September 3, 2013

Hungarian ancient DNA and the origins of Central European Neolithic

Davidski leads me to this interesting article where the Neolithic mtDNA of what is now Hungary is detailed far beyond of what I used to know:

Eszter Banffy, German-Hungarian bioarchaeological research project in the Archaeological Institute of the Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungarian Archeology, 2013. Open accessLINK 1, LINK 2
Note: the second link, even if unofficial (Banffy's academia.edu page) provides (at least in my browser) with a better formatted PDF.

Most interesting is this map:


previous CE data
The results are roughly similar to those obtained for early Neolithic Germany. For comparison, to the right there is a pie chart I built recently with the German data (plus one Austrian and another Eastern Hungarian samples, which were already known - H and N1a respectively). 

The main difference is the much greater presence of U(xK) in Germany, surely remnant of pre-Neolithic peoples. Otherwise it is quite similar to the West Hungarian pie (consider R* as most likely H, just that untested for the relevant markers). No wonder if we consider that West Hungary (along with nearby areas in Austria, Slovakia and Moravia) is at the origin of the Western Linear Pottery Culture, also known as Danubian Neolithic or LBK. 

However the Eastern Linear Pottery of the Tisza basin is generally understood to be at the origin of LBK itself, being somehow transitional between Starcevo (part of the Red & White Painted Pottery complex, originated at Sesklo) and LBK. And we do see some differences with the Western group, notably the Tisza group has much less H (but more H5), less J and also some less N1a.

Lacking by the moment ancient DNA data from Starcevo, Sesklo and other Balcan Neolithic groups at the origin of European Neolithic, we are limited to speculation but I suspect that the greater amount of haplogroup H was incorporated from pre-Neolithic peoples. After all H has been found in great amounts in Paleolithic Iberia (Portugal, Cantabria and Basque Country) and (to a lesser extent) also in Karelia, what clearly indicates that it was present in the European continent before the agricultural revolution, being the Swabian and Baltic cases (no H found to date) probably exceptional in this aspect. On the other hand H was found but only at low levels in Neolithic Kurdistan (15%, up to 23% incl. R*), suggesting it did not come from West Asia (unlike what is probably the case of K, reaching 53% in the Kurdish tells and never reported in Paleolithic Europe). 

A similar but stranger case may be that of N1a, found to belong to an exclusively European subclade, nowadays very rare. It's quite plausible that this lineage was restricted to some Central European pockets in the Paleolithic and found occasion for expansion in the Neolithic... only to dramatically recede later on.

It is very worth mentioning that the profile of Eszter Banffy at academia.edu has a lot of papers (many in Hungarian or German but many others also in English) with focus on Central European and Balcanic Neolithic.

55 comments:

  1. The $64,000 question, of course, is who shook things up between the LBK and the late Bronze Age.

    What is your thinking these days on that question?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's pretty obvious now that it was a pincer movement of various groups from the eastern and western fringes of the European Neolithic, streaming into Central Europe to fill the vacuum left by the general collapse of late Neolithic societies due to climate fluctuations. These newcomers were likely genetically more European than the West Asian-like LBK-derived farmers who they absorbed and replaced.

      The million dollar question is whether it was these intruders who brought high frequencies of R1a and R1b into the heart of Europe. If so, why did they carry these related markers and happened to stir at about the same time? Was it only because there was a vacuum there, and perhaps European R1 is a marker of somewhat older European populations first marginalized by LBK and other Neaolithic communities, only to spring back when the opportunity arose?

      I don't think much of the claim that R1a/R1b West Central Asians invaded the Near East and Europe during the Bronze Age. Anyone with half a brain and any idea about population genetics ought to realize it makes no sense in the context of modern European and West Eurasian genetic structure. West Asian-like genetic influence in Northern and Central Europe is LBK-derived, while Mediterranean influence comes from Neolithic and metal age groups that moved up the Atlantic fringe from the western Mediterranean.

      Delete
    2. "who shook things up between the LBK and the late Bronze Age"?

      Effectively that's a very big question of European Prehistory. Who or more exactly HOW did those changes happen (rather than asking for "culprits", I would look for more materialist explanations: "what happened?, how?"). We have some clues like the fact that LBK farmers expanded first only to fall later (strongly but also well above Paleolithic levels in most cases) but we don not know all the details.

      "I don't think much of the claim that R1a/R1b West Central Asians invaded the Near East and Europe during the Bronze Age."

      Me neither also because we have almost zero knowledge about the Y-DNA of ancient farmers so talking of Y-DNA when the data is 99% mtDNA is a non sequitur. We can only review the ancient mtDNA sequences where they exist and once we have solved the mtDNA puzzle, ask how does the Y-DNA fit into that, if at all.

      We can track population changes by mtDNA quite well: we don't need to describe things in terms of patrilinearity. That's for your personal relations with your dad, surname and all that but not so relevant for demography, unless you know something I do not.

      "West Asian-like genetic influence in Northern and Central Europe is LBK-derived"

      I would not say so. "Uneticians" are not "Danubians":

      H/R* → LBK: 21%, Unetice: 0%
      U(xK)→ LBK: 11%, Unetice 67% (U5: 9% vs 44%)
      K → LBK: 13%, Unetice: 0%
      J → LBK: 9%, Unetice: 0%
      T → LBK: 19%, Unetice: 31%
      N1 → LBK: 13%, Unetice: 23%
      N2 → LBK: 5%, Unetice: 0%

      Delete
    3. ... But "Uneticians" are not modern Germans either, not at all, they are missing a 43% H to begin with.

      There's something that confuses me anyhow, David: you conflate "West Central Asians" with "West Asian-like genetic influence", when it's clear that these are two different regions. I'm not sure where you got the idea of Indoeuropean peoples being "West Central Asians" instead of "Easternmost Europeans" (Samara urheimat) but whatever the case these areas are not West Asia, a region that extends south of the Caspian and Black Seas. So you can hardly argue against Central Asia by resorting to talk about West Asia: totally different animals unless you can prove otherwise.

      Maybe you mean "West and Central Asians"? If so, these may well be two different regions, especially the areas north of the Kazakh deserts, more related to Europe and Siberia than to West Asia, I'd say.

      Delete
    4. I never said the early Indo-Europeans were West or West Central Asians. That's what Dienekes keeps mumbling apparently.

      Based on what I've seen to date, I think Indo-Europeans were extreme Eastern Europeans genetically (ie. with a high North European-like Mesolithic component), even in Central Europe well into the metal ages, until they mixed thoroughly with LBK-derived and Atlantic fringe-derived groups.

      Delete
    5. "I never said the early Indo-Europeans were West or West Central Asians. That's what Dienekes keeps mumbling apparently".

      Then I misunderstood you, it seems. My apologies.

      "... I think Indo-Europeans were extreme Eastern Europeans genetically (ie. with a high North European-like Mesolithic component)"...

      We are in the same line of though here then.

      Delete
    6. "Who or more exactly HOW did those changes happen (rather than asking for "culprits", I would look for more materialist explanations: "what happened?, how?")."

      Fair enough.

      Of course, the big "answer" that we already have now is that something (or multiple somethings) big did happen in a broad European region over a time frame narrowed to about five thousand years previously assumed to be static in the absence of ancient DNA evidence, which is progress.

