# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics >  All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

## Farstar

All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago, according to David Reich.

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...000-years-ago/

The original reference is newscientist, but it is under pay wall.

However, I believe that current Iberian populations do not have too much Yamna contribution. How is that?

1. Very few Yamna women went to Iberia, so even though all Iberian men were wiped out, women remained, and they gave their genes to their descendants
2. There were other peoples that arrived later to Iberia, and gave other genes

Are two possibilities. Which are the right ones?

... and just amazing the Yamna were able to completely wipe out all men in a big region. Violence? Diseases?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago, according to David Reich.
> 
> https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...000-years-ago/
> 
> The original reference is newscientist, but it is under pay wall.
> 
> However, I believe that current Iberian populations do not have too much Yamna contribution. How is that?
> 
> 1. Very few Yamna women went to Iberia, so even though all Iberian men were wiped out, women remained, and they gave their genes to their descendants
> ...


Because maybe, just maybe, these people aren't descended from Yamnaya. It's gospel nowadays, but Steppe doesn't have to have come from Yamnaya...

It's worth remembering that the Chalcolithic Balkans had SIGNIFICANT Steppe admix. My pet theory is basically in-line with Coon's origin of the Beaker folk, but regardless of whether this is correct or not, Steppe shouldn't always be equated with Yamnaya. 

IF R1b-L51 turns up on the Steppe, then we're talking.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

I'll repost a repost, as it is clearly relevant speculation to this thread:

"I'll repost my theory:

"I personally imagine pre-L51 and pre-Z2103 splitting somewhere in the Balkans, or maybe Anatolia, with pre-L51 travelling (perhaps by sea) to Iberia and pre-Z2103 spreading somewhat Eastwards across West Asia. L51, part of the Iberian BBs and amongst typical Megalithic folk, would then travel to Central Europe (acquiring some more Steppe-like mtDNA lineages from Corded Ware women along the way), before expanding throughout Western Europe as part of the Unetice cultural complex. Z2103 would have both remained in West Asia, but also moved up into the Steppe, and from those people Yamnaya would expand into the Balkans. This entire process would be at least at first associated with the spread of metal (L23)."

Any points of contention are welcome. There's a few key reasons why I believe this over the Steppe origin of L51 though, just for example the fact that there doesn't seem to be any cultures to find L51 in, with the assumption that it would have left a trace in the present-day location of its mother culture, assuming a Steppe origin. L51 is pretty much entirely confined to Western Europe, and the Balkan expansion of Yamnaya seems so clearly linked to the present day distribution of Z2103. Moreover, a lot of the earliest subclades of L51 are in Sardinia of all places, which points to this maritime theory strongly.

L51 could have picked up Steppe admix from Corded folk, but it could easily have had Steppe admix to start with. Low noise of Steppe admix has been found in the Iberian Chalcolithic, and in this theory the carriers of this admix would have likely expanded from the Balkans, where there has been (obviously ignoring the Danubian farmer samples) a Steppe presence for a long time. I personally believe that the Balkan-Black Sea region is the original breeding ground of R1b, meaning a large Steppe presence among non-farmer samples (who were clear imports from the Neolithic Middle East, bred like rabbits, and can be paid little attention in this hypothesis) is to be expected, and has been found already (as one example, a Greek Neolithic sample has been found that even clusters with individuals of Northern European Corded Ware origin - Neolithic!)."

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Oh, and not to mention that this invasion didn't even bring Indo-European languages to Iberia - that was at the hands of the Romans!

----------


## halfalp

> I'll repost a repost, as it is clearly relevant speculation to this thread:
> 
> "I'll repost my theory:
> 
> "I personally imagine pre-L51 and pre-Z2103 splitting somewhere in the Balkans, or maybe Anatolia, with pre-L51 travelling (perhaps by sea) to Iberia and pre-Z2103 spreading somewhat Eastwards across West Asia. L51, part of the Iberian BBs and amongst typical Megalithic folk, would then travel to Central Europe (acquiring some more Steppe-like mtDNA lineages from Corded Ware women along the way), before expanding throughout Western Europe as part of the Unetice cultural complex. Z2103 would have both remained in West Asia, but also moved up into the Steppe, and from those people Yamnaya would expand into the Balkans. This entire process would be at least at first associated with the spread of metal (L23)."
> 
> Any points of contention are welcome. There's a few key reasons why I believe this over the Steppe origin of L51 though, just for example the fact that there doesn't seem to be any cultures to find L51 in, with the assumption that it would have left a trace in the present-day location of its mother culture, assuming a Steppe origin. L51 is pretty much entirely confined to Western Europe, and the Balkan expansion of Yamnaya seems so clearly linked to the present day distribution of Z2103. Moreover, a lot of the earliest subclades of L51 are in Sardinia of all places, which points to this maritime theory strongly.
> 
> L51 could have picked up Steppe admix from Corded folk, but it could easily have had Steppe admix to start with. Low noise of Steppe admix has been found in the Iberian Chalcolithic, and in this theory the carriers of this admix would have likely expanded from the Balkans, where there has been (obviously ignoring the Danubian farmer samples) a Steppe presence for a long time. I personally believe that the Balkan-Black Sea region is the original breeding ground of R1b, meaning a large Steppe presence among non-farmer samples (who were clear imports from the Neolithic Middle East, bred like rabbits, and can be paid little attention in this hypothesis) is to be expected, and has been found already (as one example, a Greek Neolithic sample has been found that even clusters with individuals of Northern European Corded Ware origin - Neolithic!)."


Nice to see someone with a badest reputation than me! ( jk)

I think we should be cautious with that Corded Ware steppe-like mtdna. I think at the end, Corded women might have been way more europe neolithic than steppe-like.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Nice to see someone with a badest reputation than me! ( jk)
> 
> I think we should be cautious with that Corded Ware steppe-like mtdna. I think at the end, Corded women might have been way more europe neolithic than steppe-like.


All I'm referring to there is the increase in Steppe mtDNA from BB to Unetice, as per Maciamo.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Nice to see someone with a badest reputation than me! ( jk)
> 
> I think we should be cautious with that Corded Ware steppe-like mtdna. I think at the end, Corded women might have been way more europe neolithic than steppe-like.


What do you think of the theory though?

----------


## markod

> What do you think of the theory though?


Keep in mind that David Reich probably has a huge database of unpublished samples. I think if there was any evidence that L51 was in the west he'd probably adapt his views to fit the facts.

I used to be convinced L51 diversified in LN/Chalcolithic Western Europe, but if it isn't there then modern phylogeographic diversity might be a result of large-scale population replacement. 

Irrespective of this, it will still be interesting to see where and why steppe males became L51, having been exclusively Z2103 previously. Vucedol and Hungarian Yamnaya still seem to have been Z2103 dominated. The TMRCA of 3700 B. C. and the 'Mediterranean' distribution of basal L51 clades do look weird and not very consistent with Yamnaya expansion for sure.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Keep in mind that David Reich probably has a huge database of unpublished samples. I think if there was any evidence that L51 was in the west he'd probably adapt his views to fit the facts.
> 
> I used to be convinced L51 diversified in LN/Chalcolithic Western Europe, but if it isn't there then modern phylogeographic diversity might be a result of large-scale population replacement. 
> 
> Irrespective of this, it will still be interesting to see where and why steppe males became L51, having been exclusively Z2103 previously. Vucedol and Hungarian Yamnaya still seem to have been Z2103 dominated.


Agreed, but more so than that - can you identify a single Steppe/Eastern European culture that could be identified with L51? Because I sure can't... Bell Beaker makes a lot of sense EVEN with that Olalde paper showing them to be typical Megalithic I2 - the remains of the "true" Beaker folk in Spain are extremely sparse.

And also, I keep having to say this, but Reich isn't some god. He used to think Northern Europeans were Caucasoid-Amerindian hybrids

----------


## markod

> Agreed, but more so than that - can you identify a single Steppe/Eastern European culture that could be identified with L51? Because I sure can't...


Nope, no idea. I edited the post and added the points about the TMRCA and 'Mediterranean' distribution of L51 basal clades. Very strange indeed.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Nope, no idea. I edited the post and added the points about the TMRCA and 'Mediterranean' distribution of L51 basal clades. Very strange indeed.


I know this isn't how empiricism works, but it isn't really that much of a mystery, AT LEAST in terms of forming the most likely hypothesis. It's clearly the Beaker hypothesis. That, and the distribution of the Swastika and links of L23 to metallurgy (see http://archive.is/uGFGX - somewhat wacky, and I've changed my view quite a bit, but the essence is the same), makes me very confident in my hypothesis that I posted above. But we'll see with time.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Well actually I've changed my view so much that you may as well just look at what I posted above and ignore that archive link, but whatever. Ignoring details, tl;dr: Swatikas and L23 and metallurgy are all connected during the Chalcolithic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

On a bit of a ramble here, but what about this (Three individuals who lived in the Chalcolithic era (c. 5700–6250 years BP), found at the Areni-1 ("Bird's Eye") cave in the South Caucasus mountains (present-day Vayots Dzor Province, Armenia), was also identified as belonging to haplogroup L1a. The individual's genome also indicated that he had *red hair and blue eyes*.), and the connection of Gedrosian admixture to R1b and L (amongst others).

----------


## ThirdTerm

Valdiosera et al. (2018) studied 13 ancient Iberian individuals and they found the European farmer-associated haplogroup G2a2 and the European farmer-associated haplogroup H2 among the Early Neolithic individuals, while two Bronze Age males carried haplogroup R1b-M269 or R1b1a1a2. David Reich possibly referred to this study's data set to explain the population turnover in the Iberian Bronze Age. 






> Nine of the 13 ancient Iberian individuals were found to carry mitochondrial haplogroups associated with European early farmers, namely K, J, N, and X (SI Appendix, Table S4.1), distributed throughout the Early Neolithic to the Bronze Age (6, 45). Two individuals have haplogroups HV0 and H, known in both European early farmers and hunter-gatherers (25, 45) and are present during the LNCA. Further, haplogroup U5, characteristic of hunter-gatherers (46, 47), is found in a Late Copper Age individual. Consistent with the mitochondrial haplogroup composition of the ancient Iberians, the Y chromosome composition (Dataset S1) displays a mix of haplogroups associated with both European farmers and hunter-gatherers. Among the Early Neolithic individuals, we find the European farmer-associated haplogroup G2a2 (9) and the European farmer-associated haplogroup H2 (1, 6), while in the LNCA we observe haplogroup I2, previously found in both hunter-gatherers and farmers (SI Appendix, Table S4.1) (1, 6). Both Bronze Age males carried haplogroup R1b-M269 (SI Appendix, Table S4.1), which is frequent among Late Neolithic and Bronze Age samples from other parts of Europe (4, 6). This uniparental marker composition is in agreement with the well-known admixture between resident hunter-gatherers and incoming farmers.

----------


## Angela

Reich is talking about their Olalde et al paper. We've discussed it extensively here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ghlight=Olalde

When it was a pre-print:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ghlight=Olalde

----------


## Tomenable

Not all because R1b is far from being 100% in modern Iberia.

----------


## Ygorcs

All Iberian men? So where does all the ~20% to as much as 55% of non-R1b Y-DNA haplogroups (depending on the region) come from, exclusively through Yamna-derived mixed EEF+Steppe men who migrated there during the Bronze Age? And why is the autosomal contribution of Yamnaya-like people so low in most of Iberia? I can definitely see a long-term replacement of Neolithic Iberia haplogroups with Pontic-Caspian Y-DNA haplogroups, but not through a massive and rapid "wiping out" of all Iberian males. Such a massive replacement would mean that nearly 50% of the genetic pool from which the later Iberians would be born would be Yamnaya-like. Instead, if what happened was a gradual, slow but relentless replacement caused by the different rates of reproductive success, favoring males with Yamna-derived male lineages, that relatively low autosomal contribution could be made easily compatible with the replacement of Y-DNA haplogroups in favor of Pontic-Caspian male lineages.

----------


## bicicleur

check Olalde 2017
after the arrival of BB in Britain, these BB folks with steppe ancestry made up 90 % of the population
yet the neolithic Y-DNA, which is I2a-S2639, I2a-Z161 and I2a-M284 still lives in Britain
I2a-M284 were probably British HG who adopted farming
but I2a-Z161 and I2a-L161.1, ancestral to I2a-S2639 were of Iberian origin
both clades went practicaly extinct in Iberia
but I doubt only Yamna is to blaim
the 4 ka El Argar were intrusive too and very dominant in spreading bronze from the Iberian eastcoast
those El Argar were not even Indo-European
when the Phoenicians and Greeks arrived on the Iberian eastcoast, 'Iberian' languages were spoken there
besides R1b, the 2nd largest Y-DNA in Iberia is J2

----------


## markod

> I know this isn't how empiricism works, but it isn't really that much of a mystery, AT LEAST in terms of forming the most likely hypothesis. It's clearly the Beaker hypothesis. That, and the distribution of the Swastika and links of L23 to metallurgy (see http://archive.is/uGFGX - somewhat wacky, and I've changed my view quite a bit, but the essence is the same), makes me very confident in my hypothesis that I posted above. But we'll see with time.



I've thought about Mesopotamia as the center of the ideological transition that took place in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age before. Another noteworthy development is that we find in those Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures the first evidence of male gods - Alberto Green wrote about this in his book "The Storm God in the Ancient Near East". It's certainly interesting, but it's probably too early to talk about the demic impact of these developments.

As for BB and Coon: it certainly looks like Coon was right about mostly everything, for all his faults. It's still baffling to me how he predicted what we now know about the genetics of Central European & British BB with seemingly 100% accuracy - he even knew that the pop. replacement in Britain was close to complete_._ My mind would be blown if his hypothesis of BB origins turned out to be correct as well. 

If Coon was right there should be very few genuine Bell Beakers in Iberia, and most skeletons buried with Beaker implements would instead belong to the subjected Megalithic population.

----------


## halfalp

> Agreed, but more so than that - can you identify a single Steppe/Eastern European culture that could be identified with L51? Because I sure can't... Bell Beaker makes a lot of sense EVEN with that Olalde paper showing them to be typical Megalithic I2 - the remains of the "true" Beaker folk in Spain are extremely sparse.
> 
> And also, I keep having to say this, but Reich isn't some god. He used to think Northern Europeans were Caucasoid-Amerindian hybrids


If a remember, modern distribution of R1b-L51 is very located in the Alps, not very in the Iberian Peninsula.

----------


## halfalp

> I've thought about Mesopotamia as the center of the ideological transition that took place in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age before. Another noteworthy development is that we find in those Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures the first evidence of male gods - Alberto Green wrote about this in his book "The Storm God in the Ancient Near East". It's certainly interesting, but it's probably too early to talk about the demic impact of these developments.
> 
> As for BB and Coon: it certainly looks like Coon was right about mostly everything, for all his faults. It's still baffling to me how he predicted what we now know about the genetics of Central European & British BB with seemingly 100% accuracy - he even knew that the pop. replacement in Britain was close to complete_._ My mind would be blown if his hypothesis of BB origins turned out to be correct as well. 
> 
> If Coon was right there should be very few genuine Bell Beakers in Iberia, and most skeletons buried with Beaker implements would instead belong to the subjected Megalithic population.


Btw, i've intensively research for anthropologic fact after the Iron_Gates_HG paper of Mathiesen came out and what i've found is that one of the romanian one ( something like Corvul Ostruli ) is really " borreby-like ".

Edit: It was Schela Cladovei and this is the boy.

http://alexisphoenix.org/imagesromania2/schela1053.jpg

----------


## Angela

> check Olalde 2017
> after the arrival of BB in Britain, these BB folks with steppe ancestry made up 90 % of the population
> yet the neolithic Y-DNA, which is I2a-S2639, I2a-Z161 and I2a-M284 still lives in Britain
> I2a-M284 were probably British HG who adopted farming
> but I2a-Z161 and I2a-L161.1, ancestral to I2a-S2639 were of Iberian origin
> both clades went practicaly extinct in Iberia
> but I doubt only Yamna is to blaim
> the 4 ka El Argar were intrusive too and very dominant in spreading bronze from the Iberian eastcoast
> those El Argar were not even Indo-European
> ...


Exactly right. This comment was probably just the typical misunderstanding and exaggeration of journalists.

----------


## Megalophias

> And also, I keep having to say this, but Reich isn't some god. He used to think Northern Europeans were Caucasoid-Amerindian hybrids


The guy is of course a fallible mortal like the rest of us, but when exactly did he say this?

----------


## Angela

Sloppy exaggeration.

See:
Patterson et al,

"Population mixture is an important process in biology. We present a suite of methods for learning about population mixtures, implemented in a software package called ADMIXTOOLS, that support formal tests for whether mixture occurred and make it possible to infer proportions and dates of mixture. We also describe the development of a new single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array consisting of 629,433 sites with clearly documented ascertainment that was specifically designed for population genetic analyses and that we genotyped in 934 individuals from 53 diverse populations. To illustrate the methods, we give a number of examples that provide new insights about the history of human admixture. The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present-day Basques and Sardinians and the other related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas. This likely reflects a history of admixture between Neolithic migrants and the indigenous Mesolithic population of Europe, consistent with recent analyses of ancient bones from Sweden and the sequencing of the genome of the Tyrolean “Iceman.”
http://www.genetics.org/content/192/3/1065


Patterson saw non-Sardinian Europeans as having North Eurasian like ancestry that links them to Amerindian populations, which was, of course, completely accurate. He got the "source" wrong, but that was before we had any ancient samples.

----------


## firetown

> Not all because R1b is far from being 100% in modern Iberia.


Right. I2a and G2a (original Proto-Basque y-DNA haplogroups), are still present.



> I have also revised the Basques' *Y-DNA frequencies* using four different sources (Underhill et al., Adams et al., Iberianroots and the study in link above) totalling *597 samples.* *There are only a few changes, but important ones. I2a decreased from 9% to 5% to the profit of E1b1b (increase from 1% to 2.5%) and G2a, which had 0% and now has 1.5%. We now have a pre-IE admixture suggesting a considerable West Asian admixture, since the total of G2a, J1 and J2 is 4.5%, about the same as the Paleolithic I2a1 (5%). The big question mark is E1b1b (2.5%), which would be Paleolithic as well as Neolithic, or even an influence of neighbouring Cantabria.*


https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...or-the-Basques

----------


## firetown

But looking at the low percentages, it could have been that all adult men were wiped out and some young boys survived. And of course, there would have been some pregnant women spared whose I2a and G2a offspring would have at least help preserve the original line.

Do we know for example how high the Proto-Basque population could have been at that point? And how large the group of R1b invaders was?

----------


## GloomyGonzales

> I'll repost a repost, as it is clearly relevant speculation to this thread:
> 
> "I'll repost my theory:
> 
> "I personally imagine pre-L51 and pre-Z2103 splitting somewhere in the Balkans, or maybe Anatolia, with pre-L51 travelling (perhaps by sea) to Iberia and pre-Z2103 spreading somewhat Eastwards across West Asia. L51, part of the Iberian BBs and amongst typical Megalithic folk, would then travel to Central Europe (acquiring some more Steppe-like mtDNA lineages from Corded Ware women along the way), before expanding throughout Western Europe as part of the Unetice cultural complex. Z2103 would have both remained in West Asia, but also moved up into the Steppe, and from those people Yamnaya would expand into the Balkans. This entire process would be at least at first associated with the spread of metal (L23)."
> 
> Any points of contention are welcome. There's a few key reasons why I believe this over the Steppe origin of L51 though, just for example the fact that there doesn't seem to be any cultures to find L51 in, with the assumption that it would have left a trace in the present-day location of its mother culture, assuming a Steppe origin. L51 is pretty much entirely confined to Western Europe, and the Balkan expansion of Yamnaya seems so clearly linked to the present day distribution of Z2103. Moreover, a lot of the earliest subclades of L51 are in Sardinia of all places, which points to this maritime theory strongly.
> 
> L51 could have picked up Steppe admix from Corded folk, but it could easily have had Steppe admix to start with. Low noise of Steppe admix has been found in the Iberian Chalcolithic, and in this theory the carriers of this admix would have likely expanded from the Balkans, where there has been (obviously ignoring the Danubian farmer samples) a Steppe presence for a long time. I personally believe that the Balkan-Black Sea region is the original breeding ground of R1b, meaning a large Steppe presence among non-farmer samples (who were clear imports from the Neolithic Middle East, bred like rabbits, and can be paid little attention in this hypothesis) is to be expected, and has been found already (as one example, a Greek Neolithic sample has been found that even clusters with individuals of Northern European Corded Ware origin - Neolithic!)."


Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
My post from September 11, 2016

Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.

http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg

----------


## hrvclv

I wonder how geographically extensive the Reich scrutiny was. I mean, when the Romans arrived in Iberia, a wide band of land to the east of Iberia along the Mediterranean was still distinctly "iberian", in the proper sense of the word. Those Iberians spoke a non-IE language and were culturally quite distinct from the Celtiberians and Lusitanians in the west. They seem to have been long-established populations, with elements of their language (notably numbers) borrowed from the Basques. It seems quite unlikely that those people had, at any time in the course of their history, been subjugated by invaders with steppe ancestry.

Even the Celtiberians, for that matter, probably arrived in Iberia long after the date bracket Reich mentions. But the Lusitanians, with their very ancient, unclassifiable IE language, could match.

If Reich's pool of research was for some reason confined to, or mostly focused on, the western half of Iberia, then "(near-)total replacement" might make sense, to a degree. Otherwise, the claim, in my view, remains highly debatable.

----------


## markod

> Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
> My post from September 11, 2016
> 
> Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.
> 
> http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg


Interesting, Coon mentions the Mediterranean Isles (Sicily & Corsica) as the stepping stones for the 'racial' Bell Beakers that invade Iberia from the Eastern Mediterranean in the Chalcolithic. BB cultural elements would already have existed in Iberia before those distinctive newcomers imposed themselves upon the local Megalithic population to become the expansive Beakers that absorbed the LN & CW groups in Central Europe.

----------


## Messier 67

As in Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Gaul and the Baltic, "Them that pinched it done them in!"

----------


## davef

Did they "conquer" with swords or the numerous illnesses they had (or both)? Also y-dna doesn't tell it all, as we know...these people with "Steppe" y-dna probably already had EEF in them that they picked up en route

----------


## halfalp

> Did they "conquer" with swords or the numerous illnesses they had (or both)? Also y-dna doesn't tell it all, as we know...these people with "Steppe" y-dna probably already had EEF in them that they picked up en route


It's easier to conquer with spears than with swords.

----------


## Angela

The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:

"O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report *genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals* from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. *During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar.* Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with *Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants.* During the later *Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."
*
This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly. 

A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?

I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.

Just in general terms, the burials you're likely to find might be disproportionately those of more elite groups, so I always think it would be better to say something along the lines of....in the samples we've found to date...

If they're correct, Iberian speakers were no different from the Indo-European speakers. So, maybe in some areas they were small in number and adopted the language of the "natives"? Seems odd if there was a near wipe out of the ylines, but the Basques are odd too; it's not "that" isolated an area.

Under this scenario, the other y lines, especially a lot of the "E" and all of the "J" would have arrived later, with Carthaginians, North Africans proper, perhaps Romans?

----------


## davef

Almost overnight? Lol. Bad wording or what? 
"In what is now Spain and Portugal, the local male line vanished almost overnight, and males from outside became the only ones to leave descendants."
https://www.newscientist.com/article...tile-invaders/

----------


## Angela

> The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:
> 
> "O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report *genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals* from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. *During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar.* Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with *Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants.* During the later *Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."
> *
> This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly. 
> 
> A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?
> 
> I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.
> ...


The Rui Martiniano paper about Portugal shows roughly the same thing, although they only had three Bronze Age samples.

See:
https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...l.pgen.1006852

----------


## berun

As ever anything involving Yamnayans is shrouded by mistery, such impressive replacement from Central Europe (?) would be devoid of archaeological proofs. Even lesser replacements like those of the Celts or Romans could be tracked down...

----------


## ROS

Is it possible that what until now has been considered pre-Indo-European is post-Indo-European?

That is to say Iberian peninsula iberian bronze age is already Indo-European and then in the iron age the Iberian-Basque-Aquitanian language is introduced, with little or no genetic influence in the Mediterranean and therefore both the interior and the Mediterranean part in the Iberian Peninsula They have their genetic base in the Bronze Age.

It seems to me that is what is deduced from this new article.

----------


## berun

> The Rui Martiniano paper about Portugal shows roughly the same thing, although they only had three Bronze Age samples.
> 
> See:
> https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...l.pgen.1006852


Not the same, the paper presented R1b men without steppe admixture, but as they were R1b they came from the steppes, just a circular argument used frequently by steppists and Gimbutas' religion worshippers.

----------


## markod

> Is it possible that what until now has been considered pre-Indo-European is post-Indo-European?
> 
> That is to say Iberian peninsula iberian bronze age is already Indo-European and then in the iron age the Iberian-Basque-Aquitanian language is introduced, with little or no genetic influence in the Mediterranean and therefore both the interior and the Mediterranean part in the Iberian Peninsula They have their genetic base in the Bronze Age.
> 
> It seems to me that is what is deduced from this new article.


I'm sure if we had inscriptions from before the Iron Age from the British Isles, we'd see the same problem there. For the latest thinking on this see here: http://www.jolr.ru/files/(101)jlr2012-8(160-164).pdf

Even more than in Iberia the languages replaced by the Celtic ideoms that came to Britain & Ireland seemed to have strong non-IE features.

----------


## bicicleur

> The Rui Martiniano paper about Portugal shows roughly the same thing, although they only had three Bronze Age samples.
> See:
> https://journals.plos.org/plosgeneti...l.pgen.1006852


to what 3rd millenium BC people do they refer to?
afaik chalcolithic like Los Millares were late 4th millenium BC, and El Argar was +/- 2000 BC

when will the 'new Olalde' paper be published?

----------


## Angela

> Not the same, the paper presented R1b men without steppe admixture, but as they were R1b they came from the steppes, just a circular argument used frequently by steppists and Gimbutas' religion worshippers.


The change to R1b certainly took place.

However, as to autosomal admixture, your assertion is true only insofar as their ADMIXTURE analysis is concerned. 

When they ran Chromopainter/Finestructure, this was their finding:

"Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p = 0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in Chuvash, Orcadian (p = 0.017), Lezgin and Irish (p = 0.033). However, this shift from southern to northern affinity is markedly weaker than that observed between Neolithic and Bronze Age genomes in Ireland, Scandinavia, Hungary and Central Europe. *These findings suggest detectable, but comparatively modest, Steppe-related introgression present at the Portuguese Bronze Age."

*[IMG][/IMG]

They show the same movement in PCA form.

Second of all, this is the situation in one area of Portugal in the Middle Bronze Age. As even their ADMIXTURE analysis makes clear, the steppe admixture is present in modern Spaniards and Portuguese. 

If the new Olalde paper is correct, and there was a shift to 40% autosomal steppe admixture in Spain, and the 20 to a maximum of 20% today, then subsequent migrations must have cut into that percentage.

----------


## Angela

> to what 3rd millenium BC people do they refer to?
> afaik chalcolithic like Los Millares were late 4th millenium BC, and El Argar was +/- 2000 BC
> when will the 'new Olalde' paper be published?


The fourteen samples they examined ranged from the Middle Neolithic (4200-3500 BC) to the Middle Bronze Age (1740-1430 BC). 

This is the archaeological information. They're not exactly what I would call optimal samples.

"1.2.1 Cova da Moura

Cova da Moura is a *natural cave*, in which human remains were buried, located in the Sizandro River Valley, Estremadura. The site was discovered and excavated in the 1930s [3]. Radiocarbon dates obtained from human remains are as follows: *2620 to 2210 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 3950+60 BP, UBAR-536); 3635 to 3372 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 4715+50, UBAR-593)* (Silva, 2002). Burial may have continued for as long as 1000 years [4] but appears to have been *concentrated in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, when exceptionally rich and exotic grave goods (jet, variscite and ivory) were also deposited [5]*. The *archaeological deposits were very disturbed* and the human bones were disarticulated. Osteological analysis obtained a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 90, including adults and non-adults [4]. Analysis of stable and strontium isotopes were carried out to establish dietary and mobility patterns [5,6]. *4 of the 12 individuals sampled spent at least their early lives somewhere other than the region around Cova da Moura.* We analysed CM364 and CM96B."

"*1.2.2 Dolmen de Ansião*


The site of the Dolmen of Ansião is located in the *mountainous area of the Alta Estremadura.* It was discovered and excavated during road construction in the late nineteenth century. The artefacts [7] and a single radiocarbon date from a human femur, *3635 to 3372 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 4640±90 BP, Sac- 1559) [4] suggest a Late Neolithic date*. The remains have been moved several times and the assemblage is highly commingled and fragmented. A recent osteological assessment [4] ascertained an MNI of 37, with 23 adults of both sexes and 14 subadults of various ages. Several injuries includingtwo probable projectile injuries and six depressed cranial fractures were also noted. One (adult) petrous (DA96B) was included in this study.

*1.2.3 Monte Canelas*


The Monte Canelas necropolis is located in the *southern Algarve region of Portugal, only c.700 m north-northwest of the great Alcalar necropolis.* There are at least four hypogea at Monte Canelas [8]. The remains analysed for this project were from Hypogeum 1. Hypogeum 1 consists of two interconnected rock cut chambers, in which, *although the majority of remains were commingled, it was possible to identify two phases of deposition, separated by a partial collapse of the chambers* [9]. Osteological analysis identified a total MNI of 171 [10,11]. The *first phase occurred in the last quarter of the 4th Millennium BC and included a MNI of 147 individuals among which five burials survived ‘in-situ’. They were interred in individual cells, laid in the fetal position with grave goods, including a silex blade, an axe, stone bead necklaces and bone pins* [10,12]. The second phase, or *reuse, occurred at the end of the 3rd or beginning of the 2nd Millennium BC. One sample from Hypogeum 1 was included in this study, inhumation 337 (3326-2888 cal BC @ 95.4%,, 4370±60 BP, OxA-5514; 2926-2680 cal BC @ 95.4%, 4250+40 BP, Beta-290366) [8,10,13]. This was the only ‘in-situ’ burial in the northern chamber and belonged to an elderly female, approximately 60 years of age at death, who was buried with a silex blade, two bone pins and a bead.* Osteological analysis noted significant dental wear, degenerative lesions on her vertebrae, signs of scoliosis and a small osteoma in the occipital bone [10,11]. Only one sample was sequenced (MC337A).

*1.2.4 Cabeço da Arruda I*

Cabeço da Arruda I was a probable rock-cut tomb in Torres Vedras, that was partially destroyed upon discovery in the 1930s [2,14]. The artefacts suggest the* tomb was used between the second half of the fourth and the first part of the third millennia BC. A radiocarbon date obtained from a human long bone returned a date of 3330 to 2885 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 4370 ± 70 BP, Beta – 123363) (Silva, 2002).*  The human remains were *highly commingled and fragmented.* Osteological analyses identified an MNI of 19, that included both sexes and adults and non-adults. A depressed fracture, with evidence of healing, was noted on one of the adult skulls [2,14]. From this site *we obtained sequence data from CA117 and CA122*.

*1.3 Bronze Age sites*

*1.3.1 Monte do Gato de Cima 3*

Monte do Gato de Cima 3 is a* Bronze Age cemetery near Serpa in the Beja district of Alentejo.* It is part of a complex of monuments on a small hill (Outeiro Alto 2), that includes ceremonial and funerary remains from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze Age [15–17]. *One adult male (MG104), from a circular pit burial, was sampled for this project. He was buried in the fetal position with an assemblage typical of the local Bronze Age, an “Atalaia” cup, a bowl and an ox limb. Two overlapping radiocarbon dates suggest a burial date in the late 17th or earlier 16th centuries BC: 1640 to 1430 cal BC* (@ 95.4%, 3260+50, Sac 2573) and 1740 to 1545 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 3360±30, Beta-318379) [18]. Osteological analysis noted the unilateral absence of the left mandibular condyle, a probable sign of a traumatic event (Silva et al., in preparation).

*1.3.2 Monte do Vale do Ouro 2*


Monte do Vale do Ouro 2 is a Bronze Age site* near Ferreira do Alentejo, in the Beja district.* Excavation at Vale do Ouro 2 uncovered over seventy pits, two of which contained multiple inhumations. One individual (VO10207) was sampled for this project. The *sampled individual was a 20-25 year old possible female found underneath two other burials, a 6-10 year old child and another adult, in a circular pit; all were inhumed in the fetal position [19]. Such inhumations in this region are typically Bronze Age.*

*1.3.3 Torre Velha 3*

Torre Velha 3 is a multi-period site, dating from the Chalcolithic to Late Antiquity,* near Serpa, Beja, in the Alentejo region* [20–23]. The remains included 25 hypogea and several circular pits containing Middle Bronze Age burials. Most burials were inhumed in a flexed position and accompanied by grave goods, including pottery, metal artefacts and offerings of meat. Two individuals from Torre Velha 3 were sampled for this project, one from a hypogeum (TV32032) and the other from a circular pit (TV3831). *The hypogeum contained two adult male burials, both over 35 years in age. This is unusual in Torre Velha, as it is the only case of two adults of the same sex being buried together. The sampled inhumation was also unusual for being buried in a supine position with flexed limbs; this may be because of his great size and the constricted size of the hypogeum*. Osteological analysis identified excessive bone formation on the proximal end of his right femur, possibly signifying a slipped femoral capital epiphysis [24]. *He was buried with a cow limb* [25], a sample of which was dated to between 1750 and 1510 cal BC (@95.4%, 3340±50, Sac-2480). *The circular pit contained an adult male and female. They were both buried prone, but with their limbs flexed and their heads to one side so that they faced one another, the male on his right and the female on her left. Although laid out in perfect anatomical position, several bones were missing [26] and some bones of both burials were coloured with ochre [27]. Grave goods included a carinated bowl, the remains of a lithic sickle and another ceramic vessel. The burial is dated to the Bronze Age by the typology of the artefacts [21].*

All dates calibrated in Oxcal v4.2.4 [28] and calibrated with IntCal 13 [29] at 95.4% probability (2 Sigma). A map with the location of archaeological sites is shown in S1 Fig."

----------


## hrvclv

> If the new Olalde paper is correct, and there was a shift to 40% autosomal steppe admixture in Spain, and the 20 to a maximum of 20% today, then subsequent migrations must have cut into that percentage.


Yes... probably J2a people originally from Kura-Araxes, coming west along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, parallel to Steppe men in the north - after a stopover in Greece, where they picked an extra share of EEF. They'd have brought their bull worship and "corrida" with them, and shifted Iberian PCA south again. (cf. Maciamo's J2a page)

Plus, of course, the Muslim invasions that occurred later.

Depending on the region of Spain you consider, in terms of y-dna, J2a and E1b1 alternately come second to R1b, far ahead of other haplogroups.

----------


## bicicleur

..............

----------


## hrvclv

> The fourteen samples they examined ranged from the Middle Neolithic (4200-3500 BC) to the Middle Bronze Age (1740-1430 BC). 
> 
> This is the archaeological information. They're not exactly what I would call optimal samples.
> 
> "1.2.1 Cova da Moura
> 
> Cova da Moura is a *natural cave*, in which human remains were buried, located in the Sizandro River Valley, Estremadura. The site was discovered and excavated in the 1930s [3]. Radiocarbon dates obtained from human remains are as follows: *2620 to 2210 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 3950+60 BP, UBAR-536); 3635 to 3372 cal BC (@ 95.4%, 4715+50, UBAR-593)* (Silva, 2002). Burial may have continued for as long as 1000 years [4] but appears to have been *concentrated in the Late Neolithic and Copper Age, when exceptionally rich and exotic grave goods (jet, variscite and ivory) were also deposited [5]*. The *archaeological deposits were very disturbed* and the human bones were disarticulated. Osteological analysis obtained a minimum number of individuals (MNI) of 90, including adults and non-adults [4]. Analysis of stable and strontium isotopes were carried out to establish dietary and mobility patterns [5,6]. *4 of the 12 individuals sampled spent at least their early lives somewhere other than the region around Cova da Moura.* We analysed CM364 and CM96B."
> 
> "*1.2.2 Dolmen de Ansião*
> ...


All of them in Iberia's Far West - as suspected...

----------


## Messier 67

One source:




> The new study, which analyzes the DNA of the remains of 153 individuals unearthed in the Iberian Peninsula, is pending publication in one of the most important scientific journals in the world. Reich and Olalde, both from Harvard University (USA), want to offer more details at the moment.The work has also involved the geneticist Carles Lalueza-Fox from the Biolo Institute Evolutive of Barcelona.


Confucius says, "Reviewing what you have learned and learning anew, you are fit to be a teacher."

If this study shows violence killed off the men and left the women and girls to be victimized, what about the previous studies of these proto-celts who had the same means, same background, same weapons, and same customs and motives who also replaced the male population elsewhere and had fill of the women and girls.

The mtDNA of the neolithic women shows up in the same native population today. Showing that some of the women did survive, while some who resisted their new husbands were killed.

These proto-celts had the morality of Beavis and Butthead, except they cared about the fellow proto-celts.

----------


## Angela

> All of them in Iberia's Far West - as suspected...


It remains to be seen where the new Olalde samples were found.

These are the first Olalde samples, i.e. the Beaker paper:

[IMG][/IMG]

@Messier,
I don't know if the plague the Indo-Europeans carried played a role here as it did in Central Europe. Regardless, that wouldn't explain the female/male skew in terms of survival.

I suppose enslaving the men or heavily marginalizing them might have the same effect as outright killing them, but either way I find it very disturbing. I completely understand people's discomfort with this.

----------


## Farstar

Could it be that religion (in the Old Testament sense) was the way of "wise people" to tame these abhorrent behaviours? Today we see the Old Testament as violent and cruel. But maybe seeing it with the eyes of the contemporaneous people, our view would be different.

----------


## elghund

> Could it be that religion (in the Old Testament sense) was the way of "wise people" to tame these abhorrent behaviours? Today we see the Old Testament as violent and cruel. But maybe seeing it with the eyes of the contemporaneous people, our view would be different.


I Samuel 15: 2-3



> 2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
> 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.



Ezekiel 9: 4-11



> 4 And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
> 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
> 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
> 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
> 8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord God! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
> 9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.
> 10 And as for me also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.
> 11 And, behold, the man clothed with linen, which had the inkhorn by his side, reported the matter, saying, I have done as thou hast commanded me.


https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...21&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...35&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...-7&version=KJV

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...18&version=KJV

----------


## hrvclv

> Could it be that religion (in the Old Testament sense) was the way of "wise people" to tame these abhorrent behaviours? Today we see the Old Testament as violent and cruel. But maybe seeing it with the eyes of the contemporaneous people, our view would be different.


A personal reaction to this... The ancient Hebrews were a comparatively small group of shepherds in a ruthless world. My view is that when Moses came down from the mountain with his "Thou shalt not kill", what he had in mind was to cement the group together, to make sure no rivalry inside the group would weaken it. He didn't intend to pacify the planet. In other words, moral rules and laws are meant to apply WITHIN a given community. In terms of foreign policy, religions most often serve as a cover for a political or empirialistic agenda.

Missionaries often come alongside soldiers, a bible in one hand, and a gun in the other. Clovis converted to Christianity for political reasons. Christopher Columbus converted, and enslaved. Medieval lords financed the building of churches, while waging incessant warfare on the neighboring barons. Think also of the Crusades, the Muslim expansion, 16C England, Reformation Europe... The watchword was: convert or die. 

I've lived to see the former Yugoslavia ravaged by war along religious lines. Today, for each Israeli wounded, four Palestinians die. Even Gandhi's passive resistance was politically motivated. Chiites and Sunnites are also currently evidencing my point.

Religion as a peacemaker? Not buying... Men will be men. In the light of what we, supposedly civilized, advanced humans, can do today, I suspect that in the Bronze Age, moral consciousness and empathy can't have mattered much when it came to deciding what to do with the vanquished.

----------


## Messier 67

Native American tribe of the Incas, what decimated the population?:




> One of the most comprehensive and thoroughly researched is that by Carlos Sempat Assadourian (1994). His thickly documented analysis based on an impressively wide range of sources blames the demographic disaster on three decades of near total war, excessive labor demands, wholesale environmental destruction, widespread famine, and sheer cruelty. *Alien diseases are secondary factors*, dating from 1558 with the first smallpox epidemic, once the population has already been halved.


http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htm

Newsweek did an article titled: California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans




> an Indian girl raped and left to die somewhere near Mendocino; as many as 50 killed at Goose Lake; and, two months later, as many as 257 murdered at Grouse Creek, scores of them women and children. There were the four white ranchers who tracked down a band of Yana to a cave, butchering 30.
> 
> The debate over genocide in Native American history often turns to California, where the Native American population fell dramatically, from about 150,000 to 30,000, in the middle decades of the 19th century.
> 
> His book shows that the intent to rid California of its indigenous inhabitants was openly and repeatedly voiced, and that the means to achieve these ends were unambiguously brutal: mass deportations, slavery, massacres.
> 
> It was a widely held belief in 19th-century California that all of the Indians had to be exterminated. Reported the Daily Alta California, “Whites are becoming impressed with the belief that it will be absolutely necessary to exterminate the savages before they can labor much longer in the mines with security.”
> The killing of Indians was performed for reasons that seem, today, pathetically feeble.
> 
> One of the killers sent a bill to California: $11,143. The state paid it nearly in full. Madley notes that of the $1.5 million that California spent on 24 different Indian-killing militia campaigns between 1850 and 1861, Congress paid the state back all but $200,000.


https://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/26/...de-490824.html

Though a bit different with not the whole male native population vanishing in the Conquest of the New World. And the Indian women staying with their family.

But in both cases the new conquerors wanted what the natives had and got it after the conquest. The conquest of Europe and the conquest of the Americas. The proto-celts did not set up reservations for the natives to live in or suffer the male natives to live among them as in Latin America with the natives. However, it was in both cases genocide.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Native American tribe of the Incas, what decimated the population?:
> 
> 
> 
> http://users.pop.umn.edu/~rmccaa/aha2004/whypox.htm
> 
> Newsweek did an article titled: California Slaughter: The State-Sanctioned Genocide of Native Americans
> 
> 
> ...


Not my job as I'm not a mod, but that is virtually entirely irrelevant IN THE CONTEXT of paleogenetics, so let's not get sidetracked.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
> My post from September 11, 2016
> 
> Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.
> 
> http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg


Very interesting - I personally prefer my variant with R1b1a (at least) originating from the Balkans rather than Iran (lots of reasons - the origin and spread of the Swastika as a huge one, spread of metallurgy, more recently V88 being found amongst Balkan HGs, amongst others), but to post that at a time of Yamnaya-fetishism takes some pretty big balls (plus, we had no idea about V88 in the Mesolithic Balkans back then). Main point of contention is Gedrosian admix. being associated with R1b, and whether or not it's a pretty much fictitious descriptor, the correlation is still there in distinguishing from Eastern Europe. Perhaps R1b reached its Balkan breeding grounds from the Iran region (maybe more Eastern than that) in the first place? 

For srs though, the Balkan and Ukraine region has GOT to be the breeding ground of R1b. At a minor stretch, it could involve Anatolia too.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> But looking at the low percentages, it could have been that all adult men were wiped out and some young boys survived. And of course, there would have been some pregnant women spared whose I2a and G2a offspring would have at least help preserve the original line.
> 
> Do we know for example how high the Proto-Basque population could have been at that point? And how large the group of R1b invaders was?


If anything, over time R1b would only increase due to elite status. I recall seeing speculation that the increase in Neolithic-like haplogroups in Iberia came at a later date, through immigration.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:
> 
> "O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report *genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals* from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. *During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar.* Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with *Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants.* During the later *Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."
> *
> This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly. 
> 
> A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?
> 
> I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.
> ...


The pattern in Y DNA seems to suggest a North African origin for the bulk of the immigrants (EDIT: I didn't even bother to check the particular subclade of E - it's E-V13 obviously, my bad. *IGNORE THE NORTH AFRICAN ORIGIN BIT!*), with later less (but still) significant additions from classical populations (Phoenicians/Carthaginians etc.) and Jews, rich in J2 especially but also J1. The imbalance of the J2:J1 ratio suggests not all J2 came from these two Levantine populations. The Kura-Araxes expansion is an interesting hypothesis, but I'd expect some more Y DNA L. Perhaps it got lost on the way there  :Laughing:

----------


## Angela

I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant. 

The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna. 

The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome. 

Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?

Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant. 
> 
> The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna. 
> 
> The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome. 
> 
> Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?
> 
> Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.


You can quote me btw...

And fair enough, I didn't look at all into what particular subclades of E1b1b are amongst modern Spaniards, I've edited my post appropriately.

ALSO it basically is irrelevant, you only need a sentence, not bringing in a different topic of discussion.

What I'm about to say isn't true, but all anyone's interested in is the origin of R1b-L51 (particularly in the context of Western IE), let's be honest

----------


## CrazyDonkey

http://nautil.us/issue/58/self/socia...a-genetic-mark

David Reich:




> This Yamnaya expansion also cannot have been entirely friendly, as is clear from the fact that the proportion of Y chromosomes of steppe origin in both western Europe14 and in India15 today is much larger than the proportion of the rest of the genome. This preponderance of male ancestry coming from the steppe implies that male descendants of the Yamnaya with political or social power were more successful at competing for local mates than men from the local groups. The most striking example I know is from Iberia in far southwestern Europe, where Yamnaya-derived ancestry arrived suddenly at the onset of the Bronze Age between 4,500 and 4,000 years ago. Daniel Bradley’s laboratory and my laboratory independently produced ancient DNA from individuals of this period.14 We find that in the first Iberians with Yamnaya-derived ancestry, the proportion of Yamnaya ancestry across the whole genome is almost never more than around 15 percent. However, around 90 percent of males who carry Yamnaya ancestry have a Y-chromosome type of steppe origin that was absent in Iberia prior to that time. It is clear that there were extraordinary hierarchies and imbalances in power at work in the Yamnaya expansions.


An additional factor could have been the Celtic "skull cult":




> "There is also that custom, barbarous and exotic, which attends most of the northern tribes, when they depart from the battle they hang the heads of their enemies from the necks or their horses, and when they have brought them home, nail the spectacle to the entrance of their houses." - Strabo

----------


## markod

> One source:
> 
> 
> 
> Confucius says, "Reviewing what you have learned and learning anew, you are fit to be a teacher."
> 
> If this study shows violence killed off the men and left the women and girls to be victimized, what about the previous studies of these proto-celts who had the same means, same background, same weapons, and same customs and motives who also replaced the male population elsewhere and had fill of the women and girls.
> 
> The mtDNA of the neolithic women shows up in the same native population today. Showing that some of the women did survive, while some who resisted their new husbands were killed.
> ...


These were not Proto-Celts. Not that the Celts were much better.

The very same thing happened in Central Europe a few hundred years earlier, which was dominated by CW and R1a. The Y-haplotypes of the men virtually disappeared, while the women probably made it and would have been integrated into the populations of the invaders.

Coon already noted that the "Zoned Bell Beakers" who would spread from Germany all over Europe were a mix of skeletally Beaker, CW & Megalithic types. He suspected that BB was the socially dominant element in this mix, but he probably didn't realize that CW males were more or less excluded.

Putting it as impersonally as possible, the general rule in prehistory seems to have been that when a group managed to obtain an economic and thus also a numerical advantage that meant bad news for the Y-Chromosomes of competing groups. Coon remarked that the behavior of early CW groups made it seem like they were racketeers, monopolizing on sources of wealth. The BBs who succeeded them were even more proficient at this.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> These were not Proto-Celts. Not that the Celts were much better.
> 
> The very same thing happened in Central Europe a few hundred years earlier, which was dominated by CW and R1a. The Y-haplotypes of the men virtually disappeared, while the women probably made it and would have been integrated into the populations of the invaders.
> 
> Coon already noted that the "Zoned Bell Beakers" who would spread from Germany all over Europe were a mix of skeletally Beaker, CW & Megalithic types. He suspected that BB was the socially dominant element in this mix, but he probably didn't realize that CW males were more or less excluded.
> 
> Putting it as impersonally as possible, the general rule in prehistory seems to have been that when a group managed to obtain an economic and thus also a numerical advantage that meant bad news for the Y-Chromosomes of competing groups. Coon remarked that the behavior of early CW groups made it seem like they were racketeers, monopolizing on sources of wealth. The BBs who succeeded them were even more proficient at this.


I will say, though, that I do not think (even if I used to a few months ago) that CW women significantly affected non-Central European Bell Beakers. There is no possibility of Corded influence in non-Central European Beakers, realistically. True Iberian Bell Beakers still carried, in my opinion, decent Steppe admix (not anything near the level of CW though) long before meeting with the CWC though.

----------


## bicicleur

> I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant. 
> 
> The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna. 
> 
> The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome. 
> 
> Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?
> 
> Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.


the bronze age was different from the neolithic age
the neolithic age was still family based or tribal
they tried to defend their own settlement but they were not capable of conquest
the Tollense battle shows that in the bronze age there were already powerfull people who were capable of organising large armies and military operations 100's of kilometers away

----------


## Angela

> the bronze age was different from the neolithic age
> the neolithic age was still family based or tribal
> they tried to defend their own settlement but they were not capable of conquest
> the Tollense battle shows that in the bronze age there were already powerfull people who were capable of organising large armies and military operations 100's of kilometers away


It's more than that.

Small groups of migrating farmers can still decimate, if not wipe out, the different y line men they encounter. Look at the Bantus. For whatever reason, that didn't happen with the migration into Europe. It's just a fact.

On the steppe, and long before there were any large, organized armies even the R1b and R1a lines were severely pruned. Different ethos? Different social structure? I don't know, but there was a difference.

----------


## Pygmalion

> Yes... probably J2a people originally from Kura-Araxes, coming west along the northern shores of the Mediterranean, parallel to Steppe men in the north - after a stopover in Greece, where they picked an extra share of EEF. They'd have brought their bull worship and "corrida" with them, and shifted Iberian PCA south again. (cf. Maciamo's J2a page)
> 
> Plus, of course, the Muslim invasions that occurred later.
> 
> Depending on the region of Spain you consider, in terms of y-dna, J2a and E1b1 alternately come second to R1b, far ahead of other haplogroups.


Bull worship was already present since the fourth millennium bc in Sardinia, and probably in Malta as well to some degree.
As for the idea of an eastern mediterranean intrusion in Iberia during the chalcolitic I honestly see no convincing material evidence, if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.

----------


## bicicleur

> It's more than that.
> Small groups of migrating farmers can still decimate, if not wipe out, the different y line men they encounter. Look at the Bantus. For whatever reason, that didn't happen with the migration into Europe. It's just a fact.
> On the steppe, and long before there were any large, organized armies even the R1b and R1a lines were severely pruned. Different ethos? Different social structure? I don't know, but there was a difference.


the Bantus had iron weapons (not at first, but soon after the start of their expansion) and warrior kings
look at the Zulu
maybe some of the bronze age people in Europe were organised in the same way

there is the Unetice culture which transformed into the Tumulus culture
it looks like warlords had taken over controll
even more so in Urnfield
then Halstatt were peacefull and prosperous, until the Gauls took over, who were part of Halstatt themselves though

----------


## hrvclv

> if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.


Yes, I'll grant that there is scant evidence. But the figures are intriguing : 11.5% J2a in Extremadura, 10.5% in Andalucia, Aragon, Galicia, 10% in Castile la Mancha. These are not insignificant figures.

Is it your opinion then that a few Carthaginian and Greek trading posts, plus the Roman soldiers/settlers, were enough to contribute 10% of the Iberian genome in several regions, some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?

----------


## Pygmalion

> Yes, I'll grant that there is scant evidence. But the figures are intriguing : 11.5% J2a in Extremadura, 10.5% in Andalucia, Aragon, Galicia, 10% in Castile la Mancha. These are not insignificant figures.
> 
> Is it your opinion then that a few Carthaginian and Greek trading posts, plus the Roman soldiers/settlers, were enough to contribute 10% of the Iberian genome in several regions, some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?


Well, each of those cultures you mentioned (Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman) left plenty of traces of their settlement in Iberia, while the supposed third millennium bc kura axes-admixed Aegeans left zero, so it's much more likely for the former peoples combined to have influenced the iberian gene pool, there's not a single cycladic sherd in all of Iberia.




> some of them far from the east coast (where most of the trading must have taken place) ?


There were phoenician settlements in the Western coast of Iberia, including Portugal. Besides even the scantiest phoenician/greek/roman settlement alone beats the non existent third millenium bc aegean ones.

----------


## hrvclv

> Well, each of those cultures you mentioned (Carthaginian, Greek, and Roman) left plenty of traces of their settlement in Iberia, while the supposed third millennium bc kura axes-admixed Aegeans left zero, so it's much more likely for the former peoples combined to have influenced the iberian gene pool, there's not a single cycladic sherd in all of Iberia.
> 
> There were phoenician settlements in the Western coast of Iberia, including Portugal. Besides even the scantiest phoenician/greek/roman settlement alone beats the non existent third millenium bc aegean ones.


I stand corrected. I had built my hypothesis upon the Eupedia J2a map, which seemed to suggest some sort of continuum from Anatolia to Minoan Crete, to the Peloponnese, to Sicily, Corsica, and finally Iberia, with decreasing degrees of density. It all seemed pretty logical. And somehow it wasn't all wrong... except for the chronology !!

----------


## berun

> The change to R1b certainly took place.
> However, as to autosomal admixture, your assertion is true only insofar as their ADMIXTURE analysis is concerned. 
> When they ran Chromopainter/Finestructure, this was their finding:
> "Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p = 0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in Chuvash, Orcadian (p = 0.017), Lezgin and Irish (p = 0.033). However, this shift from southern to northern affinity is markedly weaker than that observed between Neolithic and Bronze Age genomes in Ireland, Scandinavia, Hungary and Central Europe. *These findings suggest detectable, but comparatively modest, Steppe-related introgression present at the Portuguese Bronze Age."
> 
> *[IMG][/IMG]
> They show the same movement in PCA form.
> Second of all, this is the situation in one area of Portugal in the Middle Bronze Age. As even their ADMIXTURE analysis makes clear, the steppe admixture is present in modern Spaniards and Portuguese. 
> If the new Olalde paper is correct, and there was a shift to 40% autosomal steppe admixture in Spain, and the 20 to a maximum of 20% today, then subsequent migrations must have cut into that percentage.


The other programs find increased WHG like ancestry, it's far to be that Yamna, we need samples from Chalcolithic herders and look if G2a and I2a megalithic farmers were extingished or suffered successive dry periods with lack of food and a successive decayment of the old societies. By 2750 BB were profiting old steles to make their own dolmens in Catalonia.

And what? other than repeat what wrote your head yamnayists can you provide material proofs of such impressive migrations?

----------


## Angela

> The other programs find increased WHG like ancestry, it's far to be that Yamna, we need samples from Chalcolithic herders and look if G2a and I2a megalithic farmers were extingished or suffered successive dry periods with lack of food and a successive decayment of the old societies. By 2750 BB were profiting old steles to make their own dolmens in Catalonia.
> And what? other than repeat what wrote your head yamnayists can you provide material proofs of such impressive migrations?


Look, I don't have a personal stake in this. I'm certainly no admirer of the whole Indo-European myth making and aggrandizement. 

The fact remains that there is a change in Europe in the Bronze Age in terms of both yDna and autosomal dna, and all the papers show it, and IT IS NOT JUST WHG increasing. It is a signal of both WHG/EHG and CHG. You clearly didn't read Mariniano carefully because he shows the beginning of it too. When this paper comes out it is going to be clear that the autosomal change happened in Iberia too, just later. 

You don't want to believe it, great, don't believe it. That's your prerogative.

----------


## Angela

I wouldn't be so sure that wave didn't also hit Iberia. Do we have dna from the first centers of Bronze making in Iberia?

----------


## MOESAN

> Not the same, the paper presented R1b men without steppe admixture, but as they were R1b they came from the steppes, just a circular argument used frequently by steppists and Gimbutas' religion worshippers.


Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p = 0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in *Chuvash,* Orcadian (p = 0.017),* Lezgin* and Irish (p = 0.033). However, this shift from southern to northern affinity is *markedly weaker* than that observed between Neolithic and Bronze Age genomes in Ireland, Scandinavia, Hungary and Central Europe. *These findings suggest detectable, but comparatively modest, Steppe-related introgression present at the Portuguese Bronze Age.

*Berun, WEAK steppe will never be NO steppe

----------


## MOESAN

> Bull worship was already present since the fourth millennium bc in Sardinia, and probably in Malta as well to some degree.
> As for the idea of an eastern mediterranean intrusion in Iberia during the chalcolitic I honestly see no convincing material evidence, if a significant migration capable of impacting the native gene pool took place it would have left some traces, but there aren't any. The first evidence of contact between the Iberia and the Eastern Mediterranean dates to the fourteenth century bc, and it's not more than a handful of fragments from very few sites.


Look at archeology of El Argar around 2000 BC or a bit before...

----------


## berun

@Moesan, from weak to 40% in the incoming paper, too much hocus pocus to my taste.

----------


## ihype02

And what was their Y-DNA before 2500BC?

----------


## Angela

@Berun,

Really objective mindset. How about you wait until you see the paper?


As to yDna...from Olalde et al 2017 on the Spanish "Beaker" samples:

"Iberian individuals with enough data to produce a reliable Y-chromosome haplogroup1882 determination belonged to haplogroups I2a2 and G2 (Supplementary Table 3), bothpresent in high frequencies in European Neolithic farmers124,130–132 1883 and also in Iberian1884 Copper Age populations. Haplogroup G2 probably entered Europe from the Near East1885 during the Neolithic expansion, and haplogroup I2a2 was likely introduced into the1886 Neolithic population through admixture with European hunter-gatherers. Two Iberian1887 individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b but likely not to R1b-L23 and therefore not to1888 R1b-S116/P312. Similar R1b haplogroups were present in low frequencies in Europe1889 during the Neolithic period, as they have been previously observed in both centralEurope (I0559) and Iberia (I0410)124 1890 ."

----------


## Pygmalion

> Look at archeology of El Argar around 2000 BC or a bit before...


I know of the argaric sites and I don't see evidence of any direct link with the Aegean except for the rectangular houses which exist all over the world.

----------


## hrvclv

Any known DNA from El Argar ?

----------


## ihype02

Well G2 and I2a2 are present in Iberia, so it is not safe to assume that ALL men were exterminated. Even though they are fairly limited in modern Iberians.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I fail to see how genocide of males (and an analogy to the treatment of indigenous people of the Americas as an example) as an explanation for the decimation of y lines in Iberia during the Bronze Age is irrelevant. 
> 
> The y lines of the "natives" were not decimated during the Neolithic. In fact one of the most prolific y lines was an adopted Mesolithic hunter line, and moreover hunters and farmers lived side by side for years. There's NO comparison. None of that is "SPECULATION" any longer. We have the proof in ancient dna. 
> 
> The only "North African" lineages that would have crossed to Iberia at that time period were from yDna "E". In fact, they have one such ancient sample. The "new" lineages in the Neolithic came from Anatolia, perhaps including ancestry from the Anatolia/Levant region. The new lineages in the Bronze Age came from the East: from the Pontic Caspian plain with the "Indo-Europeans", and from south of that with non-Indo-Europeans traveling along the Northern European coast of the Mediterranean. The Iron Age is another matter, because you have a big footprint from Carthage and perhaps a bit of one from Roman veterans. Then there's the Moorish period after the collapse of Rome. 
> 
> Do I really have to direct some posters, once again, to the thread on essential ancient dna papers?
> 
> Look, I don't like some of this stuff either, but facts are inconvenient things.


Some of those conclusions are a bit surprising to me, especially the supposed "reappearance" of non-IE lineages after the BA during the IA and afterwards. I mean, some parts of Iberia, like Portugal, Extremadura and Cantabria, have really high percentages of non-R1b/R1a lineages, even as much as 40-50%. Could that huge transformation away from the "100% replacement of Neolithic males" scenario of Bronze Age Iberia have happened in the last ~2,500 years without leaving a huge genetic imprint in the shape of a much more significant North African and East Mediterranean admixtures in modern Iberians? Was there such a huge transformation (I mean, deducing from ~0% in the BA exploding to an average ~35% of non-steppe lineages nowadays) that is reflected autosomally comparing modern and ancient Iberians? And is there any archaeological, material sign of such a massive if partial replacement?

----------


## halfalp

> Some of those conclusions are a bit surprising to me, especially the supposed "reappearance" of non-IE lineages after the BA during the IA and afterwards. I mean, some parts of Iberia, like Portugal, Extremadura and Cantabria, have really high percentages of non-R1b/R1a lineages, even as much as 40-50%. Could that huge transformation away from the "100% replacement of Neolithic males" scenario of Bronze Age Iberia have happened in the last ~2,500 years without leaving a huge genetic imprint in the shape of a much more significant North African and East Mediterranean admixtures in modern Iberians? Was there such a huge transformation (I mean, deducing from ~0% in the BA exploding to an average ~35% of non-steppe lineages nowadays) that is reflected autosomally comparing modern and ancient Iberians? And is there any archaeological, material sign of such a massive if partial replacement?


Why does Scandinavia have one of the highest steppe % for a modern population when their primary male lineage is I1 wich has, as we know for now, nothing to do with steppe ancestry? Ancestry is very difficult to calculate i guess, Y-dna lineage doesn't explain entirely ancestry. The real success of steppe ancestry must be found in exogamic mariages. If we admit for exemple that R1b / Steppe in Iberia was entering and located firstly in North, local Neolithic or WHG? women, will very fast turn their ancestry into steppe like. After few generations, some of those women would give steppe ancestry to more southern people, while other southern group would stay pre-indo-european. At the time were cultural have take some step further than demographic, we can see pre-indo-european lineages or ancestry became again more dominant than IE ones. I think the same happened in the Alps and the Balkans, maybe even in Anatolia.

----------


## bicicleur

> @Berun,
> Really objective mindset. How about you wait until you see the paper?


yes, I find it very confusing
everybody giving comments here before the paper is out



> As to yDna...from Olalde et al 2017 on the Spanish "Beaker" samples:
> "Iberian individuals with enough data to produce a reliable Y-chromosome haplogroup1882 determination belonged to haplogroups I2a2 and G2 (Supplementary Table 3), bothpresent in high frequencies in European Neolithic farmers124,130–132 1883 and also in Iberian1884 Copper Age populations. Haplogroup G2 probably entered Europe from the Near East1885 during the Neolithic expansion, and haplogroup I2a2 was likely introduced into the1886 Neolithic population through admixture with European hunter-gatherers. Two Iberian1887 individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b but likely not to R1b-L23 and therefore not to1888 R1b-S116/P312. Similar R1b haplogroups were present in low frequencies in Europe1889 during the Neolithic period, as they have been previously observed in both centralEurope (I0559) and Iberia (I0410)124 1890 ."


I notice a divide in neolithic Iberia.
Eastern and southern Iberia is mostly G2a2.
Western Iberia is mostly I2a.
The Cardial Ware expansion stopped in the Algarve, where it arrived ca 7.5 ka.
The local HG lived in the estuaria in settlements with large shell mounds.
There settlements were seasonal.
There were inland hunting seasons and fishing/shellfish seasons in the estuaria.
Further inland they had megalithic constructions since 8 ka.
When Cardial Ware arrived, the shell mound settlements were abondonned, but the megalithic constructions didn't stop.
The burials in megalithic monuments is remeniscent to the burials in the shell mounds.
The first farmers in Brittain were megalithic. None of them were G2a2, they were all I2a.
Autosomal they were very much like Iberian neolithic.
The Iberian megalithic subclades are I2a-L161 and I2a-Z161, still present in Britain, but extinct in Iberia.

----------


## halfalp

> yes, I find it very confusing
> everybody giving comments here before the paper is out
> 
> I notice a divide in neolithic Iberia.
> Eastern and southern Iberia is mostly G2a2.
> Western Iberia is mostly I2a.
> The Cardial Ware expansion stopped in the Algarve, where it arrived ca 7.5 ka.
> The local HG lived in the estuaria in settlements with large shell mounds.
> There settlements were seasonal.
> ...


But then Megalithism started in western iberia, so megalithism is mainly an HG thing more than a Farmer thing?

----------


## bicicleur

> But then Megalithism started in western iberia, so megalithism is mainly an HG thing more than a Farmer thing?


it seems megalithism was in the Alentejo prior to Cardial Ware, 8 ka
it seems megalithism was in Britanny prior to LBK or Cardial Ware, 6.8 ka
it even seems oxens and the plough were invented by megalithic people in Britanny
they were I2a, but autosomal mixture EEF-WHG

----------


## halfalp

> it seems megalithism was in the Alentejo prior to Cardial Ware, 8 ka
> it seems megalithism was in Britanny prior to LBK or Cardial Ware, 6.8 ka
> it even seems oxens and the plough were invented by megalithic people in Britanny
> they were I2a, but autosomal mixture EEF-WHG


Hm intersting.

----------


## Gnarl

I always assumed megalithism was associated with the farmers. A lot of the structures seem to have calendar applications which would have been vital in agriculture. Also, Bell Beakers in Britain seem to have completely replaced the farmer DNA, but continued or even expanded constructions such as Stonehenge. Which I thought indicated that it was seen more as a piece of infrastructure than a religious or cultural thing.

But that was just something I assumed. Also, Farmers is not completely the same as farming across Europe. Do the dates not fit the narrative?

----------


## bicicleur

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

prior to Cardial Ware

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locmariaquer_megaliths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez

neither LBK nor Cardial Ware ever reached Britanny

both southern Portugal and Britanny had HG with mounds of seashells in which they burried their death prior to the construction of dolmens or passage graves

----------


## markod

This might be of interest for this thread. An elite burial complex from Andalusia ca. 2800 B.C. . Other than the extraordinarily rich grave goods that accompanied the most important individual in the burial complex there is a chamber with what appear to be .... the skeletons of up to 20 young women:




> There was an exceptional collection of artefacts. In the centre of the largechamber there were a stela and a varied series of objects, inhumations and ceramicvessels with food offerings were placed around them. Even though the outer parts ofthe large chamber had been disturbed, excavation documented 20 individuals. Theprocesses of autolysis and skeletonisation of many of these individuals had not beencompleted when new inhumations took place. Radiocarbon dating suggests that thedeposition of these inhumations may have taken place simultaneously or within avery short period (Bayliss et al. 2016). The 20 individuals identified are adults (11cases between 20 and 35 years old), and at least 12 of them are female. While noclear sexual determination could be provided for the rest of the inhumations, fivehave been classified as ‘probably female’ and three as indeterminate.


https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/...018-9114-2.pdf

----------


## hrvclv

La Bastida de Totana (Argar) :

"One of the most relevant architectural elements discovered is the ogival arched postern gate, or secondary door, located near the main entrance. The arch is in very good conditions and is the first one to be found in Prehistoric Europe. Precedents can be found in the second city of Troy (Turkey) and in the urban world of the Middle East (Palestine, Israel and Jordan), influenced by the civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. This indicates that people from the East participated in the construction of the fortification. These people would have reached La
Bastida after the crisis which devastated their region 4,300 years ago. "

https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...gory/el-argar/

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> This might be of interest for this thread. An elite burial complex from Andalusia ca. 2800 B.C. . Other than the extraordinarily rich grave goods that accompanied the most important individual in the burial complex there is a chamber with what appear to be .... the skeletons of up to 20 young women:
> 
> 
> 
> https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/...018-9114-2.pdf


Very interesting - I'd love to see what that guys results are. R1b-L51?

----------


## Angela

> Some of those conclusions are a bit surprising to me, especially the supposed "reappearance" of non-IE lineages after the BA during the IA and afterwards. I mean, some parts of Iberia, like Portugal, Extremadura and Cantabria, have really high percentages of non-R1b/R1a lineages, even as much as 40-50%. Could that huge transformation away from the "100% replacement of Neolithic males" scenario of Bronze Age Iberia have happened in the last ~2,500 years without leaving a huge genetic imprint in the shape of a much more significant North African and East Mediterranean admixtures in modern Iberians? Was there such a huge transformation (I mean, deducing from ~0% in the BA exploding to an average ~35% of non-steppe lineages nowadays) that is reflected autosomally comparing modern and ancient Iberians? And is there any archaeological, material sign of such a massive if partial replacement?


It depends whether you're asking me or them, and we don't have the paper yet. :) From the standpoint of steppe ancestry, Martiniano sees, for Portugal, the beginning of the movement from the steppe in the change to downstream R1b and the beginning of an increase in steppe ancestry. Then he has a gap chronologically in the samples. His next reference point is modern people of Iberia, who definitely have steppe, but less than, say, Central Europe. (Not everyone sees a figure in modern Iberians as 35%. Martiniano certainly didn't.)

This upcoming Olalde paper seems to be saying that in those intervening years steppe ancestry massively increased, accounting for 40% of the total genome, and there was 100% replacement of the ylines.

It's difficult to critique a paper we haven't read, but for starters, maybe 100% replacement is a bit of a stretch, given that there is still a bit of G2a and I2a left, unless in the body of the paper they're referring only to non-Basque Iberians. On the other hand, I don't see any indication that the "J" lineages were around prior to the Bronze Age, at least. Y dna "E" is a different story, probably, as they say they did find a "North African" sample pretty early, although they qualify that by saying the contacts were sporadic. 

So, I wouldn't say that there was a "reappearance" of non-IE lineages, as "J" and most of "E" probably weren't there until the Bronze Age at the earliest. I am a little surprised, however, that they seem to be saying that the "J" lineages didn't appear until the Iron Age or perhaps later. Carthage did control a big portion of Iberia, but were there enough of them to make a huge change in yDna? Yes, there were some Roman veteran and other colonies, but were they predominantly "J", and were they a big enough percentage of the total population to make such a change? That leaves the Moorish domination. I could see it being responsible for E-M81, but all of the J1 and J2 as well? My understanding was always that by far the biggest contingent were North Africans, with the "Arabs" being a much smaller percentage at the top. There's also El Algar to consider. Do they have the samples to address that? 

I don't know. I guess we have to wait to see the paper.

----------


## bicicleur

> La Bastida de Totana (Argar) :
> "One of the most relevant architectural elements discovered is the ogival arched postern gate, or secondary door, located near the main entrance. The arch is in very good conditions and is the first one to be found in Prehistoric Europe. Precedents can be found in the second city of Troy (Turkey) and in the urban world of the Middle East (Palestine, Israel and Jordan), influenced by the civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. This indicates that people from the East participated in the construction of the fortification. These people would have reached La
> Bastida after the crisis which devastated their region 4,300 years ago. "
> https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...gory/el-argar/


my understanding is that there was a settlement on the hill since 4.2 ka, but it was burnt down ca 4 ka when La Bastida was built
so La Bastida seems intrusive to me but dated only 4 ka
and IMO the highly stratified El Argar was ruled by these intruders
they mismanaged the area leading to an ecological disaster

the paper however seems to be about a 4.5 ka replacement, and it seems to be focused on western Iberia

----------


## Angela

> yes, I find it very confusing
> everybody giving comments here before the paper is out
> I notice a divide in neolithic Iberia.
> Eastern and southern Iberia is mostly G2a2.
> Western Iberia is mostly I2a.
> The Cardial Ware expansion stopped in the Algarve, where it arrived ca 7.5 ka.
> The local HG lived in the estuaria in settlements with large shell mounds.
> There settlements were seasonal.
> There were inland hunting seasons and fishing/shellfish seasons in the estuaria.
> ...


I don't doubt you in terms of which "local" people might have provided the yDna, but they were still autosomally Iberian Neolithic farmers.

----------


## Gnarl

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech
> 
> prior to Cardial Ware
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locmariaquer_megaliths
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnenez
> 
> neither LBK nor Cardial Ware ever reached Britanny
> 
> both southern Portugal and Britanny had HG with mounds of seashells in which they burried their death prior to the construction of dolmens or passage graves


Interesting, that does appear to fit in neatly with the arrival of farming, and at least in Iberia with the arrival of Anatolian Farmer genetics.

----------


## bicicleur

> I don't doubt you in terms of which "local" people might have provided the yDna, but they were still autosomally Iberian Neolithic farmers.


yes, EEF, but while LBK has the least WHG admixture, the Iberian neolithic has the most

and a similar admixture event happened at the Iron Gates 8 ka
the Iron Gates HG were R1b-V88 and I2a-Z161
both appeared in Iberian neolithic

on the other hand, I2a-L161 seems to be a HG of Iberian origin

in British neolithic we have I2a-Z161 and I2a-L161 coming from Iberia plus I2a-M284
I2a-M284 seems to be a HG of British origin
these are 3 admixture events in a row, with 3 I2a clades and 1 R1b clade

and in Iberian neolithic it seems that after the admixture event, G2a2 and I2a-L161 each went their own seperate way

the same can be said about R1b-V88, who came from the iron gates
it was not found in a classical Iberian Carded Ware site, it was found in the remote Els Trocs cave in the Pyrenees

----------


## bicicleur

> Interesting, that does appear to fit in neatly with the arrival of farming, and at least in Iberia with the arrival of Anatolian Farmer genetics.


not quite in the same place at the same time

----------


## Gnarl

> not quite in the same place at the same time


Well, the Almenedes appears to have had a building period from about 6000 BC to 4000 BC. In Brittainy the Barnenez dates to about 4800 BC and the Locmariaquer to 4700 BC. Agriculture seems to have gotten to Iberia around 5700 BC with Anatolian farmer DNA showing up. Since I think it implausible that we've found the remains of the exact first generation of farmers and that the start date of the building is probably not totally on the dot, its seems there will be some overlap on the confidence limits here. There seems to have been rather a lot of churn in the penninsula at the time, with the demographic change, start of agriculture and beginning of large stone constructions all in the same period. I'd say it seems rather probable that these large changes were linked.

Start of farming in Brittany I've not found a lot on. "From about 5000 BC" is the closes I got. Nothing on whether it was through Anatolian farmers demic diffusion or whether it was a local adoption like the eastern Baltic farming.

----------


## markod

> Very interesting - I'd love to see what that guys results are. R1b-L51?


I have no idea, but if L51 came with steppe ancestry I doubt it would be in Andalusia this early.

----------


## bicicleur

> Well, the Almenedes appears to have had a building period from about 6000 BC to 4000 BC. In Brittainy the Barnenez dates to about 4800 BC and the Locmariaquer to 4700 BC. Agriculture seems to have gotten to Iberia around 5700 BC with Anatolian farmer DNA showing up. Since I think it implausible that we've found the remains of the exact first generation of farmers and that the start date of the building is probably not totally on the dot, its seems there will be some overlap on the confidence limits here. There seems to have been rather a lot of churn in the penninsula at the time, with the demographic change, start of agriculture and beginning of large stone constructions all in the same period. I'd say it seems rather probable that these large changes were linked.
> Start of farming in Brittany I've not found a lot on. "From about 5000 BC" is the closes I got. Nothing on whether it was through Anatolian farmers demic diffusion or whether it was a local adoption like the eastern Baltic farming.


Cardial ware got to Catualunia about 7.7 or 7.6 ka, but it didn't spread beyond the Gibraltar Strait prior to 7.5 ka.
There would have been the Almagra of North African origin prior to Cardial Ware, but that was in Andalusia, and there is no DNA trace to confirm anything coming from North Africa.

The LBK didn't get any further than the Paris Basin, and Cardial Ware till the Charente on the French Atlantic coast. No trace of both in Britanny.
Maybe some herders got there, like in Els Trocs, but no proper farmers.

P.S. apart from the Almendres Cromlechs, there were also monuments built in Perdigoës, some 15 km more inland, starting about 7,5 ka
dolmens seem to have appeared in the area only about 6 ka, so later than in Britanny

----------


## hrvclv

If you have not seen it before, have a look at this :

http://homeland.ku.dk/

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0462 / F
Find location: Arroyal I, Burgos
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2566–2345 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a+195
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (autosomal)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6588 / M
Find location: Humanejos, Madrid
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5b2b3
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6472 / M
Find location: La Magdalena, Madrid
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): HV0b
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5665 / M
Find location: Virgazal, Tablada de Rudrón, Burgos
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2280–1984 calBCE (3730±40 BP, Poz-49174)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a24a
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

----------


## bicicleur

> If you have not seen it before, have a look at this :
> 
> http://homeland.ku.dk/
> 
> Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0462 / F
> Find location: Arroyal I, Burgos
> Country: Spain
> Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
> Date: 2566–2345 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
> ...


so steppe R1b-P312 Iberian Bell Beakers after all
but only 4.5 ka Iberian Bell Beakers, not the 4.8 ka Bell Beakers?
the 4.5 ka Bell Beakers must have come from the Carpathian Basin or Central Europe

how about these guys :



https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

could it be them ?

----------


## bicicleur

in that case, Iberia would have been IE by 4.5 ka,
but along the eastcoast they would have been replaced by 'Iberic' speaking El Argar

----------


## Pygmalion

> La Bastida de Totana (Argar) :
> 
> "One of the most relevant architectural elements discovered is the ogival arched postern gate, or secondary door, located near the main entrance. The arch is in very good conditions and is the first one to be found in Prehistoric Europe. Precedents can be found in the second city of Troy (Turkey) and in the urban world of the Middle East (Palestine, Israel and Jordan), influenced by the civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. This indicates that people from the East participated in the construction of the fortification. These people would have reached La
> Bastida after the crisis which devastated their region 4,300 years ago. "
> 
> https://forwhattheywereweare.wordpre...gory/el-argar/


Or simply this indicates that people can come up with similar solutions independently.

----------


## hrvclv

> Or simply this indicates that people can come up with similar solutions independently.


Agreed. But at least there remains a shade of a doubt.

----------


## MOESAN

> @Moesan, from weak to 40% in the incoming paper, too much hocus pocus to my taste.


I 'll have to re-read these different papers and to look at precise dates and places; this can have some effect on auDNA results

----------


## Angela

Sometimes it's helpful to visualize these multiple comparisons. 


As to the yDna of the Iberian Beaker samples, I happened to have this in my files:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...#gid=998207542

Within a short time the floodgates seem to have opened.

----------


## MOESAN

Thanks Angela, I had fogotten this sheet - interesting to settle thoughts -

----------


## MOESAN

> I know of the argaric sites and I don't see evidence of any direct link with the Aegean except for the rectangular houses which exist all over the world.


and some of the burying modes? not very common either in Iberia until then or in North-West or North or even Central Europe, before Unetice -

----------


## firetown

Obviously, I2a and G2a has been in Iberia long before R1b. At what time did e1b1b arrive?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> If you have not seen it before, have a look at this :
> 
> http://homeland.ku.dk/
> 
> Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0462 / F
> Find location: Arroyal I, Burgos
> Country: Spain
> Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
> Date: 2566–2345 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
> ...


I'd love to see the GEDmatch for them - still, people always equate Steppe admixture with Yamnaya, when this just isn't true. I'll say it again: the Balkans had Steppe admix long before Yamnaya. So, Steppe admix CANNOT be used as a marker of definite Yamnaya ancestry.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I have no idea, but if L51 came with steppe ancestry I doubt it would be in Andalusia this early.


Only a few hundred years before the samples hrvclv posted.

In the model where Central European Bell Beaker DID come from Yamnaya, what are the dates for these Steppe CE BBs entering Iberia?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> If you have not seen it before, have a look at this :
> 
> http://homeland.ku.dk/
> 
> *Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I0462 / F
> Find location: Arroyal I, Burgos
> Country: Spain
> Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
> Date: 2566–2345 calBCE (3950±26 BP, MAMS-25936)
> ...


I'm going to go all-caps here because I'm excited, and even if this is wrong (my dating is terrible), IS THAT NOT REALLY EARLY FOR IT TO BE DERIVED FROM CENTRAL EUROPEAN BELL BEAKERS?!!

I don't understand, I know the title of this post suggests it, but it still seems somewhat early, given on Wikipedia at least the Central European Bell Beaker culture was said to have started after 2500 BCE.

Again, *my dating is TERRIBLE*, but someone please just say!

EDIT: Okay, I'm pretty sure my dating really is terrible, but someone still comment on this...

----------


## berun

No green (CHG) in BA Iberia in Mittnik et al 2017 also...?

By the way this qpAdm is quite good to see how supervised admixtures can be run till finding out what someone likes to find (p.e. LBK had a good chunk of Iranian Neolithic).

Attachment 10444

----------


## halfalp

> I'd love to see the GEDmatch for them - still, people always equate Steppe admixture with Yamnaya, when this just isn't true. *I'll say it again: the Balkans had Steppe admix long before Yamnaya*. So, Steppe admix CANNOT be used as a marker of definite Yamnaya ancestry.


This just doesn't make sense. Iron Gates HG and we can extrapolate that mainly all Balkans HG from the same age was the same, were mainly 80% WHG with some substantial EHG. What characterize " Steppe " is a ratio of approximately 60% EHG / 30% CHG / 10% WHG/EEF depending of the pop. Saying Steppe admixture was in the Balkans long before Yamnaya implay that either Mesolithic HG's or Neolithic Farmers have the exact same ancestry ratio than Steppe EMBA or Steppe MLBA, wich is obviously not the case. 

Then if you imply that a similar population as Yamnaya was in the Balkans before Yamna Culture, then it doesn't exist already in some studies, so it's pure supposition.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> This just doesn't make sense. Iron Gates HG and we can extrapolate that mainly all Balkans HG from the same age was the same, were mainly 80% WHG with some substantial EHG. What characterize " Steppe " is a ratio of approximately 60% EHG / 30% CHG / 10% WHG/EEF depending of the pop. Saying Steppe admixture was in the Balkans long before Yamnaya implay that either Mesolithic HG's or Neolithic Farmers have the exact same ancestry ratio than Steppe EMBA or Steppe MLBA, wich is obviously not the case. 
> 
> Then if you imply that a similar population as Yamnaya was in the Balkans before Yamna Culture, then it doesn't exist already in some studies, so it's pure supposition.


What about this though?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/0...reek-from.html

That Greek sample is Neolithic.

Then there is that semi-famous Varna outlier, which has lots of Steppe too, and also definitely (massively) predates Yamnaya.
*
Steppe admix ≠ Yamnaya*

----------


## MOESAN

I'm still amazed by the relatively big differences in admixtures of same pops according to surveys... It freeze my pleasure sometimes...

----------


## halfalp

> What about this though?
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/0...reek-from.html
> 
> That Greek sample is Neolithic.
> 
> Then there is that semi-famous Varna outlier, which has lots of Steppe too, and also definitely (massively) predates Yamnaya.
> *
> Steppe admix ≠ Yamnaya*


Varna is part of Yamnaya_Bulgaria. It only shows a earlier migration from eastern europe into the Balkans, but the ancestry is the same Samara > Khvalynsk / Sredni Stog > Yamnaya. In other word, if a Balkan outlier came from Sredni Stog or Yamnaya, a part the time frame, it's pretty much the same ancestry.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Varna is part of Yamnaya_Bulgaria. It only shows a earlier migration from eastern europe into the Balkans, but the ancestry is the same Samara > Khvalynsk / Sredni Stog > Yamnaya. In other word, if a Balkan outlier came from Sredni Stog or Yamnaya, a part the time frame, it's pretty much the same ancestry.


How can Varna be part of Yamnaya at all if Varna is from 4400-4100 BCE and Yamnaya is 3300-2600 BCE

So you're basically saying it's from the Steppe and not Yamnaya then? I guess that's fair, but I still think that Steppe ancestry would be present in the Balkans even in the 6th millenium BCE

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'm still amazed by the relatively big differences in admixtures of same pops according to surveys... It freeze my pleasure sometimes...



It's called caste systems! On another note, why do the Olalde samples of farmer Beakers matter, when at pretty much the exact same time there was R1b-L51 with Steppe admixture? And is it really a coincidence that at pretty much the exact same time Beaker pottery appears, R1b-L51 conquers Western Europe?

----------


## halfalp

> How can Varna be part of Yamnaya at all if Varna is from 4400-4100 BCE and Yamnaya is 3300-2600 BCE
> 
> So you're basically saying it's from the Steppe and not Yamnaya then? I guess that's fair, but I still think that Steppe ancestry would be present in the Balkans even in the 6th millenium BCE


Varna Culture, is not Varna Site. The outlier with Steppe ancestry take his Steppe ancestry from the Steppe with a population who founded Yamnaya later, not the other way around. Outlier is a pretty speaking term. Yamnaya isn't an ancestry on its own, Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog = Yamnaya ancestry, therefore Steppe = Yamnaya and earlier cultures.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Varna Culture, is not Varna Site. The outlier with Steppe ancestry take his Steppe ancestry from the Steppe with a population who founded Yamnaya later, not the other way around. Outlier is a pretty speaking term. Yamnaya isn't an ancestry on its own, Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog = Yamnaya ancestry, therefore Steppe = Yamnaya and earlier cultures.


Varna outlier is dated to over 4500 BCE, which is too early for Yamnaya. I just said that it could be from earlier Steppe cultures, but regardless, all I'm saying is that Steppe admix. in the Balkans is very very old (at least the early Chalcolithic if I had to guess), and populations with Steppe admix don't necessarily have a direct origin on the Steppe.

----------


## Angela

> Obviously, I2a and G2a has been in Iberia long before R1b. At what time did e1b1b arrive?


I think, from the wording of the abstract, that there is one from the third millennium BC. We have some early pre-E-V13 in Cardial Neolithic as well.

----------


## halfalp

> How can Varna be part of Yamnaya at all if Varna is from 4400-4100 BCE and Yamnaya is 3300-2600 BCE
> 
> So you're basically saying it's from the Steppe and not Yamnaya then? I guess that's fair, but I still think that Steppe ancestry would be present in the Balkans even in the 6th millenium BCE


Ok i understand what you mean now. Because Varna Culture had some Steppe outliers and later at the time of Yamnaya Culture, Varna Site became part of Yamnaya_Bulgaria. So basically at the time of Proper Varna Culture, they were already Steppe outliers coming from ancestors of the founder of Yamnaya in Eastern Europe and at the time of Yamnaya, the whole package came into Varna. The thing is, there is mainly no difference with Khvalynsk / Sredny Stog and Yamnaya in term of culture and ancestry. So the Steppe outlier still came from Steppe, just before Yamnaya Culture.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think, from the wording of the abstract, that there is one from the third millennium BC. We have some early pre-E-V13 in Cardial Neolithic as well.


Angela, you're a level-headed and pretty knowledgeable person (even if you hate me), so what do you think? Is 2500 BCE not pretty early for R1b-L51 with Steppe in Iberia? Again, it is contemporaneous with the farmer Beaker samples that were used to claim the culture spread was originally with pots...

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Ok i understand what you mean now. Because Varna Culture had some Steppe outliers and later at the time of Yamnaya Culture, Varna Site became part of Yamnaya_Bulgaria. So basically at the time of Proper Varna Culture, they were already Steppe outliers coming from ancestors of the founder of Yamnaya in Eastern Europe and at the time of Yamnaya, the whole package came into Varna. The thing is, there is mainly no difference with Khvalynsk / Sredny Stog and Yamnaya in term of culture and ancestry. So the Steppe outlier still came from Steppe, just before Yamnaya Culture.


