March 2, 2018

Two big issues with Olalde 2018 (Indoeuropean Bell Beaker speculation)

"Just for being published in Nature it does not mean it is necessarily wrong" (popular saying).

Iñigo Olalde et al., The Beaker Phenomenon And The Genomic Transformation Of Northwest Europe. doi:10.1101/135962 (pre-pub version, no way I'm spending 1/3 of my monthly income on this, in case you're willing to waste your money, it's been recently published in Nature)

Issue 1: All comparisons are made between Anatolia Neolithic or other Early Neolithic in some cases and Yamna or Corded Ware.  Late Neolithic is not used nor, critically, is Hunter-Gatherer populations or anything related. 

This means that everything will be much more Yamna-like than it should, just because Yamna are 50% HG, while Early Neolithic are very low in this component. 

This is very apparent in the PCA:

It's junk-in: junk-out.

Issue 2: there is a huge sampling gap precisely where ancient mtDNA (and modern Y-DNA) tells us that the origin of the modern West-Central European genetics should be: in France and nearby areas like the Basque Country, West Germany. Sure: they sample some Eastern French sites but see "issue 1" above.

Nuff said.


  1. Very nice to see you active again Maju . BTW Dave thinks you have gone mad with this current post ,

    1. If stating the obvious is "going mad", then madness is a good thing.

  2. Lost the narrative. I told you years ago it would be like this. Having a nervous breakdown are we?

    1. Do you have any explanation for issue #1?

    2. There's already been plenty of work on this. Plenty of us have also looked at this. It is settled. It's not some magical and hiding HG, like you've been touting.

      Iberia, the French samples we have, plus the British Neolithic samples tell us what the rest of France was like...

      Game over. Genetiker had the balls to admit he was wrong about R1b. After 1000 samples you should retire your "molecular clock", and French HG stuff. It's done.

    3. The megalithism stuff too. Forget it. Admit you didn't interpret stuff right.

    4. The best model is GAC/TRB plus Yamnaya. They didn't just look at EN and Anatolia. You need to actually read it thoroughly.

    5. Sorry for not have followed the "plenty of you" in my sabbatical year, whoever the "plenty of you" are and wherever you publish. Maybe you should share your blog's link or something.

      Sorry also for not understanding what the Hell is "GAC". I understand that TRB is Funnelbeaker but what Funnelbeaker especifically? Because I'm still waiting for key Funnelbeaker evidence from the northern half of the denounced gap.

      Sorry for understanding that, while they did look to a vast array of ancient samples, they always compared them with very few pairs, so we only get a list of relative affinities. If I compare Mao Zedong with Kissinger and Martin Luther King, whom is he closer to genetically? That kind of pointless questions...

      Maybe you can point me to something I don't know? Because I only wrote after too much time reading and re-reading the (draft version) of the paper.

      Maybe it has improved in the final version? Maybe Nature should send me a free sample?

  3. Maju, that R-V88 came from Italy is now demonstrated: see the last paper of D'Atanasio (but read: Cruciani, the theorist of a Middle Eastern origin declared wrong now). With the next tree of YFull and FTDNA R-M343 will be clear that also R-L389+ came from Italy. You know where I think that R-L51 did come. Are you Always giving importance to these people (above)?

    1. Link, please.

      "Are you Always giving importance to these people (above)?"

      I'm largely driven for what reaches me through the Internet and nowadays it's all around in the media. Absolutely mainstream. I had to make some observations in my online notebook for future reference and not having to say all the time the same thing to different people, sometimes to the very same people twice or thrice.

  4. Maju, funny how you critique close minded right wingers who stubbornly hold on to their beliefs yet for something as frivolous as a Y DNA haplogroup you deny the obvious for what you are comfortable with.

    This is a good lesson for you.

    1. I'm stating the obvious, or at least I do believe so. I'm not even concerned with Y-DNA as such. I will probably mention it when I discuss Mathieson, a much more interesting paper. But here not worth it. When they do their damn homework and sample Danish, West German, Franco-Belgian Funnelbeakers, Artenacians. Whichever the results are I will discuss them. So far, with the slanted "evidence" we have, I'd rather have none sometimes.

      And if, instead of personal commentary you guys would discuss facts and figures, I'd be happier. Why it has to be all about me? Why not about the facts?

    2. Maju, it is about you because ancient DNA has confirmed what we have been arguing and what you have been denying for years. Even though the evidence now is overwhelming you still deny it. Plus, you have a streak for judging other's biases when clearly you have a bias in this subject. I appreciate your recent kindness but I don't remember you always being this way.

      Northern Beaker was a fusion between Globular Amphora & Yamnaya. They were not local to western Europe. They were a new arrival from somewhere east of Germany.

      Bell Beaker Netherlands.
      Germany_MN (Neolithic)-0%
      France MLN (Neolithic)-0%
      Sweden-EN (Neolithic)-0%
      Iberia-Chl (Chalolithic)-0%
      Iberia-MN (Neolithic)-0%
      Portugal-Chl (Chaloithic)-0%
      Hungary-Chl (Chalcolithic)-0%
      Narva HG-7%

      Two Beaker samples belonged to R1b Z2103, the same form of R1b found in Yamnaya confirming some Z2103 migrating alongside P312 into Europe.

      The oldest R1b L21 individuals in Britain had 57% Yamnaya ancestry. One Bronze age Welsh individual had 66% Yamnaya ancestry.

      The oldest R1b P312 individuals in Spain all have Yamnaya ancestry. Despite the similarity between Globular Amphora and all European Neolithics, some Iberian Beaker folk show a signal of Globular Amphora ancestry alongside Yamnaya ancestry.

      I6472. Madrid, 2500-2000 BC. R1b P312.
      SPain-MN (Neolithic)-36%
      Portugal-MN (Neolithic-18%
      Globular Amphora-8%
      Czech-MN (Neolithic)-9%

      Modern Basque fit as an about 50/50 mix between Beaker_Netherlands (R1b P312) and Iberia-Chalcolithic.


      I used all Middle Neolithic, Chalcolithic European genomes in that model for Basque.

    3. What's your source for Z2103 in Beaker? In the supplements of the paper they all seem to be under L51.

  5. @Do you have any explanation for issue #1?
    Maju, when Anatolia_N went to Europe, it mixed with the WHG there, creating the "Europe Middle Neolithic/Copper Age" guys in the PCA.
    The Yamnaya mixed with these, not with Anatolia_N.
    Therefore your green line is totally wrong.
    We also know that there were some extra-pick ups of European Hunter Gatherer admixture, such as from Narva.
    Do you only see the images or read the papers?

    1. I know that. That's why it perplexes me that they appeal all the time to Anatolia Neolithic or Early Neolithic, when we already know that things had changed a lot by the late Neolithic or Middle Chalcolithic (same thing, different words apparently).

      The green line only tries to depict what Olalde et al. are doing in the paper. I could have drawn it between Corded and EN but pretty much the same thing.

  6. @Maju
    "Do you have any explanation for issue #1?"
    The Yamnaya expansion didn't mixed with Anatolia_N, but with the EEF of Europe, which were a mixture of Anatolia_N + WHG, they're labelled as "Europe Middle Neolithic/Copper Age" in the PCA.
    Also, we know that in the way, there was extra admixture from European Hunter Gatherers of Narva.
    Do you only see the pictures or read the papers?

    1. I read cartoons only. Preferably manga with no text, all cries and extremely slow action designed to dumb down the newer generations.

      Seriously now. If you have objections write them down in non-personal confrontation manner, "namedguest".

      Now, do you realize that I am absolutely aware of this: "The Yamnaya expansion didn't mixed with Anatolia_N, but with the EEF of Europe, which were a mixture of Anatolia_N + WHG, they're labelled as "Europe Middle Neolithic/Copper Age" in the PCA"?

      What I'm criticizing is their presentation of the admixture as between EEFs (Anatolia Neolithic, Early Neolithic) and Steppe, instead of getting Chalcolithic era samples or factoring for extra HG (WHG, SHG, maybe even independent EHG, whatever).

      How do you compare with another paper I want to discuss in this comeback, Martiniano et al., in which the amount of steppe-related DNA is clearly much much smaller than claimed here?

      And there is some other paper I will have to search for which showed strong genetic change in LN, maybe you can refresh my mind, because it was pretty cool.

  7. Of course Chad should go to Chad in search of the R-V88 who brought the Chadian languages, as Mr Cruciani thought, but he was wrong and I was right: “Game over. Genetiker had the balls to admit he was wrong about R1b. After 1000 samples you should retire your "molecular clock", and French HG stuff. It's done”.

