Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Iberian After All (Alberto's Runs)

Let's look at a Szigetzentmiklos Bell Beaker with zero Steppe ancestry, grave 49, I2741.

Previously, I had wondered if this guy was a Spaniard.  I'm pasting what Eurogenes Alberto came up with, although I don't know what methodology or tool he's using (otherwise I'd comment on everything)


Iberia_Southwest_CA 48.44%
Czech_MN 28.91%
Baden_LCA 6.25%
Tisza_LN 4.69%
Wales_N 3.91%
Globular_Amphora 3.12%
Koros_HG:I4971 3.12%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I4110 1.56%
Distance 1.875%

Everything looks pretty square for a guy from Budapest...... except for the Iberia_Southwest_CA 48.44%!
How about another one.

Grave 2 Beaker, (Moslein, 2005)

This is one of two brothers that have the same mother in Alburg, Bavaria, Germany.  Maternally H1e1a.  Since CWC is excluded from these analysis (which is fine), we get inflated Yamnaya, Ukraine and Sweden MN, since it wants to find a big chunk of CW that isn't there.  This small cemetery is described by Heyd as belonging to the later begleitkeramik phase, so we should have a trickle of weird Balkanesque stuff that became increasingly prominent in those Csepel communities early on.  Check.

Again in this example, we're poking around at SW Europe in the mid to low teens.  And what is the inspiration for a decoration such as this?


Sweden_MN 33.59%
Yamnaya_Samara 33.59%
Ukraine_Eneolithic:I6561 14.06%
Iberia_Central_CA 11.72%
LBKT_MN 5.47%
Greece_N 1.56%

Distance 2.3907%

Most of these folks are within a few generations of being mixed so it's especially important to look at individuals and context.

Anyhow, Iberian (or wherever) is all over the place, albeit very unevenly distributed if real.  Hopefully someone can try Hegenheim again.


  1. Very late reply, sorry, but I only got aware of this post yesterday thanks to a comment by Olympus Mons at Eurogenes.

    The method used here was based on Davidski's Global 25 PCA data, where I modelled all the Beakers as Yamnaya groups + Europe_MN/ChL groups. I just added all the possibilities and let the algorithm choose the best fit.

    Usually I wouldn't trust much one single results (after all, all Neolithic Europeans were similar enough to make it difficult to distinguish with enough precision), but here I run all the individual samples (and those are a lot already) and the pattern of high Iberia_ChL was pretty consistent across the board.

    Now, I've always been quite sceptic about an actual migration out of Iberia, but for no strong reason. Maybe, just maybe, if many other populations (from the Caucasus, Anatolia, Iran, Balkans, steppe,...) were moving around, why not the ones from Iberia, that clearly took off in the Chalcolithic becoming the most important area in Western Europe? So I'd say my position is now neutral: awaiting for further data.

    @Olympus Mons (if you ever get to read this)

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and thanks for the other comments, much appreciated. I managed to read them before they got deleted (why??).

    I moved to my own place where my opinions won't bother anyone, I hope. You can find it by clicking on my name.

    1. The extent to which Iberian Beaker migration underwhelmed many's expectations have now led an opposite extreme view to say Iberia played no role.
      Though very uneven per individual, it does seem to be rather widespread.