Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Euro

Cato

Regular Member
Messages
537
Reaction score
167
Points
43
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/35/eabi6941

Europe’s prehistory oversaw dynamic and complex interactions of diverse societies, hitherto unexplored at detailed regional scales. Studying 271 human genomes dated ~4900 to 1600 BCE from the European heartland, Bohemia, we reveal unprecedented genetic changes and social processes. Major migrations preceded the arrival of “steppe” ancestry, and at ~2800 BCE, three genetically and culturally differentiated groups coexisted. Corded Ware appeared by 2900 BCE, were initially genetically diverse, did not derive all steppe ancestry from known Yamnaya, and assimilated females of diverse backgrounds. Both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker groups underwent dynamic changes, involving sharp reductions and complete replacements of Y-chromosomal diversity at ~2600 and ~2400 BCE, respectively, the latter accompanied by increased Neolithic-like ancestry. The Bronze Age saw new social organization emerge amid a ≥40% population turnover.



Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk
 
Among all the low quality genetic papers coming out recently... this one is a gold mine. Totally outclasses some of its peers.

I feel like the way they put it a 3d grader would get it.

For instance:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/lens/advances/7/35/eabi6941#figures

Edit: Plus 177 references always is a good signifier a paper is going to be a banger.
Haven't read the whole of it yet, but I trust my gut on this.
 
This assertion caught my eyes:


We observe a closer phylogenetic relationship between the Y chromosome lineages found in early CW and BB than in either late CW or Yamnaya and BB. R1b-L151 is the most common Y-lineage among early CW males (6 of 11, 55%) and one branch ancestral to R1b-P312 (Fig. 4A), the dominant Y-lineage in BB (5). Although it is not possible to determine whether the P312 mutation(s) occurred in one of the early CW R1b-L151 males from Bohemia, we note that most Bohemian BB males are further derived at R1b-L2/S116 (R1b1a1a2b1), in contrast to BB males from England, several of whom are derived at R1b-L21(R1b1a1a2c1), showing that English and Bohemian BB males cannot be descendants of one another, but rather diversified in parallel. A scenario of R1b-P312 originating somewhere between Bohemia and England, possibly in the vicinity of the Rhine (66, 67), followed by an expansion northwest and east is compatible with our current understanding of the phylogeography of ancient R1b-L151–derived lineages.

Correct me if I‘m wrong, but wouldn't this be the first found R1b-L151, (ancestral to R1b-P312) among Corded Ware males?
 
so the arrival of steppe ancestry in Europe was just one of the many genetic turnovers which happened all the time, also among diverse neolithic tribes themselves
 
This assertion caught my eyes:




Correct me if I‘m wrong, but wouldn't this be the first found R1b-L151, (ancestral to R1b-P312) among Corded Ware males?

Is there some table with dates and Y-DNA of the samples?
 
Is there some table with dates and Y-DNA of the samples?


NO E :unsure:


BLS001.A0101 Female 639269 K1a3a
BLS002.A0101 Female 741865 K1a3a
BNL001.A0101 Female 89038 167312 U5b2a2a
BNL002.C0101 Male 344750 647927 U5a1c1 I2a2
BNL003.A0101 Male 378005 713707 U5b2a2a I2a2
BNL004.A0101 Male 390184 732205 T2b R1a1a1b~

BNL005.A0101 Female 398535 746912 J1c
BNL006.A0101 Male 302615 571142 K1c1 I2a2a
BNL007.A0101 Male 165957 311657 U3a1c I2a2

BNL008.B0101 Female 392330 735018 J1c
BNL009.A0101 Male 220334 U5a1b R1b1a1b1a1a2 - P312
BNL009.C0101 Male 447 821 T ?

