaker cultural patterns influenced the transition. One of the burials uncovered at site 25 in Kietrz, which combines elements of the Chłopice-Veselé Culture (aspects of the funerary ritual and a cup ornamented with cord) and the Bell Beaker Culture (a wrist-guard and bow-shaped bone pendant) provides an excellent illustration of the process (Leczycki 1983).

Given that the Chłopice-Veselé sample had no reads at P312 and L2 and was found only 5 miles from R-L2+ sample I6581, it could be that his ancestor was from the Bell Beaker Culture.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 10:21 PM
Take a chill pill. In fact I have pointed out in several previous posts that the Maykop culture stretched from a centre on the north Caucasus to the steppes and also south to Lake Urmia in NW Iran ever Maykop Barrows have been found. I also was pretty approving of a paper in German which indicated the roots Maykop included a big northern Iranian and Turkmenistan Connection rather than Mesopotamian direct links. Maykop in its formative phase and also its later phases c3300BC included a network that linked the north Caucasus, NW Iran, the east Caspian and the steppes. People would have moved about that network in several directions. We also know that some southern autosomal genes of the sort that creates the Yamnaya mix were already arriving in the steppe before Yamnaya. So Z2103 within that network including NW Iran would not be a surprise. In fact a stray Z2103 has already turned up in the South Caucasus hasn’t it? I am by no means a steppe prinordalist. But I just don’t think that date will stand. The listings are a mess and it could be just one of several mistakes in the preprint.

I see no reason to doubt the date, my main reasoning as to why I think the date is legit is the fact the autosomal profile is devout Steppe admixture. Had Iran R1b-Z1203 been younger than 3300 BCE and thus posdated Yamnaya expasion it would have had the Steppe component, not only does it look like the other farmers, but it plots on the same location on the PCA. Also the listing being a mess and there being several mistakes on the paper does not invalidate the SNP calls that were put out by the authors.

jeanL
04-05-2018, 10:26 PM
I hope you're not suggesting M269+ sprung from the north eastern corner of Europe.

That's exactly what I am suggesting based on the available evidence! The oldest R1b-P297 the ancestor of R1b-M269 is found in Latvian Hunter Gatherers dated to 9000+ ybp. The oldest R1b-pre-P297 is Villabruna found in Northeast Italy. The way I see it, The R1b-P297 folks migrated there from the Southwest.


M269+ is probably from the territory that would become Maykop.

I see no evidence for that.


The only culture I am aware of who moved east of the Balkans would have been much earlier foragers who settled in the Balkans during the LGM, or the CT culture of the Balkans who moved east considerably later. I've yet to see solid evidence that M269+ spread from there or was EEF related. In the event they were earlier Balkan foragers, most likely were M269- before moving east, and long before the EEF guys arrived.

I agree that R1b-M269+ was likely not spread with farmers.


The Iberian Refugium is long dead, and still has no support, none.

What does that have to do with anything I have said?


I believe: R1b = steppe, R1a = forest-steppe.

R1b has been found in Western Hunter Gatherers, R1b-P297 has been found in Latvian Hunter Gatherers, no R1b-L51 yet found in the Steppe. Maybe in the future it pops up in Ukraine, till then the closest thing in terms of aDNA evidence and phylogenetics is the Baltic.

rms2
04-05-2018, 10:27 PM
In reading about R-L2+ sample I6581, who was not only a horse rider but also likely a bowman, I came upon the following...

Source:Furmanek et al (2015) New data for research on the Bell Beaker Culture in Upper Silesia, Poland
https://www.academia.edu/24783276/New_data_for_research_on_the_Bell_Beaker_Culture_i n_Upper_Silesia_Poland



Given that the Chłopice-Veselé sample had no reads at P312 and L2 and was found only 5 miles from R-L2+ sample I6581, it could be that his ancestor was from the Bell Beaker Culture.

You could be right. The one other Chłopice-Veselé sample, I6531, was R1a1a, but it was from a different site:

Dzielnica (site 17, woj. opolskie, Upper Silesia/Górny Śląsk, Poland).

Strange if R1b-L151 managed to get into a CW spin-off from Kurgan Bell Beaker but no R1a (that we know about yet) managed to get into Kurgan Bell Beaker from CW.

rms2
04-05-2018, 10:36 PM
. . . The oldest R1b-pre-P297 is Villabruna found in Northeast Italy . . .

I really dislike arguing with you, but Villabruna wasn't "pre-297". He was R1b-L754 and not even derived for L389.

Genetiker discussed that urban legend back in February here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13384-Blue-eyed-dark-skinned-earliest-modern-Briton&p=345509&viewfull=1#post345509).

Given the R1b-V88 that keeps popping up in Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe, from Ukraine to Spain, it is more likely Villabruna was related to those men than it is that he was related to the Latvian HG's.