PDA

View Full Version : Revised Laz, Ancient genomes suggest three ancestral populations for Europeans



Fire Haired14
20-04-14, 05:15
Fire Haired(me): I am sincerely sorry and embarrassed for how arrogant and excessive I was at this forum. I have matured since then, and I'm ready to become a member again. I am requesting to regain my membership because I want to learn through conversation and from people who are educated and great critical thinkers-workers-researchers. Trust me i won't make threads like R1b L51-L11 Germanic Italo Celts: Rulers and conqueres of Bronze-Iron age west Europe (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28953-R1b-L51-L11-Germanic-Italo-Celts-Rulers-and-conqueres-of-Bronze-Iron-age-west-Europe) again. I believe that at Eupedia I will improve much faster.

Ancient individuals:

Hunter gatherers: Loschbour(Loschbour, Luxembourg 8000BP), La Brana-1(7940-7690 cal BP, northern Spain), Motala2-3-6-9-12(Motala, Sweden 8000BP), Skoglund_HG(Gotland, Sweden 4,000-4,800BP), MA1(Mal'ta, Siberia 24,000BP), AG2(near MA1, 17,000BP).

Farmers: Otzi(Otztal, Alps 5,225BP), Stuttgart(Stuttgart, Germany 7,000BP), Skohlund_farmer(Gokhem, Sweden 5,000BP).

Click here (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zpAcd_2YNln8.kYMnaPX2WqH0) to see a google map I made of the Mesolithic DNA from at this site (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnaintro.shtml).


Relationships of the ancient genomes to each other

Supplementary Information 14 begins with testing how related the ancient genomes(Loschbour, La Brana-1, Motala12, Stuttgart, MA1) are to each other using f4-statistics.

I have a weak understanding of all the science behind this, but anyone can understand how to interpret the results after reading this paragraph thoroughly.


We first report (Table S14.1) statistics of the form f4(Ancient1, Chimp; Ancient2, Ancient3) for the ancient samples: Loschbour, Stuttgart, Motala12, MA1, and LaBrana. Such statistics determine whether (Ancient2, Ancient3) are consistent with being a clade relative to Ancient1. If they are not a clade, the statistic shows whether Ancient1 is more closely related to Ancient2 (in which case it is positive), or Ancient3 (in which case it is negative).

Here are some obvious findings from the tests. All of the European hunter gatherers are closer to each other than to Stuttgart and MA1, Loschbour and La Brana-1 are closest to each other, MA1 and Stuttgart are closer to the European hunter gatherers than to each other, Stuttgart is closer to Loschbour and Motala12 than to La Brana-1, Motala12 has ANE(MA1 related) ancestry, and all of the European hunter gatherers are a little bit closer to Stuttgart than to MA1 except Motala12 who is slightly closer to MA1 than to Stuttgart.

The authors make a big deal about Loschbour and La Brana-1's results being constant with them descending from the same west European hunter gatherer population but they never mentioned the obvious relation between Loschbour and Motala12. The statistic f4(Loschbour, Chimp, La Brana-1, Motala12) is much less significantly positive (5.962) than f4(La Brana-1, Chimp, Loschbour, Motala12) which scores 11.324. So La Brana-1 is much more distant from Motala12 than Loschbour is. La Brana-1 and Loschbour score very similar results unless Motala12 is involved, in which Loschbour always shows a much closer relation to Motala12 than La Brana-1 does.

If you took out Motala12's ANE ancestry he would probably be almost as close to Loschbour as La Brana-1 is. In my opinion Loschbour had almost as much central European specific hunter gatherer ancestry as he did La Brana-1 related west European hunter gatherer ancestry. Even though Motala12 lived in Sweden many of his ancestors lived in central Europe probably around where Loschbour lived. The fact that all of the Swedish hunter gatherers sampled in this study belonged(and could successfully find their Y DNA haplogroup) to Y DNA I and that Motala12 and Motala3 had many of the same Y DNA I2a1b mutations as Loschbour proves they have common paternal ancestors who probably lived in central Europe.

It is also important to note that Neolithic hunter gatherers from Gotland(Skoglund_HG) cluster very closely to the Mesolithic Swedish hunter gatherer(Motala, not very far from Gotland) in the PCAs, which means there was strong genetic continuum in Scandinavian hunter gatherers from the Mesolithic-Neolithic.

