The spread of 'Steppe' DNA and autosomal best-fit analysis

[Pip]

Much too early for an R1b migration into Iberia, it seems to me. Someone could have walked there from the steppes, or caught a boat - but, unless accompanied by others, would be an isolated outlier. Marco Polo made it to China, but didn't have any genetic impact.

ATP3 3,300BC was an isolated outlier, as far as we can tell from the limited data available. The Northern French precursor to mainstream L51 looks to have been a similar outlier. However, if these outliers remain endogamous and their communities later flourish, their genetic impact can last. That is at least what the statistics suggest as the best fit for the ancestors of L51 German Bell Beaker.
I don't see any later date for L51's migration to Western Europe that fits the data as well.

 

[Olympus Mons]

ATP3 3,300BC was an isolated outlier, as far as we can tell from the limited data available. The Northern French precursor to mainstream L51 looks to have been a similar outlier. However, if these outliers remain endogamous and their communities later flourish, their genetic impact can last. That is at least what the statistics suggest as the best fit for the ancestors of L51 German Bell Beaker.
I don't see any later date for L51's migration to Western Europe that fits the data as well.

Guys, apart from the conversation of "priesthood" (its becoming awkward....) what does it mean too early for iberia and being or not an outlier? a couple facts:

1. Movement of people (see Balkans with the end of big settlements and movements to smaller scattered settlements, or the vanishing of settlements in north Africa (see katie Manieing Mp4 with animation) by the birth of Sahara desert, started at 3.900 BC, known as the 5.9Kiloyears event.
2. The arrival of new people into Iberia, as far west as Portugal is seen as of 3.700BC. before that the place was pretty much deserted. the example of insertion of brachycephalic crania into the land of the Muge hominid (very small crania and very primitive) is seen at those dates.
3. However the truth is: the swift, vast surge of fortified settlements starts from the south. So atapuerta is really north. On the other hand, places like the COA valley near Douro river (north), sees a bulk rise of new settlements with lot so people by 3400bc.

So, to cut it short, people were conversion into Iberia all over. The point of origin can be lots of different places….

 

[CrazyDonkey]

The spread of the L51 genes would suggest they at least accompanied any roving Bell Beaker priesthood and presumably took the role of their protectors.
How do you come to the conclusion that the priests would have been celibate? If so, this might explain the L51 bottleneck until one branch perhaps chose to stray from the tradition.
I'm not sure that L51 would have been a widespread warrior aristocracy before Bell Beaker, as there is little or no sign of them in the archaeological record. Their numbers look too small.

Why would priest/missionaries bearing "good news" need/want armed bodyguards? That would have guaranteed rejection and attack, it seems to me.

My assumption is that "megalithic" society was a religious complex that sent out offshoots. So far, any sign of a west-to-east genetic link between the western and central Bell Beakers is glaringly absent. Conversion/initiation, but not a migration, fits that scenario. Any acolytes could have been gathered from the converted/initiated.

Now, it is possible that an earlier east-to-west "pulse" inserted L51 into Iberia, "seeding" the Bell Beaker phenomenon there, but which did not overturn the social structure, with a second stronger pulse (the so-called "reflux") happening later, which did.

 

[Pip]

Why would priest/missionaries bearing "good news" need/want armed bodyguards? That would have guaranteed rejection and attack, it seems to me.

My assumption is that "megalithic" society was a religious complex that sent out offshoots. So far, any sign of a west-to-east genetic link between the western and central Bell Beakers is glaringly absent. Conversion/initiation, but not a migration, fits that scenario. Any acolytes could have been gathered from the converted/initiated.

Now, it is possible that an earlier east-to-west "pulse" inserted L51 into Iberia, "seeding" the Bell Beaker phenomenon there, but which did not overturn the social structure, with a second stronger pulse (the so-called "reflux") happening later, which did.

It can be rather dangerous bearing good news. Look what happened to Jesus Christ. Ruling elites generally don't like their subjects getting big ideas for the future.

So, there's not any specific evidence to link the Bell Beaker movement with religion (and celibacy, in particular)? (I'm not denying it's a possibility.)

