Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b

[Finn]

i agree. Things were happening after the initial "Beaker people" event (a few hundred years after), which are perhaps more directly relevant for the IE linguistic "blocks'.
But sorry, I digress from the main theme of this thread.

To be in the lines of the topic. I guess the R1b came from the Steppe, Eastern Bell Beaker/Unetice....

The whole range is between Lilla Beddinge R1b106 ( about 2300-2000 BC) and Tuithoorn R1b106 (about 1800 BC), wiki:

"In Denmark, large areas of forested land were cleared to be used for pasture and the growing of cereals during the Single Grave culture and in the Late Neolithic Period. Faint traces of Bell Beaker influence can be recognized already in the pottery of the Upper Grave phase of the Single Grave period, and even of the late Ground Grave phase, such as occasional use of AOO-like or zoned decoration and other typical ornamentation, while Bell Beaker associated objects such as wristguards and small copper trinkets, also found their way into this northern territories of the Corded Ware Culture. Domestic sites with Beakers only appear 200–300 years after the first appearance of Bell Beakers in Europe, at the early part of the Danish Late Neolithic Period (LN I) starting at 2350 BC. These sites are concentrated in northern Jutland around the Limfjord and on the Djursland peninsula, largely contemporary to the local Upper Grave Period. In east central Sweden and western Sweden, barbed wire decoration characterised the period 2460–1990 BC, linked to another Beaker derivation of northwestern Europe.

Northern Jutland has abundant sources of high quality flint, which had previously attracted industrious mining, large-scale production, and the comprehensive exchange of flint objects: notably axes and chisels. The Danish Beaker period, however, was characterized by the manufacture of lanceolate flint daggers, described as a completely new material form without local antecedents in flint and clearly related to the style of daggers circulating elsewhere in Beaker dominated Europe. Presumably Beaker culture spread from here to the remainder of Denmark, and to other regions in Scandinavia and northern Germany as well. Central and eastern Denmark adopted this dagger fashion and, to a limited degree, also archer’s equipment characteristic to Beaker culture, although here Beaker pottery remained less common.

Also, the spread of metallurgy in Denmark is intimately related to the Beaker representation in northern Jutland. The LN I metalwork is distributed throughout most of Denmark, but a concentration of early copper and gold coincides with this core region, hence suggesting a connection between Beakers and the introduction of metallurgy. Most LN I metal objects are distinctly influenced by the western European Beaker metal industry, gold sheet ornaments and copper flat axes being the predominant metal objects. The LN I copper flat axes divide into As-Sb-Ni copper, recalling so-called Dutch Bell Beaker copper and the As-Ni copper found occasionally in British and Irish Beaker contexts, the mining region of Dutch Bell Beaker copper being perhaps Brittany; and the Early Bronze Age Singen (As-Sb-Ag-Ni) and Ösenring (As-Sb-Ag) coppers having a central European – probably Alpine – origin.

The Beaker group in northern Jutland forms an integrated part of the western European Beaker Culture, while western Jutland provided a link between the Lower Rhine area and northern Jutland. The local fine-ware pottery of Beaker derivation reveal links with other Beaker regions in western Europe, most specifically the Veluwe group at the Lower Rhine. Concurrent introduction of metallurgy shows that some people must have crossed cultural boundaries. Danish Beakers are contemporary with the earliest Early Bronze Age (EBA) of the East Group of Bell Beakers in central Europe, and with the floruit of Beaker cultures of the West Group in western Europe. The latter comprise Veluwe and Epi-Maritime in Continental northwestern Europe and the Middle Style Beakers (Style 2) in insular western Europe. The interaction between the Beaker groups on the Veluwe Plain and in Jutland must, at least initially, have been quite intensive. All-over ornamented (AOO) and All-over-corded (AOC), and particularly Maritime style beakers are featured, although from a fairly late context and possibly rather of Epi-maritime style, equivalent to the situation in the north of the Netherlands, where Maritime ornamentation continued after it ceased in the central region of Veluwe and were succeeded c. 2300 BC by beakers of the Veluwe and Epi-Maritime style.[83]

Clusters of Late Neolithic Beaker presence similar to northern Jutland appear as pockets or "islands" of Beaker Culture in northern Europe, such as Mecklenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, and southern Norway.[84] In northern central Poland Beaker-like representations even occur in a contemporary EBA setting. The frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements points at a large-scaled form of social identity or cultural identity, or perhaps an ethnic identity."

[alexfritz]

Not to mention the BB collapse in north Italy and its replacement by Danubian -tell derived Polada culture; the Mycenean paper, etc.
Certainly shapes my view of how temperate Europe was IE'zed ;)

i do think these were internal shifts of already IE societies since all still displayed steppe-related ancestry and mycenae most def being an IE society; the view i get is that there truly was a strict elite ruled/based societies with R1a/b forming those elites of the early waves and through out the chalcolithic; and given the grave goods and stelae-representations the elites were not spiritual but martial and that could explain why these lineages experienced a collapse into the subsequent bronze-age;

[Gravetto-Danubian]

i do think these were internal shifts of already IE societies since all still displayed steppe-related ancestry and mycenae most def being an IE society; the view i get is that there truly was a strict elite ruled/based societies with R1a/b forming those elites of the early waves and through out the chalcolithic

I guess this theory will soon be confirmed when "R1 elites" start turning up in the Balkans, Greece and other documented IE sites, with future sampling? Because they rather sparse so far :)
If not, the 10-15% "steppe" in Myceneans could be due to general admixture, exogamy, etc.
It really depends on how one analyses the data : (a) I have a theory and comb the data to prove it or (b) I have data, and will see what it shows me.


given the grave goods and stelae-representations the elites were not spiritual but martial and that could explain why these lineages experienced a collapse into the subsequent bronze-age;

Interesting postulate, makes sense. Although the collapse did not happen everywhere: Bavaria is one example of continuitunaonce BB times into EBA.

[rms2]

Not to mention the BB collapse in north Italy and its replacement by Danubian -tell derived Polada culture; the Mycenean paper, etc.
Certainly shapes my view of how temperate Europe was IE'zed ;)

Seems likely that Polada was just another group of R1b-U152 guys moving in on the earlier R1b-U152 BB guys.

[rms2]

I think what i state above and what Olaide has researched are congruent. The problem is a different national tradition, and along the different archeologist, in "naming" and "timing". In the British tradition Beakerfolk is usually broad. See for the Dutch one:

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/19822/Fokkens_2001_The%20periodisation%20of%20the%20Dutc h%20Bronze%20Age%20a%20critical%20review[1]_Redacted.pdf?sequence=1

Barbed Wire and the Elp Culture are Bell Beaker derivates. The Unetice related "Sögel" warriors modified the Bell Beaker culture into Bronze Age direction.

The oldest Barbed Wire sample is R1b/U106 Rise94, Viby Sweden that's about 2000 BC. In the transition from Barbed Wire to Elp Culture around 1800 BC we find R1b/U106 Tuithoorn, Oostwoud in the Northern Netherlands, also R1b-U106. The R1b-U106 Viby Sweden sample and the Dutch Tuithoorn sample are cultural connected and obvious genetically too.

So as close as we can get ;)

Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site shows RISE94 as R1a1a1. RISE98 from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, c. 2300 BC, is R1b-U106.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Seems likely that Polada was just another group of R1b-U152 guys moving in on the earlier R1b-U152 BB guys.

Quite likely. But the devil is in the detail. These probably moved from Hungary c. 2000 BC, and by then, we a different sort of entity to Bell Beaker, culturally, genetically, ? linguistically, because they had been in the different sphere for 800 years.
Of course, a detailed study of north Italy would be useful.

[epp]

Can you provide a link to that information?
The data was on a page that said k=13; I can’t remember which one I used (there are a few). I did calculations from it myself.


Two confirmed R1b-M73xM478 men, one with an mdka in France and the other with an mdka in England? That can charitably be characterized as excessive hyperbole where R1b-M73 in western Europe is concerned, where its frequency is under 1%.
All seven West Europeans are confirmed M73, but only two are confirmed M478-. However, their STRs are so similar to each other and so different to all the M478+ samples that there is little doubt they are M478-.
My estimates are that (i) the current West European M478- branch split from the current Eastern M478+ branch around 8,500 BC, and (ii) the TMRCA of the West European samples is 4th millennium BC. (And we know from archaeological evidence that M73+M478- was present in the Eastern Baltic during the Neolithic, so this does suggest to me a likely Westwards move of some M73 along the Southern Baltic reasonably close to the time when other R1 populations were making similar moves.)


Eastern Europe and central Asia are under sampled when compared with western Europe.
Yes, although FTDNA has loads of M73 samples, all of them M478+.

[Finn]

Jean M's Ancient Eurasian DNA site shows RISE94 as R1a1a1. RISE98 from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge in Sweden, c. 2300 BC, is R1b-U106.

Correct!! Thanks (I will correct it) makes the story not different....

[Gravetto-Danubian]

@ EPP

"R1b-M269 most likely arose along the Western coast of the Black Sea on the fringes of Old Europe, and that its L151 branch was most likely within Gimbutas’ first wave of Steppe migrations up the Dniester into Poland and Northern Germany, from where it was later pushed Westwards by related Yamna-infused Corded Ware populations to a base near the Rhine, from where it thrived and expanded, ...

I don't think Gimbutas had the first wave teaching Germany, had she ?
This was the wave that she and Anthony alleges ended the Balkan civilisation

[alexfritz]

I guess this theory will soon be confirmed when "R1 elites" start turning up in the Balkans, Greece and other documented IE sites, with future sampling? Because they rather sparse so far :)
If not, the 10-15% "steppe" in Myceneans could be due to general admixture, exogamy, etc.
It really depends on how one analyses the data : (a) I have a theory and comb the data to prove it or (b) I have data, and will see what it shows me.

Interesting postulate, makes sense. Although the collapse did not happen everywhere: Bavaria is one example of continuitunaonce BB times into EBA.

the reason i dont think the steppe-related ancestry was via exogamy is that the language of mycenae was clearly IE, indicating more a scenario in which an IE folk intermixed with the pre-existing minoan type folks and thus revealing the entire dynamics of such bronze-age societies; the loss of the R1 lineages could have already occurred at an earlier stage; for the concept of R1 chalcolithic elites vucedol seems to be the only fit so far, but elite is also meant in the context of their own clans/societies and not the elite of the entire balkan;

[rms2]

the reason i dont think the steppe-related ancestry was via exogamy is that the language of mycenae was clearly IE, indicating more a scenario in which an IE folk intermixed with the pre-existing minoan type folks and thus revealing the entire dynamics of such bronze-age societies; the loss of the R1 lineages could have already occurred at an earlier stage; for the concept of R1 chalcolithic elites vucedol seems to be the only fit so far, but elite is also meant in the context of their own clans/societies and not the elite of the entire balkan;

It seems to me we don't have near enough Mycenaean y-dna yet. The fact that the one lone Mycenaean y-dna result was J2a1 just like the non-IE Minoans simply means he was not IE in his y-dna line but probably Minoan. He acquired his steppe dna from one or more of his other lines.

[epp]

@ EPP

"R1b-M269 most likely arose along the Western coast of the Black Sea on the fringes of Old Europe, and that its L151 branch was most likely within Gimbutas’ first wave of Steppe migrations up the Dniester into Poland and Northern Germany, from where it was later pushed Westwards by related Yamna-infused Corded Ware populations to a base near the Rhine, from where it thrived and expanded, ...

I don't think Gimbutas had the first wave teaching Germany, had she ?
This was the wave that she and Anthony alleges ended the Balkan civilisation
She just said that Kurgan elements, traits and traditions were showing up in cultures as far as Central Germany and the Elbe Basin during the first wave - that there was a degree of kurganisation in these cultures.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Delete

[Gravetto-Danubian]

It seems to me we don't have near enough Mycenaean y-dna yet. The fact that the one lone Mycenaean y-dna result was J2a1 just like the non-IE Minoans simply means he was not IE in his y-dna line but probably Minoan. He acquired his steppe dna from one or more of his other lines.

Let's not ignore the totality of data from the Balkans (=south of carpatho -Danube basin)
We have close to 20 post-4500 BC. Thus far, we see a lot of I2a2a1, some G2, J2a and J2b2, E-M78, etc
To date we have one Iranian from the middle Bronze Age who is R1 (R1a-Z93 to be specific), who is an Iranian immigrant in the middle Bronze Age.


the reason i dont think the steppe-related ancestry was via exogamy is that the language of mycenae was clearly IE, indicating more a scenario in which an IE folk intermixed with the pre-existing minoan type folks and thus revealing the entire dynamics of such bronze-age societies; the loss of the R1 lineages could have already occurred at an earlier stage; for the concept of R1 chalcolithic elites vucedol seems to be the only fit so far, but elite is also meant in the context of their own clans/societies and not the elite of the entire balkan;

with repsect, I think your assessment is rather simplistic. The genesis of Bronze Age Balkans isn't steppe folk admixing with Minoan folk, and the idea of disappearing elites is mere special pleading.

[ADW_1981]

I guess this theory will soon be confirmed when "R1 elites" start turning up in the Balkans, Greece and other documented IE sites, with future sampling? Because they rather sparse so far :)
If not, the 10-15% "steppe" in Myceneans could be due to general admixture, exogamy, etc.
It really depends on how one analyses the data : (a) I have a theory and comb the data to prove it or (b) I have data, and will see what it shows me.



Interesting postulate, makes sense. Although the collapse did not happen everywhere: Bavaria is one example of continuitunaonce BB times into EBA.

Where did the roughly 20% R1b in Greece, Turkey, and Albania come from, if not from IE speakers? Since it hasn't turned up in Neolithic remains, and frankly, 1 male skeleton from the Mycenaean period is neither here nor there, especially when it is a close match to the earlier Minoan Neolithic males.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Where did the roughly 20% R1b in Greece, Turkey, and Albania come from, if not from IE speakers?

We've had this discussion several times: we need a clearer breakdown of subclades.
Of course some would probably be from Yamnaya period, but others more recent.
For example ththe figure "20%" is more like a
Maximal of 17, which happens to be in Crete; and 10 of that is actually "western Clades (u106, U152, L21)
Let's also recall that Southern Europe has divergent/ archaic Clades not found in BB, Yamnaya or modern north Europeans .
No use lumping all R1b together just because it fits our pet theory

[ADW_1981]

We've had this discussion several times: we need a clearer breakdown of subclades.
Some could be from Yamnaya period, others more recent
No use lumping all R1b together just because it fits our pet theory

It's not recent immigrants, unlike some, let's start there. Only a small minority is P312/U106, and a far smaller contigent dates to the HG which could be argued as L389/V88. The rest dates to Bronze/Iron Age and probably due to a variety of IE speaking people/tribes.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

It's not recent immigrants, unlike some, let's start there. Only a small minority is P312/U106, and a far smaller contigent dates to the HG which could be argued as L389/V88. The rest dates to Bronze/Iron Age and probably due to a variety of IE speaking people/tribes.

This isn't poker mate
Prove it - Show the breakdown

[rms2]

Let's not ignore the totality of data from the Balkans (=south of carpatho -Danube basin)
We have close to 20 post-4500 BC. Thus far, we see a lot of I2a2a1, some G2, J2a and J2b2, E-M78, etc
To date we have one Iranian from the middle Bronze Age who is R1 (R1a-Z93 to be specific), who is an Iranian immigrant in the middle Bronze Age . . .

Southern Europe was more heavily populated with Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers and native European HGs-turned-Neolithic-farmers than northern Europe, so I think we should expect to see Indo-Europeanized largely non-R1 populations there.

We already have at least one Vucedol R1b-Z2103 from Croatia. I think that is indicative of things to come, once more IE-type burials in the Balkans are opened up and the remains inside them tested, or bones already taken from them and currently collecting dust in museums or other collections are tested. I think you'll see an early IE contingent that is predominantly R1 and steppic in origin.

[rms2]

We've had this discussion several times: we need a clearer breakdown of subclades.
Some could be from Yamnaya period, others more recent.
For example ththe figure "20%" is more like a
Maximal of 17, which happens to be in Crete; and 10 of that is actually "western Clades (u106, U152, L21)
Let's also recall that Southern Europe has divergent/ archaic Clades not found in BB, Yamnaya or modern north Europeans .
No use lumping all R1b together just because it fits our pet theory

Your post above reminded me of something from a few years back on Rootsweb that was very enlightening. A scientific paper appeared on the modern y-dna of Crete. I'm working from memory here, so you'll have to pardon me if I am less exact than I should be, but the researchers found, as I recall, J and E and maybe G along the coast, and R1b and R1a on the central highlands. Their conclusion was that the R1b represented the descendants of European aborigines who went to Crete in the immediate aftermath of the LGM and were subsequently chased into the hills by the incoming Near Eastern Neolithic farmers, whose descendants live along the Cretan coastline now. I don't recall how they accounted for the R1a, but there wasn't much of it anyway.

Anyway, a few of us, including me, did a little digging and found that the Venetians controlled Crete for several centuries beginning in the 13th and chose the high ground for their own residences (you know, big house on the hill, and all that). The Cretan R1b haplotypes were all very close to the WAMH. Call me silly and slap me, but it seems to me we need look no farther than Venice for the source of much if not most of the R1b on Crete's central highlands. No need to go dredging up cavemen from the remote past.

For me that was a lesson in why modern dna is just not much good for telling us what was going on in the 3rd, 4th, 5th or prior millennia BC: too much has changed, the pot has been supplemented with new ingredients and stirred too many times since then.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Southern Europe was more heavily populated with Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers and native European HGs-turned-Neolithic-farmers than northern Europe, so I think we should expect to see Indo-Europeanized largely non-R1 populations there.

Actually it wasn't. SEE suffered a majr demographic collapse after 4200 BC. The 'more heavily populated' axiom doesn't hold, and neither do the models repeated being here time and again.


We already have at least one Vucedol R1b-Z2103 from Croatia. I think that is indicative of things to come, once more IE-type burials in the Balkans are opened up and the remains inside them tested, or bones already taken from them and currently collecting dust in museums or other collections are tested. I think you'll see an early IE contingent that is predominantly R1 and steppic in origin.

I'm probably more aware than anyone of what's to come. ;)
As I said, some statements here are often empty assumptions devoid of real knowledge, tempered by personal biased views. (not referring to you) We don;t have to resort to disappearing elites, let's just examine the data for what it is.

This 'elite' Z2013 from Vucedol was just a commoner buried in a pit. All it takes is a glance of Mathieson supp data.

[rms2]

Actually it wasn't. SEE suffered a majr demographic collapse after 4200 BC. The 'more heavily populated' axiom doesn't hold, and neither do the models repeated being here time and again.

Even after a demographic collapse, southern Europe certainly was more heavily populated than northern Europe, which likewise suffered a Late Neolithic decline. And today southern Europeans still have higher percentages of EEF and lower ANE and steppe dna than northern Europeans.




I'm probably more aware than anyone of what's to come.

Let us in on the inside info, at least with some hints.



As I said,a lot of the statements here are often empty assumptions devoid of real knowledge, tempered by personal biased views. (not referring to you)

Well, yeah, there is some of that.



This 'elite' Z2013 from Vucedol was just a commoner buried in a pit. All it takes is a glance of Mathieson supp data.

He need not have been a king. The point is there he was, with a y-dna haplogroup found in eastern Yamnaya, and in a kurganized hybrid culture known to have had a significant impact in the Balkans, including Greece.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

He need not have been a king. The point is there he was, with a y-dna haplogroup found in eastern Yamnaya, and in a kurganized hybrid culture known to have had a significant impact in the Balkans, including Greece.

The point is, there were other lineages moving around. Yes, R1 is awesome, no doubt, but other the NE Balkans - Romania - Ukraine pastoralists seem to have been I2a2 heavy. Maybe J2 was somehow involved as well.
Share the cake...




Let us in on the inside info, at least with some hints.

There's a of of data coming from everywhere. That's all I can say.

[rms2]

The point is, there were other lineages moving around. Yes, R1 is awesome, no doubt, but other the NE Balkans - Romania - Ukraine pastoralists seem to have been I2a2 heavy. Maybe J2 was somehow involved as well.
Share the cake...

Sure there were, but evidently the early Indo-Europeans were largely R1. Once they entered SE Europe, hybrid cultures spun off, some with an infusion of steppe dna and R1, some without much of either (like Remedello, apparently).




There's a of of data coming from everywhere. That's all I can say.

I hope it comes soon.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Sure there were, but evidently the early Indo-Europeans were largely R1. Once they entered SE Europe, hybrid cultures spun off, some with an infusion of steppe dna and R1, some without much of either (like Remedello, apparently).


Well Balkan Yamnaya, Hungary BA, etc are overwhelmingly I2a2a1- even "pure steppe" individuals.
Let's await more data from Myceneans, also.

[rms2]

Well Balkan Yamnaya, Hungary BA, etc are overwhelmingly I2a2a1.
Let's await more data from Myceneans, also.

Of course, I know you know we have just one Balkan Yamnaya, from Bulgaria. I'm looking forward to some results from the Carpathian basin and the Tisza River valley, including from kurgans that predate Yamnaya. I'd also like to see some y-dna from the Pontic steppe in addition to what we already have from the Volga-Ural steppe and the Caspian steppe.

I would also like to see some testing of all the regional variants of Corded Ware. Most of them remain completely untested.

[alan]

The archaeology and craniology of some of the steppe groups close to the Lower Dnieper c 5000-4000BC makes me suspect there were steppe groups with a lot of non R yDNA and substantial EEF. I especially suspect the wave 1 suvorovo group might have been of this nature. The early non Caucasus copper trade that the Sredny Stog folk controlled seems to have sent men in both directions so I wouldn't be surprised to see a little L23 in Neolithic cultures bordering the steppes, even Varna.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Even after a demographic collapse, southern Europe certainly was more heavily populated than northern Europe, which likewise suffered a Late Neolithic decline. And today southern Europeans still have higher percentages of EEF and lower ANE and steppe dna than northern Europeans.

What research do you base that assertion on ? Because I can tell you that the demographic drop was worse in the east and central Balkans than northern Europe
This means the predominantly EEF and CHG autosomes and diverse Y lineage picture we see in the Bronze Age is the reality behind its repopulating and IE'zing.
Northern Europe is it's own model, with extreme founder effects from steppe groups which happened to be Z645 + and L51+, but it could have been I2a1b which moved into Atlantic Europe if it was a different role of the dice. But applying that model to anywhere else is presumptious to say the least, and a little bit of personal fantasy coming into play.

[alexfritz]

with repsect, I think your assessment is rather simplistic. The genesis of Bronze Age Balkans isn't steppe folk admixing with Minoan folk, and the idea of disappearing elites is mere special pleading.

no, i agree with you that the entire pre-stage/early-contact (varna/trypillia) of the 5th and 4th mil might def already shaped IE societies with steppe-female exogamy and pos steppe-invasions(destr. karanovo VI) all playing their part and with the late 4th early 3rd mil Bul4 and and I2165 being that illustration, however there must also have been a 3rd mil add wave akin central/northern europe now repr by the vucedol folks; i agree that it could have been those trypillia/varna mash ups and not a fresh steppe migration that were the ult ancestors of mycenae, yet an in-situ intermixture with the pre-existing minoan type folks i think is very clear;

on a sep note i would not pass off I2165 as a merchant it could be an early forager of the later thraco-cimerian complex, for if Z2103 made it to the west balkans so could a genuine later wave of Z93 (andronovo/caspian area);

for polada looking at the data again, i see that migration much earlier with vinca>remedello copper industry (rudna glava) and the G2a2a lineage (ötzi) of late 4th mil > remedello early 3rd mil, i recently read that the alps (not just mondsee) were full of malachite; and judging by the bronze-age analysis of scandinavia much of the derived copper was still from core EEF (anatolia_farmer) areas;
http://www.shfa.se/Include/UltimateEditorInclude/UserFiles/Moving%20metals%20IIb%20%20provenancing%20Scandina vian%20Bronze%20Age%20artefacts.pdf

[rms2]

What research do you base that assertion on ? Because I can tell you that the demographic drop was worse in the east and central Balkans than northern Europe

I would have to look it up, but there was a paper by Shennan a few years ago dealing with the population decline across northern Europe in the Late Neolithic. It was one of the factors that enabled the Bell Beaker people to be so successful.

Southern Europe had a much larger population than northern Europe to begin with. The largest urban centers in the world at that time were in the Balkans. There was disruption and decline about the time of Gimbutas/Anthony's Wave 1, but southern Europe remained a more populous region than northern Europe.

As I said before, even today southern Europeans have much more EEF and less ANE and steppe dna than do northern Europeans.



This means the predominantly EEF and CHG autosomes and diverse Y lineage picture we see in the Bronze Age is the reality behind its repopulating and IE'zing.

I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

You seem to be saying the population of SE Europe around 4200 BC was thoroughly devastated and replaced, but with what? More of the same y-dna haplogroups?

From what I have read, there was disruption and a cultural caesura, but southern Europe remained fairly well peopled, which is why its Old European y haplogroups were not replaced the way the y haplogroups in Britain largely were.



Northern Europe is it's own model, with extreme founder effects from steppe groups which happened to be Z645 + and L51+, but it could have been I2a1b which moved into Atlantic Europe if it was a different role of the dice.

So, what you are saying is that the population from the steppe that Indo-Europeanized the Balkans was predominantly I2a? Is that the point?



But applying that model to anywhere else is presumptious to say the least, and a little bit of personal fantasy coming into play.

You really need to stop that kind of crap. Awhile back you posted a snide remark about the "Urvolk fantasy", implying that anyone who accepts the kurgan hypothesis, especially anyone who would associate it with R1, is some kind of Nazi believer in "Aryan Supermen". I just ignored it because we are all entitled to the occasional childish descent into stupidism, but it's getting old.

It makes you sound envious and spiteful.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I would have to look it up, but there was a paper by Shennan a few years ago dealing with the population decline across northern Europe in the Late Neolithic. It was one of the factors that enabled the Bell Beaker people to be so successful.

Southern Europe had a much larger population than northern Europe to begin with. The largest urban centers in the world at that time were in the Balkans. There was disruption and decline about the time of Gimbutas/Anthony's Wave 1, but southern Europe remained a more populous region than northern Europe.


You're confusing periods and time; Shennan covered north -central Europe in the post 3500 BC, he did not cover SEE, which has been covered by other authors, and the event occurred much earlier (4200 BC vs 2800 BC)





As I said before, even today southern Europeans have much more EEF and less ANE and steppe dna than do northern Europeans.

That is obvious. You're still failing to understand why that is. You think it is because of an uniterrupted continuity and 'higher population than northern Europe', based on nothing more than your personal whims. Perhaps you don;t wish to accept the reality behind it.





I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

You seem to be saying the population of SE Europe around 4200 BC was thoroughly devastated and replaced, but with what? More of the same y-dna haplogroups?

From what I have read, there was disruption and a cultural caesura, but southern Europe remained fairly well peopled, which is why its Old European y haplogroups were not replaced the way the y haplogroups in Britain largely were.

Well, the last sentence is not correct, as Ive explained to you multiple times., certainly not the East & central Balkans.
As for your second line, it is also incrorrect. The EN was mostly G2a, and other lineages like R1b-V88, and C1a. The post-4500 BC we see a whole more of I2a2, J2, etc.
If you'd bother doing the tallies instead of arguing blindly, you'd notice the patterns.

18690

See that empty space in Bulgaria ??



You really need to stop that kind of crap. Awhile back you posted a snide remark about the "Urvolk fantasy", implying that anyone who accepts the kurgan hypothesis, especially anyone who would associate it with R1, is some kind of Nazi believer in "Aryan Supermen". I just ignored it because we are all entitled to the occasional childish descent into stupidism, but it's getting old.



Oh come on. Using German does not imply Nazism. Academians still use Urheimat and Urvolk to denote homelands. I was not linking the Kurgan hypothesis or the idea of migrations with 1930s Germany. I have similar views on the PIE question, just more correct ones.
If you can;t understand things, you shouldn't make accusations.
As it happens, I was replying jovially to RK, who (rightly) pointed out that the extreme R1 -founder effect phenomenon seemed to be something specific to north Europe, not necessarily PIE as a whole.


