Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna

The only thing we have to go on is the data from the samples. They DO NOT show admixture from the beginning according to the authors. They also show admixture from preceding "local" people. Whether those local people were derived from various movements of farmer people within Europe before 2500 BC is another matter and not relevant to that fact.

We also know from the authors that in some areas the "new" admixture was as low as 10%. In others it was close to 40%.

Now, it may be true that in some sites not sampled there "is" evidence of some "remnant" local Iberian ancestry which may over time have mixed back into the population, lowering the percentage of "new" ancestry even further. Or, it may be that subsequent migrations lowered it. We need more samples from subsequent periods for more certainty.

In the initial influx phase from around 2,500 BCE to 2,000 BCE, all but one of the newcomer samples have ~50% or higher "eastern ancestry". None of the males, except one, however, have more than ~70%, while all of the females, except one, have more than 75% (and one 100%). In the next phase from 2,000 to 1,500 BCE, all of the samples, except one (a female), have ~55% or less such ancestry and are about three times as numerous.

It looks to me like two separate influxes, or waves, with the second overrunning the first. After the second wave crashed (2,000-1,800 BCE), the non-steppic samples disappear (~1,600 BCE), through elimination, migration, and/or assimilation.
 
In the initial influx phase from around 2,500 BCE to 2,000 BCE, all but one of the newcomer samples have ~50% or higher "eastern ancestry". None of the males, except one, however, have more than ~70%, while all of the females, except one, have more than 75% (and one 100%). In the next phase from 2,000 to 1,500 BCE, all of the samples, except one (a female), have ~55% or less such ancestry and are about three times as numerous.
It looks to me like two separate influxes, or waves, with the second overrunning the first. After the second wave crashed (2,000-1,800 BCE), the non-steppic samples disappear (~1,600 BCE), through elimination, migration, and/or assimilation.
Yes, there were multiple movements of loosely-related people - some were waves that ebbed back to where they originated, some were movements from one place to another, some were expansions. Some were more steppic than others. Some had plenty of CHG, some didn't. The first wave was around 3,400 BC. Waves have been rolling in ever since.
As soon as I see maps showing (as Angela might put it) Conan the Yamnayan and his sons storming across the world in all directions from a single point in the Steppe killing all in their path, I assume that it is all just repetition of a simplistic myth.
 
Yes, there were multiple movements of loosely-related people - some were waves that ebbed back to where they originated, some were movements from one place to another, some were expansions. Some were more steppic than others. Some had plenty of CHG, some didn't. The first wave was around 3,400 BC. Waves have been rolling in ever since.
As soon as I see maps showing (as Angela might put it) Conan the Yamnayan and his sons storming across the world in all directions from a single point in the Steppe killing all in their path, I assume that it is all just repetition of a simplistic myth.

What you're describing is "seepage".

In the chart, the early R1b(xM269) samples are non-steppe.

See: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2018/...-site-in-all-recent-iberian-prehistory/120856

...the oldest monuments, built between the 30th and 28th centuries BCE (Cerro de la Cabeza, Structure 10.042-10.049 and the Montelirio tholos) were characterised by the use of great slabs of slate to line the walls and the chambers, which were probably made of mud dried by the sun, and by their ‘canonical’ solar orientation (to the rising or setting of the sun).

After what seems like a long period in the reduction of activity in the 27th century BCE, the tholos of La Pastora was probably built, with very different architectural characteristics: without great slabs of slate, but with a roofed chamber with a false stone dome, an important technical and aesthetic innovation, and with a “heretical” orientation towards the south east, facing away from the sunrise. “It is very probable that these changes in the monumental architecture were due to were due to changes in the social and ideological sphere, including, perhaps, religious “heterodoxies”, the researcher adds.

...the end of the occupation of this part of the province of Seville happened between the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, despite evidence of it being frequented and used in the Bronze Age (c. 2200-850 BCE). “In fact, the abandonment of the site seems rather abrupt, without a gradual transition towards a different social model. The possibility that the end of the Valencina settlement was due to a social crisis has been hinted at by the dates obtained from several human skulls separated from the rest of the skeletons in a pit in a Calle Trabajadores in Valencina”, states the director of the research group.

