search this blog

Monday, February 9, 2015

David Reich's Oxford seminar


Harvard Professor David Reich is holding a seminar later today at Jesus College, Oxford, on the population history of Europe. Part of the talk will focus on unpublished genome-wide data from 69 ancient remains from Germany, Hungary, Russia and Spain, as far as I know mostly dating to 6,000-1,000 BC (see here).

I'm hoping that Professor Reich might also reveal a few details, or at least give us some clues, about the Y-haplogroups of these prehistoric individuals. It would be interesting to find out, for instance, which of the samples belong to R1b, the most common Y-haplogroup in Europe today, but thus far missing from ancient European DNA older than the late Neolithic.

It's likely that some of the people attending the seminar will blog or tweet about it soon after it's over. I'll try to compile the most useful of these reports in an update tomorrow. Feel free to help me out in the comments section below. However, please keep the discussion firmly on topic.

Update 09/02/2015: Jean Manco, author of the recent book Ancestral Journeys, is sharing her notes from the lecture here. Paraphrasing David Reich, she says that Yamnaya brought both R1a and R1b to Europe.

Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint) .

261 comments:

1 – 200 of 261   Newer›   Newest»
AWood said...

Which of the samples, if ANY, were R1b.

Romulus said...

Only about an hour now until it begins.

Nirjhar007 said...

Lets hope we get some vital info on the aDNA.

Romulus said...

It started 3.5 hours ago and not a peep!? I wish someone with a smartphone could have went.

Krefter said...

Jean Manco has started posting about the lecture...

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3807-David-Reich-lecture-9-February-2015&p=68019#post68019

Krefter said...

ANE estimates for modern Europeans are consistent with what Davidski has said. 1-18%, unlike Laz 2013/14, which was a bit higher.

Krefter said...

Reich has Bell beaker samples from Spain, not just Germany!!!!!!!!

Davidski said...

Nice, I like this quote...

"2500 BC steppe pastoralists, who represent 60% - 80% replacement."

That's probably only across the north though, with the 80% peak being in Eastern Europe.

Nirjhar007 said...

'' Reich has Bell beaker samples from Spain, not just Germany!!!!!!!!''
hOLY sH#IT!!!
Any Y-DNA data yet?.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The resurgence part though... I wonder if that means a decrease in steppe ancestry, with the mixing that followed.

Krefter said...

Jean Manco was referring to Bronze age Euros, who had 60-80% Steppe ancestry, which lowered overtime(Just like how WHG rose in the Neolithic).

The later bronze age samples probably are more similar to modern Euros, because they had slightly less steppe ancestry.

Matt said...

@ Jean M's comments:
Reich's still mainly running off a model where EEF are unadmixed first farmers (and I think this is plausible still - we don't know what is happening in the ME at this time), which is why 100% replacement crops up.

If we are operating off an ENF-WHG model where EFF is 70 ENF, 30 WHG we can modify appropriately.

My read of "Two major genetic discontinuities can be seen in ancient DNA:
1. The first farmers, who represent 60% - 100% replacement.
2. 2500 BC steppe pastoralists, who represent 60% - 80% replacement.
In both cases there was a subsequent resurgence of previous ancestry."
is

"at the point of discontinuty there was 60-80% replacement by steppe pastoralists, then a subsequent resurgence", which would make sense given Northern Europe is supposedly only 50% Yamnaya related in the present day (as per the abstract). I'm not signed up there so am not going to ask her this directly. "Details will follow".

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''Jean Manco was referring to Bronze age Euros, who had 60-80% Steppe ancestry, which lowered overtime(Just like how WHG rose in the Neolithic). ''
Reduced by what? Farmers?.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

ANE linked to R1a and R1b. Apparently less ANE in Iberia, which is expected. Dates??

Krefter said...

Norway according to Reich has more ANE than Balts, and Scots have more than Belrus? What?!

Davidski said...

OK, so the question is, where does Yamnaya-related ancestry peak in Europe today? And is this peak well over 50%?

ryukendo kendow said...


60-80% probably refers to Corded Ware.

Nirjhar007 said...

''Norway according to Reich has more ANE than Balts, and Scots have more than Belrus? What?!''
In Which Age?

Krefter said...

Modern Norweigans, Balts, etc.

The Scots samples from Laz 2013/14 I think came from western Scotland, which is a mixture of Irish-like and Norwegian-like. They don't represent other British.

Davidski said...

Nah, Norway and Scotland do not have more ANE than Belarus, unless you just use MA-1 as the reference, which creates noise.

So this is the same problem as in Lazaridis et al.

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''Nah, Norway and Scotland do not have more ANE than Belarus, unless you just use MA-1 as the reference, which creates noise.''
That is not good indication:).

Matt said...

@ Jean M's - "Lactase Persistence was absent in the Early Neolithic, slight in the Late Neolithic and then rose significantly 4000 BC" 4000 BC or 4000 BP? 4000 BC is long before Corded Ware (but contemporaneous with some cattle cultures in Europe?) while 4000 BP is after Corded Ware, and only overlaps late Bell Beaker.

Either way the spread of lactase persistence with the Yamnaya horizon seems a bit sketchy.

Genetic height is interesting (there is some theory connecting long legs to highly mobile populations?), however many inches it actually amounted to in the end.

Shaikorth said...

Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Scotland
Czech Rep.
Belarus
Hungary
Ukraine
England
Croatia

This is how the ANE ranking list began from highest to lowest according to Jean, quite different compared to the previous big paper.

If that's so, they must have found a new ANE representative (not MA-1) or are now using a new method to estimate the proportions.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Shai
''This is how the ANE ranking list began from highest to lowest according to Jean, quite different compared to the previous big paper.

If that's so, they must have found a new ANE representative (not MA-1) or are now using a new method to estimate the proportions.''
I Agree.

Davidski said...

There are two tables in Lazaridis et al. showing ANE proportions. Table S14.9 on page 111 of the supp info, and Table S14.10 on page 118.

Table S14.10 is more accurate IMO. It makes more sense and correlates better with my own results.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQTlhUR2JVLUtqelk/view?usp=sharing

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It looks like the Iberian samples are late Beaker... no surprise then. They got there about 400+ years after Britain.

Matt said...

@ Jean M's - "In fact he said they (the farmer like side of Yamnaya) did not come via Europe." sounds like Reich thinks the Ukraine route is out for the farmer side of Yamnaya?

(In which case the only other options for the farmer side ancestry in Y are rolling over the Caucasus or up around the east side of the Caspian Sea).

PersonaMan said...

Jean's notes indicate that he thinks a resurgance in WHG in the later Neolithic could *theoretically* be due to population movements as HG's were still active further north, but that this wasn't the case elsewhere. Considering these HG's seem to have had ANE, it could be a reasonable supposition that IE encountered populations with a sliver of ANE there - and if this was the case and replacement was relatively even across northern Europe - might explain why Scotland, Norway etc might have ANE scores that are a little out of place? Esp. since it would have dropped later, seems to have dropped in England for example since the Iron Age, and Scotland and Norway are relatively remote compared to say England and Germany.

Krefter said...

Everything is falling place, except for those ANE rankings.

R1b-R1a linked to ANE I'm very certain came out of Reich's mouth, and he wouldn't say that if ancient Y DNA didn't suggest it.

The Iberian and German BB might have R1b. Iberian R1b might even come out P312.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Matt
''"In fact he said they (the farmer like side of Yamnaya) did not come via Europe." sounds like Reich thinks the Ukraine route is out for the farmer side of Yamnaya?''
Big News!
Maykop!

