PDA

View Full Version : R1b in Corded Ware



rms2
10-14-2015, 01:00 AM
There are now two ancient sets of remains from the Corded Ware culture that are R1b:

1. RISE1 (~2865-2578 BC) from Allentoft et al, who tested R1b1-L1345 and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Oblaczkowo, Poland; and a new one,

2. ESP14 (~2500-2050 BC) from Mathieson et al, who tested R1b1a2-CTS11468 (on the same level as M269 thus far) and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Esperstedt, Germany.



Corded Ware in Germany: Esperstedt (n=9) The site of Esperstedt forms part of large-scale excavations initiated in 2005 in the context of major infrastructural roadworks in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany to build motorway A38. Individuals from Esperstedt reference site 4 could be unambiguously assigned to the Corded Ware culture, both by accompanying pottery and by characteristic orientation of the burials18. Males were usually buried in a right-hand side flexed position with head to the west and facing south, while females were buried on their left-hand side with their head to the east. We added nine new individuals from this site . . .

• I1534 / ESP14 Feature 6141. This is genetically male. (Mathieson et al, Supplementary Information, page 8)




I1534 ESP14 Tooth - Y Y Central_LNBA SA CLB New 1240k data - 1 2500-2050 BCE 4815 4065 Esperstedt Germany 51.42 11.68 0.158 167,366 M Yes 2,113,805 K1a1b2a R1b1a2 CTS11468 0.054 (Mathieson et al, Supplementary Data Table 1)

rms2
10-14-2015, 12:09 PM
Interesting that R1b-P297 (shorthand for it and its subclades) has shown up in the major cultures to which the spread of early Indo-European languages has been attributed, and also in that Samara EHG from over 7k years ago. I realize RISE1 could only be gotten as far as R1b1-L1345, but we have R1b-P297 from Yamnaya, Poltavka, Beaker, and Corded Ware now.

jdean
10-14-2015, 12:41 PM
Hopefully they'll release the RAW data to the general public some point in the not too distant future.

R.Rocca
10-14-2015, 02:27 PM
There are now two ancient sets of remains from the Corded Ware culture that are R1b:

1. RISE1 (~2865-2578 BC) from Allentoft et al, who tested R1b1-L1345 and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Oblaczkowo, Poland; and a new one,

2. ESP14 (~2500-2050 BC) from Mathieson et al, who tested R1b1a2-CTS11468 (on the same level as M269 thus far) and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Esperstedt, Germany.

Don't forget, there is also another, albeit from a later Corded Ware sub-culture...

3. RISE98 (~2275-2032 BC) from Allentoft et al, who is positive for five high quality SNPs below U106 from L.Beddinge, Battle Axe Culture, Sweden.

rms2
10-14-2015, 03:30 PM
Don't forget, there is also another, albeit from a later Corded Ware sub-culture...

3. RISE98 (~2275-2032 BC) from Allentoft et al, who is positive for five high quality SNPs below U106 from L.Beddinge, Battle Axe Culture, Sweden.

True. I was going to venture the opinion that these two direct Corded Ware samples were probably U106, as well, but of course we don't know that.

R.Rocca
10-14-2015, 03:42 PM
True. I was going to venture the opinion that these two direct Corded Ware samples were probably U106, as well, but of course we don't know that.

Yeah, based on the age, it could be that RISE1 is simply something like L11 and the other two are U106 and/or a mix of U106 and P312. We need to also keep in mind that for the Polish sample, L23(xL51) is almost as important in Poland as L51 as per Myres, so the older sample could also be Z2103. So, like you said, since we don't know, we can only take educated guesses.

rms2
10-15-2015, 01:12 AM
My own theory is that the R1b in Corded Ware will turn out to be mostly R1b-U106, and that explains U106's distribution and its apparent connection to Germanic peoples.

On the other hand, IMHO, Beaker will turn out to be mostly R1b-P312, as we already seem to be seeing. I think that means the branch of L11 that gave rise to P312 was in Yamnaya and went around the Carpathians to the south and then up the Danube Valley. I think Gimbutas was right, and Beaker = Yamnaya + Vucedol. It was Beaker that emerged from the Carpathian basin and carried P312 to the west, subsequently giving rise to its various subclades. This also explains Beaker's and P312's apparent connection to Italo-Celtic peoples and P312's distribution.

Maybe that sounds a little too neat and tidy, but I think it is correct in the main. Probably there was some spillover here and there, and none of these early Indo-European peoples was all one thing or the other.

VinceT
10-15-2015, 05:29 AM
^ Yup, that definitely sounds too neat and tidy. It is plausible that we may eventually see U106 confirmed in Corded Ware, but there is plenty of room for other surprises. There really is very little time between the split of P312, U106, and S1194 for that matter, to suspect that such a sharp correlation will emerge with respect to those pottery cultures. But as always, time will tell. :)

rms2
10-15-2015, 12:08 PM
I don't think the time between the splits is relevant if the L11 line that led to P312 was in a different place than the L11 line that led to U106. Germanic and Balto-Slavic are generally attributed to Corded Ware, while Italo-Celtic is attributed to Beaker. U106 appears to be strongly connected to Germanic peoples and to lack much of a connection at all to Italo-Celtic peoples. It is also thus far missing from Beaker. P312, on the other hand, appears to be strongly connected to Italo-Celtic peoples and has been found in Beaker.

U106/Corded Ware, P312/Beaker identifications make sense of the apparent historical connections of U106 to Germanic peoples on the one hand and P312 to Italo-Celtic peoples on the other.

Otherwise, how did U106 become so strongly associated with historically Germanic speaking peoples and regions and P312 with historically Italo-Celtic speaking peoples and regions?

alan
10-15-2015, 05:19 PM
we need to find R1b in CW before 2550BC and we need greater resolution too. It still impossible to totally rule out that U106 might have somehow formed a localised beaker group and not be present in CW. A distinctive distribution is not enough to rule out beaker because L21, U152 and DF27 also have very distinctive frequency clines. What seems clear enough is that U106 was long isolated from the paths west because it is not a big feature of remnant Celtic populations in west and other groups who didnt have much Germanic input. However there are some beaker groups that are so far east that they may never have penetrated the west. Indeed the beaker frontier seems to constantly be pushed east. So, IMO we cannot totally rule out that U106 wasnt present in beaker groups in the north or the Baltic or Poland etc. I think it probably wasnt but there is no way we can rule it out as yet. It is entirely possible a small beaker group carrying U106 could have ended up in one of the north-eastern beaker pockets and remained fairly isolated until they moved out with the Germanic expansions. There is no reason to think Germanic is from a CW root either. Its a confusing branch which doesnt help. Personally I think it would be more useful if U106 was in pre-beaker CW as it allows some triangulation to work out the origins of L11 but I dont think we can call this one as yet.

alan
10-15-2015, 05:24 PM
I don't think the time between the splits is relevant if the L11 line that led to P312 was in a different place than the L11 line that led to U106. Germanic and Balto-Slavic are generally attributed to Corded Ware, while Italo-Celtic is attributed to Beaker. U106 appears to be strongly connected to Germanic peoples and to lack much of a connection at all to Italo-Celtic peoples. It is also thus far missing from Beaker. P312, on the other hand, appears to be strongly connected to Italo-Celtic peoples and has been found in Beaker.

U106/Corded Ware, P312/Beaker identifications make sense of the apparent historical connections of U106 to Germanic peoples on the one hand and P312 to Italo-Celtic peoples on the other.

Otherwise, how did U106 become so strongly associated with historically Germanic speaking peoples and regions and P312 with historically Italo-Celtic speaking peoples and regions?

I agree that the linguistic associations with P312 and U106 are pretty strong BUT that doesnt the association of CW and Germanic is a lot more of a guess. There was also beaker in eastern and northern Europe in all of the lands where Germanic may have formed. In fact much of the future Germanic world falls into the unique zone where CW and beaker overlapped after 2500BC - something that could explain why the branch is hard to categorise. I suspect the unique Celto-Germanic vocab dates to a period when pre-proto-Celtic and pre-Germanic met in this overlap zone.

rms2
10-15-2015, 11:41 PM
we need to find R1b in CW before 2550BC and we need greater resolution too. It still impossible to totally rule out that U106 might have somehow formed a localised beaker group and not be present in CW. A distinctive distribution is not enough to rule out beaker because L21, U152 and DF27 also have very distinctive frequency clines.

The distinctive frequency clines of L21, U152, and DF27 fall much more strongly in the zones of Beaker settlement than U106. L21, U152 and DF27 strongly correlate with Italo-Celtic-speaking peoples and regions. U106 very plainly does not.



What seems clear enough is that U106 was long isolated from the paths west because it is not a big feature of remnant Celtic populations in west and other groups who didnt have much Germanic input. However there are some beaker groups that are so far east that they may never have penetrated the west. Indeed the beaker frontier seems to constantly be pushed east. So, IMO we cannot totally rule out that U106 wasnt present in beaker groups in the north or the Baltic or Poland etc. I think it probably wasnt but there is no way we can rule it out as yet. It is entirely possible a small beaker group carrying U106 could have ended up in one of the north-eastern beaker pockets and remained fairly isolated until they moved out with the Germanic expansions. There is no reason to think Germanic is from a CW root either. Its a confusing branch which doesnt help. Personally I think it would be more useful if U106 was in pre-beaker CW as it allows some triangulation to work out the origins of L11 but I dont think we can call this one as yet.

Anything is possible, but a connection to Corded Ware for U106 makes a lot of sense, and the origin of Germanic is almost always attributed to Corded Ware in the literature, including in Anthony's book.

I think it far more likely that the P312 currently found mostly in the east and northeast represents eastern Beaker that eventually got caught up with Germanic and Balto-Slavic speakers. L238 may be a prime example of that, or at least the P312 line that led to L238 anyway.

Germany, of course, is another story, since much of it was Celtic speaking. No doubt some of the P312 currently found mostly in Germany represents Celtic speakers who got caught up in the Germanic expansion that began in the 8th century BC and culminated in the immediate post-Roman Migration Period.

Krefter
10-16-2015, 12:42 AM
You guys should take a few hours every week in gathering up Y DNA data from studies. There might not be ancient Y DNA from early Western Steppe incursions for years. You won't learn anything new unless you look at modern data.

rms2
10-16-2015, 01:06 AM
Modern data was all we used to do. It was all we had for a long time, and it produced a lot of rubbish that has only been whittled away recently by ancient y-dna.

VinceT
10-16-2015, 01:37 AM
^ Words fail me.

Krefter
10-16-2015, 01:38 AM
Modern data was all we used to do. It was all we had for a long time, and it produced a lot of rubbish that has only been whittled away recently by ancient y-dna.

Including what you learned via ancient DNA can make modern data more useful.


^ Words fail me.

Do you mind if I ask for info on modern data in the future?

Gravetto-Danubian
10-16-2015, 02:16 AM
I agree that the linguistic associations with P312 and U106 are pretty strong BUT that doesnt the association of CW and Germanic is a lot more of a guess. There was also beaker in eastern and northern Europe in all of the lands where Germanic may have formed. In fact much of the future Germanic world falls into the unique zone where CW and beaker overlapped after 2500BC - something that could explain why the branch is hard to categorise. I suspect the unique Celto-Germanic vocab dates to a period when pre-proto-Celtic and pre-Germanic met in this overlap zone.

I think the general pattern is clear enough but I wouldn't make straightforward equations between EBA cultures, genomes and later attested languages, because the latter probably developed after 2500 BC; and were shaped by all sorts of language intermixing ; as well as localized cultural, political and population shifts

Kwheaton
10-16-2015, 06:58 AM
Modern data was all we used to do. It was all we had for a long time, and it produced a lot of rubbish that has only been whittled away recently by ancient y-dna.

Now that did make me smile :biggrin1:

rms2
10-16-2015, 10:58 AM
Including what you learned via ancient DNA can make modern data more useful . . .


I did not say modern data are not useful, nor did I say that the data themselves were rubbish. Data are data. I said that in the past modern data produced a lot of rubbish, i.e., in the form of bogus interpretations, and that is true. Anyone who has been around dna discussion forums for as long as the person at a loss for words knows that.

Just read Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British for example. How many hundred pages of rubbish did Oppenheimer's take on modern data produce in that weighty tome?