I don't know about Varna specifically, but I think Steppe ancestry in the Balkans is older than all of those cultures.

----------


## halfalp

> Varna outlier is dated to over 4500 BCE, which is too early for Yamnaya. I just said that it could be from earlier Steppe cultures, but regardless, all I'm saying is that Steppe admix. in the Balkans is very very old (at least the early Chalcolithic if I had to guess), and populations with Steppe admix don't necessarily have a direct origin on the Steppe.


You cannot cheat Steppe admixture coming from somewhere else. Steppe people related with Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog probably migrate outside eastern europe before the Yamnaya expansion.

----------


## Angela

Since some of our posters seem to have trouble reading graphs....

A tiny bit of Yamnaya shows up a bit early in a few samples from the Balkans. End of story.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Come on guys, how can we still believe in Yamnaya - isn't the simplest explanation the best?

----------


## halfalp

Well it's not very possible. You cannot found a population of 60% EHG and 30% CHG in a land full of EEF and a minority of WHG. This doesn't make sense.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Since some of our posters seem to have trouble reading graphs....
> 
> A tiny bit of Yamnaya shows up a bit early in a few samples from the Balkans. End of story.


A bit early is an understatement, but let's not talk about this in this thread

----------


## MOESAN

> What about this though?
> 
> http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/0...reek-from.html
> 
> That Greek sample is Neolithic.
> 
> Then there is that semi-famous Varna outlier, which has lots of Steppe too, and also definitely (massively) predates Yamnaya.
> *
> Steppe admix  Yamnaya*


question here: is autosomal DNA labelled "steppe" (or 'yamanya') intrusion the proof of a PIE or even pre-PIE speaking people's intrusion? Not for sure.

----------


## halfalp

Yes we should stop believe in those Yamnaya, they were probably just Proto-Turks.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well it's not very possible. You cannot found a population of 60% EHG and 30% CHG in a land full of EEF and a minority of WHG. This doesn't make sense.


Let's not talk about this now, but as you know I associate L23 with metallurgy with the swastika etc.

And also, the Balkans is directly connected to the Steppe with pretty much no geographical barriers - it isn't outlandish at all. But seriously, not because you've done anything wrong or because I can't defend myself, but I'm not speaking about this anymore as it is off-topic

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> question here: is autosomal DNA labelled "steppe" (or 'yamanya') intrusion the proof of a PIE or even pre-PIE speaking people's intrusion? Not for sure.


We can never have proof, we can only make models and try and back them up with evidence. The ancient DNA has to support the models, and it can be used to discredit other models - that is its only purpose. But people abuse it, and always oversimplify, often ignoring difficult questions ("How can CWC derive from Yamnaya, both paternalistic cultures, when they have completely different Y DNA profiles?" is one example. Like children, the official answer is "muh Steppe"). This is precisely the reason that lots of outlandish conclusions were made using aDNA during its early days. As I've said before on this forum, we need to appreciate Goethe's interpretation of science, and "look at the big picture".

Also, people are so terrified of looking at skull shapes nowadays!

----------


## halfalp

> We can never have proof, we can only make models and try and back them up with evidence. The ancient DNA has to support the models, and it can be used to discredit other models - that is its only purpose. But people abuse it, and always oversimplify, often ignoring difficult questions ("*How can CWC derive from Yamnaya, both paternalistic cultures, when they have completely different Y DNA profiles?*" is one example. Like children, the official answer is "muh Steppe"). Also, people are so terrified of looking at skull shapes nowadays!


1) We dont know everything about Khvalynsk / Sredni Stog / Yamnaya. If one day we found some Yamnaya R1a ( wich is already the case ) it gonna be closed.

2) R1a / R1b and Eastern Europe have mainly the same ancestry in those times. So the Steppe ancestry in CWC could be just common ancestry.

----------


## MOESAN

kind of answer to more than one, here under, as it comes:
- I doubt Y-R1b erased completely other Y-haplogroups -
- it is of importance to discriminate a brutal replacement of Y-haplogroups from a gradual one : the results are not the same as well concerning the allover auDNA as the linguistic consequences and/or the historical inferences -
- I suppose its a mistake to put all the Y-J2 of Iberia on the account of Romans or others (I think in Chalco diverse cultures of the South and the South-East in the first place, surely from Egea or Western Anatolia for a part  the diverse Y-E1b of Iberia deserves a detailed analysis region by region -
- what we have are maps of current absolute density of Y-R1b-L51 or L11, not their relative density compared to all R1b  I think Central-Eastern Europe could provide us higher relative %s of L51 or/and L11 (Hungary, Czechia, Slovakia, Austria, Poland) ; today pops surveys (Busby and others) show a trail in Central Europe with L51, L11 and their upstreams and downstreams SNPs, spite they are based upon rather small samples  the fact L51 seems having known a quick densification in Western Europe doesn t mean it was born there - It could be that L51 was first among pops around Carpathian, with some steppe-like or pseudo-steppe auDNA what is not the proof its first bearers spoke an IE language -
- even with true steppe auDNA (EHG-old CHG) the weight of these DNA could very easily decrease by time on the way to South-West ; in the case of a southern way travel the original auDNA could even have been half diluted before leaving southeastern Europe  BTW we see today in S-W Europe a gradiant in auDNA from North to South-West whatever the %s of Y-R1b  
- but I have hard work to figure out that a bunch of BBs Y-R1b-L51 arrived in South Atlantic regions along mediterranean coasts gave birth to the all P312 we found among Northern BBs and we find their descendants (from BBs and not-BBs) in today Western Europe, with this subclade distribution  the prevalence of L11 rather in Northern+Northeastern Europe and the relatively neat separation of U106 from P312 doesnt plead for a mediterranean road for L51 or at least it could be possible only in the case of at least two roads scheme from East -
- The today distribution of Y-R1b clades in Iberia is not only the result of Late Chalco-Early BA brutal invasion ; its the result of a succession of people came from North into Iberia, before, during and after the Urnfields and IA (Romans) ; 


& : Bicicleur, I dont see Y-I2a1b L161 and S2639 had had an Iberia distribution (based upon my poor munitions); according to Maciamo they seem rather  so British  and from "eastern Y-I2a1b - Y-I2a1(b) and I2a2 were found among Late Neolithic megalithic sites in Iberia but the today distribution in Iberia, rather scarce and Western + Catalonia, could be as well the result of Germanic and/or Celtic settlements, at least for some subclades (I havent the detail)  maybe you have some clues I lack here ?

- Im not sure all L-51/P312 descendants spoke IE, I dont exclude completley a proto-basquic/aquitanian even if this hypothesis seems more and more inaccurate or weird to me  Iberian language could have had some basquic-like elements, and DF27 is very eastern in Iberia - 


Dont take my doubts for firm believings ! Only open doors in alternative of fragile proofs - 
Concerning early steppe DNA in Europe, I recall, not my opinion, but the traditional mainstream about IEs : it says first Kourgans people supposed to be IEs appeared in Europe around 4400-4300 BC...

----------


## hrvclv

> I don't understand, I know the title of this post suggests it, but it still seems somewhat early, given on Wikipedia at least the Central European Bell Beaker culture was said to have started after 2500 BCE.


Well, you can also look at it the other way round. The dates might explain a lot on the contrary.

Stricto sensu, Bell Beakers were just pots - initially produced in Portugal (from 2900 BCE onwards). Then the pottery style expanded northeastwards, perhaps with some degree of demic movement. Simultaneously, or shortly afterwards, groups from the steppe people who had just arrived in - say - Bohemia, launched long-ranging incursions into western Europe. The two streams of people (and genes) apparently interpenetrated each other in a fairly complex way.

The 'steppe' foragers may have retained contacts with the groups they had left behind (you gotta visit the fam'ly once in a while!). Trade seems to have expanded massively at the time. It probably just ran along the trails those invaders had left on their way. The Beaker pots went east. R1b , its language - such as it was, some form of Proto-Italo-Celtic - and its burial practices, went west. The newcomers married local wives. Most of the time, pottery was a female occupation. And beaker pots proved convenient for drinking beer and mead. No reason to discard them. So much more reason for "exporting" them. What I imagine is a newly established netwok of trading paths crisscrossing western Europe, running both ways.

2500 BCE fits in nicely to explain the beginning of that influx of beaker pottery into Germany. From there, shortly afterwards, it was taken to the British Isles by a massive wave of people from somewhere in, broadly, north-west Germany.

The genetic impact in Iberia, though strong in terms of y-dna in places (the west) may have been limited autosomally for some time.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Well, at least the pots not people theory is effectively dead, in my opinion at least. Let me know if I've missed something though. The oldest farmers are only slightly older than that 2500 BCE Steppe sample, and given there would have been way more of them (and Beaker remains in Iberia were already known to be very sparse), it isn't a surprise that we haven't found Steppe samples that are as old.

----------


## firetown

> We have some early pre-E-V13 in Cardial Neolithic as well.


That would be around the time the first farmer/ancestors of today's Basques arrived, correct?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well, you can also look at it the other way round. The dates might explain a lot on the contrary.
> 
> Stricto sensu, Bell Beakers were just pots - initially produced in Portugal (from 2900 BCE onwards). Then the pottery style expanded northeastwards, perhaps with some degree of demic movement. Simultaneously, or shortly afterwards, groups from the steppe people who had just arrived in - say - Bohemia, launched long-ranging incursions into western Europe. The two streams of people (and genes) apparently interpenetrated each other in a fairly complex way.
> 
> The 'steppe' foragers may have retained contacts with the groups they had left behind (you gotta visit the fam'ly once in a while!). Trade seems to have expanded massively at the time. It probably just ran along the trails those invaders had left on their way. The Beaker pots went east. R1b , its language - such as it was, some form of Proto-Italo-Celtic - and its burial practices, went west. The newcomers married local wives. Most of the time, pottery was a female occupation. And beaker pots proved convenient for drinking beer and mead. No reason to discard them. So much more reason for "exporting" them. What I imagine is a newly established netwok of trading paths crisscrossing western Europe, running both ways.
> 
> 2500 BCE fits in nicely to explain the beginning of that influx of beaker pottery into Germany. From there, shortly afterwards, it was taken to the British Isles by a massive wave of people from somewhere in, broadly, north-west Germany.
> 
> The genetic impact in Iberia, though strong in terms of y-dna in places (the west) may have been limited autosomally for some time.


Isn't that 2500 BCE Steppe sample in Iberia pretty old though? That was roughly the same time the Beaker culture in Germany commenced.

----------


## hrvclv

> Isn't that 2500 BCE Steppe sample in Iberia pretty old though? That was roughly the same time the Beaker culture in Germany commenced.


Yes... that's precisely my point : as I see things, freshly arrived R1b were instrumental in spreading beaker pots back to where they came from. It all seems so simultaneous. Can't be a coincidence.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes... that's precisely my point : as I see things, freshly arrived R1b were instrumental in spreading beaker pots back to where they came from. It all seems so simultaneous. Can't be a coincidence.


I'm being dumb - where do you think R1b-L51 originally reached Iberia from? If you're spotting the simultaneity of Beaker pottery and Western European R1b, surely you'd believe L51 spread across Europe ultimately from Iberia? Or are you talking about the simultaneity of the Spanish and German L51 (from our samples), and saying the Beaker folk spread from Germany originally.

----------


## hrvclv

> I'm being dumb - where do you think R1b-L51 originally reached Iberia from? If you're spotting the simultaneity of Beaker pottery and Western European R1b, surely you'd believe L51 spread across Europe ultimately from Iberia? Or are you talking about the simultaneity of the Spanish and German L51 (from our samples), and saying the Beaker folk spread from Germany originally.


Sorry, it must be due to English being my second language. What I am saying is that when L51 arrived north of the Carpathian arc, they just didn't stop there. Some of them went on to the west. But the explorers, warriors, whatever they were, who marched on didn't end up isolated from the bulk of their people who had remained behind, and contacts intensified between the new outposts and the central european homeland. The elements of material culture found in the west were shared or traded all over western and central Europe when they proved useful, establishing de facto that extensive "mixed culture" we refer to as Bell Beaker. It needn't have taken centuries for people to take advantage of newly established long-ranging trading routes.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Sorry, it must be due to English being my second language. What I am saying is that when L51 arrived north of the Carpathian arc, they just didn't stop there. Some of them went on to the west. But the explorers, warriors, whatever they were, who marched on didn't end up isolated from the bulk of their people who had remained behind, and contacts intensified between the new outposts and the central european homeland. The elements of material culture found in the west were shared or traded all over western and central Europe when they proved useful, establishing de facto that extensive "mixed culture" we refer to as Bell Beaker. It needn't have taken centuries for people to take advantage of newly established long-ranging trading routes.


That theory is all well and good, but so far Balkan R1b from that period has been Z2103 (including Vucedol), so where could L51 have originated if not from the West?

----------


## Angela

> Well, you can also look at it the other way round. The dates might explain a lot on the contrary.
> 
> Stricto sensu, Bell Beakers were just pots - initially produced in Portugal (from 2900 BCE onwards). Then the pottery style expanded northeastwards, perhaps with some degree of demic movement. Simultaneously, or shortly afterwards, groups from the steppe people who had just arrived in - say - Bohemia, launched long-ranging incursions into western Europe. The two streams of people (and genes) apparently interpenetrated each other in a fairly complex way.
> 
> The 'steppe' foragers may have retained contacts with the groups they had left behind (you gotta visit the fam'ly once in a while!). Trade seems to have expanded massively at the time. It probably just ran along the trails those invaders had left on their way. The Beaker pots went east. R1b , its language - such as it was, some form of Proto-Italo-Celtic - and its burial practices, went west. The newcomers married local wives. Most of the time, pottery was a female occupation. And beaker pots proved convenient for drinking beer and mead. No reason to discard them. So much more reason for "exporting" them. What I imagine is a newly established netwok of trading paths crisscrossing western Europe, running both ways.
> 
> 2500 BCE fits in nicely to explain the beginning of that influx of beaker pottery into Germany. From there, shortly afterwards, it was taken to the British Isles by a massive wave of people from somewhere in, broadly, north-west Germany.
> 
> The genetic impact in Iberia, though strong in terms of y-dna in places (the west) may have been limited autosomally for some time.


Great summary. Thanks.

----------


## Angela

> That would be around the time the first farmer/ancestors of today's Basques arrived, correct?


Yes, but also the ancestors of all Iberians as well. The sample was found in the Avellaner Cave in Catalonia.

See the following thread where we discussed it.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-V13-a-mystery

----------


## hrvclv

> That theory is all well and good, but so far Balkan R1b from that period has been Z2103 (including Vucedol), so where could L51 have originated if not from the West?


Cf this page : https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1b_Y-DNA.shtml

----------


## bicicleur

> 1) We dont know everything about Khvalynsk / Sredni Stog / Yamnaya. If one day we found some Yamnaya R1a ( wich is already the case ) it gonna be closed.
> 
> 2) R1a / R1b and Eastern Europe have mainly the same ancestry in those times. So the Steppe ancestry in CWC could be just common ancestry.


not only common ancestry, also a similar language

----------


## berun

> Ok i understand what you mean now. Because Varna Culture had some Steppe outliers and later at the time of Yamnaya Culture, Varna Site became part of Yamnaya_Bulgaria. So basically at the time of Proper Varna Culture, they were already Steppe outliers coming from ancestors of the founder of Yamnaya in Eastern Europe and at the time of Yamnaya, the whole package came into Varna. The thing is, there is mainly no difference with Khvalynsk / Sredny Stog and Yamnaya in term of culture and ancestry. So the Steppe outlier still came from Steppe, just before Yamnaya Culture.


wow, it's not steppitis but just incapability to think in other possibilities!

----------


## markod

I think the most important issue that seems to be ignored is that R1b doesn't correlate well with IE languages:





Before L51 from the steppe became the most plausible possibility, the best explanation for this pattern was that L51 has nothing to do with IE. Now a different explanation is needed.

The same problem in the noth: Celtic is young, Ireland & Britain were settled early but became completely Celtic after the Iron Age. What were the languages spoken by the Bronze Age settlers?

----------


## MOESAN

> in that case, Iberia would have been IE by 4.5 ka,
> but along the eastcoast they would have been replaced by 'Iberic' speaking El Argar


It's not stupid at all; it's possible 'iberian' language came later than some old IE dialects in Iberia; the apparent basque/aquitania similarities could be due to loans, and we don't know the antiquity of basque in Iberia, so no proof for nor against I think, in absence of writings - I have not auDNA from El Argar at hand so, concerning their geographical origin; and even with it, it would be nice to be sure of the social category if El Argar elites were intrusive...

----------


## hrvclv

> I think the most important issue that seems to be ignored is that R1b doesn't correlate well with IE languages.


Well, I'd be tempted to say that this issue has been extensively dealt with in the thread "How did the Basques become R1b?".

It probably has a lot to do with the ratio of incoming settlers vs locals, and the ensuing discrepancy between y-dna and autosomal. 

Are there any other options you think we should consider ?

----------


## markod

> Well, I'd be tempted to say that this issue has been extensively dealt with in the thread "How did the Basques become R1b?".
> 
> It probably has a lot to do with the ratio of incoming settlers vs locals, and the ensuing discrepancy between y-dna and autosomal. 
> 
> Are there any other options you think we should consider ?


But it's not just the Basques. Iberians and Tartessians too. And going by the subtrata in the Insular Celtic languages I'd think Britain & Ireland probably weren't IE speaking until the Iron Age either.

No idea how that happened though.

----------


## firetown

The R1b invaders were male and the local women would continue teaching their old languages to their offspring with them?




> But it's not just the Basques. Iberians and Tartessians too. And going by the subtrata in the Insular Celtic languages I'd think Britain & Ireland probably weren't IE speaking until the Iron Age either.
> 
> No idea how that happened though.


Sounds like a simple case of fathers not that involved in their children's upbringing to me.

----------


## Angela

> But it's not just the Basques. Iberians and Tartessians too. And going by the subtrata in the Insular Celtic languages I'd think Britain & Ireland probably weren't IE speaking until the Iron Age either.
> 
> No idea how that happened though.


I think Britain's different: 90% autosomal wipe out as well.

----------


## markod

> The R1b invaders were male and the local women would continue teaching their old languages to their offspring with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a simple case of fathers not that involved in their children's upbringing to me.


It's definitely a possibility. I think it was Tacitus who wrote that among the northern Barbarians fathers would barely invest at all in the upbringing of their children. So the father-son relationship amounted to little more than a kind of benevolent neglect  :Embarassed: 

In such an environment the mother would probably be much more important when it comes to the learning of languages and culture. I believe that generally the importance of Y-DNA is overstated when it comes to language transfer.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The R1b invaders were male and the local women would continue teaching their old languages to their offspring with them?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a simple case of fathers not that involved in their children's upbringing to me.


That, or U152 is a special case where the males picked up IE speech from an outside source (perhaps remnants of the Corded Ware culture). I suspect you're correct, though I'm unsure as hell.

This is all very interesting - only U106 and U152 are responsible for Western IE.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well, I'd be tempted to say that this issue has been extensively dealt with in the thread "How did the Basques become R1b?".
> 
> It probably has a lot to do with the ratio of incoming settlers vs locals, and the ensuing discrepancy between y-dna and autosomal. 
> 
> Are there any other options you think we should consider ?


Where do you think L51 could have DIRECTLY come to Western/Central Europe from - what culture. The only possibilities I have are the Beaker culture and the Baden culture (an underrated hypothesis that I've neglected). In both cases, it relies ultimately on a Balkan origin of L23, which I would happily bet on (rather than Steppe L23)

----------


## hrvclv

> This is all very interesting - only U106 and U152 are responsible for Western IE.


Why only those two ? What about L21 and DF 27 ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Why only those two ? What about L21 and DF 27 ?


Because there are only two Western IE language families - proto-(Italo-)Celtic and proto-Germanic, and each can be associated to U152 and U106 respectively. As mentioned earlier, DF27 and L21 don't seem to be directly related to either of these modern language families. Perhaps at some point they were, but there is no evidence for this. The Celtic languages must have spread from a later Central European source, and the only real candidate for that is U152. And I'm just assuming U106 is responsible for Germanic speech, but it seems about right

----------


## hrvclv

> Where do you think L51 could have DIRECTLY come to Western/Central Europe from - what culture. The only possibilities I have are the Beaker culture and the Baden culture (an underrated hypothesis that I've neglected). In both cases, it relies ultimately on a Balkan origin of L23, which I would happily bet on (rather than Steppe L23)


I'd say Yamnaya Danube. They crossed over the Carpathians some time between 2800 and 2500 BCE, and fanned out north of them. Some stayed in southern Poland (Unetice). My hunch is that others spread westwards to Bohemia, Austria, Bavaria, and some of those didn't stop. They went on exploring and conquering. Some clans made it to Iberia...

----------


## hrvclv

> Because there are only two Western IE language families - proto-(Italo-)Celtic and proto-Germanic, and each can be associated to U152 and U106 respectively. As mentioned earlier, DF27 and L21 don't seem to be directly related to either of these modern language families. Perhaps at some point they were, but there is no evidence for this. The Celtic languages must have spread from a later Central European source, and the only real candidate for that is U152. And I'm just assuming U106 is responsible for Germanic speech, but it seems about right


You are ignoring the Q/P Celtic split. And the fact that no matter how you look at it Gaulish P Celtic (U152) is much closer to Irish Q Celtic (L21) than Latin (U152?) was ever shown to be to either. I agree that several waves of Celts came to Britain and brought distinct variants of the language. But I think you are over-simplifying things a bit.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'd say Yamnaya Danube. They crossed over the Carpathians some time between 2800 and 2500 BCE, and fanned out north of them. Some stayed in southern Poland (Unetice). My hunch is that others spread westwards to Bohemia, Austria, Bavaria, and some of those didn't stop. They went on exploring and conquering. Some clans made it to Iberia...


But where is the trace of this L51 nowadays? Balkan R1b is pretty much entirely Z2103. What about Vucedol (let alone Yamnaya) being Z2103? And what about the distribution of Z2103 in the Balkans looking very much like the expansion of Danubian Yamnaya (see below)?



We know Z2103 was present in Yamnaya, so where did this Z2103 expand to if not the Balkans? Surely it didn't expand WITH L51, without L51 leaving much of a trace in the Balkans, right?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> You are ignoring the Q/P Celtic split. And the fact that no matter how you look at it Gaulish P Celtic (U152) is much closer to Irish Q Celtic (L21) than Latin (U152?) was ever shown to be to either. I agree that several waves of Celts came to Britain and brought distinct variants of the language. But I think you are over-simplifying things a bit.


I'm not a linguist, so I'm just echoing what I've seen online. Apparently, even with the Q/P split (and that does seem to mirror L21/U152, I'll agree, but it could easily be influence from a substratum), Celtic is still too young a language for it to date back to the British and Irish Beakers. So, either it expanded from the British Isles to Central Europe (super unlikely), or the opposite occurred.

That's what I've read, I have 0 clue if it's legit or not though

----------


## hrvclv

Well, Unetice is massively L11, a direct daughter clade of L51. They didn't drop from the moon, did they?
_(Sorry, I don't wish to seem rude, but I'll pick this up later. Week-end planned. Wife calling. Got to go, or shall be beaten ;)_

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well, Unetice is massively L11, a direct daughter clade of L51. They didn't drop from the moon, did they?
> _(Sorry, I don't wish to seem rude, but I'll pick this up later. Week-end planned. Wife calling. Got to go, or shall be beaten ;)_


Unetice is younger than Western Beakers. I personally see Unetice as Beaker men + some Corded Ware cuties

----------


## bicicleur

> Well, I'd be tempted to say that this issue has been extensively dealt with in the thread "How did the Basques become R1b?".
> 
> It probably has a lot to do with the ratio of incoming settlers vs locals, and the ensuing discrepancy between y-dna and autosomal. 
> 
> Are there any other options you think we should consider ?


the Basques are an enigma

but the other option for Iberia :

they are talking 4.5 ka in the paper
who says the 4 ka El Argar people didn't whipe out part of these 4.5 ka guys?

----------


## bicicleur

> That, or U152 is a special case where the males picked up IE speech from an outside source (perhaps remnants of the Corded Ware culture). I suspect you're correct, though I'm unsure as hell.
> This is all very interesting - only U106 and U152 are responsible for Western IE.


yes, it should be U106 and P312, and they were very prolific

we know the source of the Romance languages, it's very small

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Then if you imply that a similar population as Yamnaya was in the Balkans before Yamna Culture, then it doesn't exist already in some studies, so it's pure supposition.


Sredny Stog?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> yes, it should be U106 and P312, and they were very prolific
> 
> we know the source of the Romance languages, it's very small


Not even P312, just U152. Whatever languages were associated with L21 and DF27, they weren't modern IE languages.

----------


## bicicleur

> Sredny Stog?


we have I2a2a-L699 in Mariupol, in Yamna Bulgaria, in Catacomb Russia and in Vucedol



I don't know where the L699 are now exactly, but it seems to me they were part of the IE expansion to Europe too.

Strange that R1b-L1 wasn't found though.

----------


## halfalp

> wow, it's not steppitis but just incapability to think in other possibilities!


You must kidding, every possibilities have been thinked and imagined. Steppe have nothing to do with Gimbutas for what you believe. When the first english indianists in the 1700's have been aware of the relationship between Sanskrit, Latin and Ancient Greek, the Steppe was the first intuition that came to a lot of those people. Do you think that white supremacists want their ancestors to came from Steppe and that they had feet full of herd shits? Come on, you are the one who probably need to learn what the other side believe.

----------


## halfalp

> Sredny Stog?


Sredny Stog is the same culture, the same ancestry as Yamnaya. So this ain't gonna ad a lot much to the actual datas. Most of people have actually main and main times talked about a pre-Yamnaya migrations linked with Sredny Stog for West and Khvalynsk for East. So once again, it doesn't change that much.

----------


## berun

> You must kidding, every possibilities have been thinked and imagined. Steppe have nothing to do with Gimbutas for what you believe. When the first english indianists in the 1700's have been aware of the relationship between Sanskrit, Latin and Ancient Greek, the Steppe was the first intuition that came to a lot of those people. Do you think that white supremacists want their ancestors to came from Steppe and that they had feet full of herd shits? Come on, you are the one who probably need to learn what the other side believe.


well, I was talking about sticking in the steppes for the Varna guy, even in if he lived 1000 years before Yamnayans, and that Yamnayans own CHG share came by land from somewhere... so please don't recall about XVIII century theories but about actual open mindness.

----------


## MOESAN

> Unetice is younger than Western Beakers. I personally see Unetice as Beaker men + some Corded Ware cuties


it seems that as well for auDNA than for non-metrics physical traits Unetice ought more to CWC's than to BB's; I don't know if we have new Y-haplos but the few ones we had for Unetice were rather Y-I, among them Y-I2a2 so common among some regions of Balkans and among GAC - but this sketch could change very quickly with a serious sample - the influence of BBC would have been stronger on the cultural side -

----------


## MOESAN

i you look at RELATIVE %'s of L51 in today pops (rel. to all R1b) you see respectable %s of L51 compared to Western Europe in Hungary, Slovakia, Poland... and new arrivals of L23 from Anatolia after first journeys of 'steppe' people westwards could have erased a lot of L11 in their previous settlements - I doubt we could have this with a late eastwards progression of western BB's, then we rather would have downstream SNPs like U152, DF27 or L21, what semingly is not the case. I regreat more samples of eastern-central Europe have not been analysed at a deep level for Y-haplos -

----------


## halfalp

> well, I was talking about sticking in the steppes for the Varna guy, even in if he lived 1000 years before Yamnayans, and that Yamnayans own CHG share came by land from somewhere... so please don't recall about XVIII century theories but about actual open mindness.


Dont talk about being open minded, you are the one who dont read. I said multiple time that whatever if its Yamnaya, Sredni Stog, Repin, Khvalynsk or even more regional and related culture, it's all the same ancestry. Yamnaya is just relevant because it is a culture who emphasis a lot of migrations west and east coming from the pontic steppe that we dont see earlier.

----------


## MOESAN

> Well, Unetice is massively L11, a direct daughter clade of L51. They didn't drop from the moon, did they?
> _(Sorry, I don't wish to seem rude, but I'll pick this up later. Week-end planned. Wife calling. Got to go, or shall be beaten ;)_


I appreciate your posts as a whole - here I learn something. Have you some new results for Y-DNA among Unetice? I lack a lot.
Can you not change wife? Or learn martial arts? LOL

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> i you look at RELATIVE %'s of L51 in today pops (rel. to all R1b) you see respectable %s of L51 compared to Western Europe in Hungary, Slovakia, Poland... and new arrivals of L23 from Anatolia after first journeys of 'steppe' people westwards could have erased a lot of L11 in their previous settlements - I doubt we could have this with a late eastwards progression of western BB's, then we rather would have downstream SNPs like U152, DF27 or L21, what semingly is not the case. I regreat more samples of eastern-central Europe have not been analysed at a deep level for Y-haplos -


Are you saying early L51 subclades are more common in East Central Europe than Western Europe, as a percentage of total L51?

----------


## MOESAN

> Are you saying early L51 subclades are more common in East Central Europe than Western Europe, as a percentage of total L51?


as compared to Y-R1b M269 or whatever the up- or down-stream SNP's taken in account they show as respectable %s. And they have more complete succession of SNP's what is not the case in Western Europe where ancient SNP's lack - I cannot help see there kind of a trail arround Danube -

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> as compared to Y-R1b M269 or whatever the up- or down-stream SNP's taken in account they show as respectable %s. And they have more complete succession of SNP's what is not the case in Western Europe where ancient SNP's lack - I cannot help see there kind of a trail arround Danube -


So all it is is that there is more L51 as a % of R1b in Hungary than in, say, Ireland? I literally don't believe that.

Unless you mean L51* (I use L51 to include things like U106, P312 etc.)

Even so:

----------


## halfalp

I read on Indo-European.eu a few times ago, that apparently a russian researchers team have found an R1b-L51 individual in Khvalynsk, alongside very weird lineage like O1. I cannot tell you if its confirmed whatsoever.

----------


## halfalp

This was the post.

https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> This was the post.
> 
> https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/


Read this: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/the...y-cape-burial/

tl;dr It isn't legit. L51 hasn't been found before the Bell Beakers, as of yet.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Sredny Stog is the same culture, the same ancestry as Yamnaya. So this ain't gonna ad a lot much to the actual datas. Most of people have actually main and main times talked about a pre-Yamnaya migrations linked with Sredny Stog for West and Khvalynsk for East. So once again, it doesn't change that much.


The same or just related? Pre-Yamnaya (early-PIE?) migrations:

Ezero -> Anatolian? Usatovo -> Mycenaean?

----------


## halfalp

> The same or just related? Pre-Yamnaya (early-PIE?) migrations:
> 
> Ezero -> Anatolian? Usatovo -> Mycenaean?


No it's not exactly the same culture, but Yamnaya came in part from Sredny Stog in case of ancestry and cultural package. Yamnaya is a broad term who means Burial Mounds, Sredny Stog didn't have exactly burial mounds, like Khvalynsk. Yamnaya is more the apogee of those two previous culture and maybe some regional ones.

For Anatolian and Mycenaean, i dont know, we cannot discuss this without proper links. We dont have any dna from Ezero or Usatovo.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

I know it's just Wikipedia, but this is great reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic_Europe

Of particular interest is the Middle Chalcolithic section:

"This period extends along the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. Most significant is the reorganization of the Danubians into the powerful Baden culture, which extended more or less to what would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire in recent times. The rest of the Balkans was profoundly restructured after the invasions of the previous period but, with the exception of the Coțofeni culture in a mountainous region, none of them show any _eastern_ (or presumably Indo-European) traits. The new Ezero culture, in Bulgaria, shows the first traits of pseudo-bronze (an alloy of copper with arsenic). So does the first significant Aegean group: the Cycladic culture after 2800 BC.

In the North, for some time the supposedly Indo-European groups seemed to recede temporarily, suffering a strong cultural _danubianization_. In the East, the peoples of beyond the Volga (Yamna culture), surely eastern Indo-Europeans, ancestors of Iranians took over southern Russia and Ukraine. In the West the only sign of unity comes from the Megalithic super-culture, which extended from southern Sweden to southern Spain, including large parts of southern Germany as well. But the Mediterranean and Danubian groupings of the previous period appear fragmented into many smaller pieces, some of them apparently backward in technological matters. From c. 2800 BC, the Danubian Seine-Oise-Marne culture pushed directly or indirectly southwards, destroying most of the rich Megalithic culture of western France. After c. 2600 several phenomena will prefigure the changes of the upcoming period:

Large towns with stone walls appeared in two different areas of the Iberian Peninsula: one in the Portuguese region of Estremadura (culture of Vila Nova de São Pedro), strongly embedded in the Atlantic Megalithic culture; the other near Almería (SE Spain), centred on the large town of Los Millares, of Mediterranean character, probably affected by eastern cultural influxes (_tholoi_). Despite the many differences the two civilizations seemed to be in friendly contact and to have productive exchanges. In the area of Dordogne (Aquitaine, France), a new unexpected culture of bowmenappeared: the culture of Artenac, which would soon take control of western and even northern France and Belgium. In Poland and nearby regions, the putative Indo-Europeans reorganized and consolidated again with the culture of the Globular Amphoras. Nevertheless, the influence of many centuries in direct contact with the still-powerful Danubian peoples had greatly modified their culture."

----------


## CrazyDonkey

What was the population density in Iberia? Low population density could help explain the high y-dna replacement rates in Iberia and Britain. Did climatic change cause drought, famine, plague, and, thus, depopulation?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

I’ve found what I think is the best guess for the touchdown point of R1b L51 in its Mediterranean hypothesis - https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Millares

----------


## Aaron1981

> I think the most important issue that seems to be ignored is that R1b doesn't correlate well with IE languages:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before L51 from the steppe became the most plausible possibility, the best explanation for this pattern was that L51 has nothing to do with IE. Now a different explanation is needed.
> 
> The same problem in the noth: Celtic is young, Ireland & Britain were settled early but became completely Celtic after the Iron Age. What were the languages spoken by the Bronze Age settlers?


That's a fallacious argument I see very often. The offset of lower R1b is from non-IE paternal lines such as E-M84 and J2 in places like Portugal and western Iberia. Nice try though. It could be that R1b were not IE speakers, or it could be they were, or the third option, which I believe is true, they were and they were not. DF27 most certainly spread to Iberia from the mouth of the Rhone and may have consisted of IE and non-IE speakers. How they arrived in this situation is inconclusive and we will likely never know. Plenty of R1a rich populations also do not speak IE. Plenty of J2 populations outside of Iran do not speak IE.

L51(xL11) does not peak in the Mediterranean, it is central European, and its descendants L11 is highest in northern Europe. Around 2500 BC we see P312+ move into southern Europe, and if and when it turns up in aDNA in places like southern Italy, it's probably been there a long time. (4.5 thousand years)

----------


## Aaron1981

> So all it is is that there is more L51 as a % of R1b in Hungary than in, say, Ireland? I literally don't believe that.
> 
> Unless you mean L51* (I use L51 to include things like U106, P312 etc.)
> 
> Even so:


Not a very good distribution map quite frankly. There are plenty of samples L51(xL11) in Germany.

----------


## Aaron1981

> Where do you think L51 could have DIRECTLY come to Western/Central Europe from - what culture. The only possibilities I have are the Beaker culture and the Baden culture (an underrated hypothesis that I've neglected). In both cases, it relies ultimately on a Balkan origin of L23, which I would happily bet on (rather than Steppe L23)


Considering there is only about 500 years difference that splits Z2103 and L51 from the parent node, I'm not sure how different they really could be. L51+ was most likely sprung from a western steppe culture

----------


## markod

> That's a fallacious argument I see very often. The offset of lower R1b is from non-IE paternal lines such as E-M84 and J2 in places like Portugal and western Iberia. Nice try though. It could be that R1b were not IE speakers, or it could be they were, or the third option, which I believe is true, they were and they were not. DF27 most certainly spread to Iberia from the mouth of the Rhone and may have consisted of IE and non-IE speakers. How they arrived in this situation is inconclusive and we will likely never know. Plenty of R1a rich populations also do not speak IE. Plenty of J2 populations outside of Iran do not speak IE.
> 
> L51(xL11) does not peak in the Mediterranean, it is central European, and its descendants L11 is highest in northern Europe. Around 2500 BC we see P312+ move into southern Europe, and if and when it turns up in aDNA in places like southern Italy, it's probably been there a long time. (4.5 thousand years)


I think you might be a little confused as to what constitutes a fallacy.

----------


## Aaron1981

> That, or U152 is a special case where the males picked up IE speech from an outside source (perhaps remnants of the Corded Ware culture). I suspect you're correct, though I'm unsure as hell.
> 
> This is all very interesting - only U106 and U152 are responsible for Western IE.


How do you figure? Celts were definitely U152 and we have a western Scythian native of Ukraine belong to this branch. In a sense, the Celts were on the steppes, the western part of it. It's true that Srubnaya was R1a for example, but I don't see how that discounts groups like Catacomb and Yamnaya being IE native speakers (rich in R1b). The Indo-Iranians moved back west much later and were predominantly R1a, but IE speakers existed there before them.

----------


## Aaron1981

> we have I2a2a-L699 in Mariupol, in Yamna Bulgaria, in Catacomb Russia and in Vucedol
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where the L699 are now exactly, but it seems to me they were part of the IE expansion to Europe too.
> 
> Strange that R1b-L1 wasn't found though.


All of the Catacomb samples from the recent aDNA paper on the Maykop + Caucasus paper were R1b.

----------


## berun

> Dont talk about being open minded, you are the one who dont read. I said multiple time that whatever if its Yamnaya, Sredni Stog, Repin, Khvalynsk or even more regional and related culture, it's all the same ancestry. Yamnaya is just relevant because it is a culture who emphasis a lot of migrations west and east coming from the pontic steppe that we dont see earlier.


impossible, you can't think in other places or cultures other than those of the steppe, so let make you think harder, when and where do you think CHG and EHG meet first?

----------


## MOESAN

@to be or not to be

yes, sorry: L51*, the only one in current pops which can matter in our discussion here concerning past and road

----------


## halfalp

> impossible, you can't think in other places or cultures other than those of the steppe, so let make you think harder, when and where do you think CHG and EHG meet first?


I'm not sure to understand your point here, are you talking about IE languages? If so, why should CHG and EEF be more relevant than WHG and EHG?

But as for the question, it probably happened in the Balkans or the shore of the Black Sea.

----------


## GloomyGonzales

> Very interesting - I personally prefer my variant with R1b1a (at least) originating from the Balkans rather than Iran (lots of reasons - the origin and spread of the Swastika as a huge one, spread of metallurgy, more recently V88 being found amongst Balkan HGs, amongst others), but to post that at a time of Yamnaya-fetishism takes some pretty big balls (plus, we had no idea about V88 in the Mesolithic Balkans back then). Main point of contention is Gedrosian admix. being associated with R1b, and whether or not it's a pretty much fictitious descriptor, the correlation is still there in distinguishing from Eastern Europe. Perhaps R1b reached its Balkan breeding grounds from the Iran region (maybe more Eastern than that) in the first place? 
> 
> For srs though, the Balkan and Ukraine region has GOT to be the breeding ground of R1b. At a minor stretch, it could involve Anatolia too.


I made this R1b migration map mostly on the basis of linguistic data. I believe that both R1a and R1b folks survived LGM in the same geographical region (the Iranian Plateau) and before expansion in Eastern and Western Europe they were culturally pretty much close (language, oral traditions, technology etc). So if we presume that R1a and R1b folks before expansion were speakers of closely related languages we can reconstruct their migration routes by similar linguistic traces.
I analyzed IE words used for designation of settlements and sorted out those words that can be found in all IE branches reliably connected with spread of R1a haplos:
toch.B.: _kwaṣo_ – village, _ike_ – settlement, Lithuanian: _kaimas_ - settlement, village, Latvian: _ciems_ – settlement, village, _ēka_ – house, Greek: _oîkos_ – house, _oikismo_ – settlement, Phrygian: _gava_ – region, place, Tajik: _khona_ – house, gothic: _о__ium_ –>*_o(h)um_ – country.
So migration of R1b folks can be traced down by presence of cognates of R1a words for settlements. I believe that wide spread in South Europe (Spain, South France and Italy) place names ending in _-asco, -asca, -usco, -osco, -osca, -inco,-inca_ are in fact R1b cognates of words _kwaṣo, ike_, _kaimas,_ _ciems, ēka,_ _oîkos,_ _oikismo,_ _gava_, _khona,_ *_o(h)um._
So in my opinion primary expansion zone of West European subclades of R1b folks should correlate with spread of place names ending in _-asco, -asca, -usco, -osco, -osca, -inco,-inca_. 



And in this case an entry point for European R1b folks (~R1b-L151) should be somewhere in Corsica.

----------


## halfalp

> I made this R1b migration map mostly on the basis of linguistic data. I believe that both R1a and R1b folks survived LGM in the same geographical region (the Iranian Plateau) and before expansion in Eastern and Western Europe they were culturally pretty much close (language, oral traditions, technology etc). So if we presume that R1a and R1b folks before expansion were speakers of closely related languages we can reconstruct their migration routes by similar linguistic traces.
> I analyzed IE words used for designation of settlements and sorted out those words that can be found in all IE branches reliably connected with spread of R1a haplos:
> toch.B.: _kwaṣo_ – village, _ike_ – settlement, Lithuanian: _kaimas_ - settlement, village, Latvian: _ciems_ – settlement, village, _ēka_ – house, Greek: _oîkos_ – house, _oikismo_ – settlement, Phrygian: _gava_ – region, place, Tajik: _khona_ – house, gothic: _о__ium_ –>*_o(h)um_ – country.
> So migration of R1b folks can be traced down by presence of cognates of R1a words for settlements. I believe that wide spread in South Europe (Spain, South France and Italy) place names ending in _-asco, -asca, -usco, -osco, -osca, -inco,-inca_ are in fact R1b cognates of words _kwaṣo, ike_, _kaimas,_ _ciems, ēka,_ _oîkos,_ _oikismo,_ _gava_, _khona,_ *_o(h)um._
> So in my opinion primary expansion zone of West European subclades of R1b folks should correlate with spread of place names ending in _-asco, -asca, -usco, -osco, -osca, -inco,-inca_. 
> 
> 
> 
> And in this case an entry point for European R1b folks (~R1b-L151) should be somewhere in Corsica.


Omg this entire thread, you are not Russian right? R1b-L754 have been found in 14'000 BCE Villabruna Cave ( North Italy ), R1b-V88 have been found in Mesolithic Balkans and Mesolithic / Neolithic Eastern Europe. R1b-P297 have been found in Mesolithic Baltic... Plus that genomic of WHG / Villabruna Cluster doesn't show Basal Eurasian, wich would be the case with such migration pattern. This is all very outdated.

----------


## berun

> But as for the question, it probably happened in the Balkans or the shore of the Black Sea.


well, so there was somebody crossing the Balkans carrying it's CHG share. Now, they were pushed northwards by EEF? they were a local minority among EEF? the archaeological registry fails to detect them in the Neolithic?

----------


## halfalp

> well, so there was somebody crossing the Balkans carrying it's CHG share. Now, they were pushed northwards by EEF? they were a local minority among EEF? the archaeological registry fails to detect them in the Neolithic?


I dont know that much about genetic to say, but i bet CHG in Europe gonna actually turn out to be Dzudzuana element into ANF, that was labeled as CHG in calculator because of lack of sourc pop. But who knows.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Considering there is only about 500 years difference that splits Z2103 and L51 from the parent node, I'm not sure how different they really could be. L51+ was most likely sprung from a western steppe culture


I don’t think that Z2103 originated on the Steppe though. I think the split between Z2103 and L51 happened somewhere in the Balkano-Asian region.

----------


## markod

> well, so there was somebody crossing the Balkans carrying it's CHG share. Now, they were pushed northwards by EEF? they were a local minority among EEF? the archaeological registry fails to detect them in the Neolithic?


One interesting possibility would be Crimean Kemi Oba culture. This is the culture that brought the characteristic stelae to the PC steppe.

----------


## halfalp

The CHG element in Europe is already in Motala ( SHG ), Baltic HG, some Iron Gates HG and Eastern Europe Neolithic, its then way earlier than Kemi Oba. We dont know if CHG in those population shows a shared ancestry or if this is a proper demic migration, because their calculator dont have source pop. With Dzudzuana, they should be able now to say if we are talking about CHG or about Dzudzuana shared ancestry with Villabruna.

----------


## markod

> The CHG element in Europe is already in Motala ( SHG ), Baltic HG, some Iron Gates HG and Eastern Europe Neolithic, its then way earlier than Kemi Oba. We dont know if CHG in those population shows a shared ancestry or if this is a proper demic migration, because their calculator dont have source pop. With Dzudzuana, they should be able now to say if we are talking about CHG or about Dzudzuana shared ancestry with Villabruna.


I wonder if there could have been Yamnaya-like groups around the northern slopes of the Caucasus since the Mesolithic, and whether the EHG-CHG mixture model might be just a statistical relic caused by Yamnaya's intermediate position.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> What was the population density in Iberia? Low population density could help explain the high y-dna replacement rates in Iberia and Britain. Did climatic change cause drought, famine, plague, and, thus, depopulation?


No. Iberia was "OVERPOPULATED" by the 3rd Milenium BC. As the rest of Europe was geographically very low population density, Iberia and in the beginning of that milenia had places like Zambujal , Perdigoes,Porto torrão, San Blas, Valencia La conception, La pijotilla,some as big as 80ha in size, so objectively the size of UR in Mesopotamia. Hence all the Fortified places and warrior culture - That is what makes it strange the narrative of full male replacement of a warrior cultures ... 

By the way. *We have zero. ZERO*, Adna from this builders of fortified places in portugal and south iberia, these Enclosure enormous settlements.

----------


## markod

> No. Iberia was "OVERPOPULATED" by the 3rd Milenium BC. As the rest of Europe was geographically very low population density, Iberia and in the beginning of that milenia had places like Zambujal , Perdigoes,Porto torrão, San Blas, Valencia La conception, La pijotilla,some as big as 80ha in size, so objectively the size of UR in Mesopotamia. Hence all the Fortified places and warrior culture - That is what makes it strange the narrative of full male replacement of a warrior cultures ... 
> 
> By the way. *We have zero. ZERO*, Adna from this builders of fortified places in portugal and south iberia, these Enclosure enormous settlements.


I linked a paper on Valencia La Concepcion earlier in the thread. Impressive site. Those must have been by far the most powerful people in Europe at the time and for some hundred years afterwards. I hope they'll be tested.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> well, so there was somebody crossing the Balkans carrying it's CHG share. Now, they were pushed northwards by EEF? they were a local minority among EEF? the archaeological registry fails to detect them in the Neolithic?


Berun, this Hollywood types of narratives (like super Yamnaya) fails us all. However, if you fine grain it, its actually useful:
After hundreds of papers read, this is obvious to me in the Archeological registry:

4900 BC (even earlier) – There was CHG loaded people crossing the big Caucasus mountains into north Caucasus. Even more funny I think the one crossing by west Caspian sea, were not exactly by then the same admix as the ones crossing by east black sea cost… Not same EEG/CHG ratio.

4600 BC – You see the arrival of these same guys (with CHG) into south Balkans (Thrace/Bulgaria/Romania) after crossing north Anatolia (Kum6) and making Boian and slightly later Gulmenita cultures.

By 4200 bc - The already mixed with Hamangia and were moving north. Forming Pre-cucuteni culture.

By 4000bc – The ones moving north around west Black sea were meeting their “cousins” in north caucasus. It the ensued mix of the ones arriving in 5000bc (now with lots of EHG) and these ones arriving 1000 years later with lots more EEF that makes the whole steppe admix seen in aDna. The problem is from north Romania onwards they were already mixing with EHG component people. They didn’t have to reach the steppe to make “Steppe” component admix. There is a sample 6000bc in north Romania that is almost full EHG.(!). 


Due too economic reasons, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova or Ukraine (outside Chicago Univ works on steppe) are not very developed archaeologically and that shows in our knowledge.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> No. Iberia was "OVERPOPULATED" by the 3rd Milenium BC. As the rest of Europe was geographically very low population density, Iberia and in the beginning of that milenia had places like Zambujal , Perdigoes,Porto torrão, San Blas, Valencia La conception, La pijotilla,some as big as 80ha in size, so objectively the size of UR in Mesopotamia. Hence all the Fortified places and warrior culture - That is what makes it strange the narrative of full male replacement of a warrior cultures ... 
> 
> By the way. *We have zero. ZERO*, Adna from this builders of fortified places in portugal and south iberia, these Enclosure enormous settlements.


That's disgraceful to be honest. Not that they are necessarily R1b - they could be J2 too. But, I'd guess R1b.

----------


## MOESAN

@GloomyGonzalez

Corsica as entry door of R1b-L151(L11) into Western Europe? A bit surprising! Why Corsica? Why not another place of Western Medierranea? I don't see a trail for L51/L151 through Anatolia, with the current data at least, spite it could be a thin possibility - Italy could have been(upon the ame data) a point of development of L51/L151 (not of birth) but in North not in South, for I think

----------


## halfalp

> I wonder if there could have been Yamnaya-like groups around the northern slopes of the Caucasus since the Mesolithic, and whether the EHG-CHG mixture model might be just a statistical relic caused by Yamnaya's intermediate position.


What could be is that R1b is originally something AG3 / ANE and that EHG / CHG are actually somehow older than WHG. It's now pretty certain that R1b cannot came from a southern road because of the total lack of something " Basal Eurasian " in Paleolithic Europe. R1b would enter in Eastern Europe at some point in the Epipaleolithic and create the Villabruna Cluster somewhere in Southeast Europe with people of / or related with the Dzudzuana individuals maybe lead with haplogroup I. Then already in the Mesolithic WHG / EHG / CHG would be all already with R1b. Probably at some point, the Basal Eurasian / Iran_Neolithic ancestry came in Eastern Europe with J and create the Satsurblia Cluster both North and South of the Caucasus. The problem with that later idea, is that Steppic population as shown in the Maikop paper are not really full of CHG, i found it very odd that only the " very important " samples are filled with CHG ancestry. In the Caucasus paper, AG3 and Mal'ta 1 also have the green component supposed to be BE / CHG.

----------


## halfalp

> I wonder if there could have been Yamnaya-like groups around the northern slopes of the Caucasus since the Mesolithic, and whether the EHG-CHG mixture model might be just a statistical relic caused by Yamnaya's intermediate position.


Dzudzuana is himself partially AG3 so ANE, i found it very odd again, that they have eastern european samples from 30'000 BCE and 10'000 BCE but not from the gap between, or that the samples are of too low quality, somwhere where pergelisol and then conservation is pretty common. That frustrate me a little bit.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> No. Iberia was "OVERPOPULATED" by the 3rd Milenium BC. As the rest of Europe was geographically very low population density, Iberia and in the beginning of that milenia had places like Zambujal , Perdigoes,Porto torrão, San Blas, Valencia La conception, La pijotilla,some as big as 80ha in size, so objectively the size of UR in Mesopotamia. Hence all the Fortified places and warrior culture - That is what makes it strange the narrative of full male replacement of a warrior cultures ... 
> 
> By the way. *We have zero. ZERO*, Adna from this builders of fortified places in portugal and south iberia, these Enclosure enormous settlements.


Ice cores show a strong cold period from ~3,000-2,500 BC. Coldest at ~2,750 BC, with colder periods in the last 10,000 years only at ~6,250 BC and ~750 AD. See: http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg

Zambujal had an interior courtyard, within the walls, of 25 meters (82 feet). Los Millares (not mentioned by you) was a walled settlement of ~5 acres and maybe 1,000 inhabitants. Most of the places you mentioned look to have been ditched enclosures of pits (graves?) and tombs, not walled/fortified towns. I couldn't find any evidence of the "enormous settlements" you are claiming.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Ice cores show a strong cold period from ~3,000-2,500 BC. Coldest at ~2,750 BC, with colder periods in the last 10,000 years only at ~6,250 BC and ~750 AD. See: http://oi53.tinypic.com/sg2wav.jpg
> Zambujal had an interior courtyard, within the walls, of 25 meters (82 feet). Los Millares (not mentioned by you) was a walled settlement of ~5 acres and maybe 1,000 inhabitants. Most of the places you mentioned look to have been ditched enclosures of pits (graves?) and tombs, not walled/fortified towns. I couldn't find any evidence of the "enormous settlements" you are claiming.


Then look better. I for sure will not look it up for you. 
If you don't know.... Learn.

----------


## MOESAN

It's not a conclusive point, but IMO huge urbanism as a whole is a sign of eastern Mediterranea pops (maybe since the 4000 BC), very in contradiction to uses among post-Mesolithic people and genuine steppic tribes;

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Then look better. I for sure will not look it up for you. 
> If you don't know.... Learn.


You made the claim of "enormous settlements"...

I did look up each of the references you made and could find nothing of the sort. Ur, by the way, had a population of ~65,000. While some of the ditched enclosures (really "henges", not "settlements") might have been comparable in "size", they were hardly even remotely similar in population.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> I linked a paper on Valencia La Concepcion earlier in the thread. Impressive site. Those must have been by far the most powerful people in Europe at the time and for some hundred years afterwards. I hope they'll be tested.





> The physical demarcation of the perimeter of the settlement by a walled enclosure, as found in Los Millares and in many other settlements of the 3rd millennium cal BC, is absent in Valencina de la Concepción, which suggests a significant variability of patterns in the organization of the settlement space.


https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/24099.pdf

----------


## markod

> https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/24099.pdf


That's old: https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/...018-9114-2.pdf

tl ; dr: huge crypt with magnificent grave goods, 20 wives etc

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That's old: https://rd.springer.com/content/pdf/...018-9114-2.pdf
> 
> tl ; dr: huge crypt with magnificent grave goods, 20 wives etc


R1b-L51 P.I.M.P.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> You made the claim of "enormous settlements"...
> 
> I did look up each of the references you made and could find nothing of the sort. Ur, by the way, had a population of ~65,000. While some of the ditched enclosures (really "henges", not "settlements") might have been comparable in "size", they were hardly even remotely similar in population.


????? - Of course it did not have the same population of UR. Ur was a "city" of people on top of eachother!

Enormous settlement because San blas, for instance, was over 400HA in size! as big or bigger than ur- do you know anything at the time bigger in europe? 
Porto torrão, 60 miles way was at least 80H and La pijotilla 30 miles way was over 200Ha...
( **** UR - Area	city *71 ha* (0.27 sq mi) *Buffer zone	317 ha* (1.22 sq mi)



(https://www.researchgate.net/publica...ille_Spainmore) 

What does that matter? - So to the question and at point -- Iberia was heavy , heavy populated and with fortress like leceia and Zambujal being rebuild, reinforced and expanded for over 500 years, that even 3 thousand years later is referred by Strabo (leceia).

----------


## Olympus Mons

> https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/24099.pdf


The advantages of knowing and not looking at this issues as a playstation next leverl.... is the context. 
The reason why It did not have walls it because it did not need it! 
for instance Porto torrão had no walls. but the whole guadiana river, where "enemies" could pass was guarded by the he _Triangle of Light_ (Porto das Carretas, Mercador, Moinho de Valadares)...and this places (as Paraiso) were erected by 3300bc and all the way were walled and full of arrows points. 
Read the link i add and also read this chapter of mine: https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.s...oestrimni-5393 


_____________________

----------


## CrazyDonkey

You're counting ditched enclosures as defining "settlement", when it is primarily graves and tombs that are enclosed. No walls/fortifications at Valencina de la Concepción make it difficult to determine the settlement area at any one time. Size of an enclosed area (including graves and tombs) does not equal population size.

One theory is that the southern/eastern settlements were commercial entrepots, founded by Aegean colonists, focused on mining, working, and exporting copper. Slaves likely worked the mines, and possibly the fields as well.

----------


## hrvclv

> Unetice is younger than Western Beakers. I personally see Unetice as Beaker men + some Corded Ware cuties


That's where we differ... I see Beakers as Unetice-like men + local cuties. 

L11 (more probably L11+) settled in Bohemia/Poland. Some of then remained there and over time developed into the Unetice culture. 

Those L11+ people thought in terms of "clan" - the extended family, something like the Roman _gens_. As the organization was strongly patriarchal, each clan probably had a distinct territory of their own, as well as a distinct forefather of their own. So I guess U106 clans and P312 clans, though neighbors of common extraction, originally sharing the same language, kept themselves to themselves. 

U106 clans moved north little by little, mixed with CW first, then with I1 people their advance had pushed ahead. This resulted in Proto-Germanic, i.e PIE altered by local phonological traits and lexical additions.

P312 moved west, mixing with LBK-type people. I think L21 clans moved early, and retained their PIE kw- sound. There must have been a series of raids towards the southwest first, which would explain the low, but fairly homogeneous distribution of L21 all over today's France (Brittany not included) and Iberia (notably the north-west). Maybe DF27 followed - simultaneously or shortly afterwards. They kept in touch with the people they had left behind, and traded with them. Along those trading routes the beaker package spread quickly. The (surviving) natives may have taken advantage of the new opportunities, hence the Beaker samples identified as "southwestern" in southern Germany. Then, from what is now the Rhineland or Benelux, L21 massively and aggressively moved to Britain, bringing along both the 'steppe' and 'beaker' packages.

Those P312+ clans were violent, but not all equally numerous. They mixed abundantly with local women. The y-dna was altered, the autosomal mix was far less impacted. The Lusitanians retained their Proto-Italo-Cletic language. The Ligures mixed theirs with local non-IE languages. The Basques lost theirs. 

Meanwhile, U152 stayed north of the Alps, mixing with locals in just the same way. It's easy enough to imagine an east-west linguistic gradient, with the west shifting away from the original as admixture intensified. Somewhere in Austria, tribes kept their kw- sound. In due time, they'd move to Italy and speak Latin. Further to the west, with more local admixture, the P shift occurred, probably because the local people couldn't manage the kw- (and because that kw- seems to have been fairly unstable anyway). The ancestors of the Osco-Umbrians may have lived there, with a language akin to latin, but affected by the sound shift. Further west: the P Celts that would later descend on Gaul and Northern Italy.

These are convictions, not certainties. No-one need agree. I know Ygorcs, for one, will contend that my glottochronology doesn't hold water. Well... alternative scenarios are most welcome. Feel free to criticize and amend.

----------


## hrvclv

> I appreciate your posts as a whole - here I learn something. Have you some new results for Y-DNA among Unetice? I lack a lot.
> Can you not change wife? Or learn martial arts? LOL


Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated. Not everyone agrees with you on that, I guess. But "you can't please everyone and your father", as the saying goes. (As for my wife, well, I posted this in the classified ads recently: "Echange femme de 60 ans contre deux de trente". I didn't get any answer, and my wife said I was overevaluating my potential. What potential she was referring to I'd rather not know!). Kenavo, Brittany.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Among the main conclusions that are highlighted by the experts is that the oldest parts of the site [Valencina de la Concepción], which date from the 32nd century BCE, were funerary in nature, specifically hypogeum cavities that were used for collective sequential burials (for example, this is the case with the hypogea that were found in La Huera, Castilleja de Guzmán, and in Calle Dinamarca, Valencina).
> 
> “This data is important in the debate about the nature of this great site during its long history, as it is clear that funerary practices had a determining importance in its genesis”, comments the University of Seville Professor of Prehistory Leonardo García Sanjuán.





> After what seems like a long period in the reduction of activity in the 27th century BCE, the tholos of La Pastora was probably built, with very different architectural characteristics: without great slabs of slate, but with a roofed chamber with a false stone dome, an important technical and aesthetic innovation, and with a “heretical” orientation towards the south east, facing away from the sunrise. “It is very probable that these changes in the monumental architecture were due to were due to changes in the social and ideological sphere, including, perhaps, religious “heterodoxies”, the researcher adds.


New "masters"? Central European R1b Bell Beakers?




> Thirdly, the experts have shown the end of the occupation of this part of the province of Seville happened between the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, despite evidence of it being frequented and used in the Bronze Age (c. 2200-850 BCE). “In fact, the abandonment of the site seems rather abrupt, without a gradual transition towards a different social model. The possibility that the end of the Valencina settlement was due to a social crisis has been hinted at by the dates obtained from several human skulls separated from the rest of the skeletons in a pit in a Calle Trabajadores in Valencina”, states the director of the research group.
> 
> According to the data obtained from the radiocarbon dating, all these individuals almost died at the same time, which opens the possibility of a violent episode (killing, crime or sacrifice). The fact that several of the skulls were treated in a ritual manner, showing marks of having had the flesh removed and that this ‘special’ mortuary deposit appears to be associated with the greatest collection of pottery beakers found on the site, suggests that the episode had great symbolic significance.





> The paleoenvironmental data for the Mediterranean and Europe indicate that between the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, a period of greater aridity and dryness began globally, which could have had severe consequences for many of the planet’s societies, including droughts. At this time, the Iberian Peninsula saw the end of chalcolithic way of life and the abandonment of some of the most important sites with ditched enclosures, as now seems to be the case with Valencina de la Concepción. In broad strokes, this coincides with the end of the Old Kingdom in the Nile Valley, with a great crisis that brought about the end of the period of construction of the great pyramids.


https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/0...history/120856

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That's where we differ... I see Beakers as Unetice-like men + local cuties. 
> 
> L11 (more probably L11+) settled in Bohemia/Poland. Some of then remained there and over time developed into the Unetice culture. 
> 
> Those L11+ people thought in terms of "clan" - the extended family, something like the Roman _gens_. As the organization was strongly patriarchal, each clan probably had a distinct territory of their own, as well as a distinct forefather of their own. So I guess U106 clans and P312 clans, though neighbors of common extraction, originally sharing the same language, kept themselves to themselves. 
> 
> U106 clans moved north little by little, mixed with CW first, then with I1 people their advance had pushed ahead. This resulted in Proto-Germanic, i.e PIE altered by local phonological traits and lexical additions.
> 
> P312 moved west, mixing with LBK-type people. I think L21 clans moved early, and retained their PIE kw- sound. There must have been a series of raids towards the southwest first, which would explain the low, but fairly homogeneous distribution of L21 all over today's France (Brittany not included) and Iberia (notably the north-west). Maybe DF27 followed - simultaneously or shortly afterwards. They kept in touch with the people they had left behind, and traded with them. Along those trading routes the beaker package spread quickly. The (surviving) natives may have taken advantage of the new opportunities, hence the Beaker samples identified as "southwestern" in southern Germany. Then, from what is now the Rhineland or Benelux, L21 massively and aggressively moved to Britain, bringing along both the 'steppe' and 'beaker' packages.
> ...


I see basically the same thing, only whereas you see the approach from the East, and the fanning out occurring in the region of East-Central Europe, I see the reverse (approach from the West (Iberia), fanning out occurring in the region of West-Central Europe (France)). I'm unsure about Unetice upon reflection - aren't the British Beakers from well before Unetice? If so, I don't know if Unetice can be truly attributed to spreading L151 around Europe. Do we know the Y DNA of Unetice? I'd guess U106 to be honest - it seems that U106 wandered away early from West-Central Europe (causing the P312-U106 split, also why Beakers are only P312), and that it also picked up more Corded Ware-like admixture (think about the kind of people that live in, say, Frisia vs in Ireland - what is the main physical differentiator?). Unetice seems a good candidate for that contact point of U106 with ze blondies.

----------


## Ygorcs

> If they're correct, Iberian speakers were no different from the Indo-European speakers. So, maybe in some areas they were small in number and adopted the language of the "natives"? Seems odd if there was a near wipe out of the ylines, but the Basques are odd too; it's not "that" isolated an area.


That'd be an assumption hard to reconcile to with the fact that they say the non-IE Iron Age Iberians derived the bulk of their ancestry from the BA substratum, BUT that BA population derived ~40% of their ancestry from the BA steppe-related migrants. That's weird if the non-IE IA Iberians derived from a small number of Indo-Europeans who adopted the language of a large majority of non-IE natives. We'd expect them to be different from the other, Indo-Europeanized populations, which had supposedly experienced larger steppe-related immigration from Central/Central-Western Europe. That's strange. Also, I'll just presume that those "~40% BA Iberian" steppe-derived migrants were heavily diluted with native EEF people even as early as 2500 BCE (I find it so surprising that they say Indo-Europeans were in Iberia that early!). After all, we'd expect the steppe Yamnaya-like ancestry in modern Iberians to be higher if these were "pure-blooded" steppe people with relatively little admixture.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That'd be an assumption hard to reconcile to with the fact that they say the non-IE Iron Age Iberians derived the bulk of their ancestry from the BA substratum, BUT that BA population derived ~40% of their ancestry from the BA steppe-related migrants. That's weird if the non-IE IA Iberians derived from a small number of Indo-Europeans who adopted the language of a large majority of non-IE natives. We'd expect them to be different from the other, Indo-Europeanized populations, which had supposedly experienced larger steppe-related immigration from Central/Central-Western Europe. That's strange. Also, I'll just presume that those "~40% BA Iberian" steppe-derived migrants were heavily diluted with native EEF people even as early as 2500 BCE *(I find it so surprising that they say Indo-Europeans were in Iberia that early!)*. After all, we'd expect the steppe Yamnaya-like ancestry in modern Iberians to be higher if these were "pure-blooded" steppe people with relatively little admixture.


Yeah, I reacted the same way - for the Yamnaya hypothesis it is surprisingly early. Not impossibly early, mind you, but still surprising.

But all the cool kids don't believe in Yamnaya for L51 anymore.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

First part of email exchange (may post second part later):

https://pastebin.com/g27AhCgk

----------


## berun

for large Chalcolithic villages (some 30-120 ha) it is Marroquies Bajos 

https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marroquíes_Bajos

reminds the Tripolye villages in it's shape.

----------


## JajarBingan

> All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago, according to David Reich.
> 
> https://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...000-years-ago/
> 
> The original reference is newscientist, but it is under pay wall.
> 
> However, I believe that current Iberian populations do not have too much Yamna contribution. How is that?
> 
> 1. Very few Yamna women went to Iberia, so even though all Iberian men were wiped out, women remained, and they gave their genes to their descendants
> ...


How ironic is it that this "tradition" was carried to the New World. Now expect a handful of Space Mexicans to wipe out a good part of Aliens in the future.

----------


## bicicleur

> How ironic is it that this "tradition" was carried to the New World. Now expect a handful of Space Mexicans to wipe out a good part of Aliens in the future.


it's called overpopulation and survival of the fittest

----------


## Ygorcs

> Yeah, I reacted the same way - for the Yamnaya hypothesis it is surprisingly early. Not impossibly early, mind you, but still surprising.
> 
> But all the cool kids don't believe in Yamnaya for L51 anymore.


Yet the cool kids still have to explain how the very same Proto-Indo-European language (dialects thereof) was clearly spread by R1b-Z2103 people (among other minor haplogroups too) from Yamnaya, R1a-M417 from CWC and earlier (most likely) Sredny Stog... and these R1b-L51 people that they say do not come from the Yamnaya horizon. It would've been the first and most surprising example of a "global language" in a time where there was no fully urban civilization and organized empires.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It's more than that.
> 
> Small groups of migrating farmers can still decimate, if not wipe out, the different y line men they encounter. Look at the Bantus. For whatever reason, that didn't happen with the migration into Europe. It's just a fact.


It's different. Bantus were not just farmers, they had bronze and iron metallurgy, they had kingdom structures. I think Bantu farmers were more comparable to early Bronze Age peoples than to Neolithic farmers of Europe.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Yet the cool kids still have to explain how the very same Proto-Indo-European language (dialects thereof) was clearly spread by R1b-Z2103 people (among other minor haplogroups too) from Yamnaya, R1a-M417 from CWC and earlier (most likely) Sredny Stog... and these R1b-L51 people that they say do not come from the Yamnaya horizon. It would've been the first and most surprising example of a "global language" in a time where there was no fully urban civilization and organized empires.


AS if you know what language Yamnaya, or CWC or Sredny Stog spoke. 
Apparently in iberia you had similarly autosomal R1b-l51, with ones speaking PIE and others 100 miles ways speaking something a keen of Iberian... 
To me it looks like ever so more that linguistics are voodoo or astrology spreaders in the archeology and aDna environment .

----------


## hrvclv

> To me it looks like ever so more that linguistics are voodoo or astrology spreaders in the archeology and aDna environment .


Disappointed that *you* can produce such a remark.

As early as the 1640s, Von Boxhom and Saumaise had a clear hunch that Sanskrit and Persian shared a common origin with European languages. By 1900, while archaeologists were still digging away, and long before population genetics were even conceived of, linguists had drafted a rough sketch of the migrations that would later be confirmed. Hardly any voodoo in that.

----------


## Pygmalion

@Olympus Mons What sort of roof did the towers of Zambujal have? Straw, wood, flat stones or tholos/corbel?

----------


## berun

> AS if you know what language Yamnaya, or CWC or Sredny Stog spoke. 
> Apparently in iberia you had similarly autosomal R1b-l51, with ones speaking PIE and others 100 miles ways speaking something a keen of Iberian... 
> To me it looks like ever so more that linguistics are voodoo or astrology spreaders in the archeology and aDna environment .


I somehow understand them, without Yamnans or steppe... it would be a sort of horror vacui (even I can't deal with it so my bet is Kievan Rus area and R1a).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yet the cool kids still have to explain how the very same Proto-Indo-European language (dialects thereof) was clearly spread by R1b-Z2103 people (among other minor haplogroups too) from Yamnaya, R1a-M417 from CWC and earlier (most likely) Sredny Stog... and these R1b-L51 people that they say do not come from the Yamnaya horizon. It would've been the first and most surprising example of a "global language" in a time where there was no fully urban civilization and organized empires.


Good point - I’ve thought about this before. The way I see it is that, either way, Z2103 and L51 split at the same period, and everyone here at least seems to assume this phylogenetic split was when Western IE broke away. If so, why does it matter whether or not that split took place on the Steppe, or if it took place in the Balkano-Asian region? It surely makes more sense that the split took place before Yamnaya at least, given the ages of Z2103 and L51. And an earlier split on the Steppe, well before Yamnaya, isn't very practical.

Alternatively, it could just be the case that Western IE is from Corded Ware - people see the question of why the Basque language is not IE given all that L51 as due to the mothers raising the children, so the same logic could apply to a L51-Corded Ware hybrid (blonde QTs raise the kids instead of their abusive ginger husbands).

Regardless, the Z2103 question should be enough to put the Yamnaya theory of L51 into extreme doubt. I'll say it again: Where did all the L51 come from, if Yamnaya and its cultural affiliations along the Danube all belonged to Z2103?

Also, why is this so surprising, if the Tocharians were in ******* China...

----------


## Angela

> It's different. Bantus were not just farmers, they had bronze and iron metallurgy, they had kingdom structures. I think Bantu farmers were more comparable to early Bronze Age peoples than to Neolithic farmers of Europe.


You're right. That is a better comparison. As Bicicleur also pointed out, they had better weapons. 

Was this the reason then, as Bicicleur maintained, that we don't see this wipe out of Mesolithic y lines when the Neolithic farmers came to Europe? From later evidence they certainly weren't averse to violence when resources were low. There's also that Mesolithic male genetically hunter sample from the Hungarian Neolithic where he was buried differently and with much less care, which might indicate a lower status.

Perhaps it's that they also had completely different economic strategies and so didn't compete enough?

----------


## Angela

> Disappointed that *you* can produce such a remark.
> 
> As early as the 1640s, Von Boxhom and Saumaise had a clear hunch that Sanskrit and Persian shared a common origin with European languages. By 1900, while archaeologists were still digging away, and long before population genetics were even conceived of, linguists had drafted a rough sketch of the migrations that would later be confirmed. Hardly any voodoo in that.


Indeed. Linguistics is what brought us here in a sense.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Disappointed that *you* can produce such a remark.
> 
> As early as the 1640s, Von Boxhom and Saumaise had a clear hunch that Sanskrit and Persian shared a common origin with European languages. By 1900, while archaeologists were still digging away, and long before population genetics were even conceived of, linguists had drafted a rough sketch of the migrations that would later be confirmed. Hardly any voodoo in that.


Hrvclv, you are not properly contextualizing my comment. 
eg CWC -- left pottery, weapons, tools etc (Archeology) and we are extracting alleles and SNPs or STRs from their bones (aDna).... what do you have of their language? what plaques, what inscriptions, what texts? see what I mean? ... if you say for certainty that they spoke PIE/Not PIE than it's voodoo sh*it... that all I was saying.

----------


## hrvclv

> Hrvclv, you are not properly contextualizing my comment. 
> eg CWC -- left pottery, weapons, tools etc (Archeology) and we are extracting alleles and SNPs or STRs from their bones (aDna).... what do you have of their language? what plaques, what inscriptions, what texts? see what I mean? ... if you say for certainty that they spoke PIE/Not PIE than it's voodoo sh*it... that all I was saying.


That's what linguistic reconstruction is all about : trying to figure out what we can reasonably deduce from what we definitely know.

Exactly the same kind of inference archaeologists try to arrive at from teeny-weeny bits of pots or flint stones. I could just as well contend, in blatant bad faith, that for all I know, what is presented as a flint arrowhead was merely an accident of nature.

The same goes for genetics. When you see how discrepant the results you get from various calculators (and for that matter, from different labs) can be in terms of ancient ancestry, you can also claim the whole thing is a hoax.

So what do we do, give it all up and go watch TV ?

One thing I am sure of: calling people names seldom helps, whether that be on a forum, at work, in a bar, or on a sports field.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> That's what linguistic reconstruction is all about : trying to figure out what we can reasonably deduce from what we definitely know.
> 
> Exactly the same kind of inference archaeologists try to arrive at from teeny-weeny bits of pots or flint stones. I could just as well contend, in blatant bad faith, that for all I know, what is presented as a flint arrowhead was merely an accident of nature.
> 
> The same goes for genetics. When you see how discrepant the results you get from various calculators (and for that matter, from different labs) can be in terms of ancient ancestry, you can also claim the whole thing is a hoax.


hrvclv .... if you do not notice the difference between working with the physical evidence and entities ---- and mythical, non tangible, no record at all as the language that CWC spoke... then we just agree to disagree.




> One thing I am sure of: calling people names seldom helps, whether that be on a forum, at work, in a bar, or on a sports field.


Please, please do not appeal to victimhood culture, weakling mentality since there is enough of that around in the world as it is, and there is no call for "_safe spaces_ " to be assumed from what I wrote.

----------


## hrvclv

> Please, please do not appeal to victimhood culture, weakling mentality since there is enough of that around in the world as it is, and there is no call for "_safe spaces_ " to be assumed from what I wrote.


Whose "victim" could I be here? Immi uiros rios toutias rias : I am a free man from a free people! And "safe spaces" are not something I've ever cared for very much. I used to step into boxing rings in a sweat - never in a cold sweat.

I was just asking for some sense of decency, self-restraint, tact, civility, respect... you know, those virtues that keep relationships gentlemanly and harmonious. Apparently, we don't share the same values.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Whose "victim" could I be here? Immi uiros rios toutias rias : I am a free man from a free people! And "safe spaces" are not something I've ever cared for very much. I used to step into boxing rings in a sweat - never in a cold sweat.
> 
> I was just asking for some sense of decency, self-restraint, tact, civility, respect... you know, those virtues that keep relationships gentlemanly and harmonious. Apparently, we don't share the same values.


Hey. Enough already. I think none of us really meant to upset the other. It's all good. Cheers :)

----------


## Ygorcs

> AS if you know what language Yamnaya, or CWC or Sredny Stog spoke. 
> Apparently in iberia you had similarly autosomal R1b-l51, with ones speaking PIE and others 100 miles ways speaking something a keen of Iberian... 
> To me it looks like ever so more that linguistics are voodoo or astrology spreaders in the archeology and aDna environment .


It does not matter. What matters is that R1b-L51 cannot explain the expansion of all Indo-European branches in all the huge territory where IE languages are known to have been spoken in the historic past or are still spoken. It's found in appreciable proportions only in a very specific (and minor) part of the Indo-European-speaking Eurasia. Only some combination of R1b-L51, R1b-Z2103 and R1a-M417 (main haplogroups, not the sole ones) accounts for_ the entire reach_ of Indo-European linguistic expansion until the late Iron Age. If these haplogroups were not concentrated in populations living close to each other, but all of them spread very close IE languages descended from the very same PIE, then we'll have to conclude that in the Copper Age a _huge_ _territory_ encompassing _different cultures, different genetics and distant populations_ spoke the very same language, a sort of "micro" global language in times without empires, organized states and writing (or perhaps you want us to believe that those languages evolved in a freezingly slow pace since the earlier Neolithic with your Shulaveri-Shomu and all of that? No, I won't consider what is impossible).

----------


## markod

> Good point - I’ve thought about this before. The way I see it is that, either way, Z2103 and L51 split at the same period, and everyone here at least seems to assume this phylogenetic split was when Western IE broke away. If so, why does it matter whether or not that split took place on the Steppe, or if it took place in the Balkano-Asian region? It surely makes more sense that the split took place before Yamnaya at least, given the ages of Z2103 and L51. And an earlier split on the Steppe, well before Yamnaya, isn't very practical.
> 
> Alternatively, it could just be the case that Western IE is from Corded Ware - people see the question of why the Basque language is not IE given all that L51 as due to the mothers raising the children, so the same logic could apply to a L51-Corded Ware hybrid (blonde QTs raise the kids instead of their abusive ginger husbands).
> 
> Regardless, the Z2103 question should be enough to put the Yamnaya theory of L51 into extreme doubt. I'll say it again: Where did all the L51 come from, if Yamnaya and its cultural affiliations along the Danube all belonged to Z2103?
> 
> Also, why is this so surprising, if the Tocharians were in ******* China...


If Anthony is to be believed there are thousands of kurgan mounds associated with the Yamnaya-Vucedol culture in Hungary and Croatia. Perhaps a marginal group of P312/U106/L11 males managed to completely replace the dominant lineage there? Statistcally that's really unlikely I guess, though not impossible  :Embarassed:

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> If Anthony is to be believed there are thousands of kurgan mounds associated with the Yamnaya-Vucedol culture in Hungary and Croatia. Perhaps a marginal group of P312/U106/L11 males managed to completely replace the dominant lineage there? Statistcally that's really unlikely I guess, though not impossible


Yeah, exactly. Also, I havent had a proper response to that - so the Steppe theory still has that gaping hole...

----------


## Olympus Mons

> It does not matter. What matters is that R1b-L51 cannot explain the expansion of all Indo-European branches in all the huge territory where IE languages are known to have been spoken in the historic past or are still spoken. It's found in appreciable proportions only in a very specific (and minor) part of the Indo-European-speaking Eurasia. Only some combination of R1b-L51, R1b-Z2103 and R1a-M417 (main haplogroups, not the sole ones) accounts for_ the entire reach_ of Indo-European linguistic expansion until the late Iron Age. If these haplogroups were not concentrated in populations living close to each other, but all of them spread very close IE languages descended from the very same PIE, then we'll have to conclude that in the Copper Age a _huge_ _territory_ encompassing _different cultures, different genetics and distant populations_ spoke the very same language, a sort of "micro" global language in times without empires, organized states and writing (or perhaps you want us to believe that those languages evolved in a freezingly slow pace since the earlier Neolithic with your Shulaveri-Shomu and all of that? No, I won't consider what is impossible).



I think I already told you this previously. So my words a while back;




> _And IE did spread with Neolithic farmer from Anatolia. I mean at least VIA Anatolia.
> That is becoming the elephant in the room: Assuming Krause is right, Now Reich is right and so many others (as me and you)… then it needs to be assumed, it follows, that populations we see moving via Anatolia and arriving to Balkans at 4500bc, such as Kum6 (4600bc), loaded with CHG and different farmers ancestry from Anatolia_N (8000bc) and having heavy shared ancestry with Greece Neolithic, such as Klei10, and Pal7 in Greece, a thousand years later (3500bc) and with even Otzi the Iceman (3300bc) …. They ALL SPOKE PIE/IE!_
> _So, best put, Otzi could very well be a IE speaking person and have never even have met a Steppe person! – Lets start wrapping our minds around it!_
> _ I challenge anyone to truly fault this reasoning._


To make simple is something like, follow the CHG admix. - So, apart from those above mentioned and just to refer a few, by end of shulaveri on, we would have: *Boian and gulmenita* (4500bc) spoke pie, later *pre-cucuteni* a bit north (4000bc), as combination of the previous admixing with European farmers, spoke pie. So did later the *vucedol and tisza*…. And if Otzi, by such shared ancestry with the Kum6 girl spoke pie, so did the *Ozieri* in even south sardinia…. Who else by 3000BC also did? 

Remember…. I believe that Yamnaya (as descendants from Shulaveri) also spoke pie, but so did the clash of cousins moving from north black sea cost into yamnaya land by 3800BC. They all spoke pie. -- But my point above was…. You can have a world of PIE without even going to steppe or north northeast of Europe. 
2000 years after the shulaveri, so many people with very different admixture spoke a language which descended from the PIE of Shulaveri.

*PS: Just added a post about Shulaveri in Archeology. they keep on giving: after being discovered as inventors of wine, now they pushed the discovery on irrigation architectures by over 500 years! first Hydraulic infrastructures by 5900bc!*<brutal my SHulaveri, Just Brutal.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think I already told you this previously. So my words a while back;
> 
> 
> 
> To make simple is something like, follow the CHG admix. - So, apart from those above mentioned and just to refer a few, by end of shulaveri on, we would have: *Boian and gulmenita* (4500bc) spoke pie, later *pre-cucuteni* a bit north (4000bc), as combination of the previous admixing with European farmers, spoke pie. So did later the *vucedol and tisza*…. And if Otzi, by such shared ancestry with the Kum6 girl spoke pie, so did the *Ozieri* in even south sardinia…. Who else by 3000BC also did? 
> 
> Remember…. I believe that Yamnaya (as descendants from Shulaveri) also spoke pie, but so did the clash of cousins moving from north black sea cost into yamnaya land by 3800BC. They all spoke pie. -- But my point above was…. You can have a world of PIE without even going to steppe or north northeast of Europe. 
> 2000 years after the shulaveri, so many people with very different admixture spoke a language which descended from the PIE of Shulaveri.
> 
> *PS: Just added a post about Shulaveri in Archeology. they keep on giving: after being discovered as inventors of wine, now they pushed the discovery on irrigation architectures by over 500 years! first Hydraulic infrastructures by 5900bc!*<brutal my SHulaveri, Just Brutal.


Shulaveri is the Armenian hypothesis, right?

----------


## halfalp

> Yet the cool kids still have to explain how the very same Proto-Indo-European language (dialects thereof) was clearly spread by R1b-Z2103 people (among other minor haplogroups too) from Yamnaya, R1a-M417 from CWC and earlier (most likely) Sredny Stog... and these R1b-L51 people that they say do not come from the Yamnaya horizon. It would've been the first and most surprising example of a "global language" in a time where there was no fully urban civilization and organized empires.


There are still people who believe to that Babel origin of all languages.

----------


## halfalp

Btw, over all the L-23 and Z2103 sample that we got from eastern europe, how do we even know if there is no low snp samples or marginal errors that would actually made the sample L-51?

----------


## halfalp

I hope we gonna stop with that middle-eastern origin for R1b non-sense one day...

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Shulaveri is the Armenian hypothesis, right?


No! Its my hypothesis *and was in contrast with Armenian Hypothesis* in the following.
Armenian Hypothesis was about stating that the 4th and 3rd MIllennium bc in eastern Anatolia, South Caucasus and north Mesopotamia was the Urheimat of PIE. In their mind the PIE was the language of the Kura-araxes and leyla and Maykop R1b etc came from…. You get the picture. So the Kura Araxes PIE against the Uruk (not pie) kind of thinking.
From the onset I was the ones stating the Shulaveri as the source, in *contrast to the Armenian Hypothesys* by stating not, I repeat NOT, Kura-araxes, not Maykop, not Yamnaya…. But them as a specific culture was the Urheimat. So 6th millennium BC. Being that PIE was the spoken language by end 6th and not beginning of that period. PIE was the Journey of the people from Balkans (7th Millenia bc) up until the fact that Shulaveri already had a presence in as far as Northwest Iran by 5000bc and PIE it was.

So PIE was *not* the spoken language of that region/period (eastern Anatolia, South Caucasus, etc) by 4th millenium BC but was spoken *by some people in some pockets of places*. Meaning as I always said its people and people behave as people, the shulaveri flee (some north into N.caucasus and later steppe) some to west (ended up as Boian/Gulmenita) some south (which I think were Merimde beni salama) and some naturally staid and flee to mountains and other places…. That is were the Anatolia popped up ….

----------


## MOESAN

My "pre-first-generation-natural-computer" works definitely to slowly, and I have to read (if possible) the entire paper about this, to know where the samples have been picked up (and how much), because it's of great importance; but I say some thoughts, without too precise target:
- Los Millares seems having visits and cultural influence of BBs (someones say it WAS fully BB at some stage at least); by contrast El Argar is considered as NOT BB. Most of the old archeologists thought in an "Helladic" origin or something near for El Argar, perhaps with the relay of Sicily and other mediterranean islands. I would have more complete DNA from El Argar because I wonder if some Y-J2 woud not be come there then.
- Italy saw surely early Y-R1b-L51; where and precisely when, it's the question? if they were BBs men they can have been send there from North (say: Western Alps) and have not been the supposed maritime pioneers (hypothesis I don't reject completely for some the L51) - L51 is I think old enough to have been born in Central-Eastern Europe and to have branched in two groups with different journeys.
- the today presence of old SNPs in a region which has few R1b does not prove too much; it shows only the conservation of an ancient stage of the lineage; to have more weight it asks for an upstream SNPs chain or a downstream SNPs chain or both, IMO.
- today distribution of Y-R1b in Iberia shows (to me) an entry or at least a rapid development around Basque country, not even around Valencia where some L51 are found too; Catalonia comes in second place here. It asks for a colonisation by northeastern Spain, not the opposite. I know some downstream ones as U152 have a different distribution but I think some arrived there by other routes, later. I doubt the most of them are all of them descendants of the first Y-R1b colonisation.

----------


## Angela

> My "pre-first-generation-natural-computer" works definitely to slowly, and I have to read (if possible) the entire paper about this, to know where the samples have been picked up (and how much), because it's of great importance; but I say some thoughts, without too precise target:
> - Los Millares seems having visits and cultural influence of BBs (someones say it WAS fully BB at some stage at least); by contrast El Argar is considered as NOT BB. Most of the old archeologists thought in an "Helladic" origin or something near for El Argar, perhaps with the relay of Sicily and other mediterranean islands. I would have more complete DNA from El Argar because I wonder if some Y-J2 woud not be come there then.
> - Italy saw surely early Y-R1b-L51; where and precisely when, it's the question? if they were BBs men they can have been send there from North (say: Western Alps) and have not been the supposed maritime pioneers (hypothesis I don't reject completely for some the L51) - L51 is I think old enough to have been born in Central-Eastern Europe and to have branched in two groups with different journeys.
> - the today presence of old SNPs in a region which has few R1b does not prove too much; it shows only the conservation of an ancient stage of the lineage; to have more weight it asks for an upstream SNPs chain or a downstream SNPs chain or both, IMO.
> - today distribution of Y-R1b in Iberia shows (to me) an entry or at least a rapid development around Basque country, not even around Valencia where some L51 are found too; Catalonia comes in second place here. It asks for a colonisation by northeastern Spain, not the opposite. I know some downstream ones as U152 have a different distribution but I think some arrived there by other routes, later. I doubt the most of them are all of them descendants of the first Y-R1b colonisation.