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The Caucasus is pretty much all that the archaeology says. Not a big surprise.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It's way before Maykop, Nirjhar. The spill-over started 2500 years before Maykop.

Davidski said...

Those four Scots from Argyll that they're using don't have higher ANE than Northeastern Europeans.

It's possible that their Norwegians do have high ANE, because some might have Saami ancestry.

But anyway, I'm going to e-mail Reich and Patterson about this later with some data.

Nirjhar007 said...

Around 6000 BC?

ryukendo kendow said...

Lol the picture is getting clearer and clearer.

Let's see how all our predictions hold up. There would prob be a few aneurysms on all sides when the paper is out.

Shaikorth said...

David, at least in the final supplementary data of the published paper neither S14.9 or S14.10 look like the ranking given by Jean, they are much more similar to each other.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

For the southern steppes, yes. I believe the paper I posted had the Neolithic start around 5900BCE, just north of the Caspian. Probably nothing in Samara until 4500-4000BCE. I would be on 4500BCE, but we will have to wait and see if they have anything between those years.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
'' There would prob be a few aneurysms on all sides when the paper is out.''
Not here that's certain!:)

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
''For the southern steppes, yes. I believe the paper I posted had the Neolithic start around 5900BCE, just north of the Caspian. Probably nothing in Samara until 4500-4000BCE. I would be on 4500BCE, but we will have to wait and see if they have anything between those years.''
Its all fitting to what Benedetti proposed also Bernard Sergeant, Lets just watch now!

Krefter said...

What's up with Jean Manco. It's been over an hour since her initial post, and she's only posted a few times. Most of the questions she's answered are useless.

There are 60 some people on her thread waiting for good info. If she doesn't have any, she should just say so. I wasted an hour waiting for her.

Romulus said...

If Norweigans had higher ANE from the Saami then Finland/Sweeden should be on that list but they are not.

Davidski said...

It looks very similar to the ranking in table S14.9.

Like I said, Norwegians could well be that high if some are from the north or east of the country, where Saami ancestry plays a part, because the Saami sample I have has well over 20% of ANE.

But the Scots should be closer to the English. Just a little higher in fact.

Grey said...

"Norway according to Reich has more ANE than Balts, and Scots have more than Belrus? What?!"

take me home
country road
to the place
where i was born
west virginia
mountain mama
take me home
country road

Krefter said...

@Grey,
"take me home
country road
to the place
where i was born
west virginia
mountain mama
take me home
country road"

This thread is about Reich's lecture not your playlist.

Davidski said...

Romulus,

Finns aren't on the list because they don't fit the EEF-WHG-ANE model, due to ~5% Siberian admix.

Norwegians are on the list because they do fit the model. But that doesn't mean they don't have any Saami ancestry.

Grey said...

@Romulus

"If Norweigans had higher ANE from the Saami then Finland/Sweeden should be on that list but they are not."

If - apart from on the steppe - ANE was associated with mountains and swamps i.e. refuge zones, then the percentages in different regions / countries might correlate with percentage of mountains and swamp.

http://www.freeworldmaps.net/europe/scandinavia/physical-images/scandinavia-map.jpg

Norway has more mountains.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Nirjhar,
That first wave doesn't appear to have animals. None were found at those dates, for that site. I think the first one was around 5200BCE. I'll have to look it over again.

Grey said...

@Krefter

mountains

Romulus said...

That ANE list is a perfect match for CWC and subclades of R1a z282. Scotland/Iceland/England can be explained by Viking DNA from Norway.

Shaikorth said...

Table S14.9 is quite different, it has Hungarians above Norway, Iceland and all Slavic speakers, and Greeks(!) above English and Croatians. The latter is probably more implausible than Norwegians topping the list.

Krefter said...

I was just having fun Grey, I knew there was a point to it. It's a good song anyways.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
''That first wave doesn't appear to have animals. None were found at those dates, for that site. I think the first one was around 5200BCE. I'll have to look it over again.''
There is more than animals yeah tell what you find please.

PersonaMan said...

Lets be thankful for the information she gave us, it's been an interesting 'teaser' to the paper at least, and also somewhat enlightening. As i said on the forum, some new estimates could be made for the composition of the steppe people with the upper and lower estimates of the replacement by farmers and steppe people.

Davidski said...

That Scottish ANE estimate can only be explained by using only four Scottish samples (which is what they did) and the low coverage MA-1 sequence (which is probably what they did).

In comparison, there are around 20 Hungarians in the Human Origins dataset that they're using.

PersonaMan said...

@Romulus, England at least doesn't need to be explained by Vikings, as the Iron Age inhabitants there had as much or more WHG & ANE than the modern inhabitants judging by K8 at least.

Krefter said...

I suggest everyone go back to what they were doing.

Reich obviously didn't say anything big, and Jean Manco won't be honest about it.

Nirjhar007 said...

Chad, you can read this very important book when have time-
Hunters in Transition: Mesolithic Societies of Temperate Eurasia and Their Transition to Farming by G. Matyushin.

Marnie said...

@Romulus

"That ANE list is a perfect match for CWC and subclades of R1a z282. Scotland/Iceland/England can be explained by Viking DNA from Norway."

Yeah, and not R1b, particularly, which is what I've been saying all along.

Grey said...

"In fact he said they (the farmer like side of Yamnaya) did not come via Europe." sounds like Reich thinks the Ukraine route is out for the farmer side of Yamnaya?"

My guess is the southern edge of Kazakhstan near Almaty / Kyrgystan and the concentration of ANE on Davidski's ANE map

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQOS1YODhvOWpWNzg/view

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Asia-physical-map.gif

where apples comes from.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''I suggest everyone go back to what they were doing.

Reich obviously didn't say anything big, and Jean Manco won't be honest about it.''
I am here for another hour its still fun and exciting!:)

Grey said...

@Krefter

no worries, thought my bold hadn't worked or something :)

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Marnie,
Jean said that R1b is linked To ANE. Those Iberian beakers are 400 years after Britain an mixing with French and Iberian farmers.

Shaikorth said...

Reich himself speculated with Caucasus as the origin of the Middle Eastern side of Yamnaya.

Since he ruled Europe out, the only alternative indeed is eastern side of the Caspian. It will be interesting to see if they have pre-farmer mixture and post-farmer mixture Yamnaya Y-DNA.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

...and mixing with French and Iberian farmers. Excuse me.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Guys
''There was a brief mention of India. Reich was reminded of his paper on the two ancestral sources of South Asian populations. He pointed out that although the mixture between ASI and ANI can be dated to 4000 years ago i.e. 2000 BC, it is possible that the two populations had initially lived side by side without mixing. That is something that the genetics cannot tell us.''
I know its a out of focus but related,So
Any Views on the above suggestion?

Marnie said...

@Chad,

"Jean said that R1b is linked To ANE. Those Iberian beakers are 400 years after Britain an mixing with French and Iberian farmers."

Well, late me state here, that I do not think that R1b was originally strongly correlated with "ANE".

It may have become correlated, after CWC merged with Bell Beaker and others. But originally, it probably wasn't.

Matt said...

Re: Jean's comments on lactase, thinking about this again, Jean has commented it may be 4000 BP, aka 2000 BC in the comment thread rather than 4000 BC (thanks Jean if you're reading this btw, haven't said that yet).