Stuttgart is closer to both Motala12(despite his ANE ancestry) and Loschbour than she is to La Brana-1, even though La Brana-1 had some farmer ancestry. This is probably because LBK farmers mixed with European hunter gatherers from the Balkans and central Europe who were more related to Loschbour and Motala12 than to Iberian(south-western edge of Europe) hunter gatherers like La Brana-1.

I am very surprised that all of the European hunter gatherers except Motala12(who had ANE ancestry) are more related to Stuttgart than to MA1. This is because La Brana-1 is more related to MA1 than any modern populations are, west Asian components(mixture of near eastern and ANE) in admixtures are closest to mainly Mesolithic descended north European components, and how closely related La Brana-1 and MA1 seem to be in Davidski aka Polako's PCA's and admixtures(click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/02/pca-of-five-ancient-genomes.html) and here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/03/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-levels.html)).

Loschbour and La Brana-1 are not very significantly closer to Stuttgart than to MA1, and Loschbour is a bit closer than La Brana-1 is because Stuttgart has hunter gatherer ancestors who were more related to Loschbour than to La Brana-1. Loschbour and La Brana-1 are probably more related to MA1 than to Stuttgart's near eastern ancestors, but her non basal Eurasian near eastern ancestors were probably more related to Loschbour and La Brana-1 than MA1 is. Stuttgart's near eastern ancestors(west Eurasian and basal Eurasian) are the reason why MA1 is less related to her than to European hunter gatherers and there is a low chance MA1 is more related to her non basal Eurasian near eastern ancestors than to European hunter gatherers. This probably means there was admixture at some point between Caucasoid aka west Eurasian(maybe not accurate definitions) near easterns, Europeans, and east Europeans-Siberians before the Neolithic.


The Trees
After comparing the ancient genomes to each other and non west Eurasian populations using f4-statistics the authors attempted to make tree models that are consistent with the f-statistics using Loschbour, Stuttgart, MA1, Karitiana, and Onge. I am pretty sure that last sentence is accurate but even if it is not that doesn't change the message of their trees.

After many attempts they finally succeeded with the tree in Figure S14.6., and then used that to place other ancient samples and modern Europeans and near easterns in the tree. La Brana-1 fits as a brotherclade to Loschbour and Otzi fits as a brotherclade with Stuttgart(Figure S14.7). Motala12 fits as an admixture of Loschbour(81%) and MA1(19%)(Figure S14.8).

Stuttgart is fit as an admixture of basal Eurasian(ranges from 32-39% in the trees) and a brothercalde to Loschbour named Y(ranges from 61-66% in the trees). Which means the majority of her ancestry was from west asians who were closely related to Mesolithic Europeans combined with Mesolithic European ancestry.

When modern Europeans are forced to be a 2-way admixture of Loschbour and Stuttgart only Basques, Spanish_North, and Sardinians could successfully fit. There was a picture of a tree with Sardinians shown as as mixture of Loschbour(21%) and Stuttgart(79%). Sardinians are the closest modern relatives to early European farmers but they do have more hunter gatherer ancestry and in one of Davidski's admixtures they score on average 33.3%(click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/03/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-levels.html)), which makes sense since Stuttgart had some European hunter gatherer ancestry.

Since most modern Europeans show evidence of having a mixture of near eastern, Mesolithic European, and ANE(MA1-related) ancestry in their PCAs and f-statistics the authors attempted to fit modern Europeans as a mixture of Motala12(who had some ANE ancestry) and Stuttgart. Only Basque, French_South, and Sardinian could successfully fit. Meaning European hunter gatherers with the same amount of ANE ancestry as Motala12 are not enough to explain how high ANE is in most modern Europeans. There was also a picture of Sardinians being fit as an admixture of Motala12(12%) and Stuttgart(88%). They scored much less hunter and much more farmer than in the previous tree probably because they have little to no ANE ancestry.

When they attempted to fit modern Europeans as a mix of Loschbour, MA1, and Stuttgart, 26 European populations fit(not sure how many were tested) and no near eastern populations fit(and definitely no one but Europeans).

They listed many European population's EEF(Stuttgart), WHG(Loschbour), and ANE(MA1) results. The distribution of EEF, WHG, and ANE are 100% consistent with what has already been theorized by many on the distribution of Mesolithic European and near eastern ancestry in modern Europe, but ANE is a third element that was not considered until MA1's genome was sampled.




