PDA

View Full Version : The Population Genomics Of Archaeological Transition In West Iberia



bicicleur
10-05-17, 20:12
now also West-Iberian DNA

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/10/134254

after a long dry period, it is raining new publications today
it will take me some time to digest

LeBrok
11-05-17, 01:59
Is this just the abstract?

bicicleur
11-05-17, 08:27
you can click 'download pdf'
suplementary info I don't find

bicicleur
11-05-17, 08:31
Chalcolithic Iberia seems to be dominated by I2a, maybe there is a link with megalithism
R1b-P312 arrived in Iberia and become dominant in early bronze age (+/- 1700 BC)

https://scontent-bru2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18342808_1190554547737411_5893431554714437017_n.jp g?oh=b91353f699ec6ce4a48577cddcbd85a8&oe=597A2AB8

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 17:37
Their ADMIXTURE analysis at K = 10 seems to exclude Yamnaya as a source of Bronze Age ancestry in the Portuguese individuals:

http://i.imgur.com/7z6hD2c.png

I think if the CHG signal was there, ADMIXTURE would definitely pick it up since it is quite diverged.

I find that a bit surprising to be honest - I used to think the Bronze Age in Iberia was pretty much derived from Central Europe where CHG ancestry should have been widespread after CW/BB movements. I take this to mean that bronze technology spread to Portugal over the Mediterranean and not through France & Spain.

Also there's KO1 again:


A reversal of this trend is seenin the later Neolithic and Chalcolithic individuals from Portugal and Spain, butintriguingly not in other Atlantic Neolithic samples from Ireland and Sweden. This isconfirmed by a Mann-Whitney test demonstrating that Iberian Neolithic samples receivesignificantly more (p=1.02x10-6) haplotypes from west European HG (Bichon, Loschbourand LaBrana) than KO1 relatively to Neolithic samples from elsewhere in Europesuggesting a more prolonged hunter-gatherer interaction at the littoral. In the transitionto the Portuguese Bronze Age, a second shift can be seen in relative hunter-gathererancestry with some increase in relative haplotype donation from KO1, which is seenmore prominently in the majority of post-Neolithic Eurasian samples, hinting at somedifference between the Portuguese Neolithic and Bronze Age.

Angela
11-05-17, 20:04
There's more EHG, though...would that have come by way of the Med? Could there have been a group which was largely EHG, with little to no CHG, which was Indo- Europeanized and also made its way through Central Europe and ultimately to Iberia. I think it's clear that the old simplistic "kurgan" narrative doesn't fit southern Europe.

Could bronze technology, like copper technology, have gotten there by cultural diffusion, or should we look at sites like El Agar? Do the dates fit? Were any of the tested samples from there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Argar

"The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Megalithic_Culture) is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_tomb) is abandoned in favour of small cists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cist), either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece) (skipping Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily) and Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.
In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithos) (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jar-burials)). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after. ca 2000 BC."

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 20:43
There's more EHG, though...would that have come by way of the Med? Could there have been a group which was largely EHG, with little to no CHG, which was Indo- Europeanized and also made its way through Central Europe and ultimately to Iberia. I think it's clear that the old simplistic "kurgan" narrative doesn't fit southern Europe.

Could bronze technology, like copper technology, have gotten there by cultural diffusion, or should we look at sites like El Agar? Do the dates fit? Were any of the tested samples from there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Argar

"The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Megalithic_Culture) is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beehive_tomb) is abandoned in favour of small cists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cist), either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycenaean_Greece) (skipping Sicily (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily) and Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy), where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.
In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithos) (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jar-burials)). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after. ca 2000 BC."

Is there excess EHG ancestry in those samples though? As I understand it, the imputation of steppe ancestry in those Portuguese samples is based on increased similarity to present day Orcadians, Chuvash and Lezgins. This could be caused by any number of things. Is there something in the supp. material that I've missed?

About languages I don't know. The samples are too early to be Celtic, hence they could be either Lusitanian IE or non-IE Paleohispanic. I think the samples come from southern Portugal close to historic Turdetanian-Tartessian territory.

LATGAL
11-05-17, 21:58
Markoz, I have no clue how the methods work for the most part so I can't be of any assistance but they detected the increased steppe ancestry with two different ones (ChromoPainter/fineSTRUCTURE and D-stats), didn't they? Though the D-statistics they performed and refer to are in a supplement that doesn't seem to exist on the site. Didn't some methods model the Mako woman, which appears teal-less here, as part CHG and EHG by the way?

