PDA

View Full Version : U5a1b1 in Spanish Bell Beaker



Fire Haired14
07-12-16, 07:47
Once upon a time in the West : paleogenetic analyses on Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula (https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en)

Loads of new Mesolithic-Bronze age Iberian mtDNA was just released. Only one sample is Mesolithic and its U5b. K1a, T2b, J1c, H1, H3, and U5b dominated Iberian mtDNA from the Neolithic to the Bronze age and still does today. N1a1a is less frequent than in Neolithic Anatolia and Central Europe. Neolithic Iberian mtDNA is most similar to French Neolithic mtDNA.

The first appearance of U5a is in Bell Beaker. U5 was frequent in all periods but all of it was U5b. One Bell Beaker U5a is U5a1b1 and dates to 2492-2334 cal BC. I consider U5a1b1 a Steppe lineage because in ancient European mtDNA it only exists in heavily Steppe admixed people.

Maciamo
07-12-16, 10:15
Thanks for sharing. This is a great compilation of ancient Iberian mtDNA! It includes all previous studies to date as well as 344 new samples from 56 locations ranging from the Early Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The list of locations can be found on pages 60 to 63, while the mtDNA haplogroups are listed from pages 79 to 88.

Unfortunately I found that the tables are rather poorly organised. They are listed by alphabetical order of sites, and not by period, so one has to constantly check which site corresponds to which period. To make it worse, some sites cover different period and there is no mention of which samples belong to which period. For example, the Humaneros samples are Chalcolithic Bell Beaker and non-Bell Beaker and Bronze Age, but we don't know which are which.


Here are the clearly Bell Beaker mtDNA samples listed (from Arroyal I, Cova de la Ventosa, El Hundido and El Juncal):

- H
- K (x9)
- J (x2)
- T2e
- U5a1
- U5a1b1
- U5a1c
- U5b
- U5b3 (x3)
- V
- X

Except for he U5a1, all of them look very much like typical Iberian Neolithic samples. Too bad the deep clades of H, J and K aren't available, but such a high percentage of K (40% here) was only found in Neolithic populations, not Steppe invaders. Even U5a1 could have been present in Iberia since the Palaeolithic or Mesolithic. U5b is more common in western Europe, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of a small percentage of U5a1. So, in my opinion, these results don't necessarily show that Steppe people were present in Bell Beaker Iberia, and if they were, they were undoubtedly a small minority. Actually it would be quite odd that the Steppe invaders carried only U5a1, and none of the other typical Steppe mtDNA lineages, like I, J1b1a, T1a1a, U2e, U4a and W (+ some H and K subclades).

berun
07-12-16, 21:04
Except for he U5a1, all of them look very much like typical Iberian Neolithic samples.

U5a was found already in Early Neolithic and Calcholithic sites of the Basque Country...: Ancient DNA in the Cantabrian fringe populations: A mtDNA study from Prehistory to Late Antiquity.

Maybe a deeper subclade research would tell more.

For U5a1b1 itself, this German BB got his mtDNA from the east or from the west (as its cultural traits)?

MarkoZ
08-12-16, 02:21
You left out all the interesting parts. The author's discussion of the findings starts on p. 134.

Iberian Breaker Groups are already significantly differentiated from other Chalcolithic groups:


The two Bell Beaker groups show significantdifferences on haplogroup level to Chalcolithic non-Bell Beaker from the Southern Mesetaand all Early and Late Neolithic groups with strong genetic hunter-gatherer background(NSE, CPE, and EVN) (see table 13, p.91). They are clearly separated from all otherChalcolithic groups in PCA, cluster analysis, and MDS (see fig. 16–18, pp.89–96).

Central African maternal lineage in Bell Beaker:


The only new haplogroup found in the Bell Beaker dataset was the sub-Saharan lineage ofhaplogroup L1b in the Southern Meseta. All other haplogroups have already been detectedin previous periods. To date, the evidence of a typical African lineage (L1b) on the IberianPeninsula and not even on the coast but right in the heart of the research area is the firstsecurely proven clue for African influence on Spain or Portugal in early prehistory. To findAfrican influence in a Bell Beaker individual is of particular interest due to the fact that somemodels have emphasized the importance of North Africa on the genesis of the Bell Beakerphenomenon (TUREK 2012).

Early Bell Beaker not associated with mtDNA H:


"A common feature that is shared between the two Bell Beaker groups [in the Mesetas] and that separates them from other Chalcolithic groups is the low amount of haplogroup H and the presence of haplogroup U5a, which was – apart from the Bell Beaker groups – only found in one Late Neolithic individual from Portugal and the Portuguese Chalcolithic site of Perdigões."

The general pattern seems to indicate that the Neolithic nucleus was located in North-Eastern Spain, while there was something quite different going on in the south and in the center of Iberia. The latter seems to be significantly correlated with the emergence of the Bell Beaker phenomenon.

MOESAN
08-12-16, 21:32
All the conclusions we can do about the "BB" mtDNA is linked to the social structure of these groups. I fear the late so called BB societies mtDNA could be very different from the initial BB societies mtDNA, IF we can speak of a stable and perduring BB society as a compact whole crossing the centuries without any change. I'm still confused and wait the coming results of other studies where I hope we 'll have complete DNA analysis and why not, some metric anthropologic ones.
African mt DNA? I 've no ready to use answer; I just remember some Celtic traditions speaking of a Mediterranean-North African tour before settling in the Great Isles. I don't put too much credit in these legends but very often they contain a little bit of truth, and as BBs has surely participated in the "Celtic" history or have been absorbed by the Celts so passed their own history as a part of the Celts one... Only a furtive thought, to put some fun in the debate.
What I retain - without giving it too much weight according to the reasoning I wrote in some lines before - is the weak presence of mt-H among these BBs OF SPAIN. So the strong presence of mt-H in Western Europe is not DIRECTLY linked to Iberian BBs? or diverse BBs moves took different roads involving different local wives? terrestrial ways and maritime ways? I wait.

Coriolan
08-12-16, 22:37
In summary, Bell Beaker mtDNA in this study was similar to that of late Neolithic Portugal and central Spain. It had little haplogroup H but lots of K, U5a and U5b. African mtDNA was also found. It doesn't look like in migration from Eastern Europe to me. More like an expansion from Portugal.

