Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[ADW_1981]

I have no Idea. And apparently, in spite of your words, neither do you.
Let me tell you what I know. The fourth millennium BC is the arrival of a vast amount of exogenous people to South Iberia. Notice south, not Iberia as a whole. Shortly after they got into Portugal and in there we are currently digging large settlements that attest to that migration. Some are very big.

So the stock of R1b (if they were indeed that) arrived with people that made carinated pottery, herringbone decoration pottery, arrows (some tanged) , an eastern (not steppe!) type of lever pressure blade making, made round huts and silos for storage with walls that fortified those castros settlements and buried their dead in pits inside their homes (mostly). In short this is the people arriving to south Iberia and most important to the place where is registered the earliest bell beakers. Nothing about those bell beakers made them different in those traits.

Does this cries Yamnaya culture to you? If so, please elaborate.

I suggest you become a little more attentive to what rms2 is trying to express, as well as heed the advice of several other posters by beginning to read from start to finish the 100+ pages of this thread. It might also help to review the title "Bell Beaker" + "Gimbutas" and stay on topic. Rms2 has provided many quotations from her theories as well as aDNA evidence which support an east to west movement of R1b lineages. At the end of the day, we could very well be wrong, but it will take more than being simply a devil's advocate without bringing much to the table to do so.

[Marscrater]

3

Don't you find it incredibly odd, if Bell Beaker males "were a stock of R1b coming out of Iberia", that Yamnaya thus far is predominantly R1b-L23, Bell Beaker is predominantly R1b-L23, the Bell Beaker culture had many traits in common with Yamnaya, and Bell Beaker also carried a significant level of Yamnaya-like autosomal dna? Keep in mind also that Marija Gimbutas, a highly respected archaeologist, believed that Bell Beaker was the product of the melding of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin.


Rms2,
You seem to be having difficulties following. I will post this one and stop unless you ask me to continue.

R1b exists for something like 20,000 years. We have R1b1 in Villabruna in something like 14,000 years ago, by 6000 bc you have r1b1 in Els Trocs in spain as you have r1b1 in Russia. This to tell you that from Villabruna R1b1 14,000 ago in Italy you will have probably find its descendants all over the Eurasia, therefore a potential birth of M269 and L23 and L51 is pretty much everywhere.
Just because we are at the infancy of sampling 10,000 Km of land spanning 10,000 Years, and only have a tiny fraction of the Adna needed to make any solid conclusion regarding known archeological facts, should only tell us to be careful, pondered in making assertions of origins of genetic makeshifts precisely because of the regions and times needed to be sample yet. Don’t you think?

However, Bell beakers were Iberian and apparently the ones we have samples of are well Beyond L23 are they not? So, for now, and It can change tomorrow, a good ground for that assertion.

[rms2]

3
Rms2,
You seem to be having difficulties following . . .

I've refrained from mentioning that your writing is bad, but it is. It's difficult to follow because it's stilted.

I think you have trouble following, and I suspect you are some sort of Iberian partisan, so it's a waste of time answering you. You are ignoring the evidence.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Let me tell you what I know. The fourth millennium BC is the arrival of a vast amount of exogenous people to South Iberia. Notice south, not Iberia as a whole. Shortly after they got into Portugal and in there we are currently digging large settlements that attest to that migration. Some are very big.

Except you don't know that. You are insisting upon it. I was speaking to the one of the leading Iberian archaeologists but 2 days ago - he doesn't claim to know (because he is wise & cautious). Therefore, your bold statement carries little weight.




So the stock of R1b (if they were indeed that) arrived with people that made carinated pottery, herringbone decoration pottery, arrows (some tanged) , an eastern (not steppe!) type of lever pressure blade making, made round huts and silos for storage with walls that fortified those castros settlements and buried their dead in pits inside their homes (mostly). In short this is the people arriving to south Iberia and most important to the place where is registered the earliest bell beakers. Nothing about those bell beakers made them different in those traits.

Does this cries Yamnaya culture to you? If so, please elaborate.

Except that fortified settlements and enclosures can be found throughout Neolithic & Copper Age western, central Europe & eastern Europe, before BB & also in non-BB contexts.
Herringbone design can be found in Germany c. 2800 BC also.
Can't you recall your archaeological tenets were dismantled several times over on Eurogenes by Frank, remember Olympus Mons/ Mars Crater ?

[Marscrater]

I've refrained from mentioning that your writing is bad, but it is. It's difficult to follow because it's stilted.

I think you have trouble following, and I suspect you are some sort of Iberian partisan, so it's a waste of time answering you. You are ignoring the evidence.

I am truly sorry if I upset you. was not my intention.
regretfully i have to conclude that my doubts regarding your expertise were in fact justified. at least to the standard I use the term.

Have a very good knight and lets cease this exchange hereafter.

[rms2]

I am truly sorry if I upset you. was not my intention.
regretfully i have to conclude that my doubts regarding your expertise were in fact justified. at least to the standard I use the term.

Have a very good knight and lets cease this exchange hereafter.

Now you are merely being insulting. You are ignoring the evidence in favor of something you prefer that harks back to the consensus of 2005. You ignore my posts and simply make bald assertions.

Why can't you argue without being insulting? Why should anyone pay any attention to you?

[Marscrater]

Except you don't know

Can't you recall your archaeological tenets were dismantled several times over on Eurogenes by Frank & myself, remember Olympus Mons/ Mars Crater ?

Gravetto-Danubian.
I noticed the references in other comments. Apparently the tendency to make wild inferences goes well beyond just archaeological. If you know Olympus Mons should you not invite him here to discuss matter with you instead of inferring my identity? Is this how your reasoning operates? Since we both share Mars geographical or topographical sites hence we are the same person?

Should I consider that as a measurement of the rest of your capabilities?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Gravetto-Danubian.
I noticed the references in other comments. Apparently the tendency to make wild inferences goes well beyond just archaeological. If you know Olympus Mons should you not invite him here to discuss matter with you instead of inferring my identity? Is this how your reasoning operates? Since we both share Mars geographical or topographical sites hence we are the same person?

Should I consider that as a measurement of the rest of your capabilities?

Mars Crater ... Olympus Mons.
One's a mountain on Mars, the other a crater.
You must be unbeknownst soulmates. ;)

[Marscrater]

This is anything short of mind-boggling.

I have been nothing but polite and correct, reserving the right to speak my mind and considerations about the issue at hand. not withstanding the need to defend my arguments.

where are these attacks coming from? what is happening here?

Does this forum have an administrator I can complaint?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Anyhow, here is a breakdown of several BB individuals, as well as the one R1b--L11 German LNBA outlier.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13384&d=1483055046

I'm not suggesting this is a perfect window into prehistoric reality, but it does show beyond doubt the major input of steppe groups into the BB East groups.

It also suggests that the major Middle Neolithic input came from central European groups (LBK like. In fact, not shown, but it draws upon from all preceding MNE groups: Salzmeunde, Baalber, Esperstadt, Hungary Neol, Baden; consistent with the broad mtDNA profiles and theories that incoming steppe men married out widely).
Iberia was part of this exogamy network, but the preferred choice is Middle Neolithic Iberia, not Chalcolithic (the latter scoring consistent Zeros).

An overall eastern origin is also suggested by the fact that Hungary Ko1 is the preferred HG admixture, instead of western WHGs (Brana, Bichon, Loschbour). This is probably due to the fact that western Yamnaya will be more WHG shifted than Samara.

RISE 568 Czech is also an outlier - looks like an unadmixed north Balkan (female) incorporated into Beaker.

'Exotic' origins don't appear to be a feature either (no Levant Neolithic, EBA Jordan, etc).

I reserve the right to be disproven. But even Balkan aDNA won't change the overall picture too much (apart from the outlier perhaps - looks Vucedol-like).

[rms2]

Mars Crater ... Olympus Mons.
One's a mountain on Mars, the other a crater.
You must be unbeknownst soulmates. ;)

Ah, I thought his posting style reminded me of someone who has been banned here before.

[Administrator]

[ADMIN]



Does this forum have an administrator I can complaint?

Not for banned members returning with sockpuppet accounts!

To our regulars - Please report suspicious newcomers to us rather than publicly speculating. Discovered this thread by pure chance just now.

[jdean]

Ah, I thought his posting style reminded me of someone who has been banned here before.

And there was me thinking you were dropping hints earlier, you did quote a reply from the General to this fellow : )

[rms2]

And there was me thinking you were dropping hints earlier, you did quote a reply from the General to this fellow : )

Honestly, that was a coincidence . . . or maybe there was something about his posting style (bad writing) that sent me to the right place for a proper response, which Generalissimo/Davidski administered to him. :biggrin1:

It was Gravetto-Danubian who had him dead to rights.

[jdean]

Honestly, that was a coincidence . . . or maybe there was something about his posting style (bad writing) that sent me to the right place for a proper response, which Generalissimo/Davidski administered to him. :biggrin1:

It was Gravetto-Danubian who had him dead to rights.

AIH I reported him last night after he started banging on about teeth : )

[Jean M]

Let me tell you what I know. The fourth millennium BC is the arrival of a vast amount of exogenous people to South Iberia. Notice south, not Iberia as a whole. Shortly after they got into Portugal and in there we are currently digging large settlements that attest to that migration. ... an eastern (not steppe!) type of lever pressure blade making ...

There was something about a new type of blade-making using pressure in the exhibition at Torres Vedras on Zambujal. Because I was not certain of the correct translation, I did not report on it in the thread on the exhibition: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8752-Exhibition-on-the-Copper-Age-castle-of-Zambujal-Portugal&highlight=Zambujal

But as far as I know pressure-blade making was present on the European steppe, and appears to have spread with BB and CW.

[Jean M]

... buried their dead in pits inside their homes (mostly).

True of the El Argar culture. Or at least burial within the settlements. I have not come across this in relation to Los Millares (which has an external necropolis) or the Vila Nova de São Pedro culture.

[Isidro]

I am glad the 'baby" didn't get thrown down the drain with the dirty water. Thank you Jean M.

Marscrater has called for attention for the 4th Millenium Iberian incoming migrations, what I have read is that there is no signs of massive migrations and is more populations increases based on continuity from the Neolithic, it probably is a combination of both like the EEF/WHG demonstrates.

I don't want to contribute to "trollism" by repeating over and over what has been posted on this thread, I do am curious about if Gimbutas talked in her writings about microblades and origins on the Steppes, Atlantic Europe or do come from a common source, it does seem to emulate ancient DNA results dilemmas, which in itself is kind of interesting.

[rms2]

. . . At the end of the day, we could very well be wrong . . .

Hey, ADW_1981, I hope you don't mind my using a snippet from one of your posts. I am not doing so to argue with or object to anything you said but merely as a springboard for some thoughts of my own.

Honestly, I don't mean to sound arrogant or inflexibly dogmatic, but I really am wondering how we could be wrong and what sort of scenario that would represent.

How could R1b-L23 come from western Europe originally? How would people like Marscrater/Olympus Mons explain that?

Do they think Villabruna, the lone R1b1 Paleolithic hunter-gatherer, who was not even derived for P297, represents an R1b population who spent the LGM in Italy? Is he, or does he at least represent, the progenitor of R1b, the eventual ancestor of R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Did L23 arise from M269 somewhere in Italy or thereabouts, spread west and east from there, returning from the steppe in the third millennium BC as Yamnaya R1b-L23* and R1b-Z2103 to spread Indo-European languages all the way to the Atlantic? Do the people who endorse this scenario accept that L23 is only about 6500 years old, arising about 4500 BC (around the time of Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II), or do they think it is much much older?

As one branch of R1b-L23 encroached from the east as Yamnaya, the wholly non-steppe, virtually unrelated western branch of R1b-L23 emerged from Iberia as some kind of early Neolithic farmer version of Bell Beaker, bereft of any steppe-like characteristics or steppe autosomal dna until it encountered Corded Ware in Central Europe, from whose females (matres - mothers) it learned a patriarchal (patres - fathers) steppe culture, how to breed and ride horses, and bury its dead in pits (yama) under round barrows, with weapons, horse bones, etc. Then the newly virile Bell Beaker, made warlike and more manly through marriage with Corded Ware Valkyries, but somehow miraculously avoiding the acquisition of any R1a from the fathers (or brothers, cousins, etc.) of those Valkyries, spread back west, apparently having mastered the IE language of their wives.

Is this the scenario?

Are we to think that the R1b-L23 coming from the east with Yamnaya was really something wholly other from the R1b-L23 coming from the west with Bell Beaker?

If we are wrong, then it must be something like that.

[angscoire]

Hey, ADW_1981, I hope you don't mind my using a snippet from one of your posts. I am not doing so to argue with or object to anything you said but merely as a springboard for some thoughts of my own.

Honestly, I don't mean to sound arrogant or inflexibly dogmatic, but I really am wondering how we could be wrong and what sort of scenario that would represent.

How could R1b-L23 come from western Europe originally? How would people like Marscrater/Olympus Mons explain that?

Do they think Villabruna, the lone R1b1 Paleolithic hunter-gatherer, who was not even derived for P297, represents an R1b population who spent the LGM in Italy? Is he, or does he at least represent, the progenitor of R1b, the eventual ancestor of R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Did L23 arise from M269 somewhere in Italy or thereabouts, spread west and east from there, returning from the steppe in the third millennium BC as Yamnaya R1b-L23* and R1b-Z2103 to spread Indo-European languages all the way to the Atlantic? Do the people who endorse this scenario accept that L23 is only about 6500 years old, arising about 4500 BC (around the time of Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II), or do they think it is much much older?

As one branch of R1b-L23 encroached from the east as Yamnaya, the wholly non-steppe, virtually unrelated western branch of R1b-L23 emerged from Iberia as some kind of early Neolithic farmer version of Bell Beaker, bereft of any steppe-like characteristics or steppe autosomal dna until it encountered Corded Ware in Central Europe, from whose females (matres - mothers) it learned a patriarchal (patres - fathers) steppe culture, how to breed and ride horses, and bury its dead in pits (yama) under round barrows, with weapons, horse bones, etc. Then the newly virile Bell Beaker, made warlike and more manly through marriage with Corded Ware Valkyries, but somehow miraculously avoiding the acquisition of any R1a from the fathers (or brothers, cousins, etc.) of those Valkyries, spread back west, apparently having mastered the IE language of their wives.

Is this the scenario?

Are we to think that the R1b-L23 coming from the east with Yamnaya was really something wholly other from the R1b-L23 coming from the west with Bell Beaker?

If we are wrong, then it must be something like that.

As far as I can tell the argument goes something like..... it is a possibility that R1b (and probably R1a too) expanded from the Italian Refuge to re-populate Europe . Villabrunna is hugely siginificant autosomally too .Yamnaya did NOT spread R1b west . Instead , Iberia received its share of R1b in the Neolithic , via the Mediterranean (L51 from Italy) before pushing into the Isles mainly with Megalithism long before Bell Beaker . Maybe R1a partly spread IE (satem only) from the East. Any steppe admixture in the west today derives from females or was already extant in Europe west of the steppe before any metallic age migrations. ANE isn't that important , CHG is.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

As far as I can tell the argument goes something like..... it is a possibility that R1b (and probably R1a too) expanded from the Italian Refuge to re-populate Europe . Villabrunna is hugely siginificant autosomally too .Yamnaya did NOT spread R1b west . Instead , Iberia received its share of R1b in the Neolithic , via the Mediterranean (L51 from Italy) before pushing into the Isles mainly with Megalithism long before Bell Beaker . Maybe R1a partly spread IE (satem only) from the East. Any steppe admixture in the west today derives from females or was already extant in Europe west of the steppe before any metallic age migrations. ANE isn't that important , CHG is. Those are the basics.

Yes that's what is required. In which case there is no CHG in Southern Europe in the Neolithic. The Remedellos lack it, Baden has 7% at best, and Late Neolithic Greece (4000BC) has 10-15%. Even the one BA Iberia sample to date has not much more than 10%.

CHG appears to have arrived in Iberia last of all. It could yet not be sampled, but it would require for it to have not mixed in with locals for hundreds of years. Yet by 2500 BC it was already found and mixed through east, central, & north Europe.

Possible but very complex.

[Romilius]

As one branch of R1b-L23 encroached from the east as Yamnaya, the wholly non-steppe, virtually unrelated western branch of R1b-L23 emerged from Iberia as some kind of early Neolithic farmer version of Bell Beaker, bereft of any steppe-like characteristics or steppe autosomal dna until it encountered Corded Ware in Central Europe, from whose females (matres - mothers) it learned a patriarchal (patres - fathers) steppe culture, how to breed and ride horses, and bury its dead in pits (yama) under round barrows, with weapons, horse bones, etc. Then the newly virile Bell Beaker, made warlike and more manly through marriage with Corded Ware Valkyries, but somehow miraculously avoiding the acquisition of any R1a from the fathers (or brothers, cousins, etc.) of those Valkyries, spread back west, apparently having mastered the IE language of their wives.

Epic explanation :biggrin1:

I really can't believe in exchange of females between two cultures that must have been in contrast if one is farmer like and the other aggressive steppe-like.

Also, I remember Tomenable did a table with CWC mtDNA haplogroups, with Yamna mtDNA haplogroups and, perhaps, but I don't remember, a Beaker mtDNA table too. If I remember well, the mtDNA haplogroups weren't similar between the three cultures. I can mistake... does someone remember better?

[rms2]

As far as I can tell the argument goes something like..... it is a possibility that R1b (and probably R1a too) expanded from the Italian Refuge to re-populate Europe . Villabrunna is hugely siginificant autosomally too .Yamnaya did NOT spread R1b west . Instead , Iberia received its share of R1b in the Neolithic , via the Mediterranean (L51 from Italy) before pushing into the Isles mainly with Megalithism long before Bell Beaker . Maybe R1a partly spread IE (satem only) from the East. Any steppe admixture in the west today derives from females or was already extant in Europe west of the steppe before any metallic age migrations. ANE isn't that important , CHG is. Those are the basics.

Thanks for that explanation. Of course, a huge fly in that ointment is the ancient dna results, with Yamnaya thus far overwhelmingly R1b-L23, and R1b-L23 (including L51) absent from the Neolithic and earlier in the west. Others are the spread of IE languages all the way to the Atlantic, Bell Beaker R1b-L23 in Bronze Age Ireland, with a big autosomal difference between it and the Neolithic Irish population, etc.

Hopefully ancient dna will finally put this stuff to rest for good and all.

[Megalophias]

How could R1b-L23 come from western Europe originally? How would people like Marscrater/Olympus Mons explain that?
As I understand it (since he is not here to explain himself, I may have it wrong) Olympus Mons thinks that L23 came from the Caucasus via North Africa and entered Iberia with the Almerian Copper Age culture, which in turn gave rise to the Bell Beaker expansion. A different route from the east rather than long continuity in Western Europe.

[ArmandoR1b]

I couldn't care less what Olympus Mons thinks. I am patiently waiting for enough ancient DNA results to put arguments about the origin of P312 and U106 in Iberia to rest. The sooner the better.

[jeanL]

Do they think Villabruna, the lone R1b1 Paleolithic hunter-gatherer, who was not even derived for P297, represents an R1b population who spent the LGM in Italy? Is he, or does he at least represent, the progenitor of R1b, the eventual ancestor of R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Did L23 arise from M269 somewhere in Italy or thereabouts, spread west and east from there, returning from the steppe in the third millennium BC as Yamnaya R1b-L23* and R1b-Z2103 to spread Indo-European languages all the way to the Atlantic? Do the people who endorse this scenario accept that L23 is only about 6500 years old, arising about 4500 BC (around the time of Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog II), or do they think it is much much older?


Two things from my part:

1- Villabruna had 2 SNPs in the line leading to P297, so he was definitely related to P297, unlike El Trocs.

2- Yeah, most of the people who do not subscribe to the Steppe origin of R1b-L51 based on the current aDNA evidence shouldn't also subscribe to the age estimates derived using SNP or STR count. I said before that R1b-L23 needs to be at least 8,000 ybp old for any nonSteppe scenario to work. So yeah, at least I do not accept that L23 is 6500 ybp old. Do not know others.

[rms2]

As I understand it (since he is not here to explain himself, I may have it wrong) Olympus Mons thinks that L23 came from the Caucasus via North Africa and entered Iberia with the Almerian Copper Age culture, which in turn gave rise to the Bell Beaker expansion. A different route from the east rather than long continuity in Western Europe.

Thanks. Well that, at least, is interesting. So I take it he believes the L23 in Yamnaya came via the Caucasus, as well.

I think that overlooks a lot that would just be beyond odd if he is right, but c'est la vie.

[vettor]

Epic explanation :biggrin1:

I really can't believe in exchange of females between two cultures that must have been in contrast if one is farmer like and the other aggressive steppe-like.

Also, I remember Tomenable did a table with CWC mtDNA haplogroups, with Yamna mtDNA haplogroups and, perhaps, but I don't remember, a Beaker mtDNA table too. If I remember well, the mtDNA haplogroups weren't similar between the three cultures. I can mistake... does someone remember better?

Aggressive steppe like ?

there was more than just farmers killing hunters or vice a versa ! ......................there where , farmers where killing farmers and Hunters where killing Hunters ..............

[rms2]

Aggressive steppe like ?

there was more than just farmers killing hunters or vice a versa ! ......................there where , farmers where killing farmers and Hunters where killing Hunters ..............

I think we know that all humans have long been sons-of-bitches (pardon my French). It's just easier to be an aggressive s.o.b. when you can kill, steal, and then jump on your horse to make a quick get away.

[rms2]

I think this new Bell Beaker paper, if it ever actually sees the light of day within our lifetimes, will show that Bell Beaker came from the Russian steppe, either by way of Iberia or by a simple, straightforward east-to-west process. I think it will vindicate Gimbutas, maybe not in every little detail, but overall.

[vettor]

I am amazed that many people do not see that the LBK pot makers in the same area as later BB , play zero part or have any link in any BB pottery.

Humans will develop and perfect anything they make..........its how we work..........clearly the LBK must be a part of BB

[rms2]

Ancient Bell Beaker remains have EEF and WHG components, as well as a sizable Yamnaya-like component. No doubt LBK people or their descendants were part of the Central European mix.

On page 37 of The Civilization of the Goddess, Gimbutas describes LBK people as having been of the "gracile Mediterranean" physical type characteristic of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers, which differs from the taller, more robust Bell Beaker physical type. Right now Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site has reached its bandwidth limit and is unavailable, but I made a note sometime in the past that the y-dna haplogroups associated with LBK thus far are C1a2, F*, F, G2a2a, G2a2a1, G2a2b, I1, and T1a.

That reminds me of something I have mentioned a number of times on this thread, something that strikes me as incongruous about the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker bodies, the ones in the collective Neolithic tombs so uncharacteristic of Bell Beaker's later proclivity for kurgan-style single burial. Those bodies were likewise gracile and Mediterranean, unlike the later Bell Beaker bodies in single graves.

[kevinduffy]

Ancient Bell Beaker remains have EEF and WHG components, as well as a sizable Yamnaya-like component. No doubt LBK people or their descendants were part of the Central European mix.

On page 37 of The Civilization of the Goddess, Gimbutas describes LBK people as having been of the "gracile Mediterranean" physical type characteristic of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers, which differs from the taller, more robust Bell Beaker physical type. Right now Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site has reached its bandwidth limit and is unavailable, but I made a note sometime in the past that the y-dna haplogroups associated with LBK thus far are C1a2, F*, F, G2a2a, G2a2a1, G2a2b, I1, and T1a.

That reminds me of something I have mentioned a number of times on this thread, something that strikes me as incongruous about the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker bodies, the ones in the collective Neolithic tombs so uncharacteristic of Bell Beaker's later proclivity for kurgan-style single burial. Those bodies were likewise gracile and Mediterranean, unlike the later Bell Beaker bodies in single graves.

Perhaps the differences in body type were at least partially caused by differences in diet? For example, if the BBs drank milk but the farmers did not then this could result in physical differences. Asian-Americans are often larger than their immigrant parents because of differences in diet.

[vettor]

Ancient Bell Beaker remains have EEF and WHG components, as well as a sizable Yamnaya-like component. No doubt LBK people or their descendants were part of the Central European mix.

On page 37 of The Civilization of the Goddess, Gimbutas describes LBK people as having been of the "gracile Mediterranean" physical type characteristic of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers, which differs from the taller, more robust Bell Beaker physical type. Right now Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site has reached its bandwidth limit and is unavailable, but I made a note sometime in the past that the y-dna haplogroups associated with LBK thus far are C1a2, F*, F, G2a2a, G2a2a1, G2a2b, I1, and T1a.

That reminds me of something I have mentioned a number of times on this thread, something that strikes me as incongruous about the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker bodies, the ones in the collective Neolithic tombs so uncharacteristic of Bell Beaker's later proclivity for kurgan-style single burial. Those bodies were likewise gracile and Mediterranean, unlike the later Bell Beaker bodies in single graves.

