PDA

View Full Version : Oldest Steppe Bell Beakers: Saxony-Anhalt, Germany



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8

R.Rocca
05-23-2018, 07:38 PM
A couple of tables for those that still insist that modern DNA frequency or variance is a good indicator for why R-L23 originated in Western Europe. I won't even waste my time doing it for the British Isles and Germany as there is too much data. It is no coincidence that I2 and G2 dominate in all four countries up until the Bronze Age as these samples contain EEF and WHG autosomal components and lack Yamnaya ancestry. The occasional oddball haplogroups that show up (R-V88, F and H2) are extremely rare today. While we need more data, it almost seems like Iberia and Italy may have received L23 later than other places like Germany, the Netherlands and perhaps even England!

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/AncientDNA_Portugal_Spain.png
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/AncientDNA_Italy_France.png

Webb
05-23-2018, 07:59 PM
Variance can indicate that a clade went through a genetic explosion/expansion, but you are still left with no good timeline of when that happened. So if we say variance with DF27 is highest in Spain using 25 markers or France using 67 markers, the only thing it tells us is DF27 enjoyed a genetic explosion in this area, but when? That is the question. The clade could have sat bottlenecked for a long time after its inception somewhere else, before this genetic renaissance occurred. These samples are finally showing us a when. I just wish we could refine the L151 and P312 samples.

alan
05-23-2018, 10:25 PM
Quoted

After ca. 2700 BC, one has to reckon with Yamnaya culture people entering the Forest-Steppe zone. Their presence is positively confirmed in the Middle Dnieper drainage (Myronivka) around 2550-2500 BC. Although, in respect of the forest- -steppe interfluve of the Dniester and Prut rivers there are no relevant indications (14C dates), yet it may be plausibly accepted that Yamnaya culture representatives entered that area around the same time. The relations of GAC and Yamnaya culture populations are well documented by sources. Contacts between these two cultures took place in the peripheries of regions penetrated by them, namely in the forest- -steppe, right-bank part of the Middle Dnieper region and in the area between the Prut and Dniester (see Ch. IV.). A series of graves displaying rituals typical of the Yamnaya culture, but containing ‘foreign’ grave-goods that bear numerous analogies to the GAC confirms direct contacts (‘face to face’) of the people of both cultures. As can be seen from the dispersion of sites, in the western section, it is possible to reconstruct the boundary separating (for some time?) both groups. The border followed the Prut and the Middle Dniester, but, of course, it did not prevent contacts. It is symptomatic that in the Podolia subgroup no ‘Yamnaya’ traits can be found, while they can be found in the Volhynia subgroup if one accepts the steppe provenance of the use of ochre in funerary rituals. It is should be remembered that GAC graves containing this mineral can be dated after 2700 BC (see Ch. II.), i.e. in the period of particularly intensive population movements in the area in question. From this point of view, it would be necessary to accept that Yamnaya culture people on the Dnieper were more active (expansive) than those inhabiting the interfluve of the Dniester and Prut as well as that people of the eastern Volhynia group of the GAC were more reactive (susceptible to change).

dsm
05-24-2018, 12:39 AM
Am sure many here may have read this old info from A.A.Foster published in 2005 and offering an analysis of R1b migrations based on STR variance (particularly DYS390). I do know that most current researchers regard such STR based techniques as no longer useful now that we have ancient DNA and NGS analysis. But, it still amazes me as to how on target Foster was when almost everyone else back in 2005 accepted a likely Anatolian origin of R1b sub-clades (P312/U106 etc), and a Danubian migration.

In particular, is his comment that based on his analysis, he saw an R1b origin in Kazan. It is clear Foster got his dating approach wrong, but none-the-less and allowing for this taking place in 2005, he can be forgiven. In general he seemed to have been way ahead of his time and using some very primitive tools and techniques.

https://www.worldfamilies.net/tools/r1b_ydna_in_europe

In particular I see this comment he made (related to the recent interactions here) "In the Atlantic region, R1b's DYS=390 showed the least diversity." (DSM: therefore is the youngest).

Any comments ?

Cheers DSM

alan
05-24-2018, 09:12 AM
Quote
entres of the GAC.
After ca. 2700 BC, one has to reckon with Yamnaya culture people entering the Forest-Steppe zone. Their presence is positively confirmed in the Middle Dnieper drainage (Myronivka) around 2550-2500 BC. Although, in respect of the forest- -steppe interfluve of the Dniester and Prut rivers there are no relevant indications (14C dates), yet it may be plausibly accepted that Yamnaya culture representatives entered that area around the same time. The relations of GAC and Yamnaya culture populations are well documented by sources. Contacts between these two cultures took place in the peripheries of regions penetrated by them, namely in the forest- -steppe, right-bank part of the Middle Dnieper region and in the area between the Prut and Dniester (see Ch. IV.). A series of graves displaying rituals typical of the Yamnaya culture, but containing ‘foreign’ grave-goods that bear numerous analogies to the GAC confirms direct contacts (‘face to face’) of the people of both cultures. As can be seen from the dispersion of sites, in the western section, it is possible to reconstruct the boundary separating (for some time?) both groups. The border followed the Prut and the Middle Dniester, but, of course, it did not prevent contacts. It is symptomatic that in the Podolia subgroup no ‘Yamnaya’ traits can be found, while they can be found in the Volhynia subgroup if one accepts the steppe provenance of the use of ochre in funerary rituals. It is should be remembered that GAC graves containing this mineral can be dated after 2700 BC (see Ch. II.), i.e. in the period of particularly intensive population movements in the area in question. From this point of view, it would be necessary to accept that Yamnaya culture people on the Dnieper were more active (expansive) than those inhabiting the interfluve of the Dniester and Prut as well as that people of the eastern Volhynia group of the GAC were more reactive (susceptible to change).
Let us observe that it is approximately to 2700 BC that the expansion of GAC people to the Moldavian Uplands can be hypothetically dated. Prior to 2600 BC, movements of groups of people of the Middle Dnieper culture of indeterminate size also took place from the Dnieper drainage to the region stretching between the Upper Vistula and Dniester, i.e. across the territory controlled by GAC populations [Machnik 1999]. Hence, the period from 2700 to 2500 BC appears to have abounded in population and culture transformations that do not easily lend themselves to interpretation now. They must have culminated in the eastward expansion of the Corded Ware culture breaking the boundary discussed earlier (see Ch. IV.) that separated its territory from that of the GAC [Machnik 1979b:60; 1991:12]. Of key importance seem to be the movements of the Yamnaya culture populations which stimulated other shifts according to the ‘billiard ball model’ [Kośko 1990].
All these shifts must have led to the disintegration of the complicated structure of the eastern group of the GAC. Although some of its people did continue to live after 2500 BC, yet the range of its settlement had narrowed. It covered (partially?) Volhynia and probably some parts of Podolia as well as possibly some enclaves on the Moldavian Uplands. A part of the population may have moved on towards the Vistula basin (see Ch. V.3.), while another part could have roamed into the Forest zone (cf., for instance, the chronology of settlement in Turinshchina; item B). The process of cultural disintegration did not mean, however, a complete demise of the GAC population; it meant rather a gradual loss of cultural independence and assimilation of GAC people by other societies, chiefly from the circle of the Corded Ware culture.

alan
05-24-2018, 09:44 AM
Quoted

After ca. 2700 BC, one has to reckon with Yamnaya culture people entering the Forest-Steppe zone. Their presence is positively confirmed in the Middle Dnieper drainage (Myronivka) around 2550-2500 BC. Although, in respect of the forest- -steppe interfluve of the Dniester and Prut rivers there are no relevant indications (14C dates), yet it may be plausibly accepted that Yamnaya culture representatives entered that area around the same time. The relations of GAC and Yamnaya culture populations are well documented by sources. Contacts between these two cultures took place in the peripheries of regions penetrated by them, namely in the forest- -steppe, right-bank part of the Middle Dnieper region and in the area between the Prut and Dniester (see Ch. IV.). A series of graves displaying rituals typical of the Yamnaya culture, but containing ‘foreign’ grave-goods that bear numerous analogies to the GAC confirms direct contacts (‘face to face’) of the people of both cultures. As can be seen from the dispersion of sites, in the western section, it is possible to reconstruct the boundary separating (for some time?) both groups. The border followed the Prut and the Middle Dniester, but, of course, it did not prevent contacts. It is symptomatic that in the Podolia subgroup no ‘Yamnaya’ traits can be found, while they can be found in the Volhynia subgroup if one accepts the steppe provenance of the use of ochre in funerary rituals. It is should be remembered that GAC graves containing this mineral can be dated after 2700 BC (see Ch. II.), i.e. in the period of particularly intensive population movements in the area in question. From this point of view, it would be necessary to accept that Yamnaya culture people on the Dnieper were more active (expansive) than those inhabiting the interfluve of the Dniester and Prut as well as that people of the eastern Volhynia group of the GAC were more reactive (susceptible to change).

One of the largest GAC settlement concentrations was formed in the area be- tween the Prut and Seret rivers (see Ch. I.1.3.; Fig. 64B). The penetration of this territory by Yamnaya culture societies, however, was of a rather incidental nature. The small number of Yamnaya culture kurgans are located on the Prut and Seret [Dergachev 1986:Fig. 1], with none in the areas further from these rivers. From this region, there are no known sources combining both traditions. The Yamnaya culture population may, therefore, have appeared here after the dis- appearance of GAC settlement. A different situation is presented on the eastern side of the Prut: more precisely, between the Prut and Dniester rivers. Here, there are Yamnaya culture graves recorded which contain certain GAC elements — to be found in ceramic and flint artifacts. The furthest of these traces reach to the left bank of the Middle Dniester (Camenca). A comparison of informa- tion from the above-mentioned regions indicates that the settlement of the two cultures were most probably contemporary to one another, at least in part, and that the dividing line ran along the Prut and Middle Dniester rivers. This bor- der, identically to that discussed earlier between the GAC and the Corded Ware culture, separated the GAC settlement concentration, situated to the west of the Prut, from the Yamnaya culture territory located to the east. The presence of in- dividual GAC traits in the Yamnaya cultural circle, in graves classified both in the
Dniester group and in the Budzhak group, could be interpreted as a sign of the continued preservation of the above-mentioned border, above all during the life- -time of the former. The adoption of GAC features in the Budzhak group could point to the disappearance of the border at that time and the absorption by the Yamnaya culture population of at least a section of GAC peoples. Let us add that the active adoption of patterns from other cultural groups (Balkan-Carpathian and central European) remains one of the major diagnostic features of the Dni- ester Yamnaya culture, and one which distinguishes it from other groups of this culture in this region [see, for example, Chernyakov 1978; 1979; Subbotin 1980]. From the perspective of the situation presented above, of particular importance is the presence in this same region of clear evidence of links between the Yam- naya culture and the Corded Ware culture [e.g. Yarovoy 1985:90-91; Dergachev 1986:79-87; Alekseyeva 1992:78-83]. Research into the nature of these links, and also into the GAC — Corded Ware culture relations remains a crucial task for the future.
To conclude, GAC and Yamnaya culture societies were linked by direct contacts in at least two regions of the Forest-Steppe: in the right bank area of the Middle Dnieper and in the area between the middle Prut and the Dniester. In both instances, these led to the formation of rather short-lived syncretic structures of a variety of specific forms (a more marked participation of GAC in the Middle Dnieper, against a significantly lesser contribution on the Dniester).
Still to be considered is the presence of individual GAC traits in the ceramic artifacts of the Forest-Steppe groups of the Catacomb culture. Bearing in mind the distinct chronological positions of the two cultures, these features are probably the effect of an indirect transmission: by the Middle Dnieper culture and Yamnaya culture populations. This question is presently impossible to resolve.

alan
05-24-2018, 10:06 AM
Source of the above quotes https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/3819/1/BPS8.pdf

Main purpose of this is to track down where the likely model mixing area of Yamnaya type people and GAC that creates L51 steppe bell beaker signal was. However the alternative that it was a rare y line in CW remains and of so we would have to look for a CW group with an unusual amount of mixing with GAC. However there are aspects of beaker culture that do Point more to the area between the Prut and Middle Dnieper and a late move west from that area a century or two after CW including burial positions, archery sets etc and of course both the yDNA and autosomal DNA both of which suggest different stories albeit a cousinlu one. I was slowly coming to think Dniester-Prut but the more intense steppe-GAC interaction and the burial customs on the middle Dnieper might favour that area. I’ve posted before about the similarity of beaker burial orientations and Central European bell beaker.

MitchellSince1893
05-24-2018, 12:41 PM
I think it was Alan or Rocca that mentioned concern that a source closer to the Balkans e.g. Budzhak may have too much EEF admixture when looking at the ancient BB results. I may gotten that mixed up but if true it would favor the middle Dnieper.

alan
05-24-2018, 03:27 PM
I think it was Alan or Rocca that mentioned concern that a source closer to the Balkans e.g. Budzhak may have too much EEF admixture when looking at the ancient BB results. I may gotten that mixed up but if true it would favor the middle Dnieper.

Yep I think the beaker signal was only possible to create in a very specific timeframe and geography. The steppe/yamnaya-clone part of the signal surely came from a group who remained back a little from the interface zone with CT farmer groups. Timing wise it seems that most CT groups finally disappeared before 2600BC. Also the GAC groups only came into contact with Yamnaya type groups when both headed into the forest steppe area along the river valleys (moving in opposite directions) around 2700BC give or take a century. The only rivers that actually happened in was the Prut, Dniester and middle Dnieper. So by 2600BC you had a scenario where CT was almost dead, GAC had reached come down those rivers and Yamnaya had headed up the rivers. So it may be timing as much as geography that allowed the steppe element to not mix much with the CT element. On the other hand, the papers make clear that while contact took place on the Prut, Dniester and Dnieper's forest steppe middle stretches, the contact was far stronger and deeper on the middle Dnieper. That would make it the best archaeological match for the beaker signal although I dont think we can totally rule out the Prut and Dniester. What the paper claims is that Yamnaya didnt penetrate up those rivers from the true steppe until perhaps 2700BC and actual clinching evidence of it was even later at the time the report was written. I have previously read that people on the steppe, forest steppe and forest used to move up and down the river as the environoment they were adapted to either headed upsteam (during dry phases) or spread downstream (in wetter phases). So it may be complicated and partly environment driven. There seems to be a lot of disagreement about those wet/dry phases but one I hear of a lot is a truly exceptionally dry phase around the time beaker culture arose c. 2500BC - not sure how accurate they have dated it. But the effect of a dry phase is the true steppe become almost uninhabitable, full steppe conditions invade the forrest steppe and the forest steppe spreads upstream as the forest retreats. That could have created a scenario where steppe groups ran into GAC groups. The latter c. 2600BC or whatever the dry phase was could not escape north due to CW groups having been settled there for 200 years. If so that would mean the beaker population could have been created only just before beaker culture appeared. However, it is possible that a more gradual mixing on the middle Dnieper happened 2700-2500BC,

The only other possibility remains that P312 was a minority line in CW, perhaps around southern Poland or even further west who heavily mixed with the GAC culture. I am sure if I dug into the details of CW groups I could find a candidate subgroup in CW somewhere but the CW-GAC interface zone stretched from north-west Ukraine to the Czech republic so in a CW+GAC model for beaker that opens up an awful lot of geography to consider. Mind you, on thing I have recently read is that GAC died out earlier in its core central zone than it did in its south-eastern late extension - I think pretty soon after CW appeared. So there would be a gap of 200 years between GAC disappearing and bell beaker appearing which would perhaps make a beaker in a CW-GAC blender unlikely in Poland, Germany etc and only plausible in the forest-forest steppe interface area on the middle to upper parts of the rivers to the east of the Carpathians.

I do think though that P312 could not have strayed too far from the steppe area because beaker has characteristics which seem to have been spreading from the western fringe of the steppe zone around 2600BC including the north-south crouched on side type burial posture, hollow based arrows, the sudden increase in archery sets, increase in the use of knives (decrease in battle axes) evidence of craft specialists etc. Those trends mostly did not reach the more conservative CW groups who had spread west around 2800-2750BC. They only appeared in eastern CW groups and related groups like in Malopolska who remained close enough to the steppes to receive continuing flow of influence (even as late as Catacomb - southern Poland has tombs with clear Catacomb influence in the mid 3rd millennium). Its much more likely that new gene flow and even new y lines etc reached those eastern CW groups than those who had long ago headed west and archaeology seems to bear this out with the latter being very conservative in terms of burial.

In short I dont have the answers but I feel the options are getting narrower and narrower.

Kopfjäger
05-25-2018, 02:16 AM
Honestly, at least 99% of the general public couldn't care less.

What happened at least 5000 years ago - and fixates Anthrogenica posters - is of the very little interest to anyone else.

Totally true.

Off topic, but... Peternorth... really? lol

Bas
05-25-2018, 02:44 AM
We already have lots of evidence for GAC being the group that BB took its EEF from. Just looking at the extent of GAC territory it was always going to be a strong contender. But just wondering if anyone could or already has run the Bell Beakers through qpAdm with the latest EEF samples.

Of course the Bell Beaker Behemoth did this very same run but they use an 'old-school' right pop setup that might lack the power to be able to determine correct EEF admixture (uses mostly modern pops like Karitiana, Ami, Siberians, Han....no Anatolia_N, Levant_N that could really tease out the EEF contribution)

anglesqueville
05-25-2018, 03:15 PM
We already have lots of evidence for GAC being the group that BB took its EEF from. Just looking at the extent of GAC territory it was always going to be a strong contender. But just wondering if anyone could or already has run the Bell Beakers through qpAdm with the latest EEF samples.

Of course the Bell Beaker Behemoth did this very same run but they use an 'old-school' right pop setup that might lack the power to be able to determine correct EEF admixture (uses mostly modern pops like Karitiana, Ami, Siberians, Han....no Anatolia_N, Levant_N that could really tease out the EEF contribution)

Slightly off topic, but..... https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10019-Le-Grenier-indo-europ%E9en&p=401935&viewfull=1#post401935

jeanL
05-27-2018, 02:58 PM
Just a reminder that the level of Yamnaya admixture in Iberian populations when using the proper references (i.e. Iberian Chalcolithic+Yamnaya) is lowest in Basques and does not surpass 30% in any of the populations.



[1] "distance%=3.843"

Basque_Spanish

Iberia_ChL,77
Yamnaya_Samara,21
Blatterhole_HG,1.2
Clovis,0.4
Iberomaurusian,0.4

[1] "distance%=4.2185"

Basque_French

Iberia_ChL,74.8
Yamnaya_Samara,23
Blatterhole_HG,1
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,0.8
Clovis,0.2
Iberomaurusian,0.2

[1] "distance%=3.5206"

French_South

Iberia_ChL,72.4
Yamnaya_Samara,26.2
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,0.6
Ethiopia_4500BP,0.4
Clovis,0.2
Iberomaurusian,0.2


distance%=4.5174"

Spanish_Andalucia

Iberia_ChL,64.2
Yamnaya_Samara,30.8
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,2.8
Iberomaurusian,2.2

[1] "distance%=4.1024"

Spanish_Aragon

Iberia_ChL,67
Yamnaya_Samara,29.8
Iberomaurusian,2.2
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1

[1] "distance%=4.5183"

Spanish_Baleares

Iberia_ChL,64
Yamnaya_Samara,32.2
Iberomaurusian,2.2
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.6

[1] "distance%=4.8785"

Spanish_Canarias

Iberia_ChL,62.8
Yamnaya_Samara,26
Iberomaurusian,6.4
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,3.8
Malawi_Fingira_2500BP,0.4
Yoruba,0.4
Ethiopia_4500BP,0.2

[1] "distance%=3.8742"

Spanish_Cantabria

Iberia_ChL,69
Yamnaya_Samara,28.4
Iberomaurusian,1.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,0.8
Yoruba,0.2

[1] "distance%=3.8281"

Spanish_Cataluna

Iberia_ChL,67.2
Yamnaya_Samara,29.6
Iberomaurusian,1.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.2
South_Africa_2000BP,0.2
Yoruba,0.2

[1] "distance%=4.2077"

Spanish_Castilla_La_Mancha

Iberia_ChL,67
Yamnaya_Samara,29
Iberomaurusian,2.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.4

[1] "distance%=4.3809"

Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon

Iberia_ChL,64.2
Yamnaya_Samara,30.6
Iberomaurusian,3
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,2
Yoruba,0.2

[1] "distance%=4.2799"

Spanish_Extremadura

Iberia_ChL,63.2
Yamnaya_Samara,31.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,3.4
Iberomaurusian,1.8

[1] "distance%=3.5685"

Spanish_Galicia

Iberia_ChL,63
Yamnaya_Samara,30.8
Iberomaurusian,4
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.8
Ethiopia_4500BP,0.4

[1] "distance%=4.1979"

Spanish_Murcia

Iberia_ChL,66.2
Yamnaya_Samara,27.8
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,3.4
Iberomaurusian,2.2
Clovis,0.4

[1] "distance%=4.5273"

Spanish_Pais_Vasco

Iberia_ChL,74.2
Yamnaya_Samara,24.4
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1
Iberomaurusian,0.4

[1] "distance%=4.2107"

Portuguese

Iberia_ChL,64
Yamnaya_Samara,30.4
Iberomaurusian,3.2
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,2.2
Ethiopia_4500BP,0.2

[1] "distance%=4.9448"

Spanish_Valencia

Iberia_ChL,66.2
Yamnaya_Samara,31.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.4
Iberomaurusian,0.8


Matrilocality is a fairly recent phenomena, we have no idea what the culture was like some 4000 years ago in the Basque area. Moreover the Beakers from Burgos with R1b-DF27 lines are turning out to be ~15% Yamnaya like. This means that there was further Yamnaya-like input brought into the Northern Iberian populations since. This could have been due to the Celtic migrations, or other historical migrations. Here is an estimate for ethnic Spanish Basques:

[1] "distance%=3.843"

Basque_Spanish

Iberia_ChL,77
Yamnaya_Samara,21
Blatterhole_HG,1.2
Clovis,0.4
Iberomaurusian,0.4

While it is true that the Yamnaya ancestry in Iberia as a while does nor surpass 35%, and this is likely indicative of Central_Beaker ancestry being diluted heavily through admixture with Iberian farmers, I do find it odd that the lowest levels of Yamnaya-like ancestry happen in the population with the highest R1b-DF27 levels, one could argue founders-effect, however the effective population size of many other Iberian subpopulations was higher than in the Pyrenees region, yet why do they have relatively higher Yamnaya-like ancestry. Take for example:


[1] "distance%=4.9448"

Spanish_Valencia

Iberia_ChL,66.2
Yamnaya_Samara,31.6
Tanzania_Luxmanda_3000BP,1.4
Iberomaurusian,0.8

Valencia has a far more multi-cultural history than the Basque region, but it also has far less R1b-L23+ derived lineages than Basques do, this to me indicates that some of the Yamnaya-like ancestry was brought by other non-R1b-L23 lines via people with higher Yamnaya-like ancestry. Candidate populations for Valencia are the Romans, because the Phoenicians or Carthaginians would not exactly be expected to be high in Yamnaya-like ancestry. Valencia was also home to the Iberians and was not IE speaking in pre-Roman times. Catalonia which was home to the Urnfields culture is some 29% Yamnaya-like.

I think there was a massive asymmetry in the levels of Yamnaya-like ancestry that different R1b-P312 lineages had. It seems to me that the level of Yamnaya-like ancestry in R1b-L21 and its descendants might have been twice that of R1b-DF27 and its descendants. This could be due to R1b-DF27 likes mostly coming as males Conquerors into Iberia and R1b-L21 lines coming as Settlers into Great Britain. If that's the case then it would be ironic given the more recent history of colonization styles of Iberians vs British, almost like it was ingrained in their DNA.

jeanL
05-27-2018, 03:06 PM
BTW France is severely under sampled

23494

You have 26 pre-Beaker lineages and 22 of them come from a single burial (Treilles) where the level of kinship is incredibly high. Compared to Ukraine where just in the pre-2800 BC timeline we have some 29 lineages spanning a time period form 5300 BC to 2800 BC and not dominated by a single burial. Just a reminder that not a single R1b-M269 or R1b-L23 line has been found in Ukraine pre-Yamnaya period. A whole lot of R1b1a and R1b1a-V88, possibly suggesting a migration from the Iron_gates populations but no single R1b-M269 line. We do have some R1b-M269 lines in the Northern part of the Caucasus dated to ~4000 BC per the latest paper. We do not know if these were R1b-M269(xL23) lines or even R1b-L23 lines because downstream markers were not tested, but they might be significant to the birth place of R1b-L23.

etrusco
05-27-2018, 06:23 PM
@all and alan

Here's an article with a new interpretation by Carlos of the formation of eastern bell beaker

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/east-bell-beakers-an-in-situ-admixture-of-yamna-settlers-and-gac-like-groups-in-hungary/

rms2
05-27-2018, 09:36 PM
Globular Amphora really did not settle in the Balkans. My guess right now (subject to change as we get more and better knowledge) is that the pre-Beaker culture was Budzhak. It passed through GAC territory (and probably spent some time there) on its way north from the northwest coast of the Black Sea up the Prut and Dniester valleys before turning west around the north slopes of the Carpathians and possibly via the Tisza River valley down into Hungary.

Olalde et al found that the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Kurgan Bell Beaker was GAC + Swedish TRB, which probably indicates the route taken by whomever the pre-Beaker people were. Apparently Kurgan Bell Beaker also had a GAC-like mtDNA profile.

rms2
05-27-2018, 09:42 PM
Matrilocality is not a fairly recent phenomenon. Apparently it was standard practice among Neolithic farmers, who worshiped a great mother goddess of fertility, manufactured large numbers of Venus figurines, and had matriarchal cultures. No, we don't know what the Basque marriage tradition was 4000 or more years ago, but evidently the pre-Christian Basques worshiped the mother goddess, whom they called Mari, and had matrilineal inheritance laws. They are believed to have had a matrilocal marriage tradition.

Indo-European peoples, on the other hand, were patriarchal and had a patrilocal marriage tradition.

That is one reason why Kurgan Bell Beaker could not have been Indo-Europeanized by women, whether from Corded Ware or Yamnaya.

rms2
05-27-2018, 10:02 PM
A few brief points.

1. R1b-M269 and especially R1b-L23 have not been found in Neolithic farmers or Mesolithic hunter-gatherers west of the Dniester.

2. R1b-L23 has been found in Yamnaya, Kurgan Bell Beaker, Vucedol, and Proto-Nagyrev.

3. Thus far the evidence suggests there was no R1b-L23 (including R1b-L51) west of the Dniester before Yamnaya, Vucedol, Kurgan Bell Beaker, and Proto-Nagyrev.

4. Thus far the evidence suggests there was no steppe dna west of the Dniester before Corded Ware, Yamnaya, Vucedol, Kurgan Bell Beaker, and Proto-Nagyrev.

5. At present, most Europeans carry steppe dna.

6. At present, Europe is overwhelmingly Indo-European speaking. Most linguists believe Indo-European language spread to Europe from the steppe, mostly in the third millennium BC. Many scholars believe early Italo-Celtic was spread by Kurgan Bell Beaker people.

7. At present, R1b-L23 is the most frequent y-dna haplogroup in central and western Europe (taken as a whole).

8. Olalde et al found a strong connection between R1b-M269, especially R1b-P312, and steppe dna in Kurgan Bell Beaker.

It seems to me these points, taken together, make a strong case for the steppe/Indo-European origin of R1b-L51. In order to get around them and explain them away, one must argue that the ultimate vector for steppe dna and Indo-European was Corded Ware, in part via its women, who must have married Neolithic farmers who became Kurgan Bell Beaker men once they were Indo-Europeanized by their women.