If it's 4000 BP, and was present in the late Neolithic but not common, it may be somehow loosely linked to the steppe and to have gone into overdrive in the Bell Beakers, a population who sound like they may have had a low level of steppe ancestry (or at any rate, ANE linked ancestry).

That wouldn't be totally unexpected lactase persistence in Europe maps in some ways better to the BB culture today - it peaks in Ireland, Basque country, intermediate-ish in cultures who adopted a cattle heavy subsistence method in Scandinavia and who were BB affected, then dropping off in Southeast Europe and continental far East Europe, where the Corded Ware, Pitted Ware and other cultural complexes seem like they might have more genetic persistence?

So maybe lactase persistence spread first with some connection to the steppe but only got heavily selected due to expansion by an early Iberian "ranchero" culture. If the Atlantic region is great for cattle today, it may have been for a while.

If it's 4000 BC then TRB cattle herders sound like a likely candidate for Europe, but then that doesn't help us get the allele to India or explain dynamics within Europe any more than we already know.

Another tantalising comment from Jean is "There was a brief mention of India. (Reich) pointed out that although the mixture between ASI and ANI can be dated to 4000 years ago i.e. 2000 BC, it is possible that the two populations had initially lived side by side without mixing. That is something that the genetics cannot tell us."

That's an interesting idea - we know it happened in Europe, and we know that there were some problems with adapting Near Eastern crop packages to India and there was a collapse at some point http://archaeobotanist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/unravelling-agricultural-packages.html - Monsoon Asia was not the most suited to the Near Eastern crops either, which also points towards social rather than caloric drivers in crop spread. In another parallel with distant Britain the agriculture and sedentism in parts of the Deccan, most clearly in western Maharashtra, where wheat and barley were quite prominent, appear to have collapsed and possible were abandoned over a wide area (in this case around 1200-1000 BC at the end of the Jorwe period).. Maybe that led to a similar phenomenon of farmers dropping their barriers to intermarriage as may have happened in Europe?

Lot of speculation on little info, I know.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Not possible Marnie. Bell Beaker and Corded share about zero mtDNA markers, and probably next to zero yDNA markers. R1b had ANE.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There was some mixing in the Netherlands, but probably not a great deal of change. German Beakers plot by Corded Ware. They are too similar in ANE to have one derive from the other.

Romulus said...

@Marine

Yes I agree, R1b looks like it only has a trace association with ANE otherwise we would see more in the Irish. IMO all the evidence points to a Mediterranean/North African entry of R1b into Europe via Iberia and BBC. By the time they got there they would have high Near Eastern/EEF ancestry.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Romulus,
The Irish are 15-17%ANE. That's some of the highest in Europe. R1b is certainly linked to ANE.

Iberia is 400 years later... don't confuse yourselves.

Romulus said...

@Chad

They arent on Jean's list though.

Marnie said...

@Romulus

"R1b looks like it only has a trace association with ANE otherwise we would see more in the Irish. "

Yep.

" IMO all the evidence points to a Mediterranean/North African entry of R1b into Europe via Iberia and BBC."

Really, I still don't have any idea where R1b came from, but it definitely looks Mediterranean/Balkan/Near East and a little North African (originally).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

The Irish weren't included, like the last one, probably. I'm going by their K8 scores at Anthrogenica. All full-Irish people there are posting 15-17% ANE. Hinxton Celts in England were over 15% too.

Shaikorth said...

Romulus, Irish are not in the list because they are not in the Human Origins dataset, just like there are no Swedes, Poles, Swiss etc.

In addition some samples like Scots and Finns have insufficient sample sizes (<8).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm still putting my money on R1b being western steppe, to Bulgaria/Romania, to Hungary and Anatolia, and then Germany.

Marnie said...

@Chad

What about V88?

Colin Welling said...

@kefter

Norway according to Reich has more ANE than Balts, and Scots have more than Belrus? What?!

This is very indicative that some ANE from northwest europe came from the scandinavian neolithic.

@David

Table S14.10 is more accurate IMO. It makes more sense and correlates better with my own results.

You would trust your own results over their's? I get that they have flaws but these people know what they are doing and they have been dealing with more date for a longer period of time.

It looks like the ANE in mesolithic scandinavia contributed to the modern ANE levels of Northwest Europeans (norway, scotland, and iceland). Even iceland has a seizable amount of celtic ancestry. Things make a lot more sense if norway is that high in ANE...

Overall, I think your estimates for ANE are far too smooth. The reich model shows more variation within a region which is something that is probably true. For example, the czechs have more ANE than the Belarusians in the reich model.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That migration is the million dollar question. It broke off long before m269. Central Asia to West Asia, then Africa maybe. It obviously didn't follow the European group.

Davidski said...

Colin, I'll post something on this issue here in a couple of hours. Let's see what you say then.

Marnie said...

@Colin

"It looks like the ANE in mesolithic scandinavia contributed to the modern ANE levels of Northwest Europeans (norway, scotland, and iceland). Even iceland has a seizable amount of celtic ancestry. Things make a lot more sense if norway is that high in ANE..."

Well, Colin, hard to admit, but we actually agree.

And of course, the historical record (and genetics) reflects the Scots and Irish (as well as the Norse) connection with Iceland.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm doubting ANE in Mesolithic Britain. Denmark looks questionable now that German/TRB had none. They had to mix with Ertrbolle, you would think. It raises more questions as to how far South and West it went.

Nirjhar007 said...

Important Question
Jean comments on the source of ANE
''It is a new source, different from EEF clearly. That could fit Cucuteni-Tripolye, as it seems that they were partly derived from dairy farmers whose ancestors brought with them the pressure-blade technology which may be linked to ANE. We must just wait and see.''
Where did Pressure Blade Technology Started?

Davidski said...

Holy shit. Here's what Jean just said:

"This was a lecture by one man - Prof Reich. No 'they'. He said that R1a and R1b had travelled with the Indo-Europeans.* I cannot recall the exact form of words. On one slide, as I said, both CW and BB contained all three of his components. We know that there was R1b in BB in Germany. I really cannot tell you any more. He was not specific about the Y-DNA in Samara or Iberian Bell Beaker.

*Added: I have found my note. He said in the question session that Yamnaya had brought R1a and R1b to Europe."

Marnie said...

@Chad

"That migration is the million dollar question. It broke off long before m269. Central Asia to West Asia, then Africa maybe. It obviously didn't follow the European group."

Does look kinda West Caucasus/Anatolian/Balkan for the V88/P297 split.

To me, anyway.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

That's what I've been saying !!!! R1b is Indo European, and Bell Beaker is proto-Celt!!!
no doubt!!

Grey said...

"Not possible Marnie. Bell Beaker and Corded share about zero mtDNA markers"

Male R1b miners / smiths / traders from say Italy arriving in Iberia and settling among the Atlantic Megalith culture before spreading along the Atlantic coast to places like Ireland.

Just a thought.

Grey said...

i.e. maritime BB different from river BB but with the same male component

Marnie said...

@Chad

"I'm doubting ANE in Mesolithic Britain."

OK. But it was in Mesolithic Scandinavia. That we know.

Nirjhar007 said...

David
''"This was a lecture by one man - Prof Reich. No 'they'. He said that R1a and R1b had travelled with the Indo-Europeans.* I cannot recall the exact form of words. On one slide, as I said, both CW and BB contained all three of his components. We know that there was R1b in BB in Germany. I really cannot tell you any more. He was not specific about the Y-DNA in Samara or Iberian Bell Beaker.

*Added: I have found my note. He said in the question session that Yamnaya had brought R1a and R1b to Europe."
The Y-DNA case is still disappointing.