Very good analysis.

----------


## Angela

I don't know if anyone has posted the El Pais article. I found the following interesting:

"The arrival of the hostile invaders in what is today Spain and Portugal had “a rapid and generalized genetic impact,” said Spanish scientist Íñigo Olalde at a conference two weeks ago in Jena, Germany. According to Olalde, during the Bronze Age, the subsequent populations had “40% of their genetic information and 100% of their Y chromosomes from the migrants.”

Given that children inherit the Y chromosome from their fathers, “this means that the men who arrived had preferential access to local women, again and again,” said Reich at the September event."
https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/03...10_930565.html

That sounds like a rather brutal and immediate take over, not a gradual process where the R1b men just had some preferential access to women.

I wonder what they mean by "“40% of their genetic information and 100% of their Y chromosomes from the migrants."

Do they mean 40% steppe, or 40% of the mixed ancestry of Beaker type people? 

Either way, that would still mean perhaps a wipe out of 70-80% of the native population? It's still like a holocaust. Very different, needless to say, at least going by the samples we have so far, to what happened in Greece. 

So, why do modern Spaniards look so different genetically from people of the British Isles, who had perhaps a 90% replacement? How could the Carthaginians have had such a huge impact? Is it all down to the Moors and other Islamic invaders??? I always thought they had some impact, but nothing on that kind of scale.

I really do hope they have some samples from El Argar.

The next question is Italy. What happened there? Did everyone the whole length of the peninsula look like the Parma Beaker sample or not?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I don't know if anyone has posted the El Pais article. I found the following interesting:
> 
> "The arrival of the hostile invaders in what is today Spain and Portugal had “a rapid and generalized genetic impact,” said Spanish scientist Íñigo Olalde at a conference two weeks ago in Jena, Germany. According to Olalde, during the Bronze Age, the subsequent populations had “40% of their genetic information and 100% of their Y chromosomes from the migrants.”
> 
> Given that children inherit the Y chromosome from their fathers, “this means that the men who arrived had preferential access to local women, again and again,” said Reich at the September event."
> https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/03...10_930565.html
> 
> That sounds like a rather brutal and immediate take over, not a gradual process where the R1b men just had some preferential access to women.
> 
> ...


It surely means 40% of the mixed ancestry Beaker folk. EDIT: Actually, it could just be very poorly worded. I think they might actually mean 40% Steppe. That's a lot...

But what, for some reason, they're missing is that there were farmer samples from the same time period, even after the C14 dating of these R1b-L51 - check them out on this interactive map here. It would have been a typical caste system, only we are looking more at the upper castes, because of the bias of higher status individuals being buried more lavishly as compared to peasants. The farmer types weren't all eradicated (and that's obvious looking back).

----------


## MOESAN

> That's where we differ... I see Beakers as Unetice-like men + local cuties. 
> 
> L11 (more probably L11+) settled in Bohemia/Poland. Some of then remained there and over time developed into the Unetice culture. 
> 
> Those L11+ people thought in terms of "clan" - the extended family, something like the Roman _gens_. As the organization was strongly patriarchal, each clan probably had a distinct territory of their own, as well as a distinct forefather of their own. So I guess U106 clans and P312 clans, though neighbors of common extraction, originally sharing the same language, kept themselves to themselves. 
> 
> U106 clans moved north little by little, mixed with CW first, then with I1 people their advance had pushed ahead. This resulted in Proto-Germanic, i.e PIE altered by local phonological traits and lexical additions.
> 
> P312 moved west, mixing with LBK-type people. I think L21 clans moved early, and retained their PIE kw- sound. There must have been a series of raids towards the southwest first, which would explain the low, but fairly homogeneous distribution of L21 all over today's France (Brittany not included) and Iberia (notably the north-west). Maybe DF27 followed - simultaneously or shortly afterwards. They kept in touch with the people they had left behind, and traded with them. Along those trading routes the beaker package spread quickly. The (surviving) natives may have taken advantage of the new opportunities, hence the Beaker samples identified as "southwestern" in southern Germany. Then, from what is now the Rhineland or Benelux, L21 massively and aggressively moved to Britain, bringing along both the 'steppe' and 'beaker' packages.
> ...


- SNP's bearers are not aware of their mutations if they are aware fo their closest lineages so clans. I don't see how relatively close clans speaking at the origin the same dialect could keep so neatly separate without some geographic separation. Y-R1b-L11 bearers took two separate ways somewhere sometime. The current distribution of the U106 and P312 descendants and the neat cultural assignation we can imagine to them before subsequent historical brutal moves and slow osmosis pushes me to think L11>U106 took place somewhere near South Baltic shores, or in East Saxony or proximity: N-W Bohemia? (here we have the question of a relative disparition of ancient northwestern clades of Y-R1a). I firstable thought also in W- Austria but we would need deep SNP's to know I think. Maybe Maciamo could tell us if the couple Y-R1b-U106 and Y-I1a shows big respective %'s variations in Europe or not; but I think the bulk of U106 developped in very North at the contact of Y-I1 and pushed the bulk of CWC Y-R1a towards Scandinavia (Norway the most, towards Trondelag), not without some mixture at some stage, surely later (because of clans, this system seems perduring well among half nomadic pops and disappearing progressively among urban pops): part of Germanics making -
We can imagine an other scenario: Y-R1b-U106 in Austria (P312 more western), with tumuli, passing northeastwards through Moravia at Urnfields times and taking over Unetice territory until Poland and Lusace; then influenced by "Urnfielded" Lusacians (maybe still Y-I2a(2) as were some of the Unetice elites and linguistically influenced towards devoicing/fricative of stops (a feature which could have been born around Hungary, in links with proto-Rhaetians/Etruscans(?), bearers or relayers of the cremation/urns tradition (even the pan-talic Veneti would have had some phonologic traits common with Rhaetian, according to someones). Henri Hubert defended the hypothesis of an "Illyrian" cultural and linguistic influence of them upon the proto-Germanics at the Lusace times. But I don't see to well how along Danube the needed strict separation of pre-P312 and pre-U106 could have occurred; I think rather the tumuli pre-Lusacian of Poland were rather P312>U152, linked with pan-Italics (Veneti?) and Celts.
This long story a bit out of topic to recall that to date, for I know, we have only 3 x Y-I2 (Y-2/Y-I2a2/Y-I2c2) for Unetice C., but it's in eastern Germany only; in Liechtenstein Cave Untrut C. influenced by Urnfields we find too a lot of Y-I2a2 but they are close parents.
As you, I make guesses, it's where the fun is, before abundant anDNA.

----------


## MOESAN

> Very good analysis.


I'm blushing! Thanks.
That said good analysis can be contradicted by new facts, at least partly. Likelihood and reality have conflicts, sometimes, helas.

----------


## MOESAN

> It surely means 40% of the mixed ancestry Beaker folk. EDIT: Actually, it could just be very poorly worded. I think they might actually mean 40% Steppe. That's a lot...
> 
> But what, for some reason, they're missing is that there were farmer samples from the same time period, even after the C14 dating of these R1b-L51 - check them out on this interactive map here. It would have been a typical caste system, only we are looking more at the upper castes, because of the bias of higher status individuals being buried more lavishly as compared to peasants. The farmer types weren't all eradicated (and that's obvious looking back).


Agree with you. As a whole what we have for these periods are elite burials and it distorts reality. But the today levels of Y-R1b in Iberia shows still a relativey high amount of Y-R1b (here we can object against what precedes that other historic facts occurred who could send more Y-R1b (Iron, Roma colonisation, Germanic invasions...)

----------


## Angela

I'm afraid that map doesn't prove survival of totally "farmer" type people in Iberia after the "invasive" BB stage, because the time spans are too large: almost all of them might be dated to way before 2500 BCE, so they could be prior to the massive invasion.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that people other than these elites might not have quite so prominent graves, but they should show up once in a while, if nothing else then as servants or slaves in the elite burials. 

We do find the prior inhabitants in the Langobard grave context, for example. 

Believe me, I would hate to think this is what happened, but it might have done. I guess we have to see the paper and the particulars from it.

----------


## hrvclv

@Moesan :

- Just like you, I suspect an influx of J2 into El Argar. Archaeologists seem reluctant to accept the idea, though. We'll have to wait for more dna.

- If you set the cursor of the "Homeland timeline" 

on 2490-2450 BC, you find one L2, one L151 and one M269 in Hungary around Budapest. To play fair, I concede that some way further south, there is one of ToBeOrNotToBe's Z2103. More importantly, you can also spot two "nests" of L2 : one clearly in Bohemia, the other running across Bavaria. 

By 2410 BC you have P312 in north central Germany (Quedlinburg), another in Moselle (northeastern France), and one in Haut-Rhin. Also an L151 in Sion, Switzerland. And a 'steppe' sample in Provence. (Edit : also, look at all those Z290, some of them L21 in southern England!)

By 2100 BC, you find L2 in the provençal Alps, and P312 in Emilia Romagna. You can also spot one U106 in a Unetice context (Prague5), surrounded by four L2, one P312 and one L151. Soon afterwards, another U106 turns up in southern Sweden.

Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it tends to corroborate some of our speculations (notably, your hypothesis of south Baltic U106 implantation/ founder effect?).

- I agree that SNP bearers are not aware of their genetic heritage. But in a context where people lived hazardous (therefore short) lives, and probably had children early, the dad would retain his land and privileges. At best, one of his sons would inherit them. But the other sons (most often, as you know, raised by foster families, uncles or allies) would no doubt leave and try their luck 'abroad'. In due time, each of those sons would develop his own clan (hence the many Gaulish tribes, for example). So somehow genetics and geography may have combined to produce distinct founder effects. 

- Concerning the Lusatian culture: it is striking how the architecture of their forts resembles that of the Gaulish forts centuries later. A structure of perpendicular beams filled with rocks and earth, just like the Gaulish oppida. Their weaving patterns are quite similar too. So I'd bet on P312.

- I find this link (posted upthread by Halfalp) very interesting : https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/

----------


## berun

@hrvclv, all Argarian samples were R1b

----------


## hrvclv

> @hrvclv, all Argarian samples were R1b


Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?


I agree with your J2 hypothesis.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It surely makes more sense that the split took place before Yamnaya at least, given the ages of Z2103 and L51. And an earlier split on the Steppe, well before Yamnaya, isn't very practical.


Why do you think so? Yamnaya could be (and IMO was) a later stage of an already differentiated IE people, not _the_ undivided PIE-speaking nation. Why do you think a split of earlier PIE dialects and R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 on the steppe at the stage of Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog is not practical?

----------


## Ygorcs

> I dont know that much about genetic to say, but i bet CHG in Europe gonna actually turn out to be Dzudzuana element into ANF, that was labeled as CHG in calculator because of lack of sourc pop. But who knows.


No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, _not_ the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.

----------


## halfalp

> No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, _not_ the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.


So how those native people of the Caucasus give their ancestry to Mesolithic Sweden HG Motala? And how most of Mesolithic HG samples from Eastern Europe, even the J* ones dont have CHG at all? Like you said some times before, CHG in Europe seems to predate a lot cultures like Maikop.

----------


## hrvclv

From Wiki, on Argarian Culture :

"Funerary Customs : The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos is abandoned in favour of small cists, either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (skipping Sicily and Italy, where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).

From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.

In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after ca 2000 BC."

If confirmed, this might explain the resurgence of farmer autosomal ancestry in Iberia in the centuries that followed the 'total replacement' discussed here. It would also explain (part of) the levels of J2 currently found there.

----------


## berun

> Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?


I posted the info a month ago in the Iberian or Argar tread.

----------


## MOESAN

@hlvcrv
post#264; thanks
this Quedlimburg is a BB?
concerning Praga and Unetice in general, it seems it was a synthetic culture melting diverse influences: Neolithic, CWC, in first BBC + surely new Sth-Eastern influences, but at first it was not an osmosis but rather juxtaposition. All the way, admixture or not, we can hope some diverse Y-lineages. According to "you" there were 4 post Y-R1b-L51 (L11) in Unetice Praga, so it complete "my" Y-I2! It shows how tiny is our samples to date. But somebody could always argue that they came from BB come from S-Iberia.

----------


## halfalp

> No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, _not_ the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.


The thing is, it doesn't make sense. CHG is intermediare between EHG and Iran_Neolithic ( Basal Eurasian / ANE ). Dzudzuana is related with Villabruna + Basal Eurasian, at the end of the day, Dzudzuana is not the ancestor of CHG, but they are related. My point is, because they didn't have Dzudzuana as a proxy, the calculators have could take Dzudzuana ancestry as more close to CHG than EEF because of Basal Eurasian inputs in both CHG and Dzudzuana. Can someone implemant Dzudzuana in all eastern europe samples with CHG and see if the CHG component is persistent?

Exemple: Before Dzudzuana, modern Arabians ( as reported by Iron Horse ) and Levantine_HG had an input of WHG, but now, this input of WHG could just turn out to be Dzudzuana with related ancestry with Villabruna/WHG. My question is, the Iran_Neolithic wich is mainly detected by the Basal Eurasian component, in Eastern Europe labeled as CHG, could just be shared ancestry with all those Basal Eurasians-like population, but just be remnants of Dzudzuana in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

----------


## markod

> The thing is, it doesn't make sense. CHG is intermediare between EHG and Iran_Neolithic ( Basal Eurasian / ANE ). Dzudzuana is related with Villabruna + Basal Eurasian, at the end of the day, Dzudzuana is not the ancestor of CHG, but they are related. My point is, because they didn't have Dzudzuana as a proxy, the calculators have could take Dzudzuana ancestry as more close to CHG than EEF because of Basal Eurasian inputs in both CHG and Dzudzuana. Can someone implemant Dzudzuana in all eastern europe samples with CHG and see if the CHG component is persistent?
> 
> Exemple: Before Dzudzuana, modern Arabians ( as reported by Iron Horse ) and Levantine_HG had an input of WHG, but now, this input of WHG could just turn out to be Dzudzuana with related ancestry with Villabruna/WHG. My question is, the Iran_Neolithic wich is mainly detected by the Basal Eurasian component, in Eastern Europe labeled as CHG, could just be shared ancestry with all those Basal Eurasians-like population, but just be remnants of Dzudzuana in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.


I think you'll be proven right, even though I used to believe in the CHG admixture from the south hypothesis myself. The Caucasus paper authored by Wang foreshadows this: ~4300 BCE Eneolithic steppe samples are shifted from later Yamnaya towards something that still exists in the northern Caucasus - they're not very far from modern Dagestanis on the PCA in fact. This wasn't a result of recent admixture from the Near East, unless said admixing population itself was intrusive in Anatolia or thereabouts. AG3/ANE doesn't work either. These Eneolithic steppe populations subsequently picked up EHG and EEF admixture as they went north to form the Yamnaya cluster.

----------


## halfalp

> I think you'll be proven right, even though I used to believe in the CHG admixture from the south hypothesis myself. The Caucasus paper authored by Wang foreshadows this: ~4300 BCE Eneolithic steppe samples are shifted from later Yamnaya towards something that still exists in the northern Caucasus - they're not very far from modern Dagestanis on the PCA in fact. This wasn't a result of recent admixture from the Near East, unless said admixing population itself was intrusive in Anatolia or thereabouts. AG3/ANE doesn't work either. These Eneolithic steppe populations subsequently picked up EHG and EEF admixture as they went north to form the Yamnaya cluster.


I dont really understand PCA and all this but i think it makes it very difficult than a shadow population of CHG-like individuals would roam in all eastern europe and even show ancestry in Motala, without a clear proof of their passage. If the two J* sample that we have from Eastern Europe had some CHG, this would not even be a question. Now we need to found exactly the good proxy for CHG, or conclued that the CHG is actually Dzudzuana. It's exactly the same point with R1b coming from a southern road, it just doesn't make sense, whatever were the modern basal forms are found. If R1b would have roam from Turkmenistan -> Balkans in the Paleolithic, we would have a totally different genetic signature, less ANE, more BE, other haplogroups taken in the migration process, more diversity in mtdna haplogroups etc. For the CHG pre-neolithic in Europe, we see absolutely nothing related to those facts, wich can only mean 2 things. 1. calculators took Dzudzuana for CHG because no proxy and shared Basal Eurasian ancestry. 2. There was a real CHG migration that give substantial ancestry to eastern europe, but completely disappear in terms of lineage both masculine and feminine ( this latter point could be contradicte if haplogroup U4 appear in a paleolithic south caucasus contexte ).

----------


## Pygmalion

> From Wiki, on Argarian Culture :
> 
> "Funerary Customs : The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos is abandoned in favour of small cists, either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (skipping Sicily and Italy, where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).
> 
> From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.
> 
> In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after ca 2000 BC."
> 
> If confirmed, this might explain the resurgence of farmer autosomal ancestry in Iberia in the centuries that followed the 'total replacement' discussed here. It would also explain (part of) the levels of J2 currently found there.


In 2000 bc there were Minoans in Greece, some vague similarities aren't enough to make a connection, there is no minoan material culture in any argaric settlement, they had a distinct culture from the Minoans, whose presence is not documented in the Western Mediterranean anywhere.

----------


## hrvclv

> @hlvcrv
> post#264; thanks
> this Quedlimburg is a BB?
> concerning Praga and Unetice in general, it seems it was a synthetic culture melting diverse influences: Neolithic, CWC, in first BBC + surely new Sth-Eastern influences, but at first it was not an osmosis but rather juxtaposition. All the way, admixture or not, we can hope some diverse Y-lineages. According to "you" there were 4 post Y-R1b-L51 (L11) in Unetice Praga, so it complete "my" Y-I2! It shows how tiny is our samples to date. But somebody could always argue that they came from BB come from S-Iberia.


Yes, the Quedlinburg sample is Beaker Central Europe. By the way, there is also an M269 close by that I forgot to mention (also Beaker Central).

For sure the samples are few and far between. However, as we push *down* the *time* line, the *movement*  of steppe clades clearly heads *west*. So an Iberian origin seems highly unlikely for those R1b newcomers.

----------


## Angela

In terms of El Argar, I'm only aware of the following.

For mtDna:

"Around 2200 BCE, the emergence of the El Argar group was evidently preceded by a break in Chalcolithic cultural traditions in southeast Iberia. Yet there are no apparent new influences or signals of substantial population change on the mtDNA haplogroup level at this time, so that the observed changes may either be due to an upheaval of existing social structures or an influx of groups that cannot be distinguished from the local population at the present level of genetic resolution, e.g., from Southeastern Europe, as previously proposed for El Argar. Unraveling these apparently contradictory data will certainly require further in-depth analyses both on the archaeological and the archaeogenetic level."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15480-9

In terms of yDna, Berun posted the following:
"It seems the case after finding (http://www.laopiniondemurcia.es/muni...6009.html)some steppe DNA in El Argar culture (southeastern Spain):


Researchers at the Autonomous University of Barcelona work with this theory in the absence of geneticists to complete the study of DNA
l. or. 18.11.2017 | 04:00

The key to the genetic origin of the Spaniards could be Murcia. And it is that the Argaric archaeological sites of La Bastida, located in Totana, and that of La Almoloya, of Pliego, `could have given rise to all the natives of our country.

Researchers from the Autonomous University of Barcelona who work in the fields contemplate it and assure that it is about to be confirmed by the geneticists who analyze the nuclear DNA samples from both sites, as reported by the Ser de Murcia chain on its website.

In the Almoloya, within the framework of the Argar culture, in the Bronze Age, the miscegenation that constitutes the current genetic basis of the entire population of the Iberian Peninsula, according to the researchers, took place.

According to the team of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, ​​the men who came from outside came from the south of present-day Russia. The change was not only genetic, because everything points, according to archaeological research, to the importance of women in that society of the Argar culture was much more socially and politically relevant than it was after.

The archaeologists of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) who have been digging up the secrets of the archaeological site of La Bastida (Totana) for nine years, the largest in Europe of the Argaric culture and known as 'La Troya de Occidente', are considering abandoning their work for lack of economic support by the regional government of Murcia. La Bastida was a walled city of about a thousand inhabitants, the largest of that time in Western Europe, which has only been excavated by 10 percent."

There is also this:
"THE GENETIC HISTORY OF EL ARGAR AND CONTEMPORANEOUS GROUPS OF THE SOUTHERN IBERIAN
PENINSULA
Author(s): Haak, Wolfgang (Max-Planck-Institute for the Science of Human History) - Rihuete-Herrada, Cristina - Oliart, Camila - Fregeiro
Morador, Maria-Inés - Lull, Vicente - Micó, Rafael - García Atiénzar, Gabriel - Barciela, Virginia - Hernández, Mauro - Jiménez
Echevarría, Javier - Salazar-García, Domingo C. - Risch, Roberto - Krause, Johannes (-)
Presentation Format: Oral
The unique position of the El Argar society in Iberia’s Early Bronze Age is well attested by archaeological research. Recent paleo-genomic studies have shed light on the genetic prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula, mainly focussing on the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. However, the biological profiles of prehistoric individuals attributed to the El Argar and contemporaneous groups from the southern coastal regions of the peninsula have not yet been described genetically. Here, we present genome-wide data from over 70 individuals from a micro-transect through time ranging from the Late Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze Age. We observe a striking shift in the ancestry profile from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, which is explained by the arrival of steppe ancestry in this region. The particular type of ancestry was first described in pastoralist groups from the Eurasian steppes around 5000 years ago and has subsequently spread across central and western Europe, reaching northern France and the British Isles around 2200 calBCE, where it replaced substantial parts of the local genetic ancestry. Our results show that steppe ancestry can be found in very few individuals attributed to the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the centre and north of Iberia, but in all individuals dated to El Argar and subsequent Bronze Age periods in the south. This finding not only corroborates the transformative powers of the Early Bronze Age period in the Iberian Peninsula but show that the genetic profiles of the populations in Iberia today were largely shaped during this time."

So, a seaborne movement? From where? Any stops along the way? I'm dying to see the yDna.

I have no idea when it will show up, or if those samples are also in the upcoming Olalde paper. I also want to see if the Olalde paper confirms little steppe in the Bell Beakers people of the center and north.

All of this is discussed in this thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archiv...p/t-34909.html

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, the Quedlinburg sample is Beaker Central Europe. By the way, there is also an M269 close by that I forgot to mention (also Beaker Central).
> 
> For sure the samples are few and far between. However, as we push *down* the *time* line, the *movement*  of steppe clades clearly heads *west*. So an Iberian origin seems highly unlikely for those R1b newcomers.


Isn't the oldest Steppe beaker in Spain (EDIT: It isn't, but it is from basically the exact same time frame)? Regardless, the samples ARE too few and far between to have a chronology. It could just be the case that we happened to find some of the earliest Steppe beakers in one place compared to later Steppe beakers in another place, when in actuality the Steppe beakers could have moved from the latter place to the former. I don't know, though, why it is so impossible that some of the Steppe amongst the Beaker folk could have been acquired through admixture with CWC women. We are so used to the idea that R1b folk blended with farmer women, resulting in diluted Steppe autosomal signature, but why can't the opposite occur? Beaker Steppe samples are geographically virtually on top of prior Corded Ware samples. I think the Beaker folk (in the maritime hypothesis I subscribe too) would have had Steppe admix anyway, but only in the Chalcolithic Balkans sense.

----------


## MOESAN

We need, I think, DNA of diverse burying traditions; maybe the El Argar label covers more than a period and some changes could have occurred in the peopling here and there; in El Argar space is tumuli's DNA or Cists DNA the same as Jars DNA??? Interesting I think.
THat said, the special sepultures traditions are not by force inherited directly from Minoans; some close traditions could have been adopted in far Southeastern Europe and even been adopted by more northern or northeastern people.
I did not obtain the very survey concerned here, helas.

----------


## Ygorcs

> So, I wouldn't say that there was a "reappearance" of non-IE lineages, as "J" and most of "E" probably weren't there until the Bronze Age at the earliest. I am a little surprised, however, that they seem to be saying that the "J" lineages didn't appear until the Iron Age or perhaps later. Carthage did control a big portion of Iberia, but were there enough of them to make a huge change in yDna? Yes, there were some Roman veteran and other colonies, but were they predominantly "J", and were they a big enough percentage of the total population to make such a change? That leaves the Moorish domination. I could see it being responsible for E-M81, but all of the J1 and J2 as well? My understanding was always that by far the biggest contingent were North Africans, with the "Arabs" being a much smaller percentage at the top. There's also El Algar to consider. Do they have the samples to address that? 
> 
> I don't know. I guess we have to wait to see the paper.


Yeah, I am very intrigued by all of this. Somehow to me the pieces do not seem to "fit" until more information is given. What I find especially hard to believe is that the modern Iberian population would not have much more Eastern Mediterranean and North African admixtures and plot much closer to North African and Levantine people if virtually all of the E1b1b, J2, J1 and even G2a and I2a had come much later with Carthaginians, Arabs, Maghrebis, Jews, Romans, Greeks and so on. In some of those cases the genetic connection would be very recent in historic proportions (Arabs and Maghrebis as late as 0.8-1kya). 

Besides, I have never heard about the specific subclades of those "non-steppe" haplogroups being exactly the same, in their majority, as those found regularly in North Africa and the East Mediterranean. Do you guys know if the subclades in Iberia are close to those found outside of Europe? I doubt that, the usual suspects would've massacred our ears and eyes mentioning that fact all the time if that were true. LOL

If the significant increase in haplogroups like E and J is not to be associated with a corresponding increase in non-European admixture, should we then believe that, for instance, the Celtiberians (certainly not the same IE people as those 40% steppe-like Bronze Age Iberians) and later the Romans were particularly less enriched in steppe-like haplogroups and steppe-like admixture, thus changing the genetic landscape of Iberia during the Iron Age even before and far away from the Carthaginian and Greek colonies? 

I have a really hard time believing that Carthaginians and Greeks spread so further inland, since much of Iberia by Roman times was definitely _not_ particularly Phoenician and Greek culturally, despite the obvious influences from these civilizations, especially the northern part of Iberia, which is decisive because as we know the _Reconquista_ caused a huge influx from the North towards the South, so the modern genetic landscape of Iberia probably owes a lot to the medieval genetic pool of Northern Iberia. In Galicia, for instance, J2 and E1b are found in 10.5% of the population each (21% total). 

As for G2a and I2a, found in not insignificant percentages in much of Iberia, is it possible then that the surviving Neolithic-like population eventually spread tremendously during the Iron Age (maybe associated with the language family of Basques and Iberians?). 

My instinct is to look for "European historic explanations" for that change, because I do not see an autosomal impact of non-Europeans that would justify the high proportion of non-R1b/R1a haplogroups in much of present-day Iberia.

----------


## Angela

> Yeah, I am very intrigued by all of this. Somehow to me the pieces do not seem to "fit" until more information is given. What I find especially hard to believe is that the modern Iberian population would not have much more Eastern Mediterranean and North African admixtures and plot much closer to North African and Levantine people if virtually all of the E1b1b, J2, J1 and even G2a and I2a had come much later with Carthaginians, Arabs, Maghrebis, Jews, Romans, Greeks and so on. In some of those cases the genetic connection would be very recent in historic proportions (Arabs and Maghrebis as late as 0.8-1kya). 
> 
> Besides, I have never heard about the specific subclades of those "non-steppe" haplogroups being exactly the same, in their majority, as those found regularly in North Africa and the East Mediterranean. Do you guys know if the subclades in Iberia are close to those found outside of Europe? I doubt that, the usual suspects would've massacred our ears and eyes mentioning that fact all the time if that were true. LOL
> 
> If the significant increase in haplogroups like E and J is not to be associated with a corresponding increase in non-European admixture, should we then believe that, for instance, the Celtiberians (certainly not the same IE people as those 40% steppe-like Bronze Age Iberians) and later the Romans were particularly less enriched in steppe-like haplogroups and steppe-like admixture, thus changing the genetic landscape of Iberia during the Iron Age even before and far away from the Carthaginian and Greek colonies? 
> 
> I have a really hard time believing that Carthaginians and Greeks spread so further inland, since much of Iberia by Roman times was definitely _not_ particularly Phoenician and Greek culturally, despite the obvious influences from these civilizations, especially the northern part of Iberia, which is decisive because as we know the _Reconquista_ caused a huge influx from the North towards the South, so the modern genetic landscape of Iberia probably owes a lot to the medieval genetic pool of Northern Iberia. In Galicia, for instance, J2 and E1b are found in 10.5% of the population each (21% total). 
> 
> As for G2a and I2a, found in not insignificant percentages in much of Iberia, is it possible then that the surviving Neolithic-like population eventually spread tremendously during the Iron Age (maybe associated with the language family of Basques and Iberians?). 
> ...


I'm not quite following part of this. You think J1 and J2 were in Europe before the Bronze Age? It certainly doesn't seem to have been in Europe in the Neolithic. Maybe you're thinking the Chalcolithic? 

Wouldn't J2 and J1 by definition have to come from the eastern Mediterranean? They entered Anatolia, the Levant, etc. and then on into Greece and westward from there, yes? The Neolithic G2 is also from Anatolia. The earliest "European" lineages would be C, then I. Are all others not European? R1 was in eastern Europe pretty early too, yes, although originally they were perhaps North Eurasian.

So, those y lines did indeed come from the eastern Mediterranean. I'm just surprised that they're saying not in the Bronze Age, and it all came during the Iron Age.

That does seem a bit strange. 

As for the discordance between y and autosomal, if it was an almost totally male mediated migration in every case it might make sense.

I've seen runs with various methodologies where Spaniards as well as the Portuguese can be modeled as perhaps 9-10% North African. Wouldn't that make sense?

The eastern Mediterranean might look just like Neolithic ancestry, or at least might be confused with it.

----------


## Angela

> yes, EEF, but while LBK has the least WHG admixture, the Iberian neolithic has the most
> 
> and a similar admixture event happened at the Iron Gates 8 ka
> the Iron Gates HG were R1b-V88 and I2a-Z161
> both appeared in Iberian neolithic
> 
> on the other hand, I2a-L161 seems to be a HG of Iberian origin
> 
> in British neolithic we have I2a-Z161 and I2a-L161 coming from Iberia plus I2a-M284
> ...


The "most" yes, but still around 30%, in some cases 20-25%. I have about the same amount of European hunter-gatherer (WHG and EHG). That's undoubtedly why older papers had the Iberian late Neolithic plotting near Tuscans.

----------


## bicicleur

> I'm not quite following part of this. You think J1 and J2 were in Europe before the Bronze Age? It certainly doesn't seem to have been in Europe in the Neolithic. Maybe you're thinking the Chalcolithic? 
> 
> Wouldn't J2 and J1 by definition have to come from the eastern Mediterranean? They entered Anatolia, the Levant, etc. and then on into Greece and westward from there, yes? The Neolithic G2 is also from Anatolia. The earliest "European" lineages would be C, then I. Are all others not European? R1 was in eastern Europe pretty early too, yes, although originally they were perhaps North Eurasian.
> 
> So, those y lines did indeed come from the eastern Mediterranean. I'm just surprised that they're saying not in the Bronze Age, and it all came during the Iron Age.
> 
> That does seem a bit strange. 
> 
> As for the discordance between y and autosomal, if it was an almost totally male mediated migration in every case it might make sense.
> ...


it's about time this paper gets published
IMO this paper deals about a R1b(-DF27) turnover in Iberia 4.5 ka
which was followed by the J2 El Argar turnover 4 ka

it would explain todays presence of both R1b-DF27 and J2 in Iberia
and it would explain the 'Iberic' non-IE language along the eastcoast of Iberia 6th cent BC

----------


## Ygorcs

> So how those native people of the Caucasus give their ancestry to Mesolithic Sweden HG Motala? And how most of Mesolithic HG samples from Eastern Europe, even the J* ones dont have CHG at all? Like you said some times before, CHG in Europe seems to predate a lot cultures like Maikop.


Dzudzuana with ANF-like admixture dates to ~26kya. The "proto-CHG" people certainly existed somewhere, but CHG proper only coalesced and consolidated in the Caucasus long after Dzudzuana, probably changing the Caucasus region from an Anatolian-like to a more Iranian-like (CHG) genetic makeup. My bet then is that the CHG-like introgression into Eastern Europe happened after the LGM and probably during the Mesolithic, and by the Neolithic the CHG+EHG mixing process was already on an advanced state nearer the Caucasus (i.e. Pontic-Caspian steppe). Dzudzuana is so ancient that it precedes even the spread of WHG/EHG in Europe, which happened mostly during and after the LGM, so I think EuropeN people by the time of Dzudzuana Paleolithic people was completely different and probably not directly ancestral (not in big proportions) to people like Motala HG and Khvalynsk HG. If I understood the paper correctly, it was actually Dzudzuana that was more directly related to WHG (but with BE too).

----------


## hrvclv

> Dzudzuana with ANF-like admixture dates to ~26kya. The "proto-CHG" people certainly existed somewhere, but CHG proper only coalesced and consolidated in the Caucasus long after Dzudzuana, probably changing the Caucasus region from an Anatolian-like to a more Iranian-like (CHG) genetic makeup. My bet then is that the CHG-like introgression into Eastern Europe happened after the LGM and probably during the Mesolithic, and by the Neolithic the CHG+EHG mixing process was already on an advanced state nearer the Caucasus (i.e. Pontic-Caspian steppe). Dzudzuana is so ancient that it precedes even the spread of WHG/EHG in Europe, which happened mostly during and after the LGM, so I think EuropeN people by the time of Dzudzuana Paleolithic people was completely different and probably not directly ancestral (not in big proportions) to people like Motala HG and Khvalynsk HG. If I understood the paper correctly, it was actually Dzudzuana that was more directly related to WHG (but with BE too).


This is how I, too, understood that paper. If we posit the Middle East as the obvious door out of Africa, we can imagine some people remained there, while others moved on. From the common core, those who moved west (y-dna I and mtdna U) replaced the old Aurignacian population (y-dna C and mtdna M). We are talking about very long periods of time. So there was plenty of time for genetic drift (plus, perhaps, some mixing with the locals) to give those western migrants a genetic signature of their own. We now know them as WHG.

Some similar sort of drift happened in Eurasia, resulting among others in what we identify as ANE (Mal'ta). Over time (post LGM expansion?), both populations moved, which resulted in the WHG - EHG cline, from Loschbourg to Motala to Samara. I see Dzudzuana as part of this cline. Later CHG proper would move into the Caucasus (Satsurblia, Kotias).

In Anatolia a back migration of WHG resulted in Anatolian Neo through intermixing with the Basal Eurasian who had remained there - somewhere (!). 

We are a long way from the Iberian Bronze Age, I am aware of that. But the people who moved west from eastern Anatolia to Crete, Greece, etc.., and ultimately *perhaps* to Iberia can't have been Dzudzuana-like. Their origins were, in my opinion, more likely in the south west Caspian. And, yes, once mixed with some extra WHG, and diluted among farmer ancestry, there is a chance that their genetic signature might be mistaken for steppe. Y-dna will tell a lot.

----------


## markod

Is anyone familiar with the finer structure of Iberian haplogroups? I think "E" in Iberia is to some extent V13, which must be European and related to metal age expansions. The same is probably true for most J2 there. J1 is quite high in Iberia, but there are other peaks in France, the Carpathian Basin, Romania and Moldova. The latter are probably again related to Iron or Bronze age expansions from the Caucasus or Eastern Anatolia. Are the Iberian subclades more related to these kinds of J1 or the subclades found in North Africa?

----------


## Angela

> it's about time this paper gets published
> IMO this paper deals about a R1b(-DF27) turnover in Iberia 4.5 ka
> which was followed by the J2 El Argar turnover 4 ka
> 
> it would explain todays presence of both R1b-DF27 and J2 in Iberia
> and it would explain the 'Iberic' non-IE language along the eastcoast of Iberia 6th cent BC


That's how I've always seen it too. However, there's that vague reference in the article posted by Berun which says the El Argar samples show influence from "Russia". I don't know if they were referring to this Reich Lab paper or other research, and also, as Moesan pointed out, it may depend on the dates and burial styles of the samples at the El Argar sites. Perhaps there was first the arrival of J2 and then the R1b. 

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

----------


## Angela

As to yDna, almost all of the papers I could find were pretty old and didn't resolve the lineages very well. The only exception was this 2017 paper, but it's strictly on DF-27.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07710-x

There's also Luis Alvarez et al from 2014, which has pretty nice resolution, but it's based on STRS and it's only of Zamorra province. (western part of Castille and Leon)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25123837

The Supplement shows all the samples and also the samples from North Africa. There was more J1 and J2 in the latter than I had expected.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/acti...1-suppinfo.pdf

In Wiki, there's data which cites Eupedia, and is Maciamo's work.

"Although R1b prevails in much of Western Europe, a key difference is found in the prevalence in Iberia of R-DF27 (R1b1a1a2a1a2a). This subclade is found in over 60% of the male population in the Basque Country and 40-48% in Madrid, Alicante, Barcelona, Cantabria, Andalucia, Asturias and Galicia.[9] R-DF27 constitutes much more than the half of the total R1b in the Iberian Peninsula. Subsequent in-migration by members of other haplogroups and subclades of R1b did not affect its overall prevalence, although this falls to only two thirds of the total R1b in Valencia and the coast more generally.[8] R-DF27 is also a significant subclade of R1b in parts of France and Britain. However, it is insignificant in Italy; R-S28/R-U152 (R1b1a1a2a1a2b) is the prevailing subclade of R1b in Italy, Switzerland and parts of France, although it represents less than 5.0% of the male population in Iberia. This underlines the lack of any significant genetic impact on the part of Rome, even though the Latin spoken in the Roman Empire was the most significant, or main, source of the modern Spanish and Portuguese language. R-S28/R-U152 is slightly significant in Seville and Barcelona, at 10-20% of the total population, although it is represented at frequencies of only 3.0% in Cantabria and Santander, 2.0% in Castille and Leon, 6% in Valencia, and under 1% in Andalusia.[8]Sephardic JewsI1 0%	I2*/I2a 1%	I2 0%	Haplogroup R1a 5%	R1b 13%	G 15% Haplogroup J2 2 25%	J*/J1 22%	E-M2151b1b 9%	T 6%	Q 2% [10]Haplogroup J, mostly subclades of Haplogroup J-M172 (J2), is found at levels of over 20% in some regions, while Haplogroup E has a general frequency of about 10% – albeit with peaks surpassing 30% in certain areas. Overall, E-M78 (E1b1b1a1 in 2017) and E-M81(E1b1b1b1a in 2017) both constitute about 4.0% each, with a further 1.0% from Haplogroup E-M123 (E1b1b1b2a1) and 1.0% from unknown subclades of E-M96.[11] (E-M81 is widely considered to represent relatively historical migrations from North Africa)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneti...rian_Peninsula

----------


## CrazyDonkey

https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/10/03...10_930565.html




> The prehistorian Roberto Risch, from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, told EL PAÍS at the time that findings from the La Bastida dig, in the Spanish southeastern region of Murcia, had uncovered “a great surprise.”
> 
> “We realized that the Iberian peninsula was not only colonized by the first Neolithic migration wave 8,000 or 9,000 years ago but also by a later one 4,500 years ago, which brought with it a very different culture,” he said.
> 
> 
> War axes and carts with four wheels can be found in the layers of earth that date back 4,500 years. “From then on, almost all men’s tombs were filled with weaponry, adornments, displays of wealth. The archaeology reveals marked signs of a hierarchical society that broke with the old egalitarianism of the early Neolithic period,” said Risch.
> 
> The findings from Reich’s research team are also backed up by a study published last year by geneticists Dan Bradley from Trinity College in Dublin and Rui Martiniano from Cambridge University. This research team announced they had discovered a “discontinuity” in the Y chromosome during the Bronze Age in the Iberian Peninsula, after studying the DNA of the remains of 14 people found in archaeological sites in Portugal.
> 
> “In terms of why the Y chromosome was replaced, we could speculate that the populations from the steppes had superior technology, better weapons and also domesticated horses that could have given them an advantage in war,” says Martiniano.


First, the Reich finding of 100% y-dna replacement is based on a total of 151 samples. Were these elite burials post-replacement? In the new "hierarchical" society that followed, were non-elites, "peasants", excluded from the cemeteries and left to bury their dead elsewhere, willy-nilly? If endogamy was practiced, that would have sealed off access to the ruling lineages, with polygamy likely further accentuating the imbalance.

That doesn't mean that this isn't a case of "barbarians behaving badly", but neither can we jump to the conclusion that other causes weren't involved (climate change, drought, crop failures, starvation, plague, continuing violence, etc.).

Note that at Valencina de la Concepción:




> After what seems like a long period in the reduction of activity in the 27th century BCE, the tholos of La Pastora was probably built, with very different architectural characteristics: without great slabs of slate, but with a roofed chamber with a false stone dome, an important technical and aesthetic innovation, and with a “heretical” orientation towards the south east, facing away from the sunrise. “It is very probable that these changes in the monumental architecture were due to were due to changes in the social and ideological sphere, including, perhaps, religious “heterodoxies”, the researcher adds.


https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/0...history/120856

Note that this was following "a long period in the reduction of activity in the 27th century BCE," or a possible preceding population decline. The significant change in burial practices and orientation could be an indication of the takeover by an invading element - Valencina de la Concepción was neither walled nor fortified.

There is further indication that the troubles didn't stop there, with the end of occupation of the site "between the the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE" with "the possibility that the end of the Valencina settlement was due to a social crisis" involving "the possibility of a violent episode".

Further, "paleoenvironmental data" indicate that "between the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, a period of greater aridity and dryness began globally", which on "the Iberian Peninsula saw the end of chalcolithic way of life and the abandonment of some of the most important sites with ditched enclosures", coinciding with "the end of the Old Kingdom in the Nile Valley, with a great crisis that brought about the end of the period of construction of the great pyramids."

----------


## Ygorcs

> I'm not quite following part of this. You think J1 and J2 were in Europe before the Bronze Age? It certainly doesn't seem to have been in Europe in the Neolithic. Maybe you're thinking the Chalcolithic?


Oops, I guess I wasn't very precise in my wording before. Let me explain it better now. I think the sum of J1, J2 and E1b1b nowadays is too large, in some Iberian regions verging on 1/3, to have left relatively little North African and Levantine/Southwest Asian admixture (that's what I meant by Eastern Mediterranean, sorry I forgot for a moment that Greece and Anatolia is also on the eastern side of the Mediterranean... LOL!). I also think that such a heavy contribution from non-Europeans would've probably shifted Iberians significantly on the PCA charts away from other Western/Southwestern Europeans and much closer to West Asian/North African populations (unless we assume that they were also affected by the waves of North Africans and West Asians... unlikely in my opinion). 

There's also the issue that the non-"steppic" Y-DNA haplogroups are found in large percentages in places that were never under the direct and permanent dominion of Arabs, Berbers and Carthaginians (E1b1b IIRC is found in comparatively significant proportions in Galicia for example).





> Wouldn't J2 and J1 by definition have to come from the eastern Mediterranean? They entered Anatolia, the Levant, etc. and then on into Greece and westward from there, yes? The Neolithic G2 is also from Anatolia. The earliest "European" lineages would be C, then I. Are all others not European? R1 was in eastern Europe pretty early too, yes, although originally they were perhaps North Eurasian.


Yes, but that was a long time before J1 and J2 may have arrived in larger percentages in Iberia, and definitely way earlier than the supposed arrival of these haplogroups mainly with colonization processes as late as those of the Carthaginians, Arabs and Berbers. More than enough time for J1 and J2 to be associated with completely different autosomal makeups depending on the region where they came from.

My point is that, since modern Iberians are still firmly on the "European side" and not that close to North Africans or Levantines, much of those J1, J2, E1b1b or G2a may have come from other European populations, already heavily shifted to EEF and, much less so, Steppe BA, during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age and as late as the Iron Age (Celtiberians - clearly a late arrival on Iberia considering their language was just too close to Gaulish to be indigenous to Iberia since the Bronze Age - and Romans).

Considering the possibility that these haplogroups arrived much earlier, during the Chalcolithic or Bronze Age, more or less contemporary to the "steppicization" of Iberia, I think it's more likely that much of it came from heavily EEF/ANF+CHG regions like Bronze Age Anatolia/Greece, so that their contribution would be masked in Iberia due to the heavy presence of Neolithic Iberian EEF and BA Bell Beaker-like CHG/EHG + EEF. If they had mostly come from the Levant or North Africa, wouldn't we expect much more Natufian or Levant_Neolithic in modern Iberians than there is in fact? 

I also have a hard time believing that Carthaginians left a more widespread and long-lasting genetic impact than the Romans, who had in Iberia some of the highest concentration of Roman colonies, controlled virtually the entire peninsula and didn't actually get beaten by invaders until more than 500 years after their conquest. 



But last of all, I'd really want to know if the J1, J2 and E1b1b subclades that are most frequently found in Iberia are really closer to those found in North Africa, Levant and Arabia (consistent with the idea that the Carthaginians, Arabs and Berbers really contributed much more than we'd thought to the Iberian genetic pool) - and not to those found in the rest of Europe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is how I, too, understood that paper. If we posit the Middle East as the obvious door out of Africa, we can imagine some people remained there, while others moved on. From the common core, those who moved west (y-dna I and mtdna U) replaced the old Aurignacian population (y-dna C and mtdna M). We are talking about very long periods of time. So there was plenty of time for genetic drift (plus, perhaps, some mixing with the locals) to give those western migrants a genetic signature of their own. We now know them as WHG.
> 
> Some similar sort of drift happened in Eurasia, resulting among others in what we identify as ANE (Mal'ta). Over time (post LGM expansion?), both populations moved, which resulted in the WHG - EHG cline, from Loschbourg to Motala to Samara. I see Dzudzuana as part of this cline. Later CHG proper would move into the Caucasus (Satsurblia, Kotias).
> 
> In Anatolia a back migration of WHG resulted in Anatolian Neo through intermixing with the Basal Eurasian who had remained there - somewhere (!). 
> 
> We are a long way from the Iberian Bronze Age, I am aware of that. But the people who moved west from eastern Anatolia to Crete, Greece, etc.., and ultimately *perhaps* to Iberia can't have been Dzudzuana-like. Their origins were, in my opinion, more likely in the south west Caspian. And, yes, once mixed with some extra WHG, and diluted among farmer ancestry, there is a chance that their genetic signature might be mistaken for steppe. Y-dna will tell a lot.


I speculate in a way very similar to yours, only with two differences: 

1) I think the drift separating WHG from EHG happened even before and independently from the mixing with ANE among the EHG and (probably) the pre-Villabruna Europeans among the WHG, but I do realize that they were probably shifted even more apart from each other when the EHG mixed with ANE (which probably brought haplogroups R1b, R1a and Q1a to EHG) and maybe also a tiny bit with CHG-like people spreading northwards in the Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic (accounting for that J* as far north as Karelia for instance); 

2) I also think the Anatolian_Neo population derives mainly from WHG-like and already BE-admixed Dzudzuana people spreading from the Caucasus/Armenian Plateau into Anatolia proper, mixing there with additional Basal Eurasian (or BE-enriched) people and also maybe with some WHG-like people that either still lived in Western Anatolia (they had migrated to Europe earlier) or back-migrated there. In my opinion, based on what the new Caucasus paper asserted, Anatolian_Neo was mainly the result of an "internal affair" of West Asian people mixing before the Mesolithic/Late Paleolithic, resulting in Dzudzuana + additional WHG-like (UHG?) and BE-like populations living in LGM Anatolia.

In my opinion, the genetic signature of North African and Levantine people should be bigger and pull Iberians much further apart from the rest of Western Europeans if all the J1, J2, E1b1b, G2a and so on had come with the mainly non-European conquests by Carthaginians, Arabs, Berbers and so on. In my opinion they certainly contributed strongly, but those haplogroups probably existed there before the Late Iron Age. And Iberians are still pretty "European-like" because much if not most of those haplogroups possibly came with people who were themselves pretty enriched in EEF or in a mix of ANF and CHG that, further admixed with WHG and EHG/CHG-enriched Iberian people from the Bronze Age onwards, may get easily confused with "Neolithic Iberian" or "Bronze Age steppe". Considering that, I'd say much of that contribution came from Southern Europe and Anatolia, not North Africa, the South Levant or Arabia.

----------


## Angela

> Oops, I guess I wasn't very precise in my wording before. Let me explain it better now. I think the sum of J1, J2 and E1b1b nowadays is too large, in some Iberian regions verging on 1/3, to have left relatively little North African and Levantine/Southwest Asian admixture (that's what I meant by Eastern Mediterranean, sorry I forgot for a moment that Greece and Anatolia is also on the eastern side of the Mediterranean... LOL!). I also think that such a heavy contribution from non-Europeans would've probably shifted Iberians significantly on the PCA charts away from other Western/Southwestern Europeans and much closer to West Asian/North African populations (unless we assume that they were also affected by the waves of North Africans and West Asians... unlikely in my opinion). 
> 
> There's also the issue that the non-"steppic" Y-DNA haplogroups are found in large percentages in places that were never under the direct and permanent dominion of Arabs, Berbers and Carthaginians (E1b1b IIRC is found in comparatively significant proportions in Galicia for example).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that was a long time before J1 and J2 may have arrived in larger percentages in Iberia, and definitely way earlier than the supposed arrival of these haplogroups mainly with colonization processes as late as those of the Carthaginians, Arabs and Berbers. More than enough time for J1 and J2 to be associated with completely different autosomal makeups depending on the region where they came from.
> 
> ...


OK, now I understand. As I said above, I always assumed that a good portion of the J2 in Iberia came during the Bronze Age, part of the wave that hit Greece, then Italy, then Iberia and which came from Anatolia. We'll have to see what they say in the paper. 

In terms of the "E" lineages, in the Alvarez paper to which I linked above, there were 10 E-M78, 12 E-M81 and 6 E-M123. The E-M78 is probably Greek (or Italian), but the Greek footprint (of the first millenium B.C.) is even smaller than the Carthaginian one. Other than some of the El Algar artifacts, is there a big presence of, say, Minoan or Mycenaean ware? 
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/acti...1-suppinfo.pdf

I think we can probably assign the E-M81 to the Moorish invasion. There was only one "E" in all the samples so far and the authors call it sporadic contact. Plus, E-M81 is very young. There's some mtDna "L" as well, of course. In either this paper or one of the other ones I cited they date the lineages to the time of the early part of the invasion period. I guess that might have been enough time for their ancestry to be lost and for them to be able to blend in and avoid deportation. After all, although in some areas the North African autosomal ancestry may reach 20%, the academics seem to have settled on around 9% for an average.

Now, why they ended up more in the western part of the peninsula, I have no idea. Perhaps the Portuguese crown was more tolerant for longer? Perhaps it was part of the deliberate population shuffling that sent northerners south and southerners north also sent people east and west? I don't know.

As to the Romans, as I said, the colonia were a few hundred people each. As an aggregate they could have had an effect, of course, but they couldn't all have been J2, given that it only reaches about 30-40% in the highest areas of Italy, less in the northwest and Pianura Padana. Plus, they must have had some U-152, and in Andalusia (and Extremadura), where most of the colonies were located, U-152 reaches only 1% of the population. (There does seem to be some sort of founder effect in Seville, however, with at least 10%) Of course, maybe they were all reshuffled as well. 

Oh, Alvarez does compare the North African and Iberian lineages. As I said, though, it's one province.

From Wiki, part of which comes from Maciamo, I think, there is the following:

"Haplogroup J, mostly subclades of Haplogroup J-M172 (J2), is found at levels of over 20% in some regions, while Haplogroup E has a general frequency of about 10% – albeit with peaks surpassing 30% in certain areas. Overall, E-M78(E1b1b1a1 in 2017) and E-M81(E1b1b1b1a in 2017) both constitute about 4.0% each, with a further 1.0% from Haplogroup E-M123 (E1b1b1b2a1) and 1.0% from unknown subclades of E-M96.[11] (E-M81 is widely considered to represent relatively historical migrations from North Africa)".

It's definitely a puzzle.

----------


## Aaron1981

> Isn't the oldest Steppe beaker in Spain (EDIT: It isn't, but it is from basically the exact same time frame)? Regardless, the samples ARE too few and far between to have a chronology. It could just be the case that we happened to find some of the earliest Steppe beakers in one place compared to later Steppe beakers in another place, when in actuality the Steppe beakers could have moved from the latter place to the former. I don't know, though, why it is so impossible that some of the Steppe amongst the Beaker folk could have been acquired through admixture with CWC women. We are so used to the idea that R1b folk blended with farmer women, resulting in diluted Steppe autosomal signature, but why can't the opposite occur? Beaker Steppe samples are geographically virtually on top of prior Corded Ware samples. I think the Beaker folk (in the maritime hypothesis I subscribe too) would have had Steppe admix anyway, but only in the Chalcolithic Balkans sense.


Yes, but where did the M269+ guys come from if not from the Steppe? Hunter-gatherers did not have such mobility. How did they suddenly appear near the Samara river a few hundred years later from a central European or SW European origin (if this is what you are insinuating). Perhaps there is some western steppe population that has plenty of EHG but lower on the CHG side. I know the Greater Caucasus paper had some steppe populations, rich in EHG, but had very low CHG, but unfortunately it's still in pre-print, and we are all awaiting that data patiently.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, but where did the M269+ guys come from if not from the Steppe? Hunter-gatherers did not have such mobility. How did they suddenly appear near the Samara river a few hundred years later from a central European or SW European origin (if this is what you are insinuating). Perhaps there is some western steppe population that has plenty of EHG but lower on the CHG side. I know the Greater Caucasus paper had some steppe populations that had very low CHG, but unfortunately it's still in pre-print, and we are all awaiting that data patiently.


Could I see this Samara L51 sample you're talking about? And I believe M269 originated in the Balkans, and that it and its subclade L23 were heavily involved in spreading copper metallurgy from its earliest stages (I do not believe in a Steppe origin for L23, and probably not for M269 (but M269 is very old, so that could still be the case)). As for EHG/CHG presence - I haven't looked into that much, but it is clearly very broad (as it could have been carried to Western Europe by so many different cultures - I believe the source was primarily that of the Corded Ware culture). 

All I am basing this off of is that (a) Yamnaya and its Danubian branch have only been found to be dominated by Z2103 (and it is Z2103 that dominates the R1b of the Balkans today, with virtually no presence of L51); and (b) some of the earliest L51 branches have been found around the Western Mediterranean islands. The rest of the ideas I've had, mostly from Tomenable ultimately, are based around these alarm bells against the hypothesis of a Steppe origin of L51.

----------


## Ygorcs

I find it really hard to believe that R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 came into Europe from homelands absolutely apart from each other. IIRC L23 split into L51 and Z2103 only as late as around 4000 BC, when, as we know from the Caucasus paper, the bulk of the genetic makeup of the Pontic-Caspian people was already pretty much settled (including high amounts of CHG mixed with EHG, with only some minor extra CHG later up to the Yamnaya period). By the Chalcolithic, a few centuries later, Z2103 was already dominant in that region. And by the time L51 and Z2103 diverged Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog I were smoothly morphing, gradually, into Sredny Stog II and Repin, and later the cultural synthesis that formed the Yamnaya horizon. It's very doubtful that Z2103 and L51 were too far apart from each other. I can definitely speculate about an origin of L51 in the Carpathian Basin, or maybe in the Black Sea coast of the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romania), but not much further than that, on the fringes of the reach of the Pontic-Caspian cultures. The peoples who spread Z2103 and L51 were also probably speakers of very similar dialects (the IE subfamilies now), so they probably came from the same cultural and geographic origin. In my opinion, we'll end up finding out that L51 was a Western Steppe lineage that was initially minor, but later took advantage of the expansion of the steppe clans out of their original reach and boomed already outside the steppe and its immediate surroundings (maybe Central Europe).

----------


## Ygorcs

> As for EHG/CHG presence - I haven't looked into that much, but it is clearly very broad (as it could have been carried to Western Europe by so many different cultures - I believe the source was primarily that of the Corded Ware culture).


How? There was no CWC presence west of Germany and south of Austria. Via the Bell Beakers, who anyway had a lot of EHG+CHG steppe ancestry (so basically all the women should have been CWC with little or no mixing with women of other origins - unlikely)? And would all these L51 males have simply adopted the language of their subjugated CWC women and spread them to regions where CWC people had never lived? That is possible, but I do not think it is probable (certainly not for _all_ the huge territory conquered by L51 males; it's a different case when you see a regional but relatively minor and isolated outlier, like the Basques for instance), especially in heavily patriarchal and patrilineal societies.

----------


## halfalp

What i found crazy, is that they have found J? in Epipaleolithic France, but also J? in Mesolithic extreme north-east Iran. It's even more widespread that what we knew with R1b for exemple.

----------


## hrvclv

I know I keep harping on this, but... have you guys read this ?

https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/

The article proposes that L51 in Hungary came early from a Late Repin / early- or pre-Yamna culture still light in CHG. They would have made room for themselves in the Hungarian plain, and would have been displaced by the arrival en masse of later Yamna men. They would then have moved north and west into Bell Beaker territory, along routes some of them had perhaps already explored (?).

I find the arguments very convincing.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I know I keep harping on this, but... have you guys read this ?
> 
> https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/
> 
> The article proposes that L51 in Hungary came early from a Late Repin / early- or pre-Yamna culture still light in CHG. They would have made room for themselves in the Hungarian plain, and would have been displaced by the arrival en masse of later Yamna men. They would then have moved north and west into Bell Beaker territory, along routes some of them had perhaps already explored (?).
> 
> I find the arguments very convincing.


But why do you find it convincing?

----------


## hrvclv

> But why do you find it convincing?


Because an early departure from the steppe of a small group (+ founder effect) would explain :

- why so few L51 have been found among Yamna so far, even though...

- those "Hungarian" L51 are so steppe-like autosomally.

- why they are low on CHG. (Their departure would have preceded the heavy influx of late copper/bronze age CHG into the steppe)

- why they suddenly began to move northwest when Yamna proper expanded.

- why their North West IE languages are a "clade" of their own among IE languages (basically, the bulk of the Centum group)

- even, perhaps but much more conservatively, some linguistic traits found in Proto-Italo-Celtic, which were long thought to be innovations, and might in fact be archaisms, like, e.g, the mediopassive in -r. Old tribe, old language ? Satem can derive from Centum; it doesn't work the other way round. (Yes, I know... linguistics again!)

----------


## Olympus Mons

On the Look out for L51.
If one really believes that L51 was from the east (fair enough) and from 5th millennia BC and has not been found yet, what really puzzles me is the human trait of “pretend not to”, which I always found strange (mostly because its linked to left leaning people – Unrelated, sorry). 
A good way to look what would be obvious, at least to me, is well represented and http://homeland.ku.dk/ from the guy from Copenhagen university, right?
So if you use the slider below to move forward in time, we see the Kum6 girl with CHG popping at 4.8K BC and then for thousand years a complete blank space in the South Balkans in terms of aDna. We see the all those events popping up, wheels , wagond, etc but no DNA for it. Just remain a blank space. So one would really put forward the option of R1b-L51 be from there. Any reasonable person would say, well, we really need to look into Bulgaria and Romania , the Boian, Gulmenita, them mixing with Hamangia (different people) and forming later the Pre-cucuteni and pre Trypolie, with was a mix of people between whoever and very local starcevo like people. So, rather than Keep betting on the steppe, that has so many samples, let’s look archeologically in south Balkans? We know that Balkans actually were moving into steppe much before steppe ever moved west, especially the cucuteni/trypolie earlier groups. 

Note: I like the site, because for shulaveri-Shomu he used 4900bc, which I believe was a date made up by me, because I wanted to make a point that it was on the transverse to 5th milenia bc and didn’t want to use 5000bc. So 4.900 worked OK. And I believe is why even Johanne Krause use it in his presentation.

----------


## halfalp

This interactive map is interesting. It account Suvorovo as the earliest steppe culture outside steppe, but we dont no most of it, culturally or genetically. People were saying Maikop had the first wheels, when from the same age, there is a wheel from Switzerland + all the " controversial " earlier wheels from Cucuteni.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Because an early departure from the steppe of a small group (+ founder effect) would explain :
> 
> - why so few L51 have been found among Yamna so far, even though...
> 
> - those "Hungarian" L51 are so steppe-like autosomally.
> 
> - why they are low on CHG. (Their departure would have preceded the heavy influx of late copper/bronze age CHG into the steppe)
> 
> - why they suddenly began to move northwest when Yamna proper expanded.
> ...


Isn't it just much simpler that L51 has nothing to do with Yamnaya or the Steppe in the first place? It surely isn't a coincidence that the Hungarian L51 was found amongst heavily Steppe Z2103, with the obvious answer being that this area is roughly at the boundary between the L51 and Z2103 worlds (one from the West, the other from the East). I recently spoke to a Danish researcher, and he actually goes so far as to claim that the reason Z2103 seems to dominate Yamnaya and not L51 is that L51 folk were part of the "losing tribe" that was beaten by Z2103 and had to search elsewhere for their glory. Where is the archaeological evidence of this? But, let's go with the pre-Yamnaya Steppe hypothesis of a L51 migration into Europe - why is it, then, that the most archaic subclades of L51 are found among the Western Mediterranean islands, with but a trace in the Balkans? And why is it also that L51 is clearly related to the expansion of Beaker pottery across Europe, which for a Steppe hypothesis would require that L51 arrived in Central Europe surely no earlier than 3000 BCE (and presumably centuries later), unless L51 just remained hidden for over a thousand years. And what about the fact that it seems pretty obvious that a lot of the Middle Eastern Z2103 is not of Steppe origin - this would mean that Z2103 and L51 couldn't have split on the Steppe. A lot doesn't make sense with the Yamnaya theory, which is pretty much just based on "I see Steppe signal among Yamnaya, I see the first signs of L51 associated with Steppe signal, I think L51 from Yamnaya".

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Because an early departure from the steppe of a small group (+ founder effect) would explain :
> 
> - why so few L51 have been found among Yamna so far, even though...
> 
> - those "Hungarian" L51 are so steppe-like autosomally.
> 
> - why they are low on CHG. (Their departure would have preceded the heavy influx of late copper/bronze age CHG into the steppe)
> 
> - why they suddenly began to move northwest when Yamna proper expanded.
> ...


What about this as a possible source of L51 instead?

Los Millares participated in the continental trends of Megalithism and the Beaker culture. Analysis of occupation material and grave goods from the Los Millares cemetery of 70 _tholos tombs with port-hole slabs has led archaeologists to suggest that the people who lived at Los Millares were part of a stratified, unequal society which was often at war with its neighbours. 

_Los Millares was also responsible for the earliest copper metallurgy in Western Europe, which was something that can clearly be linked to R1b L23. Also, its tholos tombs clearly point to an East Mediterranean origin.

----------


## hrvclv

> Isn't it just much simpler that L51 has nothing to do with Yamnaya or the Steppe in the first place? It surely isn't a coincidence that the Hungarian L51 was found amongst heavily Steppe Z2103, with the obvious answer being that this area is roughly at the boundary between the L51 and Z2103 worlds (one from the West, the other from the East). I recently spoke to a Danish researcher, and he actually goes so far as to claim that the reason Z2103 seems to dominate Yamnaya and not L51 is that L51 folk were part of the "losing tribe" that was beaten by Z2103 and had to search elsewhere for their glory. Where is the archaeological evidence of this? But, let's go with the pre-Yamnaya Steppe hypothesis of a L51 migration into Europe - why is it, then, that the most archaic subclades of L51 are found among the Western Mediterranean islands, with but a trace in the Balkans? And why is it also that L51 is clearly related to the expansion of Beaker pottery across Europe, which for a Steppe hypothesis would require that L51 arrived in Central Europe surely no earlier than 3000 BCE (and presumably centuries later), unless L51 just remained hidden for over a thousand years. And what about the fact that it seems pretty obvious that a lot of the Middle Eastern Z2103 is not of Steppe origin - this would mean that Z2103 and L51 couldn't have split on the Steppe. A lot doesn't make sense with the Yamnaya theory, which is pretty much just based on "I see Steppe signal among Yamnaya, I see the first signs of L51 associated with Steppe signal, I think L51 from Yamnaya".


Well... the one obvious objection remains... the language. As said above, centum to satem is a one way street. How can one explain the fact that an R1b population in west (central?) Europe might have bequeathed its language to steppe people, from there to R1a populations, which in turn would have carried it all the way to India ?

In Cucuteni, you find loads of G2a, I2a, even J. Where are the R ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well... the one obvious objection remains... the language. As said above, centum to satem is a one way street. How can one explain the fact that an R1b population in west (central?) Europe might have bequeathed its language to steppe people, from there to R1a populations, which in turn would have carried it all the way to India ?
> 
> In Cucuteni, you find loads of G2a, I2a, even J. Where are the R ?


Well, there's two potential solutions - the language is of Corded Ware origin, or Indo-European languages (ignoring Anatolian languages, which is a whole different debate) are ultimately not from the Steppe. I lean towards the former solution heavily. Satemisation would happen later on, on the Steppe, potentially as here (von Bradke's hypothesis; controversial). 

All Western IE languages derive from U152 and U106 groups - the only two Central European L51 subclades. I do not think this is a coincidence - this is the meeting point between BB and CWC.

And I'm not sure what you mean when talking about Cucuteni. As regarding the Balkans, I see it as the main breeding ground of R1b folk since the Epigravettian period (neatly explaining things like Villabruna being R1b - Epigravettian is in pink by the way, whereas Solutrean is in red). I think M269 originated in the Balkans, and that it spread into the Middle East with the very first Chalcolithic cultures (Vinca, Halaf etc.). I think that hierarchies with a farmer peasant class and a metallurgical/pastoral elite class were present during this expansion. L23 would form somewhere in West Asia, and I think, from somewhere in West Asia, pre-Z2103 and pre-L51 split, with what would become L51 going by sea to Southern Iberia and what would become Z2103 continuing on in West Asia (both in search for metals). Z2103 would later go up into the Steppe (Yamnaya etc. - potentially for their flocks), whereas L51 would later expand across Europe as part of the Beaker complex.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, there's two potential solutions - the language is of Corded Ware origin, or Indo-European languages (ignoring Anatolian languages, which is a whole different debate) are ultimately not from the Steppe. I lean towards the former solution heavily. Satemisation would happen later on, on the Steppe, potentially as here (von Bradke's hypothesis; controversial). 
> 
> All Western IE languages derive from U152 and U106 groups - the only two Central European L51 subclades. I do not think this is a coincidence - this is the meeting point between BB and CWC.
> 
> And I'm not sure what you mean when talking about Cucuteni. As regarding the Balkans, I see it as the main breeding ground of R1b folk since the Epigravettian period (neatly explaining things like Villabruna being R1b - Epigravettian is in pink by the way, whereas Solutrean is in red). I think M269 originated in the Balkans, and that it spread into the Middle East with the very first Chalcolithic cultures (Vinca, Halaf etc.). I think that hierarchies with a farmer peasant class and a metallurgical/pastoral elite class were present during this expansion. L23 would form somewhere in West Asia, and I think, from somewhere in West Asia, pre-Z2103 and pre-L51 split, with what would become L51 going by sea to Southern Iberia and what would become Z2103 continuing on in West Asia (both in search for metals). Z2103 would later go up into the Steppe (Yamnaya etc. - potentially for their flocks), whereas L51 would later expand across Europe as part of the Beaker complex.


Ok but the problem here is that you show your distrust about Yamnaya only to give credit to CWC ( wich does way less sense ). This means, your mistrust about Yamnaya have nothing to do with datas, both genetic and archeological, but more with a kind of bias. So what's the problem, would you mind to tell us why is Yamnaya so... irrelevent?

----------


## hrvclv

@Tobe : 

_"Well, there's two potential solutions - the language is of Corded Ware origin, or Indo-European languages (ignoring Anatolian languages, which is a whole different debate) are ultimately not from the Steppe. I lean towards the former solution heavily. Satemisation would happen later on, on the Steppe, potentially as here (von Bradke's hypothesis; controversial).

All Western IE languages derive from U152 and U106 groups - the only two Central European L51 subclades. I do not think this is a coincidence - this is the meeting point between BB and CWC."_

So the arrival of L51 in CW territory - which incidentally coincides with the "beginning of the end" of the CWC , implying a degree of violence - would have been accompanied by the adoption of the losers' language by the winners ? 

Almost simultaneously, the (necessarily) Centum language of those western CW would have turned satem on its way to Sintashta, a daughter culture ?

In the meantime, further to the east, the Tokharians (likely descending from the Afanasievo Culture, which predates Sintashta/Andronovo) would have gone on with a Centum language which shows affinities with Germanic, ancient Greek, and Italo-Celtic ?

I find it hard to reconcile those facts...

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> @Tobe : 
> 
> _"Well, there's two potential solutions - the language is of Corded Ware origin, or Indo-European languages (ignoring Anatolian languages, which is a whole different debate) are ultimately not from the Steppe. I lean towards the former solution heavily. Satemisation would happen later on, on the Steppe, potentially as here (von Bradke's hypothesis; controversial).
> 
> All Western IE languages derive from U152 and U106 groups - the only two Central European L51 subclades. I do not think this is a coincidence - this is the meeting point between BB and CWC."_
> 
> So the arrival of L51 in CW territory - which incidentally coincides with the "beginning of the end" of the CWC , implying a degree of violence - would have been accompanied by the adoption of the losers' language by the winners ? 
> 
> Almost simultaneously, the (necessarily) Centum language of those western CW would have turned satem on its way to Sintashta, a daughter culture ?
> ...


People have speculated about, for example with the Basques, the invaders being "absent parents" or something of the sort - I don't see why this line of reasoning is so impossible to apply here too, with Corded-derived women raising the kids. The Beaker folk are known to have assimilated into many different cultures they stumbled across, so it isn't so unlikely. And, the satemisation step has to happen at some point no? Why not at a later date on the Steppe? It certainly makes a lot of sense when you consider the more "modern" IE languages are the very ones that are satem, and the folk that spoke these languages probably left the Steppe at a relatively late date.

This actually is in perfect harmony with the Tocharians, who would not have been of late Steppe origin, but would have departed early on. There is no contradiction here - satemisation = late Steppe innovation.

Oh, and another thing - Afanasievo probably introduced metallurgy to China (just another consideration with the obvious R1b-metallurgy link).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Ok but the problem here is that you show your distrust about Yamnaya only to give credit to CWC ( wich does way less sense ). This means, your mistrust about Yamnaya have nothing to do with datas, both genetic and archeological, but more with a kind of bias. So what's the problem, would you mind to tell us why is Yamnaya so... irrelevent?


I don't think that L51 came from the Steppe. I think most of (or at least a lot of) the Steppe admix among Central Euro-derived Beaker folk was inherited through admixture with Steppe-rich females. The only real candidate is the Corded Ware culture, since Yamnaya only made it to the Balkans (and I think L51 spread across Europe from the West). Then there's also the point about phenotypes, but that becomes less scientific.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I don't think that L51 came from the Steppe. I think most of (or at least a lot of) the Steppe admix among Central Euro-derived Beaker folk was inherited through admixture with Steppe-rich females. The only real candidate is the Corded Ware culture, since Yamnaya only made it to the Balkans (and I think L51 spread across Europe from the West). Then there's also the point about phenotypes, but that becomes less scientific.


Do you think L51 came originally from the Balkans? And where did it spread? First from the Balkans to Iberia or Southwestern Europe more broadly and later on an eastward expansion toward Central Europe? What cultures would've been associated with this process, what's the archeological trace from the Balkans to the first BB in Iberia, and would it have preced the Bronze Age (you talked about these people being associated with the spread of the Chalcolithic technology)? I'm not sure I'm following you. Early Bronze Age Vucedol samples in the western Balkans, near Italy and Austria, were found to be R1b and were probably an extension of autosomal Steppe BA expansion. I see no reason to believe that it is more likely that R1b-L51, closely related to Z2103 and split from it a mere 500-1000 years earlier, would be found in and spread from Iberia more than somewhere in the Balkans, where the Yamnaya-like steppe ancestry entered very, very soon (initial waves beginning as early as the Late Neolithic).

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Well... the one obvious objection remains... the language. As said above, centum to satem is a one way street. How can one explain the fact that an R1b population in west (central?) Europe might have bequeathed its language to steppe people, from there to R1a populations, which in turn would have carried it all the way to India ?
> 
> ....



hrvclv....
If one is to believe now krause, Reich, and most relevant "et al" that PIE is 4900bc south caucasus does it not explain everything? If arriving (loaded CHG) to steppe via mountains spoke PIE and arriving population to Balkans via north Anatolia spoke PIE and both (Cousins) meet up via north caucasus 1000 years (or less or more) later? ... 
And if pockets of remaining people speaking PIE in south caucasus (Darmaware?, others?) as we see even in north Iran does it not explain a lot? 

Which part of what I said does not add up?

----------


## Ygorcs

> I know I keep harping on this, but... have you guys read this ?
> 
> https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on-...amna-settlers/
> 
> The article proposes that L51 in Hungary came early from a Late Repin / early- or pre-Yamna culture still light in CHG. They would have made room for themselves in the Hungarian plain, and would have been displaced by the arrival en masse of later Yamna men. They would then have moved north and west into Bell Beaker territory, along routes some of them had perhaps already explored (?).
> 
> I find the arguments very convincing.


Into BB territory? As late as that? So what would've been the main Y-DNA haplogroups of these earlier Bell Beakers before the arrival of L51? All the BB outside Iberia have been found to have significant steppe ancestry and R1b as their main haplogroup. Would that have happened only after the arrival of L51, without any big change in the BB culture? I don't think I understood this point.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Do you think L51 came originally from the Balkans? And where did it spread? First from the Balkans to Iberia or Southwestern Europe more broadly and later on an eastward expansion toward Central Europe? What cultures would've been associated with this process, what's the archeological trace from the Balkans to the first BB in Iberia, and would it have preced the Bronze Age (you talked about these people being associated with the spread of the Chalcolithic technology)? I'm not sure I'm following you. Early Bronze Age Vucedol samples in the western Balkans, near Italy and Austria, were found to be R1b and were probably an extension of autosomal Steppe BA expansion. I see no reason to believe that it is more likely that R1b-L51, closely related to Z2103 and split from it a mere 500-1000 years earlier, would be found in and spread from Iberia more than somewhere in the Balkans, where the Yamnaya-like steppe ancestry entered very, very soon (initial waves beginning as early as the Late Neolithic).


I think pre-L51 originated somewhere in the East Med region - I cannot give much more precision than that. At the moment, I'd suspect a West Asian origin, rather than a Balkan origin. I think L51 was part of the maritime spread of copper metallurgy to Southern Iberia. I think a culture associated with this would be the Los Millares culture (one of the first and most important Chalcolithic cultures in Western Europe). The historical trace, besides that of the obvious spread of copper metallurgy, can be seen in a variety of ways (ancient L51 lineages in West Med islands, tholos tombs that indicate East Med origins etc. - nobody doubts Los Millares had Eastern influences, and I see those influences as being from L51). I think this would have preceded the Bronze Age (which was spread by the Argaric culture - no idea about this, potentially J2).

I don't believe L51 and Z2103 split on the Steppe - I think Steppe Z2103 is ultimately of West Asian origin. When I say West Asian, I mean Northern West Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Northern Syria/Iraq etc.) and definitely not anything like Arabia. And it isn't so far fetched to see the related clades of L51 and Z2103 in Iberia and the Steppe if you were to consider a West Asian origin.

Note: I don't necessarily believe that L51 formed in West Asia - just that the split that would lead to L51 and Z2103 occurred in West Asia. The L51 mutation probably would have occurred in the Western Med. region (Spain, France, West Med islands).

----------


## hrvclv

> Into BB territory? As late as that? So what would've been the main Y-DNA haplogroups of these earlier Bell Beakers before the arrival of L51? All the BB outside Iberia have been found to have significant steppe ancestry and R1b as their main haplogroup. Would that have happened only after the arrival of L51, without any big change in the BB culture? I don't think I understood this point.


They may have arrived earlier. I don't know. I have to rely on the samples available on the Umap and Homeland maps. (Too lazy to go through the whole litterature, I am afraid !). Those samples are all contemporaneous with BB.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Well... the one obvious objection remains.
> 
> In Cucuteni, you find loads of G2a, I2a, even J. Where are the R ?


... And if one looks to the specific period for south balkans, bellow is the Mathieson et al 2017 samples. Remember, second half 5th millennium...
Unfortunally not a big resolution in terms of subclades... but R for sure. This is, amongst others, the people I say were arriving PIE to balkans at same time PIE was arriving to Steppe.... 



Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier
Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic1
I2181
R
HV15
6453
4550-4455 calBCE
Smyadovo
Bulgaria
M

Balkans_Chalcolithic
Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic
I2430
R1b1a
K1a26
6448
4545-4450 calBCE
Smyadovo
Bulgaria
M

Balkans_Chalcolithic
Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic
I2423
..
H
6388
4520-4356 calBCE
Smyadovo
Bulgaria
F

Balkans_Chalcolithic
Bulgaria_Late_Chalcolithic
I2424
..
U4a
6304
4448-4260 calBCE
Smyadovo
Bulgaria
F

----------


## halfalp

> I think L51 originated somewhere in the East Med region - I cannot give much more precision than that. At the moment, I'd suspect a West Asian origin, rather than a Balkan origin. I think L51 was part of the maritime spread of copper metallurgy to Southern Iberia. I think a culture associated with this would be the Los Millares culture (one of the first and most important Chalcolithic cultures in Western Europe). The historical trace, besides that of the obvious spread of copper metallurgy, can be seen in a variety of ways (ancient L51 lineages in West Med islands, tholos tombs that indicate East Med origins etc. - nobody doubts Los Millares had Eastern influences, and I see those influences as being from L51). I think this would have preceded the Bronze Age (which was spread by the Argaric culture - no idea about this, potentially J2).
> 
> I don't believe L51 and Z2103 split on the Steppe - I think Steppe Z2103 is ultimately of West Asian origin. When I say West Asian, I mean Northern West Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Northern Syria/Iraq etc.) and definitely not anything like Arabia. And it isn't so far fetched to see the related clades of L51 and Z2103 in Iberia and the Steppe if you were to consider a West Asian origin.


Yes ok, R1b and R1a came from Middle-East those old theories that are only link with the ethnic origin of the people who believe it. STEPPE doesn't have Basal Eurasian. Balkans_HG doesn't Basal Eurasian. Villabruna doesn't have Basal Eurasian. The R1b basal forms that you know from middle-east, all came ultimately from the Balkans. The first people with Basal Eurasian to came into Europe were EEF / ANF population. Do you dont have an intuition now? Do you are still skeptical? Oh yeah CHG, intersting enough.

----------


## Ygorcs

> They may have arrived earlier. I don't know. I have to rely on the samples available on the Umap and Homeland maps. (Too lazy to go through the whole litterature, I am afraid !). Those samples are all contemporaneous with BB.


Oh I see. IMO Central European BB should probably be just the result of these mostly L51 males (and their women, but not nearly as many) mixing with mainly EEF and with the Yamnaya-like (with extra EEF) CWC populations of Central/Central-Western Europe, and eventually receiving strong influence (maybe also genetic, but mostly cultural) from the mainly EEF Bell Beaker pioneers of Iberia.

----------


## hrvclv

> hrvclv....
> If one is to believe now krause, Reich, and most relevant "et al" that PIE is 4900bc south caucasus does it not explain everything? If arriving (loaded CHG) to steppe via mountains spoke PIE and arriving population to Balkans via north Anatolia spoke PIE and both (Cousins) meet up via north caucasus 1000 years (or less or more) later? ... 
> And if pockets of remaining people speaking PIE in south caucasus (Darmaware?, others?) as we see even in north Iran does it not explain a lot? 
> 
> Which part of what I said does not add up?


I don't exclude a possible "Kurdish route" for *some*  R1b to the steppe. We all have the Hajji Firuz sample in mind.

However, you also find 4 R1b samples in Mariupol in 5500 - 4800 BC, an R1 in Narva (same dates), an R1b1a in Samara in 5600 BC... all of them on the steppe before 4900 BC (plus expansion time).

If PIE was a CHG language taken to the steppe across the Caucasus, and west across Anatolia (a hypothesis that makes sense), then how come the cultures dominated by haplogroup J, like the Minoans, are known to have spoken non-IE languages ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes ok, R1b and R1a came from Middle-East those old theories that are only link with the ethnic origin of the people who believe it. STEPPE doesn't have Basal Eurasian. Balkans_HG doesn't Basal Eurasian. Villabruna doesn't have Basal Eurasian. The R1b basal forms that you know from middle-east, all came ultimately from the Balkans. The first people with Basal Eurasian to came into Europe were EEF / ANF population. Do you dont have an intuition now? Do you are still skeptical? Oh yeah CHG, intersting enough.


Jesus - where do I say most of that? And I thought I could sound stupid online sometimes...

----------


## hrvclv

> Oh I see. IMO Central European BB should probably be just the result of these mostly L51 males (and their women, but not nearly as many) mixing with mainly EEF and with the Yamnaya-like (with extra EEF) CWC populations of Central/Central-Western Europe, and eventually receiving strong influence (maybe also genetic, but mostly cultural) from the mainly EEF Bell Beaker pioneers of Iberia.


Yes. That's exactly the hypothesis I have been defending in my posts upthread.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I don't exclude a possible "Kurdish route" for *some*  R1b to the steppe. We all have the Hajji Firuz sample in mind.
> 
> However, you also find 4 R1b samples in Mariupol in 5500 - 4800 BC, an R1 in Narva (same dates), an R1b1a in Samara in 5600 BC... all of them on the steppe before 4900 BC (plus expansion time).
> 
> If PIE was a CHG language taken to the steppe across the Caucasus, and west across Anatolia (a hypothesis that makes sense), then how come the cultures dominated by haplogroup J, like the Minoans, are known to have spoken non-IE languages ?


Because Shulaveri-Shomu :P

But just on your mention of Hajji Firuz (and I don't really trust that sample btw...) - do you really think all Z2103 in the Middle East was spread by Indo-Europeans? I mean, there's a damn lot of it to have been spread into a hugely densely populated Middle East which was never heavily IE as a whole.

There are apparently two main branches of Z2103 (according to Eupedia) - one that exists from Eastern Europe to India (clearly of Steppe origin), and another limited to West Asia (not of Steppe origin). Surely that is more consistent with a Middle Eastern origin of Z2103 that later moved up to the Steppes more than any other hypothesis, right?

----------


## halfalp

> Jesus - where do I say most of that? And I thought I could sound stupid online sometimes...


You do sound stupid effectively. If R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 were from the Middle-East, we would see Basal Eurasian in their population.

----------


## hrvclv

> ... And if one looks to the specific period for south balkans, bellow is the Mathieson et al 2017 samples. Remember, second half 5th millennium...
> Unfortunally not a big resolution in terms of subclades... but R for sure. This is, amongst others, the people I say were arriving PIE to balkans at same time PIE was arriving to Steppe....


Yes. But you also have one R*, one R1, one R1b1a near Belgrade in 7000 BC. Those mesolithic people, isolated in an ocean of G2a, I2a, and J1, can hardly be supposed to have much to do with the coherent movements (of genes and language) from the Pontic Steppe that can be described at later dates. They were most probably wandering HG tribes or outlier R1b who had come along with the "farmers".

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think pre-L51 originated somewhere in the East Med region - I cannot give much more precision than that. At the moment, I'd suspect a West Asian origin, rather than a Balkan origin. I think L51 was part of the maritime spread of copper metallurgy to Southern Iberia. I think a culture associated with this would be the Los Millares culture (one of the first and most important Chalcolithic cultures in Western Europe). The historical trace, besides that of the obvious spread of copper metallurgy, can be seen in a variety of ways (ancient L51 lineages in West Med islands, tholos tombs that indicate East Med origins etc. - nobody doubts Los Millares had Eastern influences, and I see those influences as being from L51). I think this would have preceded the Bronze Age (which was spread by the Argaric culture - no idea about this, potentially J2).
> 
> I don't believe L51 and Z2103 split on the Steppe - I think Steppe Z2103 is ultimately of West Asian origin. When I say West Asian, I mean Northern West Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Northern Syria/Iraq etc.) and definitely not anything like Arabia. And it isn't so far fetched to see the related clades of L51 and Z2103 in Iberia and the Steppe if you were to consider a West Asian origin.
> 
> Note: I don't necessarily believe that L51 formed in West Asia - just that the split that would lead to L51 and Z2103 occurred in West Asia. The L51 mutation probably would have occurred in the Western Med. region (Spain, France, West Med islands).


I see. So, what would be the autosomal mark of these pre-L51 & Z2103 R1b people from West Asia? What admixture did they contribute to spread and is supposed to have expanded to both Chalcolithic Iberia and Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe, as well as its original West Asian homeland? CHG? EHG is not a possibility considering it's not found in any such early people from Iberia or from West Asia. If R1b-L23 was originally linked to CHG, can we see a significant increase in CHG (but without corresponding increase of EHG, since L51 supposedly did not arrive in Western Europe from the steppes, nor even the Balkans) in Chalcolithic Iberia and early Bronze Age Western Europe?

----------


## halfalp

Oh yeah another Shulaveri-Shomu fan boy, coincidence or reptilian conspiracy? You talking about R1b-Z2103 coming from South Caucasus is reminescent of all people that said in the past and even today that R1a-Z93 came from India.

----------


## halfalp

So many people have been misslead by Underhill and Haak over the years. Or maybe all samples that we have from prehistoric Iran, Armenia and North Caucasus with 0 R1a and the most obscure R1b ever, were just not the good proxy, they hide somewhere where we cannot found them, those snakes.

----------


## halfalp

> Yes. But you also have one R*, one R1, one R1b1a near Belgrade in 7000 BC. Those mesolithic people, isolated in an ocean of G2a, I2a, and J1, can hardly be supposed to have much to do with the coherent movements (of genes and language) from the Pontic Steppe that can be described at later dates. They were most probably wandering HG tribes or outlier R1b who had come along with the "farmers".


We have R1* from prehistoric Balkans, Romania, Baltic and Russia, but they dont count for a lot of people, strangely.

----------


## halfalp

> I see. So, what would be the autosomal mark of these pre-L51 & Z2103 R1b people from West Asia? What admixture did they contribute to spread and is supposed to have expanded to both Chalcolithic Iberia and Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe, as well as its original West Asian homeland? CHG? EHG is not a possibility considering it's not found in any such early people from Iberia or from West Asia. If R1b-L23 was originally linked to CHG, can we see a significant increase in CHG (but without corresponding increase of EHG, since L51 supposedly did not arrive in Western Europe from the steppes, nor even the Balkans) in Chalcolithic Iberia and early Bronze Age Western Europe?


I think what he wants to tell you is that R1b-M269 was in Middle-East, that R1b-Z2103 roam from there in the Pontic Steppe and that R1b-L51 roam into Africa and then after Iberia and reexpand from there with Bell Beaker into central europe.

