PDA

View Full Version : Genetic history of the British Isles



Maciamo
09-01-15, 22:17
I am working on a new page dedicated to the genetic history of the Britain & Ireland (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml). I have almost finished. I had to calculate the regional Y-DNA frequencies and revise all the maps based on the finer resolution that I obtained. Please feel free to provide your feedback and let me know if you notice any inconsistencies or oversights. :satisfied:

Krefter14
09-01-15, 23:56
You'll probably have to make a huge edit when the Reich paper comes out in the next month or so. They've already said bronze age Bell beaker and Corded ware in Germany were practicality the same as modern central-north Europeans. It's safe to assume people in the Isles at that time were WHG+EEF, and that British and Irish today mostly descend from bronze age Central Europeans.

Krefter14
09-01-15, 23:58
I like it alot, it's very interesting. When did you start saying R1b in west Europe is mostly of IE origin and that North sea people have the most IE ancestry in west Europe? I'masking because it appears ancient genomes have confirmed this hypothesis.

Aberdeen
10-01-15, 02:28
You'll probably have to make a huge edit when the Reich paper comes out in the next month or so. They've already said bronze age Bell beaker and Corded ware in Germany were practicality the same as modern central-north Europeans. It's safe to assume people in the Isles at that time were WHG+EEF, and that British and Irish today mostly descend from bronze age Central Europeans.

Bell Beaker culture and Corded Ware culture both started long before the Bronze Age, and the earliest Bell Beaker sites are in Iberia. And there aren't enough DNA samples to be sure about their genetic makeup. Although some of the mtDNA samples do seem more like modern European DNA than Neolithic, we don't have a lot of them. And there are only two Y DNA samples from Bell Beaker, both from Germany, on the edge of Bell Beaker territory. I think we need more data before we can arrive at any conclusions about Bell Beaker. And the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the earliest DNA samples we have look Neolithic, although the later ones are more like modern Europeans. Again, too few samples for firm conclusions.

Aberdeen
10-01-15, 05:19
I am working on a new page dedicated to the genetic history of the Britain & Ireland (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/britain_ireland_dna.shtml). I have almost finished. I had to calculate the regional Y-DNA frequencies and revise all the maps based on the finer resolution that I obtained. Please feel free to provide your feedback and let me know if you notice any inconsistencies or oversights. :satisfied:

Thank you for all the information you provide to us, Maciamo. My life would be a lot less interesting without Eupedia.

Do you think the upcoming papers on Indo-Europeans could cause you to do any major rewrites of the British and Irish page?

Krefter14
10-01-15, 05:25
Bell Beaker culture and Corded Ware culture both started long before the Bronze Age, and the earliest Bell Beaker sites are in Iberia. And there aren't enough DNA samples to be sure about their genetic makeup. Although some of the mtDNA samples do seem more like modern European DNA than Neolithic, we don't have a lot of them. And there are only two Y DNA samples from Bell Beaker, both from Germany, on the edge of Bell Beaker territory. I think we need more data before we can arrive at any conclusions about Bell Beaker. And the interesting thing about Corded Ware is that the earliest DNA samples we have look Neolithic, although the later ones are more like modern Europeans. Again, too few samples for firm conclusions.

I said specifically in Germany, which we do have BB, CWC, and Unetice genomes from. Also, the old idea that mtDNA H somehow represents an ancient population and determines whether a population is European or not, is totally false. BB have very Yamna-type mtdna, very similar to CWC, not Iberian-mtDNA.

Maciamo
10-01-15, 13:14
I have expanded a bit the sections about the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and Normans.

Maciamo
10-01-15, 13:18
I like it alot, it's very interesting. When did you start saying R1b in west Europe is mostly of IE origin and that North sea people have the most IE ancestry in west Europe? I'masking because it appears ancient genomes have confirmed this hypothesis.

I supported the hypothesis that R1b came from the Yamna and Maykop cultures and spread the Centum (mostly) branch of IE languages since early 2009 when I started the population genetic section on Eupedia. I think I was the only one to believe that at the time.

Maciamo
10-01-15, 13:25
Do you think the upcoming papers on Indo-Europeans could cause you to do any major rewrites of the British and Irish page?

Why would it ? I am confident in my Proto-Indo-European hypothesis. Have you read anything about the new papers that seem to contradict my theories ? The only point of contention that I can think of is regarding the Bell Beakers. But as I have explained at length before, I believe that the Bell Beaker culture in Portugal started with non-R1b Megalithic people (I2a1, G2a, E1b1b and probably also some J and T), but that the Beaker culture's expansion to western and central Europe coincided with the expansion of R1b people from central to western Europe. So two movements in opposite directions, but juxtaposing one another, which explains why some people believe that R1b-L23 (or rather L11) spread from southwest Iberia to the rest of Europe with the Bell Beaker culture.

bicicleur
10-01-15, 13:30
something which is not specific for British Isles, but for the whole of Europe :
The few Mesolithic hunter-gatherers tested to date (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml)belonged to Y-haplogroups C1, F and I2.
Could you specify? I don't find mesolithic F, the only anciant F I know about are neolithic LBK
IMO F expanded 50.000 years ago near the Indus Valley and the first descendants to come westwards were IJ, 43000 years ago in Georgia, gravettian I entering Europe through the Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya 39-33000 years ago)

bicicleur
10-01-15, 14:02
The Bell Beaker cultural phenomenon did not in fact replace the Megalithic culture in western Europe, but coincided with it. The Beaker people continued to use common Megalithic burials (e.g. passage graves) like their Neolithic ancestors. In central Europe, where no Megalithic culture existed, bell beaker artefacts nevertheless appear due to the presence of western European merchants.

I think you should specificaly mention wessex culture, which controlled the tin trade from the Cornwall mines. they were responsable for the spread of first bronze age in many parts of Europe. one of their trading partners were Unetice, who probably learned bronze technology from them
wessex people were a bell beaker elite ruling over the local neolithic (megalithic) people , they had large herds of cattle and the elite was burried under rich tumulus graves, IMO they were IE and R1b, but not the R1b-L21 yet

Aberdeen
10-01-15, 15:38
I said specifically in Germany, which we do have BB, CWC, and Unetice genomes from. Also, the old idea that mtDNA H somehow represents an ancient population and determines whether a population is European or not, is totally false. BB have very Yamna-type mtdna, very similar to CWC, not Iberian-mtDNA.

