PDA

View Full Version : L51 into Europe West of the Steppe Via Corded Ware



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Michał
02-26-2021, 02:46 PM
Except the Corded Ware people who became Fatyanovo moved from west to east, not east to west. They came from the opposite direction.
Why should it matter which way those Early Corded Ware people migrated from the Middle Dnieper region? Are you saying that migrating north-east was perfectly possible while migrating north-west was for some unkown reason strictly forbidden?


Please produce some evidence that the steppe people who formed Corded Ware in the first place, circa 3000 BC, went north up the Volga and then west through the forests of northern Russia to the Baltic.
Why should I "provide evidence" for something I have never suggested to have taken place? IMO, the most plausible scenario is that the steppe-derived (pre-Yamna) ancestors of CWC migrated north close to the Middle Dnieper region (most likely east of the Dnieper river) and this is where the transformation from the steppe package to a new forest/steppe-forest package took place.



Are there Pre-Corded burials dated to 3000-2900 BC along that route like the oldest currently-known Pre-Corded/Corded Ware burials in SE Poland, at Hubinek and Średnia?
As I have mentioned before, the earliest stage of the Middle Dnieper culture is typologically dated to a much earlier period. The only problem is that this earliest stage of CWC/MDC has not been yet studied using the radiocarbon method. BTW, which burial at Średnia is dated to 3000-2900 BC?

razyn
02-26-2021, 02:54 PM
Except the Corded Ware people who became Fatyanovo moved from west to east, not east to west. They came from the opposite direction.

Please produce some evidence that the steppe people who formed Corded Ware in the first place, circa 3000 BC, went north up the Volga and then west through the forests of northern Russia to the Baltic.

That's kind of straw-mannish, the destination doesn't have to be on the Baltic. I'm fine with a route from the Yaroslavl vicinity (or, say, the Volga-Oka interfluve) to the Vistula headwaters (calling that Malopolska is also OK). That would be on the way from Samara to the SGC (which is the actual problem here).


Are there Pre-Corded burials dated to 3000-2900 BC along that route like the oldest currently-known Pre-Corded/Corded Ware burials in SE Poland, at Hubinek and Średnia?

There are rumors of R1b-L51 in Volosovo (culture). Some of that is on the map posted by Michal, at upper right, near Yaroslavl. I've been to Yaroslavl, by boat from Moscow. Played my bass domra in a concert there. Went on, by boat, to the Baltic (well, the Neva). Admittedly, there has been some canalization since the Bronze Age. Just saying -- there's a water route from Samara, Khvalynsk etc. to Volosovo. It would have been obvious to L23's non-Z2103 descendants, and it doesn't involve the Dniester (nor, for that matter, the Pontic steppe habitat of most varieties of "Yamnaya").


The fact that people can and eventually did move someplace - from the opposite direction - is no evidence that place was along the original route, nor did I claim movement along that route - east to west, that is - was absolutely impossible. Obviously, it was not impossible, because traders did it. It just wasn't easy, nor was it likely, and the evidence is that the original route was elsewhere.

There are routes to Malopolska via the Dniester and/or the Prut. And there was trade along those routes. And some apparent affinities between the inhumation practices at either end of those routes. But, are there rumors about L51 around the mouth of the Dniester? That's the smoking gun I'd like to see, and haven't yet seen, to make me lean away from my theory and toward yours.

Alain
02-26-2021, 03:01 PM
Interesting view, you think that the origin of the CWC could have been on the eastern Dnieper, what do you think of the lower Don as the origin of the CWC?

rms2
02-26-2021, 03:09 PM
Why should it matter which way those Early Corded Ware people migrated from the Middle Dnieper region? Are you saying that migrating north-east was perfectly possible while migrating north-west was for some unkown reason strictly forbidden?
. . .

Pretty obviously, you are ignoring my responses to what you wrote.

Direction does matter, as does the passage of time. And, as I have already written, I never said the route across northern Russia from the upper Volga was impossible. I just think it would have been pretty rough, and therefore unlikely for people moving a long distance west with women and children, ox-drawn wagons, horses, and herds of livestock. Besides that, and most importantly, there is no evidence to support it.

That last part is the real problem.

Speaking of time, I wish had more of it to answer you in detail, but I'm working right now and need to get back to it.

Michał
02-26-2021, 03:57 PM
Interesting view, you think that the origin of the CWC could have been on the eastern Dnieper, what do you think of the lower Don as the origin of the CWC?
The Lower Don region could have been a place where the common ancestors of "Yamna proper" and CWC lived, or, in other words, the place where the steppe ancestors of CWC diverged from the ancestors of Yamna proper, which most likely happened before 3500 BC.
The Middle Dnieper region was likely the place where the cultural transformation of the Yamna-related steppe-derived ancestors of CWC took place, which ultimately resulted in the emergence of the earliest stage of the Corded Ware culture and the subsequent expansion of the Corded Ware population. This expansion was directed west (towards Volhynia and Southern Poland), north-west (towards the Baltic states and Northern Poland) and north-east (towards Russia, see Fatyanovo culture).

davit
02-26-2021, 04:00 PM
The Lower Don region could have been a place where the common ancestors of "Yamna proper" and CWC lived, or, in other words, the place where the steppe ancestors of CWC diverged from the ancestors of Yamna proper, which most likely happened before 3500 BC.
The Middle Dnieper region was likely the place where the cultural transformation of the Yamna-related steppe-derived ancestors took place, which ultimately resulted in the emergence of the earliest stage of the Corded Ware culture and the subsequent expansion of the Corded Ware population. This expansion was directed west (towards Volhynia and Southern Poland), north-west (towards the Baltic states and Northern Poland) and north-east (towards Russia, see Fatyanovo culture).

NW: R1b-L51, N: R1a-Z283, NE: R1a-Z93?

Michał
02-26-2021, 04:28 PM
Pretty obviously, you are ignoring my responses to what you wrote.
You have a habit of dividing your responses in many posts, so when I was responding to your first post I was simply unable to predict that you will significantly modify (or clarify) your view in the next post. Anyway, I am very happy to see that you agree with me that the CWC people were perfectly able to migrate through the heavily wooded areas, and there are multiple examples for such migrations to result in the expansion of the CWC-occupied territories.



Direction does matter, as does the passage of time. And, as I have already written, I never said the route across northern Russia from the upper Volga was impossible. I just think it would have been pretty rough, and therefore unlikely for people moving a long distance west with women and children, ox-drawn wagons, horses, and herds of livestock. Besides that, and most importantly, there is no evidence to support it.
Direction doesn't really matter, as CWC expanded not only west but also north and east, and in all these cases they migrated through some densly wooded regions. I guess you have read the recent paper about Fatyanovo (Saag et. al.), so I am wondering why you are now insisting that there is no evidence for the Corded Ware People from Ukraine (most likely from the Middle Dnieper region) to migrate east (or north-east) towards the future Fatyanovo territory in today's Russia. It is also obvious that those migrants included women and children, as the Fatyanovo population doesn't show any local admixture, and it seems highly unlikely that they left their horses and herds of livestock back in Ukraine when migrating to Russia.

Michał
02-26-2021, 04:41 PM
NW: R1b-L51, N: R1a-Z283, NE: R1a-Z93?
I am not sure if we can make such generalizations, but I wouldn't be suprised if this was indeed more or less correct.
BTW, I should probably mention that I still consider the SGC-related scenario for the origin of BBC to be a slightly less likely option when compared to the hypothetical Moravian homeland of the Bell Beaker folk.

altvred
02-26-2021, 05:18 PM
The Lower Don region could have been a place where the common ancestors of "Yamna proper" and CWC lived, or, in other words, the place where the steppe ancestors of CWC diverged from the ancestors of Yamna proper, which most likely happened before 3500 BC.
The Middle Dnieper region was likely the place where the cultural transformation of the Yamna-related steppe-derived ancestors of CWC took place, which ultimately resulted in the emergence of the earliest stage of the Corded Ware culture and the subsequent expansion of the Corded Ware population. This expansion was directed west (towards Volhynia and Southern Poland), north-west (towards the Baltic states and Northern Poland) and north-east (towards Russia, see Fatyanovo culture).
In your opinion, would the dialects spoken by the CW have spawned all extant Indo-European branches (Italic, Celtic, Hellenic, and so on...) with only the earliest languages to diverge, like Anatolian and Tocharian, being derived from Yamnaya-proper.

Or do you agree with the current consensus that Corded Ware was only ancestral to Balto-Slavic/Germanic (and probably Indo-Iranian)?

razyn
02-26-2021, 05:18 PM
BTW, I should probably mention that I still consider the SGC-related scenario for the origin of BBC to be a slightly less likely option when compared to the hypothetical Moravian homeland of the Bell Beaker folk.

I've never really advocated for the SGC scenario; just tentatively accepted Generalissimo's analysis of some PCA evidence favoring a northern migration westward, over one through the Iron Gates. And I think there has been more corroboration of that, so far, in the (scanty) evidence from YDNA that was dropped along either route. The archaeological stuff rms2 currently likes (having read Linderholm, which I have not yet done) fits with ancient YDNA evidence found in a very small sample in Malopolska. So, that's an OK place in an OK time frame, to support Generalissimo (and Finn, whose mom and dad seem to prove it). But I'm not a big fan of using autosomal patterns to prove YDNA migrations.

TigerMW
02-26-2021, 05:20 PM
I should probably mention that I still consider the SGC-related scenario for the origin of BBC to be a slightly less likely option when compared to the hypothetical Moravian homeland of the Bell Beaker folk.
Why? I thought those Bell Beakers there were not as old.

TigerMW
02-26-2021, 05:24 PM
I've never really advocated for the SGC scenario; just tentatively accepted Generalissimo's analysis of some PCA evidence favoring a northern migration westward, over one through the Iron Gates. And I think there has been more corroboration of that, so far, in the (scanty) evidence from YDNA that was dropped along either route. The archaeological stuff rms2 currently likes (having read Linderholm, which I have not yet done) fits with ancient YDNA evidence found in a very small sample in Malopolska. So, that's an OK place in an OK time frame, to support Generalissimo (and Finn, whose mom and dad seem to prove it). But I'm not a big fan of using autosomal patterns to prove YDNA migrations.
I don't think the General is saying that ancient auDNA is the sole point of evidence. In fact on this thread somewhere I'm pretty sure he called it a "piece of the puzzle". His auDNA cline does align nicely with the Dutch Bell Beaker model and now we have R1b-L51>P310 and R1b-L51>P310>L151 Y DNA in Corded Ware and we knew for some time that East Bell Beakers were rich with R1b-L51>P310>L151>P312.

razyn
02-26-2021, 05:39 PM
I don't think the General is saying that ancient auDNA is the sole point of evidence. In fact on this thread somewhere I'm pretty sure he called it a "piece of the puzzle".

But it was the piece that showed early Hungarian basin auDNA (corpses under kurgans) having come from the people north of there, not southeast of there.

Michał
02-26-2021, 07:18 PM
In your opinion, would the dialects spoken by the CW have spawned all extant Indo-European branches (Italic, Celtic, Hellenic, and so on...) with only the earliest languages to diverge, like Anatolian and Tocharian, being derived from Yamnaya-proper.

Or do you agree with the current consensus that Corded Ware was only ancestral to Balto-Slavic/Germanic (and probably Indo-Iranian)?
There seem to be at least two major options to consider.

In my favorite scenario, CWC corresponds to a language ancestral to Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Italo-Celtic, while Yamna represents a closely related Late PIE dialect ancestral to Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Daco-Thracian and Albanian. This would of course require the Anatolian and Tocharian branches to diverge from the dialect ancestral to Late PIE prior to the Yamna expansion (or prior to the Yamna-CWC divergence).

Another potential (but less likely, IMO) scenario is that CWC corresponds to Late PIE, a dialect ancestral to all known IE languages except Anatolian and Tocharian. There are many problems with this scenario, including the apparent lack of any R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 subclades specific for linguistic branches that in the former scenario descend from the "Yamna dialect" (thus for Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Daco-Thracian and Albanian).

Michał
02-26-2021, 07:26 PM
Why? I thought those Bell Beakers there were not as old.
There are not so many radiocarbon dates for the Bell Beakers in Moravia, and there wasn't any study showing that BBC is definitely older elsewhere, including the Lower Rhine region.

Here are some of my old posts that explain why I favor the Moravian scenario over the Dutch one:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=539111&viewfull=1#post539111
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=540759&viewfull=1#post540759
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=539841&viewfull=1#post539841

Alain
02-26-2021, 07:35 PM
How do you see the connection between the Yamnaya culture - Afanisevo culture (eastern Yamnaya offshoot) and the early Tocharians, however the mummies in the Tarim basin were attested on R1a M417 and probably Z93 +, but for example some R1b-L23 / were in the Afanisevo culture Z2103 confirms branches that are related to the Yamnaya culture, but unfortunately there is the problem of the language, if Yamnaya is PIE, does that unfortunately not match the Tocharian language that was definitely IE (Centum)?

davit
02-26-2021, 07:54 PM
How do you see the connection between the Yamnaya culture - Afanisevo culture (eastern Yamnaya offshoot) and the early Tocharians, however the mummies in the Tarim basin were attested on R1a M417 and probably Z93 +, but for example some R1b-L23 / were in the Afanisevo culture Z2103 confirms branches that are related to the Yamnaya culture, but unfortunately there is the problem of the language, if Yamnaya is PIE, does that unfortunately not match the Tocharian language that was definitely IE (Centum)?

I also think they are Z93+ and not Z93- like the authors said. I think they are too old to be linked to Andronovo though.

Afansievo/Tocharian would have to come from Repin not Yamnaya if Yamnaya is Late PIE no?

Alain
02-26-2021, 08:11 PM
I also think they are Z93+ and not Z93- like the authors said. I think they are too old to be linked to Andronovo though.

Afansievo/Tocharian would have to come from Repin not Yamnaya if Yamnaya is Late PIE no?

The Indo-Iranian was more dominant, from around 1400 BC, I think the early Tocharians were assimilated and largely absorbed by Indo-Iranian strains of Bacteria and from this the Z93 + could probably be derived (Andronvo) because there was no Z93 in Central Asia or Silence before Andronovo in western China, it might be possible in the future to confirm some mummies in the Tarim basin with R1b-Z2103 in order to get a better picture of the migration of the Tocharians.

altvred
02-26-2021, 08:16 PM
There seem to be at least two major options to consider.

In my favorite scenario, CWC corresponds to a language ancestral to Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Italo-Celtic, while Yamna represents a closely related Late PIE dialect ancestral to Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Daco-Thracian and Albanian. This would of course require the Anatolian and Tocharian branches to diverge from the dialect ancestral to Late PIE prior to the Yamna expansion (or prior to the Yamna-CWC divergence).

Another potential (but less likely, IMO) scenario is that CWC corresponds to Late PIE, a dialect ancestral to all known IE languages except Anatolian and Tocharian. There are many problems with this scenario, including the apparent lack of any R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 subclades specific for linguistic branches that in the former scenario descend from the "Yamna dialect" (thus for Armenian, Greek, Phrygian, Daco-Thracian and Albanian).

That scenario would fit perfectly with the geographic distribution of Corded Ware sites across Europe, roughly corresponding to where we would expect the proto-languages of the "Northern" IE branches, like Italo-Celtic or Germanic, to be spoken.


How do you see the connection between the Yamnaya culture - Afanisevo culture (eastern Yamnaya offshoot) and the early Tocharians, however the mummies in the Tarim basin were attested on R1a M417 and probably Z93 +, but for example some R1b-L23 / were in the Afanisevo culture Z2103 confirms branches that are related to the Yamnaya culture, but unfortunately there is the problem of the language, if Yamnaya is PIE, does that unfortunately not match the Tocharian language that was definitely IE (Centum)?

Wasn't there a whole political story with getting these DNA samples out of China for study? Anyway, we can't conclude with 100 percent certainty that either the Afanasievo-culture was proto-Tocharian or if the Tarim basin mummies were Tocharian speakers. I think the earliest Tarim mummies are dated to about 1800 BC, which could overlap very roughly with Andronovo.

Finn
02-26-2021, 08:35 PM
There are not so many radiocarbon dates for the Bell Beakers in Moravia, and there wasn't any study showing that BBC is definitely older elsewhere, including the Lower Rhine region.

Here are some of my old posts that explain why I favor the Moravian scenario over the Dutch one:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=539111&viewfull=1#post539111
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=540759&viewfull=1#post540759
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?16234-Bell-Beaker-Archaeology-and-Ancient-DNA&p=539841&viewfull=1#post539841

The point is there is in the Dutch case no sharp break or signs of immigration between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. The Dutch Beaker were most probably 'Beakerized Corded Ware folk' as BB blogger has stated:
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2015/11/interesting-corded-ware-grave.html

Davidski:

And if we assume that all of the non-CWC southern ancestry in the Dutch Beakers came from Western Europe, we get this...

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Blatterhole_HG 0.033±0.012
CWC_Germany 0.835±0.019
France_MLN 0.132±0.018
chisq 9.158
tail prob 0.607301

https://drive.google.com/file/d/182I...ew?usp=sharing

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Blatterhole_MN 0.078±0.029
CWC_Germany 0.831±0.020
France_MLN 0.091±0.028
chisq 12.250
tail prob 0.345136


So as such 'no need' for an influx of Moravian BB....

There are two major BB strongholds in the Netherlands they are in the 'sandy' NE part, above the Rhine in the most western outlier of the North German Plain, also 'former' Single Grave/ Protruding Foot Beaker area: Veluwe (Veluvian) and Drenthe. The Veluwe is even nowadays a L51 hotspot!

So I guess it doesn't matter if the Veluwe/ Drenthe were the breeding ground of the Bell Beakers. The essence is that they were CW-folk people that took a BB package.....

Alain
02-26-2021, 08:38 PM
That scenario would fit perfectly with the geographic distribution of Corded Ware sites across Europe, roughly corresponding to where we would expect the proto-languages of the "Northern" IE branches, like Italo-Celtic or Germanic, to be spoken.



Wasn't there a whole political story with getting these DNA samples out of China for study? Anyway, we can't conclude with 100 percent certainty that either the Afanasievo-culture was proto-Tocharian or if the Tarim basin mummies were Tocharian speakers. I think the earliest Tarim mummies are dated to about 1800 BC, which could overlap very roughly with Andronovo.

You are absolutely right, the political tension between the People's Republic of China and the Uyghur ethnic group in connection with the Tocharian, unfortunately politics can negate a lot of historical / archaeological and genetic work because some rulers wanted the story to be different from you, but it doesn't matter me does not want to go into politics in the context of modern states here

TigerMW
02-26-2021, 08:56 PM
How do you see the connection between the Yamnaya culture - Afanisevo culture (eastern Yamnaya offshoot) and the early Tocharians, however the mummies in the Tarim basin were attested on R1a M417 and probably Z93 +, but for example some R1b-L23 / were in the Afanisevo culture Z2103 confirms branches that are related to the Yamnaya culture, but unfortunately there is the problem of the language, if Yamnaya is PIE, does that unfortunately not match the Tocharian language that was definitely IE (Centum)?

The mummies from the Tarim Basim are later than Afansievo and could very well be of the Andronovo culture.

What I've read is that PIE was Centum.The Satem languages are considered to have innovations (changes) that separate them from other IE languages. We could think of Satemisation as a break-away from the base. So Centum is everything else and the kitchen sink, which includes PIE itself.

davit
02-26-2021, 09:38 PM
The mummies from the Tarim Basim are later than Afansievo and could very well be of the Andronovo culture.

What I've read is that PIE was Centum.The Satem languages are considered to have innovations (changes) that separate them from other IE languages. We could think of Satemisation as a break-away from the base. So Centum is everything else and the kitchen sink, which includes PIE itself.

I thought the consensus was PIE predated either Centumisation or Satemisation as evidenced by the Anatolian branches.

Michał
02-26-2021, 09:41 PM
So as such 'no need' for an influx of Moravian BB....

However, you seem to have forgotten that Davidski/Generalissimo has also admitted that the alternative model in which the Dutch Bell Beakers are shown as a mixture of incoming Bell Beakers from Czechia and some local Corded Ware people works ok and thus the Moravian model for the origin of BBC cannot be ruled out.



