Basal diversity of Z93 suggests Western Caspian - hardly surprising this is not India when the similarity in haplotypes suggests a recent common origin with R1a Corded Ware.
Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna
- Thread starter Angela
- Start date
halfalp
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,499
- Reaction score
- 222
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Swiss
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R-L2
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c5a
No i think it makes sense that the Z2103 individuals from Hajji Firuz and related ( maybe broadly Armenian_Bronze Age ) coming originally from Steppe, diversified and became " Basal " in a way, they didn't evolved a lot in over ~5000 years in place. This is the idea that i'm making myself of it. Wich is why i said " where Basal and Diversity is shown, it's the likely place it doesn't come from ". Imagine K2* in Australian Aborigines. We know it dont come from there, but because it came there so far in time and mostly did not evolved, it shows very basal and diversity in place.
Joey37
Regular Member
- Messages
- 478
- Reaction score
- 106
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Coventry, Rhode Island
- Ethnic group
- Celto-Germanic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1a-YP445
- mtDNA haplogroup
- J1c2b
Not to get overly religious, but mortal gods are not gods. They're just superheroes. Also I would be incredibly dubious about an R1b origin point in southern Poland, given the ancient preponderance of R1a and I2a in the region. However, this may explain the rapid expansion from a bottleneck of L51; my R1a Corded Ware ancestors pushed them out. Toughened them up. Turned them into the conquerors of the west they became.
Where a haplogroup started forming, where it formed and where it began developing are often three different places. Diversity indicates where it most likely began developing - and the more data you have, the more confidence you can have in the result. In this respect, my estimates for the main development zones of L51, the major clades of Z2103 and Z93 are much more reliable than for Z2103 itself and L23.
What data have you seen? Hovhannisyan et al 2014 shows M269 STR variance is highest in eastern Anatolia and lowest in eastern Europe.
Herrera et al. 2012 shows L23 STR variance is highest around Armenia and lowest in eastern Europe.
So if you have any actual data backing your story share it with us.
Not a R1b origin point in Southern Poland, a L23 estimated origin point in Southern Poland, and based on sparse data. Autosomal archaeological data would refine this estimate to the Eastern Balkans or Eastern Carpathians. Pushed out by Corded Ware or Steppe people? Quite possibly.
CrazyDonkey
Regular Member
- Messages
- 339
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 28
- Location
- Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
- Ethnic group
- Irish/Scottish/British/Scandi/C Euro
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- I2a-Y31616>FT435332
- mtDNA haplogroup
- U2e1d
Whether less than a handful of samples (over a thousand years) represent a hidden population or, at most, a small number of isolated/local lineages remains to be seen. So far, other than methodologies and analyses others have claimed are nonstandard and faulty, there is little or no evidence for such a population. That doesn't mean the samples couldn't be the tips of the proverbial iceberg, or they could just be scraps of ice (noise, not data). Even if such a population existed (I've merely asked where and when), the question of where they came from (and how) remains unanswered. At most, you have an untested hypothesis.
13 samples over 400 years is a frequency (one every ~31 years) that is an order of magnitude greater than three over 1,000 years (one every 333 years). The first wave clearly represents a distinct, relatively unadmixed, incoming population/group, although one that looks to have settled down and assimilated. I'd argue that it need not have been numerous to have unseated the previous ruling elite, if that is what happened. The second wave, with much more numerous, but also more highly admixed, samples, could have been simply the expansion of the prior input(s), except for evidence of 1) increased fortifications (to protect against outsiders), 2) widespread site destruction/abandonment, and 100% y-dna replacement (among known samples). Contrarily, language replacement didn't always happen.
Yes - or I would say northeastwards.
What data have you seen? Hovhannisyan et al 2014 shows M269 STR variance is highest in eastern Anatolia and lowest in eastern Europe.
Herrera et al. 2012 shows L23 STR variance is highest around Armenia and lowest in eastern Europe.
So if you have any actual data backing your story share it with us.
Average variance over a whole haplogroup is what has previously been described on this thread as "vulgar mathematics". It will simply show the lowest variance in areas where recent expansion has been greatest, rather than where diversity is greatest at the basal level. To measure diversity meaningfully, it has to be calculated at the level of the precise SNP.
I am also a bit suspicious as to why Steppe samples have been excluded from both studies.
This thread (about a talk mainly on Bronze Age Iberia) isn't really the place to dump a lot of data on the subject of early M269. Especially as I find that invariably when I post results, either (i) no one replies and the thread dies a death, or (ii) people become hostile and claim my methodology is flawed without providing any alternative method or any evidence to refute or refine my own results. When you ask me whether I have any 'actual' data, I'm afraid I can sense hostility before I even go to the bother of posting it.
OK, so what do the supposedly standard methodologies conclude about the genetic legacy of the El Portalon population? Do they refute my results?
Have they been tested? If not, then clearly they won't find any evidence. You cannot see unless you look. Some find it more comforting not to open their eyes.
There's too much focus on semantics here. You don't want to refer to the incoming El Portalon people as a 'wave', you're reluctant to term them as a 'population', you don't want to acknowledge the information about them as 'data' (instead preferring to write it off as 'noise' and 'scraps'). Perhaps it would be better to follow the approach in the Reich study and imagine they had never existed?
There are 8 pre-Bronze Age samples from El Portalon - the first 2 (EHG-heavy) of which span an estimated period of 295 years. The newcomers clearly didn't die out without leaving any descendants, when their DNA was still thriving 295 years later.
