PDA

View Full Version : Early European Lineages



Aberdeen
24-12-13, 01:37
The Eurogenes Blog has a link to an abstract by researchers who were looking into early European lineages. The site containing the actual abstract is biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552 The Abstract states:

"Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans."

Sounds quite interesting. However, the abstract contains no details about Y DNA or mtDNA. I don't know whether they just looked at autosomal DNA or whether the actual research paper would provide information on haplotypes. Does anyone know whether it would be possible to access the actual paper?

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 01:59
The Eurogenes Blog has a link to an abstract by researchers who were looking into early European lineages. The site containing the actual abstract is biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552 The Abstract states:

"Analysis of ancient DNA can reveal historical events that are difficult to discern through study of present-day individuals. To investigate European population history around the time of the agricultural transition, we sequenced complete genomes from a ~7,500 year old early farmer from the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) culture from Stuttgart in Germany and an ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherer from the Loschbour rock shelter in Luxembourg. We also generated data from seven ~8,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Motala in Sweden. We compared these genomes and published ancient DNA to new data from 2,196 samples from 185 diverse populations to show that at least three ancestral groups contributed to present-day Europeans. The first are Ancient North Eurasians (ANE), who are more closely related to Upper Paleolithic Siberians than to any present-day population. The second are West European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG), related to the Loschbour individual, who contributed to all Europeans but not to Near Easterners. The third are Early European Farmers (EEF), related to the Stuttgart individual, who were mainly of Near Eastern origin but also harbored WHG-related ancestry. We model the deep relationships of these populations and show that about ~44% of the ancestry of EEF derived from a basal Eurasian lineage that split prior to the separation of other non-Africans."

Sounds quite interesting. However, the abstract contains no details about Y DNA or mtDNA. I don't know whether they just looked at autosomal DNA or whether the actual research paper would provide information on haplotypes. Does anyone know whether it would be possible to access the actual paper?

There is a preview PDF on that site that you can download. Some very interesting citations briefly here:



Stuttgart belonged to
mtDNA haplogroup T2, typical of Neolithic Europeans10, while Loschbour and all Motala
individuals belonged to haplogroups U5 and U2, typical of pre-agricultural Europeans1, 8 (SI4).
Based on the ratio of sequences aligning to chromosomes X and Y, we infer that Stuttgart was
female while Loschbour and five Motala individuals were male11 (SI5). Loschbour and four
Motala males belonged to Y-chromosome haplogroup I, showing that this was a predominant
haplogroup in pre-agricultural northern Europeans




...
ADMIXTURE
...
We projected onto the PCs genetic data from ancient individuals2, 19, 20, which
reveals that European hunter-gatherers like Loschbour and Motala fall outside the variation of
West Eurasians in the direction of European differentiation from the Near East. This pattern is
suggestive of present-day Europeans being admixed between ancient European hunter-gatherers
and ancient Near Easterners, an inference that we confirm below. Loschbour clusters with
~7,000 year old hunter-gatherers from Spain20, allowing us to propose a “West European Hunter-
Gatherer” (WHG) meta-population. The Motala individuals cluster with ~5,000 year old
Neolithic hunter-gatherers2 from the Pitted Ware Culture (PWC) in Sweden, suggesting a
“Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer” (SHG) meta-population that maintained biological continuity
across the Neolithic transition. Stuttgart clusters with two early farmers—the ~5,300 year old
Tyrolean Iceman and a ~5,000 year old southern Swedish farmer2 from the Funnel Beaker
Culture—suggesting an “Early European Farmer” (EEF) meta-population similar to present-day

Sardinians. Two Upper Paleolithic Siberian samples project beyond the variation of Europeans
on the second PC (Fig. 2A), suggesting that they may be derive from the Ancient North Eurasian
(ANE) population previously shown to have contributed to Europeans

Tone
24-12-13, 02:21
So, three basal european meta-populations:

1. An indigenous Western European group with y-dna "I" that is isolated from Middle-Eastern/West Asian populations.

2. A Northern European group with a Siberian connection (maybe R1 and descended from Mammoth hunters?)

3. A Middle-Eastern/West Asian group probably arriving with agriculture and ushering in the Neolithic (Maybe haplogroups G, E, J, etc?).

Very interesting but not entirely unexpected. Finding haplogroup "I" in Mesolithic Northern Europe cements that as the dominant y-dna group in Paleolithic Europe, I would think. Interesting too that Ancient West Europeans and the Northern Siberian Hunters shared mtdna. It seems they were closely related, but distant enough to form distinct populations.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 02:29
Very interesting paper.
So it means that 4th wave of population, the Indo Europeans, didn't bring much of autosomal change. If not their strong paternal Y influence and the language, we wouldn't be able to guess from autosomal DNA correlation and comparison. Or perhaps they were already strongly mixed with ANE in West Asia and East Europe and with EEF of Anatolia, and lacking their unique autosomal signal?

Tone
24-12-13, 02:38
Very interesting paper.
So it means that 4th wave of population, the Indo Europeans, didn't bring much of autosomal change. If not their strong paternal Y influence and the language, we wouldn't be able to guess from autosomal DNA correlation and comparison. Or perhaps they were already strongly mixed with ANE in West Asia and East Europe and with EEF of Anatolia, and lacking their unique autosomal signal?

I've always wondered if the Indo-Europeans originated simply from the Eastern fringes of this basic Central European population blend of ANE, WHG, and EEF. Maybe even the low-level West Asian signal in Indo-Europeans comes from the earlier LBK culture in Central Europe and not from Anatolia proper.

Jackson
24-12-13, 02:48
I've always wondered if the Indo-Europeans originated simply from the Eastern fringes of this basic Central European population blend of ANE, WHG, and EEF. Maybe even the low-level West Asian signal in Indo-Europeans comes from the earlier LBK culture in Central Europe and not from Anatolia proper.

That's what i would have thought. Might have had a massive impact in terms of ancestry that what be very difficult to detect through autosomal genetics due to their similarities.

I wonder if this ancestral Siberian component is somehow related to that Amerindian-shift in many Europeans, perhaps.

sparkey
24-12-13, 02:57
This is great. Looks like we can get a lot of info out of the Supplemental (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf). Check out Supplemental Information 5 in particular.

The Loschbour sample is I2a1b* L178+, which seems to be a now-extinct (or super rare?) branch related to I2a-Din, I2a-Disles, and I2a-Isles. Motala12 is also I2a1b, and although I2a-Isles wasn't technically ruled out, I2a1b* looks possible as well.

Motala2, Motala3, and Motala9 weren't tested very well, but all are probably I2 of some sort, with a few subclades ruled out here and there. Interestingly, all could be I2a1b* too.

Motala6 couldn't be typed.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 03:09
I've always wondered if the Indo-Europeans originated simply from the Eastern fringes of this basic Central European population blend of ANE, WHG, and EEF.
You might be totally right, they were in vicinity anyway, and even EEF reached them already. They came to Europe as warriors/farmers.
Having said that, I don't think that their numbers were equal to existing European population. Most likely as small as 5-10% of total. Regardless of their numbers, it looks like they didn't kill all existing European men and took their wives (as some of us expected) but instead mixed heavily with existing populations.
It would be great to get DNA of early Romans and see who they resembled the most, or if they had an unique signature.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 03:28
BTW, Thanks for the links Aberdeen.

Additional points to the citations which I think are essential I list here (my comments are in brackets):

- ANE (Ancien North Eurasians) contributed also to native-american ancestry (That's why I still expect to find one Y-HG Q in some european hunter gatherer eventually).

- WHG (Loschbour) came from a very small population size (very isolated or even inbred? This could explain their isolated situation in the PCA plot.)

- neither Loschbour (hunter-gatherer) nor Stuttgart (farmer) could digest milk.

- both, Loschbour h-g and Stuttgart farmer had almost certainly dark hair (possible link to the Saami who are also significantly much darker haired than the neighbouring nations?)

- Loschbour h-g probably had darker skin than Stuttgart farmer (I find this very surprising! Perhaps non-euro admixture?)

- Loschbour h-g had a chance (> 50%) to have had blue eyes, whereas Stuttgart farmer hat almost certainly brown eyes.

- the one autosomal PCA for europe stretches from Sardinia to the Baltic (this again confirms K12b and Globe 13!)

- all european hunter-gatherers have the least near-eastern admixture compared to all west eurasian populations (not surprising).

- european hunter-gatherers appear autosomally more distant to each-other than farmers and most contemporary europeans, such that the authors decided to make separate clusters for them: WHG, SHG, ANE (I think it is also possible that these clusters are distant merely because
of different admixtures, for instance WHG=SHG+southern[+non-european?]; ANE=SHG+Siberian; this would make SHG the true hunter-gatherer component, but this is a quick & dirty hypothesis only!)

- Farmers, Ötzi, Funnel Beakers and Sardinians are very similar (no surprise)

- contemporary europeans seem to be a mix of Hunter-Gatherers and Near-Easteners, but the authors rejected this assumtion due to additional f3 statistics and too low resolution of PCA analysis, thus assuming 3 ancestral main populations ANE, WHG, EEF (Could ANE partially come from Indo-europeans perhaps? Maybe, since Sardinia-Baltic cline is confirmed and both contain non-IE speakers (i.e. old-Sardinian and Finnish)).

- neolithic farmers stem from ancient near-easteners, but contemporary near-easteners have become altered by other admixtures (I remember saying this before)

- neolithic farmers probably were already admixed with hunter-gatherers, although not sure whether WHG or ANE.

- lowest farmer ancestry is in baltic countries, highest in mediterranean (again K12b and Globe 13 are confirmed)

- Europeans are approx. 40% WHG and 20% ANE.

- Finns, Mordovians, Russians, Chuvash, and Saami experienced some additional Siberian admixture later, possibly indicated by Y-HG N (not surprising).



I hope I made no mistakes. Good night!

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 03:35
I've always wondered if the Indo-Europeans originated simply from the Eastern fringes of this basic Central European population blend of ANE, WHG, and EEF. Maybe even the low-level West Asian signal in Indo-Europeans comes from the earlier LBK culture in Central Europe and not from Anatolia proper.

Yeah, I think in particular many Indo-Europeans brought even more ANE to europe, besides west asian. This would explain why almost all europeans are closer to ANE today than to WHG in the PCA map. Ironically, some Finno-Ugric peoples would be autosomally closer to the some original Indo-Europeans too. Loschbourg looks suspiciously isolated in PCA plot, even more than La Brana.

Jackson
24-12-13, 03:35
BTW, Thanks for the links Aberdeen.

Additional points to the citations which I think are essential I list here (my comments are in brackets):

- ANE (Ancien North Eurasians) contributed also to native-american ancestry (That's why I still expect to find one Y-HG Q in some european hunter gatherer eventually).

- WHG (Loschbour) came from a very small population size (very isolated or even inbred? This could explain their isolated situation in the PCA plot.)

- neither Loschbour (hunter-gatherer) nor Stuttgart (farmer) could digest milk.

- both, Loschbour h-g and Stuttgart farmer had almost certainly dark hair (possible link to the Saami who are also significantly much darker haired than the neighbouring nations?)

- Loschbour h-g probably had darker skin than Stuttgart farmer (I find this very surprising! Perhaps african admixture?)

- Loschbour h-g had a chance (> 50%) to have had blue eyes, whereas Stuttgart farmer hat almost certainly brown eyes.

- the one autosomal PCA for europe stretches from Sardinia to the Baltic (this again confirms K12b and Globe 13!)

- all european hunter-gatherers have the least near-eastern admixture compared to all west eurasian populations (not surprising).

- european hunter-gatherers appear autosomally more distant to each-other than farmers and most contemporary europeans, such that the authors decided to make separate clusters for them: WHG, SHG, ANE (I think it is also possible that these clusters are distant merely because
of different admixtures, for instance WHG=SHG+southern[+non-european?]; ANE=SHG+Siberian; this would make SHG the true hunter-gatherer component, but this is a quick & dirty hypothesis only!)

- Farmers, Ötzi, Funnel Beakers and Sardinians are very similar (no surprise)

- contemporary europeans seem to be a mix of Hunter-Gatherers and Near-Easteners, but the authors rejected this assumtion due to additional f3 statistics and too low resolution of PCA analysis, thus assuming 3 ancestral main populations ANE, WHG, EEF (Could ANE partially come from Indo-europeans perhaps? Maybe, since Sardinia-Baltic cline is confirmed and both contain non-IE speakers (i.e. old-Sardinian and Finnish)).

- neolithic farmers stem from ancient near-easteners, but contemporary near-easteners have become altered by other admixtures (I remember saying this before)

- neolithic farmers probably were already admixed with hunter-gatherers, although not sure whether WHG or ANE.

- lowest farmer ancestry is in baltic countries, highest in mediterranean (again K12b and Globe 13 are confirmed)

- Europeans are approx. 40% WHG and 20% ANE.

- Finns, Mordovians, Russians, Chuvash, and Saami experienced some additional Siberian admixture later, possibly indicated by Y-HG N (not surprising).



I hope I made no mistakes. Good night!