BNL010.C0101 Female 119438 222201 K1b1a1
BRZ001.B0101 Male 60461 L3 I?
BRZ002.A0101 Female 634071 K2a
BUT001 no DNA
BUT002.A0101 Female 240661 U5a1a1
BUT003.A0101 Male 429364 H3v R1a1a1~ (xZ651)
CAH001 no DNA
CAH002 no DNA
CAH003 no DNA
CAH004 no DNA
CAH005 Male 693528 R1b1 R1a1a1~ (xZ647, xZ650, xZ651)
CAH006 no DNA
CAH007 no DNA
CAH008 no DNA
CAH009 no DNA
CAH010 Female 793971 T2a1b1a
CAH011 no DNA
CHL001.A0101
CHL001.B0101 Female 735513 U2e2a1
CHL002.A0101
CHL002.B0101 Male 419214 H11a7 I2a (xI2a1a, xI2a1b, xI2a2b)
CHL003.A0101
CHL003.B0101 Male 618242 U5a1g2 R1a1a1b~
CHL004.A0101
CHL004.B0101
CHL005.A0101 Male 190420 U5a2d1a R1b1a1b?
CHL006.A0101 Female 418666 U5a1b
CHL007.A0101 Female 187850 U5a1a1
CHL008.A0101
CHL008.B0101 Male 381211 K1b2a R1a1a1b
HOL001.B0101 Female 465934 881282 T2c1d2
HOL002.A0101 Female 406720 762490 J2b1a2
HOL004.B0101 Female 283818 529465 V
HOP001.B0101 Male 504071 968768 J1c2r R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)
HOP002.A0101 Female 63084 118965 U5b
HOP003.A0101 Male 435659 833505 J1c7 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1
HOP004.A0101 Female 423073 792913 HV
I14167 Male 788453 U5b3 I2a1a2a
I14168 Female 752117 U5b2b3a
I14169 Male 833822 N1a1a1a2 R1b - V88
I14170 Male 823853 H+16129 I2a1a2~

I14171 Female 807073 H3
I14172 Female 821085 U3a1
I14173 Male 852452 K1a+195 R1b - V88
I14174 Male 809710 H C1a2

I14175 Female 807294 J1c2
I14176 Male 801332 K1a4a1 R1b - V88
I16121 Female 604494 T2c1d1
I16122 Female 546571 V
I7186 Female 900553 T2c1d1
I7187 Male 898430 T2c1d+152 I2a1b1b1a
I7188 Female 897523 N1a1a
I7189 Female 888649 W5
I7191 Female 909669 U5b3
I7192 Male 911584 J1c1 G2a2a1a
I7193 Female 874745 R1b1
I7194 Female 890935 K1a3a
JIN001 no DNA
KNE001.B0101 Female 300359 557804 T2b23
KNE002.A0101 Female 297518 559342 T2a1b1a1
KNE003.B0101 Female 417492 779875 J1c
KNE004.A0101 Female 168025 313498 T2b23
KNE005.B0101 Female 99550 185765 T2b23
KNE006.A0101 Female 77657 146038 K2a11
KNE007.A0101 Female 264487 494219 T1a1
KO1001.B0101 Female 154310 289076 HV
KO1002.A0101 Male 221443 415790 X2b4 R1b1a1b1a1a (xZ2105)
KO1003.B0101 Male 459030 872947 HV R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)
KO1004.B0101 Male 435486 826312 T2b11 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)

KO1005.B0101 Female 354597 665936 H1
KO1006.A0101 Female 389056 729925 H17
KO1007.B0101 Male 310324 607630 R1b1 R1a1a1b1
KO1008.A0101 Male 230818 451619 U2e2a1c R1b1a1b1a1a2b1

KO1009.A0101 Female 634619 U5a1a1
KO1010.A0101 Female 467508 H1b
KO1011.A0101 Female 461031 W1c
KO1012.A0101 no dna
KO1013.A0101 Female 607876 H3d
KO1014.A0101 Male 525482 HV R1a1a1b~
KO1015.A0101 Female 500111 U5a1i1
KO1016.A0101 Female 588519 HV
KO7001.A0201 Male 269639 547491 I4a R1a1a1b1~
KO7002.B0101 Female 231586 464394 H24
KO7003.A0201 Male 44778 90028 U5a1b1 R1a1~
KOP001.B0101 Female 222015 440516 U3a1
KOP002.B0101 Male 61313 123584 U5a2b R1b1a1b
KOP003.B0101 Male 10055 19548 HV15 ?

