Iberian Bell Beaker Y-DNA and mtDNA

I'm sure bronze weapons in Maykop kurgans came from Kurdistan Zagros Mountains (Iranian Plateau)

Early fourth millennium bronze artifacts has been found in Zagros.


arsenic_bronze.png



http://www.jstor.org/stable/530550

I think we still need to analyze more Maykop and steppe samples bronze and copper samples. I know that on the steppe copper is coming from the Balkans first, then there is clear stylistic influences from the Caucuses by the time Yamnaya, which also coincides with steppe people beginning to mine copper from their own sources in the Urals. I think Bronze from Zagros makes perfect sense, but the Aegean is very early as well
 
IMHO there's no R1b (M269) in iberian BB, but E1b1b, G2a and I2a. Let's see.
BB in Kromsdorf was already indoeuropized by Yamnaya people.


??? Where did you red that? A guess? A bet? A shaman's dream? Have you red some newly published results? I doubt.
Not to contradict you, but we need solid results of analysis. I'm not sure at all Y-R1b were the first BBs, but ?
 
Deleted post
 
Last edited:
In the paper "Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (Atapuerca, Spain) Reveals the Heterogeneity of Chalcolithic Populations" the Iberian focus of the BB culture is even more finetuned:

This site is contemporaneous to the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) but does not carry the diagnostic items of this culture that include the distinctive bell-shaped ceramics and weapons. In fact, the archaeological sites with Bell Beaker remains are very scarce in the Meseta Central of the Iberian Peninsula.

The genetic signature of H haplogroups increased up to 48.3% during the Bell Beaker period with respect to previous European cultures, suggesting a population expansion from Iberia to Central Europe [21].

The mtDNA composition of El Mirador is quite unique, and different to that found in other contemporaneous Bell Beaker populations and to present-day Iberians (Figure 2 and 3). This Chalcolithic population displays different mtDNA haplogroups that are currently present at higher frequency in the Near East populations than in continental Europe (e.g., X2, K, T2b); this could explain the clustering of El Mirador with Near Eastern populations in the PCA of modern populations (Figure 3).

In this context, El Mirador mitochondrial composition may correspond to a previous genetic substratum with a substantial contribution of lineages from the Near East that was not influenced by the expansion of Iberian Bell Beakers, despite being in the same range. Under a chronological perspective (Figure S3) El Mirador supports the continuity of the previous Middle Neolithic genetic composition into the Chalcolithic, at least in non-Bell Beaker groups.

In none of the analyses El Mirador sample shows close genetic affinities with a contemporaneous Bell Beaker population of 29 specimens gathered from three sites in Germany. The Bell Beaker mtDNA signal is characterized by high frequencies (around 50%) of H haplogroup that in El Mirador only reaches 26%.

In figure 4 the Mirador people plots with other Central European Neolithic peoples, as expected from having a common origin in Anatolia, but the BB people plots very near to the NPO people (Neolithic Portugal), which had a 70% of H mtDNA...

so what would be for the R1b question with that...?
 
No Y-DNA so far?I want to see if Marija Gimbutas was right or not, since also most of Italy had BB.
 
As far as I know there are two incoming papers about BB Iberian Y-DNA.

As for Gimbutas making BB IE... she wrote some 40 years ago and many things have changed, she is now outdated and radiocarbon dates are irrefutable for a western origin. Now I believe that Gimbutas was somewhat eccentric in her conclusions as it was Sigmund Freud: after knowing about experiments trying to make rockets to travel to the space he judged that his inventor was phalus obsessed... in fact it was all the contrary, it was the psychoanalist that was obsessed with sex and everything was looked from such perspective; somewhat seems similar for Gumbutas: all peaceful and farmer cultures worshipping goddesses were non indoeuropean, and those cultures displaying violence, weapons, patriarchy, horses and so were undoubtfuly IE; of course the equation is not universal and at least it could be said that it was sexualy-biased.
 