That to me is an incredibly weak and tenuous argument and not at all supported by the evidence.

alan
05-27-2018, 11:11 PM
The archaeology paper I linked to recently concluded the south-eastern TRB people nearest the steppe mixed with the CT farmers extensively while there is only the flimsiest evidence of GAC mixing with CT. That would seem to indicate that it was under GAC not TRB that the steppe ancestors of the beakers mixed with.

alan
05-27-2018, 11:36 PM
After doing a lot of hefty reading into the area between south Poland and the Dnieper I have to say the central European beaker culture is bang in line with a number of traits coming from the western steppe and forest steppe area c 2600BC - rise of archery sets,hollow based arrowheads, knives instead of battle axes, north-south burial orientation, v perforated buttons etc. Everything points to beaker arising in areas where contact with steppe and adjacent innovations continued long after the big CW wave west 200 years earlier . The Yamnaya and GAC mix also points to the zone between the Prut and Dnieper c 2700-2550BC as the likely genesis zone of the immediate ancestor of beaker. There must have been a phase where people with all these traits existed before the classic beaker was adopted. Yamnaya was very weak on pottery and often just had pots of other cultures it encountered. The beaker may have been the last item added to the beaker package and perhaps was not added until they reached south Germany.

dsm
05-28-2018, 12:42 AM
@all and alan

Here's an article with a new interpretation by Carlos of the formation of eastern bell beaker

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/east-bell-beakers-an-in-situ-admixture-of-yamna-settlers-and-gac-like-groups-in-hungary/

I enjoy reading Carlos's papers but must admit my real interest is what R1b-group those Hungarian Yamnaya belonged to. Clearly an L23 sub-clade but not at all clear is if they were L51 or even L11. But as I understand it R1b-Z2103 *have* been found in the region (Vučedol ?) but Z2103 isn't L51.

The issue of how L51 got to the Bohemia region, is IMHO wide open and Alan helped offer one answer through the reference to the Polish research paper (BETWEEN WEST AND EAST PEOPLE OF THE GLOBULAR AMPHORA CULTURE IN EASTERN EUROPE: 2950-2350 BC - Marzena Szmyt) regarding mixing of Yamna & GAC around the Prut, Dniester & middle Dnieper rivers which IMHO seems more plausible unless 'ancient' L51 or L11 can be found in the Hungarian Basin or along the Danube.

So I believe Carlos is offering one view of the location of admixture, but is he referring to L51 or L11 and if yes then how did they get there and in the date range he mentions. Seems there may have been 2 migrations that matter.

D

rms2
05-28-2018, 02:34 AM
Well, Proto-Nagyrev represents the transition phase between Late Vucedol and Early Nagyrev. R1b-L11xP312,U106 has been found in Proto-Nagyrev in Hungary. So, there's L11 in an additional steppe-derived culture besides Kurgan Bell Beaker.

MitchellSince1893
05-28-2018, 04:25 AM
...The Yamnaya and GAC mix also points to the zone between the Prut and Dnieper c 2700-2550BC as the likely genesis zone of the immediate ancestor of beaker...

Two big "Ifs"

If you got the location and dates correct, and if McDonald's dates for P312 and U106 are the most accurate (~3100 to 3000 BC current best guess)

then U106 and P312 and P312's subclades (R-S245, R-U152, R-DF27, R-DF99, R-DF19) formed in eastern Europe rather than Western or Central Europe.

Based on RISE563 dated to 2542 BC we know U152 is no younger than this, and odds are RISE563 isn't the original U152 man, so say U152 came into existence at 2600 BC at the latest (McDonald has the "best guess" currently at 2685 BC).

The ancestor for both U152 and DF27 who carried the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations would be older still...say 2650 BC at the latest.
Then the man who carried the Z40481 mutation who was the ancestor of ZZ11/Z38841 and DF99 was at least another generation or two back, say 2700 BC

So you are looking at P312 being no younger than ~2750 BC give or take a generation or two, living between the Dnieper and Prut...assuming the "ifs" are correct.

alan
05-28-2018, 06:25 PM
The description of a physically unusual Yamnaya group on the NW Caspian area - broad brachycephalic heads, wide faces and prominent noses sounds rather like bell beaker people. Could this be the Yamaya subgroup that at some point contributed the Yamnaya part of the bell beaker ancestry ?http://www.academia.edu/9203307/On_the_Biological_Distinctness_of_the_Pit-grave_Yamnaya_People_in_the_Northwestern_Caspian_C ranial_Evidence

alan
05-28-2018, 07:06 PM
Oops double post

alan
05-28-2018, 07:18 PM
The description of a physically unusual Yamnaya group on the NW Caspian area - broad brachycephalic heads, wide faces and prominent noses sounds rather like bell beaker people. Could this be the Yamaya subgroup that at some point contributed the Yamnaya part of the bell beaker ancestry ?http://www.academia.edu/9203307/On_the_Biological_Distinctness_of_the_Pit-grave_Yamnaya_People_in_the_Northwestern_Caspian_C ranial_Evidence

This area is roughly from the lower Volga and NW Caspian to the lower Don. It at least shows it is not impossible for a rather beaker like physical type to emerge in pockets in the Yamnaya culture. Well maybe not a pocket - that is a pretty fast area. Very and dry semi desert in some areas. They grazed the river areas then moved to upland interfluve areas in the summer. It would be interesting to speculate that the physical type emerged due to this extremely dry climate and huge extremes between very hot summers and very cold winters. However the autosomal signal did not develop there and had to have developed later somewhere west of the Dnieper after 2800BC in any scenario that I can imagine.

dsm
05-28-2018, 10:48 PM
Two big "Ifs"

If you got the location and dates correct, and if McDonald's dates for P312 and U106 are the most accurate (~3100 to 3000 BC current best guess)

then U106 and P312 and P312's subclades (R-S245, R-U152, R-DF27, R-DF99, R-DF19) formed in eastern Europe rather than Western or Central Europe.

Based on RISE563 dated to 2542 BC we know U152 is no younger than this, and odds are RISE563 isn't the original U152 man, so say U152 came into existence at 2600 BC at the latest (McDonald has the "best guess" currently at 2685 BC).

The ancestor for both U152 and DF27 who carried the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations would be older still...say 2650 BC at the latest.
Then the man who carried the Z40481 mutation who was the ancestor of ZZ11/Z38841 and DF99 was at least another generation or two back, say 2700 BC

So you are looking at P312 being no younger than ~2750 BC give or take a generation or two, living between the Dnieper and Prut...assuming the "ifs" are correct.

Good point re dates, to me they are 'the elephant in the room' when we look at the Yamnaya migrations - but if as Olalde et al published, that B/B (as P312) entered the UK in 2,500 BC and in 100-200 years had displaced the existing Y-DNA to the extent it did (90% IIRC), then it seems only logical that those B/B (P312) peoples took 100s of years to get to the UK from Steppes invaders intermixing with the other cultures along the way to produce the L11 & P312 asDNA signatures we are seeing. And there is the enigma that the UK B/B entry occurred long before Hallstatt and La Tene emerged (AFAICT it happened 1,500 or so years before Hallstatt, and, as we know La Tene was after Hallstatt).

So we get back to one of the enigmas, why can't we find stronger evidence of L51 before Bohemia while we can do so for Z2103.

D

D

MitchellSince1893
05-28-2018, 11:27 PM
This area is roughly from the lower Volga and NW Caspian to the lower Don. It at least shows it is not impossible for a rather beaker like physical type to emerge in pockets in the Yamnaya culture. Well maybe not a pocket - that is a pretty fast area. Very and dry semi desert in some areas. They grazed the river areas then moved to upland interfluve areas in the summer. It would be interesting to speculate that the physical type emerged due to this extremely dry climate and huge extremes between very hot summers and very cold winters. However the autosomal signal did not develop there and had to have developed later somewhere west of the Dnieper after 2800BC in any scenario that I can imagine.

Quotes from the article Alan posted

Neolithic people of what is now the Saratov Province and Kalmykia were ancestral to the Chalcolithic people of Khlopkov Bugor and Dzhangar as well as to the Pit-Grave people of Kalmykia, Astrakhan and Stavropol Provinces.


Mesolithic and Neolithic populations of Eastern Europe show significant differences in traits such as cranial and facial breadth, and naso-malar angle...indicates an apparent migration to Eastern Europe from without rather than an in situ microevolutionary event

the northwestern Caspian, however...are closest to the Neolithic groups of the Lower Dnieper.

These two graphs are from the article. I just colored coded them. 1-5 are NW Caspian Pit Grave samples. 6 is Orenburg and Samara Provinces 7 is Volgograd and Saratov Provinces. 8 is Zaporozhye, Ukraine, 9 is Kherson, Ukraine.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3e/6b/cb/3e6bcb92237736ffd303ac8ff6b3fe83.png

alan
05-28-2018, 11:38 PM
Good point re dates, to me they are 'the elephant in the room' when we look at the Yamnaya migrations - but if as Olalde et al published, that B/B (as P312) entered the UK in 2,500 BC and in 100-200 years had displaced the existing Y-DNA to the extent it did (90% IIRC), then it seems only logical that those B/B (P312) peoples took 100s of years to get to the UK from Steppes invaders intermixing with the other cultures along the way to produce the L11 & P312 asDNA signatures we are seeing. And there is the enigma that the UK B/B entry occurred long before Hallstatt and La Tene emerged (AFAICT it happened 1,500 or so years before Hallstatt, and, as we know La Tene was after Hallstatt).

So we get back to one of the enigmas, why can't we find stronger evidence of L51 before Bohemia while we can do so for Z2103.

D

D

I reckon it’s because it went north of tht Carpathians and therefore didn’t reach the Danube until it arrived through the Moravian gate in the Czech Republic. The outlier at Csepel in Hungary is an offshoot of Moravian beaker.

MitchellSince1893
05-28-2018, 11:44 PM
Quotes from the article Alan posted


Neolithic people of what is now the Saratov Province and Kalmykia were ancestral to the Chalcolithic people of Khlopkov Bugor and Dzhangar as well as to the Pit-Grave people of Kalmykia, Astrakhan and Stavropol Provinces.


This rose colored area shows the ancestral areas for the NW Caspian type people according to the quote above

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/26/7b/fc267b0276c33dacaf6fb241d65645b7.png

The Saratov Oblast/Province area makes sense as a possible L151 homeland as it's adjacent to the Samara Oblast/Province where ancient L23 (I0443) has already been found at the Lopantino II site.

dsm
05-29-2018, 01:45 AM
This rose colored area shows the ancestral areas for the NW Caspian type people according to the quote above

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/26/7b/fc267b0276c33dacaf6fb241d65645b7.png

The Saratov Oblast/Province area makes sense as a possible L151 homeland as it's adjacent to the Samara Oblast/Province where ancient L23 (I0443) has already been found at the Lopantino II site.

Did you mean L51 ? - L151 is downstream of L51. Cheers D

MitchellSince1893
05-29-2018, 02:13 AM
Did you mean L51 ? - L151 is downstream of L51. Cheers D

I meant L151, but it could apply to either.

dsm
05-29-2018, 04:09 AM
I meant L151, but it could apply to either.

Not any big deal (more informational) - but on the R1b Basal Subclades tree. We show the following trail between L51 and L151. Isn't the below telling us there are 12 identified SNPs (with various names in clusters) between L51 and L151 ?.

Multiply each snp cluster by any chosen mutation rate (lets say 150 years) and don't we get 12 x 150 = 1,800 years from L51 to L151 ? (I may be misreading this but hope I am not because I have published this sort of detail elsewhere to explain why SNP names are written this way :( - such a complicated story ! )

L51 /M412/PF6536/S167/GG468, CTS10373/FGC39/PF6537, PF6414, PF6535, CTS8595/YSC0001291, FGC10152/Y109, E207 /Y410/GG528 -- Clusters #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 (Clusters of each SNP being the sets between the commas)

which branches down our tree to ...

SNP Clusters #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 which are ... FGC796/Y101/Z8159, PF6416, PF5856, PF6540/YSC0000082, L52/PF6541, >>>L151/PF6542<<<, PF6543/S1159/YSC0000191, CTS7650/FGC44/PF6544/S1164, PF6538, L11/PF6539/S127, P310 /PF6546/S129, CTS10353/S1175/YSC0001249, P311 /PF6545/S128

As we know P311 is the newest SNP in this 2nd branchless group. Then we get P312 & U106 & S1194 etc:

And, if we count all the SNPs between L51 and P312 I see 19 (I hope) and 19 x 150 = 2850 years between L51 and P312 !. As I have said, these dates are the Elephant in the room and if it starts moving we have real problems. :(

jeanL
05-29-2018, 06:52 PM
Not any big deal (more informational) - but on the R1b Basal Subclades tree. We show the following trail between L51 and L151. Isn't the below telling us there are 12 identified SNPs (with various names in clusters) between L51 and L151 ?.

Multiply each snp cluster by any chosen mutation rate (lets say 150 years) and don't we get 12 x 150 = 1,800 years from L51 to L151 ? (I may be misreading this but hope I am not because I have published this sort of detail elsewhere to explain why SNP names are written this way :( - such a complicated story ! )

L51 /M412/PF6536/S167/GG468, CTS10373/FGC39/PF6537, PF6414, PF6535, CTS8595/YSC0001291, FGC10152/Y109, E207 /Y410/GG528 -- Clusters #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 (Clusters of each SNP being the sets between the commas)

which branches down our tree to ...

SNP Clusters #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 which are ... FGC796/Y101/Z8159, PF6416, PF5856, PF6540/YSC0000082, L52/PF6541, >>>L151/PF6542<<<, PF6543/S1159/YSC0000191, CTS7650/FGC44/PF6544/S1164, PF6538, L11/PF6539/S127, P310 /PF6546/S129, CTS10353/S1175/YSC0001249, P311 /PF6545/S128

As we know P311 is the newest SNP in this 2nd branchless group. Then we get P312 & U106 & S1194 etc:

And, if we count all the SNPs between L51 and P312 I see 19 (I hope) and 19 x 150 = 2850 years between L51 and P312 !. As I have said, these dates are the Elephant in the room and if it starts moving we have real problems. :(

Indeed and this should be a clear finding to the people thinking that finding R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) in a boy from Yamnaya dated to 3300BC at most is unlikely to signal any potential ancestral foreground since we have full-fledge R1b-U152 derived clades in Beaker dated to 2500 BC(We have a timespan of at most 800 years) in Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Bavaria, Germany. There is no way in hell that the R1b-L23(xxL51,Z2103) lineage found in Yamnaya is ancestral to anything Beaker and most likely represents a third R1b-L23 lineage yet to be discovered.

Now when if they find R1b-L23(xxL51,Z2103) in any Steppe remains dated to >4200 BC then that my be the ancestral line to R1b-L51; in the meantime we are just looking at cousin lineages.

R.Rocca
05-29-2018, 07:48 PM
The description of a physically unusual Yamnaya group on the NW Caspian area - broad brachycephalic heads, wide faces and prominent noses sounds rather like bell beaker people. Could this be the Yamaya subgroup that at some point contributed the Yamnaya part of the bell beaker ancestry ?http://www.academia.edu/9203307/On_the_Biological_Distinctness_of_the_Pit-grave_Yamnaya_People_in_the_Northwestern_Caspian_C ranial_Evidence

That is interesting. If you remember, my Global25/nMonte results for P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker samples from Poland and Csepel favor Yamnaya_Kalmykia over Vucedol and all other Yamnaya groups:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=358575&viewfull=1#post358575

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=357912&viewfull=1#post357912

etrusco
05-29-2018, 08:07 PM
Indeed and this should be a clear finding to the people thinking that finding R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) in a boy from Yamnaya dated to 3300BC at most is unlikely to signal any potential ancestral foreground since we have full-fledge R1b-U152 derived clades in Beaker dated to 2500 BC(We have a timespan of at most 800 years) in Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Bavaria, Germany. There is no way in hell that the R1b-L23(xxL51,Z2103) lineage found in Yamnaya is ancestral to anything Beaker and most likely represents a third R1b-L23 lineage yet to be discovered.

Now when if they find R1b-L23(xxL51,Z2103) in any Steppe remains dated to >4200 BC then that my be the ancestral line to R1b-L51; in the meantime we are just looking at cousin lineages.

IIRC what are you saying is basically the same thing Balanovsky said in the paper I quoted some weeks ago?

dsm
05-29-2018, 11:01 PM
Some additional information from the R1b Basal Sub Clades FTDNA project tree (note that with the new privacy laws this project has chosen to remove this tree - I have this copy in PDF form & can email it to anyone asking).

The version I am using this one ...
R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) Phylogenetic Tree. v 38. R1b Basal Subclades FTDNA project, May 30, 2017 created by Sergey Malyshev


Below is following the SNP trail from L23.

L23/S141/PF6534, L478/PF6403, PF6404 (3 SNP clusters)

From L23 to to the Z2103 branch ...
CTS1078/Z2103 /GG419, Z2105 , PF7575/Z2104, CTS9416, PF7585, CTS7340.1/Z2107.1, M12132/Y12536/Z8127, M12149/Y4371/Z8128/GG400, M12145/Y12537/Z8129, S20902/Z8130/GG673 (10 SNP clusters before the next sub-branch)

>>> Z2103 newest sub-branch is Z2106 /GG536, Z8131 /Y12538 (2 SNP clusters) then to
>>>>>> Z2106 sub-branch of Z 2109 /CTS1843, Z2108 /GG526 (2 SNP clusters)

From L23 to to the L51 Branch (as already shown previously) ...
L51 /M412/PF6536/S167/GG468, CTS10373/FGC39/PF6537, PF6414, PF6535, CTS8595/YSC0001291, FGC10152/Y109, E207 /Y410/GG528

NOTES:
Z2103 is shown as a brother clade of L51 - Z2103 however, shows up all over Europe & parts of Asia whereas we are still looking for L51 east of Western Ukraine (IIRC).

So between L23 and L51 is at least 3 SNPs say 150 x 3 = 450 years. And, the above SNPs are only the ones we know about. L23 to P312 then is at least 22 x 150 = 3,300 years.

PS the ANE Mal'ta Buret' boy (MA-1) is dated 24,000 ybp.

Doug

alan
05-30-2018, 12:00 AM
That is interesting. If you remember, my Global25/nMonte results for P312+ L2+ Bell Beaker samples from Poland and Csepel favor Yamnaya_Kalmykia over Vucedol and all other Yamnaya groups:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=358575&viewfull=1#post358575

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=357912&viewfull=1#post357912

Very interesting. kalmykia Yamnaya plus GAC. So what we need to look for ifarchaeologicao evidence of a movie of that subset of Yamnaya into the south-eastern extension of the GAC zone (middle Dnieper to Prut) in the period 2800BC to 2600BC. I know from my reading that. It is known that Yamnaya,moved from the steppe into the forest steppe between those rivers by 2550BC and probably as early as 2700BC. The lack of GAC culture on the actual steppe proper makes the forest steppe zone the only likely scenario for any Yamnaya-GAC admixture (assuming we rule out CW as the source of beaker Yamnaya genes).

alan
05-30-2018, 12:09 AM
Where was the alleged P312 Yamnaya burials found that someone reported from a conference recently. I wonder because by the sort of period the beaker yamnaya-GAC signal was created (had to be sometime 2800-2550BC).P312 surely existed.

rms2
05-30-2018, 12:21 AM
. . .

So between L23 and L51 is at least 3 SNPs say 150 x 3 = 450 years. And, the above SNPs are only the ones we know about. L23 to P312 then is at least 22 x 150 = 3,300 years.

PS the ANE Mal'ta Buret' boy (MA-1) is dated 24,000 ybp.

Doug

YFull has the tmrca of L23 at 6100 ybp and that of P312 at 4500 ybp, which is a difference of 1600 years. The difference between their respective formed-by dates of 6400 ybp and 4800 ybp is also 1600 years. 3300 years between L23 and P312 sounds like too much.

Of course, those dates are based on the Big Y results of modern men who have purchased YFull's service and whatever ancient y-dna results YFull has used to aid in their age estimates.

rms2
05-30-2018, 12:38 AM
Where was the alleged P312 Yamnaya burials found that someone reported from a conference recently. I wonder because by the sort of period the beaker yamnaya-GAC signal was created (had to be sometime 2800-2550BC).P312 surely existed.

Ekaterinovsky Cape Khvalynsk culture burial site in Saratov Oblast.

Here's the translation:



Hello. Today, the XIV Samara Archeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard.
Khokhlov AA Preliminary results of anthropological and genetic studies of materials of the Volga-Ural region of the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age by an international group of scientists.
In his report, AA Khokhlov. introduced into scientific circulation until the unpublished data of the new Eneolithic burial ground Ekatirinovsky cape, which combines both the Mariupol and Khvalyn features, and refers to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all the samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P 312 / S 116), and the haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. Mito to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalyn burial grounds (1 half of the 4th millennium BC), the anthropological material differs in a greater variety. In addition to the uraloid substratum, European broad-leaved and southern-European variants are recorded. To the game haplogroup R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to mito T2a1b, H2a1.

Someone complained that that can't be right because R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is too far downstream. It isn't too hard to imagine anyone getting the short and simple "R-P312/S116" right while botching the rather lengthy R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2.

Maybe the whole thing is wrong, but if it is, it's hard to imagine Butin reporting from a conference which was conducted in his native tongue and getting the simpler bits wrong.

dsm
05-30-2018, 12:39 AM
Just to cap off this detail re P312 ages. Below is the M269 entry which lists 133 SNP clusters before the 1st Branch appears. Using the 150 year as mutation rate (you can choose your favorite rate, I some times drop as low as 130 years), the result is 133 x 150 = 19,950 years between M269 and L23.

So M269 to P312 based on these calculations would be 155 x 150 = 23,250 years.

M269/PF6517, CTS10149/PF6490/V3993, CTS10349/FGC42/PF6492, CTS10451/FGC40/PF6493, CTS10834, CTS11371, CTS11422/FGC53/PF6519, CTS11468/FGC49/PF6520, CTS11948/FGC54/PF6522, CTS12478/PF6529,
CTS12612/FGC61/PF6530, CTS12713/PF1331, CTS1274/FGC34/PF6422, CTS12972/FGC52/PF6532, CTS1415, CTS1416, CTS1417/M11798, CTS1418/PF5478, CTS1419, CTS1420/PF5479, CTS1421/M8208/PF6423, CTS1422/M8209, CTS1738/FGC55/PF6449, CTS2466/PF6453, CTS2664/PF6454, CTS2701/PF6098, CTS2704/PF6100, CTS329/FGC56/PF6400, CTS3475/PF6456/V2713, CTS3575/PF6457, CTS4608/FGC43/PF6461, CTS623/FGC37/PF6419, CTS6532/PF6465, CTS6832/PF6467, CTS7400/FGC33/PF6469, CTS7659/FGC50/PF6470, CTS8052/FGC45/PF6473, CTS8321, CTS8336/FGC48/PF6474, CTS8591/FGC64/PF6477, CTS8627/PF6478, CTS8665/FGC464/PF6479, CTS8728/L1063/PF6480/S13, CTS894/PF6420/YSC0001293, E104/Y112, F1794/PF6455, F69/L773/PF6421/YSC0000276, FGC22752/Y119, FGC71/Y92/Z8141, FGC74/Y91/Z8140, FGC76/Y99/Z8146, FGC80/Y98/Z8145, KMS121/Z8151, L1348/PF6521/YSC0000238, L1350/PF6505/YSC0000225, L1351/PF6528/YSC0000240, L1353/PF6489/YSC0000294/V3866, L150.1/PF6274.1/S351.1, L265/PF6431, L407/PF6252, L479/PF6408, L482/PF6427, L483/PF6097/V1741, L500/PF6481, L749/PF6476/YSC0000290, L753/PF6486/YSC0000018, L757/PF6488/YSC0000293/V3721, L762/PF6450/YSC0000258, L777/YSC0000248, L928/PF6515, M11805/PF6447, E101/M12191/Y1271, M4435/PF6516/Z2129, M520/PF6410, PF50, PF5462, PF6095, PF6265, PF6399/S10, PF6402, PF6406, PF6407, PF6409, PF6411, PF6412, PF6413, PF6417, PF6425, PF6426/YSC0000072, PF6428, PF6429, PF6430, PF6432/V1699, PF6433, PF6434, PF6435, PF6436, PF6437, PF6438, PF6441, PF6443, PF6444, PF6448, PF6452/YSC0000167, PF6460, PF6462/YSC0000180, PF6466/YSC0000194, PF6482/YSC0000203, PF6485/S3, PF6494, PF6495, PF6496/YSC0000213, PF6497/YSC0000219, PF6500, PF6503, PF6504/S4969, PF6507, PF6508, PF6509, PF6518, PF6525, PF6527, Y103, Y106, Y110, Y111, Y114/Z3540, Y115, Y137, Y1968/Z8155, Y1977/Z8154, Y429, Y95

D

jeanL
05-30-2018, 12:39 AM
Where was the alleged P312 Yamnaya burials found that someone reported from a conference recently. I wonder because by the sort of period the beaker yamnaya-GAC signal was created (had to be sometime 2800-2550BC).P312 surely existed.

Is this what you are talking about?


Hello. Today, the XIV Samara Archeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard. Khokhlov AA Preliminary results of anthropological and genetic studies of materials of the Volga-Ural region of the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age by an international group of scientists. In his report, AA Khokhlov. introduced into scientific circulation until the unpublished data of the new Eneolithic burial ground Ekatirinovsky cape, which combines both the Mariupol and Khvalyn features, and refers to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all the samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P 312 / S 116), and the haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. Mito to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalyn burial grounds (1 half of the 4th millennium BC), the anthropological material differs in a greater variety. In addition to the uraloid substratum, European broad-leaved and southern-European variants are recorded. To the game haplogroup R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to mito T2a1b, H2a1.

R1b1a2 is defined as R1b-M269 by the old ISOGG definition and R1b-V88 by the newest one; R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is a highly derived clade. The latest consensus is that the paper suffered from the same glitch as the South Asian paper. Therefore it is possible that the R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is simply a single SNP that was found in the sample; they will need to manually check the upstream trail of SNPs.

Carlos Quiles also covers that here:

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the-unique-elite-khvalynsk-male-from-a-yekaterinovskiy-cape-burial/

rms2
05-30-2018, 12:53 AM
Pretty obviously R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 was not intended to be the subclade to which the R1b-P312 samples belonged, since it is under L48 and U106. Either that's an error, or Butin was referring to a separate sample that was not P312.

We'll have to wait and see, but evidently whoever Khokhlov is, he told the people at the conference that P312 was found in at least some of the samples.

There was an Aleksandr Khokhlov who was one of the "et al" in Haak et al's Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.

dsm
05-30-2018, 01:07 AM
Re the aging estimates posted, there are obvious issues.

1) Choosing 150 year mutation rate is guesswork as would be 130 years or some other number. The issue is how reliable and educated the guess can be. I am happy to defer to Iain McDonald on such matters as he has by far the better math background. I am not sure what his current aging rate might be as it isn't just a simple number like I used above.

2) The SNPs quoted are only the ones we know about but the qty is pretty comprehensive and the R1b Basal Subclades tree is perhaps one of the more reliable sources.

3) Is the mutation rate constant ?. Iain McDonald believes the rate can be averaged to an acceptable degree such that this issue is minor

4) It is all at best, someone's best interpretation of what is available.

5) Hopefully Carbon Dating at various sites has helped lock in certain ages that we can use to synchronise with the above sorts of estimates.

D

rms2
05-30-2018, 01:10 AM
Evidently Khokhlov co-authored this book (https://www.amazon.com/Bronze-Landscape-Russian-Steppes-Archaeologica-ebook/dp/B01LZT5GBM) with David Anthony, Anthony's wife, and a couple of other people.

dsm
05-30-2018, 01:47 AM
YFull has the tmrca of L23 at 6100 ybp and that of P312 at 4500 ybp, which is a difference of 1600 years. The difference between their respective formed-by dates of 6400 ybp and 4800 ybp is also 1600 years. 3300 years between L23 and P312 sounds like too much.

