Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b [Archive] - Page 19

rms2

10-01-2017, 10:01 PM

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.

That was sarcasm, epp. Your source for steppe dna in 4th millennium BC Iberia is the same source that claims there were "white people" in ancient Chile and Peru.

High quality.

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?

I don't generally read what Genetiker has to say. I don't believe his claims are comparable to those of scientific papers which are the source of what is known about Yamnaya and Bell Beaker.

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.

You are parroting what Genetiker says. As I recall when that paper first came out, ATP3 did have a positive result for I2, as well. I am not going back and digging around to find it, however.

PF6518 is found at the M269 level but is also found in other y haplogroups, and ATP3 was a low coverage sample. Its results are not reliable enough to assign a y haplogroup or to use as a basis for claims about its supposed steppe origin or steppe ancestry.

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.

Like I said, start a new thread on it. Maybe someone will take it up.

If there was really East European (formerly steppe) dna in those samples, I think it would have been a topic of discussion here already.

epp

10-02-2017, 10:34 PM

You are parroting what Genetiker says. As I recall when that paper first came out, ATP3 did have a positive result for I2, as well.
Now you are parroting what Genetiker says. But of course you only selectively parrot the one bit that is consistent with your case, whilst ignoring the many bits that are inconsistent with your case.

If there was really East European (formerly steppe) dna in those samples, I think it would have been a topic of discussion here already.
So have you concluded that there wasn't really any East European DNA in the samples, and that Genetiker simply invented that one of the samples had 21% East European DNA, another had 12%, most of the rest had 0%, and one later sample had 4%?

rms2

10-03-2017, 11:38 AM

Now you are parroting what Genetiker says. But of course you only selectively parrot the one bit that is consistent with your case, whilst ignoring the many bits that are inconsistent with your case.

That's ridiculous. In order to parrot Genetiker, first I would have to read what he has to say.

Unless of course you are saying that in accusing you of parroting Genetiker, I was somehow inadvertently parroting him. Has he accused you of parroting him? I did not know.

So have you concluded that there wasn't really any East European DNA in the samples, and that Genetiker simply invented that one of the samples had 21% East European DNA, another had 12%, most of the rest had 0%, and one later sample had 4%?

I'm saying you should start a new thread on the subject because that's not the topic of this one.

Even if all that is right, and even if ATP3 was somehow R1b-M269 (which I doubt), what happened afterwards? Where did all the M269 and steppe dna in Iberia go to? It seems to have just vanished.

Those were rhetorical questions, so please don't answer them. Start a new thread for all that and leave this one to be about "Bell Beakers, Gimbutas and R1b".

epp

10-03-2017, 09:14 PM

That's ridiculous. In order to parrot Genetiker, first I would have to read what he has to say.

Unless of course you are saying that in accusing you of parroting Genetiker, I was somehow inadvertently parroting him. Has he accused you of parroting him? I did not know.
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're on about.

I'm saying you should start a new thread on the subject because that's not the topic of this one.
It is very much the topic of this thread - the link between Gimbutas' hypothesised waves of Steppe people, R1b and Bell Beaker. It might not be the link you want to see, but if Steppe DNA were present in Iberia during the late to mid 4th millennium BC and if this DNA were of the same y-DNA group as subsequent Bell Beaker, then clearly it is relevant.

Even if all that is right, and even if ATP3 was somehow R1b-M269 (which I doubt), what happened afterwards? Where did all the M269 and steppe dna in Iberia go to? It seems to have just vanished.
That's what we're trying to find out on this thread. Yes, this wave of Steppe people might have died out, it might have moved somewhere else or it might have mutated. From its calls, there seems to be nothing to distinguish it as either M269xL23, L23xL51, L23xZ2103, L51xL151, one of the untested subclades of L151 or Z2103, or even as the basal subclade of L21 for which it had a positive call. As you say, its coverage wasn't that complete.
The slightly older Portuguese samples with traces of Steppe DNA were all female, although were found with a damaged male sample that was identified as haplogroup I.

Those were rhetorical questions, so please don't answer them.
Too late!

Arch

10-11-2017, 02:24 AM

I thought I would throw this in here. I have yet to read and digest the whole paper. https://indo-european.info/indo-european-demic-diffusion-model-2.pdf

epp

10-16-2017, 08:14 PM

Gimbutas claimed her wave 3 (c. 3,000 BC) to be “connected with the Jamna people”, and some wave 3 people in Hungary and others in the Volga region to be “relatives”.
This ties up with my own data regarding R1b-Z2109, which my estimates calculate to have had a MRCA around 3,500 BC, and (similarly to Gimbutas) to have had two main surviving branches centred on Austria and Russia.

My analysis suggests the branch centred around Austria to have been the older, more diverse and more successful one (whose progress Gimbutas tracks through the Balkans), and the Russian branch to have had a later MRCA (close to 3,000 BC) and to have shrivelled since.

As such, might any Z2109 wave 3 have flowed in both directions from the Black Sea, both Westwards up the Danube and Eastwards across the Steppe?

And might the arrival of the Western branch of Z2109 in Germany (c. 3,000 BC) have also been the catalyst that led to R1b-P312 Bell Beaker’s emergence - not by founding BB as such, but by alienating it from its more accommodating Corded Ware relatives and displacing it Westwards towards the Rhine?

R.Rocca

10-17-2017, 05:15 PM

Joe B

10-17-2017, 06:53 PM

epp

10-17-2017, 08:48 PM

If your analysis is suggesting that L23 branches were in Austria before 3000 BC, then its likely time to tweak your analysis. Directionaly, all of the ancient DNA from surrounding areas supports a post-2900 BC east to west movement of L23 (along with steppe ancestry) from the steppe into the Danube and/or Central Europe.
Wouldn't it be a bit of a simplistic generalisation to assert that nomadic Steppe people all resolutely stayed put in the Steppe during the 1,300 years or more since L23's formation, and then never moved in any direction but west thereafter? The twin ideas that no L23 individuals ever ventured into Central Europe over its first 1,300 years, nor ever tried moving eastwards - to me, these seem highly implausible.

From where in the Steppe? It's a very big place.

And how long after 2,900 BC?

epp

10-17-2017, 08:59 PM

Where are you getting this from? There's not enough, and probably never was enough R1b-Z2109+ individuals in or near Germany to be displacing any clade.
How do you know how many Z2109+ individuals were in or near Germany? And exactly how many individuals are you assuming would be required to bring about the displacement of a clade?
1. In many places today, a single immigrant family moving into an area can quite quickly end up displacing the indigenous population to an adjacent area.
2. If Bell Beaker is basically R1b-P312, the 'displacement of this clade' in 3,000 BC would merely represent the displacement of single individual, as P312 seems yet to have formed by that point in time.

epp

10-17-2017, 09:03 PM

Where are all the branches of R1b-Z2109 today that look to have coalesced on the Steppe? All I can find in FTDNA's database is one withered branch of CTS7822.

Silesian

10-17-2017, 09:57 PM

Where are all the branches of R1b-Z2109 today that look to have coalesced on the Steppe? All I can find in FTDNA's database is one withered branch of CTS7822.
Some R1b Yamnaya samples precede R1b- CTS-7822

For example Yamnaya Russia Luzhki I, Samara River, Samara [I0438 / SVP 50] M 3021-2635 BC 579,356 R1b1a2a2* [Z2103] Z2105+, L23+, L320+, L584-, CTS7822-
Here is a rough outline
R1b-Z2106>R1b-Z2108/2109>R1b-Z2110
Now you may want to know why this is important and how it relates in geography to other R1b samples.

epp

10-17-2017, 10:51 PM

Some R1b Yamnaya samples precede R1b- CTS-7822

For example Yamnaya Russia Luzhki I, Samara River, Samara [I0438 / SVP 50] M 3021-2635 BC 579,356 R1b1a2a2* [Z2103] Z2105+, L23+, L320+, L584-, CTS7822-
Here is a rough outline
R1b-Z2106>R1b-Z2108/2109>R1b-Z2110
Now you may want to know why this is important and how it relates in geography to other R1b samples.

Yes, this would be interesting.

Presumably, the sample doesn't actually precede CTS7822, which yfull estimates as originating in 3,700BC (although I estimate it is younger than this).

From these SNPs, I suppose this individual could be PF331 (now found in Arabia, England and Italy), Y4364 (now found in Italy and Armenia), Z2103* (not found?), Z2106xZ2109 (now found in Italy, Scotland, Armenia, Arabia, Russia and China) or Z2109xCTS7822 (now found in Russia, Greece, India, Iraq, Germany, Hungary, Sweden and Scotland).

I very much doubt he was a direct ancestor of one of the principal (European) branches of Z2109, which had probably split off from his branch several hundred years beforehand. I would say it is much more likely that he or one of his ancestors wandered eastwards over to Samara from the Pontic Steppe or the Western Caucasus some time after these European branches had formed.

Silesian

10-17-2017, 11:31 PM

Yes, this would be interesting.

Presumably, the sample doesn't actually precede CTS7822, which yfull estimates as originating in 3,700BC (although I estimate it is younger than this).

From these SNPs, I suppose this individual could be PF331 (now found in Arabia, England and Italy), Y4364 (now found in Italy and Armenia), Z2103* (not found?), Z2106xZ2109 (now found in Italy, Scotland, Armenia, Arabia, Russia and China) or Z2109xCTS7822 (now found in Russia, Greece, India, Iraq, Germany, Hungary, Sweden and Scotland).

I very much doubt he was a direct ancestor of one of the principal (European) branches of Z2109, which had probably split off from his branch several hundred years beforehand. I would say it is much more likely that he or one of his ancestors wandered eastwards over to Samara from the Pontic Steppe or the Western Caucasus some time after these European branches had formed.
Putting the question of basal R1b snps on the side for a minute.
I try and think in terms of a puzzle. Where can we find some of the oldest wagon burials? Where do European wine/grapes [pips]originate.How did the word for wine end up in Proto-Karvelian/Hittitite/Greek/Armenian- Proto-Indo-European? Or solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology. What about the frequency of the Rh negative gene? I have read that some put the d gene in Georgians at higher frequency than other Caucasian ethnic groups, and also higher than in most parts of the population of the Near East and Europe, e.g. in the Zugdidi district of Western Georgia it is more than 48% (NASIDZE et al. 1990, 612; Table 2; INASARIDZE et al. interesting for further investigation ) How about the match in segments that Eurogenes found between some samples and Yamnaya Kalmykia- Afanasievo-Rathlin-Irish ? How about the Baltic R1a samples Eurogenes was pointing out were very similar to Yamnaya R1b samples?
Finally what about Yersinia pestis. Could this fit in the puzzle with any of the above?:)

R.Rocca

10-17-2017, 11:55 PM

Wouldn't it be a bit of a simplistic generalisation to assert that nomadic Steppe people all resolutely stayed put in the Steppe during the 1,300 years or more since L23's formation, and then never moved in any direction but west thereafter? The twin ideas that no L23 individuals ever ventured into Central Europe over its first 1,300 years, nor ever tried moving eastwards - to me, these seem highly implausible.

From where in the Steppe? It's a very big place.

And how long after 2,900 BC?

Sure its simplistic, but its what the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly showing us to date.

epp

10-18-2017, 08:27 PM

Putting the question of basal R1b snps on the side for a minute.
I try and think in terms of a puzzle. Where can we find some of the oldest wagon burials? Where do European wine/grapes [pips]originate.How did the word for wine end up in Proto-Karvelian/Hittitite/Greek/Armenian- Proto-Indo-European? Or solving the problem of Iranian loanwords in Slavic, their distribution and relative chronology. What about the frequency of the Rh negative gene? I have read that some put the d gene in Georgians at higher frequency than other Caucasian ethnic groups, and also higher than in most parts of the population of the Near East and Europe, e.g. in the Zugdidi district of Western Georgia it is more than 48% (NASIDZE et al. 1990, 612; Table 2; INASARIDZE et al. interesting for further investigation ) How about the match in segments that Eurogenes found between some samples and Yamnaya Kalmykia- Afanasievo-Rathlin-Irish ? How about the Baltic R1a samples Eurogenes was pointing out were very similar to Yamnaya R1b samples?
Finally what about Yersinia pestis. Could this fit in the puzzle with any of the above?:)

I’m not sure if you’re hinting at something as if it’s a secret, or if it is indeed a puzzle to you.

Recent SNP and STR data added to FTDNA databases has redrawn the results of my analysis and now indicates a most likely SW Caucasus MRCA for R1b-M269. As things stand, North Eastern Turkey comes out as the coalescence point for both M269xL23 and Z2103. This estimate is still based on fairly limited data, and so is not at all assured.

My analysis only takes into account y-DNA with proven SNPs and STRs, and ignores cultural, linguistic, autosomal DNA and other miscellaneous noise that, while it can be insightful, can also be used selectively to pander to biases.

That said - you could be onto something! :)

epp

10-18-2017, 08:29 PM

Sure its simplistic, but its what the ancient DNA is overwhelmingly showing us to date.

I’m afraid I don’t buy it, and find the results of ancient DNA actually quite underwhelming.

Firstly, there’s still not much ancient DNA around, it’s generally analysed in the least interesting places, the testing of its SNPs is limited and patchy, there are massive holes where no ancient DNA has been published, and the release of its results appears closely guarded by a small number of academic cartels with vested interests.

Secondly, the results of ancient DNA analysis vary hugely depending on which measurement basis is spuriously selected.

Thirdly, some analyses do show Steppe DNA present in pre-3rd millennium BC Scandinavia and Northern Iberia.

Fourthly, the idea that a massive open space like the Steppe was somehow hermetically-sealed or fenced-off with no DNA at all getting in or out is grossly implausible.

Fifthly, the conclusion is wholly inconsistent with variance analysis of a huge mass of modern data.

Sixthly, we know that Suvorovo-Novodanilovka brought Steppe DNA and culture into at least North Eastern Europe, Central Europe and the Southern Balkans by the 5th millennium BC - I don’t find it convincing that every single descendant of every S-N person in every European S-N site was completely wiped out, leaving a wholesale absence of any Steppe DNA there.

Need I go on?

If Steppe DNA is defined as DNA that can only be found in the Steppe, then yes - by tautology, Steppe DNA is limited to the Steppe. If the Steppe is defined as running across half the world from Northern Italy to the Pacific coast, then yes - most Steppe DNA will be found somewhere on the Steppe. But this tells us very little about precisely where, when or how European R1b or the component parts of Bell Beaker arose.

epp

10-18-2017, 08:57 PM

To return to R1b-Z2109, my calibrations might be slightly out, but they estimate an East-West split at 2,943 BC in South Eastern Ukraine from an ancestor population c. 3,444 BC in the South Western Caucasus. This looks to me like Gimbutas' Maykop-derived wave 2 Yamna people moving in a wave 3 both westwards up the Danube into Central Europe (where it interacted with R1a-M417, R1b-L51 and EEF) and eastwards into Russia. It looks to me to have nothing to do with the wave 1 migrations of Steppe people into Europe, which occurred at least 1,000 years beforehand, and its early development bears little resemblance to that of either L51 or M417.

FTDNA's database allows identification of five early clusters of Z2109 - coalescing within Central Europe, Germany, NE France, W Balkans and Russia. Only one of these clusters appears to have derived from Eastern Yamna, which seems to have been mostly wiped out by R1a-Z93 from the North West. Western Yamna only appears to have thrived to some degree in combination with a limited range of Corded Ware and Bell Beaker populations, even if only as a marginalised feature of these populations.

Accordingly, I do not see Z2103 or the wave 3 Yamnayan immigrants as a major component within today's European populations. They could, however, have had a significant influence on the political or cultural landscapes within Europe.

Silesian

10-18-2017, 09:03 PM

I’m not sure if you’re hinting at something as if it’s a secret, or if it is indeed a puzzle to you.

Recent SNP and STR data added to FTDNA databases has redrawn the results of my analysis and now indicates a most likely SW Caucasus MRCA for R1b-M269. As things stand, North Eastern Turkey comes out as the coalescence point for both M269xL23 and Z2103. This estimate is still based on fairly limited data, and so is not at all assured.

My analysis only takes into account y-DNA with proven SNPs and STRs, and ignores cultural, linguistic, autosomal DNA and other miscellaneous noise that, while it can be insightful, can also be used selectively to pander to biases.

That said - you could be onto something! :)

Prof. Dr. Johannes Krause is reconstructing the phylogeny Yersinia pestis. Starting at 1:59 place names are given along with along with 1-7 mutations.:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OazVFNWL7I

R.Rocca

10-19-2017, 12:43 AM

I’m afraid I don’t buy it, and find the results of ancient DNA actually quite underwhelming.

Firstly, there’s still not much ancient DNA around, it’s generally analysed in the least interesting places, the testing of its SNPs is limited and patchy, there are massive holes where no ancient DNA has been published, and the release of its results appears closely guarded by a small number of academic cartels with vested interests.

Secondly, the results of ancient DNA analysis vary hugely depending on which measurement basis is spuriously selected.

Thirdly, some analyses do show Steppe DNA present in pre-3rd millennium BC Scandinavia and Northern Iberia.

Fourthly, the idea that a massive open space like the Steppe was somehow hermetically-sealed or fenced-off with no DNA at all getting in or out is grossly implausible.

Fifthly, the conclusion is wholly inconsistent with variance analysis of a huge mass of modern data.

Sixthly, we know that Suvorovo-Novodanilovka brought Steppe DNA and culture into at least North Eastern Europe, Central Europe and the Southern Balkans by the 5th millennium BC - I don’t find it convincing that every single descendant of every S-N person in every European S-N site was completely wiped out, leaving a wholesale absence of any Steppe DNA there.

Need I go on?

If Steppe DNA is defined as DNA that can only be found in the Steppe, then yes - by tautology, Steppe DNA is limited to the Steppe. If the Steppe is defined as running across half the world from Northern Italy to the Pacific coast, then yes - most Steppe DNA will be found somewhere on the Steppe. But this tells us very little about precisely where, when or how European R1b or the component parts of Bell Beaker arose.

I'm talking about steppe ancestry AND L23 together. Finding trace amounts of steppe ancestry or M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube doesn't excite anyone.

Isidro

10-19-2017, 01:15 AM

Well, it could be just a premature ejaculation speaking about steppe ancestry and L23... it doesn't rule out a possibility of multiple offspring but I think ladies knew better that that even then. :) R1b tree is way more complex than a nod like L23 in it.

I'm talking about steppe ancestry AND L23 together. Finding trace amounts of steppe ancestry or M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube doesn't excite anyone.

George Chandler

10-19-2017, 01:23 AM

R.Rocca

10-19-2017, 01:47 PM

Well, it could be just a premature ejaculation speaking about steppe ancestry and L23... it doesn't rule out a possibility of multiple offspring but I think ladies knew better that that even then. :) R1b tree is way more complex than a nod like L23 in it.

L23 was the one that created the major expansions that resulted into today's mass distribution, so treating it as an event equal to all other nodes on the tree is not useful.

Gravetto-Danubian

10-19-2017, 02:25 PM

I’m afraid I don’t buy it, and find the results of ancient DNA actually quite underwhelming.

Firstly, there’s still not much ancient DNA around, it’s generally analysed in the least interesting places, the testing of its SNPs is limited and patchy, there are massive holes where no ancient DNA has been published, and the release of its results appears closely guarded by a small number of academic cartels with vested interests.

Secondly, the results of ancient DNA analysis vary hugely depending on which measurement basis is spuriously selected.

Thirdly, some analyses do show Steppe DNA present in pre-3rd millennium BC Scandinavia and Northern Iberia.

Fourthly, the idea that a massive open space like the Steppe was somehow hermetically-sealed or fenced-off with no DNA at all getting in or out is grossly implausible.

Fifthly, the conclusion is wholly inconsistent with variance analysis of a huge mass of modern data.

Sixthly, we know that Suvorovo-Novodanilovka brought Steppe DNA and culture into at least North Eastern Europe, Central Europe and the Southern Balkans by the 5th millennium BC - I don’t find it convincing that every single descendant of every S-N person in every European S-N site was completely wiped out, leaving a wholesale absence of any Steppe DNA there.

Need I go on?

If Steppe DNA is defined as DNA that can only be found in the Steppe, then yes - by tautology, Steppe DNA is limited to the Steppe. If the Steppe is defined as running across half the world from Northern Italy to the Pacific coast, then yes - most Steppe DNA will be found somewhere on the Steppe. But this tells us very little about precisely where, when or how European R1b or the component parts of Bell Beaker arose.

You seem convinced by your own assumption that Suvorovo will be in fact R1b ...
(as in, it could be I2a2a1b - speculating)

epp

10-19-2017, 09:43 PM

I'm talking about steppe ancestry AND L23 together. Finding trace amounts of steppe ancestry or M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube doesn't excite anyone.
Are you implying that some L23 might not have had Steppe ancestry? Heresy! I fear this will upset some of the more excitable amongst us!

Every major SNP starts with just one person who leaves merely a trace of himself in his descendants.

epp

10-19-2017, 09:48 PM

L23 was the one that created the major expansions that resulted into today's mass distribution, so treating it as an event equal to all other nodes on the tree is not useful.
I'm not sure I agree. To only look at major lines in isolation is trying to make sense of the past by putting it in the context of its future. Each node was equally relevant at the time when it arose, and tiny nodes can often reveal important clues about the major ones. Indeed, much of ancient DNA looks like it comes from minor or even extinct nodes, but this doesn't mean to say it can't be very useful.

epp

10-19-2017, 09:51 PM

You seem convinced by your own assumption that Suvorovo will be in fact R1b ...
(as in, it could be I2a2a1b - speculating)

I’m not convinced by anything - just observing that Suvorovo was a Gimbutas Steppe culture wave that arose at the same time and in the same area that R1b-M269 is estimated to have done. Cultures are generally autosomal mixes to a greater or lesser degree - I think it is quite likely that Suvorovo (spread across a very wide area) incorporated a range of y-DNA (probably including I2a2a1b), just as was the case in individual Dnieper sites. If R1b-L51 were within it, my guess is that it would most likely be within the Upper Dniester branch.

epp

10-19-2017, 10:05 PM

I'm also interested in the fourth wave - the one that moved Southwards. Perhaps this is given scant consideration because there is no clear sign that the majority of the Z2103 lineages (i.e. the xZ2109 ones) were present in the Steppe at all, but instead spread from the South Western Caucasus into the Middle East.

Silesian

10-19-2017, 10:32 PM

Timeline-geographical distance between R1b-R1a known samples to fall in basal-/Yersinia pestis phylogeny.
5500 YBP
1)Rasshevatskij (5250-4350YBP) Rise 550 R1b-equivalent Z2103(Z8129_Y12537)3334 BC- 2635B.C Peshany V
2)Afansievo (4836-4625YBP)-R1b unknown. sample dates RISE509, RISE510, RISE511, Afanasievo, 2909-2468 BC
3)Corded Ware/Battle Axe, 2620–2470 calBCE Gyvakarai(4571-4422YBP)-R1a Gyvakarai1,
4) Bell Beaker, Augsburg 2800–1800 RISE560=I4132, Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a E09569, Bell Beaker, 2500-2200 BCE Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2b1
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#10/48.4511/11.3303
Yfull estimate
R-Z2103Z2103/CTS1078 * Y4371/Z8128/M12149 * S20902/Z8130+7 SNPsformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpinfo
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ossetian/about/background
Ossetian R1b
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22, DYS456=16, DYS413a=22
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22, DYS456=16, DYS413a=22, DYS439=11

Bell Beaker,Hungary 2500-2200 BCE Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a2-R1b-Z2103

This is what David W Anthony, leading IE expert, said on the contemporary classic "The Horse, the Wheel and Language":

Bell Beaker sites of Cespel around Budapest, west of the Yamnaya settlement region, are dated about 2800-2600 BCE. They could have been a bridge between Yamnaya on their east and Austria/Southern Germany to their west, through which Yamnaya dialects spread from Hungary into Austria and Bavaria, where they later developed into Proto-Celtic.
Beel Beaker decorated cup styles, domestic pot types, and grave and dagger types from the middle Danube were adopted about 2600 BCE in Moravia and Southern Germany. This material network could have been the bridge through which pre-Celtic dialects spread into Germany.