    Of course Genetiker is doing a great contribute with his program for catching the calls, the best I know, long better than the Chad friends’, who publish useless peer reviewed papers. Genetiker said that he was wrong when he thought that the R1b were the Magdalenians, but for that giving reason to me: they came not from the Franco-Cantabrian refugium but from an Italian/Alpine refugium .That’s all, but it is useless to say that to Chad, who should go to Chad…

  8. It'll certainly be interesting to see when early L51 starts showing up, and it's a bit puzzling that it has eluded sampling up to this day. European off-shoots of Yamnaya all seem to be Z2103. Besides western Europe, some of the less extensively sampled eastern European countries could also be interesting in my opinion. Time will tell.

    It's a bit creepy that people feel so strongly about this as to attack you over this btw. It seems like it's the same 4 or 5 guys who post in virtually every one of those awful population genetics fora on the net. Those folks have issues for sure.

    1. The Indoeuropeanist Horde, indeed. But let's try not to get personal and discuss facts and missing facts, OK?

    2. You're right, I apologize. I think 1-2 years ago I had once voiced my seemingly innocuous suspicion that the "Indo-European" haploid signal might be more or less limited to paternal haplogroup R1b-Z2103. The hate that got me was stunning. I'm not wed to that conclusion at all, but I still don't think it's quite so outlandish. I guess I still haven't fully recovered, hence my irritation ;)

    3. I understand your anger.

      For me anyhow, unless proven otherwise, Y-DNA should be discussed as Y-DNA and autosomal DNA as autosomal DNA. Y-DNA can well be subject to various founder effects, as is probably the case with R1a in Corded Ware: where does that lineage come from? Not Samara-Khvalynsk-Yamna for sure (there's enough data as of now) but maybe it was propped up in Sredny-Stog II or Catacombs before jumping to Poland with Corded Ware.

      One thing I'm not happy about is mixing Y-DNA with autosomal genetics without sufficient evidence. Would it be mtDNA... maybe, because in general mtDNA seems strongly related to autosomal genetics in most populations, but Y-DNA can be problematic, as we see all the time.

      However when we have 90% Y-DNA of some type and 0% autosomal DNA of the "purported origin", never mind language and ethnic identity, as happens with Basques or even, with lesser changes in the figures, in the descendants of ancient Iberians, that's also extremely unusual, impossible I'd dare say.

      There's something else going on. What exactly? Harder to say without sufficient ancient Y-DNA in space and time.

    4. There's R1a in both Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog, with only five males being sampled from these Eneolithic cultures.

      Also plenty of R1a in Eastern European hunter-gatherers that helped to create these steppe groups.

      But there's not a single R1a in any Neolithic farmers from the 100+ now tested from outside of the steppe. Biased sampling, huh?

      But by all means, please keep the comedy rolling on.

    5. You're misunderstanding me: biased sampling has nothing to do with R1a nor Corded Ware but with Bell Beaker and what precedes it in Western Europe (Danish Funnelbeaker, Michelsberg, Seine-Oise-Marne, Artenac, etc.)

    6. I was being sarcastic, and comparing your pig-headed "R1a from Neolithic farmers founder effect" theory to your theories about Atlantic Europe.

      Obviously sampling bias has nothing to do with any of this anymore, since there are enough samples to sensibly link R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 with Eneolithic/Bronze Age expansions from the steppes.

    7. It's certainly a problem of sampling bias (issue 2). What do we know of Michelsberg-SOM? Nothing yet. What do we know of Danish Funnelbeaker? Nothing either. What do we know of the area where modern mtDNA pools appear first (Burgundy, Navarre and all what is between them)? Nothing.

      So there's a lot to research yet and nobody is doing it.

      But there is another issue, issue 1, which is comparing directly Corded Ware and Eearly Neolithic, which is clearly not the solution to anything at all, leaving most BB and modern Europeans very distant to that bilateral comparison.

    8. Maju, you call this all sampling bias because the results aren't what you expected. Just be at peace with the fact your predictions based on modern DNA were wrong.

    9. The results are shocking indeed, they are very exceptional claims that seem to make no sense whatsoever and need exceptional evidence. That's how it is in science.

      If you compare Barack Obama with Hu Jintao and Jacob Zuma, you'll get a very incorrect result, although maybe complacent for some. But if you add someone like Donald Trump, then you have a decent sample, and better even if instead of using a southern Bantu to represent his African side, you manage to include a real Nilotic sample.

      This is no minor matter: the result of the comparisons would be extremely different in the different sampling scenarios. Sampling strategies can actually be used to "cheat" the algorithms, intentionally or by accident.

      It doesn't make sense really: according to the final version of the results there would be much more steppe ancestry in Chalcolithic Spain, SE France and North Italy than there is today. And not much has happened since then other than more people with steppe ancestry and IE language pouring from Central Europe.

      The results don't make sense, the sample has barrel-sized holes (in time and space, because I'm more interested in pre-BB pops than BB themselves) and the results are always described in terms of Steppe vs Anatolian Neolithic (or Corded Ware vs EEF, same thing almost, which has no explainatory power for most of modern and, critically, ancient Bell Beaker Europeans.

    10. @Maju,
      "according to the final version of the results there would be much more steppe ancestry in Chalcolithic Spain, SE France and North Italy than there is today. "

      That's no where in the papers. None of them estimated Steppe ancestry in modern populations anyways.

      Steppe ancestry first appears in southwestern Europe in the Bell BEaker period and alongside R1b P312. Also, modern Iberians & northern Italians have more Steppe ancestry than did anyone there during the Beaker period.

      "The results don't make sense, the sample has barrel-sized holes (in time and space, because I'm more interested in pre-BB pops than BB themselves) and the results are always described in terms of Steppe vs Anatolian Neolithic (or Corded Ware vs EEF, same thing almost, which has no explainatory power for most of modern and, critically, ancient Bell Beaker Europeans."

      Recent ancient DNA studies show undoubtly most modern Europeans are of Anatolia Neolithic, WHG, and Yamnya/Steppe origin. That's the model and it won't change.

      And there's now plenty of Chalolcithic genomes from Iberia dating right before the Beaker period. None of them have R1b L151. None of them have any Steppe ancestry. None of the NEolithic, late Neolithic genomes from Britain have any ANE or R1b either.

      In the ancient DNA record, R1b P312 suddenly appears all over western Europe with Beaker folk. Specifically, Beaker folk with lots of Steppe ancestry. No pre-Beaker western Europeans had R1b P312.

      Just, deal with the facts.

    11. I've seen the final version of the admixture map, which includes loads of "black" (steppe) fraction in Southern Europe's BB samples. This claim/conclusion is extremely problematic.

      Notice please that I'm not discussing R1b, only autosomal. I don't want to discuss R1b-S116 in terms archaeogenetic without having plausible origins. If BB was the vector, then which is the source? Certainly not Corded Ware nor Khvalynsk-Yamna, not even Bohemian BB. Where does it come from? Who is the founder community?

      So let's focus on the autosomal part, which is the one that I'm contesting here.

      "Recent ancient DNA studies show undoubtly most modern Europeans are of Anatolia Neolithic, WHG, and Yamnya/Steppe origin."

      True but notice it's MOST, not all. There is one key population (Basques) that doesn't fit the model and others that fit very poorly, with only tiny steppe admixture. Different studies produce different results anyhow: for some it is like steppe ancestry is almost the same everywhere, while for others it's a cline sharply decreasing to the South and West. The latter make much more sense.

      It also remains unclear what role may have played a third type HG groups such as those from Scandinavia or elsewhere in the Northwest, who are intermediate between WHG and EHG.

      And it remains extremely unclear the process of growth in HG (WHG or something more complex) in the so-called Late Neolithic (early and middle Chalcolithic in my book). Most cultures and groups from that period remain unstudied, even if they may well be critical for our understanding.

      "And there's now plenty of Chalolcithic genomes from Iberia dating right before the Beaker period. None of them have R1b L151."

      Not from the Basque Country, not from Atlantic France either, not even from Belgium, West Germany, Denmark or even Britain nor Italy (excepted Ötzi). If we consider the Chalcolithic or LN gap, rather than the BB gap, the gap is much larger than I described above.

      "all over western Europe"...

      Never mind that 2/3 of Western Europe remain unresearched and that the first signs of mtDNA "modernity" are precisely inside those unresearched gaps (Paternabidea and Gurgy). It may be a coincidence but I don't believe in "coincidences".

      "No pre-Beaker western Europeans had R1b P312."

      Nor anybody else as far as we know (and we know only as much as research has found). So my question stands: which is the source population? My bet remains for a Western European (probably "French") source, regardless of BB being vector of its expansion, which seems reasonable for at least some regions.

