Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[Heber]

My view is the latter, although imaginable a minority position here.

There is irrevocable evidence that several IE languages existed in western Europe, before they were overlain by later Celtic, then Germanic. Not only does this evidence come from 'Old European' hydronymy, which can be criticized as being indirect, but we have actual attested inscriptions of non- or para-Celtic languages like Lusitanian & Ligurian (which date to as late as the pre-Roman Era).
What's more, apart from Don Ringe's tree (which probably was looking at the 'bigger picture' of IE branching), and the "Celtic from the West" crowd, most rational scholars place proto-Celtic in M2, and toward the latter end at that. As I mentioned earlier, Waddell reconstructed shared terms in (mainstream) Celtic languages such as Iron and Chariots which obviously preclude anything too early, not to mention their sheer similarity.

In fact, Brittonic is basically Gaulish, and must have been a very recent introduction to SE Britain. Pictish must be considerably older, but certainly not Copper Age.

The situation is similar in eastern Europe. A myriad of balto-Slavic like languages existed, and the recent expansion of Slavic over much of the region erased this diversity, leaving Lithuanian and Latvian as relicts of the older continuum.

I don't think new aDNA overrides linguistic consensus. This view has to explain the population continuity (at a macro level) since 2400 BC, but that only requires some lateral thinking

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10987&d=147131672]

I like the chart. If we add another layer and call it Pre Proto Celtic we could go back to 2,000 BC and show continuity of R1b in Ireland (Rathlin,Cassidy ét al).

[Romilius]

Ligurians are really a mistery, but I read the last book by Francisco Villar about Indoeuropeans and he seems to think that their language has a lot of IE traits between Celtic and Italic.

I read over there that also Rhaetians were somewhat related to Venetic IE speakers... That's interesting, because they were before related to Etruscan speakers. I won't be surprised if we will discover that also Camuni and other pre-roman tribes were originally IE speakers. The million dollar question will only be: how a non IE people (like Etruscans or Iberes) could arrive, settle and also be leaders in lands already occupied.

[Jean M]

Back to Bell Beaker. Since we know R1b (L21, in particular) is found in Great Britain and Ireland during this period, are these migrants speaking an early form of Celtic, or something more like a generic Northwest Indo-European, like Mallory suggests?

This question is massive. :biggrin1: It took me a book to answer it! Let's start here (my deduced timeline for Blood of the Celts):

10988

We see instantly that La Tene (long favoured as the vector for Celtic) does not fit. It is too late. We have actual evidence of Celtic earlier. Geographically it does not fit either, as La Tene is insignificant in Iberia and Munster. Kristian Kristiansen said in a recent lecture that the La Tene theory is dead.

If we look for an earlier culture that covers the whole region in which Celtic was spoken prior to the incursions of the Celts southward recorded by Roman historians, we have to go back to Bell Beaker. So Bell Beaker has been periodically proposed as the alternative vector for Celtic. But Bell Beaker also covered regions in which Ligurian, Lusitanian and the Italic languages were spoken in early historic times. So the language certainly of early Bell Beaker would be a predecessor. [More to follow]

[Jean M]

[Part 2 - the linguistic stuff] Extracts from Blood of the Celts:


The Celtic and Italic language families have similarities that suggest a common ancestor more recent than the parent of all Indo-European languages. They share the o-stem genitive singular ending in 'i', for example the Latin viri = 'of a man', and Primitive Irish maq(q)i = 'of the son'. A joint innovation is the superlative suffix *ismmo, in such formations as Latin maximus = 'greatest', and the Gaulish placename Ouxisame = 'highest'. There is also a subjunctive morpheme *-ā-, as in Latin fer-ā-t = 'he may carry' and Old Irish beraid = 'he may carry'. So some linguists argue for a common ancestor for the two families, which they call Proto-Italo-Celtic. The alternative explanation for their shared features is that Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic developed in such close proximity that they influenced each other. ... [The concept of] the common ancestor... has continued to garner support among linguists. One good reason is that there are several lost languages, such as Ligurian and Lusitanian, that do not fit into either the Italic or Celtic branches, but are related. We could see them as decending from Proto-Italo-Celtic.

So could Proto-Italo-Celtic be the first language carried by the people of the Bell Beaker culture? This was the solution I previously favoured, since ancient Greek observers reported a coastal band of Ligurians all the way from northwestern Italy to western Iberia, where the Romans encountered Lusitanians. But recent work suggests that the Lusitanians and their kin did not arrive in Iberia until the Late Bronze Age. So we must look to a yet earlier language.

Old European IE (Alteuropäisch)
Hans Krahe noticed river-names across Europe which appear to be Indo-European, but do not fit any known Indo-European language. He called this the Alteuropäisch (Old European) hydronymy. Krahe saw such names as evidence of a lost language ancestral to the western branches of Indo-European. Critical dissection left this idea bleeding to death. Specific archaic Indo-European river-names range from reflecting the original Indo-European parent to dialects of it that had not quite become fully-fledged daughter languages. Nevertheless Krahe's work is important. It helps us to realize how complex the process of language spread can be. Many parts of Europe seem to be like a linguistic layer cake. One wave of Indo-European was succeeded by another.

Place-names that can be identified as Indo-European, but neither Celtic nor Italic are found in Iberia, particularly in the south.... This means that the first language of Bell Beaker communities in the west may have been a form of Indo-European too early even to have features specific to both Celtic and Italic.

We also find Alteuropäisch hydronyms in Britain and Ireland. So in my scheme, the earliest Bell Beaker arrivals in these islands would have spoken Alteuropäisch. [More to follow]

[Jean M]

[Part 3] The next step therefore is to account for the Celtic in both Iberia and Munster.

Celtiberian is the most archaic of the recorded forms of Celtic. That could be explained if it arrived with the "reflux" of Bell Beaker c. 2200 BC into Iberia from a Celtic homeland north of the alps around the head of the rivers Danube and Rhine. Iberia was subsequently relatively isolated from Bronze Age developments elsewhere in Europe, which would account for the archaic character of Celtiberian. Such a date for early Celtic would also explain its ubiquity in Ireland.

The Atlantic Bronze Age linked NW Iberia to developments in Britain, Ireland and what is now Brittany, which may help to explain the Celticization of Galicia, which seems independent of the spread westwards of Celtiberian in the Iron Age into previously Lusitanian-speaking regions.

Meanwhile in Britain and Ireland there is evidence of constant interaction in the Bronze Age both between the two islands and with Continental Europe. So if the very earliest Celtic arrived c. 2200 BC, we can easily imagine that linguistic developments in the Bronze Age could have quite a wide spread. In the Iron Age Ireland went through a phase of greater isolation from the Continent than was the case in Britain, where there is greater evidence of the arrival of Hallstatt and La Tene objects. In the last century or two before the Roman conquest, we have Belgae spreading over much of southern Britain. That would explain why Brittonic is so similar to Gaulish, while Irish retained more archaic features.

So a scheme in which Proto-Celtic simply split into daughter languages which never met subsequently is unrealistic. The reality seems to be more a mixture of tree features and contact between branches.

10989

[Jean M]

I have had a rummage around and it looks as though a useful article by linguist Alexander Falileyev on the topic of Celtic and Bell Beaker* is not available online except via Google Books. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AANDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13#v=onepage&q&f=false

* Alexander Falileyev, Introduction. A Folk Who Will Never Speak: Bell Beakers and Linguistics. In M. P. Prieto and L. Salanova (eds.), The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd millennium BC, Oxford 2015, 1-7.

It was mentioned on this earlier thread, which covered the linguistic issues: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6253-Bell-Beaker-and-Early-Celtic-in-the-Isles

Extracts:


The association of the Bell Beaker folk with the ancient speakers of Celtic is already traditional. We find it in the works of Celtic linguists and historians and Bell Beaker archaeologists. It was adopted, although somewhat reluctantly, in very influential The Celtic Realms by Nora Chadwick and Myles Dillon (1967, 18-19), and is still alive and well in a number of recent publications on various Celtic linguistic matters. A more elaborate association of the Folk or, rather Phenomenon, with the Celtic comes from the camp of archaeologists. Thus, at the 1998 Beaker Congress Professor A. Gallay (2001) sought to show that the Pre-Celts and Pre-Italics emerged from the complex of Bell Beaker setting.... Similar views ... have been expressed by archaeologists dealing with the Celtic problem (see for instance Lorrio, 2006, 50...).... There are a lot of problems here ... chronology ... There is an ongoing argument on the validity of glottochronology.. The ... suggestion of B. Cunliffe that Celtic goes back to a pidgin spoken in Early Bronze Age Altantic Europe has been sharply criticised, particularly by Indo-European and Celtic linguists from the very start (see .. Isaac 2010 and also Meid 2008)

He quotes Cunliffe 2010, 34:


If a distinct Celtic language had emerged by the 3rd millenium then culd the period of rapid mobility, reflected in the Beaker phenomenon, have provided the context for the language to spread across much of western Europe?

This statement, Falileyev feels, could be correct in itself, but not the Atlantic setting in which Cunliffe and Koch have attempted to set it. The Celtic-from-the-West concept is not accepted by the majority of linguists and questions have also been posed by some archaeologists e.g. Karl. He feels that the approach of Catherine Gibson and Dagmar Wodtko is more promising. They presume a degree of bilingualism/multilingualism in the Bell Beaker Age.

[rms2]

I realise that people on some other anthropology forums are delighted by Coon and quote his Races of Europe constantly. These amateurs are thrilled to find a source which apparently tells them everything they want to know about the origins of the people of Europe. But Coon does not figure on the reading list for today's archaeology students. In fact Coon was not an archaeologist himself. He was a physical anthropologist.

If you were to suggest to a current professor of archaeology in Europe that he should read Coon, he would probably react much as though he were a doctor who had just been advised to try leeches on his patients. I think I can safely say that not a single source that I have cited in AJ has cited Coon as an authority on anything. That includes the few physical anthropologists that I cited before sufficient aDNA was available to replace the guesswork from them by solid data from DNA. Both anthropology and archaeology have moved on since Races of Europe (1939). Quoting Coon is just a waste of time and space.

It is noteworthy that Coon attributed the prevalence of brachycephaly among the Bell Beaker people to race, when it actually is apparently the case that it was a matter of culture, with the Beaker people using cradleboards to modify the skull shapes of infants.

[Jean M]

It is noteworthy that Coon attributed the prevalence of brachycephaly among the Bell Beaker people to race, when it actually is apparently the case that it was a matter of culture, with the Beaker people using cradleboards to modify the skull shapes of infants.

Mike Parker Pearson thinks that head-binding was a way of exaggerating admired features as a form of ethnic identification. So a naturally long-headed group might want their children to be extra long-headed and vice-versa. I'm not 100% convinced on the latter. I suspect that there were other reasons for swaddling. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/551929

J. S. Chisholm, Swaddling, cradleboards and the development of children, Early Hum Dev. 1978 Sep;2(3):255-75.


The cross-cultural and historical use of techniques of infant restraint, swaddling with or without the use of a board or cradle, are described. Such techniques were used very widely in temperate latitudes but have declined since the 18th century. Laboratory experiments indicate that swaddled babies sleep more, have reduced levels of motor activity in response to stimulation, fewer startles and lower heart-rate variability. No clear long-term effects of swaddling have been demonstrated. Results are reported of an ethological study of cradleboard use among Navajo Indians. Time on cradleboard declined from about 16 h a day in the first 3 mth to less than 9 h by the first birthday. The extent of cradleboard use was determined by both infant and parental actions. As compared with European infants, Navajo babies spend much more time in actual or potential social contact with adults. It is suggested that swaddling and cradleboard might be used in western cultures to reduce the social iolation of infants, to reduce parental child tension with 'sleep problem' babies and in various paediatric situations.

[rms2]

Re the alleged Caucasian-Basque linguistic connection: on the other hand, I have read that there are scholars who see a familial relationship between Nuragic (Paleosardinian) and Euskara. In that connection it is interesting that y haplogroup I-M26 reaches its world maximum of about 40% in Sardinia and is also present among the Basques at about 9 or 10%. I have often thought that I-M26 may have been the predominant y haplogroup among the original Basques and that they may have acquired their current y-dna profile via admixture with their neighbors over the millennia.

[TigerMW]

[Part 3] The next step therefore is to account for the Celtic in both Iberia and Munster.

Celtiberian is the most archaic of the recorded forms of Celtic. That could be explained if it arrived with the "reflux" of Bell Beaker c. 2200 BC into Iberia from a Celtic homeland north of the alps around the head of the rivers Danube and Rhine. Iberia was subsequently relatively isolated from Bronze Age developments elsewhere in Europe, which would account for the archaic character of Celtiberian. Such a date for early Celtic would also explain its ubiquity in Ireland.

The Atlantic Bronze Age linked NW Iberia to developments in Britain, Ireland and what is now Brittany, which may help to explain the Celticization of Galicia, which seems independent of the spread westwards of Celtiberian in the Iron Age into previously Lusitanian-speaking regions.

Meanwhile in Britain and Ireland there is evidence of constant interaction in the Bronze Age both between the two islands and with Continental Europe. So if the very earliest Celtic arrived c. 2200 BC, we can easily imagine that linguistic developments in the Bronze Age could have quite a wide spread. In the Iron Age Ireland went through a phase of greater isolation from the Continent than was the case in Britain, where there is greater evidence of the arrival of Hallstatt and La Tene objects. In the last century or two before the Roman conquest, we have Belgae spreading over much of southern Britain. That would explain why Brittonic is so similar to Gaulish, while Irish retained more archaic features.

So a scheme in which Proto-Celtic simply split into daughter languages which never met subsequently is unrealistic. The reality seems to be more a mixture of tree features and contact between branches.

10989
Thank you, Jean. Believe it or not, your proposals make perfect sense. This complicates the subclade distributions as you have noted there may have been layers up layers. On the other hand, cultural and language changes did not all have to require majority population changes. There is probably a mix of migration and in situ exchange/development.

Is your Celtic tree diagram your own? I don't see a reference and I don't remember it in your books, of course, me not remembering something is not.. well.. I leave it at that.

[Jean M]

Is your Celtic tree diagram your own? I don't see a reference and I don't remember it in your books...

The diagram is in Blood of the Celts, p. 115. It is adapted from one by Sims-Williams 2007*. I just checked and there is no credit to him in the picture credits, presumably because it is adapted, not copied.

* Sims-Williams, P. 2007. Common Celtic, Gallo-Brittonic and Insular Celtic, in Gaulois et Celtique Continental, P.-Y. Lambert and G.-J.Pinault (eds), 309-54. Geneva: Droz.

[Added] I don't have a copy of that paper and Google Books won't let me read it in full online, but I'm pretty sure that is the correct paper.

[Jean M]

Accidental duplicate.

[Jean M]

The work of Gimbutas will be celebrated in her home city at the coming conference 30 August - 4 September 2006 in Vilnius, Lithuania of the European Association of Archaeologists. The TH5-17 session is devoted to the topic. The abstracts are available. http://eaavilnius2016.lt/abstract-book-2/

ARCHAEOLOGY, LANGUAGE AND GENETICS: IN SEARCH OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS
Friday, 2 September 2016, 09:00-16:00

Vilnius is the birth place of Prof. Marija Gimbutienė (Gimbutas), probably the best known participant in the debate on Indo-European origins. In view of recent input from human genetics and linguistic studies, this session invites archaeologists, geneticists, molecular anthropologists, linguists and historians to discuss how archaeology today evaluates and integrates all the new evidence.

TH5-17 Abstract 01
Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia
Assoc. Prof. Martin Sikora, University of Copenhagen

The Bronze Age of Eurasia (around 3000–1000 BC) was a period of major cultural changes. However, it has been debated for decades if the major cultural changes that occurred during this period resulted from the circulation of ideas or to which extent they were accompanied by human migrations. To investigate these questions, we sequenced low-coverage genomes from 101 ancient humans from across Eurasia. We show that the Bronze Age was a highly dynamic period involving large-scale population migrations and replacements, responsible for shaping major parts of present-day demographic structure in both Europe and Asia. We find genetic evidence for the expansion of the Yamnaya culture from the Pontic-Caspian both into North Eastern Europe as well as into Central Asia. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesized spread of Indo-European languages during the Early Bronze Age.

TH5-17 Abstract 02
What ancient DNA can tell us about the origin and spread of Indo-European languages
Dr. Wolfgang Haak, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany

Ancient DNA studies on Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals from Western Eurasia have recently thrown fresh light on migrations in Europe’s prehistory. The Early Neolithic period in Europe (~8,000-7,000 years ago) was characterized by closely related groups of early farmers, which were different from indigenous hunter-gatherers, while Russia was inhabited by a distinctive population of eastern hunter-gatherers with affinity to Palaeolithic Siberians. The Middle Neolithic saw a resurgence of huntergatherer ancestry throughout much of Europe, while the contemporaneous Yamnaya pastoralists of the Russian steppes shared about half of their ancestry with the preceding eastern European foragers and the other half with Caucasian hunter-gatherers. This ‘Yamnaya-like’ steppe ancestry arrives in Central Europe ~4,500 years ago, as Late Neolithic Corded Ware individuals traced ~75% of their ancestry to the Yamnaya, and is thus a good temporal fit for the steppe hypothesis, which proposed a spread of Indo-European languages via the steppe starting from a proposed homeland north of the Black Sea. This third ancestry component persisted until the present-day in all Europeans and documents a (second) major expansion into Europe from its eastern periphery. The accompanying genetic turnover was high enough to support a language replacement, a criterion that was previously suggested to only apply to the language-farming dispersal hypothesis in the light of the Meso-Neolithic transition. As a consequence, these ancient DNA results have direct implications for the spread of Indo- European language groups and at the bare minimum level the playing field between the two rivalling hypotheses. It is possible that additional ancient DNA from other prehistoric cultural groups from the Caucasus and surrounding regions will provide plausible temporal and contextual fits for the proposed homeland of Proto-Indo-European.

TH5-17 Abstract 07
Back to square one? The legacy of Marija Gimbutiene (Gimbutas) in the light of recent DNA findings
Dr. Inga Merkyte, Virum, Denmark

Recent aDNA findings seem to pinpoint a massive migration from the steppe area towards Central Europe occurring around 4500 years ago (Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015). Genetic studies are usually taken as evolutionary histories from the past, anchored in temporal dating references. Paradoxically they rather produce a series of snapshot information, constrained by the statistical uncertainties of applied dating methods and a still very limited dataset, analyzed with the help of mathematical models. Thus archaeology more than ever is challenged by the questions of why and how. The paper aims to reflect upon Marija Gimbutas legacy in the Indo-European debate, how she saw the instrumentation of human movements and mixing, also with reference to other contesting thoughts.

[razyn]

There are several other fascinating papers being presented at that session, besides the three for which Jean has provided the abstracts. (And I have no idea how she did that; I had a struggle with the formatting of their abstract book, and gave up on trying to copy abstracts. Maybe their word processing software is incompatible with MacBooks, or Firefox, whatever.) Anyway here is a screen shot of the partial program page dealing with that panel:

10994

I was interested in aDNA from a Romanian burial, in one of the Poster sessions. Alas, it's only mtDNA. There is some wild stuff in this session. The Homer one is mind-boggling; I feel sure that relocating the Odyssey to the Baltic will meet a lot of resistance. Interesting concept, though.

[Jean M]

There is some wild stuff in this session. The Homer one is mind-boggling; I feel sure that relocating the Odyssey to the Baltic will meet a lot of resistance.

Yes my eyebrows shot up. :biggrin1:

[Volat]

Sorry for off-topic.

Proto-Slavs and proto-Germanic had contacts. It has been proven. But had proto-Slavs contacts with proto- Celts? Or Germanic were intermediate between Slavs and Celts?

[TigerMW]

[Part 3] The next step therefore is to account for the Celtic in both Iberia and Munster.

Celtiberian is the most archaic of the recorded forms of Celtic. That could be explained if it arrived with the "reflux" of Bell Beaker c. 2200 BC into Iberia from a Celtic homeland north of the alps around the head of the rivers Danube and Rhine. Iberia was subsequently relatively isolated from Bronze Age developments elsewhere in Europe, which would account for the archaic character of Celtiberian. Such a date for early Celtic would also explain its ubiquity in Ireland.

The Atlantic Bronze Age linked NW Iberia to developments in Britain, Ireland and what is now Brittany, which may help to explain the Celticization of Galicia, which seems independent of the spread westwards of Celtiberian in the Iron Age into previously Lusitanian-speaking regions.

Meanwhile in Britain and Ireland there is evidence of constant interaction in the Bronze Age both between the two islands and with Continental Europe. So if the very earliest Celtic arrived c. 2200 BC, we can easily imagine that linguistic developments in the Bronze Age could have quite a wide spread. In the Iron Age Ireland went through a phase of greater isolation from the Continent than was the case in Britain, where there is greater evidence of the arrival of Hallstatt and La Tene objects. In the last century or two before the Roman conquest, we have Belgae spreading over much of southern Britain. That would explain why Brittonic is so similar to Gaulish, while Irish retained more archaic features.

So a scheme in which Proto-Celtic simply split into daughter languages which never met subsequently is unrealistic. The reality seems to be more a mixture of tree features and contact between branches.

10989
I rarely see much attention paid to Ligurian on these proposed language trees. Maybe there aren't enough words, but I don't see it at all in the more detailed (than Ringe-Taylor-Warnow) Warnow tree. Warnow Tree with Dates.pdf
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_Reconstruction_by_Warnow_2013.pdf)

I gather from your description of events you expect Ligurian to have broken off prior to the Italo-Celtic split. This would allow Ligurian or pre-Ligurian to be in Gaul and Iberia early.

Henri Hubert thinks the more ancient place-names in France are actually Ligurian.

Hubert from “The History of the Celtic People”, 1934

What do these Celtic place-names mean? That the Celts set out from Germany or that they conquered it? There is strong reason for believing that the names are aboriginal or, at least, very ancient, since there are so many names of rivers and mountains among them. We know that such names are almost rare in Gaul. Many names of French rivers and mountains come from the Ligurians, if not from still further back. Now the names given to the land its natural features are the most enduring of place-names. The first occupants of a country always pass them on to their successors. These later sometimes add a name of their own…

In Germany… among the non-Germanic names a very large number, and those very ancient, are Celtic. There is one which bears in itself evidence of its great antiquity, and that is the name of the Hercynian Forest. It is a relic of a very ancient state of the Celtic world. It had probably remained attached to the place with designated every since it took its earlier form. At that time the Celtics were neighbours of the Italici in that region. …..

The word is derived from a name of the oak, common to Celtic, Italic and Germanic, perq, which preserved unaltered in the name of the Ligthuaian god Perunas…

In short, the name of the Hercynian Forest dates from an age before the Celtic dropping of p and the Italo-Celtic assimilation of p to the velar in two-syllable words of the form p …q. Now it is a fossil, for the Celtic languages took the common name of the oak from other roots; and the fossil is in situ.