Romilius

10-20-2017, 09:48 AM

Gravetto-Danubian

10-20-2017, 09:53 AM

I’m not convinced by anything - just observing that Suvorovo was a Gimbutas Steppe culture wave that arose at the same time and in the same area that R1b-M269 is estimated to have done. Cultures are generally autosomal mixes to a greater or lesser degree - I think it is quite likely that Suvorovo (spread across a very wide area) incorporated a range of y-DNA (probably including I2a2a1b), just as was the case in individual Dnieper sites. If R1b-L51 were within it, my guess is that it would most likely be within the Upper Dniester branch.

Yes I agree, was just being cheeky
But the only problem is it's hard to follow the S-N wave moving west of Romania.
When the balkans socities (eg Varna et al) "collapsed" (or whatever happened), so too did Suvorovo phenomenon, and the steppe had to embark on a new path to 'kurganogenesis', if you get my drift.
Gimbutas traced some Middle Neolithic round barrows in Germany, but they're not deemed related to later steppe or cwc barrows. And Baalbeg (where such barrows can be found) seem MNE / no 'steppe' (although an R1* or two was found there).

R.Rocca

10-20-2017, 01:03 PM

Are you implying that some L23 might not have had Steppe ancestry? Heresy! I fear this will upset some of the more excitable amongst us!

Every major SNP starts with just one person who leaves merely a trace of himself in his descendants.

Re-read what I wrote, and you'll see very clearly that that is not at all what I'm implying... quite the opposite actually.

rms2

10-20-2017, 01:21 PM

Good thing. We've already seen what comes of upsetting "the more excitable amongst us" (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior&p=270145&viewfull=1#post270145). ;)

epp

10-20-2017, 09:45 PM

Re-read what I wrote, and you'll see very clearly that that is not at all what I'm implying... quite the opposite actually.

Originally posted by R.Rocca:
"I'm talking about steppe ancestry AND L23 together. Finding trace amounts of steppe ancestry or M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube doesn't excite anyone."

I’ve carefully re-read what you’ve said here, and it seems I’m still not seeing it clearly. This looks to me like you’re saying that trace amounts of steppe ancestry and M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube aren’t exciting, but would be if we found them together - i.e. we can find them, but only separate from each other. But OK, if you say so, this is not what you meant.

epp

10-20-2017, 09:53 PM

epp

10-20-2017, 09:55 PM

Timeline-geographical distance between R1b-R1a known samples to fall in basal-/Yersinia pestis phylogeny.
5500 YBP
1)Rasshevatskij (5250-4350YBP) Rise 550 R1b-equivalent Z2103(Z8129_Y12537)3334 BC- 2635B.C Peshany V
2)Afansievo (4836-4625YBP)-R1b unknown. sample dates RISE509, RISE510, RISE511, Afanasievo, 2909-2468 BC
3)Corded Ware/Battle Axe, 2620–2470 calBCE Gyvakarai(4571-4422YBP)-R1a Gyvakarai1,
4) Bell Beaker, Augsburg 2800–1800 RISE560=I4132, Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a E09569, Bell Beaker, 2500-2200 BCE Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a1a2b1
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#10/48.4511/11.3303
Yfull estimate
R-Z2103Z2103/CTS1078 * Y4371/Z8128/M12149 * S20902/Z8130+7 SNPsformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5700 ybpinfo
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/

https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ossetian/about/background
Ossetian R1b
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22, DYS456=16, DYS413a=22
R1b1a2a2c1 Z2105+, CTS9219+, Y5586+, and DYS389a=12, DYS520=22, DYS456=16, DYS413a=22, DYS439=11

Bell Beaker,Hungary 2500-2200 BCE Y-DNA: R1b1a1a2a2-R1b-Z2103
Yes, this shows the range of R1a/R1b. My issue with these samples (the Hungarian L2 and the Ossetian Y5586) is that they are both a long way downstream of basal L23, and their y-DNA could have moved all over the place before ending up in these locations.

epp

10-20-2017, 09:59 PM

Yes I agree, was just being cheeky
But the only problem is it's hard to follow the S-N wave moving west of Romania.
When the balkans socities (eg Varna et al) "collapsed" (or whatever happened), so too did Suvorovo phenomenon, and the steppe had to embark on a new path to 'kurganogenesis', if you get my drift.
Gimbutas traced some Middle Neolithic round barrows in Germany, but they're not deemed related to later steppe or cwc barrows. And Baalbeg (where such barrows can be found) seem MNE / no 'steppe' (although an R1* or two was found there).
I suppose the Romanian Suvorovo wave might have been the one that made a brief appearance in Northern Spain before fizzling out, could have lost out to majority locals or could have retraced its steps? It might even be the same lot that ventured up and down all the Pontic rivers.

My guess from the evidence I’ve seen is that some surviving Suvorovo was within a Globular Amphora move into Funnel Beaker, with R1 variants probably positioned more to the North of the I2a2a1b ones. Unfortunately, I can find no published pre-Bronze Age Danish or Dutch DNA to help establish who was in these places during the 4th millennium BC. The mix suggests that R1b-L51 was probably a minor element within this population until Yamnayan R1b-Z2103 joined the central parts of it in a third wave via the Danube and Southern Germany some time later.

Ancient DNA even ties up with modern DNA in estimating an L151 development point in Northern Europe (where ancient P312 and ancient U106 meet), and which is close to where autosomally-similar R1a-M417 also developed - quite unlike the developmental pattern of R1b-Z2103.

R.Rocca

10-20-2017, 10:06 PM

Originally posted by R.Rocca:
"I'm talking about steppe ancestry AND L23 together. Finding trace amounts of steppe ancestry or M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube doesn't excite anyone."

I’ve carefully re-read what you’ve said here, and it seems I’m still not seeing it clearly. This looks to me like you’re saying that trace amounts of steppe ancestry and M269 lineages pre-2,900 BC west of the Danube aren’t exciting, but would be if we found them together - i.e. we can find them, but only separate from each other. But OK, if you say so, this is not what you meant.

L23 is not the same as M269(xL23). So yes, there could be small amounts of steppe ancestry that moved pre-2900 BC into places like the Balkans and there may even have been pre-2900 BC movements of M269(xL23) into the Balkans. So, you claiming I intended the following.. "Are you implying that some L23 might not have had Steppe ancestry?"... is pure invention on your part.

rms2

10-20-2017, 10:06 PM

If you find my post here excitable, you must live in a very sterile environment.

Posts aren't excitable. They aren't sentient. But it's pretty obvious in this case the author is excitable. You still believe all that?

rms2

10-20-2017, 10:18 PM

. . .
My guess from the evidence I’ve seen is that some surviving Suvorovo was within a Globular Amphora move into Funnel Beaker, with R1 variants probably positioned more to the North of the I2a2a1b ones . . .

What evidence have you seen that tells you all that? Thus far, GAC and TRB have no steppe dna or R1, and we have no Suvorovo-Novodanilovka dna at all.

epp

10-20-2017, 10:32 PM

L23 is not the same as M269(xL23). So yes, there could be small amounts of steppe ancestry that moved pre-2900 BC into places like the Balkans and there may even have been pre-2900 BC movements of M269(xL23) into the Balkans. So, you claiming I intended the following.. "Are you implying that some L23 might not have had Steppe ancestry?"... is pure invention on your part.

How can a question be invention?

I accepted what you said, so I don't know why you're still arguing about it.

epp

10-20-2017, 10:38 PM

Posts aren't excitable. They aren't sentient. But it's pretty obvious in this case the author is excitable. You still believe all that?
I can't see any excitability on my part. In fact, I found my post so anodyne, I could hardly bring myself to read it all again. But each to his own.

rms2

10-20-2017, 10:42 PM

I can't see any excitability on my part. In fact, I found my post so anodyne, I could hardly bring myself to read it all again. But each to his own.

I doubt you would have bothered to whip yourself into the obvious frenzy that produced that post, were that the case. But you are right to want to distance yourself from such nonsense now.

Gravetto-Danubian

10-20-2017, 11:03 PM

I suppose the Romanian Suvorovo wave might have been the one that made a brief appearance in Northern Spain before fizzling out, could have lost out to majority locals or could have retraced its steps? It might even be the same lot that ventured up and down all the Pontic rivers.

My guess from the evidence I’ve seen is that some surviving Suvorovo was within a Globular Amphora move into Funnel Beaker, with R1 variants probably positioned more to the North of the I2a2a1b ones. Unfortunately, I can find no published pre-Bronze Age Danish or Dutch DNA to help establish who was in these places during the 4th millennium BC. The mix suggests that R1b-L51 was probably a minor element within this population until Yamnayan R1b-Z2103 joined the central parts of it in a third wave via the Danube and Southern Germany some time later.

Ancient DNA even ties up with modern DNA in estimating an L151 development point in Northern Europe (where ancient P312 and ancient U106 meet), and which is close to where autosomally-similar R1a-M417 also developed - quite unlike the developmental pattern of R1b-Z2103.

I don't think GAC seems to be linked to R1b. Its a type of I2a2, found in the 2 (distant) sites in central Poland & north Ukraine, and GAC as a whole is linked to Carpathian pre-Yamnaya semi-pastoral groups. And do note - GAC expanded to the steppe, not from it.

I have a feeling that R1b-P343 expanded from South Central Asia- NW Asia during the latter Palaeolithic.
L754 had made it to southern Europe, as we know.
The L389 line gave pre-M73 moving north to Baltic & Russia, and some such M73 and pre-M269 could have made it as far as central Europe, perhaps with those simialr cultures - Ertobelle, Swifterband, etc, which show pottery links to East Baltic.
To explain PF7562, M269 would need have been near the Black Sea or Caucasus until c. 4400 BC, representing a much later 2nd wave of R1b expansion..
And if L51 split from Z2013 c. 4000 BC, where looking still somewhere near the Black Sea. But then again, L51 looks to have expanded from/ within western Europe, & L151 NW Europe., perhaps because multiple pre-L51 and pre-L151 lines moved out west, and only few really 'thrived'.
So I don't think there'll be anything to radically different about the explanation for modern L151 than what already exists.

epp

10-20-2017, 11:08 PM

What evidence have you seen that tells you all that? Thus far, GAC and TRB have no steppe dna or R1, and we have no Suvorovo-Novodanilovka dna at all.
I'm sure we've already gone through all this.

Of course GAC has Steppe DNA, it comes from the Steppe.

"Thus far" isn't very far at all - we only have a few samples, the Northern ones of which have a significant proportion of Steppe DNA, as does a Neolithic Swedish neighbour.

We do have Suvorovo DNA (in Romania).

We also have autosomally-indistinguishable R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 in Northern Europe, with a very different autosomal profile to Steppe Yamnayan.

We also have SNP/STR coalescence points for both L51 and M417 in Northern Europe, totally unlike Z2103 (that coalesces in the Caucasus).

We also have ancient L151 DNA (P312 & U106) that coalesces in Northern Europe.

We also have a uniform pattern of Steppe and EEF DNA across the North European BB/CW spectrum (indicating thorough early admixture), quite unlike the patchy and highly variable Caucasus component that this spectrum would have inherited from a more recent and more partial Yamnayan integration into it.

epp

10-20-2017, 11:17 PM

I doubt you would have bothered to whip yourself into the obvious frenzy that produced that post, were that the case. But you are right to want to distance yourself from such nonsense now.
Me whipping myself into a frenzy about dull old DNA? It's really quite amusing the vibrant images that can pop up in excitable people's minds.

Generalissimo

10-20-2017, 11:22 PM

Of course GAC has Steppe DNA, it comes from the Steppe.

But GAC only has noise levels of steppe DNA and no R1a/R1b, even though it lived on the edge of the steppe. This is so tiny that it might just be statistical noise. And otherwise it's a typically Europe MN population.

Modern populations in GAC territory have around 50% of steppe DNA and a lot of R1a and R1b.

Doesn't this imply that there were large population movements after GAC from the steppe into Europe, bringing with them steppe admixture and R1a and R1b?

rms2

10-20-2017, 11:26 PM

Me whipping myself into a frenzy about dull old DNA? It's really quite amusing the vibrant images that can pop up in excitable people's minds.

You are the one who posted this (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior). It was amusing, that is true.

How about this part? Classic comedy.

Which superman haplogroup is the toughest - R1a or R1b? And which SNP mutation spoke Indo-European first? There's only one way for us to find out ... fight!

There's a "vibrant image" for the excitable!

rms2

10-20-2017, 11:29 PM

I'm sure we've already gone through all this.

Of course GAC has Steppe DNA, it comes from the Steppe.
. . .

It has no steppe dna.

We do have Suvorovo DNA (in Romania).
. . .

Really? Which samples are those?

epp

10-20-2017, 11:41 PM

I don't think GAC seems to be linked to R1b. Its a type of I2a2, found in the 2 (distant) sites in central Poland & north Ukraine, and GAC as a whole is linked to Carpathian pre-Yamnaya semi-pastoral groups. And do note - GAC expanded to the steppe, not from it.

I have a feeling that R1b-P343 expanded from South Central Asia- NW Asia during the latter Palaeolithic.
L754 had made it to southern Europe, as we know.
The L389 line gave pre-M73 moving north to Baltic & Russia, and some such M73 and pre-M269 could have made it as far as central Europe, perhaps with those simialr cultures - Ertobelle, Swifterband, etc, which show pottery links to East Baltic.
To explain PF7562, M269 would need have been near the Black Sea or Caucasus until c. 4400 BC, representing a much later 2nd wave of R1b expansion..
And if L51 split from Z2013 c. 4000 BC, where looking still somewhere near the Black Sea. But then again, L51 looks to have expanded from/ within western Europe, & L151 NW Europe., perhaps because multiple pre-L51 and pre-L151 lines moved out west, and only few really 'thrived'.
So I don't think there'll be anything to radically different about the explanation for modern L151 than what already exists.
I mostly agree.
Regarding GAC, it might well have been I2a2 at its core and origin, but R1a populations (with whom L51 people were strongly admixed) and Suvorovo were both in the vicinity and could have piggy-backed it, quite possibly having preceded it to the Baltic fringe (particularly R1a). And contractions and expansions of populations between areas and cultures can ebb and flow.
The only ancient and modern evidence that we have for all the L151xP312 clades is North European - I don't see any DNA signs that it developed out in the Steppe or in the Danube basin like Z2103 did.

rms2

10-20-2017, 11:43 PM

. . .
The only ancient and modern evidence that we have for all the L151xP312 clades is North European - I don't see any DNA signs that it developed out in the Steppe or in the Danube basin like Z2103 did.

How do you account for the steppe dna in Bell Beaker then? Females?

epp

10-21-2017, 12:02 AM

But GAC only has noise levels of steppe DNA and no R1a/R1b, even though it lived on the edge of the steppe. This is so tiny that it might just be statistical noise. And otherwise it's a typically Europe MN population.

Modern populations in GAC territory have around 50% of steppe DNA and a lot of R1a and R1b.

Doesn't this imply that there were large population movements after GAC from the steppe into Europe, bringing with them steppe admixture and R1a and R1b?
1. If it came from the Steppe, then it by definition had Steppe DNA. The Steppe is a big place, and cannot be defined purely by a few sites in Samara and the East.
2. We only have a few GAC samples from a couple of sites - certainly not enough to generalise from.
3. All noise comes from somewhere. All major SNPs began with a single person.
4. It might imply population movements into the area, but might equally imply populations movements out of the area, ethnic cleansing, the effects of disease or different levels of reproductive success.

My estimate from variances of autosomal mixes is that there were indeed significant levels of Steppe migration into certain parts of Europe after GAC - perhaps contributing to an average 20% of the BB/CW gene pool. However, it looks to me like L51 (fairly recent relatives of the post-GAC immigrants) and M417 were there at least a thousand years beforehand.

epp

10-21-2017, 12:08 AM

You are the one who posted this (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior). It was amusing, that is true.

How about this part? Classic comedy.

There's a "vibrant image" for the excitable!
I did flash a wry smile when I wrote this joke. That's probably as excitable as I get!
Others obviously got more excitable about the joke than me, as I was banned from the forum for 2 weeks for posting it.

rms2

10-21-2017, 12:10 AM

1. If it came from the Steppe, then it by definition had Steppe DNA. The Steppe is a big place, and cannot be defined purely by a few sites in Samara and the East . . .

Steppe dna in this context means resemblance to Yamnaya_Samara. GAC does not resemble Yamnaya_Samara at all but is more like Anatolia. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but GAC was like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers. Otherwise anything on the steppe is steppe dna, which is silly. Cucuteni-Tripolye got into the steppe, but it was the classic Old European, Neolithic Farmer stuff.

rms2

10-21-2017, 12:11 AM

I did flash a wry smile when I wrote this joke. That's probably as excitable as I get!
Others obviously got more excitable about the joke than me, as I was banned from the forum for 2 weeks for posting it.

Yeah, sure, you betcha.

epp

10-21-2017, 12:13 AM

It has no steppe dna.
It has Steppe DNA because it comes from the Steppe. It's like saying the Yamnayan samples don't have any Steppe DNA because they don't have the same DNA as the Steppe samples in GAC.

Really? Which samples are those? I'm sure Gravetto-Danubian mentioned them to you before - from Muresului.

epp

10-21-2017, 12:16 AM

How do you account for the steppe dna in Bell Beaker then? Females?
Males and females, presumably. From people who came out of the Steppe about a thousand years earlier.

epp

10-21-2017, 12:22 AM

Steppe dna in this context means resemblance to Yamnaya_Samara. GAC does not resemble Yamnaya_Samara at all but is more like Anatolia. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but GAC was like Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmers. Otherwise anything on the steppe is steppe dna, which is silly. Cucuteni-Tripolye got into the steppe, but it was the classic Old European, Neolithic Farmer stuff.
DNA from Yamnaya_Samara DNA is Yamnaya_Samara DNA. DNA from the Steppe is Steppe DNA. There is no such thing as pure Steppe DNA. All of it is admixture. Yamnaya_Samara has quite a bit of East Anatolian admixture. Bell Beaker has more of a combination of both West Anatolian and East Anatolian admixture.

epp

10-21-2017, 12:27 AM

Yeah, sure, you betcha.
Why would I make this up? It obviously upset someone, as I was told that "facetious content" was prohibited under the forum rules. I've been careful to limit my joke-telling ever since!

cornholio

10-21-2017, 12:32 AM

rms2

10-21-2017, 12:48 AM

DNA from Yamnaya_Samara DNA is Yamnaya_Samara DNA. DNA from the Steppe is Steppe DNA. There is no such thing as pure Steppe DNA. All of it is admixture. Yamnaya_Samara has quite a bit of East Anatolian admixture. Bell Beaker has more of a combination of both West Anatolian and East Anatolian admixture.

That is ridiculous. Anatolian farmer dna on the steppe is steppe dna?

Every Neolithic farmer, from Portugal to Ukraine, has steppe dna then?

Chad Rohlfsen

10-21-2017, 03:28 AM

Epp,

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. GAC is an eastern Funnel Beaker derived group. It is essentially any German MN sample with a couple percent of EHG. It is not from the steppes. You clearly have no understanding of DNA or anthropology.

Generalissimo

10-22-2017, 12:10 PM

1. If it came from the Steppe, then it by definition had Steppe DNA.

GAC didn't live on the steppe. And neither of the two sampled GAC sites are on the steppe.

2. We only have a few GAC samples from a couple of sites - certainly not enough to generalise from.

I'm not generalizing about all of GAC based on the currently available GAC samples, I'm simply saying what these currently available GAC samples are like, and at best they have 1% steppe admixture.

Your claim that they're of steppe origin is hopelessly wrong.

R.Rocca

10-22-2017, 01:38 PM

GAC didn't live on the steppe. And neither of the two sampled GAC sites are on the steppe.

I'm not generalizing about all of GAC based on the currently available GAC samples, I'm simply saying what these currently available GAC samples are like, and at best they have 1% steppe admixture.

Your claim that they're of steppe origin is hopelessly wrong.

There are those who aren't satisfied with the ancient DNA trend that overwhelmingly tells the tale of a relevant and meaningful invasion from the steppe circa 2900 BC. They will not be satisfied until ancient DNA from every hamlet in Europe becomes available, because lack of samples is all they can really cling onto.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 06:47 PM

Epp, I'm a professional scientist who has been browsing this forum for some time. I just want to say that it's refreshing to see someone on this forum who actually understands the complex dynamics of haplogroups. Nearly everyone on this forum consistently falls into the trap of believing the modern extant subclades were the dominant or only subclades of ancient times, and this belief often leads to erroneous conclusions, as in the case of this argument. This thread is rife with such deductions, but you manage to avoid this pitfall. Additionally, most posters fall into the trap of making confident statements based on very small sample sizes, as if a few ancient DNA samples could fully represent the movements of an entire population. Again, your arguments appear to avoid this trap.

Since you appear to be rather isolated here, I just want to provide some support in saying that you are, in my opinion, the most clear headed active member of this forum. Your arguments are consistently logical and unemotional, without any apparent agenda.

By contrast, many of your opponents strike me as tired old dogs defending their shrinking territory. And the repeating pattern seems to be that as they find themselves losing an argument, some of them attempt to divert attention from the argument itself by attacking your character or attempting to shut down the discussion.

I agree with your position that the model cannot be as simple as Steppe people migrating homogenously east to west so very late in the timeline. The modern subclades we see now in Western Europe are only those that happened to have dominated over the millennia, but we lack data points from all the extinct subclades that followed various other migration routes at various other times. I think this is the main reason for the apparent confusion and consternation in this forum over a migration of Beaker culture from EITHER the Steppe over land, east to west, or from Iberia, which many apparently view as contradictory. In all likelihood, BOTH migrations and expansions occurred, but with only the Steppe population leaving an obvious signal in modern extant Y haplogroups.

I'm surprised you haven't yet given up on trying to make your argument, as many of the other contributors seem rather intransigent in their doctrine.

That's because the Steppe hypothesis for the origin of R1b-M269 has become a dogma! It's good to see that R1a-M417 finally made it into the piece of the Puzzle that was missing from eNeolithic Ukraine; thereby showing the association of R1a with the Corded Ware culture and ultimately its origin in the Western Ukranian Steppe. Now; the presence of the partially R1b-M269 derived clade in Middle Neolithic Germany will not be spoken of by the Steppe dogmatist; but they will gladly mention the presence of R1b-L23(xZ2103;L51) in Yamnaya at a much later time as some sort of universal proof that it must have been the origin of R1b-M269 and transitively R1b-L51; because hey; there is a sea of R1b-Z2103 in there. However; none of them will use the close kinship between R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 to argue for an Iberian origin of R1b-L21; instead any reasonable person can see than neither one likely originated in Iberia nor in the UK; and most likely they came from Central Europe.