Results from Unambiguous Bell Beaker:

Bell Beaker from Kromsdorf 4550 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T1a, K1, I1a1, W5a, U2e, U5a1 )

Bell Beaker from Benzingerode-Heimburg 4300/4200 ybp = 0% H + 100% ( T2a, W1, U5a )

Bell Beaker from Quedlinburg 4300/4200 ybp = 50% H5/H1 + 50% ( T2e, J1c, U5a, U5b )

Bell Beaker from Rothenschirmbach 4300/4200 ybp = 60% H5/H3 + 40% ( K1a2 )

Bell Beaker from Alberstedt 4300/4200 ybp = 100% H5/H3 + 0% ( - )

1- The oldest tested Bell Beaker population is Kromsdorf and there is not found any H carrier.
2- H5 is the only H haplogroup shared among all of these Bell Beaker populations where H is found.
3- H5 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
4- K1a2 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
5- W1 is found in a 8350 ybp individual from Anatolia.
6- T1a is found in a 9500 ybp individual from Jordan.
7- T2e is found in a 7500 ybp individual from Neolithic Hungary.
8- J1c is found in a 9900 ybp individual from Neolithic Iran.
9- H3 is found in a 7300 ybp individual from Neolithic Portugal.
 
As far as I know there are two incoming papers about BB Iberian Y-DNA.

As for Gimbutas making BB IE... she wrote some 40 years ago and many things have changed, she is now outdated and radiocarbon dates are irrefutable for a western origin. Now I believe that Gimbutas was somewhat eccentric in her conclusions as it was Sigmund Freud: after knowing about experiments trying to make rockets to travel to the space he judged that his inventor was phalus obsessed... in fact it was all the contrary, it was the psychoanalist that was obsessed with sex and everything was looked from such perspective; somewhat seems similar for Gumbutas: all peaceful and farmer cultures worshipping goddesses were non indoeuropean, and those cultures displaying violence, weapons, patriarchy, horses and so were undoubtfuly IE; of course the equation is not universal and at least it could be said that it was sexualy-biased.

Actually Marija Gimbutas is still reliable in regarding the Indoeuropeism discipline. She said that BB were IE and proto-Celts, so I'm pretty curious if this hypotesis was right, because BB were also in parts of Europe without hystoric Celts.
 
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.

@Hauteville, all "religions" have their own Holy Cows, but as i'm not Yamnayist I'm allowed to eat meat ;) Radiocarbon dates are saying that she was mistaken other than we think that proto-Celtic was spoken in Portugal around 3000 BC and IE was going there sailing with chariots; and for Yamnayans, well, DNA is showing us how they didn't contributed in anything, even their R1b clade was extingished there after the coming of the northern R1a. Of course checking if she was right or mistaken is good, but by now she was not right in the basics. What is worse, if BB were spreading Celtic languages, why then the actual archaeologists are happy with Urnfield / Hallstad / La Téne cultures spreading over all the Celtic territories? is that there were two celtizations then? Better to get the easy explanation than two explanations...
 
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.

@Hauteville, all "religions" have their own Holy Cows, but as i'm not Yamnayist I'm allowed to eat meat ;) Radiocarbon dates are saying that she was mistaken other than we think that proto-Celtic was spoken in Portugal around 3000 BC and IE was going there sailing with chariots; and for Yamnayans, well, DNA is showing us how they didn't contributed in anything, even their R1b clade was extingished there after the coming of the northern R1a. Of course checking if she was right or mistaken is good, but by now she was not right in the basics. What is worse, if BB were spreading Celtic languages, why then the actual archaeologists are happy with Urnfield / Hallstad / La Téne cultures spreading over all the Celtic territories? is that there were two celtizations then? Better to get the easy explanation than two explanations...

Did you count the number of H mtdna in central Europe that have been discovered in the neolithic times..............clearly the logical scenario is that the marker of H ( mtdna ) is still in the area 3000 years later during BB times

or

did you dismiss these numbers?
 
@Alpenjager, percents are not useful with low quantities, what I have is quite simple: from 17 BB samples 11 were H (2/3), even a higher proportion if they were not the first generation there; then if you compare it with all previous Neolithic and CWC samples taken in Central Europe you get only 1/9 (6 cases H and 47 no H); the history behind is evident.

You are talking of a sample of 17 but I'm exposing 24 unambiguous BB samples from several settlements, is perfectly useful.

