February 4, 2017

The patrilineage R1b-DF27 in North Iberia

Just weeks ago a new study on Northern Iberian Y-DNA, focused specifically on R1b-DF27, was published. It covers Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country and Aragon, finding greater diversity in the Basque Country and Cantabria and lower in Aragon and Asturias.

Patricia Villaescusa et al., Characterization of the Iberian Y chromosome haplogroup R-DF27 in Northern Spain. FSI-Genetics 2017. Pay per viewLINK [doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.12.013]


The European paternal lineage R-DF27 has been proposed as a haplogroup of Iberian origin due to its maximum frequencies in the Iberian Peninsula. In this study, the distribution and structure of DF27 were characterized in 591 unrelated male individuals from four key populations of the north area of the Iberian Peninsula through the analysis of 12 Y-SNPs that define DF27 main sublineages. Additionally, Y-SNP allele frequencies were also gathered from the reference populations in the 1000 Genomes Project to compare and obtain a better landscape of the distribution of DF27. Our results reveal frequencies over 35% of DF27 haplogroup in the four North Iberian populations analyzed and high frequencies for its subhaplogroups. Considering the low frequency of DF27 and its sublineages in most populations outside of the Iberian Peninsula, this haplogroup seems to have geographical significance; thus, indicating a possible Iberian patrilineal origin of vestiges bearing this haplogroup. The dataset presented here contributes with new data to better understand the complex genetic variability of the Y chromosome in the Iberian Peninsula, that can be applied in Forensic Genetics.

The study, quite conveniently, differentiates between "native Basques" (those whose patrilineal ancestors lived in the Basque Country for at least the last three generations) and "resident Basques" (those whose recent patrilineal ancestors immigrated, mostly from NW Iberia).

R1b-DF27 is one of four major R1b sublineages in Western Europe and one of the three "brothers" that can be tracked to an origin somewhere in what is now Southern France, most likely, i.e. together they form part of R1b-S116. The fourth lineage would be, naturally, R1b-U106, "brother" of S116 and found typically around the North Sea. It is the one with the southernmost distribution, being very dominant in Iberia and among Basques. Probably it is also important in all the south of modern France but clear data is missing as of now.

Reconstructed spread of R1b to Western Europe and within it (dates objectively unknown so far, own work)

This is the key data table of the study, showing the frequency of the various sublineages of R1b-DF27 ("*" means "others", so "DF27", without asterisk, means "all DF27" and "DF27*" means instead "remaining DF27 after exclusion of the other mentioned subclades"):

Click to expand (frequencies are absolute, relative to whole sample)
It is also worth sticking this other graph, which shows (top right) the (SNP-based) true phylogeny of the haplogroup R1b-DF27 and, complementarily, the (somewhat messy) haplotype structure based on a limited number of short tandem repeats (STR), in which only Z220 appears clearly defined:

Click to expand

The study is very limited in its scope but it does show that there is a very high diversity for this lineage among Basques. This however does not necessarily indicate that Basques are the direct origin: much more data from the rest of Iberia and very especially from France is required before we can jump to any conclusion. Based on the limited data we have, I am of the opinion that the lineage did not originate in Iberia most likely but rather in what is now Southern France, migrating southwards via the two natural corridors: the Basque Country and Catalonia. 

Sadly enough we just do not have enough modern data, much less ancient one, in order to issue a definitive judgment on the matter. However the overall pattern of distribution of R1b-S116 strongly suggest a "Southern French" origin, not just for "Iberian" DF27 but also for the other two "brother" lineages: "Alpine" U152 and "North Atlantic" M529. 

The big question is how and when did this expansion took place. A "South French" origin was much easier to explain when the Paleolithic continuity model seemed reasonable, however recent ancient DNA findings strongly suggest that the Neolithic and Chalcolithic saw major population changes in much of Europe until stabilization was achieved -- exact patterns vary on specific regions: in some cases this does not happen until the Bronze Age, in others, like the Basque Country and quite possibly the Atlantic parts of France, it may have happened much earlier, even as soon as the early Neolithic. 

So my best recipe for an explanation is that we have to look very carefully at what happened in Western Europe, particularly towards the Atlantic Ocean in that "transitional" period, when not just large cultural phenomena like Dolmenic Megalithism or later also Bell Beaker manifested in quite expansive and dynamic manner but also a dearth of smaller cultures were the actual social or ethnic pieces making them possible. For example it is plausible that Michelsberg culture (originating in Lower Rhineland apparently and swiftly replacing the early Neolithic LBK culture in Germany, North France and nearby areas) could be involved in the expansion southwards of R1b-U106 and other traits of the modern genetic pools we observe. Another culture well worth taking a look at is the Artenac culture, which expanded from Dordogne towards the North up to Belgium soon after the Michelsberg/SOM era. Rather than one single and sudden expansion of a well defined population, it seems to me that we are before a jigsaw puzzle of several cultures and several chronologies, related maybe but not exactly the same.

See also:

Thanks once again to Jean Lohizun.


  1. I think you straight arrows greatly overestimate the navigational skills of Neolithic peoples haha.

    I think M269 is born on the North bank of the Danube in the MN. L23* goes east/south, L11 goes North/west. U106 up the Rhine. All this out of Cucuteni. WHGs all spoke your Basque. EHGs spoke some form of Kipchak or Uralic. Farmers PIE.

    1. I know you mean as a joke but probably they do not overestimate anything (even if they weren't indeed meant to argue for such skills either). It's known for instance that HG people in Wight Island "traded" (or robbed) cereals from farmer people in Brittany or Normandy, so either side must have been able to cross the Channel on boat (in summer I presume but still better than you imagine). Notice that those same farmers (generically speaking) settled places like Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia and the Balearic Islands since very early dates, and that there is evidence of deep sea fishing in some of their sites. Cardium Pottery farmers and some of their relatives were excellent sailors, I wouldn't dare to compare with ancient Austronesians and their incredible open ocean journeys but next after them in the scale of skill and daring pretty much yes.

      It's been even argued that the expansion of Dolmenism to Northern Europe might have been caused by cod fishing expeditions to Ireland and such. Never proven but never disproven either. In any case the Megalithic peoples of Brittany and Upper Normandy did not settle Kent but SE England, Wales, Scotland (including Orkney) and surely also Ireland via the Irish Sea. The short crossing through Dover Strait was used by LBK-related peoples of Northwest France, near Belgium, instead, probably less inclined to navigation themselves (LBK is a continental culture).

      Another very "seagoing" population were the Mesolithic peoples of Denmark and surrounding areas (Maglemosean), who did not just live there but also across the North Sea in the Eastern parts of Britain. It's true that their chronology overlaps the end of the last Ice Age, so the now submberged peninsula known as Doggerland, must have acted as intermediate "port of call" (actually it was surely quite densely inhabited, but underwater archaeology is very costly, so only limited direct confirmation exists) but they were still a quite seagoing people on mere logboats.

      Another example are the Pitted Ware subneolithic (farmer influenced hunter-gatherers) culture of the Baltic, which clearly crossed that sea forth and back at a later date.

      So I would not disdain the seagoing capabilities of ancient peoples, particularly where there is evidence, direct or indirect, supporting their naval mobility.

    2. "I think M269 is born on the North bank of the Danube in the MN".

      Middle Neolithic? Too late by all means. Such a pattern can only be explained either by Early Neolithic carriers, regardless of which were the cores and times of secondary S116 and U106 expansions (the rest is not really a expansion but rather a trickle) or by older migrations. That would actually put us in the Gravettian period because there's nothing like that (a Balcan or West Asia originated migration to Europe) in between, nor after the early Neolithic either. The only possible frames (on archaeological grounds) for the arrival of new genetics (new peoples) from West Asia (via the Balcans) in significant numbers are c. 49 Ka BP (proto-Aurignacian), c. 32 Ka BP (Gravettian) and c. 9-7 Ka BP (Neolithic). Those are the windows and no known archaeology supports any other window at all.

      "L23* goes east/south, L11 goes North/west."

      Those are just intermediate paragroups between the M269 stage in the Balcans (or West Asia) and the S116 and U106 stages in West Europe. Don't get too worked out on them: they seem to exist (at low frequencies) in certain areas and not others and this geographical scatter could support either a Central European or a Mediterranean route (or both). In any case the phylogeny is M269→L23→M412→L11→S116/U106. Somehow L11 peoples arrived to South France and somewhere at the North Sea maybe and, from those two cores, expanded wildly. At least that's what it seems. But in any case the intermediate phase L23→M412→L11 stage is not expansive but a weak scatter, with very few people carrying those intermediate paragroups today, so they probably migrated inside much more diverse groups before finding their own niches.

      One could argue that, as S116 and U106 both expanded and both are L11 sublineages, that L11 is the lineage to consider but there is nothing obvious about any sort of L11 expansion as such, so a possibility is to consider both S116 and U106 expansions as two distinct phenomena, although it's indeed possible that the carriers were culturally related and benefited from the same kind of historico-political wave. Alternatively U106 can be considered as some sort of peculiar (earlier?) relative of the more numerous S116 expansion.

      If we have to consider both process as one, the raw centroid falls always in what is now France, although hard to say exactly where because it depends on where in Iberia you put the reference for L11* (Iberia is huge!) My personal bet would be Dordogne (core of Artenacian) but Burgundy (Gurgy!!!) could be as well (and also others but always in France).

  2. What is your view on the SNP age estimates for R1b M269 on Y Full? I used to like the idea of a Solutrean origin of R1b in Europe but age estimates and the new data make me inclined to believe there is a connection to central European Neolithic cultures.

    1. Haven't checked in a long while but last time I did: rubbish. Age estimates have several issues:

      (1) Wrong calibration points (such as a supposed OoA c. 60-70 Ka BP or a Pan-Homo divergence c. 5-6 Ma ago, based only on this you should double all figures to be minimally realistic)

      (2) Belief that modern father-to-son "observed" mutation rates are the standard to follow, when in fact they are totally ignoring the high chances for any mutation, in the Y-DNA or mtDNA too, being deleterious and therefore not surviving beyond the first carrier, the observed mutant.