One of the Loschbour males couldn't be assigned a haplogroup, but initially it appeared he was Q1 until there was a contradiction. So, almost but not quite yet i guess.
This is from the supplementery information, but taken from a quote by Jean M at Anthrogenica:


Motala6 was L55+ (19413335 G>A), placing it in Y-haplogroup Q1a2a, but L232-, which contradicts the hypothesis that it belongs to haplogroup Q1. These two observations are phylogenetically inconsistent, and we are unable to assign a haplogroup to this individual.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 03:42
Interesting note from page 30:


Figure S5.1: Phylogenetic position of Loschbour Y chromosome within present-day haplogroup I.
The highlighted branch (yellow) displays the Loschbour individual and its closest relative for the Y
chromosome in the dataset, a present-day Russian.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 03:44
Form same paper:

DiscussionOur finding that Loschbour and all four Motala males whose haplogroups we could determine belong
to Y-haplogroup I is not entirely unexpected, as this clade of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny is
found almost exclusively in Europe6
, with much rarer occurrences elsewhere. Its sister clade
(haplogroup J) is thought to have a Near Eastern origin7
. It has been hypothesized that I was common
in pre-agricultural Europeans8
, and our study confirms this directly as it documents its presence in two
European hunter-gatherer groups from the period immediately antedating the Neolithic transition.
We cannot, at present, determine when Y chromosome haplogroup I entered Europe, although its
occurrence in two Mesolithic European hunter-gatherer populations (Loschbour and Motala) suggest
an old origin, potentially entering Europe during the Upper Paleolithic around 40,000 years ago.
It is tempting to speculate that haplogroup I might be the dominant European Y chromosome
haplogroup in Palaeolithic Europe, as the male counterpart of maternally inherited mitochondrial
haplogroup U (SI4). Y chromsome haplogroup I9 as well as mitochondrial haplogroup U were also
identified in Neolithic Europeans, and are found throughout Europe in present-day populations. Thus,
both maternally- and paternally-inherited genetic components of present-day Europeans may reflect a
history of major admixture: genetic contribution from both the hunter-gatherers and early farmers of
Europe. We further note that Y chromosome haplogroup I is scarce in the Near East today, with only
sporadic occurrences of this haplogroup in the North Caucasus (~3% in frequency)10, consistent with
very limited gene flow from Europe into this area.
The present-day frequency of haplogroup I in Europe is variable, with local maxima in Scandinavia2
and the western Balkans which might reflect more recent expansions. Our finding that Loschbour, a
Mesolithic west European, was M423+ contrasts with a previous suggestion11 that this lineage
diffused during the Neolithic from south-eastern Europe.
The absence of Y-haplogroup R1b in our two sample locations is striking given that it is, at present,
the major west European lineage. Importantly, however, it has not yet been found in ancient European
contexts prior to a Bell Beaker burial from Germany (2,800-2,000BC)12, while the related R1a lineage
has a first known occurrence in a Corded Ware burial also from Germany (2,600BC)13. This casts
doubt on early suggestions associating these haplogroups with Paleolithic Europeans14, and is more
consistent with their Neolithic entry into Europe at least in the case of R1b15, 16. More research is
needed to document the time and place of their earliest occurrence in Europe. Interestingly, the Mal’ta
boy belonged17 to haplogroup R* and we tentatively suggest that some haplogroup R bearers may be
responsible for the wider dissemination of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry into Europe, as their
haplogroup Q relatives may have plausibly done into the Americas17.
This work provides a first glimpse into the the pre-Neolithic Y chromosomes of Europe. Despite the
fact that our sample is limited to two locations and five male individuals, the results in this section are
consistent with haplogroup I representing a major pre-Neolithic European clade, and hint at
subsequent events during and after the Neolithic transition as important contributors to the Y
chromosomal variation of living Europeans.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 03:55
One of the Loschbour males couldn't be assigned a haplogroup, but initially it appeared he was Q1 until there was a contradiction. So, almost but not quite yet i guess.
This is from the supplementery information, but taken from a quote by Jean M at Anthrogenica:

Motala6 was L55+ (19413335 G>A), placing it in Y-haplogroup Q1a2a, but L232-, which contradicts the hypothesis that it belongs to haplogroup Q1. These two observations are phylogenetically inconsistent, and we are unable to assign a haplogroup to this individual.






Thanks, very interesting! So there is truly a chance of paleolithic Q in europe as I expected some time ago. According to the eupedia map, Scandinavia is the european hotspot of Q1a2b1, and there is also some Q1a2a1a2 and some also in Britain. So it would match the hypothesis for Motala, if true.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 04:04
Neither of the ancient modern humans
carried the derived alleles at three loci associated with alcohol metabolism (ALDH2, ADH1Ba and
ADH1Bb)

If I understood this right it means that they were not acquainted with alcohol well yet. Looks like alcohol came with farmers.

Aberdeen
24-12-13, 04:56
You might be totally right, they were in vicinity anyway, and even EEF reached them already. They came to Europe as warriors/farmers.
Having said that, I don't think that their numbers were equal to existing European population. Most likely as small as 5-10% of total. Regardless of their numbers, it looks like they didn't kill all existing European men and took their wives (as some of us expected) but instead mixed heavily with existing populations.
It would be great to get DNA of early Romans and see who they resembled the most, or if they had an unique signature.

I've always wondered whether the small amount of R1a found throughout western Europe were enough to represent the IE signature just by itself. Although I realize that idea could get me burned for heresy around here.

Aberdeen
24-12-13, 04:59
If I understood this right it means that they were not acquainted with alcohol well yet. Looks like alcohol came with farmers.

That idea would make a lot of sense, IMO. Without much technology, attempts to make wine from wild berries are more likely to produce vinegar. Beer is easier to make, I think.

Aberdeen
24-12-13, 05:19
BTW, thanks for finding the link to the PDF that I missed ElHorsto. This is interesting stuff. And it turns out that the PDF was on the same website as the east Asian stuff that I posted today under Y haplotypes that Dienekes mentioned in his blog.

nordicwarrior
24-12-13, 09:01
I'm having a tough time squaring these autosomal admixtures with the y-dna that we see through most of Europe today (dominance of the R1b lines). Nice find on the article, but it sure does raise a few questions.

Idun
24-12-13, 09:30
BTW, Thanks for the links Aberdeen.

Additional points to the citations which I think are essential I list here (my comments are in brackets):

- ANE (Ancien North Eurasians) contributed also to native-american ancestry (That's why I still expect to find one Y-HG Q in some european hunter gatherer eventually).

- WHG (Loschbour) came from a very small population size (very isolated or even inbred? This could explain their isolated situation in the PCA plot.)

- neither Loschbour (hunter-gatherer) nor Stuttgart (farmer) could digest milk.

- both, Loschbour h-g and Stuttgart farmer had almost certainly dark hair (possible link to the Saami who are also significantly much darker haired than the neighbouring nations?)

- Loschbour h-g probably had darker skin than Stuttgart farmer (I find this very surprising! Perhaps non-euro admixture?)

- Loschbour h-g had a chance (> 50%) to have had blue eyes, whereas Stuttgart farmer hat almost certainly brown eyes.

- the one autosomal PCA for europe stretches from Sardinia to the Baltic (this again confirms K12b and Globe 13!)

- all european hunter-gatherers have the least near-eastern admixture compared to all west eurasian populations (not surprising).

- european hunter-gatherers appear autosomally more distant to each-other than farmers and most contemporary europeans, such that the authors decided to make separate clusters for them: WHG, SHG, ANE (I think it is also possible that these clusters are distant merely because
of different admixtures, for instance WHG=SHG+southern[+non-european?]; ANE=SHG+Siberian; this would make SHG the true hunter-gatherer component, but this is a quick & dirty hypothesis only!)

- Farmers, Ötzi, Funnel Beakers and Sardinians are very similar (no surprise)

- contemporary europeans seem to be a mix of Hunter-Gatherers and Near-Easteners, but the authors rejected this assumtion due to additional f3 statistics and too low resolution of PCA analysis, thus assuming 3 ancestral main populations ANE, WHG, EEF (Could ANE partially come from Indo-europeans perhaps? Maybe, since Sardinia-Baltic cline is confirmed and both contain non-IE speakers (i.e. old-Sardinian and Finnish)).

- neolithic farmers stem from ancient near-easteners, but contemporary near-easteners have become altered by other admixtures (I remember saying this before)

- neolithic farmers probably were already admixed with hunter-gatherers, although not sure whether WHG or ANE.

- lowest farmer ancestry is in baltic countries, highest in mediterranean (again K12b and Globe 13 are confirmed)

- Europeans are approx. 40% WHG and 20% ANE.

- Finns, Mordovians, Russians, Chuvash, and Saami experienced some additional Siberian admixture later, possibly indicated by Y-HG N (not surprising).



I hope I made no mistakes. Good night!

What time would this later be? Include the Balts also. Just reminding you that Uralic and Indo-European are connected.

Idun
24-12-13, 09:52
Explaining the Baltic Finnic people in Europe is usually similar to trying to push a square beg in a round hole, people dont want to think about it.

bicicleur
24-12-13, 10:37
You might be totally right, they were in vicinity anyway, and even EEF reached them already. They came to Europe as warriors/farmers.
Having said that, I don't think that their numbers were equal to existing European population. Most likely as small as 5-10% of total. Regardless of their numbers, it looks like they didn't kill all existing European men and took their wives (as some of us expected) but instead mixed heavily with existing populations.
It would be great to get DNA of early Romans and see who they resembled the most, or if they had an unique signature.

My guess : R arrived in Ukraine 15000 years ago (coming from Mal'ta?) :

http://archaeology.about.com/od/ancienthouses/g/mammoth_huts.htm

They were mammoth hunters, in summer they went hunting more north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezine

That is how ANE and WHG first met.

Twilight
24-12-13, 10:46
ElHorsto:Europeans are approx. 40% WHG and 20% ANE.
Okay with my YDna calcilations alone for my ancestry; 13/32 British, 5/32 Irish, 3/32 Welsh,1/8 Prussian, 1/8 MacDonald Tribe,1/32 Ashkenazi Jew, 1/16 French, I got in total 72% ANE 16%WHG and 10% EEF

If this is the case than I supose that mtDna is involved in ancestry also :/

Idun
24-12-13, 12:34
What are the Ancient North Eurasian samples?

Maciamo
24-12-13, 13:20
Very interesting paper.
So it means that 4th wave of population, the Indo Europeans, didn't bring much of autosomal change. If not their strong paternal Y influence and the language, we wouldn't be able to guess from autosomal DNA correlation and comparison. Or perhaps they were already strongly mixed with ANE in West Asia and East Europe and with EEF of Anatolia, and lacking their unique autosomal signal?

I am not surprised by that. As far as R1b is concerned, I have explained many times before (eg here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29002-New-map-of-Gedrosian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East)) that the autosomal genes of R1b men was continuously diluted on their way from the Middle East to West Europe via the Pontic Steppe, the Balkans, Central Europe, and eventually Western & Northern Europe. The longer R1b men stayed in a region, the more they would have had opportunities to intermarry with indigenous women of that region. Here are the three great zones where R1b intermingled with local populations:

1) Pontic Steppe (arriving sometime between 6000 and 3700 BCE and staying until at least 2500 BCE) : the original R1b-M269 from eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia (probably carrying mtDNA J, K, T1, T2, U4, and X2) blended extensively with steppe women (daughters of R1a men, mostly represented by mtDNA I, U2, U4, U5, V, W and X2). Roughly 1500 to 3000 years of intermingling, bring Northeast European genes into the R1b autosomal gene pool.

2) Balkans, Danube basin & Central Europe (from c. 4000 to 2000 BCE) : 2000 years of mixing with the population of 'Old Europe', themselves a blend of Neolithic farmers (75%) and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (25%). They would have acquired many of the most common maternal lineages in Europe today, including a wide range of H subclades, but also new subclades of J, K, T and U5.

3) Western Europe & Scandinavia (from 2300 BCE) : a relatively fast invasion by R1b, especially in the Benelux, France and the British Isles, where R1b spread within only two or three centuries from the Unetice culture in Germany. The penetration was much slower in Scandinavia (starting from 1800 BCE, but slow assimilation of indigenous population throughout the Bronze Age until 500 BCE), Iberia (possibly from 1800 BCE, but whole peninsula not covered until 1200 BCE), and especially Italy (starting from 1300 BCE, but Sardinia not really settled by R1b until the Roman Republic). Such discrepancies in the diffusion pace may explain why R1b is so much higher in Northwest Europe then in places like southern Italy, and why the Gedrosian admixture is equally higher in Northwest Europe. An earlier and faster conquest of R1b, with a more thorough population replacement, explains why more original R1b autosomal DNA survive (less dilution).

Maciamo
24-12-13, 13:40
This is great. Looks like we can get a lot of info out of the Supplemental (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-3.pdf). Check out Supplemental Information 5 in particular.

The Loschbour sample is I2a1b* L178+, which seems to be a now-extinct (or super rare?) branch related to I2a-Din, I2a-Disles, and I2a-Isles. Motala12 is also I2a1b, and although I2a-Isles wasn't technically ruled out, I2a1b* looks possible as well.

Motala2, Motala3, and Motala9 weren't tested very well, but all are probably I2 of some sort, with a few subclades ruled out here and there. Interestingly, all could be I2a1b* too.

Motala6 couldn't be typed.

That is the most interesting info so far. Most people (including me) would have expected Mesolithic Swedes to belong to haplogroups I1 or I2a2a (M223), not to I2a1b. That is relatively surprising considering that I2a1b is rather rare in Scandinavia today (1% of total), rarer even than Neolithic lineages like G2a or E-V13. Even J2 is more common. Norway doesn't seem to have any I2a1 at all, out of nearly 3000 samples tested.

Maciamo
24-12-13, 14:27
- both, Loschbour h-g and Stuttgart farmer had almost certainly dark hair (possible link to the Saami who are also significantly much darker haired than the neighbouring nations?)

- Loschbour h-g probably had darker skin than Stuttgart farmer (I find this very surprising! Perhaps non-euro admixture?)

- Loschbour h-g had a chance (> 50%) to have had blue eyes, whereas Stuttgart farmer hat almost certainly brown eyes.

This reinforces my hypothesis that blond and red hair were both brought by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b respectively), but that blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans.

I have mentioned before that likely minor presence of Y-haplogroup A1a among Palaeolithic/Mesolithic West/North Europeans, but also the relatively important presence of E-M81 since the Mesolithic at least in Iberia, and possibly also in and around France. Both would have contributed to slightly darker skin among Mesolithic Western Europeans.

Wilhelm
24-12-13, 14:46
That is the most interesting info so far. So Neolithic Swedes belonged to I2, and especially I2a1b. That is relatively surprising considering that I2a1b is rather in Scandinavia today than more typically Neolithic lineages like G2a or E-V13. Even J2 is more common. Norway doesn't seem to have any I2a1 at all, out of nearly 3000 samples tested.

Although I2a1 has been found alongside G2a in an Early Neolithic site in southern France (Treilles), the Motala samples are the first example of a group of Neolithic farmers that apparently belong exclusively to haplogroup I. This may be a sampling bias, and Neolithic farmers in Sweden might very well also have included E1b1b and G2a men (+ J and T ?). In any case, it means that Neolithic farmers were already a heavy blend of Mesolithic Europeans and Near Eastern immigrants by the time they reached Scandinavia. That, and the very minor presence of Neolithic farmers in Scandinavia, both contribute to explain why modern Scandinavians have inherited far fewer Near Eastern genes than the European average.
The Motala samples are not neolithic farmers , but Hunter-Gatherers.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 14:52
This reinforces my hypothesis that blond and red hair were both brought by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b respectively), but that blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans.


Yep. And on the other hand there was the other study which identified that some early indo-europeans in the steppe were instead blond with brown eyes (although many were also blue eyed of course).



I have mentioned before that likely minor presence of Y-haplogroup A1a among Palaeolithic/Mesolithic West/North Europeans, but also the relatively important presence of E-M81 since the Mesolithic at least in Iberia, and possibly also in and around France. Both would have contributed to slightly darker skin among Mesolithic Western Europeans.

Maybe. I also believe that during LGM the (west-)european hunter-gatherers or "Cro-Magnons" dwelled in their south european refuges, where the sun was shining no less than today, or even stronger due to the reflection from white snow. There possibly was an evolutionary pressure towards dark skin in europe during LGM. Maybe they got the darker skin from non-euro admixture, but this admixture was very slight, yet representing the crucial seed for evolutionary distribution.
I think the ice sheets in the west advanced more towards the south than in north asia.

Tabaccus Maximus
24-12-13, 14:54
I am now eating my hat.

It does appear after all that Haplogroup I pre-dates the Neolithic and comfortably so. Very exciting.

I had felt the diversity and geographic limitation of I* was not a good indicator of its spread given the history of migrations from the Balkans and the limited population in the North.
However, I was wrong. Really, haplogroup I* was the test case for me in determining whether diversity and age calculations can really tell us anything reliably useful. Apparently, it does and now I fell more comfortable with the methodology with regards to other haplogroups.

One thing though, the ANE is taken from Mal'ta and Afontova, so it is incorrect to say that modern Euros are basically a tripart mix of the same reoccurring stuff.
Euros are part ANE, which is foreign to Europe and of course most easily explained by the introgression of R1 lineages which have yet to be found, pre-Chalcolithic.
As a matter of fact, simply clustering more similar and less similar components still does not properly explain the modern mitochondrial distribution of Europe which does not appear to have been at all common at that time.
On that point, whenever R1* began spreading into Europe, it was not pure ANE. It was probably an autosomal mix fused with other peoples, most likely Near Easterners.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 15:27
I am not surprised by that. As far as R1b is concerned, I have explained many times before (eg here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29002-New-map-of-Gedrosian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East)) that the autosomal genes of R1b men was continuously diluted on their way from the Middle East to West Europe via the Pontic Steppe, the Balkans, Central Europe, and eventually Western & Northern Europe. The longer R1b men stayed in a region, the more they would have had opportunities to intermarry with indigenous women of that region. Here are the three great zones where R1b intermingled with local populations:

1) Pontic Steppe (arriving sometime between 6000 and 3700 BCE and staying until at least 2500 BCE) : the original R1b-M269 from eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia (probably carrying mtDNA J, K, T1, T2, U4, and X2) blended extensively with steppe women (daughters of R1a men, mostly represented by mtDNA I, U2, U4, U5, V, W and X2). Roughly 1500 to 3000 years of intermingling, bring Northeast European genes into the R1b autosomal gene pool.


I agree with that. Many Indo-europeans were themselves largely of paleolithic stock, because north-east europeans are mostly paleolithic europeans.

In the admixture breakdown (http://eurogenes.blogspot.de/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html?showComment=1387851513157#c161663205072 1459316)from davidski I have spotted some very interesting features with regards to Indo-European theory. It is more interesting than the PCA plot. The WHG and ANE are especially interesting:

- WHG has maximum in Estonian, Lithuanian, Icelandic, Belorussian, Scottish/Norwegian (decending order). That more-or-less confirms the north-eastern peak of hunter gatherers, but this time slightly more shifted to the west by Scottish and Icelandic.

- The Sardinians have the lowest ANE admixture, which makes again a lot of sense assuming ANE came to south-west-europe by R1b Indo-Europeans and that the native Sardinian language is non-IE.

- Now let't compare these countries to each-other by WHG/ANE ratio: ANE is higher in the Scottish than in Belorussian. Surprising? Maybe not quite. Assuming that ANE is partially re-introduced by the Indo-Europeans, it means that Belorussians have more west-european paleolithic heritage than the Scots, whereas the Scots have more Indo-European heritage (ANE). WHG is slightly lower in Scots than in Belorussians, but still both peoples have much more WHG than ANE, which again shows the actual northern distribution of the "western" WHG component.

- A look at the Sicilians, Maltese, Albanians, Greeks, Spanish, Basque (pais vasco only!) reveals that they have more ANE (Indo-European/eastern paleolithic) than WHG, while being overwhelmingly southern EEF of course. These countries have all in common that they are genetically and geographically south-european and that they all speak indo-european (except basques) and have R1b. So again ANE could be linked to Indo-Europeans. And again it is confirmed that WHG (e.g. La Brana in earlier work) has been largely eradicated in south-west europe.

- The lower WHG and higher ANE in pais vasco would again reinforce the theory that their ANE came from steppic R1b people, despite Basque is a non-IE language. That being said, Indo-Europeans were by no means ANE only, they had significant West Asian admixture certainly (Gedrosian-R1b, Caucasus-R1a, others)

It looks like WHG (West-European Hunter Gatherer) is today the truely north-european one. Most likely the Saami would have the most of it, but I couldn't find the data for the Saami in this paper.
The North-East european peak shown in K12b and Globe 13 and others probably corresponds mostly to both, WHG and ANE.

Maciamo
24-12-13, 15:44
Maybe. I also believe that during LGM the (west-)european hunter-gatherers or "Cro-Magnons" dwelled in their south european refuges, where the sun was shining no less than today, or even stronger due to the reflection from white snow. There possibly was an evolutionary pressure towards dark skin in europe during LGM. Maybe they got the darker skin from non-euro admixture, but this admixture was very slight, yet representing the crucial seed for evolutionary distribution.
I think the ice sheets in the west advanced more towards the south than in north asia.

Light pigmentation is an evolutionary advantage for northern climates, but not in environment where snow and ice predominate most of the year, because the reflection of the sun on the snow can cause severe sunburn and damage the eyes. That is why modern Inuits and other Arctic populations typically have brown eyes and more tanned skin than northern Europeans. LGM conditions would have been closer to those found within the Arctic Circle today.

As for fair hair, it is only advantageous from a certain latitude, perhaps over 45° North, regardless of temperature. The sunshine is weaker and less direct at high latitudes, even in a hot summer day. That is surely why evolutionary pressures got ride of most fair hair among Southern Europeans (except in particularly overcast regions like northwestern Spain, where mountains block clouds from the Atlantic all year round).

Wilhelm
24-12-13, 15:45
- A look at the Sicilians, Maltese, Albanians, Greeks, Spanish, Basque (pais vasco only!) reveals that they have more ANE (Indo-European/eastern paleolithic) than WHG, while being overwhelmingly southern EEF of course. These countries have all in common that they are genetically and geographically south-european and that they all speak indo-european (except basques) and have R1b. So again ANE could be linked to Indo-Europeans. And again it is confirmed that WHG (e.g. La Brana in earlier work) has been largely eradicated in south-west europe.
But you have not paid attention to what the study says, that Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazy results should not be taken in account, because they have recent near-east ancestry beyond what the neolithic farmers have, so their results are skewed.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 15:57
But you have not paid attention to what the study says, that Sicilians, Maltese and Ashkenazy results should not be taken in account, because they have recent near-east ancestry beyond what the neolithic farmers have, so their results are skewed.

You are right, but including Sicilians and Maltese will not invalidate my argument. They are just useless for my argument. So we can just skip them and the argument still holds for the rest.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 16:00
- A look at the Sicilians, Maltese, Albanians, Greeks, Spanish, Basque (pais vasco only!) reveals that they have more ANE (Indo-European/eastern paleolithic) than WHG, while being overwhelmingly southern EEF of course. These countries have all in common that they are genetically and geographically south-european and that they all speak indo-european (except basques) and have R1b. So again ANE could be linked to Indo-Europeans. And again it is confirmed that WHG (e.g. La Brana in earlier work) has been largely eradicated in south-west europe.


Sorry, I forgot to stress the most important argument here: the listed countries are also the only ones which have ANE > WHG.

Tabaccus Maximus
24-12-13, 18:03
I'm still having a problem with WHG. (Western Hunter Gatherer)

I realize this is their terminology, but what does it correlate to by other naming conventions? Is this the same as the NWE (Northwest Eurasian) component?
North European Component? Northeastern European Component?

Do they correlate at all?

epoch
24-12-13, 18:07
That is the most interesting info so far. Most people (including me) would have expected Mesolithic Swedes to belong to haplogroups I1 or I2a2a (M223), not to I2a1b. That is relatively surprising considering that I2a1b is rather rare in Scandinavia today (1% of total), rarer even than Neolithic lineages like G2a or E-V13. Even J2 is more common. Norway doesn't seem to have any I2a1 at all, out of nearly 3000 samples tested.

Yet Norway has 43% autosomal DNA connected to mesolithic hunters. This strange discrepancy between autosomal connection and Y-DNA disconnection is also visible with mtDNA, I think. Norway has far less U5, U4 or U then 45%.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html?showComment=1387851513157#c161663205072 1459316

LeBrok
24-12-13, 19:08
That is the most interesting info so far. Most people (including me) would have expected Mesolithic Swedes to belong to haplogroups I1 or I2a2a (M223), not to I2a1b. That is relatively surprising considering that I2a1b is rather rare in Scandinavia today (1% of total), rarer even than Neolithic lineages like G2a or E-V13. Even J2 is more common. Norway doesn't seem to have any I2a1 at all, out of nearly 3000 samples tested.
This actually shows that old clads can be replaced with new "improved" (more adapted) ones rather quickly and without big difficulties. It can explain quick dominance of some R1bs and I2a-Dinaric. Pretty much in agreement what you were always suspecting.

Idun
24-12-13, 19:11
I agree with that. Many Indo-europeans were themselves largely of paleolithic stock, because north-east europeans are mostly paleolithic europeans.

In the admixture breakdown (http://eurogenes.blogspot.de/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html?showComment=1387851513157#c161663205072 1459316)from davidski I have spotted some very interesting features with regards to Indo-European theory. It is more interesting than the PCA plot. The WHG and ANE are especially interesting:

- WHG has maximum in Estonian, Lithuanian, Icelandic, Belorussian, Scottish/Norwegian (decending order). That more-or-less confirms the north-eastern peak of hunter gatherers, but this time slightly more shifted to the west by Scottish and Icelandic.

- The Sardinians have the lowest ANE admixture, which makes again a lot of sense assuming ANE came to south-west-europe by R1b Indo-Europeans and that the native Sardinian language is non-IE.

- Now let't compare these countries to each-other by WHG/ANE ratio: ANE is higher in the Scottish than in Belorussian. Surprising? Maybe not quite. Assuming that ANE is partially re-introduced by the Indo-Europeans, it means that Belorussians have more west-european paleolithic heritage than the Scots, whereas the Scots have more Indo-European heritage (ANE). WHG is slightly lower in Scots than in Belorussians, but still both peoples have much more WHG than ANE, which again shows the actual northern distribution of the "western" WHG component.

- A look at the Sicilians, Maltese, Albanians, Greeks, Spanish, Basque (pais vasco only!) reveals that they have more ANE (Indo-European/eastern paleolithic) than WHG, while being overwhelmingly southern EEF of course. These countries have all in common that they are genetically and geographically south-european and that they all speak indo-european (except basques) and have R1b. So again ANE could be linked to Indo-Europeans. And again it is confirmed that WHG (e.g. La Brana in earlier work) has been largely eradicated in south-west europe.

