Evolutionary History of R1b M269 based on modern Iberian data

[MOESAN]

thanks Angela; very interesting - I have some doubts concerning some conclusions of the abstract but I have to read before "challenging" .

 

[Angela]

thanks Angela; very interesting - I have some doubts concerning some conclusions of the abstract but I have to read before "challenging" .

That's why your posts are always respected. Would that all our members did the same.

 

[MOESAN]

Maybe the expansion from the steppe into Europe included both IE speakers and another linguistic group ???

Or those Non-IE speakers descended from IE males who married Non-IE women and adopted their languages ???

Iberia is an interesting case because it was one of places where Non-IE languages survived for a very long time.

Non-IE languages in Iberia survived until the Roman conquest and until the adoption of Latin by its people.

Not stupid at all, your points here; just concerning Lusitanian, for I red, it seems very close to Celtic languages, except the lost of p-I-Ean P-, like Ligurian and maybe, the famous but contested North-West Old I-Ean - was not Aquitanian akin to Basque? Since long enough ago I 'm wondering as you if some steppic Y-R1b people were precediing or pushed by I-Eans other Y-R1b. Basques show so many links with Northwestern Europe on more than a field, even in mtDNA, except language. but I know some of the common mtDNa could have been passed by autochtonous Iberia inhabitants at post LGM to Northern places, so?...
Is proto-Basque (or 'basquic'?) a far and already well evolved cousin of Caucasic languages present in Steppes (steppic Neolithic?), and producing the famous proto-I-Ean by mixing with a proto-Uralic language and further evolution??? only speculation, but I agree more the time passes and more I see a northern route for the MOST of Y-R1b introduction into Europe. The bit of more ANE aDNA and the bit of more 'gedrosia' aDNA and the neat more aDNA poolings linked to North Atlantic or even North Europe don't evocate to me a Mediteranea route. I don't eclude completely a South to North Caucasus road before climbing North but it's still uncertain. And I rather think early U106 broke off early enough in Europe, maybe never passing through Austria nor Baviera/Bayern before the Volker Wanderung. the most of the iberian R1b specificity seems the result of a founder effect but I could be wrong, sure; I 've to study it deeper.

 

[MOESAN]

This R1b-L11 folk seems to be related to Troy.
Troy was founded at 3000BC. And there is a theory that their language is IE Luwian related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language

concerning language, I understood luwian has been spoken in ONE of the successive Troy's, not at the exclusion of possible other language -
but concerning Y-R1b-L11, were is the link with Troy?: perhaps I missed a post. Thanks for details if possible.

 

[Tomenable]

Here also discussion about DF27 and whether they originally spoke IE or not:

From post #18 onwards:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...opean-cultures?p=460181&viewfull=1#post460181

 

[LeBrok]

Not stupid at all, your points here; just concerning Lusitanian, for I red, it seems very close to Celtic languages, except the lost of p-I-Ean P-, like Ligurian and maybe, the famous but contested North-West Old I-Ean - was not Aquitanian akin to Basque? Since long enough ago I 'm wondering as you if some steppic Y-R1b people were precediing or pushed by I-Eans other Y-R1b. Basques show so many links with Northwestern Europe on more than a field, even in mtDNA, except language. but I know some of the common mtDNa could have been passed by autochtonous Iberia inhabitants at post LGM to Northern places, so?...

If R1b brought steppe language to Iberia, then what language IEs had? Perhaps a farmer's language of Mykope/Caucasus, or Cucuteni-Tripolia?
Historically/statistically speaking, language flows from farmers to hunter gatherers.

 

[Finalise]

There's also the possibility that R1b was brought by steppe people and late neolithic farmers simultaneously. L23*/Z2103 that is prevalent in the Balkans and Eastern Europe could have been brought by steppe invaders, while L51 could represent an Indo-Europianized Cucuteni people (who originally came from West Asia) that travelled through the Danube to Bavaria and then to Western and Northern Europe. We know very well the cultures of western Ukraine were heavily mixed between Yamna culture and farmer cultures.We have a clear dichotomy between R1a CW and R1b BB in the EBA, and this presents a major problem for IE linguistically and archaeologically, which was presumed to be one unified culture. Such a discrepancy blows a hole through this theory. The only possible way to rectify this is for one of R1a/R1b to be the original PIE speakers, and the other to be an adopted IE culture but with originally different roots.

 

[Tomenable]

We really need to check autosomal DNA of Cucuteni-Trypillian people.

