R1b-L51 in Yamnaya: Lazaridis 2024

[R.Rocca]

Therefore they might have burnt their own settlements, regularly, because of repeated plagues spreading like wildfire.

I can't think of a single example in historic times of a city being burnt to the ground to stop the spread of plague. What is the correlation between burning down a building and stopping the plague besides sending people into the country side, which they could do anyway without burning down the buildings? Those that owned homes and businesses certainly would not have wanted their property destroyed.

[rmstevens2]

I'm not going to go out on that big of a limb here but, I that it is highly unlikely we will ever find R-L151 along the Danube route. The biggest tip is the lack of R1a in any of these Yamnaya samples. Based on the Czech Corded Ware study, it is much more likely that both R-L151 and R1a traveled together from the forest steppe and then founder effects took over from there. It is noteworthy that none of the three radiocarbon tested Yamnaya R-L51 samples are older than the Czech R-L151 samples.

Yes I noticed that too about the three samples.  Is it possible that L51 had a slightly earlier expansion than R1a?
I11838 2851-2498 calBCE (4085±25 BP, PSUAMS-10774)
I6884 2852-2500 calBCE
I20499 2880-2633 calBCE
 
"We observe a closer phylogenetic relationship between the Y chromosome lineages found in early CW and BB than in either late CW or Yamnaya and BB. R1b-L151 is the most common Y-lineage among early CW males (6 of 11, 55%) and one branch ancestral to R1b-P312 (Fig. 4A), the dominant Y-lineage in BB (5) ...

"We report genomic data from the earliest CW individuals to date, including STD003 (northwestern Bohemia, 3010 to 2889 calibrated (cal) BCE), VLI076 (central Bohemia, 3018 to 2901 cal BCE), OBR003 (central Bohemia, 2911 to 2875 cal BCE), and PNL001 (eastern Bohemia, 2914 to 2879 cal BCE), showing that CW was widespread across Bohemia by 2900 BCE ...

 
A three-way mixture of Bohemia_BB_Late, Bohemia_CW_Early, and Latvia_BA (P value of 0.086) not only supports a more conservative estimate of 47.7% population replacement but also accounts for the Y-chromosomal diversity found in preclassical Únětice, with R1b-P312 from Bohemia_BB_Late, R1b-U106 and I2 from Bohemia_CW_Early, and R1a-Z645 from Latvia_BA"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941

Awhile back I wrote about that with regard to the Papac Bohemian CW samples here.

Yes, I think R1b-L51 went west before R1a-M417 did.

[rmstevens2]

With regard to steppe pastoralists adapting to the peninsular European environment, there is also evidence that they altered the environment to suit the mobile pastoralist lifestyle. Kristiansen has mentioned a number of times that Corded Ware people cut down trees and burned the stumps to clear land for their herds. 

Personally, I think Yamnaya and Corded Ware fought as "mounted infantry". They rode in, dismounted, fought on foot, and then remounted to make a quick getaway. Such a tactic, coupled with their advantage in physical size, was all the edge they needed against sedentary people without advanced fortifications.

I also think it is possible the steppe pastoralists were able to use bows while mounted. That would have been huge. Having done some bareback riding myself when I was a teenager, I know that sort of thing can be done with practice. Yeah, a nice saddle with stirrups makes a much better platform, but a good rider can still do a lot without them.

[rmstevens2]

Sorry for three posts in a row, but I just wanted to say that I'll be glad when someone can take a look at IBD relationships between these new Yamnaya R1b-L51/L52 samples and other Yamnaya and Corded Ware samples. 

That could be revealing. 

Mitchell-Atkins said this here a few posts back:

I'm trying to understand this.  Is CW descending from Yamnaya, or are CW and Yamnaya both descending from the recent genetic ancestors of Yamnaya that aren't necessarily part of what is defined as Yamnaya archaeologically?


. . .

That's a great question. Personally, I see Yamnaya as a term a lot more fuzzy than others see it. It's a cultural horizon, after all. It seems to me to refer to the whole steppe pastoralist milieu from the late 5th millennium through the mid 3rd millennium BC. There was really a lot of cultural variety in it, with a lot of local variants. Here it picked up some GAC and TRB styles (and women), there it copied Tripolye.

Its relative autosomal homogeneity was maintained via female exogamy - the exchange of women - which simultaneously preserved a certain limited level of Y chromosome diversity: R1b-Z2103 here, R1b-L51 there, R1a-M417 elsewhere, and so on (including I-L699, some Q, some forms of J, etc.). The tribes traded women, while the male lineage of each individual tribe in each separate locality remained unaltered. It was a great steppe autosomal blender. That's why there were a handful of different Y haplogroups among the Indo-Europeans but pretty uniform autosomal DNA - and a real multiplicity of mtDNA haplogroups.