The oldest known H1 in Europe have been found in a 7200 ybp sample from Karsdorf together with the paternal haplogroup T1a1. This is 3000 years before Bell Beaker. This is the same for most of H subclades.
 
You are talking of a sample of 17 but I'm exposing 24 unambiguous BB samples from several settlements, is perfectly useful.

The oldest known H1 in Europe have been found in a 7200 ybp sample from Karsdorf together with the paternal haplogroup T1a1. This is 2000 years before Bell Beaker.

not just H1 , but also H46 for a similar time frame
 
I will give you some numbers for 7200 ybp Central Europe settlements:


Native inhabitants from Karsdorf (YDNA: T1a1 )
43% H ( 12 samples )

Non-native inhabitants from Karsdorf
23% H + 11% HV = 34% R0 ( 9 samples )

Derenburg (YDNA: H2 + G2a )
12% H + 13% HV + 4% V = 29% R0 (24 samples )

Halberstadt (YDNA: G2a )
9% H + 13% V = 22% R0 ( 31 samples )

Naumburg
20% H ( 5 samples )

Eilsleben
100% H ( 1 sample )

Asparn Schletz
100% H ( 1 sample )
 
@Sile, the increase of H must be explained, being by a migratory process or by a particular selection; as such increase is linked to a given exogenous culture the answer is mainly migration. There is also the autosomal evidence and in some weeks maybe the Y-DNA.

@Alpenjager, you still doing percents from scanty numbers from here and there, so let's go to the big numbers. In "Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity" in the supp you can find out:

Oberwiederstedt 0H from 14; in Halberstadt 8H from 47, in Naumburg 2H from 10, in Karsdorf 13H from 46, in Deremburg 5H from 40; suming up 28H from 156... gives a 18% of H (but the authors assign to the LBK culture a 17%); you can find out also that the authors concede for the CWC a 23% for H... but then it doubles with BB, 48%. Maybe with this exposition you can see also the case. And such German BB plot with the Portuguese Neolithics... high also in H.
 
don't know if this is serious data, but I compiled results from Ancestral Journeys-Peopling of Europe:
I found:
14 mt-H / 58 Unetice of Germany, 15 mt-H / 64 Unetice (total CN-Europe) 24,1% and 23,4%
9 mt-H / 45 CWC of Germany, 12 mt-H / 56 CWC (total CN-Europe) 20,0% and 21,4%
16 mt-H / 38 BBS of Germany, 19 mt-H / 44 BBS (total CN-Europe) 42,1% and 43,2%
9 mt- H / 36 TRBK of Germany, 12 mt-H / 42 TRBK (total CN-Europe) 25,0% and 28,6%

I don't see a strong imput of mt-H5 among BBs.
If I group H1+H3 as "west" or "ancient" and H2+H4+H5+H6 as "eastern" or "new", I found among the defined mt-H:
BBS 6 "WA" >< 2 "EN" (3 H1 + 3 H3)
TRBK 4 "WA" >< 2 "EN" (2 H1 + 2 H3)
CWC 0 "WA" >< 5 "EN"
Unetice 1 "WA" >< 7 "EN" (1 H3)
it's few and not too scoentific but surely it could signify something.
We see Tricherbecher, spite an imput from East, is still very occidental, and it PRECEDE BBs in time (Long Barrows: a come back phenomenon of Atlantic Megalithers in Northwest, after first contacts in N-Germant-DK with first "steppicized" (I-E or not) ???
the auDNA of one Gokhem man seems confirming a 'mediterranean' with more contacts with West than with East, and some WHG imput
mt-H5 which seems come from East is scarce enough among BBs and TRBK
So yes, BBs show partial difference with CWC with weight put upon supposedly "atlantic" mt-DNA. It remains that their auDNA, very unlevel, place them between Northern pops and Southeastern pops of Europe, not too close to today Iberians.
So we have to trace the origin of the MOST of the mt-H DNA in Europe, even H1 and H3, which could be linked more to Southern WHG than to the genuine Neolithic farmers; it could also have begun to colonize West-Central Europe before the BBs time.
But at the haplo's level, what we have for ancient DNA is still statistically too small, and the BBs we have are almost all from Northern Europe, Eastern Germany for the most.
What remains is the discrepancy in my drawing between german BBs and their H1/H3 mt and today Iberians rich for these two mt-haplos, and for y-R1b...
 