MOESAN
09-12-16, 11:37
In summary, Bell Beaker mtDNA in this study was similar to that of late Neolithic Portugal and central Spain. It had little haplogroup H but lots of K, U5a and U5b. African mtDNA was also found. It doesn't look like in migration from Eastern Europe to me. More like an expansion from Portugal.

Someones link Western European mt DNA H to BBs (I asked for some caution concerning the dates of mt-H expansion from West into Central Europe; it seems ir could be older than Chalcolithic but we lack western France Mesolithic/Neolithic mt-DNA helas); but here let's read well: Iberian BBs (the ones studied lately) LACK mt-H!!!
concerning Portugal, I doubt LNE of Portugal lacked mt-H, rather the opposite, and since a long time I think. What I understood in other papers is that mt-DNA in Southern Iberia changed more between ENE and MNE/LNE than did Northeastern Iberia; but the new mt-DNA was from Near-Eastern origin too as a whole if I red well, and neolithical enough. I wait for analysis of other forumers because I could not access to the doc.

Fire Haired14
09-12-16, 20:44
In summary, Bell Beaker mtDNA in this study was similar to that of late Neolithic Portugal and central Spain. It had little haplogroup H but lots of K, U5a and U5b. African mtDNA was also found. It doesn't look like in migration from Eastern Europe to me. More like an expansion from Portugal.

Neolithic Portuguese mtDNA was essentially identical to Neolithic Spanish mtDNA. We don't have enough Neolithic Portugese mtDNA to make a comparsion to Neolithic Spain. U5a is arguable the signature of Steppe mtDNA. In Central Europe it was nearly nonexistent before Steppe people arrived. It even takes up a decent percentage of mtDNA U in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India where we know a decent amount of Steppe ancestry exists. Also, U5a1b1 may literally be a Steppe lineage. U5a has probably existed in Iberia for some 20,000 years but I guarantee you U5a1b1 first arrived less than 5,000 years ago.

berun
09-12-16, 21:05
Iberian BBs (the ones studied lately) LACK mt-H!!!

in page 134 the author says that it's possible to distinguish between Bell Beakers and non Bell Beakers... so it points to migration.

By the way Yese3, 8, 13, Hume2, 8, 19, 21, 24, Hig2 and Roy3 were H (mostly H1).

Pax Augusta
12-12-16, 17:36
The full abstract


While the amount of ancient Iberian genetic data has increased over the last years, few studies have focused on population dynamic processes beyond the immediate period of the Neolithic transition. In this study, the Iberian dataset was enlarged by SNP-based haplogroup information for 249 new Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age individuals and 187 reproduced HVR I sequences. These new data allow confident insights into post-Neolithisation population dynamic processes on the Iberian Peninsula and make it possible to compare the development of Iberian and Central European groups over a time span of about 4,000 years.

The results of this study reveal a strong genetic regionalization of Iberian groups throughout the Neolithic and partially in the Chalcolithic. A considerable amount of hunter-gatherer maternal heritage persisted during the Iberian Early Neolithic. The greatest amount of “Neolithic” lineages/haplogroups (HV, J, K, N1a, T2, V, and X) has been found in Northeast Spain and Aragón, suggesting these regions were the main entrance for Neolithic lineages into the Iberian Peninsula, while the amount of mitochondrial hunter-gatherer influence increases with growing distance from these regions, pointing to various forms of Neolithic transitions on the Iberian Peninsula. In some areas genetic continuity between Early and Late Neolithic seems highly likely (Ebro Valley) while other regions show large genetic differences to the preceding period (Central Portugal, Northern Meseta). Central Iberian Bell Beaker groups are genetically distinct to most other Chalcolithic groups.

Although a substantial number of Early Neolithic Iberian individuals share direct sequence hits to contemporary individuals of the Central European Linear pottery culture, the amount of hunter-gatherer mitochondrial heritage is considerably greater in all regions of the Iberian Peninsula than in Central Europe. No genetic connection between Iberian and Central European Bell Beakers or the Corded Ware culture could be found. When focusing on the distribution of sub-clades of haplogroup H, differences between the Iberian Peninsula and the groups from other parts of Europe were recognizable. In the Iberian samples set only sub-haplogroups H1 and H3 could be identified. While H1 was present in all Early and Later Neolithic groups from Central and Western Europe, H3 shows strong Western European affinities and is not detectable in Central Europe before the Middle Neolithic. While no strong differences in sub-haplogroup H variability among Iberian groups of different epochs could be detected, a clear shift between Central Europe´s Early and Middle Neolithic is recognizable.

https://publications.ub.uni-mainz.de/theses/frontdoor.php?source_opus=100000815&la=en

Fire Haired14
12-12-16, 22:59
in page 134 the author says that it's possible to distinguish between Bell Beakers and non Bell Beakers... so it points to migration.

By the way Yese3, 8, 13, Hume2, 8, 19, 21, 24, Hig2 and Roy3 were H (mostly H1).

True but the only thing which really makes Spanish Bell Beaker differnt from Spanish Neolithic is those three U5a1s. It appears the reason they're distinguishable from Spanish Neolithic, besides the U5a1, is they were ethnic/family relatives. Many of them shared the same "family"(extended family) maternal line while Spanish Neolithic samples weren't effected by this.

One thing we can confident of is that Spanish Bell Beaker had mostly "EEF" mtDNA. They weren't pure Yamnaya people who flew a plane to Spain. Some of their EEFs ancestors could have been from outside of Spain; ones Steppe people mixed with a long the way, and some could have been from Spain.

berun
13-12-16, 15:59
I don't understand why you stick on the Yamnayan side of these U5a, as even no steppe subclade is found in such Bell Beaker samples (I have checked it and Yamnayans had U5a1i, U5a1d and U5a1a1), and that is in fact pointing out just the contrary what you are suggesting.

U5a is a HG clade found already in Motala, and as said before, U5a was found in Early Neolithic and Chalco sites of the Basque country; maybe a higher res would have delivered these BB subclades.

Fire Haired14
13-12-16, 19:52
I don't understand why you stick on the Yamnayan side of these U5a, as even no steppe subclade is found in such Bell Beaker samples (I have checked it and Yamnayans had U5a1i, U5a1d and U5a1a1), and that is in fact pointing out just the contrary what you are suggesting.