      My posing of the question as a "who" question is an allusion to the fact that we also have a reasonably well resolved understanding of which archaeological cultures were were in that time period in that geographic region. The number of plausible candidate cultures during which major population genetic shifts could have taken place is finite and very likely congruous with one or more archaeological cultures that are already known to exist, because any demographic event big enough to produce this kind of big population genetic shift ought to leave a clear archaeological trace. The total number of remotely possible candidates in the right time frame and place is less than a couple of dozen and only a handful of them are really serious contenders.

      The fact that the prehistoric record is fairly well subdivided in natural logical units is part of what makes it so tempting to reach fairly big conclusions about prehistoric human geography based upon fairly thin data sets. Once the archaeological record can be reconciled fairly confidently with the ancient DNA record we can have a very good idea about where to look for the answers to the "How" and "Why" questions.

      Delete
    7. "Who or more exactly HOW did those changes happen (rather than asking for "culprits", I would look for more materialist explanations: "what happened?, how?")."

      Fair enough.

      Of course, the big "answer" that we already have now is that something (or multiple somethings) big did happen in a broad European region over a time frame narrowed to about five thousand years previously assumed to be static in the absence of ancient DNA evidence, which is progress.

      My posing of the question as a "who" question is an allusion to the fact that we also have a reasonably well resolved understanding of which archaeological cultures were were in that time period in that geographic region. The number of plausible candidate cultures during which major population genetic shifts could have taken place is finite and very likely congruous with one or more archaeological cultures that are already known to exist, because any demographic event big enough to produce this kind of big population genetic shift ought to leave a clear archaeological trace. The total number of remotely possible candidates in the right time frame and place is less than a couple of dozen and only a handful of them are really serious contenders.

      The fact that the prehistoric record is fairly well subdivided in natural logical units is part of what makes it so tempting to reach fairly big conclusions about prehistoric human geography based upon fairly thin data sets. Once the archaeological record can be reconciled fairly confidently with the ancient DNA record we can have a very good idea about where to look for the answers to the "How" and "Why" questions.

      Delete
  2. @davidski

    "I don't think much of the claim that R1a/R1b West Central Asians invaded the Near East and Europe during the Bronze Age. Anyone with half a brain and any idea about population genetics ought to realize it makes no sense in the context of modern European and West Eurasian genetic structure. West Asian-like genetic influence in Northern and Central Europe is LBK-derived, while Mediterranean influence comes from Neolithic and metal age groups that moved up the Atlantic fringe from the western Mediterranean."

    what does the genetic structure you point out have to do with r1a and r1b? do you still think r1b came to western Europe by way of the Mediterranean? I haven't seen evidence of a large flow of people along that route post neolithic. The structure of m269 also disagrees with that hypothesis. the haplotype structure suggests a central Europe to Western Europe movement, consistent with the most likely spread of Celtic and the population jump in Germany timed to the eastern beakers.

    the autosomal change in Spain, post Neolithic, was a movement towards north European like people. its possible r1b and "north European" was hidden in neolithic Spain but I very much doubt it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think we can talk of "autosomal change", especially in Iberia, until more evidence is sequenced. But what everybody who has looked to the La Braña partial and double sequence (a complicated startpoint, admittedly), claims a Northern European affinity to greater levels than present day. However I have serious doubts that this sequence is a reliable reference: two sequences conflated into one just because they did not have enough material in either, producing very strange results, with unclear cultural affiliation (they could well be Early Neolithic in fact and their burials are very unusual for the local Paleolithic, resembling more those of Italy in fact).

      "I haven't seen evidence of a large flow of people along that route [Mediterranean→West] post neolithic".

      Indeed. Not me either. Also R1b-S116 as such still looks very much as originating in Southern France, what only seems consistent with Paleolithic expansion.

      "The structure of m269 also disagrees with that hypothesis. the haplotype structure suggests a central Europe to Western Europe movement, consistent with the most likely spread of Celtic"...

      R1b-M269 does looks like spreading from the Balcans or West Asia but that can well be extremely old, from 30-50 Ka ago. There is almost no R1b-M269(xM412) or R1b-M269(xL11) in Europe West of the Balcans so M269 is not the haplogroup to look at. We must look at lower phylogenetic levels.

      M412/L11 appears to have spread either from Central Europe, Italy or SW Europe but again there's no expansion associated to this stage. The expansions correspond to R1b-S116 (South clade) and R1b-U106 (North clade). The first one must have expanded from Southern France, what AFAIK is only consistent with Paleolithic expansions; the latter may have expanded around Doggerland or Rhineland (again Upper Paleolithic or Epipaleolithic contexts only seem to make sense, whatever the case less important than the Southern clade).

      Celtic explanations make no sense whatsoever. One of the reasons is that, as I will explain (again and in more detail) soon in another entry, Basques show genetic continuity since Neolithic, while IE-speakers do not. It's therefore impossible to associate R1b expansion with Celtic or Indoeuropean flows - R1b dilution instead makes sense.

      But then again I would prefer if we would focus in mtDNA, and leave Y-DNA for the dessert, because we simply do not have enough ancient Y-DNA to judge yet.

      Delete
    2. Maju Just because basque dont speak a celtic language does not mean R1b S116 is not Celtic. everyone else around them was Celtic modern day Basque country and i know their language was more spread out but it was all under Celtic Hallstat culture. So what some celts adopted the native language its possible.

      I cant believe u are still arguing a Paleolithic origin of western European R1b. 31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic west Europe not one R1b even from with 26 coming near basque country. Now almost all Iberian R1b S116 has been found to be in subclade R1b Df27. Everything matches up proto Germanic Italo Celtic speakers and it is a branch of Indo European languages R1b1a2a1 L51 and R1b1a2a1a L11.

      U should click on this link
      http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe

      I made it it is about how Germanic Italo Celts spread acroos western Europe. There is no way there was a R1b migration out of southern Europe. R1b1a2a1 L51 father R1b1a2a L23 is pretty popular around Caucus, Antolia, and Iraq uselly over 20% and is popular in southeast Europe. R1b has a very old age in the middle east the youngest subclades are western European. Why would u give it a Paleolithic age when R1b itself is estimated to be only 18,000 years old. Y DNa R1 and R are orignally Mongliod brother of Q and cousins of O and N. When i are talking about Paleoithic migration into Europe u are talking about Caucasians from the mid east who probably had purelly Caucasian blood.

      U should except something like Y DNA I to be Paleolithic in Europe since it is brother to mid eastern J. It is Caucasian R1 is not. The fact that R1b in Europe breacks down into language families is such good evidence it migrated in the bronze age starting 5,000ybp with Germanic Italo celtic languages.

      U should also click on this
      http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91971-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b1a2a-L23-R1b1a1-M73-Etc-)

      It is pretty amazing how modern Y DNa in Indo European speakers tracing them back. Totally defends the Kurgen theory also Y DNA samples from what the Kurgen theory say were iNdo European. And the Bell Beaker R1b is exactly what people with my opinion would except. That is the exact place and time Germanic Italo Celts arrived.

      Delete
    3. i dont know why it made my name barak obama just saying i really dont like him

      Delete
    4. Maju i think u need to look more into Y DNA. Because think about it do the Jews call themselves son of Sarah or sons of Abraham. People groups uselly if anything name their tribes after their ancinet fathers look at last names people used to identify by who their father were. Y DNA defines ethnic groups not mtDNA. So many people share the same mtDNa haplogroup u can make big conclusions with 200 mtDNa haplogroups from LBK. All Caucasins have similar groups i guess u can make some conclsuons but it gets so annoying working with mtDNA nothing is for sure. But with Y DNA it is.