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 22:42
Markoz, I have no clue how the methods work for the most part so I can't be of any assistance but they detected the increased steppe ancestry with two different ones (ChromoPainter/fineSTRUCTURE and D-stats), didn't they? Though the D-statistics they performed and refer to are in a supplement that doesn't seem to exist on the site. Didn't some methods model the Mako woman, which appears teal-less here, as part CHG and EHG by the way?

The results are essentially summarized in Fig. 3 . The issue with this is that it is based on present populations. Their evidence of steppe introgression seems to be (i) increased similarity to present day Orcadians, Lezgins and Chuvash and (ii) R1b in the Portuguese samples, which they see as a reliable indicator of steppe descent.

I hope there's something better in the supplementary material, but I don't have much confidence.

Angela
11-05-17, 22:43
Is there excess EHG ancestry in those samples though? As I understand it, the imputation of steppe ancestry in those Portuguese samples is based on increased similarity to present day Orcadians, Chuvash and Lezgins. This could be caused by any number of things. Is there something in the supp. material that I've missed?

About languages I don't know. The samples are too early to be Celtic, hence they could be either Lusitanian IE or non-IE Paleohispanic. I think the samples come from southern Portugal close to historic Turdetanian-Tartessian territory.


I couldn't find a supplement. That's part of my problem with the conclusions: I want to see more of the stats.

As to what they see happening in the Bronze Age, the Admixture run you posted shows a slight increase in "H/G".

This is what they say in the body of the paper:
"In the transition to the Portuguese Bronze Age, a second shift can be seen in relative hunter-gatherer ancestry with some increase in relative haplotype donation from KO1, which is seen more prominently in the majority of post-Neolithic Eurasian samples, hinting at some difference between the Portuguese Neolithic and Bronze Age."

However, when discussing "steppe" intrusion they say:"Consistent with this, when comparing Portuguese Neolithic to Bronze Age samples, the former presented an excess of haplotype donation to Sardinian and Spanish (p=0.017). Northern/eastern ancestry is evident in the Bronze Age, with significantly increased enrichment in Chuvash, Orcadian (p=0.017), Lezgin and Irish (p=0.033)." All of those populations share EHG. However, Orcadians, Lezgin,and Irish also share CHG, don't they? What about Chuvash?

Then they say the following:
"A recurring feature of ADMIXTURE analyses of ancient northern Europeans is the appearance and subsequent dissemination within the Bronze Age of a component (teal) that is earliest identified in our dataset in HGs from the Caucasus (CHG). Unlike contemporaries elsewhere (but similarly to earlier Hungarian BA), Portuguese BA individuals show no signal of this component, although a slight but discernible increase in European HG ancestry (red component) is apparent. D-Statistic tests would suggest this increase is associated not with Western HG ancestry, but instead reveal significant introgression from several steppe populations into the Portuguese BA relative to the preceding LNCA (S4 Text, S6 Table). Interestingly, the CHG component in ADMIXTURE is present in modern-day Spaniards and to a lesser extent in the Basque population."

They couldn't have worded this more confusingly, but I took this to mean that they believe that d-stats show that the slight increase in HG in the Iberian Bronze Age is not from western hunter-gatherers, but from steppe populations, which would imply EHG, yes? Yet, didn't they say above at least part of it came from Koros?

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 23:17
I guess the only explanation is that their 'steppe' component is identical to the component that's being referred to in the Pagani abstract. Whereas in the Reich papers 'steppe' always denotes the hybrid Yamnaya component.

This might explain how it ended up in southern Portugal in an early BA context, since both Balkan & Scandinavian HG seem to carry inflated 'steppe' ancestry relative to the westernmost 'post-Franco-Cantabrian' hunters.

berun
11-05-17, 23:21
Central European BB without Iberian ancestry and Iberian post-BB without steppe ancestry (as EHG + CHG). Something must be wrong here or there isn't?

Angela
11-05-17, 23:46
Berun, they're saying there was no CHG in Bronze Age Iberia, although there is now, not even in those Bronze Age R1b1 samples. Using their own definition of "steppe" ancestry, which apparently doesn't include CHG like ancestry, theysay there is a bit of steppe in Bronze Age Iberia, but not much.

The conclusion is unsurprising. Look how little Yamnaya-steppe, defined as EHG and CHG, there is in modern Spaniards. Only the Greeks, Albanians and Sardinians on that chart have less. I'm just not convinced there's no CHG in Martiniano's steppe component.

