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

The admixture run I have seen for ATP3 has significant EHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Khyvalynsk), and no WHG (the type found at its greatest concentrations in Mesolithic Europe).

Isn't it basically impossible that it has no WHG, being a Western European sample
 
As an alternative to a Yamnaya migration of L51 I think I'm more or less in agreement, though I'm agnostic about the specific cultures associated with the spread of L51. I think what we can deduce from the little data we have is:

1. early presence of L51 in the Mediterranean due to the distribution of basal haplogrups

2. likely epicenter of phylogenetic diversity in or near France, suggesting that Western Europe was an important point for the early expansions of L51

3. considering the TMRCA of L51, its diversification must have taken place in the copper age - this I consider to be the most important evidence against an origin in Yamnaya

4. if ATP3 is representative of the population that spread L51, its more immediate origin was probably in the Aegean or the Balkans

I'd also say that the linguistic evidence suggests that the L51 population either lost its Indo-European speech upon entering mainland Europe or was non-IE from the get-go. I don't know which one is more likely. Western Europe, Ireland, Britain and maybe even large parts of Germany and the Alpine region IMHO might have been non-IE speaking until the strongly expansive and hierarchical cultures of the later Bronze Age and the Iron age changed the linguistic picture, which explains the lack of any deeply diverged IE language in Central and Western Europe.

The linguistic argument is only tangetially related to the alternative hypothesis of course: some or all L51 Yamnaya men could have lost their IE languages due to female influence already in the Carpathian basin if we suppose that L51's origin was in the steppe.
Yes, pretty much all agreed. Especially a formative spell in the Balkans and a developmental coalescence point in France - the evidence for the latter is substantial.

I've not really much to suggest about language, although I estimate that the assimilation point for R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 communities was in Poland/NW Ukraine around 4,000 BC, so this is where I think it most likely that their joint language would have originated.
 
Isn't it basically impossible that it has no WHG, being a Western European sample
Yes, that is why I believe it was most likely a recent migrant from somewhere else, which would help to date the earliest migrations from the East into the West - i.e. probably mid 4th millennium BC. This (i) predates the mid 3rd millennium Yamnayan incursions into Europe and the Bell Beaker expansions by some way, (ii) matches the branching estimates within Western European L51, (iii) is consistent with the dating of the collapse of Cucuteni and the western branching of its G-PF3345 subclades, and (iv) is consistent with the dating of the Suvorovo incursions into the Balkan interior.
 
The more I think about him, the more I realise that Coon isn't some overhyped anthro-hero - he was a genius, WAY ahead of his time. Check this out, emphasis mine:

"The Bronze Age covered, in most of Europe, the brief span of some six centuries, as compared with an expanse three times as long in Egypt and Mesopotamia. During these six centuries, however, important racial changes took place in many parts of the European world, while in the two valleys from which European civilization emanated, the personnel remained constant. The parts of Europe most affected by Bronze Age movements of people were the north and west; and hence these activities may be interpreted as a late phase of the displacements initiated by the retreat of the last glacier, and continued by the discovery of the principles of food production. By the end of the Bronze Age, the centers of civilization had begun their movement northward and westward, toward Greece and Italy, movements which were later to push much farther in the same direction. It is perhaps no coincidence that, since the beginning of the Neolithic, people from the east and south had migrated to the north and west ahead of this progression.

Among the problems left over from the Neolithic which the evidence of the Bronze Age has helped to clarify is that of the immediate origin of the Danubians. In the Neolithic Danubian-like peoples cultivated the rich soil of southern Russia and of western Turkestan. We now know that they must have formed a large bloc of agriculturalists occupying Asia Minor as well, and probably also the Caucasus. Thus they may have come into the Danube Valley from either southern Russia or Anatolia, or both; and their earlier derivation from the agricultural higlands is established.