So, what you are saying is that the population from the steppe that Indo-Europeanized the Balkans was predominantly I2a? Is that the point?
Not necessarily or exclusively. And that's my point-as per above. It cannot be reduced to one lineage. It was a "package shift". Until we get more data from Cernavoda and such cultures, Majkop and Harrapa, we can't say definitely.
Stay tuned, and let's not try to force the data.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

no, i agree with you that the entire pre-stage/early-contact (varna/trypillia) of the 5th and 4th mil might def already shaped IE societies with steppe-female exogamy and pos steppe-invasions(destr. karanovo VI) all playing their part and with the late 4th early 3rd mil Bul4 and and I2165 being that illustration, however there must also have been a 3rd mil add wave akin central/northern europe now repr by the vucedol folks; i agree that it could have been those trypillia/varna mash ups and not a fresh steppe migration that were the ult ancestors of mycenae, yet an in-situ intermixture with the pre-existing minoan type folks i think is very clear

In response:

1) Im not sure what is 'clear' about the Minoan scenario. There weren't any "Minoans" in mainland Greece. The formation of Helladic culture which was a product of (i) Baden-Usatavo folk (ii) West Asian migrants and (iii) local Late Neolithic Greeks; not a mixture of Yamnaya and Minoans. This was known long ago, and the genetic data has confirmed it.

2) The Karanovo VI culture was not destroyed by steppe invaders. Sounds like you have antiquated reference material.

3) the Balkan Yamnaya might turn to be more diverse than the Caspian, haplotypically. Indeed, the Bulgarian Yamnaya individual was I2a2, the Smyadovo - Ezero culture individual with evidence of steppe admixture across the road from him was I2a2.
We have I2a2 predominating the west Black Sea, we have Z2013 the Caspian, Z645 the forest-steppe, and L51 somehow making it to central Europe. What's the bet with more sampling of western steppe, we'd see even more patterns ? What's the link in all these haplogroups - which were clearly native to EE - what was the new element ?
Sure Z2013 is in Vucdeol, but i2a2 turns up in Ulan IV.
You seem clever enough to understand what was really happening.

4) It remains to be seen what impact the of the third wave actually was in the Balkans.

[Romilius]

Very interesting point, Gravetto-Danubian,

I was, in fact, wondering about the fact we have in Ukrainian Neolithic at least three different haplogroups and that, of course, they all must have been in contact with each other. So, linking PIE only with a single haplogroup is sort of premature. Probably, interaction between R1a, R1b and I2a2 groups gave birth to PIE.

I don't know what does Gravetto-Danubian know about new results unpublished... I have my personally idea that the élites of Mycenaeans will be pretty diverse in Y-DNA haplogroups: not only J2a, but probably also I2a2, R1b, R1a and G2a.

[alexfritz]

In response:

1) Im not sure what is 'clear' about the Minoan scenario. There weren't any "Minoans" in mainland Greece. The formation of Helladic culture which was a product of (i) Baden-Usatavo folk (ii) West Asian migrants and (iii) local Late Neolithic Greeks; not a mixture of Yamnaya and Minoans. This was known long ago, and the genetic data has confirmed it.

yes, but i said minoan type folks not minoan civ folks, and judging by Table.1 a minoan is essentially that, a west-asian migrant and a late neolithic greek, the latter more dominant than the former, with mycenae being exactly that plus steppe-related ancestry and an IE language;


3) the Balkan Yamnaya might turn to be more diverse than the Caspian, haplotypically. Indeed, the Bulgarian Yamnaya individual was I2a2, the Smyadovo - Ezero culture individual with evidence of steppe admixture across the road from him was I2a2.
We have I2a2 predominating the west Black Sea, we have Z2013 the Caspian, Z645 the forest-steppe, and L1 somehow making it to central Europe. What's the bet with more sampling of western steppe, we'd see even more patterns ?
Sure Z2013 is in Vucdeol, but i2a2 turns up in Ulan IV.
You seem clever enough to understand what was really happening.

4) It remains to be seen what impact the of the third wave actually was in the Balkans.

i understand the point and it is a good point; the point is basically that I2a2 is also an IE steppe lineage (Bul4 and consortium), but its still confusion in the light of I2529 and the GAC farmers plus Iberia and that makes the other models still plausible; but in the end it only holds a significance for the bronze-age in whether the I2a2 dominance came from IE balkan or from internal IEized farmers; that is a good point that the balkan as pioneers of copper were than also the driving force of bronze;

[TigerMW]

We've had this discussion several times: we need a clearer breakdown of subclades.
...
No use lumping all R1b together just because it fits our pet theory
Here, here! I've tried to say this for several years. Western and Central Europe is predominately R-L151... it comes down to P312 and U106.

If we are including Yamnaya proper, SW Asia, etc. then all of R1b-L23 is pertinent and perhaps R1b-M269 but that's as far as back as it goes for purposes of this discussion.

I think most people who are in these subclades and in this discussion understand this and R1b is just legacy term.

[Jean M]

You're confusing periods and time; Shennan covered north -central Europe in the post 3500 BC, he did not cover SEE, which has been covered by other authors, and the event occurred much earlier (4200 BC vs 2800 BC) .

As you probably know, I have gone into print on this topic (AJ, various pages):


The farming pioneers in Europe, initially reaping the benefits of a virgin land, were to suffer severely in the long run. It is not clear exactly what caused the population crashes or desertion of territories. It need not be the same problem in every case.[Shennan 2013; Timpson 2014.] In Germany and Poland signs of human activity fall dramatically around 4700 BC, remaining low for over a millennium. The LBK agriculturalists, who had settled so successfully there, failed to thrive in the long term.[Shennan 2009; Shennan and Edinborough 2007; Tallavaara, Pesonen and Oinonen 2010.] In northern Greece there is a gap in the archaeological record from c. 4000 BC to c. 3370 BC.[Maniatis 2011.] In the British Isles evidence of cereals declines so sharply after 3350 BC as to virtually disappear. Woodland was re-established. The agrarian collapse was probably accompanied by population decline.[Stevens and Fuller 2012; Whitehouse 2014; Woodbridge 2014.] These problems beset not only the earliest farmers, but dairy farmers too. The bones of people of the Lengyel culture in Poland showed signals of poor nutrition and disease.[Krenz-Niedbala 2014.] .... Before these Balkan cultures could evolve into civilizations, the sun went down upon them. A cold period afflicted Europe from 4200 to 3800 BC.[Haas 1998; O'Brien 1995] Tell settlements in southeastern Europe were abandoned. Balkan metallurgy collapsed. The focus of metal-working in southeast Europe gradually shifted to the north of the Black Sea. [Anthony 2007, 258-64, 290; Chernykh 2008.] ...

Yet these [IE] wanderers were neither urban nor literate. So as they advanced there was a fascinating collision of cultures in key zones, out of which sprang the great civilizations of the Classical world. The Indo-European speakers absorbed a great deal from the cultures they eventually overtook. We first see this pattern in Anatolia, where incoming pastoralists arrived perhaps around 3000 BC, to coexist with an established and successful agricultural society. Their speech gradually evolved into Hittite and other Anatolian languages. It was over a thousand years later that Hittite warlords took over Hattic kingdoms.... As we shall see in Chapter 9, the genetic evidence suggests that the Indo-Europeans generally filtered into such thriving urban societies, melding with their inhabitants over time, whereas areas where farming had not prospered to the same degree offered greater possibilities for expansion.

I admit to having simplified this on the forum to IE speakers having greater opportunities for expansion in northern Europe than in the south, though 'south' to me = Greece, Italy and Iberia. And this is not simply based on archaeological evidence of population collapse and modern distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups. It includes linguistic evidence. In historical times non-IE languages were being spoken in southern Europe (and I do not mean the Balkans). Some of these may well have arrived at the same time as IE, or even later in the case of Iberian. But some would appear to have pre-existed when IE arrived.

[alan]

In response:

1) Im not sure what is 'clear' about the Minoan scenario. There weren't any "Minoans" in mainland Greece. The formation of Helladic culture which was a product of (i) Baden-Usatavo folk (ii) West Asian migrants and (iii) local Late Neolithic Greeks; not a mixture of Yamnaya and Minoans. This was known long ago, and the genetic data has confirmed it.

2) The Karanovo VI culture was not destroyed by steppe invaders. Sounds like you have antiquated reference material.

3) the Balkan Yamnaya might turn to be more diverse than the Caspian, haplotypically. Indeed, the Bulgarian Yamnaya individual was I2a2, the Smyadovo - Ezero culture individual with evidence of steppe admixture across the road from him was I2a2.
We have I2a2 predominating the west Black Sea, we have Z2013 the Caspian, Z645 the forest-steppe, and L51 somehow making it to central Europe. What's the bet with more sampling of western steppe, we'd see even more patterns ? What's the link in all these haplogroups - which were clearly native to EE - what was the new element ?
Sure Z2013 is in Vucdeol, but i2a2 turns up in Ulan IV.
You seem clever enough to understand what was really happening.

4) It remains to be seen what impact the of the third wave actually was in the Balkans.

Can you elaborate on the Badan-Usatovo thing I your point 1? It's not an area I know a lot about ?

[Jean M]

So, what you are saying is that the population from the steppe that Indo-Europeanized the Balkans was predominantly I2a? Is that the point?


Not necessarily or exclusively. And that's my point-as per above. It cannot be reduced to one lineage. It was a "package shift". .

I have also gone into print on Y-DNA 'fellow-travellers' with the R1 haplogroups. I may not be right in the details, but the concept was there from the start. AJ again:


Genetic fellow-travellers

We should not assume that the Indo-Europeans were all descended from the R1 founder. Nor is the R1a1a/R1b1a2 division so neat that there is no overlap. The two could travel together. Certain other haplogroups appear to travel with subclades of R1 in the migrations of Indo-European speakers. A group of Bronze Age skeletons found in Lichtenstein Cave, in Lower Saxony, provide a concrete example of Y-DNA haplogroups mixed within one band. The men included two possibly of Y-DNA R1a1, one of R1b, but no fewer than twelve of I2a2b (L38/S154).[Schilz 2006 tested only STRs (short tandem repeats). Y-DNA haplogroups were deduced from the STRs by Dirk Schweitzer.] The last two haplogroups still reflect the connection shown in the cave. The present-day distributions of I2a2b and R1b-L21 both flow along the Rhine and into the British Isles.[De Beule 2011.]

As we have seen, I2a appears in a hunter turned farmer in Hungary c. 5780-5650 BC....[Gamba 2014.] So Cucuteni-Tripolye farmers may have contributed I2a into the Yamnaya-with-Cucuteni-Tripolye cultural amalgam. If I2a2 was associated with Usatovo and the villages along the Dniester, that would explain why I2a2b (L38/S154) appears alongside R1a1a after apparently migrating up the river and around the Carpathians into present-day Germany (Lichtenstein Cave).

Haplogroup I2a1 (P37.2/PF4004) also appears in early farmers in Hungary.[Szécsényi-Nagy 2015.] So some I2a1b (M423) carriers could have been living in the Late Cucuteni-Tripolye towns of the Middle Dnieper. If their descendants chose to remain in what became the Proto-Slavic heartland, together with R1a1a men until population growth pushed them outward in all directions in the early Middle Ages, that would explain the pattern we see today. Haplogroups R1a-M458 and I2a1b2a1 (CTS5966) are strongly correlated with the distribution of Slavic languages (see Chapter 14).

So far we have been viewing R1 and R1b as the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among Indo-European speakers. It is not always so. R1b and R1a appear as minority haplogroups in several Indo-European-speaking populations today.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

yes, but i said minoan type folks not minoan civ folks, and judging by Table.1 a minoan is essentially that, a west-asian migrant and a late neolithic greek, the latter more dominant than the former, with mycenae being exactly that plus steppe-related ancestry and an IE language;

It's actually Myceneans have Balkan-Carpathian Chalcolithic ancestry, which itself has some steppe admixture, but i think we're on the same page.



i understand the point and it is a good point; the point is basically that I2a2 is also an IE steppe lineage (Bul4 and consortium), but its still confusion in the light of I2529 and the GAC farmers plus Iberia and that makes the other models still plausible; but in the end it only holds a significance for the bronze-age in whether the I2a2 dominance came from IE balkan or from internal IEized farmers; that is a good point that the balkan as pioneers of copper were than also the driving force of bronze;

I'll explain the details:
The Yamnaya Bulgaria lineage, Ulan IV and Ezero culture are i2a2a1b. I view this to be a Mesolithic lineage 'native' to a band of region from north Black sea to east-central Europe, incl northern Balkans (danube river). By 6000 BC it appears in Neolithic contexts (Bulgaria, Hungary) and those which are still not-ANF admixed (Mariupol, etc).
This duality continues through the Copper Age and the Bronze Age (Yamnaya - Ezero). It speaks of a complex history and interaction in the region, individual mobility, exogamy; and mitigates any simplistic unilinear visions.

The GAC lineages is a distinct subset of I2a2. But it's important, now that you bring it up. Because all 3 Polish GAC and all 3 Ukrainian GAC belong to the same lineage (most likely).
Looking at Megalithic Scandinavia, the prepondernat lineage is I2a1b1.
So we see that this strong 'patrilocality' is something peculiar to post-4500 BC northern Europe, not something exclusively 'Indo-European' (on the premise that GAC and Megalithic far north are not I.E. because they are simple mix of ANF/ WHG), but it was perhaps picked up by / native to those IEs from northern Europe.
The Balkans is different. The answer must be social rather than demographic density, because, as Ive said, the Balkans was only densely populated in the "Neolithic golden years', not after.

Ultimately, we still missing a couple of crucial pieces of the puzzle.

[vettor]

Well, the last sentence is not correct, as Ive explained to you multiple times., certainly not the East & central Balkans.
As for your second line, it is also incrorrect. The EN was mostly G2a, and other lineages like R1b-V88, and C1a. The post-4500 BC we see a whole more of I2a2, J2, etc.
If you'd bother doing the tallies instead of arguing blindly, you'd notice the patterns.

18690

See that empty space in Bulgaria ??





The EN of bulgaria

http://www.academia.edu/2701415/Malak_Preslavets_Revisited_The_early_Neolithic_bur ials._In_A._Anders_and_G._Kulcs%C3%A1r_eds_Moments _in_time._Papers_presented_to_P%C3%A1l_Raczky_on_h is_60th_birthday._%C5%90sr%C3%A9g%C3%A9szeti_Tanul m%C3%A1nyok_Prehistoric_Studies_1_Budapest_L_Harma ttan_2013_29-34

what has been found in the recent paper
https://s20.postimg.org/zdksiu2rh/Malek.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Here, here! I've tried to say this for several years. Western and Central Europe is predominately R-L151... it comes down to P312 and U106.

If we are including Yamnaya proper, SW Asia, etc. then all of R1b-L23 is pertinent and perhaps R1b-M269 but that's as far as back as it goes for purposes of this discussion.

I think most people who are in these subclades and in this discussion understand this and R1b is just legacy term.

Indeed
And the problem is the Balkans is still poorly characterised
I'm still trying to learn, and after a glance, I'd say at least half is Z2015- a branch of that found in Yamnaya
Of the other M269, some would be U106 (Germanic mercenaries) or U152 (Roman influences), depending on region
Then you have xL23 varieties, xM269 (eg "Caucasus branch"), etc.

[alan]

I have to say I do have strong suspicions that the yDNA of the steppes groups around the Lower Dnieper and Crimea and some westernmost Sredny Stog groups could be high in non-R yDNA and hence some of the non-R yDNA in SE and Lower Danubian Europe have come from the steppes rather than being indicative of local farmers being IE-ised. However in deeper time these lineages may have come from the European farmers to the westernmost steppes cultures, only to spend many centuries (maybe over a millennia) there and return in a completely different steppic cultural disguise to Old Europe. I think the influence and infusion of farmers into areas like the Lower Dnieper and Crimea is heavily implied in cultural and cranial evidence. One Sredny Stog group near the Dnieper had many Neolithic farmer type skulls - the men not the women!

[alexfritz]

It's actually Myceneans have Balkan-Carpathian Chalcolithic ancestry, which itself has some steppe admixture, but i think we're on the same page.



I'll explain the details:
The Yamnaya Bulgaria lineage, Ulan IV and Ezero culture are i2a2a1b. I view this to be a Mesolithic lineage 'native' to a band of region from north Black sea to east-central Europe, incl northern Balkans (danube river). By 6000 BC it appears in Neolithic contexts (Bulgaria, Hungary) and those which are still not-ANF admixed (Mariupol, etc).
This duality continues through the Copper Age and the Bronze Age (Yamnaya - Ezero). It speaks of a complex history and interaction in the region, individual mobility, exogamy; and mitigates any simplistic unilinear visions.

The GAC lineages is a distinct subset of I2a2. But it's important, now that you bring it up. Because all 3 Polish GAC and all 3 Ukrainian GAC belong to the same lineage (most likely).
Looking at Megalithic Scandinavia, the prepondernat lineage is I2a1b1.
So we see that this strong 'patrilocality' is something peculiar to post-4500 BC northern Europe, not something exclusively 'Indo-European' (on the premise that GAC and Megalithic far north are not I.E. because they are simple mix of ANF/ WHG), but it was perhaps picked up by / native to those IEs from northern Europe.
The Balkans is different. The answer must be social rather than demographic density, because, as Ive said, the Balkans was only densely populated in the "Neolithic golden years', not after.

Ultimately, we still missing a couple of crucial pieces of the puzzle.

i think GAC is also I2a2a1b, seen that somewhere;
all in all it seems like a flexi lineage, in the entire range it (I2a) replaces G2a of the EN as it (I2a2) replaces R1 of the chalcolithic and is yet neither/both farmer and steppe at the same time, with a most likely hunter-gatherer origins; either way doesnt take much away from the R1 emergence and the entire steppe IE construct that comes along with it (incl the asiatic branching);

[alan]

It's actually Myceneans have Balkan-Carpathian Chalcolithic ancestry, which itself has some steppe admixture, but i think we're on the same page.



I'll explain the details:
The Yamnaya Bulgaria lineage, Ulan IV and Ezero culture are i2a2a1b. I view this to be a Mesolithic lineage 'native' to a band of region from north Black sea to east-central Europe, incl northern Balkans (danube river). By 6000 BC it appears in Neolithic contexts (Bulgaria, Hungary) and those which are still not-ANF admixed (Mariupol, etc).
This duality continues through the Copper Age and the Bronze Age (Yamnaya - Ezero). It speaks of a complex history and interaction in the region, individual mobility, exogamy; and mitigates any simplistic unilinear visions.

The GAC lineages is a distinct subset of I2a2. But it's important, now that you bring it up. Because all 3 Polish GAC and all 3 Ukrainian GAC belong to the same lineage (most likely).
Looking at Megalithic Scandinavia, the prepondernat lineage is I2a1b1.
So we see that this strong 'patrilocality' is something peculiar to post-4500 BC northern Europe, not something exclusively 'Indo-European' (on the premise that GAC and Megalithic far north are not I.E. because they are simple mix of ANF/ WHG), but it was perhaps picked up by / native to those IEs from northern Europe.
The Balkans is different. The answer must be social rather than demographic density, because, as Ive said, the Balkans was only densely populated in the "Neolithic golden years', not after.

Ultimately, we still missing a couple of crucial pieces of the puzzle.

I think one aspect may be that in some groups (early Ireland) the clan was dominant and the non-clan mannerbund type groups of unrelated young warriors under a warband leader were peripheral and seen as a mixed blessing who could be trouble but could be useful in times of war. In other cultures and circumstances the mannerbund becomes dominant and ruled society . The is not written in stone and can change over time in the same group. Perhaps in SE Europe the circumstances meant the mannerbund type groups were dominant due to stiffer completion while the open space of northern Europe allowed clans to expand indefinately for centuries without too much strife

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Can you elaborate on the Badan-Usatovo thing I your point 1? It's not an area I know a lot about ?

Just a collective term for the groups from Hungary to west Ukraine during the period 4000 - 3000 BC.
What seems to have happened with the 6.2 ky event was an aridization in the Mediterranean, which also effected the Balkans south of the Danube, with paradoxical flooding of the great river systems due to glacial run off (this explains the elevated 'refuge' sites thought to represent 'fleeing')
The number of sites in Bulgaria, eastern Serbia, northern Greece (the old agricultural heartland) between 4000 and 3500 BC can be counted on 2 hands. It also led to the collapse of the Suvorovo chiefs, because they acquired their status through trading with their Balkan counterparts, and for 200 - 400 years, there are no 'elite' burials on the steppe.

North of the Danube, their partial descendents survived, but began modifiying. West of the Carpathians was the Boleraz - Baden sequence, with end of tells and change to more dispersed settlement patterns, rise in cattle herding, and somehow this is linked with GAC in Poland.
East of the Carpathians was the Cernavoda I - III - Usatavo sequence, thought to be C-T colonists mixing / interacting with Sredny-Stog people.
It was these two combined super-spheres which then moved back down to the Balkans and mainland Greece form c 3500 BC. In essence, they formed the demographic and cultural bulk of Bronze Age Balkans / Greece, and the Usatavo variant brought with it the noted steppe admixture.

Usatavo is interesting because it formed direct interaction with Majkop. This then gave way to the Yamnaya horizon c 3000 BC, perhaps because Usatavo continued to drift southwest into Romania and Serbia (push vs pull?). The similtude between some of the Hungarian Bronze Age I2a21b, Ezero, Ulan IV and 'western Yamnaya' is interesting, and suggests a western wing to the eastern Z2103.

The arrival of Yamnaya seems to have led to the collapse of Baden in Hungary, but not other cultures beyond it (Vucedol) or in Bulgaria (Ezero). Here interaction was probably in equilibrium acrros cultural boundaries.
Then, as you have stated also, the aridization had moved north, and hit the steppe, and Yamnaya retracts to east of the Dnieper, and is itself replaced by R1a-Z93 Catacomb people.

[epp]

I've tried to say this for several years. Western and Central Europe is predominately R-L151... it comes down to P312 and U106.
... and also to L51’s West & Central European A8039, A8051, S1194 and PF7589. Let’s not forget them.

[epp]

Correction to an earlier post of mine: the Funnel Beaker samples that I identified as having a close autosomal fit to German Bell Beaker are South Western Swedish late 4th millennium, rather than North Central German mid 4th millennium. I would estimate that they have small amount (perhaps 5% or less) of “Steppe DNA”, but otherwise closely match the population with whom P312 mixed to form German Bell Beaker several hundred years later. (This compares to closely-related German Corded Ware, which only really differed from Bell Beaker in that it was a little less genetically Central Baltic funnel beaker and a little more genetically Ukrainian Yamnayan.)

Perhaps this suggests that L151 did only develop initially in Europe in quite small numbers, developed pretty far North (West Central Baltic), and only really started flourishing (as also indicated by its estimated branching dates) after 3,000 BC. It might also suggest that Bell Beaker populations were an offshoot of Corded Ware populations that were located to CW's North and West right from the outset.

[rms2]

You're confusing periods and time; Shennan covered north -central Europe in the post 3500 BC, he did not cover SEE, which has been covered by other authors, and the event occurred much earlier (4200 BC vs 2800 BC)

And you're obfuscating. The point was that northern Europe was more sparsely populated than southern Europe to begin with and likewise suffered a Neolithic decline.



That is obvious. You're still failing to understand why that is. You think it is because of an uniterrupted continuity and 'higher population than northern Europe', based on nothing more than your personal whims. Perhaps you don;t wish to accept the reality behind it.

Are you claiming there was no I2a, J2, or E1b1b in SE Europe before 4200 BC? It was all G2a, R1b-V88, and C1?

Why not just present your point of view without the nasty garbage about "personal whims"?



Well, the last sentence is not correct, as Ive explained to you multiple times., certainly not the East & central Balkans.
As for your second line, it is also incrorrect. The EN was mostly G2a, and other lineages like R1b-V88, and C1a. The post-4500 BC we see a whole more of I2a2, J2, etc.
If you'd bother doing the tallies instead of arguing blindly, you'd notice the patterns . . .

J2 and E1b1b were already present in Lengyel before 4500 BC and I2a2 was present in LBK before 4500 BC. Those are both Old European Neolithic farming cultures. If you're taking issue with me because you are sticking specifically to the Balkans, okay. Perhaps those groups moved south into the Balkans following the disruption that occurred around 4200 BC. I was thinking in terms of population continuity in the non-IE Neolithic farming population of Old Europe.



Oh come on. Using German does not imply Nazism. Academians still use Urheimat and Urvolk to denote homelands. I was not linking the Kurgan hypothesis or the idea of migrations with 1930s Germany. I have similar views on the PIE question, just more correct ones.
If you can;t understand things, you shouldn't make accusations . . .

Sorry, but I don't believe you. Using German is one thing (I taught high school German for a few years), but linking loaded terms like Urvolk to the word fantasy when discussing the Indo-Europeans is quite another. The implications are pretty obvious.

I do understand, all too well.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

And you're obfuscating. The point was that northern Europe was more sparsely populated than southern Europe to begin with and likewise suffered a Neolithic decline.

Begin with when ? Actually, northern Europe was more populated in the Mesolithic.
Which was more populated LBK or Starcevo ?
Have you read about this ? Was it in Gimbutas' book that you rely on ?

And it is you who is obfuscating, but you're just embarassed to admit that. We're comparing like with like at same point in time. My point was that the Balkans had a demographic decline, and when it did, the lands to its north were far more densely populated.
We can also say southern Europe was more populated in the Roman Era, but thats hardly relevant to the topic at hand.






Are you claiming there was no I2a, J2, or E1b1b in SE Europe before 4200 BC? It was all G2a, R1b-V88, and C1?

Again, you're either lying, or just an't understand basic concepts.
To repeat what I wrote: "And that's my point-as per above. It cannot be reduced to one lineage. It was a "package shift"."









Sorry, but I don't believe you. Using German is one thing (I taught high school German for a few years), but linking loaded terms like Urvolk to the word fantasy when discussing the Indo-Europeans is quite another. The implications are pretty obvious.

I do understand, all too well.

You taught german ? Big whoop. You're neither an academic nor a psychologist to tell me what I meant, you arrogant pleb.
And your false accusations just show your character then, i guess. Not only are you a crap academic, but you're a hollow character.
Because what I wrote is ]here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=280053#post280053)

RK had written :"I.e. large numbers of males from the horizon descended from a few kinship groups at most several tens of generations before sample deposition. This doesn't mean that there was some "urvolk" that was implicated since the beginning of a culture's expansion however. My bet is that as sampling gets denser we would see that this "flattening" is a result of social processes that occurred during the expansion itself and just after that, and not necessarily indicative of the situation at the cultural source."

to which i wrote "Don't go ruining the urvolk fantasy, now"

You obviously failed to understand what we were implying, just as you fail to understand virtually anything else.
And the thing is my comment hit the nail on the head, that is why you're so triggered, because it goes against your dumbed-down pseudo-historic genetamology.

Now not only are your accusation false, but you're badgering me. So I'll leave you to your thread where you you can whims away all you want, and don;t have to bother about the nuisance of up to date facts or data.

[ADW_1981]

.

Actually one of the consistent Neolithic lineages is G2a2, albeit under different branches, most of which are rare today. One of the branches, G2-P303 became relatively successful across most of Europe, whether this spread happened during the neolithic or later, is yet to be confirmed. In terms of I2a2, it's specifically I2-M223 which has turned up across west and eastern Europe from the mesolithic and later periods.

We haven't collected enough DNA from a single region to really support "bounceback" of any lineage like I2-M223, or J2. Rather, based on the modern distribution it doesn't look like either really bounced back. Post Neolithic, we see R1b swallowing a large swath of west-central Europe, R1a (xM458,xZ93) engulfing Eastern Europe during Corded Ware, and R1a-(M458)/I2-L621 moving into the Balkans quite a bit later.