@Alpenjager, you still doing percents from scanty numbers from here and there, so let's go to the big numbers. In "Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic diversity" in the supp you can find out:

Oberwiederstedt 0H from 14; in Halberstadt 8H from 47, in Naumburg 2H from 10, in Karsdorf 13H from 46, in Deremburg 5H from 40; suming up 28H from 156... gives a 18% of H (but the authors assign to the LBK culture a 17%); you can find out also that the authors concede for the CWC a 23% for H... but then it doubles with BB, 48%. Maybe with this exposition you can see also the case. And such German BB plot with the Portuguese Neolithics... high also in H.

46 samples in Karsdorf? There aren't 46 samples. Well, You are clearly mixing samples from several periods for almost every location. You need to diferentiate between 7200 ybp Karsdorf settlement and CWC Karsdorf, there is no-continuity from one to another. This is not a good way to understand nothing.

Also you are missinterpreting the BB results.
 
@MOESAN, take into account that the spread of the BB surely was not direct, there were surely generations to reach Germany and their aDNA was not like in the beginning. There is the autosomal i na paper refered already here were such BB ploted between the expected pops. For the mtDNA in the paper of "Mitochondrial DNA from el Mirador" realy it plots just with Neolithic Portugal (70% H), being the ancient Central European cultures far as the HG.

@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.
 
@MOESAN, take into account that the spread of the BB surely was not direct, there were surely generations to reach Germany and their aDNA was not like in the beginning. There is the autosomal i na paper refered already here were such BB ploted between the expected pops. For the mtDNA in the paper of "Mitochondrial DNA from el Mirador" realy it plots just with Neolithic Portugal (70% H), being the ancient Central European cultures far as the HG.

@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.

You need to realise that H Mtdna was in BB central Europe thousands of years before any Iberian H Mtdna went there...............in other words H Mtdna has NO relation to the commencement of BB
 
Ok... let's say it more simple then: H came with Neolithic people here and there, ok, in LBK and Central European Middle Neolithic cultures it reached a 15-25%, even in Calcholithic Central Spain; but H by X causes was more prevalent in Neolithc Portugal (70%), ok, then in S. Portugal the BB appeared around 2800 BC, ok, then the BB people in Germany of 2500 BC display an unexpected increase of H, 48%. What do you suggest which would be the best explanation for it? To me clearly is that H was going to Germany along BB pots, arrows and buttons, increasing the H there; other solutions are available but such alternatives are not the most simple.

By the way i suggest you to read these papers as to understand what i try to explain (not so well i guess):

Mitochondrial DNA from El Mirador Cave (Atapuerca, Spain) Reveals the Heterogeneity of Chalcolithic Populations

Neolithic mitochondrial haplogroup H genomes and the genetic origins of Europeans

New Population and Phylogenetic Features of the Internal Variation within Mitochondrial DNA Macro-Haplogroup R0
 
@Alpenjager, now if you don't like the percents you could mail to Brandt et al. to complain to the authors of the paper refered, but in the supp. they have more than 150 samples from the LBK (also other samples from different periods from the same villages but the excel is quite clear to understand); take into account that by now you have not refered your data and your data to me is not guaranteed, moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics.

"moreover to proceed to assign a 100% for a unique sample in a village is, in the most diplomatic way that i can express it, to don't understand the basics about statistics"? So, do you think this invalidate my previous comment in some way?

I'm still trying to find 46 LBK samples in Karsdorf among all known Brandt papers. "in the most diplomatic way that i can express" This is falsify data to support your theory and misinform deliberately to other forum members.

You can find all Karsdorf samples here: http://britishacademy.universitypre...7265758.001.0001/upso-9780197265758-chapter-6

http://science.sciencemag.org/highw...hwire_adjunct_files/2/Brandt.tablesS1-S17.xls

The data supports my previous comments, not yours.

Please, let me know if you need any other source. See my comments again and ask for any source.
 

This thread has been viewed 65969 times.

Back
Top