Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna

[markod]

but if it was steppe ancestry in the plot we would only go from 50% down to 40% if we assume that the migrants were 50/50 central europeans. that wouldn't be a 40% replacement but 80%. i think reich mght have been a bit confused about the "eastern ancestry" here a little bit and said that eastern ancestry is related to the steppe while it's central european admixture with steppe. or he just didn't want to explain the details there and for him "related to steppe" means it contains steppe ancestry among other things.

We have reports of pure Yamnayans in far Western Europe from two independent sources now. That can't be a coincidence.

Not that I have a good explanation for it.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The Bell Beakers who went to Britain were 50% steppe and 50% M/L European Neolithic.

However, the population "in" Britain after the migration was 90% Beaker and 10% local Neolithic.

Reich, in particular, sort of talks in short hand and it can cause confusion. I think that's partly what caused the controversy that surfaced in the New York Times article. He shouldn't assume everyone is up on all the papers they've put out and what it all means. He should be more careful and explain in what he probably thinks is self-evident and tedious detail. Sometimes the most brilliant researchers are not always the best communicators.

In this case, he has himself pointed out that there was one "pure" North African ancient sample. I doubt it was R1b. I think some form of "E" was probably present in Iberia pre-the Iron Age, but we don't know how much. The ancient Sardinian like I2a which we know is present in Iberia is extremely unlikely to be a newcomer. It's more likely, perhaps, that Reich means "replacement" of the y over much of Iberia, rather than every nook and cranny.

Some of the J2a, like the J2a in Italy, may be movement from the east. There's La Bastida to consider. If E-V13 was spread by the Greeks we're talking Iron Age. Again, if the Phoenician and later Carthaginian presence in Iberia was larger than thought, that would explain some more J2a and "E" clades, and then, of course, there's the Muslim invasion and occupation.

I also think it's interesting that in the graph the more steppe heavy newcomers to Iberia are mostly women. We've seen indications of women being moved around before, some sort of ancient "mail order" bride system from ancestral areas.

so, BB has in average 50 % steppe, but it's fluctuating between 25 % and 100 %, if I understand correct

it seems to me that these people sweaped through Europe, from the steppe into Iberia in just a few (2-3) generations

the replacement in Iberia happened 4.5-3.8 ka

 

[Mjölnir]

We have reports of pure Yamnayans in far Western Europe from two independent sources now. That can't be a coincidence.

Not that I have a good explanation for it.

Where did you see this? I created an account literally just for this - I usually just lurk on all these forums only posting on Eurogenes - but that is just so unexpected.

Are you sure it isn't referring to pure Central European Beaker folk? Pure Yamnayans is crazy! That sounds like Suvorovo perhaps?

 

[Ygorcs]

or maybe these 'farmer haplogroups' were not farmers, but late bronze age and iron age arrivals from over the Meditteranean
starting 4 ka with La Bastida and El Argar

That should be easy to test. Are the non-R1b haplogroup subclades of Iberia more related to or even descended from those in the East Mediterranean and in North Africa than to those in most of Europe? If the 40-50% of non-R1b haplogroups came from elsewhere after the EBA, and presumably not Western Europe (or if they did then the male replacement was really huge in the MLBA or IA), then those Iberian clades will not cluster phylogenetically with those in France, Italy or Switzerland.

 

[Ygorcs]

Sorry, but I can't deal more with cult members and alike, I have the conclusion that you are not capable to have own thinkings, I can't discuss under such conditions:

- hocus-pocus, from underpopulated steppe, R1b-Z2103 conquers Central Europe, but changing it's Y-DNA to R1a, fine
- hocus-pocus, an Iberian culture (BB) is taken in Central Europe without autosomal effect, fine... but it expands back as R1b-L51 instead of R1a, and losing all previous cultural steppe traits by the way, fine.
- hocus-pocus, a 40% steppe or eastern component in Iberia needs to kill all male population (500000? 1000000?) to be replaced by 500000 or 100000 R1b machos coming without women (long trek...), fine.
- hocus-pocus, BA admixture graphs don't display any steppe component, it was lost by continuous dilution, fine.

as you and people alike can swallow all it, I only have the alternative to scare you, maybe you can wake up:

1. go to https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962.full.pdf
2. go to extended data figure 1, admixture graph b (K=8)
3. look at Yamnaya, CWC, and Central Europe BB, check their CHG share, everything is all right?
4. look now at the Iberian side of the Beaker Complex (also a French BB), can't find that CHG?
5. ask then to yourself:
a) this only can be explained as Iberian BB were not coming from Central Europe?
b) this only can be explained as Central Europe R1b machos had a very hard gooooood time with Iberian brunettes that extracted their CHG?

com'on start to think by yourselves.