      If we find alot of R1b S116 from Unetice we know they were probably Proto Italo Celtic but with mtDNA all we would figure out really is they are Caucasians probably from Europe. R1b S21 from Nordic bronze age culture would show they were Germanic not mtDNA U5b. when now know G2a was major in people that spread farming in Europe maybe they all or many came from teh same ancestral culture. Native Americans have 3 y dna haplogroups really only one R1 and C probably came late but they have over 6 mtDNA haplogroups. Polgmy is probably another reason why there are uselessly less Y DNa haplogroups than mtDNA. Also in war men die when conquered so that is why Indo European Y DNa is so popular.

      I think another thing to look at is aust dna. there is no doubt the farmers taht spread acroos europe were mainly Med(globe13 and other tests) and heavily Y DNa G2a. while the hunter gathers probably only north euro(globe13 and other tests) and y dna I. Those peopel who try to argue a Neolithic origin for most of Europeans ancestry are complete idiots. all they look at his 50 mtdna samples or 500 or whatever it is not conclusive.

      Look at 7,000ybp Mesolithic hunter gather La Brana aust dna he was a total European. aust group i will go by globe13 called north euro is the only to originate in Europe and probably was 100% right before farming spread. Europeans were probably a very unifed and universe people like native Americans who also are 100% the same aust dna group. Later other groups came but north euro is the most popular in modern Europe. JUst think about it if Europeans are from neolithic mid easterns why the heck is their skin white while mid easterns brown. Why do so many Europeans have yellow hair while almost no mid easterns don't have any and most probably get it form European inter marriage mainly Indo Iranian speakers. There are unique features in Europeans that prove they have been there for a long time.

      Dont u guys consider other factors besides mtdna. I was just sickened by the lies some articles say like the genetic history of Europeans all published April 23 2013. it was based on not many mtdna samples and ignored obvious x factors. I am also sick of crap like europe has been pale skinned for only 6,000 years. U did hear about 6,000 year old pigmentation form early indo European yamna people in Ukraine all had pale skin. also 3,800ybp indo Iranian speakers from andronovo culture south Siberia migrated out of Russia yamna culture 5,000ybp not just white super pale mainly blonde haired and light eyed.

      They will say crap like the genes they think cause pale skin in Europeans are only European. When they actulley exist in other Caucasians at almost the same rate.
      http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91397-Supposedly-Euro-light-skin-genes-are-popular-in-all-Caucasins-and-exists-in-about-all-Humans


      Delete
    5. Hallstatt culture map → http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Hallstatt_culture.png

      Sure they expanded slightly from there but mostly some parts of SE France and NE Iberia (following the path taken by their predecessors of Urnfields culture). While it's surely true that Hallstatt peoples were already Celts (they must be at the origin of Iberian Celts and possibly some more ancient Gauls like the Arverni), the bulk of Celtic expansion happened under La Tène culture since c. 400 or 300 BCE (i.e. a few centuries before written history begins in our part of the World).

      There were other peoples initially unaffected by these Western Indoeuropean expansions of the Iron Age: Iberians, Etruscans, Ligurians and probably also Picts. Most were indoeuropeanized under Roman rule only. So, for example, how do you explain high levels of R1b among historically Iberian populations? It could not come from Rome (where R1b is rather weak).

      Rather than imagining weird scenarios in which masses of invaders amounting to 90% of the male population (!!!) somehow miraculously learn the native language, it is much more reasonable to reconstruct coherent scenarios in which an invader minority imposes their language and identity to the masses. There's no other reasonable possibility.

      "I cant believe u are still arguing a Paleolithic origin of western European R1b".

      I truth I do not know but the only logical scenario considering haplogroup distribution of R1b-S116 (the main subclade) is an expansion from Southern France, where all subclades are well represented (ref. Myres 2010). And the only time-frame that makes sense for that is the Late Upper Paleolithic (Magdalenian and Epipaleolithic).

      Said that, it's very possible that there were backflows or whatever, related to the better documented expansion of mtDNA H, which seems in some cases at least to be of Chalcolithic age.

      "31 Y DNA samples from Neolithic west Europe not one R1b"

      Of which most of them are close relatives (G2a, exactly the same haplotype!) from a single site in Languedoc. All those count as one. The same happens with other less numerous cases. Overall we know of two haplotypes in Languedoc (G2a and I2a), two in Catalonia (E1b-V13 and G2a), three in Germany (G2a and two F*) and one in Italy (G2a). So I count just eight lineages, most of which are G2a.

      None of them is Paleolithic nor anything that could assimilate to them. In Germany and Catalonia, we see clear mtDNA discontinuity between the Neolithic and present day, and I believe it seems also the case in Italy. So I do not know how exactly those Cardial and Danubian peoples got nearly wiped out (as it seem they were) and replaced by R1b (and mtDNA H) carrying peoples but the case is that they were. There is no or very limited Neolithic continuity in Europe, the main exception being the Basque Country - and probably also other Atlantic areas to lesser extent. These Atlantic areas of "less Neolithic blood" probably are responsible to a large extent for present day genetic pools, together with Eastern Europe (even less "Neolithic" by blood than the Atlantic).

      We do not have Y-DNA data for those Atlantic areas but it's probable that they either retained large amounts of R1b or they received them as Neolithic founder effects (inconsistent with what we see in "purer" Neolithic areas of the Mediterranean and Central Europe, also inconsistent with distribution patterns, so very unlikely). Eastern Europe should be responsible of the R1a spread primarily.

      Delete
    6. As for your link, the Eupedia map is incorrect (Eupedia is not too good a reference, especially because they seem to have some ethnocentric biases). It is extremely obvious that R1b-S116 did not originate in Central Europe but in SW Europe north of the Pyrenees. There's almost no S116 East of France (→ academic quality maps). The most correct reconstruction of R1b expansion in Europe is this map (by moi, but based on Myres 2010 data).

      So while it may (or not: insufficient data) be correct that R1b-M402 expanded from Central Europe, M402 as such or even the next phylogenetic layer L11, do not show any strong signatures of expansion. I.e. they illustrate an intermediate stage after the overall R1b-M269 origin at the Balcans (or West Asia??) but did not expand almost at all. It is only the haplogroups R1b-S116 ("South clade") and R1b-U106 ("North clade) which show such a clear expansive dynamism. Of these R1b-S116 is clearly the most important one by numbers and has a core distribution of Iberia, France and British Islands and a clear center in Southern France, where all subhaplogroups are present at significant frequencies.

      This only seems consistent in my understanding with Paleolithic (Magdalenian) expansion but feel free to suggest any alternative scenario that makes sense. It does not mean that the various lineages could not experience re-expansions later on but the main signature is that one.

      In other words that guy's "Proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic" rant regarding R1b is just that: a total rant of an ignorant ethnocentric person.

      "Why would u give it a Paleolithic age when R1b itself is estimated to be only 18,000 years old".

      Because I do not believe in molecular-clock-o-mancy. Or rather I can take seriously only what is serious, and there is very little of that so far in molecular-clock-o-mancy. In my understanding (see: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/y-dna-ages.html) R1b is probably (at least) 34,000 years old (roughly Gravettian age).

