More evidence that the PIE R1b people originated in the Maykop culture

[Maciamo]

Dienekes mentions on his blog a recent paper by Konstantine Pitskhelauri on the settlement of the Caucasus by migrants from the Middle East during the Neolithic period.

The paper brings additional evidence regarding the origins of the Early Bronze Age Maykop culture in Mesopotamia, confirming my theory that R1b people from the Middle East migrated across the Caucasus and established the Maykop culture, before expanding throughout the Pontic-Caspian Steppes and mixing with the indigenous R1a steppe people.

The author also argues that the tradition of burial mounds did not originated in the Pit-Grave culture from the steppes because new radiocarbon dating seemingly points that the burial mounds from the Maykop culture actually predate those found in the steppes. Those of Maykop could trace their origins back to the Levant and Mesopotamia, two regions with relatively high levels of R1b, where the oldest subclades of R1b are to be found. This is new. Although I had always thought that R1b migrated from the Middle East to the North Caucasus, founded the Maykop culture and spread the Bronze Age to the steppes then to Europe, I had previously assumed too that burial mounds (i.e. kurgan or tumulus) was a practice that they picked up from the R1a people in the steppes, because that is what the archaeological data was saying so far.

This doesn't change anything to the R1b migration path or chronology though. I had thought that a two-way exchange took place between R1b and R1a people during the Yamna period. I imagined that R1b brought bronze working, while R1a provided the burial customs. If this new radiocarbon dating is correct, then it would seem that R1b brought both. In that case, it becomes increasingly likely that the Proto-Indo-European language itself was also brought by the more advanced and dominant partner (R1b), and adopted by the R1a population at the same time as the rest of the cultural package from Maykop.

I still maintain though that the Satem branch of Indo-European languages (associated with R1a) diverged from the original Centum (R1b) because of the influence of the original R1a languages, which altered the pronunciation of IE words (namely, the sound change by which palatovelars became fricatives and affricates in satem languages). Obviously Centum languages were later influenced by, and adopted words from the Chalcolithic people of Southeast Europe, then of Central and Western Europe. I strongly believe that languages evolve faster when new people are integrated into a linguistic community, bringing their own idioms with them.


I have highlighted a few passages from the paper:

"At the end of the 5th and in the 4th millennia B.C. large masses of Uruk migrants had settled in the South, and later in the North Caucasus. Assimilation of cultures of the newcomers and residents, as a result, caused their “explosive” development paving the way to the formation of the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus and the Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus.
...
In this context, recent archaeological finds in the Southern and Northeastern Caucasus gave yet another, entirely new nuance to scientific researches into the ancient past of the Caucasus. They made it clear that incursion of these peoples into the Caucasus was not a onetime event, but continued for a significantly long period. Reasoning by the topography of the archaeological finds in Mesopotamia, it becomes clear that large masses of migrant settlers from that area did not move straight along the route to Transcaucasia in order to reach the destination faster. Actually, they settled down in every region of the Caucasus, in the mountains and flatlands, in areas where they could maintain a lifestyle familiar to them.
...
It seems obvious that from that period on, two cultures of the Caucasus that had been at different stages of development could coexist peacefully on the basis of their mutual participation in metallurgical manufacturing; it was this type of communal economy that gave impetus to a speedy development of the local culture. This is well illustrated by the metallurgical items of the Kura-Araxes culture, which is significantly more advanced in comparison with the pre-Aeneolithic culture.
...
According to our data the wave of Uruk migrants moving from the south to the north covered the entire territory of the Caucasus in the 4th millennium B.C. It seems that at the very outset, they settled all over the South Caucasus, acclimatized to local conditions, assimilated with the local population and jointly continued their customary activity. Probably in search of predominantly metal works, they gradually got acquainted with the main mountain range of the Caucasus, traversed it to the north Caucasus either through passages across it or along the sea shore strip and spread throughout both its highlands and valleys. It is quite possible that it was they, the bearers of advanced culture of Mesopotamia, who had a deep impact on the development of local cultures of the Caucasus, speeded up its development and gave it “explosive” character. It is believed that precisely this integration of indigenous and incoming cultures made possible the emergence of the so-called magnificent Maikop culture in the north-western part of the Caucasus. It is possible that a similar process was simultaneously developing in the South Caucasus as well, where it left a noticeable trace. The transformation was so significant that it is reasonable to presume that Uruk migrants together with the local population participated in the creation of the powerful Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus of the Early Bronze Age.
...
Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].
At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97]. At the same time, a whole range of chronological data obtained with radiocarbon analysis has established that the settlements and burial mounds of the South Caucasus containing Uruk artefact are coexistent with the Maikop culture [13: 149-153] and, accordingly, the ancient pit-grave culture and its burial mounds belong to a later period. Therefore, today we cannot possibly ascribe the emergence of this kind of burial mounds in the Maikop culture as well as similar contemporaneous sites in the South Caucasus to the influence of the steppe zone cultures. Moreover, there were no adverse conditions that would have prevented emergence of this type of burial mounds in the Caucasus itself.
"