      (3) There's enough time between mutations (less in the Y-DNA, much more in the mtDNA line) for freaky things to happen, such as simple genetic drift eliminating the mutant strand altogether (even if it is fully functional or even carries a positive advantage of some sort). This is what I call the "cannibal mum" effect, because in a population with stable Ne effective population, chances for a novel mutant to survive are almost zero beginning around Ne=10 and upwards. That's why I suspect that large star-like haplogroups such as M and H (the two largest "stars" in the human phylogeny by far) show reduced mutation rates downstream of those nodes: they may have got lots of "daughters" but most of them had a hard time succeeding on their own because the very "mother" lineage was way too dominant in the population, drifting the others out to the margins or to extinction. Something like that may also happen in the Y-DNA at less dramatic scale. Only if every generation always or at least very very frequently incorporated new mutations, then the "cannibal mum" (or "cannibal dad") effect would not exist at all: every single new line would be unique, but that's not the case.

      I still think that the basics of the molecular clock method may be used but that it requires much more caution, critical experimental approaches and a good calibration point or several, which can only come from updated paleonthology, archaeology or (with due caution) ancient DNA. Assuming all this it would seem easier to do with full Y-DNA than with mtDNA (whose mutations only accumulate extremely slowly, because it's a short chain) and I tried to do something like that here by recalibrating a full Y-DNA tree made by someone else.

      For R1b (and R1a), I applied those results to Underhill's phylogeny (scroll down to last graph), so I get that R1 should be c. 48 Ka old, R1b c. 34 Ka old and R1b-M412 c. 15 Ka old. R1a should instead be 11-10 Ka old. Of course all figures can't be but rough approximations in any case but I still think that the dates make some sense, regardless of possible Neolithic secondary expansions.

      Even if you go by Underhill's estimates (about 1/3 more recent than mine), there's no way that R1b-M412 and it's key descendant R1b-S116 would have expanded primarily in the Neolithic, Epipaleolithic at best.

      In any case we have Villabruna, which is the oldest R1b man known, and is 14 Ka old and a European (paleo-European, probably of Epigravettian culture). So R1b arriving to Europe with Gravettian culture (or earlier) makes all kind of sense, another issue is when it became dominant and how, because it's quite apparent that in Central-Northern Europe at least, it was nowhere to be seen before the Chalcolithic. But in the rest of Europe? We just don't know almost anything (re. ancient DNA) yet.

    2. The Underhill link is missing, sorry. Here: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/03/y-dna-r1a-spread-from-iran.html

  3. Thank you for your comments. For a long time I have been fairly certain about what I don't believe about this study of ancient genetics but conflicted about what I do believe. Your points about known/unknown snps and the molecular clock are especially impactful. Reading your writings you have linked was very enlightening and I look forward to the upcoming plentiful proofs of your statements, in addition to the existing ones of course.

    1. Glad to be of help. I don't write (nor analyze even) these days as much as I used to and certainly the "molecular clock" is a quite complex matter, so do not expect too much new from me in the future on this particular subject (sorry but I know that I'm in a downward tendency in regards to productivity on these matters, I must acknowledge my limits), so I can only encourage you and others to take the intergenerational torch and do your own critical analysis, hopefully better than mine. Just keep high the critical thought, in this as in everything. As they say "just because it's published in Nature it doesn't mean it is wrong"... but it doesn't mean it is true either.

      Something I have sadly noticed, very especially on this issue of the "molecular clock", is that academics tend a lot (way too much) to be hyper-conservative and acritical, scholastic in the worst possible sense of the word. This may be because of laziness or other limitations of the people doing the work but quite clearly also because of the hierarchical nature of universities, where a young post-graduate researcher depends way too much on the approval of more senior (and typically obsolete, conservative) personnel, hindering critical research. As consequence they tend to cite all the time the same "old" papers and ignore those that are critical with the usual "molecular clock" interpretations. Scholasticism (appeal to authority, it is "true" because someone prestigious said so in the past) is not science but in fact quite an enemy of science. Of course, we do "walk on the shoulders of giants" sometimes but when those "giants" are rather weak imps we do have a serious problem, so it is crucial to discern which are true "giants" and which are fake ones, and that can only be done through critical analysis, by challenging everything. Even the truest and strongest of giants can be wrong sometimes, but there are also fake giants whose shoulders won't hold you high in the realm of science, who seem to be wrong much more often than should be judging on how much they are cited.

  4. Maju, this might be of interest to you, considering this blog entry. It was posted by Nirjhar at Eurogenes:

    "Indeed As per Genetiker , it was M-269 :

    Below are the Y-SNP calls for ATP3, a sample from El Portalón cave in the Atapuerca Mountains of Spain. Positive calls are in bold, and negative calls are in non-bold.

    The calls show that ATP3 belonged to Y haplogroup R1b1a1a2-M269. .

    Now, if I recall correctly, ATP3 didn't have any (significant?) steppe ancestry - even ATP9 had less than modern Basques - so maybe this hints at a WHG origin of R1b-M269. I'm just a blog lurker who has an interest in archaeology and history (including pre-history) and have by no means any solid knowledge on the topic so bear with me, but what about the following scenario regarding its expansion within western Europe.

    Assuming M269 did exist in Iberia at least in the middle neolithic, that this man was not someone who had come from elsewhere in Europe, and that the lineage had WHG origins: could it be associated with the increased WHG we see in Middle/Late Neolithic as opposed to Early neolithic? Maybe because of climate changes (do you know if any happened during or around this period?) that could have affected EEF a lot more than forager WHG populations. These could be the early Maritime Beaker peoples we see in SW Iberia, who would later trade aong the Atlantic coast, gaining wealth and possibly expanding their genes along Atlantic Europe until they got in contact with steppe-like Central/Eastern Europeans, after which we get the full Beaker package. Around 2500BCE groups of these CEU BBs with steppe ancestry - and possibly IE language - back-migrate into Iberia making a large impact, and turing Iberians autosomaly more similar to modern ones. This could explain why Basques, despite not being IE, have such high levels of r1b - it was not an IE lineage to begin with.
    On the other hand Davidski modelled French_Basque as:
    Lengyel_LN 0.590±0.027
    Nganasan 0.009±0.016
    Onge 0.015±0.022
    Steppe_EBA 0.285±0.031
    Western_HG 0.096±0.019
    Yoruba 0.006±0.006
    chisq 3.485 tail_prob 0.900346

    which shows quite a lot of Steppe ancestry.

    Just an idea, any constructive criticism or explanations on mistakes would be greatly appreciated.


    1. By the way, and just for the record, I still think the "steppe hypothesis" for Western Europe r1b makes more sense, as most WHGs in here appear to be I2. Besides Villabruna, how many WHG r1b do we see here in the West?

    2. I find very difficult to give credence to someone whose featured posts are stuff like "More proof of Whites in ancient Peru and Chile", "Statuettes of the White Gods", "The Lady of Cao was White", "Was the Lord of Sipán White?", "Eske Willerslev is an anti-White propagandist" or "The White Gods", really. And that is even if some of his "findings" could be in agreement with my expectations: he just don't seem credible enough to even mention, really, but rather a race-obsessed mind.

      Anyhow, he gets positive calls for R1b-L21, which is a sublineage of S116, one most common in Brittany, Ireland and nearby areas. BUT he also gets a call for R2 (M479), and while it may seem on first sight that R2 is a far fetched lineage, it is not unheard of in West Eurasia and the researchers claimed that his "neighbor" ATP2 was H2, also a South Asian lineage primarily. Those same researchers could not conclude a haplogroup for ATP3 (maybe because it produces both calls for R1b-L21 and for R2, haven't looked it up to such detail). It looks suggestive but I just don't see enough clarity nor I really trust such a race-obsessed guy as Genetiker, really.

    3. "how many WHG r1b do we see here in the West?"

      Neither in the West nor in the East, R1b is nowhere to be seen before Villabruna, nor after until the Neolithic, when it begins to be found here and there (at the Volga, but it is a Volga specific subclade, at the Pyrenees but it is an unspecific upstream lineage, and finally with the Bell Beaker individuals, both German and Irish, which are finally S116). No clear pattern in any case yet.

      → http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2016/05/large-paleoeuropean-dna-survey.html

      It is not my argument but, if Davidski can arbitrarily claim that, because R1a1 was found in Epipaleolithic Karelia (EHG), then R1a1 must (somehow) have coalesced in Eastern Europe (never mind we have no data on ancient West Asian Y-DNA, where Underhill rationally places its origin), then someone (not me) can equally argue that R1b1 must have coalesced in Western Europe or more specifically in Italy, just because Villabruna is within WHG autosomal clade. The only real thing is that these two are ante-quem dates for the presence of either lineage in Europe but they do not exclude their presence anywhere else. They may be suggestive but not hard evidence of anything on their own: the ancient samples are just too few (except in some specific areas and periods) to be taken as credible unbiased samples.

      My impression is that all R1 sublineages now numerous in Europe, expanded in the Neolithic or Chalcolithic but from various different origins. They should not be conflated together but taken as distinct lineages each on its own right. If anything U106 and S116 may be related in their expansion but they could also be separated process, all other R1 (R1a-Europe, R1a-South/Central Asia, R1b-Volga, R1b-Central Africa, etc.) are clearly distinct processes. It's a bit odd that these are the main expanding lineages but in fact there are others too in that Holocene period: E1b-M81, E1b-M78, J1, J2, G2, etc., often associated or overlapping with R1 subclades. Even I2 variants like the Sardinian-Pyrenean one probably expanded in that period as well, or also Baltic I1, Uralic N1, Sinitic O3, etc. It's a period of widespread change, really.

