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

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.

Also, just because some Yamna samples might not be a good choice for detecting admixture in northern Europeans around 3000 BCE doesn't mean that they might not be a good choice for detecting admixture in the Balkans or certainly in Greece, or, for all we know, certain migrations into other parts of Southern Europe. We'll have to wait and see.

I wonder if there might be something to the idea that the "new wave" that went into Spain carrying R1b didn't even speak an Indo-European language yet.
 
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


the above samples with the 3 x T1a ydna found in neolithic Karsdorf Germany and the samples of 3 x G2 ydna and 1 x H2 ydna found next door in Halberstadt and Derenburg Germany, is clearly the neolithic ydna noted in the paper

most likely they got the data or part of it from the paper -
Settlement burials at the Karsdorf LBK site, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany - biological ties and residential mobility.

by Guido Brandt


28 individuals were entombed in settlement and oblong pits.....................while the Ydna comprised of these 3 groups of Ydna , the mtDNA had a high diversity of maternal lineages of the Karsdorf community.These haplotypes belong to eight different haplogroups, including H (30.4%), K (21.7%), J (17.4%), T2 (13%), N1a (4.3%), HV (4.3%), U5a (4.3%), and U5b (4.3%)
 
https://www.academia.edu/39985565/A..._Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

I accept Mallory’s reading of the current consensus that theYamnaya expansion, beginning about 3000 BC into both Europeand Asia from the Pontic-Caspian steppes, represented theexpansion of late PIE languages (after the separation ofAnatolian). Putting aside the questions of how and why thatexpansion occurred, my topic is the formation and origin of theYamnaya mating network, as a genetic phenomenon; andsecondarily of the Yamnaya culture, beginning about 3300 BCwithin the Pontic-Caspian steppes, as an archaeologicalphenomenon. I also assess how pre-Yamnaya genetic andarchaeological patterns of interaction might correlate withBomhard’s hypothesis for early PIE origins.

maybe worth reading again
 
What’s there for him to have a field day with at this point? He’ll eventually have to accept the fact that Basques have steppe autosomal DNA, despite not speaking an Indo-European language. R1b-L51 shares a common root with Z2103, at L23. Steppe autosomal DNA is always found with it, and it is connected to other WSH Y-DNA lineages, such as R1a-M417, I2a2a-L699, R1b-PF7562, R1b-Z2118, R1b-V1636, and Q1b. It’s completely undeniable at this point; it’s not 2011-2014 anymore.
 
Last edited:
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


Thanks, very interesting paper that provides new insights, very surprising.
 
What’s there for him to have a field day with at this point? He’ll eventually have to accept the fact that Basques have steppe autosomal DNA, despite not speaking an Indo-European language. R1b-L51 shares a common root with Z2103, at L23. Steppe autosomal DNA is always found with it, and it is connected to other WSH Y-DNA lineages, such as R1a-M417, I2a2a-L699, R1b-PF7562, R1b-Z2118, R1b-V1636, and Q1b. It’s completely undeniable at this point; it’s not 2011-2014 anymore.

the paper is dated 2018 and takes into account what has been discovered after 2011-2014
 
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.

Why? He predicted R1b-L51 was born in West: not the case!
 
I know. I was saying that with everything that’s been discovered since 2014-2015, it is impossible at this point, to deny the steppe origins of R1b-L51. Now whether it originated on the western half of the Pontic Caspian steppe, or on the East European forest steppe, or from somewhere else in Eastern Europe, I am not sure. All we know for certain is that it spread out of Eastern Europe in the early Bronze Age, with Western Steppe Herder autosomal DNA.
 
When are population geneticists and internet hobbyists going to start paying attention to archaeology???


Well said, Angela. Population geneticists to start paying attention to archaeology should at least study it first. Instead, even today, most geneticists have no academic knowledge of archaeology.


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?


In the case of the Etruscans, some past geneticists have done even worse than ignoring archaeology, they have only paid attention to pseudoarchaeology and pseudolinguistics or to superseded theories and fringe theories.

As we say in Italy, sooner or later "tutti i nodi vengono al pettine".
 