[Maciamo]

Philip L. Kohl in The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia also confirms (see abstract) that the Copper Age in the Caucasus started off spectacularly out of nowhere (meaning that it was brought by immigrants). From the Early Bronze Age (Maykop), I cite, the Caucasus was the main suppliers of arsenical copper/bronzes to the peoples of the steppes, particularly the Pit and Catacomb Graves cultural communities. As Chernykh (1992: 159-162) has argued, the northern Caucasus from Maikop times through the Middle Bronze period may have functioned as the critical intermediary for receiving metals that originated in Transcaucasia and for producing and shipping bronze artifacts to the steppes.

Kohl goes on explaining that the recent reappraisal of the origins of the Maykop culture by Trifonov (2004) argues for an eastern Anatolian Chalcolithic origin, such as the site of Korucutepe near the source of the Tigris. Kohl then states that the origins of the steppe kurgans may have originated in eastern Anatolia too.

This all agrees with what I wrote back in 2007 about the origin of the R1b (and G2a) founders of the Maykop culture being in eastern Anatolia - although ultimately R1b might have come from somewhere else in the Fertile Crescent during the Neolithic.

What remains unclear is how R1b was part of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic expansion within the Middle East, but that the migrants who brought the Neolithic to Europe belonged only to G2a and E1b1b (and perhaps also J1, J2 and T). That may have been caused by a founder effect in the original population of Neolithic farmers who moved to Europe. Or it could be that R1b was confined to the north or east of the Fertile Crescent and decided to expand north across the Caucasus, while Levantine farmers moved to Europe. G2a would have brought agriculture from the Levant to eastern Anatolia, and R1b picked it up before moving north.

[kamani]

The paper does not mention R1b. If the pre-Maykop civilization came from Mesopotamia, then they probably had a lot of E1b1b and J. I think you're taking the most common western european gene and trying to prove that it was a dominant marker of the first ancient advanced civilizations, but it doesn't work because they're all in Levant/Anatolia/Middle East. Thanks for doing this research thou.

[Maciamo]

The paper does not mention R1b. If the pre-Maykop civilization came from Mesopotamia, then they probably had a lot of E1b1b and J. I think you're taking the most common western european gene and trying to prove that it was a dominant marker of the first ancient advanced civilizations, but it doesn't work because they're all in Levant/Anatolia/Middle East. Thanks for doing this research thou.

Obviously it does not mention R1b. As far as I know, I am the only person who came up with the idea that the Maykop culture is associated with R1b people.

R1b is more frequent in parts of Mesopotamia than E1b1b. For example, northern Iraq has 17% of R1b against 7.5% of E1b1b. In nearby Armenia R1b is 30% for only 6% of E1b1b. In parts of northern Anatolia, R1b also exceeds 25% of the lineages.

Anyway, the genetic landscape 6000 years ago was certainly very different to what it was today. All the Neolithic data from Europe so far only contained haplogroups G2a, I2a and E1b1b, while nowadays the most common haplogroups are R1a and R1b.

The only way to estimate which people was associated with what ancient culture is to go backward step by step. If R1b did come to Europe along with the Bronze Age, then it came from the Pontic Steppe, and before that from the Maykop culture, and before that from the Middle East (I'd say eastern Anatolia or northern Mesopotamia rather than southern Mesopotamia). There is no other logical alternative consistent with the archaeological data.

It is possible though that a small minority of G2a3b1 and perhaps even J2, T and E1b1b might have been part of the R1b migration to the North Caucasus, then to the steppes, Europe and Central Asia. That is one way of explaining why these haplogroups also turn up at very low frequencies in Central Asia, alongside R1a and R1b. But considering the clear dominance of R1b in Europe, the western branch of the Yamna culture must have been composed predominantly of R1b men, almost certainly with an R1a and G2a3b1 minority, and possibly also with an even smaller E1b1b, J2 and T minority.