Just my take.

[Ebizur]

Sorry for three posts in a row, but I just wanted to say that I'll be glad when someone can take a look at IBD relationships between these new Yamnaya R1b-L51/L52 samples and other Yamnaya and Corded Ware samples. 

That could be revealing. 

Mitchell-Atkins said this here a few posts back:

I'm trying to understand this.  Is CW descending from Yamnaya, or are CW and Yamnaya both descending from the recent genetic ancestors of Yamnaya that aren't necessarily part of what is defined as Yamnaya archaeologically?


. . .

That's a great question. Personally, I see Yamnaya as a term a lot more fuzzy than others see it. It's a cultural horizon, after all. It seems to me to refer to the whole steppe pastoralist milieu from the late 5th millennium through the mid 3rd millennium BC. There was really a lot of cultural variety in it, with a lot of local variants. Here it picked up some GAC and TRB styles (and women), there it copied Tripolye.

Its relative autosomal homogeneity was maintained via female exogamy - the exchange of women - which simultaneously preserved a certain limited level of Y chromosome diversity: R1b-Z2103 here, R1b-L51 there, R1a-M417 elsewhere, and so on (including I-L699, some Q, some forms of J, etc.). The tribes traded women, while the male lineage of each individual tribe in each separate locality remained unaltered. It was a great steppe autosomal blender. That's why there were a handful of different Y haplogroups among the Indo-Europeans but pretty uniform autosomal DNA - and a real multiplicity of mtDNA haplogroups.

Just my take.

This sort of tribal variation in mainly Y-DNA (with only minor variation in autosomes or mtDNA) can be observed in the present day among the Kazakhs, who traditionally are pastoralists inhabiting the central Eurasian steppe.

[rmstevens2]

Regarding the c14 dates of the Papac Bohemian Corded Ware R1b-L151 samples versus those of these Yamnaya R1b-L51 samples:

The average midpoint for the c14-dated Bohemia_CW_Early R1b samples was 2777 BC (see this post). The average midpoint for the c14-dated R1b-L51 Yamnaya samples from this new Lazaridis et al preprint is 2702 BC. Feel free to check my work and correct me, if I am wrong.

The difference between the two groups is 75 years. In terms of c14 dates, that's not a lot, but, of course, it's not nothing either. 

The average for the midpoint of Papac's c14-dated Bohemia_CW_Early R1a samples was 2704 BC, pretty much identical to the average midpoint of these new Yamnaya R1b-L51 samples.

Interesting. 

[ArmandoR1b]

What I would really like for them to find someday is a R-L23xZ2103 specimen, with good coverage, directly radiocarbon dated to 4000-3500 BC or older. So a specimen at least 500 years older than SHT001 from Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia Afanasy with at least the same amount of coverage, preferably even better so that there is coverage on both R-L51 and R-L52. This way all of the people that point to the single oldest specimen as the ancestor of the specimens with downstream SNPs will use that one and it's location as opposed to sibling clades, dead ends, and so on. Until then we don't know for sure where the source of R-L23 is because none of the specimens in this study are as old as the calculated origin of R-L23 of 4400-4100 BC. What we do know is that all R-L23 specimens to date have Steppe autosomal DNA. I would like to see if an R-L23xZ2103 specimen, with good coverage, directly radiocarbon dated to 4000-3500 BC or older has Steppe autosomal DNA or a high percentage of the autosomal DNA that makes up Steppe autosomal DNA. Davidski had already been saying for years that CWC and Yamnaya have a common ancestor that originated in Sredny Stog. Did R-L23 get into Sredny Stog? If so when did it get into Sredny Stog. If it did and it did so about 4500-3500 BC then people are going to have to accept that is where the ancestors of all R-L151 people originated.

Yamnaya sample I0443 from Lopatino II, Sok River, Samara is L23+ L51- Z2105- (a Z2103 equivalent). It is dated to 3500-2700 BC, although not radiocarbon tested.