Why would you assume that incoming R1b Bell Beaker only mated with descendants of Iberian Neolthics, and somehow managed to distinguish people partly descended from the El Portalon newcomers and avoid mating with them?
And how do we know that this R1b Bell Beaker was not already partly admixed with El Portalon-like people (who shared M269 with it) before it arrived in Iberia?
ToBeOrNotToBe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,110
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 0
Supposedly a lot of talk is going on about the original Iberian Bell Beakers not actually being true Bell Beakers at all, and that the package actually spread from East to West. Not sure how true that is as it would go against a lot of established thought, but it makes more sense to me than the current "pots not people" hypothesis.
According to Bernard:
"Well I am not sure that early Iberian Bell Beakers without steppe ancestry exist really. First, we have French and German Bell Beakers with early dates between 2800 and 2500 BC, second many Iberian Bell Beakers without steppe ancestry are said Bell Beaker only for their dating. They are not closely related to objects from the Bell Beaker package but only found in a collective grave with a few Bell beakers objects. I spoke with Lemercier in the beginning of January and he told me that for him many Iberian Bell Beakers from the Olalde paper are not real Bell Beakers."
This leaves two main possibilities: undiscovered L51 in the West Mediterranean where true BBs were pre-2800 BC if they existed at all, or BBs simply spread with Central European BB folk.
I think Jean Manco was correct all along with her stelae hypothesis (except in the association of these people to Yamnaya, as they fit Mikhaylovka I best).
According to Bernard:
"Well I am not sure that early Iberian Bell Beakers without steppe ancestry exist really. First, we have French and German Bell Beakers with early dates between 2800 and 2500 BC, second many Iberian Bell Beakers without steppe ancestry are said Bell Beaker only for their dating. They are not closely related to objects from the Bell Beaker package but only found in a collective grave with a few Bell beakers objects. I spoke with Lemercier in the beginning of January and he told me that for him many Iberian Bell Beakers from the Olalde paper are not real Bell Beakers."
This leaves two main possibilities: undiscovered L51 in the West Mediterranean where true BBs were pre-2800 BC if they existed at all, or BBs simply spread with Central European BB folk.
I think Jean Manco was correct all along with her stelae hypothesis (except in the association of these people to Yamnaya, as they fit Mikhaylovka I best).
ToBeOrNotToBe
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,110
- Reaction score
- 138
- Points
- 0
The more I'm looking into all the main possibilities, the more I'm realising that Harvard and MP are either incompetent in their sampling or they just don't want to solve the mystery just yet. I'm betting for the latter.
hrvclv
Regular Member
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 225
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Auvergne, France
- Ethnic group
- Arvern
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-U152-DF103
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1bm
No offence, Pip. But on this I would tend to agree with Saetrus.
You propose a number of hypotheses, and seem to feel quite confident in the results of your own computations.
If you have useful data, why not share them, or at least provide links?
If you have 'a method', could you please explain it out? We are amateurs, not specialists, and might not understand everything. But perhaps we might grasp at least the general idea and underlying logic.
It would greatly help us all understand, and accept.
berun
Regular Member
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 183
- Points
- 0
@tbontb, it's stepittis, they suffer a denial state, they need to link BB / R1b with IE, dates are not for that (oldest dates are in N Portugal at 2900 BC), and Iron Age R1b people was speaking no IE languages; it's quite funny to read about Basque women providing language to their IE husbands, or Iberian coming by boats. I'm waiting yet to hear about Atlanteans from the most desperate.
This is just another attempt to deny evidence using semantics.
Yes, both are possible. M269 (most likely L51) was already in a Northern Iberian pre-BB population circa 3,400 BC, so could have picked up BB there or been a part of the population that introduced it.
On some matters, I have confidence in the results, due to the quantity of relevant data. On other matters, I have little confidence, due to paucity of relevant data. On the two specific matters posted by Saetrus (M269 and L23 STR diversity), I have little confidence, as there are few samples available in their basal branches (at least, there were when I last looked). With downstream SNPs like L151 and certain basal branches of Z2103 the quantity of data permits significantly more confidence, pointing to France and Armenia respectively.
To simplify the method, if (i) there are two basal branches of a SNP (either two confirmed subclades or, in their absence, two clusters of samples set so as to maximise the inter-cluster STRs variance), and (ii) the maximum diversity within each branch (an iterative process) is sampled to a particular geographical area, then the most likely point of branching is determined as the area in which the areas of the two branches intersect, or if there is no intersection - the nearest possible point.
It is a long-winded, iterative process that often needs calculating a long way downstream, and working backwards.
It only yields a confident estimate if there are a lot of relevant samples and these samples all point in a similar direction.
Yes, but perhaps it's more credible to imagine Basque women providing language to the R1b sons of their IE 'husbands', especially if these husbands were absent for much of the time, perhaps engaging in warfare somewhere else.
I've posted previously about the difference in Basque autosomal DNA, suggesting that it fits with a substantially heavier proportion of El Portalon ancestry than other Spanish populations. As these populations were already close to Central European Bell Beaker, they might have assimilated with it more readily, and so CE BB might not have had such a need to impose their culture and language over it.
hrvclv
Regular Member
- Messages
- 453
- Reaction score
- 225
- Points
- 43
- Location
- Auvergne, France
- Ethnic group
- Arvern
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b-U152-DF103
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H1bm
I find the results broadly match archaeological data, but sometimes help fill gaps in that data.
This thread has been viewed 98266 times.