Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[Bollox79]

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

Your map corresponds very well with Dr. Iain's map of U106 and R1b etc... http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

[rms2]

Hate to disagree with Iain McDonald and all those beautiful graphics, but I think U106 went around the north side of the Carpathians with Corded Ware. As Tomenable pointed out earlier, RISE98, that U106 from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, had a Corded Ware autosomal profile rather than a Bell Beaker one. And he is the oldest U106 thus far.

[alan]

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.
Te
I personally think the earliest beaker users in iberia, southern France and Italy 2800-2400BC were non IE and non-R1b, the steppe genes and P312 genes and beaker use only came together c 2550 when another group adopted aspects of beaker culture and that it was only in the very end of the beaker that those genes spread back into SW Europe. No evidence contradicts that so far but I could be very wrong.

[alan]

I am heavily leaning towards U106 taking the route north of the Carpathians towards the Baltic too. It's odd that it's not in central European corded ware but who knows why? I did once read about a south Baltic shore battle axe burial tradition that did strike me as being beaker- like in its orientation choices

[Gravetto-Danubian]

At least as far as the Austrian-Hungary region is concerned, IMcD rightly noted that U106 is mostly due to Germanic in-migration (although he calls in "back-migration"). I.e. recent founder effect from northwest (eg Proto-Bavarians etc), but we should also recall that 2 of "conquering Hungarians" (comingfrom ~ Ukraine / south Russia) were U106, acc to their STR profile

[vettor]

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

All linguists state that the first split from PIE happened around 4000BC in Anatolia .........I do believe PIE originated north of the black sea...........but as per linguists it must have went south first

[bolek]

All linguists state that the first split from PIE happened around 4000BC in Anatolia

It is not true, there are many opinions and theories. For example Kazanas in his recent article points to many fallacies of PIE:

http://indiafacts.org/fallacies-proto-indo-european/

[Lank]

As Tomenable pointed out earlier, RISE98, that U106 from the Nordic Battle Axe cemetery of Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, had a Corded Ware autosomal profile rather than a Bell Beaker one. And he is the oldest U106 thus far.
Did he? David's analysis (eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html) shows RISE98 clustering just to the north of modern-day Scandinavians. That is a significant western shift compared to RISE94, an older (R1a-Z645) Battle Axe sample from Sweden, who clusters much farther east.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Did he? David's analysis (eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html) shows RISE98 clustering just to the north of modern-day Scandinavians. That is a significant western shift compared to RISE94, an older (R1a-Z645) Battle Axe sample from Sweden, who clusters much farther east.

Whilst it might lie west of Battle Axe sample overall, the individual breakdowns I get for RISE 94 and RISE 98 are completely counter-intuitive, and stand out from other Nordic BA & LBA individuals. Not sure what to make of it, RISE 98 is on the lower end of coverage. But anyhow, RISE 98 looks very eastern in origin, choosing Afansievo as the source of its EMBA admixture, but being rather heavily admixed with western MNE groups (='loschbour', Hungary HG, Espertadt, LBK). On the other hand, RISE_98 chooses an odd mix of Kotias (ie close to Black Sea or Kuban?) and Motala (local) admixture.
All other Nordic BA and LBA samples are the expected mix of Yamnaya and north European middle Neolithic.


Nordic_LN:RISE98
Afanasievo 32.55 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 17.6 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 14.1 %
Kotias:KK1 12.7 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 11.4 %
LBK_EN:I0056 11.3 %


BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94
Motala_HG:I0012 36.25 %
Kotias:KK1 30.5 %
Salzmuende_MN:I0551 10.75 %
Afanasievo 8.25 %
Remedello_BA:RISE487 7.25 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 5.5 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0.75 %


Nordic_LN:RISE71 ('regular' Nordic LNBA)

Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 43.9 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 40.65 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 8.15 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 5.1 %
Yoruba 2 %
Afanasievo 0.2 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0 %

All d. <0.05


Not to be taken literally, but I guess it suggests that where an individual comes to rest on a PCA isn't a mirror of his/ her deeper origins.

[rms2]

Did he? David's analysis (eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/genetic-substructures-among-late.html) shows RISE98 clustering just to the north of modern-day Scandinavians. That is a significant western shift compared to RISE94, an older (R1a-Z645) Battle Axe sample from Sweden, who clusters much farther east.

Well, he actually said RISE98 is closer to CW than to BB. Here's the quote:



. . . Autosomally, RISE98 was more similar to other Corded Ware samples (the ones with R1a), than to any Bell Beaker sample . . .


Original post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=208584&viewfull=1#post208584)

RISE98 was definitely in the wrong place to have been a Bell Beaker man, and his burial was not a BB burial.

[Lank]

Well, he actually said RISE98 is closer to CW than to BB. Here's the quote:



Original post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=208584&viewfull=1#post208584)

Is it closer to the typical Corded Ware sample, then? I thought the Bell Beaker samples available had 50% Yamnaya-related ancestry, like modern-day Scandinavians, whom RISE98 is fairly close to.

RISE98 does not really look like the 75% Yamnaya-related CW samples. Might want to ask David for further details.

[rms2]

I guess you should address that to Tomenable. I was quoting him.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

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?



To make a final 'educated guess' before some more papers hopefully come through, I suspect there will be little direct Bronze Age steppe movement into southern Europe.

For Iberia, 'steppe' admixture was mediated predominantly by (1) individuals like the ATP 9 individual ("BA Iberia") and (2) central European Urnfield (represented by the LBA Halberstadt), but direct BB & even CWC is perceptible in different sub-regions of Iberia; but this could be due to Vandals and Visigoths, e.g. Basques have some direct input from Yamnaya which other Iberians do not. Overall, I cant discern a clear pattern or gradient.

Of course, Halberstadt is heavily steppe descended, so there's no real issue.
On the other hand, ATP 9's eastern shift, is not just from steppe, but something directly from the Caucasus, perhaps via the Balkans & italy. But it's small .
Iberia_BA:ATP9
Iberia_EN:CB13 54.55 %
Villabruna:I9030 15.55 %
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1532 9.95 %
Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409 6.9 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 5.5 %
Kotias:KK1 4.35 %



For Italy; there is a clear clinal differentiation.

(1) northern Italy: a massive founder effect from a mid-to-late central European Bronze Age groups occurred. Again, Halberstadt seems to fit quite well, not surprising given that is it from the Urnfield culture, and we see a massive shift to cremation in Italy at this time.

(2) the main vector of eastern shift in central (Tuscany) is something being captured by EBA Armenia - also found in Greeks & Albanians. This is corroborated by the appearance of Balkan-style tumuli in central -eastern Italy in the mid -late Bronze Age.

(3) In southern Italy, the the main shift is represented by way of Anatolia Chalcolithic and Jordan Bronze Age (proto-historic Mediterranean & historic Arabs movements).

[sweuro]

To make a final 'educated guess' before some more papers hopefully come through, I suspect there will be little direct Bronze Age steppe movement into southern Europe.

For Iberia, 'steppe' admixture was mediated predominantly by (1) individuals like the ATP 9 individual ("BA Iberia") and (2) central European Urnfield (represented by the LBA Halberstadt), but direct BB & even CWC is perceptible in different sub-regions of Iberia; but this could be due to Vandals and Visigoths, e.g. Basques have some direct input from Yamnaya which other Iberians do not.
How can it be mediatated by people like ATP9 when he has less steppe than modern iberians ? makes no sense. The ATP9 invidiual is just a more steppe version of Chalcolithic iberians.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

How can it be mediatated by people like ATP9 when he has less steppe than modern iberians ? makes no sense. The ATP9 invidiual is just a more steppe version of Chalcolithic iberians.


I suggest at least 2 main sources of 'steppe' shift in Iberia, and a few minor ones (even Iran Neolithic, Nordic LBA)
A cumulative effect, but this might not correlate linearly with the founder effect of DF27 itself.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13611&d=1484625063

[sweuro]

I stated there are 2 main sources of 'steppe' shift in Iberia, and a few minor ones.
Simple addition.
Yes, but ATP9 is not a source, but rather the result of that process of new mixture coming from central europeans.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Yes, but ATP9 is not a source, but rather the result of that process of new mixture coming from central europeans.

Of course it can, for anything which came after it, like modern Spaniards.
For fine grained hypotheses, we need to start using MBA and Iron Age individuals, as "Yamnaya" or "Barcin" become less meaningful.

Or do you find it unlikely that modern Spaniards have BA ancestry from their own country ?

[sweuro]

Of course it can, for anything which came after it, like modern Spaniards.
For fine grained hypotheses, we need to start using MBA and Iron Age individuals, as "Yamnaya" or "Barcin" become less meaningful.

Or do you find it unlikely that modern Spaniards have BA ancestry from their own country ?
Of course, the BA iberians are almost the same as modern iberians, but still not quite the same, for example on Eurogenes K13 the ATP9 scores 3% baltic, when modern spaniards average is around 10%, so there still had to come more arrivals from north of the Pyrenees.

That table above doesn't make much sense, because there is too much redundancy and overlap between components. A few different components should be enough. Spaniards are genetically a very homogeneus population, so they should all come from the same source populations, it seems a bit random the preference of one component over another.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Of course, the BA iberians are almost the same as modern iberians, but still not quite the same, for example on Eurogenes K13 the ATP9 scores 3% baltic, when modern spaniards average is around 10%, so there still had to come more arrivals from north of the Pyrenees.

that's terrific, but you're missing the point. In fact, that is the point, because that's what ie been saying all along.
The above does not imply that modern Spaniards are ATP9. It rather suggests that a population like ATP9 left significant ancestry in some parts of Iberia, and not so much in others. They have other ancestry from other groups , and to different degrees in different regions of Iberia .
Not too odd to me.



That table above doesn't make much sense, because there is too much redundancy and overlap between components. A few different components should be enough.

It isn't overfitted. Most of the modern populations are actually a combination 3 or 4 major elements, which are often different between and within countries. But to detect rarer, less common ancestry, you need to include more groups in the test, otherwise your missing details and rarer events, and under-utilising evidence.

For example: you can see that Albanians are broadly 26% Tumulus culture, 26% MNE, 26% Armenia EBA, plus 5% Anatolia Chalcolithic and 5% Baden (not even noise, probably real). Not overfitted and on the sensical.
Northern Italy: 40% Urnfield, 15% EEF, 15% MNE (=local Copper Age), 15% Armenia EBA.

Fitting a modern group simply on EHG, EEF, CHG, WHG tells you virtually nothing about events post 2000 BC.
You haven't seen the full list of EUropeans tested, so you cannot really be sure what it means. But in actual fact, it is possible that post-beaker and Corded Ware expansions in Later Bronze Age Europe have made major impact throughout Europe. Not the least is the Urnfield one I suggested - from Ireland (40%) to northern Italy (40%) to eastern Europe (20%) - beginning from central Europe. Funnily enough, Urnfield had R1a, R1b, I2.. Another one is the Tumulus culture from the Carpathian basin. Archaeologists have suggested it for decades.
We might know for sure soon when we get more samples, because the distribution is a bit uneven now, so the final result will change, but the overall pattern won't.


Spaniards are genetically a very homogeneus population, so they should all come from the same source populations, it seems a bit random the preference of one component over another.
Iberians being overall homogeneous today doesn't mean there isn't detectable historic structure.
Unless your going to suggest that there were no changes in Copper, Bronze, Iron Age and Medieval periods which left a differential impact throughout the swathe of Iberia. If so, the error lies with you.

But back to the main point; there might be at least several sources of 'steppe' ancestry in Spain; a more low -level contact between local Iberiana and 'exotic' Beaker groups in the late Copper - early Bronze Age (and could be from external 'steppe' groups or ones already within Iberia which maintained separateness for a while), followed by a much more significant one in the late Bronze Age (something like Urnfield). Lastly, some detectable Germanic impact here and there.

[sweuro]

Iberians can be modeled mostly as a mix of Iberia Chalcolithic (which is a richer WHG version of MN Iberians), Central-European Bronze Age groups (such as Bell-Beaker, Unetice, etc.), some degree of West-Asian (caucasus, near-east), altough not as high as some other southern-european groups, and some minor north-african in some regions. No need to use 20 components at all, because then it becomes too random and meaningless. One can use also ATP9 but he's already too similar to modern iberians, so it's not that informative.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Iberians can be modeled mostly as a mix of Iberia Chalcolithic (which is a richer WHG version of MN Iberians), Central-European Bronze Age groups (such as Bell-Beaker, Unetice, etc.), some degree of West-Asian (caucasus, near-east), altough not as high as some other southern-european groups, and some minor north-african in some regions. No need to use 20 components at all, because then it becomes too random and meaningless. One can use also ATP9 but he's already too similar to modern iberians, so it's not that informative.


No I don't think you understand or see, because Iberians take up 5 major components, not 20. But when testing for descent from specific later prehistoric cultures, adding more is required, because populations from other parts of Europe will have different ancestry, ie their own distinct group of 5, some of which might be shared.
Yours sounds like a lame duck model, especially given that Unetice isn't even relevant for Iberia. "A bit of west Asian or near eastern " hmm, that's sounds very detailed. But whatever floats your boat.

[sweuro]

No I don't think you understand poor fellow.
Yours sounds like a lame duck model, especially given that Unetice isn't even relevant for Iberia. "
Don't insult me, I didn't insult you. How come Unetice not relevant for Iberian ? when we know the Celts descend partially from Unetice.


A bit of west Asian or near eastern " hmm, that's sounds very detailed. But whatever floats your boat.
What more details you want ? There's not much to know at this point. Near-East is basically a mix of CHG and Levant neolithic.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Don't insult me, I didn't insult you. How come Unetice not relevant for Iberian ? when we know the Celts descend partially from Unetice.

We'll demonstrate it. Go on. You're just saying meaningless words.



What more details you want ? There's not much to know at this point. Near-East is basically a mix of CHG and Levant neolithic.

CHG and levnt Neolithic completely different components with thousands years of different history. If you're going to claim they're the same, then youre clueless. I don't mind if you are offended.
Some of your suggestions Arent even sensical to iberians. So feel free to go back to your modern calcs, as you don't have the faculty to discuss my aims.
But feel free to show a model is instead of whining in ignorance
Or did my model break a passionately held myth of yours ?

[sweuro]

CHG and levnt Neolithic completely different components with thousands years of different history. If you're going to claim they're the same, then youre clueless. I don't mind if you are offended. Some of your suggestions Arent even relevant to iberians. So feel free to go back to your modern calcs, as you don't have the faculty to discuss my aims.
But feel free to show a model is instead of whining in ignorance
When did I said CHG and Levant Neolithic are the same ? You are inventing things that I never said. I said near-east is a mix of CHG and Levant Neolithic. You are the ignorant one here, and you are using a bullshit calculator with 20 redundant components, you don't even know how that works. You got Spanish Andalusia with 33% Corded Ware and yet the other regions of Spain having close to 0%, that doesn't even make any sense.


We'll demonstrate it. Go on. You're just saying meaningless words.
What meaningless words ? The Unetice is the predecessor of Tumulus culture, of which Urnfield derives.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

When did I said CHG and Levant Neolithic are the same ? You are inventing things that I never said. I said near-east is a mix of CHG and Levant Neolithic. You are the ignorant one here, and you are using a bullshit calculator with 20 redundant components, you don't even know how that works. You got Spanish Andalusia with 33% Corded Ware and yet the other regions of Spain having close to 0%, that doesn't even make any sense.

Well then Middle East isn't actually composed of CHG. You appear to be ignorant of the fact that we have more proximate sources like Jordan Bronze Age and Iran Chalcolithic and Kura Arax to model near eastern populations. Still going about "steppe" and chg isn't particularly meaningful for nitty-gritty details. So much for that..

And this isn't a calculator, but an actual run deliberately overfitted to explore. I'm not presenting it as a definite model as source groups aren't equally spread in time and space. Yes it is weird that some CWC is in southern Spain . I can't exlain. But the different patterns within Iberia are real, and will become more meaningful with more data, which can be tightened. Iberians will end up as a variable mix of copper / bronze age iberia, something akin to Urnfield, plus few odds and ends in different regions. We will soon see.
On the other hand, you've offered no hard data, and even your gesticulations don't make sense

[sweuro]

Well then Middle East isn't actually composed of CHG, nor "Levant Neolithic". You appear to be ignorant of the fact that we have more proximate sources like Jordan Bronze Age and Iran Chalcolithic and Kura Arab to model near eastern populations. So much for that..
doesn't matter. The fact is that Jordan BA is like a levant neolithic with some CHG :

https://s24.postimg.org/s94innn11/Levant.png


But the different patterns within Iberia are real, and will become more meaningful. On the other hand, you've offered no hard data, and even your gesticulations don't make sense
The patterns are pretty much already known, I've explained it, so my words cannot be "no hard data" and "don't make sense".

[Gravetto-Danubian]

doesn't matter. The fact is that Jordan BA is like a levant neolithic with some CHG :
.

It only doesn't matter if you want to forego detailed analysis and want to hover in yesteryear. Many populations have CHG and levant Neolithic. Leaving it at that is very uninformative as we move beyond the most basic of understanding, we already know Europeans are a 4 way mix of CHG, EEF, WHG and EHG- we're beyond that now, but if that's still where you are, the DIY calculators are fine for your purpose. But if you are going to critique a different approach, you should need to understand the matter at hand.

By the way Jordan EBA has a admixture of Iran Chalcolithic, not CHG. they're distinct entities .

[sweuro]

It only doesn't matter if you want to forego detailed analysis and want to hover in yesteryear. Many populations have CHG and levant Neolithic. Leaving it at that is very uninformative as we move beyond the most basic of understanding, but that's where you are, so the DIY calculators are fine for your purpose. But if you are going to critique a different approach, you should need to understand the matter at hand.

By the way Jordan EBA has a admixture of Iran Chalcolithic, not CHG. they're distinct entities .
I already agreed with you that "pure" components like CHG or WHG are not very informative, even "Yamnaya", but to go from here to 20 components there is a stretch. I explained already how iberians can be modeled, using for example myself with nMonte stats :

"Iberia_Chalcolithic:average" 56.55
"Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569" 26.25
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:average" 13.8
"Jordan_EBA:average" 1.95
"Iran_Chalcolithic:average" 1.45

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I already agreed with you that "pure" components like CHG or WHG are not very informative, even "Yamnaya", but to go from here to 20 components there is a stretch. I explained already how iberians can be modeled, using for example myself with nMonte stats :

"Iberia_Chalcolithic:average" 56.55
"Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569" 26.25
"Armenia_Chalcolithic:average" 13.8
"Jordan_EBA:average" 1.95
"Iran_Chalcolithic:average" 1.45

I've already explained to you and agree that Iberians only need 4 or 5. Overvse the table: Can you see most components are Zeros.? They can be easily removed but were included purely for experimentation. Deliberately and necessarily so, because no 4 or 5 components cannot be used universally for all Europeans with that set up. Eg your set up won't work for Tuscans, Albanians, Lithuanians, Komi, Tajiks or even Syrians; but mine will, as I can do a bulk run of 40 + modern Eurasians, then prune accordingly for a second, individualised run. Sorry it's an eye sore, but if you stop missing the wood for the trees for a second you'd realise its utility.

Anyhow, your model doesn't teally inform when this "BB ancestry" arrived . I can guess that you're simply assuming it arrived with actual BB in the BB period. I bet most did not. I bet BB isn't the source of majority steppe shift in modern Iberians. And that's why my "stupid model with 20 components" will end up being right.

[sweuro]

Anyhow, your model doesn't teally inform when this "BB ancestry" arrived . I can guess that you're simply assuming it arrived with actual BB in the BB period. I bet most did not. I bet BB isn't the source of majority steppe shift in modern Iberians. And that's why my "stupid model with 20 components" will end up being right.
The Bell-Beaker component is not necesarily and literally Bell beaker, it's just a proxy for something genetically similar.


I've already explained to you and agree that Iberians only need 4 or 5. Do you even look at the table? Can you see most components are Zeros.? They can be easily removed but were included purely for experimentation. Deliberately and necessarily so, because no 4 or 5 components cannot be used universally for all Europeans with that set up. Eg your set up won't work for Tuscans, Albanians, Lithuanians, Komi, Tajiks or even Syrians; but mine will, as I can do a bulk run of 40 + modern Eurasians, then prune accordingly for a second, individualised run. Sorry it's an eye sore, but if you stop missing the wood for the trees for a second you'd realise its utility.
But behaviour of the run will change depending on how many and which components.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

The Bell-Beaker component is not necesarily and literally Bell beaker, it's just a proxy for something genetically similar.

Fair enough. But mine is more proximate .:) Why rest with leaving your best proxy as something of 2500 BC when something more accurate from 1300 BC exists. Without a "bulk run", I'd have had to try 10 different runs and then again for Portugese, again fro Italians, again still for Dutch? My set up told me immediately. And no one has demonstrated that yet.



But behaviour of the run will change depending on how many and which components.

I know. But it's a necessary to overfit, and I'm aware this method is a screen requiring further testing with haplotype analysis, IBD, etc. Need to do an overfitted run 1st to make sure you're not missing anything and then Taylor down . Because a run showing 4 ancestral pops looks neat and ideal but isn't real. And it misses potential multiple waves of movement from central Europe, because it subsumes everything into one rubric "BB" or "Yamnaya".
I might post a slimmed down one later

[Bas]

But in actual fact, it is possible that post-beaker and Corded Ware expansions in Later Bronze Age Europe have made major impact throughout Europe. Not the least is the Urnfield one I suggested - from Ireland (40%) to northern Italy (40%) to eastern Europe (20%)

Gravetto-Danubian (or anyone else that has run it), do you have these results for Ireland in full?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Gravetto-Danubian (or anyone else that has run it), do you have these results for Ireland in full?