Per ancient DNA record the closest thing we have in time and space to the origin of R1b-M269 is the Germany Middle Neolithic sample which is much older than any of the Yamnaya samples and it has both ancestral and derived mutations leading to the R1b-M269 line. That's an undeniable fact from the studies published this year; yet watch rms2 and the likes try to call it an outlier and swipe it under the rug.

Outside of the German sample we have the Latvian HG samples as the most recent refuge for R1b-P297(xM269) line; anything south of that has yielded R1b-V88 lines. Samara HG is much much younger than the Latvian HG samples with R1b-P297(xM269) which date back to as old as 9000 ybp. So if anything this point to a movement from the West to the East of the lines leading to R1b-M73.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 06:55 PM

BTW: just to be proactive:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMlpkck9QVjIwLUE/view

German sample is Bla16 dated to 3958-3344 BC>Any Yamnaya sample which are dated between 3300-2700 BC.

Quote from the study:

This Blatterhole_MN individual was derived for six SNPs within the P clade (L781, L741, P226, P237, P239, M45), one SNP characteristic for haplogroup R (P227), one for R1 (P238), and the sole representing SNP for R1b (M343). Subclade R1b1 was defined by L278. R1b1a1a2 showed both derived and ancestral alleles of characteristic SNPs. Thus, he could only be assigned to haplogroup R1b1.

Source:Parallel ancient genomic transects reveal complex population history of early European farmers-Supplementary info (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/03/06/114488.DC1/114488-1.pdf)

I cannot wait for said study to be published so the data can be analyzed by citizen scientist and see the steppe dogmatics lose their mind.

PS: R1b1a1a2 is R1b-M269!

jeanL

10-22-2017, 06:58 PM

Here is the other fact:

Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4630 R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2) U5a2c 9222 7465-7078 calBCE Zvejnieki Latvia M

Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oeA1S2Dc-YFuwo9p1D1h4sstx_upPFkqRRdcLORnj-c/edit#gid=1261376483

Oldest R1b-P297 to date is in Latvian HG dated to 7465-7078 BC over 2000 years older than Samara HG.

At the same time Ukraine had zero R1b-P297; they had a single ancestral R1b way way before the P297 line. In fact; eNeolithic Ukraine is suspiciously lacking any R1b-P297 lines!

Ukraine Mesolithic

Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1733 .. U4b 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734 R1b1a U5b2 9202 7446-7058 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1737 .. U5a2 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1763 I2a1 U5b2 10074 8280-7967 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 R1a U5b2 10643 8825-8561 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M

Ukraine Neolithic

Ukraine_Eneolithic Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 R1a1a1(M417) H2a1a 6200 5000-3500 BCE Alexandria Ukraine M
Ukraine_Eneolithic_outlier Ukraine_Eneolithic I5883 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U4a 5966 4296-3735 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1738 I2a2a1b1b U5a2 7350 5473-5326 calBCE Vovnigi Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3712 IJ U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3713 I U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3714 I2a2a U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3715 I2a2a1b1 U2e1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3716 I2 U5b2a1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3717 I2a2a1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3718 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4111 .. U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4112 R U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4114 R1b1a U5a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5868 I U4d 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5870 I2a2 U4b1b1 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5872 I U5a2a 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5873 .. U4b 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5875 I2a2a1b U4a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5876 R1a U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5881 R1 U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5886 I U4a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5889 .. U5a2a 6998 5310-4785 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5890 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5891 R U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5892 R1b1a U4a1 7092 5301-4982 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5893 R1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5957 I T2 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M

So 0/29 are R1b1a1a/R1b-P297. Hey Chad I thought we were gonna find R1b-M269 in Ukraine. What happened?

If anything the Ukranian Neolithic profile makes it seem like the Iron Gates HG lines of R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) moved there during the Neolithic which is consistent with the increase of WHG seen in Ukraine Neolithic at the expense EHG.

Those are the facts; let see you Steppe dogmatist dispute them!

Gravetto-Danubian

10-22-2017, 07:21 PM

M269 could still be from Black Sea or Caucasus ; there's PF7562 to account for

MitchellSince1893

10-22-2017, 07:27 PM

IMO "Steppe dogmatists" are focused on where R1b1a1a2a L23, R1b1a1a2a1 L51, and R1b1a1a2a1a L151 originated as this is the ancestral line for the vast majority of R1b in Western and Central Europe e.g U106 and P312.

The location of R1b branches above L23 is tangential to their focus and it probably isn't controversial/relevant to them that it is found in non steppe areas.

But I don't want to put words in the steppe dogmatists' mouths. I'll let them speak for themselves

jdean

10-22-2017, 07:32 PM

IMO "Steppe dogmatists" are focused on where R1b1a1a2a L23, R1b1a1a2a1 L51, and R1b1a1a2a1a L151 originated as this is the ancestral line for the vast majority of R1b in Western and Central Europe e.g U106 and P312.

The location of R1b branches above L23 is tangential to their focus and it probably isn't controversial/relevant to them that it is found in non steppe areas.

But I don't want to to put words in the steppe dogmatists' mouths. I'll let them speak for themselves

Indeed, or should I say woof : )

rms2

10-22-2017, 08:06 PM

Oh, boy. Blätterhöhle again.

Blätterhöhle was not derived for M269 but was young enough to be full-blown M269 (BLA16 3958-3344 BC), at least based on YFull's tmrca for M269 which takes us back to about 4400 BC.

So, obviously Blätterhöhle was a dead end relative of M269 but not M269 himself.

Meanwhile, we've got R1b-L23 in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker with plenty of steppe dna, and far more upstream R1b in Dereivka than has been scraped up from all the Neolithic sites in western Europe combined.

MitchellSince1893

10-22-2017, 08:13 PM

rms2

10-22-2017, 08:22 PM

What is needed to divide the "steppe dogmatists" from those that simply follow the evidence found in ancient dna, is to find L23, L51, and/or L151 in non steppe West/Central Europe prior to 3000 BC in a non steppe culture. If this were to happen, those with an open mind will digest this new evidence and adjust their thinking accordingly. The true "Steppe dogmatist" would disregard it.

Until this happens, it's will be hard to tell the sheep from the wolves...the evidence followers vs the dogmatists.

However, just because someone doubts L23, L51, L151 will be found in Western Europe (non steppe Europe) before 3000 BC, doesn't mean he/she is a dogmatist. They may simply have formed this opinion based on the present evidence.

Isn't that in part what we should have gotten from Olalde et al but did not? The Neolithic stuff was non-R1b-M269, the non-Iberian Bell Beaker stuff was R1b-M269 and loaded with steppe dna. Very telling was the fact that of the several non-R1b, non-Iberian Bell Beaker men, only one had any significant steppe dna. Steppe dna was strongly correlated with R1b-M269, especially R1b-P312 (and U106, whether we regard the two Bronze Age U106s as Bell beaker or not).

One of the Bell Beaker guys was R1b-Z2103, in fact, and Z2103 is the brother of L51 under L23.

There were R1b-M269 guys on the steppe before the non-M269 Blätterhöhle man was born.

And why get excited about a P297 hunter-gatherer in Latvia, as if that was somehow a blow to "steppe dogmatism"?

Those of us who have seen a map of Europe know where Latvia is. The presence of P297 there doesn't do much for the "R1b is native to western Europe" dinosaurs.

epp

10-22-2017, 08:26 PM

GAC didn't live on the steppe.
According to a number of internet references, including Wikipedia, GAC did live on the Steppe.

And neither of the two sampled GAC sites are on the steppe.
I'm not generalizing about all of GAC based on the currently available GAC samples, I'm simply saying what these currently available GAC samples are like, and at best they have 1% steppe admixture.
Your claim that they're of steppe origin is hopelessly wrong.
I didn’t claim that any specific GAC samples were from the Steppe, so was not wrong.

epp

10-22-2017, 08:29 PM

There are those who aren't satisfied with the ancient DNA trend that overwhelmingly tells the tale of a relevant and meaningful invasion from the steppe circa 2900 BC.
Of course there was a relevant and meaningful invasion from the Steppe c. 2,900 BC - I have said so myself. If you want to argue, why not find someone who actually disagrees with you?

They will not be satisfied until ancient DNA from every hamlet in Europe becomes available, because lack of samples is all they can really cling onto.
When there are no ancient samples from entire countries and cultures, there is nothing at all for anyone to cling onto.

MitchellSince1893

10-22-2017, 08:37 PM

rms2

10-22-2017, 08:42 PM

Hypothetically, if L23, L51, and/or L151 turned up in say Iberia or France, showed little to no steppe ancestry, and was dated to ~3500 BC I would be shocked. But if it did I would be forced to reconsider my current belief. I doubt this will happen, but if it did something would have to change in my present thinking.

Agreed. There have been plenty of chances for that to happen, but thus far it has not. On the other hand, we have the fact that central and western Europe became both Indo-European speaking and largely R1b-L23 somehow and at the same time acquired a boatload of steppe dna. It would be beyond strange if all that was not connected.

This stuff is like sledgehammer-to-the-head obvious. Only those who really don't like it for whatever reason struggle against it.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 08:45 PM

Oh, boy. Blätterhöhle again.

Blätterhöhle was not derived for M269 but was young enough to be full-blown M269 (BLA16 3958-3344 BC), at least based on YFull's tmrca for M269 which takes us back to about 4400 BC.

You are very predictable aren't you. Yeah, Blätterhöhle again and forever, until the data gets release and you lose your mind over it. Remember when Villabruna at R1b1a was an outlier, a wonderer from Siberia, yeah, I remember, then came the Iron Gates HG flood showing a massive presence of R1b1a lines.

So, obviously Blätterhöhle was a dead end relative of M269 but not M269 himself.

He is still far older and closer to R1b-M269 than any remains excavated to date from the Steppes. That could change in the future, but 3958-3344 BC R1b-preM269 in Germany with 0% Steppe DNA beats a single 3300 BC-2700 BC R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) boy with a Yamnaya genetic profile.

Meanwhile, we've got R1b-L23 in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker with plenty of steppe dna, and far more upstream R1b in Dereivka than has been scraped up from all the Neolithic sites in western Europe combined.

You know where the is plenty of R1b-P312, in Iberia, and hey guess what? England has plenty of R1b-L21, must mean that all those English R1b-L21 came from Iberia. Oh wait, Iberian is R1b-P312 but most of it is R1b-DF27, a brother clade of R1b-L21. For the 1000th time, Yamnaya has only produce R1b-Z2103 with the exception of a single R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) and R1b-P297 and and I2. So if you are going to argue that R1b-Z2103 presence in Yamnaya implies that R1b-L51 was from there, then how the hell do we explain the massive presence of R1b-L21 in England and R1b-DF27 in Spain when neither one originated there. Obviously, there is an alternative where R1b-Z2103 migrated to Yamnaya and R1b-L51 migrated to Western Europe from a region that was neither in Western Europe nor Yamnaya. I know, it's hard to understand, but look at R1b-U152, R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 distributions and its likely place of origin.

BTW, the R1b in Dereivka is useless, since it is the R1b1a(xP297) variety, if anything, it's a huge blow to the Steppe hypothesis the fact that not a single R1b excavated from Neolithic Ukraine turned out to be R1b-P297, let alone R1b-M269, and there is plenty of R1b1a there according to Mathieson.et.al.2017, see here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=300052&viewfull=1#post300052

How do you, or Chad explain the absence of R1b-P297 derived lines in Neolithic and Mesolithic Ukraine when Mesolithic Latvia was flourishing in R1b-P297 lines, and yes I know very well where Latvia is, but it is not in the Steppe! Also the Latvians HG had mostly WHG ancestry with minor EHG, they had even less EHG than the Scandinavians Hunter Gatherers.

How do you or Chad explain the fact that the oldest R1b-P297(xM269) line is not from Ukraine, where we have samples dating to that time, it is also not from the Balkans, where we also have sample dating from that time, but it is from Latvia. The massive amount of R1b-P297 lines in Latvia trump the singleton R1b-M73 in Samara, and the Samara eNeolithic line was some R1b-M415 upstream line.

That means that according to the data that we have, the R1b-P297 lines were moving West to East, so it is very likely that the R1b-M269 line was North of Ukraine until one of its sub-braches move to the Eastern steppe in the form of R1b-Z2103 and some other cousin lineages. Yet, the bulk of the line leading to R1b-M269 stayed West of Russia, and North of Ukraine, hence the Bla16 sample with 0% Steppe DNA, or even EHG.

As for the Central European Beakers, and the correlation of R1b-P312 with Steppe DNA, well, Vucedol the hypothesized missing link yielded a single R1b-Z2103, no R1b-L51, so once again the R1b-L51 lines acquired their Steppe DNA from mixing with R1b-Z2103 Steppe heavy people in Central Europe, and females contributed a ton of Steppe DNA to Beaker people, since the Corded Ware people were importing women from the outside and exporting their women per the latest paper:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/female-mobility-and-exogamy-as-main.html

If most women were from outside, where are the Corded Ware women that were born there, obviously they were leaving town and mixing with the Beaker people, thereby contributing a big chunk of their DNA, because the paper that indicated the ratio of 17 migrating males to 1 female from the Steppe did not feature a single Beaker sample. So yeah, that's what's up!

jeanL

10-22-2017, 08:53 PM

Hypothetically, if L23, L51, and/or L151 (ancestral to U106 and P312) turned up in say Iberia or France, showed little to no steppe ancestry, and was dated to ~3500 BC I would be shocked. But if it did I would be forced to reconsider my current belief. I doubt this will happen, but if it did something would have to give. Until then I will continue to go with the steppe hypothosis.

You know that the Olalde paper showed 2 Iberian Beakers with R1b1, one of them:

BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Cer I0257 R1b1 H1ax 2571-2350 calBCE Spain M 107954

Was only tested for: R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R:L1347:22818334C->T; R: P224:17285993C->T

Therefore it can still be R1b1a1a2a, though it is far too late to be of significance, although it has no Steppe DNA.

The other was indeed tested for:

BB_Iberia BB_Spain_Cer I0261 R1b1a (xR1b1a1a2a) U5b1i 2850-2250 BCE Spain M 52264

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1f_9s-3Xd-AfRasuLGc_8s4IHpnLzBZwbvfxne2X09bQ/edit#gid=998207542

Remember the Portuguese Bronze Age genomes without any CHG admixture, they are R1b-P312, and sure they are from 1500 BC, they could have lost their CHG somehow, but how come Rathlin circa 1900 BC had their Steppe DNA quantified by their CHG admixture, so in 400 years the Portuguese R1b-P312 loses it CHG but not its EHG admixture.

rms2

10-22-2017, 08:56 PM

epp

10-22-2017, 09:07 PM

Blätterhöhle was not derived for M269 but was young enough to be full-blown M269 (BLA16 3958-3344 BC), at least based on YFull's tmrca for M269 which takes us back to about 4400 BC.

How did he escape from the Steppe before 2,900 BC? Surely impossible?!

Which M269-equivalent SNPs was he derived for? Was he actually found negative for M269 itself? And how much "Steppe DNA" did he have?

So, obviously Blätterhöhle was a dead end relative of M269 but not M269 himself.
And seems to share having a dead-end lineage with nearly all of the ancient Steppe samples.
However, unless we are sure he wandered over to North Western Germany from the Steppe entirely on his own, is it out of the question to wonder whether he might have brought some of his fully M269 relatives with him? (M269, L23 and L51 were almost certainly in existence when he was alive.)

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:08 PM

I believe Generalissimo determined that those Bronze Age Portuguese R1b-P312s did in fact have CHG.

Those two R1b non-steppe Bell Beakers were likely R1b-V88, like others found already in Iberia (e.g., Els Trocs).

No he didn't, the D-stats actually show that the Portuguese Bronze Age aren't any closer to CHG that Portuguese and Iberian Middle Neolithic genomes, while at the same time they are closer to EHG.

I triple dare you or Chad or Polako to show any proof that the Portuguese Bronze Age had excess allele sharing with CHG relative to their Neolithic predecessor! So go back to arguing the wash away argument!

Have at it:

Mbuti CHG : Portuguese LNCA Portuguese BA 0.0021 0.729
Mbuti CHG : Portuguese MN Portuguese BA 0.0013 0.43

Table-S5 from here: http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852#sec024

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:15 PM

You are very predictable aren't you. Yeah, Blätterhöhle again and forever, until the data gets release and you lose your mind over it. Remember when Villabruna at R1b1a was an outlier, a wonderer from Siberia, yeah, I remember, then came the Iron Gates HG flood showing a massive presence of R1b1a lines.

Iron Gates: largely R1b-V88.

Villabruna is at the head of the Adriatic, hardly western Europe, and not P297.

Blätterhöhle was young enough to be full-blown M269 but was not. M269's tmrca c. 4400 BC. Blätterhöhle (not even M269) c. 3958-3344.

Weak.

He is still far older and closer to R1b-M269 than any remains excavated to date from the Steppes. That could change in the future, but 3958-3344 BC R1b-preM269 in Germany with 0% Steppe DNA beats a single 3300 BC-2700 BC R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) boy with a Yamnaya genetic profile.

The fact remains (and you claim you deal only in facts) that Blätterhöhle was not M269 yet was young enough to have been full-blown M269. He was not. He was a relative, but on a dead end line, and in Germany, not all that far west.

You know where the is plenty of R1b-P312, in Iberia, and hey guess what? England has plenty of R1b-L21, must mean that all those English R1b-L21 came from Iberia. Oh wait, Iberian is R1b-P312 but most of it is R1b-DF27, a brother clade of R1b-L21. For the 1000th time, Yamnaya has only produce R1b-Z2103 with the exception of a single R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) and R1b-P297 and and I2. So if you are going to argue that R1b-Z2103 presence in Yamnaya implies that R1b-L51 was from there, then how the hell do we explain the massive presence of R1b-L21 in England and R1b-DF27 in Spain when neither one originated there. Obviously, there is an alternative where R1b-Z2103 migrated to Yamnaya and R1b-L51 migrated to Western Europe from a region that was neither in Western Europe nor Yamnaya. I know, it's hard to understand, but look at R1b-U152, R1b-DF27 and R1b-L21 distributions and its likely place of origin.

I know you can read and are pretty bright, so we both know that is drivel. Olalde et al showed that R1b-L21 and steppe dna arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker.

No doubt DF27 likely arrived in Iberia with Bell Beaker, too.

BTW, the R1b in Dereivka is useless, since it is the R1b1a(xP297) variety, if anything, it's a huge blow to the Steppe hypothesis the fact that not a single R1b excavated from Neolithic Ukraine turned out to be R1b-P297, let alone R1b-M269, and there is plenty of R1b1a there according to Mathieson.et.al.2017, see here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=300052&viewfull=1#post300052

Baloney. You know better.

How do you, or Chad explain the absence of R1b-P297 derived lines in Neolithic and Mesolithic Ukraine when Mesolithic Latvia was flourishing in R1b-P297 lines, and yes I know very well where Latvia is, but it is not in the Steppe! Also the Latvians HG had mostly WHG ancestry with minor EHG, they had even less EHG than the Scandinavians Hunter Gatherers.

Latvia is in NE Europe obviously. P297 there does your argument no good. Hunter gatherers ranged far and wide. The steppe is not far away. I lived in Russia and have actually been on the steppe.

How do you or Chad explain the fact that the oldest R1b-P297(xM269) line is not from Ukraine, where we have samples dating to that time, it is also not from the Balkans, where we also have sample dating from that time, but it is from Latvia. The massive amount of R1b-P297 lines in Latvia trump the singleton R1b-M73 in Samara, and the Samara eNeolithic line was some R1b-M415 upstream line.

Latvia is in NE Europe, not in western Europe. We have no samples from Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe or in the Carpathian basin.

That means that according to the data that we have, the R1b-P297 lines were moving West to East, so it is very likely that the R1b-M269 line was North of Ukraine until one of its sub-braches move to the Eastern steppe in the form of R1b-Z2103 and some other cousin lineages. Yet, the bulk of the line leading to R1b-M269 stayed West of Russia, and North of Ukraine, hence the Bla16 sample with 0% Steppe DNA, or even EHG.

Bla16 was not even M269, though he was recent enough to have been full-blown M269. He is a dead end from Germany, but I realize he is all you have to work with.

We don't have P297 moving from west to east. We have P297 in the east, in Latvia, and we have subclades downstream of P297 in Samara and Yamnaya in Russia.

As for the Central European Beakers, and the correlation of R1b-P312 with Steppe DNA, well, Vucedol the hypothesized missing link yielded a single R1b-Z2103, no R1b-L51, so once again the R1b-L51 lines acquired their Steppe DNA from mixing with R1b-Z2103 Steppe heavy people in Central Europe, and females contributed a ton of Steppe DNA to Beaker people, since the Corded Ware people were importing women from the outside and exporting their women per the latest paper:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/female-mobility-and-exogamy-as-main.html

If most women were from outside, where are the Corded Ware women that were born there, obviously they were leaving town and mixing with the Beaker people, thereby contributing a big chunk of their DNA, because the paper that indicated the ratio of 17 migrating males to 1 female from the Steppe did not feature a single Beaker sample. So yeah, that's what's up!

Ridiculous.

You are arguing once again that CW women contributed all the steppe dna in Bell Beaker, which is a mark of absolute desperation. Sorry to repeat myself, but here goes:

How exactly would women create the warlike, horse-riding, patriarchal, Indo-European kurgan culture that is Bell Beaker by marrying - what? - Neolithic farmers? (And farmers belonging almost exclusively to a y-haplogroup thus far not found among Neolithic farmers, R1b-L51.)

If those farmers formed that culture by learning from their R1a fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, how did they keep it so overwhelmingly R1b? Surely cultures in such close cooperation and collaboration would exchange daughters and sons, would they not? Does one-way exogamy, with the exclusive target being R1b males, make any sense?

Usually whichever sex is the local part of patrilocal or matrilocal has the culture that dominates, yet the idea that CW women imparted the steppe autosomal dna to Bell Beaker reverses that. It has women going to live with Neolithic farmer husbands and, instead of adopting their farmer ways, converting their husbands to the ways of their CW fathers and brothers.

That just does not make sense. At all.

The CW female-mediated steppe autosomal dna argument was originally advanced as a form of special pleading to at all costs exclude R1b-L51 from any claim on the steppe or on being Indo-European in its own right. It is a form of damage control. Too late to stop at least some R1b (Z2103) from being Indo-European, but by all means let's not let it go any further!

Yet Z2103, found over and over in eastern Yamnaya of the Caspian steppe, is the very brother of L51 under L23.

epp

10-22-2017, 09:16 PM

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:32 PM

Iron Gates: largely R1b-V88.

Villabruna is at the head of the Adriatic, hardly western Europe, and not P297.

Blätterhöhle was young enough to be full-blown M269 but was not. M269's tmrca c. 4400 BC. Blätterhöhle (not even M269) c. 3958-3344.

Weak.