Nobody said that mtDNA H was common in ancient Europe, and while the few samples we have of BB mtDNA do seem to show more H than was present with Neolithic Europeans, we don't in fact know yet what Yamna DNA looks like, although we will soon. Many people have suggested that Yamna mtDNA must have been primarily H in order to explain why that haplogroup became more common in Europe and that does seem likely to me. However, even if mtDNA H was more common among both BB and Yamna than it had been among Neolithic Europeans, that doesn't mean that BB is genetically the same as Yamna, as haplogroup H is very widespread. If we get enough data in enough depth to see that the same subclades of H were common among both BB and Yamna, that would suggest there was a close
connection at some point, but we don't have enough data yet.

MtDNA H was present to some degree in ancient Europe, and wasn't that common with CW, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think.

Krefter14
10-01-15, 19:27
Selection can mess with mtDNA haplogroup frequencies. Lithuanians are mostly WHG but have 80% EEF mtDNA. I think for some reason mtDNA H may have given a survival advantage and so it's frequencies rose independently throughout Europe.

Yamna had very little mtDNA H, we have 63 mtDNA samples from bronze age Pontic steppe, more than Reich has.

Maciamo
10-01-15, 23:59
something which is not specific for British Isles, but for the whole of Europe :
The few Mesolithic hunter-gatherers tested to date (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml)belonged to Y-haplogroups C1, F and I2.
Could you specify? I don't find mesolithic F, the only anciant F I know about are neolithic LBK
IMO F expanded 50.000 years ago near the Indus Valley and the first descendants to come westwards were IJ, 43000 years ago in Georgia, gravettian I entering Europe through the Caucasus (Mezmaiskaya 39-33000 years ago)

I know that it might be controversial to consider F as a Mesolithic lineage at this point. However I predicted a few years ago that Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Europeans would have haplogroups C, F and I, and since then both C and I have been confirmed, while F turned up in Early Neolithic sites as a minority lineage, just like C1, I1 and I2. Therefore I strongly believe that these F samples were assimilated (or captured/enslaved) Mesolithic hunter-gatherers. If hg F had been a true lineage of Neolithic farmers it would have prospered. Instead it went almost extinct.

Maciamo
11-01-15, 00:07
Nobody said that mtDNA H was common in ancient Europe, and while the few samples we have of BB mtDNA do seem to show more H than was present with Neolithic Europeans, we don't in fact know yet what Yamna DNA looks like, although we will soon. Many people have suggested that Yamna mtDNA must have been primarily H in order to explain why that haplogroup became more common in Europe and that does seem likely to me. However, even if mtDNA H was more common among both BB and Yamna than it had been among Neolithic Europeans, that doesn't mean that BB is genetically the same as Yamna, as haplogroup H is very widespread. If we get enough data in enough depth to see that the same subclades of H were common among both BB and Yamna, that would suggest there was a close
connection at some point, but we don't have enough data yet.

MtDNA H was present to some degree in ancient Europe, and wasn't that common with CW, so it's not quite as simple as you seem to think.

Actually we do have a lot of Neolithic mtDNA samples, and the percentage of haplogroup H gradually rises from the Early to Late Neolithic to nearly 35%. We also have over 100 Bronze Age Steppe samples (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_bronze_age_proto-indo-europeans.shtml) and mtDNA H makes only 25% of the total (and only 10% in Andronovo).

I believe that the main reason that hg H appears so low in Neolithic samples tested so far is because H was more common among Mesolithic southern Europeans, and especially in Iberia. Most of the Neolithic samples were tested in Central Europe, where Mesolithic inhabitants belonged predominantly to U2e, U4 and U5. IMO, only a few H subclades came from the Middle East with Neolithic farmers (e.g. H5a, H20). The rest, including H1 and H3, were probably native to Mediterranean Europe.

ElHorsto
11-01-15, 01:35
The analysis of the Hinxton genomes (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30542-Autosomal-analysis-of-the-genomes-of-Iron-Age-Britons-and-Anglo-Saxons) revealed that pre-Roman Celtic Britons did not have any West Asian or Southwest Asian genetic admixture (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml) in them.


Great read.
But I have doubts regarding the one statement above.
I think that K12 hides significant "West-Asian" admixture inside "West-European" admixture, namely that part which was already present in pre-roman celts. In K12b actually "West-Asian" (in terms of Caucasus, Gedrosia, South-Asian, Southwest-Asian) admixture become visible also in the pre-roman samples. In turn, "West-European" and "East-European" get replaced by the more consistent K12b "North-European" admixture. This is also much less conflicting when comparing with contemporary Britons. Why do you prefer K12 over K12b?

Also the admixture analysis for instance in Lazatidis et al 2013 consistently showed significant West-Asian-like (yellow color) admixture in contemp. Britons, which is higher than in K12, and which was lacking in Sardinians and Basques as expected.

I understand that the Gedrosia-part might not necessarily be West-Asian, but it is still close, and then there is still Caucasus admixture left.

Krefter14
11-01-15, 02:26
Actually we do have a lot of Neolithic mtDNA samples, and the percentage of haplogroup H gradually rises from the Early to Late Neolithic to nearly 35%. We also have over 100 Bronze Age Steppe samples (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_bronze_age_proto-indo-europeans.shtml) and mtDNA H makes only 25% of the total (and only 10% in Andronovo).

I believe that the main reason that hg H appears so low in Neolithic samples tested so far is because H was more common among Mesolithic southern Europeans, and especially in Iberia. Most of the Neolithic samples were tested in Central Europe, where Mesolithic inhabitants belonged predominantly to U2e, U4 and U5. IMO, only a few H subclades came from the Middle East with Neolithic farmers (e.g. H5a, H20). The rest, including H1 and H3, were probably native to Mediterranean Europe.

There was no gradual rise in H. I went through the mutations of just about every ancient European mtDNA sample, and know the percentages, subclades, and haplotypes and for all of them. H was very low in LBK, but was just as high in earlier Neolithic cultures of Hungary as in later Neolithic and bronze age cultures in Germany.

Most of the "H"s from Mesolithic Iberia were not even tested for a HV or H SNP, and most samples from those old studies are probably false positives. There are alot of L3, N or M samples and R*(R0, U5, U4, etc., JT) from old Iberian samples which make no sense at all and are not found in younger studies. There are a series of shared haplotypes between Mesolithic and Neolithic Iberians in those old studies, probably meaning they have the same contamination source.

Also, the Cs from the ancient Pontic steppe are also probably false posties.