I am hoping that an older sample is found at some point. Something that has a low 14C date of 3500 or older. So about 800 years older than I0443.
Now that I look at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z2103/story I see that FTDNA has R-Z2103 as a much older TMRCA (4050 BCE)  than YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/ (abt 3400 BC) However the TMRCA date for R-L23 is very similar between FTDNA and YFull, 4250 BCE and abt 4100 BC respectfully. So if a specimen that isn't relatively too far removed from the TMRCA of R-L23 is discovered we can hope, but acknowledge the caveat, that it is representative of it's geographic origin. So my hope is that if the lower end of the 14C date is 3500 the median is something closer to about 3750 which would mean the specimen would not be too far removed from the TMCRA of R-L23 and maybe even old enough to be older than the TMRCA of R-L51. If the pre-3500 BC specimen is derived for both R-L23 and R-L51 that would be even better but just as long as R-L23 is derived it would become the main topic of the origin of it's subclades.

[RBHeadge]

A more western origin of the Core Yamnaya would also bring their latest ancestors in proximity to the place of origin of the Corded Ware complex whose origin is itself in question but must have certainly been in the area of central-eastern Europe occupied by the Globular Amphora culture west of the Core Yamnaya. The Corded Ware population, which could trace a large part of its ancestry to the Yamnaya, was formed by admixture concurrent with the Yamnaya expansion (Extended Data Fig. 2d), shared segments of IBD proving connections within a shallow genealogical timeframe, and had a balance of ancestral components from the Caucasus and eastern Europe indistinguishable from the Yamnaya. In combination, these lines of evidence suggests that it  was formed indeed by early 3rd millennium BCE admixture with Yamnaya, or, at the very least, genetically Yamnaya ancestors that need not have been Yamnaya in the archaeological sense. The geographical homelands of the Corded Ware and Yamnaya would then conceivably be in geographical proximity to allow for their synchronous emergence and shared ancestry. The Dnipro-Don area of the Serednii Stih culture fits the genetic data, as it explains the ancestry of the nascent Core Yamnaya and places them in precisely the area from which both Corded Ware, and Southeastern European Yamnaya (in the west) and the Don Yamnaya (in the east) could have emerged by admixture of the Core Yamnaya with European farmers and UNHG respectively.

I'm trying to understand this.  Is CW descending from Yamnaya, or are CW and Yamnaya both descending from the recent genetic ancestors of Yamnaya that aren't necessarily part of what is defined as Yamnaya archaeologically?

Based on the above underlined, I was inclined to think CW doesn't descend from Yamnaya, but rather, they both share recent ancestry...the father of Yamnya and CW if you will.

The way I read that paragraph, (in context with many other previous statements by these authors) is that their primary hypothesis is essentially that Yamanaya + "GAC-ish") = CWC, but they recognize that this is an overly broad statement that may not be completely true and caveat it with CWC = "GAC-ish" + (a group that is genetically identical to Yamnaya, if not proper-adherents to Yamnaya Culture). Whether this caveat specifies a group under the larger Yamnaya cultural horizon as @rmstevens2 speculates above, or a different descendant of an upstream Father-of-Yamnaya cultural group is to be determined.

[RBHeadge]

The big fights over "R1b" that began years ago, and that have persisted in some cobwebbed corners until just two days ago, are over. 

Sadly not. Those that refuse to acknowledge the evidence will move the goal posts or double down.

The downside of that is that things may get kind of boring now.

I respectfully disagree. There is still more to learn. What exactly came before Sredny Stog, and before that, and before that....? Where was haplogroup XYZ during that time?
And there are still plenty of details to be discovered and fleshed out for the paths of the various branches as they moved deeper into Europe.
One chapter ends. Another begins.

[rmstevens2]

The big fights over "R1b" that began years ago, and that have persisted in some cobwebbed corners until just two days ago, are over. 

Sadly not. Those that refuse to acknowledge the evidence will move the goal posts or double down.

The downside of that is that things may get kind of boring now.

I respectfully disagree. There is still more to learn. What exactly came before Sredny Stog, and before that, and before that....? Where was haplogroup XYZ during that time?
And there are still plenty of details to be discovered and fleshed out for the paths of the various branches as they moved deeper into Europe.
One chapter ends. Another begins.

I do agree with you to a certain extent, but having lived through the bad old days of R1b speculation before the advent of ancient DNA NGS testing, I remember the vehemence and ferocity - and excitement - of that period. It was a Wild West-anything-goes time. At first all we had was modern Y-DNA, short on SNPs and not even always long on STRs. There was no autosomal DNA, modern or ancient. One person's opinion was as good as anyone else's and, of course, everyone had one. 

It's been a long, slow slog. Personally, I think the war really ended with the advent of the monumental Olalde et al Beaker paper in 2017-18, but it took awhile for the diehards to realize and accept it.

You're right that things probably won't actually be boring now, but I doubt they'll be as intense and crazy as they once were. There's too much good evidence now.