The fact remains (and you claim you deal only in facts) that Blätterhöhle was not M269 yet was young enough to have been full-blown M269. He was not. He was a relative, but on a dead end line, and in Germany, not all that far west.

Ok, let's beat it with the Strawman! I have not claimed that R1b is from Western Europe, even as far back as 2012 I placed the origin of R1b-M269 in Ukraine!!! Now, how do you explain the presence of an obviously derived R1b-P297 with SNPs leading to M269 in Germany some 200-1200 years before it is found in the form of L23(xL51,Z2103) in a single Yamnaya remain.?

I know you can read and are pretty bright, so we both know that is drivel. Olalde et al showed that R1b-L21 and steppe dna arrived in Britain with Bell Beaker.

No doubt DF27 likely arrived in Iberia with Bell Beaker, too.

Yeah, that's still miles away from any implication of R1b-L51 coming from the Steppes.

Baloney. You know better.

No, it is not baloney, you and the other Dogmatist need to explain why is R1b-M269 or even R1b-P297 missing from the 29 excavated remains in Ukraine dated from as early as 9000 ybp to as late as 4500 ybp, when in Latvia it was choke-full of R1b-P297 lines dating from as early as 9000 ybp to as late as 5000 ybp. Explain that one!

Latvia is in NE Europe obviously. P297 there does your argument no good. Hunter gatherers ranged far and wide. The steppe is not far away. I lived in Russia and have actually been on the steppe.

Yet not a single R1b-P297 has been found South of Latvia in Ukraine in contemporary remains nor in the Balkans. I know that Latvia is in NE Europe, you know were it is not? The Steppes! You know what Mesolithic Latvians genome's looked like, 80%+ WHG, way more than the more Westernly Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers were and they (the SHG) had 0 R1b-P297 lines. Good for you about living in Russia, nothing to do with the argument nor does it add anything to it.

Latvia is in NE Europe, not in western Europe. We have no samples from Yamnaya on the Pontic steppe or in the Carpathian basin.

You have a Vucedol R1b-Z2103 sample, you have a Yamnaya sample from Bulgaria if I recall correctly, and more importantly you have 29 samples from the Western Steppe in Ukraine all lacking any R1b-P297 derived lines.

Bla16 was not even M269, though he was recent enough to have been full-blown M269. He is a dead end from Germany, but I realize he is all you have to work with.

Why are there 0 R1b-P297 in 29 remains from Ukraine with Y-DNA samples do date, you know, from the period that coincides with the TMRCA of R1b-M269 and R1b-L23? Answer that question!

We don't have P297 moving from west to east. We have P297 in the east, in Latvia, and we have subclades downstream of P297 in Samara and Yamnaya in Russia.

If it moved from Latvia(R1b-P297 circa 9000 ybp) to Samara R1b-pre_M73 circa 7000 ybp, then it moved from West to East? What's not clear about that?

Ridiculous.

You are arguing once again that CW women contributed all the steppe dna in Bell Beaker, which is a mark of absolute desperation. Sorry to repeat myself, but here goes:

How exactly would women create the warlike, horse-riding, patriarchal, Indo-European kurgan culture that is Bell Beaker by marrying - what? - Neolithic farmers? (And farmers belonging almost exclusively to a y-haplogroup thus far not found among Neolithic farmers, R1b-L51.)

If those farmers formed that culture by learning from their R1a fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, how did they keep it so overwhelmingly R1b? Surely cultures in such close cooperation and collaboration would exchange daughters and sons, would they not? Does one-way exogamy, with the exclusive target being R1b males, make any sense?

Usually whichever sex is the local part of patrilocal or matrilocal has the culture that dominates, yet the idea that CW women imparted the steppe autosomal dna to Bell Beaker reverses that. It has women going to live with Neolithic farmer husbands and, instead of adopting their farmer ways, converting their husbands to the ways of their CW fathers and brothers.

That just does not make sense. At all.

The CW female-mediated steppe autosomal dna argument was originally advanced as a form of special pleading to at all costs exclude R1b-L51 from any claim on the steppe or on being Indo-European in its own right. It is a form of damage control. Too late to stop at least some R1b (Z2103) from being Indo-European, but by all means let's not let it go any further!

Yet Z2103, found over and over in eastern Yamnaya of the Caspian steppe, is the very brother of L51 under L23.

Yeah, I don't give a horse's behind about all the patrilocal or matrilocal stuff, and whether it makes sense or not. Hard data shows that through Isotopes analysis females found in Corded Ware burials were not local, and the males were. If they were no local, they came from elsewhere, now, assuming that little girls were not killed, then the women born there must have gone somewhere, where could they have gone? ;) Yeah, special pleading alright! B)

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:33 PM

This is from Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 153, on the subject of foreign (e.g., Corded Ware) brides:

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

It isn't at all likely Bell Beaker men took CW wives and acquired their steppe dna that way.

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:39 PM

Ok, let's beat it with the Strawman! I have not claimed that R1b is from Western Europe, even as far back as 2012 I placed the origin of R1b-M269 in Ukraine!!! . . .

I remember back then you were hoping against hope that La Braña would be R1b of some kind.

Yeah, I don't give a horse's behind about all the patrilocal or matrilocal stuff, and whether it makes sense or not. Hard data shows that through Isotopes analysis females found in Corded Ware burials were not local, and the males were. If they were no local, they came from elsewhere, now, assuming that little girls were not killed, then the women born there must have gone somewhere, where could they have gone? ;) Yeah, special pleading alright! B)

I read the paper you referred to. It made no claim that Bell Beaker males took Corded Ware wives and acquired steppe dna that way. That was discussed not too long ago. You're letting the wish become father to the thought.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:39 PM

This is from Anthony's The Horse The Wheel And Language, page 153, on the subject of foreign (e.g., Corded Ware) brides:

It isn't at all likely Bell Beaker men took CW wives and acquired their steppe dna that way.

And this is from the latest Genetic evidence:

Complete mitochondrial genomes documented a diversification of maternal lineages over time. The isotope ratios disclosed the majority of the females to be nonlocal, while this is the case for only a few males and subadults. Most nonlocal females arrived in the study area as adults, but we do not detect their offspring among the sampled individuals.

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/38/10083

Sorry, but in my world genetic evidence trumps archeological postulates!

So, once again, if the women are being imported, can the local women not be exported? The men were not the mobile ones!

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:43 PM

Geez, jeanL. Where does that say Bell Beaker men took Corded Ware wives and acquired steppe dna from them?

It is likely they were acquiring Neolithic farmer wives and thus Neolithic farmer dna.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:47 PM

I remember back then you were hoping against hope that La Braña would be R1b of some kind.

How do you explain this then:

https://www.worldfamilies.net/forum/index.php?topic=10715.140;wap2

From 2012:

JeanL:
Quote from: rms2 on June 24, 2012, 07:26:40 AM

Whatever the answer is, I still don't think you have part of R-L23 holed up in the FC Ice Age Refuge during the LGM.

Neither do I, I noticed you keep bringing that up, and even assigning it to the hypothesis I’ve proposed, so I’m going to take this opportunity to once more, make one thing clear. I proposed that R1b in its M269 and likely L23 derived form was widespread in Europe prior to the Neolithic arrival, in fact I doesn’t even need to be widespread, it could have been sitting around the Northern portion of the Balkans or Western Romania. With the arrival of the Neolithic in the Balkans, that is 8000 ybp, not during the LGM, the R1b populations are separated, one takes refuge in the Steppes, the other one(The one that gives rise to all R1b-L150+ clades) is driven to the Western most parts of Europe by the agriculturists, they get holed up in Western Europe, but not during the LGM, but during the early Neolithic. I hope that makes it clearer.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:50 PM

BTW, I'll ask again: Why is R1b-M269 or even its ancestral form R1b-P297 missing from all these remains:

Ukraine Mesolithic

Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1733 .. U4b 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734 R1b1a U5b2 9202 7446-7058 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1737 .. U5a2 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1763 I2a1 U5b2 10074 8280-7967 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 R1a U5b2 10643 8825-8561 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M

Ukraine Neolithic

Ukraine_Eneolithic Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 R1a1a1(M417) H2a1a 6200 5000-3500 BCE Alexandria Ukraine M
Ukraine_Eneolithic_outlier Ukraine_Eneolithic I5883 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U4a 5966 4296-3735 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1738 I2a2a1b1b U5a2 7350 5473-5326 calBCE Vovnigi Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3712 IJ U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3713 I U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3714 I2a2a U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3715 I2a2a1b1 U2e1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3716 I2 U5b2a1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3717 I2a2a1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3718 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4111 .. U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4112 R U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4114 R1b1a U5a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5868 I U4d 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5870 I2a2 U4b1b1 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5872 I U5a2a 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5873 .. U4b 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5875 I2a2a1b U4a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5876 R1a U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5881 R1 U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5886 I U4a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5889 .. U5a2a 6998 5310-4785 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5890 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5891 R U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5892 R1b1a U4a1 7092 5301-4982 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5893 R1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5957 I T2 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M

So 0/29 are R1b1a1a/R1b-P297.

The TMRCA of R1b-M269 per YFull is 6800 ybp, why is it not in all that Steppe Y-DNA samples from Ukraine? How about R1b-P297? There is plenty of it in Latvia Hunter Gatherers, but 0 in Ukraine?

Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4432 R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2) U5a2c 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4434 R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2) U5a2d 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4437 .. U5a1d2 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4438 I2a1 U4b1a2 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4439 R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2) U5b1d1 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4440 I2a1 U4a1 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4441 I2a2a1b U5a1c 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4550 Q1a2 U5b2a1a 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4551 I2a2a1 U5a2c3 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4552 .. U5a1d 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4553 I2a2a1 U5a1c 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4595 .. U2e1 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4596 I2a2a1b U5a2d 7500 6000-5100 BCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4630 R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2) U5a2c 9222 7465-7078 calBCE Zvejnieki Latvia
Latvia_HG Latvia_HG I4632 .. U5a1c 8308 6467-6249 calBCE Zvejnieki Latvia

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:53 PM

rms2

10-22-2017, 09:57 PM

jeanL

10-22-2017, 09:59 PM

Yeah, I've noticed in the recent past that you have kept track of very old posts and have apparently been nursing a grudge for a long time. That's not healthy. I don't do that.

I'd have a hard time dredging up my own posts from over five years ago.

Phew! I must have really gotten under your skin!

Nope, but it's kind of sad that the data does speak for itself. When you have to resort to shaming and claiming getting under someone skin, then it says a lot about the nature of the argument. I'm pretty thick skinned, and it took me about 2 minutes to find the post, because it is the 3rd time that I have to post it in the last 2 years, since you seem to keep forgetting, and go up with the strawman of claiming that I place the origin of R1b in Western Europe, so it is always a good reminder that it is written that as far back as 2012 I placed the origin of R1b in Eastern Europe.

PS: I got a ton of stuff wrong in my 2012 hypothesis, sure R1b was indeed widespread, and Paleolithic in Europe, but R1b-M269 was not in the Balkans, Romania or Ukraine as far as data goes so far.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 10:02 PM

How is it that central and western Europe became R1b-L23, Indo-European speaking, and full of steppe dna, and R1b-L23 shows up in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, both of which cultures are credited with spreading Indo-European language and culture?

You're like the last man on the Basque ramparts, riddled with bullets but still holding the tattered flag aloft.

Why is Ukraine 0/29 R1b-M269 in the time frame where R1b-M269 was already live and kicking it. Why only lines ancestral to even R1b-P297. Why is Latvia choke-full of R1b-P297 2000 years before Samara? Why are they even more WHG than the SHG? You answer those questions first. I've already answered your questions above? R1b-Z2103 shows overwhelmingly in Yamnaya, its L23 status is transitive not original, except for the single R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) that is far too late to mean anything!

rms2

10-22-2017, 10:04 PM

Nope, but it's kind of sad that the data does speak for itself.

If the data spoke for themselves (the word data is plural), there would be no arguments and no Anthrogenica. The interpretation is the thing, and it is the thing you get wrong.

When you have to resort to shaming and claiming getting under someone skin, then it says a lot about the nature of the argument. I'm pretty thick skinned, and it took me about 2 minutes to find the post, because it is the 3rd time that I have to post it in the last 2 years, since you seem to keep forgetting, and go up with the strawman of claiming that I place the origin of R1b in Western Europe, so it is always a good reminder that it is written that as far back as 2012 I placed the origin of R1b in Eastern Europe.

I have seen you post old stuff from World Families before, so I know you have it saved on your computer. That is grudge holding of a very serious kind.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 10:08 PM

I have seen you post old stuff from World Families before, so I know you have it saved on your computer. That is grudge holding of a very serious kind.

Nobody is holding any grudge against you man! In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter to me if we came from Russia or Japan, what matter is finding the truth, but you keep pivoting and avoiding the questions! BTW, if you ever come to town(Northern Florida) I'd love to invite you and your wife to a round of Cuban food and Spanish wine!

PS: Trust me, I'm surrounded by Post-modernist college age kids, arguing with you on the internet is refreshing compared to the kind of shit that I see on a daily basis with the "my feelings" crowd, and "gender" and "race" are a social construct crowd.

rms2

10-22-2017, 10:08 PM

Why is Ukraine 0/29 R1b-M269 in the time frame where R1b-M269 was already live and kicking it. Why only lines ancestral to even R1b-P297. Why is Latvia choke-full of R1b-P297 2000 years before Samara? Why are they even more WHG than the SHG? You answer those questions first. I've already answered your questions above? R1b-Z2103 shows overwhelmingly in Yamnaya, its L23 status is transitive not original, except for the single R1b-L23(xL51,Z2103) that is far too late to mean anything!

We don't have much from Ukraine or from the Carpathian basin in the right time frame.

We do have, however, R1a in Corded Ware and R1b-L51 in Bell Beaker, both of which were likely derived from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-like population and both credited by well-regarded scholars with the spread of Indo-European languages and culture.

Meanwhile, L23 is conspicuously absent from the Neolithic farmer cultures of Old Europe and Britain.

rms2

10-22-2017, 10:11 PM

Nobody is holding any grudge against you man! In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter to me if we came from Russia or Japan, what matter is finding the truth, but you keep pivoting and avoiding the questions! BTW, if you ever come to town(Northern Florida) I'd love to invite you and your wife to a round of Cuban food and Spanish wine!

PS: Trust me, I'm surrounded by Post-modernist college age kids, arguing with you on the internet is refreshing compared to the kind of shit that I see on a daily basis with the "my feelings" crowd, and "gender" and "race" are a social construct crowd.

I might take you up on that. It would have to be in winter, because I have been to Florida in the summer, and it's too damned hot.

jeanL

10-22-2017, 10:14 PM

We don't have much from Ukraine or from the Carpathian basin in the right time frame.

We do have R1a-M417 from Ukraine as expected, yet from a timeframe going from as early as 9000 ybp to as late as 4500 ybp not a single R1b-P297 let alone R1b-M269.

Ukraine Mesolithic

Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1733 .. U4b 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1734 R1b1a U5b2 9202 7446-7058 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1737 .. U5a2 10200 9000-7500 BCE Vasil'evka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1763 I2a1 U5b2 10074 8280-7967 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Mesolithic Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 R1a U5b2 10643 8825-8561 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine M

Ukraine Neolithic

Ukraine_Eneolithic Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 R1a1a1(M417) H2a1a 6200 5000-3500 BCE Alexandria Ukraine M
Ukraine_Eneolithic_outlier Ukraine_Eneolithic I5883 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U4a 5966 4296-3735 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I1738 I2a2a1b1b U5a2 7350 5473-5326 calBCE Vovnigi Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3712 IJ U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3713 I U4b1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3714 I2a2a U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3715 I2a2a1b1 U2e1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3716 I2 U5b2a1a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3717 I2a2a1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I3718 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4111 .. U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4112 R U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I4114 R1b1a U5a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5868 I U4d 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5870 I2a2 U4b1b1 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5872 I U5a2a 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5873 .. U4b 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5875 I2a2a1b U4a1 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5876 R1a U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5881 R1 U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5886 I U4a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5889 .. U5a2a 6998 5310-4785 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine F
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5890 R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2) U5a1b 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5891 R U4d 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5892 R1b1a U4a1 7092 5301-4982 calBCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5893 R1b1 U5a2a 7100 5500-4800 BCE Dereivka Ukraine M
Ukraine_Neolithic Ukraine_Neolithic I5957 I T2 7200 6500-4000 BCE Volniensky, Vilnianka Ukraine M

Why? Why not a single R1b-M269, specially when just north of the Steppe we see a lot of R1b-P297 lines?

jeanL

10-22-2017, 10:17 PM

I might take you up on that. It would have to be in winter, because I have been to Florida in the summer, and it's too damned hot.

Funnily enough I was in Virginia(Hampton Roards area) this summer working, and I thought it was really hot until I returned to Florida(Jacksonville area), that it put things into perspective. We would get heat wave alerts when the heat index was above 100 in Virginia, here in Florida they don't even issue them because they'll have to issue them every day. :P

rms2

10-22-2017, 10:24 PM

Funnily enough I was in Virginia(Hampton Roards area) this summer working, and I thought it was really hot until I returned to Florida(Jacksonville area), that it put things into perspective. We would get heat wave alerts when the heat index was above 100 in Virginia, here in Florida they don't even issue them because they'll have to issue them every day. :P

I don't live that far south. Here the summer is not too bad. In fact, in late August, we had a week that did not get out of the 60s F (that was a trifle unusual though).

rms2

10-22-2017, 10:27 PM

. . .

Why? Why not a single R1b-M269, specially when just north of the Steppe we see a lot of R1b-P297 lines?

What if P297 did come down from the Baltic? I'm not saying it did, but it seems to me the question here is where L51 came from and whether or not it is Indo-European.

It seems to me L51 is clearly Indo-European in origin.

vettor

10-22-2017, 11:25 PM

Iron Gates: largely R1b-V88.

Villabruna is at the head of the Adriatic, hardly western Europe, and not P297.

.

Villabruna was found near Feltre Veneto Italy........low part of the alps

He most likely entered Italy as his "trekking" via the Sava river finished, ................Sava connect to the Danube

He could have avoid the Adriatic completely

In Celtic mythology, Adsullata was a river goddess of the Continental Celts associated with the River Savus (Sava) in Noricum
in the south-east of Carniola, in the south-west lived the Iapydes, an Illyrian tribe, and the Carni, a Venetic tribe.
Of course he was way before these times

epp

10-22-2017, 11:26 PM

What if P297 did come down from the Baltic? I'm not saying it did, but it seems to me the question here is where L51 came from and whether or not it is Indo-European.

It seems to me L51 is clearly Indo-European in origin.

No, the question is not what language was spoken - this is just one more distraction. It is about Gimbutas (waves of people from the Steppe), R1b (DNA) and Bell Beaker (culture).

A Swedish sample from 5,300 BC has 44% Steppe DNA. Its closest autosomal match (85% similarity) is a Latvian sample from 8,300 BC, with 55% Steppe DNA. R1a was present in NW Russia in 6,400 BC. R1b-P297 was present in Latvia in 5,700 BC.

How (if at all) might this be consistent with Gimbutas’ hypothesis of people moving out from the Steppe into Europe after 4,400 BC?

Here are some degrees of autosomal similarity of R1b & Bell Beaker populations to (i) the Swedish 5,300 BC sample above and (ii) Yamnayan Samara:
Match to Swedish Mesolithic / Match to Yamnayan Samara
Danish/Swedish Bell Beaker 2,100 BC -79% / 58%
Swedish Battle Axe (R1b-U106) 2,150 BC -71% / 70%
German Bell Beaker (R1b-P312) -68% / 50%
Czech Bell Beaker (R1b-P312) -65% / 65%
Irish Bronze Age (R1b-P312) - 69% / 59%

From where does this suggest that these North European R1b and Bell Beaker populations most likely acquired the majority of their DNA?

rms2

10-22-2017, 11:34 PM

Villabruna was found near Feltre Veneto Italy........low part of the alps

He most likely entered Italy as his "trekking" via the Sava river finished, ................Sava connect to the Danube

He could have avoid the Adriatic completely

Please try to understand. I did not say the waters of the Adriatic were lapping at Villabruna's feet, but Villabruna isn't far from the headwaters of the Adriatic. The point, obvious to most people, is that Villabruna is not exactly western.

Actually, es macht gar nichts, because Villabruna wasn't even P297, let alone M269 or L23.

MitchellSince1893

10-22-2017, 11:35 PM

I'm afraid you are missing the point by turning it into a dichotomy. There are several Steppe hypotheses, each with different suggested dates, origin points and migration patterns, and the actuality could be a combination of a number of them.

I afraid I can't keep up with your latest thoughts as they have changed over time.

Yes, I think Carpathians are more plausible immediate ancestors of L51 than Steppe or Corded Ware populations.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266597&viewfull=1#post266597

Administrator

10-22-2017, 11:42 PM

[ADMIN]

Thread temporarily closed to address the several pages of personalized OT. Actual discussion will be retained in the posts. Any edits will be indicated. Individual infractions and warnings will follow where appropriate.

We implore our regulars to not openly speculate about the identities of other members (be they newcomers or otherwise) as this breaks section 3.12 of our Terms of Service (ToS).

Please note that this is not an invitation to continue the above OT in other threads. Thank you all for your cooperation.

Thread re-opened.

rms2

10-22-2017, 11:58 PM

I afraid I can't keep up with your latest thoughts as they have changed over time.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266597&viewfull=1#post266597

Not too long ago, he had the mrca of L51 and L151 in NE France in 4800 BC here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=267584&viewfull=1#post267584).

The 'most likely estimates:
P312 - ancestor clades M269, L23, L51, L151 all c. 4,800 BC branching points Serbia, L51 & L151 4,800 BC MRCA NE France

cornholio

10-23-2017, 12:08 AM

There are those who aren't satisfied with the ancient DNA trend that overwhelmingly tells the tale of a relevant and meaningful invasion from the steppe circa 2900 BC. They will not be satisfied until ancient DNA from every hamlet in Europe becomes available, because lack of samples is all they can really cling onto.

I believe your comment captures the essence of the dispute. You argue that there was a "relevant and meaningful" influx from the Steppe circa 2900 BC. But the issue is that many in this thread, particularly those opposing Epp, have posed the argument as an either or scenario, explicitly excluding the possibility of Beaker culture mediation by other, earlier haplogroups following various other migration routes.

In all probability, there were a multitude of movements by various subclades in association with Beaker. The subclades that Epp's opponents fixate on are the subclades that just happened to dominate over time due to natural selection - genetic fitness and favorable conditions. These subclades are the ones that left the majority of data points in later centuries and modern times for us to discover. But other extinct subclades would have left a legacy of some elements of Beaker culture and a small amount of autosomal DNA, which would have spread from various locations of Beaker settlement. It only takes one initial migrant to introduce a culture, not a massive migration.

Epp can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Epp or anyone else here is arguing that there was not a major migration from the Steppes. A false dichotomy has taken root, and is now taken for granted, among the minds of the establishment.

Generalissimo

10-23-2017, 12:47 AM

A Swedish sample from 5,300 BC has 44% Steppe DNA. Its closest autosomal match (85% similarity) is a Latvian sample from 8,300 BC, with 55% Steppe DNA.

These samples don't have any ancestry from the Eneolithic/Bronze steppe. This should be obvious to anyone.

You're just being confused by the fact that they share deeper ancestry with Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe peoples.