  5. "Anyhow, he gets positive calls for R1b-L21, which is a sublineage of S116, one most common in Brittany, Ireland and nearby areas. BUT he also gets a call for R2 (M479), and while it may seem on first sight that R2 is a far fetched lineage, it is not unheard of in West Eurasia and the researchers claimed that his 'neighbor' ATP2 was H2, also a South Asian lineage primarily."

    IIRC, the H2 referred to here is not a subclade of the typically South Asian H-M69, but rather the typically European & Southwest Asian (Armenian, Assyrian, Arab, etc.) H-P96.

    The Y-DNA haplogroup H tree has been modified a great deal over the past several years. The linkage between European & Southwest Asian H-P96 and South Asian H-M2826 and even more so the linkage between mostly tribal South Asian H-Z5857 (former South Asian F*) and somewhat more mainstream South Asian H-M69 are very weak; in some way, each of these clades may be considered as a basal branch of F-M89, though they have been declared to share a few SNPs in common (34 SNPs for the linkage between H-P96 and the two South Asian clades; two SNPs for the linkage between South Asian H-Z5857 and South Asian H-M69).

    "It is not my argument but, if Davidski can arbitrarily claim that, because R1a1 was found in Epipaleolithic Karelia (EHG), then R1a1 must (somehow) have coalesced in Eastern Europe (never mind we have no data on ancient West Asian Y-DNA, where Underhill rationally places its origin), then someone (not me) can equally argue that R1b1 must have coalesced in Western Europe or more specifically in Italy, just because Villabruna is within WHG autosomal clade. The only real thing is that these two are ante-quem dates for the presence of either lineage in Europe but they do not exclude their presence anywhere else. They may be suggestive but not hard evidence of anything on their own: the ancient samples are just too few (except in some specific areas and periods) to be taken as credible unbiased samples."

    The same concern applies to the finding of Y-DNA haplogroup J (or was it pre-J1?) in a skeleton buried in Mesolithic Karelia. Davidski is apparently eager to consider the Mesolithic Karelian R1a as evidence for an origin of extant R-M17 in Eastern Europe. Is he also so eager to consider the Mesolithic Karelian J as evidence for an origin of extant Caucasian and Semitic J1 in Eastern Europe?

    1. There is one J (undefined) in North Russia (Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov) but also J(xJ2) in Iran and J2 in Georgia in the Epipaleolithic/Mesolithic. No idea how Davidski wants to interpret that, really, ask him. My point was to recycle his convoluted argument on R1a1, which is one of the theoretical pillars of the "steppe hypothesis" AFAIK, for the context of R1b1, which, on the very same logic, should work against the "steppe hypothesis". A lot of "steppe horde" affiliates just point to the earliest known whatever as "proof" of their dogma but (ignoring the key issue of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") they conveniently ignore those "proofs" that are not useful for their speculation, in what is a clear case of cherry-picking the evidence, of building first the "theory" and then selectively using or not the data at whim, much as other pseudoscientific polemists do, be it with creationism or flat earth.

      Instead we, scientific-minded people must accept the data, even if we don't like it. It may be more complicated to provide an answer, it won't always be an easy answer, but, on the good side, whatever we produce will be a pondered answer based on all, and not just some pre-selected, line of evidence.

      "the H2 referred to here is not a subclade of the typically South Asian H-M69, but rather the typically European & Southwest Asian (Armenian, Assyrian, Arab, etc.) H-P96."

      I think you're correct. I just forgot and never really got myself properly updated on the current H phylogeny. It is quite interesting that there is a Western branch of H anyhow.

      "... each of these clades may be considered as a basal branch of F-M89, though they have been declared to share a few SNPs in common (34 SNPs for the linkage between H-P96 and the two South Asian clades; two SNPs for the linkage between South Asian H-Z5857 and South Asian H-M69)."

      Thank you for the explanation. I gather that therefore nowadays all South Asian H is called H1 (earlier it'd be H1 and H2) and that H2 is reserved for the West Eurasian branch.

    2. Also this H issue seems to suggest, at least re. Y-DNA, a rather westerly origin of F, because it's not just H2 but also G and IJ, all quite upstream lineages within macro-haplogroup F. Naturally we should also consider all F* lineages in their proper phylogenetic and geographical context, a complicated task, and, if my memory is correct, most of them are in South and SE Asia. But in any case there are a number of important "close to basal" F sublineages in the West (including at least one F-other) and that is intriguing. On the other side CF (and indirectly D) do seem to suggest a more oriental origin for the early macro-Eurasian (or macro-Asian) population after the OoA.

      Any thoughts on this, Ebizur?

  6. Hi Maju: Have you seen this? Yamnaya-related admixture in Bronze Age northern Iberia in http://eurogenes.blogspot.cl/
    I think you have a lot to say about this.
    Your commentaries are important.

    1. Well, I'm going to stay aside of the discussion because just a few days ago I left another discussion at Davidski's blog in rather bad terms: David was being patronizing while at the same time rejecting to debate the key issues and replacing all debate with a single word: "bullshit", so I accused him of behaving like Trump when tweeting before breakfast and slammed (unsuscribed with due notice). I also suggested him to run for Queen of Australia, as the post will be vacant soon and it seems a trend to have such autocratic characters elected for high office these days.

      A key question is why did Davidski choose to use ATP9 instead of Chalcolithic ATP samples. It is very apparent in the study and my reanalysis that all ATP samples are close to Basques, just that the Chalcolithic ones are also close to Sardinians while ATP9 is rather close to Britons instead. I even argued that ATP9 might well be a mixed Ibero-British individual (emphasis in "individual?, how representative of the actual BA population of the area she is?)

      I just re-read all that entry and many of the comments for the occasion and found this by myself: Update: a Bronze Age ritual burial of weapons not too far from Atapuerca has very clear signature of British origin (one sword is identical to a locally manufactured British one, the ritual also resembles similar British ones). Although the date may be centuries more recent than ATP9, it does reinforce the notion of more or less persistent interactions with the islands in the Bronze Age also in the Upper Ebro area and reinforces the possibility of ATP9 being partly of British ancestry.

      We know that, since Rathlin (late Chalcolithic, Bell Beaker period), people in the islands seem to have some EHG-like genetics (and also R1b-S116 and be very much like modern Brits and Irish, notably Celtic ones). A key issue here is what is that extra-EHG (seemingly) and extra other HG too... really is? The discussion that ended with me slamming was actually about this in the context of Eastern Europe: data strongly suggested SHG (Motala-like) instead of EHG in both pre-Kurgan Lithuania and Ukraine and this issue of SHG (intermediate in "ANE" between WHG and EHG but otherwise WHG-like) has arisen once and again regarding Northern and Western European genetic make up. I don't know for sure if this is "the answer" but it is probably part of the answer. After all we are talking of pre-IE and pre-Kurgan populations of the Western fringes and it seems more likely to me that, say, "refugees" from the Kurgan invasions, maybe from the Rhine basin or Scandinavia were incorporated into the Western genetic pools one way or another than Kurgan people "conquering" without leaving any trace. Or maybe it is a trait that was "all the time" present in Britain or France or wherever and just locally expanded in that late Chalcolithic period within the BB phenomenon.

      Anyhow, the issue is wide open and in wait on more data points from ancient Western Europe and I have no idea (unless I want to think bad of him) why Davidski picks that almost certainly admixed individual, when all ATP samples are similarly close to modern Basques, both ATP9 with her British-like peculiarities and all the older ATP samples with their Sardinian-like ones.

      Feel free to quote me but I'm not personally getting involved in that discussion: too much waste of energies, sorry.

  7. " After all we are talking of pre-IE and pre-Kurgan populations of the Western fringes and it seems more likely to me that, say, "refugees" from the Kurgan invasions, maybe from the Rhine basin or Scandinavia were incorporated into the Western genetic pools one way or another than Kurgan people "conquering" without leaving any trace. Or maybe it is a trait that was "all the time" present in Britain or France or wherever and just locally expanded in that late Chalcolithic period within the BB phenomenon. "

    Talking about refugees, what about Doggerland, the piece of land between Great Britain the Netherlands and Germany?
    Studies have dated it around 5800 BC and corresponds to the bridge between North Germany, Great Britain and the Atlantic fringe were proto- proto basques lived.


    1. Doggerland is no doubt related to the Maglemosean culture, which is found both in Scandinavia/Low Germany and Eastern/North Britain in the Epipaleolithic. In the old Paleolithic continuity model, it would be ideal to explain R1b-U106 spread but today it seems much less likely because we are realizing that in much of Europe there were important demographic/genetic changes at later periods: first the Neolithic waves, then the not sufficiently clarified HG remix, maybe with waves originating in the West, and finally the Indoeuropean layer (plus maybe some other localized layers in Sicily, Tuscany, etc. from the Eastern Mediterranean).

      Basically Doggerland sinking is too old to matter much. It had disappeared altogether (or almost) by the time the first farmers arrived to continental Western Europe. BTW, in the key period it was much larger than reflected in that article: it was a huge stretch of land joining Denmark, Low Germany, the Low Countries and Britain. This map seems very detailed: http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/31836.jpg

      What you see in the map of your linked article is just Dogger Bank, which is only part of the wider Doggerland and which was an island by the time of Neolithic arrival.

  8. I would be very circumspect about taking the Isle of Wight cereal traces as evidence of Mesolithic contact with France. Not only is this a novel methodology, which has been questioned, but the date of the deposit (c. 6000 BC) is too early for either Brittany or Normandy to be the source of the cereal.

    1. I'm unaware to that claim being questioned: can you point to a source?

      As for the date it may be wrong, of course. Or it may imply even longer routes. IDK about Central Europe but that date is for the Western Mediterranean roughly the arrival of Cardium Pottery to Liguria or Provence. It would imply a much longer trade route (either by land or sea) and it would also imply that Doggerland was still partly above water, that Britain was a peninsula.

      Interesting in any case because I never noticed before that issue of the dates, which is indeed problematic.