- The lower WHG and higher ANE in pais vasco would again reinforce the theory that their ANE came from steppic R1b people, despite Basque is a non-IE language. That being said, Indo-Europeans were by no means ANE only, they had significant West Asian admixture certainly (Gedrosian-R1b, Caucasus-R1a, others)

It looks like WHG (West-European Hunter Gatherer) is today the truely north-european one. Most likely the Saami would have the most of it, but I couldn't find the data for the Saami in this paper.
The North-East european peak shown in K12b and Globe 13 and others probably corresponds mostly to both, WHG and ANE.

Would like to see this breakdown for Finns also.

Aberdeen
24-12-13, 19:24
I'm still having a problem with WHG. (Western Hunter Gatherer)

I realize this is their terminology, but what does it correlate to by other naming conventions? Is this the same as the NWE (Northwest Eurasian) component?
North European Component? Northeastern European Component?

Do they correlate at all?

On page 6 of the Preview PDF, the authors state that Loschbour clusters with 7000 year old hunter-gatherers from Spain, allowing the authors to propose a "West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) meta-population. The footnote referenced makes it clear that the authors were referring to the La Brana finds. So, WHG = whoever those two mesolithic people at La Brana were.

Angela
24-12-13, 19:36
This reinforces my hypothesis that blond and red hair were both brought by the Indo-Europeans (R1a and R1b respectively), but that blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans.

I have mentioned before that likely minor presence of Y-haplogroup A1a among Palaeolithic/Mesolithic West/North Europeans, but also the relatively important presence of E-M81 since the Mesolithic at least in Iberia, and possibly also in and around France. Both would have contributed to slightly darker skin among Mesolithic Western Europeans.

It's not only *these* hunter-gatherers who are darker skinned than Oetzi...so was Mal'ta...it seems to me that the evidence so far is that lighter skin did not appear in Europe until at least the Neolithic. While today, skin pigmentation correlates very well with amounts of solar radiation, this was obviously not always true. I don't think anyone yet knows the factors that brought about depigmentation, but part of the answer may indeed be that snow and ice conditions would not favor fairer skinned people. Also, until the Neolithic took hold, much of western Europe was forest. I would suggest that diet may have played a role.

I still think that diet may have played a role as well. Lactase tolerance also is not present in any of these people, and I think is undoubtedly tied to the rise of dairy farming.

epoch
24-12-13, 19:50
It looks like WHG (West-European Hunter Gatherer) is today the truely north-european one. Most likely the Saami would have the most of it, but I couldn't find the data for the Saami in this paper.
The North-East european peak shown in K12b and Globe 13 and others probably corresponds mostly to both, WHG and ANE.

On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.

epoch
24-12-13, 19:59
It's not only *these* hunter-gatherers who are darker skinned than Oetzi...so was Mal'ta...it seems to me that the evidence so far is that lighter skin did not appear in Europe until at least the Neolithic.

Obviously that could be the case. However, Mal'ta has almost one third non-white - or rather non-european and non-west asian - admixture.

Maciamo
24-12-13, 20:36
This actually shows that old clads can be replaced with new "improved" (more adapted) ones rather quickly and without big difficulties. It can explain quick dominance of some R1bs and I2a-Dinaric. Pretty much in agreement what you were always suspecting.

True, but where did I1 come from if not Mesolithic Scandinavia ? I think it is still a sample bias and that I1 or pre-I1 will definitely show up in other Mesolithic Scandinavian samples.

What amazes me is the incredibly wide distribution of I2a1 in Mesolithic or Neolithic Europe. Beside Sweden and Luxembourg, I2a1 has been found in Early Neolithic France (Languedoc) and was surely present all over Southeast Europe based on its modern frequency there. Many people suggested that I2a1b only arrived in the Balkans with the Slavic invasions, but if I2a1b was already in Scandinavia, the Low Countries and southern France 8,000 years ago, there isn't any reason to believe that it couldn't have been in the Balkans back then too. That would confirm an origin of I2a1b at least 10-12,000 years ago. Obviously I2a-Din (L621) is a deeper subclade (I2a1b3), but it wouldn't take 6,000 to 10,000 years for a single mutation to develop. My own theory was that I2a-Din appeared around the Carpathians during the Neolithic (Cucuteni-Tripillian culture) and spread to the the Balkans with the Thracians and the Illyrians during the Bronze Age.

Maciamo
24-12-13, 20:43
Yet Norway has 43% autosomal DNA connected to mesolithic hunters. This strange discrepancy between autosomal connection and Y-DNA disconnection is also visible with mtDNA, I think. Norway has far less U5, U4 or U then 45%.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/12/ancient-human-genomes-suggest-three.html?showComment=1387851513157#c161663205072 1459316

That's because H1 and H3 are also Mesolithic, not Neolithic as many people like to claim. If you add H1 and H3 to U2, U4 and U5, you get 47.5% of Mesolithic mtDNA. On the Y-DNA side there is 31.5% of I1 and 4.5% of I2a2, so 36% in total. Of course Y-DNA can get replaced by invaders more easily without impacting the autosomal DNA very much.

epoch
24-12-13, 21:40
That's because H1 and H3 are also Mesolithic, not Neolithic as many people like to claim. If you add H1 and H3 to U2, U4 and U5, you get 47.5% of Mesolithic mtDNA. On the Y-DNA side there is 31.5% of I1 and 4.5% of I2a2, so 36% in total. Of course Y-DNA can get replaced by invaders more easily without impacting the autosomal DNA very much.

In another thread here I already wondered about this. If you look at the map of H1 + H3 you made it looks almost like the admixture map that Davidski presents. However, the more hunter-gatherers they find the more it turns out they are really almost solely U and subclades. We can now add another Swedish example and, wholely new territory, a Luxembourg.

I once thought that we mistakenly take all mesolithic hunter-gatherers for a singular entity. Since hardly any DNA was taken from France and the Benelux I figured it was possible they had all the mysterious H1 + H3. Now we have an example from the area and lo and behold: It's an U.

Still, La Brana 2 looks in some graphics like current day Swedes.

Indo-Europeans are not North-Eurasians, but Uralics are. However, the Uralic and Indo-European languages do show remarkable similarities. While some linguists consider that a genetic connection others don't. Most seem to agree though that these similarities mean they "grew up" next door to each other. Could it be that the ANE admixture may be a signal for Indo-Europeans, but that the actual IE carried only a part ANE to Europe? I am merely speculating - I am also merely a layman - but since Belorussinas and Ukranians also carry quite a large part of the WHG admixture I could imagine that parts of West-European WHG admixture was actually brought by Indo-Europeans. Just a thought though.

Idun
24-12-13, 21:55
In another thread here I already wondered about this. If you look at the map of H1 + H3 you made it looks almost like the admixture map that Davidski presents. However, the more hunter-gatherers they find the more it turns out they are really almost solely U and subclades. We can now add another Swedish example and, wholely new territory, a Luxembourg.

I once thought that we mistakenly take all mesolithic hunter-gatherers for a singular entity. Since hardly any DNA was taken from France and the Benelux I figured it was possible they had all the mysterious H1 + H3. Now we have an example from the area and lo and behold: It's an U.

Still, La Brana 2 looks in some graphics like current day Swedes.

Indo-Europeans are not North-Eurasians, but Uralics are. However, the Uralic and Indo-European languages do show remarkable similarities. While some linguists consider that a genetic connection others don't. Most seem to agree though that these similarities mean they "grew up" next door to each other. Could it be that the ANE admixture may be a signal for Indo-Europeans, but that the actual IE carried only a part ANE to Europe? I am merely speculating - I am also merely a layman - but since Belorussinas and Ukranians also carry quite a large part of the WHG admixture I could imagine that parts of West-European WHG admixture was actually brought by Indo-Europeans. Just a thought though.

N haplo is not European, they are mongols that came later and raped some blond women. :rolleyes2:


6151

LeBrok
24-12-13, 22:30
N haplo is not European, they are mongols that came later and raped some blond women. :rolleyes2:

Please Idun, keep your phobias in check.

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 22:30
On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.

It is pretty sure that Swedes are admixed with neolithic farmers to some extent (20%-25% in K12b and similar runs, but also consistently in the large admixture runs by the authors of this paper). The Saami are lacking this admixture completely.
So I wonder if this similarity of La Brana 2 with Swedes could be merely due to the southern admixture, resulting in similar admixture composition, because La Brana showed significant southern admixture in K12b for instance. The PWC hunter-gatherers ajv52/70 found in Gotland had almost no southern admixture and they clustered with Saami and Finns.
To me it is still unclear whether some hunter-gatherers in Iberia already experienced southern admixture (e.g. by farmers or near-eastern hunter-gatherers) or not. The authors rather suggest that the farmers were the ones which are admixed with hunter-gatherers, but I still think this is only half of the truth.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 22:36
I could imagine that parts of West-European WHG admixture was actually brought by Indo-Europeans. Just a thought though.
I think that at 7000 years ago WHG was all over the Europe already, it is called west because of Iberian La Brana find, and could originated there during LGM period. 7k ago is too early for IE to spread WHG around.


On page 6 of the Preview PDF, the authors state that Loschbour clusters with 7000 year old hunter-gatherers from Spain, allowing the authors to propose a "West European Hunter-Gatherer (WHG) meta-population. The footnote referenced makes it clear that the authors were referring to the La Brana finds. So, WHG = whoever those two mesolithic people at La Brana were.

epoch
24-12-13, 23:05
I think that at 7000 years ago WHG was all over the Europe already, it is called west because of Iberian La Brana find, and could originated there during LGM period. 7k ago is too early for IE to spread WHG around.

But perhaps WHG was even further eastward than all over Europe. Mal'ta showed it partialy. So where ever IE originated, part WHG was then among them.

Otherwise, where is the mesolithic H1 and H3 to make up for the missing amount of mtDNA to equal the 43% WHG admixture in the Norwegians? Or am I missing something?

EDIT: This link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf

ElHorsto
24-12-13, 23:39
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

The skull of the Loschbourg Hunter-Gatherer looks round and small and the browridges are huge, very strange (Fig. 1A). The La Brana skulls also were not Cro-Magnon-like I think. Don't know what it means. If any anthro-skilled members could comment this, it would be nice.

LeBrok
24-12-13, 23:45
But perhaps WHG was even further eastward than all over Europe. Mal'ta showed it partialy. So where ever IE originated, part WHG was then among them.

Otherwise, where is the mesolithic H1 and H3 to make up for the missing amount of mtDNA to equal the 43% WHG admixture in the Norwegians? Or am I missing something?

EDIT: This link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf

Certainly there was some WHG in IE, it is just hard to say how much at the moment. This WHG might have been stronger in R1a who came to Scandinavia with Corded Ware than with R1b to Western Europe.


Otherwise, where is the mesolithic H1 and H3 to make up for the missing amount of mtDNA to equal the 43% WHG admixture in the Norwegians? Or am I missing something? the Mt haplogroups don't need to necessary add up to confirm 43% autosomal admixture. It is nice if they do, but they don't contradict autosomal findings.

sparkey
24-12-13, 23:52
True, but where did I1 come from if not Mesolithic Scandinavia ? I think it is still a sample bias and that I1 or pre-I1 will definitely show up in other Mesolithic Scandinavian samples.

I think there is growing consensus that modern I1 has higher diversity in Northern Germany than in Scandinavia, and perhaps higher diversity yet in Pomerania than in Northern Germany. My best guess is that it was a small clade somewhere around the South Baltic, and got swept up in a westward expanding population of some sort (Corded Ware or something).


Ken Nordtvedt and others were wrong in their age estimation of I2a1b. It is much older than they thought.

No proof of that yet though. These results actually fit nicely in the Nordtvedt tree, and in fact seem to help fill in the apparent gap in I2a1b's modern distribution, which has always been split oddly between the far northwest of Europe and Eastern Europe.


I have criticised many times (eg here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28597-Current-age-estimats-of-I1-and-subclades?p=407838&viewfull=1#post407838)) the method for estimating the age of TMRCA of haplogroups, explaining that most estimates failed to take into account the vastly different historical population sizes of various geographic regions . Warm and fertile countries that adopted agriculture early had much bigger historical populations than northern regions where the hunter-gathering lifestyle survived much longer. Small populations produce less mutations and therefore their haplogroups appear younger than they really are. That is why the age of I subclades is constantly underestimated in relation to Neolithic lineages. This is also true for the mtDNA of hunter-gatherers (see here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29178-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroups-H1-H3?p=418871&viewfull=1#post418871) and here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25546-25-000-year-old-Russian-Cro-Magnons-might-have-been-hg-H17?p=353439&viewfull=1#post353439)).

I could understand a variable average generation time, and perhaps even climate-influenced mutation rates (although I don't know of any evidence for that...), but if true, how would that apply to I2a-Din, which had a relatively southern expansion some time after the adoption of farming? It would only apply to ancestral I2a1b, and I don't think the exact branching time of I2a1b with I2a1-L1294 has many implications with respect to the spread of I2a-Din, or of our finding I2a1b* in Mesolithic samples.

epoch
25-12-13, 00:28
the Mt haplogroups don't need to necessary add up to confirm 43% autosomal admixture. It is nice if they do, but they don't contradict autosomal findings.

Yes, I do realize that. Especially since mtDNA and Y-DNA are far more sensitive to genetic drift: The mother with four sons will loose her mtDNA line, yet contribute largely to autosomal DNA in a polygamous society if her sons take a number of wives, to make a point. But the pattern is so widespread. Almost all of Northwest Europe show little U5 and high H1 + H3. In quite a similar way.