Krefter
10-16-2015, 10:05 PM
I did not say modern data are not useful, nor did I say that the data themselves were rubbish. Data are data. I said that in the past modern data produced a lot of rubbish, i.e., in the form of bogus interpretations, and that is true. Anyone who has been around dna discussion forums for as long as the person at a loss for words knows that.

Just read Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British for example. How many hundred pages of rubbish did Oppenheimer's take on modern data produce in that weighty tome?

LOL. And commercial DNA-testing still use outdated theories.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-16-2015, 10:15 PM
we need to find R1b in CW before 2550BC and we need greater resolution too. It still impossible to totally rule out that U106 might have somehow formed a localised beaker group and not be present in CW. A distinctive distribution is not enough to rule out beaker because L21, U152 and DF27 also have very distinctive frequency clines. What seems clear enough is that U106 was long isolated from the paths west because it is not a big feature of remnant Celtic populations in west and other groups who didnt have much Germanic input. However there are some beaker groups that are so far east that they may never have penetrated the west. Indeed the beaker frontier seems to constantly be pushed east. So, IMO we cannot totally rule out that U106 wasnt present in beaker groups in the north or the Baltic or Poland etc. I think it probably wasnt but there is no way we can rule it out as yet. It is entirely possible a small beaker group carrying U106 could have ended up in one of the north-eastern beaker pockets and remained fairly isolated until they moved out with the Germanic expansions. There is no reason to think Germanic is from a CW root either. Its a confusing branch which doesnt help. Personally I think it would be more useful if U106 was in pre-beaker CW as it allows some triangulation to work out the origins of L11 but I dont think we can call this one as yet.

At present my hunch is that R1b in CWC is a small back-movement of individuals from Rhenish & Danubian groups rather than the main route of entry for any R1b Clade

This is suggested by an analysis of the R1b Scandinavian individual eurogenes did; who on the PCA appeared drifted toward BB than CWC

Gravetto-Danubian
10-16-2015, 10:40 PM
I did not say modern data are not useful, nor did I say that the data themselves were rubbish. Data are data. I said that in the past modern data produced a lot of rubbish, i.e., in the form of bogus interpretations, and that is true. Anyone who has been around dna discussion forums for as long as the person at a loss for words knows that.

Just read Oppenheimer's The Origins of the British for example. How many hundred pages of rubbish did Oppenheimer's take on modern data produce in that weighty tome?

Indeed falsified. PErhaps Oppenheimer left himself open to critique due to the confidence with which he presented his conclusions and perhaps the indiginest 'Atlantic-Celtic' tone which coloured hist work. But we (most of whom are dilettantes) should not get too haughty sitting behind our PCs with the swathes of new data available, especially given that most simply agreed with those early conclusions, and never at the time presented any evidence-based counter-arguements. People like Oppenheimer and the early Population Geniticists deserve nothing but respect for making genetics mainstream, and enabling us to realise that modern DNA data alone is not enough.

Without the early modern DNA studies, there'd be no aDNA.

Krefter
10-16-2015, 11:20 PM
At present my hunch is that R1b in CWC is a small back-movement of individuals from Rhenish & Danubian groups rather than the main route of entry for any R1b Clade

This is suggested by an analysis of the R1b Scandinavian individual eurogenes did; who on the PCA appeared drifted toward BB than CWC

There's no convincing evidence the R1b-U106 guy in Sweden was Corded Ware. The R1b1a2 guy in Late Corded Ware could be from admixture with people to the West because he was contemporary to Bell Beaker. However another R1b guy from CWC lived before Bell Beaker began. R1b-Steppe groups could have already arrived in Germany but we have no convincing evidence.

rms2
10-16-2015, 11:32 PM
Indeed falsified. PErhaps Oppenheimer left himself open to critique due to the confidence with which he presented his conclusions and perhaps the indiginest 'Atlantic-Celtic' tone which coloured hist work. But we (most of whom are dilettantes) should not get too haughty sitting behind our PCs with the swathes of new data available, especially given that most simply agreed with those early conclusions, and never at the time presented any evidence-based counter-arguements. People like Oppenheimer and the early Population Geniticists deserve nothing but respect for making genetics mainstream, and enabling us to realise that modern DNA data alone is not enough.

Without the early modern DNA studies, there'd be no aDNA.

Oppenheimer's book was just one example of many I could have cited, and no haughtiness was involved. Some aggravation was involved, however, because I did oppose the orthodoxy back then with what I thought were pretty good arguments but was mocked.

I'll decide to whom I will give my respect, thank you.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-16-2015, 11:34 PM
Oppenheimer's book was just one example of many I could have cited, and no haughtiness was involved. Some aggravation was involved, however, because I did oppose the orthodoxy back then with what I thought were pretty good arguments but was mocked.

I'll decide to whom I will give my respect, thank you.

Fair enough
Thank you

rms2
10-16-2015, 11:37 PM
There's no convincing evidence the R1b-U106 guy in Sweden was Corded Ware. The R1b1a2 guy in Late Corded Ware could be from admixture with people to the West because he was contemporary to Bell Beaker. However another R1b guy from CWC lived before Bell Beaker began. R1b-Steppe groups could have already arrived in Germany but we have no convincing evidence.

His remains were recovered from a Swedish Battle Axe culture burial site. Do you think if he had been R1a anyone would be questioning his status? And now besides him there are two R1bs from actual Corded Ware sites, one in Poland and one in Germany.

For some reason there is and has always been (as long as these y-dna arguments have been going on anyway) a certain crowd who really really do not want R1b to have any connection with the early Indo-Europeans. But R1b keeps proving itself very inconvenient by popping up in the very steppe cultures to which the early Indo-Europeans likely belonged.

Gravetto-Danubian
10-16-2015, 11:52 PM
His remains were recovered from a Swedish Battle Axe culture burial site. Do you think if he had been R1a anyone would be questioning his status? And now besides him there are two R1bs from actual Corded Ware sites, one in Poland and one in Germany.



But what was his individual burial context, positioning within the burial ground, state of health, etc ?
There were bi-ritual, bi-cultural burial grounds throughout the centre of Europe , so only proper contextual analysis will resolve whether he was a part and parcel member of the clan, or a tolerated outsider

rms2
10-16-2015, 11:58 PM
But what was his individual burial context, positioning within the burial ground, state of health, etc ?
There were bi-ritual, bi-cultural burial grounds throughout the centre of Europe , so only proper contextual analysis will resolve whether he was a part and parcel member of the clan, or a tolerated outsider

Yes, he was R1b, so by all means, have at it. Are all those considerations raised for the non-R1b Swedish Battle Axe remains? Has anyone ever raised them? No need to reply. I know the answer.

Romilius
10-17-2015, 08:52 AM
Yes, he was R1b, so by all means, have at it. Are all those considerations raised for the non-R1b Swedish Battle Axe remains? Has anyone ever raised them? No need to reply. I know the answer.

I would add that when R1b popped out in Yamna, some raised the possibility (covered by a veil of certainty) that Yamna wasn't I.E. speaking.

Now, I would ask them if science is something they know, because the chain of thoughts must be this:
a) R1b must not be I.E. - that's a religious dogma;
b) Yamna was I.E. until R1b pops up here;
c) hey! R1b was in Yamna! What a shame!
d) Yamna wasn't I.E.

Now, CW has some R1b: intruders! Alarm! Introgression of foreign elements!

I hope irony will be understood... at least by some REAL and SERIOUS people that follow scientific way of thinking...

Gravetto-Danubian
10-17-2015, 09:04 AM
Yes, he was R1b, so by all means, have at it. Are all those considerations raised for the non-R1b Swedish Battle Axe remains? Has anyone ever raised them? No need to reply. I know the answer.

Again with the Agro? Seems u like assuming bad faith

No they haven't . That's what I'm asking for all finds; where possible. It'll allow us to formulate how potentially different elements interacted within communities.

I'm not stating r1a is the true group, and R1b is the "odd/ foreigner".

Once broad surveying is done; they should focus on conclusive sampling from individual cemeteries to see just how diverse they were and how different elements melded; how different individuals were interred, what grave good were provisioned. That's the future of aDNA

lgmayka
10-17-2015, 09:23 AM
But we (most of whom are dilettantes) should not get too haughty sitting behind our PCs with the swathes of new data available, especially given that most simply agreed with those early conclusions, and never at the time presented any evidence-based counter-arguements.
Oppenheimer based his bizarre oh-so-certain conclusions on 6-marker haplotypes, which even at the time we knew were ridiculously inadequate. His pontifications also included some bogus linguistics (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry):
---
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts.
...
Given the distribution of Celtic languages in southwest Europe, it is most likely that they were spread by a wave of agriculturalists who dispersed 7,000 years ago from Anatolia, travelling along the north coast of the Mediterranean to Italy, France, Spain and then up the Atlantic coast to the British Isles.
---

Gravetto-Danubian
10-17-2015, 09:44 AM
Oppenheimer based his bizarre oh-so-certain conclusions on 6-marker haplotypes, which even at the time we knew were ridiculously inadequate. His pontifications also included some bogus linguistics (http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/mythsofbritishancestry):
---
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts.
...
Given the distribution of Celtic languages in southwest Europe, it is most likely that they were spread by a wave of agriculturalists who dispersed 7,000 years ago from Anatolia, travelling along the north coast of the Mediterranean to Italy, France, Spain and then up the Atlantic coast to the British Isles.
---

Indeed he was way off and the main topic of his writing wasn't my main interest; but my point was the errors of earlier population genetics paved the way for our new understandings. We shouldn't be too harsh, in general :)

alan
10-17-2015, 10:36 AM
There's no convincing evidence the R1b-U106 guy in Sweden was Corded Ware. The R1b1a2 guy in Late Corded Ware could be from admixture with people to the West because he was contemporary to Bell Beaker. However another R1b guy from CWC lived before Bell Beaker began. R1b-Steppe groups could have already arrived in Germany but we have no convincing evidence.

Yep there is no doubt that some R1b was in CW and it didnt come from beaker in his case. Its a real pity we dont know what kind of R1b but its likely either some L11 derivative or Z2103 judging by other results around that date. L51xL11 is such a tiny clade that never really expanded so the probability of that seems very low. He could be some other form but if I was a betting man it would be one of those two. If I had to really push the guessing game I would say he was L11 and probably U106 because we have no evidence of Z2103 in Corded Ware at all but we do know U106 did make it into northern corded ware at some point. We also have no U106 in beaker as yet despite the beaker generally being from the beaker east group. So the odds on U106 coming from beaker seem very low (although not totally impossible).

I think the most rational interpretation of U106 is in pre-beaker times it was located in a culture bordering to the south the earliest CW people and some passed into CW fairly early before the expansion north. I now suspect due to the lack of U106 or any R1b in the eastern CW groups but its presence in Germany and Scandinavia that the bleeding through of some U106 into CW as a minority happened somewhere like the Dniester rather than the Dnieper. So that in turn kind of suggests to me that c. 2800BC U106 was in the lower Dniester area but that P312 had already taken the Danube route south of the Carpathians preventing it also dribbling into CW.

rms2
10-17-2015, 12:31 PM
Yep there is no doubt that some R1b was in CW and it didnt come from beaker in his case. Its a real pity we dont know what kind of R1b but its likely either some L11 derivative or Z2103 judging by other results around that date. L51xL11 is such a tiny clade that never really expanded so the probability of that seems very low. He could be some other form but if I was a betting man it would be one of those two. If I had to really push the guessing game I would say he was L11 and probably U106 because we have no evidence of Z2103 in Corded Ware at all but we do know U106 did make it into northern corded ware at some point. We also have no U106 in beaker as yet despite the beaker generally being from the beaker east group. So the odds on U106 coming from beaker seem very low (although not totally impossible).

I think the most rational interpretation of U106 is in pre-beaker times it was located in a culture bordering to the south the earliest CW people and some passed into CW fairly early before the expansion north. I now suspect due to the lack of U106 or any R1b in the eastern CW groups but its presence in Germany and Scandinavia that the bleeding through of some U106 into CW as a minority happened somewhere like the Dniester rather than the Dnieper. So that in turn kind of suggests to me that c. 2800BC U106 was in the lower Dniester area but that P312 had already taken the Danube route south of the Carpathians preventing it also dribbling into CW.