Perhaps this is too fine a line but do you think the there was a Western IE dialect that Ligurian descended from before the Italo-Celtic branch descended. If so, it looks like the Ligurian may have no Central European origin but may truly be of western and Atlantic fringe origin. Perhaps we should just see it as the language of the better seafarers??? We have Ligurian territories in Italy along the Med so could it be the early Western/Maritime Beakers that were pre-Ligurian?

[Heber]

I like the chart. If we add another layer and call it Pre Proto Celtic we could go back to 2,000 BC and show continuity of R1b in Ireland (Rathlin,Cassidy ét al).

Based on the existing chart here is an attempt to map it to major branches of P312.

10995

[Dewsloth]

Based on the existing chart here is an attempt to map it to major branches of P312.

10995

So at this point, has the epicenter of DF19/DF88 already moved north out of the proto-celtic zone? Or did they never move south and are non-protocelt P312?

Edit: Or are they included in there and just not a major branch?

[Jean M]

I rarely see much attention paid to Ligurian on these proposed language trees. Maybe there aren't enough words, but I don't see it at all in the more detailed (than Ringe-Taylor-Warnow) Warnow tree.

There is so little known about Ligurian, it would be easier to miss it off. Same goes for a number of other deceased languages of which only scraps exist.


I gather from your description of events you expect Ligurian to have broken off prior to the Italo-Celtic split. This would allow Ligurian or pre-Ligurian to be in Gaul and Iberia early.

Even so Ligurian seems to have gone on its travels in the Late Bronze Age. That would explain why the name "Ligurian" was noted by early Greek travellers all along the Mediterranean coast west from NW Italy to Iberia and around onto the Atlantic coast. If a concept of relatedness was retained into the 6th-4th century BC, that suggests that these people had arrived not more than a few centuries earlier. This issue of the retention of the name puzzled me when I was going for these people as the earliest IE-speakers in Iberia. It did not quite fit. I am more comfortable now I've adjusted to fit the evidence of Late Bronze Age arrivals, plus the place-name evidence.

[Jean M]

Henri Hubert thinks the more ancient place-names in France are actually Ligurian.

Yes there was an enthusiam in the 19th century for detecting Ligurian all over the place and it continued into the work of Henri Hubert. But this was superceded by Krahe's concept of Alteuropäisch.

[Jean M]

Perhaps this is too fine a line but do you think the there was a Western IE dialect that Ligurian descended from before the Italo-Celtic branch descended. If so, it looks like the Ligurian may have no Central European origin but may truly be of western and Atlantic fringe origin. Perhaps we should just see it as the language of the better seafarers??? We have Ligurian territories in Italy along the Med so could it be the early Western/Maritime Beakers that were pre-Ligurian?

I do feel that the Ligurians were most likely coastal traders, but a lot later.

[vettor]

I see the dating as skewed in regards to these language

Lepontic is 550BC and north of modern Milan

Camunic is 500 BC and north of Lepontic in Sondrio and Bergamo

Raetic is 700BC and north of Camunic in modern areas of north and south Tyrol and trentino

Venetic is 650BC in north-east Italy and as far as innsbruck in central Austria is associated with the indigenous people called Euganei ( the Camuni tribe is the most western of the Euganei people)

Liburnian is part of Venetic spoke in coastal croatia and northPicene in coastal central italy

Etruscan is 650BC along with southPicene

Umbro ( true Italic ) stuck in the middle between Etruscan and south-picene

There cannot be any celtic invasion of north italy ~400BC as this is too late to make lepontic part of Celtic language. The Invasion had to be ~550BC and also could not have come via any modern Austrian routes , it would have to come via middle swiss lands around Lago Maggiore paths

1 - The ligurians would have been already there and as far as the Rhone river France ...............the question is and has been posed by Italian scholars that the Ligurians spoke a Gaulish language.

2 - the Celtic-illyrian mix in Noricum from Halstatt times seems to have played no part in the Celtic La Tene mix with the Gaulish Helvetic people.

It seems people are by-passing these ancient "italic" languages.

[Tomenable]

He really doesn't want R1b to be associated with the genesis and spread of IE speakers for some odd reason.

No. I have nothing against anything being IE or not. It is just that I tend to be a non-conformist. ;)

For example, I did put some money on Iceland winning the match vs. England in June this year.

[Kopfjäger]

No. I have nothing against anything being IE or not. It is just that I tend to be a non-conformist. ;)



That's a poor excuse for bias. So, when the majority of scholars argue for R1b=IE, you're just going to disagree for the hell of it?

[Tomenable]

when the majority of scholars argue for R1b=IE

There is no any peer-reviewed publication in which any scholar wrote "R1b=IE". If I'm wrong, then please show me such publications and such scholars. Not even Haak et al. 2015 wrote anything like this.

Moreover, only R1b1a1a2-M269+ - rather than all of R1b - appears to correlate with some of IE languages. R1b1a2-V88+ for example appears to correlate with Chadic languages, rather than with IE.

[Tomenable]

I never disputed that people with R1b became eventually involved in spreading IE languages.

Question is how and when did certain carriers of certain subclades of R1b-M269+ start speaking IE. You could ask the same question about the Basques - why do they speak Non-IE, despite being R1b? It is also obvious that R1b cannot be associated with all of IE languages, because there is virtually no R1b in places such as India. Here we have strong correlation with R1a-M198+, particularly with R1a-Z93+. E.g. Lithuanians also have virtually no R1b, and whatever R1b they have, likely entered their gene pool in recent, historical times.

[Leroy Jenkins]

I personally like Tomenable's posts that propose alternatives to the commonly held views on this forum of R-M269's association with PIE and a migration into Western Europe during the Late Neolithic/EBA period. While I may not agree with him on much of it at this point, it is nice to get a different perspective and it helps me keep an open mind and not fool myself into accepting probabilities as truth.

[Jean M]

Sorry for off-topic.

Proto-Slavs and proto-Germanic had contacts. It has been proven. But had proto-Slavs contacts with proto- Celts? Or Germanic were intermediate between Slavs and Celts?

No problem. I have just responded on a more appropriate thread : http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4967-The-origin-of-the-Slavs&p=180113&viewfull=1#post180113

[TigerMW]

...t is also obvious that R1b cannot be associated with all of IE languages, because there is virtually no R1b in places such as India. Here we have strong correlation with R1a-M198+, particularly with R1a-Z93+. E.g. Lithuanians also have virtually no R1b, and whatever R1b they have, likely entered their gene pool in recent, historical times.

I don't know of anyone on this forum who has ever said R1b was associated with the spread of all IE languages or that all Yamnaya were R1b. Did I miss it?

I don't think I remember anyone saying that all R1b folks, or R1b-L23 even, spoke IE languages from the git-go. Of course, there could be off-shoots like the Basques and earlier branching, the V88 folks.

Nevertheless, particularly with the finding of R1b-L23 and R1b-Z2103 in ancient Yamnaya DNA in the leading candidate for a PIE home-land, the lack of R1b-M269 in Neolithic Europe, the finding of R1b-L23 types like R1b-L21, U152, P312, etc. in Bronze Age ancient European DNA, the spread of IE languages (of Bronze Age origin) throughout Europe where R1b-P311 types are pervasive... well you get it, the circumstantial evidence is building.

None of this negates other haplogroups, ie. R1a, from participating in these migrations.

[Agamemnon]

Well, there's a thin line between your skepticism (or "non-conformism", as you put it) and utter nonsense, I mean, claiming R1b originated in the Middle East is just unreasonable at this stage. You're arguing against the data, so to speak.

[Kopfjäger]

There is no any peer-reviewed publication in which any scholar wrote "R1b=IE". If I'm wrong, then please show me such publications and such scholars. Not even Haak et al. 2015 wrote anything like this.


What part of "massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" do you not understand? Are you still stuck on Oppenheimer?

[Kopfjäger]

I personally like Tomenable's posts that propose alternatives to the commonly held views on this forum of R-M269's association with PIE and a migration into Western Europe during the Late Neolithic/EBA period. While I may not agree with him on much of it at this point, it is nice to get a different perspective and it helps me keep an open mind and not fool myself into accepting probabilities as truth.

Don't expect too much company. :D

[Tomenable]

What part of "massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" do you not understand? Are you still stuck on Oppenheimer?

There was nothing about Bell Beaker culture in that study. It was about Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

And this is confusing - because Corded Ware was R1a but they found 75% Yamnaya ancestry in it.

Edit:

OK, there was something on Bell Beaker too, but they mainly researched relationship between Yamna and CW.

[Tomenable]

claiming R1b originated in the Middle East is just unreasonable at this stage.

I don't claim that it originated in the Middle East, but that it originated in South-East Europe (Balkans).

[Agamemnon]

I don't claim that it originated in the Middle East, but that it originated in South-East Europe (Balkans).

I've seen you claim that R1b originated in the Near East a few months ago, sure you changed tunes after the papers on Ice Age Europe and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Near East but still, neither makes sense at this stage.

[jdean]

OK, there was something on Bell Beaker too, but they mainly researched relationship between Yamna and CW.

Something ???

I'm guessing you only scan read that paper : )

[R.Rocca]

Would like to hear this presentation:

http://eaavilnius2016.lt/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Book-Abstract-A4_08-09_net.pdf

Back to square one? The legacy of Marija Gimbutiene (Gimbutas) in the light of recent DNA findings
Author - Dr. Merkyte, Inga, Virum, Denmark (Presenting author)
Keywords: Gimbutiene/Gimbutas, Migrations, Steppe cultures
Presentation Preference - Oral

Recent aDNA findings seem to pinpoint a massive migration from the steppe area towards Central Europe occurring around
4500 years ago (Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015). Genetic studies are usually taken as evolutionary histories from the past,
anchored in temporal dating references. Paradoxically they rather produce a series of snapshot information, constrained bythe
statistical uncertainties of applied dating methods and a still very limited dataset, analyzed with the help of mathematical
models. Thus archaeology more than ever is challenged by the questions of why and how. The paper aims to reflect upon Marija
Gimbutas legacy in the Indo-European debate, how she saw the instrumentation of human movements and mixing, also with
reference to other contesting thoughts.

[Kopfjäger]

There was nothing about Bell Beaker culture in that study.
Edit:
OK, there was something on Bell Beaker too, but they mainly researched relationship between Yamna and CW.

You're obviously trolling at this point.

[David Mc]

Corded Ware was R1a but they found 75% Yamnaya ancestry in it.

You've raised this point a number of times-- the fact that Corded Ware has higher levels of Yamnaya when compared to Beaker. If you had read Haak et al., you would have seen that they already noted this and incorporated it into their model of migration. In fact, it is an important part of their model:

"This second resurgence must have started during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age period itself, as the Bell Beaker and Unetice groups had reduced Yamnaya ancestry compared to the earlier Corded Ware, and comparable levels to that in some present-day Europeans" (p. 4).

[Tomenable]

Generalissimo wrote in 2013 what I wrote in this thread based on Coon:


It's not extremely doubtful at all. It has a lot of support from ancient DNA and physical anthropology (recent work on tooth traits in Bronze Age Europeans).

Indo-European Corded Ware mixing with non-Indo-European Bell Beaker in Central Europe via female exogamy eventually = Indo-Europeans in Western Europe with a lot of R1b.

I don't know about which recent work on tooth traits was that, though.

[Tomenable]

"This second resurgence must have started during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age period itself, as the Bell Beaker and Unetice groups had reduced Yamnaya ancestry compared to the earlier Corded Ware, and comparable levels to that in some present-day Europeans" (p. 4).

We can add that Unetice were overwhelmingly I2a (although one sample of R1a has also been found).

[Gravetto-Danubian]

That paper MikeWw linked a few days ago by Desideri had a diagram on tooth morphology. Not sure how relevant it is these days. .

11007

[Agamemnon]

You're obviously trolling at this point.

Tomenable is no troll, that I can assure you of ;)

[alan]

debate is healthy but when all a person uses the carte blanche for speculation offered by limited sampling to suggest the same thing (namely trying to disassociate L51 derivatives from PIE and place them early in the far west of Europe) then they clearly have an agenda. Why would a person consistently use this uncertainty to speculate the same thing? Especially when most neutral observers would see it as counter intuitive and ignoring Occam's Rasor. If not then contrarianism is just too exhausting to deal with.

[David Mc]

We can add that Unetice were overwhelmingly I2a (although one sample of R1a has also been found).

We can, and I've noted that elsewhere, with surprise. I would have guessed otherwise, but (watch this) the evidence showed I was wrong, so I adapted and adjusted to the new data. But that is neither here nor there. The point is, the Bell Beaker phenomena was a second resurgence of Steppe lines after years of admixing with locals.

[alan]

For me Celtic is just some modest innovations that occurred in an aerial way in an interaction zone among a north-peripheral subset of Italo-Celts c. 2000BC. The shifts define a dialect for a linguist but the shifts did not change who they were. They were still the same people before and after some minor change like dropping an initial P.

[alan]

For me Celtic is just some modest innovations that occurred in an aerial way in an interaction zone among a north-peripheral subset of Italo-Celts c. 2000BC. The shifts define a dialect for a linguist but the shifts did not change who they were. They were still the same people before and after some minor change like dropping an initial P.

the linguistic evidence seems to indicate that Celtic developed from pre-proto-Celtic after a period of profound contact with pre-proto-Germanic which Italic did not share. Celtic and Germanic share some very key socio-military-ritual-religion vocab that was shared in the pre-proto stage rather than borrow from either Celtic to Germanic or vice versa. I also think Italic was only arrived in Italy in the Bronze Age (some point after beaker period anyway). So IMO Italo-Celtic was located in west-central Europe for some time before it spread into Iberia and Italy either very late in beaker or just after it in the Bronze Age. I suspect Italo-Celtic emerged in the beaker period c. 2500-2000BC in central Europe - possibly spreading through central and north-west Europe first c. 2500-2400BC then around or just before 2000BC it extended into Iberia and Italy.

My guess then is pre-proto-Celtic emerged at the northern extremity of Italo-Celtic zone in profound contact with pre-proto-Germans. I strongly feel the mix of Corded Ware and beaker people in the area between the Danube, Rhine and Elbe c. 2500-2200BC was the most likely area and period where the pre-proto ancestors of the Celts (beaker, P312) and Germans were mixed together for several centuries to such a degree that key socio-military-religious vocab was shared before the proto-phases of either language. The remainder of the Italo-Celtic branch do not appear to have shared this. So its likely that the critical subset that eventually led to Celtic was north-peripheral within the Italo-Celtic world and that other subsets of the latter were not in contact with the pre-Germanics.

I actually wouldnt be surprised if pre-proto Celtic emerged on the very edge of the Celto-Italic word in somewhere like the mid to Lower Rhine c. 2200BC

[rms2]

Generalissimo wrote in 2013 what I wrote in this thread based on Coon:



It's not extremely doubtful at all. It has a lot of support from ancient DNA and physical anthropology (recent work on tooth traits in Bronze Age Europeans).

Indo-European Corded Ware mixing with non-Indo-European Bell Beaker in Central Europe via female exogamy eventually = Indo-Europeans in Western Europe with a lot of R1b.

I don't know about which recent work on tooth traits was that, though.

There was a lot Generalissimo (and all of us, really) did not know in 2013. I think he has probably changed his mind on that by now.

If you would like, I can provide you with quotes from a few years ago from all sorts of experts who believed R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge.

[rms2]

. . .

And this is confusing - because Corded Ware was R1a but they found 75% Yamnaya ancestry in it.

. . .

You understand that what they found was not actual Yamnaya ancestry but Yamnaya-like autosomal dna, and that was by comparison with Yamnaya_Samara. Bell Beaker had plenty of that, too: not as much as CW, but, as I have explained to you a number of times, the steppe people involved in the genesis of Bell Beaker took a different route into Europe from that of Corded Ware. CW came across the relatively lightly populated North European Plain. The Yamnaya people who contributed to what would become Bell Beaker came up through the Danube Valley and the Carpathian Basin, and that after having lived for centuries cheek-by-jowl with some very large populations of Near Eastern-derived and WHG-derived farmers. It's only to be expected that they would have a bit less resemblance to eastern Yamnaya than Corded Ware has.

We need some western Yamnaya for autosomal comparison. Thus far we have no Yamnaya results from west of the Don, that is, none from the actual Pontic steppe, and none from the Carpathian Basin. I suspect Bell Beaker will resemble that more than Corded Ware will. I also think that is where we will find Z2103's L23 brother, L51: in western Yamnaya. After all, it was western Yamnaya that went west, along with Indo-European languages, and it would certainly be odd if L51, so closely related to Z2103 as it is, had nothing to do with that.

[Tomenable]

If you would like, I can provide you with quotes from a few years ago from all sorts of experts who believed R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge.

And this is the problem with experts that they believe in things based on snippets of evidence.

Currently you also have no solid, direct evidence that there was L51 in the Steppe, so maybe you are just as wrong as you were several years ago when claiming that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia and France.

That's why I prefer to be cautious.

And by the way - if anything I would expect L51 in southern Yamnaya (Crimea), not western.

[Tomenable]

ignoring Occam's Rasor. If not then contrarianism is just too exhausting to deal with.

"Be sparing with Occam's Razor": http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6265-Ancient-DNA-and-the-rewriting-of-human-history-be-sparing-with-Occam%92s-razor

"All of European hunters had dark skin", "all of R1b came from the Steppe", etc.

The first claim has already been falsified.

[Jessie]

Generalissimo wrote in 2013 what I wrote in this thread based on Coon:


You should ask him what his views are now. Reading his blog I think he has completely changed his views on R1b but I don't want to speak for him. A lot of people were stunned that Yamnaya were all R1b. Not really sure why some people were so anti-R1b having anything to do with the spread of Indo-European. I was always baffled with the Iberian / Basque origin for R1b. The British and Irish who are high in R1b are as distant to Iberians as many R1a groups are. I know that autosomal dna is not a clincher but it did hint that R1b originally was a more Eastern haplotype. It has been patently evident to me for quite sometime but I'm just a Joe Bloggs.

[Jean M]

Would like to hear this presentation:

Agreed. I suspect this may be indicative of the way in which archaeologists adapt to the age of ancient DNA. I find it encouraging.

Kristian Kristiansen is a top flight archaeological theorist. In October 2015 at the conference in Aberystwyth he said that we are in the midst of the 3rd scientific revolution (ancient DNA, strontium etc isotopes) that lifts the interpretive burden from archaeologists when it comes to mobility. "We need to re-calibrate our interpretations in the light of the emerging results: how does the material record behave in migrations?"

[R.Rocca]

And this is the problem with experts that they believe in things based on snippets of evidence.

I'll take the opinion of experts with ancient DNA data any day of the week, thank you. Besides, apart from critiquing the only consensus reached by academics so far, you have offered nothing to support your own opinions.


Currently you also have no solid, direct evidence that there was L51 in the Steppe, so maybe you are just as wrong as you were several years ago when claiming that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia and France.

What ancient DNA based evidence have you put forth that L51 from the steppe isn't the most likely scenario? As of right now, you've presented none.


That's why I prefer to be cautious.

You are not being cautious, you are stating that L51 was born in the Balkans. That is no more and no less cautious than saying it was born in the steppe.


And by the way - if anything I would expect L51 in southern Yamnaya (Crimea), not western.

The Crimean Kemi Oba Culture has long been suspected as being a predecessor of L23 that lead to L51. They were the ones that likely created anthropomorphic stelae that so closely resemble the one found in Western Europe. However, it is likelier that they fused with Yamnaya (thus the observed reuse of Kemi Oba stelae in Yamnaya graves) and then made their way into the Balkans in the form of full Yamnaya. The other option is that Kemi Oba were I2a and got pushed west by Yamnaya R1b and crossed into the Alps (thus Remedello).

[Jean M]

The other option is that Kemi Oba were I2a and got pushed west by Yamnaya R1b and crossed into the Alps (thus Remedello).

That's brilliant Richard! I like it.

[rms2]

And this is the problem with experts that they believe in things based on snippets of evidence.

Currently you also have no solid, direct evidence that there was L51 in the Steppe, so maybe you are just as wrong as you were several years ago when claiming that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia and France.

Actually, I was one of the few people back in 2006 and beyond arguing against the idea that R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. I did so on Rootsweb, FTDNA's forum, and the old dna forums. If you don't believe me, you can ask a few of the other old timers around here who are familiar with what was going on back then. I posted under the screen name "Stevo" at FTDNA's forum and at dna forums.

As for "solid, direct evidence that there was L51 in the Steppe", we currently have no ancient y-dna from a large portion of the steppe, that is, the Pontic steppe. We have some ancient y-dna from the Caspian steppe. We also do not have any ancient y-dna from among the Yamnaya remains in the Carpathian Basin.

I personally think the circumstantial evidence of a steppe origin for L51 is pretty strong. We have L51's L23+ brother, Z2103, among Yamnaya on the Caspian steppe, and we have R1b-L23xZ2103 among them, as well. Then we have L51 turning up in Bell Beaker. Gimbutas derived Bell Beaker from the melding of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian Basin, and other scholars at least recognize the pretty obvious connection between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, even if some of them only acknowledge it as cultural.



That's why I prefer to be cautious.

I would not characterize your arguments as "cautious". How was your thread "U106 were the true Celts" (or some such title) cautious?

Now you are claiming L23 arose in the Balkans. That's interesting, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't call that "cautious".



And by the way - if anything I would expect L51 in southern Yamnaya (Crimea), not western.

I would call Yamnaya in Crimea western, at least when compared with what we have thus far.

Also L51 is predominant in western Europe, as are Indo-European languages. We know that Yamnaya people moved west by going around the south side of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley. I expect we'll see L51 along that route (and by "L51", I mean L51 and any of its subclades that are old enough to have been represented).

[Jean M]

Actually, I was one of the few people back in 2006 and beyond arguing against the idea that R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian Refuge. I did so on Rootsweb, FTDNA's forum, and the old dna forums. If you don't believe me, you can ask a few of the other old timers around here who are familiar with what was going on back then. I posted under the screen name "Stevo" at FTDNA's forum and at dna forums..

I'm a witness. Tomenable - I credit rms2 in AJ for the early realisation that R1b was the other half of the Indo-European story in Europe. :)

I understand that Michał also had the same thought early on that R1b was connected to the Indo-Europeans, along with R1a.

[Tomenable]

apart from critiquing the only consensus reached by academics so far

The consensus reached so far is about "Yamnaya ancestry", not about any specific uniparental marker.

And it is not the only census reached so far because we also have consesus about Neolithization.

[rms2]

You should ask him what his views are now. Reading his blog I think he has completely changed his views on R1b but I don't want to speak for him. A lot of people were stunned that Yamnaya were all R1b. Not really sure why some people were so anti-R1b having anything to do with the spread of Indo-European. I was always baffled with the Iberian / Basque origin for R1b. The British and Irish who are high in R1b are as distant to Iberians as many R1a groups are. I know that autosomal dna is not a clincher but it did hint that R1b originally was a more Eastern haplotype. It has been patently evident to me for quite sometime but I'm just a Joe Bloggs.