It looks like there were various west-to-east genetic pulses, but we wouldn't really know whether any of them related to Bell Beaker if the movement had been boosted by mass conversion/initiation.

There are certainly indicators of an early seeding of L51 in Western Europe, not necessarily Bell Beaker-related. I wouldn't call it a reflux or a pulse, or as Gimbutas called it a "wave", as this implies a return to where it came from before bouncing back. I don't see genetic evidence that L51 went West, then ebbed East and then flooded back West again. I would say it looks more like a seeding that was followed by a period of gestation in situ, that was followed by a later flowering.

 

[Pip]

Guys, apart from the conversation of "priesthood" (its becoming awkward....) what does it mean too early for iberia and being or not an outlier? a couple facts:

1. Movement of people (see Balkans with the end of big settlements and movements to smaller scattered settlements, or the vanishing of settlements in north Africa (see katie Manieing Mp4 with animation) by the birth of Sahara desert, started at 3.900 BC, known as the 5.9Kiloyears event.
2. The arrival of new people into Iberia, as far west as Portugal is seen as of 3.700BC. before that the place was pretty much deserted. the example of insertion of brachycephalic crania into the land of the Muge hominid (very small crania and very primitive) is seen at those dates.
3. However the truth is: the swift, vast surge of fortified settlements starts from the south. So atapuerta is really north. On the other hand, places like the COA valley near Douro river (north), sees a bulk rise of new settlements with lot so people by 3400bc.

So, to cut it short, people were conversion into Iberia all over. The point of origin can be lots of different places….

In the Shulaverian hypothesis, which yDNA haplogroups do you think would have been present within the culture, and which might have migrated to Portugal?

Do you think that the Bulgarian Suvorovo might have been an intermediate or related group?

Was there any relationship between L51 and the other successful haplogroup G-PF3345, which flourished in similar places - South Eastern Pontic, Eastern Carpathians and ultimately the Rhine?

When do you hypothesise that the Shulaveri headed West out of the Caucasus? I notice that EHG, Anatolian/EEF, R1b-M269 and G-PF3345 all look to have moved into the area some time after 7,000 BC, only for CHG to resurge in the area by about 3,000 BC? Could this resurgence have been related to the Shulaveri moving out, or would this be too late?

 

[Olympus Mons]

Hi Pip, thank you for your questions. Very good ones really. I don’t think I have ever been asked a set of so acute and disconcerting ones in all these years.
But Remember that I have 10 slides , just 10, that visually explain everything. In here:
https://shulaverianhypothesis.blogs.sapo.pt/

In the Shulaverian hypothesis, which yDNA haplogroups do you think would have been present within the culture

Men… The shulaverian Hypothesis is that they were the Urheimat of L23 and PIE. Above anything else. But I have always stated that they moved from Romania/Bulgaria in 6500BC to 6000BC (first settlements in Scaucasus) and the unusual diversity of species cultivated is because they picked up species and words from farmers they were engaged with, first in Thrace and then even learned mudbrick architecture with Barcin related near places such as Fikirtepe black sea south shores. So its unlikely they did not pick up some G Ydna.
By 5000bc, so a thousand years later, they picked up J2a from northern Iraq and J2b from northwest Iran. They met for a millennium in Azerbaijan steppes so… some could be J. – But remember. Bulk was M269 and L23. Overall they come across as very reserved kind of people that didnt really mixed much...

, and which might have migrated to Portugal?

By 4600 BC they were Boian and Gulmenita and the ones longer representing this phase the Krivodol- Salcuta.
I also believe Delta nile merimde-beni-salama was also them. So I don’t know which was the route. North or south. Let’s assume is north. Then L51 was a set of people on the move from these Balkans culture into all over shores of north Mediterranean sea in small pockets of L23 turning L51. So, If Zambujal/VNSP turning Bell beakers were them, were just a L51 remnant of your next question that got very good at warfare or at least conflict.

Do you think that the Bulgarian Suvorovo might have been an intermediate or related group?