Colin Welling said...

hahaha, about freaking time! it feels so good to finally get a bit of vindication. Now, I really want to know how r1b and r1a took such different paths. Im still holding on to the notion that r1b is yamnaya and r1a is corded ware, which reich thinks is yamnaya derived but we will see.

Sorry, I don't mean to sidetrack with too much speculation.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

No Grey,
R1b is Indo European, as I've been saying.. link to ANE is too great.

Marnie said...

@Chad

"I'm doubting ANE in Mesolithic Britain."

OK. But it was in Mesolithic Scandinavia.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

As I've said. R1b is probably the Cotafeni and Ezero groups, out of Cernavoda!!!!
Corded is probably out of Fatyenevo, or however you spell it.

Nirjhar007 said...

But if Y-DNA R1a and R1b spread from Yamnaya it becomes easier.

Colin Welling said...

let us rejoice Chad! We can finally put that argument to rest. No more crap about but the pots were from iberia. now we can focus of the details of the IE migrations instead.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Guys
'': I have found my note. He said in the question session that Yamnaya had brought R1a and R1b to Europe."
Even the Greeks and Albanians?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

This makes the Irish about as Yamnaya as it gets. No surprise with that population boom. It looked that way with the numbers they posted.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Right on the tail of anyone else. That's for sure.

Nirjhar007 said...

I Didn't understand:).

Matt said...

Hmm... So if R1a and R1b are both common in Yamnaya or both common in Corded Ware (and it seems like they should both be common in at least one of these groups, or their low sample size wouldn't catch them), then you need some mechanism for how there is this split between R1a and R1b that maps the populations it does. Chance and powerful feedback effects is obviously quite unsatisfying, but if that's all there is...

Marnie said...

@Grey

Re:

"Male R1b miners / smiths / traders from say Italy arriving in Iberia and settling among the Atlantic Megalith culture before spreading along the Atlantic coast to places like Ireland."

Alps -> Iberia
Alps -> Atlantic coast

Don't know when, exactly.

I still think the Myers 2010 paper is very informative.

Marnie said...

@Colin:

"No more crap about but the pots."

Funny.

Krefter said...

Reich wouldn't say R1b is likely from Yamna, if he didn't find evidence with bronze age west Euro Y DNA and or Yamna.

Because Jean says Reich said Iberian Bell Beakers had differnt WHG/EEF/AE ratio as German ones, I think Iberian BB may have had ANE. IF Iberian BB was a continuation of the Neolithic, Reich would say so.

An early bronze age spread of R1b, ANE, and IE languages needs to seriously be considered for west Europe. Of course later IEs could have replaced older ones.

I wonder how Maju will react. Maciamo and others need some recognition because they've been saying this over 6 years.

Krefter said...

Davidski, you should put some of those "pure' Irish people at Anthrogencia on your spreadsheets.

Nirjhar007 said...

Now the Question is How old are this R1b from Yamnaya? what is the oldest sample from there?.

Grey said...

@Chad

"R1b is Indo European, as I've been saying.. link to ANE is too great."

Yeah, I'm saying two different routes: maritime to Iberia (male only) and an overland one (male and female).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Vindication is sweet... I pretty much guarantee there is no R1b in Iberia before 2000BCE. No more goddamn West Asia, North Africa BS!

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
'' No more goddamn West Asia, North Africa BS!''
West Asia Can be the source of Yamnayas R1b no doubt i think its the 6000 BC Jarmo Migration from Zagros-Zarzian which brought it with Old Clades of R1a!
And We don't know the aDNA of N Africa do we?.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There's nothing ancestral to European R1b in Africa. Case closed. Reich's words should be enough. I am not disputing a chance at West Asia, but the fact that V88 does not show up in Europe(much younger in Europe) could point to two routes. One north and one south of the Caspian.

Skilur said...

He did not say that r1b was found in yamna and it sound all not convincing for me so we need to wait untill we see the Samples. But it would be a big surprise when r1b was found there and belonged to PIE people

Krefter said...

I'm still skeptical. I'm fucking tired of Reich giving luke-warm leaks.

But anyways the fact he has probably somewhere around 30 new Y DNA samples, they have to give him reason to connected R1a and R1b to Yamna.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
''There's nothing ancestral to European R1b in Africa. Case closed. Reich's words should be enough. I am not disputing a chance at West Asia, but the fact that V88 does not show up in Europe(much younger in Europe) could point to two routes. One north and one south of the Caspian.''
No its never closed unless aDNA like of here is known!
South Caspian with 100% chance.

Krefter said...

Hold up. R1b and R1a might originally be from west Asia. If all Yamna Y DNA comes out being R1a and or R1b, but no EHG is R1a-R1b, we have to consider a west Asian introduction.

There are plenty examples of M269*, P27*, etc., etc. from west Asia. L23 is more diverse in west Asia than in Europe. We can't simply ignore this and say those are false results.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Anyone still trying to link R1b with Africa/Megalith/Holocene/Paleolithic BS needs to have their head checked.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Krefter,
L23 is by far more diverse in Bulgaria. I went over that with you already. That is full-y.

Nirjhar007 said...

''Hold up. R1b and R1a might originally be from west Asia. If all Yamna Y DNA comes out being R1a and or R1b, but no EHG is R1a-R1b, we have to consider a west Asian introduction.''
Yeah i just hope some aDNA from there will be done one day.

Krefter said...

Okay sure. But how do you explain more diversity in clades upstream of L23? How do you explain V88 in Africa? There's no illrefutable evidence for an origin of R1b and R1a north of the Caucasus.

R1a and R1b in Europe and some in Asia look like they went through the steppe, but that's it.

MfA said...

I think R1b was the near east like pop with high ANE people migrated from east or west Caspian sea.

Romulus said...

So R1b expanded and brought Indo European languages into Europe before R1a then. That makes the next game trying to determine when R1b arrived and how much later R1a showed up...

Nirjhar007 said...

@Krefter
''There's no illrefutable evidence for an origin of R1b and R1a north of the Caucasus. ''
Errrr i'm talking about West Asia around South Of Caspian every data considers it to be the PERFECT source for Indo-European homeland .
Maykop was the Bridge.
@MfA
''I think R1b was the near east like pop with high ANE people migrated from east or west Caspian sea.''
East.

Krefter said...

Jean Manco, says that Reich showed charts of ANE/WHG/EEF scores for ancient cultures.

She's to worried of giving inaccurate guesses, to even give a guess. I wish she was more open.

She said Otzi and Stuttgart looked like they had a "tiny winy" slice of ANE.

She also said German and Iberian Bell Beaker wasn't put in seperate sections,a nd that Reich said they had differnt ANE/WHG/EEF.

It appears to me Spanish BB had ANE and R1b, because Reich often spoke of German and Spanish BB as the same entity.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I'm not saying that R1a and R1b weren't the Armenian like population.. a lot has changed on the steppes, so we have no way of knowing what was and wasn't there, without ydna from Reich. It doesn't look like l23 is from West Asia though. M269s highest diversity is found where Albanians reside... that's another deal... We will have to wait and see.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Romulus
''So R1b expanded and brought Indo European languages into Europe before R1a then. That makes the next game trying to determine when R1b arrived and how much later R1a showed up...''
I guess majorly from ~3000 BC.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Those weren't early but probably Bronze Age Iberians with lower ANE than the German ones... not a shock looking at modern numbers. That is 400-600 years of mixing on the way to Iberia

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
''I'm not saying that R1a and R1b weren't the Armenian like population.. a lot has changed on the steppes, so we have no way of knowing what was and wasn't there, without ydna from Reich. It doesn't look like l23 is from West Asia though. M269s highest diversity is found where Albanians reside... that's another deal... We will have to wait and see.''
We have other conclusive data which like genes don't drift or get replaced! anyway yes we need more observations from Genetics side of course....