    2. Just checked Central Europe's dates and c. 6000 BCE the hypothetical route would have needed to reach to Eastern Hungary or Serbia (Starcevo-Köros culture), much further than Provence. Also Cardium Pottery peoples were clearly very good sailors, so if we are going to give credence to the finding, I'd have to argue for a Cardium Pottery origin, either overland or by boat (although overland seems more reasonable, considering that Southern Iberia was not reached, in any archaeologically documented way, before c. 5500 BCE).

  9. Maju sorry for bothering you again, but there's a qpAdm run on Iberian samples at Eurogenes, and some results seem odd.

    What is your take on it?

    1. No prob. That's what the comment section is for.

      I don't see anything "odd" other than Steppe-EBA (Bronze Age) weighting more than WHG. A problem I see is that those are not comparable stuff: EHG should have been used instead of Steppe-EBA and preferably along SHG, which is suspect of co-responsibility in "strange results" and was important in the past not just in Scandinavia but also in much of Eastern Europe (and maybe also other areas).

      If you compare avocados with apples and oranges, the result will be wrong necessarily, regardless on whether it claims that avocados are more apple-like or more orange-like.

    2. Also, how do we know that the labels correspond to what they claim to be. Davidski has often said that such direct analysis based on ancient specimens can't be done, because of imperfect quality of the aDNA? I would like to see the "materials and methods" section because I strongly suspect they are using some sort of "zombified" constructs and not direct comparison with ancient samples.

  10. Besides the clearly inflated SSA, I feel there's an issue with the Steppe/WHG ratio, it seems some populations pick more Steppe for whatever reason even if they are relatively close, however the Steppe+WHG amount is very similar amongst all Iberians. Maybe Lengyel isn't the best farmer population either.
    An example, Galicians score 24,1% Steppe and 8,8% WHG. I'd expect the Portuguese to be fairly similar, but instead they get a whopping 30,6% Steppe and a meagre 3,8% WHG - the only Iberian population who scores more Steppe are the Spanish-speakers in Vascongadas, with an extra 0,5%.

    However, as David said, the results are kind of in line with the PCAs


    1. Not necessarily, because there is no direct reference for the "Basal Eurasian" thingy, which will pull towards Africa (and also exaggeratedly towards CHG maybe, who are heavy on that BA ghostly component).

      "Maybe Lengyel isn't the best farmer population either."

      You're right: they are a late derivative and not the putative source. They may be lowering WHG and increasing other elements relative to LBK/EEF or similar. I'd need to check but that's my intuitive guess.

      "I'd expect the Portuguese to be fairly similar, but instead they get a whopping 30,6% Steppe and a meagre 3,8% WHG"...

      Portuguese could to be more EEF than Galicians (and the change may have happened in the Late Neolithic per a recent study) but that would basically close the bulk of genetic change in the region. Anyhow those fractions of "steppe" and "WHG" are outlandish by comparison to academic studies.

      Have to go without checking the PCAs, anyhow every day less interested on what David has to say, really.

    2. Northwest Portuguese seem actually to group very closely to Galicians, genetically speaking.

    3. That depends on what marker or what study (what specific sample) you're considering but of course they are neighbors, so they should be great similitudes. However in Adams 2008, North Portugese are unusually low in E1b-M81 relative not just to Galicians but to other Portygese and the whole West Iberian region.

      Anyhow, when I said: "Portuguese could to be more EEF than Galicians", well, that's a typo (a word was deleted and never rewritten) and I seem to have meant "Portuguese could happen to be...", so it seems to me that I was talking in hypothetical case and was not a statement in any case.

  11. Hey Maju,

    2 out of 3 males from West German Blätterhöhle have R1: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/03/06/114488

    That's pretty close to the Paris Basin.

    1. Very interesting, thank you.

      In the previous entry, on ancient mtDNA, I did mention that this Blätterhöhle site was quite intriguing. I wrote:

      It also caught my eye that a German site (Blätterhöhle, Westfalia, famed because farmer and hunter-gatherers living side by side were located there some years ago), clusters intensely with Iberian hunter-gatherers and related populations [i.e. Neolithic ones which appear more HG-like than usual]. I have to research more on this matter (which I had ignored so far) but I suspect it may be very relevant, because we could get an even longer chain of early "modern" mtDNA pools, adding this site to Paternabidea (Navarre) and Gurgy (Burgundy), spanning a long stretch of Western Europe, an area quite neglected by archaeogenetics so far, it must be said.

      This is the sort of site that could be seeding the later Michelsberg expansion southwards, which wiped out LBK farmers in most of Germany (but not the East) and many nearby areas of the Low Countries, France (where it's known as SOM) and Switzerland. I've been saying for a long while that the answer to the R1b-Western must be in the West, not for any particular obsession but because of internal logic of modern DNA and because every other region studied produced negative results; so there was a big blank area in need of research to the West of Europe, more than suspect of being at the origin of this lineage, and I was 99% sure that once research began in those areas, it would not take long to produce the lineage. It's like that "Sherlock Holmes" catchphrase: once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains, even if unlikely, must be the answer.

      Very interesting indeed.

    2. OK, seems I was reading too much and also that you have misreported the findings. ED Table 1 lists only one Blätterhöhle individual carrying R1b1 and another R1 (no downstream affiliation, although I doubt it's "true R1*" but rather that they can't further define the haplogroup), another carried I2a1 and the fourth one is female. The third R1b individual is actually an R1b1a2 from Els Trocs (Aragon, Spain), which I believe was already known to be R1b1 but had not the lineage so finely characterize. This is R1b-V88, which is the African and Mediterranean lineage, so not relevant for the R1b-Western quest (just as Volga R1b isn't either). This Els Trocs population was extreme in their early farmer affiliation via mtDNA, which suggested zero Paleoeuropean admixture (very rare). Indirectly it may tell us about the Sardinian-Pyrenean link but we will still have to wait until R1b-Western is found before the two Late Chalcolithic individuals that are at present the "ante quem" line.

    3. Yes, I think I didn't misreport, what I said is quite accurate ;) Read my statement again. That might be just another case of Western European DNA studies being quite unsatisfactory.

      I still think the frequencies alone in this particular location are quite noteworthy. I doubt that these are the direct ancestors of European R1b.

    4. Oh, you're right, sorry. I misinterpreted what you said. Mea culpa! :(

      I noticed that the Els Trocs sample had good quality (1.3), while the Blätterhöhle samples have worse quality: 0.8 for the R1b1 man and I think that just 0.1 for the "R1" one. So it's even possible that they are what we are looking for but that it remains unclear because of DNA quality.

      "I doubt that these are the direct ancestors of European R1b."

      It's most unlikely that we find "direct ancestors" anywhere but we should find at some point populations with large frequencies of R1b-S116 and R1b-U106, call them "distant cousins of the direct ancestors". For S116 so far that is some Bell Beaker individuals but BB is clearly an unsatisfactory answer, even if BB would be the vector (which seems not for many areas) there should still be an origin, a source for that peculiar and previously unobserved genetic makeup.

      IMO it should be within or near the triangle formed by Paternabidea, Gurgy and Blätterhole, but we'll see in due time.

  12. Hi Maju: Have you read this book?

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262962852_When_Beakers_Met_Bell_Beakers_An_analysis_of_dental_remains - 2011

    Chapter 8 shows how small groups of Iberian BB went to Central Europe, Switzerland and Bohemia
    "Migration of groups of Bell Beaker individuals from
    the Iberian Peninsula toward the east, while the
    eastern domain is still occupied by the Corded Ware "
    ¿Difusion of R1b ?
    "For N. Brodie (2001), it was eastern Bell Beaker
    women who integrated the western region. Our data
    support neither this hypothesis nor the inverse. Dental
    morphologies strongly diverge in the two spheres and
    the population basis of Bell Beaker women was not
    part of the southern zones studied here. "

    It looks like the sistematic move of small groups of migrants back and forth, for several thousand years, due to agriculture failure, plagues not only affecting humans but also herds, searching of minerals, exchange of new techniques, news saying that beyond the rainbow there is a land of illusion, the perspective of war, or whatever, floods, earthquakes, freeze, and so on, not registered in archaeology, are reasons to have in account for de difusion of male and female genes.
    If all men were gone with the herds, and for some reasosn never came back, women would pick mates in the foreign groups of male migrants.
    If women died of childbirth because incompatility of blood, men looked for the survivers.
    If foreign men brought the plague, because they could survivre, that fact could have decimated native populations leaving a few survivres for continuity.
    When the historians liberally talk about “invasions” of hundred thousands, they have to happen after the romans built roads through the forests.
    They never take on account that there were no roads, that most part of Europe was covered with thick forest or bushes, that oxen carts were only posible in flat land, not through the high mountains, neither the Alps nor the Pyrinees.

    So the migration of women was more restricted to moving in small groups either by boats or by carts, only in flat land.
    I think that the Rh(-) negative end the consequences of mating Rh(+) like abortion, stillborns, premature death, helped considerably the endogamy that preserved the vasconic language. Perhaps mating a foreigner could be dangerous. Haven´t you thought about that?
    I am 0 Negative, and there still troubles with lack of blood in Blood Banks or with the prospect of a pregnancy for my family.
    By the way, I was thinking about your hypothesis of the contribution of the Bagauda in preserving the identity of the vasconic groups and the seed of the language, and it makes sense.
    Roman Empire needed mines, lands for oil, wheat, vines and taxes. To that purpose the tribal lands were given to romans, or colaborators with Rome, and the rest of the people were turned in serfs . or small tenents, paying rents and taxes.
    The aristocratic germanic invaders, only replaced the romans in the machine of the empire. But, there was a moment of roman weakness, a cause of the troubles with the goths and franks, that allowed a rebellion of those who had nothing to loose, considering their present or future state of affaires. And these were people highly organized, with a “secret” language not easily understood by foreigners, with their own land not yet turned in feudal states, and clever enough to know that things only could get worst. And if thay have fought with the Legions, they master the art of war.
    Sorry, these are Sunday disgressions.

