PDA

View Full Version : Pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles - can we rule it out?



Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 09:27 AM
On the "R1b and its sibling R1a possible route(s) into Europe" thread I mentioned some still outstanding "post Haak 2015" issues.

I would like to elaborate on three of them in this new thread: 1 cremation; 2 later Neolithic Megalithic monuments; and 3 Neolithic meso/brachycephal remains.

1. a cremation trail?
Background -
When I look at L21, U152 and, to a lesser extent, DF27 in the Bronze Age I see people who are steeped in a cremation tradition. This seems odd because our P312 Beakers were steeped in the single grave tradition - very closely related to Corded traditions.

The Neolithic Cremation 'trail'
For example, we can find cremation documented in the Tisza-Polgar culture and Baden culture. Kosco and Videiko (1995 - Origin of Neolithic and Eneolithic Cremation Rites in Europe) talk of the Northern Model of cremation and movement of cremation south into the Danube and into the Balkans.

Childe (1950 Prehistoric Migrations in Europe) links the origins of cremation back to eastern Turkey. he also makes links to copper prospectors. On page 114/5 he states about Baden settlements "On the other hand several cases of cremation have been reported. ....Accordingly, Baden societies may have contained Anatolian prospectors attracted by the ores of central Europe They may even be constituted by a northward extension of that early macedonian migration across the Balkans that we envisaged in chapter V."
So who were the people spreading cremation rituals in central/western Europe during the Neolithic / chalcolithic? Did they come from the North, or the Steppe or from Anatolia? Can we rule out R1b?

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 09:29 AM
[QUOTE=Net Down G5L;74674]On the "I would like to elaborate on three of them in this new thread: 1 cremation; 2 later Neolithic Megalithic monuments; and 3 Neolithic meso/brachycephal remains.

2. Megalithic - 're-arrangement 3000BCE'
I find it very difficult to pin down an accurately dated sequence for Megalithic monuments. The literature is just too contradictory - menhirs, passage graves, gallery graves, dolmens etc.
I will start with just one sub-issue. Who "re-arranged the monuments" at about 3000BCE?
I attended the Prehistoric Society conference in London earlier this month. Alison Sheridon, Colin Richards and Josh Pollard made interesting comments about re-arranged monuments. Alison talked briefly about the Orkney elite introducing solar aligned monuments in Orkney c 3200-2900. Colin referred to La Hougue Bie on jersey as a composite monument made up of dismantled earlier monuments brought together to make a new monument about 3000BCE. He also described the Ring of brodgar, Stenness circle and Maeshowe as amalgams of earlier monuments on Orkney. Josh Pollard talked of 'renewed monument building' at Stonehenge c. 3000BCE and also cremation burials at the same time.
So who were the Neolithic people who rearranged older monuments, possibly worshiped a sun god and possibly practiced cremation rituals. Can we rule out R1b?

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 09:31 AM
[QUOTE=Net Down G5L;74674]On the "I would like to elaborate on three of them in this new thread: 1 cremation; 2 later Neolithic Megalithic monuments; and 3 Neolithic meso/brachycephal remains.


3. Coon - Neolithic mesocephalic and brachycephalic remains
I can hear some of you groaning. However, I think we have a lot to learn from Abercrombie, Vere Gorden Childe, Daniel, Hawkes, Coon etc - as well as Gimbutas. They were not afraid to talk about cultures and migrations, and i believe a lot of their hypotheses will be proven to be partly true by our analysis of DNA.
Abercrombie (1912 Bronze Age Pottery) linked the work of Ripley on skull types to his analysis of pottery and described brachycephal people moving north west from the alps (Alpine types) to Borreby.
Coon 1939 (The Races of Europe) thought the Alpine and Borreby brachycephals to be 'Mesolithic remnants'. Coon did however plot the route of a 'new migration of "Armenoid" brachycephal, sub-brachycephal and mesocephal people in the Neolithic. He traces their movement through the Mediterranean from Cyprus to Crete and through to cist graves in Sweden and Denmark.
Here is a sample extract from page 146:
" The evidence of the racial composition of the Copper Age sailors who reached Italy and the Italian islands is simple and direct. The moderately tall, long-headed, and narrow-nosed Megalithic people who were implanted, during the Late Neolithic, upon the smaller Mediterranean type which had preceded them, were followed, during the Aeneolithic, by others of the same kind, in the company of equally tall brachycephals. The latter resembled the people of the same Dinaric head form in Cyprus, Crete, and the Aegean, and without doubt formed a westward extension of the same movement."

So, who were the 'Anatolian' brachycephals and mesocephals? Can we rule out R1b?

rms2
03-17-2015, 11:45 AM
What would "Pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles" be? Neolithic farmers? Mesolithic hunter-gatherers?

Anything is possible, I guess, and we are often reminded by those who don't like the way things are going that, until we dig up every last ancient cadaver, we cannot be sure there isn't a 9,000-year-old R1b hidden somewhere in Western Europe to prove the truth of the Iberian Refuge or the Italian Refuge or what not.

The way I see it, and obviously I could be wrong, there are some pretty evident trends in ancient y-dna that are indicative of the way things were and how they played out. G2a appears to be the default Neolithic farmer y haplogroup, evidently descended from immigrants from the Near East. Y haplogroup I, especially I2a, appears to be native to Europe and to be the main y haplogroup of European hunter-gatherers of the Mesolithic and earlier. There are traces of other y haplogroups, like F, C, and E-V13, and even one R1b1-M415 from Neolithic Spain who was probably R1b-V88 and represents a P297- line that left Eurasia for the Near East and Africa long before the rise of the R1b-L23 line that is currently the most frequent form of R1b in Europe.

No R1b-L23 has been found in Europe older than that belonging to six of the seven Yamnaya remains from the Samara and Orenburg oblasts in Russia from the recent Haak et al paper. The oldest R1b yet found anywhere, about 7,600 years old, was recovered from a hunter-gatherer exhumed near Samara.

A number of well-respected scholars, David Anthony and James Mallory among them, attribute the spread of Proto-Indo-European to the Yamnaya cultural horizon, and the only Yamnaya y-dna results thus far are all R1b, most of them R1b-L23.

Some of those same scholars believe the Italo-Celtic branch of the Indo-European languages was spread by the Bell Beaker people, and now, thanks again to Haak et al, we have a Bell Beaker R1b-P312 result from a site near Quedlinburg, Germany, to accompany the two earlier R1bxU106 results (probably P312+, as well) from a site near Kromsdorf, Germany. We know that both the Bell Beaker people and Italo-Celtic languages eventually reached the British Isles and Ireland; it would not be too much of a stretch to infer that they arrived together.

So, thus far we have no sign whatsoever of R1b-L23 in Europe from Germany west earlier than Bell Beaker in the late third millennium BC, and lots of Neolithic farmer y-dna belonging to y haplogroups that are not R1b. We also have a number of Mesolithic results that are not R1b. And we have a Western Europe that came to be Indo-European speaking somehow. Indo-European has an east-to-west phylogeography and - surprise! - so does R1b.

In short, I think R1b-L23 arrived in Western Europe with Indo-European languages sometime in the 4th-3rd millennia BC and that there was no R1b in the Isles before the Bell Beaker people (unless some very few R1b-V88 got there in the Neolithic from Spain and left no y lines that survived).

ADW_1981
03-17-2015, 01:35 PM
Some of these west European surnames may have been in western Europe before the L11+ expansions from Central Europe. The first is R1b1*, and the second R1a*

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1Asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 01:47 PM
Thanks RMS.
I am very familiar with what you write from the numerous other threads. I am interested in discussing the questions I raised.
For example, if we assume that Early passage graves are I2a1 / I2a2 DNA c3,900-3,600BCE (Haak 2015) then who decided to pull down existing monuments c.3000BCE and erect new monuments with solar alignments?
Is it the same I2a1 / I2a2 people deciding it was time for a change? Was it Jean's Stelae people? Was it the cremation people and if so what was their DNA (obvious problems there). Was it Coons mix of 'new' dinaric brachycephals with 'existing' Mediterranean types? If so, what was their DNA?
At least we know the c3000BCE monuments did not erect themselves. So who did??

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 02:01 PM
Some of these west European surnames may have been in western Europe before the L11+ expansions from Central Europe. The first is R1b1*, and the second R1a*

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1b1Asterisk/
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1Asterisk/default.aspx?section=yresults

Interesting spread of R-P25. anyone know how reliable the * status is of those in these FTDNA projects?

Jean M
03-17-2015, 02:23 PM
1. a cremation trail?
Background -
When I look at L21, U152 and, to a lesser extent, DF27 in the Bronze Age I see people who are steeped in a cremation tradition. This seems odd because our P312 Beakers were steeped in the single grave tradition - very closely related to Corded traditions.

The Neolithic Cremation 'trail'
For example, we can find cremation documented in the Tisza-Polgar culture and Baden culture. Kosco and Videiko (1995 - Origin of Neolithic and Eneolithic Cremation Rites in Europe) talk of the Northern Model of cremation and movement of cremation south into the Danube and into the Balkans.

Childe (1950 Prehistoric Migrations in Europe) links the origins of cremation back to eastern Turkey. he also makes links to copper prospectors. On page 114/5 he states about Baden settlements "On the other hand several cases of cremation have been reported. ....Accordingly, Baden societies may have contained Anatolian prospectors attracted by the ores of central Europe

On the whole, a change of burial right is a very good sign of a new people arriving, but we know of at least two instances in historic times where people changed burial rite without migration:


the adoption of Christianity;
the modern change to cremation by personal choice, and perhaps as an acknowledgement of rising populations and pressure on land use.


So a surer guide to migration is a complete new cultural package arriving, including burial rite. But best of all is ancient DNA. The latter shows us that there is no change of population in Central Europe between Bell Beaker and Urnfield. The big changes in population in Europe come with


The arrival of farming. Reich estimated a 60% - 100% population replacement.
2500 BC steppe pastoralists, who represent 60% - 80% replacement, according to Prof. Reich.


Childe was an archaeologist of great brilliance, but he was prone to seeing the Near East as the origin of every novelty. He was absolutely right in the case of agriculture and metallurgy, but not necessarily right on every lesser matter. From the 1970s onwards his ideas were under attack by anti-migrationists who preferred to stress continuity and perceive local creativity. Kosco and Videiko 1995 are in that tradition and want to throw out an origin for cremation in the Near East/Anatolia. Frankly I don't think it is really significant where the first cremation took place. As they say, it pops up (though rarely) even before agriculture. They guess that it could have been a punishment. I'd guess that it could have sprung from necessity in winter, with ground too hard to dig. The important thing for the origins of Urnfield is the specific type of rite. To quote myself:


Two of the Middle Bronze Age cultures of Hungary favoured cremation, but only one of them placed a capped burial urn in a pit. That was the Vatya culture of sheep-breeders living in tell settlements along the Danube. These were well-placed for trading, as well as having good grazing land nearby. So the idea could easily have travelled up the Danube to the trading nexus at its head. From there it spread west and north into Germany and Poland and south into Italy. Finally it moved into France and part of Spain. There was also a transition to cremation burial in Scandinavia and the British Isles in the Late Bronze Age, but without the vast cemeteries of Continental Europe.


Sørensen, M.L.S. and Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2008. Landscapes of the body: burials of the Middle Bronze Age in Hungary, [I]European Journal of Archaeology, 11 (1), 49-74.
Timothy Champion, Clive Gamble, Stephen Shennan, Alisdair Whittle, Prehistoric Europe (2009), chapter 9: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bMMMlPReRm4C&pg=PA271#v=onepage&q&f=false

ADW_1981
03-17-2015, 02:30 PM
Interesting spread of R-P25. anyone know how reliable the * status is of those in these FTDNA projects?

Very reliable for the ones who are grouped. There tend to be many ineligble participants as part of Ungrouped sections.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 03:02 PM
Thanks Jean,
My point is that cremation was in the Isles before Beaker arrived. In the early and middle Bronze Age there appears to be 'battles of ideology' between the Beaker single grave burials under barrows and the cremations under barrows - clearly two different groups of people. cremation won out and dominated in the Middle Bronze Age - well before the arrival of Urnfield groups.
If we didn't know Beaker was P312 it would be a fair conclusion that Beaker was a passing fad and the line of people became extinct. Now that clearly is not the case. Unless Beaker is a line of P312 that did become extinct and other P312 lines who were cremation based went on to dominate. I very much doubt that scenario but the fact is the Late Neolithic and Bronze age story in the Isles is complex. I think that we are very far from having the complete answer yet.

sweuro
03-17-2015, 03:16 PM
I suppose pre-R1b British Isles was similar to France or Spain (western Europe) before R1b , that is : G2a, I2, some E-V13, F, and some C.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 03:49 PM
Thanks Jean,
My point is that cremation was in the Isles before Beaker arrived. In the early and middle Bronze Age there appears to be 'battles of ideology' between the Beaker single grave burials under barrows and the cremations under barrows - clearly two different groups of people.

Our problem here is that cremation was among the various ways that the early farmers of Britain and Ireland disposed of their dead, but it was not the most common way, let alone the invariable way. Likewise cremation appears among Bell Beaker groups as early as c. 2700 to 2400 BC in the Carpathian Basin, but was not the most common type of burial rite across the whole Bell Beaker world. So if we are going to argue for two different groups of people in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period, we need more than just cremation vs burial.


If we didn't know Beaker was P312 it would be a fair conclusion that Beaker was a passing fad

A passing fad that lasted 1000 years and spread over half of Europe?

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 04:21 PM
So if we are going to argue for two different groups of people in the British Isles in the Bell Beaker period, we need more than just cremation vs burial.

I will copy my old post that explained this:

"This is an extract from your recent discussion on the Harrison/Heyd (2007) paper Transforming Europe in the Third Millennium BC" - that prompted me to start posting:
Quote Originally Posted by Mikewww View Post
This map is eerily reminds me of a general's battle plan. It appears that about 2425 BC is the timeframe for a change. This is important as c say,
"The Bell Beaker A1 phase, and its swift transition to the A2 period, is the moment when the burial and cult activity of the complex is redefined. The early Bell Beaker activity is confined strictly to the primary monument M VI, where there is continuity with the Final Neolithic burials.
...The Beaker phase A2 is the climax of activity on the site,
...shift takes place at the beginning of the middle Beaker phase A2a, and the geographical connections are aligned in a different direction entirely. At this time the people at Sion were linked to the Bell Beaker East Group, as is shown quite clearly by the special finds which all have links to the east.
...Within two generations, another significant change takes place at both sites. This is the destruction horizon around 2425 BC,.
Was something very similar happening in England at about the same time...

You are probably all familiar with Mike Parker Pearson's recent accounts of the changes that took place at Stonehenge and Durringon Walls at this time.
However, I guess you have probably not come accross Andrew Martin's account of anomolies in Wessex barrows: ( Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books)

There is a convenient extract from this copyright article on the web at:
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/caah/la...f_barrows.html

I suggest you may like to read the section " A Specific Analysis of Barrows" on that web page.

My simple summary....
In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

So who were these clans, when did they arrive, and what type(s) of DNA dominated the people in each clan?

Well of course no-one is looking at ancient DNA of these burials yet. So there is plenty of time for anyone who wishes to speculate......... "

Joe B
03-17-2015, 04:28 PM
Interesting spread of R-P25. anyone know how reliable the * status is of those in these FTDNA projects?
A R1b tree root was created by smal recently. R1b Y-DNA tree (root). March 9, 2015 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j04q5ivx7iah9h4/R1b%20Y-DNA%20tree.pdf?dl=0)
There is one interesting sample sequenced by Estonian Biocentre



I found it forms new subclade under L278. It shares several SNPs with
FTDNA-267597 (Raza/Varanasi, India) and
bhu-0984 (Bhutan) from Hallast et al. 2014 (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/12/13/molbev.msu327.full).

http://s018.radikal.ru/i509/1503/60/f16c78b0e14f.png (http://www.radikal.ru)

See the detaled tree here. (https://www.dropbox.com/s/j04q5ivx7iah9h4/R1b%20Y-DNA%20tree.pdf?dl=0)

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 04:51 PM
I suppose pre-R1b British Isles was similar to France or Spain (western Europe) before R1b , that is : G2a, I2, some E-V13, F, and some C.

Thanks sweuro,
So who of these people may have 'rearranged' the Megalithic monuments c 3000BCE...and why??

Anybody have any suggestions??

Jean M
03-17-2015, 04:55 PM
There is a convenient extract from this copyright article on the web at:

Page seems to have gone AWOL.


In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

Right. So we are actually talking about two lots of BB people, and not farmers vs BB, as your previous post suggested.


So who were these clans, when did they arrive, and what type(s) of DNA dominated the people in each clan?

A number of persons including myself and Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology* have argued in print for some early BB (c. 24000 BC) arrivals down the Atlantic route from Iberia. I suggested (AJ) that they could have carried R1b-DF27. These people seem to have been overwhelmed numerically by the BB movements down the Rhine increasing from 2200 BC. Fitzpatrick refers to the Wessex/Middle Rhine type. I suggested (AJ) that the Rhine route BB could have carried R1b-L21. I discussed in AJ the evidence at Sion in the Alps of the hostility between these 'clans', or at least of the determination of the Danube/Rhine group to prevail over the Iberian group. (From the Harrison and Heyd 2007 paper you mentioned.)

* A. P. Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’ in J.T Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds), Celtic from the West 2. Rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oxbow/ Celtic Studies Publications XVI (2013), 41-70.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 05:43 PM
A number of persons including myself and Andrew Fitzpatrick of Wessex Archaeology* have argued in print for some early BB (c. 24000 BC) arrivals down the Atlantic route from Iberia. I suggested (AJ) that they could have carried R1b-DF27. These people seem to have been overwhelmed numery the BB movements down the Rhine increasing from 2200 BC. Fitzpatrick refers to the Wessex/Middle Rhine type. I suggested (AJ) that the Rhine route BB could have carried R1b-L21. I discussed in AJ the evidence at Sion in the Alps of the hostility between these 'clans', or at least of the determination of the Danube/Rhine group to prevail over the Iberian group. (From the Harrison and Heyd 2007 paper you mentioned.)

* A. P. Fitzpatrick, The arrival of the Bell Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’ in J.T Koch and B. Cunliffe (eds), Celtic from the West 2. Rethinking the Bronze Age and the arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Oxford, Oxbow/ Celtic Studies Publications XVI (2013), 41-70.