You will get an infraction next time you gratuitously say any member of this forum is incapable of having their own thoughts, using your broken English, because he or she cannot agree with your obsessive pet theory (you apparently only discuss about that same topic in this forum, and you still dare to say other people are cukt menbers - some projection going on there, huh?). For now you will be rightfully the first person I will willfully ignore here. I do not like this self-righteous arrogance when you, I and everyone else are just amateues accompanying a science that is still very recent and full of holes (obviously).

You are the one member with more cultish sectarian behavior in this theead, and the oversimplified and clearly distorted interpretation of history and the data won't help you, either (you also seem to still think that a Y-DNA haplogroup is a people and also a cukture, and vice-versa, so of course your conclusions based on those premises will be biased).

But please do you really think we are talking about the origin of Iberian BB? Man, you sound confused. Not even the dating of the supposed replacement fits that. Nobody us claiming that Iberian BB came from Central Europe, but that CE BB-detived people entered Iberia later. And there are data, it is not just a speculation. You just have to interpret the data and e plain them. But the fact is there.

Quit that disparaging behavior now. People are not forced to think like you in order to be respected. You won't persuade anyone acting like that.

 

[berun]

or maybe these 'farmer haplogroups' were not farmers, but late bronze age and iron age arrivals from over the Meditteranean
starting 4 ka with La Bastida and El Argar

samples from El Argar culture are R1b also.

 

[Mjölnir]

We have reports of pure Yamnayans in far Western Europe from two independent sources now. That can't be a coincidence.

Not that I have a good explanation for it.

I am unable to message you privately, but PLEASE explain where you saw this! I have seen you post it multiple times but I don't know where your evidence is. I have also only seen you post it, so maybe you are playing around, but this is just so important that it needs sources. Can you imagine the hierarchies at work for there to be "pure" Yamnayans (or people with Yamnaya-like ancestry) in Western Europe!!! I am reminded of the Copper Age sample ATP3, which was low-ish resolution but was over half Yamnaya and had Y DNA R1b-M269 and mtDNA K1a2b (both the main lineages of the Bell Beaker people).

When does this Yamnaya-French sample date to? Was it CA or BA?

 

[markod]

Where did you see this? I created an account literally just for this - I usually just lurk on all these forums only posting on Eurogenes - but that is just so unexpected.

Are you sure it isn't referring to pure Central European Beaker folk? Pure Yamnayans is crazy! That sounds like Suvorovo perhaps?

We know this about Brunel's upcoming thesis:


“They have a good hundred samples from the North, Alsace and the Mediterranean coast, from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age.
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. ”
This is Bernard’s comment:
– French Bell Beakersare derived from a genetic mixture between a steppe population (sample located with Yamnaya in the PCA) and a local Neolithic population (sample located with Neolithic farmers)
– The steppe population comes directly from the steppes (and not from Central Europe) otherwise we would not have a Bell Beaker sample that is located with the Yamnaya. So the Bell Beaker culture is not an emanation of the Corded Ware culture.

 

[Mjölnir]

We know this about Brunel's upcoming thesis:


“They have a good hundred samples from the North, Alsace and the Mediterranean coast, from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age.
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. ”
This is Bernard’s comment:
– French Bell Beakersare derived from a genetic mixture between a steppe population (sample located with Yamnaya in the PCA) and a local Neolithic population (sample located with Neolithic farmers)
– The steppe population comes directly from the steppes (and not from Central Europe) otherwise we would not have a Bell Beaker sample that is located with the Yamnaya. So the Bell Beaker culture is not an emanation of the Corded Ware culture.

Holy $$$$ that might end the Bell Beaker debate forever. If one sample had more Steppe than Corded Ware AND was R1b-L51 (if it's a female people will rightly speculate about her being of Hungarian Yamnaya origin), that's game over for the idea of R1b-L51 picking up Steppe from either CWC or Yamnaya.