And the areas below apart from the numerous I1 areas in LBK/BB lands, we have
T1a ( ydna) from Karsdorf
H2 ( ydna ) carriers from Derenburg and
G2a bearers from Halberstadt and Derenburg
from these specific areas who where all "potters"

Clearly these farmer/potters could have developed a potting style and that these BB "invaders" arrived about the same time.

Or , do we have definite proof that the BB style came from elsewhere in the east ............as I have my doubts that they came from portugese iberia ..........catalan iberia is another matter, especially since the only true "iberians " in ancient times lived only in modern catalonian lands.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

And the areas below apart from the numerous I1 areas in LBK/BB lands, we have
T1a ( ydna) from Karsdorf
H2 ( ydna ) carriers from Derenburg and
G2a bearers from Halberstadt and Derenburg
from these specific areas who where all "potters"

Clearly these farmer/potters could have developed a potting style and that these BB "invaders" arrived about the same time.

Or , do we have definite proof that the BB style came from elsewhere in the east ............as I have my doubts that they came from portugese iberia ..........catalan iberia is another matter, especially since the only true "iberians " in ancient times lived only in modern catalonian lands.

The LBK culture ended 4500Bc, and the BB phenomenon began in Central Europe 2500BC. Apart from the 2000 year gap, there is little direct typological filiation from LbK to BB. But some later "Neolithic" groups like TRB & GAC contributed to certain non-maritime BB styles, via CWC.

In fact, it seems by the time the R1 guy's arrived, the early farmer haplogroups (G2, H2,..) were already in the decline, with resurgence of Hg I.

[rms2]

Perhaps the differences in body type were at least partially caused by differences in diet? For example, if the BBs drank milk but the farmers did not then this could result in physical differences. Asian-Americans are often larger than their immigrant parents because of differences in diet.

My point is that the very earliest Iberian Beaker bodies appear to be a different people from the later kurgan Beaker bodies. As Coon said in his book, The Races of Europe, page 150:



Where Bell Beaker burials are found in central Europe, the skeletons are almost always of the same tall brachycephalic
type which we have already studied in the eastern Mediterranean and Italy. In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race.


I don't think what happened is that the little, short, slender farmers went east, learned how to drink milk, bred with big Corded Ware Valkyries, and got bigger. I think we may be talking about two completely different sets of people. Those earliest Bell Beakers are found in collective Neolithic tombs, unaccompanied by weapons, evidence of horse sacrifice, etc. And they are found with little slender bodies of the Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer type.

The same thing occurs in Britain, where some early Beakers are found in long barrows, with Neolithic Mediterranean physical types.

This is from Henri Hubert's book, The History of the Celtic People, pages 171-173:



. . . In the first period of the Bronze Age there arrived in the British Isles, coming from the Continent, people with very marked characteristics. The old Neolithic inhabitants (among whom I include those of all the beginning of the Bronze Age) were long-heads of Mediterranean type, who built for their dead, or, at least, for the more distinguished of them, tumuli with a funeral chamber known as the "long barrows", in which one sometimes finds those curious bell-shaped beakers adorned at regular intervals with bands of incised or stamped decoration, of a very simple and austere type. The newcomers were of quite a different type, and had other funeral practices.

They buried their dead under round tumuli, known as "round barrows", in graves in which the body was placed in a crouching position on one side and enclosed in stone flags or woodwork. Later they burned them. In their graves there were zoned beakers (Fig. 33), but of a late type in which the neck is distinguished from the belly, or vases derived from these beakers . . . The grave goods comprised buttons with a V-shaped boring, flint and copper daggers, arrow-heads, and flat perforated pieces of schist which are "bracers", or bowman's wristguards. The skeletons were of a new type: tall, with round heads of a fairly constant shape, the brow receding, the supraciliary ridge prominent, the cheek-bones highly developed, and the jaws massive and projecting so as to present a dip at the base of the nose. I have already described them as one of the types represented in Celtic burials.

The association of the physical type of this people with the beaker has led British anthropologists to call it the Beaker Folk . . . In Scotland they were accompanied by other brachycephals, with a higher index and of Alpine type. In general they advanced from south to north and from east to west, and their progress lasted long enough for there to be a very marked difference in furniture between their oldest and latest tombs.

. . . Their progress was a conquest. It is evident that they subdued and assimilated the previous occupants of the country.

[razyn]

Note to self: those "bowman's wristguards" have a long history of being somewhat problematic. Maybe if the strings or thongs had survived for a few thousand years, the way they were used would be a little more indisputable. Anyway in the absence of that quickly biodegradable evidence, I sort of like Henri Hubert's term for the artifact: a (flat, perforated) piece of schist.

[rms2]

As I understand it (since he is not here to explain himself, I may have it wrong) Olympus Mons thinks that L23 came from the Caucasus via North Africa and entered Iberia with the Almerian Copper Age culture, which in turn gave rise to the Bell Beaker expansion. A different route from the east rather than long continuity in Western Europe.

In looking back at some of his posts at Eurogenes, I notice he attributes to these Almerian copper metallurgists from the Caucasus responsibility for introducing IE speech to Iberia, e.g., Lusitanian. So, apparently he rejects the steppe hypothesis for a kind of quasi-Ivanov-Gamkrelidze Caucasus Homeland theory. That explains a lot, including the emphasis on CHG.

Weird, but he thus makes Bell Beaker responsible for the spread of Indo-European, but west-to-east. There are some curious posts, like this one re the North African route for PIE:



. . . Having said that …. To me it’s all about Merimde and El-omari stock in Delta Nile in the 5th millennia BC. That was the route for these PIE speaking bunch. You will see. Too bad, Chris Davis didn’t reply about is thoughts of CHAD Pie words. Just too bad.


Sorry to keep mentioning this guy. I am just trying to understand where this stuff is coming from. Seems pretty far out in left field to me.

That also sounds like some stuff I remember from Anatole Klyosov a few years back, but he makes R1b Turkic and claims Kurgan/Yamnaya was in fact R1b but Turkic rather than PIE.

[Nibelung]

Valentinian_I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinian_I)

You'll have to google him for images of the face of the colossus, which may or may not be him, but the type I find similar to what's being described here.

[ADW_1981]

That also sounds like some stuff I remember from Anatole Klyosov a few years back, but he makes R1b Turkic and claims Kurgan/Yamnaya was in fact R1b but Turkic rather than PIE.

I suspect this theory magically sprung into existence AFTER the Haak results were published.

[razyn]

Sorry to keep mentioning this guy. I am just trying to understand where this stuff is coming from. Seems pretty far out in left field to me.

I was surprised to see a post from a DF27 guy (who should have better sense by now) crediting some malarkey (about the Iberian background of British and Irish haplogroups) to Bryan Sykes. I guess, from Blood of the Isles. That particular source of wisdom was already pretty well discredited before I got into this fray in early 2011, so somehow it never showed up on my radar screen, although I had read Seven Daughters of Eve when it came out (2001). At least I checked that other thing out of the library, and flipped through it. Which was enough, much more reality-based studies were available before 2011 when my personal interest was piqued after testing Z196+.

All of which is to say, the writers of "best sellers" have a lot to answer for, later on, when there is some actual evidence -- and it tends to contradict their early works of the creative imagination.

[Agamemnon]

I suspect this theory magically sprung into existence AFTER the Haak results were published.

Nah, Klyosov formulated it before the Haak results came out.

[rms2]

Nah, Klyosov formulated it before the Haak results came out.

That's right. He was way ahead in predicting that Yamnaya would be R1b, but then he spoiled it all by saying that Yamnaya and R1b were Turkic-speaking. I believe he even went so far as to claim that Basque is somehow Turkic.

Turkic World (http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/Klyosov/Klyosov2011R1bDNAHistoryEn.htm)

[rms2]

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

I hope Jean will pardon me for doing it, but I thought I would dredge up this post of hers while we are waiting for the big BB paper.

I know Heyd was referring to the use of cord to make impressions on pottery, but it is hard for me to believe that he would stick "by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007", knowing what he knows of the ongoing ancient dna results, if those results were contradicting him.

But maybe he was just sticking strictly to archaeology. However, it's hard to imagine he was doing that while at the same time saying the results from this upcoming paper on ancient dna are "exciting".

[Jean M]

I know Heyd was referring to the use of cord to make impressions on pottery, but it is hard for me to believe that he would stick "by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007", knowing what he knows of the ongoing ancient dna results, if those results were contradicting him.

So far the aDNA is telling us exactly the same as the lack of cord decoration on the Neolithic pottery of Iberia. The only Y-DNA R1b in Neolithic Iberia was R1b1c. Am I right? So do we expect the discovery process to suddenly go into reverse? I wouldn't put money on it. :biggrin1:

[rms2]

So far the aDNA is telling us exactly the same as the lack of cord decoration on the Neolithic pottery of Iberia. The only Y-DNA R1b in Neolithic Iberia was R1b1c. Am I right? So do we expect the discovery process to suddenly go into reverse? I wouldn't put money on it. :biggrin1:

I don't expect things to go into reverse, but I was using your post to try to augur the future and anticipate what might be coming in that much anticipated paper.

I have been off work for the Christmas holiday. I go back to work on Tuesday. No doubt they will release the new paper when I am so busy with work I have little free time to look things over and comment here.

[Jean M]

I don't expect things to go into reverse...

No I know that you don't. My questions were rhetorical. You and I think alike on this. The logic from existing evidence is that R1b-P312+ moved east to west. We are just waiting for the details.

[rms2]

BTW, I happen to agree with Davidski that both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker were derived from Yamnaya. I think we tend to forget that Yamnaya covered a lot of ground and was a cultural horizon rather than a monolithic culture.

I also expect to see both some R1b in Corded Ware and some R1a in Bell Beaker. I will also be very surprised if some R1a doesn't show up in Yamnaya very soon, perhaps as of this new paper.

Call me dumb-dumb if I am wrong.

[GoldenHind]

I have been off work for the Christmas holiday. I go back to work on Tuesday. No doubt they will release the new paper when I am so busy with work I have little free time to look things over and comment here.

Perhaps it will come out when you are off for Christmas next year.

[rms2]

Perhaps it will come out when you are off for Christmas next year.

Oh, bite your tongue! :eek:

[Kopfjäger]

Perhaps it will come out when you are off for Christmas next year.

Damn! Don't say that; I'll be lurking for another year!

[rms2]

Based on the evidence thus far, based on what Gimbutas wrote (a tip of the hat to the topic of this thread), and based on Jean's report of what Heyd had to say, I think we will see Gimbutas vindicated as a prophetess. Bell Beaker will be shown to be Yamnaya 2.0, the main means by which Indo-European language, culture, and dna moved west. Iberia will turn out to be a receiver rather than a progenitor.

[TigerMW]

Based on the evidence thus far, based on what Gimbutas wrote (a tip of the hat to the topic of this thread), and based on Jean's report of what Heyd had to say, I think we will see Gimbutas vindicated as a prophetess. Bell Beaker will be shown to be Yamnaya 2.0, the main means by which Indo-European language, culture, and dna moved west. Iberia will turn out to be a receiver rather than a progenitor.
Does anyone know if David Anthony's conclusions are the consensus on the Yamnaya that went up the Danube being a "true folk movement" or a large intact migration? He felt like the Yamnaya that went north and west of the Carpathians did more integrating with prior inhabitants along the way.

I'm still intrigued by the contact zone of the Beakers and Corded Ware.

[rms2]

Does anyone know if David Anthony's conclusions are the consensus on the Yamnaya that went up the Danube being a "true folk movement" or a large intact migration? He felt like the Yamnaya that went north and west of the Carpathians did more integrating with prior inhabitants along the way.

I'm still intrigued by the contact zone of the Beakers and Corded Ware.

Well, there are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin. It would be hard to deny that represents a folk movement.

[TigerMW]

Well, there are literally thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin. It would be hard to deny that represents a folk movement.
I've always wondered about the possibility of the L11 ancestral lineage coming around on the northern plains splitting into P312 and U106 on the way or as they reached SW Poland, Czech Rep, Western Hungary, etc.

However, if the movement along the Danube was really the dominant one then it makes more sense that L11 came that route which could make it quite easy or P312 and U106 to have derived quite a ways to the east, even near the Black Sea with U106 going north rather than along the Danube. This would align with Anthony's pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Celtic routes.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Based on the evidence thus far, based on what Gimbutas wrote (a tip of the hat to the topic of this thread), and based on Jean's report of what Heyd had to say, I think we will see Gimbutas vindicated as a prophetess. Bell Beaker will be shown to be Yamnaya 2.0, the main means by which Indo-European language, culture, and dna moved west. Iberia will turn out to be a receiver rather than a progenitor.

Overall yes, but if we were to knitpick key details, we could highlight:

- she placed the homeland specifically on the Volga steppe. We already know that's wrong because genetics and archaeology show that Yamnaya expanded from further west- centred on the Dniepr
- her first wave doesn't really exist. In fact, as Heyd argues, we see only one real "wave" westward.
- I don't think BB is Vucedol + Yamnaya ; but simply a Yamnaya movement up the Danube, almost wholly unadmixed until arriving in Bohemia & Germany.
- in one of her latest articles, she saw TRB as a movement from Majkop, which doesn't seem correct.
- a more complex scenario behind the rise of pastoralism and heirarchy on the steppe, requiring aDNA for final clarification
- her and Anthony don't seem to say much about the Balkan events, and how to correctly connect the collapse of the old Copper centres with the movement of pastoralist tribes west.

Of course, much has since been discovered, so we cannot critique too harshly at all. She got the big picture right

[rms2]

Her first wave does exist. Anthony mentions it.

I would not dismiss her idea that BB was a mix of Vucedol and Yamnaya either. We already know of at least one Vucedol period R1b-M343. Let's wait and see.

I can't speak to what you say about Gimbutas and TRB. I know she thought Remedello was a kurgan culture, and it turned out genetically, at least in terms of y-dna, to be of old hunter-gatherer stock. I don't think she was necessarily wrong about that, however. Probably Remedello had been kurganized.

Just the same, I don't expect Gimbutas, much as I revere her exalted memory (being a bit facetious there), to be 100% accurate in every detail. I think she will be vindicated in general, not in every particular.

[rms2]

I've always wondered about the possibility of the L11 ancestral lineage coming around on the northern plains splitting into P312 and U106 on the way or as they reached SW Poland, Czech Rep, Western Hungary, etc.

However, if the movement along the Danube was really the dominant one then it makes more sense that L11 came that route which could make it quite easy or P312 and U106 to have derived quite a ways to the east, even near the Black Sea with U106 going north rather than along the Danube. This would align with Anthony's pre-Germanic and pre-Italo-Celtic routes.

My view is that P312 came around the south side of the Carpathians and into Bell Beaker, and U106 came around the north with Corded Ware.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Her first wave does exist. Anthony mentions it.

Maybe. It'll be interesting to see what the post Varna-Karanovo groups like Cernavoda look like. Apart from a couple pre-Yamnaya kurgans in Hungary, there is otherwise little sign of First Wave west. Herein ties the issue of Remedello.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I would not dismiss her idea that BB was a mix of Vucedol and Yamnaya either. We already know of at least one Vucedol period R1b-M343. Let's wait and see.



I wouldn't dismiss it, either. It's just that in contemporary discussions, Vucedol doesn't seem to register in BB origins, apart from a convergence of pottery styles toward the late phase of Vucedol.
Scholars seem to point to distinctive steppe-like elements appearing directly in central Europe, eg Ivanova "Курганы vs поселения: скотоводы vs земледельцы ' 2016.


13415

[razyn]

Is the attachment supposed to be the Ivanova piece? It doesn't open for me, message says it's "invalid."

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Is the attachment supposed to be the Ivanova piece? It doesn't open for me, message says it's "invalid."

I'll try again:....

13420

Crouched inhumations, spiral head rings and copper daggers later seen in the BB East group. Could it be "pre-Beaker" groups centred around Slovakia & SW Poland ?

[rms2]

Reporting back on the lecture on Bell Beaker by Volker Heyd this evening in Dorchester. The expected two aDNA papers on Bell Beaker have been delayed for the best possible reason. The two teams, one from Harvard and the other from Copenhagen, have agreed to amalgamate their results into one huge paper, which will give the results of over 200 samples. It is due to be published in a couple of months. Until then all the results are embargoed. Volker Heyd would only say that they are exciting.

He would also prefer me not to divulge everything he said at the lecture on the archaeological side, since he has a paper coming out in the March issue of Antiquity on Bell Beaker; while in the same issue will be one by Kristiansen on Corded Ware. So I'll be brief. He went through the various theories of the origins of Bell Beaker: the Dutch model prevalent until the 1990s, the change wrought by the Muller and Van Willigen radiocarbon date compilation of 2001 and subsequent publications of early dates in Iberia, the various attempts to make sense of an Iberian origin. The problem of the latter and of the idea of a North African origin are the same in his view. There is no prior usage of cord in pottery decoration of either. So he sticks by the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture proposed in Harrison and Heyd 2007. The icing on the cake lies in two significant new discoveries, which are not entirely published as yet.

Okay, I'm going to quote Jean from a month ago again, because I can't just wait patiently; I have to try to read the tea leaves. These are not Earl Grey tea leaves; they are Volker Heyd tea leaves.

I was looking back over Harrison and Heyd 2007. The concluding sentence (page 207) really caught my eye, given Jean's post:



We predict that future stable isotope and ancientDNA analyses of Beaker skeletal material will support our view that immigration played an important role in the Europe-wide Bell Beaker phenomenon.

Since Heyd finds the ancient dna results of the upcoming paper "exciting", and he is sticking with the Yamnaya link to a pre-BB culture (Gimbutas is smiling from heaven), surely he must think the words of the sentence above will be vindicated.

BTW, please note that was the concluding sentence from a paper published in 2007. We did not have much ancient dna (if any) in 2007. Harrison and Heyd should change their names to Enoch and Elijah, because they are prophets! ;)

[castle3]

Just watched 'Britain's Ancient Capital: Secrets of Orkney' on BBC2. It was superb.

[Celt_??]

I'll try again:....Crouched inhumations, spiral head rings and copper daggers later seen in the BB East group. Could it be "pre-Beaker" groups centred around Slovakia & SW Poland ?

13420

Gravetto-Danubian would you mind elaborating on the image which you posted for the benefit of neophytes attempting to follow this discussion? What does the red stripped area represent - Yamnaya? And what culture do the red dots represent? Bell Beaker or a precursor? Does this map represent or support R-P312 coming "around the south side of the Carpathians and into Bell Beaker" cultural area via the Danube River? Thank you.

[razyn]

Here is a blast from the past (in terms of this thread).

From Gimbutas' The Civilization of the Goddess:


Horse bones in a series of sites provide a clue to the mobility of the Bell Beaker people. Analysis of animal bones from the sites at Budapest (Csepel Hollandiut and Csepel-Haros) have shown that the horse was the foremost species of the domestic fauna, constituting more than 60 percent of the total animal bones. This suggests a large-scale domestication of the horse in the Carpathian basin. Bell Beaker migrations were carried out on horseback from central Europe as far as Spain (where horse bones have also been found in Bell Beaker contexts). The horse also played a significant role in religion, as can be seen from the remains of the horse sacrifice where skulls are found in cremation graves . . .

The striking similarity of burial practices ties the Bell Beaker complex to the Kurgan (Late Yamna) tradition. (p. 391)

There is hardly any reason to treat these groups [Vinkovci-Samogyvar and Bell Beaker] as separate cultures. (p. 391).

4. The warlike and horse-riding Bell Beaker people of the middle and second half of the third millennium B.C., who diffused over western Europe, are likely to have originated from an amalgam of remnants of the Vucedol people with the Yamna colonists (after Wave No. 3) in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Their parent culture is called Vinkovci-Samogyvar. This was the largest and last outmigration, from east-central Europe into western Europe, up to the west Mediterranean and the British Isles, before the onset of a more stable period, and the formation of Bronze Age cultural units. (p. 401)

Has there been any aDNA work on the horse bones in western European BB graves? I think the topic was discussed on the old DNA-Forums, by Didier Vernade and a few others (maybe only in French). But not, as I recall, in relation to aDNA; just a broad-brush picture of the ancestry of the modern horse population. That was along with frogs, chickens and other more or less domesticated or edible species. Anything with DNA also had aDNA, but it may not have survived in the particular horse parts that are found in BB grave pits.

[TigerMW]

My view is that P312 came around the south side of the Carpathians and into Bell Beaker, and U106 came around the north with Corded Ware.

Your view aligns nicely with David Anthony's pre-Germanic coming along the north with and/or into the Corded Ware and P312 in the pre/proto-Italo-Celtic Danube route.

The U106 project admins, or at least the main researcher, thinks that U106 came up from the south. The implication would be that U106 entered into the south of Poland, etc. and the Corded Ware zone from the Hungarian Plains and that the IE people on the north side of the Carpathians were pre-Balto-Slavic or something like that and probably mixed a bit more.

What's the case for saying U106 wasn't coming north out of the Hungarian plains to meet mainly R1a people and maybe I1 people. I think Ken Nordtvedt used to say he though I1 came from the Baltic states.

... so could it be I1 from the north, R1a from the east and U106 from the south meeting in Corded Ware and/or to pre-"germinate" western Corded Ware if I can play on words?

I would be remiss (to razyn and goldenhind) if I wouldn't include that DF99, L238 and DF19 couldn have been a part of this or even DF27... but DF27 could have always have come in the Beaker-Corded Ware fusion/fission phase.

[rms2]

Has there been any aDNA work on the horse bones in western European BB graves? I think the topic was discussed on the old DNA-Forums, by Didier Vernade and a few others (maybe only in French). But not, as I recall, in relation to aDNA; just a broad-brush picture of the ancestry of the modern horse population. That was along with frogs, chickens and other more or less domesticated or edible species. Anything with DNA also had aDNA, but it may not have survived in the particular horse parts that are found in BB grave pits.

Not as far as I know, but that does not mean it hasn't been done.

[rms2]

Your view aligns nicely with David Anthony's pre-Germanic coming along the north with and/or into the Corded Ware and P312 in the pre/proto-Italo-Celtic Danube route.

The U106 project admins, or at least the main researcher, thinks that U106 came up from the south . . .

I think the northern route for U106 makes more sense and helps explain the difference in distributions between U106 and P312 and the fact that you have U106 in Sweden c. 2300 BC but not in any Bell Beaker remains thus far.

[Dewsloth]

I think the northern route for U106 makes more sense and helps explain the difference in distributions between U106 and P312 and the fact that you have U106 in Sweden c. 2300 BC but not in any Bell Beaker remains thus far.

With some of its subclades nearly(?) as old as P312, itself, it will be interesting (once the drought ends) to see if subclades will present any edifying distribution pattern early on.

[TigerMW]

I think the northern route for U106 makes more sense and helps explain the difference in distributions between U106 and P312 and the fact that you have U106 in Sweden c. 2300 BC but not in any Bell Beaker remains thus far.
It depends on the emergence of P312 and U106. If the first TMRCA's for each were not born until the Hungarian plains I could easily see a small group of P311+ with a few U106+ squeezing out northward while P312+ dominated factions moved westward.

If P312 and U106 are as old as the Yamnaya migration from the Black Sea then the northern U106 route makes sense but that means L51, P311 are really Pontic Steppe born. I'm willing to accept that.

That would be an interesting poll. Where did P311's TMRCA and first couple of generations emanate from?

The Yamnaya zone of the Pontic Steppes
The north side of the Carpathians
The middle or upper Danube and/or Hungarian Plains
The western Corded Ware zone
The Bell Beaker regions

[jdean]

Personally I've been drawn to the Yamnaya for a while now, it would make explaining explaining the odd outcrops of P311 branches in unexpected places a lot easer.

[TigerMW]

Personally I've been drawn to the Yamnaya for a while now, it would make explaining explaining the odd outcrops of P311 branches in unexpected places a lot easer.

Jdean, I agree with the Yamnaya basis for R1b-M269 moving westward into Europe. I'm down to the next layer of granularity. Really, European R1b is like 95% R1b-P311. Essentially the P311 TMRCA's family was a dynasty of some sort. Which culture and geography did they come out of? This would tell us a lot about we came to where we are.

[jdean]

Jdean, I agree with the Yamnaya basis for R1b-M269 moving westward into Europe. I'm down to the next layer of granularity. Really, European R1b is like 95% R1b-P311. Essentially the P311 TMRCA's family was a dynasty of some sort. Which culture and geography did they come out of? This would tell us a lot about we came to where we are.

Yes but there are bunches of P311 subclades in the Urals plus that odd frequency of U106 in that recent aDNA study of Hungary, they beg for questions !!!!