Spanish North is basically Spanish Basque...
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

LeBrok
11-05-17, 23:54
Their ADMIXTURE analysis at K = 10 seems to exclude Yamnaya as a source of Bronze Age ancestry in the Portuguese individuals:

http://i.imgur.com/7z6hD2c.png

I think if the CHG signal was there, ADMIXTURE would definitely pick it up since it is quite diverged.

I find that a bit surprising to be honest - I used to think the Bronze Age in Iberia was pretty much derived from Central Europe where CHG ancestry should have been widespread after CW/BB movements. I take this to mean that bronze technology spread to Portugal over the Mediterranean and not through France & Spain.

Also there's KO1 again: Again, by analyzing admixtures, I concluded that CW wasn't the source. It looked more like Baden Culture/Hungarian BA (like) people from North Balkans came to Iberia. If there is a connection to steppe and Yamnaya and IE language, it could be only through SW Yamnaya, which could have contained more WHG than EHG, and didn't mix much with Iranian Farmer (CHG like). Now it even makes more sense when we know that Baden was in center of R1b WHG.

LeBrok
12-05-17, 00:11
Then they say the following:
"A recurring feature of ADMIXTURE analyses of ancient northern Europeans is the appearance and subsequent dissemination within the Bronze Age of a component (teal) that is earliest identified in our dataset in HGs from the Caucasus (CHG). Unlike contemporaries elsewhere (but similarly to earlier Hungarian BA), Portuguese BA individuals show no signal of this component, although a slight but discernible increase in European HG ancestry (red component) is apparent. D-Statistic tests would suggest this increase is associated not with Western HG ancestry, but instead reveal significant introgression from several steppe populations into the Portuguese BA relative to the preceding LNCA (S4 Text, S6 Table). Interestingly, the CHG component in ADMIXTURE is present in modern-day Spaniards and to a lesser extent in the Basque population."

They couldn't have worded this more confusingly, but I took this to mean that they believe that d-stats show that the slight increase in HG in the Iberian Bronze Age is not from western hunter-gatherers, but from steppe populations, which would imply EHG, yes? Yet, didn't they say above at least part of it came from Koros?
What they are saying is that they can't reconcile completely Admixtures with DStats. Their admixtures show no Steppe ancestry, where they expect to see CHG, but D Stats do show some. More confusion is that modern Spaniards show quote a bit of CHG.

I think all is good. Iberian BA will show influence of Hungarian BA, and will show a bit of CHG (Iranian Farmer). Not much because SW Yamnaya didn't get much.

Angela
12-05-17, 00:21
Anyone remember the archaeological context for BR1? He was largely EEF and EHG. He's one of the reasons I started suggesting that perhaps there was a reservoir of largely EHG people who were Indo-Europeanized and then moved west.

Angela
12-05-17, 00:48
Anyone remember the archaeological context for BR1? He was largely EEF and EHG. He's one of the reasons I started suggesting that perhaps there was a reservoir of largely EHG people who were Indo-Europeanized and then moved west. I must have had a temporary brain freeze or maybe making dinner at the same time isn't such a good idea. :)

Bronze Age I: 1,980–2,190 BC, a woman, K1c1 mtdna, from Bronze Age Mako Culture, eastern Hungary. It wasn't far from Vucedol, and, strangely on one of the tributaries of the Koros. :)

Cristina Gamba et al says:

"Our two Bronze Age samples, BR1 (1,980–2,190 cal BC) and BR2 (1,110–1,270 cal BC) fall among modern Central European genotypes. Within this period the trade in commodities across Europe increased and the importance of the investigated region as a node is indicated by the growth of heavily fortified settlements in the vicinities of the Carpathian valleys and passes linking North and South26 (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257#ref26). These two Bronze Age genomes represent the oldest genomic data sampled to date with clear Central European affinities."

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms6257

It was some of the modelers, I think, who suggested she could be modeled without CHG, if I remember correctly.

LeBrok
12-05-17, 01:01
I must have had a temporary brain freeze or maybe making dinner at the same time isn't such a good idea. :)

Bronze Age I: 1,980–2,190 BC, a woman, K1c1 mtdna, from Bronze Age Mako Culture, eastern Hungary. It wasn't far from Vucedol, and, strangely on one of the tributaries of the Koros. :)


I got 3 BA Hungarians. Two of them show Baloch, which is definitive steppe or CHG or Iran Neolithic. Big change from Copper Age to BA, but not as pronounced as CW up North. Surprisingly BR1 doesn't show Baloch, and looks like only mixture of WHG with EEF.
First dude is CA for comparison.