----------


## hrvclv

> We have R1* from prehistoric Balkans, Romania, Baltic and Russia, but they dont count for a lot of people, strangely.


So... ? What do you conclude ? (No irony - just a plain honest question)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Oh yeah another Shulaveri-Shomu fan boy, coincidence or reptilian conspiracy? You talking about R1b-Z2103 coming from South Caucasus is reminescent of all people that said in the past and even today that R1a-Z93 came from India.


God you are a moron and I'm not bothering anymore - I was being sarcastic about Shulaveri.

----------


## halfalp

> So... ? What do you conclude ? (No irony - just a plain honest question)


I conclude that R1 is related with Afontova Gora 3 and was in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia already in the Paleolithic.

----------


## halfalp

> God you are a moron and I'm not bothering anymore - I was being sarcastic about Shulaveri.


It effectively sounded sarcastic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I see. So, what would be the autosomal mark of these pre-L51 & Z2103 R1b people from West Asia? What admixture did they contribute to spread and is supposed to have expanded to both Chalcolithic Iberia and Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian Steppe, as well as its original West Asian homeland? CHG? EHG is not a possibility considering it's not found in any such early people from Iberia or from West Asia. If R1b-L23 was originally linked to CHG, can we see a significant increase in CHG (but without corresponding increase of EHG, since L51 supposedly did not arrive in Western Europe from the steppes, nor even the Balkans) in Chalcolithic Iberia and early Bronze Age Western Europe?


I think autosomal analysis is imprecise in identifying particular sources at particular proportions, but that being said as I've mentioned I think the Steppe-like admixture (so, EHG and CHG) would have primarily come from a Corded source. Seeing as we haven't found L51 dissociated from Steppe admixture, I can't answer that question with confidence, however I would suspect that (in "my" hypothesis) L51 had a small amount of Steppe like admixture from the get go, given there has for a long long (way way before Yamnaya, for example) time been Steppe-like admix in the Balkans, which is where I think M269 expanded out from. I would guess pre-Corded admixed L51 would be some kind of HG-farmer mix, which really isn't narrowing things down at all, but given the idea of expansion from the Balkans (crossroads between WHG and EHG) and later expansion from West Asia (crossroads between Anatolian and Iranian farmers), without more data I can't do much better.

But the fundamental questions I've posed cannot, so far as I've seen at least, be answered by the Yamnaya guys (where did L51 come from, if its modern distribution and distribution of archaic subclades are Western; if all Western IE are descended from U106 and U152 only (the only Central Euro L51); and other points that I've mentioned throughout this really long and hard to keep track of thread)

----------


## hrvclv

> I conclude that R1 is related with Afontova Gora 3 and was in Eastern Europe / Western Siberia already in the Paleolithic.


Sure... but you could have quoted Ust'-Ishim just the same. It hardly helps to establish what happened in the last 45,000 years. Disappointed. I thought you had a point to make.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I don't exclude a possible "Kurdish route" for *some*  R1b to the steppe. We all have the Hajji Firuz sample in mind.
> 
> However, you also find 4 R1b samples in Mariupol in 5500 - 4800 BC, an R1 in Narva (same dates), an R1b1a in Samara in 5600 BC... all of them on the steppe before 4900 BC (plus expansion time).
> 
> If PIE was a CHG language taken to the steppe across the Caucasus, and west across Anatolia (a hypothesis that makes sense), then how come the cultures dominated by haplogroup J, like the Minoans, are known to have spoken non-IE languages ?


a. Associate PIE to CHG (or other) is a mistake. PIE success must have been because it was a very broad, everything encompassing, holistic in its entirety.... so the language of the marvelous Shulaveri : ) , because they were very diverse in their way of live. Most studying them got confused. Some were Transhumance ( like the one Z2103 in Hajji Firuz) from Armenia, some villages completely artisan, some villages completely agricultural, some as we now know _Hydraulic engineers_ diverging rivers... and even the western Georgia ones more fisher and hunters. Yet they all shared the same cultural traits.... that made their language so complete and successful. their language explain everything.

b. to better explain your question on the minoan - not that its not 100% clear that Linear B is not IE. But Look at it this way: That Z2103 guy spoke PIE (or close to it) but the J2a there with him didn't (he was just teaching them to make wine) . When whatever came from the east Caspian or/and Iran or and Mesopotamia kick them out and made the Kura-araxes and Leyla Tepe and Uruks and Maykops...kick them both. Some might have spoke PIE and others fleeing other routes might not. Lets even say, that the J2a living near the Caspian and big lakes knew how to make nice boats to flee by the sea when needed and the R1b-L23...didnt really so went by land :)

Look... it will turn out a very complex picture and a very elaborate caleidoscope of nuances of how people really moved around, that at this early stages we only have a few dots ... we are making too much lines based on too little dots. It really needs to be somewhat wrong, no matter what one says.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> God you are a moron and I'm not bothering anymore - I was being sarcastic about Shulaveri.


:)
lol.He really doesn't get it.

----------


## halfalp

> Sure... but you could have quoted Ust'-Ishim just the same. It hardly helps to establish what happened in the last 45,000 years. Disappointed. I thought you had a point to make.


Ust-Ishim and Afontova Gora have nothing to do.

----------


## hrvclv

> Ust-Ishim and Afontova Gora have nothing to do.


Sure. What I meant was, if you refer to the depths of the paleolithic, you don't prove much in terms of where L51 originated.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Sure. What I meant was, if you refer to the depths of the paleolithic, you don't prove much in terms of where L51 originated.


Do you still believe in a Steppe origin of L51 by the way?

----------


## Ygorcs

> Yes. But you also have one R*, one R1, one R1b1a near Belgrade in 7000 BC. Those mesolithic people, isolated in an ocean of G2a, I2a, and J1, can hardly be supposed to have much to do with the coherent movements (of genes and language) from the Pontic Steppe that can be described at later dates. They were most probably wandering HG tribes or outlier R1b who had come along with the "farmers".


IMHO it's clearer and clearer that R1b was, before the Neolithic, mainly a North Eurasian lineage. There was the earliest R1b in Villabruna, R1b in the Mesolithic Balkans and Early Neolithic Spain. Anyway, none of them belonged to R1b-M269, and when we start to see downstream subclades of M269 in the aDNA record we see them mostly in Eastern Europe or near the Caucasus, again broadly in North Eurasia.

----------


## hrvclv

> a. Associate PIE to CHG (or other) is a mistake. PIE success must have been because it was a very broad, everything encompassing, holistic in its entirety.... so the language of the marvelous Shulaveri : ) , because they were very diverse in their way of live. Most studying them got confused. Some were Transhumance ( like the one Z2103 in Hajji Firuz) from Armenia, some villages completely artisan, some villages completely agricultural, some as we now know _Hydraulic engineers_ diverging rivers... and even the western Georgia ones more fisher and hunters. Yet they all shared the same cultural traits.... that made their language so complete and successful. their language explain everything.
> 
> b. to better explain your question on the minoan - not that its not 100% clear that Linear B is not IE. But Look at it this way: That Z2103 guy spoke PIE (or close to it) but the J2a there with him didn't (he was just teaching them to make wine) . When whatever came from the east Caspian or/and Iran or and Mesopotamia kick them out and made the Kura-araxes and Leyla Tepe and Uruks and Maykops...kick them both. Some might have spoke PIE and others fleeing other routes might not. Lets even say, that the J2a living near the Caspian and big lakes knew how to make nice boats to flee by the sea when needed and the R1b-L23...didnt really so went by land :)
> 
> Look... it will turn out a very complex picture and a very elaborate caleidoscope of nuances of how people really moved around, that at this early stages we only have a few dots ... we are making too much lines based on too little dots. It really needs to be somewhat wrong, no matter what one says.


OK, but it's hard to keep track of those L23 across Anatolia, even if we allow for some space between the "dots". 

And if J2a left when "whatever came from the east" arrived, then there shouldn't have been lots of J2a in Kura-Araxes and neighbouring areas and cultures afterwards. Did some J2a replace other J2a ?

To get back on track (L51), isn't it simpler to "follow the clades" downstream from place to place, using the data we do have? L23 on the steppe, L51 on the Danube, L11 in Bohemia, U106 south of the Baltic, P312 heading west, L21 ending up in Britain, U152 around the Alps, DF27 in Iberia, all of it chronologically and geographically coherent?

There may of course have been parallel, alternative migrations we don't know of. In fact, I'm sure there were, and many of them. But we shouldn't fail to see the forest for the sake of one lone tree.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> IMHO it's clearer and clearer that R1b was, before the Neolithic, mainly a North Eurasian lineage. There was the earliest R1b in Villabruna, R1b in the Mesolithic Balkans and Early Neolithic Spain. Anyway, none of them belonged to R1b-M269, and when we start to see downstream subclades of M269 in the aDNA record we see them mostly in Eastern Europe or near the Caucasus, again broadly in North Eurasia.


What about the variance of M269 indicating a Balkan origin? I know this methodology has its flaws, but you'd surely think not so here given M269's immense age. Matches up with this map too:

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> OK, but it's hard to keep track of those L23 across Anatolia, even if we allow for some space between the "dots". 
> 
> And if J2a left when "whatever came from the east" arrived, then there shouldn't have been lots of J2a in Kura-Araxes and neighbouring areas and cultures afterwards. Did some J2a replace other J2a ?
> 
> To get back on track (L51), isn't it simpler to "follow the clades" downstream from place to place, using the data we do have? L23 on the steppe, L51 on the Danube, L11 in Bohemia, U106 south of the Baltic, P312 heading west, L21 ending up in Britain, U152 around the Alps, DF27 in Iberia, all of it chronologically and geographically coherent?
> 
> There may of course have been parallel, alternative migrations we don't know of. In fact, I'm sure there were, and many of them. But we shouldn't fail to see the forest for the sake of one lone tree.


Do we have L23* on the Steppe? The earliest subclades off of L23 are in West Asia (lots of Armenians)

----------


## hrvclv

> Do you still believe in a Steppe origin of L51 by the way?


Yes, I do. Too much steppe in them to come from anywhere else. I agree you guys have made interesting points, but I think you fail to look at things the way they are. Forgive the blunt wording, but I find you tend to pick on exceptions to stray from the obvious.

Anyway, it's past bedtime where I belong. It was nice talking to you all. Too bad we are so far apart. It would have been nice to chat away on such matters over a glass of something strong. Bye for now.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, I do. Too much steppe in them to come from anywhere else. I agree you guys have made interesting points, but I think you fail to look at things the way they are. Forgive the blunt wording, but I find you tend to pick on exceptions to stray from the obvious.
> 
> Anyway, it's past bedtime where I belong. It was nice talking to you all. Too bad we are so far apart. It would have been nice to chat away on such matters over a glass of something strong. Bye for now.


It's only an hour earlier for me! But yeah, see you later.

(*cough* Steppe admixture from Corded Ware *cough*)

----------


## Ygorcs

> What about the variance of M269 indicating a Balkan origin? I know this methodology has its flaws, but you'd surely think not so here given M269's immense age. Matches up with this map too:


Well, I'd say if this is true then it corresponds well with what I told above: R1b was a North Eurasian . Europe as a whole is part of North Eurasia (the southernmost parts of the continent are as far north as North China) and is directly linked to North Asia with no major and insurmountable barrier (the steppes, even the Urals are not that big a barrier). Even the northern part of West Asia (Caucasus, Black Sea coast, Caspian coast etc.) is an easily reached from North Eurasia. 

As for R1b-M269 minus L23 being more concentrated on the Balkans, as you know these inferences are a bit flawed, we can't just presume that the most ancient population carrying the upstream clades of a haplogroup never got completely extinct or completely displaced from their original homeland (I'd say, though, that usually this kind of study allows us to at least establish the broad region where the haplogroup came from, in this case broadly Eastern Europe). I do not dispute that is likely. 

But in any case I was talking about R1b as a whole, not such a downstream and specific subclade and M269. I have no strong opinion about the origin of M269, but I'd say, yes, somewhere between the Balkans and the Caspian Sea region (I know, a huge area, but my best guess until more specific data are brought to the table). 

However, unlike you, I do believe that L23 in its latest stage before splitting into L51 and Z2103 existed first on the steppes, or at least east of the Carpathians. And I think that all of that happened _before_ the Copper Age and still in early Neolithic or even Mesolithic times, with L51 and Z2103 becoming two different lineages (probably far apart from each other, but still in the same broad region) in the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. I think these two populations were similar (not identical) autosomally, probably some mix of EHG, CHG and a little EEF, because the Caucasus paper found the "usual" EHG+CHG mix in Pontic-Caspian samples as early as the Early Chalcolithic (estimated 4200 BC). 

I see Indo-European languages being spread by both L51 and Z2103 tribes, and I just cannot for now believe in an origin of undivided PIE any earlier than ~4500-4000 BCE, roughly the time when L51 and Z2103 are already supposed to have been distinct lineages. I think the idea these L51 people adopted their centum and in many aspects "archaic" Northwest IE language from the CWC (who are probably associated with the appearance of satem Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian centuries later), mixing to form the BB, quite hard to accept. The innovative characteristics of satem languages had probably already developed by the mid Bronze Age, and we'd expect Celto-Italic to be much closer to Balto-Slavic than they are (some glottochronology methods estimated their split to as early as ~3300-3100 BC IIRC).

----------


## halfalp

> Sure. What I meant was, if you refer to the depths of the paleolithic, you don't prove much in terms of where L51 originated.


Well i talked about R1 in paleolithic, not about L-51.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, I'd say if this is true then it corresponds well with what I told above: R1b was a North Eurasian . Europe as a whole is part of North Eurasia (the southernmost parts of the continent are as far north as North China) and is directly linked to North Asia with no major and insurmountable barrier (the steppes, even the Urals are not that big a barrier). Even the northern part of West Asia (Caucasus, Black Sea coast, Caspian coast etc.) is an easily reached from North Eurasia. 
> 
> As for R1b-M269 minus L23 being more concentrated on the Balkans, as you know these inferences are a bit flawed, we can't just presume that the most ancient population carrying the upstream clades of a haplogroup never got completely extinct or completely displaced from their original homeland (I'd say, though, that usually this kind of study allows us to at least establish the broad region where the haplogroup came from, in this case broadly Eastern Europe). I do not dispute that is likely. 
> 
> But in any case I was talking about R1b as a whole, not such a downstream and specific subclade and M269. I have no strong opinion about the origin of M269, but I'd say, yes, somewhere between the Balkans and the Caspian Sea region (I know, a huge area, but my best guess until more specific data are brought to the table). 
> 
> However, unlike you, I do believe that L23 in its latest stage before splitting into L51 and Z2103 existed first on the steppes, or at least east of the Carpathians. And I think that all of that happened _before_ the Copper Age and still in early Neolithic or even Mesolithic times, with L51 and Z2103 becoming two different lineages (probably far apart from each other, but still in the same broad region) in the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. I think these two populations were similar (not identical) autosomally, probably some mix of EHG, CHG and a little EEF, because the Caucasus paper found the "usual" EHG+CHG mix in Pontic-Caspian samples as early as the Early Chalcolithic (estimated 4200 BC). 
> 
> I see Indo-European languages being spread by both L51 and Z2103 tribes, and I just cannot for now believe in an origin of undivided PIE any earlier than ~4500-4000 BCE, roughly the time when L51 and Z2103 are already supposed to have been distinct lineages. I think the idea these L51 people adopted their centum and in many aspects "archaic" Northwest IE language from the CWC (who are probably associated with the appearance of satem Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian centuries later), mixing to form the BB, quite hard to accept. The innovative characteristics of satem languages had probably already developed by the mid Bronze Age, and we'd expect Celto-Italic to be much closer to Balto-Slavic than they are (some glottochronology methods estimated their split to as early as ~3300-3100 BC IIRC).


All that you say is pretty much what i believe. That's funny that in all papers, we always have some obscure R1b samples ( R1b-V88 in balkans and russian wtf ) but never the one we really want cf R1b-M269 / R1b-L51. If we look at the phylogenetic tree of R1b. M-269 father R1b-P297 is in prehistoric Baltic and Eastern Europe as a whole and the brother, R1b-M478 looks mainly like a Central Asian lineage ( it was found in Botai ). What are the odds that the father and the brother are north eurasian and that the latter is south eurasian? The same story goes with L51, the father L23 and the brother Z2103 are north eurasians, why the brother would be south eurasian? Isn't that funny that L23 and Z2103 in anatolia are always saying to be here before yamnaya ( for odd reasons ) but that nobody imagine it could be remnants of original IE Anatolians? Sometimes i feel people have so much bias, they cannot reason wisely. Look at Yamnaya, full R1b, 60% EHG, 40% CHG. Those are actually very interesting numbers. If R1b was 100% CHG and coming from lets saying Armenia into the Pontic Steppe, Yamnaya would be 80% CHG, something 10% EHG and other southern admixture, it would be basically Maikop with R1b. But the 40% are still very big, too big, too big for a demic migration who didn't let any lineage in the pontic steppe. So as you already previously mentioned a lot of times, we can deduce that CHG in north eurasia predate probably even the neolithic, i might even say that, EHG and CHG might predate or be contemporary with WHG. It make sense, Dzudzuana had both Basal Eurasian and ANE, so north and south would already exchange dna this early south and north of the caucasus. EHG doesn't have basal eurasian, so it came not from the south, but CHG have, so it is transitional with the north and the south. I think future samples of paleolithic central asia and easter europe gonna reveal us some interesting surprises, things we didn't assume until now, i'm particularly interested in mtdna U4 in a paleolithic context.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well, I'd say if this is true then it corresponds well with what I told above: R1b was a North Eurasian . Europe as a whole is part of North Eurasia (the southernmost parts of the continent are as far north as North China) and is directly linked to North Asia with no major and insurmountable barrier (the steppes, even the Urals are not that big a barrier). Even the northern part of West Asia (Caucasus, Black Sea coast, Caspian coast etc.) is an easily reached from North Eurasia. 
> 
> As for R1b-M269 minus L23 being more concentrated on the Balkans, as you know these inferences are a bit flawed, we can't just presume that the most ancient population carrying the upstream clades of a haplogroup never got completely extinct or completely displaced from their original homeland (I'd say, though, that usually this kind of study allows us to at least establish the broad region where the haplogroup came from, in this case broadly Eastern Europe). I do not dispute that is likely. 
> 
> But in any case I was talking about R1b as a whole, not such a downstream and specific subclade and M269. I have no strong opinion about the origin of M269, but I'd say, yes, somewhere between the Balkans and the Caspian Sea region (I know, a huge area, but my best guess until more specific data are brought to the table). 
> 
> However, unlike you, I do believe that L23 in its latest stage before splitting into L51 and Z2103 existed first on the steppes, or at least east of the Carpathians. And I think that all of that happened _before_ the Copper Age and still in early Neolithic or even Mesolithic times, with L51 and Z2103 becoming two different lineages (probably far apart from each other, but still in the same broad region) in the transition from the Late Neolithic to the Chalcolithic. I think these two populations were similar (not identical) autosomally, probably some mix of EHG, CHG and a little EEF, because the Caucasus paper found the "usual" EHG+CHG mix in Pontic-Caspian samples as early as the Early Chalcolithic (estimated 4200 BC). 
> 
> I see Indo-European languages being spread by both L51 and Z2103 tribes, and I just cannot for now believe in an origin of undivided PIE any earlier than ~4500-4000 BCE, roughly the time when L51 and Z2103 are already supposed to have been distinct lineages. I think the idea these L51 people adopted their centum and in many aspects "archaic" Northwest IE language from the CWC (who are probably associated with the appearance of satem Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian centuries later), mixing to form the BB, quite hard to accept. The innovative characteristics of satem languages had probably already developed by the mid Bronze Age, and we'd expect Celto-Italic to be much closer to Balto-Slavic than they are (some glottochronology methods estimated their split to as early as ~3300-3100 BC IIRC).


That's fair enough, I guess we just disagree, and hopefully aDNA will solve this dispute. I think the points about Y DNA being somewhat inconsistent with Steppe L51 and Yamnaya not being all Z2103 can't be answered as of yet (which is where most of my argument comes from). But yeah, wait for aDNA.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> OK, but it's hard to keep track of those L23 across Anatolia, even if we allow for some space between the "dots". 
> 
> And if J2a left when "whatever came from the east" arrived, then there shouldn't have been lots of J2a in Kura-Araxes and neighboring areas and cultures afterwards. Did some J2a replace other J2a ?


Who are asking questions to follow “error detection” regarding thing happening 7000 years ago. Any answer would be as smart or as dumb as the next one.
Kura Araxes was more that 1000 years after the arrival of that people from “elsewhere”. Maybe Kura Araxes was the J2a that stayed and Minoan the J2a that left… over3000 years before. Do you see the time space of dots??




> To get back on track (L51), isn't it simpler to "follow the clades" downstream from place to place, using the data we do have? L23 on the steppe, L51 on the Danube, L11 in Bohemia, U106 south of the Baltic, P312 heading west, L21 ending up in Britain, U152 around the Alps, DF27 in Iberia, all of it chronologically and geographically coherent?


Might be right. However all those samples are tremendously bias by:

Cold (cold places preserve Dna) and they really wanted DNA and not failures upon failures. Just take the Indian samples and the problems is creating.Bias by the money of the USA and german Universities/researchers that really really wanted to prove right their, lets call it , inclinations….




> There may of course have been parallel, alternative migrations we don't know of. In fact, I'm sure there were, and many of them. But we shouldn't fail to see the forest for the sake of one lone tree.


We will see. For years it was taunted the mantra of PIE from the steppe.... until whatever really fast made them change their tune.

----------


## markod

You are wasting your time with these debates  :Grin:  

Too bad most authors don't bother to look much into Y-DNA haplogroups, but the M269 in ATP3 would be worth investigating. He does have an excess of HG ancestry. I'd think if the data allowed for a higher resolution there'd be a good chance he's L51 or close. 

If that's not the case then an origin in Yamnaya Hungary/Croatia is more likely.
'

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> You are wasting your time with these debates  
> 
> Too bad most authors don't bother to look much into Y-DNA haplogroups, but the M269 in ATP3 would be worth investigating. He does have an excess of HG ancestry. I'd think if the data allowed for a higher resolution there'd be a good chance he's L51 or close. 
> 
> If that's not the case then an origin in Yamnaya Hungary/Croatia is more likely.
> '


I agree concerning ATP3, HOWEVER even if he doesn't end up being L51 that doesn't automatically mean the origin is in Danubian Yamnaya - that's not how it works. What you would need to effectively prove the Danubian Yamnaya hypothesis is ancient L51 in its territory.

L51 maritime hypothesis come onnnnnnnn!

(Sorry about that)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> You are wasting your time with these debates  
> 
> Too bad most authors don't bother to look much into Y-DNA haplogroups, but the M269 in ATP3 would be worth investigating. He does have an excess of HG ancestry. I'd think if the data allowed for a higher resolution there'd be a good chance he's L51 or close. 
> 
> If that's not the case then an origin in Yamnaya Hungary/Croatia is more likely.
> '


By the way, do we know what subclades of R1b the Native Americans belong to. It is literally criminal and suspect that that hasn't been studied in further detail.

----------


## markod

> By the way, do we know what subclades of R1b the Native Americans belong to. It is literally criminal and suspect that that hasn't been studied in further detail.



This hasn't been investigated much because there was no pre-Columbian R1b if that's what you mean. If there was it would stand out like a sore thumb due to the long time of divergence.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> This hasn't been investigated much because there was no pre-Columbian R1b if that's what you mean. If there was it would stand out like a sore thumb due to the long time of divergence.


I think there is pre-Columbian R1b ;) And yeah, it would stick out if investigated.

But I'm perfectly willing to accept that this has way less evidence than my maritime L51 theory (not "mine" at all, but you get the point).

But, I mean, red Caucasoid hair and swastikas and shit like that has to come from somewhere. Perhaps it came from ANE-like ancestry, but I think it came from the West not the East (with respect to the Americas)

----------


## Olympus Mons

> You are wasting your time with these debates  
> 
> Too bad most authors don't bother to look much into Y-DNA haplogroups, but the M269 in ATP3 would be worth investigating. He does have an excess of HG ancestry. I'd think if the data allowed for a higher resolution there'd be a good chance he's L51 or close. 
> 
> If that's not the case then an origin in Yamnaya Hungary/Croatia is more likely.
> '



Hi. how do you know about the increase in HG?

and.... I bet you, I truly bet you.... if not as *a descendent of ATP3* then L51 *is not* Croatia/HUngary Yamnaya (3500bc?), b*ut Romania/bulgaria* as a* Boian/Gulmenita* (4300BC).

----------


## Pygmalion

> Other than some of the El Algar artifacts, is there a big presence of, say, Minoan or Mycenaean ware?


No, there's not a big presence, to be precise there's zero evidence of Minoan or Mycenaean presence during the El Argar period. When the first mycenaen pots reached Iberia in the 14th century bc, the El Argar citadels had already long been abandoned, they were abandoned around 1550 bc, that is, when the Mycenaean culture was still in its very initial phase (protomycenaean). Furthermore there's no trace of Minoan presence whatsoever in Iberia, if I remember correctly there are no cretan or mycenaean artifacts in the Western Mediterranean at all outside of maybe Apulia before the 14th century bc, either way I'm sure there's zero in Iberia before that date.

----------


## markod

> Hi. how do you know about the increase in HG?
> 
> and.... I bet you, I truly bet you.... if not as *a descendent of ATP3* then L51 *is not* Croatia/HUngary Yamnaya (3500bc?), b*ut Romania/bulgaria Boian/Gulmenita* (4300BC).


Because he pulls away from earlier EEFs in the PCAs I've seen, consistent with other Copper Age / Late Neolithic samples from Northern Spain. In general it seems Northern Spain seems to have a peak of HG ancestry that cannot be explained by direct admixture from Villabruna/Bichon etc., so it's more mysterious . This can be seen when one tries to model moderns as mixtures of ancient samples:



Note also the large affinity in the Canary Islands (IIRC inhabitants trace up to 30% of their DNA to the indigenous people) - much higher than in Central Europe, let alone the Balkans where it almost disappears. This is probably the signature of some differentiated HGs that lived in Western Europe and northern Africa at some point.

----------


## Olympus Mons

MarkoD...now I remember. Thank you.

----------


## halfalp

La brana is from El Miron Cluster, therefore it is related with Goyet, with some Villabruna, but therefore it is closer to Tianyuan than Villabruna. It's subtile.

----------


## Ygorcs

> That's fair enough, I guess we just disagree, and hopefully aDNA will solve this dispute. I think the points about Y DNA being somewhat inconsistent with Steppe L51 and Yamnaya not being all Z2103 can't be answered as of yet (which is where most of my argument comes from). But yeah, wait for aDNA.


Yeah, ultimately we are all just speculating here, at best making some well informed "guesstimates". We need more aDNA to be able to really support this or that hypothesis more strongly. I'm glad you, like me, sound open-minded to an eventual change in your view about what really happened as we get to know more about these ancient population via aDNA.

----------


## MOESAN

@Markod
Sorry, but I don't see how you interpret the above maps: the Villabruna sharing seems (to me) the highest in Basques (higher than in Balts and Estonia on the map) and it's not so low around; lokk at AG3 too. Or I miss something? It's true it's not central to the present topic (someHG's are before supposed 'steppes', other after them.

----------


## halfalp

There is also a point that i think a lot of people minimize but i do believe its a reality fact. Geneticians sometimes have samples with enough genetic material to give us y-dna and mtdna haplogroups, but they dont do it, why? I dont think the reason is because " they try to hide us the truth ". I think, geneticians are scientists and you cannot have a " big sample " but not an history that goes with. It's very possible that they already have some M269 and L51, but they dont want to out it, because it needs to enter into a paper, that will teach us a story. One exemple of this is Sidelkino, our oldest EHG sample wich turns out to be a male wich Carlos Quiles consider it have enough genetic material to give us the y-dna haplogroup but they didn't. We cannot really blame them.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yeah, ultimately we are all just speculating here, at best making some well informed "guesstimates". We need more aDNA to be able to really support this or that hypothesis more strongly. I'm glad you, like me, sound open-minded to an eventual change in your view about what really happened as we get to know more about these ancient population via aDNA.


Yup - if there's L51 on the Steppe during the copper age or earlier, that would settle a Steppe origin for me, no questions asked (but this would also be the case for finding it somewhere in the west med in terms of confirming the maritime hypothesis (and that could have been ATP3, which was about 5500 ybp and M269 in iberia, funnily enough with elevated Armenian-like ancestry)).

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Yup - if there's L51 on the Steppe during the copper age or earlier, that would settle a Steppe origin for me, no questions asked (but this would also be the case for finding it somewhere in the west med in terms of confirming the maritime hypothesis (and that could have been ATP3, which was about 5500 ybp and M269 in iberia, funnily enough with elevated Armenian-like ancestry)).


Elevated Armenian. +!?!
You're pulling my leg, right? What do you call Armenian?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Elevated Armenian. +!?!
> You're pulling my leg, right? What do you call Armenian?


Haha I knew youd react like this. Just google ATP3 Eupedia, its the top suggestion 

Also, ignore that other sample with African admix

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

This is what maciamo said about ATP3 (though its basically Chalcolithic, not truly Neolithic):

*ATP3 (3516-3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.

With its 32% of Caucaso-Gedrosian, 14% of Northern European ancestry, 6% of European Hunter-Gatherer and 3.8% of Veddoid, it does indeed look as if ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry, but with a higher proportion of northern Middle Eastern and Veddoid than Yamna samples. In other words it could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period. But if so, how did his lineage not get more admixed along the way ? Neolithic farmers all over Europe were overwhelmingly (and often exclusively) Southern-European in admixture.*

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Its yet more evidence for the maritime L51 theory (I mean, M269 in Iberia that early is a pretty bloody gigantic giveaway, people tried to explain it away by saying this was jus a lucky lineage, Im serious...), but as I mentioned in that thread not a killing blow, as they didnt test for L51 (which is criminal). So for now, L51s origin is still open for debate.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Haha I knew you�d react like this. Just google �ATP3 Eupedia�, it�s the top suggestion 
> 
> Also, ignore that other sample with African admix


AhAHAH.. yes. I immediately react. I must have missed that thread... I don't even go there. It would probably make my expectations sky rocket. I always knew that Shulaveri 90% probability I was right, but from there on it would be downhill. actually I would say:

_- 5000bc - Shulaveri (90% probability as M269/L23) 
- 4900bc - Kuban river and into steppe (90%)
- 4800 bc - Tell tsaf Israel (60%)
- 4700bc - Merinde beni salama in Egypt (60%)
- 3600bc - Arriving Iberia chalc (50%) or even 40%)
_
So, having a ATP3 with that admix, so pretty much a Shulaveri descendant guy, it would really boast that 30% to something much higher. 
Sure, some can say, look its not Shulaverian/Merimde (Egypt) but actually Shulaverian/Boian (80% prob). I agree. Since we have even Otzi sharing so much ancestry with Kum6. Yes, Pretty possible it was South Caucasus-Balkans-North Italy-Sardinia-Iberia…. Hence him being in north Iberia (Not south).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> AhAHAH.. yes. I immediately react. I must have missed that thread... I don't even go there. It would probably make my expectations sky rocket. I always knew that Shulaveri 90% probability I was right, but from there on it would be downhill. actually I would say:
> 
> _- 5000bc - Shulaveri (90% probability as M269/L23) 
> - 4800 bc - Tell tsaf (60%)
> - 4700bc - Merinde beni salama (50%)
> - 3600bc - Arriving Iberia chalc (40%) or even 30%)
> _
> So, having a ATP3 with that admix, so pretty much a Shulaveri guy, it would really boast that 30% to something much higher. 
> Sure, some can say, look its not Shulaverian/Merimde (Egypt) but actually Shulaverian/Boian (80% prob). I agree. Since we have even Otzi sharing so much ancestry with Kum6. Yes, Pretty possible it was South Caucasus-Balkans-North Italy-Sardinia-Iberia…. Hence him being in north Iberia (Not south).


I can't say I agree with how certain you sound concerning the identities of the different cultures that L51 would have been part of on its way to Iberia, but about a broad West Asian origin, I'd agree. Shulaveri-Shomu is also pretty interesting, to be fair, and I largely agree with your hypothesis that Shulaveri is related to the pre-PIE folk from the South Caucasus, however I don't know whether I'd also consider it ancestral to L51 folk as well as Z2103 folk (I'd probably guess a Syro-Anatolian origin of the people that would later sail to Spain and become L51, with direct access to the Mediterranean, rather than a more distant Caucasian origin)

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I can't say I agree with how certain you sound concerning the identities of the different cultures that L51 would have been part of on its way to Iberia, but about a broad West Asian origin, I'd agree. Shulaveri-Shomu is also pretty interesting, to be fair, and I largely agree with your hypothesis that Shulaveri is related to the pre-PIE folk from the South Caucasus, however I don't know whether I'd also consider it ancestral to L51 folk as well as Z2103 folk (I'd probably guess a Syro-Anatolian origin of the people that would later sail to Spain and become L51, with direct access to the Mediterranean, rather than a more distant Caucasian origin)


No... it had to be them. Halaf as a distance hypothesis but cant really imagine anyone else. 
And I don't believe in Martime route. Still find it strange that if north Africa was plain, highway, full of resources, water, grass, etc. how come people don't really think it as THE route to Iberia. But yes. could be elsewhere. Who knows.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> *No... it had to be them.* Halaf as a distance hypothesis but cant really imagine anyone else. 
> And I don't believe in Martime route. Still find it strange that if north Africa was plain, highway, full of resources, water, grass, etc. how come people don't really think it as THE route to Iberia. But yes. *could be elsewhere. Who knows.*


Thanks for correcting yourself before I had to :P

----------


## halfalp

> Keep in mind that David Reich probably has a huge database of unpublished samples. I think if there was any evidence that L51 was in the west he'd probably adapt his views to fit the facts.
> 
> I used to be convinced L51 diversified in LN/Chalcolithic Western Europe, but if it isn't there then modern phylogeographic diversity might be a result of large-scale population replacement. 
> 
> Irrespective of this, it will still be interesting to see where and why steppe males became L51, having been exclusively Z2103 previously. Vucedol and Hungarian Yamnaya still seem to have been Z2103 dominated. The TMRCA of 3700 B. C. and the 'Mediterranean' distribution of basal L51 clades do look weird and not very consistent with Yamnaya expansion for sure.


Maybe some of those hypothetic unpublished L51 samples were conserved for an hypothetic paper of peopling and prehistoric Italy.  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Thanks for correcting yourself before I had to :P


All a matter of probability...
And what Syro-anatolian are you thinking about?

----------


## Olympus Mons

I was watching David Reich here :https://youtu.be/fHdCuhYRHqo?t=2825

a. It strikes me as odd that he keeps referring Bell beakers origins in spain. Does he not know that it was in Portugal? Not that being important (same region I guess), unless for the fact that the places (Zambujal, VNSP and Oeiras, etc) were particular (by fortresses) and that we have no DNA for that people. We know that when we have spain samples (near Madrid, or south) is already with elements that we find in Centra Europe as well. Its just strange. To be 100% sure, only when we have proper bell beakers from that region we will know for sure.

b. Also at minute 42 he talks of Dravidian as somewhat related to IE... so even in linguistica they are changing the tune for a *PIE in south Caucasus* , I guess.

----------


## halfalp

He doesn't change or create anything, he just narrate a story with hypothesis that already existed. I think a perfect exemple that most of us already quoted is the sudden use in " high standard " academic of an old ( 30 years old ) italian paper about potential Anatolians proper names and an hypothetic city Armi. Why unearth an obscure paper like this, to feet an actual paper or hypothesis? People, especially people who tend without reasoning to destroy everything that is " religious " tend to lack criticizm on people who use science at their own will. Every scientists wants to do " the " discovery that gonna ciment them in history, it's a fact, Harvard have hundreds of collaborators and everybody needs a piece of the cake, that we want to see it or not. But anyway, you cannot really fake history, most governements who used propaganda knows it.

----------


## Ygorcs

> This is what maciamo said about ATP3 (though it�s basically Chalcolithic, not truly Neolithic):
> 
> *ATP3 (3516-3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.
> 
> With its 32% of Caucaso-Gedrosian, 14% of Northern European ancestry, 6% of European Hunter-Gatherer and 3.8% of Veddoid, it does indeed look as if ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry, but with a higher proportion of northern Middle Eastern and Veddoid than Yamna samples. In other words it could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period. But if so, how did his lineage not get more admixed along the way ? Neolithic farmers all over Europe were overwhelmingly (and often exclusively) Southern-European in admixture.*


I honestly did not understand Maciamo's point in this post you used as a reference. Let's see: how could a pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269 lineage migrate and settle along many generations as far as Iberia, however maintain a high proportion of Northern European ancestry if he had really been a mix of the local Iberians with these Anatolian R1b cattle herders? Would this Northern European admixture have come on its own - without the mixed steppe pastoralists - to Iberia _(unlikely, no significant evidence of EHG or SHG-like in Western Europe, let alone Iberia before the Chalcolithic AFAIK)_? Would it be present in Anatolia since the earlier Neolithic, even before the formation of the earliest PIE community _(until now not even as late as the Bronze Age did any Anatolian sample show a hint of EHG)_? Considering that there should've been dozens of generations between the R1b-M269 ancestor and this ATP3, I find it much more likely that he had a genetic history in his family in which there had been mixing between Caucasian-influenced Anatolian migrants (maybe part of the waves that also defined Pre-Hellenic Greece and Minoan Crete), Eastern European migrants from the steppe (or near the steppe), and the local EEF elements. It's just weird, unless we haven't found the "right" samples in Neolithic Anatolia, that the IBERIAN (not Ukrainian or Romanian) descendant of a supposed "R1b-M269 pastoralist population" would be so high in a Northern European admixture - unless this R1b-M269 population did not come directly from Anatolia, but from somewhere in Eastern Europe or so.

For instance, the Mycenean Greeks had more "Caucasian" than "Northern European" admixture, but that does not mean that their earlier ancestors also had these exact proportions. Those people may simply have descended from two different lineages, one already mixed with Caucasian admixture and the other already much more enriched in Caucasian admixture _(as was probably the case in Mycenaean Greece)_.

----------


## Ygorcs

> There is also a point that i think a lot of people minimize but i do believe its a reality fact. Geneticians sometimes have samples with enough genetic material to give us y-dna and mtdna haplogroups, but they dont do it, why? I dont think the reason is because " they try to hide us the truth ". I think, geneticians are scientists and you cannot have a " big sample " but not an history that goes with. It's very possible that they already have some M269 and L51, but they dont want to out it, because it needs to enter into a paper, that will teach us a story. One exemple of this is Sidelkino, our oldest EHG sample wich turns out to be a male wich Carlos Quiles consider it have enough genetic material to give us the y-dna haplogroup but they didn't. We cannot really blame them.


That makes sense. I doubt they'd release a certain finding about Y-DNA, Mt-DNA or autosomal admixture without any proper context and a "story" that can not just be convincing, but also preferably create some buzz (on academic and also mediatic levels). It's then much better to present some data combined with other data that they hope they will be able to get to present a wholesome narrative with a clearer conclusion, not just some sparse data.

----------


## halfalp

> That makes sense. I doubt they'd release a certain finding about Y-DNA, Mt-DNA or autosomal admixture without any proper context and a "story" that can not just be convincing, but also preferably create some buzz (on academic and also mediatic levels). It's then much better to present some data combined with other data that they hope they will be able to get to present a wholesome narrative with a clearer conclusion, not just some sparse data.


Yep. I cannot stop thinking to that hypothetic big paper i drsm about, Anatolia with like 100 samples of 10'000 years of difference. The dream.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I honestly did not understand Maciamo's point in this post you used as a reference. Let's see: how could a pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269 lineage migrate and settle along many generations as far as Iberia, however maintain a high proportion of Northern European ancestry if he had really been a mix of the local Iberians with these Anatolian R1b cattle herders? Would this Northern European admixture have come on its own - without the mixed steppe pastoralists - to Iberia _(unlikely, no significant evidence of EHG or SHG-like in Western Europe, let alone Iberia before the Chalcolithic AFAIK)_? Would it be present in Anatolia since the earlier Neolithic, even before the formation of the earliest PIE community _(until now not even as late as the Bronze Age did any Anatolian sample show a hint of EHG)_? Considering that there should've been dozens of generations between the R1b-M269 ancestor and this ATP3, I find it much more likely that he had a genetic history in his family in which there had been mixing between Caucasian-influenced Anatolian migrants (maybe part of the waves that also defined Pre-Hellenic Greece and Minoan Crete), Eastern European migrants from the steppe (or near the steppe), and the local EEF elements. It's just weird, unless we haven't found the "right" samples in Neolithic Anatolia, that the IBERIAN (not Ukrainian or Romanian) descendant of a supposed "R1b-M269 pastoralist population" would be so high in a Northern European admixture - unless this R1b-M269 population did not come directly from Anatolia, but from somewhere in Eastern Europe or so.
> 
> For instance, the Mycenean Greeks had more "Caucasian" than "Northern European" admixture, but that does not mean that their earlier ancestors also had these exact proportions. Those people may simply have descended from two different lineages, one already mixed with Caucasian admixture and the other already much more enriched in Caucasian admixture _(as was probably the case in Mycenaean Greece)_.


Not a satisfactory response, but assuming that sample and its calculator are accurate (which I doubt, but broadly so, probably), then it's best to just look at it as roughly 20% European (of sorts, probably Eastern/South-Eastern Europe). With an initial expansion from the Balkans to Anatolia (and West Asia more broadly), and in the likely accurate hypothesis that this tribe would be domineering and involve itself in caste-systems of sorts, 20% doesn't seem that high a number to me (if you were to assume it were originally closer to 100% in its Balkan homeland). The high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry is of course compatible with this Balkans to West Asia to Iberia hypothesis, as is the high Mediterranean ancestry.

As very minor evidence of this expansion could potentially be the mtDNA U4 found from the Halaf culture, perhaps, but I can't find where I originally saw that (it was definitely found in Syria during the later Sumer period around 5000 ybp, though - I've been able to find that (U4a2b specifically)).

----------


## halfalp

There was an U4a sample from Mari in the Jane Manco tables.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> There was an U4a sample from Mari in the Jane Manco tables.


U4 is basically the definitive EHG mtDNA - seeing that in West Asia that long ago (before any IE invasion surely) is evidence enough to me of an East Euro presence at some point (that being said, you could argue this was carried by R1b-V88 instead of my theory, but I don't think it is that likely R1b-V88 ever had a large enough presence to account for finding this).

----------


## halfalp

> U4 is basically the definitive EHG mtDNA - seeing that in West Asia that long ago (before any IE invasion surely) is evidence enough to me of an East Euro presence at some point (that being said, you could argue this was carried by R1b-V88 instead of my theory, but I don't think it is that likely R1b-V88 ever had a large enough presence to account for finding this).


Well im currently thinking that U4 could be linked witz CHG. But everyone his thing.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> I honestly did not understand Maciamo's point in this post you used as a reference. Let's see: how could a pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269 lineage migrate and settle along many generations as far as Iberia, however maintain a high proportion of Northern European ancestry if he had really been a mix of the local Iberians with these Anatolian R1b cattle herders? Would this Northern European admixture have come on its own - without the mixed steppe pastoralists - to Iberia _(unlikely, no significant evidence of EHG or SHG-like in Western Europe, let alone Iberia before the Chalcolithic AFAIK)_? Would it be present in Anatolia since the earlier Neolithic, even before the formation of the earliest PIE community _(until now not even as late as the Bronze Age did any Anatolian sample show a hint of EHG)_? Considering that there should've been dozens of generations between the R1b-M269 ancestor and this ATP3, I find it much more likely that he had a genetic history in his family in which there had been mixing between Caucasian-influenced Anatolian migrants (maybe part of the waves that also defined Pre-Hellenic Greece and Minoan Crete), Eastern European migrants from the steppe (or near the steppe), and the local EEF elements. It's just weird, unless we haven't found the "right" samples in Neolithic Anatolia, that the IBERIAN (not Ukrainian or Romanian) descendant of a supposed "R1b-M269 pastoralist population" would be so high in a Northern European admixture - unless this R1b-M269 population did not come directly from Anatolia, but from somewhere in Eastern Europe or so.
> 
> For instance, the Mycenean Greeks had more "Caucasian" than "Northern European" admixture, but that does not mean that their earlier ancestors also had these exact proportions. Those people may simply have descended from two different lineages, one already mixed with Caucasian admixture and the other already much more enriched in Caucasian admixture _(as was probably the case in Mycenaean Greece)_.


I think he's just saying that the M269 group could have split in or near the Caucasus and thus shared the same "_pre_-Indo-European" ancestry. ATP3 could have walked to Iberia (although sailing would have been a lot easier). A single outlier or small group, however, is unlikely to be responsible for a major continent-wide language shift - that would take a full-scale migration (the so-called Bell Beaker "reflux"), it seems to me.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think he's just saying that the M269 group could have split in or near the Caucasus and thus shared the same "_pre_-Indo-European" ancestry. ATP3 could have walked to Iberia (although sailing would have been a lot easier). A single outlier or small group, however, is unlikely to be responsible for a major continent-wide language shift - that would take a full-scale migration (the so-called Bell Beaker "reflux"), it seems to me.


Yeah, I can get that proposition, but I still find it hard to believe that that sample, if it had indeed come from Anatolia or the Southern Caucasus, would arrive in Iberia - probably not the first generation, but a descendant of those migrants - still carrrying 14% of Northern European ancestry, when virtually no "North European" (I presume EHG-enriched?) admixture has been found south of the Caucasus even as late as the Bronze Age (and dozens of samples have already been analyzed). I doubt that Northern European would have come to Iberia on its own without any relation to the steppe migrations that started to happen as late as the Chalcolithic. I remember that some of the Mycenaean samples had more CHG than EHG, probably resulting from a mix between mainly CHG with mixed CHG/EHG people. I don't think it's unlikely that this ATP3 with more Caucasian than Northern European admixture could result from a somewhat similar mixing, but much earlier (maybe in the Balkans? Even Neolithic samples already had some steppe-related admixture).

----------


## markod

> Yeah, I can get that proposition, but I still find it hard to believe that that sample, if it had indeed come from Anatolia or the Southern Caucasus, would arrive in Iberia - probably not the first generation, but a descendant of those migrants - still carrrying 14% of Northern European ancestry, when virtually no "North European" (I presume EHG-enriched?) admixture has been found south of the Caucasus even as late as the Bronze Age (and dozens of samples have already been analyzed). I doubt that Northern European would have come to Iberia on its own without any relation to the steppe migrations that started to happen as late as the Chalcolithic. I remember that some of the Mycenaean samples had more CHG than EHG, probably resulting from a mix between mainly CHG with mixed CHG/EHG people. I don't think it's unlikely that this ATP3 with more Caucasian than Northern European admixture could result from a somewhat similar mixing, but much earlier (maybe in the Balkans? Even Neolithic samples already had some steppe-related admixture).


In those tests Villabruna ancestry usually gets assigned to the North European cluster as well.

----------


## Aaron1981

> I think he's just saying that the M269 group could have split in or near the Caucasus and thus shared the same "_pre_-Indo-European" ancestry. ATP3 could have walked to Iberia (although sailing would have been a lot easier). A single outlier or small group, however, is unlikely to be responsible for a major continent-wide language shift - that would take a full-scale migration (the so-called Bell Beaker "reflux"), it seems to me.


ATP3 isn't even M269, at least it's certainly not agreed upon and wasn't reported in the paper. You might as well scrap that last straw there.

----------


## Pip

> ATP3 isn't even M269, at least it's certainly not agreed upon and wasn't reported in the paper. You might as well scrap that last straw there.


ATP3 has positive calls at every tested developmental stage of M269 - A00, A0, A1b, BT, CT, F, GHIJK, K, R, R1, R-P297 and R-M269. It also has an autosomal mix that resembles West Balkan R-Z2103 more than anything else, yet precedes Balkan Z2103. Certainly, from the data available, I can think of no identity more likely for it than basal Z2103, basal L23 or a dead end branch of basal L51.

Autosomally, it is starkly different to its Iberian contemporaries, and appears to be an entirely new arrival. Within a few hundred years, its EHG component had become largely absent from other samples at the same location. It looks most like a brief foray from East Europeans into Northern Spain - a branch of L23 that either died out or subsequently retreated elsewhere. It also provides a possible explanation for where R1b could have picked up some Bell Beaker traits.

However, this was 3,400 BC, not 2,500 BC, and at this stage it looks more like it was the Yamna men that were wiped out by Iberian men, rather than the other way round. And from what I have seen, the Yamna-like DNA only seemed to return in any quantity several hundred years after 2,500 BC, during the Bronze Age.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> ATP3 has positive calls at every tested developmental stage of M269 - A00, A0, A1b, BT, CT, F, GHIJK, K, R, R1, R-P297 and R-M269. It also has an autosomal mix that resembles West Balkan R-Z2103 more than anything else, yet precedes Balkan Z2103. Certainly, from the data available, I can think of no identity more likely for it than basal Z2103, basal L23 or a dead end branch of basal L51.
> 
> Autosomally, it is starkly different to its Iberian contemporaries, and appears to be an entirely new arrival. Within a few hundred years, its EHG component had become largely absent from other samples at the same location. It looks most like a brief foray from East Europeans into Northern Spain - a branch of L23 that either died out or subsequently retreated elsewhere. It also provides a possible explanation for where R1b could have picked up some Bell Beaker traits.
> 
> However, this was 3,400 BC, not 2,500 BC, and at this stage it looks more like it was the Yamna men that were wiped out by Iberian men, rather than the other way round. And from what I have seen, the Yamna-like DNA only seemed to return in any quantity several hundred years after 2,500 BC, during the Bronze Age.


Why must they have been wiped out by the Iberians? For one thing, we don't have any samples during that period in France, but also I'll again refer to the Los Millares culture:

_"_Los Millares participated in the continental trends of Megalithism and the Beaker culture. Analysis of occupation material and grave goods from the Los Millares cemetery of 70 _tholos tombs with port-hole slabs has led archaeologists to suggest that the people who lived at Los Millares were part of a stratified, unequal society which was_ *often at war with its neighbours*_."_

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> ATP3 has positive calls at every tested developmental stage of M269 - A00, A0, A1b, BT, CT, F, GHIJK, K, R, R1, R-P297 and R-M269. It also has an autosomal mix that resembles West Balkan R-Z2103 more than anything else, yet precedes Balkan Z2103. Certainly, from the data available, I can think of no identity more likely for it than basal Z2103, basal L23 or a dead end branch of basal L51.
> 
> Autosomally, it is starkly different to its Iberian contemporaries, and appears to be an entirely new arrival. Within a few hundred years, its EHG component had become largely absent from other samples at the same location. It looks most like a brief foray from East Europeans into Northern Spain - a branch of L23 that either died out or subsequently retreated elsewhere. It also provides a possible explanation for where R1b could have picked up some Bell Beaker traits.
> 
> However, this was 3,400 BC, not 2,500 BC, and at this stage it looks more like it was the Yamna men that were wiped out by Iberian men, rather than the other way round. And from what I have seen, the Yamna-like DNA only seemed to return in any quantity several hundred years after 2,500 BC, during the Bronze Age.


Does ATP3 really look Steppe? Or could it better be modelled as Iron Gates (perhaps with some extra EHG - it already had some) + Chalcolithic Anatolian-like admix (+ some EEF-like admix from Spanish locals)? That mimics the path I think L51 took, from M269 in the Balkans to L23 in West Asia, to L51 in Franco-Iberia.

It seems that people put any combination of EHG and CHG in any proportion down to Steppe ancestry. Perhaps M269 was originally Steppe, as it is very old, but still.

----------


## Pip

> Why must they have been wiped out by the Iberians? For one thing, we don't have any samples during that period in France, but also I'll again refer to the Los Millares culture:
> 
> _"_Los Millares participated in the continental trends of Megalithism and the Beaker culture. Analysis of occupation material and grave goods from the Los Millares cemetery of 70 _tholos tombs with port-hole slabs has led archaeologists to suggest that the people who lived at Los Millares were part of a stratified, unequal society which was_ *often at war with its neighbours*_."_


It is not that they must have been wiped out by the Iberians. It is merely that, given the data, this is a more likely scenario than that the Iberians were wiped out by them.

Given the data, the most likely scenario is that they (or a closely related group) retreated to somewhere more beneficial to them. They could have been ancestors of early French L51, or more likely South Central European Z2103.

----------


## Pip

> Does ATP3 really look Steppe? Or could it better be modelled as Iron Gates (perhaps with some extra EHG - it already had some) + Chalcolithic Anatolian-like admix (+ some EEF-like admix from Spanish locals)? That mimics the path I think L51 took, from M269 in the Balkans to L23 in West Asia, to L51 in Franco-Iberia.
> 
> It seems that people put any combination of EHG and CHG in any proportion down to Steppe ancestry. Perhaps M269 was originally Steppe, as it is very old, but still.


The closest I have seen to ATP3 is Croatian Vucedol Z2103 - I would not say core Steppe, but most likely South East European (Steppe fringe) ancestrally.
The formation path of surviving L51 looks most likely Poland-Balkans-Cucuteni-Upper Danube-North Alps-North France. Yes, quite similar to European Z2103. But both look early - some time mid-4th millennium BC, long before the main Bell Beaker expansions.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The closest I have seen to ATP3 is Croatian Vucedol Z2103 - I would not say core Steppe, but most likely South East European (Steppe fringe) ancestrally.
> The formation path of surviving L51 looks most likely Poland-Balkans-Cucuteni-Upper Danube-North Alps-North France. Yes, quite similar to European Z2103. But both look early - some time mid-4th millennium BC, long before the main Bell Beaker expansions.


Well I suppose that is possible, but I think given the earlier branches of L23 are in West Asia, it's more likely that the split between Z2103 and L51 was from that region - which leaves only the Mediterranean hypothesis for early entry of L51 into Iberia. This is of course consistent with some branches of Z2103 later colonising the Steppe and forming Yamnaya.

----------


## Pip

Yes, I agree your hypothesis is a significant possibility, although the factors suggesting an overland route are:
1. There is a lot of core EHG in early L51 and Western Z2103, and a strong similarity to R1a-M417, suggesting a more Northerly point of origin
2. The best fit for early L51's mtDNA is heavily Cucuteni and with a significant element of Neolithic Paris Basin
3. L51 Bell Beaker's yDNA branches coalesce to an estimated origin point in Northern France
4. We know that both Bell Beaker and Z2103 had an early presence in the Upper Danube.

There might well have been some basal L51 and Z2103 within in the predominantly PF7562 Anatolian to Southern European R1b populations, but on balance I suspect these were not the branches that survived into the major lineages that we see today. I also suspect that the branches of Z2103 that colonised the Steppe were earlier offshoots from North West Ukraine/Poland that split from formational L51 when it moved down the Prut and Dniester and into core Cucuteni territory (Romania and Bulgaria).

----------


## markod

> The closest I have seen to ATP3 is Croatian Vucedol Z2103 - I would not say core Steppe, but most likely South East European (Steppe fringe) ancestrally.
> The formation path of surviving L51 looks most likely Poland-Balkans-Cucuteni-Upper Danube-North Alps-North France. Yes, quite similar to European Z2103. But both look early - some time mid-4th millennium BC, long before the main Bell Beaker expansions.


Are you sure? The Spanish Chalcolithic samples cluster more or less with Gökhem Neolithic in the Günther (2015) PCA.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> ATP3 isn't even M269, at least it's certainly not agreed upon and wasn't reported in the paper. You might as well scrap that last straw there.


Not my straw. My point was simply, even if someone with M269 y-dna managed to make it to Iberia early on, by a high or low "road", that that doesn't explain continent-wide language replacement. The Beaker "expansion" into central Europe was of a trade network, even maybe of an associated cultural complex (Megalithic "missionaries"?), but what it wasn't, apparently, was a language-carrying migration.

----------


## Pip

> Are you sure? The Spanish Chalcolithic samples cluster more or less with Gökhem Neolithic in the Günther (2015) PCA.


Yes, the Spanish Chalcolithic samples are indeed generally autosomally similar to Southern Swedish Neolithic, apart from ATP3 (most likely M269) which is rather different. Of course, Southern Sweden is pretty close to Poland, which looks a likely origin point for formative L23. This perhaps leads to a third possibility - that ATP3 was brought to Northern Spain from the South Eastern Baltic by maritime Megalithic folk that were connected to both areas - although, if so, it appears unlikely to be a L51 Bell Beaker ancestor.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Yes, the Spanish Chalcolithic samples are indeed generally autosomally similar to Southern Swedish Neolithic, apart from ATP3 (most likely M269) which is rather different. Of course, Southern Sweden is pretty close to Poland, which looks a likely origin point for formative L23. This perhaps leads to a third possibility - that ATP3 was brought to Northern Spain from the South Eastern Baltic by maritime Megalithic folk that were connected to both areas - although, if so, it appears unlikely to be a L51 Bell Beaker ancestor.


Yes. Let us all bank on maritime routes for which we have no record of. 
At all. Makes no sense. Specially because its asking to prove a negative (no remains of those boats left) 

This kind of talk is a level bellow what we can safely assert today. I mean by 4th millenia bc movement of people was all over and multi direction. So we really from then must relay heavily on archeology (before was easier as people lived spaciously) or have vast aDna samples for the same region for multi generations. ... Copper to iron age is going to be difficult.

----------


## markod

> Yes, the Spanish Chalcolithic samples are indeed generally autosomally similar to Southern Swedish Neolithic, apart from ATP3 (most likely M269) which is rather different. Of course, Southern Sweden is pretty close to Poland, which looks a likely origin point for formative L23. This perhaps leads to a third possibility - that ATP3 was brought to Northern Spain from the South Eastern Baltic by maritime Megalithic folk that were connected to both areas - although, if so, it appears unlikely to be a L51 Bell Beaker ancestor.


I think it's ATP3 who is closest of all CA samples to the hunter-gatherer admixed Funnelbeakers:



Here FN and ATP (esp. ATP3) have the same tendency towards modern Basques already seen in Günther (2015).

The sample has very low coverage though, so it might not very reliable.

----------


## Pip

A maritime route remains a possibility, regardless of whether there are any ancient boats around to evidence it.
The most striking feature of ATP3 is its apparent absence of WHG - l would say indicative of a North East European ancestry. Unlike other Iberian, Gokhem or indeed Pontic Steppe.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> ....
> The most striking feature of ATP3 is its apparent absence of WHG - l would say indicative of a North East European ancestry. Unlike other Iberian, Gokhem or indeed Pontic Steppe.


Pip. Elaborate a bit more.
Eg apparent absence of WHG... what do you mean? Where are you getting that from? Just from Markod PCA?

----------


## markod

> A maritime route remains a possibility, regardless of whether there are any ancient boats around to evidence it.
> The most striking feature of ATP3 is its apparent absence of WHG - l would say indicative of a North East European ancestry. Unlike other Iberian, Gokhem or indeed Pontic Steppe.


Alternatively he might have additional Basal Eurasian admxiture compared to other Atapuerca samples. We just can't tell from the PCA.

Wouldn't North-East European ancestry cause an additional WHG shift, however? IMHO it looks either like he has either direct Siberian or ENA ancestry or Iran_Neo ancestry which pulls ATP3 away from WHG.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> .... or Iran_Neo ancestry which pulls ATP3 away from WHG.


Hey.... don't get my hopes High!! :) 
Even that possibility would make him closer to my believes...

----------


## markod

> Hey.... don't get my hopes High!! :) 
> Even that possibility would make him closer to my believes...


Yeah, if for ATP3 we presuppose a two-way admixture between the other Atapuerca genomes and an outsider, the cline would be have to be extrapolated to Lebanese -> Armenian -> Iran_Chalcolithic.

But there's no way to know that the process was so simple. ATP3 might simply have been an outsider, or he might have received admixture from more than one source.

----------


## halfalp

> Hey.... don't get my hopes High!! :) 
> Even that possibility would make him closer to my believes...


So, let's chit chat a little bit, you are opposed to anything new of hypothesis, but you love Iran, and you are Portuguese right? Can you just out yourself and your motivations please.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> So, let's chit chat a little bit, you are opposed to anything new of hypothesis, but you love Iran, and you are Portuguese right? Can you just out yourself and your motivations please.


Stay ....way...from....me....!

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Yeah, if for ATP3 we presuppose a two-way admixture between the other Atapuerca genomes and an outsider, the cline would be have to be extrapolated to Lebanese -> Armenian -> Iran_Chalcolithic.
> 
> But there's no way to know that the process was so simple. ATP3 might simply have been an outsider, or he might have received admixture from more than one source.


Yes, I suspect that figuring out late Chalc, copper to Bronze age is going to be tricky if it were periods were everybody was going everywhere. Unless number of samples are numerous and from regions just tens of miles away to map significance, we always run the risk of inferring too much. But we will get there. A matter of time.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Yes. Let us all bank on maritime routes for which we have no record of. 
> At all. Makes no sense. Specially because its asking to prove a negative (no remains of those boats left).


Boats? I've got boats!

Attachment 10477

https://www.donsmaps.com/boats.html

Attachment 10478




> In fact, the oldest boat images dated to 8-9 Ka BP were found in Gobustan, on the Caspian coast, south of the Kura River delta (Dzhafar-zade, 1973). Those are rock paintings showing not only flat-bottomed boats and keel-built vessels suitable for marine navigation, some with as many as 37 oarsmen. The earliest ships appeared in the Caspian region immediately after the Flood, which may be interpreted as a result of this event.


http://paleogeo.org/flood_en.html




> The Absheron Peninsula of present-day Azerbaijan, especially Gobustan National Park, on the south-western shores of the Caspian, is a significant site for rock art. The images include boats – possibly made from reeds – including some dating from the Paleolithic/Mesolithic era.


https://www.quora.com/How-important-...gh-the-Caspian

With the Aral, expanded Caspian, Black, and Aegean Seas connected by spillways and channels, communication by water between the Zagros region of Iran and the Mediterranean was at least theoretically possible.

----------


## Pip

My information for ATP3 is 0% WHG, 24% EHG, 67% EEF, 6% CHG and 3% Middle East - remarkably similar to (later) Croatian Vucedol Z2103. I would say this looks most like a newcomer/outsider - near North Eastern Europe (Poland) mixed with some South Eastern Balkan/Anatolian, approximately replicating L51 Bell Beaker, but in different proportions. He also looks an outlier - I am not aware of any data to indicate that his kin wiped out all Iberian men 900 years later, and think it most likely that they died out or retreated to South Central Europe shortly after arriving in Iberia.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> My information for ATP3 is 0% WHG, 24% EHG, 67% EEF, 6% CHG and 3% Middle East -.....


Don't be cryptic. What is "your information"?

----------


## Pip

The source is Genetiker.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> The source is Genetiker.


THanks. 
I agree with you insofar as ATP3 really looks outlier. Too bad nobody is poking a little more in him. :) He really looked like an interesting guy.

----------


## markod

> The source is Genetiker.


You could at least post a link or something, Jesus.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> You could at least post a link or something, Jesus.


Via Maciamo, I have this analysis:

"ATP3 (3516–3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.

With its 32% of Caucaso-Gedrosian, 14% of Northern European ancestry, 6% of European Hunter-Gatherer and 3.8% of Veddoid, it does indeed look as if ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry, but with a higher proportion of northern Middle Eastern and Veddoid than Yamna samples. In other words it could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period. But if so, how did his lineage not get more admixed along the way ? Neolithic farmers all over Europe were overwhelmingly (and often exclusively) Southern-European in admixture. "

From this thread:

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31558-Analysis-of-Chalcolithic-El-Portalon-samples-(G%C3%BCnther-at-al-2015)

Some of the other samples seem dodgy (mainly the signs of African ancestry, which is almost certainly due to it being a bad sample). But ATP3 seems fine.

----------


## markod

> Via Maciamo, I have this analysis:
> 
> "ATP3 (3516–3362 BCE) stands out from other samples thanks to its high Northern Middle Eastern ancestry (31.97%) against 0% for ATP20, 11% for ATP17 and between 0% and 8% for other samples. What Genetiker calls Northern Middle Eastern is what we typically referred on this forum as Caucaso-Gedrosian admixture - the same as in the "Armenian-like admixture" in Yamna samples.
> 
> With its 32% of Caucaso-Gedrosian, 14% of Northern European ancestry, 6% of European Hunter-Gatherer and 3.8% of Veddoid, it does indeed look as if ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry, but with a higher proportion of northern Middle Eastern and Veddoid than Yamna samples. In other words it could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period. But if so, how did his lineage not get more admixed along the way ? Neolithic farmers all over Europe were overwhelmingly (and often exclusively) Southern-European in admixture. "
> 
> From this thread:
> 
> https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31558-Analysis-of-Chalcolithic-El-Portalon-samples-(G%C3%BCnther-at-al-2015)
> ...


Maciamo's analysis is in line with what I could gather about ATP3. In Genetiker's admixture analysis he also gets roughly 30% Iranian admixture:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015...anish-genomes/

It would explain why ATP3 is on a cline towards Iran in the PCA:



I'm still skeptical though, since the sample has a low coverage and I don't understand *why* there would be a man with 1/3 Iranian ancestry in Chalcolithic Northern Spain. Very out of place IMHO.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I'm still skeptical though, since the sample has a low coverage and I don't understand *why* there would be a man with 1/3 Iranian ancestry in Chalcolithic Northern Spain. Very out of place IMHO.


I know why!!! I know why!! :) ... And most important how!

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Maciamo's analysis is in line with what I could gather about ATP3. In Genetiker's admixture analysis he also gets roughly 30% Iranian admixture:
> 
> https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015...anish-genomes/
> 
> It would explain why ATP3 is on a cline towards Iran in the PCA:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still skeptical though, since the sample has a low coverage and I don't understand *why* there would be a man with 1/3 Iranian ancestry in Chalcolithic Northern Spain. Very out of place IMHO.


Well the Northern Spain bit is confusing to me, but if we just say he got lost from Southern Spain (lol) then we can just look at the Los Millares culture, which as I've pointed out before has clear West Asian influences (in the form of their beehive tombs), but also show signs of being some form of warlike caste system (which sounds very R1-like). It's a great candidate, imo at least.

What do you think of the rest of things Genetiker mentioned in that link btw? So for Chinchorro, I'm basically 100% certain he is correct to some degree, given the appearance of the mummies being SO CLEARLY Caucasoid. It is literally cognitive dissonance to claim otherwise, and I'd happily bet my life on it. If aDNA consistently fails to show any signs of this, I would genuinely count that as evidence of censorship - the mummies are that clearly Caucasoid. Though Genetiker clearly suffers from delusional thinking (mainly delusions of grandeur), he is mostly correct.

As for PIE being Gravettian - I obviously disagree with that, BUT I do see the Epigravettian (rather than Solutrean, which I see as being Y DNA I) as being the original homeland of R1, or at least R1b. Then, during the Chalcolithic, R1b-M269 expands from the Balkans into the Middle East (bringing copper metallurgy with it) yadayadayada - I've said it a million times before.

And answer me this (going back to pre-Viking West Eurasian contact with the Americas) - WHY do we still not know the specific Native American R1b?

----------


## Pip

References above are to Genetiker's K=16 analysis, which he has since replaced with a more extensive database of K=14 analysis (the basis for my post) - the categories are quite different. It indicates that ATP3-like features in Atapuerca samples tail off into the third millennium BC, suggesting that his kin either moved out or were reproductively unsuccessful. At least, it doesn't look like they wiped out and replaced all the Iberian men.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the nearest sample to ATP3 autosomally is another European M269 (Croatian Z2103), and that its root looks to be the same as for R1b Bell Beaker (Eastern Balkan). But, if anyone, it seems to have been French Bell Beaker (an EHG/EEF mixed population) that led to the decline of indigenous Iberian men, rather than the kin of ATP3 or Yamnayan hordes direct from Russia.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> References above are to Genetiker's K=16 analysis, which he has since replaced with a more extensive database of K=14 analysis (the basis for my post) - the categories are quite different. It indicates that ATP3-like features in Atapuerca samples tail off into the third millennium BC, suggesting that his kin either moved out or were reproductively unsuccessful. At least, it doesn't look like they wiped out and replaced all the Iberian men.
> 
> I don't think it is a coincidence that the nearest sample to ATP3 autosomally is another European M269 (Croatian Z2103), and that its root looks to be the same as for R1b Bell Beaker (Eastern Balkan). But, if anyone, it seems to have been French Bell Beaker (an EHG/EEF mixed population) that led to the decline of indigenous Iberian men, rather than the kin of ATP3 or Yamnayan hordes direct from Russia.


Why could it not have been Central Euro Beakers spurred on by the arrival of the Corded Ware folk, and who were originally derived from someone like ATP3? One of the main main reasons cultures expand and are invigorated is because other cultures turn up at their doorstep. Is it really a coincidence that basically a century after the Corded Ware culture reached the Rhine, we start to see L51 folk expanding across Western Europe? I'd say no, and well before the rise of aDNA most academics did too from what I've gathered.

----------


## halfalp

The Neolithic-Chalcolithic transition in Spain is pretty complexe, we could see a lot of autosomal west asians individuals with a lot of local HG haplogroups like I2a1 resurgence. Obviously G2a and minor lineage with an Anatolian_Farmer like autosomal dna, bring neolithic to Spain, then from there in the chalcolithic I2a1 resurge with a mostly Anatolian_Farmer audna while it was originally Magdalenian? I cannot imagine any R1b resurgence from Iberia. We can deduce that R1b was probably a minor lineage in the early neolithic of Balkans and Anatolia, but that's all. The R1b-V88 from Spain is a perfect exemple that in the mesolithic-neolithic transition in Anatolia, HG's related with those of Iron_Gates were already in Anatolia somewhere. This would be before the expansion of G2a from somewhere near Iran i bet.

----------


## Pip

It could indeed have been, although probably someone like ATP3, rather than his direct descendants. I agree that R1a Corded Ware was probably the catalyst, and brought conflict with the hybrid EHG/EEF that evolved into Bell Beaker.

----------


## Aaron1981

> ATP3 has positive calls at every tested developmental stage of M269 - A00, A0, A1b, BT, CT, F, GHIJK, K, R, R1, R-P297 and R-M269. It also has an autosomal mix that resembles West Balkan R-Z2103 more than anything else, yet precedes Balkan Z2103. Certainly, from the data available, I can think of no identity more likely for it than basal Z2103, basal L23 or a dead end branch of basal L51.
> 
> Autosomally, it is starkly different to its Iberian contemporaries, and appears to be an entirely new arrival. Within a few hundred years, its EHG component had become largely absent from other samples at the same location. It looks most like a brief foray from East Europeans into Northern Spain - a branch of L23 that either died out or subsequently retreated elsewhere. It also provides a possible explanation for where R1b could have picked up some Bell Beaker traits.
> 
> However, this was 3,400 BC, not 2,500 BC, and at this stage it looks more like it was the Yamna men that were wiped out by Iberian men, rather than the other way round. And from what I have seen, the Yamna-like DNA only seemed to return in any quantity several hundred years after 2,500 BC, during the Bronze Age.


Mind backing that up with a source? Why was it not reported in the paper?

----------


## Aaron1981

> It could indeed have been, although probably someone like ATP3, rather than his direct descendants. I agree that R1a Corded Ware was probably the catalyst, and brought conflict with the hybrid EHG/EEF that evolved into Bell Beaker.


Corded Ware R1a is at very low frequency today, you can see that from modern YDNA, well, outside of Battle Axe/Scandinavia. That is fact, not sure about the other stuff you are spewing. If Corded Ware (R1a) was a catalyst, it didn't last long since it was pushed to the northern frontiers of Europe.

----------


## Aaron1981

> Yes, the Spanish Chalcolithic samples are indeed generally autosomally similar to Southern Swedish Neolithic, apart from ATP3 (most likely M269) which is rather different. Of course, Southern Sweden is pretty close to Poland, which looks a likely origin point for formative L23. This perhaps leads to a third possibility - that ATP3 was brought to Northern Spain from the South Eastern Baltic by maritime Megalithic folk that were connected to both areas - although, if so, it appears unlikely to be a L51 Bell Beaker ancestor.


I2 is a strong candidate for megalithic folk in far northern Europe. It has popped up in all the right places at the right time. This would be in line with it spreading up the Atlantic from Spain and to the north east, if there is a genetic connection at all. The only TRB male I am aware of is C-V20 unfortunately.

----------


## Pip

> I2 is a strong candidate for megalithic folk in far northern Europe. It has popped up in all the right places at the right time. This would be in line with it spreading up the Atlantic from Spain and to the north east, if there is a genetic connection at all. The only TRB male I am aware of is C-V20 unfortunately.


That's the point. If I2 was travelling up and down the coastline between Northern Spain and the Baltic, it is not beyond possibility that it could have co-opted an ATP3 that it might have encountered in the Eastern Baltic.

----------


## markod

> References above are to Genetiker's K=16 analysis, which he has since replaced with a more extensive database of K=14 analysis (the basis for my post) - the categories are quite different. It indicates that ATP3-like features in Atapuerca samples tail off into the third millennium BC, suggesting that his kin either moved out or were reproductively unsuccessful. At least, it doesn't look like they wiped out and replaced all the Iberian men.
> 
> I don't think it is a coincidence that the nearest sample to ATP3 autosomally is another European M269 (Croatian Z2103), and that its root looks to be the same as for R1b Bell Beaker (Eastern Balkan). But, if anyone, it seems to have been French Bell Beaker (an EHG/EEF mixed population) that led to the decline of indigenous Iberian men, rather than the kin of ATP3 or Yamnayan hordes direct from Russia.


The aforementioned percentages are likely not feasible - we're talking about supervised admixture runs. These have to be combined with other lines of evidence.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017...opean-genomes/

The same methodology yields 60% EHG + 30% EEF + 10% WHG for modern Lithuanians. While the pattern is interesting, this is quite obviously incorrect under the current models. Perhaps EHG/EEF mixture creates pseudo-CHG affinities, but this alternative model would require some solid evidence.

----------


## Pip

> Mind backing that up with a source? Why was it not reported in the paper?


As mentioned previously, the source is Genetiker. Not having written the paper, I don't know why it was not reported in it. Perhaps it was not analysed for the paper?

----------


## Pip

> Corded Ware R1a is at very low frequency today, you can see that from modern YDNA, well, outside of Battle Axe/Scandinavia. That is fact, not sure about the other stuff you are spewing. If Corded Ware (R1a) was a catalyst, it didn't last long since it was pushed to the northern frontiers of Europe.


Yes, Coded Ware R1a flourished, extensively colonised and was then virtually decimated, apart from in its northern frontiers and being pushed out wide of its eastern frontiers. (Perhaps some similarities with Yamnayan Z2103 here?) Yet R1a Corded Ware nevertheless seemed to catalyse R1b L51, which emerged from the doldrums to replace it (in a hybrid population along with the remnants of Western Cucuteni). Perhaps seeing off the threat from R1a Corded Ware communities then emboldened L51 people to dominate the Bell Beaker movement and be more expansive in places like Iberia?

----------


## Pip

The Yamna men that are said to have wiped out a whole nation of Iberian men lived 4,000 km away from Iberia, and are said to have done so one hundred years after Wikipedia tells us their culture had already ended. Perhaps calling them Yamna is a misleading identification, rather like calling the British colonisation of Australia a Saxonic invasion? Perhaps to use the term wipe-out is also a misleading exaggeration? Perhaps to say this happened 4,500 years ago is also a misleadingly pinpointed timeframe?

Modern distributions suggest the surviving y-DNA of these Iberian conquerors would have been pretty much limited to R-DF27. According to yfull, their common ancestor separated from Yamnayan R-Z2103 1,900 years previously - that’s 70 or so generations away. So the Yamna men that did all this wiping out in Iberia would have represented just the tiniest section of a population that co-descended from a paternal ancestor of Z2103 Yamnayans. 99.999% of the people in this population would seem to have had no connection with Iberia whatsoever. The link is a tenuous one. How can we put two people in the same category just because they happened to share a single male ancestor 70 or so generations ago? 

The data I have seen suggests that the common ancestor of all these Iberian conquerors most likely descended from a man whose own 70 generations of male ancestors moved approximately from North Western Ukraine/Southern Poland via Moldova/the Dniester, the Balkans/the Danube, Southern Germany, Northern France and down into North Central Spain. These 70 generations of men would have adopted a variety of cultures and bred with women from all of the various parts of Europe through which they lived and moved. By the time the common ancestor came out of the other end 4,000 km to the West and 70 generations later, I am doubting he would have been very similar to the Yamnayans of the Caspian Steppe that developed in a different direction or seen his culture as any more similar to theirs than it was to the culture of the Iberians; and to fuse the two together as if they were in the same category would seem to be a misrepresentation.

I do not see evidence of a wipe-out of Neolithic Iberian y-DNA groups - many of these still have a significant presence there. It would seem more accurate to call it a reduction in the proportion of these groups. We don’t know if people bearing these groups were wiped out or whether they were merely less reproductive. Their reduction in proportion does not seem particularly out of kilter with that in many other parts of Europe.

When did this reduction in proportion occur? My own estimates based on a combination of STR and SNP readings match the conclusion that DF27 had already moved from France into North Central Iberia by about 2,500 BC, but the evidence I have seen is that EHG proportions did not really start picking up significantly until some time between 2,000 BC and the Bronze Age in 1,500 BC, and indeed continued increasing after that point. So I would see this process less as a wipe-out, and more as a gradual transformation over a period of a millennium (35 generations) or more.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The Yamna men that are said to have wiped out a whole nation of Iberian men lived 4,000 km away from Iberia, and are said to have done so one hundred years after Wikipedia tells us their culture had already ended. Perhaps calling them Yamna is a misleading identification, rather like calling the British colonisation of Australia a Saxonic invasion? Perhaps to use the term wipe-out is also a misleading exaggeration? Perhaps to say this happened 4,500 years ago is also a misleadingly pinpointed timeframe?
> 
> Modern distributions suggest the surviving y-DNA of these Iberian conquerors would have been pretty much limited to R-DF27. According to yfull, their common ancestor separated from Yamnayan R-Z2103 1,900 years previously - that’s 70 or so generations away. So the Yamna men that did all this wiping out in Iberia would have represented just the tiniest section of a population that co-descended from a paternal ancestor of Z2103 Yamnayans. 99.999% of the people in this population would seem to have had no connection with Iberia whatsoever. The link is a tenuous one. How can we put two people in the same category just because they happened to share a single male ancestor 70 or so generations ago? 
> 
> The data I have seen suggests that the common ancestor of all these Iberian conquerors most likely descended from a man whose own 70 generations of male ancestors moved approximately from North Western Ukraine/Southern Poland via Moldova/the Dniester, the Balkans/the Danube, Southern Germany, Northern France and down into North Central Spain. These 70 generations of men would have adopted a variety of cultures and bred with women from all of the various parts of Europe through which they lived and moved. By the time the common ancestor came out of the other end 4,000 km to the West and 70 generations later, I am doubting he would have been very similar to the Yamnayans of the Caspian Steppe that developed in a different direction or seen his culture as any more similar to theirs than it was to the culture of the Iberians; and to fuse the two together as if they were in the same category would seem to be a misrepresentation.
> 
> I do not see evidence of a wipe-out of Neolithic Iberian y-DNA groups - many of these still have a significant presence there. It would seem more accurate to call it a reduction in the proportion of these groups. We don’t know if people bearing these groups were wiped out or whether they were merely less reproductive. Their reduction in proportion does not seem particularly out of kilter with that in many other parts of Europe.
> 
> When did this reduction in proportion occur? My own estimates based on a combination of STR and SNP readings match the conclusion that DF27 had already moved from France into North Central Iberia by about 2,500 BC, but the evidence I have seen is that EHG proportions did not really start picking up significantly until some time between 2,000 BC and the Bronze Age in 1,500 BC, and indeed continued increasing after that point. So I would see this process less as a wipe-out, and more as a gradual transformation over a period of a millennium (35 generations) or more.


Okay, but your migration path of L51 needs to be identified with a culture. It isnt Yamnaya or Corded Ware, so whats left? That (and the West Med distribution of early L51 and likely West Asian origin of L23) is what leads me to favour the Asia-to-Iberia hypothesis

----------


## Ygorcs

When they say "Yamnaya" they basically and more technically mean "autosomally derived in large part from EBA Steppe people". I find it extremely unlikely that, had these L51-bearing men developed separately from the ancestors of the Yamnaya people for millennia before their migration and expansion to Western Europe, they would've ended up spreading a kind of ancestry very similar to that of the EBA Steppe populations associated with Yamnaya and other earlier cultures like Repin or Khvalynsk. These men may not have come from the core of the Yamnaya horizon, but I think it's hard to believe they came from a completely different region and sociocultural environment, yet they'd have a similar genetic structure and helped all the same in the spread of BA Steppe-like admixture in post-BA Europe. L51 and Z2103 may have diverged from each other much before (though in my opinion it's possible that they came from the same older linguistic and cultural branch, and later were homogeneized again due to the success of the Yamnaya horizon overriding different cultures, including related ones like Sredny-Stog). But that does not mean that the expansion processes of these two brother clades well after their birth were not connected to each other and were instead associated with totally different cultures and languages. The cultural and linguistic hints we have point exactly to the contrary, that they must've been part of the same general process of gradual Indo-Europeanization of most of Europe (either as "original Indo-Europeans" or, in the case of L51, also possibly as "thoroughly Indo-Europeanized" people).

----------


## hrvclv

> The Yamna men that are said to have wiped out a whole nation of Iberian men lived 4,000 km away from Iberia, and are said to have done so one hundred years after Wikipedia tells us their culture had already ended. Perhaps calling them Yamna is a misleading identification, rather like calling the British colonisation of Australia a Saxonic invasion? Perhaps to use the term wipe-out is also a misleading exaggeration? Perhaps to say this happened 4,500 years ago is also a misleadingly pinpointed timeframe?
> 
> Modern distributions suggest the surviving y-DNA of these Iberian conquerors would have been pretty much limited to R-DF27. According to yfull, their common ancestor separated from Yamnayan R-Z2103 1,900 years previously - that’s 70 or so generations away. So the Yamna men that did all this wiping out in Iberia would have represented just the tiniest section of a population that co-descended from a paternal ancestor of Z2103 Yamnayans. 99.999% of the people in this population would seem to have had no connection with Iberia whatsoever. The link is a tenuous one. How can we put two people in the same category just because they happened to share a single male ancestor 70 or so generations ago? 
> 
> The data I have seen suggests that the common ancestor of all these Iberian conquerors most likely descended from a man whose own 70 generations of male ancestors moved approximately from North Western Ukraine/Southern Poland via Moldova/the Dniester, the Balkans/the Danube, Southern Germany, Northern France and down into North Central Spain. These 70 generations of men would have adopted a variety of cultures and bred with women from all of the various parts of Europe through which they lived and moved. By the time the common ancestor came out of the other end 4,000 km to the West and 70 generations later, I am doubting he would have been very similar to the Yamnayans of the Caspian Steppe that developed in a different direction or seen his culture as any more similar to theirs than it was to the culture of the Iberians; and to fuse the two together as if they were in the same category would seem to be a misrepresentation.
> 
> I do not see evidence of a wipe-out of Neolithic Iberian y-DNA groups - many of these still have a significant presence there. It would seem more accurate to call it a reduction in the proportion of these groups. We don’t know if people bearing these groups were wiped out or whether they were merely less reproductive. Their reduction in proportion does not seem particularly out of kilter with that in many other parts of Europe.
> 
> When did this reduction in proportion occur? My own estimates based on a combination of STR and SNP readings match the conclusion that DF27 had already moved from France into North Central Iberia by about 2,500 BC, but the evidence I have seen is that EHG proportions did not really start picking up significantly until some time between 2,000 BC and the Bronze Age in 1,500 BC, and indeed continued increasing after that point. So I would see this process less as a wipe-out, and more as a gradual transformation over a period of a millennium (35 generations) or more.


An insightful post, in my opinion.

One objection, though : the "wiping out" does seem to have occurred - at least in the geographic pockets where the Reich study under discussion here was conducted. Otherwise I don't think a reputable lab would go so far as to mention it.

This said, I agree that :

- what is referred to as "Yamna" should probably be more cautiously labelled "broadly steppe " (to use 23andMe terminology).

- the influx of R1b into Iberia occurred in distinct stages. Lusitanian was a Kw- language (Iccona [ikwona], the horse goddess, later Epona in Gaulish ; also Equeunubo - dual number -, the horse-riding twin gods). Celtiberian was an "in-between" language, with Gw > b, an early proto-Celtic shift, (boustom, from *gwousth2o, cow shed), but Kw = Kw (ekualaku [ekwalakwe], horses +'element unknown' + kwe)

I would agree the later waves were densely admixed when they finally got to Iberia, but depending on the study, the first migrants were pretty much steppe-like. It probably didn't take 70 generations for them to come from the steppe, even accounting for a stop in central Europe. Or if it did, they must have retained a high degree of endogamy. R1b penetration into Bell Beaker territory seems to have been quick-paced. They were probably few in numbers, though, hence the tenuous autosomal impact. I am not sure the earliest settlers were even DF27 yet. Time will tell.

----------


## hrvclv

> When they say "Yamnaya" they basically and more technically mean "autosomally derived in large part from EBA Steppe people". I find it extremely unlikely that, had these L51-bearing men developed separately from the ancestors of the Yamnaya people for millennia before their migration and expansion to Western Europe, they would've ended up spreading a kind of ancestry very similar to that of the EBA Steppe populations associated with Yamnaya and other earlier cultures like Repin or Khvalynsk. These men may not have come from the core of the Yamnaya horizon, but I think it's hard to believe they came from a completely different region and sociocultural environment, yet they'd have a similar genetic structure and helped all the same in the spread of BA Steppe-like admixture in post-BA Europe. L51 and Z2103 may have diverged from each other much before (though in my opinion it's possible that they came from the same older linguistic and cultural branch, and later were homogeneized again due to the success of the Yamnaya horizon overriding different cultures, including related ones like Sredny-Stog). But that does not mean that the expansion processes of these two brother clades well after their birth were not connected to each other and were instead associated with totally different cultures and languages. The cultural and linguistic hints we have point exactly to the contrary, that they must've been part of the same general process of gradual Indo-Europeanization of most of Europe (either as "original Indo-Europeans" or, in the case of L51, also possibly as "thoroughly Indo-Europeanized" people).


Feels good to read a sensible, back-to-basics post.

----------


## gidai

I think any haplogroup may rise and decrease overtime quikly from biological reason without to affect autosomal inheritance.

----------


## Pip

> Okay, but your migration path of L51 needs to be identified with a culture. It isn�t Yamnaya or Corded Ware, so what�s left? That (and the West Med distribution of early L51 and likely West Asian origin of L23) is what leads me to favour the Asia-to-Iberia hypothesis


Very broadly, I suspect formative surviving L51 was culturally (i) western end Khvalynsk, (ii) Suvorovo, (iii) co-opted into Cucuteni (in the EHG people who collaborated with it, rather than the ones who destroyed it); and that, on Cucuteni's collapse, it moved westwards and settled fully formed in Southern Germany and Northern France (RRBP zone) in perhaps a 50:50 mixed population with Eastern EEF people (principally G-PF3345). I suspect L51 only rose to paternal prominence within this population when one of its families (from within a branch of L151) took control of it and its neighbours at a time of conflict.