A second problem, which arose only during the Bronze Age, is the origin of the new racial type which appeared, shortly before 2000 B.C., apparently from nowhere, in Asia Minor, Palestine, and Cyprus. This new type was tall, round headed and frequently planoccipital; its nose was prominent and narrow; its face triangular and of moderate length. In its associated morphological features, it forecast the appearance of the Dinaric race.


Brachycephals of this type followed the old Megalithic sea route to Italy, the Italian islands, and Spain. In Spain some of them seem to have associated themselves with cultural phenomena known as the Bell Beaker complex. As the Bell Beaker people, these newcomers travelled from Spain to the Rhinelands and to central Europe, where they were the first disseminators of metal. Having appeared in the Rhineland in considerable numbers, they mixed with the older Borreby sub-stratum which had remained there since the Mesolithic, and with Corded people coming from the east. This triple combination moved bodily down the Rhine and across the North Sea to Britain. Thus, during the Early Bronze Age, England and Scotland were invaded by people of entirely new types, who came in numbers sufficient to change the population of these countries in a radical manner. At the same time, other movements of these brachycephals from the eastern Mediterranean passed by sea from Spain to Ireland and from Ireland to Scotland.


The appearance of these early Dinarics on the Asiatic and European scene marks the advent of the third important brachycephalic racial type which we have encountered in our survey of the post-glacial prehistory of the white race. Unlike the Borreby and Alpine types, it cannot be easily or plausibly explained as a simple Palaeolithic survivor. Facially it is basically Mediterranean; it seems to be a Mediterranean type brachycephalized by some non-Mediterranean agency.

These Dinarics did not come from central Asia, nor from Mesopotamia or Egypt. Facially, they resemble the dolichocephalic residents of Asia Minor and the eastern Mediterranean coast lands of the period during which they first appeared, in that both have in common a high-bridged, high-rooted nose, high orbits, and a sloping forehead. Until further evidence is found, it is safer to hold that the culture-bearing Dinarics of the Bronze Age developed in the Syrian highlands, where a similar type of brachycephaly is now present, than to try to bring them from a distance.


Another Bronze Age event of racial movement was the gradual disappearance through amalgamation of the Corded people and of the Danubians, and the emergence of an intermediate long-headed form. This latter, which inhabited the immense stretch of territory from Germany and Austria to the Altai Mountains, occupied an intermediate position in the total roster of greater Mediterranean racial variations.


In Austria and Bohemia the high vault and narrow face of both Corded and Danubian strains persisted, but from southern Russia over to the Altai, the vaults were lower and the faces broader. Two variants thus appeared, a western and an eastern. There is evidence that the eastern group, at least, was partly if not prevailingly blond. Both eastern and western divisions may with some confidence be compared to the "Nordic" peoples who appeared historically during the Iron Age.


At the end of the Bronze Age, for a period of two or three centuries, the pall of cremation falls over the racial history of Europe. When the smoke has lifted during the Early Iron Age, we shall see what changes have taken place during this period of darkness."
 
Almost all historical linguists see the spread of Celtic as originating in the Hallstatt culture, which was much later. As for Lusitanian - it's a bit of a mystery, but most that have an opinion see it as being Italic. Moreover, there is no evidence of IE languages in Britain before the Celts.

I repeat my previous claim - Indo-European languages in Western Europe are EXCLUSIVE to two ultimate sources - U152 and U106. These are the ONLY L51 subclades to have developed in Central Europe - right in Corded Ware territory (and this is not a coincidence, as I would be willing to bet that Corded Ware is ultimately the vector to which Western IE spread from). This is also consistent with a non-IE origin of L51. By no means conclusive, but it makes sense (as to why IE hadn't spread out of Central Europe even while Bell Beaker folk had invaded all of Western Europe and were participating in the Atlantic Bronze Age).

To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany.

Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .

The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.
 
To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany.

Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .

The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.

I disagree concerning Corded Ware and Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, as I associate them with origins from the late Steppe due to their satem features (which I think von Bradke(?) hypothesised), whereas I see Corded Ware as a much earlier departure. And I don?t quite see why Western IE should have been a post-Corded development based on what I?ve suggested - though of course it seems likely that the splitting into things like Germanic, Italic and Celtic was after its demise.

As for this idea of para-Celtic in Britain before Celtic proper - I haven?t seen any consensus suggesting that at all, but it is an interesting idea. The point about Q-Celtic retaining some of this archaic extinct R1b-L21 ?para-Celtic? doesn?t seem any more appropriate than Q-Celtic retaining some features of any other language, though (I?ll mention the Vasconic substratum hypothesis in its most limited sense (the Atlantic Bronze Age culture only), which definitely has some levels of support in this limited sense, and also makes sense here as Q-Celtic is very occasionally given, incorrectly, an Iberian origin due to apparent influence from Basque that isn?t really present among P-Celtic)
 
ATP3 is intetesting, but much more the Beakers found near Barcelona before the "reflux" time, having R1b-M269 calls, unluckly the authors weren't compelled enough to test better samples.
 
To be more accurate we should say there is no evidence of any language at all in Britain before the Celts. lol. Also, it is important to remind that Celtic "per se" was certainly just one more successful and expansionist language of a much larger language group that it replaced (Para-Celtic, as some call it). Lusitanian and the Italic languages may even have been one such language family, late and lucky survivals. Britain may have spoken a Celtic-like language well before Celtic "per se" was spoken there. The specificities of Goidelic Celtic (in lexicon and grammar) in relation to other Celtic languages may, for instance, indicate the influences of an incomplete language shift from an earlier Western IE language branch to the Celtic proper spread from Southern Germany.

Not unlike Latin replaced all the Italic languages, and Proto-Germanic probably also replaced all other similar languages in Northern Europe. It'd be a serious mistake to assume that the 3 branches that survived to give birth to written languages in Western Europe, all of them deriving from Late BA/Iron Age languages that wiped out the competitors (Proto-Italic, Proto-Celtic and Proto-Germanic), were really the only IE languages that had existed in Western Europe by ~1300 BCE. The "weird children" like Liburnian and Venetic show perfectly well that other less sucessful IE subfamilies certainly existed, filling in the missing pieces of the dialect continuum of Northwest IE .

The problem is that CWC is also the best candidate for the homeland of at least two satem IE branches: Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, this one via a CWC influx back into the steppes (bringing prevalence of R1a and more EEF in the former Yamnaya-like genetic landscape). The separation between centum and satem branches seems to have happened pretty early (and the fact that satem could've been prevalent in CWC-derived peoples while centum prevalent in Yamnaya-derived ones would explain that divergence quite easily), but according to your hypothesis the Western IE (centum) languages would've arisen from a subset of CWC IE languages AFTER the demise of CWC and its replacement by Bell Beaker folk, so even later than the expansion of CWC ancestry. Thus, that hypothesis would require that the initial language of the CWC had some satem and some centum dialects, and that besides that some of them were also more archaic in other aspects (ancestor of Northwestern IE) and some others more innovative (ancestors of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian). That's possible, but in my opinion an unnecessary complication of a situation that could be much more easily explained by CWC and Yamnaya giving rise to different branches of IE and Northwestern IE arising with a culture and population different from those that gave birth to Balto-Slavic.


It is strange then, that the IE expansion would have wiped out all IE languages except those consistent with Urnfield expansion, but left alive so many non-IE languages. One would except to find a language as diverged from other European language as Indo-Iranian, for example, to survive in some pocket in Western Europe.

The meagre evidence we have however gives a different picture: Matasovic (2012) "The Substratum in Insular Celtic" strongly supports that the Celts likely encountered several non-IE languages when they came to Britain. Schrijver (2000) "Non-Indo-European Surviving in Ireland in the First Millenium A.D." suggests that some ancestors of the Irish still spoke non-IE in the early Middle Ages.

Germanic also doesn't give the impression of a language that expanded onto other IE dialects. Large parts of the vocabulary lack IE etymologies. A language family whose expansionmainly involved the conquest of other IE peoples is Slavic, and you'd have to look really hard if you wanted to find words that aren't IE in its lexicon.
 
ATP3 is intetesting, but much more the Beakers found near Barcelona before the "reflux" time, having R1b-M269 calls, unluckly the authors weren't compelled enough to test better samples.

Are they M269? I recall there were quite a few beakers with R1b and zero steppe ancestry. I found it weird that the authors didn't try to resolve those further.
 
weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.
 
weird is the adjective less bitter for it. the authors found R1b in Central Spain linked to Ciempozuelos pottery (2nd millenium) but with the wished steppe, and left those without it aside, even if those were the oldest tested for Iberia. Call it Reich's science.

Could you give a source?
 
it's in Olalde paper about BB, supp also
 
Which subclades of R1b (or more specifically of R1b-L51) do we think might have been present at the founding of Los Millares 3,200 BC?
According to yfull's estimates, the y-DNA of only two individual bearers of L51 from that era still survives today, both coalescing back to an estimated origin point in Northern France. This would surely suggest that any L51 population in Los Millares would have been eliminated and/or its remnants chased northwards, rather than them emerging to replace the whole of the male population of Iberia 800 years later.
 
Which subclades of R1b (or more specifically of R1b-L51) do we think might have been present at the founding of Los Millares 3,200 BC?
According to yfull's estimates, the y-DNA of only two individual bearers of L51 from that era still survives today, both coalescing back to an estimated origin point in Northern France. This would surely suggest that any L51 population in Los Millares would have been eliminated and/or its remnants chased northwards, rather than them emerging to replace the whole of the male population of Iberia 800 years later.

Or, they bred amongst themselves in a caste system in Spain (which we know existed in Los Millares), until for whatever reason they moved to France for Lebensraum and experienced population growth - that's my idea at the moment, at least.
 
EDIT: I was wrong about what I just cut out, seems like there are British East coast L21 Beaker samples, indicating the Dutch beakers were also L21.
 
EDIT: I was wrong about what I just cut out, seems like there are British East coast L21 Beaker samples, indicating the Dutch beakers were also L21.

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4950 / M
Find location: Central Flying School, Upavon, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a2d1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 (L21)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4951 / M
Find location: Flying School, Netheravon, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1b1a1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5513 / M
Find location: Nr. Ablington, Figheldean, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1800 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): V
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 (L21)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2417 / M
Find location: Amesbury Down, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–2140 BCE (based on associated dates in same context especially 23535_25004)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): J1c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2c (Z290) -->Z290 (aka Z245 or Z260) : father clade to L21
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6777 / M
Find location: Wilsford Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake G.54
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4b1b2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2c (Z290)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6778 / F
Find location: Wilsford Down, Wilsford-cum-Lake G.52
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Britain
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a26
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (admixture)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2461 / F
Find location: Porton Down, Wiltshire, England
Country: Great Britain
Associated label in publication: England_CA_EBA
Date: 2500–2140 BCE (based on associated dates in same context)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H5c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (admixture)

Also, in present-day Ireland, U152 is below 5% in most areas, with two pockets between 5 and 10%. Under such conditions, how could U152 have spread the Celtic language there, without any evidence that it ever demographically superseded or replaced L21 ? Insular Celtic is L21, period.
 
Follow the trail...

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5666 / M
Find location: Lochenice
Country: Czech Republic
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5025, RISE567 / F
Find location: Kněževes
Country: Czech Republic
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5b2c
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): null
Reference: 1240k of shotgun data in AllentoftNature2015
Colour group: Steppe (autosomal)

ample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6480 / M
Find location: Velké Přílepy
Country: Czech Republic
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–1900 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7271 / M
Find location: Brandýsek
Country: Czech Republic
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2200 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U4a2
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I7212 / M
Find location: Radovesice
Country: Czech Republic
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2200 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1b1a1+199
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID: RISE564.SG
Location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Germany
Haplogroup name
R1b1a1a2a1 (L51)

Sample ID: I5529
Location: Osterhofen-Altenmarkt, Bavaria
Haplogroup name
R1b1a1a2a1a2b1 (L2)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I4132, RISE560 / M
Find location: Augsburg Sportgelände, Augsburg, Bavaria
Country: Germany
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5a1a1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: 1240k of shotgun data in Allentoft Nature2015
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5748 / M
Find location: De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland
Country: The Netherlands
Associated label in publication: Beaker The Netherlands
Date: 2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): X2b4
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5757 / M
Find location: Sion-Petit-Chasseur, Dolmen XI
Country: Switzerland
Associated label in publication: Beaker Central Europe
Date: 2469–1984 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): H3af
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I2575 / M
Find location: La Fare, Forcalquier
Country: France
Associated label in publication: Beaker Southern France
Date: 2475–2210 calBCE (3895±40 BP, GrA-22988)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1c1
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): no_data
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (autosomal)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6472 / M
Find location: La Magdalena, Madrid
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): HV0b
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2 (M269)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I6588 / M
Find location: Humanejos, Madrid
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2500–2000 BCE
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): U5b2b3
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a (L151)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)

Sample ID / genetic sex (M/F): I5665 / M
Find location: Virgazal, Tablada de Rudrón, Burgos
Country: Spain
Associated label in publication: Beaker Iberia
Date: 2280–1984 calBCE (3730±40 BP, Poz-49174)
MtDNA haplogroup (mother): K1a24a
Y-DNA haplogroup (father): R1b1a1a2a1a2 (P312)
Reference: Olalde et al. 2018
Colour group: Steppe (R1b)
 
I agree - L21 was surely IE speaking and even Celtic speaking or at least Celtised before Hallstatt -
I think the most of U152 in Britain (maybe as in SW Iberia) came later with Belgae tribes -
concerning BB, a French BB in Provence in Villard was U152 too, under the Rhine-Rh?ne BB 's groups influence I think. - But L21 was surely a bit stronger before Hallstatt period, specially on the northern and western coasts and it is not only the Irish slaves who planted it into Western Norway - it is present too among Dutch people and Belgians -it was present too in central and eastern France at lower rates and among Roman Swiss people.
Surely more ancient Y-haplo's would be welcome to nuance the picture.
 
Also, in present-day Ireland, U152 is below 5% in most areas, with two pockets between 5 and 10%. Under such conditions, how could U152 have spread the Celtic language there, without any evidence that it ever demographically superseded or replaced L21 ? Insular Celtic is L21, period.

I think that's consistent with what Schrijver suggets in his book: that the Celtic influence in Ireland came late and was demographically negligible.

(1) The fi rst linguistic evidence for the presence of Celtic in Ireland datesfrom as late as the second century AD (Ptolemy’s map of Ireland):
while Irish may have arrived much earlier, there is no reason to
believe that it actually did.
(2) British Celtic and Irish are so closely related to one another that their
common ancestor must have been spoken as recently as the fi rst century
AD; this cannot be squared with a much earlier arrival of Irish
in Ireland.
(3) Similar developments in British Celtic suggest that the rapid and deep
sound changes that affected Irish between approximately 400 and
600 can be explained by a language switch to Celtic by an originally
non-Irish population; this recent switch suggests that the spread of
Irish in Ireland is a recent event.
(4) The evidence that a pre-Irish, possibly non-Indo-European language
survived in Ireland until at least the sixth century AD but subsequently
disappeared from the radar during the Old and Middle Irish
periods (600–1200) suggests that the language was in the course of
disappearing by the early medieval period; this implies a contemporary
switch of its speakers to Irish, which in turn suggests that the
spread of Irish in Ireland is a recent event.
(5) The absence of any dialectal differences in Irish that predate the Old
Irish period shows that Old Irish is Proto-Irish; this strongly suggests
that Old Irish resulted from a recent spread.
 

This thread has been viewed 249804 times.

Back
Top