MIB001.A0101 Male 240922 472282 T2b R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103)
MIB002.B0101 Female 363257 697046 U4b1b1
MIB003.B0101 Female 112545 215777 K1a1b2a
MIB004.B0101 Male 245328 485396 R1b1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103)
MIB005.A0101 Female 198921 392229 H2a1b
MIB024.A0101 Female 217521 H1b
MIB028.B0101 Female 806087 U5b2a2c
MIB034.B0101 Female 837872 H7b
MIG010.B0101 Female 313033 T2e
MIG011.A0101 Female 452830 R1b
MIG012.B0101 Male 316598 J1c1b1a G2a2b2a
MIS001.A0201 Male 345584 681396 U5b1c1a R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2105)
MIS001.A0301 Male 363027 711584 U5b1c1a R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2105)
MIS002.A0201 Male 342299 675787 T2c1d1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)
MIS002.A0301 Male 339462 667168 T2c1d1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2105)
MIS003.B0201 Male 734 1405 ?
MIS003.B0301 Male 2385 4774 HV9a ?
MIS004.A0101 Male 279953 H17 I2

MIS005.A0101 no dna
MIS006.A0101 Male 120020 L1'2'3'4'5'6 R1b1a1b1a1a2 (xZ2103)
OBR001.B0101 Female 81908 165018 HV6
OBR002.A0101 Female 42151 85479 HV6
OBR003.A0101 Male 298 618 U5a1b1 ?
OBR003.A0102 Male 182 368 ?
OBR003.A0103 Male 145 317 ?

OBR004.B0101 Female 211031 410831 K2a5
OHR001.A0101 Male 314342 H R1b1a1b1b - Z2103 (same as Yamnaya)
OHR002.B0101 Female 788630 R1a1a
PDA001.A0101 Female 294672 569231 U5a1b1
PDA002.A0101 Male 367643 717836 U5a1b1 I2a2
PDA003.A0101 Female 310799 600164 U5a1b1
PDA004.A0101 Female 329805 637353 U5a1b1
PDA005.A0101 Male 346860 669281 X2c1 I2a2a
PMI001.A0301 Female 359777 695252 H6a2
PMI002.A0101
PMI002.B0301 Female 1110 2177 H6a
PMI003.B0301 Female 200295 385796 N1a1a1a2
PMI004.B0301 Male 45326 89795 H2a2b I (xI1)
PMI006.B0301 Male 179467 353272 U5a1g1 I2a1b1~ (xI2a2)
PMI007.A0301 Male 2397 4787 U5b3h ?

PMI008.A0301 Female 1905 3786 N
PMI009.A0301 Male 64909 128235 T2b R1b1a1b
PMI010.A0101 Female 460729 H13a1a
PMI011.A0301 Female 7620 14931 U2e2a1a
PMI012.B0301 Female 64464 124309 J2b1a
PNL001.B0101 Male U5a2a1 R1b1a1b1a1a1 (xZ2105)
PNL001.C0101 Male 637153 U5a2a1 R1b1a1b1a1a (xZ2103, xZ2105)

PRE001.A0101 Female 815686 U5b2c
PRU001.A0101 Female 261990 507443 HV9
PRU002.A0101 Female 340602 653047 K1a3a
PRU003.B0101 Female 304912 586800 T2b
PRU004.B0101 Male 312570 600470 H4a1a1a R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2105)
PRU005.B0101 Female 172704 336129 N1a1a1a2
PRU006.B0101 Male 115775 227328 T2b I2a1a
ROU001.A0101 Female 628211 U5a1g2
ROU002.A0101 Female 426496 U5b1c2
ROU003.A0101 Female 512388 U5b1c2
ROU004.A0101 Female 591216 U5b1c2
ROU005.A0101 Male 445892 HV6 I2
ROU006.merged Female 657097 H24
ROU007.A0101 Male 646592 I4a I2a2
TIS001.A0101 Female 38300 76264 K1b1a1
TIS001.B0101 Male 2706 5274 H5a1
TIS002.A0101 Female 287020 557179 H5a1
TIS002.B0101 Female 363826 697126 H5a1
TOU001.A0101 Male 831514 HV0a G2a2b2a1
TUC001.A0101 Female 278239 527231 V3c
TUC002.A0101 Female 273556 528368 J1c1
TUC003.A0101 Male 283341 550148 J1c1b H2
TUC004.A0101 Male 301303 582261 V3c H2
TUC005.B0101 Male 277010 526637 H1j G2a2b2a1

TUC006.B0101 Female 289950 546762 H1e1a
TUC007.B0101 Female 442727 836863 K1a1
VLI004.B0101 Female 348808 672014 U8b1b1
VLI005 no DNA
VLI006.B0101 Male 24906 49409 H I2a
VLI007.B0101 Female 276724 537090 U5a2a1
VLI008.A0101 Female 318670 617025 H1b3
VLI008.A0201 Female H1b3
VLI009.B0101 Female 536384 U5a2a1
VLI010.A0101 Female 338353 647216 H5a1
VLI011.B0101 Male 355056 690455 W3a1c R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)
VLI012 no DNA
VLI013 no DNA
VLI014 no DNA
VLI015.A0101 Male 41786 83269 N2 R1b1a1b (xZ2103)
VLI016.B0101 Male 357645 695017 K1b1a1 R1a1a1~ (xZ649, xZ650)