    12. Maju, you rightly said above that we should consider samples before Bell Beakers for understanding the question and I am glad that you put also Italy amongst the countries very little tested. When I said above why do you consider these persons (from Davidski to Chad to Samuel etc.) was because they are only lay men of the matter, but the persons in charge are those who have labs, funds, papers etc etc.
      Consider that, about hg. R1b (but the same may be worth also for R1a), we have for certain now that:
      1) R-V88 came from an Italian/Alpine refugium (14000 YBP).
      2) Intermediate samples (perhaps R-L754 as Genetiker thinks or probably R1* as I may think) were at Les Iboussiéres and came from Arene Candide and Balzi Rossi, Liguria, Italy: 12000 years ago.
      3) Certainly R-L389+ came from Italy: all the 5 haplotypes known so far, and the Caucasian cluster (YCAII=23-23) derives from the Iberian cluster, thus no R-L389+ and subclades were born in Eastern Europe or Caucasus.
      4) The R-L23 found at Samara did come from west, because Western Europe has subclades not derived from those samples (I have spoken about that in thousands of letters).
      5) The key and oldest subclades survived so far (my R-L23-Z2110-FGC24408 and sister clades and R-L51-PF7589) are older in Italy than everywhere.
      6) The Expansion of the subclades of these R-L23-Z2110-CTS9219 happened from Western Europe to Eastern Europe and not the other way around.
      7) The intermediate samples of R-L11 have been found in German Bell Beakers and the L11 subclades are hugely in Western Europe.
      8) The subclades P312 and U106 are in western Europe and pretty at 0.00% in Eastern europe (if not recent introgressions from west).
      9) I ask you again: why do you still consider these persons? They don’t understand anything of these questions.

    13. @Gioello:

      1) Why do we "know" that? Reference please. I have very hard to believe that V88 originated in Italy (how could it reach the Sudanese corridor then?) Vilabruna was not V88 for what I recall but undefined R1b.

      2) I can't take Genetiker too seriously, sorry.

      3) Again why?

      4) OK, as far as I know it could have come from Kurdistan-Neolithic or generic Paleoeuropean.

      5) Why? Sources, please.

      6) Again why?

      7) I would expect L11 to exist in Central Europe or Italy or even Iberia unrelated (not directly related) to the expansion of its sublineages S116 and U106. If R1b at those tiers (M269 to L11) was relatively scarce, we should find it here and there and not be related in any particular way to any of the sublineages but being "private" lineages without further consequence. They inform of presence but not necessarily of origin.

      8) Absolutely and a key issue that the IE pack has never properly addressed, for them it's like "magical crystals" or something.

      9) Which persons? I'm not going to ban anyone who is not breaking the rules systematically. I'm not interested in personal quarrels and I don't think science is about personal issues but about discovery and making sense. Also I don't think anyone should tell me what to do in my space.

    14. Of course for answering your questions I should publish all the more than 10000 letters I wrote, and of course I, being the most banned person all over the web, don’t ask that anyone is banned, but only considered for what they are, i.e. morons that don’t understand anything of genetics, histoiry, linguistics and all the disciplines I studied during my life (70 to-morrow). About Genetiket look at my last posts:
      This sample
      I3499 Croatia Vučedol 2884–2666
      is linked with Sardinian sample 987 (Francalacci et al. 2015): R-L23-Z2110-CTS699.
      The calls show that I3499 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1a1a2a2~Z2103.

      These are the SNPs in common:
      10701 18 Heterochromatic 22475506 G T G R 987

      Hg19: 22475506/ hg38: 20313620 (G>T)/BY30521

      10698 6 Ampliconic 9025143 T C T R 987
      Hg19: 9025143/hg38: 9187534 (T>C)

    15. Maju, are you freaking kidding me? You clearlly have not kept up to date with ancient DNA studies. You need to update yourself. You're using the same weak defensive arguments you did 3 years ago.

      Yes, everyone in Europe has Steppe ancestry. Basque fit very very well as Anatolia Neolithic (55%), WHG (20%), Yamnaya (25%). Better than Spanish do who have a little bit of recent Northwest African ancestry. D-stats, PCA, ADMIXTURE all confirm Basque fit in this model and do indeed have significant Steppe ancestry. There's no ifs ands or buts anymore.

      Stop using lack of ancient DNA sampling as your argument. Over 1,000 ancient European genomes have been sequenced. Data, from those "blank spots" in Neolithic western Europe won't reveal Y DNA other than I2a & G2a like all the 100s of other of Neolithic European Y DNA sequences.

      Also, France is not the origin of western European genetics like you claimed in this post. Mesolithic, Neolithic genomes from western Europe show no one had ANE before Beaker arrived. Btw,Mesolithic genomes from Britain have been sequenced. They have no ANE ancestry!! Unlike what you predicted years ago. Even in Lithuania and Serbia the HGs were overwhelmingly WHG with only minor ANE. In Ukraine, HGs had as much ANE as HGs in Sweden.

      The Beaker folk represent a huge genetic shift in western Europe. They were newcomers from somewhere east of Germany. They're the main ancestors of modern Celts in the British Isles and they contributed at least 40% to all Iberians including Basque.

      Despite, the proven eastern origin of Beaker folk you argue their Y DNA derived from western Europe. Absolutely ridiculous. Yamnaya, people very closely related to Beaker folk, carried R1b Z2103 a close relative to R1b P312. That's no coincidence. The only logical conclusion that can be made is R1b P312 derives from a Yamnya-like people of even western Yamnaya.

    16. @Maju,
      "Never mind that 2/3 of Western Europe remain unresearched and that the first signs of mtDNA "modernity" are precisely inside those unresearched gaps (Paternabidea and Gurgy)."

      You need to also update yourself on ancient mtDNA studies. mtDNA H frequencies is not what defines "modernity." Greece also had 40% H. Are you going to argue people from Spain migrated into Greece, migrated into everypart of Europe.

      Anyways, this study sequenced 100s of mtDNAs from Neolithic, Chalcolithic Iberia. Overall, about 20% H. Broad haplogroup frequencies matter little. Chalcolithic, Neolithic Iberia shows very specific links to modern Iberia.

      Another thing, there are very real mtDNA links between modern Europe and the ancient Steppe. A significant amount of mtDNA in modern western Europe arrived with Beaker. I wrote about it in this blog post.

    17. Just to let you, I don't have an admiration or love for Steppe peoples from the pre-historic past. I mention them a lot in these posts because you deny their impact despite overwhelming evidence.

      Believe it or not, they also influenced the Basque despite the fact Basque speak a non-Indo European language. 20-30% contribution.

      I appreciate your kindness. But I am angry because I have had enough with your stubbornness. You could argue the sky is green because of sampling bias.

    18. As you probably know, I've been absent from the blog (and partly from the Internet) for a year, so I MAY have missed something. But you should provide evidence, link, source. Just saying something, does not make it credible. It's likely that it's something I know about and something that is rather old, or maybe not but it's equally questionable. What I know is that some studies produce flat "everyone has lots of steppe" results, while others do not and produce instead marked clines which typically leave Basques with zero or near-zero steppe ancestry. I think the latter are the correct ones and the others are product of some systematic error. Why do I trust these and not the others? Because their results make better sense, they do not make outlandish claims but produce results that are within the expectations. Why do you believe the other ones and insist on ignoring these? Because it makes sense to your "steppe tsunami" prejudice, I guess. But your prejudice makes no sense to me, exactly like pork taboo makes no sense for those who have it not in their belief system or gambling makes no sense for the rational-minded.

      I see that you repeat this claim a lot but the fact is that the results of Alentoft or Günther & Valdiosera contradict your one-sided belief. There are probably others that I may have missed in this "sabbatical year".



      Your tone is anyhow quite authoritarian. And I also distrust that:

      "Stop using lack of ancient DNA sampling as your argument".

      Is that an order? Are you paying me to do so? How much? It'll have to be quite a bit to really tempt me.

      "Data, from those "blank spots" in Neolithic western Europe won't reveal Y DNA other than I2a & G2a"...

      How do you know? It's funny that you comment here but not in this previous post:

      I did not mention but in the paper they say that in their modelings they found it was very easy to miss key components and source populations, because it's perfectly possible that they only appear once (or never at all, I infer).

      But it's also interesting how much less steppary do the German BB peoples appear once the possible correct ancestry is detected with Dystruct. It may be even less than half of what other models produce.

      I feel that you want simple finished answers now, dismissing the true complexity of the challenge. It's like trying to play go with the rules of parcheesi. Have you ever played go, Samuel? In order to achieve those simplified and favorable answers you prefer to ignore a lot of "inconvenient" information, which happens to be contradictory with your ideas.


    19. ...

      "Greece also had 40% H."

      Source please.Sounds interesting.

      "Are you going to argue people from Spain migrated into Greece, migrated into everypart of Europe."

      Nope. I'm not arguing that in any way. Remember that my reference is for "modernity" in the context of Western Europe (which Greece does not belong to) and that my candidate source for R1b-S116 (and associated autosomal and mtDNA elements) is in approximately "France" (not "Spain", both are big regions that should not be ignored nor oversimplified but they are different ones), while my candidate for R1b-U106 is in either Denmark or NW Germany and associated to Funnelbeaker probably (as well as some BB later on).