F999930
CO1

F999933
BR2, J-M67
M681225
BR1

M631469 RISE349


Hungary, Apc-Berekalja I
4.8kya

Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

EBA Hungary
1,980–2,190 BC
Hungary MBA [2034-1748 BC] T2b3 -


Run time
7.06

Run time
15.13

Run time
10.55

Run time
3.16


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
3.15

Baloch
-

Baloch
5.64


Caucasian
19.26

Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
5.45

Caucasian
13.81


NE-Euro
16.74

NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
56.15

NE-Euro
38.22


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0.49

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
0.18

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
55.37

Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
34.48

Mediterranean
34.63


SW-Asian
8.52

SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
3.1

SW-Asian
3.94


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.1

W-African
0.48

W-African
0.3

W-African
3.75

LeBrok
12-05-17, 01:10
If BA Hungary/Balkans invaded Iberia, it will be very hard to show genetically, because they were quite alike, both a mixture of EEF with WHG. Just BA hungarians have a bit of typical steppe, typical Central/East Yamnaya. It will dilute very quickly once they arrived in Iberia. Researchers have to dig deep to distinct and smallest mutations to figure it out. Likewise finding matching clades of Y DNA of both could be helpful too.

Angela
12-05-17, 01:18
I got 3 BA Hungarians. Two of them show Baloch, which is definitive steppe or CHG or Iran Neolithic. Big change from Copper Age to BA, but not as pronounced as CW up North. Surprisingly BR1 doesn't show Baloch, and looks like only mixture of WHG with EEF.
First dude is CA for comparison.


F999930
CO1

F999933
BR2, J-M67
M681225
BR1

M631469 RISE349


Hungary, Apc-Berekalja I
4.8kya

Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

EBA Hungary
1,980–2,190 BC
Hungary MBA [2034-1748 BC] T2b3 -


Run time
7.06

Run time
15.13

Run time
10.55

Run time
3.16


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
3.15

Baloch
-

Baloch
5.64


Caucasian
19.26

Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
5.45

Caucasian
13.81


NE-Euro
16.74

NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
56.15

NE-Euro
38.22


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0.49

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
0.18

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
55.37

Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
34.48

Mediterranean
34.63


SW-Asian
8.52

SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
3.1

SW-Asian
3.94


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.1

W-African
0.48

W-African
0.3

W-African
3.75


And there we go! We have synergy, LeBrok. I have to take you away from work more often. :)

berun
12-05-17, 07:34
Berun, they're saying there was no CHG in Bronze Age Iberia, although there is now, not even in those Bronze Age R1b1 samples. Using their own definition of "steppe" ancestry, which apparently doesn't include CHG like ancestry, theysay there is a bit of steppe in Bronze Age Iberia, but not much.

The conclusion is unsurprising. Look how little Yamnaya-steppe, defined as EHG and CHG, there is in modern Spaniards. Only the Greeks, Albanians and Sardinians on that chart have less. I'm just not convinced there's no CHG in Martiniano's steppe component.

Spanish North is basically Spanish Basque...
https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

The chart displays a 20% of steppe ancestry in actual Spanish people, so I would expect a possible 10% of CHG in such Portuguese samples at least. But ok, steppe warriors manage to arrive into Portugal without needing their CHG component and the Bell Beaker package arrived to Central Europe without any Iberian gene, just by TV broadcasting. It's irony not about you but about what I'm perceiving how Yamnayists are taking the different scenarios...

By the way the last mtDNA paper dealing with BA Iberia found no steppe ancestry. It's a pity that some genetists are't worshipers of the holy cows.

MarkoZ
12-05-17, 13:49
I suppose CHG in present day Iberians could have arrived with Urnfield and La Tène-Hallstatt movements, the latter of which were indubitably Indo-European.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png/300px-Hallstatt_LaTene.png

bicicleur
12-05-17, 14:03
I assume CHG in present day Iberians could have arrived with Urnfield and La Tène-Hallstatt movements, the latter of which were indubitably Indo-European.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Hallstatt_LaTene.png/300px-Hallstatt_LaTene.png

Celts are suspected to have arrived in Iberia 600 BC.
Some of their genes should still be present in todays Iberians.

MarkoZ
12-05-17, 23:08
Celts are suspected to have arrived in Iberia 600 BC.
Some of their genes should still be present in todays Iberians.