I remember when Vince Vizachero, Ken Nordtvedt and others pointed out that R1b-M269 diversity increases as one one moves east and that the old Zhivotovsky fudge factor of 3 was likely wrong. The defense back then was, "But that's HT35!", as if "HT35" were something utterly other and unrelated to western M269. That's what the current, "it's all Z2103" argument reminds me of.

[Jessie]

I remember when Vince Vizachero, Ken Nordtvedt and others pointed out that R1b-M269 diversity increases as one one moves east and that the old Zhivatovsky fudge factor of 3 was likely wrong. The defense back then was, "But that's HT35!", as if "HT35" were something utterly other and unrelated to western M269. That's what the current, "it's all Z2103" argument reminds me of.

It's bizarre really why some people are so resistant. All evidence points to the Steppes and I was never fussed about whether R1b was Indo-European or not but it was obvious early on that it had an east to west migration. With the Haak study findings it's very clear that Yamnaya are the source for R1b in Europe. You literally have to be in denial to not see that.

[Tomenable]

Also L51 is predominant in western Europe, as are Indo-European languages.

Both you and me know well that there is no linguistic continuity in places like Ireland, Gaul, Iberia, etc. since the Bronze Age. In most of Western Europe languages spoken in 500 BC were not the same as the ones spoken there today. Half of modern Western Europe speaks languages derived from a language spoken by a small tribe living around Rome in 500 BC. Another half speaks languages derived from a language which was not spoken anywhere outside of Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. Even in Ireland Celtic is almost extinct.

Of course we know that other IE languages existed there before 500 BC. However, even if all of Western Europe spoke Basque in 500 BC, they would still all be speaking Romance and Germanic nowadays.

[Jean M]

The consensus reached so far is about "Yamnaya ancestry", not about any specific uniparental marker.

David Reich said to me that it is obvious that R1a and R1b spread with the Indo-Europeans. He is more interested in autosomal components. He rather chided me for asking about Y-DNA. ;) But he is nonetheless aware of how the data stacks up.

I should make clear he was just using "R1a" and "R1b" as shorthand to me, someone who would understand what he meant i.e. that there is a greater than chance correlation between men carrying haplogroups within the R1a and R1b lineages and Indo-European languages. Greater than chance correlation is not the same as a one-to-one correspondence.

Just to clarify: he did not mean:

R1a* or R1b*. Instead he was referring to the whole lineages.
That R1a or R1b and subclades have never, ever been carried by anyone who spoke a non-IE language. That would be absurd. For a start R1a* and R1b* pre-date PIE. In fact he revealed that they had found one R1b sample in Neolithic Iberia, which he clearly knew was unrelated to IE. That turned out to be on the V88 line, IIRC.

[ADW_1981]

There was nothing about Bell Beaker culture in that study. It was about Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

And this is confusing - because Corded Ware was R1a but they found 75% Yamnaya ancestry in it.

Edit:

OK, there was something on Bell Beaker too, but they mainly researched relationship between Yamna and CW.

Probably because R1b and R1a were in close proximity to one another and both groups of foragers (at the time) absorbed this "Caucasian mountains" like ancestry.

[ADW_1981]

Of course we know that other IE languages existed there before 500 BC. However, even if all of Western Europe spoke Basque in 500 BC, they would still all be speaking Romance and Germanic nowadays.

What evidence is there of them speaking Basque of something Basque-like? Or is this just the agenda? Frankly, you could say the same about any group of people living around the world without any strong evidence. ie: ancient Russians actually speaking Turkish, not PIE.

[Tomenable]

What evidence is there of them speaking Basque of something Basque-like?

No, I just wrote about a hypothetical scenario. It doesn't matter what they spoke before 500 BC, because no matter what that was, they would still start speaking Latin and Germanic later. So we have genetic continuity (they are still L51+), but not linguistic one. Nobody claims that after 1750 AD Irish population was replaced by English-speaking newcomers. And DNA shows that it wasn't, since R1b-L21 dominates by far and no more than 25% of Irish Y-DNA is foreign*. However, a linguistic shift did take place. You have the same thing in Romance-speaking areas. Descendants of ethnic Latins did not replace locals, but locals started to speak their language. That's why claiming "look, we speak Latin-derived languages and we are L51, so L51 must be PIE" is wrong. We know that nobody spoke Latin outside of a small region around Rome before 500 BC.

*Source: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27895-Were-the-Irish-pure-R1b-before-the-Viking-and-British-invasions?p=399792&viewfull=1#post399792

So rms2 could as well argue, that:


L51 is predominant in western Europe, as are Romance languages.

So what? We know that diffusion of Romance/Latin was mostly cultural, not demic.

[Jean M]

It doesn't matter what they spoke before 500 BC, because no matter what that was, they would still start speaking Latin and Germanic later. So we have genetic continuity (they are still L51+), but not linguistic one. Nobody claims that after 1750 AD Irish population was replaced by English-speaking newcomers. And DNA shows that it wasn't, since R1b-L21 dominates by far and no more than 25% of Irish Y-DNA is foreign. However, a linguistic shift did take place. You have the same thing in Romance-speaking areas. Descendants of ethnic Latins did not replace locals, but locals started to speak their language. That's why claiming "look, we speak Latin-derived languages and we are L51, so L51 must be PIE" is wrong. Because we know that nobody spoke Latin outside of the small region around Rome before 500 BC.

I do understand what you are saying Tomenable, but there are two points to understand.


One reason that we know that there was a linguistic shift in Ireland is that people spoke Irish there in historic times. The reason that we know that there were Celtic speakers in Continental Europe who shifted to the Latin language under Rome is that the linguistic evidence is there in place-names, personal names, inscriptions etc.
The example of language shift under the sway of Rome and in modern times under the sway of modern states has encouraged the supposition that the same type of language shift without mass movement was common in prehistory. But was it? If you think about it, that is extremely unlikely. The shift to Latin was the result of an imperial system in which the utility of becoming initially bilingual was high. Officialdom spoke Latin. Schooling was in Latin. Bilingualism is the commonest route to the loss of the less useful language. But most of the human past has not been spent in powerful and literate empires with an education system. Most of our ancestors used language to communicate with the people around them day-to-day. They did not write. The communicating community was restricted to those they could speak to regularly. So a language could only move if the communicating group, or an offshoot from it, moved. Languages moved with people in prehistory.

[rms2]

Both you and me know well that there is no linguistic continuity in places like Ireland, Gaul, Iberia, etc. since the Bronze Age. In most of Western Europe languages spoken in 500 BC were not the same as the ones spoken there today. Half of modern Western Europe speaks languages derived from a language spoken by a small tribe living around Rome in 500 BC. Another half speaks languages derived from a language which was not spoken anywhere outside of Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. Even in Ireland Celtic is almost extinct.

Of course we know that other IE languages existed there before 500 BC. However, even if all of Western Europe spoke Basque in 500 BC, they would still all be speaking Romance and Germanic nowadays.

There is linguistic continuity in the sense that we can trace what happened, much of it through documented history (for example, the shift in Ireland from Gaelic to English and in France from Gallic to French). Continuity is also what enables linguists to work backward and formulate a PIE lexicon and rules of grammar. Europe did not just suddenly become Indo-European-speaking post 500 BC, and it was not speaking Euskara before that.

I'll be glad when ancient dna finally puts a stake through the heart of the obsession with the Basques . . . or vindicates it utterly. The imagined importance of the Basques is clearly traceable to the obsolete 19th century notion that they represent a Paleolithic relic population. It's just goofy beyond words. Continuously having to address it for the last ten years, especially now that so much ancient dna evidence has come rolling in, is more than a little aggravating.

[vettor]

I do understand what you are saying Tomenable, but there are two points to understand.


One reason that we know that there was a linguistic shift in Ireland is that people spoke Irish there in historic times. The reason that we know that there were Celtic speakers in Continental Europe who shifted to the Latin language under Rome is that the linguistic evidence is there in place-names, personal names, inscriptions etc.
The example of language shift under the sway of Rome and in modern times under the sway of modern states has encouraged the supposition that the same type of language shift without mass movement was common in prehistory. But was it? If you think about it, that is extremely unlikely. The shift to Latin was the result of an imperial system in which the utility of becoming initially bilingual was high. Officialdom spoke Latin. Schooling was in Latin. Bilingualism is the commonest route to the loss of the less useful language. But most of the human past has not been spent in powerful and literate empires with an education system. Most of our ancestors used language to communicate with the people around them day-to-day. They did not write. The communicating community was restricted to those they could speak to regularly. So a language could only move if the communicating group, or an offshoot from it, moved. Languages moved with people in prehistory.


Since celtic began in old BB lands

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

with the term P-Celtic , then any Q-Celtic came later ...............the only q-celtic on the continent was in Iberia , the rest ie, La tene and halstatt are P-celtic

[Kopfjäger]

It's bizarre really why some people are so resistant.

It begins to make perfect sense when you had a group of people we shall call the "R1a-cheerleaders" who were borderline fanatical about anything Aryan (including their own comics!) up to the point when the Yamnaya results came out...

[Kopfjäger]

No, I just wrote about a hypothetical scenario.

Ok, Tomenable, enlighten me. In your opinion, how did Indo-European get to Great Britain/Ireland?

[rms2]

It begins to make perfect sense when you had a group of people we shall call the "R1a-cheerleaders" who were borderline fanatical about anything Aryan (including their own comics!) up to the point when the Yamnaya results came out...

The vodka bottles hit the floor and dacha-building was immediately suspended until further notice. Not really, but I bet some hearts sank after the Haak results.

True, but some of those guys turned out to be pretty decent and pretty reasonable and have followed where the evidence has led.

No reason for them to dash a good bottle of vodka either. Both R1a and R1b were in on the genesis of PIE and its spread.

[Kopfjäger]

True, but some of those guys turned out to be pretty decent and pretty reasonable and have followed where the evidence has led.

No reason for them to dash a good bottle of vodka either. Both R1a and R1b were in on the genesis of PIE and its spread.

Oh, I definitely agree. Even that David fellow - whose dedication to the scientific process I now acknowledge and respect - changed his mind once the ancient DNA results started pouring in. It's a shame so much energy and talent is wasted on some of these crack-pot theories.

[Tomenable]

In your opinion, how did Indo-European get to Great Britain/Ireland?

I already explained - with Cord-Zoned Beakers, from the Rhineland:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=DCEhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95#v=onepage&q&f=false

From the link above, about Bell-Beakers in Britain: "Corded-Ware elements present in almost all our [Scottish] Bell-Beakers shows that they must have a Rhenish or Dutch origin".

[rms2]

I already explained - with Cord-Zoned Beakers, from the Rhineland:

https://books.google.pl/books?id=DCEhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT95&lpg=PT95#v=onepage&q&f=false

From the link above, about Bell-Beakers in Britain: "Corded-Ware elements present in almost all our [Scottish] Bell-Beakers shows that they must have a Rhenish or Dutch origin".

And Gaul, Iberia, and Italy? Corded Ware is behind the spread of Indo-European there, too?

Thus far, even the Bell Beaker in Germany lacks R1a, as does Yamnaya (so far).

[Tomenable]

And Gaul, Iberia, and Italy?

Also the same CW-influenced part of Bell Beaker with ultimate origin in the Rhineland or its vicinity.

[Volat]

It begins to make perfect sense when you had a group of people we shall call the "R1a-cheerleaders" who were borderline fanatical about anything Aryan (including their own comics!) up to the point when the Yamnaya results came out...

The vodka bottles hit the floor and dacha-building was immediately suspended until further notice. Not really, but I bet some hearts sank after the Haak results.

I have been stating for many years before the study by Haak et al that likely PIE folks had a number of Y-chromosome markers in their genetic pool. Also, Yamnaya occupied a larger area from western Ukraine to Ural. Haak et al only tested samples near Samara which is an eastern part of Yamnaya. In western and southern Yamnya we may find G2a, I2a, R1a1, R1b.

[rms2]

Also the same CW-influenced part of Bell Beaker with ultimate origin in the Rhineland or its vicinity.

Not likely. Bell Beaker culture differs from CW considerably. Just take for example the boat-shaped battle axes so characteristic of CW. Where are they in Bell Beaker? And again, where is the R1a in Bell Beaker? Certainly if there was a contact zone, Germany should be it, but thus far not one of the Bell Beaker skeletons from Germany or the Czech Republic has tested R1a. That's not what one would expect if extensive mixing was going on.

[alan]

That's brilliant Richard! I like it.

I like that too. No matter how much we chew over old ground some new angles can still be thought of. I vaguely remember some Cranial evidence for those cultures around the Crimea and mouth of the Dnieper as conforming more to the Neolithic farmer type. I forget the names other than Kemi Obi. Maybe Lower Mikhaylovka and another one. So what Richard said might work. Especially if you take a Rassamakin sort of interpretation of those cultures which emphasises links with the farmers to the west and the Caucasus. Even the males in Sredny Stog graves west of the Don (more so than the females) had a large farmer type cranial element. Obviously head measuring is a bit dodgy but I have wondered for a while if some of these pre-Yamanaya expansion groups between the Lower Dnieper and Lower Don might be genetically more farmer-related, including the yDNA.

[Tomenable]

Just take for example the boat-shaped battle axes so characteristic of CW. Where are they in Bell Beaker?

For example in Britain.

Battle axes have been found among Beakers who came to Britain - quote: "most of them brought zoned beakers and battle axes, in consequence of their blending with the Corded people in the Rhinelands".

[Jean M]

From the link above, about Bell-Beakers in Britain: "Corded-Ware elements present in almost all our [Scottish] Bell-Beakers shows that they must have a Rhenish or Dutch origin".

That book was published in 1962. Since then discussion of the origin of Bell Beaker has gone through decades of accepting the "Dutch Model", presented by Lanting and van der Waals in 1976, in which Bell Beaker began in the Netherlands and was entirely derived from a form of Corded Ware. That was thrown into disarray by a review of the chronology, published in 2001. Some Dutch archaeologists have remained in denial, but most others accepted that the bell-shaped pottery began in Iberia.

That threw up a major question for those of us who recognised that Indo-European languages did not arise in Iberia. I recall being asked on the World Families Forums years ago how I would bridge the gap between the Pontic steppe and Iberia! :) I gave the matter a couple of minutes thought and replied "anthropomorphic stelae". That was based on Anthony 2007, but I later found that Harrison and Heyd 2007 was the key publication. Since I went to print with this thought, several other authors have taken on the idea, either from me or independently. But we await ancient DNA.

[Tomenable]

That's not what one would expect if extensive mixing was going on.

Unfortunately gay marriages (such as mixing of R1a + R1b couples) do not produce any children.

OTOH, heterosexual marriages (R1b + CW women) do. Here it is useful to read about CW women:

http://phys.org/news/2016-05-women-southern-germany-corded-ware.html


Women in Corded Ware Culture may have been highly mobile and may have married outside their social group, according to a study published May 25, 2016 in the open-access journal PLOS ONE by Karl-Göran Sjögren from Göteborg University, Sweden, and colleagues. Around 42% of individuals buried in one of the large cemetery sites were found to be non-local, with many females likely to have originated from elsewhere. This result may indicate that women across generations in this culture were very mobile.

The authors suggest that their evidence of varied diet and mobility supports the possibility of a stable system of female exogamy, where women married outside of their social group and moved to their husbands' settlements (...) Karl-Göran Sjögren notes: "Our results suggest that Corded Ware groups in southern Germany were highly mobile, especially the women. We interpret this as indicating a pattern of female exogamy, involving different groups with differing economic strategies, and suggesting a complex pattern of social exchange and economic diversity in Late Neolithic Europe."

[rms2]

For example in Britain.

Battle axes have been found among Beakers who came to Britain - quote: "most of them brought zoned beakers and battle axes, in consequence of their blending with the Corded people in the Rhinelands".

Really? Where are there CW-style battle axes in BB graves in Britain? I must have missed that.

[Tomenable]

Important: "women married outside of their social group and moved to their husbands' settlements".

So if a CW woman married a BB man, she moved to a BB settlement.

And if a BB woman married a CW man, she moved to a CW settlement.

Actually, CW did not have any settlements, they were nomadic, AFAIK.

[alan]

I like that too. No matter how much we chew over old ground some new angles can still be thought of. I vaguely remember some Cranial evidence for those cultures around the Crimea and mouth of the Dnieper as conforming more to the Neolithic farmer type. I forget the names other than Kemi Obi. Maybe Lower Mikhaylovka and another one. So what Richard said might work. Especially if you take a Rassamakin sort of interpretation of those cultures which emphasises links with the farmers to the west and the Caucasus. Even the males in Sredny Stog graves west of the Don (more so than the females) had a large farmer type cranial element. Obviously head measuring is a bit dodgy but I have wondered for a while if some of these pre-Yamanaya expansion groups between the Lower Dnieper and Lower Don might be genetically more farmer-related, including the yDNA.

It has puzzled me for a while that Z2103 is probably not as old as Suvorovo (which could date as early as 4400BC. If so then what y lines would Suvorovo carry? Its not easy to see R lineages old enough. Then again Suvorovo seems to have been very small scale and perhaps its influence on Balkans natives was greater in the long term than their genetic impact.

[rms2]

Unfortunately gay marriages (such as mixing of R1a + R1b couples) do not produce any children.

OTOH, heterosexual marriages (R1b + CW women) do . . .

Are you saying homosexuality was so widespread among CW men that that culture's women were forced into the arms of R1b Bell Beaker men?

Astounding!

Seriously though, if there was extensive mixing between BB and CW, we should expect some R1a in BB and some R1b in CW.

Marrying outside one's social group does not necessarily imply marrying completely outside one's culture, although undoubtedly some of that did occur.

[alan]

Important: "women married outside of their social group and moved to their husbands' settlements".

So if a CW woman married a BB man, she moved to a BB settlement.

And if a BB woman married a CW man, she moved to a CW settlement.

Actually, CW did not have any settlements, they were nomadic, AFAIK.

generally true but this is complicated further if a culture has an important subgroup within it who were mobile networking traders moving large distances or migrating. Such a scenario could see the opposite - male genes moving and marrying local women. So the devil is in the detail and probably can only be interpreted if a large chunk of a cemetery is well excavated and dated.

[Tomenable]

if there was extensive mixing between BB and CW, we should expect some R1a in BB

This is how you should explain the presence in low frequency of scattered R1a-L664 throughout Western Europe. Unlike that of R1a-Z284, the presence of R1a-L664 cannot be explained by much later Viking raids.

There is no more (percentage-wise) of L664 and related clades in Scandinavia than elsewhere in Europe.

Also more basal subclades of R1a-M198+ can be explained by Corded Ware (now we know that such subclades were present in Corded Ware - for example Genetiker found one basal M198* and a few M417*).

[alan]

Are you saying homosexuality was so widespread among CW men that that culture's women were forced into the arms of R1b Bell Beaker men?

Astounding!

Seriously though, if there was extensive mixing between BB and CW, we should expect some R1a in BB and some R1b in CW.

Marrying outside one's social group does not necessarily imply marrying completely outside one's culture, although undoubtedly some of that did occur.

hahaha - I like the idea that all that macho parading around with hammer axes etc was just as smokescreen

[alan]

For example in Britain.

Battle axes have been found among Beakers who came to Britain - quote: "most of them brought zoned beakers and battle axes, in consequence of their blending with the Corded people in the Rhinelands".

Do you frequent a local library that stopped buying new books 60 years ago ;0) Your sources sound like the stock of an antiquarian bookshop.

[Jean M]

Actually, CW did not have any settlements, they were nomadic, AFAIK.

Archaeologists thought that in the old days, because their settlements were hard to detect. Timber rots in the ground, so timber building can leave few traces. Nowadays archaeologists are able to detect Corded Ware settlements.

[Jean M]

Do you frequent a local library that stopped buying new books 60 years ago ;0) Your sources sound like the stock of an antiquarian bookshop.

Out of copyright books are freely available on the Internet.

[rms2]

This is how you should explain the presence in low frequency of scattered R1a-L664 throughout Western Europe . . .

Why would anyone think to explain R1a-L664 in western Europe by attributing it to Bell Beaker, an ancient culture with a fair number of y-dna test results and not one of them R1a of any kind?

[alan]

True, but some of those guys turned out to be pretty decent and pretty reasonable and have followed where the evidence has led.

No reason for them to dash a good bottle of vodka either. Both R1a and R1b were in on the genesis of PIE and its spread.

I really admire the way David followed the evidence even when he previously was a bit of an R1a cheerleader. That shows a bit of class IMO.

[Tomenable]

Why would anyone think to explain R1a-L664 in western Europe by attributing it to Bell Beaker

You misunderstood me.

R1a-L664 has been found in Corded Ware, so you should attribute it to Corded Ware, not Bell Beaker.

But the point is that L664 is scattered throughout Western Europe, where Corded Ware was never present.

So how exactly did L664 get to areas which were never actually reached by Corded Ware culture?

[Tomenable]

I really admire the way David followed the evidence

Yes he does follow evidence. But you don't follow evidence because for example I saw you claiming that Tocharians were R1b, while out of 12 Xiaohe male mummies (commonly associated with Proto-Tocharians), 11 turned out to be R1a and 1 turned out to be T1a. I guess you stopped believing that Xiaohe mummies were Tocharians after they turned out to be R1a? Because you seriously need Tocharians to be R1b in order to associate R1b with earlier branching events of IE languages (as you wrote in your 2013 thread).

As we know, Proto-Tocharian was one of the earliest branchings of PIE.

[rms2]

You misunderstood me.

R1a-L664 has been found in Corded Ware, so you should attribute it to Corded Ware, not Bell Beaker.

But the point is that L664 is scattered throughout Western Europe, where Corded Ware was never present.

So how exactly did L664 get to areas which were never actually reached by Corded Ware culture?

I don't know, but there has been a lot of historical water under the bridge between the Bronze Age and now.

I don't even know who the father of my y-dna line third great grandfather was, so don't expect me to be able to supply a pedigree for every R1a-L664 guy who had an ancestor who went to western Europe at some point.

Since archaeologists have not been finding Corded Ware in western Europe much beyond the Rhine, I don't think attributing anything or anyone in western Europe to Corded Ware is wise.

[rms2]

Yes he does follow evidence. But you don't follow evidence because for example I saw you claiming that Tocharians were R1b, while out of 12 Xiaohe male mummies (commonly associated with Proto-Tocharians), 11 turned out to be R1a and 1 turned out to be T1a. I guess you stopped believing that Xiaohe mummies were Tocharians after they turned out to be R1a? Because you seriously need Tocharians to be R1b in order to associate R1b with earlier branching events of IE languages (as you wrote in your 2013 thread).

As we know, Proto-Tocharian was one of the earliest branchings of PIE.

Why don't you start a separate thread for that? Aren't those mummies much too late to be Tocharians or to be of much use in saying anything meaningful about the early Tocharians?

Finding Scythians here and there who were R1a led a lot of folks to assume that Yamnaya skeletons would all be R1a. We know how that turned out.