Here's this for now:

Irish
Halberstadt_LBA 39.9 %
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 16.3 %
Baalberge_MN:I0559 14.65 %
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE568 12.2 %
Hungary_BA:I1502 8.6 %
Hungary_CA:I1497 2.55 %
England_Roman 0 %


English looks quite similar.


BTW: I used exactly the same source set up as above. Nothing is over-fitted, and Irish come up as a mix of 5 groups, incl a small Hungarian BA influence. This was noted in the Cassidy paper (e.g. Fig 3). They also noted distinct central German (?Baalberg ) impact. So everything makes perfect sense.
For some reason, this run is coming up with both BB and Yamnaya ancestry. Part of the reason is because I do not yet have the Rathlin samples themselves to include in the mix, if so, I suspect that'll take out the Yamnaya & Baalberg, and reduce Irish to 2 major & 2 minor ancestries:

Urnfield-ish ~ 40%
Early Irish Beakers (with their german MNE)/ Rathlin : ~ 40%
Additional continental Beakers: 10%
Hungary Cp-BA: 10%



And although Cassidy paper concluded that "At present, the Beaker culture is the most probable archaeological vector of this Steppe ancestry", this run suggests that some LBA group imparted an equally important impact.
Also note - the poor decapitated Romano-Briton gladiators didn't leave much of a legacy.

[Bas]

Here's this for now:

Irish
Halberstadt_LBA 39.9 %
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 16.3 %
Baalberge_MN:I0559 14.65 %
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE568 12.2 %
Hungary_BA:I1502 8.6 %
Hungary_CA:I1497 2.55 %
England_Roman 0 %


English looks quite similar.


BTW: I used exactly the same source set up as above. Nothing is over-fitted, and Irish come up as a mix of 5 groups, incl a small Hungarian BA influence. This was noted in the Cassidy paper (e.g. Fig 3). They also noted distinct central German (?Baalberg ) impact. So everything makes perfect sense.
For some reason, this run is coming up with both BB and Yamnaya ancestry. Part of the reason is because I do not yet have the Rathlin samples themselves to include in the mix, if so, I suspect that'll take out the Yamnaya & Baalberg, and reduce Irish to 2 major & 2 minor ancestries:

Urnfield-ish ~ 40%
Early Irish Beakers (with their german MNE)/ Rathlin : ~ 40%
Additional continental Beakers: 10%
Hungary Cp-BA: 10%



And although Cassidy paper concluded that "At present, the Beaker culture is the most probable archaeological vector of this Steppe ancestry", this run suggests that some LBA group imparted an equally important impact.
Also note - the poor decapitated Romano-Briton gladiators didn't leave much of a legacy.

Thanks, much appreciated! Very interesting if that is such a large direct movement of people from Urnfield. That Halberstadt LBA is dated from 1193-979BC. I was thinking that not only might it give a signal of Urnfield-ish movement to Ireland but maybe, in the absence of aDNA from Hallstatt and La Tene, Halberstadt_LBA is also acting as a proxy for La Tene/Hallstatt in Ireland, given that Urnfield-Hallstatt-La Tene is seen as a solid progression.

And even though it wasn't run with Rathlin, it is nice how it almost gives the 'expected' steppe migration path, from Yamnaya_Samara, up the Danube collecting a bit of Hungary CA/BA and then into Moravia with the Czech Bell Beaker and then collecting some of the German Neolithic groups with Baalberge_MN.

In any case, it looks like it is the first signal of such a migration (from Urnfield) that anybody has picked up so far. Definitely merits further investigation down the line. Apparently the Urnfield period saw a bit of upheaval in Europe, mainly around the Eastern Mediterranean, so this is likely to have caused knock-on effects in all directions.

[Dewsloth]

Also note - the poor decapitated Romano-Briton gladiators didn't leave much of a legacy.

Feel free to note anything else that strikes you about the Driffield folks. :)

[razyn]

Also note - the poor decapitated Romano-Briton gladiators didn't leave much of a legacy.
Assuming you mean a genetic legacy -- sometimes, guys may have made someone pregnant before they were decapitated. Sometimes, that might even suggest why. Although in the case of gladiators there is a much more direct, occupational risk factor.

[Dewsloth]

6DRIF23's closest known living relatives (purely Y-DNA speaking) in FTDNA's DF19 group have MDKA in Middlesex in the 1600s with a french(?) surname, but I don't know if we'll ever find out how they got there.

I'd love it if someone were to get the Driffield guys up on Gedmatch.

[corner]

Feel free to note anything else that strikes you about the Driffield folks. :)At the time, probably household names in every vicus in the North.

[rms2]

Assuming you mean a genetic legacy -- sometimes, guys may have made someone pregnant before they were decapitated. Sometimes, that might even suggest why. Although in the case of gladiators there is a much more direct, occupational risk factor.

Probably it also indicates they weren't really local in origin, otherwise their relatives who did survive to produce offspring would have left a similar signature that would be showing up in the modern English population.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Feel free to note anything else that strikes you about the Driffield folks. :)

Perhaps just a simple PCA of late Bronze, Iron & Roman Age samples to date, but weighted to consider both recent and more distant ancestry relative to each other.

13623

Most of the Roman Britons cluster toward a "Bell Beaker' continuum, as does the Maros culture in LBA Hungary.


There is a 'southern' cluster comprising of the MBA Hungary (Vatya), RISE 471 (which is a middle Bronze Age Tumulus culture individual from Germany), and ATP-9, with Remedello 486 (c. 1800 BC) forming the most 'conservative' individual.

A couple of them are shifted east, as noted in previous analyses, clustering with Halberstadt - LBA Urnfield and Nordic Iron Age.

It gets more interesting and difficult when adding modern Europeans on top of this.




In any case, it looks like it is the first signal of such a migration (from Urnfield) that anybody has picked up so far. Definitely merits further investigation down the line. Apparently the Urnfield period saw a bit of upheaval in Europe, mainly around the Eastern Mediterranean, so this is likely to have caused knock-on effects in all directions.

It might well have had significant impact around Europe. I suspect that once the lingering questions about the Copper Age, Beaker, etc are answered, the focus might shift toward later periods of European prehistory (Iron Age, Roman Age), and will further analyse what the above Litmus test suggests.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

delete

[MitchellSince1893]

Looking at the latest eurogenes blog http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/qpadm-tour-of-europe-bronze-age-invasion.html?m=1

In the associated spreadsheet, it appears modern day Latvians are located in between the corded ware and bell beaker samples in the two main population columns; Steppe_EBA and Lengyel_LN. While Ukrainian_West is located between corded ware and bell beaker in Lengyel_LN and Western_HG

Steppe_EBA
Corded_Ware_Germany 0.686
Srubanya 0.642
Udmurd 0.501
Unetice 0.5
Russian_North 0.485
Latvian 0.483
Bell_Beaker_Germany 0.482

Lengyel_LN
Bell_Beaker_Germany 0.415
Ukrainian_West 0.413
Belarusian 0.402
Polish 0.398
Swedish 0.386
Unetice 0.364
Lithuanian 0.348
Russian_West 0.327
Latvian 0.311
Estonian 0.301
Finnish 0.299
Srubanya 0.268
Corded_Ware_Germany 0.243

Western_HG
Bell_Beaker_Germany 0.103
Norwegian 0.097
Basque_French 0.096
Scottish 0.086
Ukrainian_West 0.085
English 0.084
Srubanya 0.078
Corded_Ware_Germany 0.071

tail_prob
Corded_Ware_Germany 0.842068
Belarusian 0.836844
Hungarian 0.829127
Latvian 0.821879
Bell_Beaker_Germany 0.797202

chisq
Bell_Beaker_Germany 7.023
Bulgarian 6.759
Estonian 6.732
Scottish 6.467
Corded_Ware_Germany 6.445

[Larth]

To make a final 'educated guess' before some more papers hopefully come through, I suspect there will be little direct Bronze Age steppe movement into southern Europe.

For Iberia, 'steppe' admixture was mediated predominantly by (1) individuals like the ATP 9 individual ("BA Iberia") and (2) central European Urnfield (represented by the LBA Halberstadt), but direct BB & even CWC is perceptible in different sub-regions of Iberia; but this could be due to Vandals and Visigoths, e.g. Basques have some direct input from Yamnaya which other Iberians do not. Overall, I cant discern a clear pattern or gradient.

Of course, Halberstadt is heavily steppe descended, so there's no real issue.
On the other hand, ATP 9's eastern shift, is not just from steppe, but something directly from the Caucasus, perhaps via the Balkans & italy. But it's small .
Iberia_BA:ATP9
Iberia_EN:CB13 54.55 %
Villabruna:I9030 15.55 %
Corded_Ware_Germany:I1532 9.95 %
Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409 6.9 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 5.5 %
Kotias:KK1 4.35 %



For Italy; there is a clear clinal differentiation.

(1) northern Italy: a massive founder effect from a mid-to-late central European Bronze Age groups occurred. Again, Halberstadt seems to fit quite well, not surprising given that is it from the Urnfield culture, and we see a massive shift to cremation in Italy at this time.

(2) the main vector of eastern shift in central (Tuscany) is something being captured by EBA Armenia - also found in Greeks & Albanians. This is corroborated by the appearance of Balkan-style tumuli in central -eastern Italy in the mid -late Bronze Age.

(3) In southern Italy, the the main shift is represented by way of Anatolia Chalcolithic and Jordan Bronze Age (proto-historic Mediterranean & historic Arabs movements).

What samples have you used for Northern Italy, Tuscany and Southern Italy?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

What samples have you used for Northern Italy, Tuscany and Southern Italy?

Just 3 individuals from Remedello spanning from c. 32000 BC to 1800 BC, apart from Oetzi in the Alps . They look like other middle Neolithic Europeans, broadly, and show no evidence of steppe admixture yet. There are no individuals from central or northern Italy.

There isn't a whole lot of literature on Copper & Bronze Age Italy archaeologically, but it seems that

- Copper technology was learned via the Alpine Copper (Pfyn, Mondsee) centres, ultimately deriving from northern Balkans c. 3500 BC

- the Beaker phenomenon in northern Italy wasn't particularly intense.

- change comes after 1800 BC, with the advent of the Polada culture, which shows links to the middle Danube/ west Balkans, followed by the Teramarre culture, which itself appears to have dissolved and moved south in a significant way.

- renewed contacts with middle Danube/ central Europe during the Urnfield period.

- south-central Italy shows additional distinctive contacts with west Balkans during the Late Bronze Age , by way of tumuli appearing in Apulia, etc.

I had heard the Italians are doing a big diachronic study of Italy, but have not found any links.

[Larth]

Just 3 individuals from Remedello spanning from c. 32000 BC to 1800 BC, apart from Oetzi in the Alps . They look like other middle Neolithic Europeans, broadly, and show no evidence of steppe admixture yet. There are no individuals from central or northern Italy.

There isn't a whole lot of literature on Copper & Bronze Age Italy archaeologically, but it seems that

- Copper technology was learned via the Alpine Copper (Pfyn, Mondsee) centres, ultimately deriving from northern Balkans c. 3500 BC

- the Beaker phenomenon in northern Italy wasn't particularly intense.

- change comes after 1800 BC, with the advent of the Polada culture, which shows links to the middle Danube/ west Balkans, followed by the Teramarre culture, which itself appears to have dissolved and moved south in a significant way.

- renewed contacts with middle Danube/ central Europe during the Urnfield period.

- south-central Italy shows additional distinctive contacts with west Balkans during the Late Bronze Age , by way of tumuli appearing in Apulia, etc.

I had heard the Italians are doing a big diachronic study of Italy, but have not found any links.

Thanks, I'm speaking about this spreadsheet, which is its origin? Which samples for the modern Italians have been used? Likely the HGD samples for North Italy (Bergamo), Tuscany and Sardinia. For south Italy?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13611&d=1484625063

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Thanks, I'm speaking about this spreadsheet, which is its origin? Which samples for the modern Italians have been used? Likely the HGD samples for North Italy (Bergamo), Tuscany and Sardinia. For south Italy?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13611&d=1484625063

Oh I see. I use the population in Eurogenes' GLobe10, etc. I'm not sure exactly where they;re from, but from recollection academic sources (incl Reich lab collections,). I don't know where exactly from south Italy they are.

[Jean M]

Did I mention already the article by Neil Wilkin and Neil Curtis, Beakers & Bodies, British Archaeology Jan/Feb 2017? It is available now on Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/30479844/Beakers_and_Bodies_British_Archaeology_Jan_Feb_201 7

Key points:

Large number of Bell Beaker burials in NE Scotland.
They made their bronze with copper from Ireland and tin from Cornwall.
40+ new radiocarbon dates. Can now say that BB burial was relatively short-lived in this region, compared to elsewhere in Britain. Common by 24th century BC, but ended by 20th.
Accompanied by building of recumbent stone circles. Big surprise! These were previously thought to be Neolithic.
Crouched burials. Males generally buried lying on left side, heads to E; females on right side, heads to W.
Large proportion of BB pots in University of Aberdeen's collection were decorated with white inlay, which was found to be crushed bone. [My note: this bone inlay had already been discovered in BB pots on the Continent, which they do not mention.]

This article was accompanied by a one-page piece on the Achavanich BB burial and Hew Morrison's digital reconstruction of the hyperbrachycephalic woman buried there. ["Ava"]

Wilkin and Curtis cite their contribution to the volume Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012) for "further details". This paper certainly goes into much more detail on BB chronology and objects in NE Scotland, and the dating of recumbent stone circles. It also mentions the re-use of Neolithic tombs in the Moray Firth region. However it does not give any information on the composition of BB bronze in NE Scotland. It simply cites another paper for the import of Cornish tin and Irish copper and bronze. Nor does it say anything about the bone inlay. I presume that this is a more recent discovery.

While the 2012 article assumes population continuity and simply the movement of ideas, the new article talks about migration, but as just part of the story.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Did I mention already the article by Neil Wilkin and Neil Curtis, Beakers & Bodies, British Archaeology Jan/Feb 2017? It is available now on Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/30479844/Beakers_and_Bodies_British_Archaeology_Jan_Feb_201 7

Key points:

Large number of Bell Beaker burials in NE Scotland.
They made their bronze with copper from Ireland and tin from Cornwall.
40+ new radiocarbon dates. Can now say that BB burial was relatively short-lived in this region, compared to elsewhere in Britain. Common by 24th century BC, but ended by 20th.
Accompanied by building of recumbent stone circles. Big surprise! These were previously thought to be Neolithic.
Crouched burials. Males generally buried lying on left side, heads to E; females on right side, heads to W.
Large proportion of BB pots in University of Aberdeen's collection were decorated with white inlay, which was found to be crushed bone. [My note: this bone inlay had already been discovered in BB pots on the Continent, which they do not mention.]

This article was accompanied by a one-page piece on the Achavanich BB burial and Hew Morrison's digital reconstruction of the hyperbrachycephalic woman buried there. ["Ava"]

Wilkin and Curtis cite their contribution to the volume Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012) for "further details". This paper certainly goes into much more detail on BB chronology and objects in NE Scotland, and the dating of recumbent stone circles. It also mentions the re-use of Neolithic tombs in the Moray Firth region. However it does not give any information on the composition of BB bronze in NE Scotland. It simply cites another paper for the import of Cornish tin and Irish copper and bronze. Nor does it say anything about the bone inlay. I presume that this is a more recent discovery.

While the 2012 article assumes population continuity and simply the movement of ideas, the new article talks about migration, but as just part of the story.

Yes a nice paper. Bell Beaker blogger featured it a while ago
http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/north-east-scotland-age-of-metal.html?m=1

Curiously, he finds the direction of head orientation was similar to corded ware burials

[Jean M]

Curiously, he finds the direction of head orientation was similar to corded ware burials

It would indeed be curious if he did. He simply seems a little confused. Corded Ware graves respected gender, as did Bell Beaker graves, but the details differ. On the Continent CW males lay on their right side, females on the left, with the faces of both oriented to the south. In Sweden and also parts of northern Poland the graves were oriented north-south, men lay on their left side and women on the right side - both facing east.

Bell Beaker burials in NE Scotland were orientated NE to SW or thereabouts i.e. some could be North to South, and some East to West.

[Jean M]

I have now realised that I already had a reference to the bone inlay in Beaker pottery of Aberdeenshire. It was just a short piece by Neil Curtis in Past, the newsleter of the Prehistoric Society in 2010.

However there is a paper from 2014 on bone and other types of inlay in Czech Republic that I did not already have: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440314002064 Must pick that up.

[castle3]

Did I mention already the article by Neil Wilkin and Neil Curtis, Beakers & Bodies, British Archaeology Jan/Feb 2017? It is available now on Academia.edu https://www.academia.edu/30479844/Beakers_and_Bodies_British_Archaeology_Jan_Feb_201 7

Key points:

Large number of Bell Beaker burials in NE Scotland.
They made their bronze with copper from Ireland and tin from Cornwall.
40+ new radiocarbon dates. Can now say that BB burial was relatively short-lived in this region, compared to elsewhere in Britain. Common by 24th century BC, but ended by 20th.
Accompanied by building of recumbent stone circles. Big surprise! These were previously thought to be Neolithic.
Crouched burials. Males generally buried lying on left side, heads to E; females on right side, heads to W.
Large proportion of BB pots in University of Aberdeen's collection were decorated with white inlay, which was found to be crushed bone. [My note: this bone inlay had already been discovered in BB pots on the Continent, which they do not mention.]

This article was accompanied by a one-page piece on the Achavanich BB burial and Hew Morrison's digital reconstruction of the hyperbrachycephalic woman buried there. ["Ava"]

Wilkin and Curtis cite their contribution to the volume Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012) for "further details". This paper certainly goes into much more detail on BB chronology and objects in NE Scotland, and the dating of recumbent stone circles. It also mentions the re-use of Neolithic tombs in the Moray Firth region. However it does not give any information on the composition of BB bronze in NE Scotland. It simply cites another paper for the import of Cornish tin and Irish copper and bronze. Nor does it say anything about the bone inlay. I presume that this is a more recent discovery.

While the 2012 article assumes population continuity and simply the movement of ideas, the new article talks about migration, but as just part of the story.

Metalworking centres in Aberdeenshire utilised the Great Glen way to transport goods into N.E. Scotland from Cornwall & Ireland. I don't think enough has been made of the similarity between some Beaker pottery from Llannon, South Wales & items found in Ballymenach, Argyll.

[Jean M]

Metalworking centres in Aberdeenshire utilised the Great Glen way to transport goods into N.E. Scotland from Cornwall & Ireland.

Yes Wilkin and Curtis say that.

[Net Down G5L]

Wilkin and Curtis cite their contribution to the volume Is There a British Chalcolithic? (2012) for "further details". This paper certainly goes into much more detail on BB chronology and objects in NE Scotland, and the dating of recumbent stone circles. It also mentions the re-use of Neolithic tombs in the Moray Firth region. However it does not give any information on the composition of BB bronze in NE Scotland. It simply cites another paper for the import of Cornish tin and Irish copper and bronze. Nor does it say anything about the bone inlay. I presume that this is a more recent discovery.

While the 2012 article assumes population continuity and simply the movement of ideas, the new article talks about migration, but as just part of the story.

Here are my summary notes from Curtis and Wilkin 2012

I interpreted this in my archaeogenetic model as Beaker from the continent U152 dominated and L21 dominated (and DF27?) to the west with possible trading/possible conflict.


13630

I had the same interaction in Wessex - detailed in the barrow building/rebuilding showing interaction/conflict between Beaker and western tribes at Netdown e.g. barrows Shrewton G5L, G5K etc (for example).

Yes, I have been posting about this for years but now the Rathlin results give aDNA support to the notion.

If correct it raises interesting questions about the arrival of L21 in the west of the Isles - if it arrived before 'continental beaker'.
L21......
So either 'earliest continental Beaker' arrival direct from the Rhine or more Northerly route (before the later arrival into eastern England and Scotland of 'continental Beaker';

or martime beaker arrival from Iberia to the west;

or pre-bell beaker arrival with an 'earlier wave'.

We have evidence of early maritime(?) beaker arrival at Ross Island
We have evidence of an earlier wave at Duggleby Howe at c2,900BC.

All options are still open in my view until we get all the new beaker (and hopefully late Neolithic) genomes in the Bell Beaker paper. Options 2 and 3 are the ones I have been exploring over the last couple of years.

[Jean M]

Here are my summary notes from Curtis and Wilkin 2012

I interpreted this in my archaeogenetic model as Beaker from the continent U152 dominated and L21 dominated (and DF27?) to the west with possible trading/possible conflict.

My approach is different. I see L21 moving down the Rhine into Britain and across into NE Ireland. Ross [sorry Rathlin] Island is bang on that route. There is nothing at that site that connects it to the Atlantic route, as far as I know.

According to Volker Heyd, the amount of BB that arrived in the Isles via the Atlantic was comparatively small. That would fit with the relatively tiny amount of DF27* in Ireland today.