      "U should except something like Y DNA I to be Paleolithic"...

      And you should write properly. "You", not "U"; "accept" not "except" (which, if anything, would be the opposite).

      I do accept I to be Paleolithic, possibly Aurignacian (my age estimate is of 48 Ka, so quite pioneering indeed). But that doesn't mean it has to be the only Paleolithic patrilineage of Europe. In fact, considering that Gravettian surely implied a second migration from West Asia (and the last one before Neolithic times), it's only logical that we find two layers: I and R1b (maybe R1a for Eastern Gravettian?) Whatever the case it looks like I re-expanded in Neolithic times: at least I2a within Cardial context.

      ...

      Delete
    7. I do not disregard the phylogenetic relationship between R1b and Q, but the fact of the matter is that raw comparisons of STR variance (which are much more robust than estimates of TMRCA via the assumption of a constant mutation rate) reveal that macrohaplogroup F-M89 as a whole has not accumulated much more STR variance than P-M45 as a whole. In other words, the age of the split between R and Q (and, hence, the common ancestor of R1b and Q) is something like 90% of the age of F-M89. If that 10% of shared development post-F-M89 seems really significant to you, then so be it, but I personally think it is more rational to consider R1b and Q to be almost as distinct as any pair of subclades of F-M89 (e.g. R1b and G2a, O1a and I1, H1a and N1c1). Who knows where that common ancestor of R1b and Q might have lived, or how he might have looked?

      Delete
    8. ...

      [IJ] ..."is Caucasian R1 is not".

      That's a racialist nonsense. I have little patience for racialist claims, especially if they come from people who do not seem familiar with what I actually think and make me waste a lot of time therefore. And it is "Caucasoid" not "Caucasian" anyhow: Zhugasvili (the President of Georgia) is Caucasian, I or you are not. I don't care what "race" you are but, if you are an arrogant ignorant, please don't get in my way. Being an ignorant is OK, being arrogant with some knowledge may be tolerated but being an arrogant ignorant is just plainly annoying.

      As far as I know, Y-DNA P spread from Bengal in Westward direction leaving a number of heirs here and there: P* in Bengal and Bihar, R2 in other parts of India, Q and R1 in West Asia. Some of that Q established itself in Altai c. 47 Ka ago, displacing the local Neanderthals. Later, since c. 30 Ka ago, they expanded Eastwards, carrying with them the "mode 4" (blade tech) and mixing with the local women up to the point that very few West Eurasian mtDNA ancestry (X2) remains among their Eastern Siberian or Native American heirs.

      "The fact that R1b in Europe breacks down into language families"...

      That's just a coincidence, unless you want to imagine Romans carrying R1b-S116 all around their Empire, what makes no sense because of the extremely low basal diversity of Italian R1b-S116 (nearly all of which is of the U152 "Alpine" or "Celtic" clade, and centered around ancient non-IE populations like Ligurians and Etruscans mostly anyhow).

      "Totally defends the Kurgen theory"...

      I'm totally fine with the Kurgan theory. I still do not think that your Fire Haired hero makes it enough justice but let it be.

      Whatever the case R1a as such must be pre-IE and original from West Asia (like R1b overall and therefore like R1), regardless that some sublineages (R1a1a1b1 (S339/Z283)?) may correspond well to the relatively recent IE expansion.

      "And the Bell Beaker R1b"...

      We don't know yet anything about Bell Beaker and R1b. We know of Bell Beaker in Central Europe and mtDNA H, because it is the first population of that area to have high frequencies of H. But what happens in Iberia? That both Basques as Portuguese (but especially these ones) had high frequencies of H long before that. Lacking sufficient data from other areas like France, Britain, Belgium or Denmark, it's hard to judge but it seems clear to me that, if R1b re-expansion has to be associated to that of mtDNA H, then it has a Western origin, maybe in Portugal (which played a quite central role in the Megalithic period, before and after Bell Beaker).

      "Maju i think u need to look more into Y DNA".

      I look at the data for what we have. We have very little (almost no) ancient Y-DNA data. I do not care if Jews or whatever call themselves "sons of" or whatever, I respect my grandmothers as well and I know that my ancestry doesn't come just from the paternal line.

      ...

      Delete
    9. ...

      "If we find alot of R1b S116 from Unetice"...

      I bet we won't. They lack mtDNA H! Migrant men may have taken local women, sure, but at least some surely migrated with them. I would like more data from Rhineland, Bavaria, Austria, Belgium... and not so much from that remote corner of the Ancient World as is Northern Germany. After all the Late Bronze and Iron Age migrations spawned from what is now Southern Germany (and surroundings), not the North. Sometimes it seems as if we would be trying to reconstruct the puzzle of European archaeogenetics with data from Orkney islands, so to say, alone. We need more data from the central areas of the Danube, Rhine, France, Iberia, the Balcans, etc.

      "Native Americans have 3 y dna haplogroups really only one R1"...

      Can you document that claim to an academic paper. AFAIK, Native Americans only have (prior to admixture) two lineages: Q (two variants, I believe) and C3. I recently saw a map where NW North America was shadowed with "R1" but, as far as my knowledge reaches, that is a total nonsense, a brutal error.

      "... they have over 6 mtDNA haplogroups".

      Five AFAIK: A, B, C, D and X2.

      "Look at 7,000ybp Mesolithic hunter gather La Brana aust dna he was a total European".

      Nope: "he" had 10% African ancestry, it seems. Anyhow "he" was actually two different persons (pooled into a single sequence because of the extremely low quality of the sample) and "he" could well be Neolithic (it's totally borderline by date and the burial is highly unusual) - actually I strongly suspect that La Braña findings are early Neolithic new arrivals with cultural traits more proper of Italy than the West.

      "Dont u guys consider other factors besides mtdna".

      Sure. Just give me the data and I will consider that. The problem is that mtDNA is the only reliable and relatively abundant archaeogenetic data.

      "U did hear about 6,000 year old pigmentation form early indo European yamna people in Ukraine all had pale skin".

      Nope. First of all because the genetics of skin pigmentation are so far quite ill-understood (make a search at this blog). But in any case I wouldn't be surprised, light skin must be a trait that has been north of X latitude (say 35 degrees or 40 maybe) with us since early on in the Upper Paleolithic, otherwise our offspring would go nuts, literally, for lack of vitamin D (no supplements back in the day other than fish). Make a search on "vitamin D" as well. Gotta go.

      Delete
    10. @Ebizur:

      "In other words, the age of the split between R and Q (and, hence, the common ancestor of R1b and Q) is something like 90% of the age of F-M89".

      That would be even older than I think. I was estimating (based on full chromosome data, see dedicated page above) around 2/3 only. For a calibration point of age(CF)=100 Ka BP, I got age(F)=92 Ka, age(MNOPS)=76 Ka, age (IJ)=69 Ka, age(P)=68 Ka and age (NO)=60 Ka. O would be c. 52 Ka old, I and R1 c. 48 Ka, R1b c. 34 Ka.

      The calibration point is supported by the latest evidence not just in East Asia but also in South Asia: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2013/07/middle-paleolithic-industries-of.html

      The use of full chromosome data rather than just some capricious STR markers seems to be a much stronger guarantee of accuracy.

      Delete
    11. BTW, Ebizur, when are you starting your own blog? You have so much to share!