[alan]

There is linguistic continuity in the sense that we can trace what happened, much of it through documented history (for example, the shift in Ireland from Gaelic to English and in France from Gallic to French). Continuity is also what enables linguists to work backward and formulate a PIE lexicon and rules of grammar. Europe did not just suddenly become Indo-European-speaking post 500 BC, and it was not speaking Euskara before that.

I'll be glad when ancient dna finally puts a stake through the heart of the obsession with the Basques . . . or vindicates it utterly. The imagined importance of the Basques is clearly traceable to the obsolete 19th century notion that they represent a Paleolithic relic population. It's just goofy beyond words. Continuously having to address it for the last ten years, especially now that so much ancient dna evidence has come rolling in, is more than a little aggravating.

Yep - IMO the Basque country will be just like the rest of Europe. The main difference in Iberia seems to be that the steppe genetic impact was smaller. The high % of P312 lineages is not matched in Iberia by as heavy steppe autosomal imput as the rest of Europe with high P312. That in itself is probably a clue as to why IE was only patchily successful in Iberia.

[alan]

I remember when Vince Vizachero, Ken Nordtvedt and others pointed out that R1b-M269 diversity increases as one one moves east and that the old Zhivotovsky fudge factor of 3 was likely wrong. The defense back then was, "But that's HT35!", as if "HT35" were something utterly other and unrelated to western M269. That's what the current, "it's all Z2103" argument reminds me of.

Is Ken still about? I havent looked at rootsweb in years.

[rms2]

Is Ken still about? I havent looked at rootsweb in years.

I think these days he sticks to the y haplogroup I discussions. I don't look at Rootsweb anymore either and haven't in a long time. I "unsubscribed" quite some time ago.

[Tomenable]

Aren't those mummies much too late to be Tocharians

No, actually some people have claimed that they are too early to be Tocharians.

They are probably just about the right time to be Proto-Tocharians.

Although Tocharian language is only attested much, much later, in the Iron Age.

[Tomenable]

Finding Scythians here and there who were R1a

What "Scythians" ??? You mean Proto-Indo-Iranians ???

[rms2]

No, actually some people have claimed that they are too early to be Tocharians.

They are probably just about the right time to be Proto-Tocharians.

Although Tocharian language is only attested much, much later, in the Iron Age.

I think you are seriously mistaken. The oldest of those mummies dates to around 1800 BC, and Tocharian was the first branch of IE after Anatolian to split from PIE, sometime in the 4th millennium BC.

Probably those mummies were Indo-Iranian rather than Tocharian or represent Indo-Iranian influence in that region. 1800 BC is too late for them to say much about the early Tocharians.

[Tomenable]

The oldest of those mummies dates to around 1800 BC

Nope. Jean M has them dated to 2515 BC (plus/minus 43 years):

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml


Probably those mummies were Indo-Iranian rather than Tocharian

They were not Z93 but another subclade of R1a. We discussed this b4.

Only clade Z93 are Indo-Iranians, so no - they were not Indo-Iranians.

[rms2]

What "Scythians" ??? You mean Proto-Indo-Iranians ???

No, I meant Scythians. I am remembering off the top of my head about a number of years ago when a Scythian skeleton turned out be to R1a and the leap was made to conclude that meant Yamnaya was all R1a.

[Kopfjäger]

Why don't you start a separate thread for that? Aren't those mummies much too late to be Tocharians or to be of much use in saying anything meaningful about the early Tocharians?

Finding Scythians here and there who were R1a led a lot of folks to assume that Yamnaya skeletons would all be R1a. We know how that turned out.

Not to mention that Afanasevo, which is considered by some to be the progenitor of Tocharian, is near identical to Yamnaya.


So how exactly did L664 get to areas which were never actually reached by Corded Ware culture?

People...move. Besides, Britain and Ireland are overwhelmingly R1b, and this haplogroup has been found in Bronze Age Bell Beaker (Rathlin). Your argument is moot.

[alan]

Yes he does follow evidence. But you don't follow evidence because for example I saw you claiming that Tocharians were R1b, while out of 12 Xiaohe male mummies (commonly associated with Proto-Tocharians), 11 turned out to be R1a and 1 turned out to be T1a. I guess you stopped believing that Xiaohe mummies were Tocharians after they turned out to be R1a? Because you seriously need Tocharians to be R1b in order to associate R1b with earlier branching events of IE languages (as you wrote in your 2013 thread).

As we know, Proto-Tocharian was one of the earliest branchings of PIE.

No I pointed out that Tarim is not in the same area as Afanasievo which many have linked to Tocharian. The Tarim mummies, Afanasievo and Tocharian have been suggested to be linked but this is by no means certain as there are large chronological and geographical gaps between these links. They could be but I dont think even Mallory insisted it was a dead cert (he never does unless it really is a dead cert). I will fire until actual Afansievo graves are tested. Remember that it is the early dates of the Afanasievo graves (though not quite as early as was once thought) that led to the suggestion that they were linked to Tocharian which linguists see as the first breakoff of PIE proper. Even if there if somehow the Tarim mummies are some sort of offshoot of Afanasievo, the gap in time and geography creates many chances of a founder effect or bottleneck or two between early Afansievo and the mummies.

Also Afansievo basically looks like an offshoot of early Yamnaya (Yamnaya proper) so it makes sense that if eastern Yamnaya featured Z2103 that it might be expected in an Afansievo offshoot. I dont rule out R1a in Afansievo either. Both R1a and R1b have been found in Khvalynsk perhaps c. 4500BC in the Volga area.So its clear there was a mix of the two in the area between the Don and the Volga. The trip to Altai from the European steppe that Afanasievo made is in itself is a blatant scenario for bottlenecks and founder effects.All I will say is I would be very surprised if the population that Afansievo is a far flung offshoot off did not include R1b.

[Tomenable]

is near identical to Yamnaya.

Autosomally yes, but we don't have Y-DNA from Afanasievo.

And we don't have autosomal DNA from Xiaohe mummies.


Both R1a and R1b have been found in a pre-Repin culture (mental block on the name)

Khvalynsk. But that R1b was xM269 and that R1a was xM198.

[rms2]

Nope. Jean M has them dated to 2515 BC (plus/minus 43 years):

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml



They were not Z93 but another subclade of R1a. We discussed this b4.

Only clade Z93 are Indo-Iranians, so no - they were not Indo-Iranians.

4th millennium, Tomenable. That's when the Tocharians split and headed east. They were too early to be in on the satem shift.

[Tomenable]

4th millennium, Tomenable. That's when the Tocharians split and headed east.

They did not teleport straight to Tarim basin, but it took them some centuries to get there.


They were too early to be in on the satem shift.

Satem sound changes have nothig to do with R1a. And PIE was neither Satem nor Centum - both are later innovations. Centumization was about the loss of the palatovelar row: *ḱ, *ḱʰ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ.

And Centum languages did not produce sibilants from a series of PIE palatovelar stops.

[rms2]

Autosomally yes, but we don't have Y-DNA from Afanasievo . . .

Maybe. There was a rumor a couple of years ago that Russian scientist Alexei Kovalev had recovered R1b among ancient Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai, and that rumor seemed to be confirmed by Anatole Klyosov, who evidently knows Kovalev, but no paper ever appeared in English.

We're still waiting.

[Coldmountains]

Xiahoe R1a mummies were definitely not Indo-Iranians. They are too early in the tarim basin and not Z93. Afanasievo was genetically almost identical to Yamnaya but it is not derived from Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya culture like Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b. So Afanasievo could be R1a, R1b or both but we don't know. No matter if Afanasievo was R1a or R1b, I still think that Tocharians were probably R1b because all R1a in the tarim basin is today Indo-Iranian and R1b is significant among Uyghurs in the tarim basin. What kind of R1b clades are present today in the tarim basin? Maybe some clade is special to this region and can be associated with historical Tocharians

[Tomenable]

We're still waiting.

And what about that rumour of R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya, which appeared few months ago ???

Anyway, neither Z93 nor Z2103 are Z282 or L51. So there are no "Western" variants so far.

[Kopfjäger]

Maybe. There was a rumor a couple of years ago that Russian scientist Alexei Kovalev had recovered R1b among ancient Afanasievo and Okunevo remains in the Altai, and that rumor seemed to be confirmed by Anatole Klyosov, who evidently knows Kovalev, but no paper ever appeared in English.

We're still waiting.

If R1b appears in Afanasevo (which is likely given ancient DNA results), it doesn't matter. With the wave of a hand, Afanasevo is no longer IE-speaking! Voila! Problem solved by folks like Tomenable.

Anyway, I don't want to derail this discussion on Bell Beaker. Tomenable, you should really start a Tocharian=R1a thread in another section of this forum.

[Kopfjäger]

And what about that rumour of R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya, which appeared few months ago ???

Anyway, neither Z93 nor Z2103 are Z282 or L51. So there are no "Western" variants so far.

That's great! I'm all for new ancient DNA results! Most of us are pretty open to stuff like that. On the other hand, I hear that one of Klyosov's websites has some pretty impressive drawings of Scythians that resemble Fedor Emelianenko. You should go there!

[Tomenable]

You are a very funny boy Kopfjäger. :bounce:

[rms2]

They did not teleport straight to Tarim basin, but it took them some centuries to get there.

But mummies from 2500 BC don't tell us much about people from the 4th millennium BC.




Satem sound change has nothig to do with R1a . . .

Satem represents the shift away from the more archaic centum. Tocharian was not part of that.

[Michał]

I don't claim that it originated in the Middle East, but that it originated in South-East Europe (Balkans).
You mean R1b-L23 originated in the Balkans? So how come there was no EEF in any R1b-L23 sample from Yamna?

[rms2]

And what about that rumour of R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya, which appeared few months ago ???
. . .

I never heard that one. Was the discovery attributed to an actual scientist?

BTW, it would not surprise me if R1a turned up in Yamnaya.

[Michał]

It begins to make perfect sense when you had a group of people we shall call the "R1a-cheerleaders" who were borderline fanatical about anything Aryan (including their own comics!) up to the point when the Yamnaya results came out...

The vodka bottles hit the floor and dacha-building was immediately suspended until further notice. Not really, but I bet some hearts sank after the Haak results.
I consider the above comment unfair and offensive. No wonder that this stupid animosity between the R1a and R1b folks fails to disappear...
BTW, Tomenable is R1b, so accusing him of being an "R1a-cheerleader" (or maybe even an "R1b hater") is kind of funny.

[Tomenable]

Satem represents the shift away from the more archaic centum.

PIE language was neither Centum nor Satem. I listed the sound changes which produced Centum in post #2361. But we don't know if these sound changes (leading to Satemization/Centumization) happened once or more times. The process could also get reversed (i.e something Satem could turn Centum or Centum->Satem).

[TigerMW]

...
with the term P-Celtic , then any Q-Celtic came later ...............the only q-celtic on the continent was in Iberia , the rest ie, La tene and halstatt are P-celtic
I don't understand what you are saying but I think we see Q-Celtic place-names in continental Europe so there was Q-Celtic there before there was P-Celtic.

[Michał]

So how exactly did L664 get to areas which were never actually reached by Corded Ware culture?
I have once discussed it in another thread:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1026-what-is-the-latest-thinking-on-were-R1a-originated&p=8225&viewfull=1#post8225

And here is a slightly modified scenario that I have recently posted on the FTDNA R1a project's Activity Feed page:

I am now more willing to consider Frisia a secondary expansion center for L664. In other words, I would assume that L664 was born in the East (somewhere close to the Middle Dnieper region) with the entire clan of early L664 members migrating west with their R1a-M198 relatives as a part of the expanding Corded Ware horizon. More specifically, I would assign clade L664 (or generally CTS4385) to the so-called Single Grave Culture in the North-Western part of the Corded Ware territory. Most of those early L664 lineages have likely become extinct following the collapse of the Single Grave/Corded Ware culture in this part of Europe, with only some of them surviving among the R1b-rich newcomers representing the expanding Bell Beaker culture. This could have included a relatively large group of the early L664 members being pushed up to the North Sea and surviving mostly in Frisia (and in some neighboring territories), from where some younger subclades could have been able to expand in more recent times. In this respect, I am thinking mostly about clade YP285 encompassing more than a half of all modern L664 members, as they could have significantly contributed to the expansion of the Frisians, Anglo-Saxons and Jutes who invaded Britain in the Early Medieval times.

[Tomenable]

I never heard that one.

Here, in a post from 21 March 2016:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3978-When-are-we-to-expect-the-next-round-of-ancient-y-dna-results&p=146861&viewfull=1#post146861


Was the discovery attributed to an actual scientist?

The discovery was attributed to David Reich.

[rms2]

PIE language was neither Centum nor Satem. I listed the sound changes which produced Centum in post #2361. But we don't know if these sound changes (leading to Satemization/Centumization) happened once or more times. The process could also get reversed (i.e something Satem could turn Centum or Centum->Satem).

I am not a linguist, and I don't think you are either.

As I understand it, Tocharian is a centum IE language and did not experience the satem shift.

Ultimately that does not matter for this discussion, and if you want to argue that the Tarim mummies are truly representative of Tocharians from the 4th millennium BC, despite the fact that oldest of them dates from a thousand or more years after the Tocharians headed east, then you should start a new thread.

[Kopfjäger]

I consider the above comment unfair and offensive. No wonder that this stupid animosity between the R1a and R1b folks fails to disappear...
BTW, Tomenable is R1b, so accusing him of being an "R1a-cheerleader" (or maybe even an "R1b hater") is kind of funny.

Michał,

You're right, and I apologize if it engendered those feelings from you. You're one of the few that follows the data and generates meaningful hypotheses based on such data. That's very much appreciated! My hyperbolic comedy apparently didn't work: I was trying to demonstrate how silly all of it is anyway.

By the way, just because Tomenable belongs to R1b doesn't really mean anything in terms of bias one way or the other.

[rms2]

Here, in a post from 21 March 2016:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3978-When-are-we-to-expect-the-next-round-of-ancient-y-dna-results&p=146861&viewfull=1#post146861



The discovery was attributed to David Reich.

Oh, I remember that. My only childlike grasp of Russian led me astray in attempting to understand it.

I guess that one is right up there with the Kovalev rumor.

[Tomenable]

doesn't really mean anything in terms of bias one way or the other.

I'm not biased - but don't you think that it would be too good for both R1-s to be IE?

We must leave something for Basque-cheerleaders or Turkic-cheerleaders, and such. :D

[Tomenable]

despite the fact that oldest of them dates from a thousand or more years after the Tocharians headed east, then you should start a new thread.

Do you know any other, even older, Caucasoid mummies from the region that could be Tocharians?

Or did Tocharians become invisible during that period?

[Agamemnon]

The Centum-Satem isogloss isn't all that relevant to this debate IMHO, there are no "centum languages" or "satem languages".

[Kopfjäger]

I'm not biased - but don't you think that it would be too good for both R1-s to be IE?

We must leave something for Basque-cheerleaders or Turkic-cheerleaders, and such. :D

I honestly do not care who or what was IE, just that folks are being objective in their analyses; that's all. As for Bell Beaker, this culture could have implications for myself, as my own haplogroup (L21) was found belonging to it - hence my interest.

[rms2]

I'm not biased - but don't you think that it would be too good for both R1-s to be IE? . . .

Why?

Looking at the distribution of R1 and of early Indo-European after its initial Bronze Age spread is what convinced me that Indo-European was largely an R1 phenomenon. At the time, I saw the centum/satem, basically west/east geographical division, and its correspondence with the basic R1b/R1a west/east geographical division, as more than coincidental. I still think the basic idea is sound, despite the complaints from those who know more about linguistics than I do that the centum/satem division is not as important as I thought it was.

Things could change, I guess, but it seems to me the ancient dna is proving that my basic instincts were right.

[rms2]

Do you know any other, even older, Caucasoid mummies from the region that could be Tocharians?

Or did Tocharians become invisible during that period?

I just think if you want to know something about the Tocharians, then you need to be sure that the skeletons you're testing belonged to actual Tocharians, not people from over a thousand years later who might or might not have spoken Tocharian.

Things can change a lot in a millennium or more.

[Jean M]

I just think if you want to know something about the Tocharians, then you need to be sure that the skeletons you're testing belonged to actual Tocharians, not people from over a thousand years later who might or might not have spoken Tocharian.

I think you have this the wrong way around. The linguistic evidence for Tocharian is in the Tarim Basin and a lot later than the skeletons. But the centum nature of Tocharian indicates that the group who developed it left the PIE homeland earlier than those who developed eastern Iranian. The Afanasievo culture was the first to colonise the Minusinsk Depression in the Altai, followed by Andronovo and a chain of descendant cultures down to the Scythians. Later in the Tarim Basin the earliest cemeteries can be linked to Afanasievo. Later ones are linked to Andronovo. It is one of the earliest cemeteries in the Tarim Basin from which we have R1a which is not R1a-Z93. The logical deduction is that this represents Pre-Tocharian or Proto-Tocharian.

[rms2]

I think you have this the wrong way around. The linguistic evidence for Tocharian is in the Tarim Basin and a lot later than the skeletons. But the centum nature of Tocharian indicates that the group who developed it left the PIE homeland earlier than those who developed eastern Iranian. The Afanasievo culture was the first to colonise the Minusinsk Depression in the Altai, followed by Andronovo and a chain of descendant cultures down to the Scythians. Later in the Tarim Basin the earliest cemeteries can be linked to Afanasievo. Later ones are linked to Andronovo. It is one of the earliest cemeteries in the Tarim Basin from which we have R1a which is not R1a-Z93. The logical deduction is that this represents Pre-Tocharian or Proto-Tocharian.

If you say so, but if the Tocharians split from PIE in the 4th millennium BC, these folks seem a bit late.

[Jean M]

If you say so, but if the Tocharians split from PIE in the 4th millennium BC, these folks seem a bit late.

The Afanasievo culture is bang on target for the departure in the 4th millenium. Then we find some descendants of theirs later in the Tarim Basin. Of course we wish that they had the forethought to scratch a few words onto a slate and get themselves buried with it, but that would just be too easy. ;)

[Silesian]

Eurasian K6

Yamnaya Z2103
http://oi68.tinypic.com/23tfolw.jpg

Afanasevo culture
http://oi65.tinypic.com/2cxdg6o.jpg

Sintashta R1a-93
http://oi66.tinypic.com/2e0r6me.jpg


Distance Yamnaya-Afensievo samples.
http://oi64.tinypic.com/2u554q0.jpg

Slam dunk.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Xiahoe R1a mummies were definitely not Indo-Iranians. They are too early in the tarim basin and not Z93. Afanasievo was genetically almost identical to Yamnaya but it is not derived from Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya culture like Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b. So Afanasievo could be R1a, R1b or both but we don't know. No matter if Afanasievo was R1a or R1b, I still think that Tocharians were probably R1b because all R1a in the tarim basin is today Indo-Iranian and R1b is significant among Uyghurs in the tarim basin. What kind of R1b clades are present today in the tarim basin? Maybe some clade is special to this region and can be associated with historical Tocharians

I'd heard mumbling that the Chinese could have deliberately manipulated results to show that these Tarim basin mummies were x Z93 to quieten down Uyghur separatists. I wish I had the faith to wholly reject these rumors, but I do not.
So, I'd like to see some independent Lab verification.

[Jean M]

I'd heard mumbling that the Chinese could have deliberately manipulated results to show that these Tarim basin mummies were x Z93 to quieten down Uyghur separatists.

I seem to have missed a couple of pages of the script of this thriller. I was unaware that the Uyghur Separatist movement was based on specific claims of Tocharian ancestry rather than Iranian. In fact the Turkic speaking Uyghurs had originally claimed that they (Turkic speakers) had always lived in the Tarim Basin. So the appearance of westerners in cemeteries there most probably did not go down well at all until somebody realised that the Uyghurs were a mixed population, so they could use the mummies as a boost to their ancestral claims. The earlier the better, of course, as is always the case. But I cannot see a comment by a scientist that this R1a was x Z93 having the slightest effect on Uyghur politics. Essentially they are not Chinese. They want independence from China.

[Silesian]

Xiahoe R1a mummies were definitely not Indo-Iranians. They are too early in the tarim basin and not Z93. Afanasievo was genetically almost identical to Yamnaya but it is not derived from Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya culture like Khvalynsk had both R1a and R1b. So Afanasievo could be R1a, R1b or both but we don't know. No matter if Afanasievo was R1a or R1b, I still think that Tocharians were probably R1b because all R1a in the tarim basin is today Indo-Iranian and R1b is significant among Uyghurs in the tarim basin. What kind of R1b clades are present today in the tarim basin? Maybe some clade is special to this region and can be associated with historical Tocharians
Evidence presented to contradict your Yamnaya claim/findings that they are not derived from a common source. Beginning @29.34 Kent mnt, Archeological evidence presented at Karagash Kurgan- displays traits for both cultures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA

[Coldmountains]

Evidence presented to contradict your Yamnaya claim/findings that they are not derived from a common source. Beginning @29.34 Kent mnt, Archeological evidence presented at Karagash Kurgan- displays traits for both cultures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QapUGZ0ObjA

Afanasievo is not derived from Yamnaya. They are almost contemporary and Afanasievo is derived from an earlier steppe culture.They show many similarities because they are both derived from the Eneolithic East European steppe

[Gravetto-Danubian]

^^^
Ample C14 data can confirm CM's position here (in fact Afavs. might be slightly older by couple hundred years).

How is it Allentoft 2015 managed to sample only females for Afansievo ?
;)

[Silesian]

^^^
Dates 3300 BCE — 2500 BCE Followed by Okunev culture, Andronovo culture[1]
Nothing showing continuity where it counts most.Exactly, my point some subjects are to sensitive- baring political intrigue and rumors :)
R-Z93Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * Z93/F992/S202formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybpinfo

[Jean M]

Would it be possible for a Moderator to move the discussion of Tocharian/Afanasievo/Ughurs to a more relevant thread, such as http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?497-Andronovo-Abashevo-Scythian-Tocharian-R1a/ ? I know the posts on it here do include some mention of R1b, but they certainly don't include Bell Beaker! :biggrin1:

[TigerMW]

Let's talk Bell Beaker folks.

I placed the autosomal DNA matching map from the Cassidy Irish Genome study on this chart. I also placed a page from Hubert's origin of the Celts discussion on the same chart but let's just concentrate on the autosomal DNA.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Celts-Place_Names_by_Hubert_and_Irish_Genome_by_Cassidy. png

The upper right hand corner chart of the Bronze Age Ireland Rathlin 1 man, proven L21+, shows a high affinity with modern populations of Ireland and western and northern Great Britain.... and also dead-center Germany.

Rathlin 1 was of a type culture that would be consider Bell Beaker derived. What are the implications? Does this mean L21+ and the early Beakers on the Isles were probably of the Rhenish Beaker group? Do these Beaker folks related to the Cord-zone type of Bell Beaker pottery?

[R.Rocca]

You mean R1b-L23 originated in the Balkans? So how come there was no EEF in any R1b-L23 sample from Yamna?

Tomenable... it looks like the only question that counts, you chose to completely ignore. Care to explain to Michał how that can be?


I'm not biased - but don't you think that it would be too good for both R1-s to be IE?