Now, if we assume that there was a migration of Czech Beakers to the Lower Rhine during the late Single Grave period that gave rise to the Dutch Beakers, then we get this...

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Beaker_Czech 0.398±0.047
Blatterhole_HG 0.033±0.010
CWC_Germany 0.570±0.046
chisq 9.284
tail prob 0.595699

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k6aCtojlH-ItvocwVaEVCxG55gGkz0i8/view?usp=sharing

Beaker_The_Netherlands
Beaker_Czech 0.274±0.077
Blatterhole_MN 0.076±0.027
CWC_Germany 0.649±0.059
chisq 14.251
tail prob 0.219435

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eQu7VJOalfJsfNdQNZaHp2dBMGr66vOH/view?usp=sharing

These models still look fine statistically.
I guess such a statistical model would fit even better when using the German BBC and Dutch CWC/SGC instead of Czech BBC and German CWC.

rms2
02-26-2021, 09:58 PM
. . .
Direction doesn't really matter . . .

There have been many posts since this morning when I last posted, but yes, direction does matter. I would think you would realize that.

As Kristiansen has pointed out, the Corded Ware people cut down trees and burned forest land to create pasture land. So, the movement from land already thus cultivated by Corded Ware people to land less cultivated is pretty obviously different from an initial and original migration across heavily forested land not so cultivated.

That means it was easier to move west to east than it was to move, several centuries earlier, east to west.

But it really doesn't matter. Because there is no evidence that a route from the Upper Volga across northern Russia to the Baltic was the original route of the steppe people who formed Corded Ware.

rms2
02-26-2021, 10:02 PM
I've never really advocated for the SGC scenario; just tentatively accepted Generalissimo's analysis of some PCA evidence favoring a northern migration westward, over one through the Iron Gates. And I think there has been more corroboration of that, so far, in the (scanty) evidence from YDNA that was dropped along either route. The archaeological stuff rms2 currently likes (having read Linderholm, which I have not yet done) fits with ancient YDNA evidence found in a very small sample in Malopolska. So, that's an OK place in an OK time frame, to support Generalissimo (and Finn, whose mom and dad seem to prove it). But I'm not a big fan of using autosomal patterns to prove YDNA migrations.

Remember, when you downplay Małopolska, that the very oldest Pre-Corded results are from there and dated to 3000-2900 BC, at Hubinek and Średnia.

Got anything comparable from anyplace else?

And that "very small sample" from Małopolska was eight ancient CW individuals. For ancient DNA, eight is pretty damned good. What was the name of that tv show from the 1970s? Eight is Enough? And the samples from Łubcze - three of them - were recovered less than two miles west of Hubinek, where the very oldest Pre-Corded remains were found.

Finn
02-26-2021, 10:03 PM
However, you seem to have forgotten that Davidski/Generalissimo has also admitted that the alternative model in which the Dutch Bell Beakers are shown as a mixture of incoming Bell Beakers from Czechia and some local Corded Ware people works ok and thus the Moravian model for the origin of BBC cannot be ruled out.


I guess such a statistical model would fit even better when using the German BBC and Dutch CWC/SGC instead of Czech BBC and German CWC.

May be statistically it can't be ruled out But if there was a Moravian influx then they would have left some traces I suppose. The 'break' (2850 BC) between Funnelbeaker and Single Grave is sharp, but not between Single Grave and Bell Beakers, that's more a kind of evolution (more 'pots' than 'people') so more signs of cultural package than a new influx?

And that GAC could fit better than France MN could be due to that Funnelbeakers and GAC are somewhat closer? The Funnelbeakers the SGC mixed with in the Veluwe and especially Drenthe came about 3400 BC originally from Holstein, Zealand, Mecklenburg, Rügen...that area.....so closer to Poland than to France.

https://adnaera.com/2018/09/09/a-first-and-intriguing-glimpse-at-trb-west-group-adna/

rms2
02-26-2021, 10:41 PM
One of the things about the Single Grave-to-Beaker idea - otherwise known as the "Dutch Model" - is that the beaker typochronology supports it, if you care about such things.

43564

razyn
02-26-2021, 11:43 PM
Remember, when you downplay Małopolska, that the very oldest Pre-Corded results are from there and dated to 3000-2900 BC, at Hubinek and Średnia.

Got anything comparable from anyplace else?

And that "very small sample" from Małopolska was eight ancient CW individuals. For ancient DNA, eight is pretty damned good. What was the name of that tv show from the 1970s? Eight is Enough? And the samples from Łubcze - three of them - were recovered less than two miles west of Hubinek, where the very oldest Pre-Corded remains were found.

I didn't downplay Malopolska, I downplayed the Dniester/Prut routes starting from a place (the southwest extremity of the vast, multifaceted, and AFAIK mostly Z2103 Yamnaya horizon) that we don't know had any L51, down in that corner, to get to Malopolska.

And btw I also didn't propose
a route from the Upper Volga across northern Russia to the Baltic. PBS series, in which the B is for Baltic. But the upper Vistula, in Malopolska, is not on it.] I actually suggested something from the Middle Dnieper, via its western tributary the Pripyat (because Pinsk is on it; and I had picked that out of a hat as being in that DGH Venn diagram, after Mitchell did his poll in Sept. 2018). If they took that route, it got them to Malopolska (not "the Baltic"); it just didn't stay in Ukraine to do it. So the evidence for it, if any, is not on Klochko's maps (of Ukrainian and Polish archaeological sites, but not Belarusian or Russian ones). As if those modern borders mattered in the Bronze Age.

rms2
02-27-2021, 12:09 AM
I didn't downplay Malopolska, I downplayed the Dniester/Prut routes starting from a place (the southwest extremity of the vast, multifaceted, and AFAIK mostly Z2103 Yamnaya horizon) that we don't know had any L51, down in that corner, to get to Malopolska.

The evidence shows movement from the NW Black Sea coast up the Dniester/Prut interfluve, and a path northward up the Dniester valley winds up right at the doorstep of Małopolska.

What actual evidence do you have that the steppe people who formed the backbone of Corded Ware went from the Dnieper along the Pripyat to - where do you think they went? Małopolska?

Did they go around the Pripyat Marshes or mush on through them?

We don't have any R1b-L51 from anywhere on the steppe yet, so the argument that we don't have any L51 from down the Dniester/Prut interfluve is as lame for the Dnieper as it is for anyplace place else on the steppe.

Look at Budzhak Yamnaya and the cultures that preceded it: Mikhailovka and Kemi Oba. They had burial practices that resembled some of the practices of Corded Ware. They originated on the NW Black Sea coast.

No doubt there are problems with the Dniester/Prut route, but there are more problems with routes that don't have any evidence that the steppe people who formed Corded Ware moved along them.

We don't have a nice typochronological sequence that shows how Yamnaya gradually transmogrified into Corded Ware, but we don't have that on any route. At least we do have movement of Yamnaya up the Dniester/Prut interfluve, and there are quite a few burial mounds of unknown cultural origin in between them and Corded Ware. Maybe those are the long lost missing links.

43569



And btw I also didn't propose.


a route from the Upper Volga across northern Russia to the Baltic

Please note that I never said you did. The post you quoted from me as a springboard for your comments mentioned no such thing as coming from you. So, why you brought that up in response to my post is a mystery.



PBS series, in which the B is for Baltic. But the upper Vistula, in Malopolska, is not on it.] I actually suggested something from the Middle Dnieper, via its western tributary the Pripyat (because Pinsk is on it; and I had picked that out of a hat as being in that DGH Venn diagram, after Mitchell did his poll in Sept. 2018). If they took that route, it got them to Malopolska (not "the Baltic"); it just didn't stay in Ukraine to do it. So the evidence for it, if any, is not on Klochko's maps (of Ukrainian and Polish archaeological sites, but not Belarusian or Russian ones). As if those modern borders mattered in the Bronze Age.

That comment is kind of baffling to me, so you'll excuse me if I don't really comment on it, except to remind you that the Vistula does empty into the Baltic.

Guess that comment is not enough for many here, who require the scaffolding of information, so here it is.

If the steppe people who formed Corded Ware came up the Dniester/San/Vistula route, they could easily have continued down the Vistula valley to the Baltic coast. Hope that's clear enough.

MitchellSince1893
02-27-2021, 12:16 AM
Lively and relatively civil discussions...no one has got banned in this thread, and it's still open. Yay!

rms2
02-27-2021, 12:34 AM
BTW, it seems to me the most intriguing thing mentioned by anyone in the recent flurry of posts was mentioned by Michał and I think at least one other person, maybe MitchellSince1893, and that is the possibility that the Middle Dnieper culture may be older than we currently think it is and could possibly - maybe - predate Corded Ware and even be the source of Corded Ware.

Now that would be something, and I am all for it, if it's true. In fact, I would be overjoyed if it turned out to be true, regardless of the fact that it would prove wrong my current hypothesis (which I don't "cherish", despite someone else's misguided opinion that I do).

For now, though, Middle Dnieper is supposed to be derived from Corded Ware.

MitchellSince1893
02-27-2021, 01:05 AM
BTW, it seems to me the most intriguing thing mentioned by anyone in the recent flurry of posts was mentioned by Michał and I think at least one other person, maybe MitchellSince1893, and that is the possibility that the Middle Dnieper culture may be older than we currently think it is and could possibly - maybe - predate Corded Ware and even be the source of Corded Ware.

Now that would be something, and I am all for it, if it's true. In fact, I would be overjoyed if it turned out to be true, regardless of the fact that it would prove wrong my current hypothesis (which I don't "cherish", despite someone else's misguided opinion that I do).

For now, though, Middle Dnieper is supposed to be derived from Corded Ware.

I just repeated what Michal said, which I found very interesting.

Here my take on a summary of the debate. rms2 in red, razyn in blue, debating how steppats got to to Malapolska (purple). dsm and others? looking at more northerly routes from Volga to Baltic? Correct me if I got names/routes wrong and I will update/edit.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/39/e7/a139e798be2190015ec920e9c2cceebd.png

rms2
02-27-2021, 01:26 AM
Just throwing this into the mix without additional comment or argument - a map from Piotr Włodarczak, "The Traits of Early Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Małopolska Groups) and Złota Culture Communities" (in Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 19, 2014), page 10.

43572

TigerMW
02-27-2021, 01:45 AM
I thought the consensus was PIE predated either Centumisation or Satemisation as evidenced by the Anatolian branches.

My interpretation of the IE tree is that there were multiple branches from the main trunk or base PIE that are called Centum. They are not areal. On the other hand, Satem languages are areal, like being from a large branch or family of their own. Satemisation is a process of this breakaway from the main trunk. In that sense, there was no such thing as centumisation. It was the status quo.

The centum languages are not contiguous, and there is no evidence of differences between dialects in the implementation of centumization (but there are differences in the process of satemisation: there can be pairs of satemized and non-satemized velars within the same language, there is evidence of a former labiovelar series in some satem languages and different branches have different numbers and timings of satemization stages). This makes a "centumisation" process less likely, implying that the position found in the centum languages was the original one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages

In any case, I think the nature of Tocharian does not mean it can not derive from PIE or that the Yamnaya were not speaking PIE. This gets back to the gray areas of defining Yamnaya, when it started, and its territory.

rms2
02-27-2021, 01:54 AM
I just repeated what Michal said, which I found very interesting.

Here my take on a summary of the debate. rms2 in red, razyn and michal? in blue, debating how steppats got to to Malapolska (purple). dsm and others? looking at more northerly routes from Volga to Baltic? Correct me if I got names/routes wrong and I will update/edit.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a1/39/e7/a139e798be2190015ec920e9c2cceebd.png

Nicely done. I don't have a real problem with the blue route into Volhynia and Małopolska as a supplement to the red arrow, Dniester/Prut valleys route, but that gold or yellow one is just a little too epic. That's a long way.

Between the red and blue arrows I think was the hot zone for the origin of Corded Ware.

rms2
02-27-2021, 04:41 AM
Hey, it's getting late here, but I wanted to remind everyone of something in light of the mention that we don't know that any steppe people down the Dniester/Prut interfluve toward the coast of the Black Sea were R1b-L51.

That's right; we don't know, but as I said before, we don't have R1b-L51 from anyplace on the steppe yet. I do think, however, that we can infer that there was R1b-L51 in Catacombnaya down those river valleys in the area of the Black Sea coast.

Recall that those eight Corded Ware R1b guys (some of them R1b-L51) from Małopolska in SE Poland were all buried in catacomb graves and were eastern shifted to the point that they bore some sort of autosomal resemblance to Afanasievo. Linderholm concluded that they were the products of migration by Catacombnaya people from the Black Sea coast, and Włodarczak said the same thing.

Maybe Linderholm and Włodarczak are wrong, but if they aren't, then we have good reason to suspect that Catacombnaya down the Prut/Dniester interfluve toward the Black Sea was R1b-L51, at least in part.

I can supply more quotes if someone wants them, but this one is from Piotr Włodarczak, from the abstract entitled, “Eastern impulse in cultural and demographic changing during the ending southeastern Polish Eneolithic”, from the Abstract Book of the 2019 “Yamnaya Interactions” conference, University of Helsinki, 25-26 April 2019.



Comparing to other areas of central Europe, the funeral ritual of the Final Eneolithic communities in Małopolska (Lesser Poland) looks quite original. The reason for this is an exceptionally strong connection with the traditions recorded in the North-Western territory of the Black Sea region. This is justified by geographic conditions: the loess highlands of south-eastern Poland are a natural extension of the areas of Volhynia and Podolia. These areas were not only the main route of east-west migrations, but also a zone with desired raw material base (e.g. copper, flints, rock raw materials). In the IIIrd millennium BC, four stages of latitudinal relations stand out, resulting in changes in the funeral rite of the Małopolska communities: I – (ca. 3000-2900 BCE) Pre-Corded, related to the appearance of the oldest kurgan communities (horizon CWC-X), II – (ca. 2800-2600 BCE) associated with the oldest Corded Ware horizon (horizon CWC-A), III – (ca. 2600-2550 BCE) linked to the migration of Middle Dnieper groups and the appearance of features of Catacombnaya culture and IV – (ca. 2400/2300-2000 BCE) associated with the Bell Beakers ritual and the Mierzanowice (Early Bronze Age) communities.

The unique character in the Corded Ware circle has primarily the third of the specified stages. In the area of Małopolska appear niche graves, which present the features of Catacombnaya culture, and burials of men equipped with weapons as well as sets of instruments emphasizing craft specialization (first: flint working). Typical is the presence of numerous graves in which the main weapon element is archery equipment. The context for the emergence of such burials is the presence in some of the graves of ceramics characteristic of Middle Dnieper cultural complex. All these characteristics testify to the role of migration (ca. 2600-2500 BCE) from the eastern territories (forest and forest-steppe borderline) in the origin of the new ritual. Specialized analyzes (archeogenetics and stable strontium isotopes) seem to confirm this hypothesis.

And recall the map from Włodarczak that I posted earlier, which shows the spread of Catacombnaya (the red cross hatching) up the river valleys from the Black Sea coast. Here it is again.

43578

razyn
02-27-2021, 06:04 AM
I just repeated what Michal said, which I found very interesting.

Here my take on a summary of the debate. rms2 in red, razyn and michal? in blue, debating how steppats got to to Malapolska (purple). dsm and others? looking at more northerly routes from Volga to Baltic? Correct me if I got names/routes wrong and I will update/edit.
[/IMG]

I don't think you're exactly wrong, but you show an inadequate-sized map, at either the west (left out most of Jutland, the Elbe and the Rhine, i.e. most of SGC territory) or -- and especially -- the east side, i.e. the middle and lower Volga, down to the Caspian Sea. And Volosovo is invisible; rumor has it that it's going to be important in the L51 aDNA story. If so, note that the northernmost bump on your yellow line is near the Volosovo-Danilovsky site that was on one of the recent maps posted by Michal here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20310-L51-into-Europe-West-of-the-Steppe-Via-Corded-Ware&p=752951&viewfull=1#post752951

I still think, and aver, that the big problem remaining is to get the necessary YDNA (branches of L23 including L51, L151, anything leading to P312 and U106, and their less famous siblings) out of the Samara vicinity, and into the part of Europe where the explosive growth happened, in a star-like pattern. If it's messy, fine. If it's neat, we haven't found it. But for the most part we have barely glimpsed a little of the Pontic steppe, and a little of the Carpathian basin. There's still an awful lot of "Here Be Dragons," on that map.

altvred
02-27-2021, 07:25 AM
My interpretation of the IE tree is that there were multiple branches from the main trunk or base PIE that are called Centum. They are not areal. On the other hand, Satem languages are areal, like being from a large branch or family of their own. Satemisation is a process of this breakaway from the main trunk. In that sense, there was no such thing as centumisation. It was the status quo.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centum_and_satem_languages

In any case, I think the nature of Tocharian does not mean it can not derive from PIE or that the Yamnaya were not speaking PIE. This gets back to the gray areas of defining Yamnaya, when it started, and its territory.

This is really out of my wheelhouse, but couldn't the centum/satem dichotomy be explained by later language contact? For example, Armenian was heavily influenced by Persian in historical times, and Germanic speakers were obviously in contact with the Halstatt culture.

Finn
02-27-2021, 12:01 PM
However, you seem to have forgotten that Davidski/Generalissimo has also admitted that the alternative model in which the Dutch Bell Beakers are shown as a mixture of incoming Bell Beakers from Czechia and some local Corded Ware people works ok and thus the Moravian model for the origin of BBC cannot be ruled out.


I guess such a statistical model would fit even better when using the German BBC and Dutch CWC/SGC instead of Czech BBC and German CWC.

In this work from archeologist Lanting (2013):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2204s7w?turn_away=true

Two essential things are stated:
1. Bell Beaker in Central-East Europe (Moravia/ Mittel-Elbe Saale) is derived from late local Corded Ware;
2. A 'Moravian style Bell Beaker' (found in the Netherlands) is produced on the Veluwe. So, no surprising, they had frequent intra-European contact.

As Single Grave is probably derived from Mittel-Elbe Corded Ware the contacts kept on in BB times....

Michał
02-27-2021, 12:49 PM
Two essential things are stated:
1. Bell Beaker in Central-East Europe (Moravia/ Mittel-Elbe Saale) is derived from late local Corded Ware;
2. A 'Moravian style Bell Beaker' (found in the Netherlands) is produced on the Veluwe. So, no surprising, they had frequent intra-European contact.

I hope you are not claiming that this supports the Dutch (or Lower Rhine) homeland of the Bell Beakers (and speaks against the Moravian homeland).

Michał
02-27-2021, 01:13 PM
and michal? in blue
Unfortunately, your map does not reflect what I wrote about the most likely migration routes for the Early Corded Ware people. I was rather suggesting that those main routes were directed west (through Volhynia towards Southern Poland), north-west (towards the Baltic states and Northern Poland) and north-east (towards Russia, see Fatyanovo culture). So this would rather resemble the situation shown on the map presented below. The migration route directed west (marked in red) has been drawn using the dotted line because I suspect this route was temporarily closed between about 3000 and 2500 BC, when Volhynia and Podolia were occupied by the so-called Eastern Group of GAC. (I am a bit busy right now, but I will write more on this subject).

https://i.ibb.co/fQ9XvRq/CWC-expansion-model-1.png

Alain
02-27-2021, 01:23 PM
I hope you are not claiming that this supports the Dutch (or Lower Rhine) homeland of the Bell Beakers (and speaks against the Moravian homeland).

But you can definitely see the BB of Central Europe as a CWC extension, from a genetic point of view for the most part but you localize the home of the BBs in Moravia if I have taken it correctly? but from an archaeological point of view you can see this culture more as an exchange of ideas between Iberia and Central Europe to the Carpathian Basin see as a homogeneous
Culture.However, as you have already pointed out, the
Bell beaker group Netherlands is an exception, because they have the same funeral rite of the Corded Ware
Central Europe, better said, had the local variant of the individual grave culture, in contrast to Bell beakers in Moravia (who performed the typical burial rite of bell beakers / female individuals with their heads facing south and feet facing north and the
Limbs turned to the right. Male individuals with their heads facing north and feet facing south and
Extremities turned to the left).In my eyes it looks like the Bell beakers / Netherlands is nothing different from the SGC and it was probably not BBs.

Here again a representation of the burial rite of the Corded Ware and Bell beakers

43584

rms2
02-27-2021, 01:50 PM
But you can definitely see the BB of Central Europe as a CWC extension, from a genetic point of view for the most part but you localize the home of the BBs in Moravia if I have taken it correctly? but from an archaeological point of view you can see this culture more as an exchange of ideas between Iberia and Central Europe to the Carpathian Basin see as a homogeneous
Culture.However, as you have already pointed out, the
Bell beaker group Netherlands is an exception, because they have the same funeral rite of the Corded Ware
Central Europe, better said, had the local variant of the individual grave culture, in contrast to Bell beakers in Moravia (who performed the typical burial rite of bell beakers / female individuals with their heads facing south and feet facing north and the
Limbs turned to the right. Male individuals with their heads facing north and feet facing south and
Extremities turned to the left).In my eyes it looks like the Bell beakers / Netherlands is nothing different from the SGC and it was probably not BBs.

Here again a representation of the burial rite of the Corded Ware and Bell beakers

43584

I've posted this graphic before, but it shows that in both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker there were local variations in the orientation of the body in burial.

It's from page 11 of the paper by Eric Heise entitled, "Heads North or East?" I added some labels based on the text of the paper.

43585

Finn
02-27-2021, 01:54 PM
I hope you are not claiming that this supports the Dutch (or Lower Rhine) homeland of the Bell Beakers (and speaks against the Moravian homeland).

I would not dare...:)

No I was not mentioning a heartland. My thing is that the Bell Beaker phenomenon is genetically a Corded Ware offshoot. This is in Central-East the case as it was in the Netherlands the case. They (CW) admixed with local neolithic people (mostly Funnelbeaker/GAC).

So 'same people' different pots, to make it simple.

Besides that there are indices that Single Grave was earlier on (2850 BC) an offshoot from Corded Ware Central-East Europe. That was people and pots! This set up a network that obviously lasted in Bell Beaker times.

Ergo:
The Bell Beaker cultural package went viral in Corded Ware circles ;)

Alain
02-27-2021, 01:59 PM
This is really a nice representation, and there are also small differences under CWC, in the direction of view, the Central European CWC have the direction of view to the south and the Eastern CWC have their direction of view to the east

rms2
02-27-2021, 02:14 PM
Several people have mentioned the rumor, which I think first appeared at the Eurogenes Blog, that R1b-L51 has been found in remains of the Volosovo culture. If so, that is baffling to me, because Volosovo was a north Russian forager culture, which to me looks Uralic. I think the author of the Eurogenes Blog said that these supposed Volosovo samples have no steppe DNA but are mostly EHG with a bit of WHG.

As I understand it, the Volosovo samples from the site in question are not all that old. They date from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC.

If some of the Volosovo samples are R1b-L51, yet have no steppe DNA, it seems to me that raises more difficulties than it solves and is in conflict with so much else that we know and also with many of the other rumors, like the rumor that R1b-L51 has been found in a steppe Eneolithic culture on the Don near Rostov.

Personally, I find the Volosovo rumor the most doubtful and problematic of all the rumors swirling about, and there are a number of rumors out there. I haven't spoken of all of the rumors I have heard, and I have heard them from more than one very reliable source.

Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia (https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6)

rms2
02-27-2021, 03:24 PM
Unfortunately, your map does not reflect what I wrote about the most likely migration routes for the Early Corded Ware people. I was rather suggesting that those main routes were directed west (through Volhynia towards Southern Poland), north-west (towards the Baltic states and Northern Poland) and north-east (towards Russia, see Fatyanovo culture). So this would rather resemble the situation shown on the map presented below. The migration route directed west (marked in red) has been drawn using the dotted line because I suspect this route was temporarily closed between about 3000 and 2500 BC, when Volhynia and Podolia were occupied by the so-called Eastern Group of GAC. (I am a bit busy right now, but I will write more on this subject).

https://i.ibb.co/fQ9XvRq/CWC-expansion-model-1.png

Michał -

This is an honest question not meant to be argumentative in any way. Does that red migration route (and the other routes) reflect the belief that the Middle Dnieper culture actually predates Corded Ware and could be the source of Corded Ware? (You're apparently making MDC the direct source of Fatyanovo, as well.)

I'm asking because I find that idea intriguing.

Are there any early Middle Dnieper-style burials along that route?

I don't intend this post as the springboard for an argument against whatever your answers are. I am just honestly interested in what you think.

Coldmountains
02-27-2021, 04:46 PM
Michał -

This is an honest question not meant to be argumentative in any way. Does that red migration route (and the other routes) reflect the belief that the Middle Dnieper culture actually predates Corded Ware and could be the source of Corded Ware? (You're apparently making MDC the direct source of Fatyanovo, as well.)

I'm asking because I find that idea intriguing.

Are there any early Middle Dnieper-style burials along that route?

I don't intend this post as the springboard for an argument against whatever your answers are. I am just honestly interested in what you think.

Most archaelogists see MDC as direct source of Fatyanovo including later Abashevo too. Actually Fatyanovo is sometimes seen as eastern extension of MDC and many MDC traits are even preserved in Abashevo. There is yet no direct evidence for MDC being Fatyanovo derived so some MDC groups are definitely older than 2800 B.C. Fatyanovo coming more from the south or west is unlikely because early CWC subgroups west of MDC are under different clades (also lacking archaeological evidence) and the Steppe would not have GAC-like admin.

davit
02-27-2021, 04:51 PM
Several people have mentioned the rumor, which I think first appeared at the Eurogenes Blog, that R1b-L51 has been found in remains of the Volosovo culture. If so, that is baffling to me, because Volosovo was a north Russian forager culture, which to me looks Uralic. I think the author of the Eurogenes Blog said that these supposed Volosovo samples have no steppe DNA but are mostly EHG with a bit of WHG.

As I understand it, the Volosovo samples from the site in question are not all that old. They date from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC.

If some of the Volosovo samples are R1b-L51, yet have no steppe DNA, it seems to me that raises more difficulties than it solves and is in conflict with so much else that we know and also with many of the other rumors, like the rumor that R1b-L51 has been found in a steppe Eneolithic culture on the Don near Rostov.

Personally, I find the Volosovo rumor the most doubtful and problematic of all the rumors swirling about, and there are a number of rumors out there. I haven't spoken of all of the rumors I have heard, and I have heard them from more than one very reliable source.

Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia (https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6)

It doesn't look like Uralic spread west of the Urals till Volosovo was gone so Volosovo was not Uralic.

rms2
02-27-2021, 04:53 PM
Most archaelogists see MDC as direct source of Fatyanovo including later Abashevo too. Actually Fatyanovo is sometimes seen as eastern extension of MDC and many MDC traits are even preserved in Abashevo. There is yet no direct evidence for MDC being Fatyanovo derived so some MDC groups are definitely older than 2800 B.C. Fatyanovo coming more from the south or west is unlikely because early CWC subgroups west of MDC are under different clades (also lacking archaeological evidence) and the Steppe would not have GAC-like admin.

Are you sure?

From what I have read, for example, in the recent Nordqvist and Heyd paper, "The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context", Fatyanovo is seen as the product of the eastward migration of Corded Ware people.

Of course, it wasn't my intent to argue about the origin of Fatyanovo. I am more interested in the idea that MDC could be the original source of Corded Ware. I don't want to argue against that either. I am open to being convinced about it. Why not?

I realize that, thus far, the Y-DNA in Fatyanovo has been R1a, but I have also heard a rumor (another of many) that R1b-L51 has also been found in Fatyanovo and in Balanovo, as well.

Sigh. I'm kind of tired of Rumor1b-L51 that always seems to be lurking on the horizon, almost within grasp but never quite.

Coldmountains
02-27-2021, 05:02 PM
Are you sure?

From what I have read, for example, in the recent Nordqvist and Heyd paper, "The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context", Fatyanovo is seen as the product of the eastward migration of Corded Ware people.

Of course, it wasn't my intent to argue about the origin of Fatyanovo. I am more interested in the idea that MDC could be the original source of Corded Ware. I don't want to argue against that either. I am open to being convinced about it. Why not?

I realize that, thus far, the Y-DNA In Fatyanovo has been R1a, but I have also heard a rumor (another of many) that R1b-L51 has also been found in Fatyanovo and Balanovo, as well.

I'm kind of tired of Rumor1b-L51 that always seems to be lurking on the horizon, almost within grasp but never quite.

I would not interpret too much into his maps and proposed routes which seem to be very much a simplification from his side (not wrong just meant meant to show the general direction).

well my impression is that the rumours were based on contaminated samples and it does not seem that any of the soon published Fatyanovo and especially Balanovp samples are R1b-L51. Volosoco even if under L51 and more derived clades seems to be a genetic/linguistic dead end seemingly was (almost) fully replaced by Fatyanovo.

altvred
02-27-2021, 05:07 PM
Several people have mentioned the rumor, which I think first appeared at the Eurogenes Blog, that R1b-L51 has been found in remains of the Volosovo culture. If so, that is baffling to me, because Volosovo was a north Russian forager culture, which to me looks Uralic. I think the author of the Eurogenes Blog said that these supposed Volosovo samples have no steppe DNA but are mostly EHG with a bit of WHG.

As I understand it, the Volosovo samples from the site in question are not all that old. They date from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC.

If some of the Volosovo samples are R1b-L51, yet have no steppe DNA, it seems to me that raises more difficulties than it solves and is in conflict with so much else that we know and also with many of the other rumors, like the rumor that R1b-L51 has been found in a steppe Eneolithic culture on the Don near Rostov.

Personally, I find the Volosovo rumor the most doubtful and problematic of all the rumors swirling about, and there are a number of rumors out there. I haven't spoken of all of the rumors I have heard, and I have heard them from more than one very reliable source.

Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia (https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6)

I have a bad feeling this post may cause this thread to be derailed by certain individuals, pushing a certain linguistic agenda, but here it goes anyway.

I'd be surprised if the Volosovo-culture were in any way linked to Uralic speakers. They may have spoken an EHG derived language that was very remotely related to PIE but definitely not Uralic.

Judging by the Karelian and Archangelsk samples we have, it looks like those northern EHG that didn't adopt pastoralism would have most likely belonged to obscure branches of M459, like YP1272 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP1272/), for example. Although some of the more southern groups like Volosovo may have indeed belonged to L51, these are all EHG lineages, after all.

rms2
02-27-2021, 05:07 PM
It doesn't look like Uralic spread west of the Urals till Volosovo was gone so Volosovo was not Uralic.

From what I have read, that's not the case, and some even argue the homeland of Uralic was west of the Urals. Anthony mentions Uralic-speakers on the southern flanks of the Urals.

Evidently Uralic speakers influenced the development of PIE in its Pontic-Caspian homeland, so Uralic could not have remained east of the Urals until Volosovo was gone, because Volosovo lasted into the second millennium BC.

rms2
02-27-2021, 05:17 PM
I have a bad feeling this post may cause this thread to be derailed by certain individuals, pushing a certain linguistic agenda, but here it goes anyway.

I'd be surprised if the Volosovo-culture were in any way linked to Uralic speakers. They may have spoken an EHG derived language that was very remotely related to PIE but definitely not Uralic.

Judging by the Karelian and Archangelsk samples we have, it looks like those northern EHG that didn't adopt pastoralism would have most likely belonged to obscure branches of M459, like YP1272 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-YP1272/), for example. Although some of the more southern groups like Volosovo may have indeed belonged to L51, these are all EHG lineages, after all.

I don't have a problem with L51 turning up in Volosovo, if that's the truth, nor do I think we will ever know what language the Volosovo people spoke.

On the other hand, I do think R1b-L51 in Volosovo is unlikely, despite the rumor, unless it got into that culture from some other source, since L51 is right below L23, which makes it a brother clade to Z2103.

Anyway, maybe a separate thread on this subject would be appropriate, except that we don't have an Unsubstantiated Rumors subforum to put it in - yet.

Alain
02-27-2021, 05:27 PM
Several people have mentioned the rumor, which I think first appeared at the Eurogenes Blog, that R1b-L51 has been found in remains of the Volosovo culture. If so, that is baffling to me, because Volosovo was a north Russian forager culture, which to me looks Uralic. I think the author of the Eurogenes Blog said that these supposed Volosovo samples have no steppe DNA but are mostly EHG with a bit of WHG.

As I understand it, the Volosovo samples from the site in question are not all that old. They date from the 4th to the 3rd millennium BC.

If some of the Volosovo samples are R1b-L51, yet have no steppe DNA, it seems to me that raises more difficulties than it solves and is in conflict with so much else that we know and also with many of the other rumors, like the rumor that R1b-L51 has been found in a steppe Eneolithic culture on the Don near Rostov.

Personally, I find the Volosovo rumor the most doubtful and problematic of all the rumors swirling about, and there are a number of rumors out there. I haven't spoken of all of the rumors I have heard, and I have heard them from more than one very reliable source.

Sakhtysh IIa, Upper Volga region, Russia (https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6)

Thank you was an interesting insight, I can definitely imagine that R1b-M269 was present in the Volosovo culture, but not R1b M269 / L51+ but always think of R1b-P297 which fits better with the almost pure Mesolithic Eastern Europeans (EHG). Is the data correct (for example not contaminated) only a geneticist or someone who is familiar with it could help us ???

rms2
02-27-2021, 05:30 PM
I would not interpret too much into his maps and proposed routes which seem to be very much a simplification from his side (not wrong just meant meant to show the general direction).

well my impression is that the rumours were based on contaminated samples and it does not seem that any of the soon published Fatyanovo and especially Balanovp samples are R1b-L51. Volosoco even if under L51 and more derived clades seems to be a genetic/linguistic dead end seemingly was (almost) fully replaced by Fatyanovo.

I was going to say that is what I suspect is behind the Volosovo rumor, as well. I didn't mention this yet, but one of the rumors I heard about Volosovo is that there is R1b-U106 in it.

Yeah, sure, you betcha.

Red flag time.

davit
02-27-2021, 05:32 PM
From what I have read, that's not the case, and some even argue the homeland of Uralic was west of the Urals. Anthony mentions Uralic-speakers on the southern flanks of the Urals.

Evidently Uralic speakers influenced the development of PIE in its Pontic-Caspian homeland, so Uralic could not have remained east of the Urals until Volosovo was gone, because Volosovo lasted into the second millennium BC.

Are not the majority of IE words in Uralic Indo-Iranian? That contact could have happened east of the Urals.

Indeed it looks like the N1c and NE Asian ancestry associated with Uralic speakers (kra001) did. to spread west of the Urals till 2000 BC likely using the Seima-Turbino network.

rms2
02-27-2021, 05:40 PM
Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing about the origin of Fatyanovo. If it came directly from MDC, that's fine with me.

However, regarding Nordqvist and Heyd's recent paper about Fatyanovo, it isn't just their map that shows Fatyanovo coming via an eastward migration of Corded Ware, they actually spell that out in the text.

This is from page 19 of "The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context":



The CWC undoubtedly received its formation incentive from the initial westward migrations of Yamnaya populations from the Caspian-Pontic steppe. Only two or three centuries later, Fatyanovo-Balanovo, as the easternmost child of the wider CWC family, derives out of a probable eastward migration of these Corded Ware people just 5–10° latitude further north in the Upper and Middle Volga basin.

If Nordqvist and Heyd are wrong, fine. They're not infallible, but that is what they wrote.

rms2
02-27-2021, 05:42 PM
Are not the majority of IE words in Uralic Indo-Iranian? That contact could have happened east of the Urals.

Indeed it looks like the N1c and NE Asian ancestry associated with Uralic speakers (kra001) did. to spread west of the Urals till 2000 BC likely using the Seima-Turbino network.

Apparently there are loan words in both PIE and Uralic that cannot stem from that later contact with Indo-Iranian. That's beyond the scope of this thread. See what Anthony says about it in his The Horse the Wheel and Language.

Finn
02-27-2021, 06:53 PM
I hope you are not claiming that this supports the Dutch (or Lower Rhine) homeland of the Bell Beakers (and speaks against the Moravian homeland).

But at least this argumentation:

3) In the qpAdm analysis, the Globular Amphora ancestry is strongly preferred over the Atlantic (French) Neolithic ancestry as a source of the extra EEF admixture that is typical for BBC (when compared to CWC), so since GAC is very poorly attested in the Netherlands (when compared to Moravia, one of the alternative homelands for BBC), this makes the Lower Rhine region an unlikely homeland of Bell Beakers.


... seems to me obsolete, because of the Funnelbeaker (close to GAC) affinity in the NE Dutch BB admixture.

rms2
02-27-2021, 07:10 PM
But at least this argumentation:


... seems to me obsolete, because of the Funnelbeaker (close to GAC) affinity in the NE Dutch BB admixture.

We may finally get the answer - if we ever see that big Single Grave Corded Ware paper, that is.

Finn
02-27-2021, 07:21 PM
We may finally get the answer - if we ever see that big Single Grave Corded Ware paper, that is.

Yup waiting for Godot?:biggrin1:

CopperAxe
02-27-2021, 07:34 PM
Apparently there are loan words in both PIE and Uralic that cannot stem from that later contact with Indo-Iranian. That's beyond the scope of this thread. See what Anthony says about it in his The Horse the Wheel and Language.

Anything evidence for loanwords predating the Indo-Iranian layers is quite questionable if you'd ask me and even if so MPIE/LPIE languages were definitely spoken around the Altai region so it's not as much of a strong geographic indicator as many believe it is.

CopperAxe
02-27-2021, 07:40 PM
As far as the Single Grave debate, I do not think the Dutch archaeological record supports an outsider Bell Beaker culture coming in and replacing the Single Grave Corded Ware traditions. Obviously a lot of archaeologists were quite anti-migrationist but even when we look at it now the development of the local Bell Beaker cultures here seems to be pretty much the fusion of Single Grave and Funnelbeaker populations. Dutch Beakers are also most easily modeled as that combination.

So lets say that there is a material change from Moravian BB influence on the SGC peoples without a genetic one. How likely is it that both populations would've been responsible for P312 hotspots?

CopperAxe
02-27-2021, 07:49 PM
And then a final thought for the evening, if the Corded Ware horizon is not derived from the Yamnaya horizon, where did their ancestors live inbetween 3300 bc and 3000 bc and to which archaeological tradition did they belong to?

The entire steppe horizon is pretty much considered part of the Yamnaya culture from 3300 bc, and Late Repin and Yamnaya are more or less the same thing really. So for them to not have been 'Yamnaya', that means they must've lived outside of the Yamnaya horizon when it began or simply said they must've lived outside of the steppes before 3300 bc.

rms2
02-27-2021, 07:55 PM
Anything evidence for loanwords predating the Indo-Iranian layers is quite questionable if you'd ask me and even if so MPIE/LPIE languages were definitely spoken around the Altai region so it's not as much of a strong geographic indicator as many believe it is.

This is not really the place for that debate, and many people would disagree with you, including David Anthony. I find his reasoning compelling.

etrusco
02-27-2021, 08:06 PM
And then a final thought for the evening, if the Corded Ware horizon is not derived from the Yamnaya horizon, where did their ancestors live inbetween 3300 bc and 3000 bc and to which archaeological tradition did they belong to?

The entire steppe horizon is pretty much considered part of the Yamnaya culture from 3300 bc, and Late Repin and Yamnaya are more or less the same thing really. So for them to not have been 'Yamnaya', that means they must've lived outside of the Yamnaya horizon when it began or simply said they must've lived outside of the steppes before 3300 bc.

Good question but then for example how they ended up in the Moscow region with on average 1/3 of EEF signal. We have 2 possibilities :

1) they were some kind of Dereivka survivors that lived in the middle Dneper
2) a yet non sampled western Yamnaya group close to the Carpathians ( another region that could harbor a GAC/Yamnaya gropup) that headed both north west and north east

I believe that the zero EEF CW baltic were some kind of outliers rather than a represntative group of CWC. If CWC is defined as being 75% Yamnaya this means that they were 25%GAC and this before resorting to exogamy because as Michal pointed out rightly these folks migrated with their families. Exogamy was a big thing only when they were already settled down in the northern european plain

etrusco
02-27-2021, 08:15 PM
on the contrary the so called EEF rich Yamnaya ozera likely will not be so much an outlier. But we will see.

Standardized Ape
02-27-2021, 08:24 PM
on the contrary the so called EEF rich Yamnaya ozera likely will not be so much an outlier. But we will see.

