All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

I've thought about Mesopotamia as the center of the ideological transition that took place in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age before. Another noteworthy development is that we find in those Mesopotamian Chalcolithic cultures the first evidence of male gods - Alberto Green wrote about this in his book "The Storm God in the Ancient Near East". It's certainly interesting, but it's probably too early to talk about the demic impact of these developments.

As for BB and Coon: it certainly looks like Coon was right about mostly everything, for all his faults. It's still baffling to me how he predicted what we now know about the genetics of Central European & British BB with seemingly 100% accuracy - he even knew that the pop. replacement in Britain was close to complete. My mind would be blown if his hypothesis of BB origins turned out to be correct as well.

If Coon was right there should be very few genuine Bell Beakers in Iberia, and most skeletons buried with Beaker implements would instead belong to the subjected Megalithic population.

Btw, i've intensively research for anthropologic fact after the Iron_Gates_HG paper of Mathiesen came out and what i've found is that one of the romanian one ( something like Corvul Ostruli ) is really " borreby-like ".

Edit: It was Schela Cladovei and this is the boy.

http://alexisphoenix.org/imagesromania2/schela1053.jpg
 
check Olalde 2017
after the arrival of BB in Britain, these BB folks with steppe ancestry made up 90 % of the population
yet the neolithic Y-DNA, which is I2a-S2639, I2a-Z161 and I2a-M284 still lives in Britain
I2a-M284 were probably British HG who adopted farming
but I2a-Z161 and I2a-L161.1, ancestral to I2a-S2639 were of Iberian origin
both clades went practicaly extinct in Iberia
but I doubt only Yamna is to blaim
the 4 ka El Argar were intrusive too and very dominant in spreading bronze from the Iberian eastcoast
those El Argar were not even Indo-European
when the Phoenicians and Greeks arrived on the Iberian eastcoast, 'Iberian' languages were spoken there
besides R1b, the 2nd largest Y-DNA in Iberia is J2

Exactly right. This comment was probably just the typical misunderstanding and exaggeration of journalists.
 
And also, I keep having to say this, but Reich isn't some god. He used to think Northern Europeans were Caucasoid-Amerindian hybrids
The guy is of course a fallible mortal like the rest of us, but when exactly did he say this?
 
Sloppy exaggeration.

See:
Patterson et al,

"Population mixture is an important process in biology. We present a suite of methods for learning about population mixtures, implemented in a software package called ADMIXTOOLS, that support formal tests for whether mixture occurred and make it possible to infer proportions and dates of mixture. We also describe the development of a new single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array consisting of 629,433 sites with clearly documented ascertainment that was specifically designed for population genetic analyses and that we genotyped in 934 individuals from 53 diverse populations. To illustrate the methods, we give a number of examples that provide new insights about the history of human admixture. The most striking finding is a clear signal of admixture into northern Europe, with one ancestral population related to present-day Basques and Sardinians and the other related to present-day populations of northeast Asia and the Americas. This likely reflects a history of admixture between Neolithic migrants and the indigenous Mesolithic population of Europe, consistent with recent analyses of ancient bones from Sweden and the sequencing of the genome of the Tyrolean “Iceman.”
http://www.genetics.org/content/192/3/1065


Patterson saw non-Sardinian Europeans as having North Eurasian like ancestry that links them to Amerindian populations, which was, of course, completely accurate. He got the "source" wrong, but that was before we had any ancient samples.
 
Not all because R1b is far from being 100% in modern Iberia.
Right. I2a and G2a (original Proto-Basque y-DNA haplogroups), are still present.
I have also revised the Basques' Y-DNA frequencies using four different sources (Underhill et al., Adams et al., Iberianroots and the study in link above) totalling 597 samples. There are only a few changes, but important ones. I2a decreased from 9% to 5% to the profit of E1b1b (increase from 1% to 2.5%) and G2a, which had 0% and now has 1.5%. We now have a pre-IE admixture suggesting a considerable West Asian admixture, since the total of G2a, J1 and J2 is 4.5%, about the same as the Paleolithic I2a1 (5%). The big question mark is E1b1b (2.5%), which would be Paleolithic as well as Neolithic, or even an influence of neighbouring Cantabria.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26805-New-mtDNA-Y-DNA-frequencies-for-the-Basques
 
But looking at the low percentages, it could have been that all adult men were wiped out and some young boys survived. And of course, there would have been some pregnant women spared whose I2a and G2a offspring would have at least help preserve the original line.

Do we know for example how high the Proto-Basque population could have been at that point? And how large the group of R1b invaders was?
 