EEF
WHG
ANE


Albanian
78.1
9.2
12.7


Ashkenazi_Jew
93.1
0
6.9


Basque
59.3
29.3
11.4


Belarusian
41.8
43.1
15.1


Bergamo
71.5
17.7
10.8


Bulgarian
71.2
14.7
14.1


Croatian
56.1
29.3
14.5


Czech
49.5
33.8
16.7


English
49.5
36.4
14.1


Estonian
32.2
49.5
18.3


French
55.4
31.1
13.5


French_South
67.5
19.5
13


Greek
79.2
5.8
15.1


Hungarian
55.8
26.4
17.9


Icelandic
39.4
45.6
15


Lithuanian
36.4
46.4
17.2


Maltese
93.2
0
6.8


Norwegian
41.1
42.8
16.1


Orcadian
45.7
38.5
15.8


Sardinian
81.7
17.5
0.8


Scottish
39
42.8
18.2


Sicilian
90.3
0
9.7


Spainish
80.9
6.8
12.3


Spainish_North
71.3
12.5
16


Tuscan
74.6
13.6
11.8


Ukrainian
46.2
38.7
15.1



The authors also used modern near eastern populations without substantial African ancestry(<1%) in the admixture at K=6 and who score their most significant f3-statistic with the pairing of Stuttgart, MA1 in the same model but as a mixture of near eastern(NE) and MA1(ANE). Only five near eastern populations fit the criteria to be put in this new tree: Abkhasian, Chechen, Cypriot, Druze, and Lezgin. Click here (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/03/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-levels.html) to see estimated ANE levals in asia.

Here is the tree they used to estimate NE and ANE ancestry in modern near easterns. I copied and pasted it from the blog For what they were... we are (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2014/04/revised-lazaridis-study-on-ancient.html), since i can't copy and paste straight from Laz.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pTaoO7qG0Mg/U0FQxhPbx5I/AAAAAAAACgQ/Lyf4Z6kSPM8/s1600/Model.png

Near eastern is shown as a brotherclade to Loschbour, meaning non basal Eurasian west Asians were very closely related to Mesolithic Europeans.

Here is what the authors have to say about it.




An interesting detail of Fig. S14.20 is that the Near_East is modeled as a mixture of basal_Eurasian and a node Y which forms a clade with Loschbour. Present-day Near Eastern populations are indeed more closely related to European hunter-gatherers than to MA1 despite having some MA1-related ancestry. This can be easily seen in Extended Data Fig. 6C where the range of the statistic f4(Test, Chimp; MA1, Loschbour) is negative for all West Eurasian populations including all Near Eastern ones, suggesting that they share more drift with Loschbour than with MA1 (the statistic is Z<-4 for all West Eurasian populations except the Lezgin where it is Z=-3.6). If we attempt to fit Near Eastern


Here are the NE and ANE results for Abkhasian, Chechen, Cypriot, Druze, and Lezgin




Near East
ANE(fitted)
ANE(lower bound)


Abkhasian
81.4
18.6
15.7 ± 5.2


Chechen
73
27
24.4 ± 4.9


Cyproit
86.7
13.3
9.7 ± 5.6


Durze
88.2
11.8
4.7 ± 5.5


Lezgin
71.2
28.8
26.1 ± 4.9





ANE ancestry is higher in much of the near east than in Europe but MA1 is still shares more drift with many Europeans because near easterns have a higher amount of basal Eurasian ancestry.



The high affinity of the Northeast Caucasus to MA1 is also demonstrated in Extended Data Fig. 6, where the statistic f4(Test, Chimp; MA1, Loschbour) exhibits highest values in the region. In light of our other results, it is not surprising that these populations would have high ANE-related ancestry. They are at the northern end of the Near Eastern cline (Fig. 1B) and have the highest values of common genetic drift with MA1 among Near Eastern populations (Extended Data Fig. 4), as measured by f4(Test, Stuttgart; MA1, Chimp). However, the high MA1-related admixture in Northeast Caucasians seemingly contradicts Extended Data Fig. 4 which shows many Europeans to have even higher values of the statistic.


European's Mesolithic aka WHG ancestry which lacks any basal Eurasian ancestry is the reason why they share more drift with MA1 than near easterns who have more ANE(MA1 related) ancestry.