[ebAmerican]

I completely agree. If you look at the dated samples, only G2a and F* is found before 4000BC in Europe. E1b, I1, I2a, T, R1a, R1b are found earliest 3000BC (Maykop culture 3700BC-2500BC). The source on eupedia stating that E1b is 5000BC is wrong. The lacan et al (2011) has the samples tested at 3000BC. The Hittites who I believe were R1b dominate appeared at the end of Maykop. Maykop was the catalyst that turned the tide on earlier G2a neolithic farmers. It would be awesome if we could find some ancient DNA from Uruk. An old branch of R1b is in Africa, and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

[Maciamo]

I completely agree. If you look at the dated samples, only G2a and F* is found before 4000BC in Europe. E1b, I1, I2a, T, R1a, R1b are found earliest 3000BC (Maykop culture 3700BC-2500BC). The source on eupedia stating that E1b is 5000BC is wrong. The lacan et al (2011) has the samples tested at 3000BC. The Hittites who I believe were R1b dominate appeared at the end of Maykop. Maykop was the catalyst that turned the tide on earlier G2a neolithic farmers. It would be awesome if we could find some ancient DNA from Uruk. An old branch of R1b is in Africa, and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

There are two Lacan et al. studies. The one that found a Neolithic E1b1b sample in Catalonia is dated from 7000 ybp (5000 BCE).

As for the African R1b, it is all V88, the same as in Egypt and the Levant, so it is highly unlikely that this R1b migration to Africa had anything to do with Indo-Europeans or Maykop. It is more probably an offshoot of Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic Middle Eastern hunter-gatherers or even Neolithic Levantines that split in various directions and ended up in various parts of Africa.

If this African R1b-V88 came from a Neolithic migration, it could be the one responsible for spreading agriculture around Africa. The Neolithic started in North Africa in the 6th millennium BCE, just before Saharan desertification. The haplogroup most strongly associated with the spread of agriculture around North and East Africa (Horn of Africa) is E1b1b. Actually it is not impossible that agriculture originated in North Africa before the desertification, then spread to the Levant. All traces would be lost in the dessert today. I think it is very likely considering the stupendous population explosion of E1b1b in regions that later became the Sahara dessert.

Pockets of haplogroup R1b-V88, T and G have all been found here and there and bit everywhere in Africa. Therefore I think that haplogroup G, T and R1b-V88 were part of this original North African Neolithic explosion. E1b1b would have recolonised most of Africa with a minority of R1b-V88, G and T trailing along.

[ebAmerican]

OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

[kamani]

J1, J2, and E1b1b have been in south-west asia at least since the Neolithic, with E1b1b found more in Levant/Anatolia. Old R1b (M269 or older) was also sharing the same area, but I doubt it was ever a majority, at least not in the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Remember that there has also been back migration of R1b in the Bronze-Age into south-west asia.

[ElHorsto]

Actually it is not impossible that agriculture originated in North Africa before the desertification, then spread to the Levant. All traces would be lost in the dessert today. I think it is very likely considering the stupendous population explosion of E1b1b in regions that later became the Sahara dessert.

This is a very important point which we should consider more often. Even if agriculture did not originate there, it was once fertile and almost surely populated. When desertification started, these pre-saharan populations surely migrated somewhere else (maybe Bell Beakers?).

[sparkey]

OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

[Nobody1]

I just have a few Questions;

According to our data the wave of Uruk migrants moving from the south to the north covered the entire territory of the Caucasus in the 4th millennium B.C.It is believed that precisely this integration of indigenous and incoming cultures made possible the emergence of the so-called magnificent Maikop culture in the north-western part of the Caucasus. It is possible that a similar process was simultaneously developing in the South Caucasus as well, where it left a noticeable trace. The transformation was so significant that it is reasonable to presume that Uruk migrants together with the local population participated in the creation of the powerful Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus of the Early Bronze Age.

This is very clear;
both Maykop and Kura-Araxes are hybrid cultures- from Indigenous and Uruk/Mesopotamia [south] migrants;
But who exactly are these Indigenous people?

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].
At present the situation has changed drastically. On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

This is not very clear;
Does this suggest that the Steppe peoples [Sredny Stog -> Yamna culture] invaded/infiltrated the Maykop culture in a later period?
Or does this suggest that the Maykop culture was autochthonous and developed a similar culture akin to Yamna based on its ties with Mesopotamia???

[Goga]

This is not very clear;
Does this suggest that the Steppe peoples [Sredny Stog -> Yamna culture] invaded/infiltrated the Maykop culture in a later period?
Or does this suggest that the Maykop culture was autochthonous and developed a similar culture akin to Yamna based on its ties with Mesopotamia???

