Human Action Could Affect Which aDNA We Find

[Generalissimo]

Hard to prove this negative.

We have very compelling evidence from modern and ancient DNA that from the late Neolithic onwards there was a massive expansion of R1 derived lineages acros Europe and indeed much of Eurasia, which was accompanied by an eastern shift in the genome-wide genetic structue of Europeans, and probably most West Eurasians. The groups that caused this shift were closely related to three ancient samples from eastern Europe and Siberia, belonging to R, R1a and R1b. So the two events were obviously closely linked.

Aleady at this point I don't expect we'll find any evidence in the future to counter this picture, no matter how many ancient western European samples are sequenced.

[Christina]

We have very compelling evidence from modern and ancient DNA that from the late Neolithic onwards there was a massive expansion of R1 derived lineages acros Europe and indeed much of Eurasia, which was accompanied by an eastern shift in the genome-wide genetic structue of Europeans, and probably most West Eurasians. The groups that caused this shift were closely related to three ancient samples from eastern Europe and Siberia, belonging to R, R1a and R1b. So the two events were obviously closely linked.

And then there's the compelling evidence to the contrary: the TMRCA within the R1 lineages being way before the epoch and split you purport. The vast distances these settlers had to cover, on foot. The tiny population size in the era you reference, making the need for "conquest" all the less likely. The utter lack of logic that an eastern derived sample would be the highest in modern isolates like island dwellers (the Irish) and mountain dwellers (the Basque).

Let's face it: logic is pretty strong to the contrary.

[rms2]

And then there's the compelling evidence to the contrary: the TMRCA within the R1 lineages being way before the epoch and split you purport. The vast distances these settlers had to cover, on foot. The tiny population size in the era you reference, making the need for "conquest" all the less likely. The utter lack of logic that an eastern derived sample would be the highest in modern isolates like island dwellers (the Irish) and mountain dwellers (the Basque).

Let's face it: logic is pretty strong to the contrary.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. We know that Indo-Europeans expanded into peninsular Europe in three waves beginning in the late 5th millennium BC through the 3rd millennium BC. We know that most Europeans came to speak Indo-European languages. We know the Yamnaya cultural horizon was a big part of that, and all seven ancient Yamnaya samples from the Volga-Ural steppe were R1b. A 7,600 year old hunter-gatherer buried in the same area was also R1b, the oldest R1b yet found anywhere. Another hunter-gatherer of about the same age was recovered from Karelia, and he was R1a, the oldest R1a yet found.

Thus far, R1b and R1a have been conspicuous in pre-late-Neolithic peninsular Europe by their absence; which of course was part of the basic premise of this thread, since that absence obviously does not comport well with what you believe or want to believe about R1b.

R1b and R1a have also been recovered from remains of two successor cultures believed to have been instrumental in the spread of Indo-European languages: Bell Beaker, in the case of R1b, and Corded Ware, in the case of R1a.

As Generalissimo mentioned in his post, at the close of the Neolithic, European genomes experienced a shift to the east that is best explained by the influx of R1 peoples from the steppe beginning in the latter days of the Neolithic.

As for people moving long distances on foot: steppe pastoralists came on horseback, and besides, one can walk from Moscow to the English Channel in a single summer.

As for the "tiny population size", there are over 3,000 Yamnaya kurgans in eastern Hungary alone, and that is not counting all of the others in Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, etc. Only the elite got kurgans when they died, so those thousands of kurgans represent a truly massive migration from the steppe (which, of course, was part of the title of the Haak et al paper).

[R.Rocca]

And then there's the compelling evidence to the contrary: the TMRCA within the R1 lineages being way before the epoch and split you purport. The vast distances these settlers had to cover, on foot. The tiny population size in the era you reference, making the need for "conquest" all the less likely. The utter lack of logic that an eastern derived sample would be the highest in modern isolates like island dwellers (the Irish) and mountain dwellers (the Basque).

Let's face it: logic is pretty strong to the contrary.

By "logic", it looks like you mean your own opinion. TMRCA of R1 is old, but not as you get down to modern mega-clusters, and those are related to those who used horses and wagons, not those that walked on foot. Either way, I'd stick with ancient DNA since it's fact based, and not someone's version of "logic".

[Augustus]

Cremation has without a doubt limited genetic studies. Not too many bodies in Otzi-like circumstances will be found.

[Generalissimo]

Cremation has without a doubt limited genetic studies. Not too many bodies in Otzi-like circumstances will be found.

What's so special about Otzi in 2015?

[GTC]

What's so special about Otzi in 2015?

I think his point concerns the state of preservation.

[Generalissimo]

I think his point concerns the state of preservation.

Indeed, but we no longer need remains to be as well preserved as Otzi to get much better genome sequences than Otzi's.

Also, nowadays even much poorer sequences are useful if they're analyzed in population groups like in the Haak paper.

[rms2]

Cremation has without a doubt limited genetic studies . . .

I think there is plenty of reason to doubt that unless one can show that cremation was widely practiced in the area under study during the time period under consideration. And why should R1b be singled out as the target for cremation except by those who are grasping at straws to explain why it isn't fitting their preferred scenario?

We have actual physical evidence that R1b was on the Volga-Ural steppe among the right people at the right time to be connected to the expansion of the Indo-Europeans into peninsular Europe. We also have it in the body of a 7,600-year-old hunter-gatherer from the same region and in the body of a Bell Beaker man from Germany circa 2300 BC; and Bell Beaker is widely regarded as an IE successor culture responsible for the initial spread of Italo-Celtic. The Karelian hunter-gatherer is R1a and clusters autosomally with his R1b cousin, the Samara hunter-gatherer, and R1a has been recovered from another IE successor culture, Corded Ware, often linked to the spread of Balto-Slavic and Germanic.

There is no more reason to think R1b is missing from pre-Neolithic peninsular Europe because it was singled out for cremation than there is to believe it is missing because it was the subject of mass alien abductions.

[Christina]

Somehow you managed to take a dry scientific discussion and turn it into yet another example of trolling.

The Era of the Horse started with domestication in c. 3500 BC and went at least through 1500 A.D., to pick an even date that a lot of historians place as the last major encounter between populations that had the horse and those who didn't.

At any rate, I've given you a rough period of 5000 years. In those 5000 years, there was writing (i.e., history) for about 4/5ths of it. So 4000 years.

You want to disprove what you call "my logic?" In those 4000 years, give me one example of a culture/tribe/nation/people conquering territory as fast as you fantasize the R1b conquered a region stretching from Russia to Portugal.

Napoleon? Nope.

The Conquistadores? Nope. Heck, there are parts of the Amazon much closer to the European beachhead that STILL are not populated by the newcomers (Europeans).

And what was the population dynamic that made them cover those miles? There were vast tracts of open space, enough to support large populations. And yet populations were still very small. I suppose you think they just wanted to see the Atlantic Ocean?

Heck, in the automobile era, there is not one example of anyone conquering and ruling and displacing such a vast region.

In fact, even considering the world's empires, Greek, Roman, etc. - there is not one solitary example of such mass territorial conquering and displacement.

Yet according to you, 1000 or so R1b people mysteriously swept from the Urals to Ireland, despite small numbers, despite not needing the room, despite progressing mostly on horseback, and yes, foot.

That's "my" logic.