    1. I haven't yet read the paper (in French, it'll take me some time and attention, which I don't have right now) but what you say at the beginning of your comment is interesting indeed.

      Now, re. Rh-, it should never be understood as you do: it is just a minor issue. The effects in case of "blood incompatibility" (without modern medical treatment) are very weak: the firstborn is ALWAYS healthy and the rest only have a 13% chance of getting complications, usually the mother is not affected, only the baby. There were so many other birth-related complications that this would be just a small fraction of causes of reproductive problems. The overall effect is not zero but close enough to ignore.

      Also Rh- is a pan-European trait, it just happens to be more common in cuasi-aboriginal Atlantic populations like Basques, Irish, Scottish, etc. but even among these it is not dominant in frequencies but just a sizable minority. I do think that there is a correlation with other genetic traits like Y-DNA R1b-Western but correlation is not causation and I rather lean to both traits being carried by the same peoples, both males and females, just like other quasi-neutral traits are.

    2. I finally read the abstract (seems the abstract of a book, right), crazily enough I read it in French (with great difficulty) and only then I realized that it was in English as well.

      Anyway, it's very interesting because it describes with nearly no doubt a very clear path for the expansion of Bell Beaker in terms demographic as follows:

      1. Origin in Northern Iberia (apparently, where continuity is clear)
      2. Expansion to Southern (SE) France (demic replacement, which contradicts other studies based on mere material remains suggesting continuity)
      3. To Switzerland (with partial demic replacement)
      4. Concept-only (cultural) expansion to Bohemia (where Beaker people are continuous between Corded Ware and Unetice, at least on the men's side)

      Re. women they just say they are more heterogeneous, suggesting exogamy (in an implicit patrilocal context).

      I'd love to see a genetic study confirming (or not) these findings. They say dental traits are strongly hereditary but I bet many won't accept the findings unless they are top quality genetic.

    3. OK, thinking loud now. Let's assume that BB demic expansion was the direct causant of R1b-S116 expansion. The known archaeogenetic data seems to confirm that it expanded with Bell Beaker at least. My strong impression, based on available modern diversity (considered phylogenetically) is that it should have expanded from somewhere in Southern France, and probably not in Iberia, however it's not fully impossible that it could originate in some Iberian area where diversity is rather high like the "greater Basque" historical area (all the way up to Atapuerca). Sadly this does not seem to fit too well with generic or "cultural" archaeology-based prehistorical reconstruction, with the "greater Basque" area, more so in what is now France, seems dominated by the Artenac culture (slightly older than BB) and has limited BB influence. The big BB centers are further south in fact, or to the East in Catalonia, in Southeastern France, there is Treilles (which we know lacked R1b) and the Rhône-Provence area... but none of them seems too plausible for me as single core. I suspect that R1b-S116 was somewhat spread already before BB expansion, with the three main subclades already formed and somewhat distributed as well (particularly because no expansion to Iberia apparently, which implies an already spread out R1b-DF27). If so, there could be two poles of expansion within BB: R1b-U152 would correlate with the expansion this book seems to detect towards Switzerland (but also paradoxically to South France), while R1b-M529 would correspond instead to an expansion to the north (Britain and Ireland), not pondered in this book but very plausible considering Raithlin. Proto-Czechs would be already dominated by R1a and would not change with BB.

      Well, just ranting a bit but it does look like somewhat plausible, right?

  13. I wrote an entire post of how hubris and a lack of understandings of demography infects ancient DNA studies. Please check it out.


    1. I replied extensively. While I sympathize with your criticism of certain bloggers, your argumentation also requires some serious criticism because of way too linear and liberal use of modern examples which cannot in any case be easily extrapolated to ancient conditions.

  14. New ancient DNA papers which confirms R1b P312 came from the East.



    Iberian Bell Beaker folk and the oldest French Bell Beaker folk lacked R1b P312 and Steppe admixture.

    Bell Beaker folk in East France, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Netherlands, and England belonged almost exclusively to R1b P312 and carried a large amount of Steppe ancestry. British Beakers belonged to R1b L21, Eastern(Germany, France, Hungary) Beakers belonged to R1b U152>L21.

    R1b P312 and Steppe ancestry appear in Portugal together in 1700 BC.

    1. Very interesting papers both (thank you) but they DO NOT "confirm R1b P312 came from the East".

      The Portuguese BA case is most parsimoniously explained by internal Iberian migration (or something like that, France remains mostly unresearched). Indications:

      The strongest indication is fig. 4, where some of the Iberian(2 Spanish and several Portuguese) LN/CA samples are almost identical to the Portuguese BA ones: slightly higher HG component, ZERO Caucasus component (!!!) and some "blue" component, also found in Greek EN/LN but not Anatolian Neolithic(incidentally Basques display stronger affinity for Greek Neolithic than other Europeans, who tend to Anatolian Neolithic instead, that may be a hint pointing in the South France direction I've been pointing to for a while).

      Additionally, Spanish Neolithic samples also largely overlap with the "displaced" Bronze PT sample in fig. 2. The same happens in fig. 5. Also, in table 1 we see strong presence of mtDNA U5b, which I is very concentrated in Iberia since Paleolithic times (also in Finland, Sápmi, see: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/06/basque-specific-mtdna-lineages.html). Nowadays it peaks regionally among Basques and is rare in continental Europe.

      Fig. 3 suggests a rather weak (but still strongest) connection to Ireland but this cannot be interpreted as migration from R1b Ireland, because of the lack of the Caucasus or teal component, present in Irish EBA, so it probably represents a migration to Ireland from the same source instead.

      The other study (first one in your list) shows that British R1b arrived with Bell Beaker and correlates well with apparent (real?) steppe-like and "continental" admixture. I'm looking at the supplemental materials right now to try to find out something more.

    2. Ouch: "Figure S1. f-statistics of the form f4 (Mbuti, Test; Yamnaya_Samara, Anatolia_Neolithic)".

      This is a HUGE BIAS: they should have used Atlantic Neolithic samples instead, else most of the HG weight (which may be 50% or more) goes to Yamnaya-Samara, totally distorting the results. That's why they get even greater apparent "Steppe admixture" in Britain and Netherlands than in Central Europe, what doesn't make any sense, really.

      However Table S9 strongly suggests an almost total population replacement in the island with BB, possibly from the Netherlands. This would be a good explanation for the expansion of R1b-U106 (which is still today centered in the Netherlands, at least by figures) but would need greater refinement to explain R1b-S116 (phylogenetically centered in Southern France).

      Very tentatively, I would suggest a South-to-North expansion of R1b-S116 with Artenacian first and BB later that may have co-migrated to the Islands (maybe from Brittany/NW France/Belgium/Rhineland) along the "Dutch" BB vector.

    3. "This is a HUGE BIAS: they should have used Atlantic Neolithic samples instead, else most of the HG weight (which may be 50% or more) goes to Yamnaya-Samara, totally distorting the results. That's why they get even greater apparent "Steppe admixture" in Britain and Netherlands than in Central Europe, what doesn't make any sense, really."

      Yamnaya doesn't absorb any Western European hunter gatherer ancestry.

      The paper modeled Bell Beaker genomes as Anatolia Neolithic, WHG, and Yamnaya_Samara. Because WHG is used as an ancestor Yamnaya can't absorb WHG ancestry.

      Non-Iberian Bell Beaker folk were 40-50% Steppe. This is fact, there's no room for debate.

      Dozens of genomes from Neolithic-Bronze age SouthEast and East Europe were sequenced this year so we know this new type of ancestry in Western Europe came directly from Yamnaya-type people. WHG or Balkan_HG or Varna or whoever can't be confused with Yamnaya.

    4. Also R1a-M417 isn't native to Eastern Europe.....

      This year many genomes from Eastern Europe dating from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age were sequenced.




      No R1a M417, No Steppe admixture until Corded Ware. Baltic Hunter gatherers didn't belong to R1a M417, Ukraine hunter gatherers didn't, Polish farmers didn't, Balkan farmers didn't.

      Ancient DNA has proved what I and many others have known for years: R1a-M417 and R1b-L151 originated in the Eurasian Steppe and expanded in the 3rd millennium BC.

    5. Samuel: where in the formula "f4 (Mbuti, Test; Yamnaya_Samara, Anatolia_Neolithic)" do you read "WHG"?

      In contrast with West Asian components, all Paleoeuropeans (WHG, EHG, SHG) look almost identical and would mostly be asigned to Yamnaya-Samara, which is the only test pop with significant Paleouropean HG (around 50%). Anatolian Neolithic also has some minor WHG but it's too low to matter. I stand for what I said.

    6. "Also R1a-M417 isn't native to Eastern Europe."

      I'd agree with that but excluding the area I consider key and that has been nearly unresearched so far: Cuyavia (North-East Poland) and West Ukraine.

      In my work hypothesis: R1a1 arrived to Central-North Europe at low frequencies, maybe with Neolithic expansion (should not be easy to detect it in aDNA at that point yet), and had some sort of local founder effect in that area, probably before Corded Ware, which picked it up and expanded it all around. Alternatively it would be a CW-specific founder effect but I rather think it's Eastern Baalberge instead, and that CW and its precursors (Lubon, Globular Amphorae) acted only as vectors of expansion from Poland.

      "Polish farmers didn't"

      OK, very interesting, I saw the first paper has one Polish sample but could not find the specifics about it. So LBK farmers not yet but what about Baalberge Chalcolithic (first kurgans in Central Europe)? I know that the answer in the German core is negative, but in Poland? It is the Cuyavian core which is central to subsequent expansion.

      Also re. Ukraine, I see a couple of samples from NW Ukraine but again can't find easily the specifics to them. From which period are them? How many?