Krefter14
11-01-15, 02:29
Unless Iberia, France, and Italy were connected to the near east via the Mediterranean during the Mesolithic I find it very unlikely they were not WHG, or something related to WHG-ANE.

motzart
11-01-15, 04:16
I don't understand how you can just willy nilly combine data from different studies that don't even test for the subclades you have listed in your results. I looked at most of them and none of them test for the same subclades you have listed. I looked at the FTDNA project for East Anglia, they have less than 200 members and you list the sample size as 466. Actual academics must just look at the material on here and cringe, I know I do. In every single paper that has been released for the past 2 years all of them support an Y DNA r1b and mtdna H expansion in Europe with the bell beaker culture and yet this mainstream theory is disregarded in favor of nonsense.

sparkey
11-01-15, 10:20
Could you specify? I don't find mesolithic F, the only anciant F I know about are neolithic LBK

There was also Ajvide 70, a Mesolithic/Neolithic cusp sample from the Pitted Ware culture, which tested as F but not I (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/y-snp-calls-for-prehistoric-swedes/).

Maciamo
11-01-15, 10:27
I don't understand how you can just willy nilly combine data from different studies that don't even test for the subclades you have listed in your results. I looked at most of them and none of them test for the same subclades you have listed. I looked at the FTDNA project for East Anglia, they have less than 200 members and you list the sample size as 466. Actual academics must just look at the material on here and cringe, I know I do.

FYI, I didn't just use the FTDNA data for regional percentages but all the other studies mentioned in the sources. For East Anglia that includes 172 samples from Rosser 2000 and 121 samples from Capelli 2003.


In every single paper that has been released for the past 2 years all of them support an Y DNA r1b and mtdna H expansion in Europe with the bell beaker culture and yet this mainstream theory is disregarded in favor of nonsense.

I have said that R1b originated in the Yamna and Maykop cultures and spread around Europe during the Bronze Age with IE migrations since 2009. Up to academics all said that R1b descended from Cro-Magnon and re-exapnded from the Franco-Cantabrian LGM refuge. In 2010, Balaresque et al. launched a new fanciful trend by claiming that R1b came with Neolithic farmers from the Near East, a theory that was supported by virtually all academics (and by Dienekes on his blog) until 2013-2014 when no R1b at all turned up in any of the Neolithic Y-DNA samples tested around Europe. Yet some people still believe that R1b came with Neolithic farmers. Just because R1b-M269 was found in a site labelled as "Bell Beaker" by Lee et al. does not mean that these individuals belong to the same ethnicity as the original Bell Beakers of Portugal. In fact, if you look at the mtDNA found alongside the Thuringian R1b, it looks typically Yamna (U2e, U5a1, T1a, K1, I1a1 and W5a), while the mtDNA tested in Megalithic Iberia doesn't (HV, H, K1a, J, T2, U5b, X).

Some people (like that guy from the Bell Beaker blog (http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.be/)) even used my own explanation (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Africa) that R1b-V88 spread to North Africa during the Neolithic to make up other fanciful hypotheses about R1b-M269 oddly emerging from V88 (a phylogenetic nonsense) and spreading to Iberia to form the Bell Beaker culture in the Late Neolithic. I am not saying that R1b-V88 wasn't present in Neolithic Iberia. It probably was at low levels (alongside I2a1, G2a, etc.). But it cannot be the source of R1b-M269, which makes up the vast majority of European R1b. As for R1b-M269 spreading to North Africa then to Iberia instead of R1b-V88, that makes even less sense since there is virtually no R1b-M269 in North Africa.

Maciamo
11-01-15, 11:02
There was no gradual rise in H. I went through the mutations of just about every ancient European mtDNA sample, and know the percentages, subclades, and haplotypes and for all of them. H was very low in LBK, but was just as high in earlier Neolithic cultures of Hungary as in later Neolithic and bronze age cultures in Germany.

Most of the "H"s from Mesolithic Iberia were not even tested for a HV or H SNP, and most samples from those old studies are probably false positives. There are alot of L3, N or M samples and R*(R0, U5, U4, etc., JT) from old Iberian samples which make no sense at all and are not found in younger studies. There are a series of shared haplotypes between Mesolithic and Neolithic Iberians in those old studies, probably meaning they have the same contamination source.

No need to try to find an increase between early and late LBK samples. That was the same culture, the same people.

I have calculated (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/ancient_european_dna.shtml) the mtDNA frequencies of 180 Late Neolithic samples, and depending if you include samples that could be R, HV or H as H or not, you get between 32% and 36% of hg H (against 17% in the Early Neolithic, which are mostly from Central Europe). But that could simply be because there are more Late Neolithic samples from Iberia.


Also, the Cs from the ancient Pontic steppe are also probably false posties.

Very doubtful since mtDNA C5 was identified in Mesolithic Karelia (north-western Russia), while C4a2 was among the lineages of the Dnieper-Donets culture in Neolithic Ukraine. C4a3 and C4a6 samples dating from the Bronze Age (Catacomb culture) were also found (http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/theses/5/) in the Odessa region of Ukraine. Both C4a and C5 are common among the Turkmens, Uzbeks and Tajiks today, populations with substantial levels of R1a and R1b. Besides C4a and C5 are still found in eastern Europe today.

Maciamo
11-01-15, 11:09
Selection can mess with mtDNA haplogroup frequencies. Lithuanians are mostly WHG but have 80% EEF mtDNA. I think for some reason mtDNA H may have given a survival advantage and so it's frequencies rose independently throughout Europe.

Yamna had very little mtDNA H, we have 63 mtDNA samples from bronze age Pontic steppe, more than Reich has.

I don't think that Lithuanians have more Neolithic mtDNA because these haplogroups confer an evolutionary advantage. There are just too many different Neolithic haplogroups. A clear evolutionary advantage would be limited to one specific haplogroup and subclade. Any new mutation could mess up the acquired benefits of previous mutations. I wrote about beneficial mtDNA mutations here (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/coenzyme_q_mutations_define_major_mtdna_haplogroup s.shtml). You'll see that it's more complicated than just looking at top level haplogroups.

Besides, it is fairly clear that some H subclades were already present in Mesolithic Europe. Many H subclades are almost exclusively European (H4, H6, H10, H11, H17, H45). Among them, H4 and H6 probably came from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as they were absent from both Mesolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic samples in central or western Europe.

Do you know the breakdown of H subclades for the Lithuanian populations ?

Maciamo
11-01-15, 11:19
Great read.
But I have doubts regarding the one statement above.
I think that K12 hides significant "West-Asian" admixture inside "West-European" admixture, namely that part which was already present in pre-roman celts. In K12b actually "West-Asian" (in terms of Caucasus, Gedrosia, South-Asian, Southwest-Asian) admixture become visible also in the pre-roman samples. In turn, "West-European" and "East-European" get replaced by the more consistent K12b "North-European" admixture. This is also much less conflicting when comparing with contemporary Britons. Why do you prefer K12 over K12b?