I agree that other lines of L51 and close relations to it would probably have spread into Yamnayan Ukraine, Bulgaria, West Asia and perhaps further afield, but my estimation is that the branch that thrives today most likely developed as above.

----------


## Pip

> An insightful post, in my opinion.
> 
> One objection, though : the "wiping out" does seem to have occurred - at least in the geographic pockets where the Reich study under discussion here was conducted. Otherwise I don't think a reputable lab would go so far as to mention it.
> 
> This said, I agree that :
> 
> - what is referred to as "Yamna" should probably be more cautiously labelled "broadly steppe " (to use 23andMe terminology).
> 
> - the influx of R1b into Iberia occurred in distinct stages. Lusitanian was a Kw- language (Iccona [ikwona], the horse goddess, later Epona in Gaulish ; also Equeunubo - dual number -, the horse-riding twin gods). Celtiberian was an "in-between" language, with Gw > b, an early proto-Celtic shift, (boustom, from *gwousth2o, cow shed), but Kw = Kw (ekualaku [ekwalakwe], horses +'element unknown' + kwe)
> ...


I wonder where Reich's wipe-out pockets were; such pockets would be quite believable. Atapuerca seems not to have been such a pocket, despite being within the right zone for early DF27.

My estimate for the 70 generations would be that about the first half lived around the western Steppe fringe, and the second half lived in a roughly 50:50 mixed EHG/eastern EEF (small, mostly endogamous) population based in the West (Southern Germany/Northern France).

----------


## markod

> I wonder where Reich's wipe-out pockets were; such pockets would be quite believable. Atapuerca seems not to have been such a pocket, despite being within the right zone for early DF27.
> 
> My estimate for the 70 generations would be that about the first half lived around the western Steppe fringe, and the second half lived in a roughly 50:50 mixed EHG/eastern EEF (small, mostly endogamous) population based in the West (Southern Germany/Northern France).


Try to understand the admixture run you're basing your speculations on. ATP3 likely has no EHG. Not even the authors and the usual amateurs who manage to tease out EHG components almost every time managed to find an EHG signal.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> An insightful post, in my opinion.
> 
> One objection, though : the "wiping out" does seem to have occurred - at least in the geographic pockets where the Reich study under discussion here was conducted. Otherwise I don't think a reputable lab would go so far as to mention it.
> 
> This said, I agree that :
> 
> - what is referred to as "Yamna" should probably be more cautiously labelled "broadly steppe " (to use 23andMe terminology).
> 
> - the influx of R1b into Iberia occurred in distinct stages. Lusitanian was a Kw- language (Iccona [ikwona], the horse goddess, later Epona in Gaulish ; also Equeunubo - dual number -, the horse-riding twin gods). Celtiberian was an "in-between" language, with Gw > b, an early proto-Celtic shift, (boustom, from *gwousth2o, cow shed), but Kw = Kw (ekualaku [ekwalakwe], horses +'element unknown' + kwe)
> ...


Almost all historical linguists see the spread of Celtic as originating in the Hallstatt culture, which was much later. As for Lusitanian - it's a bit of a mystery, but most that have an opinion see it as being Italic. Moreover, there is no evidence of IE languages in Britain before the Celts.

I repeat my previous claim - Indo-European languages in Western Europe are EXCLUSIVE to two ultimate sources - U152 and U106. These are the ONLY L51 subclades to have developed in Central Europe - right in Corded Ware territory (and this is not a coincidence, as I would be willing to bet that Corded Ware is ultimately the vector to which Western IE spread from). This is also consistent with a non-IE origin of L51. By no means conclusive, but it makes sense (as to why IE hadn't spread out of Central Europe even while Bell Beaker folk had invaded all of Western Europe and were participating in the Atlantic Bronze Age).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Very broadly, I suspect formative surviving L51 was culturally (i) western end Khvalynsk, (ii) Suvorovo, (iii) co-opted into Cucuteni (in the EHG people who collaborated with it, rather than the ones who destroyed it); and that, on Cucuteni's collapse, it moved westwards and settled fully formed in Southern Germany and Northern France (RRBP zone) in perhaps a 50:50 mixed population with Eastern EEF people (principally G-PF3345). I suspect L51 only rose to paternal prominence within this population when one of its families (from within a branch of L151) took control of it and its neighbours at a time of conflict.
> 
> I agree that other lines of L51 and close relations to it would probably have spread into Yamnayan Ukraine, Bulgaria, West Asia and perhaps further afield, but my estimation is that the branch that thrives today most likely developed as above.


Would you not expect the presence of early L51 to be mainly around the Black Sea if that were the case? Instead, it is around the French and Italian Rivieras (including areas like Sardinia), which is completely against what you have said.

Also, just looking on Wikipedia, I see this (about Cucuteni): 

Members of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture shared common features with other Neolithic societies, including:

*An almost nonexistent social stratification**Lack of a political elite*Rudimentary economy, most likely a subsistence or gift economyPastoralists and subsistence farmers


As compared to this about Los Millares, my candidate L51 culture:

Los Millares participated in the continental trends of Megalithism and the Beaker culture. Analysis of occupation material and grave goods from the Los Millares cemetery of 70 _tholos tombs with port-hole slabs has led archaeologists to suggest that the people who lived at Los Millares were part of a stratified, unequal society which was often at war with its neighbours.

_Just from a very primitive look, this Cucuteni hypothesis doesn't make much sense, as I'm sure you would also work on the assumption that L51 was an elite lineage (and I go as far as to say they imposed themselves in caste systems wherever they went). Also, your link of RRBP to the Paris-basin admixture is interesting, but I think overly specific (I doubt the aDNA can be used to that level of precision). But besides, we would expect admixture like that in "my" hypothesis too.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Try to understand the admixture run you're basing your speculations on. ATP3 likely has no EHG. Not even the authors and the usual amateurs who manage to tease out EHG components almost every time managed to find an EHG signal.


If it is indeed M269, I would expect some trace of EHG, but considerably more WHG - this is from using Iron Gates as a proxy for the original M269 Balkan folk (who were over 3/4 WHG and under 1/4 EHG). Obviously, ATP3 has additional farmer admixture that makes up most of its genome.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Also, the more I think about it, the more I've come to the conclusion that IE is actually a native Steppe language, unrelated to R1b L23. Yes, I've gone full R1a-tard. The very early expansion of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka culture from the Steppe is consistent with an origin of Anatolian - rather than an Armenian origin of Anatolian. I still place the origin of Z2103 South of the Caucasus, though - I just see it as originally non-IE. All IE seems clearly related to the Steppe (only Anatolian is debatable), and based on the phylogeny and other circumstantial evidence (such as the Atlantic Bronze Age being L51 but not IE, and a large chunk of West Asian Z2103 seeming native and non-Steppe in origin) it appears L23 and its two daughters Z2103 and L51 did not originate there.

----------


## markod

> If it is indeed M269, I would expect some trace of EHG, but considerably more WHG - this is from using Iron Gates as a proxy for the original M269 Balkan folk (who were over 3/4 WHG and under 1/4 EHG). Obviously, ATP3 has additional farmer admixture that makes up most of its genome.


That's definitely possible considering how low the coverage of the ATP3 sample is. But I think we can say with some certainty that EHG was not a *major* component in ATP3. That's why I think Pip's Baltic origin hypothesis is rather weak.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That's definitely possible considering how low the coverage of the ATP3 sample is. But I think we can say with some certainty that EHG was not a *major* component in ATP3. That's why I think Pip's Baltic origin hypothesis is rather weak.


Yup, agreed. What do you think about my immediately previous post?

----------


## markod

> Yup, agreed. What do you think about my immediately previous post?


As an alternative to a Yamnaya migration of L51 I think I'm more or less in agreement, though I'm agnostic about the specific cultures associated with the spread of L51. I think what we can deduce from the little data we have is:

1. early presence of L51 in the Mediterranean due to the distribution of basal haplogrups

2. likely epicenter of phylogenetic diversity in or near France, suggesting that Western Europe was an important point for the early expansions of L51

3. considering the TMRCA of L51, its diversification must have taken place in the copper age - this I consider to be the most important evidence against an origin in Yamnaya

4. if ATP3 is representative of the population that spread L51, its more immediate origin was probably in the Aegean or the Balkans

I'd also say that the linguistic evidence suggests that the L51 population either lost its Indo-European speech upon entering mainland Europe or was non-IE from the get-go. I don't know which one is more likely. Western Europe, Ireland, Britain and maybe even large parts of Germany and the Alpine region IMHO might have been non-IE speaking until the strongly expansive and hierarchical cultures of the later Bronze Age and the Iron age changed the linguistic picture, which explains the lack of any deeply diverged IE language in Central and Western Europe.

The linguistic argument is only tangetially related to the alternative hypothesis of course: some or all L51 Yamnaya men could have lost their IE languages due to female influence already in the Carpathian basin if we suppose that L51's origin was in the steppe.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> As an alternative to a Yamnaya migration of L51 I think I'm more or less in agreement, though I'm agnostic about the specific cultures associated with the spread of L51. I think what we can deduce from the little data we have is:
> 
> 1. early presence of L51 in the Mediterranean due to the distribution of basal haplogrups
> 
> 2. likely epicenter of phylogenetic diversity in or near France, suggesting that Western Europe was an important point for the early expansions of L51
> 
> 3. considering the TMRCA of L51, its diversification must have taken place in the copper age - this I consider to be the most important evidence against an origin in Yamnaya
> 
> 4. if ATP3 is representative of the population that spread L51, its more immediate origin was probably in the Aegean or the Balkans
> ...


I would like to just say that I actually think Yamnaya was mostly R1a - but the elites we have found are Z2103, giving a false impression. This explains the lack of Z2103 in the region today in a much more suitable way than some replacement migration from the North by R1a folk. L23 was, imo at least, an elite metallurgical lineage wherever it went. I also think that, ATP3 or not, the origin of the population that spread L51 was West Asian L23 in origin (and Balkan M269 before that, and perhaps retaining more of this original HG ancestry due to its elite status).

----------


## markod

> I would like to just say that I actually think Yamnaya was mostly R1a - but the elites we have found are Z2103, giving a false impression. This explains the lack of Z2103 in the region today in a much more suitable way than some replacement migration from the North by R1a folk. L23 was, imo at least, an elite metallurgical lineage wherever it went. I also think that, ATP3 or not, the origin of the population that spread L51 was West Asian L23 in origin (and Balkan M269 before that, and perhaps retaining more of this original HG ancestry due to its elite status).


I think obtaining a representative sample from Carpathian Yamnaya should be quite easy considering how many Kurgans there are. Sooner or later we'll know exactly which haplogroups expanded with it.

I don't want to speculate about West Asia too much because it makes people freak out. I will say that unfortunately the most interesting regions in this regard haven't been sampled: the Syro-Anatolian plains and the highlands north of historical Israel, the Taurus, all of Mesopotamia and the Gulf coast.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think obtaining a representative sample from Carpathian Yamnaya should be quite easy considering how many Kurgans there are. Sooner or later we'll know exactly which haplogroups expanded with it.
> 
> I don't want to speculate about West Asia too much because it makes people freak out. I will say that unfortunately the most interesting regions in this regard haven't been sampled: the Syro-Anatolian plains and the highlands north of the Levant, the Taurus, all of Mesopotamia and the Gulf coast.


And with the Syrian civil war, one of the most important regions seems a no-go for quite a while. I'm very confident on a (Highland) West Asian origin of L23 though, and if people have this Reich fetish, then they should agree with this too, as that's what he's indicated (but he thinks that L51 and Z2103 both developed on the Steppe, which I do not). Again, I just want to say, almost all of this theory was pioneered by Tomenable, but I don't know if he still believes in it.

Also, I don't think Kurgans help in terms of identifying which Y DNA the bulk of the population belonged to, as kurgans are clearly of the elite.

----------


## halfalp

> I would like to just say that I actually think Yamnaya was mostly R1a - but the elites we have found are Z2103, giving a false impression. This explains the lack of Z2103 in the region today in a much more suitable way than some replacement migration from the North by R1a folk. L23 was, imo at least, an elite metallurgical lineage wherever it went. I also think that, ATP3 or not, the origin of the population that spread L51 was West Asian L23 in origin (and Balkan M269 before that, and perhaps retaining more of this original HG ancestry due to its elite status).


Not sure to get your point, R1b and R1a are in the terriotry of Yamnaya between 9000-7000BCE ( Mesolithic Ukraine ) and we dont have a lot, if any R1a related to Yamnaya, so what's your conclusion? For the L23 coming from Middle-East / West Asia, by what road? with what lineages? All mtdna in Yamnaya are found in Neolithic Europe and/or Neolithic South Caucasus. And with what ancestry? Yamnaya doesn't have any ENA, neither Levante_Neolithic. They have CHG that some people try to labeled Iran_Neolithic, surely to fit a concensus hypothesis. The only pre-neolithic link with the actual samples that i can see. Iron_Gates HG and Proto-Lepenski Vir already had mtdna H13. Kotias Klde was H13c. R1b-V88 is found in Africa and Levante, wich means they came into Africa likely from the Middle-East and not from Sardinia??? or Spain. Already here, we can see pre-neolithic relationship between Balkans and Middle-East. But there is absolutely no datas, a part the CHG component, that the putative ancestors of Yamnaya came from the Middle-East. The Maikop paper already clearly shows that. So are you seeing R1a as the original Yamnaya lineage because it's an Ashkenazi modern lineage or have you a real idea behind this supposition?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Not sure to get your point, R1b and R1a are in the terriotry of Yamnaya between 9000-7000BCE ( Mesolithic Ukraine ) and we dont have a lot, if any R1a related to Yamnaya, so what's your conclusion? For the L23 coming from Middle-East / West Asia, by what road? with what lineages? All mtdna in Yamnaya are found in Neolithic Europe and/or Neolithic South Caucasus. And with what ancestry? Yamnaya doesn't have any ENA, neither Levante_Neolithic. They have CHG that some people try to labeled Iran_Neolithic, surely to fit a concensus hypothesis. The only pre-neolithic link with the actual samples that i can see. Iron_Gates HG and Proto-Lepenski Vir already had mtdna H13. Kotias Klde was H13c. R1b-V88 is found in Africa and Levante, wich means they came into Africa likely from the Middle-East and not from Sardinia??? or Spain. Already here, we can see pre-neolithic relationship between Balkans and Middle-East. But there is absolutely no datas, a part the CHG component, that the putative ancestors of Yamnaya came from the Middle-East. The Maikop paper already clearly shows that. *So are you seeing R1a as the original Yamnaya lineage because it's an Ashkenazi modern lineage or have you a real idea behind this supposition?*


You're an idiot and I pay no attention to you, I read the last sentence and just laughed. Also, you don't understand phylogeny.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think obtaining a representative sample from Carpathian Yamnaya should be quite easy considering how many Kurgans there are. Sooner or later we'll know exactly which haplogroups expanded with it.
> 
> I don't want to speculate about West Asia too much because it makes people freak out. I will say that unfortunately the most interesting regions in this regard haven't been sampled: the Syro-Anatolian plains and the highlands north of historical Israel, the Taurus, all of Mesopotamia and the Gulf coast.


On a separate note, reply to my message lol - I want to know what you think

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think obtaining a representative sample from Carpathian Yamnaya should be quite easy considering how many Kurgans there are. Sooner or later we'll know exactly which haplogroups expanded with it.
> 
> I don't want to speculate about West Asia too much because it makes people freak out. I will say that unfortunately the most interesting regions in this regard haven't been sampled: the Syro-Anatolian plains and the highlands north of historical Israel, the Taurus, all of Mesopotamia and the Gulf coast.


We do have some Eastern European mtDNA dating back to the Chalcolithic (so basically impossible to be Yamnaya) in those regions.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Don't know why that was downvoted, U4 is clearly Eastern European in origin...

----------


## Pip

> Try to understand the admixture run you're basing your speculations on. ATP3 likely has no EHG. Not even the authors and the usual amateurs who manage to tease out EHG components almost every time managed to find an EHG signal.


The admixture run I have seen for ATP3 has significant EHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Khyvalynsk), and no WHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Mesolithic Europe).

----------


## halfalp

What is actually ATP3?

----------


## Pip

> Would you not expect the presence of early L51 to be mainly around the Black Sea if that were the case? Instead, it is around the French and Italian Rivieras (including areas like Sardinia), which is completely against what you have said.
> 
> Also, just looking on Wikipedia, I see this (about Cucuteni): 
> 
> Members of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture shared common features with other Neolithic societies, including:
> 
> *An almost nonexistent social stratification**Lack of a political elite*Rudimentary economy, most likely a subsistence or gift economyPastoralists and subsistence farmers
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not aware that we have any early (5th millennium or even 4th millennium BC) L51.

L51 is only one of 5 L51-equivalent SNPs, and so most likely formed over 500 years (20 generations) or so. Its origin zone could have encompassed a very wide area, including both the Black Sea and the Western Mediterranean.

For Cucuteni to have survived and prospered as it did, it would probably have needed people to protect it - perhaps that is where L51 came in? We know that Cucuteni Tripolye adopted more Steppe culture traits over time, so must have had exposure to people from such culture. L51 might have been a separate group connected to Cucuteni that only properly assimilated into core Cucuteni populations as they were destroyed and their remnants fled westwards.

I don't make any assumptions about languages or elite lineages. My link to Cucuteni and RRBP is simply based on analysis of data - the best fit for R1b Bell Beaker mtDNA came out as approximately 50% Cucuteni Tripolye, 20% Yamnaya, 15% RRBP. And the closest fit to L51 expansions came out as G-PF3345 expansions.

----------


## Pip

> If it is indeed M269, I would expect some trace of EHG, but considerably more WHG - this is from using Iron Gates as a proxy for the original M269 Balkan folk (who were over 3/4 WHG and under 1/4 EHG). Obviously, ATP3 has additional farmer admixture that makes up most of its genome.


That is why I speculate whether he might have been a recent migrant from a North Eastern branch of M269 (Eastern Baltic).

----------


## Pip

> That's definitely possible considering how low the coverage of the ATP3 sample is. But I think we can say with some certainty that EHG was not a *major* component in ATP3. That's why I think Pip's Baltic origin hypothesis is rather weak.


Yes, EHG was a significant, rather than the major, component. The most striking aspect is its absence of WHG, which is probably a factor of its low coverage, but nonetheless I would say is indicative of a recent arrival from somewhere outside of the western and central core of Europe.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The admixture run I have seen for ATP3 has significant EHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Khyvalynsk), and no WHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Mesolithic Europe).


Isn't it basically impossible that it has no WHG, being a Western European sample

----------


## Pip

> As an alternative to a Yamnaya migration of L51 I think I'm more or less in agreement, though I'm agnostic about the specific cultures associated with the spread of L51. I think what we can deduce from the little data we have is:
> 
> 1. early presence of L51 in the Mediterranean due to the distribution of basal haplogrups
> 
> 2. likely epicenter of phylogenetic diversity in or near France, suggesting that Western Europe was an important point for the early expansions of L51
> 
> 3. considering the TMRCA of L51, its diversification must have taken place in the copper age - this I consider to be the most important evidence against an origin in Yamnaya
> 
> 4. if ATP3 is representative of the population that spread L51, its more immediate origin was probably in the Aegean or the Balkans
> ...


Yes, pretty much all agreed. Especially a formative spell in the Balkans and a developmental coalescence point in France - the evidence for the latter is substantial.

I've not really much to suggest about language, although I estimate that the assimilation point for R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 communities was in Poland/NW Ukraine around 4,000 BC, so this is where I think it most likely that their joint language would have originated.

----------


## Pip

> Isn't it basically impossible that it has no WHG, being a Western European sample


Yes, that is why I believe it was most likely a recent migrant from somewhere else, which would help to date the earliest migrations from the East into the West - i.e. probably mid 4th millennium BC. This (i) predates the mid 3rd millennium Yamnayan incursions into Europe and the Bell Beaker expansions by some way, (ii) matches the branching estimates within Western European L51, (iii) is consistent with the dating of the collapse of Cucuteni and the western branching of its G-PF3345 subclades, and (iv) is consistent with the dating of the Suvorovo incursions into the Balkan interior.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

The more I think about him, the more I realise that Coon isn't some overhyped anthro-hero - he was a genius, WAY ahead of his time. Check this out, emphasis mine:

"The Bronze Age covered, in most of Europe, the brief span of some six centuries, as compared with an expanse three times as long in Egypt and Mesopotamia. During these six centuries, however, important racial changes took place in many parts of the European world, while in the two valleys from which European civilization emanated, the personnel remained constant. The parts of Europe most affected by Bronze Age movements of people were the north and west; and hence these activities may be interpreted as a late phase of the displacements initiated by the retreat of the last glacier, and continued by the discovery of the principles of food production. By the end of the Bronze Age, the centers of civilization had begun their movement northward and westward, toward Greece and Italy, movements which were later to push much farther in the same direction. It is perhaps no coincidence that, since the beginning of the Neolithic, people from the east and south had migrated to the north and west ahead of this progression.

Among the problems left over from the Neolithic which the evidence of the Bronze Age has helped to clarify is that of the immediate origin of the Danubians. In the Neolithic Danubian-like peoples cultivated the rich soil of southern Russia and of western Turkestan. We now know that they must have formed a large bloc of agriculturalists occupying Asia Minor as well, and probably also the Caucasus. Thus they may have come into the Danube Valley from either southern Russia or Anatolia, or both; and their earlier derivation from the agricultural higlands is established.


A second problem, which arose only during the Bronze Age, is the origin of the new racial type which appeared, shortly before 2000 B.C., apparently from nowhere, in Asia Minor, Palestine, and Cyprus. This new type was tall, round headed and frequently planoccipital; its nose was prominent and narrow; its face triangular and of moderate length. In its associated morphological features, it forecast the appearance of the Dinaric race.


*Brachycephals of this type followed the old Megalithic sea route to Italy, the Italian islands, and Spain.* In Spain some of them seem to have *associated themselves with cultural phenomena known as the Bell Beaker complex.* As the Bell Beaker people, these newcomers *travelled from Spain to the Rhinelands and to central Europe*, where they were the *first disseminators of metal.* Having appeared in the Rhineland in considerable numbers, they mixed with the older Borreby sub-stratum which had remained there since the Mesolithic, and with Corded people coming from the east. This triple combination *moved bodily down the Rhine and across the North Sea to Britain.* Thus, during the Early Bronze Age, England and Scotland were invaded by people of entirely new types, who *came in numbers sufficient to change the population of these countries in a radical manner.* At the same time, other movements of these brachycephals from the eastern Mediterranean passed by sea from Spain to Ireland and from Ireland to Scotland.


The appearance of these early Dinarics on the Asiatic and European scene marks the advent of the third important brachycephalic racial type which we have encountered in our survey of the post-glacial prehistory of the white race. Unlike the Borreby and Alpine types, it cannot be easily or plausibly explained as a simple Palaeolithic survivor. Facially it is basically Mediterranean; it seems to be a Mediterranean type brachycephalized by some non-Mediterranean agency.

These Dinarics did not come from central Asia, nor from Mesopotamia or Egypt. Facially, they resemble the dolichocephalic residents of Asia Minor and the eastern Mediterranean coast lands of the period during which they first appeared, in that both have in common a high-bridged, high-rooted nose, high orbits, and a sloping forehead. Until further evidence is found, it is safer to hold that the culture-bearing Dinarics of the Bronze Age *developed in the Syrian highlands*, where a similar type of brachycephaly is now present, than to try to bring them from a distance.


Another Bronze Age event of racial movement was the gradual disappearance through amalgamation of the Corded people and of the Danubians, and the emergence of an intermediate long-headed form. This latter, which inhabited the immense stretch of territory from Germany and Austria to the Altai Mountains, occupied an intermediate position in the total roster of greater Mediterranean racial variations.


In Austria and Bohemia the high vault and narrow face of both Corded and Danubian strains persisted, but from southern Russia over to the Altai, the vaults were lower and the faces broader. *Two variants thus appeared, a western and an eastern.* There is evidence that the eastern group, at least, was partly if not prevailingly blond. Both eastern and western divisions may with some confidence be compared to the "Nordic" peoples who appeared historically during the Iron Age.


At the end of the Bronze Age, for a period of two or three centuries, the pall of cremation falls over the racial history of Europe. When the smoke has lifted during the Early Iron Age, we shall see what changes have taken place during this period of darkness."

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Matches perfectly with the theory I'm backing :)

----------


## Ygorcs

> Almost all historical linguists see the spread of Celtic as originating in the Hallstatt culture, which was much later. As for Lusitanian - it's a bit of a mystery, but most that have an opinion see it as being Italic. Moreover, there is no evidence of IE languages in Britain before the Celts.
> 
> I repeat my previous claim - Indo-European languages in Western Europe are EXCLUSIVE to two ultimate sources - U152 and U106. These are the ONLY L51 subclades to have developed in Central Europe - right in Corded Ware territory (and this is not a coincidence, as I would be willing to bet that Corded Ware is ultimately the vector to which Western IE spread from). This is also consistent with a non-IE origin of L51. By no means conclusive, but it makes sense (as to why IE hadn't spread out of Central Europe even while Bell Beaker folk had invaded all of Western Europe and were participating in the Atlantic Bronze Age).


To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany. 

Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .

The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany. 
> 
> Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .
> 
> The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.


I disagree concerning Corded Ware and Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, as I associate them with origins from the late Steppe due to their satem features (which I think von Bradke(?) hypothesised), whereas I see Corded Ware as a much earlier departure. And I dont quite see why Western IE should have been a post-Corded development based on what Ive suggested - though of course it seems likely that the splitting into things like Germanic, Italic and Celtic was after its demise.

As for this idea of para-Celtic in Britain before Celtic proper - I havent seen any consensus suggesting that at all, but it is an interesting idea. The point about Q-Celtic retaining some of this archaic extinct R1b-L21 para-Celtic doesnt seem any more appropriate than Q-Celtic retaining some features of any other language, though (Ill mention the Vasconic substratum hypothesis in its most limited sense (the Atlantic Bronze Age culture only), which definitely has some levels of support in this limited sense, and also makes sense here as Q-Celtic is very occasionally given, incorrectly, an Iberian origin due to apparent influence from Basque that isnt really present among P-Celtic)

----------


## berun

ATP3 is intetesting, but much more the Beakers found near Barcelona before the "reflux" time, having R1b-M269 calls, unluckly the authors weren't compelled enough to test better samples.

----------


## markod

> To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany. 
> 
> Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .
> 
> The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.



It is strange then, that the IE expansion would have wiped out all IE languages except those consistent with Urnfield expansion, but left alive so many non-IE languages. One would except to find a language as diverged from other European language as Indo-Iranian, for example, to survive in some pocket in Western Europe.

The meagre evidence we have however gives a different picture: Matasovic (2012) "The Substratum in Insular Celtic" strongly supports that the Celts likely encountered several non-IE languages when they came to Britain. Schrijver (2000) "Non-Indo-European Surviving in Ireland in the First Millenium A.D." suggests that some ancestors of the Irish still spoke non-IE in the early Middle Ages.

Germanic also doesn't give the impression of a language that expanded onto other IE dialects. Large parts of the vocabulary lack IE etymologies. A language family whose expansionmainly involved the conquest of other IE peoples is Slavic, and you'd have to look really hard if you wanted to find words that aren't IE in its lexicon.

----------


## markod

> ATP3 is intetesting, but much more the Beakers found near Barcelona before the "reflux" time, having R1b-M269 calls, unluckly the authors weren't compelled enough to test better samples.


Are they M269? I recall there were quite a few beakers with R1b and zero steppe ancestry. I found it weird that the authors didn't try to resolve those further.

----------


## berun

weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.


Could you give a source?

----------


## berun

it's in Olalde paper about BB, supp also

----------


## Pip

Which subclades of R1b (or more specifically of R1b-L51) do we think might have been present at the founding of Los Millares 3,200 BC?
According to yfull's estimates, the y-DNA of only two individual bearers of L51 from that era still survives today, both coalescing back to an estimated origin point in Northern France. This would surely suggest that any L51 population in Los Millares would have been eliminated and/or its remnants chased northwards, rather than them emerging to replace the whole of the male population of Iberia 800 years later.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Which subclades of R1b (or more specifically of R1b-L51) do we think might have been present at the founding of Los Millares 3,200 BC?
> According to yfull's estimates, the y-DNA of only two individual bearers of L51 from that era still survives today, both coalescing back to an estimated origin point in Northern France. This would surely suggest that any L51 population in Los Millares would have been eliminated and/or its remnants chased northwards, rather than them emerging to replace the whole of the male population of Iberia 800 years later.


Or, they bred amongst themselves in a caste system in Spain (which we know existed in Los Millares), until for whatever reason they moved to France for Lebensraum and experienced population growth - that's my idea at the moment, at least.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

EDIT: I was wrong about what I just cut out, seems like there are British East coast L21 Beaker samples, indicating the Dutch beakers were also L21.

----------


## hrvclv

> EDIT: I was wrong about what I just cut out, seems like there are British East coast L21 Beaker samples, indicating the Dutch beakers were also L21.


Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4950 / M
Find location: Central Flying School, Upavon, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a2d1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): *R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 (L21)*
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4951 / M
Find location: Flying School, Netheravon, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1b1a1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): *R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)*
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5513 / M
Find location: Nr. Ablington, Figheldean, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): V
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): *R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 (L21)*
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2417 / M
Find location: Amesbury Down, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–2140 BCE (based on associated dates in same context especially 23535_25004)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): J1c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): *R1b1a1a2a1a2c (Z290)* -->Z290 (aka Z245 or Z260) : father clade to L21
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6777 / M
Find location: Wilsford Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake G.54
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4b1b2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): *R1b1a1a2a1a2c (Z290)*
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6778 / F
Find location: Wilsford Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake G.52
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a26
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: *Steppe (admixture)*

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2461 / F
Find location: Porton Down, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: England_CA_EBA
Date: 2500–2140 BCE (based on associated dates in same context)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H5c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: *Steppe (admixture)*

Also, in present-day Ireland, U152 is below 5% in most areas, with two pockets between 5 and 10%. Under such conditions, how could U152 have spread the Celtic language there, without any evidence that it ever demographically superseded or replaced L21 ? Insular Celtic is L21, period.

----------


## hrvclv

Follow the trail...

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5666 / M
Find location: Lochenice
Country: *Czech Republic*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5025, RISE567 / F
Find location: Kněževes
Country: *Czech Republic*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5b2c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: 1240k of shotgun data in AllentoftNature2015
Colour group: Steppe (autosomal)

ample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6480 / M
Find location: Velké Přílepy
Country: *Czech Republic*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7271 / M
Find location: Brandýsek
Country: *Czech Republic*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2200 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7212 / M
Find location: Radovesice
Country: *Czech Republic*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2200 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1b1a1+199
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID: RISE564.SG
Location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, *Germany*
Haplogroup name
R1b1a1a2a1 (L51)

Sample ID: I5529
Location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, *Bavaria*
Haplogroup name
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4132, RISE560 / M
Find location: Augsburg Sportgelände, Augsburg, *Bavaria*
Country: Germany
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a1a1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: 1240k of shotgun data in Allentoft Nature2015
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5748 / M
Find location: De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland
Country: *The Netherlands*
Associated label in publication: Beaker The Netherlands
Date: 2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): X2b4
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5757 / M
Find location: Sion-Petit-Chasseur, Dolmen XI
Country: *Switzerland*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2469–1984 BCE 
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H3af
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2575 / M
Find location: La Fare, Forcalquier
Country: *France*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Southern France
Date: 2475–2210 calBCE (3895±40 BP, GrA-22988)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1c1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): no_data
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (autosomal)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6472 / M
Find location: La Magdalena, Madrid
Country: *Spain*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): HV0b
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6588 / M
Find location: Humanejos, Madrid
Country: *Spain*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5b2b3
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5665 / M
Find location: Virgazal, Tablada de Rudrón, Burgos
Country: *Spain*
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2280–1984 calBCE (3730±40 BP, Poz-49174)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a24a
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

----------


## MOESAN

I agree - L21 was surely IE speaking and even Celtic speaking or at least Celtised before Hallstatt -
I think the most of U152 in Britain (maybe as in SW Iberia) came later with Belgae tribes -
concerning BB, a French BB in Provence in Villard was U152 too, under the Rhine-Rhne BB 's groups influence I think. - But L21 was surely a bit stronger before Hallstatt period, specially on the northern and western coasts and it is not only the Irish slaves who planted it into Western Norway - it is present too among Dutch people and Belgians -it was present too in central and eastern France at lower rates and among Roman Swiss people.
Surely more ancient Y-haplo's would be welcome to nuance the picture.

----------


## markod

> Also, in present-day Ireland, U152 is below 5% in most areas, with two pockets between 5 and 10%. Under such conditions, how could U152 have spread the Celtic language there, without any evidence that it ever demographically superseded or replaced L21 ? Insular Celtic is L21, period.


I think that's consistent with what Schrijver suggets in his book: that the Celtic influence in Ireland came late and was demographically negligible.




> (1) The fi rst linguistic evidence for the presence of Celtic in Ireland datesfrom as late as the second century AD (Ptolemy’s map of Ireland):
> while Irish may have arrived much earlier, there is no reason to
> believe that it actually did.
> (2) British Celtic and Irish are so closely related to one another that their
> common ancestor must have been spoken as recently as the fi rst century
> AD; this cannot be squared with a much earlier arrival of Irish
> in Ireland.
> (3) Similar developments in British Celtic suggest that the rapid and deep
> sound changes that affected Irish between approximately 400 and
> ...

----------


## hrvclv

@ markod.

Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum. 

Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.


I find it extremely interesting that it was linked to Ciempozuelos pottery. From a quick Google search, Coon concerning the Dinaric nature of BB and the absence of Dinaric forms in Spain:

"In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race. The basis for the belief that the Bell Beaker people of Spain were Dinarics rests largely upon three cranial fragments from the type site of this culture at *Ciempozuelos*, near Madrid..."

I can't believe I hadn't read this until now:

https://theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V5.htm

*This is, basically, the missing link!* Obviously, we need aDNA, but still - why were those samples skipped over? That is REALLY puzzling.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> @ markod.
> 
> Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum. 
> 
> Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?


This is puzzling me too, however it would still puzzle me even with this Yamnaya hypothesis, given the fact that there is basically no way Celtic dates back to P312 (as Italic is associated with U152). Given Italic is not a branch of Celtic, and if we play the game of linking haplogroups to language carriers, that leaves Celtic as originating among U152 (or later) folk, and indeed the current consensus is with the Hallstatt culture (U152). 

The only other way around this is to say that (at least through my hypothesis) instead of L151 folk adopting an undifferentiated Germano-Italo-Celtic language of Corded Ware, OR instead of P312 Beakers adopting an undifferentiated Italo-Celtic language of Corded Ware and U106 folk separately adopting Germanic from a different branch of Corded Ware, there would be FOUR separate adoptions (L21 adopting Rhineland Corded Ware's Celtic, a branch of U152 adopting Rhineland Corded Ware's Celtic, another branch of U152 adopting Corded Ware's Italic, and U106 adopting Corded Ware's Germanic). I mean, it's possible, but Occam's razor goes against that. I personally believe in the second one (two separate adoptions - one of I-C and one of G)

----------


## markod

> @ markod.
> 
> Interesting. However, I find it hard to understand how U152, speaking a language that had definitely long turned P-Celtic by the time you refer to, could have spread Q-Celtic Gaelic in Ireland. Besides, U152 in Ireland is restricted to very small areas, which hardly suggests a late-coming U152 superstratum. 
> 
> Now if Gaelic speakers were late-comers to Ireland, where did they arrive from ?


Schrijver argues that they came from lowland Britain, fleeing the Romans. He believes that Irish is much closer to the Celtic substratum in Old English than are the Britonnic languages.

----------


## Saetrus

Davidski's insider buddies like Haak are saying the big shots have given up on the steppe narrative and are considering Kura-Araxes the PIE culture now.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Davidski's insider buddies like Haak are saying the big shots have given up on the steppe narrative and are considering Kura-Araxes the PIE culture now.


I actually think what I've said hits the nail on the head personally aha - but where did you get that info from? Also don't let Olympus Mons hear about this, he'll go crazy, even though I reckon this K-A hypothesis is probably a modified Kurgan theory with origins South of the Caucasus.

How I'm interpreting this is that they haven't found any Steppe in Anatolian samples.

----------


## hrvclv

> Schrijver argues that they came from lowland Britain, fleeing the Romans. He believes that Irish is much closer to the Celtic substratum in Old English than are the Britonnic languages.


It goes against everything I've held as probable so far, but I'll (reluctantly) concede it makes sense.

It suggests that pre-Roman Britain may have been partly P-Celtic (Welsh, Pictish ?), partly Q-Celtic. I'm still rather sceptical, but it opens some space for reasonable doubt, though.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Is it possible that (in the hypothesis I've spouted out for half of this thread) instead of picking up Western IE from Corded Ware, L51 Beaker folk picked it up from Hungarian Yamnaya?

EDIT: Actually is that not unlikely, as that would be around 2500BC, but surely that is way too late for an undifferentiated proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic to exist, right?

----------


## berun

> I find it extremely interesting that it was linked to Ciempozuelos pottery. From a quick Google search, Coon concerning the Dinaric nature of BB and the absence of Dinaric forms in Spain:
> 
> "In Spain, however, they are frequently of the Megalithic race. The basis for the belief that the Bell Beaker people of Spain were Dinarics rests largely upon three cranial fragments from the type site of this culture at *Ciempozuelos*, near Madrid..."
> 
> I can't believe I hadn't read this until now:
> 
> https://theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-V5.htm
> 
> *This is, basically, the missing link!* Obviously, we need aDNA, but still - why were those samples skipped over? That is REALLY puzzling.


Ciempozuelos pottery is a regional development of BB, pots found in Barcelona are of the International or Maritime style and dates... some centuries older.

----------


## Pip

> Or, they bred amongst themselves in a caste system in Spain (which we know existed in Los Millares), until for whatever reason they moved to France for Lebensraum and experienced population growth - that's my idea at the moment, at least.


But why would they have gone from a couple of localised paternal lines in a rigid caste system to suddenly spreading out in all directions as rampant egalitarian sexual adventurers? 
Especially given the absence of L51 in early archeological samples, I would suggest they were probably a struggling lineage until just before Bell Beaker.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> But why would they have gone from a couple of localised paternal lines in a rigid caste system to suddenly spreading out in all directions as rampant egalitarian sexual adventurers? 
> Especially given the absence of L51 in early archeological samples, I would suggest they were probably a struggling lineage until just before Bell Beaker.


I don't see the relevance, we both agree the population exploded right? Why does it matter if it came from a self-contained elite or if it was simply having a hard time

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Ciempozuelos pottery is a regional development of BB, pots found in Barcelona are of the International or Maritime style and dates... some centuries older.


Yeah, but I mean in the brachycephaly. Interestingly enough, Coon actually links the later El Argar to the Middle East but not to Bell Beakers, which could be one of the sources of Spanish J2.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Matches perfectly with the theory I'm backing :)


Really?




> In 2001, John P. Jackson, Jr. researched Coon's papers to review the controversy around the reception of _The Origin of Races_, stating in the article abstract
> 
> Segregationists in the United States used Coon's work as proof that African Americans were "junior" to white Americans, and thus unfit for full participation in American society. The paper examines the interactions among Coon, segregationist Carleton Putnam, geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, and anthropologist Sherwood Washburn. The paper concludes that Coon actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity.[30] 
> Jackson found in the archived Coon papers records of repeated efforts by Coon to aid Putnam's efforts to provide intellectual support to the ongoing resistance to racial integration but cautioned Putnam against statements that could identify Coon as an active ally. (Jackson also noted that both men had become aware that they had General Israel Putnam as a common ancestor, making them (at least distant) cousins, but Jackson indicated neither when either learned of the family relationship nor whether they had a more recent common ancestor.)[30]


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon


What does that have to do with anything at all?! Coon predicted quite a lot of things correctly, and he was extremely competent - using him as a source of information is perfectly justified. Please could you point out anything in his writings that is racist, as I think he tried to remain strictly scientific (even if he had a hard-on for Mediterraneans in the broader sense of the word).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carleton_S._Coon


Honestly who the hell do you think you are, trying to shut down discussion by playing the "racist" card, but not even the "racist" card as nothing so far has been racist - you went full racist ad hominem! Get outta here...

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> What does that have to do with anything at all?! Coon predicted quite a lot of things correctly, and he was extremely competent - using him as a source of information is perfectly justified. Please could you point out anything in his writings that is racist, as I think he tried to remain strictly scientific (even if he had a hard-on for Mediterraneans in the broader sense of the word).


You tell me - you cited him.




> “My thesis is, in essence, that at the beginning of our record, over half a million years ago, man was a single species, Homo Erectus, perhaps already divided into five geographic races or subspecies. Homo Erectus then evolved into Homo Sapiens not once but five times, as each subspecies, living in its own territory, passed a critical threshold from a more brutal to a more sapient state.”
> 
> Coon maintained that these five evolutionary jumps corresponded with what he saw as modern racial divisions among humans, with the Caucasoid race evolving 200,000 years before the Congoid.


http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf

----------


## Joey37

I agree with the idea that the only L51 clades spreading Indo-European languages were U106 and U152. DF27 and L21 are Atlantic outliers, pretty much restricted to western coastal Europe. What languages they spoke are unknown. R1a-M417 and R1b-Z2103 were the main vectors of Indo-European steppe expansion. Which of the two spread the languages to the ancestors of U152 and basal U106 is unknown.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> You tell me - you cited him.
> 
> 
> 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf


Idiot, get off this site if you can't handle something as mild as Coon.




> I agree with the idea that the only L51 clades spreading Indo-European languages were U106 and U152. DF27 and L21 are Atlantic outliers, pretty much restricted to western coastal Europe. What languages they spoke are unknown. R1a-M417 and R1b-Z2103 were the main vectors of Indo-European steppe expansion. Which of the two spread the languages to the ancestors of U152 and basal U106 is unknown.


Yup, I'm entirely in alignment with that.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Idiot, get off this site if you can't handle something as mild as Coon.


Nice. You go from accusing me of "trying to shut down discussion," to telling me to "get off this site," for pointing out that Coon, who you cited approvingly, is clearly a discredited apologist for white (or Caucasoid) supremacism. How else are we to take his defining race as a hierarchy of separate "subspecies", with whites at the top and blacks on the bottom?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Nice. You go from accusing me of "trying to shut down discussion," to telling me to "get off this site," for pointing out that Coon, who you cited approvingly, is clearly a discredited apologist for white (or Caucasoid) supremacism. How else are we to take his defining race as a hierarchy of separate "subspecies", with whites at the top and blacks on the bottom?


I still don't see where he said that Whites were at the top (even if he probably believed it), so don't start lying now. And it's Coon, how can you be on a site like this and not be able to handle him. That's like going to Crufts and complaining that the judge cited a quote from an author who loves Border Collies and hate Pugs.

----------


## MOESAN

All these notions of racist or not racist concerns opinions about racial hyerarchy but they are very boring and inaccurate when we are discussing accurate descriptions of ancient pops: Coon, spite some errors, is still a usefull "tool" at the phenotypic level: let's try to compare phenotypic and genetic statements about ancient pops without to loose our time with phylosophical or political opinions out of this kind of topic.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> I actually think what I've said hits the nail on the head personally aha - but where did you get that info from? Also don't let Olympus Mons hear about this, he'll go crazy, even though I reckon this K-A hypothesis is probably a modified Kurgan theory with origins South of the Caucasus.
> 
> How I'm interpreting this is that they haven't found any Steppe in Anatolian samples.


Hey!!! I go Crazy with anything. 

Actually I go Crazy if they try to link *Shulaveri-Shomu* to anything *Kura-Araxes*. People have as big problem with time as they seem to have with space. there is a Gap of 1000 years between both cultures. And they share no traits at all. 

I think its not at all possible that Haak or whomever is linking Kura-araxes to PIE or R1b... Nobody is that stupid. Or perhaps the madness of "pretend not to see" in Academia is even greater that what I could phantom. "PnS" is a particular lie close to politically very left leaning people. 

To be fair, what they at Max Planck must be saying is that the Hittite is related to Kura-Araxes. Which would be wrong, but not really crazy.

Now... the Shulaveri, oh boy, oh boy, its coming!

----------


## CrazyDonkey

To quote Theodosius Dobzhansky’s review of the _Origin of Races_:




> because Coon...by arguing that “Congoids” evolved so much later than “Cacasoids the implication that they are also socially and culturally inferior can easily be read into the text.”


John P. Jackson further states:




> Henry Garrett and Wesley C. George, by now very familiar to the scientific community as outspoken white supremacists, had published a letter in the New York Times on October 24, 1962...calling forth a paragraph in the introduction to Coon’s new book where he wrote, “It is a fair inference...that the subspecies which crossed the evolutionary threshold into the category of Homo sapiens the earliest have evolved the most.”

----------


## MOESAN

the Celtic question is very intriguing. But if we look at the diverse links between Italic, Celtic and Germanic (and even some kind of proto-Balto-Slavic) it seem that the Celts were the more western ones and came in touch with Germanics rather lately, after Italics. The Qw-/P- mutation seems to me a later phenomenon, with possible origin around Hungary and with maybe new elites among them in East and among the easternmost Italics, or at least in contact with these new elites (found at the phenotypic level among Celts). Celtic seems as a whole phonetically closer to Ligurian and to Lusitanian according to some scholars, other western languages of IE origin. If the Qw-/P- thing occurred around Hallstatt/Iron and also ALL Celtic came from this late and restricted horizon ina relatively fast expansion, I don't see why ALL Celtic languages are not P- dialects? Nevertheless it is not the case of Gaelics and Celtiberians.
The brittonic Picts in N-E Scotland and CNW Cumbriansdon't support too much the hypothesis of a gaelic pop between them and Cambria/Domnonia, and flight alone away before Romans.
I thought myself in a possibility of western Y-R1b-L51/L11/P312 not IE or only partly and lately IE-ised, because of the Basque question, but the evidence seems against this possiblity, or it concerned only their DF27 descendants?
the 'dinaric' brachy's people could have been first prospectors of a Y-R1b variety put in contact with the BB pottery makers of SW or W Iberia and they could have spred the 'elite' aspect of this pottery in their later expansion in central Europe, in the network of Rhne-Rhine-Danube knot, and passed it to other lineages of Y-R1b (L21 et pre-L21, U152 and pre-U152). I recall the old Peake considered BB ancestors were descendants of a Kurganised people of Cucuteni/Tripolye colour, passed through Carpathians and along them, southwards, towards the eastern Mediterranea; would it be so stupid (it's old, it's true!); some of them future Anatolian IE's ancestors, hybrided in some way? 
&: Linguistics can be very uncertain sometimes, when speaking of evolution speed. Nothing of what we say is very solidly based. That said, it is not because texts lack in a place that people there did not speak any language.
&&: L21 is maybe born around western France, but was at first more widely spred, in contact with first U152 in East, before later U152 came to reverse the proportions here and there. It was not so anecdotical I suppose. Wessex culture (2000/1400 BC?) post Round Barrows, was well evolved, in touch with Brittany Tumuli and the Netherlands and N-Rhine, and surely L21 dominated.

----------


## hrvclv

@ Moesan.

"_Linguistics can be very uncertain sometimes, when speaking of evolution speed. Nothing of what we say is very solidly based._"

From Wiki : "Proto-Celtic is mostly dated to roughly *800 BC* (Hallstatt C). In the first decade of the 21st century a number of scholars addressed this question using computational methods, with differing results. Gray and Atkinson estimated a date of 6100 BP (*4100 BC*) while Forster and Toth suggest a date of 3200 BC ±1500 years for the arrival of Celtic in Britain, but such early dates are not generally accepted."

--> Margin of uncertainty between the most extreme estimates : 3300 years !!!

----------


## Pip

> I don't see the relevance, we both agree the population exploded right? Why does it matter if it came from a self-contained elite or if it was simply having a hard time


To explain why Iberian (and indeed other) men might have been suddenly wiped out by a population that previously appears to have been very limited indeed, it makes sense to question what led to the abrupt change. The answer might differ, depending on whether the population concerned was a self-contained elite or struggling to survive. If it was an elite, what stopped it from expanding and branching earlier? If it was a struggler, what changed to to allow it to take off so spectacularly?

----------


## Ygorcs

> I would like to just say that I actually think Yamnaya was mostly R1a - but the elites we have found are Z2103, giving a false impression. This explains the lack of Z2103 in the region today in a much more suitable way than some replacement migration from the North by R1a folk. L23 was, imo at least, an elite metallurgical lineage wherever it went. I also think that, ATP3 or not, the origin of the population that spread L51 was West Asian L23 in origin (and Balkan M269 before that, and perhaps retaining more of this original HG ancestry due to its elite status).


IMO it's very unlikely that after hundreds of years of continuity of a certain culture with a certain elite population, ethnically distinct from the common folk, that elite's male haplogroups wouldn't explode in frequency and maybe even become dominant due to dozens of generations leaving larger offsprings. In ancient cultures male reproductive success was directly related to their status as elite freemen, and it is very unlikely that these men would've remained totally endogamous for hundreds of years next to genetically very similar people (e.g. R1a Dereivka people were not very distinct from R1b Yamna ones) they lived side by side with (see e.g. how even in the very strict caste system of India, unlikely to have existed in the Yamna culture IMHO, even many tribal populations have a lot of "Brahmin-like" Y-DNA haplogroups and some steppe admixture). I think it's hard for a powerful patriarchal elite who had a clearly very expansionist and warlike character to have preserved their Z2103 haplogroup within a small elite surrounded by totally intact R1a males.

----------


## hrvclv

> To explain why Iberian (and indeed other) men might have been suddenly wiped out by a population that previously appears to have been very limited indeed, it makes sense to question what led to the abrupt change. The answer might differ, depending on whether the population concerned was a self-contained elite or struggling to survive. If it was an elite, what stopped it from expanding and branching earlier? If it was a struggler, what changed to to allow it to take off so spectacularly?


I can't figure out why you guys want those L51 people to have been a small  group. Soon after 2500 BC, they are all over Central and Western Europe, Britain included. They didn't need to just move, they had to confront new populations, fight and conquer. Those places were not empty. There were long-established cultures everywhere, and population density was probably high in some Beaker and Megalithic areas. It must have taken some military might to impose oneself on such structured cultures.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I disagree concerning Corded Ware and Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, as I associate them with origins from the late Steppe due to their satem features (which I think von Bradke(?) hypothesised), whereas I see Corded Ware as a much earlier departure.



The late steppe (Poltavka, Sintashta, Andronovo etc.) was profoundly influenced and probably linguistically and culturally changed by R1a males bringing in a much more CWC-like admixture differentiating the MLBA population from the EBA. That is why I think that Indo-Iranian, yes, did originate in the steppe, but via a mix of local steppe with a back-migration of EBA Steppe + EEF people from the CWC horizon. 




> And I don�t quite see why Western IE should have been a post-Corded development based on what I�ve suggested - though of course it seems likely that the splitting into things like Germanic, Italic and Celtic was after its demise.


If I understood your hypothesis correctly, the spread of IE languages by R1b-L51 men was associated with the expansion of BBC and concomitant retraction of R1a CWC haplogroups, with non-IE L51 BB males shifting their language to that of their CWC women. If the process of formation of the Northwestern IE languages were like that, its birth would be roughly in the end of the CWC and its replacement by BB in Central/Central-Western Europe, wouldn't it? By that time the centum vs. satem proper divide would've already happened (I'm not including here other satem-like developments that happened later in other IE branches, but which were not "the" satem sound changes per se), and, if CWC is somehow associated with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian as many people believe (which would explain nicely the clear Indo-Iranian influence in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric especially), then it's probable that the languages of CWC would've been satem and a centum Northwestern IE with many pretty "archaic" features, in comparison with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, couldn't have been born out of such CWC IE branch.





> As for this idea of para-Celtic in Britain before Celtic proper - I haven�t seen any consensus suggesting that at all, but it is an interesting idea. The point about Q-Celtic retaining some of this archaic extinct R1b-L21 �para-Celtic� doesn�t seem any more appropriate than Q-Celtic retaining some features of any other language, though (I�ll mention the Vasconic substratum hypothesis in its most limited sense (the Atlantic Bronze Age culture only), which definitely has some levels of support in this limited sense, and also makes sense here as Q-Celtic is very occasionally given, incorrectly, an Iberian origin due to apparent influence from Basque that isn�t really present among P-Celtic)


AFAIK the Vasconic Substratum hypothesis didn't have any level of relevant support among the broader community of linguists. It wasn't well received at all. What are the influences of Basque on Q-Celtic that P-Celtic lacks? I have heard about a supposed (and also widely rejected) Afro-Asiatic(-like) influence on Goidelic Q-Celtic, but not about Basque influence (not apart from very tenuous things that are not demonstrably "Basque" in origin, like the vigesimal system also found in other parts of Europe that were not part of the Atlantic Bronze Age). The non-IE substrate is also apparently too small to have such a significant and unquestionable presence as it has for example in Greek and in Anatolian. If R1b-L21 Ireland had adopted Celtic directly from U152 Celts, having spoken non-IE languages before, and not being subsequently replaced at all by the incoming people (not even the males), I think we could at least expect for a larger non-IE substrate.

Another thing that makes me wary of ths "non-IE Britain until the Iron Age" hypothesis is that the pre-Celtic population apparently already carried a very steppe-enriched genetic structure to the British Isles, after all the big genetic replacement happened in the islands in the Early Bronze Age, not when the Celtic language "proper" (derived from Halstatt) arrived there in the Iron Age. When they came they already met a very autosomally Celtic-like population there. I find it unlikely that that population (including L51 males) would've come straight from Iberia and without steppe linguistic and cultural heritage.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> IMO it's very unlikely that after hundreds of years of continuity of a certain culture with a certain elite population, ethnically distinct from the common folk, that elite's male haplogroups wouldn't explode in frequency and maybe even become dominant due to dozens of generations leaving larger offsprings. In ancient cultures male reproductive success was directly related to their status as elite freemen, and it is very unlikely that these men would've remained totally endogamous for hundreds of years next to genetically very similar people (e.g. R1a Dereivka people were not very distinct from R1b Yamna ones) they lived side by side with (see e.g. how even in the very strict caste system of India, unlikely to have existed in the Yamna culture IMHO, even many tribal populations have a lot of "Brahmin-like" Y-DNA haplogroups and some steppe admixture). I think it's hard for a powerful patriarchal elite who had a clearly very expansionist and warlike character to have preserved their Z2103 haplogroup within a small elite surrounded by totally intact R1a males.


Those are all fair points, what I said about the bulk of Yamnaya being R1a is ALMOST pure speculation - much more than this whole L51-Iberia theory in this thread that actually has many lines of supporting evidence, some of which a Steppe origin of L51 simply cannot answer without heavy modification to at the very least an Upper Danubian origin instead. The Z2103 samples were from elite kurgans - so we do know the ruling class was Z2103. Whether or not the masses were is entirely unknown, but I think that given an indigenous Steppe origin of IE makes the most sense, and given that I do not believe Z2103 is Steppe in origin (rather an import from the South), it follows that the Z2103 folk adopted the language of the natives they imposed themselves on. This, at least as far as seems feasible to me, could only happen if the Z2103 was a minority, as if the Z2103 invaders from the South were a majority you would expect them to carry their language with them (which I've said probably wasn't IE, as IE is Steppe and Z2103 originally isn't). 

In terms of the relevance of metallurgical elites to L51 too, see below (in main reference to the Beaker folk):

"…in all primitive societies where metal work is carried out, the people concerned exist as separate tribes, castes or communities. They exist among other craftsmen but without interbreeding (…) When they traveled among the tribal societies of Central Europe, they evidently lived apart from the barbarians… Very widely the metal workers are wandering groups who trade while they work."

- Darlington

----------


## hrvclv

The Yamnaya Danube culture begins around 2950 BC, and ends (with a noticeable bridgehead in the Hungarian plain) some time around 2600 BC. Almost "instantly" afterwards, you have all those L51 (and subclades) expanding in Czechia, Poland, Germany, and further west. They literally submerge the CWC settlements and penetrate hands down into BB territory. Where they arrive, the Centum languages prevail, and have prevailed ever since.

Two options, imo : 

Either these Yamna people were L51 and Z2103 tribes travelling alongside, and only the L51 moved north (with rapid founder effect - Unetice is 93.5% R1b); it would be the same kind of tribal split as later happened between U106 and P312. 

Or L51 was already there (leftovers from that Surovoro offshot in Hungary ? early migrants from Repin or Sredni Stog ?) and were pushed north by the above-mentioned Yamnaya Danube expansion.

Anyway, by the time L51 moved north, they were already numerous enough to fight their way through crowds of natives.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I can't figure out why you guys want those L51 people to have been a small  group. Soon after 2500 BC, they are all over Central and Western Europe, Britain included. They didn't need to just move, they had to confront new populations, fight and conquer. Those places were not empty. There were long-established cultures everywhere, and population density was probably high in some Beaker and Megalithic areas. It must have taken some military might to impose oneself on such structured cultures.


They had Bronze weapons from their expansion from Central Europe if I'm not mistaken, which is a ridiculously huge advantage - they were also really big guys (yes, this is really dumb, but Ibrahimovic would totally **** up Xavi in a fight - the skeletal remains point to height differences like this, so it is actually a valid point). Plus, I am highly sceptical they wiped out the Megalithic population in Britain for example, given the obvious phenotypical imprint they have left among the modern British populace (and clearly for this reason and others also, they didn't wipe out the existing Spanish population either). The big question, at least from my theory, is why the Beaker folk turned from a segregated metallurgical elite to a conquering body of people (akin to the actual Aryans who invaded India). I would wager that it is mainly a combination of the first point (the Beaker folk, with their physicality and expertise in metallurgy (for weapons) would have been much more suited for war than the more sedentary farmer folk), but also that they would have been invigorated by the arrival of the Corded Ware folk from the East (and someone settling near you is apparently a really common reason for migration and invasion in the opposite direction, I guess for obvious reasons). 

The Beaker folk would have spread Westwards, slaughtering the males of the populations they found themselves up against and taking the settlements for their own (and then they outbreed the remaining males). This seems to be what was the case with the Los Millares culture (heavily segregated, often at war with neighbours), but for whatever reason that wasn't nearly as successful as the later set of invasions from Central Europe, and so didn't leave much of a trace (though, if you see my previous post (where I mentioned finding the missing link), some trace can be found by looking at skeletal remains. Perhaps they were more easily contented in Spain originally, for whatever reason, or perhaps it is because the rugged terrain of Spain makes invasion harder (the Beaker folk seemed to like their rivers). Regardless, the phylogeny seems to support rapid expansion in population size, which is consistent here.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It is strange then, that the IE expansion would have wiped out all IE languages except those consistent with Urnfield expansion, but left alive so many non-IE languages. One would except to find a language as diverged from other European language as Indo-Iranian, for example, to survive in some pocket in Western Europe.
> 
> The meagre evidence we have however gives a different picture: Matasovic (2012) "The Substratum in Insular Celtic" strongly supports that the Celts likely encountered several non-IE languages when they came to Britain. Schrijver (2000) "Non-Indo-European Surviving in Ireland in the First Millenium A.D." suggests that some ancestors of the Irish still spoke non-IE in the early Middle Ages.
> 
> Germanic also doesn't give the impression of a language that expanded onto other IE dialects. Large parts of the vocabulary lack IE etymologies. A language family whose expansionmainly involved the conquest of other IE peoples is Slavic, and you'd have to look really hard if you wanted to find words that aren't IE in its lexicon.


Well, apart from Venetic and Liburnian, which do not fit well into either Celtic or Italic, and the controversial cases of Tartessian and North Picene (which some linguists have tried to establish as extremely divergent IE languages, and not non-IE languages), there is Germanic as a pretty diverged IE branch (especially in terms of syntax, with a lot of innovations) in comparison with Celtic and Italic and certainly dating to much before the Urnfield expansion. I find it extremely unlikely that, if the earliest Celtic and Italic are both dated to around 1300-1200 BC (that is, early Urnfield times), their common links with the much more divergent Pre-Proto-Germanic would've taken place just a few centuries earlier. I'd say therefore that the Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic/Liburnian common ancestor might date to the late BB times. The heavy non-IE substrate in Germanic may be very early, from the times where Central European BB was spreading in Europe or even when CWC was absorbing other cultures in Northern Europe. 

One should not expect a divergence among Northwestern IE languages as large as that between Italic and Indo-Iranian, for instance, because of areal features when the early proto-languages were still closer to each other and also because they certainly diverged much later than the "eastern" IE branches from Northwestern IE (Italo-Celtic and Germanic are usually assumed to have been among the first IE branches to split off from the rest).

Unfortunately I don't think we have much if any reliable and well received data about the linguistic landscape of most of Europe until the Iron Age, and _all_ the IE languages we have written evidence of before the Latin and Germanic expansions were spoken in Southern Europe, mainly around Italy. The supposed non-IE presence in Insular Celtic is pretty speculative and as far as I have researched not well received at all by most linguists. The non-IE languages we know of were all found in Southern Europe where Central European BB apparently left a smaller genetic imprint in many areas and met more populous societies. What is certain is that much like EBA steppe-like ancestry was spread to Northern Europe a bit earlier, that same ancestral admixture was spread to Central and Western Europe later. I doubt that genetic change had nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages, _even if_ part of them may have adopted a local non-IE (EEF-derived) language as theirs and thus helped spread it in Europe, too, more or less like Turkified Scythians may have helped bring more steppe ancestry to some parts of Asia in the Middle Ages.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The Yamnaya Danube culture begins around 2950 BC, and ends (with a noticeable bridgehead in the Hungarian plain) some time around 2600 BC. Almost "instantly" afterwards, you have all those L51 (and subclades) expanding in Czechia, Poland, Germany, and further west. They literally submerge the CWC settlements and penetrate hands down into BB territory. Where they arrive, the Centum languages prevail, and have prevailed ever since.
> 
> Two options, imo : 
> 
> Either these Yamna people were L51 and Z2103 tribes travelling alongside, and only the L51 moved north (with rapid founder effect - Unetice is 93.5% R1b); it would be the same kind of tribal split as later happened between U106 and P312. 
> 
> Or L51 was already there (leftovers from that Surovoro offshot in Hungary ? early migrants from Repin or Sredni Stog ?) and were pushed north by the above-mentioned Yamnaya Danube expansion.
> 
> Anyway, by the time L51 moved north, they were already numerous enough to fight their way through crowds of natives.


What about this as an alternative? I've been thinking about modifying my theory to account for the differences between Germanic and Italo-Celtic (presumably, not of a common origin as late as 3000-2500BC - most seem to put the split way way back), and basically I now am leaning towards the non-IE L51 elite + IE Corded mass theory I've said a million times being the case only for U106 and Germanic, compared to a non-IE L51 elite + IE Hungarian Yamnaya mass being the case for U152 and Italo-Celtic. This actually makes more sense to me for various reasons (phenotype being a key one (the stereotypical "Nordic" Germanic looks are obviously Corded derived, and on another note this could explain some of the similarities between Germanic and Balto-Slavic), but also it *VERY* neatly explains the divide between Italic and Celtic (Italic is from the U152 folk who went South of the Alps upon travelling Westwards from Hungary, and Celtic from those U152 folk who went North)). Also, it's worth noting that U106 seems unrelated to the Beaker folk, and was probably an earlier departure to the East perhaps predating the Beaker tradition - this is of course consistent with the P312 "Beaker" haplogroups being grouped together separately to U106, rather than U106 being on "equal footing" with DF27, U152 and L21. Also, it is worth mentioning that Unetice seems to be at least partly U106, which makes an Eastern Poland to Eastern Germany to Denmark route for U106 the most plausible, given that the Eastern Germany region seems to have been originally dominated by U152 (even though the oldest U106 so far has been found in Scania).

EDIT: Or maybe more likely, the Beaker influences from the Vistula region havent been sampled and are in fact U106.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The late steppe (Poltavka, Sintashta, Andronovo etc.) was profoundly influenced and probably linguistically and culturally changed by R1a males bringing in a much more CWC-like admixture differentiating the MLBA population from the EBA. That is why I think that Indo-Iranian, yes, did originate in the steppe, but via a mix of local steppe with a back-migration of EBA Steppe + EEF people from the CWC horizon. 
> 
> 
> 
> If I understood your hypothesis correctly, the spread of IE languages by R1b-L51 men was associated with the expansion of BBC and concomitant retraction of R1a CWC haplogroups, with non-IE L51 BB males shifting their language to that of their CWC women. If the process of formation of the Northwestern IE languages were like that, its birth would be roughly in the end of the CWC and its replacement by BB in Central/Central-Western Europe, wouldn't it? By that time the centum vs. satem proper divide would've already happened (I'm not including here other satem-like developments that happened later in other IE branches, but which were not "the" satem sound changes per se), and, if CWC is somehow associated with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian as many people believe (which would explain nicely the clear Indo-Iranian influence in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric especially), then it's probable that the languages of CWC would've been satem and a centum Northwestern IE with many pretty "archaic" features, in comparison with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, couldn't have been born out of such CWC IE branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Firstly, check out my immediately prev. post for my updated theory - basically, U106+Corded = Germanic, U152+Hungarian Yamnaya = Italo-Celtic (I am completely set on this and will never change my mind unless aDNA contradicts it, it just fits so massively well).

About your point with Corded Ware - I'm of the opinion Corded Ware left the Steppe before satemisation occurred, and that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are derived from other R1a folk that left the Steppe after satemisation took place. 

And about the Vasconic substratum hypothesis - most linguists don't believe it in its extreme form (which I think is as crazy as after the LGM, Vasconic speakers spread out from the SW and covered at least a huge chunk of Europe), but the Goidelic substratum hypothesis is pretty well regarded, and the leading candidate for the substraum iirc is Vasconic. EDIT: Actually, I'm not too sure about this - all I know is that a non-IE substratum amongst Goidelic is a widely held view. The P/Q split isn't very important, though, as it happened in Italic too, which suggests that (and this bit isn't just me talking, but linguists) the change was bound to happen at some point somewhere, and the Q regions were more conservative (with both Italic and Celtic, the Qs were the ones who seem to have departed first (the Insular Celts and the Latino-Faliscans - the Britons being P can be explained by more recent contact with Gauls, as is known to be the case)).

With the Steppe-enriched Brits (which I am pretty confident isn't over 50% as is suggested, as it so is not fair to just assume all EHG+CHG is of Steppe origin - take the example of Sicilians for example, who have plenty of CHG not of Steppe origin (and in my L51 theory, with it coming from the Middle East, you would *expect* CHG)), I put that down in good part to the aforementioned point about e.g. the CHG, but also to the fact that there would be some low amount of EHG anyway given in my theory M269 expanded from the Balkans into West Asia to form L23 (sailing to Iberia to form L51), and this M269 I am presuming to be similar to the Iron Gates HGs (so for simplicity's sake, some combination of WHG and EHG). 

Any remainder of the Steppe that cannot be accounted for through assuming existing CHG and EHG before the L21 contact with IE would be put down to mixing with the Corded folk (BUT more "touch and go" than residing amongst a whole bunch of them - not very scientific I know, but it makes sense, just as Frenchmen in the Southwest have more Spanish influence despite retaining the French language). This can be seen in the fact that with the Rheinish Beaker and British Beaker (of Rheinish origin ultimately) crania analysed by Coon, there was a combination of Corded type very strong dolichocephals (accounting for about 25%, and about 10 points lower in terms of cranial index, which is bloody huge and basically confirms they are distinct from the rest of the samples) and Beaker type brachycephals (accounting for the rest, ignoring the contribution from the original Borreby population) - the Corded type makes a decent impression, but it isn't the majority as would presumably be needed for it to be plausible for adoption of the language these Corded folk spoke. If you were to try and average out the CIs, it would roughly approximate modern Celtic CIs (a mesocephalic index). HOWEVER, the IE folk from later periods (for example the Unetice folk) were very dolichocephalic (usually, only marginally higher CIs than Corded Ware folk), suggesting a far greater Corded influence - consistent with the Corded folk making up a large chunk of the population, and so making the language adoption theory feasible in that particular case. This should be obvious, though - the Corded folk, deep into their territory, didn't just disappear, even if the males were wiped out. They simply became part of a new culture.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Firstly, check out my immediately prev. post for my updated theory - basically, U106+Corded = Germanic, U152+Hungarian Yamnaya = Italo-Celtic (I am completely set on this and will never change my mind unless aDNA contradicts it, it just fits so massively well).


Interesting, despite our many differences in the interpretation of the data and favorite hypotheses we ended up reaching a similar conclusion: that Germanic probably resulted from a linguistic/cultural and genetic mix of BB, mainly R1b-U152, people with CWC, mainly R1a, people, resulting in a CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language. In my understanding, as I think Rhine BB R1b people were basically early Northwestern IE, I think that would explain neatly the unusual situation of Germanic in that it shares a lot with Italo-Celtic, but is also closer to Balto-Slavic (especially Baltic) than the former, and the heavy non-IE substrate may have come from the prolonged coexistence with non-IE cultures in Northern Europe with for example GAC and remnants of Northern Funnelbeaker right amidst CWC areas for centuries. IMHO Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian represented an eastern CWC language/dialect under different influences. I think the higher EEF and WHG in R1a-prevalent MLBA Steppe societies could be well explained by these R1a people coming from CWC areas of Northeastern Europe, partially replacing the former mainly R1b EMBA Steppe people.

----------


## Ygorcs

> With the Steppe-enriched Brits (which I am pretty confident isn't over 50% as is suggested, as it so is not fair to just assume all EHG+CHG is of Steppe origin - take the example of Sicilians for example, who have plenty of CHG not of Steppe origin (and in my L51 theory, with it coming from the Middle East, you would *expect* CHG)), I put that down in good part to the aforementioned point about e.g. the CHG, but also to the fact that there would be some low amount of EHG anyway given in my theory M269 expanded from the Balkans into West Asia to form L23 (sailing to Iberia to form L51), and this M269 I am presuming to be similar to the Iron Gates HGs (so for simplicity's sake, some combination of WHG and EHG).


Do you know if Western Europeans in the BB and particularly Atlantic Bronze Age areas have noticeably more CHG than EHG? That's what I would expect if the L51 and BB expansion happened with West Asian-derived people (mostly men, let's presume) arriving in Iberia. They'd probably have carried EEF with them, but EEF was already very dominant elsewhere in Western/Northwestern Europe, so the novel factor would've been their CHG. The resulting populations would've become EEF+CHG with arguably little EHG until then. Much later, the IE-speaking people who brought Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages would've brought steppe ancestry with EHG and also very rich in CHG, adding to the EEF+CHG mix already in place due to the huge success of L51 lineages and of the BB phenomenon. Therefore, we should expect that Western Europeans like Briton should have a reasonably higher CHG-to-EHG ratio than expected if the vast majority of these admixtures had come with steppe-derived and overwhelmingly IE-speaking people in the BA and IA. Is it the actual case, though?

As for the case of the British population, I was referring to the finding that there was a huge genetic replacement in the BA broadly connected with the expansion of BB into Britain. AFAIK the previous population of Britain was not rich at all in either CHG or EHG, it was an overwhelmingly EEF (WHG+ANF) population. The population after that profound demographic shift was already very different and full of "steppe signal", that is, it presumably saw a large peak in CHG and EHG that did not exist earlier. So the population that brought BB and L21 (already found in the British Isles much before the supposed arrival of Celtic) probably had a lot of steppe or steppe-like combination of CHG and EHG, because there is no indication that the population replacement took place with two totally different populations settling Britain at roughly the same period.

----------


## berun

From my perspective, which follows the mainstream academic thinking, it was Urnfielders which brought Celtic languages in Iberia, and that is quite clear by the Alpine origin of the new funerary practices (incineration and diposition of urns), pottery style and weaponry among others. If Celtic is dated by the dates of the expansion of Urnfielders it reinforces the archaeological or cultural abrupt change. 

For BB carrying IE I can't see it, the reflux affected only pottery styles, and maybe autosomals if there was a trade net (involving slaves) big enough to carry women from Central Europe (African Arabs buyed 7 centuries ago European women per example).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Interesting, despite our many differences in the interpretation of the data and favorite hypotheses we ended up reaching a similar conclusion: that Germanic probably resulted from a linguistic/cultural and genetic mix of BB, mainly R1b-U152, people with CWC, mainly R1a, people, resulting in a CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language. In my understanding, as I think Rhine BB R1b people were basically early Northwestern IE, I think that would explain neatly the unusual situation of Germanic in that it shares a lot with Italo-Celtic, but is also closer to Balto-Slavic (especially Baltic) than the former, and the heavy non-IE substrate may have come from the prolonged coexistence with non-IE cultures in Northern Europe with for example GAC and remnants of Northern Funnelbeaker right amidst CWC areas for centuries. IMHO Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian represented an eastern CWC language/dialect under different influences. I think the higher EEF and WHG in R1a-prevalent MLBA Steppe societies could be well explained by these R1a people coming from CWC areas of Northeastern Europe, partially replacing the former mainly R1b EMBA Steppe people.


I'm guessing you meant U106 instead of U152 for Germanic. Also, if you put Northwestern IE as being Germano-Italo-Celtic, isn't it way too late for that to be the case for the Rheinish BB folk? That would put the split between Germanic and Italo-Celtic at after 3000 BC, which I'm pretty sure was a lot earlier than that. A separate origin of Germanic and Italo-Celtic with CW and Hungarian Yamnaya respectively makes more sense to me, as that would put their common ancestor back to the Steppe quite a long time ago.

I haven't looked into it, but I don't entirely agree with your idea of R1a-invaders replacing the R1b-folk on the Steppe in terms of the bulk of the population, as I don't think R1b was the bulk of the population (but I am not so sure about this) - but in terms of a change in elite, yes, I agree they replaced them. About the increased EEF and WHG point - what you said makes sense to me, but I haven't looked into it much. Whatever the case, I still stand by my satemisation being a late Steppe feature claim (rather than an indigenous R1a feature (compared to the original R1b centum) as I think you're suggesting).

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Do you know if Western Europeans in the BB and particularly Atlantic Bronze Age areas have noticeably more CHG than EHG? That's what I would expect if the L51 and BB expansion happened with West Asian-derived people (mostly men, let's presume) arriving in Iberia. They'd probably have carried EEF with them, but EEF was already very dominant elsewhere in Western/Northwestern Europe, so the novel factor would've been their CHG. The resulting populations would've become EEF+CHG with arguably little EHG until then. Much later, the IE-speaking people who brought Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages would've brought steppe ancestry with EHG and also very rich in CHG, adding to the EEF+CHG mix already in place due to the huge success of L51 lineages and of the BB phenomenon. Therefore, we should expect that Western Europeans like Briton should have a reasonably higher CHG-to-EHG ratio than expected if the vast majority of these admixtures had come with steppe-derived and overwhelmingly IE-speaking people in the BA and IA. Is it the actual case, though?
> 
> As for the case of the British population, I was referring to the finding that there was a huge genetic replacement in the BA broadly connected with the expansion of BB into Britain. AFAIK the previous population of Britain was not rich at all in either CHG or EHG, it was an overwhelmingly EEF (WHG+ANF) population. The population after that profound demographic shift was already very different and full of "steppe signal", that is, it presumably saw a large peak in CHG and EHG that did not exist earlier. So the population that brought BB and L21 (already found in the British Isles much before the supposed arrival of Celtic) probably had a lot of steppe or steppe-like combination of CHG and EHG, because there is no indication that the population replacement took place with two totally different populations settling Britain at roughly the same period.


Well if ATP3 is worth anything, it was about 1/3 CHG, 1/3 EEF and 1/3 European Hunter-Gatherer of some form (I'm not sure how much WHG and how much EHG), according to Genetiker at least. Maciamo looking at this basically described it (excluding its EEF ancestry) as Steppe-derived but with enriched CHG - though I think this is just an illusion, and instead it was just originally WHG+EHG that moved into West Asia. The Beakers even before CW could also have had decent EHG with them, if Hajji Firuz is legitimately dated (yes, it's Z2103, but if correctly dated it suggests L23 had a sizeable chunk of EHG too, which of course L51 is descended from. I haven't put much faith on Hajji Firuz though, but if correctly dated it is obviously a huge find). I also personally think, though, that the Dinaric morphology is enough to at least point to a West Asian origin.

And yeah, my opinion on Beakers from Britain is the same as everyone else, insofar as they are basically Rheinish Beakers. I do think that the Rheinish Beakers would have had a shot-in-the-arm Steppe infusion from the arrival of the Corded Ware culture. I guess it makes sense that British Beakers would be somewhat more CHG than EHG though (assuming the L23 prototype from West Asia was more CHG than EHG), but my point was more that I don't trust in autosomal analysis too heavily, as there are so many possibilities for sources of ancestry as broad as, for example, CHG.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> To explain why Iberian (and indeed other) men might have been suddenly wiped out by a population that previously appears to have been very limited indeed, it makes sense to question what led to the abrupt change. The answer might differ, depending on whether the population concerned was a self-contained elite or struggling to survive. If it was an elite, what stopped it from expanding and branching earlier? If it was a struggler, what changed to to allow it to take off so spectacularly?


Here is an option - During Chalcolithic (_3300bc - 1900bc_) the region of south Portugal was thriving with a Oak tree forests and huge settlements held by agriculture, high pastoral life and game hunting. By bronze age all had disappear (as did places like Porto Torrão and Perdigoes). by end Iron age, when strabo passed there he stated that the Celts had entered portugal through that region (alentejo) and that it was a barren region where agriculture was extremely difficult. So climate change must have been a factor.

----------


## Sile

> Hey!!! I go Crazy with anything. 
> Actually I go Crazy if they try to link *Shulaveri-Shomu* to anything *Kura-Araxes*. People have as big problem with time as they seem to have with space. there is a Gap of 1000 years between both cultures. And they share no traits at all. 
> I think its not at all possible that Haak or whomever is linking Kura-araxes to PIE or R1b... Nobody is that stupid. Or perhaps the madness of "pretend not to see" in Academia is even greater that what I could phantom. "PnS" is a particular lie close to politically very left leaning people. 
> To be fair, what they at Max Planck must be saying is that the Hittite is related to Kura-Araxes. Which would be wrong, but not really crazy.
> Now... the Shulaveri, oh boy, oh boy, its coming!


Hittite texts state their origins are north of where they where ...............some modern historians place them in modern western georgia

----------


## Sile

> @ Moesan.
> 
> "_Linguistics can be very uncertain sometimes, when speaking of evolution speed. Nothing of what we say is very solidly based._"
> 
> From Wiki : "Proto-Celtic is mostly dated to roughly *800 BC* (Hallstatt C). In the first decade of the 21st century a number of scholars addressed this question using computational methods, with differing results. Gray and Atkinson estimated a date of 6100 BP (*4100 BC*) while Forster and Toth suggest a date of 3200 BC ±1500 years for the arrival of Celtic in Britain, but such early dates are not generally accepted."
> 
> --> Margin of uncertainty between the most extreme estimates : 3300 years !!!


Glauberg near frankfurt was the celtic "capital" as central and south germany are celtic lands.........halstatt celts came there via modern bavaria which was celtic lands.......
they are still digging in glauberg 30 years later

----------


## Sile

> Well, apart from Venetic and Liburnian, which do not fit well into either Celtic or Italic, and the controversial cases of Tartessian and North Picene (which some linguists have tried to establish as extremely divergent IE languages, and not non-IE languages), there is Germanic as a pretty diverged IE branch (especially in terms of syntax, with a lot of innovations) in comparison with Celtic and Italic and certainly dating to much before the Urnfield expansion. I find it extremely unlikely that, if the earliest Celtic and Italic are both dated to around 1300-1200 BC (that is, early Urnfield times), their common links with the much more divergent Pre-Proto-Germanic would've taken place just a few centuries earlier. I'd say therefore that the Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic/Liburnian common ancestor might date to the late BB times. The heavy non-IE substrate in Germanic may be very early, from the times where Central European BB was spreading in Europe or even when CWC was absorbing other cultures in Northern Europe. 
> 
> One should not expect a divergence among Northwestern IE languages as large as that between Italic and Indo-Iranian, for instance, because of areal features when the early proto-languages were still closer to each other and also because they certainly diverged much later than the "eastern" IE branches from Northwestern IE (Italo-Celtic and Germanic are usually assumed to have been among the first IE branches to split off from the rest).
> 
> Unfortunately I don't think we have much if any reliable and well received data about the linguistic landscape of most of Europe until the Iron Age, and _all_ the IE languages we have written evidence of before the Latin and Germanic expansions were spoken in Southern Europe, mainly around Italy. The supposed non-IE presence in Insular Celtic is pretty speculative and as far as I have researched not well received at all by most linguists. The non-IE languages we know of were all found in Southern Europe where Central European BB apparently left a smaller genetic imprint in many areas and met more populous societies. What is certain is that much like EBA steppe-like ancestry was spread to Northern Europe a bit earlier, that same ancestral admixture was spread to Central and Western Europe later. I doubt that genetic change had nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages, _even if_ part of them may have adopted a local non-IE (EEF-derived) language as theirs and thus helped spread it in Europe, too, more or less like Turkified Scythians may have helped bring more steppe ancestry to some parts of Asia in the Middle Ages.


in the recent picene paper IIRC, they state north-picene was basically a colony of liburnians and south -picene where umbrians
venetic belonged to ancient indigenous Euganei language who belong to the danubian culture

----------


## Saetrus

Kura-Araxes works perfectly fine for me, very much in line with what I've said Indo-Europeans were both in terms of autosomal and Y-DNA.

K-A Y-DNA available so far:

Kura-Araxes ARM002 Y-HG G2b
Odd haplogroup, but then we see subclades connecting Italy to Pakistan at different ends of the Indo-European world:

Lots of Indo-European subclades behave like that.

Kura-Araxes I1635 Y-HG R1b-M415
R1b older than M269 showing the deep roots of M269 in that region.

Kura-Araxes VEK007 Y-HG J1
We have a Bactrian aristocratic sample who is J1 as we also have a Thracian aristocratic sample who is J2.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Kura-Araxes works perfectly fine for me, very much in line with what I've said Indo-Europeans were both in terms of autosomal and Y-DNA.
> 
> K-A Y-DNA available so far:
> 
> Kura-Araxes ARM002 Y-HG G2b
> Odd haplogroup, but then we see subclades connecting Italy to Pakistan at different ends of the Indo-European world:
> 
> Lots of Indo-European subclades behave like that.
> 
> ...


It makes no sense in terms of the spread of IE though. IE has to be from the Steppe at the very least after Anatolian split off. KA can only exist as the homeland in a modified Kurgan theory.

I do see L23 as having originated from that region though. And that KA R1b basically means nothing.

----------


## markod

> Well, apart from Venetic and Liburnian, which do not fit well into either Celtic or Italic, and the controversial cases of Tartessian and North Picene (which some linguists have tried to establish as extremely divergent IE languages, and not non-IE languages), there is Germanic as a pretty diverged IE branch (especially in terms of syntax, with a lot of innovations) in comparison with Celtic and Italic and certainly dating to much before the Urnfield expansion. I find it extremely unlikely that, if the earliest Celtic and Italic are both dated to around 1300-1200 BC (that is, early Urnfield times), their common links with the much more divergent Pre-Proto-Germanic would've taken place just a few centuries earlier. I'd say therefore that the Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic/Liburnian common ancestor might date to the late BB times. The heavy non-IE substrate in Germanic may be very early, from the times where Central European BB was spreading in Europe or even when CWC was absorbing other cultures in Northern Europe. 
> 
> One should not expect a divergence among Northwestern IE languages as large as that between Italic and Indo-Iranian, for instance, because of areal features when the early proto-languages were still closer to each other and also because they certainly diverged much later than the "eastern" IE branches from Northwestern IE (Italo-Celtic and Germanic are usually assumed to have been among the first IE branches to split off from the rest).
> 
> Unfortunately I don't think we have much if any reliable and well received data about the linguistic landscape of most of Europe until the Iron Age, and _all_ the IE languages we have written evidence of before the Latin and Germanic expansions were spoken in Southern Europe, mainly around Italy. The supposed non-IE presence in Insular Celtic is pretty speculative and as far as I have researched not well received at all by most linguists. The non-IE languages we know of were all found in Southern Europe where Central European BB apparently left a smaller genetic imprint in many areas and met more populous societies. What is certain is that much like EBA steppe-like ancestry was spread to Northern Europe a bit earlier, that same ancestral admixture was spread to Central and Western Europe later. I doubt that genetic change had nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages, _even if_ part of them may have adopted a local non-IE (EEF-derived) language as theirs and thus helped spread it in Europe, too, more or less like Turkified Scythians may have helped bring more steppe ancestry to some parts of Asia in the Middle Ages.


Neither of those examples are deeply diverged, they all fit into the North-Western Indo-European cluster. Steppe Bell Beakers appear in Iberia, Britain & Ireland around 2500-2300 B.C. . In the Chang et al. Bronze Age model Indo-Iranian seperates from NWIE-BS around 2600 B.C., Balto-Slavic separates from NWIE around 2200 B.C. . There's no IE language with such time depth in Western Europe. The BB = NWIE model would likely require a Neolithic timeframe for the breakup of PIE, which means both steppe and Chalcolithic Armenia are out.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Neither of those examples are deeply diverged, they all fit into the North-Western Indo-European cluster. Steppe Bell Beakers appear in Iberia, Britain & Ireland around 2500-2300 B.C. . In the Chang et al. Bronze Age model Indo-Iranian seperates from NWIE-BS around 2600 B.C., Balto-Slavic separates from NWIE around 2200 B.C. . There's no IE language with such time depth in Western Europe. The BB = NWIE model would likely require a Neolithic timeframe for the breakup of PIE, which means both steppe and Chalcolithic Armenia are out.


Can you elaborate a bit on why you think so? The model presented by Chang et al. has estimates a bit on the lower end of the time spans I have seen for IE splits compared to other sources I've had access to. IIRC some of them assumed Germanic and Italo-Celtic for instance to have diverged from other branches even before 3000 BC, so in Early Yamna times. Probably a middle ground is closer to the truth. But in any case I did not get why you think a BB = NWIE would require the PIE breakup to be as early as the Neolithic (mind you, I do not believe undivided PIE was spoken in Yamnaya at all, I think that, if Anatolian and even Tocharian are included, the split started even before the Yamnaya expansion, and by the time of CWC it was already split into very close but distinct sister languages, with Proto-Anatolian probably already well developed). 