Of course, those dates are based on the Big Y results of modern men who have purchased YFull's service and whatever ancient y-dna results YFull has used to aid in their age estimates.



I tend to be very cautious with YFull's date estimates. I accept they do a good job, but it is just their 'idea' that they present.

To illustrate the challenges look at the YFull R-S1200 (CTS4528) tree and what they show...

1) It lists S1194 as equal to S1200(CTS4528) which it isn't. S1194 is several SNPs above S1200(CTS4528)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/
2) S1200, S1194 show a 'formed date' of 4800 (same as what YFull show for R-P312 & R-U106) But S1200 is younger than S1194 and P312 and U106.
3) See the above link for the R-S1200 tree and note that as already mentioned S1200 has a 'formed date' of 4800
Then follow down to S14328 (which is a branch off S1200) and it also shows a 'formed date' of 4800
Then follow from S14328 down one of its branches to R-S1196 and it too lists a 'formed date' of 4800

Point being that those dates are 'clearly' wrong and are guesses (or best estimates) depending on how you talk about them. There are enough gaping holes in what I just posted here to suggest caution when reading what some organisations show. They are just estimates, and sure aren't gospel. But, I appreciate that they try.

D

dsm
05-30-2018, 01:55 AM
Evidently Khokhlov co-authored this book (https://www.amazon.com/Bronze-Landscape-Russian-Steppes-Archaeologica-ebook/dp/B01LZT5GBM) with David Anthony, Anthony's wife, and a couple of other people.

Thanks for the link - 1st thing I checked was a date of publishing - perhaps 2015 as there is a copyright notice for 2016 (assuming the book was prepared for publishing in either 2015 or early 2016).

D

jeanL
05-30-2018, 01:55 AM
Sadly many people seems to forget that those dates are estimates and often times used them to challenge the validity of aDNA findings or even postulate hypotheses while forgetting the inherently stochastic nature of mutation rates.

MitchellSince1893
05-30-2018, 02:20 AM
Hello. Today, the XIV Samara Archeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard...refers to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all the samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P 312 / S 116)...

I may be wrong...probably am, but maybe someone confused P312 and P310. Yfull has P310 forming around 3750 BC, but yfull dates are known to be too young based on ancient dna.

MitchellSince1893
05-30-2018, 02:31 AM
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this site or if there are any hidden agendas but FWIW it's talking about the N Caspian region late 6th early 5th millennium BC.


In the Late Neolithic there was the Orlovka culture in the steppe Volga basin, the Lower Don culture to the south-west, the Samara culture in the east, and the Voronezh-Don culture between the Volga and Don sites. These four cultures were related, and some combine them into the Mariupol cultural-historical area, with similarities between their material culture suggesting a human migration ca. 5200-5150 BC to the north from the steppe Don region into the valleys of the Don, Medveditsa and Volga, reaching the Voronezh basin[Kotova 2008].

At the same time as early Khvalynsk formed to the east, in the steppe Volga basin, almost simultaneously appeared the early Sredni Stog culture in the Don-Kalmius interfluve, with the Nalchik cemetery being synchronous with its first periods. Both seem to be interconnected through a common origin from the Samara culture of the Middle Volga and the North Caspian culture, and while there are cultural differences that point to an original division, both seem to form part of a Sredni Stog-Khvalynsk cultural-historical area, with similar funerary customs and ornaments[Kotova 2008].

In the north Caspian steppe, Late Neolithic and the Caspian Sea region culture had coexisted during the Eneolithic in the mid-6th millennium, and in the Lower Volga a change is noticed ca. 5000-4800 BC among the carriers of the North Caspian culture, coincident with the beginning of a rather wet period[Vybornov et al. 2016]. The early Khvalynsk culture may have been an autochthonous culture based on the previous North Caspian culture, or its genesis could be the result of a migration of tribes from the southern region of the Trans-Caspian area[Vybornov 2016].

The Khvalynsk culture started to settle in the south of the Volga valley, reaching about 4900 BC wormwood deserts in the north-west of the Caspian area and the Mangyshlaks peninsula in the east of the Caspian area –testified by many finds of ceramics with comb decoration –, where the Khvalynsk population partly assimilated the native inhabitants. However, a part of the North Caspian culture probably migrated to the Saratov Trans-Volga region, where it was assimilated Orlovka culture[Kotova 2008]. Both events may account for the introduction of CHG ancestry in the populations of the steppe.https://indo-european.info/ie/Neolithic-Chalcolithic_transition

dsm
05-30-2018, 02:31 AM
Sadly many people seems to forget that those dates are estimates and often times used them to challenge the validity of aDNA findings or even postulate hypotheses while forgetting the inherently stochastic nature of mutation rates.

jeanL - yup. Just to illustrate the guesswork nature of the algorithms for TMRCA - look at the YFull tree for S1200 again here
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-S1200/

See the very 1st entry under FGC30867 (a Full Genomes Corp registered SNP)

Under this terminal SNP are 2 kits numbered YF04780 (My own BigY kit done several years back when BigY was announced)
and kit YF01576 (My own FGC Y-Elite kit done a couple of years ago). Until recently these were listed directly under S1200(CTS4528) but last year they were moved to being under terminal SNP FGC30867 - this can be done if YFull get 2 people with a common unnamed variant SNP and both my kits (BigY and FGC Y-Elite) had this common unnamed variant. So they registered it.

So my 2 kits now have their own global unique terminal SNP

But take a look at the estimated TMRCA between myself and myself

The kits show a TMRCA of 125 years between them - I am not seeking to criticise YFull, just to point out how due diligence and common sense is needed when believing formed and TMRCA dates. I actually appreciated YFull enough that I paid twice for their analysis.

D

ADW_1981
05-30-2018, 04:06 AM
What exactly happended when the Neolithic culture of Europe fell? Why did they fall? When exactly did they collapse? The reason and timing of that happens to coincide exactly with L51+ derived lineages. As we've seen, cultures like Starcevo, LBK, Cris, Baden..etc did not contribute much YDNA to the modern gene pool in Europe.

alan
05-30-2018, 08:19 AM
I suspect that the long doldrums of L51 until P312 and the sudden bushy branching after is linked to the absorbing of all those GAC genes. It's very hard for a make clan type society to grow without access to women from outside it.

That said, the Yamnaya like part of beaker DNA also implies a phase of access to CHG women. We can see in ancient DNA the CHG genes were entering the steppes from 1000 years earlier. You would expect that previius period of access to outsider women to have created previous bushy branching on the L51 tree but it isn't apparent.

That suggests to me that L51 did have an earlier phase of branching but the tree was pruned when it bottlenecked at some point between the absorption of CHG genes c 4000-3300BC which created the Yamnaya type part of the signal and the absorption of GAC genes c. 2800-2600BC which created the beaker type signal. Y full does have a big gap of 400 years 4100BC to 3700BC between L51s formation and it's TMRCA which is suggestive of a nasty bottleneck at some point in such a span. You could then say it kind of staggered on after that until 2800BC when things started to pick up again properly after L11. That coincides remarkably
with the start of the phase when archaeology suggests the steppe-GAC mixing must have happened. As I've posted above, that almost certainly coincided with Yamnaya groups on the true steppe penetrating into the forest steppe zone between the Dniester and Prut. The most intense mixing seems to have been at the east end of that zone on the right bank of the middle Dnieper. I am well aware that the yfull dates may be out somewhat but the overall pattern actually fits together rather well with its dates.

It's then natural to ask why L51 had a long shaky period that Z2103 escaped. The answer might be that L51 in that period was located somewhat downstream on the Volga in the Lower Volga area near the NW Caspian -a very challenging and arid area with extremes of seasonal temperatures. It may not have been encouraging of population growth very often and arid phases may have been disasterous. The 5.9 kikoyesr event centred on 3900BC was the peak of a period of aridity and that might explain the apparent bottleneck indicated by gap between the 4100BC age of L51 and it's TMRCA of 3700BC. So I would suggest the evidence fits extremely well with L51 being located downstream of Z2103. A very longterm position in the Kalmykia steppes fits. However to absorb GAC genes after 2800BC they had to have then moved into he forest steppe somewhere from the middle Dnieper westwards.

rms2
05-30-2018, 08:19 AM
I may be wrong...probably am, but maybe someone confused P312 and P310. Yfull has P310 forming around 3750 BC, but yfull dates are known to be too young based on ancient dna.

Maybe, but Butin reported it as "R-P312/S116". If Khokhlov actually added "S116", it doesn't seem likely he meant P310.

alan
05-30-2018, 08:36 AM
Maybe, but Butin reported it as "R-P312/S116". If Khokhlov actually added "S116", it doesn't seem likely he meant P310.

Has anyone tried to contact Khokhlov?

rms2
05-30-2018, 10:51 AM
Has anyone tried to contact Khokhlov?

This evening I will put my wife on the case. She is a native Russian speaker, so maybe she can get hold of him.

alan
05-30-2018, 11:14 AM
Personally I think what happened is that within just a few centuries of the L51 snp occuring the line got bottlenecked in the arid period centred around 3900BC. It probably only limped along for a several centuries (what archaeologists call the steppe hiatus) till L11. So I am not expecting pre-L11 L51 to be found short of vast amounts of testing and a fluke . However the climatic conditions improved a lot approaching the mid 4th millenium. It would be easier to interpret the climatic and cultural background if there was a more solid date for P312. I certainly think it’s lkkely that it’s phase mixing with GAC (which could not have commenced prior to 2800BC in any model) probably is linked to its big takeoff. So I suspect the P312 TMRCA is really around 2800-2700BC while the snp probably dates to c 3100-3000BC.

rms2
05-30-2018, 11:47 AM
This evening I will put my wife on the case. She is a native Russian speaker, so maybe she can get hold of him.

I did not wait until this evening. I just texted my wife at home and asked her to try to contact Khokhlov. Hopefully she can get hold of him and will transmit my questions to him intact. My wife doesn't know much about genetics and doesn't care to know, but hopefully she will ask Khokhlov what I asked her to ask.

jdean
05-30-2018, 11:56 AM
I did not wait until this evening. I just texted my wife at home and asked her to try to contact Khokhlov. Hopefully she can get hold of him and will transmit my questions to him intact. My wife doesn't know much about genetics and doesn't care to know, but hopefully she will ask Khokhlov what I asked her to ask.

At the very least if you could find out when the book (paper ?) is likely to be coming out it'll give us something to look forward to : )

rms2
05-30-2018, 12:05 PM
At the very least if you could find out when the book (paper ?) is likely to be coming out it'll give us something to look forward to : )

That was one of the things I told her to ask about. She just texted me back and said she sent an email. I hope she got the right Aleksandr Khokhlov.

alan
05-30-2018, 06:42 PM
Is this what you are talking about?



R1b1a2 is defined as R1b-M269 by the old ISOGG definition and R1b-V88 by the newest one; R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is a highly derived clade. The latest consensus is that the paper suffered from the same glitch as the South Asian paper. Therefore it is possible that the R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is simply a single SNP that was found in the sample; they will need to manually check the upstream trail of SNPs.

Carlos Quiles also covers that here:

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the-unique-elite-khvalynsk-male-from-a-yekaterinovskiy-cape-burial/

Have to say I’m not familiar with the term Uraloid. I wasn’t aware the Urals has a specific ancient anthropological type associated with them

alan
05-30-2018, 07:22 PM
Is this what you are talking about?



R1b1a2 is defined as R1b-M269 by the old ISOGG definition and R1b-V88 by the newest one; R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is a highly derived clade. The latest consensus is that the paper suffered from the same glitch as the South Asian paper. Therefore it is possible that the R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2 is simply a single SNP that was found in the sample; they will need to manually check the upstream trail of SNPs.

Carlos Quiles also covers that here:

https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the-unique-elite-khvalynsk-male-from-a-yekaterinovskiy-cape-burial/

Have to say I’m not familiar with the term Uraloid. I wasn’t aware the Urals has a specific ancient anthropological type associated with them

dsm
05-30-2018, 09:18 PM
Personally I think what happened is that within just a few centuries of the L51 snp occuring the line got bottlenecked in the arid period centred around 3900BC. It probably only limped along for a several centuries (what archaeologists call the steppe hiatus) till L11. So I am not expecting pre-L11 L51 to be found short of vast amounts of testing and a fluke . However the climatic conditions improved a lot approaching the mid 4th millenium. It would be easier to interpret the climatic and cultural background if there was a more solid date for P312. I certainly think it’s lkkely that it’s phase mixing with GAC (which could not have commenced prior to 2800BC in any model) probably is linked to its big takeoff. So I suspect the P312 TMRCA is really around 2800-2700BC while the snp probably dates to c 3100-3000BC.

Alan, Us S1194 people have a similar dilemma.
We are a brother to P312 & U106 and each Y-DNA tree lists our formed date as being the same as P312 & U106, but we are minuscule in numbers. i.e. 0.5% of the population of UK yet based on current commercial testing numbers, our largest country of family origin tends to be the UK. We are not found there in the East coast & South Central areas areas settled by the Angles, Saxons , Jutes & Frisians - we tend to show up in each of the border areas (Cornwall border, Welsh border and Scottish border) plus the areas around York (Bjork of old).

The well documented N Myres et al study (published around 2011) placed our locus in the Sth Baltic and that is consistent with a sort of homeland (especially as that study highlighted the East Danish Islands & Skaane & Pommerania.

So we seem to reflect a similar and equally long bottleneck. We are still trying to understand why.

D

dsm
05-30-2018, 10:20 PM
This recently published paper does offer a good explanation for bottlenecks - and IMHO could explain the L51-L11 bottleneck as well as our S1194 bottleneck that I mentioned in the earlier post above. My thanks to Generalissimo(Davidski) for pointing out this recent publication (Stanford University).

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/su-wac052918.php

D

alan
05-30-2018, 11:17 PM
This recently published paper does offer a good explanation for bottlenecks - and IMHO could explain the L51-L11 bottleneck as well as our S1194 bottleneck that I mentioned in the earlier post above. My thanks to Generalissimo(Davidski) for pointing out this recent publication (Stanford University).

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/su-wac052918.php

D

That reads almost identical to the Medieval Gaelic clan system which is very well documented in Ireland in annals, genealogies and the brehon laws from c 500-1600AD. Its often struck me how these early IE lineages behave so like the Gaelic clan system that I think the latter was basically a survival of the early IE system at its most basic no frills level. The Gaels in Scotland originally had an identical system but feudal elements crept in from 1200AD and it's not anywhere near as well documented as in Ireland. The Medieval Welsh also had a very similar clan type system which for some reason rarely gets talked about.

rms2
05-30-2018, 11:19 PM
Have to say I’m not familiar with the term Uraloid. I wasn’t aware the Urals has a specific ancient anthropological type associated with them

I absolutely cannot and do not vouch for the web site where this appears (I don't know enough about it), but this was the most informative thing I could find on the Uralid/Uraloid category.

Uralid Anthropological Type (http://humanphenotypes.net/Uralid.html)

jdean
05-30-2018, 11:28 PM
I absolutely cannot and do not vouch for the web site where this appears (I don't know enough about it), but this was the most informative thing I could find on the Uralid/Uraloid category.

Uralid Anthropological Type (http://humanphenotypes.net/Uralid.html)

Kind of East meets West which I suppose is pretty appropriate.

rms2
05-30-2018, 11:36 PM
Kind of East meets West which I suppose is pretty appropriate.

Kind of cool, if you ask me. I wouldn't mind having y-dna ancestors of that physical type. Hope we hear from Aleksandr Aleksandrevich Khokhlov soon.

alan
05-30-2018, 11:39 PM
One thing I think I can predict with certainly is that P312 was somewhere in the euro steppes east of the Dnieper where mixing with CT farmers was rare in its early period around 3100-2800BC, was west of the Dnieper in the GAC contact zone at some point 2800-2600BC and in south Germany by 2550BC.

jdean
05-30-2018, 11:41 PM
Kind of cool, if you ask me. I wouldn't mind having y-dna ancestors of that physical type. Hope we hear from Aleksandr Aleksandrevich Khokhlov soon.

Yep & yep : )

dsm
05-30-2018, 11:53 PM
I absolutely cannot and do not vouch for the web site where this appears (I don't know enough about it), but this was the most informative thing I could find on the Uralid/Uraloid category.

Uralid Anthropological Type (http://humanphenotypes.net/Uralid.html)

Good find - this associated link below showing the 'Ladogan' type looks so like many Russians I know of. Perhaps the most famous being Alexander Lebed.
http://humanphenotypes.net/Ladogan.html

Alexander Lebed ( a man I admired greatly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lebed

<EDIT: added this> I see he was born in Rostov-on-Don Sth Russia. That explains his matching looks.
" Alexander Lebed was born in the Cossack town of Novocherkassk, in the Rostov Oblast, in 1950."

D

alan
05-31-2018, 07:17 PM
Not sure I understand David’s new post in which he provides a link to a bell beaker modelling/ it seems to question the Yamnaya+GAC model. In which case all my speculations based on that are void :0(

jdean
05-31-2018, 07:37 PM
BTW Not wanting to sound dim, I understand the dotted lines in these diagrams but what do the nos. on the solid lines represent ?

alan
05-31-2018, 07:57 PM
David can you explain what this is saying about beaker and also about Yamnaya? https://drive.google.com/file/d/11vGRsoyhr5rDGUhRN6RmVyDB5TydG7Ax/view

alan
05-31-2018, 08:02 PM
BTW Not wanting to sound dim, I understand the dotted lines in these diagrams but what do the nos. on the solid lines represent ?

I'm baffled too. Is the diagtam saying Yamnaya is some kind of immediate pre Yamnaya EHG +CHG type mix that then absorbs a ton of middle neolithic euro farmer? That is news to me too. Which farmers?

jdean
05-31-2018, 08:04 PM
I'm baffled too. Is the diagtam saying Yamnaya is some kind of immediate pre Yamnaya EHG +CHG type mix that then absorbs a ton of middle neolithic euro farmer? That is news to me too. Which farmers?

well at least I'm in good company : )

rms2
05-31-2018, 08:05 PM
Not sure I understand David’s new post in which he provides a link to a bell beaker modelling/ it seems to question the Yamnaya+GAC model. In which case all my speculations based on that are void :0(

It certainly is interesting, especially since it's British Kurgan Bell Beaker, and that was apparently mostly L21.

alan
05-31-2018, 08:07 PM
And what does the line between Yamnaya and beaker mean? Why does the diagram not have s Yamnaya % plus a % of something else leading to it?

alan
05-31-2018, 08:09 PM
It certainly is interesting, especially since it's British Kurgan Bell Beaker, and that was apparently mostly L21.

But what is the diagram implying about Yamnaya and its relationship to bell beaker?

rms2
05-31-2018, 08:18 PM
But what is the diagram implying about Yamnaya and its relationship to bell beaker?

It seems to me to be saying that, genetically, British Kurgan Bell Beaker was derived from Yamnaya. I have mentioned in the past the idea that KBB was Yamnaya 2.0.

rms2
05-31-2018, 08:31 PM
It seems to me to be saying that, genetically, British Kurgan Bell Beaker was derived from Yamnaya. I have mentioned in the past the idea that KBB was Yamnaya 2.0.

I was going to add that it seems to mean that the pre-Beaker culture was a Yamnaya group that had taken on some Middle Neolithic farmer wives, but I'm on the train, and I hit a spot without any phone bars.

I thought those were supposed to be GAC women though.

alan
05-31-2018, 09:14 PM
I was going to add that it seems to mean that the pre-Beaker culture was a Yamnaya group that had taken on some Middle Neolithic farmer wives, but I'm on the train, and I hit a spot without any phone bars.

I thought those were supposed to be GAC women though.
I took it as showing Yamnaya itself was now being interpreted as a late pre-Yamnaya steppe group that absorbed a load of middle Neolithic European farmer. I don’t really understand what the line and number between Yamnaya and beaker means

dsm
05-31-2018, 10:36 PM
I took it as showing Yamnaya itself was now being interpreted as a late pre-Yamnaya steppe group that absorbed a load of middle Neolithic European farmer. I don’t really understand what the line and number between Yamnaya and beaker means

David has been refining this diagram for over a week or so. It had more in it a week ago. I had interpreted the numbers between as based on particular ancient samples. But, I just assumed it. He does discuss this chart at his Eurogenes blog site.

Latest iteration (31 May)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/whats-maykop-or-iran-got-to-do-with-it-2.html

Earlier one (May 24)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/whats-maykop-or-iran-got-to-do-with-it.html

BB from Britain version QUOTE "And yes, I have tested all sorts of other Yamnaya-related ancient and present-day populations with this tree. They usually pushed the worst Z score to +/- 3 and well beyond, probably because they weren't similar enough to Yamnaya. But, perhaps surprisingly, Bell Beakers from Britain produced a decent result (see here)."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11vGRsoyhr5rDGUhRN6RmVyDB5TydG7Ax/view

rms2
05-31-2018, 11:42 PM
I took it as showing Yamnaya itself was now being interpreted as a late pre-Yamnaya steppe group that absorbed a load of middle Neolithic European farmer. I don’t really understand what the line and number between Yamnaya and beaker means

You're right. I was on the train when I looked at it the first time and only got a quick glance. It looks it was a steppe Eneolithic group that combined with some Middle Neolithic farmer women from a group that was ancestral to GAC, and that combination produced the variety of Yamnaya immediately ancestral to KBB.

But what farmers were ancestral to GAC? TRB people?

rms2
05-31-2018, 11:54 PM
Budzhak was a Yamnaya subculture that moved from the NW coast of the Black Sea, where the preceding Mikhailovka and Kemi Oba cultures had Beaker-like burial customs, north up the Prut and Dniester valleys and around the northern slopes of the Carpathians to the Malopolska and also via the Tisza valley into Hungary.

I know I could be totally wrong and that I tend to repeat myself, but Budzhak seems a good candidate to be the pre-Beaker people.

Kopfjäger
06-01-2018, 12:27 AM
Maybe, but Butin reported it as "R-P312/S116". If Khokhlov actually added "S116", it doesn't seem likely he meant P310.

The word is this fella might have found P312 in the Russian Steppe?

MitchellSince1893
06-01-2018, 12:34 AM
But what farmers were ancestral to GAC? TRB people?
Ref TRB, there was

an eastern group centered on the Vistula catchment, roughly ranging from Oder to Bug,
The Bug River does go into the very western part of Ukraine near the Polish border.

So some Saratov/Kalmykia Yamnaya men from NW of the Caspian swung through Western Ukraine where they picked some TRB wives and there descendants became eastern bell beaker?

Trying to make sense of the recent Eurogene charts you guys are referencing.

rms2
06-01-2018, 12:34 AM
The word is this fella might have found P312 in the Russian Steppe?

Yes, that is what Alexei Butin reported in Russian over on Molgen from the XIV Samara Archaeological Conference. He said that is what he heard Khokhlov say.

Here's the translation:



Hello. Today, the XIV Samara Archeological Conference was held. The following reports were heard. Khokhlov AA Preliminary results of anthropological and genetic studies of materials of the Volga-Ural region of the Neolithic-Early Bronze Age by an international group of scientists.

In his report, AA Khokhlov introduced into scientific circulation until the unpublished data of the new Eneolithic burial ground Ekatirinovsky cape, which combines both the Mariupol and Khvalyn features, and refers to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all the samples belonged to the haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P 312 / S 116), and the haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. Mito to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalyn burial grounds (1 half of the 4th millennium BC), the anthropological material differs in a greater variety. In addition to the uraloid substratum, European broad-leaved and southern-European variants are recorded. To the game haplogroup R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 are added to mito T2a1b, H2a1.


Aleksandr Aleksandrevich Khokhlov was one of the "et al" in Haak et al's Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. He is a professor at the Volga State Academy in Samara.

My wife emailed him, but we haven't gotten a response yet.

The "R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2" is the confusing bit, since it is well downstream of U106 and L48. Maybe the whole thing is an error, but R-P312/S116 is fairly short and simple. If Khokhlov said that, it seems to me Alexei was likely to get that right, and maybe only the long, alpha-numeric soup part was misreported.

Kopfjäger
06-01-2018, 12:51 AM
Yes, that is what Alexei Butin reported in Russian over on Molgen from the XIV Samara Archaeological Conference. He said that is what he heard Khokhlov say.

Here's the translation:



Aleksandr Aleksandrevich Khokhlov was one of the "et al" in Haak et al's Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. He is a professor at the Volga State Academy in Samara.

My wife emailed him, but we haven't gotten a response yet.

The "R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2" is the confusing bit, since it is well downstream of U106 and L48. Maybe the whole thing is an error, but R-P312/S116 is fairly short and simple. If Khokhlov said that, it seems to me Alexei was likely to get that right, and maybe only the long, alpha-numeric soup part was misreported.

Thanks for posting that! I hope he responds to your wife as well!

rms2
06-01-2018, 12:54 AM
Thanks for posting that! I hope he responds to your wife as well!

If he doesn't, I'll try to get my wife's cousin to call him. Her cousin (mother's side) is a bigshot Ukrainian surgeon who is fairly well known. He could probably get an answer.

alan
06-01-2018, 12:57 AM
Budzhak was a Yamnaya subculture that moved from the NW coast of the Black Sea, where the preceding Mikhailovka and Kemi Oba cultures had Beaker-like burial customs, north up the Prut and Dniester valleys and around the northern slopes of the Carpathians to the Malopolska and also via the Tisza valley into Hungary.

I know I could be totally wrong and that I tend to repeat myself, but Budzhak seems a good candidate to be the pre-Beaker people.
They are a definite maybe. It all depends on the farmer part of the beaker signal. I think what a David is saying is that a GAC like farmer group of the sort with a lot of WHG was the farmer admixture. I

dsm
06-01-2018, 07:12 AM
If he doesn't, I'll try to get my wife's cousin to call him. Her cousin (mother's side) is a bigshot Ukrainian surgeon who is fairly well known. He could probably get an answer.

You sure know the dynamics of that region well LOL -

As an unrelated aside, my wife and I follow Japanese Sumo every major tournament. Two tourneys back a really likeable person named Tochinoshin who we have watched over the past 2 years, won the emperors cup. He was Georgian. Well Georgia went wild and when Tochinoshin visited home he was feted by the President, got a national medal, and TV covered him like a pop star.

He almost won the cup again last week. Almost, right down to the last day he had a chance to win it. But it wasn't to be. A Japanese named Kakuryu, just got the edge.
Knowing Georgia, the bulk of the country would have been tuned in for that final day. His loss would have been national mourning. But his reward was being promoted to the rank of 'Ozeki' which is as high as most ever get (bar the rare greats who may reach the top to gain Yokozuna status).

Ukraine is not all that different in Nature to Georgia. Ukraines great wins tend to be at Eurovision song contests :)


https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20180530_14/&ved=0ahUKEwj9jrLV9LHbAhWBLZQKHSalAawQqOcBCCcwAA&usg=AOvVaw2ROOgZNe-ON-DZ-0bvMr5y
D

Funny side of this is that in the south of Georgia, you can easily feel you are bumping into Tochinishin's brothers or cousins, they seem everywhere (I.e. He seems to be cloned in appearance all around the south).

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 08:48 AM
Not sure I understand David’s new post in which he provides a link to a bell beaker modelling/ it seems to question the Yamnaya+GAC model. In which case all my speculations based on that are void :0(

Alan, this is the consequence of the paper by Wang et al. "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus"

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14285-The-genetic-prehistory-of-the-Greater-Caucasus-preprint-Harvard-Jena

You should give a closer look to the supplement.

A small resume:
- the CHG-like admixture was already present in the Eneolithic Steppe samples (Khvalynsk and so on).
- it is not CHG proper, and is different from Maykop (no Caucasus Eneolithic in Yamnaya except in Caucasus Yamanaya and one outlier),
- the difference between Eneolithic Steppe and Yamnaya seems to be GAC-like admixture, without any aditionnal CHG-like admixture needed.

Moreover, they've got Hungarian Yamnaya in their sampling.