"Too good"??? The intention is not to make anyone feel "good" or "bad" about any of this, just get down to the bottom of how the population of Europe came to be. "Good" is irrelevant.

[Tomenable]

Care to explain to Michał how that can be?

Either they belonged to a hunter-gatherer population which avoided any significant EEF admixture (we know that this was possible because there was a study showing that in Central Europe HG and EEF lived next to each other for sometimes as long as 2000 years without any gene flow from EEF to WHG; and in another study we have KO1 pure HG sample from Neolithic Hungary); or carriers of R1b-Z2103 lost their EEF after migrating towards the Steppe and admixing with local populations. We know that it is relatively easy for Y-DNA to become either associated or disassociated with particular autosomal admixture (for example check what is autosomal ancestry of these 90+ % R1b Chadic-speaking tribes in Africa; or just look at some of recently published ancient R1b samples from the Middle East, or at modern Armenians with R1b).

====================

BTW - if/when they finally find some R1b-L51/L11 in Yamnaya then of course it will be a sufficient proof of Steppe origin of L51/L11. And I think that Jean M's theory that L51 could be the Stelae People of the Kemi-Oba culture makes sense. But there is still the problem of this "temporal gap" between the formation of L51 and the TMRCA of L11. It seems that L11 could only be a minor lineage among Yamnaya population, and it only started to expand numerically after moving to Western Europe. Such a "lonely rider" from the Steppe, rather than a "massive migration". Kurgans along the Danube will probably be full of Z2103, not L51.

[Mis]

A lone rider from Yamnaya CTS 7822 / CTS9219.

[Tomenable]

"Too good"??? The intention is not to make anyone feel "good" or "bad" about any of this, just get down to the bottom of how the population of Europe came to be. "Good" is irrelevant.

I know. And you know what?

I actually suggested on several occasions already long before the publication of Yamnaya results, that maybe both R1a and R1b could be associated with PIE / Early IE. However, usually I was laughed at when I suggested such things a few years ago, back in 2012-2014 (that was before I joined this forum; I'm talking about my posts on another forum). The main counter-argument was that R1a and R1b split from R1 as many as 20,000 years ago, and PIE is no older than 10,000 years. Then I replied - "split only means a genealogical split, as if when lineages of descendants of two brothers split from each other, but not necessarily a geographical separation" - in other words, I argued that R1a and R1b could still live in the very same cave or settlement long after "splitting" from each other. It wasn't a "must" that they migrated in entirely different directions, after all. And then the main counter-argument was "but look at modern distribution, they are totally separate, they clearly said bye bye to each other already 20,000 years ago". They convinced me that I was wrong, and that R1a and R1b had entirely separate histories after the Upper Paleolithic period.

So others criticized my claims as being counter-intuitive (at that time, without much of aDNA).

And from my experience it is also the case, that people who support R1b being PIE, claim that R1a was originally Uralic-speaking or Turkic-speaking, or spoke some extinct indigenous language of Europe; while people who support R1a being PIE associate R1b either with Vasconic or with some Pre-IE languages of the Middle East, Caucasus, Europe or Africa (Chadic, Berber, etc.). You just don't find any people who think that it is not "too good" for both of these markers to be associated with PIE . There is also no agreement which archaeological culture was the original PIE culture (Gimbutas IIRC settled on either Khvalynsk or Sredni Stog horizon as early stages of PIE). Some scholars still support Non-Steppe origins of PIE.

The Armenian Plateau hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis are still popular among scholars.

[Tomenable]

When you look at ancient DNA from Motala HG then you can see that those guys had I2a1a, I2a1b and I2c. These haplogroups split from each other around 20,000 years ago as well (I2a split from I2c closer to 25 kya, but I2a1a split from I2a1b around 20 kya). So someone could say that it is also counter-intuitive that 7500 years ago they still lived in the very same place (all buried at Motala cemetery).

[Mis]

Oddział CT7822 łączy kulturę Yamnay i Bell zlewki

[TigerMW]

I generally emphasize with Tomenable as we do speculate about the data we have and there are large unknowns about early L51. Having someone to advocate counter-arguments is good as long we stay on topic and are logical.


Either they belonged to a hunter-gatherer population which avoided any significant EEF admixture (we know that this was possible because there was a study showing that in Central Europe HG and EEF lived next to each other for sometimes as long as 2000 years without any gene flow from EEF to WHG; and in another study we have KO1 pure HG sample from Neolithic Hungary); or carriers of R1b-Z2103 lost their EEF after migrating towards the Steppe and admixing with local populations. We know that it is relatively easy for Y-DNA to become either associated or disassociated with particular autosomal admixture (for example check what is autosomal ancestry of these 90+ % R1b Chadic-speaking tribes in Africa; or just look at some of recently published ancient R1b samples from the Middle East, or at modern Armenians with R1b).

====================

BTW - if/when they finally find some R1b-L51/L11 in Yamnaya then of course it will be a sufficient proof of Steppe origin of L51/L11. And I think that Jean M's theory that L51 could be the Stelae People of the Kemi-Oba culture makes sense. But there is still the problem of this "temporal gap" between the formation of L51 and the TMRCA of L11. It seems that L11 could only be a minor lineage among Yamnaya population, and it only started to expand numerically after moving to Western Europe. Such a "lonely rider" from the Steppe, rather than a "massive migration". Kurgans along the Danube will probably be full of Z2103, not L51.

However, I embolden part of the quote above as this strains logic a bit.

Of course, at the time of the R1b-L11 TMRCA man, he was a minor lineage. He was just one fellow. Somehow, his descendants prevailed over the males lineages of most of Europe. It appears you hypothesize that his sons and grandsons spread quickly and created dynasties in multiple locations in Western and Central Europe. Somehow his distant cousins in Z2103 also were simultaneously doing well in Southeast Europe and apparently Anatolia.

If we look at the independently derived TMRCA date estimates for this one L11 TMRCA man, we can look at YFull's estimate of 5400-4500 years ago. That's about 3400-2500 BC. This right on top of the timeframe for the Yamnaya heading up the Danube and northwest around the Carpathians.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L151/

How is a lonely rider so successful at founding a series of geographically dispersed dynasties?

It's hard to picture without logistic support. In fact, the Bell Beakers, like the Yamnaya were experts at scouting, setting up and securing trade and migration routes. Did the L11 TMRCA man do this alone? Perhaps he was born in the Yamnaya territories of the steppes and it was his children and grandchildren that drove the migrations. The Wave of Advance theory works in fast growing populations. L11 may have originated at the beginning of the wave with several descendants riding the wave at full speed.

[Jean M]

I actually suggested on several occasions already long before the publication of Yamnaya results, that maybe both R1a and R1b could be associated with PIE / Early IE. However, usually I was laughed at when I suggested such things a few years ago, back in 2012-2014 (that was before I joined this forum; I'm talking about my posts on another forum). ...

Well now you have found the right forum Tomenable. :)

I had Peopling of Europe online in March 2009 incorporating the concept of R1b and R1a as two halves of the same IE story, which idea I had taken from a thread on the old DNA Forums. There was no suggestion in my text or my source that R1a was not involved. It was a combination of both.

Peopling of Europe was endlessly revised and enlarged online, assisted by constant critique and comment from the good people of the DNA Forums. Eventually it was converted into the book Ancestral Journeys: The Peopling of Europe (2013), so I needed to carefully check when my source had first made the connection between R1b and R1a, in order to get the credit to him correct. It reads "The correlation with the combination of R1a1a and R1b1a2 was first pointed out by R------ S------ in September and October 2006 in online forums for discussion of genetic genealogy, including Family Tree DNA Forums and the Rootsweb mailing list Genealogy-DNA." [The full name is in the footnote. I'm avoiding here because of the curse of Google.]

[Jessie]

I know. And you know what?

I actually suggested on several occasions already long before the publication of Yamnaya results, that maybe both R1a and R1b could be associated with PIE / Early IE. However, usually I was laughed at when I suggested such things a few years ago, back in 2012-2014 (that was before I joined this forum; I'm talking about my posts on another forum). The main counter-argument was that R1a and R1b split from R1 as many as 20,000 years ago, and PIE is no older than 10,000 years. Then I replied - "split only means a genealogical split, as if when lineages of descendants of two brothers split from each other, but not necessarily a geographical separation" - in other words, I argued that R1a and R1b could still live in the very same cave or settlement long after "splitting" from each other. It wasn't a "must" that they migrated in entirely different directions, after all. And then the main counter-argument was "but look at modern distribution, they are totally separate, they clearly said bye bye to each other already 20,000 years ago". They convinced me that I was wrong, and that R1a and R1b had entirely separate histories after the Upper Paleolithic period.

So others criticized my claims as being counter-intuitive (at that time, without much of aDNA).

And from my experience it is also the case, that people who support R1b being PIE, claim that R1a was originally Uralic-speaking or Turkic-speaking, or spoke some extinct indigenous language of Europe; while people who support R1a being PIE associate R1b either with Vasconic or with some Pre-IE languages of the Middle East, Caucasus, Europe or Africa (Chadic, Berber, etc.). You just don't find any people who think that it is not "too good" for both of these markers to be associated with PIE . There is also no agreement which archaeological culture was the original PIE culture (Gimbutas IIRC settled on either Khvalynsk or Sredni Stog horizon as early stages of PIE). Some scholars still support Non-Steppe origins of PIE.

The Armenian Plateau hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis are still popular among scholars.

I've looked at a lot of forums on the subject over quite a few years and I've always noticed an opposition to R1b being Indo-European. A lot of people said R1a was Indo-European but not R1b. I could go back now and find some posts but I don't think that is necessary. I'm really just interested in the truth. Before the Haak paper a lot of people thought that R1b was Anatolian and of course plenty still hold the view that it spread from Iberia. I just knew it was an east to west migration and didn't have strong feelings whether it was Indo-European or not. A lot of people though were very anti the idea of R1b being Indo-European. I'm not really sure why. There was not nearly the opposition to R1a that there was to R1b. I'm sure a lot of people are aware of this. Then when all Yamnaya turned out to be R1b, a lot of people were stunned but some long held beliefs die hard and some people are still in denial. If all Yamnaya were R1a there would not be the same level of opposition that people have to R1b. When you look at all the evidence, including autosomal I really don't know how people still try to deny what is there in front of them.

I think that both R1b and R1a are both Indo-European because that is what the evidence shows me.

[rms2]

. . .

BTW - if/when they finally find some R1b-L51/L11 in Yamnaya then of course it will be a sufficient proof of Steppe origin of L51/L11. And I think that Jean M's theory that L51 could be the Stelae People of the Kemi-Oba culture makes sense. But there is still the problem of this "temporal gap" between the formation of L51 and the TMRCA of L11. It seems that L11 could only be a minor lineage among Yamnaya population, and it only started to expand numerically after moving to Western Europe. Such a "lonely rider" from the Steppe, rather than a "massive migration" . . .

As Mike pointed out, L11 is the right age to have expanded with Yamnaya. It's not hard to visualize the rapid expansion of a single lineage: a prominent L11 man with plenty of wives and plenty of sons and male-line grandsons, some of them prominent themselves, with plenty of wives, sons and male-line grandsons, etc. Part of the process is the luck of the draw and having the right advantages.



Kurgans along the Danube will probably be full of Z2103, not L51.

Maybe, but that would be odd considering the relative scarcity of Z2103 in central and western Europe. One is then forced to argue that Indo-European ceased at that point to be advanced by actual Indo-Europeans and instead began to be advanced by some sort of process of osmosis. Steppe-type people gave up their wandering ways, climbed down off the horse and the wagon, and advanced no further. Kind of hard to believe.

So we are required to believe that actual Indo-Europeans spread Indo-European to India but not to western Europe. Pardon my incredulity.

On the other hand, isn't it odd that Yamnaya on the Caspian steppe belonged to a clade of R1b-L23, Z2103, and by far most of Indo-European-speaking western Europe is peopled by men belonging to a closely-related clade of R1b-L23, L51.

So, in India R1a+Indo-European means Indo-Europeans themselves spread Indo-European there, but in western Europe R1b-L23+Indo-European means Indo-European was spread there by some mysterious process that did not involve the actual movement of Indo-Europeans there. Caramba!

I think kurgans along the Danube will contain the skeletons of men who were R1b-L51.

[Jean M]

A lot of people though were very anti the idea of R1b being Indo-European. I'm not really sure why.

In my experience (which was not on all possible forums) those who accepted R1a as Indo-European also accepted the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the IE homeland. So for them it was the paucity of R1b on the Pontic-Caspian steppe today that made them averse to the idea. A number of people (including myself) pointed out that the Pontic-Caspian steppe has seen a series of population changes between 4000 BC and now, and that population of Ukraine etc today is largely Slavic. But until proof arrived in the forum of ancient DNA there remained doubters.

[lgmayka]

carriers of R1b-Z2103 lost their EEF after migrating towards the Steppe and admixing with local populations. We know that it is relatively easy for Y-DNA to become either associated or disassociated with particular autosomal admixture
To be fair, I must point out that many people--in academia and elsewhere--are quick to "explain away" ancient samples that don't fit a preconceived hypothesis, apparent mismatches between autosomal and uniparental DNA results, etc.

Consider the strange case of IR1. Gamba 2014 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257) says:
---
A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques[26]. Modern Hungarians occupy an intermediate position between the IR1 and more Western Bronze Age genomes, most likely reflecting the continuation of admixture in the Central European gene pool since this time.
---

Is this paragraph claiming that Caucasus populations are "Eastern Eurasian"? Is it claiming that Steppe cultures are "Eastern Eurasian"? Is it claiming that modern Hungarians are halfway "Eastern Eurasian"?

According to Vladimir Tagankin of YFull, IR1's Y chromosome belongs to the mysterious N-Y6503 clade (https://yfull.com/tree/N-Y6503/), which diverged from the rest of N over 22,000 years ago and which is today found only in Europe. G2a1 mtDNA is indeed found in Japan and China (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_(mtDNA)#Table_of_Frequencies_of_MtDNA _Haplogroup_G), but also in FTDNA customers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G_(mtDNA)#Table_of_Frequencies_of_MtDNA _Haplogroup_G) from Poland, southwestern Russia, and Norway. And this forum post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5287-RISE554-and-N-Y6503&p=105762&viewfull=1#post105762) lists IR1's autosomal results from Eurogenes K13--they don't look "Eastern Eurasian" to me.

[Jean M]

And I think that Jean M's theory that L51 could be the Stelae People of the Kemi-Oba culture makes sense..

Actually I do not postulate that R1b-L51 first appeared in Kemi-Oba. It seems to me that the big demographic explosion which we could tie to Yamnaya/Yamnaya-derived movements further into Europe than the steppe is plausibly expressed in U106 and P312. So it follows that L51 had been around in their source population(s) on the steppe for some time. I would not care to try pinpointing it. :biggrin1:

I've given up the idea of the Kemi Oba as the first originators of the stelae, though they certainly created them. Blood of the Celts extract:


Some Yamnaya burials were individualized by a stone stela. The beginning of the tradition can dimly be seen at the western end of the European steppe. A culture named after the site of Mikhailovka on the lower Dnieper seems to be a cross between farming and steppe influences in its first phase (3700-3400 BC). Its people adopted the steppe habit of burial mounds. The graves under the kurgans were often stone-lined cists. In a few the covering slab was roughly shaped at the top to indicate a head and shoulders. This seems to be the tentative start of what became a long steppe tradition of anthropomorphic stelae. Mikhailovka I kurgans with stelae were scattered as far west as the Danube delta and as far south as Crimea. From there the fashion spread to the central Caucasus. The custom of creating stelae flowered in the western steppe, where successor cultures to Mikhailovka I gradually came under the influence of Yamnaya.

[rms2]

Regarding the reluctance to accept the idea that R1b-L51 represents much of western Yamnaya and was spread by Indo-Europeans, given that its brother clade under L23, Z2103, has been found in Yamnaya on the Caspian steppe, don't we see the same sort of bifurcation in Indo-European R1a?

I see people in this forum have no difficulty attributing various Indo-European peoples to different clades of R1a, for example, Z283 and Z93. So why the reluctance to do the same thing not for the entirety R1b itself, but for as narrow a division of R1b as L23?

If R1a-Z93 can account for the Indo-Iranians, and R1a-Z283 for more western IE lineages, how is it the R1b-L23 in Yamnaya must be absolutely monolithic, without even the slightest variance into at least two L23 clades?

Is that realistic?

[rms2]

Actually I do not postulate that R1b-L51 first appeared in Kemi-Oba. It seems to me that the big demographic explosion which we could tie to Yamnaya/Yamnaya-derived movements further into Europe than the steppe is plausibly expressed in U106 and P312. So it follows that L51 had been around in their source population(s) on the steppe for some time. I would not care to try pinpointing it. :biggrin1:

I've given up the idea of the Kemi Oba as the first originators of the stelae, though they certainly created them. Blood of the Celts extract:

I agree, but when I speak of L51 in the context of this discussion, it is really code for L51 and whichever of its subclades are old enough to have been represented. That saves the trouble of haggling in the weeds over specifics. Anyway, the reference to L51 is usually made to counter the idea that only Z2103 is Indo-European, which is why I am constantly repeating the "brother clade under L23" refrain, to point out how closely related L51 and Z2103 are.

[R.Rocca]

Either they belonged to a hunter-gatherer population which avoided any significant EEF admixture (we know that this was possible because there was a study showing that in Central Europe HG and EEF lived next to each other for sometimes as long as 2000 years without any gene flow from EEF to WHG; and in another study we have KO1 pure HG sample from Neolithic Hungary); or carriers of R1b-Z2103 lost their EEF after migrating towards the Steppe and admixing with local populations. We know that it is relatively easy for Y-DNA to become either associated or disassociated with particular autosomal admixture (for example check what is autosomal ancestry of these 90+ % R1b Chadic-speaking tribes in Africa; or just look at some of recently published ancient R1b samples from the Middle East, or at modern Armenians with R1b).

====================

BTW - if/when they finally find some R1b-L51/L11 in Yamnaya then of course it will be a sufficient proof of Steppe origin of L51/L11. And I think that Jean M's theory that L51 could be the Stelae People of the Kemi-Oba culture makes sense. But there is still the problem of this "temporal gap" between the formation of L51 and the TMRCA of L11. It seems that L11 could only be a minor lineage among Yamnaya population, and it only started to expand numerically after moving to Western Europe. Such a "lonely rider" from the Steppe, rather than a "massive migration". Kurgans along the Danube will probably be full of Z2103, not L51.

As expected, KO1 belonged to haplogroup I2a and was dated to 5,650–5,780 BC. That's thousands of years prior to the time period we are discussing here. The probability of the Balkans circa 3000BC harboring a population with no EEF while surrounded by EEFs from Italy, Anatolia, Hungary and Central Germany has to be pretty close to zero. Temporal gaps are debatable and Chadic R1b could've been watered down over 10,000 years.... two points that pale in comparison to the actual ancient DNA data we have.

[Megalophias]

And this forum post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5287-RISE554-and-N-Y6503&p=105762&viewfull=1#post105762) lists IR1's autosomal results from Eurogenes K13--they don't look "Eastern Eurasian" to me.

Most analyses I've seen show IR1 to have a small amount of Siberian ancestry, which does not look like excess EHG/CHG/Yamnaya. This one from Haak (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf) is typical, showing a minor Nganasan component, similar to that found in modern Finns, Russians, and Turkic-speaking Caucasians, but absent from other ancient Europeans. Those Eurogenes calculators are outliers in this respect and I suspect they are dumping the Siberian into some North European component.

(Which is not to say that academics have covered themselves in glory regarding P189, of course.)

[Tomenable]

As expected, KO1 belonged to haplogroup I2a and was dated to 5,650–5,780 BC. That's thousands of years prior to the time period we are discussing here. The probability of the Balkans circa 3000BC harboring a population with no EEF while surrounded by EEFs from Italy, Anatolia, Hungary and Central Germany has to be pretty close to zero. Temporal gaps are debatable and Chadic R1b could've been watered down over 10,000 years.... two points that pale in comparison to the actual ancient DNA data we have.

KO1 is one example of hunters surrounded by farmers and not getting admixed by them.

There are other examples too, including hunters from the Blätterhöhle Cave in Germany:

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-10-european-hunter-gatherers-immigrant-farmers-side-by-side.html


(...) Previous genetic studies by Professors Burger and Thomas showed that agriculture was brought to Central Europe by immigrant farmers around 7,500 years ago. From that time on, little trace of hunter-gathering can be seen in the archaeological record, and it was widely assumed that the hunter-gatherers rapidly died out or were absorbed into the farming populations.

"Although there is some archaeological evidence of interactions between immigrant agriculturalists and local hunter-gatherers, its extent and duration has remained something of a mystery," said Professor Thomas. "But our study now shows that the hunter-gatherers stayed in close proximity to farmers, had contact with them for thousands of years, and buried their dead in the same cave."

"This contact was not without consequences, because hunter-gatherer women sometimes married into the farming communities, while no genetic lines of farmer women have been found in hunter-gatherers", explained Burger. (...)

For a long time the team were unable to make sense of the findings. "It was only through the analysis of isotopes in the human remains, performed by our Canadian colleagues, that the pieces of the puzzle began to fit," states Bollongino.

She added: "The results showed that the hunter-gatherers sustained themselves in Central and Northern Europe on a very specialized diet that included fish, among other things, until 5,000 years ago [or 3,000 BCE]. And what is more, the hunter-gatherers living at the same time as the farmers were genetically more similar to the pre-farming hunter-gatherers than to the contemporaneous farmers.'

In the Balkans there are many places unfavourable for farming, where HGs could stay unadmixed.

[Tomenable]

As for KO1:

He was one of hunters originally from the Danube Gorge area, who had lived near Köros since around 12 kya, later came in contact with incoming farmers around 8.2 kya, and - as DNA evidence shows - 7.7 kya (so ~500 years after their first contact with farmers) they were still unadmixed. However, eventually population density in that region increased, and HGs became absorbed into farmer communities. Köros hunters did not marginalized; it seems that they took EEF women as wifes - strontium analyses and burial rituals actually suggest that among farmers from Köros areas, males were mostly of hunter origin and women mostly of ENF origin.

The case of Köros shows how EEF populations with mostly Mesolithic Y-DNA could be born.

In the Blätterhöhle region it was probably the other way around, with HG mitochondrial lineages entering EEF gene pool. But maybe Mesolithic Y-DNA also entered EEF gene pool in that region - we don't know this, because that study focused only on mtDNA and autosomes, without checking Y-DNA lineages.

What we know is that those who continued to live as hunters or fishers, did not absorb any EEF ancestry. But those who lived as farmers, had not only EEF ancestry, but also absorbed some HG.

So the gene flow (and the direction of cultural assimilation) was very one-sided. Only HG genes were entering gene pools of those who lived the lifestyles of farmers. But EEF genes did not enter gene pools of conservative groups, who rejected new ways and continued being foragers or adopted to new conditions without becoming farmers (for example: by becoming fishers instead, as in case of Blätterhöhle HGs).