As for NWIE, if Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic started to break up roughly in 1200-1100 BC, we can assume that the languages had started to be spoken, breaking from their common ancestor, at least ~600-800 years before, so roughly by 2000-1800 BC. And if you add Germanic - if Germanic does indeed derive from a common ancestor with Italo-Celtic, which is not totally certain AFAIK - that date must go back several centuries further, so roughly to 3000-2500 BC (on the lower end coinciding with the begining of BBC in Central Europe). And of course we do not need to presume that NWIE started to be spoken only when the Central European BB phenomenon got formed. The language was brought with the newcomers from elsewhere and it didn't start from scratch straight from Undivided PIE. The timing in my opinion is totally compatible with a NWIE dialect (not necessarily the only one that existed, but the one that was successful in the long term) being spread by Rhine BB people to many areas west of Germany (though not necessarily all, as we all know the BBC had a very sparse occupation of territory, and they may have possibly adopted the local languages in some of the places they settled in, as in the hypothetical case of the Basques).

As for no IE language with such time depth existing in Western Europe, the vast majority of it had no written language virtually until the Common Era. The areas that had written inscriptions from earlier times had writing only during the later Iron Age (well after Celtic, Italic and Germanic expansions) and were some of those most impacted by Celtic and Italic conquests centuries earlier (Italy, France, Iberia). That situation is not very conducive to allow us to see remants of earlier NWIE languages (though Germanic, I insist, is definitely one such example, it's definitely divergent and innovative in comparison to Italo-Celtic). It'd be like judging the linguistic landscape of IE in continental Western Europe in the Middle Ages after daughter languages of Latin and Proto-Germanic dominated the region almost entirely.

I also have to doubt that had the all-important BBC been associated with another language family, we wouldn't see the non-IE remnants of that coherent and homogeneous language family spread to many parts of Western/Central Europe. Instead, we see Basque and Iberian, possibly but not certainly related, Tartessian, Etruscan/Rhaetic (Tyrrhenian), different language stocks, and not a formerly powerful and expansionist language family competing with IE. Compare that for instance with the expansion of Turkic over the former dominant language family of Central Asia and Anatolia/Azerbaijan, which left small pockets of languages of the same IE stock scattered across the region.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Neither of those examples are deeply diverged, they all fit into the North-Western Indo-European cluster. Steppe Bell Beakers appear in Iberia, Britain & Ireland around 2500-2300 B.C. . In the Chang et al. Bronze Age model Indo-Iranian seperates from NWIE-BS around 2600 B.C., Balto-Slavic separates from NWIE around 2200 B.C. . There's no IE language with such time depth in Western Europe. The BB = NWIE model would likely require a Neolithic timeframe for the breakup of PIE, which means both steppe and Chalcolithic Armenia are out.


What about Corded Ware = Germanic, Hungarian Yamnaya = Italo-Celtic?

----------


## markod

> Can you elaborate a bit on why you think so? The model presented by Chang et al. has estimates a bit on the lower end of the time spans I have seen for IE splits compared to other sources I've had access to. IIRC some of them assumed Germanic and Italo-Celtic for instance to have diverged from other branches even before 3000 BC, so in Early Yamna times. Probably a middle ground is closer to the truth. But in any case I did not get why you think a BB = NWIE would require the PIE breakup to be as early as the Neolithic (mind you, I do not believe undivided PIE was spoken in Yamnaya at all, I think that, if Anatolian and even Tocharian are included, the split started even before the Yamnaya expansion, and by the time of CWC it was already split into very close but distinct sister languages, with Proto-Anatolian probably already well developed). 
> 
> As for NWIE, if Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic started to break up roughly in 1200-1100 BC, we can assume that the languages had started to be spoken, breaking from their common ancestor, at least ~600-800 years before, so roughly by 2000-1800 BC. And if you add Germanic - if Germanic does indeed derive from a common ancestor with Italo-Celtic, which is not totally certain AFAIK - that date must go back several centuries further, so roughly to 3000-2500 BC (on the lower end coinciding with the begining of BBC in Central Europe). And of course we do not need to presume that NWIE started to be spoken only when the Central European BB phenomenon got formed. The language was brought with the newcomers from elsewhere and it didn't start from scratch straight from Undivided PIE. The timing in my opinion is totally compatible with a NWIE dialect (not necessarily the only one that existed, but the one that was successful in the long term) being spread by Rhine BB people to many areas west of Germany (though not necessarily all, as we all know the BBC had a very sparse occupation of territory, and they may have possibly adopted the local languages in some of the places they settled in, as in the hypothetical case of the Basques).
> 
> As for no IE language with such time depth existing in Western Europe, the vast majority of it had no written language virtually until the Common Era. The areas that had written inscriptions from earlier on had writing only during the later Iron Age and were basically those most impacted by Celtic and Italic conquests. That situation is not very conducive to allow us to see remants of earlier NWIE languages (though Germanic, I insist, is definitely one such example, it's definitely divergent and innovative in comparison to Italo-Celtic). I also have to doubt that had the all-important BBC been associated with another language family, we wouldn't see the non-IE remnants of that coherent and homogeneous language family spread to many parts of Western/Central Europe. Instead, we see Basque and Iberian, possibly but not certainly related, Tartessian, Etruscan/Rhaetic (Tyrrhenian), different language stocks, and not a formerly powerful and expansionist language family competing with IE.


Chang & previously Bouckaert are the only unbiased models we have. All other estimates are mere guesswork by historical linguists, usually made to fit their hypotheses of choice. It's difficult to discuss those because they aren't based on data. To the contrary, I suspect that Chang's estimate might even be a bit too old due to the strong non-IE substrates in Western IE and Anatolian.

Italic and Celtic are only marginally closer to each other than either is to Germanic in Chang's model. Germanic / Italo-Celtic separate 1900 B.C. and Italic and Celtic separate 1700 B.C. . Germanic is innovative in the sense that so many of its words aren't Indo-European. To reiterate my previous point: BB spread IE then there should be traces of extant languages that are not NWIE, which existed in a unified population until 1900 B.C. . We should find something akin to Slavic or Indo-Iranian.

----------


## Pip

> Well if ATP3 is worth anything, it was about 1/3 CHG, 1/3 EEF and 1/3 European Hunter-Gatherer of some form (I'm not sure how much WHG and how much EHG), according to Genetiker at least. Maciamo looking at this basically described it (excluding its EEF ancestry) as Steppe-derived but with enriched CHG - though I think this is just an illusion, and instead it was just originally WHG+EHG that moved into West Asia.


To clarify, according to Genetiker's most recent (K=14) analysis - ATP3 is quite a bit less than 1/3 CHG and its European HG is entirely EHG (no WHG). Its greatest similarity is to Balkan Z2103, and looks to me like a basal Z2109. I think its paternal ancestor was most likely sitting with formative L51 in the Balkans only a few hundred years earlier.

----------


## markod

> To clarify, according to Genetiker's most recent (K=14) analysis - ATP3 is quite a bit less than 1/3 CHG and its European HG is entirely EHG (no WHG). Its greatest similarity is to Balkan Z2103, and looks to me like a basal Z2109. I think its paternal ancestor was most likely sitting with formative L51 in the Balkans only a few hundred years earlier.


In the very same analysis Lithuanians are like 80% 'EHG'. Supervised admixture run have to be interpreted carefully.

----------


## Pip

> I can't figure out why you guys want those L51 people to have been a small  group. Soon after 2500 BC, they are all over Central and Western Europe, Britain included. They didn't need to just move, they had to confront new populations, fight and conquer. Those places were not empty. There were long-established cultures everywhere, and population density was probably high in some Beaker and Megalithic areas. It must have taken some military might to impose oneself on such structured cultures.


L51 was indeed a large group by 2,500 BC, but before 3,000 BC the bearers of its surviving subclades were a small group. And as there is no sign of L51 in 5th and 4th millennium BC samples, my guess is that the bearers of its non-surviving subclades were most likely smallish in number as well.

----------


## Pip

OK, we are unclear about exactly how Balkan-like DNA in the mid 4th millennium BC ended up developing in Western Europe in the early-mid 3rd millennium BC. Let's move on a little, and focus on the so-called Yamna paternal lineages that would have proliferated in Iberia around 2,500 BC.

Iberia's largest such lineage today is R-DF27. Available data indicates that (i) this lineage moved and expanded there fairly early on (pretty much in keeping with Reich's dating of 2,500 BC), so it is a prime candidate for one of the main developing Yamna groups in Iberia; and (ii) its main track was most likely North Western France down into North Central Castille, i.e. at least its _immediate_ ancestors look to have been external to Iberia.

My tentative view is that:
1. Early surviving L51 was most likely a fringe collaborator with populations that developed from EEF.
2. It probably rose to prominence when it successfully mobilised these populations against hostile R1a Corded Ware expansionism. Despite the similarities, Corded Ware was most likely its main enemy. Its first point of triumph against Corded Ware was in Northern France, from where it led the over-running of CW populations in both directions along the Rhine. Unlike in some other subjugated populations, it looks like most of Corded Ware's female population as well as its male population were eliminated.
3. In doing so, it acquired acceptance and status across the region, leading to colonial-style dispersion and reproductive success. It infiltrated, policed, protected and supervised a multi-ethnic chain of related communities and cultures (rather than trying to destroy them). Both EEF and HG communities that cooperated with it (in Iberia and elsewhere) survived, and those that did not were eliminated.
4. L51 lines probably dispersed quickly and continued out-growing other haplogroups until well into the Bronze Age.

----------


## hrvclv

> Italic and Celtic are only marginally closer to each other than either is to Germanic in Chang's model. Germanic / Italo-Celtic separate 1900 B.C. and Italic and Celtic separate 1700 B.C. . Germanic is innovative in the sense that so many of its words aren't Indo-European. To reiterate my previous point: BB spread IE then there should be traces of extant languages that are not NWIE, which existed in a unified population until 1900 B.C. . We should find something akin to Slavic or Indo-Iranian.


As you people must have realized by now, my "bible" for the time being is that Homeland Timeline, which I abundantly referred to upthread. For most samples, what is given is not a *definite* dating, but a date *bracket*. Most of the time : 2500 to 2000 BC. If we take into account that margin of uncertainty, then Markod's timings for the successive language splits fit in rather nicely.

We could posit some still-undifferentiated IE language in the Hungarian plains some time around 2500 BC for the L51 group. At some point in time during the next two to three centuries, those people would have moved north of the Carpathians. U106 tribes went their own way, steered north - northeast, conquered and/or mixed with CW people, and over another two to three centuries (ie by 2000 BC) developed some form of pre-Proto-Germanic ; while P312 veered west into BB territory and developed Proto-Italo-Celtic. Italic and Celtic gradually separating from 1700 BC onwards would then turn out to be a pretty coherent estimate.

So that the earliest people to arrive in, eg, the British Isles, would have spoken a language still close to NWIE but already on its way to becoming some form of Celtic, while the NWIE in Iberia would have been some sort of pre-Lusitanian (that riddle language standing somewhere in between Italic and Celtic).

From Wiki : "_Prósper, in her Lusitanian etymologies (2002; 2008), demonstrates that not only does Lusitanian not agree closely with the usual Celtic reflexes but that it is closer to Ligurian Italic. This suggests there may have been two well-differentiated branches of Indo-European in the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans, with Lusitanian belonging to the non-Celtic branch. Villar and Pedrero (2001) connect Lusitanian with ancient Ligurian. They base their finding on parallels in the names of deities and some lexical items (e.g., the similarity of Umbrian gomia and Lusitanian comaiam), and some grammatical elements.[2] This once again, raises more questions about the relation of the Lusitanian language with Celtic, because the ancient Ligurian language, in many ways like Lusitanian; is considered Celtic[7] by some and non-Celtic by others. Adding to lack of evidence and its geographical location, it has not been yet determined whether Lusitanian was part of the Ligurian language sub-group, Celtic or Celticised, or an even older Indo-European language. Prósper also sees Lusitanian as predating the introduction of Celtic and shows that it retains elements of Old European, making its origins possibly even older._"

----------


## brick

> Well, apart from Venetic and Liburnian, which do not fit well into either Celtic or Italic, and the controversial cases of Tartessian and North Picene (which some linguists have tried to establish as extremely divergent IE languages, and not non-IE languages), there is Germanic as a pretty diverged IE branch (especially in terms of syntax, with a lot of innovations) in comparison with Celtic and Italic and certainly dating to much before the Urnfield expansion.


Liburnian, North Picene and Tartessian are all non-IE languages (more specifically preindoeuropean).

----------


## Pip

> In the very same analysis Lithuanians are like 80% 'EHG'. Supervised admixture run have to be interpreted carefully.


Yes, I agree we have to be cautious, but if we make a provisional assessment and ATP3's y-DNA calls are positive for R-M269 and its aDNA is closest to early Balkan R-Z2103, the most likely scenario is that it is either Z2103 or some other basal form of M269. In the absence of other evidence, I cannot see any alternative possibility that is more, or even equally, likely.

----------


## brick

> in the recent picene paper IIRC, they state north-picene was basically a colony of liburnians and south -picene where umbrians


North Picene language is probably a Liburnian dialect (preindoeuropean) and South Picene is Oscan-Umbrian.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Liburnian, North Picene and Tartessian are all non-IE languages (more specifically preindoeuropean).


Are you sure about Liburnian? Some linguists have made connection between it and Venetic.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Chang & previously Bouckaert are the only unbiased models we have. All other estimates are mere guesswork by historical linguists, usually made to fit their hypotheses of choice. It's difficult to discuss those because they aren't based on data. To the contrary, I suspect that Chang's estimate might even be a bit too old due to the strong non-IE substrates in Western IE and Anatolian.
> 
> Italic and Celtic are only marginally closer to each other than either is to Germanic in Chang's model. Germanic / Italo-Celtic separate 1900 B.C. and Italic and Celtic separate 1700 B.C. . Germanic is innovative in the sense that so many of its words aren't Indo-European. To reiterate my previous point: BB spread IE then there should be traces of extant languages that are not NWIE, which existed in a unified population until 1900 B.C. . We should find something akin to Slavic or Indo-Iranian.


Starostin's (okay, I know they are almost always controversial) glottochronological model did find much earlier dates, IIRC around 2600-2500 BC, for the split of Italic and Germanic and especially between these two and Celtic (in his model Celtic split first, believe it or not). 

So you basically think that CWC gave birth to Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Italic and Celtic, even if these two latter are clearly much less linked to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian in particular than the first 3 are among themselves (particularly, of course, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian)? Or what is your personal hypothesis? I have a really hard time putting myself to believe that the earliest Celtic and Italic attested texts were removed a mere 1200 years from their undifferentiated common ancestor... lol. That'd be basically like Italian and Spanish nowadays (Old Spanish and Old Italian definitely having started to split from the common Romance at least by the 8th century AD). 

Besides, I think we're forgetting to consider that languages remain a common speech, with little dialectal differentiation, for at least some time. Latin, for instance, had a recorded undivided history of some 1,000 years before it certainly split into recognizably distinct languages. A proto-language that split by 1900-1700 BC probably started to be spoken as the common speech of a language community by at least ~2500 BC (and from which earlier IE proto-language did it split? That's another mystery, but probably not directly from Common Late PIE in my opinion).

As for possible extant IE languages that were totally superseded by Central European NWIE languages (Celtic, Italic and Germanic), we have the possible examples of Venetic, Liburnian (controversial, but many linguists believe it's IE) and also Ligurian, who is still assumed by some linguists to have been at least a "Para-Celtic" language, not Celtic proper. As for languages much to the north of the Mediterranean, well, they simply did not write at all until the Late Antiquity times, so we'll never know.

----------


## Ygorcs

> As you people must have realized by now, my "bible" for the time being is that Homeland Timeline, which I abundantly referred to upthread. For most samples, what is given is not a *definite* dating, but a date *bracket*. Most of the time : 2500 to 2000 BC. If we take into account that margin of uncertainty, then Markod's timings for the successive language splits fit in rather nicely.
> 
> We could posit some still-undifferentiated IE language in the Hungarian plains some time around 2500 BC for the L51 group. At some point in time during the next two to three centuries, those people would have moved north of the Carpathians. U106 tribes went their own way, steered north - northeast, conquered and/or mixed with CW people, and over another two to three centuries (ie by 2000 BC) developed some form of pre-Proto-Germanic ; while P312 veered west into BB territory and developed Proto-Italo-Celtic. Italic and Celtic gradually separating from 1700 BC onwards would then turn out to be a pretty coherent estimate.
> 
> So that the earliest people to arrive in, eg, the British Isles, would have spoken a language still close to NWIE but already on its way to becoming some form of Celtic, while the NWIE in Iberia would have been some sort of pre-Lusitanian (that riddle language standing somewhere in between Italic and Celtic).
> 
> From Wiki : "_Prósper, in her Lusitanian etymologies (2002; 2008), demonstrates that not only does Lusitanian not agree closely with the usual Celtic reflexes but that it is closer to Ligurian Italic. This suggests there may have been two well-differentiated branches of Indo-European in the Iberian Peninsula before the Romans, with Lusitanian belonging to the non-Celtic branch. Villar and Pedrero (2001) connect Lusitanian with ancient Ligurian. They base their finding on parallels in the names of deities and some lexical items (e.g., the similarity of Umbrian gomia and Lusitanian comaiam), and some grammatical elements.[2] This once again, raises more questions about the relation of the Lusitanian language with Celtic, because the ancient Ligurian language, in many ways like Lusitanian; is considered Celtic[7] by some and non-Celtic by others. Adding to lack of evidence and its geographical location, it has not been yet determined whether Lusitanian was part of the Ligurian language sub-group, Celtic or Celticised, or an even older Indo-European language. Prósper also sees Lusitanian as predating the introduction of Celtic and shows that it retains elements of Old European, making its origins possibly even older._"


Thanks, that's precisely the scenario I envision as most plausible and simple for the relationship between BB, CWC and the 3 "Western European" IE branches (Germanic, Italic, Celtic). Even the later dates are no big trouble if you consider that languages do not start to split again immediately after they were born, they differentiate slowly and only split for good generations later. The uncertain linguistic position of the Ligurians, referred by Romans as distinct from the Celts in culture and language, and assume by some to have been "Para-Celtic", is also another possible remnant of other smaller splits from NWIE without the same tremendous success of Celtic, Italic and later Germanic overriding the smaller sisters.

----------


## brick

> Are you sure about Liburnian? Some linguists have made connection between it and Venetic.


The oldest Liburnians are from Castellieri culture which is in origin a preindoeuropean culture. The newest ones are of different stock, IE-Illyrian? Liburnian can't be connected as language with Venetic (that is itself connected with Latin-Faliscan). Liburnian had likely an influence from Venetic rather than a connection.

----------


## Sile

> The oldest Liburnians are from Castellieri culture which is in origin a preindoeuropean culture. The newest ones are of different stock, IE-Illyrian? Liburnian can't be connected as language with Venetic (that is itself connected with Latin-Faliscan). Liburnian had likely an influence from Venetic rather than a connection.


Castellieri culture derives from myceneans and trading areas in northern adriatic sea ........usually in baltic amber
liburnians are of illyrian stock from eastern tyrol as per strabo historical paper
venetic and euganei are same language and since euganei are indigenous then the conclusion is the the migrating venetics learnt the language when they got to italy

----------


## markod

> Starostin's (okay, I know they are almost always controversial) glottochronological model did find much earlier dates, IIRC around 2600-2500 BC, for the split of Italic and Germanic and especially between these two and Celtic (in his model Celtic split first, believe it or not). 
> 
> So you basically think that CWC gave birth to Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, Italic and Celtic, even if these two latter are clearly much less linked to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian in particular than the first 3 are among themselves (particularly, of course, Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian)? Or what is your personal hypothesis? I have a really hard time putting myself to believe that the earliest Celtic and Italic attested texts were removed a mere 1200 years from their undifferentiated common ancestor... lol. That'd be basically like Italian and Spanish nowadays (Old Spanish and Old Italian definitely having started to split from the common Romance at least by the 8th century AD). 
> 
> Besides, I think we're forgetting to consider that languages remain a common speech, with little dialectal differentiation, for at least some time. Latin, for instance, had a recorded undivided history of some 1,000 years before it certainly split into recognizably distinct languages. A proto-language that split by 1900-1700 BC probably started to be spoken as the common speech of a language community by at least ~2500 BC (and from which earlier IE proto-language did it split? That's another mystery, but probably not directly from Common Late PIE in my opinion).
> 
> As for possible extant IE languages that were totally superseded by Central European NWIE languages (Celtic, Italic and Germanic), we have the possible examples of Venetic, Liburnian (controversial, but many linguists believe it's IE) and also Ligurian, who is still assumed by some linguists to have been at least a "Para-Celtic" language, not Celtic proper. As for languages much to the north of the Mediterranean, well, they simply did not write at all until the Late Antiquity times, so we'll never know.


I don't have any particular hypothesis for now, so I'm waiting for more samples from Greece, India and Anatolia. I am convinced that if early BB spread Indo-European languages, those weren't like the possibly para-Celtic and para-Italic languages that we see in Western Europe. Lusitanian, Venetic etc. are nestled within the NWIE clade. It is possible of course that BB languages were completely expunged in Western Europe, and that they were a deeply diverged type of Indo-European.

By the time of early BB expansions until 2200 B.C. Slavic-NWIE still must have existed as a unified language. It seems that throughout the Middle Bronze Age the Carpathian basin was the epicenter of Central European expansions, so I think it's possible that the diffusion of Indo-European languages was effected from or by way of Romania or Hungary. Whether the IE speakers in the Carpathian basin came from CWC, Yamnaya or Asia Minor I don't know.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I don't have any particular hypothesis for now, so I'm waiting for more samples from Greece, India and Anatolia. I am convinced that if early BB spread Indo-European languages, those weren't like the possibly para-Celtic and para-Italic languages that we see in Western Europe. Lusitanian, Venetic etc. are nestled within the NWIE clade. It is possible of course that BB languages were completely expunged in Western Europe, and that they were a deeply diverged type of Indo-European.
> 
> *By the time of early BB expansions until 2200 B.C. Slavic-NWIE still must have existed as a unified language.* It seems that throughout the Middle Bronze Age the Carpathian basin was the epicenter of Central European expansions, so I think it's possible that the diffusion of Indo-European languages was effected from or by way of Romania or Hungary. Whether the IE speakers in the Carpathian basin came from CWC, Yamnaya or Asia Minor I don't know.


What makes you so sure of that? I very much doubt that, at least based on instinct, but also if we play the link-a-haplogroup-to-language game (which seems to work reasonably well) it doesn't make any sense, L51 being IE or not.

----------


## Sile

> North Picene language is probably a Liburnian dialect (preindoeuropean) and South Picene is Oscan-Umbrian.


could also be a histri dialect, they seem to have had a lot of land and sat between the venetic and liburnians..........they where as far west as Oderzo to as far east as Trieste and the istrian peninsula ..............another illyrian sub tribe

----------


## markod

> What makes you so sure of that? I very much doubt that, at least based on instinct, but also if we play the link-a-haplogroup-to-language game (which seems to work reasonably well) it doesn't make any sense, L51 being IE or not.


I'm referring to the Chang et al. tree:

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'm referring to the Chang et al. tree:


No way was the split between Germanic and Italo-Celtic after 2000BC, that's absurd. Just from an anthrogenetic point of view, I'd put it at about 3000BC.

----------


## markod

> No way was the split between Germanic and Italo-Celtic after 2000BC, that's absurd. Just from an anthrogenetic point of view, I'd put it at about 3000BC.


The reason such a late split may seem surprising is probably this:




> 'Germanic exhibits such unique and characteristic developments, e.g. the rigid 
> fixation of word stress, the radical simplification of the verbal system and in 
> many other ways, always directed from the plurality of exceptions towards 
> schematic regularity, that make the inference particularly attractive that the 
> richly developed Indo-European language was adopted by people with a for- 
> merly different mother tongue who learned the rules but not the exceptions. 
> Additionally, it is impossible to trace back a large part of the Germanic core 
> vocabulary to Indo-European - a third, according to estimates. This too sug- 
> gests the influence of a different, non-Indo-European language.'





> . From this it follows that both Hittite and Greek are said to contain about one third of non-inherited words, which is viewed as being a 
> high proportion. Needless to say, for the part of its primary verbs Germanic 
> surpasses this figure considerably, but since the quantitative study carried 
> out by Tischler (1979) comprises the core vocabulary and not specifically 
> the primary verbs, these figures are hardly comparable to the ones in this 
> study. Therefore, the next section includes quantitative analyses for the 
> primary verbs of Sanskrit and Ancient Greek in order to calculate the rele- 
> vance of the Germanic results from a comparative point of view.

----------


## halfalp

I think this reasoning is absurd, i see Germanic link to Italo-Celtic at the same level Tocharian was to Italo-Celtic. The supposition that Germanic once was part of an Italo-Celtic group just shadows their deep relationship. Italic and Celtic languages just neighbor or kept the same rules of linguistic to be related, but all those languages are coming from little groups of adventurers that talked related languages. Italic and Celtic are just closer than they are of Germanic even if the three are clearly related, but it doesn't mean that it was something like Common Centum -> Tocharian-Germanic-Italic-Celtic -> Germanic-Italic-Celtic -> Italo-Celtic. Also, we generally make the correlation R1b-Centum and R1a-Satem, but Scandinavia is mostly I1. Also here we just suppose that Celtic language came once and stay and not that different Celtic dialects supperposed to each other following the dominant culture related to the Celtic world. Temporally, each IE tribes didn't have huge notion of relationship with the other one. This means that Bell Beaker could have spoked a Celtic-related IE languages but the dominant dialect was superposed by other Celtic dialects when demic and cultural migration happened.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think this reasoning is absurd, i see Germanic link to Italo-Celtic at the same level Tocharian was to Italo-Celtic. The supposition that Germanic once was part of an Italo-Celtic group just shadows their deep relationship. Italic and Celtic languages just neighbor or kept the same rules of linguistic to be related, but all those languages are coming from little groups of adventurers that talked related languages. Italic and Celtic are just closer than they are of Germanic even if the three are clearly related, but it doesn't mean that it was something like Common Centum -> Tocharian-Germanic-Italic-Celtic -> Germanic-Italic-Celtic -> Italo-Celtic. Also, we generally make the correlation R1b-Centum and R1a-Satem, but Scandinavia is mostly I1. Also here we just suppose that Celtic language came once and stay and not that different Celtic dialects supperposed to each other following the dominant culture related to the Celtic world. Temporally, each IE tribes didn't have huge notion of relationship with the other one. This means that Bell Beaker could have spoked a Celtic-related IE languages but the dominant dialect was superposed by other Celtic dialects when demic and cultural migration happened.


Scandinavian I1 is puzzling, but it seems that its presence is Funnelbeaker in origin. Perhaps R1a Corded folk migrated to Scandinavia, and weren't successful in wiping out the males, and instead there was a bidirectional assimilation process, where I1 retained its dominance. Then, later, U106 arrived.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I'm referring to the Chang et al. tree:


Oh my, I know they have done a methodically sound and scientifically valid estimate, but if we can judge anything based on the languages that we know much about from historical documents they definitely underestimated the splits of earlier languages, too. 

I mean, come on, they estimate the split of Portuguese and Spanish at ~500 years, when actually 800-year-old documents in Galician-Portuguese and Old Spanish were already distinct enough to make them instantly recognizable (and distinct) languages, and actually some of the earliest features of Galician-Portuguese independent development can be found as early as ~900 AD in some mixed Late Latin documents. Some 500 years ago is actually the period when Portuguese and Galician started to diverge, and they're still very similar languages despite heavy "Castillianization" in Galician. 

French and Italian splitting less than 1000 years ago (more like ~800) is also a gross underestimation. Even the oldest evidences of Old French, dating back to ~800 AD, are already recognizably different from the phonetic developments of Old Italian, and by 1100-1200 AD they were already very distinct languages, not recently split ones. Ditto for French and Provençal, already definitely different languages by the High Middle Ages, and estimated by this tree to have started splitting little more than 500-600 years ago. I know less about the Germanic languages, but AFAIK some of the first Germanic runes, dated to ~200 AD, already show traces of a specifically Proto-Norse development and not undifferentiated Proto-Germanic (thogh still very close to reconstructed Proto-Germanic). Here they estimate West & North Germanic to have split around 400-500 AD, but the earliest Old Norse and Old English texts (~ 700 AD) are already reasonably distinct, not like Portuguese vs. Galician or other recently split languages. I'd say that at least for these historically known and textually attested languages they're close to the truth, but missed the mark by a few centuries.

Not that a Proto-Italo-Celtic vs. Proto-Germanic split by ~1900 BC is a big problem, after all that in fact means that the Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic language must've been first spoken at least by ~2400 BC, as languages rarely if ever start differentiating, in important ways, right after they started to be spoken. Their assumption that Balto-Slavic is closer to Italo-Celtic than to Indo-Iranian must have angered many linguists, by the way. lol

----------


## Ygorcs

> Scandinavian I1 is puzzling, but it seems that its presence is Funnelbeaker in origin. Perhaps R1a Corded folk migrated to Scandinavia, and weren't successful in wiping out the males, and instead there was a bidirectional assimilation process, where I1 retained its dominance. Then, later, U106 arrived.


Not THAT dominant. I1 in most of Scandinavia averages 30-35%, not more than that. It may be that some native males were absorbed (the same thing happened elsewhere in the Indo-Europeanization process, otherwise we'd see no G2a, E and J2 in much of Europe), and later for some random reason a lineage of men carrying I1 was particularly successful and powerful, enhancing the presence of a once minority haplogroup in a mainly R1a+R1b society.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Not THAT dominant. I1 in most of Scandinavia averages 30-35%, not more than that. It may be that some native males were absorbed (the same thing happened elsewhere in the Indo-Europeanization process, otherwise we'd see no G2a, E and J2 in much of Europe), and later for some random reason a lineage of men carrying I1 was particularly successful and powerful, enhancing the presence of a once minority haplogroup in a mainly R1a+R1b society.


The phylogeny of I1 should give the answer, but I suspect that I1 was well over 50% of the lineages in Sourhern Scandinavia before U106 arrived.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Not THAT dominant. I1 in most of Scandinavia averages 30-35%, not more than that. It may be that some native males were absorbed (the same thing happened elsewhere in the Indo-Europeanization process, otherwise we'd see no G2a, E and J2 in much of Europe), and later for some random reason a lineage of men carrying I1 was particularly successful and powerful, enhancing the presence of a once minority haplogroup in a mainly R1a+R1b society.


It seems the explosion of Y DNA I1 roughly dates to the arrival of the Corded Ware folk in Scandinavia. 

That leads me to two hypotheses - either, the arrival of the CWC brought some technology that allowed the existing I1 population to rapidly multiply, or climate change brought that change about. Perhaps the CWC in Central Europe was mostly I1 but the elites were mostly R1a - but I dont know if Corded Ware society was stratified or not.

----------


## markod

> Oh my, I know they have done a methodically sound and scientifically valid estimate, but if we can judge anything based on the languages that we know much about from historical documents they definitely underestimated the splits of earlier languages, too. 
> 
> I mean, come on, they estimate the split of Portuguese and Spanish at ~500 years, when actually 800-year-old documents in Galician-Portuguese and Old Spanish were already distinct enough to make them instantly recognizable (and distinct) languages, and actually some of the earliest features of Galician-Portuguese independent development can be found as early as ~900 AD in some mixed Late Latin documents. Some 500 years ago is actually the period when Portuguese and Galician started to diverge, and they're still very similar languages despite heavy "Castillianization" in Galician. 
> 
> French and Italian splitting less than 1000 years ago (more like ~800) is also a gross underestimation. Even the oldest evidences of Old French, dating back to ~800 AD, are already recognizably different from the phonetic developments of Old Italian, and by 1100-1200 AD they were already very distinct languages, not recently split ones. Ditto for French and Provençal, already definitely different languages by the High Middle Ages, and estimated by this tree to have started splitting little more than 500-600 years ago. I know less about the Germanic languages, but AFAIK some of the first Germanic runes, dated to ~200 AD, already show traces of a specifically Proto-Norse development and not undifferentiated Proto-Germanic (thogh still very close to reconstructed Proto-Germanic). Here they estimate West & North Germanic to have split around 400-500 AD, but the earliest Old Norse and Old English texts (~ 700 AD) are already reasonably distinct, not like Portuguese vs. Galician or other recently split languages. I'd say that at least for these historically known and textually attested languages they're close to the truth, but missed the mark by a few centuries.
> 
> Not that a Proto-Italo-Celtic vs. Proto-Germanic split by ~1900 BC is a big problem, after all that in fact means that the Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic language must've been first spoken at least by ~2400 BC, as languages rarely if ever start differentiating, in important ways, right after they started to be spoken. Their assumption that Balto-Slavic is closer to Italo-Celtic than to Indo-Iranian must have angered many linguists, by the way. lol


Latin isn't exactly good for comparison because of the Roman and Ecclesial superstrates that had a significant influence on even non-Latin languages. Look at Germanic: East - West split, the West Germanic - Norse split, English colonoziation are all accurately predicted by a computer model. That's amazing imho.

I don't believe in the Indo-Slavonic & Italo-Celtic phyla however. They are outdated to my knowledge.

----------


## Ygorcs

> The reason such a late split may seem surprising is probably this:


What's particularly intriguing about Germanic is that Germanic-speking North Europeans are among the peoples (if not actually "the" people) with highest proportion of BA Steppe-derived ancestry, which suggests that the early Indo-Europeanization process in their homeland involved a real massive population replacement, with a majority of people originating in presumably already IE-speaking tribes. It's not like Greek, Hittite and even Sanskrit, languages spoken by people in regions where the BA Steppe genetic impact was arguably much smaller and an actual majority of the speakers may have been initially secondary speakers assimilated to IE languages, not native ones. It seems likely then that the non-IE natives were somehow more socially influential, powerful and/or culturally valued for a much longer time in Germanic lands than in some other lands conquered by Indo-European tribes, because it can't be attributed solely to the first speakers being in their large majority non-IE (and the substrate is too big and comprehensive to be the language of a totally marginalized, socially undervalued community of people).

----------


## markod

> What's particularly intriguing about Germanic is that Germanic-speking North Europeans are among the peoples (if not actually "the" people) with highest proportion of BA Steppe-derived ancestry, which suggests that the early Indo-Europeanization process in their homeland involved a real massive population replacement, with a majority of people originating in presumably already IE-speaking tribes. It's not like Greek, Hittite and even Sanskrit, languages spoken by people in regions where the BA Steppe genetic impact was arguably much smaller and an actual majority of the speakers may have been initially secondary speakers assimilated to IE languages, not native ones. It seems likely then that the non-IE natives were somehow more socially influential, powerful and/or culturally valued for a much longer time in Germanic lands than in some other lands conquered by Indo-European tribes, because it can't be attributed solely to the first speakers being in their large majority non-IE (and the substrate is too big and comprehensive to be the language of a totally marginalized, socially undervalued community of people).


That's assuming that Germanic originated where it's spoken nowadays. I see no reason to think so. In fact I believe it is rather unlikely: if Underhill's data is to believed, the major Scandinavia specific haplogroup R1a-Z284 is confined to Scandinavia more or less, suggesting that there were no significant expansions coming from Scandinavia.

----------


## Pip

We've gone off the subject of the Yamna wipe-out of the Iberians a bit, which looks as if could only have been R1b-DF27 moving in from the North. Perhaps Basque speaking?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That's assuming that Germanic originated where it's spoken nowadays. I see no reason to think so. In fact I believe it is rather unlikely: if Underhill's data is to believed, the major Scandinavia specific haplogroup R1a-Z284 is confined to Scandinavia more or less, suggesting that there were no significant expansions coming from Scandinavia.


But what about East Germanic, the tribes speaking which can only really be assumed to have migrated from Scandinavia. That would place the Germanic homeland in Scandinavia, akin to this video, which seems very accurate to me:




The problem with Z284 could be explained if it wasn't the group that entered Scandinavia, but a group that originated in a particular part of Scandinavia that wasn't involved in the diversification of Germanic - such as Norway, where Z284 is most common.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> We've gone off the subject of the Yamna wipe-out of the Iberians a bit, which looks as if could only have been R1b-DF27 moving in from the North. Perhaps Basque speaking?


Yeah, this thread is mainly about the origin of Western IE now, but that's fine.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Here is an option - During Chalcolithic (_3300bc - 1900bc_) the region of south Portugal was thriving with a Oak tree forests and huge settlements held by agriculture, high pastoral life and game hunting. By bronze age all had disappear (as did places like Porto Torrão and Perdigoes). by end Iron age, when strabo passed there he stated that the Celts had entered portugal through that region (alentejo) and that it was a barren region where agriculture was extremely difficult. So climate change must have been a factor.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4.2_kiloyear_event




> The *4.2-kiloyear BP aridification event* was one of the most severe climatic events of the Holocene period.[1] It defines the beginning of the current Meghalayan age in the Holocene epoch. Starting in about 2200 BC, it probably lasted the entire 22nd century BC. It has been hypothesised to have caused the collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt as well as the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, and the Liangzhu culture in the lower Yangtze River area.[2][3] The drought may also have initiated the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilisation, with some of its population moving southeastward to follow the movement of their desired habitat,[4] as well as the migration of Indo-European speaking people into India.[5]





> On the Iberian Peninsula, the construction of motillas-type settlements in the period after 2200 BC is believed to be the consequence of the severe aridification that affected this area. 
> According to Moreno et al., who reported the first palaeohydrogeological interdisciplinary research in La Mancha, Spain, 
> Recent studies show that the "motilla" sites from the Bronze Age in La Mancha may be the most ancient system of groundwater collection in the Iberian Peninsula. ... These were built during the Climatic Event 4.2 ka cal BP in a time of environmental stress due to a period of severe, prolonged drought.[22] 
> The authors' analysis verified a relationship between the geological substrate and the spatial distribution of the motillas.


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




> The _motillas_ were constructed in the period of c. 2200 BCE–1200 BCE.[1] Their use started at the time of the 4.2 kiloyear event. They were needed as a consequence of severe aridification that affected this wide geographical area. They were also used as a control center of agricultural resources. They were no longer used after the end of the Argarian civilization.
> 
> Recently, archaeologists have suggested that these structures are mainly connected with water management, and agricultural production: 
> "Motilla del Azuer contains the oldest well known from the Iberian Peninsula and the archaeologists suspect that the walled enclosures were therefore used to protect and manage the livelihood of the people living in the settlement: To secure the well’s water, to store and process cereals on a large scale, to occasionally keep the livestock, and to produce pottery and other domestic artefacts."[2] 
> Analysis by Moreno et al. (2014) verified a relationship between the geological substrate and the spatial distribution of the “motillas”[1] who reported the first paleohydrogeological interdisciplinary research in La Mancha. According to the authors: 
> "Recent studies show that the “motilla” sites from the Bronze Age in La Mancha may be the most ancient system of groundwater collection in the Iberian Peninsula. ... These were built during the Climatic Event 4.2 ka cal BP, in a time of environmental stress due to a period of severe, prolonged drought."[1]

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Just to make this thread EVEN MORE off-topic, I've now come to the conclusion (just an opinion, I can elucidate later), that there was an Indo-European presence pre-Sumer (who I see as Dravidian - the obvious clue for me being that "Ur" in proto-Dravidian means village), and linguists (though this is definitely not close to being accepted yet) refer to the language these guys spoke as Euphratic.

Euphratic is one candidate for the language spoken by the Ubaid people (called the proto-Euphratean language), before the Sumerians took over. The Sumerians literally described themselves as foreigners, so it's reasonable to assume that they were invaders, but there is linguistic evidence too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Euphratean_language

Here is an interesting thread, I'd recommend reading at least the first few pages:

https://historum.com/threads/a-langu...potamia.45325/

And just for good measure, here is a Swastika from the Samarra culture, the predicted likely Urheimat of this particular language:



This isn't an isolated case, there's loads of pottery with roughly that shape (some repeats):








Clearly not a coincidence, *don't you even dare* try to claim so aha.

This is seemingly evidence for the South Caucasian homeland theory that most of the big guys now believe. Look into that thread for the linguistic evidence the OP put forward - that, the swastikas, R1b phylogeny and the spread of copper metallurgy are the main factors convincing me in this. 

In terms of population migration, I still stand by my claims - M269 spreads from the Balkans to West Asia, L23 mutation acquired there; L23 spreads from West Asia to Iberia (L51) and continues in West Asia (Z2103); L51 spreads to Central Europe and Z2103 spreads to the Steppe.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It seems the explosion of Y DNA I1 roughly dates to the arrival of the Corded Ware folk in Scandinavia. 
> 
> That leads me to two hypotheses - either, the arrival of the CWC brought some technology that allowed the existing I1 population to rapidly multiply, or climate change brought that change about. Perhaps the CWC in Central Europe was mostly I1 but the elites were mostly R1a - but I don�t know if Corded Ware society was stratified or not.


I think that sounds a bit far-fetched. A much more simple explanation would be that I1 was simply acculturated into the CWC culture, became attached to some successful clans and expanded together with the CWC material culture in some regions, but not in others (much like I2 was originally WHG, but it expanded a lot in the Middle-Late Neolithic probably as a EEF lineage, only slightly more enriched with WHG). I doubt I1 people were culturally distinct (for a long period) natives who multiplied rapidly after cultural diffusion of CWC-derived technologies, the CWC area inhabited by Northern Europeans in the past as today has too much steppe ancestry, and substantial genetic replacement certainly happened during the CWC period. Maybe I1 was the main lineage of the people who spoke the significant non-IE Germanic substrate, which indicates that these non-IE people must have not been a weak and culturally marginalized minority, but a people who, even if ultimately defeated, had some prestige and really influenced the social ways of the newcomers.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Latin isn't exactly good for comparison because of the Roman and Ecclesial superstrates that had a significant influence on even non-Latin languages. Look at Germanic: East - West split, the West Germanic - Norse split, English colonoziation are all accurately predicted by a computer model. That's amazing imho.
> 
> I don't believe in the Indo-Slavonic & Italo-Celtic phyla however. They are outdated to my knowledge.


It's actually very easy to distinguish the natural development from Latin in the lexicon of Romance languages. The core vocabulary was not influenced by Church/College Latin superstrates at all. There are many doublets in Romance languages superposing the "real" Latin-derived word and the much later reborrowing from Latin, e.g. _cheio_ vs. _pleno_ in Portuguese. However, if anything the existence of that superstrate for so long only prevented the Romance languages from diverging even faster, so that one could even speculate if their initial splitting date was even earlier than most often assumed (I don't, but this would make much more sense than the dates assumed in that phylogenetic tree at least).

----------


## Ygorcs

> That's assuming that Germanic originated where it's spoken nowadays. I see no reason to think so. In fact I believe it is rather unlikely: if Underhill's data is to believed, the major Scandinavia specific haplogroup R1a-Z284 is confined to Scandinavia more or less, suggesting that there were no significant expansions coming from Scandinavia.


But I did not refer specifically to Scandinavia alone, but to Northern Europe where Germanic is or was historically spoken. I do not think Pre-Proto-Germanic necessarily arose in Scandinavia, but I doubt very much it could've been born outside Northern Europe, where after the CWC period the samples show a huge amount of BA Steppe-derived ancestry, suggestive of very profound genetic, demographic and cultural replacement (as opposed to massive assimilation), definitely not the kind of Indo-Europeanization that happened in Greece, India or even, less so, parts of Iberia and South Italy.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Just to make this thread EVEN MORE off-topic, I've now come to the conclusion (just an opinion, I can elucidate later), that there was an Indo-European presence pre-Sumer (who I see as Dravidian - the obvious clue for me being that "Ur" in proto-Dravidian means village), and linguists (though this is definitely not close to being accepted yet) refer to the language these guys spoke as Euphratic.
> 
> Euphratic is one candidate for the language spoken by the Ubaid people (called the proto-Euphratean language), before the Sumerians took over. The Sumerians literally described themselves as foreigners, so it's reasonable to assume that they were invaders, but there is linguistic evidence too.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Euphratean_language
> 
> Here is an interesting thread, I'd recommend reading at least the first few pages:
> 
> https://historum.com/threads/a-langu...potamia.45325/
> ...


Some of the problems of this hypothesis is that virtually only , and the nickname "banana languages" (due to a frequent repetition of syllables in multisyllabic words) given by some of the proponents of Proto-Euphratean language in Pre-Sumerian Sumer makes no sense in Proto-Indo-European unless the language had changed profoundly by the time of Indo-Hittite/Early PIE. It sounds nothing like the usual structure of PIE words. Also, basically AFAIK Gordon Whittaker is the only professional linking that Proto-Euphratean language to Indo-European. There's also the "cultural" problem that it is possible, but certainly more unlikely than not that an advanced farmer and proto-urban society would give birth to a pastoral (with incipient agriculture), semi-nomadic and fully rural society. Genetically my main quibble with this is that Ubaid was centered mainly in South Iraq and much later expanded to North Mesopotamia possibly assimilating Halaf people. I find it extremely implausible that these people would be almost entirely CHG or maybe ANF-like, with no large chunks of Levant_Neolithic and Iran_Neolithic, which should then be clearly seen in larger proportions in the Steppe Early IE and later L51 BA/IA people in Western/Central Europe.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think that sounds a bit far-fetched. A much more simple explanation would be that I1 was simply acculturated into the CWC culture, became attached to some successful clans and expanded together with the CWC material culture in some regions, but not in others (much like I2 was originally WHG, but it expanded a lot in the Middle-Late Neolithic probably as a EEF lineage, only slightly more enriched with WHG). I doubt I1 people were culturally distinct (for a long period) natives who multiplied rapidly after cultural diffusion of CWC-derived technologies, the CWC area inhabited by Northern Europeans in the past as today has too much steppe ancestry, and substantial genetic replacement certainly happened during the CWC period. *Maybe I1 was the main lineage of the people who spoke the significant non-IE Germanic substrate, which indicates that these non-IE people must have not been a weak and culturally marginalized minority, but a people who, even if ultimately defeated, had some prestige and really influenced the social ways of the newcomers.*


Yeah that's a nice explanation I suppose, but it doesn't match up with the fact that I1 struggled and only exploded when CW arrived. If they weren't weak, there's no reason why they would have struggled until CWC arrived, as shown by the phylogeny. It could potentially be that I1 arrived with Ertebolle much earlier (which iirc we don't have Y DNA samples of), and when Funnelbeaker took over the hunter-gatherers simply lived separately (and so I1 was not found with the Funnelbeaker samples). I1 is a mystery, though. It is, also, by far the best example of a distribution of a haplogroup that can be linked to distribution of a phenotype (the Classic Nordid), so I'm not sure what to make of that. In Northern Europe and Scandinavia in particular, it fits basically perfectly.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Some of the problems of this hypothesis is that virtually only , and the nickname "banana languages" (due to a frequent repetition of syllables in multisyllabic words) given by some of the proponents of Proto-Euphratean language in Pre-Sumerian Sumer makes no sense in Proto-Indo-European unless the language had changed profoundly by the time of Indo-Hittite/Early PIE. It sounds nothing like the usual structure of PIE words. Also, basically AFAIK Gordon Whittaker is the only professional linking that Proto-Euphratean language to Indo-European. There's also the "cultural" problem that it is possible, but certainly more unlikely than not that an advanced farmer and proto-urban society would give birth to a pastoral (with incipient agriculture), semi-nomadic and fully rural society. Genetically my main quibble with this is that Ubaid was centered mainly in South Iraq and much later expanded to North Mesopotamia possibly assimilating Halaf people. I find it extremely implausible that these people would be almost entirely CHG or maybe ANF-like, with no large chunks of Levant_Neolithic and Iran_Neolithic, which should then be clearly seen in larger proportions in the Steppe Early IE and later L51 BA/IA people in Western/Central Europe.


Linguistics is far from my strong point, but those words in that thread sounded awfully similar to have been coincidence. I'll post them below for others' convenience:

Proto-Indo-European: senom (acc) = old 
Sumerian: sun = old

Proto-Indo-European: meluo = meal, flour
Sumerian: milla = type of flour

Proto-Indo-European: hner = man, heor, power, charisma
Sumerian: ner ~ nir = trust, authority, hero, prince

Proto-Indo-European: leuh = wash
Sumerian: luh = wash, cleanse

Proto-Indo-European: sieuh = sew
Sumerian: sah ~ suh = thread

Proto-Indo-European: hemehm = water bucket, jar, pot
Sumerian: amam = beer jar

Proto-Indo-European: hensehm = strap handle of a vessel
Sumerian: anzam = Late Uruk strap handled vessels

Proto-Indo-European: sehiteh = pain, illness
Sumerian: sadah = illness

Proto-Indo-European: dolhom = pain
Sumerian: dulum = missery

Proto-Indo-European: dlukus = sweet
Sumerian: dugu = sweet, good

Proto-Indo-European: gen- = offspring
Sumerian: genna = baby

Proto-Indo-European: hegro = pasture, field, arable land
Sumerian: agar ~ ugur = arable land, meadow

Proto-Indo-European: gwous = bovine
Sumerian: gu = bull, ox

Proto-Indo-European: gher = hedgehog or small pig
Sumerian: kir ~ gir = little pig

Proto-Indo-European: ghostis = stranger, guest
Sumerian: kas = stranger, guest

English: queen
Sumerian: nin
Proto-Indo-European: gwnon

English: woman
Sumerian: gan
Proto-Indo-European: Gwen-
Gothic: qino

English: garlic
Sumerian: hadim
Proto-Indo-European: hodent = smell
Armenian: hotim
Proto-Greek: hodma

English: great
Sumerian: maha
Proto-Indo-European: majH-
Greek: megas
Sanskrit: mah-

English: ewe
Sumerian: uwi
Proto-Indo-European: howis
Latin: ovis

In terms of the cultural issue - that's no problem. Ubaid was multicultural: "...this culture saw for the first time a clear tripartite social division between intensive subsistence peasant farmers, with crops and animals coming from the north, tent-dwelling nomadic pastoralists dependent upon their herds, and hunter-fisher folk of the Arabian littoral, living in reed huts." The pastoralists would be the IE candidates, of course. Whatever the case, I find it hugely unlikely that the farmers, pastoralists and fishermen would all be of the same ethnic origin. If I had to play the haplogroup game, I'd put the farmers as G2a, the pastoralists as R1b, and the hunter-fishermen as J1.

As for Ubaid being South Mesopotamian in origin and later expanding up the Euphrates and Tigris - that's true, but only necessarily culturally. I don't think that means a group went from Lower to Upper Mesopotamia. It seems like that's the consensus too (that the Halaf-Ubaid transition was a cultural change rather than that of a migration). Moreover, some presumably Russian linguists (Dyakonov and Ardzinba - I'm just quoting Wikipedia without understanding) placed the proto-Euphratean language, that of the Ubaid culture, as originally belonging to that of the Samarra culture, which is further up Mesopotamia, and closer to the likely original Halafian source of these guys. Tomenable, who is basically where I steal half of my ideas and all my good ones, came up with a great thread about pastoral and metallurgical elites amongst farmers, but I can't seem to find it atm.

But I really don't think more evidence is needed than those swastikas. Later, clearly non-IE groups did adopt the symbol and spread it independently, however this is really early on, and basically requires a West Asian cultural diffusion of this symbol from a West Asian IE source (if those swastikas aren't in actuality evidence of IE folk but just some other group that picked up the symbol, they surely picked it up in West Asia, so IE guys must have been there, which is basically as good as saying the swastika is evidence of IE guys).

There is some genetic evidence based on inference, obviously very bad evidence, but still enough imo - if we look at the map of Z2103 (below), there is a pretty huge presence in roughly modern-day Iraq which can't really be explained by Indo-Iranians (who surely would have been overwhelmingly R1a-Z93) and also can't be explained by the Hittites/other Anatolians (who never expanded this far). This matches up with the fact that most early branches of Z2103 are more West Asian than anything else (mainly Caucasian - if you check on yfull, almost all of those Russians are Caucasian btw), and some exclusively so.

----------


## halfalp

> Linguistics is far from my strong point, but those words in that thread sounded awfully similar to have been coincidence. I'll post them below for others' convenience:
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: senom (acc) = old 
> Sumerian: sun = old
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: meluo = meal, flour
> Sumerian: milla = type of flour
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: hner = man, heor, power, charisma
> ...


I think those vocabulary relationship are clearly missleading on the relationship between those people. Steppe people could have borrowed a lot of words from, let's sayin Maikop, wich were related with Kura-Araxes, wich was probably an ancestor to some Sumerians. Semitic, Sumerian, Uralian languages could have indirectly influence IE or the opposite for Uralian, without any genetic impact or deep linguistic relationship. The Ainu word for " Water " is *_Waata_ if i recall, doesn't it sound very familiar?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think those vocabulary relationship are clearly missleading on the relationship between those people. Steppe people could have borrowed a lot of words from, let's sayin Maikop, wich were related with Kura-Araxes, wich was probably an ancestor to some Sumerians. Semitic, Sumerian, Uralian languages could have indirectly influence IE or the opposite for Uralian, without any genetic impact or deep linguistic relationship. The Ainu word for " Water " is *_Waata_ if i recall, doesn't it sound very familiar?


Fair enough, but these are a lot of really important words that sound awfully similar. But I have many other valid points in that post you quoted, anyway.

----------


## halfalp

> Fair enough, *but these are a lot of really important words that sound awfully similar*. But I have many other valid points in that post you quoted, anyway.


Yes they are, but why the Women word is related and not the Men one? Because Southern Women came into Northern Men households? There is an obvious link between Southern and Northern part of Eurasia, East of the Black Sea, meaning both part of the Caucasus range. Sumerian and IE languages dont borrow a lot of similarity a part of related words, wich doesn't mean anything. Japanese language have borrowed a lot to English and Nipponised them. English is considered a Germanic laguage while having 70% of the vocabulary being of Latin origin?

----------


## hrvclv

Some Euphratic and PIE words display similarities. Two options : - populations mixed. - "areal spread"

Proto-Uralic and PIE also show some connections. Ancient common origin or areal spread.

Anyway, this suggests that PIE-speaking people(s) at given points in time came into contact with both Sumer and Siberian tribes.

Everyone seems to be trying to pin PIE-Urheimat down to very specific areas. More likely, PIE-speaking R1 tribes roamed wide expanses of land around the Caspian for centuries (millenia), with hotspots in places maybe. But they were probably mobile hunter-gatherer tribes chasing game wherever it moved across Eurasia. Just like I1 and I2 went about in western Europe.

----------


## bicicleur

> Some Euphratic and PIE words display similarities. Two options : - population mixed. - "areal spread"
> 
> Proto-Uralic and PIE also show some connections. Ancient common origin or areal spread.
> 
> Anyway, this suggests that PIE-speaking people(s) at given points in time came into contact with both Sumer and Siberian tribes.
> 
> Everyone seems to be trying to pin PIE-Urheimat to very specific areas. More likely, PIE-speaking R1 tribes roamed wide expanses of land around the Caspian for centuries (millenia), with hotspots in places maybe. But they were probably mobile hunter-gatherer tribes chasing game wherever it moved across Eurasia. Just lie I1 and I2 went about in western Europe.


Isn't Euphratic a hypothesized language that in neither Sumerian nor Semitic?
If there are some similarities between IE and Euphratic, could it be through Maykop?

----------


## Ygorcs

> Linguistics is far from my strong point, but those words in that thread sounded awfully similar to have been coincidence. I'll post them below for others' convenience:
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: senom (acc) = old 
> Sumerian: sun = old
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: meluo = meal, flour
> Sumerian: milla = type of flour
> 
> Proto-Indo-European: hner = man, heor, power, charisma
> ...


I do not think such mass comparisons are very reliable, unless the similar words are first collected and then used as a basis to identify some regular correspondences of sounds in the way that Sumerian would've absorbed the foreign IE words. Similarity is just not enough, there must be some pattern of changes. The case of Sumerian is actually exemplary of this situation much maligned by linguists: many people have - successfully - found several similar words between Sumerian and Turkic, Sumerian and Uralic and Sumerian and Sino-Tibetan - and assumed these languages were once related or at least had strong contacts with each other. Often, but not always, there is something nationalist or ethnocentric behind these hypotheses. 

Besides, there is the actual possibility that at least some of these words were brought into both PIE and Sumerian via an intermediary and influential language/culture that lent them these words, as some of the terms are clearly cultural-specific easily transferred through trade and economic influence, they're not basic vocabulary: sheep, garlic, small pig, flour, sew, gwous, hand of a vessel... (keep in mind the steppes were hunter-gatherer land until the Late Neolithic) That intermediary language may have even been the language of the ancestors of PIE (maybe, I don't have a strong opinion in favor of it, but do not discard it either)... but that would've been before Sumerians conquered all of Sumer.

Another problem in my opinion is to use the reconstruction of PIE to identify very similar-sounding cognates in Sumerian like these listed above. I mean, Proto-Euphratic is supposed to be the PRE-Sumerian substrate, the language already spoken in Sumer before the arrival of Sumerian, and Sumerian was spoken in Sumer at least by the early 4th milennium BC (presumably it's the language associated with the Uruk expansion that marked a change from earlier Ubaid). But PIE was probably already spoken in the Pontic-Caspian steppe in the Copper Age, and if Anatolian split from the same PIE that was spoken on the steppes that "northern" (non-Euphratic) PIE could be dated to at least 4000 BC. 

Therefore, I could even imagine a kind of para-PIE (a sister language) in Sumer, but would it be exactly the same as PIE? I find that implausible, virtually no linguistic change among communities far away from each other. Of course, that is all not hypothesizing that PIE per se would've started to split into different branches in Mesopotamia itself and in fact it only arrived in the steppes much later by Yamnaya times (unlikely, because the genetic makeup of the steppe population was already very similar, without any major changes, in the Chalcolithic Pontic-Caspian samples even before 4000 BC; not to talk again about the implausible lack of any Levant_Neolithic and Iran_Neolithic admixture in their supposed PIE-speaking descendants in the Pontic-Caspian area, when e.g. Anatolia, even further from the Iranian Plateau and from the Levant, had become very mixed with the other "farmer admixtures" by the Chalcolithic).

This linguist analyzed the proposal of Whittaker and found it to be untenable, and she says sumerologists also rejected it: file: http://www.academia.edu/928075/A_new...?auto=download

----------


## hrvclv

> Isn't Euphratic a hypothesized language that in neither Sumerian nor Semitic?
> If there are some similarities between IE and Euphratic, could it be through Maykop?


Afaik, nobody knows... so everything goes.

----------


## markod

> But I did not refer specifically to Scandinavia alone, but to Northern Europe where Germanic is or was historically spoken. I do not think Pre-Proto-Germanic necessarily arose in Scandinavia, but I doubt very much it could've been born outside Northern Europe, where after the CWC period the samples show a huge amount of BA Steppe-derived ancestry, suggestive of very profound genetic, demographic and cultural replacement (as opposed to massive assimilation), definitely not the kind of Indo-Europeanization that happened in Greece, India or even, less so, parts of Iberia and South Italy.


Could be the case, but there's really no evidence for or against it. The archaeological trail in the Bronze Age seems to be Carpathian basin -> Northern Europe. Whether the material culture and the bronze weapons that came from the Carpathians actually brought a new language with them is of course impossible to know. I think it's very likely.

----------


## markod

> http://www.academia.edu/928075/A_new...?auto=download


That's referring to Whittaker's old paper. This is new:

http://www.academia.edu/3592967/Euph...logical_sketch

The guys at the languagehat blog and several linguists seem to think it's solid.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That's referring to Whittaker's old paper. This is new:
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/3592967/Euph...logical_sketch
> 
> The guys at the languagehat blog and several linguists seem to think it's solid.


I also think my other points in that post (the one with the Z2103 map) are really solid, dont know why nobody is mentioning them

----------


## Ygorcs

> That's referring to Whittaker's old paper. This is new:
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/3592967/Euph...logical_sketch
> 
> The guys at the languagehat blog and several linguists seem to think it's solid.


Besides the arguably _ad hoc_ correspondences between PIE roots made to look similar to the Sumerian, with several irregularities (e.g. in some words final -eh2 disappears, in some others it becomes -ah), which were pointed out in the article I linked above (some of the supposed cognates sound really forced to fit into the Sumerian word), for me it is really difficult to reconcile this hypothesis with the more accepted chronology and geographic/archaeological traces of PIE. I mean: Proto-Anatolian split being dated to ~4000 BC, Early totally undivided PIE is dated to immediately before that date; Sumerians are thought to have been present in Sumer at least in the later mid of the 4th millennium BC, so that leaves around ~500 years between PIE and Euphratic before it was replaced by Sumerian (and that must've been pretty early, because as far as I can see Whittaker's Euphratic is basically undifferentiated PIE, with few changes).

Therefore, we must find an explanation (in genetics and archaeology) that fits an early presence of the very same or virtually identical PIE in both the Pontic-Caspian steppe (definitely associated with the expansion of most of IE branches, Anatolian excepted perhaps) and more than 1500 km to its south in South Mesopotamia/Sumer. Such a linguistic closeness should then indicate a very recent migration to or from the Pontic-Caspian area from or to South Mesopotamia. It must've been a migration bringing a different culture and probably ethnic/genetic makeup roughly between 4500-4000 BC, because after that Euphratean would've been the language of newcomers, not the supposed established language of a proto-urban people who supposedly invented writing (not the Sumerians, as per Whittaker's hypothesis), or PIE in the steppes being spoken by pastoral primitive tribes would've been the very recent arrival coming from a proto-urban farming culture in a totally different environment than the one reflected by reconstructed PIE. For many reasons I just do not see many (archaeological, linguistic, genetic) evidences to back this idea up. 

The proportion of R1b-Z2103 is very intriguing, but considering it is found in non-negligible percentages among some Iranic populations its frequency could've exploded more or less recently regionally. I very much doubt a Mesopotamian population by ~4000 BC would not have brought much Levant_Neolithic and Iranian_Neolithic to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not to mention the apparent organic cultural development without strong ruptures in the western steppe during the Chalcolithic (AFAIK). Maciamo had this to say about "Asian branches" of R1b-Z2103:




> Through a founder effect or through political domination, R1a-Z93 lineages would have outnumbered R1b-Z2103 after the expansion to Central and South Asia, although important pockets of Z2103 survived, notably in Bashkorostan, Turkmenistan and Uyghurstan (Chinese Turkestan).R1b-Z2103 would have become an Indo-Iranian lineage like R1a-Z93. This is true of two Z2103 subclades in particular: L277.1 and L584. The former is found in Russia to Central Asia then to India and the Middle East, just like the R1a-L657 subclade of Z93. It can be associated with the Andronovo culture and Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, as well as the Indo-Aryan migrations. R1b-L584 is found especially in Iran, northern Iraq, the South Caucasus and Turkey, and correlates more with the Iranian branch of Indo-Europeans, which includes Persians, Kurds and Scythians.


If Euphratic is true, then we definitely need to find a chronologically very close (in comparison with the Uruk period when Sumerian was demonstrably spoken) connection between the Pontic-Caspian area and Mesopotamia, with the linguistic transfer so recent that the languages would've still been roughly unchanged. I personally would find it a bit easier to believe in a Sumerian-PIE connection not with a substrate language in Sumer itself, but with Sumerian being brought to Sumer from its original homeland much closer and maybe in direct contact with Early PIE or maybe even the parent language of PIE (somewhere in the Caucasus? Or in the Black Sea coast? Who knows).

----------


## Ygorcs

> That's referring to Whittaker's old paper. This is new:
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/3592967/Euph...logical_sketch
> 
> The guys at the languagehat blog and several linguists seem to think it's solid.


Thanks, I'll look it up.

----------


## halfalp

[ So we have the " Men " in IE languages that doesn't have any paralells, but the " Women " does have some. ] I never was being a fan to those big proto linguistic families. I always believed it was some excuse to fit the " Babel Myth ". I'm 100% for the cultural influence, i think this is over our own person, looking at the 21 century. I think Maikop and some Balkans Neolithic Cultures have intensively influenced the Steppe people, and those influence have ultimately a point in the Middle-East. What you call Proto-Euphratic, might just be the idealised view of some linguistic link spewing in all ancient Middle-East. There was never an Indo-European/Sumerian proto language, but the ancestor of the most culturally important, might have influenced the other by some cultural roads. Languages dont have to be related to have common themes or words. Pontic Steppe and Middle-East are not that far.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Besides the arguably _ad hoc_ correspondences between PIE roots made to look similar to the Sumerian, with several irregularities (e.g. in some words final -eh2 disappears, in some others it becomes -ah), which were pointed out in the article I linked above (some of the supposed cognates sound really forced to fit into the Sumerian word), for me it is really difficult to reconcile this hypothesis with the more accepted chronology and geographic/archaeological traces of PIE. I mean: Proto-Anatolian split being dated to ~4000 BC, Early totally undivided PIE is dated to immediately before that date; Sumerians are thought to have been present in Sumer at least in the later mid of the 4th millennium BC, so that leaves around ~500 years between PIE and Euphratic before it was replaced by Sumerian (and that must've been pretty early, because as far as I can see Whittaker's Euphratic is basically undifferentiated PIE, with few changes).
> 
> Therefore, we must find an explanation (in genetics and archaeology) that fits an early presence of the very same or virtually identical PIE in both the Pontic-Caspian steppe (definitely associated with the expansion of most of IE branches, Anatolian excepted perhaps) and more than 1500 km to its south in South Mesopotamia/Sumer. Such a linguistic closeness should then indicate a very recent migration to or from the Pontic-Caspian area from or to South Mesopotamia. It must've been a migration bringing a different culture and probably ethnic/genetic makeup roughly between 4500-4000 BC, because after that Euphratean would've been the language of newcomers, not the supposed established language of a proto-urban people who supposedly invented writing (not the Sumerians, as per Whittaker's hypothesis), or PIE in the steppes being spoken by pastoral primitive tribes would've been the very recent arrival coming from a proto-urban farming culture in a totally different environment than the one reflected by reconstructed PIE. For many reasons I just do not see many (archaeological, linguistic, genetic) evidences to back this idea up. 
> 
> The proportion of R1b-Z2103 is very intriguing, but considering it is found in non-negligible percentages among some Iranic populations its frequency could've exploded more or less recently regionally. I very much doubt a Mesopotamian population by ~4000 BC would not have brought much Levant_Neolithic and Iranian_Neolithic to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, not to mention the apparent organic cultural development without strong ruptures in the western steppe during the Chalcolithic (AFAIK). 
> 
> If Euphratic is true, then we definitely need to find a chronologically very close (in comparison with the Uruk period when Sumerian was demonstrably spoken) connection between the Pontic-Caspian area and Mesopotamia. I personally would find it a bit easier to believe in a Sumerian-PIE connection not with a substrate language in Sumer itself, but with Sumerian being brought to Sumer from its original homeland much closer and maybe in direct contact with Early PIE or maybe even the parent language of PIE (somewhere in the Caucasus? Or in the Black Sea coast? Who knows).


Well in terms of archaeology there's a decent amount backing it up - of course, I've mentioned the swastikas and metallurgy spreading from the Balkans originally, but what about the overall pretty great similarities between Vinca and Ubaid symbols, figurines and metallurgy? The early 20th century archaeologists saw Vinca as a development of Mesopotamian cultures like that of Ubaid, but now we know if anything it was the other way round - metallurgy is oldest in Vinca, as are the symbols (which bear some similarities, but the extent of this is debatable) and the figurines (those lizardmen people think are aliens). 

Also, why could it not potentially be the case that one branch travelled down Mesopotamia, and another continued in the highland region to the North (eventually moving up into the Steppe). That, though, seems like an added complication and so goes against Occam's razor I suppose. But, there is a neater solution - what about Leyla-Tepe - these guys are theorised to have been Ubaid-period migrants, who brought with them the first metallurgy to the Caucasus, and are theorised to have been founders of the Maykop culture. The fact that Maykop seems to be Y DNA G, J and L could be explained by burial differences or differences in location (the pastoralists might have been in a different region than sampled, as is the case with the Caucasus today lots of different groups can live in a relatively small area isolated by terrain). From looking at where the samples were taken, it appears the Y DNA G, J and L were not found in the Eastern Caucasus - whereas perhaps Z2103 migrated to the Steppe through th easier Azerbaijani-Dagestani route (near to where that Chalcolithic Z2103 was found). Maykop Steppe is just completely mind-boggling to me - how Siberian HG ancestry is there I have no idea. Whatever the case, I'm dead-set on Z2103 from West Asia, which leads the Z2103 of Yamnaya to be Southern in origin. Also, there's the presence of red hair and blue eyes carried by someone with Y DNA L in the Areni-1 cave, that surely is ultimately of R1b origin (so indicating close contact between the two). Caucasian red hair is still preserved in the North, among the Chechens, who actually have an awful lot of it. 

As for Sumerian perhaps being the contact source with PIE instead of the substrate theory - firstly, there is that point about "Ur" meaning village in proto-Dravidian which I see as unlikely to be coincidental, but also the fact that the Sumerian migrants are theorised to have invaded from the Arabian littoral (likely the Southern Zagros), which is where the later Elamites were based - and probably not by coincidence, there is the hypothetical Elamo-Dravidian language family (linking Elamite to the Dravidian languages). I think the civilising movement of Iranian farmers eastwards into India was of Dravidian stock, and that the Indus Valley civilisation was Dravidian, only for Dravidian speakers to have been pushed SE by the later arrival of the Indo-Aryans (so, I don't think Dravidian has anything originally to do with what people now consider as Dravidian (Veddoid people like Tamils), but rather Iranian farmers).

----------


## Angela

It seems Eurogenes and his fans are concerned that the Max Planck Institute people (and perhaps the Reich group at Harvard) continue to see the movement of people and language from the south Caucasus into the steppe through Maykop or steppe Maykop. 

Although I'm no Eurogenes fan, I've lately been thinking that the genetic movement perhaps stems back to the late Mesolithic perhaps, which would be too early for the language movement, wouldn't it?

Is this all based on rumors or has something been published?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> It seems Eurogenes and his fans are concerned that the Max Planck Institute people (and perhaps the Reich group at Harvard) continue to see the movement of people and language from the south Caucasus into the steppe through Maykop or steppe Maykop. 
> 
> Although I'm no Eurogenes fan, I've lately been thinking that the genetic movement perhaps stems back to the late Mesolithic perhaps, which would be too early for the language movement, wouldn't it?
> 
> Is this all based on rumors or has something been published?


It's rumours, but I doubt Davidski is the kind of person to lie - the rumour was originally that Kura-Araxes was the homeland, not Maykop (though I see Leyla-Tepe to Maykop to Yamnaya as more likely), if I'm not mistaken (but maybe that's changed - it's all in the comments section of the latest post). Davidski is clearly an extremely intelligent man, but his history on certain forums that shall not be named shows that he's afraid of West Asian influences, and would prefer the story of the Indo-Europeans to be limited to that of Europeans. I cannot believe I of all people am in the position of accusing someone of racial bias, yet here I am.

----------


## Pip

What can be linked more confidently and recently between Western Indo-Europeans, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Dravidians is G-P303. I don't know what this might tell us, if anything.

Returning to the Steppe dwellers/R1b-L51 people with whom Balkan G-PF3345 traded, mixed cultures, bred and then moved westwards, what language would they have spoken? y-DNA branching would suggest they were outnumbered by G-PF3345 until around 2,800 BC, and mtDNA analysis would suggest that their female lines were outnumbered by the female lines of the PF3345 communities even at the height of Bell Beaker. I would suggest they were likely to be bilingual, or that different sections of them adopted different languages, almost irrespective of their y-DNA historical inheritance. Perhaps this might explain why some P312 communities apparently spoke Indo-European and others apparently spoke Basque, even though they had a common paternal ancestor only ten generations or so previously.

----------


## Ygorcs

> It seems Eurogenes and his fans are concerned that the Max Planck Institute people (and perhaps the Reich group at Harvard) continue to see the movement of people and language from the south Caucasus into the steppe through Maykop or steppe Maykop. 
> 
> Although I'm no Eurogenes fan, I've lately been thinking that the genetic movement perhaps stems back to the late Mesolithic perhaps, which would be too early for the language movement, wouldn't it?
> 
> Is this all based on rumors or has something been published?


That's also what my "instincts" looking at all the data available tell me, too. I do think that PIE is somehow the social/cultural outcome of a migration from Transcaucasia (but I honestly don't find it plausible the West Asian source was much to the south of that region, e.g. Sumer), but it seems every time clearer to me that that mixing and maybe acculturation process happened during the Late Mesolithic or Early Neolithic, not just a few centuries before PIE started to split and spread from the steppes. I think the genetic, cultural (and presumably cultural) scenario that brought PIE to life was developed more organically and in a longer period in the Pontic-Caspian area. Thus Pre-PIE could've come from West Asia, but not PIE itself, the earliest common denominator of all extant IE languages.

----------


## halfalp

With the current datas, Max Planck, Harvard, Jena would just be an Argument from Authority. We are still talking about a language, wich is an immaterial cultural traits. Some people have already hard time to listen that IE spread with the proved genetic R1b-R1a migrations in the Chalcolithic-Bronze Age transition, so i dont know what those authorities could bring more to give us any other clues. Yes the actual Anatolian samples that we have dont show EHG, but i think it's pretty much irrelevent, at the same level Yamnaya dont show ENA a part from neighbors of Late Maikop, wich would ultimately be already in Transcaucasia in Neolithic times. Obviously, at this point any conclusions would only be valid for someone own hypothesis. There still plenty of samples to get from the Mesolithic times in Anatolia and Transcaucasia to make us change our views.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> With the current datas, Max Planck, Harvard, Jena would just be an Argument from Authority. We are still talking about a language, wich is an immaterial cultural traits. Some people have already hard time to listen that IE spread with the proved genetic R1b-R1a migrations in the Chalcolithic-Bronze Age transition, so i dont know what those authorities could bring more to give us any other clues. Yes the actual Anatolian samples that we have dont show EHG, but i think it's pretty much irrelevent, at the same level Yamnaya dont show ENA a part from neighbors of Late Maikop, wich would ultimately be already in Transcaucasia in Neolithic times. Obviously, at this point any conclusions would only be valid for someone own hypothesis. There still plenty of samples to get from the Mesolithic times in Anatolia and Transcaucasia to make us change our views.


I really hope we can get some Leyla-Tepe samples, to see if they were also Y DNA J, L and G like Maykop. I'm presuming with Maykop that the elite would be Z2103 if Z2103 had a presence there, and so there isn't any "hidden" Z2103 as a result of poor burials/cremation (as the elites were in the kurgans, presumably). In light of that, and ignoring the frankly ridiculous idea that PIE was founded by women (I mean, that is the absolute ultimate feminist anti-Nazi fantasy, and I think is actually being entertained at the moment), this leaves either Leyla-Tepe being Z2103 (and a migration to the Steppe via Dagestan, bordering the Caspian Sea) or the impossibility of a Caucasian homeland for Z2103 and the Yamnaya elite. That raises more questions than it answers, though, which is why I'm putting my prediction of Leyla-Tepe being Z2103.

----------


## halfalp

> I really hope we can get some Leyla-Tepe samples, to see if they were also Y DNA J, L and G like Maykop. I'm presuming with Maykop that the elite would be Z2103 if Z2103 had a presence there, and so there isn't any "hidden" Z2103 as a result of poor burials/cremation (as the elites were in the kurgans, presumably). In light of that, and ignoring the frankly ridiculous idea that PIE was founded by women (I mean, that is the absolute ultimate feminist anti-Nazi fantasy, and I think is actually being entertained at the moment), this leaves either Leyla-Tepe being Z2103 (and a migration to the Steppe via Dagestan, bordering the Caspian Sea) or the impossibility of a Caucasian homeland for Z2103 and the Yamnaya elite. That raises more questions than it answers, though, which is why I'm putting my prediction of Leyla-Tepe being Z2103.


DNA from Shulaveri-Shomu, Leila-Tepe, Jar Burial, Ubaid, Uruk or even Kelteminar in the East. There is plenty of interesting cultures we dont have anything on. But looking at the dna we already have, i bet all those culture gonna have some J's with maybe some surprises. What i'm really interested on, is a complete paper on paleolithic/mesolithic Anatolia, with samples from every corners of the map. I bet some big surprises can get from there, and it would pretty much seal the history of R1b for once.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

If Leyla-Tepe turns out to be like Maykop in terms of Y DNA, a big rethink would be needed. Z2103 does not seem to be indigenous to the Steppe, UNLESS its heightened Iraqi distribution is from people like the Gutians who MAY have been Steppe invaders who went South of the Caucasus. I doubt it though - there's so many possibilities at this stage, the only thing that seems set in stone is that late PIE was spread from the Steppe.

----------


## halfalp

> If Leyla-Tepe turns out to be like Maykop in terms of Y DNA, a big rethink would be needed. Z2103 does not seem to be indigenous to the Steppe, UNLESS its heightened Iraqi distribution is from people like the Gutians who MAY have been Steppe invaders who went South of the Caucasus. I doubt it though - there's so many possibilities at this stage, the only thing that seems set in stone is that late PIE was spread from the Steppe.


Now that we have Maikop dna, there is very poor chance that Leyla-Tepe turns out R1b or even less likely R1a. And we shouldn't juge modern basal forms of R1b or the middle-eastern Z2103 in case of ancient origins. Soqotri males are plenty of basal J*, does J* come from Soqotri Islands? Obviously not. There is still plenty to understand, and a lot of people are only tested for snp's wich might confuse the results.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Now that we have Maikop dna, there is very poor chance that Leyla-Tepe turns out R1b or even less likely R1a. And we shouldn't juge modern basal forms of R1b or the middle-eastern Z2103 in case of ancient origins. Soqotri males are plenty of basal J*, does J* come from Soqotri Islands? Obviously not. There is still plenty to understand, and a lot of people are only tested for snp's wich might confuse the results.


It ain't gonna be R1a - I do think R1b is a possibility though, even if it isn't the most likely based on what evidence we do have. Also, Soqotri is a different case due to its obviously high levels of isolation. With the whole of Iraq, that argument doesn't hold on.

----------


## halfalp

> It ain't gonna be R1a - I do think R1b is a possibility though, even if it isn't the most likely based on what evidence we do have. Also, Soqotri is a different case due to its obviously high levels of isolation. With the whole of Iraq, that argument doesn't hold on.


Why would Culturally Leyla-Tepe be a potential ancestor to Maikop and be R1b if Maikop is not? If R1b-M269 came from a back back migration from Middle-East, it have to be with another culture. R1b in Mesolithic was from Baltic to Pontic Steppe to Balkans, all the basal forms, the weird ones like the Kura-Araxe R1b could be ultimately coming from Europe through Anatolia and Caucasus and not the reverse. The question is, and start with R1b-P297 found for now only in Baltic, it has two sons, one roamed in Central Asia were it was found in Botai, the second is the major leaving one today, R1b-M269. Looking at the dispersion of the Father and the Brother, it's likely not born in the Middle-East, what do you think? So the question is, did R1b-M269 born in the Balkans or the Pontic Steppe, roam into the Middle-East, give birth to L23 and ultimately back migrate into the Pontic Steppe? Only ancient samples can tell us, but if that happened, it likely happened in the Caucasus, and it likely happened before the Neolithic where that R1b-M269 only meet some CHG-like people and not the people that would later give raise to the Neolithic ones. It's possible that V88 and M269 journey together south of the Caucasus at some point, that V88 stayed and ultimately happened in Africa, while M269 turned back into the Steppe. Or V88 came from the Balkans, while M269 from the Caucasus.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Why would Culturally Leyla-Tepe be a potential ancestor to Maikop and be R1b if Maikop is not? If R1b-M269 came from a back back migration from Middle-East, it have to be with another culture. R1b in Mesolithic was from Baltic to Pontic Steppe to Balkans, all the basal forms, the weird ones like the Kura-Araxe R1b could be ultimately coming from Europe through Anatolia and Caucasus and not the reverse. The question is, and start with R1b-P297 found for now only in Baltic, it has two sons, one roamed in Central Asia were it was found in Botai, the second is the major leaving one today, R1b-M269. Looking at the dispersion of the Father and the Brother, it's likely not born in the Middle-East, what do you think? So the question is, did R1b-M269 born in the Balkans or the Pontic Steppe, roam into the Middle-East, give birth to L23 and ultimately back migrate into the Pontic Steppe? Only ancient samples can tell us, but if that happened, it likely happened in the Caucasus, and it likely happened before the Neolithic where that R1b-M269 only meet some CHG-like people and not the people that would later give raise to the Neolithic ones. It's possible that V88 and M269 journey together south of the Caucasus at some point, that V88 stayed and ultimately happened in Africa, while M269 turned back into the Steppe. Or V88 came from the Balkans, while M269 from the Caucasus.


I know, I admit it doesn't seem so likely that Leyla-Tepe would be Z2103 when Maykop was not - but it is possible. Also, the same argument applies for Maykop and Yamnaya - Maykop seems to have been a large cultural influence on Yamnaya, yet there are of different Y DNA profiles (and I'm not accepting a female migration). Based on the many thinks outlined in previous posts, I think it is likely there was definitely a presence of R1b L23 (and earlier R1b M269 pre-L23) in the Middle East during the Chalcolithic, so I'm just trying to make sense of that really. The evidence is enough to at least have strong suspicions, which is basically where I'm at.

----------


## halfalp

> I know, I admit it doesn't seem so likely that Leyla-Tepe would be Z2103 when Maykop was not - but it is possible. Also, the same argument applies for Maykop and Yamnaya - Maykop seems to have been a large cultural influence on Yamnaya, yet there are of different Y DNA profiles (and I'm not accepting a female migration). Based on the many thinks outlined in previous posts, I think it is likely there was definitely a presence of R1b L23 (and earlier R1b M269 pre-L23) in the Middle East during the Chalcolithic, so I'm just trying to make sense of that really. The evidence is enough to at least have strong suspicions, which is basically where I'm at.


Thing is, one exemple doesn't imply an other. Maikop y-dna seems to match perfectly Central Transcaucasia, like the L one, linked with Areni-1 cave and Maikop, so there was a an obvious Demic migration from transcaucasia to maikop, also maikop looks not related but a little bit similar to Kura-Araxe wich have almost the same y-dna lineages. The fact that Mesolithic North Iran and Central Asian Namazga were all J and that J is very present and dominant in Eastern Caucasus, both North and South, gives it likely that Leyla-Tepe was J. J1 was also found in two eastern european specimens full EHG, this all makes J likely to have dominated the Caucasus alone until the Neolithic. Also Leyla-Tepe was mostly a Jar Burial Culture, wich was absolutely never found in Eastern Europe, why would they change or abandoned that cultural trait? And there is that story of this Kurgan wich, seems odd. There is need of further investigation and dating to ensure the relatibility with Pontic Steppe kurgans. Kurgans are like the Kurgan Stelae, controversy found in odd places. Maybe Steppe people just were highly influenced by their southern neighbors. As for female migration, i'm still pretty sure it played a high role in the propagation of CHG in the Steppe, but that's of me.

----------


## halfalp

Both Balkans and Pontic Steppe shows very early some transcaucasian mtdna signals like H13 in Proto-Lepenski Vir and Iron Gates Culture for Mesolithic and H2a1 in Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog for transitional HG-Chalcolithic, but we cannot found any y-dna goddam marker, why? Also why is the Khvalynsk R1b and H2a1 with CHG but the J1's individuals doesn't show it at all, when even in a totally but oddly context, Mal'ta show some? What could Steppe People give to their southern counterpart for being giving some waifu and cattle? or were they really the proto-thiefs? Things are something weird in Archeogenetic, but they barely answer the questions, just giving some more.

----------


## markod

> I doubt it though - there's so many possibilities at this stage, the only thing that seems set in stone is that late PIE was spread from the Steppe.


If there's no steppe DNA in Anatolia, and no southern populations entered the steppe in the Bronze Age, that would pose a serious problem for the steppe hypothesis.

That's why it's weird that the authors of the Caucasus paper didn't address that their data seemingly falsifies the idea of genetic exchange between the Transcaucasus and the steppe.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> If there's no steppe DNA in Anatolia, and no southern populations entered the steppe in the Bronze Age, that would pose a serious problem for the steppe hypothesis.
> That's why it's weird that the authors of the Caucasus paper didn't address that their data seemingly falsifies the idea of genetic exchange between the Transcaucasus and the steppe.


But southern people got into Steppe in copper age. Specifically in the 5th millennium BC.... Just saying.
Maybe that conclusion is not there because they know more than what they are publishing.

----------


## markod

> But southern people got into Steppe in copper age. Specifically in the 5th millennium BC.... Just saying.


You're probably more familiar than me with the archaelogical evidence, and it makes sense that there would have been an early migration from the south onto the steppe. The problem is for me is that an Indo-Hittite split that early just doesn't seem likely.

----------


## Cpluskx

They need to find R1b without steppe admixture in the South to speak this confidently.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> You're probably more familiar than me with the archaelogical evidence, and it makes sense that there would have been an early migration from the south onto the steppe. The problem is for me is that an Indo-Hittite split that early just doesn't seem likely.


Maybe. If someone can explain me why 4900/4800BC split for Indo-Hittite is not Probable and then Feasible. I will have to take that into consideration. Do you have a good argument? Its not like language is carbon dating, right?




> They need to find R1b without steppe admixture in the South to speak this confidently.


For example even in supplements of Wang at al, shows admix for so many transversal periods, isn’t it conspicuous that the only ones not having a “Neolithic Phases” is exactly where I have been saying for years now is the key for the enigma? – am I just that unlucky?

----------


## halfalp

I'm pretty sure that early neolithic south caucasus was already anatolian_neo and iran_neo.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> It seems Eurogenes and his fans are concerned that the Max Planck Institute people (and perhaps the Reich group at Harvard) continue to see the movement of people and language from the south Caucasus into the steppe through Maykop or steppe Maykop. 
> 
> Although I'm no Eurogenes fan, I've lately been thinking that the genetic movement perhaps stems back to the late Mesolithic perhaps, which would be too early for the language movement, wouldn't it?
> 
> Is this all based on rumors or has something been published?


Hard to see PIE being pushed back to before the domestication of the horse (4,200-4,500 BC?).

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=994

----------


## gidai

*All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago* 

Clearly not!  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Saetrus

> IE has to be from the Steppe at the very least after Anatolian split off.



No, not really. Indo-Europeans were a mountain people who generally preferred to stick to the mountains, this is the main component and Y-DNA profile associated with them:


It's the same component and Y-DNA profile you also see in Kura-Araxes and BMAC, here associated with Hittite, Palaic, Luwic, Luwian, Lycian, Milyan, Carian, Sidetic, Pisidian, Lydian, Sicel, Latino-Faliscan, Osco-Umbrian, Venetic, Liburnian, Armenian, Mycenaean Greek, Dacian, Illyrian, Liburnian, Messapic, Mysian, Paeonian, Phrygian, Thracian, etc.


Now this component is an offshoot of the above group related to the L51 founder effect:


It's associated with proto-Germanic and partially with proto-Celtic (We also have a Hallstatt sample that is G)

----------


## Ygorcs

> But southern people got into Steppe in copper age. Specifically in the 5th millennium BC.... Just saying.
> Maybe that conclusion is not there because they know more than what they are publishing.