Yes, I tend to agree with that except I thought P312 or U152 as more likely the Rhine group.

But the story is full of complexities. If DF27 arrived in the west as single burial Beaker - why did they change to cremation under barrows...... and 'battle' with eastern beaker for territorial control? Also who were the 'cremation people' who were already there? And what happened to them?

I do not see a simple answer - so I still have it as an 'outstanding issue'.

I have not read Fitzpatrick in Celtic from the West 2 as I found Celtic from the West (1) interesting but slightly disappointing. Is (2) worth purchasing?

rms2
03-17-2015, 06:29 PM
Of course, this is modern distribution, but if one looks at the frequency of U152 in Britain from Busby et al, he sees its highest frequency in SE England and its relative paucity elsewhere. It does not look like a clade that arrived in much force as long ago as the Copper Age or Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk. U152 looks like it might have arrived with the Belgae and then received subsequent shots with the Romans and perhaps even the Anglo-Saxons. Actually, one could say pretty much the same thing about DF27, if one interprets the P312xL21,U152 in Busby to be mostly DF27.

This thread is a bit confusing. I thought its subject was the possibility of pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles, but now it seems to have switched to early Beaker R1b versus later Beaker R1b.

If it is actually about pre-Beaker R1b in the Isles, then I doubt there was any, otherwise it would be turning up at Neolithic and earlier sites on the Continent, unless one wants to argue the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 is more significant than it seems to be.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 06:48 PM
But the story is full of complexities. If DF27 arrived in the west as single burial Beaker - why did they change to cremation under barrows.

Let's call the two BB groups 'Atlantic' and 'Rhine' for the routes of arrival. Why do you think that the Atlantic group adopted cremation? That runs counter to the summary you just gave:


In short the first clan of beakers arrived and build simple barrows with inhumations. Then a second 'Wessex' clan arrived - put their cremation burials in to the top of the older barrows and built their own 'posh, Wessex' saucer and bell barrows nearby. The first beaker clan then retaliated and put their own inhumations in to the top of some of the 'posh' barrows.

So: Altantic= inhumation; Rhine = cremation (at least in this small part of England, itself only part of the vast BB territory).


Also who were the 'cremation people' who were already there? And what happened to them?

If you are talking about the Neolithic farmers of Britain (for whom cremation was just one option), they were in decline before the arrival of BB. Cereal farming had ceased. The BB people seem to have gradually overtaken the remainder numerically, as they had a more efficient economy and could therefore out-breed the earlier farmers.

rms2
03-17-2015, 06:49 PM
On the "I would like to elaborate on three of them in this new thread: 1 cremation; 2 later Neolithic Megalithic monuments; and 3 Neolithic meso/brachycephal remains.

2. Megalithic - 're-arrangement 3000BCE'
I find it very difficult to pin down an accurately dated sequence for Megalithic monuments. The literature is just too contradictory - menhirs, passage graves, gallery graves, dolmens etc.
I will start with just one sub-issue. Who "re-arranged the monuments" at about 3000BCE?
I attended the Prehistoric Society conference in London earlier this month. Alison Sheridon, Colin Richards and Josh Pollard made interesting comments about re-arranged monuments. Alison talked briefly about the Orkney elite introducing solar aligned monuments in Orkney c 3200-2900. Colin referred to La Hougue Bie on jersey as a composite monument made up of dismantled earlier monuments brought together to make a new monument about 3000BCE. He also described the Ring of brodgar, Stenness circle and Maeshowe as amalgams of earlier monuments on Orkney. Josh Pollard talked of 'renewed monument building' at Stonehenge c. 3000BCE and also cremation burials at the same time.
So who were the Neolithic people who rearranged older monuments, possibly worshiped a sun god and possibly practiced cremation rituals. Can we rule out R1b?

The question I would ask is: Is there any real good reason to rule in R1b?

Honestly, I can't see one.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 07:01 PM
The question I would ask is: Is there any real good reason to rule in R1b?

Honestly, I can't see one.

Well I can see no good reason to rule in any other type of DNA - unless you can give me one. Thats why I asked the question.

Augustus
03-17-2015, 07:15 PM
I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper, because it would put a dent on their East-West migration of R1b theory (which I agree with nonetheless). They specifically mentioned that the R1b in neolithic Spain was a hindrance to this theory, even though the plausibility of a West-East theory is troublesome.

I really find it hard to believe they would spend all these resources and thousands (if not millions?) of dollars on this project, and not test for V88. I personally think it was a dead branch, but not V88. The writers of the paper probably didn't mention it on purpose to make readers assume it was V88.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 07:16 PM
Who "re-arranged the monuments" at about 3000BCE?

Neolithic farmers who were getting worried about the economy. Where the belief system is that the proper kind of worship will bring rewards from the gods, one possible response to natural calamity such as drought or disease is to throw ever more fervour into building more or greater monuments in the hope that supernatural aid will be forthcoming.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 07:17 PM
Let's call the two BB groups 'Atlantic' and 'Rhine' for the routes of arrival. Why do you think that the Atlantic group adopted cremation? That runs counter to the summary you just gave:



So: Altantic= inhumation; Rhine = cremation (at least in this small part of England, itself only part of the vast BB territory).

The Amesbury Archer was not cremated. Are you suggesting he came from the Atlantic?


If you are talking about the Neolithic farmers of Britain (for whom cremation was just one option), they were in decline before the arrival of BB. Cereal farming had ceased. The BB people seem to have gradually overtaken the remainder numerically, as they had a more efficient economy and could therefore out-breed the earlier farmers.

When BB arrived in Wessex there were thousands of people gathering annually at Durrington Walls. They were feasting and showing signs that they were not an agricultural community in decline - but a sun worshiping group with energy to spare to rebuild monuments. They seemed to welcome the Beaker people as if they were distant relations? Was there an affinity that was more than 'being impressed with metalworking bling'?

rms2
03-17-2015, 07:19 PM
I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper, because it would put a dent on their East-West migration of R1b theory (which I agree with nonetheless). They specifically mentioned that the R1b in neolithic Spain was a hindrance to this theory, even though the plausibility of a West-East theory is troublesome.

I really find it hard to believe they would spend all these resources and thousands (if not millions?) of dollars on this project, and not test for V88. I personally think it was a dead branch, but not V88.

They tested for the entire panoply of SNPs on ISOGG's Tree as of March 2013 (if I recall the cut-off date correctly) but did not get a read for V88. In other words, Els Trocs could be V88+ (it probably is), but we don't know.

rms2
03-17-2015, 07:20 PM
Well I can see no good reason to rule in any other type of DNA - unless you can give me one. Thats why I asked the question.

But you offer no good reason to rule in R1b. There are plenty of reasons to rule it out. I cited a number of them.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 07:24 PM
I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper, because it would put a dent on their East-West migration of R1b theory.

That is utter nonsense as well as libellous. The discovery that the R1b in Neolithic Spain was V88 would actually support the theory of the east-west migration of R1b, by showing that this Neolithic R1b was of a separate lineage from the one that spread east to west in the Copper Age. It would have been much neater for them to have a V88+ for that sample. They apparently tested for it, without a result.

Megalophias
03-17-2015, 07:30 PM
I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper, because it would put a dent on their East-West migration of R1b theory (which I agree with nonetheless). They specifically mentioned that the R1b in neolithic Spain was a hindrance to this theory, even though the plausibility of a West-East theory is troublesome.

I really find it hard to believe they would spend all these resources and thousands (if not millions?) of dollars on this project, and not test for V88. I personally think it was a dead branch, but not V88. The writers of the paper probably didn't mention it on purpose to make readers assume it was V88.

You do realize that you are seriously insulting the authors of the paper, bordering on libel? Wow.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 07:32 PM
The Amesbury Archer was not cremated. Are you suggesting he came from the Atlantic?

No I'm not. I'm saying that cremation was one option for cadaver disposal among the many BB migrants from the Carpathian Basin down the Rhine. Cremation was not the most popular burial rite across the whole region into which that Rhine stream fed. Far from it. This story you described seems to be a local phenomenon, perhaps affecting a couple of families. I'm taking your word that it happened at all, not having access to the description on which you set such store.

Jean M
03-17-2015, 07:39 PM
When BB arrived in Wessex there were thousands of people gathering annually at Durrington Walls. They were feasting and showing signs that they were not an agricultural community in decline - but a sun worshiping group with energy to spare to rebuild monuments. They seemed to welcome the Beaker people as if they were distant relations? Was there an affinity that was more than 'being impressed with metalworking bling'?

Well I can see what you would like the answer to be. ;) Whenever I like an answer, I ask myself why I like it. We humans can't help being biased, but we can try to become aware of our biases. Why exactly would Britain be different from the Continent in respect of the general pattern of population change?

R.Rocca
03-17-2015, 08:27 PM
I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper, because it would put a dent on their East-West migration of R1b theory (which I agree with nonetheless). They specifically mentioned that the R1b in neolithic Spain was a hindrance to this theory, even though the plausibility of a West-East theory is troublesome.

I really find it hard to believe they would spend all these resources and thousands (if not millions?) of dollars on this project, and not test for V88. I personally think it was a dead branch, but not V88. The writers of the paper probably didn't mention it on purpose to make readers assume it was V88.

You figured them out...they've risked professional suicide if they ever got caught just to appease some anonymous bloggers on Anthrogenica. :crazy:

MitchellSince1893
03-17-2015, 09:13 PM
Of course, this is modern distribution, but if one looks at the frequency of U152 in Britain from Busby et al, he sees its highest frequency in SE England and its relative paucity elsewhere. It does not look like a clade that arrived in much force as long ago as the Copper Age or Bronze Age with the Beaker Folk. U152 looks like it might have arrived with the Belgae and then received subsequent shots with the Romans and perhaps even the Anglo-Saxons. Actually, one could say pretty much the same thing about DF27, if one interprets the P312xL21,U152 in Busby to be mostly DF27.
...
I used to be in the U152 arrived in the Isles with the Belgae camp, but based on SNP dating and subclade distribution, I'm inclined to believe in an earlier arrival date.
Even at 5 SNPs down from U152, my particular branch of U152, Z150/Z12222 (Yfull MRCA date 2100 BC) has samples from France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Great Britain. Which made me think of this notation about La Tene.

The La Tene Celts settled in Spain in 450 BC, in Northern Italy in 400 BC, invaded Rome in 390 BC, invaded Greece in 279 BC, invaded Galatia (in modern Turkey) in 270 BC. By 200 BC, they occupied the lands that are now Britain, the Netherlands, Brittany, Belgium, Germany and Switzerland..
But if Yfull is in the ball park on their 2100 BC date for Z150's TMRCA, then U152's arrival could be more ancient....possibly with Halstaat or earlier.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 10:32 PM
No I'm not. I'm saying that cremation was one option for cadaver disposal among the many BB migrants from the Carpathian Basin down the Rhine. Cremation was not the most popular burial rite across the whole region into which that Rhine stream fed. Far from it. This story you described seems to be a local phenomenon, perhaps affecting a couple of families. I'm taking your word that it happened at all, not having access to the description on which you set such store.

As per my post above the reference is:
( Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books)

The web reference was an extract to save people having to buy an expensive publication.

Net Down G5L
03-17-2015, 11:14 PM
Well I can see what you would like the answer to be. ;) Whenever I like an answer, I ask myself why I like it. We humans can't help being biased, but we can try to become aware of our biases. Why exactly would Britain be different from the Continent in respect of the general pattern of population change?

Jean, From your comments I don't think you can. What I would like is for Gimbutas to be right and for an early wave to have reached the Isles from the Steppe because that would support the model I developed some time ago. However, my model does not explain cremation, early brachycephals from the south or rearrangments of monuments. I am open minded to whatever the answers are and will revise my model and thinking accordingly.

In terms of DNA evidence Brotherton (2013) and Brandt (2014) suggest things are rather more complex than a simple East to West via the Danube - Rhine - Isles. Your own model also suggests it is more complex.

If R1b was on the west bank of the Black Sea when 'Gimbutas wave one occurred' (if it occured - again not proven absolutely) then R1b could have potentially been pushed in various directions).

In terms of I2 being under stress and rebuilding the monuments - yes that is what I assumed. However, the more I thought about it ...... if the seemingly emerging picture is correct - a massive and widespread change to monument re-arrangement, coupled with a change to cremation practice (exactly how widespread is pretty impossible to discern from the literature I have been able to access) ...... I struggle to just accept that picture as the obvious response to stress and feel the need to be open to other possibilities.

newtoboard
03-17-2015, 11:31 PM
So who are your Sea of Mamara dairy farmers now that they can't really be R1b, Jean? Y J2?

Agamemnon
03-18-2015, 02:22 AM
I used to be in the U152 arrived in the Isles with the Belgae camp, but based on SNP dating and subclade distribution, I'm inclined to believe in an earlier arrival date.
Even at 5 SNPs down from U152, my particular branch of U152, Z150/Z12222 (Yfull MRCA date 2100 BC) has samples from France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Great Britain. Which made me think of this notation about La Tene.
.
But if Yfull is in the ball park on their 2100 BC date for Z150's TMRCA, then U152's arrival could be more ancient....possibly with Halstaat or earlier.

I agree, I also think the bulk of U152 in Britain might've come with la Tène, Hallstatt and Urnfield, its easterly distribution seems to correlate to some extent. I suspect U152 initially arose in Central-Eastern European Beaker groups.

Augustus
03-18-2015, 02:34 AM
You figured them out...they've risked professional suicide if they ever got caught just to appease some anonymous bloggers on Anthrogenica. :crazy:

Professional suicide for something that puts a slight dent on their main thesis?

Augustus
03-18-2015, 02:38 AM
The discovery that the R1b in Neolithic Spain was V88 would actually support the theory of the east-west migration of R1b, by showing that this Neolithic R1b was of a separate lineage from the one that spread east to west in the Copper Age.

That's exactly my point. I don't think it was V88, but a dead branch. V88 can very easily be dismissed as an anomaly, an extinct branch can't, and would require a lot further elaboration. I'm saying there is a possibility* they want readers to assume it is V88 by not denying it.

Jean M
03-18-2015, 04:38 AM
Professional suicide for something that puts a slight dent on their main thesis?

It would be professional suicide to lie about results. You seem not to realise that manipulating data is a crime in science. Anyone caught doing that is shown the door. Their reputation is in tatters. Their career is over. True scientists do not do it. To suggest on no grounds whatever that the Reich Lab is engaged in such behaviour is libellous.

Jean M
03-18-2015, 04:54 AM
That's exactly my point. I don't think it was V88, but a dead branch. V88 can very easily be dismissed as an anomaly, an extinct branch can't, and would require a lot further elaboration. I'm saying there is a possibility* they want readers to assume it is V88 by not denying it.

Scientists do not set out to prove a particular theory. They set out to test it. Strange as it may seem to you, the true scientist is driven by the desire to find out what is actually going on. If they find something that seems not to fit the overall pattern in the data, they publish it and they point out that it seems to be an anomaly, which is exactly what the Reich Lab has done with this Neolithic R1b. They are not hiding it. Nor are they playing silly mind games with readers. The raw genetic data from all their samples has been made available for other scientists to use. Indeed any amateur with the right software can check their results.

Net Down G5L
03-18-2015, 07:35 AM
Scientists do not set out to prove a particular theory. They set out to test it. Strange as it may seem to you, the true scientist is driven by the desire to find out what is actually going on. If they find something that seems not to fit the overall pattern in the data, they publish it and they point out that it seems to be an anomaly,

Yes, well said Jean. And that is exactly the point of this thread. My three outstanding issues (= anomalies) do not fit my model and I do not think they fit the models of most of the people who contribute to these R1b discussions.

Re Coon (nobody has responded to this 'anomaly' yet)
I think the Coon work is quite remarkable considering the date it was written. Of course we have much more powerful DNA techniques now. In 1939 they did not. I recently spent a whole week reading his work (yes I read very slowly) and trying to follow related lines of evidence to check his thoughts out. My simplistic conclusion was that his work may have been a very rough proxy for DNA in the Mesolithic and Neolithic when admixture was perhaps relatively less of a complication. By the Iron Age I felt he may have been clutching at straws a bit because of the (probable) much higher levels of admixture (but I could be wrong).
His key post Mesolithic types are:
Mediterranean - (possibly G2a dominated?)
Corded (possibly R1a dominated)
Megalithic (possibly I2 dominated?)
Danubian (a bit complex here - seems to start as G2a like but change over time. Still struggling to understand his logic through Neolithic - Bronze Age - Iron Age...but obviously it was a corridor with lots of mixing taking place so defining 'one Danubian type' was probably not helpful).

Also 'other types' - particularly his Dinaric / Anatolian - primarily meso and sub-brachial.

I generally his Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations for 'Meditteranean, Corded, Megalithic, Danubian types' fit quite well with Brandt (2014). I was particularly interested in his 'other' Dinaric / Anatolian as I thought the Mesocephal and Sub-brachycephal types may give some clues to the origins of Beaker in the Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic.

What he wrote was not what I expected. He describes movements through Cyprus / Crete into Italy / Balkans and via the Med/Atlantic to Sweden. He also, at various points, calls the Dinaric type Anatolian. That does not mean that the people (if such a 'group' actually existed in reality) could not have come from the Steppe via the west bank of the Black Sea to the Turkish coast then cyprus. They could represent Z2103? They could represent the Stelae people? They could be a 'dead line of R1b? They could be a route for M269? Or they could be a group totally unrelated to R1b?

I do not know if Coon was correct in his identification of that 'migration'. And if he was right I do not know the implications. But I do think it is something worth exploring because it certainly challenges my model and could potentially help me improve it. And I guess the same may be true for some others who contribute to this forum.

Jessie
03-18-2015, 08:41 AM
Yes, well said Jean. And that is exactly the point of this thread. My three outstanding issues (= anomalies) do not fit my model and I do not think they fit the models of most of the people who contribute to these R1b discussions.

Re Coon (nobody has responded to this 'anomaly' yet)
I think the Coon work is quite remarkable considering the date it was written. Of course we have much more powerful DNA techniques now. In 1939 they did not. I recently spent a whole week reading his work (yes I read very slowly) and trying to follow related lines of evidence to check his thoughts out. My simplistic conclusion was that his work may have been a very rough proxy for DNA in the Mesolithic and Neolithic when admixture was perhaps relatively less of a complication. By the Iron Age I felt he may have been clutching at straws a bit because of the (probable) much higher levels of admixture (but I could be wrong).
His key post Mesolithic types are:
Mediterranean - (possibly G2a dominated?)
Corded (possibly R1a dominated)
Megalithic (possibly I2 dominated?)
Danubian (a bit complex here - seems to start as G2a like but change over time. Still struggling to understand his logic through Neolithic - Bronze Age - Iron Age...but obviously it was a corridor with lots of mixing taking place so defining 'one Danubian type' was probably not helpful).