...all these individuals almost died at the same time, which opens the possibility of a violent episode (killing, crime or sacrifice). The fact that several of the skulls were treated in a ritual manner, showing marks of having had the flesh removed and that this ‘special’ mortuary deposit appears to be associated with the greatest collection of pottery beakers found on the site, suggests that the episode had great symbolic significance.

The paleoenvironmental data for the Mediterranean and Europe indicate that between the 24th and 23rd centuries BCE, a period of greater aridity and dryness began globally, which could have had severe consequences for many of the planet’s societies, including droughts. At this time, the Iberian Peninsula saw the end of chalcolithic way of life and the abandonment of some of the most important sites with ditched enclosures, as now seems to be the case with Valencina de la Concepción. In broad strokes, this coincides with the end of the Old Kingdom in the Nile Valley, with a great crisis that brought about the end of the period of construction of the great pyramids.

So, 30th to 28th centuries: straight Megalithic.

26th Century (2,500s): Change in burial custom, showing a possible change in regime, corresponding to the arrival of the "newcomers" on the chart. (The first wave?)

23rd Century (2,200s): Abrupt abandonment of the site, corresponding to a noticeable petering out, and then disappearance, of non-steppic samples on the chart. (The second wave?)
 
In the chart, the early R1b(xM269) samples are non-steppe.
Yes, but we also know there are earlier Northern Iberian samples 4th millennium BC (including M269) that are steppic.

So, 30th to 28th centuries: straight Megalithic.
The steppic proportions had diminished markedly by 3,000 BC - certainly by dilution, also possibly by evacuation.

26th Century (2,500s): Change in burial custom, showing a possible change in regime, corresponding to the arrival of the "newcomers" on the chart. (The first wave?)

23rd Century (2,200s): Abrupt abandonment of the site, corresponding to a noticeable petering out, and then disappearance, of non-steppic samples on the chart. (The second wave?)
By the Bronze Age, yes, I agree - autosomally, there appear to have been two steppic populations heavily admixed into the Iberian population - one similar to the people who seeped in pre-3,000 BC, another similar to Central European R1b Bell Beaker. Both of these populations match prior steppe-infused Balkan peoples, both seem to comprise R1b-M269.

This kind of patchwork development pattern might not look neat (or sensational) enough for the genetics industry to sell to the public, but nature usually isn't all that neat.
 
The Armenian Middle Bronze Age people provide another example of a variety of Northern populations seeming to have seeped into a southern population - Caspian (mainly R1b), North Caucasian (mainly J2a) and Ukrainian (mainly R1a). It looks like the last of these, at least, probably arrived separately, at a later date.

However, unlike in Iberia, it seems that none of these populations' yDNA lineages extinguished the indigenous lineages, despite possibly having initiated a language replacement.
 
Again, go to the original link, guys. There's a chart around 19 minutes in where he shows that the central European Bell Beaker people going into Spain were 50% Central Europe M/L Neolithic, and 50% steppe. That's the 40% I think.

That's partly why Iberians today are only 20% "steppe", although as you can see from the yDna chart, there were also other newcomers arriving after the Beakers.

I was having trouble squaring the low ANE percentages on this site with the 40% number. I think this is the answer. The "eastern ancestry" label on the graph is a little confusing.

I've seen another (presumably revised) version of the graph that instead says "central European Beaker/Bronze-age related ancestry."
 
I was having trouble squaring the low ANE percentages on this site with the 40% number. I think this is the answer. The "eastern ancestry" label on the graph is a little confusing.

I've seen another (presumably revised) version of the graph that instead says "central European Beaker/Bronze-age related ancestry."

That's right, Gregorious. They revised the graph for the paper and also explained in detail they're talking about admixture for locals versus Central European Beakers.

Maybe they read us and saw the complaints and confusion. :)
 
The steppic proportions had diminished markedly by 3,000 BC - certainly by dilution, also possibly by evacuation.

