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

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.

I think there is no reason that they spoke PIE, b/c they lived in europe and have R1b/R1a.
People always think that Yangshao O3 people in yellow river spoke sino-tibetan like modern Han Chinese. However, tonal language like sino –tibetan appeared 5 century in china.

Marlory said that afanasievo culture could not be connected to tocharian. There is not any cereal sample in afanasivo grave, but farming words in tocharian language.
I think late PIE speaker the celts, the Myceneans and Vedic Aryan’s cultures cannot be explained without snake. However any snake artifact has not been found in yamna/ cwc/bb culture.
Sunhead means snake head. Snake is a sun’s ray, so thunderbolt. Braids in their heads are snakes. Snake is a circle, so celtic and vedic mandala. The snake concept is not DNA, but their soul:


skirt.png

https://www.suppressedhistories.net/...geometric.html

Ccross.svg



MundkurNagaMandala.JPG

 
Like I said; Eurogenes got tipped off about the upcoming paper and changed his tune. That has a habit of happening with him.

As for Reich, he followed David Anthony, who was by no means always right, particularly about Corded Ware. Anthony staked out his positions years ago, and he wasn't about to change it because of new discoveries.

I'll say it again: Yamnaya was 40-60 percent CHG/Iranian farmer; Corded Ware was not ;plus, there were further migrations from the Northeast. Maybe Corded Ware were pushed into Central Europe by Yamnaya; I don't know. I do know they weren't the same people, and the Indo-European culture didn't form in the forests north of the Pontic Caspian steppe.
 
I don't think anybody is saying they were the same people. From most of what I've read their saying they were related. As for eurogenes if you go back and read his posts he's changed his mind many times based on new research. That's the norm in the scientific community. I also haven't read of anyone being sure that indo european formed in the forest steppe. Most of what I've read says that it formed on the northern shores of the Black Sea. The forest steppe zone was bounded to the north of the steppe and included but most likely not it's epicenter. I've haven't seen any close relationship between Anthony and Reich either. Reich's mentor is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as far as I know. Many people looked at Anthony's previous work and used it but with new research new conclusions have emerged. I don't think Reich's latest works have anything to do with Anthony. You also seem to be lumping everyone into this idea. Eurogenes, Anthony, Reich. You might as well throw Gimbutas, Patterson and others into the mix.
 
I don't think anybody is saying they were the same people. From most of what I've read their saying they were related. As for eurogenes if you go back and read his posts he's changed his mind many times based on new research. That's the norm in the scientific community. I also haven't read of anyone being sure that indo european formed in the forest steppe. Most of what I've read says that it formed on the northern shores of the Black Sea. The forest steppe zone was bounded to the north of the steppe and included but most likely not it's epicenter. I've haven't seen any close relationship between Anthony and Reich either. Reich's mentor is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza as far as I know. Many people looked at Anthony's previous work and used it but with new research new conclusions have emerged. I don't think Reich's latest works have anything to do with Anthony. You also seem to be lumping everyone into this idea. Eurogenes, Anthony, Reich. You might as well throw Gimbutas, Patterson and others into the mix.
Anthony is listed on Reich papers, and in an interview Kristiansen recently said Yamnaya and Corded Ware were virtually identical, so you're seriously misinformed on all counts.

You should really refrain from commenting when that's the case.
 
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.

And vice versa. Many archaeologists refuse to acknowledge population genetics as legitimate. The disdain from some of them is palpable. It's going to take a combined effort and cooperation and education to solve some of these mysteries. It's a shame that bickering between these groups can get in the way.
 
Anthony is listed on many papers by many different people that doesn't mean they all agree with everything he says indefinitely. Like I said, with new research comes new conclusions. And not all of what a researcher says may be inaccurate in it's time. Some of it can become outdated and some can hold up. If I'm misinformed on all counts than so are all the other researchers previously mentioned because all I did was reference them. It's starting to sound like you think your the only one who's right and everyone else who's put in thousands of hours of work on these subjects are wrong. I know your very knowledgeable about these subjects but I think your giving some of these other folks less respect than they deserve. This is just my opinion and I think suggesting that I refrain from commenting because I offer another point of view on the subject other than your own is a little chilling. I may be a newbie but I'm not an idiot. All I'm trying to do is get the right answers to the questions we all have and not be hasty about making drastic conclusions based on one study. A lot of work has been done and I prefer to try and integrate all that we've learned.
 
Sorry, your information is again incorrect. The Reich Group very specifically said they were working with Anthony, which imo was a bad move. He's the reason imo why so many people have a distorted idea of the archaeology. He ignores
all the papers which provide data contradicting his preferred position.

As for your assertion no one was saying Corded Ware and Yamnaya were virtually identical, that's been answered. The fact a geneticist was saying it is mind boggling.