It seems pretty clear just from the archaeology that there was continuing interaction between Ireland and Britain following the first BB arrivals. Plus it is highly unlikely that Hallstatt and La Tene material floated into Britain on driftwood, with no actual people moving. The last Celtic-speaking arrivals from the Continent before the Roman conquest were noted by Caesar - the Belgae. So we can expect these waves of arrivals to bring into Britain haplogroups which had cropped up on the Continent, such as U152. I don't say that absolutely no U152 arrived with BB, but the dominance of L21 today in the regions of the British Isles which were Celtic-speaking the longest does suggest that it had plenty of time to proliferate. There were also waves of Iron Age arrivals in Ireland from Britain, which could have taken some U152 to the Emerald Isle.

[Corrected Ross - meant Rathlin]

[castle3]

Yes Wilkin and Curtis say that.

For some reason I can't access the paper. I don't usually have a problem. Do they mention the interesting 1934 paper by Dr Margaret Stewart?

[rms2]

My approach is different. I see L21 moving down the Rhine into Britain and across into NE Ireland. Ross Island is bang on that route. There is nothing at that site that connects it to the Atlantic route, as far as I know.

According to Volker Heyd, the amount of BB that arrived in the Isles via the Atlantic was comparatively small. That would fit with the relatively tiny amount of DF27* in Ireland today.

It seems pretty clear just from the archaeology that there was continuing interaction between Ireland and Britain following the first BB arrivals. Plus it is highly unlikely that Hallstatt and La Tene material floated into Britain on driftwood, with no actual people moving. The last Celtic-speaking arrivals from the Continent before the Roman conquest were noted by Caesar - the Belgae. So we can expect these waves of arrivals to bring into Britain haplogroups which had cropped up on the Continent, such as U152. I don't say that absolutely no U152 arrived with BB, but the dominance of L21 today in the regions of the British Isles which were Celtic-speaking the longest does suggest that it had plenty of time to proliferate. There were also waves of Iron Age arrivals in Ireland from Britain, which could have taken some U152 to the Emerald Isle.

That makes the most sense to me. If a lot of U152 arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker, U152 would have a much more even or west-skewed distribution than it does, it seems to me, and there would be a lot more of it, especially in Ireland, where it is scarce.

I also think L21 is just a bit too old to have arisen in Britain or Ireland (if it came with Beaker) but not old enough to have arrived in the Isles prior to the arrival of the Beaker Folk.

[Net Down G5L]

My approach is different. I see L21 moving down the Rhine into Britain and across into NE Ireland. Ross Island is bang on that route. There is nothing at that site that connects it to the Atlantic route, as far as I know.

According to Volker Heyd, the amount of BB that arrived in the Isles via the Atlantic was comparatively small. That would fit with the relatively tiny amount of DF27* in Ireland today.

It seems pretty clear just from the archaeology that there was continuing interaction between Ireland and Britain following the first BB arrivals. Plus it is highly unlikely that Hallstatt and La Tene material floated into Britain on driftwood, with no actual people moving. The last Celtic-speaking arrivals from the Continent before the Roman conquest were noted by Caesar - the Belgae. So we can expect these waves of arrivals to bring into Britain haplogroups which had cropped up on the Continent, such as U152. I don't say that absolutely no U152 arrived with BB, but the dominance of L21 today in the regions of the British Isles which were Celtic-speaking the longest does suggest that it had plenty of time to proliferate. There were also waves of Iron Age arrivals in Ireland from Britain, which could have taken some U152 to the Emerald Isle.

Yes, that is my option one of three I listed.

If it is correct, the L21 beaker arrivals had to morph into a 'Food Vessel' version of Beaker and then interact /trade / conflict with a later set of continental Beaker arrivals.

Whichever of the 3 options is correct the result is much the same:
The 'Food Vessel Beaker' represent part of the fission element of Needham and that must relate to the DF13 expansion - much of which would have been focused in the Isles.

What ever DNA the 'later Beaker' of NE Scotland and Wessex, it seems from the archaeology that the DF13 fission tribes took over the whole of the Isles and the 'Later Continental Beaker' (whatever their DNA) had left the Isles by 2000BC (or been absorbed or morphed themselves - but what evidence for that morphing?).

This set the scene for the Atlantic Bronze Age and trading/conflict between The Isles/Atlantic 'fission' communities and the Alpine >RSFO (U152) communities right through until the RSFO incursion into Wessex in the LBA-IA Transition.

[Agamemnon]

U152's presence in Britain probably doesn't predate the Late Bronze Age in a vast majority of cases.

[Jean M]

For some reason I can't access the paper. I don't usually have a problem. Do they mention the interesting 1934 paper by Dr Margaret Stewart?

No. I don't know whether you are talking about the piece in British Archaeology or the much longer 2012 paper, which is also available on Academia.edu : https://www.academia.edu/10621155/_The_Regionality_of_Beakers_and_Bodies_in_the_Chal colithic_of_North-East_Scotland_in_Allen_M.J._Gardiner_J_and_Sherida n_A._eds_Is_there_a_British_Chalcolithic_People_pl ace_and_polity_in_the_later_3rd_millennium_Prehist oric_Society_Research_Paper_4_2012_pp._237-256 . The former does not cite any references other than the latter. The latter does not cite Stewart 1934.

[Net Down G5L]

My approach is different. I see L21 moving down the Rhine into Britain and across into NE Ireland. Ross Island is bang on that route. There is nothing at that site that connects it to the Atlantic route, as far as I know.

William O'Brien is the Ross Island specialist.

This is what he says in" The Chalcolithic in Ireland..." 2012
13636

Why do you think he is wrong?

[Net Down G5L]

William O'Brien is the Ross Island specialist.

This is what he says in" The Chalcolithic in Ireland..." 2012
13636

Why do you think he is wrong?

Here is another quote from O'Brien 201213637:

[Jean M]

William O'Brien is the Ross Island specialist.... Why do you think he is wrong?

I don't think he is wrong. I just made an error in that post, writing Ross Island, when I meant Rathlin Island, where we have the L21. Sorry about that. I have corrected my post.

I have rather rooted for the BB arrivals at Ross Island coming direct from Brittany or thereabouts, following William O'Brien, though Alan argued strongly to the contrary on the basis of the pottery. In the end I went for this in Blood of the Celts:


Bell Beaker folk ushered the Bronze Age into western Europe. They were the first metal-workers to enter the British Isles, homing in on the copper belts of Ireland and Wales. Around 2400 BC they left their characteristic beakers at a copper mine on Ross Island, in Lough Leane, Co. Kerry. This is the earliest known copper mine in northwestern Europe. There can be no doubt that it was created by incomers, for they brought with them an already advanced knowledge of metallurgy. These experts were probably looking especially for arsenic-rich copper ore and they certainly found it at Ross Island. An arsenic-copper alloy made a tougher metal than pure copper. The prized ore was smelted on site into copper ingots, which could be moved elsewhere to be cast into finished objects. [O'Brien 2004] ....

There are clues that the first Bell Beaker makers in Ireland arrived from Brittany or Portugal. An earring or pendant found at Benraw may be an early import, for it is not made of Irish gold, and it is very similar to a pair of earrings found at Estremoz in Portugal. Wrist bracers for archers are part of the Bell Beaker assemblage. The only type found among the southern Bell Beakers is narrow with two holes, one at each end. Broader, four-holed types predominate in Central Europe. Ireland has almost exclusively two-holed types.

[rms2]

Well, you did say that, according to Heyd, the amount of BB arriving from the Atlantic was comparatively small, not that it was completely absent.

[Jean M]

Well, you did say that, according to Heyd, the amount of BB arriving from the Atlantic was comparatively small, not that it was completely absent.

What I picture is an early stream north along the Atlantic coast c. 2400 BC, followed by a much stronger wave down the Rhine c. 2200 BC, after tin was discovered in Cornwall, making Britain highly attractive. However we may discover that the early BB settlers in NE Scotland had come down the Rhine. Certainly some of the BB in Scotland looks Rhenish. We just have to wait and see what comes out of the so long awaited aDNA paper.

[Net Down G5L]

I don't think he is wrong. I just made an error in that post, writing Ross Island, when I meant Rathlin Island, where we have the L21. Sorry about that. I have corrected my post.

I have rather rooted for the BB arrivals at Ross Island coming direct from Brittany or thereabouts, following William O'Brien, though Alan argued strongly to the contrary on the basis of the pottery. In the end I went for this in Blood of the Celts:

OK, so we seem to be agreed on the likely archaeology/key archaeology references.

Re. DNA:
So if I understand your interpretation = the Irish Beaker - possibly from Portugal/Brittany- did NOT carry P312/L21 to Ireland (so presumably P312/DF27 or P312 free Beaker as others have suggested previously in this thread) and that L21 came direct from the Rhine to England. (basically the option 1 I outlined above)
v
My best guess that P312/L21 came to Ireland with Irish Beaker (the version I put in my model)
or that P312/L21 arrived in Ireland / the Isles via "an earlier wave".
(options 2 and 3 I outlined earlier).

[Jean M]

So if I understand your interpretation = the Irish Beaker - possibly from Portugal/Brittany- did NOT carry P312/L21 to Ireland

Not exactly. There seem to have been (at least) two BB routes into Ireland:


One up the Atlantic from Portugal via Brittany.
One down the Rhine via Britain into Northern Ireland.


One is not more Irish than the other. Traditionally archaeologists in Northern Ireland have stressed the latter, while archaeologists in the Republic have stressed the former. Nowadays the likes of Andrew Fitzpatrick* thinks they are both right. He struck a careful balance in "The arrival of the Bell Beaker set in Britain and Ireland", in Celtic from the West 2 (2013).

* http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/archaeology/people/associates/andrew-fitzpatrick

[Net Down G5L]

I do not read Fitzpatrick (2013) as supporting the thesis of Scottish Beaker entering Northern Ireland. I read that he acknowledges the links between Ireland copper and metalurgy and the Migdale Marnock tradition in Scotland (as per the table I posted above from Curtis and Wilkin 2012).

You interpret this as a Rhinish intrusion into Northern Ireland.

I interpret this as an Irish Food vessel expansion into Scotland where it met/traded/conflicted with Rhinish beaker in NE Scotland. [ I see a similar expansion of food Vessel/Collared Urn into Wessex and the eventual replacement of Wessex Beaker by the expanding DF13 (male line) dominated food vessel/collared urn people.]

I do not know if the Rathlin archaeology supports either interpretation. Cassidy 2016 contains no detail and I have never been able to get hold of Sloan 2008 A Bronze Age Cist Burial at Glebe, Rathlin Island, County Antrim -where I assume the detailed Rathlin archaeology is published.

Hence, I don't feel I have conclusive (archaeology or genetics) evidence to conclusively support any of the options 1 or 2 or 3. Thats why in my model I put a brief mention of my favoured option stating that section was waiting for the Beaker Paper for a (hopefully) definitive evidence base.

[Jean M]

You interpret this as a Rhinish intrusion into Northern Ireland.

I did not say that specific Rhenish Beaker pottery arrived in NI. I simply referred to a route down the Rhine into Britain that eventually led BB people across into NI. If you want to think of it as a route from Portugal across into the Carpathian Basin before going down the Rhine, you can do.

Any BB route into Ireland is an "intrusion" if you want to think of it that way. I don't. These people arrived. Once they were settled in Ireland, we can think of them as Irish if we so wish. Personally I think it is misplaced to get too wrapped up in nationalist thinking about the BB people, who seem to have set up networks of trade that continued to be followed for centuries by some individuals. A sense of belonging to Ireland or Britain or Iberia or other specific parts of the Continent probably took generations to strongly develop.

[Jean M]

Hence, I don't feel I have conclusive (archaeology or genetics) evidence to conclusively support any of the options 1 or 2 or 3. Thats why in my model I put a brief mention of my favoured option stating that section was waiting for the Beaker Paper for a (hopefully) definitive evidence base.

That is precisely the position I reached years ago. I pleaded with a certain geneticist with an aDNA lab for Bell Beaker aDNA from Britain and Ireland, for the very reason that there is a limit to what we can deduce from modern DNA. :)

[MitchellSince1893]

For the same reason that U152 is thought to be a late arrival to the "Anglo-Celtic" Isles, I tend to think DF27 is also a later arrival i.e. after Bell Beaker for the most part. Otherwise we would see DF27 more widespread in the Isles as opposed to being found in highest concentrations along the English Channel and just north. It appears to me, that DF27 entered from the south/southwest, via present day Brittany and/or Normandy.

While U152 entry appears to be from the southeast.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9132-R1b-and-the-Atlantic-Bronze-Age-a-regional-archaeogenetic-model&p=199092&viewfull=1#post199092

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/27/64/29/276429d1201a10b7d87ab553420f8c6f.png

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/67/b2/e767b2360cdb604493ba3f96fbf4afa4.png

[Jean M]

I tend to think DF27 is also a later arrival i.e. after Bell Beaker for the most part.

DF27 seems too complex for generalisation. The specifically Northern subclades could have arrived with the Vikings or whatever. I referred only to DF27*.

[alan]

Thing to note is there are no certain beaker dates pre dating 2400bc in Ireland and very little of it is maritime style. None of the Ross island pottery was of maritime type. Ireland actually has a far higher proportion of central European type hollowbased arrowheads to western barbed and tanged types than Britain. Ireland also has far more polypod bowls than Britain. Again they are a central European type. It is also clear that wedge tombs in their original beaker phase of use tended to just have a few burials and are not comparable to collective burial tombs. So as per usual, Ireland is quirky in the way it absorbed beaker traits and a simple west vs Rhenish dicotimy doesn't work. Personally I suspect the source of Irish beaker may be somewhere like Normandy where Rhenish beaker influences start to run into Atlantic ones. Personally I don't think the maritime beakers users were originally R1b people at all.

[alan]

I think the key to understanding the confusing mixed signals in the earliest beaker folk from the isles is their late date by European standards of c 2400BC. By then east and west had been mixing for a century or more

[Net Down G5L]

I did not say that specific Rhenish Beaker pottery arrived in NI. I simply referred to a route down the Rhine into Britain that eventually led BB people across into NI. If you want to think of it as a route from Portugal across into the Carpathian Basin before going down the Rhine, you can do.

Ok, I am with you now. Thought for a moment you had L21 arrival with no connection to your Stelae people.

I guess the only difference between my preferred option and your (partly) published ideas is you see L21 (and U152) heading the 'Carpathian route (or U152 a variation on that) with DF27 on the Atlantic.
I see DF27 and L21 on the Atlantic route with U152 on the inland route.

I am swayed to the L21/DF27 link because of the later Atlantic Bronze Age where I see a close (integral) relationship between L21 and DF27 and a trading/periodic conflict zone between L21 and U152 (e.g. Fort Harrouard etc).

Anyway, this is a mere detail in the bigger picture and we agree the need to wait for the aDNA to be able to work the story through in that detail:).

[Jean M]

your (partly) published ideas

Completely published. What I'm saying here is no different from the hypothesis in Blood of the Celts (2015). The L21 and DF27 ideas are in there and had been thrashed out on this forum over and over again for some time before finding their way into print. So it's all old stuff for many people here.


we agree the need to wait for the aDNA to be able to work the story through in that detail

Exactly. The big BB aDNA paper is what we are eagerly awaiting. I don't think we can get much further without it.

[rms2]

Ok, I am with you now. Thought for a moment you had L21 arrival with no connection to your Stelae people.

I guess the only difference between my preferred option and your (partly) published ideas is you see L21 (and U152) heading the 'Carpathian route (or U152 a variation on that) with DF27 on the Atlantic.
I see DF27 and L21 on the Atlantic route with U152 on the inland route.

I am swayed to the L21/DF27 link because of the later Atlantic Bronze Age where I see a close (integral) relationship between L21 and DF27 and a trading/periodic conflict zone between L21 and U152 (e.g. Fort Harrouard etc).

Anyway, this is a mere detail in the bigger picture and we agree the need to wait for the aDNA to be able to work the story through in that detail:).

Recall that both U152 and DF27 share a common ancestor, ZZ11, below P312. Outside of Iberia, where DF27 is dominant, U152 and DF27 share a lot of territory in common.

My own view is that, for some reason, L21, of all the Beaker lineages, had Britain and Ireland pretty much to itself, with only the native, pre-existing population to deal with. Very little DF27 and U152 came to the Isles with Beaker: not none, but not much. I agree with MitchellSince1893 that most of the DF27 and U152 came later, during the Iron Age. IMHO, the Romans are responsible for some it, probably more than we currently imagine.

[ADW_1981]

I haven't looked at L21 in great enough detail, but what makes DF27 so frustrating is that it is filled with tiny branches with few members and extremely wide distribution. Granted, if some of these outlier cases knew they were more recent immigrants, it would make some of these countries less relevant but it requires a great deal of research and information.

I was about to suggest that DF17 (a brother of N-S cluster sharing DYS448=18) had a British/Irish concentration, which it does...but it also has some Iberian and Italian members which throws an annoying wrench into the mix.
Another case is a bifurcation of S21884+/ZZ40+ and Z295+, which seems to be divided between West-Central Europe and Iberia respectively. The most well known clade under Z295+ being M153+ of the Basque. Upon a deeper glance, we see that's not really true either, since Z295+ is a massive group with many subbranches throughout a large swath of Europe including Scandinavia.

If this doesn't give you a headache I don't know what would. I don't know if we will have an answer, but I suspect even 500 years of industrialization and immigration might be tricking us a little bit, not just for R1b, but other groups as well.

When we discuss more generically DF27, L21, U152..etc, I think we might be able to resolve this through ancient DNA, but we will need a substantial number of high quality samples.

[Lugus]

I haven't looked at L21 in great enough detail, but what makes DF27 so frustrating is that it is filled with tiny branches with few members and extremely wide distribution. [...]

If this doesn't give you a headache I don't know what would.

DF27 is a nightmare. I gave up making any sense of it. When you think you saw a pattern, here comes a new sample that spoils everything.

[razyn]

I told my doctor that I had chronic headaches, and my sleep was frequently disturbed by nightmares. He and some specialist consultants ran a bunch of tests (blood work, cardio scans, etc.) and had me complete a long questionnaire. They eventually diagnosed that I was basically healthy, but was admin of the DF27 project. So he recommended an OTC regimen, Advil for pain and Benadryl for insomnia -- or just not doing that. You should have seen the bill, Medicare only covered about 1/3. Still, that was better than the plan where I used to work, since my DF27+ is considered a pre existing condition.

[MitchellSince1893]

DF27 seems too complex for generalisation. The specifically Northern subclades could have arrived with the Vikings or whatever. I referred only to DF27*.

I agree and have said that those seeking simple explanations to explain a haplogroup's present day patterns will probably be frustrated as illustrated here
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4953-The-possible-untidy-history-of-how-R-Z142-got-to-Britain

While some DF27 and U152 probably arrived in the Isles during the BB period, I don't believe this was the primary arrival event for these two groups...unlike L21.

Caveat: If there were two arrival events during the BB period, an early one dominated by L21, and a later one, I could see DF27 being a significant contributor to the later.

It appears L21 came in first which precluded DF27 from being a pan-Isles hg.

[Jean M]

Caveat: If there were two arrival events during the BB period, an early one dominated by L21, and a later one, I could see DF27 being a significant contributor to the later.

But what if the earliest arrivals were very few in number compared to the bronze rush a couple of centuries later? Said bronze rush set in motion the first economic boom in these islands. Britain and Ireland were ahead of the game in making bronze in Europe. They also had gold.

I don't mean to say that no DF27 arrived c. 2200 BC. We know that DF27 is complex. So it is unlikely to be a simple situation of L21 along one route and DF27 along another. I have just placed my bet on L21 down the Rhine.

[Lugus]

since my DF27+ is considered a pre existing condition.

I would say it's hereditary, isn't it? ;)

[MitchellSince1893]

But what if the earliest arrivals were very few in number compared to the bronze rush a couple of centuries later? Said bronze rush set in motion the first economic boom in these islands. Britain and Ireland were ahead of the game in making bronze in Europe. They also had gold.

I don't mean to say that no DF27 arrived c. 2200 BC. We know that DF27 is complex. So it is unlikely to be a simple situation of L21 along one route and DF27 along another. I have just placed my bet on L21 down the Rhine.
Agreed. To use an American centric analogy, the Irish were in the American colonies from the beginning of the 1600s, but the main contributor was during the 1800s.
It's not an "either or discussion", but rather was/were there timeframe(s) that contributed to the majority of DF27 in the Isles.

For U152 the picture appears to be a clearer, that the majority arrived post BB. As I've said before, I favor a bronze/iron age arrival for the majority of U152.

But who knows? I could be proven wrong as more data becomes available. For example, I will be the first to admit I was wrong if the Angles were the main source for U152 in Britain.

[rms2]

. . . For example, I will be the first to admit I was wrong if the Angles were the main source for U152 in Britain.

Angles would really surprise me, but U152 among the Saxons would not surprise me. Romans would not surprise me at all for both U152 and DF27, at least in Britain. There is a pocket of DF27 in, I believe, SW Ireland that probably goes back to Beaker, but who knows?

[Agamemnon]

Angles would really surprise me, but U152 among the Saxons would not surprise me. Romans would not surprise me at all for both U152 and DF27, at least in Britain. There is a pocket of DF27 in, I believe, SW Ireland that probably goes back to Beaker, but who knows?

Well, U152 peaks in East Anglia after all, so there's still a slight possibility the Angles might've carried U152 and that it reached its current frequency via subsequent founder effects, though it really doesn't sound likely at this stage. The prime suspects IMHO are Urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tène, later Iron Age Celts, the Gauls and the Romans.