E-V13, J2, G2 are still found mostly in the Mediterranean region of Europe. Whether these are remnant lineages from the Neolithic or a a subset of these lineages (ie: J2), a late Bronze Age expansion like some papers would suggest, still needs more support.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Actually one of the consistent Neolithic lineages is G2a2, albeit under different branches, most of which are rare today. One of the branches, G2-P303 became relatively successful across most of Europe, whether this spread happened during the neolithic or later, is yet to be confirmed. In terms of I2a2, it's specifically I2-M223 which has turned up across west and eastern Europe from the mesolithic and later periods.

We haven't collected enough DNA from a single region to really support "bounceback" of any lineage like I2-M223, or J2. Rather, based on the modern distribution it doesn't look like either really bounced back. Post Neolithic, we see R1b swallowing a large swath of west-central Europe, R1a (xM458,xZ93) engulfing Eastern Europe during Corded Ware, and R1a-(M458)/I2-L621 moving into the Balkans quite a bit later.

E-V13, J2, G2 are still found mostly in the Mediterranean region of Europe. Whether these are remnant lineages from the Neolithic or a a subset of these lineages (ie: J2), a late Bronze Age expansion like some papers would suggest, still needs more support.

Im talking about SEE, not western Europe. So your point about E-V13 or J2 is irrelevant., as is your claims about "bounce back"., because I never used such a concept.
Since the Bronze Age, there have been continual shifts in the Balkans, so your inferences on based on the modern DNA of a region you have little knowledge of is also irrelvant
Then you claimed that the prevalence of R1b in SEE is 20%, and it came with IEs
Still waiting for you in-depth sub-clade analysis because your personal opinion isn't something. I'd take verbatim.

[rms2]

Begin with when ? Actually, northern Europe was more populated in the Mesolithic.
Which was more populated LBK or Starcevo ?
Have you read about this ? Was it in Gimbutas' book that you rely on ?

And it is you who is obfuscating, but you're just embarassed to admit that. We're comparing like with like at same point in time. My point was that the Balkans had a demographic decline, and when it did, the lands to its north were far more densely populated.
We can also say southern Europe was more populated in the Roman Era, but thats hardly relevant to the topic at hand.





Again, you're either lying, or just an't understand basic concepts.
To repeat what I wrote: "And that's my point-as per above. It cannot be reduced to one lineage. It was a "package shift"."







You taught german ? Big whoop. You're neither an academic nor a psychologist to tell me what I meant, you arrogant pleb.
And your false accusations just show your character then, i guess. Not only are you a crap academic, but you're a hollow character.
Because what I wrote is ]here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=280053#post280053)

RK had written :"I.e. large numbers of males from the horizon descended from a few kinship groups at most several tens of generations before sample deposition. This doesn't mean that there was some "urvolk" that was implicated since the beginning of a culture's expansion however. My bet is that as sampling gets denser we would see that this "flattening" is a result of social processes that occurred during the expansion itself and just after that, and not necessarily indicative of the situation at the cultural source."

to which i wrote "Don't go ruining the urvolk fantasy, now"

You obviously failed to understand what we were implying, just as you fail to understand virtually anything else.
And the thing is my comment hit the nail on the head, that is why you're so triggered, because it goes against your dumbed-down pseudo-historic genetamology.

Now not only are your accusation false, but you're badgering me. So I'll leave you to your thread where you you can whims away all you want, and don;t have to bother about the nuisance of up to date facts or data.

Just wanted to quote what you wrote before you have the opportunity to edit the ad hominems out.

Very nice.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Just wanted to quote what you wrote before you have the opportunity to edit the ad hominems out.

And I stick by it
I'm not the only one opine that about you

[rms2]

And I stick by it
I'm not the only one opine that about you

It would be best if we all just stuck to "Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b".

[Gravetto-Danubian]

It would be best if we all just stuck to "Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b".

Fine
Ill apologise if you take back your false accusation and Presumptive tone
They're some serious charge you're throwing around

[alan]

Post deleted - I was a bit preachy and am no saint to be lecturing others

[Gravetto-Danubian]

You have been spoiling your valuable contributions with that temper of yours for years. You really let yourself down with those outbursts of person attacks. Cant you just take a breath and calm down before typing if something annoys you. Tit for tat escalating is not a virtue

You're right actually
It isn't worth it . My bad

[alan]

"Annoys" ? Allegations of accusations of Nazism isn't annoying . It's deceit and attempted character assassination. It gets tiring dealing with dishonesty, double standards, down right chauvanism, and hypocrisy; coming from all levels- right up to admins and "published academics" whenever one doesn't parrot the Statis quo.

So why don't you pull up RMS2 on his lies?
Not worth leaving over a small spat. Your stuff is valuable and appreciated. We all have to bite our tongues sometimes for the sake of keeping the peace. And yes I would say Rich also lost his temper and got pesonal too. A number of people on this forum from time to time do that. I have got stung a lot so i just bite my tongue as tit for tat just makes these things turn into epic spats. You both don't like backing down. Nevertheless I look forward to both of your posts. Please do a digital hand shake and both apologise to each other for getting personal and this will all be history in seconds.

It's

[ADW_1981]

Of course, I know you know we have just one Balkan Yamnaya, from Bulgaria. I'm looking forward to some results from the Carpathian basin and the Tisza River valley, including from kurgans that predate Yamnaya. I'd also like to see some y-dna from the Pontic steppe in addition to what we already have from the Volga-Ural steppe and the Caspian steppe.

I would also like to see some testing of all the regional variants of Corded Ware. Most of them remain completely untested.

I'm curious why he uses terms like "overwhelmingly" to apply to a sample size of n =1. It's rather misleading.

[ADW_1981]

3) the Balkan Yamnaya might turn to be more diverse than the Caspian, haplotypically. Indeed, the Bulgarian Yamnaya individual was I2a2, the Smyadovo - Ezero culture individual with evidence of steppe admixture across the road from him was I2a2.



However, you cannot state I2-M223 is a "Steppe" marker in itself, because it has been found in Neolithic Iberia and within a general European mesolithic context. Similarly we cannot say L51+ arose on the steppe, nor can we say L23+ is a mesolithic marker until it turns up in that period.

I don't see where you're going with this. Some subclades under I2-M223 probably spread in the Bronze age with the R1b guys from the steppes. Do I need a formal paper to show this association?

[alan]

I have been very impressed by the debates. You would think we had all chewed this over to death but the convo keeps coming up with new angles and is though provoking

[alexfritz]

However, you cannot state I2-M223 is a "Steppe" marker in itself, because it has been found in Neolithic Iberia and within a general European mesolithic context. Similarly we cannot say L51+ arose on the steppe, nor can we say L23+ is a mesolithic marker until it turns up in that period.

I don't see where you're going with this. Some subclades under I2-M223 probably spread in the Bronze age with the R1b guys from the steppes. Do I need a formal paper to show this association?

but from what i have seen the R1b'ers were already present in the chalcolithic(bell beaker) whereas in unetice I2a2b emerges and by the archaeo record bronze-age unetice derives from eastern beaker; i do think that I2a2b is a special case and does not yet (data) show the geo/nor chron range of I2a2a, in that it might than be in-situ IEized farmers;

[alan]

but from what i have seen the R1b'ers were already present in the chalcolithic(bell beaker) whereas in unetice I2a2b emerges and by the archaeo record bronze-age unetice derives from eastern beaker; i do think that I2a2b is a special case and does not yet (data) show the geo/nor chron range of I2a2a, in that it might than be in-situ IEized farmers;

That is a strange finding because in a cultural sense the beaker roots of unetice is pretty clear.

[ADW_1981]

so your inferences on based on the modern DNA of a region you have little knowledge of is also irrelvant
Then you claimed that the prevalence of R1b in SEE is 20%, and it came with IEs
Still waiting for you in-depth sub-clade analysis because your personal opinion isn't something. I'd take verbatim.

Excerpt from the 2016 Cyprus study : Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements Voskarides et al. 2016

Overall, haplogroup R1 presence was 15.1 %. The total frequency of associated R1a-M449 and R1b-M415 sub-haplogroups was 4.5 % and 10.7 %, respectively. The paragroup R1b-M269*(xL23) lineage is present (2.5 %). Furthermore sub-branches reflecting distinctive European versus Asian divergences similarly occur in both R1a and R1b. Within R1b, the central/west Europe M412 constituent (2.2 %) is offset by the western/central/south Asia Z2105 fraction (5.4 %) that was previously reported as paragroup L23*(xM412) [56]. Similarly in R1a, both the European Z282 component (3.0 %) and the counterpart Asian Z93 clade (1.1 %) occur.


I'm not sure if you're expecting me to highlight which IE speakers came from where with pinpoint accuracy? Someone with no funding, no formal education or training in the field, and with no samples at my disposal? Have any people holding a PhD in the field even come close to what you are proposing I do?

Another study supporting what I just mentioned. n=25 of the R1b have 393=12 vs n=16 have 393 != 12. Since 13 is not always an indicator of L51+, a chunk could be V88, L389, or L23+ &L51-.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474

Another on Greek speaking provinces of Turkey: R1b is n=23 (of 89), 9 are DYS393=12, and 6 of 14 match the 11-11 modal, leaving at most 8 as L51. This number could be even smaller.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/

So I guess you can criticize me because I don't have the funding to exhume skeletons that may or may not be in existence, but I think we can infer some data based on modern results and the ancient results we do have. Otherwise, this is all for nothing.

[alan]

Beaker genetics does look to me that they had a prior existence in the east-Central Europe north of the Carpathians in a zone where they mixed a bit with native farmers while CW looks like there was a big chunk who went directly from steppe east of the Dnieper to the Baltic. I don't trust building a model of CW spread on RC dates when there is only a century between oldest and typical dates. Fir instance the dates for CW in Ukraine are not as old as Poland etc but I think that either is deceiving us or the current model is failing to distinguish between a cultural fusion zone and an eastern branch of it is a which stayed pure steppe and became the dominant genetic group spreading the culture

[R.Rocca]

The Yamnaya Bulgaria lineage, Ulan IV and Ezero culture are i2a2a1b. I view this to be a Mesolithic lineage 'native' to a band of region from north Black sea to east-central Europe, incl northern Balkans (danube river). By 6000 BC it appears in Neolithic contexts (Bulgaria, Hungary) and those which are still not-ANF admixed (Mariupol, etc).
This duality continues through the Copper Age and the Bronze Age (Yamnaya - Ezero). It speaks of a complex history and interaction in the region, individual mobility, exogamy; and mitigates any simplistic unilinear visions.

The Iron Gates Hunter Gatherers appear to have been more frequently R1b1a and V88 at that, but I agree, there seems to have been an I2a2/R1b1a(xM269) presence on the Danube from the Mesolithic on through to the Copper Age.


The GAC lineages is a distinct subset of I2a2. But it's important, now that you bring it up. Because all 3 Polish GAC and all 3 Ukrainian GAC belong to the same lineage (most likely).

Mathieson's admixture grouping may not be all that correct, but it is fascinating that the GAC samples all lack Yamnaya ancestry when Copper Age Balkan groups have it. I suspect a very specific group of I2a2a1b men came from somewhere to the north-west... what do you think?


So we see that this strong 'patrilocality' is something peculiar to post-4500 BC northern Europe, not something exclusively 'Indo-European' (on the premise that GAC and Megalithic far north are not I.E. because they are simple mix of ANF/ WHG), but it was perhaps picked up by / native to those IEs from northern Europe.
The Balkans is different. The answer must be social rather than demographic density, because, as Ive said, the Balkans was only densely populated in the "Neolithic golden years', not after.


All of Southern Europe that practiced pastoralism during the Copper Age seems to have been less influenced by R-L51. This all seems to change with the Wrist Guard People (that's what I'm calling the steppe derived Bell Beaker men) during the Early Bronze Age.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

but from what i have seen the R1b'ers were already present in the chalcolithic(bell beaker) whereas in unetice I2a2b emerges and by the archaeo record bronze-age unetice derives from eastern beaker; i do think that I2a2b is a special case and does not yet (data) show the geo/nor chron range of I2a2a, in that it might than be in-situ IEized farmers;

You're correct.
The I2a2 in Iberia isn;t the same lineage as the one in Ukraine- Bulgaria, nor is it the same as the one in GAC.
The appearance of I2c and I2a2b in Unetice makes perfect sense, because at least I2c was found in Neolithic Balkans and Copper Age Hungary. Heyd (as have several archaeologists before him) speaks of a palpable pulse of movement in the post-BB period from the Carpathian basin into Unetice-central Europe, marking the emergence of the true Bronze Age in central Europe.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Mathieson's admixture grouping may not be all that correct, but it is fascinating that the GAC samples all lack Yamnaya ancestry when Copper Age Balkan groups have it. I suspect a very specific group of I2a2a1b men came from somewhere to the north-west... what do you think?


.

Ultimately, I2a2 is definitely east-central European (S Germany <-> Ukraine), from the LUP perspective
W.r.t. I2a2a1b, we have I2a2a1b2 in the GAC, but also La Mina (3800 BC) and probably other places yet to be published in western Europe Neolithic - Copper Age
I2a2a1b1, on the other hand, is solidly "Carpatho-Pontic". It is found in Neolithic Bulgaria, Neolithic & Copper Age Hungary, "Neolithic" (genetically "SHG") Dereivka, Yamnaya (Ulan IV, Bulgaria) and Bulgarian Bronze Age (Ezero culture).

[alexfritz]

You're correct.
The I2a2 in Iberia isn;t the same lineage as the one in Ukraine- Bulgaria, nor is it the same as the one in GAC.
The appearance of I2c and I2a2b in Unetice makes perfect sense, because at least I2c was found in Neolithic Balkans and Copper Age Hungary. Heyd (as have several archaeologists before him) speaks of a palpable pulse of movement in the post-BB period from the Carpathian basin into Unetice-central Europe, marking the emergence of the true Bronze Age in central Europe.

I2a2a1b does has a span from western points in Iberia(mina4 early4thmil) and scotland(I2650 late4thmil) to east Ilyatka/Ukraine GAC (early3rdmil), those by the looks of it all proper farmers; it might very well be that now in the bronze-age these I2c/I2a2b folks were the elites and could afford the burials attestable by modern archeology, yet their genome wide structure is still very akin to that of the beakers; one would expect an olalde et al continuity of R1b(east beakers) but in the current so far data it disappeared with the early 4th mil Protoboleraz I2c still being MN type farmers; i think this a complete network of dynamics, first (chalcolithic) confined to the balkans/carpathians and than spilled over into central europe (bronze-age);

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Excerpt from the 2016 Cyprus study : Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements Voskarides et al. 2016

Overall, haplogroup R1 presence was 15.1 %. The total frequency of associated R1a-M449 and R1b-M415 sub-haplogroups was 4.5 % and 10.7 %, respectively. The paragroup R1b-M269*(xL23) lineage is present (2.5 %). Furthermore sub-branches reflecting distinctive European versus Asian divergences similarly occur in both R1a and R1b. Within R1b, the central/west Europe M412 constituent (2.2 %) is offset by the western/central/south Asia Z2105 fraction (5.4 %) that was previously reported as paragroup L23*(xM412) [56]. Similarly in R1a, both the European Z282 component (3.0 %) and the counterpart Asian Z93 clade (1.1 %) occur.


I'm not sure if you're expecting me to highlight which IE speakers came from where with pinpoint accuracy? Someone with no funding, no formal education or training in the field, and with no samples at my disposal? Have any people holding a PhD in the field even come close to what you are proposing I do?

Another study supporting what I just mentioned. n=25 of the R1b have 393=12 vs n=16 have 393 != 12. Since 13 is not always an indicator of L51+, a chunk could be V88, L389, or L23+ &L51-.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179474

Another on Greek speaking provinces of Turkey: R1b is n=23 (of 89), 9 are DYS393=12, and 6 of 14 match the 11-11 modal, leaving at most 8 as L51. This number could be even smaller.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068964/

So I guess you can criticize me because I don't have the funding to exhume skeletons that may or may not be in existence, but I think we can infer some data based on modern results and the ancient results we do have. Otherwise, this is all for nothing.

Sorry, I should not misapply to my frustration to you.

It might be more worthwhile to stay in mainland Europe.
A pretty decent Bulgarian study in 2013 (karachanuk et al).
Overall frequency of R1b= 10.5

5.2% was L23 (xM412). This will undoubtedly be Z2013, and the Z2110 branch at that.
I have no doubt this relates to Yamnaya, but I wonder when it reached Greece ?

The others are U106, xM269 (PF7563), etc


Also worth looking at is the Myres study, which has decent coverage of Turkey, Crete and SEE, in addition rest of Europe.

[Isidro]

Maybe it is time to call a spade a spade and admit that Bell Beakers and R1b have a conjunction and a disjunction relationship and Gimbutas had no idea what a R1b was.
To assume that R1b was the sole carrier of Bell beaker (whatever anyone wants to package this as ) is not only intelligently insulting but borderline supremacist regardless of whatever it's fountain of youth was. Cultures act like a vacuum of multiple influences so I insist please drop the idea that R1b is the cradle of Bell Beakers, that belongs with the lore of Miles espain, Franco Cantabrian birth of Wahm or horse riding fairies from the steppes.
Just remember the present is looking at you as self satisfying walkiries but the real test is your descendants... you will be judged by them.

[TigerMW]

Maybe it is time to call a spade a spade and admit that Bell Beakers and R1b have a conjunction and a disjunction relationship and Gimbutas had no idea what a R1b was.
To assume that R1b was the sole carrier of Bell beaker (whatever anyone wants to package this as )

I have been staying out of this but this is wrong to carry on with strawmen to be shot down and with stereotyping.

I have yet to have read anyone on this forum seriously propose that R1b was the sole carrier of Bell Beaker cultures.

Isidro, please site and quote who claims "sole carrier of Bell Beaker".


is not only intelligently insulting but borderline supremacist regardless of whatever it's fountain of youth was. Cultures act like a vacuum of multiple influences so I insist please drop the idea that R1b is the cradle of Bell Beakers, that belongs with the lore of Miles espain, Franco Cantabrian birth of Wahm or horse riding fairies from the steppes.

I have European descent. So what? That doesn't mean I should be stereotyped. I think we are watching too much of the news channels. My children have some Native American, North African and Jewish blood (so says Family Finder and heritage). Neither my identity nor theirs is tied up in identity politics.

I do not understand the need to assign people to groups by argument and then bring up language like "supremacist" or "walkiries" in some kind of imaginary psychoanalysis.


Just remember the present is looking at you as self satisfying walkiries but the real test is your descendants... you will be judged by them.

I will only be judged by the one in truth and I do not worry that my descendants will judge me in any way other than I what I am, which has both good and bad.

Let's not mix the political news channels with open and civil debate.

[kostoffj]

Maybe it is time to call a spade a spade and admit that Bell Beakers and R1b have a conjunction and a disjunction relationship and Gimbutas had no idea what a R1b was.
To assume that R1b was the sole carrier of Bell beaker (whatever anyone wants to package this as ) is not only intelligently insulting but borderline supremacist regardless of whatever it's fountain of youth was. Cultures act like a vacuum of multiple influences so I insist please drop the idea that R1b is the cradle of Bell Beakers, that belongs with the lore of Miles espain, Franco Cantabrian birth of Wahm or horse riding fairies from the steppes.
Just remember the present is looking at you as self satisfying walkiries but the real test is your descendants... you will be judged by them.

If anyone ever wondered why there are anthropologists who will look at the ruins of fortresses and deny they're fortresses and say they're high status party houses instead, it's because of stuff like this. Reading a bunch of modern political junk into a discussion of how many haplogroups can dance on the head of a pin and then accusing the participants of criminal wrongthink and being tantamount to racists. This is the internet and people squabble over *everything.* No one's being a "supremacist" WHATEVER THAT IS, settle down.

[alan]

'Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends. I have always thought that it's a crime...' We can work it out (Lennon and McCartney)

[rms2]

Maybe it is time to call a spade a spade and admit that Bell Beakers and R1b have a conjunction and a disjunction relationship and Gimbutas had no idea what a R1b was.

Who ever said she did? She died in 1994, for goodness' sake. Gimbutas is relevant because of her ideas about European prehistory, especially her Kurgan Hypothesis and her ideas about Bell Beaker.



To assume that R1b was the sole carrier of Bell beaker (whatever anyone wants to package this as ) is not only intelligently insulting but borderline supremacist regardless of whatever it's fountain of youth was.

Wow. Disagree a little with some people and one is "borderline supremacist" or engaged in the "Urvolk fantasy", with all the attendant evils those things imply.

I thought openly questioning motives was against forum rules.

Besides, almost no one I know of thinks Bell Beaker was exclusively R1b. We know from the Olalde et al results that early Iberian BB was predominantly I2a, so that takes care of that. There was even a little non-R1b in non-Iberian Bell Beaker.



Cultures act like a vacuum of multiple influences so I insist please drop the idea that R1b is the cradle of Bell Beakers, that belongs with the lore of Miles espain, Franco Cantabrian birth of Wahm or horse riding fairies from the steppes.
Just remember the present is looking at you as self satisfying walkiries but the real test is your descendants... you will be judged by them.

There is no getting around the fact that non-Iberian Bell Beaker was mainly R1b-P312, at least based on the ancient y-dna test results thus far.

Not sure about all the rest of that, i.e., the incoherent bits.

[R.Rocca]

Guys, the Corded Ware thread was closed due to pissing matches. Are we really doing this again?

[rms2]

I hope we are still allowed to disagree with others and express different opinions.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7RmcdHrYuk

[TigerMW]

...
Besides, almost no one I know of thinks Bell Beaker was exclusively R1b. We know from the Olalde et al results that early Iberian BB was predominantly I2a, so that takes care of that. There was even a little non-R1b in non-Iberian Bell Beaker.
...
There is no getting around the fact that non-Iberian Bell Beaker was mainly R1b-P312, at least based on the ancient y-dna test results thus far.

I think the clause "thus far" is critical. I don't think we have a good survey of all parts of Bell Beaker regions. I'm particularly interested with the East Bell Beakers who reached into Poland and along the Baltic to Denmark. We also don't have a lot on the Italic Beakers.

On the other hand, we have parts of Corded Ware and and Yamnaya missing too from aDNA testing.

This is particularly precarious given that the R1b-L151 MRCA, who from whom so many in Western and Central Europe descend, may not even have been born until the Early Bronze Age. This is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack.

We'll have to view this from a super-conducting super-collider perspective. They smash atoms together and then look at the remnants of the collisions to see if they can figure out what happened.

[alan]

Back to basics: P312 appears to have been branching for perhaps 400-500 years before Central European bell beaker culture existed and it did not come from the early Iberian beaker makers. So looking at the section of the P312 tree that covers the first 500 years only would be a good start. Can anyone produce that graphic? I am useless at that sort of thing. What does the tree of the pre-beaker phase of P312 from 3000-2500BC tell us?

[Dewsloth]

Back to basics: P312 appears to have been branching for perhaps 400-500 years before Central European bell beaker culture existed and it did not come from the early Iberian beaker makers. So looking at the section of the P312 tree that covers the first 500 years only would be a good start. Can anyone produce that graphic? I am useless at that sort of thing. What does the tree of the pre-beaker phase of P312 from 3000-2500BC tell us?

Something like this?
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11648-Legend-of-the-Pale-Rider-(A-P312-story)&p=272546&viewfull=1#post272546

^^Click on the image twice, I think.

[R.Rocca]

Ultimately, I2a2 is definitely east-central European (S Germany <-> Ukraine), from the LUP perspective
W.r.t. I2a2a1b, we have I2a2a1b2 in the GAC, but also La Mina (3800 BC) and probably other places yet to be published in western Europe Neolithic - Copper Age
I2a2a1b1, on the other hand, is solidly "Carpatho-Pontic". It is found in Neolithic Bulgaria, Neolithic & Copper Age Hungary, "Neolithic" (genetically "SHG") Dereivka, Yamnaya (Ulan IV, Bulgaria) and Bulgarian Bronze Age (Ezero culture).

I'm not sure what it means, but it looks like all of the Ukraine Neolithic samples that are I2a2a1b1 are on the Dnieper River. The lone I2a2a1b1 Yamnaya sample is even further east of the Dnieper.

[MitchellSince1893]

Back to basics: P312 appears to have been branching for perhaps 400-500 years before Central European bell beaker culture existed and it did not come from the early Iberian beaker makers. So looking at the section of the P312 tree that covers the first 500 years only would be a good start. Can anyone produce that graphic? I am useless at that sort of thing. What does the tree of the pre-beaker phase of P312 from 3000-2500BC tell us?

This may help http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/tree.html

[alan]

There seems to be a consensus that the P312 SNP is nearer 5000 years old than 4500 years old. Right? And tmrca of P312is 400ys younger? Kind of like yfull dates but add a couple of centuries? https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

[Wing Genealogist]

There seems to be a consensus that the P312 SNP is nearer 5000 years old than 4500 years old. Right? And tmrca of P312is 400ys younger? Kind of like yfull dates but add a couple of centuries? https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

According to Iain McDonald's latest Big Y analysis of P312 results, the age with 95% Confidence Interval: P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
See http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html for complete listing of P312 clades and especially his explanatory notes.

This would support P312 being roughly 5000 years old.

[alan]

According to Iain McDonald's latest Big Y analysis of P312 results, the age with 95% Confidence Interval: P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
See http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html for complete listing of P312 clades and especially his explanatory notes.

This would support P312 being roughly 5000 years old.

Yes a number of archaeological-geographical associations suggest that yfull dates seem a couple of centuries too young. What about the 400yr gap between the P312 formation and the tmrca date? What is the basis of that?

[Dewsloth]

Yes a number of archaeological-geographical associations suggest that yfull dates seem a couple of centuries too young. What about the 400yr gap between the P312 formation and the tmrca date? What is the basis of that?

That's kind of funny to me because McDonald's age estimate for DF87/Z302 (first major subclade split of DF19, along with DF88) is 3,000 years younger than yfull's. I just emailed him a little while ago about that.

Edit: He just replied. The discrepancy is due to insufficiently varied Z302 donor samples, and more results should bring it back in line.

[alan]

According to Iain McDonald's latest Big Y analysis of P312 results, the age with 95% Confidence Interval: P312 3155 BC (3898 BC — 2568 BC)
See http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/p312/table.html for complete listing of P312 clades and especially his explanatory notes.

This would support P312 being roughly 5000 years old.

Absolute dates will be argued about for a long time to come but there is one thing that stands out as solid. P312 derivatives like DF13, L2 etc are proven to be linked with non Iberian beaker from its inception but their P312 shared mrca is centuries earlier. Given that their most recent shared ancestor is several centuries pre-beaker then how on earth did they all come to be so closely linked to beaker centuries later?

There are only two likely explanations imho:

1. All P312 decendants remained in a compact area for several centuries until they adopted the beaker.

2. A beaker type trade network without the beakers was set up by the grandkids/g grandkids of Mr P312 in central europe around 2900-2800BC. This led to at least part of the P312 subclades geography being in place before beakers were adopted. The subsequent spread of the beaker and other shared traits and innovations through all the P312 people was due to them already forming a network through which they were linked.

I favour the latter option. Beaker metallurgy in central European differed little from what proceeded it in CW and other cultures and it seems to me that someone likely performed the same trader-metallurgist role before beakers were adopted. My guess is it was a network of P312 clans. We know that the bones of one central European beaker man clearly showed evidence of a life on horseback. My guess is P312 controlled traderoutes/rivers leading north from the north Carpathians, the Upper Danube, the Rhine etc for at least 200 years before the beaker was adopted. Who knows, they may have occasionally seasonally extended in an archaeologically nearly invisible way further west using the Grand Pressigny trade route or the Rhone like a variant of Jean's stelae people- perhaps enough contact to pass wives with the central European model of the beaker to non P312 Iberians .