Ozera has Caucasian and maybe Central Asian admixture.

Target: Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o:I1917
Distance: 1.5694% / 0.01569357 | R3P
45.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
40.0 ARM_Lchashen_MBA
14.8 UZB_Dzharkutan2_BA

I doubt there will ever be found any Yamna with higher EEF unless they lived in Crimea or some other borderline area.

Michał
02-27-2021, 08:25 PM
Several people have mentioned the rumor, which I think first appeared at the Eurogenes Blog, that R1b-L51 has been found in remains of the Volosovo culture.
Last year Davidski wrote in his blog:


There is one L51 in a Volosovo sample from Sakhtysh, but it's low coverage. A few others are just M269, and they're of much higher quality.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-final-note-for-year.html

etrusco
02-27-2021, 08:30 PM
Ozera has Caucasian and maybe Central Asian admixture.

Target: Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o:I1917
Distance: 1.5694% / 0.01569357 | R3P
45.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
40.0 ARM_Lchashen_MBA
14.8 UZB_Dzharkutan2_BA

I doubt there will ever be found any Yamna with higher EEF unless they lived in Crimea or some other borderline area.

And that is . I think CWC came from a very specific borderline area of Yamnaya.

Standardized Ape
02-27-2021, 08:49 PM
And that is . I think CWC came from a very specific borderline area of Yamnaya.

All of the early CWC samples had a little bit of extra WHG too. I wouldn't be surprised if they came from north/northwest of Kiev.

etrusco
02-27-2021, 08:52 PM
All of the early CWC samples had a little bit of extra WHG too. I wouldn't be surprised if they came from north/northwest of Kiev.

Yes the ratio Ukraine Mesolithic/Progress in CWC is a tad higher than in Yamnaya.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22887-WHG-in-Sintashta&p=744174&viewfull=1#post744174

Michał
02-27-2021, 09:55 PM
Does that red migration route (and the other routes) reflect the belief that the Middle Dnieper culture actually predates Corded Ware and could be the source of Corded Ware?
Yes, it seems that the earliest stage of CWC/MDC in the Middle Dnieper region predates all other CWC sites found elsewhere. However, this early stage of CWC/MDC does not yet show all the features that are characterestic for the classical/middle stage of MDC (ie. the one starting from about 2800-2600 BC), and it seems that many researchers identify MDC only with the middle and later stages for which the radiocarbon dates are available and for which the distinction between MDC and any other (earlier or parallel) variants of CWC can be made.


(You're apparently making MDC the direct source of Fatyanovo, as well.)
I am definitely not alone regarding this one - see what Coldmountains has recently posted on this subject. And here is also the relevant quotation from the very recent paper by Saag et. al. (2021):


The strongest connections for Fatyanovo Culture in archaeological material can be seen with the Middle Dnieper Culture (23, 48) spread in present-day Belarus and Ukraine (49, 50).



Are there any early Middle Dnieper-style burials along that route?
The very specific local "Middle Dnieper style" developed most likely only about 2800-2700 BC. Thus, only after this date such an MDC-specific style could have been seen as spreading elsewhere, including Poland (see the typical MDC features found in the Sokal Ridge burials dated to about 2600-2500 BC) or Russia (see the earliest Fatyanovo sites dated to about 2700 BC). The earliest stage of CWC/MDC in the Middle Dnieper region (ie. the stage corresponding to the hypothetical Proto-CWC stage) was likely not associated with any specific "local CWC style", except all those featuers that are characteristic for CWC as a whole (including the battle axes, pots/beakers with corded ornamentation, etc.). However, when assuming that the Middle Dnieper region was the very place where the transformation from the "steppe package" to the "CWC package" took place, we should also expect that not all those new features were incorporated/developed at exactly the same time, so this is probably the major reason why the identification and classification of those earliest Pre-Proto-CWC and Proto-CWC sites is so difficult.

rms2
02-28-2021, 12:31 AM
Okay, thanks for the answer. That's a possibility.

I can't say you've convinced me, but I'm open to more evidence as it comes in.

rms2
02-28-2021, 12:36 AM
Last year Davidski wrote in his blog:


https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-final-note-for-year.html

We'll wait and see on that. I'll believe it when I see it. If there is M269 in Volosovo, it could represent an old EHG remnant line that petered out.

rms2
02-28-2021, 12:41 AM
I hope no one minds if I continue to believe about Corded Ware what I currently believe, which I think is based on evidence I know about and can cite.

Please, however, present what you've got on various other routes and theories on the origin of Corded Ware. I'm open to really solid, evidence-backed data.

I'd really like to see what's out there regarding steppe pastoralist burials and artefacts along this or that route and what the rc dates on them are.

Right now, I think Włodarczak's CWC chronology is the best thing I've seen. I won't post that again right now unless someone asks for it.

rms2
02-28-2021, 02:29 AM
Hey.

I mentioned before that I have downloaded a number of archaeological papers from academia.edu that I haven't had the chance to read yet. I'm currently working my way through one such paper by Piotr Włodarczak, “The Traits of Early-Bronze Pontic Cultures in the Development of Old Upland Corded Ware (Małopolska Groups) and Złota Culture Communities” (in Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 19, 2014). I like Włodarczak. His papers are interesting and well written.

Even though I haven't finished this one, I thought I would mention it because it endorses two routes into Małopolska Corded Ware, one up the Dniester/Prut interfluve, which I have argued for, and the second from the Middle Dnieper via Volhynia.

That ought to make a number of people happy, and I'm all for making as many people happy as possible.

This is from page 7 of that paper.



In Małopolska (south-eastern Poland)1 , Final Neolithic finds (Fig. 1) illustrate a rich and unique set of funerary rites unknown in any other region of the south-eastern branch of the Corded Ware culture complex (CWC)2 . Moreover, the finds from cemeteries are numerous and meaningful enough to allow their correlation with the rites of Early Bronze communities, settling the steppes and forest-steppes north of the Black Sea in the 3rd millennium BC.

Pages 7-8:



Over a decade ago, this perspective was changed by Jan Machnik’s studies that stressed the presence of grave assemblages with pottery displaying traits characteristic of the Middle Dnieper culture in Małopolska [Machnik 1999; Machnik et al. 2009]. The monographs drew attention to the possibility of long-distance migrations of groups of humans from the middle Dnieper drainage basin to the uplands of south-eastern Poland.

Page 11:



Furthermore, it is important to observe that the ties extended along two major directions (in other words: two communication routes – Kośko, Kločko 2011: 14-16): (a) latitudinal – from the middle Dnieper area across Volhynia to Małopolska and (b) southeast – northwest, following the convenient arteries of the Boh, Dniester, Prut and Seret rivers (Fig. 2).

There are many more quotations from this paper - which is a gem - I could cite, but you get the picture. Evidently Włodarczak, a preeminent Corded Ware expert, thinks there were two pathways into old Małopolska: one from the NW Black Sea coast up the Prut/Dniester interfluve, and a second from the Middle Dnieper.

Not bad. At least a few people will be happy.

Maybe I'll post more of the quotes later, but I'm kind of tired right now.

Recall that the oldest known Pre-Corded (CWC-X horizon, 3000-2900 BC) burials are currently from Małopolska, at Hubinek and Średnia, and you will realize how important Małopolska is in the Corded Ware saga.

Michał
02-28-2021, 09:08 AM
Recall that the oldest known Pre-Corded (CWC-X horizon, 3000-2900 BC) burials are currently from Małopolska, at Hubinek and Średnia
You haven't responded to my previous question on this subject, so let me ask you again which particular Corded Ware burial at Średnia is dated to 3000-2900 BC?

BTW, do you know any Yamna kurgans along the middle or upper headwaters of either the Dniester or Prut river that are securely dated to the period before 3000 BC? If so, which ones are these? Also, do you by chance know which are the oldest radiocarbon-dated Yamna kurgans located west of the Dnieper river?

Michał
02-28-2021, 11:16 AM
Let me go back to the question of the so-called Eastern Group of GAC and how this south-eastward movement of the Globular Amphora folk could have affected the initial expansion of CWC. The expansion of GAC towards the territories located east and south-east from today's Poland started about 3100-3000 BC, so this is more or less when the expansion of CWC (going in the oposite direction!) is believed to have started, as well.

Here is what Szmyt writes about the chronology of that south-eastward movement of GAC:
https://www.academia.edu/11604220/View_from_the_Northwest_Interaction_Network_in_the _Dnieper_Carpathian_Area_and_the_People_of_the_Glo bular_Amphora_Culture_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC


The chronology of the eastern group is known at a general level (Fig. 4), although many details are still subject to controversy (Kadrow − Szmyt 1996; Szmyt 1999; Mihăilescu-Bîrliba − Szmyt 2003). Towards the end of the 4th millennium BC (in its final century?), GAC settlers must have arrived in Volhynia, moving from the Lublin Upland (Szmyt 1999; 2001). Their movement towards Podolia and the Moldavian Upland was rather quick as shown by the dates attributed to grave assemblages in Romania (Mihăilescu-Bîrliba − Szmyt 2003). In the west–east direction GAC populations entered the area lying further east, however, in the drainages of the Horyn, Sluch and Teterev rivers, such interaction could have differed greatly in dynamics, i.e. the eastern movement continued longer than that towards the south (Szmyt 2009, 245–246).

And here is a map from another paper by Szmyt that nicely illustrates that eastward and south-eastward movement of GAC:

https://i.ibb.co/crW0gdL/GAC-expansion-eastward.png
https://www.jma.uni-kiel.de/en/publications/download-area/publications-data-archive/hdl-9-upa-292-furholt.pdf


Most intriguingly, here is what Pelisiak writes about the relationship between GAC and CWC in this particular region (ie. in Volhynia, Podolia, or generally in Western Ukraine and SE Poland):
http://www.archeologia.univ.rzeszow.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/analecta_2/02_Pelisiak.pdf


The ranges of the CWC and GAC settlements are exclusive. The distinct differentiation of the zones which were settled and exploited by communities of both cultures may be considered in terms of political situation. Here we deal with the groups of people engaged mainly in animal breeding, and in case of the CWC this kind of economy was connected with the specific social and economic organisation, that is the herder (pastoral?) system. As we can see in the maps of the settlements, the communities belonging to both cultures lived in the neighbouring regions, but they never tolerated each other within the same territory. The indirect evidence supporting this statement is the emergence of the CWC people e.g. in the Zbrucz basin, the upper Styr and the upper Horyń basins as late as in the early Bronze Age, thus after the GAC settlement process had ceased.


And here is the corresponding statement about CWC and TRB/FBC:


The ranges of the FBC and CWC settlements overlap quite clearly. Moreover, within many CWC barrows, and sometimes beneath them the remains of the FBC settlements has been revealed. This picture is consistent with the settlement succession of both cultures, observed almost prevalently.


And now about the relationship between CWC and the Tripolye culture (TC):

The range of the TC and CWC settlements generally excludes each other. Not until the early Bronze Age the CWC people had appeared far in the east, e.g. in the Zbrucz basin, and further north – in the Horyń basin. The process took place only in the period after the TC and GAC had vanished in these areas. It can be concluded from the settlements maps that the TC and CWC people did not tolerate each other in the same territory. Such a thesis does not have to be true, as the GAC people, not the TC communities, could be an obstacle for CWC.


One important thing to notice is that CWC did not significantly expand into Volhynia and Podolia (or generally into NW Ukraine) untill the settlements of the Eastern Group of GAC ceased to exist, which happend by the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, thus long after CWC expanded all over the Northern Europe. This is also more or less the time when we can clearly see a new (second?) wave of migrants from the Dnieper region (this time with the typical/classical MDC features) to reach SE Poland.

It is also worth noticing that Central Poland (where GAC still remained the "major power" during the first half od the 3rd millenium BC) was relatively poorly infiltrated by the migrating CWC groupings, so the CWC-occupied areas are seen mostly in the northern and southern peripheries, and this has significantly changed only after the BBC groupings started expanding from south-west and the Post-CWC Mierzanowice culture expanded in the eastern part of today's Poland. Such a very limited presence of CWC in Central Poland is also well seen on the map shown below (please also note that the large Volhynian-Podolian CWC group in NW Ukraine is dated only to the second half of the 3rd millenium BC, ie. after the GAC settlements disappeared in that region).

https://i.ibb.co/tPx7g5j/Corded-Ware-Culture-map.png



All this raises multiple questions regarding both the major routes of the Early CWC expansion (directed west, north and east) and the frequently postulated genetic contribution of the GAC people to the Early CWC population.

Finn
02-28-2021, 11:34 AM
Let me go back to the question of the so-called Eastern Group of GAC and how this south-eastward movement of the Globular Amphora folk could have affected the initial expansion of CWC. The expansion of GAC towards the territories located east and south-east from today's Poland started about 3100-3000 BC, so this is more or less when the expansion of CWC (going in the oposite direction!) is believed to have started, as well.

Here is what Szmyt writes about the chronology of that south-eastward movement of GAC:
https://www.academia.edu/11604220/View_from_the_Northwest_Interaction_Network_in_the _Dnieper_Carpathian_Area_and_the_People_of_the_Glo bular_Amphora_Culture_in_the_Third_Millennium_BC



And here is a map from another paper by Szmyt that nicely illustrates that eastward and south-eastward movement of GAC:

https://i.ibb.co/crW0gdL/GAC-expansion-eastward.png
https://www.jma.uni-kiel.de/en/publications/download-area/publications-data-archive/hdl-9-upa-292-furholt.pdf


Most intriguingly, here is what Pelisiak writes about the relationship between GAC and CWC in this particular region (ie. in Volhynia, Podolia, or generally in Western Ukraine and SE Poland):
http://www.archeologia.univ.rzeszow.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/analecta_2/02_Pelisiak.pdf



And here is the corresponding statement about CWC and TRB/FBC:



And now about the relationship between CWC and the Tripolye culture (TC):


One important thing to notice is that CWC did not significantly expand into Volhynia and Podolia (or generally into NW Ukraine) untill the settlements of the Eastern Group of GAC ceased to exist, which happend by the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, thus long after CWC expanded all over the Northern Europe. This is also more or less the time when we can clearly see a new (second?) wave of migrants from the Dnieper region (this time with the typical/classical MDC features) to reach SE Poland.

It is also worth noticing that Central Poland (where GAC still remained the "major power" during the first half od the 3rd millenium BC) was relatively poorly infiltrated by the migrating CWC groupings, so the CWC-occupied areas are seen mostly in the northern and southern peripheries, and this has significantly changed only after the BBC groupings started expanding from south-west and the Post-CWC Mierzanowice culture expanded in the eastern part of today's Poland. Such a very limited presence of CWC in Central Poland is also well seen on the map shown below (please also note that the large Volhynian-Podolian CWC group in NW Ukraine is dated only to the second half of the 3rd millenium BC, ie. after the GAC settlements disappeared in that region).

https://i.ibb.co/tPx7g5j/Corded-Ware-Culture-map.png



All this raises multiple questions regarding both the major routes of the Early CWC expansion (directed west, north and east) and the frequently postulated genetic contribution of the GAC people to the Early CWC population.


This article about the Schönfelder Kultur in relationship to Corded Ware Mittel-Elbe describes the interaction and sometimes agony.
https://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Wissen/Uebersicht/Forscher-klaeren-4500-Jahre-altes-Verbrechen-auf

My impression is that in the Dutch area the findings of the Funnelbeaker and the Single Grave culture were near to each other. So the interaction most probably has lead to different patterns sometimes the new kids on the block prevailed sometimes there were resisting neolithic pockets.....

But in the end they fuzed everywhere in Northern Europe even if this took centuries, even millennia?

Alain
02-28-2021, 12:35 PM
This article about the Schönfelder Kultur in relationship to Corded Ware Mittel-Elbe describes the interaction and sometimes agony.
https://www.haz.de/Nachrichten/Wissen/Uebersicht/Forscher-klaeren-4500-Jahre-altes-Verbrechen-auf

My impression is that in the Dutch area the findings of the Funnelbeaker and the Single Grave culture were near to each other. So the interaction most probably has lead to different patterns sometimes the new kids on the block prevailed sometimes there were resisting neolithic pockets.....

But in the end they fuzed everywhere in Northern Europe even if this took centuries, even millennia?


A parallel can also be drawn to the Polish Koszyce, probably a violent conflict between the newcomers from the Pontic-Caspian steppe Corded Ware and the GAC


https://www.spektrum.de/news/das-massengrab-von-koszyce/1643358

Here in English

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/22/10705

rms2
02-28-2021, 02:01 PM
You haven't responded to my previous question on this subject, so let me ask you again which particular Corded Ware burial at Średnia is dated to 3000-2900 BC?

There are two of them from Site 3, Kurgan 1, mentioned in Piotr Włodarczak, “Chronometry of the Final Eneolithic Cemeteries at Święte, Jarosław District, from the Perspective of Cultural Relations among Lesser Poland, Podolia and the North-Western Black Sea Region” (in Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 23: 2018).

Gd-10402 is dated to 3320-2902 BC, and Gd-10397 is dated to 3086-2703. See Table 3 on page 188. The Średnia site is referred to throughout the paper.



BTW, do you know any Yamna kurgans along the middle or upper headwaters of either the Dniester or Prut river that are securely dated to the period before 3000 BC? If so, which ones are these? Also, do you by chance know which are the oldest radiocarbon-dated Yamna kurgans located west of the Dnieper river?

As far as I know, there is a geographical gap between the specifically Yamnaya kurgans on and near the Dniester and the Corded Ware kurgans just north of them. However, as I mentioned before, there are a number of burial mounds filling the gap whose cultural affiliation remains undetermined. See the map below (I've posted it before). I don't know if those burials represent a transitional phase between YC and CWC. Maybe they do, but maybe they don't.

43594

I do not know which are the oldest rc-dated Yamnaya kurgans west of the Dnieper.

If I can find some rc dates, I will post them, but I did find this on page 200 of the same paper I cited above:



Another contribution to refining the chronometric data has come from a research project on barrows in the Yampil region – the north-westernmost barrow group on the left – Podolian – bank of the Dniester River [Goslar et al. 2015]. The focus of the project was the analysis of contacts between forest-steppe/steppe communities and those from the central European cultural circle [Kośko (Ed.) 2015]. Radiocarbon dates obtained for barrows from the Jampol cluster correspond well with other recent results. They unambiguously show that some YC graves pre-date the older CWC phase in central Europe [Goslar et al. 2015: 281-283]. The younger YC stage chronologically corresponds with barrow graves from older CWC horizons. This chronological order is confirmed by the discovery of an amphora of type A in grave 2/6 at Porohy, Yampil raion, dug into a barrow mound [Harat et al. 2014: 87, Fig. 2.3.4:9].

rms2
02-28-2021, 02:50 PM
I found the Goslar paper cited above by Włodarczak.

I haven't had the chance to really read it yet, but a cursory look shows that the oldest YC burials of at least some of the Yampil sites date from the late 4th millennium BC.

razyn
02-28-2021, 04:20 PM
Gosh, it seems like only yesterday I was talking about Volosovo, and couldn't recover the broad, area map I had in mind; so I linked to one specific Volosovo archaeological site. Oh, wait -- it was yesterday, it just happened to be 1:04 AM (my time zone). So I can't edit that post, from 34 hours ago. This is the part I would have edited:


... Volosovo is invisible; rumor has it that it's going to be important in the L51 aDNA story. If so, note that the northernmost bump on your yellow line is near the Volosovo-Danilovsky site that was on one of the recent maps posted by Michal...

Anyhow, today my brain unfroze and I found the missing map -- not on this thread, where I had searched -- but in my new (and mostly unread) copy of the Anthony et al (2016) report on the Samara Valley Project, A Bronze Age Landscape in the Russian Steppes, p. 16. The source (which a lot more people have at hand) is Fig. 15:5 in his 2007 Horse, Wheel, and Language, p. 379. But the updated version locates two more archaeological cultures, Potapovka and Filatovka, so I'll copy that one:

43596

I would note that all this is essentially Europe, the Ural mountains are at extreme right. And L51 also extended, anciently, far to the east (has been found in Afanasievo) -- not just where Corded Ware flourished. Sometimes it helps to step back a little, for the big picture. I don't know that this is one of the times. But we've been surprised, before this.

rms2
02-28-2021, 05:18 PM
. . .