[rmstevens2]

Gone but not forgotten. Requiescat in pace.



He was a zombie because he was actually killed several times before this final coup de grace. The lifeless corpse was reanimated over and over again by the hopes and dreams of its diehard adherents. At each new revivification, there were fewer and fewer of them. I doubt enough of them remain to bring the old boy back from the dead this time.

[R.Rocca]

What I would really like for them to find someday is a R-L23xZ2103 specimen, with good coverage, directly radiocarbon dated to 4000-3500 BC or older. So a specimen at least 500 years older than SHT001 from Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia Afanasy with at least the same amount of coverage, preferably even better so that there is coverage on both R-L51 and R-L52. This way all of the people that point to the single oldest specimen as the ancestor of the specimens with downstream SNPs will use that one and it's location as opposed to sibling clades, dead ends, and so on. Until then we don't know for sure where the source of R-L23 is because none of the specimens in this study are as old as the calculated origin of R-L23 of 4400-4100 BC. What we do know is that all R-L23 specimens to date have Steppe autosomal DNA. I would like to see if an R-L23xZ2103 specimen, with good coverage, directly radiocarbon dated to 4000-3500 BC or older has Steppe autosomal DNA or a high percentage of the autosomal DNA that makes up Steppe autosomal DNA. Davidski had already been saying for years that CWC and Yamnaya have a common ancestor that originated in Sredny Stog. Did R-L23 get into Sredny Stog? If so when did it get into Sredny Stog. If it did and it did so about 4500-3500 BC then people are going to have to accept that is where the ancestors of all R-L151 people originated.

Yamnaya sample I0443 from Lopatino II, Sok River, Samara is L23+ L51- Z2105- (a Z2103 equivalent). It is dated to 3500-2700 BC, although not radiocarbon tested.

I am hoping that an older sample is found at some point. Something that has a low 14C date of 3500 or older. So about 800 years older than I0443.
Now that I look at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z2103/story I see that FTDNA has R-Z2103 as a much older TMRCA (4050 BCE)  than YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2103/ (abt 3400 BC) However the TMRCA date for R-L23 is very similar between FTDNA and YFull, 4250 BCE and abt 4100 BC respectfully. So if a specimen that isn't relatively too far removed from the TMRCA of R-L23 is discovered we can hope, but acknowledge the caveat, that it is representative of it's geographic origin. So my hope is that if the lower end of the 14C date is 3500 the median is something closer to about 3750 which would mean the specimen would not be too far removed from the TMCRA of R-L23 and maybe even old enough to be older than the TMRCA of R-L51. If the pre-3500 BC specimen is derived for both R-L23 and R-L51 that would be even better but just as long as R-L23 is derived it would become the main topic of the origin of it's subclades.

BTW, the below samples are listed as simply "R-L23" but have very good to great coverage. If some of them were L51+ or Z2103+, they probably would have been marked as such, so some may be L23+ Z2103- L51-

I10627
I10628
I33646
I33864
I32850

[targaryen]

Regarding the c14 dates of the Papac Bohemian Corded Ware R1b-L151 samples versus those of these Yamnaya R1b-L51 samples:

The average midpoint for the c14-dated Bohemia_CW_Early R1b samples was 2777 BC (see this post). The average midpoint for the c14-dated R1b-L51 Yamnaya samples from this new Lazaridis et al preprint is 2702 BC. Feel free to check my work and correct me, if I am wrong.

The difference between the two groups is 75 years. In terms of c14 dates, that's not a lot, but, of course, it's not nothing either. 

The average for the midpoint of Papac's c14-dated Bohemia_CW_Early R1a samples was 2704 BC, pretty much identical to the average midpoint of these new Yamnaya R1b-L51 samples.

Interesting. 

That all falls within the margin of error anyhow.

[Riverman]

Gone but not forgotten. Requiescat in pace.



He was a zombie because he was actually killed several times before this final coup de grace. The lifeless corpse was reanimated over and over again by the hopes and dreams of its diehard adherents. At each new revivification, there were fewer and fewer of them. I doubt enough of them remain to bring the old boy back from the dead this time.

I recently listened a talk about the possibility of Basque being an early branching event from call it Pre-Indo-European.
Probably in a couple of years new papers write about the Indo-Basque stage of steppe people

[Vinitharya]

Hey, at least you were something. My line is nowhere and we apparently communicated with grunts and hand signals until one day, perhaps due to an NPE, we emerge fully-formed in Corded Ware. We're like the opposite of G2a, which ruled the Neolithic and is now marginal.