VLI017.B0101 Female 358804 687968 X2b
VLI018.B0101 Female 3182 6479 R11'B6
VLI019.B0101 Male 218593 432959 H5c R1a1a1~ (xZ651)
VLI020.A0101 Female 335118 642477 I4a
VLI021 no DNA
VLI022.A0101 Female 130381 258020 U4b1b1
VLI023 no DNA
VLI024.A0101 Male 340458 667215 K1a1 R1b1a1b1a1a2b1 (xZ2103, xZ2105)
VLI025.A0101 Male 77013 H5a2 R1b1a1b1a1a2 - P312

VLI026.B0101 Female 306105 594164 X2b
VLI027 no DNA
VLI028.A0101 Male 42012 84342 J1c R1b1a1b1a1a2
VLI029.B0101 Male 363427 706388 W3a1c R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a4a1 (xZ2105)
VLI030.B0101 Male 82061 165001 U2e1b R1b1a1b1a1a2b1
VLI031.B0101 Male 184549 366167 J2b1a R1b1b - V88
VLI032.A0101 Male 159653 315879 V R1b1b - V88
VLI033.B0101 Male 59406 118902 H1 R1b1b - V88

VLI039.A0101 Female 342408 660013 T2b
VLI040 no DNA
VLI041 no DNA
VLI042.A0101 Male 106454 211291 U5a1g2 I2a2
VLI045.B0101 Female 335939 648053 J1c1b1a
VLI046.A0101 Female 56581 111455 H3
VLI047.B0101 Female 255164 495673 T2c1d1a
VLI048 no DNA
VLI049 no DNA
VLI050.A0101 Female 366129 705679 H7a1
VLI051.B0101 Male 232148 455142 U5a1d1 R1a1a1b1a2b
VLI053.A0101 Female 15607 30889 K1b1a1
VLI054.A0101 Male 6948 13817 HV0 I2a1b?
VLI058.A0101 Female 233300 455225 W1i
VLI060.A0101 Female 220606 429498 T1a1
VLI061.A0101 Female 365453 700579 V
VLI062 no DNA
VLI063 no DNA
VLI064.A0101 Female 155597 306956 W1i
VLI065.A0101 Female 193944 382767 H2b
VLI066 no dna
VLI067.A0102 Female T1a1
VLI067.B0102 Female 731150 T1a1
VLI068 no dna
VLI069.B0101 Female 5909 UNK not enough data
VLI070.A0101 Female 327032 U2e1
VPR001.A0101 Male 752540 U5a2d G2a2b2a1
ZEL001.B0101 Female 352076 N1'5
 
Last edited:
Is there some table with dates and Y-DNA of the samples?





I‘ve looked up the supplementary data, Table S4 has a long list with Y-DNA of the samples. P312/ L2/S139 is the most dominant hp. Plus, I've counted the listed y-DNA.

1xR1b – P312/ U152,L2/S139, DF1/L513/S215
37x R1b– P312/L2/S139
3xR1b – P312


2xR1b- U106
5xR1b – V88


4xR1b- L151/xU106,xP312


1xR1b- Z2103/Z2109


4xR1b- L151/xU106,xP312


1xR1b- L151


1xR1b*
1xR1b– M269 lowcoverage

1xR1a*low coverage

12xR1a- M417 (xZ645)
7xR1a- Z645


5xI2a2
1xI2a2a2
1x2xI2a1
1xI2a1b1b1a

1xH2
2xH2a1

3xG2a2

2xG2a2a1
1xG2a2a1a


2xT1a1

1xQ1b2a

1xC1a2
 
I‘ve looked up the supplementary data, Table S4 has a long list with Y-DNA of the samples. P312/ L2/S139 is the most dominant hp. Plus, I've counted the listed y-DNA.