[TigerMW]

Absolute dates will be argued about for a long time to come but there is one thing that stands out as solid. P312 derivatives like DF13, L2 etc are proven to be linked with non Iberian beaker from its inception but their P312 shared mrca is centuries earlier. Given that their most recent shared ancestor is several centuries pre-beaker then how on earth did they all come to be so closely linked to beaker centuries later?
....
I wouldn't rely too much on precision in dating, at least from the genetic age estimates. They could easily be off several hundred years. I think the only anchors we have for R1b-P312 are the RC dated aDNA amongst early Bell Beaker remains. I know we have U152 very early but that might only be a generation or two away from the P312 MRCA.

[MitchellSince1893]

I wouldn't rely too much on precision in dating, at least from the genetic age estimates. They could easily be off several hundred years. I think the only anchors we have for R1b-P312 are the RC dated aDNA amongst early Bell Beaker remains. I know we have U152 very early but that might only be a generation or two away from the P312 MRCA.

We've discussed this before so I won't beat the dead horse...too much. If a U152 descendant, RISE563 lived ~2542 BC, we need to account for all the mutations that occurred...even if they weren't in the combBED region e.g. Z40481, Z38841, ZZ11 and possibly Z1904 CTS12684 PF6548. I'm not talking about SNP dating calculations, but rather a minimum number of conception events...plus we don't know how many generations there were between RISE563 and the original U152 carrier.

Based on the above I think it's safe to assume P312 would be no younger than 2750 BC.

[epp]

Yes a number of archaeological-geographical associations suggest that yfull dates seem a couple of centuries too young. What about the 400yr gap between the P312 formation and the tmrca date? What is the basis of that?

I've returned to bring my calming influence to this thread.

The 400 year estimated gap between P312's formation date and its TMRCA is statistically insignificant, and might not have been a gap at all. Far more significant is the 1,100 year gap between L151 arising and its first surviving branches forming. What caused all the earliest branches of L151 to die out before several of them started thriving at roughly the same time?

If we want to examine the root of P312, we need to look at the other branches that shot out of the same root at pretty much the same time - A8039, A8051, S1200 and U106, but these, for the most part, are ignored.

[epp]

Absolute dates will be argued about for a long time to come but there is one thing that stands out as solid. P312 derivatives like DF13, L2 etc are proven to be linked with non Iberian beaker from its inception but their P312 shared mrca is centuries earlier. Given that their most recent shared ancestor is several centuries pre-beaker then how on earth did they all come to be so closely linked to beaker centuries later?

There are only two likely explanations imho:

1. All P312 decendants remained in a compact area for several centuries until they adopted the beaker.

2. A beaker type trade network without the beakers was set up by the grandkids/g grandkids of Mr P312 in central europe around 2900-2800BC. This led to at least part of the P312 subclades geography being in place before beakers were adopted. The subsequent spread of the beaker and other shared traits and innovations through all the P312 people was due to them already forming a network through which they were linked.
Perhaps both, with P312 having a compact base, and a network venturing out from and returning to that base.

[TigerMW]

...we need to account for all the mutations that occurred...
Based on the above I think that it's safe to assume P312 would be no younger than 2750 BC.
It very well could be but I don't think that is a safe assumption at all because you do NOT need to account for all of the mutations.

Mitchell, your usage of non-SNPs even if we name them SNPs and a widely varied coverage base is faulty logic. There can be, and in fact are, multiple mutations on the Y chromosome per one generation. It's just a matter of taking your pick.

Here's a couple of quotes from Dave V on the dead horse thread.

"Those numbers are NOT comparable to any one else's SNP mutation rates calculated at different coverages, SNP selection criteria, etc. But even trying to factor out all those valid differences between SNP mutation rates, this says we're still very far away from a universal SNP ageing methodology. And to be honest, that even YFull's methods have a much larger error margin then they're probably accounting for."

"Big Ys have on average 10.31 Mbp coverage which would yield 118 years to every SNP, and FGC Elite has 23 Mbp coverage yielding a SNP every 53 years."

Mitchell, here is analogy for what you are saying. There are two fields and field A has only orange trees while field B is several times larger and has apple and orange trees. You go fill up several bushel baskets from each.

You throw apples in the baskets from field B because you can and then you declare field B produces more oranges per acre than field A. We don't know how big the fields are and we were counting baskets with apples + oranges as equivalents to baskets with oranges only.

For those who like to beat dead horses, here's the thread:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10785-What-mutation-rates-should-we-consider-for-Y-SNPs

Alan, YFull has the maximum age of the TMRCA for P312 as 2800 BC with 95% confidence. I'm not saying they are right but I'm not saying McDonald's estimates are or anybody's are either.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P312/

I just suggest not relying on the mutation counting age estimates to get you any closer than the right half-millenium... maybe. We do know the P312 MRCA has be older older than 2500 BC. The U152 guy's bones tell us that.

[razyn]

It very well could be but I don't think that is a safe assumption at all because you do NOT need to account for all of the mutations.

Mitchell, your usage of non-SNPs even if we name them SNPs and a widely varied coverage base is faulty logic. There can be, and in fact are, multiple mutations on the Y chromosome per one generation. It's just a matter of taking your pick.

I disagree that Mitchell's logic is faulty, at least in the cases of Z40481 and ZZ11/Z38841. Per the Big Tree (the only place you're likely to see them), those define separate levels, each with more than one branch -- whether you call them SNPs, or UEPs, or Fred. Can't do that w/o another generation, each.

Otherwise I agree with Mike that on many levels, in many branches of the P312 phylogeny, there are multiple SNPs (or other mutations) that happened at the same time, to the same guy. And they screw up the SNP-counting system of age estimation, which itself is not completely immune to the Faulty Logic virus.

[TigerMW]

I disagree that Mitchell's logic is faulty, at least in the cases of Z40481 and ZZ11/Z38841. Per the Big Tree (the only place you're likely to see them), those define separate levels, each with more than one branch -- whether you call them SNPs, or UEPs, or Fred. Can't do that w/o another generation, each.

Otherwise I agree with Mike that on many levels, in many branches of the P312 phylogeny, there are multiple SNPs (or other mutations) that happened at the same time, to the same guy. And they screw up the SNP-counting system of age estimation, which itself is not completely immune to the Faulty Logic virus.

Any mutation or combination of mutations may be useful for marking branching on a tree, albeit not necessarily on formal or academically acceptable trees. However, that has little to do with using mutations to estimate generations. You have to control coverage as the base of the measure and have data on mutation rates to estimate times. That's the faulty logic. Don't believe me. Believe what David V was saying, "Those numbers are NOT comparable to any one else's SNP mutation rates calculated at different coverages, SNP selection criteria, etc. "

Alex Williamson, the discoverer of Z40481, says of Z40481, "Please note that the defining mutation for this block is in fact an STR."
www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=1565

Z40481 is clearly not a Single Nucleotide Polymorphism. It's not an SNP.

Alex is the discoverer of ZZ11 and he says of it, "ZZ11 is a mutation within the DYZ19 (125bp repeat) region, but its exact position is unknown. It may well be in a part of DYZ19 that has not yet been sequenced."
http://www.ytree.net/DisplayTree.php?blockID=2

Every distinct branch does require a distinct father-son transmission, I agree, but with aggressive counting and stretchy coverage we could easily be talking about only one generation per ZZ11 and one per Z40481. That could amount to 50 years total. ... and that's assuming no back mutation at the STR we called Z40481 nor anything screwy happening at ZZ11 which we aren't really aren't that sure about.

I don't see Iain McDonald nor YFull using either of these in their age estimates. Okay, that's enough. I'll check the dead horse thread I linked into reply #4342 if people want to talk more about this.

[[[EDIT after reply 4345 by Mitchell: I'm just going to tack on here if you want to keep on this thread because this has got be killing everybody else.

I understand the real event thing, sexual intercourse and all. That's what I was trying to say with "Every distinct branch does require a distinct father-son transmission". A father-son transmission includes a wife/mother in the process of course. I understand a new child branch is a new branch requiring at least one generation... which means time. That's why I said "per ZZ11 and one per Z40481. That could amount to 50 years total" and that's assuming Z40481, the STR did not mutate down one step and that ZZ11 is actually being measured accurately.

I'm just saying you can't stretch these things out with the typical SNP every 100 years or so depending on what on what coverage one is using. The sex and resulting child and grandchild sequence could easily be 100 years or less for all of this below....

P312 MRCA father
Z4081 son, DF19 son, Z290 son, L238 son, etc.
ZZ11/Z38841 grandson, DF99 grandson, ZZ37 grandson, L21 grandson, etc.
U152 and DF27 great-grandsons, etc.

You can't stretch this out to 500 or 1000 years with what you think is a theoretical (it's not a theory, it's real but we can only estimate it) mutation rate of 112 years per true SNP given 9,900,000 base pairs of coverage. Really we are looking at double the coverage since FGC has that so our best estimate is about 50 years per true validated SNP... which I don't think still includes your STR or ZZ11.

Let's go ahead and imagine these are all valid SNPs and use the FGC rate of an SNP every 53 years (I think they say). That's average not maximum, that's average. In that case we can estimate U152 and DF27 appeared about 150 years after the P312 MRCA man. I'm definitely not trying to say the P312 MRCA couldn't have been around 3000 BC, but I don't think we should rely on that. That's all I was telling Alan. We can rely on the 2540 BC plus some... how much? I don't know but not a lot unless there was just some aberrant pause in valid SNP occurrences in the L151 lineages, and its just as likely there was an acceleration of SNPs as there was a pause.

I'm fine with a 2700 BC date or 3000 BC or whatever. I wouldn't build a whole hypothesis on 3000 BC versus 2650 BC, though. I may have misunderstood the premises that Alan was setting up. I thought he was looking at 500 year gap or something I was just trying to say the gap may not be that big.

Please note I didn't cite mutation rates or anything to kick off this sideshow on reply #4338. I just told Alan, "I wouldn't rely too much on precision in dating, at least from the genetic age estimates. They could easily be off several hundred years"
EDIT again: I was wrong on this "I know we have U152 very early but that might only be a generation or two away from the P312 MRCA." I should have said "might only be a few generations" not "one or two". ]]]

[MitchellSince1893]

We are apparently talking past one another. You are talking about theoretical mutations rates....which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sex...actual sexually transmitted mutations from a man to his son at conception that happened in the real world in this line to create the structure we observe between RISE563 (a U152 descendant) and Mr. P312.

Fact #1
Some men who descend from P312 have the Z40481 mutation (DF27, U152, DF99 among others). Some don't (L21 DF19, L238).

Theoretically they could have been brothers and sons of P312 (one son Z40481+ one Z40481-) i.e. only one generation down from P312.

Fact #2
Some men who descend from Z40481 have the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations and some don't.
Theoretically both mutations could have occurred in one son of Z40481 and not in another son of Z40481. i.e. they could have been brothers...sons of Z40481...just 2 generations down from P312.

Theoretically Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 could have been the father of both DF27 and U152...just 3 generations down from Mr P312.

Theoretically RISE563 was the original Mr. U152.

Theoretically P312 had a son (Mr. Z40481) right when he reached puberty at 13 years old. Mr. Z40481 in turn had his son, Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 when he was 13. And Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 had RISE563 when he was 13, and RISE563 could theoretically be the original U152.

So yeah, theoretically P312 could be as young as 2581 BC (2542 BC+13+13+13). Or 119 years younger than my ridiculous assumption of 2700 BC.

Sorry for being a smart ass but maybe I'm just dense...Is there some other way that the mutations happen other than conception? If not then I think it's more realistic to assume that RISE563 was not the original U152 carrier. If we are lucky maybe he was the grandson or great grandson of the original U152. And it's more realistic to assume that a mutation/multiple mutations didn't happen at every single conception event as I laid out above in the most optimum timeline conceivable (pun intended).

IMO a more realistic timeline is RISE563 is at least 2-3 generations (60 years) removed from the original U152 (a rough guess to avoid the "hitting the lottery scenario" of RISE563 being the original U152 carrier or one of his sons...what are the odds?). This would put U152 at 2602 BC at the latest. Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 may have been 1-2 generations before that or about 2632 to 2662 BC. Mr Z40481 may have been a generations or two before that or about 2662 to 2722 BC.

That is the background/thinking as to how I came up with 2700 BC as the latest realistic date for P312. It has nothing to do with theoretical SNP mutation rate averages and combBED SNPs.

It's based on working backwards from RISE563's carbon date and on real conception events in this paternal line that had to occur to explain the actual mutations between P312 and U152 that some men have and some don't i.e. to explain the real tree structure/branches below P312.

[alan]

Mike- fair points. I am trying to push the data further than it can be. I'll be less ambitious and simply say that ancient DNA all but prove that the P312 MRCA is older than 2600BC but it's unclear by how much. Yfull are at least 200 years too young re the P312 MRCA.

Irish Brehon law shows legal and traditional bonds even including inheritance in some circumstances out to the indfine or end of clan who were descendants of a common great great great grandfather. My patrilineal ggg grandfather was born about 140 years before me. I would guess back in premodern times the same span would average 125 years. Add a few decades for the living generation of 3rd cousins to be adults and that's prob around 150ys since the common ancestor. That is the sort of maximum span I see a lineage operating as a unit without fission into separate units where kinship is no longer a practical bond. I kind of see that sort of span as the longest that P312 may have remained a meaningful unit before fission split it into separate independent branches.

It seems clear that by 2500BC the geographical patterning of P312 major branches was already under way. Perhaps the kinship and inheritance bonds that linked Mr P312's descendent reached the snapping point around 150ys after his birth. Archaeologically that process looks like 2550BC or so when beaker took off in all directions. That sort of notional model would perhaps back a date of c 2700BC for Mr P312 plus or minus a fre decades of course.

Funny enough I have found that accurate purely oral family history in many of my lines consistently reaches back to about 150-160ys and everything older has been found only by paper research. It's so consistent across so many branches of my ancestors that it almost seems like a natural law.

[alan]

We are apparently talking past one another. You are talking about theoretical mutations rates....which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about sex...actual sexually transmitted mutations from a man to his son at conception that happened in the real world in this line to create the structure we observe between RISE563 (a U152 descendant) and Mr. P312.

Fact #1
Some men who descend from P312 have the Z40481 mutation (DF27, U152, DF99 among others). Some don't (L21 DF19, L238).

Theoretically they could have been brothers and sons of P312 (one sne Z40481+ one Z40481-) i.e. only one generation down from P312.

Fact #2. Some men who descend from Z40481 have the ZZ11 and Z38841 mutations and some don't.
Theoretically both mutations could have occurred in one son of Z40481 and not in another son of Z40481. i.e. they could have been brothers...sons of Z40481...just 2 generations down from P312.

Theoretically Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 could have been the father of both DF27 and U152...just 3 generations down from Mr P312.

Theoretically RISE563 was the original Mr. U152.

Theoretically P312 had a son (Mr. Z40481) right when he reached puberty at 13 years old. Mr. Z40481 in turn had his son, Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 when he was 13. And Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 had RISE563 when he was 13, and RISE563 could theoretically be the original U152.

So yeah, theoretically P312 could be as young as 2581 BC (2542 BC+13+13+13). Or 119 years younger than my ridiculous assumption of 2700 BC.

Sorry for being a smart ass but maybe I'm just dense...Is there some other way that the mutations happen other than conception? If not then I think it's more realistic to assume that RISE563 was not the original U152 carrier. If we are lucky maybe he was the grandson or great grandson of the original U152. And it's more realistic to assume that a mutation/multiple mutations didn't happen at every single conception event as I laid out above in the most optimum timeline conceivable (pun intended).

IMO a more realistic timeline is RISE563 is at least 2-3 generations (60 years) removed from the original U152 (a rough guess to avoid the "hitting the lottery scenario" of RISE563 being the original U152 carrier or one of his sons...what are the odds?). This would put U152 at 2602 BC at the latest. Mr. ZZ11/Z38841 may have been 1-2 generations before that or about 2632 to 2662 BC. Mr Z40481 may have been a generations or two before that or about 2662 to 2722 BC.

That is the background/thinking as to how I came up with 2700 BC as the latest realistic date for P312. It has nothing to do with theoretical SNP mutation rate averages and combBED SNPs.

It's based on working backwards from RISE563's carbon date and on real conception events in this paternal line that had to occur to explain the actual mutations between P312 and U152 that some men have and some don't i.e. to explain the real tree structure/branches below P312.

I can see your logic and I don't think many now would think Mr P312 was younger than 2700BC anyway: As per my post above, it may well be that 2550BC was around 150ys or so after his birth and that marked a fission of his descendants into branches seeking fortunes elsewhere which was inevitable. That would fit a date of c 2700BC for Mr P312 nicely

[epp]

How about the P312’s immediate forefather - the MRCA of P312 and U106 (to which P312 looks closest)? I estimate that P312 split from U106 at about the same time that I estimate P312 started branching - around 3,000 BC.
Is it right that ancient U106 is found only in Sweden?
I’ve already identified a relative autosomal similarity between Swedish Funnel Beaker and German Bell Beaker; and Irish Bell Beaker looks to have a greater autosomal similarity with a Swedish 6th millennium sample than it does with Yamnayan samples or (even more so) Central European Neolithic samples.
Does this point to L151 developing far to the North?

[jdean]

How about the P312’s immediate forefather - the MRCA of P312 and U106 (to which P312 looks closest)? I estimate that P312 split from U106 at about the same time that I estimate P312 started branching - around 3,000 BC.
Is it right that ancient U106 is found only in Sweden?
I’ve already identified a relative autosomal similarity between Swedish Funnel Beaker and German Bell Beaker; and Irish Bell Beaker looks to have a greater autosomal similarity with a Swedish 6th millennium sample than it does with Yamnayan samples or (even more so) Central European Neolithic samples.
Does this point to L151 developing far to the North?

You're going to base a theory on a single sample ????

[epp]

You're going to base a theory on a single sample ????
I haven't expressed a theory - I asked a question.
The question was triggered by six samples - 4 Swedish funnel beaker, 1 Swedish early Neolithic and 1 Swedish U106 (as far as I'm aware, the only ancient one).
Are there many (or any) Central European Neolithic samples that bear a close autosomal resemblance to Bell Beaker?

[Dubhthach]

Irish Brehon law shows legal and traditional bonds even including inheritance in some circumstances out to the indfine or end of clan who were descendants of a common great great great grandfather. My patrilineal ggg grandfather was born about 140 years before me. I would guess back in premodern times the same span would average 125 years. Add a few decades for the living generation of 3rd cousins to be adults and that's prob around 150ys since the common ancestor. That is the sort of maximum span I see a lineage operating as a unit without fission into separate units where kinship is no longer a practical bond. I kind of see that sort of span as the longest that P312 may have remained a meaningful unit before fission split it into separate independent branches.

.

One way to prevent fission between separate branches (into separate lordship) was to have a rotating lordship, where each succession a member of a different branch took became Lord. This technically kept all branches (even where the spilt was on order of 200+ years) in position of becoming Lord. A good example of it is with Burkes of Mayo, who were Cambro-Normans! They had 4 'sub-septs' who rotated the lordship between them eg. Mac Uilliam Íochtair (Lower Mac William Burke). So even though they had 4 seperate lineages the over Lordship remained united. In some ways it's interesting late medieval parallel to the division of the Kingship of Tara between the Northern and Southern Uí Néill (eg. between Cenél nEogain and Clann Chólmain)

Of course when you factor in 'civil war' within a lineage you end up with a divison of the lordship, which was the fate of the O'Connor's of Connacht post the late 14th century.

[rms2]

How about the P312’s immediate forefather - the MRCA of P312 and U106 (to which P312 looks closest)? I estimate that P312 split from U106 at about the same time that I estimate P312 started branching - around 3,000 BC.
Is it right that ancient U106 is found only in Sweden?
I’ve already identified a relative autosomal similarity between Swedish Funnel Beaker and German Bell Beaker; and Irish Bell Beaker looks to have a greater autosomal similarity with a Swedish 6th millennium sample than it does with Yamnayan samples or (even more so) Central European Neolithic samples.
Does this point to L151 developing far to the North?

No, it does not, or at least that is not very likely.

That ancient Swedish U106 (c. 2300 BC) came from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge, Sweden. The Battle Axe culture was derived from Corded Ware.

Thus far we have two TRB (Funnel Beaker) y-dna results, and neither is R1 of any kind. One (I0551) is G2a2a, and the other (I0172) is I2a1b1a. TRB was a Neolithic farming culture, and G2a and I2a are pretty typical results for Neolithic farmers.

Remember, P312 and U106, under L151 and L51, are both R1b-L23. Thus far R1b-L23 has been found on the steppe in Yamnaya and in central and western Europe in Bell Beaker, a steppe-derived culture credited by many scholars with a key role in the spread of Indo-European languages, especially of the Italo-Celtic subfamily.

Most of the R1b-L23 thus far found in Yamnaya has been R1b-Z2103, but Z2103 is a brother clade of R1b-L51 under L23, and the two are close in age. It isn't likely that one was born far from the other, or that one went to the steppe and the other headed for Sweden, where it became part of TRB and somehow divested itself of its steppe autosomal dna, only to miraculously and mysteriously regain it again upon becoming part of the Bell Beaker culture.

As I recall, TRB people were physically like other Neolithic farmers (relatively short, dolichocephalic, and gracile) and unlike the tall, robust, brachycephalic BB people.

[epp]

That ancient Swedish U106 (c. 2300 BC) came from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge, Sweden. The Battle Axe culture was derived from Corded Ware.
Yes, and Bell Beaker and Corded Ware are remarkably similar autosomally. This sample is a sign that the two populations (R1b-L51 and R1a-M417) mixed in death, as well as life.


Thus far we have two TRB (Funnel Beaker) y-dna results, and neither is R1 of any kind. One (I0551) is G2a2a, and the other (I0172) is I2a1b1a. TRB was a Neolithic farming culture, and G2a and I2a are pretty typical results for Neolithic farmers.

Remember, P312 and U106, under L151 and L51, are both R1b-L23. Thus far R1b-L23 has been found on the steppe in Yamnaya and in central and western Europe in Bell Beaker, a steppe-derived culture credited by many scholars with a key role in the spread of Indo-European languages, especially of the Italo-Celtic subfamily.

Most of the R1b-L23 thus far found in Yamnaya has been R1b-Z2103, but Z2103 is a brother clade of R1b-L51 under L23, and the two are close in age. It isn't likely that one was born far from the other, or that one went to the steppe and the other headed for Sweden, where it became part of TRB and somehow divested itself of its steppe autosomal dna, only to miraculously and mysteriously regain it again upon becoming part of the Bell Beaker culture.
Agreed - I'm not suggesting that TRB and Swedish Neolithic might have been R1, rather that these might have been the populations with which R1 first mixed to form Bell Beaker. (Bell Beaker samples look autosomally very much like a cross between Yamna and the Swedish Early Neolithic sample in particular - significantly more so than like a cross beween Yamna and Central European.) I'm looking at where pre-Bell Beaker R1b might have gestated and acquired its DNA mix before springing to life.

I'm with you in that L23 probably derived from somewhere on the Steppe - its split between L51 and Z2103 is estimated to have arisen during the fifth millennium BC, and I agree with you that Z2103's Eastern location tells us something about L51's likely point of origin at this early date.

By the same token, P312's split from U106, which looks to have been much more recent (approximately 3,000 BC, very shortly before P312 and U106 themselves started branching into their various subclades), tells us something about the likely origin of each - that their origins were probably in close proximity, with one brother clade (P312) within Bell Beaker, and the other (U106) within a Corded Ware derivative.

P312 is not an very isolated SNP - it has some very close brother clades, and the point is anything that we know about these clades might provide useful clues about early P312 itself.

[rms2]

Olalde et al say the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker is Globular Amphora + Swedish TRB. That I think points to a path through GAC and TRB territory, across the North European Plain, i.e., the Corded Ware path.

[Jean M]

Olalde et al say the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker is Globular Amphora + Swedish TRB. That I think points to a path through GAC and TRB territory, across the North European Plain, i.e., the Corded Ware path.

The best fit out of the genome-wide samples that they have. If they had a sample of Cucuteni-Tripolye, I imagine that they would find it a better fit.

[Dewsloth]

We're still waiting for the 176-190 Olalde samples to be released, right? :(

[rms2]

We're still waiting for the 176-190 Olalde samples to be released, right? :(

Yeah. They should be able to add the Amesbury Archer and some Sion samples.

[rms2]

The best fit out of the genome-wide samples that they have. If they had a sample of Cucuteni-Tripolye, I imagine that they would find it a better fit.

Maybe. Time may tell. For now though, we have to go with GAC + TRB, and that points to a path across the North European Plain.

I'm not averse to your model, Gimbutas' Model, or to the idea that BB was simply a local variety of CW run wild. Any of those three would thrill me to no end.

[razyn]

Yeah. They should be able to add the Amesbury Archer and some Sion samples.

What they may add is IMO likely to pale in comparison to what the wizards can conjure out of the BAM files, once the dang thing is in print and our wizards get to look at it. The data are already available, just embargoed. My bet is that we already had a good bit of diversity in U152 and DF27 (the ones that interest me the most) by the time our earliest "known" examples were interred -- RISE563 and I0806, or whoever they turn out to be after the embargoed samples get parsed for more subclades. Thinking that the first handful ever sequenced might include the first generation ever born requires me to suspend more disbelief than I'm willing to suspend. This is not a movie.

So, if we haven't found the first ones yet, we haven't dug up bones early enough on their migratory path yet. Autosomal results in the aDNA already studied by the wizards suggest to me, anyway, that their path some 4500 years ago had recently come off the steppe. How recently, and by what route, still needs exploration. But the general direction and time frame doesn't seem very mysterious.

Roughly 60 years ago, about the same time I began studying European languages and linguistics at Vanderbilt, I was also dabbling in folklore. And among my other sins, I learned many songs from records by Josh White. One of those runs through my head from time to time, because it reminds me of the necessity of connecting ALL of the steps in a phylogenetic "tree," and not just the ones we have found in our favorite part of Europe; or the ones that meet ISOGG criteria; or the ones YFull counts when it estimates ages.

Within the past few days , over in the relative wasteland of 23andMe forums, I got bogged down in a sort of argument with someone who posts there as Frigewald. The details of that are unimportant; it's just what reminded me of the song, "The green grass grew all around." That song is in a widespread genre based on "incremental repetition," normally ending in a sort of memory exercise in which details from numerous earlier verses have to be repeated in reverse sequence, to arrive at the textual starting point. Without any omissions. In the correct order. Fast.

So anyway, at the end of that particular example, we are singing,
"Eyelash on the eye,
and the eye's on the bug,
and the bug's on the feather,
and the feather's on the bird,
and the bird's on the egg,
and the egg's in the nest,
and the nest's on the twig,
and the twig's on the branch,
and the branch is on the limb,
and the limb's on the tree,
and the tree's on the roots,
and the roots in the hole,
and the hole's in the ground...
And the green grass grew all around, all around,
the green grass grew all around."

Whatever we may believe, or wish to believe, about Villabruna, Els Trocs, the Amesbury Archer, or neolithic R1b guys yet undiscovered -- to reconstruct a tree from its outermost twigs to its rooted trunk, we have to connect all of the junctions between them. Not just some; not with rational explanations for 5,000 year gaps; not tailored (a snip here, a stitch there) to fit a model previously established from another discipline. When those connections are made (especially the ones around L51, P311, and that fun bunch of L23's descendants), we will have found the right tree trunk, roots, hole in the ground.

If the green grass growing around it is Pontic/Caspian steppe grass, I won't be surprised. If it's a mountain meadow on some slope of the Alps, I will be. But, wherever -- it's only one tree, and there really is a hole, somewhere. To me, it looks as if we are getting pretty close. It almost makes me want to burst into song. More than I did in 2011, anyway.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

The best fit out of the genome-wide samples that they have. If they had a sample of Cucuteni-Tripolye, I imagine that they would find it a better fit.

Already have CT genomes. They're too Anatolian-like.

[Jean M]

Already have CT genomes. They're too Anatolian-like.