IIRC the ~4200 BC Chalcolithic Ukraine sample analyzed in the recent (Caucasus? I don't remember well) pre-print _already_ had a lot of the CHG admixture found in later Yamnaya, with the Yamnaya some 1,000 years later having only slighlty more CHG in relation to EHG, but no major change. So, I would say the southern influx into the steppes probably happened before that, more like Late Neolithic than Chalcolithic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> No, not really. Indo-Europeans were a mountain people who generally preferred to stick to the mountains


I've never heard such rubbish, if anything at least during their main expansion they were close to the opposite.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Well in terms of archaeology there's a decent amount backing it up - of course, I've mentioned the swastikas and metallurgy spreading from the Balkans originally, but what about the overall pretty great similarities between Vinca and Ubaid symbols, figurines and metallurgy? The early 20th century archaeologists saw Vinca as a development of Mesopotamian cultures like that of Ubaid, but now we know if anything it was the other way round - metallurgy is oldest in Vinca, as are the symbols (which bear some similarities, but the extent of this is debatable) and the figurines (those lizardmen people think are aliens).


If Vinca had been the source of PIE in the steppes, bringing not just language but also a whole cultural package and dominant mode of economy, shouldn't we expect the EBA Steppe population to have much less CHG and much, much more EEF?




> Also, why could it not potentially be the case that one branch travelled down Mesopotamia, and another continued in the highland region to the North (eventually moving up into the Steppe). That, though, seems like an added complication and so goes against Occam's razor I suppose. But, there is a neater solution - what about Leyla-Tepe - these guys are theorised to have been Ubaid-period migrants, who brought with them the first metallurgy to the Caucasus, and are theorised to have been founders of the Maykop culture. The fact that Maykop seems to be Y DNA G, J and L could be explained by burial differences or differences in location (the pastoralists might have been in a different region than sampled, as is the case with the Caucasus today lots of different groups can live in a relatively small area isolated by terrain). From looking at where the samples were taken, it appears the Y DNA G, J and L were not found in the Eastern Caucasus - whereas perhaps Z2103 migrated to the Steppe through th easier Azerbaijani-Dagestani route (near to where that Chalcolithic Z2103 was found). Maykop Steppe is just completely mind-boggling to me - how Siberian HG ancestry is there I have no idea. Whatever the case, I'm dead-set on Z2103 from West Asia, which leads the Z2103 of Yamnaya to be Southern in origin. Also, there's the presence of red hair and blue eyes carried by someone with Y DNA L in the Areni-1 cave, that surely is ultimately of R1b origin (so indicating close contact between the two). Caucasian red hair is still preserved in the North, among the Chechens, who actually have an awful lot of it.


You know, your hypothesis sounds very plausible and would explain well the Euphratic-PIE connection except for one major drawback: chronology. Leyla-Tepe, if it really came from Ubaid immigrants to the north, is dated to ~4350-4000 BC, but PIE itself is dated to before 4000 BC (because by 4000 BC Proto-Anatolian is supposed to have already started to diverge from it independently).

So this issue could be solved if PIE was actually spoken by Leyla-Tepe and was nonexistant in the Pontic-Caspian area until later (but Chalcolithic ~4200 BC samples were already pretty Yamnaya-like in terms of EHG-CHG mix, and not much extra CHG was admixed into the steppes later, indicating that the bulk of that south-to-north movement took place before 4000 BC, i.e. before the split of PIE; besides, the Chalcolithic Caucasus was already arguably pretty enriched by Anatolian_Neo, not found in significant proportion in the EBA Steppe people - not until much later -; and there's also the problem that PIE lexicon reflects a different natural environment, not a Caucasian one, and a more farming-intensive economy). 

But the main problem then is: even if Leyla-Tepe spoke PIE (PIE not being the descendant of Leyla-Tepe in the steppe), it must've separated linguistically from their southern brothers by at least ~4200 BC, and therefore we'd expect the Euphratic language supposedly written down in the tablets used as a basis for Sumerians to write their own language around 3000 BC (that's the hypothesis of Whittaker, the oldest written seals would've been non-Sumerian, but IE Euphratic) to be already very distinct from the Leyla-Tepe PIE from which it would have diverged some ~1300 years earlier. Yet the "Euphratic" roots used by Whittaker to explain some Sumerian words, on the basis of similarities with PIE roots, are basically the reconstructed PIE, with very few and only occasional, even _ad hoc_ changes here and there. How likely is such a deeply conservative phonology and morphology? Another major chronological problem related to it: Whittaker finds MANY Euphratic roots for Sumerian words in the feminine gender -eh2 (ancestor of Latin/Romance -a for instance), thus assuming that Euphratic had 3 noun genders... But the problem here is that Early PIE certainly DID NOT have this system at all, as Anatolian shows. The feminine in -eh2 would've been a feature of Late PIE, certainly split and spread in the steppes centuries later. Yet somehow Euphratic and the Steppe "Leyla-Tepe-derived" (speculating here) PIE would've developed exactly in the same way after more than a millennium of divergence. Also very unlikely.

----------


## halfalp

If one day Leyla-Tepe is tested with at least 5 samples and y-dna, i call for J1.

----------


## Ygorcs

> Hard to see PIE being pushed back to before the domestication of the horse (4,200-4,500 BC?).
> 
> http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=994


Nobody is saying PIE was spoken before the domestication of the horse, but that the language branch it belonged to should've been brought to the steppes earlier, in the Mesolithic or Neolithic (by the way, the Neolithic in the Pontic-Caspian era is not that ancient, it's basically 5000-4500 BC). All languages come from an earlier one. PIE means just "the last unified stage of the language that gave birth to all the known daughter languages". That language must've been spoken at the latest in 4000 BC if you include Proto-Anatolian, and as late as ~3500-3200 BC if you include the other branches (Tocharian being arguably the earliest to split). But that does not mean that its origins were at that time, that's actually the time that the language started to diverge into different languages, its latest moments, not its beginnings.

----------


## Ygorcs

> No, not really. Indo-Europeans were a mountain people who generally preferred to stick to the mountains, this is the main component and Y-DNA profile associated with them:


This is utter, well, "original research". If there is _one_ thing that can be deduced from the PIE lexicon as it was reconstructed, it is that its speakers were _NOT_ a mountain people (though they knew mountains of course) and that they most definitely _did not_ stick to the natural and geographical landscape typical of mountains. I wish you could point out what scientific sources (linguistic, archaeological, whatever) you have used to conclude that. And honestly associating J2a (generically like that, not even a specific clade, as R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 are clearly associated, in ancient and modern DNA samples, with the expansion of at least several of the IE branches) with Indo-Europeans sounds a bit like wishful thinking, especially for North Eurasia (Northern Europe, Inner Asian steppe/forest-steppe).

----------


## markod

> This is utter, well, "original research". If there is _one_ thing that can be deduced from the PIE lexicon as it was reconstructed, it is that its speakers were _NOT_ a mountain people (though they knew mountains of course) and that they most definitely _did not_ stick to the natural and geographical landscape typical of mountains. I wish you could point out what scientific sources (linguistic, archaeological, whatever) you have used to conclude that. And honestly associating J2a (generically like that, not even a specific clade, as R1b-M269 and R1a-M417 are clearly associated, in ancient and modern DNA samples, with the expansion of at least several of the IE branches) with Indo-Europeans sounds a bit like wishful thinking, especially for North Eurasia (Northern Europe, Inner Asian steppe/forest-steppe).


Anna Dybo 'Indo-European and Altaic Landscapes'  :Wink:

----------


## Ygorcs

> Anna Dybo 'Indo-European and Altaic Landscapes'


Thanks. But does this author still _really_ believe the widely discredited Altaic language family is a real thing? _(edit: I just read she is one of those reconstructing Proto-Altaic, including even Koreanic as part of Altaic, so it is the broader Altaic hypothesis as I can see)_ Hmm, from the title alone I'm already a bit suspicious about what's written in it in terms of sound and updated linguistics... :-D

----------


## markod

> Thanks. But does this author still _really_ believe the widely discredited Altaic language family is a real thing? _(edit: I just read she is one of those reconstructing Proto-Altaic, including even Koreanic as part of Altaic, so it is the broader Altaic hypothesis as I can see)_ Hmm, from the title alone I'm already a bit suspicious about what's written in it in terms of sound and updated linguistics... :-D


I think in Russia and Finland it's generally not considered to be discredited.

----------


## Ygorcs

> I think in Russia and Finland it's generally not considered to be discredited.


I read her article. Honestly I did not find its conclusion convincing based on the data used for PIE (I skipped the Proto-Altaic parts, because it's not the point here and I honestly find the whole hypothesis itself unconvincing). The best reasons she has to say PIE was spoken in a mountainous region is that it supposedly has many words for "rock", but she does not elaborate on that or show the PIE roots to demonstrate that. Most of the PIE roots written down do not look the kind of words you'll only see in a mountainous area. Valleys, meadows, hills, slopes, hills, mountain, top of mountain... (btw how high were those "mountains" supposed to be to be considered as such by its speakers? Mountains were certainly not unknown to people in the Pontic-Caspian region, there are mountains in Crimea, Carpathians, Urals and North Caucasus at the very least neighboring their lands, no to speak of lower elevations/plateaus like in southeastern and western Ukraine and along the Volga Basin as in the vicinities of Saratov and Samara; I mean, here where I live the average relief is so low that people name 400m elevations as "mountains", hills are held to be much lower than that). Mind you, there are several different words for "meadow, open field" in reconstructed PIE. I find it somewhat hard to believe that they all meant a generic "meadow, field, open space" instead of terms with originally more specific semantics. There are also many words for water and water bodies. That's congruent with a homeland in a forest-steppe and steppe area near rivers, streams and lakes.

----------


## markod

> I read her article. Honestly I did not find its conclusion convincing based on the data used for PIE (I skipped the Proto-Altaic parts, because it's not the point here and I honestly find the whole hypothesis itself unconvincing). The best reasons she has to say PIE was spoken in a mountainous region is that it supposedly has many words for "rock", but she does not elaborate on that or show the PIE roots to demonstrate that. Most of the PIE roots written down do not look the kind of words you'll only see in a mountainous area. Valleys, meadows, hills, slopes, hills, mountain, top of mountain... (btw how high were those "mountains" supposed to be to be considered as such by its speakers? Mountains were certainly not unknown to people in the Pontic-Caspian region, there are mountains in Crimea, Carpathians, Urals and North Caucasus at the very least neighboring their lands, no to speak of lower elevations like in southeastern Ukraine and especially along the Volga Basin as in the vicinities of Saratov and Samara; I mean, here where I live the average relief is so low that people name 400m elevations as "mountains", hills are held to be much lower than that). Mind you, there are several different words for "meadow, open field" in reconstructed PIE. I find it somewhat hard to believe that they all meant a generic "meadow, field, open space" instead of terms with originally more specific semantics. There are also many words for water and water bodies. That's congruent with a homeland in a forest-steppe and steppe area near rivers, streams and lakes.


Yeah, I don't find it convincing either. But I consider Anthony's attempt even more dubious, at least this is somewhat systematic.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> If Vinca had been the source of PIE in the steppes, bringing not just language but also a whole cultural package and dominant mode of economy, shouldn't we expect the EBA Steppe population to have much less CHG and much, much more EEF?You know, your hypothesis sounds very plausible and would explain well the Euphratic-PIE connection except for one major drawback: chronology. Leyla-Tepe, if it really came from Ubaid immigrants to the north, is dated to ~4350-4000 BC, but PIE itself is dated to before 4000 BC (because by 4000 BC Proto-Anatolian is supposed to have already started to diverge from it independently).So this issue could be solved if PIE was actually spoken by Leyla-Tepe and was nonexistant in the Pontic-Caspian area until later (but Chalcolithic ~4200 BC samples were already pretty Yamnaya-like in terms of EHG-CHG mix, and not much extra CHG was admixed into the steppes later, indicating that the bulk of that south-to-north movement took place before 4000 BC, i.e. before the split of PIE; besides, the Chalcolithic Caucasus was already arguably pretty enriched by Anatolian_Neo, not found in significant proportion in the EBA Steppe people - not until much later -; and there's also the problem that PIE lexicon reflects a different natural environment, not a Caucasian one, and a more farming-intensive economy). But the main problem then is: even if Leyla-Tepe spoke PIE (PIE not being the descendant of Leyla-Tepe in the steppe), it must've separated linguistically from their southern brothers by at least ~4200 BC, and therefore we'd expect the Euphratic language supposedly written down in the tablets used as a basis for Sumerians to write their own language around 3000 BC (that's the hypothesis of Whittaker, the oldest written seals would've been non-Sumerian, but IE Euphratic) to be already very distinct from the Leyla-Tepe PIE from which it would have diverged some ~1300 years earlier. Yet the "Euphratic" roots used by Whittaker to explain some Sumerian words, on the basis of similarities with PIE roots, are basically the reconstructed PIE, with very few and only occasional, even _ad hoc_ changes here and there. How likely is such a deeply conservative phonology and morphology? Another major chronological problem related to it: Whittaker finds MANY Euphratic roots for Sumerian words in the feminine gender -eh2 (ancestor of Latin/Romance -a for instance), thus assuming that Euphratic had 3 noun genders... But the problem here is that Early PIE certainly DID NOT have this system at all, as Anatolian shows. The feminine in -eh2 would've been a feature of Late PIE, certainly split and spread in the steppes centuries later. Yet somehow Euphratic and the Steppe "Leyla-Tepe-derived" (speculating here) PIE would've developed exactly in the same way after more than a millennium of divergence. Also very unlikely.


 *In terms of the lack of ANF in Yamnaya, I'd just go with my (Tomenable's) generic "metallurgical elite" point, because it is true that those who were adept in metallurgy were the elite and that they tended to keep to themselves and not share what they knew (as it was the source of their social status). It's not a great answer though, of course, as you'd expect some mixing no matter what, but doesn't the lack of Steppe ANF basically go against any Southern origin theory, so if that's the case why are the big wigs seemingly backing it? I'm not one to appeal to authority at all (clearly, as I don't believe L51 was Steppe in origin), but I would have thought they'd have thought of that given they prioritise auDNA so much (whereas I think looking at Y DNA phylogeny is often more useful). Whatever the case, related to the spread of pre-PIE or not, Vinca and Ubaid are clearly related - there are too many similarities. There is the Swastika point though - it appeared in Vinca, and then in Mesopotamia (Halaf, then Samarra, then Ubaid), and this spread mirrors the spread of copper metallurgy and of plenty of other things (such as pottery and figurines). It is, however, definitely possible that the Vincans (if that's what they can be called) simply picked up the symbol from very early contact with Ukraine and the Steppe proper and themselves had nothing to do with the hypothetical spread of R1b M269 and later L23 into the Middle East along with what would later become Euphratic, which is something I've overlooked. Also, besides in metallurgy, R1b-L23+ folk in general seem to have been culturally unsophisticated on the whole, which does stand in contrast to Ubaid - though as mentioned earlier in this thread Ubaid was probably multiethnic, so these cultural innovations could have come from a different group (the presumably far larger group of farmers rather than the potentially R1b pastoralists, but speaking the same Euphratic language as surely Ubaid wasn't multilingual). But yeah - Vinca to Ubaid is something that I'd have to see evidence against to not believe, rather than the other way round, given the large similarities (quick google search shows some of it, looks pretty clear to me).* As for the linguistic analysis, why does it have to be the case that Anatolian represents features of the earliest IE - why could Anatolian not have made separate developments itself? Perhaps they "decided" to not have 3 noun genders, maybe similar to how English lost (all of its) noun genders. And for the point that Euphratic isn't divergent enough from PIE given the likely divergence in age - I have no idea, but I would have thought Whittaker would have thought of this (again, appealing to authority, but I have no other arguments), so maybe it's the case that early on in the language family's development, there weren't many changes for whatever reason? Perhaps the words are so basic that change would be minimal, or perhaps populations (both for Leyla-Tepe and Euphratic) were more concentrated before reaching the more open Steppe and so there was less linguistic development - I really don't know. Maybe there is also a bias here to Whittaker finding the words that happen to have not changed as much (as they would be easier to find), when in reality most words changed more to the point of being unintelligible with PIE. Point being - I have no idea lol

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

I have no idea why I can't use paragraphing so I'll just colour the text differently

----------


## epoch

> If there's no steppe DNA in Anatolia, and no southern populations entered the steppe in the Bronze Age, that would pose a serious problem for the steppe hypothesis.
> 
> That's why it's weird that the authors of the Caucasus paper didn't address that their data seemingly falsifies the idea of genetic exchange between the Transcaucasus and the steppe.


You realize Hittites cremated their dead?

----------


## Pip

A focus on language and culture can cloud the genetics. Both language and culture can be picked up; neither are passed on intact like y-DNA. Also, languages and cultures do not _give birth_ to other languages and cultures. They evolve, often by incorporation of features from other languages and cultures. Indo-European languages, for instance, are unlikely to derive wholly from proto-Indo-European.

Considering extant R-M269 at any one point during the early to mid 5th millennium BC, it is important to take into account that we are not looking for a people, but a person. According to yfull's estimates, all known M269 descends from a single man who lived in 4,400 BC. Trying to pinpoint this man definitively is like looking for a needle in a barn full of haystacks, particularly as he could have moved around a lot for all we know. We can only get a general flavour of his origin by looking at the broad indications that current genetic data provides.

To summarise my own research in this area regarding the _formation_ of SNPs associated with Indo-European:

R1b-M269
1. Estimates from y-DNA phylogeny and STR variance predict a most likely origin zone for M269 somewhere around Northern Romania/Moldova/North Western Ukraine.
2. Estimates from mt-DNA associated with M269 populations predict a most likely core origin zone in Poland/Northern Romania/Moldova/Western Ukraine.
3. Estimates from a-DNA associated with M269 populations predict a most likely core origin zone in Northern Ukraine/Belarus.

R1a-Z645
1. Estimates from y-DNA phylogeny and STR variance predict a most likely origin zone for Z645 somewhere around Poland/Eastern Slovakia/North Western Ukraine.
2. Estimates from mt-DNA associated with Z645 populations predict a most likely core origin zone in Eastern Poland/Eastern Slovakia/North Western Ukraine.
3. Estimates from a-DNA associated with Z645 populations predict a most likely core origin zone in Northern Ukraine/Belarus.

These readings look both fairly internally consistent and pretty similar to each other. Are there any reasons why they do not look possible? Given the similar geography, I would not be surprised if early bearers of these SNPs shared certain cultural or linguistic traits.

The early geographical _development_ of these SNPs is a different question. Branches of M269, for instance, look most likely to have spread South and South East (Balkans, Anatolia, Caucasus) fairly early on, and South West (France, Spain) not too long afterwards. There is nothing to say that all of these branches would have retained the same core language group or culture, which would depend on how numerous and influential the bearers of each branch were within the developmental populations in which they found themselves and on the appropriateness of the culture to the new environments.

----------


## markod

> You realize Hittites cremated their dead?


I'm sure you know better than Reich and colleagues.

I've seen several series of Hittite skulls myself.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'm sure you know better than Reich and colleagues.
> 
> I've seen several series of Hittite skulls myself.


Maybe it's the case that the elite were cremated more often

----------


## markod

> Maybe it's the case that the elite were cremated more often


Hittite crania seem to differ from other crania in the region however. Physical anthropologists used to have long-winded debates about this. There can be little doubt that a brachycephalic population invaded Anatolia in the Bronze Age.

----------


## halfalp

How do you exactly knows what Anatolian skull is Hittite or not?

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Hittite crania seem to differ from other crania in the region however. Physical anthropologists used to have long-winded debates about this. There can be little doubt that a brachycephalic population invaded Anatolia in the Bronze Age.


That's fair enough then

----------


## halfalp

Can anyone give me a link of social media, or university profile about Wang Rong? I cannot found anything, but unrelated homonyms. I would like an answer to why ancient Yamnaya samples were basically EHG/CHG, while in the Maikop paper some start to shows Anatolian_Neolithic. Are they founding new samples, or are they making specific papers with specific samples? Nature and all those magazines are supposed to be vulgarisation for the mass, but nothing is really explained, they just talk about f-stats, d-stats, mbuti... wich doesn't explain a lot...

Edit: Never mind, i found Chaun-Chao Wang.

----------


## epoch

> I'm sure you know better than Reich and colleagues.
> 
> I've seen several series of Hittite skulls myself.


Hittite _era_ skulls? Or Hittite skulls?

EDIT: Mind you, the only Hittite era samples are from Damsgaard. The Lazaridis B.A. samples are from a jug burial site with dates ranging from 2800 BC to 2000 BC, in a place where Luwians appeared after 2000 BC. And the idea that this would be a problem for ancient DNA because the Hittites cremated their dead was dropped by Nick Patterson in the reactions at Davidski.

----------


## halfalp

I cannot found anything for Hittite skulls and physical anthropolgy.

----------


## Angela

> IIRC the ~4200 BC Chalcolithic Ukraine sample analyzed in the recent (Caucasus? I don't remember well) pre-print _already_ had a lot of the CHG admixture found in later Yamnaya, with the Yamnaya some 1,000 years later having only slighlty more CHG in relation to EHG, but no major change. So, I would say the southern influx into the steppes probably happened before that, more like Late Neolithic than Chalcolithic.


I think that's true, but wouldn't it have to be even before that? 

The people of the western steppe had no agriculture to speak of. How could Neolithic people of the trans-Caucasus have failed to bring it with them, even if the gene flow was female mediated? Unless, perhaps it was a case of abandoning what wasn't feasible given the climate and terrain and retaining only the herding of animals? 

Even then, though, what of all those papers indicating the animals and the skills necessary came from "Old Europe", as well as the metals and the rudimentary metallurgical skills?

----------


## epoch

> I think that's true, but wouldn't it have to be even before that? 
> 
> The people of the western steppe had no agriculture to speak of. How could Neolithic people of the trans-Caucasus have failed to bring it with them, even if the gene flow was female mediated? Unless, perhaps it was a case of abandoning what wasn't feasible given the climate and terrain and retaining only the herding of animals?


Climate, I'd say that's possible. Terrain? We're talking the richest Löss soils in the world.




> Even then, though, what of all those papers indicating the animals and the skills necessary came from "Old Europe", as well as the metals and the rudimentary metallurgical skills?


So did several Ertebolla like cultures.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Hittite crania seem to differ from other crania in the region however. Physical anthropologists used to have long-winded debates about this. There can be little doubt that a brachycephalic population invaded Anatolia in the Bronze Age.


Markod
Was it ALL brachy or was brachy amongst them? 
because at that period Brachy was often found. 
As an example, I remember late Neolithic Portugal Bruchner work found that something like 15% brachy and 5% ultra brachy whatever that means... 
Most pop was actually meso rather than Doly.

Edit. Correct values. 
About 8% were Hiper- dolichocephalic, 34% Dolichocephalic,
46% mesencephalic, 
8% Brachycephalic and
4% ultra- Brachycephalic (*333). 
So majority were Mesencephalic

----------


## epoch

> Hittite crania seem to differ from other crania in the region however. Physical anthropologists used to have long-winded debates about this. There can be little doubt that a brachycephalic population invaded Anatolia in the Bronze Age.


This needs some links. I find it interesting, mind you.

----------


## markod

> Markod
> Was it ALL brachy or was brachy amongst them? 
> because at that period Brachy was often found. 
> As an example, I remember late Neolithic Portugal Bruchner work found that something like 15% brachy and 5% ultra brachy whatever that means... 
> Most pop was actually meso rather than Doly.
> 
> Edit. Correct values. 
> About 8% were Hiper- dolichocephalic, 34% Dolichocephalic,
> 46% mesencephalic, 
> ...


IIRC no. It's just that a new brachycephalic element enters Anatolia at the time. Coon:




> Let us first examine what Bronze Age skeletal material there is in Asia Minor. So far, all of it comes from two sites, Alishar Hüyük, which, in its later periods, was a Hittite city, and Hissarlik, the seventh level of Which was Homer’s Troy. Both were important centers in the Bronze Age. At Alishar, fifty-three skulls have been studied, from seven archaeological periods, ranging from the earliest Copper Age, dated from between 2600 and 2300 B.C., to the Osmanli invasion.2
> 
> Ten crania from the earliest period (two “Chalcolithic,” eight Copper Age) are uniformly Danubian in type, both metrically and morphologically. The small, high-vaulted, somewhat infantile dolicho- and mesocephalic form, with small face and mesorrhine to chamaerrhine noses, is no different from that found at roughly the same time at Anau, at Mariupol, in the Kiev Government, and in the Danube Valley, in association with Neolithic cultures. Two others, which are longer, may belong to a Megalithic or Corded variety.The unity of the early food-producing peoples on both sides of the Caucasus and Black Sea is therefore indicated, and from the racial standpoint, the Danubians could have come to central Europe from either South Russia or Anatolia, or both.
> 
> In the second and third periods at Alishar, dated between 2300 and 1500 B.C., and called the Early Bronze Age, brachycephalic skulls appeared, and these persisted through the period of the Hittite Empire, for several centuries after 1500 B.C. The crania are large, low vaulted, and only moderately brachycephalic, with lambdoid flattening, and moderate browridges. The faces are of medium length, and narrow, although somewhat broader than those of the earlier Danubian type. The stature of the one male observed was tall, 174 cm.3
> 
> Not all of the Hittite Empire crania are brachycephalic. A long-headed variety, which seems to have replaced or outnumbered the brachycephals by the time of the Phrygian invasions, is both longer and lower vaulted than the Danubian type of the Copper Age; it is characterized by a very prominent nasal skeleton of true Near Eastern form, with little nasion depression. Bas-relief sculptures of historic Hittites reproduce this hook-nosed, open-eyed type of countenance.
> 
> The sequence of racial types in Asia Minor during the metal ages probably runs somewhat as follows: the earliest food-producing people were the same as those in western Turkestan and southern Russia. The latter probably came in earlier times from the highland belt of which Anatolia forms a part. Shortly before 2000 B.C., a moderately brachycephalic type, with tall stature, entered Anatolia from regions yet to be determined, followed by a low-vaulted, hawk-nosed Mediterranean form, which we have named Cappadocian,” and which is well known in the present day Near East. True Arrnenoids or Dinarics were not, apparently, common in early times.


I think Haddon studied the Hittite skulls in more detail butI can't find the reference.

----------


## halfalp

> I think that's true, but wouldn't it have to be even before that? 
> 
> The people of the western steppe had no agriculture to speak of. How could Neolithic people of the trans-Caucasus have failed to bring it with them, even if the gene flow was female mediated? Unless, perhaps it was a case of abandoning what wasn't feasible given the climate and terrain and retaining only the herding of animals? 
> 
> Even then, though, what of all those papers indicating the animals and the skills necessary came from "Old Europe", as well as the metals and the rudimentary metallurgical skills?


Bug-Dniester was transitional between HG and Farming, just like Lepenski Vir in the Balkans. Archeology speeks more than Archeogenetic for material facts. Balkans HG's were full of R1b, all replaced by G2a2. But were all those R1b goes? and did they knew Farming already?

----------


## markod

> Hittite _era_ skulls? Or Hittite skulls?
> 
> EDIT: Mind you, the only Hittite era samples are from Damsgaard. The Lazaridis B.A. samples are from a jug burial site with dates ranging from 2800 BC to 2000 BC, in a place where Luwians appeared after 2000 BC. And the idea that this would be a problem for ancient DNA because the Hittites cremated their dead was dropped by Nick Patterson in the reactions at Davidski.


I don't find the evidence published thus far very convincing either. I'm just assuming the rumors are true.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Nobody is saying PIE was spoken before the domestication of the horse, but that the language branch it belonged to should've been brought to the steppes earlier, in the Mesolithic or Neolithic (by the way, the Neolithic in the Pontic-Caspian era is not that ancient, it's basically 5000-4500 BC). All languages come from an earlier one. PIE means just "the last unified stage of the language that gave birth to all the known daughter languages". That language must've been spoken at the latest in 4000 BC if you include Proto-Anatolian, and as late as ~3500-3200 BC if you include the other branches (Tocharian being arguably the earliest to split). But that does not mean that its origins were at that time, that's actually the time that the language started to diverge into different languages, its latest moments, not its beginnings.


But whatever language (or languages, to be more precise) it was, it was likely _not_ PIE. Whatever language the R1b cattle-herders brought with them onto the steppes, it wasn't PIE.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think that's true, but wouldn't it have to be even before that? 
> 
> The people of the western steppe had no agriculture to speak of. How could Neolithic people of the trans-Caucasus have failed to bring it with them, even if the gene flow was female mediated? Unless, perhaps it was a case of abandoning what wasn't feasible given the climate and terrain and retaining only the herding of animals? 
> 
> Even then, though, what of all those papers indicating the animals and the skills necessary came from "Old Europe", as well as the metals and the rudimentary metallurgical skills?


Metallurgical skills seem to always be associated with R1b-M269 people, at least at the earliest stages

----------


## Angela

> Climate, I'd say that's possible. Terrain? We're talking the richest Löss soils in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> So did several Ertebolla like cultures.


If I remember my David Anthony correctly, there was some rudimentary farming only in the riverine valleys, of which there weren't many. That would likely be a combination of a constant water supply and particularly fertile soil. The tree less, dry, windswept steppe plains would not have been optimum for farming during certain weather conditions. These types of soils are very prone to wind erosion in dry periods, and the soil becomes brittle as well, so the plants can't develop the necessary root structure. That's why the American midwest and west became a "dust bowl". 

So, I would say a combination of terrain and climate. 

If there was a movement from the Caucasus all the way to the western steppe they would have had to traverse areas particularly inhospitable for farming, and indeed for their package of crops.

That might, I suppose, explain why they lost their agricultural vocabulary. 

Does anyone know if Anatolian has words for agriculture?



To all:
For the thousandth time, metallurgy first appeared in the Near East. PLEASE use the search engine for the appropriate papers.

----------


## halfalp

> If I remember my David Anthony correctly, there was some rudimentary farming only in the riverine valleys, of which there weren't many. That would likely be a combination of a constant water supply and particularly fertile soil. The tree less, dry, windswept steppe plains would not have been optimum for farming during certain weather conditions. These types of soils are very prone to wind erosion in dry periods, and the soil becomes brittle as well, so the plants can't develop the necessary root structure. That's why the American midwest and west became a "dust bowl". 
> 
> So, I would say a combination of terrain and climate. 
> 
> If there was a movement from the Caucasus all the way to the western steppe they would have had to traverse areas particularly inhospitable for farming, and indeed for their package of crops.
> 
> That might, I suppose, explain why they lost their agricultural vocabulary. 
> 
> Does anyone know if Anatolian has words for agriculture?
> ...


Well you might use it yourself, because the earliest Metal Mines are from Serbia, way before anything like Kura-Araxe or Sumerians(???!!!)

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Well you might use it yourself, because the earliest Metal Mines are from Serbia, way before anything like Kura-Araxe or Sumerians(???!!!)


Lol, was going to say - though it is possible lead metallurgy is West Asian in origin, the overall evidence still points to a Balkan nucleus. As I've said before, at the very least for me personally, open discussion with Angela can be difficult when she comes across either viewpoints or people (e.g. me) she doesn't like. I get infractions *all the time* for the silliest things, always from her. 

And to Angela: no, you can't just go ahead and give me an infraction for that as always ends up happening between us - besides, I WANT to have open discussion with you, just as I would with any other clearly reasonable person, which you clearly are.

----------


## MOESAN

I have not the precise CI but based on a mean for every subcategory, it would gave a proxi of CI=75,8 (surely a bit less), so in fact dolicho-meso; these neolithic of Portugal (all of them or???) were in fact a mix of EEF and at least 20% of WHG, and apparently in Western mediterranea the most mesocephals were among the HG's descendants - at the individual level, the mean of the new southern types in Neolithic was almost everywhere 72-73... I 'll look what I can find about Hittits, but even if only an increase of CI from say 75 to 82 as a mean, if they are true Hittits, it signifies a new pops introgression - The Egyptians during the Sea People war depicted the Hittits as round headed, rather gross featured: but is this science?

----------


## epoch

> Does anyone know if Anatolian has words for agriculture?


I only have an Encyclopedia Brittanica refererence, for what that's worth:




> Although the Hattian and Hurrian peoples did influence Hittite culture, their contributions to the Hittite language were mostly limited to terms for local flora, fauna, and a few other categories. Comparisons of Hittite agricultural terms and those of other Indo-European subgroups indicate that the “Anatolians” seceded from the parent group before the creation of a common agricultural nomenclature


https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anatolian-languages

----------


## halfalp

> Lol, was going to say - though it is possible lead metallurgy is West Asian in origin. As I've said before, at the very least for me personally, open discussion with Angela can be difficult when she comes across either viewpoints or people (e.g. me) she doesn't like. I get infractions all the time for the silliest things, always from her. 
> 
> And to Angela - no, you can't just go ahead and give me an infraction for that as always ends up happening between us - besides, I WANT to have open discussion with you, just as I would with any other clearly reasonable person, which you clearly are.


As i'm concerned, everything from Balkans > Anatolia > South Caucasus might be related by long distance trade already before the Neolithic. Who did what first into the Balkans or the Middle-East ( Metallurgy, Wagons, Wheel ), the response is probably " both ".

----------


## halfalp

> Lol, was going to say - though it is possible lead metallurgy is West Asian in origin, the overall evidence still points to a Balkan nucleus. As I've said before, at the very least for me personally, open discussion with Angela can be difficult when she comes across either viewpoints or people (e.g. me) she doesn't like. I get infractions *all the time* for the silliest things, always from her. 
> 
> *And to Angela: no, you can't just go ahead and give me an infraction for that as always ends up happening between us - besides, I WANT to have open discussion with you, just as I would with any other clearly reasonable person, which you clearly are.*


It really doesn't matter. If you have something to say, everybody or almost, will read it and juge it with their own sensibilites.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> As i'm concerned, everything from Balkans > Anatolia > South Caucasus might be related by long distance trade already before the Neolithic. Who did what first into the Balkans or the Middle-East ( Metallurgy, Wagons, Wheel ), the response is probably " both ".


Well somebody had to do it first, it clearly can't have been simultaneous. With farming, different groups seem to have learnt from one another, but with metallurgy I'm not so sure that's the case. In its earliest stages, given it involves a lot of skill and also put you at the top of the social hierarchy, it seems to be associated with migration, in my opinion at least.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> It really doesn't matter. If you have something to say, everybody or almost, will read it and juge it with their own sensibilites.


It does matter when considering Eupedia as a forum for discussion, though. And also, it clearly matters in terms of infractions - most* of the time, it is either due to forced sensitivity (i.e. "How dare you be so rude to me") or in many cases due to upset about topic of discussion (so when I would discuss topics like this, and link them to things like migration of a population that had some level of red hair, I LITERALLY got given infractions from Jovialis and Angela - Maciamo had to step in and stop them at first, not least because he himself is impartial to a bit of R1b and rufosity!)

*EDIT: In fact, it isn't most of the time - it's ALL of the time (I've gone through my eight infractions for this year so far, and all were bogus).

----------


## MOESAN

abstract (ancien typology, I know)
Coon on ancient races of Anatolia:
Let us first examine what Bronze Age skeletal material there is in Asia Minor. So far, all of it comes from two sites, Alishar Hyk, which, in its later periods, was a Hittite city, and Hissarlik, the seventh level of Which was Homers Troy. Both were important centers in the Bronze Age. At Alishar, fifty-three skulls have been studied, from seven archaeological periods, ranging from the earliest Copper Age, dated from between 2600 and 2300 B.C., to the Osmanli invasion.2

Ten crania from the earliest period (two Chalcolithic, eight Copper Age) are uniformly Danubian in type, both metrically and morphologically. The small, high-vaulted, somewhat infantile dolicho- and mesocephalic form, with small face and mesorrhine to chamaerrhine noses, is no different from that found at roughly the same time at Anau, at Mariupol, in the Kiev Government, and in the Danube Valley, in association with Neolithic cultures. Two others, which are longer, may belong to a Megalithic or Corded variety.The unity of the early food-producing peoples on both sides of the Caucasus and Black Sea is therefore indicated, and from the racial standpoint, the Danubians could have come to central Europe from either South Russia or Anatolia, or both.

In the second and third periods at Alishar, dated between 2300 and 1500 B.C., and called the Early Bronze Age, brachycephalic skulls appeared, and these persisted through the period of the Hittite Empire, for several centuries after 1500 B.C. The crania are large, low vaulted, and only moderately brachycephalic, with lambdoid flattening, and moderate browridges. The faces are of medium length, and narrow, although somewhat broader than those of the earlier Danubian type. The stature of the one male observed was tall, 174 cm.3

Not all of the Hittite Empire crania are brachycephalic. A long-headed variety, which seems to have replaced or outnumbered the brachycephals by the time of the Phrygian invasions, is both longer and lower vaulted than the Danubian type of the Copper Age; it is characterized by a very prominent nasal skeleton of true Near Eastern form, with little nasion depression. Bas-relief sculptures of historic Hittites reproduce this hook-nosed, open-eyed type of countenance.

The sequence of racial types in Asia Minor during the metal ages probably runs somewhat as follows: the earliest food-producing people were the same as those in western Turkestan and southern Russia. The latter probably came in earlier times from the highland belt of which Anatolia forms a part. Shortly before 2000 B.C., a moderately brachycephalic type, with tall stature, entered Anatolia from regions yet to be determined, followed by a low-vaulted, hawk-nosed Mediterranean form, which we have named Cappadocian, and which is well known in the present day Near East. True Arrnenoids or Dinarics were not, apparently, common in early times.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

I think the argument is that farming/animal husbandry came from Old European farmers (Criş/Körös Culture and Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture) who had penetrated to the Dniester and was adopted by foragers occupying the river valleys. To what degree other influences/migrations came from the Caucasus is unclear. It was the domestication of the horse and the adoption of the wheel (wagons) that allowed people to develop a fully pastoral economy and move out of the river valleys and onto the steppes.

https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/c...ENeolithic.pdf

----------


## halfalp

> Well somebody had to do it first, it clearly can't have been simultaneous. With farming, different groups seem to have learnt from one another, but with metallurgy I'm not so sure that's the case. In its earliest stages, given it involves a lot of skill and also put you at the top of the social hierarchy, it seems to be associated with migration, in my opinion at least.


Metallurgy seems to be first from Serbia and Northern Mesopotamia from the same time frame and Lepenski Vir and Kotias Klde have the same mtdna as H13. It might be that Metallurgy is actually born with transmission of the older Obsidian Trade with a " instinctive next step " both in the offshoots of Anatolia, meaning South Caucasus and Balkans.

----------


## halfalp

> It does matter when considering Eupedia as a forum for discussion, though. And also, it clearly matters in terms of infractions - most* of the time, it is either due to forced sensitivity (i.e. "How dare you be so rude to me") or in many cases due to upset about topic of discussion (so when I would discuss topics like this, and link them to things like migration of a population that had some level of red hair, I LITERALLY got given infractions from Jovialis and Angela - Maciamo had to step in and stop them at first, not least because he himself is impartial to a bit of R1b and rufosity!)
> 
> *EDIT: In fact, it isn't most of the time - it's ALL of the time (I've gone through my eight infractions for this year so far, and all were bogus).


Well i was banned for the same reason, but i dont want to really enter into that " triggered " mode. So i'm telling you, if you are writing something, individual people gonna juge over their own sensibilities, so it doesn't really matter.

----------


## halfalp

> abstract (ancien typology, I know)
> Coon on ancient races of Anatolia:
> Let us first examine what Bronze Age skeletal material there is in Asia Minor. So far, all of it comes from two sites, Alishar H�y�k, which, in its later periods, was a Hittite city, and Hissarlik, the seventh level of Which was Homer�s Troy. Both were important centers in the Bronze Age. At Alishar, fifty-three skulls have been studied, from seven archaeological periods, ranging from the earliest Copper Age, dated from between 2600 and 2300 B.C., to the Osmanli invasion.2
> Ten crania from the earliest period (two �Chalcolithic,� eight Copper Age) are uniformly Danubian in type, both metrically and morphologically. The small, high-vaulted, somewhat infantile dolicho- and mesocephalic form, with small face and mesorrhine to chamaerrhine noses, is no different from that found at roughly the same time at Anau, at Mariupol, in the Kiev Government, and in the Danube Valley, in association with Neolithic cultures. Two others, which are longer, may belong to a Megalithic or Corded variety.The unity of the early food-producing peoples on both sides of the Caucasus and Black Sea is therefore indicated, and from the racial standpoint, the Danubians could have come to central Europe from either South Russia or Anatolia, or both.
> In the second and third periods at Alishar, dated between 2300 and 1500 B.C., and called the Early Bronze Age, brachycephalic skulls appeared, and these persisted through the period of the Hittite Empire, for several centuries after 1500 B.C. The crania are large, low vaulted, and only moderately brachycephalic, with lambdoid flattening, and moderate browridges. The faces are of medium length, and narrow, although somewhat broader than those of the earlier Danubian type. The stature of the one male observed was tall, 174 cm.3
> Not all of the Hittite Empire crania are brachycephalic. A long-headed variety, which seems to have replaced or outnumbered the brachycephals by the time of the Phrygian invasions, is both longer and lower vaulted than the Danubian type of the Copper Age; it is characterized by a very prominent nasal skeleton of true Near Eastern form, with little nasion depression. Bas-relief sculptures of historic Hittites reproduce this hook-nosed, open-eyed type of countenance.
> The sequence of racial types in Asia Minor during the metal ages probably runs somewhat as follows: the earliest food-producing people were the same as those in western Turkestan and southern Russia. The latter probably came in earlier times from the highland belt of which Anatolia forms a part. Shortly before 2000 B.C., a moderately brachycephalic type, with tall stature, entered Anatolia from regions yet to be determined, followed by a low-vaulted, hawk-nosed Mediterranean form, which we have named Cappadocian,� and which is well known in the present day Near East. True Arrnenoids or Dinarics were not, apparently, common in early times.


Can you look at the Schela Cladovei skull and tell me what you think about it? I know you have high physical anthropolgy knowledge.

----------


## Angela

> Well you might use it yourself, because the earliest Metal Mines are from Serbia, way before anything like Kura-Araxe or Sumerians(???!!!)


I'm sorry, but the presence of a mine does not indicate that the local people living in the area of the mine were the first to develop metallurgy. Would that mean that someone excavating "Solomon's mines" was supposed to deduce that the locals were the ones to have developed the technology and trade which made finding ore sources so very important?

You also would need to carefully define what you mean by metallurgy: pounding native copper into ornaments, extraction metallurgy into crucibles, furnace smelting? Also, are you talking about gold metallurgy, copper metallurgy, or bronze metallurgy?

I would not suggest turning to Wiki. The European Nordicists have erased 90% of the information which used to be present.

Much better to read something like 
"Nissim Amzallag, "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations
"
https://www.academia.edu/12054307/Fr...nthetic_Theory

For fairness, you can read some responses, although they don't much help your case. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Amzallag_2009

Response to the response:
https://www.academia.edu/1970099/The...nt_Middle_East

This paper is also important. As you can see, it is quite clear that Bronze metallurgy came from the Caucasus (including the Kura Araxes culture). So, to the extent it involved a movement of genes as well as technology, it almost certainly was a J2 phenomenon.
https://www.academia.edu/1970099/The...nt_Middle_East

Things upon which all scientists, to my knowledge, are in broad agreement, can be found here.

See:
"The development of metallurgy in Southwest Asia began long before the applicationof fire to naturally occurring metals. Indeed, the use of blue and green copper oresfor beads, pendants and pigments was a critical step in the Neolithic, occurring atearly agricultural and agro-pastoralist sites dating to the eleventh–ninth millennium BC(Figure 1a) at sites such as Shanidar Cave and Zawi Chemi in north-eastern Iraq, HallanC¸ emi in eastern Turkey and Rosh Horesha in Israel (Yener 2000; Bar-Yosef Mayer &Porat 2008). The increased working of naturally-occurring or ‘native’ copper as well ascopper and lead ores is demonstrated at sites such as Cayon¨ u Tepesi in eastern Turkey, ¨where metallographic analyses have shown evidence of annealing c. 8000 BC, indicatingthe early application of heat to the production process (Maddin et al. 1999). Native copperexploitation flourished in this core area through the seventh millennium BC while othermetals, notably lead and (in the early sixth millennium BC) meteoritic iron, appear for thefirst time (Schoop 1999). Although the copper was probably still native, lead objects, suchas the bracelet from Yarim Tepe in northern Iraq, if not actually made of lead (they havenever been analysed), were probably smelted (Muller-Karpe 1990)."

https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.ed...in_Eurasia.pdf





I will ignore your rudeness. However, I would contemplate, if I were you, that such a response to more complete knowledge by someone else and particularly, it seems, by a woman, merely highlights the most extreme kinds of insecurity.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I'm sorry, but the presence of a mine does not indicate that the local people living in the area of the mine were the first to develop metallurgy. Would that mean that someone excavating "Solomon's mines" was supposed to deduce that the locals were the ones to have developed the technology and trade which made finding ore sources so very important?
> 
> You also would need to carefully define what you mean by metallurgy: pounding native copper into ornaments, extraction metallurgy into crucibles, furnace smelting? Also, are you talking about gold metallurgy, copper metallurgy, or bronze metallurgy?
> 
> I would not suggest turning to Wiki. The European Nordicists have erased 90% of the information which used to be present.
> 
> Much better to read something like 
> "Nissim Amzallag, "From Metallurgy to Bronze Age Civilizations
> "
> ...


European Nordicists have overrun Wikipedia?

----------


## Angela

> Lol, was going to say - though it is possible lead metallurgy is West Asian in origin, the overall evidence still points to a Balkan nucleus. As I've said before, at the very least for me personally, open discussion with Angela can be difficult when she comes across either viewpoints or people (e.g. me) she doesn't like. I get infractions *all the time* for the silliest things, always from her. 
> 
> And to Angela: no, you can't just go ahead and give me an infraction for that as always ends up happening between us - besides, I WANT to have open discussion with you, just as I would with any other clearly reasonable person, which you clearly are.


If I gave infractions for unfamiliarity with the facts and academic papers, or indeed gross mis-statements of fact, faulty reasoning, etc.I would have given you so many infractions that you would have been banned months ago.

People receive infractions for insulting comments, comments designed to provoke, to t-roll, etc. 

You might consider why so many of our posters, people like Ygorcs, Markod, Moesan, to only name a few, never have these problems. It's because they are not only learned; they are also courteous. You might also note that people with whom I very rarely agree, such as Epoch, never get infractions.

I would suggest that you model your behavior on theirs.

As to discussing matters with you, I'd be happy to when you produce actual DATA, from actual papers, reasoned logically. I'm not aware that this is usually or even often the case with your posts.

----------


## halfalp

> European Nordicists have overrun Wikipedia?


Wtf is that 10'000BC metallurgy in the Mesopotamia? It's very new to me... As far as Nordicism, i'm gonna pass, because i'm more likely look like their hated Jews physically than themselves so...

More seriously, the oldest " Copper " artifact that we have from humanity [ wich is also the oldest metal to be worked because it can be modeled cold ] are from Serbia and Northern Mesopotamia from the same time frame.

----------


## halfalp

I totally misquote the post i wanted to, but the interested might know, so.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Wtf is that 10'000BC metallurgy in the Mesopotamia? It's very new to me... As far as Nordicism, i'm gonna pass, because i'm more likely look like their hated Jews physically than themselves so...
> 
> More seriously, the oldest " Copper " artifact that we have from humanity [ wich is also the oldest metal to be worked because it can be modeled cold ] are from Serbia and Northern Mesopotamia from the same time frame.


Well, the oldest is in Serbia - no questions asked. Shortly followed by Northern Mesopotamia. Also, did you see the post of mine Angela deleted?

----------


## halfalp

> Well, the oldest is in Serbia - no questions asked. Shortly followed by Northern Mesopotamia. *Also, did you see the post of mine Angela deleted?*


I did not, but seriously, as a guy 1 year older than you in subscribe in the site, it's not that much of a deal. For what i recall of my own bans, they were somehow justified ; probably in the way they were meant or read. You can still wright right now, keep the " no [ weird controversy ] ". If you really feel " ostracised ", go on Anthrogenica, it's also very good and more " open? ".

Like everyone from Me, Olympus Mons, Tomenable and others were ban for, saying our Pensée in a fierce way, but we ain't gone yet.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I did not, but seriously, as a guy 1 year older than you in subscribe in the site, it's not that much of a deal. For what i recall of my own bans, they were somehow justified ; probably in the way they were meant or read. You can still wright right now, keep the " no [ weird controversy ] ". If you really feel " ostracised ", go on Anthrogenica, it's also very good and more " open? ".
> 
> Like everyone from Me, Olympus Mons, Tomenable and others were ban for, saying our Pensée in a fierce way, but we ain't gone yet.


I won't dwell on it as I can see why it would be upsetting to Angela, so I'll put myself above these childish games. But she does need to realise when her moderation becomes more personal than anything else.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Well, the oldest is in Serbia - no questions asked. Shortly followed by Northern Mesopotamia. Also, did you see the post of mine Angela deleted?


Humm, partly so.
a. yes Vinca is reference at 5500 BC but not sure how good the carbon dating is. - Not saying is wrong. But would like to read something about the carbon dating used.
b. In Shulaveri (Aratashen part in Armenia) the copper and crucibles found is always referred as fists half of 6th Millenium, so don't really know what exact date.
c. In Shulaveri places such as Khramis Didi gora, we have the smelting of arsenical copper and the production of copper awls is a fact. Carbon dating of those settlements do not go much further than 5500 BC (those were places that ended earlier, just like the ones referenced in Armenia).

d . Its reference by me in my Shulaverian Hypothesis paper (https://shulaveri2bellbeaker.blogs.sapo.pt/) that the Copper awl found in tell tsaf (Israel 4600BC) is in fact from Aruclho (one of the longest shulaveri settlements that ended by 5400 BC).

e. *One last note.* the oldest copper found in North Caucasus is at the Pr**icked pearl culture (5th Millenium BC), which is assumed to be of south caucasus origin. Any guess form what culture? :)

----------


## halfalp

> Humm, partly so.
> a. yes Vinca is reference at 5500 BC but not sure how good the carbon dating is. - Not saying is wrong. But would like to read something about the carbon dating used.
> b. In Shulaveri (Aratashen part in Armenia) the copper found is always referred as fists half of 6th Millenium, so don't really know what exact date.
> c. In Shulaveri places such as Khramis Didi gora, we have the smelting of arsenical copper and the production of copper awls is a fact. Carbon dating of those settlements do not go much further than 5500 BC (those were places that ended earlier, just like the ones referenced in Armenia).
> d. One last note. the oldest copper found in North Caucasus is at the Pr**icked pearl culture, which is assumed to be of south caucasus origin. Any guess form what culture? :)


I know that's gonna sound 100% european centrist and out subject... but, i think Middle-East needs more carbon dating use, than europe. I remember the Goga user here, wich were fom Kurd ancestry and saying being R1a*, i bet he was absolutely not, but he didn't test completely his y-dna.

----------


## Angela

> Wtf is that 10'000BC metallurgy in the Mesopotamia? It's very new to me... As far as Nordicism, i'm gonna pass, because i'm more likely look like their hated Jews physically than themselves so...
> 
> More seriously, the oldest " Copper " artifact that we have from humanity [ wich is also the oldest metal to be worked because it can be modeled cold ] are from Serbia and Northern Mesopotamia from the same time frame.


Well, if you read the papers you would know, wouldn't you? 

Another one for you:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail

If you have contrary data I'm sure the academics would be thrilled to be alerted to it.

----------


## halfalp

> Well, if you read the papers you would know, wouldn't you? 
> 
> Another one for you:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ication_detail
> 
> If you have contrary data I'm sure the academics would be thrilled to be alerted to it.


LOL, yes i have nothing to say else.

----------


## Angela

> Well, the oldest is in Serbia - no questions asked. Shortly followed by Northern Mesopotamia. Also, did you see the post of mine Angela deleted?


No statement devoid of date and citation is going to be persuasive. Do you really need to be reminded of that fact. 

I would suggest you keep in mind the various phases of metallurgy and the dating as made clear in the papers I cited. Do read them.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> No statement devoid of date and citation is going to be persuasive. Do you really need to be reminded of that fact. 
> 
> I would suggest you keep in mind the various phases of metallurgy and the dating as made clear in the papers I cited. Do read them.


The conclusion of that Nezafati paper (which journal does it belong to?) suggests that it is mostly speculation. Here is a peer-reviewed paper from 2010 claiming what is already known if you trust Wikipedia, Google and probably about 80% of all sources online:

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.scienc...986?via%3Dihub

Colin Renfrew made a great case for this almost 50 years ago, as here:

http://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10...79497X00013396

The conclusions of both are ultimately for a first development in the Balkans, and later in the Near East - but I tend to think it would have been driven by migration (due to other factors, such as the immense similarity between aspects of Vincan and Ubaidian culture, both at opposite ends of the Balkano-Asian region).

Sci-hub is immensely useful, by the way - I have no idea why papers are paywalled in the first place.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> No statement devoid of date and citation is going to be persuasive. Do you really need to be reminded of that fact. 
> 
> I would suggest you keep in mind the various phases of metallurgy and the dating as made clear in the papers I cited. Do read them.


This paper you provided (https://www.academia.edu/12054307/Fr...nthetic_Theory) looks pretty solid, so I'll have to give it a read. I remember Tomenable referencing it, and I have a lot of respect for _most_ of his ideas, which I basically steal.

Potentially, there could be some circumstantial evidence showing a West Asian origin of copper metallurgy, but the fact remains (unless you go into conspiracy mode) the earliest dated finds of copper metallurgy are in the Balkans - and I've given a peer-reviewed paper from a respected journal backing that up. It would take a lot, I think, to overrule that, but I'll keep an open mind when reading that paper.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> No statement devoid of date and citation is going to be persuasive. Do you really need to be reminded of that fact. 
> 
> I would suggest you keep in mind the various phases of metallurgy and the dating as made clear in the papers I cited. Do read them.


Lol that Amzallag paper describes (furnace) metallurgy as originating in the Levant, with these Levantines then going on to civilise the rest of the world in their travels for ore. He's an Israeli supremacist! :P

From looking at all your papers and others online, it seems that native metallurgy perhaps began in the Near East, but that isn't really true metallurgy (which would be smelting) - the oldest evidence of which for copper dates back to the Balkans. Tin and lead smelting is extremely rudimentary, and was of practically no historical significance.

This is a good summary, and not fabricated by European Nordicists ;):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting#History

----------


## markod

This is without a doubt the earliest example of copper metallurgy:



Shanidar Cave, Iraq, 9500 B.C.

Anatolian copper smelting also predates Vinča.

Edit: Apparently it doesn't.

----------


## Pip

So, if R1b, would the Hittites and Anatolian Indo-Europeans generally have been primarily L51, Z2103, PF7562, V88, a mixture or some other shrivelled or extinct branch?

----------


## markod

> So, if R1b, would the Hittites and Anatolian Indo-Europeans generally have been primarily L51, Z2103, PF7562, V88, a mixture or some other shrivelled or extinct branch?


Isn't R1b relatively rare where Anatolian languages were spoken? Like the entire southern half of Anatolia. R1b looks more northern in present day Turkey.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> This is without a doubt the earliest example of copper metallurgy:
> 
> 
> 
> Shanidar Cave, Iraq, 9500 B.C.
> 
> Anatolian copper smelting also predates Vinča.


If it is that early it is definitely native metallurgy, which is basically just like finding a bunch of pure mineral copper and digging it out. No smelting involved.

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

As for Anatolian copper smelting preceding Vinca - what's your source? Where was this and when was it dated to? I say that because from what I have seen, it is incredibly obvious that the earliest dated find was in the Balkans. Too many peer-reviewed sources corroborate on this point. In this Wikipedia article, which I've already linked, a copper mace head from Anatolia from around the same time or later than Vinca was found, yet it was discovered to have simply been native copper hammered out into the appropriate shape.

----------


## Angela

> I won't dwell on it as I can see why it would be upsetting to Angela, so I'll put myself above these childish games. But she does need to realise when her moderation becomes more personal than anything else.


The only one who is getting personal here is you. 



" The oldest copper ornament dates back to around 8700 B.C. and it was found in present-day northern Iraq."
http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub362/item1495.html



All of that said, it's very true that depending on the type of metallurgy being discussed there was some early metallurgy in the Balkans. Whether that was autochthonous, or, given the documented movement from Anatolia to the Balkans is subject to debate. 

Regardless, the Bronze metallurgy which was for so often held by proponents of the steppe theory that Bronze metallurgy was "invented" on the steppe plains of far eastern Europe is incorrect. Every paper I have seen traces it to the Caucasus. Some of the earliest steppe migrations, those of Corded Ware, barely had copper, let alone Bronze. You should know this, so please don't make me waste more time finding the papers when they've been posted here again and again. 

You can find a very detailed discussion and sites to relevant papers, including ones by David Anthony, in this very good thread right here at Eupedia.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archiv...p/t-30625.html

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> So, if R1b, would the Hittites and Anatolian Indo-Europeans generally have been primarily L51, Z2103, PF7562, V88, a mixture or some other shrivelled or extinct branch?


Probably associated with Z2103.

----------


## halfalp

> This is without a doubt the earliest example of copper metallurgy:
> 
> 
> 
> Shanidar Cave, Iraq, 9500 B.C.
> 
> Anatolian copper smelting also predates Vinča.
> 
> Edit: Apparently it doesn't.


It might be if it's 9500BC.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> The only one who is getting personal here is you. 
> 
> I am waiting for documentary evidence for your claims. If you expect unsupported claims in contradiction to dated finds and academic thinking to be accepted without comment, you are on the wrong site. 
> 
> " The oldest copper ornament dates back to around 8700 B.C. and it was found in present-day northern Iraq."
> http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub362/item1495.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never claimed Bronze metallurgy was invented on the Steppe, so that's a strawman. Also, I associate metallurgy (at the very least, copper metallurgy - and if you're being pedantic I'd have to say copper smelting, as only smelting is "true" metallurgy) with R1b-M269 and later (when it mutated) L23 folk, so Corded Ware is hardly relevant (even though they knew how to smelt copper).

That copper ornament, as mentioned, is from native copper. It is basically the same as finding mineral gold in a rock, and chiselling it out. It is extremely different to copper smelting, the earliest evidence of which dates back to the Balkans. I don't know why you don't want to believe it, but the evidence is overwhelming. Two papers have already been linked in this thread giving a specific place and date (below - though there are far more than two out there, as this is a consensus among those active in the field), what do you have to back up your claim? Do you have any papers providing evidence for copper smelting at an earlier date in West Asia?

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.scienc...986?via%3Dihub

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Amzallag_2009

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> It might be if it's 9500BC.


It isn't copper smelting. It is just taking already basically pure metal from out of a rock.

More importantly, it shows thousands of years between simple native metallurgy and proper smelting - which shows that it was a real technological milestone. Now, perhaps it is wrong of me to associate it with R1b M269/L23, but it just definitely began in the Balkans.

----------


## Pip

> Probably associated with Z2103.


That was my initial thought, but Eastern Z2103 looks to have been only Armenia and southwards until relatively recently.

I wondered perhaps PF7562 - the only successful branch of M269 that did not stem from L23. The other branches of R1b look too small and distant to have derived from the Hittites and their close Anatolian relatives.

----------


## halfalp

> It isn't copper smelting. It is just taking already basically pure metal from out of a rock.
> 
> More importantly, it shows thousands of years between simple native metallurgy and proper smelting - which shows that it was a real technological milestone. Now, perhaps it is wrong of me to associate it with R1b M269/L23, but it just definitely began in the Balkans.


Copper can be modeled cold in any form, but it's still metallurgy for me, the idea is still there, at this point the people might search for metal more than rock to " model ".

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Copper can be modeled cold in any form, but it's still metallurgy for me, the idea is still there, at this point the people might search for metal more than rock to " model ".


The point is that to make lots of copper products, you would basically need to learn smelting, as copper usually occurs in a non-native form (rarely in a native form). That is why native copper metallurgy was of little historical significant compared to smelting. The Copper age did not begin 12,000 years ago for a reason you know...

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> That was my initial thought, but Eastern Z2103 looks to have been only Armenia and southwards until relatively recently.
> 
> I wondered perhaps PF7562 - the only successful branch of M269 that did not stem from L23. The other branches of R1b look too small and distant to have derived from the Hittites and their close Anatolian relatives.


That's interesting actually - I like that idea.

----------


## halfalp

> The point is that to make lots of copper products, you would basically need to learn smelting, as copper usually occurs in a non-native form (rarely in a native form). That is why native copper metallurgy was of little historical significant compared to smelting. The Copper age did not begin 12,000 years ago for a reason you know...


What do you mean by Non-native Copper?

----------


## markod

> If it is that early it is definitely native metallurgy, which is basically just like finding a bunch of pure mineral copper and digging it out. No smelting involved.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_copper
> 
> As for Anatolian copper smelting preceding Vinca - what's your source? Where was this and when was it dated to? I say that because from what I have seen, it is incredibly obvious that the earliest dated find was in the Balkans. Too many peer-reviewed sources corroborate on this point. In this Wikipedia article, which I've already linked, a copper mace head from Anatolia from around the same time or later than Vinca was found, yet it was discovered to have simply been native copper hammered out into the appropriate shape.


Apparently a recent paper revealed that the earliest evidence of copper smelting at Catalhöyük wasn't metallurgy but the result of a house fire, lol.

The earliest evidence of cast copper implements still seems to be Mersin, though Serbia seems very close. My belief is the lack of early evidence for copper extraction in the Near East probably just means that the region isn't well researched. There have been many hints regarding very early copper smelting on the Iranian plateau, but research there is very slow.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> What do you mean by Non-native Copper?


Oxidised copper or copper mixed in with other stuff. Basically, you can't just chisel it out of rock to get the copper.

----------


## halfalp

> Oxidised copper or copper mixed in with other stuff. Basically, you can't just chisel it out of rock to get the copper.


Yes but if you are train to found a specific rock like Obsidian, you might found something else, and it might interesting.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Apparently a recent paper revealed that the earliest evidence of copper smelting at Catalhöyük wasn't metallurgy but the result of a house fire, lol.
> 
> The earliest evidence of cast copper implements still seems to be Mersin, though Serbia seems very close. My belief is the lack of early evidence for copper extraction in the Near East probably just means that the region isn't well researched. There have been many hints regarding very early copper smelting on the Iranian plateau, but research there is very slow.


What's the dating for this Mersin smelted copper and where is this quoted? I don't want threads like this to turn pedantic but I guess that's where we're at. 

And that is a fair belief, but obviously you'd admit purely speculative. The oldest evidence of "proper" metallurgy (i.e. copper smelting - there is good reason behind the "proper") still lies in the Balkans.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes but if you are train to found a specific rock like Obsidian, you might found something else, and it might interesting.


No idea what you mean, the point is that if you want to have lots of copper you need to learn smelting.

----------


## halfalp

> No idea what you mean, the point is that if you want to have lots of copper you need to learn smelting.


Obsidian gathering and trade is certainly the first phase that would bring to found Copper and use it manually. That's what i mean. The " idea of a superior stone being replaced by a superior metal ".

----------


## Angela

It's been a very long digression, but whether one posits the earliest incidence of certain methods in the Balkans or Iran or eastern Anatolia, in the periods in question it is highly unlikely we're talking of predominately or even minorly R1b men.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> It's been a very long digression, but whether one posits the earliest incidence of certain methods in the Balkans or Iran or eastern Anatolia, in the periods in question it is highly unlikely we're talking of predominately or even minorly R1b men.


Maybe not - that's ultimately just a speculation I made because of many things (list not exhaustive, I've littered this thread with them): the Indo-Europeans were very proficient with metallurgy, the phylogeny of R1b-M269 and then R1b-L23 pointing to a Balkan to West Asia migration (consistent with similarities between Vinca and Ubaid and cultures in-between), Swastikas in Vinca and Ubaid and cultures in-between, the Euphratic theory of proto-Euphratean, Lepenski Vir being R1b (albeit V88), Yamnaya being a hybrid of Steppe and Caucasian auDNA (indicating a movement of, given L23 as West Asian but also Z2103's heavily West Asian distribution, Z2103 North to the Steppe), the phylogeny of L51 pointing to a West Mediterranean origin consistent with L23 as West Asian and a migration following the old Megalithic sea route (and further consistent with Coon's analysis of the Beaker phenotype), and many more

----------


## halfalp

> It's been a very long digression, but whether one posits the earliest incidence of certain methods in the Balkans or *Iran or eastern Anatolia*, in the periods in question it is highly unlikely we're talking of predominately or even minorly R1b men.


So you indirectly mean that your beliefs over PIE coming from South Caucasus is unrelated with R1b? Because if it's " highly unlikely " that R1b was in EA or Iran for Metallurgy, it's " highly unlikely " that they were here at all. So what's your idea for PIE coming from South Caucasus?

----------


## markod

> What's the dating for this Mersin smelted copper and where is this quoted? I don't want threads like this to turn pedantic but I guess that's where we're at. 
> 
> And that is a fair belief, but obviously you'd admit purely speculative. The oldest evidence of "proper" metallurgy (i.e. copper smelting - there is good reason behind the "proper") still lies in the Balkans.


Per the Oxford handbook of archaeology, Mersin layer XVI is 5000-4900 B.C.  :Wink: 

Not really, the Iranian evidence doesn't leave much room: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/33759#files-area

I suspect that these results haven't been corroborated because there's a lack of international cooperation. Political issues and stuff. I expect the adjusted radiocarbon dates to show that Iranian smelting predates Vinca. Geologically Iran seems like the perfect location for the development of early metallurgy too.

That would explain the early Chalcolithic in Anatolia and the Levant while evidence of extraction is rather lacking. It also explains the expansion of the CHG people into Anatolia and the Levant.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> So you indirectly mean that your beliefs over PIE coming from South Caucasus is unrelated with R1b? Because if it's " highly unlikely " that R1b was in EA or Iran for Metallurgy, it's " highly unlikely " that they were here at all. So what's your idea for PIE coming from South Caucasus?


Although I do think she would perhaps have her own reasons for not wanting R1b to be involved with the spread of metallurgy, folk associated with lineages like J2 were clearly much more sophisticated for at least the best part of the entire Metal Age, so it is understandable why she believes that.

----------


## halfalp

> Although I do think she would perhaps have her own reasons for not wanting R1b to be involved with the spread of metallurgy, folk associated with lineages like J2 were clearly much more sophisticated for at least the best part of the entire Metal Age, so it is understandable why she believes that.


Yes, but she seems to follow Max Planck or Jena into their South of Caucasus Hypothesis, and i would to understand what her point of it is, because she is a recurrent user on those topics.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> Yes, but she seems to follow Max Planck or Jena into their South of Caucasus Hypothesis, and i would to understand what her point of it is, because she is a recurrent user on those topics.


I follow that hypothesis too - the combination of the CHG source of Yamnaya and the phylogeny of R1b M269, L23 and Z2103 strongly points towards a Southern origin.

I really hope they don't conclude the migration was female-mediated just because the Maykop samples they happened to find were typically Caucaso-Zagrosian in Y DNA

----------


## Angela

> So you indirectly mean that your beliefs over PIE coming from South Caucasus is unrelated with R1b? Because if it's " highly unlikely " that R1b was in EA or Iran for Metallurgy, it's " highly unlikely " that they were here at all. So what's your idea for PIE coming from South Caucasus?


I'm not aware of having expressed an opinion about the source of PIE. I was reacting to comments about metallurgy always being associated with R1b men, which is clearly not the case. 

As to that "source" I'm an agnostic. I think there are problems with both of the surviving major theories, i.e. completely from the steppe versus a very early form, post the split from Anatolian, moving onto the steppe from the south. 

If pressed, I'd say that the CHG component probably went onto the steppe in the Mesolithic predominantly through women, or there were so few men as a whole at that time on the steppe that the R1b line just drifted to prominence.

I doubt that the language these southerners spoke was PIE. At the most perhaps some pre-proto-PIE, although even that would probably require that the children got their language from their mothers.

I don't care either way.

I would describe my attitude nowadays toward the entire "Indo-European" question as one approaching almost terminal boredom.

----------


## Angela

> I'm not aware of having expressed an opinion about the source of PIE. I was reacting to comments about metallurgy always being associated with R1b men, which is clearly not the case. 
> 
> As to that "source" I'm an agnostic. I think there are problems with both of the surviving major theories, i.e. completely from the steppe versus a very early form, post the split from Anatolian, moving onto the steppe from the south. 
> 
> If pressed, I'd say that the CHG component probably went onto the steppe in the Mesolithic predominantly through women, or there were so few men as a whole at that time on the steppe that the R1b line just drifted to prominence.
> 
> I doubt that the language these southerners spoke was PIE. At the most perhaps some pre-proto-PIE, although even that would probably require that the children got their language from their mothers.
> 
> I don't care either way.
> ...


I think the fact that two of you think that my opinion on these matters must be tied to my ethnicity in some way reflects your methods of analysis, not mine.:)

Not that it should matter, but my paternal line is R1b U-152. :)

@ToBe...
This huge digression shows that the "evidence" you cite for the connection between R1b and metallurgy is completely irrelevant. That's what I meant by faulty reasoning.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> I think the fact that two of you think that my opinion on these matters must be tied to my ethnicity in some way reflects your methods of analysis, not mine.:)
> 
> Not that it should matter, but my paternal line is R1b U-152. :)
> 
> @ToBe...
> This huge digression shows that the "evidence" you cite for the connection between R1b and metallurgy is completely irrelevant. That's what I meant by faulty reasoning.


I don't know if you're referring to me, but I do not at all think your opinion stems from your ethnicity, though I do think it helps you identify more against the Indo-Europeans or just R1-folk in general.

If anything though, I have ultimate reason to identify myself in opposition to them - between 1/3 and 1/2 of my known family members were killed during the Holocaust. So hopefully that gives context against the Nordicist claims, for the future at least.

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

Anyway this has gone hugely off-topic lol, let's change the subject

----------


## halfalp

> I'm not aware of having expressed an opinion about the source of PIE. I was reacting to comments about metallurgy always being associated with R1b men, which is clearly not the case. 
> 
> As to that "source" I'm an agnostic. I think there are problems with both of the surviving major theories, i.e. completely from the steppe versus a very early form, post the split from Anatolian, moving onto the steppe from the south. 
> 
> If pressed, I'd say that the CHG component probably went onto the steppe in the Mesolithic predominantly through women, or there were so few men as a whole at that time on the steppe that the R1b line just drifted to prominence.
> 
> I doubt that the language these southerners spoke was PIE. At the most perhaps some pre-proto-PIE, although even that would probably require that the children got their language from their mothers.
> 
> I don't care either way.
> ...


It was just an open door to ask for your opinion on the question. It actually does matter to know the opinion of the most savant users from Eupedia.

----------


## Pip

> Anyway this has gone hugely off-topic lol, let's change the subject


Yes, how about going back to Iberian men being wiped out by Yamna men, and identifying who these Yamna men could have been? The only reasonable candidate I can identify is R1b-DF27 on its own (if you can call these people Yamna), having come down the West coast of France. I can't see traces of anyone else in the data, unless these other men were wiped out themselves at some later point.

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes, how about going back to Iberian men being wiped out by Yamna men, and identifying who these Yamna men could have been? The only reasonable candidate I can identify is R1b-DF27 on its own (if you can call these people Yamna), having come down the West coast of France. I can't see traces of anyone else in the data, unless these other men were wiped out themselves at some later point.


well, it seems the DF27 were wiped out themselves in eastern Iberia
that must have been by the El Argar invaders, ca 4 ka and probably J2
they must have brought the Iberic languages which were spoken in Eastern Iberia when the Greeks colonisers settled there

----------


## halfalp

@ToBeOrNotToBe.

About one of your hypothesis on Northern Mesopotamia and Samarra vessels. " _Mezine is a place within the modern country of Ukraine which has the most artifact finds of Paleolithic culture origin.[1][2][3][4] The epigravettian [5] site is located on a bank of the Desna river.[6] The settlement is best known for an archaeological find of a set of bracelets engraved with marks possibly representing calendar lunar-cycles.[7] Also found near Mezine was the earliest known example of a swastika-like form, as part of a decorative object dated to 10,000 BCE. It was described (see references for illustrations) as an object carved from ivory mammoth tusks to resemble_

----------


## ToBeOrNotToBe

> @ToBeOrNotToBe.
> 
> About one of your hypothesis on Northern Mesopotamia and Samarra vessels. " _Mezine is a place within the modern country of Ukraine which has the most artifact finds of Paleolithic culture origin.[1][2][3][4] The epigravettian [5] site is located on a bank of the Desna river.[6] The settlement is best known for an archaeological find of a set of bracelets engraved with marks possibly representing calendar lunar-cycles.[7] Also found near Mezine was the earliest known example of a swastika-like form, as part of a decorative object dated to 10,000 BCE. It was described (see references for illustrations) as an object carved from ivory mammoth tusks to resemble_


im aware, but that is ages ago. It speaks to ultimately to the Eastern European origin of the symbol, thats all

----------


## MOESAN

I have not the original paper, so I don't know exactly where and when were living the elements of the sample taken for study. It could help to weight seriously this "wiping" question I find a bit overrated to date, even at the Y-haplos level. Concerning DF27 I am not sure at all it was all over Iberia at Chalco ; an "uncle" maybe - it seems me so northern concerning Iberia - And we should not forget some aventurous L21, but these last ones surely had not a big input in southern Iberia, spite they could correspond to the backward atlantic run of some BB varieties; in more southern Iberia I see more ancient lineages of R1b (around P312); but all this depends on the dates and on the depth of SNP's analysis concerning sublineages.

----------


## Pip

> well, it seems the DF27 were wiped out themselves in eastern Iberia
> that must have been by the El Argar invaders, ca 4 ka and probably J2
> they must have brought the Iberic languages which were spoken in Eastern Iberia when the Greeks colonisers settled there


Interesting. I saw one early Bronze Age sample in Andalucia, which was R1b, almost certainly P312 (based on its calls), and possibly L21 or DF27, so P312 seems to have spread right through Spain fairly early on.

Do you know which J2 subclades might have arrived in Iberia with El Argar to displace or replace P312 in the East? (I think J2-M319 was there, although probably already had been since the Neolithic.)

----------


## berun

In the last DF27 paper the authors asumed that it was original from tge area between Ebro river and Pyrenees by its major diversity and density. Moreover a sample from such area dated by 1500 BC was DF27, so he was not Celtic. Now only could be said it came with BB... but how? there are no traces of such massive migration and above all BB culture was settled in Iberia some 2-3 centuries before it expanded towards the continent.

----------


## bicicleur

> Interesting. I saw one early Bronze Age sample in Andalucia, which was R1b, almost certainly P312 (based on its calls), and possibly L21 or DF27, so P312 seems to have spread right through Spain fairly early on.
> Do you know which J2 subclades might have arrived in Iberia with El Argar to displace or replace P312 in the East? (I think J2-M319 was there, although probably already had been since the Neolithic.)


no, I'm just speculating because after R1b, J2 is the most important Y-DNA in Iberia and J2 was rare neolithic and chalcolithic Iberia
nor do I know which subclades of J2 are important in Iberia
can you tell me more about that early Bronze Age sample in Andalucia? do you have a link?

----------


## Pip

> In the last DF27 paper the authors asumed that it was original from tge area between Ebro river and Pyrenees by its major diversity and density. Moreover a sample from such area dated by 1500 BC was DF27, so he was not Celtic. Now only could be said it came with BB... but how? there are no traces of such massive migration and above all BB culture was settled in Iberia some 2-3 centuries before it expanded towards the continent.


My diversity calculations suggested North Central Spain, but there's a mass of data and I've only analysed a small part of it.
Yes, the BB culture might have already been there and P312 simply appropriated and evolved it.

----------


## Pip

> no, I'm just speculating because after R1b, J2 is the most important Y-DNA in Iberia and J2 was rare neolithic and chalcolithic Iberia
> nor do I know which subclades of J2 are important in Iberia
> can you tell me more about that early Bronze Age sample in Andalucia? do you have a link?


I haven't got my notes with me. From memory, l think it was from Cordoba and identified merely as L23, but it had lots of calls linking it to L21 and DF27.
I'm interested which other haplogroups turn up around that time in Iberia. Perhaps from I2a or E-V13?

----------


## Cpluskx

Which one do you think was the original Proto Indo European line - R1b, R1a or J2?

----------


## berun

I can't say by sure but all sampled men in Bronze Age Iberia were R1b, involving so those tested for the Argar Culture, some 5 guys.

----------


## Pip

> no, I'm just speculating because after R1b, J2 is the most important Y-DNA in Iberia and J2 was rare neolithic and chalcolithic Iberia
> nor do I know which subclades of J2 are important in Iberia
> can you tell me more about that early Bronze Age sample in Andalucia? do you have a link?


I found a note I made that it was from El Pirulejo - sample PIR001.

----------


## Pip

> I can't say by sure but all sampled men in Bronze Age Iberia were R1b, involving so those tested for the Argar Culture, some 5 guys.


Regarding the Argar culture, I've looked at data from many extant haplogroups and cannot find any that look like they moved into Spain in the early Bronze Age. Can anyone else help in this?

Most Spanish J2 looks to be either indigenous Neolithic or of later Phoenician/Sephardi origin.

The only sample I found from an Argar-associated culture (Cogotas) is itself R1b-DF27.

Unless there is any evidence to suggest other haplogroups, perhaps the most likely scenarios are either that the Argar people were (i) themselves a variety of DF27, or (ii) also wiped out by DF27 people, who then assimilated parts of their culture?

----------


## Pip

I'm beginning to suspect that Reich is right, and that early Iberian DF27 was a particularly hostile group that did not tolerate the presence of other males in their vicinity.

----------


## berun

As far as I saw/understood the Argar samples were R1b also, but I don't know if they were commoners or elite members.

----------


## bicicleur

> Regarding the Argar culture, I've looked at data from many extant haplogroups and cannot find any that look like they moved into Spain in the early Bronze Age. Can anyone else help in this?
> Most Spanish J2 looks to be either indigenous Neolithic or of later Phoenician/Sephardi origin.
> The only sample I found from an Argar-associated culture (Cogotas) is itself R1b-DF27.
> Unless there is any evidence to suggest other haplogroups, perhaps the most likely scenarios are either that the Argar people were (i) themselves a variety of DF27, or (ii) also wiped out by DF27 people, who then assimilated parts of their culture?


What neolithic Spanish J2 was there?
I don't understand how J2 could grow to the 2nd largest Y-DNA group in Iberia.

IMO Cogotas I is Argar-associated indeed (Cogotas II not : it is Halstatt-Keltiberian)
do you have a link for that R1b-DF27 Cogotas sample?

----------


## Pip

> What neolithic Spanish J2 was there?
> I don't understand how J2 could grow to the 2nd largest Y-DNA group in Iberia.
> IMO Cogotas I is Argar-associated indeed (Cogotas II not : it is Halstatt-Keltiberian)
> do you have a link for that R1b-DF27 Cogotas sample?


J2-M319 looks indigenous (Neolithic) to me. As for the other extant J2 of any significance, it looks fairly recent (post-EBA), unless you know of anything else?
I'll look for the link when I get back.

----------


## Pip

> I don't understand how J2 could grow to the 2nd largest Y-DNA group in Iberia.


Ashkenazi R1a is a prime example of how a haplogroup can mushroom to predominance over a short space of time.

----------


## Angela

> Ashkenazi R1a is a prime example of how a haplogroup can mushroom to predominance over a short space of time.


R1a is very much a minority lineage among Jews. It represents about 50% of the Levites, but only about 10% of Ashkenazi Jewish males in total, and is mostly Middle Eastern in origin.

See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5668307/

----------


## Pip

> R1a is very much a minority lineage among Jews. It represents about 50% of the Levites, but only about 10% of Ashkenazi Jewish males in total, and is mostly Middle Eastern in origin.
> 
> See:
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5668307/


Yes, I agree entirely. The point I was making is that most of it seems to have descended from just a single ancestor who lived only several centuries ago.

If that can happen, then a whole host of Levantine J2 migrants from the first millennium BC onwards could certainly have given rise to much of the 10% or so of the Iberian population that is J2 today.

----------


## Pip

> IMO Cogotas I is Argar-associated indeed (Cogotas II not : it is Halstatt-Keltiberian)
> do you have a link for that R1b-DF27 Cogotas sample?


https://indo-european.eu/tag/el-argar/

----------


## Juangarcia

That is not correct. Before the Romans at least 75% of the Iberian Peninsula already spoke Indo-European languages (celtic or preceltic)

----------


## Pip

What is not correct?

----------


## Pip

Data suggests that R1b-DF27 was the only significant extant factor in the wipeout of indigenous Iberian males (with a few exceptions, e.g. J-M413 and some Berber-like E1b). It looks like this wipeout happened gradually from 2,500 BC, rather than suddenly. These DF27 people had less EHG aDNA than in Northern Europe, probably because they were already the product of Cucuteni and RRBP females before they mated with native Iberian women.

----------


## berun

which percent of EHG they had?

----------


## bicicleur

> J2-M319 looks indigenous (Neolithic) to me. As for the other extant J2 of any significance, it looks fairly recent (post-EBA), unless you know of anything else?
> I'll look for the link when I get back.


that must have been its subclade

-Y20889 formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybpinfo

it expanded in Spain only in the bronze age

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M319/

----------


## bicicleur

> https://indo-european.eu/tag/el-argar/


thanks

The first ancient sample clearly identified as of R1b-DF27 subclade is found in this paper, at the Late Bronze Age site Cueva de los Lagos. Although it is unidentified and has no radiocarbon date, the site as a whole is associated with the Cogotas culture and its Bouquique ceramic decoration.

that would make it Cogoatas I and >3ka

----------


## Angela

> thanks
> 
> The first ancient sample clearly identified as of R1b-DF27 subclade is found in this paper, at the Late Bronze Age site Cueva de los Lagos. Although it is unidentified and has no radiocarbon date, the site as a whole is associated with the Cogotas culture and its Bouquique ceramic decoration.
> 
> that would make it Cogoatas I and >3ka


I also don't think it's the right place to look for precisely El Argar like remains. 

Eventually they should find some samples from the right place and time, and we'll know for sure, but I've always thought that civilization doesn't at all look like something coming from Central Europe, whatever the y dna the men carried.

As for J2, it's possible it came all in the Iron Age and the post classical era with Muslim invaders, but I don't see anything ruling out the Bronze Age. It doesn't appear to be Neolithic at all.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> As for J2, it's possible it came all in the Iron Age and the post classical era with Muslim invaders, but I don't see anything ruling out the Bronze Age. It doesn't appear to be Neolithic at all.


And large numbers of _conversos_...

----------


## bicicleur

> I also don't think it's the right place to look for precisely El Argar like remains. 
> Eventually they should find some samples from the right place and time, and we'll know for sure, but I've always thought that civilization doesn't at all look like something coming from Central Europe, whatever the y dna the men carried.
> As for J2, it's possible it came all in the Iron Age and the post classical era with Muslim invaders, but I don't see anything ruling out the Bronze Age. It doesn't appear to be Neolithic at all.


this is what the link says about Cogotas : 
The Proto-Cogotas culture is associated with a Bell Beaker substrate influenced by either El Argar or Atlantic Bronze.

As for Muslim invaders, wouldn't they rather bring Y-DNA J1 instead of J2?

At the time of the Punic wars, mainland Iberia was mainly Celtiberian, which was formed by Hallstatt intruders 2,6 ka mixing with locals.
Appearantly R1b-DF27 was already present in Iberia before that time.

Hallstatt is often associated with R1b-U152, but their distribution in Iberia doesn't fit Celtiberians.


It fits more with the mysterious Tartessians, but I can't think of any logical explanaition for that.

----------


## berun

taking into accont that L51 is linked with BB I find the logics to find such numbers of U152 in the area were BB first came up.

----------


## Pip

> which percent of EHG they had?


It will vary, of course, and depend on how it is measured, but as a very rough guide, perhaps 25%, instead of 35% for R1b-P312 further North.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> taking into accont that L51 is linked with BB I find the logics to find such numbers of U152 in the area were BB first came up.


Actually not. That map is impressive. At least to what Portugal is concerned since it's a visual representation of what strabo wrote about celts. He wrote that since Alentejo had become a desert in bronze age the celts enter portugal trough Alentejo (the red blob in South Portugal) and that they joined the local TURDULI and eventually went to the BRACARI land (the blob in North).
So this is in fact a very accurate of how Roman and Greek historians described how celts got to Portugal. 
I am impressed. Had never noticed this map that Bicicleur posted.

----------


## Pip

> that must have been its subclade
> 
> -Y20889 formed 5100 ybp, TMRCA 3500 ybpinfo
> 
> it expanded in Spain only in the bronze age
> 
> https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-M319/


And probably S17259 and J17221, the three of which yfull estimates split from each other in 9,700 BC.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> Actually not. That map is impressive. At least to what Portugal is concerned since it's a visual representation of what strabo wrote about celts. He wrote that since Alentejo had become a desert in bronze age the celts enter portugal trough Alentejo (the red blob in South Portugal) and that they joined the local TURDULI and eventually went to the BRACARI land (the blob in North).
> So this is in fact a very accurate of how Roman and Greek historians described how celts got to Portugal. 
> I am impressed. Had never noticed this map that Bicicleur posted.



It also raises a diferent issue. The lusitanians, which were the ones speaking an IE language full of arcahism were the same as the rest of the Portuguese tribes such as the several turduli tribes themselves which is the rest of the Portuguese map where there is no U152... 
So, celts were not IE speakers??

----------


## Pip

> I also don't think it's the right place to look for precisely El Argar like remains. 
> 
> Eventually they should find some samples from the right place and time, and we'll know for sure, but I've always thought that civilization doesn't at all look like something coming from Central Europe, whatever the y dna the men carried.
> 
> As for J2, it's possible it came all in the Iron Age and the post classical era with Muslim invaders, but I don't see anything ruling out the Bronze Age. It doesn't appear to be Neolithic at all.


There was a J2a1 in early 5th millennium BC Hungary.
Many of J2a-M419's clusters are too exclusively concentrated in Western Europe and have STRs that are too diverse for it to have arrived only in the Iron Age, in my opinion. I would say it was most likely Chalcolithic at the latest.

----------


## berun

> It will vary, of course, and depend on how it is measured, but as a very rough guide, perhaps 25%, instead of 35% for R1b-P312 further North.


so it's your stimation, nothing coming from a paper, right?

----------


## Pip

> so it's your stimation, nothing coming from a paper, right?


No, just from looking at some samples. It's not something I've researched.

----------


## Pip

Of course, both earlier and later cultures in Iberia might mostly have involved a variety of subclades of DF27, each mainly emerging from different areas of France, and several of which appear to have Iberian associations. I cannot see any clear signs pointing to a significant early presence in Spain of U152 or other R1b.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> As for Muslim invaders, wouldn't they rather bring Y-DNA J1 instead of J2?





> Consistent with the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, haplogroup J is the most abundant component in Saudi Arabia embracing 58% of its Y-chromosomes. Its two main sub-clades (J1-M267 and J2-M172), show opposite latitudinal gradients in the Middle East. J1-M267 is more abundant in the southern areas, reaching a frequency around 73% in Yemen, whereas J2-M172 is more common in the Levant. Most probably, the significant higher presence of J2-M172 in Saudi compared to other Arabian populations is due to the larger northern boundary that Saudi Arabia shares with the Levant.