U5a is a HG clade found already in Motala, and as said before, U5a was found in Early Neolithic and Chalco sites of the Basque country; maybe a higher res would have delivered these BB subclades.

The Motala HGs contributed noneligable ancestry to modern Europeans. They're an extinct people. They had lots of U5a because they were half EHG like Yamnaya was. U5a existed in Western Europe before Steppe people arrived but it was much much less popular. U5a was frequent in Steppe populations, it's one of the signatures of their mtDNA. U5a1b1 specifically appears to have originated on the Steppe. Just wait for when we get Iberian Bell Beaker genomes in early 2017. They'll have Steppe ancestry.

berun
13-12-16, 21:28
If we had U5a in HG Motala (Sweden) it could be said as much that this clade could be westerner, earstern or pan-European, but as this same clade appears in Early Neolithic Basque Country... at least to me it gives a pan-European extension, because how could be otherwise that Scandinavian HG or East Europe HG able to travel till the fringe of Europe when EEF were spreading then ?

Once you have pan-European (this clade appears around 18000 BC) it's possible even to understand its low presence in Algeria.

I don't think that U5a was "less popular" in Western Europe if it was able to deliver regional subclades that are not known in the steppes and even precede Samara and Yamna...

For Bell Beaker genomes you have even the answer in the German genomes itself; they stablished in a Corded Ware milieu (70% of "steppe" ancestry and very high in R1a), but they provide here a 50% of "steppe" ancestry with high in R1b. As supposedly R1b males could not be the cause to lose in such area their "steppe" component, it's evident that such work was done so by farmer women (which is against your supposition also), but if we need more farmer women to do such percent, it's mandatory to get them from a high EEF region, isn't? Or you can you explain how and where did they acquired such differential percents?

Fire Haired14
13-12-16, 22:53
@berun,

I don't think U5a originated in Russia. I don't think U5a was exclusive to Russia. I know it was much more popular in Russia. We have close to 100 mtDNA samples from pre-Neolithic Western Europe, very very very few had U5a. Case closed, U5a was rare. U5a in Bell Beaker is therefore an indication they had ancestry from Russia, it isn't prove, but it's evidence.

MarkoZ
13-12-16, 23:26
There's also this U5a1* in Chalcolithic Portugal:

http://www.turktoresi.com/images/2051/portekiz3.png

source: http://www.uc.pt/en/cia/grupos/app/Posters/Posteres2011/Afonso_et_al_2011 (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000014?journalCode=yeja20)

Not sure about U5a1b1 specifically, but it seems more Western European to me. U5a1a in contrast looks like it was associated with the Eastern European forest cultures.

berun
14-12-16, 08:20
The principal facts are not if U5a was very very rare in Western Europe but if it was relatively present in the area of formation of the Bell Beakers, and that no steppe subclade is found in BB. Case closed, just Occam's razor is cuting the line and in science it's necessary to deliver possitive proofs, not beliefs.

Something to say about the lesser admuxture of the German BB?

Tomenable
14-12-16, 12:35
They should differentiate between U5a2 and U5a1. The former was a WHG marker, the latter an EHG marker.

Was there any U5a1 in Pre-Bell-Beaker (Copper Age / Neolithic) samples from Iberia, or only U5a* and U5a2?

berun
14-12-16, 15:41
Precisely in the link provided by MarkoZ you have in Monte Canelas I a Portuguese Chalcolithic U5a1*, the others had not so much res: U5a1 in Bom Santo Calchothic, U5a in Early Basque Country, another in Calcholithic Basque Country, another in Calcholic Perdigoes site.

So the BB U5a derive from these ones or it must be accepted that they traveled 4000 km without other known steppe mtDNA? with Occam's razor in hand I know what to choose.

MarkoZ
14-12-16, 16:06
I got a little confused with my previous post. I originally meant to link to the U5a1 cave-dweller in southern-central Portugal cited in the following paper:

http://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/710/1/EJARCH-S-15-00013.pdf

He's dated to 3780 +/- 65 BC. Definitely a bit early for an Eastern European arrival.

Fire Haired14
14-12-16, 18:06
Oh my gosh, you guys are so stubborn. I NEVER SAID ALL U5a is EHG!!! Of course it existed in Western Europe before Steppe people arrived. I said it was more popular there, we know it was because of literally over 1000 ancient mtDNA samples. How can you not understand the difference between higher frequency and exclusiveness? U5a was much much more frequent in the Steppe than the rest of Europe but it wasn't exclusive to the Steppe, so a few U5a samples in Neolithic Iberia isn't good evidence the U5a1 in Bell Beaker is native!

Why can't you just admit three U5a1s in a small collection of Spanish Bell Beaker is evidence of Steppe admixture? In an abstract about an upcoming paper with 100s of Bell Beaker genomes they hinted towards everyone in the culture having Steppe admixture.

Fire Haired14
14-12-16, 18:07
They should differentiate between U5a2 and U5a1. The former was a WHG marker, the latter an EHG marker.

Where did you hear that? EHG is part WHG. Ultimately all U5a is probably WHG.

berun
14-12-16, 23:22
Just the contrary, the U5a clades in the BB samples are not found in steppe. You are trying to get water from an empty well. And for your numbers, just they have the same sense as to say that as there are more Piotrs in Russia then the Spanish Pedros must be Russian, no matter if there was some people signing as Petrus in Spain in the middle ages.

Can you provide a link or copy of the abstract explaining about the steppe admixture in BB? mainly because it's like you take things just the contrary how they are.

Fire Haired14
16-12-16, 16:11
Just the contrary, the U5a clades in the BB samples are not found in steppe.

U5a1b1 hasn't been found directly on the Steppe but it has been found in heavily Steppe admixed people from Europe. I've seen its presence all over modern Europe.

U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Spain, 2492-2334 cal BC
U5a1b1 Corded Ware Germany, -
U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Germany, 2500-2050 BC
U5a1b1 Unetice Poland, 1885-1693 calBCE
U5a1b1 BA Ireland, 2026–1885 BC


What matters most is not the subclade but that close to 50% of EHG had U5a, 20% of Yamnaya had U5a, 10%+ of later Corded Ware and Andronovo had U5a. About 100% of EHG and Yamnaya U5's was U5a, 65% of Middle Neolithic German U5 was U5b. In this new paper with ancient Iberian mtDNA, the U5a from Bell Beaker was the first intsnace of U5a after countless U5bs. U5as from the Portugese Neolithic came from another study they referenced and isn't relaible anyways because it's so old.