That is essentially what I have been saying. U106, or the L11 line leading to it, got into Corded Ware (probably not as the majority y-haplogroup, which was R1a) and came west with it. Even though R1b-U106 probably was not the majority y haplogroup in Corded Ware as a whole, it appears to have come to the fore in the regions that became Germanic-speaking.

P312, or the L11 line leading to it, came up the Danube with Yamnaya, mixed with Vucedol (I'm with Gimbutas on that point) and became Beaker. It was Beaker that spread P312 and Italo-Celtic westward.

That is not to say any of this was pure and unalloyed or that no other y haplogroups were involved. It is simply an attempt to present what I think is the general picture.

Tomenable
12-07-2015, 12:34 PM
ESP14 (~2500-2050 BC) from Mathieson et al, who tested R1b1a2-CTS11468 (on the same level as M269 thus far) and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Esperstedt, Germany.

Corded Ware in Germany: Esperstedt (n=9) The site of Esperstedt forms part of large-scale excavations initiated in 2005 in the context of major infrastructural roadworks in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany to build motorway A38. Individuals from Esperstedt reference site 4 could be unambiguously assigned to the Corded Ware culture, both by accompanying pottery and by characteristic orientation of the burials18. Males were usually buried in a right-hand side flexed position with head to the west and facing south, while females were buried on their left-hand side with their head to the east. We added nine new individuals from this site . . .

• I1534 / ESP14 Feature 6141. This is genetically male. (Mathieson et al, Supplementary Information, page 8)

I1534 ESP14 Tooth - Y Y Central_LNBA SA CLB New 1240k data - 1 2500-2050 BCE 4815 4065 Esperstedt Germany 51.42 11.68 0.158 167,366 M Yes 2,113,805 K1a1b2a R1b1a2 CTS11468 0.054 (Mathieson et al, Supplementary Data Table 1)

Genetiker has this guy as R1a1a-M198*, not as R1b:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/more-y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/


I1534 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a-M198* calls

Y-SNP calls for I1534

Below are the Y-SNP calls for I1534, a Corded Ware sample from Germany. Positive calls are in bold, and negative calls are in non-bold.

The calls show that I1534 belonged to Y haplogroup R1a1a-M198*.

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


So question is - who is wrong ???

rms2
12-07-2015, 12:40 PM
I don't think Geneticker is reliable. I don't know why anyone knows what he is saying, because it means there are people who can actually read who are still looking at his blog.

smal
12-07-2015, 12:47 PM
So question is - who is wrong ???

Mathieson et al are wrong. I1534 is not R1b. CTS11468 and many other R1b specific SNPs are negative for this sample.

rms2
12-07-2015, 12:53 PM
Mathieson et al are wrong. I1534 is not R1b. CTS11468 and many other R1b specific SNPs are negative for this sample.

I am a little confused on this. How can the scientists who actually did the genetic testing of the tooth be wrong about it?

What is it you all are looking at that they could not see?

smal
12-07-2015, 01:17 PM
I am a little confused on this. How can the scientists who actually did the genetic testing of the tooth be wrong about it?

What is it you all are looking at that they could not see?

I1534 has the following negative R1b SNPs:

L1349/PF6268/YSC0000231-
CTS2702/PF6099/Z8132-
CTS2703-
L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224-
CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484-
CTS2466/PF6453-
CTS2704/PF6100-
CTS8052/FGC45/PF6473-
L749/PF6476/YSC0000290-
PF6496/YSC0000213-
L1350/PF6505/YSC0000225-
PF6507-
CTS11468/FGC49/PF6520-
CTS12972/FGC52/PF6532-

CTS11468 is a mutation from G to T. All R1b1a2 (R-M269) have T in this position. I1534 has 1G read.

Michał
12-07-2015, 03:26 PM
Yep there is no doubt that some R1b was in CW
I wouldn't rule out such possibility, but so far we have not a single secure ancient R1b result for Corded Ware, so I wonder where this "no doubt" comes from.
Let's take a closer look at all three samples listed by rms2 and Richard Rocca:




1. RISE1 (~2865-2578 BC) from Allentoft et al, who tested R1b1-L1345 and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Oblaczkowo, Poland; and a new one,
This is evidently "one of the worse quality samples in the dataset". It shows just one positive call (in one read?) for all known mutations under R1, so in case we accept this is R1b1, we should also accept that the commonly questioned Iberian sample ATP3 from El Portalon (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=107965&viewfull=1#post107965) is R1b-M269 (or a closely related lineage) or that the Quedlinburg IX sample I0559/QLB15 (Baalberge culture, dated to 3645-3537 BC) is certainly R1 (and possibly R1a or R1b). In other words, if one says RISE1 is "reliable" while ATP3 is "unreliable", this is like using double standards for this type of analysis.




2. ESP14 (~2500-2050 BC) from Mathieson et al, who tested R1b1a2-CTS11468 (on the same level as M269 thus far) and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Esperstedt, Germany.
This has been negatively verified by both smal (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125349&viewfull=1#post125349) and Genetiker (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125343&viewfull=1#post125343), so it seems unwise to maintain this sample is R1b.




3. RISE98 (~2275-2032 BC) from Allentoft et al, who is positive for five high quality SNPs below U106 from L.Beddinge, Battle Axe Culture, Sweden.
Apart from the fact that this sample was found in a former Battle Axe cemetery, there is nothing suggesting he was one of the Battle Axe folk (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=90395&viewfull=1#post90395). In fact, both the completely different burial rite and the relatively late radiocarbon dates clearly suggest that he was not a member of the original Scandinavian Battle Axe/Corded Ware community but rather a newcomer representing a completely different cultural tradition. Importantly, this sample is listed by Allentoft et al. as one of uncertain cultural identity (Battle Ax/Nordic Late Neolithic).


I am one of those who have once strongly suspected that R1b (more specifically R1b-U106) could have been associated with Corded Ware. However, let me just quote what I wrote on this subject in another thread:
If R1b-L51/L11/U106 was indeed relatively common among the Corded Ware people, as strongly suspected by many members of this forum, this is going to be confirmed very soon, as I am pretty sure that the number of ancient CWC samples tested with NGS (especially in Central-Western Europe) will grow substantially in the near future. Therefore, there is really no need to use such doubtful results like those mentioned above to authenticate a theory that simply deserves a much better support.

rms2
12-07-2015, 04:34 PM
I1534 has the following negative R1b SNPs:

L1349/PF6268/YSC0000231-
CTS2702/PF6099/Z8132-
CTS2703-
L1345/PF6266/YSC0000224-
CTS9018/FGC188/PF6484-
CTS2466/PF6453-
CTS2704/PF6100-
CTS8052/FGC45/PF6473-
L749/PF6476/YSC0000290-
PF6496/YSC0000213-
L1350/PF6505/YSC0000225-
PF6507-
CTS11468/FGC49/PF6520-
CTS12972/FGC52/PF6532-

CTS11468 is a mutation from “G” to “T”. All R1b1a2 (R-M269) have “T” in this position. I1534 has 1”G” read.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am wondering what it is you are looking at to get this information, the actual reads or some electronic data sheet?

Why do you think Mathieson et al listed that one as CTS11468+ if he was not?

rms2
12-07-2015, 04:45 PM
. . .



This is evidently "one of the worse quality samples in the dataset". It shows just one positive call (in one read?) for all known mutations under R1, so in case we accept this is R1b1, we should also accept that the commonly questioned Iberian sample ATP3 from El Portalon (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=107965&viewfull=1#post107965) is R1b-M269 (or a closely related lineage) or that the Quedlinburg IX sample I0559/QLB15 (Baalberge culture, dated to 3645-3537 BC) is certainly R1 (and possibly R1a or R1b). In other words, if one says RISE1 is "reliable" while ATP3 is "unreliable", this is like using double standards for this type of analysis . . .

I agree about the necessity of avoiding a double standard, although I don't think the two samples are exactly analogous. Did RISE1 test positive for a number of different and mutually exclusive y haplogroups, including one that was the same as the one to which the other two sets of remains from the same location belonged, the way ATP3 did?

smal
12-07-2015, 05:46 PM
I'm not trying to argue with you, but I am wondering what it is you are looking at to get this information, the actual reads or some electronic data sheet?
I am looking at the actual reads from bam files.

Why do you think Mathieson et al listed that one as CTS11468+ if he was not?
It is easy to explain.
A difference between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence can arise in 2 cases
1) Ancestral (RS) -> Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
2) Ancestral (SS) -> Derived (RS) [negative SNP in SS]

If there are no differences between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence that can mean
3) Ancestral -> Derived (RS) = Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
4) Ancestral (RS) = Ancestral (SS) -> Derived [negative SNP in SS]

Probably you know that Reference Sequence is a mix from the actual R1b-P312 (mainly) and G sequences.
As a result, the most of R1b1a2 specific SNPs belong to the variant 3. But in case of CTS11468 we see the variant 2.

However, Mathieson et al have recorded it wrongly as the variant 1.

rms2
12-07-2015, 07:00 PM
Has anyone contacted Mathieson about this to get his reaction?

Gravetto-Danubian
12-07-2015, 08:04 PM
I am looking at the actual reads from bam files.

It is easy to explain.
A difference between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence can arise in 2 cases
1) Ancestral (RS) -> Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
2) Ancestral (SS) -> Derived (RS) [negative SNP in SS]

If there are no differences between Reference Sequence and Sample Sequence that can mean
3) Ancestral -> Derived (RS) = Derived (SS) [positive SNP in SS]
4) Ancestral (RS) = Ancestral (SS) -> Derived [negative SNP in SS]

Probably you know that Reference Sequence is a mix from the actual R1b-P312 (mainly) and G sequences.
As a result, the most of R1b1a2 specific SNPs belong to the variant 3. But in case of CTS11468 we see the variant 2.

However, Mathieson et al have recorded it wrongly as the variant 1.

have you looked at the rest of the Khvalysnk calls ?

smal
12-07-2015, 08:44 PM
have you looked at the rest of the Khvalysnk calls ?

You can find my analysis here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5875-230-ancient-Eurasians-data-analysis-(Mathieson-Reich-Haak-)&p=123365&viewfull=1#post123365).

Jean M
12-07-2015, 08:53 PM
I1534 has the following negative R1b SNPs: ...
CTS11468 is a mutation from G to T. All R1b1a2 (R-M269) have T in this position. I1534 has 1G read.

Thanks. Query added to this sample in my online table.

Tomenable
12-07-2015, 10:01 PM
1. RISE1 (~2865-2578 BC) from Allentoft et al, who tested R1b1-L1345 and was recovered from the Corded Ware site at Oblaczkowo, Poland; and a new one,

This is evidently "one of the worse quality samples in the dataset". It shows just one positive call (in one read?) for all known mutations under R1, so in case we accept this is R1b1, we should also accept that the commonly questioned Iberian sample ATP3 from El Portalon is R1b-M269 (or a closely related lineage) or that the Quedlinburg IX sample I0559/QLB15 (Baalberge culture, dated to 3645-3537 BC) is certainly R1 (and possibly R1a or R1b). In other words, if one says RISE1 is "reliable" while ATP3 is "unreliable", this is like using double standards for this type of analysis.

Genetiker has RISE1 as just "R" and nothing more. He also changed RISE42 from R1a to just "R1".

Check also:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5590-Volga-Steppe-Khvalynsk-culture-(Copper-Age)-from-5200-4000-BC-R1a-and-R1b-together!&p=125404&viewfull=1#post125404

RISE525 (Mezhovskaya culture) seems to be Z645*, which is, AFAIK, something very rare today.

Of course he lived too late to be the ancestor of Z283 and Z93, which split from Z645 much earlier.