23618

23619

My personal opinion, but I think this paper is a game changer on several (important) issues.

rms2
06-01-2018, 11:27 AM
Alan, this is the consequence of the paper by Wang et al. "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus"

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14285-The-genetic-prehistory-of-the-Greater-Caucasus-preprint-Harvard-Jena

You should give a closer look to the supplement.

A small resume:
- the CHG-like admixture was already present in the Eneolithic Steppe samples (Khvalynsk and so on).
- it is not CHG proper, and is different from Maykop (no Caucasus Eneolithic in Yamnaya except in Caucasus Yamanaya and one outlier),
- the difference between Eneolithic Steppe and Yamnaya seems to be GAC-like admixture, without any aditionnal CHG-like admixture needed.

Moreover, they've got Hungarian Yamnaya in their sampling.

23618

23619

My personal opinion, but I think this paper is a game changer on several (important) issues.

With all that's been going on, I have not had the time to read that paper. I glanced at the spreadsheet. I didn't see any Hungarian Yamnaya and no y-dna for Hungarian Yamnaya. Did I miss something?

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 12:19 PM
from figure C "Published Ancient", labelised as Yamnaya-Hungary:
I2363 I2761 I2762 I2772 I2362

But I don't find them in the supplement.

Yamnaya-Hungary is present on many figures in the supplement (PCA, f3 statisticts,....)

As an example:

Supplementary Table 13. P values of rank=2 and admixture proportions in modelling Steppe ancestry populations as a three-way admixture of Eneolithic steppe Anatolian_Neolithic and WHG using 14 outgroups.
Left populations: Test, Eneolithic_steppe, Anatolian_Neolithic, WHG
Right populations: Mbuti.DG, Ust_Ishim.DG, Kostenki14, MA1, Han.DG, Papuan.DG, Onge.DG, Villabruna, Vestonice16, ElMiron, Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, Karitiana.DG, Natufian, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.

Test p Eneolithic_Steppe Anatolian_Neolithic WHG
proportion std.err proportion std.err proportion std.err
Yamnaya_Caucasus 6.718E-01 0.839 0.028 0.132 0.027 0.030 0.014
Yamnaya_Ukraine 4.202E-01 0.855 0.038 0.091 0.037 0.054 0.021
Yamnaya_Samara 3.806E-01 0.889 0.025 0.052 0.026 0.059 0.013
Yamnaya_Kalmykia.SG 3.154E-04 0.949 0.029 0.034 0.028 0.017 0.015
Yamnaya_LCA_EBA 3.210E-01 0.808 0.033 0.084 0.033 0.107 0.017
Potapovka 1.401E-01 0.677 0.037 0.191 0.037 0.132 0.019
Poltavka 7.792E-01 0.923 0.027 0.016 0.026 0.061 0.015
Afanasievo.SG 2.953E-04 0.944 0.030 0.017 0.029 0.039 0.016
Yamnaya_Ukraine_Ozera 5.886E-02 0.675 0.041 0.345 0.042 -0.020 0.021
Yamnaya_Hungary 4.018E-01 0.860 0.038 0.042 0.038 0.098 0.021
Yamnaya_Hungary_LCA_EBA1 4.401E-01 0.754 0.033 0.151 0.032 0.095 0.018
North_Caucasus 5.175E-02 0.835 0.026 0.127 0.027 0.038 0.013
Late_North_Caucasus 3.759E-01 0.750 0.039 0.246 0.040 0.004 0.020

OR

Supplementary Table 18. P values of rank=1 and admixture coefficients of modelling the Steppe ancestry populations as a two-way admixture of the Eneolithic_steppe and Globular_Amphora using 14 outgroups.
Left populations: Steppe cluster, Eneolithic_steppe, Globular Amphora
Right populations: Mbuti.DG, Ust_Ishim.DG, Kostenki14, MA1, Han.DG, Papuan.DG, Onge.DG, Villabruna, Vestonice16, ElMiron, Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, Karitiana.DG, Natufian, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic.

Steppe cluster group p Eneolithic_
steppe Globular_
Amphora Std. Error

Yamnaya_Caucasus 6.126E-01 0.834 0.166 0.029
Yamnaya_Ukraine 5.533E-01 0.834 0.166 0.041
Yamnaya_Samara 1.449E-01 0.868 0.132 0.027
Yamnaya_Kalmykia.SG 6.051E-04 0.940 0.060 0.032
Yamnaya_LCA_EBA 3.432E-02 0.767 0.233 0.035
Potapovka 8.325E-02 0.620 0.380 0.039
Poltavka 2.548E-01 0.903 0.097 0.029
Afanasievo.SG 2.093E-04 0.930 0.070 0.033
Yamnaya_Ukraine_Ozera 2.402E-05 0.711 0.289 0.046
Yamnaya_Hungary 6.497E-02 0.829 0.171 0.041
Yamnaya_Hungary_LCA_EBA1 1.467E-01 0.729 0.271 0.036
North_Caucasus 1.128E-01 0.823 0.177 0.026

alan
06-01-2018, 12:28 PM
An interesting thing about David’s latest tree is that when the Yamnaya signal came into being presumably on the Volga pre-3300BC, GAC has only just come into existence and was nowhere near early Yamnaya geographically. Same is true of TRB. Looking at the graph in Genomic History of SE Europe it is clear that David is finding the farmer part of yamnanya coming from the middle Neolithic north-central European farmer roots with a lot of WHG, reduced Anatolian ENF and little or no EHG. Archaeologists are clear that GAC is far older in Poland than it is in the area east of the Prut and never gets east of the Dnieper. TRB has the same problem.

This is a major problem as it’s impossible to see Yamnaya arise in the Volga area if it had a major input from late farmers of the north-central European type that gave rise to TRB and GAC. How could proto Yamnaya steppe people on the Volga mix with a type of farmers who never got east of the Dnieper? And to may matters worse GAC was a new culture just arisen in Poland around 3400BC when Yamnaya was appearing and didn’t reach the middle Dnieper till Yamnaya was already expanding west and it never went east of that river.

So it seems something is wrong with the model OR there was an unsampled GAC-like farmer pop much closer to hand. archaeology notes late Trypillian enclaves in the Don and Volga area but the CT farmers tested so far are clearly Balkans descended farmers with higher Anatolian enf and a Hunter substrate that is more EHG shifted than anything like GAC which is very WHG shifted and rich. So either the model is wrong OR there wad an unsampled and archaeological invisible north-central Euro type middle Neolithic group near the Volga OR the Yamnaya population arose further west than archaeologists place the origin of the culture. I’m baffled

alan
06-01-2018, 12:43 PM
An interesting thing about David’s latest tree is that when the Yamnaya signal came into being presumably on the Volga pre-3300BC, GAC has only just come into existence and was nowhere near early Yamnaya geographically. Same is true of TRB. Looking at the graph in Genomic History of SE Europe it is clear that David is finding the farmer part of yamnanya coming from the middle Neolithic north-central European farmer roots with a lot of WHG, reduced Anatolian ENF and little or no EHG. Archaeologists are clear that GAC is far older in Poland than it is in the area east of the Prut and never gets east of the Dnieper. TRB has the same problem.

This is a major problem as it’s impossible to see Yamnaya arise in the Volga area if it had a major input from late farmers of the north-central European type that gave rise to TRB and GAC. How could proto Yamnaya steppe people on the Volga mix with a type of farmers who never got east of the Dnieper? And to may matters worse GAC was a new culture just arisen in Poland around 3400BC when Yamnaya was appearing and didn’t reach the middle Dnieper till Yamnaya was already expanding west and it never went east of that river.

So it seems something is wrong with the model OR there was an unsampled GAC-like farmer pop much closer to hand. archaeology notes late Trypillian enclaves in the Don and Volga area but the CT farmers tested so far are clearly Balkans descended farmers with higher Anatolian enf and a Hunter substrate that is more EHG shifted than anything like GAC which is very WHG shifted and rich. So either the model is wrong OR there wad an unsampled and archaeological invisible north-central Euro type middle Neolithic group near the Volga OR the Yamnaya population arose further west than archaeologists place the origin of the culture. I’m baffled
Now I’m wondering if the GAC-like input in Yamnaya somehow came direct from north-east-central European forest zone using the Bug some intermediate culture in Ukraine was slave trading women from more GAC/late TRB farmers to their north-west ?

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 12:50 PM
An interesting thing about David’s latest tree is that when the Yamnaya signal came into being presumably on the Volga pre-3300BC, GAC has only just come into existence and was nowhere near early Yamnaya geographically. Same is true of TRB. Looking at the graph in Genomic History of SE Europe it is clear that David is finding the farmer part of yamnanya coming from the middle Neolithic north-central European farmer roots with a lot of WHG, reduced Anatolian ENF and little or no EHG. Archaeologists are clear that GAC is far older in Poland than it is in the area east of the Prut and never gets east of the Dnieper. TRB has the same problem.

This is a major problem as it’s impossible to see Yamnaya arise in the Volga area if it had a major input from late farmers of the north-central European type that gave rise to TRB and GAC. How could proto Yamnaya steppe people on the Volga mix with a type of farmers who never got east of the Dnieper? And to may matters worse GAC was a new culture just arisen in Poland around 3400BC when Yamnaya was appearing and didn’t reach the middle Dnieper till Yamnaya was already expanding west and it never went east of that river.

So it seems something is wrong with the model OR there was an unsampled GAC-like farmer pop much closer to hand. archaeology notes late Trypillian enclaves in the Don and Volga area but the CT farmers tested so far are clearly Balkans descended farmers with higher Anatolian enf and a Hunter substrate that is more EHG shifted than anything like GAC which is very WHG shifted and rich. So either the model is wrong OR there wad an unsampled and archaeological invisible north-central Euro type middle Neolithic group near the Volga OR the Yamnaya population arose further west than archaeologists place the origin of the culture. I’m baffled

As I said, this paper is likely a game-changer:

"Specifically, we tested whether any of the Eurasian steppe ancestry
420 groups can be successfully modelled as a two-way admixture between Eneolithic
421 steppe and a population X derived from Anatolian- or Iranian farmer-related ancestry,
422 respectively. Surprisingly, we found that a minimum of four streams of ancestry is
423 needed to explain all eleven steppe ancestry groups tested, including previously
424 published ones (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a
425 subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related
426 ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed
427 through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West.
428 A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary
429 Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single
430 best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous
431 groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area
432 (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG,
433 and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4;
434 Supplementary Tables 13,14 and 15). Applying the same method to the subsequent
435 North Caucasian Steppe groups such as Catacomb, North Caucasus, and Late North
436 Caucasus confirms this pattern (Supplementary Table 17).
437
438 Using qpAdm with Globular Amphora as a proximate surrogate population (assuming
439 that a related group was the source of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry), we
440 estimated the contribution of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry into Yamnaya and
441 other steppe groups. We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region
442 (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1%
443 Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically
444 indistinguishable proportions. Replacing Globular Amphora by Iberia Chalcolithic,
445 for instance, does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 19). This
446 suggests that the source population was a mixture of Anatolian farmer-related
447 ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a profile that is shared by many
448 Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Europe of the 3rd millennium
449 BCE analysed thus far."

Radboud
06-01-2018, 12:55 PM
With all that's been going on, I have not had the time to read that paper. I glanced at the spreadsheet. I didn't see any Hungarian Yamnaya and no y-dna for Hungarian Yamnaya. Did I miss something?

These samples are not published yet. It's cool that they are finally Hungarian Yamnaya samples on their way though. They will be released in the next paper I guess?

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 01:02 PM
These samples are not published yet. It's cool that they are finally Hungarian Yamnaya samples on their way though. They will be released in the next paper I guess?

Too bad we don't have their haplogroups.

alan
06-01-2018, 01:20 PM
As I said, this paper is likely a game-changer:

"Specifically, we tested whether any of the Eurasian steppe ancestry
420 groups can be successfully modelled as a two-way admixture between Eneolithic
421 steppe and a population X derived from Anatolian- or Iranian farmer-related ancestry,
422 respectively. Surprisingly, we found that a minimum of four streams of ancestry is
423 needed to explain all eleven steppe ancestry groups tested, including previously
424 published ones (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a
425 subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related
426 ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed
427 through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West.
428 A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary
429 Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single
430 best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous
431 groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area
432 (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG,
433 and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4;
434 Supplementary Tables 13,14 and 15). Applying the same method to the subsequent
435 North Caucasian Steppe groups such as Catacomb, North Caucasus, and Late North
436 Caucasus confirms this pattern (Supplementary Table 17).
437
438 Using qpAdm with Globular Amphora as a proximate surrogate population (assuming
439 that a related group was the source of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry), we
440 estimated the contribution of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry into Yamnaya and
441 other steppe groups. We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region
442 (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1%
443 Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically
444 indistinguishable proportions. Replacing Globular Amphora by Iberia Chalcolithic,
445 for instance, does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 19). This
446 suggests that the source population was a mixture of Anatolian farmer-related
447 ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a profile that is shared by many
448 Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Europe of the 3rd millennium
449 BCE analysed thus far."
But the issue is that Yamnaya is normally seen as arising around the Volga c 3300BC. But at that date and in the centuries preceeding it there are no known farmers with the appropriate signal anywhere near the Volga. Unless CT were hetrogenius and those sample so far are not representative of the whole group. Perhaps some were more GAC-like. I do known that some CT groups interacted heavily with TRB which could have meant they became more GAC-like. Whatever the answer (and I agree it could be complex) the admixing that created the Yamnaya type signal had to take place before 3300BC and it is very hard to see how that could have take place as Far East as the Volga - unless of course the easternmost Trypillia people were more GAC-like than those tested so far. Perhaps the conclusion is wrong and the elevated WHG is from west to east geneflow from Ukraine using the Sredny Stog Balkans metal route that went from the balkans to the Volga.

ADW_1981
06-01-2018, 01:22 PM
An interesting thing about David’s latest tree is that when the Yamnaya signal came into being presumably on the Volga pre-3300BC, GAC has only just come into existence and was nowhere near early Yamnaya geographically. Same is true of TRB. Looking at the graph in Genomic History of SE Europe it is clear that David is finding the farmer part of yamnanya coming from the middle Neolithic north-central European farmer roots with a lot of WHG, reduced Anatolian ENF and little or no EHG. Archaeologists are clear that GAC is far older in Poland than it is in the area east of the Prut and never gets east of the Dnieper. TRB has the same problem.

This is a major problem as it’s impossible to see Yamnaya arise in the Volga area if it had a major input from late farmers of the north-central European type that gave rise to TRB and GAC. How could proto Yamnaya steppe people on the Volga mix with a type of farmers who never got east of the Dnieper? And to may matters worse GAC was a new culture just arisen in Poland around 3400BC when Yamnaya was appearing and didn’t reach the middle Dnieper till Yamnaya was already expanding west and it never went east of that river.

So it seems something is wrong with the model OR there was an unsampled GAC-like farmer pop much closer to hand. archaeology notes late Trypillian enclaves in the Don and Volga area but the CT farmers tested so far are clearly Balkans descended farmers with higher Anatolian enf and a Hunter substrate that is more EHG shifted than anything like GAC which is very WHG shifted and rich. So either the model is wrong OR there wad an unsampled and archaeological invisible north-central Euro type middle Neolithic group near the Volga OR the Yamnaya population arose further west than archaeologists place the origin of the culture. I’m baffled

Rather than GAC, couldn't it be Trypillian?

George
06-01-2018, 01:33 PM
"the issue is that Yamnaya is normally seen as arising around the Volga c 3300BC" (#602)

The best archaeological expert on Yamna (Yuri Rassamakin) does not agree with this view. The Yamna horizon seems to have been created only ca. 3,100/3,000 BCE, and included all steppe groups between the Urals and the Danube. It is definitely "post Repin" and "post- PostStog" and developed its own unique set of marker ceramics. The old Repin groups, PostStog groups and others FUSED into the new entity. But neither Repin nor PostStog can be seen as "primary" ancestors. I'm sure that more studies of the still largely neglected West steppe aDNA will help to clarify the issue.

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 01:39 PM
Rather than GAC, couldn't it be Trypillian?

That's what they said: Iberian Chalcolithic could work too, but we know it is not possible.

So, it's likely from Balkans LNCA culture, or several (after all, it's possible).

This admixture could be dated from around 4000 BC to around 3300 BC, so CT is obviously a possibility. But the samples we have are not WHG-rich enough.

alan
06-01-2018, 01:42 PM
Around the time Yamnaya appeared c3300bc the closest GAC people were 2000 miles to the west of the Volga in Poland. So it’s pretty well impossible for GAC people to be responsible for any GAC-like mix that was in Yamnaya from the start. So a literal mix of a pre-Yamna steppe group with GAC farmers can be ruled out.

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 01:43 PM
"the issue is that Yamnaya is normally seen as arising around the Volga c 3300BC" (#602)

The best archaeological expert on Yamna (Yuri Rassamakin) does not agree with this view. The Yamna horizon seems to have been created only ca. 3,100/3,000 BCE, and included all steppe groups between the Urals and the Danube. It is definitely "post Repin" and "post- PostStog" and developed its own unique set of marker ceramics. The old Repin groups, PostStog groups and others FUSED into the new entity. But neither Repin nor PostStog can be seen as "primary" ancestors. I'm sure that more studies of the still largely neglected West steppe aDNA will help to clarify the issue.

Yes, "classical" Yamna, but in Bulgarian, the first are dated of the early XXXIth century. So, Yamna are older than 3100 BC.

alan
06-01-2018, 01:53 PM
Rather than GAC, couldn't it be Trypillian?

Archaeologically speaking CT is the most rational explanation. There were even CT enclaves on the Don and Volga However the C-T samples so far are a very poor fit. The answer may be that CT varies significantly over time and space and that some subset of them was more GAC-like. It’s probably the most simple option but there is no samples yet to back it up. Otherwise it could be a fiendishly complicated mix of all sorts of groups

epoch
06-01-2018, 02:05 PM
Around the time Yamnaya appeared c3300bc the closest GAC people were 2000 miles to the west of the Volga in Poland. So it’s pretty well impossible for GAC people to be responsible for any GAC-like mix that was in Yamnaya from the start. So a literal mix of a pre-Yamna steppe group with GAC farmers can be ruled out.

Strictly speaking they talk about the Yamnaya Samara samples and those have been carbon dated 2910-2875 BC.

alan
06-01-2018, 02:05 PM
"the issue is that Yamnaya is normally seen as arising around the Volga c 3300BC" (#602)

The best archaeological expert on Yamna (Yuri Rassamakin) does not agree with this view. The Yamna horizon seems to have been created only ca. 3,100/3,000 BCE, and included all steppe groups between the Urals and the Danube. It is definitely "post Repin" and "post- PostStog" and developed its own unique set of marker ceramics. The old Repin groups, PostStog groups and others FUSED into the new entity. But neither Repin nor PostStog can be seen as "primary" ancestors. I'm sure that more studies of the still largely neglected West steppe aDNA will help to clarify the issue.

True but even if yuri’s school of thought is right (many disagree and the genetics do look like an expansion from one area to me),GAC did not expand into the area between the Seret/Prut and the Dnieper until c 2900-2700BC and it never crossed the Dnieper at any stage. So Yamnaya between the Dnieper and Urals has genetics that cannot be explained by an in situ actual GAC input (unless someone was doing long distance transporting of women).

ffoucart
06-01-2018, 02:06 PM
Otherwise it could be a fiendishly complicated mix of all sorts of groups

Which is a very likely probability given that they praticed female exogamy. The Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera sample could be the result of such female exogamy. Her mother was probably from the Caucasus (Maykop?).

alan
06-01-2018, 02:08 PM
Strictly speaking they talk about the Yamnaya Samara samples and those have been carbon dated 2910-2875 BC.

Still a huge problem given GAC’s most easterly extension was the West Bank of the Dnieper.

anglesqueville
06-01-2018, 03:48 PM
I took it as showing Yamnaya itself was now being interpreted as a late pre-Yamnaya steppe group that absorbed a load of middle Neolithic European farmer. I don’t really understand what the line and number between Yamnaya and beaker means

Patterson: "We define “drift” as the frequency change of an allele along a graph edge (hence drift between two populations A and B is a function of the difference in the allele frequency of polymorphisms in A and B )." (Ancient Admixture in Human History, doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.145037 )
Of course there is a multiplicative coefficient, usually 1000.

edit: concretely on the qpGraph model you were referring to, British Beakers are not Yamnaya, but a population derived from Yamnaya without admixture (but of course not without genetic drift).

jdean
06-01-2018, 04:23 PM
Patterson: "We define “drift” as the frequency change of an allele along a graph edge (hence drift between two populations A and B is a function of the difference in the allele frequency of polymorphisms in A and B )." (Ancient Admixture in Human History, doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.145037 )
Of course there is a multiplicative coefficient, usually 1000.

edit: concretely on the qpGraph model you were referring to, British Beakers are not Yamnaya, but a population derived from Yamnaya without admixture (but of course not without genetic drift).

So these nos. on the solid lines represent drift, and the larger the no the greater the drift ?

George
06-01-2018, 04:34 PM
Which is a very likely probability given that they praticed female exogamy. The Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera sample could be the result of such female exogamy. Her mother was probably from the Caucasus (Maykop?).

There's not yet enough a DNA for absolute conclusions on the general issue. We have very little from the West steppe, and absolutely nothing from cultures like Kemi-Oba, Lower Mykhajlivka, Vykhvatinsk Trypilian (loaded with inhumations!), early Northeast Trypilian (before the cremation period). Not to mention the "mixed" Trypilian saturated Ukrainian GAC (hugely exogamous). And we know that both Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog) and Khvalynsk had continuous trading contacts with both Danube and north Trypilian farmers. So far we do have a modicum of aDNA results from the East steppe and nearby areas which are very useful. But the broader picture (including some surprises about CHG) have yet to emerge I believe. Classical CT is not (and probably never will be) available due to its peculiar cremation rites (no traces whatsoever, just surmises). But we have hopes for some peripheral groups thereof (esp. those of the northeast at the early stage like I hinted). And I can't wait for results from the Zhyvotylivka and Serezliivka "farmer exodus" steppe cultures (right next door to budding Yamna).

anglesqueville
06-01-2018, 04:39 PM
So these nos. on the solid lines represent drift, and the larger the no the greater the drift ?

Yes, that's my way of understanding. That said, honnestly, the people who publish qpGraphs are never very talkative about those measures of drift along edges, and the only clear and precise information that I know is what Patterson himself wrote in his founding text.

jdean
06-01-2018, 04:45 PM
Yes, that's my way of understanding. That said, honnestly, the people who publish qpGraphs are never very talkative about those measures of drift along edges, and the only clear and precise information that I know is what Patterson himself wrote in his founding text.

Many thanks very helpful !!! funnily enough I found somebody asking the same question on Eurogenes almost exactly a year ago who was completely ignored : )

Eterne
06-01-2018, 05:23 PM
@anglesqueville, my understanding is that further, the units are f2 "units", and the MixMapper paper (from before Patterson+Reich abandoned the automated approach) defines that in this simple way - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555.pdf - "the pairwise distance statistic f2 (Reich et al.,2009; Patterson et al., 2012), which is the average squared allele frequency difference between two populations".

f3 and f4 measures are slightly different statistics which can also be derived from expressions involving addition and subtraction of f2 statistics - http://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/early/2016/02/22/genetics.115.183913.full.pdf. Hence the whole qpGraph involving addition and subtraction of f2 statistics covers all the possible f3 and f4 statistics as well (This paper is quite complicated and mathematical, like Patterson's paper which you reference, so I have never really internalised it all, as I lack the background and knowledge.)

(Outgroup f3 statistics that are often talked about are something more like a measure of how much two populations share phylogeny relative to the outgroup, which is different from the pairwise distance; you can have two populations who share a lot of a phylogeny but are less close to each other in pairwise distance than they are to a third population that is more phylogenetically distant.)

rms2
06-01-2018, 05:48 PM
Archaeologically speaking CT is the most rational explanation. There were even CT enclaves on the Don and Volga However the C-T samples so far are a very poor fit. The answer may be that CT varies significantly over time and space and that some subset of them was more GAC-like. It’s probably the most simple option but there is no samples yet to back it up. Otherwise it could be a fiendishly complicated mix of all sorts of groups

I don't have my notes with me (I'm not at home), but as I recall Gimbutas mentioned some different anthropological types in CT, mostly gracile Mediterranean, but some were different and more eastern.

alan
06-01-2018, 06:55 PM
There's not yet enough a DNA for absolute conclusions on the general issue. We have very little from the West steppe, and absolutely nothing from cultures like Kemi-Oba, Lower Mykhajlivka, Vykhvatinsk Trypilian (loaded with inhumations!), early Northeast Trypilian (before the cremation period). Not to mention the "mixed" Trypilian saturated Ukrainian GAC (hugely exogamous). And we know that both Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog) and Khvalynsk had continuous trading contacts with both Danube and north Trypilian farmers. So far we do have a modicum of aDNA results from the East steppe and nearby areas which are very useful. But the broader picture (including some surprises about CHG) have yet to emerge I believe. Classical CT is not (and probably never will be) available due to its peculiar cremation rites (no traces whatsoever, just surmises). But we have hopes for some peripheral groups thereof (esp. those of the northeast at the early stage like I hinted). And I can't wait for results from the Zhyvotylivka and Serezliivka "farmer exodus" steppe cultures (right next door to budding Yamna). agreed. That is a good summary of the complex situation. Do you happen to know much about or have any links in English to publications that discuss the easternmost bit of Trypillia which I have read includes late enclaves on the Don and Volga. I am curious about the date and nature of that subset of CT.

etrusco
06-01-2018, 07:20 PM
Alan

here 2 studies

one is the classic of manzura I have already posted ( I suppose you do not agree with his conclusions)
the other is a study about the "end" of CT and post CT development in the forest-steppe regions

http://www.academia.edu/9450078/STEPS_TO_THE_STEPPE_OR_HOW_THE_NORTH_PONTIC_REGION _WAS_COLONISED

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjNhL_ClrPbAhXBwBQKHTdnAaEQFghPMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Frevije.ff.uni-lj.si%2FDocumentaPraehistorica%2Farticle%2FviewFil e%2F38.29%2F1661&usg=AOvVaw3A1YLQSuUSnerzhhyHHRMe

alan
06-01-2018, 07:44 PM
Alan

here 2 studies

one is the classic of manzura I have already posted ( I suppose you do not agree with his conclusions)
the other is a study about the "end" of CT and post CT development in the forest-steppe regions

http://www.academia.edu/9450078/STEPS_TO_THE_STEPPE_OR_HOW_THE_NORTH_PONTIC_REGION _WAS_COLONISED

https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0ahUKEwjNhL_ClrPbAhXBwBQKHTdnAaEQFghPMAk&url=https%3A%2F%2Frevije.ff.uni-lj.si%2FDocumentaPraehistorica%2Farticle%2FviewFil e%2F38.29%2F1661&usg=AOvVaw3A1YLQSuUSnerzhhyHHRMe

Thank you. Much appreciated. I don’t have any hard fixed views on C-T. My knowledge of it is not very deep. So I’m grateful for the links and will read them tonight.

Fungene
06-01-2018, 08:30 PM
For those of you interested in information on human remains from Cucuteni culture (the list is current as of 2012), please see here:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13658-Ancient-DNA-from-Romania&p=406426&viewfull=1#post406426

The information is from
Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania. (ISBN 978-606-537-135-4).

Tip: useful for dispelling some misinformation in this thread

George
06-01-2018, 09:02 PM
agreed. That is a good summary of the complex situation. Do you happen to know much about or have any links in English to publications that discuss the easternmost bit of Trypillia which I have read includes late enclaves on the Don and Volga. I am curious about the date and nature of that subset of CT.