Three U5a1s is very very good evidence of Steppe admixture. Like I said before you need to apply presence vs frequency. Presence doesn't prove anything. Every haplogroup can exist everywhere. But if a haplogroup is several times more popular somewhere else than that said haplogroup somewhere else probably came from there. The prescene of U5a in Neolithic Iberia is evidence of nothing!

We have dozens of sites from all over the Steppe showing U5a. We only have what a handful of sites form Neolithic Iberia, or is it only one site from Portugal? How is that comparable evidence to what we have from the Steppe?


Can you provide a link or copy of the abstract explaining about the steppe admixture in BB? mainly because it's like you take things just the contrary how they are.

I couldn't find the abstract but I could find this.
Bell Beaker Beheamoth coming real soon (http://eurogenes.blogspot.ru/2016/12/bell-beaker-behemoth-coming-real-soon.html)

The guy who spoke; Volker Heyd, focused on archaeology but knows the DNA results for 200 Bell beaker genomes from all over Western Europe. With this knowledge and more importantly archaeological knowledge he thinks Bell Beaker is from the Yamnaya culture.

I remember reading an abstract from that upcoming paper saying something like "It'll show the Western and Eastern edges of Europe were connected in ways once thought impossible." Maybe I remember wrongly and maybe that quote isn't from the abstract of the upcoming Bell Beaker paper.

berun
16-12-16, 17:18
So all Spanish Pedros are Russian?

Well, I thought that the example could be understood by all, but you stick on it. The case is that if you wish to say that the Spanish Pedros are Russian you must prove that there is a migration (archaeology) and that the name Pedro evolved from Piotr instead from, let's say, a single case of Petrus in Spain, because as with signatures, samples are not statistics as they are a biased source (money spent in archaeology, by better preservation, by better luck, by regional incidence, number of people buried in a place, etc.).

You show the cases of U5a1b1 in Central Europe, they are admixed with steppes? but they postdate BB presence in the region, so how you can distinguish between local mtDNA, BB mtDNA, steppe DNA, much more when such subclade was not found in the steppes (!)?


In this new paper with ancient Iberian mtDNA, the U5a from Bell Beaker was the first intsnace of U5a after countless U5bs. U5as from the Portugese Neolithic came from another study they referenced and isn't relaible anyways because it's so old.

You just aren't reading my posts neither the thesis of Roth. In science it's necessary first to read before to write, otherwise we would be like dogs barking.


Three U5a1s is very very good evidence of Steppe admixture. Like I said before you need to apply presence vs frequency. Presence doesn't prove anything. Every haplogroup can exist everywhere. But if a haplogroup is several times more popular somewhere else than that said haplogroup somewhere else probably came from there. The prescene of U5a in Neolithic Iberia is evidence of nothing!

So R1b was formed in Western Europe? interesting case; case done for the Bell Beakers so.


I remember reading an abstract from that upcoming paper saying something like "It'll show the Western and Eastern edges of Europe were connected in ways once thought impossible."

aha! so as I figured out the IE came riding sirens!

Seriously, for another interpretation of Heyd you can look at it (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32274-Iberian-Bell-Beaker-Y-DNA-and-mtDNA?p=496014&viewfull=1#post496014)

Tomenable
16-12-16, 18:50
Where did you hear that? EHG is part WHG. Ultimately all U5a is probably WHG.Ultimately all of U5 (U5a included) is Upper Paleolithic European. But WHG did not exist in Upper Paleolithic Europe (except for Late UP or Epipaleolithic Villabruna & Bichon). WHG was an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic population, descended from UP Europeans. EHG were not descended from WHG - they simply shared some common ancestry from the same group of UP Europeans.

There are many samples of U5 from Upper Paleolithic Europe. And obviously U5a is descended from that U5.

However, not a single Upper Paleolithic U5a has been found so far - only U5b and U5* (neither "a" nor "b").

But most of Upper Paleolithic samples that we have so far, are from Western and Central Europe.

I think that U5a was more common in Eastern Europe in Upper Paleolithic. And WHG people originally came from Eastern Europe to Western Europe. This is probably why a few of them (like Villabruna) had R1b instead of I2a.

EHG evolved from those WHG who stayed in Eastern Europe, and mixed with ANE people.

Fire Haired14
16-12-16, 19:36
Ultimately all of U5 (U5a included) is Upper Paleolithic European. But WHG did not exist in Upper Paleolithic Europe (except for Late UP or Epipaleolithic Villabruna & Bichon). WHG was an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic population, descended from UP Europeans.

We don't have many pre-Neo European genomes. We don't have enough to be confident when WHG emerged. Magdalonian looks like a mix of WHG and UP Belgium. So WHG could have been living in Europe over 20,000 years ago.


EHG were not descended from WHG - they simply shared some common ancestry from the same group of UP Europeans.....

EHG evolved from those WHG who stayed in Eastern Europe, and mixed with ANE people.

Do you think EHG is part WHG or not. Mal'ta and Villabruna are good proxies for the two ancestors of EHG. EHG may not have ancestry from peopel exactly like both of them but they have ancestry from people who were very similar.



There are many samples of U5 from Upper Paleolithic Europe. And obviously U5a is descended from that U5. I think that U5a was more common in Eastern Europe in Upper Paleolithic. ......
And WHG people originally came from Eastern Europe to Western Europe.

So you do think U5a in EHG is from WHG people. WHG can have multiple definitions. My definition is the WHG EHG decends from and the WHG that Loschbour was. Your definition is the WHG Loschbour was. According to my definition EHG's U5a is from WHG. When referring to that type of WHG you agree so we have no dis agreement.

Going back to your statement that U5a2 is WHG. It existed in EHG as well. So there's nothing which indicates it only existed in WHGs of Mesolithic Western Europe.


However, not a single Upper Paleolithic U5a has been found so far - only U5b and U5* (neither "a" nor "b").