No, Maykop is older than Yamna. Maykop culture heavily influenced Yamna culture. As far a I know early Indo-Europeans were part of Maykop culture BEFORE Yamna foragers were Indo-Europized.

[Nobody1]

No, Maykop is older than Yamna. Maykop culture heavily influenced Yamna culture. As far a I know early Indo-Europeans were part of Maykop culture BEFORE Yamna foragers were Indo-Europized.

No,
the study we are talking about doesnt question the Sredny Stog [4500 BC - 3500 BC] -> Yamna [3600 BC - 2500 BC] continuity in the Northern Steppe (Caspian-Pontic) region [Kurgan phase IV].

Maykop [3700 BC - 3000 BC] was contemporary with Yamna.

It pos. questions (or pos. debunks) the influence of Yamna (steppe cultures) on Maykop.

This used to be the standard view, that the pit graves of Maykop was an Influence of the steppes (Yamna)

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].

However;

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites.
This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

Now the study establishes that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between an indigenous pop. and Uruk/Mesopotamian migrants;

So what does type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture mean in contrast to the old views?
whats the drastic change? that Yamna [steppe cultures Kurgan phase IV] had no influence on Maykop (at all)?

Either im reading it wrong or this is a complete new look on Maykop.

[Yetos]

OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

Dienekes also shown that hg E in balkans minor-Asia is very late than G2a dated only 4000 years in SE Europe,
and Iberian E has nothing to do with Konya E

[Yetos]

I wonder Vinca culture (Varna Necropolis) revael its genetical secrets.

[nordicwarrior]

...and it would be interesting if R1b was the dominate haplogroup in the middle east during the Mesolithic and early Neolithic (before J1-J2 pushed them out), and were responsible for stone monuments like Gobekli Tepe.

Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

[Goga]

No,
the study we are talking about doesnt question the Sredny Stog [4500 BC - 3500 BC] -> Yamna [3600 BC - 2500 BC] continuity in the Northern Steppe (Caspian-Pontic) region [Kurgan phase IV].

Maykop [3700 BC - 3000 BC] was contemporary with Yamna.

It pos. questions (or pos. debunks) the influence of Yamna (steppe cultures) on Maykop.

This used to be the standard view, that the pit graves of Maykop was an Influence of the steppes (Yamna)

Understandably, the scientists had enough ground to formulate their conviction. From the start they supported this assumption by the fact that the burial mounds were typical of the ancient pit-grave culture and already present throughout the northern steppe zone in the 4th millennium B.C., whereas there were no mounds of such construction in Southwest Asia. This was why they assumed that even the magnificent Maikop culture absorbed the technique of building this type of burial mounds as a result of its contacts with the steppe area cultures [81: 75].

However;

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites.
This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

Now the study establishes that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between an indigenous pop. and Uruk/Mesopotamian migrants;

So what does type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture mean in contrast to the old views?
whats the drastic change? that Yamna [steppe cultures Kurgan phase IV] had no influence on Maykop (at all)?

Either im reading it wrong or this is a complete new look on Maykop.

You're misinformed man. Maykop has nothing to do with Sredny Stog. In contrast to Yamna and Maykop, Sredny Stog was NOT a 'Kurgan' culture. Yamna just replaced Sredny Stog. According to this study Maykop was heavily influenced by cultures from South. Cultures in the South we much older than Maykop (and Sredny Stog). Like Halaf/Ubaid culture and Hassuna culture.

[Goga]

[Nobody1]

In contrast to Yamna and Maykop, Sredny Stog was NOT a 'Kurgan' culture. Yamna just replaced Sredny Stog.

Yes, Yamna fell from the skies and simply replaced Sredny Stog.

In reality, Yamna emerged out of the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures;
with Sredny Stog being Kurgan phase I-II

K. Jones-Bley - Early and Middle Bronze Age Pottery from the Volga-Don Steppe (1999)
The Samara culture, and its successor the Khvalynsk culture, have also shown to be, along with the Sredny Stog culture, the direct antecedents of the Yamna culture. [Uni. of California]

Do you even know anything about Sredny Stog? or Yamna [Kurgan phase IV]; its not a real question so please dont reply.

According to this study Maykop was heavily influenced by cultures from South.

Well thats the whole point im trying to make, despite Maykop being a Kurgan culture and having a pit-grave culture akin to Yamna; the study now reveals it has no direct links to Yamna.

