U5a1b1 in Spanish Bell Beaker

[Fire Haired14]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

 

[Tomenable]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

@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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Tomenable]

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:

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

Aurignacian-Gravettian Western Europe was mostly C1:

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

 

[Tomenable]

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.