Also 'other types' - particularly his Dinaric / Anatolian - primarily meso and sub-brachial.

I generally his Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations for 'Meditteranean, Corded, Megalithic, Danubian types' fit quite well with Brandt (2014). I was particularly interested in his 'other' Dinaric / Anatolian as I thought the Mesocephal and Sub-brachycephal types may give some clues to the origins of Beaker in the Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic.

What he wrote was not what I expected. He describes movements through Cyprus / Crete into Italy / Balkans and via the Med/Atlantic to Sweden. He also, at various points, calls the Dinaric type Anatolian. That does not mean that the people (if such a 'group' actually existed in reality) could not have come from the Steppe via the west bank of the Black Sea to the Turkish coast then cyprus. They could represent Z2103? They could represent the Stelae people? They could be a 'dead line of R1b? They could be a route for M269? Or they could be a group totally unrelated to R1b?

I do not know if Coon was correct in his identification of that 'migration'. And if he was right I do not know the implications. But I do think it is something worth exploring because it certainly challenges my model and could potentially help me improve it. And I guess the same may be true for some others who contribute to this forum.

I'm thinking it would be difficult to guess population movements without genetics. It is a lot of guess work otherwise.

lgmayka
03-18-2015, 09:41 AM
You seem not to realise that manipulating data is a crime in science. Anyone caught doing that is shown the door. Their reputation is in tatters. Their career is over.
Chuckle. Your sweeping statements are going far beyond the immediate issue. You are looking at academia through rose-colored glasses. I do not want to hijack this thread by discussing the many serious sins of academia--but neither should you by making such absurd generalizations about its shining virtue.

You are emotionally overreacting to the simple suggestion that authors might have withheld from publication some data they considered questionable or controversial until they could either refute it or confirm it with further evidence (and then write a separate paper about the topic).

Net Down G5L
03-18-2015, 09:42 AM
I'm thinking it would be difficult to guess population movements without genetics. It is a lot of guess work otherwise.

Yes agreed and thats why Coon, Childe etc will not be anywhere near 100% correct. But genetics is just one line of evidence. Understanding population movements is a multidisciplinary study. It is my opinion that genetics will turn out to be the most powerful tool in the longer term. At the moment I think we do not have enough data.
For example, we are lacking late Neolithic samples from the Isles (ref this thread) and the Atlantic zone more generally.

We can use the archaeology and anthropology data to help target aDNA sampling. In an ideal world we could source and sample some of the old sub-brachycephal and meso-cephal skulls that Coon referred to. However, my understanding is that it is much more difficult to successfully extract aDNA from old and more highly contaminated samples than from new samples that are well preserved with minimum contamination. But, I have little knowledge of the developing lab techniques so could well be wrong on that.

Jean M
03-18-2015, 11:01 AM
As per my post above the reference is:
( Martin, A. 2008 ‘The Alien Within: the forgotten subcultures of Early Bronze Age Wessex’ in Jones, A. and G. Kirkham (ed.s) Beyond the Core: reflections on regionality in prehistory, Oxford: Oxbow Books)

The web reference was an extract to save people having to buy an expensive publication.

Yes I realise what your helpful intention was, but I felt you should know that the link was dead. In fact the book is cheap enough now from Oxbow. http://www.oxbowbooks.com/oxbow/beyond-the-core.html but I'm not sure that I desperately need it.

rms2
03-18-2015, 11:35 AM
I agree, I also think the bulk of U152 in Britain might've come with la Tène, Hallstatt and Urnfield, its easterly distribution seems to correlate to some extent. I suspect U152 initially arose in Central-Eastern European Beaker groups.

I agree that U152 was part of Beaker (I think all of the main branches of P312 were), but I don't think the modern distribution of U152 in Britain and Ireland supports a Bronze Age or earlier arrival in those places. U152 in Britain is mostly a southeastern phenomenon, and it is scarce in Ireland. In Ireland, it looks like it was brought in by English settlers, and not much of it even then.

So, Hallstatt and La Tene, maybe, but I don't think the Beaker people who went to the Isles carried much U152 with them.

rms2
03-18-2015, 11:44 AM
That's exactly my point. I don't think it was V88, but a dead branch. V88 can very easily be dismissed as an anomaly, an extinct branch can't, and would require a lot further elaboration. I'm saying there is a possibility* they want readers to assume it is V88 by not denying it.

Except that, as I told you, Haak et al tested the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 for V88.



The 390k capture reagent targeted all SNPs present in the Y-DNA SNP index of the International
Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) version 8.22 as of April 22, 2013
(http://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNA_SNP_Index.html).

rms2
03-18-2015, 11:53 AM
Sorry for a third post in a row, but it might be somewhat helpful to recall that across the Channel, not far from Paris, the megalithic Dolmen of La Pierre Fritte yielded the remains of two men dated to about 2750-2725 BC. They both belonged to y-haplogroup I2a (I-M26 predicted by STRs).

I know that's not a British Isles result, but I'm not sure why we should expect the megalith builders just across the Channel in Britain to be something other than what the megalith builders nearby in France were at about the same time.

Jean M
03-18-2015, 12:05 PM
Yes, well said Jean. And that is exactly the point of this thread. My three outstanding issues (= anomalies) do not fit my model and I do not think they fit the models of most of the people who contribute to these R1b discussions.

I expected you to leap upon this! :) Let us by all means go over what you believe to be anomalies. I was endeavouring to deal with them in order.

1. Cremation trail?

This looks like a case of over-simplification of a complex picture.


As I said before, cremation has cropped up at a lot of times and places. It should not be seen on its own as linking or identifying cultures. We need to look for 'packages' of cultural markers in order to track migration.
In the specific case of cremation in the pre-BB Neolithic in Britain and in Bell Beaker, I pointed out that cremation was present in both as one possible choice.
I saw that Alan responded to you in a previous discussion of this same topic on this forum in 2013 that he thought a number of British Isles food vessel and urn burial traditions at the end of the Beaker period look very much like an adaptation of Bell Beaker traditions to local pre-beaker traditions. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1489-A-deeper-think-about-beakers-in-Britain-and-R1b-DNA-quot-from-the-West-quot&p=18030&viewfull=1#post18030
However cremation was present in the Csepel group of BB in the Carpathian Basin, and therefore could have travelled down the Rhine into Britain as one possible option for disposal of the dead (not an invariable practice) among some of these incomers. Jan Turek has written on the topic. He discusses the possibility that cremations were the choice for women particularly. https://www.academia.edu/504422/SIGNIFICANCE_OF_CREMATION_IN_THE_FUNERARY_PRACTICE S


2. Megalithic - 're-arrangement 3000BCE'?

This does not require a migration or even suggest one. As I said above, this was probably the work of Neolithic farmers who were getting worried about the economy. Where the belief system is that the proper kind of worship will bring rewards from the gods, one possible response to natural calamity such as drought or disease is to throw ever more fervour into building more or greater monuments in the hope that supernatural aid will be forthcoming.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4043-Pre-Beaker-R1b-in-the-Isles-can-we-rule-it-out&p=74732&viewfull=1#post74732

3. Coon - Neolithic mesocephalic and brachycephalic remains?

No anomaly at all. I frankly wouldn't waste your time with Coon. The fascination with skull types and other traits visible in human remains was inevitable before we had ancient DNA, but nowadays even modern physical anthropology studies (which I would recommend in place of Coon) are just a stop-gap at best. However if you absolutely insist on ploughing through it, modern thinking* supports the early observation that BB people arriving in Britain were mainly brachycephalic in contrast to the long-headed Neolithic farmers. That would suggest that they were mainly from the Rhine route (where BB was linked to brachycephaly) rather than the Atlantic route, where BB was not so linked. Mixture with the locals would even things out over time.

*Cox, M. and Mays, S. 2000. Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science. London: Greenwich Medical Media.

R.Rocca
03-18-2015, 12:30 PM
Chuckle. Your sweeping statements are going far beyond the immediate issue. You are looking at academia through rose-colored glasses. I do not want to hijack this thread by discussing the many serious sins of academia--but neither should you by making such absurd generalizations about its shining virtue.

You are emotionally overreacting to the simple suggestion that authors might have withheld from publication some data they considered questionable or controversial until they could either refute it or confirm it with further evidence (and then write a separate paper about the topic).

Withholding data is one thing, but that is not what Augustus suggested...he suggested they flat out lied about the data. They have enough caveats in the paper to not warrant lying about anything IMO, so the accusation (slander) was completely unwarranted.

R.Rocca
03-18-2015, 01:00 PM
I agree that U152 was part of Beaker (I think all of the main branches of P312 were), but I don't think the modern distribution of U152 in Britain and Ireland supports a Bronze Age or earlier arrival in those places. U152 in Britain is mostly a southeastern phenomenon, and it is scarce in Ireland. In Ireland, it looks like it was brought in by English settlers, and not much of it even then.

So, Hallstatt and La Tene, maybe, but I don't think the Beaker people who went to the Isles carried much U152 with them.

That U152 is as old as Bell Beaker is a certainty. Its shared STR signature with all other P312 just about demands it. In Britain we know that the two Iron Age Britons tested thus far were L21+, and that was pretty much to the SE of the island and where one would expect to find U152 as Bell Beaker remnants. So, the way things are trending, the bulk of U152 likely reached Britain between the late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. My own L2+FGC10543+ subclade has recently been found in SW Britain, but statistically makes up 0% of total lineages there, while it makes up more than 20% of males in some Alpine areas of NE Italy, so a Roman legacy is quite possible for some lineages.

lgmayka
03-18-2015, 01:21 PM
Withholding data is one thing, but that is not what Augustus suggested...he suggested they flat out lied about the data.
Augustus wrote: "I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper..." He was not suggesting falsification, but selective omission.

I do not think Augustus' comment was appropriate, but neither was the exaggerated emotional overreaction.

R.Rocca
03-18-2015, 01:46 PM
Augustus wrote: "I think Haak et al. didn't test V88 on purpose, or they did and didn't put in on the paper..." He was not suggesting falsification, but selective omission.

I do not think Augustus' comment was appropriate, but neither was the exaggerated emotional overreaction.

Well, in my mind, falsification of results and selective omission are one in the same in this instance, considering they told us which SNPs they tested for.

Jean M
03-18-2015, 02:02 PM
Well, in my mind, falsification of results and selective omission are on in the same in this instance, considering they told us which SNPs they tested for.

Precisely. Augustus was in fact suggesting a deliberate attempt to deceive in order to shore up a theory. That is malpractice.

Critique of the conclusions or design of studies is entirely legitimate and in my view a valuable part of forums such as these. If there is actual evidence of malpractice, we should be free to point that out too. But baseless cynicism is of no value at all.

Net Down G5L
03-18-2015, 02:17 PM
1. Cremation trail?

Jan Turek has written on the topic. He discusses the possibility that cremations were the choice for women particularly. https://www.academia.edu/504422/SIGNIFICANCE_OF_CREMATION_IN_THE_FUNERARY_PRACTICE S
[/LIST]

Interesting paper - not seen it before. Thanks.


modern thinking* supports the early observation that BB people arriving in Britain were mainly brachycephalic in contrast to the long-headed Neolithic farmers. That would suggest that they were mainly from the Rhine route (where BB was linked to brachycephaly) rather than the Atlantic route, where BB was not so linked. Mixture with the locals would even things out over time.

Which is exactly why the presence of brachycephals in the Mediterranean is interesting. The Megalithic I2 'longheads' are pretty consistent. But as Alan posted recently the Megalithic is not a simple single culture. The appearance of 'roundheads' in the Megalithic complex does not prove they are not I2. But it does suggest that they could be different DNA. The only supposed 'roundhead' that I know that have had aDNA analysis so far have been the Beaker R1b samples. But perhaps that is just my lack of knowledge.

Anyway, my money is still on some non I2 DNA turning up in the Megalithic complex and I would not be at all surprised if some R1b appeared.

It also raises the question:
what is the DNA of the Stelae people, their physical anthropology characteristics, and their wider cultural characteristics? And how does an origin at Gobekli Tepe in southeastern Anatolian Turkey link to a Kemni Obi culture migration out of the Steppe. I am actually quite happy to wait for AJ2 and The Blood of the Celts to read about that :)

Agamemnon
03-18-2015, 02:46 PM
I agree that U152 was part of Beaker (I think all of the main branches of P312 were), but I don't think the modern distribution of U152 in Britain and Ireland supports a Bronze Age or earlier arrival in those places. U152 in Britain is mostly a southeastern phenomenon, and it is scarce in Ireland. In Ireland, it looks like it was brought in by English settlers, and not much of it even then.

So, Hallstatt and La Tene, maybe, but I don't think the Beaker people who went to the Isles carried much U152 with them.

My thoughts exactly, I think it's pretty clear that U152 arrived mainly during the Iron Age.

alan
03-18-2015, 02:52 PM
Cremation is increasingly known in the Mesolithic - the only formal Mesolithic burial in Ireland were cremations for example. When the Neolithic arrived in the isles it seems that some more peripheral areas always retained what may have been a Mesolithic tradition of cremation alongside the more typical collective inhumation. For example Irish megaliths and Scottish Clyde Cairns show use of cremation despite that fact it was rare in the isles in general.

As for Megalithic - I think people need to get the idea of a Megalithic culture out of their heads. It seems people made the same tombs and standing stones in rocky areas which would have been made in earth and wood elsewhere. Certainly in the isles megalithic versions of earth and timber long barrows existed from very early in the Neolithic - indeed in a lot of areas they were the only version ever made. There was no 2nd wave of megalithicism. It was just a choice of materials based on the environment. Many of the aspects of Megalithic Court, Clyde and Cotswalds tombs are similar to those expressed in earth in the south of England - wedge shape, wide eastern end, higher at the entrance end etc. Skeuomorphs =the same thing in different materials. We also later see the situation in the late Neolithic/copper/bronze ages where some areas have timber circles, some have stone circles and some have timeber replaced by stone. So, the megalithic culture concept in invalid IMO

Jean M
03-18-2015, 02:56 PM
Which is exactly why the presence of brachycephals in the Mediterranean is interesting. The Megalithic I2 'longheads' are pretty consistent. But as Alan posted recently the Megalithic is not a simple single culture. The appearance of 'roundheads' in the Megalithic complex does not prove they are not I2.

This is more or less like "When did you stop beating your wife?" ;) The fact that Y-DNA I2 has been found at two Neolithic megalithic burial sites does not mean that all male megalith builders carried this signature. It simply fits a pattern: I2 appears to be a European Mesolithic Y-DNA haplogroup that was absorbed by early farmers moving up the Danube. It seems to have been carried along with some Cardial Ware groups, though in a more patchy fashion than the predominant G2a. So it is not surprising that we find it in a megalithic burial in France and another in Spain, but as more megalithic burials are tested, we can expect other haplogroups than I2 to appear in them.

As Alan pointed out above, the old idea that there was a 'megalithic culture' which can be separated from other Neolithic cultures has long been jettisoned. Monuments built out of big stones are not confined to Europe. Varieties of dolmen can be found from the westernmost shores of Europe to India, Indonesia and China. The greatest concentration of dolmens is in Korea. I'm sure that you would not want to suggest that people couldn't prop up some stones in Korea without the aid of men carrying Y-DNA I2. :)

The earliest megalithic monument is at Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. Here in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic c. 9000 BC we see the start of man's determination to make a mark on the landscape, but this is a very distant ancestor to the anthropomorphic stelae of the Pontic-Caspian steppe starting in the Mikhailovka culture (3700-3400 BC). Stelae of this type radiated out from the steppe in several directions. They help us to track the movements of IE speakers, so we can expect them to be associated with the Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups that have so far been found in ancient DNA in Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Andronovo, Bell Beaker etc.

alan
03-18-2015, 03:02 PM
As far as I understand the broad skulls in beaker are associated with the sudden expansion of beaker in central and north-west Europe around 2500BC. This spread to take in so much more land happened so rapidly that an almost family/clan trait could have been involved and I would doubt it is a broader racial trait. That is why I dont think looking for precursors of this trait is likely to help. It appears to me to have arisen out of the blue in west-central Europe in developed beaker times when the spread of beakers hugely jumped over just a generation or two.

rms2
03-18-2015, 07:06 PM
. . .

Anyway, my money is still on some non I2 DNA turning up in the Megalithic complex and I would not be at all surprised if some R1b appeared . . .



Honestly, I doubt that any R1b will show up in pre-Beaker Britain or Ireland, but if it does, it will not be R1b-L23 but rather R1b-V88 or perhaps R1b1* (M415 or something else on that level that is P297-).

The reason I think this is because the basic R1b story is something like the following. R1b begins with an origin in Asia or far eastern Europe. At some point, before the rise of P297, a band of P297- R1b1 headed to the Near East. Their descendants became involved in the Neolithic Revolution in the Near East, and V88 arose among them. V88 took part in a Neolithic migration to Africa. Some of that V88, and perhaps a small amount of some kind of R1b1xP297,V88, made its way via the Mediterranean littoral to Iberia and other points in southern Europe.

Meanwhile, back in Asia or far eastern Europe, P297 arose and became the dominant variety among the R1b population that remained behind. This eastern R1b-P297 split into an M73 branch and an M269 branch. To make a long story short, eventually L23 arose among the members of the M269 branch. L23 itself subsequently split into a Z2103 branch and an L51 branch, both of which were prevalent among the steppe pastoralist Proto-Indo-Europeans. Beginning in the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC, L51 would advance west and northwest into peninsular Europe. Z2103 would advance into SE Europe and Anatolia but also remain on the Eurasian steppe along with M73.

So, basically, what I see is two distinct movements of R1b from its Asian or far Eastern European place of origin: first, a pre-P297 (P297-) migration that spawned V88 and became involved in the Near Eastern Neolithic; and, second, some millennia after the first movement, a P297>M269>L23 migration of steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans, which also included R1a.

This is why I think it unlikely that any pre-Beaker R1b will turn up in the Isles and extremely unlikely that any pre-Beaker R1b-L23 will turn up there.