I do not know which are the oldest rc-dated Yamnaya kurgans west of the Dnieper.

. . .

The table below is from page 261 of Tomasz Goslar, "Chronometry of Late Eneolithic and 'Early Bronze' Cultures in the Middle Dniester Area: Investigations of the Yampil Barrow Complex" (in Baltic-Pontic Studies, vol. 20, 2015).

It shows dates from rc testing of wood and bone from Prydnistryanske 1. Older dates were obtained from the site Porohy 3A, but Goslar says they can't be trusted: he revises them down, so I'm not bothering with those.

I'm not saying the dates from Prydnistryanske 1 are the very oldest YC dates west of the Dnieper. I don't know if they are or not, but they are available from the Goslar paper, so here they are.

43599

rms2
02-28-2021, 05:31 PM
Gosh, it seems like only yesterday I was talking about Volosovo, and couldn't recover the broad, area map I had in mind; so I linked to one specific Volosovo archaeological site. Oh, wait -- it was yesterday, it just happened to be 1:04 AM (my time zone). So I can't edit that post, from 34 hours ago. This is the part I would have edited:



Anyhow, today my brain unfroze and I found the missing map -- not on this thread, where I had searched -- but in my new (and mostly unread) copy of the Anthony et al (2016) report on the Samara Valley Project, A Bronze Age Landscape in the Russian Steppes, p. 16. The source (which a lot more people have at hand) is Fig. 15:5 in his 2007 Horse, Wheel, and Language, p. 379. But the updated version locates two more archaeological cultures, Potapovka and Filatovka, so I'll copy that one:

43596

I would note that all this is essentially Europe, the Ural mountains are at extreme right. And L51 also extended, anciently, far to the east (has been found in Afanasievo) -- not just where Corded Ware flourished. Sometimes it helps to step back a little, for the big picture. I don't know that this is one of the times. But we've been surprised, before this.

I for one will be really surprised if there is any actual, verifiable R1b-L51 in Volosovo. The rumor I heard (discussed some posts back) is that it is R1b-U106, and I don't believe that. Michał posted a link to a Eurogenes Blog post by Davidski that says the single supposed L51 sample was very low coverage but that there are some R1b-M269 results that are better.

Maybe. If there is any kind of R1b in Volosovo that is not a product of contamination, it probably represents an old remnant EHG line in a forager cultural backwater that eventually just petered out.

R1b-L51 in an old forager culture like that, with no steppe DNA, just flat out contradicts too much that we already know and also some of the other current rumors.

razyn
02-28-2021, 06:45 PM
I for one will be really surprised if there is any actual, verifiable R1b-L51 in Volosovo. The rumor I heard (discussed some posts back) is that it is R1b-U106, and I don't believe that. Michał posted a link to a Eurogenes Blog post by Davidski that says the single supposed L51 sample was very low coverage but that there are some R1b-M269 results that are better.

Maybe. If there is any kind of R1b in Volosovo that is not a product of contamination, it probably represents an old remnant EHG line in a forager cultural backwater that eventually just petered out.

R1b-L51 in an old forager culture like that, with no steppe DNA, just flat out contradicts too much that we already know and also some of the other current rumors.

It only takes a few generations of mating with the local steppe girls to get mostly steppe auDNA; maybe they picked that up in Podolia or Volhynia, on the way west. Or anywhere else. If the most mobile guys on the northern edge of the steppe were L51 metallurgists (in this case, working with arsenical copper sources), they had shiny hair ornaments and dress pins to persuade the ladies; daggers and axes to persuade their daddies, brothers, and first husbands. Also, if they ate their lunch while sitting on a pitchblende rock in Malopolska, that might have sped up the hypothetical YDNA "mutation rate" somewhat. The L51 patriarchs saw a lot of starlike expansion about the time they got into Central Europe.

I think focusing on the impediments (moving with cattle herds and ox carts, wives and families, through swamps; hunter-gatherer ancestry in dairy pastoralists) can make one doubt something else that is in plain sight, and not really contradictory -- just focused elsewhere.

rms2
02-28-2021, 06:54 PM
It only takes a few generations of mating with the local steppe girls to get mostly steppe auDNA; maybe they picked that up in Podolia or Volhynia, on the way west. Or anywhere else. If the most mobile guys on the northern edge of the steppe were L51 metallurgists (in this case, working with arsenical copper sources), they had shiny hair ornaments and dress pins to persuade the ladies; daggers and axes to persuade their daddies, brothers, and first husbands. Also, if they ate their lunch while sitting on a pitchblende rock in Malopolska, that might have sped up the hypothetical YDNA "mutation rate" somewhat. The L51 patriarchs saw a lot of starlike expansion about the time they got into Central Europe.

I think focusing on the impediments (moving with cattle herds and ox carts, wives and families, through swamps; hunter-gatherer ancestry in dairy pastoralists) can make one doubt something else that is in plain sight, and not really contradictory -- just focused elsewhere.

Doubt it very very very much.

So, you're saying IE steppe pastoralist guys, who were very patriarchal, gave their daughters to Volosovo foragers and accepted them into the fold, and that Volosovo, up in the Russian north woods, is the Urheimat of L51?

Then Volosovo-descended L51 guys expanded into Europe west of the steppe from there?

So, how did that work?

How is it that L51 is right below L23, and so is Z2103, and Z2103 isn't Volosovo forager stuff but L51 is?

What of the rumor, just as reliably rumored as the Volosovo rumor, that R1b-L51 has been found in an Eneolithic steppe culture on the Don not far from Rostov?

Man, I think the Volosovo rumor about L51 is extreme baloney.

rms2
02-28-2021, 07:09 PM
I can believe that R1b-M269 has been found in Volosovo, probably representing a long lost, EHG, old forager remnant Y-DNA line, but I do not believe there was any R1b-L51 in Volosovo unless it came from Fatyanovo-Balanovo along with steppe DNA.

I think what Davidski said about very low coverage (i.e., not reliable) is probably the whole story on that one, single, rumored "L51" in Volosovo.

My prediction: No L51 in Volosovo.

If I am wrong, I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, but there is too much that militates against a finding of L51 in Volosovo, especially a finding of R1b-U106, which is what I heard it is.

That's just junk.

Here's a question. Volosovo's first encounter with likely Indo-Europeans was with Fatyanovo and occurred maybe 2800 BC at the earliest. How did they get rapid-fire Indo-Europeanized by Fatyanovo in time to make it to Switzerland c. 2864-2501 BC so that ~80% steppe DNA shows up in their supposed descendant, Aesch25?

Or c. 2866-2601 BC, at Auvernier in Switzerland, in MX304?

razyn
02-28-2021, 09:28 PM
So, you're saying IE steppe pastoralist guys, who were very patriarchal, gave their daughters to Volosovo foragers and accepted them into the fold, and that Volosovo, up in the Russian north woods, is the Urheimat of L51?

Then Volosovo-descended L51 guys expanded into Europe west of the steppe from there?

No, I'm saying L23 was found in the middle Volga; if L51 expanded loooong distances both east and west of there -- and maybe (up the said Volga) also north to Volosovo -- what's the big mystery? It had to come from somewhere, before Malopolska, and I don't think there is any genomic reason for thinking that "somewhere" was the southwestern fringe of Yamnaya, where the Dniester and the antelope play. On a map with north at the top, there is a lot of (genomically) unexplored steppe sitting on top of a lot of unexplored Yamnaya -- at least, until the rumored papers are released. (And btw, Rumor1b -- good one.)

Also, I'd think the pastoralist types sold their daughters, or swapped them for knives; or a bit farther west, threw in one daughter with each kilogram of amber -- whatever. Bride-price, dowries, etc. weren't invented in the Middle Ages. And if a guy set the price for his daughter too high, one could always bash in his head. It wasn't a very Jane Austen setting.

rms2
02-28-2021, 11:39 PM
No, I'm saying L23 was found in the middle Volga; if L51 expanded loooong distances both east and west of there -- and maybe (up the said Volga) also north to Volosovo -- what's the big mystery? It had to come from somewhere, before Malopolska, and I don't think there is any genomic reason for thinking that "somewhere" was the southwestern fringe of Yamnaya, where the Dniester and the antelope play. On a map with north at the top, there is a lot of (genomically) unexplored steppe sitting on top of a lot of unexplored Yamnaya -- at least, until the rumored papers are released. (And btw, Rumor1b -- good one.)

Also, I'd think the pastoralist types sold their daughters, or swapped them for knives; or a bit farther west, threw in one daughter with each kilogram of amber -- whatever. Bride-price, dowries, etc. weren't invented in the Middle Ages. And if a guy set the price for his daughter too high, one could always bash in his head. It wasn't a very Jane Austen setting.

See my last post. Here's an important part of it.



Here's a question. Volosovo's first encounter with likely Indo-Europeans was with Fatyanovo and occurred maybe 2800 BC at the earliest. How did they get rapid-fire Indo-Europeanized by Fatyanovo in time to make it to Switzerland c. 2864-2501 BC so that ~80% steppe DNA shows up in their supposed descendant, Aesch25?

Or c. 2866-2601 BC, at Auvernier in Switzerland, in MX304?

I quoted myself because that absolutely sinks the whole idea of L51 in Volosovo playing any kind of role as an element in Indo-European migrations.

The rumor, by way of the Eurogenes Blog, is that there is no steppe DNA in Volosovo.

There's not going to be any R1b-L51 in Volosovo either.

I also don't believe that stuff about IE guys swapping their daughters for this and that commodity. Ever notice how uniform and un-diverse the Y-DNA results are among early IE groups in various locales? They didn't mix that much and take on a lot of outsider recruits, not early on, anyway. They seem to have been very clannish. Their tribes were pretty one-sided when it comes to Y-DNA.

There is absolutely no good reason to make too much of the rather obscure, rather no-account forager culture known as Volosovo.

Here's something from David Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 153. Apply it to the subject of Fatyanovo (or whatever) brides Indo-Europeanizing Volosovo foragers:



But Warren DeBoer has shown that wives who marry into a foreign tribe among tribal societies often feel so exposed and insecure that they become hyper-correct imitators of their new cultural mores rather than a source of innovation.

How exactly would women mold their forager husbands into a warlike, horse-riding, patriarchal, Indo-European kurgan culture? Even if they wanted to, and went against the norm for foreign brides, would their forager mothers-in-law and sisters-in-law stand idly by and let them do it?

rms2
03-01-2021, 12:30 AM
No, I'm saying L23 was found in the middle Volga; if L51 expanded loooong distances both east and west of there -- and maybe (up the said Volga) also north to Volosovo -- what's the big mystery? It had to come from somewhere, before Malopolska, and I don't think there is any genomic reason for thinking that "somewhere" was the southwestern fringe of Yamnaya, where the Dniester and the antelope play. On a map with north at the top, there is a lot of (genomically) unexplored steppe sitting on top of a lot of unexplored Yamnaya -- at least, until the rumored papers are released. (And btw, Rumor1b -- good one.)
. . .

Sorry for quoting you again, but I've already edited my first response too many times, and don't think I adequately addressed what you said about L51 expanding up the Volga to get into Volosovo.

Why a long trip up the Volga, when Indo-European Fatyanovo and Balanovo wound up cheek-by-jowl next to Volosovo? I already said if there is L51 in Volosovo (which I strongly doubt), it will have come from one or perhaps both of those two cultures and will have steppe DNA.

Here's perhaps the main problem, though, as I touched on a couple of times already: the rumor is that there is NO steppe DNA in Volosovo.

So L51 is so old it predates the autosomal combination known as steppe or Yamnaya DNA, and it got into Volosovo from down the Volga that early?

If I recall correctly, Generalissimo (Davidski) has said that steppe DNA has been dated to c. 4500 BC. That's older than YFull says L51 is (not that YFull is infallible).

(Plus I was under the impression, based on a post of yours (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20310-L51-into-Europe-West-of-the-Steppe-Via-Corded-Ware&p=753675&viewfull=1#post753675) on this subject a few posts back, that you thought L51 was a Russian north woods forager haplogroup without any steppe DNA that had to be Indo-Europeanized by taking Indo-European wives.)

razyn
03-01-2021, 02:04 AM
Sorry for quoting you again, but I've already edited my first response too many times

I'll shut up if you will. The papers will be out some day, and one or both of us may be proven right about some of this. I hope one or both of us will be alive to enjoy that.

MitchellSince1893
03-01-2021, 06:16 AM
A little Bell Beaker tangent in this Corded Ware thread.

I thought this was cool: My y-dna line U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 has been found in a Czech Bell Beaker setting in the vicinity of Prague ~2300 BC.
Found this a few days ago when I was going through the
Allen Ancient DNA Resource (AADR) (https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data)

The Eastern Bell Beaker group, Bohemian (https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ.)Province may have been my ancient y-dna peeps :)
https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/east-bell-beaker-group-expansion.jpg

Back to your L51 Corded Ware discussion.

altvred
03-01-2021, 07:40 AM
I wouldn't put much stock in that Volosovo R-L51 being genuine until some data get published.

Postmortem aDNA damage can cause C->T and G->A substitutions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685887/); the latter would explain the false positive call for L51.

The haplogroup assignment might also result from reference bias if the coverage is bad enough.

etrusco
03-01-2021, 12:35 PM
This study is already well known but it is worth remembering in order to understand the source population of eastern and baltic corded ware. The study gives the fundamental proof that steppe people ended up in the north just like they were in the steppe. They did not marry out. Since Fatyanovo, Polish CWC have on average nearly 30% EEF ancestry we need a source population in the Yamnaya horizon that has similar proportions of european farmer dna. As I pointed out exogamy was more an affair of the western CW starting from Germany and vicinity.
Implications: Yamnaya is defined as EBA steppe culture but it is now clear that it contained also a MLBA steppe like population. Even tough I6561 has been redated a population very similar to him existed inside the Yamnaya horizon.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29914-5

Abstract
From around 4,000 to 2,000 BC the forest-steppe north-western Pontic region was occupied by people who shared a nomadic lifestyle, pastoral economy and barrow burial rituals. It has been shown that these groups, especially those associated with the Yamnaya culture, played an important role in shaping the gene pool of Bronze Age Europeans, which extends into present-day patterns of genetic variation in Europe. Although the genetic impact of these migrations from the forest-steppe Pontic region into central Europe have previously been addressed in several studies, the contribution of mitochondrial lineages to the people associated with the Corded Ware culture in the eastern part of the North European Plain remains contentious. In this study, we present mitochondrial genomes from 23 Late Eneolithic and Bronze Age individuals, including representatives of the north-western Pontic region and the Corded Ware culture from the eastern part of the North European Plain. We identified, for the first time in ancient populations, the rare mitochondrial haplogroup X4 in two Bronze Age Catacomb culture-associated individuals. Genetic similarity analyses show close maternal genetic affinities between populations associated with both eastern and Baltic Corded Ware culture, and the Yamnaya horizon, in contrast to larger genetic differentiation between populations associated with western Corded Ware culture and the Yamnaya horizon. This indicates that females with steppe ancestry contributed to the formation of populations associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture while more local people, likely of Neolithic farmer ancestry, contributed to the formation of populations associated with western Corded Ware culture.


It seems unlikely that CWC was a rapid movement stemming from the nortern Caucasus and the Volga and even the lower Don appears unlikely at this point. It is the Dneper ( the region not the culture ) or the Budzhak culture

rms2
03-01-2021, 01:11 PM
I know I've mentioned this before, but something that piques my curiosity is the connection drawn in the recent Linderholm et al paper, "Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from southeastern Poland", between those eight CWC R1b guys buried in catacomb/niche graves in SE Poland and the Catacombnaya culture (CC) from the NW Black Sea Coast and up the Prut/Dniester interfluve.

They don't directly offer proof about the origin of Corded Ware, because they're too late for that (c. 2500 BC), but they are really interesting for R1b-L51, because they could indicate where else R1b-L51 might be found, i.e., in CC on the NW Black Sea coast and among CC burials in the Prut/Dniester interfluve.

I've even been thinking of starting a separate thread on it, since this one is so long already. Maybe I will. We need an L51 subforum.

jdean
03-01-2021, 01:27 PM
I'll shut up if you will. The papers will be out some day, and one or both of us may be proven right about some of this. I hope one or both of us will be alive to enjoy that.

As do I !!!!

CopperAxe
03-01-2021, 04:24 PM
This study is already well known but it is worth remembering in order to understand the source population of eastern and baltic corded ware. The study gives the fundamental proof that steppe people ended up in the north just like they were in the steppe. They did not marry out. Since Fatyanovo, Polish CWC have on average nearly 30% EEF ancestry we need a source population in the Yamnaya horizon that has similar proportions of european farmer dna. As I pointed out exogamy was more an affair of the western CW starting from Germany and vicinity.
Implications: Yamnaya is defined as EBA steppe culture but it is now clear that it contained also a MLBA steppe like population. Even tough I6561 has been redated a population very similar to him existed inside the Yamnaya horizon.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29914-5

Abstract
From around 4,000 to 2,000 BC the forest-steppe north-western Pontic region was occupied by people who shared a nomadic lifestyle, pastoral economy and barrow burial rituals. It has been shown that these groups, especially those associated with the Yamnaya culture, played an important role in shaping the gene pool of Bronze Age Europeans, which extends into present-day patterns of genetic variation in Europe. Although the genetic impact of these migrations from the forest-steppe Pontic region into central Europe have previously been addressed in several studies, the contribution of mitochondrial lineages to the people associated with the Corded Ware culture in the eastern part of the North European Plain remains contentious. In this study, we present mitochondrial genomes from 23 Late Eneolithic and Bronze Age individuals, including representatives of the north-western Pontic region and the Corded Ware culture from the eastern part of the North European Plain. We identified, for the first time in ancient populations, the rare mitochondrial haplogroup X4 in two Bronze Age Catacomb culture-associated individuals. Genetic similarity analyses show close maternal genetic affinities between populations associated with both eastern and Baltic Corded Ware culture, and the Yamnaya horizon, in contrast to larger genetic differentiation between populations associated with western Corded Ware culture and the Yamnaya horizon. This indicates that females with steppe ancestry contributed to the formation of populations associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture while more local people, likely of Neolithic farmer ancestry, contributed to the formation of populations associated with western Corded Ware culture.


It seems unlikely that CWC was a rapid movement stemming from the nortern Caucasus and the Volga and even the lower Don appears unlikely at this point. It is the Dneper ( the region not the culture ) or the Budzhak culture

When you look at the Fatyanovo samples one by one, there is quite a bit of variety in EEF admixture.

This indicates that the mixing was relatively recent and had not resulted in a stable genetic population yet like Sintashta, Andronovo or Srubnaya were the EEF ancestry had stabilized to a percentage relatively consistent across the board.

Those Fatyanovo samples are also considerably younger than the early CWC samples in the Baltic.

It is likely that the CWC horizon came from steppe pastoralists in close proximity to the agriculturalists, but that alone doesn't mean that the majority of the population were already steppe_mlba like.

altvred
03-01-2021, 06:04 PM
When you look at the Fatyanovo samples one by one, there is quite a bit of variety in EEF admixture.

This indicates that the mixing was relatively recent and had not resulted in a stable genetic population yet like Sintashta, Andronovo or Srubnaya were the EEF ancestry had stabilized to a percentage relatively consistent across the board.

Those Fatyanovo samples are also considerably younger than the early CWC samples in the Baltic.

It is likely that the CWC horizon came from steppe pastoralists in close proximity to the agriculturalists, but that alone doesn't mean that the majority of the population were already steppe_mlba like.

The majority of the Fatyanovo samples that scored over 30% GAC ancestry have low genomic coverage; same deal with the 97% Steppe outliers like GOL001, poor coverage.

Gotta keep that in mind when we make inferences on the proportions of EEF/Steppe ancestry in Fatyanovo.


https://i.imgur.com/8ptf8xr.png
https://i.imgur.com/QU7y58k.png

rms2
03-01-2021, 11:11 PM
I know I've mentioned this before, but something that piques my curiosity is the connection drawn in the recent Linderholm et al paper, "Corded Ware cultural complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis from southeastern Poland", between those eight CWC R1b guys buried in catacomb/niche graves in SE Poland and the Catacombnaya culture (CC) from the NW Black Sea Coast and up the Prut/Dniester interfluve.