[ADW_1981]

The Z196+ branch seems to be far less "Irish" than the ZZ12 branch under DF27. It could be that DF27+ and especially ZZ12+ in UK/Ireland is just a rebound of traders into the British Isles during the Atlantic Bronze period from Iberia. Often times there is one super family that seems to have survived, such as L165+ in Scotland, but not well represented elsewhere. I'd be skeptical if the L165+ actually descended from Gaelic patriarchs since it's nearly absent in Ireland. Also the Burke family haplotype under S21184+ but not exactly widespread in Ireland otherwise. These super families could be skewing some of the real figures. The strongest candidates for the late Neolithic period in UK/Ireland is most certainly L21+, if not exclusively so.

[rms2]

Well, U152 peaks in East Anglia after all, so there's still a slight possibility the Angles might've carried U152 and that it reached its current frequency via subsequent founder effects, though it really doesn't sound likely at this stage. The prime suspects IMHO are Urnfield, Hallstatt, La Tène, later Iron Age Celts, the Gauls and the Romans.

I think the Angles were more a ruling class there than the bulk of the population, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I was thinking that since the Angles came from the neck of the Jutland Peninsula in what is now Denmark, they are less likely to have been U152 and more likely to have been U106 and I-M253. The Saxons, on the other hand, came from farther south, were a confederation of mixed tribes, and more likely to contain some Germanized Celts. That is how I would account for the U152 among them: Germanized Celts. Of course, that could be all wrong.

I do think the Romans get less credit for their contribution to the British population than they deserve.

[Agamemnon]

I think the Angles were more a ruling class there than the bulk of the population, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I was thinking that since the Angles came from the neck of the Jutland Peninsula in what is now Denmark, they are less likely to have been U152 and more likely to have been U106 and I-M253. The Saxons, on the other hand, came from farther south, were a confederation of mixed tribes, and more likely to contain some Germanized Celts. That is how I would account for the U152 among them: Germanized Celts. Of course, that could be all wrong.

I do think the Romans get less credit for their contribution to the British population than they deserve.

I agree with you on this, I don't think a scenario where "Germanic U152" wasn't initially Celtic makes sense.

I do agree that the Romans do not get full credit for their contribution to the British population, however by and large I would be surprised if they had a major impact beyond the southernmost parts of England, I mean some of the Bell Beaker results are very similar to modern-day Britons (including Englishmen), to say nothing of some of the "Roman" Britons from York who are also quite similar to contemporary Britons. The country where, in my opinion, the impact of Roman settlement is most severely underestimated is France.

[Dewsloth]

DF27 is a nightmare. I gave up making any sense of it. When you think you saw a pattern, here comes a new sample that spoils everything.

Come to DF19, we have semi-discernible territories and cake!*



*Mead also available upon request.

[MitchellSince1893]

In East Anglia my money is on the Iceni as being the main source for U152

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5802-U152-numbers-and-percentages-in-Britain&p=128266&viewfull=1#post128266

As to the Romans, I've said that U152 in the North along the Scottish/English border could be a Roman era addition, primarily from their auxiliaries from the Belgica and Gaul. e.g. Batavians, Tongres, Lingones, etc.

In the south of England I could see the Romans from the Italian Peninsula making a modest contribution...especially the Z56 subclades.

[Lugus]

We might be at the point where things are getting more confusing just before they become clearer. But I'm afraid that with the results of commercial testing you can go only so far. You can't control for sampling bias and for geographical origin and for lots of other things (NPEs and adoption for example). What we need, aside from aDNA, is scientific studies focusing in particular countries or regions, or subclades, with a few thousand samples and NGS. In studies like these I think we'll find tendencies and structure and then also the results of commercial testing will make much more sense.

[corner]

We might be at the point where things are getting more confusing just before they become clearer. But I'm afraid that with the results of commercial testing you can go only so far. You can't control for sampling bias and for geographical origin and for lots of other things (NPEs and adoption for example). What we need, aside from aDNA, is scientific studies focusing in particular countries or regions, or subclades, with a few thousand samples and NGS. In studies like these I think we'll find tendencies and structure and then also the results of commercial testing will make much more sense.Yes, it feels like the foundations of DF27 in particular are not there yet. Hopefully, forthcoming Bronze Age/Bell Beaker studies will cover that. We see some relatively young DF27 subclades today but have no solid idea of where they were previously, or where they sprang from.

As far as finding foundations go, away from speculation, there is just the one ancient DF27+ Bell Beaker/Corded Ware result from c. 2300 BC (Mr. I0806), found buried in what is now Germany, so far. DF27 seems widespread. It could be a subclade that learns a lot from the awaited ancient BB yDNA studies - considering what little we know of it at the moment.

[Lugus]

What seems to characterize DF27 is constant mobility, especially along the Atlantic façade all the way to Finland, but also by land. Just look at the samples from Germany, Ukraine and Armenia.

Iberia didn't function like a cul-de-sac but like a spring board for maritime migration. I think that tradition came from Cardinal Ware Neolithic and has been preserved ever since.

[alan]

Ok, I am with you now. Thought for a moment you had L21 arrival with no connection to your Stelae people.

I guess the only difference between my preferred option and your (partly) published ideas is you see L21 (and U152) heading the 'Carpathian route (or U152 a variation on that) with DF27 on the Atlantic.
I see DF27 and L21 on the Atlantic route with U152 on the inland route.

I am swayed to the L21/DF27 link because of the later Atlantic Bronze Age where I see a close (integral) relationship between L21 and DF27 and a trading/periodic conflict zone between L21 and U152 (e.g. Fort Harrouard etc).

Anyway, this is a mere detail in the bigger picture and we agree the need to wait for the aDNA to be able to work the story through in that detail:).

I think people really misunderstand the Atlantic bronze age. An Atlantic system already existed in a sense to the north for many centuries and Iberia was a late and relatively brief addition to it. It was a north to south extension of the network the most clear thing is very little yDNA must have moved in the network as the west coast of Iberia and Ireland have very little yDNA n common

[alan]

Yes, it feels like the foundations of DF27 in particular are not there yet. Hopefully, forthcoming Bronze Age/Bell Beaker studies will cover that. We see some relatively young DF27 subclades today but have no solid idea of where they were previously, or where they sprang from.

As far as finding foundations go, away from speculation, there is just the one ancient DF27+ Bell Beaker/Corded Ware result from c. 2300 BC (Mr. I0806), found buried in what is now Germany, so far. DF27 seems widespread. It could be a subclade that learns a lot from the awaited ancient BB yDNA studies - considering what little we know of it at the moment.


Either my memory is going or I missed a German beaker guy being shown to be DF 27. When did that happen?

[ArmandoR1b]

Either my memory is going or I missed a German beaker guy being shown to be DF 27. When did that happen?

Sept. 8 by Rocca

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8476-More-Bell-Beaker-U152-and-one-ZZ11&p=185448&viewfull=1#post185448

He also uploaded the autosomal DNA to Gedmatch kit T253390

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8860-DF27-Bell-Beaker-Sample-Autosomal-Components

[rms2]

I think people really misunderstand the Atlantic bronze age. An Atlantic system already existed in a sense to the north for many centuries and Iberia was a late and relatively brief addition to it. It was a north to south extension of the network the most clear thing is very little yDNA must have moved in the network as the west coast of Iberia and Ireland have very little yDNA n common

I think that is a consequence of the popularization of the whole idea by Barry Cunliffe and his "longue duree", which was expressed at first some years ago, as you know, via the whole "R1b-in-the-FC-Ice-Age-Refuge" thing and now as the zombie that refuses to die, pared down from all of R1b to just P312.

[Lugus]

I think people really misunderstand the Atlantic bronze age. An Atlantic system already existed in a sense to the north for many centuries and Iberia was a late and relatively brief addition to it. It was a north to south extension of the network the most clear thing is very little yDNA must have moved in the network as the west coast of Iberia and Ireland have very little yDNA n common

Maritime travel in the Atlantic coast of Europe is known at least since the Neolithic, long before the Atlantic Bronze Age, and it continued also afterwards. I don't know how much YDNA moved along the Atlantic (and Baltic) but apparently some did and that could be an explanation for the DF27 found in places like Britain, Holland and Scandinavia (and also Poland). Probably some of that YDNA moved back and forth. The movements along the coast didn't happen all at the same time and directly from Iberia to Finland (or elsewhere), but as stop and go and occasional events.

I don't think that DF27 originated in Iberia, but once there it kept moving around. I haven't see any branch of DF27 without Iberian samples.

Just a working hypothesis.

[Dubhthach]

I think people really misunderstand the Atlantic bronze age. An Atlantic system already existed in a sense to the north for many centuries and Iberia was a late and relatively brief addition to it. It was a north to south extension of the network the most clear thing is very little yDNA must have moved in the network as the west coast of Iberia and Ireland have very little yDNA n common

Well you do find L21 in Northern/Western Iberia and DF27 in Ireland, the thing is the ratio's of one to another are very much reversed.

[razyn]

I don't think that DF27 originated in Iberia, but once there it kept moving around. I haven't see any branch of DF27 without Iberian samples.

Sailors are alleged to have a girl in every port. Portugal has ports, and a deep history of using them; but so do many other places that one also finds widely represented in the DF27 project. Daddy did not necessarily have to settle down for many generations in every single place his YDNA is now found. People who were mariners in the Bronze Age (Iberian and otherwise) may have messier family trees than people who were farmers, the preferred group for archaeogenetic projects.

[Lugus]

Sailors are alleged to have a girl in every port. Portugal has ports, and a deep history of using them; but so do many other places that one also finds widely represented in the DF27 project. Daddy did not necessarily have to settle down for many generations in every single place his YDNA is now found. People who were mariners in the Bronze Age (Iberian and otherwise) may have messier family trees than people who were farmers, the preferred group for archaeogenetic projects.

Also Britain has good ports. Is there any chance that some DF27 expanded from there to Iberia in the Bronze Age? In my own branch (A6137 in The Big Tree) the British samples seem to be "older" than the Iberian ones. That would be carrying coals to Newcastle...:)

[corner]

Maritime travel in the Atlantic coast of Europe is known at least since the Neolithic, long before the Atlantic Bronze Age, and it continued also afterwards. I don't know how much YDNA moved along the Atlantic (and Baltic) but apparently some did and that could be an explanation for the DF27 found in places like Britain, Holland and Scandinavia (and also Poland). Probably some of that YDNA moved back and forth. The movements along the coast didn't happen all at the same time and directly from Iberia to Finland (or elsewhere), but as stop and go and occasional events.

I don't think that DF27 originated in Iberia, but once there it kept moving around. I haven't see any branch of DF27 without Iberian samples.

Just a working hypothesis.That's what I mean about finding foundations - we can have working hypotheses based on available data but we don't know for definite when DF27 got to Iberia yet. An origin in Iberia for our DF27>ZZ12 subclade would agree with one of my loose working hypotheses - an origin elsewhere would agree with another etc. Hopefully, we'll find out the situation in the Bronze Age with forthcoming ancient yDNA.

As mentioned, we do know that in 2300-ish BC there was a DF27+ man. He was buried with a perfect bell beaker and Corded Ware shaft-hole stone axe. He probably came from the east (Eastern Hunter Gatherer/Baltic autosomal DNA), not the west. That's the one stone I see in the foundations so far - aside from modern distribution and frequency. It will be interesting to know how far DF27 had got by 2300 BC and if it was in Iberia by the time Mr. I0806 was buried in the middle of Germany.

Going forward through 4000+ years of turbulent European history to today's living yDNA testers, the Iberian DF27 subclades seem to mostly share common yDNA ancestry with those elsewhere only in DF27's very earliest days - not very long after Mr. DF27 himself was around.. There is no obvious recent relationship between Iberian kits and ones outside Iberia that I've seen, maybe someone will point some out. Any early DF27 subclade connections seem generally to be a few thousand years ago - and the subclades might not have been in Iberia then for all we know (without ancient yDNA confirmation). As is often mentioned, there is a distinct and early 'north/south' split between most DF27 subclades and not just in the 'North South Cluster' DF27 subclade (Z220) that got that early nickname. It could be that the north/south split happened in the east when the DF27 subclade was young and the geographical gap happened as the subclades moved west. This is why I'm looking forward to the forthcoming ancient yDNA studies - hopefully they will thoroughly cover all Bronze Age Europe.

[Peter M]

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.
Z18 already IS considered separately. This was arranged some six years ago by a few seasoned people who had thoroughly considered the issues involved and decided, most progress would be made by starting a dedicated project, focussing on R-Z18 (the achievements of the project have proven them right over the years).

The result was the R-Z18 project with its own web site and forum. Apart from extensively supporting Z18+ people and developing the R-Z18 Y-DNA tree, the other main activity of the project is the development of the tools that are used by the project. These tools (e.g. the R-Z18 Y-DNA SNP Database and the programs that generate our web site) make the R-Z18 project probably the technically most advanced Y-DNA haplogroup project (it's kind of hard to understand, nobody in ISOGG shows any interest in our Y-DNA Database :)).

The fact that the R-Z18 project is not uniformly recognised in the field have always prohibited us from making any of these tools available to others (one cannot reasonably expect to freely receive things (software and data) from an entity whose existence is not recognised :P).


Please refer to this new thread: R-U106-Fireside-Chat (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9625-R-U106-Fireside-Chat) for this slightly off-topic subject.

[jeanL]

The Iberian R1b-DF27 paper is out. While I do not put a lot of weight into the age estimates because they were derived using STRs, I think the relative diversity is still significant.



Haplogroup diversity based on Y-SNPs was obtained (Table S4). The populations from Basque Country and Cantabria displayed the highest diversity values, 0.789 ± 0.015 (native Basques); 0.659 ± 0.037 (residents Basques) and 0.609 ± 0.046, respectively. Asturias and Aragon showed lower diversities, 0.584 ± 0.047 and 0.550 ± 0.057 respectively. This could be explained by the absence of some sublineages of DF27, like in the case of Asturias (e.g. L176.2). If the main Y-SNPs (other than DF27) are added, higher diversities are observed, in a range from 0.85 to 0.91 (Table S4). The diversities for these same populations obtained by Y-STRs [18] and [19] are higher than the ones obtained by Y-SNPs, with values between 0.99 and 1, as it woul be expected mainly due to the larger allelic range and higher mutation rate of the Y-STRs [38].

In order to study the genetic relationships between the populations analyzed in this study, genetic distances (FST) and their corresponding p-values were obtained (Table S5). Significant differences (p < 0.005) were found between native Basques and the rest of the populations studied. The native Basque population is composed only by autochthonous individuals and has been subjected to a long isolation that has minimized the contribution of non Basque Y chromosomes to their lineages; therefore, this kind of differentation is to be expected since most of their patrilineages may have a Basque origin. The distinctiveness of the Basque population has also been observed in other studies based on Y-SNPs and Y-STRs [6], [18] and [21], X chromosome STRs [39] and mitochondrial DNA [40] and [41]. The rest of the analyzed populations did not show statistically significant differences between each other. These results are consistent with other studies that show a similar population structure of Y-SNP and Y-STR at the level of M269 lineage for other populations from the Iberian Peninsula [6], [18] and [42].

[...]

Additionally, median joining networks were built with 14 Y-STR haplotypes to further characterize the structure of the DF27 lineage (Fig. 3 and Supplementary Figs. S1–S3). The phylogenetic split of Z196-Z220 from the bulk of DF27 Y-STR haplotypes was previously detected by network analyses [6], but now it can be confirmed by Z220 subhaplogroup (Fig. 3). The phylogenetic split is due to differing haplotypes for DYS437/DYS448 Y-STRs. The right-hand part of the split in the network included principally Z278, M153 and Z220* individuals and bears haplotype 14/18, whereas the left-hand part of the split, which includes the remaining DF27 subhaplogroups, bears the 15/19 haplotype, which is also the most prevalent in the rest of R1b-M269 chromosomes [42]. The present network has also showed divergent branches from DF27 node groups, which includes almost exclusively native Basque individuals (Fig. 3, A). The Z220 node groups also show divergent branches, whereas this branch contains individuals from Cantabria and native Basques (Fig. 3, B ). This could indicate some degree of independent evolution of some of the paternal lineages from each of the regions, probably due to the isolation of the populations in the mountain area of Northern Iberia.

Characterization of the Iberian Y chromosome haplogroup R-DF27 in Northern Spain (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316302460?np=y)

http://i67.tinypic.com/2nrpv8p.png

So it seems the Native Basques have the highest SNP diversity in Northern Spain amongst the R1b-D27 people. It would be interesting to see how they compare to other Europeans. This also highlights the importance of sampling people with actual Basque ancestry vs people who were simply born there but may not be of Basque descent. Notice the sharp differences between the Basque Native and Basque resident haplogroup frequencies and diversity.

[ADW_1981]

The Iberian R1b-DF27 paper is out. While I do not put a lot of weight into the age estimates because they were derived using STRs, I think the relative diversity is still significant.



Characterization of the Iberian Y chromosome haplogroup R-DF27 in Northern Spain (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316302460?np=y)

http://i67.tinypic.com/2nrpv8p.png

So it seems the Native Basques have the highest SNP diversity in Northern Spain amongst the R1b-D27 people. It would be interesting to see how they compare to other Europeans. This also highlights the importance of sampling people with actual Basque ancestry vs people who were simply born there but may not be of Basque descent. Notice the sharp differences between the Basque Native and Basque resident haplogroup frequencies and diversity.

Even within Z220 there is a bit of a split. Z220->ZZ40 ->S21184 | Z295. Z278 is under the Z295 branch, but what's interesting is a couple of ZZ40* guys seem to be Iberian despite the bulk of S21184+ being north European in origin. This is a great start but more work is still needed here.

I reckon the higher rates of R1b are due to lack of gene flow and immigration to the region rather than certain Y SNPs being in the region since the dawn of time.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Apart from the big BB paper, I think we will start to see more middle and late Bronze Age papers eventually. What we have so far - a handful are quite interesting. I suspect the authors of the papers chosen them intentionally to give some sneak peaks into Europe after 2200 BC. It had quite a bit of diversity, with shifting cultural boundaries over the centuries.
So what do we have so far ?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13668&d=1485487507
(solid arrows-postulated migrations; dashed lines: "contact & intermixture")

To begin with ATP 9 - a Bronze Age (c. 1700 BC) female (U5b) from northern Spain. She has notable but modest steppe admixture.

Iberia_BA:ATP9
Iberia_EN:CB13 53.5 %
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 18.65 %
Villabruna:I9030 13.9 %
Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409 6.1 %
Kotias:KK1 3.45 %

A decent whack of steppe admixture. It could very well be from German BB but sometimes CWC Germany is chosen, which wouldn't be too surprising as Battle Axes and the odd Corded War trinkets appear in northern Iberia as early as 2800/2700 BC (perhaps seaborn from the lower Rhine), - ie before the BB package really got going. The Villabruna/Kotias/Armenia could represent some flow via Italy & the Balkans to southern ports of the El Agar civilization. Many Iberians today derive a large portion of their ancestry from her population

Remedello RISE486 is the latest of them dating to 21-1700 BC, and is basically MNE, so northern Italy appears to have been particularly "conservative", although not isolated, as there was considerable flow between Alps & Italy.

RISE 276 is an R1b individual from LBA Denmark probably largely Beaker-descended + some additional MNE Picked up over time.

RISE174 , on the other hand, looks like she descends from the mid-late Neolithic of the Nordic, but with significant contacts with mainland northern Europe.

I0099 from Halberstadt is a very Corded Ware - looking man, and belongs to the R1a- Z280* under which most Balto-Slavic R1a derive. Tentatively classed as Urnfield, inhumation burial is unusual for Urnfield culture, so he could be some proto-Lausitz sub-culture.

RISE471 is R1b-P310 from southern Germany who retains a lot of MNE ancestry, probably from local north Alpine Neolithics (like Cham or Pfyn culture descendants admixing with Beaker folk). Initially he was mis-labeled in the Academic paper, but new AMS dates suggest he was from the Tumulus culture period.

Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471
Iberia_MN:I0405 29.4 %
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE568 22.15 %
Hungary_N:I1498 17.15 %
Kotias:KK1 11.3 %
Villabruna:I9030 6.9 %

The Unetice culture is dominated by I2 men. They're probably north European high -WHG MNEs who continued (and thrived!) after the arrival of proto-Beaker peoples from the East, and intermarried with their women, acquiring a lot of extra EHG. Of course, one I2a2 was found in late Yamnaya/Catacomb, so they could be steppic too, at least partially.

Hungary is a complex mosaic , with movements in and out. But the Vatya individuals look very Beaker descended.

As far as the most perceptible contributions for modern central & north Euroepans, the Tumulus and Urnfield/ proto-Lausitz individuals are particularly important. Unetice not so much, perhaps not surprising, because it was dominated by I2 individuals which aren't the most common today in N-C Europe.

[Kale]

I think the mobility of these steppe people, as talked about as it is, is still underrated. I think we are going to find they mix in over time rather than geography.