Michał
12-08-2015, 10:09 AM
I agree about the necessity of avoiding a double standard, although I don't think the two samples are exactly analogous. Did RISE1 test positive for a number of different and mutually exclusive y haplogroups, including one that was the same as the one to which the other two sets of remains from the same location belonged, the way ATP3 did?
On the other hand, ATP3 shows many negative results for mutations defining those non-R haplogroups, while showing an "unbroken sequence" of mutations associated with haplogroup R, which is something we miss for RISE1 where we have only one call for R1b and no "negative" results for R1a. Let me point out that I am not claiming that ATP3 should be considered R1b-M269 (or closely related to M269), only that the probability of RISE1 being R1b1 is not much different from the probability that ATP3 is R1b-M269.

rms2
12-08-2015, 12:43 PM
On the other hand, ATP3 shows many negative results for mutations defining those non-R haplogroups, while showing an "unbroken sequence" of mutations associated with haplogroup R, which is something we miss for RISE1 where we have only one call for R1b and no "negative" results for R1a. Let me point out that I am not claiming that ATP3 should be considered R1b-M269 (or closely related to M269), only that the probability of RISE1 being R1b1 is not much different from the probability that ATP3 is R1b-M269.

I still don't think the two are analogous. RISE1, as far as I know, did not present an array of mutually exclusive positives; ATP3 did, and one of those positives matched the haplogroup of other remains found in the same context. With RISE1 the paucity of the result is the problem. ATP3 has the opposite problem, was found with other remains with unambiguous I2a results, and was recovered in a region and from a time period that has yielded other I2a results but no R1b-M269.

RISE1 and ATP3 may both be doubtful, but, of the two, ATP3 is the worst.

Romilius
12-08-2015, 01:26 PM
I still don't think the two are analogous. RISE1, as far as I know, did not present an array of mutually exclusive positives; ATP3 did, and one of those positives matched the haplogroup of other remains found in the same context. With RISE1 the paucity of the result is the problem. ATP3 has the opposite problem, was found with other remains with unambiguous I2a results, and was recovered in a region and from a time period that has yielded other I2a results but no R1b-M269.

RISE1 and ATP3 may both be doubtful, but, of the two, ATP3 is the worst.

That's what I was thinking about: ATP3, as poor sample, was treated with due manners by Gunther in his paper. On the contrary, RISE1 looks like an error not due to forced assignment. If I have to decide whose idea I'd support, I prefer to think about the good will of academics being better than that of bloggers with what someone would call agenda.

genetiker
12-08-2015, 09:28 PM
I don't think Geneticker is reliable. I don't know why anyone knows what he is saying, because it means there are people who can actually read who are still looking at his blog.

I await your apology.


Did RISE1 test positive for a number of different and mutually exclusive y haplogroups, including one that was the same as the one to which the other two sets of remains from the same location belonged, the way ATP3 did?

All Y-DNA samples have a small percentage of false positives. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?


RISE1, as far as I know, did not present an array of mutually exclusive positives

Well here's some news for you: RISE1 was positive for an A00 mutation, which is mutually exclusive with its R1b mutation. Guess that means we have to throw it out, huh?


RISE1 and ATP3 may both be doubtful, but, of the two, ATP3 is the worst.

The opposite of reality.

ATP3 is:


Negative for IJ-FGC1583/YSC0001300/PF3527/F1450
Negative for IJ-FGC1578/Y1943
Negative for I-CTS1006
Negative for I2-Z2673/CTS12003/PF3846
Negative for I2-PF3674
Negative for I2a2a1b2a-FGC3591/S2478



Positive for K-CTS9278/PF5501/M2693
Positive for R1-M748/YSC0000207
Positive for R1b1a-FGC46/Y97
Positive for R1b1a2-PF6518


ATP3's sole positive I call is for I2a2a1b2a2-Y16447, a transition SNP one base away from the end base of a read, and therefore extremely likely to be affected by DNA damage. ATP3's positive R1b1a2 call, on the other hand, is for PF6518, a transversion SNP in the middle of a read, and therefore extremely unlikely to be affected by DNA damage.

The data for ATP3 make it clear to any objective person that he was R1b1a2. You're just in complete denial about it because it refutes the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis hogwash that you've been talking for years.

The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

As I've long been saying, R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe, and from there it spread east into Central Europe and northeast into Scandinavia. The Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia, just as most archeologists have been saying for over 100 years, and the R1b-P312 people of that culture were derived from the R1b-M269 people who were already in Iberia before that culture began.

parasar
12-08-2015, 09:57 PM
I am a little confused on this. How can the scientists who actually did the genetic testing of the tooth be wrong about it?

What is it you all are looking at that they could not see?

Testing is fine, but they did not look at the SNPs as comprehensively as genetiker and smal did.

Romilius
12-08-2015, 09:58 PM
I await your apology.



All Y-DNA samples have a small percentage of false positives. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?



Well here's some news for you: RISE1 was positive for an A00 mutation, which is mutually exclusive with its R1b mutation. Guess that means we have to throw it out, huh?



The opposite of reality.

ATP3 is:


Negative for IJ-FGC1583/YSC0001300/PF3527/F1450
Negative for IJ-FGC1578/Y1943
Negative for I-CTS1006
Negative for I2-Z2673/CTS12003/PF3846
Negative for I2-PF3674
Negative for I2a2a1b2a-FGC3591/S2478



Positive for K-CTS9278/PF5501/M2693
Positive for R1-M748/YSC0000207
Positive for R1b1a-FGC46/Y97
Positive for R1b1a2-PF6518


ATP3's sole positive I call is for I2a2a1b2a2-Y16447, a transition SNP one base away from the end base of a read, and therefore extremely likely to be affected by DNA damage. ATP3's positive R1b1a2 call, on the other hand, is for PF6518, a transversion SNP in the middle of a read, and therefore extremely unlikely to be affected by DNA damage.

The data for ATP3 make it clear to any objective person that he was R1b1a2. You're just in complete denial about it because it refutes the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis hogwash that you've been talking for years.

The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

As I've long been saying, R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe, and from there it spread east into Central Europe and northeast into Scandinavia. The Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia, just as most archeologists have been saying for over 100 years, and the R1b-P312 people of that culture were derived from the R1b-M269 people who were already in Iberia before that culture began.


You are too sure in your conclusions: I understand that not all people are the individuals I would call arbitri elegantiae... however, a little drop of humility is a cure-all ointment for conversation.

I see a huge jump from R1-M748 call and R1b1a-FGC46/97... why don't we discuss about this and, on the contrary, must we take it for a sure connection?

If Bell Beaker culture was born in Iberia, and this is the case as we know from datation, it doesn't mean that Iberian BB had the main genetic basis of Eastern BB. Archaeology told us that Iberian BB and Eastern BB were somehow different... perhaps because they were spread by two different people? Time will tell, and pretty soon: next year we will receive a marveillous present about BB Culture by Haak, Reich and other academics... I hope it will be read in the right way by bloggers.

I trust, one day, to read an academic paper from Genetiker.

Agamemnon
12-08-2015, 11:07 PM
The data for ATP3 make it clear to any objective person that he was R1b1a2. You're just in complete denial about it because it refutes the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis hogwash that you've been talking for years.


The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

As I've long been saying, R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe, and from there it spread east into Central Europe and northeast into Scandinavia. The Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia, just as most archeologists have been saying for over 100 years, and the R1b-P312 people of that culture were derived from the R1b-M269 people who were already in Iberia before that culture began.

Thanks again for highlighting why we shouldn't take any of what you say seriously.

alan
12-08-2015, 11:14 PM
I wouldn't rule out such possibility, but so far we have not a single secure ancient R1b result for Corded Ware, so I wonder where this "no doubt" comes from.
Let's take a closer look at all three samples listed by rms2 and Richard Rocca:



This is evidently "one of the worse quality samples in the dataset". It shows just one positive call (in one read?) for all known mutations under R1, so in case we accept this is R1b1, we should also accept that the commonly questioned Iberian sample ATP3 from El Portalon (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=107965&viewfull=1#post107965) is R1b-M269 (or a closely related lineage) or that the Quedlinburg IX sample I0559/QLB15 (Baalberge culture, dated to 3645-3537 BC) is certainly R1 (and possibly R1a or R1b). In other words, if one says RISE1 is "reliable" while ATP3 is "unreliable", this is like using double standards for this type of analysis.



This has been negatively verified by both smal (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125349&viewfull=1#post125349) and Genetiker (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5605-R1b-in-Corded-Ware&p=125343&viewfull=1#post125343), so it seems unwise to maintain this sample is R1b.



Apart from the fact that this sample was found in a former Battle Axe cemetery, there is nothing suggesting he was one of the Battle Axe folk (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=90395&viewfull=1#post90395). In fact, both the completely different burial rite and the relatively late radiocarbon dates clearly suggest that he was not a member of the original Scandinavian Battle Axe/Corded Ware community but rather a newcomer representing a completely different cultural tradition. Importantly, this sample is listed by Allentoft et al. as one of uncertain cultural identity (Battle Ax/Nordic Late Neolithic).


I am one of those who have once strongly suspected that R1b (more specifically R1b-U106) could have been associated with Corded Ware. However, let me just quote what I wrote on this subject in another thread:
If R1b-L51/L11/U106 was indeed relatively common among the Corded Ware people, as strongly suspected by many members of this forum, this is going to be confirmed very soon, as I am pretty sure that the number of ancient CWC samples tested with NGS (especially in Central-Western Europe) will grow substantially in the near future. Therefore, there is really no need to use such doubtful results like those mentioned above to authenticate a theory that simply deserves a much better support.

Cool - you make a pretty convincing case for major doubt of R1b in CW. So would you now be thinking that R1b in the Nordic Bronze Age (basically U106 where its clear) came from beaker or beaker-derivative populations?

Gravetto-Danubian
12-09-2015, 12:17 AM
.

The data for ATP3 make it clear to any objective person that he was R1b1a2. You're just in complete denial about it because it refutes the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis hogwash that you've been talking for years.

The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

As I've long been saying, R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe, and from there it spread east into Central Europe and northeast into Scandinavia. The Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia, just as most archeologists have been saying for over 100 years, and the R1b-P312 people of that culture were derived from the R1b-M269 people who were already in Iberia before that culture began.

I have no bias as to where R1b "should" come from, rather as someone who is interested in Palaeolithic Europe: how do you explain the absence of R1b in an otherwise not meagre collection of pre-Neolithic samples form western Europe ? (all being I2a and C1b); not to mention the many more Neolithic samples ?

Gravetto-Danubian
12-09-2015, 12:20 AM
Cool - you make a pretty convincing case for major doubt of R1b in CW. So would you now be thinking that R1b in the Nordic Bronze Age (basically U106 where its clear) came from beaker or beaker-derivative populations?

Plus I recall that individual stood out on the autosomal PCA, tending toward BB samples

genetiker
12-09-2015, 02:37 AM
I have no bias as to where R1b "should" come from, rather as someone who is interested in Palaeolithic Europe: how do you explain the absence of R1b in an otherwise not meagre collection of pre-Neolithic samples form western Europe ? (all being I2a and C1b); not to mention the many more Neolithic samples ?

Almost two years ago I said that I thought that the Aurignacians were Y hg I and that they originally had the eurymorphic cranial morphology of Cro-Magnon 1, and that the Gravettians were Y hg R1, and that they originally had the leptomorphic cranial morphology seen in all of the Gravettian skulls, and later in the Corded Ware skulls.

The Grotte du Bichon genome showed that I was right about the original Y hg I cranial morphology. I'm confident that a Gravettian genome will show that I was right about the original Y hg R1 cranial morphology.

One skull that shows the leptomorphic Gravettian cranial morphology, to such an extent in fact that it is often used as the archetype for that morphology, is the Combe-Capelle skull, from southwestern France. That skull was originally thought to be from the Aurignacian period, but in 2011 accelerator mass spectrometry showed that it dates to 7575 BC. That means that the Combe-Capelle skull is from the time of the Sauveterrian culture, and it was found around the place where that culture originated. The later widespread Tardenoisian culture was derived from the Sauveterrian culture.

So I think, based on the Combe-Capelle cranial morphology, that the Sauveterrians were R1b-M269 and that the Tardenoisians were R1b-L23. I think that the spread of the Tardenoisian culture down the Danube is what brought R1b-L23 to Eastern Europe, in the form of R1b-Z2103.

So let's see the DNA from the Combe-Capelle skull.

Let's see the DNA from some Sauveterrian and Tardenoisian skeletons.

Let's see the DNA from some Roucadour and Swifterbant skeletons.