I'll repost a repost, as it is clearly relevant speculation to this thread:

"I'll repost my theory:

"I personally imagine pre-L51 and pre-Z2103 splitting somewhere in the Balkans, or maybe Anatolia, with pre-L51 travelling (perhaps by sea) to Iberia and pre-Z2103 spreading somewhat Eastwards across West Asia. L51, part of the Iberian BBs and amongst typical Megalithic folk, would then travel to Central Europe (acquiring some more Steppe-like mtDNA lineages from Corded Ware women along the way), before expanding throughout Western Europe as part of the Unetice cultural complex. Z2103 would have both remained in West Asia, but also moved up into the Steppe, and from those people Yamnaya would expand into the Balkans. This entire process would be at least at first associated with the spread of metal (L23)."

Any points of contention are welcome. There's a few key reasons why I believe this over the Steppe origin of L51 though, just for example the fact that there doesn't seem to be any cultures to find L51 in, with the assumption that it would have left a trace in the present-day location of its mother culture, assuming a Steppe origin. L51 is pretty much entirely confined to Western Europe, and the Balkan expansion of Yamnaya seems so clearly linked to the present day distribution of Z2103. Moreover, a lot of the earliest subclades of L51 are in Sardinia of all places, which points to this maritime theory strongly.

L51 could have picked up Steppe admix from Corded folk, but it could easily have had Steppe admix to start with. Low noise of Steppe admix has been found in the Iberian Chalcolithic, and in this theory the carriers of this admix would have likely expanded from the Balkans, where there has been (obviously ignoring the Danubian farmer samples) a Steppe presence for a long time. I personally believe that the Balkan-Black Sea region is the original breeding ground of R1b, meaning a large Steppe presence among non-farmer samples (who were clear imports from the Neolithic Middle East, bred like rabbits, and can be paid little attention in this hypothesis) is to be expected, and has been found already (as one example, a Greek Neolithic sample has been found that even clusters with individuals of Northern European Corded Ware origin - Neolithic!)."

Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
My post from September 11, 2016

Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.

http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg
 
I wonder how geographically extensive the Reich scrutiny was. I mean, when the Romans arrived in Iberia, a wide band of land to the east of Iberia along the Mediterranean was still distinctly "iberian", in the proper sense of the word. Those Iberians spoke a non-IE language and were culturally quite distinct from the Celtiberians and Lusitanians in the west. They seem to have been long-established populations, with elements of their language (notably numbers) borrowed from the Basques. It seems quite unlikely that those people had, at any time in the course of their history, been subjugated by invaders with steppe ancestry.

Even the Celtiberians, for that matter, probably arrived in Iberia long after the date bracket Reich mentions. But the Lusitanians, with their very ancient, unclassifiable IE language, could match.

If Reich's pool of research was for some reason confined to, or mostly focused on, the western half of Iberia, then "(near-)total replacement" might make sense, to a degree. Otherwise, the claim, in my view, remains highly debatable.
 
Welcome to the club. Two years ago I made a post on eurogenes with similar theory about migrations of R1b folks and posted a migration map.
My post from September 11, 2016

Main splits of R1b subclades occurred in Caucasus, Anatolia and Corsica.

http://s014.radikal.ru/i328/1609/e0/6e7b657881e5.jpg

Interesting, Coon mentions the Mediterranean Isles (Sicily & Corsica) as the stepping stones for the 'racial' Bell Beakers that invade Iberia from the Eastern Mediterranean in the Chalcolithic. BB cultural elements would already have existed in Iberia before those distinctive newcomers imposed themselves upon the local Megalithic population to become the expansive Beakers that absorbed the LN & CW groups in Central Europe.
 
As in Britain, Ireland, Scandinavia, Gaul and the Baltic, "Them that pinched it done them in!"
 
Did they "conquer" with swords or the numerous illnesses they had (or both)? Also y-dna doesn't tell it all, as we know...these people with "Steppe" y-dna probably already had EEF in them that they picked up en route
 
Did they "conquer" with swords or the numerous illnesses they had (or both)? Also y-dna doesn't tell it all, as we know...these people with "Steppe" y-dna probably already had EEF in them that they picked up en route
It's easier to conquer with spears than with swords.
 
The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:

"O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar. Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants. During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."

This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly.

A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?

I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.

Just in general terms, the burials you're likely to find might be disproportionately those of more elite groups, so I always think it would be better to say something along the lines of....in the samples we've found to date...

If they're correct, Iberian speakers were no different from the Indo-European speakers. So, maybe in some areas they were small in number and adopted the language of the "natives"? Seems odd if there was a near wipe out of the ylines, but the Basques are odd too; it's not "that" isolated an area.

Under this scenario, the other y lines, especially a lot of the "E" and all of the "J" would have arrived later, with Carthaginians, North Africans proper, perhaps Romans?
 
