The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

Modelling Ancient Latvians, Ukrainians

Ancient and modern Latvia and Ukraine modeled using a global PCA created by David Wesoloski.

It's difficult to model moderns well with PCA, CHG and WHG scores are exaggerated. When modeled this way German Corded Ware scores 14% EEF so maybe Latvian Corded Ware doesn't have EEF admixture.

WHGEHGCHGIran_NeoEEFLevant_Neo@D
Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ2763.736.4000.2500.011034
Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ2572.1527.8500000.006894
Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ3271.8521.756.30000.010565
Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ2678.757.39.554.3000.008507
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ3114.885.200000.011728
Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ2818.7539.641.650000.023763
LatvianModern4415.724.8015.500.006947
Ukraine_HG1:StPet236.5557.16.350000.01034
Ukraine_N1:StPet1237.4549.812.750000.020136
UkrainianEast Modern35.512.828.35023.3500.006077
 
Seems like modern Latvians don't have majority of genes from those Latvians of old.
15.5 Anatolian.
Hmm, to model arithmetically (I know it is wrong, still doing it just to give direction):
lets try 3 model
1 part of Latvia_MN1 - adds 25 WHG, 2.4 EHG, 3.1 CHG
1 part of Latvia_LN1 - adds 6.25 WHG, 13 EHG, 14 CHG
then the remaining 1 part should add
44-31.25 = 12-13% WHG, 15.7-15.4 = no EHG, 24.8 - 17.1 = 7.7 CHG, and 15.5 EEF.

Which means a population that looks something like this arrived to Latvia to complement existing cocktail:
37% WHG, 23% CHG, 40% EEF = GAC folk??? From around Poland?
 
bicicleur said:
Angela, something else.
Just before this paper was published I was trying to figure out where and when mongoloid traits started to devellop.
Mongoloid traits are also recognized in Amerindian tribes like the Bororo who live in the tropics in Brazil, so it is not a local adaptation of them, so it must allready have been in Siberia prior to the population of America.
Do you have any hints?

View attachment 8447
Click to expand...

Well, EDAR was in the SHG, yes?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

I would guess that was perhaps EHG related and ANE related before that? The Russian anthropologists were pretty sure that Mal'ta boy had it or something similar. (Did they have a tooth or only part of the skull? I forget.) There was an outcry when I suggested on the Board that perhaps they were right, but I think more recent papers and analyses provide some support for that idea. I think that after the split into West Eurasian and East Eurasian there was some intrusion from East Eurasia toward the west, as there was into Central Asia and across the steppe many millennia later.

According to this latest paper on East Asian ancient dna, it's in the ancient hunter-gatherer. They also said in that paper that American Indians were pretty close to this ancient population (and the Ulchi?) so I think this may be a set of mutations that occurred after the split between East and West Eurasians, but before Neolithization, and thus would have gone to Siberia and then North America?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33517-Neolithic-east-asian-dna-5700-bc?highlight=East+Asian

I think I remember reading somewhere that EDAR is on an increasing south/north cline, which makes sense given the thick hair aspect. I've never understood the selective advantage some of these things would have in an arctic climate however, especially something like more sweat and oil glands. The smaller breast size thing is a mystery too.

The Jomon are said to derive from this ancient line as well. I've never investigated their traits much. This paper promises information about it in the abstract, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone who reads this has the information from the paper or elsewhere and can share it.
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v60/n10/full/jhg201579a.html

This is all just off the top of my head and two minutes research, so take it for what it's worth. :)
 
In the Global PCA Latvia clusters a little closer to European HGs than Lithuanians and Estonians do. Here are U frequencies for Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland.

Lithuania=162, Latvia=110, Estonia=116, Seto=54, Poland=840

U4: Lithuania(2.4%), Latvia(9.1%), Estonia(4.3%), Seto(7.4%), Poland(4%)
U5a: Lithuania(9.3%), Latvia(10%), Estonia(9.5%), Seto(24.1%), Poland(6.2%)
U5b: Lithuania(2.5%), Latvia(3.6%), Estonia(4.3%), Seto(1.9%), Poland(4.4%)
U2e: Lithuania(3.7%, founder effect?), Latvia(5.4%), Estonia(2.6%), Seto(0%), Poland(0.8%).

% more U5a, U4, U2e than Poland.
Lithuania(4.4%), Estonia(5.4%), Latvia(13.5%), Seto(20.5%).

