Latest Reich talk on ancient Dna

You're probably right. I haven't studied Iberian mtDNA lineages. So was H1 not also present in Eastern or North West European Neolithic cultures?

(Interesting to me, as I am H1)

This is Maciamo's map of mtDna H1 and H3 today.
bzjorFj.png


This is the Wiki map:

Spatial_frequency_distribution_%28%25%29_of_haplogroup_H1_in_western_Eurasia_and_North_Africa..png

search

Of course, as with R1b M269, that doesn't mean it originated there.

There was indeed some H1 in the ancient dna from more eastern regions.

This is all I have. It looks like more H1 in the west, yes?

"Haplogroup H has been found in various fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA, including specimens associated with the Linearbandkeramikculture (H1e, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, 1/22 or ~5%; H1 or H1au1b, Karsdorf, 1/2 or 50%), Germany Middle Neolithic (H1e1a, Esperstedt, 1/1 or 100%), Iberia Early Neolithic (H1, El Prado de Pancorbo, 1/2 or 50%), Iberia Middle Neolithic (H1, La Mina, 1/4 or 25%), and Iberia Chalcolithic (H1t, El Mirador Cave, 1/12 or ~8%).[26] Haplogroup H has been observed in ancient Guanche fossils excavated in Gran Canaria and Tenerife on the Canary Islands, which have been radiocarbon-dated to between the 7th and 11th centuries CE. At the Tenerife site, these clade-bearing individuals were found to belong to the H1cf subclade (1/7; ~14%); at the Gran Canaria site, the specimens carried the H2a subhaplogroup (1/4; 25%).[27] Additionally, ancient Guanche (Bimbaches) individuals excavated in Punta Azul, El Hierro, Canary Islands were all found to belong to the H1 maternal subclade. These locally born individuals were dated to the 10th century and carried the H1-16260 haplotype, which is exclusive to the Canary Islands and Algeria.[28]"

Is anyone aware of any compilation of ancient mtDna so a comparison could be made between western and eastern farmer groups? I would think it would be particularly informative to look at Carpathian farmer mtDna, Globular Amphora etc.

This is from the Rui Martiniano paper on ancient Portugal:
pjAL4fa.png



For us to know with more certainty we would also need the mtDna from all these samples. I hope they provide it.

I think the fact that they are so high in Sardinia is another indication of their antiquity in western Europe.

This is a recent paper on "H" in southern Iberia (and Morocco).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437654/
 
This is Maciamo's map of mtDna H1 and H3 today.
bzjorFj.png


This is the Wiki map:

Spatial_frequency_distribution_%28%25%29_of_haplogroup_H1_in_western_Eurasia_and_North_Africa..png

search

Of course, as with R1b M269, that doesn't mean it originated there.

There was indeed some H1 in the ancient dna from more eastern regions.

This is all I have. It looks like more H1 in the west, yes?

"Haplogroup H has been found in various fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA, including specimens associated with the Linearbandkeramikculture (H1e, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, 1/22 or ~5%; H1 or H1au1b, Karsdorf, 1/2 or 50%), Germany Middle Neolithic (H1e1a, Esperstedt, 1/1 or 100%), Iberia Early Neolithic (H1, El Prado de Pancorbo, 1/2 or 50%), Iberia Middle Neolithic (H1, La Mina, 1/4 or 25%), and Iberia Chalcolithic (H1t, El Mirador Cave, 1/12 or ~8%).[26] Haplogroup H has been observed in ancient Guanche fossils excavated in Gran Canaria and Tenerife on the Canary Islands, which have been radiocarbon-dated to between the 7th and 11th centuries CE. At the Tenerife site, these clade-bearing individuals were found to belong to the H1cf subclade (1/7; ~14%); at the Gran Canaria site, the specimens carried the H2a subhaplogroup (1/4; 25%).[27] Additionally, ancient Guanche (Bimbaches) individuals excavated in Punta Azul, El Hierro, Canary Islands were all found to belong to the H1 maternal subclade. These locally born individuals were dated to the 10th century and carried the H1-16260 haplotype, which is exclusive to the Canary Islands and Algeria.[28]"

Is anyone aware of any compilation of ancient mtDna so a comparison could be made between western and eastern farmer groups? I would think it would be particularly informative to look at Carpathian farmer mtDna, Globular Amphora etc.