Marnie said...

@Chad

Here's a suggestion:

M269 (xL23) is centered in the Balkans M269(xL23).

At this early stage, it radiates out to the Alps, Italy, Poland, Anatolia, the Caucasus and Northern Kazakhstan.

So maybe R1b M269 doesn't come from any one of these places, but all of them.

Maybe R1b was operating some kind of wide ranging network in order to dominate key hunting grounds, or something like that.

Davidski said...

Here's an e-mail I just sent to Nick Patterson:

I'm just reading some notes that Jean Manco posted online from David Reich's lecture. Here's a list that she posted of the top 11 ethnic groups in Europe in terms of ANE admixture, presumably from the Affy-based Human Oirgins dataset (highest to lowest).

Norway
Lithuania
Estonia
Iceland
Scotland
Czech Rep.
Belarus
Hungary
Ukraine
England
Croatia

I was wondering why the Scots (and even the potentially SHG-admixed Norwegians) were so high up on this list, while the Ukrainians so far down, if we are to suppose that ANE moved across Europe from the east to the west. So I ran an f3 test with the samples from the Human Origins, in the form f3(Mbuti;MA-1,Test), and found that Northwestern Europeans did indeed share relatively high affinity with MA-1.

Estonian 0.246825
Lithuanian 0.246348
Finnish 0.245232
Russian_Kargopol 0.244716
Mordovian 0.24465
Scottish_Argyll 0.244559
Icelandic 0.244279
Belarusian 0.243812
Orcadian 0.243784
English_Cornwall 0.24373
Norwegian 0.243547

However, this isn't the case when I run the same test on my illumina SNP dataset, with a sequence of MA-1 obtained directly from http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/suppl/malta.

Erzya 0.287287
Mari 0.286945
Russian_Kargopol 0.286772
Finnish 0.286262
Estonian 0.286254
Lithuanian 0.286058
Chuvash 0.285436
Belorussian 0.285394
Moksha 0.28527
Swedish 0.28423
Polish 0.283696

Call me crazy, but the second set of results makes more sense to me. I've attached the output from both tests with this e-mail.

Now, here are the top 25 ethnic groups in Europe in terms of ANE admixture based on my K8 ADMIXTURE analysis, again, using the illumina dataset and taking account of ENA Siberian, East Asian and South Asian ancestry. This list is also dominated by Eastern Europeans, with the Argylle Scots only coming in at 25th.

Mari (n=15) 0.2304
Chuvash (n=18) 0.2161
Erzya (n=9) 0.2011
Tatar (n=19) 0.1976
Russia Kargopol (n=25) 0.1931
Moksha (n=5) 0.1926
Russia Orel (n=7) 0.1849
Estonia (n=15) 0.1825
Russia Kursk (n=4) 0.1813
Lithuania (n=10) 0.181
Finland (n=3) 0.1738
Polish Estonian (n=10) 0.1729
Ukraine Belgorod (n =6) 0.1725
Russia Voronez (n=4) 0.1722
Belarussian (n=15) 0.169
Russia Smolensk (n=8) 0.1686
Poland (n=22) 0.1683
Ukraine Poltava (n=5) 0.1638
Ukraine Kharkov (n=2) 0.1636
Ukraine Lviv (n=6) 0.1597
Moldovian (n=7) 0.1597
Norwegian (n=15) 0.1551
Sweden (n=18) 0.1548
Utah Scandinavian (n=8) 0.154
Scottish_Argyll (n=4) 0.152

So what I'm wondering is, does the MA-1 sequence from the Human Origins possibly include some Northwest European-specific contamination that might be skewing the results? If not, what do you think might be causing this discrepancy in ANE admixture/affinity estimates between the Affy and illumina datasets? Perhaps ascertainment bias?

Mike Thomas said...

So Chad, did you go to the conference ?

Mike Thomas said...

are we getting definite clues that there was R1b and R1a in Yamnaya, or was the Reich lecture a Waftam ?

Grey said...

"what do you think might be causing this discrepancy in ANE"

two separate sources of a related component: western ANE and eastern ANE?

Marnie said...

@Grey
@Davidski

"two separate sources of a related component: western ANE and eastern ANE?"

yeah. don't know about western and eastern, but two separate sources for ANE might do this.

. . . the non-linear effects.

f3 statistics probably can't handle this.

Davidski said...

Err, no, I'd say it's either slight Northwest European contamination in the Human Origins MA-1 sequence, or the fact that the two datasets are based on SNPs ascertained in very different populations (from memory, Pygmies and Europeans).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
I'm going to the one in March, that covers the Greeks and others. I'm all signed up. This one was in England. I'm going to St. Louis, Missouri.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Apparently, Reich did say that R1b and R1a are Indo-European. It was pretty obvious to begin with.. ANE rates of NW Europe and all.

Marnie said...

"or the fact that the two datasets are based on SNPs ascertained in very different populations (from memory, Pygmies and Europeans)."

OK, but ascertaining on different populations could skew the two sources of "ANE" differently, thus resorting the order of the "ANE" rich pops.

Mike Thomas said...

Ah ur going to the March one, NP.

I'll have to wait for the full paper. Until then, I'm still hedging a balkan avenue for R1b

Chad Rohlfsen said...

He said it's Indo-European. They must have a Yamnaya R1b, plus the uniparental markers with Corded and Beaker do not match up to any sort of belief that Beaker received its ANE from Corded. They are too similar. I do think that Bulgaria and Romania are the staging points... so kind of Balkans.. yes.. Cotafeni/Ezero/Early Mako/Vucedol.. to Beaker.. etc.

Roy King said...

I'm very certain that R1b will be found in the aDNA Samara/Yamnaya samples from Reich's comments. Phylogeographically it makes sense--M73 and M269 are sister clades and both are found among Bashkirs and other Middle Eastern/Central Asian populations, eg among Tajiks and in the Iranian samples along the South Caspian. L23 variance is actually highest in Pakistan! I've said very little for two reasons: 1) I am an academic and honor the peer review process and 2) I have been a major proponent of J2 convecting the first Neolithic farmers to Europe which is clearly now not the case, with G2a taking preeminence.
That said, R1b surfed from the Eastern/Northern Caspian all the way into Europe with, probably, some R1b-L23 migrating from the Balkans into Anatolia, ferrying the Anatolian languages there.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

L23 variance is highest in Bulgaria.

Krefter said...

@Roy,

Do you support the idea that R1a and R1b originated south of the Caucasus?

Is there any good chance in your mind L23 in west Asia is of non-steppe origin?

Roy King said...