That is very, very interesting Chad. More Anatolian than EEF? I suspected another wave of Anatolian moving up the Danube with dairy farming, starting with Hamangia and spilling east to make one element of CT. But I thought that it continued up the Danube and so was part of Lengel, Rossen and Funnel Beaker. I saw Funnel Beaker as the result of Balkan farmers moving north to escape the climate crisis in Old Europe. Archaeology shows influences from CT filtering north into Funnel Beaker later, such as wheeled vehicles, wool-spinning etc. And yet CT and Funnel Beaker have different genetic profiles? Very surprising and interesting. I may need a complete rethink.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Already have CT genomes. They're too Anatolian-like.

Some have EHG/ WHG admixture though, the "outliers"
So which CT are you referring to?

[Jean M]

Already have CT genomes. They're too Anatolian-like.

I finally got around to grappling with this. I see no evidence that Olalde et al included CT genomes in their analysis, but I do at least understand what you are saying.


the Neolithic farmer-related ancestry in Beaker Complex individuals outside Iberia was most closely related to central and northern European Neolithic populations with relatively high hunter-gatherer admixture (e.g. Globular_Amphora_LN, P = 0.14; TRB_Sweden_MN, P = 0.29), and we could significantly exclude Iberian sources (P < 3.18E-08).

18774

So the key element is hunter-gatherer as exemplified by KO1, our Y-DNA I2a chap who was absorbed into the early farming culture of Körös (Hungary). In Sweden I suppose it could reflect local forager assimilation.

[epp]

Maybe. Time may tell. For now though, we have to go with GAC + TRB, and that points to a path across the North European Plain.

I'm not averse to your model, Gimbutas' Model, or to the idea that BB was simply a local variety of CW run wild. Any of those three would thrill me to no end.

From the autosomal data I’ve looked at, Corded Ware looks as similar to Bell Beaker as it does to other Corded Ware - the degree of Corded Ware-Yamna variance is 3 to 4 times that of Corded Ware-Bell Beaker variance.

It is perhaps instructive that R1a-M417 and R1b-L151 people seem almost wholly merged together in a Corded Ware-Bell Beaker population from only 4,500 years ago, yet are still sharply divided by y-DNA that branched apart 20,000 years ago (R1a Corded Ware, R1b Bell Beaker). The only explanation I can come up with for this is that one of these y-DNA haplogroups mixed in with the other, barely survived the fourth millennium, and only ultimately managed to thrive through a massive founder effect from one or two individual male ancestors in the early third millennium. The branching dates within these SNPs indicate that it was most likely M417 that thrived initially and that L151 was the dormant SNP within the Corded Ware population which only sprung to life after 2,800 BC. As you aptly put it, L151-derived Bell Beaker looks like “a local variety of Corded Ware run wild”.

If this is the case, then perhaps we have two clues to where L151 first sat after it moved out of the Western Steppe - (i) in an area where R1a1a1 existed, and (ii) in a population with autosomal DNA that looks most like the autosomal DNA that it acquired. Perhaps Scandinavia fits the bill in both respects, as the sixth millennium Eastern Swedish sample has both a match of about 67% with Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and a substantial Steppe component, possibly acquired from R1a before L151 arrived.

[epp]

Do we have any other ancient (pre-3,000 BC) Scandinavian DNA data?

I am thinking perhaps from Ertebolle, or even its Dutch equivalent.

Although if L151 was largely dormant (including within Corded Ware) until 2,800 BC, we might be hard pushed to find it wherever we look.

[Jean M]

Do we have any other ancient (pre-3,000 BC) Scandinavian DNA data?

Yes we do. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml . Not surprisingly, there is no L151 in Mesolithic Scandinavia.

[alexfritz]

Do we have any other ancient (pre-3,000 BC) Scandinavian DNA data?

I am thinking perhaps from Ertebolle, or even its Dutch equivalent.

Although if L151 was largely dormant (including within Corded Ware) until 2,800 BC, we might be hard pushed to find it wherever we look.

long before TRB there was a forager zone of LBK/Ertebolle;
my best guess is that it was a hybrid zone of SHG and LBK(EEF) with the LBK *contact zone* forager transforming/intermixing with SHG to the TRB Gökhem farmer types and with SHG remaining as contemporary Ajvide(gotland) types;
18795

[rms2]

From the autosomal data I’ve looked at, Corded Ware looks as similar to Bell Beaker as it does to other Corded Ware - the degree of Corded Ware-Yamna variance is 3 to 4 times that of Corded Ware-Bell Beaker variance.

It is perhaps instructive that R1a-M417 and R1b-L151 people seem almost wholly merged together in a Corded Ware-Bell Beaker population from only 4,500 years ago, yet are still sharply divided by y-DNA that branched apart 20,000 years ago (R1a Corded Ware, R1b Bell Beaker). The only explanation I can come up with for this is that one of these y-DNA haplogroups mixed in with the other, barely survived the fourth millennium, and only ultimately managed to thrive through a massive founder effect from one or two individual male ancestors in the early third millennium. The branching dates within these SNPs indicate that it was most likely M417 that thrived initially and that L151 was the dormant SNP within the Corded Ware population which only sprung to life after 2,800 BC. As you aptly put it, L151-derived Bell Beaker looks like “a local variety of Corded Ware run wild”.

If this is the case, then perhaps we have two clues to where L151 first sat after it moved out of the Western Steppe - (i) in an area where R1a1a1 existed, and (ii) in a population with autosomal DNA that looks most like the autosomal DNA that it acquired. Perhaps Scandinavia fits the bill in both respects, as the sixth millennium Eastern Swedish sample has both a match of about 67% with Bell Beaker/Corded Ware and a substantial Steppe component, possibly acquired from R1a before L151 arrived.

I like that post, epp, but I don't think Scandinavia is it, except maybe for U106 in the mid third millennium BC.

Either Gimbutas (and Jean) is right, and we will find R1b-L51 in western Yamnaya, or something like the Dutch Model is right, and we will find R1b-L51 in one of the local central European variants of Corded Ware.

[Jean M]

long before TRB there was a forager zone of LBK/Ertebolle

There were no LBK foragers. The LBK people were farmers. Ertebolle were pottery-making foragers, and so probably similar genetically to Narva Culture people, for whom we have some DNA.

[Jean M]

Corded Ware - Bell Beaker cultural exchange is the subject of an article that I have just placed in the Vault, courtesy of a copy sent by another member here:

Ralph Großmann, Interrelations between Corded Ware and Bell Beaker phenomena? Material cultures and identities in the 3rd millennium BC, Transitional landscapes? The 3rd millennium BC in Europe, Proceedings of the International Workshop "Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the last 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes III (15th – 18th April 2013)" in Kiel, Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie, Band 292, Human Development in Landscapes 9, edited by: Martin Furholt, Ralph Großmann, Marzena Szmyt, pp. 111-141. In Kommission bei Verlag Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn 2016.


The Late Neolithic Bell Beaker and Corded Ware complexes are commonly viewed as clearly bounded phenomena of burial rituals and material culture. Conversely, common traits and overlapping characteristics have also been pointed out, and have been interpreted as interrelations between two distinct groups of people. In this paper, this phenomenon is studied in two German regions – the Rhine Basin and the Thuringia Basin. Here, it can be shown that burial customs and vessel decorations display considerable overlaps, especially in spatially and temporally close contexts. Furthermore, such phenomena are most visible close to river confluences (e.g. the Rhein-Neckar and the Saale-Unstrut) – potential nodal points of interaction networks. This indicates that social identities were much more open to negotiation than generally believed, including phenomena of hybrid or multiple identities.

This is too early to be the start of Bell Beaker, though the author oddly seems to treat the start of BB East as the start of the whole BB phenomenon:


This study focuses on the time horizon between 2480 and 2350 BC, which circumscribes the middle phase of the CW and the beginning of the BB phenomenon.

But it is important for the question of whether there was U106 in BB.

[alexfritz]

There were no LBK foragers. The LBK people were farmers. Ertebolle were pottery-making foragers, and so probably similar genetically to Narva.

yes, exactly a contact zone of the foragers with the farmers;
i think acc to gunther et al the mesolithic SHG were a hybrid of WHG and EHG of varying proportions; and baalberge couldnt have transformed into TRB over night so that previous zone might have had a more intense contact;
gunther et al (mesolithic)
18798

[Jean M]

yes, exactly a contact zone of the foragers with the farmers; i think acc to gunther et al the mesolithic SHG were a hybrid of WHG and EHG of varying proportions; and baalberge couldnt have transformed into TRB over night so that previous zone might have had a more intense contact; gunther et al (mesolithic)

The TRB farmers were the first to bring farming to Scandinavia. So they would have had contact with foragers still living there. By that time the LBK was long gone. It died. It is not relevant. We know what the farmers of the LBK were like genetically. You can see them on the diagram I posted above, very close to Anatolia Neolithic.

I should have made it clear that the Swedish TRB could not possibly be the source of the farming input in Bell Beaker. It is impossibe because BB arrived late in Denmark and not at all in Sweden. I mentioned that the TRB in Sweden could have absorbed some local forager DNA, because if that is the case, the results from Sweden could be completely irrelevant to the source in Bell Beaker.

We know that local foragers mixed with the Siberian pottery makers in the forest-steppe zone. So that is the most likely source for the forager element in both GAC and Bell Beaker.

[Chad Rohlfsen]

On average, the CT genomes that have been sampled are too Anatolian and not enough HG to have made a notable contribution here. There are some samples in Germany and Romania that are more HG than farmer. TRB and GAC root from the same farmers, hence they both make a good fit.

[alexfritz]

The TRB farmers were the first to bring farming to Scandinavia. So they would have had contact with foragers still living there. By that time the LBK was long gone. It died. It is not relevant. We know what the farmers of the LBK were like genetically. You can see them on the diagram I posted above, very close to Anatolia Neolithic.

I should have made it clear that the Swedish TRB could not possibly be the source of the farming input in Bell Beaker. It is impossibe because BB arrived late in Denmark and not at all in Sweden. I mentioned that the TRB in Sweden could have absorbed some local forager DNA, because foragers if that is the case, the results from Sweden could be completely irrelevant to the source in Bell Beaker.

We know that local foragers mixed with the Siberian pottery makers in the forest-steppe zone. So that is the most likely source for the forager element in both GAC and Bell Beaker.

if forager means hunter-gatherer acc to mathieson et al the forager element in GAC is mostly WHG (akin to previous LBK); the point about the swedish TRB (sole data) is that it could be the expression of the entire TRB given the previous forager(ertebolle)/LBK contact zone; the forager element in TRB should be a mix of EHG and WHG as the SHG mesolithic folks mix; but never saw a breakdown, and of ajvide also;

[epp]

Yes we do. See http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml . Not surprisingly, there is no L151 in Mesolithic Scandinavia.
It's a bit odd we have 8 Mesolithic Scandinavian y-DNA results from 4 sources, but no Neolithic Scandinavian results. Also, I am most interested in Denmark, but can't find anything from there; and nothing at all from Holland pre-Bell Beaker - a major gap, when the most basal L151 exists there today.

The lack of R1 in Motala (in admittedly only 5 samples) is possibly a little surprising, as Motala is autosomally 15% Russian/Steppe; but even 1 in 5 samples would still exceed 15%, so no - nothing really to be surprised about.

The lack of R1 on the Swedish island of Gotland during the sixth millennium would be surprising though, as the Russian/Steppe proportion in the sample there was 43%.

[epp]

I like that post, epp, but I don't think Scandinavia is it, except maybe for U106 in the mid third millennium BC.

Either Gimbutas (and Jean) is right, and we will find R1b-L51 in western Yamnaya, or something like the Dutch Model is right, and we will find R1b-L51 in one of the local central European variants of Corded Ware.
Perhaps the fact that Gotland/Stora Forvar are islands is significant to there being Russian/Steppe ancestry there very early on. If some R1 were a travelling, seafaring population, it might have impacted on only islands and coastal fringes, rather than having a significant presence in interior areas.

[epp]

I should have made it clear that the Swedish TRB could not possibly be the source of the farming input in Bell Beaker. It is impossibe because BB arrived late in Denmark and not at all in Sweden.
It could be if you look at it in reverse - i.e. if L151 pre-Bell Beaker ventured South from Sweden, rather than P312 Bell Beaker venturing North into Sweden.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

delete

[Gravetto-Danubian]

From the autosomal data I’ve looked at, Corded Ware looks as similar to Bell Beaker as it does to other Corded Ware - the degree of Corded Ware-Yamna variance is 3 to 4 times that of Corded Ware-Bell Beaker variance.

Yes, intuitively it seems CWC - Srubnaya are more varied.
What is interesting is their overall positions in a plot zone in on Bronze Age temperate Europe, plus a few Chalcolithics.

18804
On one side of the major axis of variance is Yamnaya, the other middle Neolithic Europeans.
The formation of CWC & Srubnaya from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like group (depicted by [1]) shows a drift toward a broad front of group from GAC (imaginably), TRB (Scand.) and Baltic sub-Neolithic groups.
The formation of BB culture [2] seems to have a Balkan signal, perhaps different path or later admixture .
Other aspects - Unetice is not shown, but lies between BB and CWC, as expected. The mid-Late Bronze Age sample from Germany (?Tumulus) is quite Carpathian shifted.

[rms2]

It could be if you look at it in reverse - i.e. if L151 pre-Bell Beaker ventured South from Sweden, rather than P312 Bell Beaker venturing North into Sweden.

But why would anyone think that? There really is no reason to do so.

[epp]

But why would anyone think that? There really is no reason to do so.
The reason is because Bell Beaker's aDNA looks like Corded Ware's aDNA, and is more like a mixture of Ukrainian and Swedish Neolithic than Ukrainian and Central European Neolithic.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Perhaps the fact that Gotland/Stora Forvar are islands is significant to there being Russian/Steppe ancestry there very early on. If some R1 were a travelling, seafaring population, it might have impacted on only islands and coastal fringes, rather than having a significant presence in interior areas.

No "steppe" there.
And all pre-BB stuff from Gotland and SF is haplogroup I also

[epp]

No "steppe" there.
And all pre-BB stuff from Gotland and SF is haplogroup I also
By Russian/Steppe, I mean the autosomal DNA that was typical of Neolithic Samara through Yamna to Karelia (not the later Caucasian component) - the sixth millennium Gotland sample has plenty of this.

[Jean M]

By Russian/Steppe, I mean the autosomal DNA that was typical of Neolithic Samara through Yamna to Karelia (not the later Caucasian component) - the sixth millennium Gotland sample has plenty of this.

So you do realise that there is a difference between Yamnaya ('steppe') with CHG and the early EHG that arrived in Scandinavia with foragers from around the Middle Volga, or even from across the northern Urals. These foragers are not 'steppe'.

So we can tell the difference autosomally between descendants of the early EHG foragers in Scandinavia and the descendants of Yamnaya. Linguistically the former might be speaking some Pre-PIE language. The latter would speak PIE and its derivatives.

In terms of Y-DNA, it has been obvious for years that the carriers of IE languages were also carriers of R1a1a1 (M417) and descendants, and R1b1a1a2 (M269) and descendants. So logically R1b1a1a2a1 (L51) will be found in Yamnaya, just like its father R1b1a1a2a (L23).

[rms2]

The reason is because Bell Beaker's aDNA looks like Corded Ware's aDNA, and is more like a mixture of Ukrainian and Swedish Neolithic than Ukrainian and Central European Neolithic.

Olalde et al said the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker was GAC+Swedish TRB. That is an attempt to fit what BB acquired from Neolithic farmers along its path with the genomic data we have thus far. I would be wary of taking it too literally. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see that as GAC describing a path across the North European Plain, with Swedish TRB pulling that northwards somewhat (and not all the way into Sweden itself). Otherwise, one is stuck trying to conjure up Neolithic farmers who were literally a mix of Swedes and Ukrainians, or BB mixing with Ukrainian GAC farmers and then heading up to Sweden to mix with Swedish TRB farmers: two very unlikely scenarios.

In the meantime, R1b (including its subclades) is missing from Mesolithic and Neolithic Scandinavia and has one representative in EBA Scandinavia, that R1b-U106 from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge c. 2300 BC (relatively late).

Before the movement of Germanic peoples out of Scandinavia in the Iron Age, what archaeological or other evidence is there of an exodus of peoples out of Scandinavia?

Didn't Pat Benatar have a hit song back in the 1980s called Ancient Autosomal DNA is a Minefield? ;)

[Jean M]

I'm not averse to your model, Gimbutas' Model, or to the idea that BB was simply a local variety of CW run wild. Any of those three would thrill me to no end.

Yes I realise that you don't mind BB being labelled as a variety of CW. I naturally feel somewhat differently, having spent nigh on 10 years on one forum and another pointing out the evidence that BB was derived from Yamnaya, to a chorus of catcalls, hissing and booing. People claimed that no-one had said this before, so it couldn't be right. I pointed out time and again that Harrison and Heyd 2007 had said this before me. (Though I admit that I only looked at their paper after I had decided on that point for myself, and that the link was stelae. ;) ) People didn't believe Harrison and Heyd 2007 actually said this. Argument on that alone went on and on and on.

People also said that they preferred to believe the experts e.g. Profs Cunliffe and Renfrew, from the prestigious universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that IE spread with the Neolithic and BB descended from Corded Ware (Dutch model.) Arguments over the latter began on the old DNA forums with a chap from the Netherlands naturally sold on the Dutch Model. They went on and on interminably.

I am worn out. :faint:

If someone actually comes up with new evidence, I'm interested. But yet another round of argument and speculation is about as much fun as skinny dipping at the North Pole, as far as I'm concerned. So I hope you won't mind if I bow out and take a rest from it all. :)

[R.Rocca]

Yes, intuitively it seems CWC - Srubnaya are more varied.
What is interesting is their overall positions in a plot zone in on Bronze Age temperate Europe, plus a few Chalcolithics.

18804
On one side of the major axis of variance is Yamnaya, the other middle Neolithic Europeans.
The formation of CWC & Srubnaya from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like group (depicted by [1]) shows a drift toward a broad front of group from GAC (imaginably), TRB (Scand.) and Baltic sub-Neolithic groups.
The formation of BB culture [2] seems to have a Balkan signal, perhaps different path or later admixture .
Other aspects - Unetice is not shown, but lies between BB and CWC, as expected. The mid-Late Bronze Age sample from Germany (?Tumulus) is quite Carpathian shifted.

Your statement is about culture. The question is weather the formation of the Wrist Guard Men also have a Balkan signal. Obviously the cultural mixing point of Iberian Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and the Carpathian was in Moravia.

[rms2]

Yes I realise that you don't mind BB being labelled as a variety of CW. I naturally feel somewhat differently, having spent nigh on 10 years on one forum and another pointing out the evidence that BB was derived from Yamnaya, to a chorus of catcalls, hissing and booing. People claimed that no-one had said this before, so it couldn't be right. I pointed out time and again that Harrison and Heyd 2007 had said this before me. (Though I admit that I only looked at their paper after I had decided on that point for myself, and that the link was stelae. ;) ) People didn't believe Harrison and Heyd 2007 actually said this. Argument on that alone went on and on and on.

And well before Harrison and Heyd, Gimbutas (peace be upon her) derived Bell Beaker from Yamnaya.

Speaking of catcalls, hissing and booing, remember what happened about 11 or 12 years ago when I (and one or two others) claimed that R1b did not spend the LGM in Iberia?



People also said that they preferred to believe the experts e.g. Profs Cunliffe and Renfrew, from the prestigious universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that IE spread with the Neolithic and BB descended from Corded Ware (Dutch model.) Arguments over the latter began on the old DNA forums with a chap from the Netherlands naturally sold on the Dutch Model. They went on and on interminably.

I am worn out. :faint:

If someone actually comes up with new evidence, I'm interested. But yet another round of argument and speculation is about as much fun as skinny dipping at the North Pole, as far as I'm concerned. So I hope you won't mind if I bow out and take a rest from it all. :)

I think this is kind of fun, and there are some relatively new people here with interesting things to say, when the steam and the ad hominems don't get in the way.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Your statement is about culture. The question is weather the formation of the Wrist Guard Men also have a Balkan signal. Obviously the cultural mixing point of Iberian Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and the Carpathian was in Moravia.

It's a plot of genetics, so it isn't a cultural statement.
As for the rest, please clarify who the WGM are, just so we're in same page


Obviously the cultural mixing point of Iberian Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and the Carpathian was in Moravia

That's a cultural statement, and one I've been aware of.
I'm talking genetics:)

[rms2]

Your statement is about culture. The question is weather the formation of the Wrist Guard Men also have a Balkan signal. Obviously the cultural mixing point of Iberian Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and the Carpathian was in Moravia.

I also have a question, an honest one, and not an attempt to argue. What is the Iberian cultural contribution to BB in Moravia? Obviously early Iberian BB contributed little or nothing to the non-Iberian BB genome, at least according to Olalde et al.

[Jean M]

Speaking of catcalls, hissing and booing, remember what happened about 11 or 12 years ago when I (and one or two others) claimed that R1b did not spend the LGM in Iberia?

I certainly do. I hope that you recall that I was right behind you. Truly I do regard debate as part of the process of discovery. But I do have other things to do right now and I think that I have come to the end of what I can contribute to your current entertainment.

[R.Rocca]

It's a plot of genetics, so it isn't a cultural statement.
As for the rest, please clarify who the WGM are, just so we're in same page

The Wrist Guard men is what I call the Bell Beaker men who were P312 and had steppe ancestry and practiced single grave traditions. Can't call them Bell Beaker men because of the Iberian samples and can't call them Bell Beaker East men because an entire province of Bell Beaker is called that in spite of the fact that other P312 provinces (Dutch, British) were not a part of that province.


That's a cultural statement, and one I've been aware of.
I'm talking genetics:)

Yes, but I brought it up because, lacking a genetic sequence from the point of contact where P312 men came into contact with Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Carpathian cultures, it could be the cultural/genetic link we are looking for.

[alexfritz]

Your statement is about culture. The question is weather the formation of the Wrist Guard Men also have a Balkan signal. Obviously the cultural mixing point of Iberian Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and the Carpathian was in Moravia.

the parma beaker is said to stem from moravia (east beakers) based on the archaeological context; in my opinion the archaeo record doesnt look that spectacular;

[rms2]

I certainly do. I hope that you recall that I was right behind you. Truly I do regard debate as part of the process of discovery. But I do have other things to do right now and I think that I have come to the end of what I can contribute to your current entertainment.

I remember that. You were a ray of sunshine in a dark place, which is what you remain.

[R.Rocca]

I also have a question, an honest one, and not an attempt to argue. What is the Iberian cultural contribution to BB in Moravia? Obviously early Iberian BB contributed little or nothing to the non-Iberian BB genome, at least according to Olalde et al.

Beside the pot, which itself is likely a copy of Corded Ware pots?.... probably not much IMO.

[rms2]

Beside the pot, which itself is likely a copy of Corded Ware pots?.... probably not much IMO.

Ah. I have my doubts that the pot really is of Iberian origin, but I know the rc dates are against me. Thanks.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

The Wrist Guard men is what I call the Bell Beaker men who were P312 and had steppe ancestry and practiced single grave traditions. Can't call them Bell Beaker men because of the Iberian samples and can't call them Bell Beaker East men because an entire province of Bell Beaker is called that in spite of the fact that other P312 provinces (Dutch, British) were not a part of that province.

That's what I thought. Does seem like a reasonable appellative






Yes, but I brought it up because, lacking a genetic sequence from the point of contact where P312 men came into contact with Bell Beaker, Corded Ware and Carpathian cultures, it could be the cultural/genetic link we are looking for.

Okay.
If we may return to the plot, I was trying to get a sense of patterning by removing most other individuals, and focussing on BA Europe.

In fact, a pattern does appear, at least at face value:
if you compare German BB (labelled "BB North') compared to Rathlin & some of the north European CWC, incl Battle Axe, then it's clear that German BB is shifted slightly but obviously toward the Balkan axis (i.e. toward direction of LN Greece, Baden, etc). So that's something that sets it apart.
But it doesn;t answer if it was originally like that, and Rathlin became more 'northern' due to contact with CWC in the lower Rhine, or vice-versa - BB coming down south and contacting Carpathian centres.
I think I lean to the former scenario (because AOC pottery is frequent in the Isles)

[epp]

So you do realise that there is a difference between Yamnaya ('steppe') with CHG and the early EHG that arrived in Scandinavia with foragers from around the Middle Volga, or even from across the northern Urals. These foragers are not 'steppe'.
Everywhere has some differences in DNA to everywhere else, but the admixture analysis that I looked at had a category for DNA typical of the whole Russia and Steppe region.


In terms of Y-DNA, it has been obvious for years that the carriers of IE languages were also carriers of R1a1a1 (M417) and descendants, and R1b1a1a2 (M269) and descendants. So logically R1b1a1a2a1 (L51) will be found in Yamnaya, just like its father R1b1a1a2a (L23).
This might be true, but doesn't follow as a matter of logic. People from all sorts of haplogroups have carried IE languages - that doesn't mean to say that all of these haplogroups will be found in Yamnaya.

[rms2]

In terms of Y-DNA, it has been obvious for years that the carriers of IE languages were also carriers of R1a1a1 (M417) and descendants, and R1b1a1a2 (M269) and descendants. So logically R1b1a1a2a1 (L51) will be found in Yamnaya, just like its father R1b1a1a2a (L23).




This might be true, but doesn't follow as a matter of logic. People from all sorts of haplogroups have carried IE languages - that doesn't mean to say that all of these haplogroups will be found in Yamnaya.

It's one thing to speak IE languages at some point. It's quite another to belong to the Yamnaya cultural horizon. R1b-L23 has actually been found in Yamnaya (unlike "all sorts of haplogroups"), mostly as R1b-Z2103. Since Z2103 is a brother clade to L51, and each arose fairly close in time to the other, Jean is right.

L51 will ultimately be found in Yamnaya.

[epp]

Olalde et al said the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in non-Iberian Bell Beaker was GAC+Swedish TRB. That is an attempt to fit what BB acquired from Neolithic farmers along its path with the genomic data we have thus far. I would be wary of taking it too literally. Maybe I'm wrong, but I see that as GAC describing a path across the North European Plain, with Swedish TRB pulling that northwards somewhat (and not all the way into Sweden itself). Otherwise, one is stuck trying to conjure up Neolithic farmers who were literally a mix of Swedes and Ukrainians, or BB mixing with Ukrainian GAC farmers and then heading up to Sweden to mix with Swedish TRB farmers: two very unlikely scenarios.

In the meantime, R1b (including its subclades) is missing from Mesolithic and Neolithic Scandinavia and has one representative in EBA Scandinavia, that R1b-U106 from the Battle Axe cemetery at Lilla Beddinge c. 2300 BC (relatively late).

Before the movement of Germanic peoples out of Scandinavia in the Iron Age, what archaeological or other evidence is there of an exodus of peoples out of Scandinavia?
My interpretation of this is a little different - Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations look like a mixture of Russian/Steppe DNA with Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA. Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA is Funnel Beaker that has less Anatolian-type admixture, i.e. is Baltic fringe, rather than from the European interior. I would imagine that some CW and pre-BB moved in and out of (and around) the Baltic fringe, rather than there being an exodus as such from there. The point is that CW/BB looks autosomally to have been the result of an admixture that occurred outside of (seemingly North of) core LBK territory.

[rms2]

My interpretation of this is a little different - Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations look like a mixture of Russian/Steppe DNA with Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA. Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA is Funnel Beaker that has less Anatolian-type admixture, i.e. is Baltic fringe, rather than from the European interior. I would imagine that some CW and pre-BB moved in and out of (and around) the Baltic fringe, rather than there being an exodus as such from there. The point is that CW/BB looks autosomally to have been the result of an admixture that occurred outside of (seemingly North of) core LBK territory.

The best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker is GAC+Swedish TRB. That drags it down south out of the Baltic to the North European Plain.

I also think you have to stick with what we know happened or what we think we know happened. I don't know of any scholars who think CW or BB expanded out of the Baltic.