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Gravetto-Danubian would you mind elaborating on the image which you posted for the benefit of neophytes attempting to follow this discussion? What does the red stripped area represent - Yamnaya? And what culture do the red dots represent? Bell Beaker or a precursor? Does this map represent or support R-P312 coming "around the south side of the Carpathians and into Bell Beaker" cultural area via the Danube River? Thank you.

Sure. This map is purely archaeological. It makes no predictions about genetics.
The red stripe area is the yamnaya culture , properly speaking, extending through to eastern Hungary.
The dots are isolated finds of burials with Yamnaya features. However, they do not form a confluent "Yamnaya culture, but are in fact found within other cultures found at east-central Europe at that time, with local pottery (eg Vucedol, GAC, Mako) and sometimes within burial grounds of local groups.

I thought it interesting because German BB groups show many elements of the Yamnaya culture, but there was hard to find a bridging link. So these could be that link, between the Black Sea region and Germany.
I wonder if some of the new mentioned by Jean add to the list above.

[rms2]

It depends on the emergence of P312 and U106 . . .

True, but thus far U106 is absent from Bell Beaker but shows up in Sweden (where Bell Beaker never went) contemporaneous with Bell Beaker.

U106 looks like a big part of the Germanic mix but seems lacking in the Celtic one, which was probably derived from Bell Beaker.

So, if U106 came up from the south side of the Carpathians, it must have lammed out for the north post haste.

[TigerMW]

True, but thus far U106 is absent from Bell Beaker but shows up in Sweden (where Bell Beaker never went) contemporaneous with Bell Beaker.

U106 looks like a big part of the Germanic mix but seems lacking in the Celtic one, which was probably derived from Bell Beaker.

So, if U106 came up from the south side of the Carpathians, it must have lammed out for the north post haste.
I would agree but this is where the timing of P311, U106 and P312 become critical. If P311 originated in the Hungarian plains, the Most Recent Common Ancestor P311 man was just one man so early in the dynasty a descendant marked with U106 could have headed north with sons and may be not much more and very plausibly not having been a part of the Beaker/pre-Beaker migrations.

If P311 is much olded than the Yamnaya in the Hungarian Plains timeframe, then it would be expected that P311 could have had that early split on the east side of the Carpathians near the Black Sea. That scenario could have left a trail of U106 basal branches on the north of the Carpathians and perhaps a quite significant trail of P312 basal branches along the Danube River. It would be great if the new aDNA studies tested for these SNPs.

[rms2]

YFull has the TMRCA of P311 at about 2900 BC, but that's what they have for U106, as well. They have P311 forming about 3800 BC.

My own guess is that P311 arose on the Pontic steppe; U106 and P312 may have, as well, but as you said, we need some ancient dna to really confirm things.

[TigerMW]

YFull has the TMRCA of P311 at about 2900 BC, but that's what they have for U106, as well. They have P311 forming about 3800 BC.

My own guess is that P311 arose on the Pontic steppe; U106 and P312 may have, as well, but as you said, we need some ancient dna to really confirm things.

The key is the P311 MRCA. That's really about the beginning of the great dynasty (or expansion) that is who all the P312 and U106 subclades sprung from. These are THE western and central European types of R1b.

I don't know how good the YFull age estimates are but if P311's TMRCA was really 2900 BC, then I think that fits with a possible Hungarian Plains origin. Hence, U106 could well have leaked out or explored out to the north while P312 went west. Apparently heading west presented "green fields" for the P312 folks as they pretty much ran over everything in their path, although not at once.

When did the Kurgans show up in numbers in the Hungarian Plains?

BTW, I don't have any idea if P312 and U106 originated east of the Carpathian Mountains or north and south or west but it's a worthwhile speculation while we wait.

[alan]

At present the evidence seems to back p312 having a direct route west while u106 appears to have had to move north before turning west. The geographical most likely solution is one L11 group headed north of the Carpathians towards the Baltic and the other followed the Danube to the south of the Carpathians. Such a split would indicate the point of splitting was in west Ukraine. date wise I would say around 3000-2800bc makes most sense with the corded ware and Yamaha movements into old Europe the archaeological echo. My suspicion is that the z2103 dominance of R1b in the Balkans and eastcentral Europe is due to later overlays postdating the first Yamaha waves into old Europe.

[GoldenHind]

When speculating about the origin and spread of P312, one has to account for the considerable differences between what we currently know about the distribution of the P312 subclades. They seem to have parted ways very soon after the origin of P312 and spread in different directions.

[TigerMW]

When speculating about the origin and spread of P312, one has to account for the considerable differences between what we currently know about the distribution of the P312 subclades. They seem to have parted ways very soon after the origin of P312 and spread in different directions.
Yes, and we see son ZZ11 and grandson U152 across Italy the Alps and up the Rhine, and grandson DF27 in Iberia, France, Germany and also Italy so there is some gravity for P312 to the Alps or just east to Hungarian Plains.

At the same time we have L21, and a few others like DF19, DF99 and L238 far to the west/northwest of Europe. L21 is a little younger (maybe 100-200 years) so that could account for a more westerly orientation ... although we have the pocket in Bologna.

Let's think about this. ZZ11 has got to be nearly the same age as U106. I don't really know, but I'm beginning to think the U106 and P312 MRCAs came out of the region between the Alps and the Carpathians.

The Alpine region or just east into Bohemia and Hungary look like great suspects for P312.

Meanwhile U106 is a bit harder to pin down. Perhaps we should be considering Z18 and the large L48 groups separately.

If P311, P312, ZZ11 and U106 were all close to the same age that implies a very fast migration from the Black Sea area before expanding from between the Alps and the Carpathians. It just seems simpler for this to be happening on the west side of the Carpathians which means U106 leaked north from there.

Is there much evidence for similarities in the Western Corded Ware and the southern route Yamnaya and finally the Eastern Beakers?

[Wing Genealogist]

... Meanwhile U106 is a bit harder to pin down. Perhaps we should be considering Z18 and the large L48 groups separately.

Yes, Z18 & L48 should be considered separately. A third clade to keep in mind is Z156. According to the Age analysis of Dr. Iain McDonald, Z156 is older & larger than Z18. In addition the Royal House of Wettin is a Z156 clade.

[TigerMW]

Yes, Z18 & L48 should be considered separately. A third clade to keep in mind is Z156. According to the Age analysis of Dr. Iain McDonald, Z156 is older & larger than Z18. In addition the Royal House of Wettin is a Z156 clade.

Thanks, Ray. I think we have to imagine we are shooting pheasants and not picking them up from where they were sitting on the ground in the brush but as they get up into the air. We have to impute the flight line backwards for a soruce.

Where would be the confluence of Z156, Z18 and L48 from a possible source perspective?

[John Penny Al]

Hello I'm new here my name is Alex Castro, I'm Haplogroup G2a P15 and I'm looking for relatives in Western France/ Southern Portugal. I'm AB+ Jew in America. Can you please point me in a direction if you can. Im looking to build my Family tree. Anyone.

[GoldenHind]

Hello I'm new here my name is Alex Castro, I'm Haplogroup G2a P15 and I'm looking for relatives in Western France/ Southern Portugal. I'm AB+ Jew in America. Can you please point me in a direction if you can. Im looking to build my Family tree. Anyone.

I suggest you ask this on a thread related to the G haplogroup.

[rms2]

The key is the P311 MRCA. That's really about the beginning of the great dynasty (or expansion) that is who all the P312 and U106 subclades sprung from. These are THE western and central European types of R1b.

I don't know how good the YFull age estimates are but if P311's TMRCA was really 2900 BC, then I think that fits with a possible Hungarian Plains origin. Hence, U106 could well have leaked out or explored out to the north while P312 went west. Apparently heading west presented "green fields" for the P312 folks as they pretty much ran over everything in their path, although not at once.

When did the Kurgans show up in numbers in the Hungarian Plains?

BTW, I don't have any idea if P312 and U106 originated east of the Carpathian Mountains or north and south or west but it's a worthwhile speculation while we wait.

Well, going around the south side of the Carpathians and following the Danube Valley leads west. Going around the south side of the Carpathians but then heading north from the Carpathian basin, while not impossible, is more difficult and less natural. It means crossing mountains. Going around the north side of the Carpathians leads to the North European Plain and is more natural and easier.

We differ on this, I guess, but I think U106 is distinct enough from P312, beginning in ancient times, that the two did not spring from the same route around the Carpathians. I think the presence of U106 in that skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lille Beddinge in Sweden c. 2300 BC, and its absence from Bell Beaker in Germany and the Czech Republic, are pretty strong clues that U106 went around the north side of the Carpathians and across the North European Plain.

[John Penny Al]

Oh, thats good to know, so threads on here are based on your group as well as everything else? Thank you for your prompt reply.

[MitchellSince1893]

I know the pitfalls of using present day data, but it's interesting to look the siblings of U106 (R1b1a1a2a1a1) P312 (R1b1a1a2a1a2); AM01876/S1194 (R1b1a1a2a1a3) and A8051 (R1b1a1a2a1a4).

From the FTDNA S1194-CTS4528-A8039 project https://www.familytreedna.com/public/DF100-CTS4528-L11-P310-L151-P311?iframe=ymap
Of the present samples, Hungary is the most eastern sample on the map.

Doesn't prove anything, but if there had been samples to the east in present day Ukraine, Romania, and/or Russia it might have been residual evidence of a more eastern origin for P310.

[miiser]

We differ on this, I guess, but I think U106 is distinct enough from P312, beginning in ancient times, that the two did not spring from the same route around the Carpathians. I think the presence of U106 in that skeleton from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lille Beddinge in Sweden c. 2300 BC, and its absence from Bell Beaker in Germany and the Czech Republic, are pretty strong clues that U106 went around the north side of the Carpathians and across the North European Plain.

I've seen the exclusively P312 composition of Bell Beaker populations mentioned repeatedly on this thread. So it is probably worth reminding everyone that we are talking about a sample size of considerably less than 10, several of whom are from the same context and probably closely related to each other. So, while it is true this minuscule sample is possibly homogenous, it would be exceedingly foolish to assume that this sample is representative of a larger population. No sane scientist would rely on a sample of 4 or so to interpret a population of thousands.

I expect that as the sample size increases, we will not see a perfectly neat correlation of haplogroup to culture and geography. There will likely be significant haplogroup mixing among groups. As the data accumulates, one who assigns haplogroups to exclusive populations will find themselves dug into a deep hole very quickly trying to explain why haplogroup X, supposedly belonging to cultural group A, is also found in cultural group B, which was supposed to be comprised only of haplogroup Y.

[Celt_??]

Although rms2 doesn't need anyone to come to his defense, rms2 had written more than once on this thread that he wouldn't be surprised that that Corded Ware culture and Bell Beaker cultures will have some contamination of U106 and P312 in each. But as he has written above, his theory favors the majority of U106 to have proceeded north of the Carpathian Mts and the majority of P312 to have traveled south of the Carpathians and then up the Danube River valley. At least that is my understanding.

[miiser]

Although rms2 doesn't need anyone to come to his defense, rms2 had written more than once on this thread that he wouldn't be surprised that that Corded Ware culture and Bell Beaker cultures will have some contamination of U106 and P312 in each. But as he has written above, his theory favors the majority of U106 to have proceeded north of the Carpathian Mts and the majority of P312 to have traveled south of the Carpathians and then up the Danube River valley. At least that is my understanding.

I'm not interested in keeping a record of all the things rms2 has previously said. But in past arguments with me, he has certainly stated that he doesn't expect significant haplogroup intermingling. And regardless of what he's said in the past, what he said in his most recent comment was "its [U106] absence from Bell Beaker in Germany and the Czech Republic". He speaks not of U106 absence from a handful of samples, but of its absence from Bell Beaker (the population). But failure to appear in a few samples is hardly absence.

He is pretty explicit in stating that "I think U106 is distinct enough from P312, beginning in ancient times", and that this is a "strong clue".

If your description of rms2's position is accurate, then it undermines the assumption on which many of his arguments are based. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Celt_??]

miiser, you are correct; I was in no position to have butt into your conversation. However, my perception was that the past few weeks was a conversation among friends brainstorming about possibilities in anticipation of the huge ancient DNA studies from some 200 Corded Ware and Bell Beaker skeletons. I read it as more hypothetical, speculative and anticipatory than a rigorous scientific argument. Best Regards & Happy New Year

[lgmayka]

From the FTDNA S1194-CTS4528-A8039 project https://www.familytreedna.com/public/DF100-CTS4528-L11-P310-L151-P311?iframe=ymap
Of the present samples, Hungary is the most eastern sample on the map.
That project is not well known, especially since there is also an R1b-S14328 Project (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r1b-s14328-genealogy/about).

The better-known project is R1b Basal Subclades (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b-basal-subclades/about). If you go to this project's map (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1bBasalSubclades?iframe=ymap) and select
_l1f. R1b-P310: P311 > S1194 > CTS4528+ & / or DF100+ Should order R1b - L51xP312xU106 SNP Pack or, preferably, Big Y
You will see 3 entries in Poland.

[rms2]

I've seen the exclusively P312 composition of Bell Beaker populations mentioned repeatedly on this thread . . . No sane scientist would rely on a sample of 4 or so to interpret a population of thousands.

Actually there are quite a few more than four Bell Beaker y-dna test results but certainly nowhere near enough to allow us to say that there was never any U106 among Bell Beaker, and - guess what? - I never said there was never any U106 among Bell Beaker.

I was talking about the current state of things and what is likely to be the big, general picture. It is likely that the Celtic peoples emerged from Bell Beaker. A number of scholars throughout the years have believed that Bell Beaker may have been responsible for the initial spread of Italo-Celtic, and it may have been Bell Beaker that carried an early form of Celtic to the British Isles. In general, the modern distribution of P312 and its subclades is a much better fit for this Bell Beaker-to-Italo-Celts process than U106 is. U106, on the other hand, fits the distribution of historically Germanic-speaking peoples remarkably well.

Of course, we should not rely on modern distribution to tell what is an ancient story, but thus far Bell Beaker is predominantly R1b-P312 in those samples that could be tested well enough to get that far. U106, which may show up in future test results of ancient Bell Beaker, is thus far absent from Bell Beaker, despite the growing number of Bell Beaker y-dna test results and the fact that many of them come from remains recovered in places where U106 is prevalent today. It is also striking that the oldest U106 test result to date comes not from Bell Beaker but from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden and was a contemporary (c. 2300 BC) of Bell Beaker elsewhere. From what I can discern, Bell Beaker never made it to Sweden.

So, not only do the modern distributions of P312 and U106 fit the Beaker-to-Italo-Celt pattern for the former and the Germanic pattern for the latter, but thus far so do the ancient dna test results. That could change, but it does not seem likely, even if an occasional U106 shows up in Bell Beaker.



I expect that as the sample size increases, we will not see a perfectly neat correlation of haplogroup to culture and geography. There will likely be significant haplogroup mixing among groups . . .

I don't think anyone here, including me, ever claimed we would "see a perfectly neat correlation of haplogroup to culture and geography". The "perfectly neat" is exceedingly rare in this world, if in fact it exists in it at all. However, it is possible to say things that are perfectly true in broad, general terms about ancient cultures that are not true if one insists on things being "perfectly neat" in every detail.

No one said every last Bell Beaker man was P312+ or that every last U106+ man was a German. It's a shame that I have to repeat the same caveat every last time a discussion of this kind takes place. One would think it a common understanding that no reasonable person really believes that all the individuals in a pan-European culture like Bell Beaker were absolutely, without variation, one thing or another.

However, it does seem very likely that P312 was predominant in Bell Beaker and that U106 was a very important part of the Germanic mix and much much less significant in the Italo-Celtic one.

Remember too that we are talking about tribal cultures among patriarchal Indo-European peoples. Their ties were largely based on kinship and their societies probably far less diverse and open than what we are used to today.

It is hard to place and keep an abrasive individual on one's ignore list only to see him continue to respond to one's posts (quoting them, in fact) and not be able to see what was said. The ignore function would work far better if it rendered the object of it also incapable of seeing the subject's posts, i.e., if it was a two-way street.

[rms2]

miiser, you are correct . . .

No, he is not. He totally misrepresented what I have posted in the past to make it sound as if I was claiming that Bell Beaker was an absolute y-dna monolith, completely bereft of variation. Naturally, that is not true.

[TigerMW]

....
However, it does seem very likely that P312 was predominant in Bell Beaker and that U106 was a very important part of the Germanic mix and much much less significant in the Italo-Celtic one.
...
No one is doing this but I think t is important to not forget that it is the early branching that counts when it comes to origins, not the size of present day branches.

This means DF19, DF99 and L238 are very important to consider as early branches of P312. They are quite northerly oriented and found in Germanic speaking lands. Does anyone know the farthest east each has been found? I guess we should look up their ages at YFull.

If we don't find these branches in Poland and on the east side of Poland then we have to consider they may have leaked north through the Czech Republic and/or Slovakia to enter into or help form pre-Germanic speakers in Corded Ware territory. If this so for DF19, DF99 or L238, then it could be so for U106. The Sudeten has a one mile high mountain (the whole city of Denver is a mile-high) but I don't think the whole northern borders of the Czech Rep. and Slovakia would be difficult to migrate through.

Of course, we find DF27 up in northerly lands too as well as the south. We don't call Z209 the North-South cluster for nothing. They could be a different story if they were latecomers to pre-Germanic IE people lands during mid-Bronze Age fusion-fission events of Central Europe.

Goldenhind? Razyn?

[rms2]

. . .

This means DF19, DF99 and L238 are very important to consider as early branches of P312. They are quite northerly oriented and found in Germanic speaking lands . . .


As branches of P312 go, DF99 and L238 aren't particularly early, at least by YFull's estimates, and the two of them appear to be minor subclades, at least compared with the rest of P312.

Of course, L238 is mainly Scandinavian, but much of what is now Germanic-speaking territory has only become Germanic-speaking since the Migration Period. Much of Germany, for example, was once Celtic-speaking, as was what are now Austria and Switzerland.

L238 may have arisen in Scandinavia, I don't know, but there was Bell Beaker settlement in southern Norway. It may have carried the P312 ancestor of L238 to Scandinavia.

Of course, what we really need are a lot of ancient y-dna test results throughout Europe. Maybe if we live to see the big new Bell Beaker paper, we might get some of that.

[rms2]

. . .

If we don't find these branches in Poland and on the east side of Poland then we have to consider they may have leaked north through the Czech Republic and/or Slovakia to enter into or help form pre-Germanic speakers in Corded Ware territory. If this so for DF19, DF99 or L238, then it could be so for U106 . . .



And, alternatively, if U106 went around the north side of the Carpathians via the relatively easy route (especially for horsemen) of the North European Plain, the antecedents of DF19, DF99, and L238 might have, as well.

Honestly, though, that is not what I think happened, not for DF19, DF99, and L238, however. I think their ancestors were part of Bell Beaker and came around the south side of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley and thence down the Rhine Valley.

[TigerMW]

As branches of P312 go, DF99 and L238 aren't particularly early, at least by YFull's estimates, and the two of them appear to be minor subclades, at least compared with the rest of P312.
Keep in mind this is just for fun since I think the die is already cast on the bigger picture. I'm being a little argumentative for the sake of the topic. :)

It does not matter whether DF19, DF99 and L238 are minor or major by current population standards. It matters where they are found, particularly in ancient DNA.

I think chances are very good we will eventually find ancient P312* DNA in pre-Germanic / non-Celtic lands.


Of course, L238 is mainly Scandinavian, but much of what is now Germanic-speaking territory has only become Germanic-speaking since the Migration Period. Much of Germany, for example, was once Celtic-speaking, as was what are now Austria and Switzerland.

L238 may have arisen in Scandinavia, I don't know, but there was Bell Beaker settlement in southern Norway. It may have carried the P312 ancestor of L238 to Scandinavia.

The same argument can be made for finding U106 in Scandinavia unless the U106 battle-ax ancient DNA was pre-Bell Beaker settlement but even that is not conclusive.



Of course, what we really need are a lot of ancient y-dna test results throughout Europe. Maybe if we live to see the big new Bell Beaker paper, we might get some of that.

Agreed, I just hope the scientists look at some of these subclades of P312 and U106.

[ADW_1981]

As branches of P312 go, DF99 and L238 aren't particularly early, at least by YFull's estimates, and the two of them appear to be minor subclades, at least compared with the rest of P312.

Of course, L238 is mainly Scandinavian, but much of what is now Germanic-speaking territory has only become Germanic-speaking since the Migration Period. Much of Germany, for example, was once Celtic-speaking, as was what are now Austria and Switzerland.

L238 may have arisen in Scandinavia, I don't know, but there was Bell Beaker settlement in southern Norway. It may have carried the P312 ancestor of L238 to Scandinavia.

Of course, what we really need are a lot of ancient y-dna test results throughout Europe. Maybe if we live to see the big new Bell Beaker paper, we might get some of that.

It's possible that L238+ was a minority amongst the U106+ majority (with respect to R1b) in northern Germany 4000 years ago. We know that the P312+ and U106+ men couldn't have lived all that far apart from one another. We also know FTDNA's public database is highly shifted to northern Europe for L11+(xP312, xU106) distribution.
I would speculate that at the time of the "migration period", we have a mixed bag of Y HGs, although R1b, I1, and R1a were highly likely to be well represented amongst the war bands.

In terms of the composition of the war bands, can we assume men who had farms were among the warrior elite? Certainly 4000 years ago, that's how groups of I1, L238+, U106+, R1a-L448..etc were able to propagate so well. Or were they more like mercenaries coming from afar, seeking riches? I can't really see these as family men..even with the odd 'fling' or rape, I doubt they produced much offspring.

[Webb]

Please note that Alex has now linked ZZ37/ZZ38 with being a brother of DF99 and ZZ11>DF27 & U152. This group is linked by Z40481, which is just below P312. This still leaves L21, DF19, L238, as stand alones. However, I would not be surprised to see that the Rhine delta has a role to play in the early history of L21, L238 and DF19.13501

[Webb]

Delete duplicate.

[TigerMW]

Please note that Alex has now linked ZZ37/ZZ38 with being a brother of DF99 and ZZ11>DF27 & U152. This group is linked by Z40481, which is just below P312. This still leaves L21, DF19, L238, as stand alones. However, I would not be surprised to see that the Rhine delta has a role to play in the early history of L21, L238 and DF19.13501
Thanks, Webb. We also have to keep in mind that some of these SNPs that Alex is finding are phylogenetically very important but should not be counted in the SNP age estimation methods.

[GoldenHind]

No one is doing this but I think t is important to not forget that it is the early branching that counts when it comes to origins, not the size of present day branches.

This means DF19, DF99 and L238 are very important to consider as early branches of P312. They are quite northerly oriented and found in Germanic speaking lands. Does anyone know the farthest east each has been found? I guess we should look up their ages at YFull.

If we don't find these branches in Poland and on the east side of Poland then we have to consider they may have leaked north through the Czech Republic and/or Slovakia to enter into or help form pre-Germanic speakers in Corded Ware territory. If this so for DF19, DF99 or L238, then it could be so for U106. The Sudeten has a one mile high mountain (the whole city of Denver is a mile-high) but I don't think the whole northern borders of the Czech Rep. and Slovakia would be difficult to migrate through.

Of course, we find DF27 up in northerly lands too as well as the south. We don't call Z209 the North-South cluster for nothing. They could be a different story if they were latecomers to pre-Germanic IE people lands during mid-Bronze Age fusion-fission events of Central Europe.

Goldenhind? Razyn?

The most eastern examples found so far:

DF99 Moscow (Russian national) There is another DF99 Russian national in St. Petersburg, but his EKA came from Denmark
L238 Finland The next most eastern SE Poland
DF19 China (English surname) The next most eastern is SE Poland

All three subclades have samples from SE Poland.

I do not suggest any of these three are anywhere near as numerous as DF27, L21 or U152, but I believe one reason for their apparent scarcity is the enormous overweighting of people of British and especially Irish ancestry in the FTDNA database. DF99, L238 and perhaps to a lesser extent DF19 are primarily found on the continent. I suspect if north central Europe and Scandinavia were as highly represented as Ireland, their numbers would increase considerably.

One last point. The combined distribution of DF19, L238 and DF99 very closely matches the distribution of U106, although obviously much less numerous. Is this a coincidence, or does it indicate a similarity in their histories?

[Bollox79]

One last point. The combined distribution of DF19, L238 and DF99 very closely matches the distribution of U106, although obviously much less numerous. Is this a coincidence, or does it indicate a similarity in their histories?

This bit caught my attention... just off the top of my head concerning ancient DNA results (and my favorite cemetery ahem haha!)... 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 were both U106 - z381 - z156 - z304-307 (and then 6drif-3 was DF98+ and 3drif-16 was DF96+ both DF96+ and DF98+ are brother clades and found heavily along the Rhine - Dr. Iain McDonald has a map of DF98 samples with origins in Isles/Europe at his King's Cluster pdf... DF96 has a similar distribution more West near the Rhine Delta - but is heavily weighted towards a presence in the Isles like DF98 keeping in mind testing bias of course)... and along with them buried very near 6drif-3 (about 6 or 8 feet apart if I remember correctly from the drawing of the cemetery layers...) was 6drif-23 who was in fact found positive for DF19.... and DF88 etc under that... ;-).

They all had their heads removed more or less... ;-).

Cheers!

[Dewsloth]

This bit caught my attention... just off the top of my head concerning ancient DNA results (and my favorite cemetery ahem haha!)... 6drif-3 and 3drif-16 were both U106 - z381 - z156 - z304-307 (and then 6drif-3 was DF98+ and 3drif-16 was DF96+ both DF96+ and DF98+ are brother clades and found heavily along the Rhine)... and along with them buried very near 6drif-3 (about 6 or 8 feet apart if I remember correctly from the drawing of the cemetery layers...) was 6drif-23 who was in fact found positive for DF19.... and DF88 etc under that... ;-).

Cheers!

As far as I know (I don't know much) 6DRIF-23 is the earliest DF19 identified to date, but the circumstances of the burial leave his immediate origins mysterious; and what his ancestors were doing for the previous millenia even more so.

That drought can't be broken soon enough. We need more data.

[miiser]

Actually there are quite a few more than four Bell Beaker y-dna test results but certainly nowhere near enough to allow us to say that there was never any U106 among Bell Beaker, and - guess what? - I never said there was never any U106 among Bell Beaker.




I don't think anyone here, including me, ever claimed we would "see a perfectly neat correlation of haplogroup to culture and geography". The "perfectly neat" is exceedingly rare in this world, if in fact it exists in it at all. However, it is possible to say things that are perfectly true in broad, general terms about ancient cultures that are not true if one insists on things being "perfectly neat" in every detail.

No one said every last Bell Beaker man was P312+ or that every last U106+ man was a German. It's a shame that I have to repeat the same caveat every last time a discussion of this kind takes place. One would think it a common understanding that no reasonable person really believes that all the individuals in a pan-European culture like Bell Beaker were absolutely, without variation, one thing or another.


It is easy and painless enough to make rear-covering disclaimers such as this. But phrases such as "strong clue" and "absence from Bell Beaker" belie this caveat, indicating that you do in fact trust the tiny sample size to be representative of the much larger population. And, contrary to your current insistence on your own flexibility, in previous arguments regarding U106 in York you have taken a pretty strong position that U106 would not be mixed with P312 in Bell Beaker: http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6263-Genomic-signals-of-migration-and-continuity-in-Britain-before-the-Anglo-Saxons/page44



It is hard to place and keep an abrasive individual on one's ignore list only to see him continue to respond to one's posts (quoting them, in fact) and not be able to see what was said. The ignore function would work far better if it rendered the object of it also incapable of seeing the subject's posts, i.e., if it was a two-way street.

Once again, you manage to find a way to make an oblique ad hominem attack against me while skirting the forum rules to avoid any punitive moderator repercussions. I can imagine it must be frustrating to have someone point out the defects in your arguments so effectively, especially when one is surrounded by an army of cliquish, submissive, flattering yes men. I'm sure you would prefer to make Anthrogenica a monolithic bastion of concurrence with your own strong opinions, but fortunately the administrators have a higher ambition for this forum.

[Bollox79]

As far as I know (I don't know much) 6DRIF-23 is the earliest DF19 identified to date, but the circumstances of the burial leave his immediate origins mysterious; and what his ancestors were doing for the previous millenia an even bigger one.

That drought can't be broken soon enough. We need more data.

Yep Dewsloth... my thoughts exactly... we just need more data!!! I have my fingers crossed... crossed... CROSSED lol that we actually get some good resolution per some ancient B.C. remains from the Isles or even parts of the continent, and/or some pre-roman and roman era results from both areas... that would make my day if more of my subgroup (and others like yours or whoever) shows up! We are all in it for the journey... recently connected with a Frenchman via Facebook who's family is from NE France and he is Z156 - but we are not sure what subclade yet - he just had his 67 STRs done and now we will have him test a bit more into the SNP tree hopefully via a Panel or whatnot... he and I agreed - though English isn't his first language... that it is a trip of discovery... he laughingly asked me if he and I (based on our true lack of close (within last 1000 years) modern matches) are aliens... hahaha I am glad he has a good attitude of discovery toward this stuff. I told him to make sure he tells every Frenchmen he knows and chats to... to get tested... for historical research purposes of course!

Cheers!

P.S. I know they dug up a bunch of remains from the Parisi cemeteries in NE Britain... would like to see what haplogroups are among them - fingers crossed for THAT aDNA!

[lgmayka]

L238 Finland The next most eastern SE Poland
#109663, the Polish R-L238, tested
L238+ Z2246+ Z2245- Z2247-Z2248-

No one else on Ytree (http://ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=189)or YFull (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L238/)branches off so early.

Perhaps, during the recent holiday sale, I should have tried to crowdfund his Big Y?

[Dubhthach]

Does anyone have an idea when the Harvard/Copenhagen paper will drop? 200+ genomes is gonna be a nice dataset. Should we place bets on Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 ? I imagine Paddy Power would give us odds ;)

[Dewsloth]

Does anyone have an idea when the Harvard/Copenhagen paper will drop? 200+ genomes is gonna be a nice dataset. Should we place bets on Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 ? I imagine Paddy Power would give us odds ;)

Easter would be an auspicious date for Bell Beaker DNA: :biggrin1:


Old English Ēostre continues into modern English as Easter and derives from Proto-Germanic *austrōn meaning "dawn", itself a descendent of the Proto-Indo-European root *aus-, meaning 'to shine' (modern English east also derives from this root).[1]

The goddess name Ēostre is therefore linguistically cognate with numerous other dawn goddesses attested among Indo-European language-speaking peoples. These cognates lead to the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess; the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture details that "a Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn is supported both by the evidence of cognate names and the similarity of mythic representation of the dawn goddess among various Indo-European groups” and that “all of this evidence permits us to posit a Proto-Indo-European *haéusōs 'goddess of dawn' who was characterized as a "reluctant" bringer of light for which she is punished. In three of the Indo-European stocks, Baltic, Greek and Indo-Iranian, the existence of a Proto-Indo-European 'goddess of the dawn' is given additional linguistic support in that she is designated the 'daughter of heaven'"[2]

"a 'reluctant' bringer of light for which she is punished" -- that's probably how the authors are going to feel after the feeding frenzy.

[rms2]

It is easy and painless enough to make rear-covering disclaimers such as this . . .

Once again, you manage to find a way to make an oblique ad hominem attack against me while skirting the forum rules to avoid any punitive moderator repercussions. I can imagine it must be frustrating to have someone point out the defects in your arguments so effectively, especially when one is surrounded by an army of cliquish, submissive, flattering yes men. I'm sure you would prefer to make Anthrogenica a monolithic bastion of concurrence with your own strong opinions, but fortunately the administrators have a higher ambition for this forum.

One thing that gives the lie to what you have to say is that I had placed you on my ignore list. I only took you off it because you continue to respond to my posts through some inexplicable animus.

I think it would be best if you put me on your ignore list. Then I could put you back on mine. We would not see what the other has to say, and we would both be better off.

BTW, you don't get to decide what I think. That is my prerogative.

[rms2]

I would advise everyone to relax. We were just speculating. No one knows how things will play out exactly and whether U106 came around the north side of the Carpathians with Corded Ware or was part of a more general L11/P311 Yamnaya migration around the south side of the Carpathians.

My own feeling, which could be wrong, is that P312 or its immediate antecedent, came around the south side of the Carpathians with Yamnaya and became part of the mix that made Bell Beaker, and that includes the ancestors of DF19, DF99, and L238. I think U106 went around the north side of the Carpathians and got caught up in Corded Ware, but, hell, I could be wrong. Maybe all of L11 went around the south side of the Carpathians, and the ancestor of U106 went north and east with or shortly followed by the ancestors of DF19, DF99, and L238. Who knows?

I tend to think DF19 and DF99 were Celts in the beginning but were Germanized either as a consequence of the Migration Period or perhaps even earlier, as the Germans pressed south into Celtic territory around 700 BC. I think L238 probably got to Norway with Bell Beaker.

Once again, I could be wrong. Maybe someday we'll know.

Hey, maybe Gioiello is right, and R1b spent the LGM in Italy and formed the backbone of WHG in Europe! (Naturally, that's not what I think.)

[miiser]

One thing that gives the lie to what you have to say is that I had placed you on my ignore list. I only took you off it because you continue to respond to my posts through some inexplicable animus.

I think it would be best if you put me on your ignore list. Then I could put you back on mine. We would not see what the other has to say, and we would both be better off.

It's not out of any animus that I continue to reply to your comments. You seem to be under the impression that the ignore list is intended to be a tool to prevent others from identifying flaws in your arguments, in order to enable you to silence all dissension and create an appearance of consensus. I don't believe this is the intended function of the ignore list. I choose to continue to point out defects in your arguments as they present themselves, if only because you are the most prolific, outspoken, and aggressive poster on this forum, always insistent on getting the last word and crushing all opposition. The difference between you and other posters is not that I have any particular animus toward you. The only difference is this: when I reply to other posters, most of them will admit that they made a logical error or accept the disagreement and move on. You, on the other hand, seem to want to control the discussion, suppress all dissension, and assassinate the character of anyone who opposes your reign.



BTW, you don't get to decide what I think. That is my prerogative.

Your thoughts would be perceived as more sincere and trustworthy if they were self consistent from one thread to the next and from one comment to the next. Making conciliatory CYA comments in one breath that allow for the possibility of U106 within Bell Beaker, while in the next breath making "strong" arguments that disallow such contamination does not gain you any trustworthiness. Either you believe the handful of ancient DNA samples are virtual proof of Bell Beaker's composition, or you don't. Your previous comments suggest that you do in fact believe this small sample is virtual proof, and will make aggressive arguments based on this assumption, but will retreat to CYA when others challenge the strength of your data, only to return to your aggressive position once enough time has passed that the previous challenge has been forgotten.

[rms2]

Listen to yourself. And you deny your very obvious animus?

[miiser]

Listen to yourself. And you deny your very obvious animus?

You confuse a dispassionate, accurate observation of facts with an emotional outburst. I will leave it at this, lest the moderators get wound up and feel the need to take action. Consistent with my previous observations, I think it is safe to assume that you will not leave it at this. Who is the one who made the decision to put me on their ignore list, but was unable to stick to this commitment when their data was challenged?

[rms2]

You confuse a dispassionate, accurate observation of facts with an emotional outburst. I will leave it at this, lest the moderators get wound up and feel the need to take action. Consistent with my previous observations, I think it is safe to assume that you will not leave it at this.

I think anyone who read your previous post has got a pretty good idea of how "dispassionate" and "accurate" it was.



You, on the other hand, seem to want to control the discussion, suppress all dissension, and assassinate the character of anyone who opposes your reign.


Damn! I think that is probably the most "dispassionate" description I have ever read! You are the very soul of dispassion, sir! :biggrin1:

My reign? Whoa! Thanks for the promotion!

[Wing Genealogist]

Thanks, Ray. I think we have to imagine we are shooting pheasants and not picking them up from where they were sitting on the ground in the brush but as they get up into the air. We have to impute the flight line backwards for a soruce.

Where would be the confluence of Z156, Z18 and L48 from a possible source perspective?

As you noted, where the clades originated is difficult to determine. Even Iain McDonald isn't ready to pinpoint a location. However, he does go on record as theorizing U106 was likely part of the Corded Ware Culture which was on the move during this time period.

One interesting note about U106. It spawned the Z381 subclade very quickly (within 1-5 generations or so after its founding) and Z381 itself quickly spawned a number of subclades. But U106 itself did not spawn another subclade for several hundred years then spawned Z18 and later several small subclades. This clearly demonstrates Z381 & Z18 should be considered separately.

[rms2]

As you noted, where the clades originated is difficult to determine. Even Iain McDonald isn't ready to pinpoint a location. However, he does go on record as theorizing U106 was likely part of the Corded Ware Culture which was on the move during this time period . . .

That is what I think, as well, although currently there is no proof of it, just a slight hint in the presence of that U106 burial in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden (c. 2300 BC) and the absence (thus far) of U106 in Bell Beaker.

We could be completely wrong, of course.

Note: Oh, there is another clue that U106 might have been part of Corded Ware, and that is its apparent close connection to speakers of Germanic languages. A number of scholars over the years, including David Anthony, have believed that Corded Ware had a hand in the genesis of what would eventually lead to Germanic (see Anthony's book, The Horse The Wheel and Language, pages 360, 367, and 368).

[corner]

That is what I think, as well, although currently there is no proof of it, just a slight hint in the presence of that U106 burial in the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden (c. 2300 BC) and the absence (thus far) of U106 in Bell Beaker.Also interesting that ZZ11>DF27+ man, Mr I0806 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448), was buried at a similar time in what is now the middle of Germany (Quedlinburg on River Bode) with both an intact bell beaker and a Corded Ware shaft-hole stone axe.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=I0806

[Bollox79]

As you noted, where the clades originated is difficult to determine. Even Iain McDonald isn't ready to pinpoint a location. However, he does go on record as theorizing U106 was likely part of the Corded Ware Culture which was on the move during this time period.

One interesting note about U106. It spawned the Z381 subclade very quickly (within 1-5 generations or so after its founding) and Z381 itself quickly spawned a number of subclades. But U106 itself did not spawn another subclade for several hundred years then spawned Z18 and later several small subclades. This clearly demonstrates Z381 & Z18 should be considered separately.

A continuation to what was said here... at least concerning the DF98 cluster of U106 per Dr. Iain McDonald (his specialty!) though this is from his King's Cluster pdf and he hasn't updated it in a while I think ;-):

"The third millenium BC was a time of considerable change in Europe. M269,
is now generally thought to have arrived in from the Black Sea area, around
3000 BC, possibly via the river Danube. DF98 congregates around the
headwaters of the Danube, where it meets the headwaters of the Rhine. It is
thought our ancestors spread from here to the Rhine delta, then across to
Britain, where they probably first arrived around 1300 BC. Successive waves
of migration have brought DF98 to the British Isles since then. Given the
prevalence of clusters of tests with convergence ages around 1000 years ago,
there seems to be a significant Norman contingent to the DF98 tests of the
British Isles.
This evidence is suggestive of DF98 with being formed and transmitted during
the expansion and migration of the Tumulus Culture throughout Western
Europe during the later part of the second millenium BC. However, other
places of origin are still quite possible. While more-accurate dating (and
ultimately archeological DNA) would give us a clearer picture, this currently
appears to be a serious contender for our origins."

Cheers!

[Bollox79]

Also interesting that ZZ11>DF27+ man, Mr I0806 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448), was buried at a similar time in what is now the middle of Germany (Quedlinburg on River Bode) with both an intact bell beaker and a Corded Ware shaft-hole stone axe.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=I0806

Very interesting! So he was both "Bell Beaker" and "Corded Ware" according to his burial goods!! Evidence for the mixing of both cultures?!? Evidence for trade?

I find burial goods and their context very interesting... case in point many Roman "military" burials lacked any specific grave goods (arms and armor recycled back to army)... then you have the Driffield Terrace guys who had interesting grave goods (though not a ton - more animal skeletons than anything), but they were buried in an area with plenty of evidence for Roman military tombstones... (in particular Driffield Estate and that area between the main road and the side road) see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/york/vol1/pp67-110 for lots of info on Roman burials at York, England and the Mount/Driffield Estate area etc.

and then you have those two R1b guys from the Early Hungarian Conqueror cemetery - one clearly a warrior per grave goods and one without grave goods...

What does that tell us!?!

Cheers!

[rms2]

Also interesting that ZZ11>DF27+ man, Mr I0806 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448), was buried at a similar time in what is now the middle of Germany (Quedlinburg on River Bode) with both an intact bell beaker and a Corded Ware shaft-hole stone axe.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=I0806

I remember reading that back, I believe, when Haak et al came out in 2015. I also recall reading of other Bell Beaker graves with shaft-hole axes. I need to look for that reference. No doubt there were some exchanges going on.

[rms2]

This article (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/middx/vol1/pp36-41#fnn23) mentions stone battle-axes in Bell Beaker graves in Britain. It's not the reference I had in mind though.

[TigerMW]

Here is Dr. McDonald's analysis of U106.
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

See page 14.

"LOCATION OF THE FIRST U106

It is clear that the first major place of U106 settlement was in modern-day Germany, whether it was on the border with Poland, or with Austria, or as far west as the Rhine valley. The exact location depends on the migration pathway into Germany, and the exact time that U106 formed relative to the migration westwards.

Either way, our earliest U106 ancestors were very probably German. U106 has often thought to be the `Germanic’ cousin of the `Celtic’ P312. In fact, these are misnomers, as both U106 and P312 predate these cultures by over 1000 years. More properly, early U106 probably formed much of the Bell Beaker cultures of central Europe, and later the western half of the Unetice culture.

The earliest (and so far only) ancient U106 burial is dated to between 2275 and 2032 BC, and comes from the Nordic Bronze Age culture of southern Sweden (Lilla Beddinge), rather than Germany. Although likely from several centuries after the formation of U106, this indicates that U106 spread quite quickly and effectively to these areas."

I don't think we should discount U106 being in one of the Bell Beaker eastern-most cultures. McDonald wrote above, "early U106 probably formed much of the Bell Beaker cultures of central Europe."

Look at the map on page 19.

I love this map as he is hitting on exactly the sub-topics I'm most interested in. Did P311 originate east of the Carpathians or in-route to Central Europe on the north side (Poland, etc.) or the south side (Danube valley) or not until L51 people reached Central Europe?


"(11) The path into Europe: North or South?

The path our ancestors took into Europe isn’t well defined. There is a general preference for a path up the Danube river, which leads directly from the Black Sea to Germany, where P311 is first found in the archaeological DNA, and where there is the easternmost substantial(!) concentration of P311 in the present population. This also fits better with the distribution of downstream clades.

Conversely, there is substantial reason to believe the path was actually over the northern side of the Carpathian mountains, through Poland. This is the area through which the Corded Ware culture spread. Recent results from ancient DNA have provided more R1a results in earlier times, suggesting R1b did not participate widely in the Corded Ware culture to begin with. However, this is based on a very few ancient samples and may not stand up to long-term scrutiny.

A northern route would be slightly preferred by the ancient DNA results, which indicate significant R1a concentrations in southern Germany, and R1b in northern Germany and Poland. This also sits better with the only ancient U106 result so far in southern Sweden."

Implicit in his reasoning is that P311 did not come about, or at least did not diversify greatly (with survivorship) until Central Europe. I don't know we can say that but the TMRCA estimages and matching archaelogical trails are important... which will lead us back to hopefully the ancient DNA findings of L51, L11, P312, U152, DF27, U106, Z381, the elders of the family.

[rms2]

. . .

Either way, our earliest U106 ancestors were very probably German. U106 has often thought to be the `Germanic’ cousin of the `Celtic’ P312. In fact, these are misnomers, as both U106 and P312 predate these cultures by over 1000 years. More properly, early U106 probably formed much of the Bell Beaker cultures of central Europe, and later the western half of the Unetice culture . . .



I think McDonald is making a fundamental error and misunderstanding what is meant when U106 is called "Germanic" and P312 "Celtic". It does not really matter how old a y haplogroup is. If enough of its bearers come to be associated with a language, culture or ethnic group early enough and extensively enough so that there is a clear historical connection between them, then it is perfectly fitting to associate that y haplogroup with that language/culture/ethnic group. Doing so does not mean there are no exceptions or that all members of that y haplogroup belong or belonged to that ethno-linguistic group at all times and places.

In that sense it is pretty plain that there is a clear connection between U106 and Germanic and between P312 and Italo-Celtic.

Dienekes summed things up pretty well a few years back:



The existence of R-U106 as a major lineage within the Germanic group is self-evident, as Germanic populations have a higher frequency against all their neighbors (Romance, Irish, Slavs, Finns). Indeed, highest frequencies are attained in the Germanic countries, followed by countries where Germanic speakers are known to have settled in large numbers but to have ultimately been absorbed or fled (such as Ireland, north Italy, and the lands of the Austro-Hungarian empire). South Italy, the Balkans, and West Asia are areas of the world where no Germanic settlement of any importance is attested, and correspondingly R-U106 shrinks to near-zero.


http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2010/08/r1b-founder-effect-in-central-and.html

Things might turn out that McDonald is right about U106 and Bell Beaker, but there is good reason to doubt it. Thus far, U106 has been absent from Bell Beaker, even in places where U106 is currently quite commonplace. Okay, so maybe we just have not tested the right BB skeletons yet. But U106 has turned up in RISE98 from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, c.2300 BC, in a non-Beaker context and in a country where Bell Beaker never went, as far as we know. Then there is the fact that U106 can clearly be connected with Germanic speakers. The genesis and evolution of Germanic is usually associated with Corded Ware, and it is Italo-Celtic that is associated with Bell Beaker. So some sort of terrific switcheroo must have occurred to get a portion of Bell Beaker, the U106 portion, into the Germanic camp. That's not impossible, but it doesn't seem likely, and it does not accord well with the Bell Beaker y-dna results and the most ancient U106 result (which was non-Beaker) we have seen thus far. Things could change, and they might change as soon as that new Bell Beaker magnum opus comes out.

While I think it possible that a stray U106 could show up in Bell Beaker here and there, I do not think we will see a lot of that, because I don't think U106 was a major part of Bell Beaker. Of course, I could be wrong, and if I am, I am. It just seems to me the ancient y-dna results are fitting the picture of a P312/Bell Beaker/Italo-Celtic association and a U106/Corded Ware(?)/Germanic association.

I know when I express my opinions they sometimes really torque some people off, no matter how many times I issue the disclaimer that I realize I could be wrong. I am sure that if I do turn out to be wrong, all that will be recalled is my mistaken opinion and not that I said I know I could be wrong.

[TigerMW]

I think McDonald is making a fundamental error and misunderstanding what is meant when U106 is called "Germanic" and P312 "Celtic". It does not really matter how old a y haplogroup is. If enough of its bearers come to be associated with a language, culture or ethnic group early enough and extensively enough so that there is a clear historical connection between them, then it is perfectly fitting to associate that y haplogroup with that language/culture/ethnic group. Doing so does not mean there are no exceptions or that all members of that y haplogroup belong or belonged to that ethno-linguistic group at all times and places.

In that sense it is pretty plain that there is a clear connection between U106 and Germanic and between P312 and Italo-Celtic.
...
This is where the timing becomes essential to understand and there are many unknowns. A Proto-Germanic language did not really form until around 500 BC if I understand it correctly. Before there may or may not have been Pre-Germanic language. There may have been several. I guess that is a question. Should we consider that Proto-Germanic is almagamation of IE languages?

Proto-Celitic appears to have been spoken much before Proto-Germanic. Could it not be that the Celtic influence in the formation of Proto-Germanic was brought in by U106 folks with a few P312 types and probably others sprinkled in?

What was U106 before it was in the Proto-Germanic tribal mix? It could have been Celtic or some kind of Bell Beaker.

I agree that the RISE98 finding of U106 is important but just like the L238, DF99, DF19 or their P312* lineages; they could have leaked over from the Bell Beakers. The Bell Beaker folks had no problem with crossing seas and navigation, and they must have been a powerful societal group. There where Beaker settlements in northern Jutland Peninsula and southern Norway. It's hard to think they wouldn't have crossed into the Baltic Sea or across the straits to Sweden.

[rms2]

This is where the timing becomes essential to understand and there are many unknowns. A Proto-Germanic language did not really form until around 500 BC if I understand it correctly. Before there may or may not have been Pre-Germanic language. There may have been several. I guess that is a question. Should we consider that Proto-Germanic is almagamation of IE languages?

Proto-Celitic appears to have been spoken much before Proto-Germanic. Could it not be that the Celtic influence in the formation of Proto-Germanic was brought in by U106 folks with a few P312 types and probably others sprinkled in?

What was U106 before it was in the Proto-Germanic tribal mix? It could have been Celtic or some kind of Bell Beaker.

We don't know, but what we do know is that many very highly respected scholars connect the evolution of the language that eventually became Germanic (as well as Baltic and Slavic) with Corded Ware. Many scholars over the years have associated the evolution of Italo-Celtic with Bell Beaker.

What evidence or even slight indication is there that U106 was once part of Bell Beaker or of the Celtic peoples? Everything to do with U106, including its oldest known example (RISE98), fairly shouts, "Germanic!".

That could change. Who knows? Maybe this new Bell Beaker paper will be just chock full of U106 Bell Beaker guys and P312 Corded Ware guys. Neither result would bother me.