Excluding ElMiron, it doesn't appear that our Upper Paleolithic European genomes are ancestral or related to WHG in any significant way. To me at least they look like dead relatives of WHG.


But most of Upper Paleolithic samples that we have so far, are from Western and Central Europe.

I think that U5a was more common in Eastern Europe in Upper Paleolithic. And WHG people originally came from Eastern Europe to Western Europe. This is probably why a few of them (like Villabruna) had R1b instead of I2a.


I agree EHG's WHG ancestors lived somewhere in Eastern Europe. I dis agree that WHG originated in Eastern Europe. Anything is possible at this point, we have hardly any Paleolithic DNA. A weak pieace of evidence people use for an Eastern origin for WHG is the close relation Stone age Middle Easterners had to them.

But what about ElMiron? She lived looong before any of those ancient Middle Easterners did, lived at the western edge of Europe, and was much more related to WHG than they were. I think people don't see her as equal evidence for a Western origin because they can't imagine people from the tip of Eurasia migrating East into the heart of Eurasia. It makes more sense to them when looking at a world map for people from the heart of Eurasia where there's tons of land to migrate west where there's less land and the Atlantic Ocean stopping anymore migration. This is a simplistic way of looking at migration, it assumes people had world maps back then.

LeBrok
16-12-16, 19:54
Ultimately all of U5 (U5a included) is Upper Paleolithic European. But WHG did not exist in Upper Paleolithic Europe (except for Late UP or Epipaleolithic Villabruna & Bichon). WHG was an Epipaleolithic-Mesolithic population, descended from UP Europeans. EHG were not descended from WHG - they simply shared some common ancestry from the same group of UP Europeans.
To me it looks like EHG was a mixture of WHG, who expended from Southern Europe, with ANE rich/Mal'ta like hunter gatherer who survived LGM in Central Asia. We will find this kind soon. (it will show close to 100% Baloch from Harappa Run, or something very related to it)

Olympus Mons
16-12-16, 20:15
@Berun
Hey I agree with Fire Haired14

U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Spain, 2492-2334 cal BC
U5a1b1 Corded Ware Germany, -
U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Germany, 2500-2050 BC
U5a1b1 Unetice Poland, 1885-1693 calBCE
U5a1b1 BA Ireland, 2026–1885 BC

So….

a. U5a1 (3780 BC) We have a U5a1 from bom santo cave , 3780 ± 65 BC, in the epicenter of the Bell Beaker birth and the people Roth 2016 says where the BB original stock from Late neolithic & chalcolithic Iberia. Take note, that U5a1 was near a H10e (very rare) of 3735 ± 45.
b. their babies became Bell beakers and went to Germany where you have local half breeds between BB and CWC showing U5a1b1 and also H10e (Eulau) by 2500.
c. As according to J. Desideri those CWC (U5a1b1/H10e) where a component of Unetice… so there they are.

Ok, so, what is the doubt?

Fire Haired14
17-12-16, 01:23
To me it looks like EHG was a mixture of WHG, who expended from Southern Europe, with ANE rich/Mal'ta like hunter gatherer who survived LGM in Central Asia. We will find this kind soon. (it will show close to 100% Baloch from Harappa Run, or something very related to it)

I agree we'll learn Ma'ta people lived all over Northern Asia. One of the Srubnya individuals looks like a mixture of Srubnaya and Ma'ta. It's possible near pure ANE still existed in Russia 3,600 years ago!!

MarkoZ
17-12-16, 06:36
And WHG people originally came from Eastern Europe to Western Europe. This is probably why a few of them (like Villabruna) had R1b instead of I2a.

The Villabruna cluster is at its root almost certainly an aboriginal Middle Eastern population. One only needs to look at the distribution and IJ* and G* to see why an Eastern European origin is ridiculous.

How did you come up with this anyway?

berun
17-12-16, 07:53
@Berun
Hey I agree with Fire Haired14

U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Spain, 2492-2334 cal BC
U5a1b1 Corded Ware Germany, -
U5a1b1 Bell Beaker Germany, 2500-2050 BC
U5a1b1 Unetice Poland, 1885-1693 calBCE
U5a1b1 BA Ireland, 2026–1885 BC

So….

a. U5a1 (3780 BC) We have a U5a1 from bom santo cave , 3780 ± 65 BC, in the epicenter of the Bell Beaker birth and the people Roth 2016 says where the BB original stock from Late neolithic & chalcolithic Iberia. Take note, that U5a1 was near a H10e (very rare) of 3735 ± 45.
b. their babies became Bell beakers and went to Germany where you have local half breeds between BB and CWC showing U5a1b1 and also H10e (Eulau) by 2500.
c. As according to J. Desideri those CWC (U5a1b1/H10e) where a component of Unetice… so there they are.

Ok, so, what is the doubt?

Well explained sequence, no doubts from my side. I just can deal with it as it's not personaly paramount if R1b were the original Indoeuropeans or just "indoeuropeanized" (except 500000 Basques).

Olympus Mons
17-12-16, 12:16
@FIRE HAIRED14,
Just a note. The neolithic portugal study I mentioned is not a old one. Is not Chandler. Its a late 2015 from bom santo cave. So not even part of roth 2016. And there you have it. U5a1 and h10e. Specially the rare H10e that was also on a germanic CWC 2500 next to BB.

Tomenable
17-12-16, 18:08
The Villabruna cluster is at its root almost certainly an aboriginal Middle Eastern population. One only needs to look at the distribution and IJ* and G* to see why an Eastern European origin is ridiculous.

How did you come up with this anyway?

Villabruna had genetically nothing in common with Anatolian Neolithic. If Villabruna is "aboriginal Middle Eastern", then who the heck are Anatolian Farmers? Early Neolithic "Out-of-Africa" migration? The only thing David Reich said was that modern Middle Easterners are more closely related to Villabruna than to Aurignacian-Gravettian Europeans. This is of course because modern Middle Easterners have WHG admixture (mostly IE-mediated), but don't have Aurignacian-Gravettian admixture.

By the way, I think that EEF (Early European Farmers) in fact came to the rest of Europe from Greece, rather than from Anatolia. Greek Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were most likely different than WHG, and ancestral to EEF. We have two mtDNA samples of Greek Hunter-Gatherers (let's call them GHG) from Theopetra, and both of them had mtDNA haplogroup K1c.