Intuitively, the shared drift shared between a test population and MA1 is diluted by Near Eastern ancestry (because of the Basal Eurasian ancestry in the Near East), and augmented by WHG ancestry (because of the lack of Basal Eurasian ancestry in Loschbour).


Possibly this can explain why it seems based on Davidski's work that Mesolithic Europeans and MA1 are brotherclades. If you took near easterns basal Eurasian ancestry out of them they would be a brotherclade to Mesolithic Europeans and MA1 would be their cousin.



Y DNA


http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I-borders.gif


http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_I2a.gif

Loschbour, 6,000BC Loschbour Luxembourg: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I L41+, I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I P389+, I2 L68+, I2 M438+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b M423+, I2a1b CTS8239+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS54985+, I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b2 L161.1, I2a1b3 L621-)

Motala2, 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I PF3742+, I L41+, I1 S108-, I1 L845-, I1 M253-, I2a1b CT1293-, I2a2 L37-)

Motala3 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1b*(I M258+, I PF3742+, I2 L68+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-)

Motala6 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=? (Q1 L232- Q1a2a L55+)

Motala9 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I1 P40-)

Motala12 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I2 L68+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS5985+. I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-)

New Y chromosome SNP's were tested for Loschbour, Motala2, Motala3, and Motala12. Loschbour and Motala-2-3-9-12 were all tested and found to have at least one defining mutation of Y DNA I. Motala6 is Q1a2a L55+ but Q1 L232-, so his Y DNA haplogroup is unknown. Loschbour was tested for 9 mutations that define I2a1b and had 7, Motala12 was tested for 7 and had 5, and Motala3 was tested for 3 and had all 3. Motala12 and Loschbour were missing the same two I2a1b defining mutations(CTS5375, CTS8486). Possibly Motala12 and Loschbour belonged to a brother lineage or an ancestral version of I2a1b.

Motala6 did not have any I1 defining mutations that he was tested for and he did not have I2a1b alleles in SNP CTS1293(only I2a1b defining SNP he was tested for) unlike Motala12, Loschbour, and Motala3, so all that is known about Motala6's Y DNA is that he was a member of haplogroup I. Motala9 was tested for an I1 mutation and was negative but he was not tested for any I2(including all subclades) mutations.

There are many Y DNA I2a1 subclades in Europe today, it's most diverse in western Europe and all are probably native(Mesolithic) to western Europe. I2a1b1 L621 is very popular in south-eastern Europe but i think is descended of post Mesolithic west Europeans. I2a2 and I1 all probably descend from central-west Mesolithic Europeans. I1(which has 25 defining mutations) may not have existed in the Mesolithic but it's ancestral version certainly did, probably somewhere in central Europe. I2a2 was largely dispersed by Celts and Germans, but it did exist somewhere in Mesolithic central-west Europe. For more about Y DNA I today: Eupedia Y DNA I1 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml), Eupedia Y DNA I2 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml)


Pigmentation
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQI0Dc3d0BgjUCXBRYsMEXQsoCD1ZyPE QOK_e8fCCo20fQYI1j7

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRn42cwxMotDv0o1hSiNbFqN8jI6RPzx pn0sUZ9Qlf0mIAfwOcZhg
On the right is a reconstruction of 7940-7690BP Mesolithic European(northern Spain) hunter gatherer named La Brana-1. On the left is a reconstruction of an ~5,300BP Late Neolithic European farmer(Alps) named Otzi based. The reconstructions are based on their skeletal remains and alleles in SNP's associated with pigmentation.

New SNP's associated with pigmentation were tested for Loschbour, Stuttgart, and Motala12(Motala12 was not tested at all in their previous preprint). The same 8plex and Hirisplex were listed for Loschbour and Stuttgart, but some results were also listed for Motala12.

Here are the predictions for hair and eye color of Loschbour and Stuttgart using the Hirisplex model.



Hair color
Loschbour
Stuttgart


Brown
41.30%
22%


Red
0%
0%


Black
57.90%
77.40%


Blond
0.80%
0.50%







Hair shade
Loschbour
Stuttgart


Light
2.20%
0.60%


Dark
97.80%
99.40%







Eye color
Loschbour
Stuttgart


Blue
61.30%
0%


Intermediate
16.60%
0.40%


Brown
22.20%
99.60%




Motala12(Sweden, 6,000BC) like Loschbour(Luxembourg, 6220-5990 BC) and La brana-1 (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?112037-La-Brana-1-had-blue-eyes-dark-skin-dark-hair-and-Y-DNA-C1a2-V20)(Spain, 5940-5690BC) most likely had light(prob. blue) eyes and dark hair. That's 3/3 for Mesolithic Europeans which means that combination was widespread and very popular in Europe by at least 8,000 years ago. The most compelling evidence Motala12 also had light eyes(probably blue) is that he had G/G alleles in SNP rs12913832.