What you need to realize is that the confusion in your mind cannot be used as an argument.

MitchellSince1893

10-23-2017, 01:43 AM

Epp can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Epp or anyone else here is arguing that there was not a major migration from the Steppes. A false dichotomy has taken root, and is now taken for granted, among the minds of the establishment.

Umm, I'm pretty sure jeanL is not a big fan of R1b from the steppes
you and the other Dogmatist need to explain why is R1b-M269 or even R1b-P297 missing from the 29 excavated remains in Ukraine dated from as early as 9000 ybp to as late as 4500 ybp, when in Latvia it was choke-full of R1b-P297 lines dating from as early as 9000 ybp to as late as 5000 ybp. Explain that one!

Yet not a single R1b-P297 has been found South of Latvia in Ukraine in contemporary remains nor in the Balkans. I know that Latvia is in NE Europe, you know were it is not? The Steppes! You know what Mesolithic Latvians genome's looked like, 80%+ WHG, way more than the more Westernly Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers were and they (the SHG) had 0 R1b-P297 lines.

Another member Isidro said
Truth is I am not a proponent of any particular theory or whatever you want to call it. It is also true that although a possibility, the Kurgan theory for R1b-M269-P312 I do not think it is a front runner (race is not over no matter how much you wish it with the cadre of your postings).

As rms2 and I have pointed out epp has recently posted that

The 'most likely estimates:
P312 - ancestor clades M269, L23, L51, L151 all c. 4,800 BC branching points Serbia, L51 & L151 4,800 BC MRCA NE France

I think Carpathians are more plausible immediate ancestors of L51 than Steppe or Corded Ware populations.

No false dichotomy has taken root. There are members on anthrogenica.com that aren't on board or recently haven't been on board with the steppe origin for R1b subclades predominant in Western Europe today e.g. P312 and U106's MRCA. There have been countless posts between the proponents and opponents of the steppe origin on anthrogenica.

I have no problem with those that don't believe in a steppe origin. I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their opinion.

epp

10-23-2017, 11:41 AM

I afraid I can't keep up with your latest thoughts as they have changed over time.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=266597&viewfull=1#post266597
Come on - keep up! It's a long while ago I was tentatively suggesting that opinion. I'm here to exchange ideas and learn things, refining my opinion over time as I acquire more information. The alternative of persisting with ramming an inaccurate fixed viewpoint down people's throats seems pretty pointless to me.

epp

10-23-2017, 11:53 AM

Not too long ago, he had the mrca of L51 and L151 in NE France in 4800 BC here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=267584&viewfull=1#post267584).
I've put rms2 right on this a few times before. There seems little point in putting him right on it again, but for the benefit of others on this thread - I didn't have anything. A statistical analysis of FTDNA's database yielded this automated estimate, and still yields the same estimate. My interpretation of it was that L51 arose (formed) in the vicinity of the Balkans/Steppe, but that the TMRCA indicates that it migrated to the Rhine region not too long afterwards.

rms2

10-23-2017, 12:00 PM

I've put rms2 right on this a few times before. There seems little point in putting him right on it again, but for the benefit of others on this thread - I didn't have anything. A statistical analysis of FTDNA's database yielded this automated estimate, and still yields the same estimate. My interpretation of it was that L51 arose (formed) in the vicinity of the Balkans/Steppe, but that the TMRCA indicates that it migrated to the Rhine region not too long afterwards.

You're backtracking and making excuses. You also said you thought R1b-L51 was in NE France no later than 3,000 BC.

Honestly, it is hard to tell what you think, because you are all over the place and show no signs that you know anything about prehistory, especially when it comes to the Indo-Europeanization of Europe.

Your magnum opus (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior) makes it appear that you have some sort of strange, confused, anti-R1b agenda.

epp

10-23-2017, 12:12 PM

I believe your comment captures the essence of the dispute. You argue that there was a "relevant and meaningful" influx from the Steppe circa 2900 BC. But the issue is that many in this thread, particularly those opposing Epp, have posed the argument as an either or scenario, explicitly excluding the possibility of Beaker culture mediation by other, earlier haplogroups following various other migration routes.

In all probability, there were a multitude of movements by various subclades in association with Beaker. The subclades that Epp's opponents fixate on are the subclades that just happened to dominate over time due to natural selection - genetic fitness and favorable conditions. These subclades are the ones that left the majority of data points in later centuries and modern times for us to discover. But other extinct subclades would have left a legacy of some elements of Beaker culture and a small amount of autosomal DNA, which would have spread from various locations of Beaker settlement. It only takes one initial migrant to introduce a culture, not a massive migration.

Epp can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Epp or anyone else here is arguing that there was not a major migration from the Steppes. A false dichotomy has taken root, and is now taken for granted, among the minds of the establishment.
Cornholio, it's good to see that you have not been put off from posting on this thread.
I agree with this summary. My only point of doubt is the extent to which Yamnayan Steppe immigrants dominated European DNA. I take their contribution to be merely one more component of it, rather than a domination.

epp

10-23-2017, 12:15 PM

These samples don't have any ancestry from the Eneolithic/Bronze steppe. This should be obvious to anyone.

You're just being confused by the fact that they share deeper ancestry with Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe peoples.

What you need to realize is that the confusion in your mind cannot be used as an argument.
Exactly. They share Steppe DNA. No confusion.

epp

10-23-2017, 12:23 PM

Umm, I'm pretty sure jeanL is not a big fan of R1b from the steppes

Another member Isidro said

As rms2 and I have pointed out epp has recently posted that

No false dichotomy has taken root. There are members on anthrogenica.com that aren't on board or recently haven't been on board with the steppe origin for R1b subclades predominant in Western Europe today e.g. P312 and U106's MRCA. There have been countless posts between the proponents and opponents of the steppe origin on anthrogenica.

I have no problem with those that don't believe in a steppe origin. I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their opinion.
You're conflating different questions. The origin points of L51 (yfull TMRCA 3,800 BC) and P312 (yfull TMRCA 2,500 BC), for instance, won't necessarily be the same.

epp

10-23-2017, 12:31 PM

You're backtracking and making excuses. You also said you thought R1b-L51 was in NE France no later than 3,000 BC.

Honestly, it is hard to tell what you think, because you are all over the place and show no signs that you know anything about prehistory, especially when it comes to the Indo-Europeanization of Europe.

Your magnum opus (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior) makes it appear that you have some sort of strange, confused, anti-R1b agenda.
It's known as moving with evidence, although I still believe that L51 was in the vicinity of NE France by 3,000 BC.
If I had an anti-R1b agenda, I would be self-harming.
I was just commenting on the weird pride that many seem to have in the belief that one of their several thousand ancestors went round slaughtering everyone else in Europe.

Jean M

10-23-2017, 12:54 PM

My only point of doubt is the extent to which Yamnayan Steppe immigrants dominated European DNA. I take their contribution to be merely one more component of it, rather than a domination.

As far as I know, no geneticist has so far claimed that the descendants of Yamnaya people dominate the European gene pool. I write with some trepidation here. :) I don't always keep up with the thinking on autosomal percentages of this and that 'component.' But here is the diagram from Lazaridis 2014:

19416

As you can see, of the three components of the European gene pool recognised at that time, ANE is far from being dominant in the current gene pool. EEF predominates. The importance of ANE is that it showed that there was a sgnificant input after the spread of farming. That ran counter to the orthodoxy to which most archaeologists subscribed. So it is scarcely suprising that it has required some strong and unflinching argument to make any dent in that orthodoxy. That could include pointing out the predominance of certain Y-DNA haplogroups in parts of Europe from the Bronze Age onwards. It is unnecessary, and indeed illogical on the evidence we have, to argue that Europe is now occupied exclusively by descendants of Yamnaya people, and I can't recall anyone here doing so.

Jean M

10-23-2017, 12:59 PM

I was just commenting on the weird pride that many seem to have in the belief that one of their several thousand ancestors went round slaughtering everyone else in Europe.

I don't read every post on this forum, but I don't recall any such thinking here. On the contrary, I recall a chorus of groans when Alistair Moffat hit the headlines claiming genocide in the British Isles. It was foolishly simplistic. We can certainly see a major population turnover there in the Copper-Bronze Ages, but the farming population had declined before then.

MitchellSince1893

10-23-2017, 01:09 PM

You're conflating different questions. The origin points of L51 (yfull TMRCA 3,800 BC) and P312 (yfull TMRCA 2,500 BC), for instance, won't necessarily be the same.

I'm not conflating two questions as you describe above. Just to clarify I didn't say P312. I said
P312 and U106's MRCA i.e. L151, P311...the branch directly below L51.

Jean M

10-23-2017, 01:21 PM

I was just commenting on the weird pride that many seem to have in the belief that one of their several thousand ancestors went round slaughtering everyone else in Europe.

Marija Gimbutas had a vision of the 'kurgan' people as patriarchal warriors swooping down on gentle, peaceful, matriarchal farmers. I suppose that seemed to her the most likely explanation for their success in spreading. Other authors took up the theme by laying stress on the role of the chariot in warfare, or (in the case of the Nazis), portraying the 'Aryans' as superior because they were conquerors (a dubious idea at the best of times.) That generated a lot of dislike for the Gimbutas theory and rejection on emotional grounds of the whole concept of the steppe IE homeland.

Nowadays we have plenty of evidence that the early farmers were not always peaceful, and that the Indo-Europeans were not always warlike. Their success in spreading seems related to a numbers of factors. Those archaeologists today who support the steppe IE homeland, such as David Anthony, have rejected those aspects of the Gimbutas vision which seem over-simplistic today. That has not stopped his more unscrupulous opponents from trying to tar Anthony with the 'steppe conquerors' brush. That is not science. It is demagoguery.

ADW_1981

10-23-2017, 02:32 PM

It's known as moving with evidence, although I still believe that L51 was in the vicinity of NE France by 3,000 BC.
If I had an anti-R1b agenda, I would be self-harming.
I was just commenting on the weird pride that many seem to have in the belief that one of their several thousand ancestors went round slaughtering everyone else in Europe.

It's not, but somewhat interesting that L51+ was successful from Austria westwards, where as HG lineages like I2-M26 and I2-M223 were not, despite the fact we know R1b existed among the northern hunter gatherers, be it WHG or EHG (irrespective of the original ancient population they represent, it was likely one of the two, but not both) Fast forward to post-neolithic and lineages like G2 should have been dominant in northern Europe, but they were not either. I1 happens to have been successful, but I suspect a few key descending lineages were heavily involved in the spread of Germanic languages and ancestry. Nonetheless, I do not think those lineages more important than the R1b ones in the same populations.

vettor

10-23-2017, 05:50 PM

Marija Gimbutas had a vision of the 'kurgan' people as patriarchal warriors swooping down on gentle, peaceful, matriarchal farmers. I suppose that seemed to her the most likely explanation for their success in spreading. Other authors took up the theme by laying stress on the role of the chariot in warfare, or (in the case of the Nazis), portraying the 'Aryans' as superior because they were conquerors (a dubious idea at the best of times.) That generated a lot of dislike for the Gimbutas theory and rejection on emotional grounds of the whole concept of the steppe IE homeland.

Nowadays we have plenty of evidence that the early farmers were not always peaceful, and that the Indo-Europeans were not always warlike. Their success in spreading seems related to a numbers of factors. Those archaeologists today who support the steppe IE homeland, such as David Anthony, have rejected those aspects of the Gimbutas vision which seem over-simplistic today. That has not stopped his more unscrupulous opponents from trying to tar Anthony with the 'steppe conquerors' brush. That is not science. It is demagoguery.

Agree...............but I see the issue of people ignoring the lusatian culture in her book , and this leads to issues we have

Gravetto-Danubian

10-23-2017, 06:02 PM

Jean M

10-23-2017, 07:15 PM

I think the critique, as you say, of Gimbutas often relates to her world view influencing the false dichotomy she constructed for Europe, and its mis-influence is pervasive in this thread. She (and also Anthony) probably got wave I wrong.
Other than that, I think she was close to the mark, at least as far as eastern - Northern Europe goes (but also Vicedol and Ezero)

Frankly I have not read enough of her work to pen a worthwhile critique, since I started with Mallory and moved on to Anthony. There is a long chain of earlier publications plumping for an IE steppe homeland, starting I think with the German Jewish philologist Theodor Benfey (1809-1881) and German philologist Otto Schrader (1855-1919). But I haven't made a study of the details in each case. Which may help to explain why I haven't been a regular on this thread.

epp

10-23-2017, 08:28 PM

I'm not conflating two questions as you describe above. Just to clarify I didn't say P312. I said i.e. L151, P311...the branch directly below L51.

It would still be two very different questions - yfull’s TMRCA for P312 and U106 together is 2800 BC at the earliest; and its formation date for L51 is 4,100 BC.

A lot of movement between places and cultures could have taken place in these 1,300+ years.

epp

10-23-2017, 08:33 PM

Marija Gimbutas had a vision of the 'kurgan' people as patriarchal warriors swooping down on gentle, peaceful, matriarchal farmers. I suppose that seemed to her the most likely explanation for their success in spreading. Other authors took up the theme by laying stress on the role of the chariot in warfare, or (in the case of the Nazis), portraying the 'Aryans' as superior because they were conquerors (a dubious idea at the best of times.) That generated a lot of dislike for the Gimbutas theory and rejection on emotional grounds of the whole concept of the steppe IE homeland.

Nowadays we have plenty of evidence that the early farmers were not always peaceful, and that the Indo-Europeans were not always warlike. Their success in spreading seems related to a numbers of factors. Those archaeologists today who support the steppe IE homeland, such as David Anthony, have rejected those aspects of the Gimbutas vision which seem over-simplistic today. That has not stopped his more unscrupulous opponents from trying to tar Anthony with the 'steppe conquerors' brush. That is not science. It is demagoguery.
Yes, I agree with you.
But I do detect a triumphalist, macho support for the Steppe hypothesis that I find both discomfiting and a spurious source of pride (after all, we all have some Steppe DNA in us). There’s an exhibition in UK at the moment that glamourises the “Scythian warriors” - if it had been the “Scythian farmers”, I doubt the exhibition would ever have been commissioned.

Gravetto-Danubian

10-23-2017, 08:37 PM

Yes, I agree with you.
But I do detect a triumphalist, macho support for the Steppe hypothesis that I find both discomfiting and a spurious source of pride (after all, we all have some Steppe DNA in us). There’s an exhibition in UK at the moment that glamourises the “Scythian warriors” - if it had been the “Scythian farmers”, I doubt the exhibition would ever have been commissioned.

True, but it probably just comes down to boys being boys, and that's mostly benign. One can't dampen down the individualism apparent in society. And warriors are cool.

epp

10-23-2017, 08:43 PM

Yesterday, I showed that a range of North European R1b/Bell Beaker populations had greater autosomal matches to a North European Mesolithic sample with Steppe DNA than to Yamnayan samples. This on its own demonstrates that Yamnayans might only have been a minority contributor to North European Steppe DNA. No one picked up on it.

I also asked which M269-equivalent SNPs the NW German 4th millennium BC Blatterhohle sample was positive for, whether it was actually shown to be negative for M269, and whether it was analysed autosomally. Does anyone know?

Megalophias

10-23-2017, 09:03 PM

Yesterday, I showed that a range of North European R1b/Bell Beaker populations had greater autosomal matches to a North European Mesolithic sample with Steppe DNA than to Yamnayan samples.

I haven't been following this thread and probably will regret getting involved, but what is this % autosomal similarity measure you are using?

epp

10-23-2017, 09:24 PM

I haven't been following this thread and probably will regret getting involved, but what is this % autosomal similarity measure you are using?
No one ever regrets getting involved with me - I make life so interesting. The measure is K13.
(Now everyone will probably say K13 must be ignored, and I should only have used K12 or K14!)

MitchellSince1893

10-23-2017, 10:49 PM

It would still be two very different questions - yfull’s TMRCA for P312 and U106 together is 2800 BC at the earliest; and its formation date for L51 is 4,100 BC.

A lot of movement between places and cultures could have taken place in these 1,300+ years.

Fair enough. So if I follow, L51 was on the Steppe ~3800 BC (yfull TMRCA date), and at some point before 2800 BC the ancestor of both U106 and P312 left the steppes and entered Central Europe. I think most folks on here wouldn't have any issue with this.

alan

10-23-2017, 11:54 PM

Fair enough. So if I follow, L51 was on the Steppe ~3800 BC (yfull TMRCA date), and at some point before 2800 BC the ancestor of both U106 and P312 left the steppes and entered Central Europe. I think most folks on here wouldn't have any issue with this.

I think he is trying to suggest L51 or its immediate ancestor left the steppes in wave 1. However there are clear arguements against that in ancient DNA. It also doesn't fit the IE branching model positions of languages linked to L51-basically L11 nor the TRB/GAC substrate in beaker and CW.

cornholio

10-24-2017, 12:50 AM

As rms2 and I have pointed out epp has recently posted that

No false dichotomy has taken root. There are members on anthrogenica.com that aren't on board or recently haven't been on board with the steppe origin for R1b subclades predominant in Western Europe today e.g. P312 and U106's MRCA. There have been countless posts between the proponents and opponents of the steppe origin on anthrogenica.

I have no problem with those that don't believe in a steppe origin. I don't agree with them, but they are entitled to their opinion.

I'm not really familiar with the other posters you mention. But I think some here have been thrown off by Epp's approach to scientific debate, which differs from the approach of most here. The typical approach in this forum seems to be to choose a side, and loyally argue to make that side win, with no change in position over time. Epp's approach is to throw out a myriad of ideas, and test each idea for consistency with the data, with feedback from the community. Epp's approach is the correct approach for productive scientific research, but it's not what internet forums are accustomed to. This approach is a little bit unusual for a scientist, in that most scientists do the idea experimentation in private, and then only publish after they've chosen the best idea. Epp is doing the idea experimentation in public, which is a little risky and makes one vulnerable to criticism. He may have presented various hypotheses for consideration at various times. But I don't see him taking a strong stand against a migration out of the Steppe.

When people say things such as "I don't what Epp is arguing", it suggests that they expect him to follow the typical approach of picking a side and trying to win, and don't know what to make of it when a poster breaks from this approach. Warriors who are accustomed to lining up on opposing sides and shooting at each other from trenches don't know what to do when a scientist comes along and sets up a laboratory in the middle of the battlefield. So they just do what they're accustomed to doing. They shoot at him.

Generalissimo

10-24-2017, 03:13 AM

But I think some here have been thrown off by Epp's approach to scientific debate, which differs from the approach of most here.

Epp doesn't have an approach. He's just out of his depth. He doesn't understand a lot of the issues and data, makes basic errors, and yet assumes that he has valid points to offer, and even that he sees things in the data that, remarkably, all of us have somehow missed.

That's why he gets treated harshly on this forum. You feel sorry for him, and that's why you're here. But you're not adding anything of value to the debate at hand.

If there's anything to be learned here, it's that there should be tough rules on this forum for confused newbs trying to engage in debate with nothing of substance to offer. End of story.

MitchellSince1893

10-24-2017, 03:25 AM

I'm not really familiar with the other posters you mention. But I think some here have been thrown off by Epp's approach to scientific debate, which differs from the approach of most here. The typical approach in this forum seems to be to choose a side, and loyally argue to make that side win, with no change in position over time. Epp's approach is to throw out a myriad of ideas, and test each idea for consistency with the data, with feedback from the community. Epp's approach is the correct approach for productive scientific research, but it's not what internet forums are accustomed to. This approach is a little bit unusual for a scientist, in that most scientists do the idea experimentation in private, and then only publish after they've chosen the best idea. Epp is doing the idea experimentation in public, which is a little risky and makes one vulnerable to criticism. He may have presented various hypotheses for consideration at various times. But I don't see him taking a strong stand against a migration out of the Steppe.

When people say things such as "I don't what Epp is arguing", it suggests that they expect him to follow the typical approach of picking a side and trying to win, and don't know what to make of it when a poster breaks from this approach. Warriors who are accustomed to lining up on opposing sides and shooting at each other from trenches don't know what to do when a scientist comes along and sets up a laboratory in the middle of the battlefield. So they just do what they're accustomed to doing. They shoot at him.

Just a thought: As "Epp's approach to scientific debate...differs from the approach of most here", he might be better served if he started a new thread for each of his ideas, clearly laying out that he would like the members to help him test a new hypothesis. Hopefully members participating in these threads will treat it as such and this may be avoid some of the drama and tangents when these ideas appear in existing threads. Members that are turned off by epp's approach can chose not to participate in his threads.

If members start getting personal and breaking other anthrogenica rules that prevent a mature discussion; then by all means report these members for attempting to derail epp's thread.

Jean M

10-24-2017, 04:25 AM

But I do detect a triumphalist, macho support for the Steppe hypothesis that I find both discomfiting and a spurious source of pride (after all, we all have some Steppe DNA in us).

By all means point out such bias if you actually encounter it, but generalising such attitudes to everyone who supports the steppe IE homeland is simply prejudice.

There’s an exhibition in UK at the moment that glamourises the “Scythian warriors” - if it had been the “Scythian farmers”, I doubt the exhibition would ever have been commissioned.

This is a perfect example of prejudice. :biggrin1: The Scythians were not the ancestors of the British. This nomadic people is being presented as a foreign culture. As for warrior vs farmer, I suspect that would indeed seem a false dichotomy in general to the keepers of the British Museum. The ancient Egyptians for example are well represented in the BM galleries. The wealth of ancient Egypt was based on irrigation agriculture, which supported (among other things) a standing army which engaged from time to time in campaigns of conquest. In general the BM tends to focus on the more peaceful aspects of life in ancient Egypt in its presentations, reflecting the objects and wall paintings that it happens to have.

I have never detected in the BM any urge to glamourize war, though it is certainly mentioned in connection with objects obviously related to warfare.

cornholio

10-24-2017, 04:52 AM

Just a thought: As "Epp's approach to scientific debate...differs from the approach of most here", he might be better served if he started a new thread for each of his ideas, clearly laying out that he would like the members to help him test a new hypothesis. Hopefully members participating in these threads will treat it as such and this may be avoid some of the drama and tangents when these ideas appear in existing threads. Members that are turned off by epp's approach can chose not to participate in his threads.

If members start getting personal and breaking other anthrogenica rules that prevent a mature discussion; then by all means report these members for attempting to derail epp's thread.

If the title of the thread was "Gimbutas' Theories: Agree or Disagree?", I would support your position. But the title of the thread is more general than this, leaving open the possibility for discussion of various hypotheses in relation to Gimubatas' theories and relevant data. I don't believe the policy of this forum is that the OP is the "owner" of any thread, or that the OP has the power to decide what topics are or aren't relevant to the discussion. Such a policy would effectively put the OP in the position of a king maker. Any dissenting view is likely to be interpreted as off-topic by all but the most dispassionate OP, and would be prevented from entering the discussion.

razyn

10-24-2017, 05:31 PM

But there is the fact that in this case, the OP is well informed. In stark contrast to a couple of "open debate" fans here who post often, but whose posts are "liked" seldom, and by very few. That is evidence of something, also. It may be sad, but one is to some extent known by the company one keeps, even on a forum.

R.Rocca

10-24-2017, 06:43 PM

Epp doesn't have an approach. He's just out of his depth. He doesn't understand a lot of the issues and data, makes basic errors, and yet assumes that he has valid points to offer, and even that he sees things in the data that, remarkably, all of us have somehow missed.