I think this should be the most reasonable date for the Celtic arrival in Iberia. Has DNA from La Tene sites been published to date? I suppose they would be heavy in CW aDNA like those Central European Bell Beakers?

zanipolo
28-07-17, 08:56
Published: July 27, 2017

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852

We analyse new genomic data (0.05–2.95x) from 14 ancient individuals from Portugal distributed from the Middle Neolithic (4200–3500 BC) to the Middle Bronze Age (1740–1430 BC) and impute genomewide diploid genotypes in these together with published ancient Eurasians. While discontinuity is evident in the transition to agriculture across the region, sensitive haplotype-based analyses suggest a significant degree of local hunter-gatherer contribution to later Iberian Neolithic populations. A more subtle genetic influx is also apparent in the Bronze Age, detectable from analyses including haplotype sharing with both ancient and modern genomes, D-statistics and Y-chromosome lineages. However, the limited nature of this introgression contrasts with the major Steppe migration turnovers within third Millennium northern Europe and echoes the survival of non-Indo-European language in Iberia. Changes in genomic estimates of individual height across Europe are also associated with these major cultural transitions, and ancestral components continue to correlate with modern differences in stature.

Angela
28-07-17, 18:00
This paper was already discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34054-The-Population-Genomics-Of-Archaeological-Transition-In-West-Iberia?highlight=steppe+ancestry+Iberia

I will merge the two threads.

LeBrok
28-07-17, 18:06
I think they based their analyses on existing samples, and confirmed what we already knew or suspected.

LeBrok
28-07-17, 18:07
This paper was already discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34054-The-Population-Genomics-Of-Archaeological-Transition-In-West-Iberia?highlight=steppe+ancestry+Iberia

I will merge the two threads.
That's why it sounded familiar. :)

Angela
28-07-17, 18:23
With the actual publication here there is the data full supplement which might untangle some of this. There's a lot of new data.
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852#sec024

Before diving into the supplement, it does seem to me that those first movements from the east, as LeBroc pointed out, might be from groups around Baden and before that from southwestern Yamnaya which didn't have much if any Iran like CHG. The percentage of CHG was much higher in Corded Ware. It would only be with Urnfield like, much later movements, that we get the typical EHG/CHG like populations which would have brought Indo-European like languages.

So, the people who first brought downstream R1b to Iberia seem to have been mainly EHG plus MN from Central Europe, were mostly male, and presumably didn't come in very large numbers, and thus made not that great an impact on the total genetics of Bronze Age Iberia? They also, being such a small group, didn't perhaps change the language?

berun
29-07-17, 11:41
If I remeber well, the preprint said that BA_Portugueses had some EHG introgression, in the published paper I don't find this weird statement.

Even so they stick on the big steppe bullshit, they don't care much if Yamnayans were R1b-Z2105 with CHG, or that their supposed CW relatives were R1a with also a good chunk of CHG. Such CHG share is not present in BA_Portugal, but even so for the authors such guys came somehow from East Europe... but precisely the CHG watermark clearly points from where they were not coming. They were not IE.


So, the people who first brought downstream R1b to Iberia seem to have been mainly EHG plus MN from Central Europe, were mostly male, and presumably didn't come in very large numbers, and thus made not that great an impact on the total genetics of Bronze Age Iberia? They also, being such a small group, didn't perhaps change the language?

But 3 in 3 BA_Portuguese were R1b, nowadays half of the Portuguese are R1b, so if I say that the male R1b migration was quite big surely I will be more certain. And if the migration was big, why the autosomal would lack the characteristic Yamnaya-CW CHG EHG R1a Z2105 watermarks?

Angela
29-07-17, 21:56
A recent study on Plos Genetics (sorry, but I am not able to publish links) seems to confirm Maciamo hypothesis on the origin of basque language and brings new evidence to something that has already been noted: ancient Iberia got much less steppe DNA than Central & Northern Europe.


This findings are consistent with the study published two years ago by PNAS, that pointed that basque people would come more from neolithic settlers than from mesolithic hunter gatherers, as it had been previously thought.


The new study reinforces Maciamo theory that R1b arrived to the Basque Country via small groups of indo-european warriors, that, thanks to their more advanced weapons, could took a ruling status over a much wider neolithic population, whose male lineages went slowly fading from Y-Chromosomes thanks to a bigger reproductive capability (they got more wives and a healthier offspring...); which doesn't correlates with a similar shift on the general genetic structure of the populations as a whole. Thus, R1b hg echoes the higher status of those ruling elites, and its also their more significant legacy.