They don't directly offer proof about the origin of Corded Ware, because they're too late for that (c. 2500 BC), but they are really interesting for R1b-L51, because they could indicate where else R1b-L51 might be found, i.e., in CC on the NW Black Sea coast and among CC burials in the Prut/Dniester interfluve.

I've even been thinking of starting a separate thread on it, since this one is so long already. Maybe I will. We need an L51 subforum.

So much for that!

Who would have imagined that topic would be controversial?

Oh, well.

davit
03-01-2021, 11:51 PM
I wouldn't put much stock in that Volosovo R-L51 being genuine until some data get published.

Postmortem aDNA damage can cause C->T and G->A substitutions (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685887/); the latter would explain the false positive call for L51.

The haplogroup assignment might also result from reference bias if the coverage is bad enough.

Is the Afanasievo L51 a safe call?

jdean
03-02-2021, 12:15 AM
Is the Afanasievo L51 a safe call?

That sample was L52, been looked at by lots of people including FTDNA

razyn
03-02-2021, 03:21 PM
Here's an old post about then-new (2015) "Bell Beaker" discoveries in Suprasl, Poland -- a Bialystok suburb, a little farther north than the "Corded Ware" ones we've been discussing. And the thread was later shut down, and in 2015 Corded Ware was still R1a, and Jean has died. But it's an interesting discussion, for its era (less than six years ago). https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=102279&viewfull=1#post102279

I was steered to it because my Academia notifications today referred me to the book, and the chapter by Przemysław Makarowicz, then being discussed by Golden Hind and others: https://www.academia.edu/37438169/Personal_Identity_and_Social_Structure_of_Bell_Bea kers_the_Upper_Basins_of_the_Oder_and_Vistula_Rive rs_in_P_Prieto_Martinez_and_L_Salanova_eds_The_Bel l_Beaker_Transition_in_Europe_Mobility_and_local_e volution_during_the_3rd_millennium_BC_Oxford_2015_ 15_27_Oxbow_books?email_work_card=abstract-read-more

It's not precisely Malopolska, but it's still in that interesting vicinity where present-day Poland, Belarus and Ukraine meet. (I still sort of see it as Greater Pinsk. But don't mind me.)

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2021, 01:01 AM
Just noticed something. Anybody else notice the relevance of forum rule 6.6 as it relates to this thread? I can't say any more or I will be in violation of forum rule 6.6
Just a PSA that things may be quieter than normal in this thread for a period.

R.Rocca
03-03-2021, 01:15 AM
A little Bell Beaker tangent in this Corded Ware thread.

I thought this was cool: My y-dna line U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 has been found in a Czech Bell Beaker setting in the vicinity of Prague ~2300 BC.
Found this a few days ago when I was going through the

The Eastern Bell Beaker group, Bohemian (https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ.)Province may have been my ancient y-dna peeps :)

Back to your L51 Corded Ware discussion.

Where's the data?

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2021, 01:20 AM
Where's the data?
Direct link
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno

Or go to

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

Scroll down to
Description .anno
and click that 3.8Mb 1240k "link"

Specific line item for my U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 branch was
line item 206

206 I7202 I7202 Grave 94 petrous 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron Context: Archaeological period 4250 289 2800-1800 BCE Czech_EBA Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví Czech Republic 50.0504153 14.3667267 1240K 1 0.861185 547724 .. M Czech Republic, Prague 5, Jinonice Family C (2 members) (I7202-I15824 have a 2d or 3d relationship) R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c1b2a 110 U5a1a2b .. .. [0.986,0.998] 0.136 0.439 1045 0.00824 2.328662443 [0.001,0.015] -0.015 0.009 None [0,0.003] ds.half S7202.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (extraction.negative.flag)

On ISOGG version 2020, this sample (R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c1b2a) is on Z150,Z12222>L654>S42 branch, which is a brother branch to my Z150,Z12222>FGC12378, and is the equivalent to

Yfull.com Z150, Z12222>Y30459>S42
Ytree.net Z150,Z12222>BY1701>BY1542>A6296
On FTDNA's tree, I don't see this branch below Z150,Z12222

I checked the ISOGG version used by this database.

Updated in this release:
• Improvements in the date column, including calibrations updated to IntCal20/SHCal20,
• Y haplogroup calls have been updated to use the YFull tree and off-target reads, given in two fields (i) Y haplogroup in terminal mutation notation, (ii) Y haplogroup in ISOGG v15.73 notation,

Version: 15.73, is the latest/same version found here
https://isogg.org/tree/index.html

For the rest of you, sorry for the temporary U152 tangent. I'll take this to PM if Rocca has any more questions.

Webb
03-03-2021, 01:57 PM
A follow up question to my first question on the U152 thread, what do you use to open a .anno file? Thanks.

MitchellSince1893
03-03-2021, 02:08 PM
A follow up question to my first question on the U152 thread, what do you use to open a .anno file? Thanks.
I haven’t found a good solution for that. It can be viewed in notepad or excel but it’s a mess. Excel was a little more manageable. Just realize that each sample starts with a number., starting with 1. Do a search for control F to find all the
R1b1a1b1a1a2a aka DF27

altvred
03-03-2021, 03:19 PM
A follow up question to my first question on the U152 thread, what do you use to open a .anno file? Thanks.

If you're just interested in the Y hg assignment for a sample, the anno file has several useless columns that can take forever to load.
I've trimmed some of these columns in Excel and uploaded the file to Google Sheets. Hopefully, that will make searching for the Y haplogroups a bit easier.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GIi34RggmPnLTGv-7eD5iRvJOVx-irZ0ranoijIwGQA/edit?usp=sharing

TigerMW
03-03-2021, 03:20 PM
I haven’t found a good solution for that. It can be viewed in notepad or excel but it’s a mess. Excel was a little more manageable. Just realize that each sample starts with a number., starting with 1. Do a search for control F to find all the
R1b1a1b1a1a2a aka DF27
I do the Excel but end up hiding some columns, resizing some, adding a short (SNP) name bread crumb trail type label column, sorting by age descending, adding column heading autofiltering and then selecting for just R1b.
I know that's not for every one, but I think I will automate this and create both an Excel and .PDF form that I'll link to from the R1b project - a lay person's version although even that is questionable.
By the way, there's other good stuff for people who join that project. It's like a elite reward winners club. (There! - my advertisement, LOL)

Webb
03-03-2021, 08:16 PM
Direct link
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno

Or go to

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

Scroll down to
Description .anno
and click that 3.8Mb 1240k "link"

Specific line item for my U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 branch was
line item 206


On ISOGG version 2020, this sample (R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c1b2a) is on Z150,Z12222>L654>S42 branch, which is a brother branch to my Z150,Z12222>FGC12378, and is the equivalent to

Yfull.com Z150, Z12222>Y30459>S42
Ytree.net Z150,Z12222>BY1701>BY1542>A6296
On FTDNA's tree, I don't see this branch below Z150,Z12222

I checked the ISOGG version used by this database.


Version: 15.73, is the latest/same version found here
https://isogg.org/tree/index.html

For the rest of you, sorry for the temporary U152 tangent. I'll take this to PM if Rocca has any more questions.

How trustworthy are the Ydna calls in these files? I ask because I have found some contradictory calls between this .anno file and previous calls made when the papers first came out. An example is sample:

MX254, 2250-1650 BCE, Singen, Southern Germany. This sample was originally called as R-L2, but according to this file, this sample is DF27, or R1b1a1b1a1a2a. Thanks.

TigerMW
03-03-2021, 11:17 PM
How trustworthy are the Ydna calls in these files? I ask because I have found some contradictory calls between this .anno file and previous calls made when the papers first came out. An example is sample:

MX254, 2250-1650 BCE, Singen, Southern Germany. This sample was originally called as R-L2, but according to this file, this sample is DF27, or R1b1a1b1a1a2a. Thanks.

The Reich's Allen Ancient DNA Resource is intended to be the culmination of the latest and best interpretations of the test results. From my perspective it is best we've got and something the scientists made a great leap forward because... they are sharing the data centrally and "peer reviewing" and updating it in real time.

This does not just include the variant calls but also updates to the radio-carbon dating, cultural settings, etc.

It will never be perfect but this is the right thing for them to do. I guess its the greatest thing since sliced bread!

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2021, 12:35 AM
How trustworthy are the Ydna calls in these files? I ask because I have found some contradictory calls between this .anno file and previous calls made when the papers first came out. An example is sample:

MX254, 2250-1650 BCE, Singen, Southern Germany. This sample was originally called as R-L2, but according to this file, this sample is DF27, or R1b1a1b1a1a2a. Thanks.
I have no idea as to the reliability of these calls. Rocca, generalissimo and other big brains may be able to facilitate.

Edit: I see Tiger already addressed above my post

Webb
03-04-2021, 02:38 AM
There are three other samples that are even more interesting than this sample, and may be pertinent to this thread.

Entry: 15062 Hugo 180SK1. 2457-2209BCE. Augsburg, Germany. DF27

Entry: 1381. Rise560. 2500-2200BCE. Augsburg, Germany. L21>Z16343

Entry: 5645. Rise926. 2500-2000BCE. Irlbach LKR. L238

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2021, 03:45 AM
Here’s an interesting one
P312 in Sicily ~2674 BC +/- 198 years

I11443 BU32 2872-2476 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)
Italy_Sicily_EBA_o2
R1b1a1b1a1a2

The Italian Refugium lives!:behindsofa: Or is it Island hopping from the Black Sea to French Riviera?

Garimund
03-04-2021, 08:17 AM
Here’s an interesting one
P312 in Sicily ~2674 BC +/- 198 years

I11443 BU32 2872-2476 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)
Italy_Sicily_EBA_o2
R1b1a1b1a1a2

The Italian Refugium lives!:behindsofa: Or is it Island hopping from the Black Sea to French Rivera?

That’s interesting. How would these guys compare with the oldest P312’s we have so far?

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2021, 01:45 PM
Other oldest P312 I’m aware of is dated 2572-2512 in Bavaria.

Dewsloth
03-04-2021, 05:43 PM
The Reich's Allen Ancient DNA Resource is intended to be the culmination of the latest and best interpretations of the test results. From my perspective it is best we've got and something the scientists made a great leap forward because... they are sharing the data centrally and "peer reviewing" and updating it in real time.

This does not just include the variant calls but also updates to the radio-carbon dating, cultural settings, etc.

It will never be perfect but this is the right thing for them to do. I guess its the greatest thing since sliced bread!


There are three other samples that are even more interesting than this sample, and may be pertinent to this thread.

Entry: 15062 Hugo 180SK1. 2457-2209BCE. Augsburg, Germany. DF27

Entry: 1381. Rise560. 2500-2200BCE. Augsburg, Germany. L21>Z16343

Entry: 5645. Rise926. 2500-2000BCE. Irlbach LKR. L238

^^ TigerMW, that bottom L238 one can go as another MDKA in your Descendant Tree(s)

Still odd that the oldest P312s are members of "younger" subclades.

Webb
03-04-2021, 06:15 PM
^^ TigerMW, that bottom L238 one can go as another MDKA in your Descendant Tree(s)

Still odd that the oldest P312s are members of "younger" subclades.

This is one of the reasons for my asking about the reliability of the calls at the David Reich Lab. As far as age goes, Ytree has L238 listed as being formed around 1500BCE, whereas Yfull has it being formed at 2500BCE, which is in line with the rest of the snps just below P312. But this sample was from very far South Western Germany, close to Austria on the southern side of the Danube, and it is L238!!!! Very interesting. It actually takes us right back to Mike's Mediterranean Route many posts back when he was playing Devil's Advocate. At the very least it could be used to support the Danube River route of entry by our Steppe Guys.

razyn
03-04-2021, 07:52 PM
At the very least it could be used to support the Danube River route of entry by our Steppe Guys.

Mike was just being silly, wasn't he? Sometimes he listens to the wrong voices in his head, especially from Facebook. Anyway, for there to be a Mediterranean Route there needs to be an L51 population somewhere up that stream. (Not just Z2103.) The north-of-the-Carpathians route to SGC-land seems a lot better supported than the Danube, autosomally; and in YDNA, specifically by the Malopolska guys rms2 has from Linderholm et al (more or less the right place, only they are a bit late to the party).

Webb
03-04-2021, 08:13 PM
Mike was just being silly, wasn't he? Sometimes he listens to the wrong voices in his head, especially from Facebook. Anyway, for there to be a Mediterranean Route there needs to be an L51 population somewhere up that stream. (Not just Z2103.) The north-of-the-Carpathians route to SGC-land seems a lot better supported than the Danube, autosomally; and in YDNA, specifically by the Malopolska guys rms2 has from Linderholm et al (more or less the right place, only they are a bit late to the party).

I agree and favor the north-of-the Carpathians route, myself. But if the call of L238 for sample Rise926 is correct, one could use it as a counter to this route. By the way look for my post in the DF27 aDna thread. I found two more strange calls in the Reich Lab's AADR dataset.

Dewsloth
03-04-2021, 08:15 PM
I agree and favor the north-of-the Carpathians route, myself. But if the call of L238 for sample Rise926 is correct, one could use it as a counter to this route. By the way look for my post in the DF27 aDna thread. I found two more strange calls in the Reich Lab's AADR dataset.

It would be more (though not irrefutably) persuasive if the L238 guy was 500+ years older and we were sure he was L238.

What do we know about that sample? He's also known as I5661, right?
https://amtdb.org/records/I5661

Found more:

He's an outlier in that Bavarian cemetery:


Ÿ I5661/RISE926, grave 16: 2500–2000 BCE. Left-sided crouched burial;
anthropologically adult man.


Chronologically, all graves belong to the later, so-called Begleitkeramik (accompanying
pottery) -phases A2b, B1 and B2 of the southern German Bell Beaker chronology94,
with graves nos. 5 and 10 of the central group likely being the founding graves (phase
A2b). There is however not a single decorated Bell Beaker in this cemetery. The four
graves of the eastern grave group are the latest interred, also representing the latest Bell
Beaker stage (phase B2) in Bavaria. Two of them, numbers 6 and 11, and grave 16 of
the western group, are isotopically determined as outliers93.

Webb
03-04-2021, 08:20 PM
It would be more (though not irrefutably) persuasive if the L238 guy was 500+ years older.

I think that even with the date of this sample, there was still plenty of time for our guys to come off the steppe, to the Baltic, then along the Scandinavian Sea, go back up the Rhine, cross over to the headwaters of the Danube, then follow the Danube downstream. This L238 sample is pretty strange.

Dewsloth
03-04-2021, 08:35 PM
Direct link
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno

Or go to

https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data

Scroll down to
Description .anno
and click that 3.8Mb 1240k "link"

Specific line item for my U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 branch was
line item 206

206 I7202 I7202 Grave 94 petrous 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron Context: Archaeological period 4250 289 2800-1800 BCE Czech_EBA Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví Czech Republic 50.0504153 14.3667267 1240K 1 0.861185 547724 .. M Czech Republic, Prague 5, Jinonice Family C (2 members) (I7202-I15824 have a 2d or 3d relationship) R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c1b2a 110 U5a1a2b .. .. [0.986,0.998] 0.136 0.439 1045 0.00824 2.328662443 [0.001,0.015] -0.015 0.009 None [0,0.003] ds.half S7202.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (extraction.negative.flag)


On ISOGG version 2020, this sample (R1b1a1b1a1a2b1c1b2a) is on Z150,Z12222>L654>S42 branch, which is a brother branch to my Z150,Z12222>FGC12378, and is the equivalent to

Yfull.com Z150, Z12222>Y30459>S42
Ytree.net Z150,Z12222>BY1701>BY1542>A6296
On FTDNA's tree, I don't see this branch below Z150,Z12222

I checked the ISOGG version used by this database.


Version: 15.73, is the latest/same version found here
https://isogg.org/tree/index.html

For the rest of you, sorry for the temporary U152 tangent. I'll take this to PM if Rocca has any more questions.

There is a U106 in the same group with the same [wide] date range:

200 I7196 I7196 PRAJIN59 petrous 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron Context: Archaeological period 4250 289 2800-1800 BCE Czech_EBA Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvÃ* Czech Republic 50.0504153 14.3667267 1240K 1 2.323764 720414 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) R1b1a1b1a1a1c1a1 289 K1a+195 .. .. [0.995,1.000] 0.115 0.429 3435 0.003513 2.574584534 [0.001,0.006] 0.004 0.008 None [0,0.02] ds.half S7196.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (extraction.negative.flag)

MitchellSince1893
03-04-2021, 10:15 PM
There is a U106 in the same group with the same [wide] date range:

200 I7196 I7196 PRAJIN59 petrous 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron Context: Archaeological period 4250 289 2800-1800 BCE Czech_EBA Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvÃ* Czech Republic 50.0504153 14.3667267 1240K 1 2.323764 720414 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) R1b1a1b1a1a1c1a1 289 K1a+195 .. .. [0.995,1.000] 0.115 0.429 3435 0.003513 2.574584534 [0.001,0.006] 0.004 0.008 None [0,0.02] ds.half S7196.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (extraction.negative.flag)
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if U106 and U152 were hanging out together 4000 years ago.

etrusco
03-05-2021, 08:17 AM
Here’s an interesting one
P312 in Sicily ~2674 BC +/- 198 years

I11443 BU32 2872-2476 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)
Italy_Sicily_EBA_o2
R1b1a1b1a1a2

The Italian Refugium lives!:behindsofa: Or is it Island hopping from the Black Sea to French Riviera?

Is it a brand new sample? I know of a sicilian Bell Beaker R1b P312 but he was dated at 2400-2200 BC IIRC.
Any archeological information about this older sample?

razyn
03-05-2021, 01:59 PM
There is a new slide talk by David Reich, linked and being discussed here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=755094&viewfull=1#post755094

Some new aDNA-generated data about genetic shifts at the dawn of Corded Ware, in the broader context of "Gimbutas was right" about some stuff. I nabbed part of the slide at 47:26. But I have to be somewhere else, for the next few hours.
43705

MitchellSince1893
03-05-2021, 02:08 PM
Is it a brand new sample? I know of a sicilian Bell Beaker R1b P312 but he was dated at 2400-2200 BC IIRC.
Any archeological information about this older sample?

Found him in the .anno link. That’s all I know

Finn
03-05-2021, 02:19 PM
I think that even with the date of this sample, there was still plenty of time for our guys to come off the steppe, to the Baltic, then along the Scandinavian Sea, go back up the Rhine, cross over to the headwaters of the Danube, then follow the Danube downstream. This L238 sample is pretty strange.

Yes Chinese on a trip through Europe ROFLOL

Webb
03-05-2021, 04:42 PM
Yes Chinese on a trip through Europe ROFLOL

I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

MitchellSince1893
03-05-2021, 04:51 PM
A little Bell Beaker tangent in this Corded Ware thread.

I thought this was cool: My y-dna line U152>L2>Z49>Z142>Z150,Z12222 has been found in a Czech Bell Beaker setting in the vicinity of Prague ~2300 BC.
Found this a few days ago when I was going through the

The Eastern Bell Beaker group, Bohemian (https://youtu.be/fJ9rUzIMcZQ.)Province may have been my ancient y-dna peeps :)
https://indo-european.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/east-bell-beaker-group-expansion.jpg

Back to your L51 Corded Ware discussion.
Need to make a possible correction. I saw on Eurogenes where this site/sample was characterized as Unetice, not Czech Bell Beaker.

Posted by archi 17 jun 2020


Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 94 [I7202] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a2

alan
03-05-2021, 07:47 PM
Other oldest P312 I’m aware of is dated 2572-2512 in Bavaria.

One thing that needs checked is indicators for fresh water reservoir effect which can artificially over age a radiocarbon date if fresh water fish was a dietary component. I say that because studies of bone isotopes discovered the (unusual for the culture) presence of a significant freshwater fish component in the diet of Bavarian bell beaker along the Danube. For that reason I am wondering if that date might actually be a couple of centuries older than it really was. So, unless that issue has been specifically tested for, I would be wary of unusually early beaker dates from Bavaria.

Finn
03-05-2021, 08:31 PM
I'm not even sure what you are talking about.

Simply said: that was quite criss-cross through Europe......