At present the situation has changed drastically.
On the basis of a whole series of radiocarbon analyses, it has been proved [15; 82] that burial mounds of the ancient pit-grave culture are of a significantly later period in comparison with Maikop archaeological sites. This allows scholars to assume that the tradition of building this type of burial mounds emerged precisely in the Maikop culture. Its ties with Levant and Mesopotamian antiquities point to its earlier origin [15: 97].

have you even bothered to read the study or any of the quotes Maciamo posted?
The study gives away that Maykop emerged as a hybrid between Mesopotamia and Indigenous people of the Caucasus. same with the Kura-Araxes.

[Nobody1]

Those of you who have followed my ramblings for awhile may remember that I stated it was only a matter of time before R1b would claim Gobekli Tepe.

as Kamani already pointed out the study doesnt even mention R1b and Gobekli Tepe was abandoned somewhere between 8000 and 7000 BC; thats a good 3500 years before Maykop even started,

so based on this study you are jumping to conclusions about Gobekli Tepe,
but you might be correct overall.

[zanipolo]

We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

Oetzi was G2a4, also found in tyrolese, ladins and other minor alpine races............isn't this older than E
Also G2a3b is in northern italy and southern france at around same period.

IMO G2 is older than E

[Maciamo]

OK, but I would argue that G2a is much older than E1b in Europe. Dienekes has shown that the ancient markers for E1b1b1a1b are 14% similar to current E1b populations, where ancient G2a was only about .3%. I think if E1b was earlier than G2b (or same age) it would be more distant to modern populations like G2a. I bet E1b first appeared on the scene around 5000BC, where G2a had been there for at least thousand years earlier.

I really think that there is too little data at the moment to judge that. Age estimates of haplogroups are still a very unreliable, as I have explained here.

[Maciamo]

J1, J2, and E1b1b have been in south-west asia at least since the Neolithic, with E1b1b found more in Levant/Anatolia. Old R1b (M269 or older) was also sharing the same area, but I doubt it was ever a majority, at least not in the late Neolithic or Bronze Age. Remember that there has also been back migration of R1b in the Bronze-Age into south-west asia.

Don't look at the whole Middle East as if it was a monolithic block. Modern populations are much more mixed than Neolithic ones, which evolved from completely separate tribes of hunter-gatherers. It is very likely that in the Neolithic the Middle East was still a patchwork of relatively homogeneous communities with only one or two dominant haplogroups. It's only since the Bronze Age, with the rise of civilisations and states that populations started to blend with one another, a process that continued and intensified with time. I am convinced that if you looked at the population of one region every one thousand years, we would see a clear diminution of the haplogroup diversity as we go back in time. In other words, in the Neolithic the Middle East had pockets of R1b, pockets of J1, pockets of J2, pockets of G2a, etc. I expect that few of them were 100% homogeneous, but most neolithic villages or towns probably had over 80% of a single haplogroup. This is what has been observed by Lacan et al. in Neolithic France and Spain too.

[Maciamo]

This is a very important point which we should consider more often. Even if agriculture did not originate there, it was once fertile and almost surely populated. When desertification started, these pre-saharan populations surely migrated somewhere else (maybe Bell Beakers?).

The last desertification of the Sahara started 6,200 years ago, about 1,400 years before the Beaker culture started. But it is not impossible that the Beaker people originated in Northwest Africa and crossed over to Iberia because of population pressures brought on by the advance of the Sahara desert. That would explain why there is so much E-M81 in western Iberia, especially in the north-west, which was the region least affected by the Moorish conquest. I wrote about this hypothesis of E1b1b migration from North Africa in the Late Neolithic nearly two years ago.

[Maciamo]

We could use this as evidence for G2a being more ancient in Europe than E1b, but it doesn't quite square with our expectations unless we push the G2a arrival date back to quite a lot more than a thousand years earlier (otherwise we would expect a closer similarity than .3%). But a Paleolithic G2a is tough to match with its diversity patterns outside of Europe. So I think we should instead look for alternate explanations. The obvious one is that the E1b-V13 and G2a arrived around the same time but had different diversity to begin with, and the few E1b-V13 lines bottlenecked to one later, while the G2a lines maintained their diversity via multiple lineages. That is, the ancient European E1b-V13 sample could be pretty close to being a direct ancestor of all European E1b-V13 lineages, whereas the ancient G2a samples may not have their lines connect to modern European G2a until you go back long before any G2a arrived in Europe. Ancient similarity to modern populations may be used as evidence for migration times, but it can be highly misleading.

My thoughts exactly.