      Well, the question is that we know that CW had lots of R1a1 and that they surely expanded this lineage all around and that, in the basics, it has remained that way until present day. But where did they get the lineage from? Who are the Y-DNA precursors of CW: are they the Baalberge-Lubon-GA group I argue for or rather the Catacomb offshoot that seems to have sparked CW in Cuyavia? And, if the latter, why is Catacomb/CW so different in Y-DNA from Yamna? Where did they get their trademark R1a from?

    7. In any case, thank you for all the materials for reading, Samuel.

    8. Did you see the new Globular Amphora samples in the Southeast Europe paper, Maju? (It is full of good stuff.) There are 6 from Poland (from Kierzkowo, actually in Kuyavia or very near), and 3 from Ukraine. In the autosome they are the typical EEF with elevated WHG. Two thirds of them are male, all I2, and those with better coverage prove to be under I2a2a1b-CTS10057. We find some quite common subclades under that branch of I2 today.

      The Neolithic British also had I2 clades common in Britain today - the paternal ancestors of non-R1 Europeans are beginning to turn up, we have J2b now and more E-L618. I1 is still missing, maybe gathering amber and hunting seals in the Baltic still.

    9. Forgot to add that the GA are slightly EHG shifted relative to Iberia Chalcolithic and German Middle Neolithic samples, as is not surprising considering their location. They have more WHG than the latter, about as much as the former.

    10. Maju you make me laugh. You obviously suffer from cognitive dissonance. Maybe this post by Davidski will help open your eyes.


      Just accept it!!! R1b-L151 isn't native to Western Europe. It isn't Paleolithic, it isn't Neolithic, it arrived in the 3rd millenium BC with Yamnaya-like people who probably spoke an Indo European language.

      The same is true for R1a M417 and Eastern Europe. It arrived in the 3rd millenium BC with Yamnaya-like people who probably spoke an Indo European language.

      And guess what the same thing will be found in South Asia. R1a M417 arrived with Yamnaya-like people in the Bronze age.

    11. First of all, I'm not really paying much attention, sadly enough, to the latest developments. I may even decide to close this blog by early summer (not happy about that but I haven't almost posted in the last many months, I'm only reading somewhat casually what you guys bring here or to my email, so it seems coherent to give it a decent burial).

      Second, Capra: thanks for highlighting the Cuyavia GA data, it seems to confirm that I was wrong about GA-CW continuity, partial or otherwise. Therefore we should probably consider CW as Catacomb-derived. Still, where did they get their R1a from? That question seems to remain open, right?

      Third, Samuel: I beg you not to throw gratuitous insults, I don't want to ban anyone. We can have a respectful discussion about data and what it means and agree to disagree if we can't agree.

      All I can find in Davidski's entry (and several related other entries) is that CW was c. 100% R1a (mostly within Z282, the clade which appears to expand from Poland or West Ukraine) and that NW Bell Beaker were c. 100% R1b (almost all S116, the SW European clade with apparent origin in Southern France). Talking about L151 seems a bit irrelevant, because we know that the expansions happened downstream of that node: at the S116 and U106 ones, and even downstream of S116 probably too (the BB samples would seem all to POTENTIALLY be within M529, the "Irish" clade), so these NW BB people should be associated with the R1b-M529 expansion from Western France, right? (I know you'll reply "wrong" but it seems right to me, really).

      "Just accept it!!!"

      Why? Your Yamnaya and "Yamnaya-like" CW people do not have any L151. It only shows up with BB, which is a very clear case of south to north expansion, not of east to west nor north to south one. As Bob mentions below, there are major gaps in our pre-BB knowledge (and also in our geographical knowledge). You guys are trying to force-feed a prejudiced wishful thinking idea that just doesn't make sense and does not fit with the data.

      If anyone has "cognitive dissonance" here, that would be you and your Ultra-Indoeuropeanist wild dog pack.

    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    13. "Just accept it!!! R1b-L151 isn't native to Western Europe. It isn't Paleolithic, it isn't Neolithic, it arrived in the 3rd millenium BC with Yamnaya-like people who probably spoke an Indo European language."

      The Yamnaya R1b samples belong to R1b1-a1a2-a2-Z2103. The Bell Beaker samples from the contemporary Central Europe belong to R1b1-a1a2-a1a2-S116 (or R1b1-a1a2-a1a1-U106). Quite different lineages! (I am making dashes in the hapogroup signatures to make it more understandable.)

      I am baffled, how someone can come up with such a bizarre theory. They found R1b in some peripheral area of the Yamnaya culture (which was no surprise because this lineage has remained there in high frequencies until today) and 'internet geneticists' immediatelly fantasize that this fringe population somehow hid among all those R1a's in Corded Ware Central Europe and subsequently erased 90% of the West European Y haplogroup pool. (LOL)

    14. Their logic hangs from the following burning nails:

      1. Blind faith in their own groupthink (they are more than one, so they have to be right, right?)

      2. Subsuming everything to the wide category R or R1, which in their faith must have a single and simple origin, and this one must be in Siberia (however geo-phylogeny suggests Pakistan, with R1a and R1b nodes in West Asia). In their mind everything R1 and maybe even R (incl. R2) would be the "Genghis Khan lineage" of some unknown Indoeuropean Khan or founder patriarch.

      3. The "Ancient North Eurasian" (ANE), which is a confusing way-too-old-and-generic AUTOSOMAL element referenced to Glacial Maximum Mal'ta boy (near Mongolia and more closely related to Native Americans than to any West or South Eurasian), who incidentally carried a primitive form of Y-DNA R (but sufficiently derived from the upstream node to know it has no live descendants, a detail they purposely ignore). That's why they believe R "must" have spread from Siberia.

      4. A more important piece of evidence is that Yamnaya-like autosomal genetics did spread in Europe since the Chalcolithic. However many studies suggest that this spread was clinal and can be tracked via the Caucasus component, which is as close to zero as it can get in populations like Basques, which are rich in R1b-S116 (not just in absolute figures but also to some extent in diversity). But not just Basques, the Caucasus component is generally lower in West European populations dominated by R1b. So there is in fact a negative correlation between Indoeuropean "blood" (autosomal DNA) and Y-DNA R1b-Western (and also mtDNA H, blood group Rh-, a positive one with blood group B instead) but, hey, surely those expansive R1b-Indoeuropeans just somehow did the impossible, they were a breed of global super-conquerors or what, they even learned Basque and Iberian just to get us confused, smart guys those supermen of the steppes, right? Erm...

      5. Lack of aDNA evidence for many key regions and periods. This is never explicitly mentioned, of course, but in their fervor for ancient DNA they way-too-happily tend to assume that "what you see is all there is" and that's definitely not the case.

      6. Bell Beaker expanded from East to West and from North to South. Well, it didn't (exactly the opposite is true as general pattern at least) and that's why they never explicitly mention it either but have it implicit in their faulty logic anyhow.

      7. A finished model (even if totally wrong) is better than no clear model. Well, again not: that's pseudoscience. A finished model contradicted by all the evidence I can think of is as good as trash. I can produce a dozen much better finished models out of the blue (and I do sometimes) but best is to keep the mind wide open.

    15. I haven't checked genetic papers for years and I have only watched things with much distance so I'm a bit of a beotian here.

      Nevertheless Maju's conclusion in point 7 seems very reasonable : we have to be open-minded as we lack many sources for data. The scarce sampling of modern France is a pity.

      It is very curious most people into amateur genetics don't seem to get the basics of European geography : Southern France is central to the Bell Beaker phenomenon (and to many other prehistoric cultures). A shame "my" country still sticks to its myth about indivisibility and unity which prevents researchers from properly investigating human remnants or worse which deters them from having the very idea of trying it.

      Still the Olalde paper does have a SE French sample in Provence from Beaker-associated burials. Only 4 individuals, one of them lacking the infamous steppe admixture on par with what is being observed in Iberia in those times. Something seems to be happening then.


      About steppe admixture, I must say I don't get why previous studies in 2015 did show like near zero "Caucasian" imput into Basque people and now find such element in reasonable quantities.

      See p. 15 : http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/10/134254.full.pdf+html

      It seems like indeed something happened in Basque lands in relative recent times where steppe-admixed people penetrated modern Basque-speaking lands rather en masse unless all those ADMIXTURE results are false because of reasons unknown to me. PCA graphics also show that Basque people are somehow "deviated" towards mainstream Europeans, contrary to Sardinians who remain mainly Neolithic-like.

      I used to believe it was just a continuous renewal of local WHG admixture but it looks like it really is CHG-like in the latest studies. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?

      I cannot know for sure but it may appear the Basque language - now solidly believed to be a Neolithic language - survived amongst rather recently mixed people in modern Basque lands, full of R1b. How come ? Iberian BBs must have surely been Basco-Iberian speakers but what about other BBs who appear to be steppe-admixed ? Was the BB universe still "Neolithic-speaking" despite steppe admixture ?

      I'm bit clueless.

    16. Heraus, aspaldiko! Glad to know you're still alive after such a long silence, really. :)

      "I don't get why previous studies in 2015 did show like near zero "Caucasian" imput into Basque people and now find such element in reasonable quantities."

      On this issue different analyses seem to produce slightly different results, although most tend to very low modern Caucasus/Central Asia component in Basques, zero even. However notice that this is CHG (high in "Basal Eurasian") as opposed to the modern Caucasus component (much lower), not sure if this may affect the result.

      In a previous comment in this entry, Olga mentioned this dental study of Bell Beaker populations:

      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262962852_When_Beakers_Met_Bell_Beakers_An_analysis_of_dental_remains - 2011

      It suggests continuity in North Iberia, replacement (total or partial) by Iberian-like types in SE France and Switzerland. However it also finds that Czech BB peoples were continuous between Corded Ware and Unetice, particularly on the male side. If correct, Eastern Province BB peoples were Indoeuropean speakers, (most?) others were not (Vasconic presumably).

    17. @Maju,
      " It(R1b P312) only shows up with BB, which is a very clear case of south to north expansion, not of east to west nor north to south one."