1xR1b – P312/ U152,L2/S139, DF1/L513/S215
37x R1b– P312/L2/S139
3xR1b – P312


2xR1b- U106
5xR1b – V88


4xR1b- L151/xU106,xP312


1xR1b- Z2103/Z2109


4xR1b- L151/xU106,xP312


1xR1b- L151


1xR1b*
1xR1b– M269 lowcoverage

1xR1a*low coverage

12xR1a- M417 (xZ645)
7xR1a- Z645


5xI2a2
1xI2a2a2
1x2xI2a1
1xI2a1b1b1a

1xH2
2xH2a1

3xG2a2

2xG2a2a1
1xG2a2a1a


2xT1a1

1xQ1b2a

1xC1a2


are these all from table 4 all from neolithic period and WHG and not part of the crux of the paper which looks at mainly EHG ?

The 2 x T1a1 ( not my branch )

are neolithic samples from Bohemia

KOB003 - T1a1 mtdna N 15yo

KOB007 - T1a1 mtdna U5 45yo

maybe father and son
 
I've been harping on the fact that Corded Ware does not really present as a "Yamnaya Indo-European" group archaeologically, and doesn't fit culturally the David Anthony and internet hobbyists vision of horse riding, raiding, metallurgists of the steppe for about ten years. Corded Ware barely had any copper at all, much less bronze metallurgy, and depended on stone weapons. They traveled by oxen drawn carts. There are barely any traces of horses on the other hand. They borrowed the wrist guards as well, and their own pottery was terrible. Heck, they didn't even have decent pottery until their women from "Old Europe" made it.

All the anthrogenica types and eurogenes said I was crazy, although the latter must have been tipped off, as usual, because he changed his tone recently from his previous position that Corded Ware was virtually Yamnaya, descended from them. That has been Kristiansen's position too. Also wrong.

When are population geneticists and internet hobbyists going to start paying attention to archaeology???

Well, now there's genetic proof for why Corded Ware was never a good fit for Yamnaya culture, although now everybody and his cousin are saying they KNEW it wasn't a good fit. Yeah, right. That's why I had to debate and debate it over and over again and take all the hate from the usual suspects. Corded Ware weren't "the" Indo-Europeans; they were Indo-Europeanized "forest" dwellers as I insisted. The Yamnaya, with their 40-60% CHG/Iranian were the ones who put together the "Indo-European" package.

I also proposed that for the Corded Ware people and subsequent samples to have so little CHG/Iranian farmer meant that IF they were descended from Yamnaya there must have been migrations from the Northeast of hunter-gatherer types to dilute that signature ancestry of the Indo-Europeans. That went over really well. :) Seems to be the case, though.

How well I also remember the constant bickering for years and years about which haplogroup would have the "glory" of being REALLY Indo-European, R1b or R1a. I long ago stopped paying attention to such idiocy. Now, I'll have to go back and re-read the paper more carefully, but it seems R1a was a late arrival from the northeast, yes? Nothing really to do with the Indo-Europeans at all. My goodness; how will some people bear the heartbreak!
 
Simply looking at the dominant Y-DNA allready shows Yamna/CW/Bell Beaker are not the same, alltough this paper seems to suggest that the origins of CW and Bell Beaker are entangled.
Yet all 3 have the same autosomal component + some admixture with late European neolithic/chalcolithic.
This autosomal component was formed prior to the Yamna era, it was formed during late Khvalynsk.
It is very likely that the PIE lived between the Samara bend (EHG) and the northern Caucasus (CHG) at the time when the steppe DNA was formed.
R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 were amongst them.
 
It's a pitty we don't have more resolution on the I2a2 Unetice samples.
I-L38 has been identified with German Urnfield and I strongly suspect it's origin is Unetice.
It expanded around 4500 ybp, the same time as R1b-P312.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-S2524/
 
I've been harping on the fact that Corded Ware does not really present as a "Yamnaya Indo-European" group archaeologically, and doesn't fit culturally the David Anthony and internet hobbyists vision of horse riding, raiding, metallurgists of the steppe for about ten years. Corded Ware barely had any copper at all, much less bronze metallurgy, and depended on stone weapons. They traveled by oxen drawn carts. There are barely any traces of horses on the other hand. They borrowed the wrist guards as well, and their own pottery was terrible. Heck, they didn't even have decent pottery until their women from "Old Europe" made it.

All the anthrogenica types and eurogenes said I was crazy, although the latter must have been tipped off, as usual, because he changed his tone recently from his previous position that Corded Ware was virtually Yamnaya, descended from them. That has been Kristiansen's position too. Also wrong.

When are population geneticists and internet hobbyists going to start paying attention to archaeology???