@Chad,
Only in Bulgaria East(n=6) is L23* diversity the highest, not in Central or Western Bulgaria.
@Krefter,
It could be that L23*/Z2105 has two sub-branches, one circulating/originating into/in Iran and the other circulating through the Balkans from the Steppes. Note that even the Uygurs have L23* and M343*

Skilur said...

it is possible that some r1b was found in yamna but i doubt that western europeans descend from this yamna r1b males and it was still not confirmed that r1b was found there. most r1b in europe looks for me like it spread from the balkan to western europe but i am not sure.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Of course it is on the East. The steppe migrants stayed on the Black Sea before heading NW. You see the same thing in Romania. Ezero was on the Black Sea Coast. Not inland. Cotafeni started on the coast too. It's all out of Cernavoda.... again. Black Sea coast.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Those Pontic Kurgan folks were there for a long time before migrating out. Cernavoda intrusion is put at 4200BCE and not in the Carpathian Basin with Early Mako until about 2800BCE. Ezero started at 3300BCE, but isn't believed to have influence in Anatolia before 2800BCE.

Nirjhar007 said...

Thanks to Roy for those important points.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Anyway, an important point to make is that L51 and z2103/2105 are brothers. . A breakup of L23 in Europe makes more sense.

Nirjhar007 said...

No.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Why no, Nirjhar? It still wouldn't go against what you say. L23 is only dated from about 3500BCE to a max of 4200BCE, based on full SNPs. You could still have p25 or p297 as West Asian and the rest as Yamnaya.. there's lots of possibilities. Let's wait and see what they have.

Mike Thomas said...

Maybe R1b was found in yamnaya ; but then did it "drift" away ?
I'm not sure what reich has said explicitly . But it might have gone to the Balkans from anatolia , initially from central Asia

Mike Thomas said...

Chad - Cernadova was a balkan late Copper age site . It was before yamnaya ; so it's rise doesn't match with ur Kurgan intrusions.

Nirjhar007 said...

@CR
i DON'T TRUST ANY INDIRECT DATINGS.
I ''assume''
L23 appeared in Yamnya in ~3000 intrusion from Maykop.
@MT
''Maybe R1b was found in yamnaya ; but then did it "drift" away ?
I'm not sure what reich has said explicitly . But it might have gone to the Balkans from anatolia , initially from central Asia ''
You say quite you know quite supportable i think.

AWood said...

@Chad Rohlfsen

M269 and L23 founder are far east European, north of the Caspian sea. You're mostly correct, but the key piece of information is L51 is central European, and a very rapid expansion after that point in west-central Europe of L11 and downstream branches.

L23 comes in very many flavours, and the latest research is just now untangling this web. We've already seen the link between Albanian/Greek and Ossetian. L584 might be representative of the Cimmerians as another example.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Cernavoda was mixed, and just a first wave. I don't think anything is just one wave, but several. Even Kemi Oba kurgan burial types show up in the Carpathian basin in the early 3rd M BCE.

I don't think they would say that R1b came with Indo Europeans outside of what they have, which is Yamnaya. They don't have Balkan data, so it must be in Yamnaya as well. I think PIE goes back to Khvalynsk.. before Yamnaya.

Nirjhar007 said...

''. I think PIE goes back to Khvalynsk.. before Yamnaya.''
I think R1a and R1b will be there surely.

Kurti said...

I quote

"Yamnaya are a mixture of ANE and a population of Near Eastern origin which arrived in Europe via a different route than the early farmers. In fact he said they did not come via Europe. I assume that he means they were not simply EEF, but he did not give any details or mention that they were ANE-rich. He speculated that they could have come from the Caucasus."

So a mixture of ANE and Near Eastern pastoralists. Not so much room for WHG?

Davidski said...

Jean just made a mistake. We already know that Yamnaya were a mixture of EHG and something ANE/Near Eastern.

Krefter said...

Reich said all Euro HGs, including EHG, were fairly similar to each other. This goes along with Chad saying EHG was something like 65% WHG.

I have a feeling the published paper will have weird ANE and Yamna scores. Norwegians, Scots, tec. might be towards the top. They'll probably score more EEF than Balts, which will encourage Reich and his team even more to say they have more Yamna.

Krefter said...

When the paper is published will the genomes be aviable?

If so hopefully you can do your own work with them, and make some-type of Yamna admixture.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Chad re Cernadova

Mixed what ? Genetically - perhaps
Culturally it is that late phase neolithic switching to a more dispersed / pastoralist economy
To attribute it to the steppe would require rather tenuous argument that there was a pre-Yamnaya Repin expansion

Chad Rohlfsen said...

According to several people, it's mixed burials. Some are just like North Pontic groups, with the same pottery. Around 3300-3000 are the ones supposedly linked to Celtic-italic, in the next wave.

Mike Thomas said...

"Celtic-Italic" in 3000 BC ? Not possible
Maybe their great great ancestors
But celtic and italic formed separately ; first of all; and then some 2000 years later

Nirjhar007 said...

Mike, I think its a good time to clarify your suggestion of PIE ~3000 BC! again, you there?

Davidski said...

Krefter,

Yeah, the genomes will be published with the paper.

I'll try to make a Yamnaya test and stick it up at GEDmatch.

It should be doable with nine Yamnaya samples plus CWC and others with lots of Yamnaya-related ancestry.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

2000 years later? That goes against the grain. Some do put a Celto italic group up.. Some separate them.

Mike Thomas said...

Nirj

What I was alluding to on earlier occasions, w.r.t the dating of PIE, is that I agree with the linguistic evidence for the chronology, broadly speaking, suggested by the Kurgan hypothesis, and indeed as also similarly suggested by G & I for a Caucasian homeland and others for central Asia.

What I did doubt was the confidence with which linguists claimed they can actually locate the very spot from which IE was born, for two reasons Firstly, linguistic palaentology does not have anywhere near that kind of power, contrary to what many believe ; and secondly, it is rather arbitrary to start at one place as a 'homeland' : or even 'proto-langauges' have 'pre-proto-languages', - so where do you draw the line ?

So my point was we should be very clear as to what we are talking about when was say 'proto-IE". And that is - the common ancestor of all *current* and *known extinct* IE languages, a concept analogous to TMRCA.

On this basis, Id argue for something closer to 3000 BC than, say, 4500 BC (the original form of Gimbutas' framework). Genetics aside, the evidence for this comes from Mycenean (as analysed by Garret). Mycenean Greek, he describes, is 'barely Greek'- essentially it is proto-Indo-European adapted to the Aegean locale by adopting local lexical items. Otherwise, morhpologically and syntacticaly, it deviates little from reconstructed PIE. So, then, if Mycenean dates to the early half of M2, and looks still very 'new', then we needn't stretch the age of PIE back a whole further 2500 years, but at most by 1000. Make sense ?

Furthermore, what I said to Chad. There was no such thing as Celto-Italic; and there is no point arguing as to whether Germanic is closer to Celtic or Slavic. Linguists have been debating that for centuries and have failed to reslove the issue.

This is becuase languages like Slavic, Germanic and even Celtic are rather later formations- as my earlier digressions about the "Iron Age". This is not to say some earlier, ancestral forms of IE had not reached central or eastern Europe. But Celtic, Germanic and Slavic, whilst are 'genetically descended' from them, are not *linearly* so. Ie. Cetlci, Germanic and Slavic are not primary , daughter branches of early PIE, but secondary or tertiary reconstitutions.

Certainly that is what scholars are generally positing for the formation of Italic langauges. There was no proto-Italic branch of IE; but rather the various "Italic" languages formed *within Italy* throguh processes of language contact amongst earlier similar, but distinct IE lects.

Alberto said...

I'm late to the party :)

Some quick questions:

- R1b: He didn't specify if the R1b found in Yamna was pre-Armenian-like intrusion or post, did he? At this point, the Armenian-like pop seems like the best candidate for bringing it there, right?
- If so, how does this close the door for it continuing from Armenia to Anatolia to Bulgaria?