      So basically the academia is NOT SAMPLING my candidate regions, my hypothesis is not being tested, why should I assume it's proven wrong by mere (quite arguable) circumstantial evidence from other areas?

      Remember that since Einstein theorized black holes and their actual detection almost a century passed, since Einstein theorized that gravity affects light and its actual demonstration several decades passed, since Higgs postulated the boson of his name and its empirical detection again several decades passed. In this case I believe it'd be much easier to test the hypothesis but someone must test it by sampling those gaps in space and time. Else we are just arguing circularly.

      "You could argue the sky is green because of sampling bias".

      The sky has no color. Blue is "sampling bias", black is also "sampling bias", red is also "sampling bias" and cloudy grey is also "sampling bias". And paradoxically, while black is the closest to that "no color" thing, there's another layer of truth hiding: that black is nothing but redshifted orange that we can only "see" now as microwave background signal. The truth is often less obvious than it seems to the simple minded ones.

    20. @Gioello: Link to Francalacci 2015, which reports a sizable fraction of R1b-S116 among modern Sardinians:

      So, if I understand you correctly you're saying that the Vucedol R1b individual is Sardinia-related. And I deduce that you consider it impossible that it can be Indoeuropean R1b migrating Westward to Sardinia.

      If so, I must say that I concur and I appreciate the reference, because Sardinians, like Basques, are not significantly affected by IE/steppe genetics.

      But the question remains: when and how did Sardinians obtain R1b-S116? Was it with Bell Beaker (plausible)? If so why is not associated to any visible steppe ancestry, as seems to be the case in other regions (per this study at least, not agreeing, just being rhetorical)? How can a haplogroup "so strongly and unmistakably associated to steppe autosomal DNA" become so strong in populations that show virtually no steppe ancestry whatsoever? Isn't maybe more likely that the lineage expanded unrelated to that purported steppe ancestry or at least not homogeneously associated with it?

    21. Maju, I posted that above only for answering your statement that Genetiker is unreliable, whereas I think that he has the best program for catching the SNPs, what I have to do case by case and with no means, I haven’t either the Winrarr program for zippped files, for that I use YFull for reading the .BAM files and wait that Genetiker reads aDNA. Of course the sample I posted above is important for many things, the most important is that it disproves the YFull dates, what I am saying from so long, that they are underestimated at least for an 1.17 till an 1.26 factor, and it is important also for the fake theories that these weak kurganists constructed (but not Samuel Andrews or Davidski, who are lay men about that, but from Reich and his gang of Harvard and other American universities).
      Of course it is also possible that these R-L23-Z2110-CTS699 in Sardinia have come from Vucedol. We’ll see next who migrated from where, but this is my haplogroup (R-L23-Z2110-FGC24408) and its presence is huge in Italy, as R-L51-PF7589 is oldest in Tuscany and in Italy in general. The map of this haplogroup is my avatar and was done from Argiedude and me pretty ten years ago.

    22. @Maju,

      Read David's blog. Read, these papers. Steppe ancestry in Basque is not questionable. qpADM is for sure method for measuring ancestry. It gives all Europeans significant Steppe ancestry.

      If you're still not convinced email the authors. Email David Recih, Isoif Lazardis, Iñigo Olalde. They will assure Basque and all Europeans, except Sardinians, have signifcant Steppe ancestry.

      "Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, no. 2: 368-73. doi:10.1073/pnas.1518445113.

      qpAdm tour of Europe: the Bronze Age invasion. January 2017.

      "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe." Nature 522, no. 7555 (2015): 207-11. doi:10.1038/nature14317.

      Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans." Nature, 2017. doi:10.1038/nature23310.

      The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region." Nature Communications 9, no. 1 (2018). doi:10.1038/s41467-018-02825-9.

      The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe.

      The genomic history of southeastern Europe.

    23. @Maju,
      "What I know is that some studies produce flat "everyone has lots of steppe" results, while others do not and produce instead marked clines which typically leave Basques with zero or near-zero steppe ancestry."

      What studies? Certainly, not recent ones which have sequenced 100s(!) of ancient genomes from Europe.

      "But your prejudice makes no sense to me, exactly like pork taboo makes no sense for those who have it not in their belief system or gambling makes no sense for the rational-minded."

      You need to let go of your prejudice and objectively read those studies. You're stuck in 2009. Finally, we have a huge database of ancient genomes. But because the results don't show what you wanted you refuse to change the way you thought in 2009.

    24. @Maju,

      I won't waste my time with you. There are still people who argue the world is 6,000 years old. If they can find a reason to argue that, you can find a reason to deny the importance of the Chalcolithic Steppe people to modern European's ancestry.

      I've learned that if someone wants to believe something he can believe it no matter what the evidence says. You are a good example of this.

    25. Also, Maju. Is R1b Z2103 in Yamnaya not good enough for you? Look at the age estimates for L23, L151, P312, and Z2103 on yfull.

      L23 is estimated to be only 6400yp. The link between Yamnaya and Beaker (xIberia) was not ancient. Based on those age estimates there's no way P312 expanded in the Neolithic like you have argued for so long.

      P312 is estimated to be 4900yp. That's not much older than the P312 samples of mostly Yamnaya decent found in Bell Beaker.

      You'd have to be crazy to think somehow magically, even though well over 200 Neolithic Y DNA samples show 0 R1b M269, that R1b P312 originated in western Europe.

      P312 and Yamnaya ancestry arrive in Europe alongside each other. The first Iberian Beaker samples with P312 are also the first Iberian Beaker samples with Yamnaya ancestry.

    26. @Gioello: not saying Genetiker is "unreliable", my distrust comes from racially (and quite possibly racist) loaded stuff he has his blog full of. That's a major red line for me and I don't care if reliable or unreliable after that: I'm just not interested and rather fleeing from that as from the plague.

    27. @Samuel: Eurogenes' own testing is not academic research, I take it all with due dose of salt, more so knowing how partisan can be David way too often. Also there may be issues with qpAdm, which is incidentally also the program used by this paper to draw their conclusions, for example:

    28. @Samuel: then you mention papers that are NOT new for me:

      1) Haak 2015, already discussed here:

      2) Olalde 2018, the very paper that I deal with here (ahem!)

      3) Mathieson 2018, which I plan to comment on soon.

      4) Mittnick 2017, which I don't think I discussed here but have discussed in FB forums in Spanish.

      None of them are informative for the issue at hand, except Olalde 2015... or alternatively, I'm completely missing your point, but I don't think it is the case, rather than you're throwing around random stuff without much sense in an attempt of pretending to back your position with the argument of authority. Sorry, hard luck with me not being so easy too fool.

      You also mention a paper on Mycenaeans, which I presume is for the evidence of mtDNA H but which I can't read because it costs 200€. I'll take your word for it anyhow, although I'd like to see an open access reference. Eurogenes on this one only discusses autosomal DNA, what is useless for my mtDNA info request. However I'm now recalling an older paper on Minoan mtDNA, which is probably of relevance because it already mentioned 43% H:

      However they had too low U(xK) (only one case) to be considered "modern-like" for Western standards. And actually the best matches were the modern neighboring populations and, even more so, by haplotype coincidences, Central Europan Neolithic (LBK).

      I wrote then: "
      So I would conclude that the Minoan sample fits well with a mix of Anatolian and Balcanic (or less likely Near Eastern) origin, after due founder effect, fitting also reasonably well with Danubian Neolithic and therefore with their likely (partial?) origins at the Balcanic Painted Ware Neolithic".

    29. @Samuel:

      "Is R1b Z2103 in Yamnaya not good enough for you?"

      No. It's a very high distinct branch within M269 and has no direct relation with either S116 nor U106, nor their direct precursors, M412, etc.

      "Look at the age estimates for L23, L151, P312, and Z2103 on yfull".

      You could equally tell me to consult my daily horoscope. Those guesstimates are total nonsense.

      "L23 is estimated to be only 6400yp"

      After correcting for at least some of the scholastic biases involved, make it double, at least 50% older. You're never going to persuade me that way, because where standard molecular-clock-o-logists say 6500 years, I read 13,000 years (with some serious uncertainty but at least 10,000). Arguing based on molecular-clock abracadabra is like arguing "because the Bible says so". Sorry, not accepted. Not now, not ever.

      "P312 is estimated to be 4900yp."

      That's 7.3-9.8 Ka in my book.