To me, this situation explains very well the lingustic structure of eastern Iberia and southern France from the Bronce Age to the Iron Age, as non-IE languages were spoken there (Iberian, Basque / Aquitanian). But I still wonder why IE languages did root on central and western Iberia (Celtiberians, Lusitanians, Gallaics, Asturians, Cantabrians...)... interestingly, the remnants examined on the study linked above, proceed from Portugal, where IE speakers are known to have lived.


Moreover, to me it is still a mystery the genesis of celtic dialects in central Iberia. Lusitanian language phylogeny is disputed, and rather considered non-celtic (para-italic, para-germanic or a different branch of IE on its own), a little bit as venetic in ancient Italy. Others say it is celtic in their oldest stages, and some follow Cunliffe in his statement that Iberia is the very cradle of celtic languages (that would have follow an evolution illustrated with Tartessian > Lusitanian > Celtiberian > Old Irish... which seems consistent in time and space with the spread of Bell Beakers). Besides, celtiberian affinity to old Irish (both of them Q-celtic) and the Irish oral tradition point to a possible arrival of Q-Celt to Ireland from Iberia, which doesn't seem coherent, on the other hand, with the genetic differences between the Peninsula and the Isles.


So, to me the questions now to solve the ancient Iberia puzzle would be:


Why did a IE-speaking Iberia ever existed, with such a small steppe peoples introgression?
Which is the filiation of Lusitanian tribes within the IE peoples, and when did they arrived?
Where did Q-Celtic dialects first appeared, and why are they present in Iberia and Ireland?


I advance the following hypothesis:


IE peoples entered Iberia in two waves. The first of them went all their way west and occupied mainly the western part of the peninsula, more adapted to their pastoralist life-style, and less crowded than the Mediterranean and Southern Coasts. They Indo-europeanized the previous neolithic iberians. They spoke a proto-italo-celto-germanic dialect, which developed from Tartessian (with many influxes from Iberian and Phoenicians, which would explain the misterious semitic influence on celtic languages) to Lusitanian, Celtiberian, Gallaic, Asturian, Cantabrian and other IE dialects from western Iberian, some of which fit into the celtic deffinition (Celtiberian and Gallaic and Cantabrian to some extent) and some that don't (Lusitanian, Asturian, Waccaean, Vettonian, Carpetian...). From the Tagus river mouth, the BB culture spread northwards (using commercial networks previously used by "Iberians" (pre-IE neolithic) peoples to spread the Megalithic culture) reaching Britany and Ireland, and carrying old celtic (Q-celtic) languages with them, and some R1b-DF27 along the Atlantic façade of Europe. Interestingly, there is a R1b-DF27 hotspot on the Benelux, next to the Rhine river mouth. This river was the axis of expansion of Bell Beakering into Central Europe, and it was on its very springs, on the Alps, where this Q-celtic peoples / languages met the Hallstatt peoples the first identified as properly celtic. This model would explain the lack of Hallstatt findings on western Iberia and Ireland, the Q-celtic spread and the allegedly semitic background of celtic languages. On central Europe, Q-celtic language joined a larger community of genetically Indoeuropean peoples; and make their way backwards (as R1b-L21; R1b-S28) to the Isles, Gaul, Italy and eastern Iberia; carrying La Tène elements and P-celtic dialects that never reached western Iberia, and only scarcely arrived to Ireland...


What do you think about it?
I know I can have made many mistakes... but celtic languages origin and expansion, specially on Iberia, is still subject of debate... which is your guess about it?

We already have a thread for this. I will merge them.

berun
31-07-17, 17:59
Genetiker has produced two admixture tables (K = 12 and K = 14); I find his tables quite reliable... but now he got an slap about the complicated path to follow admixture analysis without computing all pops. K = 12 merges WHG and EHG, which provides to BA_Portugal a 5% CHG and around 5% of ANI and Natufian... (what a trek!)
;)

The K = 14 provides a 20% EHG (without CHG!)... but the MN and LN/CA grandfathers receive a 5% also, even El Portalón CA people get 20% EHG.

The steppemania is quite funny, Yamnayans can be R1b-Z2013, R1b-M269, R1a, lack the CHG half if necessary, and if they were well disposed, learn Basque forgetting their IE, or getting the BB package forgetting their Yamnayan package.

Maybe there would come a time where steppists will realize how ridiculous is all it.

Genetiker
04-08-17, 04:41
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls from prehistoric Portugal (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/08/04/y-snp-calls-from-prehistoric-portugal/)

TV32032 was R1b1a1a2a1a-L151. It has some positive downstream calls, but I haven't closely examined them yet.