George
12-09-2015, 03:22 AM
Almost two years ago I said that I thought that the Aurignacians were Y hg I and that they originally had the eurymorphic cranial morphology of Cro-Magnon 1, and that the Gravettians were Y hg R1, and that they originally had the leptomorphic cranial morphology seen in all of the Gravettian skulls, and later in the Corded Ware skulls.

The Grotte du Bichon genome showed that I was right about the original Y hg I cranial morphology. I'm confident that a Gravettian genome will show that I was right about the original Y hg R1 cranial morphology.

One skull that shows the leptomorphic Gravettian cranial morphology, to such an extent in fact that it is often used as the archetype for that morphology, is the Combe-Capelle skull, from southwestern France. That skull was originally thought to be from the Aurignacian period, but in 2011 accelerator mass spectrometry showed that it dates to 7575 BC. That means that the Combe-Capelle skull is from the time of the Sauveterrian culture, and it was found around the place where that culture originated. The later widespread Tardenoisian culture was derived from the Sauveterrian culture.

So I think, based on the Combe-Capelle cranial morphology, that the Sauveterrians were R1b-M269 and that the Tardenoisians were R1b-L23. I think that the spread of the Tardenoisian culture down the Danube is what brought R1b-L23 to Eastern Europe, in the form of R1b-Z2103.

So let's see the DNA from the Combe-Capelle skull.

Let's see the DNA from some Sauveterrian and Tardenoisian skeletons.

Let's see the DNA from some Roucadour and Swifterbant skeletons.

Let's! Why not indeed? The more the merrier :beerchug:

alan
12-09-2015, 07:19 AM
Roucadour and Swifterbant are very different from citing a palaeolithic origin in the west. Those are part of the pointed based pottery phenomenon which might indeed have origins in Siberia and then eastern Europe. However, pointed pot is a very later phenomenon in European Mesolithic terms and part of Europe was already farming by the time it appeared. I strongly suspect that pointed pot pottery like pressure flaked microblades a few 1000 years early could be linked to ANE carrying populations. I have no idea what yDNA lineages they carried though. I seriously doubt they can be linked to L51

Tomenable
12-09-2015, 11:32 AM
The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

Proto-Germanics (and PGMc language) are derived from Corded Ware culture, but who says that they were R1b-U106 ???

IMHO, Proto-Germanics emerged from a mixture of I1 and R1a, while R1b-U106 is a later introgression from Celts.

There are many Celtic loans in Late PGMc (including the words for: king, kingdom, iron, medic, mail armor). Many of Early Germanic chieftains also appear with Celtic names (Ariovistus, Aneroestes, Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Marbod). Not to mention, that some of reportedly Germanic-speaking tribes had Celtic-derived names. In general it is quite obvious that Celts had a very considerable influence on Early Germanic groups. Or at least on some of them.

BTW - extinct East Germanic Gothic language was actually closer to reconstructed PGMc, than any other Germanic language.

It is possible, that East Germanic tribes were also genetically closer to Proto-Germanics, than are modern West Germanic groups.

R1b-U106 in Germanic peoples can be a similar, very misleading, case as R1b and R1a in Turkic peoples.

As we know, Turkic peoples absorbed most of R1a and R1b from Indo-Europeans. Those weren't originally Proto-Turkic markers.

But of course Pan-Turanids continue to insist that they are a pure "Turanid race", without IE or other genes.

As do Pan-Germanicists who deny that all Germanic-speaking groups today are genetically very mixed.

Look at Turks from Anatolia - how "originally Turkic" are their genes? What makes you think that Dutch are more "originally Germanic"?

Turks are not even the same "race" - but a Mongoloid-Caucasoid mixture at various proportions:

http://s30.postimg.org/pkgf8a6jl/Turanid_race.png

http://s30.postimg.org/pkgf8a6jl/Turanid_race.png

As you can see language/ethnicity can spread with just "some" genetic input, not even the majority.

So - why should we assume that modern Germanic-speakers are more like original Proto-Germanics, than modern Turks are like original Proto-Turks (who were probably fully East Asian in terms of ancestry, just like modern Mongols who are around ~90% Mongoloid).

Michał
12-09-2015, 12:08 PM
Cool - you make a pretty convincing case for major doubt of R1b in CW. So would you now be thinking that R1b in the Nordic Bronze Age (basically U106 where its clear) came from beaker or beaker-derivative populations?
It seems still possible that U106 was initially associated with an unknown (Northern) subgroup of BB, but I would slightly favour an alternative scenario in which U106 originated from a population ancestral to BB but (in contrast to P312) did not participate in the genesis of Bell Beakers. That population ancestral to BB could have been Western Yamna, Corded Ware or any other Central European cultural grouping suspected of being derived from the Eastern European steppe (like Vucedol, GAC, Baalberge, etc.). Personally, I like a scenario in which R1b-L51 was initially associated with the Globular Amphora Culture (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5590-Volga-Steppe-Khvalynsk-culture-%28Copper-Age%29-from-5200-4000-BC-R1a-and-R1b-together!&p=123622&viewfull=1#post123622), because it does not only fit the phylogeny of L51 (including both the TMRCA ages and modern distribution of particular subclades) but is also consistent with both the hypothetical Moravian homeland of BB (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b&p=94888&viewfull=1#post94888) and with the characteristic burial custom associated with the only known LN/Bronze Age U106 sample (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4664-Request-Y-DNA-haplogroup-results-from-Allentoft-2015&p=92185&viewfull=1#post92185). On the other hand, there are some archaeological data that make the steppe origin of GAC relatively unlikely, so I would wait for more aDNA results before making any conclusions.

Michał
12-09-2015, 12:22 PM
Proto-Germanics (and PGMc language) are derived from Corded Ware culture
What is the basis for this statement?



IMHO, Proto-Germanics emerged from a mixture of I1 and R1a,
I really doubt R1a was significantly present among the Proto-Germanic speaking people. I have already discussed this question elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038&viewfull=1#post8038), so if you find my arguments unsupported, please let me know why.




It is possible, that East Germanic tribes were also genetically closer to Proto-Germanics, than are modern West Germanic groups.

If so, are you expecting to find more R1a-Z284 than R1b-U106 in Przeworsk and/or Wielbark? And if so, will you change your mind if the opposite turns out to be true?

Tomenable
12-09-2015, 01:01 PM
What is the basis for this statement?

Phonetically and grammatically Proto-Germanic (PGmc) was most closely related to Proto-Balto-Slavic, leading to the conclusion that the main carriers of pre-PGmc were probably Corded Ware people (who extended from Scandinavia to the Volga River), and that it evolved from an earlier Proto-Balto-Slavo-Germanic language (this is the mainstream hypothesis among linguists, AFAIK). Lexically PGmc was closely related to both Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Italo-Celtic, but similarities with Balto-Slavic are considered to be cognates (i.e. inherited from an earlier common origin), while similarities with Proto-It-CL are considered to be loanwords. Another thing is that about 30% or more of PGmc vocabulary is actually Non-Indo-European, which IMO come from Neolithic farmers and dairy farmers of TRB (Funnelbeaker) culture, just like I1 haplogroup.

As this video explains, phonetical and grammatical links are much more important than lexical links:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWDKsHm6gTA


I really doubt R1a was significantly present among the Proto-Germanic speaking people. I have already discussed this question elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038&viewfull=1#post8038), so if you find my arguments unsupported, please let me know why.

In that link above you identify Jastorf culture with PGMc, but I disagree with this. Battle Axe (Scandinavian CW) and Nordic BA is where you should look for the origins of Germanics. Iron Age Jastorf culture evolved directly from the Nordic BA, but under the influence of Celtic Hallstatt culture and it is more than obvious that Germanics adopted iron-smelting from Celts, because Germanic word for iron is a Celtic loanword.

Had the Iron Age Jastorf culture been the earliest PGMc culture (as you seem to claim), then PGMc should have its own word for iron - but they don't.

The fact that Germanic word for iron is a Celtic loanword suggests that PGMc (or pre-PGMc) split from the IE family already before the Iron Age. And IA Jastorf culture simply cannot be the earliest Germanic culture. Germanic origins date back to the BA or Copper Age.

Maybe together with adopting iron from Celts, Germanics were also "infested" with Celtic Y-DNA. Such things often go together!

Also words for "king, kingdom" in Germanic are Celtic loanwords - perhaps suggesting an early political dominance of Celts.

As I mentioned, early Germanic chieftains also tended to have Celtic names, and some Germanic tribes had Celtic names - Russia has a Germanic name, and we know why (Rurik + Varangians). So if a Germanic tribe had a Celtic name, the reason for that could be similar.

Or it could also be the other way around - Germanics conquered and linguistically assimilated a Celtic tribe, adopting their name.

But always when a group speaking one language has a name originating from another language, it implies some linkages.


If so, are you expecting to find more R1a-Z284 than R1b-U106 in Przeworsk and/or Wielbark?

Why not also R1a-Z280, for example? We already have one sample of this from Urnfield culture near Halberstadt.


And if so, will you change your mind if the opposite turns out to be true?

If we find R1b-U106 to be the dominant / main haplogroup of Przeworsk and Wielbark then I will change my mind.

rms2
12-09-2015, 01:10 PM
I await your apology.

Patience builds character, or so I've heard.



. . .

The data for ATP3 make it clear to any objective person that he was R1b1a2. You're just in complete denial about it because it refutes the Gimbutas Kurgan hypothesis hogwash that you've been talking for years.

I don't wish to relitigate ATP3. As I recall it had a number of false positives. The paper's authors weren't confident enough in the results to assign it a y haplogroup. You desperately want ATP3 to be R1b-M269, and it's probably as close as you'll get to an Iberian M269 that old; I understand that.

There is a lot of really sound evidence for the Kurgan Hypothesis. No need to try to repeat it all here. If you disagree with it, fine. Time and more aDNA will prove you are wrong.



The scenarios proposed by Gimbutas, rms2, alan, Jean Manco and the rest about R1b-U106 Germanics being derived from the Corded Ware culture, or about the R1b-P312 people of the Bell Beaker culture spreading to Western Europe from the east are nonsense.

As I've long been saying, R1b-L51 originated in Western Europe, and from there it spread east into Central Europe and northeast into Scandinavia. The Bell Beaker culture originated in Iberia, just as most archeologists have been saying for over 100 years, and the R1b-P312 people of that culture were derived from the R1b-M269 people who were already in Iberia before that culture began.

Gimbutas really did not say anything about y haplogroups.

As for Corded Ware and R1b-U106, that was speculation on my part. I still believe it is probably true. Time will tell.

The Bell Beaker culture may have originated in Iberia, or at least the pottery part of it may have. Even that pottery seems to be derived from steppe prototypes, but that is a matter of controversy.

How R1b-L51 got into Bell Beaker is another story. It came from the east, from the steppe. Whether some of it went to Iberia and got into Beaker very early, as Jean believes, or whether it got into Beaker in the Carpathian basin, as Alan and I believe, time will tell.

I think Gimbutas was right and Bell Beaker was the product of the mixing of Vucedol and Yamnaya. Ancient y-dna will vindicate her on that, I believe.

Had R1b-L51 originated in western Europe, it would be showing up in ancient y-dna results from pre-Copper Age Neolithic and older sites in Europe. It hasn't yet, and I don't think it will. Its brother clade under L23, R1b-Z2103, has shown up in eastern Yamnaya, and L51 has shown up in Bell Beaker, the genesis of which culture Gimbutas attributed in part to Yamnaya. Quite a few very reputable scholars over the years have credited Bell Beaker with the spread of Italo-Celtic to the west, and the Bell Beaker culture carried traits that connect it pretty strongly to the steppe.

Lastly, Bell Beaker has an autosomal profile that one would expect if Gimbutas was right: a mix of steppe pastoralist ancestry via Yamnaya along with some WHG and EEF probably contributed by the Baden substrate in Vucedol.

Tomenable
12-09-2015, 01:17 PM
so if you find my arguments unsupported, please let me know why.

The first flaw in your reasoning, is that you think Jastorf was the earliest Germanic culture. While Jastorf was not the earliest one, it was just another stage. It evolved from Nordic BA, but also there were influences from the south - from Celtic-speakers of Hallstatt culture.

Later there were more Celtic influences on Jastorf from La-Tene culture, which led to cultural Latenization of Jastorf.