ElHorsto
25-12-13, 00:40
But perhaps WHG was even further eastward than all over Europe. Mal'ta showed it partialy. So where ever IE originated, part WHG was then among them.

Otherwise, where is the mesolithic H1 and H3 to make up for the missing amount of mtDNA to equal the 43% WHG admixture in the Norwegians? Or am I missing something?

EDIT: This link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf

The evidence of paleolithic or mesolithic H is so sparse that I wonder whether it is real:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/palaeolithicdna.shtml

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

But even if it is real for west europe, it must have hibernated somewhere there hidden for a long time and suddenly exploded during Bronze age. The problem is that H multiplied suddenly so much while U remained quite stable in frequency. So even if H is paleolithic, it must be special. I would not discount the possibility that most of it appeared by Bell-Beakers and/or R1b newcomers.

Tabaccus Maximus
25-12-13, 03:35
Several things are becoming increasingly clear about H1 and H3:

1. If they did exist in Spain prior to the LGM, they apparently did not expand from there for many thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age. This is a hard sell, especially in light of La Brana which was also U5 and where La Brana-esque people did populate Europe. As resolution of European Mesolithic haplotypes improves, the supposed finds of Paleolithic and Mesolithic H becomes more questionable, given 1) they are generally older studies and 2) proper contextual identification (ie. Paglicci Cave shenanigans).

2. H1 has its highest diversity/frequency in the Syrian highlands and the North Caucacus. It is additionally found at respectable levels in Eastern Europe and among Turkoid peoples in Siberia. Doesn't sound Franco-Cantabrian to me.

3. H1 and H3 are both barely old enough to have experienced the LGM, much less trek to a distant place by some unknown culture, that apparently wasn't Gravettian, to hunker down before the snow flakes started blowing in LGM Europe. If later, then that would defeat the whole purpose of a "refuge hypothesis", which I think is bogus anyway.

4. The diversity, coalescent age and movement of H1 and H3 almost matches exactly the movement of M-269 from Upper Mespotamia/Syria/Anatolia via the North Caucasus into Yamnaya and from there Eastern Europe and Eastern Siberia. It also matches the origin and movement of the Secondary Products Revolution where lactose tolerance is near universal in places where these clades of H are found.

A believable scenario is that H subclades began moving into Europe with the earliest farming where they are found at reduced frequencies. Beaker people brought H1 and H3 from somewhere in the Near East to Spain, where they expanded from there, albeit unevenly, as the Kromsdorf men appear to have taken local women in Central Europe who were the maternal combinations of all previous ages (U2, U5, T1, K, W5, I1, etc)

Maciamo
25-12-13, 11:12
2. H1 has its highest diversity/frequency in the Syrian highlands and the North Caucacus. It is additionally found at respectable levels in Eastern Europe and among Turkoid peoples in Siberia. Doesn't sound Franco-Cantabrian to me.

Where did you get that info ? There are very few mtDNA studies on Syria, and all the data I have shows 0% of H1 or H3 in Syria.


3. H1 and H3 are both barely old enough to have experienced the LGM, much less trek to a distant place by some unknown culture, that apparently wasn't Gravettian, to hunker down before the snow flakes started blowing in LGM Europe. If later, then that would defeat the whole purpose of a "refuge hypothesis", which I think is bogus anyway.

I have criticised many times (e.g. here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28597-Current-age-estimats-of-I1-and-subclades?p=407838&viewfull=1#post407838), here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29178-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroups-H1-H3?p=418871&viewfull=1#post418871) and here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25546-25-000-year-old-Russian-Cro-Magnons-might-have-been-hg-H17?p=353439&viewfull=1#post353439)) the method for estimating the age of haplogroups, explaining that most estimates failed to take into account the vastly different historical population sizes of various geographic regions . Warm and fertile countries that adopted agriculture early had much bigger historical populations than northern regions where the hunter-gathering lifestyle survived much longer. Small populations produce less mutations and therefore their haplogroups appear younger than they really are. That is why the age of I subclades is constantly underestimated in relation to Neolithic lineages. This is also true for the mtDNA of hunter-gatherers.


4. The diversity, coalescent age and movement of H1 and H3 almost matches exactly the movement of M-269 from Upper Mespotamia/Syria/Anatolia via the North Caucasus into Yamnaya and from there Eastern Europe and Eastern Siberia. It also matches the origin and movement of the Secondary Products Revolution where lactose tolerance is near universal in places where these clades of H are found.

No it doesn't since H3 is virtually absent from the Near East and Caucasus, and H1 is pretty rare there too compared to Western and Northern Europe. I have many arguments to disprove that the Indo-Europeans (R1a or R1b) spread H1 and/or H3:

1) H1 and H3 reach one of their highest frequency in Sardinia (31.5%), which is the least Indo-European region in all Europe. Sardinia has one of the lowest percentages of haplogroup R1, close to 0% of East European admixture in the Dodecad, and hardly any ANE in this new study. The only R1b in Sardinia dates from the last 2000 years, notably the Roman and Catalan colonisations.


A believable scenario is that H subclades began moving into Europe with the earliest farming where they are found at reduced frequencies. Beaker people brought H1 and H3 from somewhere in the Near East to Spain, where they expanded from there, albeit unevenly, as the Kromsdorf men appear to have taken local women in Central Europe who were the maternal combinations of all previous ages (U2, U5, T1, K, W5, I1, etc)

It is a terrible mistake to lump all H subclades together as belonging either to Mesolithic European or to later Near Eastern arrivals (Neolithic or Bronze Age). Haplogroup H was present both in Europe and the Near East since the Palaeolithic. One of the oldest identified H sample (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25546-25-000-year-old-Russian-Cro-Magnons-might-have-been-hg-H17) is actually from Russia. H has also been found in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Iberia.

I agree that the Beaker expansion could have spread H1 and H3 around Western Europe, but it was surely already present from earlier (Mesolithic & Megalithic) migrations. It just increased their frequency.

Maciamo
25-12-13, 11:25
I think there is growing consensus that modern I1 has higher diversity in Northern Germany than in Scandinavia, and perhaps higher diversity yet in Pomerania than in Northern Germany. My best guess is that it was a small clade somewhere around the South Baltic, and got swept up in a westward expanding population of some sort (Corded Ware or something).

That's a possibility. It's just a bit hard to imagine how I1 remained isolated from the numerous LBK-related Neolithic cultures in Germany and Poland for nearly three millennia (c. 5500 to 2800 BCE), then that the R1a expansion of the Corded Ware culture picked up almost exclusively I1 and I2a2 lineages with them to Scandinavia, while the majority of Neolithic lineages in the region must have been Near Eastern (E, G, J, T). Even if I1 and I2a2 did maintain their hunter-gathering lifestyle, living in completely secluded communities side-by-side with the Neolithic farmers, how could I1 lineages have become so numerous in comparison to all other haplogroups, even exceeding the R1a of the Chalcolithic invaders at a ratio of 2:1 ? It doesn't make sense.

If the population of northern Germany and Pomerania had been swept up in the expansion of the Corded Ware culture, we would expect a population in which R1a is dominant, and the rest being a blend of various Mesolithic (I1, I2) and Neolithic lineages (E, G, J, T), but with surely a larger Neolithic faction since farmers could keep much larger populations than hunter-gatherers. I can think of three other possibilities, but all pretty far-fetched:

1) I1 hunter-gatherers of northern Germany adopted agriculture on their own by copying their LBK neighbours, or absorbing a tiny number of LBK lineages. I1 farmers then spread agriculture to Scandinavia, where hunter-gatherers belonged to I2a1 (Motala). Since the autosomal DNA of Gök4, a Neolithic farmer from Sweden, was clearly Near Eastern, it renders the possibility of I1 introducing agriculture extremely unlikely.

2) I1 was part of the original Corded Ware people alongside R1a, or was picked up very early on around Belarus and eastern Poland. Through a dramatic founder effect, the Corded Ware people who settled in Scandinavia were mostly I1, with a R1a and I2a2 minority. However I1 has never shown up in ancient sites in Eastern Europe, nor in the Corded Ware samples from Eulau, which contained only R1a. The likelihood is therefore also low.

3) Corded Ware was truly an R1a-dominated expansion. LBK lineages dominated most of Germany and Poland, except in the northern coastal areas, which were almost exclusively inhabited by I1 hunter-gatherers. When R1a arrived along the Baltic coast, I1 people quickly adopted their ways of life and technologies, and the Corded Ware was spread from northern Germany and Denmark to Sweden and Norway by I1 and R1a people. There is no evidence supporting such a far-fetched scenario either.

That is why I think that the most likely scenario is that I1 was the lineage of Mesolithic Scandinavians all along, and that the I2* and I2a1b samples from Motala are simply unrepresentative. Two other Motala samples (#2 and #9) were described as I*, but could very well have been pre-I1.




No proof of that yet though. These results actually fit nicely in the Nordtvedt tree, and in fact seem to help fill in the apparent gap in I2a1b's modern distribution, which has always been split oddly between the far northwest of Europe and Eastern Europe.


I might have had some older version of Nordtvedt tree in mind. It's true that the current tree fits.



I could understand a variable average generation time, and perhaps even climate-influenced mutation rates (although I don't know of any evidence for that...), but if true, how would that apply to I2a-Din, which had a relatively southern expansion some time after the adoption of farming? It would only apply to ancestral I2a1b, and I don't think the exact branching time of I2a1b with I2a1-L1294 has many implications with respect to the spread of I2a-Din, or of our finding I2a1b* in Mesolithic samples.

If I2a-Din had a relatively southern expansion some time after the adoption of farming, then it makes more sense that I2a-Din spread relatively early, first with the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture (4800-3000 BCE), then with the Proto-Thracians of the Multi-cordoned ware culture (2200-1800 BCE), and eventually with the Daco-Thracians and Illyrians, rather than with the Slavs several millennia later. Wouldn't it ?

Idun
25-12-13, 11:53
Please Idun, keep your phobias in check.

Just having fun as you try to work around this stuff.

ElHorsto
25-12-13, 12:49
On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.

One more thought: Such plots are always a projection of multi dimensional information down to two-dimensional (sometimes three-dimensional), which means many informations are being sacrificed in order to be able to make a visually comprehensible representation. In the first plot above I noticed that Hungarians cluster closest with both, Swedes and Romanians. I think this not possible. At the same time, many swedish individuals appear much more distant to other swedes than all hungarian individuals. Not to mention Finns. I guess this map exaggerated the recent isolation effects of populations more than their ancestries. Notably the second plot looks different. It depends on the actual samples which principal components are being selected by the algorithm. They can be different each time.

Idun
25-12-13, 12:53
One more thought: Such plots are always a projection of multi dimensional information down to two-dimensional (sometimes three-dimensional), which means many informations are being sacrificed in order to be able to make a visually comprehensible representation. In the first plot above I noticed that Hungarians cluster closest with both, Swedes and Romanians. I think this not possible. At the same time, many swedish individuals appear much more distant to other swedes than all hungarian individuals. Not to mention Finns. I guess this map exaggerated the recent isolation effects of populations more than their ancestries. Notably the second plot looks different. It depends on the actual samples which principal components are being selected by the algorithm. They can be different each time.

Yep, they are drifting.

Tabaccus Maximus
26-12-13, 14:18
Where did you get that info ? There are very few mtDNA studies on Syria, and all the data I have shows 0% of H1 or H3 in Syria.

No it doesn't since H3 is virtually absent from the Near East and Caucasus, and H1 is pretty rare there too compared to Western and Northern Europe. I have many arguments to disprove that the Indo-Europeans (R1a or R1b) spread H1 and/or H3:

1) H1 and H3 reach one of their highest frequency in Sardinia (31.5%), which is the least Indo-European region in all Europe. Sardinia has one of the lowest percentages of haplogroup R1, close to 0% of East European admixture in the Dodecad, and hardly any ANE in this new study. The only R1b in Sardinia dates from the last 2000 years, notably the Roman and Catalan colonisations.

It is a terrible mistake to lump all H subclades together as belonging either to Mesolithic European or to later Near Eastern arrivals (Neolithic or Bronze Age). Haplogroup H was present both in Europe and the Near East since the Palaeolithic. One of the oldest identified H sample (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25546-25-000-year-old-Russian-Cro-Magnons-might-have-been-hg-H17) is actually from Russia. H has also been found in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Iberia.

I agree that the Beaker expansion could have spread H1 and H3 around Western Europe, but it was surely already present from earlier (Mesolithic & Megalithic) migrations. It just increased their frequency.

I meant Lebanon, not Syria. My mistake. H1 is at roughly 2.5% total maternal linages comprising a total of 22% of H* in the area, and it's more than 5% in the Caucasus. It's also 2% total in Mespotamia, whose distribution would probably shift to the right if taking only the Northern half or the Kurdish areas. I think that is significant given the diversity of maternal lines in this area.
The high frequency in highly endogamous populations like the Taureg (70%) are not so impressive, neither is the 27% in Northern Iberia where other factors are probably responsible for the unusual frequencies of haplogroups here.

I have always thought H* began spreading into Europe in the Neolithic (not IE). It makes sense that it would be found with LBK or Rossen Cultures, etc. These cultures spread from the East and brought H* with it.


1) H1 and H3 reach one of their highest frequency in Sardinia (31.5%), which is the least Indo-European region in all Europe. Sardinia has one of the lowest percentages of haplogroup R1, close to 0% of East European admixture in the Dodecad, and hardly any ANE in this new study. The only R1b in Sardinia dates from the last 2000 years, notably the Roman and Catalan colonisations.