Motala12 had T/T alleles in SNP rs12203592(in gene IRF4) like Loschbour and La Brana-1(T/C). Today T/T and T/C alleles in that SNP are very rare in modern Europeans and absent in east asians and Africans(see here (http://snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12203592)). IRF4 is associated with sensitivity of skin to sun exposure, freckles, blue eyes, and brown hair color(got that from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRF4)).

Alot of the stuff about pigmentation is new to me so I am going to give some quotes.



We typed the three ancient modern humans at 7 SNPs forming three short haplotypes associated with eye color in present-day worldwide populations (Table S8.3)26. The observed reads in the Motala12 forager, like the Loschbour forager match the blue-eye-associated allele at all 7 SNPs.

We find that the Loschbour forager is homozygous for the h-1 HERC2/OCA2 haplotype observed in 97% of blue-eyed individuals in a present-day study population from Turkey, Jordan, and Denmark.


Motala12 was tested for 10 of 13 H-1 HERC2/OCA2 haplotype SNPs and had all of them except in rs3935591 he had T/C. 97% of modern blue eyed people(and Loschbour) have C/C. Of the mutations tested and associated with blonde and red hair none of the ancient samples had any.

Motala12 surprisingly had alleles A/A('light skin" version) in SNP rs1426654(in gene SLC24A5) like near eastern(main ancestors migrated to Europe) farmers Stuttgart and Otzi and unlike fellow European hunter gatherers Loschbour and La Brana-1 who had G/G.

There is another similarity between Motala12, near eastern farmers, and most modern west Eurasians with SNP's associated with skin color.


Examining the SLC24A5 region, we find that the Stuttgart farmer is homozygous for the C11 haplotype found in 97% of all modern carriers of the derived rs1426654 pigmentation-lightening allele27. The A111T mutation is estimated to have arisen at ~22-28 kya28, with the selective sweep favoring its rise beginning ~19kya (under a dominant model) or ~11kya (under an additive model)29. The Loschbour forager does not carry the derived rs1426654 allele. The Motala12 forager, like the Stuttgart farmer, is homozygous for the C11 haplotype.

This means that middle eastern ancestors are not the sole source of the derived rs1426654 pigmentation-lightening allele in modern Europeans. My opinion is that the skin color of these ancient hunter gatherers is unknown. A good guess is that they had dark skin, but there is evidence in modern people that they had light skin and possibly some(in eastern Europe?) who have not been sampled had blonde and red hair. The farmers were probably as light as Sardinians(their closest relatives), as dark as west Asians, or somewhere in-between. It is pretty certain that both European hunter gatherers and near eastern farmers had primarily dark hair, but the hunter gatherers were mainly light eyed while the farmers were mainly dark eyed.

Of the three mutations(in genes TYR, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2) most associated with light skin in Europe(all are just as popular in west Asians except the one in gene SLC45A2 which is ~50% in west Asians and ~100% in Europeans) La brana-1 had 0/3, Loschbour had 0/3, Motala12 had 1/3, Stuttgart had 2/3, and of tested Otzi had 2/2. Copper age(Yamna and Catacomb cultures) and Eneolithic people of the Pontiac steppe have been found to most likely have had around 90% brown eyes, an even higher percentage of dark hair, and possibly dark skin(click here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?118795-List-of-65-ancient-Pontaic-steppe-individuals-and-DNA-results)). In contrast bronze and iron age Indo Iranians of south Siberia who are their supposed descendants and relatives had majority light eyes, light hair, and probably light skin(of SNP's associated with pigmentation tested their frequencies were no different from modern northern and eastern Europeans).

The distribution of light eyes and dark eyes in modern Europeans is nearly identical to the distribution of Mesolithic and near eastern ancestry, which makes sense since so far 3 out of 3 Mesolithic Europeans tested have light eyes and 2 out of 2 early European farmers tested so far have dark eyes. I think light eyes in modern European's ancestors probably went through powerful selection after the farmers and hunter gatherers mixed but the mutations for it mainly came from their hunter gatherer ancestors.