      And I can explain once and again why I do not accept neither the reverse chronology of "observed mutation rates" (the infamous "pedigree rate" that never works, I recall when Dienekes defended it... until E1b-V13 was found in Neolithic people from Catalonia), nor the scholastic one based on obsolete archaeological/paleonthological estimates from the previous century. These methods calibrate on the out-of-Africa migration happening c. 60 Ka BP, when in fact happened c. 125 Ka BP, these methods calibrate on hunches about the Pan-Homo split being c. 5-6 Ma ago, when in fact it is 8-13 Ma ago. The MC is full of brouhaha.

    30. Below your answer to me you are very open minded about the ages of the haplogroups (I am saying from the beginning that YFull is underestimated), and here you are full of ideology. Perhaps you should read a thread on Anthrogenica from Squad (It was clear from the beginning) and the arguments used against me, i.e. my idea would be wrong because I am an "antisemite" etc. In doing that you lack many information that will be decisive for the next winning theory. If the reads from Genetiker of the aDNA calls are the best at our disposal, they have nothing to do with his convictions, even though you dislike them.
      And of course I don't enter here into the questions of the "identity", the "out of Africa" etc, but read, when you have time, Shi Huang and his colleagues...

    31. @Gioello: I'm indeed full of Humanist ideology. If you don't like it, "wide is Castile"... or the Internet or whatever. My red lines, other than generic respect are: no to fascism, no to racism, no to sexism and no to homophobia, all of which mean: no respect for those who do not respect.

      I'm not sure what relation you have with Genetiker (are you two the same person?), but I did decide not to list his (her?) blog nor follow it after reading some of his articles which seem outstandingly racist-eurocentric (and utter nonsense IMO). He may still be correct in other issues but I'm not interested in giving him the slightest credibility to someone with ideas so hostile to the most basic Humanism.

      Why are you antisemitic? Are you? How can anyone hate Marx or Emma Goldman?

      Who's Shi Huang? I might read what he/she has to say if I have a link.

    32. That's it maju. I'm sober with you. I don't care what some random dude in Spain thinks. I'm not wasting my time with you.

      Understand, asking me to waste my time explaining all the evidence for you is like asking me to prove the earth is round by listing sources and explaining them thoroughly.

      It isn't questionable whether Basque have steppe ancestry, whether beaker folk in northern Europe with 100% R1b P312 had 57% Yamnya ancestry. In any complex area of study close minded people can find loopholes to believe what they want to.

      qpADM is very reliable. Ask David Reich about it. admixture is unreliable when it comes to detaining ancient ancestry. Basque scoring low to no Caucasus in aixture is not good evidence they lack steppe ancestry. Every other reliable analysis makes it clear Basque have as much steppe as Spanish do.

      Maju, like many Marxist leftist you refuse to accept the facts if they deny your favorite. Deal with it, Basque have less of an ancient origin in western Europe than you thought, r1b p312 is indeed a kurgan lineage, and France or Spain isn't a homeland for r1b.

    33. Maju, I resumed all my positions in one word: “identity”, and of course I cannot resume here all what I wrote not only in the many thousands of letters I wrote in the past (ironized from some of these morons), but in books of poetry and critics. But are you sure that Jews always were the “victims”? Do you know all the deep couses of the WWII and the third in due course? Or why also in genetics the researches and the papers are funded from some rich Maxican from a presumed Phoenician origin or why FTDNA through dumping overwhelmed all the tests and the interpretations till the Russian YFull was created? I said, and am fully convinced about that, that the Bible is the “Mein Kampf” of Jews, and why many of them, cleraly derived from Visigoths or Basques in Iberia think descending from Abraham and hide their tests if they don’t demonstrate their “Ideology”?
      Shi Huang is on the web. Google it, and you’ll get all his papers, with all the data freely downloadable.

    34. @Samuel: I have not summoned you here to comment. You are free to do so or not, as you wish, but please don't try to burden me with the load of your own qualms. I'm very free to disagree with you or anyone and I will not accept any attempt to emotionally blackmail me, which is in any case useless because I feel no emotional attachment to you, barely a name associated to some expressions and ideas in my mind.

      You are free to "waste your time" or "not" but each time you make an unproductive comment here you are certainly WASTING MY TIME, what I don't appreciate.

      "It isn't questionable whether Basque have steppe ancestry"...

      I question it and I have provided sources that show no or negligible steppe ancestry among Basques. Just entrenching yourself in a position is not "evidence" of anything except of your stubbornness.

      "qpADM is very reliable"...

      I don't know. I have my doubts and I would like such results independently replicated by other means and other researchers before I believe them. That's how science works: you need very robust testing to have high credibility, ask quantum physicists!

      "Basque scoring low to no Caucasus in aixture is not good evidence they lack steppe"...

      It's very good evidence, because that's exactly the main steppe marker. But that's only one study (Günther and Valdiosera), the other study I mentioned (Alentoft) shows that Basques at all K-levels (and Sardinians at all K-levels but K=19) lack the "blue" or "teal" components that are systematically present at high values in all the Indoeuropean/Kurgan cultures.

      And I also mentioned the paper y Joseph and Pe'er (, which shows how, when using Dystruct, there ares some European populations (fig. 5) that still have zero of that orange steppe component, apparently rooted not in Caucasus but in Kostenki. Those two pops. are not labeled but it's easy to infer they are Basques and Sardinians because even Lazaridis said these two populations are exceptional in almost certainly lacking steppe admixture, which he measured in terms of ANE.

      You are therefore cherry-picking the evidence. Your selected references are in most cases irrelevant to the debate and, when they are, they seem to be artificially exaggerating the fraction of steppe ancestry somehow. You are confusing artifact with evidence and that is because you wish to believe that interpretation, what has a name: "wishful thinking".

    35. @Gioello: if you keep bringing here your personal neuras and matters unrelated to the discussion, you are begging also for being banned. Stick to the matter at hand. I could say a lot about the issues you raise but this is not the space. You're definitely bordering or probably crossing already my red lines, so watch it.

      "Shi Huang is on the web. Google it,"

      No. You ask me to read it, you provide the fucking link.

    36. Caucasian admixture is literally what defines Yamnaya with respect to Europe, and the Basques (and Finns) are totally devoid of it. Thus, they're not steppe-descended. Moreover, your antagonizing attitudes really detract from your credibility.

      This strangely obsessive, unwarranted, "Caspian-fanboyism" is really putting into perpsective for me just how far the reach of "Russian trolls" may have gotten :^)

    37. I hope you're kidding with the "Russian trolls" thing, I ask because one never knows how far does paranoia reach. I hope you realize that everybody defending the "Indoeuropean R1b" conjecture is almost definitely non-Russian but rather people of NW European or in some cases Bangladeshi background. I say this last because I recall reading some of the irrational arguments brought here more than a decade ago at Razib's blog. And I remember arguing against it long before I even began blogging. It does worry me when even bright minds can be trapped in way-too-simple but ideologically convenient self-traps.

    38. Very interesting is that the optimal Admixture cross validation is around K=17 for the non-supervised global analysis and that effectively makes Yamna half "red" (WHG) and half "teal" (Caucasus-Baloch component). So you are very much right, A Ku: the Caucasus component is what defines Indoeuropeans in the non-supervised runs. And there is nothing "less Caucasus" in Europe than Basques or Sardinians. These two pops. must be considered as the measure of pre-Indoeuropeanness for all practical terms.

      Basques seem in the unsupervised run as less EEF than usually described and more WHG instead. Although this depends on which value you chose, as all K-values from 16 to 19 seem equally "optimal" but produce significantly different results.

      But in any case it is very relevant how the SUPERVISED (forced) "steppe ancestry" in BA Iberians almost totally vanishes when running UNSUPERVISED Admixture. Not only with them but also with many other pre-IE populations that get forced into the "steppe corset" such as Hungary EN.

      On the other hand Central BB do show consistent steppe ancestry (as expected, considering the CWC-BB-Unetice continuity in Bohemia) but also show a decrease of that steppe ancestry relative to their CWC geographic precursors. Showing instead a clear, even if limited, rebound of the Neolithic "light blue" component.

      In other words: if R1b-S116 expanded with Bell Beaker, what still needs to be fully clarified for many regions, then it must be associated to a significant DECREASE of the Indoeuropean/Steppe component in Central Europe and NOT to any significant increase of such component in Iberia.

      What we see is only tiny bits of "BB cosmopolitanism", intrinsic to the likely "armed trader" nature of the "BB guild". IF BB expansion, which in Britain and Ireland may well be demic (and maybe, only maybe, also in other contexts) must be associated to R1b-S116 expansion (what I do not have clear yet), then it should have a center of origin somewhere but this center is not the archaeogenetically explored parts of Germany nor Britain (those are destinations), nor seemingly in most of Iberia either. So where is it? I say that somewhere in the "huge gap" I marked on the map of my entry and quite reasonably somewhere in what we now call France (because that's exactly what the phylogeny on the map strongly suggests and is also the biggest chunk of the gap).

