PDA

View Full Version : Die Hard 2016: The Iberian LGM Refuge and R1b



Pages : [1] 2

rms2
01-11-2016, 03:25 PM
Indeed, and it would be valuable to have data to disprove the Iberian Copper Age link either way... as you are well aware, there are those that still talk up the Iberian refugium as the birthplace of all of Western Europe as fact.


The quote above was taken from Rich's post here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6111-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age-migration-to-Ireland-and-establishment-of-the-insular-Atlant&p=132748&viewfull=1#post132748).

Although I know what Rich wrote is true, it started me wondering how anyone could still, in 2016, be maintaining that R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian (aka Iberian) LGM Refuge and spread east and north into the rest of Europe from there after the LGM ended. Given all of the ancient dna results of the last several years, the R1b-L23 in Yamnaya, the Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal dna in Bell Beaker and in the Bell Beaker-derived Bronze Age Rathlin Island men, and the Yamnaya-like component in modern Europeans, even in places untouched by Corded Ware, how can anyone still hold the opinion that the R1b ancestral to that of modern European and European-descended men spent the LGM in Iberia?

I know of one outspoken person with his or her own blog who holds that view, but does anyone here share it? If so, perhaps you would care to explain why.

Romilius
01-12-2016, 10:17 AM
We first must have early Iberian BB results, then, even if they will be something different from R1b, some people continue to believe in unscientific dogmas because their biased views of history and civilization.

I've always gone mad when I read something from R1b people sustaining an Iberian refugium / Vasconic link of their ancestors: are they proud to be the victims of history? That's a thing I don't understand...

rms2
01-12-2016, 05:48 PM
I think even if the earliest Bell Beaker has R1b present in it, a lot will depend on whether or not there is a steppe autosomal component present, as well. Jean Manco believes that a copper-using group from the steppe went to Iberia very early and formed the catalyst for Bell Beaker there. She has dubbed them the "Stelae People" because she sees a connection between Iberian grave stelae and grave stelae on the steppe and traces a stelae trail across Europe. She could be right.

Romilius
01-12-2016, 07:28 PM
I think even if the earliest Bell Beaker has R1b present in it, a lot will depend on whether or not there is a steppe autosomal component present, as well. Jean Manco believes that a copper-using group from the steppe went to Iberia very early and formed the catalyst for Bell Beaker there. She has dubbed them the "Stelae People" because she sees a connection between Iberian grave stelae and grave stelae on the steppe and traces a stelae trail across Europe. She could be right.

Perhaps, but, if it happened, it would be interesting to state what kind of language did those first migrant from the steppe speak. It will be another Pandora's crate opened...

Agamemnon
01-12-2016, 10:20 PM
Considering the fact that we still have people clinging to Anatolia as the PIE urheimat while others are busy producing funny theories such as the "Paleolithic Continuity Theory" despite centuries of research highlighting the exact opposite, I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find that some are willing to defend the R1b Cro-Magnon theory till their very last breath. If they've managed to dismiss all the evidence to date, we can safely conclude that nothing will change their mind (not even testing every single prehistoric sample). It's quite natural, I expect that, denial is the first stage of grief after all.

rms2
01-13-2016, 01:35 AM
Considering the fact that we still have people clinging to Anatolia as the PIE urheimat while others are busy producing funny theories such as the "Paleolithic Continuity Theory" despite centuries of research highlighting the exact opposite, I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find that some are willing to defend the R1b Cro-Magnon theory till their very last breath. If they've managed to dismiss all the evidence to date, we can safely conclude that nothing will change their mind (not even testing every single prehistoric sample). It's quite natural, I expect that, denial is the first stage of grief after all.

I agree. It seems to me the real clincher thus far is the ancient autosomal dna, which is showing a widespread steppe element in post Neolithic Europe, even in places untouched by Corded Ware, that was absent before. Add to that the absence of R1b-L23 before the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age, and the spread of Indo-European languages. It seems pretty overwhelming to me.

I don't know how one explains that all away or somehow excises R1b from it and maintains it was there all the time from the Paleolithic onward.

Viktor Reznov
01-18-2016, 07:49 AM
I agree. It seems to me the real clincher thus far is the ancient autosomal dna, which is showing a widespread steppe element in post Neolithic Europe, even in places untouched by Corded Ware, that was absent before. Add to that the absence of R1b-L23 before:laugh: the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age, and the spread of Indo-European languages. It seems pretty overwhelming to me.

I don't know how one explains that all away or somehow excises R1b from it and maintains it was there all the time from the Paleolithic onward.
This is the kind of stuff that really dumb youtube videos are made from. You know the type. "Minoans discovered America", "Semitic came to Ireland", etc.
A good example someone just sent me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBuo7JHesg
rms2, try not to kill yourself after seeing the title of this video;)
Edit:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2dlkzd3.jpg
hehehe :laugh:

Webb
01-18-2016, 02:22 PM
I agree. It seems to me the real clincher thus far is the ancient autosomal dna, which is showing a widespread steppe element in post Neolithic Europe, even in places untouched by Corded Ware, that was absent before. Add to that the absence of R1b-L23 before the Copper Age or Early Bronze Age, and the spread of Indo-European languages. It seems pretty overwhelming to me.

I don't know how one explains that all away or somehow excises R1b from it and maintains it was there all the time from the Paleolithic onward.

Milford Wolpoff has not changed his multiregional evolution theory, as outdated as this is, and with DNA evidence that disputes his theory. Just an example.

rms2
01-19-2016, 01:08 PM
This is the kind of stuff that really dumb youtube videos are made from. You know the type. "Minoans discovered America", "Semitic came to Ireland", etc.
A good example someone just sent me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMBuo7JHesg
rms2, try not to kill yourself after seeing the title of this video;)
Edit:
http://oi68.tinypic.com/2dlkzd3.jpg
hehehe :laugh:

Whoa! I was not aware anything that elaborate or well illustrated existed. Strange, but I kind of enjoyed the mythic cartoon treatment of the subject. Funny how the R1b brother becomes a kind of demonic Cain figure to his R1a brother's Abel. Of course, chasing strange women will do that to a guy.

One wonders where they came up with all that "West Babylon" malarkey.

Anyway, it was entertaining. Thanks!

Arch
01-20-2016, 10:14 AM
The quote above was taken from Rich's post here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6111-Neolithic-and-Bronze-Age-migration-to-Ireland-and-establishment-of-the-insular-Atlant&p=132748&viewfull=1#post132748).

Although I know what Rich wrote is true, it started me wondering how anyone could still, in 2016, be maintaining that R1b spent the LGM in the Franco-Cantabrian (aka Iberian) LGM Refuge and spread east and north into the rest of Europe from there after the LGM ended. Given all of the ancient dna results of the last several years, the R1b-L23 in Yamnaya, the Yamnaya or Yamnaya-like autosomal dna in Bell Beaker and in the Bell Beaker-derived Bronze Age Rathlin Island men, and the Yamnaya-like component in modern Europeans, even in places untouched by Corded Ware, how can anyone still hold the opinion that the R1b ancestral to that of modern European and European-descended men spent the LGM in Iberia?

I know of one outspoken person with his or her own blog who holds that view, but does anyone here share it? If so, perhaps you would care to explain why.

HG R* is from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera... R-M207 migrated east far to southern central Siberia as the older extinct lineages or branches died off in Western Europe... No remains will ever be found because they were chewed up or consumed in the retreating ice sheets....

Arch
01-20-2016, 10:29 AM
What about the Cherokee who truly believe they are Hebrew? Don't worry, not trying to claim jump on any alleged y-DNA cultural and historic greatness, but I do believe my ancestors were better travelers and stealer of wives and girlfriends than most... HG J*, G*, I*, etc can keep the walls of Jericho, pyramids of Egypt, great monoliths of Europe, temples, ancient civilizations, palaces, and fear of angry spiteful gods.... A warm cosy fire all wrapped up in wooly mammoth fur blanket making love to the other HG women makes up for all the lack of cultural sophistication or greatness...

Michał
01-20-2016, 11:00 AM
Whoa! I was not aware anything that elaborate or well illustrated existed. Strange, but I kind of enjoyed the mythic cartoon treatment of the subject.
It seems to me that the original cartoon had nothing to do with any haplogroups, so all those R1, R1a and R1b marks are much more recent additions by an unknown Russian (or Bashkir?) "AR1anist".

rms2
01-20-2016, 12:35 PM
It seems to me that the original cartoon had nothing to do with any haplogroups, so all those R1, R1a and R1b marks are much more recent additions by an unknown Russian (or Bashkir?) "AR1anist".

I agree. It was obviously edited and was pretty obviously biased.

I still kind of enjoyed the initial mythic presentation of "Father R1" and his sons, R1a and R1b. It went downhill from there, however.

rms2
01-20-2016, 12:38 PM
HG R* is from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera... R-M207 migrated east far to southern central Siberia as the older extinct lineages or branches died off in Western Europe... No remains will ever be found because they were chewed up or consumed in the retreating ice sheets....

That's convenient.

Q, N, and O: were they "from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera", as well?

Interesting that, of all the Super Group K family, only R arose in western Europe, far away from the rest of its closest relatives, who were out in Asia.

That hardly seems likely.

R.Rocca
01-20-2016, 03:19 PM
That's convenient.

Q, N, and O: were they "from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera", as well?

Interesting that, of all the Super Group K family, only R arose in western Europe, far away from the rest of its closest relatives, who were out in Asia.

That hardly seems likely.

Hard to explain why none of the Mesolithic nor Neolithic samples have been R1b+, except for the one V88 equivalent which is quite easy to explain. I guess the ice sheets selectively melted just R1b SNPs and not others. ;)

ChrisR
01-20-2016, 07:10 PM
I know of one outspoken person with his or her own blog who holds that view, but does anyone here share it? If so, perhaps you would care to explain why.
Can we name the blog?

Considering the fact that we still have people clinging to Anatolia as the PIE urheimat while others are busy producing funny theories such as the "Paleolithic Continuity Theory" despite centuries of research highlighting the exact opposite, I wouldn't exactly be surprised to find that some are willing to defend the R1b Cro-Magnon theory till their very last breath. If they've managed to dismiss all the evidence to date, we can safely conclude that nothing will change their mind (not even testing every single prehistoric sample). It's quite natural, I expect that, denial is the first stage of grief after all.
Seems so, what is the second stage? ;-)

Although we may concede that ancient migrations hypotheses got and will get more complex probably most of the minority beliefs have no paper or comprehensive text explaining the (provided) used evidence and based on that the construction of a hypothesis. It is unclear to me how many can't and how many won't do such a publication. A blog with bits and pieces of a hypothesis spread in dozens of posts is no replacement and even less are forum/mail-list posts or blog comments.
Nothing urges me to stay with "one hypothesis", if I can help to better shape rarely discussed details this is interesting and challenging. Nothing compares to an open minded evaluation of possibilities and based on that own interpretation.
I would wonder about this experiment: If we give 10 well educated persons without any knowledge in the field (and no internet etc.) all current hard evidence (mainly genetics, maybe some archaeological, no papers etc. with theories) independently to what conclusions would they come.

northkerry
01-20-2016, 07:28 PM
HG R* is from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera... R-M207 migrated east far to southern central Siberia as the older extinct lineages or branches died off in Western Europe... No remains will ever be found because they were chewed up or consumed in the retreating ice sheets....

They will find it difficult to find the remains of M269 anywhere in Europe because of the huge bottleneck. That looks like it was a single line of decent or a very small group of males who probably cremated their dead. You should see the small passage tomb at Tara that contained the cremated remains of 300 people. I think that the only way that they able to determine that figure was through the number of pairs of ear bones that were found. They will never be able to get any dna from them.

rms2
01-21-2016, 12:18 AM
They will find it difficult to find the remains of M269 anywhere in Europe because of the huge bottleneck. That looks like it was a single line of decent or a very small group of males who probably cremated their dead. You should see the small passage tomb at Tara that contained the cremated remains of 300 people. I think that the only way that they able to determine that figure was through the number of pairs of ear bones that were found. They will never be able to get any dna from them.

Here's another reason we'll probably never find M269 in Europe west of the Dniester prior to the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age: it was not there. M269 and M73 (aka M478) are brother clades beneath P297, and P297 is beneath L389. And where are M269 and M73 found in close proximity to one another? In far eastern Europe and western Asia, not far from their Super Group K closest relatives, R1a, N, O, and Q.

When I was a cop, we called things like that clues.

alan
01-21-2016, 06:34 AM
It quite clear that people who still hang on to the out of Iberia model despite all the evidence being against it do so for reasons of bias, historical, mythological and cultural reasons. However if even a tangential grain of truth is found they will claim victory. I do believe there was a beaker thrust from Iberia into central Europe which led to another group in central Europe who carried P312 taking up aspects of beaker culture then expanding. As I read the evidence available I dont think the original Iberian beaker group was R1b and I would suspect this group's main genetic input came from their females.

The only way I would overturn this view is if there was evidence of an early thrust into Iberia from eastern Europe c. 2800BC around the time beaker pottery appears. There is no agreement on the origin of the pots themselves and I dont currently see anything eastern or central European derived in early Iberian beaker. Not one thing I can point to.

I would change my mind if examples of the beaker burial rite - the crouched, facing east, males on left with heads at north, females on right with heads at south - can be shown in Iberia to date before 2600BC. That and other variants of it, regardless of whether it is inserted into a megalith or a cist or barrow, is a very distinctive rite with no local ancestor in Iberia. Right now I am unaware that such burials carry early dates in Iberia - and indeed doubt would remain even for early dates unless they were tested for freshwater or marine reservoir effect.

Seems there is a lot of work still to be done in Iberia in terms of analysis of the beaker burials. They really need to test the minority of Iberian beaker burials where the bones are still articulated in a typical beaker crouched pose, radiocarbon date them and test them for reservoir effect. That would be the best way of progressing this short of ancient DNA. However, it seems tome the ancient DNA will come first. I just hope the dating is scrupulously done and tested for reservoir effects on any beaker bones that are chosen for ancient DNA testing or we will still have lots of ifs and buts.

northkerry
01-21-2016, 06:43 AM
It quite clear that people who still hang on to the out of Iberia model despite all the evidence being against it do so for reasons of bias, historical, mythological and cultural reasons. However if even a tangential grain of truth is found they will claim victory. I do believe there was a beaker thrust from Iberia into central Europe which led to another group in central Europe who carried P312 taking up aspects of beaker culture then expanding. As I read the evidence available I dont think the original Iberian beaker group was R1b and I would suspect this group's main genetic input came from their females.

The only way I would overturn this view is if there was evidence of an early thrust into Iberia from eastern Europe c. 2800BC around the time beaker pottery appears. There is no agreement on the origin of the pots themselves and I dont currently see anything eastern or central European derived in early Iberian beaker. Not one thing I can point to.

I would change my mind if examples of the beaker burial rite - the crouched, facing east, males on left with heads at north, females on right with heads at south - can be shown in Iberia to date before 2500BC. That and other variants of it, regardless of whether it is inserted into a megalith or a cist or barrow, is a very distinctive rite with no local ancestor in Iberia. Right now I am unaware that such burials carry early dates in Iberia - and indeed doubt would remain even for early dates unless they were tested for freshwater or marine reservoir effect.

Seems there is a lot of work still to be done in Iberia in terms of analysis of the beaker burials. They really need to test the minority of Iberian beaker burials where the bones are still articulated in a typical beaker crouched pose, radiocarbon date them and test them for reservoir effect. That would be the best way of progressing this short of ancient DNA. However, it seems tome the ancient DNA will come first. I just hope the dating is scrupulously done and tested for reservoir effects on any beaker bones that are chosen for ancient DNA testing or we will still have lots of ifs and buts.

R1b did not come from Iberia after the Ice-Age but one cannot say that the DF27 in Iberia is not related to DF27 in Ireland. Some DF27 R1b must have arrived in Ireland from Iberia in the last 5000 years.

alan
01-21-2016, 06:47 AM
As for the location of earliest R1b, there would still be a clear area with seven or eight time higher variance than P312 areas if the R1b homeland still had in-situ remnants of the original population. If that was in Iberia I see no reason why it wouldnt have left an obvious trace. Iberia was one of the nicer areas to live in through the worst periods c. 25000-8000BC. However, some areas like Siberia and central Asia would have seen full scale wipeout of the in-situ earliest R1b areas. So for that reason it is much more likely IMO that the original R1b homeland in the Upper Palaeolithic was somewhere where climate wiped the slate clean and in situ traces of the population do not exist any more above trace level. Iberia as a natural refugium is one of the least likely places for a total wipeout. It is much more likely that R1b was in the south-central Siberia area and that Mal'ta was a cousin. The LGM wiped that area clean with no RC dates in that area falling into the period 22000BC to 12000BC if I remember correctly. The survivors clearly retreated to a refugium or refugia in the east over the LGM and Iberia is not a plausible option. Altai or other areas around the southern fringes of inner Asia and Siberia are much more plausible.

alan
01-21-2016, 06:53 AM
R1b did not come from Iberia after the Ice-Age but one cannot say that the DF27 in Iberia is not related to DF27 in Ireland. Some DF27 R1b must have arrived in Ireland from Iberia in the last 5000 years.

yes that is possible although DF27 probably made its way into Iberia and was also spread around other areas of Europe. So there is no reason that DF27 had to come from Iberia to Ireland. DF27 is only one down from P312 so it likely had a pre-Iberia existence in other area.

That said of course a few DF27 Iberians could have made it to Ireland but it is much more likely that they arrived by shorter crossings IMO from France or via England. I honesty cannot think of any archaeological remains that had to come direct from Iberia rather than much closer north-west France or western Britain.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-21-2016, 06:55 AM
yes that is possible although DF27 probably made its way into Iberia and was also spread around other areas of Europe. So there is no reason that DF27 had to come from Iberia to Ireland. DF27 is only one down from P312 so it likely had a pre-Iberia existence in other area.

That said of course a few DF27 Iberians could have made it to Ireland but it is much more likely that they arrived by shorter crossings IMO from France or via England. I honesty cannot think of any archaeological remains that had to come direct from Iberia rather than much closer north-west France or western Britain.

I think the major support for any movement from Iberia to Ireland is the apparently favourable ocean current (?)
;)

alan
01-21-2016, 07:07 AM
I think the major support for any movement from Iberia to Ireland is the apparently favourable ocean current (?)
;)

Problem that all this overlooks and tries to cover over with horrible vague rubbish about megaliths is that the concrete archaeological evidence doesnt support this at all. Iberia had a pretty distinctive material culture in the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages and finds of pottery or other objects of Iberia type in Ireland would stand out like a sort thumb. For example the Iron Age - AFAIK not one Celt-Iberian or Atlantic Iberian type object, burial type etc in Ireland but a sizeable amount of La Tene material with British and continental roots. Noone same can look at Ireland's Iron Age archaeological remains and remotely find Iberia springing into their heads unless they have a preconceived wish to see something that isnt there. So, the Iron Age can definitely be rule out as a potential Iberia-Ireland contact period. That is not to say some stuff couldnt be traded from point to point slowly up the Atlantic coast from Iberia to France to the isles. It obviously could but what little evidence there is would suggest links with France and the Rhineland not Iberia.

What I would say is beware of people pointing to generic similarities such as tombs made of big stones 'megaliths' as evidence because that is the slippery path to Erich von Daniken.

alan
01-21-2016, 07:12 AM
I think the major support for any movement from Iberia to Ireland is the apparently favourable ocean current (?)
;)

Actually the much discussed Atlantic Bronze Age when looked at in detail looks most like trade traffic heading to Iberia from western France and the isles than the other direction. You will see stuff of northern origin from this phase in museums in Iberia but you wont see much of Iberian origin in isles museums.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-21-2016, 07:15 AM
I agree- my comment was tongue -in- cheek
I'd be highly surprised if pre-Neolithic Iberia is anything other than Hgs C and I2

alan
01-21-2016, 07:23 AM
am pretty sure ancient sources say it took 3 days to sail from NW France to Ireland and Iberia looks three times that. That would not seem plausible in open boats.

rms2
01-21-2016, 03:33 PM
yes that is possible although DF27 probably made its way into Iberia and was also spread around other areas of Europe. So there is no reason that DF27 had to come from Iberia to Ireland. DF27 is only one down from P312 so it likely had a pre-Iberia existence in other area.

That said of course a few DF27 Iberians could have made it to Ireland but it is much more likely that they arrived by shorter crossings IMO from France or via England. I honesty cannot think of any archaeological remains that had to come direct from Iberia rather than much closer north-west France or western Britain.

DF27 and U152 are actually united by a SNP directly below P312 (I forget the name of it - ZZ something), so I think it is hard to separate the origins of the two. If we agree that U152 arose in east-central Europe, then it would seem to me it's hard to say that DF27 arose someplace very far from there, like Iberia. Personally, I think both have their roots in central European Bell Beaker.

Webb
01-21-2016, 03:58 PM
DF27 and U152 are actually united by a SNP directly below P312 (I forget the name of it - ZZ something), so I think it is hard to separate the origins of the two. If we agree that U152 arose in east-central Europe, then it would seem to me it's hard to say that DF27 arose someplace very far from there, like Iberia. Personally, I think both have their roots in central European Bell Beaker.

ZZ11 is the marker you are referring to. The emerging Irish cluster of DF17 shares upstream snps with a couple of Scots, an Italian and a German. So I would think a movement from Central Europe to Ireland, maybe through Scotland as the most likely scenario. The when will always be the question with DF27, until we get more modern and aDNA analysis.

Jean M
01-21-2016, 04:08 PM
We first must have early Iberian BB results, then, even if they will be something different from R1b, some people continue to believe in unscientific dogmas because their biased views of history and civilization.

Looks as though two separate theories are being confused here.


The LGM theory in the title of the thread. That was the idea that R1b spread in the Mesolithic period from the Franco-Cantabrian Ice Age refuge to re-colonise northern Europe as the climate warmed c. 10,000 years ago. This was one of the ideas accepted in around the year 2000 by people who thought that the Mesolithic movements settled the population of Europe from that day to this. Nobody had really moved around much since, in this supremely potty theory.
My idea that R1b arrived in Iberia from the European steppe via the Danube, the Alps and southern France in the Copper Age c. 3000 BC and was associated with the mining of copper and production of copper goods. Bell Beaker pottery was later associated with the people who had arrived with copper metallurgy. There is cultural continuity from the horse-riding, metal-working people and the Bell Beaker people. However this does not necessarily mean Y-DNA continuity. We await aDNA from early and later BB people and (I hope) the first Copper Age metal-workers in Iberia to confirm or falsify this.