Also the admixture analysis for instance in Lazatidis et al 2013 consistently showed significant West-Asian-like (yellow color) admixture in contemp. Britons, which is higher than in K12, and which was lacking in Sardinians and Basques as expected.

I understand that the Gedrosia-part might not necessarily be West-Asian, but it is still close, and then there is still Caucasus admixture left.

I understand what your are saying. But it's important to compare autosomal admixtures with the same calculator. The lack of 'West Asian' admixture does not necessarily mean that Iron Age Britons had no West Asian DNA whatsoever. Obviously West Asian, Caucasian, Southwest Asian, Gedrosian, EEF, etc. all refer to some sort of Middle Eastern ancestry. My point was simply that, using the same K12 admixtures, Iron Age Celts lacked two types of admixture now found in all British and Irish people. It could be an error. I didn't run the admixture calculation, so I am only reporting what I read. It doesn't make much sense since there is no way the Romans or Normans brought 6% of West Asian admixture in the Irish or Highland Scots !

bicicleur
11-01-15, 11:58
There was also Ajvide 70, a Mesolithic/Neolithic cusp sample from the Pitted Ware culture, which tested as F but not I (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/y-snp-calls-for-prehistoric-swedes/).


Maybe, he was positive for F and F2 but there are a lot of false positives in his DNA lisitng. I suppose coverage was very low.
The most remarkable is that he tested no I as you state.

Dagne
11-01-15, 13:40
I don't think that Lithuanians have more Neolithic mtDNA because these haplogroups confer an evolutionary advantage. There are just too many different Neolithic haplogroups. A clear evolutionary advantage would be limited to one specific haplogroup and subclade. Any new mutation could mess up the acquired benefits of previous mutations. I wrote about beneficial mtDNA mutations here (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/coenzyme_q_mutations_define_major_mtdna_haplogroup s.shtml). You'll see that it's more complicated than just looking at top level haplogroups.

Besides, it is fairly clear that some H subclades were already present in Mesolithic Europe. Many H subclades are almost exclusively European (H4, H6, H10, H11, H17, H45). Among them, H4 and H6 probably came from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe as they were absent from both Mesolithic and Neolithic/Chalcolithic samples in central or western Europe.

Do you know the breakdown of H subclades for the Lithuanian populations ?

The breakdown of Lithuanian mtDNA (subclade, n, %) as of 2004 study. More detailed and larger one will be out in 2015.

H 60 33.3

H1 3 1.7

H3 8 4.4

H4 7 3.9

H5 2 1.1

H8 3 1.7

V 8 4.4

HV4 2.2

preHV 1 0.6

U 5 2.8

K 4 2.2

U3 3 1.7

U4 9 5.0

U5a 5 2.8

U5a1 2 1.1

U5b 6 3.3

U5b1 2 1.1

U5 1 0.6

J 9 5.0

J1 1 0.6

J1b1 4 2.2

T 13 7.2

T1 5 2.8

I 7 3.9

W 2 1.1

X 1 0.6

Others 5 2.8



http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/LMA/Acta%20medica%20Lituanica/A-01-1.pdf

Maciamo
11-01-15, 14:11
The breakdown of Lithuanian mtDNA (subclade, n, %) as of 2004 study. More detailed and larger one will be out in 2015.

H 60 33.3

H1 3 1.7

H3 8 4.4

H4 7 3.9

H5 2 1.1

H8 3 1.7

V 8 4.4

HV4 2.2

preHV 1 0.6

U 5 2.8

K 4 2.2

U3 3 1.7

U4 9 5.0

U5a 5 2.8

U5a1 2 1.1

U5b 6 3.3

U5b1 2 1.1

U5 1 0.6

J 9 5.0

J1 1 0.6

J1b1 4 2.2

T 13 7.2

T1 5 2.8

I 7 3.9

W 2 1.1

X 1 0.6

Others 5 2.8

http://www.ebiblioteka.lt/resursai/LMA/Acta%20medica%20Lituanica/A-01-1.pdf

Thanks. This confirms my suspicions. Most of the H subclades in Lithuania probably didn't come with Near Eastern (EEF) farmers. I believe that H1 and H3 were in southern Europe at least since the Mesolithic and were assimilated by Neolithic farmers along the way. H4 is clearly European. As for H5 and H8, I have linked both to the original R1b (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#mtDNA) people. H5 may also have come from Near Eastern farmers, depending on the subclade.

J1b1 is also linked to R1b. T1 could be Indo-European if it is T1a1a1.

Moor
11-01-15, 14:28
Nice Job, Thanks for sharing, that's interesting.

ElHorsto
11-01-15, 15:09
I understand what your are saying. But it's important to compare autosomal admixtures with the same calculator. The lack of 'West Asian' admixture does not necessarily mean that Iron Age Britons had no West Asian DNA whatsoever. Obviously West Asian, Caucasian, Southwest Asian, Gedrosian, EEF, etc. all refer to some sort of Middle Eastern ancestry. My point was simply that, using the same K12 admixtures, Iron Age Celts lacked two types of admixture now found in all British and Irish people. It could be an error. I didn't run the admixture calculation, so I am only reporting what I read. It doesn't make much sense since there is no way the Romans or Normans brought 6% of West Asian admixture in the Irish or Highland Scots !

Thanks, I see, your statement was strictly based on one calculator. Our misunderstanding came from too many implicit assumptions I made, which is assuming a calculator-independent Middle eastern admixture which would be visible in any of the listed (West Asian, Caucasian, Southwest Asian, Gedrosian, EEF, etc.) in any calculator. But I also implicitly excluded EEF from Middle-eastern since it's abundance in Europe comes from neolithic times and is not linked to the intersting ANE-related Bronze-Age incursions. Too many implicit assumptions caused a misunderstanding.

Aberdeen
11-01-15, 17:11
I think modern people have difficulty understanding the extent to which ancient people would have depended on boats for transportation. Prior to the invention of paved roads and railways, the only efficient way to ship large quantities of goods was by water. And in the Neolithic, prior to the adoption of horses and carts, even the movement of people could only occur rapidly by water. It's likely that the movement of the early Middle Eastern farmers into Europe did happen primarily by land from the Balkans, but that would have required a process of slow diffusion taking hundreds and thousands of years, which is what the archeological record suggests. But I suspect some of the Neolithic farmers reached southern Europe by boat. And I suspect that by the late Neolithic, sea travel along the Mediterranean and Atlantic was quite common, and I suspect that's how R1b subclade L21 and DF27 spread in western Europe. If R1b does turn up among Yamnaya, I hope we get subclade details.