Finally.of course people change their opinions as a new paper comes out, but they don't suddenly do a complete abrupt about face right BEFORE a new paper comes out which shows they're completely wrong.

Put your faith in whomever you choose, and express any opinion you choose, but be aware that if your facts are wrong, someone is bound to call you on it.. I don't think there's any point in discussing it further.
 
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.

And vice versa. Many archaeologists refuse to acknowledge population genetics as legitimate. The disdain from some of them is palpable. It's going to take a combined effort and cooperation and education to solve some of these mysteries. It's a shame that bickering between these groups can get in the way.


Angela is rightfully pointing out, that geneticists should contextualize their DNA results by taking archeological studies into account. Some seem to think, that since DNA is a superior tool that somehow makes archeological studies obsolete. However, you have a valid point here. I've seen some woke Egyptologists or historians that are very dismissive of DNA studies. For instance, there is this insufferable woke Egyptologist and Professor, Kara Cooney who pretends that DNA studies can't be taken seriously and can't really say who the Ancient Egyptians ethnically speaking were. She claims that Ancient Egyptians were black because if they were in Alabama under Jim Crow Laws they would have to sit at the BACK of the bus. So, according to her Jim Crow Laws are more valid than DNA for defining, determining what race the Egyptians were. Cooney also claims that modern Egyptians from Luxor look black, which means King Tut who was from this area, was black too. It's crazy how many teachers, professors in universities, and schools push their personal ideology instead to inform and teach students with facts. Anyway, every member can of course join discussions and give his two cents, that's what a forum is for.


 
Why? He predicted R1b-L51 was born in West: not the case!

Here comments of Gaska he wrote on another forum.



Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 8:09 AM
Hi Matt, I hope you congratulate me because I was right, Yamnaya is not the source but the sink of r1b. Maybe you can help me solve the mystery. If CWC in its origin has 5-15% ancestry coming from Narva culture, if the analyzed (early) females are local or arrived directly from the steppes and if we have only R1b-L51. Who do you think brought that Narva ancestry to the CWC??? – remember that we have the Baltic plagued by r1b WHGs since the Mesolithic and that until 2.700 BC does not appear there R1a-M417 and much later Z2013. And what happens when R1a arrives? The Narva signal disappears, you only have to check other CWC samples in Czechia. Ergo R1b-L51 has tobe central european or baltic, nothing to do with ukraine the forest steppe or sredni stog. L51 and M417 did not migrate together from the steppes because L51>L151 was never there.


Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 6:22 AM
Delenda est Yamnaya, Gioiello

The Harvardians have not only been defeated, they have made a side real fool of themselves after 10 years of arguing that we owe everything that exists in Europe to the horsemen of the steppes – the white race, the wheel, the domestication of the horse, metallurgy, language, etc. We will never hear again about the Yamnaya culture because it never had anything to do in this business. It doesn’t matter that they will probably never recognize their mistakes, the fun is to see Kurganist fanatics looking for a way to explain why they have been making fools of themselves for 10 years defending the indefensible.Harvard, Reich, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Patterson and colleagues. So hard was it to understand-there is NO patrilineal genetic continuity between Yamnaya the CWC and the BBC???. We have been saying it for years and they have never listened to our reasoning. Now they want to look for L51 in the steppe forests, Ukraine, well fine, let them keep trying, in 10 years they will realize that they are wrong too.
 
R1a-M417 is heavily bottlenecked (formed 8700 BP, TMRCA 5400 BP); it seems to me it was a marginal EHG lineage until one guy, perhaps marrying a woman from pre-Yamnaya R1b clans, became successful. Pre-M417 descended lineages remained marginal and mostly died off, while the M417 TMRCA and his descendants joined their R1b distant cousins and took off. The L51 clans later took off in western Europe, while R1a remained near the original source of Corded Ware.
 
I think this is one of the big problems with getting to the truth. Reich states that several archaeologists quit his research team when they found out the genetic research proved something that countered what the archaeologists were professing. I've also watched lectures from genetic researchers where in the Q&A session at the end archaeologists go almost ballistic asking questions just trying to totally refute what was said. When I began doing research a couple years ago I was looking at everything that was being written. It's taken me that long just to try to get to the boundaries of whats accurate. When influential and respected people in the field and in the hobby continue to misrepresent,ignore and or inject their opinion based on some personal preference the information gets diluted and makes it harder for everyone to get to the truth. Archaeology, genetics and linguistics go hand in hand to try to figure this out.
 
Here comments of Gaska he wrote on another forum.



Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 8:09 AM
Hi Matt, I hope you congratulate me because I was right, Yamnaya is not the source but the sink of r1b. Maybe you can help me solve the mystery. If CWC in its origin has 5-15% ancestry coming from Narva culture, if the analyzed (early) females are local or arrived directly from the steppes and if we have only R1b-L51. Who do you think brought that Narva ancestry to the CWC??? – remember that we have the Baltic plagued by r1b WHGs since the Mesolithic and that until 2.700 BC does not appear there R1a-M417 and much later Z2013. And what happens when R1a arrives? The Narva signal disappears, you only have to check other CWC samples in Czechia. Ergo R1b-L51 has tobe central european or baltic, nothing to do with ukraine the forest steppe or sredni stog. L51 and M417 did not migrate together from the steppes because L51>L151 was never there.


Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 6:22 AM
Delenda est Yamnaya, Gioiello

The Harvardians have not only been defeated, they have made a side real fool of themselves after 10 years of arguing that we owe everything that exists in Europe to the horsemen of the steppes – the white race, the wheel, the domestication of the horse, metallurgy, language, etc. We will never hear again about the Yamnaya culture because it never had anything to do in this business. It doesn’t matter that they will probably never recognize their mistakes, the fun is to see Kurganist fanatics looking for a way to explain why they have been making fools of themselves for 10 years defending the indefensible.Harvard, Reich, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Patterson and colleagues. So hard was it to understand-there is NO patrilineal genetic continuity between Yamnaya the CWC and the BBC???. We have been saying it for years and they have never listened to our reasoning. Now they want to look for L51 in the steppe forests, Ukraine, well fine, let them keep trying, in 10 years they will realize that they are wrong too.


Gaska refuses to accept the L52 sample found in Mongolia and belonging to Afanasievo culture (I6222) because "it is contaminated" ... he doesn't want to accept that the contamination only affects the identification of the MT haplogroup, not to mention that several SNPs were analyzed , and reputable geneticists such as Anthony or Kandell have verified its authenticity.

There was already L51 in the steppe 5000 years ago, as much as Gaska is bothered and does not want to accept it. L51 didn't appear in central Europe, but began to mutate there, dividing into several branches. That's the most coherent explanation right now.
 
Here comments of Gaska he wrote on another forum.



Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 8:09 AM
Hi Matt, I hope you congratulate me because I was right, Yamnaya is not the source but the sink of r1b. Maybe you can help me solve the mystery. If CWC in its origin has 5-15% ancestry coming from Narva culture, if the analyzed (early) females are local or arrived directly from the steppes and if we have only R1b-L51. Who do you think brought that Narva ancestry to the CWC??? – remember that we have the Baltic plagued by r1b WHGs since the Mesolithic and that until 2.700 BC does not appear there R1a-M417 and much later Z2013. And what happens when R1a arrives? The Narva signal disappears, you only have to check other CWC samples in Czechia. Ergo R1b-L51 has tobe central european or baltic, nothing to do with ukraine the forest steppe or sredni stog. L51 and M417 did not migrate together from the steppes because L51>L151 was never there.


Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 6:22 AM
Delenda est Yamnaya, Gioiello

The Harvardians have not only been defeated, they have made a side real fool of themselves after 10 years of arguing that we owe everything that exists in Europe to the horsemen of the steppes – the white race, the wheel, the domestication of the horse, metallurgy, language, etc. We will never hear again about the Yamnaya culture because it never had anything to do in this business. It doesn’t matter that they will probably never recognize their mistakes, the fun is to see Kurganist fanatics looking for a way to explain why they have been making fools of themselves for 10 years defending the indefensible.Harvard, Reich, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Patterson and colleagues. So hard was it to understand-there is NO patrilineal genetic continuity between Yamnaya the CWC and the BBC???. We have been saying it for years and they have never listened to our reasoning. Now they want to look for L51 in the steppe forests, Ukraine, well fine, let them keep trying, in 10 years they will realize that they are wrong too.

It was not his first thoughts concerning L51 level and I debated politely with him. If I remember well it seems he temperated his views later. By the way I have nothing against Gaska, and I think he has no more than me. Now, where did L51 take it's "steppe" ancestry, because I think he had when he went westwards? You aren't obliged to be one of the foundators to take a train on its way. Maybe there has been convergences in Belarus or Ukraina as well as in more western areas of Europe? Just a possibility, I'm not too fanatic in my opinions about uncertain past.
 
the paper suggests Bohemia was not the origin of R1b-L51, the origin could be somewhere in between Bohemia and the British Isles

No R1b-L51 was already born East, and L11/L151 in Central-North. West-Central Europe is the place of great increase in number and dispersion of downstream SNP's rather in a star form, before internal later moves came to puzzle things, IMO (for what it is worth!).
Phénotypically and maybe archeologically, Worms region around south-central Rhine were a hotspot of non-Iberic BB's if I recall well.
 