- What does "replacement" mean exactly? That WHG were 100% replaced by Near Eastern, or by EEF (which were mixed of both pops)?
- Assuming it means full replacement and not admixture, he said before that the steppe people were 50% replaced by "Armenian-like" people. When he later speaks about 60-80% replacement of this second wave of migration, he refers to the Armenian-like people replacing 60-80% of north euro population? I can't see those numbers match. But if he refers to the mix of both steppe and Armenian-like, it's confusing (like saying that Balkan EEF replaced 100% people from Sardinia).

I think we have to wait for the genome data itself to really know what all this means.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad, the overwhelming concensus is that there was no "Italo-Celtic", nor even a proto-Celtic or proto-Italic (!)

The only agreed higher order groups are Balto-Slavic - which only betrays the extremely young age of both; and Indo-Aryan, much older.

Speaking of which, for Indo-Aryan, even if some early IE -speaking groups migrated into south-central Asia from elswhere, Indo-Aryan itself 'developed' in the sphere of central Asia. So technically speaking, there was no Indo-Aryan invasion. (?!)

Nirjhar007 said...

Thank you so much Mike,
''What I was alluding to on earlier occasions, w.r.t the dating of PIE, is that I agree with the linguistic evidence for the chronology, broadly speaking, suggested by the Kurgan hypothesis, and indeed as also similarly suggested by G & I for a Caucasian homeland and others for central Asia. ''
Of Course.
''What I did doubt was the confidence with which linguists claimed they can actually locate the very spot from which IE was born, for two reasons Firstly, linguistic palaentology does not have anywhere near that kind of power, contrary to what many believe ; and secondly, it is rather arbitrary to start at one place as a 'homeland' : or even 'proto-langauges' have 'pre-proto-languages', - so where do you draw the line ? ''
I mostly Agree yes but some Branches for Example Indo-Iranian has large Archaeotextual data though not very conclusive to locate PIE but surely gives some crucial indications.
''So my point was we should be very clear as to what we are talking about when was say 'proto-IE". And that is - the common ancestor of all *current* and *known extinct* IE languages, a concept analogous to TMRCA.''
Of Course.
''On this basis, Id argue for something closer to 3000 BC than, say, 4500 BC (the original form of Gimbutas' framework). Genetics aside, the evidence for this comes from Mycenean (as analysed by Garret). Mycenean Greek, he describes, is 'barely Greek'- essentially it is proto-Indo-European adapted to the Aegean locale by adopting local lexical items. Otherwise, morhpologically and syntacticaly, it deviates little from reconstructed PIE. So, then, if Mycenean dates to the early half of M2, and looks still very 'new', then we needn't stretch the age of PIE back a whole further 2500 years, but at most by 1000. Make sense ?''
Not Much Mike we often see Peripheral issue where the extreme branches show more conservative structure like for example Lithuanian or Sanskrit they also don't deviate much at all and again for example though Tocharian is barely 1500 YBP still show genuine Archaisms.

Nirjhar007 said...

Continuing....
''This is becuase languages like Slavic, Germanic and even Celtic are rather later formations- as my earlier digressions about the "Iron Age". This is not to say some earlier, ancestral forms of IE had not reached central or eastern Europe. But Celtic, Germanic and Slavic, whilst are 'genetically descended' from them, are not *linearly* so. Ie. Cetlci, Germanic and Slavic are not primary , daughter branches of early PIE, but secondary or tertiary reconstitutions. ''
Since they lack the Archaeotexts its difficult to Certify but yes what you say is scientific.
''Certainly that is what scholars are generally positing for the formation of Italic langauges. There was no proto-Italic branch of IE; but rather the various "Italic" languages formed *within Italy* throguh processes of language contact amongst earlier similar, but distinct IE lects. ''
Yes that is of course neat well said!

Krefter said...

Jean just said Reich said EHG was 50/50 x/y. I'm assuming that's WHG and ANE. But we have to remember Reich's ANE is different from Eurogenes ANE. It's hard to say what they'd score in ANE K8.

Davidski said...

We'll soon find out.

Krefter said...

Has Patterson responded to your email about ANE?

Davidski said...

Not yet.

Alberto said...

Yes, the best news I've heard here is that "the genomes will be published with the paper".

I don't know how the paper will be (the teasers we've seen so far are all rather confusing in their wording), but if the genomes are publicly available that will be the really important thing.

I can't wait for David to get hold of them :)

postneo said...

Non european route is vague. Have they sampled areas east of Yamnaya? Maykop is still in Europe I guess they have sampled that?

mickeydodds1 said...

I don't know about 'pygmy dna' being used in some of the assay tests, but I do know about some 'intellectual' pygmies.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
All the ones I've seen have a Celtic and italic break off from PIE around 3000BCE. Some have Italic first.

Marnie said...

@Mike Thomas

"Genetics aside, the evidence for this comes from Mycenean (as analysed by Garret). Mycenean Greek, he describes, is 'barely Greek'- essentially it is proto-Indo-European adapted to the Aegean locale by adopting local lexical items. Otherwise, morhpologically and syntacticaly, it deviates little from reconstructed PIE."

That's very interesting.

Going back to our discussion about endogamy, I remember reading in one of Victor David Hanson's book that the Mycenaean elites of Athens were endogamous.

A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War:
http://www.amazon.com/War-Like-Other-Athenians-Peloponnesian/dp/0812969707

And of course, Mycenaean mythology matches the North of Greece (Twelve Olympians).

Which is not to say that the Mycenaeans are originally from near Mount Olympus, only to say that many of them were not originally from Athens and the Peloponnese.

Gaspar said...

@ M. Thomas
It is true that Mycenean is "barely greek". Greek in modern terms is doric based, that is ancient albanian-epirote in origin ( not referring to albanians , only th eland area ).
The Myceneans even influenced the Castellieri culture of the northern adriatic sea area

Marnie said...

Argos, a Mycenaean stronghold, in the Peloponnese, is thought to originally have taken it's name from Argos Orestikon, on Lake Kastoria.

http://argosorestikonproject.org/en/

This Lake Kastoria Argos Orestikon is throught to have been the original seat of power of the Macedonians. (It was only later moved to Pella.)

. . . at least according to Peter Green in his book Alexander of Macedon 356-323 BC

http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Macedon-356-323-B-C-Historical/dp/0520071662

Argos Orestikon is about 70 miles east of Mount Olympus.

The Dispilio site (where the Dispilio Tablet was found) also happens to be on Lake Kastoria.

Again, I don't think this is where the PIEs "came from".

I'm just noting here that if the Mycenean language is associated with PIE, many people, including Peter Green, think that the Myceneans at least "passed through" and are partly related to the Ancient Macedonians of Lake Kastoria.

I'll also mention that my husband's parent's village is on Mount Voion (Mount Boion), thought to be the homeland (at least linguistically) for the Boeotians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeotia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voio

So, in short, there's *a lot* of evidence that the Mycenean and Boeotian languages originated from the Central Southern Plateau of the Balkans, directly east of the Pindos Mountain Range.

Simon_W said...

Lol, a lot of people are going crazy now, especially on Anthrogenica. Their emotions completely overpower their minds. To me it doesn't come as a surprise that there was R1b in Yamnaya, that's what I was predicting lately. But I did and do have doubts that western European R1b is descended primarily from this steppe R1b. R1b may have spread along several different paths. In particular I think it would be necessary to show that Iberian Bell Beaker males had no R1b. I'm not sure if the Reich team did this. I can't see clear evidence for this in Jean's posts. If Reich believes that R1b came from Yamnaya and was associated with IE that's of course his right. But before I'm going to acknowledge that this is true I have to see the evidence Reich is drawing upon, maybe it's not as conclusive as some people want to believe.

bellbeakerblogger said...