That's why he gets treated harshly on this forum. You feel sorry for him, and that's why you're here. But you're not adding anything of value to the debate at hand.

If there's anything to be learned here, it's that there should be tough rules on this forum for confused newbs trying to engage in debate with nothing of substance to offer. End of story.

Epp claims to have done a lot of his own "analysis" and has never posted any of it anywhere (that I know of). So it is curious that a self described scientist like Cornholio would admire Epp's scientific approach without being presented with Epp's data.

epp

10-24-2017, 08:33 PM

Sterile debates with rms2 are about the least interesting possible activity. :) K13 what from where?
My calculations from information on a database compiled by Genetiker using the Admixture program.

epp

10-24-2017, 08:39 PM

Fair enough. So if I follow, L51 was on the Steppe ~3800 BC (yfull TMRCA date), and at some point before 2800 BC the ancestor of both U106 and P312 left the steppes and entered Central Europe. I think most folks on here wouldn't have any issue with this.
I'm not stating any particular conclusions like this. But my reading of current evidence is that L51 most likely emerged from the Black Sea region (perhaps the Steppe, and probably a few hundred years before yfull estimates it did), and that a common ancestor of both P312 and U106 was most likely in the general vicinity of the Rhine (probably West of Central Europe) at some point before 2,800 BC (probably quite some time before 2,800 BC).

But I'm not really interested in what I or anyone else thinks - merely in what the data shows.

Chad Rohlfsen

10-24-2017, 08:40 PM

My calculations from information on a database compiled by Genetiker using the Admixture program.

Admixture isn't very reliable. You don't know what you're doing or what you're looking at. If you knew anything about analyzing DNA, you wouldn't have even said that.

epp

10-24-2017, 08:46 PM

I think he is trying to suggest L51 or its immediate ancestor left the steppes in wave 1. However there are clear arguements against that in ancient DNA. It also doesn't fit the IE branching model positions of languages linked to L51-basically L11 nor the TRB/GAC substrate in beaker and CW.
I don’t believe in discrete waves in which people either moved or didn’t move; this is simplistic for people who were moving constantly. But wave 1 fits the right time frame for L51’s break off from Z2103.
I haven’t seen any convincing arguments against this in ancient DNA. Firstly, “Steppe DNA” was present in ancient DNA outside of the Steppe well before 4,000 BC. Secondly, L51 looks like a pretty minor lineage at least until 3,000 BC, and also looks Northern European - there’s no reason why its DNA should show up strikingly anywhere during the 4th millennium BC, especially in Central Europe where I doubt it had a significant presence. Thirdly, ancient DNA from interesting regions like Denmark and Holland is, as far as I have seen, non-existent for the period in question.

epp

10-24-2017, 08:49 PM

Epp doesn't have an approach. He's just out of his depth. He doesn't understand a lot of the issues and data, makes basic errors, and yet assumes that he has valid points to offer, and even that he sees things in the data that, remarkably, all of us have somehow missed.

That's why he gets treated harshly on this forum. You feel sorry for him, and that's why you're here. But you're not adding anything of value to the debate at hand.

If there's anything to be learned here, it's that there should be tough rules on this forum for confused newbs trying to engage in debate with nothing of substance to offer. End of story.
Yes, be tough on heretics who question things and don’t stick to the script! Shut them up, or better still ostracise them to their own thread! End of!

epp

10-24-2017, 08:49 PM

By all means point out such bias if you actually encounter it, but generalising such attitudes to everyone who supports the steppe IE homeland is simply prejudice.

This is a perfect example of prejudice. :biggrin1: The Scythians were not the ancestors of the British. This nomadic people is being presented as a foreign culture. As for warrior vs farmer, I suspect that would indeed seem a false dichotomy in general to the keepers of the British Museum. The ancient Egyptians for example are well represented in the BM galleries. The wealth of ancient Egypt was based on irrigation agriculture, which supported (among other things) a standing army which engaged from time to time in campaigns of conquest. In general the BM tends to focus on the more peaceful aspects of life in ancient Egypt in its presentations, reflecting the objects and wall paintings that it happens to have.

I have never detected in the BM any urge to glamourize war, though it is certainly mentioned in connection with objects obviously related to warfare.
I haven’t generalised anything. I said I detected triumphalism, not that everyone exhibited it. No prejudice whatsoever. And no criticism intended of the British Museum, which needs to enthuse potential visitors, some of whom are seduced by the glamour attached to violence (in my view).

epp

10-24-2017, 08:51 PM

Epp claims to have done a lot of his own "analysis" and has never posted any of it anywhere (that I know of). So it is curious that a self described scientist like Cornholio would admire Epp's scientific approach without being presented with Epp's data.
The data is fully available on FTDNA databases. Anyone can replicate it easily, but probably won’t want to, because it yields results that might be uncomfortable to them.
If I were to post my full calculations on this thread, it would take up pages and pages. Surely this is a completely inappropriate forum for it!

epp

10-24-2017, 09:01 PM

Admixture isn't very reliable. You don't know what you're doing or what you're looking at. If you knew anything about analyzing DNA, you wouldn't have even said that.
Rather than being negative about Admixture's reliability, it would be more useful if you were to present some evidence about these samples that is more reliable.
Until then, the evidence from Admixture is the best we have.

epp

10-24-2017, 09:06 PM

Dewsloth

10-24-2017, 09:06 PM

The data is fully available on FTDNA databases.

Okay.

Anyone can replicate it easily, but probably won’t want to, because it yields results that might be uncomfortable to them.

Well that's a bit cryptic and vague. But...

If I were to post my full calculations on this thread, it would take up pages and pages. Surely this is a completely inappropriate forum for it!

Why don't you do exactly that, but in a new thread? That way it is exactly the appropriate forum, and you could head off any allegations of "The Epperor's New Clothes."

epp

10-24-2017, 09:33 PM

Okay.

Well that's a bit cryptic and vague. But...

Why don't you do exactly that, but in a new thread? That way it is exactly the appropriate forum, and you could head off any allegations of "The Epperor's New Clothes."
I've already explained my methodology regarding variance analysis by precise y-DNA SNP on another thread - but it is not what I'm posting about on this thread.
Others have brought up ancient DNA, autosomal DNA, cultures and Gimbutas, so I am merely following their approaches and seeing where it leads. I'm finding it doesn't necessarily lead where they think it leads. Hence, disgruntlement and abuse follows.

epp

10-24-2017, 09:38 PM

Cornholio RIP:angel:

Megalophias

10-24-2017, 09:41 PM

So no one knows anything more about the Blatterhohle sample with M269 equivalents? Do we know what these equivalent SNPs were? Was M269 itself tested on it? Did it have Steppe DNA? Or do people just prefer to ignore it as inconvenient?
Has the paper even been published yet? Have the genomes been released?

From the preprint we know that Bla16 can be modelled as 60% Neolithic farmer - 40% HG and falls on the cline between WHG and EEF on PCA. So no evidence of "steppe" components, though we would need a more specific analysis to be sure I think. We do not know what specific SNPs he had + or -.

epp

10-24-2017, 09:56 PM

Has the paper even been published yet? Have the genomes been released?

From the preprint we know that Bla16 can be modelled as 60% Neolithic farmer - 40% HG and falls on the cline between WHG and EEF on PCA. So no evidence of "steppe" components, though we would need a more specific analysis to be sure I think. We do not know what specific SNPs he had + or -.
OK, so we don't know for now - he might even have been fully M269?
And a lack of Steppe components would either be puzzling, striking (for M269-related ancient DNA) or indicative of a shortfall in autosomal DNA as a means of identifying very much about y-DNA.

Jean M

10-24-2017, 10:24 PM

And no criticism intended of the British Museum, which needs to enthuse potential visitors, some of whom are seduced by the glamour attached to violence (in my view).

But is there any evidence to support your view? I just did a quick Google for data on the BM's most popular temporary exhibitions. That turned up a news story in January 2014 on visitors in 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25729616

The British Museum has had its most successful year to date with 6.7m visits, up 20% on 2012 and beating 2008's previous record of six million...

Popular exhibitions included Pompeii, which ran from March to September 2013, plus Ice Age Art and Shunga. Life and Death in Pompeii and Herculaneum was seen by more than 471,000 visitors and achieved its visitor target of 250,000 just three months into its six-month run. It opened in March last year, by which time it had already had more than 45,600 tickets booked through advance sales. It was the most successful pre-opening exhibition since 2007's The First Emperor: China's Terracotta Army...

Pompeii was also the third-most popular exhibition in the museum's history, with Tutankhamun getting 1.6 million visitors in 1972 and the Terracotta Army getting 850,000. Shunga: Sex and pleasure in Japanese art attracted 87,893 visitors in three months by the time it closed in January 2014, while Ice Age Art closed in June with more than 90,000 visitors - a 133% increase on its target of 40,000.

Megalophias

10-24-2017, 10:43 PM

OK, so we don't know for now - he might even have been fully M269?
And a lack of Steppe components would either be puzzling, striking (for M269-related ancient DNA) or indicative of a shortfall in autosomal DNA as a means of identifying very much about y-DNA.

No, he wouldn't be fully M269, in the sense of being descended from the MRCA of modern R1b-M269, even if he was M269+. The significance really depends how closely related he is to the modern type.

epp

10-24-2017, 10:46 PM

But is there any evidence to support your view? I just did a quick Google for data on the BM's most popular temporary exhibitions. That turned up a news story in January 2014 on visitors in 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25729616
It's not the subject of this thread, but to doubt the idea that some people are seduced by the glamour attached to violence seems a very romantic vision of society. You only have to look at the popularity of violent computer games, football hooliganism and murder programmes on TV to realise the allure of violence. I don't need hard scientific evidence to convince me of that.

epp

10-24-2017, 10:48 PM

No, he wouldn't be fully M269, in the sense of being descended from the MRCA of modern R1b-M269, even if he was M269+.
Do we know that? If so, how?

Megalophias

10-24-2017, 11:01 PM

Do we know that? If so, how?
Because he's negative for M269 defining SNPs.

OK, I do regret getting involved already. I'm out, have fun.

alan

10-25-2017, 12:17 AM

I don’t believe in discrete waves in which people either moved or didn’t move; this is simplistic for people who were moving constantly. But wave 1 fits the right time frame for L51’s break off from Z2103.
I haven’t seen any convincing arguments against this in ancient DNA. Firstly, “Steppe DNA” was present in ancient DNA outside of the Steppe well before 4,000 BC. Secondly, L51 looks like a pretty minor lineage at least until 3,000 BC, and also looks Northern European - there’s no reason why its DNA should show up strikingly anywhere during the 4th millennium BC, especially in Central Europe where I doubt it had a significant presence. Thirdly, ancient DNA from interesting regions like Denmark and Holland is, as far as I have seen, non-existent for the period in question.

I think it's pretty manifest in the tree that L51 was a bad survival lineage until L11. Timescale of this period not doing much looks like c 4200-3000Bc give or take a couple of centuries. Personally I think the implication that [email protected] a bare survival unsafe until L11makesit very unlikely an L51xL11 guy will be found in ancient DNA. So it's absence in ancient DNA may simply reflect that there were only ever a few L51xL11 guys on earth at any one time back in 4200-3000BC. In other words L51xL11 absence both today and in ancient DNA tells us nothing other than that t didn't hit the by time till after L11.

Jean M

10-25-2017, 10:10 AM

.. to doubt the idea that some people are seduced by the glamour attached to violence seems a very romantic vision of society. You only have to look at the popularity of violent computer games, football hooliganism and murder programmes on TV to realise the allure of violence.

I do not see anything glamorous about violence per se. I think that there is a confusion of ideas here. Let us separate the threads:

Roots of violence and co-operation. Violence towards other species has existed in human society for as far back as we can trace humanity. Hunting was part of the evolution of Homo sapiens. It provided the high-calory diet that enabled the development of the energy-expensive brain, which in turn enabled co-operative and richly-communicating groups, who could hunt larger and far more fearsome animals than themselves, and protect themselves from predators. So the capacity for violence towards other humans was built in, but balanced by the need to co-operate with fellow humans. That is a tension that has followed humankind down the millennia.
Us vs Them. Co-operation within the 'us' group can be combined with violence towards a 'them' human group. As humans became dominant in the landscape, and became their own chief rivals for resources, this pattern became increasingly common. As farming spread, competition for land could be a factor. The earliest civilizations could support standing armies to defend their territories. Drunken football supporters attacking the supporters of another club falls into the 'us' vs 'them' category. I see nothing glamorous about it.
Glamour enters the picture when a culture gives high status to fearlessness and fighters, for example Japanese Samurai, or knights of the European Middle Ages. Dedication to a leader or cause or religion or nation is a common feature. The adrenalin rush of conflict is controlled and channeled in a particular direction, that serves a social purpose wider than the individual. Whether that purpose is viewed as good or bad will depend on one's perspective.
Violence not the only allure. We should not get so carried away by recognition of point 3 that we see absolutely nothing else attractive to human beings. I do not think that the actual murder is the chief attraction of the detective story genre. Its appeal lies the enjoyment of working out who did it. Human beings are complex creatures. A single individual might get pleasure from art, music and the adrelin rush of skiing. There are entire museums dedicated to fashion, just as there are entire museums dedicated to war. The idea that one of the great history/archaeology museums of the world needs to attract visitors by glamorizing violence seems divorced from reality to me.

jdean

10-25-2017, 11:01 AM

I used to live round the corner from a toy museum at one point which had a vary large collection minus toy guns, however this strange bit of PC revisionism didn't stop me enjoying it : )

Moderator

10-25-2017, 11:22 AM

All members are reminded to refrain from personal attacks. No more warnings.

This thread is being monitored.

Jean M

10-25-2017, 11:37 AM

I used to live round the corner from a toy museum at one point which had a vary large collection minus toy guns, however this strange bit of PC revisionism didn't stop me enjoying it : )

Vice-versa too. My aversion to war is such that I can't imagine wanting to go to the Imperial War Museum, but I greatly enjoyed the Who Do You Think You Are programme on J. K. Rowling, in which she traced a French ancestor who won a medal for valour in the Ist World War. Regimental and national military records can be a wonderful resource for genealogists.

R.Rocca

10-25-2017, 12:16 PM

The data is fully available on FTDNA databases. Anyone can replicate it easily, but probably won’t want to, because it yields results that might be uncomfortable to them.
If I were to post my full calculations on this thread, it would take up pages and pages. Surely this is a completely inappropriate forum for it!

Nonsense. Plenty of people (Ken Nordtvedt, Mikewww, Generalisimo etc.) have posted their data on Google docs and like locations.

kostoffj

10-25-2017, 01:25 PM

Vice-versa too. My aversion to war is such that I can't imagine wanting to go to the Imperial War Museum, but I greatly enjoyed the Who Do You Think You Are programme on J. K. Rowling, in which she traced a French ancestor who won a medal for valour in the 2nd World War. Regimental and national military records can be a wonderful resource for genealogists.

It's a shame though, the IWM is one of the best military museums I've ever visited, it's really something special.

epp

10-25-2017, 08:55 PM

Because he's negative for M269 defining SNPs.

OK, I do regret getting involved already. I'm out, have fun.

It was good while it lasted (not long).

That was my question - which M269-equivalent SNPs of Blatterhohle 16 have been tested? It’s appears all vague. No one seems to know or wants to say.

epp

10-25-2017, 08:57 PM

I do not see anything glamorous about violence per se.
I didn’t think you would. You are not the type.

epp

10-25-2017, 09:01 PM

I think it's pretty manifest in the tree that L51 was a bad survival lineage until L11. Timescale of this period not doing much looks like c 4200-3000Bc give or take a couple of centuries. Personally I think the implication that [email protected] a bare survival unsafe until L11makesit very unlikely an L51xL11 guy will be found in ancient DNA. So it's absence in ancient DNA may simply reflect that there were only ever a few L51xL11 guys on earth at any one time back in 4200-3000BC. In other words L51xL11 absence both today and in ancient DNA tells us nothing other than that t didn't hit the by time till after L11.

Yes, I agree this is very possible, but there are other possibilities. I’ll mention just one - that a number of L51 lineages were initially successful, but then were decimated by other dominant paternal lineages, such as R1a-M417 or R1b-Z2109, leaving only the lineages on its fringes to continue and subsequently re-emerge successfully.

However, even without ancient L51 DNA, we can still investigate its likely history by approaching it from other angles - e.g. from looking at (i) the variance patterns in its modern DNA, (i) the degree of uniformity of its autosomal components across its range, or (iii) other ancient samples with which it substantially shares autosomal DNA.

epp

10-25-2017, 09:08 PM

Nonsense. Plenty of people (Ken Nordtvedt, Mikewww, Generalisimo etc.) have posted their data on Google docs and like locations.
I’ve posted parts of my data on this forum on a number of occasions. It has nearly always been ignored, or (when not ignored) cursorily dismissed accompanied by personal abuse, despite no one posting any alternative data to help refute or refine it. Unsurprisingly, I do not therefore consider it a productive use of my time to type it all up.

My standard deviation analysis on the autosomal components of autosomally-indistinguishable Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations estimated that the uniform (and therefore most likely the earliest) core of these populations was an admixture of R1a and West Anatolian DNA, with R1b-L51 joining it a bit later, and Northern/Western hunter gatherer and Caucasus components joining it much less uniformly and therefore most likely later still (probably during or after its expansion and spread). I’ve posted these results before. They provide some statistical evidence suggesting that CW/BB populations most likely arose in the R1a and EEF border regions (perhaps NW Ukraine to SE Baltic), where they were later joined by R1b-L51 (most likely coming up from the Black Sea), and then later were (patchily) further joined by Caucasus-heavier components from the South (Yamnayans) and old hunter gatherer components from the North.

Compared to CW, BB is slightly skewed towards EEF and away from Caucasus and old hunter gatherer components, suggesting that when the Yamnayan migrations into Central Europe occurred L51 was most likely already centred to the West of Central Germany (where Yamnayans seem to have arrived in the largest numbers) and to the South of Corded Ware (in which there was greater incorporation of old hunter gatherer DNA).

Before further abuse starts coming at me, I must make clear that I’m not saying this represents proof of anything - merely one more piece of the jigsaw.

jdean

10-25-2017, 10:43 PM

I didn’t think you would. You are not the type.

And the type is ?

rms2

10-25-2017, 11:11 PM

. . .
Your magnum opus (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior) makes it appear that you have some sort of strange, confused, anti-R1b agenda.

. . .
I was just commenting on the weird pride that many seem to have in the belief that one of their several thousand ancestors went round slaughtering everyone else in Europe.

That's not what you were doing. You made no mention of that. I remember how all that went down. Things weren't going your way on the old Corded Ware origin for P312? (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312) thread. Isidro appeared and posted one of his not infrequent thinly-veiled charges that those who argue for a steppe origin for R1b-L23 are Nazis (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10749-Corded-Ware-origin-for-P312&p=268724&viewfull=1#post268724). That Corded Ware thread was closed not long afterwards, but you chose to run with the theme begun by Isidro, i.e., that those who believe in a steppe origin for R1b-L23 are believers in some sort of romantic legend of the noble Steppe warrior (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?11582-The-romantic-legend-of-the-noble-Steppe-warrior).

The tactic is to imply that those who believe the evidence indicates that R1b-L23 arose among and was spread by the early Indo-Europeans are somehow believers in the myth of the "Aryan Superman" and therefore must be Nazis themselves. It's a low form of name calling by implication.

MitchellSince1893

10-25-2017, 11:17 PM

And the type is ?Those having either the MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13

TigerMW

10-25-2017, 11:28 PM

The data is fully available on FTDNA databases. Anyone can replicate it easily, but probably won’t want to, because it yields results that might be uncomfortable to them.

Nonsense. Plenty of people (Ken Nordtvedt, Mikewww, Generalisimo etc.) have posted their data on Google docs and like locations.
Please show us your results, epp. No excuses. We don't need a book but surely you can summarize and present your numbers that so you that we can be uncomfortable.

R1b folks have shared their data and analyzed about as much as anybody, if not more. It’s ludicrous to imply there is something hidden somewhere. I’ve classified over 15,000 haplotypes by cluster for one part of R1b. I know more about the 4,153 branches on the R1b tree and 50 or so SNP Packs than I ever wanted to know. I’m not from Missouri but close enough - show me what you have, the num’s. Show us your summary numbers.

jdean

10-25-2017, 11:42 PM

Those having either the MAOA-L or a mutant version of another gene, CDH13

Is that to do with that Warrior thing FTDNA flog ?

Personally I've never been convinced complex personality traits can be explained simply by gene mutation.

MitchellSince1893

10-26-2017, 01:52 AM

Is that to do with that Warrior thing FTDNA flog ?

Personally I've never been convinced complex personality traits can be explained simply by gene mutation.

Yay, but I wasn't serious. But maybe it would be interesting to see what percentage of those classified as steppe theory proponents have these "warrior genes" compared to the general population. :P

A more interesting statistic is that in the last 200 posts in this thread over 70% have been made by epp and those responding to/talking about epp.

razyn

10-26-2017, 03:26 AM

jdean

10-26-2017, 08:01 AM

Yay, but I wasn't serious. But maybe it would be interesting to see what percentage of those classified as steppe theory proponents have these "warrior genes" compared to the general population. :P

If it really has got anything to do with feistiness then I doubt I've got it, if I was anymore laid back I'd fall over : )

A more interesting statistic is that in the last 200 posts in this thread over 70% have been made by epp and those responding to/talking about epp.

Talk about bottleneck : )))))

jdean

10-26-2017, 08:27 AM

I suppose it beats twiddling our thumbs. We are just marking time, here. One of these days there will be something new and of substance to discuss; meanwhile there's always background noise, to dampen as best we can.

That's the silver lining, just hope the threads don't get too clogged up once there's fresh bones to chew on.

rms2

10-26-2017, 12:15 PM

. . .

A more interesting statistic is that in the last 200 posts in this thread over 70% have been made by epp and those responding to/talking about epp.

This thread has apparently outlived its usefulness, more's the pity, especially given that many of those posting here share with a certain prolific recent poster the distinction of not really knowing much about what Gimbutas had to say, despite the thread's title, "Bell Beaker, Gimbutas and R1b".

When this thread began almost two years ago, I had not read any of Gimbutas' works, but it stimulated me to do so, and now I can say I am pretty familiar with her oft-misrepresented perspective (although I cannot say I've read everything she wrote - that would be a job!).

Maybe it's time to let this thread fade into history.

kinman

10-27-2017, 01:01 AM

I was digging around in an old box of reprints, and I was delighted to find a paper which Gimbutas sent to me back around 1981 (when I first became interested in Indo-European history).
She not only sent me her paper "The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Europe", but the whole issue (Winter 1977) of The Journal of Indo-European Studies. That was very nice of her. It also includes three other papers (by Mallory, and Hausler, and Merpert). I look forward to rereading all these papers in light of more recent discoveries.

epp

10-27-2017, 09:46 PM

Please show us your results, epp. No excuses. We don't need a book but surely you can summarize and present your numbers that so you that we can be uncomfortable.

I’ve shown results of various of my tests on several occasions - and each time, I’ve had no response. People here don’t seem to want numbers or statistical results - they ignore them. It seems all they’re looking for are the scraps of a few half-baked, unsatisfying old bones to chew on.