Here are some D-stat models I had with Basque_Spanish...all fits just under 1% difference

64% Bell_Beaker_Germany
34% Iberia_MN
2% Loschbour
Outgroups: Ami, Anatolia_Neolithic, Bichon, Iran_Chalcolithic, Karitiana, Kostenki14, Kotias, Papuan, Ust_Ishim

Looked very simple, so I decided to add outgroups Iberia_EN and Yamnaya_Samara

49.2% Bell_Beaker_Germany
39.6% Iberia_MN
3.6% Samara_Eneolithic
2.8% Loschbour
2.5% Iberia_EN
2.5% Satsurbila
-0.2% Yoruba
BBG got parted out for Samara and CHG (logical constituents of Yamnaya side of its ancestry), as well as Iberian neolithic...looks like BBG has too much local neolithic ancestry.

So I decided to just try with Yamnaya instead (Kalmykia so as to not have Yamnaya_Samara in both test and reference)...

57.4% Iberia_MN
27.4% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
5.9% Armenia_EBA
5.4% Loschbour
4.6% LBK_EN
0.3% Ulchi
-1.0% Yoruba
Besides the Ulchi and Yoruba counteracting for damage in ancient samples, this looks right. 67% Europe Neolithic, 27% Yamnaya, 6% Middle-East Bronze Age.
Just look how low the non-Iberian neolithic is...that suggests steppe ancestry arrived in area occupied by descendents or close cousins of Iberian Neolithic peoples (France would be the major area in mind) practically undiluted.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Of course they were mobile, but it if their mixing in was over time, then their mobility isn't really "underrated". From 3000BC Hungary to 2400BC Ireland isn't altogether mind blowing
LBK farmers spread across Central Europe in 1-200 years .

NB I too noticed Basques have acquired significant steppe mix, but the question is where: how? IMO it wasn't via ATP9 -like individuals
Kale can you run your mix for ATP9 ?

[Kale]

I think you may have misunderstood. By mixing in over time, I mean their spread was quick and did not incur much mixture along the way. If one were to sample the earliest Bell Beaker skeleton in France, I'd say it would be 75% Yamnaya (at least).

In regards to ATP9, I don't have that sample in any tables. I did however run French_South just to see if that huge Iberia_MN proportion would repeat itself. It did not, Basques are unique in that regard...though I should probably test another Spanish pop as well.

FRENCH_SOUTH
37.6% Iberia_MN
29.0% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
20.9% LBK_EN
5.8% Armenia_EBA
5.7% Loschbour
1.9% Ulchi
-0.9% Yoruba
Outgroups: Ami, Anatolia_Neolithic, Bichon, Iberia_EN, Iran_Chalcolithic, Karitiana, Kostenki14, Kotias, Papuan, Ust_Ishim, Yamnaya_Samara

EDIT: Spanish for comparison, same outgroups
SPANISH
42.5% Iberia_MN
23.5% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
15% Armenia_EBA
8.6% LBK_EN
4.1% Hungary_HG
3.1% Moroccan
2.0% Ulchi
1.2% Loschbour

[Gravetto-Danubian]

In regards to ATP9, I don't have that sample in any tables. I did however run French_South just to see if that huge Iberia_MN proportion would repeat itself. It did not, Basques are unique in that regard...though I should probably test another Spanish pop as well.

Fair enough. I recall Davidski on Eurogenes did his own analysis when the Gunther paper first came out, he found some EHG (over Yamnaya) and Armenian BA analogies, so its somewhat reassuringly similar. Anyhow, a mere one individual of mediocre coverage isn't too much to hang on



FRENCH_SOUTH
37.6% Iberia_MN
29.0% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
20.9% LBK_EN
5.8% Armenia_EBA
5.7% Loschbour
1.9% Ulchi
-0.9% Yoruba
Outgroups: Ami, Anatolia_Neolithic, Bichon, Iberia_EN, Iran_Chalcolithic, Karitiana, Kostenki14, Kotias, Papuan, Ust_Ishim, Yamnaya_Samara

EDIT: Spanish for comparison, same outgroups
SPANISH
42.5% Iberia_MN
23.5% Yamnaya_Kalmykia
15% Armenia_EBA
8.6% LBK_EN
4.1% Hungary_HG
3.1% Moroccan
2.0% Ulchi
1.2% Loschbour

I suspect the differences between IEs and their non-IE neighbours will come down to degrees in sets of components.

[Kale]

I suspect the differences between IEs and their non-IE neighbours will come down to degrees in sets of components.
Could you word that differently? I'm not sure what you mean by that.


he found some EHG (over Yamnaya) and Armenian BA analogies
That's why I tried Armenia_EBA first...because it's popped up before. The middle eastern samples we have from copper+bronze age are relatively similar to each other though, and 6% is not huge, so I would not say definitively it is Armenia_EBA, just likely something middle eastern, but if Armenia_EBA makes sense archaeology wise (idk if it does) than great.

[Bas]

Duplicate

[Bas]

[QUOTE=Gravetto-Danubian;210293]Apart from the big BB paper, I think we will start to see more middle and late Bronze Age papers eventually. What we have so far - a handful are quite interesting. I suspect the authors of the papers chosen them intentionally to give some sneak peaks into Europe after 2200 BC. It had quite a bit of diversity, with shifting cultural boundaries over the centuries.
So what do we have so far ?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=13668&d=1485487507
(solid arrows-postulated migrations; dashed lines: "contact & intermixture")

To begin with ATP 9 - a Bronze Age (c. 1700 BC) female (U5b) from northern Spain. She has notable but modest steppe admixture.

Iberia_BA:ATP9
Iberia_EN:CB13 53.5 %
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 18.65 %
Villabruna:I9030 13.9 %
Armenia_Chalcolithic:I1409 6.1 %
Kotias:KK1 3.45 %

A decent whack of steppe admixture. It could very well be from German BB but sometimes CWC Germany is chosen, which wouldn't be too surprising as Battle Axes and the odd Corded War trinkets appear in northern Iberia as early as 2800/2700 BC (perhaps seaborn from the lower Rhine), - ie before the BB package really got going. The Villabruna/Kotias/Armenia could represent some flow via Italy & the Balkans to southern ports of the El Agar civilization. Many Iberians today derive a large portion of their ancestry from her population

Remedello RISE486 is the latest of them dating to 21-1700 BC, and is basically MNE, so northern Italy appears to have been particularly "conservative", although not isolated, as there was considerable flow between Alps & Italy.

RISE 276 is an R1b individual from LBA Denmark probably largely Beaker-descended + some additional MNE Picked up over time.

RISE174 , on the other hand, looks like she descends from the mid-late Neolithic of the Nordic, but with significant contacts with mainland northern Europe.

I0099 from Halberstadt is a very Corded Ware - looking man, and belongs to the R1a- Z280* under which most Balto-Slavic R1a derive. Tentatively classed as Urnfield, inhumation burial is unusual for Urnfield culture, so he could be some proto-Lausitz sub-culture.

RISE471 is R1b-P310 from southern Germany who retains a lot of MNE ancestry, probably from local north Alpine Neolithics (like Cham or Pfyn culture descendants admixing with Beaker folk). Initially he was mis-labeled in the Academic paper, but new AMS dates suggest he was from the Tumulus culture period.

Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471
Iberia_MN:I0405 29.4 %
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE568 22.15 %
Hungary_N:I1498 17.15 %
Kotias:KK1 11.3 %
Villabruna:I9030 6.9 %

Slightly off topic, but how do you choose the best 5 or 6 components? Do you initially run 20-30 in one input file and then whittle down depending on what scores highest on that initial run?

[Bas]

NB I too noticed Basques have acquired significant steppe mix, but the question is where: how? IMO it wasn't via ATP9 -like individuals

1) First run(only these):

Basque_Spanish

Iberia_MN:I0408 36.65
Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE566 34.60
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 12.90
Baalberge_MN:I0559 11.45
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0060 2.65
Hungary_IA:IR1 1.75
Iberia_BA:ATP9 0.00
Nordic_LBA:RISE276 0.00

[1] "distance%=0.2886 / distance=0.002886"

2) A bigger selection(but no Iberia EN/MN or Bell Beakers) Halberstadt_LBA seems to compensate for loss of BB.

Basque_Spanish

Esperstedt_MN:I0172 33.45
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 29.85
Alberstedt_LN:I0118 20.10
Remedello_BA:RISE486 10.10
Iberia_Mesolithic:I0585 4.15
Baalberge_MN:I0560 2.35
LBK_EN:I0100 0.00
Nordic_MN_B:RISE61 0.00
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 0.00
Unetice_EBA:I0047 0.00
Salzmuende_MN:I0551 0.00
Jordan_EBA:I1705 0.00
Iceman_MN:Iceman 0.00
Hungary_IA:IR1 0.00
Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471 0.00
Greece_LN:Klei10 0.00
BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94 0.00
Barcin_Neolithic:I1101 0.00
Armenia_MLBA:RISE407 0.00
Anatolia_Chalcolithic:I1584 0.00
Andronovo:RISE500 0.00
Afanasievo:RISE511 0.00

[1] "distance%=0.221 / distance=0.00221"

3) Same group but without Halberstadt_LBA. Yamnaya_Samara and Andronovo appear (compensating for loss of Halberstadt?). Baalberge increases by 13, Remedello loses 10:

Basque_Spanish

Alberstedt_LN:I0118 37.95
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 34.20
Baalberge_MN:I0560 15.90
Iberia_Mesolithic:I0585 5.20
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 4.20
Andronovo:RISE500 1.80
Remedello_BA:RISE486 0.75
LBK_EN:I0100 0.00
Nordic_MN_B:RISE61 0.00
Unetice_EBA:I0047 0.00
Salzmuende_MN:I0551 0.00
Jordan_EBA:I1705 0.00
Iceman_MN:Iceman 0.00
Hungary_IA:IR1 0.00
Germany_Bronze_Age:RISE471 0.00
Greece_LN:Klei10 0.00
BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94 0.00
Barcin_Neolithic:I1101 0.00
Armenia_MLBA:RISE407 0.00
Anatolia_Chalcolithic:I1584 0.00
Afanasievo:RISE511 0.00

[1] "distance%=0.2463 / distance=0.002463"

4) Took out Yamnaya_Samara and added Hungary_HG. New appearances were:

Andronovo:RISE500 8.20
BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94 4.95
Hungary_HG:I1507 2.60

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Slightly off topic, but how do you choose the best 5 or 6 components? Do you initially run 20-30 in one input file and then whittle down depending on what scores highest on that initial run?

I choose based on successive Time Periods : selecting putative Source groups based on whether they existed at a certain point in time, or not. Then add as you go, then prune to neaten it up.

So, for example, let try to get a result for Basques on Eneolithic/ Copper Age/ Late Neolithic populations (terminology varies in each countries archaeological tradition; so set it by absolute chronology).

To get a good overview & bearing, you can start at 7000 BC. You would include

- Barcin or Mentese for A.N.F.
- WHGs
- Kotias for CHG
- Samara or Karelia for EHG
In other words, your "Big4" for Europe.

So with that, I get:

Basque_Spanish
ANF: 52.95 %
WHG: 29.4 %
Kotias:KK1 11.1 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 6.5 %
Fit=0.004


Basques have ~ 53% Anatolian Farmer input, 30% WHG, and some steppe (CHG + EHG ~ 17%)
Is this consistent with what we know ?

But from whom did they acquire WHG and EEF-type ancestry ? It needn't automatically be from Iberian Mesolithics and early farmers, respectively. We would be very surprised if the case were so simple, because a lot of migrations happened since the EEFs arrived in Europe (the arrival of Steppe folk is but one - and they also had some EEF, and WHG which would conflate the results).
To try and answer this, you can offer the run a multitude of European WHGs to chose from, as well as a adding Iberia EN, HUngary Neolithic, LBK as well as generic Barcin.
Admittedly, this gets dicey, as results will vary with whatever is added as Sources, but you can figure out with care.


Now I get:
Basque_Spanish ('K5000BC')
Hungary_N:I1498 37.05 %
LBK_EN:I0056 18.4 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 17.75 %
Kotias:KK1 15.35 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 10.6 %
Iberia_Mesolithic:I0585 0 %
Motala_HG:I0012 0 %
Iberia_EN 0 %

This suggests to me that very little EEF ancestry actually derives from the earliest Iberian farmers. But maybe this is incorrect ? Let's add middle Neolithics also (Iberia MN, Baaalberg, the oldest Remedello, etc)
Most of their WHG actually comes from east-central Europe.


Basque_Spanish
LBK_EN:I0056 33.95 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 25.75 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 21.5 %
Kotias:KK1 16.9 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 1.45 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0.4 %
Iceman_MN:Iceman 0 %
Remedello_BA:RISE487 0 %
Remedello_BA:RISE489 0 %
Greece_LN:Klei10 0 %
Fit=0.003

Again, most of their EEF comes from central Europe (LBK Hung Neol.), but Iberian_MN now appears. This suggests to me that Iberia_EN was not quite the right mix, and Iberia EN and Iberia MN aren't quite synonymous. Indeed, we know that Iberia_MN has higher WHG, and sees a rise in 'native' European haplogroups like I2a, suggesting that the earliest Iberian farmers themselves continued to evolve / admix into a somewhat new population by the middle Neolithic, and indeed Chalcolithic. Noteworthy is the lack of relevance of the Remedello's or Oetzi.
Also again, the WHG source appears to be from something Hungary like (and note that Hungary k01 has 5% ANE)

Let's add Yamnaya_Samara.

Basque_Spanish
LBK_EN:I0056 37.45 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 20.4 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 19.1 %
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 13 %
Kotias:KK1 9.9 %
Motala_HG:I0012 0.05 %


The most notable aspect is that Hungary WHG disappears. I suspect it was previously pertinent because western Yamnaya will have higher levels of WHG than our current Yamnaya _Samara source, and there is still a lingering Kotias component in isolation, also possibly because western Yamnaya will have different ratios of CHG, WHG and EHG, with the former lower than at Samara. The LBK vs Iberia MN component is remarkably stable.

You can now try add more Sources, because we have more recent individuals. But now my confidence drops, because we only have post 2000 BC samples from some regions, and not others, so analysis will be skewed, and to compensate for this, the programme will add on older groups like LBK or Baalberg or EHG to compensate for the lack of specific samples from each putative source region (ie post BB groups from western Europe which would have admixed with local Late Neolithics and become more EEF with time). Also, for post 3000 BC runs, you should probably add Armenia BA and/or Iran Neolithic, Levant (Jordan) BA, which might be relevant for some Europeans.

Let's add in all individuals as Sources down to 2000 BC

Basque_Spanish (K2200BC)
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 48.85 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 24.45 %
LBK_EN:I0056 10.45 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 8.75 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 3.55 %


Throwing in everything now:

Basque_Spanish
Baalberge_MN:I0559 23.9 %
Bell_Beaker: 34.15 %
Iberia_Chalcolithic:I0581 15.95 %
Iberia_BA:ATP9 10.2 %


Not taking these values at absolute face value, I am left with the impression that Basques mostly descend from a post-Beaker group in western Europe (which itself is the product of BB groups admixing with local Neolithics (? somewhere around France)), which then moved into the Basque region. I'm not sure when. Overall, I don't think they are descended from Cantabrian Mesolithics or even pioneer farmers, and I see no link with Remedello, either.


To really hit hard, we'd need some direct tests, haplotype analysis, IBD, etc. But the results seem sensical to me., but will really sink in if we compare surrounding populations.

Let me know if you want a similar look at any other group from the Bell Beaker oucemene.
As a final note, nMonte has an "average" algorithm which enables to group all CWC or BB or Iberia EN into one robust source group. This will decrease overfitting and make results more robust. But I forgot the commands.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Not taking these values at absolute face value, I am left with the impression that Basques mostly descend from a post-Beaker group in western Europe (which itself is the product of BB groups admixing with local Neolithics (? somewhere around France)), which then moved into the Basque region. I'm not sure when. Overall, I don't think they are descended from Cantabrian Mesolithics or even pioneer farmers, and I see no link with Remedello, either.


To clarify, I am not proposing that BB was proto-Basque, or anything like that; but simply that one (?some) post-BB groups could have switched to the language of a MNE community. Perhaps this even occurred several times (there is no reason to assume that it was only PIEs effecting language change), but it is only Basque which survives today. In addition to the Switch, Basque do not appear to have experienced additional gene flow from central European MBA groups.




Norwegian
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 22.65 %
Nordic_LN 22.25 %
Bell_Beaker: 34.75 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 11.85 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 7 %

French_South
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 27.5 %
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 21.25 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 19.35 %
Baalberge_MN:I0559 18.8 %
Armenia_EBA:I1633 4 %

Irish
Halberstadt_LBA: 56.75 %
Bell_Beaker: 14.05 %
Hungary_BA: 10.45 %
Kotias:KK1 6.15 %
Esperstedt_MN: 6 %
Nordic_LN 3.3 %

[Bas]

I choose based on successive Time Periods : selecting putative Source groups based on whether they existed at a certain point in time, or not. Then add as you go, then prune to neaten it up.

That sounds a good way to see changes over time. So you wouldn't recommend just putting a mixture of 20-30 WHG, ENF, CHG,EHG pops together from differing time periods (as long as it's logical in terms of time and space) and seeing what is chosen?

And one more question...In nMonte, how do I find the most realistic fit in any given model? Because most pops can be modeled in many ways. Is it lowest distance=most realistic fit?

The runs I got for Basque above were all under 0.30%, admittedly it was a bit of a haphazard selection as I didn't base it on the four 'pillars'.

[CannabisErectusHibernius]

To clarify, I am not proposing that BB was proto-Basque, or anything like that; but simply that one (?some) post-BB groups could have switched to the language of a MNE community. Perhaps this even occurred several times (there is no reason to assume that it was only PIEs effecting language change), but it is only Basque which survives today. In addition to the Switch, Basque do not appear to have experienced additional gene flow from central European MBA groups.




Norwegian
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 22.65 %
Nordic_LN 22.25 %
Bell_Beaker: 34.75 %
Esperstedt_MN:I0172 11.85 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 7 %

French_South
Halberstadt_LBA:I0099 27.5 %
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0111 21.25 %
Iberia_MN:I0405 19.35 %
Baalberge_MN:I0559 18.8 %
Armenia_EBA:I1633 4 %

Irish
Halberstadt_LBA: 56.75 %
Bell_Beaker: 14.05 %
Hungary_BA: 10.45 %
Kotias:KK1 6.15 %
Esperstedt_MN: 6 %
Nordic_LN 3.3 %

The Halberstadt/urnfield autosomal presence in the Irish population is pretty damn interesting. I may be wrong but isnt the archaeolgical evidence for urnfield/hallstadt in ireland pretty sparse? Also, it seems like many on this forum see the og irish bell beakers as L21 settlers originally from the rhineland. How do you reconcile the y haplo and autosome discrepancy? Obviously we need more ancient samples from urnfield proper.

[Bas]

Yes, the Rathlin genomes I think put to bed where L21 came from. Bringing how Celtic languages got there into the mix, I think Urnfield/Hallstatt was always likely given that it sounds unlikely for the Celtic languages to have stayed so close after 2500 odd years if it was brought by the first Beakers to Ireland, even though Beakers are obviously of IE stock. Old Irish has a lot in common with Gaulish from limited reconstructions I have seen.

The first Beakers could have brought an extinct branch of IE into the British Isles. But even Rathlin might be too early for Italo-Celtic. Something just after Post PIE? Early Irish to my untrained eye looks very close to Proto-Celtic which is dated to Hallstatt. But yeah, from the data we have, including Hinxton, it seems like L21 was dominant from the start of Beaker culture in the British Isles which makes the substantial Halberstadt_LBA vs lack of putative Urnfield Y DNA in Ireland (U152?) so interesting.

[razyn]

Obviously we need more ancient samples from urnfield proper.
Didn't the Urnfield archaeological culture cremate its dead, and bury their ashes in urns? If so, it would be tough to get aDNA samples from that.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

CEH, Razyn & Bas

I should highlight that the Rathlin samples were not included in the run, because they haven't been able to be converted yet (they're very large) in the Global 9 data sheet, therefore the analysis is handicapped by missing a vital sample. I'm sure more data will come soon. In the meantime, we can try using what is available to take a stab.
I don't recall a large Urnfield migration to Ireland either (certainly not a 57% founder effect). I don't think that happened, although during the later Bronze Age, certain styles do emerge in Ireland which show links with the continent. Even if limited to mere swords & ornaments, they could represent the material tip of a deeper social networks.

Additionally, the site at Halberstadt isn't a typical Urnfield culture grave, because for a start it's inhumed. It was located NW Germany (east of the Elbe and north of the Haarz), and it shows a continuity of use since the Neolithic. It was located in a region at a convergence point between the Nordic Bronze Age, Urnfield culture and other local cultures (eg Unstrutt group). A variety of haplogroups have already been found there, even if the results are from earlier studies without FGS, including R1a, R1b, and I2.

If I were to guess what it might mean, is that the Bronze Age colonists to northern Britain & Ireland were somehow similar to the Halberstadt individual. Although of a later date, Halberstadt represents a high steppe-admixed group continuing on in NW Europe until 1000 BC, perhaps from groups which remained in NW Europe whose relative went further west overseas. The interesting thing is that all the BB samples in Germany just south of Halberstadt, and in Czech, are lower in Yamnaya admixture, and possibly admixed with Balkan Copper Age people, whilst the the northernmost Beaker groups/ lower Rhine possibly had higher steppe admixture, received their MNE-admixture in Germany / Netherlands, and were slightly more Corded Ware-like, or Corded Ware admixed, than might be expected.