I'm not too clear on these CT "enclaves" (Don/Volga areas). I've also seen them mentioned but have not read any very specific descriptions and/or discussions. So I'll leave this open for the time being. The Manzura and Videiko pieces have their interest of course, though I can't really agree with much of the "radical steppe expansion" views of the former or with the late date of the classical Trypilian Olkhovets "mega-village" of the latter (2700 BCE seems a lab mistake). I forgot to mention the important hybrid Usatovo culture. It had plenty of "Trypilian" elements of course, but seems rather a kind of mixed civilization (mixed genetically also), possibly an area partly occupied by the descendants of the Dnister Vikhvatinsk group (that fascinating group of Trypilian Mediterranean "gracile" fathers and Steppe "Robust Europoid" mothers). But the leadership of Usatovo group seems to be the reverse genetic product of this radical exogamy: Steppe fathers and Trypilian mothers). Apart from some ceramics and some burials (themselves not characteristic of classical Trypilia) the nature of Usatovo is more steppic pastoralist than Trypilian farmer. And eventually Usatovo was itself gobbled up by Yamna.== Actually when speaking of northeast Trypilians I had in mind the groups which morphed into the Sofiivka culture. Originally (early 5th millennium BCE) their area saw a fusion of incoming Trypilian and local Dnipro-Donetsk cultural types, with the latter maintaining their inhumation burials for a while before becoming assimilated to standard "classical Trypilia". By the time of "Sofiivka" (3000-2700 BCE) they had recovered or adopted many "steppic" markers (incl. corded ware, distinct burials-- though cremations rather than inhumations) etc.. They were powerful enough to stop the GAC advance into their area, and to resist the Yamna push for a while. Eventually they morphed into a component of the Middle Dnipro Corded Ware culture. So this is where one could get some interesting a DNA (going back to the Dnipro-Donetsk early burials) I suspect a lot of R1a's might be found.=== I also suspect that Lower Mykhajlovka/ Kemi-Oba with their cultural Maikop affinities might yield lots of CHG's. And Lower Mykhajlovka was quite extensive territorially. Usatovo might well turn out to be a R1b haven. Nothing to do but to wait.

rms2
06-01-2018, 11:18 PM
Here is what I found from Gimbutas on CT, from The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe, p. 34:


[A] medley of the indigenous inhabitants and infiltrating Mediterraneans.

rms2
06-01-2018, 11:57 PM
As I said, this paper is likely a game-changer . . .

I printed it out at work and read it on the train on the way home.

This part seems to me to be devastating to the idea that IE developed south of the Caucasus and spread from there to the steppe:


Based on PCA and ADMIXTURE plots we observe two distinct genetic clusters: one cluster falls with previously published ancient individuals from the West Eurasian steppe (hence termed ‘Steppe’), and the second clusters with present-day southern Caucasian populations and ancient Bronze Age individuals from today’s Armenia (henceforth called ‘Caucasus’), while a few individuals take on intermediate positions between the two. The stark distinction seen in our temporal transect is also visible in the Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution, with R1/R1b1 and Q1a2 types in the Steppe and L, J, and G2 types in the Caucasus cluster (Fig. 3A, Supplementary Data 1). In contrast, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is more diverse and almost identical in both groups (Fig. 3B, 229 Supplementary Data 1).


To me that says a couple of things besides what the words themselves say: 1) Caucasus admixture was spread to the steppe by women, and 2) those women were almost certainly speaking an early Kartvelian language and not Indo-European.

How did I get those things out of that? Because one does not have to be a linguist to know that the early Indo-Europeans were a patriarchal, partrilineal culture. If people from the Caucasus cluster spread IE to the steppe, Caucasus cluster y-dna should be well represented among steppe pastoralists, and it's not. The fall back answer, of course, is that Caucasus cluster women spread IE to the steppe, but that to me is completely untenable, because the IE people were patriarchal and patrilocal. Foreign, Caucasus cluster brides going to live with steppe pastoralist husbands and their families would not be innovators, they would be imitators trying their best to fit in. They would not teach a south-of-the-Caucasus tongue to their husbands' children. They might introduce a few stray terms, but that would be about it. Women could not convert a patriarchal society like that to a new and foreign language.

It also seems to me the big fat elephant lounging in the room of the south-of-the-Caucasus argument is Kartvelian. We know it influenced PIE. Where was it when IE was supposedly in charge south of the Caucasus?

Another thing is that the "mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is . . . almost identical in both groups". Since steppe dna wasn't spread to the Caucasus cluster, but Caucasus dna was spread north, obviously steppe women weren't responsible for the identical mtDNA haplogroup distribution in both clusters. The only conclusion left is that Caucasus dna was spread north by Caucasus cluster women.

ms85
06-02-2018, 12:52 AM
Nothing special about Steppe mtDNA. Most of those mtDNA haplogroups are just native to the Steppes and predate Yamnaya or even Maykop. And definitely NOT from the 'stolen' brides from Caucasus, lol. Only R1* could be from the South. But there could also be a correlation between mtDNA hg. R1 and Y-DNA hg. Q1a2 in the Steppe.


https://s33.postimg.cc/fpko7oqb3/mt_DNA.jpg

ms85
06-02-2018, 01:12 AM
Actually similarity of mtDNA between Caucasus and Steppe - which was native to both areas: Caucasus and Steppe - is a very strong argument/evidence that there was a Y-DNA replacement in North Caucasus, because Maykop predate Yamnaya.

Kopfjäger
06-02-2018, 01:18 AM
And definitely NOT from the 'stolen' brides from Caucasus, lol.


https://s33.postimg.cc/fpko7oqb3/mt_DNA.jpg

They weren't stolen, Jethro. The brides were clearly enamored with the Steppe hunks.

I'm sure there was an exchange of some sort.

rms2
06-02-2018, 01:21 AM
If Indo-European was spread to the steppe from south of the Caucasus, where is the Caucasus cluster y-dna in steppe pastoralists?

Why, on the other hand, do Wang et al specifically say, "In contrast, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is more diverse and almost identical in both groups"?

Pretty obviously, the vector for CHG-like ancestry on the steppe was not Caucasus cluster males but Caucasus cluster females. Only a willfully blind person could fail to see that.

Since Indo-Europeans were plainly a patriarchal, patrilineal, patrilocal people, there is just no way Caucasus cluster women spread early Indo-European to the steppe. Since PIE was, however, influenced by early Kartvelian, that is apparently what those Caucasus cluster women spoke.

Besides early Kartvelian, the other big fat elephant in the south-of-the-Caucasus room is early Uralic, which also influenced PIE. There were no Uralic-speaking peoples south of the Caucasus, but such peoples did live on the northern forest border of the steppe.

ms85
06-02-2018, 01:39 AM
They weren't stolen, Jethro. The brides were clearly enamored with the Steppe hunks.

I'm sure there was an exchange of some sort.There was an exchange of mtDNA, but not in Y-DNA????

As you can see mtDNA was NATIVE to both areas.


Do you know what? It is more likely that mtDNA and Y-DNA hg. R1b in Northern Caucasus and Steppe were similar to each other before Maykop Culture, but Y-DNA in Northern Caucasus was later 'replaced' by Y-DNA hg. J2, L etc. in Caucasus.

What we know for sure is that R1b in West Asia is very ancient. They found R1b in Kura-Araxes culture (similar to Maykop) from an area south of Caucasus. That means that we have 3 scenarios here.

a) There was already R1b in both areas before Maykop and that R1b was wiped out from the northern Caucasus by Maykop (J2, L etc.) invaders,
b) R1b from West Asia took a different route of the Caspian Sea shores when it migrated into the Steppes or
c) there was R1b in Maykop, but they ddn't find it yet.

Kopfjäger
06-02-2018, 01:45 AM
There was an exchange of mtDNA, but not in Y-DNA????

As you can see mtDNA was NATIVE to both areas.


Do you know what? It is more likely that mtDNA and Y-DNA hg. R1b in Northern Caucasus and Steppe were similar to each other before Maykop Culture, but Y-DNA in Northern Caucasus was later 'replaced' by Y-DNA hg. J2, L etc. in Caucasus.

What we know for sure is that R1b in West Asia is very ancient. They found R1b in Kura-Araxes culture (similar to Maykop) from an area south of Caucasus. That means that we have 3 scenarios here.

a) There was already R1b in both areas before Maykop and that R1b was wiped out from the northern Caucasus by Maykop (J2, L etc.) invaders,
b) R1b from West Asia took a different route of the Caspian Sea shores when it migrated into the Steppes or
c) there was R1b in Maykop, but they ddn't find it yet.

What are you talking about? There was no yDNA exchange. Did you read the paper? Do you know how to read stacked bar charts?

rms2
06-02-2018, 01:46 AM
The R1b1-M415 found in Kura Araxes is pretty late: 2619-2465 BC. It probably represents an intruder from the steppe or the descendant of an intruder from the steppe.

There is no evidence R1b-M269 came from south of the Caucasus but was later replaced there by L, J, and G2.

ms85
06-02-2018, 01:47 AM
If Indo-European was spread to the steppe from south of the Caucasus, where is the Caucasus cluster y-dna in steppe pastoralists?

Why, on the other hand, do Wang et al specifically say, "In contrast, the mitochondrial haplogroup distribution is more diverse and almost identical in both groups"?

Pretty obviously, the vector for CHG-like ancestry on the steppe was not Caucasus cluster males but Caucasus cluster females. Only a willfully blind person could fail to see that.See my previous post.

mtDNA in the Steppe was just NATIVE to the Steppe. So, CHG-like ancestry in the Steppe CAN'T be from mtDNA. It is not possible!


Modern R1b in the Steppe is originally from West Asia: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010146


Since there was already Middle Eastern ancestry in the Steppe before Yamnaya, that could mean that R1b from West Asia already migrated into the Steppes BEFORE Maykop!

Generalissimo
06-02-2018, 01:49 AM
What we know for sure is that R1b in West Asia is very ancient. They found R1b in Kura-Araxes culture (similar to Maykop) from an area south of Caucasus. That means that we have 3 scenarios here.

a) There was already R1b in both areas before Maykop and that R1b was wiped out from the northern Caucasus by Maykop (J2, L etc.) invaders,
b) R1b from West Asia took a different route of the Caspian Sea shores when it migrated into the Steppes or
c) there was R1b in Maykop, but they ddn't find it yet.

The Kura-Araxes R1b is from after 3,000 BC, and not M269, so it's irrelevant. And it's the oldest R1b of any type from the Near East thus far. Early Yamnaya samples from the steppe are much older.

Armenia_EBA I1635 2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP) R1b1-M415(xM269)

Btw, ms85 apparently has me on ignore, so one of you other guys might want to communicate this to him, even though I posted my reply for the benefit of others who might be tempted to believe his constant ramblings.

ms85
06-02-2018, 01:49 AM
There is no evidence R1b-M269 came from south of the Caucasus but was later replaced there by L, J, and G2.But there is evidence! Why? Because there was already Middle Eastern ancestry (auDNA component) in the Steppe BEFORE Yamnaya!

Maykop brought even more extra Middle Eastern ancestry (auDNA) into the Steppe.

ms85
06-02-2018, 01:53 AM
What are you talking about? There was no yDNA exchange. Did you read the paper? Do you know how to read stacked bar charts?You talked about mtDNA exchange. But why only mtDNA exchange? Doesn't make any sense. We see here that Y-DNA haplogroups, like hg. J2 & hg. L 'replaced' native Y-DNA haplogroups in northern Caucasus

rms2
06-02-2018, 01:54 AM
See my previous post.

See mine.



mtDNA in the Steppe was just NATIVE to the Steppe. So, CHG-like ancestry in the Steppe CAN'T be from mtDNA. It is not possible!

That is a bald assertion. Wang et al said the mtDNA haplogroup distribution north and south of the Caucasus was virtually identical. How did it get that way without steppe dna flowing south of the Caucasus, if that distribution was native to the steppe?

It was CHG-like dna that flowed north to the steppe from the Caucasus. Since the y-dna haplogroups of the Steppe and Caucasus clusters are clearly different and distinct, it wasn't spread by men. Who is left? Women. And - wonder of wonders! - mtDNA haplogroup distribution is virtually identical in both groups.



Modern R1b in the Steppe is originally from West Asia: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2010146


Since there was already Middle Eastern ancestry in the Steppe before Yamnaya, that could mean that R1b from West Asia already migrated into the Steppes BEFORE Maykop!

Er, how does Myres et al, a study of modern y-dna from 2010 (had to blow off the cobwebs to read the title again) support what is otherwise another bald assertion on your part (i.e., your only form of "argument")?

rms2
06-02-2018, 01:58 AM
But there is evidence! Why? Because there was already Middle Eastern ancestry (auDNA component) in the Steppe BEFORE Yamnaya!

Maykop brought even more extra Middle Eastern ancestry (auDNA) into the Steppe.

CHG-like ancestry, evidently brought by women, given the mtDNA haplogroup distributions of both the Steppe and Caucasus clusters and the distinct and stark differences between their respective y-dna haplogroup distributions.

That's also where the Kartvelian influence on PIE came from.

Kopfjäger
06-02-2018, 02:07 AM
But why only mtDNA exchange? Doesn't make any sense. s

Why was there only mtDNA exchange? Because the Caucasus males could not penetrate the Russian Steppe; that's why.

It would make more sense if you actually looked at the graphs.

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:08 AM
That is a bald assertion. Wang et al said the mtDNA haplogroup distribution north and south of the Caucasus was virtually identical. How did it get that way without steppe dna flowing south of the Caucasus, if that distribution was native to the steppe?

It was CHG-like dna that flowed north to the steppe from the Caucasus. Since the y-dna of the Steppe and Caucasus clusters are clearly different and distinct, it wasn't spread by men. Who is left? Women. And - wonder of wonders! - mtDNA haplogroup distribution is virtually identical in both groups.Because mtDNA in the Steppe was native to the Steppe. We have got DNA studies from very ancient European people and their mtDNA resembles the mtDNA of Yamnaya. So, mtDNA BEFORE and AFTER Maykop didn't change much.

mtDNA in the Caucasus was similar to mtDNA in the Steppe. Maykop was older than Yamnaya, so mtDNA in Caucasus PREDATE Yamnaya. That means that Y-DNA haplogroups like J2a and L simply replaced native haplogroups in northern Caucasus




Er, how does Myres et al, a study of modern y-dna from 2010 (had to blow off the cobwebs to read the title again) support what is otherwise another bald assertion on your part (i.e., your only form of "argument")?They found R1b1-M415 in Armenia from Kura-Araxes era. It was older than Yamnaya. Modern R1b is much MORE diverse in West Asia than in the Steppe or even in Europe. Modern R1b in the Steppe and Europe was just a product of bottle necking.

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:13 AM
CHG-like ancestry, evidently brought by women, given the mtDNA haplogroup distributions of both the Steppe and Caucasus clusters and the distinct and stark differences between their respective y-dna haplogroup distributions.

That's also where the Kartvelian influence on PIE came from.There is NO evidence. Caucasus Maykop cluster is OLDER than Steppe Yamnaya cluster. And since mtDNA in the Steppe is native it means that Y-DNA in northern Caucasus was replaced by Y-DNA hg. J2 and L. Very simple, logical and easy

CHG-like ancestry in the Steppe couldn't be brought by women because mtDNA was native to the Steppe BEFORE Maykop at the first place.


So not possible at all!

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:15 AM
Why was there only mtDNA exchange? Because the Caucasus males could not penetrate the Russian Steppe; that's why.LMAO! Females could penetrate the Steppe but males not? Are you serious? If females could penetrate both Caucasus and the Steppe, why not males?


How old are you?

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:18 AM
There is NO evidence. Caucasus Maykop cluster is OLDER than Steppe Yamnaya cluster. And since mtDNA in the Steppe is native it means that Y-DNA in northern Caucasus was replaced by Y-DNA hg. J2 and L. Very simple, logical and easy

CHG-like ancestry in the Steppe couldn't be brought by women because mtDNA was native to the Steppe BEFORE Maykop.


So not possible at all!

You have been clearly and decisively refuted time and time again. In turn you simply re-assert what you asserted without support before.

There's not much point in responding to you and repeating everything, because you aren't paying attention. You're campaigning for a cause.

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:23 AM
LMAO! Females could penetrate the Steppe but males not? Are you serious? If females could penetrate both Caucasus and the Steppe, why not males?


How old are you?

You can't imagine how foreign women might be welcomed by men who would not be so welcoming of foreign men?

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:25 AM
You have been clearly and decisively refuted time and time again. In turn you simply re-assert what you asserted without support before.

There's not much point in repeating in responding to you, because you aren't paying attention. You're campaigning for a cause.Nah, my dear friend. I’m just pointing out to you that you are basing your conclusion on wrong reasoning. I’m not sure where is it going wrong, but maybe due to wishful thinking.

If dozens of percentage points of Middle Eastern ancestry in the Steppe are from female mtDNA, then why we don't find that high percentages of Middle Eastern mtDNA in the Steppe at the first place? In contrary, we have got evidence that mtDNA in Yamnaya was just native to that area for thousands of years.

Since we got more evidence, we can see that there was a replacement of Y-DNA in northern Caucasus by hg. J2 & L.

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:27 AM
I'm ignoring you now, since you ignore the actual evidence in favor of asserting your own fiction.

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:31 AM
You can't imagine how foreign women might be welcomed by men who would not be so welcoming of foreign men?No, I can't! I'm from a very close society. My people/religion are against all kind of race/culture mixing. My people don’t accept foreign men neither foreign females. We just don't believe in race mixing and consider it as an act against GOD's will.

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:38 AM
I'm ignoring you now, since you ignore the actual evidence in favor of asserting your own fiction.Too bad, I thought we were friends!

Because I point out why your reasoning is wrong , without any insult or attack, you are going to ignore me in the future? Be a reasonable person to me and counter my arguments with even better arguments. I'm open for new ideas. At the end of the day I want to learn new things and it is all what matters to me!

ffoucart
06-02-2018, 02:38 AM
The Kura-Araxes R1b is from after 3,000 BC, and not M269, so it's irrelevant. And it's the oldest R1b of any type from the Near East thus far. Early Yamnaya samples from the steppe are much older.

Armenia_EBA I1635 2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP) R1b1-M415(xM269)

Btw, ms85 apparently has me on ignore, so one of you other guys might want to communicate this to him, even though I posted my reply for the benefit of others who might be tempted to believe his constant ramblings.

Yes, and we are answering the same again and again.

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:45 AM
Too bad, I thought we were friends!

Because I point out why your reasoning is wrong , without any insult or attack, you are going to ignore me in the future? Be a reasonable person to me and counter my arguments with even better arguments. I'm open for new ideas. At the end of the day I want to learn new things and it is all what matters to me!

I don't think you are open to new ideas. You simply make the same bald assertions without support or foundation over and over and over.

You're clearly wrong, but you won't ever accept that.

It's pointless to discuss this topic with you.

ffoucart
06-02-2018, 02:47 AM
See mine.

That is a bald assertion. Wang et al said the mtDNA haplogroup distribution north and south of the Caucasus was virtually identical. How did it get that way without steppe dna flowing south of the Caucasus, if that distribution was native to the steppe?

It was CHG-like dna that flowed north to the steppe from the Caucasus. Since the y-dna haplogroups of the Steppe and Caucasus clusters are clearly different and distinct, it wasn't spread by men. Who is left? Women. And - wonder of wonders! - mtDNA haplogroup distribution is virtually identical in both groups.

Er, how does Myres et al, a study of modern y-dna from 2010 (had to blow off the cobwebs to read the title again) support what is otherwise another bald assertion on your part (i.e., your only form of "argument")?

3 points:
- the CHG-like admixture found in Yamnaya seems different from the one found in Maykop,
- this same admixture was already present in Eneolithic Steppe, with no clear increase in the IVth millenium (Yamnaya got a new LN admixture, but Anatolian_N and WHG derived),
- Mt haplogroups are not identical. There are differences. Not only with different haplogroups but with proportions. The paper is therefore making a general statement which needs confirmation with more samples.

rms2
06-02-2018, 02:53 AM
3 points:
- the CHG-like admixture found in Yamnaya seems different from the one found in Maykop,
- this same admixture was already present in Eneolithic Steppe, with no clear increase in the IVth millenium (Yamnaya got a new LN admixture, but Anatolian_N and WHG derived),
- Mt haplogroups are not identical. There are differences. Not only with different haplogroups but with proportions. The paper is therefore making a general statement which needs confirmation with more samples.

I don't think I said the mtDNA haplogroups were identical. I quoted Wang et al, who said they were "almost identical", in contrast to the stark distinction between the y-dna haplogroups of the Steppe cluster and those of the Caucasus cluster.

The contrast is the important thing. Pretty obviously there was a great deal of difference between steppe people and Caucasus people when it came to y-dna and a far greater similarity in mtDNA.

Unless one wants to argue that those Steppe cluster y-dna haplogroups originally came from south of the Caucasus, the obvious conclusion is that CHG-like dna was spread north by women.

ms85
06-02-2018, 02:57 AM
You're clearly wrong, but you won't ever accept that.And from here things are going wrong, my friend. Because I'm 100% convinced that people who think like you are wrong.

It is in my nature to doubt first and I'm always critical. I don't take things as granted. When somebody claims something I'm going into my own investigation, doing my own research. I must see it with my own eyes to be convinced.

But at this point I don't see any strong arguments that can convince me. Maybe if you try harder and bring up better arguments based on science & DATA, I can be persuaded!

rms2
06-02-2018, 03:02 AM
And from here things are going wrong, my friend. Because I'm 100% convinced that people who think like you are wrong.

It is in my nature to always doubt first and I’m always critical. I don't take things as granted. When somebody claims something I’m going into my own investigation. I must see it with my own eyes to be convinced.

But at this point I don't see any strong arguments that can convince me. Maybe if you try harder and bring up better arguments based on science & DATA, I can't be persuaded!

You cite no scientific data. You merely make proclamations.

I provide arguments actually backed by evidence (e.g., the y-dna differences between the Steppe and Caucasus clusters, their mtDNA similarity, the Kartvelian and Uralic influences on PIE, etc.).

ms85
06-02-2018, 03:17 AM
You cite no scientific data. You merely make proclamations.

I provide arguments actually backed by evidence (e.g., the y-dna differences between the Steppe and Caucasus clusters, their mtDNA similarity, the Kartvelian and Uralic influences on PIE, etc.).What do you mean? All what I said is that mtDNA is native to Yamnaya because ancient European and Steppe people had similar mtDNA. So Middle Eastern auDNA in the Steppe can't be from mtDNA, because mtDNA in the Steppe is very old!

You can compare mtDNA from Yamnaya with:

Funnel-beaker Culture (c. 4200-2650 BCE) - https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/funnelbeaker_culture.shtml
Linear Pottery (LBK) culture (c. 5600-4250 BCE) - https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/linear_pottery_culture.shtml
Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș culture (c. 6200-4500 BCE) - https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/starcevo_culture.shtml
etc.

This is DATA, my friend!


I'm not blind. I detected the same: Y-DNA different, but mtDNA is more similar and NATIVE to both places! mtDNA in Caucasus was there BEFORE Yamnaya. Therefore I come to a conclusion that Y-DNA in northern Caucasus was replaced by Y-DNA from the south. We have got also auDNA as evidence for that.


You was talking about CHG in the Steppes being from the females, but there is absolutely no evidence for that! No scientific/academic paper is point out that CHG in the Steppe is from CHG females. This is very wrong reasoning/assumption, arguments based on empty air, no data and therefore on nothing!


Just show me scientific evidence that CHG in the Steppe is from females. I want to see actual DATA, I want to see mtDNA, I want to compare it etc, etc. What you do is nothing but speculation and very wrong one. Sorry, but I see here very wrong reasoning!

Kopfjäger
06-02-2018, 04:13 AM
Too bad, I thought we were friends!

Because I point out why your reasoning is wrong , without any insult or attack, you are going to ignore me in the future? Be a reasonable person to me and counter my arguments with even better arguments. I'm open for new ideas. At the end of the day I want to learn new things and it is all what matters to me!

You're finished, brother.

anglesqueville
06-02-2018, 08:02 AM
@anglesqueville, my understanding is that further, the units are f2 "units", and the MixMapper paper (from before Patterson+Reich abandoned the automated approach) defines that in this simple way - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2555.pdf - "the pairwise distance statistic f2 (Reich et al.,2009; Patterson et al., 2012), which is the average squared allele frequency difference between two populations".

f3 and f4 measures are slightly different statistics which can also be derived from expressions involving addition and subtraction of f2 statistics - http://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/early/2016/02/22/genetics.115.183913.full.pdf. Hence the whole qpGraph involving addition and subtraction of f2 statistics covers all the possible f3 and f4 statistics as well (This paper is quite complicated and mathematical, like Patterson's paper which you reference, so I have never really internalised it all, as I lack the background and knowledge.)

(Outgroup f3 statistics that are often talked about are something more like a measure of how much two populations share phylogeny relative to the outgroup, which is different from the pairwise distance; you can have two populations who share a lot of a phylogeny but are less close to each other in pairwise distance than they are to a third population that is more phylogenetically distant.)

eterne, I've found a very interesting text, with a complete and detailed review of F2 statistics as measure of the genetic drift in a single population : http://www.genetics.org/content/genetics/early/2016/02/22/genetics.115.183913.full.pdf (see page 3 and followings)

dsm
06-02-2018, 08:38 AM
To ms85, what did we do to you to deserve your esteemed presence in this thread.

I have no dog in your fights with other members here other than to wonder why you show up and get unplesantly personal over topics that could be talked about politely.

If you have a point, just present it, cut out the provocation and thinly veiled insults. If you just deliver supported facts and informative detail, you will be welcome. Please do think about what this post is trying to tell you.

Ball is in your court.

Cheers D

ffoucart
06-02-2018, 09:46 AM
I don't think I said the mtDNA haplogroups were identical. I quoted Wang et al, who said they were "almost identical", in contrast to the stark distinction between the y-dna haplogroups of the Steppe cluster and those of the Caucasus cluster.

The contrast is the important thing. Pretty obviously there was a great deal of difference between steppe people and Caucasus people when it came to y-dna and a far greater similarity in mtDNA.

Unless one wants to argue that those Steppe cluster y-dna haplogroups originally came from south of the Caucasus, the obvious conclusion is that CHG-like dna was spread north by women.

You got me wrong: I am saying that given that both Y haplogroups and autosomal DNA are defining two different cluster, "the almost identical" Mt haplogroup is a general statement which deserve closer look. In fact, after a second look, they are not "almost identical".

T1, HV are not present in the Steppe, but account for around 20% of the total. N1a, U7 and W are present at low level in the Steppe but are absent of Caucasus.

But the main difference is about frequencies: U1, U4, R1 and K are far more frequent in the Caucasus than in the Steppe (twice as numerous or around). H, I and U5 are far more frequent in the Steppe than in the Caucasus.

So, even if numbers are low (27 for the Steppe, 21 for Caucasus), it is worth to be noted.

I didn't look more closely at the subclades, and perhaps I will take a closer look, but it's coherent with other datas. There is probably no (or limited) direct contribution from the Caucasus cluster to the Steppe cluster (at least at this time range). But there is probably common admixture from an older population rich in U1, U4 and R1, probably through or from Caucasus.

But saying mt DNA is "almost identical" must be read with the strange conclusion about the "possibility" of a South of Caucasus PIE Homeland. It is the only element which can back such claim, as if mt DNA are almost identical, it would mean a massive contribution of South of Caucasus mt lineages, so a massive migration.

But since they are not "almost identical", and given the other data (YDNA and auDNA), we must conclude differently: a more limited contribution, probably mainly through female exogamy, of an unidentified CHG-like population living in the Caucasus.

This is pretty much rolling out a South of Caucasus PIE Homeland in any case.

This CHG-like population was probably a population with limited admixture from South of Caucasus (Mesoppotamia?) given some farmers related mtDNA, but still with a high level of CHG-related ancestry.

Such population still existed in the Bronze Age, as the LBA Dolmen Culture sample has still a very high level of CHG with minor Anatolian_ChL admixture.