Sile
11-01-15, 23:57
If we believe Maghreb folklore, which states they originated in modern kuwait and travelled west into North-africa ( maghreb means west in arabic ), then what else did they bring apart from their E marker?

motzart
13-01-15, 03:53
if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?

Melancon
13-01-15, 05:21
if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?It is possible that R1b people spoke many languages before Proto-Indo-European. And it also possible that a small group of R1b men migrated back into Africa and mixed with the Natives.

Sile
13-01-15, 06:03
It is possible that R1b people spoke many languages before Proto-Indo-European. And it also possible that a small group of R1b men migrated back into Africa and mixed with the Natives.

logically it mean that R1b and R1a since they are the same age must of split not near Europe. it the only way that R1b can infest western europe. If they spit on the steppes then genetically for Europe it makes no sense.

I believe R1b was Yamyana and R1a arrived later ( when r1b departed )

Sile
13-01-15, 06:08
3) Bronze Age invaders come, kill local men, seize political power, get harems and monopolise women available for reproduction. Their Y-DNA rise suddenly. Apparently this is what happened with E-M81, but I don't know exactly how.
.

I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

motzart
13-01-15, 06:19
I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

I think its like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

motzart
13-01-15, 06:31
logically it mean that R1b and R1a since they are the same age must of split not near Europe. it the only way that R1b can infest western europe. If they spit on the steppes then genetically for Europe it makes no sense.

I believe R1b was Yamyana and R1a arrived later ( when r1b departed )

What about the r1a in corded ware? Why did R1b decide to rape everybody in Western Europe but not the East or central or balkans?

Maciamo
13-01-15, 10:10
What about the r1a in corded ware? Why did R1b decide to rape everybody in Western Europe but not the East or central or balkans?

Because the Balkans were heavily populated, with fortified towns and better weapons than the relatively weak (militarily) Megalithic people in the west.

Maciamo
13-01-15, 10:14
I said this a year ago

I believe R1 haplogroups brought in the system of dynasties ............an ability to monopolise women , followed by their sons and their sons etc...........it does not take many generations to increase your marker 10 fold

That's basically what I always said. Many specialists of Indo-European studies have known for a long time that the Indo-Europeans introduced the patriarchal model of society with a strong social stratification (like the Indian caste system). That also means dynasties of kings. Neolithic Europeans were more collectivist and egalitarian, with councils of elders rather than one omnipotent king.

Maciamo
13-01-15, 10:19
if R1b was associated with the spread of Indo European languages then why in the African R1b hot spot do they not speak an Indo European language?

Have you not read anything on the R1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#history) I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

bicicleur
13-01-15, 11:50
Have you not read anything on the R1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#history) I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?

Maciamo
13-01-15, 12:59
why do you consider J2b2 part of Yamna?
why do you think Yamna was the first Indo-European culture?
don't Anatolian and Tocharian language origins predate Yamna?

Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.

bicicleur
13-01-15, 15:44
Anatolian languages were probably brought by one of the earliest out-of-the-steppe migrations, from which descend the Hittites and Trojans. They are an isolated branch because they split early and conquered an already heavily populated and highly cultured region, so that Anatolian languages became hybridised with non-IE. The same thing happened with Greek and Albanian, but later.

My theory is that Tocharian descends from the equally early migration of steppe people to the Altai, which created the Afanasevo culture (c. 3600-2400 BCE), contemporary to Yamna. So in all fairness it could be said that an archaic form of Proto-IE existed just before Yamna. Since the Tocharian branch split before PIE was fully formed, it remained archaic and evolved in isolation for several millennia.

J2b2 was surely part of Yamna because it is the main type of J2 found among the Scandinavians, tribes of the Volga-Ural (Tatars, Bashkirs), the Altai, and among upper caste Indians. This is also true for G2a3b1. There is also a lot of J2a in India and Central Asia but that is due to the proximity to West Asia/Iran.

ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?

Maciamo
13-01-15, 16:05
ok Tocharian split just before Yamna
Anatolian is a mystery. Troy is 5000 years old and we don't know whether the founders were allready IE. Hittites entered history only some 3800 years ago.
How did those Anatolians do that? Coming out of obscurity and conquering a heavily populated and highly cultured region?

Do you still subscribe the Pontic steppe origin theory as described by David Anthony?
It may still hold, but my biggest reservation is about the role of horse riding by early IE.
What do you think about the collapse of Gumelnita and the invasion of steppe people 6000 - 6200 year ago?

The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.

motzart
13-01-15, 16:35
Have you not read anything on the R1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#history) I wrote ? PIE language originated in the steppe, when R1b, R1a, G2a3b1 and J2b2 people all merged together into a single society (Yamna culture). Before that there was no Indo-European language. Some words came from R1a tribes, others from R1b tribes. R1b-V88 split from M269 right after the domestication of cattle 10,500 years ago. PIE is only 5,500 years old. The 5,000 year gap explains why R1b-V88 didn't speak the same language as M269 when they reached the steppe, and even if it were, the language of R1b-M269 tribes only became Indo-European after the cultural merger with R1a tribes.

So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

Maciamo
13-01-15, 17:10
So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

Just read the page.

Melancon
13-01-15, 17:26
Just read the page.From my hard and deep research into genealogy and history the Irish and Basques are indeed the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The Irish have a tiny bit of admixture from the Norse Vikings though. And a tiny bit of French Huguenot contribution too.

I have Cajun French ancestry and share ancestors and am a bit homogeneous myself. It makes me laugh a little when foreigners suggest that we Cajuns are a mulatto people; when the chances of this are extremely unlikely. They get us confused for French Creoles. (In my analogy; calling Cajuns a mulatto people or Creole is the same equivalent to saying Norwegians and Saami are mixed/the same people. The Saami evidently look Caucasian but are mixed with Siberian Mongoloid from the East.)

In comparison; it is actually more likely for a Scandinavian to have Mongoloid Hun due to haplogroup Q. Neo-Nazi Nordicists in Scandinavia believe themselves to be the most homogeneous peoples in Europe; but history and genetics will tell you that this is most likely not true.

Aaron1981
13-01-15, 18:33
So after all these people met up and invented the PIE language they all just shook hands and parted ways? That convinently explains why the irish and basques have such a homogeneous make up. I dont buy it.

This is just the Y chromosome so it's very well possible the R1b founder could have been far more West Asian than he was even at the time of the Hinxton Celt which was 3000 years after the arrival of PIE speakers to Europe.

A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual. Being R1b Irish vs R1b Basque tells us nothing about the origin of the R1b male or where he came from.