Archaeological research also seems to confirm that farming expanded into Europe from Greece, rather than from Anatolia. Of course people who lived in Early Neolithic Western Anatolia were genetically similar to Greek Hunter-Gatherers.

So my hypothesis is that farming started in Southern Greece as a result of cultural transition (Mesolithic Greek hunter-gatherers learned how to farm, perhaps from foreigners of Levantine origin) and later farmers descended from those hunter-gatherers spread in a wave of demographic expansion throughout the rest of Southern Europe and into Central Europe.


One only needs to look at the distribution and IJ* and G* to see why an Eastern European origin is ridiculous.

The only IJ* in ancient DNA is Dolni Vestonice43, Czech Republic, Gravettian culture ca. 30,710-29,310 years ago.

Source: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-vestonice-43/

So haplogroup IJ* was present in Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) Eastern-Central Europe.

Tomenable
17-12-16, 18:27
Haplogroups I and J obviously split from IJ not in Anatolia, but somewhere very close to the Caucasus. Shortly after that split, haplogroup I expanded into Ukraine and the rest of Europe, while J stayed mostly to the south of Northern Caucasus. But not all of it (for example, one sample of J was discovered in Mesolithic Karelia, and one IJ* in Gravettian Czech Republic).

Haplogroup I was present already in Gravettian and Magdalenian Europe.

Gravettian and Magdalenian samples of haplogroup I, known so far, include:

- Grotta Paglicci133, Italy, 34580-31210 ybp (Gravettian culture)
- Krems WA3, Germany, 31250-30690 ybp
- Hohle Fels79, Germany, 16000-14260 ybp (Magdalenian culture)
- GoyetQ2, Belgium, 15230-14780 ybp (Magdalenian culture)
- Burkhardtshohle, Germany, 15080-14150 ybp (Magdalenian culture)

However, all of those samples were basal I* - rather than I1 or I2.

So I think that I2 and I1 were present in Eastern Europe at that time.

When WHG came from the East, I2 replaced I* in Western Europe.

Fire Haired14
17-12-16, 20:39
This is of course because modern Middle Easterners have WHG admixture (mostly IE-mediated), but don't have Aurignacian-Gravettian admixture.

All ancient and modern Middle Easterners are closer to WHG than to earlier Europeans. Maybe the modern Middle East does have Eastern European, maybe IE speaking, ancestry which carried WHG but that's not why ancient Middle Easterners are closer to WHG.

MarkoZ
18-12-16, 07:06
Villabruna had genetically nothing in common with Anatolian Neolithic. If Villabruna is "aboriginal Middle Eastern", then who the heck are Anatolian Farmers? Early Neolithic "Out-of-Africa" migration? The only thing David Reich said was that modern Middle Easterners are more closely related to Villabruna than to Aurignacian-Gravettian Europeans. This is of course because modern Middle Easterners have WHG admixture (mostly IE-mediated), but don't have Aurignacian-Gravettian admixture.

By the way, I think that EEF (Early European Farmers) in fact came to the rest of Europe from Greece, rather than from Anatolia. Greek Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were most likely different than WHG, and ancestral to EEF. We have two mtDNA samples of Greek Hunter-Gatherers (let's call them GHG) from Theopetra, and both of them had mtDNA haplogroup K1c.

Archaeological research also seems to confirm that farming expanded into Europe from Greece, rather than from Anatolia. Of course people who lived in Early Neolithic Western Anatolia were genetically similar to Greek Hunter-Gatherers.

So my hypothesis is that farming started in Southern Greece as a result of cultural transition (Mesolithic Greek hunter-gatherers learned how to farm, perhaps from foreigners of Levantine origin) and later farmers descended from those hunter-gatherers spread in a wave of demographic expansion throughout the rest of Southern Europe and into Central Europe.



The only IJ* in ancient DNA is Dolni Vestonice43, Czech Republic, Gravettian culture ca. 30,710-29,310 years ago.

Source: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-vestonice-43/

So haplogroup IJ* was present in Upper Paleolithic (Gravettian) Eastern-Central Europe.

Funny, but Vestonice 43 is F as confirmed by Fu et. al (2016). The only IJ* found thus far was in a sample of modern Iranians (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252).

Farming, of course, started in the Natufian Tell Abu Hureyra situated in contemporary Syria. The Neolithic Anatolians - who seem to have some affinity to Villabruna still - adopted farming and spread it around in Europe. A cultural transition in Greece with a subsequent migration to the east would require a direct migration of those Levantines into South-Eastern Europe, somehow skipping the entirety of Anatolia. Therefore hardly parsimonious. I'm not sure I understand your point about a spread into Europe from Greece anyway? Which route do you think Anatolians would have taken into Europe if not across the Balkans?

The real issue, which went completely over your head due to your obsession with Eastern Europe, is finding out what the Paleolithic Near Easterners looked like. Unfortunately, we have no samples from the Upper Palaeolithic within the right timeframe, but a close examination of the non-Basal component in the samples we have could be illuminating.

What we can safely conclude however is that the European Gravettian technological complex did come from a Near Eastern source - especially the Palestinian Ahmarian. The distribution of the early samples in Europe is suggestive, indicating that the European Gravettian entered the continent via the Danubian corridor. This is a pretty good summary: https://paleo.revues.org/607

Tomenable
18-12-16, 11:58
Vestonice 43 is F as confirmed by Fu et. al (2016)

It is not F* (not F without additional SNPs), but F > IJ*.

F includes IJ* (since HIJK and G are descended from F).

Ca. 3/4 of male humans belong to Y-DNA haplogroup F.

================

Vestonice43 is F > HIJK > IJK > IJ*. Terminal SNP is IJ*:

http://s32.postimg.org/k8goin551/YDNA_Tree.png

http://s32.postimg.org/k8goin551/YDNA_Tree.png

Tomenable
18-12-16, 12:08
A cultural transition in Greece with a subsequent migration to the east would require a direct migration of those Levantines into South-Eastern Europe, somehow skipping the entirety of Anatolia.

One word: boats.