Finding non-R1b men among the early BB people in Iberia has absolutely nothing to do with the LGM refuge theory, which has already been disproved by ancient DNA results from the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Iberia. It is dead as the dodo as a scientific theory, but will linger on in some hearts and minds I'm sure, as others here have said.

razyn
01-21-2016, 05:46 PM
That said of course a few DF27 Iberians could have made it to Ireland but it is much more likely that they arrived by shorter crossings IMO from France or via England. I honesty cannot think of any archaeological remains that had to come direct from Iberia rather than much closer north-west France or western Britain.
Attributing early Beaker inroads to Iberians is one example of overreaching the evidence; and thinking that if that were the case, they would be DF27, is another. These two myths have somewhat separate origins. It seems easier to dislodge the LGM-refugium stuff with aDNA, than it is to dislodge the notion that Basques have a lot of DF27, and don't speak an IE language; ergo DF27 is more ancient in Basque areas than are the other R1b clades coming in from the east and speaking PIE, Italo-Celtic, or whatever.

Speaking of Indo-European languages, and the Beakers who speak them -- this thread is about as good a place as any to mention the new paper JeanM cited a day or two ago in the Linguistics subforum, coming to us from a couple of (my fellow) folklorists, of all people. I'll cite Jean's thread, presumably the place to comment if one feels so inclined. But do click on her link to the paper itself; see esp. the paragraph on its p. 9 beginning "In some cases..." and note the footnote reference [3, 46-48]. The cited sources are Chang et al. 2015, Anthony 2010, Allentoft et al. 2015, and Haak et al. 2015. These folks are staying on top of things pretty doggone well. http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6266-Age-of-Indo-European-folk-Tales-%28da-Silva-and-Tehrani-2016%29

northkerry
01-21-2016, 05:56 PM
Looks as though two separate theories are being confused here.


The LGM theory in the title of the thread. That was the idea that R1b spread in the Mesolithic period from the Franco-Cantabrian Ice Age refuge to re-colonise northern Europe as the climate warmed c. 10,000 years ago. This was one of the ideas accepted in around the year 2000 by people who thought that the Mesolithic movements settled the population of Europe from that day to this. Nobody had really moved around much since, in this supremely potty theory.
My idea that R1b arrived in Iberia from the European steppe via the Danube, the Alps and southern France in the Copper Age c. 3000 BC and was associated with the mining of copper and production of copper goods. Bell Beaker pottery was later associated with the people who had arrived with copper metallurgy. There is cultural continuity from the horse-riding, metal-working people and the Bell Beaker people. However this does not necessarily mean Y-DNA continuity. We await aDNA from early and later BB people and (I hope) the first Copper Age metal-workers in Iberia to confirm or falsify this.


Finding non-R1b men among the early BB people in Iberia has absolutely nothing to do with the LGM refuge theory, which has already been disproved by ancient DNA results from the Mesolithic and Neolithic in Iberia. It is dead as the dodo as a scientific theory, but will linger on in some hearts and minds I'm sure, as others here have said.

If R1b arrived in Iberia in 3000 BC then DF27 could have been born there.

Webb
01-21-2016, 06:16 PM
If R1b arrived in Iberia in 3000 BC then DF27 could have been born there.

Maybe, except DF27 shares an snp with U152 that is just upstream of both.

Jean M
01-21-2016, 07:41 PM
If R1b arrived in Iberia in 3000 BC then DF27 could have been born there.

We have a whole range of possibilities here. What about the surfing effect? From AJ


Different kinds of genetic spread leave characteristic patterns. One has been christened the Surfing Effect. A genetic variant born in the wave front of an expanding population will have an advantage. It will have a better chance of becoming predominant within the breeding group, because that is where the migrating population is smallest. A successful mutation will surf the wave and end up at saturation level where the expanding population meets a geographical barrier. R1b1a2 (M269) is good example.... It flooded over Europe from the east, spawning subclades as it went, until it was stopped by the Atlantic Ocean. On the Atlantic seaboard it pools into its highest densities.

rms2
01-21-2016, 07:51 PM
Maybe, except DF27 shares an snp with U152 that is just upstream of both.

Right. It doesn't seem likely to me that DF27 was born far from where U152 was born, although I suppose that is possible. As I said before, I think both were born in central Europe or east-central Europe.

It seems the notion that high frequency = place of origin is a strong intoxicant. It clouds the mind. Some never recover.

Webb
01-21-2016, 08:05 PM
Right. It doesn't seem likely to me that DF27 was born far from where U152 was born, although I suppose that is possible. As I said before, I think both were born in central Europe or east-central Europe.

It seems the notion that high frequency = place of origin is a strong intoxicant. It clouds the mind. Some never recover.

I think that emphasis on testing to find your most recent private snps, may take some focus away from researching the higher level snps that could possibly link some of these clades just below P312 into a better tree. There has to be snps out there that are shared by some of these high level P312 clades. Finding them would really help put the puzzle together.

razyn
01-21-2016, 09:57 PM
I think that emphasis on testing to find your most recent private snps, may take some focus away from researching the higher level snps that could possibly link some of these clades just below P312 into a better tree
JeanM has been saying for several years, including in print, that we need more aDNA. Lately we've begun to get it (even the nuclear kind, at last resolving both uniparental markers). The Rathlin Island ones are among the relatively few, from that long ago, that have shown much kinship with the modern population of their locality who are now testing for SNPs at FTDNA, etc. (because they are into genealogy).

I agree that testing for the higher level SNPs is a good idea; but people who have been dead a few thousand years are much better subjects for such testing than anybody who is now able to decide what test would be the most productive use of his money.

Webb
01-21-2016, 10:44 PM
JeanM has been saying for several years, including in print, that we need more aDNA. Lately we've begun to get it (even the nuclear kind, at last resolving both uniparental markers). The Rathlin Island ones are among the relatively few, from that long ago, that have shown much kinship with the modern population of their locality who are now testing for SNPs at FTDNA, etc. (because they are into genealogy).

I agree that testing for the higher level SNPs is a good idea; but people who have been dead a few thousand years are much better subjects for such testing than anybody who is now able to decide what test would be the most productive use of his money.

I think these key markers are already tested by full genome sequencing, they just might not have a name or placement yet. I assume Alex discovered ZZ11. This is a prime example of spending some time looking for shared markers between these large clades.

Arch
01-22-2016, 02:13 PM
Hard to explain why none of the Mesolithic nor Neolithic samples have been R1b+, except for the one V88 equivalent which is quite easy to explain. I guess the ice sheets selectively melted just R1b SNPs and not others. ;)

Ice sheets picked some boulders and chewed 'em up pretty good turning them into scree and let other boulders still be boulders... Why not? Selective melting happens...

Arch
01-22-2016, 02:19 PM
We have a whole range of possibilities here. What about the surfing effect? From AJ

However, does it pool up in Northern Scotland, Norway, Southern Iberia, Southern Italy or Sicily, or other land masses that meet geographical barriers? Somebody could have made a u-turn, left turn, right turn, or went down a wrong way street... All things are possible but I wouldn't get excited about the widespread frequencies along the Atlantic seaboard. The surfing effect seems more appropriate to explain the migration, but I'm truly stuck on the out of Iberia LGM origins theory...

Arch
01-22-2016, 02:23 PM
If R1b arrived in Iberia in 3000 BC then DF27 could have been born there.

It's possible but not probable. R1b probably arrived in Iberia around 1600 AD during the English Civil War because we have yet to find any R1b in Iberia in ancient DNA tests...

Arch
01-22-2016, 02:31 PM
That's convenient.

Q, N, and O: were they "from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera", as well?

Interesting that, of all the Super Group K family, only R arose in western Europe, far away from the rest of its closest relatives, who were out in Asia.

That hardly seems likely.

Anything is possible... Remember R* had horses and could travel great distances across the Eurasian steppes chasing those wooly mammoths from from Siberia to the Pyrenees/Catabrian Cordillera and back again... Or maybe it's the other way around? Who knows! R* carcasses could have been left exposed to the birds and ravages of time, so very little evidence of ancient R* DNA will be found anywhere until it was decided to bury people... Mal'ta boy was a fluke.

Arch
01-22-2016, 02:50 PM
I think even if the earliest Bell Beaker has R1b present in it, a lot will depend on whether or not there is a steppe autosomal component present, as well. Jean Manco believes that a copper-using group from the steppe went to Iberia very early and formed the catalyst for Bell Beaker there. She has dubbed them the "Stelae People" because she sees a connection between Iberian grave stelae and grave stelae on the steppe and traces a stelae trail across Europe. She could be right.

Bell Beaker origins in Iberia has been around for quite some time, long before Jean Manco's stelae theory supported it... On another related topic, I believe R* may have been in Europe quite early because of the similarity of Venus figurines found between only one region of far flung Siberia and the figurines are mostly found in Europe and nowhere else... Soooo, maybe Mal'ta boy's family came from Malta!

rms2
01-22-2016, 03:04 PM
Bell Beaker origins in Iberia has been around for quite some time, long before Jean Manco's stelae theory supported it... On another related topic, I believe R* may have been in Europe quite early because of the similarity of Venus figurines found between only one region of far flung Siberia and the figurines are mostly found in Europe and nowhere else... Soooo, maybe Mal'ta boy's family came from Malta!

The Venus figurines of the Mal'ta Buret culture (I mentioned this before) are stylistically different from those of western Europe and are not likely to share a common origin. Making a carving of the female form out of whatever carvable material is at hand is not so absolutely unique that people in various places in the world would never think to do it at around the same time. It isn't likely that of all of Super Group K, only R arose outside of Asia, far away at the western end of western Europe. That would mean that P fathered both R and Q at opposite ends of the Eurasian Continent. At the eastern end P was surrounded by his cousins, N and O. At the western end, no other members of Super Group K were around.

As for Bell Beaker, it's not really clear what aspects of it originated in Iberia - maybe the pots. Certainly the R1b and steppe autosomal components of it did not.

rms2
01-22-2016, 03:08 PM
Anything is possible... Remember R* had horses and could travel great distances across the Eurasian steppes chasing those wooly mammoths from from Siberia to the Pyrenees/Catabrian Cordillera and back again... Or maybe it's the other way around?

Horseback riding began around 4500 BC at the earliest. As I said before, R is part of Super Group K, whose members are found in close proximity to one another only in far eastern Europe and Asia. R did not originate in western Europe.



Who knows! R* carcasses could have been left exposed to the birds and ravages of time, so very little evidence of ancient R* DNA will be found anywhere until it was decided to bury people... Mal'ta boy was a fluke.

Probably not much point in commenting on that. It is trollery.

northkerry
01-22-2016, 03:17 PM
It's possible but not probable. R1b probably arrived in Iberia around 1600 AD during the English Civil War because we have yet to find any R1b in Iberia in ancient DNA tests...

Ireland holds the key because we are the last stop before one crosses the Atlantic. It will be interesting to see the YDNA from the Irish Mesolithic. We know that some of the U5 MTDNA in Ireland is from Mesolithic.

rms2
01-22-2016, 03:23 PM
Ireland holds the key because we are the last stop before one crosses the Atlantic. It will be interesting to see the YDNA from the Irish Mesolithic. We know that some of the U5 MTDNA in Ireland is from Mesolithic.

How does Ireland hold the key to the now defunct and obsolete theory that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia? We have Mesolithic y-dna from elsewhere in Europe west of the Dniester, including Iberia, and none of it is R1b. If and when Mesolithic y-dna from Ireland comes to light, it will most likely belong to y haplogroup I or perhaps C or F.

When Dr. Dan Bradley spoke at the recent Genetic Genealogy Ireland conference in Dublin, in reply to a question from an audience member, he said there was massive population replacement in Ireland at the end of the Neolithic. Massive population replacement at the end of the Neolithic is the opposite of population continuity since the Mesolithic.

Who entered the British Isles and Ireland at the end of the Neolithic? The Bell Beaker people. What y haplogroup has been found among the Bell Beaker people, including those three Bronze Age Rathlin Island men?

northkerry
01-22-2016, 03:50 PM
How does Ireland hold the key to the now defunct and obsolete theory that R1b spent the LGM in Iberia? We have Mesolithic y-dna from elsewhere in Europe west of the Dniester, including Iberia, and none of it is R1b. If and when Mesolithic y-dna from Ireland comes to light, it will most likely belong to y haplogroup I or perhaps C or F.

When Dr. Dan Bradley spoke at the recent Genetic Genealogy Ireland conference in Dublin, in reply to a question from an audience member, he said there was massive population replacement in Ireland at the end of the Neolithic. Massive population replacement at the end of the Neolithic is the opposite of population continuity since the Mesolithic.

Who entered the British Isles and Ireland at the end of the Neolithic? The Bell Beaker people. What y haplogroup has been found among the Bell Beaker people, including those three Bronze Age Rathlin Island men?

We don't know until all the results come in from the Mesolithic which ydna groups lived in Ireland at that time.The DF21 Rathlin Islanders have no living descendants that I am aware of so they certainly did not replace any of the ancestors of today's DF21. And, I do not think that R1b came to Ireland immediately after the Ice-Age.

TigerMW
01-22-2016, 03:54 PM
We don't know until all the results come in from the Mesolithic which ydna groups lived in Ireland at that time.The DF21 Rathlin Islanders have no living descendants that I am aware of so they certainly did not replace any of the ancestors of today's DF21. And, I do not think that R1b came to Ireland immediately after the Ice-Age.
This is one of the problems with ancient DNA. It will be a very limited survey of a few geographic sites of a few cultures of a few points in time. Hence, a statement can always be made to the effect, "We don't know until all the results".
I highlight the "all", not the originator, but there will never be an "all" just as there will not be absolute certainty that something didn't exist.

On the other hand, probabilities can improve and I think we are seeing the probabilities that R1b-P311 types were heavily involved in the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

rms2
01-22-2016, 03:59 PM
We don't know until all the results come in from the Mesolithic which ydna groups lived in Ireland at that time.

We don't know yet, but we can form a pretty good idea based on the Mesolithic results from elsewhere in Europe.



The DF21 Rathlin Islanders have no living descendants that I am aware of so they certainly did not replace any of the ancestors of today's DF21.

The point was that there was massive population replacement in Ireland at the end of the Neolithic. The Bell Beaker people arrived at that time, and they were predominantly R1b, probably mostly R1b-L21 (at least those who went to Ireland anyway). The three Bronze Age Rathlin Island men are evidence of that, whether they themselves have living descendants or not.



And, I do not think that R1b came to Ireland immediately after the Ice-Age.

Good, but that makes one wonder why you would bother responding to posts about the presence of R1b in Paleolithic or Mesolithic western Europe the way you did.

northkerry
01-22-2016, 07:26 PM
The M269 bottle neck is the reason that I think that R1b-M343>R1b-L23 did not dwell in Iberia during the Ice-Age. DF27 seems to be the only successful R1b branch in that region. It is not due to the fact that no R1b-M269 has been found there from the Mesolithic.

rms2
01-23-2016, 12:22 AM
The M269 bottle neck is the reason that I think that R1b-M343>R1b-L23 did not dwell in Iberia during the Ice-Age. DF27 seems to be the only successful R1b branch in that region. It is not due to the fact that no R1b-M269 has been found there from the Mesolithic.

The fact that no Mesolithic M269 (or Neolithic M269) has been found anywhere in Europe west of the Dniester, including Iberia, is only one part of the evidence. The fact that it only begins to show up in the Copper and Bronze Ages is another. When it does show up it is accompanied by a sizable steppe autosomal component and occurs in cultures thought to be responsible for the spread of Indo-European languages. That is more evidence.

Jean M
01-23-2016, 12:42 PM
When Dr. Dan Bradley spoke at the recent Genetic Genealogy Ireland conference in Dublin, in reply to a question from an audience member, he said there was massive population replacement in Ireland at the end of the Neolithic.

Actually he just muttered something to the effect that there had been massive population replacement in Ireland, without being specific on the period, but we now know that he was talking about two periods. We have the Cassidy paper with his Neolithic sample and Rathlin Island Bronze Age samples, which shows population replacement between Neolithic and Bronze Age direct from Irish aDNA. The Neolithic sample is compared with Neolithic samples in Europe:


support identification of Ballynahatty with other MN samples who show a majority ancestry from Near Eastern migration but with some western Mesolithic introgression.

Thus the paper accepts the difference between Mesolithic aDNA and Neolithic aDNA in Europe and that this was due to farmers arriving from the Near East, as has been deduced by other aDNA papers. So already, before the publication of a Mesolithic sample from Ireland, we know that Bradley accepts that the pattern in Ireland was no different from that in the rest of Europe. It would be amazing if it were, since its population at all periods came from/via Continental Europe.

northkerry
01-23-2016, 01:10 PM
Actually he just muttered something to the effect that there had been massive population replacement in Ireland, without being specific on the period, but we now know that he was talking about two periods. We have the Cassidy paper with his Neolithic sample and Rathlin Island Bronze Age samples, which shows population replacement between Neolithic and Bronze Age direct from Irish aDNA. The Neolithic sample is compared with Neolithic samples in Europe:



Thus the paper accepts the difference between Mesolithic aDNA and Neolithic aDNA in Europe and that this was due to farmers arriving from the Near East, as has been deduced by other aDNA papers. So already, before the publication of a Mesolithic sample from Ireland, we know that Bradley accepts that the pattern in Ireland was no different from that in the rest of Europe. It would be amazing if it were, since its population at all periods came from/via Continental Europe.

Did Prof. Bradley not speak clearly about the dna of the Irish? I don't think that 32% is a massive population replacement BA event. Not one DF21 Irish person tested so far is a descendant of the Rathlin Islanders.

Jean M
01-23-2016, 01:35 PM
Did Prof. Bradley not speak clearly about the dna of the Irish?

Prof. Bradley was anxious to protect the authors of the various unpublished papers he mentioned from any premature leakage of details of their results. He of course was co-author, but he made it clear that he was not concerned about his own career (he is a professor after all) but about those of his students who were just making their way in the world. It is best for them if the headlines appear after their paper is out, when the data is fully available, rather than garbled rumours circulating ahead of time. Not to mention the fact that it is clear who takes the credit.

Jean M
01-23-2016, 01:48 PM
Not one DF21 Irish person tested so far is a descendant of the Rathlin Islanders.

That does not matter. Prof. Bradley is looking at the bigger picture. These samples are close to modern Irish samples genome-wide, as well as the obvious Y-DNA R1b-DF21 link. The Neolithic sample is not. She is like modern Sardinians. That means that the gene pool of the modern Irish in general can be traced back to the Bronze Age. Obviously Ireland has had some inward migration since then, but we can deduce that some of that came from fellow Celtic regions equally high in L21 and looking very similar to modern Irish genome-wide, like some of the pre-Anglo-Saxon samples from Britain.

rms2
01-23-2016, 02:33 PM
. . . Not one DF21 Irish person tested so far is a descendant of the Rathlin Islanders.

Wait a minute. A few posts back, didn't you say we cannot know the y haplogroups of the Mesolithic Irish until we have tested all their remains?

Well then, why not apply the same standard to the relationship between the Rathlin Islanders and the modern Irish?

In other words, until we have tested every last living Irishman on the globe (and perhaps the recent Irish dead, as well), we cannot know whether or not any of them is descended from the Rathlin Islanders!

Besides, as Jean said (and I said the same thing in an earlier post) it does not really matter whether or not the three Bronze Age Rathlin Islanders have any living descendants. What matters is the type of people present in Ireland in a given period and when they made their appearance. How many of us living today will still have descendants living on this earth 4,000 or more years from now?

jdean
01-23-2016, 02:45 PM
Wait a minute. A few posts back, didn't you say we cannot know the y haplogroups of the Mesolithic Irish until we have tested all their remains?

Well then, why not apply the same standard to the relationship between the Rathlin Islanders and the modern Irish?

In other words, until we have tested every last living Irishman on the globe (and perhaps the recent Irish dead, as well), we cannot know whether or not any of them is descended from the Rathlin Islanders!

Besides, as Jean said (and I said the same thing in an earlier post) it does not really matter whether or not the three Bronze Age Rathlin Islanders have any living descendants. What matters is the type of people present in Ireland in a given period and when they made their appearance. How many of us living today will still have descendants living on this earth 4,000 or more years from now?

Very few, but the maths behind extinction rate theory is something most find very hard to except.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galton–Watson_process

It's a rubbish argument anyway, how many aDNA remains have provable Y DNA descendants so far ?

rms2
01-23-2016, 02:51 PM
Am I the only one who thinks northkerry sounds a lot like old Dartraighe?

Isn't there some sort of relationship between the Irish names Dartraighe and Kerry? Paul would know for sure, but here's something I found that briefly touches on the subject:



This barony comprises a territory which is called Cathrigia by the Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, and which derived its name from the Cathraighe, a sept who once occupied it, just as Dartry, Kenry, Kerry, Tradry belong to districts formerly peopled by the Dartraighe, Caenraighe, Ciarraighe, Tradraighe.

From Will Reeves (1847), Ecclesiastical antiquities of Down, Connor and Dromore, consisting of a taxation of those dioceses, compiled in the year 1306; with notes and illustrations, p. 281.

http://tinyurl.com/zm2cw3s

I see that Ciarraighe corresponds with Kerry, and Dartraighe with Dartry, but hmmm. Funny that northkerry's posts put me in mind of old Dartraighe.

jdean
01-23-2016, 03:06 PM
Am I the only one who thinks northkerry sounds a lot like old Dartraighe?

Certainly a lot of similarities : )

Jean M
01-23-2016, 04:08 PM
Isn't there some sort of relationship between the Irish names Dartraighe and Kerry?

No. Kerry takes its name from the Ciarraighe Luachra. The Barony of Dartree, Dartry or Dartrey takes its name from the Dartraighe.

[Added] Oh I see that you made that point.

rms2
01-23-2016, 04:20 PM
No. Kerry takes its name from the Ciarraighe Luachra. The Barony of Dartree, Dartry or Dartrey takes its name from the Dartraighe.

[Added] Oh I see that you made that point.

Yeah, I caught that.

Maybe northkerry and Dartraighe aren't the same person, but the former's posting style sure puts me in mind of the latter.

northkerry
01-24-2016, 10:59 AM
That does not matter. Prof. Bradley is looking at the bigger picture. These samples are close to modern Irish samples genome-wide, as well as the obvious Y-DNA R1b-DF21 link. The Neolithic sample is not. She is like modern Sardinians. That means that the gene pool of the modern Irish in general can be traced back to the Bronze Age. Obviously Ireland has had some inward migration since then, but we can deduce that some of that came from fellow Celtic regions equally high in L21 and looking very similar to modern Irish genome-wide, like some of the pre-Anglo-Saxon samples from Britain.

The three DF21 ancient remains are close to the German population and the Neolithic woman is close to the Sardinian population like the LBK woman. Prof. Bradley found and tested three German immigrants and one Sardinian immigrant. Hinton 4 must have been Irish because because he was closer to the Irish population.

It is possible that Prof Bradley could find some Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b and some people will have panic attacks, but as we have already witnessed, it is not possible to establish a direct line between modern ydna and ancient ydna.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 12:08 PM
The three DF21 ancient remains are close to the German population and the Neolithic woman is close to the Sardinian population like the LBK woman. Prof. Bradley found and tested three German immigrants and one Sardinian immigrant. Hinton 4 must have been Irish because because he was closer to the Irish population.