Sile
13-01-15, 18:44
The collapse of Gumelnița–Karanovo was probably caused by incursions of steppe people, but that happened 700 years before the Yamna culture so it's hard to say if these were already R1b people. Probably, but not necessarily. They might be the ones who continued to Anatolia and became the ancestors of the Trojans/Luwians and Hittites. In fact that sounds like the most probable scenario. Another possibility is that the Proto-Hittites originated in Maykop and migrated (by sea or across the Caucasus) to northern Anatolia.

As i read recently................where west-semetic language ends , so begins Luwian ............on the modern borders of Turkey and Syria

Is ancient Anatolia region refferred to as European for auDna genetics ( autosomal ) or not..........clearly it is not Middle Eastern or Levant. The answer will, IMO, will conclude that Yamna took R1b to the atlantic sea and the R1b in Anatolia only supplied the "greek" islands

bicicleur
13-01-15, 19:06
A very key example are the C-V20 males whose autosomal DNA looks exactly like the surrounding Hungarian farmers of the LBK who consisted of G-P15 intrusive Middle-Eastern lineages. The Y chromosome doesn't tell us anything about the overall genome of an individual..

Interesting. Can you tell me where you got that info?

Maciamo
13-01-15, 20:12
From my hard and deep research into genealogy and history the Irish and Basques are indeed the most homogeneous populations in Europe. The Irish have a tiny bit of admixture from the Norse Vikings though. And a tiny bit of French Huguenot contribution too.

I have Cajun French ancestry and share ancestors and am a bit homogeneous myself. It makes me laugh a little when foreigners suggest that we Cajuns are a mulatto people; when the chances of this are extremely unlikely. They get us confused for French Creoles. (In my analogy; calling Cajuns a mulatto people or Creole is the same equivalent to saying Norwegians and Saami are mixed/the same people. The Saami evidently look Caucasian but are mixed with Siberian Mongoloid from the East.)

In comparison; it is actually more likely for a Scandinavian to have Mongoloid Hun due to haplogroup Q. Neo-Nazi Nordicists in Scandinavia believe themselves to be the most homogeneous peoples in Europe; but history and genetics will tell you that this is most likely not true.

By homogeneous, which do you mean ?

1) lacking genetic diversity (i.e. individuals in that population are closely related to one another because they descend from a small founding population, like the Finns or the Jews)

2) descending from a population isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time, and therefore having few outside "admixtures" (like the Sardinians or the Inuits)


In the first case, the height of genetic homogeneity would be found on a tiny island with a lot of consanguinity.

In the second, it would be a very isolated population like the Australian aborigines or the Andaman islanders, who supposedly haven't mixed with anyone from outside for over 40,000 years.


Actually, in both cases, the acme of genetic homogeneity and purity would be the Andaman islanders. I suppose that by Neo-Nazi standards they should be the ones ruling the world. Too bad they still live in the Palaeolithic and will shoot arrows at anyone trying to approach their island.

Maciamo
13-01-15, 20:21
This is just the Y chromosome so it's very well possible the R1b founder could have been far more West Asian than he was even at the time of the Hinxton Celt which was 3000 years after the arrival of PIE speakers to Europe.

What makes you think that the admixture that is now most common in West Asia, and hence was subjectively labelled 'West Asian', was already the most common in the region 10,000 years ago ? Do you understand that the admixture does not have GPS coordinates attached to it ? If R1b brought what is now labelled Northwest European admixture (not necessarily the one from Dodecad, it is merely an example to make a point), then that admixture would have followed R1b people from the West Asia and probably would represent only a minority of present-day West Asia. Of course that admixture would have become diluted, but it would have spread far and wide and would now be more common in Northwest Europe than in its place of origin.

Melancon
13-01-15, 20:26
By homogeneous, which do you mean ?

1) lacking genetic diversity (i.e. individuals in that population are closely related to one another because they descend from a small founding population, like the Finns or the Jews)

2) descending from a population isolated from the rest of the world for a very long time, and therefore having few outside "admixtures" (like the Sardinians or the Inuits)


In the first case, the height of genetic homogeneity would be found on a tiny island with a lot of consanguinity.

In the second, it would be a very isolated population like the Australian aborigines or the Andaman islanders, who supposedly haven't mixed with anyone from outside for over 40,000 years.


Actually, in both cases, the acme of genetic homogeneity and purity would be the Andaman islanders. I suppose that by Neo-Nazi standards they should be the ones ruling the world. Too bad they still live in the Palaeolithic and will shoot arrows at anyone trying to approach their island.1) lacking genetic diversity

Also, I don't believe that Finns are very homogeneous as is claimed ... it seems only their maternal side is homogeneous. If you look at their history and their haplogroups it seems they are an Eastern European (or Northwest Asian) people that migrated into Nordic Scandinavia and mixed with the locals.

It is quite apparent to me that they are a genetic group that is a cross of indigenous Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and Finno-Ugrics that migrated from the East; as well as other possible indigenous and migrant people that got picked up; originating from what is now Russia. I believe the Basques are far more homogeneous in comparison. Given that they have a higher incidence of R1b in their population than the Finns have N1c too; and the Basque population in 1800 was around 100,000 people; wheras the Finns were around 400,000 or so. (This is a rough estimate though. I haven't checked in a while.) This means that the Basques had an extreme baby boom at one point; moreso than the Finns.

Even though the Basques are definitely mixed at one point; and may not have had R1b ancestors at one point; their massive spike in population suggests to me that they must descend from the same ancestors at some point; in total isolation; moreso than the Finns.

Edit: I just checked the population for Finland in 1800 and it was actually around 832,700. Compared to the Basque country which was around less than 500,000 people. According to the website populstat.info (http://www.populstat.info/)

motzart
15-01-15, 03:05
Just read the page.

The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2013/05/high-mtdna-affinity-between-bronze-age.html



Bell Beaker

Germany
Quedlinburg [QUEXII 3]

2340-2190 BC


H13a1a2c
G73A C146T C152T C195T A247G A769G A825t A1018G C2259T G2706A A2758G C2885T T3594C G4104A T4312C A4745G T7028C G7146A T7256C A7521G T8468C T8655C G8701A G9025A C9540T G10398A T10664C A10688G C10810T C10873T C10915T A11719G A11914G T12705C G13105A G13276A T13506C A13542G T13650C C13680T T14766C C14872T A16129G T16187C C16189T T16223C G16230A T16278C C16311T C16519T
Adler 2012; Brotherton 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Brotherton2013); Brandt 2013





Minoan

Greece
Ayios Charalambos [2AH]

4400–3700 BP


H13a1a
14766C
Hughey 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hughey2013)




I should add that these are the only two instances of H13 that have been found in any aDNA so far.
http://i.imgur.com/CCwZGb8.jpg


http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/linerb.htm

THE PYLOS TABLETS

PYLOS TABLET PY Fr 1184

Transcribed text: ko-ra-ro a-pe-do-ke e-ra-wo to-so e-u-me-de-i pa-ro i-pe-se-wa ka-ra-re-we.