[Jean M]

Bringing how Celtic languages got there into the mix, I think Urnfield/Hallstatt was always likely given that it sounds unlikely for the Celtic languages to have stayed so close after 2500 odd years if it was brought by the first Beakers to Ireland, even though Beakers are obviously of IE stock. Old Irish has a lot in common with Gaulish from limited reconstructions I have seen.

I am not a linguist, but this is as I understand the matter so far:


Given that there are a few river names in Britain and Ireland that appear to derive direct from PIE or something closer to it than Proto-Celtic, my presumption is that the earliest BB people to arrive in these islands spoke Old European (Alteuropäisch).
So Proto-Celtic is more likely to have developed in the later BB c.2200 BC. That would explain its spread into Iberia and these islands. The most antique form of Celtic that survived long enough to be preserved for linguists is Celtiberian, which we could connect to a backflow of late BB into NE Iberia. BB continued to flow into Britain and Ireland long after 2500 BC, with the bulk of it coming after the discovery of tin in Cornwall c. 2200 BC.
The relationship between the various Celtic languages is complex. It cannot be explained by supposing that Proto-Celtic simply broke up c. 2200 BC into daughter languages which subsequently had no contact whatever.
Nor do we see an archaeological pattern of no contact from the Continent into Britain and Ireland in the later Bronze and Iron Ages. On the contrary, there are objects in Irish bogs that prove contact in the most delightful way. (I mean that bogs can preserve objects so much better than ordinary soil.) However there was much more isolation between Iberia and Central Europe, which would explain the archaism of Celtiberian.
The close similarity of the P-Celtic Gaulish and Brittonic is easily explained by the flood of La Tene material into Britain from Gaul.
Old Irish and Gaulish are less similar, since the former is Q-Celtic. That would be explained by the lesser reach of La Tene into Ireland. We would expect the greatest linguistic archaism in Munster, since La Tene material is somewhere between rare and non-existent there. It is in Munster that we find the greatest concentration of Ogham inscriptions in Primitive Irish.
There is a remarkable difference between Primitive Irish and Old Irish, considering the small time distance between the two. This has been explained as the former being an archaic language preserved by druids for formal use, such as inscriptions, while the latter was the vernacular. But we would expect the vernacular to differ far more by region than it seems Old Irish did. I suspect that Old Irish was the form taught in monasteries as the new literary language.


So the question to ask is not "How similar was Gaulish and Old Irish?" but "How similar was Primitive Irish and Latin?".

13739

[alan]

CEH, Razyn & Bas

I should highlight that the Rathlin samples were not included in the run, because they haven't been able to be converted yet (they're very large) in the Global 9 data sheet, therefore the analysis is handicapped by missing a vital sample. I'm sure more data will come soon. In the meantime, we can try using what is available to take a stab.
I don't recall a large Urnfield migration to Ireland either (certainly not a 57% founder effect). I don't think that happened, although during the later Bronze Age, certain styles do emerge in Ireland which show links with the continent. Even if limited to mere swords & ornaments, they could represent the material tip of a deeper social networks.

Additionally, the site at Halberstadt isn't a typical Urnfield culture grave, because for a start it's inhumed. It was located NW Germany (east of the Elbe and north of the Haarz), and it shows a continuity of use since the Neolithic. It was located in a region at a convergence point between the Nordic Bronze Age, Urnfield culture and other local cultures (eg Unstrutt group). A variety of haplogroups have already been found there, even if the results are from earlier studies without FGS, including R1a, R1b, and I2.

If I were to guess what it might mean, is that the Bronze Age colonists to northern Britain & Ireland were somehow similar to the Halberstadt individual. Although of a later date, Halberstadt represents a high steppe-admixed group continuing on in NW Europe until 1000 BC, perhaps from groups which remained in NW Europe whose relative went further west overseas. The interesting thing is that all the BB samples in Germany just south of Halberstadt, and in Czech, are lower in Yamnaya admixture, and possibly admixed with Balkan Copper Age people, whilst the the northernmost Beaker groups/ lower Rhine possibly had higher steppe admixture, received their MNE-admixture in Germany / Netherlands, and were slightly more Corded Ware-like, or Corded Ware admixed, than might be expected.

The way even the Celtic areas of the isles autosomally cluster today with north Sea people rather than south-west or central landlocked Europeans is telling us something. I think you are right. The copper/bronze age settlers in the isles must have passed through a huge area already settled by corded ware peoples who had been present for 250 years before beaker between the Rhine and Elbe and beyond and its extremely hard to believe - even if they were distinct groups - that they didnt intermarry. The beaker groups most likely to be effected by CW admixture would include those in Rhine and North Sea areas and north of the Danube in central Europe. Other beaker using groups may have not passed through CW areas at all such as early Iberian, early south (and perhaps Atlantic) French and NW Italian. It is possible that it was only at the end of the beaker era that such genes spread into SW Europe.

[TigerMW]

The way even the Celtic areas of the isles autosomally cluster today with north Sea people rather than south-west or central landlocked Europeans is telling us something. I think you are right. The copper/bronze age settlers in the isles must have passed through a huge area already settled by corded ware peoples who had been present for 250 years before beaker between the Rhine and Elbe and beyond and its extremely hard to believe - even if they were distinct groups - that they didnt intermarry. The beaker groups most likely to be effected by CW admixture would include those in Rhine and North Sea areas and north of the Danube in central Europe. Other beaker using groups may have not passed through CW areas at all such as early Iberian, early south (and perhaps Atlantic) French and NW Italian. It is possible that it was only at the end of the beaker era that such genes spread into SW Europe.
Is this really just indicative that the Bronze Age settlement of NW Europe was driven by the fission/fusion events related to Beaker and Corded Ware contact?
The pass-thru could be viewed as a continuation of some Y DNA alleles (i.e P312 or to be derived L21, DF19, DF99, L238) with some autosomal DNA from both the east and west sides of the fission/fusion events. Essentially that could mean that the east won and the hedgemony over the new NW European peoples was P312 dominated.

[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

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

But where, in Eastern Ukraine?

Map of R1a and R1b samples older than 6000 years:

http://i.imgur.com/S8mZq20.png

1) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago - R1a
2) Latvia, ca. 7800-7600 (avg. 7700) years ago - R1b
3) Samara, ca. 7650-7560 (avg. 7605) years ago - R1b
4) Latvia, ca. 7250-6800 (avg. 7025) years ago - R1b
5) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1b
6) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1a
7) Ukraine, ca. 6470-6290 (avg. 6380) years ago - R1a
8) Latvia, ca. 6200-5930 (avg. 6065) years ago - R1b
9) Smolensk, around 6000 (avg. 6000) years ago - R1a

[Tomenable]

This new find increases the chances that there will be R1a in Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine - only from Russia.

[rms2]

This new find increases the chances that there will be R1a in Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine - only from Russia.

Right. We don't have any from the Pontic steppe, only from the Caspian steppe, and we don't have any from the Yamnaya who actually moved west into the Carpathian basin and likely spawned a number of spin-off cultures, including Bell Beaker.

That is probably why we have not yet seen any R1a or R1b-L51 from Yamnaya. We have not yet looked in the right places.

[Tomenable]

I modified this map (originally from Maju's website) a bit:

Stage IV of Indo-European expansions (I added the main haplogroups for each culture):

It is also possible, that Vucedol was just R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 was in Corded Ware:

http://s18.postimg.org/f8tbforpl/RISE_98.png

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

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

Proto-Anatolians:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(104)jlr2013-9(1-21).pdf

https://s14.postimg.org/ir6sfat0h/Suworo_Migracja.png

http://i.imgur.com/m4DaHZc.jpg

Westward expansion of R1b-P312 from Vucedol:

http://i.imgur.com/5m6BMOf.png

Middle Eastern samples of R1b known so far:

I1635 - Kura Araxes culture, Armenia, 2619-2465 BC
RISE417 - Middle Bronze Age Armenia, 1906-1698 BC
RISE397 - Late Bronze Age Armenia, 1048-855 BC
F38 - Iron Age Teppe Hasanlu, Iran, 971-832 BC

Kumtepe B - we don't know their Y-DNA, but they did have Steppe admixture:

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


3700 BC new settlers came to Kumtepe. The people of this new culture, Kumtepe B, built relatively large houses with multiple rooms, sometimes a porch. They also practiced animal husbandry and agriculture. The main domestic animals were goats and sheep, bred not only for meat but for milk and wool as well. They knew lead and bronze along with copper. Shortly after 3000 BC Yassıtepe and Hisarlık (Troy) were colonized probably from Kumtepe.

[rms2]

Vucedol is not likely to have had any R1b before input from the steppe. Gimbutas attributed Bell Beaker to the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol, and, as we know, Bell Beaker has not suffered from a shortage of P312.

[bicicleur]

This new find increases the chances that there will be R1a in Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine - only from Russia.

It's odd, quite some R1a1, but prior to CW and Poltavka no R1a1a-M198 found yet, except Lokomotiv near Lake Bajkal, and no R1a1a1-M417 at all.

[Tomenable]

Vucedol is not likely to have had any R1b before input from the steppe.

Yes, I'm talking about Late Vucedol.

[Tomenable]

no R1a1a-M198 found yet, except Lokomotiv near Lake Bajkal

Lokomotiv was just R1a1-M17 according to Ancestral Journeys:

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

Where did you find info that they were M198? You probably think about Xiaohe.

Xiaohe were found to be M198+, but they have not been tested for M417 yet.

And their autosomal DNA has not been published so far, which is a pity.

[bicicleur]

this is Vucedol

Hungary Lánycsók, Csata-alja [M6-116.8] 2860-2620 BC R1b M343+ T2b23 Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis
Hungary Lánycsók, Csata-alja [M6-116.10] 2860-2620 BC I2a2a M223+ H5 Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis

Why do you think it is R1b-P312 ?

Vucedol may be ancestral to the Italic tribes, but it didn't get to an expansion as big as R1b-P312, it was overblown by BB folks.

[Tomenable]

If info on M198 in Lokomotiv is from Genetiker, then remember about his claim that ATP3 in Iberia was M269:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-atp3/

[Tomenable]

this is Vucedol

Hungary Lánycsók, Csata-alja [M6-116.8] 2860-2620 BC R1b M343+ T2b23 Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis
Hungary Lánycsók, Csata-alja [M6-116.10] 2860-2620 BC I2a2a M223+ H5 Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis

Why do you think it is R1b-P312 ?

Vucedol may be ancestral to the Italic tribes, but it didn't get to an expansion as big as R1b-P312, it was overblown by BB folks.

Mesolithic Ukrainian HG1 and Catacomb culture RISE552 were also I2a2a.


Why do you think it is R1b-P312 ?

I think some of them had P312+ and some others had more basal clades.

[bicicleur]

Lokomotiv was just R1a1-M17 according to Ancestral Journeys:

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

Where did you find info that they were M198? You probably think about Xiaohe.

Xiaohe were found to be M198+, but they have not been tested for M417 yet.

And their autosomal DNA has not been published so far, which is a pity.

search M17 on Yfull, M17 and R1a1a-M198 are equivalent

[bicicleur]

If info on M198 in Lokomotiv is from Genetiker, then remember about his claim that ATP3 in Iberia was M269:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-atp3/

and was this a mistake ?
I remember there was a long discussion about this, but it was confirmed by other scientific researchers

[Tomenable]

search M17 on Yfull, M17 and R1a1a-M198 are equivalent

R1a1 and R1a1a cannot be equivalent, maybe there is a mistake on Ancestral Journeys?


but it was confirmed by other scientific researchers

By whom?

[bicicleur]

Mesolithic Ukrainian HG1 and Catacomb culture RISE552 were also I2a2a.



I think some of them had P312+ and some others had more basal clades.

we need Y-DNA with subclades from the early BB in Iberia, and also from Csepl, these are IMO the 2 starting points of BB expansion
my guess is Iberia BB R1b-L51 and Csepl R1b-P312

[Tomenable]

Genetiker claims that ATP3 had Eastern European admixture.

He wrote about this on Eupedia, did you see that discussion?

[bicicleur]

R1a1 and R1a1a cannot be equivalent, maybe there is a mistake on Ancestral Journeys?



By whom?

sorry, I don't remember, it was one of the researchers of the paper in which these samples from Atapuerca were presented
he told the reading of the R1b-L278-L389-P297-M269-PF6518 SNP was quite clear and it was very likely to be correct
you can probably read it in one of the previous posts of this thread - but we are at post nr 3390 now ..

[rms2]

we need Y-DNA with subclades from the early BB in Iberia, and also from Csepl, these are IMO the 2 starting points of BB expansion
my guess is Iberia BB R1b-L51 and Csepl R1b-P312

If the earliest Iberian BB is R1b-L51, then it got there from the steppe. L51 certainly did not arise there, given that it is a brother clade to Z2103 under L23, and plenty of R1b-L23 and R1b-Z2103 have turned up in Yamnaya.

I personally think the very earliest Iberian BB will be non-R1b, by that I mean the Iberian stuff buried in collective Neolithic tombs without weapons rather than in kurgans with weapons and horse bones, early Iberian remains with gracile bodies and long heads like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers.

[bicicleur]

Genetiker claims that ATP3 had Eastern European admixture.

He wrote about this on Eupedia, did you see that discussion?

I think I saw it here and not on Eupedia

[Tomenable]

If the earliest Iberian BB is R1b-L51, then it got there from the steppe.

Genetiker does not deny this.

He just claims that there was Steppe admixture in Iberia 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


I think I saw it here and not on Eupedia

It is in the link above.

[rms2]

Genetiker does not deny this.

He just claims that there was Steppe admixture in Iberia 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



It is in the link above.

I recall that he totally changed his mind on the origin of R1b-M269 in Europe and now pretty much goes with the kurgan hypothesis.

[bicicleur]

If the earliest Iberian BB is R1b-L51, then it got there from the steppe. L51 certainly did not arise there, given that it is a brother clade to Z2103 under L23, and plenty of R1b-L23 and R1b-Z2103 have turned up in Yamnaya.

I personally think the very earliest Iberian BB will be non-R1b, by that I mean the Iberian stuff buried in collective Neolithic tombs without weapons rather than in kurgans with weapons and horse bones, early Iberian remains with gracile bodies and long heads like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers.

IMO first BB in Iberia were traders from unknown origin
they didn't live inside the fortified cities like Zambujal, but outside the wall
they were probably trading goods with the elites living inside these cities
it's all quite mysterious

[Tomenable]

I recall that he totally changed his mind on the origin of R1b-M269 in Europe and now pretty much goes with the kurgan hypothesis.

Yes:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=201026&viewfull=1#post201026

[rms2]

Yes:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6988-drought-of-ancient-DNA-papers-on-prehistoric-Europe-SW-Asia&p=201026&viewfull=1#post201026

Hey! I forgot I posted that! That was nice of me, and nice of you for reminding me of it. :biggrin1:

[Megalophias]

If info on M198 in Lokomotiv is from Genetiker
It's not; they were not NGS genomes, but SNP tested and reported in the paper. M17 and M198 are on the same level (so far as is known) so people may name them interchangeably. Of course we may find with ancient samples that it is negative for one and positive for the other but at present there is no difference.

There is always some possibility of error in the SNP testing. But it is as reliable as the finding of R1a-M17 in Upper Dvina region by Chekunova et al in 4000 BC. Both of those are much more closely related to R1a-M417 (diverged ~8-9 000 years ago, in the Mesolithic) than Karelia_HG and Ukraine_N1, who are R1a1-M459* (diverged ~12-16 000 years ago, in the late Palaeolithic).

[bicicleur]

Genetiker does not deny this.

He just claims that there was Steppe admixture in Iberia 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



It is in the link above.

yes, Genetiker is quite positive about the M269 in ATP3, and I remember lengthy discussions about this
it is about 1 single calls and false positives are possible, but as I mentioned above 1 researcher confirmed there was little doubt about this call

[Tomenable]

There is always some possibility of error in the SNP testing. But it is as reliable as the finding of R1a-M17 in Upper Dvina region by Chekunova et al in 4000 BC. Both of those are much more closely related to R1a-M417 (diverged ~8-9 000 years ago, in the Mesolithic) than Karelia_HG and Ukraine_N1, who are R1a1-M459*

And 2500-2400 BC you have R1a-M198* in Corded Ware:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/

Which was wrongly reported as R1b1a2-CTS11468. Nobody corrected this mistake officially.

How is it possible to confuse R1a with R1b ???


Both of those are much more closely related to R1a-M417 (diverged ~8-9 000 years ago, in the Mesolithic) than Karelia_HG and Ukraine_N1, who are R1a1-M459*

And Latvian R1b-P297 is more closely related to R1b-M269 than Khvalynsk and Samara EHG.

[rms2]

. . .

How is it possible to confuse R1a with R1b ???

Not hard if one relies on STRs. I get R1a matches in Ysearch if I allow enough distance, and when I got my first 37-marker results from FTDNA back in 2006, they had me listed as R1 for awhile while they figured out what I was.

[Tomenable]

Not hard if one relies on STRs.

But they didn't rely just on STRs if they reported SNP CTS11468.

Ancestral Journeys still has it listed as R1b, with question marks:

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

And no mention that several people confirmed it was R1a-M198*.

Not just Genetiker but also Smal confirmed that it was M198*.

[rms2]

yes, Genetiker is quite positive about the M269 in ATP3, and I remember lengthy discussions about this
it is about 1 single calls and false positives are possible, but as I mentioned above 1 researcher confirmed there was little doubt about this call

I think it's shaky, but c'est la vie.

[Tomenable]

Some people just don't like the fact that M198* was in the middle of Europe in the Copper Age.

[Tomenable]

Another "controversial" case is R1 from Baalberge:

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


Baalberge Germany Quedlinburg IX [I0559 / QLB 15] M 3652-3527 calBCE (4815±26 BP)
178,578 R1 (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a) P224+, PF6069+, M515-, L151-, L753-

[rms2]

Some people just don't like the fact that M198* was in the middle of Europe in the Copper Age.

Why, when CW has already got so much R1a in it? My paternal grandmother was a Pierce, and, from what I can see, it looks likely her dad's line was R1a (cannot confirm that yet though).

[Tomenable]

Why, when CW has already got so much R1a in it?

It shows that basal paragroup R1a-M198* could also be part of the PIE community.

Some people associate only R1a-M417+ subclades with Indo-European expansions.

[Tomenable]

In every single generation:

- some men don't have children
- some men have only daughters
- some men have a lot of sons

If you go back to 6000 years ago, maybe 1/20 of men who lived at that time have modern descendants. This is why we are going to find a lot of "basal paragroups" intermixed with "modern subclades".

[rms2]

In every single generation:

- some men don't have children
- some men have only daughters
- some men have a lot of sons

If you go back to 6000 years ago, maybe 1/20 of men who lived at that time have modern descendants. This is why we are going to find a lot of "basal paragroups" intermixed with "modern subclades".

I have two brothers who have nothing but daughters, but that could be the fault of the suicide pill (aka the birth control pill). I have two sons. One thus far has one daughter, the other has two sons and one daughter. I have a second cousin on my y-dna line with four sons, however.

My y-dna ancestor was pretty prolific. There are a bunch of lines out there on my y-dna line with many sons.

[rms2]

Bringing this thread back home somewhat, it is good to recall that Jean M recently said that Heyd, who is an expert on Bell Beaker, is sticking with his belief that Yamnaya is the source of Bell Beaker. Heyd and the Upcoming Bell Beaker Extravaganza (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=200566&viewfull=1#post200566)

[Net Down G5L]

Yes, Yamnaya like autosomal DNA is in some Bell Beaker but not in other.

The main man, David Reich, is presenting the 'paper'/data in the States next month although I have heard again that the actual paper may be delayed somewhat. Anybody know where that presentation is scheduled for? Too distant for me, but would like some of you folk there.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

But they didn't rely just on STRs if they reported SNP CTS11468.

Ancestral Journeys still has it listed as R1b, with question marks:

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

And no mention that several people confirmed it was R1a-M198*.

Not just Genetiker but also Smal confirmed that it was M198*.

But one of the Corded Ware actually was R1b (RISE1), we have early R1b in Latvia, that poorly defined R1b in Baalberg, and a suggestion from this paper for a 'north European Mesolithic continuum' .
And also results like:

Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32 44.2 %
Kotias:KK1 35.65 %
Samara_Eneolithic:I0434 19.85 %
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 0.3 %



Irish
Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32 38.7 %
Kotias:KK1 20.45 %
LBK_EN:I0026 19.15 %
Hungary_CA:I1497 15.1 %
Samara_Eneolithic:I0434 6.5 %

Speculative, but it could potentially mean something

[bicicleur]

But they didn't rely just on STRs if they reported SNP CTS11468.

Ancestral Journeys still has it listed as R1b, with question marks:

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

And no mention that several people confirmed it was R1a-M198*.

Not just Genetiker but also Smal confirmed that it was M198*.

it is not on the tree of Sergey Malyshev

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

[ArmandoR1b]

yes, Genetiker is quite positive about the M269 in ATP3, and I remember lengthy discussions about this
it is about 1 single calls and false positives are possible, but as I mentioned above 1 researcher confirmed there was little doubt about this call
I'll take R.Rocca's word over that of Genetiker any day. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114)


And while we are at it, the Atapuerca ATP3 PF6518+ (M269 equivalent) call is pretty useless as well. Here are the same random samples I used for I0443:

Atapuerca ATP3 - Haplogroup R - 1 of 1 derived reads
L2_Rocca - Haplogroup R - 20 of 20 derived reads
NA19309 - Haplogroup E - 2 of 2 derived reads
NA18868 - Haplogroup E - 0 of 4 derived reads
NA12286 - Haplogroup G - 4 of 6 derived reads
NA06994 - Haplogroup I - 2 of 5 derived reads
NA18611 - Haplogroup O - 1 of 1 derived reads

http://www.r1b.org/imgs/ATP3_PF6518.png

The positive call for R1b1a-FGC46/Y97 is legitimate though.