    39. Not "almost totally vanishes": it totally vanishes, absolutely, there is not a centiMorgan of it! I've bee the last many hours working on the unsupervised Admixture data and it is absolutely clear: zero IE/steppe admixture in Bronze Age Iberians and a clear decrease in Central BB.

      However there is steppe admixture in modern Iberians (excepted Basques, purebred or urban-admixed) and this must have arrived at a later period, exactly as expected from archaeology (first IE incursion is Urnfields traveling south via East France to Catalonia, precisely in the Late Bronze Age).

      So there was R1b-S116 in Iberia BEFORE ANY INDOEUROPEAN AUTOSOMAL GENETICS ARRIVED. And it appears in Germany and nearby "Central" areas only with the arrival of Bell Beaker from SW Europe, coincident with a recession of the steppe element in terms autosomal. Hence R1b-S116 is clearly pre-Indoeuropean, there is no question about it anymore. Q.E.D.

      I'll write soon something on all this. It takes a lot of time and energy to search for the actual information with a magnifying lens.


  10. R-M269 in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia. Yet no 'steppe' component found in these populations as far as I know! ;-)

    1. Minor R1b M269 in Africa. Very minor. It comes from admixture with Spain.

      Also, Mexicans have lots of R1b M269 yet very little Steppe ancestry. As Maju said before, the autosomal component originally associated with a Y DNA haplogroup dwindles due to admixture.

      Steppe folk had a cultural practice which causes massive Y DNA founder effects. 90%+ of Yamnaya men belonged to R1b Z2103, 90%+ of Beaker men belonged to R1b P312, 90%+ of Andronovo men belonged to R1b Z93.

      The Beaker folk in central Europe had 90%+ R1b U152, while the Beaker folk in Britain had 90%+ R1b L21. Wherever they went new Y DNA founder effects occured. And everywhere they went they mixed with the people that already lived there but retained R1b predominace due to this cultural practise.

      This is why Beaker men had 90%+ R1b but 40-60% Steppe ancestry (the source of the R1b).

      Maju, when, they went into Spain a new founder effect occured. This time in R1b Df27. Soon, the vast majority of people in Spain, still of mostly local western European origin, belonged to R1b Df27 which ultimatly is a Steppe lineage. Yet, we can see still see significant Yamnaya-like ancestry in modern Iberians.

    2. In Mexico there is 50% Iberian ancestry everywhere, the autosomal component associated to it does not dwindle at all, even if admixture was clearly gender-biased. It does not happen elsewhere either: in Turkey for example you see almost no Turkic ancestry from either Y-DNA nor autosomal DNA.

      Also, why would Indoeuropean invaders learn Basque and have such a massive founder effect in the Basque Country specifically, where in neighboring Indoeuropean-speaking countries such as those inhabited by Celts since historical times, or Italy, you do not see that effect at all but actually a much more reduced one, if we are to judge on R1b-S116.

      It's all nothing but an elaborate wishful-thinking fantasy, man: wake up!

      "The Beaker folk in central Europe had 90%+ R1b U152, while the Beaker folk in Britain had 90%+ R1b L21."

      That seems to indicate that R1b-S116 expanded in those regions with the Bell Beaker phenomenon, but NOT FROM WHERE: those are late-comers to the Bell Beaker cider party.

      Also it's not clear that they mixed. In fact what we are learning is that there were population replacements of some sort in Ireland (very clear) and quite probably also in much of Great Britain. The question is where from did the newcomers come? My best guess is that from the Rhine province of Bell Beaker in many cases but the SW province, including France is also in the menu (and also the North Province maybe for R1b-U106 if involved, unsure).

      "but 40-60% Steppe ancestry"

      My qualm is that that "steppe ancestry" (autosomal) must be an artifact. It makes no sense it is everywhere in Bell Beaker, even in Central Spain. There's something wrong with that measure and the paper is clear as mud on that matter.

      I want to learn about the archaeogenetics of Western and Danish Funnelbeaker and about that of Artenacian before I can accept such far-fetched ideas. And also more about Iberian and French ancient Y-DNA. Just because something happens (or seems to happen) in Northern Europe, it doesn't mean it is the valid rule. We have seen that before, for example with mtDNA N1a, which in the end wasn't as prevalent as suggested by early detection in East Germany, or with the overwhelming Y-DNA I2 with U5/U4 in Paleolithic Germany and Sweden, which was not the case further south (Y-DNA R1b in Italy and the Balcans, mtDNA H in Iberia, etc.) Northern Europe is only important since the Middle Ages, thanks to the heavy plough, earlier it was a cold low productivity farmland nobody wanted to live in. Even the early farmers had problems once the Neolithic thermal optimum ended (and thus were replaced with Funnelbeaker, probably the most critical and worse understood demographic aspect of Late Prehistory in Europe).

      A more intensely admixed Neo-Paleo range of populations must have existed in the Atlantic Neolithic and they did expand southward into Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and North France (Funnelbeaker). We know it's real from autosomal DNA and mtDNA but we don't understand well the Y-DNA aspect. Without understanding well this issue there's no definitive answer. But my money is in the R1b coming from them, and also some "Scandinavian HG" aspects that are sometimes mistaken y "steppe".

      Anyway, we will discuss in circles until the proper data comes forth. Just get your academic friends to fill in the gaps in time and space, so we do have a complete picture.

    3. @ Samuel Andrews - "Minor R1b M269 in Africa. Very minor. It comes from admixture with Spain."

      Very minor - >10% in several studies of Maghrebi populations! Anyway it must come from admixture with Spain, your proof by assertion is all the evidence required.


    1. Thank you. However that paper is not by Shi Huang but by Dejian Yuan et al, Shi Huang only comments on it. It's also a paper about trying to re-root the Y-DNA and mtDNA trees in order to allow for the Multiregional hypothesis to remain alive. I'll take a look but I warn that I'm not likely to buy on it.

    2. And anyhow, it's not like they are rooting their "new tree" with any outgroup, be it chimpanzee or even Neanderthals. I don't think that paper will ever pass peer-review.

  12. Shi Huang is at the bottom of the paper like Reich is and now also Cruciani is in the last paper of D’Atanasio, but do you really think that the unknown so far D’Atanasio is more important than Cruciani who writes about this matter from some tens of years?
    There is also in the paper a very long exchange of letters from Shi Huang and German Dziebel. We spoke about that on “Eurogenes blog” before being banned both. German Dziebel (one of the geniuses of our time, even though I don’t buy all his theory of an “Out of America”) and perhaps was he who gave me what I called my second laurea cum laude, that Davidski deleted of course:

    Nomic Belief has left a new comment on the post "40,000-year-old Tianyuan gives new insights into e...":

    I have to agree with Ted Kandell that the quality of the blog and especially its commentating have been in decline during the recent couple of years. Also, I fully understand how academics may see following it as a waste of time. However, I'd be really surprised if this had anything to do with racist commentating alleged by Ted Kandell. Appealing to that for getting a person banned was REALLY low from the part of Kandell.

    Rather, the quality decline is due to the kindergarten behavior of a number of commentators, which they apparently themselves mistake for great displays of humor and intellect, established and encouraged by the blog owner. That is so far from scientific and academic debate as can be.

    The arbitrary banning policy adds to that. The bannings have nothing to do with real racism, but most of them are due to that the commentators have pointed to data, presented numbers or interpretation that are against the paradigmatic agenda of this blog. Usually, the banned persons are much better behaving than those not, for example in the case of Gioiello: a ban after directly having been age-discriminated and mocked for his English language.

    The imputed racism by Gioiello was the most far-fetched I have seen here. He used neither race or conspiracy related terms. He did allude to political and economical direction of scientific research, which is perfectly commonplace in this blog. Especially, it is perfectly kosher to throw similar or worse accusation toward the Chinese academics, and dismiss their findings out of hand on that basis. If Gioiello is racist or a conspiracy theorist, then this blog and its commentators are even more openly racist toward the Chinese scientific community.

    The racism accusation of German by Kandell was even more far fetched, if it was supposed to be taken seriously. First, German is not Genetiker. Second, the point of Genetiker's blog is not directly racist, either. E.g. the point of the picked post is presenting views against the current PC agenda =/= racism, which is a fair point to make. I am perplexed and sad for Kandell's intentional distortion of facts and calls for ostracism.

    This blog would be more interesting, if it strived for truth, respect and open mindedness. Debates based on these ideals are the ones ppl want to follow, especially academics. Personally, I have no pet theory: I like facts and well justified interpretations of it. Are there any suggestions for other alternative forums (also for poor Gioiello) than this?

    1. I also banned (long long ago) Dziebel from here: he was all kinds of wrong (and not any "genius" either) and I'm worried he's somehow involved in this speculation. All this stuff about "not out of Africa" is total nonsense, but I guess there must be someone who beats the dead horse once and again. This is not the OoA thread so I have no idea why you raised the issue.