Ventris' translation: Kokalos repaid the following quantity of olive oil to Eumedes: 648 liters of oil. From Ipsewas, thirty-eight
stirrup jars (?).

Translation from Basque:

ko ko kontrako enemy
ra ora oratu to grab
ro/ aro/ -aro all
a-pe ape apez priest
do edo edonongo from everywhere
ke oke oker unjustly, without reason
e-ra era erailketa murder
wo/ awo/ aopetik secretly
.to ito itoaldi drowning
so/ oso/ oso simple
e-u eu eupakada calling out to
me ume ume child, offspring, descendant
de ede edesti history
i ei ei they say, I am told
pa ipa ipartar northern
ro/ aro/ arrotz stranger
i-pe ipe epe luzatu to prolong, continue
se ese esetsaldi attack
wa/ ewa/ ea (emphasis)
.ka ika ikararazi to terrorize
ra ara arrapakatu to plunder
re are arestian a short time ago
we ?

The enemy grabbed all the priests from everywhere and without reason murdered them secretly by simple drowning. I am calling out to my descendants (for the sake of) history. I am told that the northern strangers continued their (terrible) attack, terrorizing and plundering (until) a short time ago.

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

I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_tombI) post the above link because the Tholoi originated in the Minoan civilization and spread to Sardinia and Iberia with the Beaker Culture.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crete)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoan_Bull-leaper

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

"Crete's religious symbols included the dove, lily and double-headed ax."

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

Small bronze sculptures depicting half-man, half-bull figures have been found, as well as characters with four arms and eyes and two-headed deers: they probably had a mythological and religious significance. Another holy animal which was frequently depicted is the dove."

Dove and Bull worship were characteristics of both the Minoan civilization that Bell Beakers spread to Iberia, Sardinia, and Italy (through the Etruscan civilization).


Don't bother pointing me to your page on "why the beakers couldn't be r1b" I have read it, the points don't have this kind of weight.

Aaron1981
15-01-15, 05:09
The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.


Don't bother pointing me to your page on "why the beakers couldn't be r1b" I have read it, the points don't have this kind of weight.

Your theory doesn't have any weight at all. It's based on 1 mitochondrial lineage and incorrect linguistic facts.

Aberdeen
15-01-15, 05:36
We do not have a single Y DNA sample from Iberian Bell Beaker culture. Many people consider that proof that Iberian Bell Beaker couldn't have been R1b.

motzart
15-01-15, 05:37
Your theory doesn't have any weight at all. It's based on 1 mitochondrial lineage and incorrect linguistic facts.

Well first off it isn't my theory, go look at the link I posted from the Eurogenes blog. There are also the 2 instances of R1b found in Beaker people, but the origin of R1b in the Beaker people is already pretty much accepted. This is the theory that follows Occam's Razor, no assumptions just facts. The linguistic part is debatable, but if you compare the Greek translation to the Basque one, the Basque is a lot better. Why bother chiseling a receipt into a tablet, its illogical, and he uses 2 names to explain symbols that don't fit the theory. Likewise Linear A has no known connection to Greek and yet it is ancestral to Linear B.

Look at the Linear B number system and the Basque number system.

Linear B:

http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/linearb_numbers.gif

http://www.ancientscripts.com/images/linearb_num_ex.gif

Basque:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Errotarienzenbakiak.jpg/220px-Errotarienzenbakiak.jpg


I should add that, from the link I posted. The Basque translation work started in 1930, and was most recently picked up again in 2001. The greek work was done in 1954 and not touched again.

motzart
15-01-15, 05:57
We do not have a single Y DNA sample from Iberian Bell Beaker culture. Many people consider that proof that Iberian Bell Beaker couldn't have been R1b.

I just don't understand how anybody could read this page top to bottom and tell me that Bell Beakers weren't a migratory people.

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

Skeletal studies

Historical craniometric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniometry) studies found that the Beaker people appeared to be of a different physical type than those earlier populations in the same geographic areas. They were described as tall, heavy boned and brachycephalic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachycephalous). The early studies on the Beakers which were based on the analysis of their skeletal remains, were craniometric. This apparent evidence of migration was in line with archaeological discoveries linking Beaker culture to new farming techniques, mortuary practices, copper-working skills, and other cultural innovations. However, such evidence from skeletal remains was brushed aside as a new movement developed in archaeology from the 1960s, which stressed cultural continuity. Anti-migrationist authors either paid little attention to skeletal evidence or argued that differences could be explained by environmental and cultural influences. Margaret Cox and Simon Mays sum up the position: "Although it can hardly be said that craniometric data provide an unequivocal answer to the problem of the Beaker folk, the balance of the evidence would at present seem to favour a migration hypothesis."[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#cite_note-73)
Non-metrical research concerning the Beaker people in Britain also cautiously pointed in the direction of immigration.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#cite_note-Albeda-74) Subsequent studies, such as one concerning the Carpathian Basin,[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#cite_note-Carpathian-30) and a non-metrical analysis of skeletons in central-southern Germany,[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#cite_note-75) have also identified marked typological differences with the pre-Beaker inhabitants.
Jocelyne Desideri examined the teeth in skeletons from Bell Beaker sites in Northern Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain), Southern France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France), Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland), the Czech Republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_Republic) and Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary). Examining dental characteristics that have been independently shown to correlate with genetic relatedness, she found that only in Northern Spain and the Czech Republic were there demonstrable links between immediately previous populations and Bell Beaker populations. Elsewhere there was a discontinuity.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#cite_note-76)

Maciamo
15-01-15, 09:43
1) lacking genetic diversity

Also, I don't believe that Finns are very homogeneous as is claimed ... it seems only their maternal side is homogeneous. If you look at their history and their haplogroups it seems they are an Eastern European (or Northwest Asian) people that migrated into Nordic Scandinavia and mixed with the locals.

It is quite apparent to me that they are a genetic group that is a cross of indigenous Nordic peoples of Scandinavia and Finno-Ugrics that migrated from the East; as well as other possible indigenous and migrant people that got picked up; originating from what is now Russia. I believe the Basques are far more homogeneous in comparison. Given that they have a higher incidence of R1b in their population than the Finns have N1c too; and the Basque population in 1800 was around 100,000 people; wheras the Finns were around 400,000 or so. (This is a rough estimate though. I haven't checked in a while.) This means that the Basques had an extreme baby boom at one point; moreso than the Finns.

