All Iberian men were wiped out by Yamna men 4,500 years ago

[MOESAN]

Very good analysis.

I'm blushing! Thanks.
That said good analysis can be contradicted by new facts, at least partly. Likelihood and reality have conflicts, sometimes, helas.

 

[MOESAN]

It surely means 40% of the mixed ancestry Beaker folk. EDIT: Actually, it could just be very poorly worded. I think they might actually mean 40% Steppe. That's a lot...

But what, for some reason, they're missing is that there were farmer samples from the same time period, even after the C14 dating of these R1b-L51 - check them out on this interactive map here. It would have been a typical caste system, only we are looking more at the upper castes, because of the bias of higher status individuals being buried more lavishly as compared to peasants. The farmer types weren't all eradicated (and that's obvious looking back).

Agree with you. As a whole what we have for these periods are elite burials and it distorts reality. But the today levels of Y-R1b in Iberia shows still a relativey high amount of Y-R1b (here we can object against what precedes that other historic facts occurred who could send more Y-R1b (Iron, Roma colonisation, Germanic invasions...)

 

[Angela]

I'm afraid that map doesn't prove survival of totally "farmer" type people in Iberia after the "invasive" BB stage, because the time spans are too large: almost all of them might be dated to way before 2500 BCE, so they could be prior to the massive invasion.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that people other than these elites might not have quite so prominent graves, but they should show up once in a while, if nothing else then as servants or slaves in the elite burials.

We do find the prior inhabitants in the Langobard grave context, for example.

Believe me, I would hate to think this is what happened, but it might have done. I guess we have to see the paper and the particulars from it.

 

[hrvclv]

@Moesan :

- Just like you, I suspect an influx of J2 into El Argar. Archaeologists seem reluctant to accept the idea, though. We'll have to wait for more dna.

- If you set the cursor of the "Homeland timeline"

on 2490-2450 BC, you find one L2, one L151 and one M269 in Hungary around Budapest. To play fair, I concede that some way further south, there is one of ToBeOrNotToBe's Z2103. More importantly, you can also spot two "nests" of L2 : one clearly in Bohemia, the other running across Bavaria.

By 2410 BC you have P312 in north central Germany (Quedlinburg), another in Moselle (northeastern France), and one in Haut-Rhin. Also an L151 in Sion, Switzerland. And a 'steppe' sample in Provence. (Edit : also, look at all those Z290, some of them L21 in southern England!)

By 2100 BC, you find L2 in the provençal Alps, and P312 in Emilia Romagna. You can also spot one U106 in a Unetice context (Prague5), surrounded by four L2, one P312 and one L151. Soon afterwards, another U106 turns up in southern Sweden.

Of course, this doesn't tell the whole story, but it tends to corroborate some of our speculations (notably, your hypothesis of south Baltic U106 implantation/ founder effect?).

- I agree that SNP bearers are not aware of their genetic heritage. But in a context where people lived hazardous (therefore short) lives, and probably had children early, the dad would retain his land and privileges. At best, one of his sons would inherit them. But the other sons (most often, as you know, raised by foster families, uncles or allies) would no doubt leave and try their luck 'abroad'. In due time, each of those sons would develop his own clan (hence the many Gaulish tribes, for example). So somehow genetics and geography may have combined to produce distinct founder effects.

- Concerning the Lusatian culture: it is striking how the architecture of their forts resembles that of the Gaulish forts centuries later. A structure of perpendicular beams filled with rocks and earth, just like the Gaulish oppida. Their weaving patterns are quite similar too. So I'd bet on P312.

- I find this link (posted upthread by Halfalp) very interesting : https://indo-european.eu/2018/08/on...p-r1b-l51-in-late-repin-early-yamna-settlers/

 

[berun]

@hrvclv, all Argarian samples were R1b

 

[hrvclv]

@hrvclv, all Argarian samples were R1b

Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?

I agree with your J2 hypothesis.

 

[Ygorcs]

It surely makes more sense that the split took place before Yamnaya at least, given the ages of Z2103 and L51. And an earlier split on the Steppe, well before Yamnaya, isn't very practical.

Why do you think so? Yamnaya could be (and IMO was) a later stage of an already differentiated IE people, not the undivided PIE-speaking nation. Why do you think a split of earlier PIE dialects and R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 on the steppe at the stage of Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog is not practical?

 

[Ygorcs]

I dont know that much about genetic to say, but i bet CHG in Europe gonna actually turn out to be Dzudzuana element into ANF, that was labeled as CHG in calculator because of lack of sourc pop. But who knows.

No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, not the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.

 

[halfalp]

No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, not the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.

