Brotherton et al. have just released a new paper in which they publish the full mitochondrial sequences of 39 ancient remains dating from 5000 BCE to 500 BCE. 37 of them are from Neolithic and Bronze Age Germany. The two others belong respectively to the Nuragic culture of Bronze Age Sardinia (H1aw1) and the Alpine Celtic Iron Age in what is now South Tyrol, Italy (H90). The data is in itself invaluable, but the interpretation made by the authors of the study is, as usual, very subjective and in my opinion completely mistaken.
The paper says:
I do not doubt that most subclades of mt-haplogroup H were brought to Europe mainly by Neolithic farmers. There are nevertheless exceptions, and H1 and H3, two subclades very common in Iberia and in Bell Beaker sites, may well have developed in southwest Europe during the Mesolithic or Palaeolithic. Others, like H5a and H7 are more likely to have migrated first from the Middle East to the Pontic Steppes, then to Europe with the PIE-speakers and Y-hg R1b (=> see Identifying the original Indo-European mtDNA from isolated settlements).
But, the biggest problem with this paper is that they assume that the Y-DNA haplogroups that are most common in Europe today (R1b and R1a) were brought by the same people as those associated with the most common mtDNA haplogroups. This attitude reflects an excessively simplistic and even naive vision of population genetics.
My understanding of Indo-European migrations is that adventurous R1b men from the Pontic Steppes invaded at first Southeast Europe, where they had children mostly with local women, then progressively conquered all Central and Western Europe. The consequence of staying nearly 1000 years in the Danube basin before moving westward is that their mtDNA would have become essentially the same as that of the Neolithic people of Southeast Europe. Using the same strategy of killing or ostracising men in conquered populations and taking the women as trophies, concubines or wives, the R1b people would have become perfectly hybridised on paternal and maternal lines, pretty much as what can be observed in some Latin American countries today (with mostly European Y-DNA and a lot of Native American mtDNA).
Brotherton et al. are jumping to the wrong conclusions and attributing the spread of Indo-European languages to Neolithic farmers, and placing the origins of Celtic culture in Iberia with the Bell Beakers. I have commented enough on the ludicrousness of such theories on this forum, so I won't say more.
Here is a summary of the deep subclades identified by the study.
Linear Pottery (LBK), c. 5000 BCE, Germany
H (2x), H1bz, H1e, H1j, H23, H26, H46b, H88
Rossen culture, c. 4625-4250 BCE, Germany
H1, H5b, H16, H89
Schöningen culture, c. 4100-3950 BCE, Germany
H1e7, H10i
Baalberge culture, c. 3950-3400 BCE, Germany
H1e1a5, H7d5
Salzmünde culture, c. 3400-3025 BCE, Germany
H3 (2x)
Corded Ware, c. 2700-2400 BCE, Germany
H1, H6a1a
Bell Beaker culture, c. 2500-2050 BCE, Germany
H1, H1e7, H3b, H4a1, H5a3, H13a1a2c
Unetice culture, c. 2200-1575 BCE, Germany
H2a1a3, H3, H4a1a1a5, H7h, H11a, H82a
Three years ago, I already mentioned on this forum that mtDNA H2, H5a, H7 and H13 might all have been among Indo-European lineages associated with the spread of Y-haplogroup R1b. The Unetice culture, the first supposedly R1b culture in Central Europe, also corresponds to the first appearance of H2 and H7, while the contemporary sites here listed under Bell Beaker contain both H5a and H13. It has happened before that Unetice sites were wrongly reported as Bell Beaker.
The paper says:
Brotherton et al. said:The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE.
...
This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East.
...
Our new estimate is incompatible with traditional views that the majority of present-day hg H lineages were carried into Central, Northern and Eastern Europe via a post-glacial human population expansion before the Holocene (12 kya).
I do not doubt that most subclades of mt-haplogroup H were brought to Europe mainly by Neolithic farmers. There are nevertheless exceptions, and H1 and H3, two subclades very common in Iberia and in Bell Beaker sites, may well have developed in southwest Europe during the Mesolithic or Palaeolithic. Others, like H5a and H7 are more likely to have migrated first from the Middle East to the Pontic Steppes, then to Europe with the PIE-speakers and Y-hg R1b (=> see Identifying the original Indo-European mtDNA from isolated settlements).
But, the biggest problem with this paper is that they assume that the Y-DNA haplogroups that are most common in Europe today (R1b and R1a) were brought by the same people as those associated with the most common mtDNA haplogroups. This attitude reflects an excessively simplistic and even naive vision of population genetics.
My understanding of Indo-European migrations is that adventurous R1b men from the Pontic Steppes invaded at first Southeast Europe, where they had children mostly with local women, then progressively conquered all Central and Western Europe. The consequence of staying nearly 1000 years in the Danube basin before moving westward is that their mtDNA would have become essentially the same as that of the Neolithic people of Southeast Europe. Using the same strategy of killing or ostracising men in conquered populations and taking the women as trophies, concubines or wives, the R1b people would have become perfectly hybridised on paternal and maternal lines, pretty much as what can be observed in some Latin American countries today (with mostly European Y-DNA and a lot of Native American mtDNA).
Brotherton et al. are jumping to the wrong conclusions and attributing the spread of Indo-European languages to Neolithic farmers, and placing the origins of Celtic culture in Iberia with the Bell Beakers. I have commented enough on the ludicrousness of such theories on this forum, so I won't say more.
Here is a summary of the deep subclades identified by the study.
Linear Pottery (LBK), c. 5000 BCE, Germany
H (2x), H1bz, H1e, H1j, H23, H26, H46b, H88
Rossen culture, c. 4625-4250 BCE, Germany
H1, H5b, H16, H89
Schöningen culture, c. 4100-3950 BCE, Germany
H1e7, H10i
Baalberge culture, c. 3950-3400 BCE, Germany
H1e1a5, H7d5
Salzmünde culture, c. 3400-3025 BCE, Germany
H3 (2x)
Corded Ware, c. 2700-2400 BCE, Germany
H1, H6a1a
Bell Beaker culture, c. 2500-2050 BCE, Germany
H1, H1e7, H3b, H4a1, H5a3, H13a1a2c
Unetice culture, c. 2200-1575 BCE, Germany
H2a1a3, H3, H4a1a1a5, H7h, H11a, H82a
Three years ago, I already mentioned on this forum that mtDNA H2, H5a, H7 and H13 might all have been among Indo-European lineages associated with the spread of Y-haplogroup R1b. The Unetice culture, the first supposedly R1b culture in Central Europe, also corresponds to the first appearance of H2 and H7, while the contemporary sites here listed under Bell Beaker contain both H5a and H13. It has happened before that Unetice sites were wrongly reported as Bell Beaker.
Last edited: