R1b-L51

[hrvclv]

Smyadovo-I2181/21-Burial 29 (4.545-4.450 AC)-4.497 AC-Mathieson 2.018-

Smyadovo, Bulgaria... in western Europe? Then Kamtchatka must be eastern Europe!

ATP3 (3.389 AC)-EL Portalón, Atapuerca-Gunther, Valdiosera et al 2.015-Reich Lab-Harvard (2.021)-ATP3 5397 44 Spain_C.SG El Portalon Cave, Sierra de Atapuerca R1b1a1-R-M343>L754>L389>P297

R1b-L51-The oldest cases are in Switzerland MX310 and MX304 (2.735 BC)-No steppe ancestry

Wow, that's quite a list! I'm impressed. ATP3... "R1 low coverage". All downstream snps "dubious"

You forgot the Villabruna sample, 12000 years old, no doubt the forefather of all those steppe-free samples that swarm over western Europe prior to 3000 BC.

[hrvclv]

The solution is very simple, tell the geneticists to find once and for all r1bL51/L151/P310/P312 and R1a-M417 in the steppes and meanwhile to stop talking nonsense about the link between this marker and the Indo-European languages spoken in Western Europe. Invalidating this sample from Afanasievo means that they have not found it yet.

But you've found it in western Europe, haven't you?

Statistically, the odds are far higher that L51 will emerge from an area full of R1bs than in western Europe, where the presence of R1b before 3000 BC is zilch.

[Gaska]

Smyadovo, Bulgaria... in western Europe? Then Kamtchatka must be eastern Europe!
Wow, that's quite a list! I'm impressed. ATP3... "R1 low coverage". All downstream snps "dubious"
You forgot the Villabruna sample, 12000 years old, no doubt the forefather of all those steppe-free samples that swarm over western Europe prior to 3000 BC.

Evidently Smyadovo is in Eastern Europe, as are the Balkans and the Baltic States, but all the R1b samples found there are overwhelmingly Western hunter gatherers. They have nothing to do with the steppes, Siberia or Mongolia. Smyadovo is very important because the sample was found in a site of the Gumelnite culture, 1000 years before the Yamnaya culture existed, which means that R1b-M269 could have traveled all over Europe thanks to the Neolithic migrations. ATP3, in spite of its low coverage, has been undoubtedly qualified as M269 by Dr. Reich's lab, so you already have this lineage in Western Europe at the end of the Neolithic period.


On the other hand, M269 and L51 are markers that suffered strong bottlenecks and therefore finding samples will be difficult, but don't worry because they will appear. Iberia, France and Germany as well as Italy are fundamental, geneticists have to continue analyzing sites to clarify the mystery.

[Gaska]

But you've found it in western Europe, haven't you?
Statistically, the odds are far higher that L51 will emerge from an area full of R1bs than in western Europe, where the presence of R1b before 3000 BC is zilch.

We are not talking about odds, or statistics, we are talking about scientific rigor, which is what has been lacking in the interpretation of the Kurgan theory by Reich and his Harvardians. In the steppes there are only R1b-V88, R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103, so that region is riddled with those markers, but do you know how many L51s have been found? Zero, ERGO to know which is the geographic origin of that marker you have to keep looking in mainland europe, not in Ukraine or Russia.

[hrvclv]

What do you make of the fact that 99% of the R1b found in western, central, and northern Europe from Bell Beaker times till now have 25 to 55% of their dna originating from the Pontic Steppe? Late neolithic speed-dating or sex tours on the eastern slopes of the Carpathians?

Your theories would have been outdated a decade ago. You talk about science, when science disproves every word you write. I'll leave it at that for the time being. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[MOESAN]

My answer to Gaska:
He wrote in vertical letters, I answer in italics.


Massive male-biased Steppic genetic introgression into Europe is proved? REALLY?- The first R1b-M269 in Europe are in Bulgaria (Smyadovo-4.500 BC), and Spain (ATP3-Atapuerca-3.400 BC). Then you have 3 Neolithic farmers R1b-M269 in Switzerland buried in dolmens (2.730-2.620 BC), two of which have no autosomal steppe signal.
Moesan says:
firstable : 7 generations, say 230 years, at the slower rate of mixing, is sufficient to reduce from 100,00 % to around 0,75 % original DNA in a foreign context ; more often, it reduces a bit less quickly because every generation doesn’t mate with complete foreign people everytime ;
I don’t have the results concerning the precise SNP’s in ATP3, and it is of importance – concerning Switzerland, about the Furtwänger’s paperI read somewhere the Y-R1b MX304 of Auvernier (Romance Switzerland) had been dates 2866/2601 BC, based on another skeleton and the sepulture seemed having been reused, so this Chalco remnants could be younger ; ATW on PCA it was placed between Spanyards, Swiss and North-Italian people, so with some Steppic DNA ; I recall BB’s used more than a time ancient sepultures of predecessors, dolmen among them : Late Neolithic (Eneolithic or Chalcolithic would be better) doesn’t signifiy too much : it’s not synonymous of first polished stones nor early agriculture nor EEF+light WHG auDNA.


You have VK531 in Norway R1b-P297 (2,400 BC) with no trace of steppe ancestry - for you this is a massive invasion of the steppes....
Moesan says : Here you mention a late Neolithic / early BA individual from northern Norway who clusters with pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers from Norway (VK531);
R1b-P297 isn’t indicative of too much thing : old SNP, ancestral to M269, yes, and then ? The most of the M269 descendants developped at first somewhere between Eastern Europe and Steppes ; and in past IMO some groups with distinct downstream SNP’s were not full,or they were empty of CHG(like) auDNA so not to be labelled as « Steppic », I agree (rather WHG-EHG in some way). So the descendant of an ancientnorth-eastern European passed into Scandinavia. Maybe without posterity today...No proof his ancestors came from Iberia, and its badly determined SNP’s level lead us nowhere. Let’s remember dates and cultures/civilisations are not synonymous, don’t forget geography (places)…


Let's imagine that you are right and that the origin of P312/Df27 is in the steppes, do you think that those lonely explorers buried in dolmens were able to change the language of western neolithic cultures?
Moesan says : lone (or seemingly lone : elite here) explorers herecan go along with huge colonisers there, not too far.


Autosomal composition is proof of what? R1b-M269 has its origin in the steppes?
Don't make me laugh, we have been listening for years to all kinds of Kurganists swearing that they found L51 in the steppes, that the Yamnaya nomads conquered mainland europe, took their women and imposed their language. And you know? the only thing they have found are three Swiss neolithic farmers buried in dolmens.
Moesan says : extra : You need to laugh, it ‘s good for you, so you ought to thank me.
More seriously, the distribution of diverse downstrean SNP’s under L269 (L23 and so on) puts the place of development between Eastern Europe and Steppes and North Caucasus, at first sight (here its’nt only old SNP only but diverses branchs of downstream ones) ; and if you remember what I wrote here and there on fora or blogs, I never said L51 was born on the Steppes, nor even it was by force and very early the mark of IE speakers ; I just said it cannot be born and develop very far from the Steppes ; todate, I’m pushed to think BB’s of the great R1b post-P312 family were certainly early western IE-an speakers or became that very early, but I’m not ready to shoot at people to back this point. Only deductions, no proof for the 3000/2500 BC.
Concerning women, the Furtwänger ‘s paper confirms a LOT of other papers, showing a great exogamy (in the case of Switzerland and southern Germany, among farmers input, GAC and western farmers seem involved, plus WHG’s or their mixes). The paper says too that the new males in Switzerland were heavier in Steppic ancestry than females as a whole, and that as time passed,
they lost more and more they this ancestry :
Abstract from the Furtwänger ‘s paper :
The second distinct cluster is shifted towards the individuals associated with the “Yamnaya” complex, similar to other European groups younger than 2700 BCE, relative to individuals older than 2700 BCE. In this cluster, the oldest individuals are closest to Late Neolithic groups on the steppe, whereas more recent individuals are once again shifted towards the Middle/Late Neolithic cluster. …
Comparing outgroup-f3 statistics between the autosomes and the X chromosome of Final Neolithic and Bronze Age individuals we find that autosomes are more closely related to YAM-related ancestry than the X chromosomes are (Supplementary Note 6), consistent with a model in which more males than females brought YAM-related ancestry into the region as already shown by previous studies. …
All four regions (Iberia, Great Britain, MES and Switzerland) show similar ranges of admixture dates between the steppe-related component and the Neolithic component starting between 3000 and 2500 BCE.


Moesan says : You insist with your « farmers » under dolmens : we know some of the intruders reused previous inhabitants sepultures, sometimes, in more than a place and country ! So, who are your other Swiss « farmers » ? (I haven’t the details to discuss this) -


Mass migration capable of changing the genetics and culture of western europe? Only in their dreams, they even had to force the models to make people believe that those Swiss gentlemen had a small percentage of steppe blood.
Moesan : I doubt sometimes of some surveys in the detail of their interpretation but here I see you are smarter than these scientists.

Regarding those new R1b subclades in Western Europe that appear in the Chalcolithic. It is clear that ATP3 is an Iberian farmer and its autosomal composition seems to have originated in the Balkans. Given that we have Smyadovo 4,500 BC belonging to the Gumelnita culture, I suppose that there were population movements from Eastern Europe during the whole Neolithic, and surely R1b-M269 participated in those migrations.
Moesan says : I said above I didn’t know what late SNP’s had ATP3 : M269 sure ? ATW Personally I believed Bronze Age begun soon in the Balkans under Near-East influences or exchanges spite I thought the most of the moves East to West in Europe until Iberia, by sea more than by land, begun only after 3000 BC, but I’m not a specialist. That said, on my souvenirs, I thought there was curious auDNA in northern Spain at Atapuerca (same as AT...?) among some individuals, showing eastern or very eastern ties ?!? Od GENETIKER, an amateur, showed also a sudden apparition of his dark blue (EHGlike?) (more than in Baden!) along his black blue (WHG) in Spain there and then. What value ?

Of course the Balkans are in eastern Europe, also the Baltic countries are there, but all the R1b documented there are overwhelmingly WHGs and they could have migrated from central Europe to the East as did other male lineages (like R1b-V88) that are also older in the Balkans than in the steppes- I mean the problem is not Eastern Europe, but the obsession to link R1b-M269/L51 with the steppes. That is simply a big lie. Soon there will be published cases of R1b-M269 from Volosovo, and you know what? They don't have a drop of steppe blood, they are simply Whgs that reached the north of Russia.
Moesan says : here you are a bit more reasonable, but L51 is not M269. That said, this WHG nature of auDNA explains very well some outliers like the northern Norwegian VK531. But your other points aren’t sound to me.
If you have more clues for other farmers of Switzerland, let me know, so I could discuss it, maybe in another thread more dedicated to it. And please, don’t take me for a « kourganist » : I am not an « ...ist » of any kind. Just a curious man.

[MOESAN]

@Gaska
You wrote this, a few posts ago, I answered you before to read it.
ATP3 (3.389 AC)-EL Portalón, Atapuerca-Gunther, Valdiosera et al 2.015-Reich Lab-Harvard (2.021)-ATP3 5397 44 Spain_C.SG El Portalon Cave, Sierra de Atapuerca R1b1a1-R-M343>L754>L389>P297


Is this all you have about the ATP3 SNP's? SO it's not P269, only the old P297; it could be an isolated case (a far cousin as the man in Northern Norway) of ancient Y-R1b pop's of the borders Eastern Europe/Steppes pre-IE, if it as no CHG, (what is certain,or not?)

[Gaska]

@Moesan

Regarding the origin of R1b-L51-Phylogenic evidence clearly indicates the common ancestors of extant L51 most recently lived in Western Europe, most likely France-The first subclade to break away from L51 not related to L52 is R1b-Z2118, dates back to only 400 years after the formation of L51 (5700 years ago, so well before the migrational period of L51 Beaker folk across Western and Central Europe). The men with this subclade, in modern times, are distributed mostly around Southern France and the Rhône region. Why is that the case, if not for that general area being L51's homeland? Why, during the great Beaker migrational period, would already differentiated Z2118 men "choose" to migrate to Southern France and not throughout the rest of Western and Central Europe? It would be like time-travelling to just before the great migrational period of the Beaker folk, marking those carriers of the subclade Z2118, and seeing that the vast majority migrated to that region North of the West Med. - that is ridiculously unlikely!-An Eastern European origin of L51 would require those with branches that split at an earlier date before the great migrational period of the Beaker folk (i.e. Z2118) to have preferentially, for some reason, migrated to the vicinity of the South of France, and not elsewhere, DESPITE having been present at the earliest stages in L51's Urheimat. It would be like travelling back in time to just before the supposed great migration of L51 Westwards from E. Europe, marking those who carried this haplogroup, and seeing that the vast majority of them ended up in Southern France and the areas nearby and not so much elsewhere. There IS no reason for that, there can't be!

[Gaska]

@Moesan regarding ATP3-

ATP3-PF6518-Marker PF6518 (Y: 23,099,729 A>C) is a transversion, and it is not a C>T or G>A which could be the result of DNA damage. Therefore, this could be a case of some kind of R1b1a/2-M269 being present in the Pre-Bell Beaker/Chalcolithic (5.526-5.372 ybp-Cal BP + 60 years)-Negative Markers-ATP3 is also negative for some important or early R1b1a2-M269 subclades found in Western Europe, namely R1b-Z2110/CTS7822, (which is the main European sister clade of the Yamnaya samples in R1b-Z2108), and Z2118/PF7589 (which is equivalent to R1b-Z2111, the sister clade of R1b-L151)-There's no evidence that ATP3 is derived for any particular subclade of R1b1a2-M269, and it's also negative for R1b1a1-M478 equivalent Y13887, which agrees with ATP3 being derived for the R1b1a2-M269 equivalent PF6518.

[Gaska]

@Moesan-Regarding Swiss neolithic farmers

MX310 (2.721 AC)-Burgäschisee-HapY-R1b1a/2-Mit-No coverage-
MX304 (2.866-2.601 AC)-(2.734 AC)-Auvernier-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-Hap Mit-No coverage- Furtwängler-"The only DNA could be retrieved from one individual that dates to 2866-2601 calBCE"-Then the sample is well dated.

Regarding Burgaschisee-Burgaschisee Sudwest-"The two individuals A312 and A311 (MX310) are a seven-year-old boy and a man in his early 20s, with a definite and another possible perimortem head injury. The man was apparently beaten to death. A possible weapon is a flat hoe. Bone alterations are found in both individuals, which can be attributed to sub-optimal living conditions. Morphologically, man A311, with his rather low body height and the general gracility of the limb bones, as well as the shape of his skull, fits the image of the Neolithic peoples of Switzerland."

Then evidently both MX310, MX304 and Aesch25 were Neolithic farmers, two of them buried in dolmens and the other buried in a grave with a child. We have no anthropological data from Auvernier and Aesch25, but Burgaschisee is a clear example of Mediterranean gracile. The antiquity of MX310 and MX304 and the scarce steppe signal would lead us to think that if they arrived from the steppes, they had to do it 100/200 years before, and in that period they not only had to abandon their steppe culture (Kurgans, tools, weapons), they also had to transform themselves so that anthropologically they are much closer to the Swiss Neolithic than to the Yamnata shepherds.

Don't you think that if it were true that massive invasions took place, the conquerors would not bury themselves in the dolmens of their enemies? And if they were lone explorers, do you think they could have changed the language of the Neolithic farmers by themselves?

[Gaska]

I mean No way, massive migrations related to R1b-L51, because migrations coming from Yamnaya culture (with Z2103, I2a and V1636) reached Hungary, Poland and the Balkans.

[MOESAN]

@Moesan-Regarding Swiss neolithic farmers
...
MX310 (2.721 AC)-Burgäschisee-HapY-R1b1a/2-Mit-No coverage-
MX304 (2.866-2.601 AC)-(2.734 AC)-Auvernier-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-Hap Mit-No coverage- Furtwängler-"The only DNA could be retrieved from one individual that dates to 2866-2601 calBCE"-Then the sample is well dated.
...

If I read well, the individual analysed WAS NOT MX304, so somebody evocated a reuse of the tomb.
I know this argument is not a proof, and doesn't exclude other cases in Switzerland, less Steppic than MX304.

[Silesian]

I mean No way, massive migrations related to R1b-L51, because migrations coming from Yamnaya culture (with Z2103, I2a and V1636) reached Hungary, Poland and the Balkans.

Hi Gaska, how's it going?
You know, migration or no migration--Steppe and Basque=rh-(mostly O but some A )
No need to correct pregnant incompatibility, with artificial RhoGam shot.

[MOESAN]

@Moesan-Regarding Swiss neolithic farmers

MX310 (2.721 AC)-Burgäschisee-HapY-R1b1a/2-Mit-No coverage-
MX304 (2.866-2.601 AC)-(2.734 AC)-Auvernier-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a-Hap Mit-No coverage- Furtwängler-"The only DNA could be retrieved from one individual that dates to 2866-2601 calBCE"-Then the sample is well dated.

Regarding Burgaschisee-Burgaschisee Sudwest-"The two individuals A312 and A311 (MX310) are a seven-year-old boy and a man in his early 20s, with a definite and another possible perimortem head injury. The man was apparently beaten to death. A possible weapon is a flat hoe. Bone alterations are found in both individuals, which can be attributed to sub-optimal living conditions. Morphologically, man A311, with his rather low body height and the general gracility of the limb bones, as well as the shape of his skull, fits the image of the Neolithic peoples of Switzerland."

Then evidently both MX310, MX304 and Aesch25 were Neolithic farmers, two of them buried in dolmens and the other buried in a grave with a child. We have no anthropological data from Auvernier and Aesch25, but Burgaschisee is a clear example of Mediterranean gracile. The antiquity of MX310 and MX304 and the scarce steppe signal would lead us to think that if they arrived from the steppes, they had to do it 100/200 years before, and in that period they not only had to abandon their steppe culture (Kurgans, tools, weapons), they also had to transform themselves so that anthropologically they are much closer to the Swiss Neolithic than to the Yamnata shepherds.

Don't you think that if it were true that massive invasions took place, the conquerors would not bury themselves in the dolmens of their enemies? And if they were lone explorers, do you think they could have changed the language of the Neolithic farmers by themselves?

Thanks for some clues I had not. Here I ‘ll expose my opposite points, don’t take this as a systematic opposition, but as a try to evite the traps of evidence. If they don’t distroy your hypothesis they could relativise some arguments.
1- birthplace of L51 doesn’t contradict that its close ancestors L23 (and L269 for me yet) are more eastern, what is not to say « Siberian » or « Altaic »-
2- L51 birthplace (date : 3900 BC according to your post) is not by force L51 place of full development (patriarcal babyboom) ; and L51 has more than a subclades, and barbarian people later began to move by clans and pushed ahead some of them : to have a specific increase of a subclade somewhere, no need of a single general move of all L51 on the same path ; 400 years (~= 12 or more generations) is enough for a specific subclade to rise in number here and disappear almost completely elsewhere ; todate we have few of this Z2118 in ancient times
3- if new subclades were always born in the middle of the upstream « mother » population, we wouldn’t have the differentiated distribution of subclades we have for L51 children until todate in our historically « overtoured » modern Europe : look at L21, U152, U108, DF27; so some of them were born on the margins of the total pop, anyway not in its center ; it’s why the distribution is not even -
4- with your interpretation : what about the Z2118 of Northern Europe, some « brother » of P310/L11 under L51, L11 which itself seemingly was not so rare along Baltic shores (it’s true I wait for historical confirmation): a Portuguese or South France colonisation in North ?
Things are not always easy to interpretation, it’s why we can discuss without sharpness about all this stuff : we do guesses or hypothesis, we try to get close to reality, and only new facts can do the judge. But as females didn’t tour Europe alone in past over thousands of kilometers, and we have mtDNA of eastern Europe/Steppes as well as other of western Europe at Chalco/Bronze, I’m tempted to believe warlike males came from Steppes or, close to Steppes were pushed westwards by Steppic people at Chalcolithic times (your so called Neolithic), what doesn’t exclude other westwards moves of other pops by other roads.
BB’s are a curious thing : very more autosomally heterogenous than first CWC’s. Their partly prospectors aspect here and colonisers aspect there explains it ? They could see their Steppic auDNA decrease and increase in a short time at individual or small groups level, what is not the case for bigger pop’s.
To date, ancient auDNA and uniparentals seem to exclude a western origin of the transformations occurred around Chalco-Bronze, genetic ones among them, except the pottery aspect subject to interpretations. What we have for ancient uniparentals in Balkans doesn’t point to a cradle of L23 (a tree is not a wood). Demography (big number of Y-R1b with ‘steppic’, less ‘steppic’ among females, loss of ‘steppic’ with time, all that doesn’t point to a western origin for Y-R1b-post-L51. Imagining western R1b males running eastwards, taking high level of Steppelike DNA by mating, and turning back westwards in a so short time is hard to swallow.


Some details :
GASKA said:
Regarding Burgaschisee-Burgaschisee Sudwest-"The two individuals A312 and A311 are a seven-year-old boy and a man in his early 20s [...]. Bone alterations are found in both individuals, which can be attributed to sub-optimal living conditions. Morphologically, man A311, with his rather low body height and the general gracility of the limb bones, as well as the shape of his skull, fits the image of the Neolithic peoples of Switzerland."


Moesan says : I didn’t see this station in the Furtwängler ‘s paper.
What are the Y-haplo’s of these persons ?
Concerning typology/metrics, I haven’t seen the skeleton. So I’m tempted to rely on the report. That said, one person is not a population, and some brothers and sisters can differ enough within them in a pop after crossings, whatever their global autosomal statute.


You say :
Then evidently both MX310, MX304 and Aesch25 were Neolithic farmers, two of them buried in dolmens and the other buried in a grave with a child. We have no anthropological data from Auvernier and Aesch25, but Burgaschisee is a clear example of Mediterranean gracile. The antiquity of MX310 and MX304 and the scarce steppe signal would lead us to think that if they arrived from the steppes, they had to do it 100/200 years before, and in that period they not only had to abandon their steppe culture (Kurgans, tools, weapons), they also had to transform themselves so that anthropologically they are much closer to the Swiss Neolithic than to the Yamnata shepherds.


Moesan :
You ‘re quick to mix things and people ;
- Aes25 (Aesch) is the last of the settlement (and the age is not sure : reuse?) and is the only one with Y-R1b, the others, older, are all of them Y-G2a2a1…, and on PCA he is clearly Yamna/EHG shifted !
- MX304 Auvernier, age unsure again, is Y-R1b-L151, but he plots between today Spain, Switzerland and Northern Italy (so : Southern France?) : so he has ‘steppe’ , is not typically drifted towards lone WHG’s, and stays far enough from first EEF !
The only Lingolsheim Y-R1b (SX32) plots between Irleand, Switzerland and Germany (« Northern France ») ! Not too much EEF.
Neolithic farmers these men ? Really ?!?
To show the Y haplo’s could desolidarise quickly from auDNA : MX298, Wartau, is even very closer to Yamna than its fellows (these ones in « France »), but his Y haplo is Y-G2a2b2a, seemingly a marker of Y-G’s from Balkans (Baden) ! A road comrade ? Concerning the cultural data, I lack more details, but at changes periods, some peripheral people can adopt (exchange) new cultures : we see it in Switzerland too, it seems.


You say :
Don't you think that if it were true that massive invasions took place, the conquerors would not bury themselves in the dolmens of their enemies? And if they were lone explorers, do you think they could have changed the language of the Neolithic farmers by themselves?
Moesan says : to bury in enemies sepultures ? Why not ? Enemies or not enemies ? That is the question : when people are in small numbers they have not always the same deportment than when they are numerous. To me it seems that archeologists haven’t discarded the reuse of previous tombs by BB’s in more than a country. The distribution of BB's was not level at first. Just an example: in southern France, we see at Eneolithic new anthropologic types intruding in older sepultures, like caves and dolmens ; were they allies or enemies ? There inputs seems decreasing after some time : recovering by first inhabitants, or rather crossings ?

The languages changes don’t occur everywhere at the same time and speed, depending on relative numbers/densities.

All that said, the point is not made definitively, so wait and see.

[Gaska]

@Moesan-Some important points to keep in mind


1-The most important samples of the Furtwängler paper are the three cases of R1b-M269 found (MX3104, MX304 and Aesch25). The rest of the samples are much more modern (BBs and even Bronze Age) so they cannot be used to draw conclusions.


2- The guardians of the Kurganist orthodoxy have used Aesch25, which is similar to some CWC subjects, to defend the origin of R1b-L51/P312? in the CWC, specifically in the SGC. This would be comical if it were not for the fact that many people believe Davidski in everything he says when he evidently does not use any archeological or linguistic scientific criteria to do so.


3- In none of these cases serious goods related to the CWC have been found (no battle axes or typical ceramics). Absolutely nothing. I suppose that Davidski thinks that some individual belonging to the SGC went on vacation to the Alps, lost his battle axes and buried himself in a dolmen among his neolithic enemies. They also ignore that Aesch25 has mit hap X2b'226 typical of western Neolithic farmers, which indicates that his maternal ancestors are buried in that same dolmen.

4- Regarding the autosomal compositions made by Furtwängler, they are a complete disaster.The only thing he has tried to do is to make everything look a little more Yamnaya and to make up for the crude reality that the fanatic Kurganists have to face. There are RF1b-M269 in Switzerland (2.750 BC) without steppe ancestry.

5- regarding Burgaschisee, this paper is interesting (the anthropological data I sent you I have translated from German). There are RF1b-M269 in Switzerland (2.750 BC) without steppe ancestry.

+Anthropologische Bearbeitungder Skelettreste vom Burgäschisee-Susi Ulrich-Bochsler-Bei den beiden Individuen A312 und A311 handelt es sich um ein siebenjähriges Kind bzw. um einen rund 2O-jährigen Mann mit einer sicheren sowie einer weiteren möglichen perimortalen Schädelverletzung. Offensichtlich wurde der Mann erschlagen. Als Waffe kommt zum Beispiel eine Flachhacke in Frage. An beiden Individuen finden sich Knochenveränderungen, die auf nicht optimale Lebensuntstände zurückzuführen sind. Morphologisch passt der Mann A 311 rnit seiner eher geringen Körperhöhe und der allgemeinen Grazilität der Extremitätenknochen wie auch in seiner Schädelform ins Bild der Neolithiker der Schweiz.

[Gaska]

Evidently the BBs (belonging to any HapY) frequently used the neolithic dolmens in France and Spain, but also in Germany, Switzerland, Sicily, etc. The problem with the Swiss cases is that they are too old to have belonged to the BB culture (besides there are no grave goods related neither to the BB culture nor to the CWC, but to the neolithic farmers). Therefore archaeologically they are westerners and the only point of union (as always) is the famous (and phantom) steppe ancestry. Regarding the models to calculate autosomal compositions, there are many things to discuss.


1- In the first place, steppe migrations of women have been demonstrated in much greater numbers than Reich and colleagues have said. More than 75% of the Mit haps of the CWC have their origin in the steppes and many of them later passed to the BBC (especially in Central Europe), so denying that there is a possibility that women contributed to spread this autosomal signal is totally anti-scientific. And of course to attribute to the R1b-M269 lineage in exclusivity the diffusion of the Yamnaya ancestry seems a joke considering that as it seems the first R1b in mainland europe were solitary explorers. How do you explain that a few men without women were able to radically change the autoomic composition of western europe. It doesn't make any sense to me.

2-

[Gaska]

2-Slight caution on taking some of their Steppe ancestry proportions as accurate-Their method: Supplementary Data 4Left: "Test : WHG, Anatolia_Neolithic, Yamnaya_Samara"/pRight: "Using the right outgroups: Mbuti, Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, MA1_HG.SG, Villabruna, Papuan, Onge, Han, Karitiana"-Yeesh. So the modelling in Fig2b looks pretty cool (and estimates an arrival time without assuming that arrivals were 100% Yamnaya, just whatever best fits the linear trend over time... although assuming a linear trend is a bit dubious?)-But it seems a bit to me like they've maybe wasted it a little bit on data points formed by using qpAdm in ways that Harney's recent paper (and experience) would suggest is not the best practice - using pRight that are not the most informative for the populations in question, and which are confounded by a mix of different ascertainment and damage levels. There's probably quite a bit of signal there, but I bet it's pretty noisy-It's very unlikely that any sample with well above 30% Yamnaya has 0%, but I could see some of the Swiss very late Neolithic like Aesch21/MX310/MX304 potentially not even having any when re-checked. They may still show the same, but there's probably enough noise in the proportions that it's worth checking out again with less noisy method

[MOESAN]

@Angela
Hello,
Could you transfer our last posts concerning haplo Y-R1b-L51 in a dedicated thread, not to polute the thread about IE and basque?
But if you agree we 'll keep on discussing it in the same thread, no problem.
Have a good day.

[MOESAN]

1- In the first place, steppe migrations of women have been demonstrated in much greater numbers than Reich and colleagues have said. More than 75% of the Mit haps of the CWC have their origin in the steppes and many of them later passed to the BBC (especially in Central Europe), so denying that there is a possibility that women contributed to spread this autosomal signal is totally anti-scientific.

2-

Just a partial and short answer: nobody ever said Steppes men came without any own female along them.
But concerning respective roles, the X chromosome compared to other autosomals is a good thermometer to judge these kinds of desequilibrium, better than just looking at mt-DNA.

[Gaska]

Mitochondrial markers tell us how exogamy occurred in neolithic and Chalcolithic societies, and the autosomal DNA has to be analyzed in each individual to make decisions regarding their ancestry because as you know it can totally change in three/four generations.

Example

W3a1- (Russia, Lopatino-Samara-I0443-3.000 BC)
W3a1- (Porohy-Yamnaya-2.790 BC)
W3a1- (Bohemia, Radosevice-CWC-HapY-R1a1a/1-2.449 BC)
W3a1- (Germany, Bruck-BBC-I3607-2.300 BC/Unetice, Bronze Age-I0116-2.036 BC)
W3a1- (Croatia, Veliki Vanik, Bronze Age-I4332-1.565 BC)

I suppose no one in their right mind can deny that Yamnaya women belonging to the W3a1 lineage contributed to the formation of both the CWC and the BBC and Unetice. Only the female contribution can explain the high percentage of Yamnaya ancestry in Europe.

But these migrations, both male and female, did not only originate in the steppes; there were also migrations originating in Iberia related to the BBC.

T2b3- (Iberia, Camino de las Yeseras, Cultura Campaniforme-Ciempozuelos-I4247-2.338 BC)
T2b3- (Francia, Dolmen de Villard, Cultura Campaniforme-2.118 BC)
T2b3- (Italia, Via Guidorossi-Parma, Cultura Campaniforme-2.065 BC)
T2b3- (Cerdeña, S’Iscia Esas Piras-Isc001-2.167 BC)
T2b3- (Hungría, Bronze Age-RISE349-1.909 BC)

The simplistic explanation that geneticists have given us so far to explain these population movements is not convincing. Risky and inappropriate conclusions have been drawn. France, Italy and Spain need to be analyzed much more closely.

[Gaska]

Df27 found in Iberia, France and Sicily, all related to the BB culture, are proof that men also moved throughout Western Europe. The key to understand the origin of P312 and Df27 is the Franco-Cantabrian region, i.e. Aquitaine, Occitania, Pyrenees, northern Aragon, Navarre and northern Catalonia.

Regarding R1b-L51 the oldest cases found so far are in Switzerland, and there is a possibility that this lineage appears in any Neolithic culture in France, Switzerland, Germany or Austria. Even the survival of R1b-P297 in the Baltic Countries (7,000-3,500 BC) may be the key.

*I4630-ZVEJ30 (7.271 BC)-Latvia, Zvejnieki-Mesolithic, burial 305, adult male, 25-30 years old, 8240±70 BP (Ua-3634). Found in the Zvejnieki II site. Grave goods include: Bone spearhead with one-sided serration. Ochre addition-HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2-M269)- Mit-U5a2/c

*I4432 (5.997 BC)- Zvejnieki Mesolithic, burial 67, sub-adult, 3-5 years old. Ochre addition- Grave goods include a flint fragment with evidence of processing. HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2-M269)-Mit-U5a2/c

*I4626-Hg2-ZVEJ25 ; 5841-5569 BC (5.738 BC)-Zvejnieki- Narva Culture; HapY-R1b1a/1a1-P297- Y13200* (xY13202)-Mit-U2e1-depth ~4,37; Jones et al. 2017-ZVEJ25 is so far the earliest split in Y13200 clade, with only 6 derived SNPs, while for example VK531 , a LNBA sample from Norway, has 23 derived and only 3 ancestral SNPs. BOT14 has only derived SNPs at Y13200 and M478 levels, but will split downstream subclade Y14051 (13 derived and 39 ancestral SNPs).

*I4439 (5.698 BC)-Zvejnieki-Mesolithic, burial 86, sub-adult, 3-5 years old. Grave goods include 23 tooth pendants. Ochre addition- HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2)- Mit-U5b1/d1

*I4434 (5.495 BC)-Zvejnieki-Mesolithic / Neolithic, burial 128, infant, 1-2 years old. Ochre addition- Grave goods include: a white flint knife, a flint fragment, 13 beaver bones and 92 animal tooth pendants. HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2)-Mit-U5a2/d

*I4628-Hg3 (5.270 BC)-Zvejnieki HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (x R1b1a/1a2-M269)-Mit- U5a2/d

*I4436 (4.155 BC)-Zvejnieki-Neolithic, burial 261, sub-adult 2-4 years old from a common burial 258-261. No grave goods. HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2.M269)-Mit-U4a1

*I4627 (4.113 BC)-Zvejnieki-HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b1a/1a2-M269)- Mit-U4a1

*Tamula3 (3.720 BC)-Tamula, Estonia, Combed Ware Culture-HapY-R1b-L754/P297

And remember that these samples are overwhelmingly Whgs despite the fact that the Baltic countries are obviously in Eastern Europe. They may originate from Villabruna, Iboussieres or the Balkans.

[etrusco]

2-Slight caution on taking some of their Steppe ancestry proportions as accurate-Their method: Supplementary Data 4Left: "Test : WHG, Anatolia_Neolithic, Yamnaya_Samara"/pRight: "Using the right outgroups: Mbuti, Ust_Ishim_HG_published.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, MA1_HG.SG, Villabruna, Papuan, Onge, Han, Karitiana"-Yeesh. So the modelling in Fig2b looks pretty cool (and estimates an arrival time without assuming that arrivals were 100% Yamnaya, just whatever best fits the linear trend over time... although assuming a linear trend is a bit dubious?)-But it seems a bit to me like they've maybe wasted it a little bit on data points formed by using qpAdm in ways that Harney's recent paper (and experience) would suggest is not the best practice - using pRight that are not the most informative for the populations in question, and which are confounded by a mix of different ascertainment and damage levels. There's probably quite a bit of signal there, but I bet it's pretty noisy-It's very unlikely that any sample with well above 30% Yamnaya has 0%, but I could see some of the Swiss very late Neolithic like Aesch21/MX310/MX304 potentially not even having any when re-checked. They may still show the same, but there's probably enough noise in the proportions that it's worth checking out again with less noisy method

What is the source of this sentence?

[Gaska]

I seem to recall a conversation with Matt in eurogenes when we were discussing the possibility that MX310 and MX304 are typical Neolithic farmers, not conquerors or steppe explorers.


Furtwängler's autosomal proportions are a mess, there are a lot of neolithic farmers with a steppe signal.

[Gaska]

For example

*I0519 (3.230 BC)-Banbury Lane-HapY-I-Hap [email protected] (0.253) AF (0.584) Yamnaya (0.163)
*I0520 (3.230 BC)-Banbury Lane-HapY-I-Hap Mit-U5a2/c-WHG (0.2379) AF (0.516) Yamnaya (0.247)
*I2629 (2.980 BC)-Isbister, Orkney-HapY-I2-Hap Mit-J1c1/b-WHG (0.177) AF (0.355) Yamnaya (0.468)

You already have a neolithic British farmer with 50% Yamnaya ancestry in 2.980 BC, 500 years before the BB c arrived in the islands.

[Gaska]

I assume you will continue to participate in anthrogenica. Give my regards to Sitting Bull Rms2, Chiricaua Razyn, Vaudeville Anglesqueville, Magic Rocca and the other ultra-Kurganists on that forum, I guess they will still be looking for routes for R1b-L51 through the Carpathians. Although I guess they will now be ardent supporters of R1b-L51 in the CWC. Those provocative trolling admins at Anthrogenica dont care about the truth, when it doesnt fit their agenda, they start cursing or banning the person they are discussing with-This is not related to any kind of a civilized scientific discussion.