      Delete
    12. Oops, I misspoke in my previous comment. I should have said that the age of the common ancestor of NO-M214 and P-M45 is about 90% of the age of F-M89.

      Maju is correct that the common ancestor of R and Q (i.e. P-M45) appears to be a little bit more than 2/3 (about 70%) of the age of F-M89.

      Anyway, my point is that MNOPS-M526 is not much more recent than F-M89 as a whole, so it is rash to assume that all subclades of MNOPS-M526 must be either Caucasoid or Mongoloid without assuming the same for all subclades of the greater haplogroup F-M89.

      As for starting my own blog, there are several reasons why I have not done so already. First, I have Wikipedia at my disposal, which is sufficient for sharing most of the information I might wish to contribute. Second, I am terrified of the prospect of having to deal with the aftermath of errors like the one that I have made in my previous comment. Not to mention the fact that I have been very busy with work and other affairs lately, and I no longer have access to many of the publications on human population genetics that I used to reference during my heyday on these forums several years ago. Anyway, thank you for your kind words.

      Delete
    13. There are some differences because we're using different methodologies, Ebizur, but I think we are close enough. A key issue is of course calibration, if (some, many) geneticists stubbornly insist on a 60 Ka date for the OoA, when the latest evidence says 100 Ka, even the best method will be 40% short in all results.

      Keep making Wikipedia a more informed place, buddy. :)

      Delete
  3. "Celtic explanations make no sense whatsoever. One of the reasons is that, as I will explain (again and in more detail) soon in another entry, Basques show genetic continuity since Neolithic, while IE-speakers do not. It's therefore impossible to associate R1b expansion with Celtic or Indoeuropean flows - R1b dilution instead makes sense."

    I think the basque are a minor part in the big picture. Of course I wouldn't expect a perfect correlation between a haplogroup and a language, which is why I don't see the basque as an issue for western-r1b/Celtic. Overall I think r1b/east bb/ Celtic is a good fit.

    To what degree do you think the Basque country has had genetic continuity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "To what degree do you think the Basque country has had genetic continuity?"

      Since at least Neolithic times. I've been much of August documenting and writing an article in Spanish (for another blog) on the matter and the data really vindicates this, while it does not support continuity (or to a clearly lesser scale) for Indoeuropean speaking peoples like Germans, Portuguese or Catalans: Germans don't show continuity of genetic pool until the Bronze Age (or maybe Late Chalcolithic); Portuguese show some greater continuity but there is clear dilution of their genetic pool (extremely high in mtDNA H originally) at some point between Chalcolithic and present day, what is coincident with quite apparent Bronze and Iron Age invasions.

      I will write a shortened English version for this blog after it is published.

      "... the basque are a minor part in the big picture".

      Hardly so, because:

      (1) R1b-S116 makes up about 90% of Basque patrilineages. Would it be Celtic, Basques should speak Celtic, what is not the case.

      (2) The greatest haplogroup diversity for R1b-S116 is in Southern France, much of which spoke Basque even in historical times. All the wider Basque area was refractory to Celtic influence (and as far as I can read in archaeological evidence militarily confronted to their advance in the Iron Age).

      Delete
    2. What is "basque continuity" is it only a few surviving mtDNA lineages or is it mtDNA survival at a large scale?

      Delete
    3. http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com.es/2011/11/neolithic-basque-mtdna.html

      At the very least the Paternabidea mtDNA pool (early Neolithic, n=9) is almost identical to the modern Basque one. I'm not talking this or that lineage here but the overall genetic pool, although at small scale it's also very much alike.

      Said that, there are nuances, of course: for example there are other Neolithic sites from the Basque Country which are not so similar to the present day genetic pool, however overall the results are surprisingly similar (very especially if we compare with other European regions like Germany or Portugal) and we can track that apparent continuity through time in the Chalcolithic, etc.

      As I said before, I will write soon on this matter more extensively.

      Delete
    4. The Spanish-language article just got published: http://www.amaata.com/2013/09/el-origen-de-las-vascas-y-otras.html

      Surely the graphs are accessible to all, there you can compare the evolution of the genetic pool (mtDNA) in Germany, Portugal and the Basque Country. In any case I plan to post an English language version here soon(TM).

      Delete
    5. It is actulley really amazing Y DNA has shown Celtic expanisons make total sense,. U also need to include Italic's who expanded from Urnfielf culure wih R1b S28.

      u should look at these
      http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?89535-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe

      http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91971-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b1a2a-L23-R1b1a1-M73-Etc-)

      https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Feurope%2FHaplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml&ei=VlQrUsOdDYXVrQHonoGQBw&usg=AFQjCNHXsHj4Btu0ZPVHyQKiyCoKbeHnKw&sig2=ATEcB706z8GBh56Pa6RhLg&bvm=bv.51773540,d.aWM

      Delete
  4. http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?91971-Y-DNA-spread-by-Indo-Europeans-(R1a1a1-M417-R1b1a2a1-L51)-(R1b1a2a-L23-R1b1a1-M73-Etc-)

    Maju do u hear what u are saying. it is not impossible for Celts with R1b S116 to adopt a native language. No matter how u put if R1b S116 is deifntley connected with the spread of Italo Celtic tribes and R1b S21 ots brother with Germanic tribes. Almost all Iberian R1b S116 is under new found subclade R1b Df27. But in France u find R1b L21, R1b U152, R1b Df27. Since it deifntley is form the spread of Italo Celtic tribes u need to look at their ancestor culture like Unetice, Tumulus, and Urnfield. It obviously shows them starting in central Europe that was the center of the Italo Celtic world. Iberia and southwest Europe came later probably with Urnfield and Hallstatt culture expansions 3,200-2,700ybp.

    U see the same thing with all Indo Europeans really. They wiped out native paternal lineages they did it everywhere they went. Celts did the same in the British isles and southwestern Europe 4,000-3,000ybp. That includes Basque's ancestors why would they somehow be an accpetion even though they were surrounded by Celts who cares about their language besides that they were celts. So what if Estrucans and all those other non Indo European lived in areas with alot of Italo Gaulish R1b S28 it doesnt matter everything else points to it spreading with Urnfield culture. U ar to pickey not everything has to work out perfectly people back then didn't care about IE languages or Y DNa they had no idea what it was. The could adopt native languages or be ruled by non Indo Europeans.

    Eupedia makes total sense. It is obvious that R1b L11 is proto Germanic italo Celtic nd arrived 5,000ybp. And 31 Y DNa samples without R1b in Neolithic west Europe 26 of them coming near basque country around the area u think R1b S116 originated does not add up with ur theory. But two R1b from bell BEaker totally backs up with what i am saying and Eupedia that is the exact place and time Germanic Italo celts arrived. The first culture they would have conquered was Bell Beaker which is why Unetice which had Kurgens technically is descended from bell Beaker. Also there are signs of Bell beaker culture spreading bronze to the British isles around 4,000ybp i would guess the arrival of Celts and R1b L21.

    Modern distribution does not show origin people made that mistake with r1b being Cro magnon all ready. The fact is that R1b in west Europe is the youngest of all R1b and no way is it pre Neloithic and shows huge connections with the Spread of Germanic Italo Celtic languages starting 5,000ybp and ancient Y DNa totally backs that up. LIke i was saying before this does not make western Europeans ancestors all coming 5,000ybp. It is a mix and besides DNA has shown Europeans trace back to a Paleoithic family that probably arrived over 30,000ybp. So i am not saying what idiots like mtDNa H and Europeans being mid eastern farmers but i am saying the paternal lineage R1b arrived 5,000ybp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "it is not impossible for Celts with R1b S116 to adopt a native language".