You seem confused. Ancient people are not descended from modern people. It is the other way around.


The DF21 ancient samples are not like the modern Germans. They are like modern Irish. They were descended from Bell Beaker people who arrived in Britain and Ireland from the Continent, probably down the Rhine. At the time Germany did not exist. The ancestors of the modern Germans were not living along the Rhine. The etymology of the river-name Rhine is Celtic. The Bell Beaker samples in modern Germany are mainly ancestral to the samples from Rathlin Island. They were Celts. Celts lived in that whole area before the expansion of the Germani out of Scandinavia.
The Neolithic Irish woman was not from Sardinia. The modern Sardinians just happen to have retained more Neolithic DNA than any other people in Europe. This is because of two factors. Hunter-gatherers visited Sardinia occasionally, but did not settle there. It was settled by Neolithic farmers. Secondly the Indo-Europeans had less impact on this small island people than on most of the rest of Europe.
Hinxton 4 was not Irish. The individual is more similar to modern Irish people than modern English because modern Irish are more Celtic than modern English, who have much more Anglo-Saxon input. Before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the Romano-British were much more similar to the Irish.

northkerry
01-24-2016, 01:14 PM
You seem confused. Ancient people are not descended from modern people. It is the other way around.


The DF21 ancient samples are not like the modern Germans. They are like modern Irish. They were descended from Bell Beaker people who arrived in Britain and Ireland from the Continent, probably down the Rhine. At the time Germany did not exist. The ancestors of the modern Germans were not living along the Rhine. The etymology of the river-name Rhine is Celtic. The Bell Beaker samples in modern Germany are mainly ancestral to the samples from Rathlin Island. They were Celts. Celts lived in that whole area before the expansion of the Germani out of Scandinavia.
The Neolithic Irish woman was not from Sardinia. The modern Sardinians just happen to have retained more Neolithic DNA than any other nation in Europe. This is because of two factors. Hunter-gatherers visited Sardinia occasionally, but did not settle there. It was settled by Neolithic farmers. Secondly the Indo-Europeans had less impact on this small island people than on most of the rest of Europe.
Hinxton 4 was not Irish. The individual is more similar to modern Irish people than modern English because modern Irish are more Celtic than modern English, who have much more Anglo-Saxon input. Before the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, the Romano-British were much more similar to the Irish.


Were all of the German people replaced 2000 years ago?

The Neolithic Irish woman's ancestors came from Sardinia with the LBK.

The ancestors of Hinxton 4 could well have come from Ireland.

jdean
01-24-2016, 01:18 PM
So still insistent people living in the dim distant past descend from modern populations then : )

Romilius
01-24-2016, 01:18 PM
The three DF21 ancient remains are close to the German population and the Neolithic woman is close to the Sardinian population like the LBK woman. Prof. Bradley found and tested three German immigrants and one Sardinian immigrant. Hinton 4 must have been Irish because because he was closer to the Irish population.

It is possible that Prof Bradley could find some Mesolithic or Neolithic R1b and some people will have panic attacks, but as we have already witnessed, it is not possible to establish a direct line between modern ydna and ancient ydna.

It is also possible that Prof. Bradley could find some Mesolithic or Neolithic R1a, C1, I2a2, I2a3, G2a2, H2, T1, F*... all is possible... but I don't understand what the problem is... I mean, some possibilities are more probable than others, but, from your post, I see that the holy expectation to see the old-fashioned R1b=Iberian=Cromagnon is hard to die... Rms2 is right.

northkerry
01-24-2016, 01:37 PM
It is also possible that Prof. Bradley could find some Mesolithic or Neolithic R1a, C1, I2a2, I2a3, G2a2, H2, T1, F*... all is possible... but I don't understand what the problem is... I mean, some possibilities are more probable than others, but, from your post, I see that the holy expectation to see the old-fashioned R1b=Iberian=Cromagnon is hard to die... Rms2 is right.

If Mesolithic R1b was found it does not have to be from Iberia. It could be from central or eastern Europe.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 01:45 PM
Were all of the German people replaced 2000 years ago?

People speaking an ancestor of the Germanic languages arrived in northern Germany and part of northern Poland from Scandinavia about 700 BC. It was in this region that linguists calculate that Proto-Germanic had developed by around 500 BC. This was the language ancestral to all the modern Germanic languages including English, German, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian etc. People spread from there after 500 BC north into Scandinavia, etc. Those remaining in what is now north Germany gradually expanded south into what is now the rest of Germany. They had reached the Rhine to the west and on the south were pressurising the Celtic Helveti in Switzerland and the Celtic Boii in Bohemia by the time the Romans took Gaul in 58-51 BC. It was a massive population replacement. This is not to say that they did not absorb some Celts. The modern people of Germany are a mixture of inputs, like any other modern nation.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 01:50 PM
The Neolithic Irish woman's ancestors came from Sardinia with the LBK.

Again you seem confused. The LBK was nowhere near Sardinia. The LBK was in central Europe. Sardinia was just one of the places settled by Impressed/Cardial ware makers who spread along the Mediterranean from the Levant. In brief farming was brought to Europe by farmers from the Middle East. They came by various routes.

7439
Click to enlarge.

Most people with long-established European ancestry have a genetic element inherited from these farmers. The other two major elements in the European gene pool are from ancient European hunter-gatherers and Copper Age arrivals from the steppe speaking Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the Indo-European languages including the Celtic and Germanic branches.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 02:43 PM
The ancestors of Hinxton 4 could well have come from Ireland.

Frankly I have forgotten which of the two Iron Age males from Hinxton was labelled Hinxton 4 by David W (Eurogenes). But I don't suppose it makes much difference. What is most important is that David did not compare them with a Welsh sample. (He probably did not have one.) They come closest to modern Cornish, Welsh and Scottish on rare variants, as shown by the final Schiffels paper. These samples are HI 1 and HI 2 in Schiffels.

HI 1 was R1b1a2a1a2c (L21) and dated 160 BC-26 AD.
HI 2 was R1b1a2a1a2c1 (DF13) and dated 170 BC- 80 AD.

So they were both living at the period in which there had already been inflow from Gaul into Britain in the La Tene period and Belgae had arrived perhaps in their lifetimes. One was an old man and the other middle-aged to old. This is not to say that they were personally Belgae. They came from a farm continuously occupied from the Middle Iron Age until the Middle Romano-British period. So they were most likely not personally new arrivals.

When the Anglo-Saxons poured into eastern England, the Romano-British there were pushed west into to join compatriots in what what became Wales. Cornwall remained Celtic speaking until the 18th century. Celts also survived in Scotland. Once upon a time the whole of Britain was Celtic-speaking.

authun
01-24-2016, 02:57 PM
I see that the holy expectation to see the old-fashioned R1b=Iberian=Cromagnon is hard to die

That is what it says in the Holy Book, all the way to Y Chromosomal Adam.

rms2
01-24-2016, 03:26 PM
If Mesolithic R1b was found it does not have to be from Iberia. It could be from central or eastern Europe.

It has already been found in eastern Europe, on the Sok River near Samara in Russia (see Haak et al 2015), but not in central or western Europe.

northkerry
01-24-2016, 03:59 PM
Again you seem confused. The LBK was nowhere near Sardinia. The LBK was in central Europe. Sardinia was just one of the places settled by Impressed/Cardial ware makers who spread along the Mediterranean from the Levant. In brief farming was brought to Europe by farmers from the Middle East. They came by various routes.

7439
Click to enlarge.

Most people with long-established European ancestry have a genetic element inherited from these farmers. The other two major elements in the European gene pool are from ancient European hunter-gatherers and Copper Age arrivals from the steppe speaking Proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of all the Indo-European languages including the Celtic and Germanic branches.

The LBK woman at gedmatch is closest to the modern Sardinian population!!!!

rms2
01-24-2016, 04:02 PM
The LBK woman at gedmatch is closest to the modern Sardinian population!!!!

Yet the LBK did not inhabit Sardinia. The reason for the apparent genetic affinity is that both the LBK and Sardinian populations were derived from Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. LBK people were descended from Near Easterners, and modern Sardinians are descended in large part from ancient Near Easterners.

It is not the case that modern Sardinians descend from LBK people.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 04:55 PM
The LBK woman at gedmatch is closest to the modern Sardinian population!!!!

I already explained the reason for that:


The modern Sardinians just happen to have retained more Neolithic DNA than any other people in Europe. This is because of two factors. Hunter-gatherers visited Sardinia occasionally, but did not settle there. It was settled by Neolithic farmers. Secondly the Indo-Europeans had less impact on this small island people than on most of the rest of Europe.

The Neolithic farmers of Europe were all pretty similar genetically, because they all descended from groups who came from the cradle of farming in the Middle East.

MitchellSince1893
01-24-2016, 05:54 PM
...When the Anglo-Saxons poured into eastern England, the Romano-British there were pushed west into to join compatriots in what what became Wales...

It appears for the most part, U152 in Romano Briton didn't make the the trip to Wales...or if they did their descendants didn't have much of a genetic impact on present day Wales.

northkerry
01-24-2016, 06:31 PM
I already explained the reason for that:



The Neolithic farmers of Europe were all pretty similar genetically, because they all descended from groups who came from the cradle of farming in the Middle East.

The woman who died in Ireland 5,300 ybp is closest to the modern Sardinian population because they were isolated for thousands of years and the ancestors of both came from Anatolian farmers. I am still trying to get my head around that one. Anyway, the isolated Sardinian population is a good population to study for the ydna then. Do you know which ydna groups the Sardinians belong to?

Jean M
01-24-2016, 08:15 PM
The woman who died in Ireland 5,300 ybp is closest to the modern Sardinian population because they were isolated for thousands of years and the ancestors of both came from Anatolian farmers. I am still trying to get my head around that one. Anyway, the isolated Sardinian population is a good population to study for the ydna then. Do you know which ydna groups the Sardinians belong to?

Yes indeed. Here is a tree from Paolo Francalacci et al., Low-Pass DNA Sequencing of 1200 Sardinians Reconstructs European Y-Chromosome Phylogeny, Science, 341, 565 (2013), which not only examined present-day Sardinians, but aimed to work out which haplogroups had arrived when:

7446

Essentially there were four Neolithic founders in Sardinia within the haplogroup I2a1a. Two other founder lineages belong to the same period: one belonging to haplogroup R1b1c (xV35) and the other to haplogroup G2a2b-L166. This R1b is a different lineage to that which spread in the Copper Age. It seems to have arrived in the Middle East in time to send some shoots out with Neolithic farmers as they spread, both with Cardial Ware and into North Africa, where it moved south to Chad. It is much rarer in Europe today than the Copper Age R1b1a2a1a + lineage.

This fits with ancient Y-DNA from Neolithic Europe, which is overwhelmingly G2a so far, but does include some I2a and one R1b1c, together with a scattering of lineages even rarer today: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

rms2
01-24-2016, 08:20 PM
I-M26 reaches its world maximum frequency in Sardinia at about 40% of the total. Apparently G is pretty frequent there, as well.

Here is a graphic from Eupedia that might be helpful.

7447

I see Jean beat me to it.

lgmayka
01-24-2016, 08:27 PM
Do you know which ydna groups the Sardinians belong to?
Amazingly, a few Sardinians belong to a rare subclade of R1a-M458 called R-PF6188 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6188/). It split from the typically Slavic R-Y2604 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/) about 4700 years ago.

rms2
01-24-2016, 09:05 PM
According to the Busby et al spreadsheet, R1b-M269 as a whole was only 8.8% of the total y-dna in Sardinia (n=147). I don't know of any other place so far west in Europe with a frequency of R1b-M269 that low.

Jean M
01-24-2016, 09:14 PM
Amazingly, a few Sardinians belong to a rare subclade of R1a-M458 called R-PF6188 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-PF6188/). It split from the typically Slavic R-Y2604 clade (http://yfull.com/tree/R-Y2604/) about 4700 years ago.

The samples in Y-Full are from Francalacci 2013. He gives that lineage a blue dot in the tree above, indicating private Sardinian clusters with an average number of SNPs in the range 7-12. Though not specifically mentioned in the text, he places other lineages with a private Sardinian variability of 7 to 10 SNPs as arriving in more recent times than the Nuragic, up to the historic period corresponding to Roman and Vandalic dominations. Personally, I'd have a guess at someone manning a Greek ship from the Black Sea for this R1a, but who knows.

lgmayka
01-24-2016, 09:57 PM
Personally, I'd have a guess at someone manning a Greek ship from the Black Sea for this R1a, but who knows.
We need some of these R1a Greeks (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Greece/default.aspx?section=yresults) to order the R1a-Backbone SNP Pack.

alan
01-25-2016, 09:11 AM
According to the Busby et al spreadsheet, R1b-M269 as a whole was only 8.8% of the total y-dna in Sardinia (n=147). I don't know of any other place so far west in Europe with a frequency of R1b-M269 that low.

Sardinia is an interesting case of a place where bell beaker pot is found in substantial nos but P312 clades must be extremely low in frequency. The beaker is western derived so one would even think if it was linked to P312 it would essentially be linked to DF27. I imagine the DF27 count in Sardinia is extremely low. One could also add Scissilly to that observation. This map suggests virtually no DF27 is present http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.gif

Now that is a remarkable thing given that beaker in the west Med. is generally seen as Iberian derived. Indeed Italy and the southern Alps in general has very little DF27. So, if the beaker pot is linked to Iberia (which seems to be the case) then its remarkable that the areas is bereft of DF27. My conclusion (always dangerous using modern populations and frequencies) is that this could be evidence in support that the Iberian and Iberian derived beakers spreading through the west Med. may not have been DF27 or R1b linked at all. Even in south-east France where the French archaeolologists are pretty strong on the Iberian origin of the earliest beaker there, there is not a great showing of DF27. So, this tends to lend weight to my feeling that the initial users of pottery in the south-west were not R1b people. All usual heavy caveats apply.

rms2
01-25-2016, 02:46 PM
Sardinia is an interesting case of a place where bell beaker pot is found in substantial nos but P312 clades must be extremely low in frequency. The beaker is western derived so one would even think if it was linked to P312 it would essentially be linked to DF27. I imagine the DF27 count in Sardinia is extremely low. One could also add Scissilly to that observation. This map suggests virtually no DF27 is present http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-DF27.gif

Now that is a remarkable thing given that beaker in the west Med. is generally seen as Iberian derived. Indeed Italy and the southern Alps in general has very little DF27. So, if the beaker pot is linked to Iberia (which seems to be the case) then its remarkable that the areas is bereft of DF27. My conclusion (always dangerous using modern populations and frequencies) is that this could be evidence in support that the Iberian and Iberian derived beakers spreading through the west Med. may not have been DF27 or R1b linked at all. Even in south-east France where the French archaeolologists are pretty strong on the Iberian origin of the earliest beaker there, there is not a great showing of DF27. So, this tends to lend weight to my feeling that the initial users of pottery in the south-west were not R1b people. All usual heavy caveats apply.

Right, and the fact that the very earliest Iberian Bell Beaker bodies were the default Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer type (i.e., "Mediterranean" long heads) and were buried in Neolithic-type collective tombs, lends further credence to the idea that the earliest Iberian Bell Beaker was something other than R1b, probably I2 and G2.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 07:09 PM
HG R* is from pre-LGM Iberian Pyrenees/Cantabrian Cordillera

Mal'ta boy from Siberia (near Lake Baikal) with R* does not support this idea, though.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 07:15 PM
As for the location of earliest R1b, there would still be a clear area with seven or eight time higher variance than P312 areas if the R1b homeland still had in-situ remnants of the original population. If that was in Iberia I see no reason why it wouldnt have left an obvious trace. Iberia was one of the nicer areas to live in through the worst periods c. 25000-8000BC. However, some areas like Siberia and central Asia would have seen full scale wipeout of the in-situ earliest R1b areas. So for that reason it is much more likely IMO that the original R1b homeland in the Upper Palaeolithic was somewhere where climate wiped the slate clean and in situ traces of the population do not exist any more above trace level. Iberia as a natural refugium is one of the least likely places for a total wipeout. It is much more likely that R1b was in the south-central Siberia area and that Mal'ta was a cousin. The LGM wiped that area clean with no RC dates in that area falling into the period 22000BC to 12000BC if I remember correctly. The survivors clearly retreated to a refugium or refugia in the east over the LGM and Iberia is not a plausible option. Altai or other areas around the southern fringes of inner Asia and Siberia are much more plausible.

What do you think about QLB15 sample - R1* (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a) from Quedlinburg (3645-3537 BC), Baalberge culture ???

Where did that guy come from?

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 07:26 PM
According to M. Gimbutas, "The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Europe" (page 299), 1977, Baalberge culture (as well as Globular Amphora culture) show signs of the earliest incursion of Proto-Indo-Europeans into Central Europe.

And what do we find in Baalberge culture? A sample of R1* haplogroup (which is neither R1a nor R1b). A coincidence ???

But according to Jean M, "this may represent ancient DNA damage, so the assignment should be viewed with caution" (why ???).

What exactly indicates that this may represent ancient DNA damage ???

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 07:43 PM
Considering the fact that we still have people clinging to Anatolia as the PIE urheimat

I'm not sure if so many clinge to Anatolia in particular as the PIE urheimat, but many claim that R1b came from areas to the south of the Caucasus and to the south of the Caspian Sea (perhaps not Anatolia but something farther to the east - like the Armenian Plateau or Iran).

They clinge to this even though there is no evidence that CHG / Teal admixture brought any new Y-DNA lineages to the steppe. Quite the contrary, we have EHG hunters with both R1b and R1a, but without CHG/Teal, suggesting that it was mediated later mostly through females.

It seems that R1* (evidence from Baalberge), R1a and R1b co-existed in roughly the same region of Eurasia before expanding as PIEs.

But one problem is where and how did R1b-V88 (which was in Neolithic Iberia) diverge from the line leading to R1b-M269.

Kale
01-26-2016, 07:49 PM
There is nothing unusual about a single R1* (xR1b1a2, xR1a1a) showing up in LN Germany. It could be either
1) Early incursion from Steppe as some suggest
2) Neolithic R1b1c
3) EHG ancestry which trickled west from Russia sometime in the mesolithic.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 07:51 PM
How can R1* be R1b1c ??? R1* is R1, neither a nor b.

I guess it could be called R1c, if you prefer. ;)

R.Rocca
01-26-2016, 08:13 PM
According to M. Gimbutas, "The First Wave of Eurasian Steppe Pastoralists into Copper Age Europe" (page 299), 1977, Baalberge culture (as well as Globular Amphora culture) show signs of the earliest incursion of Proto-Indo-Europeans into Central Europe.

And what do we find in Baalberge culture? A sample of R1* haplogroup (which is neither R1a nor R1b). A coincidence ???

But according to Jean M, "this may represent ancient DNA damage, so the assignment should be viewed with caution" (why ???).

What exactly indicates that this may represent ancient DNA damage ???

The authors stated as such:
"This may represent ancient DNA damage, so the assignment should be viewed with caution."

Megalophias
01-26-2016, 08:32 PM
How can R1* be R1b1c ??? R1* is R1, neither a nor b.

I guess it could be called R1c, if you prefer. ;)

The * means "didn't belong to any branch we tested it for". It's context-dependent. If you just write R1*, that implies it was tested for both R1a and R1b. However, this is R1*(xR1a1a, R1b1a2), which means it was positive for R1, negative for R1a1a and R1b1a2, and other than that we don't know. All of the pre-Yamnaya R1 from Europe - from Samara, Karelia, and Spain - is R1(xR1a1a, R1b1a2), so as Kale says this is nothing remarkable.

The split between V88 and L389 (the ancestor to M269, M478, and other things) happened around 17 000 years ago according to Y-Full. In the absence of aDNA from pretty much anywhere else relevant it would be premature to assume Eastern Europe is where the deep R1 splits occurred.

Tomenable
01-26-2016, 08:47 PM
Someone should test that Baalberge guy for R1b-V88 then.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-26-2016, 08:50 PM
I'm not sure if so many clinge to Anatolia in particular as the PIE urheimat, but many claim that R1b came from areas to the south of the Caucasus and to the south of the Caspian Sea (perhaps not Anatolia but something farther to the east - like the Armenian Plateau or Iran).

They clinge to this even though there is no evidence that CHG / Teal admixture brought any new Y-DNA lineages to the steppe. Quite the contrary, we have EHG hunters with both R1b and R1a, but without CHG/Teal, suggesting that it was mediated later mostly through females.

It seems that R1* (evidence from Baalberge), R1a and R1b co-existed in roughly the same region of Eurasia before expanding as PIEs.

But one problem is where and how did R1b-V88 (which was in Neolithic Iberia) diverge from the line leading to R1b-M269.

I think it is offered that some V88 groups "drifted south" to become entangled in Neolithic movements, although possible, I find this less likely than some R1b having already existed south of the steppe during the Mesolithic. As has been discussed elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5864-Pottery-the-LGM-refuge-of-R-and-Mesolithic-R1b-cross-Caspian-theory), R1b possibly came from the Altai in the LGM. It spread west to the steppe but also west-central Asia, plus these areas had ongoing contact during the spread of microblade techniques, etc.

But I very much agree that M269 expanded from north of the caucuses possibly form Majkop culture or the group of Don-Kuban kurgans which appear to be the most well endowed with 1 in 4 barrows containing a wagon in their accompaniments . (But it could also have spread with Repin- as archaeology would have this group expanding into the Volga Volga-samara region after the collapse of the Khvalynsk culture). CHG could have had a long presence in the north Caucasus region, even before the Neolithic. However one has to be wary of the idea that archaeologists believe that was a replacement arm of earlier Mesolithic groups during the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya).

Given that micro blades technology reached all the way to the North Sea you littoral, I would not be surprised if there were the odd R1-something people reaching as far as Germany before or during the neolithic

I also think it possible some Z2103 and xL23 groups reached the balkans through Anatolia via a clockwise movement

Megalophias
01-26-2016, 08:54 PM
They tested him for V88 and all kinds of other things, he was very low coverage so it was mostly no calls.

northkerry
01-26-2016, 09:15 PM
I think it is offered that some V88 groups "drifted south" to become entangled in Neolithic movements, although possible, I find this less likely than some R1b having already existed south of the steppe during the Mesolithic. As has been discussed elsewhere (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5864-Pottery-the-LGM-refuge-of-R-and-Mesolithic-R1b-cross-Caspian-theory), R1b possibly came from the Altai in the LGM. It spread west to the steppe but also west-central Asia, plus these areas had ongoing contact during the spread of microblade techniques, etc.