Did they have Near Eastern admixture similar to that found later in Yamnaya.

 

[LeBrok]

We really need to check autosomal DNA of Cucuteni-Trypillian people.

Did they have Near Eastern admixture similar to that found later in Yamnaya.

Judging by archaeology, we should see farmer admixture flowing from Cucuteni to West Yamnaya, and another farmer admixture flowing from Caucasus to East Yamnaya. That's what I'm expecting to see from future research, but who knows. We've been surprised many times already. Furthermore, even though Cucuteni and Caucasus farmers came from same homeland in Near East they could have been separated by 5-7 thousand years of separate cultural evolution. After such long time their languages might have been mutually unintelligible.
My point is that if West and East Yamnaya got their language from farmers, they wouldn't necessarily have spoken the same language. When East Yamnaya R1b folks started migration first they possibly didn't carry IE language.

 

[Angela]

We really need to check autosomal DNA of Cucuteni-Trypillian people.

Did they have Near Eastern admixture similar to that found later in Yamnaya.

We really need to check autosomal DNA of Cucuteni-Trypillian people.

Did they have Near Eastern admixture similar to that found later in Yamnaya.

Tomenable, it's one thing to speculate that maybe some R1b men moved early into the Balkans and adopted "Neolithic farmer" languages, even though that's wild speculation.

It's something else again to say that R1b moved in the first instance from the Balkans to the steppe and there not only adopted the Indo-European language but participated in the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya people.

The genetics are totally against that. We have a hunter gatherer R1b from Samara who was EHG. Then we have the later Yamnaya culture R1b samples who are no longer "pure" EHG. Their EHG was "diluted" by admixture with a population that was itself minority EHG and majority "Near Eastern". That "Near Eastern" was not the EEF which would have been present in the Balkans. Moreover, no European farmer has yet shown an EHG component. There was also an "eastern" South Asian related component in Yamnaya that we don't see in WHG or EEF, and that in fact doesn't show up in Europe until the coming of the Indo-Europeans.

I just don't think there's any evidence for what you're proposing, and a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. Now, of course we have to wait and see the samples. Maybe some of the more western shifted Yamnaya people had a slice of EEF from the Balkan people moving onto the steppe, but there's none of that in the Yamnaya we have so far. That migration east just didn't reach that far.

Also, to base so much on the current distribution of subclades of R1b in Iberia isn't warranted, in my opinion. Iberia isn't like Italy. We're known since Ralph and Coop et al that there is no significant autosomal substructure of that kind in Iberia other than for the Basques. I think that may have to do with the Reconquista and with the deliberate policy of population resettlement engaged in by Spanish and Portuguese royalty. Who knows what it used to look like?

If anything, it would be more likely, I think, that R1a was north of the core area, and was Indo-Europeanized by R1b, although I think it might have been that both of them spoke it and participated in the creation of the unique Indo-European culture.

 

[LeBrok]

Tomenable, it's one thing to speculate that maybe some R1b men moved early into the Balkans and adopted "Neolithic farmer" languages, even though that's wild speculation.

It's something else again to say that R1b moved in the first instance from the Balkans to the steppe and there not only adopted the Indo-European language but participated in the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya people.

The genetics are totally against that. We have a hunter gatherer R1b from Samara who was EHG. Then we have the later Yamnaya culture R1b samples who are no longer "pure" EHG. Their EHG was "diluted" by admixture with a population that was itself minority EHG and majority "Near Eastern". That "Near Eastern" was not the EEF which would have been present in the Balkans. Moreover, no European farmer has yet shown an EHG component. There was also an "eastern" South Asian related component in Yamnaya that we don't see in WHG or EEF, and that in fact doesn't show up in Europe until the coming of the Indo-Europeans.

I just don't think there's any evidence for what you're proposing, and a lot of evidence that suggests otherwise. Now, of course we have to wait and see the samples. Maybe some of the more western shifted Yamnaya people had a slice of EEF from the Balkan people moving onto the steppe, but there's none of that in the Yamnaya we have so far. That migration east just didn't reach that far.

Also, to base so much on the current distribution of subclades of R1b in Iberia isn't warranted, in my opinion. Iberia isn't like Italy. We're known since Ralph and Coop et al that there is no significant autosomal substructure of that kind in Iberia other than for the Basques. I think that may have to do with the Reconquista and with the deliberate policy of population resettlement engaged in by Spanish and Portuguese royalty. Who knows what it used to look like?