Augustus
03-18-2015, 11:59 PM
Well we know hunter gatherers in Britain traded with the neolithic cultures of Europe. If not L23, I wouldn't be surprised to see some dead branch of R1b. My money is on I2 and C though, if any samples are obtained.

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 12:29 AM
On a related note I think there is a zone of Z2103+ in West Asia that is unrelated to the migration of the known branches of IE speakers to Asia or was a minority component among them. I think it stretches from Dagestan to Turkmenistan. No Anatolian or Balkan speakers in this region ever really so this is probably a different migration from the steppe, Volga-Urals or North-Central Asia to West Asia. Do you think the direction was the steppe to Dagestan to Iran to Turkmenistan (ie a West Caspian route) or was it the the steppe/Volga-Urals/North-Central Asia to Turkmenistan to Iran to Dagestan (ie a route around the east side of the Caspian). I think the latter looks more likely given the confirmation of Z2103 towards the NE corner of Yamnaya and that Poltavka imo is still the best theory for the homeland of R1a-Z93+ and Indo-Iranian languages. Is there archealogical evidence for this? I know the Caucasus route has no support for any IE group (other than Scythian/Cimmerian raiders) despite people proposing various migrations for Armenians through the Balkans.

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 07:04 AM
Honestly, I doubt that any R1b will show up in pre-Beaker Britain or Ireland, but if it does, it will not be R1b-L23 but rather R1b-V88 or perhaps R1b1* (M415 or something else on that level that is P297-).

To make a long story short, eventually L23 arose among the members of the M269 branch. L23 itself subsequently split into a Z2103 branch and an L51 branch, both of which were prevalent among the steppe pastoralist Proto-Indo-Europeans. Beginning in the late 5th – early 4th millennium BC, L51 would advance west and northwest into peninsular Europe. Z2103 would advance into SE Europe and Anatolia but also remain on the Eurasian steppe along with M73

I am more than happy with this description as it fits perfectly with my own model. But the demon in my head will not let me rest until I have properly slain the 'Anatolian dragon. Please bear with me because this I am not trying to Troll you but genuinely want to clarify my understanding of the DNA arguments.
Now, I understand that most of you have firmly rejected the Anatolian - Balkan route for L51 and I sort of understand why - but not fully understand why. I know you covered it thoroughly in the recent R1b and its sibling R1a possible route(s) into Europe thread. Now that is possibly my all time favourite Anthrogenica thread and I have ordered up Family Finder so I can belatedly join the data crunching party.
I have tried my best to understand the data and follow the arguments that the data proves an out of the Steppe model. I do not understand how it could not equally support an out of Anatolia model so I am asking for help to improve my understanding.

You will understand my problem when I say I don't fully understand the origins of all the reference populations. And as far as I know, there is no Anatolian genome for reference to compare corded, beaker etc against. If there is and I am missing it would explain a lot of my lack of understanding.

I will post a "What If" Anatolian scenario below and I would appreciate an understanding of how the DNA data refutes it so I can 'slay the dragon' and get that demon out of my head

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 09:24 AM
I will post a "What If" Anatolian scenario below and I would appreciate an understanding of how the DNA data refutes it so I can 'slay the dragon' and get that demon out of my head
What if "Anatolian Prospectors" model:
OK here is the hypothetical scenario...
R1b is present at Gobekli Tepe some time after 9000BCE
L23 'born' Anatolia / Armenia c 5000BCE (Y Full date)
Z2103 moves North to join Maikop(?) culture carrying stelae and stone circle tradition so present in Samara before 3000BCE ref Haak samples.
Z2103 carries Anatolian DNA that becomes part of the Samara genetic make up.
L23 second movement along North Turkey/Black Sea coast - the "Anatolian Prospectors"
M269 born at some point.
M269 moves in to Balkans and possibly Danube corridor.
L11
P312 arrives in Germany (via Balkans or Danube)and mixes with corded ware
P312 Beaker (eastern corded Beaker) buried at Quedlinburg c.2250BCE

The admixture contains Anatolian, Western Hunter Gatherer and corded hence having commonality with Samara but being closer to Corded.

Now ........... what is the DNA evidence that I do not understand that so emphatically rules this out for everyone?

Generalissimo
03-19-2015, 09:52 AM
Now ........... what is the DNA evidence that I do not understand that so emphatically rules this out for everyone?

For one, R1 among Eastern European hunter-gatherers with no Near Eastern admixture.

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 10:04 AM
For one, R1 among Eastern European hunter-gatherers with no Near Eastern admixture.
Thanks Generalissimo.
I have read about models where R splits in siberia (or North of the Caucuses) with R1b heading south to Armenia, V88 on to the Levant and later, L23 Z2013 a reverse flow to Samara.

If that were correct it would accommodate R1 not having a Near Eastern admixture?

Generalissimo
03-19-2015, 10:32 AM
Thanks Generalissimo.
I have read about models where R splits in siberia (or North of the Caucuses) with R1b heading south to Armenia, V88 on to the Levant and later, L23 Z2013 a reverse flow to Samara.

If that were correct it would accommodate R1 not having a Near Eastern admixture?

That's not what it looks like.

The Near East experienced a massive genetic turnover, probably from the late Neolithic onwards, similar to the one that affected Europe at around the same time. So the vast majority of the R1 lineages in the Near East probably arrived there during the Bronze Age. Otherwise we don't have any Y-chromosome lineages to link to this massive migration, or series of migrations, from the steppe.

The Near Eastern admixture in the Samara happened long before 3300 BC, and was associated with the Neolithic transition, not any Bronze Age movements from south to north.

If you want to see what a pre-Bronze Age Armenian looked like, probably both in terms of genome wide and Y-DNA ancestry, check out the Starcevo_EN genome from Haak et al.

Anabasis
03-19-2015, 10:39 AM
Thanks Generalissimo.
I have read about models where R splits in siberia (or North of the Caucuses) with R1b heading south to Armenia, V88 on to the Levant and later, L23 Z2013 a reverse flow to Samara.

If that were correct it would accommodate R1 not having a Near Eastern admixture?

I think R1b in Central Eastern- South Eastern Anatolia might be effect of Persians or Nesians (Hitittes) rather then original root of Indo Arian races. All of the theories relates with making R1b in Armenians and Eastern Anatolia as a root of Yamna is kind a probaganda of the fans of Anatolian Hypothesis. As many academic papers stated roots of the indo arians and r1b in yamna is north-east of caspian sea with some Gedrosa effect.

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 11:37 AM
That's not what it looks like.

The Near East experienced a massive genetic turnover, probably from the late Neolithic onwards, similar to the one that affected Europe at around the same time. So the vast majority of the R1 lineages in the Near East probably arrived there during the Bronze Age. Otherwise we don't have any Y-chromosome lineages to link to this massive migration, or series of migrations, from the steppe.

The Near Eastern admixture in the Samara happened long before 3300 BC, and was associated with the Neolithic transition, not any Bronze Age movements from south to north.

If you want to see what a pre-Bronze Age Armenian looked like, probably both in terms of genome wide and Y-DNA ancestry, check out the Starcevo_EN genome from Haak et al.

Thanks, the Armenian connection there had passed me by.

Starcevo seems to be the first main wave of farmers out of the Near East forming the LBK culture in central Europe.
Most models suggest a flow through Anatolia and also via the Caucuses to supply Near Eastern DNA and that would provide the Neolithic transition Near Eastern DNA to Samara. However, I don't see how that precludes a further 'reverse movement' of R1b at a later stage.

The late Neolithic genetic turnover in the Near East is very interesting and I would like to learn more. If V88 is the main R migrant the Bronze Age sounds late but not impossible. Could you suggest where I best read up about that genetic turnover?

Looking at the Haak data Beaker has a much closer affinity to LBK than corded.
I am L21>FGC5494 var450511. While I do not yet have my Family Finder results Mark Jost's (also FGC5494) showed a pretty close Beaker affinity.
My own Geno 2 shows 17% SW Asian. I am not sure how significant that is compared to others eg people from corded descent.
That (very limited) data may support either Steppe or Anatolian route? Probably not terribly relevant.

Right I need to read the Haak supporting data section on admixture again. Also want to read the supporting data for the new POBI paper. So much for todays to do list.

rms2
03-19-2015, 11:57 AM
I would be cautious about reading too much into our modern autosomal test results, except when it comes to fairly major components that can be solidly linked to ancient genomes, like ANE, WHG, and EEF. The presence of ANE in Western European populations seems to me to be a fairly significant fact.

Assuming for a moment that those of us are right who believe the R1b-L23 in Western Europe represents descent from Indo-European steppe pastoralists, it is well to recall that y-dna is a uniparental marker and represents but one line of the many in our ancestry. Thus our descent from the early Indo-Europeans, while genuine, is a somewhat tenuous, much derived thing. The Indo-Europeans did not move west into a vacant peninsular Europe. They encountered people living there who were a mix of EEF and WHG in different proportions: more EEF and less WHG nearer the Mediterranean, and more WHG and less EEF farther north, away from the Mediterranean. For example, while I show well over 16% ANE on Eurogenes K7 at Gedmatch, WHG seems to form the bulk of my autosomal make-up (I forget the exact percentage).

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 12:36 PM
I would be cautious about reading too much into our modern autosomal test results, except when it comes to fairly major components that can be solidly linked to ancient genomes, like ANE, WHG, and EEF. The presence of ANE in Western European populations seems to me to be a fairly significant fact.

Thats where my problem in understanding lies. I don't understand how much we can read into the ANe, WHG, and EEF comparisons to rule out an anatolian M269/L51 origin if we don't have a, lets say, middle/late Armenian/Anatolian ancient genome.
While I may like to rule out an Anatolian route I feel I do not have data that I understand that makes me happy to rule it out. So until then I need to clutter my models with it as a what if option.

What do people make of this data run from Maciamo (my bold of text)?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG/page2

"Dodecad K12 admixtures

Admixture
Karelia
Samara Yamna Corded Ware
Bell Beaker

West European 50.02% 52.07% 49.08% 48.97% 61.53%
East European 33.82% 30.85% 20.88% 21.05% 8.94%
Mediterranean 0% 0% 0.47% 9.04% 19.21%
West Asian 0% 0% 17.42% 15.65% 2.61%
Southwest Asian 0% 0% 0% 0.02% 5.29%
South Asian 3.48% 8.75% 8.42% 5.27% 0.01%
Southeast Asian 0% 0.05% 0% 0% 0%
Northeast Asian 12.68% 8.27% 3.74% 0% 0%
Northwest African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
East African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Neo African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.69%


First of all, it looks like the Amerindian admixture from K15 becomes Northeast Asian in dv3. I assumed that this admixture was a shared component with haplogroup Q, since Q and R evolved from a same Siberian ancestor. Nevertheless, I can't explain why modern West Europeans and even Bell Beaker samples completely lack that admixture if it was present in all R1a and R1b population, including Yamna and Corded Ware. If modern Northwest Europeans inherited about half of their genes from Yamna people, then they should at least have 1 or 2% of Northeast Asian, but it is closer to 0.1%."

Anabasis
03-19-2015, 01:26 PM
Thats where my problem in understanding lies. I don't understand how much we can read into the ANe, WHG, and EEF comparisons to rule out an anatolian M269/L51 origin if we don't have a, lets say, middle/late Armenian/Anatolian ancient genome.
While I may like to rule out an Anatolian route I feel I do not have data that I understand that makes me happy to rule it out. So until then I need to clutter my models with it as a what if option.

What do people make of this data run from Maciamo (my bold of text)?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG/page2

"Dodecad K12 admixtures

Admixture
Karelia
Samara Yamna Corded Ware
Bell Beaker

West European 50.02% 52.07% 49.08% 48.97% 61.53%
East European 33.82% 30.85% 20.88% 21.05% 8.94%
Mediterranean 0% 0% 0.47% 9.04% 19.21%
West Asian 0% 0% 17.42% 15.65% 2.61%
Southwest Asian 0% 0% 0% 0.02% 5.29%
South Asian 3.48% 8.75% 8.42% 5.27% 0.01%
Southeast Asian 0% 0.05% 0% 0% 0%
Northeast Asian 12.68% 8.27% 3.74% 0% 0%
Northwest African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
East African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Neo African
0% 0% 0% 0% 0.69%


First of all, it looks like the Amerindian admixture from K15 becomes Northeast Asian in dv3. I assumed that this admixture was a shared component with haplogroup Q, since Q and R evolved from a same Siberian ancestor. Nevertheless, I can't explain why modern West Europeans and even Bell Beaker samples completely lack that admixture if it was present in all R1a and R1b population, including Yamna and Corded Ware. If modern Northwest Europeans inherited about half of their genes from Yamna people, then they should at least have 1 or 2% of Northeast Asian, but it is closer to 0.1%."

I do not think that Modern Europeans took thier DNA from half of the Yamna. Onthe other hand NE Asian admixture would not be key companent to detect the pre-IE companent with calculators which include "West Asian-Med" companents. IMO the calculators which include "West Asian" companent is not good at detecting Central Asian companents. MDLP and Harappa companents are much more usefull to seperate the companents of central asian. West Asian companent in Eurogenes includes some Gedrosa admixture in it but also some Caucasian as well. Cacusian companent represent near eastern- anatolian part of west asia but Gedrosa is a companent whic derived from Caucasian companent in South Central Asia.

And look what Maciamo wrote in same thread:


Thanks for pointing that out. Here are the analyses of the Karelia, Samara, Yamna, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples (actually just one of each, not an average).

The results for the Gedrosian admixture (K12b) are:

Sample
Gedrosian admixture
Mesolithic Karelia 6.05
Mesolithic Samara 12.98
Yamna 26.29
Corded Ware 21.94
German Bell Beaker 9.62

This is just what I expected for Yamna. I am a bit perplexed over the two Mesolithic samples through. I shows that the Gedrosian admixture already existed in basal R1a and R1b with no West Asian admixture. That points to a Palaeolithic R1* origin of some of the Gedrosian. However, since Yamna and Corded Ware people have much more of it, it means that some Gedrosian also came from West Asia. That would mean that Gedrosian is not a pure admixture, but a compound, most likely of West Asian, South Asian, and perhaps also what K15 reports as Amerindian, which would be a sort of ANE. That explains why Gedrosia and ANE do not match at all in regions like Northeast Europe, which have a lot of ANE, but little Gedrosian.

The ANE is hidden in Gedrosa companent and Gedrosa is hidden in West Asian companent in Eurogenes calculators. Thats why calculator creators should separete the ANE from Gedrosa and Gedrosa from West Asia like how MDLP did as "South Central Asia" and "Ancestral Altaic".

rms2
03-19-2015, 03:45 PM
Thats where my problem in understanding lies. I don't understand how much we can read into the ANe, WHG, and EEF comparisons to rule out an anatolian M269/L51 origin if we don't have a, lets say, middle/late Armenian/Anatolian ancient genome . . .

Why would we go shopping for an Anatolian origin for M269>L23>L51 when there are signs much farther north and none in Anatolia? First off, the "family neighborhood", where R1b's cousins, R1a and Q, are found is in northern Eurasia. Second, Mal'ta Boy was R*, and he was found near Lake Baikal in Siberia. I know he is not our direct y-dna ancestor, but he is a scion of the same early line. Then there is that R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer, the oldest R1b yet discovered, whose remains were recovered from a site near Samara, and he groups close autosomally to an R1a hunter-gatherer from Karelia.

So why would we imagine a trip down to Anatolia for the L23 line that led to L51 and a return trip north? What possible reason could there be for imagining such a scenario when we have ancient L23 on the steppe as a part of the cultural horizon, Yamnaya, whose known migration west into peninsular Europe (where L51 evidently also went) is said to have spread Indo-European languages there?

Net Down G5L
03-19-2015, 05:00 PM
So why would we imagine a trip down to Anatolia for the L23 line that led to L51 and a return trip north? What possible reason could there be for imagining such a scenario when we have ancient L23 on the steppe as a part of the cultural horizon, Yamnaya, whose known migration west into peninsular Europe (where L51 evidently also went) is said to have spread Indo-European languages there?

Lots of reasons to imagine it. But I do not wish to become an advocate for the Anatolian hypothesis. I was asking what the killer evidence was to rule it out. I thought it would be easy for people to tell me.......

Silesian
03-19-2015, 05:25 PM
Why would we go shopping for an Anatolian origin for M269>L23>L51 when there are signs much farther north and none in Anatolia? First off, the "family neighborhood", where R1b's cousins, R1a and Q, are found is in northern Eurasia. Second, Mal'ta Boy was R*, and he was found near Lake Baikal in Siberia. I know he is not our direct y-dna ancestor, but he is a scion of the same early line. Then there is that R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer, the oldest R1b yet discovered, whose remains were recovered from a site near Samara, and he groups close autosomally to an R1a hunter-gatherer from Karelia.

So why would we imagine a trip down to Anatolia for the L23 line that led to L51 and a return trip north? What possible reason could there be for imagining such a scenario when we have ancient L23 on the steppe as a part of the cultural horizon, Yamnaya, whose known migration west into peninsular Europe (where L51 evidently also went) is said to have spread Indo-European languages there?
Don't leave these guys out:) After all, they are also are related somehow/someway; perhaps going back 10k or 2500k+/- from Sok R1b 7650+/- sample,
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/R1b-M73.jpg

vettor
03-19-2015, 06:11 PM
@ net down

I would not bother with this, ANE, WHG and EEP ( SHG, UHG, ENP blah blah ) as we move forward , because it will not be around by the end of the year.

There is too much "doctoring" of the Haak paper as people use the different K test to determine this or that.
In summary, Haak used K=20 and we have people now using as low as K=6 to get rid of the gedrosian in the samples .............from K=20 to K=6 is a huge difference, clearly some people are very unhappy with the recommended K=20 of Haak

nancy
03-19-2015, 06:30 PM
... even one R1b1-M415 from Neolithic Spain who was probably R1b-V88 and represents a P297- line that left Eurasia for the Near East and Africa long before the rise of the R1b-L23 line

? Is this one R1b1-M415 the El Trocs find reported in Haak et al?

rms2
03-19-2015, 06:35 PM
Don't leave these guys out:) After all, they are also are related somehow/someway; perhaps going back 10k or 2500k+/- from Sok R1b 7650+/- sample,
http://bsecher.pagesperso-orange.fr/genetique/R1b-M73.jpg

Did you read my earlier post (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4043-Pre-Beaker-R1b-in-the-Isles-can-we-rule-it-out&p=74886&viewfull=1#post74886) when I explained why I don't think any pre-Beaker R1b will show up in the Isles?

I did not leave M73 out. I mentioned it as part of the P297 branch story.

rms2
03-19-2015, 06:52 PM
Lots of reasons to imagine it. But I do not wish to become an advocate for the Anatolian hypothesis. I was asking what the killer evidence was to rule it out. I thought it would be easy for people to tell me.......

I gave you a lot of it. Guess you missed it.

Honestly, I don't see your "lots of reasons" to imagine an Anatolian origin for L51.

Here's another reason not to imagine L51 came out of Anatolia: no L51 among the growing number of Neolithic farmer ancient y-dna results along the path into Europe taken by Anatolian farmers. Thus far, that's overwhelmingly G2a.

It seems to me - and, admittedly, this is only my point of view - the simple two-part R1b migration story makes the most sense: 1) an early, pre-P297 move into the Near East and, subsequently, mostly as V88, into Africa (and, in very small numbers, southern Europe); and 2) a P297>M269>L23 move into Europe and Anatolia millennia later as PIE steppe pastoralists.

Sending the branch of L23 that became L51 to Anatolia first and then back north into Europe starts to unnecessarily complicate matters and to begin to resemble some sort of Rube Goldberg device. How did Western Europe become Indo-European speaking? Or were there two PIE Urheimats, the PC steppe and Anatolia?

rms2
03-19-2015, 06:57 PM
? Is this one R1b1-M415 the El Trocs find reported in Haak et al?

Yes. The Els Trocs R1b1 was R1b1-M415.

ADW_1981
03-19-2015, 06:59 PM
I gave you a lot of it. Guess you missed it.

Honestly, I don't see your "lots of reasons" to imagine an Anatolian origin for L51.

Here's another reason not to imagine L51 came out of Anatolia: no L51 among the growing number of Neolithic farmer ancient y-dna results along the path into Europe taken by Anatolian farmers. Thus far, that's overwhelmingly G2a.

It seems to me - and, admittedly, this is only my point of view - the simple two-part R1b migration story makes the most sense: 1) an early, pre-P297 move into the Near East and, subsequently, mostly as V88, into Africa (and, in very small numbers, southern Europe); and 2) a P297>M269>L23 move into Europe and Anatolia millennia later as PIE steppe pastoralists.

Sending the branch of L23 that became L51 to Anatolia first and then back north into Europe starts to unnecessarily complicate matters and to begin to resemble some sort of Rube Goldberg device. How did Western Europe become Indo-European speaking? Or were there two PIE Urheimats, the PC steppe and Anatolia?

Based on the data we've collected to date, the most likely origin of L51+ is somewhere between Poland, Hungary, and Italy. I've only seen 1 sample of L51+ from Turkey. We also have a L51+ in Yemen, so I think it's probably Yemeni origin. (note sarcasm)

EDIT: L51+ in Palestine too.

Augustus
03-19-2015, 07:11 PM
There are a lot of reasons for an Anatolian R1b theory. I'm personally torn 50/50 at this point.

Anatolian Pros

1) Anatolia and the middle East are very heavy in R1b and ANE, but no HG. If IEs spread these markers, then we would be seeing HG.

2) V88 path in Africa is very reminiscent of L51's path in Europe. Both seem to depend on farming. This again seems to suggest a middle eastern origin of R1b.

3) The R* and R1b in early Europe (and V88), show that R1b was not just confined to Siberia, but was spread all over Eurasia since antiquity.

4) Again, that massive founder effect in WE can only be due to farming (although a mixture of pastoralism and farming can be a counterargument)

5) Diversity in Europe suggests a southeast to northwest path.

6) we have Russian R1a samples with H mtdna. That could easily mean Z2103 is middle eastern, and accounts for the half middle eastern component in Yamna.

PIE pros

1) L23 had Yamna component, which was found in Bronze age Europe. (biggest argument so far)

2) The path from Anatolia to the Balkans is very narrow for such a massive movement.

- (The R1a and R1b HG prove nothing to me quite honestly. we have R1bs in early time periods with all sorts of autosomal dna. R may have a siberian origin, but r1b was all over)

3) Also no L23 in farming settlements so far. (although this could mean that r1b farmers were just a later wave. we've had plenty of surprises with ydna in Europe, this wouldnt be the first)

rms2
03-19-2015, 07:14 PM
Based on the data we've collected to date, the most likely origin of L51+ is somewhere between Poland, Hungary, and Italy. I've only seen 1 sample of L51+ from Turkey. We also have a L51+ in Yemen, so I think it's probably Yemeni origin. (note sarcasm)

EDIT: L51+ in Palestine too.

IMHO, L51 arose farther east, on the steppe. Just my opinion, but I think L11 and perhaps even P312 will show up in Yamnaya remains along the route west, for example, among those in the thousands of kurgans on the east Hungarian plain.

Of course, I could be wrong.

R.Rocca
03-19-2015, 08:06 PM
There are a lot of reasons for an Anatolian R1b theory. I'm personally torn 50/50 at this point.

Anatolian Pros

1) Anatolia and the middle East are very heavy in R1b and ANE, but no HG. If IEs spread these markers, then we would be seeing HG.

2) V88 path in Africa is very reminiscent of L51's path in Europe. Both seem to depend on farming. This again seems to suggest a middle eastern origin of R1b.

3) The R* and R1b in early Europe (and V88), show that R1b was not just confined to Siberia, but was spread all over Eurasia since antiquity.

4) Again, that massive founder effect in WE can only be due to farming (although a mixture of pastoralism and farming can be a counterargument)

5) Diversity in Europe suggests a southeast to northwest path.

6) we have Russian R1a samples with H mtdna. That could easily mean Z2103 is middle eastern, and accounts for the half middle eastern component in Yamna.

PIE pros

1) L23 had Yamna component, which was found in Bronze age Europe. (biggest argument so far)

2) The path from Anatolia to the Balkans is very narrow for such a massive movement.

- (The R1a and R1b HG prove nothing to me quite honestly. we have R1bs in early time periods with all sorts of autosomal dna. R may have a siberian origin, but r1b was all over)

3) Also no L23 in farming settlements so far. (although this could mean that r1b farmers were just a later wave. we've had plenty of surprises with ydna in Europe, this wouldnt be the first)

Oops, I guess you "accidentally" left out that the P312+ L21+ Hinxton samples had zero East Mediterranean ancestry.

Augustus
03-19-2015, 09:05 PM
Oops, I guess you "accidentally" left out that the P312+ L21+ Hinxton samples had zero East Mediterranean ancestry.

I don't know who Hixton is. Are you talking about the AS samples? As I said, R1b has had all sorts of autosomal components attached to it since antiquity, differing radically from one another. This is a much older branch than people make it out to be, and it certainly was not exclusive to Siberia in antiquity.

Idk why you're acting all snobby, it's not like I am making any claims with certainty or rejecting any hypothesis. I'm just trying to see all the possibilities. Unlike you, I am not biased since I haven't done a Y-Dna test.

nancy
03-19-2015, 09:40 PM
rms2 Where did you get this data on the SNPs? I would very much like this level of detail for all the specimens in the Haak study. I am pretty much asking this same question that you are re Anatolia for R-L23 and then for me Z2103 instead of L51. The better age of mutation we get for each of these SNPs the more it helps clarify the picture in the context of the available history and dna data.

Thanks again

R.Rocca
03-19-2015, 10:53 PM
I don't know who Hixton is. Are you talking about the AS samples? As I said, R1b has had all sorts of autosomal components attached to it since antiquity, differing radically from one another. This is a much older branch than people make it out to be, and it certainly was not exclusive to Siberia in antiquity.

Idk why you're acting all snobby, it's not like I am making any claims with certainty or rejecting any hypothesis. I'm just trying to see all the possibilities. Unlike you, I am not biased since I haven't done a Y-Dna test.

Autosomal DNA across time is definitely telling us something, so it is relevant. I made the comment because after your claiming to be 50/50 on the subject, you left almost all of steppe pros out from Haak paper out, not to mention everything else we know from other ancient DNA studies, phylogeny and language spread.

And regarding your claim that you haven't done a Y-DNA test...sorry, but it's just not credible. The fact that you reply to 99.999% or topics related to R1b makes it so. Either that, or you area of origin makes it likely/unlikely that you will be.

newtoboard
03-19-2015, 10:58 PM
What if "Anatolian Prospectors" model:
OK here is the hypothetical scenario...
R1b is present at Gobekli Tepe some time after 9000BCE
L23 'born' Anatolia / Armenia c 5000BCE (Y Full date)
Z2103 moves North to join Maikop(?) culture carrying stelae and stone circle tradition so present in Samara before 3000BCE ref Haak samples.
Z2103 carries Anatolian DNA that becomes part of the Samara genetic make up.
L23 second movement along North Turkey/Black Sea coast - the "Anatolian Prospectors"
M269 born at some point.
M269 moves in to Balkans and possibly Danube corridor.
L11
P312 arrives in Germany (via Balkans or Danube)and mixes with corded ware
P312 Beaker (eastern corded Beaker) buried at Quedlinburg c.2250BCE

The admixture contains Anatolian, Western Hunter Gatherer and corded hence having commonality with Samara but being closer to Corded.

Now ........... what is the DNA evidence that I do not understand that so emphatically rules this out for everyone?

I disagree with this especially a Z2103 migration to Samara from Maykop as I think it is very likely the Yamnaya steppe groups north of Maykop in the lower Don, Volga and Ural region will end up being predominantly R1a so it would make little sense for Maykop and Z2103 to make a low impact in that region and be dominant north of that region in Samara. Not to mention we have loads of Maykop influence on steppe cultures Post Yamnaya that should have made R1b-Z2103+ a lot more common in Asia if Maykop was indeed represented by the migration of Z2103.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 12:46 AM
Autosomal DNA across time is definitely telling us something, so it is relevant.


Alright. How do you explain the fact that Anglo Saxon samples, R1b, had 0% Gedrosian? Even in the face of that I'm not ruling anything out.

P.S. As I told you, Y-dna tests mean nothing with regards to modern ancestry. It's one out of thousands if not millions of ancestors. Im not gonna spend hundreds of dollars on a useless piece of information, and even more for deeper subclades. I study stuff out of curiosity not trying to make myself feel better through DNA tests. The reason I focus mostly on R1b is because that is the last major European Y-dna which is still unaccounted for in its origin.

Net Down G5L
03-20-2015, 11:15 AM
DNA study supports anatolian route for M269 (???)

I must have missed any previous discussion on Anthrogenica about this paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/pdf/13323_2014_Article_15.pdf
The authors come down firmly on a M269 migration out of anatolia:


"Conclusions
Our observation of the Y-chromosomal structure in geo-graphically different Armenian populations suggests that the Armenian Highland served as a transitional corridor for at least two distinct pathways of migration for Neo- lithic farmers from the Near East westward and north-ward. The movement to Europe took place predominantly via the western region of the Armenian Highland along- side the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, which is supported by the spatial distribution pattern of the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269"

Their maps of variance and distribution seem to support their conclusion for M269. Richard Rocca's 2012 map of M269XL23 seems to support that movement. [However as Richards map seems to have been withdrawn from the web(???) perhaps he feels the data is now outdated and the map no longer valid? - Is that the case Richard?]

If I take this article at face value it is a resounding endorsement of the Anatolian route. Why are we giving so little weight to this paper? Could someone enlighten me to the key problems with their analysis?

Dubhthach
03-20-2015, 11:39 AM
Does the paper have any ancient DNA? IF you look at their map of R1b they have it going to Iberia first before travelling northwards to Britain and Ireland, the phylogeny doesn't support this unless they are claiming P312 arose in Iberia.

R.Rocca
03-20-2015, 11:51 AM
DNA study supports anatolian route for M269 (???)

I must have missed any previous discussion on Anthrogenica about this paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/pdf/13323_2014_Article_15.pdf
The authors come down firmly on a M269 migration out of anatolia:


"Conclusions
Our observation of the Y-chromosomal structure in geo-graphically different Armenian populations suggests that the Armenian Highland served as a transitional corridor for at least two distinct pathways of migration for Neo- lithic farmers from the Near East westward and north-ward. The movement to Europe took place predominantly via the western region of the Armenian Highland along- side the coastline of the Mediterranean Sea, which is supported by the spatial distribution pattern of the haplogroup R1b1a2-M269"

Their maps of variance and distribution seem to support their conclusion for M269. Richard Rocca's 2012 map of M269XL23 seems to support that movement. [However as Richards map seems to have been withdrawn from the web(???) perhaps he feels the data is now outdated and the map no longer valid? - Is that the case Richard?]

If I take this article at face value it is a resounding endorsement of the Anatolian route. Why are we giving so little weight to this paper? Could someone enlighten me to the key problems with their analysis?

Nobody is discussing it because they use antiquated methods that have been proven wrong by ancient DNA. Why turn back the clock ten years ago when we have ancient DNA at hand?

R.Rocca
03-20-2015, 11:55 AM
Does the paper have any ancient DNA? IF you look at their map of R1b they have it going to Iberia first before travelling northwards to Britain and Ireland, the phylogeny doesn't support this unless they are claiming P312 arose in Iberia.

No it doesn't, and that's why it's of absolutely no value regarding the spread of R1b.

rms2
03-20-2015, 12:07 PM
There are a lot of reasons for an Anatolian R1b theory. I'm personally torn 50/50 at this point.

Anatolian Pros

1) Anatolia and the middle East are very heavy in R1b and ANE, but no HG. If IEs spread these markers, then we would be seeing HG.

I don't think there are really any good reasons for an Anatolian R1b theory.

The R1b in Anatolia and the Middle East is, for the most part, not L51. The Middle East is also largely Semitic speaking, with the most notable exception being Iran, although there are others. IE's could have imparted a y-dna signature that has survived, since it is a simple, uniparental, mostly non-recombinant marker, while certain autosomal traces of their presence were less successful. The ANE in the Middle East could have some sources in addition to IE's, like Turks and Mongols, for example.



2) V88 path in Africa is very reminiscent of L51's path in Europe. Both seem to depend on farming. This again seems to suggest a middle eastern origin of R1b.

No, it's not at all "very reminiscent of L51's path in Europe". V88 is P297-. L51 is P297+ M269+ L23+. It is apparent that the P297- branch of R1b that would eventually give rise to V88 left R1b's Asian or far Eastern European homeland for the Near East before even P297 was born and millennia before L23 was born, let alone L51.

If L51 was born in Anatolia or somewhere else in the Near East, how did it miss participation in the Neolithic Revolution? How did it avoid V88's trek to Africa? Why isn't it found along with V88 and M415* at least in the Near East, if not in Africa?

If R1b had come out of Anatolia into Europe, it should have turned up at Neolithic sites in SE and Central Europe by now.

Once again, the people of the Yamnaya cultural horizon practiced farming in addition to pastoralism. In fact, those who went west into peninsular Europe farmed more than those out on the deep steppe.



3) The R* and R1b in early Europe (and V88), show that R1b was not just confined to Siberia, but was spread all over Eurasia since antiquity.

That is what is known as a bald assertion. There is no proof of it. Thus far we know of a single R*, Mal'ta Boy, from near Lake Baikal in Siberia, a single 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer from near Samara, and one R1b1-M415, about 7,000 years old, from Spain who was probably V88+. The bulk of the oldest R1b found thus far came from the Russian steppe. Those seven from Yamnaya and the three R1b Beaker men date from the late 4th - 3rd millennia BC.



4) Again, that massive founder effect in WE can only be due to farming (although a mixture of pastoralism and farming can be a counterargument)

The kind of sedentary farming practiced by the Near Eastern-derived farming cultures in SE Europe was in decline due in part to climate change and soil depletion when the Yamnaya steppe pastoralists began arriving in peninsular Europe. The combination of farming and pastoralism introduced by Yamnaya was an improvement. Those who adopted it throve and survived. Those who did not did not leave as many descendants as those who did.



5) Diversity in Europe suggests a southeast to northwest path.

Check the path taken by Yamnaya (and previous waves of steppe pastoralists) into peninsular Europe. They went up the Danube valley, and subsequent successor cultures, like Beaker, continued on up the Danube-Rhine corridor. Apparently some Yamnaya immigrants also went around the north side of the Carpathians onto the North European plain.



6) we have Russian R1a samples with H mtdna. That could easily mean Z2103 is middle eastern, and accounts for the half middle eastern component in Yamna.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe Yamnaya was "half middle eastern". However, be that as it may, why must Z2103 have a middle eastern source if mtDNA H does? The distaff side could account for any "middle eastern component".



. . .
- (The R1a and R1b HG prove nothing to me quite honestly. we have R1bs in early time periods with all sorts of autosomal dna. R may have a siberian origin, but r1b was all over)

We have been through this before. Do you honestly believe it is even remotely possible that the Z2103 found in Yamnaya came up from the middle east and just happened, by merest chance, to settle in a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had been buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? And that at a site that would yield artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya? Really? R1b was just that thick on the ground everywhere in Eurasia?

Frankly, that strikes me as just preposterous. No, the weight of the evidence is that those Yamnaya R1b men were the scions of a paternal line that had already been on the Eurasian steppe for millennia before they were born.

R.Rocca
03-20-2015, 02:17 PM
If L51 was born in Anatolia or somewhere else in the Near East, how did it miss participation in the Neolithic Revolution? How did it avoid V88's trek to Africa? Why isn't it found along with V88 and M415* at least in the Near East, if not in Africa?


And therein lies one of the biggest of the many drawbacks to the Anatolian theory...Western Europe isn't made up of 50% J2. If European R1b had originated in Anatolia, J2 would be many times more frequent than it is today in paces like Ireland. Instead it is extremely infrequent. Surely J2 would already have been the dominant Y-DNA clade in Anatolia by the Late Neolithic.

TigerMW
03-20-2015, 02:18 PM
I don't think there are really any good reasons for an Anatolian R1b theory.
...
No, it's not at all "very reminiscent of L51's path in Europe". V88 is P297-. L51 is P297+ M269+ L23+. It is apparent that the P297- branch of R1b that would eventually give rise to V88 left R1b's Asian or far Eastern European homeland for the Near East before even P297 was born and millennia before L23 was born, let alone L51. ....

I agree with RMS that this very clear. L51 and V88 had two very different paths.