That makes sense because H1 is a Middle Eastern lineage found in a population (at 31%) autosomally closest to (NNE) Neolithic Near Easterners, not Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers who re-populated Europe from Spain.

edit. answer to first question. Roostaul et al, 2007

sparkey
26-12-13, 18:06
That's a possibility. It's just a bit hard to imagine how I1 remained isolated from the numerous LBK-related Neolithic cultures in Germany and Poland for nearly three millennia (c. 5500 to 2800 BCE), then that the R1a expansion of the Corded Ware culture picked up almost exclusively I1 and I2a2 lineages with them to Scandinavia, while the majority of Neolithic lineages in the region must have been Near Eastern (E, G, J, T). Even if I1 and I2a2 did maintain their hunter-gathering lifestyle, living in completely secluded communities side-by-side with the Neolithic farmers, how could I1 lineages have become so numerous in comparison to all other haplogroups, even exceeding the R1a of the Chalcolithic invaders at a ratio of 2:1 ? It doesn't make sense.

Do we have an idea of the absolute regional population size at the beginning of the Chalcolithic vs. at the end? Without looking, I would guess it to be a significant change, which may mean that the original ratios would not tell much. YDNA looks really susceptible to drifting away from original ratios, particularly during periods of rapid expansion and decline.

I'm wondering if there is a clue about YDNA ratio changes in our new-found evidence that the local I2a1b not only got to a smaller percentage, but was wiped out.


If I2a-Din had a relatively southern expansion some time after the adoption of farming, then it makes more sense that I2a-Din spread relatively early, first with the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture (4800-3000 BCE), then with the Proto-Thracians of the Multi-cordoned ware culture (2200-1800 BCE), and eventually with the Daco-Thracians and Illyrians, rather than with the Slavs several millennia later. Wouldn't it ?

I don't think the data precludes either scenario yet. My point was only about when your proposed STR dating failures would kick in. If your "Cucuteni-Tripillian etc." scenario is true, wouldn't the STR dating failures have stopped by the beginning of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture? Meaning that I2a-Din ought to date older than it does using conventional STR dating models?

Maciamo
26-12-13, 21:09
I don't think the data precludes either scenario yet. My point was only about when your proposed STR dating failures would kick in. If your "Cucuteni-Tripillian etc." scenario is true, wouldn't the STR dating failures have stopped by the beginning of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture? Meaning that I2a-Din ought to date older than it does using conventional STR dating models?

Yes, I understand what you meant. The problem is that we don't know for sure that I2b1 became Neolithic farmers (Cucuteni-Tripillian culture or other), and without knowing that it is impossible to know how to adjust the age. Even if we knew it is still hard to estimate the true historical population size. Not all Neolithic populations were equal. Some grew faster because they lived in unusually fertile lands or experience few periods of wars or diseases. But even that is not set firmly neither in space, nor in time. Climate evolves over the centuries and millennia. The natural environment gets depleted. Epidemics happen...

There are such a long list of unknown factor for each region century after century that I do not see how it is possible to make accurate age estimations using the same method for every region, every type of society (hunter-gatherers vs farmers vs herders) and every historical period. It's far more complicated than to try to predict the evolution of the stock exchange. Both have a lot of data to take into account, but at least for the modern economy we have reliable facts and data, whereas for prehistory we hardly know 1% of what the climatic, political and economic circumstances were for each generation before the invention of writing.

Just to give one practical example, how do you compute the age of I2a1 subclades if some subclades remained hunter-gatherers in parts of Europe, while others adopted agriculture during the same period and develop much faster ? Without knowing that at least one of the two ages will be completely wrong.

ElHorsto
26-12-13, 22:57
On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.

Sorry, yet one third thought on this: The Saami have some siberian admixture (~14%), whereas the Swedes and La Brana have almost none. This siberian could represent an additional obstacle for La Brana to cluster with Saami and an incentive to cluster with Swedes instead (in certain specific plots only), even if their shared ancestry else were major, like 90%.

Alan
27-12-13, 02:27
My guess : R arrived in Ukraine 15000 years ago (coming from Mal'ta?) :

http://archaeology.about.com/od/ancienthouses/g/mammoth_huts.htm

They were mammoth hunters, in summer they went hunting more north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezine

That is how ANE and WHG first met.

Unlikely, More likely this Mal'ta individual came from somewhere in Central Asia.

Since his autosomal DNA is 3/10% North European, 3/10% Caucasus-Gedrosia, 3/10% Amerindian and 1/10% ASI.

There is no R* in Ukraine. And it probably reached Ukraine only as R1a and R1b in two waves.

Since R* is so close to the common origin P* to which also Q belongs to, it is no surprise to find Amerindian like connection in him. I don't use the term admixture on purpose because it is not admixture but a common genetic origin before P* split entirely into East and West Eurasian, so it is no surprise to find in the earliest clades of R* Amerindian genes and I am sure the same will be the case with the earliest forms of Q*.

And this is a good sign for my theory that early Indo-Europeans had likely North Euro and Caucasus-Gedrosia genes.

nordicwarrior
27-12-13, 07:55
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...

nordicwarrior
27-12-13, 08:14
When we think of wholesale population replacement, we often attribute it to victory in warfare or some esoteric cultural advantage. One needs only to travel the Deep South in the U.S. to see that population growth can have a unique and unpredictable pathway when DNA is writing the script.

In the Southern U.S., slavery served an enormous boost (genitically speaking-- going by offspring produced in the Americas) to paternal lines previously found in sub-Sahara Africa (mainly hg's A and E). Obviously there are tremendous disadvantages that come with this method of expansion. My point only is that we need to examine all possible scenerios when examing the mysteries of historical population growth.

nordicwarrior
27-12-13, 08:29
This actually shows that old clads can be replaced with new "improved" (more adapted) ones rather quickly and without big difficulties. It can explain quick dominance of some R1bs and I2a-Dinaric. Pretty much in agreement what you were always suspecting.

But wait a minute-- doesn't I1 enjoy a number advantage in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Western Finland? (compared to the R1b's). Huh, I guess that would make hg. I1 the "new and improved version". Thank you Lebrok, I didn't know you had it in you! :)

Idun
27-12-13, 11:58
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...

Wait for the Aryan/Sarmatian/Slav attack. :laughing:

epoch
27-12-13, 13:53
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...

The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28824-Early-Indo-Iranien-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?

Idun
27-12-13, 15:48
The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28824-Early-Indo-Iranien-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?

As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.

epoch
27-12-13, 18:04
As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.

Or possibly Uralic and Indo-Europeans were basically of the same stock. On a high level connections between the language families have been found, possibly beyond simple loanwords. The hunter-gatherer bearing mtDNA H comes from the neighbourhood of Karelia.

Where we need to keep in mind that language similarities not always mean genetic ties.

Alan
27-12-13, 23:46
As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.


I doubt that most of the ancient time Indo-Europeans were dominated by Uralic speakers. It appears more like Indo-Europeans more and more replaced Uralic speakers in East Europe. From Corded Ware in Northeast Europe to Scythians in the steppes and Ural mountains.

The reason why Uralic speakers share Haplogroups with Indo-European speakers is because of related origin. Since Dravidian, Caucasian, Uralic, Indo-European share one origin.

nordicwarrior
28-12-13, 04:23
The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28824-Early-Indo-Iranien-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?

What it sounds like is that you are trying very hard to prove blonde hair and blue eyes come from somewhere other than Europe.

Aberdeen
28-12-13, 04:50
I know that hair and eye colour aren't dependent on haplotype, but I have Y haplotype I1, and have golden brown hair (now with some grey) and blue eyes. I wonder how many other I1 people who have a predominantly northern European background (as most I1s do) have light hair and blue eyes? I suspect both light hair and blue eyes developed somewhere in Europe, with light hair developing perhaps among blue eyed people who were predominantly I1. Although it's becoming somewhat of a mystery where I1 originated, there's not much doubt that it was somewhere in Europe.

Jackson
28-12-13, 04:54
I know that hair and eye colour aren't dependent on haplotype, but I have Y haplotype I1, and have golden brown hair (now with some grey) and blue eyes. I wonder how many other I1 people who have a predominantly northern European background (as most I1s do) have light hair and blue eyes? I suspect both light hair and blue eyes developed somewhere in Europe, perhaps among people who were predominantly I1. Although it's becoming somewhat of a mystery where I1 developed, there's not much doubt that it was somewhere in Europe.

I have medium brown hair and blue eyes (which is pretty typical), although i was blond/light brown until puberty pretty much (which is also fairly typical). The only general thing i can see among the I1's in my family is that they are/were big and robust, and seem to have a talent for unarmed combat. xD My father and grandfather are actually darker than average in terms of skin and hair tone, but both have light eyes and were fair in childhood.

adamo
28-12-13, 05:05
Same for my grandfather; italian origin, I2a, hi liter wooly blond hair and extreme light blue/grey eyes. These features seem more common in I lineage males, I actually posted a photo of him in the guess the ethnicity section....remarkably handsome man, my mother passed his looks to me although I have brown hair and brown eyes!

adamo
28-12-13, 05:08
It's funny cause in terms of what I know, everything other than my direct paternal T marker is European! (2x mtdna H and 1x y-DNA I2a, although there's much more to a persons genome of course). I look a lot like my maternal grandfather but with straight brown hair and brown eyes.

Idun
28-12-13, 05:51
I doubt that most of the ancient time Indo-Europeans were dominated by Uralic speakers. It appears more like Indo-Europeans more and more replaced Uralic speakers in East Europe. From Corded Ware in Northeast Europe to Scythians in the steppes and Ural mountains.

The reason why Uralic speakers share Haplogroups with Indo-European speakers is because of related origin. Since Dravidian, Caucasian, Uralic, Indo-European share one origin.


You do understand that Uralics moved from the Volga-Kama area in to the Baltic region after the IE and held most of European Russia until the Slav expansion 1000 yrs ago?

There is no way around it, either they where of the same stock or the Uralics dominated, I know many of you hate both but pick one. :good_job:

Idun
28-12-13, 07:03
The Yakuts are a good example of a small group of N1c men coming and ruling the locals.

Then we have Rurik in Sweden/Russia and Gediminas in Lithuania, maybe a statistical fluke.
I agree that it could turn out to be of Indo-European origin, we being of the same stock and all.:laughing:

epoch
28-12-13, 09:55
What it sounds like is that you are trying very hard to prove blonde hair and blue eyes come from somewhere other than Europe.

First, I don't try to prove anything at this point. Prove for whatever theory will come when we have far, far more samples. This is all merely speculation.

Secondly, forget about the blonde thing if you so wish: The main idea is that part of WHG admixture came with the third component of european admixture in this study: ANE. And that the combined influx of ANE and part WHG was due to indo-europeans.

Thirdly, there is the idea that blonde hair and blue eyes evolved rather late, during the neolthicum. And we only have only few european examples where skin colour and hair colour are being sampled but these do not come up with blonde hair.

So possibly it could turn out that we also find examples of blonde mesolithic hunter-gatherers. Or possibly it all evolved later. But it does look surprising that where ever indo-europeans are found some sort of blonde and blue eyes appear, be it in historical sources - ligurians described as having "auburn hair" - or in current day appearance. It could mean nothing, it could be the source of current day blondeness.

Maciamo
28-12-13, 11:09
It's not only *these* hunter-gatherers who are darker skinned than Oetzi...so was Mal'ta...it seems to me that the evidence so far is that lighter skin did not appear in Europe until at least the Neolithic. While today, skin pigmentation correlates very well with amounts of solar radiation, this was obviously not always true. I don't think anyone yet knows the factors that brought about depigmentation, but part of the answer may indeed be that snow and ice conditions would not favor fairer skinned people. Also, until the Neolithic took hold, much of western Europe was forest. I would suggest that diet may have played a role.

I still think that diet may have played a role as well. Lactase tolerance also is not present in any of these people, and I think is undoubtedly tied to the rise of dairy farming.

But Mal'ta was an East Siberian hunter-gatherer, not a European one. Siberians and Native Americans have darker skin than Europeans even today.

Idun
28-12-13, 12:11
Or possibly Uralic and Indo-Europeans were basically of the same stock. On a high level connections between the language families have been found, possibly beyond simple loanwords. The hunter-gatherer bearing mtDNA H comes from the neighbourhood of Karelia.

Where we need to keep in mind that language similarities not always mean genetic ties.

I understand that but most of the language shifters, aka I-E folk, forget that more often.

Idun
28-12-13, 12:26
Davidski has made a test with these three components.

http://bga101.blogspot.fi/

epoch
28-12-13, 13:06
Davidski has made a test with these three components.

http://bga101.blogspot.fi/

Nice. What also would be interesting is to see a number of neolithic and bronze age samples broken down to WHG, ANE, EEF.

Alan
28-12-13, 13:20
You do understand that Uralics moved from the Volga-Kama area in to the Baltic region after the IE and held most of European Russia until the Slav expansion 1000 yrs ago?

There is no way around it, either they where of the same stock or the Uralics dominated, I know many of you hate both but pick one. :good_job:

Please provide me with some sources for this. When exactly was this? I have never heard of that. in any time frame Uralics ruled over Russia. It is more likely that they fled back into Russia when the Corded Ware replaced Uralic speakers in Northeast Europe and Scythians ruled over the whole Ural Region + the Steppe Region.

Elite Dominance is visible in Finns themselves. Which are paternally very high in Haplogroup I*, a Germanic Haplogroup.