      It is effectively impossible: conqueror peoples don't normally do that, much less a people settling in massive numbers (90% of all paternal ancestry!!!). What do they speak in South Dakota today: English or Lakota? What in Mexico City: Spanish or Nahuatl?

      Instead it is perfectly possible, almost normal, for conquered peoples to be assimilated (as slaves, vassals or even equal-footed allies) to the conqueror elite, even if this one is small. What do they speak in Tunis and Cairo? Phoenician, Latin, Berber or Coptic? Nope: Arabic! In Ankara maybe they speak Galatian or Greek? Nope: Turkish! In Budapest? Celtic or Dacian? Nope: Hungarian! In Toulouse and Marseilles, Occitan maybe? Nope: French! In Seville and Granada: Mozarabic or Arabic? Nope: Castilian Spanish (with an strong accent admittedly). Even when elite assimilation fails it leaves a legacy, such as the extremely strong Norman French influence in modern English.

      And Basque has no apparent Celtic influences. Latin a lot but Celtic zero or almost so. That's best explained because for centuries Basques and Celts were hostile to each other with very limited exceptions (the Santones apparently were considered less hostile). I even think that the word Celt, which is not native but has arrived to us from Greek "Keltos" is either Basque or Iberian or Ligurian but still recognizable in Basque: keldo: ruin, miserable, unkempt. In other words: a xenophobic exonym. Instead the Romans called them Galli (Gauls), which is nothing but the endonym Gael. Massilian Greeks probably adopted that name because they were in much better relationship with pre-Celtic populations and probably even helped these to conquer key lands (Catalonia especially) to Hallstatt Celts.

      "No matter how u put if R1b S116 is deifntley connected with the spread of Italo Celtic tribes".

      No, it is not. Certainly not with Italics (by no means!)

      "Almost all Iberian R1b S116 is under new found subclade R1b Df27".

      I've heard that rumor but still waiting to see the detailed data. It does not matter because the origin of R1b S116 is NOT in Iberia but Southern France and that is a fact impossible to deny.

      "Since it deifntley is form the spread of Italo Celtic tribes u need to look at their ancestor culture like Unetice, Tumulus, and Urnfield".

      We do have a most serious mtDNA problem connecting Unetice with Urnfields. It seems that the thousand years that separate each other still hide some issues. For what we know (Adler 2012) Unetice, lacking mtDNA H altogether, is not ancestral to modern Germans nor to Bronze Age Urnfield peoples of Germany. Corded Ware may be to some extent but Unetice, like Kromsdorf, is problematic, at least the data we can see.

      But the real problem here is your obsession with Celts and your lack of understanding on how Metal Ages' migrations (or rather aristocratic conquests with only a minor migrational aspect) must have been.

      "U see the same thing with all Indo Europeans really. They wiped out native paternal lineages they did it everywhere they went".

      That's plainly stupid and unreal. You are hallucinating, putting the horses before the cart. You have your conclusions per-conceived and do not care about the data. I don't like that at all.

      ...

      Delete
    2. ...

      [Basques] "were surrounded by Celts".

      They were not in fact. It's more like Iberian Celts were surrounded by Basques and related peoples like Iberians, Astures, etc. By the time when the La Tène Celts arrived to Western France, the Hallstatt Celts of Iberia were already pretty much displaced to the West (by their own conquering impulse but also by the Iberian reconquest of the NE). Notice that some of the groups that became Celts had a local background and only became Celts in the most shallow of senses, this particularly applies to the plateau culture of Cogotas (whose phase I is pre-Celtic while the phase II is Celtic but obviously the same herder people in nearly everything). In other areas (Portugal) the Celtic conquest was surely more violent and game-changing but not up to wipe all the population.

      "So what if Estrucans and all those other non Indo European lived in areas with alot of Italo Gaulish R1b S28 it doesnt matter everything else points to it spreading with Urnfield culture".

      I still think that they arrived from Anatolia (just the elites, of course, not the masses). If you think that Etruscans are directly related to Urnfields, then why do not they spoke anything even remotely related to Indoeuropean and why did they have relatives in the Aegean Sea, just near Troy?

      Whatever the case, Italy is not important in regards to the expansion of R1b-S116: it's just a secondary destination of the Alpine subclade and has low frequencies of R1b overall. This fact actually fits well with the Magdalenian model because Italy was out of the Magdalenian area altogether.

      You are not going to persuade anyone of R1b being spread by Indoeuropeans when these have frequencies of 30% (in Italy) and Basques have frequencies of 90%. Let's ignore Italy therefore: it's not relevant and it's too peculiar to shed much light.

      "It is obvious that R1b L11 is proto Germanic italo Celtic".

      That's an ethnocentric idiocy that we have already discussed.

      "And 31 Y DNa samples without R1b in Neolithic west Europe 26 of them coming near basque country around the area"

      We have already discussed that: Neolithic immigrants obviously were not carriers of R1b. It's just some eight actual lineages, all the rest is redundant. And nobody here would consider the Mediterranean shores to be "near Basque Country": the Mediterranean is another planet altogether, so to say: it's sunny over there, here it rains all the time, its sea is warm and almost tideless, ours is cold and stormy, etc. This seems just a silly prejudice I guess but it actually marks an ecological distinction: no olives here, our grapes are acidic and we traditionally drank cider and grew crops that are not Mediterranean overall, being largely dedicated to pastoralism and fishing.

      This ecological barrier probably limited the demic expansion of the Mediterranean Neolithic peoples, allowing for ample pockets of other populations which eventually moved back in Eastern direction. It's not clear anyhow when and how but while Basques do show genetic continuity since Early Neolithic, Catalans and Germans do not.

      You are talking to me about Unetice when this population had no mtDNA H. Don't speculate so much about the little we know of ancient Y-DNA and study the much more we know about mtDNA, please! Sure: German Urnfields do show modern frequencies of mtDNA (at least in one case) but that's what happened among Basques since much earlier, while Portuguese show a decline of H since Chalcolithic (so the Celts came to Portugal and diluted, not expanded, that high H genetic pool).

      Delete
    3. ...

      "... two R1b from bell BEaker totally backs up with what i am saying"...

      But the Bell Beaker samples have extremely high mtDNA H frequencies only comparable to what is found in Portugal before and at that time. So the most parsimonious conclusion can well be that the Bell Beaker peoples arrived to Germany from Portugal. Of course we have too many blanks in our knowledge to say that so radically but, if not Portugal, it should be some other Atlantic region: either West France or Denmark or something like that.

      Whatever the case you can't conflate Bell Beaker with Unetice: they are almost opposite in their mtDNA pools. They are totally different animals!

      "... Unetice which had Kurgens technically is descended from bell Beaker."

      No. Bell Beaker is not a Kurgan culture. They may or not be related but definitely BB is not characterized by building kurgans (tumuli). Bell Beaker is not even a culture properly speaking but rather a phenomenon, present in many different cultures as "ethnic minority" (or even just as fashionable cutlery).