      This is not also the thread to discuss your personal issues with other spaces. You are just being disruptive, probably trying to use my blog to vent out your anger and protest. I'm NOT INTERESTED in all that crybaby stuff: either you provide insightful commentary on the matter at hand or I'll have to begin censoring your comments and maybe your person as well. If you have emotional issues, there are specialists for that, I'm not one of them nor are my readers.

      Also I don't care what you think about my blog: write your own and let me do at my space what I want.

  13. Maju, I have nothing against you, even thought you deleted a long exchange between me and Alexandre about linguistics and I disliked much that, but I have sympathy with Basques and I don’t agree with what you seems to think about Romans, even though me, as an Etruscan or who knows what else, shouldn’t have sympathy with them. But I like Sardinians (they belong to the “Italian” pool as all the other peoples submitted from Rome), and Sardinians spoke a language linked with Basque as the studies of Blasco Ferrer demonstrated. Don’t believe to all the other who say that they are tollerant. They are more nationalists than me, only with much less knowledge in all the disciplines. Let you wait, and they will fall from the tree like a riddled sparrow. Now Davidski is trying to convince himself that he knows about haplogroups too:

    Rob said...
    @ dave
    The same could be said for steppe proponents. ADNA is a double edged sword.
    In fact, I’m curious to see what’s left of the kurgan hypothesis in a year or two.
    Davidski said...
    The same cannot be said about steppe proponents, because R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 are from the steppe.

  14. Maju, this is off topic here, but would you like to make a analysis of this new Southeast Asian paper: Ancient Genomics Reveals Four Prehistoric Migration Waves into Southeast Asia

    It would be interesting to see how you would interpret the results in the light of your earlier views.

    1. Thanks for mentioning Kristiina. I'll take a look and see what I can do.

    2. @Kristiina: I made only a very small "quickie" entry because I really do not have time for everything. If you want to write a more extensive "guest post", I'll be delighted to publish it.


    R1b M269 first appears in Bronze age Spain. It appears alongside Steppe ancestry.

    The oldest Iberian genomes with R1b P312 in Olalde 2018 are also the first Iberian genomes with Steppe ancestry.

    1. Thanks for the heads up, Samuel.

      Haven't read it yet but Bronze Age Iberia outside of Catalonia (late Bronze only) is still very clearly pre-Indoeuropean. Something does not add up: there may be people migrating with what appears to be "steppe ancestry" but they are not Indoeuropean in any way discernible, they are something else, whichever it may be. I call them tentatively "ancient 'French' who were rather Basque-like" but whatever.

    2. The two sites that show R1b-M269 are absolutely "native Iberian". The site of Pirulejo (Andalusia) has not much cultural data but the context should be Early Iberian from the dates, while the site of Los Lagos (La Rioja), the only one with positively identified R1b-S116, belongs culturally to Cogotas I Culture, which was the herder culture of Central Iberia, whose origins may indeed be in the Bell Beaker of the area of Madrid (based on something I read at Bell Beaker Blogger). If so it might be again associated to the Bell Beaker phenomenon somehow (less probably the case of Pirulejo though but who knows?)

      I find vaguely interesting that the Los Lagos (ESP005) individual carrying unmistakable R1b-S116 is from just 100 km (65 miles) away from Paternabidea, one of the two key sites of "early modernity" in their mtDNA pool. It is part of the historical and proto-historical Basque area and specifically the tribal area of the Vascones, which yield their name to the wider nation for non-Basque speakers, just as is the case of Paternabidea. But at that most of the Basque Country was not affected by this Cogotas I culture, so maybe there is no connection.

      In any case the connection is either with Basques or with the pre-Indoeuropean herders of the Plateau (and Upper Ebro) with apparent origin in Ciempozuelos Bell Beaker (?), or both (because most probably the Cogotas I culture did not expand in pure demic fashion but rather assimilated peoples already living in the area with both non-Megalithic and Megalithic, Beaker and less clearly Beaker cultural roots.

      Lots of I in the overall Y-DNA anyhow, not looking "typical Neolithic" but rather suggestive of strong Paleoeuropean admixture on the Y-DNA side at some point, much like Sardinians. Only one G (Neolithic quite apparently) and one H (which, if I'm not sure if it's Paleo- or Neoeuropean right now). If you'd look at this Y-DNA pool from the Y-DNA side only it'd look horribly Paleolithic, yet we know from the mtDNA and autosomal data that it is not. And we also know that it must be somehow related to what we see in Sardinia.

      Looking interesting, thank you again.

    3. Notice in fig.1B that the North Iberians from the Copper AND BRONZE AGE overlap with modern Basques, being even a bit more extreme in all cases but one. I wish I had the exact data but IMNSHO that one (slightly) exceptional case is almost certainly not Los Lagos, but Portalón, which showed a British-admixture tendency in a previous study (a female, so no Y-DNA). She is ATP-9 here:

      It must be she the main carrier of the apparent "steppe" ancestry and not Los Lagos but the autosomal analysis is a bit tricky in showing the individuals averaged. Luckily the PCA illustrates the problem.

      Very interesting but I'm a bit tired of having to read between lines, certainly researchers could be more clear and straightforward.

  16. Maju, I don’t know if you like this post on “Eurogenes blog”. He is half Italian and half Iberian. To me is “closed”, perhaps you may open him the door…

    Richard Rocca said...
    @Dave, can you supply a link to the new sheets? Also, a special request if you haven't already done it: can you also add in sample I1392? She is a very old non-steppe sample from France right on the other side of the Germany border. She can likely proved a better non-steppe ancestry fit for most Bell Beaker samples and may replace Iberian Copper Age groups. Thanks!

    1. I don't have time to follow other blogs as much these days, also you do not provide a link, just a decontextualized quotation.

      I have no particular relationship with Davidski, other than knowing him ONLINE, not in person, from long ago, so I have no idea what you expect me to do. Things will unravel as they will, there's no way around that in science. Eppur si muove.

      And talking of science, I must rise my cup to the honor of Stephen Hawking, who just died today, maybe the coolest scientist ever, not just for his scientific insight on black holes and many other cosmological mysteries but particularly for his personal bravery in the face of adversity and for his uncompromising stand against God, Capitalism, Zionism and everything that is totalitarian and evil, including the Queen of the Goblins, Elizabeth II, from whom he rejected a knighthood.

    2. Maju, I posted that post of Richard Rocca because it seemed to me that this line Maginot of the kurganists has panzers upon, and I thank you for having published that. Richard Rocca, and American of Argentine origin, genetically half Italian and half Iberian, has been one of my worst competitors (but why I cannot say “enemies”?), administrator of the Italian FTDNA project, that he left after that I called him many times a lackey of FTDNA etc., who did a good tree of haplogroup R-U152 (his), and who denied an Italian origin of this haplogroup even though his subclade is pretty all Italian etc. It seemed to me that he is landing to a possible French origin of R-L51 more than from Samara, and this is also your position. The quote is from the last post on “Eurogenes blog” (I quoted that) and the last post arrived when I posted that to your blog. My theory is that R1b1 (also R-L51) came from Italy through the line Rhone/Rhine to Central Germany, but of course I have nothing against France. A friend of mine said to me that Mr Reich owned all Italian Palaeolithic and Mesolithic aDNA. Hope that he tests them and not throws them in the garbage.

    3. Please, you make me quite uncomfortable by bringing here your issues with other people, which you seem happy to always make personal rather than respectful disagreement (or agreement or whatever). Sure: we all have emotional upheavals but I'm not your crying shoulder and I'm definitely not interested in your personalization of these matters: science is about data and reasoning and all this personal stuff does not help at all.

      Also I don't think anyone can "own" museum-stored DNA other than museums and whoever they authorize for testing. So I'd rather ask in the Italian academia about why Italian universities are not doing their part of the research. Or are you suggesting that this is just an offshoot aspect of the IV German Reich, alias European Union? Because it seems a bit far fetched to me but you never know: I've seem things similarly evil happening in Basque and Spanish academia, just not in the field of genetics, at least not in any obvious way.

    4. “Please, you make me quite uncomfortable by bringing here your issues with other people, which you seem happy to always make personal rather than respectful disagreement (or agreement or whatever)”.
      Maju, I am firstly a literate, and use metaphors, allusions, and also irony and even sarcasm, because beyond being a literate I am also a Tuscan, but hope that all what I say has the deepest scientific content.
      Thus, please, Maju, look at Deep Throat, who belongs at least to one of the three categories of my “opponents”:
      “Lastly, a pet theory of some of the boys is that Basque is related to Sardinian. That's a complete negatory, as they have completely different histories.