HOWEVER, given what we know about the Bell Beaker pulse to Csepel Island, if this sample was female (or a male without R1b-L51), it could be of Hungarian Yamnaya rather than Bell Beaker origin - and that might give evidence for R1b-L51 Bell Beakers picking up all of its, or extra, Steppe (and presumably IE) from Hungarian Yamnaya

 

[Ygorcs]

We know this about Brunel's upcoming thesis:


“They have a good hundred samples from the North, Alsace and the Mediterranean coast, from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age.
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. ”
This is Bernard’s comment:
– French Bell Beakersare derived from a genetic mixture between a steppe population (sample located with Yamnaya in the PCA) and a local Neolithic population (sample located with Neolithic farmers)
– The steppe population comes directly from the steppes (and not from Central Europe) otherwise we would not have a Bell Beaker sample that is located with the Yamnaya. So the Bell Beaker culture is not an emanation of the Corded Ware culture.

That will strongly disagree with the present hypothesis of Eurogenes about Central European BB deriving from a branch of the "Dutch" Single Grave Culture and ultimately more related to CWC than to Yamnaya. Is it theoretically possible that a CWC-derived sample would plot very close to Yamnaya even as late as the BB period?

 

[markod]

That will strongly disagree with the present hypothesis of Eurogenes about Central European BB deriving from a branch of the "Dutch" Single Grave Culture and ultimately more related to CWC than to Yamnaya. Is it theoretically possible that a CWC-derived sample would plot very close to Yamnaya even as late as the BB period?

Not sure what the hypothesis is exactly, but I think CWC -> Beaker doesn't make much sense. Old Beaker samples from Germany, France and Switzerland are missing. Those probably gave rise to the Dutch Beakers.

 

[Angela]

so, BB has in average 50 % steppe, but it's fluctuating between 25 % and 100 %, if I understand correct

it seems to me that these people sweaped through Europe, from the steppe into Iberia in just a few (2-3) generations

the replacement in Iberia happened 4.5-3.8 ka

I think this is good for actually "seeing" it. The majority who went to Iberia were already less than 50% steppe. It must have been a pretty male skewed group. The percent of the population that was almost "pure" steppe pulled up the average.

I don't know if this was exactly the situation for the group which went to Britain.

 

[hrvclv]

 

[Angela]

I don't know. This doesn't seem to me to indicate the Reich group thinks Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware.

[/IMG]

 

[hrvclv]

I don't know. This doesn't seem to me to indicate the Reich group thinks Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware.

[/IMG]

Neither do I. I think CWC and BB derive from autosomally similar pops from (neighboring) areas somewhere in the northern open steppe, but pops with different paternal haplos.

That's why the stats overlap. Same autosomal profile, but different tribes, and periods of movement centuries apart.

I have tried things with Yamnaya Bulgaria, and Yamnaya Ukraine instead of Samara. The fit results are calamitous.

 

[bicicleur 2]

That should be easy to test. Are the non-R1b haplogroup subclades of Iberia more related to or even descended from those in the East Mediterranean and in North Africa than to those in most of Europe? If the 40-50% of non-R1b haplogroups came from elsewhere after the EBA, and presumably not Western Europe (or if they did then the male replacement was really huge in the MLBA or IA), then those Iberian clades will not cluster phylogenetically with those in France, Italy or Switzerland.

I don't think so.
Extant Iberian autosomal exists, but it is homogenised, I don't think it is differentiated per Y-DNA haplogroup.

 

[bicicleur 2]

samples from El Argar culture are R1b also.

how much Y-DNA from El Argar do we have?

 

[bicicleur 2]

I don't know. This doesn't seem to me to indicate the Reich group thinks Bell Beaker derives from Corded Ware.

[/IMG]

no, I don't think BB is derived from CWC
but both got similar admixture events
both were steppe (yamna) DNA admixed with farmers in Europe
CWC with farmers in central or northern Europe
BB with farmers in the Carpathian basin
if we could distinguish northern or central European from Carpathian basin farmers DNA, we could test this

 

[hrvclv]

no, I don't think BB is derived from CWC
but both got similar admixture events
both were steppe (yamna) DNA admixed with farmers in Europe
CWC with farmers in central or northern Europe
BB with farmers in the Carpathian basin
if we could distinguish northern or central European from Carpathian basin farmers DNA, we could test this

I have tried to include Vucedol to model Czech Beakers. Vucedol got zero.

I have also tried to substitute Yamna Bulgaria and Yamna Ukraine for Samara. The fit results sky-rocketed to improbable levels. The best option is always Samara.

This said, I am new to those tools and my handling of them (as well as my understanding of the results) may not be much to rely on.

 

[Angela]

Given the microscopic attention to yDna for Italy, I find it very surprising that the papers on Iberian dna are so old that they still use old nomenclature. I'm talking about Flores 2004 and Adams 2008. I don't see anything after that.

From Maciamo: