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

[MOESAN]

All these notions of racist or not racist concerns opinions about racial hyerarchy but they are very boring and inaccurate when we are discussing accurate descriptions of ancient pops: Coon, spite some errors, is still a usefull "tool" at the phenotypic level: let's try to compare phenotypic and genetic statements about ancient pops without to loose our time with phylosophical or political opinions out of this kind of topic.

 

[Olympus Mons]

I actually think what I've said hits the nail on the head personally aha - but where did you get that info from? Also don't let Olympus Mons hear about this, he'll go crazy, even though I reckon this K-A hypothesis is probably a modified Kurgan theory with origins South of the Caucasus.

How I'm interpreting this is that they haven't found any Steppe in Anatolian samples.

Hey!!! I go Crazy with anything.

Actually I go Crazy if they try to link Shulaveri-Shomu to anything Kura-Araxes. People have as big problem with time as they seem to have with space. there is a Gap of 1000 years between both cultures. And they share no traits at all.

I think its not at all possible that Haak or whomever is linking Kura-araxes to PIE or R1b... Nobody is that stupid. Or perhaps the madness of "pretend not to see" in Academia is even greater that what I could phantom. "PnS" is a particular lie close to politically very left leaning people.

To be fair, what they at Max Planck must be saying is that the Hittite is related to Kura-Araxes. Which would be wrong, but not really crazy.

Now... the Shulaveri, oh boy, oh boy, its coming!

 

[CrazyDonkey]

To quote Theodosius Dobzhansky’s review of the Origin of Races:

because Coon...by arguing that “Congoids” evolved so much later than “Cacasoids the implication that they are also socially and culturally inferior can easily be read into the text.”

John P. Jackson further states:

Henry Garrett and Wesley C. George, by now very familiar to the scientific community as outspoken white supremacists, had published a letter in the New York Times on October 24, 1962...calling forth a paragraph in the introduction to Coon’s new book where he wrote, “It is a fair inference...that the subspecies which crossed the evolutionary threshold into the category of Homo sapiens the earliest have evolved the most.”

 

[MOESAN]

the Celtic question is very intriguing. But if we look at the diverse links between Italic, Celtic and Germanic (and even some kind of proto-Balto-Slavic) it seem that the Celts were the more western ones and came in touch with Germanics rather lately, after Italics. The Qw-/P- mutation seems to me a later phenomenon, with possible origin around Hungary and with maybe new elites among them in East and among the easternmost Italics, or at least in contact with these new elites (found at the phenotypic level among Celts). Celtic seems as a whole phonetically closer to Ligurian and to Lusitanian according to some scholars, other western languages of IE origin. If the Qw-/P- thing occurred around Hallstatt/Iron and also ALL Celtic came from this late and restricted horizon ina relatively fast expansion, I don't see why ALL Celtic languages are not P- dialects? Nevertheless it is not the case of Gaelics and Celtiberians.
The brittonic Picts in N-E Scotland and CNW Cumbriansdon't support too much the hypothesis of a gaelic pop between them and Cambria/Domnonia, and flight alone away before Romans.
I thought myself in a possibility of western Y-R1b-L51/L11/P312 not IE or only partly and lately IE-ised, because of the Basque question, but the evidence seems against this possiblity, or it concerned only their DF27 descendants?
the 'dinaric' brachy's people could have been first prospectors of a Y-R1b variety put in contact with the BB pottery makers of SW or W Iberia and they could have spred the 'elite' aspect of this pottery in their later expansion in central Europe, in the network of Rh?ne-Rhine-Danube knot, and passed it to other lineages of Y-R1b (L21 et pre-L21, U152 and pre-U152). I recall the old Peake considered BB ancestors were descendants of a Kurganised people of Cucuteni/Tripolye colour, passed through Carpathians and along them, southwards, towards the eastern Mediterranea; would it be so stupid (it's old, it's true!); some of them future Anatolian IE's ancestors, hybrided in some way?
&: Linguistics can be very uncertain sometimes, when speaking of evolution speed. Nothing of what we say is very solidly based. That said, it is not because texts lack in a place that people there did not speak any language.
&&: L21 is maybe born around western France, but was at first more widely spred, in contact with first U152 in East, before later U152 came to reverse the proportions here and there. It was not so anecdotical I suppose. Wessex culture (2000/1400 BC?) post Round Barrows, was well evolved, in touch with Brittany Tumuli and the Netherlands and N-Rhine, and surely L21 dominated.

 

[hrvclv]

@ Moesan.

"Linguistics can be very uncertain sometimes, when speaking of evolution speed. Nothing of what we say is very solidly based."

From Wiki : "Proto-Celtic is mostly dated to roughly 800 BC (Hallstatt C). In the first decade of the 21st century a number of scholars addressed this question using computational methods, with differing results. Gray and Atkinson estimated a date of 6100 BP (4100 BC) while Forster and Toth suggest a date of 3200 BC ±1500 years for the arrival of Celtic in Britain, but such early dates are not generally accepted."

--> Margin of uncertainty between the most extreme estimates : 3300 years !!!

 

[Pip]

I don't see the relevance, we both agree the population exploded right? Why does it matter if it came from a self-contained elite or if it was simply having a hard time

To explain why Iberian (and indeed other) men might have been suddenly wiped out by a population that previously appears to have been very limited indeed, it makes sense to question what led to the abrupt change. The answer might differ, depending on whether the population concerned was a self-contained elite or struggling to survive. If it was an elite, what stopped it from expanding and branching earlier? If it was a struggler, what changed to to allow it to take off so spectacularly?

 

[Ygorcs]

I would like to just say that I actually think Yamnaya was mostly R1a - but the elites we have found are Z2103, giving a false impression. This explains the lack of Z2103 in the region today in a much more suitable way than some replacement migration from the North by R1a folk. L23 was, imo at least, an elite metallurgical lineage wherever it went. I also think that, ATP3 or not, the origin of the population that spread L51 was West Asian L23 in origin (and Balkan M269 before that, and perhaps retaining more of this original HG ancestry due to its elite status).

IMO it's very unlikely that after hundreds of years of continuity of a certain culture with a certain elite population, ethnically distinct from the common folk, that elite's male haplogroups wouldn't explode in frequency and maybe even become dominant due to dozens of generations leaving larger offsprings. In ancient cultures male reproductive success was directly related to their status as elite freemen, and it is very unlikely that these men would've remained totally endogamous for hundreds of years next to genetically very similar people (e.g. R1a Dereivka people were not very distinct from R1b Yamna ones) they lived side by side with (see e.g. how even in the very strict caste system of India, unlikely to have existed in the Yamna culture IMHO, even many tribal populations have a lot of "Brahmin-like" Y-DNA haplogroups and some steppe admixture). I think it's hard for a powerful patriarchal elite who had a clearly very expansionist and warlike character to have preserved their Z2103 haplogroup within a small elite surrounded by totally intact R1a males.

 

[hrvclv]

To explain why Iberian (and indeed other) men might have been suddenly wiped out by a population that previously appears to have been very limited indeed, it makes sense to question what led to the abrupt change. The answer might differ, depending on whether the population concerned was a self-contained elite or struggling to survive. If it was an elite, what stopped it from expanding and branching earlier? If it was a struggler, what changed to to allow it to take off so spectacularly?

I can't figure out why you guys want those L51 people to have been a small group. Soon after 2500 BC, they are all over Central and Western Europe, Britain included. They didn't need to just move, they had to confront new populations, fight and conquer. Those places were not empty. There were long-established cultures everywhere, and population density was probably high in some Beaker and Megalithic areas. It must have taken some military might to impose oneself on such structured cultures.

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

The late steppe (Poltavka, Sintashta, Andronovo etc.) was profoundly influenced and probably linguistically and culturally changed by R1a males bringing in a much more CWC-like admixture differentiating the MLBA population from the EBA. That is why I think that Indo-Iranian, yes, did originate in the steppe, but via a mix of local steppe with a back-migration of EBA Steppe + EEF people from the CWC horizon.

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.

If I understood your hypothesis correctly, the spread of IE languages by R1b-L51 men was associated with the expansion of BBC and concomitant retraction of R1a CWC haplogroups, with non-IE L51 BB males shifting their language to that of their CWC women. If the process of formation of the Northwestern IE languages were like that, its birth would be roughly in the end of the CWC and its replacement by BB in Central/Central-Western Europe, wouldn't it? By that time the centum vs. satem proper divide would've already happened (I'm not including here other satem-like developments that happened later in other IE branches, but which were not "the" satem sound changes per se), and, if CWC is somehow associated with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian as many people believe (which would explain nicely the clear Indo-Iranian influence in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric especially), then it's probable that the languages of CWC would've been satem and a centum Northwestern IE with many pretty "archaic" features, in comparison with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, couldn't have been born out of such CWC IE branch.

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)

AFAIK the Vasconic Substratum hypothesis didn't have any level of relevant support among the broader community of linguists. It wasn't well received at all. What are the influences of Basque on Q-Celtic that P-Celtic lacks? I have heard about a supposed (and also widely rejected) Afro-Asiatic(-like) influence on Goidelic Q-Celtic, but not about Basque influence (not apart from very tenuous things that are not demonstrably "Basque" in origin, like the vigesimal system also found in other parts of Europe that were not part of the Atlantic Bronze Age). The non-IE substrate is also apparently too small to have such a significant and unquestionable presence as it has for example in Greek and in Anatolian. If R1b-L21 Ireland had adopted Celtic directly from U152 Celts, having spoken non-IE languages before, and not being subsequently replaced at all by the incoming people (not even the males), I think we could at least expect for a larger non-IE substrate.

Another thing that makes me wary of ths "non-IE Britain until the Iron Age" hypothesis is that the pre-Celtic population apparently already carried a very steppe-enriched genetic structure to the British Isles, after all the big genetic replacement happened in the islands in the Early Bronze Age, not when the Celtic language "proper" (derived from Halstatt) arrived there in the Iron Age. When they came they already met a very autosomally Celtic-like population there. I find it unlikely that that population (including L51 males) would've come straight from Iberia and without steppe linguistic and cultural heritage.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

IMO it's very unlikely that after hundreds of years of continuity of a certain culture with a certain elite population, ethnically distinct from the common folk, that elite's male haplogroups wouldn't explode in frequency and maybe even become dominant due to dozens of generations leaving larger offsprings. In ancient cultures male reproductive success was directly related to their status as elite freemen, and it is very unlikely that these men would've remained totally endogamous for hundreds of years next to genetically very similar people (e.g. R1a Dereivka people were not very distinct from R1b Yamna ones) they lived side by side with (see e.g. how even in the very strict caste system of India, unlikely to have existed in the Yamna culture IMHO, even many tribal populations have a lot of "Brahmin-like" Y-DNA haplogroups and some steppe admixture). I think it's hard for a powerful patriarchal elite who had a clearly very expansionist and warlike character to have preserved their Z2103 haplogroup within a small elite surrounded by totally intact R1a males.

Those are all fair points, what I said about the bulk of Yamnaya being R1a is ALMOST pure speculation - much more than this whole L51-Iberia theory in this thread that actually has many lines of supporting evidence, some of which a Steppe origin of L51 simply cannot answer without heavy modification to at the very least an Upper Danubian origin instead. The Z2103 samples were from elite kurgans - so we do know the ruling class was Z2103. Whether or not the masses were is entirely unknown, but I think that given an indigenous Steppe origin of IE makes the most sense, and given that I do not believe Z2103 is Steppe in origin (rather an import from the South), it follows that the Z2103 folk adopted the language of the natives they imposed themselves on. This, at least as far as seems feasible to me, could only happen if the Z2103 was a minority, as if the Z2103 invaders from the South were a majority you would expect them to carry their language with them (which I've said probably wasn't IE, as IE is Steppe and Z2103 originally isn't).

In terms of the relevance of metallurgical elites to L51 too, see below (in main reference to the Beaker folk):

"…in all primitive societies where metal work is carried out, the people concerned exist as separate tribes, castes or communities. They exist among other craftsmen but without interbreeding (…) When they traveled among the tribal societies of Central Europe, they evidently lived apart from the barbarians… Very widely the metal workers are wandering groups who trade while they work."

- Darlington

 

[hrvclv]

The Yamnaya Danube culture begins around 2950 BC, and ends (with a noticeable bridgehead in the Hungarian plain) some time around 2600 BC. Almost "instantly" afterwards, you have all those L51 (and subclades) expanding in Czechia, Poland, Germany, and further west. They literally submerge the CWC settlements and penetrate hands down into BB territory. Where they arrive, the Centum languages prevail, and have prevailed ever since.

Two options, imo :

Either these Yamna people were L51 and Z2103 tribes travelling alongside, and only the L51 moved north (with rapid founder effect - Unetice is 93.5% R1b); it would be the same kind of tribal split as later happened between U106 and P312.

Or L51 was already there (leftovers from that Surovoro offshot in Hungary ? early migrants from Repin or Sredni Stog ?) and were pushed north by the above-mentioned Yamnaya Danube expansion.

Anyway, by the time L51 moved north, they were already numerous enough to fight their way through crowds of natives.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I can't figure out why you guys want those L51 people to have been a small group. Soon after 2500 BC, they are all over Central and Western Europe, Britain included. They didn't need to just move, they had to confront new populations, fight and conquer. Those places were not empty. There were long-established cultures everywhere, and population density was probably high in some Beaker and Megalithic areas. It must have taken some military might to impose oneself on such structured cultures.

They had Bronze weapons from their expansion from Central Europe if I'm not mistaken, which is a ridiculously huge advantage - they were also really big guys (yes, this is really dumb, but Ibrahimovic would totally **** up Xavi in a fight - the skeletal remains point to height differences like this, so it is actually a valid point). Plus, I am highly sceptical they wiped out the Megalithic population in Britain for example, given the obvious phenotypical imprint they have left among the modern British populace (and clearly for this reason and others also, they didn't wipe out the existing Spanish population either). The big question, at least from my theory, is why the Beaker folk turned from a segregated metallurgical elite to a conquering body of people (akin to the actual Aryans who invaded India). I would wager that it is mainly a combination of the first point (the Beaker folk, with their physicality and expertise in metallurgy (for weapons) would have been much more suited for war than the more sedentary farmer folk), but also that they would have been invigorated by the arrival of the Corded Ware folk from the East (and someone settling near you is apparently a really common reason for migration and invasion in the opposite direction, I guess for obvious reasons).

The Beaker folk would have spread Westwards, slaughtering the males of the populations they found themselves up against and taking the settlements for their own (and then they outbreed the remaining males). This seems to be what was the case with the Los Millares culture (heavily segregated, often at war with neighbours), but for whatever reason that wasn't nearly as successful as the later set of invasions from Central Europe, and so didn't leave much of a trace (though, if you see my previous post (where I mentioned finding the missing link), some trace can be found by looking at skeletal remains. Perhaps they were more easily contented in Spain originally, for whatever reason, or perhaps it is because the rugged terrain of Spain makes invasion harder (the Beaker folk seemed to like their rivers). Regardless, the phylogeny seems to support rapid expansion in population size, which is consistent here.

 

[Ygorcs]

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.

Well, apart from Venetic and Liburnian, which do not fit well into either Celtic or Italic, and the controversial cases of Tartessian and North Picene (which some linguists have tried to establish as extremely divergent IE languages, and not non-IE languages), there is Germanic as a pretty diverged IE branch (especially in terms of syntax, with a lot of innovations) in comparison with Celtic and Italic and certainly dating to much before the Urnfield expansion. I find it extremely unlikely that, if the earliest Celtic and Italic are both dated to around 1300-1200 BC (that is, early Urnfield times), their common links with the much more divergent Pre-Proto-Germanic would've taken place just a few centuries earlier. I'd say therefore that the Germanic-Italic-Celtic-Venetic/Liburnian common ancestor might date to the late BB times. The heavy non-IE substrate in Germanic may be very early, from the times where Central European BB was spreading in Europe or even when CWC was absorbing other cultures in Northern Europe.

One should not expect a divergence among Northwestern IE languages as large as that between Italic and Indo-Iranian, for instance, because of areal features when the early proto-languages were still closer to each other and also because they certainly diverged much later than the "eastern" IE branches from Northwestern IE (Italo-Celtic and Germanic are usually assumed to have been among the first IE branches to split off from the rest).

Unfortunately I don't think we have much if any reliable and well received data about the linguistic landscape of most of Europe until the Iron Age, and all the IE languages we have written evidence of before the Latin and Germanic expansions were spoken in Southern Europe, mainly around Italy. The supposed non-IE presence in Insular Celtic is pretty speculative and as far as I have researched not well received at all by most linguists. The non-IE languages we know of were all found in Southern Europe where Central European BB apparently left a smaller genetic imprint in many areas and met more populous societies. What is certain is that much like EBA steppe-like ancestry was spread to Northern Europe a bit earlier, that same ancestral admixture was spread to Central and Western Europe later. I doubt that genetic change had nothing to do with the spread of Indo-European languages, even if part of them may have adopted a local non-IE (EEF-derived) language as theirs and thus helped spread it in Europe, too, more or less like Turkified Scythians may have helped bring more steppe ancestry to some parts of Asia in the Middle Ages.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

The Yamnaya Danube culture begins around 2950 BC, and ends (with a noticeable bridgehead in the Hungarian plain) some time around 2600 BC. Almost "instantly" afterwards, you have all those L51 (and subclades) expanding in Czechia, Poland, Germany, and further west. They literally submerge the CWC settlements and penetrate hands down into BB territory. Where they arrive, the Centum languages prevail, and have prevailed ever since.

Two options, imo :

Either these Yamna people were L51 and Z2103 tribes travelling alongside, and only the L51 moved north (with rapid founder effect - Unetice is 93.5% R1b); it would be the same kind of tribal split as later happened between U106 and P312.

Or L51 was already there (leftovers from that Surovoro offshot in Hungary ? early migrants from Repin or Sredni Stog ?) and were pushed north by the above-mentioned Yamnaya Danube expansion.

Anyway, by the time L51 moved north, they were already numerous enough to fight their way through crowds of natives.

What about this as an alternative? I've been thinking about modifying my theory to account for the differences between Germanic and Italo-Celtic (presumably, not of a common origin as late as 3000-2500BC - most seem to put the split way way back), and basically I now am leaning towards the non-IE L51 elite + IE Corded mass theory I've said a million times being the case only for U106 and Germanic, compared to a non-IE L51 elite + IE Hungarian Yamnaya mass being the case for U152 and Italo-Celtic. This actually makes more sense to me for various reasons (phenotype being a key one (the stereotypical "Nordic" Germanic looks are obviously Corded derived, and on another note this could explain some of the similarities between Germanic and Balto-Slavic), but also it VERY neatly explains the divide between Italic and Celtic (Italic is from the U152 folk who went South of the Alps upon travelling Westwards from Hungary, and Celtic from those U152 folk who went North)). Also, it's worth noting that U106 seems unrelated to the Beaker folk, and was probably an earlier departure to the East perhaps predating the Beaker tradition - this is of course consistent with the P312 "Beaker" haplogroups being grouped together separately to U106, rather than U106 being on "equal footing" with DF27, U152 and L21. Also, it is worth mentioning that Unetice seems to be at least partly U106, which makes an Eastern Poland to Eastern Germany to Denmark route for U106 the most plausible, given that the Eastern Germany region seems to have been originally dominated by U152 (even though the oldest U106 so far has been found in Scania).

EDIT: Or maybe more likely, the Beaker influences from the Vistula region haven?t been sampled and are in fact U106.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

The late steppe (Poltavka, Sintashta, Andronovo etc.) was profoundly influenced and probably linguistically and culturally changed by R1a males bringing in a much more CWC-like admixture differentiating the MLBA population from the EBA. That is why I think that Indo-Iranian, yes, did originate in the steppe, but via a mix of local steppe with a back-migration of EBA Steppe + EEF people from the CWC horizon.



If I understood your hypothesis correctly, the spread of IE languages by R1b-L51 men was associated with the expansion of BBC and concomitant retraction of R1a CWC haplogroups, with non-IE L51 BB males shifting their language to that of their CWC women. If the process of formation of the Northwestern IE languages were like that, its birth would be roughly in the end of the CWC and its replacement by BB in Central/Central-Western Europe, wouldn't it? By that time the centum vs. satem proper divide would've already happened (I'm not including here other satem-like developments that happened later in other IE branches, but which were not "the" satem sound changes per se), and, if CWC is somehow associated with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian as many people believe (which would explain nicely the clear Indo-Iranian influence in Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugric especially), then it's probable that the languages of CWC would've been satem and a centum Northwestern IE with many pretty "archaic" features, in comparison with Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, couldn't have been born out of such CWC IE branch.




AFAIK the Vasconic Substratum hypothesis didn't have any level of relevant support among the broader community of linguists. It wasn't well received at all. What are the influences of Basque on Q-Celtic that P-Celtic lacks? I have heard about a supposed (and also widely rejected) Afro-Asiatic(-like) influence on Goidelic Q-Celtic, but not about Basque influence (not apart from very tenuous things that are not demonstrably "Basque" in origin, like the vigesimal system also found in other parts of Europe that were not part of the Atlantic Bronze Age). The non-IE substrate is also apparently too small to have such a significant and unquestionable presence as it has for example in Greek and in Anatolian. If R1b-L21 Ireland had adopted Celtic directly from U152 Celts, having spoken non-IE languages before, and not being subsequently replaced at all by the incoming people (not even the males), I think we could at least expect for a larger non-IE substrate.

Another thing that makes me wary of ths "non-IE Britain until the Iron Age" hypothesis is that the pre-Celtic population apparently already carried a very steppe-enriched genetic structure to the British Isles, after all the big genetic replacement happened in the islands in the Early Bronze Age, not when the Celtic language "proper" (derived from Halstatt) arrived there in the Iron Age. When they came they already met a very autosomally Celtic-like population there. I find it unlikely that that population (including L51 males) would've come straight from Iberia and without steppe linguistic and cultural heritage.

Firstly, check out my immediately prev. post for my updated theory - basically, U106+Corded = Germanic, U152+Hungarian Yamnaya = Italo-Celtic (I am completely set on this and will never change my mind unless aDNA contradicts it, it just fits so massively well).

About your point with Corded Ware - I'm of the opinion Corded Ware left the Steppe before satemisation occurred, and that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are derived from other R1a folk that left the Steppe after satemisation took place.

And about the Vasconic substratum hypothesis - most linguists don't believe it in its extreme form (which I think is as crazy as after the LGM, Vasconic speakers spread out from the SW and covered at least a huge chunk of Europe), but the Goidelic substratum hypothesis is pretty well regarded, and the leading candidate for the substraum iirc is Vasconic. EDIT: Actually, I'm not too sure about this - all I know is that a non-IE substratum amongst Goidelic is a widely held view. The P/Q split isn't very important, though, as it happened in Italic too, which suggests that (and this bit isn't just me talking, but linguists) the change was bound to happen at some point somewhere, and the Q regions were more conservative (with both Italic and Celtic, the Qs were the ones who seem to have departed first (the Insular Celts and the Latino-Faliscans - the Britons being P can be explained by more recent contact with Gauls, as is known to be the case)).

With the Steppe-enriched Brits (which I am pretty confident isn't over 50% as is suggested, as it so is not fair to just assume all EHG+CHG is of Steppe origin - take the example of Sicilians for example, who have plenty of CHG not of Steppe origin (and in my L51 theory, with it coming from the Middle East, you would expect CHG)), I put that down in good part to the aforementioned point about e.g. the CHG, but also to the fact that there would be some low amount of EHG anyway given in my theory M269 expanded from the Balkans into West Asia to form L23 (sailing to Iberia to form L51), and this M269 I am presuming to be similar to the Iron Gates HGs (so for simplicity's sake, some combination of WHG and EHG).

Any remainder of the Steppe that cannot be accounted for through assuming existing CHG and EHG before the L21 contact with IE would be put down to mixing with the Corded folk (BUT more "touch and go" than residing amongst a whole bunch of them - not very scientific I know, but it makes sense, just as Frenchmen in the Southwest have more Spanish influence despite retaining the French language). This can be seen in the fact that with the Rheinish Beaker and British Beaker (of Rheinish origin ultimately) crania analysed by Coon, there was a combination of Corded type very strong dolichocephals (accounting for about 25%, and about 10 points lower in terms of cranial index, which is bloody huge and basically confirms they are distinct from the rest of the samples) and Beaker type brachycephals (accounting for the rest, ignoring the contribution from the original Borreby population) - the Corded type makes a decent impression, but it isn't the majority as would presumably be needed for it to be plausible for adoption of the language these Corded folk spoke. If you were to try and average out the CIs, it would roughly approximate modern Celtic CIs (a mesocephalic index). HOWEVER, the IE folk from later periods (for example the Unetice folk) were very dolichocephalic (usually, only marginally higher CIs than Corded Ware folk), suggesting a far greater Corded influence - consistent with the Corded folk making up a large chunk of the population, and so making the language adoption theory feasible in that particular case. This should be obvious, though - the Corded folk, deep into their territory, didn't just disappear, even if the males were wiped out. They simply became part of a new culture.

 

[Ygorcs]

Firstly, check out my immediately prev. post for my updated theory - basically, U106+Corded = Germanic, U152+Hungarian Yamnaya = Italo-Celtic (I am completely set on this and will never change my mind unless aDNA contradicts it, it just fits so massively well).

Interesting, despite our many differences in the interpretation of the data and favorite hypotheses we ended up reaching a similar conclusion: that Germanic probably resulted from a linguistic/cultural and genetic mix of BB, mainly R1b-U152, people with CWC, mainly R1a, people, resulting in a CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language. In my understanding, as I think Rhine BB R1b people were basically early Northwestern IE, I think that would explain neatly the unusual situation of Germanic in that it shares a lot with Italo-Celtic, but is also closer to Balto-Slavic (especially Baltic) than the former, and the heavy non-IE substrate may have come from the prolonged coexistence with non-IE cultures in Northern Europe with for example GAC and remnants of Northern Funnelbeaker right amidst CWC areas for centuries. IMHO Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian represented an eastern CWC language/dialect under different influences. I think the higher EEF and WHG in R1a-prevalent MLBA Steppe societies could be well explained by these R1a people coming from CWC areas of Northeastern Europe, partially replacing the former mainly R1b EMBA Steppe people.

 

[Ygorcs]

With the Steppe-enriched Brits (which I am pretty confident isn't over 50% as is suggested, as it so is not fair to just assume all EHG+CHG is of Steppe origin - take the example of Sicilians for example, who have plenty of CHG not of Steppe origin (and in my L51 theory, with it coming from the Middle East, you would expect CHG)), I put that down in good part to the aforementioned point about e.g. the CHG, but also to the fact that there would be some low amount of EHG anyway given in my theory M269 expanded from the Balkans into West Asia to form L23 (sailing to Iberia to form L51), and this M269 I am presuming to be similar to the Iron Gates HGs (so for simplicity's sake, some combination of WHG and EHG).

Do you know if Western Europeans in the BB and particularly Atlantic Bronze Age areas have noticeably more CHG than EHG? That's what I would expect if the L51 and BB expansion happened with West Asian-derived people (mostly men, let's presume) arriving in Iberia. They'd probably have carried EEF with them, but EEF was already very dominant elsewhere in Western/Northwestern Europe, so the novel factor would've been their CHG. The resulting populations would've become EEF+CHG with arguably little EHG until then. Much later, the IE-speaking people who brought Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages would've brought steppe ancestry with EHG and also very rich in CHG, adding to the EEF+CHG mix already in place due to the huge success of L51 lineages and of the BB phenomenon. Therefore, we should expect that Western Europeans like Briton should have a reasonably higher CHG-to-EHG ratio than expected if the vast majority of these admixtures had come with steppe-derived and overwhelmingly IE-speaking people in the BA and IA. Is it the actual case, though?

As for the case of the British population, I was referring to the finding that there was a huge genetic replacement in the BA broadly connected with the expansion of BB into Britain. AFAIK the previous population of Britain was not rich at all in either CHG or EHG, it was an overwhelmingly EEF (WHG+ANF) population. The population after that profound demographic shift was already very different and full of "steppe signal", that is, it presumably saw a large peak in CHG and EHG that did not exist earlier. So the population that brought BB and L21 (already found in the British Isles much before the supposed arrival of Celtic) probably had a lot of steppe or steppe-like combination of CHG and EHG, because there is no indication that the population replacement took place with two totally different populations settling Britain at roughly the same period.

 

[berun]

From my perspective, which follows the mainstream academic thinking, it was Urnfielders which brought Celtic languages in Iberia, and that is quite clear by the Alpine origin of the new funerary practices (incineration and diposition of urns), pottery style and weaponry among others. If Celtic is dated by the dates of the expansion of Urnfielders it reinforces the archaeological or cultural abrupt change.

For BB carrying IE I can't see it, the reflux affected only pottery styles, and maybe autosomals if there was a trade net (involving slaves) big enough to carry women from Central Europe (African Arabs buyed 7 centuries ago European women per example).

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Interesting, despite our many differences in the interpretation of the data and favorite hypotheses we ended up reaching a similar conclusion: that Germanic probably resulted from a linguistic/cultural and genetic mix of BB, mainly R1b-U152, people with CWC, mainly R1a, people, resulting in a CWC-ized BB language or a BB-ized CWC language. In my understanding, as I think Rhine BB R1b people were basically early Northwestern IE, I think that would explain neatly the unusual situation of Germanic in that it shares a lot with Italo-Celtic, but is also closer to Balto-Slavic (especially Baltic) than the former, and the heavy non-IE substrate may have come from the prolonged coexistence with non-IE cultures in Northern Europe with for example GAC and remnants of Northern Funnelbeaker right amidst CWC areas for centuries. IMHO Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian represented an eastern CWC language/dialect under different influences. I think the higher EEF and WHG in R1a-prevalent MLBA Steppe societies could be well explained by these R1a people coming from CWC areas of Northeastern Europe, partially replacing the former mainly R1b EMBA Steppe people.

I'm guessing you meant U106 instead of U152 for Germanic. Also, if you put Northwestern IE as being Germano-Italo-Celtic, isn't it way too late for that to be the case for the Rheinish BB folk? That would put the split between Germanic and Italo-Celtic at after 3000 BC, which I'm pretty sure was a lot earlier than that. A separate origin of Germanic and Italo-Celtic with CW and Hungarian Yamnaya respectively makes more sense to me, as that would put their common ancestor back to the Steppe quite a long time ago.

I haven't looked into it, but I don't entirely agree with your idea of R1a-invaders replacing the R1b-folk on the Steppe in terms of the bulk of the population, as I don't think R1b was the bulk of the population (but I am not so sure about this) - but in terms of a change in elite, yes, I agree they replaced them. About the increased EEF and WHG point - what you said makes sense to me, but I haven't looked into it much. Whatever the case, I still stand by my satemisation being a late Steppe feature claim (rather than an indigenous R1a feature (compared to the original R1b centum) as I think you're suggesting).

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Do you know if Western Europeans in the BB and particularly Atlantic Bronze Age areas have noticeably more CHG than EHG? That's what I would expect if the L51 and BB expansion happened with West Asian-derived people (mostly men, let's presume) arriving in Iberia. They'd probably have carried EEF with them, but EEF was already very dominant elsewhere in Western/Northwestern Europe, so the novel factor would've been their CHG. The resulting populations would've become EEF+CHG with arguably little EHG until then. Much later, the IE-speaking people who brought Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages would've brought steppe ancestry with EHG and also very rich in CHG, adding to the EEF+CHG mix already in place due to the huge success of L51 lineages and of the BB phenomenon. Therefore, we should expect that Western Europeans like Briton should have a reasonably higher CHG-to-EHG ratio than expected if the vast majority of these admixtures had come with steppe-derived and overwhelmingly IE-speaking people in the BA and IA. Is it the actual case, though?

As for the case of the British population, I was referring to the finding that there was a huge genetic replacement in the BA broadly connected with the expansion of BB into Britain. AFAIK the previous population of Britain was not rich at all in either CHG or EHG, it was an overwhelmingly EEF (WHG+ANF) population. The population after that profound demographic shift was already very different and full of "steppe signal", that is, it presumably saw a large peak in CHG and EHG that did not exist earlier. So the population that brought BB and L21 (already found in the British Isles much before the supposed arrival of Celtic) probably had a lot of steppe or steppe-like combination of CHG and EHG, because there is no indication that the population replacement took place with two totally different populations settling Britain at roughly the same period.

Well if ATP3 is worth anything, it was about 1/3 CHG, 1/3 EEF and 1/3 European Hunter-Gatherer of some form (I'm not sure how much WHG and how much EHG), according to Genetiker at least. Maciamo looking at this basically described it (excluding its EEF ancestry) as Steppe-derived but with enriched CHG - though I think this is just an illusion, and instead it was just originally WHG+EHG that moved into West Asia. The Beakers even before CW could also have had decent EHG with them, if Hajji Firuz is legitimately dated (yes, it's Z2103, but if correctly dated it suggests L23 had a sizeable chunk of EHG too, which of course L51 is descended from. I haven't put much faith on Hajji Firuz though, but if correctly dated it is obviously a huge find). I also personally think, though, that the Dinaric morphology is enough to at least point to a West Asian origin.

And yeah, my opinion on Beakers from Britain is the same as everyone else, insofar as they are basically Rheinish Beakers. I do think that the Rheinish Beakers would have had a shot-in-the-arm Steppe infusion from the arrival of the Corded Ware culture. I guess it makes sense that British Beakers would be somewhat more CHG than EHG though (assuming the L23 prototype from West Asia was more CHG than EHG), but my point was more that I don't trust in autosomal analysis too heavily, as there are so many possibilities for sources of ancestry as broad as, for example, CHG.