      Remedello_BA 41.7 %
      Iberia_ChL 30.4 %
      Anatolia_BA 20.4 %
      Balkans_IA:I5769 5.2 %
      Iberia_BA 1.9 %
      Mozabite 0.4 %
      Han 0 %
      Bonda 0 %
      Globular_Amphora 0 %
      Armenia_EBA 0 %”

      Even though autosome is like sarin, it asks expert hands for being handled, I have two things to say:
      1 The link of Sardinian language with Basque has been demonstrated just from a linguistic point of view, and only on that plane it could be denied. I think of course that Blasco Ferrer is right.
      2 Also taking for good the autosome above, the link with Iberia doesn’t say the direction and Anatolia has nothing to do with Near East or Iran but much with Southern Europe…

      Thus, once again, some people shouldn’t have deep the throat but only something else….

    5. I'm going to break a lance for "your oppponent", even if I strongly disagree with him in so many issues: he's built a site with lots of data and beautiful maps, and extensive articles which I disagree with like 99% of the time but that are there for millions to read and get confused by them.

      He has done a huge work of high quality, what has Gioello done? Crying around and being stubborn about Italy is at the origin of everything, what sounds plainly stupid after you have repeated it more than twice and provided no evidence whatsoever. I don'y know if Italy is the origin or just the vehicle but I know that you do manage to be terribly annoying with that sole idea that moves you around as if you'd be a preprogrammed robot on a mission.

      Where is Gioello's blog, where are his papers or articles? Nowhere to be seen. You are not helping your cause by doing no homework, producing no materials that can be calmly contrasted by others, who maybe then will pester you with their different ideas, which you may or not like.

      Stop pestering, be useful. Stop being a crybaby, man up. Even if "your adversary" loses the argument, he wins in the way he works. Even if the Tower of Pisa is leaning, its creator still better at architecture than any of the tourists who may laugh at it every year.

      That's something we should all learn: to respect those you disagree with, not because they agree with you but because they work well. Even generals at war are known often for doing that, what may help them precisely to win battles.

      Paraphrasing Sun Tzu: if you don't respect your enemy and you aren't critical of yourself, in a thousand battles you will win not a single one.

    6. Of course, speaking through metaphors and allusions, I cannot pretend that everyone understands me, but the "opponent" I spoke about wasn't David Weselowsky alias Davidski alias Generalissimo etc, but a person who writes on his blog, an Australian he too, but not from the same Slav country.
      About my works, I wrote tens of thousands of letters like these, and there there is all my work. After R-V88 from Italy (very likely) there is the last paper of D'Atanasio/Cruciani. About the R-L389, let's wait, within a few days, that the YFull tree is published, and you'll see that the Turk (YCAII=23-23) is linked, and derived through a RecLOH, with an Iberian (YCAII=18-23), and Italy gets all the 5 haplotypes found so far.
      All the rest will come soon.

    7. I was thinking you spoke of Maciamo (and thus Eupedia) but whatever. Just write your own blog, it's clear you have a lot to say.

  17. Hello, steppe people,

    Just some very important pieces of information:

    The oldest R1b sample found in Europe is that from Villabruna in Northern Italy, 14 000 calibrated years old

    The oldest R1b in Spain comes from 'Epicardial Neolithic' (5300-5000 BC), San Feliú de Feri in the Pyrenees.

    There are two major R1b lineages found in Europe:
    R1b-M412 in Western Europe
    R1b-GG400/Z2103 in Eastern Europe and Anatolia

    There is 0.00% frequency of R1b-GG400/Z2103 in the western half of Europe.

    1. @ War Lord
      “There is 0.00% frequency of R1b-GG400/Z2103 in the western half of Europe”.

      I asked myself why many people often writes not about what they know but pretty always about what they don’t know. And I don’t know in which part of Europe (Eastern or Western) you consider Italy. Very likely you think to be able to do the war (hope that you will be put at the proof soon) but not to study genetics and similar nonsenses.
      I am Italian (documented from 1300 in Tuscany) and am R1b1a2-L23-Z2110-FGC24408, the oldest documented subclade of R1b1a2 survived DNA with some samples of R1b1a2-L23-L51-PF7589 (the oldest ducumented ones are in Tuscany). My haplotype has a link with a French-Basque and an American (Barnum/Winteroud). Lately an Arab (who didn’t pay the fee after the test and isn’t in the YFull tree, but he is in the R-M343 (xP312,xU106) project of FTDNA) and some Caucasians appeared in this subclade, also a noble family of Georgia, but also many Italians are in my subclade (Cinque, Barca etc.) and in CTS699 subclade. YFull gives an age of about 6000 years to my subclade, but, as I am saying from so long, YFull ages are underestimated for at least an 1.17 to an 1.26 factor (now many papers are saying that). Italian samples did come from Caucasus or the other way around? All the subclades of Z2110 are rooted in western Europe, from CTS9219* to all the others: they expanded from West to East and not the other way around, not counting that also R-M73 is older in western Europe than in the East… Do you think that people with scarce knowledge survives the war?

    2. Correction: I am writing about what I know, but I was in a big hurry yesterday.

      The frequencies of R1b-M73 (a sister clade of R1b-M269) are virtually zero in Europe.

      The frequencies of R1b-GG400/Z2103 are in single digits throughout Europe, being the highest in Western and Eastern Slavic nations, in some Swiss regions, and in the Balkans. Thus, this lineage may reflect the migrations from the east (or from Anatolia).

      But if you get beyond the Carpathians, the West European lineage R1b-M412 is nowhere to be found. So where did it come from???

      And don't forget that we have an unspecified "R" from Iboussieres in France dated to 10090-9460 BCE.

    3. You said above that you were on hurry yesterday, but, as Latins said: motus in fine velocior, to-day you precipitated.
      "The frequencies of R1b-M73 (a sister clade of R1b-M269) are virtually zero in Europe".
      Europe has the only subclade R-M73*, as the Asian and eastern European haplotypes are R-M73-M478, thus at least Western European haplotypes don't derive from the Eastern ones and I think that they are older (we'll see that when one of these haplotypes will be submitted to YFull.
      They are easily recognizable because have DYS390=<24. In Italy we have Vizzaccaro, Mainenti and Paolino. Others are in the Isles and across Europe.
      I am studying this matter from more than ten years. Believe me. Nobody knows this matter better than me.

      "And don't forget that we have an unspecified "R" from Iboussieres in France dated to 10090-9460 BCE".
      Les Iboussiéres is classified from Genetiker as R-L754. I said that it could be also R1*, ancestor not only of R1b1 from Villabruna but also of R1a, because my theory foresees that also R1a* belonged to the Western European hunter-gatherers and could be in the Italian or if you prefer Alpine Refugium.

  18. A noteworthy conclusion of the authors:

    "The currently available dataset does not contradict the
    hypothesis that R-GG400 marks a link between the East
    European steppe dwellers and West Asians, though the
    route and even direction of this migration is disputable. It
    does, however, demonstrate that present-day West European
    R1b chromosomes do not originate from the Yamnaya
    populations analyzed in (Haak et al. 2015; Mathieson et al.
    2015) and raises the question of their origin. A Bronze Age
    origin is more likely than a Neolithic one (Balaresque et al.
    2010), but further ancient DNA studies may be necessary
    to identify this source."

    1. But of course if it is that where the sources are, for whatever reason, it is not studied.

    2. But of course if it is that where the sources are, for whatever reason, it is not studied.

  19. People have got Yamna on the brain. I have never seen the slightest credible evidence that Yamna ever got off the steppe. Why would they? They were sheepherders for heavens sake.

    Yes they have a component of something that the people who intruded in Western Europe after 2800BC had. But it is a major logical fallacy to assume that one is therefore descended from the other.

    Autosomal has very little to say about either timing or directionality. The Y does, and it says something very much otherwise (No Yamna west of the open plain of 2800BC).

    1. I beg to disagree: Yamna is a proxy and indeed Yamna did not get off the steppe but their Khvalynsk culture precursors and Catacomb culture relatives did indeed and that is VERY APPARENT in Corded Ware culture. There is a before CW Central Europe without any "Yamna" and then an after CW Central Europe just massively affected by that component. To me it is undeniable, even if the Y-DNA haplogroup R1a must respond to a particular founder effect.

      The autosomal DNA clearly says CW is a different population from the "Late Neolithic" (Vasconic?) substrate (although admixed with it) and that it is broadly the same population as Yamna and Khvalynsk and thus, logically, derived from those steppe pastoralist we generally identify as Indoeuropeans. There is no question about that.

      The Y-DNA is just a secondary issue here, but it also shows something new that was not present before: R1a. This does not link to Khvalynsk/Yamna in any clear way (although it is not contradictory either) but requires from an additional explanation, which IMO is "lineage adoption" or "founder effect" (or both). For example if you consider there might have been Khvalynsk-derived IE populations rich in R1a but so far unresearched, that works perfectly well.


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... ON (your comment may take some time, maybe days or weeks to appear).