Yes. Either choice they were related people. Those that stayed in Balkans, in chalcolithic, work their way into Hamangia, into Precucuteni….and therefore engage cousins that were later known as Yamanya. It’s a 1000 years nobody seems to want to compute…
That is the messy time that made all this Dna admix confusion of Steppe, CWC etc.
Suvorovo either were just the ones that resulted from Yamnaya related type of guys moving along north black sea costs, and mixing with lets call it Boian-Gulmenita-Cucuteni… or actually just the later, people that had always remained in Balkans, that change way of living like many others had forcibly to, as 5.9kiloyear event made them all scatter and change life style.

To relate to the previous question, while these ones were engaging in that "mess", the ones of previous question (which ones made it to Portugal) were just the ones that kept on moving west as early as 4000BC, small pockets that ended up gathered in bigger numbers in Western iberia.
I am a beliver that you need to follow kindship. The sucess of Bell beaker was due to the fact that while they moved around in 3rd milenia, they always found kindship in the other places.

Was there any relationship between L51 and the other successful haplogroup G-PF3345, which flourished in similar places - South Eastern Pontic, Eastern Carpathians and ultimately the Rhine?

I don’t know. But I think G-PF3345 has a story of their own. Sometimes I think people do an undervaluation of them....

When do you hypothesise that the Shulaveri headed West out of the Caucasus? I notice that EHG, Anatolian/EEF, R1b-M269 and G-PF3345 all look to have moved into the area some time after 7,000 BC, only for CHG to resurge in the area by about 3,000 BC? Could this resurgence have been related to the Shulaveri moving out, or would this be too late?

Shulaveri started a diaspora by 4900 BC. The resurgent of CHG is because, if anything Shulaverian arriving South Caucasus and departing went from no CHG to several degrees of CHG. CHG were in western Georgia and yes, in parts of north slopes of Caucasus mountains already . There were Shulaverian with this “pure” CHG, as there were others with some CHG/Iran Kind picked up in the steppes of Karabahk in Azerbaijan where they all met (L23, J2a, J2b, G).
When they all moved way the ones moving west (4600BC) were the ones with CHG-Iran that reached again south Balkans.. Kum6, Otzi Pal in Greece… they all had that admix irrespective of Y-dna. But also remember that the movement of Ydna J, and CHG/iran kept on moving into west. Anatolia but later Greece. The movement of Kura-araxes was a strong wind of CHG from east.
that is why when one finds Hittite YDna It can be anything. By 3000bc the ones speaking IE language where a mix of several small tribes.

 

[Pip]

Thanks for your comprehensive answers to my questions. Very interesting. I'll correlate it to the results of my own data analysis and get back to you.

 

[halfalp]

There was an old archeological belief wich might be true, that the earliest Smiths would have been regarded as something like a shaman-smith, only him knows how to not get sick from arsenic poisoning. As i wrote it some times ago and had a discussion with ToBeOrNotToBe, if i saw the Steppe or Yamnaya signal as a potential Warriorish people, i dont think they were likely smiths themselves. In the Bronze Age Europe, every culture that we link with Indo-Europeans and Steppe, shows signs of Warriors in Single Graves, Hoards and high manufactured weapons, jewels, ceramic. Hoards are particularly an interesting cultural treats. Vikings thaught that they needed to hoard their goods to refind them in Valhalla once they died. Hoard are a Warriorish or Mercenary features, it's a war treasur, not a Smiths wealth. I think it could make sense that R1b men and IE languages originally were hired as a protective cast by foreign people and that because of the constant evolution of society, they slightly shifted to become the general population, because Kings always became predominant over Priests in history. But the fact that all IE peoples kept the original IE religion and mythology also tells us that the relationship between the locals and the newcomers very fast degraded to become newcomer dominant.

 

[Pip]

There was an old archeological belief wich might be true, that the earliest Smiths would have been regarded as something like a shaman-smith, only him knows how to not get sick from arsenic poisoning. As i wrote it some times ago and had a discussion with ToBeOrNotToBe, if i saw the Steppe or Yamnaya signal as a potential Warriorish people, i dont think they were likely smiths themselves. In the Bronze Age Europe, every culture that we link with Indo-Europeans and Steppe, shows signs of Warriors in Single Graves, Hoards and high manufactured weapons, jewels, ceramic. Hoards are particularly an interesting cultural treats. Vikings thaught that they needed to hoard their goods to refind them in Valhalla once they died. Hoard are a Warriorish or Mercenary features, it's a war treasur, not a Smiths wealth. I think it could make sense that R1b men and IE languages originally were hired as a protective cast by foreign people and that because of the constant evolution of society, they slightly shifted to become the general population, because Kings always became predominant over Priests in history. But the fact that all IE peoples kept the original IE religion and mythology also tells us that the relationship between the locals and the newcomers very fast degraded to become newcomer dominant.