If anything, it would be more likely, I think, that R1a was north of the core area, and was Indo-Europeanized by R1b, although I think it might have been that both of them spoke it and participated in the creation of the unique Indo-European culture.

I found this conversation about the source of proto-IE language very interesting and created a new thread dedicated to it. I'm taking a liberty to copy/past your intriguing post there, Angela.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31324-Where-did-proto-IE-language-start?p=460293#post460293

 

[Vukodav]

Yeah of course Martinez Cruz et al. was wrong. The frequency of R-L21 among Basques is only 2-3% and not 20%. Obviously they had only samples from small isolated villages.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

If R1b brought steppe language to Iberia, then what language IEs had? Perhaps a farmer's language of Mykope/Caucasus, or Cucuteni-Tripolia?
Historically/statistically speaking, language flows from farmers to hunter gatherers.

There was the long established Atlantic Megalith culture centered on Portugal with branches north to Scandinavia and east into the Med providing a trading link from Sardinia to Sweden. If R1bs were following the neolithic trade network they would have had existing coastal trading settlements to join as a minority. So if they adopted a different language it would seem more likely to me that it would be the language / culture of the Atlantic Megalith people rather than the local HGs.

If correct the distinction between the new arrivals and the Atlantic Megalith people which could potentially lead to R1b founder effects in certain regions could have been groups of them breaking away from the Atlantic Megalith sites to move to copper producing regions like Aldudes* in the Basque country or Ross Island in Ireland.

so theoretical sequence
R1b copper workers (from somewhere) follow the pre-existing neolithic trade routes in all directions
-> as they spread along the trade routes some groups break away to found mining colonies whenever a good new source is found
-> this leads to a localized founder effect in most places it happened but a dramatic one along the Atlantic coast because of the relatively low population density due to acid soil (caused by the leaching effect of heavy rainfall).

#

edit: actually Aldudes is more on the border of the current Basque country and Aquitaine but well within the old borders

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Yeah of course Martinez Cruz et al. was wrong. The frequency of R-L21 among Basques is only 2-3% and not 20%. Obviously they had only samples from small isolated villages.

I wonder if those small isolated villages were clustered in a particular region.

 

[MOESAN]

We really need to check autosomal DNA of Cucuteni-Trypillian people.

Did they have Near Eastern admixture similar to that found later in Yamnaya.

If we rely on Neolithic DNA of the Balkan Carpathian agricole area, we can say NO: at least concerning Yamnya of Samara and East, where 'mediterranean' and other 'southwest-asian' or 'red sea' seem absent - but we cannot be sure the late metallurgic Cucuteni-Tripolye were of the same facture as first ones. Maybe Y-J2 akin to S-E Caspian region had reached the Carpathians borders already then? with more 'west-asian'; and yet, the 'westasian' of the steppic ones was more 'gedrosia-like', more eastern, very less near-eastern-like...

 

[MOESAN]

I had the territories of our old Europe were not as demographically saturated as nowaday in those times. We saw some ethnies tracing their ways among other ones more sedentized, without not too much mixings at first. the today archeologic discoveries of new sites ought to push us to more caution: 1- some 'snakes' moves can escape to archeologic controle and 2- we still have sites to find.
Final Cucuteni Tripolye population was surely different from the first one: integration of HGs by time (Y-I2 of any sort + some old Y-C and Y-I1?) and new kinds of southerners with metallurgy + some steppic people themselves not without ancient Hgs?... the metallurgists I suppose rich for Y-J2 had surely mixed before with a lot of Y-E-V13 and evidently former Y-G2a.

 

[Angela]

I had the territories of our old Europe were not as demographically saturated as nowaday in those times. We saw some ethnies tracing their ways among other ones more sedentized, without not too much mixings at first. the today archeologic discoveries of new sites ought to push us to more caution: 1- some 'snakes' moves can escape to archeologic controle and 2- we still have sites to find.
Final Cucuteni Tripolye population was surely different from the first one: integration of HGs by time (Y-I2 of any sort + some old Y-C and Y-I1?) and new kinds of southerners with metallurgy + some steppic people themselves not without ancient Hgs?... the metallurgists I suppose rich for Y-J2 had surely mixed before with a lot of Y-E-V13 and evidently former Y-G2a.

I think this is very important. While all of the Yamnaya so far are pretty similar (we don't know about the western portion, which may be different), and Abanasievo was remarkably similar to them, Corded Ware seems pretty variable depending on the site. This shouldn't be such news because that's what the archaeolgists have been telling us. Cucuteni might be different from areas to their north as well.