      There's no indication Iberian Bell Beaker folk contributed ancetry to NorthWestern Bell Beaker folk.

      From the abstract...
      "we observe limited genetic affinity between Iberian and central European Beaker Complex-associated individuals, and thus exclude migration as a significant mechanism of spread between these two regions."

    18. South France, the location Maju proposes R1b-P312, has been sequenced.

      Lacen 2011. Treilles France, 3000 BC. 22 samples. All G2a and I2a1.

      Olalde 2017. Clos de Roque France, 4600 BC. 2 samples. Both I2a1b.

      In Spain and Britain we have lots of Neolithic Y DNA dating from 4000 to 2300 BC. In both regions most Y DNA is I2a or G2a. Well, Britain had 100% I2a(38 Y DNA samples!).

      In about 2400 BC a people carrying R1b P312 appear in Germany, South France, and Britain. In all three locations these newcomers are 50% Yamnaya-like? 50%!! In Britain we know they introduced R1b P312 because we literally have British genomes-Y DNA from a few hundred years before the newcomers arrived.

      Why wouldn't the same be the case in France? I just don't understand how with all of this ancient DNA documented R1b P312 coming from the NorthEast and migrating west that you guys still think somehow R1b P312 is derived from Neolithic Western Europe.

    19. @Samuel: in both cases it is SOUTH-EAST France. We can therefore reasonably exclude this area but NOT the rest of France. In terms of ancient DNA, I have mentioned several times that there is a region (mostly blank but with some interesting data points) that shows extremely early "modernity" in the mtDNA pool, spanning at least between Paternabidea (Navarre) and Gurgy (Burgundy). Between these two data points and to the west and even northwest of them, we just do not have any data, unless if we go far north: the high-H mtDNA pool of Blätterhöhle, Westfalia (which may well be related to the origins of Michelsberg) and the also high-H mtDNA pool of Gökhem (which may well be related to the origins of Funnelbeaker). These two can't be considered "modern" (too much H) but rather "super-modern" (in contrast to "sub-modern" low H pools in most other populations). In no of these cases or any other plausibly related case we know of the Y-DNA.

      So we have a "modern" (Basque-French) area and a "super-modern" NW area (also in early Neolithic Portugal but not in the middle Neolithic anymore). So, from the viewpoint of ancient DNA, that's the area (Atlantic Neolithic) where we should look for the origins of Y-DNA R1b-Western.

      But from the viewpoint of modern DNA, the clear origin for R1b-S116 is somewhere in France, rather to the South surely. That's what mapping the phylogeny produces (in spite of not much data from France). As for U106, I can't say (not enough phylogenetic data AFAIK) but should be from somewhere in NW Europe.

      "In about 2400 BC a people carrying R1b P312 appear in Germany, South France, and Britain."

      That's because we don't have enough data from other areas only.

      "In all three locations these newcomers are 50% Yamnaya-like?"

      I already told you I find those f4 extremely BIASED, because all or most the WHG (or any other XHG) would produce Yamna affinity, as the contrast is Anatolian Neolithic (very low in Paleoeuropean ancestry). It's nothing but a fraud.

  15. However, we must take into account that MBA Portugese were R1b-P312 and had no CHG (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/10/134254).

    “A recurring feature of ADMIXTURE analyses of ancient northern Europeans is the appearance and subsequent dissemination within the Bronze Age of a component (teal) that is earliest identified in our dataset in HGs from the Caucasus (CHG). Unlike contemporaries elsewhere (but similarly to earlier Hungarian BA), Portuguese BA individuals show no signal of this component, although a slight but discernible increase in European HG ancestry (red component) is apparent. D-Statistic tests would suggest this increase is associated not with Western HG ancestry, but instead reveal significant introgression from several steppe populations into the Portuguese BA relative to the preceding LNCA (S4 Text, S6 Table). Interestingly, the CHG component in ADMIXTURE is present in modern-day Spaniards and to a lesser extent in the Basque population.”

    AWood comments on Eurogenes that “it seems clear the MBA had an introduction of non-Megalithic people who were R1b-P312, and had different burial customs to the previous I2 rich megalithic folks. The paper hints at them arriving from central Europe, but I am wondering if there are other alternatives, perhaps from the eastern Mediterranean considering they allegedly ‘lacked’ CHG”.

    In any case, I would be very interested to read your analysis of both the Bell Beaker behemoth and the Genomic history of Southeastern Europe.

    1. Actually Eastern Mediterraneans from that time should already have significant CHG or Caucasus component, as they do now (would need to check each population, particularly Cypriots, as the island was the easternmost link of the Atlantic Bronze Age network into/from the Mediterranean).

      As I mentioned above, my opinion is that the most parsimonious explanation seems expansion within Iberia or some similar populations from France (ill-researched France again).

      The lack of CHG component is a most clear evidence that it did not come from continental Europe, but I have listed other indicators against it also above in my reply to Samuel.

  16. Also these comments on Anthrogenica are interesting:
    "We desperately need the supplementary info to see the D-stats evidence of Steppe input into the Portuguese Bronze Age sample. We also need to investigate if the higher Steppe affinity in Portuguese BA is due to the visible increase of Hunter Gatherer ancestry with respect to the previous Neolithic Portuguese or if is due to a Steppe input. In theory an increase in Hunter Gatherer ancestry without CHG will still cause the Portuguese Bronze Age to be closer to the Steppe than their predecessors. The "washed away" theory is a bit shaky; because none of the other Beakers have had their CHG washed away. Again we need to see the authors logic to assign a Steppe input to the Portuguese BA samples."
    "Regarding some Portugal samples showing what may be EHG without CHG, I predicted this would be the case a few days ago. LaBrana can be modeled pretty well as ~45% Loschbour, 30% ElMiron, 20% Villabruna/KO1, and 5% EHG. Pockets of WHG with even slightly higher EHG shouldn't be inconceivable."

  17. This is my analysis of the British Neolithic and Bell Beaker mtDNA data. As you will see, my conclusion is different from that of the Bell Beaker paper:

    I checked the continuity of the British Neolithic mtDNA. I omitted haplogroups that were too vague to be analysed such as H5 or had a weird distribution such as T2f4 found in Neolithic Scotland and in modern Azerbaidjan.
    1. In many lines there is a continuity:
    HV0 (195): Ballynahatty MN/LN HV0 (195), Scotland Neolithic Oban c. 3600 BCE I3137 HVO (195) -> today in Britain HV0d; other lines such as HV0b, HV0c, HV0e, HV0f and HV0g are very much Mediterranean
    K1a4a1: Scotland Neolithic Oban c. 3600 BCE I3138 K1a4a1, Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 2500 BCE I2630 K1a4, BB Britain South Wiltshire I2418 K1a4a1 - > today in England, Scotland, Denmark
    K1a3: Britain Neolithic Banbury c. 3200 BCE I0518 K1a3a1, Scotland Early Bronze Age I2569 K1a3a, Nordic LN Abekas1 Sweden K1a3 -> K1a3a is found in Western Europe, including Ireland and UK
    K1b1a1: Els Trocs 10407 K1b1a1, Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2978 K1b1a1, Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2637 K1b1a1, EBA Sardinia MA81 3800 BP K1b1b, BB Britain South Yarnton I2446 K1b1a1, BB Britain South Wiltshire I2416 K1b1a1, Megalithic MN La Mina Espanja I0407/Mina6 K1b1a1
    X2b: Britain Neolithic Banbury c. 3200 BCE I0519 X2b (226), BB Iberia Spain I0263 X2b (226), MBA Portugal TV32032 X2b (226) - > today found in Denmark, Britain and France
    W1 (119): Scotland Neolithic Macarthur Cave c. 3800 BCE I2657 W1 (119), BB Britain South Wiltshire I2565 W1 (119)
    T2c1d: Scotland Neolithic Holm of Papa c. 3400 BCE I2650 T2c1d1, BB Britain South Yarnton I2443 T2c1d (152) -> today T2c1d is found e.g. in Sardinia and Canary Islands
    U5a2c3: Britain Neolithic Banbury c. 3200 BCE I0520 U5a2c, Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2934 U5a2c3 -> today found in Britain
    J1c1b: Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 2800 BCE I2629 J1c1b -> today mostly in Western Europe, including Britain

  18. 2. Some are still found In Britain but not very frequent
    U5b2a3: Scotland Neolithic Clachaig c. 3400 BCE I2988 U5b2a3 -> sporadically in Britain and Denmark
    3. Some Bell Beaker lines arise from the Western Neolithic
    U5a2c3: Britain Neolithic Banbury c. 3200 BCE I0520 U5a2c, Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2934 U5a2c3, BB Britain South Over Narrows I2455 U5a2c3a, BB Central Europe Moselle Ranska I1381 U5a2c3a
    U5a2c3a: BB Central Europe Moselle Ranska I1381 U5a2c3a, BB Britain South Over Narrows I2455 U5a2c3a -> today found in Britain
    K1a+195: Scotland Neolithic Oban c. 3600 BCE I3133 K1a (195), Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I3085 K1a (195), Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2979 K1a (195), BB Iberia Burgos Spain Roy5 K1a (195)
    K1a1b1: Scotland Neolithic Holm of Papa c. 3200 BCE I2651 K1a1b1, Megalithic MN La Mina Espanja I0405/Mina3 K1a1b1, BB Iberia Burgos Espanja Roy1 K1a1b1, BB Iberia Burgos Espanja Roy4 K1a1b1, Iron Age Brittany Hinxton K1a1b1b
    4. Some lines seem to thrive elsewhere, e.g. in the Mediterranean or Fennoscandia
    U5b2a: Scotland Neolithic Oban c. 3600 BCE I3135 U5b2a -> today in Scandinavia and Finland
    H1c: Farmer MN Blätterhöhle Germany H1c3, Scotland Neolithic Distillery Cave c. 3700 BCE I2659 H1c, Britain Neolithic Somerset c. 2600 BCE I3049 H1c, Swedish TRB Gökhem2 -> today H1c is very frequent in Sweden
    H1 (189): Scotland Neolithic Oban c. 3600 BCE I3136 H1 (189), Chalcolithic South Meseta Humanejos Hume19 H1 (189), Nuragic Alghero Sardinia H1 (189)
    U8b1b: Scotland Neolithic Orkney c. 3200 BCE I2935 U8b1b - > today a Mediterranean, in particular a Sardinian haplogroup
    J1c6 - >Britain Neolithic Eton c. 3400 BCE I2605 J1c6 -> today in particular Spain and Italy, incl. Basques

    Therefore, I suggest that the Neolithic populations were gradually incorporated into the Bell Beaker society, in particular females, but there probably was a remarkable difference in the reproduction success of the Bell Beaker males and Neolithic males which caused an accumulation of continental Bell Beaker DNA in the future generations and a near-extinction of previous yDNA.