On ATP3?... It was never solid because there are no reads for M269. So the last reliable read is R1b1a-FGC46/Y97.

to get an idea of the number of reads and quality of the data, here is a compare in BAM file sizes...

139,610,336 KB... L2_Rocca (Whole Genome)
682,353 KB... I0443 (Whole Genome)
83,060 KB... ATP3 (Whole Genome)

So it is pretty telling why the authors chose not to call the haplogroup for ATP3 or why nobody uses it to plot it on a PCR.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114

I knew that PF6518, a phylogenetic equivalent of M269, was an unreliable call from the very beginning (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1646-Genome-of-a-late-Neolithic-Iberian-farmer&p=107522&highlight=PF6518#post107522).


SAMEA3477467 ATP3 only has 81 MB of coverage which is extremely poor. The ONLY M269 SNP that Genetiker was able to find was PF6518 which is found in many other haplogroups. Please do a search of it at http://www.yfull.com/search-snp-in-tree/ That same specimen also has calls for SNPs belonging to other haplogroups yet Genetiker only pointed out PF6518 which lead him to M269. That's being very careless.

Here is the result of the search of PF6518 at YFull.

− PF6518 G-FGC5672
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 J-CTS130
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 E-CTS1622
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 C-V20*
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 C1a1a1
This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 R-M269
− PF6518 N-Y4374
This position for SNP is not in the YTree

[ArmandoR1b]

Bringing this thread back home somewhat, it is good to recall that Jean M recently said that Heyd, who is an expert on Bell Beaker, is sticking with his belief that Yamnaya is the source of Bell Beaker. Heyd and the Upcoming Bell Beaker Extravaganza (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=200566&viewfull=1#post200566)

I can't wait for that paper.

[Tomenable]

So ATP3 was R1b1a-FGC46/Y97 but not M269 ???

[Tomenable]

But one of the Corded Ware actually was R1b (RISE1)

Even two, if you count also RISE98 (Scandinavian Corded Ware) with R1b-U106.

Maybe Polish RISE1 was also R1b-U106? But this is a very poor quality sample.

I don't think there was P312 in Corded Ware, but I wouldn't be surprised by U106.

[ArmandoR1b]

So ATP3 was R1b1a-FGC46/Y97 but not M269 ???

Correct

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Correct

What's the confidence on that Armando ?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Delet

[Generalissimo]

Yes, Yamnaya like autosomal DNA is in some Bell Beaker but not in other.

The main man, David Reich, is presenting the 'paper'/data in the States next month although I have heard again that the actual paper may be delayed somewhat. Anybody know where that presentation is scheduled for? Too distant for me, but would like some of you folk there.

First I hear of this.

The talk should be advertised online somewhere, or it might be part of a scientific meeting. Either way, there might be an abstract online with the general outline and main findings.

[bicicleur]

I'll take R.Rocca's word over that of Genetiker any day. (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114)





http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7057-The-genetic-history-of-Ice-Age-Europe&p=160114&viewfull=1#post160114

I knew that PF6518, a phylogenetic equivalent of M269, was an unreliable call from the very beginning (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1646-Genome-of-a-late-Neolithic-Iberian-farmer&p=107522&highlight=PF6518#post107522).

Something escapes me here.

First he says R1b1a-FGC46/Y97 is a reliable read.
Then he says PF6518 was also found, but it apears under several other branches as well, like G, J, E, C and N.
Therefore he doesn't know where he should atribute this PF6518 to.
Well, if it is tested positive for R and not for G, J, E, C and N, you should atribute it to the R branch, don't you?
Furthermore, this is the reply I get on Yfull search today :

− PF6518 C-V20* This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 G-FGC5672* This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 R-M269

I agree, the PF6518 could be a false positive.
But this SNP was pretty well readable in the sample.

Well, we'll have to compare when more Y-DNA from Iberian chalcolithic and BB comes available, which might be in a few months in the anounced new study.

[bicicleur]

Even two, if you count also RISE98 (Scandinavian Corded Ware) with R1b-U106.

Maybe Polish RISE1 was also R1b-U106? But this is a very poor quality sample.

I don't think there was P312 in Corded Ware, but I wouldn't be surprised by U106.

Do you know more about the context of RISE98?
Is he realy CW?
His origin could also be northern Danish BB, the ones with the flint daggers.
These BB folks were trading in southern Scandinavia.

[Tomenable]

Do you know more about the context of RISE98?
Is he realy CW?
His origin could also be northern Danish BB, the ones with the flint daggers.
These BB folks were trading in southern Scandinavia.

Autosomally RISE98 is more similar to other CW than to any of BB.

[Michał]

Do you know more about the context of RISE98?
Is he realy CW?

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=90395&viewfull=1#post90395
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=92185&viewfull=1#post92185

[ArmandoR1b]

Something escapes me here.

First he says R1b1a-FGC46/Y97 is a reliable read.
Then he says PF6518 was also found, but it apears under several other branches as well, like G, J, E, C and N.
Therefore he doesn't know where he should atribute this PF6518 to.
Well, if it is tested positive for R and not for G, J, E, C and N, you should atribute it to the R branch, don't you?

I was the one that reported that YFull was showing all of those haplogroups. R.Rocca was showed results of random samples and not samples from all haplogroups but he reported haplogroups E, G, I and O. He wasn't saying that the haplogroups of the samples are the only ones that have a positive result for PF6518. He was showing that even with some random kits from various haplogroups the SNP showed positive. Between what YFull had and R.Rocca found the haplogroups are C, G, I, E, J, N and O. Singular SNPs in a branch that show up often in people from other haplogroups really shouldn't be used because there is no way to know for sure if the read was due to a random mutation or not. The C14 calibrated date for ATP is 5466-5312 cal BP so it should be positive for all of the 105 phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that are in the R-M269 branch but the only one found was the unreliable PF6518 and even if he really belonged to the branch he could be a dead branch and absolutely nothing to do with the branch that lead to modern P312 and U106. If ATP3 had been a high quality specimen and it had a positive read for almost all of the 105 phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that are in the R-M269 branch then we would be able to say that it has been in Iberia since at least 3362 BC. ATP3 doesn't show to be positive for any of the L23 or L51 phylogenetic equivalent SNPs either and they are all old enough for ATP3 to have been positive for them if his close relatives led to the L51 branch. Without a positive for L23 he doesn't lead to Z2103 either.



Furthermore, this is the reply I get on Yfull search today :

− PF6518 C-V20* This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 G-FGC5672* This position for SNP is not in the YTree
− PF6518 R-M269
Yes, it has been reduced but it is still randomly found in a lot of people from many different haplogroups.



I agree, the PF6518 could be a false positive.
No one called it a false positive. It is a useless or unreliable SNP because it is so random in so many different haplogroups. A false positive is when the a test provides a positive result but in reality the person is negative once more reliable testing is done. Everybody has random SNP mutations that are not part of the haplogroup that they belong to and those SNPs aren't used unless they reliably show up in everybody that belongs to a branch and then they are recurrent SNPs.



But this SNP was pretty well readable in the sample.One call out of one read. Not 20 calls out of 20 reads and none of the other 105 phylogenetic equivalent SNPs that are in the R-M269 branch had a positive call in order to know that it was a reliable read or a random mutation. A good read of a random mutation is useless. That was my point and the point of R.Rocca.


Well, we'll have to compare when more Y-DNA from Iberian chalcolithic and BB comes available, which might be in a few months in the anounced new study.
I'm glad that you have come to realize this.

[Jean M]

First I hear of this.

The talk should be advertised online somewhere, or it might be part of a scientific meeting. Either way, there might be an abstract online with the general outline and main findings.

Can't find it.

[bicicleur]

It is a useless or unreliable SNP because it is so random in so many different haplogroups. A false positive is when the a test provides a positive result but in reality the person is negative once more reliable testing is done. Everybody has random SNP mutations that are not part of the haplogroup that they belong to and those SNPs aren't used unless they reliably show up in everybody that belongs to a branch and then they are recurrent SNPs.

I still don't get it. If PF6518 is an unstable SNP why did YFull incorporate it in his tree as equivalent to M269?
They certainly should know better.

[parasar]

I still don't get it. If PF6518 is an unstable SNP why did YFull incorporate it in his tree as equivalent to M269?
They certainly should know better.
"With respect to Known SNPs, the YFull quality ratings are expressed as a star rating system, where 5 stars reflects YFull's highest confidence in the quality of a SNP and 1 star its lowest level of confidence. SNPs with 2, 3, 4 and 5 stars are deemed to be of good quality, and SNPs with only 1 star of low quality. As the number of stars increases so also does YFull's confidence level. The star rating system for Known SNPs is used in the YFull "Hg and SNPs" pages, and in the "Check SNPs" tool."
https://www.yfull.com/faq/quality-ratings-of-snps/

[Romilius]

Yes, Yamnaya like autosomal DNA is in some Bell Beaker but not in other.

The main man, David Reich, is presenting the 'paper'/data in the States next month although I have heard again that the actual paper may be delayed somewhat. Anybody know where that presentation is scheduled for? Too distant for me, but would like some of you folk there.

But... the source?

As for Yamnaya like autosomal... until now, we have Yamnaya autosomal in all Bell Beaker samples... do you know something we don't?

[ArmandoR1b]

I still don't get it. If PF6518 is an unstable SNP why did YFull incorporate it in his tree as equivalent to M269?
They certainly should know better.

YFull only uses high quality samples. ATP3 is low quality so the SNP commonly found in many haplogroups is not reliable. I should have specified that I was talking about low quality samples when I stated "Singular SNPs in a branch that show up often in people from other haplogroups really shouldn't be used because there is no way to know for sure if the read was due to a random mutation or not" However, both myself and R.Rocca have pointed out that the ATP3 sample was low quality in other posts.

Notice that YFull never added ATP3 to their tree but they do add high quality ancient samples because they are reliable enough to do so.

[rms2]

Yes, Yamnaya like autosomal DNA is in some Bell Beaker but not in other.

The main man, David Reich, is presenting the 'paper'/data in the States next month although I have heard again that the actual paper may be delayed somewhat. Anybody know where that presentation is scheduled for? Too distant for me, but would like some of you folk there.


But... the source?

As for Yamnaya like autosomal... until now, we have Yamnaya autosomal in all Bell Beaker samples... do you know something we don't?

Yes, I wondered about that myself. As far as I know all the BB remains thus far have a sizable Yamnaya-like component. Maybe the very earliest Iberian BB won't, but we don't know that yet.

[rms2]

Oh, and the contrast between the Neolithic Ballynahatty woman and the two Bronze Age Rathlin Island R1b-L21 men from Cassidy et al is pretty stark. I realize she is just one Neolithic Irish example, but she had no Yamnaya; then, by the late third millennium BC, there it is in a big way in those two R1b-L21 men. Kind of like a "before and after" picture.

[rms2]

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=90395&viewfull=1#post90395
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=92185&viewfull=1#post92185

Here's a little from Gimbutas on GAC -

From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 381:



There is similarity between the burial rites of the Globular Amphora people and those of the Kurgans of the Maikop culture in the North Pontic region. Both used mortuary houses built of stone slabs and practiced the ritual burial of horses, cattle, and dogs, as well as human sacrifice in connection with funeral rites honoring high-ranking males.

From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 383:



The religious and social traditions of the Globular Amphora culture demonstrate that the grave structure was unrelated to that of the TRB culture . . .

The Globular Amphora people were seminomadic herders living in small groups who practiced a limited seasonal movement documented by seasonal settlements of two or three rectangular semisubterranean huts, or a singular above-ground timber house.


From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 384:



The physical type of this population [GAC] is not yet satisfactorily known. In Romania only seven skeletons have been examined which were characterized by Olga Necrasov as "attenuated Proto-Europid with some brachylization". The broad-headed skulls from the stone-cist graves in western Ukraine are very similar to those from Romanian Moldavia, and the skulls from Poland are also broad-headed. Multivariate comparisons made between seventeen male skulls from central Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Poland by Ilse Schwidetzky has shown affinities with the substratum TRB population. Although the number of individuals examined is still very small, it is interesting to note that Schwidetzky sees a certain gradation within the Globular Amphora population in which breadth measurements decrease from east to west. The eastern groups are very similar to the Kurgan type, while the western resemble the central German TRB people. We have yet to discover the amount of population influx and how much crossing took place between the various types.

Nevertheless, it is apparent that the emergence of the Globular Amphora culture in the north European plain is crucial to an understanding of the Indo-Europeanization of this part of Europe. We must bear in mind that the fundamental social, religious and economic components of the Globular Amphora culture link it to the North Pontic area.

[Jean M]

As for Yamnaya like autosomal... until now, we have Yamnaya autosomal in all Bell Beaker samples... do you know something we don't?

David Reich said at the lecture I attended in Oxford February 2015 that his lab (already at that time) had a few (did he say a couple?) of BB samples from Iberia. He said that the proportions of the three autosomal components (that he was lecturing on) were different in these samples than in the BB from Germany. He did not give any details. I guessed that he had picked up some people with lower Yamnaya. Or maybe even no Yamnaya, if they were females who had married in. Of course, if all of Iberian BB had no Yamnaya, I would have a lot of re-writing to do. ;) But with no details, we are left in the dark for the moment.

[rms2]

David Reich said at the lecture I attended in Oxford February 2015 that his lab (already at that time) had a few (did he say a couple?) of BB samples from Iberia. He said that the proportions of the three autosomal components (that he was lecturing on) were different in these samples than in the BB from Germany. He did not give any details. I guessed that he had picked up some people with lower Yamnaya. Or maybe even no Yamnaya, if they were females who had married in. Of course, if all of Iberian BB had no Yamnaya, I would have a lot of re-writing to do. ;) But with no details, we are left in the dark for the moment.

If some of them were males, maybe the y-dna haplogroups will be different, too, with no R1b in the early Iberian BB.

I have mentioned before the physical differences between the very earliest Iberian BB and the later, kurgan type of BB. They were physically different people, so autosomal differences make sense.

[Agamemnon]

David Reich said at the lecture I attended in Oxford February 2015 that his lab (already at that time) had a few (did he say a couple?) of BB samples from Iberia. He said that the proportions of the three autosomal components (that he was lecturing on) were different in these samples than in the BB from Germany. He did not give any details. I guessed that he had picked up some people with lower Yamnaya. Or maybe even no Yamnaya, if they were females who had married in. Of course, if all of Iberian BB had no Yamnaya, I would have a lot of re-writing to do. ;) But with no details, we are left in the dark for the moment.

Any idea when this study might be coming out? I mean, let's face it, we're all starving here :lol:

Anyway, if Heyd is sticking with what he previously wrote, I'd imagine that's because Iberian BB did have Yamna-like admixture, albeit in smaller amounts, just my 2 cents.

[rms2]

Any idea when this study might be coming out? I mean, let's face it, we're all starving here :lol:

Anyway, if Heyd is sticking with what he previously wrote, I'd imagine that's because Iberian BB did have Yamna-like admixture, albeit in smaller amounts, just my 2 cents.

The difference might also be in one or both of the other components, WHG and/or EEF. Or maybe those Iberian BBs had an even bigger slug of Yamnaya? Who knows?

I'm looking forward to that paper. 200 sets of results from ancient remains across Europe! Whoa! Get ready for a thousand-page thread!

[rms2]

Any idea when this study might be coming out? I mean, let's face it, we're all starving here :lol:

Anyway, if Heyd is sticking with what he previously wrote, I'd imagine that's because Iberian BB did have Yamna-like admixture, albeit in smaller amounts, just my 2 cents.

Sorry to quote you twice, but yeah, if Heyd, who is an expert on BB, is sticking to Yamnaya as the source of BB, that's got to count for something. (Gimbutas takes a break from her conversation with Einstein in heaven to smile knowingly.)

I agree with you, buddy.

[Jean M]

Any idea when this study might be coming out? I mean, let's face it, we're all starving here

If I knew, I would have told you. All I know is what I was told at Heyd's lecture in December. Net Down G5L seems to have had some email exchanges since then. Sounds like the idea that it might be out in March was a bit optimistic.

[bicicleur]

David Reich said at the lecture I attended in Oxford February 2015 that his lab (already at that time) had a few (did he say a couple?) of BB samples from Iberia. He said that the proportions of the three autosomal components (that he was lecturing on) were different in these samples than in the BB from Germany. He did not give any details. I guessed that he had picked up some people with lower Yamnaya. Or maybe even no Yamnaya, if they were females who had married in. Of course, if all of Iberian BB had no Yamnaya, I would have a lot of re-writing to do. ;) But with no details, we are left in the dark for the moment.

I haven't checked this in detail myself, but it seems the mtDNA of Iberian BB is different from the German BB
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en
that Iberian BB would be the BB on the Meseta

So, even with different autosomal DNA, the Y DNA could still be the same

[rms2]

If I knew, I would have told you. All I know is what I was told at Heyd's lecture in December. Net Down G5L seems to have had some email exchanges since then. Sounds like the idea that it might be out in March was a bit optimistic.

Well, if it's April, I hope it coincides with my Spring Break. I am a public school teacher. A Spring Break release would be ideal. I could really follow the action then.

[rms2]

I haven't checked this in detail myself, but it seems the mtDNA of Iberian BB is different from the German BB
https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en
that Iberian BB would be the BB on the Meseta

So, even with different autosomal DNA, the Y DNA could still be the same

What's your y-dna haplogroup, btw? Just curious.

[bicicleur]

"With respect to Known SNPs, the YFull quality ratings are expressed as a star rating system, where 5 stars reflects YFull's highest confidence in the quality of a SNP and 1 star its lowest level of confidence. SNPs with 2, 3, 4 and 5 stars are deemed to be of good quality, and SNPs with only 1 star of low quality. As the number of stars increases so also does YFull's confidence level. The star rating system for Known SNPs is used in the YFull "Hg and SNPs" pages, and in the "Check SNPs" tool."
https://www.yfull.com/faq/quality-ratings-of-snps/

is it possible to check these rates for a SNP on YFull ?

[rms2]

What's your y-dna haplogroup, btw? Just curious.

No answer? Bet I can guess.

[vettor]

Here's a little from Gimbutas on GAC -

From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 381:



From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 383:



From The Civilization of the Goddess, p. 384:

Maybe it is being held up by the religious institutions of the world not wanting to tell people that God was female :amen:

Imagine all the religious scripts that need to be changed:argue:

[Chad Rohlfsen]

There's about 20, or so, more Ukrainians coming. Don't be surprised if most are m269, with L23 in the Neolithic.

[lgmayka]

is it possible to check these rates for a SNP on YFull ?
If the SNP is actually placed on the tree, you can usually go to that tree level, click on Info, then select the SNPs tab to see the stars associated with each SNP.

If the SNP has not been placed anywhere on the tree, or if it is a singleton SNP such as L784 (https://yfull.com/tree/R-L784/), I think you need a YFull account in order to view the SNP's details, including its star count.

[rms2]

There's about 20, or so, more Ukrainians coming. Don't be surprised if most are m269, with L23 in the Neolithic.

I get the impression that you and Davidski have some sort of advance notice on that, because both of you have hinted at it before, Davidksi very confidently. I, for one, will be very glad to see it.

[rms2]

Maybe it is being held up by the religious institutions of the world not wanting to tell people that God was female :amen:

Imagine all the religious scripts that need to be changed:argue:

I usually eat that with cheese. It's called baloney here.

[Romilius]

David Reich said at the lecture I attended in Oxford February 2015 that his lab (already at that time) had a few (did he say a couple?) of BB samples from Iberia. He said that the proportions of the three autosomal components (that he was lecturing on) were different in these samples than in the BB from Germany. He did not give any details. I guessed that he had picked up some people with lower Yamnaya. Or maybe even no Yamnaya, if they were females who had married in. Of course, if all of Iberian BB had no Yamnaya, I would have a lot of re-writing to do. ;) But with no details, we are left in the dark for the moment.

Thanks for informations... I'm thinking about this fact: why Reich gave a hint only about autosomal? Perhaps because the uniparental markers are not so different from, I would say, German Bell Beaker?

[rms2]

Thanks for informations... I'm thinking about this fact: why Reich gave a hint only about autosomal? Perhaps because the uniparental markers are not so different from, I would say, German Bell Beaker?

That might not be the case. Autosomal dna seems to be all the rage now. Y-dna isn't the big thing it was 10 years or so ago.

[Romilius]

There's about 20, or so, more Ukrainians coming. Don't be surprised if most are m269, with L23 in the Neolithic.

Again... do you know something we don't?

(I'm so sad: with all these hints I feel like the last to know things)

[rms2]

Again... do you know something we don't?

(I'm so sad: with all these hints I feel like the last to know things)

Watch: I bet he's right. We don't have any y-dna from the Pontic steppe yet, only from the Caspian steppe. Watch some of it turn out to be R1b-L51.

[Jean M]

I'm thinking about this fact: why Reich gave a hint only about autosomal? Perhaps because the uniparental markers are not so different from, I would say, German Bell Beaker?