Most lineages which are shared between Uralic and Indo European speakers are based on maternal Haplogroups. It's not like this is something so rare that it must be the result of "Elite dominance". Considering that even Caucasian groups share most of their mtDNA with Indo-Europeans, everything else beside same origin, sounds ridiculous.

Idun
28-12-13, 13:51
Please provide me with some sources for this. When exactly was this? I have never heard of that. in any time frame Uralics ruled over Russia. It is more likely that they fled back into Russia when the Corded Ware replaced Uralic speakers in Northeast Europe and Scythians ruled over the whole Ural Region + the Steppe Region.

Elite Dominance is visible in Finns themselves. Which are paternally very high in Haplogroup I*, a Germanic Haplogroup.

Most lineages which are shared between Uralic and Indo European speakers are based on maternal Haplogroups. It's not like this is something so rare that it must be the result of "Elite dominance". Considering that even Caucasian groups share most of their mtDNA with Indo-Europeans, everything else beside same origin, sounds ridiculous.


Yep, Uralics are tree hugging hobbits that fled to the trees always when they saw the big bad Aryan coming.:laughing:

You are seriously saying Uralics have been fleeing around Eurasia back and forth? How did they come back to the Baltic area after they fled? Or they where there first?
How did they keep their language? Impressed it to the Germanic masters?

Idun
28-12-13, 14:40
Nice. What also would be interesting is to see a number of neolithic and bronze age samples broken down to WHG, ANE, EEF.

I dont think we have to wait long. =) And the migration period samples they are getting is big news for this new year.

Petter
28-12-13, 16:32
Please provide me with some sources for this. When exactly was this? I have never heard of that. in any time frame Uralics ruled over Russia. It is more likely that they fled back into Russia when the Corded Ware replaced Uralic speakers in Northeast Europe and Scythians ruled over the whole Ural Region + the Steppe Region.

Elite Dominance is visible in Finns themselves. Which are paternally very high in Haplogroup I*, a Germanic Haplogroup.

Until the eastward Slavic expansion, Northeastern Europe was dominated by Uralic speakers, I have never seen any source claim anything else. What other group would have been there?

The Finns were not dominated by any elite until they were incorporated into Sweden around 1200-1300. I dont see how that relates to any of this though.

Idun
28-12-13, 16:52
Until the eastward Slavic expansion, Northeastern Europe was dominated by Uralic speakers, I have never seen any source claim anything else. What other group would have been there?

The Finns were not dominated by any elite until they were incorporated into Sweden around 1200-1300. I dont see how that relates to any of this though.

And I consider the times we had common history, Finland was part of Sweden proper, hate those that try to deny that.
Birger was a maniac that killed his own people first and then came to Finland ending the old rule.
But mostly good times compared to rest of Europe after that, Finns as individuals where still free citizens.

epoch
28-12-13, 22:03
If the population of northern Germany and Pomerania had been swept up in the expansion of the Corded Ware culture, we would expect a population in which R1a is dominant, and the rest being a blend of various Mesolithic (I1, I2) and Neolithic lineages (E, G, J, T), but with surely a larger Neolithic faction since farmers could keep much larger populations than hunter-gatherers. I can think of three other possibilities, but all pretty far-fetched:

1) I1 hunter-gatherers of northern Germany adopted agriculture on their own by copying their LBK neighbours, or absorbing a tiny number of LBK lineages. I1 farmers then spread agriculture to Scandinavia, where hunter-gatherers belonged to I2a1 (Motala). Since the autosomal DNA of Gök4, a Neolithic farmer from Sweden, was clearly Near Eastern, it renders the possibility of I1 introducing agriculture extremely unlikely.


However, consider this: Pitted Ware culture was not solely hunter-gatherer. They kept pigs, to give an example. Furthermore, while Bell Beaker Gök4's autosomal DNA clearly shows the same Near Eastern tendency there is archeological evidence for continuity from hunter-gatherer towards agriculture in several cultures along the North Sea coast - the Swifterband culture, the Ertebolla culture and others - which, before DNA testing came by, gave rise among Dutch archeologists to the idea the spread of agriculture in all of Europe was a case of diffusion. And that may increase the possibility that at least part of agriculture was due to hunter-gatherers making the switch. Furthermore, there is evidence of burial custom continuity from mesolithic times at the edges of LBK culture area.

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPlenneis34.pdf

So how to explain the current genetic finds? Well, consider this: LBK were wheat growers, and maybe the converted HG were not. Maybe we currently like to sample LBK and Bell Beaker samples because we consider them typical for the spread agriculture? Maybe that is biased towards wheat growers on loess grounds and therefore biased to the Near Eastern genetic influence?

Currently I would say genetic evidence is against this. But not definitively against this scenario, not until more samples have been taken. We might be surprised when the big number of samples start to come in.

http://the-rise.se/

Alan
29-12-13, 00:35
Until the eastward Slavic expansion, Northeastern Europe was dominated by Uralic speakers, I have never seen any source claim anything else. What other group would have been there?

The Finns were not dominated by any elite until they were incorporated into Sweden around 1200-1300. I dont see how that relates to any of this though.

I think you misunderstood. No one said Northeastern Europe was not dominated by Uralic speakers before Indo-Europeans expanded, and it wasn't actually me arguing that Indo-Europeans dominated the Uralic speakers, but him with his Aryan=Slave theory. But as you said they were slowly replaced by Baltic and Slavic speakers. But Idun claimed that the reason for shared Haplogroups is that there was some kind of Uralic "Elite dominance" on top of the Indo-Europeans.

Idun
29-12-13, 00:49
I think you misunderstood. No one said Northeastern Europe was not dominated by Uralic speakers before Slavs expanded, and it wasn't actually me arguing that Indo-Europeans dominated the Uralic speakers, but him with his Aryan=Slave theory. But as you said they were slowly replaced by Baltic and Slavic speakers. But Idun claimed that the reason for shared Haplogroups is that there was some kind of Uralic "Elite dominance" on top of the Indo-Europeans.


They must have pitied Uralics and let them have their women also and keep our language, pity on the rest that had to give it all.:cool-v:

LeBrok
29-12-13, 01:40
They must have pitied Uralics and let them have their women also and keep our language, pity on the rest that had to give it all.:cool-v:
You are so pure and superior that my eyes hurt looking at your pristine beauty. Did it ever occured to you that nobody really cares about this, but you? It is actually sick when you brag about this every time you can. Sadly for you, nobody gives a shit what you are.

Idun
29-12-13, 13:00
You are so pure and superior that my eyes hurt looking at your pristine beauty. Did it ever occured to you that nobody really cares about this, but you? It is actually sick when you brag about this every time you can. Sadly for you, nobody gives a shit what you are.


I sense tension, want to arm wrestle? :laughing:

Someone has to bring new perspective when all you hear is the one track humming from some of the I-E folk.

Last time I heard in cab from a Kurd driver that I was related to the Turks and he was related to the other Europeans. :laughing:

I dont really care for most of you, I would like a big wall around the north and you can degenerate away in peace.

LeBrok
29-12-13, 23:28
I sense tension, want to arm wrestle? :laughing:

Someone has to bring new perspective when all you hear is the one track humming from some of the I-E folk.

Last time I heard in cab from a Kurd driver that I was related to the Turks and he was related to the other Europeans. :laughing:

I dont really care for most of you, I would like a big wall around the north and you can degenerate away in peace.

This is a very old perspective, old as humankind, of racial purity and racial or ethnic group superiority. You're banned for racism.

Aberdeen
30-12-13, 03:58
To try to get the thread back on its initial subject, I thought that LeBrok phrased the issue well.



Very interesting paper.
So it means that 4th wave of population, the Indo Europeans, didn't bring much of autosomal change. If not their strong paternal Y influence and the language, we wouldn't be able to guess from autosomal DNA correlation and comparison. Or perhaps they were already strongly mixed with ANE in West Asia and East Europe and with EEF of Anatolia, and lacking their unique autosomal signal?

So basically, either IE folks were a small elite who imposed their language and culture without massively changing the autosomal DNA correlation or the folks living in the IE homeland had an autosomal DNA correlation similar to what was already in western Europe at that time. If it's the latter, does this tell us anything more about who the IE folk were and where they came from?

adamo
30-12-13, 06:29
LMFAO, his solution is "want to arm wrestle"; the heck is wrong with this guy?? Righteously banned! I sense the tension, want to arm wrestle? Boom; banned! And no more tension to sense! I "sense" his next post was going to be significantly more aggresive: )

MOESAN
09-01-14, 23:19
Yeah, I think in particular many Indo-Europeans brought even more ANE to europe, besides west asian. This would explain why almost all europeans are closer to ANE today than to WHG in the PCA map. Ironically, some Finno-Ugric peoples would be autosomally closer to the some original Indo-Europeans too. Loschbourg looks suspiciously isolated in PCA plot, even more than La Brana.

Hii! I answer you and others by the way - I had not enough time (for a low speed brain) to exploit this post in Europgenes - very interesting indeed -
I had the chance to see the face look of the skull of Looschburg, "WHG" - isolated? not too amazing: he has the more rugged more archaïc type of crania I never saw among Mesolithic people: a kind of "super-Brünn" non evolved type!!! (not Cro-Magnoid!)
not all first farmers DID MIX (as a whole) firstable:but the story was not always the same as time passed - some colonies travelled quickly and far without heavy mixing - but if we have some small confidence in anthropology, we see the western Germany farmers LBK or post-LBK were sometimes of dominant mesolithical origin (diverse levels of mixture with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünn-capelloids' with few Near-Easterners accretions) , bordering other LBK settlements with strong Near-Easterners weight (and these last ones later descendants as far as Normandy and Alsace and Île-de-France Eneolithic-Chalcolithic)-
the Y-I2a1 presence in Scandinavia is a kick to my old religion!!! but I already wrote I think a lot or the present days Y-I1 in Scandinavia came lately enough (proto-germanic times?) from South, after gathering (pooling?) and osmose with Y-R1b-U106 and Y-R1a (some Y-R1a were passed before them into Scandinavia?) - I think these Y-I1 stayed for the most Souththe Baltic shores stretching from Denmark to Estonia before being drown under Y-N + Y-R1a pre-Baltic (Ugric?) and Baltic people -
I 'm not sure these South Baltic shore dwellings did not see since long ago some Y-R-U106 too?, even before Y-R1a...

MOESAN
10-01-14, 13:22
[QUOTE=MOESAN;423873]
I had the chance to see the face look of the skull of Looschburg, "WHG" - isolated? not too amazing: he has the more rugged more archaïc type of crania I never saw among Mesolithic people: a kind of "super-Brünn" non evolved type!!! (not Cro-Magnoid!)
not all first farmers DID MIX (as a whole) firstable:but the story was not always the same as time passed - some colonies travelled quickly and far without heavy mixing - but if we have some small confidence in anthropology, we see the western Germany farmers LBK or post-LBK were sometimes of dominant mesolithical origin (diverse levels of mixture with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünn-capelloids' with few Near-Easterners accretions) , bordering other LBK settlements with strong Near-Easterners weight (and these last ones later descendants as far as Normandy and Alsace and Île-de-France Eneolithic-Chalcolithic)-

I add: this kind of neolithical culture of West Germany (and surroundings) with a mesolithic type population is the one called Michelsberg culture

gyms
11-01-14, 10:13
Elite Dominance is visible in Finns themselves. Which are paternally very high in Haplogroup I*, a Germanic Haplogroup.

Is y haplogroup I* germanic?Wow.

Sile
11-01-14, 10:20
Elite Dominance is visible in Finns themselves. Which are paternally very high in Haplogroup I*, a Germanic Haplogroup.

Is y haplogroup I* germanic?Wow.

I thought it was from modern Bosnia and it chased the herds up north as the ice cap melted, finally settling around Hanover to hamburg areas...........that where remains have been found

nordicwarrior
11-01-14, 14:18
...he has the more rugged more archaïc type of crania I never saw among Mesolithic people: a kind of "super-Brünn" non evolved type!!! (not Cro-Magnoid!)...

The irony here is that Idun got banned for racism.

I think we need to appreciate everyone's viewpoint. Who wants to have a conversation with a room full of people that nod in agreement with everything you say?