Given archeologic data about diffusion of farming through Caucasus, a North of Caucasus population, which retained its litic profile, could be a good candidate for the CHG-like admixture found in the Steppe.

jdean
06-02-2018, 11:45 AM
No, I can't! I'm from a very close society. My people/religion are against all kind of race/culture mixing. My people don’t accept foreign men neither foreign females. We just don't believe in race mixing and consider it as an act against GOD's will.

Well that explains a lot but begs the question, what are you doing on a forum that is all about how people mingled ?

rms2
06-02-2018, 12:09 PM
You got me wrong: I am saying that given that both Y haplogroups and autosomal DNA are defining two different cluster, "the almost identical" Mt haplogroup is a general statement which deserve closer look. In fact, after a second look, they are not "almost identical".

T1, HV are not present in the Steppe, but account for around 20% of the total. N1a, U7 and W are present at low level in the Steppe but are absent of Caucasus.

But the main difference is about frequencies: U1, U4, R1 and K are far more frequent in the Caucasus than in the Steppe (twice as numerous or around). H, I and U5 are far more frequent in the Steppe than in the Caucasus.

So, even if numbers are low (27 for the Steppe, 21 for Caucasus).

I didn't look more closely at the subclades, and perhaps I will take a closer look, but it's coherent with other datas. There is probably no (or limited) direct contribution from the Caucasus cluster to the Steppe cluster (at least at this time range). But there is probably common admixture from an older population rich in U1, U4 and R1, probably through or from Caucasus.

But saying mt DNA is "almost identical" must be read with the strange conclusion about the "possibility" of a South of Caucasus PIE Homeland. It is the only element which can back such claim, as if mt DNA are almost identical, it would mean a massive contribution of South of Caucasus mt lineages, so a massive migration.

But since they are not "almost identical", and given the other data (YDNA and auDNA), we must conclude differently: a more limited contribution, probably mainly through female exogamy, of an unidentified CHG-like population living in the Caucasus.

This is pretty much rolling out a South of Caucasus PIE Homeland in any case.

This CHG-like population was probably a population with limited admixture from South of Caucasus (Mesoppotamia?) given some farmers related mtDNA, but still with a high level of CHG-related ancestry.

Such population still existed in the Bronze Age, as the LBA Dolmen Culture sample has still a very high level of CHG with minor Anatolian_ChL admixture.

Given archeologic data about diffusion of farming through Caucasus, a North of Caucasus population, which retained its litic profile, could be a good candidate for the CHG-like admixture found in the Steppe.

Good points. I took what Wang et al wrote at face value and did not attempt to do any close comparison of the mtDNA haplogroup frequencies.

However, if Wang et al are arguing a south-of-the-Caucasus IE Urheimat (and I noticed that among their conclusions) via Caucasus cluster females, they're barking up the wrong tree. Given the patriarchal, patrilocal nature of the early Indo-Europeans, reflected in their language and what we know of their culture and religion, there is no way women spread IE speech by marrying into other, foreign, tribal societies.

rms2
06-02-2018, 12:45 PM
Unfortunately, I still have not heard from A. A. Khokhlov (А. А. Хохлов).

My wife has already agreed to try to get her cousin, the relatively famous surgeon, to call Khokhlov. I'm not sure he'll agree to do it, but we'll see.

MikeWhalen
06-02-2018, 01:20 PM
very well put....and does the answer start with a T?
:)

M


Well that explains a lot but begs the question, what are you doing on a forum that is all about how people mingled ?

Romilius
06-02-2018, 04:07 PM
Unfortunately, I still have not heard from A. A. Khokhlov (А. А. Хохлов).

My wife has already agreed to try to get her cousin, the relatively famous surgeon, to call Khokhlov. I'm not sure he'll agree to do it, but we'll see.

Yes, I understand... it woulnd't be a good thing to call someone to get informations. Perhaps, your wife's cousin was present at that conference and was reading again some notes he took in that occasion, but missed something... Sorry, I had my 007-gaining-info-mode turned on.;)

MitchellSince1893
06-02-2018, 04:11 PM
Good points. I took what Wang et al wrote at face value and did not attempt to do any close comparison of the mtDNA haplogroup frequencies.

However, if Wang et al are arguing a south-of-the-Caucasus IE Urheimat (and I noticed that among their conclusions) via Caucasus cluster females, they're barking up the wrong tree. Given the patriarchal, patrilocal nature of the early Indo-Europeans, reflected in their language and what we know of their culture and religion, there is no way women spread IE speech by marrying into other, foreign, tribal societies.

The Iceland study brings up a similar situation. Lots of Gaelic female genetic contribution to Iceland, but they speak a Norse language.

rms2
06-02-2018, 06:13 PM
Yes, I understand... it woulnd't be a good thing to call someone to get informations. Perhaps, your wife's cousin was present at that conference and was reading again some notes he took in that occasion, but missed something... Sorry, I had my 007-gaining-info-mode turned on.;)

He wasn't there, but I figured Khokhlov might accept a call from him since he is a prominent surgeon in Ukraine and the director of surgery at a hospital there.

Webb
06-02-2018, 08:52 PM
“The oldest evidence to date of the presence of haplogroup Q is Europe are Q1a2-L56 samples from Mesolithic Latvia tested by Mathieson et al. (2017) and from the Khvalynsk culture (5200-4000 BCE), excavated in the middle Volga region and tested by Mathieson et al. (2016). The Khvalynsk culture is ancestral to the Yamna culture, which represents the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age homeland of the Proto-Indo-European speakers.”
From Maciamo at Eupedia.

So using a common sense approach, if Q1a2 was in the Steppe prior to Yamna, and in this study Q1a2 was found in the Steppe with R1b, then we can assume R1b was in the step prior to Yamna as well. Everyone has been focused on R1b, but Q1a2 is just as important of a find, if you ask me. Which nobody did, but it’s ok.

ADW_1981
06-02-2018, 09:14 PM
delete

dsm
06-02-2018, 10:05 PM
“The oldest evidence to date of the presence of haplogroup Q is Europe are Q1a2-L56 samples from Mesolithic Latvia tested by Mathieson et al. (2017) and from the Khvalynsk culture (5200-4000 BCE), excavated in the middle Volga region and tested by Mathieson et al. (2016). The Khvalynsk culture is ancestral to the Yamna culture, which represents the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age homeland of the Proto-Indo-European speakers.”
From Maciamo at Eupedia.

So using a common sense approach, if Q1a2 was in the Steppe prior to Yamna, and in this study Q1a2 was found in the Steppe with R1b, then we can assume R1b was in the step prior to Yamna as well. Everyone has been focused on R1b, but Q1a2 is just as important of a find, if you ask me. Which nobody did, but it’s ok.

I believed it was a given that R1b was in the Steppes long before the various Yamnaya groups coalesced. We have the accepted origin of R (R1?) at least at Mal'ta Buret' Siberia (MA-1) around 24,000 ybp. That is not that far away from the Steppes. Just going by MA-1, we can see that R (and presumably) R1 plus its branches R1b and R1a have been in the general area a very long time. Doesn't R1b-L23 in the region prove it ?.

ffoucart
06-02-2018, 10:10 PM
“The oldest evidence to date of the presence of haplogroup Q is Europe are Q1a2-L56 samples from Mesolithic Latvia tested by Mathieson et al. (2017) and from the Khvalynsk culture (5200-4000 BCE), excavated in the middle Volga region and tested by Mathieson et al. (2016). The Khvalynsk culture is ancestral to the Yamna culture, which represents the Late Copper Age and Early Bronze Age homeland of the Proto-Indo-European speakers.”
From Maciamo at Eupedia.

So using a common sense approach, if Q1a2 was in the Steppe prior to Yamna, and in this study Q1a2 was found in the Steppe with R1b, then we can assume R1b was in the step prior to Yamna as well. Everyone has been focused on R1b, but Q1a2 is just as important of a find, if you ask me. Which nobody did, but it’s ok.

The real question is more "why Q2 didn't make it?"

Agamemnon
06-03-2018, 10:00 AM
The R1b1-M415 found in Kura Araxes is pretty late: 2619-2465 BC. It probably represents an intruder from the steppe or the descendant of an intruder from the steppe.

There is no evidence R1b-M269 came from south of the Caucasus but was later replaced there by L, J, and G2.

More importantly, the R1b individual from Armenia_EBA (=K-A) was V1636, which is a basal branch of R1b. The common ancestor of M269 and V1636 is L389, according to YFull L389's TMRCA is at least 15,000 years old. To give some perspective, the time gap between R1b-M269 and R1b-V1636 is roughly equivalent to the divide between Sudanese and Chechen J1.

alan
06-03-2018, 01:50 PM
Can we all agree that beaker with P312 and the Yamnaya+GAC type autosnomal dna appears like a new genetic group previously unknown across the 3000 years of farming Europe? That is what any evidence led person would conclude. It’s also true that the poor branching of L51 until after L11i is not compatible with it being in a farming zone much pre 3000BC. The type of farmer genes mixture appear to only existed from 4500BC anywhere in Europe and groups carrying it only really existed in Central Europe to the north of the Alps and Carpathians until late TRB approached the forest zone upper part of some of the rivers that ultimately drain into the steppes ad GAC entered the forest steppe on the east side of the Carpathians after 3000BC. The latest analysis by Eurogenes does however hint at the existence of a similar farmer group resembling GAC in the final genesis of the Yamnaya group which would almost certainly have to have been in contact with the ancestors of Yamnaya a few centuries before 3000BC which is well before GAC was anywhere near the steppes

jdean
06-03-2018, 02:06 PM
Can we all agree that beaker with P312 and the Yamnaya+GAC type autosnomal dna appears like a new genetic group previously unknown across the 3000 years of farming Europe?

Id say the first part is pretty much impossible to argue against, guess we'll have to wait and see though : )

MitchellSince1893
06-03-2018, 03:18 PM
Can we all agree that beaker with P312 and the Yamnaya+GAC type autosnomal dna appears like a new genetic group previously unknown across the 3000 years of farming Europe? That is what any evidence led person would conclude. It’s also true that the poor branching of L51 until after L11i is not compatible with it being in a farming zone much pre 3000BC. The type of farmer genes mixture appear to only existed from 4500BC anywhere in Europe and groups carrying it only really existed in Central Europe to the north of the Alps and Carpathians until late TRB approached the forest zone upper part of some of the rivers that ultimately drain into the steppes ad GAC entered the forest steppe on the east side of the Carpathians after 3000BC. The latest analysis by Eurogenes does however hint at the existence of a similar farmer group resembling GAC in the final genesis of the Yamnaya group which would almost certainly have to have been in contact with the ancestors of Yamnaya a few centuries before 3000BC which is well before GAC was anywhere near the steppes

"Specifically, we tested whether any of the Eurasian steppe ancestry
420 groups can be successfully modelled as a two-way admixture between Eneolithic
421 steppe and a population X derived from Anatolian- or Iranian farmer-related ancestry,
422 respectively. Surprisingly, we found that a minimum of four streams of ancestry is
423 needed to explain all eleven steppe ancestry groups tested, including previously
424 published ones (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a
425 subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related
426 ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed
427 through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West.
428 A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary
429 Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single
430 best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous
431 groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area
432 (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG,
433 and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates

So if GAC is too young in the East/too far west at the right time to work then what are some Eneolithic farmer groups from the Black Sea area that would be a good fit?
I know you mentioned some pockets of Cucuteni–Trypillia on the Don and Volga Rivers, but the problem is they aren't a good fit based on available samples....Wiki quote on them


Members of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture who lived along the coastal regions near the Black Sea came into contact with other cultures. Animal husbandry increased in importance, as hunting diminished; horses also became more important. The community transformed into a patriarchal structure. During the late period the Cucuteni-Trypillia territory expanded to include the Volyn region in northwest Ukraine, the Sluch and Horyn Rivers in northern Ukraine and along both banks of the Dnieper river near Kiev. Members of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture who lived along the coastal regions near the Black Sea came into contact with other cultures. Animal husbandry increased in importance, as hunting diminished; horses also became more important. The community transformed into a patriarchal structure. Outlying communities were established on the Don and Volga rivers in present-day Russia. Source: Monah, Dan (2005), "Religie si arta in cultura Cucuteni" [Religion and art in Cucuteni culture], in Dumitroaia, Gheorghe, Primul muzeu Cucuteni din Romania [The first Cucuteni museum for Romania], Bibliotheca memoriae antiquitatis XV (in Romanian), Piatra-Neamţ, Romania: Editura Foton, pp. 162–173

Are there any other groups that would fit the bill?

rms2
06-03-2018, 03:28 PM
So if GAC is too young and too far west to work then what are some Eneolithic farmer groups from the Black Sea area that would be a good fit?
I know you mentioned some pockets of Cucuteni–Trypillia on the Don and Volga Rivers, but the problem is they aren't a good fit based on available samples....Wiki quote on them



Are there any other groups that would fit the bill?

Besides Cucuteni-Tripolye, there were Karanovo, Gumelnita, and Varna on the west coast of the Black Sea (see Figure 11.1 in Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language).

There is also Figure 10-6B on page 359 of Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess. It seems to show Varna as falling within the Karanovo culture. It's a clear and easy-to-read map, however, and shows Cucuteni not far from the NW coast of the Black Sea, with Gumelnita to its immediate south and Karanovo south of Gumelnita, on the SW Black Sea coast.

rms2
06-03-2018, 03:38 PM
Here's the note I have on what Gimbutas said about the anthropological type of the Gumelnita-Karanovo people (from page 93 of The Civilization of the Goddess):


Gracile Mediterranean mixed with gracilized proto-Europid

MitchellSince1893
06-03-2018, 03:44 PM
Found this on the CT, Sredni Stog, PIE, and Yamnaya, from Horses Through Time page 81

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/34/87/c7/3487c7a55d29b262556ec4f4631d632a.png

rms2
06-03-2018, 03:47 PM
Here's the map from Figure 10-6B on page 359 of Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess.

23653

MitchellSince1893
06-03-2018, 04:40 PM
Ok what about this? Obviously the CT folks were transiting Sredny Stog territory to get to the Don and Volga. Would a CT/SS admixture be a good fit for the Wang et al. "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" papers's comment that:


Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG, and Anatolian_Neolithic)

So you end up with something like this (modification of Eurogenes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-XAY6GDsAPBaAt0woOwrvJ7WagoJkQ5o/view )

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bf/3d/ce/bf3dceca58e9977ef8b54ceca99b695a.png

etrusco
06-03-2018, 10:56 PM
Ok what about this? Obviously the CT folks were transiting Sredny Stog territory to get to the Don and Volga. Would a CT/SS admixture be a good fit for the Wang et al. "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" papers's comment that:



So you end up with something like this (modification of Eurogenes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-XAY6GDsAPBaAt0woOwrvJ7WagoJkQ5o/view )

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/bf/3d/ce/bf3dceca58e9977ef8b54ceca99b695a.png

well if it turns out to be true your scheme looks very good and promising. Maybe I will come out to be wrong about my theory but I'm glad to see that genetics starts to recognize the role of the farmers in the birth of Yamna culture.
As Trump loves to say: we'll see what happens!

alan
06-03-2018, 11:41 PM
Question for generalissimo. Is this GAC-like farmer component present in pre Yamnaya steppe groups?

rms2
06-03-2018, 11:53 PM
Question for generalissimo. Is this GAC-like farmer component present in pre Yamnaya steppe groups?

Based on that diagram (https://drive.google.com/file/d/11vGRsoyhr5rDGUhRN6RmVyDB5TydG7Ax/view), it doesn't look like it. It shows Yamnaya as the result of the combination of Steppe_Eneolithic4 and European_Middle_Neolithic_Farmer, and it doesn't look like there is any farmer stuff in the steppe source populations before that.

alan
06-03-2018, 11:55 PM
well if it turns out to be true your scheme looks very good and promising. Maybe I will come out to be wrong about my theory but I'm glad to see that genetics starts to recognize the role of the farmers in the birth of Yamna culture.
As Trump loves to say: we'll see what happens!
The simplest explanation is the crucial populations or subsets of them haven’t been sampled yet.

Generalissimo
06-03-2018, 11:56 PM
Question for generalissimo. Is this GAC-like farmer component present in pre Yamnaya steppe groups?

It's present in Ukraine_Eneolithic, including in the Sredny Stog II sample, but not in the much more easterly Khvalynsk samples.

And then subsequently it's ubiquitous in Yamnaya, which backs up the long held view based on archeology that Yamnaya was a synthesis of Khvalynsk, Repin and Sredny Stog. But there may have also been direct gene flow into Yamaya from Globular Amphora and Carpathian Basin cultures like Baden, which wouldn't be surprising considering the mobility of Yamnaya.

So Central Beakers might be more than 50% steppe; maybe as much as 80 or 90% steppe, depending on where they picked up their western admixture.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-04-2018, 01:35 AM
Probably Koros-Cris EN > Ukraine Eneolithic > Yamnaya

ffoucart
06-04-2018, 05:59 AM
Found this on the CT, Sredni Stog, PIE, and Yamnaya, from Horses Through Time page 81


Interesting, but a bit outdated. I am beginning to wonder if mounting horses have not occured later (late IVth millenium). It would explain many things.

In any cases, his chronology can't be followed given the lack of Steppe admixture outside Steppe before the Yamnaya horizon.

ffoucart
06-04-2018, 07:35 AM
Probably Koros-Cris EN > Ukraine Eneolithic > Yamnaya

Perhaps, but a bit early given that the farmer related ancestry seems to increase after 4000 BC.

Middle to Late Neolithic cultures are far more likely.

Chad Rohlfsen
06-04-2018, 07:57 AM
Perhaps, but a bit early given that the farmer related ancestry seems to increase after 4000 BC.

Middle to Late Neolithic cultures are far more likely.

Not really. Koros-Cris goes to 4500BCE. They're likely the ones responsible for most of this ancestry. Later, Ukraine Eneolithic takes it east. We'll see when the samples are released.

ffoucart
06-04-2018, 10:02 AM
Not really. Koros-Cris goes to 4500BCE. They're likely the ones responsible for most of this ancestry. Later, Ukraine Eneolithic takes it east. We'll see when the samples are released.

Even if your datation is good (I've got something a big older for Cris), Mathieson et al. results don't show much EEF in Ukraine Neolithic or Eneolithic.

And the timing is still a bit off.

Don't got me wrong: I think that Yamnaya were the results of homogeneization of various Steppe groups, some including Balkans farmers Admixture.

But I don't think that Starcevo-Koros-Cris is the sole source. I think another later one is needed. Perhaps from the CT groups which settled on the Dniester.

alan
06-04-2018, 09:36 PM
It's present in Ukraine_Eneolithic, including in the Sredny Stog II sample, but not in the much more easterly Khvalynsk samples.

And then subsequently it's ubiquitous in Yamnaya, which backs up the long held view based on archeology that Yamnaya was a synthesis of Khvalynsk, Repin and Sredny Stog. But there may have also been direct gene flow into Yamaya from Globular Amphora and Carpathian Basin cultures like Baden, which wouldn't be surprising considering the mobility of Yamnaya.

So Central Beakers might be more than 50% steppe; maybe as much as 80 or 90% steppe, depending on where they picked up their western admixture.
The Sredny Stog bit does make sense. It’s got a very complex story. Its roots appear (from burial type) to involve a spread east to west firstly from somewhere nearer the Volga. But then elements of it ran the west to east Balkans metal trade from the Dnieper interface to the Volga. It’s known from skulls that those of this culture who lived by the Dnieper (apparently especially the men) had farmer type crania while those further east had native steppe types. I think they were a very complex group. Interestingly they are the only group widespread enough on the steppe prior to Yamnaya that could have spread IE through the entire Euro steppe. All other groups were more restricted geographically and uniquely Sredny Stog elites had controlled a trade network from the steppe-farmer interface to the Volga for centuries.

There is however a problem in seeing actual GAC as contributing to the genesis of the Yamnaya signal.GAC was just coming into existence back in central Poland c3400BC and it only spread into the area between the Prut and Dnieper target late a century or so after 3000BC. It never crossed the Dnieper. So unless the commonly believed geography or chronology of early Yamnaya is wrong then it’s tricky (short of long distance trafficking of women) to fit it all together. My guess is the GAC-like farmer is not from GAC but from a GAC-like group. It cannot be late TRB either on geographical grounds. It seems most likely to me that the vast Cucuteni-Trypole group might have varied and included more GAC-like people than those tested so far. Or it could even be from some WHG rich group of the hunter-farmer types that existed around the ukraine steppes between more classic farmer groups like CT and the steppe groups further east. It’s hard to say but it’s clearly a West to east flow through the steppes and that does sound like Sredny Stog’s network fascilitates it at least partly.

alan
06-04-2018, 09:52 PM
I suppose a lot depends on whether we view Yamnaya as a mix that took place in one area in the eastern part of the European Steppe c 3300BC followed by that group expanding west across the steppe OR if we see Yamnaya as a sort of heterogenous horizon that involved a number of groups sharing ideas and genes and no simple A to B expansion (Yuri Rassamakin). Can’t really say for sure till there is a better sample of Yamnaya that includes more western steppe samples.

rms2
06-04-2018, 10:37 PM
I know I am going to sound like a dunce, but is there something I have missed that has changed what we know about the Yamnaya genome? Is it new Yamnaya samples in the Greater Caucasus paper?

Generalissimo said Bell Beaker might be as much as 80-90% steppe; that's a change.

Maybe no one remembers, but early on I and lgmayka and maybe one or two others suggested that when we got some western Yamnaya at long last maybe Kurgan Bell Beaker would be so like it that the BB steppe percentage would be higher than people at that time were thinking. Has something like that happened?

You'll have to excuse me, but I've been kind of out of the loop since my dad passed away back on 17 May.

jdean
06-04-2018, 11:11 PM
I know I am going to sound like a dunce, but is there something I have missed that has changed what we know about the Yamnaya genome? Is it new Yamnaya samples in the Greater Caucasus paper?

Generalissimo said Bell Beaker might be as much as 80-90% steppe; that's a change.

Maybe no one remembers, but early on I and lgmayka and maybe one or two others suggested that when we got some western Yamnaya at long last maybe Kurgan Bell Beaker would be so like it that the BB steppe percentage would be higher than people at that time were thinking. Has something like that happened?

You'll have to excuse me, but I've been kind of out of the loop since my dad passed away back on 17 May.

Just an observer when it come to this sort of stuff but it seems a modal is proposed using a set of known ancient populations which are then pushed through a program, if the modal has potential you get a nice diagram if not you get zilch. David proposed a modal that worked (apparently very well) but found the last population could be replaced by either Yamnaya_Samara, CMC_Baltic_early, Yamnaya_Ukraine or Beaker_Britain. However each time the diagram changes slightly.

Just guessing but presumably this is to do with the relatively large size of the original Yamnaya population which must have had sub sets ?

razyn
06-04-2018, 11:15 PM
it’s tricky (short of long distance trafficking of women) to fit it all together.

Is that really a drawback? "Trafficking" is kind of a loaded term, anyway. Back when I was an anthropologist and was supposed to care, this would have been called "etic" (as distinguished from "emic"); imposition of the observer's cultural norms or values on some other culture he/she is studying. We wouldn't have terms like "bride-price" in the literature, if that weren't a norm, at least someplace. And it's not just a special subset of slavery, although it may be that, too. Treatment of fertile females (especially) as barter goods has never been very rare, even if it has often been frowned upon. Treaties have been sealed and wars avoided, typically, by the exchange of treasure, food, and girls -- in whatever order was most urgent at the time, in the place, and to the guys making the deal.

But the bride-price might be very, very steep. I think it's dealt with pretty well in the Kalevala, although it's been some years since I read that, or watched this Finnish TV production of that saga. It's a bit later than the Bronze Age and a bit farther north than the steppe, but the idea is there. This isn't your daughter's church wedding. Check out Episode 2, about 59 minutes into it, and continue from there (unless you have a really large block of time to spend this way):
http://luxfennica.tumblr.com/post/171419467452/

ffoucart
06-05-2018, 05:30 AM
I know I am going to sound like a dunce, but is there something I have missed that has changed what we know about the Yamnaya genome? Is it new Yamnaya samples in the Greater Caucasus paper?

Generalissimo said Bell Beaker might be as much as 80-90% steppe; that's a change.

Maybe no one remembers, but early on I and lgmayka and maybe one or two others suggested that when we got some western Yamnaya at long last maybe Kurgan Bell Beaker would be so like it that the BB steppe percentage would be higher than people at that time were thinking. Has something like that happened?

You'll have to excuse me, but I've been kind of out of the loop since my dad passed away back on 17 May.

Yes, as I stated previously:
"
As I said, this paper is likely a game-changer:

"Specifically, we tested whether any of the Eurasian steppe ancestry
420 groups can be successfully modelled as a two-way admixture between Eneolithic
421 steppe and a population X derived from Anatolian- or Iranian farmer-related ancestry,
422 respectively. Surprisingly, we found that a minimum of four streams of ancestry is
423 needed to explain all eleven steppe ancestry groups tested, including previously
424 published ones (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a
425 subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related
426 ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed
427 through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West.
428 A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary
429 Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single
430 best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous
431 groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area
432 (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG,
433 and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates (Fig. 4;
434 Supplementary Tables 13,14 and 15). Applying the same method to the subsequent
435 North Caucasian Steppe groups such as Catacomb, North Caucasus, and Late North
436 Caucasus confirms this pattern (Supplementary Table 17).
437
438 Using qpAdm with Globular Amphora as a proximate surrogate population (assuming
439 that a related group was the source of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry), we
440 estimated the contribution of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry into Yamnaya and
441 other steppe groups. We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region
442 (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1%
443 Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically
444 indistinguishable proportions. Replacing Globular Amphora by Iberia Chalcolithic,
445 for instance, does not alter the results profoundly (Supplementary Table 19). This
446 suggests that the source population was a mixture of Anatolian farmer-related
447 ancestry and a minimum of 20% WHG ancestry, a profile that is shared by many
448 Middle/Late Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Europe of the 3rd millennium
449 BCE analysed thus far."

Not only they have new Yamnaya samples, but they have access to some new samples from Hungary, cited as published (but the paper is not out yet).

One of the big conclusion in the paper is that Yamnaya were a mix of Eneolithic Steppe and of an EFF derived population, with Eneolithic a mix of EHG and CHG-like admixture (not CHG proper, nor Iran_N).

Obviously, since Yamnaya got EFF admixture, later derived populations need less additional EFF admixture.

(Sorry for your dad)

etrusco
06-05-2018, 07:06 AM
@ffoucart

We thought that Yamnaya was only EHG+CHG. Now we know that EEF was involved too. Do you think that there's a chance that this CHG like admixture with more accurate analysis will turn out to be an EEF one? I'm just asking.

ffoucart
06-05-2018, 08:23 AM
@ffoucart

We thought that Yamnaya was only EHG+CHG. Now we know that EEF was involved too. Do you think that there's a chance that this CHG like admixture with more accurate analysis will turn out to be an EEF one? I'm just asking.

Yamanaya was firstly modelized as EHG+CHG by Haak et al. in 2015. Then, Laziridis et al. 2016 corrected this model due to a drift detected toward Levant. So they tried several possibilities, and the best fits were with Iran_ChL, either EHG+Iran_ChL (2-ways) or EHG+CHG+Iran_ChL (3-ways). But David on Eurogenes has tried just after to modelize a 3-ways with EHG+CHG+EEF derived with success. And Broushaki et al. 2016 made it clear that Iran_ChL was not the solution, as it contains Iran-N and they tried to find it in modern Europeans without success.

So, we know since 2016 that the EHG+CHG model is lacking something, but the nature of what was lacking was still a mystery to some extent (the drift toward Levant was clear, but could be caused by different sources).

More populations were sampled since then (by Laziridis, Mathieson.....), and we have a better understanding on several issues, like Neolithic and BA Balkans.