Well, now there's genetic proof for why Corded Ware was never a good fit for Yamnaya culture, although now everybody and his cousin are saying they KNEW it wasn't a good fit. Yeah, right. That's why I had to debate and debate it over and over again and take all the hate from the usual suspects. Corded Ware weren't "the" Indo-Europeans; they were Indo-Europeanized "forest" dwellers as I insisted. The Yamnaya, with their 40-60% CHG/Iranian were the ones who put together the "Indo-European" package.

I also proposed that for the Corded Ware people and subsequent samples to have so little CHG/Iranian farmer meant that IF they were descended from Yamnaya there must have been migrations from the Northeast of hunter-gatherer types to dilute that signature ancestry of the Indo-Europeans. That went over really well. :) Seems to be the case, though.

How well I also remember the constant bickering for years and years about which haplogroup would have the "glory" of being REALLY Indo-European, R1b or R1a. I long ago stopped paying attention to such idiocy. Now, I'll have to go back and re-read the paper more carefully, but it seems R1a was a late arrival from the northeast, yes? Nothing really to do with the Indo-Europeans at all. My goodness; how will some people bear the heartbreak!


The thing is, that professional geneticists based on their data concluded that Corded Ware folks were the direct descendants of the Indo-European Yamnaya who spread the Indo-European language all over Europe. According to the Haak et al. paper, the Corded Ware population from ca. 2400 BCE were genetically at least 75% similar to the Yamnaya population of the steppes, suggesting massive migrations from the steppes as a source for the Corded Ware culture. If amateurs questioned this conclusion from peer viewed papers, they were told you can't argue against science. Anyway, when going by this current study, an early group of Yamnaya or a group that was assimilated became the Forest Steppe people who gave rise to the Corded Ware. However, another possibility is that the archaeologically and historically defined Corded Ware people were not a coherent genetic group.

 
R1a maybe not that old in central
Europe

F4.large.jpg



But it is extremely old in russia up untill now
There some EHG remains who carry
It the fatyanovo paper found 10,000 years
Old remains in russia who was r1a
:unsure:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535/tab-figures-data
 
Last edited:
R1a maybe not that old in central
Europe
But it is extremely old in russia up untill now
There some EHG remains who carry
It the fatyanovo paper found 10,000 years
Old remains in russia who was r1a:unsure:
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535/tab-figures-data

indeed, and it is the only R1a sample that old
and R1a-YP4141 was detected in comb ceramic culture


Comb_Ceramic_Culture.jpg


R1a probably arrived in northeastern Europe around the time it started splitting 18200 ybp
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/

it probably entered from Central Asia or Siberia
 
The thing is, that professional geneticists based on their data concluded that Corded Ware folks were the direct descendants of the Indo-European Yamnaya who spread the Indo-European language all over Europe. According to the Haak et al. paper, the Corded Ware population from ca. 2400 BCE were genetically at least 75% similar to the Yamnaya population of the steppes, suggesting massive migrations from the steppes as a source for the Corded Ware culture. If amateurs questioned this conclusion from peer viewed papers, they were told you can't argue against science. Anyway, when going by this current study, an early group of Yamnaya or a group that was assimilated became the Forest Steppe people who gave rise to the Corded Ware. However, another possibility is that the archaeologically and historically defined Corded Ware people were not a coherent genetic group.


that is what the paper suggests, isn't it?
at first CW was more diverse, but later on, one line became more and more dominant

In addition to autosomal genetic changes through time, we observe
a sharp reduction in Y-chromosomal diversity going from five
different lineages in early CW to a dominant (single) lineage in late
CW (Fig. 4A). We used forward simulations to explore the demographic
scenarios that could account for the observed reduction in
Y-chromosomal diversity. Performing 1 million simulations of a
population with a starting frequency of R1a-M417(xZ645) centered
around the observed starting frequency in Bohemia_CW_Early
(3 of 11, 0.27), we assessed the plausibility of this lineage reaching
the observed frequency in Bohemia_CW_Late (10 of 11, 0.91) in the
time frame of 500 years under a model of a closed population and
random mating (Materials and Methods). We reject the “neutral”
hypothesis, i.e., that this change in frequency occurred by chance,
given a wide range of plausible population sizes. Instead, our results
suggest that R1a-M417(xZ645) was subject to a nonrandom increase
in frequency, resulting in these males having 15.79% (4.12 to 44.42%)
more surviving offspring per generation relative to males of other
Y-haplogroups.
 