What steppic proportions? Not on the chart. Individuals with steppe admixture start showing up only after the 2,500s BCE. At the same time, the proportion of non-steppe admixed individuals decreased. That tells me that the populations intermixed - dilution, but not replacement. The second wave tells a different story - site abandonment and the replacement of non-steppe admixed by steppe admixed populations, and likely a conversion from an agricultural to a pastoral economy in much of Iberia.

dDoPqY2.png
 
What steppic proportions? Not on the chart. Individuals with steppe admixture start showing up only after the 2,500s BCE. At the same time, the proportion of non-steppe admixed individuals decreased. That tells me that the populations intermixed - dilution, but not replacement. The second wave tells a different story - site abandonment and the replacement of non-steppe admixed by steppe admixed populations, and likely a conversion from an agricultural to a pastoral economy in much of Iberia.

View attachment 10832

Predictably, the earliest 'steppic' samples are not shown on the chart - perhaps they spoilt the neat pattern of all blues followed by all reds?
Just as the proportions are interchangeably identified as 'Steppe' ancestry and 'Eastern' ancestry, when (as seen above) they were really Central European ancestry (many of its samples far from the Steppe and not much further East than Iberia) - but it is more sensational to give the misleading impression that these people ventured directly from far Central Russia.

Look at El Portalon.
The oldest sample ATP3 (3,390 BC) looks 100% Eastern, of which 24% EHG.
The next oldest ATP7 (3,095 BC) 71% Eastern, of which 17% EHG.
As the samples get younger, the Eastern and EHG proportions diminish, e.g. ATP2 (2,740 BC) 10% Eastern, of which 7% EHG.
By the Bronze Age, ATP9 is back up to 36% Eastern, of which 26% EHG - with a significant fit to R1b Bell Beaker.



 
What steppic proportions? Not on the chart. Individuals with steppe admixture start showing up only after the 2,500s BCE. At the same time, the proportion of non-steppe admixed individuals decreased. That tells me that the populations intermixed - dilution, but not replacement. The second wave tells a different story - site abandonment and the replacement of non-steppe admixed by steppe admixed populations, and likely a conversion from an agricultural to a pastoral economy in much of Iberia.

View attachment 10832
ATP20 2,120 BC from the same site (El Portalon) illustrates your point - it is from long after R1b arrived, but looks entirely indigenous, having no R1b Bell Beaker element whatsoever. Iberian exogamy appears to have been either a late development for R1b Bell Beaker or brought in by a different R1b population.
 
Predictably, the earliest 'steppic' samples are not shown on the chart - perhaps they spoilt the neat pattern of all blues followed by all reds?
Just as the proportions are interchangeably identified as 'Steppe' ancestry and 'Eastern' ancestry, when (as seen above) they were really Central European ancestry (many of its samples far from the Steppe and not much further East than Iberia) - but it is more sensational to give the misleading impression that these people ventured directly from far Central Russia.

Look at El Portalon.
The oldest sample ATP3 (3,390 BC) looks 100% Eastern, of which 24% EHG.
The next oldest ATP7 (3,095 BC) 71% Eastern, of which 17% EHG.
As the samples get younger, the Eastern and EHG proportions diminish, e.g. ATP2 (2,740 BC) 10% Eastern, of which 7% EHG.
By the Bronze Age, ATP9 is back up to 36% Eastern, of which 26% EHG - with a significant fit to R1b Bell Beaker.

So, the authors are deliberately misrepresenting the data? They're lying?

I'm simply accepting the authors' conclusion: that those samples don't trace back through Europe to the steppes and weren't part of the population movement they were illustrating. Maybe to Iran (Zagros Mtns.), as part of the earlier spread of agriculture or metallurgy. If the "steppic proportions had diminished markedly by 3,000 BC," when and where did they formerly represent a significantly higher proportion of the population?
 
Predictably, the earliest 'steppic' samples are not shown on the chart - perhaps they spoilt the neat pattern of all blues followed by all reds?
Just as the proportions are interchangeably identified as 'Steppe' ancestry and 'Eastern' ancestry, when (as seen above) they were really Central European ancestry (many of its samples far from the Steppe and not much further East than Iberia) - but it is more sensational to give the misleading impression that these people ventured directly from far Central Russia.