What Wang et al. is saying is changing things on several levels:
- Yamnaya don't have real CHG, but an admixture from a sister population,
- the CHG-like admixture was already present in the Steppe Eneolithic populations, at various levels. It doesn't seem to have increase notably between Eneolithic and Yamnaya, what we see is more homogeneization between Steppe groups rather than an increase of CHG,
- the difference between Eneolithic and Yamnaya is essentially an admixture with an Anatolian_N derived population, with some minor WHG.
- there are differences among Yamnaya, but only to a limited extent. Eneolithic Caucasian admixture found in some samples is limited in size, and locally (except for one, all the samples are near the Caucasus). The EEF admixture is a bit higher in Hungary than in Samara, but not that much (something like 17% to 13%).

The current modelization would therefore be something like 50% EHG + 35% CHG-like + 15% EEF derived (so 4 strands: EHG, WHG, Anatolian_N, CHG). It's not really new, as it was guessed by some since 2016, but an academic confirmation is good to read.

You can't modelize Yamnaya, or even Steppe Eneolithic, whitout a CHG-like population. So, no, the non EHG admixture will not turn out to be EEF. That is not possible.

Small add-on: the paper is also making clearer things about Maykop and Caucasus. So, everybody needs to read it.

rms2
06-05-2018, 11:16 AM
. . .

Not only they have new Yamnaya samples, but they have access to some new samples from Hungary, cited as published (but the paper is not out yet).

I shouldn't get my hopes up, I guess, but I am looking forward to seeing the y-dna haplogroups of those new samples.



One of the big conclusion in the paper is that Yamnaya were a mix of Eneolithic Steppe and of an EFF derived population, with Eneolithic a mix of EHG and CHG-like admixture (not CHG proper, nor Iran_N).

Obviously, since Yamnaya got EFF admixture, later derived populations need less additional EFF admixture.

Right, which is what some of us guessed at a couple of years ago.



(Sorry for your dad)

Thanks.

rms2
06-05-2018, 11:21 AM
Yamanaya was firstly modelized as EHG+CHG by Haak et al. in 2015. Then, Laziridis et al. 2016 corrected this model due to a drift detected toward Levant . . .

Maybe I'm off, but the way I remember it, Haak et al had Yamnaya as ANE or EHG plus some at-that-time-unknown teal component. Laziridis et al came along in 2016 and discovered that the teal component was CHG, which they found in Satsurbilia.

I remember in the aftermath of Haak et al, Davidski put out an ANE calculator. A bunch of us were playing around with it. I got a higher-than-average percentage of ANE, so I enjoyed it very much.

ffoucart
06-05-2018, 11:31 AM
Maybe I'm off, but the way I remember it, Haak et al had Yamnaya as ANE or EHG plus some at-that-time-unknown teal component. Laziridis et al came along in 2016 and discovered that the teal component was CHG, which they found in Satsurbilia.

I remember in the aftermath of Haak et al, Davidski put out an ANE calculator. A bunch of us were playing around with it. I got a higher-than-average percentage of ANE, so I enjoyed it very much.

Yes, you are right. I mixed a bit things between Haak et al. 2015 and Laziridis et al. 2016 about CHG. I wrote exclusively from memory, my bad.

rms2
06-05-2018, 11:34 AM
Yes, you are right. I mixed a bit things between Haak et al. 2015 and Laziridis et al. 2016 about CHG. I wrote exclusively from memory, my bad.

No big deal. I do that kind of thing all the time.

I appreciate the way you have broken down that new Greater Caucasus paper for us. That sure makes understanding it a lot easier.

dsm
06-05-2018, 09:58 PM
Maybe I'm off, but the way I remember it, Haak et al had Yamnaya as ANE or EHG plus some at-that-time-unknown teal component. Laziridis et al came along in 2016 and discovered that the teal component was CHG, which they found in Satsurbilia.

I remember in the aftermath of Haak et al, Davidski put out an ANE calculator. A bunch of us were playing around with it. I got a higher-than-average percentage of ANE, so I enjoyed it very much.

My own recollection (as it is able) was that Haak et al had Yamnaya as having two parts EHG plus a component they initially called the Ghost population. Ghost because it no longer exists in the region but was deduced from the Mal'ta Butet' MA-1 sample plus other evidence. It became known as ANE. But, if it was the 'ghost' population, I wouldn't expect it to show up easily today.

And yes Davidski did entertain us with his ANE calculator (still on Gedmatch IIRC).

D

EDIT This story talks about it ...
https://dna-explained.com/2014/10/21/peopling-of-europe-2014-identifying-the-ghost-population/

And 2012 Dienekes Blog
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/estimating-admixture-proportions-and.html

And 2013 Dienekes Blog (link to Americas)
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-upper-paleolithic-lake.html

rms2
06-05-2018, 10:37 PM
What you are referring to predates Haak et al (like the article at the link you posted). By Haak et al, ANE was already known. The unknown component in Haak et al was what was represented by the teal color on the study's bar graphs. That turned out to be CHG, which was turned up in Satsurbilia by Lazaridis a year or so after Haak et al.

dsm
06-05-2018, 10:55 PM
What you are referring to predates Haak et al (like the article at the link you posted). By Haak et al, ANE was already known. The unknown component in Haak et al was what was represented by the teal color on the study's bar graphs. That turned out to be CHG, which was turned up in Satsurbilia by Lazaridis a year or so after Haak et al.

Yes you are quite right - tks D

alan
06-06-2018, 07:54 PM
Upshot of Yamnaya,having a GAC-like input is that means there is no extra ingredient in steppe bell beaker people. Just maybe a bit more of the same component. Downside is it pulls the rug under the feet of my attempt to use the geographical chronology of actual GAC to narrow down the route west options. Given the earliest steppe beakers were 2550BC then is it not the case that the increase in farmer genes in steppe groups was pan Eurasian by then? Nevertheless it still seems likely they went round the north of the Carpathians to me as most beakers do not seem much mixed with Balkan or Danubian type farmers. Itcseens that any further mixing was with the same GAC-like farmers as Yamnaya and the most likely place to gain extra GAC-like DNA when heading west was the GAC zone. It may pay to look at where GAC lingered as late as the period just before 2550BC on a trail west. I've already posted about the area between the Dnieper and Prut where GAC and Yamnaya were both present in the period around 2900-2600BC and where evidence for contact exists on the Dniester and especially the Dnieper forest steppe zones. But did they continue to mix with late GAC groups further west? Ones who had survived the CW onslaught 2800-2700bc.

dsm
06-07-2018, 12:29 AM
Upshot of Yamnaya,having a GAC-like input is that means there is no extra ingredient in steppe bell beaker people. Just maybe a bit more of the same component. Downside is it pulls the rug under the feet of my attempt to use the geographical chronology of actual GAC to narrow down the route west options. Given the earliest steppe beakers were 2550BC then is it not the case that the increase in farmer genes in steppe groups was pan Eurasian by then? Nevertheless it still seems likely they went round the north of the Carpathians to me as most beakers do not seem much mixed with Balkan or Danubian type farmers. Itcseens that any further mixing was with the same GAC-like farmers as Yamnaya and the most likely place to gain extra GAC-like DNA when heading west was the GAC zone. It may pay to look at where GAC lingered as late as the period just before 2550BC on a trail west. I've already posted about the area between the Dnieper and Prut where GAC and Yamnaya were both present in the period around 2900-2600BC and where evidence for contact exists on the Dniester and especially the Dnieper forest steppe zones. But did they continue to mix with late GAC groups further west? Ones who had survived the CW onslaught 2800-2700bc.

Alan, the more I look into this, the more I agree on that area in modern Ukraine and the top end of Moldova, as being the place of greatest interest.

Thanks DougM

rms2
06-07-2018, 11:03 AM
If Budzhak (a Yamnaya subculture) was the pre-Beaker culture, we know Budzhak went up the Prut, Dniester, and Seret river valleys from the NW Black Sea coast and around the north slopes of the Carpathians. Some of them also went through the Carpathians via the Tisza River valley into the Carpathian basin.

Otherwise, if the GAC-like stuff was inherited directly from Yamnaya, who got it from a combination of Copper Age (Eneolithic) steppe people + a GAC-like population, then all bets are off, and the pre-Beaker people could have come up the Danube valley, maybe doing so without taking on much more farmer dna.

rms2
06-07-2018, 11:47 AM
If Budzhak (a Yamnaya subculture) was the pre-Beaker culture, we know Budzhak went up the Prut, Dniester, and Seret river valleys from the NW Black Sea coast and around the north slopes of the Carpathians. Some of them also went through the Carpathians via the Tisza River valley into the Carpathian basin.

Otherwise, if the GAC-like stuff was inherited directly from Yamnaya, who got it from a combination of Copper Age (Eneolithic) steppe people + a GAC-like population, then all bets are off, and the pre-Beaker people could have come up the Danube valley, maybe doing so without taking on much more farmer dna.

What I meant by that is if Kurgan Bell Beaker got its GAC-like ancestry directly from Yamnaya, then it's no longer necessary for the pre-Beaker path to include a sojourn in actual GAC territory.

When we all first read the Olalde et al pre-print and saw that GAC + Swedish TRB was the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Kurgan Bell Beaker, almost all of us thought, "Aha! The pre-Beaker people must have gone the northern route through GAC territory and not around the south end of the Carpathians and up the Danube". Now we're kind of back to square one.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 12:53 PM
A couple of tables for those that still insist that modern DNA frequency or variance is a good indicator for why R-L23 originated in Western Europe. I won't even waste my time doing it for the British Isles and Germany as there is too much data. It is no coincidence that I2 and G2 dominate in all four countries up until the Bronze Age as these samples contain EEF and WHG autosomal components and lack Yamnaya ancestry. The occasional oddball haplogroups that show up (R-V88, F and H2) are extremely rare today. While we need more data, it almost seems like Iberia and Italy may have received L23 later than other places like Germany, the Netherlands and perhaps even England!

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/AncientDNA_Portugal_Spain.png
http://www.r1b.org/imgs/AncientDNA_Italy_France.png

Hello Richard, you have forgotten to include the 5 cases of R1b-P312, found by Olalde (2.275-2.100 BC). It's normal that are more cases of I2a/G2a/ than R1b, because the burials you mention belong to the ancient chalcolithic (portalón, Mina, Caravaca, Cerdañola).

Regarding Olalde (2.018)- He has only studied 5 BB burials (Humanejos, Yeseras, Virgazal, Magdalena, Arroyal)- Total-17 men (6 I2a/1G2a/5 R1bP312/ 5 failed). You have explained to me that theses cases have to be excluded because of the small amount of dna recovered, so we only have 12 men analyzed- 50% (I2a), 8%(G2a), 42% (R1b). If we accept this data it turns out that almost half of the Iberian male population in the Middle-Final Chalcolithic (2.500-2.000 BC) belonged to haplogroup P312. It doesn't seem like an exaggeration? I suppose you will agree with me that data is unrealistic and scarce. You have to keep in mind, that we are talking about a period of 500 years. You think that somebody could assue which was the genetic composition of the Kingdom of Spain between 1.500-2.000 (discovery of America-present time), analyzing the dna of 12 men. It would be too risky, we have to wait much more data.

Regarding R1b, we have recommended 80 sites with human remains in Castile and Andalucia (3.000-2.000 B.C) as a first step to get a clear idea of the situation in Iberia. Some of them have already been analyzed in a Doctoral Thesis, but only mitochondrial haplogroups have been published. In any case, the results have shown that, despite the recent publications on the uniformity of Iberian Mit haplogroups (5.000-1.500 b.c), the reality could be different since Mit haplogroups typical of Baalberge (Saxony) and Bernburg cultures have been found (never seen before in Iberia). Archaelogists think that these population movement in the Northern Iberian plateau could also bring R1b (L11/P312) to Iberia (2.900-2.600 B.C), and that these would explain the cases found later.

Regarding BBC- 1/- Last C14 dates are irrefutable- No one can find older dating in Europe. I suppose you will all know this study but I send it in case someone is interested http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/0514-7336/article/view/1432/1500.
2/ The entire BB "package" was Known and used in Iberia during Pre-BB chalcolithic. I send you an old paper (Spanish) about wrisguards. As you can see, they have been found in Pre-BB deposists. https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/71196/1/Brazalete_de_arquero_precampaniforme_pro.pdf.
3/ The same happens with maritime beaker, cooper Knives/daggers/awls, ivory pieces (buttons, necklace beads, Iberia traded with african and asiatic ivory since 3.200 B.C), decorated textiles, boar's tusk pendants and gold ornaments. If you are interested I can send you PreBB sites where these pieces have been discovered.
4/Regarding individual inhumations, I send you a recent study (english), La Vital (Valencia) with individual BB burials. The people who controlled the trade were buried individually. Look carefully at the dates.http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/650
5/ All this material culture and the ideology that accompanies it, was exported to the rest of Western Europe, where it was adopted by the local populations without the need of population changes.(Central European BB burials are generally vey poor in ceramics, cooper and ivory (only 1 in every 20 burials, has metal objects- Harrison and Heyd).
6/I mean that the CEuropeans `population (mainly R1b-L11), adopted some customs and kept some of the preexisting ones (CW-GAC, YAmnaya), and developed local varieties than they export to other territories. I Spain it has been proven that the BB elites controlled the production and trade of salt.

Un saludo.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 12:57 PM
Sorry, http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/665. Cardoso 2.014

ffoucart
06-07-2018, 01:21 PM
5/ All this material culture and the ideology that accompanies it, was exported to the rest of Western Europe, where it was adopted by the local populations without the need of population changes.(Central European BB burials are generally vey poor in ceramics, cooper and ivory (only 1 in every 20 burials, has metal objects- Harrison and Heyd).
6/I mean that the CEuropeans `population (mainly R1b-L11), adopted some customs and kept some of the preexisting ones (CW-GAC, YAmnaya), and developed local varieties than they export to other territories. I Spain it has been proven that the BB elites controlled the production and trade of salt.

Un saludo.

From what we saw in Northern Europe, local population didn't just adopted material culture. Local population seem to have (in some places) vanished in thin air, as its contribution to later BA population (and IA populations, but Celtic migrations were mainly with a huge Central BBs component) was low.

It's clear than in a couple of centuries, a large part of Northwestern Europe changed its genetic profile, and became very Central BBs admixed.

Even in Southern Europe, Central BBs did have a huge impact, as proved by Y haplogroups.

Your references are interesting, obviously, but outdated given the insight in BBs genomes we've got now.

Es la única posibilidad

GASKA
06-07-2018, 02:03 PM
From what we saw in Northern Europe, local population didn't just adopted material culture. Local population seem to have (in some places) vanished in thin air, as its contribution to later BA population (and IA populations, but Celtic migrations were mainly with a huge Central BBs component) was low.

It's clear than in a couple of centuries, a large part of Northwestern Europe changed its genetic profile, and became very Central BBs admixed.

Even in Southern Europe, Central BBs did have a huge impact, as proved by Y haplogroups.

Your references are interesting, obviously, but outdated given the insight in BBs genomes we've got now.

Es la única posibilidad

That's why I say it's more prudent to wait, because the current genome tell us about a true explosion of R1b in Western Europe. In addition, language is the only part of the culture that requires population changes to stablish itself in other territories (unless the IE language, became a sort of "lingua franca" linked to trade-Salt, ivory, metals, ceramic). If it's true that the migrants from the Baalberge culture brought P312 to Iberia, they could also bring the IE and this is compatible with the third archaic Indoeuropean language Known in Iberia- Language of Hydronyms, because most rivers in Spain have Indo-european NON-celtic roots, and it's presumed to enter during the chalcolitic.

The territorial extension of the Iberian peninsula is 600.000 km2, and the people who entered settled in the Castilian plateau (valley of river Duero), respecting the Pyrenean and Mediterranean territories of the Basques and Iberians.

ADW_1981
06-07-2018, 02:23 PM
That's why I say it's more prudent to wait, because the current genome tell us about a true explosion of R1b in Western Europe. In addition, language is the only part of the culture that requires population changes to stablish itself in other territories (unless the IE language, became a sort of "lingua franca" linked to trade-Salt, ivory, metals, ceramic). If it's true that the migrants from the Baalberge culture brought P312 to Iberia, they could also bring the IE and this is compatible with the third archaic Indoeuropean language Known in Iberia- Language of Hydronyms, because most rivers in Spain have Indo-european NON-celtic roots, and it's presumed to enter during the chalcolitic.

The territorial extension of the Iberian peninsula is 600.000 km2, and the people who entered settled in the Castilian plateau (valley of river Duero), respecting the Pyrenean and Mediterranean territories of the Basques and Iberians.

More prudent to wait for more and more..so when is enough? When you are satisfied? People with agendas are never satisfied.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 02:54 PM
More prudent to wait for more and more..so when is enough? When you are satisfied? People with agendas are never satisfied.

Why so much hurry? Data is too scarce. We don't Know if the Y-Haplogroups from Baalberge culture were R1b, may be there were more I2a or G2a (typical of German neolithic). But even Olalde (2014) in a paper about the chalcolithic population of el Mirador (Burgos), related the Mit-haplogroups with Baalberge. And remember Baalberge is in Saxony, where the expansion of L11/P312 is supossed to have taken place. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25116044

alan
06-07-2018, 05:44 PM
What I meant by that is if Kurgan Bell Beaker got its GAC-like ancestry directly from Yamnaya, then it's no longer necessary for the pre-Beaker path to include a sojourn in actual GAC territory.

When we all first read the Olalde et al pre-print and saw that GAC + Swedish TRB was the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Kurgan Bell Beaker, almost all of us thought, "Aha! The pre-Beaker people must have gone the northern route through GAC territory and not around the south end of the Carpathians and up the Danube". Now we're kind of back to square one.
Yep that is the downside of this development. However it’s generally accepted that all beaker east and southeast of Germany is an offshoot of Moravian. So a change of angle is needed. One good thing that came out of looking at the Carpathians to the Dnieper zone c2800-2600BC is that a lot of the beaker traits that set them apart from CW were appearing in the western steppes and the east / north Carpathians around 2600BC so I am pretty confident that bell beaker P312 people lived in or close enough to the steppe to be part of these changes.

Re Iberia. I’m long past thinking they had any significant role in the P312 beaker people. It’s been done to death. As for early dates from Iberia, it’s inportant to note that unlike most of Europe, there was a big fish and shellfish element in coastal and estiarine Iberia in the 3rd millenium and the reservoir effect of that could systematically be making human bone radiocarbondates several centuries too old.

Romilius
06-07-2018, 05:52 PM
Why so much hurry? Data is too scarce. We don't Know if the Y-Haplogroups from Baalberge culture were R1b, may be there were more I2a or G2a (typical of German neolithic). But even Olalde (2014) in a paper about the chalcolithic population of el Mirador (Burgos), related the Mit-haplogroups with Baalberge. And remember Baalberge is in Saxony, where the expansion of L11/P312 is supossed to have taken place. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25116044

We already have Baalberge Y-DNA: from Blatterhohle two R1b... but V88. So, yes, probably you are right: Baalberge brought in Spain R1b-V88, as you can see in those two "Beaker" from Catalunya.

R.Rocca
06-07-2018, 05:57 PM
Hello Richard, you have forgotten to include the 5 cases of R1b-P312, found by Olalde (2.275-2.100 BC). It's normal that are more cases of I2a/G2a/ than R1b, because the burials you mention belong to the ancient chalcolithic (portalón, Mina, Caravaca, Cerdañola).

Regarding Olalde (2.018)- He has only studied 5 BB burials (Humanejos, Yeseras, Virgazal, Magdalena, Arroyal)- Total-17 men (6 I2a/1G2a/5 R1bP312/ 5 failed). You have explained to me that theses cases have to be excluded because of the small amount of dna recovered, so we only have 12 men analyzed- 50% (I2a), 8%(G2a), 42% (R1b). If we accept this data it turns out that almost half of the Iberian male population in the Middle-Final Chalcolithic (2.500-2.000 BC) belonged to haplogroup P312. It doesn't seem like an exaggeration? I suppose you will agree with me that data is unrealistic and scarce. You have to keep in mind, that we are talking about a period of 500 years. You think that somebody could assue which was the genetic composition of the Kingdom of Spain between 1.500-2.000 (discovery of America-present time), analyzing the dna of 12 men. It would be too risky, we have to wait much more data.

Regarding R1b, we have recommended 80 sites with human remains in Castile and Andalucia (3.000-2.000 B.C) as a first step to get a clear idea of the situation in Iberia. Some of them have already been analyzed in a Doctoral Thesis, but only mitochondrial haplogroups have been published. In any case, the results have shown that, despite the recent publications on the uniformity of Iberian Mit haplogroups (5.000-1.500 b.c), the reality could be different since Mit haplogroups typical of Baalberge (Saxony) and Bernburg cultures have been found (never seen before in Iberia). Archaelogists think that these population movement in the Northern Iberian plateau could also bring R1b (L11/P312) to Iberia (2.900-2.600 B.C), and that these would explain the cases found later.

Regarding BBC- 1/- Last C14 dates are irrefutable- No one can find older dating in Europe. I suppose you will all know this study but I send it in case someone is interested http://revistas.usal.es/index.php/0514-7336/article/view/1432/1500.
2/ The entire BB "package" was Known and used in Iberia during Pre-BB chalcolithic. I send you an old paper (Spanish) about wrisguards. As you can see, they have been found in Pre-BB deposists. https://gredos.usal.es/jspui/bitstream/10366/71196/1/Brazalete_de_arquero_precampaniforme_pro.pdf.
3/ The same happens with maritime beaker, cooper Knives/daggers/awls, ivory pieces (buttons, necklace beads, Iberia traded with african and asiatic ivory since 3.200 B.C), decorated textiles, boar's tusk pendants and gold ornaments. If you are interested I can send you PreBB sites where these pieces have been discovered.
4/Regarding individual inhumations, I send you a recent study (english), La Vital (Valencia) with individual BB burials. The people who controlled the trade were buried individually. Look carefully at the dates.http://tp.revistas.csic.es/index.php/tp/article/view/650
5/ All this material culture and the ideology that accompanies it, was exported to the rest of Western Europe, where it was adopted by the local populations without the need of population changes.(Central European BB burials are generally vey poor in ceramics, cooper and ivory (only 1 in every 20 burials, has metal objects- Harrison and Heyd).
6/I mean that the CEuropeans `population (mainly R1b-L11), adopted some customs and kept some of the preexisting ones (CW-GAC, YAmnaya), and developed local varieties than they export to other territories. I Spain it has been proven that the BB elites controlled the production and trade of salt.

Un saludo.

From what I've read about the pre-Bell Beaker phase in la Meseta which is where the archer's wristguard was found, it is generally dated to ~3050-2200 A.C. Bell Beaker material from carbon is dated no earlier than ~2500 BC and human bone even later than that, with most dates falling between 2200-2000 BC. Therefore, the possible co-existence of both pre-Bell Beaker and Bell people makes it difficult to date where it was used first.

Regarding Bell Beaker samples, you are discounting the other samples from the Copper Age from all over Iberia. So, if you are going to argue that the Bell Beaker package came from pre-Bell Beaker Iberia and that R-L51 was hiding in there somewhere, you cannot discount them.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 06:40 PM
We already have Baalberge Y-DNA: from Blatterhohle two R1b... but V88. So, yes, probably you are right: Baalberge brought in Spain R1b-V88, as you can see in those two "Beaker" from Catalunya.

The 2 cases of Catalunya are not BB, (they are more likely to descend from the cases found in the Pyrenees- Els Trocs, Bisaurri).Neither are BB, the deposists with Mit-Haplogroups from Baalberge found in the Castilian plateau, however there are many coincidences in the ceramics and types of burial, and I guess you don't think that the women migrated alone. If you have read the Olalde's paper that I have sent, you will see that contrary what the German Geneticits said-http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/1-s2.0-S004724841400253X-main.pdf, Olade thinks that there is No mitochondrial genetic relationship between the Central European BB and the Iberians. Then we have to discard there was a migration of P312 after 2.500 BC. P312 could have moved into Iberia individually, but this wouldn't explain that they were almost 50% of the cases found in the Iberian BB burials. Or may be Olalde is wrong.

We already asked if they have the results of the men analyzed in those burials and we are waiting for an answer, I'll tell you what haplogroups they find.

In any case this is our problem, we just want to know, when and how P312 moved into the Iberian peninsula, and the explanations are not easy. What we do Know is that R1b P312 didn't bring the BB culture to Iberia.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 06:52 PM
From what I've read about the pre-Bell Beaker phase in la Meseta which is where the archer's wristguard was found, it is generally dated to ~3050-2200 A.C. Bell Beaker material from carbon is dated no earlier than ~2500 BC and human bone even later than that, with most dates falling between 2200-2000 BC. Therefore, the possible co-existence of both pre-Bell Beaker and Bell people makes it difficult to date where it was used first.

Regarding Bell Beaker samples, you are discounting the other samples from the Copper Age from all over Iberia. So, if you are going to argue that the Bell Beaker package came from pre-Bell Beaker Iberia and that R-L51 was hiding in there somewhere, you cannot discount them.

What I tell you is that the whole BB package existed in Iberian deposists before the BB culture, and that this is easily demonstrable. The wristgua

GASKA
06-07-2018, 07:09 PM
Sorry, the wristguard, appeared in a stratum without BB ceramics, and the another wristguard appeared in a stratum with BB ceramics. It seems clear no?

If you want to differentiate the Iberian BB from the Central European BB, you can't use the Iberian Pre-BB chalcolitic as an argument. To compare it with Germany or Hungary, you only have to use the cases after 2.500 BC, and if you do that, you'll see that there are more R1b in Spain than in Hungary, and this country is closer to the steppes than Iberia.

I don't know where were hiding L23/L51/L11/P312, but it's sure that none of them brought BB culture to Iberia.

razyn
06-07-2018, 07:41 PM
More prudent to wait for more and more..so when is enough? When you are satisfied? People with agendas are never satisfied.

This particular person with an agenda (GASKA) is aka Blas, on another forum. Where he has said, for example: "The most remote origin of Df27-P312-M269, it's not a matter of life or death to us. It can be in the steppes of eastern Europe, Poland or the Baltic countries. Who cares?" This was posted March 14, on the long thread (on the "Activity Feed" of the FTDNA haplogroup project for R1b-DF27) that he started Feb. 24th. I just mention it because you (ADW_1981) are a member who can see that project's internal discussions.

I read through the stuff Blas posts, he cites some interesting sources that I'd be unlikely to see otherwise. I don't think he's either crazy or stupid. But I don't delude myself that facts and arguments are going to dissuade him from his most cherished beliefs. I don't even think it's very nice to try, let alone being worth the time and effort involved. At some level we are just going to disagree. I'm very interested in learning where, and when, the DF27 mutation happened. I don't know that, yet; but I still haven't seen any real evidence that it was in (or anywhere near) the Iberian locale of its most prolific eventual blossoming.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 08:12 PM
This particular person with an agenda (GASKA) is aka Blas, on another forum. Where he has said, for example: "The most remote origin of Df27-P312-M269, it's not a matter of life or death to us. It can be in the steppes of eastern Europe, Poland or the Baltic countries. Who cares?" This was posted March 14, on the long thread (on the "Activity Feed" of the FTDNA haplogroup project for R1b-DF27) that he started Feb. 24th. I just mention it because you (ADW_1981) are a member who can see that project's internal discussions.

I read through the stuff Blas posts, he cites some interesting sources that I'd be unlikely to see otherwise. I don't think he's either crazy or stupid. But I don't delude myself that facts and arguments are going to dissuade him from his most cherished beliefs. I don't even think it's very nice to try, let alone being worth the time and effort involved. At some level we are just going to disagree. I'm very interested in learning where, and when, the DF27 mutation happened. I don't know that, yet; but I still haven't seen any real evidence that it was in (or anywhere near) the Iberian locale of its most prolific eventual blossoming.