The thing is, that professional geneticists based on their data concluded that Corded Ware folks were the direct descendants of the Indo-European Yamnaya who spread the Indo-European language all over Europe. According to the Haak et al. paper, the Corded Ware population from ca. 2400 BCE were genetically at least 75% similar to the Yamnaya population of the steppes, suggesting massive migrations from the steppes as a source for the Corded Ware culture. If amateurs questioned this conclusion from peer viewed papers, they were told you can't argue against science. Anyway, when going by this current study, an early group of Yamnaya or a group that was assimilated became the Forest Steppe people who gave rise to the Corded Ware. However, another possibility is that the archaeologically and historically defined Corded Ware people were not a coherent genetic group.


As I said, population geneticists, in general, don't pay any attention to archaeology. The internet community is worse. That, and their own prejudices are why for so long, in the face of overwhelming archaeological data, it was argued that the Etruscans were recent migrants from the Near East. How did that turn out?

The same is true for the whole Indo European question. Corded Ware was NEVER a good fit archaeologically or culturally for the original Indo-Europeans. That was consistently ignored, no matter all the covering of you know what that is currently going on.

As someone else mentioned, the Ydna was also very different.

In terms of the genetics, Haak was six years ago, and there were subsequent genetics papers which gave hints as to the reality of the situation. Plus, Haak, based on the samples they had, proposed that, as you said, Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya "like". It was people like Kristiansen and the internet community who turned that into "they're virtually identical". That's a very different thing.

I also don't see and never saw why people being genetically 75% similar necessarily meant that one "formed" the other. The most parsimonious explanation, it seemed to me, absent evidence of migration in the archaeology, was that they were formed from originally similar stock but were then influenced themselves by different migrations or admixtures, i.e. in the case of Yamnaya, with people who were CHG/Iranian farmer "like". As I also pointed out ad nauseam over the years, to the usual hysterical response, that's where the burial practices came from, and a lot of their cultural indices. Again, you had to pay attention to the damn archaeology. For goodness sakes, how could a horse riding or, more likely, horse taming and herding culture have formed in the midst of a forest? Horses were ideal for the flat steppe lands with their sparse vegetation. No wonder you can barely find horse remains in the early Corded Ware burial sites.

Yamnaya people were 40-60% CHG/Iranian farmer. Yet Corded Ware was not like that. Clearly, they couldn't be "identical", even if Kristiansen wanted to see it that way, and certainly the archaeological artifacts were not identical.

I mean, just the graphics provided in the paper are extremely telling, are they not? These were two separate groups with a different ecology, different lifestyles, and a different culture. As I repeated ad nauseam, they "present" very differently archaeologically.

Yes, they shared dna, because they were adjacent groups on the steppe, but I have never leaned toward the idea that the founders and formers of the "Indo-European" package came from forest "steppe" people. As I've been saying for ten years, imo they were "Indo-Europeanized".

In addition, it always seemed ridiculous to me to think that the steppe could have supported a horde of people who migrated into Central Europe. Far more likely that a lot of them came from the forested areas north of the actual steppe.

If you can quote me something from the paper that negates that, please do so. As I said, I haven't yet gone over the paper and supplement with a fine tooth comb.

As for R1a, I'm quite aware that it was old in Russia, but it seems likely to me that it had nothing to do with the genesis of the Indo-European culture, as I would have thought was more than hinted at given the difference in the yDna.

The modern "Slavic" R1a is, if I'm reading the paper correctly, a "very" late arrival to Indo-Europeanization.

This raises an interesting question about the ancient Greeks. If the samples of the first Bronze Age arrivals turn out to be R1b-Z2103, then the migration was indeed from the steppe, not the forested areas north of the steppe, and had nothing to do with Corded Ware.

When Eurogenes came on this site to argue with me, well, really to insult me and call my opinions stupid nonsense, I told him that you could fill the phone book of a small city with all his wrong predictions and opinions, as could also be said of the people at anthrogenica, and that I would turn out to be right far more often than he (they) would. I stand by that. Anyone trying to come to valid conclusions from data has to start out by being as objective as possible in following that data, not operating from confirmation bias.
 
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/35/eabi6941

Corded Ware appeared by 2900 BCE, were initially genetically diverse, did not derive all steppe ancestry from known Yamnaya, and assimilated females of diverse backgrounds. Both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker groups underwent dynamic changes, involving sharp reductions and complete replacements of Y-chromosomal diversity at ~2600 and ~2400 BCE, respectively, the latter accompanied by increased Neolithic-like ancestry. The Bronze Age saw new social organization emerge amid a ≥40% population turnover.