Last edited:
the paper suggests Bohemia was not the origin of R1b-L51, the origin could be somewhere in between Bohemia and the British Isles

Can we consider the Lower Rhine region as a possible candidate? In that case, we have R1b-L51 there at 4000-3500 BC, and an ulterior maritime migration would allow they reach the British Isles in 2500 BC. I remember also that the Amesbury archer was buried near Stonehenge (2300 BC) and was born in the Alps (perhaps descending of the Lower Rhine R1-L51 people?). In Iberia we have also a R1b-P312 individual. (R-L51>R-L52>R-L151>R-P312), 2417 BCE. Burgos, Spain, OlaldeScience2019. Additionally, the Lower Rhine region has in common the maritime connections with the B. Isles and the I. Peninsula.
Only a wild guess ... ;)
 
Can we consider the Lower Rhine region as a possible candidate? In that case, we have R1b-L51 there at 4000-3500 BC, and an ulterior maritime migration would allow they reach the British Isles in 2500 BC. I remember also that the Amesbury archer was buried near Stonehenge (2300 BC) and was born in the Alps (perhaps descending of the Lower Rhine R1-L51 people?). In Iberia we have also a R1b-P312 individual. (R-L51>R-L52>R-L151>R-P312), 2417 BCE. Burgos, Spain, OlaldeScience2019. Additionally, the Lower Rhine region has in common the maritime connections with the B. Isles and the I. Peninsula.
Only a wild guess ... ;)

It looks R1b-L51 were very mobile, and some of it's descendants started to dominate a whole area.
They ended up establishing a network all over western Europe within a few centuries.
 
Well said, Angela. Population geneticists to start paying attention to archaeology should at least study it first. Instead, even today, most geneticists have no academic knowledge of archaeology.





In the case of the Etruscans, some past geneticists have done even worse than ignoring archaeology, they have only paid attention to pseudoarchaeology and pseudolinguistics or to superseded theories and fringe theories.

As we say in Italy, sooner or later "tutti i nodi vengono al pettine".

In this study some disconnection appears between archeological entities and ethnic entities.
Which doesn't mean archeology shouldn't be considered and studied.
But the DNA allows us to discover things that archeology can't.
 
In this study some disconnection appears between archeological entities and ethnic entities.
Which doesn't mean archeology shouldn't be considered and studied.
But the DNA allows us to discover things that archeology can't.

The problem is not DNA, which is obviously a powerful tool for knowledge. The problem is who draws the final conclusions. Geneticists alone cannot draw the conclusions.
We have seen archaeologists and anthropologists more involved in genetic studies in the last few years. There will be a need for more and more of them in the future.
 
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.


Here again we look at interpretations. The Central Europe BB and CWC males were anthropologically (even non-metric dental traits) different around the 2500 BC, their females being more close one to another spite non indentical, and placed between these two male groups. I doubt a common "primal" mixture of CWC/BB people (so males and females at first) could have diverged locally so quickly and so radically, also for Y-haplo's. Anthropologically (and non-metric) too, it seems Unetice people were closer to typical CWC but here we have no contradiction with the paper, because it seems they document a new North-East input in Bohemia then. I don't see BB's from CWC's, I see a convergence there (Bohemia but alsoe Bavaria)
 
the paper suggests Bohemia was not the origin of R1b-L51, the origin could be somewhere in between Bohemia and the British Isles

It amazes me, sincerely. But I cannot discuss, I have not the chronology of apparition of Y-haplo's in the paper. I see L51 born more in East (i would say between Baltic countries and W-Ukraine), and developping in Central-Europe or rather Western-Central Europe; birth and baby boom are not the same.
 
the paper suggests Bohemia was not the origin of R1b-L51, the origin could be somewhere in between Bohemia and the British Isles
The oldest sample L51 is I6222 from Afanasievo, so I doubt that L51 arose west of Bohemia. However, I think that L51 began to be divided into several branches in the area between the Rhine and the Carpathians, taking into account, among other things, that the oldest U106, the oldest A8053, the oldest S1194 and some of the older P312 samples have been found in this area.
 
Page 110 of David Reich's book, Who We Are and How We Got Here "The genetic data thus settled a long-standing debate in archaeology about linkages between the Corded Ware and the Yamnaya cultures. The two had many striking parallels, such as the construction of large burial mounds, the intensive exploitation of horses and herding, and a strikingly male-centered culture that celebrated violence, as reflected in the great maces (or hammer-axes) buried in some graves. At the same time, there were profound differences between the two cultures, notably the entirely different types of pottery that they made, with important elements of the Corded Ware style adapted from previous central European pottery styles. But the genetics showed that the connection between the Corded Ware culture and the Yamnaya culture reflected major movements of people. The makers of the Corded Ware culture were, at least in a genetic sense, a westward extension of Yamnaya."
 

This thread has been viewed 24515 times.

Back
Top