This is from the Rui Martiniano paper on ancient Portugal:
pjAL4fa.png



For us to know with more certainty we would also need the mtDna from all these samples. I hope they provide it.

I think the fact that they are so high in Sardinia is another indication of their antiquity in western Europe.

This is a recent paper on "H" in southern Iberia (and Morocco).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437654/

Found a database for ancient mt dna:

https://amtdb.org/records/?epoch__in=2
 
Found a database for ancient mt dna:

https://amtdb.org/records/?epoch__in=2

Thanks, that's interesting.

FTDNA's H1 project gives its TMRCA as 8,000 BC, and the database above identifies 6th millennium BC samples in Spain, Germany and Croatia. I suppose it might be associated with Neolithic expansions westwards or yDNA I2 lineages expanding eastwards.

I guess, from what we know, it is not totally clear the extent to which Iberian Bronze Age H1 was derived from Neolithic Iberian H1 or H1 that might have been brought in from other parts of Europe with R1b. Although someone (such as Reich?) might have more evidence on this?
 
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?
 
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?

Of the BB samples the women look a little more eastern shifted in fact. In every period the steppic outlier happens to be female. I think that means polygamy doesn't work as an explanation and we're looking at a bottleneck due to population collapse in the LN settlements.

We'd need samples from France to narrow it down though.
 
Of the BB samples the women look a little more eastern shifted in fact. In every period the steppic outlier happens to be female. I think that means polygamy doesn't work as an explanation and we're looking at a bottleneck due to population collapse in the LN settlements.

We'd need samples from France to narrow it down though.

Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning here. Could you explain it a bit more?

Whether there was a bottleneck or not, the Reich people are saying 60% of the autosomal dna is from locals, yet there's almost a wipe out of the local yDna. So, doesn't that 60% have to come from local women? The 40% "newcomer" Central European Beaker dna would have to come from both men and women, yes?
 
Sorry, I'm not following your reasoning here. Could you explain it a bit more?

Whether there was a bottleneck or not, the Reich people are saying 60% of the autosomal dna is from locals, yet there's almost a wipe out of the local yDna. So, doesn't that 60% have to come from local women? The 40% "newcomer" Central European Beaker dna would have to come from both men and women, yes?

My guess would be that an originally small population experienced rapid growth. If the original L51 man had some mixture of farmer & steppe DNA, there need not have been a constant influx of foreign women - some degree of endogamy would suffice to arrive at those numbers. The chart indicates that the women if they were foreign tended to from the east (France?), likely as a result of normal exchange within the Beaker ethnos (whatever this was).

The case of the pure Yamnaya woman is interesting in this regard.
 
Sorry for the double post, but I think it might be worth looking at the individual samples. There is a single female in the LBA that tends towards farmers, but the IA which begins around 800-900 B.C. sees the arrival of steppic individuals, with one woman having around 70% eastern ancestry. That's pretty crazy, and begs the question how and when Spaniards became autosomally southern European.
 
we don't know what this plot actually shows or do we? what is this "eastern" admixture?
if it really is yamna admixture then the "replacement" was not 40% but way more and the migration was probably not male dominated. just based on this plot. but it wouldnt make that much sense to be yamna. modern iberia does not have 40% yamna only 20%. so this would have had to be diluted somehow by more farmer like people. this would actually favor the theory that the samples in this plot are either biased towards migrants or that there were other groups of incoming people later.
if it's "eastern" meaning central europe that would make more sense. in both cases the question would be what the ancestry of the incoming people was. there are only 2 dots near 100% eastern it seems. if olalde doesn't have more samples 40% replacement makes no sense anyway.
 
Plague destroyed the old Europe. Then Steppe people arrived.

that would be true for 4.9 ka CWC
but by 4.5 ka BB, you'd expect farmer population having recovered from the plague
furthermore how could those invading BB population have gained immunity against the plague?
 
Sorry for the double post, but I think it might be worth looking at the individual samples. There is a single female in the LBA that tends towards farmers, but the IA which begins around 800-900 B.C. sees the arrival of steppic individuals, with one woman having around 70% eastern ancestry. That's pretty crazy, and begs the question how and when Spaniards became autosomally southern European.

when did urnfield people arrive in Iberia?