But I very much agree that M269 expanded from north of the caucuses possibly form Majkop culture or the group of Don-Kuban kurgans which appear to be the most well endowed with 1 in 4 barrows containing a wagon in their accompaniments . (But it could also have spread with Repin- as archaeology would have this group expanding into the Volga Volga-samara region after the collapse of the Khvalynsk culture). CHG could have had a long presence in the north Caucasus region, even before that you nearly sick. However one has to be wary of the idea that archaeologists believe that was a replacement arm of earlier Mesolithic groups during the Eneolithic (pre-Yamnaya).

Given that micro blades technology reached all the way to the North Sea you littoral, I would not be surprised if there were the odd our one something people reaching as far as Germany before or during the neolithic

I also think it possible some Z2103 and xL23 groups reached the balkans through Anatolia via a clockwise movement

M269 did not expand anywhere if you look at Yfull's M269 tree. There are 81 SNPs at the M269 level which suggests a major bottle neck between 240-400 generations. During this period the very easy to recognize R1b haplotype must have been established. That must be one of the reasons that I have nearly 1000 matches on my ydna ftdna matches page.

Gravetto-Danubian
01-26-2016, 10:58 PM
M269 did not expand anywhere if you look at Yfull's M269 tree. There are 81 SNPs at the M269 level which suggests a major bottle neck between 240-400 generations. During this period the very easy to recognize R1b haplotype must have been established. That must be one of the reasons that I have nearly 1000 matches on my ydna ftdna matches page.

I mean M269-derived groups expanded
But yes, the bottleneck between M297's formation c. 17 kya and that of M269 (6.5 kya) speaks of what I suggested- a major replacement event on the steppe during the Eneolithic. One group (M269) which acquired early productive economy and copper- working, replaced the rest (x P297 and P297, x M269) still essentially fisher-forager-hunters).

northkerry
01-26-2016, 11:25 PM
I mean M269-derived groups expanded
But yes, the bottleneck between M297's formation c. 17 kya and that of M269 (6.5 kya) speaks of what I suggested- a major replacement event on the steppe during the Eneolithic. One group (M269) which acquired early productive economy and copper- working, replaced the rest (x P297 and P297, x M269) still essentially fisher-forager-hunters).

I think that you mean L11 derived groups which seem to be absent today in the Steppe for some unknown reason.

rms2
01-27-2016, 03:07 AM
I think that you mean L11 derived groups which seem to be absent today in the Steppe for some unknown reason.

Could that reason be that they moved west, just as Yamnaya and Indo-European languages did? Funny thing: both L11 and Indo-European languages are now found in abundance in central and western Europe. How did that happen?

A big clue is that at least some L11 clades have been found in Bell Beaker, and Bell Beaker is likely the result of the combination of Vucedol and Yamnaya in the Carpathian basin in the 3rd millennium BC.

Are you still hoping to make U106 prehistoric in Ireland?

Gravetto-Danubian
01-27-2016, 03:43 AM
I think that you mean L11 derived groups which seem to be absent today in the Steppe for some unknown reason.

Well, I meant the Z2013 which are below M269 and have been found on the steppe (Don-Volga). So I was not making any definitive assertions about L11, although I can hardly fault the logic that L11 shan't be too far away when we get samples from Ukraine and the Carpathian regions.

lgmayka
01-27-2016, 04:52 AM
I think that you mean L11 derived groups which seem to be absent today in the Steppe for some unknown reason.
R-L11 and its progeny apparently began their expansion somewhat west of the Steppe itself. Rare ancient subclades of R-U106, R-U152, and R-DF27 are present in Ukraine. They have been swamped by more recent expansions, of course, but remnants remain.

northkerry
01-27-2016, 07:28 AM
R-L11 and its progeny apparently began their expansion somewhat west of the Steppe itself. Rare ancient subclades of R-U106, R-U152, and R-DF27 are present in Ukraine. They have been swamped by more recent expansions, of course, but remnants remain.

An L11 origin in the Ukraine is fine with me but why are the downstream branches not dominant there today like they are in western Europe? Are there any DF13 and L21 rare types in the Ukraine?

rms2
01-27-2016, 12:18 PM
An L11 origin in the Ukraine is fine with me but why are the downstream branches not dominant there today like they are in western Europe? Are there any DF13 and L21 rare types in the Ukraine?

Because L11 moved west with Yamnaya and Indo-European languages, taking steppe autosomal dna with it to add to the European mix, and there has been a lot of subsequent history on the steppe since that time, about five thousand years ago. Numerous peoples have washed over that region, and a lot of mixing and churning have occurred since the 3rd millennium BC.

Isidro
01-27-2016, 01:10 PM
I still see it as a fairy tale how a R1b-L51 , L11 or even P312 clan (although we are actually talking about one individual) came from a one set location and in a period of centuries had 3 sons strategically located where modern expansion shows them,in the western European mass and multiplied all within.
Many people dismiss evidence of modern patterns as founder effects and hence by default had to come from somewhere else, where is the logic on that reasoning?.We know for a fact now, with ancient DNA results that 6000 or 7000 years ago people were not purely static unmixed populations, they were already in the move for thousands of years, yet we see those limited ancient results as panacea and more relevant than modern pops, 500 or 1000 ancient DNA results from then, trump millions of results from today's populations and the ace on the sleeve is based on that their mutation is more up the tree than the drifted new ones...again fictional logic, also we should add how those ancient remains were selected across Eurasia, were the only remains available or were they pre-selected (ie kurgan remains for example) or early Neolithic European remains to find this Genghis Khan figure like many of us seem to emanate from?. and dismissed other possible evidence from nearby remains as non relevant to expected results?.

rms2
01-27-2016, 01:14 PM
So, how did steppe autosomal dna and Indo-European languages become so widespread in western Europe?

Isidro
01-27-2016, 01:16 PM
You mean steppe autosomal like DNA?. How about CHG for starters...

As far as languages, its a wasps nest... The Mediterranean regions were a Babelia of languages, nothing to do whatsoever with R1b by itself per se if I had to pick a dominant IE haplogroup would be more like J2 for example.

rms2
01-27-2016, 01:21 PM
You mean steppe autosomal like DNA?. How about CHG for starters...

No, I mean steppe autosomal dna, which is not 100% CHG.

And how did Indo-European languages become widespread in western Europe? Or do you think they are only "Indo-European-like" languages?

And why is R1b-L23 missing from before the Copper/Bronze Age in western Europe, while other y haplogroups, like G2a, abound in the ancient y-dna results?

Why is steppe autosomal dna also missing from before the Copper/Bronze Age in western Europe, while plenty of ENF and WHG have been found? Coincidence?

rms2
01-27-2016, 01:32 PM
. . .

As far as languages, its a wasps nest... The Mediterranean regions were a Babelia of languages, nothing to do whatsoever with R1b by itself per se if I had to pick a dominant IE haplogroup would be more like J2 for example.

Well, no J2 has been found in any early Indo-European or early Indo-European-derived culture thus far anywhere, but it has turned up in the Lengyel culture c. 5000 BC in Hungary. Lengyel was a Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer culture.

So, it isn't at all likely that Indo-European was spread primarily by J2 Indo-European tribesmen.

ArmandoR1b
01-27-2016, 01:38 PM
I still see it as a fairy tale how a R1b-L51 , L11 or even P312 clan (although we are actually talking about one individual) came from a one set location and in a period of centuries had 3 sons strategically located where modern expansion shows them,in the western European mass and multiplied all within.
The term "sons" is figurative and not literal. There is a new SNP about every 90-150 years, depending on who is right, and there are lots of phylogenetically equivalent SNPs for L21 that are probably that many years between each one. U152 and DF27 share another SNP besides P312. U152, DF27, and L21 also have other "brothers" such as DF99 and DF19 so it wasn't only 3 sons. On top of that we don't know that actual population of western Europe prior to their expansion and a Bronze Age plague (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/bronze-age-plague-wasnt-spread-fleas) along with herding, apart from farming, could have helped them expand and multiply. It's all perfectly plausible. Fairy tales aren't.


Many people dismiss evidence of modern patterns as founder effects and hence by default had to come from somewhere else, where is the logic on that reasoning?.We know for a fact now, with ancient DNA results that 6000 or 7000 years ago people were not purely static unmixed populations, they were already in the move for thousands of years, yet we see those limited ancient results as panacea and more relevant than modern pops, 500 or 1000 ancient DNA results from then, trump millions of results from today's populations and the ace on the sleeve is based on that their mutation is more up the tree than the drifted new ones...again fictional logic, also we should add how those ancient remains were selected across Eurasia, were the only remains available or were they pre-selected (ie kurgan remains for example) or early Neolithic European remains to find this Genghis Khan figure like many of us seem to emanate from?. and dismissed other possible evidence from nearby remains as non relevant to expected results?.
We know for a fact now, with ancient DNA results, that 6000 or 7000 years ago there were Mesolithic people and Neolithic people and they were very different from each other although they ended up mixing but there was yet another change in the Bronze Age that added a new component to the Mesolithic/Neolithic mix and with those changes there was new Y-DNA.

northkerry
01-27-2016, 01:43 PM
You mean steppe autosomal like DNA?. How about CHG for starters...

As far as languages, its a wasps nest... The Mediterranean regions were a Babelia of languages, nothing to do whatsoever with R1b by itself per se if I had to pick a dominant IE haplogroup would be more like J2 for example.

The Corded Ware are supposed to be 75% autosomal Yamnaya and 99% of them tested in western Europe so far belong to R1a, not R1b. If Yamnaya brought P312 from the Steppe then we should be finding a lot of them in the CWC.

rms2
01-27-2016, 01:48 PM
The Corded Ware are supposed to be 75% autosomal Yamnaya and 99% of them tested in western Europe so far belong to R1a, not R1b. If Yamnaya brought P312 from the Steppe then we should be finding a lot of them in the CWC.

Except that Corded Ware is a different culture from Yamnaya with a different distribution and history. It was located in the forest-steppe border north of Yamnaya and spread across the North European Plain.

Yamnaya remains thus far have been totally lacking in R1a and are almost exclusively R1b-L23 (although I think it likely that R1a will turn up in Yamnaya eventually).

If Yamnaya brought L51 (including whichever of its subclades were around at that time) from the steppe, it should be turning up in Yamnaya-derived cultures like Bell Beaker, not in non-Yamnaya-derived cultures like Corded Ware.

And - guess what? - L51 is turning up in Bell Beaker!

rms2
01-27-2016, 02:35 PM
Before the Copper/Bronze Age the following things are missing (in the record thus far, at least) from western Europe:

1. R1b-L23

2. Indo-European languages

3. steppe autosomal dna

Instead, other y haplogroups abound in western Europe in the pre-Copper/Bronze Age record, as do Neolithic farmer and western hunter-gatherer autosomal dna.

Then, with the arrival of the Copper/Bronze Age, R1b-L23 and steppe autosomal dna appear. We know that western Europe became Indo-European speaking somehow, and cultures linked by scholars to the spread of Indo-European, like Yamnaya and Bell Beaker, have produced R1b-L23 results.

This kind of evidence seems to me to be about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the face. One has to be willfully blind to miss it.

kinman
01-27-2016, 06:05 PM
I would definitely expect to find U106 men in Corded Ware, although outnumbered by the R1a men.
-------------Ken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If Yamnaya brought L51 (including whichever of its subclades were around at that time) from the steppe, it should be turning up in Yamnaya-derived cultures like Bell Beaker, not in non-Yamnaya-derived cultures like Corded Ware.

northkerry
01-27-2016, 06:23 PM
Except that Corded Ware is a different culture from Yamnaya with a different distribution and history. It was located in the forest-steppe border north of Yamnaya and spread across the North European Plain.

Yamnaya remains thus far have been totally lacking in R1a and are almost exclusively R1b-L23 (although I think it likely that R1a will turn up in Yamnaya eventually).

If Yamnaya brought L51 (including whichever of its subclades were around at that time) from the steppe, it should be turning up in Yamnaya-derived cultures like Bell Beaker, not in non-Yamnaya-derived cultures like Corded Ware.

And - guess what? - L51 is turning up in Bell Beaker!

Wikipedia
"Corded Ware encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Rhine River on the west, to the Volga River in the east, including most of modern-day Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, northwestern Romania, northern Ukraine, and the European part of Russia, as well as coastal Norway and the southern portions of Sweden and Finland. In the Late Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age, it encompassed the territory of nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula, where corded ware mixed with other steppe elements."

"According to J. P. Mallory the origins and dispersal of Corded Ware culture is one of the pivotal unresolved issues of the Indo-European Urheimat problem"

rms2
01-27-2016, 11:28 PM
Wikipedia
"Corded Ware encompassed most of continental northern Europe from the Rhine River on the west, to the Volga River in the east, including most of modern-day Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czech Republic, Slovakia, northwestern Romania, northern Ukraine, and the European part of Russia, as well as coastal Norway and the southern portions of Sweden and Finland. In the Late Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age, it encompassed the territory of nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula, where corded ware mixed with other steppe elements."

"According to J. P. Mallory the origins and dispersal of Corded Ware culture is one of the pivotal unresolved issues of the Indo-European Urheimat problem"

How does what you wrote contradict anything I said? Btw, citing Wikipedia without apologizing for doing it is kind of tacky. CW did not encompass "nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula", however. That is bogus information.

Corded Ware was a separate culture from Yamnaya and located to the north of it.

So, where do you think L51 came from? How do you think western Europe became Indo-European speaking and acquired its steppe autosomal dna?

Why is it that the British Isles has a fairly high level of steppe autosomal ancestry but was never penetrated by Corded Ware?

MitchellSince1893
01-28-2016, 12:13 AM
... Btw, citing Wikipedia without apologizing for doing it is kind of tacky.
Please tell me you are joking.

rms2
01-28-2016, 12:25 AM
Please tell me you are joking.

Only barely. If I cite Wikipedia, I generally do it while blushing, and I usually acknowledge that it's no substitute for more substantial sources.

I have seen warring Wikipedia pages, in which various "authors" battle to delete the work of those who disagree with them and put their own spin on things. I don't have a lot of faith in Wikipedia.

northkerry
01-28-2016, 08:31 AM
How does what you wrote contradict anything I said? Btw, citing Wikipedia without apologizing for doing it is kind of tacky. CW did not encompass "nearly the entire Balkan Peninsula", however. That is bogus information.

Corded Ware was a separate culture from Yamnaya and located to the north of it.

So, where do you think L51 came from? How do you think western Europe became Indo-European speaking and acquired its steppe autosomal dna?

Why is it that the British Isles has a fairly high level of steppe autosomal ancestry but was never penetrated by Corded Ware?

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/northern-europeans-as-children-of-the-corded-ware/
"In their talks, Haak and Krause each proposed that the late influx of these “ghost” Eurasians might be related to what’s known archaeologically as the Corded Ware culture of nomadic herders, who imprinted twisted cord or rope onto their pottery. These nomadic pastoralists herded their cattle east from the steppes north of the Black Sea and occupied large areas of northeast and central Europe by 2500 B.C.E."

Tomenable
01-28-2016, 11:35 AM
Iberian LGM Refuge = I and C, not R1b.

I think it should be obvious by now.

Romilius
01-28-2016, 11:51 AM
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/northern-europeans-as-children-of-the-corded-ware/
"In their talks, Haak and Krause each proposed that the late influx of these “ghost” Eurasians might be related to what’s known archaeologically as the Corded Ware culture of nomadic herders, who imprinted twisted cord or rope onto their pottery. These nomadic pastoralists herded their cattle east from the steppes north of the Black Sea and occupied large areas of northeast and central Europe by 2500 B.C.E."

So, let me understand: when it comes to link r1b with the spread from the steppe, Haak isn't taken in consideration...but when it comes to explain other things, yes. A sort of bizarre way of thinking.

rms2
01-28-2016, 02:56 PM
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/northern-europeans-as-children-of-the-corded-ware/
"In their talks, Haak and Krause each proposed that the late influx of these “ghost” Eurasians might be related to what’s known archaeologically as the Corded Ware culture of nomadic herders, who imprinted twisted cord or rope onto their pottery. These nomadic pastoralists herded their cattle east from the steppes north of the Black Sea and occupied large areas of northeast and central Europe by 2500 B.C.E."

Did you check the date of that article? 11 September 2014. Apparently Haak and Krause were speculating about the source of the steppe autosomal dna in modern Europeans and guessing it might be attributable to Corded Ware. There was a lot they did not know in September of 2014.

Then, in February of 2015, Haak et al released their groundbreaking paper, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433), with its R1b results in Yamnaya, in a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from a site on the Sok River near Samara in Russia, and in Bell Beaker in Germany, and things changed.



R1a and R1b are the most common haplogroups in many European populations today18,19, and our results suggest that they spread into Europe from the East after 3,000 BCE.


So, where do you think L51 came from? How do you think western Europe became Indo-European speaking and acquired its steppe autosomal dna?

If you think Corded Ware is responsible, how is it western Europe got so much steppe autosomal dna but so little y-haplogroup R1a? How did Corded Ware spread its steppe autosomal dna and Indo-European language to the British and Irish without ever setting foot in the British Isles and Ireland?

How is it steppe autosomal dna and Indo-European languages spread throughout western Europe without Corded Ware getting very far west of the Rhine? Osmosis?

R.Rocca
01-28-2016, 03:03 PM
The Corded Ware are supposed to be 75% autosomal Yamnaya and 99% of them tested in western Europe so far belong to R1a, not R1b. If Yamnaya brought P312 from the Steppe then we should be finding a lot of them in the CWC.

Yamnaya is 100% Yamnaya (Duh) and they are 95% R1b+, so just because the Y-DNA in Corded Ware isn't R1b, doesn't mean R1b isn't Yamnaya. The probability that two L23 lineages happened to burst out from two opposite ends of Europe at the same exact time after being isolated for thousands of years is zero.

Romilius
01-28-2016, 03:31 PM
Yamnaya is 100% Yamnaya (Duh) and they are 95% R1b+, so just because the Y-DNA in Corded Ware isn't R1b, doesn't mean R1b isn't Yamnaya. The probability that two L23 lineages happened to burst out from two opposite ends of Europe at the same exact time after being isolated for thousands of years is zero.

Of course... but the real question is why does a person put in doubt the connection between R1b and IE on the basis of Corded Ware DNA, when a more ancient and IE-connected culture - i.e. Yamna - is indeed R1b... perhaps something flees away from my ability of understanding.

I realize that sometimes we have people who stopped 15 years ago: R1b is in Europe for 10000 years, and, of course, it is vasconic... as if nothing except vasconic existed in Europe 10000 years ago.

rms2
01-28-2016, 03:40 PM
Of course... but the real question is why does a person put in doubt the connection between R1b and IE on the basis of Corded Ware DNA, when a more ancient and IE-connected culture - i.e. Yamna - is indeed R1b... perhaps something flees away from my ability of understanding.

I realize that sometimes we have people who stopped 15 years ago: R1b is in Europe for 10000 years, and, of course, it is vasconic... as if nothing except vasconic existed in Europe 10000 years ago.

That is why I titled this thread Die Hard 2016. ;)

Some cherished ideas and pet theories die hard. Some of them apparently even linger awhile after their hearts have ceased to beat.

northkerry
01-28-2016, 04:58 PM
Did you check the date of that article? 11 September 2014. Apparently Haak and Krause were speculating about the source of the steppe autosomal dna in modern Europeans and guessing it might be attributable to Corded Ware. There was a lot they did not know in September of 2014.

Then, in February of 2015, Haak et al released their groundbreaking paper, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433), with its R1b results in Yamnaya, in a Mesolithic hunter-gatherer from a site on the Sok River near Samara in Russia, and in Bell Beaker in Germany, and things changed.



So, where do you think L51 came from? How do you think western Europe became Indo-European speaking and acquired its steppe autosomal dna?

If you think Corded Ware is responsible, how is it western Europe got so much steppe autosomal dna but so little y-haplogroup R1a? How did Corded Ware spread its steppe autosomal dna and Indo-European language to the British and Irish without ever setting foot in the British Isles and Ireland?

How is it steppe autosomal dna and Indo-European languages spread throughout western Europe without Corded Ware getting very far west of the Rhine? Osmosis?

I don't know.

I did not write that the Corded Ware was responsible but where did the Corded Ware get their Yamanya dna and R1a ydna from?

Who said that R1a never made it to Ireland and Britain? They certainly made it to Germany.

rms2
01-28-2016, 05:50 PM
I don't know.

I did not write that the Corded Ware was responsible but where did the Corded Ware get their Yamanya dna and R1a ydna from?

Corded Ware obviously emerged from the same steppe milieu that Yamnaya did, but Corded Ware is NOT Yamnaya nor is there any evidence it was derived from Yamnaya. It's just a related and probably also Indo-European steppe people, just as R1a and R1b are both R1 and apparently derived from the same Eurasian milieu.



Who said that R1a never made it to Ireland and Britain? They certainly made it to Germany.

Archaeologists say Corded Ware did not make it to either Britain or Ireland nor very far west of the Rhine. Most of western Europe was not included in Corded Ware territory. This is common knowledge.

Bell Beaker, on the other hand, had a big impact throughout western Europe, especially in Britain and Ireland, and was likely derived from Yamnaya.

The following quote is from Marija Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess, page 401:



4. The warlike and horse-riding Bell Beaker people of the middle and second half of the third millennium B.C., who diffused over western Europe, are likely to have originated from an amalgam of remnants of the Vucedol people with the Yamna colonists (after Wave No. 3) in Yugoslavia and Hungary. Their parent culture is called Vinkovci-Samogyvar. This was the largest and last outmigration, from east-central Europe into western Europe, up to the west Mediterranean and the British Isles, before the onset of a more stable period, and the formation of Bronze Age cultural units.


7526

northkerry
01-28-2016, 07:37 PM
Corded Ware obviously emerged from the same steppe milieu that Yamnaya did, but Corded Ware is NOT Yamnaya nor is there any evidence it was derived from Yamnaya. It's just a related and probably also Indo-European steppe people, just as R1a and R1b are both R1 and apparently derived from the same Eurasian milieu.



Archaeologists say Corded Ware did not make it to either Britain or Ireland nor very far west of the Rhine. Most of western Europe was not included in Corded Ware territory. This is common knowledge.

Bell Beaker, on the other hand, had a big impact throughout western Europe, especially in Britain and Ireland, and was likely derived from Yamnaya.

The following quote is from Marija Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess, page 401:



7526

You are showing a lot of passion for the Celts. Where did your ydna branch originate? I have a friend named O'Reilly who is L513+ and he is disappointed that he is not descended from the Vikings!!!He is 100% Isles autosomal. I might be able to persuade him to take the Big Y some time in the future.

rms2
01-28-2016, 08:22 PM
You are showing a lot of passion for the Celts. Where did your ydna branch originate? I have a friend named O'Reilly who is L513+ and he is disappointed that he is not descended from the Vikings!!!He is 100% Isles autosomal. I might be able to persuade him to take the Big Y some time in the future.

Actually, I don't recall mentioning the Celts in this thread, although I might have. As far as I know, my y-dna line originated in mid Wales, but I am basing that on close 111 and 67 marker matches who have paper trails that are better than mine and on a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Speaking of the surname O'Reilly, I have a neighbor who lives across the street from me whose surname is Reilly, and he says it was originally O'Reilly when his immigrant ancestors brought it over from Ireland. He just helped me shovel the snow out of my driveway a couple of days ago. I spoke with him about getting a y-dna test from FTDNA, but I'm not sure he will.

David Mc
02-19-2016, 11:54 PM
Bell Beaker origins in Iberia has been around for quite some time, long before Jean Manco's stelae theory supported it... On another related topic, I believe R* may have been in Europe quite early because of the similarity of Venus figurines found between only one region of far flung Siberia and the figurines are mostly found in Europe and nowhere else... Soooo, maybe Mal'ta boy's family came from Malta!

On Siberian "Venus figurines," it appears there is no relation at all. In fact the Siberian figurines represent a mixture of men and women of different ages wearing different types of clothing. For more on this, see:

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/features/f0213-world-famous-ancient-siberian-venus-figurines-are-not-venuses-after-all/

Chad Rohlfsen
02-21-2016, 12:02 AM
Yes, Mal'ta-Buret is in NO way related to the Gravettian culture. That's been known for many years.

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:07 PM
I know. I always like throwing in red herrings into these discussions. :)

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:10 PM
Iberian LGM Refuge = I and C, not R1b.

I think it should be obvious by now.

How so? I was nowhere near Iberia before the LGM. A, C, F, and G are better candidates.

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:22 PM
Only barely. If I cite Wikipedia, I generally do it while blushing, and I usually acknowledge that it's no substitute for more substantial sources.

I have seen warring Wikipedia pages, in which various "authors" battle to delete the work of those who disagree with them and put their own spin on things. I don't have a lot of faith in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a great place as a baseline for gathering research information as most articles are reviewed and monitored by a community that enforces a standard. However, Wikipedia should NOT be a primary source of information. Nobody should feel embarrassed by using Wikipedia, but they should dig a bit more and access the references links (if they are posted) to scholarly articles. Google Scholar works great too!

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:23 PM
Except that Corded Ware is a different culture from Yamnaya with a different distribution and history. It was located in the forest-steppe border north of Yamnaya and spread across the North European Plain.

Yamnaya remains thus far have been totally lacking in R1a and are almost exclusively R1b-L23 (although I think it likely that R1a will turn up in Yamnaya eventually).

If Yamnaya brought L51 (including whichever of its subclades were around at that time) from the steppe, it should be turning up in Yamnaya-derived cultures like Bell Beaker, not in non-Yamnaya-derived cultures like Corded Ware.

And - guess what? - L51 is turning up in Bell Beaker!

How did they (L51) get inside the Bell Beaker?

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:29 PM
The samples in Y-Full are from Francalacci 2013. He gives that lineage a blue dot in the tree above, indicating private Sardinian clusters with an average number of SNPs in the range 7-12. Though not specifically mentioned in the text, he places other lineages with a private Sardinian variability of 7 to 10 SNPs as arriving in more recent times than the Nuragic, up to the historic period corresponding to Roman and Vandalic dominations. Personally, I'd have a guess at someone manning a Greek ship from the Black Sea for this R1a, but who knows.

Could be a pirate!

Arch
03-01-2016, 12:32 PM
Of course... but the real question is why does a person put in doubt the connection between R1b and IE on the basis of Corded Ware DNA, when a more ancient and IE-connected culture - i.e. Yamna - is indeed R1b... perhaps something flees away from my ability of understanding.

I realize that sometimes we have people who stopped 15 years ago: R1b is in Europe for 10000 years, and, of course, it is vasconic... as if nothing except vasconic existed in Europe 10000 years ago.

The more they know, the less they understand.

Romilius
03-01-2016, 07:05 PM
The more they know, the less they understand.

Said the man who didn't understand that the rock hit him...

rms2
03-01-2016, 07:12 PM
How did they (L51) get inside the Bell Beaker?

The post you quoted had the answer to that question in it:



. . . If Yamnaya brought L51 (including whichever of its subclades were around at that time) from the steppe, it should be turning up in Yamnaya-derived cultures like Bell Beaker, not in non-Yamnaya-derived cultures like Corded Ware.

And - guess what? - L51 is turning up in Bell Beaker!

What I believe is that R1b-L51 got into Bell Beaker via Yamnaya, since Bell Beaker was the combination of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

Tomenable
03-02-2016, 02:19 AM
As for Yamna ancestry in Corded Ware, but lack of R1a in Yamna.

The author of this short new paper (12 pages long) thinks that R1a will be found in Ukrainian Yamna:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3978-When-are-we-to-expect-the-next-round-of-ancient-y-dna-results&p=143348&viewfull=1#post143348

So far all Yamna samples are from Russia. You probably expect R1b-L51 in Ukrainian part, rms2 ???

rms2
03-02-2016, 02:21 AM
As for Yamna ancestry in Corded Ware, but lack of R1a in Yamna.

The author of this short new paper (12 pages long) thinks that R1a will be found in Ukrainian Yamna:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3978-When-are-we-to-expect-the-next-round-of-ancient-y-dna-results&p=143348&viewfull=1#post143348

So far all Yamna samples are from Russia. You probably expect R1b-L51 in Ukrainian part, rms2 ???

I expect it in western Yamnaya, so probably in what is now Ukraine and certainly in Yamnaya in Hungary.

Tomenable
03-02-2016, 02:35 AM
I'm not sure how correct are admixture calculations by Tolan from this thread:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6197-Possible-fertile-crescent-admixture-in-South-Europe&p=132943&viewfull=1#post132943

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6197-Possible-fertile-crescent-admixture-in-South-Europe&p=132997&viewfull=1#post132997

But if he is right, then Yamna admixtures in Bell Beaker and CW are different.

Here my visualization of what Tolan wrote in the thread linked above:

http://s21.postimg.org/tzfyhpc53/image.png

http://s10.postimg.org/6aw8mtjt5/image.png

Tomenable
03-02-2016, 02:40 AM
Also, according to Tolan, Yamna was not just a two-way mix of EHG and CHG admixtures.

It had also some WHG admixture (which probably explains the presence of one sample of I2a2a).

And here there are differences as well - Bell Beaker's Yamna-derived portion was more WHG:


In this calculator, CW over that BB in CHG, which is normal because it probably has more people of the Steppes in his genome.
But my work shows that, in fact, the part of Yamnaya in CW is higher with CHG than in the part of Yamnaya of BB.

If one takes only the part of Yamnaya in CW (59.7%) and BB (41.7%):

CHG: 43 vs. 36
WHG: 9 vs 15
EHG: 40 vs. 44

Tomenable
03-02-2016, 02:54 AM
Corded Ware's Yamna portion was richer in CHG, on the other hand.

According to a Polish blogger (and scholar AFAIK) nick-named Kmat / Kmsmat, CHG people originated in Ukraine - in the Crimean Refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum - and later migrated south-east to what is now Georgia (Georgia itself was uninhabited during the LGM).

If CHG originated in Southern Ukraine during the LGM (Crimean Refugium), and if Corded Ware's Yamna admixture was relatively high in CHG, then it would make sense that Corded Ware Steppe admixture originated from those Yamna groups which had lived in Southern Ukraine.

Kmat's blog (in Polish): http://sloncepodkarpacia.blox.pl/html

It is mostly about anthropology, ethnography, politics and other things, not really about genetics.

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

As for the origins of CHG autosomal signature during the LGM:

1) Georgia was uninhabited in the LGM - so they could not be there (they came there after the LGM),

2) Crimean Refugium is a very good fit for them, but not the only one - there is one more good option,

3) Another possibility is that they survived the LGM in Northern Iran, at the Caspian Sea coast:

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

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

I've started a thread about this:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6570-Who-lived-during-the-LGM-in-Crimean-Refugium&p=143364#post143364

rms2
03-02-2016, 08:35 PM
Corded Ware was a separate culture from Yamnaya, not derived from Yamnaya, but part of the same steppe milieu that created Yamnaya, so very similar in many respects.

Bell Beaker was derived from westernmost Yamnaya, so naturally it was somewhat different from what we have seen of Yamnaya so far, since all of our Yamnaya results so far have been from eastern Yamnaya. I think when we finally get some western Yamnaya, we will see that it not only has R1b-L51 in it, but also that Bell Beaker has a greater autosomal resemblance to it than Bell Beaker has to eastern Yamnaya. In other words, Bell Beaker has a substantial Yamnaya_Samara component right now. It will have an even bigger Yamnaya_Carpathian Basin component.

Chad Rohlfsen
03-02-2016, 09:44 PM
Corded Ware's Yamna portion was richer in CHG, on the other hand.

According to a Polish blogger (and scholar AFAIK) nick-named Kmat / Kmsmat, CHG people originated in Ukraine - in the Crimean Refugium during the Last Glacial Maximum - and later migrated south-east to what is now Georgia (Georgia itself was uninhabited during the LGM).

If CHG originated in Southern Ukraine during the LGM (Crimean Refugium), and if Corded Ware's Yamna admixture was relatively high in CHG, then it would make sense that Corded Ware Steppe admixture originated from those Yamna groups which had lived in Southern Ukraine.

Kmat's blog (in Polish): http://sloncepodkarpacia.blox.pl/html

It is mostly about anthropology, ethnography, politics and other things, not really about genetics.

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

As for the origins of CHG autosomal signature during the LGM:

1) Georgia was uninhabited in the LGM - so they could not be there (they came there after the LGM),

2) Crimean Refugium is a very good fit for them, but not the only one - there is one more good option,

3) Another possibility is that they survived the LGM in Northern Iran, at the Caspian Sea coast:

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

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

I've started a thread about this:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6570-Who-lived-during-the-LGM-in-Crimean-Refugium&p=143364#post143364

CHG is as Basal as Anatolians. It's not from North of the Caucasus. If it were, we would see it in EHG and Motala. CHG originates and stayed south of the Caucasus until the Chalcolithic.

The simple tree with that 25kyo date assumes it to come from the same branch as Anatolians and WHG. This is just bogus as Anatolians and CHG are basal admixed and aren't WHG underneath that. Even the hunter in LBK can't be modeled as much more than 50% Loschbour. There is another hunter inside EEF and a different hunter than that in CHG. It is the Basal Eurasian that keeps Anatolians and CHG closely related. Please don't ignore data and make wild speculation.

Tomenable
03-04-2016, 01:21 AM
It is the Basal Eurasian that keeps Anatolians and CHG closely related.

Yes I have heard about this Basal Eurasian in both ENF and CHG, but lacking from WHG and EHG.

However, according to FireHaired / Krefter, CHG were not significantly more closely related to Anatolian ENF, than to Loschbour WHG:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31947-Post-Formal-States-Here!!?p=475250&viewfull=1#post475250


(...) Davidski did all of these D-stats for me to test if EEF, CHG, and modern West Asians have common ancient West Asian ancestry: West Asian Kinship. It confirms that Anatolia_Neolithic and CHG are closer to modern West Asians than to Loschbour. It also shows that CHG and EEF aren't significantly closer to each other than to Loschbour. (...)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-04-2016, 01:27 AM
Yes I have heard about this Basal Eurasian in both ENF and CHG, but lacking from WHG and EHG.

However, according to FireHaired / Krefter, CHG were not significantly more closely related to Anatolian ENF, than to Loschbour WHG:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31947-Post-Formal-States-Here!!?p=475250&viewfull=1#post475250

iirc, the stats are showing as Chad suggested: CHG is BE + some kind of ANE, although id like some peer-reviewed perspectives

J Man
03-04-2016, 01:59 AM
CHG is as Basal as Anatolians. It's not from North of the Caucasus. If it were, we would see it in EHG and Motala. CHG originates and stayed south of the Caucasus until the Chalcolithic.

The simple tree with that 25kyo date assumes it to come from the same branch as Anatolians and WHG. This is just bogus as Anatolians and CHG are basal admixed and aren't WHG underneath that. Even the hunter in LBK can't be modeled as much more than 50% Loschbour. There is another hunter inside EEF and a different hunter than that in CHG. It is the Basal Eurasian that keeps Anatolians and CHG closely related. Please don't ignore data and make wild speculation.

How can CHG have stayed south of the Caucasus until the Chalcolithic if it was present in the Caucasus during the late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic as proved by Jones? Do you actually mean that it was present in the Caucasus and areas south of the Caucasus and did not spread north out of the Caucasus into the southern European steppe until the Chalcolithic?

Generalissimo
03-04-2016, 03:18 AM
I suspect CHG was present in the Northern Caucasus since the Mesolithic, and had intermittent contact with EHG. But it almost certainly did not penetrate deep into the steppe until the early Chalcolithic, when mobility on the steppe increased and trade networks linking the Ural steppes to both the Caucasus and Balkans sprung up.

CHG in Crimea during the Ice Age is a fantasy.

Tomenable
03-04-2016, 08:00 AM
So maybe some EHG lived in Crimean Refuge? Or some proto-EHG still without ANE admixture?

A.D.
03-04-2016, 04:48 PM
Just found this http://tinyurl.com/hwe8dfa on Corded ware and Yamnaya. There is also this link given 'Revised estimates of Yamnaya-related ancestry in West Eurasia' but I can't get on to it. Is the first one out of date now?

Arch
03-05-2016, 09:31 AM
Said the man who didn't understand that the rock hit him...

:boxing:

Arch
03-05-2016, 09:37 AM
That is why I titled this thread Die Hard 2016. ;)

Some cherished ideas and pet theories die hard. Some of them apparently even linger awhile after their hearts have ceased to beat.

I will laugh when some new evidence throws a monkey wrench into the latest existent theories; it's bound to happen.

Arch
03-05-2016, 09:46 AM
The post you quoted had the answer to that question in it:



What I believe is that R1b-L51 got into Bell Beaker via Yamnaya, since Bell Beaker was the combination of Yamnaya and Vucedol.

I don't think it's that simple of a transition and there must be a great deal more complexity with the intermingling of y-DNA sources between the Yamnaya regions towards and beyond the Carpathian mountain range. R1b-L51 may have a propensity for being found in Bell Beaker but this very well could have been a cultural transmission of ideas rather than originators. I still keep finding articles about the Bell Beaker origins in Iberia and so far not a shred of evidence has successfully disputed the discoveries of such research. I have my doubts that Yamnaya is related to Bell Beaker in any way shape or form and so R1b-L51 may not necessarily be the beaker people we're looking for.

Tomenable
03-05-2016, 11:27 AM
Corded Ware was a separate culture from Yamnaya, not derived from Yamnaya, but part of the same steppe milieu that created Yamnaya, so very similar in many respects.

So when did those autosomally identical ancestors of Corded Ware split from ancestors of Yamnaya? Because Khvalynsk samples were still autosomally unlike Yamnaya (25% CHG instead of 50%), so it had to be later. Had CW split at the Khvalynsk stage, we would have been observing CW being autosomally Khvalynsk-like, not Yamnaya-like as it is the case. Khvalynsk Y-DNA and autosomal DNA was discussed here:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3179-aDNA-from-Early-Bronze-Age-Cultures-of-the-North-Pontic-Steppe&p=77928&viewfull=1#post77928

Now we already have Y-DNA from Khvalynsk - both R1b and R1a, but neither M269 nor M198.

rms2
03-05-2016, 02:58 PM
Obviously Corded Ware and Yamnaya were related peoples, but there is no evidence that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya or vice versa.

I really don't accept the premise of your line of questioning above. Why would the entire steppe population have to be exactly like Khvalynsk to make it the bellwether for dating splits or population movements? All that is necessary is for CW and Yamnaya to have emerged from similar steppe populations; it is not necessary that we force one to be derived from the other or for either or both to be derived from Khvalynsk.

rms2
03-05-2016, 03:08 PM
I don't think it's that simple of a transition and there must be a great deal more complexity with the intermingling of y-DNA sources between the Yamnaya regions towards and beyond the Carpathian mountain range. R1b-L51 may have a propensity for being found in Bell Beaker but this very well could have been a cultural transmission of ideas rather than originators. I still keep finding articles about the Bell Beaker origins in Iberia and so far not a shred of evidence has successfully disputed the discoveries of such research. I have my doubts that Yamnaya is related to Bell Beaker in any way shape or form and so R1b-L51 may not necessarily be the beaker people we're looking for.

So far that incredible complexity and supposed intermingling of sources have been pretty incredibly monolithic: no non-R1 in Bell Beaker (probably all of it R1b - most of it certainly is) and only one non-R1b in all of the numerous Yamnaya results.

The Beaker pot may have originated in Iberia, but R1b-L51 certainly did not, nor did most of the rest of what characterizes the Bell Beaker culture.

The following is from Marija Gimbutas' book, The Civilization of the Goddess, pp. 390-391:



The Bell Beaker culture of western Europe which diffused between 2500 and 2100 B.C. between central Europe, the British Isles, and the Iberian Peninsula, could not have arisen in a vacuum. The mobile horse-riding and warrior people who buried their dead in Yamna type kurgans certainly could not have developed out of any west European culture. We must ask what sort of ecology and ideology created these people, and where are the roots of the specific Bell Beaker equipment and their burial rites. In my view, the Bell Beaker cultural elements derive from Vucedol and Kurgan (Late Yamna) traditions.

The specific correspondence between the Yamna, Late Vucedol, and Bell Beaker complexes is visible in burial rites which include grave pits under round barrows, the coexistence of cremation and inhumation rites, and the construction of mortuary houses. (FIGURE 10-38) In armaments we see tanged or riveted triangular daggers made of arsenic copper, spear points of arsenic copper and flint, concave-based or tanged triangular arrowheads of flint, and arrow straighteners. In ornaments there are necklaces of canine teeth, copper tubes, or bird bones; boar tusks; and crescent-shaped pendants resembling breast plates. In solar symbolism we find sun or star motifs excised and white encrusted on the inside of braziers, or incised on bone or amber button-shaped beads. Techniques of ceramic decoration include stamping or gouging in zoned metopes, encrustation with white paste of delicate geometric motifs, zigzags, dashes, nets, lozenges, and dots or circles (a Baden-Kostolac-Vucedol tradition). Certain ceramic forms placed in graves, such as braziers and beakers, are from the Kurgan tradition. The Bell Beaker people, wherever they spread, continued the traditional ceramic art connected with their faith. Only the ritual importance of their uniquely beautiful stereotyped beakers could have motivated their production for hundreds of years in lands far from the homeland. The correspondences linking the Bell Beaker and Yamna with the Vucedol - in armament, costume, funeral rites, beliefs in life after death, and in symbolism - are precisely the most significant and revealing. It is very likely that the Bell Beaker complex is an amalgam of Vucedol and Yamna traditions formed after the incursion of the Yamna people into the milieu of the Vucedol culture, i.e., in the course of 300 to 400 years after 3000-2900 B.C.

Tomenable
03-05-2016, 03:26 PM
I really don't accept the premise of your line of questioning above. Why would the entire steppe population have to be exactly like Khvalynsk to make it the bellwether for dating splits or population movements? All that is necessary is for CW and Yamnaya to have emerged from similar steppe populations; it is not necessary that we force one to be derived from the other or for either or both to be derived from Khvalynsk.

We have observed a consistent and progressive increase of CHG admixture in Steppe samples over time, from Mesolithic to Eneolithic. Are you saying that there could be groups with very different levels of CHG living in the Steppe, close to each other, at the same time? We need to figure out where did CHG come from, and why the increase of CHG was - apparently - not accompanied by some influx of new Y-DNA haplogroups.

Tomenable
03-05-2016, 03:29 PM
All that is necessary is for CW and Yamnaya to have emerged from similar steppe populations

And which "similar populations" were those? Name an archaeological culture.

rms2
03-05-2016, 03:35 PM
And which "similar populations" were those? Name an archaeological culture.

Why bother? You show first how CW was derived from Yamnaya. What archaeologist has ever said that?

I don't doubt that R1a will show up in Yamnaya eventually, just as R1b-L51 will, but I don't think CW was derived from Yamnaya.

Tomenable
03-05-2016, 04:11 PM
What archaeologist has ever said that?

I have seen many theories about CW origins. For example some old theories claimed that it was a fusion of Funnelbeaker and Trypillian.

But how do we reconcile such claims with Corded Ware DNA. They did have some EEF and WHG admixtures, but very small amounts.

The oldest evidence of a wheeled vehicle comes from Poland, but slightly predates Corded Ware (it is dated to Funnelbeaker period):

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

rms2
03-05-2016, 07:31 PM
I have seen many theories about CW origins. For example some old theories claimed that it was a fusion of Funnelbeaker and Trypillian.

But how do we reconcile such claims with Corded Ware DNA. They did have some EEF and WHG admixtures, but very small amounts.

The oldest evidence of a wheeled vehicle comes from Poland, but slightly predates Corded Ware (it is dated to Funnelbeaker period):

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

Right now we don't need to reconcile those claims with CW dna, just the idea that CW came from Yamnaya. I have never seen any evidence to that effect. Having a sizable Yamnaya-like autosomal component is not the same thing as being derived from Yamnaya, it just means sharing a common source population in the steppe.

rms2
03-05-2016, 10:32 PM
From James Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p. 246:



. . . [T]here is no real case for an expansion of Yamnaya invaders across the North European Plain, producing the Corded Ware horizon. Intrusive steppe burials as we previously encountered in Southeast Europe are generally absent from the Corded Ware region, and on what little anthropological data we possess, there is no reason whatsoever to associate the Corded Ware populations, themselves quite heterogeneous, with the physical type which we encounter on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. All of this indicates that any attempt to relate the two territories takes a different form from that which we employed in the Balkans.

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 12:19 AM
From James Mallory's book, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p. 246:
You can't say 2 opposite things.

The fact that there is a change in the genetic pool around 3000 BC, between Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware, means a migration from the steppe from a Yamna like population.

Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture.

Also, the time table (we speak of probably less than 200 years) means that the change was fast, brutal. It's possible that the plague was a cause of this brutal change (or not).

Anyway, the migration from the steppes was big enough to change the face of European population.

rms2
03-06-2016, 12:45 AM
You can't say 2 opposite things.

The fact that there is a change in the genetic pool around 3000 BC, between Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware, means a migration from the steppe from a Yamna like population.

Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture.

Also, the time table (we speak of probably less than 200 years) means that the change was fast, brutal. It's possible that the plague was a cause of this brutal change (or not).

Anyway, the migration from the steppes was big enough to change the face of European population.

What two opposite things? Yamnaya is an identifiable cultural horizon. Corded Ware is an identifiable cultural horizon. There is no indication that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya. Read the quote from Mallory above (which I could have extended, because he goes on at length about this issue).

So they were not the same culture.

I already said they were drawn from the same steppe milieu, but they were not the same culture, and apparently the y-dna profiles were different, since R1a seems to predominate in Corded Ware, and R1b seems to predominate in Yamnaya.

Corded Ware came across or at least inhabited the North European Plain, and Yamnaya came up the Danube Valley from the southeast and moved northwest. Different cultures, different paths.

I have yet to find even one archaeologist who claims that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya. Perhaps you can find one.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-06-2016, 01:24 AM
You can't say 2 opposite things.

The fact that there is a change in the genetic pool around 3000 BC, between Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware, means a migration from the steppe from a Yamna like population.

Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture.

Also, the time table (we speak of probably less than 200 years) means that the change was fast, brutal. It's possible that the plague was a cause of this brutal change (or not).

Anyway, the migration from the steppes was big enough to change the face of European population.

This isn't quite correct, for several reasons.

CWC and Yamnaya are two clearly different cultures - even if some aspects speak of a similar ideological image. But the earliest context of CWC is from Poland- Kuyavia 2800 BC as a fully fledged entity - so it is difficult to place it at the door of Yamnaya.



Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture

As above, no one who actually knows what they are talking about has ever called CWC the same as Yamnaya. But the point to resolve is that CWC and Yamnaya do indeed show close similarity. But this needn't straight -jacket us to a single point on the steppe. Just like "WHG' was found all over Mesolithic Europe - in hunters using different tools/ 'cultures' - the same could be true for EHG and its later CHG addition.

If one looks at the Neolithic period in eastern Europe, there are two distinct influences notable. The LBK (# 5 Black) - classical Balkano-Danubian farmers, and an 'eastern Neolithc' tradition defined as the use of pottery in essentially still Mesolithic economy. Whilst it might have local roots, pottery technology might have come from the east, possibly the southeast (central Asia). But the main point is that this 'eastern Neolithic' stretched all the way to the forest-steppe (6 in grey) Baltic (10 in grey) and the northeastern fringes of the Balkans (# 4 in grey) , and did not simply stop at the Dnieper steppe. So I wouldn't be too horrified to learn that CWC -R1a M417 expanded from some more northern forest-steppe group otherwise removed from the steppe proper, dovetailing by the lower levels of EEF in CWC.

8054


Anyway, the migration from the steppes was big enough to change the face of European population.

Proper clarification of the source-s of this population shifts still require elucidation - but we should know by year's end ;)

Tomenable
03-06-2016, 02:29 AM
Proper clarification of the sources of this population shifts still require elucidation.

In this context it might be good to briefly summarize which places have been proposed as the PIE homeland in the past.

An overview of PIE homelands from 1653 to 2015:

Author / year / suggested PIE homeland:

M. Z. van Boxhorn 1653 - Eurasian Steppe - "Scythia"
W. Jones 1786 - Iranian Plateau
F. von Schlegel 1808 - Indian subcontinent
J. Schmidt 1890 - Asia Minor (Anatolia)
O. Schrader 1890 - Eurasian Steppe
Kossina 1902 - North European Plain
H. Hirt 1905 - North European Plain
V. G. Childe 1925-26 - South Russian Steppe (1950: change of mind - Anatolia)
A. H. Sayce 1927 - Anatolia
L. Dhar 1930 - India ("Out of India"; today S. G. Talageri, K. Elst, N. Kazanas, T. Kivisild support it)
H. Kuehn 1932 - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (Aurignacian culture)
T. Sulimirski 1933 - Eurasian Steppe (as original homeland of Corded Ware ancestors)
W. Koppers 1934 - Western Turkestan
F. Schpecht 1936 - North European Plain
E. Mayer 1948 - North European Plain
A. Schmidt 1949 - from the East (outside of Europe)
J. Pokorny 1954 - North European Plain
A. Nehring 1954 - between the Caspian Sea and Caucasus, in South Dagestan
P. Thieme 1954 - North European Plain
H. Hencken 1955 - South-East Europe or Ukraine
W. Merlingen 1955 - South-East Europe (1976: change of mind, Sahara Desert as PIE homeland)
M. Gimbutas 1956-1970s - Steppe (Kurgan Hypothesis)
H. Krahe 1957 - Northern Europe
G. Schwantes 1958 - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory
V. Georgiev 1958 - Europe or Western Anatolia
P. Bosch-Gimpera 1961 - between South Poland or Czechoslovakia and the Black Sea
V. Illic-Svityc 1960s - Anatolia
G. Devoto 1962 - Europe
H. Łowmiański 1963 - Central Asian Steppe
I. R. Danka 1966 - Danube Basin
T. Milewski 1968 - North European Plain
W. Scherer 1968 - Central and Southern Russia
G. Ivanescu 1970 - steppe of Kazakhstan, Steppe north of Caucasus, or Forest-Steppe north of it
R. A. Crossland 1971 - Steppe North-West of Black Sea
W. P. Schmid 1978 - North-Eastern Europe
I. Djakonov 1982 - Balkan-Carpathian territory
L. Kilian 1983 - between Black Sea & North Sea
T. Gamkrelidze & V. Ivanov 1984 - Armenian Plateau
A. Martinet 1986 - Eurasian Steppe
V. Sheveroshkin 1987 - Eastern Anatolia
A. Dolgopolsky 1987 - Eastern Anatolia
C. Renfrew 1987 - Anatolia (1993-2003: Balkans; 2005: the Paleolithic Continuity Theory)
M. Zvelebil 1988 - between Black Sea & North Sea
W. Mańczak 1988 - Poland
Safronov 1989 - Balkan-Carpathian areas
F. Kortlandt 1985-1990 - North of Caspian Sea
D. W. Anthony 1991 - between Dnieper and Volga
G. Decsy 1991 - Northern Germany
Z. Gołąb 1992 - Asian Steppe (east of Ural)
M. Alinei 1996 - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory
J. Nichols 1997 - Bactria and Sogdiana (east of Caspian Sea, borderland of Afganistan-Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Tajikistan)
J. P. Mallory 1997 - Pontic-Caspian Steppe
V. Mair 1998 - the concept of "Linguistic Amoeba" ("Schprachamobe")
H. J. Holm 2000s - first split of PIE language into 2 languages was manifested in archaeology by division into CWC and Yamnaya
K. T. Witczak 2003 - Anatolia
R. Gray & Q. Atkinson 2003 - Anatolia
W. Haak 2015 - Eurasian Steppe
J.-P. Demoule 2015 - Indo-Europeans are the untraceable people that racist fantasies are obsessed with

Which theory is the best? Perhaps the oldest one, or the most recent one? :biggrin1:

Gravetto-Danubian
03-06-2016, 02:37 AM
In this context it might be good to briefly summarize which places have been proposed as the PIE homeland in the past.

An overview of PIE homelands from 1653 to 2015:

Author / year / suggested PIE homeland:

M. Z. van Boxhorn 1653 - Eurasian Steppe
W. Jones 1786 - Iran
F. von Schlegel 1808 - India
J. Schmidt 1890 - Anatolia
O. Schrader 1890 - Eurasian Steppe
Kossina 1902 - North European Plain
H. Hirt 1905 - North European Plain
V. G. Childe 1925-26 - South Russian Steppe (1950: change of mind - Anatolia)
A. H. Sayce 1927 - Anatolia
L. Dhar 1930 - India
H. Kuehn - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (Aurignacian culture)
T. Sulimirski 1933 - Eurasian Steppe (as original homeland of Corded Ware ancestors)
W. Koppers 1934 - Western Turkestan
F. Schpecht 1936 - North European Plain
E. Mayer 1948 - North European Plain
A. Schmidt 1949 - from the East (outside of Europe)
J. Pokorny 1954 - North European Plain
A. Nehring 1954 - between Caspian Sea and Caucasus, South Dagestan
P. Thieme 1954 - North European Plain
H. Hencken 1955 - South-East Europe or Ukraine
W. Merlingen 1955 - South-East Europe (1976: change of mind, Sahara Desert as PIE homeland)
M. Gimbutas 1956-1970s - Steppe (Kurgan Hypothesis)
H. Krahe 1957 - Northern Europe
G. Schwantes 1958 - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory
V. Georgiev 1958 - Europe or Western Anatolia
P. Bosch-Gimpera - from South Poland or Czechoslovakia up to Black Sea
V. Illic-Svityc 1960s - Anatolia
G. Devoto 1962 - Europe
H. Łowmiański 1963 - Central Asian Steppe
I. R. Danka 1966 - Danube Basin
T. Milewski 1968 - North European Plain
W. Scherer 1968 - Central and Southern Russia
G. Ivanescu 1970 - steppe of Kazakhstan, Steppe north of Caucasus, or Forest-Steppe north of it
R. A. Crossland 1971 - Steppe North-West of Black Sea
W. P. Schmid 1978 - North-Eastern Europe
I. Djakonov 1982 - Balkan-Carpathian territory
L. Kilian 1983 - between Black Sea & North Sea
T. Gamkrelidze & V. Ivanov 1984 - Armenian Plateau
A. Martinet 1986 - Eurasian Steppe
V. Sheveroshkin 1987 - Eastern Anatolia
A. Dolgopolsky 1987 - Eastern Anatolia
C. Renfrew 1987 - Anatolia (1993-2003: Balkans; 2005: the Paleolithic Continuity Theory)
M. Zvelebil 1988 - between Black Sea & North Sea
W. Mańczak 1988 - Poland
Safronov 1989 - Balkan-Carpathian areas
F. Kortlandt 1985-1990 - North of Caspian Sea
D. W. Anthony 1991 - between Dnieper and Volga
G. Decsy 1991 - Northern Germany
Z. Gołąb 1992 - Asian Steppe (east of Ural)
M. Alinei 1996 - the Paleolithic Continuity Theory
J. Nichols 1997 - Bactria and Sogdiana (east of Caspian Sea, borderland of Afganistan-Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Tajikistan)
J. P. Mallory 1997 - Pontic-Caspian Steppe
V. Mair 1998 - the concept of "Linguistic Amoeba" ("Schprachamobe")
H. J. Holm 2000s - first split of PIE language into 2 languages was manifested in archaeology by division into CWC and Yamnaya
K. T. Witczak 2003 - Anatolia
R. Gray & Q. Atkinson 2003 - Anatolia
J.-P. Demoule 2015 - Indo-Europeans are the untraceable people that racist fantasies are obsessed with

Which theory is the best? Perhaps the oldest one, or the most recent one? :biggrin1:

Aren't you straying off topic ?
I'd suspect plenty of threads exist already about generic questions of PiE and currently existing models
Here we're discussing R1b, and whether it came from Iberia or EE.

Tomenable
03-06-2016, 02:56 AM
I will start a new thread about it:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6597-Proto-Indo-European-homelands-from-1653-to-present-day

Tomenable
03-06-2016, 03:10 AM
Here we're discussing R1b, and whether it came from Iberia or EE.

The only thing which still casts some doubt on this issue is that - for example - subclade I2a2a of haplogroup I2 was present both in Iberia and in the Russian Steppe during the Chalcolithic period. This shows that it was perhaps possible also for R1b-L23 to be present in two distant places at the same time. At least in theory. If we count also pre-M269 subclades of R1b, such as R1b-V88 from Iberia or that sample of R1b-M415 from Khvalynsk and R1b-P297 from Samara, then haplogrpup R1b as a whole had such a wide distribution - across most of Europe - as well.

More about I2a2a:


The oldest sample of I2a2a found so far is from Megalithic Culture (I2a2a1b2 from La Mina). Then in Copper Age Spain (El Portalón, El Mirador) there are three samples of I2a2a, one of I2a2a2 and one of I2a2a1. From the Vatya culture and from Lánycsók Csata-alja in Hungary there is one I2a2a, one I2a2a1 and one I2a2a1a2a2. From Yamnaya/Catacomb in Russia there is one I2a2a1b1b2. In the Copper Age it was present both in Spain and in Russia.

In total at least 10 prehistoric samples of I-M223 known so far, ranging from Spain to Russia.

Megalophias
03-06-2016, 04:57 AM
The only thing which still casts some doubt on this issue is that - for example - subclade I2a2a of haplogroup I2 was present both in Iberia and in the Russian Steppe during the Chalcolithic period. This shows that it was perhaps possible also for R1b-L23 to be present in two distant places at the same time. At least in theory.
Well, a 12 000 year old haplogroup being spread across Europe 5000 years ago isn't quite the same as as 6000 year old haplogroup being spread across Europe 5000 years ago.

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 07:58 AM
What two opposite things? Yamnaya is an identifiable cultural horizon. Corded Ware is an identifiable cultural horizon. There is no indication that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya.

Did you choose to not understand?

i said "Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture."

You are referring to a Yamna like culture, similar in genetics, and probably in culture to the Yamna.

I never wrote anything saying that CW had the same culture or genetics as Yamna.

Mallory tries to back his own anatolian hypothesis, contesting the fact of a massive migration from the steppes.

But it is now clear that such migration happened.


This isn't quite correct, for several reasons.

see above

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 08:56 AM
I think that some of the problem of R1b is linked to Basques.

R1b is high in Basques, and Basque is an uncathegorized language, which is often considered as archaic.

But, genetics say that Basques have the same mix as other Europeans (only averages change, and they are not predominantly WHG, in contradiction to some guess).

Basque language is the hardest problem to solve, as there is no agreement whatsoever about its origin.

But I must point that some recent research tend to underline links with Indo European languages, as not only more than 70% of Basque words are from Indo European languages, but also that Proto Basque was probably not an agglutinative language (Joseba Lakarra 2005 and 2006), and perhaps even was in fact an Indo European language (Arnaud Etchamendy 2007).

So, it is absolutly not sure that R1b in Basques is not the result of their specific ethnogenesis in which Indo-Europeans can have been a notable part.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-06-2016, 09:13 AM
Error

Romilius
03-06-2016, 10:38 AM
I think that some of the problem of R1b is linked to Basques.

R1b is high in Basques, and Basque is an uncathegorized language, which is often considered as archaic.

But, genetics say that Basques have the same mix as other Europeans (only averages change, and they are not predominantly WHG, in contradiction to some guess).

Basque language is the hardest problem to solve, as there is no agreement whatsoever about its origin.

But I must point that some recent research tend to underline links with Indo European languages, as not only more than 70% of Basque words are from Indo European languages, but also that Proto Basque was probably not an agglutinative language (Joseba Lakarra 2005 and 2006), and perhaps even was in fact an Indo European language (Arnaud Etchamendy 2007).

So, it is absolutly not sure that R1b in Basques is not the result of their specific ethnogenesis in which Indo-Europeans can have been a notable part.

Interesting point... That was what I ever had said to myself: "Perhaps, one day, we'll discover that Basque is an Indoeuropean language".

Gravetto-Danubian
03-06-2016, 10:55 AM
Interesting point... That was what I ever had said to myself: "Perhaps, one day, we'll discover that Basque is an Indoeuropean language".

Yeah, maybe when we change the definition of "Indo-European".

Romilius
03-06-2016, 12:37 PM
Yeah, maybe when we change the definition of "Indo-European".


:biggrin1:

I don't know, but, perhaps, the early waves of I.E. peoples mixed their language with that of natives: Basque and, perhaps, also Tyrsenian languages could be something like pidgin or creole languages.

rms2
03-06-2016, 01:04 PM
Did you choose to not understand?

I could say the same of you, or you could have made what you were trying to say comprehensible.

The issue was whether or not Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya. Guess you chose not to understand that.



i said "Now you can call this steppe population Yamna, or Yamna like, but the result would be the same: same genetics and probably the same culture."

Yes, you made a mistake. The two cultures, Yamnaya and Corded Ware, were not "the same culture". They were two different cultures.



You are referring to a Yamna like culture, similar in genetics, and probably in culture to the Yamna.

I never wrote anything saying that CW had the same culture or genetics as Yamna.

Mallory tries to back his own anatolian hypothesis, contesting the fact of a massive migration from the steppes.

But it is now clear that such migration happened.


see above

Mallory was never a proponent of the Anatolian hypothesis. You must be thinking of Renfrew.

The rest of what you wrote did not make sense, because the discussion was about whether or not Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya.

Agamemnon
03-06-2016, 01:22 PM
Basque definitely isn't an IE language, nor is it a creole or a pidgin.

rms2
03-06-2016, 01:36 PM
Basque definitely isn't an IE language, neither is it a creole or a pidgin.

Right, and I think the Basques are hugely overemphasized, way beyond what their numbers justify.

That stems from the old 19th (and probably 18th) century notion that the Basques were a Paleolithic relic population. When it turned out that they have a high frequency of R1b, that was regarded as proof positive that R1b spent the LGM in the FC Refuge.

But the R1b among the Basques isn't all that diverse. It's overwhelmingly DF27, and the Basques have some Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry. The western European population with the lowest frequency of R1b, the Sardinians, is also the western European population with the lowest Yamnaya-like ancestry.

Some scholars claim to see a resemblance between Euskara, the Basque language, and Nuragic (Paleo-Sardinian). Curiously, in Sardinia I-M26 reaches its highest frequency anywhere. I-M26 is also found among the Basques at about 9 or 10%. IMHO, the Basques were originally mostly I-M26 but over time came to resemble their Indo-European neighbors via admixture. Some years ago I read somewhere (I don't remember the source, unfortunately) that the Basques had a matrilocal marriage tradition. Such a tradition, in which the groom goes to live with the bride's family, is tailor made for the introduction of outsider y-dna and the maintenance of the bride's language and culture.

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 01:54 PM
The issue was whether or not Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya. Guess you chose not to understand that.



Yes, you made a mistake. The two cultures, Yamnaya and Corded Ware, were not "the same culture". They were two different cultures.

Yes I made a mistake, as I made a confusion between Renfrew and Mallory.
But not about the discussion in itself as I made perfectly clear that I never said that Yamna and CW are the same.

You are the one saying that there must be a similar population "Yamna Like", from which the CW inherited their genes. But you don't mention any culture fitting your proposal.

So my position is clear: the CW inherited from the Yamna, but probably not the "classical" one (with all the artefacts, tumulus...), as there were probably local differences in the Yamna culture itself.

And yes, English is not my mother tongue, that's why I try to use a simpler level of language than I use ordinary.

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 02:05 PM
But the R1b among the Basques isn't all that diverse. It's overwhelmingly DF27, and the Basques have some Yamnaya-like autosomal ancestry. The western European population with the lowest frequency of R1b, the Sardinians, is also the western European population with the lowest Yamnaya-like ancestry.


Completely agree.

I can add that Basques traditionnally inherited their name from the house, and that's why genealogy can be difficult as often based on names. Doing genealogy in the Basque Country (or in Bearn) means finding the inhabitants of the houses (one example is the Bernadotte).

One of the reason of the Martin Guerre's case was probably the intention by the false Martin to sold a land in the Basque Country. Scandalous for the Guerre family.

rms2
03-06-2016, 02:30 PM
. . .

So my position is clear: the CW inherited from the Yamna, but probably not the "classical" one (with all the artefacts, tumulus...), as there were probably local differences in the Yamna culture itself . . .

Well, Yamnaya is an identifiable cultural horizon, and as far as I can tell, no one else is saying that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya.

They were two separate cultures formed from a very similar original pool of people, but CW was not derived from Yamnaya, and Yamnaya was not derived from CW.

Why should I have to suggest names for the original source population of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya? It seems to me the burden of proof rests with those suggesting a new and unorthodox theory, in this case that Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya. I think you must first prove how Corded Ware came to be derived from Yamnaya. I have never yet seen an actual archaeologist suggest that.

rms2
03-06-2016, 02:59 PM
You know, ffoucart, the more I think about it, the more I think you and I are actually saying the same thing, only you are calling the original source population of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya "Yamna", and I wouldn't call it that, since I think that is confusing and makes it sound as though Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya.

rms2
03-06-2016, 05:04 PM
I will laugh when some new evidence throws a monkey wrench into the latest existent theories; it's bound to happen.

I think the monkey wrench has already been thrown, Arch. Apparently you missed it and the chance for a really good laugh. It has devastated the old R1b-in-the-FC-LGM-Refuge idea.

jdean
03-06-2016, 05:09 PM
I think the monkey wrench has already been thrown, Arch. Apparently you missed it and the chance for a really good laugh. It has devastated the old R1b-in-the-FC-LGM-Refuge idea.

Yep and as Arch said it was bound to happen : )

ffoucart
03-06-2016, 11:01 PM
You know, ffoucart, the more I think about it, the more I think you and I are actually saying the same thing, only you are calling the original source population of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya "Yamna", and I wouldn't call it that, since I think that is confusing and makes it sound as though Corded Ware was derived from Yamnaya.

Yes, exactly, this is our difference. The dates of any prehistoric culture are only averages based on different process of datation, with some error margin. Some can be relatively precise, others far less. And all can be reset by new findings.

If the transition between Funnelbeakers and CW is relatively clear, the origin of the Yamna is far more foggy. The beginning of Yamna Culture around 3500 BC is only an average. Even so, it predates CW for hundreds of years.

So the more likely candidate to be ancestral to CW is Yamna itself. But not the "classical" Yamna which existed along CW, a more "archaic" one (I don't like the word, "ancient" would be more accurate).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-06-2016, 11:37 PM
So the more likely candidate to be ancestral to CW is Yamna itself. But not the "classical" Yamna which existed along CW, a more "archaic" one (I don't like the word, "ancient" would be more accurate).

The Yamnaya culture at earliest dates to 33/ 3200 BC, but really, most of it lies in the period 2900- 2600 BC.
Corded Ware begins 2800 BC.
So any connection between the two must stem from an earlier, pre-yamnaya phase (like Sredni Stog or post-Mariupol), which -needless to say- is not Yamnaya.
So back to your original statement " the CW inherited from the Yamna"" is false if accurately analysed, esp in light of the fact that all Yamnaya (thus far) has come Z2103, not M417.



If the transition between Funnelbeakers and CW is relatively clear, the origin of the Yamna is far more foggy. The beginning of Yamna Culture around 3500 BC is only an average. Even so, it predates CW for hundreds of years.

to be precise, CWC did not wholly and suddenly replace Funnelbeaker/ TRB. CWC in north European plain co-existed with late TRB and GAC for hundreds of years, as late as 2200 BC, when all 3 cultures - in the western end at least, were replaced by BB, whislt in the eastern Poland, CWC continues in modified form.

TigerMW
03-07-2016, 10:16 PM
The Yamnaya culture at earliest dates to 33/ 3200 BC, but really, most of it lies in the period 2900- 2600 BC.
Corded Ware begins 2800 BC.
So any connection between the two must stem from an earlier, pre-yamnaya phase (like Sredni Stog or post-Mariupol), which -needless to say- is not Yamnaya. ...

I do not agree with your conclusion based on your date logic. I have no idea whether Yamnaya fed into Corded Ware or not but I don't see how the dates exclude this. If Yamnaya were around from as early as 3300-3200 BC and lasted as long as to 2900-2800 BC, there there is no reason that:
1) Early Yamnaya phases could have helped seed pre-Corded Ware
2) Mid Yamanaya directly provided input into the the first couple hundred years of Corded Ware.