Look at El Portalon.
The oldest sample ATP3 (3,390 BC) looks 100% Eastern, of which 24% EHG.
The next oldest ATP7 (3,095 BC) 71% Eastern, of which 17% EHG.
As the samples get younger, the Eastern and EHG proportions diminish, e.g. ATP2 (2,740 BC) 10% Eastern, of which 7% EHG.
By the Bronze Age, ATP9 is back up to 36% Eastern, of which 26% EHG - with a significant fit to R1b Bell Beaker.




Wait for the Swiss paper
 
It occurred to me that if we look at the "newcomer" samples from the upcoming Olalde paper on Bell Beaker in Spain, and if they are at all representative, the migration was definitely not male skewed.

dDoPqY2.png


It's difficult to count them, but it looks to be fairly even.

The Reich Lab has maintained that for quite a while. It was the subject of that controversy they had last year, where they issued a response to someone else's paper, a paper which had said it was basically a male dominated migration.

If, therefore, 60% of the ancestry of the subsequent admixed people was local, then presumably it would be because they practiced some sort of polygamy, yes?

What the graph says that after steppe people came, they mixed and autosomally fall in between, with ydna being mostly from new comers, conclusion is that males were wiped out, and the thing that puts them in the middle between 2 populations is female component.


Farmer populations haven't invented wheel, or domesticated horse, they were probably small and peaceful communities living near the rivers, while steppe people were warlike, and able to move resources due to invention of wheels and carts
 
So, the authors are deliberately misrepresenting the data? They're lying?

I'm not saying that. I'm merely pointing out the selective sampling/omission of data and the misleading terminology underlying this presentation, which naturally inclines me to place less reliance on the authors' assurances than I otherwise would.

I'm simply accepting the authors' conclusion: that those samples don't trace back through Europe to the steppes and weren't part of the population movement they were illustrating. Maybe to Iran (Zagros Mtns.), as part of the earlier spread of agriculture or metallurgy.

Iran is highly unlikely, as these samples have a negligible Iran Neolithic component, and some have no Iran Neolithic component whatsoever. The samples are a best-fit mix of Balkan Chalcolithic with Suvorovo-steppic admixture and Anatolian.

If the "steppic proportions had diminished markedly by 3,000 BC," when and where did they formerly represent a significantly higher proportion of the population?

It is impossible to say, as there are very few sites before 3,000 BC that have provided enough samples to enable any meaningful estimate of population proportions. For what it's worth, the El Portalon site near Burgos has 2 samples dated before 3,050 BC, which both show markedly higher steppic proportions, so we can say that they represent 100% of the population.

Prior to 3,100 BC, yfull estimates that there were only two extant R1b-L51 lineages, so it would seem unlikely that these 'steppic' L51 people represented a very numerous population anywhere.

These Iberian steppic M269 people branched off most recently from Central European steppic M269 Bell Beaker people - the only differences being that:
1. The Iberian group appears to have had a higher Anatolian:EHG proportion
2. The Central European group appears to have had some additional Ukrainian/East Carpathian admixture.
 
What the graph says that after steppe people came, they mixed and autosomally fall in between, with ydna being mostly from new comers, conclusion is that males were wiped out, and the thing that puts them in the middle between 2 populations is female component.
Let's not forget that most of the newcomers' male lineages were probably wiped out as well, with only the only predominant DF27 lineage ultimately thriving.

Farmer populations haven't invented wheel, or domesticated horse, they were probably small and peaceful communities living near the rivers, while steppe people were warlike, and able to move resources due to invention of wheels and carts
Possibly, but I don't know if we can really generalise like that. It might alternatively have been the case (in at least some locations) that the 'steppic' people were just small groups of travellers who were distrusted and subjected to attack from aggressively-protective farming communities.
 
Iran is highly unlikely, as these samples have a negligible Iran Neolithic component, and some have no Iran Neolithic component whatsoever. The samples are a best-fit mix of Balkan Chalcolithic with Suvorovo-steppic admixture and Anatolian.

Well, south of the Caucasus, which includes eastern Anatolia and the Zagros Mtns:

Maciamo:

With its 32% of Caucaso-Gedrosian, 14% of Northern European ancestry, 6% of European Hunter-Gatherer and 3.8% of Veddoid, it does indeed look as if ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry, but with a higher proportion of northern Middle Eastern and Veddoid than Yamna samples. In other words it could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period. But if so, how did his lineage not get more admixed along the way ? Neolithic farmers all over Europe were overwhelmingly (and often exclusively) Southern-European in admixture.