Steppe and steppe-derived peoples came out of the Pontic-Caspian steppe by way of east central Europe north and south of the Carpathians, some traveling up the Danube valley. There's no evidence they went to the Baltic first and expanded out of there.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

My interpretation of this is a little different - Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations look like a mixture of Russian/Steppe DNA with Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA. Swedish-type Funnel Beaker DNA is Funnel Beaker that has less Anatolian-type admixture, i.e. is Baltic fringe, rather than from the European interior. I would imagine that some CW and pre-BB moved in and out of (and around) the Baltic fringe, rather than there being an exodus as such from there. The point is that CW/BB looks autosomally to have been the result of an admixture that occurred outside of (seemingly North of) core LBK territory.

The LBK was long gone by 2500 BC. It wasn't even around in 4000BC.
So if BB spread up the Danube, it wouldn't have been mixing with LBK folk, but rather non-extensive local groups like Pfyn, Mondsee, Jesivovice.

[epp]

Yes I realise that you don't mind BB being labelled as a variety of CW. I naturally feel somewhat differently, having spent nigh on 10 years on one forum and another pointing out the evidence that BB was derived from Yamnaya, to a chorus of catcalls, hissing and booing. People claimed that no-one had said this before, so it couldn't be right. I pointed out time and again that Harrison and Heyd 2007 had said this before me. (Though I admit that I only looked at their paper after I had decided on that point for myself, and that the link was stelae. ;) ) People didn't believe Harrison and Heyd 2007 actually said this. Argument on that alone went on and on and on.

People also said that they preferred to believe the experts e.g. Profs Cunliffe and Renfrew, from the prestigious universities of Oxford and Cambridge respectively, that IE spread with the Neolithic and BB descended from Corded Ware (Dutch model.) Arguments over the latter began on the old DNA forums with a chap from the Netherlands naturally sold on the Dutch Model. They went on and on interminably.

I am worn out. :faint:

If someone actually comes up with new evidence, I'm interested.

Please forgive me, but I don't know what is new evidence, and what is old; and know nothing about the arguments of Profs Cunliffe and Renfrew.

I am not keen on dichotomous debates, which seem simplistic. Bell Beaker is derived solely neither from Yamna, nor from Corded Ware, nor from Early European Farmer, nor from early forager. It is a mixture (to some degree) of all of the above. The closest genetic fit autosomally seems Corded Ware. The closest fit by y-DNA is Yamnayan Z2103, but separated by 1,000 or so years and 3,000 or so km.

It all depends on how you define Yamnayan. If the Yamnayan period is defined as beginning in the early fifth millennium, then the majority of Bell Beaker's male ancestors were probably Yamnayan. If this period began in the early fourth millennium, then I would say probably not.

The autosomal evidence that I have seen indicates that the Russian/Steppe component of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker is pretty constant over all the sites tested, indicating a broadly common fully-admixed population between both cultures. The Caucasian component brought by Yamnayans, however, is much more variable, ranging anywhere between 0% and 10% in both CW and BB populations. This suggests to me that Yamnayans were probably late interpolators into parts of a single pre-admixed CW/BB population.

This also matches the East-West split dates obtained from STR variance analysis - Z2103's East-West estimated split comes 1,000 years after the East-West split of L51 from Z2103, indicating that L51 might have moved in an earlier wave of Steppe people than Z2103.

[epp]

The best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker is GAC+Swedish TRB. That drags it down south out of the Baltic to the North European Plain.
Yes, to at least the Northern fringe of the North European plain.


I also think you have to stick with what we know happened or what we think we know happened. I don't know of any scholars who think CW or BB expanded out of the Baltic.
What scholars think and what we know are two different things.
I'm not saying the cultures did, I'm saying it seems from aDNA that many of their people most likely were of Baltic ancestry - we already know, for instance, that R1b-M73 and R1a1 was present in the Eastern Baltic region from the sixth millennia.

[epp]

LBK was long gone by 2500 BC. It wasn't even around in 4000BC.
So if BB spread up the Danube, it wouldn't have been mixing with LBK folk, but rather non-extensive local groups like Pfyn, Mondsee, Jesivovice.
Again, I'm not talking culturally, but genetically. Regardless of the collapse of the LBK culture, the people that lived in the European interior would still have had more EEF/Anatolian-type DNA than those on the fringes.

[rms2]

. . . The closest fit by y-DNA is Yamnayan Z2103, but separated by 1,000 or so years and 3,000 or so km . . .


What do you mean by that? There are Yamnaya kurgans in plenty in the Carpathian basin, and I believe there are even a few in Germany and Austria. That's not 3,000 or so km from Bell Beaker. In terms of time, let me quote David Anthony, from page 361 of The Horse The Wheel and Language:



The initial groups were followed by a regular stream of people that continued for perhaps three hundred years, between 3100 and 2800 BCE.

There weren't 1,000 years of separation between Yamnaya and the rise of Bell Beaker.

This is from the same page:



The largest number of Yamnaya migrants ended up in eastern
Hungary . . . This was a major, sustained population movement, and, like all such movements, it must have been preceded by scouts who collected information while on some other kind of business, possibly horse trading.

That places a lot of Yamnaya people squarely in central Europe within a couple of centuries of the rise of non-Iberian Bell Beaker.

[rms2]

Yes, to at least the Northern fringe of the North European plain.

I think you're still off, but that's not Sweden.



What scholars think and what we know are two different things.
I'm not saying the cultures did, I'm saying it seems from aDNA that many of their people most likely were of Baltic ancestry - we already know, for instance, that R1b-M73 and R1a1 was present in the Eastern Baltic region from the sixth millennia.

I'm no expert myself, but I have never heard of any scholar anywhere who thinks or thought BB came out of the Baltic.

There have been no signs of either R1b-M73 or R1a1 in Bell Beaker thus far. We do have at least one R1b-Z2103 in Bell Beaker, however.

[epp]

Originally Posted by epp View Post
. . . The closest fit by y-DNA is Yamnayan Z2103, but separated by 1,000 or so years and 3,000 or so km . . .

What do you mean by that?I mean the Yamnayan Z2103 samples were located thousands of miles away from the Bell Beaker L51 samples.


There weren't 1,000 years of separation between Yamnaya and the rise of Bell Beaker.There were 1,000 years of separation between the branching off of Yamnayan Z2103 from Bell Beaker's L51 ancestor.


That places a lot of Yamnaya people squarely in central Europe within a couple of centuries of the rise of non-Iberian Bell Beaker.
That's why I say that Yamnaya was a component part of non-Iberian Bell Beaker.

[epp]

I think you're still off, but that's not Sweden.
We have Funnel Beaker samples from Central Germany and Sweden. The point is only that both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware look autosomally more similar to the Swedish samples, indicating a more likely Northern bias in the BB/CW populations generally.

[epp]

There have been no signs of either R1b-M73 or R1a1 in Bell Beaker thus far. We do have at least one R1b-Z2103 in Bell Beaker, however.
It is important to remember that, although Bell Beaker's majority paternal line is P312, it is autosomally a very mixed population. My estimate is that its overall ancestry was probably more heavily derived from each of R1a-M417, R1b-Z2109 Yamnayan and EEF mainly G2a than it was from other L51 individuals.

[rms2]

I mean the Yamnayan Z2103 samples were located thousands of miles away from the Bell Beaker L51 samples.

There are thousands of Yamnaya kurgans in the Carpathian basin, especially in eastern Hungary, and there are even some in Germany and Austria. That's not thousands of miles away from Bell Beaker.

We don't know yet to what y haplogroups those western Yamnaya men belonged. I suspect Z2103 and L51.

If you were talking about the Volga-Ural Yamnaya samples we currently have, they were recovered some distance from the Bell Beaker samples we have, but Yamnaya itself spread into what would become Bell Beaker territory shortly before the genesis of Bell Beaker. Yamnaya was in the right place at the right time to be the parent of Bell Beaker.



There were 1,000 years of separation between the branching off of Yamnayan Z2103 from Bell Beaker's L51 ancestor . . .

YFull estimates the tmrca of L51 at 5900 ybp and the tmrca of Z2103 at 6000 ybp. That's 100 years, not 1,000. L51 and Z2103 arose from L23 at about the same time.

[rms2]

We have Funnel Beaker samples from Central Germany and Sweden. The point is only that both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware look autosomally more similar to the Swedish samples, indicating a more likely Northern bias in the BB/CW populations generally.

Where are you getting that? Olalde et al did not say that. They said the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker is GAC+Swedish TRB. Swedish TRB came up from the south and, as I recall, was of Mediterranean physical type, like most Neolithic farmers.

I'm not sure why you have chosen to fixate on Swedish TRB and shift the origin of BB much farther north than anyone who has ever studied BB. You seem to be ignoring GAC altogether.

You are aware that no evidence of Bell Beaker has ever been found in Sweden, right?

[rms2]

It is important to remember that, although Bell Beaker's majority paternal line is P312, it is autosomally a very mixed population. My estimate is that its overall ancestry was probably more heavily derived from each of R1a-M417, R1b-Z2109 Yamnayan and EEF mainly G2a than it was from other L51 individuals.

Really?

Pretty obviously that is not reflected in Bell Beaker y-dna results, so you are saying the fathers of the women taken as wives by non-Iberian Bell Beaker men mostly belonged to xL51 y haplogroups. In other words, BB men chose wives, at least initially, from outside their own culture.

That may be partly true, but I doubt we'll ever know what the y haplogroups of the fathers of those women were.

I'm not sure what the point of such an assertion is. Perhaps you could explain.

[ADW_1981]

There were 1,000 years of separation between the branching off of Yamnayan Z2103 from Bell Beaker's L51 ancestor.


Not really.

Yfull has

L23 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6200 ybp

Z2103 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 6000 ybp

L51 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 5900 ybp


Definitely some missing data that has yet to be discovered and some margin of error, but it's quite clear that this is not thousands of years, but a few centuries that goes back to the common ancestor L23+. Unless you believe these methods to be absolutely unreliable. That wasn't what you were saying was it?

[rms2]

Not really.

Yfull has

L23 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6200 ybp

Z2103 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 6000 ybp

L51 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 5900 ybp


Definitely some missing data that has yet to be discovered and some margin of error, but it's quite clear that this is not thousands of years, but a few centuries that goes back to the common ancestor L23+. Unless you believe these methods to be absolutely unreliable. That wasn't what you were saying was it?

Yes, if you look at those estimates, the obvious takeaway is that Z2103 and L51 were born at about the same time and are brother clades under L23.

I don't think it is likely they were born far from one another.

[epp]

Not really.

Yfull has

L23 formed 6300 ybp, TMRCA 6200 ybp

Z2103 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 6000 ybp

L51 formed 6200 ybp, TMRCA 5900 ybp


Definitely some missing data that has yet to be discovered and some margin of error, but it's quite clear that this is not thousands of years, but a few centuries that goes back to the common ancestor L23+. Unless you believe these methods to be absolutely unreliable. That wasn't what you were saying was it?
No, it wasn't.
rms2 had said "There weren't 1,000 years of separation between Yamnaya and the rise of Bell Beaker", and I was responding that Yamnayan Z2103 had separated from L51 at least 1,000 years before the rise of Bell Beaker.
In fact, per yfull, L51 separated from Z2103 6300 ybp, Bell Beaker's P312 MRCA was 4400 ybp - the gap is actually at least 1900 years!
The point being that to conclude that these people probably moved from the Steppe to West Central Europe together by reason that they had one ancestor in common 1,900 years beforehand seems a little presumptuous.

[epp]

Where are you getting that? Olalde et al did not say that.
They said the best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker is GAC+Swedish TRB. Swedish TRB came up from the south and, as I recall, was of Mediterranean physical type, like most Neolithic farmers.
We can look at the data ourselves, and don't especially need to rely on Olaide, clever as though he or she probably is.
The best fit I could find was Swedish TRB, so I seem to be in agreement with Olaide.
The degree of association between Bell Beaker/Corded Ware samples and Swedish TRB samples was greater than that between BB/CW samples and North Central German TRB samples - this is suggestive of BB/CW admixing to a greater degree with TRB people located somewhere between North Central Germany and Sweden, rather than with TRB people located in North Central Germany itself. It is simply an indication of the principal pre-BB/CW admixture occurring at a more Northerly point than North Central Germany.


I'm not sure why you have chosen to fixate on Swedish TRB and shift the origin of BB much farther north than anyone who has ever studied BB. You seem to be ignoring GAC altogether.
I'm not fixating on Sweden - merely on the fact that it is North of less similar German TRB. And I am not talking about the origin of BB, but about the origin of the apparently admixed population from which BB and CW emerged. I've seen no data on GAC, so have nothing to comment. There appears to be no archaeological DNA data at all on Denmark or Holland, so it seems too that nothing can be concluded about these locations either one way or the other.

[epp]

Really?

Pretty obviously that is not reflected in Bell Beaker y-dna results, so you are saying the fathers of the women taken as wives by non-Iberian Bell Beaker men mostly belonged to xL51 y haplogroups. In other words, BB men chose wives, at least initially, from outside their own culture.

That may be partly true, but I doubt we'll ever know what the y haplogroups of the fathers of those women were.

I'm not sure what the point of such an assertion is. Perhaps you could explain.
It's easy to get caught up in the illusion that people were all divided up depending on which y-DNA haplogroup they belonged to, and that everyone from a particular y-DNA group all stuck together over thousands of years. Autosomal analysis of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples show that they were largely from the same heavily-admixed populations. Their two principal paternal lines (P312 and M417) represent only about 1% of their autosomal DNA even over period as brief as 200 years.

Yes, I am saying that the majority of the male ancestors (not necessarily the fathers) of the women taken as wives by non-Iberian Bell Beaker men probably belonged to xL51 y haplogroups. I'm not saying that BB men chose wives from outside their own culture, but that a significant proportion of the pooled male population from which BB and CW emerged seem from autosomal analysis to have chosen sexual partners whose fathers were from outside their own y-DNA haplogroups.

We don't know which haplogroups, but we can use analysis of autosomal data to help us to form some rough estimates.

[rms2]

No, it wasn't.
rms2 had said "There weren't 1,000 years of separation between Yamnaya and the rise of Bell Beaker", and I was responding that Yamnayan Z2103 had separated from L51 at least 1,000 years before the rise of Bell Beaker.
In fact, per yfull, L51 separated from Z2103 6300 ybp, Bell Beaker's P312 MRCA was 4400 ybp - the gap is actually at least 1900 years!
The point being that to conclude that these people probably moved from the Steppe to West Central Europe together by reason that they had one ancestor in common 1,900 years beforehand seems a little presumptuous.

That's not what you said. Here's what you said:



There were 1,000 years of separation between the branching off of Yamnayan Z2103 from Bell Beaker's L51 ancestor.


Clearly that's not true. L51 and Z2103 both arose from L23 at about the same time.

You can't talk about the split of L51 from Z2103, erroneously say they were separated by 1,000 years, and then switch to P312.

[rms2]

It's easy to get caught up in the illusion that people were all divided up depending on which y-DNA haplogroup they belonged to, and that everyone from a particular y-DNA group all stuck together over thousands of years. Autosomal analysis of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples show that they were largely from the same heavily-admixed populations. Their two principal paternal lines (P312 and M417) represent only about 1% of their autosomal DNA even over period as brief as 200 years.

Yes, I am saying that the majority of the male ancestors (not necessarily the fathers) of the women taken as wives by non-Iberian Bell Beaker men probably belonged to xL51 y haplogroups. I'm not saying that BB men chose wives from outside their own culture, but that a significant proportion of the pooled male population from which BB and CW emerged seem from autosomal analysis to have chosen sexual partners whose fathers were from outside their own y-DNA haplogroups.

We don't know which haplogroups, but we can use analysis of autosomal data to help us to form some rough estimates.

You started talking about the Baltic, R1b-M73 and R1a1, and when I pointed out that neither of those y haplogroups has been found in Bell Beaker, you pivoted to autosomal dna.

Before that you began by asking if anyone thought the Swedish TRB in the Olalde et al GAC+Swedish TRB best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker might indicate L151 came out of Scandinavia. I don't think it indicates that at all, because there is absolutely nothing to suggest it.

If you want to think it does, fine, but neither Bell Beaker nor Corded Ware started out in Scandinavia. So, I guess you must be suggesting that L151 arose in Swedish TRB, which moved south, met up with some steppe women, and together with them formed Bell Beaker.

It wasn't too many weeks ago you suggested that L51 was already in NE France by no later than 3000 BC.

[TigerMW]

... There have been no signs of either R1b-M73 or R1a1 in Bell Beaker thus far. We do have at least one R1b-Z2103 in Bell Beaker, however.
Sorry, I missed that. Which location and RC date was this Z2103 Beaker?

[TigerMW]

It's easy to get caught up in the illusion that people were all divided up depending on which y-DNA haplogroup they belonged to, and that everyone from a particular y-DNA group all stuck together over thousands of years. Autosomal analysis of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples show that they were largely from the same heavily-admixed populations. Their two principal paternal lines (P312 and M417) represent only about 1% of their autosomal DNA even over period as brief as 200 years.

Yes, I am saying that the majority of the male ancestors (not necessarily the fathers) of the women taken as wives by non-Iberian Bell Beaker men probably belonged to xL51 y haplogroups. I'm not saying that BB men chose wives from outside their own culture, but that a significant proportion of the pooled male population from which BB and CW emerged seem from autosomal analysis to have chosen sexual partners whose fathers were from outside their own y-DNA haplogroups.

We don't know which haplogroups, but we can use analysis of autosomal data to help us to form some rough estimates.

It is clearly true that the Y haplogroups are just one thin line back into huge family trees, however, that's not the application we are looking at. We are looking at using Y DNA as diagnostic markers for particular cultures. They are excellent at that because there is a strict father-son inheritance property. There is no ambiguity in Y DNA inheritance like there is in the constantly mixing autosomal DNA.

In these cases of P312 and M417 as they relate to (East/Kurgan/wristguard non-Iberian) Bell Beaker and Corded Ware we see very strong correlations. They each are prevalent, massively so, in their own domains (BB and CW). There is also a very strong correlation with some IE language branches. Since the prevalence of these Y haplogroups are so strong within these cultures (thus far) they are also aligning with certain autosomal DNA.

[rms2]

Sorry, I missed that. Which location and RC date was this Z2103 Beaker?

I2787; 2458-2202 BC; Szigetszentmiklos, Hungary (Csepel Island)

Only a few miles to the north, I2365 was found in Budapest. He was R1b-L2 and a Bell Beaker man dated to the same period (2465-2205 BC).

[epp]

You started talking about the Baltic, R1b-M73 and R1a1, and when I pointed out that neither of those y haplogroups has been found in Bell Beaker, you pivoted to autosomal dna.

Before that you began by asking if anyone thought the Swedish TRB in the Olalde et al GAC+Swedish TRB best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker might indicate L151 came out of Scandinavia. I don't think it indicates that at all, because there is absolutely nothing to suggest it.

If you want to think it does, fine, but neither Bell Beaker nor Corded Ware started out in Scandinavia. So, I guess you must be suggesting that L151 arose in Swedish TRB, which moved south, met up with some steppe women, and together with them formed Bell Beaker.

It wasn't too many weeks ago you suggested that L51 was already in NE France by no later than 3000 BC.
Everything you say is just twisting what I said. If I introduce new evidence, I am "pivoting". If I ask a question, I am wrong to do so. You seem to know what I "want to think". You seem to constantly "guess what I must be suggesting".

By squabbling pointlessly like this, I suppose you at least divert the thread away from acknowledging the points I am making, such as "The degree of association between Bell Beaker/Corded Ware samples and Swedish TRB samples was greater than that between BB/CW samples and North Central German TRB samples - this is suggestive of BB/CW admixing to a greater degree with TRB people located somewhere between North Central Germany and Sweden, rather than with TRB people located in North Central Germany itself.", or "Autosomal analysis of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples show that they were largely from the same heavily-admixed populations".

The autosomal DNA I have seen show that R1b BB and R1a CW are vastly more similar to each other than either is to R1b Yamna, but there seems a general reluctance to acknowledge anything that might point to Yamna not being the holy grail answer to everything.

[epp]

That's not what you said. Here's what you said:

Originally Posted by epp
There were 1,000 years of separation between the branching off of Yamnayan Z2103 from Bell Beaker's L51 ancestor.

Clearly that's not true.
It can't be true or untrue. The branching off of Z2103 from L51 is only a single event; there can't be 1,000 years between a single event. It was obviously a typo, and I meant the period between when the Z2103 and L51 ancestors separated and when they were around as Yamna and Bell Beaker.

[epp]

It is clearly true that the Y haplogroups are just one thin line back into huge family trees, however, that's not the application we are looking at. We are looking at using Y DNA as diagnostic markers for particular cultures. They are excellent at that because there is a strict father-son inheritance property. There is no ambiguity in Y DNA inheritance like there is in the constantly mixing autosomal DNA.

In these cases of P312 and M417 as they relate to (East/Kurgan/wristguard non-Iberian) Bell Beaker and Corded Ware we see very strong correlations. They each are prevalent, massively so, in their own domains (BB and CW). There is also a very strong correlation with some IE language branches. Since the prevalence of these Y haplogroups are so strong within these cultures (thus far) they are also aligning with certain autosomal DNA.
Agreed - although it takes very little for the "strict father-son inheritance" to break down. Otherwise how would R1b Yamna pass down its culture to R1a Corded Ware?
Personally, I'm only really interested in cultures to the degree that they help identify populations; and P312 Bell Beaker actually seems to tell us fairly little about the populations from which its ancestors came, as its y-DNA seems to have been restricted to only one recent strand of its longstanding L51 ancestors. Moreover, for all we know, P312 BB could easily have arisen from just one P312 man who usurped the culture from someone else and then passed it on to his inheritors.

[epp]

I2787; 2458-2202 BC; Szigetszentmiklos, Hungary (Csepel Island)

Only a few miles to the north, I2365 was found in Budapest. He was R1b-L2 and a Bell Beaker man dated to the same period (2465-2205 BC).
This is like learning that a Nigerian man and a Jamaican man live only a few miles from each other in London and finding it significant on the grounds that they had a common ancestor in Africa 2,000 years beforehand.

[alan]

TRB pops would be hard for any group to avoid when passing through Central
Europe between Ukraine and the Rhine c 3000BC

[rms2]

I2787; 2458-2202 BC; Szigetszentmiklos, Hungary (Csepel Island)

Only a few miles to the north, I2365 was found in Budapest. He was R1b-L2 and a Bell Beaker man dated to the same period (2465-2205 BC).


This is like learning that a Nigerian man and a Jamaican man live only a few miles from each other in London and finding it significant on the grounds that they had a common ancestor in Africa 2,000 years beforehand.

You must be joking.

Finding two ancient males buried only a few miles apart who 1) were contemporaneous, 2) belonged to not only the same LN/EBA culture but to the same regional variant of it (Eastern Bell Beaker), 3) were both R1b-L23 and 4) had high levels of steppe dna is "like learning that a Nigerian man and a Jamaican man [who apparently belong to the same y haplogroup] live only a few miles from each other in London"?

Analogies are evidently not your thing.

[rms2]

Everything you say is just twisting what I said. If I introduce new evidence, I am "pivoting". If I ask a question, I am wrong to do so. You seem to know what I "want to think". You seem to constantly "guess what I must be suggesting".

By squabbling pointlessly like this, I suppose you at least divert the thread away from acknowledging the points I am making, such as "The degree of association between Bell Beaker/Corded Ware samples and Swedish TRB samples was greater than that between BB/CW samples and North Central German TRB samples - this is suggestive of BB/CW admixing to a greater degree with TRB people located somewhere between North Central Germany and Sweden, rather than with TRB people located in North Central Germany itself.", or "Autosomal analysis of Bell Beaker and Corded Ware samples show that they were largely from the same heavily-admixed populations".

The autosomal DNA I have seen show that R1b BB and R1a CW are vastly more similar to each other than either is to R1b Yamna, but there seems a general reluctance to acknowledge anything that might point to Yamna not being the holy grail answer to everything.

You began by asking whether the Swedish TRB part of the GAC+Swedish TRB best fit for the Neolithic farmer component in Bell Beaker might indicate that L151 came out of Scandinavia. Pretty obviously, it doesn't mean that at all.

Now you've gone to the stuff you typed in the quote above, completely ignoring the GAC element.

Not too long ago you asserted that L51 was in NE France by no later than 3000 BC.

Epp, we just don't agree on much, and it doesn't seem likely we ever will. I think it would probably be best if I just let you express your opinions without comment from me, unless, of course, you keep on quoting me.

[TigerMW]

Agreed - although it takes very little for the "strict father-son inheritance" to break down. Otherwise how would R1b Yamna pass down its culture to R1a Corded Ware?
I was speaking in terms of the Y chomosome. A son can only get the MSY (male specific) parts of the Y, about 95% of it, only from his father. This is why it can be a good diagnostic marker for populations. I do not intend to indicate there is a strict and exclusive one or one correspondence of any culture to any one specific Y haplogroup.


Personally, I'm only really interested in cultures to the degree that they help identify populations; and P312 Bell Beaker actually seems to tell us fairly little about the populations from which its ancestors came, as its y-DNA seems to have been restricted to only one recent strand of its longstanding L51 ancestors. Moreover, for all we know, P312 BB could easily have arisen from just one P312 man who usurped the culture from someone else and then passed it on to his inheritors.
P312 came from an L151* man and L151 came from an L51* man, who came from an L23*, etc. It's a nice diagnostic trail to follow backwards through source populations. If we could identify this trail we could unlock a lot of information about the Bell Beakers, or at least the East/Wristguard/Kurgan Bell Beaker folks.

[alan]

TRB pops would be hard for any group to avoid when passing through Central
Europe between Ukraine and the Rhine c 3000BC

18886

[epp]

You must be joking.

Finding two ancient males buried only a few miles apart who 1) were contemporaneous, 2) belonged to not only the same LN/EBA culture but to the same regional variant of it (Eastern Bell Beaker), 3) were both R1b-L23 and 4) had high levels of steppe dna is "like learning that a Nigerian man and a Jamaican man [who apparently belong to the same y haplogroup] live only a few miles from each other in London"?

Analogies are evidently not your thing.
The Jamaican and Nigerian, both living in the same borough of South London, are contemporaneous, have adopted the same London variant of the British culture, could both be E1b1a (from a SNP that branched apart into their two subclades 1,900 years ago) and could both have high levels of West African DNA.
From the way you describe my analogy, I realise it is closer than I thought.:)

[epp]

Epp, we just don't agree on much, and it doesn't seem likely we ever will. I think it would probably be best if I just let you express your opinions without comment from me, unless, of course, you keep on quoting me.
I do end up quoting you a lot, particularly in response to you misquoting me; but if you were less inherently antagonistic, you might notice that we actually agree on a lot more than you realise. I have just performed some statistical analysis that I will post about later - you are of course free to ignore it if it's something you don't want to acknowledge, although its results are indicative of somewhere between what you and I have previously posted.

[rms2]

The Jamaican and Nigerian, both living in the same borough of South London, are contemporaneous, have adopted the same London variant of the British culture, could both be E1b1a (from a SNP that branched apart into their two subclades 1,900 years ago) and could both have high levels of West African DNA.
From the way you describe my analogy, I realise it is closer than I thought.:)

It was and is ludicrous and in no way analogous to the two Bell Beaker men I mentioned.

Modern "British culture" is nothing like LN/EBA Bell Beaker culture. I don't think it necessary to cite the many ways in which that is true. A Jamaican and a Nigerian living not far from one another in modern London and both belonging to y haplogroup E1b1a are in no way analogous to two Bell Beaker skeletons found about 10 miles apart in Hungary, both dated to the same period in the 3rd millennium BC, both belonging to y haplogroup R1b-L23, and both having a lot of steppe dna.

[rms2]

I do end up quoting you a lot, particularly in response to you misquoting me; but if you were less inherently antagonistic, you might notice that we actually agree on a lot more than you realise. I have just performed some statistical analysis that I will post about later - you are of course free to ignore it if it's something you don't want to acknowledge, although its results are indicative of somewhere between what you and I have previously posted.

I don't misquote you, since I use the "Reply With Quote" function, and it works well.

I probably will ignore you from now on, however, and I think I will begin now.