      As I just emphasized the genetic pool of German BB and German Unetice is almost exactly the opposite, even if geographical neighbors:
      → H: BB 87%, Unetice 0%
      → U(xK): BB: 0%, Unetice: 46%
      → J: BB: 13%, Unetice 0%
      → T: BB: 0%, Unetice: 31%
      → N1: BB: 0%, Unetice 23%
      → W: BB: 13%, Unetice: 0%
      → X: BB: 13%, Unetice: 0%

      It's as dissimilar as between an African-American and a Chinese-American random samples in New York. I say mostly as a modern example of how different ethnic and genetic communities can live side by side and still be different for a long time. Eventually they will melt, sure, but it takes time.

      "Also there are signs of Bell beaker culture spreading bronze to the British isles around 4,000ybp".

      That's not possible because Bronze was not in Europe (Balcans excepted) yet. Wait another couple of centuries and maybe. English language scholars seem too prone to conflate copper with bronze, possibly because there's no much copper metallurgy in the islands so the Chalcolithic (mostly characterized by other traits like social complexity, apparent hierarchies and long distance trade) is often said to be Late Neolithic and such.

      In Britain as elsewhere BB is just a minority phenomenon: it does not imply colonization nor anything of the like, just scattered cutlery and some original but minority burials in otherwise persistent pre-BB (in that case mostly Megalithic) cultural contexts.

      "The fact is that R1b in west Europe (...) no way is it pre Neloithic"...

      Because you say so? I simply cannot agree with that at all. Molecular-clock-o-mancy has done huge damage to proper comprehension of population genetics, not just in the human species. It's mostly a pseudo-science especially because it is presented as "scientific facts" when it's just a mere speculation.

      If you want to worship the Molecular Clock, please spare me.

      ... "and shows huge connections with the Spread of Germanic Italo Celtic languages"...

      That sentence should be written "and shows NO connections with the Spread of Germanic Italo Celtic languages". At least R1b-S116 does not. Probably U106 neither but I'm not as certain (it's less important in any case).

      "... but i am saying the paternal lineage R1b arrived 5,000ybp".

      You are almost certainly wrong. Spare me, please.

      Delete
    4. Maju i looked at the UNetice and Urnfield mtDNA we dont have enough samples to make any conclusions. and there was H in Unetice look it up on ancient Eurasian DNA. I will keep saying this u trust to much on to little mtDNA samples. If u look at FRance in the west 10-15% is under R1b S28(Italo Gaulish), and 10-15% is under R1b L21(dominate in Insular Celts) but they have overal all 60-80% R1b S116. So ur left with 40-50% that is under another subclade most likely R1b Df27 it is probably also very popular in France mainly western France.

      The Basque ancestors the Aquiteni were surrounded by Celts in Iberia and Gaul. It is possibly after conquered all of west Europe Germanic Italo Celts could adopt a native language and after a few generation not even know it. U should look at what FTDNA says about R1b in west Europe they agree with everything i am saying but are more cautious it is not just me.

      What i can say is yes Germanic Italo Celts with R1b L11 conquered west Europe only explanation. Same way Indo Iranian conquered INdus valley which is why R1b Z93 is so popular there today. U see the same thing with all Indo European languages they spread by conquering. I know there are other explanation but the same thing happened every time. I will look at other explanations but the end result was almost always the same. The Aquitenni for all we know could have been Celts in culture just not speaking the language according to archaeology that area was in Hallstatt culture

      Delete
  5. There is not much reason to suppose that the La Brana samples are Neolithic. They are most likely Mesolithic in fact. I actually asked the author of that study about it last year. I asked.

    ''I do have a few questions though if you do not mind. Are the the two skeletons that were found at La-Brana Arintero that you got DNA from actually true hunter-gatherers from the Mesolithic period? I have discussed this with some people and a few seem to have some doubts about if they are truly Mesolithic hunter-gatherers or not. Some say that they were not buried like other true Mesolithic burials were. That is they were not interred in the ground. So can you confirm that they are definitely the skeletons of two hunter-gatherers from the Mesolithic period for sure?''

    And his reply was.

    ''Thanks for the email. We are currently looking for good genomic libraries from la Brana; out intention is sequencing some of them to exhaustion, to see if we can complete the genome of La brana 1.
    The question is interesting. You are right that the burials are unusual in the Mesolithic context; burials into caves usually have been excavated to place the bodies in shallow funerary structures, although in this case the solid ground simply didn't allow it. We have also some examples in the Cantabrian range of human mesolithic findings without funerary structure, like Poza l'Egua, Colomba, Mazaculos and Cuartamentero, all in Asturias (none so well preserved, of course, and most of them not in caves but in camping sites).
    Other evidences are: the typical Mesolithic ornaments associated to la Brana 2, the red deer atrophic canines, as well as indication of ocre soil scattered around La brana 1 body. And the dating; Neolithic didn't arrive to Western Iberian until much later. For what I know, the oldest dates in Cantabrian range-Basque region are around 5,500 yBP, that is, about 1,500 years later.
    Hope this helps''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most recent radio-carbon dates show clearly the arrival of Neolithic to the Cantabrian strip by 5000 BCE (7000 BP), just 500 years or so after the Mediterranean coast → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/11/dates-and-patterns-of-cantabrian-strip.html

      However I will concede that ochre is more typical of Paleolithic burials, I guess. As for the deer canine pendants, I think it is precisely a trait that was also considered quite unusual for the local Epipaleolithic. In the July 3 update to the La Braña entry (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/06/more-north-iberian-epipaleolithic-mtdna.html) I translated the opinion of Pablo Arias, Director of the Prehistoric Research Institute of Cantabria, as reported by Diario de León:

      Nevertheless, he details that there are some peculiarities making it unique: like the kind of necklace found along individual number 2 and very specially the characteristic of the funerary space: corpses deposited on the floor of a selected hypogeum. "From another point of view, La Braña-Arintero provides another evidence of the spectacular increase in the number of burials in the 7th millennium a.C. and that may relfect an intensification of the territoriality in these societies".

      Pablo Arias precises that the more striking characteristic of the funerary context of La Braña-Arintero resides in the sepulchral space itself, detailing that it is an exclusively funerary site, with no link to settlements of that age. We see that a remote cavity, apparently not suited for habitation, and the corpses have been placed there in peculiar spaces, well delimited by natural space in the way of niches.

      And this, as he defends in the article, is a funerary behavior that has no clear precedents in other peninsular contexts and rather reminds to behaviors more common in later periods instead
      .

      So there are some colleagues of Sánchez-Quinto who have doubts about the adscription of the La Braña burials to Epipaleolithic. It's not something I just made up.

      Delete
    2. I agree with u Maju that Neolithic farmers had arrived in Iberia by that time. 7,000ybp Y DNA samples from north Iberia had typical G2a like other Neloithic west Europeans and E1b1b V13 which has been connected with spreading in Europe mainly in the Neolithic. Also his aust dna in globe13 he had 71% North Euro which is the only group to originate in Europe while all others are believed to come in the Neolithic or after. He also had over 20% Med which was dominate in Neolithic samples Otzie 5,300ybp in alps Italy and Gok4 5,000ybp in south Sweden. So he had Neolithic blood.

      Delete
    3. I agree with u Maju that Neolithic farmers had arrived in Iberia by that time. 7,000ybp Y DNA samples from north Iberia had typical G2a like other Neloithic west Europeans and E1b1b V13 which has been connected with spreading in Europe mainly in the Neolithic. Also his aust dna in globe13 he had 71% North Euro which is the only group to originate in Europe while all others are believed to come in the Neolithic or after. He also had over 20% Med which was dominate in Neolithic samples Otzie 5,300ybp in alps Italy and Gok4 5,000ybp in south Sweden. So he had Neolithic blood.