600 BC another batch arrived from Central Europe into Iberia, Halsstatt people
 
we don't know what this plot actually shows or do we? what is this "eastern" admixture?
if it really is yamna admixture then the "replacement" was not 40% but way more and the migration was probably not male dominated. just based on this plot. but it wouldnt make that much sense to be yamna. modern iberia does not have 40% yamna only 20%. so this would have had to be diluted somehow by more farmer like people. this would actually favor the theory that the samples in this plot are either biased towards migrants or that there were other groups of incoming people later.
if it's "eastern" meaning central europe that would make more sense. in both cases the question would be what the ancestry of the incoming people was. there are only 2 dots near 100% eastern it seems. if olalde doesn't have more samples 40% replacement makes no sense anyway.

How could the sample be biased towards migrants when the groups are supposed to have interbred?
 
The number of "foreign" males versus foreign females looks pretty balanced to me until about 1000 BC. (maybe 800 BC as you say) when it has tapered off, going by the graph I posed in number 107.

There are three newcomers in that period: two females and one male, and all 50-75% "eastern", although the women, as always it seems, are more "eastern".

Before they publish they should really more carefully label this graph. Is it "eastern" as in French or German Beaker, or "eastern" as in Yamnaya like. I've been going under the assumption it means "Yamnaya" like, but it should be clearer.

If 2500-2000 BC is the migration wave, then is the group from 2000 to 1000 BC the admixed group in Iberia? They still might be importing "more steppic" wives, however. Was it Avar cemeteries which had the women in Central Europe who had Siberian ancestry and those deformed skulls? They were high status if I remember correctly.

At any rate, that 2000 to 1000 BC group was between 25-50% "eastern". If that turns out to be representative of all of Iberia, then something dropped the Iberians (minus the Basque) down to 20%. Perhaps it's all connected to the J2, E-V13, and other E lineages which arrived after that.
 
when did urnfield people arrive in Iberia?

600 BC another batch arrived from Central Europe into Iberia, Halsstatt people

Urnfield probably in the 13th century BC, a mysterious iron-working group in 9th century BC, later Hallstatt and then La Tene.
 
My guess would be that an originally small population experienced rapid growth. If the original L51 man had some mixture of farmer & steppe DNA, there need not have been a constant influx of foreign women - some degree of endogamy would suffice to arrive at those numbers. The chart indicates that the women if they were foreign tended to from the east (France?), likely as a result of normal exchange within the Beaker ethnos (whatever this was).

The case of the pure Yamnaya woman is interesting in this regard.

@markod, how do you would explain the lack of CHG admixture?
 
My guess would be that an originally small population experienced rapid growth. If the original L51 man had some mixture of farmer & steppe DNA, there need not have been a constant influx of foreign women - some degree of endogamy would suffice to arrive at those numbers. The chart indicates that the women if they were foreign tended to from the east (France?), likely as a result of normal exchange within the Beaker ethnos (whatever this was).

The case of the pure Yamnaya woman is interesting in this regard.

Of course it's a woman, so just like before we have no evidence that L51 didn't just pick up Steppe ancestry from Yamnaya/Corded Ware women (an example of this is in Beaker Hungary where by no coincidence by far the heaviest in Steppe ancestry was Z2103). What Y DNA is that R1b sample with about 90% Yamnaya - is it R1b L51 or Z2103?

"Another pulse had brought Bell Beaker to Csepel Island in Hungary by about 2500 BCE. In the Carpathian Basin, the Bell Beaker culture came in contact with communities such as the Vučedol culture, which had evolved partly from the Yamna culture. But in contrast to the early Bell Beaker preference for the dagger and bow, the favourite weapon in the Carpathian Basin during the first half of the third millennium was the shaft-hole axe.[19] Here, Bell Beaker people assimilated local pottery forms such as the polypod cup. These "common ware" types of pottery then spread in association with the classic bell beaker.[20] From the Carpathian Basin, Bell Beaker spread down the Rhine and eastwards into what is now Germany and Poland. By this, the Rhine was on the western edge of the vast Corded Ware zone."

Only problem is that this doesn't reasonably explain L21 Bell Beaker folk, as the Hungarian Beakers seem to be limited to U152. That's no matter though, because the L21 Beakers have Steppe ancestry consistent with a Corded Ware source.
 

This thread has been viewed 97841 times.

Back
Top