[TigerMW]

We don't know, but what we do know is that many very highly respected scholars connect the evolution of the language that eventually became Germanic (as well as Baltic and Slavic) with Corded Ware. Many scholars over the years have associated the evolution of Italo-Celtic with Bell Beaker.

What evidence or even slight indication is there that U106 was once part of Bell Beaker or of the Celtic peoples? Everything to do with U106, including its oldest known example (RISE98), fairly shouts, "Germanic!".

That could change. Who knows? Maybe this new Bell Beaker paper will be just chock full of U106 Bell Beaker guys and P312 Corded Ware guys. Neither result would bother me.

It's just a fun discussion. We really don't know where U106 comes from.

I just noticed this in the paper ”The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd millennium", Martinez & Salanova , 2015.

They have a "northern" Beaker group around 2400 BC across the Jutland and sweeping east along the German Baltic and Polish Baltic coasts. This is right on top of the future Jastorf Culture territory and a proposed Germanic language homeland.

[rms2]

It's just a fun discussion. We really don't know where U106 comes from.

I just noticed this in the paper ”The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd millennium", Martinez & Salanova , 2015.

They have a "northern" Beaker group around 2400 BC across the Jutland and sweeping east along the German Baltic and Polish Baltic coasts. This is right on top of the future Jastorf Culture territory and a proposed Germanic language homeland.

It would be nice to get some ancient dna from them. I still doubt they were U106, but who knows?

The Nordic Battle Axe culture was supposed to have been derived from Corded Ware, and it was a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery from which the oldest U106 (thus far) was recovered. I know Michal said RISE98's grave was kind of poor, but just the same, it wasn't a Bell Beaker grave and it was in a cemetery belonging to a CW-derived culture.

[TigerMW]

It would be nice to get some ancient dna from them. I still doubt they were U106, but who knows?

The Nordic Battle Axe culture was supposed to have been derived from Corded Ware, and it was a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery from which the oldest U106 (thus far) was recovered. I know Michal said RISE98's grave was kind of poor, but just the same, it wasn't a Bell Beaker grave and it was in a cemetery belonging to a CW-derived culture.

My readings of the Corded Ware cultures are that they should be considered like the Beakers or the Yamnaya themselves. They are horizons that cover vast geographies and have commonalities but also many differences.

My speculations are that early Corded Ware should be considered like the early Beaker/Megalith cultures. They were transitionary culltures of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. They may not have had much R1b-M269 at all, but may be some and as prominent people. Those might have been Yamnaya and related scouts, traders, miners and eventually colonial governors like a Marcher Lord might be.

Eventually, the Yamanaya hit Europe much harder as Middle Bronze Age ensued. The settlers came and the outposts became full fledged colonies. A Pan-European society developed.

[razyn]

Thanks, Webb. We also have to keep in mind that some of these SNPs that Alex is finding are phylogenetically very important but should not be counted in the SNP age estimation methods.
I don't understand this. I know they are not considered, e.g. at YFull, but not that they should not be. Age estimation by counting SNPs that leaves out very significant branching points, because they aren't found in the juiciest or easiest to read part of the Y chromosome, is misguided. A branching point was a guy with two sons, one of whom e.g. has only DF27 descendants now and the other only U152 descendants now. The phylogeny needs to include him (in this example, Mr. ZZ11), and so does age estimation of descendant lineages whose SNPs do get counted.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

My readings of the Corded Ware cultures are that they should be considered like the Beakers or the Yamnaya themselves. They are horizons that cover vast geographies and have commonalities but also many differences.

My speculations are that early Corded Ware should be considered like the early Beaker/Megalith cultures. They were transitionary culltures of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. They may not have had much R1b-M269 at all, but may be some and as prominent people. Those might have been Yamnaya and related scouts, traders, miners and eventually colonial governors like a Marcher Lord might be.

Eventually, the Yamanaya hit Europe much harder as Middle Bronze Age ensued. The settlers came and the outposts became full fledged colonies. A Pan-European society developed.

Mike would you mind clarifying what you mean here about corded ware ?being "transitional (?to what), or how Yamnaya (which dates 3000-2400 BC) expanded in the middle Bronze Age (1500 BC)?

[alan]

Happy new year folks and may your beakers never run dry

[Generalissimo]

My readings of the Corded Ware cultures are that they should be considered like the Beakers or the Yamnaya themselves. They are horizons that cover vast geographies and have commonalities but also many differences.

My speculations are that early Corded Ware should be considered like the early Beaker/Megalith cultures. They were transitionary culltures of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. They may not have had much R1b-M269 at all, but may be some and as prominent people. Those might have been Yamnaya and related scouts, traders, miners and eventually colonial governors like a Marcher Lord might be.

Eventually, the Yamanaya hit Europe much harder as Middle Bronze Age ensued. The settlers came and the outposts became full fledged colonies. A Pan-European society developed.

This doesn't fit the genome-wide data.

Most Corded Ware are very similar and look like they're from the steppe, except a few early ones that are clearly of mixed steppe/Europe_MN origin.

[pegasus]

Were there back and forth movements West to East then East to West with steppe peoples??

[alan]

My readings of the Corded Ware cultures are that they should be considered like the Beakers or the Yamnaya themselves. They are horizons that cover vast geographies and have commonalities but also many differences.

My speculations are that early Corded Ware should be considered like the early Beaker/Megalith cultures. They were transitionary culltures of the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages. They may not have had much R1b-M269 at all, but may be some and as prominent people. Those might have been Yamnaya and related scouts, traders, miners and eventually colonial governors like a Marcher Lord might be.

Eventually, the Yamanaya hit Europe much harder as Middle Bronze Age ensued. The settlers came and the outposts became full fledged colonies. A Pan-European society developed.

Certainly the classic burial monuments only account for a tiny and prob high status part of the pop. As it is the top that tend to be replaced by incoming migration, burial monuments will give the illusion of sudden complete change of population. In reality the bulk of the pop were not suddenly replaced and the process of whoke population genetic change was likely a far more gradual impact due to the new elite having preferential access to resources

[alan]

If u106 had its current distribution back in beaker times, beaker and later British isles would be full of it

[Generalissimo]

Certainly the classic burial monuments only account for a tiny and prob high status part of the pop. As it is the top that tend to be replaced by incoming migration, burial monuments will give the illusion of sudden complete change of population. In reality the bulk of the pop were not suddenly replaced and the process of whoke population genetic change was likely a far more gradual impact due to the new elite having preferential access to resources

Corded Ware people lived alongside other cultures. They didn't dominate them. But they were more successful than them.

Almost all Corded Ware people are very similar in terms of genome-wide structure, except a few early outliers who probably had local mothers.

So it looks like Corded Ware people came in waves from the steppe, and mostly mixed with the locals during the early phase of their colonization of Central Europe.

It's only after the Corded Ware culture disappeared and new cultures formed, like Unetice, that we see the formation of a new Central European population, which is less steppe-shifted than the Corded Ware people.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Certainly the classic burial monuments only account for a tiny and prob high status part of the pop. As it is the top that tend to be replaced by incoming migration, burial monuments will give the illusion of sudden complete change of population. In reality the bulk of the pop were not suddenly replaced and the process of whoke population genetic change was likely a far more gradual impact due to the new elite having preferential access to resources

Corded ware were Corded Ware- their own entity. They didn't replace, nor 'elite-impose' themselves upon anyone, they were merely migrants who came along c. 2900BC. Whilst the overall picture is one of succession, pre-CWC "Cultures" like Bernberg, GAC, TRB continued in north-central Europe as late as 2000 BC, with BB coming along also after 2500 BC. They maintained separateness, yet engaged in cooperation, trade, exogamy and sometimes conflict.
Then, after c. 2200Bc, there was a significant restructuring in Europe, with growth of true heirarchic Bronze Age chiefdoms with resulting miscegenation of earlier groups, +/- 'extinction' of others excluded/ marginalized from the pan-bronze Age fold.
Modern R1a and R1b patterns are not mirrors into the copper age, but that's certainly when the seed was planted. At least as far as R1a-Z280 goes, it current distribution in much (but not all!) of Europe has more to do with Slavs than CWC.

[rms2]

It's cool how this thread gets stirred up and periodically produces some good information. Can't wait until that new paper comes along!

[lgmayka]

Age estimation by counting SNPs that leaves out very significant branching points, because they aren't found in the juiciest or easiest to read part of the Y chromosome, is misguided.
Age estimation needs to be unbiased. In practice, this means that:

- One must pre-decide the regions of interest before counting SNPs. If you deliberately add to the predetermined region set merely to ensure that your favorite SNP gets included, you are biasing the results.

- One must pre-decide the criteria for SNP inclusion before counting SNPs. If you deliberately loosen the rules of what constitutes a reliable SNP merely to ensure that your favorite SNP gets included, you are biasing the results.

In short: If you have objections to YFull's age estimation method, you need to write up a comprehensive unbiased proposal that fully specifies the region set and the criteria for SNP inclusion. You can't simply throw in a few extra SNPs that you favor.

[TigerMW]

I don't understand this. I know they are not considered, e.g. at YFull, but not that they should not be. Age estimation by counting SNPs that leaves out very significant branching points, because they aren't found in the juiciest or easiest to read part of the Y chromosome, is misguided. A branching point was a guy with two sons, one of whom e.g. has only DF27 descendants now and the other only U152 descendants now. The phylogeny needs to include him (in this example, Mr. ZZ11), and so does age estimation of descendant lineages whose SNPs do get counted.
DNA related time estimates rely on mutation rates. Mutation rates must be related to some constants such as consistent coverage of regions on the Y chromosome against which the mutation rates were calculated.

In SNP counting methods, the number of branching points are irrelevant. That has no impact on the rate of mutation in any single lineage, which end up being averaged together. Branching points do provide additional information to help in re-balancing or adjusting for differences in numbers of SNPs in different lineages.

Here is why consistent coverage must be maintained or otherwise normalized for:
If you measure how fast you can drive a car across the Salt Lake flats you might find you can drive 150 miles per hour. However, that same car won't got a 150 miles hour up the pass from Salt Lake City into Rocky Mountains and Wyoming.

You can't apply an average speed from one terrain to another without some kind of adjustments.

Here is YFull's SNP age estimation description and a reference to the Adamov paper.
https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/

EDIT: I should have read Lawrence's post before posting this. He said it more plainly and clearly.

[Generalissimo]

The Corded Ware burial with the most genome-wide dichotomy among the samples is the really early one from Tiefbrunn. One of the samples clusters half way between Yamnaya and Middle Neolithic European farmers.

That's also one of the few Corded Ware graves with a hammer headed bone pin like those seen in Yamnaya and Catacomb steppe burials.

[TigerMW]

This doesn't fit the genome-wide data.

Most Corded Ware are very similar and look like they're from the steppe, except a few early ones that are clearly of mixed steppe/Europe_MN origin.

I may have misread this but I don't see anyone is saying Corded Ware is simply Yamnaya II. What's percentage of Yamnaya atDNA in Corded Ware atDNA. Isn't it like 50%?

I don't know what our ancient DNA survey of Corded Ware looks like. It's a very large territory. Are we saying there is little variance from the Volga to the Rhine? That seems a little hard to believe.

How and when did Yamnaya pick up bronze working. I thought Circumpontic Metallurgy Province had bronze early on and the Yamnaya may have helped spread it. If you look at the spread of bronze working (not just copper working) it does not conform well with the Corded Ware territories.


Corded ware were Corded Ware- their own entity. They didn't replace, nor 'elite-impose' themselves upon anyone, they were merely migrants who came along c. 2900BC...

Is the quote below from Encyclopedia.com just plain wrong?

"One can make a list of the similarities that Corded Ware shares with other cultures that preceded it in central Europe. Deserving of stress is the scale of similarities to the Funnel Beaker culture. On one hand, both the Corded Ware and Funnel Beaker cultures covered similar territory; both attribute importance to battle-axes; both give priority to beakers and amphorae among their vessels; and both employ a similar ceramic technology. On the other hand, in the context of central Europe, the Corded Ware culture also had foreign characteristics. These include the priority of single burials, the building of barrows, a lifestyle that used temporary settlements, and a renaissance in the use of the bow (resulting in the numerous finds of flint arrowheads)."

Central Europe was different. The implication is that Corded Ware is an horizon of cultures, not a single entity and that there was great deal of commonality with Funnel Beaker cultures too. Is this not a sign of a transition?

[razyn]

I favor a phylogeny based on the reality of what happened, as best we can yet see. Basing it on the readability of a region, consistency with someone's statistical model, ISOGG and other arbitrary exclusion criteria does not seem to me to accomplish that.

Also, I read the Adamov paper when the YFull guys made it available, did not fully agree with their method then, and still don't. I still think the concept of a "mutation rate" is more an article of faith than an objective reality. Statisticians can prove anything for which one has accepted their terms. In many cases, they turn out to be kind of correct. That's better than nothing, but it's not better than aDNA in a reasonably well dated (and very accurately located) archaeological context. When we find the latter, we really need the full phylogeny (not just one that some subset of statisticians have agreed upon) to make sense of the new and precise information.

[TigerMW]

I favor a phylogeny based on the reality of what happened, as best we can yet see. Basing it on the readability of a region, consistency with someone's statistical model, ISOGG and other arbitrary exclusion criteria does not seem to me to accomplish that.

Also, I read the Adamov paper when the YFull guys made it available, did not fully agree with their method then, and still don't. I still think the concept of a "mutation rate" is more an article of faith than an objective reality. Statisticians can prove anything for which one has accepted their terms. In many cases, they turn out to be kind of correct. That's better than nothing, but it's not better than aDNA in a reasonably well dated (and very accurately located) archaeological context. When we find the latter, we really need the full phylogeny (not just one that some subset of statisticians have agreed upon) to make sense of the new and precise information.
This is not about the reality of the tree, it is about the reality of how one uses numbers and is unavoidable. It's the same idea as identifying the least common denominator but in any case we have to align rates with the regions they were derived from. Since mutations can occur in fits and starts we are on precarious ground to begin with.

[Generalissimo]

I may have misread this but I don't see anyone is saying Corded Ware is simply Yamnaya II. What's percentage of Yamnaya atDNA in Corded Ware atDNA. Isn't it like 50%?

It's 75% on average, and ranges from 50% to at least 90%.

It is basically Yamnaya II transplanted into Central Europe.


I don't know what our ancient DNA survey of Corded Ware looks like. It's a very large territory. Are we saying there is little variance from the Volga to the Rhine?

Thus far there's no variance from Bavaria to Estonia.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Is the quote below from Encyclopedia.com just plain wrong?

"One can make a list of the similarities that Corded Ware shares with other cultures that preceded it in central Europe. Deserving of stress is the scale of similarities to the Funnel Beaker culture. On one hand, both the Corded Ware and Funnel Beaker cultures covered similar territory; both attribute importance to battle-axes; both give priority to beakers and amphorae among their vessels; and both employ a similar ceramic technology. On the other hand, in the context of central Europe, the Corded Ware culture also had foreign characteristics. These include the priority of single burials, the building of barrows, a lifestyle that used temporary settlements, and a renaissance in the use of the bow (resulting in the numerous finds of flint arrowheads)."


Not plain wrong, but out of date. As the General states, CWC is simply a subset of some Yamnaya or pre-Yamnaya forest-steppe group which moved to southern Poland, then "became" the "CWC people" with a secondary homeland in Malopolska.
Yes, as you rightly say, many of its cultural facets speak of preceding middle Neolithic groups (such as BattleAxes, gendered burials, Thuringia amphorae, etc); which is why for decades archaeologists debated about its origins- even Anthony thought it to be derived from TRB.
But now it seems CWC men adapted a lot of the trappings of middle Neolithic north -Central Europe as they arrived there, and created a culture distinct from Yamnaya. So CWC looks genetically monolithic but culturally syncretic. So within itself it can be termed "transitional", but not for Europe as a whole, as middle Neolithic groups persisted on, as per my above post (often papers depict CWC but omit other, contemporary groups).


Central Europe was different. The implication is that Corded Ware is an horizon of cultures, not a single entity and that there was great deal of commonality with Funnel Beaker cultures too. Is this not a sign of a transition?

So says martin Furholt, and other great archaeologists. I thought the very same thing. But aDNA tells differently- CWC really were a "folk". This is not to deny that CWC showed diversity of material traits, that's certainly true
Nor is it to say that every individual CWC male came from the steppe.

Btw a new metallurgical centre in the Volhynia region has just been described- "Willow Leaf". It is what formed the basis of CWC metallurgy, and lies outside the main CMP styles.

[razyn]

This is not about the reality of the tree, it is about the reality of how one uses numbers and is unavoidable. It's the same idea as identifying the least common denominator but in any case we have to align rates with the regions they were derived from. Since mutations can occur in fits and starts we are on precarious ground to begin with.
In this case (age estimation by counting a certain type of UEP that is believed to occur at a statistically known "rate," but not other types that may not, nor those lying outside the regions most easily read), I can accept this rather doctrinaire pronouncement. But Nordtvedt, Heinila, Van Vliet, maybe Klyosov and others have estimated the age of SNPs without counting them, as such. Some of them did assume a constant rate of mutation; it changed every time they ran the program, because there was always a newer (longer) list of branches. But those methods don't begin by leaving out the iffy ones (beginning with ZZ, and some others). Their models worked from the branching points -- whether those were single nucleotide polymorphisms in the BED region, or something else that defines the branch -- such as certain indels, SNPs beginning with ZZ, or those otherwise having a pink background on Alex Williamson's Big Tree. That last is irrelevant for the many haplogroups not found on the Big Tree, but illustrates my point about DF27 and U152, both of which are on the Big Tree.

[rms2]

It's really nice to get ancient dna test results for a particular SNP. Hard to controvert those.

I remember when a number of folks thought E-V13 only dated to the Bronze Age, then Avellaner Cave showed up and - voila! - there was an E-V13 from about 5000 BC.

[TigerMW]

Here are two of my favorite charts. The first is from Martinez and Salanova and has a nice breakdown of the regional Bell Beaker groups along with dating. This is where I saw the "northern" Beakers that overlay future Jastorf territories.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_and_Dating.pdf

I added Desideri's commentary to the next chart. It's a good and somewhat complex circumstance to ponder on.

"The Bell Beaker developed during the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, in an intermediate position between the Corded Ware and the Unetice cultures. These phases are not chronologically successive, but rather an intercalation of all three. In effect, the Bell Beaker coexisted first with the Corded Ware and then with the proto-Unetice culture."

The chart is from Harrison and attempts to describe different Bell Beaker groups converging in Switzerland in conflict.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/Beakers-Regional_Groups_Converging.pdf

[TigerMW]

Corded Ware apparently is Yamnaya II then, or nearly so.

I will say there is some variance if we are talking about a range from 50% to 90%.


It's 75% on average, and ranges from 50% to at least 90%.

It is basically Yamnaya II transplanted into Central Europe.

Thus far there's no variance from Bavaria to Estonia.

Is the Swedish U106 ancient DNA considered to be truly part of Corded Ware?

[rms2]

The problem with the idea that the U106 from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden (c. 2300 BC) might have "leaked over" from Bell Beaker is pretty obvious. There is no evidence that Bell Beaker ever went to Sweden (no Bell Beaker burials or pottery have been found there) and, thus far, no U106 has ever been found in Bell Beaker remains, despite the growing list of Bell Beaker y-dna test results. I have never read of a single scholar who attributed the evolution of Germanic to Bell Beaker, and Germanic is the group U106 is pretty obviously connected with. Instead, Germanic is attributed to Corded Ware, and - surprise! - it was in a burial place belonging to a culture derived from Corded Ware that the oldest U106 thus far known was recovered.

Bell Beaker is associated with Italo-Celtic, and U106 has an inverse relationship with that ethnolinguistic group. Thus far, the ancient dna results only bolster that observation.

[rms2]

. . .

Is the Swedish U106 ancient DNA considered to be truly part of Corded Ware?

The cemetery at Lilla Beddinge where RISE98 was recovered belongs to the Nordic Battle Axe culture, which is a Corded Ware subgroup.

Michal has posted before that RISE98's burial was poor and unaccompanied by sufficient artifacts, but it wasn't a Bell Beaker burial, and it was in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery.

[Jean M]

I also recall reading of other Bell Beaker graves with shaft-hole axes. I need to look for that reference. No doubt there were some exchanges going on.

Shaft-hole axes are part of the Yamnaya cultural package, and are subsequently found in Corded Ware graves, but we shouldn't be too surprised to find them in Bell Beaker graves as well. There is no need to postulate exchange as an explanation. It is just one of the items derived from Yamnaya.

[rms2]

Shaft-hole axes are part of the Yamnaya cultural package, and are subsequently found in Corded Ware graves, but we shouldn't be too surprised to find them in Bell Beaker graves as well. There is no need to postulate exchange as an explanation. It is just one of the items derived from Yamnaya.

10-4. I agree and was thinking about saying that (really, I was) but figured everyone would think I was just too much of a Yamnaya partisan (which is also true). B)

[Jean M]

I just noticed this in the paper ”The Bell Beaker Transition in Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd millennium", Martinez & Salanova , 2015.

They have a "northern" Beaker group around 2400 BC across the Jutland and sweeping east along the German Baltic and Polish Baltic coasts. This is right on top of the future Jastorf Culture territory and a proposed Germanic language homeland.

Yes indeed, but that does not mean that the Jastorf culture derives direct from BB. There is a big time gap in between in which the crucial population moved around.

What seems to have happened is that an offshoot from CW moved into Scandinavia and there formed the Nordic Bronze Age (1730-760 BC). There these people interacted with local people who spoke Uralic and were sufficiently cut off from developments further south to develop a different IE dialect from that which was developing into Celtic. Only around 500 BC were farmers from Scandinavia forced south by climate change into what is now north Germany and Poland and formed the Iron Age Jastorf culture in contact with Celtic-speakers of the La Tene culture. That is the point that linguists feel represents Proto-Germanic.

[ADW_1981]

It seems the two major branches, nearly exclusively in Scandinavia of R1a are R1a-Z284 (many derived for L448+ mutation below it), and R1a-L664. Where as R1a-Z280 and R1a-M458 seem to be linked with Slavic speaking regions of Europe and the north east. It would appear that R1a-Z284 is linked with Nordic Battle Ax if it's a northern relative of CW.

The oddity is that R1a-L664 split off much earlier. I wonder if it's pre-IE....

[jeanL]

It's really nice to get ancient dna test results for a particular SNP. Hard to controvert those.

I remember when a number of folks thought E-V13 only dated to the Bronze Age, then Avellaner Cave showed up and - voila! - there was an E-V13 from about 5000 BC.

Completely agree with you one that. On the other hand I do remember Klyosov claiming something along the lines of "Just because E-V13 was found in some ancient bones doesn't change the fact that their TMRCA isn't 2800 ybp". Frankly to me that seems like I cop out and special pleading.

See more here: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/falsification-in-action.html

I've been previously a critic of Klyosov pseudoscience to the point of being banned from the rootsweb Genealogy-DNA list. So I have to declare that conflict of interest.

BTW: What's Klyosov's latest stance on R1b-M269; because he said that they were Turkic and that they entered Europe from North Africa and expanded from Iberia as R1b-P312 and R1b-U106. Is he still claiming that?

[jeanL]

It looks like Klyosov is doubling down on his own hypothesis. Just found this piece translated from Russian:


After that, we find a whole series of fossil DNA KKK, all of Germany, with the dating of 4470-4140, 4430-4150 and 4435-4200 years ago, but they have already identified subclades of R1b haplogroup, and they were well known - all came from the Iberian Peninsula or through the Iberian peninsula, on the way from the Middle East - M269, L51, P310, P312 (formed 4900 years ago), P312-U152. The most "young" from subclades - U152, which was formed about 4,500 years ago. The dates of all burials haplogroup R1b KKK in Germany - 4300 ± 50 years ago. In other words, R1b-U152 formed in the Beaker culture, or in Germany, or the approach. This shows how quickly carriers KKK marched from the Pyrenees to Germany - just a few hundred years, between 4800 and 4300 years ago. Another European fossil haplotype R1b-M269, again from Germany, and dated 4440 ± 375 years ago, was not referred to the CCC and to the "Late Neolithic." In Scandinavia fossil R1b are already in the later period - in Sweden 4170 ± 120 years ago (subclade U106), in Denmark 3425 ± 90 and 2685 ± 125 years ago (both M269). Subclades U106 - also with the Pyrenees as a "parallel" to him R312, but fossil specimens were assigned to different cultures - U106 to the "Late Neolithic" R312 - to the Beaker culture.