  19. In any case Maju, further to what has been said above, the sampling ages preclude final conclusions. All the data from central Europe and Britain are skewed toward 3500 - 2900 BC and 2400-1900 BC (BB period). With little or zero sequences from 3000 -2500 BC, no wonder it seems like a "mass replacement' with the appearance of BB.
    Certianly, it seems demographic & economic shifts were occurring in the 3000- 2500 BC period, which could account for what we're seeing

    1. That's an excellent point, Rob. What happened in the Michelsberg/SOM period (one that can also have caused a mass replacement from North to South, judging on the archaeology), or in the Artenacian period in Western France and Belgium (in this case a large replacement may have happened from south to north instead and might be related to R1b-S116). Both pre-date Bell Beaker and even Corded Ware in the case of Michelsberg, so they are important question marks in wait for an answer.

  20. '... so it seems coherent to give it a decent burial.'
    I would like to stress that it would be even more coherent to let it stand. Your take on current developments would be sorely missed if it were not there. There's no denying that holding on past the date is no use to anyone. But you're not outdated!! Just probably wrong about one or two things ... and then maybe you were right after all ... That's moral blackmail, that is! Don't punish us for not knowing what is what!
    'Better a bad hypothesis than no hypothesis'. The Hegelian principle. Like in chess: rather a bad plan than no plan at all (Max Euwe); and also: 'the wrong way will very likely cross the right way (to Rome) at some point.
    Maju, you swhow us something different. To guess, to hypothesize, one must be educated, versatile, well-read. You're perhaps not 'homo universalis' as such, but you're the closest specimen available on the Internet! That's point 1).
    2) You are a child of the 1960s, or you seem to be. The 'bagauda' idea is the give-away. It belongs to the post-war response to the dominance of power-defined phenomena. The small and the fragile, the interior and the local - in short 'the special' (versus 'the universal') are worth of our attention. The winners are uninteresting, we want to know about the losers! The chosen ones (for sacrifice, obviously)! As they represent the human element ... It's not rational, I know, it's more of an emotional strain. Of course I'm not saying the Basques are losers: they won. And the Swiss, and the Dutch ... Point is who didn't? Who were lost without any trace, and who were lost with some trace somewhere out there? Futile questions in themselves, but it's the perspective I'm talking about. This perspective seems only marginally connected to the holocaust; its roots seems mostly in WW1. No use trying to explain that to the young ones!
    3) In science we need a third person to look into things. A disinterested third party is quite essential as it forestalls a winner! A winner is the worst catastrophy for human understanding!
    4) The voice. Maju, you have a distinctive voice. It is utterly non-offensive. You have the voice of someone who is trying to open something. You are not interested in slamming the door into anyone's understanding. Not a trace of a sneer, there's not the least interest in crushing anyone's ego. Simply because there's nothing further from your mind! There is so much comfort in that! I don't think you don't know this. But ...
    5) ... but you have only a tiny agenda. Personal, recognisable. And therefore loveable.
    And therefore from me, and I doubt not, many other people like me, please share your light with us, and please don't save us your stupidities. We'd like to share (to an extent!) those too!

    1. Wait, hold on! This is not about "blackmailing" anyone or pushing anything nor "punishing" anyone, this is about ME and MY very real inability to keep the blog (and possibly many other things in my life) rolling. It has nothing to do with discussions and disagreements, just with my clearly decreased ability to focus, follow up the latest developments and produce. Anyone who follows this blog KNOWS that I've been struggling to keep up, that post frequency has decreased in the last years and that I haven't written a word (other than in comments and email, always as replies) in the last many months (since February!)

      I may also decide to just officially "hibernate" it. I haven't decided yet but it'd be about the same.

      "You are a child of the 1960s, or you seem to be."

      I was born in 1968, what means that I identify best with the 80s as "my generation" or "decade", because that's when I was a teenager and became a young adult. I have no memories of the 60s (of course not) and my memories of the 70s and even earliest 80s are fragmentary and blurry. I "belong" psycho-emotionally to the second Punk wave and also the (derived) Hardcore one (already getting well into the 90s in fact and also part of my youth).

      "The winners are uninteresting, we want to know about the losers!"

      I don't believe in those categories: I think it's a "loser" or "sucker" attitude to try to be a "winner": there is no "victory", we all die in the end. This has nothing to do with generations, but rather with the philosophy of life and, relatedly, with political stand. Incidentally the leftist "losers" are on average significantly smarter than the rightist "winners", what must mean something, probably a greater capacity of seeing the whole, the overall picture, of not running like mad after the materialist bait like a lab rat. Incidentally dolphins, a species with an intelligence directly comparable to ours, are not domesticable (even if they are amiable) because they eventually just do whatever they want: they are too smart to just obey all the time. Incidentally I suspect that, overall, hierarchical civilization may have decreased our average intelligence because smart = critical and rebellious.

      Anyway, I do appreciate what you're saying and I can only agree with your points 3 and 4, which I consider compliments, but it's NOT about what you think it is, it's about me getting older, lazier maybe, suffering the quotidian pressures of degenerate Capitalism (which stress and distract me a lot).

      As for point 5: I do not have an agenda other than truth-seeking. As Machado wrote:

      Tu verdad no, la verdad.
      Y ven conmigo a buscarla,
      la tuya guárdatela.

      Your truth not, truth.
      And come with me in search for it,
      your truth keep it for yourself.

      Also I don't think I say "stupidities" for the most part. If I would think so, I would not say them (naturally).

  21. Hola Maju: Leo que planeas terminar con este Blog. Quiero decirte que pienso que tendrás tus razones para hacerlo, que no te alcanza el tiempo etc etc. Pero creo que sería una gran pérdida para las personas como yo que estamos muy interesadas en reconstruir, aunque sea en teoría la historia del poblamiento de Europa Occidental centrada especialmente en el grupo humano que hoy conocemos como vascos.
    Al respecto, tu bien sabes, que han circulado las más disparatadas historias, sin ninguna base real; algunas políticamente interesadas a favor, muchas en contra, tratando de bajarle el perfil a la identidad vasca. Y que la mitología barata es un hobby con muchos seguidores.
    Planteamientos informados y respetuosos como el tuyo no abundan, y tienes bien claro que la identidad actual de los vascos no depende de lo que sucedió hace 7000 años, o de si el fenómeno del euskera, vine del Paleolítico o del Neolítico. Pero aún así, existe curiosidad por recrear teorías plausibles de lo que pudo haber sucedido de un modo serio, contextuado en los descubrimientos arqueológicos, en estudios filológicos y antropológicos y aportes de la historia.
    No he visto en Internet nadie fuera de ti, que represente a los vascos y su historia genética, y creo que habiendo llegado a estas alturas del partido donde aparecen muchísimos datos dispersos que necesitan una interpretación seria, sería una pena perder tu interpretación.

    1. Soy muy consciente de la relevancia de este blog pero la Internet me satura hoy día y la vida real es simplemente deprimente (no ya la mía, que también, sino la general). Ha llegado un momento en que para mí el pasado, más o menos descifrado, importa poco, lo que importa si acaso es hacer algo por impedir que los locos capitalistas destruyan el planeta y la humanidad.

      Para poder mantener este blog tendría que cobrar por hacerlo, convertir lo que es un trabajo gratuito en un trabajo asalariado, donde el salario suplementaría a la motivación interior, sobre todo en horas bajas (porque hacer un buen artículo puede llevar un montón de horas entre lectura, consideración o análisis previo, edición de gráficos y escritura propiamente dicha, por no hablar de atender comentarios y correos relacionados, depende), y eso no simplemente va a ocurrir. Es la tragedia del Capitalismo: el trabajo útil se considera inútil y el inútil y parasitario se considera respetable y está muy bien pagado.

      Bueno en cualquier caso, te puede interesar (sobre todo si puedes leer en euskera) esto: http://uztarria.eus/aktualitatea/1493997268

      En particular la tercera presentación es la de un libro sobre la conexión lingüística vasco-sarda por el filólogo Juan Martin Elexpuro, libro en el que colaboro con un artículo sobre los orígenes genéticos de las poblaciones de Europa, que también puedes leer AQUÍ en su versión borrador en castellano (mi euskera es bastante mediocre, así que lo tuvo que traducir Juan Martin).

      En ese blog en castellano suelo escribir sobre todo de política pero de vez en cuando meto algo sobre antropología o genética, porque creo que es importante que al menos algo llegue a audiencias que nunca leen en inglés.

  22. Tienes razón, descifrar el pasado es un hobby para diletantes, lo difícil es hacerle frente al presente y mantener el humor. Yo no hablo euskera, soy chilena, descendiente de vizcaínos emigrados en varias olas, y agradezco mucho el tiempo que le has dedicado a estos temas como un aporte gratuito al conocimiento.
    Quería que supieras que aprecio tus esfuerzos y dedicación y si no te veo aquí te veré en tus otros blogs políticos.
    Y el día que hayan suficientes datos para verificar su tesis acerca de R1b DF-27, me tomaré una copa virtual a tu salud.


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)