Hi Richard, is a pleasure to talk to you again. We are not here to talk about Df27 (I still think that its remote origin doesn't matter to me, so I'm just curious). Only hope that ancient dna will solve many of our doubts and meanwhile we will continue thinking that the current origin of P312 and df27 is in Saxony. Un saludo

R.Rocca
06-07-2018, 08:25 PM
Sorry, the wristguard, appeared in a stratum without BB ceramics, and the another wristguard appeared in a stratum with BB ceramics. It seems clear no?

You are missing the point. If the Copper Age people of la Meseta only used wrist guards during the 300 year overlap between 2500 BC and 2200 BC, then this could have been a fusion event and not a point of origin. The same thing applies in other areas. For example, there is a Rinaldone Culture grave in Italy that has a Bell Beaker pot. Just because Rinaldone is hundreds of years older than Bell Beaker doesn't mean that Bell Beaker originated there, it just means that the funerary context is a mixed (and later) burial.


If you want to differentiate the Iberian BB from the Central European BB, you can't use the Iberian Pre-BB chalcolitic as an argument. To compare it with Germany or Hungary, you only have to use the cases after 2.500 BC, and if you do that, you'll see that there are more R1b in Spain than in Hungary, and this country is closer to the steppes than Iberia.

That's not that case for anything north of the Danube, including Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, so using Hungary is useless in the argument. Trust me, R-L51 didn't take a magic carpet ride from the steppe to Iberia, hide for several thousand years and then wait for their long lost steppe R-Z2103 cousins to make their move in unison at the same time.


I don't know where were hiding L23/L51/L11/P312, but it's sure that none of them brought BB culture to Iberia.

You are talking in absolutes which I don't really care for. It could be that some of the package came from Iberia (or France, or Italy), but obviously some of it came from the steppe.

GASKA
06-07-2018, 09:53 PM
You are missing the point. If the Copper Age people of la Meseta only used wrist guards during the 300 year overlap between 2500 BC and 2200 BC, then this could have been a fusion event and not a point of origin. The same thing applies in other areas. For example, there is a Rinaldone Culture grave in Italy that has a Bell Beaker pot. Just because Rinaldone is hundreds of years older than Bell Beaker doesn't mean that Bell Beaker originated there, it just means that the funerary context is a mixed (and later) burial.



That's not that case for anything north of the Danube, including Germany, the Netherlands and Britain, so using Hungary is useless in the argument. Trust me, R-L51 didn't take a magic carpet ride from the steppe to Iberia, hide for several thousand years and then wait for their long lost steppe R-Z2103 cousins to make their move in unison at the same time.



You are talking in absolutes which I don't really care for. It could be that some of the package came from Iberia (or France, or Italy), but obviously some of it came from the steppe.

I have never defended that L51 appeared first in Iberia, I have always said that it has to be close to U106 and P312. Where exactly? I don't know

Nobody doubts in Spain that all the objects of the BB package were previously used in Iberia (some of them, first in Portugal) and nobody has been able to demonstrate the contrary with dates of C14. Regarding the wristguards, they have been found for example in the cave of Nerja (neolithic).

I agree with you in one thing, the fact that these objects existed, doesn't have to mean that they were used with the same meaning as in Central Europe and that's precisely why archeology is so important.

The scarcity of R1b in Hungarian BB is not a mistery to you? I trust you, but you will have to admit that our doubts regarding the entry of P312 in Iberia are more than reasonable.

Por cierto, conozco Pradoluengo y Garganchón

rms2
06-07-2018, 11:04 PM
. . .

. . . I trust you, but you will have to admit that our doubts regarding the entry of P312 in Iberia are more than reasonable . . .

No, they're not reasonable. Iberia before Kurgan Bell Beaker: no steppe dna, no R1b-P312. Iberia after the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker: steppe dna and R1b-P312.

You don't like that (for a pretty transparent reason), so you're grasping at straws to raise objections to it.

Kopfjäger
06-07-2018, 11:45 PM
No, they're not reasonable. Iberia before Kurgan Bell Beaker: no steppe dna, no R1b-P312. Iberia after the arrival of Kurgan Bell Beaker: steppe dna and R1b-P312.

You don't like that (for a pretty transparent reason), so you're grasping at straws to raise objections to it.

What's the big deal about P312 not being from Iberia? It's not like we argue for it originating in Britain. I never got the whole Iberian argument.

ffoucart
06-08-2018, 12:15 AM
The 2 cases of Catalunya are not BB, (they are more likely to descend from the cases found in the Pyrenees- Els Trocs, Bisaurri).Neither are BB, the deposists with Mit-Haplogroups from Baalberge found in the Castilian plateau, however there are many coincidences in the ceramics and types of burial, and I guess you don't think that the women migrated alone. If you have read the Olalde's paper that I have sent, you will see that contrary what the German Geneticits said-http://biology-web.nmsu.edu/~houde/1-s2.0-S004724841400253X-main.pdf, Olade thinks that there is No mitochondrial genetic relationship between the Central European BB and the Iberians. Then we have to discard there was a migration of P312 after 2.500 BC. P312 could have moved into Iberia individually, but this wouldn't explain that they were almost 50% of the cases found in the Iberian BB burials. Or may be Olalde is wrong.

We already asked if they have the results of the men analyzed in those burials and we are waiting for an answer, I'll tell you what haplogroups they find.

In any case this is our problem, we just want to know, when and how P312 moved into the Iberian peninsula, and the explanations are not easy. What we do Know is that R1b P312 didn't bring the BB culture to Iberia.

In fact, you are making a confusion between migration, Y lineages and mitochondrial lineages. The 3 can be linked or not. It is entirely possible to have a purely autosomal admixture resulting from a migration, even it's likely rare if the admixture is high enough.

Steppe peoples, and their descendants the Central Europe BBs, were highly patrilineal and practiced female exogamy. It is modelized that their migrations were mainly caused by males moving. In any case, there was a huge reproductive bias favoring Steppe males.

Hence what we see nearly everywhere in Western Europe: farmers mt lineages but Steppe Y lineages and various levels of Steppe admixture in auDNA.

So your point doesn't stand. As it's clear that final BBs, with complete package, came in Iberia from Central Europe with a clear male-biased migration, and imposed their culture and their Y chromosomes.

By the way, even Basques got some level of this admixture. And high level of R1b.

dsm
06-08-2018, 07:59 AM
I have never defended that L51 appeared first in Iberia, I have always said that it has to be close to U106 and P312. Where exactly? I don't know

Nobody doubts in Spain that all the objects of the BB package were previously used in Iberia (some of them, first in Portugal) and nobody has been able to demonstrate the contrary with dates of C14. Regarding the wristguards, they have been found for example in the cave of Nerja (neolithic).

I agree with you in one thing, the fact that these objects existed, doesn't have to mean that they were used with the same meaning as in Central Europe and that's precisely why archeology is so important.

The scarcity of R1b in Hungarian BB is not a mistery to you? I trust you, but you will have to admit that our doubts regarding the entry of P312 in Iberia are more than reasonable.

Por cierto, conozco Pradoluengo y Garganchón

Gaska, this note is a thanks for keeping a very civil approach to debating with other members. I really enjoy reading what people say if they can manage to strip out emotional reactions or 'knee-jerk' responses to points of disagreement.

I do appreciate how difficult it can be for non-English speakers trying to conduct non-reactive discussions in English where word choice can trigger offence that was not intended. I envy multi-lingual speakers so much so I pressured my daughter to study languages & she did really well - I now am guilty of living in envy of her achievements. She studied Chinese, Japanese at uni (taught me to read & write script in Kanji, Katakana & Hiragana) then in later life she studied Maori, Arabic (she taught in Abu Dhabi for 3 years), Malaysian (now teaching in Borneo), Danish, and a smattering of others (French German). Point here is I respect the challenge of engaging in debates in foreign languages.

So what I am saying is when you adhere to details & facts, your information is definitely interesting and can be informative. Please accept my thanks for your contributions and for keeping cool !. Do bear in mind that people can agree and can agree to disagree. When done with respect we all learn.

DougM

rms2
06-08-2018, 10:57 AM
I wonder if we've been reading the same posts. That was just too nice. I have to go suck a lemon or something. ;)

alan
06-08-2018, 03:51 PM
Iberian archaeology is a nightmare for dating with so many sites having multiple phases on top of the each other and tombs that are reused and disturbed so it’s hard to know what pot is linked to what bones. The people of the Iberian beaker and pre-beaker chalcolithic had an unusual diet for the era with a lot of shellfish and fish. That is wel known for causing marine or freshwater reservoir effects on radiocarbon dates that can make dates several centuries too old. Where any radiocarbon date based on human bone is underpinning an ‘oldest example’ claim, it needs to be tested for isotopes that indicate diet. Remember the Polish CW site that was dated to before 3000BC then realised they were living off fish from lakes? I do not trust any coastal or riverine Iberian beaker dates on human bone. The only other beaker group known from isotope testing to have a big fishy aspect to their diet is Bavaria - which is a bit worrying as one of the oldest dates outside Iberia is from there

rms2
06-08-2018, 11:20 PM
With Iberia coming up again, despite the pretty clear findings of Olalde et al, it is probably the right time to post that quote from Reich's new book again, the one originally provided by R. Rocca here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13779-R1b-L11-Where-from&p=376974&viewfull=1#post376974).



This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups. The most striking example I know of is from Iberia in far southwestern Europe, where Yamnaya-derived ancestry arrived at the onset of the Bronze Age between forty-five hundred and four thousand years ago. Daniel Bradley's laboratory and my laboratory independently produced ancient DNA from individuals of this period.[28] We found that approximately 30 percent of the Iberian population was replaced along with the arrival of steppe ancestry. However, the replacement of Y chromosomes was much more dramatic: in our data around 90 percent of males who carry Yamnaya ancestry have a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time. It is clear there were extraordinary hierarchies and imbalances in power at work in the expansions from the steppe.


Seems pretty straightforward.

jdean
06-08-2018, 11:32 PM
With Iberia coming up again, despite the pretty clear findings of Olalde et al, it is probably the right time to post that quote from Reich's new book again, the one originally provided by R. Rocca here (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13779-R1b-L11-Where-from&p=376974&viewfull=1#post376974).


Does make you wonder what their trump card was ?

And it seems to have worked over quite a large and diverse area too.

dsm
06-09-2018, 08:17 AM
I wonder if we've been reading the same posts. That was just too nice. I have to go suck a lemon or something. ;)

Rms2 ;)

GASKA
06-09-2018, 01:09 PM
Gaska, this note is a thanks for keeping a very civil approach to debating with other members. I really enjoy reading what people say if they can manage to strip out emotional reactions or 'knee-jerk' responses to points of disagreement.

I do appreciate how difficult it can be for non-English speakers trying to conduct non-reactive discussions in English where word choice can trigger offence that was not intended. I envy multi-lingual speakers so much so I pressured my daughter to study languages & she did really well - I now am guilty of living in envy of her achievements. She studied Chinese, Japanese at uni (taught me to read & write script in Kanji, Katakana & Hiragana) then in later life she studied Maori, Arabic (she taught in Abu Dhabi for 3 years), Malaysian (now teaching in Borneo), Danish, and a smattering of others (French German). Point here is I respect the challenge of engaging in debates in foreign languages.

So what I am saying is when you adhere to details & facts, your information is definitely interesting and can be informative. Please accept my thanks for your contributions and for keeping cool !. Do bear in mind that people can agree and can agree to disagree. When done with respect we all learn.

DougM

You know that the basques live north and south of the Pyrenees, and the vast majority speak French and Spanish. Also if you speak Spanish you can read and understand Portuguese and Italian (to speak it is more complicated). However English and German are more difficult to us, and translators often give us meaningless sentences in Spanish or we just don't understand the intention of what is written. That's why sometimes phrases or answers may not make sense to you. That's why I apologized in my firt post. Spain received 80 million tourists last year and we always appreciate the efforts of foreigners to express themselves in Spanish. Few people try it in Basque, which is too much harder.

I see that you are a reasonable person, possibly we will not agree but surely we will respect each other. It's a pity that a lot of interesting information (Archaelogical excavations, Doctoral Theses) is not translated into English and also I don't have time to translate it. We will try to share it with you.

Un saludo. Gracias-Eskerrik asko

rms2
06-09-2018, 02:34 PM
Does make you wonder what their trump card was ?

And it seems to have worked over quite a large and diverse area too.

Maybe a combination of things, like diseases to which westerners had little or no immunity, and perhaps their arrival followed a recent local population decline.

My own theory is that Kurgan Bell Beaker people (the version of Yamnaya that reached Iberia) had mastered using bows from horseback. I realize there is little evidence for that, but it's my personal opinion. Apparently they were also pretty ruthless, but not without a willingness to take on recruits from among the locals, if the recruits were willing to accept the Beaker way of life, its gods, its language, etc.

R.Rocca
06-09-2018, 02:39 PM
You know that the basques live north and south of the Pyrenees, and the vast majority speak French and Spanish. Also if you speak Spanish you can read and understand Portuguese and Italian (to speak it is more complicated). However English and German are more difficult to us, and translators often give us meaningless sentences in Spanish or we just don't understand the intention of what is written. That's why sometimes phrases or answers may not make sense to you. That's why I apologized in my firt post. Spain received 80 million tourists last year and we always appreciate the efforts of foreigners to express themselves in Spanish. Few people try it in Basque, which is too much harder.

I see that you are a reasonable person, possibly we will not agree but surely we will respect each other. It's a pity that a lot of interesting information (Archaelogical excavations, Doctoral Theses) is not translated into English and also I don't have time to translate it. We will try to share it with you.

Un saludo. Gracias-Eskerrik asko

GASKA, make no apologies as your written English is as good as anyone else's.

GASKA
06-09-2018, 02:54 PM
In fact, you are making a confusion between migration, Y lineages and mitochondrial lineages. The 3 can be linked or not. It is entirely possible to have a purely autosomal admixture resulting from a migration, even it's likely rare if the admixture is high enough.

Steppe peoples, and their descendants the Central Europe BBs, were highly patrilineal and practiced female exogamy. It is modelized that their migrations were mainly caused by males moving. In any case, there was a huge reproductive bias favoring Steppe males.

Hence what we see nearly everywhere in Western Europe: farmers mt lineages but Steppe Y lineages and various levels of Steppe admixture in auDNA.

So your point doesn't stand. As it's clear that final BBs, with complete package, came in Iberia from Central Europe with a clear male-biased migration, and imposed their culture and their Y chromosomes.

By the way, even Basques got some level of this admixture. And high level of R1b.

Nobody has sent archaelogical data that can demostrate a greater antiquity of the BB culture in Central Europe. It's obvius that they can't do it, because these data don't exist. Cadarso (Portugal 2.014) is totally conclusive.

Valencina de la Concepción Sevilla, more than 10 kgrs of ivory have been found (2.850 B.C). https://revistas.uam.es/historiaautonoma/article/viewFile/8536/8900

All the chalcolitic ivory (3.000-2.000 B.C) found in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and British Islands doesn't reach a third of what was found in only one Spanish deposit (by the way, also found ivory made with hippopotamus, walrus, and cachalot teeth- Cabotage navigation) . The ivory buttons perforated in V, appear first in Portugal, and in Spain they have been located in the deposit of las Pozas (Casaseca de las Chanas, Zamora, 2.780 B.C.

The amber found in Iberia doesn't come from the Baltic Countries or Sweden, but from Sicily (Simetite), this is the reason why BB ceramics have been found in Sicily.
Copper daggers have been found in los Millares (Phase I,3.000-2.600 B.C)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Millares


So I think your point doesn't stand.

GASKA
06-09-2018, 02:57 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Millares

MikeWhalen
06-09-2018, 03:12 PM
I don't pretend to know much about any of this..but just as a general history buff, the 'trump card' is a very interesting question and while I doubt we will ever know for sure, I did have some thought as I was reading

I think the 'trump card' had to be primarily military in nature
...we know its just 'hippie' revisionism to think that the Yamnaya (and all the other groups like them) were really all just mellow fellows, travelling through the world in peace and love
---that aint human nature, imho, not now and for sure not then ... I dont think the self esteem movement and 'everyone gets a trophy' mentality was not really very popular then :)
-my point is, if we read the headlines around the world this day, it will be clear that our species is a violent one, yes, capable of great kindness and artistry, but you all know what we are routinely capable of...and the tech changes, but human nature does not, imho

---so they had to be able to compel all the different kind of locals they ran into, to first tolerate their new presence and then accept their eventual obvious dominance-now whether that was via killing every living thing in the way (well, not including the pretty girls of course), killing the leadership or plain old terror campaigns, they had to have had some serious military advantage

but I also think the trump card had to have some other element to it, to make it so successful over such distances and time-otherwise, we are simply talking about a variation on a conquerer and this ...was it the more effective harnessing of the horse? was it trade? some new family/societal system that was much more advantagous?

I tried to go through all the 'other' kind of things that we know happened in history that did give a people a real advantage and I keep thinking of 2 examples
...The Vikings in their trade/explore/exploit/conquer mode around the 1000 AD time frame-they became very well known as traders and being able to set up really viable towns/districts (Dublin, Moscow)...they were brutally effective warriors, so many went out of their way not to cross them, but they also were good traders so folks ended up willing to deal with them often
---The British empire of Queen Elizabeth I, that had a combo of unbeatable sea power, but also linked to trade/growth and expansion that allowed a rather small island to claim dominance of half the known world

Both the Vikings and Brits for a few centuries developed/discovered their own cultural package or 'trump card' that made them extremely successful in pretty much every way you can measure it, so I think the Yamnaya must have done something similar, in probably a similar way...well, not with ships of the line, but you get what I mean

Could rms2 be on track with his idea of "mastered using bows from horseback" we know what a powerful development that was and it could certainly answer the military side of it....add to that some variant of the Viking' package (just to use a quick term) and I think you've got a very powerful new people showing up on folks doorstep

I am not locked into any 1 detail, so other military advantages besides rms2's point could easily be in play, but since he posted that thought just as I was thinking about this stuff, was just a nice timing coincidence

anyway, not the most sophisticated argument I know, but fun to try the 'thought experiments' to try to find something this sensible and possible

Mike

GASKA
06-09-2018, 03:19 PM
23815

Cave of Selva Pascuala (Cuenca, 4.000 B.C), it seems clear that this man is taming a horse.

alan
06-09-2018, 03:49 PM
My own belief is the primary advantage of the beaker people was they networked widely while the Neolithic popular nations were primary tied to the local land in their lifestyle, social structure and beliefs. The networking of beaker people was of course tied to great mobility which is likely partly linked to use of horses and sailing skills. However the most important thing was the fact they were outward looking and could network and form alliances and were considerably more flexible than small farmer tribes and that were very much tied to a locality. Mike’s Viking parallel is intesting. In Ireland they settled in enclaves as trading towns and often only survived by calling on other Viking groups to sail in and bolster their forces. Sometimes that kind of help arrived over great distances from England and even the Orkneys. Even when the Irish kings brought them to heel they actually tended to not kick them out as their trading function was seen as desirable

jdean
06-09-2018, 05:34 PM
My thoughts, possible maybes really.

I don't buy the plague theory, as far as I know there are no human populations who are resistant (or less susceptible) to bubonic plague so it doesn't seem likely to me that BB or CW would have been in a position to capitalize in this way, may have been a motive for leaving the Steppes though.

Presumably there's bound to have been blood letting when you've got one group of people moving in on another's territory but is there any evidence of this being a common event ?

Also thinking this problem through last night and I wondered if maybe the BBs were a bit more sexy as far as neolithic women were concerned, they were taller and maybe had a more exciting sounding lifestyle with all their traveling (and stories to boot) compared to the sit at home and till the soil neolithic men ?

ffoucart
06-09-2018, 06:12 PM
Nobody has sent archaelogical data that can demostrate a greater antiquity of the BB culture in Central Europe. It's obvius that they can't do it, because these data don't exist. Cadarso (Portugal 2.014) is totally conclusive.

Valencina de la Concepción Sevilla, more than 10 kgrs of ivory have been found (2.850 B.C). https://revistas.uam.es/historiaautonoma/article/viewFile/8536/8900

All the chalcolitic ivory (3.000-2.000 B.C) found in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary and British Islands doesn't reach a third of what was found in only one Spanish deposit (by the way, also found ivory made with hippopotamus, walrus, and cachalot teeth- Cabotage navigation) . The ivory buttons perforated in V, appear first in Portugal, and in Spain they have been located in the deposit of las Pozas (Casaseca de las Chanas, Zamora, 2.780 B.C.

The amber found in Iberia doesn't come from the Baltic Countries or Sweden, but from Sicily (Simetite), this is the reason why BB ceramics have been found in Sicily.
Copper daggers have been found in los Millares (Phase I,3.000-2.600 B.C)-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Millares


So I think your point doesn't stand.

I said "the complete package". Including burials by the way. Kurgan derived burials is a clear cultural traits.

Moreover, you are not contesting the main point: the link between Central Europe BBs with diffusion of Steppe ancestry in Western Europe. This point alone is sufficient to prove migration from Central Europe.

anglesqueville
06-09-2018, 06:14 PM
jdean:
I don't buy the plague theory, as far as I know there are no human populations who are resistant (or less susceptible) to bubonic plague

Don't you think that plague is not the same for nomads who live on open spaces and for sedentary cultures living in cities like those of cucuteni: thousands of houses on several nevels crammed together inside a same enclosure (*)? I'm tempted to think that the matter is perhaps less the possibility of resistant populations than the evidence of diverse conditions of dissemination of the disease.

(*) of course GAC's habitat was not the same than Cucuteni's. But there was in GAC as well promiscuity, of people together, and of people with cattle, like in every neolithic culture.

alexfritz
06-09-2018, 06:24 PM
i always ask myself why would a desaese/plague only have plagued the male farmer pop and not likewise the female pop? thats what i ask myself since per Xchr the female pop remained more stable;

jdean
06-09-2018, 06:25 PM
jdean:

Don't you think that plague is not the same for nomads who live on open spaces and for sedentary cultures living in cities like those of cucuteni: thousands of houses on several nevels crammed together inside a same enclosure (*)? I'm tempted to think that the matter is perhaps less the possibility of resistant populations than the evidence of diverse conditions of dissemination of the disease.

(*) of course GAC's habitat was not the same than Cucuteni's. But there was in GAC as well promiscuity, of people together, and of people with cattle, like in every neolithic culture.

I did think about different demographics making one culture more vulnerable than another, but like my question about evidence of a hostile takeover, is there any archaeological evidence of a plague ?

Eterne
06-09-2018, 06:38 PM
i always ask myself why would a desaese/plague only have plagued the male farmer pop and not likewise the female pop? thats what i ask myself since per Xchr the female pop remained more stable;

This said, we could ask this about the Americas in recent history as well ;). But disease still happened and was *the* decisive factor.

To be a bit more longwinded, I think the disease argument is more an argument for why steppe groups were able to succeed at all in the face of a large demographic bloc of farmers; in this formulation they (inadvertently) reduced the population to a smaller fraction of its size by introducing disease.

It's not so much meant to be a explanation, I don't think, for why sex bias in the post-Neolithic scenario happened any more than disease explained sex bias in the Americas. But in the Americas it certainly determined, really as the key determinative factor, why the *huge* pre-Columbian populations became "bite size" enough for the Conquistadors to replace much of ancestry through a sex biased process.

Overall the ideas come together as something like "Neolithic people in North-Central Europe probably had relatively small populations (contra, say, the Balkans), where they weren't able to practice agriculture in many climates (many of them were probably relatively heavy on subsistence from domestic animals as a replacement for crops). Steppe plagues mostly reduced them to a very small number. The survivors were then incorporated into steppe derived cultures by groups of males who went out beyond the frontier of Corded Ware/Bell Beaker culture".

So really disease is meant to be an explanation substituting (to some degree) for the ideas that steppe groups just killed huge numbers of people through a superior (or at least more brutal) military culture or level of physical condition, or that the economies of Neolithic people were just vastly, vastly inferior in productive potential. Rather than as a substitute for sex bias.

GASKA
06-09-2018, 07:47 PM
I said "the complete package". Including burials by the way. Kurgan derived burials is a clear cultural traits.

Moreover, you are not contesting the main point: the link between Central Europe BBs with diffusion of Steppe ancestry in Western Europe. This point alone is sufficient to prove migration from Central Europe.

I can only tell you what we see in archaelogical excavations. The replacement of collective neolithic burials was progressive, never radical. A good example is the BB necropolis of Valle de las Higueras (Huecas, Toledo,2.600-2.200 B.C). Artificial caves where collective family graves were found (5-10 members of the same family, women, children, some elderly) and in some special places a woman, two men, woman with her children. Grave goods associated depend on the individual, cooper awls, ivory buttons for women, gold ornaments, tanged cooper daggers or wristguards for men, necklaces for children and woman, and all of them with ceramic.

It's not a economy of prestige goods (accumulate wealth), I think the correct interpretation is that each person is buried with the symbol of their rank and/or office, and each family or clan buried their deceased according to their wealth. The pottery vessels contain beer, mead, fat, grease, and river fish, evidences of the banquets celebrated in honor of the deceased.

Everyone here understands a lot of more about autosomical Dna than me. I don't know how you calculate those percentages but I don't have to doubt their veracity either. No doubt it means that there was a steppe blood entrance and that is what we made an effort to clarify when it happened. Before, or after 2.600 BC? because clearly it's not associated with BBculture (at least in Iberia). However in the British islands are clearly associated both phenomena.

Regarding autosomal dna, it seems logical to think that 50% can be gained or lost in a single generation thanks to genetic recombination. If the exogamy of the nomads is true,
this could explain why Iberian P312 barely have 15% steppe dna. But this would explain difficulty the high percentages in Germany and the British isles because if they continued practicing exogamy, they would have a lower porcentage ( I don't think they live this practice or that they brought women from the steppes).

I also don't understand how this steppe blood can be maintained in Spain for millenia, especially in the case of the Basques, isolated for centuries with no apparent possibility of receiving new steppe blood to help maintain these percentages.

Un saludo. Por cierto, no es la única posibilidad, hay otra explicación posible

razyn
06-09-2018, 09:21 PM
Before, or after 2.600 BC? because clearly it's not associated with BBculture (at least in Iberia).

Clearly, to you. To many of us, it just as clearly IS associated with the introduction, from far to the east, of the population that brought the BB archaeological horizon to western Europe. It may not be associated with some specific buttons, or tableware; but even that isn't really proven by a few graves that are questionably 14C dated (because the people ate fish), and had been stirred up over many centuries (because later people reused older people's cemeteries).

Addressing the point that the rest of us have been discussing -- the argument about microbes (instead of, or in addition to, swords, warriors on horseback, etc.) has been bouncing around since before this forum started. Some of the previous theories included antibodies from cowpox, a milder and routinely survivable disease, that gave the steppe pastoralist incomers (who were disproportionately male) greater rates of survival of smallpox. Their offspring, after mating with local females, might inherit such immunities, if they happened to be heritable.

Another very popular theory had to do with lactase persistence, or tolerance for dairy products in adulthood.

Another was mumps. A male population that has routinely survived that disease in childhood does not catch it as adults; but if they bring it in to a new group of neighbors who did not have it as children, those guys might get the testicular form -- and that greatly decreases fertility, at least for a while.

The horsey warriors had been castrating large domesticated livestock for many centuries before they moved to sunny Iberia. It may have occurred to them to castrate the local guys, without killing them; but not doing anything to diminish the fertility of their wives. That's if one prefers a scenario involving personal violence, inflicted by conquerors. (There's a well known Egyptian bas relief depicting a large assortment of enemy penises, as war trophies. It's not about the steppe guys, per se, but it was fairly contemporary warfare.) I really prefer the concept of salesmanship: friendly guys with alcoholic beverages, who could play fiddle. Gimbutas preferred the goddess thing. There are lots of theories.

But there's not much room left to doubt a big population replacement, from east to west, that's especially clear in the YDNA haplogroup proportions.