Most of such genetically isolated hunter groups surrounded by farmers eventually either got entirely absorbed into farmers, or got extinct, but some of them did survive even until ca. 3000 BC.

So Indo-Europeans coming from the Steppe could encounter some "pure HG" groups.

And in the Balkans some "autosomally HG" groups could get involved in early metallurgy.

[Jean M]

KO1 is one example of hunters surrounded by farmers and not getting admixed by them.

KO1 was actually found in a farming context, so he seems to be an example of what I had been predicting for years. Extract from AJ :


An expanding population can leave its genetic mark in a burst of new branch-lines within a haplogoup. We see such a burst in haplogroup I2 (M438) c. 6000 BC, as farming reached the Balkans, suggesting that some men carrying I2 adopted agriculture. Indeed among the early farmers in Hungary and Croatia one I2a man stands out as being more similar genetically to European hunter-gatherers, though mixed with farmers. So did the fisher-folk of Lepenski Vir have I-men among them? They were a settled and successful people when farmers arrived in their district, so they were able to adapt to farming on equal terms, making it more likely that whatever Y-DNA they carried would survive. Strontium isotope evidence shows that women from the earliest farming communities in the Danube Gorges were buried at Lepenski Vir, suggesting a reciprocal mating network between the sedentary foragers at Lepenski Vir and incoming farmers.


... hunters from the Blätterhöhle Cave in Germany.

The interpretation of the Blätterhöhle Cave results was seriously flawed. You would scarcely find two completely separate communities simultaneously using the same burial place. There is no evidence of a mesolithic community in the vicinity. A more distant trade link could explain the Late Neolithic cave burials at the Blätterhöhle. The mixture of farmer and U5 mtDNA haplogroups there indicates that a farming community had taken wives over a period of some 400 years from a group of lake or river fisherfolk, revealed by isotopes showing a diet of freshwater fish.

[Silesian]

Afanasievo is not derived from Yamnaya. They are almost contemporary and Afanasievo is derived from an earlier steppe culture.They show many similarities because they are both derived from the Eneolithic East European steppe
Sintashta are stratified over Poltavka. Poltavka-R1b-Z2109 6000+/- Sintashta R1a-93/94 4700+/-
For further information please see. page 319 on Yamnaya Khvalynsk connection - Yamnaya stratified burials.
Yamnaya have been found to be predominantly R1b-Z2103-6000+/- with the exception of 1-I2 and perhaps R1a[unknown].
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian ...
By David W. Anthony

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In the Balkans there are many places unfavourable for farming, where HGs could stay unadmixed.

No its very unlikely, Tom
The optimal habitat for foragers, by the time of the Holocene optimum, was central and Northern Europe, not the Balkans, which only had pockets of hunter-gatherer settlements
The leaves the only place for little admixed EHG-type groups to have existed C. 4000 BC, is east of the Carpatho-Dniester

[R.Rocca]

KO1 is one example of hunters surrounded by farmers and not getting admixed by them.

There are other examples too, including hunters from the Blätterhöhle Cave in Germany:

http://m.phys.org/news/2013-10-european-hunter-gatherers-immigrant-farmers-side-by-side.html

In the Balkans there are many places unfavourable for farming, where HGs could stay unadmixed.

From what I can see, mtDNA and isotope only in those studies... nothing about Y-DNA nor autosomal DNA... or am I missing something?

[jdean]

From what I can see, mtDNA and isotope only in those studies... nothing about Y-DNA nor autosomal DNA... or am I missing something?

Just a guess but probably not.

[lgmayka]

Most analyses I've seen show IR1 to have a small amount of Siberian ancestry, which does not look like excess EHG/CHG/Yamnaya.
DNA.Land finds nothing of that kind, unless you count "Ambiguous". I downloaded IR1's FTDNA-compatible file from here (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/ancient-hungarian-iron-age-genome-ir1.html), then submitted it to DNA.Land. As you can see, DNA.Land finds no "Eastern Eurasian" or "Siberian" ancestry at all.
11067

[Bas]

Let's talk Bell Beaker folks.

I placed the autosomal DNA matching map from the Cassidy Irish Genome study on this chart. I also placed a page from Hubert's origin of the Celts discussion on the same chart but let's just concentrate on the autosomal DNA.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Celts-Place_Names_by_Hubert_and_Irish_Genome_by_Cassidy. png

The upper right hand corner chart of the Bronze Age Ireland Rathlin 1 man, proven L21+, shows a high affinity with modern populations of Ireland and western and northern Great Britain.... and also dead-center Germany.

Rathlin 1 was of a type culture that would be consider Bell Beaker derived. What are the implications? Does this mean L21+ and the early Beakers on the Isles were probably of the Rhenish Beaker group? Do these Beaker folks related to the Cord-zone type of Bell Beaker pottery?

It's a really interesting map. Also interesting is how BR2 affinity has a big peak in Wales and to a lesser extent in Ireland, but not so much in Eastern England and Scotland. It'd be interesting to know the significance of this...

But coming back to the Rathlin 1 heat map, as everyone will probably know Davidski found that ''ancestors of German Beakers experienced a significant pulse of admixture from an Chalcolithic Iberian-like population'' http://eurogenes.blogspot.mx/2016/06/german-bell-beakers-in-context-of.html

I do think that Bell Beaker was formed from Iberian influx to Central Europe meeting people coming from the east, and after this, expanded in a reflux. And also that L21 (of which the Rathlin men belonged to) was probably born somewhere around the lower Rhine,so Rhenish Beaker origin for Rathlin looks likely for me. But the heat map doesn't show much affinity to Iberia. Does this mean anything in the context of a possible Rhine Beaker origin for Rathlin?

[Jean M]

I placed the autosomal DNA matching map from the Cassidy Irish Genome study on this chart. I also placed a page from Hubert's origin of the Celts discussion on the same chart but let's just concentrate on the autosomal DNA...

The upper right hand corner chart of the Bronze Age Ireland Rathlin 1 man, proven L21+, shows a high affinity with modern populations of Ireland and western and northern Great Britain.... and also dead-center Germany.

Rathlin 1 was of a type culture that would be consider Bell Beaker derived. What are the implications? Does this mean L21+ and the early Beakers on the Isles were probably of the Rhenish Beaker group? Do these Beaker folks related to the Cord-zone type of Bell Beaker pottery?

I think we discussed this when Cassidy first came out, but it certainly helps to have visuals. I have always associated L21 with the Bell Beaker route down the Rhine into Britain and presumed a L21 route from Britain to Ireland. The Rathlin men are right on target for that route from Britain to Ireland. There is no need to go back as far as Hubert to explain this. As far as I know, British BB experts have never ceased to see the Rhine route into Britain as important. It gets mentioned in the very latest material. Archaeologists have varied in their emphasis on the Atlantic route, which I would speculate might be linked to the small amount of DF27 now found in Ireland.

As I picture it, a light sprinkling of BB people might have arrived in Ireland and Britain direct from Iberia, speaking Old European, and explaining the few river names that seem to be relics of that language. But the British Isles seems to have become much more appealing to BB people with the discovery of tin, which could have produced a bit of a tin rush down the Rhine, carrying the earliest Celtic. This seems to be the stream of migration that came to predominate.

[TigerMW]

I think we discussed this when Cassidy first came out, but it certainly helps to have visuals. I have always associated L21 with the Bell Beaker route down the Rhine into Britain and presumed a L21 route from Britain to Ireland. The Rathlin men are right on target for that route from Britain to Ireland. There is no need to go back as far as Hubert to explain this. As far as I know, British BB experts have never ceased to see the Rhine route into Britain as important. It gets mentioned in the very latest material. Archaeologists have varied in their emphasis on the Atlantic route, which I would speculate might be linked to the small amount of DF27 now found in Ireland.

As I picture it, a light sprinkling of BB people might have arrived in Ireland and Britain direct from Iberia, speaking Old European, and explaining the few river names that seem to be relics of that language. But the British Isles seems to have become much more appealing to BB people with the discovery of tin, which could have produced a bit of a tin rush down the Rhine, carrying the earliest Celtic. This seems to be the stream of migration that came to predominate.
My readings do not find much dispute with the most significant input of Great Britain's Bell Beakers from a Rhine region source.

However, there are proposals about R1b-L21 originating on the Isles or in the Atlantic "zone". This seems to draw logic from Cunliffe and Koch and "Celtic from the West" as well as the depictions of the "Atlantic Bronze Age."

[Jean M]

However, there are proposals about R1b-L21 originating on the Isles or in the Atlantic "zone". This seems to draw logic from Cunliffe and Koch and "Celtic from the West" as well as the depictions of the "Atlantic Bronze Age."

I see. All I can say is that I would be very surprised!

[rms2]

My readings do not find much dispute with the most significant input of Great Britain's Bell Beakers from a Rhine region source.

However, there are proposals about R1b-L21 originating on the Isles or in the Atlantic "zone". This seems to draw logic from Cunliffe and Koch and "Celtic from the West" as well as the depictions of the "Atlantic Bronze Age."

I think for L21 to have originated in the Isles one would have to give up the idea that it is closely linked to Bell Beaker there. The oldest rc-dated BB burials in Britain date to around 2400 BC, and YFull's estimate of the age of L21, both for formation and tmrca, yields a date of around 2500 BC. That's cutting things pretty close to have L21 born in the Isles, unless, as I said, one wants to jettison the Beaker connection. Then there are things like the Baltic Cluster within Z251, with Z251 itself dated to about 2300 BC. The Baltic Cluster is solidly Ashkenazi Jewish and entirely Eastern European, with no sign of any strange sort of British Isles origin. I don't think even Z251 underneath DF13 originated in the Isles, let alone DF13 itself or L21.

[vettor]

This BB fascination and link with ydna I2 and R1b is bordering on the silly side.

The BB came via a change of the style of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Pottery_culture

which where part of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_circular_enclosures_in_Central_Europe

which is part of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle

which are "farmers" and the oldest recorded ( 5500BC )are G2 , T1a and H2 ydna markers ..................BTW they ( some of these ydna ) have H mtdna in this mix . some "theorists" seem to also think BB came to central Germany by H Mtdna

It would seem the "hunters" where I2 and the "cattle herders" where R1 ( they could also be hunters of the second wave)

[TigerMW]

I think for L21 to have originated in the Isles one would have to give up the idea that it is closely linked to Bell Beaker there. The oldest rc-dated BB burials in Britain date to around 2400 BC, and YFull's estimate of the age of L21, both for formation and tmrca, yields a date of around 2500 BC. That's cutting things pretty close to have L21 born in the Isles, unless, as I said, one wants to jettison the Beaker connection. Then there are things like the Baltic Cluster within Z251, with Z251 itself dated to about 2300 BC. The Baltic Cluster is solidly Ashkenazi Jewish and entirely Eastern European, with no sign of any strange sort of British Isles origin. I don't think even Z251 underneath DF13 originated in the Isles, let alone DF13 itself or L21.
I don't know if he has modified his position much since his draft, but here is Dr. Joe Flood's perspective on L21.
https://www.academia.edu/24686284/The_phylogenealogy_of_R-L21_four_and_a_half_millennia_of_expansion_and_red istribution

He emphasizes SW England and the Wessex Beaker folks. That makes a lot of sense but I don't think that L21 was necessarily born there. He associates these Beakers with the Atlantic Bronze Age to some extent. I think he is on this forum. Maybe he'll add his two cents.

[Jean M]

The BB came via a change of the style of the [LBK] which where part of the [Central European Neolithic]

BB has nothing to do with the LBK (5500–4500 BC), which was long gone by the time BB appears in Iberia (c. 2800-2700 BC). BB is not part of the Neolithic of any part of Europe. It arose in the Copper Age.


This BB fascination and link with ydna I2 and R1b is bordering on the silly side.

Why read this thread, if the topic does not interest you? If there isn't another conversation on the forum that really lights your fire, you could always start your own thread. ;)

[rms2]

I don't know if has modified much since his draft, but here is Dr. Joe Flood's perspective on L21.
https://www.academia.edu/24686284/The_phylogenealogy_of_R-L21_four_and_a_half_millennia_of_expansion_and_red istribution

He emphasizes SW England and the Wessex Beaker folks. That makes a lot of sense but I don't think that L21 was necessarily born there. He associates these Beakers with the Atlantic Bronze Age to some extent. I think he is on this forum. Maybe he'll add his two cents.

Flood also thinks U106 arose in Britain. He has posted that opinion on this forum in the past.

I'll stop there.

[jdean]

I think for L21 to have originated in the Isles one would have to give up the idea that it is closely linked to Bell Beaker there. The oldest rc-dated BB burials in Britain date to around 2400 BC, and YFull's estimate of the age of L21, both for formation and tmrca, yields a date of around 2500 BC. That's cutting things pretty close to have L21 born in the Isles, unless, as I said, one wants to jettison the Beaker connection. Then there are things like the Baltic Cluster within Z251, with Z251 itself dated to about 2300 BC. The Baltic Cluster is solidly Ashkenazi Jewish and entirely Eastern European, with no sign of any strange sort of British Isles origin. I don't think even Z251 underneath DF13 originated in the Isles, let alone DF13 itself or L21.

We've two folk with very recent East Polish ancestry who are on separate (and isolated) branches of ZP21 x ZZ33 (three SNPs downstream of DF49)

[vettor]

BB has nothing to do with the LBK (5500–4500 BC), which was long gone by the time BB appears in Iberia (c. 2800-2700 BC). BB is not part of the Neolithic of any part of Europe. It arose in the Copper Age.



Why read this thread, if the topic does not interest you? If there isn't another conversation on the forum that really lights your fire, you could always start your own thread. ;)

Do you actual think that these LBK people who covered BB lands in central germany , wrapped up their "tepees' and moved elsewhere!

Clearly they already have H mtdna ( tested ) in LBK times , so no BB came via iberia to Germany by the H mtdna. So the theories of BB migration is a "dream" .......the truth is the people already in Germany learnt a new system from some "traders" and adapted and change their old ways of making pots to a new style.

I agree, the topic does not interest me much ( Gimbutas only interests me ) is purely based on some old 20 year plus theory of migration of a "special marker/s" of ydna and or mtdna

[rms2]

Evidently LBK did not contribute the y-dna R1b-L23 or the Yamnaya_Samara autosomal dna to Bell Beaker. It may account for some of the EEF and some of the mtDNA, however.

[Jean M]

Evidently LBK did not contribute the y-dna R1b-L23 or the Yamnaya_Samara autosomal dna to Bell Beaker. It may account for some of the EEF and some of the mtDNA, however.

Actually the LBK seems to have failed in the end. Pretty much collapsed and was replaced by later farming cultures, which seem to have drawn on the same sort of EEF background plus a bit of new input from Anatolia, but some mtDNA haplogroups in the LBK just died out.

[vettor]

Actually the LBK seems to have failed in the end. Pretty much collapsed and was replaced by later farming cultures, which seem to have drawn on the same sort of EEF background plus a bit of new input from Anatolia, but some mtDNA haplogroups in the LBK just died out.

Th eonly H mtdna I know which died out was H46 .........some of the others who where there in LBK , like H1 has remained alive.

LBK might have "collapsed"but the people did not vanish

[rms2]

Th eonly H mtdna I know which died out was H46 .........some of the others who where there in LBK , like H1 has remained alive.

LBK might have "collapsed"but the people did not vanish

I doubt the people of LBK totally vanished. No doubt they became part of the kaleidoscope of European dna.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

DNA.Land finds nothing of that kind, unless you count "Ambiguous". I downloaded IR1's FTDNA-compatible file from here (http://www.y-str.org/2014/10/ancient-hungarian-iron-age-genome-ir1.html), then submitted it to DNA.Land. As you can see, DNA.Land finds no "Eastern Eurasian" or "Siberian" ancestry at all.
11067



I think there are better calculators than DNA Land, whose figures seem skewed due to being based on modern-drifted components & over-represented pops.
Such as this (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8034-PuntDNAL-K12-Ancient-World-Results&p=175344#post175344) one giving a historically more informative breakdown of IR1:

34.88% EHG-Steppe
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% East_Eurasian
10.79% Iran_N
4.97% Siberian
0.00% Sub-Saharan
0.00% African_HG
0.00% South_Eurasian
17.45% Western_HG
0.00% Natufian_HG
0.18% Amerindian
31.72% Anatolian_N

Or RISE 595 (Czech B.B.), as another example


38.80% EHG-Steppe
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% East_Eurasian
0.19% Iran_N
0.02% Siberian
0.00% Sub-Saharan
0.00% African_HG
0.00% South_Eurasian
25.80% Western_HG
0.00% Natufian_HG
0.00% Amerindian
35.20% Anatolian_N

[David Mc]

I was reading an article from as far back 2008 in the British Museum's "Bronze Age Review" and was interested to see how far ahead of their time they were with regard to the advent of the Bell Beaker package in the British Isles. Working solely from isotopes and archaeology they recognized that they were likely looking at a migration rather than the native adoption of the package... it's interesting as well that both isotopes and archaeology point to origins in Germany and the Netherlands.

Isotopic aliens and the question of human movement

"The revelation that the 'Amesbury Archer' had travelled from the Continent, perhaps from
southern Germany or thereabouts (Fitzpatrick 2002), served to re-open the debate about the
role of human immigration in the introduction of the Beaker 'package' to Britain and Ireland.
Other 'isotopic aliens' (to use Needham's term, 2007) were to follow, in the form of the
'Boscombe Bowmen' (Evans et al. 2006) and an individual from Sorisdale on Coll in the
Hebrides, the latter discovered as part of the Beaker People Project (Sheridan 2008); it is
possible that the same project will produce further examples. Other clear signs of immigrant
presence include the Beaker-using copper miners who established the mine at Ross Island, in
south-west Ireland and who, according to its excavator, could have originated in Atlantic
Europe (O'Brien 2004, 558); and also a recently-discovered Dutch-style grave, with a set of
three early Beakers that could easily be lost among Dutch Beakers of the 25th century BC, at
Upper Largie in the Kilmartin Glen, west Scotland (Fig. 1. See Sheridan 2008 for other
examples of possible Dutch immigrants in Scotland). All this lends support to Needham's
argument – following some previous commentators such as Humphrey Case (2001) – that we
are indeed dealing with small-scale movements, from various parts of the Continent to
different areas within Britain and Ireland, as the key vector for the introduction of novel
Continental practices and concerns (Needham 2005; 2007). This impression is strengthened
by the fact that the pre-existing interaction networks in Ireland and Britain were focused on
Insular links and movements – some of them no doubt long-distance, as in Boyne Valley to
Wessex links (Sheridan 2004c). A recent attempt to play down the alien and novel character
of the Beaker 'package' by claiming indigenous precursors for Beaker funerary practices
(Gibson 2007) is unconvincing – or rather needs to be qualified, as its author acknowledges
(pers comm)."

You can read more by following the link below.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/pdf/BAR1_2008_6_Sheridan_c.pdf

[Jean M]

I was reading an article from as far back 2008 in the British Museum's "Bronze Age Review" and was interested to see how far ahead of their time they were with regard to the advent of the Bell Beaker package in the British Isles. Working solely from isotopes and archaeology they recognized that they were likely looking at a migration rather than the native adoption of the package... it's interesting as well that both isotopes and archaeology point to origins in Germany and the Netherlands.

The wonderful Alison Sheridan! She is based at the National Museums Scotland http://www.nms.ac.uk/collections-research/collections-departments/scottish-history-and-archaeology/dr-alison-sheridan/

There is a copy of that paper in the Vault here. Just look for Sheridan2008BellBeakersBritishIsles in Anthropology > Cultural > Archaeology . I have just added another paper of hers on Bell Beaker burials in Scotland which seem connected to the Lower Rhine: Sheridan2008BellBeakersScotland-Netherlands

The Dutch-type grave at Upper Largie is covered in detail in that second paper. The three different BB pot types there are illustrated. There is a map showing the location of Upper Largie in the Kilmartin Valley. We can see how close that site is to Rathlin Island, off the coast of north-east Ireland, where the Rathlin burials were L21.


That the users of early Beakers in Scotland did not rely solely on Continental imports of metal objects is suggested by the presence of flat axeheads made of Irish copper, almost certainly from the Ross Island mine in County Kerry, southwest Ireland (Needham 2004, fi g. 19.4). While none is directly dated, and while the use of copper artefacts is known to have continued after the inception of bronze metallurgy in northeast Scotland around 2200 BC (ibid.), some, at least, may have been imported during this initial, ‘pioneering’ phase of Beaker period activity. Given the pivotal location of the Kilmartin Valley during the Neolithic period and from the 22nd century in the movement of Irish artefacts up the Great Glen into northeast Scotland (Cressey/Sheridan 2003), can one envisage the Upper Largie ‘pioneer’ as a very early entrepreneur, facilitating the import of Irish axeheads into Scotland?

However it is not a simple story of everything pointing to the Lower and Middle Rhine! The isotopes of the Amesbury Archer suggest an origin closer to the Alps. Some object suggest an arrival along the Atlantic route.

[Silesian]

Oddział CT7822 łączy kulturę Yamnay i Bell zlewki

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Centum_Satem_map.png

We share snp- L23 with Bell Beakers.All blue in map share R1b-L-23 with exception of Tocharian[however autosomal match Yamnaya=L23].Red areas like Armenian also share R1b-L23, as do stratified cultures like Sithashta culture-[proto-Indo-Iranians-Aryans]also share R1b-L23 by way of Poltavka, base.
If we [email protected] years per generation, R1b L23 formed 6400 ybp or 213+/- generations.All areas in blue including stratified areas beneath the dark red Zone share common ancestors L23- 213 gernerations.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/ R-L23PF6404 * L478/PF6403 * L23/S141/PF6534formed 6400 ybp, TMRCA 6300 ybpinfo

All red areas of proto-Indo-Iranians-Aryans and North Eastern Baltic-Slavic share R1a-Z645 or 183 generation common ancestor.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z645/ Z645/S224/PF6162/V1754 * Z650/CTS9754/PF6206/M750/V3726 * Z648/CTS12010/PF7533/M802+5 SNPsformed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo

By way of Khvanlysk both R1a and R1b[&Samara M73+] have even older branches of ancestry and common relatives, not found anywhere else.

[TigerMW]

...
However it is not a simple story of everything pointing to the Lower and Middle Rhine! The isotopes of the Amesbury Archer suggest an origin closer to the Alps. Some object suggest an arrival along the Atlantic route.

Are you saying that some parts of the Wessex Culture were of Maritime Beaker type?

[rms2]

Are you saying that some parts of the Wessex Culture were of Maritime Beaker type?

I don't think that's what Jean meant, although I should not answer for her. According to Wessex Archaeology, the Archer's copper knives came from Spain and France. I think those are just indications of the far flung Beaker trade network.

The Amesbury Archer (http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/book/export/html/5)

[Jean M]

Are you saying that some parts of the Wessex Culture were of Maritime Beaker type?

The burial of the Amesbury Archer is too early to be part of the Wessex strand of BB. Andrew Fitzpatrick says (2009):


In the foreign land where he died, he was not buried close to sources of copper or gold, but near to Stonehenge, almost as a precursor to the rich Wessex Burials of the Early Bronze Age.

