R1a problem

[Peterski]

Most of the oldest R1a and R1b samples (except for R1b-V88) are from European Russia and Ukraine.

[Orion Arm]

But there are samples of R1b-L51 from the Corded Ware Culture, so Corded Ware was not all R1a, R1b also existed there.

Depends on which Corded Ware.

Corded Ware in Eastern Europe and in Battle Axe Scandinavia is only R1a with no R1b.

While Corded Ware in places Germany and the Netherlands is partially (or even mostly) R1b.

So we are dealing with two geographically and genetically disparate groups, both labelled "Corded Ware".

Bell Beakers descend specifically from Corded Ware groups that had R1b — in Germany, in the Netherlands.

I leapfrogged this part and question whether these R1b groups in Germany and the Netherlands can even be considered "Corded Ware" at all if they have a distinct origin from R1a groups to the East and North.

What do you think? Did you never notice that the label "Corded Ware" is superimposed on two distinct groups — one R1b, one R1a — which also happen to be geographically disparate.

Yamnaya R1b is all R1b-Z2103.

While Bell Beaker R1b is all R1b-L51, so there is also no direct continuity between these two groups.

I'm grateful for this useful information about clade specificality. Would you go as far as to say that the "Corded Ware" groups in Germany and the Netherlands do not descend from Yamnaya? If they do no descend from Yamnaya, then whom do they descend from in reality?

R1a BattleAxe…how instrumental in forging proto-Germanic? Interaction with R1b SG/BB? Maybe related topic and sorry if kinda irrelevant here

For Germanic origins, please use another one of my threads;

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...ia%94-is-false

[Opie]

Yamnaya R1b is all R1b-Z2103.

The majority of R1b in Turkey belongs to this clade. Is it only found in Yamnaya?

[Peterski]

These CWC groups with R1a and R1b are not distinct because R1a and R1b existed in both groups intermingled with each other.

For example in Polish Corded Ware there are also R1b samples.

In fact R1b and R1a existed intermingled with each other in Russia & Ukraine since EHG times, as you can see in my datasheet.

[Orion Arm]

What I was getting at is what Peterski has said, Bell Beaker is clearly directly descended from Corded Ware, not Yamnaya.

I leapfrogged this part because R1a Corded Ware (Battle Axe Scandinavia, Fatyanovo Russia, Sintashta/Andronovo Kazakhstan) and R1b Corded Ware (Germany, Netherlands) appear to be genetically segregated, which suggests two disparate migration waves.

No disagreement that Bell Beakers descend from R1b Corded Ware in Germany/Netherlands, this is certain. I just reserved the "Corded Ware" label for R1a groups farther East and North to highlight the apparent geographic and genetic segregation.

As for the origin of R1a, one can only go by the earliest recorded sample of it, which I believe is from Northwestern Russia c.10,000 BC, Eastern Hunter Gatherers. Corded Ware were autosomally descended from the Pontic Caspian Steppe like their Yamnaya cousins though. So somewhere in that vicinity I guess, in Ukraine.

Regarding 10000 BC: yes, R1a is ultimatrly from EHG if we're going that far back.

The question is where they lived at the time when Yamnaya occupied the Pontic Caspian steppe and my own best guess (as well as Chat GPT's guess) is that they lived directly to the North of Yamnaya.

A new question arising from a post by user Peterski: who were the real ancestors of German/Dutch Corded Ware.

[chinshen]

My Y-Haplo is R1b-Z2103.

[J. Ketch]

Most of the oldest R1a and R1b samples (except for R1b-V88) are from European Russia and Ukraine.

The oldest recorded R1b is from Italy though! That explains why I like Fettucine alla Matriciana.

[Orion Arm]

These CWC groups with R1a and R1b are not distinct because R1a and R1b existed in both groups intermingled with each other.

For example in Polish Corded Ware there are also R1b samples.

In fact R1b and R1a existed intermingled with each other in Russia & Ukraine since EHG times, as you can see in my datasheet.

No disagreement on that there have always been contact zones where R1b and R1a mixed.

Even today there are in-between zones — Central Europe, Scandinavia — where both exist in significant quantities.

But your premise that R1b and R1a were fully interbred since EHG times is incorrect, and I will explain why: Certain CWC groups (Battle Axe, Fatyanovo, Sintashta/Andronovo) are all R1a, no R1b. Bell Beakers groups are all R1b, maybe exceptionally rare R1a exist, but they're just that — exceptions. And even if you look at modern situation, after several thousand years of intermixing between Europeans, you will still find lopsided ratios among modern descendants of BB and Eastern CWC. The ratio of R1b-to-R1a in modern Western Europe (British Isles, France, Iberia, Low Countries, West Germany, Switzerland, West Austria, Italy) is completely lopsided, just as the ratio of R1a-to-R1b in modern Eastern Europe (Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, to a lesser extent Poland, Estonia, Latvia) is also completely lopsided. In these countries the ratio between these two haplogroups varies from lopsided 5:1 to absurd 100:1, 200:1. This suggests two disparate waves, not one wave of R1a-R1b mixed soup.

[Orion Arm]

The oldest recorded R1b is from Italy though! That explains why I like Fettucine alla Matriciana.

There is an ongoing debate in the comment section of Davidski's Eurogenes blog regarding the origin of R1b in modern Europeans.

People gathered multiple mesolithic WHG individuals with R1b haplogroups and are directly challenging Reich/Lazaridis dogma — their counter-claim is that R1b entered Yamnaya from the West (WHG), not from the East (EHG/ANE).

It is fascinating to observe and I have not yet taken a side.

[Peterski]

their counter-claim is that R1b entered Yamnaya from the West (WHG)

Wasn't WHG R1b mostly R1b-V88 (which is a subclade which today exists mostly in Africa)?

In Russia & Ukraine you have many EHG samples with R1b. Both R1a and R1b are from EHG.

No disagreement on that there have always been contact zones where R1b and R1a mixed.

Even today there are in-between zones — Central Europe, Scandinavia — where both exist in significant quantities.

But your premise that R1b and R1a were fully interbred since EHG times is incorrect, and I will explain why: Certain CWC groups (Battle Axe, Fatyanovo, Sintashta/Andronovo) are all R1a, no R1b. Bell Beakers groups are all R1b, maybe exceptionally rare R1a exist, but they're just that — exceptions. And even if you look at modern situation, after several thousand years of intermixing between Europeans, you will still find lopsided ratios among modern descendants of BB and Eastern CWC. The ratio of R1b-to-R1a in modern Western Europe (British Isles, France, Iberia, Low Countries, West Germany, Switzerland, West Austria, Italy) is completely lopsided, just as the ratio of R1a-to-R1b in modern Eastern Europe (Belarus, Lithuania, Ukraine, Russia, to a lesser extent Poland, Estonia, Latvia) is also completely lopsided. In these countries the ratio between these two haplogroups varies from lopsided 5:1 to absurd 100:1, 200:1. This suggests two disparate waves, not one wave of R1a-R1b mixed soup.

But R1b and R1a were fully integrated in EHG times. Have you seen the datasheet which I posted?

Battle Axe, Fatyanovo or Bell Beaker are the results of founder events.

Simply an older population in which both R1b and R1a existed intermingled with each other, then separated into younger populations, some of which were dominated just by R1a or just by R1b due to founder events (they descended from small numbers of founders). Also it is incorrect to operate just with macro-haplogroups like R1a or R1b. We should look at subclades. For example R1a-Z93 in Fatyanovo, R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker (there is no U106 in Bell Beaker so far, if I remember correctly), R1a-Z284 in Battle Axe, etc. Most of these cultures were dominated just by specific subclades.