So far 3 out of 3 Mesolithic Europeans and 2 out of 2 Neolithic Europeans tested fo SNPs that can accurately determine hair color have no mutations associated with blonde or red hair. It would make sense that high percentages of light hair originated in Mesolithic Europeans since they were mainly light eyed(light haired people have a much higher percentage of light eyes). I think it is likely that light hair did exist in Mesolithic Europeans(and early farmers) just because they were west Eurasian but that doesn't mean a high percentage of them did. The origin of a high percentage of non dark hair in modern Europeans(unlike any other people in the world) is still a mystery.

Nobody1
20-04-14, 06:23
Dynamite comeback;

Aberdeen
23-04-14, 17:15
An interesting article about European ancestry, particularly Paper VI, which starts on page 41.

www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Fire Haired
24-04-14, 00:09
An interesting article about European ancestry, particularly Paper VI, which starts on page 41.

www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf (http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:667495/FULLTEXT01.pdf)

It's very surprising that the 4,000BP Spanish farmer clusters with Tuscans, from central Italy. To me it seems pretty obvious he has some ANE ancestry, and i think is very similar to modern Spanish and Portuguese(they were not in the PCA) who cluster in between Tuscans and Basque in PCAs with Europeans, near easterns, Neolithic European farmers, and Mesolithic European hunter gatherers. Tuscans have a significant amount of modern southwest Asian-like ancestry unlike modern Iberians, so i really doubt Portalon an Iberian who lived just 4,000 years ago did. R1b Df27 may have already reached Iberia by 4,000BP, and ancestry from it's source population may be the reason Portalon is so differnt from Neolithic European farmers.

Nobody1
24-04-14, 01:21
the reason Portalon is so differnt from Neolithic European farmers.

Not sure what you were reading but......

There are major genetic similarities between the Scandinavian farmer, the Iberian farmer, and Ötzi, who all cluster with contemporary southern Europeans (see Figure13B)....The fact that the Iberian farmer clusters closely with contemporary southern Europeans in contrast to Iberian Mesolithic individuals suggest an early colonization of Iberia and (at least one) later distinct migration event.

The diff. is only with his maternal lineage (U5b1b) most prob. from the pre-existing Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers; And Neolithic/LBK Stuttgart (Lazaridis K=20) also had an amount of southwest Asian admix;

Fire Haired
24-04-14, 02:22
Not sure what you were reading but......

There are major genetic similarities between the Scandinavian farmer, the Iberian farmer, and Ötzi, who all cluster with contemporary southern Europeans (see Figure13B)....The fact that the Iberian farmer clusters closely with contemporary southern Europeans in contrast to Iberian Mesolithic individuals suggest an early colonization of Iberia and (at least one) later distinct migration event.

The diff. is only with his maternal lineage (U5b1b) most prob. from the pre-existing Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers; And Neolithic/LBK Stuttgart (Lazaridis K=20) also had an amount of southwest Asian admix;

Early Europeans farmers descended from primarily the same source as do modern near easterns so that's probably why Stuttgart scored a little in a south-west Asian component. This 4,000 year old Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans who have a significant amount of modern-like southwest asian ancestry which has ANE admixture and some sub Saharan African(Tuscans don't seem to which is strange). Portalon probably got his ANE ancestry from R1b Df27 carrying Indo Europeans who had begun arriving in Iberia by 4,000 years ago, which is why he clusters with Tuscans. If modern Spanish and Portuguese were put in the PCA he would cluster with them.

I made a thread about this. 4000BP Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans, not Basque or Neolithic farmers (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29796-4000BP-Iberian-farmer-clusters-with-Tuscans-not-Basque-or-Neolithic-farmers?p=430253#post430253)

Aberdeen
24-04-14, 03:09
I think it's really unfortunate that we don't have Y DNA info for the Iberian farmer. It would be interesting to see if he was R1b. However, the fact that he's apparently close to the Scandinavian farmer and Otzi may make that less likely.

Fire Haired
24-04-14, 03:22
I think it's really unfortunate that we don't have Y DNA info for the Iberian farmer. It would be interesting to see if he was R1b. However, the fact that he's apparently close to the Scandinavian farmer and Otzi may make that less likely.