George
12-09-2015, 01:29 PM
"Russia has a Germanic name, and we know why (Rurik + Varangians)." (#65) This, however, remains debatable. Not just because of the Rurik legend, which did not officially emerge until ca. 1113, but also because it is unclear as to whether the ultimate understanding of '"Rus"/"Ros" is to be sought in Iranic [cf. Jordanes' "Rosomoni"] or in Germanic sources.

Tomenable
12-09-2015, 01:47 PM
Michał,

Battle Axe is a very likely candidate for PGMc speakers - here an excerpt from another forum:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12014427&postcount=104


Going from archaeological data, it would appear that Indo-European speakers first entered the traditional homeland of the Germanic language group (Scania in the present day Sweden) sometime during the beginning of the Bronze Age. Archaeologists have identified three distinct cultures in the region of Scania between the Neolithic Era (Late Stone Age) and the Bronze Age. These three groups are coloquially referred to as "the food gatherers" - a group identified by their raising of domestic animals, cultivating grain and relatively extensive land clearing, particularly their technique of slashing bark of trees for controlled fires. Archaeologists have also found a number of large earthenware vessels which have been attributed to this group.

The second group is the megalithic builders. Understandably enough their name refers to their building of large communal graves using large, flat boulders arranged in the shape of a rectangle, topped off by a massive block of stone. This group also developed a separate style of pottery, referred to as Bandkeramiker.

The third group entered the region some time around the beginning of the Bronze age. This group, referred to as "battle-axe people" initially appears in the archaeological record at the same time as the megalithic builders people. Unlike the builders, though, these axe-people weren't farmers, but stock breeders. They buried their dead in signle graves, and brought with them a new kind of pottery, called Scnurkeramiker, and the weapon (the bronze battle-axe) for which they are named. This culture has been identified across a large portion of central and eastern Europe, although their origins are still up for speculation.

Most linguists and archaeologists, however, accept that these axe-peoples were in all likelihood [in Scandinavia] the first speakers of the "Indo-European language", and it is from these people that the Germanic branches of the language group developed. However, again, it is important to note that there are no written or audible data to support this supposition, it's just the most likely hypothesis given the evidence we currently have. (...) "proto-Germanic" is believed to have emerged as an offshoot of Indo-European some time in the early 3rd millennium, having broken off from the [Balto-]Slavic languages around 2000 B.C.

So if they find U106 in Battle Axe, this will only strengthen the case of PGMc there.

But you have just claimed, that U106 sample from Sweden was not part of Battle Axe:



3. RISE98 (~2275-2032 BC) from Allentoft et al, who is positive for five high quality SNPs below U106 from L.Beddinge, Battle Axe Culture, Sweden.

Apart from the fact that this sample was found in a former Battle Axe cemetery, there is nothing suggesting he was one of the Battle Axe folk. In fact, both the completely different burial rite and the relatively late radiocarbon dates clearly suggest that he was not a member of the original Scandinavian Battle Axe/Corded Ware community but rather a newcomer representing a completely different cultural tradition. Importantly, this sample is listed by Allentoft et al. as one of uncertain cultural identity (Battle Ax/Nordic Late Neolithic).

So in such case it seems - if you are right -, that U106 was not originally Proto-Germanic.

================================================== ====

About barbarian migrations and their genetic impact: https://video.ias.edu/node/5304

They didn't find much impact of the Migration Period. They might be looking at wrong markers, though.

We need aDNA samples from pre-migration barbarian tribes in their original homelands.

parasar
12-09-2015, 04:29 PM
"Russia has a Germanic name, and we know why (Rurik + Varangians)." (#65) This, however, remains debatable. Not just because of the Rurik legend, which did not officially emerge until ca. 1113, but also because it is unclear as to whether the ultimate understanding of '"Rus"/"Ros" is to be sought in Iranic [cf. Jordanes' "Rosomoni"] or in Germanic sources.

Or from Vedic Sanskrit?
rasA: रसा
"Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here, With Kubha"

Rasa is a mighty river, not easily fordable, on the bank of which lived the Vedics and across it the PaNis (traders cf. Vanij, Baniya). The Panis comport well with the Vanir who lived in the Don river region perhaps near Sarkel (apparently there were two Sarkels - one near the mouth and one near the Volga).

The story of the divine bitch saramA: https://books.google.com/books?id=Af7TFlN5hmsC&pg=PA73

George
12-09-2015, 05:05 PM
Or from Vedic Sanskrit?
rasA: रसा
"Rasā, and Susartu, and with Svetya here, With Kubha"

Rasa is a mighty river, not easily fordable, on the bank of which lived the Vedics and across it the PaNis (traders cf. Vanij, Baniya). The Panis comport well with the Vanir who lived in the Don river region perhaps near Sarkel (apparently there were two Sarkels - one near the mouth and one near the Volga).

The story of the divine bitch saramA: https://books.google.com/books?id=Af7TFlN5hmsC&pg=PA73

There is also a theory attempting to link the ethnonym Rus- Ros- with a river complex just south of Kyiv (there's a bunch of them: main one: Ros', and various tributaries Rosava, Rostavytsja, Ros'ka etc..). This was the favourite solution of the great Ukrainian historian Hrushevs'kyj and many others. The origin of the river term is obscure: some hydronymists think it is PIE, others that it might be an Indic relic.== But I was thinking of another explanation, where "Rus" (et sim.) represents the concept of "leadership" "headship" going back to a concept meaning "light" "radiance" (Roks- Ruks- in some Old Iranic dialects, whence possibly "Roxolans"). Unless I am mistaken something of the sort "Rusa" or similar in the sense of "leadership" still exists in some modern Iranic-type languages? In Old Khazaria, prior to the Pecheneg onslaught of the late 9th century, the Western part was ruled by associated Alans. I have read articles suggesting that the Turkic expression "al-arsiia", designating a military leadership was the equivalent of "rusiia"/"rasiia" (because of the inversion requirement in Turkic where "r" can't always begin a word). Well I'll stop here. A lot of discussion is still possible on this issue.

alan
12-10-2015, 06:00 AM
What is the basis for this statement?



I really doubt R1a was significantly present among the Proto-Germanic speaking people. I have already discussed this question elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1027-Correlations-of-various-R1a-and-I-subclades-that-might-link-with-R1b-subclades&p=8038&viewfull=1#post8038), so if you find my arguments unsupported, please let me know why.




If so, are you expecting to find more R1a-Z284 than R1b-U106 in Przeworsk and/or Wielbark? And if so, will you change your mind if the opposite turns out to be true?

Pre-proto-Germanic is unusually hard to fully understand. First of all it probably arose in part of the area where corded ware was succeeded by bell beaker after only 250 years. To the west its just beaker and to the east its just Corded Ware. Some particularly point to Denmark as the key area in the rise of Germanic in both its proto and pre-proto phases. If so, then Denmark clearly had a succession from CW to beaker. Then of course there is, despite them not being on the same branch, a hell of a lot of key vocab that was shared by pre-proto-Celtic and pre-proto-Germanic (distinct from the later Celtic borrowings into proto-Germanic). The direction of borrowing of the shared pre-proto vocab is unknown but apparently early. Certainly it fits a situation of a CW pre-Germanic and a beaker Celtic or Celto-Italic overlap zone IMO.

Then there is also all that atypical and probably non-IE vocab in Germanic at an unusually high frequency. A lot of that is agricultural in origin. There are two possible reasons for this IMO. Firstly it could be telling us something about the very earliest origins of the Germanic branch. However you could look at it two ways - either it shows the ancestors of the Germanics were especially unused to farming and had to borrow much of their vocab OR you could see it as suggesting the Germanics had very early interaction with farmers before they even moved into northern Europe. The latter would fit an origin around the Dniester-Dnieper area. Secondly it could reflect social structure - did the less lineage/less caste-like, more meritocratic social structure of Germanic society we see in the early history of the Germanic peoples go right back to their early roots branching off from PIE?

I kind of see Germanic as

Gravetto-Danubian
12-10-2015, 06:32 AM
Throwing my hat in the ring, I wouldn't link any single isolated marker with languages like Germanic or slavic, given that they expanded much later than U106, or Z280. Rather, id imagine that when proto-Germanic expanded c. 500 BC; it's speakers would have been mixed. Even further- the current frequencies of U106 and I1 in Northern Europe reflect more recent events still, quite possibly.

Same story with M458, Z282 and I2a-L621 with Slavic.

Tomenable
12-10-2015, 12:26 PM
Then there is also all that atypical and probably non-IE vocab in Germanic at an unusually high frequency. A lot of that is agricultural in origin.

This is not specific just to Germanic. There is also a lot of non-IE agricultural vocabulary in, for example, Greek language:

But let's note that much of this vocabulary is region-specific (for example terms for plants which grew in Scandinavia/Greece):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ#t=2727

"(...) One thing that makes Greek [language] distinctive is that it has this huuuge substrate of Non-Indo-European words. And guess what, those words are words for Mediterranean agriculture, for building, for statecraft. According to this [false Anatolian] model you had farmers crossing the Aegean Sea, coming into an area of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and then borrowing words for agriculture from those hunter-gatherers. There is the same problem with Armenian [language], probably the same problem with Germanic [language], and the same problem also with the Indic languages. (...)"

I think that Non-IE words for agriculture in Germanic originated from languages spoken by TRB farmers and dairy farmers.

First group of TRB (Funnelbeaker) people reached Scandinavia (Scania) around year 4000 BC - and they most likely did that by boat from Pomerania, not on foot from Denmark (because it seems that in Denmark farming started later than in Southern Sweden):

Check:

About first Scandinavian farmers (they also had a lot of cows and were most likely drinking milk):

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3613-150817-neolithic-scandinavian-farmers-were-sophisticated

http://sciencenordic.com/first-scandinavian-farmers-were-far-more-advanced-we-thought

This map (Figure 1.) shows that farmers came (by boat) to Southern Sweden before coming to Denmark:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166.figures-only

That small group of TRB people which settled in Scania ca. 4000 BC probably was dominated by I1 haplogroup.

And later, I1 haplogroup expanded there demographically, as a result of a founder effect. They definitely could have I1, because I1 was found in one sample from LBK Transdanubia, and LBK was ancestral to TRB. Even if not directly from LBK, they could also absorb I1 from Mesolithic hunters in Central Europe (as TRB was a hybrid culture of immigrant farmers who assimilated groups of hunter-gatherers):

"(...) The Funnelbeaker culture, short TRB (...) was an archaeological culture in north-central Europe. It developed as a technological merger of local neolithic and mesolithic [hunter] techno-complexes between the lower Elbe and middle Vistula rivers, introducing farming and husbandry as a major source of food to the pottery-using hunter-gatherers north of this line. (...)"

On the other hand, I doubt that they acquired I1 from Pitted Ware hunters in Scandinavia, as those were all I2.

We also cannot rule out, that I1 was not present in Europe in Mesolithic times, but came from Anatolia with early farmers.

After all, in Anatolian Neolithic DNA we have also one sample of I2 and one sample of unspecified I.

There are several options for the origin of ancstors of modern I1 (not counting all branches that went extinct):

- I1 was assimilated by G2a farmers in Western Anatolia (and went to Europe)
- I1 was assimilated by farmers in the Balkans (and went to Hungarian LBK)
- I1 was assimilated by farmers in Western Hungary (and went farther north) --- in Hungarian LBK one sample of I1 shows up
- I1 was assimilated by farmers in Central Europe (and went by boat to Scania)
- I1 was assimilated by farmers or later by IEs in Scandinavia (not likely IMO)
- I1 was assimilated by IEs in Eastern Europe or in the steppe (not too likely)

Anyway - it seems that ca. 3000-2500 BC, I1 underwent a bottleneck, and only one lineage survived (TMRCA). There is nothing strange about this, because many other Y-DNA haplos in Europe (apart from R1a and R1b) also underwent bottlenecks around that time.

It would be nice to make a list of all relevant Y-DNA subclades in Europe today, and compare their formation times and TMRCAs. We will probably see, that most of very old Non-R1 subclades underwent bottlenecks shortly after most of R1 lineages had their formation times.

By "shortly after" I mean a few centuries up to several centuries later.

In case of most common R1 subclades, TMRCAs are not much later (up to several centuries later) than formation times.