This shows that tripilska culture could actually be destroyed bearers of R1b haplogroup, erbinami, but not from the east of the pit culture (5600-4300 years ago), and the Beaker culture (4800-3900 years ago) to the west. Then the question arises - then how could be transferred IE languages Yamnik to the east, when the direction of the attack was not erbinov from the east and from the west? The answer is simple - there was no transfer Yamnik IE languages in Europe, they Yamnik generally in Europe did not come. This is indicated by subclades fossil DNA haplogroup R1b Yamnik that were analyzed in the amount of 12 samples from the Samara region and Kalmykia.

In general, yamna culture occupied space from the Dniester to the west to the borders of Kazakhstan in the east, from the Pre-Caucasus in the south to the north of the Middle Volga. Adopted in archeology dating pit culture - 5600-4300 years ago. Dating of fossil R1b in seven graves in the Samara region (located in six different locations) virtually overlap, from 5140 ± 210 to 4910 ± 200 years ago, in Kalmykia in four graves in two different places - 5000 ± 350 and 4775 ± 130 years ago. In Samara graves found subclades R1b-L23-Z2105 / Z2103 (four), R1b-M269 (two), and L23 (one), subclades marked in the following diagram:

The Kalmyk graves found R1b-M269 (in three places) and R1b-Z2105 (one), together with M269, his ancestral Subclades (M269-L23-Z2105).

With the pit culture and their alleged IE language in modern genomic science is simply anecdotal situation. In a recent article in 2015, in the leading journal Nature World, a large group of authors (66 people) posted the section "Distribution of Indo-European languages," the size of a single paragraph (!), In which they write that "genomic data show the spread of people from the Black Sea-pit culture Caspian steppes in northern Europe and in Central Asia in the early Bronze age, which corresponds well to spread IE languages »( Allentoft the ME, of M. Sikora, Sjögren KG, S. The Rasmussen, Rasmussen of M., J. Stenderup, the PB Damgaard, of H. Schroeder , Ahlström T., Vinner L., Malaspinas AS, Margaryan A., Higham T., Chivall D., Lynnerup N., Harvig L., Baron J., Della Casa P., Dąbrowski P., Duffy PR, Ebel AV , Epimakhov A., Frei K., Furmanek M., Gralak T., et al ( 2015) Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia Nature 522 (7555), 167-72 doi:.... 10.1038 / nature14507 ). It's all true. "The spread in northern Europe" is based only on the fact that in ancient pit culture R1b (Early Bronze Age, 5500-4500 years ago), and in northern Europe are now of R1b, and this similarity shows, of course, the genome. Only no spread of R1b-Z2103 of the pit culture in Europe was not, and especially in northern Europe, as there was no spread of IE languages of the pit culture in Europe in those days. Everyone knows that the haplogroup R1b in Europe a huge amount (about 60% of the male population), but it is 99% descendants arrived from the Iberian Peninsula, dating from about 4,800 years ago - it subclades P312, U106, U152, L21 and downstream, and of not less than 50 thousand people have already been tested in Europe. One subclades L21 in the 111 version of the token has long been known for more than 5 thousand 111-marker haplotypes. For comparison, subclades Z2103 (in particular from the pit culture) in Europe, almost none. Here are the figures for the most complete list on different FTDNA databases (number of haplotypes found in our contemporaries of about 50 thousand haplotypes): Albania - 2, Austria - 1, Belarus - 1, Croatia - 1, Czech Republic - 2, France - 5, Greece - 6, Hungary - 3, Ireland - 5, Kosovo - 1, Slovakia - 1, Scotland - 5, Spain - 3 Sweden - 2, Ukraine - 4, Macedonia - 2, Netherlands - 1, Norway - 3, Romania - 2, and so on. The largest number Z2103 - in Russia (38) Turkey (18), Poland (18) and Bulgaria (14), but considering that in Poland the number of tested many times higher than in Russia and in Turkey, it is worth a few normalize these figures, and Poland would be at the level of 2-3 carriers of haplogroup R1b-Z2103. Where there is "the promotion of R1b of the pit culture in Europe"? Not moved to the west side of the pit culture - neither people R1b, no IE language.

The fact that in Bulgaria more than carriers of R1b-Z2103, than in other European countries (about Poland we have already explained), in principle, does not exclude that erbiny could walk a little to the west of the Black Sea, but the fact that in the surrounding Bulgaria their countries no descendants, it makes us look for other explanations. For example, in Bulgaria carriers Z2103 could come much later from Turkey. Age common ancestor Bulgarian Z2103 3800 ± 500 years for the 37-marker haplotypes, and 3400 ± 560 years for the 67-marker haplotypes. For Poland, by the way, the days are the same - 3300 ± 400 years for the 37-marker haplotypes, and 3400 ± 430 years for the 67-marker haplotypes. It is - on one or two thousand years less than in the pit Z2103 dating culture - 4600-5300 years ago. In general, the explanation could be found, only the price they will be small. Now, if dating in Bulgaria and Poland were comparable to those in the dating of the pit culture - then it would be another matter.


Source: http://pereformat.ru/2016/04/r1a-migration-1/

So Klyosov is still hell bent in claiming that R1b went Middle East=>North Africa=>Iberia=> Rest_of_Europe. He sure as hell doesn't like his R1a "Aryans" sharing any of the IE credit with the R1b-M269 brethren. He is still using his STR TMRCA calculations to argue against aDNA data. The fact that he has resorted to publish the same material as before but now in Russian; makes me think that he now knows his ideas are very fringe and will not fly in the mainstream scholarship. I wonder how he explains El Trocs3 and Villabruna?

[rafc]

It's really nice to get ancient dna test results for a particular SNP. Hard to controvert those.

I remember when a number of folks thought E-V13 only dated to the Bronze Age, then Avellaner Cave showed up and - voila! - there was an E-V13 from about 5000 BC.

We still think that.

[Megalophias]

Completely agree with you one that. On the other hand I do remember Klyosov claiming something along the lines of "Just because E-V13 was found in some ancient bones doesn't change the fact that their TMRCA isn't 2800 ybp". Frankly to me that seems like I cop out and special pleading.
We expect V13 to have existed earlier than the TMRCA of modern E-V13, and we expect modern clades to have extinct sister branches, so finding it in the Neolithic does not prevent it being a Bronze Age clade. So he's right, in principle at least.

[rms2]

We still think that.

You still think E-V13 dates only from the Bronze Age? How do you square the E-V13 from Avellaner Cave, circa 5,000 BC, with that? Have you moved the Bronze Age back a few centuries?

[rms2]

We expect V13 to have existed earlier than the TMRCA of modern E-V13, and we expect modern clades to have extinct sister branches, so finding it in the Neolithic does not prevent it being a Bronze Age clade. So he's right, in principle at least.

TMRCA maybe, but as I recall they were talking about the actual existence of E-V13.

[Megalophias]

TMRCA maybe, but as I recall they were talking about the actual existence of E-V13.
Huh, V13 could have come into existence any time between the TMCRAs of L618 and of V13, you'd need really young ages (and excessive faith in your TMCRA calculations) to exclude it existing in 5000 BC.

At least, even if it is pre-V13 rather than V13 proper, it tells us that near cousins of the ancestor of modern V13 were around in that time and place, which is something.

[jeanL]

We expect V13 to have existed earlier than the TMRCA of modern E-V13, and we expect modern clades to have extinct sister branches, so finding it in the Neolithic does not prevent it being a Bronze Age clade. So he's right, in principle at least.

Yeah but haven't we found other E-V13 in the Neolithic context from the Balkans? To me the whole TMRCA concept derived from modern clades using certain methodologies reads Ad Hoc! Very similar to the argument that certain mt-DNA Haplogroups can not exist in certain aDNA finding because some 2012 Behar paper didn't date them that way. The Natufians findings of haplogroups V and H32 go completely against the dating by Behar.et.al.2012. I mentioned this before here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8477-aDNA-from-Natufian-Hunters-to-Bronze-Age-farmers-(14-000-3-400-BP)&p=187028&viewfull=1#post187028

Granted this is mt-DNA which mutates at a much slower rate than Y-DNA. In any case:

Could the TMRCA of E-V13 be younger than 5000 BC and Klyosov still be correct? Yes

But what are the odds that all the TMRCA of E-V13; I1-M253 dated much younger than how they have been found in aDNA are correct. This is what makes me question the validity of the TMRCA methodologies.

For example:

Klyosov E-V13 TMRCA 2800 ybp

E-V13

Avellanar 5000 BC 6950 ybp

E-M78

Sopot (proto Lengyel) Hungary 5000 BC-4800 BC

On the other hand I1-M253 has also been found in LBKT Hungary Balatonszemes-Bagódomb [BAB 5]. Again dating to a date much earlier than its TMRCA. I know I1 is defined by a long list of mutations and it is still possible for its TMRCA to be much later; but then that brings out the question that TMRCA is not really a good metric to measure when and where a haplogroup first formed.

[RCO]

The E-V13 from Avellaner Cave could be just like R1b Villabruna dead ends, probably we are going to discover several dead ends as the norm because only a few living men in thousands per generation could had surviving lineages that deep in the past. Probably ancient DNA is a cemitery of dead lineages and we can at least try to understand the general movements.

[rms2]

The E-V13 from Avellaner Cave could be just like R1b Villabruna dead ends, probably we are going to discover several dead ends as the norm because only a few living men in thousands per generation could had surviving lineages that deep in the past. Probably ancient DNA is a cemitery of dead lineages and we can at least try to understand the general movements.

Of course, Villabruna was pretty far upstream: not even derived for P297.

[Power77]

The Natufians findings of haplogroups V and H32.

FWT:suspicious:! Natufians had mtDNA haplogroups V and H32:jaw:???

Are you 100% sure the samples weren't contaminated:D?

[rafc]

You still think E-V13 dates only from the Bronze Age? How do you square the E-V13 from Avellaner Cave, circa 5,000 BC, with that? Have you moved the Bronze Age back a few centuries?

Depends what you mean with date. It's very possible the V13 mutation happened before the bronze age, but all V13 lines still existing today have a TMRCA in the early Bronze age, or the late neolithic at te very earliest. These lines are dominated by the CTS5856-group that has a TMRCA that is even younger. Unfortunately people will periodically refer to the Avellaner Cave to revive the myth of neolithic V13 that spread farming over Europe.

[rms2]

Depends what you mean with date. It's very possible the V13 mutation happened before the bronze age, but all V13 lines still existing today have a TMRCA in the early Bronze age, or the late neolithic at te very earliest. These lines are dominated by the CTS5856-group that has a TMRCA that is even younger. Unfortunately people will periodically refer to the Avellaner Cave to revive the myth of neolithic V13 that spread farming over Europe.

Not sure that's a myth. E-V13 could have spread during the Neolithic and then experienced a bottleneck during the downturn at the end of the Neolithic, hence the later tmrca.

[TigerMW]

The problem with the idea that the U106 from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden (c. 2300 BC) might have "leaked over" from Bell Beaker is pretty obvious. There is no evidence that Bell Beaker ever went to Sweden (no Bell Beaker burials or pottery have been found there)
The absence of evidence is not the greatest evidence in the world. In fact, the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It's not the converse either, I concede clearly.

However, we know the Bell Beakers were strong seafaring people. We have Martinez and Solanova (at least) claiming there is evidence of Northern Bell Beakers across Denmark including Zealand. Zealand and the City of Copenhagen are nearly in Sweden. Sweden is only 17 miles away. The circumstantial evidence is strong that a very influential people, the Bell Beakers, set foot on Sweden.


and, thus far, no U106 has ever been found in Bell Beaker remains, despite the growing list of Bell Beaker y-dna test results. I have never read of a single scholar who attributed the evolution of Germanic to Bell Beaker, and Germanic is the group U106 is pretty obviously connected with. Instead, Germanic is attributed to Corded Ware, and - surprise! - it was in a burial place belonging to a culture derived from Corded Ware that the oldest U106 thus far known was recovered.

Bell Beaker is associated with Italo-Celtic, and U106 has an inverse relationship with that ethnolinguistic group. Thus far, the ancient dna results only bolster that observation.

We don't have lot of ancient U106 DNA in Corded Ware. A lot of what we see so far is R1a, is it not? I need to look closer at the the ancient DNA results in Corded Ware. David thinks Corded Ware has little variance. I may be overgeneralizing or perhaps he can explain more. What's the best web site to look at Corded Ware ancient DNA reults?

U106 is a minority haplogroup in Germanic regions, correct? There is no majority haplogroup, I don't believe. The implication is that the Proto-Germanic peoples were a mixture of different groups. Proto-Germanic has an early influence from Celtic languages I think. If so who provided the input? Some R1b-P312* types that later developed in to L238, DF19 and DF99 or are other just P312*? It's not much of a stretch to consider that U106, a close relative to P312 was part of the input. I'm not saying it is so. I'm just saying it must evaluated strongly.

Again the key is when split is P311 started. If it was east of the Carpathians then it makes sense that U106 followed Anthony's northerly pre-Germanic route. If the split was south or west of the Carpathians U106 could easily have been in Bell Beaker folks.

I restate that I don't know whether or not U106 was north side of the Carpathians in the formation of Corded Ware. It would be clean if it was and align with David Anthony's theories. I'm all of that, but I would be remiss if I didn't have consider about the close timing of the P311 MRCA and its early descendants. I think it is quite possible that P311 originated east of the Carpathians in the Yamnaya proper territories, but I have seen much evidence of that either.

The early P311 family could be like pheasants running along the grain sorghum rows and out of sight, running both sides of the Carpathians, before popping up in the Hungarian Plains, the Czech Rep., Slovakia, the Alpine Region and southern Poland.

That's a long run to Austria, the Czech Rep and SW Poland from the Black Sea given the brief time between the P311 MRCA, U106, Z381, P312, ZZ11, DF27, U152, etc. I could think of a word for that but I won't use it because smacks of WW II.

[Megalophias]

Yeah but haven't we found other E-V13 in the Neolithic context from the Balkans?
I don't know, there's an M78, but I don't remember any V13.


To me the whole TMRCA concept derived from modern clades using certain methodologies reads Ad Hoc!
I don't think it's ad hoc (in most cases). SNP counting is very straightforward methodology. Whether the estimates are *accurate* is another story, there are huge sources of uncertainty. But we won't know until we have more high coverage ancient DNA, which we need for accurate calibration even in the best case scenario.


Very similar to the argument that certain mt-DNA Haplogroups can not exist in certain aDNA finding because some 2012 Behar paper didn't date them that way. The Natufians findings of haplogroups V and H32 go completely against the dating by Behar.et.al.2012.I think the error bars on those estimates are unrealistically small, but the Natufian finds don't quite rule them out as far as I can see - certainly cutting it very close though. Haplogroup HV is also particularly suspect because of how few mutations there between R and H, V, etc. This could just be chance but if it's due to a slower mutation rate in the clade as a whole then obviously all bets are off.


But what are the odds that all the TMRCA of E-V13; I1-M253 dated much younger than how they have been found in aDNA are correct.Pretty good, I'd say. Taking, for the sake of example, Y-Full's central estimates for I1, that pre-I1 formed around 27 500 years ago and the modern I1 clade began to diversify 4 600 years ago, which gives us a 23 000 year block of mutations. 50% chance M253 mutation existed before 16 000 years ago. It undoubtedly had extinct relatives, not as successful as I2 but some, so having a smattering of pre-I1 M253+ 7000 years ago is just plain normal as far as I can tell. Likewise pre-V13, in this case a much smaller timeframe and so probably closer to the source.

[TigerMW]

...
U106 is a minority haplogroup in Germanic regions, correct? There is no majority haplogroup, I don't believe. The implication is that the Proto-Germanic peoples were a mixture of different groups. Proto-Germanic has an early influence from Celtic languages I think. If so who provided the input? Some R1b-P312* types that later developed in to L238, DF19 and DF99 or are other just P312*? It's not much of a stretch to consider that U106, a close relative to P312 was part of the input. I'm not saying it is so. I'm just saying it must evaluated strongly.
... .

This is the IE tree that David Anthony uses. We Proto-Germanic is hard to place with its multiple influences.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/17907527/IE-Language-Tree_by_Ring-Warner-Taylor_2002.jpeg

How strong is that Italo-Celtic influence on Germanic? If it's strong then Proto-Germanic (and that part of Corded Ware) might have needed a heavy dose of people from the Danubian route to Cental Europe, which would have ended up as Bell Beakers of type or another.

[rms2]

The absence of evidence is not the greatest evidence in the world. In fact, the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. It's not the converse either, I concede clearly.

I am not sure what you mean. We certainly have no evidence that the reason a U106 guy wound up in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery is because Bell Beaker leaked over into Sweden. There is no Bell Beaker in Sweden so far, and there is no U106 in Bell Beaker so far either.

The evidence we do have though is 1) a U106 guy in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, circa 2300 BC, and Nordic Battle Axe is a Corded Ware subgroup; 2) no U106 in Bell Beaker thus far, yet plenty of other kinds of R1b, especially P312; and 3) a close association between U106 and Germanic, which many scholars have attributed to Corded Ware.

That is not absolute proof, but it is way more than we have for U106 in Bell Beaker, which is zip.



However, we know the Bell Beakers were strong seafaring people. We have Martinez and Solanova (at least) claiming there is evidence of Northern Bell Beakers across Denmark including Zealand. Zealand and the City of Copenhagen are nearly in Sweden. Sweden is only 17 miles away. The circumstantial evidence is strong that a very influential people, the Bell Beakers, set foot on Sweden . . .

There is no evidence of Bell Beaker in Sweden, circumstantial or otherwise. I remember that paper, but perhaps you can remind me of the evidence of Bell Beaker in Zealand. I have read it was in Jutland, but Jutland is the Danish peninsula, and Zealand is an island separate from Jutland.

It is really a stretch to argue that because Bell Beaker was in Denmark a U106 guy in the cemetery of a non-Beaker culture in Sweden could have been a Bell Beaker guy. That might be reasonable if U106 was showing up right and left in Bell Beaker, but just the opposite is true.

I've heard it said that Bell Beaker people were great seafarers. Is there any actual evidence of that?

[TigerMW]

Yes indeed, but that does not mean that the Jastorf culture derives direct from BB. There is a big time gap in between in which the crucial population moved around.

What seems to have happened is that an offshoot from CW moved into Scandinavia and there formed the Nordic Bronze Age (1730-760 BC). There these people interacted with local people who spoke Uralic and were sufficiently cut off from developments further south to develop a different IE dialect from that which was developing into Celtic. Only around 500 BC were farmers from Scandinavia forced south by climate change into what is now north Germany and Poland and formed the Iron Age Jastorf culture in contact with Celtic-speakers of the La Tene culture. That is the point that linguists feel represents Proto-Germanic.

What Y haplogroups would be represented in the Celtic speakers of La Tene? Do you think this was just contact influence or do you think there was integration of peoples at this point?

[rms2]

. . .

How strong is that Italo-Celtic influence on Germanic? If it's strong then Proto-Germanic (and that part of Corded Ware) might have needed a heavy dose of people from the Danubian route to Cental Europe, which would have ended up as Bell Beakers of type or another.

I am not a linguist, but I think that influence was relatively late, like Iron Age, and due to the Germans rubbing elbows with the Celts somewhere along their frontier in Germany. Maybe Agamemnon can supply better info.

[MitchellSince1893]

In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.
http://www.liquisearch.com/beaker_culture/extent_and_impact/jutland

[TigerMW]

I am not sure what you mean. .... There is no Bell Beaker in Sweden.
That's what I meant. Just because we have no found evidence of Bell Beakers in Sweden doesn't mean they weren't there.


... close association between U106 and Germanic, which many scholars have attributed to Corded Ware. ..
There is no evidence of Bell Beaker in Sweden, circumstantial or otherwise. I remember that paper, but perhaps you can remind me of the evidence of Bell Beaker in Zealand. I have read it was in Jutland, but Jutland is the Danish peninsula, and Zealand is an island separate from Jutland.
Martinez's and Solanova's map shows that Zealand had Northern Bell Beakers but I don't know the specifics. Sweden was not on their map but I don't think we should consider ancient Scandinavia as having a hard Norway-Sweden boundary like the political borders of today.


It is really a stretch to argue that because Bell Beaker was in Denmark a U106 guy in the cemetery of a non-Beaker culture in Sweden could have been a Bell Beaker guy. That might be reasonable if U106 was showing up right and left in Bell Beaker, but just the opposite is true.
I'm saying "could have". I don't consider a tentative concept that could been such as a such a "stretch" unless Martinez and Solanova were just plain wrong.

I'm not saying that the guy in Sweden was Bell Beaker. U106 could have leaked beyond Bell Beaker groups for a long period and integrated in to Corded Ware.

[Jean M]

What Y haplogroups would be represented in the Celtic speakers of La Tene? Do you think this was just contact influence or do you think there was integration of peoples at this point?

There is no way to answer that with certainty without aDNA from the La Tene and Jastorf cultures. However, given what we know of Bell Beaker Y-DNA, it seems a pretty safe bet that the La Tene culture harboured Y-DNA R1b-P312 and subclades of same. Of course what we really, really, really want at this moment is lots and lots more aDNA. Without it, what can I tell you that you don't already know?

I think you know that the Jastorf Culture absorbed iron-working techniques from La Tene; Proto-Germanic absorbed the Celtic word for iron. All makes sense so far.

[rms2]

That's what I meant. Just because we have no found evidence of Bell Beakers in Sweden doesn't mean they weren't there . . .

True, but it comes a lot closer to that than it does to meaning they were there. There comes a point at which one can at least say they very probably weren't there.

Besides, that U106 guy was not found in a Bell Beaker burial with Bell Beaker artifacts. He was not even found in a country with any Bell Beaker burials. He was found in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, a subgroup of Corded Ware.

And not only is there no Bell Beaker in Sweden thus far, but there is no U106 in Bell Beaker thus far, despite the growing list of Bell Beaker y-dna results (I count thirteen so far).

[rms2]

http://www.liquisearch.com/beaker_culture/extent_and_impact/jutland

A single technique, in this case barbed wire decoration, does not amount to the presence of Bell Beaker. There are no Bell Beaker burials in Sweden. If you can find any, I'd be glad to read about them.

[lgmayka]

I know I1 is defined by a long list of mutations and it is still possible for its TMRCA to be much later; but then that brings out the question that TMRCA is not really a good metric to measure when and where a haplogroup first formed.
YFull specifically uses two different terms: formation date and TMRCA. The distinction is crucial. We do not know the order of occurrence of SNPs in the intervening period between those two dates.

Please look carefully at YFull's E-L618 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/E-L618/). YFull has seen only one (living) lineage that diverged from the rest about 7600 years ago--and that one comes from Latvia! YFull has also seen one offshoot that diverged 5400 years ago. All other living E-V13 seen by YFull so far belongs to its primary subclade E-CTS1273, which FTDNA calls E-CTS5856, with a TMRCA of only 4100 ybp.

To be fair, I should point out that some experts in this forum advise adding 10-20% to YFull's dates.

We should see another early offshoot on the tree soon. Kit B103386 of Poland has already tested
V13+ CTS5856-
and ordered the Big Y in late November.

[TigerMW]

YFull specifically uses two different terms: formation date and TMRCA. The distinction is crucial. We do not know the order of occurrence of SNPs in the intervening period between those two dates.

Please look carefully at YFull's E-L618 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/E-L618/). YFull has seen only one (living) lineage that diverged from the rest about 7600 years ago--and that one comes from Latvia! YFull has also seen one offshoot that diverged 5400 years ago. All other living E-V13 seen by YFull so far belongs to its primary subclade E-CTS1273, which FTDNA calls E-CTS5856, with a TMRCA of only 4100 ybp.

To be fair, I should point out that some experts in this forum advise adding 10-20% to YFull's dates.

We should see another early offshoot on the tree soon. Kit B103386 of Poland has already tested
V13+ CTS5856-
and ordered the Big Y in late November.

Should this part of the thread be broken off into another topic?

[TigerMW]

There is no way to answer that with certainty without aDNA from the La Tene and Jastorf cultures. However, given what we know of Bell Beaker Y-DNA, it seems a pretty safe bet that the La Tene culture harboured Y-DNA R1b-P312 and subclades of same. Of course what we really, really, really want at this moment is lots and lots more aDNA. Without it, what can I tell you that you don't already know?

I was just checking to see if you were considering U106 as potential element of La Tene.

[Romilius]

It looks like Klyosov is doubling down on his own hypothesis. Just found this piece translated from Russian:



Source: http://pereformat.ru/2016/04/r1a-migration-1/

So Klyosov is still hell bent in claiming that R1b went Middle East=>North Africa=>Iberia=> Rest_of_Europe. He sure as hell doesn't like his R1a "Aryans" sharing any of the IE credit with the R1b-M269 brethren. He is still using his STR TMRCA calculations to argue against aDNA data. The fact that he has resorted to publish the same material as before but now in Russian; makes me think that he now knows his ideas are very fringe and will not fly in the mainstream scholarship. I wonder how he explains El Trocs3 and Villabruna?


And, of course, we are still waiting for a paper about his notorious rumours of R1b in Okunevo and Afanasevo... I personally lost my hope....

[TigerMW]

True, but it comes a lot closer to that than it does to meaning they were there. There comes a point at which one can at least say they very probably weren't there.

Besides, that U106 guy was not found in a Bell Beaker burial with Bell Beaker artifacts. He was not even found in a country with any Bell Beaker burials. He was found in Sweden in a Nordic Battle Axe cemetery, a subgroup of Corded Ware.

And not only is there no Bell Beaker in Sweden thus far, but there is no U106 in Bell Beaker thus far, despite the growing list of Bell Beaker y-dna results (I count thirteen so far).

Don't doubt my foundation. I lean towards a theory that L51 and P311 originated in true Yamnaya territory.

We could go back several years but I think you can find I argued pretty strongly against some very knowledeable folks that:
1) Pre-germanic lineages aligns with with David Anthony's northern route for IE peoples along the north side of the Carpathian Mountains
2) U106 is strongly aligned with historic period Germanic speaking territories
3) U106 was "walled off" to the east of the Atlantic zone and therefore must have been isolated to the east
4) U106 diversity was highest on the east of Germany and in Poland and along the Baltic states
5) Ringe-Taylor-Warner's early branching of Germanic and Italo-Celtic would be better timed as being in Yamnaya territory proper (far to the east)
6) therefore L51 through P311 must be far to the east, similar to the pheasant running before he pops up for flight (hence Yamnaya territory proper)

I still lean that way but I try to be a critical thinker and imagine what could be wrong. I have to concede the following.

1) Some very sharp U106 people who understand U106 better than I think U106 came up from the south (not due east)
2) For the pheasant runs of the P311 early family from Moldova and Ukraine to reach Germany, Czech Rep, Austria, Slovakia and the Hungarian plains with U106 on the north and P312 on the south in such quick fashion prior to the expansions in Central Europe is truly a "lightning" event.

That is why I challenge our thinking right now.

Hopefully the ancient DNA will get to P311, U106, Z381, P312, ZZ11, DF27 and U152 with enough of a survey to tell the story.

If it was lightning then it truly needs to be published as a great European event. It's the invasion of Europe followed by the true first European World War, the fission-fusion event. I'm not saying this is all good. It probably was quite ugly, but it was a great series of events.

[Pribislav]

Double post

[Pribislav]

I looked at the R1a samples from CWC, and this is what we got thus far:

Total: 15 samples

Esperstedt: 6x M417+(Z645-), 1x M417+, 1x M198*, 1x M198+(L664-,Z280-)

Eulau: 3x L664+

Tiefbrunn: 2x M417+

Bergrheinfeld: 1x M417+(Z645-)

We also have two samples from Batlle Axe culture: Z284+ from Kyndelose, Denmark, and Z645+ from Viby, Sweden.

3 samples are confirmed L664+, 7 are almost certainly L664+ or CTS4385+, 3 could be L664+/CTS4385+ and 2 are L664-. So 10 to 13 of 15 samples could be L664+ or CTS4385+. It seems that CW expansion in Western Europe was mainly conducted by CTS4385 lineage, plus some minor M198* lineages. Similarly, CW expansion to Scandinavia was mainly conducted by Z284 (and possibly) U106 lineages. Besides from Swedish U106 sample from Battle Axe culture, and absence of U106 in BB samples, there is one more reason why I think U106 and P312 diverged before the onset of BB, and that's Polish R1b1 sample from the early phase of CWC (RISE1, Oblaczkowo, 2865-2578 BC). It still remains a mistery where they diverged, already in the steppe or somewhere along the Danube, so I hope this year will bring us some Bronze Age aDNA from Western Steppe and Hungarian Plain.

[Pribislav]

Please look carefully at YFull's E-L618 haplotree (https://yfull.com/tree/E-L618/). YFull has seen only one (living) lineage that diverged from the rest about 7600 years ago--and that one comes from Latvia! YFull has also seen one offshoot that diverged 5400 years ago. All other living E-V13 seen by YFull so far belongs to its primary subclade E-CTS1273, which FTDNA calls E-CTS5856, with a TMRCA of only 4100 ybp.

To be fair, I should point out that some experts in this forum advise adding 10-20% to YFull's dates.

We should see another early offshoot on the tree soon. Kit B103386 of Poland has already tested
V13+ CTS5856-
and ordered the Big Y in late November.

Member of the Vasojevići tribe, the largest Serbian tribe in Montenegro, has been recently tested at Yseq, and the result was V13+, CTS5856-. We'll try to order Big Y for him in the near future.

[TigerMW]

... Besides from Swedish U106 sample from Battle Axe culture, and absence of U106 in BB samples, there is one more reason why I think U106 and P312 diverged before the onset of BB, and that's Polish R1b1 sample from the early phase of CWC (RISE1, Oblaczkowo, 2865-2578 BC). ...
What is the most downstream (youthful) SNP of the Polish R1b RISE1 fellow. Do we know his status on M269, L23, L51, L11, P311, P312 and U106?I

[MitchellSince1893]

What Y haplogroups would be represented in the Celtic speakers of La Tene? Do you think this was just contact influence or do you think there was integration of peoples at this point?

Based on what I've seen R-U152 is going to be a significant contributor to La Tene. The village of La Tene is in Switzerland; and from various studies Switzerland has one of the highest known concentrations of U152. In Myres this area (NW Switzerland) was 22% U152.

Probably a good chunk of U152 in Britain arrived with La Tene (along with Hallstatt)

[MitchellSince1893]

...There comes a point at which one can at least say they very probably weren't there.

IMO we are nowhere near that point. Just like we aren't near that point with the lack of R-L51 in Western Yamnaya culture.

When the vast majority of known ancient samples have been tested, then we will be close to that point. But until then, this is just an endless debate.

[Pribislav]

What is the most downstream (youthful) SNP of the Polish R1b1 RISE1 fellow. Do we know his status on M269, L23, L51, L11, P311, P312 and U106?

It's L1345, equivalent to L754 on YTree. There is no information about downstream subclades, probably due to the poor quality of the sample, so it could be anything of the above, maybe even Z2103, but IMHO it makes most sense for R1b1 guy from CW context to be U106, if we bear in mind clear correlation between U106 and Germanic peoples today and knowing Proto-Germanic folk has often being connected to CWC. I guess we'll have to wait for more Bronze Age samples to be able to draw definitive conclusions.

[MitchellSince1893]

A single technique, in this case barbed wire decoration, does not amount to the presence of Bell Beaker. There are no Bell Beaker burials in Sweden. If you can find any, I'd be glad to read about them.

My link was in response to your comment
There is no evidence that Bell Beaker ever went to Sweden (no Bell Beaker burials or pottery have been found there)

[vettor]

Based on what I've seen R-U152 is going to be a significant contributor to La Tene. The village of La Tene is in Switzerland; and from various studies Switzerland has one of the highest known concentrations of U152. In Myres this area (NW Switzerland) was 22% U152.

Probably a good chunk of U152 in Britain arrived with La Tene (along with Hallstatt)

Are we assuming that R1b in La Tene are the same celts as R1b in Halstatt ?

[ADW_1981]

Are we assuming that R1b in La Tene are the same celts as R1b in Halstatt ?

I keep stating this without evidence, and I can't find the German paper that had the STR, but there was R1b in a La Tene grave which matched the common R1b-Z2103, as well as the common European G-P303. Unfortunately I have no desire to trace through every thread on the board for this German paper, but it does exist...somewhere. We *do* have La Tene Celtic aDNA and it would appear to be R1b-Z2103 and G-P303 from a few graves based on STR.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I keep stating this without evidence, and I can't find the German paper that had the STR, but there was R1b in a La Tene grave which matched the common R1b-Z2103, as well as the common European G-P303. Unfortunately I have no desire to trace through every thread on the board for this German paper, but it does exist...somewhere. We *do* have La Tene Celtic aDNA and it would appear to be R1b-Z2103 and G-P303 from a few graves based on STR.

You don't mean Medieval Bavaria (Ergolding), with one G2a and one R1b ?

http://www.cmj.hr/2009/50/3/19480023.htm

The STR matches for the R1b came from England & North Carolina. So probably L51+..

[MitchellSince1893]

Are we assuming that R1b in La Tene are the same celts as R1b in Halstatt ?

Culturally La Tene succeeds Hallstatt so they are related. As U152 is probably close to 1500 years older than Halstatt, it had plenty of time to grow and disperse. Also, Halstaat, La Tene, and U152 all have proximity to the Alpine region.

I believe U152 was prominent in both cultures, but I'm not saying it was almost exclusively U152. I'm sure there were other haplogroups involved such as DF27.

I think it would be more accurate to say that these cultures (along with Urnfield and Bell Beaker) were instrumental in spreading U152 across Western Europe. I say this because when you look at present day distribution of U152 samples, they stay multi-national (not restricted to small regions) for an extended period. For example, look ~20 SNPs down from U152 and you still have U152 haplogroups that are spread all over Western and Central Europe.

[Jean M]

Based on what I've seen R-U152 is going to be a significant contributor to La Tene. The village of La Tene is in Switzerland..

The village of La Tene is actually quite a way south of the core early La Tene culture.

13520

As we all know, La Tene sprang out of Hallstatt in central Europe.

13521

Not that I want to argue against the idea that the culture harboured U152, which has already been found in a Bell Beaker site in Germany.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

The village of La Tene is actually quite a way south of the core early La Tene culture.

13520

As we all know, La Tene sprang out of Hallstatt in central Europe.

13521

Not that I want to argue against the idea that the culture harboured U152, which has already been found in a Bell Beaker site in Germany.

Yes same folk. But many describe it as a take over by the northern peripheries (La Tene warriors) against the "old establishment" Hallstatt chiefs . :)
There was change in styles also- from classical Geometric to flowing florals, thought to be influenced by Scythians etc

13522

[Jean M]

But many describe it as a take over by the northern peripheries (La Tene warriors) against the "old establishment" Hallstatt chiefs .

I do myself. As best I recall without getting back to my text. But of course I'm merely following in the footsteps of experts on this particular topic.

[vettor]

Culturally La Tene succeeds Hallstatt so they are related. As U152 is probably close to 1500 years older than Halstatt, it had plenty of time to grow and disperse. Also, Halstaat, La Tene, and U152 all have proximity to the Alpine region.

I believe U152 was prominent in both cultures, but I'm not saying it was almost exclusively U152. I'm sure there were other haplogroups involved such as DF27.

I think it would be more accurate to say that these cultures (along with Urnfield and Bell Beaker) were instrumental in spreading U152 across Western Europe. I say this because when you look at present day distribution of U152 samples, they stay multi-national (not restricted to small regions) for an extended period. For example, look ~20 SNPs down from U152 and you still have U152 haplogroups that are spread all over Western and Central Europe.

I just find it puzzling that Hallstatt celts are in majority R1b-L2 ( age 4500yo )............now found in majority among Ladins/romansch speaking populace of italy and austria

and La Tene celts are in majority R1b-Z36 .( age 4600yo ).............

Since Halstatt ( 750BC ) is over 200 years older than LaTene ( 490BC ), then why didn't any L2 go to La Tene and do basically what they did in Halstatt previously..............IMO , there must have been a division of these U152 going back into ancient Central Germany. A division of previous cultures from Central europe

[Jean M]

We *do* have La Tene Celtic aDNA and it would appear to be R1b-Z2103 and G-P303 from a few graves based on STR.

The only La Tène culture ancient DNA that I have listed is that from Glauberg (Knipper 2014), which was only mtDNA. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml


You don't mean Medieval Bavaria (Ergolding), with one G2a and one R1b?

I have that listed on the medieval page, with the Y-Search codes: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

[rafc]

Member of the Vasojevići tribe, the largest Serbian tribe in Montenegro, has been recently tested at Yseq, and the result was V13+, CTS5856-. We'll try to order Big Y for him in the near future.

That would be great! Recently three V13+, CTS5856- Big Y's were completed, and they will have impact on the current tree (analysis is ongoing). Good to hear about the Polish Big Y.

[ADW_1981]

You don't mean Medieval Bavaria (Ergolding), with one G2a and one R1b ?

http://www.cmj.hr/2009/50/3/19480023.htm

The STR matches for the R1b came from England & North Carolina. So probably L51+..

Nope, there was another one more recently in German, but still quite a few years ago. I would say around 2012 or 2013. It wasn't translated and I had to run the thing paragraph by paragraph through google translate.

[Jean M]

Nope, there was another one more recently in German, but still quite a few years ago. I would say around 2012 or 2013. It wasn't translated and I had to run the thing paragraph by paragraph through google translate.

Cemper-Kiesslich 2012? It is on Researchgate.

Jan Cemper-Kiesslich, Karin Wiltschke-Schrotta, Franz Neuhuber, Edith Tutsch-Bauer, Jutta Leskovar & Stefan Moser, Kelten-DNA? Molekulararchäologische Betrachtungen zur ethnischen Zugehörigkeit im kulturhistorischen Kontext, Interpretierte Eisenzeiten - Fallstudien, Methode, Theorie - Tagungsbericht der 4. Linzer Gespräche zur intrerpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie - Die erfundenen Kelten – Mythologie eines Begriffes und seine Ve, Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 31, pp. 123-133.

Brief English abstract:


The label ‘Celts’ as a term for an ethnic, social and cultural entity has increasingly been shown to be inadequate (‘celtoscepticism’) in the course of recent research. In applying the alternative method of ancient DNA analysis (aDNA) to three distinct case studies, this paper tries to test the hypothesis of ‘The Celts’ seen as a homogenous ethno-cultural group in the European Iron Age. Besides basic anthropological data, the methodology of aDNA analysis is exemplified and the results are discussed within their (pre)historic context.

[razyn]

Good to hear about the Polish Big Y.
If someone is keeping track of such things, I hope it's someone like lgmayka who would already know this -- but anyway, two separate branches of the Richert/Rychert family in the US are represented in FTDNA projects, have matching haplotypes, and one of the two has BigY results. Their terminal SNP is very close to my own, DF27>Z295>CTS4065>FGC15710>FGC157xx (last two digits may not match mine). Their paternal ancestry in Poland is Kashubian.

[ADW_1981]

Cemper-Kiesslich 2012? It is on Researchgate.

Jan Cemper-Kiesslich, Karin Wiltschke-Schrotta, Franz Neuhuber, Edith Tutsch-Bauer, Jutta Leskovar & Stefan Moser, Kelten-DNA? Molekulararchäologische Betrachtungen zur ethnischen Zugehörigkeit im kulturhistorischen Kontext, Interpretierte Eisenzeiten - Fallstudien, Methode, Theorie - Tagungsbericht der 4. Linzer Gespräche zur intrerpretativen Eisenzeitarchäologie - Die erfundenen Kelten – Mythologie eines Begriffes und seine Ve, Studien zur Kulturgeschichte von Oberösterreich 31, pp. 123-133.

Brief English abstract:

That's it Jean, thank you. I see it has been archived at Anthrogenica and not easily accessed.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-97-p-2.html

When I ran the haplotypes through a predictor, one matched G-P303, the common European type, and the other two were definitely R1b with DYS393=12. Although they could have been downstream of L11+ had the paper looked at SNPs.

[TigerMW]

Don't doubt my foundation. I lean towards a theory that L51 and P311 originated in true Yamnaya territory.

We could go back several years but I think you can find I argued pretty strongly against some very knowledeable folks that:
1) Pre-germanic lineages aligns with with David Anthony's northern route for IE peoples along the north side of the Carpathian Mountains
2) U106 is strongly aligned with historic period Germanic speaking territories
3) U106 was "walled off" to the east of the Atlantic zone and therefore must have been isolated to the east
4) U106 diversity was highest on the east of Germany and in Poland and along the Baltic states
5) Ringe-Taylor-Warner's early branching of Germanic and Italo-Celtic would be better timed as being in Yamnaya territory proper (far to the east)
6) therefore L51 through P311 must be far to the east, similar to the pheasant running before he pops up for flight (hence Yamnaya territory proper)

I still lean that way but I try to be a critical thinker and imagine what could be wrong. I have to concede the following.

1) Some very sharp U106 people who understand U106 better than I think U106 came up from the south (not due east)
2) For the pheasant runs of the P311 early family from Moldova and Ukraine to reach Germany, Czech Rep, Austria, Slovakia and the Hungarian plains with U106 on the north and P312 on the south in such quick fashion prior to the expansions in Central Europe is truly a "lightning" event.

That is why I challenge our thinking right now.

Hopefully the ancient DNA will get to P311, U106, Z381, P312, ZZ11, DF27 and U152 with enough of a survey to tell the story.

If it was lightning then it truly needs to be published as a great European event. It's the invasion of Europe followed by the true first European World War, the fission-fusion event. I'm not saying this is all good. It probably was quite ugly, but it was a great series of events.

Below is a quote this morning from Dr. Iain McDonald on the U106 forum. It looks like the focus for the subclades of U106 is of " Scandinavian origin" so all is aligned for U106 as the lead for a Proto-Germanic formation. An early appearance in Scandinavia does imply a Corded Ware origin, I agree, although it is not certainty given the breadth of R1a across Corded Ware. McDonald okay'd me quoting on forums so I'll take the liberty again.

"With a predicted origin between 1684 BC and 669 BC, Z8 seems older than we previously thought (for comparison, YFull gives between 1450 BC and 450 BC).

If you look at page 16 of my U106 report from last year, you'll see that Z8 is not often found in France, Germany or the rest of central Europe. It is found mainly in the British Isles, Low Countries, Scandinavia and a smattering in eastern Europe down to Italy. These data need updated for the much greater number of deeper testers that we have obtained in the last year.

If you look at the new tree, you'll see a bunch of clades diversify around the same time: FGC901 (CTS10893), Z326, S3249, L1 and FGC13326. Given the different geographical distribution, the origins of L1 and FGC13326 are probably co-incidental. The others all fall under L48, and show a very clear Germano-Scandinavian distribution in the recorded ancestors of their testers and their surnames. There is some variation: for example, Z326 is found much more in Germany. The number of Z18 clades forming around this time also increases.

The geographical distribution of each clade is consistent with a Scandinavian origin, and subsequent spread through known migrations (early Germanic tribes, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons-etc., Goths, ...). I think it likely that what we are looking at in the formation of these four clades is the expansion of the Nordic Bronze Age cultures during the Bronze Age climate optimum around 1300 BC. Since all four clades (Z8, FGC901, Z326, S3249) are not related until you reach L48, and since they have different modern distributions, it seems likely that this was the expansion of a well-established population spread over a wide area. Different clades will have had different levels of participation in different migrations (e.g. expansion of the Germanic tribes into modern Germany, the post-Roman Germanic migrations, the Gothic migrations, the Danelaw, the Viking settlements, etc.).

Further evidence for this comes in the general downturn of L48 clade formation around 700 BC, corresponding to harsh climate cooling in the area. Following this, the different clades show increasing diversification at different points. For example, Z8 shows a mass of clade formation in the period 200 - 700 AD. Allowing for the uncertainties in the calculation, this fits in nicely with Z8 forming a significant part of the post-Roman Germanic migrations to England (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc.). There appears very little Z8 clade formation following 700 AD. This could indicate relatively little input from the Normans. Contrast this with Z156, which shows Roman-era and Norman-era periods of clade formation.

There are a lot of caveats in here, and a lot of other possible interpretations. This is only my guesswork based on the data I have available to me, and it is subject to change as more data comes in, especially any archaeological DNA results. I imagine other people will give you other answers. However, I think a proto-Germanic origin for Z8 seems the most likely conclusion based on the data available."

My descendants tree chart might help for people trying to understand the phylogeny. U106 is in the lower right hand corner of the big oval.

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1b/about

[rms2]

IMO we are nowhere near that point. Just like we aren't near that point with the lack of R-L51 in Western Yamnaya culture.

When the vast majority of known ancient samples have been tested, then we will be close to that point. But until then, this is just an endless debate.

I think you are confusing what I wrote with ancient y-dna. I was talking about Bell Beaker and Sweden. There are no Bell Beaker burials in Sweden, so we are at the point where we can say they (meaning Bell Beaker) very probably weren't there.

[rms2]

My link was in response to your comment

I realize that, but use of the barbed wire technique does not make a pot a bell beaker, just as the use of cord to make impressions on pottery does not make a pot a bell beaker.

Thus far there is no Bell Beaker pottery in Sweden, and there are no Bell Beaker burials in Sweden.

If you can find some, however, please let us know.

[MitchellSince1893]

The village of La Tene is actually quite a way south of the core early La Tene culture.

13520

As we all know, La Tene sprang out of Hallstatt in central Europe.

13521

Not that I want to argue against the idea that the culture harboured U152, which has already been found in a Bell Beaker site in Germany.

Understood. I've posted similar maps on multiple occasions. My hypothesis is that Bell Beaker and Urnfield helped spread U152 to areas that became La Tene and Hallstatt cores as well as most of western and central Europe; with Hallstatt and La Tene being prime sources for it's presence in Britain. This is not to preclude some U152 arrival with Bell Beaker but I don't believe BB is the primary vehicle for U152 in Britain as it's not widespread thoughout the Isles as say L21.

[MitchellSince1893]

I think you are confusing what I wrote with ancient y-dna. I was talking about Bell Beaker and Sweden. There are no Bell Beaker burials in Sweden, so we are at the point where we can say they (meaning Bell Beaker) very probably weren't there.

I think you are right. I did confuse ancient dna and bell beaker graves

[rms2]

Here is Marc Vander Linden's map of Bell Beaker from
What linked the Bell Beakers in third millennium BC Europe? (https://www.academia.edu/840055/What_linked_the_Bell_Beakers_in_third_millennium_B C_Europe?auto=download), page 345.

13527

[TigerMW]

.....
I still lean that way but I try to be a critical thinker and imagine what could be wrong. I have to concede the following.
....
2) For the pheasant runs of the P311 early family from Moldova and Ukraine to reach Germany, Czech Rep, Austria, Slovakia and the Hungarian plains with U106 on the north and P312 on the south in such quick fashion prior to the expansions in Central Europe is truly a "lightning" event.
...

I just can't let go of my reservation about this. The SNP occurrences (or lack them I should say) between the P311 MRCA and U106, Z381, P312, U152 and DF27 makes me question a dual route for the P311 family. It's like the P311 MRCA slingshot his family in two directions from the Black Sea into Central Europe and North-Central Europe in lightning speed. They must have been the "scouting" or "expeditionary" part of the tribe or kicked out or something into exile.

.... so I have to look more at U106 and Scandinavia. There is a book available from Thomas Price that you can see on google books.
"Ancient Scandinavia: An Archaeological History from the First Humans to the Vikings", T. Douglas Price, 2015, Oxford Press.

Price cites work by Bender Jørgensen and shows Bell Beaker finds in Zealand almost on top of Copenhagen although it is rare compared to the Jutland Peninsula. See about page 177.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dbC6BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Bender+J%C3%B8rgensen+Bell+Beaker&source=bl&ots=3ojsI_nltK&sig=qrpJGPg_CahC4b-bOtcE-NUbUGY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKutvy2LXRAhVBwlQKHZroAG4Q6AEINzAF#v=on epage&q=Bell&f=false

We know the Vikings were very good seafarers. This is long before any Germanic speaker, but the Bell Beakers were THE seafarers of their day all along the Western Med, the Atlantic and up to the Scandinavia.

The Unectice culture is still intriguing. It's a little late but played some kind of key role or was outcome of the Beaker-Corded Ware contact zones.

[Romilius]

You don't mean Medieval Bavaria (Ergolding), with one G2a and one R1b ?

http://www.cmj.hr/2009/50/3/19480023.htm

The STR matches for the R1b came from England & North Carolina. So probably L51+..

Hmmm... probably the four R1b frankish knights (two siblings and two unrelated) were R-U106 according to the type of matches.

[Romilius]

The only La Tène culture ancient DNA that I have listed is that from Glauberg (Knipper 2014), which was only mtDNA. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml



I have that listed on the medieval page, with the Y-Search codes: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml

A little off-topic... but the four R1b knights were fully equipped with spurs, if I remember well.

[vettor]

The only La Tène culture ancient DNA that I have listed is that from Glauberg (Knipper 2014), which was only mtDNA. http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ironagedna.shtml




confused

Glauberg is near modern Frankfurt ..........a long way away from La Tene Switzerland .................how is it linked?

[Agamemnon]

Understood. I've posted similar maps on multiple occasions. My hypothesis is that Bell Beaker and Urnfield helped spread U152 to areas that became La Tene and Hallstatt cores as well as most of western and central Europe; with Hallstatt and La Tene being prime sources for it's presence in Britain. This is not to preclude some U152 arrival with Bell Beaker but I don't believe BB is the primary vehicle for U152 in Britain as it's not widespread thoughout the Isles as say L21.