These things don't necessarily happen all at once.

rms2
03-08-2016, 12:07 AM
I do not agree with your conclusion based on your date logic. I have no idea whether Yamnaya fed into Corded Ware or not but I don't see how the dates exclude this. If Yamnaya were around from as early as 3300-3200 BC and lasted as long as to 2900-2800 BC, there there is no reason that:
1) Early Yamnaya phases could have helped seed pre-Corded Ware
2) Mid Yamanaya directly provided input into the the first couple hundred years of Corded Ware.

These things don't necessarily happen all at once.

Except that the origin of Corded Ware is an ongoing controversy in archaeology, but I have not seen anyone suggest a source in Yamnaya. I've seen Globular Amphora suggested, Baalberge suggested, but not Yamnaya.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-08-2016, 12:58 AM
I do not agree with your conclusion based on your date logic. I have no idea whether Yamnaya fed into Corded Ware or not but I don't see how the dates exclude this. If Yamnaya were around from as early as 3300-3200 BC and lasted as long as to 2900-2800 BC, there there is no reason that:
1) Early Yamnaya phases could have helped seed pre-Corded Ware
2) Mid Yamanaya directly provided input into the the first couple hundred years of Corded Ware.

These things don't necessarily happen all at once.

Fair enough, to be sure, the earliest Yamnaya phases do preceed CWC, and thus arguably could have fed into CWC. The problem is, there seems to be no evidence for this. No 'archaeological trail' or 'evolution' from a Yamnaya-esque culture to a CWC, because, CWC simple appears already mature in Kujavia at the earliest (and more eastern CWC-like cultures such as Balanovo, Middle Dnieper, post -date CWC, so they can't be the bridge, either)

Yamnaya kurgans are restricted to the southern most fringe of the forest steppe, where they interacted with GAC -type communities.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8075&d=1457398759

It can be seen, Yamnaya finds and GAC finds fill distinct areas, east and west of the Prut, resp, but im sure a lot of interacting was going on, and perhaps this is where we might find early R1a- M417.


So its a bit mysterious at the moment, really, I have no solid hypotheses. I know some Polish archaeologists see CWC as an offshoot of some northern Tripolje group, but then we should expect CWC to have more 'EEF'.

(map from M Szmyt; In the Far Reaches of Two Worlds...)

George
03-08-2016, 01:05 AM
Except that the origin of Corded Ware is an ongoing controversy in archaeology, but I have not seen anyone suggest a source in Yamnaya. I've seen Globular Amphora suggested, Baalberge suggested, but not Yamnaya.

Anthropologically, the CW males of all areas seem to cluster together. They differ from studied Yamna male skeletons, and differ significantly from GAC and TRB males. The only archaeological link I found mentioned was between the late CW Middle Dnipro culture and Western Yamna and it was just the fact that the earliest MD culture burials were secondary insertions into W Yamna kurgans in Cherkassy region. We really need a lot of info from the W Yamna area to help solve the puzzle of CW. A Yamna origin cannot be firmly ruled out at this stage. But it would need to be something like the odd process which resulted in the emergence of the Serezliivka/Zhyvotylivka cultural type (farmers turning into pastoralists) a couple of centuries earlier. At the moment the questions vastly outnumber the answers.

Generalissimo
03-08-2016, 02:00 AM
Most of the Corded Ware samples from Germany are straight up ~70% Yamnaya. Not just similar, but basically Yamnaya.

So any archaeological hypotheses have to take that into account now.

A.D.
03-08-2016, 03:35 PM
In Jean Manco's 'Blood of the Celts' she states that 'ancient DNA samples suggest that the people of Corded Ware (or Single Grave 2750-2400 BC) Culture had on average three Grandparents descended from Yamnaya ancestors '. She don't say whether this is Y-DNA, mtDNA or Autosomal or all three. She also links pottery to females. On my 'Your Deep Ancestry' map from Geno2+ has P312 placed near Moscow (roughly) between 5,500 -14,000 years ago.

rms2
03-08-2016, 04:46 PM
It is possible that Corded Ware emerged from Yamnaya, but there are quite a few differences between them, including anthropological differences, and as natural as a Yamnaya origin might seem to us, none of the experts has suggested it for Corded Ware.

The peoples who were part of those cultures could be related to each other without either of the cultures being derived from the other.

George
03-08-2016, 04:48 PM
"CWC simple appears already mature in Kujavia at the earliest" (#193)

Since the 2007 article of Jarosz and Wlodarczak in Przeglond Archeologiczny 55, p. 71-108 , the "beginning point" of CWC is no longer discernible. Poznan lab dates have superseded the earlier Kyiv lab C14 datings. The recent Ph.D. thesis of Sandra Beckerman (summer 2015) on Corded Ware in Holland concludes that the CWC had nearly simultaneous places of origin in various areas, and that its initial start date is unknown, to some extent due to the "problematic" C14 datings. The Finnish student of CW (Piritta Hakkala) suggested in 2014 that CW was not so much a "culture" as a "phenomenon" with abundant local variations. I certainly hope that the analysis of Western Yamna and its "pre Yamna" components will help to clarify the problem.

Romilius
03-08-2016, 05:40 PM
"CWC simple appears already mature in Kujavia at the earliest" (#193)

Since the 2007 article of Jarosz and Wlodarczak in Przeglond Archeologiczny 55, p. 71-108 , the "beginning point" of CWC is no longer discernible. Poznan lab dates have superseded the earlier Kyiv lab C14 datings. The recent Ph.D. thesis of Sandra Beckerman (summer 2015) on Corded Ware in Holland concludes that the CWC had nearly simultaneous places of origin in various areas, and that its initial start date is unknown, to some extent due to the "problematic" C14 datings. The Finnish student of CW (Piritta Hakkala) suggested in 2014 that CW was not so much a "culture" as a "phenomenon" with abundant local variations. I certainly hope that the analysis of Western Yamna and its "pre Yamna" components will help to clarify the problem.

I have the feeling that the analysis of Western Yamna won't clarify anything.

rms2
03-08-2016, 06:43 PM
I have the feeling that the analysis of Western Yamna won't clarify anything.

I hope you're wrong about that! :)

Gravetto-Danubian
03-08-2016, 08:12 PM
Most of the Corded Ware samples from Germany are straight up ~70% Yamnaya. Not just similar, but basically Yamnaya.

So any archaeological hypotheses have to take that into account now.

Except that we already know that EHG and R1 weren't restricted to the steppe, and by years end this will be even more evident, leading to clearer definitions & quantification of "Yamna-like " admixture

So we won't have to make restricted theories based on what we think our official stats currently tell us.
Either way, it'll be interesting

TigerMW
03-08-2016, 08:43 PM
Most of the Corded Ware samples from Germany are straight up ~70% Yamnaya. Not just similar, but basically Yamnaya.

So any archaeological hypotheses have to take that into account now.

The Corded Ware groups should probably be considered an horizon rather than a single culture. The CW people covered a vast area, and just like the Beakers, were probably not the same in their genetics uniformly across their geography and phases.

David, what timeframes are our Corded Ware samples from?

If the new integrated Usatovo-Tripolye folks had a huge impact on Corded Ware mid to late phases that would make sense since that steppes genes made it into CW.

Perhaps this is partially just a labeling issue. In his 2008 book, David Anthony wrote,

"Usatovo is not counted as a part of the Yamnaya horizon because of its close integration with the Tripolye culture, but it appeared the same time as the Yamnaya horizon, in the steppes, with kurgan funeral rituals that repeated many old steppe customs; sacrifices and broken pottery also were place on the southwestern side of the kurgan in Yamnaya and even Afanasievo graves."

The Yamnaya and Usatovo had some similar practices and they certainly worked together if not mixed to some degree. Anthony wrote,

"About 3100 BCE, during the initial rapid spread of the Yamnaya horizon across the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and while the Usatovo culture was still in its early phase, Yamnaya herders began to move through the steppes past the Usatovo and into the lower Danube valley. The initial groups were followed by a regular stream of people that continued for perhaps three hundred years, between 3100 and 2800 BCE. The passage through the Usatovo chiefdoms pobably was managed through guest-host relationships."

In the analysis "Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change?", Aleksandar Bulatovi wrote,

"..populations of the 2nd corded ware horizon can be securely identified as belonging to the Cotofeni group".

Cotofeni is another name for the Usatovo. The 2nd phase of Corded Ware has a strong population connection with the Usatovo, heavy with steppe herder genes.

This could be much the same picture as with the Bell Beakers and might favorite refrain. Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers. There are different regional groups and different phases in time. The male biased integration of Indo-European steppes ancestry people could have impacted Corded Ware much the same.

George
03-08-2016, 09:03 PM
I hope you're wrong about that! :)

Yes. It will certainly clarify SOME things :beerchug:

Generalissimo
03-08-2016, 11:19 PM
Except that we already know that EHG and R1 weren't restricted to the steppe, and by years end this will be even more evident, leading to clearer definitions & quantification of "Yamna-like " admixture

Except that you forgot about CHG, which most certainly wasn't found outside of the steppe, and the ratio of CHG in Corded Ware is high, and precisely what we would expect from a ~70% Yamnaya-derived population.

George
03-08-2016, 11:29 PM
The Corded Ware groups should probably be considered an horizon rather than a single culture. The CW people covered a vast area, and just like the Beakers, were probably not the same in their genetics uniformly across their geography and phases.

David, what timeframes are our Corded Ware samples from?

If the new integrated Usatovo-Tripolye folks had a huge impact on Corded Ware mid to late phases that would make sense since that steppes genes made it into CW.

Perhaps this is partially just a labeling issue. In his 2008 book, David Anthony wrote,

"Usatovo is not counted as a part of the Yamnaya horizon because of its close integration with the Tripolye culture, but it appeared the same time as the Yamnaya horizon, in the steppes, with kurgan funeral rituals that repeated many old steppe customers; sacrifices and broken pottery also were place on the southwestern side of the kurgan in Yamnaya and even Afanasievo graves. "


The Yamnaya and Usatovo had some similar practices and they certainly worked together if not mixed to some degree. Anthony write,

"About 3100 BCE, during the initial rapid spread of the Yamnaya horizon across the Pontic-Caspian steppes, and while the Usatovo culture was still in its early phase, Yamnaya herders began to move through the steppes past the Usatov and into the lower Danube valley. The initial groups were followed by a regular stream of people that continued for perhaps three hundred years, between 3100 and 2800 BCE. The passage through the Usatovo chiefdoms pobably was managed through guest-host relationships."

In the analysis "Corded Ware in the Central and Southern Balkans: A Consequence of Cultural Interaction or an Indication of Ethnic Change?", Aleksandar Bulatovi wrote,

"..populations of the 2nd corded ware horizon can be securely identified as belonging to the Cotofeni group".

Cotofeni is another name for the Usatovo. The 2nd phase of Corded Ware has a strong population connection with the Usatovo, heavy with steppe herder genes.

This could be much the same picture as with the Bell Beakers and might favorite refrain. Beakers are not Beakers are not Beakers. There are different regional groups and different phases in time. The male biased integration of Indo-European steppes ancestry people could have impacted Corded Ware much the same.

What's interesting about the steppe component of Usatovo is that it descends from groups which further east coalesced into Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog). Its forebears arrived between Dnister and Danube in the late 5th millennium BCE.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 12:35 AM
Except that you forgot about CHG, which most certainly wasn't found outside of the steppe, and the ratio of CHG in Corded Ware is high, and precisely what we would expect from a ~70% Yamnaya-derived population.

No I didn't
But are you suggesting that Yamnaya guys had a monopoly on importing "Caucasus trophy wives" (and the CHG they brought) ?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 12:47 AM
What's interesting about the steppe component of Usatovo is that it descends from groups which further east coalesced into Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog). Its forebears arrived between Dnister and Danube in the late 5th millennium BCE.

But even the "steppic' components could be from late CT itself (mounds, pastoralism), indeed CT itself influenced the formation of Yamnaya.
So if any archaic EHG is to be found, it could even go back to Bug-Dniesterian, and ongoing exchange, because, quite frankly, I doubt it was a "persistent cultural frontier"

George
03-09-2016, 12:56 AM
But even the "steppic' components could be from late CT itself (mounds, pastoralism), indeed CT itself influenced the formation of Yamnaya.
So if any archaic EHG is to be found, it could even go back to Bug-Dniesterian, and ongoing exchange, because, quite frankly, I doubt it was a "persistent cultural frontier"
The steppic components of Usatovo may be partly CT on the female side. The "influence" of CT on the actual steppe has been vastly overrated IMHO. Though some elements of CT were certainly assimilated thereto (Zhyvotylivka, Serezliivka)

Generalissimo
03-09-2016, 12:59 AM
No I didn't
But are you suggesting that Yamnaya guys had a monopoly on importing "Caucasus trophy wives" (and the CHG they brought) ?

What I'm saying is that the CHG in Corded Ware looks very much like it was mediated by a population basically identical to the Yamnaya Samara samples we have, and any other explanation would require a remarkable coincidence.

I'm guessing you, George and Michal believe in remarkable coincidences, verging on miracles. Good luck with that.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-09-2016, 01:15 AM
:amen:

George
03-09-2016, 01:23 AM
What I'm saying is that the CHG in Corded Ware looks very much like it was mediated by a population basically identical to the Yamnaya Samara samples we have, and any other explanation would require a remarkable coincidence.

I'm guessing you, George and Michal believe in remarkable coincidences, verging on miracles. Good luck with that.

I don't see why the strong autosomal genetic resemblance of the postStog area to the Samara area should be considered a "remarkable coincidence". I suspect that is exactly what we shall get except for the predominance of R1a.

Romilius
03-09-2016, 08:07 AM
I told that I have that feeling because if in Western Yamna will be found R1a, then we will have another big bad problem: where do we locate R-L51?
On the contrary, if we will find R-L51, then where do we locate R1a?

Michał
03-09-2016, 02:05 PM
What I'm saying is that the CHG in Corded Ware looks very much like it was mediated by a population basically identical to the Yamnaya Samara samples we have, and any other explanation would require a remarkable coincidence.

I'm guessing you, George and Michal believe in remarkable coincidences, verging on miracles. Good luck with that.
What exactly makes you so strongly convinced that the Pre-Yamna populations from the same region (including for example Repin, Sredny Stog or Late Khvalynsk) were much less similar to CWC than Yamna?

It should be noted that 1) CHG was present on the NPC steppe much earlier than 3000 BC (or much earlier than Yamna) and 2) the few samples from Khvalynsk that are available to us suggest quite strongly that this was "a population in disequilibrium" (or a population in transformation) and that between 4700 BC and 4000 BC the NPC steppe witnessed some intensive population exchange. In other words, it seems quite apparent that the population in the Volga-Samara region in 4000 BC was very different from that in 5000 BC, while we don't have any data suggesting that any equally substantial genetic (autosomal) "transformation" took place between 4000 BC and 3000 BC.

Michał
03-09-2016, 02:28 PM
I told that I have that feeling because if in Western Yamna will be found R1a, then we will have another big bad problem: where do we locate R-L51?
I consider it relatively unlikely that R1a-M417 is found (in significant numbers) in Western Yamna, but if this is the case, then we should look for R1b-L51 in some Central Europeans groupings that are suspected of having left the steppe in the Pre-Yamna period (GAC, Kostolac>Vucedol, etc).



On the contrary, if we will find R-L51, then where do we locate R1a?
I find this scenario equally unlikely, but in case there is no R1a-M417 in Western Yamna, then the region north of it (Dnieper-Donets III-> Middle Dnieper) will obviously become/remain the most likely "homeland" of CWC.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 12:05 AM
I consider it relatively unlikely that R1a-M417 is found (in significant numbers) in Western Yamna.

Worth pointing out is the 0 out of 10 or so Bronze & Iron Age samples from southeastern Europe with R1a.

Generalissimo
03-11-2016, 12:54 AM
What exactly makes you so strongly convinced that the Pre-Yamna populations from the same region (including for example Repin, Sredny Stog or Late Khvalynsk) were much less similar to CWC than Yamna?

German Corded Ware is a mixed population, that is fitted remarkably well as ~70% Samara Yamnaya, ~23% Anatolia Neolithic and 7% WHG. So in other words, it's exactly what I'd expect a mixture of a local German Middle Neolithic population with recent migrants from the steppes near the Volga to look like.

So the proto-Corded Ware population was either Samara Yamnaya or something very similar. This may have been late Khvalynsk somewhere near the Volga or Don. But anything much further west looks stupid.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 01:47 AM
German Corded Ware is a mixed population, that is fitted remarkably well as ~70% Samara Yamnaya, ~23% Anatolia Neolithic and 7% WHG. So in other words, it's exactly what I'd expect a mixture of a local German Middle Neolithic population with recent migrants from the steppes near the Volga to look like.

So the proto-Corded Ware population was either Samara Yamnaya or something very similar. This may have been late Khvalynsk somewhere near the Volga or Don. But anything much further west looks stupid.

But what if they weren't admixed with local (German) MN farmers (that came later) ? These newcomers kept to themselves for a while

I'd bet the farmer admixture they had was from Eastern Europe - most likely on the fringe of the north- east Carpathian region, not the Volga (whose R1 populations- as it appears- became extinct).

This is what more aDNA will show; and it's the scenario that doesn't sound like nonsense

Generalissimo
03-11-2016, 02:02 AM
But what if they weren't admixed with local (German) MN farmers (that came later) ? These newcomers kept to themselves for a while

I'd bet the farmer admixture they had was from Eastern Europe - most likely on the fringe of the east Carpathians region, not the Volga (whose R1 populations- as it appears- became extinct).

This is what more aDNA will show; and it's the scenario that doesn't sound archaeologically stupid

Actually makes no difference where they picked up the MN ancestry. They started off like a population very much like Yamnaya Samara and closely related to Yamnaya Samara.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 03:45 AM
Actually makes no difference where they picked up the MN ancestry. They started off like a population very much like Yamnaya Samara and closely related to Yamnaya Samara.

Which brings us back to the fact that "Samara-like" population wasn't only exclusively in Samara, but will be found over a broader region of EE

Nothing will be found in samara apart from Z2103, M73 and other, extinct or irrelevant lineages

Generalissimo
03-11-2016, 07:12 AM
Which brings us back to the fact that "Samara-like" population wasn't only exclusively in Samara, but will be found over a broader region of EE.

How broad? Probably not as broad as you think.

Michał
03-11-2016, 10:07 AM
So the proto-Corded Ware population was either Samara Yamnaya or something very similar. This may have been late Khvalynsk somewhere near the Volga or Don.
So I guess we all agree that Khvalaynsk (or Late Khvalynsk) could have been a non-Yamna (though Yamna-related) source of a population ancestral to CWC.



But anything much further west looks stupid.
This actually looks like you are excluding Western Yamna as a potential source of CWC (though for slightly different reasons).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-11-2016, 11:49 AM
How broad? Probably not as broad as you think.

It really depends on how widely EHG existed before 3000 BC, and how widely CHG could have dispersed

Did EHG end at the Dnieper ? i bet not. I think it was all the way to the Baltic Sea, and as far as north central Europe, although actual migration of R1a -mediated EHG/ANE ended at the baltic / far-east Poland, whilst SHG like groups lived as far as east Germany, mediated via female exogamy.

Unless the (hopefully upcoming) paper from Varna shows CHG present in Copper Age east Balkans, CHG probably arrived via the Caucasus. There is no reason it only went northeast to Samara, and not northwest simultaneously.

Finally, again, one needs to ground genetics with settlement-population evidence. And that suggests that the Yamnaya period was one of dense occupation of steppe-like environments, ie of moving onto the steppe, not of mass exodus toward the north European plain.

Generalissimo
03-11-2016, 12:25 PM
It really depends on how widely EHG existed before 3000 BC, and how widely CHG could have dispersed.

No it doesn't.

Michał
03-11-2016, 12:37 PM
No it doesn't.
In light of the fact that Sintashta and German CWC are nearly identical genetically (though separated by thousands of kilometers and associated with quite different cultures), it seems quite likely that Yamna could have potential close genetic relatives in other regions of Eastern Europe.

George
03-11-2016, 01:02 PM
In light of the fact that Sintashta and German CWC are nearly identical genetically (though separated by thousands of kilometers and associated with quite different cultures), it seems quite likely that Yamna could have potential close genetic relatives in other regions of Eastern Europe.

I agree with the idea that the mass of R1a basically hovered north of the steppe area in cultures such as Dnipro-Donetsk et sim. But I cannot rule out a potentially significant presence of R1a in the steppe itself because DD was certainly there to some extent and can archaeologically and anthropologically be shown as a strong component of Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog) and northeastern Trypilia.

Romilius
03-11-2016, 05:33 PM
German Corded Ware is a mixed population, that is fitted remarkably well as ~70% Samara Yamnaya, ~23% Anatolia Neolithic and 7% WHG. So in other words, it's exactly what I'd expect a mixture of a local German Middle Neolithic population with recent migrants from the steppes near the Volga to look like.

So the proto-Corded Ware population was either Samara Yamnaya or something very similar. This may have been late Khvalynsk somewhere near the Volga or Don. But anything much further west looks stupid.

And Bell Beaker?

rms2
03-12-2016, 02:08 PM
And Bell Beaker?

I know you were asking that of Generalissimo, but since he hasn't answered you yet, I think I will offer my opinion.

Corded Ware and Bell Beaker are similar, but Corded Ware has a bigger Yamnaya_Samara component and less Anatolia_Neolithic and WHG than Bell Beaker, which also has a substantial Yamnaya_Samara component (about 50% compared to CW's 70%). I think the primary reason for this has to do with the different routes taken by the steppe elements in both peoples. The steppe element in Corded Ware appears to have come straight across the North European Plain from the northern forest-steppe border zone, while the steppe element or elements in Bell Beaker appears to have come from around the southern end of the Carpathians and up the Danube Valley into the Carpathian basin. The northern route taken by the steppe ancestors of Corded Ware would have been more sparsely populated by Neolithic farmers than the route taken by the steppe ancestors of Bell Beaker, which took them right into the heavily populated heart of Old Europe. Thus Bell Beaker acquired a higher proportion of Near Eastern-derived Neolithic farmer and Western Hunter-Gatherer autosomal dna than did Corded Ware, whose route from the steppe was shorter and less congested.

Another factor that should be considered is the version of Yamnaya we are currently using as our standard: Yamnaya_Samara. Everything genetic we know about Yamnaya thus far has been from east of the Don, but those weren't the folks who moved around the south end of the Carpathians and up the Danube. The Yamnaya people who contributed their dna to Bell Beaker were from the southwestern part of the Yamnaya zone and had lived in close proximity to Old Europeans (i.e., Neolithic farmers) for centuries. Chances are their autosomal profile differed from that of their Yamnaya_Samara cousins. So the Yamnaya ancestors of Bell Beaker may have already been different autosomally from the Yamnaya or other steppe ancestors of Corded Ware to begin with. We'll need some western Yamnaya dna results to find that out.