So how those native people of the Caucasus give their ancestry to Mesolithic Sweden HG Motala? And how most of Mesolithic HG samples from Eastern Europe, even the J* ones dont have CHG at all? Like you said some times before, CHG in Europe seems to predate a lot cultures like Maikop.

 

[hrvclv]

From Wiki, on Argarian Culture :

"Funerary Customs : The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos is abandoned in favour of small cists, either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (skipping Sicily and Italy, where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).

From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.

In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after ca 2000 BC."

If confirmed, this might explain the resurgence of farmer autosomal ancestry in Iberia in the centuries that followed the 'total replacement' discussed here. It would also explain (part of) the levels of J2 currently found there.

 

[berun]

Interesting... Can you please develop on that, or direct me to papers I could read ? Do you have any dating for those R1b ?

I posted the info a month ago in the Iberian or Argar tread.

 

[MOESAN]

@hlvcrv
post#264; thanks
this Quedlimburg is a BB?
concerning Praga and Unetice in general, it seems it was a synthetic culture melting diverse influences: Neolithic, CWC, in first BBC + surely new Sth-Eastern influences, but at first it was not an osmosis but rather juxtaposition. All the way, admixture or not, we can hope some diverse Y-lineages. According to "you" there were 4 post Y-R1b-L51 (L11) in Unetice Praga, so it complete "my" Y-I2! It shows how tiny is our samples to date. But somebody could always argue that they came from BB come from S-Iberia.

 

[halfalp]

No, CHG is based on Mesolithic/Early Neolithic people native to the Caucasus, not the same population of Paleolithic (~26kya) Dzudzuana who were closely related to the ANF (only, I guess, with less WHG-like ancestry). The Dzudzuana element in ANF is the "core" and certainly does not correspond well with CHG, which was a whole different population with much more ANE for starters.

The thing is, it doesn't make sense. CHG is intermediare between EHG and Iran_Neolithic ( Basal Eurasian / ANE ). Dzudzuana is related with Villabruna + Basal Eurasian, at the end of the day, Dzudzuana is not the ancestor of CHG, but they are related. My point is, because they didn't have Dzudzuana as a proxy, the calculators have could take Dzudzuana ancestry as more close to CHG than EEF because of Basal Eurasian inputs in both CHG and Dzudzuana. Can someone implemant Dzudzuana in all eastern europe samples with CHG and see if the CHG component is persistent?

Exemple: Before Dzudzuana, modern Arabians ( as reported by Iron Horse ) and Levantine_HG had an input of WHG, but now, this input of WHG could just turn out to be Dzudzuana with related ancestry with Villabruna/WHG. My question is, the Iran_Neolithic wich is mainly detected by the Basal Eurasian component, in Eastern Europe labeled as CHG, could just be shared ancestry with all those Basal Eurasians-like population, but just be remnants of Dzudzuana in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

 

[markod]

The thing is, it doesn't make sense. CHG is intermediare between EHG and Iran_Neolithic ( Basal Eurasian / ANE ). Dzudzuana is related with Villabruna + Basal Eurasian, at the end of the day, Dzudzuana is not the ancestor of CHG, but they are related. My point is, because they didn't have Dzudzuana as a proxy, the calculators have could take Dzudzuana ancestry as more close to CHG than EEF because of Basal Eurasian inputs in both CHG and Dzudzuana. Can someone implemant Dzudzuana in all eastern europe samples with CHG and see if the CHG component is persistent?

Exemple: Before Dzudzuana, modern Arabians ( as reported by Iron Horse ) and Levantine_HG had an input of WHG, but now, this input of WHG could just turn out to be Dzudzuana with related ancestry with Villabruna/WHG. My question is, the Iran_Neolithic wich is mainly detected by the Basal Eurasian component, in Eastern Europe labeled as CHG, could just be shared ancestry with all those Basal Eurasians-like population, but just be remnants of Dzudzuana in Eastern and Southeastern Europe.

I think you'll be proven right, even though I used to believe in the CHG admixture from the south hypothesis myself. The Caucasus paper authored by Wang foreshadows this: ~4300 BCE Eneolithic steppe samples are shifted from later Yamnaya towards something that still exists in the northern Caucasus - they're not very far from modern Dagestanis on the PCA in fact. This wasn't a result of recent admixture from the Near East, unless said admixing population itself was intrusive in Anatolia or thereabouts. AG3/ANE doesn't work either. These Eneolithic steppe populations subsequently picked up EHG and EEF admixture as they went north to form the Yamnaya cluster.

 

[halfalp]

I think you'll be proven right, even though I used to believe in the CHG admixture from the south hypothesis myself. The Caucasus paper authored by Wang foreshadows this: ~4300 BCE Eneolithic steppe samples are shifted from later Yamnaya towards something that still exists in the northern Caucasus - they're not very far from modern Dagestanis on the PCA in fact. This wasn't a result of recent admixture from the Near East, unless said admixing population itself was intrusive in Anatolia or thereabouts. AG3/ANE doesn't work either. These Eneolithic steppe populations subsequently picked up EHG and EEF admixture as they went north to form the Yamnaya cluster.

I dont really understand PCA and all this but i think it makes it very difficult than a shadow population of CHG-like individuals would roam in all eastern europe and even show ancestry in Motala, without a clear proof of their passage. If the two J* sample that we have from Eastern Europe had some CHG, this would not even be a question. Now we need to found exactly the good proxy for CHG, or conclued that the CHG is actually Dzudzuana. It's exactly the same point with R1b coming from a southern road, it just doesn't make sense, whatever were the modern basal forms are found. If R1b would have roam from Turkmenistan -> Balkans in the Paleolithic, we would have a totally different genetic signature, less ANE, more BE, other haplogroups taken in the migration process, more diversity in mtdna haplogroups etc. For the CHG pre-neolithic in Europe, we see absolutely nothing related to those facts, wich can only mean 2 things. 1. calculators took Dzudzuana for CHG because no proxy and shared Basal Eurasian ancestry. 2. There was a real CHG migration that give substantial ancestry to eastern europe, but completely disappear in terms of lineage both masculine and feminine ( this latter point could be contradicte if haplogroup U4 appear in a paleolithic south caucasus contexte ).

 

[Pygmalion]

From Wiki, on Argarian Culture :

"Funerary Customs : The collective burial tradition typical of European Megalithic Culture is abandoned in favor of individual burials. The tholos is abandoned in favour of small cists, either under the homes or outside. This trend seems to come from the Eastern Mediterranean, most likely from Mycenaean Greece (skipping Sicily and Italy, where the collective burial tradition remains for some time yet).

From the Argarian civilization, these new burial customs will gradually and irregularly extend to the rest of Iberia.

In the phase B of this civilization, burial in pithoi (large jars) becomes most frequent (see: Jar-burials). Again this custom (that never reached beyond the Argarian circle) seems to come from Greece, where it was used after ca 2000 BC."

If confirmed, this might explain the resurgence of farmer autosomal ancestry in Iberia in the centuries that followed the 'total replacement' discussed here. It would also explain (part of) the levels of J2 currently found there.

In 2000 bc there were Minoans in Greece, some vague similarities aren't enough to make a connection, there is no minoan material culture in any argaric settlement, they had a distinct culture from the Minoans, whose presence is not documented in the Western Mediterranean anywhere.

 

[hrvclv]

@hlvcrv
post#264; thanks
this Quedlimburg is a BB?
concerning Praga and Unetice in general, it seems it was a synthetic culture melting diverse influences: Neolithic, CWC, in first BBC + surely new Sth-Eastern influences, but at first it was not an osmosis but rather juxtaposition. All the way, admixture or not, we can hope some diverse Y-lineages. According to "you" there were 4 post Y-R1b-L51 (L11) in Unetice Praga, so it complete "my" Y-I2! It shows how tiny is our samples to date. But somebody could always argue that they came from BB come from S-Iberia.

Yes, the Quedlinburg sample is Beaker Central Europe. By the way, there is also an M269 close by that I forgot to mention (also Beaker Central).

For sure the samples are few and far between. However, as we push down the time line, the movement of steppe clades clearly heads west. So an Iberian origin seems highly unlikely for those R1b newcomers.

 

[Angela]

In terms of El Argar, I'm only aware of the following.

For mtDna:

"Around 2200 BCE, the emergence of the El Argar group was evidently preceded by a break in Chalcolithic cultural traditions in southeast Iberia. Yet there are no apparent new influences or signals of substantial population change on the mtDNA haplogroup level at this time, so that the observed changes may either be due to an upheaval of existing social structures or an influx of groups that cannot be distinguished from the local population at the present level of genetic resolution, e.g., from Southeastern Europe, as previously proposed for El Argar. Unraveling these apparently contradictory data will certainly require further in-depth analyses both on the archaeological and the archaeogenetic level."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15480-9

In terms of yDna, Berun posted the following:
"It seems the case after finding (http://www.laopiniondemurcia.es/mun...iversidad-autonoma-barcelona/876009.html)some steppe DNA in El Argar culture (southeastern Spain):


Researchers at the Autonomous University of Barcelona work with this theory in the absence of geneticists to complete the study of DNA
l. or. 18.11.2017 | 04:00

The key to the genetic origin of the Spaniards could be Murcia. And it is that the Argaric archaeological sites of La Bastida, located in Totana, and that of La Almoloya, of Pliego, `could have given rise to all the natives of our country.

Researchers from the Autonomous University of Barcelona who work in the fields contemplate it and assure that it is about to be confirmed by the geneticists who analyze the nuclear DNA samples from both sites, as reported by the Ser de Murcia chain on its website.

In the Almoloya, within the framework of the Argar culture, in the Bronze Age, the miscegenation that constitutes the current genetic basis of the entire population of the Iberian Peninsula, according to the researchers, took place.

According to the team of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, ​​the men who came from outside came from the south of present-day Russia. The change was not only genetic, because everything points, according to archaeological research, to the importance of women in that society of the Argar culture was much more socially and politically relevant than it was after.

The archaeologists of the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB) who have been digging up the secrets of the archaeological site of La Bastida (Totana) for nine years, the largest in Europe of the Argaric culture and known as 'La Troya de Occidente', are considering abandoning their work for lack of economic support by the regional government of Murcia. La Bastida was a walled city of about a thousand inhabitants, the largest of that time in Western Europe, which has only been excavated by 10 percent."

There is also this:
"THE GENETIC HISTORY OF EL ARGAR AND CONTEMPORANEOUS GROUPS OF THE SOUTHERN IBERIAN
PENINSULA
Author(s): Haak, Wolfgang (Max-Planck-Institute for the Science of Human History) - Rihuete-Herrada, Cristina - Oliart, Camila - Fregeiro
Morador, Maria-Inés - Lull, Vicente - Micó, Rafael - García Atiénzar, Gabriel - Barciela, Virginia - Hernández, Mauro - Jiménez
Echevarría, Javier - Salazar-García, Domingo C. - Risch, Roberto - Krause, Johannes (-)
Presentation Format: Oral
The unique position of the El Argar society in Iberia’s Early Bronze Age is well attested by archaeological research. Recent paleo-genomic studies have shed light on the genetic prehistory of the Iberian Peninsula, mainly focussing on the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods. However, the biological profiles of prehistoric individuals attributed to the El Argar and contemporaneous groups from the southern coastal regions of the peninsula have not yet been described genetically. Here, we present genome-wide data from over 70 individuals from a micro-transect through time ranging from the Late Chalcolithic to the Late Bronze Age. We observe a striking shift in the ancestry profile from the Chalcolithic to the Early Bronze Age, which is explained by the arrival of steppe ancestry in this region. The particular type of ancestry was first described in pastoralist groups from the Eurasian steppes around 5000 years ago and has subsequently spread across central and western Europe, reaching northern France and the British Isles around 2200 calBCE, where it replaced substantial parts of the local genetic ancestry. Our results show that steppe ancestry can be found in very few individuals attributed to the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the centre and north of Iberia, but in all individuals dated to El Argar and subsequent Bronze Age periods in the south. This finding not only corroborates the transformative powers of the Early Bronze Age period in the Iberian Peninsula but show that the genetic profiles of the populations in Iberia today were largely shaped during this time."

So, a seaborne movement? From where? Any stops along the way? I'm dying to see the yDna.

I have no idea when it will show up, or if those samples are also in the upcoming Olalde paper. I also want to see if the Olalde paper confirms little steppe in the Bell Beakers people of the center and north.

All of this is discussed in this thread:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-34909.html

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Yes, the Quedlinburg sample is Beaker Central Europe. By the way, there is also an M269 close by that I forgot to mention (also Beaker Central).

For sure the samples are few and far between. However, as we push down the time line, the movement of steppe clades clearly heads west. So an Iberian origin seems highly unlikely for those R1b newcomers.

Isn't the oldest Steppe beaker in Spain (EDIT: It isn't, but it is from basically the exact same time frame)? Regardless, the samples ARE too few and far between to have a chronology. It could just be the case that we happened to find some of the earliest Steppe beakers in one place compared to later Steppe beakers in another place, when in actuality the Steppe beakers could have moved from the latter place to the former. I don't know, though, why it is so impossible that some of the Steppe amongst the Beaker folk could have been acquired through admixture with CWC women. We are so used to the idea that R1b folk blended with farmer women, resulting in diluted Steppe autosomal signature, but why can't the opposite occur? Beaker Steppe samples are geographically virtually on top of prior Corded Ware samples. I think the Beaker folk (in the maritime hypothesis I subscribe too) would have had Steppe admix anyway, but only in the Chalcolithic Balkans sense.