While for example I1-M253 has formation time over 27,000 years ago and TMRCA (= bottleneck) ca. 5000-4500 years ago.

So I1-carriers flourished for 22 thousand years, then found themselves on the brink of extinction, and later recovered.

Michał
12-10-2015, 05:29 PM
Phonetically and grammatically Proto-Germanic (PGmc) was most closely related to Proto-Balto-Slavic, leading to the conclusion that the main carriers of pre-PGmc were probably Corded Ware people (who extended from Scandinavia to the Volga River), and that it evolved from an earlier Proto-Balto-Slavo-Germanic language (this is the mainstream hypothesis among linguists, AFAIK).
I'm afraid you are wrong when suggesting that there is a general consensus regarding the existence of such a putative “Balto-Slavo-Germanic” branch. In fact, most of the recently published IE trees do not place Germanic and Balto-Slavic on a common branch. See, for example, the most recent papers by Chang et al. (2015) (http://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf) or by Anthony & Ringe (2015) (http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812). Also, it seems much more commonly accepted today that Balto-Slavic is more closely related to Indo-Iranian than to Germanic, as shown on a popular tree constructed by Warnow et al. (2013) that was discussed in another thread (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1519-Languages-and-Y-DNA-lineages&p=17647&viewfull=1#post17647). As for the exact relationship between Balto-Slavic and Germanic, the consensus view seems to be that we don’t have any evidence for these two branches being derived from a common ancestor (different from that ancestral to Indo-Iranian or Italo-Celtic), which is for example reflected by the lack of any commonly accepted shared innovations that would be specific for these two branches only. The similarity between the Germanic and Balto-Slavic languages seems to be based mostly on some shared phonological features, which could indicate either an areal influence or a shared non-IE substratum. The most commonly accepted view is that the position of Germanic remains unresolved, as expressed for example by Anthony who made the following comment in his book (https://books.google.ca/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false) when presenting the most likely IE tree: “Germanic could have branched off at about the same time as the root of Italic and Celtic, although here it is shown branching later because it also shared many traits with Pre-Baltic and Pre-Slavic”:
6862
In my opinion, the above “relationship” is perfectly consistent with a scenario in which pre-PGmc (associated with R1b-U106) shared distant common ancestry with Italo-Celtic (R1b-P312) but was soon influenced by an extinct Satem language (associated with R1a-Z284 and/or R1a-L664) distantly related to both Balto-Slavic (R1a-Z280, R1a-M458) and Indo-Iranian (R1a-Z93)

If your strong conviction that Germanic is derived from Corded Ware is based solely on your assumption that there was a common Balto-Slavo-Germanic branch, this is definitely not enough to consider it the most likely scenario, unless you present some DNA data that will clearly demonstrate that the PGmc-speaking population showed much more CW-related ancestry than BB-related (or GAC-related) ancestry.



In that link above you identify Jastorf culture with PGMc, but I disagree with this.
You may of course disagree with this view, but you must be aware that this is definitely the most commonly accepted theory regarding the origin of Germanic languages. As far as I can see, you have presented no data that would make your alternative hypothesis more likely. Do you know any respected linguist who would push PGmc back to a period preceding Jastorf by more than 1000-1500 years?



Battle Axe (Scandinavian CW) and Nordic BA is where you should look for the origins of Germanics. Iron Age Jastorf culture evolved directly from the Nordic BA, but under the influence of Celtic Hallstatt culture and it is more than obvious that Germanics adopted iron-smelting from Celts, because Germanic word for iron is a Celtic loanword.
Such strong influences from Celtic do not make it automatically more likely that PGmc was much more closely related to Balto-Slavic than to Celtic (or to Italo-Celtic), so you still lack any data that would strongly support your claim.



Had the Iron Age Jastorf culture been the earliest PGMc culture (as you seem to claim), then PGMc should have its own word for iron - but they don't.
Honestly, I see no logic in your line of thinking. The fact that PGmc was strongly affected by Celtic (which you seem to agree with) is exactly what one should expect when accepting the Jastorf-related scenario. As we all know, Jastorf was strongly affected by both Hallstatt and La Tene, so it would be very surprising if no Celtic loanwords were found in the reconstructed Proto-Germanic language. More importantly, those strong Celtic influences speak quite strongly against the much earlier dating for PGmc (about 2500-2000 BC, like you seem to suggest) and against its more Northern (Scandinavian) location, as in such case it would be very difficult to explain how those relatively late loanwords from Celtic, like “king” and “iron”, were borrowed by the Battle Axe (or Nordic Bronze Age) people who in your scenario were supposed to speak Proto-Germanic.

One important note to make is that you seem to confuse Proto-Germanic (PGmc), ie. the most recent language ancestral to all Germanic languages known to us, with some languages ancestral to PGmc (or pre-Proto-Germanic).



Why not also R1a-Z280, for example? We already have one sample of this from Urnfield culture near Halberstadt.
Are you seriously considering Z280 to have been strongly associated with PGmc? If so, why don’t we see any correlation between Z280 and the Germanic-speaking people (the way we see it for R1b-U106, or even for I1, to a slightly lesser extent). It is not enough to say that Z280 was initially present among the Proto-Germanic people but was somehow eliminated at some later point, because you need to explain why this “elimination process” did not affect neither I1 nor R1b-U106 (with both of them likely present in Scandinavia as early as 2200-2000 BC, thus long before any Celtic influences are attested).



The first flaw in your reasoning, is that you think Jastorf was the earliest Germanic culture. While Jastorf was not the earliest one, it was just another stage. It evolved from Nordic BA, but also there were influences from the south - from Celtic-speakers of Hallstatt culture.
You did not provide any evidence that Proto-Germanic could be pushed back to 2500-2000 BC. Such an early dating finds no support among the linguists who usually date PGmc to about 500 BC, which is perfectly consistent with Jastorf . What you describe as an “earliest Germanic culture” was not PGmc but pre-PGmc, so it cannot be named “Germanic”.

Anyway, even when assuming that you have only wrongly applied the term “Proto-Germanic” to an unknown language ancestral to PGmc (or pre-Proto-Germanic), you still need to provide some data strongly suggesting that this Pre-Proto-Germanic language was spoken by the Scandinavian Battle Axe people and not by some “non-related” Nordic Bronze Age people, like those closely related to RISE98 (who was R1b-U106) or some BB-associated people who apparently arrived to Scandinavia before 2000 BC.




Battle Axe is a very likely candidate for PGMc speakers - here an excerpt from another forum:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12014427&postcount=104
So if they find U106 in Battle Axe, this will only strengthen the case of PGMc there.
No, it will strengthen the case of pre-PGmc (not PGmc itself) being associated with Battle Axe, though I agree that in such case we would indeed have a relatively strong evidence that PGmc was derived from Corded Ware/Battle Axe.



But you have just claimed, that U106 sample from Sweden was not part of Battle Axe:
So in such case it seems - if you are right -, that U106 was not originally Proto-Germanic.
No, it rather suggests (quite strongly, though I would wait for more results to confirm this finding) that the Battle Axe people did not speak a language ancestral to Proto-Germanic (ie. pre-Proto-Germanic), but rather an extinct Satem dialect distantly related to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.

rms2
12-12-2015, 11:42 PM
Almost two years ago I said that I thought that the Aurignacians were Y hg I and that they originally had the eurymorphic cranial morphology of Cro-Magnon 1, and that the Gravettians were Y hg R1, and that they originally had the leptomorphic cranial morphology seen in all of the Gravettian skulls, and later in the Corded Ware skulls.

The Grotte du Bichon genome showed that I was right about the original Y hg I cranial morphology. I'm confident that a Gravettian genome will show that I was right about the original Y hg R1 cranial morphology.

One skull that shows the leptomorphic Gravettian cranial morphology, to such an extent in fact that it is often used as the archetype for that morphology, is the Combe-Capelle skull, from southwestern France. That skull was originally thought to be from the Aurignacian period, but in 2011 accelerator mass spectrometry showed that it dates to 7575 BC. That means that the Combe-Capelle skull is from the time of the Sauveterrian culture, and it was found around the place where that culture originated. The later widespread Tardenoisian culture was derived from the Sauveterrian culture.

So I think, based on the Combe-Capelle cranial morphology, that the Sauveterrians were R1b-M269 and that the Tardenoisians were R1b-L23. I think that the spread of the Tardenoisian culture down the Danube is what brought R1b-L23 to Eastern Europe, in the form of R1b-Z2103.

So let's see the DNA from the Combe-Capelle skull.

Let's see the DNA from some Sauveterrian and Tardenoisian skeletons.

Let's see the DNA from some Roucadour and Swifterbant skeletons.

In other words, until we have tested every last prehistoric skeleton in western Europe you will hold out for Paleolithic R1b there.

How has R1b-M269 and R1b-L23 managed to evade detection in Neolithic and older European results thus far, if what you say is true?

Does it sound reasonable that a western European y haplogroup would trek out to far eastern Europe to dominate the Yamnaya horizon, somehow become IE-speaking, and then return back the way it came, bringing IE with it? And around the same time it would spawn the Bell Beaker horizon at the opposite end of Europe, in Iberia, with oddly similar burial rites and emphasis on horses?

Meanwhile, R1b and its y chromosomal cousins in Super Group K - like N, O, Q, and R1a - are all found in relatively close proximity to one another not in western Europe but in eastern Eurasia.

It makes far more sense that R1b-M269, especially in its L51 incarnation, was not in Europe west of Russia and Ukraine until it was brought there beginning in the Late Neolithic/Copper Age by Indo-European-speaking steppe pastoralists. That would explain both the prevalence of R1b-L51 and Indo-European languages in western Europe, as well as the steppe autosomal legacy there.

rms2
12-13-2015, 12:08 AM
Cool - you make a pretty convincing case for major doubt of R1b in CW. So would you now be thinking that R1b in the Nordic Bronze Age (basically U106 where its clear) came from beaker or beaker-derivative populations?

From what I read, the case against that particular R1b-U106 (RISE98) belonging to the Swedish Battle Axe culture is one of an absence of definitive evidence, which also makes it impossible to exclude it from belonging to that culture. It would be a huge leap to then conclude that it might have been of Beaker derivation, since it was not a Beaker burial either. Is there any evidence of any Beaker presence in Sweden? Not that I know of.

Thus far no U106+ results have turned up in Beaker, but plenty of U106- results have, and that in areas of Germany that are lousy with U106 today.

TigerMW
12-13-2015, 02:06 AM
... Thus far no U106+ results have turned up in Beaker, but plenty of U106- results have, and that in areas of Germany that are lousy with U106 today.
Do you mean of high frequency? or of low frequency? I guess you mean high frequency. Either way, I ask that we be cautious about terminology so no one feels U106 presence is a bad thing.

rms2
12-13-2015, 11:51 AM
Do you mean of high frequency? or of low frequency? I guess you mean high frequency. Either way, I ask that we be cautious about terminology so no one feels U106 presence is a bad thing.

I guess you are talking about my use of the expression "lousy with". I would have probably said the same thing of L21 in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland (and probably have), using it as a colloquial substitute for "having a high frequency" or "Damn! There's a lot of it there!" It was not intended in a derogatory manner.

Krefter
12-13-2015, 03:30 PM
Because R1b was found to be popular in West Europe early on, anyone into the subject back then had R1b=West Europe imprinted in their minds. So, even though 99.99% of R1b in West Europe comes from a man who lived less than 6,000 years ago and his decendants who had a lot of power and so a lot of sons, some still insist there's still something original about R1b in West Europe. That's all it is. geneticker can't let go of the idea R1b=West Europe.

alan
12-13-2015, 03:35 PM
From what I read, the case against that particular R1b-U106 (RISE98) belonging to the Swedish Battle Axe culture is one of an absence of definitive evidence, which also makes it impossible to exclude it from belonging to that culture. It would be a huge leap to then conclude that it might have been of Beaker derivation, since it was not a Beaker burial either. Is there any evidence of any Beaker presence in Sweden? Not that I know of.