Totally second that, U152 seems to have been relegated to Central-Eastern BB and to have spread mostly with Urnfield, Halstatt and La Tène.

[Jean M]

confused

Glauberg is near modern Frankfurt ..........a long way away from La Tene Switzerland .................how is it linked?

La Tène in Switzerland just happened to be the first place where anyone discovered artefacts of a vanished culture that no archaeologist had seen before. This was in the 19th century. Very soon after objects were found in the lake there, similar objects were found in France, which were described as "in the La Tène style." So it came about that the culture was named after the place.

This has confused many people ever since. Not just you, I assure you. Because the culture has the same name as the place, it is a common error to assume that the culture actually started at La Tène. We now know that is completely false. So the name is very misleading.

[alan]

I just can't let go of my reservation about this. The SNP occurrences (or lack them I should say) between the P311 MRCA and U106, Z381, P312, U152 and DF27 makes me question a dual route for the P311 family. It's like the P311 MRCA slingshot his family in two directions from the Black Sea into Central Europe and North-Central Europe in lightning speed. They must have been the "scouting" or "expeditionary" part of the tribe or kicked out or something into exile.

.... so I have to look more at U106 and Scandinavia. There is a book available from Thomas Price that you can see on google books.
"Ancient Scandinavia: An Archaeological History from the First Humans to the Vikings", T. Douglas Price, 2015, Oxford Press.

Price cites work by Bender Jørgensen and shows Bell Beaker finds in Zealand almost on top of Copenhagen although it is rare compared to the Jutland Peninsula. See about page 177.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dbC6BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=Bender+J%C3%B8rgensen+Bell+Beaker&source=bl&ots=3ojsI_nltK&sig=qrpJGPg_CahC4b-bOtcE-NUbUGY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKutvy2LXRAhVBwlQKHZroAG4Q6AEINzAF#v=on epage&q=Bell&f=false

We know the Vikings were very good seafarers. This is long before any Germanic speaker, but the Bell Beakers were THE seafarers of their day all along the Western Med, the Atlantic and up to the Scandinavia.

The Unectice culture is still intriguing. It's a little late but played some kind of key role or was outcome of the Beaker-Corded Ware contact zones. the discovery of strong evidence for horse riding on human legbones from beaker burials is important imo.

[alan]

La Tène in Switzerland just happened to be the first place where anyone discovered artefacts of a vanished culture that no archaeologist had seen before. This was in the 19th century. Very soon after objects were found in the lake there, similar objects were found in France, which were described as "in the La Tène style." So it came about that the culture was named after the place.

This has confused many people ever since. Not just you, I assure you. Because the culture has the same name as the place, it is a common error to assume that the culture actually started at La Tène. We now know that is completely false. So the name is very misleading.

As I understand it the La Tene style is generally thought to have arisen roughly in the parts of eastern France and western Germany near Luxemburg.

[TigerMW]

There are three alternatives to a P311 subclades origin scenario.

1. The P311 MRCA existing east of the Carpathians and the pre-U106/U106 line went north and west along with Corded Ware while the pre-P312/P312 line went south and west along the Danube valley.

2. L51 and the P311 MRCA line (including both the pre-U106/U106 and pre-P312/P312) went south and west along the Danube and U106 somehow leaked north or was nearly born on a boat on the way to Scandinavia. P311 itself may not have popped until the Hungarian Plains.

However, there is a third. You can see that non-P312 people may see things from a different point of view

2. L51 and the P311 MRCA line (including both the pre-U106/U106 and pre-P312/P312) went north and west along with Corded Ware.

>Any educated guesses on the origin of the earliest branches of U106, i.e. Z381 and U106 itself?

Iain responded,
"My thoughts on the matter are this.

I've dated the origin of U106 to between 3867 BC and 2558 BC, and most likely close to the middle of that range. We see a virtual absence of haplogroup R in Europe before 3500 BC, and a proliferation of both R1a and R1b from 2800 BC onwards. We have few burials to identify what's going on in the intervening period, but the archaeologically big ones affecting central Europe are obviously the Corded Ware culture and Bell Beaker cultures.

In the early part of this period, we see the R-Z2013 branch of R-M269 present in the Eurasian steppe, and there is a growing wealth of evidence that the Yamnaya homeland represents the origin of both the Indo-European cultures and their R-M269 carriers into the Europe.

The timing of this is unclear. There was a mass movement from east to west, but it consisted of both R1a and R1b. The early Corded Ware burials we have are all R1a. This may be a population effect or it may indicate that R1b didn't participate in this early advance. The earlier R1a burials concentrate further north in modern Russia than the R1b Yamnaya burials. My money is on both R1a and R1b-M269 participating in the Corded Ware migration, but perhaps starting from mostly different origins - a little bit like the American land grab started from multiple European countries. This would fit in with the latter part of the probability range. But it's not the only interpretation.

Similarly, we see those same R-Z2013 branches in south-eastern Europe, following Kurgan Wave III into the Danube valley and beyond, but not generally in north-western Europe. There's the possibility, raised by I forget whom on this forum last year, that the R1b-M269 arrival comes from this migration, and later the Globular Amphorae culture that cut up through Germany to the western Baltic. This would fit in with the earlier part of the probability range, so I don't think it can be ruled out.

That would place the origin of L11 somewhere in the Corded Ware / Globular Amphorae regions. From the earliest burials, this seems likely to have been in or near modern Germany. It's where the northern distribution of L48+Z18 and the southern distribution of Z156+U198 have the greatest overlap. My suspicion is that it was probably somewhere within a couple of hundred miles of Hamburg. Last I checked, U106's brother clade, DF100, seems to have a similar distribution. P312 would be the weirdo, having spread and diversified further very rapidly, and now no longer having a distribution indicative of its origin.

I see a geographic split at some point in the early part of U106, corresponding to the aforementioned L48+Z18 and Z156+U198 groups. I suspect the former group went into the Nordic Bronze Age, while the latter group was carried off into the Rhine valley Bell Beaker groups. I suspect what we're seeing here is cultural appropriation: it starts off as being a "native" European culture, then gets appropriated by sections of the Corded Ware culture (the Bell Beaker burials are mostly P312) and then gets adopted by Z156 and U198. These two clades seem to join the party too late to carry it off into the more southern parts of Europe, and end up sticking in the Rhine valley. The geographic split seems quite clear, but the inaccuracy in the dates makes it hard to pin things down more definitely.

For the future, I'm not sure I expect many early U106 burials. The tree structures of U106 and P312 indicate that U106 started out as a fairly minor clade which grew slowly, while P312 blossomed and diversified very quickly, then settled down into a more stable population. I'm going to try to compute actual numbers for this in the coming weeks, if I can.

Take this all with a pinch of salt. Anyone who's been around this game for a year or more will see how the interpretations change as more data comes in. A lot of this origins business isn't very "good" science: it's speculation and interpretation. So expect the above to change, and my opinions with it.

Cheers,

Iain."

[Agamemnon]

I grew up right next to La Tène BTW.

[TigerMW]

There is a third significant subclade of P311 that I've kind of ignored. It's really no different than L238, DF19 and DF99 though in terms of size, actually more along DF19's size (being decent sized).

Iain McDonald wrote me a follow-up email that he thought DF100 was the key. DF100 is an equivalent to CTS4528 but we've found it's ancestor that branches directly from P311 is S1194. So it is S1194 that we should consider along with U106, P312 and their early branches.

You can see a few of these folks in the R1b Basal project under the following subgroupings.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1bBasalSubclades?iframe=yresults
_k. R1b-P310 > S1194 > A8039
_l1f. R1b-P310: P311 > S1194 > CTS4528+ & / or DF100+
_l1f1. R1b-CTS4528 > S14328+
_l1f2. R1b-CTS4528 > S18067+
_l1f2a. R1b-CTS4528 > S18067 > S11481+
_l1f3. R1b-CTS4528*

There are a couple Netherlands folks, a Belgium and South Africa. ummm.. I just read in Price's book about archaeology in Scandinavia that the Danish Beakers were derived from the Dutch/Rhenish area.

The Bell Beakers are a fascinating group indeed.

[vettor]

La Tène in Switzerland just happened to be the first place where anyone discovered artefacts of a vanished culture that no archaeologist had seen before. This was in the 19th century. Very soon after objects were found in the lake there, similar objects were found in France, which were described as "in the La Tène style." So it came about that the culture was named after the place.

This has confused many people ever since. Not just you, I assure you. Because the culture has the same name as the place, it is a common error to assume that the culture actually started at La Tène. We now know that is completely false. So the name is very misleading.

I understand that Glauberg was the "royal" homeland of the celts, but are Glauberg artefacts the same as La Tene and Halstatt ?

If so, then have they dated these Glauberg items .?........................

It just proves my theory that Celts lived firstly in Central Germany of Gallic stock , before ever venturing into the alps

[Jean M]

I understand that Glauberg was the "royal" homeland of the celts

Glauberg was one of many "princely" seats among the peoples that we can deduce spoke Celtic languages. There was never a "king of the Celts", because these Celtic speakers were divided into many different tribes, who were never united. So there is not a single royal centre, but many of them. Based on various types of evidence, it is clear that Celtic languages were spoken long before the La Tène culture arose. My guess is that Proto-Celtic was spoken by, and spread by people of the Late Bell Beaker culture. That is why there is so much intetest in the Bell Beaker culture. Hence this thread.

The timeline of the Celts. Click to enlarge:

13533

[Jean M]

are Glauberg artefacts the same as La Tene and Halstatt ? If so, then have they dated these Glauberg items .?

Extract from Blood of the Celts:


Glauberg (Hesse, Germany) is a fine example of a late Hallstatt/early La Tène (6th–4th century BC) princely seat. Like the Heuneburg, it is a fortified hilltop with farms and burials on the slopes below it. In July 1996 archaeologists were excited to discover beside one of the burial mounds the almost complete statue of a man soon dubbed the 'Glauberg prince'. Intriguingly the statue is crowned with something akin to the laurel wreaths bestowed upon Roman emperors. A similar headdress appears on several roughly contemporary statues and other depictions from the Hallstatt zone.

The mound beside this striking statue had already been excavated. It contained the princely inhumation of a man in his 20s, which had escaped the attention of tomb robbers. It was so well preserved that it has yielded a mass of information. There can be no doubt that the statue portrays this young lord, for the burial contained a magnificent gold torc which matched that on the statue. Other jewelry included arm-rings and a finger-ring, also as seen on the statue. It was even possible to detect the remains of his leaf crown.

The buried prince was equipped as a warrior with an iron sword, spearheads, arrowheads in a quiver, and a shield. Bioarchaeological tests revealed that he had enjoyed a high-quality diet with plenty of animal protein. By contrast individuals buried in pits nearby had numerous joint lesions, indicating a strenuous lifestyle. Their diet was much poorer than that of the prince. They ate a lot of millet and less animal protein. Their burials were so informal that it even crossed the minds of their excavators that they might be slaves. We cannot be sure. What stands out is the contrast between prince and pauper.

[vettor]

Glauberg was one of many "princely" seats among the peoples that we can deduce spoke Celtic languages. There was never a "king of the Celts", because these Celtic speakers were divided into many different tribes, who were never united. So there is not a single royal centre, but many of them. Based on various types of evidence, it is clear that Celtic languages were spoken long before the La Tène culture arose. My guess is that Proto-Celtic was spoken by, and spread by people of the Late Bell Beaker culture. That is why there is so much intetest in the Bell Beaker culture. Hence this thread.

The timeline of the Celts. Click to enlarge:

13533

This is my point..............Halstatt celts must have been different to La Tene celts and artifacts cannot be guaranteed that they where the same , ie, halstatt celts did not create La Tene celts.
This is why the subclades of these areas are so different from each other even though the haplogroup is the same

[Callingstar]

La Tene is a Gaulish culture and the tribal alegeance between Gauls of Auvergne and Lyon with those of Switzerland were very well established by the Roman conquest.

[Jean M]

Halstatt celts must have been different to La Tene celts and artifacts cannot be guaranteed that they where the same , ie, halstatt celts did not create La Tene celts.

Glauberg is one example of a site that extends from the Hallstatt period into the La Tène period without a break. There are others. The cultural transition from the Hallstatt period into the La Tène period is one of both continuity and change. The cultural continuity is so great that no expert questions that the La Tène culture sprang from the Hallstatt culture. However there are sufficient differences to warrant giving the two cultures different names. For example the Hallstatt culture had four-wheeled wagons; the La Tène culture had two-wheeled chariots. I do go into this in more detail in Blood of the Celts. Or you could read any book on the Celts by an academic archaeologist, such as Barry Cunliffe.


This is why the subclades of these areas are so different from each other even though the haplogroup is the same

The Hallstatt culture covered the same territory as the La Tène culture in central Europe. All we have at the moment is modern DNA. So we cannot be certain what subclades of R1b-P312 were prevalent in either culture. But we do have ancient DNA from Bell Beaker in Germany, that tells us that U152 was already in the area before the Hallstatt period.

We also need to bear in mind that Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland form part of the territory invaded by Germani after the end of the Western Roman Empire. They are not currently populated 100% by people of Celtic ancestry.

[GoldenHind]

Glauberg was one of many "princely" seats among the peoples that we can deduce spoke Celtic languages. There was never a "king of the Celts", because these Celtic speakers were divided into many different tribes, who were never united. So there is not a single royal centre, but many of them. Based on various types of evidence, it is clear that Celtic languages were spoken long before the La Tène culture arose. My guess is that Proto-Celtic was spoken by, and spread by people of the Late Bell Beaker culture. That is why there is so much intetest in the Bell Beaker culture. Hence this thread.

The timeline of the Celts. Click to enlarge:

13533

Thanks for the chart, which I found very interesting. I would love to see a similar one for the Germanni and their language.

I do have a couple of questions.

I note there is a gap between 2800 BC (Old European) and 2200 BC (Early Celtic etc.) Do you have a proposal for the Bell Beaker language in that interval?

I read on Wikipedia that Mallory has recently suggested that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "Northwest Indo-European," was ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic. I am curious what you make of that.
[/B]

[Nibelung]

Quick and dirty would be crossing Ogham/Primitive Irish and Old Irish with early Latin. Then you could fill in the missing details with some Welsh, Gaulish, Celtiberian, some Germanic of course, and even Tocharian and Hittite/Anatolian.

[vettor]

Glauberg is one example of a site that extends from the Hallstatt period into the La Tène period without a break. There are others. The cultural transition from the Hallstatt period into the La Tène period is one of both continuity and change. The cultural continuity is so great that no expert questions that the La Tène culture sprang from the Hallstatt culture. However there are sufficient differences to warrant giving the two cultures different names. For example the Hallstatt culture had four-wheeled wagons; the La Tène culture had two-wheeled chariots. I do go into this in more detail in Blood of the Celts. Or you could read any book on the Celts by an academic archaeologist, such as Barry Cunliffe.



The Hallstatt culture covered the same territory as the La Tène culture in central Europe. All we have at the moment is modern DNA. So we cannot be certain what subclades of R1b-P312 were prevalent in either culture. But we do have ancient DNA from Bell Beaker in Germany, that tells us that U152 was already in the area before the Hallstatt period.

We also need to bear in mind that Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland form part of the territory invaded by Germani after the end of the Western Roman Empire. They are not currently populated 100% by people of Celtic ancestry.

We clearly know that the R1b in Halstatt and La tene are not form the Germani who invaded south Germany and the alps only 1600 years ago , clearly the marker is Gallic/Celtic.

This makes the Italo-Gallic/Celtic viable and not some Germani coming from the coastal north

[Jean M]

Thanks for the chart, which I found very interesting. I would love to see a similar one for the Germanni and their language.

You will get one in my forthcoming book on the Anglo-Saxons.


I note there is a gap between 2800 BC (Old European) and 2200 BC (Early Celtic etc.) Do you have a proposal for the Bell Beaker language in that interval?

I presume that "Old European" (the earliest form of IE in Europe) continued to be spoken. Gradually it would diverge into local/regional dialects, as different groups of its speakers had spread further and further apart and were less and less in contact. Language is always changing. Once these dialects had reached a point that they were not mutually intelligible, then linguists count them as different languages.


I read on Wikipedia that Mallory has recently suggested that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "Northwest Indo-European," was ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic. I am curious what you make of that.

I see it as another version of "Old European". There are commonalites in these European IE languages.

[Jean M]

We clearly know that the R1b in Halstatt and La tene are not form the Germani who invaded south Germany and the alps only 1600 years ago , clearly the marker is Gallic/Celtic.

Yes exactly Vettor. That is what I am saying. So just looking at the distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups today around some of the famous Celtic sites in south Germany and the Alps does not tell us what haplogroups were predominent in the Celtic speakers of the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures.

[Pigmon]

Understood. I've posted similar maps on multiple occasions. My hypothesis is that Bell Beaker and Urnfield helped spread U152 to areas that became La Tene and Hallstatt cores as well as most of western and central Europe; with Hallstatt and La Tene being prime sources for it's presence in Britain. This is not to preclude some U152 arrival with Bell Beaker but I don't believe BB is the primary vehicle for U152 in Britain as it's not widespread thoughout the Isles as say L21.

Hey Mark:
Congrats to your becoming co-administrator of the U-152 and subclades project!!!! Great to have you working for us U152/L2ers, etc.

[Tomenable]

Below is my recent map of the spread of PIE and of R1a and R1b hgs, based on archaeology and on well over 100 ancient DNA samples. I think that PIE expanded into Europe along two routes, a southern route dominated by R1b-P312 with R1b-Z2103, and a northern route dominated by R1a-M417. As for R1b-U106, it could as well go along the northern route together with R1a, considering that U106 has not been found in any Bell Beaker remains thus far. The oldest known U106 is RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania), and that burial was located in Corded Ware cultural zone. Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Below is my recent map of the spread of PIE and of R1a and R1b hgs, based on archaeology and on well over 100 ancient DNA samples. I think that PIE expanded into Europe along two routes, a southern route dominated by R1b-P312 with R1b-Z2103, and a northern route dominated by R1a-M417. As for R1b-U106, it could as well go along the northern route together with R1a, considering that U106 has not been found in any Bell Beaker remains thus far. The oldest known U106 is RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania), and that burial was located in Corded Ware cultural zone. Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

IMO the expansion of PIE didn't begin in the middle Volga, it should be shifted more southwest (it's quite clear now from the archaeology & DNA you have cited). Otherwise, it's very nice

[rms2]

The expansion of PIE didn't begin in the middle Volga, it should be shifted more southwest (IMO it's quite clear now from the archaeology & DNA you have cited that). Otherwise, it's very nice

That is why there was so much R1b-L51 in it.

[Lugus]

Below is my recent map of the spread of PIE and of R1a and R1b hgs, based on archaeology and on well over 100 ancient DNA samples. I think that PIE expanded into Europe along two routes, a southern route dominated by R1b-P312 with R1b-Z2103, and a northern route dominated by R1a-M417. As for R1b-U106, it could as well go along the northern route together with R1a, considering that U106 has not been found in any Bell Beaker remains thus far. The oldest known U106 is RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania), and that burial was located in Corded Ware cultural zone. Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

So by 2000 BC still no IE in France and Iberia?

[Heber]

Below is my recent map of the spread of PIE and of R1a and R1b hgs, based on archaeology and on well over 100 ancient DNA samples. I think that PIE expanded into Europe along two routes, a southern route dominated by R1b-P312 with R1b-Z2103, and a northern route dominated by R1a-M417. As for R1b-U106, it could as well go along the northern route together with R1a, considering that U106 has not been found in any Bell Beaker remains thus far. The oldest known U106 is RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania), and that burial was located in Corded Ware cultural zone. Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

So are you suggesting R1b and P312 reached Ireland 2,000 BC, before anywhere else on Atlantic Europe, France, Iberia and subsequently expanded from there to dominate Atlantic Europe. Highly unlikely.

[razyn]

So are you suggesting R1b and P312 reached Ireland 2,000 BC, before anywhere else on Atlantic Europe, France, Iberia...

There is an arrow for Rathlin Island, a dated site with L21, and that's why "Ireland;" but the arrow comes from somewhere that's also Atlantic Europe, if you aren't just fixated on Celtic from the West, or some such theory. Baltic, Elbe and Rhine valleys, the north side of the Alps etc. also have R1b>P312 before 2000 BCE. And Tomenable mentions R1a as well as R1b, so it's not just a P312 map anyhow.

[Tomenable]

So by 2000 BC still no IE in France and Iberia?

Not enough data from France. But in Iberia - most likely still no IE.

And in North Italy, there was no IE admixture in Remedello culture:

Remedello RISE487 (3483-3107 BC) - Y-DNA I2a1a1 - GEDmatch kit T699825
Remedello RISE489 (2908-2578 BC) - Y-DNA I2a1a1a - GEDmatch kit T135721
Remedello RISE486 (2134-1773 BC) - Y-DNA I2a1a1a - GEDmatch kit T319214

The oldest Iberian sample with significant "Steppe" admixture seems to be this:

ATP9 (1700-1518 BC) - a woman - GEDmatch kit M116706

However, Genetiker thinks that "Steppe" was in Iberia already before ~3000 BC:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=200897&viewfull=1#post200897

Rms2 quoted some excerpts about Iberia from "The Civilization of the Goddess" here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=201026&viewfull=1#post201026

So maybe indeed some IEs came to Iberia much earlier? But could they come by sea?


So are you suggesting R1b and P312 reached Ireland 2,000 BC, before anywhere else on Atlantic Europe, France, Iberia and subsequently expanded from there to dominate Atlantic Europe. Highly unlikely.

We have Rathlin Island samples. So we have evidence of P312 in Ireland that early on. By contrast, there is no evidence from France. In North Italy Remedello samples show no signs of IE admixture.

[Lugus]

Not enough data from France. But in Iberia - most likely still no IE.

The oldest Iberian sample with significant "Steppe" admixture seems to be this:

ATP9 (1700-1518 BC) - a woman - GEDmatch kit M116706

Thanks Tomenable, as far as Iberia is concerned that fits nicely the archaeological evidence. Around 2000 BC new burial practices start showing up (cremation, cist graves and urns, according to my archaeology book). I don't know about France but DF27 and perhaps also U152 must have been there sometime before.

[raspberry]

Below is my recent map of the spread of PIE and of R1a and R1b hgs, based on archaeology and on well over 100 ancient DNA samples. I think that PIE expanded into Europe along two routes, a southern route dominated by R1b-P312 with R1b-Z2103, and a northern route dominated by R1a-M417. As for R1b-U106, it could as well go along the northern route together with R1a, considering that U106 has not been found in any Bell Beaker remains thus far. The oldest known U106 is RISE98 dated to 2275-2032 BC from Lilla Beddinge in Southern Sweden (Scania), and that burial was located in Corded Ware cultural zone. Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample:

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif
How accurate is this since the Villabruna (in northern Italy (not even mentioned in your map) and who has a significant Western Hunter Gatherer admixture wich is suggested mostly Middle Eastern with some ancestry of the oldest European Hunters) sample was found (14,000 years old)? I have doubts but dont lynch me for saying that;). Wich ancient samples did you use for this (seems like not any recent)?? Lets assume that you dont accept it that R1b is a West Asian haplogroup in origin, still it proofs that there were earlier and most likely different migrations to Europe. As far as I understood this map demonstrates the spread of haplogroups R1a/b..

[Bollox79]

I can't wait for this BB paper to come out!!! That will maybe give us a clue as to whether any U106 came south... or stayed north with CW and then split somewhere as we have the Northern clades dominated by L48 and sub groups... while the Southern clades/subgroups appear dominated by U198 and of course Z156... I'm not assigning them to cultures per se... we REALLY don't know until we find aDNA that is positive for U106+ in an archaeological context... we have the RISE 98 as Tomenable mentioned... but how typical is that sample? No one matches him under any SNPs under U106... while we do have modern day people matching both 3drif-16 and 6drif-3 at several SNPs under U106... I really think it comes down to aDNA... to see what we get! Also remember that the Driffield Terrace U106ers were most like Welsh autosomal wise (and the Iron Age sample tested with them) but had more affinity with the Eastern Baltic than did the other samples... argues for a Northern/Baltic expansion? For now? Makes me wonder if U106 came North at first with CW, but Z156 (and DF98/DF96) came South at one point... when did they do this? We need more aDNA from settlements in Germany and along the Rhine and more testing in NE France/Belgium also!

Or did U106 split in the East and go both North and South!!!!???? :-). Can't wait also to see what haplogroups will come out of those Alemanni from the 7th century (I think) or the many medieval skeletons from the Netherlands... I suppose it's just a matter of time, but I hate waiting lol!

Cheers!