Here comments of Gaska he wrote on another forum.



Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 8:09 AM
Hi Matt, I hope you congratulate me because I was right, Yamnaya is not the source but the sink of r1b. Maybe you can help me solve the mystery. If CWC in its origin has 5-15% ancestry coming from Narva culture, if the analyzed (early) females are local or arrived directly from the steppes and if we have only R1b-L51. Who do you think brought that Narva ancestry to the CWC??? – remember that we have the Baltic plagued by r1b WHGs since the Mesolithic and that until 2.700 BC does not appear there R1a-M417 and much later Z2013. And what happens when R1a arrives? The Narva signal disappears, you only have to check other CWC samples in Czechia. Ergo R1b-L51 has tobe central european or baltic, nothing to do with ukraine the forest steppe or sredni stog. L51 and M417 did not migrate together from the steppes because L51>L151 was never there.


Gaska
AUGUST27, 2021 AT 6:22 AM
Delenda est Yamnaya, Gioiello

The Harvardians have not only been defeated, they have made a side real fool of themselves after 10 years of arguing that we owe everything that exists in Europe to the horsemen of the steppes – the white race, the wheel, the domestication of the horse, metallurgy, language, etc. We will never hear again about the Yamnaya culture because it never had anything to do in this business. It doesn’t matter that they will probably never recognize their mistakes, the fun is to see Kurganist fanatics looking for a way to explain why they have been making fools of themselves for 10 years defending the indefensible.Harvard, Reich, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Patterson and colleagues. So hard was it to understand-there is NO patrilineal genetic continuity between Yamnaya the CWC and the BBC???. We have been saying it for years and they have never listened to our reasoning. Now they want to look for L51 in the steppe forests, Ukraine, well fine, let them keep trying, in 10 years they will realize that they are wrong too.

All rattling and rambling thoughts.

IMO this paper has made this clear, there were two IE kind of waves from Central-East Europe to Northwest Europe:

I. Corded Ware/ Single Grave with R1b L51
II. Unetice with R1b U106, that founded the Sögel-Wohlde culture (line North Dutch, NW Germany and Jutland) 'the kick start' of the Nordic Bronze Age.
 
All rattling and rambling thoughts.

IMO this paper has made this clear, there were two IE kind of waves from Central-East Europe to Northwest Europe:

I. Corded Ware/ Single Grave with R1b L51
II. Unetice with R1b U106, that founded the Sögel-Wohlde culture (line North Dutch, NW Germany and Jutland) 'the kick start' of the Nordic Bronze Age.

If most of european languages originated in one region, is it possible that genmanic, balto slavic, italic and celtic do not form a clade inside IE, unlike indian/iranian IE as mentioned by another member in another blog a few years ago?
 
When "R1b U106 data-analist" Iain mc Donald is right that, based on the paper of the topic, then the starburst of R1b U106 is in the -extended- Unetice area.
The early Corded Ware Czech R1b U106 comes, according to Iain, close to the 'proband' c.q. the first R1b U106.


Besides that he states:
However, the metallurgical links supplanted from the late Unetice Culture into the early Nordic Bronze Age in the period leading up to 1700 BC probably deserve some extra attention. Clades like R-L47 could become important in this role if the timings can be made to work. Equally, this could be a source of the sporadic R-Z156 results we see scattered throughout Scandinavia that I've never got my head quite around. So there is a lot to think on.


Imo you can add a 'nordic' Rb U106 line like Z18 to it. The current TMRCA of Z18 is 1700 BC.


https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z19/


In the line North Dutch-NW Germany-Jutland, we see in EBA (1800-1600 BC) a distinctive culture called Sögel-Wohlde. This culture stood at the start of the Nordic Bronze Age.


Renowned Bronze Age archeologist like Prof H. Fokkens (University Leiden) and former Prof J.J. Butler (University Groningen) see this as a result of EBA immigrants. Prominent examples are: the "chieftain of Drouwen" (Drenthe/ North Dutch) and the "Hungarian bride of Fallingbostel" (Heidekreis/ Lower Saxony).


The (battle) gear of this people is pointing strictly at the middle Danubian area.


I guess it's a real scenario (mark: scenario) that R1b U106 was 'brought in' by these people!?
 
If most of european languages originated in one region, is it possible that genmanic, balto slavic, italic and celtic do not form a clade inside IE, unlike indian/iranian IE as mentioned by another member in another blog a few years ago?

Interesting fact Johen is that the people of Sögel-Wohlde spoke most probably Italo-Celtic. This is elaborated by the linguist prof Kuzmenko (2011).
 

This thread has been viewed 24512 times.

Back
Top