Inviato dal mio POT-LX1T utilizzando Tapatalk

what is the implication of this for all the models that use yamna as a source population for steppe ancestry in europe?
 
As I said, population geneticists, in general, don't pay any attention to archaeology. The internet community is worse. That, and their own prejudices are why for so long, in the face of overwhelming archaeological data, it was argued that the Etruscans were recent migrants from the Near East. How did that turn out?

The same is true for the whole Indo European question. Corded Ware was NEVER a good fit archaeologically or culturally for the original Indo-Europeans. That was consistently ignored, no matter all the covering of you know what that is currently going on.

As someone else mentioned, the Ydna was also very different.

In terms of the genetics, Haak was six years ago, and there were subsequent genetics papers which gave hints as to the reality of the situation. Plus, Haak, based on the samples they had, proposed that, as you said, Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya "like". It was people like Kristiansen and the internet community who turned that into "they're virtually identical". That's a very different thing.



I also don't see and never saw why people being genetically 75% similar necessarily meant that one "formed" the other. The most parsimonious explanation, it seemed to me, absent evidence of migration in the archaeology, was that they were formed from originally similar stock but were then influenced themselves by different migrations or admixtures, i.e. in the case of Yamnaya, with people who were CHG/Iranian farmer "like". As I also pointed out ad nauseam over the years, to the usual hysterical response, that's where the burial practices came from, and a lot of their cultural indices. Again, you had to pay attention to the damn archaeology. For goodness sakes, how could a horse riding or, more likely, horse taming and herding culture have formed in the midst of a forest? Horses were ideal for the flat steppe lands with their sparse vegetation. No wonder you can barely find horse remains in the early Corded Ware burial sites.

Yamnaya people were 40-60% CHG/Iranian farmer. Yet Corded Ware was not like that. Clearly, they couldn't be "identical", even if Kristiansen wanted to see it that way, and certainly the archaeological artifacts were not identical.

I mean, just the graphics provided in the paper are extremely telling, are they not? These were two separate groups with a different ecology, different lifestyles, and a different culture. As I repeated ad nauseam, they "present" very differently archaeologically.

Yes, they shared dna, because they were adjacent groups on the steppe, but I have never leaned toward the idea that the founders and formers of the "Indo-European" package came from forest "steppe" people. As I've been saying for ten years, imo they were "Indo-Europeanized".

In addition, it always seemed ridiculous to me to think that the steppe could have supported a horde of people who migrated into Central Europe. Far more likely that a lot of them came from the forested areas north of the actual steppe.

If you can quote me something from the paper that negates that, please do so. As I said, I haven't yet gone over the paper and supplement with a fine tooth comb.

As for R1a, I'm quite aware that it was old in Russia, but it seems likely to me that it had nothing to do with the genesis of the Indo-European culture, as I would have thought was more than hinted at given the difference in the yDna.

The modern "Slavic" R1a is, if I'm reading the paper correctly, a "very" late arrival to Indo-Europeanization.

This raises an interesting question about the ancient Greeks. If the samples of the first Bronze Age arrivals turn out to be R1b-Z2103, then the migration was indeed from the steppe, not the forested areas north of the steppe, and had nothing to do with Corded Ware.

When Eurogenes came on this site to argue with me, well, really to insult me and call my opinions stupid nonsense, I told him that you could fill the phone book of a small city with all his wrong predictions and opinions, as could also be said of the people at anthrogenica, and that I would turn out to be right far more often than he (they) would. I stand by that. Anyone trying to come to valid conclusions from data has to start out by being as objective as possible in following that data, not operating from confirmation bias.

I agree with you here. Anyway, our "buddy" Gaska will have a field day with this Bohemian study. Hopefully, the researchers in the upcoming Etruscan study will contextualize the DNA evidence by comprising the archaeological records.
 
It all depends on which "steppe" samples were used in various papers and by internet enthusiasts in their "modeling".

I don't get all this "it's older than Yamna" stuff.

If Eurogenes is correct the CHG/Iran Neo like population that formed part of Yamna moved over the Caucasus in the Mesolithic. Or does not one remember that? :)

When does one get to be a "native" of a certain place, I wonder.
 

This thread has been viewed 24512 times.

Back
Top