Net Down G5L
03-20-2015, 02:19 PM
IMHO, L51 arose farther east, on the steppe. Just my opinion, but I think L11 and perhaps even P312 will show up in Yamnaya remains along the route west, for example, among those in the thousands of kurgans on the east Hungarian plain.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Agreed, that is a critical area. When I look at Bronze Age cultue, landscape etc in the Isles I can not escape the conclusion that a 'Kurgan' derived type of culture - or Kurgan mixed culture - becomes dominant. As we get more Bayesian dated sites - and related aDNA things will quickly clarify.
Papers like Kulcsar 2013 Transition to the Bronze Age: Issues of Continuity and Discontinuity in the First Half of the Third Millennium BC in the Carpathian Basin are a huge help in giving more precision.
https://www.academia.edu/5717048/Transition_to_the_Bronze_Age_Issues_of_Continuity_ and_Discontinuity_in_the_First_Half_of_the_Third_M illennium_BC_in_the_Carpathian_Basin

If we did not have early 'Atlantic' Bell beaker. Things would seem very clear indeed. That Atlantic - Rhineish tension seems to ebb and flow through the Bronze age with an Alpine RFSO flow adding to the mix.

If Jean is right and Rhinish Bell Beaker is L21, Atlantic DF27 and U152 fits the bill well for RFSO....then it would be a case of where was L11 spreading when U106 and P312 was 'born' and which ways did P312 spread and where were DF27, L21 and U152 'born'.

I am very comfortable with modelling variations of this on the Bronze age and Iron Age archaeology of the Isles.

But as I write this...and thinking out loud...I can only come up with one convincing reason why we could not have some Neolithic L11 reaching the Isles before L27...and that is the lack of DNA evidence. And as we know we have so few samples to date. Hmmm....oops....think I have just gone full circle back to where I started the thread. Perhaps I should have started a thread called Citizen Scientists Top 10 Priorities for aDNA Sampling instead?

rms2
03-20-2015, 03:46 PM
But that lack of ancient y-dna evidence of Neolithic R1b, while it started small, has grown to statistical significance. Add to that the fact that the only R1b-L23 yet found is connected to cultures believed by a number of well-respected scholars to have had a hand in spreading Indo-European languages west: Yamnaya and Bell Beaker.

Personally, I think it is hugely significant that no R1b has shown up so far in any of the cultures in SE or Central Europe that were derived from Near Eastern farmers.

The only seeming clinker in the otherwise pretty obvious picture is the Els Trocs R1b1-M415 from Spain, and even that one is only an apparent problem, not a real one. It actually fits the R1b story pretty well, given the early odyssey of pre-P297 (P297-) R1b to the Near East and, subsequently, to Africa.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 04:20 PM
We have been through this before. Do you honestly believe it is even remotely possible that the Z2103 found in Yamnaya came up from the middle east and just happened, by merest chance, to settle in a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had been buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? And that at a site that would yield artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya? Really? R1b was just that thick on the ground everywhere in Eurasia?


The same argument could be made for R1b1* in N. Spain and L51 in Spain afterwards. R1b had been out of Siberia for a long long time before the Bronze age. A lack of evidence in regions not yet tested does not mean proof to the contrary. R1b could simply be a late incursion into Europe during the late neolithic, along with E and J. (although 1 sample of ev13 was already found in Spain, it could still be that majority of it came later. G is found in both ancient WE and modern WA.

Sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I'm not as easily convinced as you guys. The Reich lab made it very clear that the steppe could be a "geographically plausible" candidate for the downstream clades that appear in modern Europeans today, but testing still needs to be conducted in southern areas.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 05:16 PM
By the way what do people make of the AS having 0 Gedrosia (And 0 east med)

Net Down G5L
03-20-2015, 06:38 PM
The same argument could be made for R1b1* in N. Spain and L51 in Spain afterwards. R1b had been out of Siberia for a long long time before the Bronze age. A lack of evidence in regions not yet tested does not mean proof to the contrary. R1b could simply be a late incursion into Europe during the late neolithic, along with E and J. (although 1 sample of ev13 was already found in Spain, it could still be that majority of it came later. G is found in both ancient WE and modern WA.

Sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I'm not as easily convinced as you guys. The Reich lab made it very clear that the steppe could be a "geographically plausible" candidate for the downstream clades that appear in modern Europeans today, but testing still needs to be conducted in southern areas.

Well I am going to stop worrying about it until we get some sore aDNA data and keep an open mind to see what is found.

Re. AS having 0 Gedrosia and 0 East Med....... sorry I am miles behind all you guys on this stuff.... what is AS??

Augustus
03-20-2015, 06:42 PM
I just wrote AS short for Anglo-Saxon to save time. Although explaining it with a follow up post beats that purpose :)

Net Down G5L
03-20-2015, 06:48 PM
But as I write this...and thinking out loud...I can only come up with one convincing reason why we could not have some Neolithic L11 reaching the Isles before L27...and that is the lack of DNA evidence. And as we know we have so few samples to date. Hmmm....oops....think I have just gone full circle back to where I started the thread. Perhaps I should have started a thread called Citizen Scientists Top 10 Priorities for aDNA Sampling instead?

Right ... since writing this earlier today I have just been told about new skeletal material from the Bronze Age - Iron Age Transition in S England.
That goes to number 1 on my top 10 priorities. It is the only known (well as far as I know) Bronze Age Iron Age transition (associated to midden deposits) skeletal material ever found. And apparently with very good preservation. Next week I will stop theorising and see if I can get permission to get samples for aDNA,..... and get a lab to take it. Anyone got a magic wand that I can borrow? Well I may as well at least try and do something useful.

Jean M
03-20-2015, 06:54 PM
I'm not as easily convinced as you guys.

Some of us see straws in the wind and others ignore them until they are actually buried in a haystack. That is absolutely as it should be. New ideas need to go through a long process of examination and testing before they become accepted as part of the body of knowledge. Scientists accept that system, because it works. So you can carry on bashing away without any need of apology, particularly if you are advocating more ancient DNA testing, which is exactly what the Reich Lab wants to do.

rms2
03-20-2015, 06:56 PM
The same argument could be made for R1b1* in N. Spain and L51 in Spain afterwards . . .

Really? Where are the seven ancient R1b from Spain circa 3,000 BC, five of them L51 or even just L23?

Where is Spain's version of Mal'ta Boy?

You're playing devil's advocate with a Nerf pitchfork.

Jean M
03-20-2015, 06:58 PM
It is the only known (well as far as I know) Bronze Age Iron Age transition (associated to midden deposits) skeletal material ever found. And apparently with very good preservation. Next week I will .. see if I can get permission to get samples for aDNA.

It is best only to use samples which have been freshly taken out of the ground by persons kitted up specially to avoid contamination. Wessex Archaeology claims on its website to have access to aDNA testing.

R.Rocca
03-20-2015, 07:04 PM
The same argument could be made for R1b1* in N. Spain and L51 in Spain afterwards. R1b had been out of Siberia for a long long time before the Bronze age. A lack of evidence in regions not yet tested does not mean proof to the contrary. R1b could simply be a late incursion into Europe during the late neolithic, along with E and J. (although 1 sample of ev13 was already found in Spain, it could still be that majority of it came later. G is found in both ancient WE and modern WA.

Sorry to play devil's advocate here, but I'm not as easily convinced as you guys. The Reich lab made it very clear that the steppe could be a "geographically plausible" candidate for the downstream clades that appear in modern Europeans today, but testing still needs to be conducted in southern areas.

Yes, the same argument can be made, but rather weakly. It would call for a sneaky hidden Copper Age R1b in Iberia to telephone Copper Age R1a/R1b in the Steppe (with no R1a or R1b anywhere in between) to coordinate an assault on middle Europe at exactly the same time, but from two directions. That scenario seems like a total stretch to me. What isn't a stretch is that some later P312 did migrate out of Iberia during the Bell Beaker period, but only after the initial east-to-west migration of L23 lineages.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 07:04 PM
Really? Where are the seven ancient R1b from Spain circa 3,000 BC, five of them L51 or even just L23?

Where is Spain's version of Mal'ta Boy?

You're playing devil's advocate with a Nerf pitchfork.

We don't even have any samples that old from Spain...


Yes, the same argument can be made, but rather weakly. It would call for a sneaky hidden Copper Age R1b in Iberia to telephone Copper Age R1a/R1b in the Steppe (with no R1a or R1b anywhere in between) to coordinate an assault on middle Europe at exactly the same time, but from two directions. That scenario seems like a total stretch to me. What isn't a stretch is that some later P312 did migrate out of Iberia during the Bell Beaker period, but only after the initial east-to-west migration of L23 lineages.

Anyhow do we have any age estimates of M269, L23 mutations and so on... I feel R1b is a lot older than people give it credit for.

P.S. we have two R1b1* around the same time at opposite corners of the continent...I see that very hard to explain without involving the middle east here.

rms2
03-20-2015, 07:07 PM
We don't even have any samples that old from Spain...

Do you seriously think that if we did, any of them would be R*, given where the rest of Super Group K is located? There is a reason why R's genetic cousins are found together in Asia, and it isn't because they first arose in Iberia.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 07:12 PM
Do you seriously think that if we did, any of them would be R*, given where the rest of Super Group K is located? There is a reason why R's genetic cousins are found together in Asia, and it isn't because they first arose in Iberia.

but my point is that the sampling so far has been very impartial, we just don't know. I agree with the east to west movement and R's origin in Siberia too, but there are anomalies that can't be ignored... V88 surely means that R1b has been in the middle east since antiquity.

Haak et al specifically stated that "It is not possible to determine whether the appearance of R-Z2103 in the Yamnaya individual is due to (i) gene flow from the south to the steppe and related to the autosomal signal of “dilution” of Eastern European hunter-gatherers, or (ii) gene flow from the steppe to the south"

rms2
03-20-2015, 07:27 PM
but my point is that the sampling so far has been very impartial, we just don't know. I agree with the east to west movement and R's origin in Siberia too, but there are anomalies that can't be ignored... V88 surely means that R1b has been in the middle east since antiquity.

Haak et al specifically stated that "It is not possible to determine whether the appearance of R-Z2103 in the Yamnaya individual is due to (i) gene flow from the south to the steppe and related to the autosomal signal of “dilution” of Eastern European hunter-gatherers, or (ii) gene flow from the steppe to the south"

That's a reasonable post, but it seems to me the idea or reservation that the Z2103 on the Volga-Ural steppe might have come up from the south is convincingly countered by the discovery of that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer near Samara at a site that also yielded artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

I mean the odds that a group of Z2103 from the Near East would move up to the Volga-Ural steppe and just accidentally take up residence in the very place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier must be infinitesimally small.

That hunter-gatherer sure makes it look like those Yamnaya boys lived, died, and were buried in a place their y-dna ancestors had already inhabited for millennia.

Net Down G5L
03-20-2015, 07:47 PM
It is best only to use samples which have been freshly taken out of the ground by persons kitted up specially to avoid contamination. Wessex Archaeology claims on its website to have access to aDNA testing.

Yes agreed. Unfortunately it is not practice with archaeologists to stop a dig and get kitted up before excavating skeleton. So if we want to use available material it will be contaminated. I offered to re-open a dig on my Dark Ages cemetery to try and get fresh non-contaminated samples (or if contaminated only with my own 'known' DNA). But the lab are going to work with the contaminated material so they must be confident they can get round the problem.

Augustus
03-20-2015, 07:54 PM
That's a reasonable post, but it seems to me the idea or reservation that the Z2103 on the Volga-Ural steppe might have come up from the south is convincingly countered by the discovery of that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer near Samara at a site that also yielded artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

I mean the odds that a group of Z2103 from the Near East would move up to the Volga-Ural steppe and just accidentally take up residence in the very place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier must be infinitesimally small.

That hunter-gatherer sure makes it look like those Yamnaya boys lived, died, and were buried in a place their y-dna ancestors had already inhabited for millennia.

It could very well be that R1b could have originated in Kazakhstan for example with some upstream branches staying there or moving slightly west, while others migrated down to Central Asia. Overlaps of different clades of the same Y-Dna happen frequently.

alan
03-20-2015, 08:59 PM
That's a reasonable post, but it seems to me the idea or reservation that the Z2103 on the Volga-Ural steppe might have come up from the south is convincingly countered by the discovery of that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer near Samara at a site that also yielded artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

I mean the odds that a group of Z2103 from the Near East would move up to the Volga-Ural steppe and just accidentally take up residence in the very place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier must be infinitesimally small.

That hunter-gatherer sure makes it look like those Yamnaya boys lived, died, and were buried in a place their y-dna ancestors had already inhabited for millennia.

Its funny too that now the idea of an Anatolian origin to Z2103 before ancient DNA is looking unlikely the completely crackpot idea of L51 coming from Anatolia has been suggested.

Megalophias
03-20-2015, 09:01 PM
I mean the odds that a group of Z2103 from the Near East would move up to the Volga-Ural steppe and just accidentally take up residence in the very place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier must be infinitesimally small.

We have 1/1 samples of R1b from the native population and 0/0 samples from the immigrant population.

Seriously, show us your math.

rms2
03-21-2015, 12:35 AM
We don't have an immigrant population; we have a native population. That was the point.

It isn't at all likely that those Yamnaya R1b's were the descendants of immigrants from the Near East who just happened to take up residence in a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had been buried nearly 3,000 years earlier. Add to that the fact that the site from which the remains of that hunter-gatherer were recovered also yielded artifacts from cultures, like Samara and Repin, that preceded and contributed to Yamnaya.

Otherwise, to claim those Yamnaya R1b's were the y-dna descendants of relatively recent immigrants from the Near East, one would have to imagine that finding that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer at a site that yielded artifacts contiguous with the development of Yamnaya was just the product of completely serendipitous happenstance, an incredible fluke.

I think it far more likely that this set of circumstances indicates that those Yamnaya R1b's were members of a paternal line that had been on the Volga-Ural steppe for millennia before they were born.

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 01:44 AM
You keep *saying* it would be an incredible fluke, but you offer no justification for that. Your reasoning is totally circular. That's why I am asking you to show your math.

We already *know* that the Yamnaya are *not* 100% native - they are around half something else.

The probability of the immigrants also being R1b is whatever the probability of the immigrants being R1b is. That's all. Who cares if an R1b1* forager was buried there? It's not like R1b is in limited supply, or repels itself somehow.

alan
03-21-2015, 08:28 AM
You keep *saying* it would be an incredible fluke, but you offer no justification for that. Your reasoning is totally circular. That's why I am asking you to show your math.

We already *know* that the Yamnaya are *not* 100% native - they are around half something else.

The probability of the immigrants also being R1b is whatever the probability of the immigrants being R1b is. That's all. Who cares if an R1b1* forager was buried there? It's not like R1b is in limited supply, or repels itself somehow.

When saying that both the local steppe hunters and the SW Asian farmers migrating north were both R1b is essentially the same thing, given that farming slowly arose among the local hunters there, as saying that in immediate pre-farming times the hunters of both the Euro steppe and SW Asia featured R1b. So, for anyone suggesting that, and I have an open mind on this, the onus is on them to explain how things got that way when there were completely unrelated sets of hunters in eastern Europe and SW Asia before, during and for some time after the LGM. The hunters of SW Asia c. 30000BC-9000BC were not from the same cultures and had parted company never to meet again in that timeframe. So the minimum common ancestor date for shared ancestry even in theory would be about 30000 years if not more. R would barely have existed then and R1 probably not. So, that is far too old.

Also archaeologically it doesnt fit. That last wave linking SW Asia and Europe was Amharan-Gravettian and every indicator to date is strongly suggestive that European Gravettian was predominanty I on the y line.

You also have to explain how R was located in Mal'ta 24000 years ago in the middle upper palaeolithic culture of that area -one which didnt extend much west of Altai and which appears to have had no connections with Europe or SW Asia since the times of Ust Ishm before 40000BC.

I will toss a bone. Around about 9500BC the erstwhile Siberian technique of pressure flaked microblades appears in both European and Zagros just at the end of the Younger Dryas. This could be a common link, not directly but through a common Siberian link. It may not be of course - it could be parallel development but if so its a weird coincidence. However at a parting date of 11500 years ago did P297 even exist them. IMO it seems far more likely if there is a link between this Siberian technology and its presence in Europe and SW Asia that the P25xP297 branch we see most commonly in Iran today is the south-west Asian remnant of this while P297 is the northern remnant.

Why - am I being Eurocentric or biased. No, the other non-M269 branch of P297, M73, is virtually unknown in SW Asia and where it does appear there it is clearly linked with Turks bringing it from further north and east. This is extremely clear in studies of the Caucasus, Iran etc. It seems clear that this is likely to have always been located around the Europe-Siberia-central Asia zone. That cannot have happened if P297 either went to or first occurred in SW Asia. Even if P297 split and partly went to the steppe and partly went to SW Asia then whatever the date for the last shared SNP below P297 is the earliest such a split could have happened. Unfortunately all I am aware of at present for that is various STR interclades for M73 and M269 centred around 10000 years. Getting a more accurate and up to date SNP based date for the separation of M269 and M73 is incredibly important IMO as a lot could be inferred about the steppe-SW Asia relationship options from it. However even without it it is clear that at least part of P297 never left for SW Asia because M73 is nearly unknown there except among Turkic peoples. It seems impossible for M73 to have come from SW Asia. So again, it is very important that we get an accurate SNP based age for M73

rms2
03-21-2015, 11:36 AM
. . . Who cares if an R1b1* forager was buried there? It's not like R1b is in limited supply, or repels itself somehow.

Really? Of all the places in Eurasia, not to mention Africa, these Z2103 supposed immigrants from the Near East could have gone, they just happened to stumble on a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? You really believe burial sites of 7,600-year-old and older R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherers were so commonplace that the odds are they could have settled anywhere and been near one?

R.Rocca
03-21-2015, 01:53 PM
Really? Of all the places in Eurasia, not to mention Africa, these Z2103 supposed immigrants from the Near East could have gone, they just happened to stumble on a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? You really believe burial sites of 7,600-year-old and older R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherers were so commonplace that the odds are they could have settled anywhere and been near one?

To add; Samara did not have just one ancient R1b1* at one end of the spectrum and several Z2103 on the other end... it also had one of only two true L23(xL51,Z2105) samples known anywhere. The other is of a modern Komi sample from northern Russia (Trofimova 2015).

jdean
03-21-2015, 02:24 PM
To add; Samara did not have just one ancient R1b1* at one end of the spectrum and several Z2103 on the other end... it also had one of only two true L23(xL51,Z2105) samples known anywhere. The other is of a modern Komi sample from northern Russia (Trofimova 2015).