Latvian
"Polish" 76.8
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 13.15
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 10.05
"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00" 0
"Salzmuende_MN:I0551" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0559" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0560" 0
"Esperstedt_MN:I0172" 0
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:Avg" 0
"Iberia_MN:Avg" 0

distance=0.004909"

Lithuanian
"Polish" 83.7
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 8.55
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 7.75
"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00" 0
"Salzmuende_MN:I0551" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0559" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0560" 0
"Esperstedt_MN:I0172" 0
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:Avg" 0
"Iberia_MN:Avg" 0


distance=0.002685"

Estonian
"Polish" 79.65
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 10.65
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 9.7
 
Last edited:
Does this really make sense if you squeeze modern Poles in there?
 
Maybe it would be better to use PL_N17 instead of modern Poles?

Fire Haired, I can send you this genome (raw data) if you want.

It was Trzciniec culture, which is likely ancestral to modern Balts.

MarkoZ said:
Does this really make sense if you squeeze modern Poles in there?
Click to expand...

Not really.

But Poles minus some EEF + extra HG + extra Steppe = kinda Balts.

Which is why modern Balts can be modeled as Poles + HG2 + MN2.

MN2 already had some Steppe admixture, but not as much as LN1.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
WHGEHGCHGIran_NeoEEFLevant_Neo@D
Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ2763.736.4000.2500.011034
Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ2572.1527.8500000.006894
Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ3271.8521.756.30000.010565
Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ2678.757.39.554.3000.008507
Click to expand...
As expected, the obvious descendants of the final Palaeolithic Swiderian and Mesolithic Kunda WHG.
R1b probably came there from the north-eastern EHG. Although, who knows.
 
Davidski posted this:

Modern Latvian:

Poland_EBA 0.753
Lengyel_LN 0.111
Western_HG 0.112
Nganasan 0.024
 
Though at 5,039-4,626 cal BP the Latvian Corded Ware woman is older than any Polish Corded Ware settlement. So I don't see you'd want to model modern Latvians with Bronze Age Poles.
 
Tomenable said:
Davidski posted this:

Modern Latvian:

Poland_EBA 0.753
Lengyel_LN 0.111
Western_HG 0.112
Nganasan 0.024
Click to expand...

10% extra hunter gatherer makes more sense than the 30% global PCA gives. PCA and ADMIXTURE always give Europeans a significantly higher amount of WHG than formal stats do.

We'll have to wait to see what type of R1b the Latvian HGs had but so far the evidence suggests Baltic HG ancestry entered modern Balts mostly via mtDNA/women. I've done the math and Balts' hg U needs an extra 10-15% hunter gatherer added on top of 85-90% normal Northern European. Normal Northern European+10-20% hunter gatherer might not be the exactly correct model for Balts but I think it's pretty accurate.

Seto have twice as much U5a, U4 as other Balts. Wish Seto genomes were available.
 
From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

pca12_Baltic_All2.png
 
Angela said:
It just occurred to me that the authors might be confusing people when they describe samples in Latvia as "Middle Neolithic". There is no real "Neolithic" in Latvia. The authors have adopted the confusing habit of Russian researchers of calling hunter-gatherer societies with pottery "Neolithic". The Neolithic, as in "agriculture" and "animal domestication", didn't arrive in these far Northeastern European areas until it was brought by Corded Ware.
Click to expand...
Right on, I wanted to mention it too.
 
bicicleur said:
ah, yes, indeed, but that has nothing to do with genes
Click to expand...

Well yes, you need contact to learn something from another people and as we know contact always meant at least a little mixing in human history. Even if it was only as low as 5%.

Also as Angela stated some Eastern archeologists have a weird understanding of the term "Neolithic and agriculture" for them people are already agricultural if they have pottery.
 
Angela said:
So, let me see if I understand your chart. The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2 , which had dark hair and dark eyes, and which you say was closer to EHG in autosomal composition?

What of the sample with blonde hair and blue eyes? What is its status with regard to SLC45A2? Was it ancestral, or they couldn't get a read? If either of these were true, then we really don't have a blonde, blue-eyed, "European white" skinned person at all, do we?