Reich's focus was solidly on autosomal in that lecture. That is his chief interest. I had to ask him privately about Y-DNA and he wondered why I was interested! :) It was clear that he wasn't holding the details of Y-DNA results for each sample in his head. I can't say I blame him. He'd had a long trip and a long day.

[vettor]

That might not be the case. Autosomal dna seems to be all the rage now. Y-dna isn't the big thing it was 10 years or so ago.

for family linking AuDna is only good for about 7 generations , the more older generations value is variable to ones person

[vettor]

I usually eat that with cheese. It's called baloney here.

lol,
we will never know , except once these scholars decide what value must be placed on the hundreds/thousands of forms of female deities found in Eurasia .....why does the female form have over 90% compared to the male form

[rms2]

lol,
we will never know , except once these scholars decide what value must be placed on the hundreds/thousands of forms of female deities found in Eurasia .....why does the female form have over 90% compared to the male form

I know already. The matriarchal cultures of Old Europe were into mother goddess figurines. The patriarchal Indo-Europeans were too busy for carving figurines of their sky father.

[Il Papà]

There's about 20, or so, more Ukrainians coming. Don't be surprised if most are m269, with L23 in the Neolithic.
Still no L51 in sight in there right ?

[rms2]

Still no L51 in sight in there right ?

I'll bet there is. Some folks might not be able to reveal all they know without compromising their informants or breaking a promise not to reveal too much. We'll have to wait and see.

[bicicleur]

for family linking AuDna is only good for about 7 generations , the more older generations value is variable to ones person

that's right
autosomal will never replace uniparental, it's just good complementary info for the short term

[Generalissimo]

that's right
autosomal will never replace uniparental, it's just good complementary info for the short term

Ridiculous statement.

[Il Papà]

Ridiculous statement.

He was referring to family linking. After 7th generation it's very likely that you appears as non-related autosomally with someone that far removed with you. You could share some IBS segment but that not mean that they come from the same common ancestor you are looking for.

While with uni-parental marker you can see when your line separated even if the problem with uniparental marker is that you miss many lines, it needs to be direct lines.

[bicicleur]

He was referring to family linking. After 7th generation it's very likely that you appears as non-related autosomally with someone that far removed with you. You could share some IBS segment but that not mean that they come from the same common ancestor you are looking for.

While with uni-parental marker you can see when your line separated even if the problem with uniparental marker is that you miss many lines, it needs to be direct lines.

there are many ways to get to the same autosomal make-up
if you don't have the backup of the uniparental markers you'll never find out which is the correct way
autosomal can only explain 1 or 2 levels of admixture
after several levels of admixture autosomal gets completely lost

maybe in the future we'll be able to track some genes being favoured by natural selection
that would be interesting
but today we don't even know how and when e.g. lactose persistence spread, there is still a long way to go

[Generalissimo]

there are many ways to get to the same autosomal make-up
if you don't have the backup of the uniparental markers you'll never find out which is the correct way
autosomal can only explain 1 or 2 levels of admixture
after several levels of admixture autosomal gets completely lost

That's not true. There's a whole range of tests that can be done, and IBD and rare allele tests can be more effective than any uniparental marker analyses.

[bicicleur]

That's not true. There's a whole range of tests that can be done, and IBD and rare allele tests can be more effective than any uniparental marker analyses.

what rare alleles have been identified and are used regularly for testing? what are the solid conclusions?
remember that in heterozigosity alleles can get lost again without the actual tribe getting extinct
that is probably the case with EDAR which appeared in Motala, and nobody even knows how and when it got there in the first place
and can you calculate TMRCA of rare alleles or IBD ? because that is a big advantage of Y-DNA

I don't say autosomal is'nt usefull, but we still need the rigid frame of the uniparental markers and their pedigrees

[Generalissimo]

what rare alleles have been identified and are used regularly for testing?

Population and ethnic specific rare alleles. Look up, for instance, Rarecoal.

[ffoucart]

I'll bet there is. Some folks might not be able to reveal all they know without compromising their informants or breaking a promise not to reveal too much. We'll have to wait and see.

True. But there is already so many hints from obiter dicta in previous papers/communications that we coud make reasonable guesses about what will be found (at least for Y DNA).

[rms2]

True. But there is already so many hints from obiter dicta in previous papers/communications that we coud make reasonable guesses about what will be found (at least for Y DNA).

Yes, and I fully realize that I may be reading what I want to see into those remarks. The wish is father to the thought, as they say.

Of course, Heyd did say the dna results are looking good (my paraphrase) and that he is sticking with his idea that Yamnaya is the source of BB. That is encouraging, at least.

[bicicleur]

Population and ethnic specific rare alleles. Look up, for instance, Rarecoal.

ok, thank you

I see it is used to compare English iron age with present-day European populations
are there more uses, or is this in its testing phase?

[Il Papà]

Yes, and I fully realize that I may be reading what I want to see into those remarks. The wish is father to the thought, as they say.

Of course, Heyd did say the dna results are looking good (my paraphrase) and that he is sticking with his idea that Yamnaya is the source of BB. That is encouraging, at least.


A Yamnaya like population or the Yamnaya themself ? That change a bit everything on the Y-dna part, not much on autosomal though.

[rms2]

A Yamnaya like population or the Yamnaya themself ? That change a bit everything on the Y-dna part, not much on autosomal though.

Yamnaya themselves, at least according to Gimbutas and Heyd. No doubt there was a pre-BB population in the Carpathian Basin formed from the combination of Yamnaya and some locals. Gimbutas thought those locals were Vucedol.

13826 13827

[Generalissimo]

I'll bet there is. Some folks might not be able to reveal all they know without compromising their informants or breaking a promise not to reveal too much. We'll have to wait and see.

Interestingly, there's all sorts of "coming soon" stuff being talked about behind the scenes, like Halstatt Celts, Alans, Sarmatians, Wielbark, Przeworsk, early Polish Slavs.

But the details of the Bell Beaker paper have been well hidden, especially in these late stages. Still, based on the rumors I've heard, and my own intuition, I expect L51 to first show up somewhere around modern-day Moldova. Let's wait and see.

[GoldenHind]

Interestingly, there's all sorts of "coming soon" stuff being talked about behind the scenes, like Halstatt Celts, Alans, Sarmatians, Wielbark, Przeworsk, early Polish Slavs.

But the details of the Bell Beaker paper have been well hidden, especially in these late stages. Still, based on the rumors I've heard, and my own intuition, I expect L51 to first show up somewhere around modern-day Moldova. Let's wait and see.

Thanks, but the "coming soon" papers seem to be better described as "coming one of these days."

L51 first turning up in the Moldova area would not surprise me one bit.

[bicicleur]

Yamnaya themselves, at least according to Gimbutas and Heyd. No doubt there was a pre-BB population in the Carpathian Basin formed from the combination of Yamnaya and some locals. Gimbutas thought those locals were Vucedol.

13826 13827

I'd guess a merging of incoming BB from Iberia with local steppe-derived Vucedol horse breeders.
These horses may have given these BB an advantage over other BB groups spread in Western Europe.

[Shaikorth]

ok, thank you

I see it is used to compare English iron age with present-day European populations
are there more uses, or is this in its testing phase?

Used to discover paleo-Eskimo related geneflow in Na-Dene
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/09/13/074476

[rms2]

I'd guess a merging of incoming BB from Iberia with local steppe-derived Vucedol horse breeders.
These horses may have given these BB an advantage over other BB groups spread in Western Europe.

Well, both Gimbutas and Heyd derive BB from Yamnaya, although Gimbutas saw BB as an amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

We know of at least one Vucedol period skeleton from Hungary (c. 2800 BC) that has tested R1b-M343. Last I heard, that one had been sent to Reich's lab for further testing. Maybe those results will be part of the upcoming big BB paper.

[kinman]

I would certainly expect to find L-51 in the area of Moldova, but probably also earlier in the area of western Kazakhstan. Then L-51 and R-L11 (a.k.a. R-L151) together in Ukraine. The latter probably giving rise to P312 in the area of Moldova, but most of them moving up the Danube, so it would be improbable to actually find any P312 burials in the Moldova area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Interestingly, there's all sorts of "coming soon" stuff being talked about behind the scenes, like Halstatt Celts, Alans, Sarmatians, Wielbark, Przeworsk, early Polish Slavs.

But the details of the Bell Beaker paper have been well hidden, especially in these late stages. Still, based on the rumors I've heard, and my own intuition, I expect L51 to first show up somewhere around modern-day Moldova. Let's wait and see.

[Romilius]

Interestingly, there's all sorts of "coming soon" stuff being talked about behind the scenes, like Halstatt Celts, Alans, Sarmatians, Wielbark, Przeworsk, early Polish Slavs.

But the details of the Bell Beaker paper have been well hidden, especially in these late stages. Still, based on the rumors I've heard, and my own intuition, I expect L51 to first show up somewhere around modern-day Moldova. Let's wait and see.

Moldova? So the very central area of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture?

[rms2]

Moldova? So the very central area of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture?

I think Romania was central to CT.

It isn't likely that CT had any R1b in it, except where steppe people settled among CT people.

[rms2]

Moldova? So the very central area of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture?

There are Yamnaya kurgans in Moldova. Here are some photos of some of the remains from some of the ones near Tarakliya, Kazakliya, and Kotyuzhany.

Kurgans, Moldova (http://www.inst-ukr.lviv.ua/files/25/031Kirichenko.pdf)

[kinman]

I suspect that L51 and their relatives mostly kept to the outskirts of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, especially to the south (near the Black Sea coast) until they reached the Danube. Sort of an end-run, at least until their numbers increased. So if I was looking for L51 burials, I would probably first look in that part of Ukraine just south of Moldova.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Moldova? So the very central area of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture?

[kinman]

Yes, I would think Kazakliya and Tarakliya would be excellent spots for L51 and relatives. Both very close to the Ukraine border. They would be on the path from southern Ukraine down to the Danube. If I recall correctly, the main Cucuteni-Trypillian settlements were further north.
----------------------------------------------------------------


There are Yamnaya kurgans in Moldova. Here are some photos of some of the remains from some of the ones near Tarakliya, Kazakliya, and Kotyuzhany.

Kurgans, Moldova (http://www.inst-ukr.lviv.ua/files/25/031Kirichenko.pdf)

[MitchellSince1893]

...For U152 the picture appears to be a clearer, that the majority arrived post BB. As I've said before, I favor a bronze/iron age arrival for the majority of U152.

But who knows? I could be proven wrong as more data becomes available. For example, I will be the first to admit I was wrong if the Angles were the main source for U152 in Britain.

As the Angles supposedly mostly went to England and with few left in their original homeland it's been argued by Dr. David Faux that lack of present day distribution of U152 in Denmark doesn't really prove there was no link between the Angles and U152. I have previously argued that Angles and Saxons were probably genetically similar as it pertains to y-dna haplogroups and since the majority of Saxons remained in Northern Germany and there is little U152 in present Northern Germany, then there probably wasn't much in the Angles homeland either. But I've stated that the Angles might be a source for some U152 in England...just not the main source.

I came across this map of Celtic Place names from Classical sources recently, and the brown area in southern Jutland caught my eye i.e. the Angles supposed homeland. While I still don't believe the Angles were the primary source for U152 in eastern England, maybe they played a larger role than I originally thought...maybe David Faux's Angles theory was partially right.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/Celts-frequently-traveled.jpg?itok=MFwbQ8Ei

[rms2]

Not to nitpick, but I believe the original home of the Angles, Angeln, was on the other side of the neck of the Jutland Peninsula, the Baltic side.

Maybe I missed something, but this is the first I have ever heard of Celtic place names that far north on the Continent.

[TigerMW]

I suspect that L51 and their relatives mostly kept to the outskirts of Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, especially to the south (near the Black Sea coast) until they reached the Danube. Sort of an end-run, at least until their numbers increased. So if I was looking for L51 burials, I would probably first look in that part of Ukraine just south of Moldova.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we would subsitute the word "pre-Italo-Celtic" or "western PIE dialect" for "L51" in your statement, I think we can consider what David Anthony thought in "The Horse, the Wheel, the Language...".

Anthony wrote,

"The upland farmers who lived on the border itself adopted the steppe customer of inhumation burial in a cemetary, but they did not erect kurgans or take weapons to their graves. This integrated culture appeared in the Dniester valley just after the abandonment of all the Tripolye C1 towns in the South Bug valley on one side and the final Cucuteni B2 towns in southern Romania on the other. The chaos caused by the dissolution of hundreds of Cucuteni-Tripolye farming communities probably convinced the Tripolye townspeople of the middle Dniester valley to accept the status of clients. Explicit patronage defined the Usatovo culture.

There was no Indo-European invasion of Europe. The spread of the Usatovo dialect up the Dniester valley, if it happened as I have suggested was quite different from the Yamnaya migration into the Danube Valley....

About 3100 BC, during the initial rapid spread of the Yamnaya horizon across the Pontic-Caspai steppes, and while the Usatovo culture was still in its early phase, Yamnaya herders began to move through the steppes past Usatovo and into the lower Danube valley. The initial groups were followed by a regular stream of people that contineue for perhaps three hundred years, between 3100 and 2800 BCE. The passage through the Usatovo chiefdoms probably was managed through guest-host relationships. The migrants did not claim any Usatovo territory - at least they did not create their own cemeteries there. Instead, they kept going into the Danube valley, a minimum distance of 600-800 km from where they gain in the steppes east of Usatovo - in the South Bug valley and father east. The largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in Eastern Hungary... This was a major, sustained population movement...

The Yamnaya migrations in to the Danube valley were targeted toward at least five specific destinations. ... elevated plain northwets of Varnay bay... Balkan uploads 200 km to the southwest ... 300 km father up the Danube valley in northwestern Bulgaria... Across the Danube just 100 km west of the northwestern Bulgarian cluster, a larger group of kurgan cemeteries appeared in southwestern Romania... "

Anthony believed the pre-Germanic speakers were in Usatovo while the pre-Italo-Celtic speakers were in the Danube Yamnaya that passed by the Usatovo. That would lead you to think U106 was in Usatovo, with may be a little P312, and they integrated with other Y haplogroups there and as they moved northwest. The Danubian Yamanaya could have been the majority of the P312.

Hopefully, our scientists have been able to test for P312 and U106 in these cemeteries along the Danube and the Usotovo lands. To find L51+ without knowledge of their P312 and U106 status would be disappointing to me. To really gain some insight we need to know where ancient P312 and U106 is found and not found.

[MitchellSince1893]

Not to nitpick, but I believe the original home of the Angles, Angeln, was on the other side of the neck of the Jutland Peninsula, the Baltic side.

Maybe I missed something, but this is the first I have ever heard of Celtic place names that far north on the Continent.

You are correct on the Angeln peninsula location being on the Baltic side of Jutland, however this peninsula is where the name comes from...it doesn't mean that the Angles were limited to this area. Most maps, show the Angles being on the North and Baltic Sea coasts...which would make sense if they were sailing to England via the shortest route.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Angles_saxons_jutes.png

This is a relatively narrow area. The Angelin area is only ~30 miles from the North Sea Coast.

[MitchellSince1893]

Found the source for that Celtic place names map
Patrick Sims-Williams. 2006. Ancient Celtic place-names in Europe and Asia Minor

This link also includes other maps showing Celtic items in Jutland e.g. Celtic kettle/cauldrons
http://www.kelticos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1896&start=150
14039

I don't speak French but I think map below is Celtic coins. Someone feel free to translate what this map is showing.
14040

[rms2]

You are correct on the Angeln peninsula location being on the Baltic side of Jutland, however this peninsula is where the name comes from...it doesn't mean that the Angles were limited to this area. Most maps, show the Angles being on the North and Baltic Sea coasts...which would make sense if they were sailing to England via the shortest route.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Angles_saxons_jutes.png

This is a relatively narrow area. The Angelin area is only ~30 miles from the North Sea Coast.

Of course, this is a thread about the Bell Beaker people, Gimbutas, and R1b, but maybe you're right. On the other hand, from what I have read about the Angles, they occupied Angeln, the district on the Baltic named for them and not the whole neck of the Jutland Peninsula. Besides, if they were really Germanized Celts, or composed in part of Germanized Celts, one wonders why Celtic place names don't extend into the actual district named for the Angles.

I remember the elaborate theory that made the Angles the offspring of the Cimbri, who were supposed to be U152 and at one point to have migrated across the Skagerrak to the Oslofjord area, where, we were told, U152 would eventually be found at high frequency (it never was). I don't mean to be overly critical of its author, but it seemed then and seems now like a kind of Rube Goldberg scheme to secure Viking ancestry for U152 in SE England.

[Jean M]

Maybe I missed something, but this is the first I have ever heard of Celtic place names that far north on the Continent.

The map of Celtic place-names drawn up by Patrick Sims-Williams himself is in my Library under Language > Place and Tribal Names. You will see that there are no Celtic place-names actually in Jutland, but we have the name Abalus Insula (Abalus Island) which Sims-Williams places to the west of Jutland with a question mark.

I did not mark this on my map from Sims-Williams on page 59 of Blood of the Celts, because of the uncertainty over both the location and the derivation. The name comes from one source. Pliny the Elder quoting Pytheas (who wrote c. 320 BC) says that amber is thrown up on this island by the waves in spring. Exactly where this supposed island was, we don't know. We don't even know that it was an island, given that Greek and Roman geographers did not realise that Scandinavia was connected to Finland and thought it was an island. However amber is found in the Baltic. Given that Pliny says that this amber was collected by the Gotones and sold by them to their neighbours the Teutones, I'd say that the Goths of around the Vistula were finding it on one of the Danish islands. But who knows. The real point is that Sims-Williams is uncertain the 'Abalus' is actually Celtic in origin. See Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor (2006), p.181.

[MitchellSince1893]

The map of Celtic place-names drawn up by Patrick Sims-Williams himself is in my Library under Language > Place and Tribal Names. You will see that there are no Celtic place-names actually in Jutland, but we have the name Abalus Insula (Abalus Island) which Sims-Williams places to the west of Jutland with a question mark.

I did not mark this on my map from Sims-Williams on page 59 of Blood of the Celts, because of the uncertainty over both the location and the derivation. The name comes from one source. Pliny the Elder quoting Pytheas (who wrote c. 320 BC) says that amber is thrown up on this island by the waves in spring. Exactly where this supposed island was, we don't know. We don't even know that it was an island, given that Greek and Roman geographers did not realise that Scandinavia was connected to Finland and thought it was an island. However amber is found in the Baltic. Given that Pliny says that this amber was collected by the Gotones and sold by them to their neighbours the Teutones, I'd say that the Goths of around the Vistula were finding it on one of the Danish Islands. But who knows. The real point is that Sims-Williams is uncertain the 'Abalus' is actually Celtic in origin. See Ancient Celtic Place-Names in Europe and Asia Minor (2006), p.181.

Thanks for that info Jean.

[Jean M]

Thanks for that info Jean.

No problem. As regards the Anglo-Saxon advent, I wouldn't build too much on genuine Celtic place-names in what is now Germany either. They just suggest that Celts lived there before the pre-Proto-Germanic speakers pushed south out of Jutland and southern Sweden. By the time Caesar turned up in Gaul and decided to take the place, the Germani had pushed south far enough to eject the Celtic Boii from Bohemia, and west as far as the Rhine, and in some cases actually into Gaul. That was centuries before the Angles, Saxons and Jutes made their move on England.

This does not mean that there was no Germanic-Celtic mixing as they moved. We don't really know.

[rms2]

Here is something I mentioned on another thread, but I think it is really relevant here.

http://www.lavanguardia.com/lacontra/20170222/42212094430/todos-los-europeos-de-hace-8000-anos-tenian-ojos-azules.html

Here is part of what Carles Lalueza-Fox said translated into English:



Yes, 4,000 years ago came the kurganes, domesticators of the horse in the steppes pontics and carriers of the protoindoeuropea language, matrix of Celtic, Latin, Greek ... They left us a high genetic impact.

What does it mean?

They claimed the right to reproduce, and the previous population regressed genetically: today 40% of the Western European population carries the kurgan genetic footprint!

Also in the Iberian peninsula?

Our ancestral substrate is 50% neolithic, and the other half is distributed between 30% kurgán and 20% hunter collector.


This was first brought up by r_r_abril here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=215762&viewfull=1#post215762).

I think Lalueza-Fox is probably privy to some solid inside information. Wasn't he the one who tipped us off ahead of time about the y haplogroup of La Braña?

[Kale]

Doesn't seem like anything we don't already know?

[rms2]

Except this man is one of those working on the big paper on ancient Iberian DNA due out next year, so he should be in the know. And he is talking about Iberia and the impact of the kurgans, not about Iberians going out to central Europe and acquiring steppe DNA and culture from CW women, as some have alleged.

[rms2]

Waiting, waiting . . .

14208

[alan]

Waiting, waiting . . .

14208

I you sing "why are we waiting?' over and over to the tune of the Xmas carol 'oh come let us adore him' you feel a lot better

[Webb]

I you sing "why are we waiting?' over and over to the tune of the Xmas carol 'oh come let us adore him' you feel a lot better

I prefer the tune, "I Feel Pretty, Oh So Pretty". I am waiting, still I'm waiting. They go rather well together. I will try your tune next.

[razyn]

Before all this talk of songs gets moderated to one of the "Lounge" threads:

"Slow Poke," as recorded by Pee Wee King (and others). Be forewarned, the YouTube video comes with some ad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE2PLCe-VSI