Actually there were a couple of L23* from the Komi Republic (unless I'm reading the data wrong) in the Russian DNA study somebody posted about a few weeks back.

http://ibg.anrb.ru/disovet/zashita/2015/02Trofimova/2015_02_TrofimovaDiser.pdf

Edit : Sorry one not a couple, forgot the numbers were percentages : )

rms2
03-21-2015, 02:36 PM
Actually there were a couple of DF23* from the Komi Republic (unless I'm reading the data wrong) in the Russian DNA study somebody posted about a few weeks back.

http://ibg.anrb.ru/disovet/zashita/2015/02Trofimova/2015_02_TrofimovaDiser.pdf

Edit : Sorry one not a couple, forgot the numbers were percentages : )

You meant L23*, right?

jdean
03-21-2015, 02:41 PM
You meant L23*, right?

Whoops : ) I've changed original text now !!

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 05:08 PM
Really? Of all the places in Eurasia, not to mention Africa, these Z2103 supposed immigrants from the Near East could have gone, they just happened to stumble on a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer died and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier? You really believe burial sites of 7,600-year-old and older R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherers were so commonplace that the odds are they could have settled anywhere and been near one?

You think there was just one band of R1b guys going to exactly one place? What the hell?

Hey, I come from a settlement of immigrant farmer/traders from another continent. That settlement is right next to a native forager winter village. And *both* populations are predominantly haplogroup P!

How can this be??

Silesian
03-21-2015, 05:26 PM
You think there was just one band of R1b guys going to exactly one place? What the hell?

Hey, I come from a settlement of immigrant farmer/traders from another continent. That settlement is right next to a native forager winter village. And *both* populations are predominantly haplogroup P!

How can this be??
There is quite a genetic distance between L584- and L23* and P :)

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 05:52 PM
There is quite a genetic distance between L584- and L23* and P :)
L23 is only about 15 000 years after the root of R1b1, while P is more like 35 000 years old. But then, western North America is a hell of a lot further from Britain than the Caucasus is from Samara. It's a fair comparison.

There was lots and lots of time for R1b to spread from wherever it started, and we *know* it had.

R.Rocca
03-21-2015, 06:10 PM
L23 is only about 15 000 years after the root of R1b1, while P is more like 35 000 years old. But then, western North America is a hell of a lot further from Britain than the Caucasus is from Samara. It's a fair comparison.

There was lots and lots of time for R1b to spread from wherever it started, and we *know* it had.

You are trying to compare modern day movements to movements 5000 ybp. Apples and Oranges.

Silesian
03-21-2015, 06:20 PM
L23 is only about 15 000 years after the root of R1b1, while P is more like 35 000 years old. But then, western North America is a hell of a lot further from Britain than the Caucasus is from Samara. It's a fair comparison.

There was lots and lots of time for R1b to spread from wherever it started, and we *know* it had.
My opinion :); you will have to have to come up with a parsimonious regional description using both phylogenic split of;
R1b M73-L51[L11-U106-P312]+Z2103[P312- and U106-, L277-L584 and CTS-7822] of R1b[M73+]+[by extension R1a] and autosomal data reconciled, with ancient samples, and known distribution of modern populations. My opinion not that it matters much, does not see your version as being the most parsimonious explanation of the above splits combined with autosomal evidence.

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 06:32 PM
You are trying to compare modern day movements to movements 5000 ybp. Apples and Oranges.

What, people didn't migrate before? They didn't settle in nice places where other people had settled before? They didn't intermarry with natives?

Or did they just not settle next to people who had the same patrilineal ancestor 15 000 years ago, maybe?

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 06:41 PM
My opinion :); you will have to have to come up with a parsimonious regional description using both phylogenic split of;
R1b M73-L51[L11-U106-P312]+Z2103[P312- and U106-, L277-L584 and CTS-7822] of R1b[M73+]+[by extension R1a] and autosomal data reconciled, with ancient samples, and known distribution of modern populations. My opinion not that it matters much, does not see your version as being the most parsimonious explanation of the above splits combined with autosomal evidence.

Now that is a real argument. Not a bogus circular argument. See the difference?

rms2
03-21-2015, 07:35 PM
Now that is a real argument. Not a bogus circular argument. See the difference?

My argument was not circular or bogus. If one posits that those Yamnaya R1b were the fairly recent descendants of immigrants from the Near East, he has to explain how they just happened to land, serendipitously, not far from a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer had lived, died, and was buried nearly 3,000 years earlier. You seem to believe that burial sites of R1b-L278 hunter-gatherers of that age were so thick on the ground everywhere in Eurasia that R1b immigrants from the Near East were likely to end up near one, no matter where they went.

And, as I mentioned before, it's not just the presence of that hunter-gatherer, it's also the fact that he was exhumed at a site that also yielded artifacts from cultures that preceded and contributed to the development of Yamnaya.

Elsewhere in this thread we discussed the earlier departure for the Near East of pre-P297 R1b and the later rise of P297 and its two main branches, M73 and M269. That was knowledge that should have formed the background for and informed subsequent discussions. If not, then each successive post in this thread would simply grow longer and longer and longer.

alan
03-21-2015, 08:41 PM
The fact there was a real L23* as well as an Z2103 in Samara puts two brother iines of L51 in the area, not just one. Then you have the closest M269 cousin line M73 also unknown in SW Asia, the Caucasus or Iran except among small Turkic minorities. You also have to consider the fact that the expansion dates for L23 derived clades does not at all match the very early farming dates in SW Asia...AND of course no P297 derived R1b in a now-large sample of Neolithic Europeans. We have the situation of so much of the ancient R coming from Russia. We have R1b hunters in Russia.

One other factor I think needs taken into account is language. L51 derived men are incredibly overwhelmingly IE speaking today as indeed are European Z2103 men. There is a coherence of a sort. When you go to SW Asia the largely Z2103 R1b men have no coherence at all in language or even language family and the same lineage is split among a variety of IE and non-IE languages, cultures and religions. It looks like chaos and a lot of random bottlenecks and founder effects.

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 09:03 PM
Are you claiming that Haak et al are wrong, and that the Yamnaya are pure descendants of the Samara foragers?

If not, then you agree that they are culturally and genetically mixed. So those Near Eastern genes ended up there, whether by native foragers intermarrying with immigrants, or by a mixed population settling there (I'd guess the latter, but whatever).

The forager was R1b (who may or may not have actually been ancestral to M269, we don't know.) That doesn't prevent anyone somewhere else from being R1b. R1b in Ireland does not stop R1b being in Cameroon or Bhutan. It's irrelevant, except to the broader phylogeography, which we'll get to in a moment.

Now if the immigrant population had a lot of R1b, then the chance of a farmer R1b being buried near a forager R1b would obviously be good. If they had little or no R1b, the chances would be very slim. The forager being R1b has nothing to do with it.

You have 2 jars of mixed jellybeans. You don't know what amounts of which colors are in each jar. You pull a jellybean from jar #1 - it's red. Now someone switches the jars around so you don't know which is which. You pick from a jar and get another red jellybean. What are the odds that it was jar #2 you drew from this time?

"Infinitesimally small" is not the correct answer.

Now you can argue from other evidence that the R1b was not from the Near East. But you can't argue backwards by claiming that an R1b is unlikely to be buried next to another R1b, because that is based on the prior assumption that the immigrants were unlikely to be R1b. Hence it is a circular argument.

rms2
03-21-2015, 09:08 PM
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all because the issue isn't immigrants versus natives but geographic place and the likelihood that a person belonging to a particular y haplogroup is buried in such-and-such a place. Good grief. That seems easy enough to understand.

How many places about the size of the Samara and Orenburg oblasts are there in Eurasia? How many of them have R1b-L278 hunter-gatherers buried in them? We don't know, but I doubt it's many.

R.Rocca
03-21-2015, 10:23 PM
What, people didn't migrate before? They didn't settle in nice places where other people had settled before? They didn't intermarry with natives?

Or did they just not settle next to people who had the same patrilineal ancestor 15 000 years ago, maybe?

Yeah, they did, what of it? We are trying to reconcile something that happened between 6000 and 5000 years ago in a very small area, not two continents over a span of 40,000 years, so stick to the topic and stop with your nonsensical straw-man arguments.

R.Rocca
03-21-2015, 10:37 PM
Are you claiming that Haak et al are wrong, and that the Yamnaya are pure descendants of the Samara foragers?

If not, then you agree that they are culturally and genetically mixed. So those Near Eastern genes ended up there, whether by native foragers intermarrying with immigrants, or by a mixed population settling there (I'd guess the latter, but whatever).

The forager was R1b (a non-M269 branch, not actually ancestral to the Yamnaya R1b, but never mind that.) That doesn't prevent anyone somewhere else from being R1b. R1b in Ireland does not stop R1b being in Cameroon or Bhutan. It's irrelevant, except to the broader phylogeography, which we'll get to in a moment.

Now if the immigrant population had a lot of R1b, then the chance of a farmer R1b being buried near a forager R1b would obviously be good. If they had little or no R1b, the chances would be very slim. The forager being R1b has nothing to do with it.

You have 2 jars of mixed jellybeans. You don't know what amounts of which colors are in each jar. You pull a jellybean from jar #1 - it's red. Now someone switches the jars around so you don't know which is which. You pick from a jar and get another red jellybean. What are the odds that it was jar #2 you drew from this time?

"Infinitesimally small" is not the correct answer.

Now you can argue from other evidence that the R1b was not from the Near East. But you can't argue backwards by claiming that an R1b is unlikely to be buried next to another R1b, because that is based on the prior assumption that the immigrants were unlikely to be R1b. Hence it is a circular argument.

What do you mean "never mind that"? Since you are nitpicking at every turn...how on earth do you know the R1b1 forager wasn't ancestral to M269? How do you know he wasn't the sole great grandfather of all living R1b men? And don't use any nonsensical jelly bean counting or circular logic. Clear and simple..how..do..you...know?!?!

Megalophias
03-21-2015, 11:32 PM
What do you mean "never mind that"? Since you are nitpicking at every turn...how on earth do you know the R1b1 forager wasn't ancestral to M269? How do you know he wasn't the sole great grandfather of all living R1b men? And don't use any nonsensical jelly bean counting or circular logic. Clear and simple..how..do..you...know?!?!
Well, I was using the estimated date of M269 which was a great deal older, but I see they changed it to be much younger now. I should not have put it like that, but I was in a hurry. So yes, he could be the ancestor of all M269. (He couldn't be the patriarch of all living R1b men unless our age estimates are so far off that basically everything we know is wrong, but I don't think anyone's actually suggesting that.)


Yeah, they did, what of it? We are trying to reconcile something that happened between 6000 and 5000 years ago in a very small area, not two continents over a span of 40,000 years, so stick to the topic and stop with your nonsensical straw-man arguments.
What happened in that small area is that they went from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic and from 100% EHG to 50% EHG. People brought in livestock, metallurgy, and genes. Where those people came from and what genes they were carrying is relevant. That involves a larger area and a longer time frame. Okay?


nonsensical jelly bean counting
Jelly beans represent men. Jar #1 is the Samara forager population. Jar #2 is the immigrant farmer population. Red jelly beans are R1b. We pulled a red jelly bean out of jar #1 (our Samara forager sample). We don't know what jar we pulled from for our next sample (because the Yamnaya are genetically half and half, they could in principle have the Y haplogroup of either population), but that was a red jelly bean (R1b) as well.

So we are trying to guess which jar it was we drew from (which population donated the R1b). Well, we *know* there are red jelly beans in jar #1. We got red first try, so probably *lots* of red jelly beans. So if we had to bet, we'd say jar #1. What we *wouldn't* do is bet our life savings at unfavourable odds because there's no way we could get a red jelly bean from jar #2 right after we got one from jar #1, that'd just be too crazy of a coincidence.

Which is what rms2 is saying.

Joe B
03-22-2015, 12:41 AM
The fact there was a real L23* as well as an Z2103 in Samara puts two brother iines of L51 in the area, not just one. Then you have the closest M269 cousin line M73 also unknown in SW Asia, the Caucasus or Iran except among small Turkic minorities. You also have to consider the fact that the expansion dates for L23 derived clades does not at all match the very early farming dates in SW Asia...AND of course no P297 derived R1b in a now-large sample of Neolithic Europeans. We have the situation of so much of the ancient R coming from Russia. We have R1b hunters in Russia.

One other factor I think needs taken into account is language. L51 derived men are incredibly overwhelmingly IE speaking today as indeed are European Z2103 men. There is a coherence of a sort. When you go to SW Asia the largely Z2103 R1b men have no coherence at all in language or even language family and the same lineage is split among a variety of IE and non-IE languages, cultures and religions. It looks like chaos and a lot of random bottlenecks and founder effects.R1b-Z2103 seems to be too general when looking at these areas that are not sampled that well. What if the R1b-L51 level was all you had for Spain, Ireland, Britain and Germany? No P312, DF27, SRY2627, L21 or U106 just to name a few. What a different tale it would be. I'm not saying the chaos will go away, it's just looks different when a higher level of granularity is applied to the R1b-Z2103 haplogroup.
R1b-M269 (P312- U106-) DNA Project Phylogenetic Tree (https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/ht-3-5new/about/results)

Megalophias
03-22-2015, 03:05 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense at all because the issue isn't immigrants versus natives but geographic place and the likelihood that a person belonging to a particular y haplogroup is buried in such-and-such a place. Good grief. That seems easy enough to understand.

How many places about the size of the Samara and Orenburg oblasts are there in Eurasia? How many of them have R1b-L278 hunter-gatherers buried in them? We don't know, but I doubt it's many.

The likelihood depends on how common the frigging haplogroup is, not on who was buried there 2500 years earlier.

Humanist
03-22-2015, 03:54 AM
[MOD] Please keep the discussion civil.

vettor
03-22-2015, 08:40 AM
OMG , same nonsense as before

Not all R1b where hunters , R1b where also herders and farmers ............same with every other haplogroup, all where Hunters, all where farmers and all where herders/foragers/pastorists .

When are people going to realise that these haplogroup where not of one thing!

I found this map on the web...........just add the haplogroups and you can see the mix

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zPTFaw2rnx-E.kfoCf5XA8Lgw

R.Rocca
03-22-2015, 01:19 PM
OMG , same nonsense as before

Not all R1b where hunters , R1b where also herders and farmers ............same with every other haplogroup, all where Hunters, all where farmers and all where herders/foragers/pastorists .

When are people going to realise that these haplogroup where not of one thing!

I found this map on the web...........just add the haplogroups and you can see the mix

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zPTFaw2rnx-E.kfoCf5XA8Lgw

Nobody said all R1b were all hunters throughout all of time, so I don't know where you are getting that. The only R1b being considered as a hunter is the R1b1 Samara sample.

rms2
03-22-2015, 11:41 PM
The likelihood depends on how common the frigging haplogroup is, not on who was buried there 2500 years earlier.

And you think R1b was so common 7,600 years ago that no matter where one went in Eurasia 5,000 years ago, he was likely to be near the body of an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer?

See, I don't think that was the case. The fact that those Yamnaya steppe pastoralists lived, died, and were buried in the vicinity of that R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer indicates that they were part of a paternal line that had been in that area for millennia and was NOT the y-dna line of relatively recent immigrants from Anatolia (about 2900 km away).

Silesian
03-23-2015, 12:25 AM
And you think R1b was so common 7,600 years ago that no matter where one went in Eurasia 5,000 years ago, he was likely to be near the body of an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer?

See, I don't think that was the case. The fact that those Yamnaya steppe pastoralists lived, died, and were buried in the vicinity of that R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer indicates that they were part of a paternal line that had been in that area for millennia and was NOT the y-dna line of relatively recent immigrants from Anatolia (about 2900 km away).
The distance between the 2 samples geographically [Samara_HG-I0124 & Yamnaya I0429-2300ybp+/- age difference] is actually quite close[2km+/-], if we use the coordinates provided by the following results.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QPTmyarOBBEZfXnLI5L64ueJNG34jgy4QgQ_1nSYtnM/edit?pli=1#gid=917906623
4127
4128

rms2
03-23-2015, 12:31 AM
The distance between the 2 samples[Samara_HG-I0124 & Yamnaya I0429] is actually quite close[2km+/-], if we use the coordinates provided by the following results.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QPTmyarOBBEZfXnLI5L64ueJNG34jgy4QgQ_1nSYtnM/edit?pli=1#gid=917906623
4127
4128

Yes, I know. I was talking about the distance from Anatolia to Samara, i.e., about 2900 km - a long way to come to just accidentally wind up near the body of an R1b hunter-gatherer.

Megalophias
03-23-2015, 05:23 AM
And you think R1b was so common 7,600 years ago that no matter where one went in Eurasia 5,000 years ago, he was likely to be near the body of an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer?

See, I don't think that was the case. The fact that those Yamnaya steppe pastoralists lived, died, and were buried in the vicinity of that R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer indicates that they were part of a paternal line that had been in that area for millennia and was NOT the y-dna line of relatively recent immigrants from Anatolia (about 2900 km away).

I know you don't think so. I don't think it was everywhere in Eurasia, but I think it was probably in West Asia, quite likely Central Asia and North Africa too, and for some reason I have a sneaking suspicion it was in Spain.... I also think that this probably wasn't R1b-L23, and that L23 probably comes from the steppe.

But that is not the point. Imagine tomorrow someone comes in with some wonderful new aDNA results, and they find that farmers from the South Caucasus around 4000 BC match the mystery population that mixed into EHG to form Yamnaya, and that they are 90% some kind of R1b, but we don't know what kind. Just as a thought experiment, okay?

Would you continue to think that it is almost impossible that the R1b in the Samara Yamnaya comes from immigrant farmers, because what are the chances are random band of R1b farmers would end up next to an R1b hunter-gatherer?

rms2
03-23-2015, 07:52 AM
The presence of that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer right in the midst of where those R1b Yamnaya men were found makes such a scenario a highly unlikely thought exercise. I really doubt that immigrants, now advanced to the Caucasus to make them a little closer to the Volga-Ural steppe than our former putative Anatolians, and now "some kind of R1b" rather than Z2103, would be likely to just serendipitously stumble on a place where an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer just happened to have been buried around 5,600 BC. That seems to me less likely than a lightning strike on that hunter-gatherer's exact burial site.