@Simon_W

"To me it doesn't come as a surprise that there was R1b in Yamnaya"

Same. Exciting, but the leaks mostly confirm what is known or expected.

I wait to see what Reich's explanation for Western European R1b being descended from North Pontic R1b. I'm guessing the argument will be disappointing.

Mike Thomas said...


Same . I think there are still some major gaps ; but I'm sure will be forthcoming in near future. Inwoupd t be surprised if R1b came mostly via the Balkans; although I think the via northern africa case requires special pleading. In any case, it remains to be explained whi R1b is now scarce in western Eurasian steppe , by and large.

Chad- you're missing the point . Those old 'branch" phylogenies are wrong . They are too much a static, 'Family tree' rendition of IE; which overestimates the age of many languages and also fails to render the complexity of their origin

Quite simply ; there was no "Celtic" language in 3000 BC; or even 2000BC

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Mike,
Who's work do you base that on? Please post it. Thanks.

Grey said...

If R1b BB in Iberia (and any offshoots along the Atlantic coast) were mostly males then their ANE could be lower than BB groups that were both male and female.

Krefter said...

After Reich's paper is published hopefully the anti-ANE R1b-L11 connection people will open their eyes.

I don't see anyway around R1b-L11 not being a bronze age introduction to west Europe from east Europe.

Reich wouldn't say what he said unless there's evidence in Y DNA. I guarantee very basal forms of L11 will be found in Bell Beaker, along with ANE which wasn't there before.

Krefter said...

I'm very frustrated with the hesistent nature of Jean Manco's thread. It's as if she was afraid to tell people what she knew.

People are so happy she even went, that they're afraid to confront her on this.

Why didn't she say EHG was 50/50 Y/X, after over 100 posts? Why did she say Reich said R1b and R1a in Europe are from Yamna, so late?

She refuses to even give a guess based on memory what the PCAs and WHG/EEF/ANE scores were. Why?! Is she going to be brought to court for making inaccurate guesses?

Davidski said...

It is hard to fathom. I didn't believe it myself only a couple of years ago.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/first-r1b-from-neolithic-europeand-it.html

But if the paper comes out with really strong data, then it is what it is.

PersonaMan said...

As for what grey said in regards to Iberian BB being predominantly male - Perhaps this is related to the divide between northern/eastern Europe being predominantly U5a, while southwestern Europe is predominantly U5b? Just a thought. In Denmark i recall that 75% of the U5 was U5a, while it was the opposite in Spain or Portugal.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Iberian BB is less ANE because it was 600 years after the fact, and mixed with people enroute to Iberia, that had NO ANE. Simple enough. It's not about male and female. The fact that Beaker is more typical European Neolithic mtDNA, should be a bit of a clue as to why it's a little less ANE than Corded. Wouldn't that be funny if Kromsdorf was the real group that R1b came in with, and the other BB sites are just taking local wives?!?...

Marnie said...

Grey,

"If R1b BB in Iberia (and any offshoots along the Atlantic coast) were mostly males then their ANE could be lower than BB groups that were both male and female."

or, R1b BB didn't have much "ANE"

and R1b's "ANE" is from a different source than R1a's.

I think Reich and company should be doing a better job.

I'd like to know why it takes more than 10 paid academic researchers, and a boatload of postdocs, more than a year to actually get in wrong about there being more than two sources for the "shift" in the European population since the Neolithic.

The stats methods being used look pretty lame and don't support the wild assertion of "mass replacement" from "the Steppe" in the Bronze Age.

Better methods are available, but are not being used.

Marnie said...

I meant "two or more sources for the "shift" in the European population since the Neolithic."

Romulus said...

So what are the implications farther down the line of R1b in Yamnaya?

Does BBC represent the arrival of the first R1b Europeans in Western Europe Circa 2800 B.C.?

Basque/Aquitanian is the language of the first Neolithic inhabitants of Western Europe who were wiped out by the R1b Indo Europeans but who also adopted their language?

It would be nice if someone could provide a coherent complete narrative based on the new data.

Davidski said...

It's far from certain that Vasconic (Basque-related) languages were present in Western Europe during the Neolithic.

The interesting thing is that BR1 and BR2, the genomes from Bronze Age Hungary, are very similar to modern western French and Basques.

So perhaps the ancestors of modern Basques were among the people who moved west from the Carpathian Basin during the Bronze Age?

Maybe Western Europe was like the wild west of the Bronze Age, with all sorts of groups, Indo-European and non-Indo-European, from the steppe, Balkans and Anatolia heading there?

Mike Thomas said...

Romulus - That Vasconic idea is Idiotic. It rests on pseudo-scholarly methods liek Venneman, who reconstructed the entire prehistory of wetsern Europe on the basis of two (!!) toponyms. hardly convincing. Naturally, the idea has been championed by Basque nationalists.


David:
A question for you- apart from Samara, Germany and Spain, do you know where else Reich et al sampled from ?

ZeGrammarNazi said...

He has samples from Hungary as well, Mike. I believe they are from a previously published study, though.

Davidski said...

As far as I know, the new genome-wide samples come from:

- Mittelelbe region, Germany

- Carpathian Basin, Hungary

- Samara Valley, Russia

- northern Spain

They include everything from indigenous hunter-gatherers to Bronze Age Europeans. And it's likely that the paper will also use all of the sequences already published, like those from Sweden (Gokhem2, Motala12 etc.) and Russia (MA-1 and K14).

Davidski said...

ZeGrammar,

My understanding is that the Hungarian samples won't be the ones from Gamba et al., but from Szécsényi-Nagy et al.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/first-i1-m253-from-prehistoric-europe.html

But I could be wrong.

Mike Thomas said...

Chad- for the idea of Italic being a later formation within Italy (hence no "proto-Italic Yamnaya derived Carpathian peoples) see "the Indo-European Languages by Ramat, Ch 11: "Italic". https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vwUMNCYbLL0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=indo+european,+ramat&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bJvaVMDdJ4yj8AWizoGADA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=indo%20european%2C%20ramat&f=false)

Particularly, they write "the undisputed connections with Latin are largely the result of late processes of convergence and therefore do not bear witness to any 'intermediate unity' at prehistoric level" and further "invalidate the mechanistic theory of a broader intermediate "Italo-Celtic" theory.

At least for the latter, the idea has never met with support, even the 20th century works with which you are more familiar with. Eg Ben Fortson (Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction; p 310).

Whilst even today, the idea of ITalo-Celtic lingers (https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/28589/Derivational%20Morphology%20-%20New%20Perspectives%20on%20the%20Italo-Celtic%20Hypothesis.pdf?sequence=1), their similarities are difficult to prove beyond the known historic intense contact, and even if true archaic common innovations, need not be cnsidered anything more than going back to ancient "IE roots'.

For further, and more technical reading, see "A New Model of Indo—European Subgrouping and Dispersal" A Garrett. This and others of his article develop what I have been saying. In fact, even Athony in his latest blockbuster briefly at the end admits the shortfalls of traditional tree-approaches to langauge. Thus he might awaken to him speculating about the ancestors of the Enlgish being found in 3000 BC Hungary worht nothing more than a light-hearted speculation.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 261   Newer› Newest»