The blurb seems to be about the "new" Olalde paper, which I mentioned in the thread I started about the ISBA Conference. Here is the abstract:

"O–PSM–01The genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula over the last 8000 yearsI. Olalde1, N. Rohland1, S. Mallick1,2,3, N. Patterson2, M. Allentoft4, K. Kristiansen5, K. G. Sjögren5, R. Pinhasi6, C. Lalueza-Fox7D. Reich1,2,31Harvard Medical School, Genetics, Boston, MA/United States2Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA/United States3Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA/United States4University of Copenhagen, Centre for GeoGenetics, Natural History Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark5University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden6University of Vienna, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Vienna, Austria7CSIC-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, Barcelona, SpainThe Iberian Peninsula, lying on the southwestern corner of Europe, provides an excellent opportunity to assess the final impactof population movements entering the continent from the east and to study prehistoric and historic connections with NorthAfrica. Previous studies have addressed the population history of Iberia using ancient genomes, but the final steps leading tothe formation of the modern Iberian gene pool during the last 4000 years remain largely unexplored. Here we report genomewidedata from 153 ancient individuals from Iberia, more than doubling the number of available genomes from this region andproviding the most comprehensive genetic transect of any region in the world during the last 8000 years. We find thatMesolithic hunter-gatherers dated to the last centuries before the arrival of farmers showed an increased genetic affinity tocentral European hunter-gatherers, as compared to earlier individuals. During the third millennium BCE, Iberia receivednewcomers from south and north. The presence of one individual with a North African origin in central Iberia demonstratesearly sporadic contacts across the strait of Gibraltar. Beginning ~2500 BCE, the arrival of individuals with steppe-relatedancestry had a rapid and widespread genetic impact, with Bronze Age populations deriving ~40% of their autosomal ancestryand 100% of their Y-chromosomes from these migrants. During the later Iron Age, the first genome-wide data from ancientnon-Indo-European speakers showed that they were similar to contemporaneous Indo-European speakers and derived most oftheir ancestry from the earlier Bronze Age substratum. With the exception of Basques, who remain broadly similar to Iron Agepopulations, during the last 2500 years Iberian populations were affected by additional gene-flow from the Central/EasternMediterranean region, probably associated to the Roman conquest, and from North Africa during the Moorish conquest butalso in earlier periods, probably related to the Phoenician-Punic colonization of Southern Iberia."

This isn't much different from what Reich said in his book if I remember correctly.

A 100% y line replacement seems a bit of an exaggeration given that I2a and G2a of the appropriate clades still exist in Iberia, unless they mean non-Basque Iberians perhaps?

I don't think we can really conclude how reasonable this is until we see the location and quality of the samples.

Just in general terms, the burials you're likely to find might be disproportionately those of more elite groups, so I always think it would be better to say something along the lines of....in the samples we've found to date...

If they're correct, Iberian speakers were no different from the Indo-European speakers. So, maybe in some areas they were small in number and adopted the language of the "natives"? Seems odd if there was a near wipe out of the ylines, but the Basques are odd too; it's not "that" isolated an area.

Under this scenario, the other y lines, especially a lot of the "E" and all of the "J" would have arrived later, with Carthaginians, North Africans proper, perhaps Romans?

The Rui Martiniano paper about Portugal shows roughly the same thing, although they only had three Bronze Age samples.

See:
https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852
 
As ever anything involving Yamnayans is shrouded by mistery, such impressive replacement from Central Europe (?) would be devoid of archaeological proofs. Even lesser replacements like those of the Celts or Romans could be tracked down...
 
Is it possible that what until now has been considered pre-Indo-European is post-Indo-European?

That is to say Iberian peninsula iberian bronze age is already Indo-European and then in the iron age the Iberian-Basque-Aquitanian language is introduced, with little or no genetic influence in the Mediterranean and therefore both the interior and the Mediterranean part in the Iberian Peninsula They have their genetic base in the Bronze Age.

It seems to me that is what is deduced from this new article.
 
Is it possible that what until now has been considered pre-Indo-European is post-Indo-European?

That is to say Iberian peninsula iberian bronze age is already Indo-European and then in the iron age the Iberian-Basque-Aquitanian language is introduced, with little or no genetic influence in the Mediterranean and therefore both the interior and the Mediterranean part in the Iberian Peninsula They have their genetic base in the Bronze Age.

It seems to me that is what is deduced from this new article.

I'm sure if we had inscriptions from before the Iron Age from the British Isles, we'd see the same problem there. For the latest thinking on this see here: http://www.jolr.ru/files/(101)jlr2012-8(160-164).pdf

Even more than in Iberia the languages replaced by the Celtic ideoms that came to Britain & Ireland seemed to have strong non-IE features.
 

This thread has been viewed 248078 times.

Back
Top