Had those Yamnaya R1b been found in the midst of the Volga-Ural steppe with no sort of possible predecessors from a bygone era buried nearby, then one could reasonably speculate that they might have been the progeny of relatively recent immigrants from some distant place. But that hunter-gatherer, it seems to me, makes it far more likely that that was not the case, but rather that they were members of a paternal line that had already been on the steppe for millennia before they were born.

alan
03-23-2015, 09:51 AM
I think its telling that there is both Z2103 and L23* in Yamnaya in the same area. What is telling is that those two lines split from a common ancestor somewhere before the Z2103 SNP. So those guys actually at time of burial c. 3000BC hadnt shared a common ancestor for a millenia or so. These were NOT close relations respite being found in the same culture, same area and same period. IMO that is significant.

Lets face it the overwhelming reason a few are still arguing for a SW Asia to the steppes move for M269 derived R1b is Z2103 and that is based on modern distribution which shows a decent amount of the latter in parts of SW Asia. However, if we are really going to link the ancient Z2103 on the steppe and the modern concentration in SW Asia then what that is basically saying is that there was a Z2103 migration north.

Now that invasion would have had to have happened between the age of the SNP and 3000BC. Michal was dating to around 4400BC not so long ago. It could probably be further narrowed to between 4400BC and the start of Yamnaya culture c. 3300BC. So that is a very narrow window in which such a move could have happened and technically a post-Neolithic one. Its also telling IMO that Z2103 is present in ancient Yamnaya samples who vary from a lot to very little middle eastern autosomal DNA -something suggestive that the two are not closely linked.

Now, on modern DNA grounds alone the idea of L51 coming out of Anatolia seems crazy but its worth following through the concept to show how unlikely this is. L51 looks to have a more northern trajectory and IMO is unlikely to have come from or passed through Anatolia, SW Asia, the southern Balkans etc and likely to have moved west from the western steppes following a route no further south than the Danube. If L51 made it to the steppes from SW Asia then we are looking at three lines migrating to the steppes - L51, L23* and Z2103. To sustain the idea that they came from SW Asia then we are taking about a migration that was post-4400BC - in order to leave the big Z2103 element behind - but involved three lines with no common ancestor back toward the L23 SNP itself which from hazy memory some place back around 5500BC.

So, that scenario involves a three line L23 migration of a group who had incubated in SW Asia for 1000 years before arriving in the steppes as a group of distant cousin lineages but which somehow left no trace of two of the three lines behind in SW Asia. A movement of such distant cousin lines would imply a population movement not just a clan or lineage. Now IMO with a proper migration and a tight window of c. 4400-3300BC for this to happen this should be visible and really stand out in the archaeology of that time on the steppes. Personally I find the idea of a movement into the steppes north of the Caspian in the period say 4200-3800BC extremely unlikely due to the aridity even known as the 6.2 kiloyear event which lasted some centuries from that date -which also overlaps with the period known as the steppe hiatus. If you look at a map of rainfall today you can see that the Caucasus, northern Iran and much of Anatolia actually get significantly more rainfall than the area north of the Caucasus and Caspian. So it sees hugely unlikely to me that people moved north in that period and there were no farmers east of the Caspain except in southern Turkmenistan and there was a desert barrier and no archaeological indicators of them moving north. So in short I dont think a movement of farmers is at all likely for most of the period in which an L23 migration that included Z2103 could have existed i.e 4400BC and 3800BC when the very arid period was over.

In general I think it looks harder and harder to see an L23 multi-lineage migration into the steppes from the south. It is very hard to find a plausible scenario. To be honest this brief revue even seems to imply to me that the Caucasus/SW Asian autosomal component later found in Samara Yamnaya to varying degrees might have been a surprisingly late arrival in that area, post-3800BC and pre-3300BC - a period Rassamakin sees as one of renewed intrusion from the farmers bordering the steppes to the Tripolye west and the Caucasus.

Net Down G5L
03-23-2015, 10:33 AM
Now, on modern DNA grounds alone the idea of L51 coming out of Anatolia seems crazy but its worth following through the concept to show how unlikely this is. L51 looks to have a more northern trajectory and IMO is unlikely to have come from or passed through Anatolia, SW Asia, the southern Balkans etc and likely to have moved west from the western steppes following a route no further south than the Danube.

What am I missing about the modern DNA Alan? I have just looked again at the FTDNA Ht35 project data/distribution maps, Richard Rocca's 2012 L51 distribution map and Busby maps. I see nothing in that data to suggest a more northerly trajectory out of the Steppe and refute a move out of Anatolia - unless we look only at the L11* in Poland. The data I looked at seems to suggest the reverse or at least be neutral to the two options. Where am I going wrong with my analysis? Or am I looking at the wrong modern dna data entirely?

Net Down G5L
03-23-2015, 11:00 AM
Or am I looking at the wrong modern dna data entirely?

Are there fluxus diagrams available for the Ht35 str data? And if so do they show any patterns of location for the basal/early branching?

rms2
03-23-2015, 11:55 AM
What am I missing about the modern DNA Alan? I have just looked again at the FTDNA Ht35 project data/distribution maps, Richard Rocca's 2012 L51 distribution map and Busby maps. I see nothing in that data to suggest a more northerly trajectory out of the Steppe and refute a move out of Anatolia - unless we look only at the L11* in Poland. The data I looked at seems to suggest the reverse or at least be neutral to the two options. Where am I going wrong with my analysis? Or am I looking at the wrong modern dna data entirely?

I don't see anything that suggests that L51 entered Europe from Anatolia or that that is even remotely likely. Perhaps you could point out what it is in the data you described above that would point to an Anatolian origin for L51.

Net Down G5L
03-23-2015, 12:47 PM
I don't see anything that suggests that L51 entered Europe from Anatolia or that that is even remotely likely. Perhaps you could point out what it is in the data you described above that would point to an Anatolian origin for L51.

I am not suggesting L51 was 'born' in either the Steppe or Anatolia. I am looking at its later distribution and the distribution of its potential forefathers to see if there is an indication of its forefathers origins.
The reason I asked about the reliability of Richard Rocca's 2012 M269xL23 and L51 maps in an earlier post (I wondered if the data was now superceded so the maps not valid and hence withdrawn from the web) - was that taken on face value, they indicate M269 in the Balkans/Anatolia and L51 with a majority distribution along a more southerly Alps / Med route although with an isolated pocket further North.

The widely available L23 map is less helpful as it is actually an Ht35 map so much more complex. However, it is more useful when linked to Ht35 project data.
For example, the ht35 map "M269 L23- should order PF7558, PF7562, PF7563" shows individuals in Ukraine, Belarus and Poland.....but it also has even more individuals in Turkey and Southern Italy. I do not see a clear pattern.

Hence my wondering if there are any fluxus diagrams available. They may help in my understanding of the data.

I still seem to be missing the modern data that proves the more northery route out of the Steppe and would appreciate being pointed to it so I can understand it.

Megalophias
03-23-2015, 04:38 PM
The presence of that 7,600-year-old R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer right in the midst of where those R1b Yamnaya men were found makes such a scenario a highly unlikely thought exercise.

Okay, if you still think it's highly unlikely even in that scenario, then I guess your argument is not circular, since it doesn't depend on the putative rarity of R1b. I don't think there is anything remotely surprising about people settling where other people have settled before (or intermarrying with people who are still there), it seems totally natural. It's not like it's a random point on a featureless plain. Heck, in this very study they dug up a Corded Ware person from a Funnelbeaker graveyard, and two Bronze Age guys from an LBK site.

I think you are wildly overestimating how improbable this is. But I guess we will just have to disagree.

I haven't been addressing the other aspects (phylogeography and such) because I was trying to understand what exactly rms2 was getting at with his argument. Since he claimed his argument makes it virtually impossible for the Yamnaya R1b to originate outside the steppe, if valid it would settle the matter and all other evidence would be irrelevant.

Jean M
03-23-2015, 05:04 PM
I still seem to be missing the modern data that proves the more northerly route out of the Steppe.

If you are talking about modern DNA - it proves nothing except that there are now people in place X with genes Y and Z. It cannot tell us with any degree of confidence how and when they got there. Both geneticists and amateurs have gone in for years and years of guesswork about what modern patterns mean. Some of it was not complete rubbish. I do feel that some meaningful patterns can be discerned in modern DNA, usually at continental level, e.g. indications from phylogeography and diversity that Homo sapiens came from Africa. But subsequent movements have messed up the pattern to such a degree that it is best to rely on ancient DNA if we really want to understand migration routes.

Megalophias
03-23-2015, 05:40 PM
Now that invasion would have had to have happened between the age of the SNP and 3000BC. Michal was dating to around 4400BC not so long ago. It could probably be further narrowed to between 4400BC and the start of Yamnaya culture c. 3300BC. So that is a very narrow window in which such a move could have happened and technically a post-Neolithic one.
While I don't disagree in general, do remember that the confidence intervals on the dates are there for a reason. There are at least three layers of uncertainty involved in SNP counting dates.


Its also telling IMO that Z2103 is present in ancient Yamnaya samples who vary from a lot to very little middle eastern autosomal DNA -something suggestive that the two are not closely linked.
This is not correct. They all have quite a lot of Middle Eastern-like DNA. If you look at Eurogenes K8 you will note that even the sample with 100% Yamnaya and no Middle East in K6 has 21% Near East in K8, and that the other samples are 22-26% Near East, so the difference is not large.


So, that scenario involves a three line L23 migration of a group who had incubated in SW Asia for 1000 years before arriving in the steppes as a group of distant cousin lineages but which somehow left no trace of two of the three lines behind in SW Asia.Actually there is L51* in Iran and Turkey (see Myres) and L23* is practically unheard of anywhere. Z2103 is both most common and most basally diverse in Asia, according to our limited present data.


In general I think it looks harder and harder to see an L23 multi-lineage migration into the steppes from the south. It is very hard to find a plausible scenario. To be honest this brief revue even seems to imply to me that the Caucasus/SW Asian autosomal component later found in Samara Yamnaya to varying degrees might have been a surprisingly late arrival in that area, post-3800BC and pre-3300BC - a period Rassamakin sees as one of renewed intrusion from the farmers bordering the steppes to the Tripolye west and the Caucasus.
A steppe origin of L23 seems the most likely scenario. The new dates for M269 put it shortly before L23, so M269 probably also originated on the steppe. M269* has an interesting distribution.

Net Down G5L
03-23-2015, 06:02 PM
But subsequent movements have messed up the pattern to such a degree that it is best to rely on ancient DNA if we really want to understand migration routes.

I think we probably all agree we can best rely on ancient DNA and the priority should be sourcing more targetted samples and types of aDNA analysis.

However, I still think there is some value in looking at modern data ....and Alan has suggested that it points strongly to a more northern route out of the steppe for L51/forefathers.

rms2
03-23-2015, 07:06 PM
Okay, if you still think it's highly unlikely even in that scenario, then I guess your argument is not circular, since it doesn't depend on the putative rarity of R1b. I don't think there is anything remotely surprising about people settling where other people have settled before (or intermarrying with people who are still there), it seems totally natural. It's not like it's a random point on a featureless plain. Heck, in this very study they dug up a Corded Ware person from a Funnelbeaker graveyard, and two Bronze Age guys from an LBK site.

I think you are wildly overestimating how improbable this is. But I guess we will just have to disagree.

I haven't been addressing the other aspects (phylogeography and such) because I was trying to understand what exactly rms2 was getting at with his argument. Since he claimed his argument makes it virtually impossible for the Yamnaya R1b to originate outside the steppe, if valid it would settle the matter and all other evidence would be irrelevant.

We really weren't talking just about people in general settling where other people have settled before; obviously that happens all the time and no doubt has been happening since humankind began. We were talking about men who belong to a certain y haplogroup coming from far away and just coincidentally and by the most serendipitous chance settling where a hunter-gatherer who belonged to a suitably upstream version that same y haplogroup had been buried 2500 years or so before. That seems wildly improbable to me, unless one supposes that he can hardly dig a hole anywhere in Eurasia without striking an R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer. To top it off, this particular hunter-gatherer was buried at a site that also produced artifacts from cultures, like Samara and Repin, that preceded and contributed to the formation of the Yamnaya cultural horizon. The site just has continuity written all over it, and that's what I think finding that hunter-gatherer says, as well.

It's not absolute proof, obviously, but it seems to me to be pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

Like you said, we'll just have to disagree, but it flabbergasts me that you don't seem to see it. C'est la vie.

Megalophias
03-23-2015, 07:56 PM
Well, at least I understand your point of view a little better now! I am glad you don't actually think newcomers settling where natives had settled is unlikely in itself. That seemed really strange to me.

Now maybe we can sort out the continuity thing. Yes, there is cultural continuity between the Samara forager and the Yamnaya. There is also cultural discontinuity - a new subsistence system was introduced from elsewhere (livestock pastoralism), copper metallurgy, and so forth. Now we don't have to guess what this means in terms of genetics autosomally, because we know that the Yamnaya are half something new. So they are both culturally and genetically mixed, and therefore *in principle* their Y haplogroup could come from either side.

You may argue that the particular elements of cultural continuity between Samara and Yamnaya are such as correlate specifically with continuity in Y chromosomes, and that the discontinuity is of a kind that doesn't. But you would have to present evidence for this, which you have not. Not some other kind of evidence that *in this case* the forager haplogroup was the one that survived, but evidence that *in general* that is what to expect in this kind of case. Otherwise the existence of partial cultural continuity doesn't tell us anything we don't already know, which is that the Yamnaya are a mixture of old and new.

rms2
03-23-2015, 11:30 PM
The only evidence available is circumstantial, but powerful, in my opinion. We're not likely to get a series of bodies showing the progression from R1b1-L278 to P297 to M269 to L23 to Z2103 that just absolutely clinches y-dna continuity there in the Samara and Orenburg oblasts where all eight of those sets of remains were recovered.

The apparent continuity between that hunter-gatherer and those Yamnaya men seems to me both obvious and very unlikely to be due to some strange coincidence. It may not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but I find it pretty compelling. We're not likely to ever get absolute proof beyond a reasonable doubt anyway.

Megalophias
03-24-2015, 01:12 AM
This is kind of pointless, since we actually agree about L23 coming from the steppe, but if I am actually missing something blatantly obvious I'd really like to work out how. I am not expecting proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, since the Samara Yamnaya could have gone either way on the Y haplogroup, what I am not seeing is why having a subclade expand into an area where another branch of its parent clade existed is in any way remarkable. If a clade expands, it is likely to encounter its brother clades, since they are likely to be nearby. This is perfectly ordinary and happens all the time.

So why would it be surprising, in itself, if R1b farmers expanded to where R1b foragers had lived? R1b-P312 people ended up where Cardial R1b farmers preceded them. Is this somehow remarkable? No.

Augustus
03-24-2015, 03:04 AM
One of the things I am grossly uninformed on is the level of HG (WHG/EHG) in modern middle eastern populations (R1b/R1a carriers). I've heard it's non-existent. If this is the case, wouldn't that shift the PIE urheimat slightly more to the south of the Samara? Maykop?

This would contradict the linguistic argument that Uralic and PIE were in contact however...

rms2
03-24-2015, 11:38 AM
This is kind of pointless, since we actually agree about L23 coming from the steppe, but if I am actually missing something blatantly obvious I'd really like to work out how. I am not expecting proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, since the Samara Yamnaya could have gone either way on the Y haplogroup, what I am not seeing is why having a subclade expand into an area where another branch of its parent clade existed is in any way remarkable. If a clade expands, it is likely to encounter its brother clades, since they are likely to be nearby. This is perfectly ordinary and happens all the time.

So why would it be surprising, in itself, if R1b farmers expanded to where R1b foragers had lived? R1b-P312 people ended up where Cardial R1b farmers preceded them. Is this somehow remarkable? No.

Well, one has to look at the totality of the circumstances, which in this case should not be necessary to review, since they have been gone over ad nauseam in this thread.

Let's start with the single ancient Els Trocs R1b1-M415 from Spain, who was found with a group of I2a and one F*, as I recall. For one thing, we don't have seven ancient R1b bodies from circa 3,000 BC buried near the site where Els Trocs was found, one of them a mere 2 km away. For another, it is very likely, given what we know of the R1b story, that Els Trocs was V88+ and at least P297- and so not even on the same R1b line as the current R1b-P312 inhabitants of Spain. Thus it is unlikely that Els Trocs is the ancestor of any R1b-P312 man in Spain living today, and we don't have seven ancient R1b's from around 3,000 BC buried nearby with whom to compare him.

So we don't have a set of ancient R1b results near Els Trocs to be amazed about, like we do when it comes to the Yamnaya seven and the Samara hunter-gatherer.

It's true that we do not know for sure that Els Trocs was V88+ or even P297-, but that does seem likely, given what we know of the R1b story and the early splitting off a pre-P297 (P297-) line, its departure for the Near East and, subsequently, for Africa and points west in southern Europe. That left an eastern branch of R1b behind, from among whom P297 arose and spawned the branches M73 and M269. Of course, one could argue (but it's telling that no one is doing so) that Els Trocs was the ancestor of or in the same y line as modern Western European R1b-L51, but that would necessitate either a double origin for L23, western and eastern, or deriving the L23 on the steppe and elsewhere in the East from Iberia, a thing very unlikely.

Lastly, it seems certain that R1b originated either in far eastern Europe or in Asia, since that is where the rest of Super Group K is found together and especially R1b's closest relatives, R1a and Q. Not only that, but, as I mentioned, there is the pretty obvious early bifurcation of R1b into 1) a pre-P297 line that went to the Near East and points west, and from among whom V88 arose; and 2) an eastern P297+ line, from among whom both M73 and M269 arose. From this second, eastern P297+ line, as I said, M269 and its descendants stem, including L23 and its sons, Z2103 and L51.

We simply do not have this same set of circumstances in Spain, which is why finding the Els Trocs R1b1-M415, while really cool and interesting, is just not on the same level as finding the Samara hunter-gatherer and the Yamnaya seven.

And, really, finding that Samara R1b1-L278 hunter-gatherer only becomes an incredible, shocking thing when one claims that those seven Yamnaya R1b's were the relatively recent descendants of immigrants from some distant place in the Near East or the Caucasus. Otherwise, if they were really native to the Volga-Ural steppe, then it isn't all that surprising to find one of their ancestors, or at least a close relative of their ancestors, buried nearby.