Thus far no U106+ results have turned up in Beaker, but plenty of U106- results have, and that in areas of Germany that are lousy with U106 today.

yep it remains as open question with neither CW or bell beaker links with U106 proven as yet. It seems if it was linked to either then it was a small minority lineage. I suppose the only strongly supported conclusion to date from ancient DNA is that U106's rise to prominence did not happen until 2000BC or later in central and northern Europe.

Gravetto-Danubian
12-16-2015, 03:30 AM
Because R1b was found to be popular in West Europe early on, anyone into the subject back then had R1b=West Europe imprinted in their minds. So, even though 99.99% of R1b in West Europe comes from a man who lived less than 6,000 years ago and his decendants who had a lot of power and so a lot of sons

I'd note Michal's qualifications of R1b-M269's TMRCA, and that the expansion wasn;t due to 'one man', but likely an already sizable clan/ community to account for its dispersion in BB.

Its also important to create a proper understanding of archaeology to begin to understand the social praxis for this.

We probably still need a lot more aDNA to evaluate the exact speed with which R1b became dominant in western Europe.

To me "R1b in West Europe comes from a man who lived less than 6,000 years ago and his decendants who had a lot of power and so a lot of sons" doesn't really explain much.

Krefter
12-16-2015, 05:06 AM
I'd note Michal's qualifications of R1b-M269's TMRCA, and that the expansion wasn;t due to 'one man', but likely an already sizable clan/ community to account for its dispersion in BB.

Its also important to create a proper understanding of archaeology to begin to understand the social praxis for this.

We probably still need a lot more aDNA to evaluate the exact speed with which R1b became dominant in western Europe.

To me "R1b in West Europe comes from a man who lived less than 6,000 years ago and his decendants who had a lot of power and so a lot of sons" doesn't really explain much.

Point is it expanded recently and is from a single lineage. Eastern Beaker was one of those communities who were uniformally R1b. So, I agree that there were entire people groups not just families or individuals who spread R1b. But, it's important to note that each region in West Europe has its own P312 subclade. This means 99.99999% of P312 that existed in groups like East Beaker who were moving west were replaced by their "brother". So, I think "one man" or "one family" expansion did happen. But I bet it is very complicated.

It doesn't make sense why there's so much diversity in mtDNA and not in Y DNA. Around 70% or more of men have kids. Why, do so few have paternal lines that survive? And another question is, why do all human maternal/paternal lines trace back to one man and one woman? In theory shouldn't our lines be very diverse, with some being more related to a lines other species belong to? How did all other hominid mtDNA/Y DNA die out?

Gravetto-Danubian
12-16-2015, 06:44 AM
Point is it expanded recently and is from a single lineage. Eastern Beaker was one of those communities who were uniformally R1b. So, I agree that there were entire people groups not just families or individuals who spread R1b. But, it's important to note that each region in West Europe has its own P312 subclade. This means 99.99999% of P312 that existed in groups like East Beaker who were moving west were replaced by their "brother". So, I think "one man" or "one family" expansion did happen. But I bet it is very complicated.

Yes , of course. The question is aspects of its details


It doesn't make sense why there's so much diversity in mtDNA and not in Y DNA. Around 70% or more of men have kids. Why, do so few have paternal lines that survive? And another question is, why do all human maternal/paternal lines trace back to one man and one woman? In theory shouldn't our lines be very diverse, with some being more related to a lines other species belong to? How did all other hominid mtDNA/Y DNA die out?

I wonder the same thing. Sure, a lot of it has to do with male violence, higher mortality rates, and only successful males can breed, etc.
But I suspect elements of chance come to play. For example, the Y chromosome "Adam' you refer to was probably one of thousands of contemporaries. Yet all other males lines went extinct.
Was there anything particularly 'special' about Adam ? Did he have 100s of sons whilst others had none ?
(Not a sarcastic question ;))

But given that there aren't long runs of homozygosity in early IE aDNA, it looks like the expanding R1b front was rather outbred

Megalophias
12-16-2015, 06:01 PM
It doesn't make sense why there's so much diversity in mtDNA and not in Y DNA. Around 70% or more of men have kids. Why, do so few have paternal lines that survive? And another question is, why do all human maternal/paternal lines trace back to one man and one woman? In theory shouldn't our lines be very diverse, with some being more related to a lines other species belong to? How did all other hominid mtDNA/Y DNA die out?

The lack of related hominid lines may be (in part) due to genetic incompatibility, the archaic haplogroups may not have worked well with modern human DNA. But for the most part it is simply drift.

Consider a small population which is not growing (close to reality for the vast majority of human history). On average every couple has two children; of course really some adults will have no children and some will have several. Say 70% of men have children; that means at least 30% of individual male lines die out in each generation.

But it is more than that, of course, because the average couple has one son and one daughter, but the chance distribution of that would be 1/4 have 2 sons, 1/4 have 2 daughters, and 1/2 have one of each. So (simplistically, not real numbers) about 25% of the men will have only daughters, and of women will have only sons, while 25% of each will be over-represented. So now only 55% of men are having sons, but 20% are having multiple sons.

This repeats in every generation, as long as the population is not growing, individual paternal and maternal lines will keep dying out very quickly, while some will get lucky and keep growing, purely by chance. In a small population it will not be long at all before everyone is carrying a lineage from a common ancestor who lived in the not-too-distant past (i.e. the haplogroup coalesces at that time). On average it will coalesce at a number of generations in the past equal to the effective population size for that sex. In an egalitarian society that may be not too much less than the actual population size, in a very unequal one it may be much smaller. Men have more variable reproductive success than women most of the time, so the effect is even greater on Y chromosomes than on mtDNA (depending on the society and the circumstances).

The fact that we are all uniparentally descended from one man and one woman living a couple hundred thousand years ago is a perfectly normal consequence of drift (given how small the proportion of archaic admixture is). Most likely there was nothing special about Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, obviously they both had at least two kids, probably they had big families, but that's all. Just chance.

The remarkable success of R1b-M269 and markers like that, which experience enormous expansions in already populated settings, is obviously not chance though.

The other thing that can cause disproportionate success is of course selection. There are a lot of suspects for selective effects on haplogroups but nothing has been solidly established yet, apart from relatively rare cases of mitochondrial disease (very bad) or sterility due to damage to the Y chromosome. All Y haplogroup N for instance has a major deletion of genes involved in sperm formation, which somehow does not seem to impair fertility - but maybe if you have the wrong genetic background it would. Mitochondrial haplogroups have been implicated in different rates of disease progression, and also metabolic rate, heat production, stuff like that. My guess is that selection on haplogroups is real and significant, but I could be wrong.

Gravetto-Danubian
12-16-2015, 07:45 PM
The lack of related hominid lines may be (in part) due to genetic incompatibility, the archaic haplogroups may not have worked well with modern human DNA. But for the most part it is simply drift.

Consider a small population which is not growing (close to reality for the vast majority of human history). On average every couple has two children; of course really some adults will have no children and some will have several. Say 70% of men have children; that means at least 30% of individual male lines die out in each generation.

But it is more than that, of course, because the average couple has one son and one daughter, but the chance distribution of that would be 1/4 have 2 sons, 1/4 have 2 daughters, and 1/2 have one of each. So (simplistically, not real numbers) about 25% of the men will have only daughters, and of women will have only sons, while 25% of each will be over-represented. So now only 55% of men are having sons, but 20% are having multiple sons.

This repeats in every generation, as long as the population is not growing, individual paternal and maternal lines will keep dying out very quickly, while some will get lucky and keep growing, purely by chance. In a small population it will not be long at all before everyone is carrying a lineage from a common ancestor who lived in the not-too-distant past (i.e. the haplogroup coalesces at that time). On average it will coalesce at a number of generations in the past equal to the effective population size for that sex. In an egalitarian society that may be not too much less than the actual population size, in a very unequal one it may be much smaller. Men have more variable reproductive success than women most of the time, so the effect is even greater on Y chromosomes than on mtDNA (depending on the society and the circumstances).

The fact that we are all uniparentally descended from one man and one woman living a couple hundred thousand years ago is a perfectly normal consequence of drift (given how small the proportion of archaic admixture is). Most likely there was nothing special about Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve, obviously they both had at least two kids, probably they had big families, but that's all. Just chance.

The remarkable success of R1b-M269 and markers like that, which experience enormous expansions in already populated settings, is obviously not chance though.

The other thing that can cause disproportionate success is of course selection. There are a lot of suspects for selective effects on haplogroups but nothing has been solidly established yet, apart from relatively rare cases of mitochondrial disease (very bad) or sterility due to damage to the Y chromosome. All Y haplogroup N for instance has a major deletion of genes involved in sperm formation, which somehow does not seem to impair fertility - but maybe if you have the wrong genetic background it would. Mitochondrial haplogroups have been implicated in different rates of disease progression, and also metabolic rate, heat production, stuff like that. My guess is that selection on haplogroups is real and significant, but I could be wrong.

Yes that's basically it.
But the main reason for the prevalence rates of R1b today in the west is due to it being the last major immigration into Europe (itself partly conditioned by chance, extraneous events, and not some "manifest destiny"), at a time when population density in northern and Atlantic Europe was low (and remained so until 1500 BC).
Y lines are most affected by recent expansions and liable to large flux. Hence the relative rarity of R1b in modern Eastern Europe, because there have been post-Bronze age expansions. Nothing to do with wiping out, or powerful men having thousands of sons, but is related relative reproductive rates.


Btw, the main mitochondrial genetic disease is "MELAS" (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/946864-overview).

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 10:12 PM
One skull that shows the leptomorphic Gravettian cranial morphology, to such an extent in fact that it is often used as the archetype for that morphology, is the Combe-Capelle skull, from southwestern France. That skull was originally thought to be from the Aurignacian period, but in 2011 accelerator mass spectrometry showed that it dates to 7575 BC. That means that the Combe-Capelle skull is from the time of the Sauveterrian culture, and it was found around the place where that culture originated. The later widespread Tardenoisian culture was derived from the Sauveterrian culture. So I think, based on the Combe-Capelle cranial morphology, that the Sauveterrians were R1b-M269 and that the Tardenoisians were R1b-L23. I think that the spread of the Tardenoisian culture down the Danube is what brought R1b-L23 to Eastern Europe, in the form of R1b-Z2103.

So let's see the DNA from the Combe-Capelle skull.

Let's see the DNA from some Sauveterrian and Tardenoisian skeletons.

Let's see the DNA from some Roucadour and Swifterbant skeletons.

Skulls of very similar type to Combe-Capelle specimen were also found among humans remains from Sumero-Akkadian and Indus Valley civilizations. They were allegedly the 2nd most numerous type in those remains, after Mediterranid:

Kish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kish_(Sumer)) and Sialk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepe_Sialk), and Mohenjo-Daro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohenjo-daro)

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8896&d=1460845047

Here is a 360 degrees view of the Combe-Capelle skull (after which this type of skull was called Capellid):

http://www.dlt.ncssm.edu/tiger/360views/Hominid_Skull-Homo_sapiens_CombeCapelle_1200x900/index.html

Tomenable
04-16-2016, 10:27 PM
By the way:

"The Sumerian artists left an abundant supply of images, mostly bas reliefs in profile view, intended to represent the two kinds of people that formed the population of the southern parts of Mesopotamia in ancient times. The shaven heads and faces of the Sumerians stand in sharp contrast to the long-haired and heavily bearded Akkadians."

wombatofthenorth
04-19-2016, 12:34 AM
Yes that's basically it.
But the main reason for the prevalence rates of R1b today in the west is due to it being the last major immigration into Europe (itself partly conditioned by chance, extraneous events, and not some "manifest destiny"), at a time when population density in northern and Atlantic Europe was low (and remained so until 1500 BC).
Y lines are most affected by recent expansions and liable to large flux. Hence the relative rarity of R1b in modern Eastern Europe, because there have been post-Bronze age expansions. Nothing to do with wiping out, or powerful men having thousands of sons, but is related relative reproductive rates.



Why does L20 seem fairly rare in the Baltic though. They didn't really get hit by large, late Eastern European influxes did they? Wasn't the proto Indo-european language speaker influx that hit most of Europe the last one?

OTOH, so far my dad traces seemingly ethnically Latvian to 1790-1800ish and we have L20. So would that, by your theory, be rare remaining L20 remnant or a signal that perhaps a generation or two or a few more than that our strictly paternal male line snuck in from elsewhere?