[epp]

I don't misquote you, since I use the "Reply With Quote" function, and it works well.
I don't mind you using the "Reply With Quote". It's when you repeatedly paraphrase what I've said and turn it into something I didn't mean that it can get a bit frustrating.


I probably will ignore you from now on, however, and I think I will begin now.
A pity, as you often provide useful and interesting information ... but probably for the best if my posts are just giving you grief.

[epp]

North European Bell Beaker and Corded Ware look from autosomal DNA to have sprung from essentially the same population with a very similar DNA admixture.
So I ran a statistical analysis, measuring autosomal admixture uniformities over a number of BB and CW population sets across Northern Europe, with results as follows:
1. The highest uniformity occurs in the Russian component in R1a Corded Ware.
2. R1b Bell Beaker has average standard deviation scores twice as high as R1a Corded Ware.
3. The most uniform admixture proportion over the entire dataset is Anatolian.
4. Caucasus and Mesolithic Hunter Gatherer components are easily the least uniform, with standard deviations of 7 or 8 times higher than for Russian or Anatolian components.
Can anyone suggest possible interpretations of these results? (Feel free to ignore them!)

[epoch]

I just found out that Tiefbrunn Corded Ware sample RISE436's Y-DNA never was published as R1a. Mathieson 2015 had CT, Allentoft 2015 had R1. Mathieson 2017 has R1b1.

R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R:CTS7880:17723850C->T

[rms2]

I just found out that Tiefbrunn Corded Ware sample RISE436's Y-DNA never was published as R1a. Mathieson 2015 had CT, Allentoft 2015 had R1. Mathieson 2017 has R1b1.

R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R:CTS7880:17723850C->T

So, that's accurate then, RISE436 was R1b1?

That's important news.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

I just found out that Tiefbrunn Corded Ware sample RISE436's Y-DNA never was published as R1a. Mathieson 2015 had CT, Allentoft 2015 had R1. Mathieson 2017 has R1b1.

R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R:CTS7880:17723850C->T

It´s apparently R1a1 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11766-Poll-Bell-Beaker-Models&p=289939#post289939), still.

[epoch]

So, that's accurate then, RISE436 was R1b1?

That's important news.

Genetiker had him as R1a. If he reads this, would he be so kind and check that sample again?

Edit: R. Rocca found R1a as well. See post above.

[epp]

Genetiker had him as R1a. If he reads this, would he be so kind and check that sample again?

Edit: R. Rocca found R1a as well. See post above.
Yes, it would be good to know these things for sure. Although one of the datasets published by Genetiker shows R1b North European Bell Beaker populations with an average 87% autosomal match to R1a Corded Ware populations and an average 87% match to other North European Bell Beaker populations. So as the North European R1a and R1b populations appear pretty much indistinguishable except for their paternal lines, I wonder whether an identification one way or the other is quite as significant as it first seems.

[epp]

Autosomal data that I’ve examined shows Yamnayan samples to be an average 68% match with Corded Ware populations and an average 59% match with Bell Beaker populations. But how much of this match represents CW and BB populations being derived from the Yamnayan population, and how much of it represents (i) Yamnayans being partly derived from a pre-BB/CW population or (ii) Yamnayans and BB/CW populations both being partly derived from a common ancestor?

The Yamnayan samples have a 19% Caucasus component on average, whereas CW populations have 6% and BB populations 4%. This allows us to estimate that, on average, BB/CW populations are 26% derived from the Yamnayan population at maximum ((6% + 4% / 2) / 19%). Moreover, a full 26% would presume that the heavily-admixed population with which incoming Yamnayans mixed contained no Caucasus component itself to start with - this looks unlikely, as the Caucasus component within R1b BB populations is more uniform than it is within R1a CW populations (suggesting that a small Caucasus element was probably admixed into R1b-L23 before it split into L151 BB and Z2103 Yamnayan). Does this indicate that much of BB’s Caucasus component could have been present within it before Yamnayans arrived in Northern Europe, indicating that a Yamnayan element might represent only a minor part of BB populations (perhaps somewhere between 10% and 20% on average)?

Unlike in P312 BB, which is uniformly admixed with both R1a CW and Anatolian components, the Caucasus component is highly variable over BB and CW populations, with standard deviations of 7-9 times higher than their other components. Does this seem indicative of a late Yamnayan entrance into only parts of a uniform, already thoroughly-admixed R1a-M417/R1b-L151/Early European Farmer population?

[TigerMW]

... The Yamnayan samples have a 19% Caucasus component on average, whereas CW populations have 6% and BB populations 4%. ...
What are the maximum and minimum Caucasus components in Yamnaya? What is the variance?

How well do you feel the Yamnaya skeletons tested so far represent the full Yamnaya horizon and its geography? From what I've read so far the Yamnaya aDNA has huges holes in it as far as its ability to represent the complete set of cultures.

[epp]

What are the maximum and minimum Caucasus components in Yamnaya? What is the variance?
I’ve just checked. Caucasus components in the Yamnayan samples range from 12 to 25%. They are much more uniform than in Bell Beaker, whose Caucasus-component variance is 5 times higher.


How well do you feel the Yamnaya skeletons tested so far represent the full Yamnaya horizon and its geography? From what I've read so far the Yamnaya aDNA has huges holes in it as far as its ability to represent the complete set of cultures.
Yes, you're right. There are still huge holes in most archaeological DNA. We have one ancient R1a1a1 sample from the Dnieper, so assume that it must have originated there. We have no samples from Neolithic Holland or Denmark, so assume that nothing originated there.

What is the full Yamnayan horizon? Different web references give a start point for it in 4,000 BC, 3,500 BC and 3,300 BC. The Wikipedia page says it began in 4,000 BC, and was preceded by the Repin Culture that began in 3,950 BC!

If Yamna is defined as being on the borders of the Western Steppe by the early fifth millennium and admixing with R1a and Early European Farmer not long afterwards, then I would be inclined to agree that the evidence supports R1b-L51 as being of Yamnayan origin. However, if we are talking about the people who only moved into Europe from the East after 3,000 BC, I don’t see that the evidence supports these people as being the prime source of European R1b-L51.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Yamnaya : you see a few kurgans from 3300Bc, but most are from period 3000-2500 BC.

Btw: how are you calculating your variances in "Caucasus" component ?

[Jean M]

What is the full Yamnayan horizon? Different web references give a start point for it in 4,000 BC, 3,500 BC and 3,300 BC. The Wikipedia page says it began in 4,000 BC, and was preceded by the Repin Culture that began in 3,950 BC!

I haven't time or energy to correct Wikipedia right now, but basically some archaeologists class Repin as early Yamnaya. Here's my text for the forthcoming book, though it is a nuisance to readers when they get a load of culture names thrown at them in one sentence:


So when the Yamnaya cultural horizon rolled across the European steppe from around 3300 BC, putting its mark on local cultures, this would not bring a complete change of language everywhere. Evolving between the rivers Volga and Don, mainly from the Khvalynsk culture via the Repin culture (3900–3300 ВС, sometimes labelled early Yamnaya), this was a more mobile society, living in tents and ox-drawn carts.

[TigerMW]

I’ve just checked. Caucasus components in the Yamnayan samples range from 12 to 25%. They are much more uniform than in Bell Beaker, whose Caucasus-component variance is 5 times higher.

From 12 to 25% is a doubling of the proportion of Caucasus. I wouldn't say that is uniform, particularly if you are using the "average" as a base for your hypothesis about derived cultures from Yamnaya.


Yes, you're right. There are still huge holes in most archaeological DNA. We have one ancient R1a1a1 sample from the Dnieper, so assume that it must have originated there.
If there are huge holes in aDNA then using an average of the Caucasus proponent as a base is precarious.



What is the full Yamnayan horizon? Different web references give a start point for it in 4,000 BC, 3,500 BC and 3,300 BC. The Wikipedia page says it began in 4,000 BC, and was preceded by the Repin Culture that began in 3,950 BC!
From a geographic standpoint, I believe Yamnaya had reached this far reaching range by 3000 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture#/media/File:Yamna-en.svg

It's big so you would want to make sure your average Caucasus component is comparable to the different waves moving west into Europe and the source Yamnaya populations from those movements. You really need to use a different base Yamnaya Caucasus component percentage for each source for each wave.


If Yamna is defined as being on the borders of the Western Steppe by the early fifth millennium and admixing with R1a and Early European Farmer not long afterwards, then I would be inclined to agree that the evidence supports R1b-L51 as being of Yamnayan origin. However, if we are talking about the people who only moved into Europe from the East after 3,000 BC, I don’t see that the evidence supports these people as being the prime source of European R1b-L51.

You mentioned European R1b-L51. Is there a non-European R1b-L51 that you are contrasting with?

I don't know that 3000 BC is a hard-core time-line before any Yamnaya or derived people moved into Central Europe. Regardless, if R1b-L151 is somewhere around the age of 3000 BC then you don't need a lot of R1b-L51* people in Eastern Europe, sitting in Yamnaya territories around 3000 BC. You only need one R1b-L51* person, the ancestor of L151.

You might be mesmerized by modern population sizes, thinking an ancient ancestor population had to be proportionally large.

[epp]

Yamnaya : you see a few kurgans from 3300Bc, but most are from period 3000-2500 BC.

Btw: how are you calculating your variances in "Caucasus" component ?
Relative standard deviation.

[epp]

From 12 to 25% is a doubling of the proportion of Caucasus. I wouldn't say that is uniform, particularly if you are using the "average" as a base for your hypothesis about derived cultures from Yamnaya.
Uniformity is relative, and it is relatively 5 times more uniform than the Bell Beaker samples. That's all I can say.


If there are huge holes in aDNA then using an average of the Caucasus proponent as a base is precarious.
Yes, agreed - if there are huge holes in aDNA, then all conclusions from it are precarious. We can only work from what we have, particularly as many on this forum refuse to consider analysis from modern DNA (which has a far greater and more comprehensive coverage) as relevant.


It's big so you would want to make sure your average Caucasus component is comparable to the different waves moving west into Europe and the source Yamnaya populations from those movements. You really need to use a different base Yamnaya Caucasus component percentage for each source for each wave.
Do you have data to enable such a comparison? If so, then I would be interested to see it.
If not, then we can only work from the data we have.


You mentioned European R1b-L51. Is there a non-European R1b-L51 that you are contrasting with?
There might be, but not that I know of.


I don't know that 3000 BC is a hard-core time-line before any Yamnaya or derived people moved into Central Europe. Regardless, if R1b-L151 is somewhere around the age of 3000 BC then you don't need a lot of R1b-L51* people in Eastern Europe, sitting in Yamnaya territories around 3000 BC. You only need one R1b-L51* person, the ancestor of L151.
If there were only one such L151 ancestor in 3,000 BC, then we have no information to enable us to assess whether he moved into Central Europe after 3,000 BC or at around the 3,950 BC estimated date of L151's formation - there would be no reason to assume the former.

The fact is, we do not know how many other lines of L151 contributed to the aDNA of Bell Beaker - common sense suggests that at least one L151 man had a brother over a 950 year period. All that we can say is that the Bell Beaker descendants of this unknown number of L151 ancestors seem to have had a far smaller and far less uniform Caucasus component than the Yamnayan R1b that we know about, and to be more heavily and uniformly admixed with R1a Corded Ware and with Anatolian components than they were with this Yamnayan R1b, suggesting that their development was more in tandem with R1a and Anatolian than with the Yamnayan.


You might be mesmerized by modern population sizes, thinking an ancient ancestor population had to be proportionally large.
What makes you think that? I've made no mention of modern population sizes, which are not a variable in any of my calculations.
The mesmerisation seems to come from the common presumption that all M269 is third wave Yamnayan, as if we can be so sure that any M269 in wave 1 Suvorovo-Novodanilovka and wave 2 Globular Amphora either never existed or totally died out that we can completely overlook it as a potential source for L51 in Europe.

[rms2]

Gimbutas' Wave II was not Globular Amphora.

Here's how she described her three Kurgan waves (from The Civilization of the Goddess, page 352):



The Kurgan tradition became manifest in Old European territories during three waves of infiltration: I at c. 4400-4300 BC, II at c. 3500 BC, and III soon after 3000 BC. This chronology does not represent the evolution of a single group but of a number of various steppe peoples who shared a common tradition, extending over broad temporal and spacial parameters. Kurgan I people were from the Volga steppe; Kurgan II, who were culturally more advanced, developed in the North Pontic area between the Lower Dniester and the Caucasus mountains; Kurgan III people were again from the Volga steppe.

Russian archeologists use the terms "early Yamna" for Kurgan I; "Mikhailovka I" or "Maikop" culture for Kurgan II; and "late Yamna" for Kurgan III.


None of the GAC samples from the recent Mathieson et al paper, The Genomic History of SE Europe, was R1 or had steppe dna. They were I2a2a1b, I2a2, and I2. GAC appears to have been a Neolithic farmer culture that adopted some steppic burial rites.

18974

[epp]

Gimbutas' Wave II was not Globular Amphora.
That's odd. Wikipedia thinks it was -
"Wave 2, mid 4th millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and resulting in advances of "kurganized" hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC (Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture). According to Gimbutas this corresponds to the first intrusion of Indo-European languages into western and northern Europe."
Just shows - you can't believe everything you read on this internet.


None of the GAC samples from the recent Mathieson et al paper, The Genomic History of SE Europe, was R1 or had steppe dna. They were I2a2a1b, I2a2, and I2. GAC appears to have been a Neolithic farmer culture that adopted some steppic burial rites.

How do we know that these 6 I2a individuals from only 2 GAC sites represented the only y-DNA haplogroup that adopted GAC culture?

Where would these 6 apparently I2a2a1b farmers from 2 GAC sites in Poland and NW Ukraine have got their steppic burial rites from? (Presumably from the sort of R1 steppic people that Mathieson identifies I2a2a1b also lived with in Dereivka on the Dnieper and in the Yamnayan-Kalmykia culture in Eastern Russia, or from R1 people who brought it with them to Poland where GAC is said to have originated some 400 years earlier in 3,400 BC?)

I note that Mathieson identifies BB and CW as "Yamnayan", rather than generic Steppic - or indeed generic Russian, as most of what he calls Yamnayan DNA is presumably of universal Russian origin (the only other types allocated being WHG and Anatolian).

[epp]

I wonder whether there is anything substantial in my recent posts that is demonstrably incorrect, apart from the disputed minor side issue as to whether or not Gimbutas meant to include Globular Amphora within what she defined as Wave 2.

[rms2]

That's odd. Wikipedia thinks it was -
"Wave 2, mid 4th millennium BC, originating in the Maykop culture and resulting in advances of "kurganized" hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC (Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture). According to Gimbutas this corresponds to the first intrusion of Indo-European languages into western and northern Europe."
Just shows - you can't believe everything you read on this internet.

You might try reading Gimbutas for yourself. Besides, Gimbutas' waves are waves of steppe kurgan infiltration of Old Europe, not waves of kurganized hybrid cultures already residing in Old Europe. Besides, even that Wikipedia article speaks of GAC as a result of Wave II, not as Wave II itself.

Just how "kurganized" GAC was is an open question, especially given the recent GAC dna test results.



How do we know that these 6 I2a individuals from only 2 GAC sites represented the only y-DNA haplogroup that adopted GAC culture?

There were actually a couple of more from Kierzkowo, Poland, one CT and one BT. Given the other results, they were also probably I2a of some kind.

We don't know if there were other y haplogroups in GAC. Gimbutas believed there were a few steppe elites in that culture. But thus far there has been no R1 or steppe dna in GAC.



Where would these 6 apparently I2a2a1b farmers from 2 GAC sites in Poland and NW Ukraine have got their steppic burial rites from? (Presumably from the sort of R1 steppic people that Mathieson identifies I2a2a1b also lived with in Dereivka on the Dnieper and in the Yamnayan-Kalmykia culture in Eastern Russia, or from R1 people who brought it with them to Poland where GAC is said to have originated some 400 years earlier in 3,400 BC?)

Note that GAC I2a2a1b men had no steppe dna. As I mentioned before, Gimbutas said there were steppe elites in GAC. If there were, we have not found any sign of them yet.

GAC burial rites weren't exactly the same as the burial rites of likely IE steppe pastoralists, but there were some similarities. They could have copied some aspects of what they observed their neighbors doing.



I note that Mathieson identifies BB and CW as "Yamnayan", rather than generic Steppic - or indeed generic Russian, as most of what he calls Yamnayan DNA is presumably of universal Russian origin (the only other types allocated being WHG and Anatolian).

"Russian" is a modern term. As I understand it, the Yamnaya autosomal dna used as the standard of comparison is usually Yamnaya_Samara but sometimes Yamnaya_Kalmykia.

[Generalissimo]

I note that Mathieson identifies BB and CW as "Yamnayan", rather than generic Steppic - or indeed generic Russian, as most of what he calls Yamnayan DNA is presumably of universal Russian origin (the only other types allocated being WHG and Anatolian).

You presume wrong.

[epp]

You presume wrong.
Correct me then, rather than putting an churlish negative answer that adds nothing.

[epp]

You might try reading Gimbutas for yourself.
You might try asking first whether I have read Gimbutas, rather than assuming that I haven't.
Having just re-read some of her work, I see that she did indeed identify Globular Amphora, and in fact the ancestors of Bell Beaker, within Kurgan Wave 2; saying that these ancestors were pushed Westwards by Yamna, rather than being Yamna. Not that this matters, as I very much doubt there were three neat, wholly discrete waves at all -
steppic people were probably pushing at the Old Europe boundaries regularly, and vice versa. The first bringers of L51 could have come at any point, especially from Suvorovo Novodanilovka onwards. In small numbers, we would not necessarily have found graves for any of them, let alone ones with full DNA identifications done on them.


We don't know if there were other y haplogroups in GAC. Gimbutas believed there were a few steppe elites in that culture. But thus far there has been no R1 or steppe dna in GAC. Note that GAC I2a2a1b men had no steppe dna. As I mentioned before, Gimbutas said there were steppe elites in GAC. If there were, we have not found any sign of them yet.
Yes, there's a lot we don't know, and a lot we haven't found, including whole cultures and countries with with no samples at all. We can only pick up clues.


GAC burial rites weren't exactly the same as the burial rites of likely IE steppe pastoralists, but there were some similarities. They could have copied some aspects of what they observed their neighbors doing.
Yes, maybe R1 neighbours in the same areas shortly beforehand.


"Russian" is a modern term. As I understand it, the Yamnaya autosomal dna used as the standard of comparison is usually Yamnaya_Samara but sometimes Yamnaya_Kalmykia.
Most of Yamnaya's DNA (as opposed to WHG and Anatolian) is also heavily heavily spread from the Baltic States in the West to Siberia in the East to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the South - hence, I termed it Russian in an attempt to identify its full scope.

[Generalissimo]

Most of Yamnaya's DNA (as opposed to WHG and Anatolian) is also heavily heavily spread from the Baltic States in the West to Siberia in the East to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the South - hence, I termed it Russian in an attempt to identify its full scope.

But it wasn't before the CWC/Yamnaya expansion out of the steppe.

[alan]

I think following the ancient DNA evidence makes it 99% certain that L11 entirely went west from the steppe by a route north of the Carpathians that avoided (by some combo of route taken and timing) the Cuc-Trip farmers. However there could be one interesting exception. The L51xL11 lineages are not especially old in terms MRCA (should be thought of as distant cousin lines to L11, not ancestral to L11) but their distribution is suggestive of a more southern route west. It's kind of suggests it's story is different from L11. However all we have is a MRCA date estimate which yfull sets c 3100BC around 300 years earliest than it places the L11 MRCA. Many think yfull dates are a few centuries too young. It all kind of suggests that one L51 line was an exception to the rule and took a path out of the steppes by a route south of the Carpathians perhaps with the Z2103 Yamnaya guys or even in a pre Yamnaya wave. It's distribution today is weird sort of Alpine centred. Then again it might mean nothing and it may just be a small lineage that accompanied U152 beaker people as they spread into the Alps. Italy and SE France and found a small niche operating in the passes between Italy, Austria and SE France. Personally I think the earliest beaker in southern France and the southern Alps was Iberian derived non R1b and that R1b beaker only arrived there in the late beaker period. If so that was c 1000ys after the L51xL11 MRCA. That seems unlikely as It would need a bunch of very distant cousins to somehow remain together for1000ys, then migrate together into one zone. On balance I thinking is more likely that they moved earlier

[rms2]

You might try asking first whether I have read Gimbutas, rather than assuming that I haven't.
Having just re-read some of her work, I see that she did indeed identify Globular Amphora, and in fact the ancestors of Bell Beaker, within Kurgan Wave 2; saying that these ancestors were pushed Westwards by Yamna, rather than being Yamna . . .


It doesn't sound like you read Gimbutas, or, if you did, that you understood her. Gimbutas did not derive the ancestors of Bell Beaker from Wave II. Instead, she said that Bell Beaker was the product of the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol, and Yamnaya was Wave III. I am not at home right now or I would quote her and supply page numbers. Vucedol was impacted by the earlier Kurgan waves, but Bell Beaker was the product of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, at least according to Gimbutas. She says that so clearly and repeatedly it's difficult for anyone reading her books to miss it.

I don't recall her saying anything about GAC being involved in Wave II. Perhaps you could supply a quote to that effect?

She did specifically say that Wave II involved what Russian archaeologists call Mikhailovka I and Maykop.



Yes, there's a lot we don't know, and a lot we haven't found, including whole cultures and countries with with no samples at all. We can only pick up clues . . .

True, but we do have eight y-dna test results from GAC, none of them R1, and more than eight sets of results from GAC overall with no steppe dna. So GAC is not totally unknown to us.

Could there be some R1 in GAC? Maybe. Anything is possible, and Gimbutas herself did believe there were ruling steppe elites in GAC.



Most of Yamnaya's DNA (as opposed to WHG and Anatolian) is also heavily heavily spread from the Baltic States in the West to Siberia in the East to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the South - hence, I termed it Russian in an attempt to identify its full scope.

It wasn't spread throughout all of what is now Russia, and the term Russian is just too broad and includes too many varied peoples. Best to just stick with Yamnaya.

[rms2]

I think following the ancient DNA evidence makes it 99% certain that L11 entirely went west from the steppe by a route north of the Carpathians that avoided (by some combo of route taken and timing) the Cuc-Trip farmers . . .

A handy route through the northern end of the Carpathians is the Tisza River valley, which would have brought Yamnaya migrants right down into the East Hungarian Plain. Anthony mentions the region north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers as the area of heaviest Yamnaya settlement, with literally thousands of kurgans. Svitlana Ivanova mentioned that later steppe peoples like the Cumans and Pechenegs took that same route.

If BB is derived from Yamnaya, as Gimbutas thought, the Körös/Tisza region seems the likeliest source.

18986

[kinman]

But if I recall correctly, those later steppe peoples were migrating north from Hungary across the Carpathians in the opposite direction. If so, it's a little misleading to say "took the same route" without mentioning that it was in the opposite direction.


A handy route through the northern end of the Carpathians is the Tisza River valley, which would have brought Yamnaya migrants right down into the East Hungarian Plain. Anthony mentions the region north of the Körös and east of the Tisza rivers as the area of heaviest Yamnaya settlement, with literally thousands of kurgans. Svitlana Ivanova mentioned that later steppe peoples like the Cumans and Pechenegs took that same route.

If BB is derived from Yamnaya, as Gimbutas thought, the Körös/Tisza region seems the likeliest source.

18986

[rms2]

But if I recall correctly, those later steppe peoples were migrating north from Hungary across the Carpathians in the opposite direction. If so, it's a little misleading to say "took the same route" without mentioning that it was in the opposite direction.

That's incorrect. The Pechenegs and the Cumans went from the steppe southwest down the Tisza valley. They weren't migrating from Hungary to the northeast.

[kinman]

I stand corrected. I'll have to find that discussion on Anthrogenica to find which later steppe people it was who did go up the Tisza and the crossed the Carpathians.


That's incorrect. The Pechenegs and the Cumans went from the steppe southwest down the Tisza valley. They weren't migrating from Hungary to the northeast.

[rms2]

I stand corrected. I'll have to find that discussion on Anthrogenica to find which later steppe people it was who did go up the Tisza and the crossed the Carpathians.

If they were steppe people they would not have been native to Hungary.

[epp]

Originally Posted by epp:
Most of Yamnaya's DNA (as opposed to WHG and Anatolian) is also heavily spread from the Baltic States in the West to Siberia in the East to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the South - hence, I termed it Russian in an attempt to identify its full scope.


But it wasn't before the CWC/Yamnaya expansion out of the steppe.

But it was. Much of it was in Siberia, Karelia, Iran and even Sweden by the 6th millennium BC.

[epp]

It doesn't sound like you read Gimbutas, or, if you did, that you understood her. Gimbutas did not derive the ancestors of Bell Beaker from Wave II. Instead, she said that Bell Beaker was the product of the amalgam of Yamnaya and Vucedol, and Yamnaya was Wave III. I am not at home right now or I would quote her and supply page numbers. Vucedol was impacted by the earlier Kurgan waves, but Bell Beaker was the product of the mixing of Yamnaya and Vucedol in the Carpathian basin, at least according to Gimbutas. She says that so clearly and repeatedly it's difficult for anyone reading her books to miss it.
Yes, point taken, but not exactly - in “Three Waves of Kurgan Peoples” Gimbutas distinguishes “the Jamna people in the east from the Vucedol-Bell Beaker people in the south”.


I don't recall her saying anything about GAC being involved in Wave II. Perhaps you could supply a quote to that effect?
Looks like there's one you haven't read! She discusses GA in the third chapter of section 2 “The Second Wave”. Not that she was definitely right - it was only her hypothesis. Autosomal DNA (for what it’s worth) indicates that pre-BB L151 is likely to have mixed pretty thoroughly with pre-CW M417 and that BB & CW formed from two sections of largely the same gene pool. Given what we know about M417’s more Northerly locations and about the autosomal similarities with samples from two Swedish cultures, I think a joining place North of the Carpathians is the more likely.


True, but we do have eight y-dna test results from GAC, none of them R1, and more than eight sets of results from GAC overall with no steppe dna. So GAC is not totally unknown to us.

Could there be some R1 in GAC? Maybe. Anything is possible, and Gimbutas herself did believe there were ruling steppe elites in GAC.
I2a2a1b GAC was not only from farmer stock, but was also present in the same Dnieper Steppe site in which R1 was found. As such, regardless of how Anatolian it looks, it’s not surprising that I2a2a1b had a Steppic culture; and unless they had DNA profiling & apartheid or absolute fidelity in Neolithic Ukraine, very probably had some R1 mixed in with it too.

[epp]

I think following the ancient DNA evidence makes it 99% certain that L11 entirely went west from the steppe by a route north of the Carpathians that avoided (by some combo of route taken and timing) the Cuc-Trip farmers. However there could be one interesting exception. The L51xL11 lineages are not especially old in terms MRCA (should be thought of as distant cousin lines to L11, not ancestral to L11) but their distribution is suggestive of a more southern route west. It's kind of suggests it's story is different from L11. However all we have is a MRCA date estimate which yfull sets c 3100BC around 300 years earliest than it places the L11 MRCA. Many think yfull dates are a few centuries too young. It all kind of suggests that one L51 line was an exception to the rule and took a path out of the steppes by a route south of the Carpathians perhaps with the Z2103 Yamnaya guys or even in a pre Yamnaya wave. It's distribution today is weird sort of Alpine centred. Then again it might mean nothing and it may just be a small lineage that accompanied U152 beaker people as they spread into the Alps. Italy and SE France and found a small niche operating in the passes between Italy, Austria and SE France. Personally I think the earliest beaker in southern France and the southern Alps was Iberian derived non R1b and that R1b beaker only arrived there in the late beaker period. If so that was c 1000ys after the L51xL11 MRCA. That seems unlikely as It would need a bunch of very distant cousins to somehow remain together for1000ys, then migrate together into one zone. On balance I thinking is more likely that they moved earlier
Yes, I’ve thought about the very same things myself, and agree entirely. It isn’t really plausible that all the lineages split up in the East, spread out in different directions over 1,500 years and then all ended up in roughly the same locations in the West. It is far more plausible for them to have moved together fairly early and stayed together for a relatively short time (probably in tandem with R1a pre-Corded Ware) before splitting up in the West.
There must have been lots of other L151 lineages that died out, possibly due to dominant R1a lineages in their admixture, possibly as a result of Yamnayan incursions into Germany. A coalescence of basal lineages immediately West of the Rhine looks to me like a refuge.