In his burial were 5 beaker pots: two were decorated all over with plaited cord, and one with all over cord (AOC); the other two are Maritime derived (Fitzpatrick 2011, Wessex Archaeology Report 27).

But in talking about the Atlantic route, I was not actually referring to his burial, but speaking more generally about Britain and Ireland. I was responding to the statement that both isotopes and archaeology point to Germany and the Netherlands. The isotopes do not do that in the case of the Amesbury Archer. The archaeology does not do that in the case of a gold earring found in Ireland that matches a pair found in Portugal.

[Correction - the Amesbury Archer could be from south-east Germany]

[Jean M]

For those interested specifically in the classic Maritime Bell Beaker pot, Barry Cunliffe provides the following map in Britain Begins:

11112

And this photograph of a classic Maritime Bell Beaker of the later 3rd millenium from a burial at Barrow Hills, Radley in Oxfordshire.

11113

[Chad Rohlfsen]

I thought the isotopes on the Amesbury archer pointed to near the Central European Alps.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/tests/oxygen_isotope.html

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9780415526883/Chapter%203.pdf

[David Mc]

I thought the isotopes on the Amesbury archer pointed to near the Central European Alps.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/tests/oxygen_isotope.html

http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9780415526883/Chapter%203.pdf

I had thought the same.

[David Mc]

Alison Sheridan's article suggested a possible origin from southern Germany.

Edited to add that the Rhine isn't that far from the Bavarian Alps at it's southern point.

[David Mc]

She also suggested that Brittany was "a more plausible" origin point for the Boscombe bowmen than Wales based on the funerary rites and artifacts found with them. I am unsure as to where Brittany fits in the Rhenish to maritime spectrum.

[Jean M]

I thought the isotopes on the Amesbury archer pointed to near the Central European Alps.

That has been the favoured idea. I just checked the monograph. The results would fit a location in south-east Germany. [I have corrected my post above which carelessly ruled out Germany.]


Alison Sheridan's article suggested a possible origin from southern Germany. Edited to add that the Rhine isn't that far from the Bavarian Alps at it's southern point.

That's right too. What I said was


However it is not a simple story of everything pointing to the Lower and Middle Rhine!

[David Mc]

Fair enough, Jean. I take your response seriously, particularly given the examples you've provided of artifacts whose origins are more maritime. I'm inclined to agree with rms regarding trade networks, but you are right in saying the story isn't a simple one.

[Jean M]

She also suggested that Brittany was "a more plausible" origin point for the Boscombe bowmen than Wales based on the funerary rites and artifacts found with them. I am unsure as to where Brittany fits in the Rhenish to maritime spectrum.

Brittany is on the Maritime map, but so is the lower Rhine. See the map by Barry Cunliffe in my post #2444 above. One of the arguments used by those propounding the "Dutch Model" is that both of the "International" types of Bell Beaker are found there, the Maritime and the All Over Corded (AOC). [Added] Of course they are both found widely across the BB network. That's why they are called "International".


you are right in saying the story isn't a simple one.

So horribly true.

[Heber]

Are you saying that some parts of the Wessex Culture were of Maritime Beaker type?

"An exceptional number of grave goods were buried with the Amesbury Archer, making it amongst the ‘richest’ Bell Beaker burials yet found in Europe. The grave goods include five Bell Beakers, three copper knives, two bracers, a pair of gold ornaments and a shale belt ring. One-hundred and twenty-two pieces of worked flint were found including knives, scrapers, flakes, 17 barbed and tanged and one possible triangular arrowheads. Related finds include an iron pyrite nodule from a fire-making set and an antler pressure flaker for working flint. Other objects placed in the grave were a stone metalworking tool, four boars’ tusks, an antler pin, two antler objects of unknown function, and a pendant made from an oyster.
The copper used for the knives (and perhaps the knives themselves) comes from continental European and not Ireland.
Two knives could be from northern Spain, the third from western France. Although the style of the gold ornaments is British/Irish, the gold may also be continental European. The black wristguard may also be Continental but the red one may be made from a rock found in south-west Wales. Two Beakers are decorated All-Over with plaited Cord, and one with All-Over-Cord. The other two Beakers are Maritime-Derived."

"The grave of the Boscombe Bowmen is suggested to have contained the males of a small family group that travelled to Wessex in the 24th century BC. This group practised the collective burial rite that is typical of much of western and Atlantic Europe, and the early date of the grave in the British sequence would suggest that they came from this region rather than Wales."

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QQBDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=the+earliest+bell+beaker+migrations+to+britain+ and+ireland&source=bl&ots=SeeC4pYxZu&sig=vS3X5p1rp3u6N2MDVYEeGZf4EDE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK49ySldLOAhVDJcAKHfhBCi8Q6AEIHjAB#v=on epage&q=the%20earliest%20bell%20beaker%20migrations%20to %20britain%20and%20ireland&f=false

11114

11115

[David Mc]

"The grave of the Boscombe Bowmen is suggested to have contained the males of a small family group that travelled to Wessex in the 24th century BC. This group practised the collective burial rite that is typical of much of western and Atlantic Europe, and the early date of the grave in the British sequence would suggest that they came from this region rather than Wales."

Indeed. But as we've been discussing the burial rites typical of much of western and Atlantic Europe can be narrowed down to Brittany, in which the Rhenish and maritime expressions of the Bell Beaker package overlap.

[Jean M]

Brittany, in which the Rhenish and maritime expressions of the Bell Beaker package overlap.

Rhenish as far west as Brittany? Are you sure?

[Jean M]

"An exceptional number of grave goods were buried with the Amesbury Archer, making it amongst the ‘richest’ Bell Beaker burials yet found in Europe. The grave goods include..

I have just been re-reading bits of the monograph on the Amesbury Archer and the Boscmbe Bowmen, and remember now why Fitzpatrick opted for the Alps or Alpine forelands of Switzerland or SW Germany for the origin of the Amesbury Archer. Although the isotope evidence would include more northerly parts of central Europe, the grave goods with the Archer would not, partly because BB is not known in Denmark, Poland, central and northern Germany earlier than the Archer's burial, and partly because the array with the Archer is generally more western than the Eastern type of BB.

[David Mc]

No, I'm not. In hindsight, I realise I misread you when you wrote, "Brittany is on the Maritime map, but so is the lower Rhine." I get it now.

[Heber]

Indeed. But as we've been discussing the burial rites typical of much of western and Atlantic Europe can be narrowed down to Brittany, in which the Rhenish and maritime expressions of the Bell Beaker package overlap.

Over 80% of the 121 Bell Beaker burials in Brittany are in a Meglithic context.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qKSVAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=brittany+bell+beaker&source=bl&ots=0eVtY7uyqQ&sig=tUJ3eW41o5p5KYAwSukjKDS2sgg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI78q1nNLOAhUDIsAKHVVBAzcQ6AEIJDAD#v=on epage&q=brittany%20bell%20beaker&f=false

[Jean M]

For the connections along the Atlantic, see Andrew Fitzpatrick, Germán Delibes de Castro, Elisa Guerra Doce, and Francisco Javier Velasco Vázquez, Bell Beaker connections along the Atlantic facade: the gold ornaments from Tablada del Rudrón, Burgos, Spain (2016)

Fitzpatrick2016 in the Vault > Anthropology > Cultural > Archaeology
or
https://www.academia.edu/24957270/Bell_Beaker_connections_along_the_Atlantic_facade_ the_gold_ornaments_from_Tablada_del_Rudr%C3%B3n_Bu rgos_Spain

[Jean M]

I feel as though I'm caught in the middle of a tug of war here! I see evidence of two BB routes into Britain and Ireland. The one does not cancel out the other. However, the evidence suggests to me that it was the Rhine route that became predominant.

[David Mc]

Over 80% of the 121 Bell Beaker burials in Brittany are in a Meglithic context.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qKSVAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=brittany+bell+beaker&source=bl&ots=0eVtY7uyqQ&sig=tUJ3eW41o5p5KYAwSukjKDS2sgg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjI78q1nNLOAhUDIsAKHVVBAzcQ6AEIJDAD#v=on epage&q=brittany%20bell%20beaker&f=false

Thanks for this. I'm not being argumentative, I'm simply trying to understand, but isn't it thought that the Bell Beaker burials in Brittany appropriated the earlier megalithic tombs as their own? If this is the case, a "megalithic context" might not elucidate things as much as we'd like. I brought this up some years ago on this very forum (I think) but most ancient peoples were henotheistic. Henotheism is a flexible term, but at a bare minimum it reflected a belief that a land had its own gods and when one entered a new land one acknowledged these gods in the way that they chose to be acknowledged. Hence a people (for example the Bell Beakers) might appropriate religious sites or burial sites as their own, thereby staking a spiritual claim to the land. Just thinking out loud.

[David Mc]

I feel as though I'm caught in the middle of a tug of war here! I see evidence of two BB routes into Britain and Ireland. The one does not cancel out the other. However, the evidence suggests to me that it was the Rhine route that became predominant.

No tug of war. Don't worry. Just trying to orientate ourselves. :-)

[David Mc]

I brought this up some years ago on this very forum (I think) but most ancient peoples were henotheistic...

I just did a forum search, and I guess I raised this on a different forum.

[Jean M]

No tug of war. Don't worry. Just trying to orientate ourselves. :-)

I recommend Andrew Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker set in Britain and Ireland, Celtic from the West 2 (2013).
https://www.academia.edu/24957136/THE_ARRIVAL_OF_THE_BELL_BEAKER_SET_IN_BRITAIN_AND_ IRELAND

[David Mc]

Thanks. I've just downloaded it and will look forward to a good read.

[Heber]

I have just been re-reading bits of the monograph on the Amesbury Archer and the Boscmbe Bowmen, and remember now why Fitzpatrick opted for the Alps or Alpine forelands of Switzerland or SW Germany for the origin of the Amesbury Archer. Although the isotope evidence would include more northerly parts of central Europe, the grave goods with the Archer would not, partly because BB is not known in Denmark, Poland, central and northern Germany earlier than the Archer's burial, and partly because the array with the Archer is generally more western than the Eastern type of BB.

"The objects in the Amesbury Archer's grave also have their closest similarities with finds in western, and not northern, Europe."

It is interesting that the Amsbury Archer and Boscombe Bowman are found in a Megalithic context (Stonehenge) as are the majority of Brittany burials and the Boscombe Bowman burial is in the Atlantic Western tradition. Morbihan and Brittany would appear to be a hub in the Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages and these were definitely metal workers.


11118

11116

11117



http://www.aemap.ac.uk/en/

[Tomenable]

Do we already have any R1b-DF27 among Bell Beaker ancient DNA samples?:

http://ecoanthropologie.mnhn.fr/DPHP2016/D...016_plenary.htm (http://ecoanthropologie.mnhn.fr/DPHP2016/DPHP2016_plenary.htm)


A Bronze Age Lineage Dominates the Y-chromosome Landscape in the Iberian Peninsula

F. CALAFELL1, P. Villaescusa2, N. Solé-Morata1, A. Carracedo3, K. Rouault4, C. Férec4, O. Hardiman5, A. Santurtun6, S. Jiménez7, M. F. Pinheiro8, B. M. Jarreta9, M. M. De Pancorbo2
1 Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra), CEXS-UPF-PRBB, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
2 BIOMICs Research Group, Lascaray Research Center, University of Basque Country UPV/EHU, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain
3 Forensic Genetics Unit, Institute of Legal Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain; Galician Foundation of Genomic Medicine (SERGAS), CIBERER (University of Santiago de Compostela), Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
4 Inserm UMR1078, Génétique, Génomique fonctionnelle et Biotechnologies, Brest 15 Cedex 2, France.
5 National Neuroscience Centre, Beaumont Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
6 Unit of Legal Medicine, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain
7 Institute of Legal Medicine of Alicante, Spain.
8 National Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, Portugal.
9 Laboratory of Genetics and Genetic Identification, University of Zaragoza, Spain.

The genetic landscape of the Iberian Peninsula is dominated (as in the rest of Western Europe) by haplogroup R1b, which comprises two thirds of the Y chromosomes; the rest is divided roughly equally between E-M35, G, I, and J. Within R1b, R1b-S116 (also known as P312) dominates, with ~60% in Spain; it further trifurcates into three major branches having distinct geographical distributions: M529 (L21 radiating from the British Isles, U152 in France, Switzerland and N. Italy, and DF27 in the Iberian Peninsula. DF27 is poorly known, and we have sought to characterize its distribution and diversity, with the aim of reconstructing its history. We have typed DF27 and six of its derived SNPs, as well as 16 Y-STRs in 2,993 males from 32 populations located in Spain, Portugal, France and Ireland; SNP allele frequencies were also gathered from the reference populations in the 1000 Genomes Project. We confirmed that DF27 is the most frequent haplogroup in Iberia, with an average frequency ~45%, while it dropped to <15% right across the Pyrenees.

Within Iberia, it ranged from 40% in most populations to ~75% in Basques. Elsewhere, it showed high frequencies in Colombia and Puerto Rico, which implies it can be used to trace Iberian male migrations into the Americas.

However, our most striking result is how young DF27 is. We estimated from STR variation that DF27 originated 4,000±150 years ago (ya); it took it just 120 generations to grow to ~12 million carriers in Iberia and ~75 million in Central and South America (assuming just 1/3 paternal Iberian ancestry). This places the origin of DF27 in the early Bronze Age, and at least 2,000 years after the arrival of the Neolithic, which was supposed to be the last major event that shaped the European genetic landscape. The DF27 expansion may be part of a global trend, in which bursts of male lineages have been observed at different periods, and in different geographical regions (Poznik et al. 2016).

Poznik et al. 2016. Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences. Nat Genet. 486:593-9

YFull estimates R1b-DF27 to be a bit older, 4500 (range 4900-4000) years ago:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

[Jean M]

"The objects in the Amesbury Archer's grave also have their closest similarities with finds in western, and not northern, Europe."

See Andrew Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker set in Britain and Ireland, Celtic from the West 2 (2013) for his map of the "western" Bell Beaker zone. It is not Iberia, which he classifies as "southern". It includes Britain and Ireland, France, Netherlands and western Germany. Switzerland or SW Germany is the best fit for the origins of the Amesbury Archer, combining his isotopes with his possessions, as Fitzpatrick says in the monograph. As I said above.


It is interesting that the Amsbury Archer and Boscombe Bowman are found in a Megalithic context (Stonehenge)

Not exactly. The Archer may well have been attracted by Stonehenge, but he wasn't buried in it. He was buried at nearby Amesbury. His was a single grave without a megalithic structure. The Boscombe Bowmen had a collective grave, but it was not within a megalithic structure.

[Jean M]

Do we already have any R1b-DF27 among Bell Beaker ancient DNA samples?

No. All the Bell Beaker Y-DNA that I know about can be found here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

The limited published Bell Beaker Y-DNA is the reason that this thread is so long. We just keep on and on chewing over the same ground. We await promised papers on Bell Beaker over a much wider range than we have at the moment.

[rms2]

No. All the Bell Beaker Y-DNA that I know about can be found here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

The limited published Bell Beaker Y-DNA is the reason that this thread is so long. We just keep on and on chewing over the same ground. We await promised papers on Bell Beaker over a much wider range than we have at the moment.

Yes, and with 67 Bell Beaker genomes promised, I hope the Archer's is one of them and that at least a substantial proportion are male and include y-dna. What bugs me is that we are skipping Yamnaya west of the Don, especially Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, not to mention Vucedol.

[Jean M]

Yes, and with 67 Bell Beaker genomes promised, I hope the Archer's is one of them and that at least a substantial proportion are male and include y-dna.

Ah! Yes that was the press release in Catalan: http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-man-with-flat-occiput.html?showComment=1464877192259#c2658023791 060852426


67 samples from Portugal, England, France, Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany and Spain.
- Max Plank and Broad Institute involved in it
- The DNA testing covers all aspects.
- 2 of those samples from near Barcelona were two females, 1st degree relatives, one with brown eyes, the other lactose intolerant

I can confirm that some BB samples were handed over by Wessex Archaeology to one interested group, but it might not be this one. There were several interested parties, and the Wessex chap was tight-lipped on which was selected. In their shoes I would have gone for this one with David Reich. But we shall just have to wait and see.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

See Andrew Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker set in Britain and Ireland, Celtic from the West 2 (2013) for his map of the "western" Bell Beaker zone. It is not Iberia, which he classifies as "southern". It includes Britain and Ireland, France, Netherlands and western Germany. Switzerland or SW Germany is the best fit for the origins of the Amesbury Archer, combining his isotopes with his possessions, as Fitzpatrick says in the monograph.

Although Fitzpatrick is a 'fusion corridor" man, just like Turek & Vander Linden, which you disaprove ;)

[Heber]

Ah! Yes that was the press release in Catalan: http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/the-man-with-flat-occiput.html?showComment=1464877192259#c2658023791 060852426



I can confirm that some BB samples were handed over by Wessex Archaeology to one interested group, but it might not be this one. There were several interested parties, and the Wessex chap was tight-lipped on which was selected. In their shoes I would have gone for this one with David Reich. But we shall just have to wait and see.

This paper should also be interesting. Please excuse the rough Google translation. Basically it is ancient DNA of Bell Beakers on the Atlantic compared to modern samples.

Project coordinated by the University of Minho will make genetic analysis of populations in Portugal, Spain and the UK, and also of old bones. It will allow to realize the migration of five thousand years ago

The setting is in the Lisbon area, and time, of almost five thousand years. It was from here, this fertile area of ​​the Iberian Peninsula, which then flourished and spread throughout Western Europe a social and cultural revolution that has in ceramic containers bell - the bulbous shape at the base, more open at the top - its icon. But there is much that is not known about this "movement" bell. For example, it is not 100% guaranteed, but everything indicates that it was in the Lisbon area and Extremadura he began, but why? And since spread to Western Europe? Through large migratory movements or, on the contrary, hitchhiking small streams, inside the family networks? The answers, or some of them at least, will arrive soon with the help of genetics and of a research project led by the University of Minho.

"Within a year we hope to publish the first results, or with data from genetic sampling of the current population of the Iberian Peninsula or the results of genetic testing of human bones at the time, we will also study. It depends on what move first," explains geneticist Peter Smith, of the Center for Molecular Biology and Environmental UM researcher and coordinator of the project, which is funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and is now the boot.

http://www.dn.pt/sociedade/interior/da-peninsula-iberica-para-a-europa-genetica-desvenda-revolucao-cultural-5187967.html

And the Catalan paper:

- 67 samples from Portugal, England, France, Czech Republic, Hungary, Germany and Spain.
- Max Plank and Broad Institute involved in it
- The DNA testing covers all aspects.
- 2 of those samples from near Barcelona were two females, 1st degree relatives, one with brown eyes, the other lactose intolerant

"Culture Bell
Its chronology and interpretation are discussed today. The witnesses are located in the older horse (context) of Portugal Chalcolithic and Bronze Age between 2500 and 1800 BC. Reach extended across much of Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Czech Republic ...). Characteristic of this culture is the glass bell, made ​​of ceramic with a shape reminiscent of an inverted bell engraved and decorated with geometric details. These vessels have appeared mostly in funerary contexts were also found in the domestic setting. Usually their appearance is related to the diffusion of the metallurgy of copper through Western Europe."

[Jean M]

Although Fitzpatrick is a 'fusion corridor" man, just like Turek & Vander Linden, which you disaprove ;)

You think so? On page 47 of the paper I cite, he quotes Needham's concept of a "fusion corridor" across Northern France, immediately pointing out the big problem with it - rarity of finds in northern France, unconvincingly explained away by Needham. He then moves on to show that Salanova (who is right there in France) argues to the contrary, and to pick apart other aspects of Needham's case. He concludes that


... the earliest British Beakers sem to have been influenced by a range of Continental styles rather than the most popular style in any one region. This would be consistent with the mounting evidence for this time as one of great mobility which resulted in types of objects being very widely distributed.

He tends to play up the Atlantic route and play down the Rhine e.g. on p. 60 questioning Alison Sheridan's link between Upper Largie and specifically the Netherlands. On p. 63 he concludes that


At the very least, the proposed Rhineland links that have for so long been a mainstay of interpretations of how the Bell Beaker Set arrived in Britain may now be questioned.

He may be taking revisionism a bit too far there, but I see his views as bringing a necessary balance after so long a focus on the Rhineland.

[ArmandoR1b]

Yes, and with 67 Bell Beaker genomes promised, I hope the Archer's is one of them and that at least a substantial proportion are male and include y-dna. What bugs me is that we are skipping Yamnaya west of the Don, especially Yamnaya in the Carpathian Basin, not to mention Vucedol.

How many sites that are Yamnaya west of the Don are there that they have human remains from? If there are substantial and aren't considered to likely be contaminated I think they will get to them sooner or later. Of course it would be nice if it were sooner than later. It's always good that you point out the lack of results from Yamnaya west of the Don though.

[Jean M]

...Please excuse the rough Google translation. ....

"Within a year we hope to publish the first results, or with data from genetic sampling of the current population of the Iberian Peninsula or the results of genetic testing of human bones at the time, we will also study. It depends on what move first," explains geneticist Peter Smith*, of the Center for Molecular Biology and Environmental UM researcher and coordinator of the project, which is funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and is now the boot.

* Pedro Soares, former student of Prof. Martin Richards, and who is working with Richards on this Bell Beaker project.

[Heber]

* Pedro Soares, former student of Prof. Martin Richards, and who is working with Richards on this Bell Beaker project.

This paper available July 2016.

Behind the warriors: Bell Beakers and identities in Atlantic Europe (3rd millennium BC)

Conference Paper (PDF Available) · April 2014 with 52 Reads

Conference: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages: questions of shared language, At Cardiff

1st Laure Salanova
17.05 · French National Centre for Scientific Research
Abstract
Definition of identities is a founding principle of the historical disciplines. However, in an archaeological context, the difficulty of differentiating the various scales of identity, referring simultaneously to individual behaviours, social groups and cultural norms, has been highlighted many times. This frequent confusion explains the different interpretations proposed for wide-scale phenomena, such as the Bell Beaker phenomenon, which marked Europe with a uniform material culture at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. This contribution aims to deconstruct the Bell Beaker phenomenon, separating the clear expression of social identities from cultural ones. Most of the social categories highlighted in a burial context reveal a common trend of increasing expression of corporative groups in Europe. In addition to these groups, which ultimately represent a small fraction of the population, regional differences point to another facet of identity. The typology of the material culture, circulation of know-how, preferences regarding settlement and mobility patterns reveal a coherent Atlantic entity, in continuity with the previous periods and providing the basis of the Bronze Age Complex.