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Nearby_Regions

----------


## halfalp

> this is what the link says about Cogotas : 
> The Proto-Cogotas culture is associated with a Bell Beaker substrate influenced by either El Argar or Atlantic Bronze.
> 
> As for Muslim invaders, wouldn't they rather bring Y-DNA J1 instead of J2?
> 
> At the time of the Punic wars, mainland Iberia was mainly Celtiberian, which was formed by Hallstatt intruders 2,6 ka mixing with locals.
> Appearantly R1b-DF27 was already present in Iberia before that time.
> 
> Hallstatt is often associated with R1b-U152, but their distribution in Iberia doesn't fit Celtiberians.
> ...


Looking at the map, R1b-S28 in Iberia looks more like Lusitanian, wich is sometimes believe to be related with Italic languages?

----------


## MOESAN

> It also raises a diferent issue. The lusitanians, which were the ones speaking an IE language full of arcahism were the same as the rest of the Portuguese tribes such as the several turduli tribes themselves which is the rest of the Portuguese map where there is no U152... 
> So, celts were not IE speakers??


What is your point here? A joke? I cannot guess. 
Celtic was spoken even in some places of the Tartessos territory but then we speak of relatively recent times. A lot of Celts and Belgae were already got down to SW Iberia. The fact that one group of tribes was IEan speaking doesn't exclude that a different group was speaking another kind of IEan; here all evidence points to a later input of U152, fater DF27.
But maybe I missed a good joke?

----------


## bicicleur

> What is your point here? A joke? I cannot guess. 
> Celtic was spoken even in some places of the Tartessos territory but then we speak of relatively recent times. A lot of Celts and Belgae were already got down to SW Iberia. The fact that one group of tribes was IEan speaking doesn't exclude that a different group was speaking another kind of IEan; here all evidence points to a later input of U152, fater DF27.
> But maybe I missed a good joke?


If I remember well, it is not known whether Tartessian is a Celtic language, but some Tartessian kings had Celtic names.
Can you provide a link about the presence of Celts and Belgae in SW Iberia?

----------


## halfalp

We know that Mitanni was an Hurrite Kingdom dominated by an Indo-Aryan Elite. So why this rule could not apply to Tartessians? Obviously Tartessians weren't Celts themselves.

----------


## Fatherland

What's so new or fascinating about this? It's the sole reason why Iberia is highly dominated by R1b.

Simple logic.

----------


## MOESAN

> If I remember well, it is not known whether Tartessian is a Celtic language, but some Tartessian kings had Celtic names.
> Can you provide a link about the presence of Celts and Belgae in SW Iberia?


I don't find immediately the study I red about it but at least some writings in the Tartessian territory (rather West?) have been identified as fully Celtic;some authors have pretended a Celtic connexion for the Tartessian language itself but it seems not being the consensus. Even IE is doubtus. Some ancient states provided already more than an unique language, it is not new. Concerning Celts and Belgae in SW Iberia (and perhaps Germans before our era) there has been a thread here. I 'll search my old "files" but sure there has been a lot of sets of tribes coming there from N-E today France and Belgium before Roman Era, not always ful tribes but only some sets ("ver sacrum"?).

----------


## MOESAN

doubtus? new english! "doubtful"! Sorry

----------


## Angela

Given the massive population re-distributions undertaken by the Spanish crown both during and after the Reconquista to pacify the population, I've always thought that modern genetic distributions, including of uniparental dna, should be used quite cautiously.

----------


## gidai

lol... No!

----------


## MOESAN

> I don't find immediately the study I red about it but at least some writings in the Tartessian territory (rather West?) have been identified as fully Celtic;some authors have pretended a Celtic connexion for the Tartessian language itself but it seems not being the consensus. Even IE is doubtus. Some ancient states provided already more than an unique language, it is not new. Concerning Celts and Belgae in SW Iberia (and perhaps Germans before our era) there has been a thread here. I 'll search my old "files" but sure there has been a lot of sets of tribes coming there from N-E today France and Belgium before Roman Era, not always ful tribes but only some sets ("ver sacrum"?).


I answer myself, and I moderate my first affirmation: there has not been a lot, the most of sets settled in Iberia (aside the Urnfields Celts who did not go too far south Catalonia apparently) stayed around Basque country and Meseta. But there has been Belgae in SW Iberia. I have to find my docs.
That said, I agree with Angela that the today distribution of Y-haplos is to be taken with caution when speaking about past. Iberia has known the tremendous reconquista we can see its influence in today Iberia autosomes. But IMO the great winner of the reconquista has been rather Y-R1b-DF27; I doubt the totality of today U152would be in debt to the lone Reconquista. A Roman hotspot? No clue.

----------


## MOESAN

@Halftap  all iberians wiped...  #653

_Can you look at the_ _Schela Cladovei skull__ and tell me what you think about it? I know you have high physical anthropolgy knowledge._ 


 high physical anthropology knowledge  is going too far ; rather a big interest in this matter. (I like drawing, so phenotypes).


Concerning the skeletons in Schela Cladovei, classified as Final Mesolithical, set on the romanian bank of the Danube River not far from the famous Iron Gates, I found only pictures of a lone skull, apparently a male ; nothing more, and the face is in a very bad state, missing both zygomatics, what caused the loss of the external parts of orbits ! Hard work.
Bets without true measures are only bets. Lets try :
based upon profile vs frontal view, I find it rather mesocephalic than dolicho, maybe subdolicho because the angles are not lcear for profile ? Uneasy to say. The vault is high (for Mesolithics, more brnnoid than cromagnoid in my namings)  forehead not as receding as among brnn but as strong browridge, with kind of a  cap visor , primitive trait (more brnnoid than cromagnoid), seemingly large orbits (more brnnoid than cromagnoid) of mean index (not so low as croma) - narrow lower jaw with high enough chin (both traits : more brnnoid than cromagnoid) :
surprisingly or not, a possible evolution of typically brnnoid in origin towards brachycephaly, so maybe sort of prototype for future dinarics ??? Geographically it would not be amazing, but here its a statement of mine based upon  snuffing method  ! Or at least some future preponderant element in this so controversial type, homozygotic or not. I red somewhere, without any data, that some brachycephalisation had already been observed in Neolithical Vinca sites population.
Please dont rely too much on my cephalic index guessings, they are based upon so little (it spites me). The other observation point very well toward a brnn heritage : no surprise : ancient scholars have noter that among Mesolithic pops of this region, some  families  were on a marked brnn side when others were on a marked cro-magnon side. So the mixture of both phyla - which was already evident in other places of Europe  was not the rule everywhere there, at least for a time.
ATW, mixture or not (I think : mixture!), the tendancy of Mesolithic Europe was rather toward the brnnoid shapes than cromagoid(these shapes, inherited directly of brnn or of other pops come from East, were surely an heritage common enough among the diverse pops who rambled between western Europe and Central Asia, and who shares some ancient common ancestry, I think. Spite the volatility of Y-haplos connections to total autosomes, I keep on thinking that old croma was rather Y-C1 and that in Europe the other more brutal types were present among later Y-I, maybe first Y-J ; first Y-Rs were maybe more on an undifferentiated side of the ancient nord-eurasian types, but here Im far from the aim of this post, and its only pure (dangerous) speculation.

Do take all this with a taste of salt. 
Here under, fund on the net :

----------


## MOESAN

Sorry for this answer to Halftap which could have been posted in anthropology rather than here.

----------


## Pip

I also agree with taking a cautious approach, although we should be careful not to apply our caution selectively.
I have seen people dismiss all data from modern samples entirely, while coming to an overly assured conclusion based on single archaeological sample.

In fact, using data from modern samples has a number of advantages over using archaeological data - e.g. the dataset and coverage is very much larger, its readings are more detailed and reliable, it is publicly accessible, and it inherently relates to extant (rather than mostly extinct) lineages. The important things to be aware of are that this data has to be analysed very carefully, and that any conclusion to be drawn can never be 100% definitive and can only be a most likely estimate. However, we should not let our caution stop us from making our best estimates from the data available, just that we have to be ready to revise these estimates when further data becomes available.

On consideration, it looks like Reich is broadly right. However, I would not identify those doing the wiping out as Yamna men. They appear to have derived from just a small sub-section of a population explosion that most likely initiated in France, and this core population itself most likely only emerged from a pre-Yamna population at least two steps back (i.e. via a developmental period in the Balkans).

I suspect the situation in Iberia was most likely the result of what I think would be more accurately identified as an internal conflict between two strands of Bell Beaker, with the Northern EHG-infused (R1b-dominated) strand coming out on top. For various reasons I also suspect that this conflict arose only after a conflict between Bell Beaker and Corded Ware communities along Corded Ware's Southern and Western flanks.

----------


## halfalp

> Sorry for this answer to Halftap which could have been posted in anthropology rather than here.


You deserve an half tap on your shoulder! More seriously, i didn't know how to define the skull if brachycephale or mesocephale. But being a Mesolithic specimen, isn't it interesting to be in the spectrum of non-dolicocephaly this early? When Farming wasn't even a thing from the time? And knowing that Brachycephaly in Europe seems to come always from the Balkans...

----------


## MOESAN

> You deserve an half tap on your shoulder! More seriously, i didn't know how to define the skull if brachycephale or mesocephale. But being a Mesolithic specimen, isn't it interesting to be in the spectrum of non-dolicocephaly this early? When Farming wasn't even a thing from the time? And knowing that Brachycephaly in Europe seems to come always from the Balkans...


cephalic index: breadth on length - here only bets because no tools and no skull in my hands! An index old scientists abused of spite a lot of other indexes have importance too, without to speak of shapes.
BTW signs of neat brachycephalisation appeared between 8000 and 6000 BC in western Alps too. The causes are still discussed. the French Charles thought 'dinaric' was an evolution of a 'brnnlike' phylum in mountains close to sea (Western Balkans). Not the Coon 's opinion. I have only vague thoughts, no sound opinion.

----------


## halfalp

An interesting article for the actual topic: _https://indo-european.eu/2018/11/a-v...ably-r1b-l151/_

----------


## Cpluskx

Off-topic but reading about skull shapes in Anatolia, there doesn't seem to be a change until 2000 BC (brachy Hittites) well after Indo-European merchant names from Armi. Doesn't seem to be compatible with Balkan invasion theory.

----------


## Joey37

I wouldn't use anything from the Quiles site as information; the man's anti-R1a bigotry is off-putting (seriously, did Razib Khan throw him into a garbage can when he was a teenager?), strident refusal to connect M417 to Proto-Indo-European is almost farcical; did the 'master race' R1b-L51 magically convert all the C. Europe Uralic hillbilly R1as to Indo-European and have no influence of their 'original' tongue on the resultant dialects that emerged. Uralic languages are very distinct and agglutinative; where is the trace of this on the Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian group?

----------


## Sile

> It ain't gonna be R1a - I do think R1b is a possibility though, even if it isn't the most likely based on what evidence we do have. Also, Soqotri is a different case due to its obviously high levels of isolation. With the whole of Iraq, that argument doesn't hold on.


this , it was to be either R1b or R1a is a joke right !................there where many ydna haplogroups in the place where PIE was created, everyone under haplogroup IJK was between the 2 seas and the steppe

----------


## markod

> I wouldn't use anything from the Quiles site as information; the man's anti-R1a bigotry is off-putting (seriously, did Razib Khan throw him into a garbage can when he was a teenager?), strident refusal to connect M417 to Proto-Indo-European is almost farcical; did the 'master race' R1b-L51 magically convert all the C. Europe Uralic hillbilly R1as to Indo-European and have no influence of their 'original' tongue on the resultant dialects that emerged. Uralic languages are very distinct and agglutinative; where is the trace of this on the Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian group?


His maps and general presentation are really good. Too bad his writing comes off more like that of preacher than a scientist (which is all too common in amateur population geneticists). I always like exploring alternative hypotheses, but when there's such a strong bias it becomes difficult to read.

https://adnaera.com/ is a neat new blog with several contributors who treat the whole topic in a more objective and detached way.

----------


## Pip

The main subclades of R1b-L151 each show signs of early development around the Western and/or Southern edges of the R1a Corded Ware zone. The evidence of intrusion into Iberia appears to be limited to particular subclades of R1b-DF27 (i.e. two stages downstream of the Corded Ware stand-off). This would suggest that conflict with Corded Ware (which ended in the elimination of most of R1a-M417's Western branches and the loss of much of its territory and culture) most likely preceded the Iberian 'wipe-out'.

We can see from L151's rapid growth and dispersal that L51 people had a mobile, adventurous culture, and there is no reason to suspect that this would have been any different before L151 started to thrive. The lack of many basal branches of L51 in both the modern and archaeological data would therefore suggest that few of these adventurous groups of the earliest L51 people would have survived. There are signs (e.g. from ATP3) that people like them were rebuffed from Northern Spain. My gut instinct is that L51 clung on to a fairly perilous existence until the threat from advancing Corded Ware people in Northern France led to them being accepted by early Bell Beaker communities there as mercenaries tasked with protection, and that it was conflict with Corded Ware that brought them to the fore as military leaders. Later perhaps, and emboldened by military success in the North, they took retribution against those within the Bell Beaker network (e.g. Iberians) who chose not to cooperate with them?

I am interested in whether any evidence exists that might conflict with this hypothesis.

----------


## William Tell

> The main subclades of R1b-L151 each show signs of early development around the Western and/or Southern edges of the R1a Corded Ware zone. The evidence of intrusion into Iberia appears to be limited to particular subclades of R1b-DF27 (i.e. two stages downstream of the Corded Ware stand-off). This would suggest that conflict with Corded Ware (which ended in the elimination of most of R1a-M417's Western branches and the loss of much of its territory and culture) most likely preceded the Iberian 'wipe-out'.
> 
> We can see from L151's rapid growth and dispersal that L51 people had a mobile, adventurous culture, and there is no reason to suspect that this would have been any different before L151 started to thrive. The lack of many basal branches of L51 in both the modern and archaeological data would therefore suggest that few of these adventurous groups of the earliest L51 people would have survived. There are signs (e.g. from ATP3) that people like them were rebuffed from Northern Spain. My gut instinct is that L51 clung on to a fairly perilous existence until the threat from advancing Corded Ware people in Northern France led to them being accepted by early Bell Beaker communities there as mercenaries tasked with protection, and that it was conflict with Corded Ware that brought them to the fore as military leaders. Later perhaps, and emboldened by military success in the North, they took retribution against those within the Bell Beaker network (e.g. Iberians) who chose not to cooperate with them?
> 
> I am interested in whether any evidence exists that might conflict with this hypothesis.


Looks like mostly speculation to me, Bell Beaker is R1b like Yamnaya

----------


## Pip

> Looks like mostly speculation to me, Bell Beaker is R1b like Yamnaya


Yes, although R1b is a very wide haplogroup, and is not homogeneous. You could just as well say that Bell Beaker is R1b like West African V88.

The main bases for the hypothesis are not speculative - they are (i) where the development of the earliest subclades of the L51 branch of R1b appear from the data most likely to have occurred, (ii) that the best fit for Bell Beaker mtDNA is Cucuteni + Yamnaya + RRBP Paris Basin, (iii) that Bell Beaker aDNA is much closer to Balkan and indeed R1a Corded Ware samples than to Yamnaya, (iv) that during L51's gestation period of 1,000 years before its expansion, there are only two known branches, (v) early Bell Beaker traits are found in areas where R1b is not known to have proliferated.

I'm still interested to find out whether there is any evidence that _conflicts_ with the hypothesis.

----------


## bicicleur

who says BB is closer to CWC?
both are Yamna + EEF, which is logical when Yamna moves west into EEF territory,
but it doesn't prove BB to be close to CWC

----------


## Olympus Mons

> The main subclades of R1b-L151 each show signs of early development around the Western and/or Southern edges of the R1a Corded Ware zone. The evidence of intrusion into Iberia appears to be limited to particular subclades of R1b-DF27 (i.e. two stages downstream of the Corded Ware stand-off). This would suggest that conflict with Corded Ware (which ended in the elimination of most of R1a-M417's Western branches and the loss of much of its territory and culture) most likely preceded the Iberian 'wipe-out'.
> 
> We can see from L151's rapid growth and dispersal that L51 people had a mobile, adventurous culture, and there is no reason to suspect that this would have been any different before L151 started to thrive. The lack of many basal branches of L51 in both the modern and archaeological data would therefore suggest that few of these adventurous groups of the earliest L51 people would have survived. There are signs (e.g. from ATP3) that people like them were rebuffed from Northern Spain. My gut instinct is that L51 clung on to a fairly perilous existence until the threat from advancing Corded Ware people in Northern France led to them being accepted by early Bell Beaker communities there as mercenaries tasked with protection, and that it was conflict with Corded Ware that brought them to the fore as military leaders. Later perhaps, and emboldened by military success in the North, they took retribution against those within the Bell Beaker network (e.g. Iberians) who chose not to cooperate with them?
> 
> I am interested in whether any evidence exists that might conflict with this hypothesis.


Pip. In the absence of proof, all speculation is good.

Just a note: THis stance of bell beaker warriors is fine. However, to what iberia is concerned one must remember that IBeria was the place where fortified settlements arouse everywhere. Rest of western europe was mostly flowers and honey a that period and iberia from 3300bc to 2700bc was a swarm of arrows and fortified places.
What I mean is places (like porto torrão or Zambujal) with 20,000 people (at least) and over 400ha, with people craft on 800 years of conflict (you don't build massive defensive wall for fun) are not easily overtaken by incoming population. so, hummm, that _thingy_ of Warrior bell beakers elites... doesn't really look promising to what Iberia is concerned. SOmething else happened there.

----------


## Olympus Mons

> who says BB is closer to CWC?
> both are Yamna + EEF, which is logical when Yamna moves west into EEF territory,
> but it doesn't prove BB to be close to CWC


Hi.... why is it _Yamna + EEF_ and not _EEF + Yamna_?  :Smiling:

----------


## Pip

> who says BB is closer to CWC?
> both are Yamna + EEF, which is logical when Yamna moves west into EEF territory,
> but it doesn't prove BB to be close to CWC


If BB and CW are both identified as Yamna + EEF, then yes, it is not surprising that they are autosomally closer to each other than Yamna minus EEF.

Although I wouldn't identify them as Yamna + EEF, as this is mixing culture with autosomal DNA.

BB and CW are also more autosomally similar to each other in some other respects, e.g.
1. They both have a significantly lower CHG:EHG ratio than would be expected if either had derived from Yamna per se.
2. They both have much more variable CHG:EHG proportions than EEF:EHG proportions, indicating that their CHG components were likely to been added to their autosomal mixes more recently than their EEF components.

It looks from the data like the more Eastern people (Yamna) moved away from the more Western community that gave rise to BB and CW before this community itself split into pre-BB and pre-CW.

----------


## Pip

> Pip. In the absence of proof, all speculation is good.
> 
> Just a note: THis stance of bell beaker warriors is fine. However, to what iberia is concerned one must remember that IBeria was the place where fortified settlements arouse everywhere. Rest of western europe was mostly flowers and honey a that period and iberia from 3300bc to 2700bc was a swarm of arrows and fortified places.
> What I mean is places (like porto torrão or Zambujal) with 20,000 people (at least) and over 400ha, with people craft on 800 years of conflict (you don't build massive defensive wall for fun) are not easily overtaken by incoming population. so, hummm, that _thingy_ of Warrior bell beakers elites... doesn't really look promising to what Iberia is concerned. SOmething else happened there.


Yes. I'm not sure what though.

I suppose we mustn't necessarily discount the effect that a mass turmoil in Bell Beaker society to the North might have had on Bell Beaker society in the South. The whole Bell Beaker network might have been severely disrupted - firstly by major conflict with Corded Ware populations, and then by a new more aggressive regime taking control of the more substantial Northern areas. Sometimes even minor occurrences can trigger a chain of civil disruption and social upheaval that can precipitate collapse. The effect of World War I on Russia is an example of how entire regimes and cultures can sometimes fall quite suddenly.

----------


## bicicleur

> Hi.... why is it _Yamna + EEF_ and not _EEF + Yamna_?


Yamna + EEF, which is logical when Yamna moves west into EEF territory

----------


## bicicleur

> If BB and CW are both identified as Yamna + EEF, then yes, it is not surprising that they are autosomally closer to each other than Yamna minus EEF.
> 
> Although I wouldn't identify them as Yamna + EEF, as this is mixing culture with autosomal DNA.
> 
> BB and CW are also more autosomally similar to each other in some other respects, e.g.
> 1. They both have a significantly lower CHG:EHG ratio than would be expected if either had derived from Yamna per se.
> 2. They both have much more variable CHG:EHG proportions than EEF:EHG proportions, indicating that their CHG components were likely to been added to their autosomal mixes more recently than their EEF components.
> 
> It looks from the data like the more Eastern people (Yamna) moved away from the more Western community that gave rise to BB and CW before this community itself split into pre-BB and pre-CW.


interesting

can you provide a link where all this is explained in detail?

----------


## bicicleur

> Yes. I'm not sure what though.
> 
> I suppose we mustn't necessarily discount the effect that a mass turmoil in Bell Beaker society to the North might have had on Bell Beaker society in the South. The whole Bell Beaker network might have been severely disrupted - firstly by major conflict with Corded Ware populations, and then by a new more aggressive regime taking control of the more substantial Northern areas. Sometimes even minor occurrences can trigger a chain of civil disruption and social upheaval that can precipitate collapse. The effect of World War I on Russia is an example of how entire regimes and cultures can sometimes fall quite suddenly.


yes, there were fortifications in Iberia, even a few centuries before Iberian bell beakers appeared
but do you have reason to suppose corded ware and bell beaker folks were violent?

many neolithic settlements in Europe dissapeared prior to corded ware and also before arrival of yersenia pestis in Europe,
so for unknown reasons

----------


## Pip

> interesting
> can you provide a link where all this is explained in detail?


No, I just ran a statistical analysis on a database of samples showing on Genetiker's website.

----------


## Pip

> yes, there were fortifications in Iberia, even a few centuries before Iberian bell beakers appeared
> but do you have reason to suppose corded ware and bell beaker folks were violent?
> 
> many neolithic settlements in Europe dissapeared prior to corded ware and also before arrival of yersenia pestis in Europe,
> so for unknown reasons


When apparently small source populations like R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 spread quickly over large areas, virtually wholly replacing other populations in the process, I suspect that violence or the threat of violence usually has a part to play in this, but there may have been other important factors as well.

----------


## Terrance Stuart

Curious about who the Iberian men were that were eliminated. As to how, I would think warfare is likely a part of it, as the invading group was adept at warfare and by the time they reached the Iberian area they were very well schooled. Disease may have been a part of it as they traveled far and may have had the population mass to have inculcated disease resistance for themselves.

----------


## Pip

> Curious about who the Iberian men were that were eliminated. As to how, I would think warfare is likely a part of it, as the invading group was adept at warfare and by the time they reached the Iberian area they were very well schooled. Disease may have been a part of it as they traveled far and may have had the population mass to have inculcated disease resistance for themselves.


I don't know what Reich found, but previously-obtained data would suggest that these Iberian men were predominantly from North East Mediterranean Cardial culture stock (G2a2, E1b1b, H2, J2a1 and R1b1a2), together with a minority of prior lineages (I2 and C1).
Disease may well have played a part, although I'm not sure this would explain why the Iberian male lines seem to have been impacted to a much greater degree than the female lines.

----------


## MOESAN

ecept if the site of the resistance gene is on X-chromosome, I don't see (as says PIP) why males would be stroken very most often than females, among Neolithic people's descendants. We could think that West Europe was a bit outside the "eye" of the plague, but then Iberian males too would have escaped the most of the plague, or...?

----------


## CrazyDonkey

> Curious about who the Iberian men were that were eliminated. As to how, I would think warfare is likely a part of it, as the invading group was adept at warfare and by the time they reached the Iberian area they were very well schooled. Disease may have been a part of it as they traveled far and may have had the population mass to have inculcated disease resistance for themselves.


Plague often accompanies famine. The invaders would have captured food stores and controlled land (for food production), disbursing it to their favorites and clients. Native women would have been more likely to be taken as wives or personal servants, and fed, while native men would have been more likely to be enslaved, and thus underfed, if not simply killed or left to starve. This discrepancy would have been even greater in the case of a strongly male-biased invasion. Polygamy would have accentuated it.

----------


## CrazyDonkey

On the combined effects of polygamy, primogeniture, and the price of brides:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...-cons-polygamy




> A man who takes more than one wife satisfies some of his sexual urges, signals his high social status, and generally feels happier about himself. His many children supply him with a ready source of labor, and the means, through arranged marriages, to forge multiple social, economic, and political alliances. Polygyny may be costly, but in the long term, it can make a rich man richer.





> Polygyny might even benefit the women involved, who may come to enjoy one another’s company and share out the burdens of housekeeping and childrearing. Younger wives may add to the social standing of the first wife, while at the same time reducing her workload.





> Polygyny also has many drawbacks, particularly when seen through a modern, western lens. First and foremost, it sanctions and perpetuates gender inequality, with co-wives officially and patently subordinated to their husband. Women in polygynous unions tend to marry at a younger age, into a setup that, by its very nature, fosters jealousy, competition, and conflict, with instances of co-wives poisoning one another’s offspring in a bid to advantage their own. Although the husband ought in principle to treat his co-wives equally, in practice he will almost inevitably favor one over the others—most likely the youngest, most recent one.





> While polygyny may benefit the men involved, it denies wives to other men, especially young, low-status men, who tend to measure their success by their manhood, that is, by the twin parameters of social status and fertility. _With little to lose, these frustrated men are much more likely to turn to crime and violence, including sexual violence and warmongering._





> All this is only aggravated by the brideprice, a payment from the groom to the bride’s family. Brideprice is a frequent feature of polygynous unions and is intended to compensate the bride’s family for the loss of a pair of hands. Divorce typically requires that the brideprice be returned, forcing many women to remain in miserable or abusive marriages. If polygamous unions are common, the resulting shortage of brides inflates the brideprice, raising the age at which young men can afford to marry while incentivizing families to hive off their daughters at the soonest opportunity, even at the cost of interrupting their education. _Brideprice if often paid in cows, and, to afford a bride, young men may resort to cattle raids and other forms of crime._





> Polygyny also tends to disadvantage the offspring. On the one hand, children in polygamous families share in the genes of an alpha male and stand to benefit from his protection, resources, influence, outlook, and expertise. But on the other hand, their mothers are younger and less educated, and they receive a divided share of their father’s attention, which may be directed at his latest wife, or at amassing resources for his next one.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-wives-hearts/




> The growth of polygamy and social inequality in the late Iron Age meant that richer men took many wives, or concubines, causing an inbalance in the male-female sex ratio.
> 
> Suddenly young poor men had little chance of securing a wife unless they became rich and well-known quickly, says Prof Collard. _And raiding was a shortcut to heroism and treasure_, he believes.





> “In a population where just a few powerful older men are able to have multiple concubines you end up with a large number of young single men quite rapidly. Some men would have two to three wives, but the Norse sagas say that some princes had limitless numbers.
> 
> “So raiding was a way to build up wealth and power. _Men could gain a place in society, and the chance for wives if they took part in raids and proved their masculinity and came back wealthy._
> 
> _“Because polygynous marriage increases male-male competition by creating a pool of unmarried men, it increases risky status-elevating behaviour.”_





> Recent studies found that aggression rises when there is a shift in the male-female sex ratio and where the percentage of unmarried men is greater, the rates of rape, murder, assault, theft and fraud also rise.
> 
> New research has also shown that Yanomamo tribes in South America resort to inter-village raiding for polygamous marriages.





> And the archaeological evidence of the graves of Viking raiding parties also suggests that sailors were young males, rather than seasoned soldiers.





> “It is possible that the combined effects of polygyny, concubinage and social stratification simply reached a tipping point that led to a surge in raiding.
> 
> _“With elite men monopolising an increasing percentage of women, many low-status men would have found it difficult to marry unless they were willing to engage in risky activites to improve wealth and status.”_

----------


## hrvclv

@CrazyDonkey

Your quotes remind me of the Irish legends that describe the life and feats of Fionn of the Fianna. Though they are filled with supernatural events that seem to deprive them of historical significance, some aspects of those narratives are corroborated by reliable sources. They suggest that in early medieval Ireland, a form of local _ver sacrum_ still existed, which didn't imply exploring new territories, but simply living off the land, hunting and warring, while at the same time providing a mercenary force for the High King or the nobility. Here is what wiki says about those _Fianna_ :

_The historical institution of the fiann is known from references in early medieval Irish law tracts. A fiann was made up of landless young men and women, often young aristocrats who had not yet come into their inheritance of land. A member of a fiann was called a fénnid; the leader of a fiann was a rígfénnid (literally "king-fénnid).

Geoffrey Keating, in his 17th-century History of Ireland, says that during the winter the fianna were quartered and fed by the nobility, during which time they would keep order on their behalf, but during the summer, from Beltaine to Samhain, they were obliged to live by hunting for food and for pelts to sell. Keating's History is more a compilation of traditions than a reliable history, but in this case scholars point to references in early Irish poetry and the existence of a closed hunting season for deer and wild boar between Samhain and Beltaine in medieval Scotland as corroboration._

In the legends, Fionn Mac Cumhail (Finn McCool) and his men die because their team of super-warriors has become so efficient and self-sufficient that they get to be seen as a threat by the central power. So the High King looses all his armies on them, and the Fianna are outnumbered, massacred and scattered.

----------


## MOESAN

the today Y-R1b in Iberia: apart Basque country and Catalonya, their %'s are between 50% and 66%, roughly said. Yes, they are high %s. But could I believe that at the Chalco-Bronze Age transition, R1b reached the 98% everywhere in Iberia? In far South? Could I?
All males slaughtered? Eveywhere? So dense was the population that there reminds no refuge lands to shelter?
Or my brain is turning into rotted cabbage, or there are some exagerations in these affirmations.
This does not exclude there has been a huge change there at these dates, and a big desequilibrium in mating power for males...

----------


## firetown

> the today Y-R1b in Iberia: apart Basque country and Catalonya, their %'s are between 50% and 66%, roughly said. Yes, they are high %s. But could I believe that at the Chalco-Bronze Age transition, R1b reached the 98% everywhere in Iberia? In far South? Could I?
> All males slaughtered? Eveywhere? So dense was the population that there reminds no refuge lands to shelter?
> Or my brain is turning into rotted cabbage, or there are some exagerations in these affirmations.
> This does not exclude there has been a huge change there at these dates, and a big desequilibrium in mating power for males...


They went into hiding and then what? Were there women with them? Did they have offspring? Probably not. The invaders were not farmers. They were in the business of finding whatever they could plunder.

----------


## Riverman

Actually its tricky to assume that, just because the same haplogroup is well and alive in a region which lived there thousands of years before, there was continuity. The shift in Iberia goes beyond the replacement by R1b, because a lot of the other male lineages came in later, with Celts, Phoenicians, Romans, Sarmatians, Germanics, Moors, French and even modern migratory movements. If you pin down what survived from the pre-steppe pool, its meagre. Even some lineages we find among BB which were not R1b might have been actually from Southern France or the Alpine region, rather than local. 
Firetown is right, most of the males were killed or enslaved on the spot, but most likely not everywhere. Because I doubt there was a rule to it, so local clans, chiefs and the situation determined the outcome. But overall little was spared, that's an established fact by now and unequal mating opportunities or the like don't explain the drastic replacement. This is just a hypothesis, a last resort for those which don't like the idea of the past being a gruesome battlefield for most of the time. But that's how it was, even long before the steppe people moved West. Polygyny seems to have been not that common among BB, but even if it would have been, the results and the shift are too extreme. Whereever a people just dominated to become the elite, even with all the social advantages, the local lineages being much better preserved. Look at Iran or South Asia. Or at the Lombards and Goths, the Romans etc. They all did dominate, they all did reproduce at a higher level, but they never got even close at all, nowhere, without actually finishing off local males en masse.

----------


## New Englander

I wonder if it was the type of situation wheres one population ( The Steppe invaders ) brought in disease that they themselves were immune to. Think of Small Pox and Native Americans.

----------


## firetown

> I wonder if it was the type of situation wheres one population ( The Steppe invaders ) brought in disease that they themselves were immune to. Think of Small Pox and Native Americans.


Think about this:
90% of Brazilian y-DNA is European
90% of Brazilian mtDNA isn't
Whatever we have once been told regarding what exactly wiped out some populations might have been untrue

----------


## Riverman

> I wonder if it was the type of situation wheres one population ( The Steppe invaders ) brought in disease that they themselves were immune to. Think of Small Pox and Native Americans.


That's always possible. It was also possible for modern Homo sapiens when entering West Eurasia and replacing Neandertals, when Mesolithic colonisers replaced the Palaeolithic Europeans, when the Neolithic colonisation of Europe from Anatolia was happening and so on. Even the Romans used "biological warfare" against the Celts and there are hints in the bible. 

Anyway, I don't think this was the true reason. For one the steppe people needed quite some time from one end to the other of Europe. It happened fast, but not that fast. In some places where we see real strongholds of the preceding cultures, we can observe they had to move around, they had to evade them. Some places were much, much later included in the steppe dominated world. Why? 
Those seem to have did the best which adapted to the steppe people's more mobile agro-pastoralism and warfare, adopted new ideological elements and techniques. Also, a lot of the later steppe-related expansion happened with people which were themselves largely descendents from pre-steppe people. What really changed was the male lineage. So one dominant clan replaced another. 

You could even ask the same question for Bell Beakers, which themselves were less steppe-like than Corded Ware and some Eastern steppe-related groups, yet they replaced many of those steppe people too. Why? Because at that point in time, they had the advantages. Bell Beaker clans didn't just replace non-steppe people and dominated those, they also dominated, in some areas, steppe-related groups which were not strong enough. So even if there was a disease, some sort of plague, even if this did play in, it was not decisive, it was not the main cause. 

There are many hints for the plague being spread even earlier and the only thing you could say is, that it would be better, if there is such a plague, to be a mobile agro-pastoralist or pastoralist, rather than being a sedentary farmer in a big village, even urban centre. The reason should be obvious: The old settlements were build on dirt, the tells were piles of dirt. Even if they were fairly clean for their time, they were still dirty places and it was impossible to keep hygienic standards in these crowded settlements, with one house being build close to the next, with so many people living close together. 
If you are a semi-nomadic agro-pastoralist or pastoralist, living in small, moving groups, even if you are not genetically much better suited to survive the disease as an individual, your people got an advantage statistically over sedentary farmers. Then again, a lot of the non-steppe people became more mobile agro-pastoralists too, some even before the steppe people (!). Yet those were largely replaced, with the exception of their strongholds and with the exception of some big revivals here and there, too. 

In the Balkans the local lineages did, overall, better, in some other places too. But those are supposed to have been hit by the plague first. But the situation was worst for the local male lineages in places which were rather closed and not yet that developed in comparison to the Balkans and Carpathian-Pannonian region, like Britain in particular and Iberia. There is just one big difference in my opinion, and that's that it was the Bell Beaker people, which made no prisoners and that they could hunt them down in the region, without having any role or need for the local males, by and large. 
Steppe people did not always replace that much of the locals, they did not always kill all the males - even BB did not. But the BB did kill more, they did replace at a higher rate and more successful even than most steppe people.




> Think about this:
> 90% of Brazilian y-DNA is European
> 90% of Brazilian mtDNA isn't
> Whatever we have once been told regarding what exactly wiped out some populations might have been untrue


The disease factor was much stronger in the Americas by the way, because this was an isolated continent and a different race of people. In Europe the difference was not that big and the isolation from each other not that strong. so if a plague hit one group, it did hit the other as well and at least almost as strong. In Latin America the advantage of the mixed people over the pure Amerindians was genetically much bigger, if its about resistance and social selection by phenotype, than in Europe, where the differences were much, much smaller between conquerors and conquered.

----------


## Angela

Have our new members bothered to read the thread? 

We've gone over and over this.

If you want to repeat it, by all means, of course; more hits for Maciamo's site.

----------


## Regio X

> Think about this:
> 90% of Brazilian y-DNA is European
> 90% of Brazilian mtDNA isn't
> Whatever we have once been told regarding what exactly wiped out some populations might have been untrue


IIRC, the % of European mtDNA in Brazil is between 30 and 35%, but it's true that the country received many European immigrants from XIX century onwards. Don't remember the % of Euro Y-DNA. 

As for plague, I guess the following is the study (or at least one of them) that theorized it may have played a role. But apparently they recognized that the "smoking gun" for the theory was not found yet.

"Ancient plague may have wiped out Stone Age farmers in Europe"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8670986.html

The paper:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...674(18)31464-8

----------


## Carlos

Some results of El Argar, are from a few months ago, so it is possible that you have more matches but I have seen that they have removed El Argar from the creation of kits, why? Why they treat everything Iberian as a taboo, I am already up to the hat not to say anything else. 

I don't see so much disappearance of a pre-yamayaya man

----------


## firetown

> IIRC, the % of European mtDNA in Brazil is between 30 and 35%, but it's true that the country received many European immigrants from XIX century onwards. Don't remember the % of Euro Y-DNA. 
> As for plague, I guess the following is the study (or at least one of them) that theorized it may have played a role. But apparently they recognized that the "smoking gun" for the theory was not found yet.
> "Ancient plague may have wiped out Stone Age farmers in Europe"
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8670986.html
> The paper:
> https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...674(18)31464-8


Ancient plague may have impacted people who are Rh negative less if we follow the pattern of diseases of viral origin. Blood type frequencies in Europe could have been altered by the plague. Even in the case of COVID-19, the pattern seems to be continued with lower numbers of infected individuals dying among those with Rh(D) negative blood types.
Covid-19 blood group distributions.jpg
COVID-19 deaths: 1 out of 45 Rh- and 1 out of 8 Rh+ patients (NYP/CUIMC)

----------


## Riverman

> IIRC, the % of European mtDNA in Brazil is between 30 and 35%, but it's true that the country received many European immigrants from XIX century onwards. Don't remember the % of Euro Y-DNA. 
> As for plague, I guess the following is the study (or at least one of them) that theorized it may have played a role. But apparently they recognized that the "smoking gun" for the theory was not found yet.
> "Ancient plague may have wiped out Stone Age farmers in Europe"
> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-a8670986.html
> The paper:
> https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...674(18)31464-8


Another aspect why the "plague hypothesis" as the major explanation is failing: Where did the steppe males got all the healthy, fertile young local females from, if the plague "wiped out Stone Age farmers in Europe"? A plague could only have weakened the local population somewhat more than the steppe people and even that is not proven yet.




> Ancient plague may have impacted people who are Rh negative less if we follow the pattern of diseases of viral origin. Blood type frequencies in Europe could have been altered by the plague. Even in the case of COVID-19, the pattern seems to be continued with lower numbers of infected individuals dying among those with Rh(D) negative blood types.


Other bloodgroup factors played in too, always and even now with Covid-19. Bloodgroup B might have spread in various ways, just to give a hint. But in the end every bloodgroup has advantages to some diseases and disadvantages to others.

----------


## firetown

> Another aspect why the "plague hypothesis" as the major explanation is failing: Where did the steppe males got all the healthy, fertile young local females from, if the plague "wiped out Stone Age farmers in Europe"? A plague could only have weakened the local population somewhat more than the steppe people and even that is not proven yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Other bloodgroup factors played in too, always and even now with Covid-19. Bloodgroup B might have spread in various ways, just to give a hint. But in the end every bloodgroup has advantages to some diseases and disadvantages to others.


Yes, I know, but thanks for the "hint". Overall, B hasn't spread significantly in Europe. The overall advantages seem to lie in O.

----------


## Riverman

> Yes, I know, but thanks for the "hint". Overall, B hasn't spread significantly in Europe. The overall advantages seem to lie in O.


Depends on the diesease in question: 



> Type O blood group is associated with increased incidence of plague, cholera, mumps, and tuberculosis infections; type A blood group is associated with increased incidence of smallpox and _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ infection; type B blood group is associated with increased incidence of gonorrhea, tuberculosis, _Streptococcus pneumoniae_, _E. coli_, and _salmonella_ infections; and type AB blood group is associated with increased incidence of smallpox, _E. coli_, and _salmonella_ infections.


Table 2 is quite informative: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061611/

Leprosy is not mentioned in this study, but in older ones there was a relationship with blood groups postulated as well: 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00376-0061.pdf

But you are right, blood type 0 might have been advantaged in face of the plague and 0 is actually more common in Western Europe. B is more common in the East. Do you know of a statistical summary of the bloodtypes of European foragers, Neolithics and steppe people for a comparison?

Edit: I saw you were deep into that subject years ago already, so I guess you know all this  :Good Job:

----------


## firetown

> Depends on the diesease in question: 
> 
> 
> Table 2 is quite informative: 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061611/
> 
> Leprosy is not mentioned in this study, but in older ones there was a relationship with blood groups postulated as well: 
> ...


Unfortunately only the one by Matthieson ( https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stayn...ient-europe-2/ ) and this one that needs translating:
https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/map...powego-krwi-rh
There are a few studies out there on life-expectancy based on blood type and I remember the European one showing lowest for B and the Asian one highest for B.

----------


## firetown

> Depends on the diesease in question: 
> 
> 
> Table 2 is quite informative: 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...ort=objectonly
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061611/
> 
> Leprosy is not mentioned in this study, but in older ones there was a relationship with blood groups postulated as well: 
> ...


Haha... no... some, far from all. :)

----------


## Riverman

> Unfortunately only the one by Matthieson ( https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stayn...ient-europe-2/ ) and this one that needs translating:
> https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl/map...powego-krwi-rh
> There are a few studies out there on life-expectancy based on blood type and I remember the European one showing lowest for B and the Asian one highest for B.


Thanks for the links. This would be big if true: 



> If we compute expected phenotypic frequencies, this suggests that around around 65% of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers would have been type O, compared to around 40% in present-day Europeans, and around 40% of Steppe-ancestry individuals would have been Rh-, compared to around 24% of hunter-gatherers, 4% of early farmers, and about 16% of present-day Europeans.


https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stayn...ient-europe-2/

Because if this is true, it would mean that pre-steppe and mixed males would have had a higher probability of causing a problematic pregnancy in steppe ancestry women. I doubt all steppe people would have had the same frequency, but for some this could have been an issue. It might have been even interpreted as a bad omen and fate for such matings. Never read that steppe ancestry was related to increased Rh- before.

----------


## firetown

> Thanks for the links. This would be big if true: 
> 
> 
> https://www.rhesusnegative.net/stayn...ient-europe-2/
> 
> Because if this is true, it would mean that pre-steppe and mixed males would have had a higher probability of causing a problematic pregnancy in steppe ancestry women. I doubt all steppe people would have had the same frequency, but for some this could have been an issue. It might have been even interpreted as a bad omen and fate for such matings. Never read that steppe ancestry was related to increased Rh- before.


Absolutely. I had contacted Mathieson myself and know for a fact he has seen the questions. I asked for specific answers related to methods of coming up with these numbers. He hasn't replied to me.
However:
It would make sense looking at high frequency of Rh(D) negative phenotype among offspring. Northern Ireland 27%+, parts of Scotland 30% and above. 
It would be interesting to know the blood type frequencies among the Proto-Basques though before and after the Proto-Celtic invasion.
I also have to consider the possibility that the Rh(D) negative frequencies differed between the Yamnaya who went out to conquer and those who stayed behind.

----------


## Riverman

> I also have to consider the possibility that the Rh(D) negative frequencies differed between the Yamnaya who went out to conquer and those who stayed behind.


The high frequency of Rh- in Basques is really interesting, since they largely kept the LBA-Iron Age ancestry of Iberian Beakers with just little admixture. I really doubt that the frequency of Rh- was the same for all steppe people, though its possible. Some tribes might have gone up, others down in numbers. For those up in numbers (how about Bell Beaker?!), this would be a big issue with foreign/mixed males.

----------


## firetown

> The high frequency of Rh- in Basques is really interesting, since they largely kept the LBA-Iron Age ancestry of Iberian Beakers with just little admixture. I really doubt that the frequency of Rh- was the same for all steppe people, though its possible. Some tribes might have gone up, others down in numbers. For those up in numbers (how about Bell Beaker?!), this would be a big issue with foreign/mixed males.


This may be considered "out there" by many, but there are plenty of studies showing health (mental and physical) differences between those with Rh negative and those with positive phenotypes. Personality traits have been strongly indicated likely based on genes more frequent among Rh negatives (common ancestry traits?). So when someone refers to the "wanderlust gene" for example (The DRD4-7R gene affects the brain's dopamine levels, which in turn shapes your behaviour and motivation, which leads to increased risk taking), I see a possibility that this gene may be more present in people who are Rh(D) negative.

----------


## Regio X

> Ancient plague may have impacted people who are Rh negative less if we follow the pattern of diseases of viral origin. Blood type frequencies in Europe could have been altered by the plague. Even in the case of COVID-19, the pattern seems to be continued with lower numbers of infected individuals dying among those with Rh(D) negative blood types.
> Covid-19 blood group distributions.jpg
> COVID-19 deaths: 1 out of 45 Rh- and 1 out of 8 Rh+ patients (NYP/CUIMC)


Yes, I'm aware of RH- being way more common among Steppe people. If it's true it may protect against plague, as blood type O possibly, I wonder if it would have been positively selected in Steppe even before the migrations, for this very reason, apart other possible genes favoring immunity. Also, could this factor have been a problem especially in the first peaceful contacts? If I'm not mistaken, early Steppe people were already rich in "farmer" mtDNA, no? T, H, J... Not sure about K (perhaps some types came from "farmers" too), since it was already present in Mesolithic Europe, I guess.
There's also ABO incompatibility. It may cause pathological jaundice in newborns, but the effects are less common and usually mild compared to RH incompatibility effects. 
Anyway, this is speculative. The factors involved must have been several, from climate change to violence and possibly others. Plus, again: as that researcher said, it's still lacking the "smoking gun" for their theory.

Firetown, btw, Riverman said you were deep into the subject, so I have a question. A is also a phynotype, associated either to genotype AA or AO. If O (always OO, naturally) has some advantage over A in certain aspects, could it be possible that AO genotype has some advantage over AA? 
I know both my parents are AO because their phenotypes are A at the same time I have a brother who is O. Checking this sheet and my own 23andMe results, I guess I'm AO as well. (If anyone decide to check it too, notice that the Orientation of these SNPs at SNPedia is "minus".)

@Riverman
Yeah. Directly killing by the plague, in isolation, apparently could not explain this huge decline. It was perhaps part of the story, but not all the story. "If" it played some important role, it possibly did it by weakening those societies, as you suggested.
Resistence to Covid-19 is perhaps related to resistence to HIV and plague too, and it's interesting to notice a sex bias, given the fact that the genetics of immunity involves the X. I shared this link in another thread, and it may interest you:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...u-to-covid-19/

As for Basques, not sure, but perhaps a founder effect? (Interestingly, they have a very high frequency of R1b, and a relatively high frequency of mtDNA U as well.)

----------


## Riverman

For most infectious diseases women have an advantage over men. This was long known and was particularly important for newborns and young children. Females have better chances of surviving infectious diseases and bad living conditions overall for a variety of reasons from hormonal status, behavioural and personality variation, to double X-chromosome. 
But I don't think R1b in Basques is that much because of a big founder effect at all, even if their subclades show proof for such as well. They are the direct heirs of Iberian Bell Beakers. Its no coincidence that those which had more later admixture and cultural influences also have lower R1b levels. Iberians preserved the Iron Age BB-related ancestry the best, R1b is just one element which proves it.

----------


## Regio X

> For most infectious diseases women have an advantage over men. This was long known and was particularly important for newborns and young children. Females have better chances of surviving infectious diseases and bad living conditions overall for a variety of reasons from hormonal status, behavioural and personality variation, to double X-chromosome. 
> But I don't think R1b in Basques is that much because of a big founder effect at all, even if their subclades show proof for such as well. They are the direct heirs of Iberian Bell Beakers. Its no coincidence that those which had more later admixture and cultural influences also have lower R1b levels. Iberians preserved the Iron Age BB-related ancestry the best, R1b is just one element which proves it.


I was more focused in the founder effect/genetic drift as a possible explanation for the unusual high RH- frequency among Basques, but ok, my mention to R1b implied a possible correlation. Not sure how these features are distributed in Basque Country, i.e., if there're relevant "regional" differences. Despite this unusual high frequency of RH-, and perhaps blood type O (?), they also have an unusual high frequency of LP, way higher than non-Basque Iberians'.Well, Gipuzkoa province has a very high frequency of R1b (~85%). There could be a correlation if it also had the highest LP %, RH- % etc., which I'm not sure of. 
Anyway, this supposed genetic drif in Basques has been theorized for a long time. This is from 2005, for example:
"In addition, the Basques demonstrate peculiarities regarding the distribution of various inherited diseases (i.e., unusual frequencies or founding effects). Taken together, these data support the idea of an ancient and still relatively unmixed population subjected to genetic drift. "
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...lian_Disorders 

Or this:
"Heterozygosity vs. rii analysis using data from classical genetic markers in the same 14 European populations demonstrates that the Basques fall below the theoretical regression line, suggesting that they have experienced significant genetic drift but little gene flow (Figure 43), thus perhaps accounting for their genetic distinction."
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstr...393_DATA_1.pdf

----------


## firetown

> Firetown, btw, Riverman said you were deep into the subject, so I have a question. A is also a phynotype, associated either to genotype AA or AO. If O (always OO, naturally) has some advantage over A in certain aspects, could it be possible that AO genotype has some advantage over AA? 
> I know both my parents are AO because their phenotypes are A at the same time I have a brother who is O. Checking this sheet and my own 23andMe results, I guess I'm AO as well. (If anyone decide to check it too, notice that the Orientation of these SNPs at SNPedia is "minus".)


Unfortunately, there is very little information or studies, but based on many related studies, I have come to conclude that those who are AO and BO are significantly healthier than those who are AA and BB. There can be two reasons:

*a) Heterozygote advantage*

This has been shown in many fields, among others Rh positive heterzygotes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728066/
A strong advantage over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes
But all of this depends on the diseases. If you look at infections of viral origin for example, being rh negative appears to be of great advantage, especially being O negative.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0141362
RhD negative subjects have increased the risk of developing of certain heart diseases, respiratory diseases and some immunity and autoimmunity related diseases, for example rheumatoid arthritis. The general pattern suggests that RhD negative subjects could have problems with autoimmunity, could be more resistant to infections of viral origin and could be less resistant to infections of bacterial origin.

*What this doesn't seem to consider is the fact that we live unhealthy lives. It isn't necessarily a bad thing to react stronger to toxins. Not if we listen to our bodies rather than ignoring warning signs. A mix of a robust (temporarily) protective nature combined with the more sensitive canary in the coalmine one, people tend to adjust better to whatever is dealt. Wherever the gene deletion occurred and done well first is likely where conditions were ideal for those who had our blood types first.
*
*b) While alleles carry functions (in Rh proteins for example transport of gasses, CO2, O2, also toxins), their presence can also be a magnet for health risks.* For example, in malaria, type O conveys protection because RIFIN, a protein secreted by parasites, bonds weakly with type O blood cells while strongly linking to type A. In the case of COVID-19, it appears that blood clotting risks are lifted for blood type O as the risk of clotting significantly decreases. Having AO or BO lightens the load if you will. Overall, those with blood type AB tend to do worst on most levels. Even mental health wise:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343596/
The mandatory absence of O (unlike they are cisAB/O which is very rare) contributes. 

Sensitivity is actually an advantage. Being more robust can lead to absorbing toxins and be unaware of what will turn out fatal at one point.* A can have a protective function in terms of tolerance in your case, but the nature of O keeps you on your toes if you will. 
*
Btw., I do not believe O was "first", but also that just like with Rh negative blood, O is the result of a gene deletion which was beneficial. It can carry disadvantages and contribute sensitive reactions towards all sorts of intruders/toxins, but when kept "clean", will do better. 
*Genotype distributions in Europe*OO: 42 percentAO: 38 percentAA: 8.4 percentBO: 8 percentBB:0.36 percentAB: 7 percent

You are definitely AO. As am I. Are you AO+ or -?

----------


## Regio X

> Unfortunately, there is very little information or studies, but based on many related studies, I have come to conclude that those who are AO and BO are significantly healthier than those who are AA and BB. There can be two reasons:
> 
> *a) Heterozygote advantage*
> 
> This has been shown in many fields, among others Rh positive heterzygotes
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4728066/
> A strong advantage over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes
> But all of this depends on the diseases. If you look at infections of viral origin for example, being rh negative appears to be of great advantage, especially being O negative.
> https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0141362
> ...


These are very interesting infos. Thank you.

As for when the deletion ocurred, a curiosity is that these variations may be observed in primates.

"Chimpanzees have been found thus far to have primarily type A blood, with type O less commonly. Gorillas appear to be exclusively type B. Orangutans express all three blood types."
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/...and-prevalence
Monkey Rhesus would be exclusively B, as Gorillas.

I guess the prevalence of one over the others may be sometimes related to environment/selection (as possibly RH- in Steppe?), founder effects etc.

As for blood type in my family, in theory my parents, as AO, would have 25% of chances of having an AA child, but I'm AO after all, according to 23andMe Raw Data. My parents and my siblings are all RH+, as myself, my wife (O+) and my son (A+). However, my O+ brother has an O- daughter, which means that he's heterozygous. The odds are that just one of my parents is RH heterozygous, since they had 5 children, and all RH+.

----------


## Duarte

Post moved to the right thread: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...egative-factor

----------


## firetown

> These are very interesting infos. Thank you.
> 
> As for when the deletion ocurred, a curiosity is that these variations may be observed in primates.
> 
> "Chimpanzees have been found thus far to have primarily type A blood, with type O less commonly. Gorillas appear to be exclusively type B. Orangutans express all three blood types."
> https://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/...and-prevalence
> Monkey Rhesus would be exclusively B, as Gorillas.
> 
> *I guess the prevalence of one over the others may be sometimes related to environment/selection (as possibly RH- in Steppe?).
> ...


Right. Let's assume that Rh negative blood came about around the same time as blue eyes did, 7k ybp present maybe around the Black Sea region. The land later claimed by the Yamnaya. I am very much drawn to such logic due to certain rare occurrences such as central heterochromia being more common in people with rh negative blood, same like red/reddish/auburn hair. It is as if there is more of a tendency to show recessive traits as well. This is tough to explain, but there are studies that will not get accepted showing such facts, however, the editors of scientific journals will not accept them without explanation why (which is the reason why in discussion parts of studies the scientists often go haywire with theories hoping to please editors enough to get their studies in).

This is probably wrong, but again: oxygen transport may be problematic for us rh negatives and ridding our bodies of toxins as well. Night-sweats when sick are common and most of all, an ammonia smell. Toxic/acidic sweat is as well. 

This is not fantasy or fabrication. I have been working on this for years and the evidence is overwhelming. Left-handedness also for example is extremely high among rh negatives. 

In order for the mutation to have survived and done well, the environment must have been ideal. Sea level, by the sea or ocean, plenty of oxygen supply. High anemia frequencies also point to lack of diet once enjoyed in ideal environment (plenty of seafood?).

Unfortunately today's environment is not ideal for the most part. Maybe in Basque region where rh negatives are frequent. Temperature, close to the sea. Pyrenees elevation may not be, but overall the rest seems to make up for it.

So even though I was a part of that study about health differences, I now always point out that under ideal conditions, rh negatives may do better health-wise. It's just that the gene deletion took place and done well under conditions no longer present.

----------


## firetown

> me: A rh+. My wife: A rh-. My son: A rh-. My mother: A rh+. My father: O rh+.


you:

AO rh+/-

----------


## Regio X

deleted by the poster

Read wrongly Duarte's post.

----------


## firetown

*In short:
*The common terminologies used are to the effect of "Rh negatives are less healthy" and I strongly disagree with that. I turn this around to us being healthy, but living in an environment, eating food etc. that isn't healthy. We react stronger and natural to an unnatural environment.
*Canaries in the coalmine:
*The initial impact is stronger and more severe, but in the end, whatever affects us more visibly, effects everyone else eventually.

----------


## Duarte

Post moved to the right thread: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...egative-factor

----------


## Regio X

> Right. Let's assume that Rh negative blood came about around the same time as blue eyes did, 7k ybp present maybe around the Black Sea region. The land later claimed by the Yamnaya. I am very much drawn to such logic due to certain rare occurrences such as central heterochromia being more common in people with rh negative blood, same like red/reddish/auburn hair. It is as if there is more of a tendency to show recessive traits as well. This is tough to explain, but there are studies that will not get accepted showing such facts, however, the editors of scientific journals will not accept them without explanation why (which is the reason why in discussion parts of studies the scientists often go haywire with theories hoping to please editors enough to get their studies in).
> 
> This is probably wrong, but again: oxygen transport may be problematic for us rh negatives and ridding our bodies of toxins as well. Night-sweats when sick are common and most of all, an ammonia smell. Toxic/acidic sweat is as well. 
> 
> This is not fantasy or fabrication. I have been working on this for years and the evidence is overwhelming. Left-handedness also for example is extremely high among rh negatives. 
> 
> In order for the mutation to have survived and done well, the environment must have been ideal. Sea level, by the sea or ocean, plenty of oxygen supply. High anemia frequencies also point to lack of diet once enjoyed in ideal environment (plenty of seafood?).
> 
> Unfortunately today's environment is not ideal for the most part. Maybe in Basque region where rh negatives are frequent. Temperature, close to the sea. Pyrenees elevation may not be, but overall the rest seems to make up for it.
> ...


It seems RH- is way older than our species.

----------


## firetown

> Yes. Conclusion: I am heterozygous in the RH factor and I am heterozygous in the ABO classification system. This means that I am more healthy? I don’t Know


Rh blood group system wise for the most part.
ABO wise it depends. As I have posted above, when it comes to COVID-19, malaria and a few others, being phenotype A may carry some disadvantages.

By the way:

In European populations Rh positive heterozygotes seem most frequent over rh negative and rh positive homozygotes.




> Our study compared the health status of RhD negative subjects (16% in general population of Czech and Slovak Republics) with RhD positive subjects, i.e., with the health status of mixed population of RhD positive homozygotes (36% of the general populations within the Czech and Slovak Republics) and *heterozygotes (48%* the general populations in the Czech and Slovak Republics).


https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0141362

----------


## firetown

> It seems RH- is way older than our species.


It could be, but mind you, in Africa and Asia, rh negatives tend to not have complete deletions of D. It is entirely possible that we are not talking about one common rh negative ancestor, but several over completely different eras and areas.

d-negative.jpg

----------


## Duarte

Post moved to the right thread: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...egative-factor

----------


## Salento

edit: deleted: wrong thread, lol

----------


## Carlos

My father is -A, I am AB +, I know that one of my brothers is O

When I had to have blood transfusions I preferred and asked that it be AB or B, I noticed a difference when it was only A, I was not satisfied enough, something was missing. It may seem incredible, but it is.

----------


## Regio X

Out of curiosity:
"The research, carried out in collaboration with the IRCCS San Camillo Hospital Foundation in Venice, shows that *people with an ‘O’ blood type have more grey matter in their brain, which helps to protect against diseases such as Alzheimer’s, than those with ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘AB’ blood types*."
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/...sease-1.469296

See also:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...61923015000805

----------


## Duarte

Post moved to the right thread: 
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...egative-factor

----------


## Regio X

> Dear Regio X, 
> Maybe my dad is a point off the curve, then. Intelligent, politicized, cultured, a great classical music lover, he gave me classes in public accounting and balance sheet analysis, when I knew nothing about it, providing me with a wide range of books and preparing exercises to train me. I owe a big part of my personal and professional success to him. He retired and remained a great devourer of books and newspapers. Sometimes I had a hard time keeping up with his quick thinking. At 80 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. At 84 he was admitted, when his brain could no longer control even his breathing. He died after 3 months in an ICU. I am flattered when the paternal and maternal family members say that I am the son who most resembles him physically: “The father's features and the mother's skin tone”. He was blood type O, factor RH +. According to the doctor, he resisted because he was a strong man with a healthy heart, who insisted on continuing to beat. My biggest fear: Having Alzheimer and dying the same way he died 
> Cheers


I'm really sorry for your father, Duarte.

The irony is that I have plenty blood type A in family and no association to Alzheimer.
Anyway, the study shows a tendency, as you know. It's a sampling of O people vs. sampling of A, B and AB. So blood type is probably a factor, but there must be others involved, such for example mutations in APOE gene, lifestyle/habits etc.
Perhaps you don't inherited this propensity from your father. Either way, you're still young, and medicine is evolving rapidly. ;)

Cheers

----------


## Carlos

My father -A raised me so that he knew what it was to not have a father, I learned it and understood that nobody and nothing could destroy me, not even myself.

----------


## firetown

> Out of curiosity:
> "The research, carried out in collaboration with the IRCCS San Camillo Hospital Foundation in Venice, shows that *people with an ‘O’ blood type have more grey matter in their brain, which helps to protect against diseases such as Alzheimer’s, than those with ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘AB’ blood types*."
> https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/...sease-1.469296
> See also:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...61923015000805


Lately I see many new studies showing AB as having it the worst:



> The results of this study support the hypothesis of a significant association between psychiatric disorders and ABO blood groups: more specifically, there is an increased tendency for patients with AB blood group to develop psychiatric disorders. It was found that the likelihood of developing a psychiatric disorder is almost three times higher in individuals with AB blood group than in those with other blood groups in the Croatian population.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6343596/

I'm hoping to find more data on COVID-19 patients. This one only shows 45 patients who are D negative.

----------


## Angela

Guys, this thread has gone way off topic. It's not for a detailed discussion about blood groups. 

Please move your posts to the appropriate thread.

----------


## Hawk

I have come to realization that ancient DNA tests are heavy politicized, it's too much R1b/R1a centric. Who knows what really happened in Europe, whatever the reason they will hide that missing puzzle for sure.

----------


## Ack

> All Iberian men? So where does all the ~20% to as much as 55% of non-R1b Y-DNA haplogroups (depending on the region) come from, exclusively through Yamna-derived mixed EEF+Steppe men who migrated there during the Bronze Age? And why is the autosomal contribution of Yamnaya-like people so low in most of Iberia? I can definitely see a long-term replacement of Neolithic Iberia haplogroups with Pontic-Caspian Y-DNA haplogroups, but not through a massive and rapid "wiping out" of all Iberian males. Such a massive replacement would mean that nearly 50% of the genetic pool from which the later Iberians would be born would be Yamnaya-like. Instead, if what happened was a gradual, slow but relentless replacement caused by the different rates of reproductive success, favoring males with Yamna-derived male lineages, that relatively low autosomal contribution could be made easily compatible with the replacement of Y-DNA haplogroups in favor of Pontic-Caspian male lineages.


Is 30% low? I don't think so, especially considering that it came to Iberia with only male lines. The high 'steppe' values ​​for northeastern Europe are actually pre Yamnaya EHG.
Target: Portuguese:EBC_Portugal1
Distance: 3.3991% / 0.03399058
52.6	Anatolia_Barcin_N
31.0	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
11.0	WHG
5.4	MAR_Iberomaurusian


Target: Spanish_Cataluna:HG01536
Distance: 3.1522% / 0.03152243
52.8	Anatolia_Barcin_N
29.8	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.0	WHG
1.4	MAR_Iberomaurusian
0.6	Yoruba
0.4	RUS_Chalmny-Varre


Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 4.8458% / 0.04845772
26.8	Anatolia_Barcin_N
25.6	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
24.8	RUS_Chalmny-Varre
17.2	RUS_Karelia_HG
5.6	WHG


Target: Estonian
Distance: 6.4077% / 0.06407747
31.2	Anatolia_Barcin_N
28.4	RUS_Karelia_HG
27.0	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
10.6	WHG
2.8	RUS_Chalmny-Varre


Target: Finnish
Distance: 4.6578% / 0.04657811
28.4	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
24.4	Anatolia_Barcin_N
22.8	RUS_Chalmny-Varre
14.4	RUS_Karelia_HG
10.0	WHG

----------


## Riverman

When they came to Iberia, they were mixed already, not 100 steppe. So for Iberia the relative impact of the BB takeover was truly huge. 

@Ack: There is no such strong EHG component independent of steppe ancestry in NE Europe. There must be something wrong with your model.

----------


## Ack

> When they came to Iberia, they were mixed already, not 100 steppe. So for Iberia the relative impact of the BB takeover was truly huge. 
> 
> @Ack: There is no such strong EHG component independent of steppe ancestry in NE Europe. There must be something wrong with your model.


There is nothing wrong with the model.


I used as a source:

Anatolia_Barcin_N,0.1175998,0.180118,0.0035312,-0.101158,0.0510443,-0.0483875,-0.0043582,-0.0069334,0.0362287,0.0807473,0.0079718,0.0118803,-0.0234545,0.0004691,-0.0419807,-0.0101913,0.0233091,0.0019866,0.0136954,-0.0097489,-0.0142249,0.0057723,-0.0041232,-0.0031658,-0.0043437
WHG,0.1246365,0.116278,0.184789,0.189279,0.1546445 ,0.0464355,0.0131605,0.0372675,0.0890705,0.017768,-0.0153455,-0.015811,0.0159065,-0.0030275,0.053338,0.0582065,0.00502,0.016343,-0.0093015,0.055589,0.0944585,0.0111905,-0.049607,-0.160866,0.0170045
GEO_CHG:KK1,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara,0.1255849,0.089028,0.0426986,0. 1153479,-0.0287232,0.0450564,0.0036033,-0.0025642,-0.0559032,-0.0728943,0.0018222,3.32e-05,-0.0026924,-0.0233041,0.0366141,0.0157633,-0.0012316,-0.0017879,-0.0038408,0.0137704,-0.0031749,0.0007557,0.0110649,0.0186102,-0.004537
MAR_Iberomaurusian,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
Baltic_LTU_Narva,0.0116,0.0109,0.0478167,0.0570333 ,0.0389833,0.0188,0.0046,0.0124,0.0289833,-0.0104667,-0.0034,-0.0130167,0.0184167,0.0033167,0.024,0.03545,0.0027 5,0.0041833,-0.0051667,0.0349,0.0531667,0.00625,-0.0237333,-0.0946,0.0092333
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2:I11466,0.044391,-0.020311,-0.171213,0.076551,-0.104635,0.054105,0.010105,-0.010384,-0.00225,0.019499,-0.008282,0.014237,-0.007136,-0.012386,0.018187,0.026783,0.011865,0.010135,0.003 017,-0.014632,0.00836,-0.013973,0.003081,-0.006266,0.008023
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic:I1955,0.094473,0.111708,-0.053551,-0.027455,-0.044316,-0.003347,0.00376,-0.004384,-0.03027,-0.016037,0.004709,-0.004046,0.005649,0.008533,0.004072,-0.002121,-0.022948,-0.004434,0.005531,-0.009755,-0.002496,-0.002844,0.001849,-0.008194,-0.001796
RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211,0.12862,0.032497,0.125958,0.2 21902,0.003385,0.056057,-0.014571,-0.010615,0.007567,-0.084011,0.009581,-0.029674,0.047423,-0.018304,0.014794,0.041766,-0.020079,0.002154,-0.007668,0.003252,-0.01435,0.017188,0.005916,-0.027594,-0.00958
Dinka,-0.577083,0.0507765,-0.0003773,-0.0075098,-0.0053855,-0.0016735,-0.0176848,0.0204222,0.081145,-0.0969495,-0.02107,0.022742,-0.0383172,-0.0011698,0.0101452,-0.021347,0.0186125,-0.0094382,0.0241968,-0.0241678,0.002402,0.003308,0.001479,0.0009038,0.0 096995
ETH_4500BP,-0.511066,0.043668,0.000754,0.000969,-0.00277,-0.011435,0.050997,-0.045229,0.089172,-0.087838,-0.012991,-0.002997,-0.031219,0.000688,0.02158,-0.029965,0.027772,0.039273,0.00176,-0.009004,0.000374,0.006183,-0.003451,-0.00241,-0.000838
Gambian,-0.6064875,0.0671942,0.0197362,0.0114665,0.0021028, 0.0055777,-0.0358392,0.0387677,-0.0317353,0.0241463,0.0054132,-0.0036467,0.0162287,-0.0009865,0.011016,-0.0153362,0.009692,-0.0011823,-0.002116,-0.0032307,-0.001643,-0.0018137,0.0043958,-0.0001005,0.001377
Khomani_San,-0.6220435,0.060424,0.02093,0.030039,-0.0004615,0.000837,0.236773,-0.1823,0.0185095,0.0067425,0.00203,-0.053952,-0.0211845,0.005505,0.018797,-0.0212805,0.029662,0.2623085,-0.0877375,0.001751,-0.0331915,-0.002844,0.0038205,-0.0050005,0.0016765
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0 .0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561, 0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Nganassan,0.0476917,-0.4066181,0.1557885,0.0023902,-0.1594452,-0.0882129,0.0285066,0.0433367,0.0310876,0.0128477, 0.1028569,0.0094115,-0.0040734,-0.0261619,-0.0219731,-0.0123307,-0.0010952,0.0134165,0.0268365,-0.0008505,0.0431363,-0.0118954,0.0336096,0.0003977,0.0135556
RUS_Chalmny-Varre,0.1109775,-0.0137095,0.109554,0.08398,-0.0078475,0.0110165,0.0081075,0.017768,0.0087945,-0.0248755,0.023384,-0.0076435,0.0199205,-0.014175,-0.0093645,0.005171,-0.001434,-0.004941,-0.0050275,0.005815,0.008111,0.000618,-0.0025265,0.000964,0.0008985
Levant_Natufian:I0861,0.01935,0.135065,-0.039221,-0.135984,0.026774,-0.076137,-0.019036,-0.024691,0.100626,-0.008018,0.02858,-0.019633,0.067343,0.001651,0.022801,0.02612,-0.0103,0.006714,-0.018101,0.041395,-0.004118,-0.003215,-0.014297,-0.011206,0.011975


The same model does not show any deviation for EHG In Ireland, England or Norway, but from eastern Germany and mainly in northeastern Europe the same model shows a huge deviation for EHG.

Target: English
Distance: 4.7162% / 0.04716228

47.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



38.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N



14.2
WHG



Target: Dutch
Distance: 4.4717% / 0.04471666

48.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



37.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



13.4
WHG



1.0
RUS_Karelia_HG




Target: German_East:German_East3
Distance: 4.6257% / 0.04625675

41.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N



39.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



13.8
WHG



5.0
RUS_Karelia_HG





Target: Austrian
Distance: 3.3691% / 0.03369105

44.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



39.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



9.8
WHG



6.8
RUS_Karelia_HG





Target: German_East:German_East2
Distance: 5.0584% / 0.05058352

38.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



38.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



12.8
RUS_Karelia_HG



10.2
WHG





Target: Polish:Polish16
Distance: 4.6207% / 0.04620698

37.2
Anatolia_Barcin_N



28.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



24.4
RUS_Karelia_HG



9.8
WHG





Target: Finnish
Distance: 4.6579% / 0.04657938

28.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



24.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N



22.4
RUS_Chalmny-Varre



14.8
RUS_Karelia_HG



10.0
WHG





Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 4.8458% / 0.04845772

26.8
Anatolia_Barcin_N



25.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



24.8
RUS_Chalmny-Varre



17.2
RUS_Karelia_HG



5.6
WHG

----------


## Ack

And there are articles about it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258758/



__


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR]

----------


## Carlos

Target: Karlos_scaled
Distance: 3.5582% / 0.03558177

52.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



29.2
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



13.6
WHG



4.8
MAR_Iberomaurusian






Distance to:
Karlos_scaled

0.15460988
Anatolia_Barcin_N

0.16254028
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Historic:I1955

0.20925401
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

0.21495426
RUS_Chalmny-Varre

0.21767936
Baltic_LTU_Narva

0.24514662
Levant_Natufian:I0861

0.27601192
GEO_CHG:KK1

0.31162467
RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211

0.33447648
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2:I11466

0.34846322
WHG

0.44053493
MAR_Iberomaurusian

0.62307017
Nganassan

0.65003453
ETH_4500BP

0.70986147
Dinka

0.72513737
Gambian

0.75180926
Yoruba

0.84651444
Khomani_San

----------


## Ack

> Target: Karlos_scaled
> Distance: 3.5582% / 0.03558177
> 
> 52.4
> Anatolia_Barcin_N
> 
> 
> 
> 29.2
> ...


Cool, quite within the Iberian average.



__


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR]











Target: Portuguese:EBC_Portugal1
Distance: 3.3991% / 0.03399058

52.6
Anatolia_Barcin_N



31.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



11.0
WHG



5.4
MAR_Iberomaurusian





Target: Spanish_Cataluna:HG01536
Distance: 3.1522% / 0.03152243

52.8
Anatolia_Barcin_N



29.8
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



15.0
WHG



1.4
MAR_Iberomaurusian



0.6
Yoruba



0.4
RUS_Chalmny-Varre






Target: Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon:HG01501
Distance: 3.8944% / 0.03894358

51.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



29.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



12.4
WHG



6.2
MAR_Iberomaurusian



1.0
RUS_Chalmny-Varre

----------


## Farstar

Which application is used for these analyses?

----------


## Riverman

> And there are articles about it
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6258758/


Thank you for the link to the study. In the admixture proportions in Fig. 4 you can clearly see that no modern European people have significant extra-EHG, not even the Saami, but only the Mansi. Instead Lithuanians have additional WHG ancestry, which was proven by various studies and models. Its all in Yamnaya and the Siberian ancestry is a separate component. 
And even if there would be traces of extra-EHG, its nowhere close to the numbers you posted.

----------


## Ack

> Thank you for the link to the study. In the admixture proportions in Fig. 4 you can clearly see that no modern European people have significant extra-EHG, not even the Saami, but only the Mansi. Instead Lithuanians have additional WHG ancestry, which was proven by various studies and models. Its all in Yamnaya and the Siberian ancestry is a separate component. 
> And even if there would be traces of extra-EHG, its nowhere close to the numbers you posted.


Wrong. Eastern Europe was more inhabited by EHG than western Europe when Yamnaya arrived. Both Karelia HG and Scandinavia HG had an additional mixture of ANE and EHG that WHG did not have. The distinction between WHG and EHG is based on this.



__


[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.54)]
[/COLOR]

----------


## Riverman

> Wrong. Eastern Europe was more inhabited by EHG than western Europe when Yamnaya arrived. Both Karelia HG and Scandinavia HG had an additional mixture of ANE and EHG that WHG did not have. The distinction between WHG and EHG is based on this.


But their contribution to modern population is very low, that's what I meant.

----------


## Ack

> But their contribution to modern population is very low, that's what I meant.


It is far from small. Compare Finland and Poland with Norway for example:


Target: Finnish
Distance: 5.1847% / 0.05184738


30.6Anatolia_Barcin_N
30.0Yamnaya_RUS_Samara27.0
RUS_Karelia_HG 29
WHG 9.8
Nganassan 2.6

Target: Polish:Polish16
Distance: 4.6207% / 0.04620698
37.2	Anatolia_Barcin_N
28.6	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
24.4	RUS_Karelia_HG
9.8	WHG

Target: Norwegian
Distance: 4.8877% / 0.04887723
46.2	Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
35.6	Anatolia_Barcin_N
13.2	WHG
5.0	RUS_Karelia_HG

Did you see the big difference? The difference gets even bigger when we include Irish in the comparison

Target: Irish
Distance: 4.9374% / 0.04937387

49.8
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara



36.4
Anatolia_Barcin_N



13.8
WHG



No EHG in Ireland. But the closer you get to Finland and Eastern Europe, the more EHG.

Finns are closer to Poles than Norwegians for the same reason.







Distance to:
Finnish

0.05559852
Polish:Polish16

0.06710421
Norwegian



Target: Finnish
Distance: 5.3291% / 0.05329137


72.0 Polish
28.0 Norwegian

----------


## Carlos

*K11 10 kybp WHG-EHG calculator*



Target: Karlos_scaled
Distance: 4.4356% / 0.04435563

56.4
ENF=Anatolia_Barcin_N



17.6
EHG=RUS_Karelia_HG



11.6
WHG=BEL_Loschbour



10.4
CHG=GEO_CHG



4.0
Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian




Distance to:
Karlos_scaled

0.15460988
ENF=Anatolia_Barcin_N

0.25164638
Natufian=Levant_Natufian

0.27601192
CHG=GEO_CHG

0.30460105
EHG=RUS_Karelia_HG

0.38439700
WHG=BEL_Loschbour

0.44053493
Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian

0.46273894
S_Asian_HG=Jarawa

0.52709506
Amerind=RUS_Kolyma_Meso

0.61422156
EA=RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N

0.75180926
SSA=Yoruba

0.81082711
OHG=Papuan

----------


## Carlos

Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534

*Dick's Ancient euro calculator*


Target: Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian
Distance: 44.4764% / 0.44476351

68.0
Anatolia_Barcin_N



32.0
Corded_Ware_Proto-Unetice_POL





Distance to:
Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian

0.45116856
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1100

0.45237422
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1103

0.45792445
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1098

0.45823374
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1102

0.45989922
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1101

0.46005112
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0736

0.46022091
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1099

0.46130547
UKR_Globular_Amphora:ILK002

0.46184667
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1581

0.46210075
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0745

0.46292371
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1583

0.46425503
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0723

0.46482203
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1580

0.46694556
Corded_Ware_CZE_o:I7272

0.46743531
UKR_Globular_Amphora:ILK001

0.46757165
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0744

0.46792569
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1096

0.46847647
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0708

0.46851572
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0724

0.46916241
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0746

0.46954008
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0709

0.46999654
POL_Globular_Amphora:N38

0.47001374
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I1097

0.47063025
Anatolia_Barcin_N:I0707

0.47077965
POL_Globular_Amphora:I2433




For some reason the Spanish get it, but I do not think it is direct, but some correspondence between the two.

With modern populations:


Target: Iberomaurusian=MAR_Iberomaurusian
Distance: 20.3896% / 0.20389557

89.8
Berber_MAR_TIZ



10.2
Dinka





Berber_MAR_TIZ,-0.1025221,0.131656,-0.0023166,-0.0759511,0.0310606,-0.0356582,-0.0335058,0.012016,0.0766524,0.0315659,0.0088154,-0.0092596,0.0247308,-0.0204174,0.0203483,-0.0157212,0.0001119,-0.0288305,-0.0534217,0.0119165,-0.0208205,-0.0511129,0.0307414,-0.0051899,0.0074671



Target: Berber_MAR_TIZ
Distance: 0.8225% / 0.00822504

24.2
ITA_Sardinia_Punic



18.2
MAR_Taforalt



15.2
MAR_EN



10.2
Anatolia_Barcin_N



9.4
ITA_Sardinia_C_o



7.6
TZA_Pemba_600BP



5.6
GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res



3.6
ZAF_400BP



3.4
GRC_Peloponnese_N



1.4
IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C



1.2
HUN_Tisza_LN





Distance to:
Berber_MAR_TIZ

0.05228477
ITA_Sardinia_C_o:I15940

0.05741548
Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun012

0.06081893
Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun002

0.06347391
Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun011

0.07770163
Iberia_Central_CA_Afr:I4246

0.08749982
Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun008

0.10165776
Canary_Islands_Guanche:gun005

0.14810754
ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL011

0.14905246
MAR_LN:KEB.4

0.15020847
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR132

0.17410771
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I8146

0.17875041
MAR_Taforalt:TAF009

0.18303960
ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL010

0.18310165
ITA_Sardinia_Punic:VIL006

0.19465325
Levant_Natufian:I0861

0.19508017
MAR_EN:IAM.7

0.19564583
EGY_Late_Period:JK2134

0.19652484
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR80

0.19689482
KEN_Early_Pastoral_N:I12534

0.19838303
Levant_Natufian:I1072

0.19863519
EGY_Hellenistic:JK2888

0.19916864
Iberia_Southeast_c.5-8CE:I3575

0.19952069
Iberia_Southeast_c.5-8CE:I3980

0.20080181
EGY_Late_Period:JK2911

0.20125878
Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE:I7425



*Ion Basecul's G25 Calculator*Target: Berber_MAR_TIZ
Distance: 24.6184% / 0.24618441

54.6
South_European



39.2
Southeast_European



6.2
Steppic





Distance to:
Berber_MAR_TIZ

0.24899825
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I3348

0.25011976
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR58

0.25266943
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I3345

0.25406532
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR60

0.25490483
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR56

0.25518079
South_European:ITA_Collegno_MA_CL121

0.25523316
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I3403

0.25655182
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1283

0.25659391
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I2869

0.25830956
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I3405

0.25914988
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR59

0.26058370
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR1285

0.26091934
Southwest_European:Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE_I10853

0.26190764
Southwest_European:Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE_I10895

0.26254655
South_European:ITA_Rome_MA_RMPR57

0.26274597
Southwest_European:Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE_I10892

0.26324605
Southeast_European:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2_I820 8

0.26376371
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I3404

0.26636942
Southwest_European:Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE_I10852

0.26709939
Southeast_European:Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2_I821 5

0.27597788
Southeast_European:IND_Roopkund_B_I6936

0.28483765
North_Caucasus:RUS_Alan_MA_DA160

0.28727461
North_Caucasus:RUS_Alan_MA_DA162

0.29044983
Anatolian:Ottoman_MA2196

0.29308376
East_European:UKR_Chernyakhiv_Shyshaky_MJ37

----------


## Angela

Carlos, please change your map to reflect reality.

----------


## MOESAN

I want not to discuss the percentages in detail but I would find weird if N-E European had not an extra EHG in them: do notive I don't look for competition with anybody here.
But in East-Baltic/Estoina regions there have been the Comb Ware C (CCC?) came from East, very EHGlike in autosomes and physically slightly 'pre-mongoloid'; I would bet they introduiced some Y-N1c subclades and maybe spoke already some kind of proto-Uralic dialects. The CWC had introduced their kind of EHG comprised in the 'Steppics' kit of DNA, and surely some IEan, rather proto-satem (no proof here), I doubt they ahve erased completely the CCC demic heritage, they have not been able to erase their Y lineages at all. So could we imagine the whole EHGlike DNA among N-E Europeans is only from this Steppic admixture? I don't think so.

----------


## Angela

> I want not to discuss the percentages in detail but I would find weird if N-E European had not an extra EHG in them: do notive I don't look for competition with anybody here.
> But in East-Baltic/Estoina regions there have been the Comb Ware C (CCC?) came from East, very EHGlike in autosomes and physically slightly 'pre-mongoloid'; I would bet they introduiced some Y-N1c subclades and maybe spoke already some kind of proto-Uralic dialects. The CWC had introduced their kind of EHG comprised in the 'Steppics' kit of DNA, and surely some IEan, rather proto-satem (no proof here), I doubt they ahve erased completely the CCC demic heritage, they have not been able to erase their Y lineages at all. So could we imagine the whole EHGlike DNA among N-E Europeans is only from this Steppic admixture? I don't think so.


That's how I see it as well. I've been saying for a long time that there was a reservoir of hunter-gatherer ancestry in the North East which was incorporated into the IE when they arrived. Depending on the area there would have been more WHG or EHG.

Some calculators may not see it clearly because of the EHG in the IE, although blended with CHG/Iran Neo like ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> When they came to Iberia, they were mixed already, not 100 steppe. *So for Iberia the relative impact of the BB takeover was truly huge.* 
> 
> @Ack: There is no such strong EHG component independent of steppe ancestry in NE Europe. There must be something wrong with your model.


I doubt "huge" is the proper adjective given that Iberians today in some analyses have only 25% steppe.

----------


## Riverman

> I doubt "huge" is the proper adjective given that Iberians today in some analyses have only 25% steppe.


Before the BB came in the local population was zero steppe and the BB themselves, even in many parts of Central Europe, had no such high steppe ancestry percentage to begin with. If you check the Southern French BB which were the source, you will see that they are even lower and in later times Iberians got admixture from the North, but also from the South with less steppe. If taking everything in account, you end up with roughly half the population being replaced autosomally and 95 plus percent on the paternal side, I'd say that's huge.
Its not about "steppe ancestry" but Bell Beaker ancestry.

----------


## Angela

> Before the BB came in the local population was zero steppe and the BB themselves, even in many parts of Central Europe, had no such high steppe ancestry percentage to begin with. If you check the Southern French BB which were the source, you will see that they are even lower and in later times Iberians got admixture from the North, but also from the South with less steppe. If taking everything in account, you end up with roughly half the population being replaced autosomally and 95 plus percent on the paternal side, I'd say that's huge.
> Its not about "steppe ancestry" but Bell Beaker ancestry.


I'm quite aware of the difference, thank you. 

We've managed to read all the relevant papers and analyze them, and in the process came to conclusions much more often correct than is the case on other sites, so lose the superior, snarky attitude if you please.

----------


## Riverman

Angela, just assume BB Germany would be a good source, what I wouldn't take as a given, this still means, even with the numbers you provided, that we deal with a replacement rate of about 40 percent. To me that is "huge". I'm writing that with old models in mind, which considered "elite dominance" scenarios plausible which would have resulted in less than 20 percent replacement rate. We are far from that. 

What's even more, we deal with a wave-like phenomenon, in which one wave took local women, consolidated its position, then moved on and so forth. This means we have regionally much higher or lower impacts depending on whether we deal with relatively unmixed or already locally rooted mixed representatives. Also, I doubt those coming in were all like "German Beakers", but more Neolithic shifted already. This means we deal with 40-50 percent replacement rate most likely, let's see. Wasn't saying anything else and don't wanted to be "snarky", but probably that's just my "communication style". Heard that before...

----------


## Angela

> Angela, just assume BB Germany would be a good source, what I wouldn't take as a given, this still means, even with the numbers you provided, that we deal with a replacement rate of about 40 percent. To me that is "huge". I'm writing that with old models in mind, which considered "elite dominance" scenarios plausible which would have resulted in less than 20 percent replacement rate. We are far from that. 
> 
> What's even more, we deal with a wave-like phenomenon, in which one wave took local women, consolidated its position, then moved on and so forth. This means we have regionally much higher or lower impacts depending on whether we deal with relatively unmixed or already locally rooted mixed representatives. Also, I doubt those coming in were all like "German Beakers", but more Neolithic shifted already. This means we deal with 40-50 percent replacement rate most likely, let's see. Wasn't saying anything else and don't wanted to be "snarky", but probably that's just my "communication style". Heard that before...


Riverman, those are the charts from Olalde et al. Until we have more proximate samples for the people who entered Iberia from Central Europe, those are the numbers I'll use. Anything else is just speculation. 

You're welcome to disagree.

You're also welcome to disagree as to whether 40% is HUGE. I would reserve it for situations like Great Britain, or certain parts of northeastern Europe.

That's all I meant.

----------


## Cpluskx

Reading the thread as a B RH negative guy i am feeling like a real steppe warrior right now.

----------


## Mmiikkii

> Oh, and not to mention that this invasion didn't even bring Indo-European languages to Iberia - that was at the hands of the Romans!


That is not entirely true. In the Mediterranean half of the country it is.
In the Atlantic half there were Celtic peoples that surely came during the Iron Ages in the 2nd Celtic Migration(as this sites suggests)

----------