Never mind the fact that we don't see evidence here of a real sweep yet, just a one off as Gamba et al found in Central Europe. Speaking of one offs, do you have in your files the snps for the Ain Ghazi samples? Someone claimed here that there was also a sample from there which was derived for both of the skin snps and also had the blue eye gene and was predicted to have light hair.
Click to expand...

One of those Levant_Neo samples is said to had Red hair.
 
LeBrok said:
And where I didn't agree with it? The genetic point is, that even if you teach some people they either won't be able or they will hate it and won't do it. I've asked you many times before to give us one example of modern h-gs doing switching from hunting to farming by observing and learning. Real life example can prove your point. And yet you couldn't find this one tribe.
Click to expand...

I think you have quoted the wrong person? At least my statement was not directed towards you. I was actually not disagreeing with you ^^
 
bicicleur said:
in the K = 14 admixture of Genetiker I check, there is a CHG-like component of which this sample has about 23 % while yamna in average some 15 % and CW/Sintashta has substantialy less, the Poltavka newcomer has less as well (but they have an EEF-like component which Yamna don't have)
the early European HG have very little of this component, upto 4 %, just like the 2 other Khvalynsk samples
I don't have the Dnepr-Donets admixture, but there I see mtDNA H appear



I started checking this when I noticed the contrast of this 1 Khvalynsk compared to the 2 others

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-lapita-genomes/
Click to expand...

Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG like admixture in Yamnaya is around 40-50% why in the world would someone take the numbers of Genetiker before any of the real studies plus even most of the bloggers (many of them being actually biased towards EHG) giving also numbers like 40-50%. Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.

The problem with genetikers CHG component is, it uses modern Caucasians as proxy, but modern Caucasians have Anatolian_Neo and even some Levant_Neo admixture.
 
Tomenable said:
From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):
pca12_Baltic_All2.png
Click to expand...
I like this graph. I wish they didn't miss Samara/Kvalisk h-gs, and KO1. Interesting part is how all the hunter gatherers lined up. Like they are composed only of two ancestral components, just different amounts of them. Like Med and NE Euro in Harappa but not exactly.

Latvia LN1, seems like it is composed of Latvia MN2 and Stuttgart/Hungarian Neo. We can draw a straight line through 3 of them. I don't understand (the red arrows) how it is possible that CHG, at amount of 25-40% could have ended up in Latvia in Bronze Age. Pure CHG should not exist anymore by this time. If some groups crossed Caucasus at this time they were like Iranian and Armenian Bronze Age. In this case it is more likely that LN1 happened of Latvia MN2 (which already in the area) and Neolithic Farmer who is in "Poland" at this time. Close by and easy mix. 75% Latvia MN2 and 25% Stuttgart.

This table here must be wrong then, if it comes to CHG component (from post 141). This component must contain EEF.:
WHGEHGCHGIran_NeoEEFLevant_Neo@D
Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ2763.736.4000.2500.011034
Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ2572.1527.8500000.006894
Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ3271.8521.756.30000.010565
Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ2678.757.39.554.3000.008507
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ3114.885.200000.011728
Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ2818.7539.641.650000.023763
LatvianModern4415.724.8015.500.006947
Ukraine_HG1:StPet236.5557.16.350000.01034
Ukraine_N1:StPet1237.4549.812.750000.020136
UkrainianEast Modern35.512.828.35023.3500.006077
Click to expand...
Few Notes:

Seems like Latvia HG went extinct, and was replaced by Latvia MN2 type hunter gatherer, who was closer genetically to Samvara/karelia EHG. I don't see how Latvia HG fits to Bronze age equation. Edit: I found need for them. If we make a straight line from Latvia h-g to Hungarian Neolithic we will get Hungarian Bronze Age. Sweet.
I'm not saying that they came from Litva, but perhaps Litva like h-gs occupied area from Western Ukraine to Estonia? Ukraine HG1 comes from East Ukraine, right?

Estonian LN, Rise00, looks like composed of 70% Ukrainian HG and 30% EEF. I was convinced this was almost pure h-g, but it turned to be not the case.
 
Alan said:
I think you have quoted the wrong person? At least my statement was not directed towards you. I was actually not disagreeing with you ^^
Click to expand...
I did quoted the wrong person. :)
 
Something else. Why are they holding back the Maykop samples? I mean they have published even allot of samples that they sampled after Maykop. Are the results so
big or why are they waiting. The same with the Harrapa samples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 133377 times.

Back
Top