 

[Johannes]

I wanted to make sure the title emphasized that this is not ancient dna despite the bow to ancient dna discoveries.

New clues to the evolutionary history of the main European paternal lineage M269: dissection of the Y-SNP S116 in Atlantic Europe and Iberia:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2015114a.html

Abstract

"The dissection of S116 in more than 1500 individuals from Atlantic Europe and the Iberian Peninsula has provided important clues about the controversial evolutionary history of M269. First, the results do not point to an origin of M269 in the Franco–Cantabrian refuge, owing to the lack of sublineage diversity within M269, which supports the new theories proposing its origin in Eastern Europe. Second, S116 shows frequency peaks and spatial distribution that differ from those previously proposed, indicating an origin farther west, and it also shows a high frequency in the Atlantic coastline. Third, an outstanding frequency of the DF27 sublineage has been found in Iberia, with a restricted distribution pattern inside this peninsula and a frequency maximum in the area of the Franco–Cantabrian refuge. This entire panorama indicates an old arrival of M269 into Western Europe, because it has generated at least two episodes of expansion in the Franco–Cantabrian area. This study demonstrates the importance of continuing the dissection of the M269 lineage in different European populations because the discovery and study of new sublineages can adjust or even completely revise the theories about European peopling, as has been the case for the place of origin of M269."

It's behind a paywall so that's all I can offer. Obviously, nothing can be evaluated based on this. I'll see if at least the data tables are available.

Ed. They are, and here's the link:
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/suppinfo/ejhg2015114s1.html

This is very interesting but why didn't you just put this on my thread about the Iberians? Why start a new one?

 

[Johannes]

Those frequency distribution tables for Iberia could be added to the tables being kept here, so that's a plus, but how that's supposed to prove when S116 entered Iberia and from what direction is beyond me. Maybe they flesh it out in the paper.
In terms of those frequency distributions, it's interesting, and different from prior studies, I think, in that U-152 seems to be highest in Galicia and Asturias, and DF27 in Barcelona, where I would expect U-152 to be highest if U-152 is related to Urnfield.

We might expect DF-27 to be highest there and down the east coast if it moved into Iberia from Central Europe.

Its funny how you always criticize people for not staying on task or sticking to the subject yet you are doing the exact same thing. If you paid attention to my posts on my Iberian thread you would have found that the Iberians occupied all of the eastern and southern side of Iberia. And the DF-27 is very high there. The Celts never entered Iberia through Catalonia. They must have entered through the Basque Country (although the Basques did not originate there. They were located more south in Navarre and Aragon). These studies are showing more proof of what I theorized in my thread: that the Iberians were a proto-Indo-European people and that Iberians were (must have been) related to Basques.

 

[Angela]

Its funny how you always criticize people for not staying on task or sticking to the subject yet you are doing the exact same thing. If you paid attention to my posts on my Iberian thread you would have found that the Iberians occupied all of the eastern and southern side of Iberia. And the DF-27 is very high there. The Celts never entered Iberia through Catalonia. They must have entered through the Basque Country (although the Basques did not originate there. They were located more south in Navarre and Aragon). These studies are showing more proof of what I theorized in my thread: that the Iberians were a proto-Indo-European people and that Iberians were (must have been) related to Basques.

This is a thread devoted to a new paper. That's what we do here: we start threads when new papers appear so people will be aware of it, so people can discuss the merits and failings of it, and so that it can easily be found later through a search engine. Every paper or discussion of Iberia does not have to be posted in your thread because it touches upon something related to Iberia. You don't have a patent on the subject. We have numerous threads on this site about Iberia and many about the Indo-Europeans and many other issues, approaching them from the vantage point of different papers or time periods or authors or any number of things. However, you can't segue off into a prolonged discussion of Turkish ethnogenesis when the topic thread is Iberia, for example. Get it?

This is elementary logic. I can't believe I have to explain these things.

As far as the content of your post number 39 is concerned, it is on topic for this thread, and so I won't delete it.

Just a word of advice for how to conduct yourself on this forum. Some of us have undoubtedly been studying these matters since probably before you were born, and at institutions of some prestige. We don't need you to tell us that the Iberian speaking peoples were predominantly located in the east. How to explain these things is another matter. We have read enough and studied enough that we know that very little is certain yet in any of this. Perhaps if you availed yourself of the search engine and read some more you would realize the same thing.