Idun should not have been banned. If you read the thread closely, it was the moderator that lowered the level of conversation first. This was not handled properly.

adamo
11-01-14, 15:05
He also wanted to get physical via engaging in discussion about overpowering and arm wrestling by the way, not that I had anything against the fellow.

adamo
11-01-14, 15:09
Which is pretty over the edge and messed up either way you look at it XD

MOESAN
11-01-14, 15:54
I thought it was from modern Bosnia and it chaser the herds up north as the ice cap melted, finally settling around Hanover to hamburg areas...........that where remains have been found


Bosnia showed very few human remnants for Paloe-Mesolithic - I suppose you can abandon this theory - I see Y-I* and first downstreams rather closer to middle lattitudes of Central Europe, from N-France to Carpathians, during the LGM and after - I speak here of the bulk of the population - at more remote origin they could have been born in E-Anatolia S-Caucasus???
Concerning Y-I1 among Finns, it is almost sure the first ones came from S-Baltic (at Chalcolithic?) with a battle-axes culture, so maybe I-Ean but not already germanic speaking (more a proto-baltic or even proto-satem?) - agricultors ("beginners") - other Y-I1 could arrive there after, from Scandinavia -
by the way, it seems that among Eastern Finns (Carelia), the elite was of Y-N1 type, of N-siberian component (partly mongoloid only), taking NE european females -
just my opinion

ElHorsto
11-01-14, 18:40
Hii! I answer you and others by the way - I had not enough time (for a low speed brain) to exploit this post in Europgenes - very interesting indeed -
I had the chance to see the face look of the skull of Looschburg, "WHG" - isolated? not too amazing: he has the more rugged more archaïc type of crania I never saw among Mesolithic people: a kind of "super-Brünn" non evolved type!!! (not Cro-Magnoid!)
not all first farmers DID MIX (as a whole) firstable:but the story was not always the same as time passed - some colonies travelled quickly and far without heavy mixing - but if we have some small confidence in anthropology, we see the western Germany farmers LBK or post-LBK were sometimes of dominant mesolithical origin (diverse levels of mixture with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünn-capelloids' with few Near-Easterners accretions) , bordering other LBK settlements with strong Near-Easterners weight (and these last ones later descendants as far as Normandy and Alsace and Île-de-France Eneolithic-Chalcolithic)-

Thank you! I start to wonder whether "Cro-Magnoid" actually ceased to be exclusively european long time ago, because Cro-Magnoid skull shape is defined by the old Cro-Magnon which is over 30000 years old and because such skulls else have been found 10000 years ago in north Africa (Afalou, Mechta), where WHG component is absent. Maybe this type partly defined the Caucasoids in general. It would be funny if it turns out that the mesolithic "Cro-Magnons" are less Cro-Magnoid than say Indo-Europeans.

LeBrok
11-01-14, 19:55
Hii! I answer you and others by the way - I had not enough time (for a low speed brain) to exploit this post in Europgenes - very interesting indeed -
I had the chance to see the face look of the skull of Looschburg, "WHG" - isolated? not too amazing: he has the more rugged more archaïc type of crania I never saw among Mesolithic people: a kind of "super-Brünn" non evolved type!!! (not Cro-Magnoid!)
not all first farmers DID MIX (as a whole) firstable:but the story was not always the same as time passed - some colonies travelled quickly and far without heavy mixing - but if we have some small confidence in anthropology, we see the western Germany farmers LBK or post-LBK were sometimes of dominant mesolithical origin (diverse levels of mixture with 'cromagnoids' and 'brünn-capelloids' with few Near-Easterners accretions) , bordering other LBK settlements with strong Near-Easterners weight (and these last ones later descendants as far as Normandy and Alsace and Île-de-France Eneolithic-Chalcolithic)-
the Y-I2a1 presence in Scandinavia is a kick to my old religion!!! but I already wrote I think a lot or the present days Y-I1 in Scandinavia came lately enough (proto-germanic times?) from South, after gathering (pooling?) and osmose with Y-R1b-U106 and Y-R1a (some Y-R1a were passed before them into Scandinavia?) - I think these Y-I1 stayed for the most Souththe Baltic shores stretching from Denmark to Estonia before being drown under Y-N + Y-R1a pre-Baltic (Ugric?) and Baltic people -
I 'm not sure these South Baltic shore dwellings did not see since long ago some Y-R-U106 too?, even before Y-R1a...
Was this more robust type always in Europe by the side of Cro Magnons, or it came later from North Asia? Or maybe it was a product of Cro Magnons living high North for few millennia?

Sile
11-01-14, 20:16
Bosnia showed very few human remnants for Paloe-Mesolithic - I suppose you can abandon this theory - I see Y-I* and first downstreams rather closer to middle lattitudes of Central Europe, from N-France to Carpathians, during the LGM and after - I speak here of the bulk of the population - at more remote origin they could have been born in E-Anatolia S-Caucasus???
Concerning Y-I1 among Finns, it is almost sure the first ones came from S-Baltic (at Chalcolithic?) with a battle-axes culture, so maybe I-Ean but not already germanic speaking (more a proto-baltic or even proto-satem?) - agricultors ("beginners") - other Y-I1 could arrive there after, from Scandinavia -
by the way, it seems that among Eastern Finns (Carelia), the elite was of Y-N1 type, of N-siberian component (partly mongoloid only), taking NE european females -
just my opinion

I was referring to these articles and others which I will add
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/08/2013/european-hunter-gatherers-owned-domesticated-pigs

By the way, on cro-early europeans.......their is an ID ( CJWJS) placed in ysearch to test ones Cro-Magrons.
I have 18 or 19 markers exact..........then again I have a high Neanderthal reading of 3.1

http://www.dainst.org/sites/default/files/media/abteilungen/eurasien/event/archaeologische_funde_englisch.pdf?ft=all

Petter
12-01-14, 10:39
Bosnia showed very few human remnants for Paloe-Mesolithic - I suppose you can abandon this theory - I see Y-I* and first downstreams rather closer to middle lattitudes of Central Europe, from N-France to Carpathians, during the LGM and after - I speak here of the bulk of the population - at more remote origin they could have been born in E-Anatolia S-Caucasus???
Concerning Y-I1 among Finns, it is almost sure the first ones came from S-Baltic (at Chalcolithic?) with a battle-axes culture, so maybe I-Ean but not already germanic speaking (more a proto-baltic or even proto-satem?) - agricultors ("beginners") - other Y-I1 could arrive there after, from Scandinavia -
by the way, it seems that among Eastern Finns (Carelia), the elite was of Y-N1 type, of N-siberian component (partly mongoloid only), taking NE european females -
just my opinion

To begin with, there is no historically attested ruling elite in Finland until around 1100-1300 AD, when Finland was incorporated into what would become Sweden. The three Finnish tribes (Finns, Tavastians and Karelians) lived partly as farmers and partly as hunters/fishers. Finland was so sparsely populated, due to the cold climate, that there simply was not much to rule over. Any elite ruler theory fails, IMO.

The Siberian component in Northeastern Europe peaks in the Arctic region. It is highest in Norweigan Saami, and it is also high along the whole Arctic coast, whether Slavic- or Uralic speaking. Siberian-ness is simply something which has been native to the region for a long time. Eastern Finland has a historically attested Saami population, which is the most likely explanation for the higher Siberian admixture there.

MOESAN
12-01-14, 12:55
The irony here is that Idun got banned for racism.

I think we need to appreciate everyone's viewpoint. Who wants to have a conversation with a room full of people that nod in agreement with everything you say?

Idun should not have been banned. If you read the thread closely, it was the moderator that lowered the level of conversation first. This was not handled properly.

could yout explain me what your post has to do with my one concerning Looschburg man traits?
maybe my word "not evolved" catched your attention? it is a descriptive shape stating, not an opinion about real intellectual capacity or something close...I 'll read the Idun posts (I have no remembrance for now)- in what thread were they?
(I regreat my word "archaic" which has not big precision: at the same time we see populatiosn showing more or less or no "brutal" so called "archaic" traits... true 'cromagnon' had not, spite seeming "older" in place)-


&: I believe (without to much proofs and without paying too much attention) that the more "brutal" looks are often linked to a sort of practical intelligence, less interested by verbal theories - and since a long time yet I think I see in societies the alliance of these two kinds of complementary intelligences - but this last problem of intelligence linked to genetics is to unsteady and controversal and I have no right to pretend having some knowledge so I leave it to other forumers or posters -
have a good Sunday

nordicwarrior
13-01-14, 02:46
could yout explain me what your post has to do with my one concerning Looschburg man traits?
maybe my word "not evolved" catched your attention? it is a descriptive shape stating, not an opinion about real intellectual capacity or something close...I 'll read the Idun posts (I have no remembrance for now)- in what thread were they?
(I regreat my word "archaic" which has not big precision: at the same time we see populatiosn showing more or less or no "brutal" so called "archaic" traits... true 'cromagnon' had not, spite seeming "older" in place)-


&: I believe (without to much proofs and without paying too much attention) that the more "brutal" looks are often linked to a sort of practical intelligence, less interested by verbal theories - and since a long time yet I think I see in societies the alliance of these two kinds of complementary intelligences - but this last problem of intelligence linked to genetics is to unsteady and controversal and I have no right to pretend having some knowledge so I leave it to other forumers or posters -
have a good Sunday

My comment was directed at the site moderators and I was using your quote only to highlight a point. Sorry for the confusion. Regarding your second paragraph, I think we are very much on the same page.

I don't want to explore this banning matter further (not tonight anyway).

I'll leave it at this... we all need to hard work so that we avoid the dark clouds of a coming stormfront. Especially when these blowing winds are powered by last century's projected ideals... ideals that may not be grounded in scientific fact.

Sile
13-01-14, 03:37
To begin with, there is no historically attested ruling elite in Finland until around 1100-1300 AD, when Finland was incorporated into what would become Sweden. The three Finnish tribes (Finns, Tavastians and Karelians) lived partly as farmers and partly as hunters/fishers. Finland was so sparsely populated, due to the cold climate, that there simply was not much to rule over. Any elite ruler theory fails, IMO.

The Siberian component in Northeastern Europe peaks in the Arctic region. It is highest in Norweigan Saami, and it is also high along the whole Arctic coast, whether Slavic- or Uralic speaking. Siberian-ness is simply something which has been native to the region for a long time. Eastern Finland has a historically attested Saami population, which is the most likely explanation for the higher Siberian admixture there.

what about the West-finnish tribe the KVENS.....they where is great abundance........even setting outpost in the south baltic areas

Vratyas
18-01-14, 07:12
Do we have information on eye color and lactase persistence for the motala samples ?

Twilight
18-01-14, 07:37
I am not surprised by that. As far as R1b is concerned, I have explained many times before (eg here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29002-New-map-of-Gedrosian-autosomal-admixtures-in-Europe-and-the-Middle-East)) that the autosomal genes of R1b men was continuously diluted on their way from the Middle East to West Europe via the Pontic Steppe, the Balkans, Central Europe, and eventually Western & Northern Europe. The longer R1b men stayed in a region, the more they would have had opportunities to intermarry with indigenous women of that region. Here are the three great zones where R1b intermingled with local populations:

1) Pontic Steppe (arriving sometime between 6000 and 3700 BCE and staying until at least 2500 BCE) : the original R1b-M269 from eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia (probably carrying mtDNA J, K, T1, T2, U4, and X2) blended extensively with steppe women (daughters of R1a men, mostly represented by mtDNA I, U2, U4, U5, V, W and X2). Roughly 1500 to 3000 years of intermingling, bring Northeast European genes into the R1b autosomal gene pool.

2) Balkans, Danube basin & Central Europe (from c. 4000 to 2000 BCE) : 2000 years of mixing with the population of 'Old Europe', themselves a blend of Neolithic farmers (75%) and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (25%). They would have acquired many of the most common maternal lineages in Europe today, including a wide range of H subclades, but also new subclades of J, K, T and U5.

3) Western Europe & Scandinavia (from 2300 BCE) : a relatively fast invasion by R1b, especially in the Benelux, France and the British Isles, where R1b spread within only two or three centuries from the Unetice culture in Germany. The penetration was much slower in Scandinavia (starting from 1800 BCE, but slow assimilation of indigenous population throughout the Bronze Age until 500 BCE), Iberia (possibly from 1800 BCE, but whole peninsula not covered until 1200 BCE), and especially Italy (starting from 1300 BCE, but Sardinia not really settled by R1b until the Roman Republic). Such discrepancies in the diffusion pace may explain why R1b is so much higher in Northwest Europe then in places like southern Italy, and why the Gedrosian admixture is equally higher in Northwest Europe. An earlier and faster conquest of R1b, with a more thorough population replacement, explains why more original R1b autosomal DNA survive (less dilution).


Is there a way to genetically test our personal Native European Genes/Farmer/Indo-European genes for ourselves. With all this Lactose intolerance issue and the farmer &/or Farmer link to lactose-Intolerances and having that issue in the past, it would be quite interesting how us guys with the same issues' fair in ancient ancestry. :)

LeBrok
18-01-14, 09:13
Do we have information on eye color and lactase persistence for the motala samples ?
I don't remember anything from published paper indicating eye colour or lactose of Motola guys. I remember that Stuttgart and Loschborur samples were not lactose persistent though. Interestingly they have many more duplicates than today's people (the most advanced farmers) of scratches digesting genes, even the Loschbour hunter gatherer had more. Well, perhaps we have more efficient new mutations. ;)

Q1a2a1a2
20-08-15, 02:16
Thanks, very interesting! So there is truly a chance of paleolithic Q in europe as I expected some time ago. According to the eupedia map, Scandinavia is the european hotspot of Q1a2b1, and there is also some Q1a2a1a2 and some also in Britain. So it would match the hypothesis for Motala, if true.

Yes, there are Q1a2a1a2 in Norway, Sweden and England (via Normandy with Rollo).
We have reconnected thanks to DNA and are planning more invasions - not sure where yet.

MOESAN
20-08-15, 22:48
Y-Q is cousin to Y-R so maybe an old Siberian-East Eurasian citizen;
the question of the age is over my today knowledge, but relying also upon the Maciamo's map, we see some Y-Q too in Central-Southeastern France, in regions previously occupied by Burgundians, what could confirm a Scandinavian link for Burgundians. I know someones link the scandinavian Y-Q to some steppes or Steppes influenced people , Scythians or Slavs, without more basis; a peer analysis of phylogenic tree could discard too much fancy here; Y-Q is far to be my speciality, it's true.

Tomenable
24-08-15, 00:24
We have reconnected thanks to DNA and are planning more invasions - not sure where yet.

My suggestion:

Invade the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, destroy it, and restore the Principality of Antioch + the County of Edessa.