[Generalissimo]

But it was. Much of it was in Siberia, Karelia, Iran and even Sweden by the 6th millennium BC.

Where are you seeing populations roughly 50/50 EHG/CHG in these places at this time?

[rms2]

Yes, point taken, but not exactly - in “Three Waves of Kurgan Peoples” Gimbutas distinguishes “the Jamna people in the east from the Vucedol-Bell Beaker people in the south”.

Please quote her and cite the source. Of course, Yamnaya east was not Vucedol or Bell Beaker. I'm not sure how that helps the case you made that the ancestors of Bell Beaker were part of Wave II. It can't, because Gimbutas never said they were part of Wave II. Gimbutas derived Bell Beaker from Yamnaya, and Yamnaya comprised her Wave III.



Looks like there's one you haven't read!

Don't be silly. I merely said I do not recall Gimbutas ever saying GAC was part of Wave II. I don't believe she did. She mentioned Mikhailovka I and Maykop as connected with Wave II.



She discusses GA in the third chapter of section 2 “The Second Wave”. Not that she was definitely right - it was only her hypothesis.

Gimbutas wrote a number of books and papers. Which of them are you talking about? Please quote her and cite the source. Gimbutas connected Mikhailovka I and Maykop to Wave II, or at least she said Russian archaeologists do. She never said GAC spread from the steppe into Old Europe with Wave II, not that I recall anyway.

I think Gimbutas was generally pretty reliable, but it looks like she might have been wrong about GAC when she named it Indo-European, just as she was evidently wrong about Remedello.



Autosomal DNA (for what it’s worth) indicates that pre-BB L151 is likely to have mixed pretty thoroughly with pre-CW M417 and that BB & CW formed from two sections of largely the same gene pool. Given what we know about M417’s more Northerly locations and about the autosomal similarities with samples from two Swedish cultures, I think a joining place North of the Carpathians is the more likely.

One of the nice things about y-dna is that it doesn't mix. I think you mean that you think BB mixed with a pre-CW population, which really isn't possible, since the beginning of CW predates the beginning of BB (CW is older than Bell Beaker). CW and BB are autosomally similar because they both stem from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like steppe population.



I2a2a1b GAC was not only from farmer stock, but was also present in the same Dnieper Steppe site in which R1 was found.

No GAC remains have been found together with R1. At what Dnieper site were GAC remains found together with R1?

The I2a2a1b GAC remains, and indeed all the GAC remains thus far, were lacking steppe dna.



As such, regardless of how Anatolian it looks, it’s not surprising that I2a2a1b had a Steppic culture; and unless they had DNA profiling & apartheid or absolute fidelity in Neolithic Ukraine, very probably had some R1 mixed in with it too.

I2a2a1b is a y haplogroup. Y haplogroups don't have cultures. Men who belong to y haplogroups are members of various cultures. I2a2a1b has been found in Yamnaya with a lot of steppe dna (no doubt due to admixture) and in GAC without any steppe dna. There you have the same y haplogroup in two different cultures, one with plenty of steppe dna and one without any steppe dna. I2a2a1b has also been found in the Copper Age tell at Smyadovo in Bulgaria, in the Neolithic farmer Alföld linear pottery culture (ALPC), as well as in the Neolithic megalithic site of La Mina in Spain and in Neolithic Scotland.

Once again, y-dna does not mix. I think you mean women whose fathers were I2a2a1b sometimes married men who were R1 and had children by them, and men who were I2a2a1b sometimes married women whose fathers were R1 and had children by those women. Undoubtedly that's true, which explains the lack of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in GAC and the other Neolithic farmer cultures I named above and the presence of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in Yamnaya.

[epp]

Where are you seeing populations roughly 50/50 EHG/CHG in these places at this time?
I'm not seeing them, nor have I said I'm seeing them.
Where are you seeing Corded Ware or Bell Beaker populations with roughly 50/50 EHG/CHG?

[epp]

Originally Posted by epp:
in “Three Waves of Kurgan Peoples” Gimbutas distinguishes “the Jamna people in the east from the Vucedol-Bell Beaker people in the south”.

Please quote her and cite the source.
I’ve only just quoted her (see quotation marks) and cited the source (see quotation marks).


Don't be silly. I merely said I do not recall Gimbutas ever saying GAC was part of Wave II. I don't believe she did.
You are the silly one. Look it up.

Originally Posted by epp:
Autosomal DNA (for what it’s worth) indicates that pre-BB L151 is likely to have mixed pretty thoroughly with pre-CW M417

I think you mean that you think BB mixed with a pre-CW population, which really isn't possible, since the beginning of CW predates the beginning of BB (CW is older than Bell Beaker).
I clearly wrote pre-BB L151, and you have removed the “pre-“ to make it look like I said something that couldn’t be possible. When you have to resort to that kind of thing, it smacks of desperation, and I’m sorry to say it makes our whole Steppe case look weaker.


CW and BB are autosomally similar because they both stem from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like steppe population.
Yes, I'm agreeing - a Yamnaya-like steppe population.


I2a2a1b is a y haplogroup. Y haplogroups don't have cultures. Men who belong to y haplogroups are members of various cultures. I2a2a1b has been found in Yamnaya with a lot of steppe dna (no doubt due to admixture) and in GAC without any steppe dna. There you have the same y haplogroup in two different cultures, one with plenty of steppe dna and one without any steppe dna. I2a2a1b has also been found in the Copper Age tell at Smyadovo in Bulgaria, in the Neolithic farmer Alföld linear pottery culture (ALPC), as well as in the Neolithic megalithic site of La Mina in Spain and in Neolithic Scotland.

Once again, y-dna does not mix. I think you mean women whose fathers were I2a2a1b sometimes married men who were R1 and had children by them, and men who were I2a2a1b sometimes married women whose fathers were R1 and had children by those women. Undoubtedly that's true, which explains the lack of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in GAC and the other Neolithic farmer cultures I named above and the presence of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in Yamnaya.
This is all obvious, and merely illustrates what I was saying. I2a2a1b and R1 mixed. If some I2a2a1b was present with R1 by the Dnieper, there’s every likelihood that some R1 was present with I2a2a1b within GAC by the Dniester.

This is mostly a distraction. I already agree that R1b-M269 most likely had Steppe origins. The point I’m making is that I don’t think the core BB/CW population has enough Caucasus in it (and has Anatolian that is too-uniformly admixed) for it to be Maykop-derived Wave 2 or Central Steppe Wave 3. Instead, its uniform core looks more like an older mix of North Western Steppe with North East European farmer which has later been patchily-admixed with some people from related Steppe cultures coming in Waves 2 & 3.

I don’t see any reason to presume that all people in waves 1 and 2 must have disappeared without a trace when wave 3 arrived. Why wouldn’t their DNA have survived in Europe, most likely within R1 and I2a2a1b?

[Generalissimo]

I'm not seeing them, nor have I said I'm seeing them.
Where are you seeing Corded Ware or Bell Beaker populations with roughly 50/50 EHG/CHG?

In Mittnik et al. 2017 and Olalde et al. 2017, respectively.

Some early Corded Ware from the East Baltic look exactly like Yamnaya. And this is the first time that this type of genetic structure is seen outside of the steppe and east Balkans. You should know this by now.

[rms2]

Originally Posted by epp:
in “Three Waves of Kurgan Peoples” Gimbutas distinguishes “the Jamna people in the east from the Vucedol-Bell Beaker people in the south”.

I’ve only just quoted her (see quotation marks) and cited the source (see quotation marks) . . .

Okay. I have read that before. I see where you got it, too: online. It's customary when citing a source to give the page number, as well, but it doesn't matter in this case, because that quote does not support what you asserted about the ancestors of Bell Beaker coming with Gimbutas' Wave II.

Evidently she does link GAC to Wave II, but she's not clear whether she thought GAC came with Wave II or merely was a consequence of the influence of Wave II, i.e., a kurganized culture. She places it on the North European Plain c. 3400-3200 BC, but says the following on page 126 of the article you cited:



Final conclusions on the origin and ethnic components [of GAC] would be premature at this time due to the lack of quantitative research and physical anthropological data.




I clearly wrote pre-BB L151, and you have removed the “pre-“ to make it look like I said something that couldn’t be possible. When you have to resort to that kind of thing, it smacks of desperation, and I’m sorry to say it makes our whole Steppe case look weaker.

One need never feel desperation in dealing with your posts, epp, I assure you.

Okay, so you wrote that "pre-BB L151" mixed with "pre-CW M417". What was pre-BB and pre-CW? That's a matter of some controversy. Some people think pre-BB was Yamnaya, others think pre-BB was Corded Ware itself. Still others think BB originated in Portugal. If that's the case, "pre-BB" wasn't even R1. As for pre-CW, no one really knows what that was either. Both Mallory and Gimbutas spilled a lot of ink talking about the various arguments over the origins of Corded Ware. There are a number of competing views.

I've got to confess that saying pre-BB L151 "mixed" with pre-CW M417 sounds odd to me. I think I know what you mean, i.e., that women whose fathers were R1a-M417 married men who were R1b-L151 and had children by them, but it's not clear. It sounds like you could mean a predominantly R1a-M417 population just generally mixed with a predominantly R1b-L151 population, in which case one would expect both y haplogroups to show up in subsequent offspring. That's clearly not the case thus far in either BB or CW.



I don’t see any reason to presume that all people in waves 1 and 2 must have disappeared without a trace when wave 3 arrived. Why wouldn’t their DNA have survived in Europe, most likely within R1 and I2a2a1b?

No one said they disappeared. You claimed Gimbutas said the ancestors of Bell Beaker came with Wave II. That's what started this little side discussion. Clearly she did not say that.

She did link GAC to Wave II, as you said (and I had forgotten, which is why I asked you to cite a source). She did not claim GAC came out of the steppe with Wave II but merely that its culture was connected to Wave II. Gimbutas basically said no one really knows where GAC came from. Right now it looks like it adopted some kurgan burial rites and a herding economy from steppe peoples but was at its base a culture of semi-kurganized Neolithic farmers.

Back to Gimbutas' Wave II. I personally think it is in fact possible that L51 (rubric for it and everything under it) came with Wave II, but of course Gimbutas did not say the ancestors of Bell Beaker came with Wave II. She said BB was derived from Yamnaya, which was Wave III.

Many of the kurgans in the Carpathian basin are from Waves I and II. A big behemoth paper on the Indo-Europeans in Europe should include y-dna from them, as well as from the Pontic steppe and pre-Yamnaya cultures like Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba, whose burial rites were so similar to those of Bell Beaker.

[Pribislav]

The I2a2a1b GAC remains, and indeed all the GAC remains thus far, were lacking steppe dna.

I2a2a1b is a y haplogroup. Y haplogroups don't have cultures. Men who belong to y haplogroups are members of various cultures. I2a2a1b has been found in Yamnaya with a lot of steppe dna (no doubt due to admixture) and in GAC without any steppe dna. There you have the same y haplogroup in two different cultures, one with plenty of steppe dna and one without any steppe dna. I2a2a1b has also been found in the Copper Age tell at Smyadovo in Bulgaria, in the Neolithic farmer Alföld linear pottery culture (ALPC), as well as in the Neolithic megalithic site of La Mina in Spain and in Neolithic Scotland.

Once again, y-dna does not mix. I think you mean women whose fathers were I2a2a1b sometimes married men who were R1 and had children by them, and men who were I2a2a1b sometimes married women whose fathers were R1 and had children by those women. Undoubtedly that's true, which explains the lack of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in GAC and the other Neolithic farmer cultures I named above and the presence of steppe dna in the I2a2a1b men in Yamnaya.

I2a2a1b-CTS10057 is indeed found in both cultures, but all steppe/Bulgaria EBA-Yamnaya samples belonged to clade L701, while GAC samples belonged to sister clade Z161. We should look at them separately since they diverged 10600 yBP, and probably had very different history, so it shouldn't be a surprise one of them had steppe DNA and the other hadn't.

[Gravetto-Danubian]

"She did link GAC to Wave II, as you said (and I had forgotten, which is why I asked you to cite a source). She did not claim GAC came out of the steppe with Wave II but merely that its culture was connected to Wave II. Gimbutas basically said no one really knows where GAC came from. Right now it looks like it adopted some kurgan burial rites and a herding economy from steppe peoples but was at its base a culture of semi-kurganized Neolithic farmers. "

It's probably somewhat the other way round. Steppe folk adapted cattle pastoralism from these "farmers", and the kurgan ritual developed in the lower Danube as local elite display of those 'mesolithics' incorporated into the Balkan Chalcolithic exchange system

[Romilius]

Any news about Sion samples and the Amesbury archer?

[Gravetto-Danubian]

Any news about Sion samples and the Amesbury archer?

Not sure about that/ BB
But I've heard something should be out in 3 or so weeks

[epp]

Quote Originally Posted by epp
Where are you seeing Corded Ware or Bell Beaker populations with roughly 50/50 EHG/CHG?


In Mittnik et al. 2017 and Olalde et al. 2017, respectively.

Some early Corded Ware from the East Baltic look exactly like Yamnaya. And this is the first time that this type of genetic structure is seen outside of the steppe and east Balkans. You should know this by now.

No, I don’t know this by now. How remiss of me!

Sorry, I’m afraid I still can’t find where Corded Ware has 50/50 EHG/CHG, and would be interested to see it. Do you have a direct link to this data?

I have looked at 23 CW samples, of which the one with the highest Caucasus component had only 18% (the average was 8%).

Although I imagine the occasional CW individual would have a greater Caucasus component, but probably through admixture with Yamnayans whom we know moved into the area at around that time.

[epp]

I2a2a1b-CTS10057 is indeed found in both cultures, but all steppe/Bulgaria EBA-Yamnaya samples belonged to clade L701, while GAC samples belonged to sister clade Z161. We should look at them separately since they diverged 10600 yBP, and probably had very different history, so it shouldn't be a surprise one of them had steppe DNA and the other hadn't.
They both adopted steppic cultures in adjacent vicinities, so I doubt they were strangers to each other.

[epp]

No one said they disappeared.
If waves 1 & 2 didn't disappear, what do people think they became, and which y-DNA would they have had?
(For anyone who is adamant that CW-M417 and BB-L151 can only be Wave 3 Yamnayan, you presumably have evidence to show that waves 1 & 2 became something else?)


Many of the kurgans in the Carpathian basin are from Waves I and II. A big behemoth paper on the Indo-Europeans in Europe should include y-dna from them, as well as from the Pontic steppe and pre-Yamnaya cultures like Mikhailovka-Kemi Oba, whose burial rites were so similar to those of Bell Beaker.
I agree. It would be interesting - although they might be M269xL23, rather than L51.

My view from the evidence I’ve seen is that the ancestors of L151 BB came in both a wave 1 (from the Pontic into NW Ukraine/Poland) and a wave 2 (from there, together with M417 CW’s ancestors, into Northern Funnel Beaker).

If we looked at samples in the Neolithic South Baltic, I would be even more interested.

[epp]

In which of Gimbutas’ waves of Steppe people would the Steppe aDNA in (i) the Portuguese Middle Neolithic and (ii) the Northern Spanish Chalcolithic have arrived?

Would they have included yDNA-R1? (And if so, which type?)

The Steppe DNA admixture in Northern Spanish Chalcolithic (3,400 BC) looks recent (is highly variable between samples), whereas the Portuguese Middle Neolithic Steppe DNA looks older/more uniform, despite being dated earlier (3,750 BC).

Could some of this Steppe DNA even have arrived in Iberia in a pre-Wave 1 wave?

[rms2]

In which of Gimbutas’ waves of Steppe people would the Steppe aDNA in (i) the Portuguese Middle Neolithic and (ii) the Northern Spanish Chalcolithic have arrived?

Would they have included yDNA-R1? (And if so, which type?)

The Steppe DNA admixture in Northern Spanish Chalcolithic (3,400 BC) looks recent (is highly variable between samples), whereas the Portuguese Middle Neolithic Steppe DNA looks older/more uniform, despite being dated earlier (3,750 BC).

Could some of this Steppe DNA even have arrived in Iberia in a pre-Wave 1 wave?

What steppe dna in the Northern Spanish Chalcolithic (3,400 BC) and the Portuguese Middle Neolithic (3,750 BC)?

[Silesian]

R-Z2106*formed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpinfoRare snp match between Northern Ireland,Caucasus,Han
R1b-Z2103, Z2105 > Z2106 , Z8131*Marker Location: Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Lat, Lng: (54.7877159, -6.49231434) and Z2106 /GG536, Z8131 /Y12538>CTS1516,K2015-GS000018396-Tabas17 (Tabasarans, Dagestan_Makhachkala)

R-CTS347CTS347 * CTS9921Chechen and Chinese Han.
https://yfull.com/tree/R-Z2106/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/Bellbeaker_map_europe.jpg

[epp]

What steppe dna in the Northern Spanish Chalcolithic (3,400 BC) and the Portuguese Middle Neolithic (3,750 BC)?
It's relatively minor, mainly of the Siberian type, but also some containing a small Caucasus component - in El Portalon (Burgos) and Lugar Do Canto (near Lisbon).

[rms2]

It's relatively minor, mainly of the Siberian type, but also some containing a small Caucasus component - in El Portalon (Burgos) and Lugar Do Canto (near Lisbon).

Where did you get that information? Can you say which samples have this Siberian type of steppe dna? What is the Siberian type of steppe dna? EHG?

[epp]

Where did you get that information? Can you say which samples have this Siberian type of steppe dna? What is the Siberian type of steppe dna? EHG?
Genetiker’s databases. I think what I called the Siberian type might otherwise be referred to East European, although has its highest presence across Russia as a whole, including Yamnaya (probably mostly the same as EHG). All the Lugar do Canto samples have this component. Four of the seven El Portalon samples have it, especially ATP3 and ATP7 - the oldest of these (ATP3) also has a Caucasus component.
Given the early dates and locations of these samples, what might the Eastern DNA’s arrival date, route & y-DNA have been?

[rms2]

Genetiker’s databases. I think what I called the Siberian type might otherwise be referred to East European, although has its highest presence across Russia as a whole, including Yamnaya (probably mostly the same as EHG). All the Lugar do Canto samples have this component. Four of the seven El Portalon samples have it, especially ATP3 and ATP7 - the oldest of these (ATP3) also has a Caucasus component.
Given the early dates and locations of these samples, what might the Eastern DNA’s arrival date, route & y-DNA have been?

I think it's all probably really doubtful.

You haven't even named the specific samples.

[epp]

I think it's all probably really doubtful.

You haven't even named the specific samples.

Everything’s doubtful.

I did name two of the individuals - ATP3 and ATP7 (unless you’re expecting me to have found out their real names!). The other Northern Spanish samples with Steppe DNA are ATP2 and ATP20. The Portuguese samples with Steppe DNA are, I believe, LC41, LC42 and LC44 (all female).

You seem grudging about these samples, as if you’d rather they didn’t exist. Are you saying you think they are made up? To me, they look more credible than most, as no clear conclusion is attached to the data, suggesting they are less likely to be influenced by bias arising from an agenda. Surely they are an extra piece in the jigsaw that might help us understand how and when Steppe DNA and the components of Bell Beaker ended up in Western Europe?

For instance, these traces of Steppe DNA don’t seem to appear anywhere else in early Iberia or West/Central Europe - they seem restricted to sites close to the Atlantic fringe. How did this happen? What does it signify?

[rms2]

Everything’s doubtful.

Some sources are more doubtful than others.



I did name two of the individuals - ATP3 and ATP7 (unless you’re expecting me to have found out their real names!). The other Northern Spanish samples with Steppe DNA are ATP2 and ATP20. The Portuguese samples with Steppe DNA are, I believe, LC41, LC42 and LC44 (all female).

You seem grudging about these samples, as if you’d rather they didn’t exist. Are you saying you think they are made up? To me, they look more credible than most, as no clear conclusion is attached to the data, suggesting they are less likely to be influenced by bias arising from an agenda. Surely they are an extra piece in the jigsaw that might help us understand how and when Steppe DNA and the components of Bell Beaker ended up in Western Europe?

For instance, these traces of Steppe DNA don’t seem to appear anywhere else in early Iberia or West/Central Europe - they seem restricted to sites close to the Atlantic fringe. How did this happen? What does it signify?

You're getting this info from Genetiker's site, right?

Those samples have been around for awhile, and I never heard they had "steppe dna". I think I would have heard by now if they had, and such an astounding finding would have been discussed here.

You called it "Siberian type" of steppe dna. What is that?

[epp]

Some sources are more doubtful than others.



You're getting this info from Genetiker's site, right?

Those samples have been around for awhile, and I never heard they had "steppe dna". I think I would have heard by now if they had, and such an astounding finding would have been discussed here.

You called it "Siberian type" of steppe dna. What is that?
From Genetiker's site and the studies themselves.

I think I mentioned before that I saw it called "East European", but that its maximum presence is in samples from across Russia (including Yamnayan).

I'm not sure it's astounding - the samples are only 4th millennium BC, and the component is only small (typically 3-5%) - but I think it is significant. Especially as in the oldest Northern Spanish sample (ATP3, dated to around 3,400 BC), the Steppe component is substantially higher (21%), and looks intrusive.

[rms2]

From Genetiker's site and the studies themselves.

I think I mentioned before that I saw it called "East European", but that its maximum presence is in samples from across Russia (including Yamnayan).

I'm not sure it's astounding - the samples are only 4th millennium BC, and the component is only small (typically 3-5%) - but I think it is significant. Especially as in the oldest Northern Spanish sample (ATP3, dated to around 3,400 BC), the Steppe component is substantially higher (21%).

Can you provide quotes from those studies that say those samples had steppe dna or East European dna, since you say your sources include the studies themselves?

I don't usually read Genetiker's site. Some folks really like him, but he has made some pretty extravagant claims in the past that give me pause.

Interesting that in all of the Iberian samples from Olalde et al only a BB female from the Arroyal I site had any steppe dna.

[epp]

Can you provide quotes from those studies that say those samples had steppe dna or East European dna, since you say your sources include the studies themselves?

I don't usually read Genetiker's site. Some folks really like him, but he has made some pretty extravagant claims in the past that give me pause.

Interesting that in all of the Iberian samples from Olalde et al only a BB female from the Arroyal I site had any steppe dna.

I haven't read the whole of the studies, and just got the sample details from them. The data came from Genetiker's site, and was presented without interpretation.

Arroyal I is close in time and location to El Portalon, isn't it? I don't think there is a sign of steppe DNA anywhere else in pre-Bronze Age Spain - only in Portugal.

It looks like the Steppe DNA carriers arrived and then left shortly afterwards, as only the two oldest samples have it - it is completely missing from the samples dated immediately after 3,050 BC.

[rms2]

No, ATP3 at El Portalon predates Arroyal I by a thousand years or more.

[epp]

No, ATP3 at El Portalon predates Arroyal I by a thousand years or more.

Yes, I've just looked it up. The Arroyal sample with Steppe was Bell Beaker, but the site itself was inhabited going back to about the same time as El Portalon.

El Portalon is odd, as it shows Steppe DNA 3,400-3,100 BC, no or minimal Steppe DNA 3,050-2,700 BC, then the return of substantial Steppe DNA 1,700 BC.

I've also just seen that Genetiker identifies ATP3 by calls as R1b-M269.

[rms2]

Yes, I've just looked it up. The Arroyal sample with Steppe was Bell Beaker, but the site itself was inhabited going back to about the same time as El Portalon.

El Portalon is odd, as it shows Steppe DNA 3,400-3,100 BC, no or minimal Steppe DNA 3,050-2,700 BC, then the return of substantial Steppe DNA 1,700 BC.

I've also just seen that Genetiker identifies ATP3 by calls as R1b-M269.

There was a huge discussion of ATP3 back when that paper first came out. I have no desire to reopen it, but that sample's y-dna results were not of sufficient quality for the paper's authors to assign it a y haplogroup. It was positive for a number of y haplogroups, as I recall, including I2, which was found in other samples at that site that were of much better quality.

ATP3 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=212153&viewfull=1#post212153)

[epp]

There was a huge discussion of ATP3 back when that paper first came out. I have no desire to reopen it, but that sample's y-dna results were not of sufficient quality for the paper's authors to assign it a y haplogroup. It was positive for a number of y haplogroups, as I recall, including I2, which was found in other samples at that site that were of much better quality.

ATP3 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea&p=212153&viewfull=1#post212153)

I don't understand why anyone would identify ATP3 as possibly I2, which came up negative for IJ, negative for I, negative for I2, and negative for all I and J SNPs except one minor one (SK2198). On the other hand, ATP3 was positive for K, positive for R, positive for R1, positive for two R1b-P297 SNPs (Y97 and PF6401), positive for PF6418 (M269 equivalent) and positive for one subclade of L21.

Additionally, the much later sample at that site that was identified as I2 had 0% Steppe DNA, so it is hardly surprising that it didn't come up as positive for M269. The two samples look unrelated. On the other hand, the 21% Steppe DNA component in ATP3 would be wholly consistent with it being M269.

Perhaps someone else has a higher-quality explanation for where the Steppe component in ATP3 and ATP7 came from?

[rms2]

I don't understand why anyone would identify ATP3 as possibly I2, which came up negative for IJ, negative for I, negative for I2, and negative for all I and J SNPs except one minor one (SK2198). On the other hand, ATP3 was positive for K, positive for R, positive for R1, positive for two R1b-P297 SNPs (Y97 and PF6401), positive for PF6418 (M269 equivalent) and positive for one subclade of L21.

Additionally, the much later sample at that site that was identified as I2 had 0% Steppe DNA, so it is hardly surprising that it didn't come up as positive for M269. The two samples look unrelated. On the other hand, the 21% Steppe DNA component in ATP3 would be wholly consistent with it being M269.

Perhaps someone else has a higher-quality explanation for where the Steppe component in ATP3 and ATP7 came from?

Why don't you start a separate thread for all that old already-hashed-and-rehashed stuff? You're following Genetiker, so eventually you'll probably start arguing that "white people" were in ancient Chile and Peru. That's likely the highest quality explanation for the alleged "steppe dna" in 4th millennium Iberia.

PF6518 is an M269 equivalent found in a number of y haplogroups. ATP3 was a very low coverage sample and cannot be assigned a y hapogroup. As Rich Rocca mentioned, it is not even used in principle component analysis plots.

[epp]

Why don't you start a separate thread for all that old already-hashed-and-rehashed stuff? You're following Genetiker, so eventually you'll probably start arguing that "white people" were in ancient Chile and Peru. That's likely the highest quality explanation for the alleged "steppe dna" in 4th millennium Iberia.
This is confusing:
1. You're saying that the argument that white people were in ancient Chile and Peru is the highest quality explanation for steppe DNA in 4th millennium Spain? I don't see the relationship.
2. Are you inferring that the 21% East European component DNA that Genetiker found in ATP3 might not exist at all and that he might have completely made it up? If so, what basis do you have for coming to this conclusion, whilst being totally confident that what we read about the aDNA components of Yamnaya and Bell Beaker is completely true?


PF6518 is an M269 equivalent found in a number of y haplogroups. ATP3 was a very low coverage sample and cannot be assigned a y hapogroup. As Rich Rocca mentioned, it is not even used in principle component analysis plots.
Regardless of this, PF6518 is listed on yfull as an M269-equivalent SNP; and I have only just mentioned that ATP3 is also positive for K, for R, for R1, for two R1b-P297 SNPs (Y97 and PF6401) (wholly East European in origin) and for a subclade of M269.

I am still waiting to hear a better explanation for where the East European DNA in several 4th millennium BC Portuguese and North Spanish samples came from if not from R1b-M269 of Steppe origin.