Even though the Basques are definitely mixed at one point; and may not have had R1b ancestors at one point; their massive spike in population suggests to me that they must descend from the same ancestors at some point; in total isolation; moreso than the Finns.

Edit: I just checked the population for Finland in 1800 and it was actually around 832,700. Compared to the Basque country which was around less than 500,000 people. According to the website populstat.info (http://www.populstat.info/)

Haplogroup diversity within a population is not a good indicator of overall genetic (i.e. autosomal) diversity. I specifically chose the Jews for this first example, as they don't have any dominant Y-DNA haplogroup and appear very mixed. But the Ashkenazi Jews suffered a population bottleneck and re-expanded from a very small population. And since they tended to marry within the small Ashkenazi Jewish community, it kept genetic diversity low, with direct consequence that genetic diseases (e.g. Tay-Sachs) are far more common among "pure" Ashkenazi Jews today. It's a bit the same with the Finns, whose population 800 years ago was barely a few thousands (as opposed to 15-20 million in France). It doesn't matter that they have 6% of Siberian autosomal DNA. That's only interesting to historians. The Finns do have a lower genetic diversity than the European average. The highest genetic diversity in Europe would be in Italy. The highest by continent is by far Africa.

bicicleur
15-01-15, 10:12
The best theory on R1b right now is that it spread into Europe with the Beaker Culture. Before that it was in Crete with the Minoan civilization. The Beakers spoke Basque which is the language of Linear A/B.


IMO Bell Beaker were R1b but not R1b-P312 nor R1b-U106 who later became the majority in Europe.
Bell Bekaer people were a minority group in Europe, albeit an elite ruling minority in some areas.
Connection with Minoan and theory about Basque language are bullshit.
Usatovo could be an origin of Bell Beaker.

motzart
16-01-15, 02:45
IMO Bell Beaker were R1b but not R1b-P312 nor R1b-U106 who later became the majority in Europe.
Bell Bekaer people were a minority group in Europe, albeit an elite ruling minority in some areas.
Connection with Minoan and theory about Basque language are bullshit.
Usatovo could be an origin of Bell Beaker.

Really? I read a Y DNA study on Crete and they found R1b1a1 M73 there, the Y DNA study on Sardinia found R2a1 and R1b1c. Both point to R1b being old in those areas.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html

Panagiaris' conclusions in English can be found in p.10 of the document. He confirms that the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helladic_period) period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population. He attributes this to the arrival of such people from the highlands Pindos range, although he sees the possibility of Anatolian influences as well, but has no comparative data. He cites the tendency for broader skulls in higher latitudes, although this general trend in H. sapiens probably does not explain the local trend within Caucasoids where the key difference is between mountaineers (where the Alpine, Dinaric, Armenoid, and Pamir-Ferghana types are well-represented) and lowland folk. Perhaps, if various ancient DNA projects manage to study some Greek material we may be able to ascertain the events that were taking place in Greece at that time.


Of course, the issue cannot be seen in isolation, because at this time we see an increase in brachycephalic types in Crete and Anatolia (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/late-minoan-ib-destructions-not.html), the appearance of the intrusive brachycephalic Bell Beaker folk in Western Europe, and perhaps even the presence of the interfluvial type (Pamir-Ferghana type) in the eastern Saka.

bicicleur
17-01-15, 10:48
Really? I read a Y DNA study on Crete and they found R1b1a1 M73 there, the Y DNA study on Sardinia found R2a1 and R1b1c. Both point to R1b being old in those areas.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/a-physico-anthropological-study-of.html

Panagiaris' conclusions in English can be found in p.10 of the document. He confirms that the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helladic_period) period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population. He attributes this to the arrival of such people from the highlands Pindos range, although he sees the possibility of Anatolian influences as well, but has no comparative data. He cites the tendency for broader skulls in higher latitudes, although this general trend in H. sapiens probably does not explain the local trend within Caucasoids where the key difference is between mountaineers (where the Alpine, Dinaric, Armenoid, and Pamir-Ferghana types are well-represented) and lowland folk. Perhaps, if various ancient DNA projects manage to study some Greek material we may be able to ascertain the events that were taking place in Greece at that time.


Of course, the issue cannot be seen in isolation, because at this time we see an increase in brachycephalic types in Crete and Anatolia (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/late-minoan-ib-destructions-not.html), the appearance of the intrusive brachycephalic Bell Beaker folk in Western Europe, and perhaps even the presence of the interfluvial type (Pamir-Ferghana type) in the eastern Saka.

The gradual increase in Cranial Index over the Bronze Age most probably reflects gene-flow from population/s biologically different from the Early Bronze Age Cretan population and from inter-population biological interactions (admixture) in the succeeding periods.
so, if I understand well Early bronze age Cretans were not broadskulled ; Early bronze age Crete started 2700 BC , 200 years after appearance of first Bell Beakers in Portugal
but maybe these broadskulled Cretans and the Bell Beakers had the same origin?

motzart
17-01-15, 12:19
The gradual increase in Cranial Index over the Bronze Age most probably reflects gene-flow from population/s biologically different from the Early Bronze Age Cretan population and from inter-population biological interactions (admixture) in the succeeding periods.
so, if I understand well Early bronze age Cretans were not broadskulled ; Early bronze age Crete started 2700 BC , 200 years after appearance of first Bell Beakers in Portugal
but maybe these broadskulled Cretans and the Bell Beakers had the same origin?

Well the h13 is from 4400 to 3700 BP so I would guess bell beaker ancestor was in crete at least that old.

bicicleur
17-01-15, 15:15
Well the h13 is from 4400 to 3700 BP so I would guess bell beaker ancestor was in crete at least that old.

I don't say there is no connection at all, but first Bell Beakers appeared in Portugal 4900 BP.
I don't know of any Bell Beaker artefacts on Crete. Do you?

Maciamo
21-01-15, 10:30
I have moved the discussion about the origins of E-V13 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30814-Where-did-E-V13-originate) to its own thread.

motzart
01-02-15, 00:33
I was very confused as to why the maps don't actually correlate to the data in the sources you posted. I see now that you copied the maps from the Britain's DNA site and are just pretending that you came to the same conclusions based on unrelated data. Very clever.

Maciamo
01-02-15, 10:25
I was very confused as to why the maps don't actually correlate to the data in the sources you posted. I see now that you copied the maps from the Britain's DNA site and are just pretending that you came to the same conclusions based on unrelated data. Very clever.

What map doesn't correlate with the data ?