What baffles me the most is that this individual's ancestors managed to maintain a relatively pure West and South Asian admixture while crossing all Europe at the height of the Neolithic. Could it represent a migration of copper metallurgists from Anatolia to Iberia ? R1b tribes from the Pontic Steppe are thought to have started invading the Balkans several centuries before the Yamna period, from c. 4200 BCE. Copper metallurgy was already well implanted in the Balkans by then, but may have been brought from central Anatolia. An alternative scenario is that R1b-M269 invaders took wives with high Middle Eastern admixture in copper towns in the Balkans, and that their descendants spread metallurgy fairly quickly all the way to Iberia. If that is the case, the Southern-European component might be Balkanic rather than Iberian.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...er-at-al-2015)?p=466264&viewfull=1#post466264
 
Well, south of the Caucasus, which includes eastern Anatolia and the Zagros Mtns
Yes, this is a good summary from Maciamo.

He suggests that Iberian ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry - the chart is labelled 'Steppe ancestry gets to Iberia', but the earliest Steppe ancestry that we find in Iberia is excluded from it.

Iran no, but an ancestral fit with the Western end of the Zagros mountains (North Western Syria, where it reaches the Mediterranean) is entirely possible - the other early sample ATP7 has no Iran/CHG component, but does have Anatolian and Natufian elements.

Maciamo gives two possible explanations:
1. Pre-IE Anatolian M269 crossing the Caucasus into the Steppe
2. A Balkanic mix of metallurgical Central Anatolian people with the R1b tribes that 'invaded' the Balkans during the 5th millennium BC

Both are possible, but 2 fits better with the data, and it is the best fit with R1b Bell Beaker too. Both have the same basic ancestral best-fits, both are R1b-M269 (and probably L51), and these two likely-related populations appear to fully admix with each other (and with Neolithic Iberians) in Bronze Age Iberia. I would say that to ignore this initial wave into Iberia is to miss out an important part of the story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ROS
I am in agreement with the previous comment.


I lack in these studies something that resolves the argaric mystery, which of course if it is not clarified wrong we go.


Argaric culture with haplogroup R1b and autosomas "steppe", located in the center of what later will be the Iberian-Tartessic culture, with several archaeological sites, one of them, La Bastida of supreme importance, since it has been compared with the Anatolian Troy


Because in the study on Iberia there is no reference to this extraordinary culture?

Moreover, I would go so far as to say that the key between the languages and the R1b "Estepario" is in the Argaric Culture and it is incomprehensible that the importance it has is not attributed to it.

It is to say, that it makes a city of its own in the Middle East like the bastide transported to the other side of the Mediterranean, with R1B males and autosomes from the steppes, which I understand would not be many cities like that in the steppes.
 
Yes, this is a good summary from Maciamo.

He suggests that Iberian ATP3 has a bit over half of Steppe ancestry - the chart is labelled 'Steppe ancestry gets to Iberia', but the earliest Steppe ancestry that we find in Iberia is excluded from it.

Except he hypothesizes that ATP3 "could be descended to the pre-Indo-European Anatolian R1b-M269, the group of cattle herders that would cross the Caucasus and settle in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. So could it be an offshoot of cattle herders that directly migrated from Anatolia to Iberia during the Neolithic period." Therefore, ancestral to M269 steppe populations, but not from the steppe.

Maciamo gives two possible explanations:
1. Pre-IE Anatolian M269 crossing the Caucasus into the Steppe
2. A Balkanic mix of metallurgical Central Anatolian people with the R1b tribes that 'invaded' the Balkans during the 5th millennium BC

He's not saying that ATP3's ancestors migrated to the steppe and then through Europe to Iberia (very unlikely, considering the early date), but that they were an offshoot that migrated to Iberia via Anatolia (maritime route).

His "Balkanic" route is also via Anatolia, not via the steppes.
 

This thread has been viewed 97905 times.

Back
Top