      Delete
    4. I told you Barack: you're banned, don't bother commenting again. I do not need your arrogant patronizing and self-references.

      Delete
  6. I suppose the only way to really know for sure is to test to La Brana samples to see what their diets were largely made up of.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maju which mtDNA haplogroups do you believe have an aboriginal Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic origin in Europe? U2, U4, U5 and certain subclades of H?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And U*-CRS, and at least in one case JT* (Nerja, Andalusia), C1 (Epipaleolithic Karelia), HV* (Italy), some L(xM,N) (Portugal) and maybe others hard to discern (lots of unclear HVS-I R*). See: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html

      It seems clear that U subclades were more common in the Paleolithic, but there are regional (and temporal) differences of importance and it is anyhow clear that U was not the only macro-lineage present. Probably W and X, as well as K are of Neolithic origin. There is debate about N1a, whose Neolithic variant is exclusively European today but has not yet been detected among pre-Neolithic peoples. It is also unclear what subclades of H were present but I think that is hardly questionable that at least H1b (Portugal), H6 (Cantabria, surely H6a) and H17'27 (Sunghir) were present in the UP, as well as other undefined H.

      The issue of H is a methodological blindness problem: most subclades of H are simply invisible testing only for HVS-I, while testing of RFLP (enzymatic) markers may reveal H as such but normally not the subclade.

      I would think that, in general, the H sublineages shared by Europe and North Africa and apparently of SW European origin (namely H1, H3, H4 and H7, as well as V probably) are Paleolithic in both regions and migrated to Africa at the genesis of Oranian (Iberomaurusian), which seems to be of clear Gravetto-Solutrean derivation (with local Aterian elements as well, some of which may have made their way in the opposite direction, what would explain the ancient presence of some African lineages in Western Iberia). However neither H3 nor V (nor the less common H4 and H7) have been detected as of now before Neolithic times, so there are some reasonable doubts.

      As for JT, I'd say that J and T as such are of West Asian Neolithic origin, however the very rare JT* found in Paleolithic Nerja and nowadays in some individuals of North Africa and (I believe) Sardinia, may well be aboriginal Paleolithic.

      It's not too clear and I really wish that aDNA sequencing would always be done testing for coding region markers in order to avoid all this confusion. After all they are drilling extremely valuable ancient remains, so the least we can ask is that they use the most advanced and clarifying methodology.

      Delete
    2. The 7,500 year old Mongliod C1 in north north western Russia near Finland is probably from Kunda culture and the arrival of Y DNA N1c1 in northeastern Europe also Uralic languages So it is not really Paleolithic European it arrived pretty late in only a certain area. In 7,400-6,700bc mtDNA samples from Neolithic pre pottery Syria there was T2b and K1 which both pop up in almost all Neloithic European sites both i think came in the Neolithic overall all T2. There is a chance X2 came to Europe in Paleolithic from the mid east 15,000-20,000ybp that is when it came to North America why not Europe. I didnt know JT* would have been in Paleoithic Europe.
      '
      All U5 most U, H1, H3, V(HVO and Hv also existed), and maybe some others their ancestrl forms probably arrived in EUrope over 30,000ybp. V is extremley rare we have very few Paleoithic samples thats deifntley why probably same with H3.

      Delete
  8. Okay so would you say that this would make sense when it comes to the origins of the main mtDNA haplogroups found among Europeans today?

    Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic: U2, U4, U5, H1, H3, H4, H7 and V.

    West Asian Neolithic: J, K, T, W and X.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very roughly yes. My level of certainty varies from lineage to lineage. While not so common today we must include H6 and H17'27 as certain to exist in UP Europe (H6 at least is confirmed).

      It's also possible that some H lineages expanded with Neolithic, from West Asia or the Balcans, but it is unclear which ones. It seems more and more clear that H lineages overall expanded AFTER Neolithic, while U ones in general receded upon Neolithic arrival, so there were also important rearrangements within Europe after the first Neolithic.

      But in very rough terms and with due caution, yes.

      Delete
    2. Also U8* (ancestor of U8a?) and U*-CRS have been reported in the European UP. And let's not forget about HV*, C1, L3 found here and there... there's quite a bit of diversity.

      Delete
    3. what L3 that would be shocking. I was shocked by C1 in Pre potery Neloithic Syrai 7,400-6,700bc that is a MOngliod haplogrou how did it get there. Now we are talking about a sub shara AFruican mtDNA haplogroup in Paleoithic Europe how did it get there. Ancient mtDNA shows people were more connected than i excepted and i thing alot of other people too. They did not have direct connection but it trade after trade it traveled far,.

      Delete
  9. I think that certain subclades of H probably expanded into Europe with West Asian Neolithic farmers or out of the Balkans with Neolithic farmers but as you say we do not know which ones yet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's possible but the most interesting thing about this Hungarian data is that other than H5, which is not a too common haplogroup today, there is not much H in what should be the key transitional population of the Tisza basin (Eastern Linear Pottery, ALPC in the graph, precursor of the Western variant, much more widespread). So I was considering that the excess H that the Western LBK shows may have been incorporated from assimilated aboriginals, much like N1a.

      Of course it can also be a founder effect but the changes happening at the genesis of, first, the Eastern Linear Pottery and, then, the Western one, splitting from the Balcanic (red-white) Painted Ware precursors talk of a cultural change that may well have been caused by mestizaje. After all those areas of Hungary were the Eastern limit of Magdalenian expansion, so it is the most appropriate place for such a mestizaje to happen.

      In any case, LBK especially (but also what we know of Mediterranean Neolithic) only incorporated a fraction of the modern frequencies of H, so there are other sources necessarily. These sources are clearly not West Asian, not after Neolithic. They must be Western therefore.

      Delete
    2. Like o have been saying we dont have enough mtDNA to make huge conclusions. I orignaized all Neloithic and copper age European mtDNa and into regions it totaly shows continunty with modern European mtDNA, When u orignize it all H is over 35% it was the most popular haplogroup even in LBK, There is no bigd issue i dont know why all of Europe has bascially the same haplogroup percentages i dont know how the subclades are connected or if it is like that because of random things if it is not that MtDNA base was set in the Neloithic at least.

      Delete
  10. Where do you think the U5b2c1 subclade of haplogroup U5 that the La Brana samples belonged to arose from? Obviously it is of European Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic origins but I wonder if it would be far Western European?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't say. U5 then used to be everywhere (and now too but less frequently). I do not know enough to judge that specific subclade. In general and in present time U5b seems to have a more westerly distribution than U5a but most studies do not look at these differences, so I can't say.

      Delete
  11. I would not be surprised at all if it has on origin in local Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic Iberian groups.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Note: the person under the name "barakobama" is banned for a host of reasons: nordocentrism, homophobia, trollism and annoyance. Most of those reasons are old by several days or weeks but homophobia is a new charge.

      Delete

Please, be reasonably respectful when making comments. I do not tolerate in particular sexism, racism nor homophobia. Personal attacks, manipulation and trolling are also very much unwelcome here.The author reserves the right to delete any abusive comment.

Preliminary comment moderation is... OFF (keep it that way, please)