P.S. Is this the ‘royal we’ you are referring to?

epp

10-27-2017, 09:54 PM

A more interesting statistic is that in the last 200 posts in this thread over 70% have been made by epp and those responding to/talking about epp.

I suppose it beats twiddling our thumbs. We are just marking time, here. One of these days there will be something new and of substance to discuss; meanwhile there's always background noise, to dampen as best we can.

This thread has apparently outlived its usefulness, more's the pity ...

Maybe it's time to let this thread fade into history.

MitchellSince1893 is more interested in analysing the number of posts involving me, rather than analysing the available DNA data.

Razyn’s mission is to ‘dampen as best he can’.

Not for the first time, rms2 is suggesting people abandon a thread.

Meanwhile, everyone sits by their computers, waiting for Godot … does anyone agree this paints a rather dismal picture of the genetics community?

epp

10-27-2017, 09:56 PM

Gravetto-Danubian

10-27-2017, 10:40 PM

More inconvenient noise (you may wish to put your hands over your ears).

The samples I’ve seen give the following average Caucasus components (and Caucasus:Steppe component ratios):

Khvalynsk (4,600 BC) 7% (and 1:10)
Yamnayan Samara (3,000 BC) 19% (and 1:4)
Corded Ware populations 6% (and 1:9)
Bell Beaker populations 4% (and 1:12)

Does it look more like the majority of the CW/BB population derived from early Steppe Khvalynsk or late Steppe Yamnaya?

You seem to be treating individual components as individual histories ? I.e. you take the presence of EHG, CHG, etc in CWC & BB to a priori represent different group mixing in.

"My standard deviation analysis on the autosomal components of autosomally-indistinguishable Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations estimated that the uniform (and therefore most likely the earliest) core of these populations was an admixture of R1a and West Anatolian DNA, with R1b-L51 joining it a bit later, and Northern/Western hunter gatherer and Caucasus components joining it much less uniformly and therefore most likely later still (probably during or after its expansion and spread). I’ve posted these results before. They provide some statistical evidence suggesting that CW/BB populations most likely arose in the R1a and EEF border regions (perhaps NW Ukraine to SE Baltic), where they were later joined by R1b-L51 (most likely coming up from the Black Sea), and then later were (patchily) further joined by Caucasus-heavier components from the South (Yamnayans) and old hunter gatherer components from the North."

You see the lower CHG in BB as meaning it lacks the later extra CHG. But a more economical explanation is that the entire steppe component is diminised in BB due to greater admixture, into a MNE population with high WHG (could be anything from Michelberg to Blatterhohle to GAC) c.f. CWC. That removes the 'extra' WHG you're finding, as well as the later extra CHG wave.

So a model for BB could simple be
Yamnaya 40%
Blatterhohole MNE 60%

German CWC:
70% Yamnaya
30% C-T.

Of course, I could imagine even more complex scenarios for BB; but they become more "shakey".

rms2

10-27-2017, 10:51 PM

rms2

10-27-2017, 10:53 PM

. . .

Not for the first time, rms2 is suggesting people abandon a thread.

. . .

I think abandoning this thread has become necessary because you have chosen it as a platform for your inanity. I have no use for your posts. That much is true.

MitchellSince1893

10-27-2017, 11:07 PM

I think abandoning this thread has become necessary because you have chosen it as a platform for your inanity. I have no use for your posts. That much is true.

ChaChing!

rms2

10-27-2017, 11:17 PM

ChaChing!

Exactly. I'm bidding this thread adieu as long as Herr Besserwisser is using it to pontificate.

epp

10-28-2017, 12:20 PM

Exactly. I'm bidding this thread adieu as long as Herr Besserwisser is using it to pontificate.

Flee to the hills!

P.S. You're always welcome back.:)

epp

10-28-2017, 12:27 PM

You seem to be treating individual components as individual histories ? I.e. you take the presence of EHG, CHG, etc in CWC & BB to a priori represent different group mixing in.

"My standard deviation analysis on the autosomal components of autosomally-indistinguishable Corded Ware/Bell Beaker populations estimated that the uniform (and therefore most likely the earliest) core of these populations was an admixture of R1a and West Anatolian DNA, with R1b-L51 joining it a bit later, and Northern/Western hunter gatherer and Caucasus components joining it much less uniformly and therefore most likely later still (probably during or after its expansion and spread). I’ve posted these results before. They provide some statistical evidence suggesting that CW/BB populations most likely arose in the R1a and EEF border regions (perhaps NW Ukraine to SE Baltic), where they were later joined by R1b-L51 (most likely coming up from the Black Sea), and then later were (patchily) further joined by Caucasus-heavier components from the South (Yamnayans) and old hunter gatherer components from the North."

You see the lower CHG in BB as meaning it lacks the later extra CHG. But a more economical explanation is that the entire steppe component is diminised in BB due to greater admixture, into a MNE population with high WHG (could be anything from Michelberg to Blatterhohle to GAC) c.f. CWC. That removes the 'extra' WHG you're finding, as well as the later extra CHG wave.

So a model for BB could simple be
Yamnaya 40%
Blatterhohole MNE 60%

German CWC:
70% Yamnaya
30% C-T.

Of course, I could imagine even more complex scenarios for BB; but they become more "shakey".

What I’m doing is following the approach that derives Corded Ware & Bell Beaker populations from Yamnayans on the basis that they share 70% of Yamnayans’ autosomal DNA.

Applying this same approach to associations between other populations leaves us with a different conclusion:
1. Corded Ware and Bell Beaker populations are much more closely associated with each other than with Yamna, which (following the same approach) suggests a derivation in common that is only partly Yamnayan.
2. This common derivation, in turn, is as closely associated with the North European Swedish Mesolithic as it is with Yamna, which would suggest a major contribution to the CW/BB population from indigenous North European populations and a lower Yamnayan contribution in total.

I don’t necessarily see the lower CHG in BB as meaning it lacks the later CHG. Both CW and BB have fairly similar CHG, which varies far more widely according to which specific CW or BB population you look at, suggesting that the greater Yamnayan CHG input arrived in significant volumes only in certain parts of the CW/BB horizon after it had already expanded.

The MNE component is pretty static over the CW/BB horizon, suggesting to me that the majority of it was thoroughly admixed in from the start of this horizon. The CW/BB populations that I analysed were in areas with a similar range of MNE exposure, so I’m interpreting the slightly higher MNE component in Northern European P312 BB as a sign that its origin point when it split from North European M417 CW was most likely to the South of North European M417 CW’s origin point.

I agree your models are possible, but we lack the C-T and Blatterhohle data to allow us to estimate their likelihood one way or the other. What is the split between WHG/MNE/EHG or between R1a/R1b-L51/R1b-Z2103/R1b-other/I1/I2/G2a in C-T or Blatterhohle? We don’t know.

Another possible model is that (i) Caucasus-light R1b-L51 joined a fringe admixed R1a/MNE population in NE Europe that then spread along the South Baltic, (ii) a later Caucasus-heavier Yamnayan R1b-Z2109 incursion into Germany via the Danube subsequently disrupted the Central MNE populations, (iii) this brought to the fore the two dominant paternal lineages from the CW/BB fringe populations (P312 in the West and M417 in the East). I don’t see this as a less economical explanation particularly.

An even closer match (95%) is between NW Iberian and NW Funnel Beaker samples in the early fourth millennium BC. I doubt this is an admixture of wholly different populations that coincidentally arrived at the same autosomal mix. It looks more to me like it reflects the same minority intrusion of a mix of Steppe lineages & autosomal DNA and old WHG lineages (probably from the North) into MNE populations around the Atlantic fringe (from Western Sweden through Blatterhohlesque NW Germany to the Bay of Biscay) during the pre-Yamna period.

epp

10-28-2017, 01:16 PM

So a model for BB could simple be
Yamnaya 40%
Blatterhohole MNE 60%

German CWC:
70% Yamnaya
30% C-T.

This would be possible for Central German CW, but not consistent with the data for CW as a whole - it's Caucasus component (both in total and as a % of its overall Steppe DNA) is too low outside of Central Germany. And these non-German CW populations are otherwise autosomally similar to other populations in the CW/BB horizon, indicating that much of their Steppe DNA was derived from other sources, and accordingly that much of the Steppe DNA in German CW probably was too.

Still, I suppose Yamna might have had a significant influence on CW culture, even if it did not provide the main genetic input into the whole of the CW/BB horizon.

Gravetto-Danubian

10-28-2017, 02:11 PM

R.Rocca

10-28-2017, 03:15 PM

I’ve shown results of various of my tests on several occasions - and each time, I’ve had no response. People here don’t seem to want numbers or statistical results - they ignore them. It seems all they’re looking for are the scraps of a few half-baked, unsatisfying old bones to chew on.

Your description of ancient DNA, which in the end is the only data that matters, is very telling. Let's see... should I trust ancient DNA published by hundreds of reputable population geneticists who have provided their data online, or some inconspicuous 'analysis' by a person who goes by EPP on a public forum? Thanks, but I think I'll stick with those bones that are so unsatisfying to your 'analysis'.

epp

10-28-2017, 07:13 PM

Your description of ancient DNA, which in the end is the only data that matters, is very telling. Let's see... should I trust ancient DNA published by hundreds of reputable population geneticists who have provided their data online, or some inconspicuous 'analysis' by a person who goes by EPP on a public forum? Thanks, but I think I'll stick with those bones that are so unsatisfying to your 'analysis'.

I’m surprised that anyone claims to find ancient DNA wholly satisfying. As I’ve said before, there are large geographical areas, cultures and major SNPs with no coverage at all; and I’m certainly not the only person to have mentioned this.

When there is coverage, often only the general y-DNA group is mentioned and it is rare to find the precise SNPs specified. In many interesting sites, only the mtDNA is identified, and the y-DNA is omitted. When there is autosomal DNA, it is frequently only split between two basic categories, and the basis for the split is left unspecified. Unlike with modern DNA on the FTDNA database, there is no standardisation in approach - data is often patchy, piecemeal and presented inconsistently.

If the ancient DNA results are so satisfying, how come we are all sitting around gagging for further data releases?

And where do these satisfying results reveal that R1b-L51 was to be found during its first 1,000 years?

epp

10-28-2017, 07:17 PM

Epp, I'm still not sure of your methodolgy. Are you doing any calculations yourself , or looking at someone's else's Admixure graphs?
What is the basis of the NW Iberian similitude with NW TRB?
I think I know what you're saying, but can you present some solid data ?
Where are you seeing archaeological evidence for movement from Sweden to Central Europe ?

Eg my "model" is based on PCA nMonte, where I use weighted modification and the best quality BB individuals
I get
Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0112
"Yamnaya_Samara" 28.8
"Baalberg" 28.15
"Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32" 24.75
"Iberia_ChL" 7

I then speculated that there isn't really an independent Latvia HG input of ~25%, but rather represents the yet to be released data of those super-high WHG Mid Neolithics (eg Blatterhohle, the Romanian Eneolithic, and hypothetically any Eneolithic group from NE France or W Germany). If so, marrying that to Baalberg figure gives ~55% late MNE input to BB.
Hypothetical indeed, but possibly true.

I compiled my figures from Genetiker’s Admixture database -
E.g. German Bell Beaker -
WHG 11%
Steppe 41%
W Anatolian 41%
Caucasus 7%
Given the different categorisation, this does not look dissimilar to yours. As we know, this is not an exact science.

The basis for the NW Iberia similitude to NW Funnel Beaker is -
Northern Funnel Beaker (SW Sweden) 3,000 BC
WHG 21%
Steppe 6%
W Anatolian 67%
Caucasus 2%
Levantine 4%
NW Spain Copper Age (Burgos) 3,400-2,750 BC
WHG 22%
Steppe 6%
W Anatolian 70%
Caucasus 1%
SE Asia 1%

I’m not into archaeology, but I’m guessing it might relate to the Atlantic megalithic culture. To me, the DNA looks more like it goes from North to South (Steppe DNA looks patchy and recent to me in the Iberian samples), but that doesn’t mean to say the culture spread in the same direction.

Finn

11-01-2017, 05:43 PM

outcome of the Beaker-Corded Ware contact zones.

This could be a key quote!

The spread of R1b U106 is most probably: East Bell Beakers>Dutch Beakers>Jutish Beakers> (post) Beaker spread in Scandinavia.

This occurred during LN/EBA:

I may have discovered an interesting pattern in the Allentoft et al. data. It seems that during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age, Scandinavia was populated by two somewhat different populations; one characterized by Y-Chromosome haplogroup R1b and a genome-wide genetic structure typical of present-day Northwestern Europeans, and another by Y-Chromosome haplogroup R1a and a relatively more eastern genome-wide genetic profile.
( from weblog Eurogenes)

At that time LN/EBA the Nordic area was a perceiving area not a spreading area.

They perceived Bell Beakers form the Dutch area.

We have R1b U106 Rise98 Lilla Beddinge, outmost Southwest Scania, from the interval 2580–1980 cal. BC.

Olaid e.a (2017) mentions R1b U106 Oostwoud, West-Friesland, from the interval 1881–1646 calBC.

When R1b U106 was rooted in Scandinavia than there was an immediately spread to Friesland/North Dutch. But can we indentify a group that carried R1b U106 and went from Scandinavia to Friesland/North Dutch?

The trend was at that time in the Beaker and the post Beaker time the other way around!

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/u106-geography-2015-revised.pdf

P311 splits into U106 and P312. This split probably occurred sometime during the march westwards. If our ancestors took a northern route, the lack of P311 in Poland (where R1a dominates) suggests it cannot have been further east than the Germano-Polish border. If our ancestors took a southern route, the easternmost likely place is Austria. The founding of P311 itself may have been slightly earlier, and considerably further east.
Either way, P311 seems to have been present in Germany around 2700 BC, around the time that the Corded Ware culture, and more specifically the Single Grave Culture, were setting up shop there... perhaps quite literally, given the Baltic amber trade. The Single Grave Culture is one point considered for the start of the Bell Beaker culture. Ancient DNA shows P311 played a significant part in the Bell Beaker culture in Germany, and the spread of the Bell Beakers may have been instrumental in spreading P311 throughout western Europe.

rms2

11-01-2017, 11:30 PM

I've mentioned elsewhere that I have it on good authority that the final Olalde et al BB paper will feature twice the number of samples of the original pre-print. We'll see if they managed to turn up any more U106.

Those two Dutch U106s were somewhat late and were not buried like Bell Beaker people. IMHO, they should not be considered as Bell Beaker people.

Let's see if Olalde et al were able to find any genuine U106 Bell Beaker men.

R.Rocca

11-02-2017, 08:02 PM

From Lipson's latest pre-publish:

I1593/Bla16+Bla27+Bla59: R1b1a

This Blatterhole_MN individual was derived for 14 SNP characteristic for haplogroup R (also
P227, P280), seven SNPs for R1 (P231, P238, CTS916, CTS2565, CTS3321, CTS5611, L875),
and a sole representing SNP for R1b (M343). Subclade R1b1 was defined by SNPs L278, L1349,
L822, CTS2229. R1b1a was defined by SNPs CTS7585, FGC35, FGC41, L754, L761. R1b1a1a2
showed both derived and ancestral alleles of characteristic SNPs. Thus, he could only be assigned
to haplogroup R1b1a.

I know that the full M269 branch took thousands of years to come about, but it is interesting/important that this sample, while technically R1b1a, is Pre-M269 and not V88.

TigerMW

11-02-2017, 08:53 PM

From Lipson's latest pre-publish:

I know that the full M269 branch took thousands of years to come about, but it is interesting/important that this sample, while technically R1b1a, is Pre-M269 and not V88.

Do we have more of a reason to think R1b-M269's MRCA occurred in Central Europe rather than Eastern Europe? or does the weight of L23 ancient DNA pull us back to Eastern Europe?

rms2

11-02-2017, 10:48 PM

From Lipson's latest pre-publish:

I know that the full M269 branch took thousands of years to come about, but it is interesting/important that this sample, while technically R1b1a, is Pre-M269 and not V88.

I5193 was a relative but apparently on a dead end line. He is dated to 3958-3344 BC, and that makes him more than recent enough to have been derived for M269, but he was not. In other words, he was "pre-M269" born and living in a post-M269 era.

We know P297 was in Latvia 4,000 or more years earlier, so maybe it's not surprising to see the odd stray dead end as far west as Germany.

R.Rocca

11-02-2017, 11:05 PM

Do we have more of a reason to think R1b-M269's MRCA occurred in Central Europe rather than Eastern Europe? or does the weight of L23 ancient DNA pull us back to Eastern Europe?

From the looks of it, the Blatterhole samples lack EHG/CHG. I think it unlikely that fully formed M269 occurred in Germany, migrated to the steppe where it picked up massive amounts of EHG/CHG only to migrate back with both (including L23) hundreds of years later. I would love to see some data from Poland however :D

rms2

11-02-2017, 11:10 PM

YFull's TMRCA for M269 is 6400 ybp (c. 4450 BC). If that's about right, there were fully M269 guys running around somewhere else well before Blätterhöhle was born, and he was not derived for M269.

R.Rocca

11-02-2017, 11:18 PM

YFull's TMRCA for M269 is 6400 ybp (c. 4450 BC). If that's about right, there were fully M269 guys running around somewhere else well before Blätterhöhle was born, and he was not derived for M269.

It is still a very interesting sub-plot, especially that they were as heavily WHG as they were.

rms2

11-02-2017, 11:20 PM

As I mentioned before, we already know P297 was in Latvia on the Baltic in the 8th millennium BC. It seems to me Blätterhöhle represents a dead end P297 line that separated from the line leading to M269 and headed west, winding up in Germany, with Blätterhöhle himself (xM269) being born long after the mrca of M269.

It seems likely to me the P297 line that actually led to M269 went southeast to the steppe, where it eventually led to L23.

rms2

11-02-2017, 11:21 PM

It is still a very interesting sub-plot, especially that they were as heavily WHG as they were.

Look at the environment they were immersed in. Loads of I2a WHG.

R.Rocca

11-03-2017, 01:17 AM

kinman

11-03-2017, 01:39 AM

I'm not sure I understand. Why is it likely the P297 line (which led to M269) went southeast to the steppe, rather than the opposite (P297 line starting out on the steppe and going northwest to places like Latvia).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems likely to me the P297 line that actually led to M269 went southeast to the steppe, where it eventually led to L23.

rms2

11-03-2017, 08:28 AM

I'm not sure I understand. Why is it likely the P297 line (which led to M269) went southeast to the steppe, rather than the opposite (P297 line starting out on the steppe and going northwest to places like Latvia).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's possible, but we usually try to work from the known to the unknown. We know there was P297 in Latvia in the 8th millennium BC, and that's the oldest P297 we know about. So, for now, it looks like the P297 line leading to M269 went from there to the steppe. That may change with new information.

Jean M

11-03-2017, 10:43 AM

We know there was P297 in Latvia in the 8th millennium BC, and that's the oldest P297 we know about. So, for now, it looks like the P297 line leading to M269 went from there to the steppe. That may change with new information.

Archaeologically that makes no sense though. The Latvian line was of hunter-gatherers. They did not return south, but stayed happily where the fishing and hunting was rich around the Baltic. People carried on the foraging lifestyle on the eastern Baltic for millennia after farming had arrived elsewhere in Europe. They would not generate an expanding population, but a more or less steady state.

It is easy enough to visualise two P297 brothers or cousins on the Middle Volga, one of whom went north to the Baltic and the other went westwards to a fishing niche on one of the rivers flowing south into the Black Sea. It was these people in riverine niches who adopted pastoralism and later metallurgy from their neighbours and so started a population growth.

Heber

11-03-2017, 10:49 AM

Interesting video on Indo European Migrations including R1a and R1b.
You may wish to turn down the volume.

https://youtu.be/7Vyq6hrDshg

rms2

11-03-2017, 11:06 AM

Archaeologically that makes no sense though. The Latvian line was of hunter-gatherers. They did not return south, but stayed happily where the fishing and hunting was rich around the Baltic. People carried on the foraging lifestyle on the eastern Baltic for millennia after farming had arrived elsewhere in Europe. They would not generate an expanding population, but a more or less steady state.

It is easy enough to visualise two P297 brothers or cousins on the Middle Volga, one of whom went north to the Baltic and the other went westwards to a fishing niche on one of the rivers flowing south into the Black Sea. It was these people in riverine niches who adopted pastoralism and later metallurgy from their neighbours and so started a population growth.

It's easy to visualize a lot of things. You seem to be visualizing happy hunter-gatherers who would never want to move. I don't know that the Latvian P297s went south to the steppe, but that's the oldest P297 we have. The P297 line leading to M269 might have rolled in from China or Japan for all I know, but it's best to go with what we know, and we know P297 was in Latvia in the 8th millennium BC.

Maybe P297 did originate near the Volga, but we don't have any evidence that it did.

rms2

11-03-2017, 11:19 AM

It's easy to visualize a lot of things. You seem to be visualizing happy hunter-gatherers who would never want to move. I don't know that the Latvian P297s went south to the steppe, but that's the oldest P297 we have. The P297 line leading to M269 might have rolled in from China or Japan for all I know, but it's best to go with what we know, and we know P297 was in Latvia in the 8th millennium BC.

Maybe P297 did originate near the Volga, but we don't have any evidence that it did.

But wait a sec. I don't want to get boxed into defending some out-of-Latvia scenario for P297 and/or the P297 line leading to M269.

I don't know where it originated.

I was just trying to work from the earliest known P297 to P297's later known descendants on the steppe.

rms2

11-03-2017, 11:47 AM

If YFull is right, and the mrca of P297 lived in the 12th millennium BC, then those Latvian P297s of the 8th millennium BC were about 4,000 years later than the P297 founder. That was plenty of time to get to Latvia from anywhere.

The problem is that we don't know where the founder was born.

Jean M

11-03-2017, 11:51 AM

You seem to be visualizing happy hunter-gatherers who would never want to move.

We have no evidence that they did move south. That's the important thing. Whereas we do have evidence of pottery-making foragers moving west from the Samara region of the Volga to riverine niches on the rivers which flow south to the Black Sea, while other pottery-making foragers moved north to the Baltic. So the point of origin in both cases was the same.

rms2

11-03-2017, 11:55 AM

We have no evidence that they did move south. That's the important thing. Whereas we do have evidence of pottery-making foragers moving west from the Samara region of the Volga to riverine niches on the rivers which flow south to the Black Sea.

Like I said, I don't want to get boxed into defending an out-of-Latvia scenario for P297 or the P297 line leading to M269.

But, as I also said, for now, that Latvian HG stuff is the oldest P297 we have. That gives it temporal precedence, for now.

We don't yet know what the y-dna of those pottery-making foragers moving west from the Samara region was.

Jean M

11-03-2017, 12:09 PM

We don't yet know what the y-dna of those pottery-making foragers moving west from the Samara region was.

Some were R1a, such as a man of the Dnieper-Donets II culture, buried at Vovnihi. We can expect that others were R1b. There was continuing contact among these communities, which produced a mixture of the two in Copper Age Khvalynsk on the Volga. The samples from this culture were overall genetically similar to an early pottery-maker on the Volga with his ANE input, but also carried the CHG component, perhaps from the nearby Caucasus. One young man aged 20-30 was buried with 293 copper artefacts (mostly beads), which suggests a high status in his small community. He carried Y-DNA haplogroup R1b1 (M415). Another man aged 30-35, buried with a copper ring and a copper bead, carried R1a1 (M459).