11120

11121

the Atlantic shores of Europe (Salanova 2003; Prieto-Martínez & Salanova 2009). For instance, the large similarities between the Maritime beakers found in southern Brittany, northern Galicia and central Portugal could not be explained without a rapid mode of communication between these three regions, excluding step-by-step circulation (Salanova 2008). The coastal distribution of some Spanish influences in some French Bell Beakers (concerning certain bowl shapes and incised decorations) points to the same phenomenon (Salanova et al. 2011). These vessels have been found only in specific areas, in the southwest part of Brittany, around the Loire estuary and along the Vendée coast, including some islands in the central part of France (île de Ré). This distribution provides some indication of the maritime roads that linked the different regions.In conclusion, the social categories of the 3rd millennium and those that are more visible from the Bell Beaker period define several identities, which reflect a society structured into different corporative groups. All of these categories making up the society certainly did not have the same way of considering their identity. Although it could appear to be unreasonably ambitious to reconstruct what these people may have thought, the archaeological data suggest some responses to the wide question of their identity. With the exception of this social trend, which was common to all of Europe, cultural norms, which could define another level of identity corresponding to regional expression, have been taken into account to a lesser extent. Beyond the typological differences in material culture, economic, settlement and mobility patterns should be a more common subject of research, which could indicate another facet of the population and allow reconstruction of the societies with their total diversity. Along the Atlantic façade of Europe, a coherent Bell Beaker entity has been recognized, defining a regional identity that prefigures the Atlantic Bronze Age Complex.

Some scholars have attempted to link the Bell Beaker package with the emergence of Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Celtic languages (for instance: Gallay 2001; Brun 2006). Due to the differences between western and central Europe and the diversity of the cultural and social categories reflected in the Bell Beaker phenomenon, it is difficult to demonstrate the existence of a common language based only on the material culture. However, the similarities described along the Atlantic coast, which involve the circulation of know-how and of craftsmen, could effectively demonstrate the existence of supra-regional languages, shared at least by this group of specialists.

[Jean M]

This paper available July 2016. Behind the warriors: Bell Beakers and identities in Atlantic Europe (3rd millennium BC)

A little preview from Celtic for the West 3! My copy hasn't arrived yet, but should be on the way.

[Heber]

A little preview from Celtic for the West 3! My copy hasn't arrived yet, but should be in the way.

part II: Genetics
11. The Genetic Structure of the British Populations and their Surnames
Bruce J. Winney & Walter F. Bodmer 305
12. Archaeogenetic and Palaeogenetic Evidence for Metal Age Mobility
in Europe
Maria Pala, Pedro Soares, & Martin B. Richards 321

If Pedro Soares has the Atlantic Bell Beaker samples, do you think it will be included in this paper.

[Jean M]

12. Archaeogenetic and Palaeogenetic Evidence for Metal Age Mobility in Europe
Maria Pala, Pedro Soares, & Martin B. Richards 321

If Pedro Soares has the Atlantic Bell Beaker samples, do you think it will be included in this paper.

That would be wonderful. The papers by Maria Pala and Martin Richards at the conference last year revealed nothing new, but they have had months in which to get the Huddersfield aDNA lab running.

[Megalophias]

How many sites that are Yamnaya west of the Don are there that they have human remains from? If there are substantial and aren't considered to likely be contaminated I think they will get to them sooner or later. Of course it would be nice if it were sooner than later. It's always good that you point out the lack of results from Yamnaya west of the Don though.

There are already over a dozen Yamnaya mtDNA results listed on Jean's site from Ukraine and Bulgaria, so I guess getting nuclear DNA is only a matter of time and money.

[razyn]

Do we already have any R1b-DF27 among Bell Beaker ancient DNA samples?


No. All the Bell Beaker Y-DNA that I know about can be found here: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

Unless the SNP M12124 that RISE560 has -- and shares [uniquely, so far] with the modern European, DF27+ sample SUFG001 -- is a valid marker of a real subclade of DF27. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?827-Where-did-DF27-originate-and-when-and-how-did-it-expand&p=173473&viewfull=1#post173473

In that case RISE560 is DF27+, the earliest found so far -- not precisely dated, but in a Bell Beaker context, in Augsburg. And the answer to Tomenable's question would be Yes. RISE560 is present in JeanM's table, it just isn't called anywhere near as specifically as DF27.

JeanM and I disagree about this, which is perfectly OK, since neither of us has enough evidence actually to know. She has good reasons for being cautious. I'm just trying to make sense of the DF27 project. One of these days we'll know; one of us will have been mistaken, and we'll both be nice about that. In the meantime it's likely that there will be other DF27+ examples in the aDNA record, before we know whether M12124 is a Unique Event polymorphism, or one that has recurred. In the latter case RISE560 and SUFG001 are unrelated; and the fact that both samples have that rare mutation is a coincidence, not phylogenetically informative. (And in that case, I will shut up about RISE560.)

[Jean M]

JeanM and I disagree about this, which is perfectly OK, since neither of us has enough evidence actually to know....

Really Razyn? I thought that you had written to one of the authors of the paper and had the matter explained. There remains some doubt in your mind?

[ArmandoR1b]

There are already over a dozen Yamnaya mtDNA results listed on Jean's site from Ukraine and Bulgaria, so I guess getting nuclear DNA is only a matter of time and money.

Thanks, hopefully they do try to get Y-DNA from the ones that are male, assuming some are. It looks like there are 18 specimens and all from Wilde, S. et al. (2014), Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full) so they did get nuclear DNA but not full autosomal or Y-DNA. The Supporting Information for the study is at http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/03/05/1316513111.DCSupplemental in case anyone cares to read it.

[razyn]

Really Razyn? I thought that you had written to one of the authors of the paper and had the matter explained. There remains some doubt in your mind?
I don't have any doubt that SUFG001 is DF27+, which was our original disagreement last summer. I exchanged several emails with Dr. Underhill about that; he and I agree that the table in his paper was captioned appropriately, and that I read that correctly. I believe you have doubt that RISE560's (unique known) match with SUFG001, on one SNP, proves anything about RISE560. DF27 itself was not tested and not found in RISE560; so far, there is room to doubt whether M12124 is stable, and therefore you didn't change what you already had in your table of aDNA samples and what we know of their haplogroups.

So, the answer to Tomenable's actual question might either be your unqualified No or my qualified Yes, and neither you nor I can prove it yet. One of us probably is right. It's a bigger deal for me than for you, so I keep footnoting these pronouncements, just in case.

[Jean M]

I don't have any doubt that SUFG001 is DF27+, which was our original disagreement last summer. I exchanged several emails with Dr. Underhill about that; he and I agree that the table in his paper was captioned appropriately, and that I read that correctly. I believe you have doubt that RISE560's (unique known) match with SUFG001, on one SNP, proves anything about RISE560. DF27 itself was not tested and not found in RISE560; so far, there is room to doubt whether M12124 is stable, and therefore you didn't change what you already had in your table of aDNA samples and what we know of their haplogroups.

Thanks for the reminder. Frankly most of this doesn't mean a thing to me now, my memory being of the sieve construction, but certainly I am not going to mark a sample as being any haplogroup without proof of same. You are right there. And you are also right that I have no personal preferences in this matter. Nothing riding on it at all.

[mouse]

I don't have any doubt that SUFG001 is DF27+, which was our original disagreement last summer. I exchanged several emails with Dr. Underhill about that; he and I agree that the table in his paper was captioned appropriately, and that I read that correctly. I believe you have doubt that RISE560's (unique known) match with SUFG001, on one SNP, proves anything about RISE560. DF27 itself was not tested and not found in RISE560; so far, there is room to doubt whether M12124 is stable, and therefore you didn't change what you already had in your table of aDNA samples and what we know of their haplogroups.

So, the answer to Tomenable's actual question might either be your unqualified No or my qualified Yes, and neither you nor I can prove it yet. One of us probably is right. It's a bigger deal for me than for you, so I keep footnoting these pronouncements, just in case.

ChrY position: 22161863 (+strand)
Reads: 76
Position data: 1C 75G
Weight for C: 0.002200220022
Weight for G: 0.997799779978
Probability of error: 0.00311158099532 (0<->1)
Sample allele: G
Reference (hg19) allele: G

[rms2]

Please delete. Redundant post.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Thanks, hopefully they do try to get Y-DNA from the ones that are male, assuming some are. It looks like there are 18 specimens and all from Wilde, S. et al. (2014), Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/13/4832.full) so they did get nuclear DNA but not full autosomal or Y-DNA. The Supporting Information for the study is at http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2014/03/05/1316513111.DCSupplemental in case anyone cares to read it.

Ah forgot about that paper. Mark Thomas did one of the recent Iran Neolthic papers, so they should we'll be able to do the complete gamut of data for these much needed Ukrainian & Bulgarian Yamnaya specimens

[Jean M]

ChrY position: 22161863 (+strand)
Reads: 76
Position data: 1C 75G
Weight for C: 0.002200220022
Weight for G: 0.997799779978
Probability of error: 0.00311158099532 (0<->1)
Sample allele: G
Reference (hg19) allele: G

Thank you. I take it you have the sample RISE560.

22161863 G > A = M12124? If so then RISE560 is negative for M12124.

Have I got that right?

[razyn]

Thank you. I take it you have the sample RISE560.

22161863 G > A = M12124? If so then RISE560 is negative for M12124.

Have I got that right?

I have no way of knowing what sample mouse is describing. Genetiker said last summer that RISE560 was M12124 (xM12050):
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/
And Rich Rocca quoted him, on this forum. M12124 (at the locus described by mouse, but I don't know if it was hg19) was discovered in SUFG001, assigned that name, and the mutation was G to A (whereas mouse is discussing a sample, from somebody, with options of likely G or unlikely C). The full data from SUFG001 (at fairly low coverage) were published by Nature in 2014; that table is available here (a link I got last month from Dr. Underhill):
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/extref/ejhg201450x6.txt
There seems to be an entirely different school of thought at YBrowse, wherein M12124=Z10339, was identified in some other population by Ray Banks, and is at the position 8833511. That got on YBrowse in 2015, though the SNP name M12124 had been published (at a different position) in 2014.
I don't know who is right, or what's a typo; and I cannot see molecules. I retain the perhaps fond and foolish hope that Genetiker and Rich were right; and I'm pretty sure that SUFG001 is DF27+. Further (about the real or imagined mutations in aDNA sample RISE560) deponent saith not.

[R.Rocca]

Thank you. I take it you have the sample RISE560.

22161863 G > A = M12124? If so then RISE560 is negative for M12124.

Have I got that right?

Not sure where @mouse is looking, but RISE560 has a single read at M12124's position and it is a derived/positive 'A'. Perhaps he has the raw data for the modern DF27+ sample SUFG001???

The question is not whether RISE560 is positive or not IMO, but whether the SNP M12124 itself is meaningful. It's position within the confirmed modern DF27 sample looks like it may be a bit too downstream to be a part of Bell Beaker, but then again, maybe it is.

[mouse]

Thank you. I take it you have the sample RISE560.

22161863 G > A = M12124? If so then RISE560 is negative for M12124.

Have I got that right?

This is my result from my .Bam file at Yfull. I am negative for it. If anyone has A or C at this position then they have the mutation.

[razyn]

The question is not whether RISE560 is positive or not IMO, but whether the SNP M12124 itself is meaningful. It's position within the confirmed modern DF27 sample looks like it may be a bit too downstream to be a part of Bell Beaker, but then again, maybe it is.
I concur in this opinion. And if it is, we do in fact have aDNA from DF27, in a region that also had Bell Beaker U152 (RISE563); they are brother clades. Seeing that in Genetiker's analysis was what got me interested in the sample. Maybe additional aDNA evidence, whether from Iberia or Central Europe, will resolve the question whether a subclade this far downstream of DF27 can have existed during a Bell Beaker archaeological horizon. If it did, the rapid expansion/diversification of that side of the DF27 tree would get a boost. It's too bad RISE560 is not closely dated by independent techniques.

Edited 9/5/16: Although these two samples (RISE560 and RISE563) don't seem to be from dated contexts, Rich Rocca has turned up a couple more that are possibly U152 and ZZ11 (i.e. from this branch of the P312 tree) in two more aDNA Bell Beaker samples, I0805 and I0806, that have been assigned dates. So I'll link that conversation here, in case it turns out to be important for map-drawing, etc. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=184636&viewfull=1#post184636

[Jean M]

The question is not whether RISE560 is positive or not IMO, but whether the SNP M12124 itself is meaningful.

I hope that you won't be too terribly annoyed if I do beg to differ a teeny, weeny bit in emphasis here. The question when dealing with an ancient DNA sample, which is inevitably decayed, is whether one has enough data from it to make a solid identification of haplogroup. The coverage obtained may be very low, and worse still, false negatives and positives can be expected. It is not like testing a modern sample from a living person. So in many cases what we get from an academic paper is a haplogroup which seems crazily old. That just reflects how far down the tree the testers could with confidence get. Which in the case of RISE560 was R1 (P234). This is equally inevitably disappointing.

Allentoft 2015 did not even give Y-DNA haplogroups in the publication, so I requested enlightenment from amateur enthusiasts dealing with the samples themselves: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&highlight=Allentoft . Results confirmed by two different researchers were preferred, but some were accepted from a single, reputable, non-anonymous researcher. Somewhere in the midst of this process a list of Y-DNA haplogroup results was obtained from Allentoft for most of the male samples, which simplified the process. Then Mathieson 2015 published the same samples with Y-DNA haplogroup results, which was a relief, as I prefer to cite a published source.

So as far as I am aware, RISE560 has not even been identified in a publication as R1b. Of course it is very likely indeed that it was, and P312 of some kind is also very likely. We have other samples from the same region and culture that make that clear. But we have to wait as patiently as possible for DF27.

[smal]

When you deal with the aDNA analysis you should take into account that aDNA (in comparison with modern DNA) is very damaged. C > U-type of damage-derived miscoding lesions are a major cause of transitions in PCR-amplified aDNA sequences (so-called Type 2 damage (C > T/G > A).

For example, look at a list of ‘private’ SNPs of F38, Tepe Hasanlu (Iran), Early Iron Age, 971–832 BCE (relatively good quality aDNA sample):


2668186 C T
2818620 C T
2851792 G A
2851793 G A
2855888 G A
2857909 G A
2899271 G A
2908310 C T
3008638 G A
3066423 C T
3072267 C T
3108485 G A
3129876 G A
3263140 C T
3263142 C T
3278457 G A
3369872 C T
3406061 G A
3614343 G A
3679177 C T
3806894 C T
3964180 G A
3994212 G A
4286393 C T
4301021 G A
4498832 G A
4499684 G A
4499685 G A
4523879 C T
4667150 G A
4667175 G A
4924902 C T
5070002 G A
5092400 C T
5399901 C T
5465806 C T
5465820 C T
5972415 G A
6019209 G A
6019246 C T
6066002 G A
6525760 G A
6595255 C T
6644392 C T
6710276 G A
6712941 C T
6741145 G A
6783198 G A
6791496 G A
6801654 G A
6813973 G A
6864773 G A
6942178 G A
7142147 C T
7157184 G A
7164272 C T
7180607 C T
7222219 C T
7304179 G A
7331758 C T
7341827 C T
7360614 G A
7519294 C T
7568631 G A
7577172 G A
7636886 C T
7650066 C T
7666562 G A
7693383 C T
7696233 C T
7781690 C T
7800115 G A
7814776 G A
7996033 G A
8147452 C T
8167884 C T
8235789 G A
8350973 G A
8360198 C T
8426145 C T
8461493 C T
8472268 C T
8492033 G A
8504386 C T
8599407 C T
8616542 G A
8677650 G A
8717424 C T
8813517 G A
8813963 C T
8906586 C T
8912013 C T
9057378 G A
9147917 G A
9147918 G A
9385593 G A
9648298 G A
9777154 C T
9832118 C T
9854756 C T
9876253 G A
9904904 G A
9930932 C T
9980756 G A
10025236 C T
10073507 G A
13201909 G A
13231411 C T
13319133 G A
13412194 C T
13488968 C T
13639508 G A
13645238 C T
13719599 G A
13735410 G A
13852252 G A
13856771 G A
13864686 G A
13888886 C T
13911318 G A
13935272 G A
13957010 G A
13971648 G A
14122342 C T
14129860 G A
14160761 G A
14160765 G A
14181222 C T
14184894 G A
14243986 C T
14266953 C T
14316617 C T
14461728 C T
14557890 G A
14560286 G A
14637555 G A
14700626 C T
14732809 C T
14749638 C T
14777589 C T
14803893 G A
14908731 G A
14929170 G A
14945487 G A
14946167 G A
14956751 G A
15017069 C T
15021514 C T
15077107 G A
15167457 C T
15242547 G A
15255620 C T
15329404 G A
15432758 C T
15432805 G A
15547204 G A
15597615 G A
15606666 G A
15691358 C T
15711558 G A
15768538 C T
15777783 G A
15790882 C T
15803167 G A
15830271 G A
15835293 G A
15860097 G A
15862911 C T
15863897 C T
15882530 G A
15919803 G A
15973048 G A
15986875 C T
16005598 G A
16025206 C T
16025283 G A
16174674 C T
16239743 C T
16270446 C T
16315960 C T
16382282 G A
16429999 C T
16466547 C T
16471198 C T
16494780 C T
16527835 C T
16587546 G A
16609852 G A
16634693 G A
16688299 G A
16693533 C T
16731922 G A
16743754 C T
16765687 C T
16773369 C T
16805445 G A
16890929 C T
16893536 C T
16898372 C T
16926782 C T
16926783 C T
16990513 G A
17067259 C T
17212705 G A
17272768 G A
17275638 G A
17354581 G A
17400430 G A
17400980 C T
17402386 G A
17435892 C T
17440771 C T
17464685 G A
17478392 G A
17672653 C T
17757818 C T
17762933 C T
17762934 C T
17796011 G A
17880342 G A
17882134 C T
17945338 C T
17983315 C T
18024354 G A
18028119 G A
18132568 C T
18135563 G A
18219987 G A
18387628 C T
18423083 G A
18673564 C T
18741052 C T
18783862 G A
18836976 G A
18845917 C T
18935221 C T
18978817 C T
18978818 C T
18995828 C T
18995831 C T
18995885 C T
18995894 G A
19073385 G A
19074787 G A
19080687 C T
19115633 C T
19146937 G A
19169400 C T
19179581 C T
19245640 G A
19248183 G A
19260674 C T
19281451 G A
19299423 G A
19340242 G A
19409289 C T
19439709 G A
19449132 G A
19510778 G A
19514377 G A
19523557 G A
20063123 G A
20837255 G A
21052977 G A
21056719 C T
21211431 C T
21243629 G A
21307520 C T
21365827 G A
21379749 G A
21408662 C T
21412806 G A
21521687 C T
21556556 G A
21570484 G A
21637193 G A
21641524 G A
21775090 G A
21796634 G A
21797888 G A
21956574 G A
21965976 G A
21965980 G A
22007323 G A
22012453 G A
22029335 C T
22037777 C T
22038946 G A
22056769 G A
22092395 C T
22110459 G A
22132197 C T
22167545 C T
22167546 C T
22302355 G A
22303098 C T
22317504 G A
22325459 C T
22345092 C T
22484275 C T
22529530 G A
22541740 G A
22572575 G A
22696661 G A
22727850 C T
22732740 G A
22813532 C T
22866193 G A
22900200 C T
22910619 C T
22941978 C T
22964157 C T
23059860 G A
23134749 G A
23152487 G A
23186827 G A
23238205 C T
23238206 C T
23238252 C T
23241928 G A
23324292 G A
23339295 C T
23339296 C T
23346027 G A
23460172 C T
23484569 G A
23526791 G A
23619747 G A
23619860 C T
23626864 C T
23777890 C T
23782717 G A
23977144 G A
23988599 G A
23993715 G A
24363378 C T
24422294 G A
28487044 G A
28552065 G A
28566835 C T
28566838 C T
28578346 G A
28611530 G A
28685184 C T
28686555 C T
28721022 G A
28731474 C T
28731475 C T
28761930 G A
28801893 C T
58819607 C T
58819608 C T
58821051 C T
58823287 C T
58844500 C T
58881035 C T
58970295 G A
59030791 G A


PF6401 C > T and PF6412 G > A in Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC, or M12124 G > A in RISE560 can be only aDNA damages. It is better not to use C > T/G > A SNPs as terminal mutations in a case of aDNA.

[razyn]

It is better not to use C > T/G > A SNPs as terminal mutations in a case of aDNA.
That's as may be (in the case of aDNA). But U152 is C>T; DF27 (along with its other testing issues) is G>A, as are Z195, Z220, Z694, and other SNPs we know and love. If M12124 starts showing up somewhere else, such as in haplogroups E, G, I, N etc., I'll be much less inclined to cling to it. So far, it just looks like a regular SNP, in our haplogroup of particular interest, that's not currently widespread.

[R.Rocca]

I hope that you won't be too terribly annoyed if I do beg to differ a teeny, weeny bit in emphasis here. The question when dealing with an ancient DNA sample, which is inevitably decayed, is whether one has enough data from it to make a solid identification of haplogroup. The coverage obtained may be very low, and worse still, false negatives and positives can be expected. It is not like testing a modern sample from a living person. So in many cases what we get from an academic paper is a haplogroup which seems crazily old. That just reflects how far down the tree the testers could with confidence get. Which in the case of RISE560 was R1 (P234). This is equally inevitably disappointing.

Allentoft 2015 did not even give Y-DNA haplogroups in the publication, so I requested enlightenment from amateur enthusiasts dealing with the samples themselves: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&highlight=Allentoft . Results confirmed by two different researchers were preferred, but some were accepted from a single, reputable, non-anonymous researcher. Somewhere in the midst of this process a list of Y-DNA haplogroup results was obtained from Allentoft for most of the male samples, which simplified the process. Then Mathieson 2015 published the same samples with Y-DNA haplogroup results, which was a relief, as I prefer to cite a published source.

So as far as I am aware, RISE560 has not even been identified in a publication as R1b. Of course it is very likely indeed that it was, and P312 of some kind is also very likely. We have other samples from the same region and culture that make that clear. But we have to wait as patiently as possible for DF27.

Unfortunately when we are dealing with such low coverage samples, some of this analysis becomes more art than science. Hopefully at some point someone will re-sequence this sample so it can be useful to these discussions.

[Jean M]

Unfortunately when we are dealing with such low coverage samples, some of this analysis becomes more art than science. Hopefully at some point someone will re-sequence this sample so it can be useful to these discussions.

I wasn't particularly thinking of this sample, but of others that we can hope for in the future. DF27 surely cannot elude the aDNA boffins for ever, especially as we already have L21 and U152. Dan Bradley has found that samples from the petrous bone are best preserved. That was a leap forward. Allentoft 2015 used teeth.

[R.Rocca]

So as far as I am aware, RISE560 has not even been identified in a publication as R1b. Of course it is very likely indeed that it was, and P312 of some kind is also very likely. We have other samples from the same region and culture that make that clear. But we have to wait as patiently as possible for DF27.

I checked RISE560 today and it is L150.1+ which is an R1b-M269 equivalent.

[rms2]

Well, I for one will be glad to see the big new Bell Beaker report, the one with 67 BB genomes. It'll have to be good. Hope I have plenty of beer on hand while I read that one. B)