This is also how farmers later spread to Southern Sweden, skipping the entirety of Denmark (farming in Scandinavia started in southern regions of Sweden, while the whole of Denmark was still inhabited by hunter-gatherers):

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166.figures-only

http://sciencenordic.com/first-scandinavian-farmers-were-far-more-advanced-we-thought

http://www.archaeology.org/news/3613-150817-neolithic-scandinavian-farmers-were-sophisticated

Farmers sailed from Pomerania across the Baltic Sea in boats and settled in South Sweden:

http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1


I'm not sure I understand your point about a spread into Europe from Greece anyway? Which route do you think Anatolians would have taken into Europe if not across the Balkans?

Check the map of the spread of farming posted above.

The earliest evidence of farming in Europe is not from East Thrace (next to Anatolia), but from Southern Peloponnesus.

And the beginning of farming in Peloponnesus predates the beginning of farming in Western and Central Anatolia.


What we can safely conclude however is that the European Gravettian technological complex did come from a Near Eastern source - especially the Palestinian Ahmarian. The distribution of the early samples in Europe is suggestive, indicating that the European Gravettian entered the continent via the Danubian corridor. This is a pretty good summary: https://paleo.revues.org/607

Villabruna was not Gravettian, he was Epigravettian.

Gravettians had mostly haplogroups C1a2 and I*.

See my table ("k. grawecka" = Gravettian culture):

http://i.imgur.com/fPkD2yD.png

http://i.imgur.com/fPkD2yD.png

Aurignacian-Gravettian Western Europe was mostly C1:

http://i.imgur.com/zHPzd95.png

http://i.imgur.com/zHPzd95.png

Tomenable
18-12-16, 12:33
What we can safely conclude however is that the European Gravettian technological complex did come from a Near Eastern source - especially the Palestinian Ahmarian. The distribution of the early samples in Europe is suggestive, indicating that the European Gravettian entered the continent via the Danubian corridor. This is a pretty good summary: https://paleo.revues.org/607

I agree. And this means that the main Gravettian haplogroup - C1 - came from a Near Eastern source.

Gravettians were mostly C1 (especially C1a2). There was some I* as well, but less numerous. Gravettian C1 most certainly came from the Neart East via Anatolia, but IJ* and I* could come from the Caucasus via Ukraine, as I suggested before.

The first culture that was dominated by haplogroup I* (and maybe other I+) were Magdalenians, not Gravettians.


The real issue, which went completely over your head due to your obsession with Eastern Europe, is finding out what the Paleolithic Near Easterners looked like. Unfortunately, we have no samples from the Upper Palaeolithic within the right timeframe, but a close examination of the non-Basal component in the samples we have could be illuminating.

We have Natufians, but I agree that it would be good to have more UP samples from the Near East and Anatolia.

MarkoZ
18-12-16, 13:15
It is not F* (not F without additional SNPs), but F > IJ*.

F includes IJ* (since HIJK and G are descended from F).

Ca. 3/4 of male humans belong to Y-DNA haplogroup F.

================

Vestonice43 is F > HIJK > IJK > IJ*. Terminal SNP is IJ*:

I know as much. I've just skimmed Fu et al. -- turns out the authors did not actually define Vestonice 43's Y-DNA further than F. I suppose this has to do with the coverage of this particular sample.


One word: boats.

Well this is just speculation. There are several reasons why a martime dispersal from the Levant into Europe makes no sense.


Check the map of the spread of farming posted above.

The earliest evidence of farming in Europe is not from East Thrace (next to Anatolia), but from Southern Peloponnesus.

And the beginning of farming in Peloponnesus predates the beginning of farming in Western and Central Anatolia.

None of the Aegean cultures adopted agriculture earlier than the central-western Anatolian foragers at Boncuklu, who made the transition to sedentism and agriculture roughly 8,000 BC.


Villabruna was not Gravettian, he was Epigravettian.

Gravettians had mostly haplogroups C1a2 and I*.

See my table ("k. grawecka" = Gravettian culture):

The Southern European Epigravettian is an almost complete continuation of the earlier Gravettian technological complex. Whether the Villabruna cluster is distinct from the Central European Gravettian due to either additional admixture, lack of admixture or drift remains to be seen.

MarkoZ
18-12-16, 13:28
I agree. And this means that the main Gravettian haplogroup - C1 - came from a Near Eastern source.

Gravettians were mostly C1 (especially C1a2). There was some I* as well, but less numerous. Gravettian C1 most certainly came from the Neart East via Anatolia, but IJ* and I* could come from the Caucasus via Ukraine, as I suggested before.

Fu gives a C1a for the Aurignacian Goyet116 in Belgium. Interesting you'd think that it comes from the Near East, as I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia, initially skipping the Middle East.

Tomenable
21-12-16, 09:04
Interesting you'd think that it comes from the Near East, as I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia, initially skipping the Middle East.

So why did some of Early Anatolian Farmers have C1 ???

And why was Kostenki14 (with C1b) tropically adapted ?


the authors did not actually define Vestonice 43's Y-DNA further than F.

Genetiker did. You seem to trust him when it comes to R1b.

MarkoZ
21-12-16, 13:09
So why did some of Early Anatolian Farmers have C1 ???

And why was Kostenki14 (with C1b) tropically adapted ?

C expanded 30,000 years before agriculture came about.

Because K14's distant ancestors lived in south-east Asia. The Middle East isn't in the tropical zone anyway.


Genetiker did. You seem to trust him when it comes to R1b.

I really don't.

Tomenable
21-12-16, 15:31
I've always considered C to have taken the northern route across Siberia

Why? Because around 10% of Native Americans have C (90% have Q)? The Solutrean Hypothesis makes sense if we assume that Solutreans were mostly C. So maybe Native American C came from Europe with Solutreans (perhaps together with mtDNA X). Meanwhile Q came with migrants from Beringia.

MarkoZ
22-12-16, 11:46
Why? Because around 10% of Native Americans have C (90% have Q)? The Solutrean Hypothesis makes sense if we assume that Solutreans were mostly C. So maybe Native American C came from Europe with Solutreans (perhaps together with mtDNA X). Meanwhile Q came with migrants from Beringia.

I meant something like this (the publication is a few years old, but sums up my feelings pretty well):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yK1YOsJqXww/U7coXSnsCaI/AAAAAAAACq0/ILz7h9icBqk/s1600/global-C-halpo-map.jpg

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v55/n7/abs/jhg201040a.html

MOESAN
23-12-16, 11:46
if Y-C Gravettian for you? Or only Y-C1?
To me it's not proved Gravettian people replaced completely older Aurignacian people in Europe. Osteology seems saying the opposite. My today scenario would be Y-C1 already present among Aurignacians and Y-I coming with Gravettians or rather evolved among easten Gravettians from a Y-F stage, from somewhere South or North the Caucasus. Wait for more vey ancient data. Magdaleanians are not all of them newcomers, rather recolonising people. But I confess I've not too much knowledge about these periods.

berun
29-12-16, 19:10
Another case of U5a1, found in a Middle Neolithic grave in Normandy (page 202 of the PhD (https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01325328/file/RIVOLLAT_MAITE_2016.pdf)). In this case could be allowed that this mtDNA came from the east with the Starcevo / LBK wave, but it's an option.

Fire Haired14
30-12-16, 00:22
Another case of U5a1, found in a Middle Neolithic grave in Normandy (page 202 of the PhD (https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01325328/file/RIVOLLAT_MAITE_2016.pdf)). In this case could be allowed that this mtDNA came from the east with the Starcevo / LBK wave, but it's an option.

I don't have the time to read studies who claim to have found high amounts of H in Mesolithic or Neolithic Iberia. But I have read them before. The high frequency of H wasn't the only strange thing about the results they got. A a high frequency of the mtDNAs which weren't H were U(xK), a strangely high frequency. Plus most of the Us weren't U5 or U4 or U2 or U3 or U7 like 95% of modern U(xK)s. These studies rarelly found mutations in the HVR1 region of mtDNA. The majority of people having no mutations there is strange for human populations. Most H people don't have mutations there which is the primary why most samples in those studies were labeled as H.

Fire Haired14
28-01-17, 07:30
I've been dissecting a 2016 study which sampled about 4,000 mtDNAs from Spain lately. Btw, U5a's frequency is about 2-3% throughout Spain and U5b's is 5-7%. I have similarly large sample sets from Scandinavia, Britain, Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. In Britain and Netherlands U5a is 5-6%, in Scandinavia U5a is about 6-7%, in Russia and Poland and Ukraine about 7-8%, in Lithuania/East Baltic about 10%. U5b is about 5% in all of Northern Europe except Russia and East Baltic where it is 2-3%.

Keep in mind Yamnaya+Catacomb had 20% U5a, Andronovo and its relatives had 15% U5a, and both had about 1% U5b. Assuming basically all European U5a is from Steppe peoples that would mean Spain has 10-15% Steppe mtDNA, Britain has 20-30% Steppe mtDNA, Scandinavia has 25-35% Steppe mtDNA, Eastern Europe has 40-50% Steppe mtDNA, and the East Baltic has 50-60% Steppe mtDNA.

Modern U5a frequencies correlate with Steppe ancestry, as do U4 frequencies. Eastern European WHGs had a significant amount U5a and U4, which can explain inflated U5a and U4 in modern Eastern Europeans. Modern U5b frequencies correlate with Western European WHG ancestry. This is why Spain has as much or more U5b as Northern Europeans. A lot of Eastern Europeans' WHG ancestry is expressed via U5a and U4, which is why they have less U5b than Iberians.

U5a is so rare it's hard to notice the significant variation of U5a frequencies in modern Europe. The differences are real nonetheless. U5a isn't a generic European haplogroup that all ancient Europeans had a big chunk of. U5a today is almost entirely the maternal legacy of Mesolithic Eastern Europeans. The prescence of U5a in Spanish Bell Beaker is a great piece of evidence they had Steppe ancestry.

bicicleur
28-01-17, 10:27
I've been dissecting a 2016 study which sampled about 4,000 mtDNAs from Spain lately. Btw, U5a's frequency is about 2-3% throughout Spain and U5b's is 5-7%. I have similarly large sample sets from Scandinavia, Britain, Netherlands, and Eastern Europe. In Britain and Netherlands U5a is 5-6%, in Scandinavia U5a is about 6-7%, in Russia and Poland and Ukraine about 7-8%, in Lithuania/East Baltic about 10%. U5b is about 5% in all of Northern Europe except Russia and East Baltic where it is 2-3%.

Keep in mind Yamnaya+Catacomb had 20% U5a, Andronovo and its relatives had 15% U5a, and both had about 1% U5b. Assuming basically all European U5a is from Steppe peoples that would mean Spain has 10-15% Steppe mtDNA, Britain has 20-30% Steppe mtDNA, Scandinavia has 25-35% Steppe mtDNA, Eastern Europe has 40-50% Steppe mtDNA, and the East Baltic has 50-60% Steppe mtDNA.

Modern U5a frequencies correlate with Steppe ancestry, as do U4 frequencies. Eastern European WHGs had a significant amount U5a and U4, which can explain inflated U5a and U4 in modern Eastern Europeans. Modern U5b frequencies correlate with Western European WHG ancestry. This is why Spain has as much or more U5b as Northern Europeans. A lot of Eastern Europeans' WHG ancestry is expressed via U5a and U4, which is why they have less U5b than Iberians.

U5a is so rare it's hard to notice the significant variation of U5a frequencies in modern Europe. The differences are real nonetheless. U5a isn't a generic European haplogroup that all ancient Europeans had a big chunk of. U5a today is almost entirely the maternal legacy of Mesolithic Eastern Europeans. The prescence of U5a in Spanish Bell Beaker is a great piece of evidence they had Steppe ancestry.

IMO U5a was born in the European paleolithic, more specific the Gravettian. U5a got into both western and eastern Europe that way.
EHG arrived in Eastern Europe some 12 ka and spread from the Volga area upto Karelia and all over eastern Europe. EHG erased the male DNA I and IJ, but kept the female DNA U5a.
That does not exclude that some subclades of U5a came back to western Europe with steppe ancestry, but I guess there are also some U5a subclades that stayed in western Europe since the paleolithic.

As for paleolithic Iberia, U5a was not found there, but that could be due to the scarce paleolithic data.
The only paleolithic mtDNA which is specific Iberian and not European is R0/HV and that could be due to the Ibero-Maurusian.