This matches my tentative belief. R1b-M269 was within groups hired as guards/mercenaries for the predominantly G2a populations of the Western, Southern and Eastern Pontic. Componental RSDs suggest the two admixed quickly, but phylogeny indicates that L51 itself probably did not become dominant for quite a long time. Extant subclades of L51 only gain numerical superiority over subclades of G2a-PF3345 by the Bell Beaker period.

 

[CrazyDonkey]

I would say it looks more like a seeding that was followed by a period of gestation in situ, that was followed by a later flowering.

How does a mere "seeding," even with a "flowering," explain a near 100% language/ydna turnover? It doesn't.

 

[Pip]

How does a mere "seeding," even with a "flowering," explain a near 100% language/ydna turnover? It doesn't.

I've no comment to make about language. I don't think we can know for sure which languages everyone spoke at that time.

We also don't know with any certainty how long the period was over which the yDNA turnover occurred (which I would estimate was nowhere near 100%, apart from in a few areas).

The phrases "seeding" and "flowering" aren't meant to explain anything, just to describe what the data indicates - that L51 went from a tiny two or three lineages to scores of lineages within an estimated very short space of time.

I think a pulse or wave that keeps ebbing and flowing would explain both L51's bottleneck and its subsequent branching explosion less well.

 

[markod]

https://adnaera.com/2019/01/11/how-did-chg-get-into-steppe_emba-part-2-the-pottery-neolithic/

Very interesting stuff about the now available Caucasian steppe samples in the comments.

 

[CrazyDonkey]

ATP3 3,300BC was an isolated outlier, as far as we can tell from the limited data available. The Northern French precursor to mainstream L51 looks to have been a similar outlier. However, if these outliers remain endogamous and their communities later flourish, their genetic impact can last. That is at least what the statistics suggest as the best fit for the ancestors of L51 German Bell Beaker.
I don't see any later date for L51's migration to Western Europe that fits the data as well.

What "L51" communities are you talking about? The only such "flourishing" communities that are evident in Iberia are post-c.2,000BC. The direct route from the steppes via the Carpathian Basin and the Danube River makes a lot more sense, rather than your southern "roundabout" route from south of the Caucasus (if I'm reading you right).

 

[CrazyDonkey]

I've no comment to make about language. I don't think we can know for sure which languages everyone spoke at that time.

It is pretty evident, to me at least, that the language-carriers (PIE) and the ydna-carriers (predominately R1b and R1a, although not just them alone) are one and the same. The Basques merely show that a language-shift due to new rulers doesn't always stick.

 

[Pip]

It is pretty evident, to me at least, that the language-carriers (PIE) and the ydna-carriers (predominately R1b and R1a, although not just them alone) are one and the same. The Basques merely show that a language-shift due to new rulers doesn't always stick.

It is not evident to me which languages people spoke in the third and fourth millennium BC. I have not seen such evidence, and in any case I am only looking at genetics.

 

[halfalp]

https://adnaera.com/2019/01/11/how-did-chg-get-into-steppe_emba-part-2-the-pottery-neolithic/

Very interesting stuff about the now available Caucasian steppe samples in the comments.

Very interesting indeed, they are totally unrelated with Maikop. And if the CHG in Steppe is related with Iran_Neolithic, it's then from a very early phase. The CHG component in Steppe is older than Areni-1, it's giving us at least some time frame to juggle with. Apparently Sarazm_Eneolithic is in Tajikistan at the edge of the Eurasian Steppe and the Pamir Range, very interesting how much those individuals have this ancestry ( Kelteminar??? ). Or maybe, as FrankN tried to tell ( if i understand him well ), it's possible that CHG came from East Caspian through intense and ancestral relationship with the Urals and that a Second ANE phase with CHG coming from Central Asia / Urals relplaced on the Volga the early EHG individuals, but if so, how did R1b stayed the dominant lineage?

 

[Pip]

What "L51" communities are you talking about? The only such "flourishing" communities that are evident in Iberia are post-c.2,000BC. The direct route from the steppes via the Carpathian Basin and the Danube River makes a lot more sense, rather than your southern "roundabout" route from south of the Caucasus (if I'm reading you right).

I don't think you are reading me right. I am just saying the route from South West of the Caucasus is what shows as autosomal best-fit for the initial westwards spread of 'Steppe DNA' - L51 would have only been formational at that point (the L51 SNP itself might not even have arisen by then). Yes, a subsequent route for L51 via the Carpathians/Danube makes sense and is a strong possibility; other possibilities are via the Mediterranean and via the Baltic/Atlantic - I have not yet seen genetic data that allows a confident conclusion to be reached on this matter.

The flourishing of L51 that I am talking about is evidenced by the extensive branching in its extant phylogeny, which can be age-estimated by both SNPs and STRs to have commenced in the early third millennium BC or shortly before this. I do not say that this initial flourishing occurred in Iberia - I estimate it most likely began in France. My age estimates for when the flourishing first reached Iberia are late third millennium BC - this is based on phylogeny and STR variability, and not on the extent to which old bones have so far been dug up.

 

[etrusco]

maybe the sample of R1b L51 (no steppe) that was mentioned by to be or not to be some days ago from Savoy ( France) could be the same one in this paper:


Samantha Brunel
Paléogénomique des dynamiques des populations humaines sur le territoire Français entre 7000 et 2000



At the bronze age, they have 5 samples with autosomal DNA, all in Bell Beaker archaeological context, which are very spread on the PCA. A very high sample close to the Yamnaya, a little above the Corded Ware, two samples right in the Central European Bell Beakers, a fairly low just above the Neolithic package, and one last full in the package. The most salient point was that the Y chromosomes of their 12 Bronze Age samples (all bell beaker) are all R1b, whereas there was no R1b in the Neolithic samples.

 

[markod]

Very interesting indeed, they are totally unrelated with Maikop. And if the CHG in Steppe is related with Iran_Neolithic, it's then from a very early phase. The CHG component in Steppe is older than Areni-1, it's giving us at least some time frame to juggle with. Apparently Sarazm_Eneolithic is in Tajikistan at the edge of the Eurasian Steppe and the Pamir Range, very interesting how much those individuals have this ancestry ( Kelteminar??? ). Or maybe, as FrankN tried to tell ( if i understand him well ), it's possible that CHG came from East Caspian through intense and ancestral relationship with the Urals and that a Second ANE phase with CHG coming from Central Asia / Urals relplaced on the Volga the early EHG individuals, but if so, how did R1b stayed the dominant lineage?

Yeah very difficult to say what happened without early samples from Central Asia. I'd say evidence is mounting that Maykop/Kura/Shomu are irrelevant when it comes to Yamnaya.

 

[Pip]

maybe the sample of R1b L51 (no steppe) that was mentioned by to be or not to be some days ago from Savoy ( France) could be the same one in this paper:


Samantha Brunel
Paléogénomique des dynamiques des populations humaines sur le territoire Français entre 7000 et 2000



At the bronze age, they have 5 samples with autosomal DNA, all in Bell Beaker archaeological context, which are very spread on the PCA. A very high sample close to the Yamnaya, a little above the Corded Ware, two samples right in the Central European Bell Beakers, a fairly low just above the Neolithic package, and one last full in the package. The most salient point was that the Y chromosomes of their 12 Bronze Age samples (all bell beaker) are all R1b, whereas there was no R1b in the Neolithic samples.

Yes, few people are arguing that R1b per se is West European in origin. But I am not aware of R1b-L51 samples being found anywhere during the Neolithic, so it is not especially striking for none to have been found in Neolithic France; and is probably because L51 is only estimated to have come into existence during the Chalcolithic and because its phylogeny suggests it was bottlenecked (i.e. probably very scarce) during the first millennium after it arose.