I think that even with the date of this sample, there was still plenty of time for our guys to come off the steppe, to the Baltic, then along the Scandinavian Sea, go back up the Rhine, cross over to the headwaters of the Danube, then follow the Danube downstream. This L238 sample is pretty strange.

Webb
03-05-2021, 08:54 PM
Yes Chinese on a trip through Europe ROFLOL

I still don't know what you are talking about?

Webb
03-05-2021, 08:55 PM
Simply said: that was quite criss-cross through Europe......

This isn't really that much of a criss cross, as you put it, when we have Q stretching from Eurasia all the way through to the Americas?

MitchellSince1893
03-05-2021, 09:26 PM
One thing that needs checked is indicators for fresh water reservoir effect which can artificially over age a radiocarbon date if fresh water fish was a dietary component. I say that because studies of bone isotopes discovered the (unusual for the culture) presence of a significant freshwater fish component in the diet of Bavarian bell beaker along the Danube. For that reason I am wondering if that date might actually be a couple of centuries older than it really was. So, unless that issue has been specifically tested for, I would be wary of unusually early beaker dates from Bavaria.

From the study from which this sample (RISE563) came from
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature14507/MediaObjects/41586_2015_BFnature14507_MOESM138_ESM.pdf


Table 1. It should be noted that the calibrations have been made without taking possible marine reservoir effects into account. Judging from the 13C collagen values, this is likely to only affect one case, namely sample RISE61, from Kyndeløse in Denmark. It is a young man with a high marine signal, and his dating should likely be reduced by a couple of hundred years. Freshwater reservoir effects, as can be deduced from combined 13C and 15N values, are also of marginal importance in these data. The clearest exception could be three dates from Bulanovo in Russia, classified as Sintashta culture, which have raised 15N values

It appears the authors considered this and still consider RISE 563's dates valid.

Finn
03-05-2021, 09:31 PM
This isn't really that much of a criss cross, as you put it, when we have Q stretching from Eurasia all the way through to the Americas?

Of course but this is really criss cross....which group carried it from the Baltics to Scandinavia then pops up at the Rhine then goes to the Danube?

Webb
03-05-2021, 09:41 PM
Of course but this is really criss cross....which group carried it from the Baltics to Scandinavia then pops up at the Rhine then goes to the Danube? It's not criss cross, really, it is a circular counter clockwise movement.

Finn
03-05-2021, 09:46 PM
It's not criss cross, really, it is a circular counter clockwise movement.

Clockwise-counterclockwise still leaves the question open which group undertook this "quest"....

razyn
03-05-2021, 10:03 PM
Also btw
from the Baltics to Scandinavia is just a boat trip, same as the one to the Rhine, only a whole lot shorter.

Dewsloth
03-05-2021, 10:24 PM
Of course but this is really criss cross....which group carried it from the Baltics to Scandinavia then pops up at the Rhine then goes to the Danube?

This happened repeatedly later with Germanic tribes, why not before? Maybe the waterways and topography (and trade routes?) lend themselves to these "roads"
Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Franks counterclockwise; Visigoths and Langobards clockwise. Vandals started clockwise, then switched to counter into N. Africa. Suebi just went diagonal to the SW :lol:

MitchellSince1893
03-06-2021, 12:06 AM
Clockwise-counterclockwise still leaves the question open which group undertook this "quest"....

This one
https://2vlleeuvh5k41avd21jh5qw1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Complex-Formula.jpg

GoldenHind
03-06-2021, 12:48 AM
This one
https://2vlleeuvh5k41avd21jh5qw1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Complex-Formula.jpg

I spotted an error in the upper right hand corner.

MitchellSince1893
03-06-2021, 01:40 AM
I spotted an error in the upper right hand corner.

Yeah, what we’re they thinking? It’s mA cubed, not squared! Everybody knows that.

razyn
03-06-2021, 05:47 AM
Sometimes I feel that the comments here get a bit squirrely. But in this case, I'm reminded more of otters... in a sci-fi story by Theodore Sturgeon that (I swear) I read when it was published, in 1960 -- mainly because my older brother had a subscription to the magazine. It's a little dated, but maybe worth a read -- pp. 29-35. Pretty good shaggy-dog type ending. https://archive.org/details/Fantasy_Science_Fiction_v018n03_1960-03_PDF/page/n27/mode/2up?view=theater

Finn
03-06-2021, 07:34 AM
This one
https://2vlleeuvh5k41avd21jh5qw1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Complex-Formula.jpg

EUREKA!:biggrin1:B):beerchug:

Finn
03-06-2021, 07:44 AM
Also btw is just a boat trip, same as the one to the Rhine, only a whole lot shorter.

Yes in nowadays perception it's just a boat trip!

But the third millennium BC, other circumstances other tools etc.

In the case of CW (Single Grave), roots in Eastern Europe (incl Steppe), bridgehead in the Central East Europe (Poland/Czech/ Eastern Germany "Mittelelbe-Saale") than spread to NW Europe, Low Countries/ NW Germany/Denmark/Southern Scandinavia) all make sense to me....

But:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG6fayQBm9w
guess not...

Radboud
03-06-2021, 12:34 PM
There is a U106 in the same group with the same [wide] date range:

200 I7196 I7196 PRAJIN59 petrous 2018 OlaldeNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron Context: Archaeological period 4250 289 2800-1800 BCE Czech_EBA Prague 5, Jinonice, ZahradnictvÃ* Czech Republic 50.0504153 14.3667267 1240K 1 2.323764 720414 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) R1b1a1b1a1a1c1a1 289 K1a+195 .. .. [0.995,1.000] 0.115 0.429 3435 0.003513 2.574584534 [0.001,0.006] 0.004 0.008 None [0,0.02] ds.half S7196.E1.L1 QUESTIONABLE (extraction.negative.flag)

2800-1800 BCE? Isn't this sample associated with Untice culture? The date range was around 2200–1700 BC according to this huge thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC). Too bad there was no carbon dating for this sample.

I7196 belongs to DF98>S1911(1 read)>S1894(1 read). I10895,Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE (Visigoth/Germanic?), also belongs to DF98>S1911 and the British_Roman gladiator (6DRIF-3) is also atleast DF98>S1911. It's possible that some subclades of U106 like Z156(or atleast some subclades of Z156 like S1911) moved to Central Europe from the north and joined forces with U152 etc. It won't suprise me if certain subclades of U106 like Z156+ will be present in Central European Bell Beakers sooner or later.

MitchellSince1893
03-06-2021, 05:47 PM
2800-1800 BCE? Isn't this sample associated with Untice culture? The date range was around 2200–1700 BC according to this huge thread (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13555-R1b-U106-from-%DAn%26%23283%3Btice-Culture-2200%961700-BC). Too bad there was no carbon dating for this sample.

I7196 belongs to DF98>S1911(1 read)>S1894(1 read). I10895,Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE (Visigoth/Germanic?), also belongs to DF98>S1911 and the British_Roman gladiator (6DRIF-3) is also atleast DF98>S1911. It's possible that some subclades of U106 like Z156(or atleast some subclades of Z156 like S1911) moved to Central Europe from the north and joined forces with U152 etc. It won't suprise me if certain subclades of U106 like Z156+ will be present in Central European Bell Beakers sooner or later.
Yeah, Unetice instead of Czech Bell Beaker. I think the fact that they were in the “The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe” 2018 Olalde paper caused me to assume they were Czech Bell Beaker when in fact they were Czech Unetice. My bad.

Dewsloth
03-06-2021, 06:56 PM
Yes in nowadays perception it's just a boat trip!

But the third millennium BC, other circumstances other tools etc.

In the case of CW (Single Grave), roots in Eastern Europe (incl Steppe), bridgehead in the Central East Europe (Poland/Czech/ Eastern Germany "Mittelelbe-Saale") than spread to NW Europe, Low Countries/ NW Germany/Denmark/Southern Scandinavia) all make sense to me....

But:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oG6fayQBm9w
guess not...

But we know Beakers made this trip, too. Iirc it was “The Companion” whose isotopes showed “Swiss finishing school” despite his burial near [his dad? at] Stonehenge. Just a trip down/up the Rhine, watch out for die Lorelei;)

Finn
03-06-2021, 08:02 PM
But we know Beakers made this trip, too. Iirc it was “The Companion” whose isotopes showed “Swiss finishing school” despite his burial near [his dad? at] Stonehenge. Just a trip down/up the Rhine, watch out for die Lorelei;)

Yes of course but that was a relative short jump across the North Sea.

Without clear traces these 'wild' theories are kind of hypothetical and to me more based on a modern projection....

MitchellSince1893
03-06-2021, 08:57 PM
There is a new slide talk by David Reich, linked and being discussed here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(DISCUSSION-ONLY)&p=755094&viewfull=1#post755094

Some new aDNA-generated data about genetic shifts at the dawn of Corded Ware, in the broader context of "Gimbutas was right" about some stuff. I nabbed part of the slide at 47:26. But I have to be somewhere else, for the next few hours.
43705

At 47:13 Reich says
“You can also use this method to identify who the Yamnaya mixed with to form groups like the Corded Ware...where you see a lighting up and it’s this group called Globular Amphora”

He highlights in green the Polish GAC row at the upper left.

Also highlighted, but not specially mentioned is the Polish GAC column, 3rd from right, at the middle right.
Do Yamnaya + Polish GAC = the birth of Corded Ware according to Reich? It appears so.

https://pin.it/2as3buu

razyn
03-06-2021, 10:18 PM
He highlights in green the Polish GAC row at the upper left.


I nabbed that and posted it here (well, except the eight columns farthest to the right -- IIRC that would have included Reich's picture, inset at upper right) in post #1382. He only left it on screen for about half a second, with the GAC caption included.

R.Rocca
03-07-2021, 02:12 AM
Here’s an interesting one
P312 in Sicily ~2674 BC +/- 198 years

I11443 BU32 2872-2476 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)
Italy_Sicily_EBA_o2
R1b1a1b1a1a2

The Italian Refugium lives!:behindsofa: Or is it Island hopping from the Black Sea to French Riviera?

The I11443 sample's date was put at something much younger in its original published paper. From Fernandes et al. 2020:

"BU32, grave 3032 (Sicily_EBA11443, I11443). Petrous bone, C14 dated to 2279-2102 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)."

TigerMW
03-07-2021, 02:38 AM
The I11443 sample's date was put at something much younger in its original published paper. From Fernandes et al. 2020:

"BU32, grave 3032 (Sicily_EBA11443, I11443). Petrous bone, C14 dated to 2279-2102 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)."
Richard R, is there a way to see or inquire about the “transaction history” on these samples. Who and how was it decided to change the initial date estimates? Normally, I expect processes to improve so I would expect the latest transaction updates to be more correct. However, that assumes they have a quality (peer) review process. I don’t know the Reich lab data management processes. David Reich appears to be a great scientist but that does not mean he is a good manager. He should be. Do you think the Reich lab processes are lacking?

R.Rocca
03-07-2021, 03:19 AM
Richard R, is there a way to see or inquire about the “transaction history” on these samples. Who and how was it decided to change the initial date estimates? Normally, I expect processes to improve so I would expect the latest transaction updates to be more correct. However, that assumes they have a quality (peer) review process. I don’t know the Reich lab data management processes. David Reich appears to be a great scientist but that does not mean he is a good manager. He should be. Do you think the Reich lab processes are lacking?

Fernandes et al. 2020 is the only paper where that sample was published and I would put a lot more weight on it as it was a paper on Sicily. If the older date range were correct it would have been the biggest conclusion of the paper.

Michał
03-07-2021, 08:14 AM
He highlights in green the Polish GAC row at the upper left.

It's a pity he doesn't compare GAC with two major contenders, ie. with Tripolye and Funnel Beakers (not to mention he doesn't even try to compare between the Polish and Ukrainian GAC). Also, his diagram actually suggestes that the Polish CWC people are closer "23andMe/FamilyFinder cousins" to Maykop than to Polish GAC, so I wouldn't consider those results conclusive. We need a much better proof to definitely demonstrate that GAC was indeed the major donor of EEF in Early CWC.

jdean
03-07-2021, 11:43 AM
It's a pity he doesn't compare GAC with two major contenders, ie. with Tripolye and Funnel Beakers (not to mention he doesn't even try to compare between the Polish and Ukrainian GAC). Also, his diagram actually suggestes that the Polish CWC people are closer "23andMe/FamilyFinder cousins" to Maykop than to Polish GAC, so I wouldn't consider those results conclusive. We need a much better proof to definitely demonstrate that GAC was indeed the major donor of EEF in Early CWC.

With a lot of imagination !!!

Michał
03-07-2021, 02:00 PM
With a lot of imagination !!!
What do you mean by that? Isn't the signal for Maykop evidently stronger than that for Poland GAC (when looking at the Poland CordedWare column)?
Also, the signal for Russia Caucasus Yamna is surprisingly the strongest one (when compared to all remaining populations together with all other regional variants of Yamna, inclduding the Ukrainian one). Finally, how would you explain the results suggesting that the Polish Corded Ware people are more closely related to Afanasievo than to themselves?

MitchellSince1893
03-07-2021, 04:43 PM
Another interesting thing about Reich’s chart is Polish Corded Ware is the Corded Ware closest to the Yamnaya samples.

The Russian Caucasus Yamnaya sample is closest to 3 CW groups (Polish, German, Czech), but there’s only 1 sample so it may not be characteristic of a typical Caucasus Yamnaya.

Next closest Yamnaya to Polish CW are Moldovan & Ukrainian Yamnaya.

MitchellSince1893
03-07-2021, 05:32 PM
What do you mean by that? Isn't the signal for Maykop evidently stronger than that for Poland GAC (when looking at the Poland CordedWare column)?
Also, the signal for Russia Caucasus Yamna is surprisingly the strongest one (when compared to all remaining populations together with all other regional variants of Yamna, inclduding the Ukrainian one). Finally, how would you explain the results suggesting that the Polish Corded Ware people are more closely related to Afanasievo than to themselves?

Just saw your post. So yeah Russian Yamnaya and Maykop appear to have a genetic connection to CWC. That is interesting.

Quote from wiki on Maykop




The culture has been described as, at the very least, a "kurganized" local culture with strong ethnic and linguistic links to the descendants of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It has been linked to the Lower Mikhaylovka group and Kemi Oba culture, and more distantly, to the Globular Amphora and Corded Ware cultures, if only in an economic sense. Yet, according to Mallory,

Such a theory, it must be emphasized, is highly speculative and controversial although there is a recognition that this culture may be a product of at least two traditions: the local steppe tradition embraced in the Novosvobodna culture and foreign elements from south of the Caucasus which can be charted through importsin both regions.



Also interesting that this recent map in the “The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context”
Nordqvist & Heyd paper starts out in Maykop territory before making its way to SE Poland.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1rgM3Ia8t5E/X68skad65uI/AAAAAAAAJbE/-3WJJetcWgMEFThXeR0mLscHUoa4klaDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s948/Fatyanovo_Figure_11.jpg

davit
03-07-2021, 05:35 PM
Somebody mentioned their unpublished DNA indicated CWC and Bell Beaker came from Yamnaya. Did they find L51 and R1a in Yamnaya?

etrusco
03-07-2021, 05:42 PM
Somebody mentioned their unpublished DNA indicated CWC and Bell Beaker came from Yamnaya. Did they find L51 and R1a in Yamnaya?

There is a sample R1a in Kvalynsk ( first quarter of the 4th millennium). That is not very far in distance and in time from the Yamnaya Samara cluster. And obviously we have R1a samples in Mesolithic pontic steppe.

etrusco
03-07-2021, 06:13 PM
There is a sample R1a in Kvalynsk ( first quarter of the 4th millennium). That is not very far in distance and in time from the Yamnaya Samara cluster. And obviously we have R1a samples in Mesolithic pontic steppe.

I0433, Y-DNA R1a>M459(*?; xM198, xYP1301>YP1272, xYP1301>FT386000), mtDNA U5a1i, Khvalynsk II Grave 1, SVP HB 46 (ca. 4697-4539 calBCE). Age 30-35, positioned on his back with raised knees, with a copper ring and a copper bead. His R1a1 haplotype shows that this haplotype was present in the region, although it is not represented later in high-status Yamnaya graves.
* The sample has 8 derived, 1 ancestral (Y214, 1x T->A) Y-SNP calls for M459, and no calls for YP1301, so it could be pre-M459, M459*, or within the YP1301* branch.



It seems it is older than 4th millennium. IMHO it came to the Volga region from the Sredni Stog culture ( likely from the Kalmius/Don subgroup)

etrusco
03-07-2021, 06:16 PM
Just saw your post. So yeah Russian Yamnaya and Maykop appear to have a genetic connection to CWC. That is interesting.

Quote from wiki on Maykop



Also interesting that this recent map in the “The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context”
Nordqvist & Heyd paper starts out in Maykop territory before making its way to SE Poland.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1rgM3Ia8t5E/X68skad65uI/AAAAAAAAJbE/-3WJJetcWgMEFThXeR0mLscHUoa4klaDQCLcBGAsYHQ/s948/Fatyanovo_Figure_11.jpg

That arrows from the Maykop region are only indicative. Corded Ware is not from Maykop

MitchellSince1893
03-07-2021, 06:29 PM
I was thinking more along the lines of a Yamnaya like group that had some Maykop ancestry mixed in, might have headed West.
But is often the case, genetic similarities doesn’t always equal ancestry. I know this personally as I come out genetically similar to Dutch but have very little Dutch ancestry.

davit
03-11-2021, 12:33 PM
I0433, Y-DNA R1a>M459(*?; xM198, xYP1301>YP1272, xYP1301>FT386000), mtDNA U5a1i, Khvalynsk II Grave 1, SVP HB 46 (ca. 4697-4539 calBCE). Age 30-35, positioned on his back with raised knees, with a copper ring and a copper bead. His R1a1 haplotype shows that this haplotype was present in the region, although it is not represented later in high-status Yamnaya graves.
* The sample has 8 derived, 1 ancestral (Y214, 1x T->A) Y-SNP calls for M459, and no calls for YP1301, so it could be pre-M459, M459*, or within the YP1301* branch.



It seems it is older than 4th millennium. IMHO it came to the Volga region from the Sredni Stog culture ( likely from the Kalmius/Don subgroup)

Thanks. Interesting. L51 and R1a maybe in the SW and NW corners of Yamnaya? Either way must have been minority lineages.

Dewsloth
03-12-2021, 05:20 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by preferences. I absolutely agree "Autosomal DNA is just one of the pieces of the puzzle". If you are talking about the complaints related to PCA and ADMIXTURE then I ask - are there pitfalls?
Are they legitimate concerns in this case?


I agree the "hard evidence" (genetically) is clearly towards an L51 west with Corded Ware. However, there is plenty of contradictory evidence related to the spread of Bell Beaker so how P312 became prevalent in East/NW Bell Beakers has NOT been conclusively answered. I seek to ratchet up legitimate confidence in (assuming L151>P312 is truly a CWC seeding of E/NW BBC).

I tried to download the file you pointed to at
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html

Are these the right samples to consider Dutch Beakers compared to the closest CWC and the cline from Yamnaya?

Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4068
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4069
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4073
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4074
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4075
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I4076
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5748
Beaker_The_Netherlands:I5750
CWC_Germany:I0049
CWC_Germany:I0103
CWC_Germany:I0104
CWC_Germany:I0106
CWC_Germany:I1532
CWC_Germany:I1534
CWC_Germany:I1536
CWC_Germany:I1538
CWC_Germany:I1539
CWC_Germany:I1540
CWC_Germany:I1542
CWC_Germany:I1544
CWC_Germany:RISE434
CWC_Germany:RISE436
CWC_Germany:RISE446
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE240
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE546
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE547
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE548
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE550
Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE552
Yamnaya_Karagash:Yamnaya_Karagash
Yamnaya_Samara:I0231
Yamnaya_Samara:I0357
Yamnaya_Samara:I0370
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429
Yamnaya_Samara:I0438
Yamnaya_Samara:I0439
Yamnaya_Samara:I0441
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443
Yamnaya_Samara:I0444
Yamnaya_Ukraine:I2105
Yamnaya_Ukraine_o:I1917

Uhh, Holy Cow. Alex just identified I5748 as a DF19 :beerchug: B):horn:


Noord-Holland
aDNA: I5748
MDKA Birth: Netherlands
Bell Beaker, PRJEB23635. 2579-2211 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C). Noord-Holland, Oostwoud, De Tuithoorn Netherlands.
Tree Position
R-P312/S116 > DF19/S232 > Z302/S233 > Exact position not yet finalized. https://www.ytree.net/SNPinfoForPerson.php?personID=12062

First DF19 to be found dated to earlier than 200AD :biggrin1:

Dewsloth
03-12-2021, 07:37 PM
Noord-Holland
aDNA: I5748
MDKA Birth: Netherlands
Bell Beaker, PRJEB23635. 2579-2211 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C). Noord-Holland, Oostwoud, De Tuithoorn Netherlands.