Bear in mind that the CHG element appears in Bell Beaker along with ANE, whereas it does not appear in the Latvian hunter-gatherers.

Also we need to bear in mind that aDNA is damaged by age, and it is sometimes impossible to test for downstream subclades. R1b1 (M415) at Khvalynsk could actually have been significantly downstream of M415.

rms2

11-03-2017, 01:50 PM

That's great, Jean, and I even gave you a "Thanks" for your post, but I thought you were talking about people who were older than the Latvians or at least their contemporaries. The samples you cited are all a thousand to two thousand years or more younger than the Latvians.

One can move northwest down river valleys to reach Latvia and the Baltic, but he can't simultaneously move backwards in time.

I'm sure you're probably right, but right now the Latvians are the oldest P297s we have.

Romilius

11-03-2017, 02:54 PM

I think that, probably, those R1b from Dereivka could be interesting... probably, when raw data will be released, it could be possible to see if they are more defined in subclades from R1b1.

Jean M

11-03-2017, 03:01 PM

I'm sure you're probably right, but right now the Latvians are the oldest P297s we have.

You and I were deducing from what evidence we had available for years before there was any ancient Y-DNA published. :)

Quite a few of my deductions in Ancestral Journeys (2013) were subsequently reinforced by aDNA. In every case I would say that this was because I took a multi-disciplinary approach: genetics, linguistics and archaeology/history. I spent years saying that if we find R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in IE-speakers all over the place, then we can expect R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in Yamnaya. I'm still saying the same now, but I think we can see further back from Yamnaya, and it doesn't lead me to Latvia.

kinman

11-03-2017, 04:22 PM

Yes, I agree that it was far morely likely that P297 went from the Volga region west to Latvia, not the other way around.
So is the following a probable timeline of what happened? P297 originated in or near the Volga River about 17,000 years ago, expanding both up and down the Volga River area as its population grew. The population of P297 further south picked up its CHG admixture and gave rise to M269 about 14,000 years ago. The population of P297 further north (without CHG) probably expanded west to Latvia between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago.
I'm still not sure if M269 arose close to the Volga River or in eastern Ukraine (perhaps in between?). Maybe we will never know for sure.

You and I were deducing from what evidence we had available for years before there was any ancient Y-DNA published. :)

Quite a few of my deductions in Ancestral Journeys (2013) were subsequently reinforced by aDNA. In every case I would say that this was because I took a multi-disciplinary approach: genetics, linguistics and archaeology/history. I spent years saying that if we find R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in IE-speakers all over the place, then we can expect R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in Yamnaya. I'm still saying the same now, but I think we can see further back from Yamnaya, and it doesn't lead me to Latvia.

jdean

11-03-2017, 05:07 PM

TigerMW

11-03-2017, 06:43 PM

Yes, I agree that it was far morely likely that P297 went from the Volga region west to Latvia, not the other way around.
So is the following a probable timeline of what happened? P297 originated in or near the Volga River about 17,000 years ago, expanding both up and down the Volga River area as its population grew. The population of P297 further south picked up its CHG admixture and gave rise to M269 about 14,000 years ago. The population of P297 further north (without CHG) probably expanded west to Latvia between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago.
I'm still not sure if M269 arose close to the Volga River or in eastern Ukraine (perhaps in between?). Maybe we will never know for sure.
I agree this general scenario is quite reasonable - that we see early branches of R1b branching out and surviving in some remote places. This is not unlike finding archaic forms of Celtic speaking more common in remote locations (from the homeland).

Jean M

11-03-2017, 07:21 PM

So is the following a probable timeline of what happened? P297 originated in or near the Volga River about 17,000 years ago, expanding both up and down the Volga River area as its population grew. The population of P297 further south picked up its CHG admixture and gave rise to M269 about 14,000 years ago. The population of P297 further north (without CHG) probably expanded west to Latvia between 14,000 and 11,000 years ago.

I never like to be too specific about the spot on the map where any SNP first popped up. We will never prove it. But if we can see or deduce streams of it radiating from a particular zone, we can presume that it was present there. I like the way that you appreciate the role of the river as a route. But I have to say that there was roaming in the south to other rivers.

Finn

11-03-2017, 07:43 PM

I'am convinced the initial spread (EBA) of R1b U106 is related to Unetice.

First we have Olaide (2017) he has published the R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC.

On Anthrogenica Radboud states:

I 've taken a look at the Dutch site (Oostwoud). The burials from the Bell Beaker phase were all P312, and at least a few of them were related. It seems at a later date an other tumulus was erected very close to the Bell Beaker ones, but it cannot be classified to a culture by lack of material. Strangely enough the burial room was intact but empty. There were two secondary burials in the tumulus, a man and a woman, the man being the U106. Looking at the location and the time this is either very late Barbed wire BB, or early Elp culture. That last culture used Tumuli, and was very alike to examples in Northern Germany and Scandinavia. I think it's possible the second tumulus marks the arrival of a new group on a possibly already abandoned site, staking their claim by erecting a tumulus next to the existing BB tumulus. If these groups came from Scandinavia/Northern Germany that would fit the U106 that was preciously found in Scandinavia and absent in BB. In this case it would seem U106 was first brought by CW and not BB.

I guess he is wrong with the Scandinavian association but the rest is interesting and confirms the opinion of prof Harry Fokkens (1998):

''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture) represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."

The Sögel warriors are synomiem for the Unetice people.

Second we have a R1b U106 sample of Lilla Beddinge, outmost southwest Scania, dated 2580–1980 BC. On Gedmach MDLP K11 Rise98 plots close to Unetice:
1. Unetice_EBA @ 3.008374

According to Y-Full the TMRCA of R1b U106 is 2700 BC. This is most probably a split that occurred in the Eastern Bell Beaker culture (on previous Corded Ware ground) and most probably in the area of the direct ancestors of the Unetice (2300-1600 BC) people. The Unetice people used the old BB network to spread through NW Europe.

https://www.mupload.nl/img/zcdqgjr3lpjqp.png

Unetice on R1b U106 maps:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/sfvtfmblpnxfj.png
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ksbzahxyuaiog.png

The Unetice people triggered the Nordic Bronze age and probably spoke a kind of (pre-proto) Celtic c.q. a kind of Indo-European language.
In modern Germanic people you can find besides Bell Beaker in the top scores also the Halberstadt sample. Halberstadt (a Lusatian outlier) is also related to Unetice or as the Germans call the Aunjetitzer kultur. Eastern Harz.

This gives overall the following impressions:
https://www.mupload.nl/img/ww8pf7egck7ld.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/0l20jlzp1r4wf.png

https://www.mupload.nl/img/lu2ddznnyowb9.png

rms2

11-03-2017, 07:58 PM

You and I were deducing from what evidence we had available for years before there was any ancient Y-DNA published. :)

Quite a few of my deductions in Ancestral Journeys (2013) were subsequently reinforced by aDNA. In every case I would say that this was because I took a multi-disciplinary approach: genetics, linguistics and archaeology/history. I spent years saying that if we find R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in IE-speakers all over the place, then we can expect R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in Yamnaya. I'm still saying the same now, but I think we can see further back from Yamnaya, and it doesn't lead me to Latvia.

As I said, more than once, I wasn't arguing for an out-of-Latvia scenario. I certainly don't want to get boxed into championing something I'm not convinced is true. I was simply talking about what we know versus what we don't.

Gravetto-Danubian

11-03-2017, 10:57 PM

You and I were deducing from what evidence we had available for years before there was any ancient Y-DNA published. :)

Quite a few of my deductions in Ancestral Journeys (2013) were subsequently reinforced by aDNA. In every case I would say that this was because I took a multi-disciplinary approach: genetics, linguistics and archaeology/history. I spent years saying that if we find R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in IE-speakers all over the place, then we can expect R1b-M269+ and R1a+ in Yamnaya. I'm still saying the same now, but I think we can see further back from Yamnaya, and it doesn't lead me to Latvia.

So I gather we're still going for the Siberia- Volga P297 theory, despite the clear evidence against it. ;)

kinman

11-04-2017, 01:07 AM

I'm curious,
What is the clearest evidence against it?
--------------------------------------------------------------

So I gather we're still going for the Siberia- Volga P297 theory, despite the clear evidence against it. ;)

Radboud

11-04-2017, 08:10 AM

I'am convinced the initial spread (EBA) of R1b U106 is related to Unetice.

First we have Olaide (2017) he has published the R1b U106 sample from Oostwoud, West-Friesland, dated 1881–1646 BC.

On Anthrogenica Radboud states:

I guess he is wrong with the Scandinavian association but the rest is interesting and confirms the opinion of prof Harry Fokkens (1998):

I did not wrote that post but I simply quoted it from an another member because I thought it was relevant to the discussion in ''The Frisians'' thread. Btw, the author of the statement just considered the Scandinavian association as one of the scenarios for R1b-U106, here is the link again:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10492-Largest-study-of-Bell-Beaker-aDNA-coming&p=235133&viewfull=1#post235133

rafc

11-04-2017, 09:59 AM

I did not wrote that post but I simply quoted it from an another member because I thought it was relevant to the discussion in ''The Frisians'' thread. Btw, the author of the statement just considered the Scandinavian association as one of the scenarios for R1b-U106, here is the link again:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10492-Largest-study-of-Bell-Beaker-aDNA-coming&p=235133&viewfull=1#post235133

Maybe to clarify: the first part is data from publications about the excavation of the site, to which I added my interpretation of two separate groups erecting the tumuli. The last part is mostly based on this article about the Elp-culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture.
I remember another member added that the region of the Oostwoud site was regulary flooded in the past, giving extra reason to think the site might have been occupied, than abandoned after a flood and recolonized again when it became habitable again.
I'm no U106 specialist, but to me it seems the diversity of U106 in Scandinava would suggest U106 expanded there and not in central Europe and spread to Nothern Germany and Frisia in the first half of the second millenium BC.

Finn

11-04-2017, 10:10 AM

Finn

11-04-2017, 10:19 AM

Maybe to clarify: the first part is data from publications about the excavation of the site, to which I added my interpretation of two separate groups erecting the tumuli. The last part is mostly based on this article about the Elp-culture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture.
I remember another member added that the region of the Oostwoud site was regulary flooded in the past, giving extra reason to think the site might have been occupied, than abandoned after a flood and recolonized again when it became habitable again.
I'm no U106 specialist, but to me it seems the diversity of U106 in Scandinava would suggest U106 expanded there and not in central Europe and spread to Nothern Germany and Frisia in the first half of the second millenium BC.

Always possible but I would put my cards on the Unetice/ Tumulus cultures. It’s clear that the initial spread has a relationship with the LN/EBA shift. At that time the dynamics came from the Unetice culture. These culture brought the inventions in material use and also their religious beliefs to NW Europe, not the other way around.
When the initial spread came from Southern Scandinavia what was the culture, what where the kind of people, that brought it to West Friesland? I can’t identify them.....

PS Remember this quote form Prof. H. Fokkens (1998):

''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elp_culture) represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."

Drouwen, Drenthe, never had any danger to be drowned in the water ;)

rms2

11-04-2017, 10:37 PM

As I said, more than once, I wasn't arguing for an out-of-Latvia scenario. I certainly don't want to get boxed into championing something I'm not convinced is true. I was simply talking about what we know versus what we don't.

Besides, I only mentioned the Latvian P297s in part to explain the Blätterhöhle "pre-M269" (born and died in the post-M269 era). As I said, with P297 so plentiful in Latvia, it's not surprising a stray dead end pre-M269 would end up as far west as Germany.

Finn

11-05-2017, 08:42 AM

The net closes around R1b U106 and the initiatal spread by the Unetice culture!

R1b U106 Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge and Oostwoud can both be connected with LN/EBA.

In addition to previous posting the Oostwoud R1b 106 can be connected with the Sögel-Wohlde culture and Rise 98 Lilla Beddinge can be connected with Valsømagle culture. Both can be considered as derivates of the Unetice culture.

In Valsømagle we find the earliest Nordic swords (Oxford Handbook Bronze Age).

Valsømagle culture, Sealand, lays exactly in front of Lilla Beddinge, just at the other side of the sea.

Wrap up: an amount of the EBA pioniers in NW Europe were bearers of R1b U106.

They stand on the threshold of a proto-Germanic Bronze Age culture!

VandKilde 2005:

The argument can be carried further into a discussion about the presentation of cultural and social identity through materi al means. Firstly, the boundary between ordinary Late Neolithic Culture and Beaker-enriched Late Neolithic Culture in Jutland coincidences roughly with an older cultural boundary between Single Grave Culture and Funnel-necked Beaker Culture (Glob 1944, fig. 113) in addition to a similar boundary centuries later, c. 1600 BC, between the Valsømagle and the Sögel-Wohlde metalwork styles (Vandkilde 1996, fig. 273, B; 1999 b). All three cases relate to con texts of general social change. Secondly, it is especially the frequent occurrence of Beaker pottery in settlements that makes the early Late Neolithic boundary distinct (see fig. 9). This tallies with an interpretation of Beaker pottery as first and foremost signalling a large-scaled form of social identity, which we may call cultural identity, or perhaps ethnic identity.

Finn

11-05-2017, 10:53 AM

And here, on a Nordic Bronze age chronology by Vandkilde, Lilla Beddinge (Rise98!), Scania and Drouwen, Drenthe (North Dutch):

https://www.mupload.nl/img/ijabsyauxjjfc.png

rms2

11-05-2017, 06:26 PM

Thanks, Finn, for livening up this thread. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but your posts are a real breath of fresh air after what we've had.

Finn

11-06-2017, 07:28 AM

Thanks, Finn, for livening up this thread. I'm not sure I agree with everything, but your posts are a real breath of fresh air after what we've had.

Thanks! Now I'am curios if I' ve hit the bull's eye....ore not....but until now it stays somewhat silence here ;)

R.Rocca

11-07-2017, 05:20 PM

2875-2700 BC, according to Heyd 2017.

If you mean PP4-10.042-49, then it must be pointed out that Heyd seems to have misrepresented the contents of the grave and its similarities to Yamnaya in his paper "Kossinna's Smile". On page 356 figure 4, he shows what looks like two sandals and compares them to Yamnaya stelae with comparable pairs. The truth of the matter is that the photograph is actually two side-by-side photographs and show the front and back of the same single "sandal". Based on the fact that the top of the ivory hilted dagger (with a crystal blade) is a perfect shape match for the "sandal", and that all three were found within centimeters of one another, it is obvious that this one item is not a sandal at all, but a decorative dagger sheath.

For the revealing pictures, see figures 8 and 9 here:

https://www.academia.edu/3406550/_Ivory_craftsmanship_trade_and_social_significance _in_the_southern_Iberian_Copper_Age_the_evidence_f rom_the_PP4-Montelirio_sector_of_Valencina_de_la_Concepci%C3%B 3n_Seville_Spain_._

While Heyd points out the burial mound, the site is obviously constructed in typical Megalthic style with 55 slate slabs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312222428_THOLOS_DE_MONTELIRIO

We (myself included) have been fooled by steppe-like burials before, with no better example than the Remedello graves which look a lot more like Bell Beaker graves than anything found in Copper Age Ibreria.

rms2

11-07-2017, 11:05 PM

I wonder if anything from that site, Valencina de la Concepcion, will be included in the final Olalde et al paper, since it is supposed to contain twice the samples of the original pre-print.

rms2

11-08-2017, 12:32 AM

The Bell Beaker blogger mentions an interesting Bell Beaker site at Hrbovice (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/11/beaker-warriors-discovered-in-hrbovice.html) in the Czech Republic. It would be nice to get some ancient dna from the skeletons there.

Here (https://ustecky.denik.cz/galerie/ustecti-archeologove-objevili-unikatni-praveke-pohrebiste.html?mm=8249122&back=3995141063-2424-54&photo=1) is a set of four photos from the site. If you go to photo 5 you're into a reklame (advertisment).

There is a spectacular Beaker site uncovered in the Ústí region of the Czech Republic in or near a town called Hrbovice, Ústecký kraj. From Ustecky Denik

The Bohemian Bowmen are outfitted with the full warrior gear including bow-shaped pendants on the chests, quivers (one having 9 arrows), spears and at least one wrist guard. The translation is somewhat garbled, but it appears a boat-shaped Beaker house is also discovered here with parallels to those in Hungary.

If I understand correctly, they have about thirteen graves from the Beaker Culture thus far.

rms2

11-08-2017, 01:15 AM

I think this Google map gives one a better idea of where that Bell Beaker site is than the map provided by the Bell Beaker blogger. Just my humble opinion.

Hrbovice, Czech Republic (https://goo.gl/maps/SRDucu3KTfR2)

alexfritz

11-08-2017, 02:34 AM

If you mean PP4-10.042-49, then it must be pointed out that Heyd seems to have misrepresented the contents of the grave and its similarities to Yamnaya in his paper "Kossinna's Smile". On page 356 figure 4, he shows what looks like two sandals and compares them to Yamnaya stelae with comparable pairs. The truth of the matter is that the photograph is actually two side-by-side photographs and show the front and back of the same single "sandal". Based on the fact that the top of the ivory hilted dagger (with a crystal blade) is a perfect shape match for the "sandal", and that all three were found within centimeters of one another, it is obvious that this one item is not a sandal at all, but a decorative dagger sheath.

For the revealing pictures, see figures 8 and 9 here:

https://www.academia.edu/3406550/_Ivory_craftsmanship_trade_and_social_significance _in_the_southern_Iberian_Copper_Age_the_evidence_f rom_the_PP4-Montelirio_sector_of_Valencina_de_la_Concepci%C3%B 3n_Seville_Spain_._

While Heyd points out the burial mound, the site is obviously constructed in typical Megalthic style with 55 slate slabs.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312222428_THOLOS_DE_MONTELIRIO

We (myself included) have been fooled by steppe-like burials before, with no better example than the Remedello graves which look a lot more like Bell Beaker graves than anything found in Copper Age Ibreria.

the remedello burial rite might have been adopted/mimickings from contacts with cw zones and cw elites (in comparison diffs to contemporary rinaldone); yet the late dating of T78 into the bell-beaker period and RIII phase of remedello in alentoft et al might be a blunder; Klimscha 2010 Die Datierung ins frühe 3. Jahrtausend kann auch für Remedello Grab 62 und 78 angenommen werden. Dafür spräche auch die Radiokarbonprobe aus Grab BS-II von Remedello, welche bei einer Wahrscheinlichkeit 95,4 % zwischen 2880 und 2460 v. Chr. datiert werden kann, und in denselben Zeithorizont wie Grab 78 gehört. that means that all three tested remedellians of the alentoft et al remedello trio might in fact stem from the 1st half of the 3rd mil (RI-II) i.e. the early phase of remedello and not RIII the bell-beaker phase (2nd half 3rd mil); thus there might be a chance that the beaker phase at remedello looks a lot like the contemporary parma-beaker I2478; p.127
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281857554_Kupferne_Flachbeile_und_Meissel_mit_ange deuteten_Randleisten_Ihre_Bedeutung_fur_die_Entste hung_und_Verbreitung_technischer_Innovationen_in_E uropa_und_Vorderasien_im_4-3_Jahrtausend_v_Chr

Romilius

11-08-2017, 06:34 AM

the remedello burial rite might have been adopted/mimickings from contacts with cw zones and cw elites (in comparison diffs to contemporary rinaldone); yet the late dating of T78 into the bell-beaker period and RIII phase of remedello in alentoft et al might be a blunder; Klimscha 2010 Die Datierung ins frühe 3. Jahrtausend kann auch für Remedello Grab 62 und 78 angenommen werden. Dafür spräche auch die Radiokarbonprobe aus Grab BS-II von Remedello, welche bei einer Wahrscheinlichkeit 95,4 % zwischen 2880 und 2460 v. Chr. datiert werden kann, und in denselben Zeithorizont wie Grab 78 gehört. that means that all three tested remedellians of the alentoft et al remedello trio might in fact stem from the 1st half of the 3rd mil (RI-II) i.e. the early phase of remedello and not RIII the bell-beaker phase (2nd half 3rd mil); thus there might be a chance that the beaker phase at remedello looks a lot like the contemporary parma-beaker I2478; p.127
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281857554_Kupferne_Flachbeile_und_Meissel_mit_ange deuteten_Randleisten_Ihre_Bedeutung_fur_die_Entste hung_und_Verbreitung_technischer_Innovationen_in_E uropa_und_Vorderasien_im_4-3_Jahrtausend_v_Chr

Sorry but that Beaker from Parma wasn't steppe like also in burial?

alexfritz

11-08-2017, 06:57 AM

Sorry but that Beaker from Parma wasn't steppe like also in burial?

app that is what sets him apart from the remedello trio supp.info(p.69) Population discontinuity in northern Italy Our Beaker Complex individual from Parma is slightly shifted towards populations with steppe ancestry in the PCA (Fig 1b). We tested for symmetry between BB_Italy_Par and Remedello_CA3 (Table S2), a culture preceding the Beaker Complex in northern Italy. Several steppe-like populations such as EHG (Z=4.6) or Yamnaya_Samara (Z=3.9) share more alleles with BB_Italy_Par than with Remedello_CA, indicating that our Italian Beaker Complex individual harbors a steppe-related ancestry component not present in the previous Remedello culture. TableS4(p.85) BB_Italy_Par Yam_Sam/An_N/WHG 0.301/0.566/0.133; the burial itself as i have read it shows closest affinities by context to those of moravia/low-austria;

Jean M

11-08-2017, 09:56 AM

If you mean PP4-10.042-49, then it must be pointed out that Heyd seems to have misrepresented the contents of the grave and its similarities to Yamnaya in his paper "Kossinna's Smile". On page 356 figure 4, he shows what looks like two sandals and compares them to Yamnaya stelae with comparable pairs. The truth of the matter is that the photograph is actually two side-by-side photographs and show the front and back of the same single "sandal". Based on the fact that the top of the ivory hilted dagger (with a crystal blade) is a perfect shape match for the "sandal", and that all three were found within centimeters of one another, it is obvious that this one item is not a sandal at all, but a decorative dagger sheath.

I hate to criticize the wonderful Volker Heyd in the smallest way, but I have to admit that I was also unconvinced on this. Although Leonardo García Sanjuán et al 2013 refer to 'sandal soles', they have divined the true purpose of this one:

The shape is similar to other pieces known in for the southern Iberian Copper Age record, which from lack of a better knowledge of their function, have been described as “sandal soles” or “sandal‐shaped idols”. To be exact, pieces of this type, made in bone or stone, with perforations (not V‐shaped) have been described for Almizaraque (Almería, Spain) (Maicas Ramos, 2007: Fig. III. 74) and Alapraia (Estremadura, Portugal)
(Gonçalves et al., 2005: 183, 185). The piece from grave 12 at Los Millares (Almeria, Spain) made from Asian ivory, is more similar (Leisner & Leisner, 1943: 25 lam. 11, 20; Schuhmacher, in press). For the case at hand, its position in relation to the dagger hilt described above, and because of its shape, it seems certain that it is part of the dagger sheath or case.

However the burial itself is of Yamnaya type.