Generalissimo
03-13-2016, 01:54 AM
In light of the fact that Sintashta and German CWC are nearly identical genetically (though separated by thousands of kilometers and associated with quite different cultures), it seems quite likely that Yamna could have potential close genetic relatives in other regions of Eastern Europe.

You're wrong. Corded Ware and Sintashta are different enough for your argument to fall flat on its face.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMldMR3BxS0s3MUU/view?usp=sharing

It's a stupid argument anyway, since Sintashta may have been of Corded Ware origin.


I agree with the idea that the mass of R1a basically hovered north of the steppe area in cultures such as Dnipro-Donetsk et sim. But I cannot rule out a potentially significant presence of R1a in the steppe itself because DD was certainly there to some extent and can archaeologically and anthropologically be shown as a strong component of Serednyj Stih (Sredny Stog) and northeastern Trypilia.

Considering that he's wrong, and you agree with him, the you're also wrong.

Guys, what's the point of being wrong all the time? Don't you want to be right?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-13-2016, 02:18 AM
You're wrong. Corded Ware and Sintashta are different enough for your argument to fall flat on its face.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMldMR3BxS0s3MUU/view?usp=sharing

It's a stupid argument anyway, since Sintashta may have been of Corded Ware origin.



Considering that he's wrong, and you agree with him, the you're also wrong.

Guys, what's the point of being wrong all the time? Don't you want to be right?

so spell out your right hypothesis ? - CWC and BB both came from western Yamnaya ? Which subgroup and zone ?

Generalissimo
03-13-2016, 02:28 AM
so spell out your right hypothesis ? - CWC and BB both came from western Yamnaya ? Which subgroup and zone ?

It's not my hypothesis. It's already been shown in two major papers and is so obvious in the data that there's absolutely no reason why anyone should still question that Corded Ware is very closely and directly related to Yamnaya.

There are no arguments to the contrary. There's just a complete lack of understanding of the data, as per Michal above, and/or wishful thinking. Enough already. Move with the data.

And I don't much care for the details at this stage. They'll be worked out eventually.

ffoucart
03-13-2016, 02:54 AM
Unless the (hopefully upcoming) paper from Varna shows CHG present in Copper Age east Balkans, CHG probably arrived via the Caucasus. There is no reason it only went northeast to Samara, and not northwest simultaneously.
As CHG were from the Caucasus, it's logical, but it doesn't mean that CHG went to the Northwest and Northeast simulteaously, nor it means it went to the Balkans independantly from the steppic admixture at the same time.

One thing is against your point: CHG in the Steppes cultures are female biased. It means that there were a constant gene flux from the Caucasus to the Steppes, aka a flux made of women, not of men.

Haplogroups Y and Mt are clear about it.

It looks perhaps more like slavery of Caucasian by Steppic people, than to a migration from the Caucasus from CHG into the Steppes.

As CHG is higher in Southern Europe nowadays, there must have been another source for it. But both are probably not of the same nature, nor occured at the same time.

But the flux of CHG predate Yamna (50% CHG), as Khvalynsk were also part CHG (30%).

Later culture get even more CHG.

That's also why the CWC admixture is called Yamna by Haak and al. Because, the mix is typical of them.



Finally, again, one needs to ground genetics with settlement-population evidence. And that suggests that the Yamnaya period was one of dense occupation of steppe-like environments, ie of moving onto the steppe, not of mass exodus toward the north European plain.

Again, it could be related to specific difficulties of Northern European farming cultures, as the Baltic region seems to have suffered around 3100 BC of a climatic change (colder, wetter), resulting in reforestation (aka some farms disappeared, meaning depopulation).

So, if "exodus" is not proper, a massive migration from the Steppes into Northern Europe around 3000 BC is a fact. With assimilation of some local cultures, resulting in the birth of CWC.

Now, the story was very probably different in Central Europe, as climate change was probably less harsh on farmers (even if archeology in the Alps reveals also a colder and wetter climate).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-13-2016, 03:16 AM
..delete

Gravetto-Danubian
03-13-2016, 09:11 PM
As CHG were from the Caucasus, it's logical, but it doesn't mean that CHG went to the Northwest and Northeast simulteaously,

Err, yes it does, unless you're suggesting that the CHG (from your 'females slaves") only went to Samara first, then back -tracked west.


nor it means it went to the Balkans independantly from the steppic admixture at the same time.

Actually, there was CHG arriving to Balkans independent of the steppe. Its already obvoius



CHG in the Steppes cultures are female biased. It means that there were a constant gene flux from the Caucasus to the Steppes, aka a flux made of women, not of men. Haplogroups Y and Mt are clear about it.

But 50% of Yamnaya mtDNA is actually 'native' Pontic stuff- if you look closely. So 50% + 100% gives an average of 75%. Clearly something is amiss.


It looks perhaps more like slavery of Caucasian by Steppic people, than to a migration from the Caucasus from CHG into the Steppes.

lets not make up fiction. have you heard of the majkop culture ? it existed 3800 - 3000 BC. It was more powerful and richer than anything on the steppe at that time.
Maybe you should go and do some basic reading so you sound less silly.


As CHG is higher in Southern Europe nowadays, there must have been another source for it. But both are probably not of the same nature, nor occured at the same time.

Hold on, I just thought you said there wasn;t an independent movement to the Balkans. I think you've confused yourself



Again, it could be related to specific difficulties of Northern European farming cultures, as the Baltic region seems to have suffered around 3100 BC of a climatic change (colder, wetter), resulting in reforestation (aka some farms disappeared, meaning depopulation).

So, if "exodus" is not proper, a massive migration from the Steppes into Northern Europe around 3000 BC is a fact. With assimilation of some local cultures, resulting in the birth of CWC.


That's not what is being debated. Everyone acknowledges the eastern provenance of CWC, and that the arrival of CWC groups in - say Germany- was a new ; immigrants. The question is where exactly in eastern Europe they came from, and when they diverged from the proto-Yamnayans.

Really, its not that hard to follow.



Now, the story was very probably different in Central Europe, as climate change was probably less harsh on farmers (even if archeology in the Alps reveals also a colder and wetter climate).

Yes, Im sure it was.

ffoucart
03-13-2016, 11:05 PM
But 50% of Yamnaya mtDNA is actually 'native' Pontic stuff- if you look closely. So 50% + 100% gives an average of 75%. Clearly something is amiss.
I think you are missing the point. I never said that Mt DNA was representing the proportion of admixture, but that Y DNA and MtDNA prove that there was a gender biased admixture (found in autosomal obviously).

Except if you are saying that R1a and R1b are not steppic.

logics, logics, logics....




lets not make up fiction. have you heard of the majkop culture ? it existed 3800 - 3000 BC. It was more powerful and richer than anything on the steppe at that time.
Maybe you should go and do some basic reading so you sound less silly.


Insulting other people is not an argument, and you should try to get back on facts, rather than fantasing.

As an example, Vikings were poorer than Irish, English or Franks, and took slaves/concubines from them. That's why Icelanders are overwhelming Scandinavians if you look at their Y DNA, but Irish if you look at their Mt DNA.

Moreover, the diffusion of R1b in Western Europe is not directly connected to the diffusion of the excess of CHG in Southern Europe. Initialy, Bell Beakers proportions of EHG and CHG are roughly the same as Yamnas, as you were pointing yourself here:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b/page180

As 50% of Bell Beakers admixture was EFF+ WHG, and the other half EHG+CHG (with roughly 25% each).

So the increase of CHG came in a second time, after the arrival of steppic admixture in Western Europe, and diffusing of R1b.

The secondary route used by the R1b people was probably not through the Balkans, but by the Pannonian Steppe, often used later by steppic people as an access to Western Europe (Huns, Avars,....).

Gravetto-Danubian
03-13-2016, 11:59 PM
I think you are missing the point. I never said that Mt DNA was representing the proportion of admixture, but that Y DNA and MtDNA prove that there was a gender biased admixture (found in autosomal obviously).

Except if you are saying that R1a and R1b are not steppic.

logics, logics, logics....




Insulting other people is not an argument, and you should try to get back on facts, rather than fantasing.

As an example, Vikings were poorer than Irish, English or Franks, and took slaves/concubines from them. That's why Icelanders are overwhelming Scandinavians if you look at their Y DNA, but Irish if you look at their Mt DNA.

Moreover, the diffusion of R1b in Western Europe is not directly connected to the diffusion of the excess of CHG in Southern Europe. Initialy, Bell Beakers proportions of EHG and CHG are roughly the same as Yamnas, as you were pointing yourself here:
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3474-Bell-Beakers-Gimbutas-and-R1b/page180

As 50% of Bell Beakers admixture was EFF+ WHG, and the other half EHG+CHG (with roughly 25% each).

So the increase of CHG came in a second time, after the arrival of steppic admixture in Western Europe, and diffusing of R1b.

The secondary route used by the R1b people was probably not through the Balkans, but by the Pannonian Steppe, often used later by steppic people as an access to Western Europe (Huns, Avars,....).

I never stated that R1b came through Italy or the Balkans, or it's not for the steppe - so it is you who is "fantasing", or can't understand basic English, or is simply a liar

And making irrelevant analogieies about Vikings, Irish and Iceland is again silly - because for it to hold, you'd have to show a mitochondrial Britonization of Scandinavia. Good luck with that
(Iceland is different - recent and de novo colonization by Viking men and their British women)

ffoucart
03-14-2016, 06:30 AM
I never stated that R1b came through Italy or the Balkans, or it's not for the steppe - so it is you who is "fantasing", or can't understand basic English, or is simply a liar

So, It seems you can't read basic English, as I was clearly referring to CHG, unconnected to R1b.

But as we seem to be agree that there was a later gene flux of CHG in Southern Europe, I will not answer to your insult.



And making irrelevant analogieies about Vikings, Irish and Iceland is again silly - because for it to hold, you'd have to show a mitochondrial Britonization of Scandinavia. Good luck with that
(Iceland is different - recent and de novo colonization by Viking men and their British women)

Irrevelant because it is not backing your assumption. I didn't use other example of gender biased gene flux, often linked to slavery or Conquest, as in South America (look at the European Y haplogroup, and Amerindian Mt DNA), North Africa (SSA MtDNA is more common thant SSA Y DNA, but often male slaves were castrated),..... I only used a very well known example, my bad.

Insulting other people only reveals a lack of intelligence and/or knowledge, or madness.

It's up to you to prove that your are none of the above.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-14-2016, 07:02 AM
So, It seems you can't read basic English, as I was clearly referring to CHG, unconnected to R1b.
It's rather hard at times to understand what you're referring to, as you say contradictory things within one and the same paragraph




Irrevelant because it is not backing your assumption. I didn't use other example of gender biased gene flux, often linked to slavery or Conquest, as in South America (look at the European Y haplogroup, and Amerindian Mt DNA), North Africa (SSA MtDNA is more common thant SSA Y DNA, but often male slaves were castrated),..... I only used a very well known example, my bad.

I have no assumptions to back for I am not propounding a particular hypothesis over another
Rather, I'm pointing out that your statements often lack meaning, as they rely on using mis-applied & generic examples from modern colonialist encounters between Europeans and New World natives, or Iceland (this is not unique to you, btw); instead of actual empirical evidence from the region and time period concerned

Had you detailed actual *facts*, then you'd realize your hypothesis doesn't sit too well. Luckily, there is a wealth of evidence out there, with isotopic studies (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272027328_The_Steppe_and_the_Caucasus_during_the_B ronze_Age_Mutual_Relationships_and_Mutual_Enrichme ntsexist))), complementing traditional archaeology: a significant Caucasus impact on the steppe; but through very different mechanisms than your, err, "theories"


Insulting other people only reveals a lack of intelligence and/or knowledge,

I have only criticised your ideas, and let you know that I don't appreciate straw man arguements .
But please educate (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6635-Holy-Roman-Empire-amp-Migration-Period-Ancient-DNA-from-Germany&p=145013#post145013) me about the difference between the Roman Empire, and Holy Roman Empire, with your superior intellect.

ffoucart
03-14-2016, 11:34 AM
"Silly" is an insult, so yes, you are insulting other people.

If you can't understand that there is no contradiction in my posts, it's your problem not mine. Moreover it seems others can understand my posts with no peculiar difficulties.

And if you really don't know the difference between the Holy Roman Empire and the Roman Empire itself, it means you have very little knowledge of European History.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 11:50 AM
It looks perhaps more like slavery of Caucasian by Steppic people, than to a migration from the Caucasus from CHG into the Steppes.
lets not make up fiction. have you heard of the majkop culture ? it existed 3800 - 3000 BC. It was more powerful and richer than anything on the steppe at that time.
Maybe you should go and do some basic reading so you sound less silly.

According to this study, in modern population of Cuba 35% of mtDNA is Amerindian, but only 0,5% of Y-DNA:

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004488

For every 70 Native American females who contributed to modern Cuban genetics, only one Native male did.

A female-biased admixture from conquered/enslaved population to invasive population is definitely possible.

"More powerful and richer" doesn't yet mean that they will win an armed confrontation against "barbarians".

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 11:56 AM
BTW - I think that their estimate of autosomal Native American contribution (8% on average) is too low. Probably because the study is from 2014 and they counted only East Asian DNA as contribution from Natives, while now we know, that Native Americans were always mixed with ca. 3/4 East Asian and ca. 1/4 West Eurasian ancestry (see Mal'ta boy, Ancient North Eurasians, etc.). I guess it must be over a dozen percent.

Tomenable
03-14-2016, 12:18 PM
In modern Canary Islands, it is estimated that ~42% of mtDNA, but only ~17% of Y-DNA is from indigenous Guanches:

See page 9 of 14: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf

According to two older estimates, share of native mtDNA in modern Canarians is ~33% and of native Y-DNA just ~6%:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n2/full/5201075a.html

ArmandoR1b
03-14-2016, 12:26 PM
BTW - I think that their estimate of autosomal Native American contribution (8% on average) is too low. Probably because the study is from 2014 and they counted only East Asian DNA as contribution from Natives, while now we know, that Native Americans were always mixed with ca. 3/4 East Asian and ca. 1/4 West Eurasian ancestry (see Mal'ta boy, Ancient North Eurasians, etc.). I guess it must be over a dozen percent.
Their estimate of autosomal Native American contribution (8% on average) is definitely not too low. The drift of Native Americans over the past 14,000 years has been enough for the DNA to be easily separated from Europeans and Africans.

alan
03-14-2016, 12:35 PM
The cultural-geographical fine detail of where various R1b and R1a came from in eastern Europe wont become clear until ancient DNA stops focusing on Yamnaya and post-Yamnaya and tests the large amount of steppe cultures in the pre-3300BC era and also of course covers the Ukraine. Practically all of the samples come from the Russian part of the steppes. Ukraine is a big blank.

Personally I would tend to think from archaeology and from modern studies of crania that there will be a significantly more ENF and perhaps more CHG in the area west of the Don given the far stronger connections of that area with the Neolithic Balkans-Carpathians and (more controversially) with the Caucasus. Lets see some Srendy Stog, Repin, Dnieper-Donets, Middle Dnieper, Kemi Oba, Usatovo, etc (there are many more cultures). Problem is Ukraine is all but bankrupt an in an on-off war so I cannot imagine its high priority for them and it would probably need a western university to take this up.

Gravetto-Danubian
03-14-2016, 12:37 PM
In modern Canary Islands, it is estimated that ~42% of mtDNA, but only ~17% of Y-DNA is from indigenous Guanches:

See page 9 of 14: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf

According to two older estimates, share of native mtDNA in modern Canarians is ~33% and of native Y-DNA just ~6%:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v12/n2/full/5201075a.html

These are all interesting papers
But are you sure you're in the correct thread ?

Gravetto-Danubian
03-14-2016, 12:37 PM
The cultural-geographical fine detail of where various R1b and R1a came from in eastern Europe wont become clear until ancient DNA stops focusing on Yamnaya and post-Yamnaya and tests the large amount of steppe cultures in the pre-3300BC era and also of course covers the Ukraine. Practically all of the samples come from the Russian part of the steppes. Ukraine is a big blank.

Personally I would tend to think from archaeology and from modern studies of crania that there will be a significantly more ENF and perhaps more CHG in the area west of the Don given the far stronger connections of that area with the Neolithic Balkans-Carpathians and (more controversially) with the Caucasus. Lets see some Srendy Stog, Repin, Dnieper-Donets, Middle Dnieper, Kemi Oba, Usatovo, etc (there are many more cultures). Problem is Ukraine is all but bankrupt an in an on-off war so I cannot imagine its high priority for them and it would probably need a western university to take this up.

Alas
That's all true
It might be as far off as 2020

But Majkop is in Russia (being samples by Riwdh apparently) and we have hopefully Iran samples to come, one hopes
Hopefully, that'll clarify at least more the interrelationships of EHG and CHG

jeanL
03-14-2016, 04:04 PM
BTW - I think that their estimate of autosomal Native American contribution (8% on average) is too low. Probably because the study is from 2014 and they counted only East Asian DNA as contribution from Natives, while now we know, that Native Americans were always mixed with ca. 3/4 East Asian and ca. 1/4 West Eurasian ancestry (see Mal'ta boy, Ancient North Eurasians, etc.). I guess it must be over a dozen percent.

Keep in mind that Cuba is a multi-ethnic/racial society, thus the average of the population says nothing about the average amongst racial groups. There is in fact variability even within the Island, the Western part being more European and less Native/African than the Eastern part. Also keep in mind that most of the Native in Cuba is part of a founder's effect, i.e The first Colonizer took Native wives, and then Guanche(Canary Islander) wives, then this females kept getting mated with European males, that's why you see the disparity between lower autosomal contributions from Native and African than what we see from mt-DNA Haplogroups.

Autosomal contributions by province in Cuba

http://z5.ifrm.com/30470/13/0/p1204764/journal_pgen_1004488_g001.png

Autosomal contributions by racial groups, keep this in mind though:


The presence of differences in ancestry proportions within each census category would indicate that provincial differences in ancestry proportions are not only due to differences in the relative proportions of individuals from each census category. We observed some differences in ancestry proportions within census categories. For example, within individuals self-reporting to be “blanco”, the average African admixture proportions are significantly higher in Guantánamo, Santiago de Cuba and Granma than in many other provinces, and within individuals self-reporting to be “negro”, the average African admixture proportions are significantly lower in Las Tunas, Holguín and Granma than in Guantánamo, Santiago de Cuba, Camagüey and La Habana

i.e. The median European admixture in self-identified "Blanco"(White) individuals in the West is >90% European vs. ~80% in the East for the same ethnic group. You see the same happening with "Negro"(Black), Western blacks have higher proportions of African admixture than Eastern Blacks, thus the Western side is more polarized and less admixed than the Eastern side.

http://z5.ifrm.com/30470/13/0/p1204766/journal_pgen_1004488_g003.png

Mt-DNA Haplogroups by Province

http://z5.ifrm.com/30470/13/0/p1204767/journal_pgen_1004488_g005.png

Y-DNA Haplogroups by Province(Notice that only two provinces have Native American Y-DNA Hgs versus Native American mt-DNA Hgs which is found in all provinces albeit lower in the Western side)

http://z5.ifrm.com/30470/13/0/p1204768/journal_pgen_1004488_g006.png

Michał
03-14-2016, 04:12 PM
So the proto-Corded Ware population was either Samara Yamnaya or something very similar. This may have been late Khvalynsk somewhere near the Volga or Don.



there's absolutely no reason why anyone should still question that Corded Ware is very closely and directly related to Yamnaya.


These two statements show very clearly that you are totally lost when the origin of Corded Ware is considered. How is it possible that you first state that Khvalynsk (as an alternative to Yamna) could have been the “proto-Corded-Ware” population and then claim that there is no question that Corded Ware descended directly from Yamna?

Michał
03-14-2016, 04:19 PM
You're wrong. Corded Ware and Sintashta are different enough for your argument to fall flat on its face.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMldMR3BxS0s3MUU/view?usp=sharing
Different enough for what exactly? It seems you have totally missed the point I was trying to make. The very fact that such two very closely related populations (or at least populations that were much more closely related to each other than Yamna and CWC) could have been found in very different locations while being additionally associated with quite different archaeological cultures, makes it perfectly possible that such situations were not uncommon in this part of Europe at that time, so apart from Yamna there were almost certainly many other Eastern European cultures related to Yamna (ie. either sharing common ancestry with Yamna or being direct ancestors of Yamna) that should be considered a much more likely source of CWC than Yamna.

Also, your diagram supports the close relationship between Sintashta and CWC (when compared to other ancient samples), while additionally showing that CWC was more closely related to Andronovo (ie. to a culture separated from CWC by more than a millennium and by many thousands of kilometers) than to Yamna (despite the fact that Yamna was not only a close neighbor of CWC but was also roughly contemporary to it).

Having said that, I don’t think that the very fact that CWC was less closely related to Yamna than it was to Sintashta or Andronovo, makes it impossible for CWC to be derived directly from Yamna, yet when taking into account the fact that these were for the most part two contemporary cultures with very different profiles (including both their basic archaeological packages and their preferred environments), it seems practically impossible for Yamna to be a direct ancestor of CWC (rather than its close relative).



It's a stupid argument anyway, since Sintashta may have been of Corded Ware origin.
:) It depends on how you define Corded Ware, but yes, one can indeed say that Sintashta is likely to have been of Corded Ware origin (though very unlikely to have been derived from German CWC), only that it doesn’t change anything in this discussion.



Guys, what's the point of being wrong all the time? Don't you want to be right?
:) Right, I really feel your pain. After so many failures in the past, when you were wrongly assuming that there was no R1b on the NPC steppe or that R1b-L51 came to Western Europe directly from Africa or that R1a originally expanded to Eastern Europe from Central-Western Europe, it must be very difficult to accept that yet another prediction of yours is going to be smashed into oblivion after being confronted with the ancient DNA data. But please relax, you will definitely get our strong support when this happens, so there is no need to overreact now by calling your opponents’ views stupid.

Michał
03-14-2016, 04:38 PM
Enough already. Move with the data.

Exactly! I would love to see these ancient DNA data that are supposed to demonstrate so clearly that Yamna should be considered a direct ancestor of CWC rather than its very close relative.


And I don't much care for the details at this stage. They'll be worked out eventually.
I am afraid this is exactly the reason why you fail to recognize why this hypothesis makes so little sense (although the ability to evaluate all the data from a much broader perspective doesn’t seem to be your strong side neither).

Generalissimo
03-16-2016, 05:30 AM
I am afraid this is exactly the reason why you fail to recognize why this hypothesis makes so little sense (although the ability to evaluate all the data from a much broader perspective doesn’t seem to be your strong side neither).

I wont tell you here what your weak point is. But thanks for the laughs anyway.