^^^This is now one of the oldest known P312 "grandson" subclade samples of Beakers we have, and it's the one most north. More circumstantial evidence for the Single Grave>>Beaker folks.

Webb
03-12-2021, 07:50 PM
Noord-Holland
aDNA: I5748
MDKA Birth: Netherlands
Bell Beaker, PRJEB23635. 2579-2211 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C). Noord-Holland, Oostwoud, De Tuithoorn Netherlands.


^^^This is now one of the oldest known P312 "grandson" subclade samples of Beakers we have, and it's the one most north. More circumstantial evidence for the Single Grave>>Beaker folks.

This was one of the many samples that were called at P312* from the Olalde paper. This started a pretty good argument in the DF27 aDna thread about whether they were only able to get as far as P312* because of poor samples, or , in my opinion, stopped at P312*, because that was good enough. I really hope Alex is going to look at all the P312* samples as he found one was ZZ37 and now this sample is DF19. I hate to see samples that may be below P312 sitting, stuck and loosing the opportunity to get a really clear picture of P312 distribution. I am happy for you guys!!

Webb
03-12-2021, 07:58 PM
Noord-Holland
aDNA: I5748
MDKA Birth: Netherlands
Bell Beaker, PRJEB23635. 2579-2211 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C). Noord-Holland, Oostwoud, De Tuithoorn Netherlands.


^^^This is now one of the oldest known P312 "grandson" subclade samples of Beakers we have, and it's the one most north. More circumstantial evidence for the Single Grave>>Beaker folks.

I think most of us have speculated, even without the aDna samples, that DF19 was probably associated with Dutch Bell Beaker.

Dewsloth
03-12-2021, 08:01 PM
I think most of us have speculated, even without the aDna samples, that DF19 was probably associated with Dutch Bell Beaker.

True. I was afraid all the skeletons had dissolved in the acidic soils or deaminated into generic P312* ;)

Edit: Or Uncle U106 ate them all :lol:

TigerMW
03-13-2021, 12:44 AM
I think most of us have speculated, even without the aDna samples, that DF19 was probably associated with Dutch Bell Beaker.
Just had a crazy thought and since we are running out of new news genetically....

I am assuming P310>L151 occurred with SGC>Dutch/EastBBC simultaneously or just prior.

I have read that stone axes were still used in BBC but were replaced in the burials with the daggers and archery equipment. For this discussion point I am assuming that is true too.

Why would archery become more important? It’s not great for hand to hand combat so daggers and axes are still needed.

Archery would be more helpful in organized military situations where an initial attack was through the air or in the case of a raid (and run) which could include horses or boats too.

Maybe that’s why the E BBC was so successful.

Dewsloth
03-13-2021, 01:05 AM
Competence with archery requires practice and equipment maintenance/upkeep that the axes and daggers might not.

MitchellSince1893
03-13-2021, 02:06 AM
It may not have been for/just for military use. Archery enables hunting for food at longer/safer distances. Archery seems to have been common in steppe cultural environments.

m_etch
03-13-2021, 03:58 AM
Archery was probably invented by some guy who was always getting beaten in axe throwing competitions.

Dewsloth
03-16-2021, 04:49 PM
McDonald's method suffers greatly when there aren't a lot of samples to create an estimate. P312>DF19>Z302 is such an occurrence.

I don't know if he's updated it, but on his chart at http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/tree.html he had P312>DF19>Z302/DF87 as forming in 1100 AD, which is im-fricking-possible.

Z302 (he calls it by another member of the Z302 block, DF87) formed back in Beaker times, if not SGC/CW, just like DF19>DF88.
Meanwhile yfull has Z302/DF87 as formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 3900 ybp; and DF88 as formed 4500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybp

I posted that here, last month, and now Z302/DF87 burial I5748, the oldest of the Dutch "Beakers"/SGC who is literally the bottom level of the site, with the tumulus (and subsequent graves) built over him later, dates back ~4000 ybp :lol:
Clearly some of the estimates can be re-calculated, now that we have that sample. :)

TigerMW
03-16-2021, 06:41 PM
It may not have been for/just for military use. Archery enables hunting for food at longer/safer distances. Archery seems to have been common in steppe cultural environments.
Right, we know that archers could also have stone axes as well as axe people could have archery equipment. The uses could be varied.

So the question is, presuming the SGC CW to BBC East paternal lineages are the the same, why the switch over to archery equipment as a burial accompaniment? I don't think it was the wives although the son-in-laws might have learned something new. In any case, the BBC East group expanded voraciously and seemed to think archery was the big thing for the after-life. That sounds more like a military use to me.

JoeyP37
03-16-2021, 07:04 PM
If your meat source is wild, not having any domesticated animals for that, the introduction of archery is a big leap forward. Like going from wind to steam for ships, or getting radar to help you forecast the weather. I could see how the indigenous society of northern Europe really looking with favor towards this new introduction. Perhaps it is only coincidence that hunter-gatherer y lines survived better after the R1a/b invasion, though, in the northwest CWC and east Bell Beakers.

Dewsloth
03-16-2021, 07:10 PM
Right, we know that archers could also have stone axes as well as axe people could have archery equipment. The uses could be varied.

So the question is, presuming the SGC CW to BBC East paternal lineages are the the same, why the switch over to archery equipment as a burial accompaniment? I don't think it was the wives although the son-in-laws might have learned something new. In any case, the BBC East group expanded voraciously and seemed to think archery was the big thing for the after-life. That sounds more like a military use to me.

You probably already saw this from last year, but if not:

https://journals.openedition.org/pm/2167


Hunting and war cannot be opposed, as their practice is so ambivalent (Godelier 1982). Recent study on skeletal remains from Bohemia has pointed out that the people buried with stone bracers practiced regularly archery until to develop entheseal changes (on the joint between bones and ligaments; Ryan et al. 2018). This means that grave goods reflect well the activity of the deceased and do not result only of ideal or social construction of the afterlives by the mourners. However, Bell Beaker armed men do not appear to be hunters living by predation, as shown by the faunal remains, nor warriors in perpetual conflict. Based on the use-wears of some arrowheads, part of the archery equipment seems to have been used rarely and kept as items of display. Thus, archery equipment and the way it is deposited in graves indicate strategies of social prestige rather than the economic activity of the deceased. These statuses of warriors/hunters appear to be multiple, depending on the wealth of individuals but also the nature of the grave goods. Although all the objects studied here are related to archery, individual selection has been observed. All the archery objects can be associated with each other but there are preferential sets. Daggers are more commonly found with bracers, while bow-shaped pendants are more frequently associated with arrowheads (tab. 9). Bracers and arrowheads - the two most symbolic archery objects and the most frequent in burials - are not linked in graves: only one fifth of the bracers and arrowheads are placed together (fig. 26). These patterns suggest several statuses and perhaps as many grades. For example, they might correspond to the distinction between hunters and warriors (Ryan et al. 2018). This diversity is also a cultural sign, which varies depending on the region. In Germany and the Czech Republic, arrowheads and bracers are equally distributed, while in Hungary and Austria, arrowheads are less common or even non-existent.

alan
03-16-2021, 07:31 PM
The whole history of archery and its rise and fall through the ages is very interesting. One other weapon that probably isnt well understood is the throwing spear/javelin/dart. The distance they can be thrown with power can be greatly extended by using a spear thrower or amentum and they can also be fletched. The combination of using both of these improvements simultaneously would extend throwing distance/power considerably. When it comes to the beaker era though the history of the throwing spear seems obscure. There are in Ireland in the pre-beaker neolithic large beautifully pressure flaked leaf shaped flint objects that are like leaf shaped arrowheads but 4 or 5 times the size. They are called javelin heads. I think they are typically about 4 or 5 inches long and half that width. They are very impressive looking, IMO the most impressive of all Neolithic flintwork in Ireland and would have been produced by specialists. They look like they would have made mess of anyone hit by them.

Dewsloth
03-16-2021, 07:43 PM
The oldest known bows are from the area that SGC and Battle Axe would move into (much later). I wonder if that's where their transition to a prestige funerary item got a boost:


The world’s oldest bows
Bows of elm the length of a man are known from several settlements of the Ertebølle period. Yew, which is otherwise thought of as good for making bows, had not yet begun to grow in Denmark. Instead the Stone Age hunter used a thin elm trunk. He shaped the bow in such a way that the flexible sapwood was at the back and the harder heartwood was at the front of the bow. Some of Europe’s oldest and best-preserved bows were found at a Stone Age settlement at Holmegårds Mose on Zealand. The remains of five bows, dating to around 7000 BC, were discovered here.
https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-mesolithic-period/the-stone-age-hunters-bow-and-arrow/the-worlds-oldest-bows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmegaard_bow

alan
03-19-2021, 07:39 PM
You probably already saw this from last year, but if not:

https://journals.openedition.org/pm/2167

I was quite taken by an article a few years ago that suggested that wrist bracers were actually for protecting the veins in the wrist during hand to hand knife combat. What you have just posted would tend to support that. But they could of course be dual purpose.

MitchellSince1893
03-19-2021, 07:57 PM
I always though of them as arm guards for the bow strings snapping back upon release.

https://armstreet.com/catalogue/full/functional-archer-shooting-glove-with-wrist-bracer.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/b2/a0/24/b2a02480c30a095b9e53fe5894cb3221.jpg

alan
03-19-2021, 08:03 PM
The oldest known bows are from the area that SGC and Battle Axe would move into (much later). I wonder if that's where their transition to a prestige funerary item got a boost:


https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-mesolithic-period/the-stone-age-hunters-bow-and-arrow/the-worlds-oldest-bows/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holmegaard_bow

That is an interesting thought. All interpretation of the origins of aspects of beaker culture is hamstrung by the limitation of radiocarbon dating to distinguise (once you take into account all the confounding factors that can skew RC dates) between dates around 2550-2450BC. I still have zero confidence that we know where the earliest radiocarbon dates really are for bell beaker culture of the non-Iberian type. I once thought that Dutch beaker was just a westernised spin on central European beaker but you could reverse that and say that central European beaker is just an easternised spin (eastern non-beaker companion ware, arrow head types etc) on Dutch beaker culture.

The problem is the core traits of steppe beaker that are shared everywhere are few or vague. I'd say the core traits are gender distinguised single burials with beaker pots, an big emphasis on archery and an interest in metals. But even the arrows, bracers and pot types are mostly strongly regional. Single burial with strong gender rules and the use of beakers is of course something already strong in CW. So you could argue that the main distinguishing cultural differences are the archery and a much higher emphasis on metals. Problem is that both the increase in archery and a higher amount of metals is a characteristic of the period 2500-2400BC across a lot of Europe so you could argue its almost chronological and beaker is just particular expression of this change. Ive always though that bell beaker is some sort of offshoot of CW personally. Almost all steppe beaker's characteristics are known somewhere in the vast CW world that preceded it. I still, as I said many years ago, suspect beaker culture arose in a special CW out-group who ran a network associated with travel and trade and that is why its kind of hard to pin down. It may have culturally coalesced by multi-directional interactions AFTER the widespread network of P312 folks had been established. That after all is a close parallel to how Furholt describes the CW A-horizon as a 2nd generation cultural convergence c. 2800BC among people who had already spread wide across Europe. Beaker may be similar - the network was set up and a convergence happened by interaction between nodes set up by far flung P312 people.

Dewsloth
03-19-2021, 08:48 PM
That is an interesting thought. All interpretation of the origins of aspects of beaker culture is hamstrung by the limitation of radiocarbon dating to distinguise (once you take into account all the confounding factors that can skew RC dates) between dates around 2550-2450BC. I still have zero confidence that we know where the earliest radiocarbon dates really are for bell beaker culture of the non-Iberian type. I once thought that Dutch beaker was just a westernised spin on central European beaker but you could reverse that and say that central European beaker is just an easternised spin (eastern non-beaker companion ware, arrow head types etc) on Dutch beaker culture.


Well, "Jan" (aka I5748, aka 575) was only buried with two flint blades, some time around the calibrated date range of 2579-2211 calBCE, with all the rest at the site buried later:


In tumulus II all skeletons were buried in a crouched
position typical for the Late Neolithic. The oldest burial (575
also known as ‘Jan van Oostwoud’) was buried in a wooden
chamber without grave gifts other than two small flint blades
and without a burial mound. After that the burial site was
converted into arable land. At least two layers of arable land
are present over this Bell Beaker period grave. The plough
lands contain many small Bell Beaker and Barbed Wire
Beaker potsherds. Next a low burial mound was erected in at
least two phases, which is contested by bundles of Late
Neolithic plough marks marking its limits. In this mound at
least nine other skeletons were buried, men and women. The
youngest person was a person of minimally 15 years old.

***

Late Neolithic and Bronze Age farmers alike appear to
have been living in an environment that we would not
consider a first choice for farming. Yet the extensive plots of
arable land such as those at Oostwoud, Zeewijk (Theunissen
et al. 2014) and at Noorderboekert-Rijweg (knippenberg
2014; Fokkens et al. 2016) show that the corded Ware and
Bell Beaker people living in this area were not just marginal
farmers. They had plots of over one hectare that they
ploughed regularly. In addition, they fished, hunted, and
caught birds (cf. Fokkens et al. 2016). It is clear that they
lived a stable life in this wet environment which enabled
them to supplement a farming existence with all other
sources that nature provided. It is in such a context of
farming life that we have to place the Oostwoud-Tuithoorn
barrows. We do not know, however, where the people who
were buried there actually lived. It is likely that they did not
live far away, probably within the same kind of environment.
The excavations never yielded conclusive evidence for a
settlement, apart from many bone, pottery and flint fragments
dispersed in the arable land underneath the barrows.
***
Lastly, there is skeleton 575 (fig. 34, 48), which is in fact
the oldest burial, a ‘Bell Beaker person’ according to the
dates. The burial was laid down in a chamber-like structure
on its left side, in a crouched position, with the head facing
southeast. For this period it is quite common that the dead
were placed in a wooden chamber. Wooden bottoms have
never been recorded, which is why we speak of covered
chambers (Bourgeois et al. 2009, 97). According to De
Weerd, it indeed did not have a bottom, but it probably did
have a lid. This was not observed, but the position of the ribs
and other bones of the skeleton suggest an open space
(observation Veselka). Where it was more or less preserved,
the planks were about 3 cm thick (field diary De Weerd).
Two flint blades were deposited near the pelvis (fig. 48,
indicated as ‘2 silices’). skeleton 575 was partially excavated
and lifted en bloc. Whereas nowadays it would have been
automatically owned by the province, and hence belong to
the Provincial Depot, in 1963, it was ‘owned’ by the
excavator. Though De Weerd had excavated it, it was
professor Glasbergen who took responsibility and eventually
gave it as a ‘personal loan’ to the Westfries Museum in
Hoorn. Eventually, it ended up at the Provincial Depot after
all. The discovery of skeleton 575 was important for
Glasbergen because it safeguarded the subsidy he had
received for the excavation, which was aimed at ‘The
ecology of the bearers of the earliest phase of the Bell
Beaker culture in Europe’
***
Apparently, the location of the burial
remained in memory of the societies at Oostwoud even
though the entire grave became ploughed over at some point.
And then in two subsequent phases several people were
buried within this monument, some of which may well have
died within living memory of one another and some of which
were part blood-relatives. This pattern has recently been
discussed for a few other burial mounds in the central
Netherlands (Bourgeois and Fontijn 2015), but highlights the
complex interplay of memory and monumentality in later
prehistory (Bourgeois 2013).
so the burials at Oostwoud fit a pattern to a certain extent,
but they are different as well, as they are concentrated within
the context of two burial mounds, which are absent or at
least invisible at the other sites in the same area. For Bell
Beaker graves, the absence of grave gifts other than flint
artefacts is unusual too. At the Veluwe, The Utrechtse
Heuvelrug, and the Drents Plateau many Bell Beaker burial
mounds have been excavated, but these are generally easily
recognised because of the Beakers and other grave gifts. In
West-Frisia, there were none. Later interments from the same
period are rare for most Bell Beaker barrows (Bourgeois
2013, 164). That is different in Oostwoud. Is this an
exception? That is a question for further research.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2944194/view -- there are a lot of photos and illustrations :)

^^So Jan didn't have any archery gear. In fact, there isn't a single mention of arrows or wristguards in the entire report; just flint blades and scrapers.

R.Rocca
03-27-2021, 12:45 PM
Here is a very interesting mention by David Anthony in his latest video that could be relevant for L51's spread into Central and Western Europe. They have 4 unpublished individuals who share a common ancestor 5-7 generation earlier were buried 4300 kilometers apart from each other. The range is from Afanasievo in the east and Yamnayan Eastern Slovakia:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhlzOj8ouaw&t=1261s

MitchellSince1893
03-27-2021, 04:25 PM
Here is a very interesting mention by David Anthony in his latest video that could be relevant for L51's spread into Central and Western Europe. They have 4 unpublished individuals who share a common ancestor 5-7 generation earlier were buried 4300 kilometers apart from each other. The range is from Afanasievo in the east and Yamnayan Eastern Slovakia:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhlzOj8ouaw&t=1261s

At the 7:16 mark he discusses how “Yamnaya is incredibly homogeneous...almost inexplicably homogeneous. We have Sredni Stog samples that are right in the same group as Yamnaya so probably Yamnaya evolved from some kind of Sredni Stog culture in the Ukraine, although we haven’t found the specific male haplogroups there yet”

SS samples were mostly female “so it may just be bad luck”

R.Rocca
03-28-2021, 01:54 AM
At the 7:16 mark he discusses how “Yamnaya is incredibly homogeneous...almost inexplicably homogeneous. We have Sredni Stog samples that are right in the same group as Yamnaya so probably Yamnaya evolved from some kind of Sredni Stog culture in the Ukraine, although we haven’t found the specific male haplogroups there yet”

SS samples were mostly female “so it may just be bad luck”

Yeah, I saw that. Bummer that the Sredni Stog samples were females.

ChrisR
05-31-2021, 08:51 AM
P312 in Sicily ~2674 BC +/- 198 years

The I11443 sample's date was put at something much younger in its original published paper. From Fernandes et al. 2020:
"BU32, grave 3032 (Sicily_EBA11443, I11443). Petrous bone, C14 dated to 2279-2102 calBCE (4090±60 BP, OxA-32773)."
Given the importance of anything close to R-M269>L23(3)>L51(5)>P310,L52(6)>L151,L11(4) I wonder if such errors happen if they can be reported/corrected.

MitchellSince1893
06-04-2021, 08:03 PM
On Eurogenes, Davidski mentioned unpublished U106 showing in Single Grave Culture (SGC). If so it would go against the possibility that P312 and U106 might have gone their separate ways prior to reaching SGC.

Maybe this “simplified” map isn’t too far off after all.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e8/12/14/e812144a5712573876000bd01a92cedd.png

Dewsloth
06-04-2021, 11:15 PM
On Eurogenes, Davidski mentioned unpublished U106 showing in Single Grave Culture (SGC). If so it would go against the possibility that P312 and U106 might have gone their separate ways prior to reaching SGC.

Maybe this “simplified” map isn’t too far off after all.

Fixed the map! :biggrin1:

45012

MitchellSince1893
06-05-2021, 02:21 AM
Fixed the map! :biggrin1:

45012

It’s becoming less “simplified”. :)

In reality not all DF27 went towards Iberia, not all U152 went to Bavaria & Bohemia etc. but the general migration direction for many successful subclades from the SGC core area (e.g. across the English Channel, down the Rhone River Valley, up the Rhine River/down the Danube River, towards the Baltic) might not be too far off. And of course these weren't going to single subclade movements e.g. some DF27 may have tagged along with the L21 groups going to the Isles.