The only similarity between him, Otzi, and the Swedish Neolithic farmer Gokhem is they are generally south European-like. Portolan probably has ANE ancestry though which is why he does not cluster with Sardinians and Otzi.

Angela
24-04-14, 03:40
Early Europeans farmers descended from primarily the same source as do modern near easterns so that's probably why Stuttgart scored a little in a south-west Asian component. This 4,000 year old Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans who have a significant amount of modern-like southwest asian ancestry which has ANE admixture and some sub Saharan African(Tuscans don't seem to which is strange). Portalon probably got his ANE ancestry from R1b Df27 carrying Indo Europeans who had begun arriving in Iberia by 4,000 years ago, which is why he clusters with Tuscans. If modern Spanish and Portuguese were put in the PCA he would cluster with them.

I made a thread about this. 4000BP Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans, not Basque or Neolithic farmers (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29796-4000BP-Iberian-farmer-clusters-with-Tuscans-not-Basque-or-Neolithic-farmers?p=430253#post430253)

Perhaps you need to read Nobody 1's post again. Better yet, go back to the paper...only two pages are devoted to this, so it shouldn't be too taxing for you even though you have claimed you don't like to read.

"There are major genetic similarities between the Scandinavian farmer, the IBERIAN farmer, and Ötzi, who ALL cluster with contemporary southern Europeans (see Figure13B)." How on earth do you go from that to a statement that the Iberian farmer doesn't cluster with Neolithic farmers? What do you think Gok 4 and Otzi were? It's a nonsensical statement. The most you could say is that there were different Neolithic streams, and one of them, the one which produced the Iberian farmer, had a little ANE, contrary to the earlier ones.

And it isn't helpful to conflate the analysis done in this paper or ones done in Lazaridis et al with admixture analyses done by genome bloggers. They have been superseded. All they show is later poolings, to use a Moesan term.

Nobody1
24-04-14, 03:46
Early Europeans farmers descended from primarily the same source as do modern near easterns so that's probably why Stuttgart scored a little in a south-west Asian component. This 4,000 year old Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans who have a significant amount of modern-like southwest asian ancestry which has ANE admixture and some sub Saharan African(Tuscans don't seem to which is strange). Portalon probably got his ANE ancestry from R1b Df27 carrying Indo Europeans who had begun arriving in Iberia by 4,000 years ago, which is why he clusters with Tuscans. If modern Spanish and Portuguese were put in the PCA he would cluster with them.

I made a thread about this. 4000BP Iberian farmer clusters with Tuscans, not Basque or Neolithic farmers (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29796-4000BP-Iberian-farmer-clusters-with-Tuscans-not-Basque-or-Neolithic-farmers?p=430253#post430253)

But you dont know any of that; And the Spanish and Portuguese have a significant amount of NW African admix that is not even present in Neolithic corpses (Stuttgart) so the Tuscans and their SW Asian admix seem more fit to begin with; Lazaridis et al K=20 http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf

All what is known is that (and thats the significance) that a 4000BP (~2000BC) Iberian corpse is still closer to the Neolithic farmers than anything else; His precise admixture analysis and his results based on the 3way-admixture model of Lazaridis (EEF/ANE/WHG) is not known; His mtDNA is common amongst Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers but not that odd or unique when compared to the Neolithic Treilles or Avellaner-cave results; The Tuscans result was 74.6% EEF / 13.6% WHG / 11.8% ANE on the Lazaridis model and did not cluster with any of Neolithic corpses in the PCA plot which also had a diff. result for Gök4; p.15 Figure 1.(b) 'Stuttgart clusters with other Neolithic Europeans and present-day Sardinians' p.16 Figure 1. PCA plot - http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/ufg/umweltarchaeologie/ufg_paleogenetik/publications/2013/Lazaridis-2013.pdf

Maybe Portalon is not that close to the Tuscans either; And Portalon (~2000BC) being R1b would not be that new given the Kromsdorf (2x R1b) 2600-2500 BC http://www.academia.edu/1596369/Emerging_genetic_patterns_of_the_European_Neolithi c_perspectives_from_a_Late_Neolithic_Bell_Beaker_b urial_site_in_Germany And an Indo-European should first be tested with the 3way Lazaridis admixture model to know what the major (EEF/WHG/ANE) components even are otherwise pure speculation;

Angela
24-04-14, 03:49
I think it's really unfortunate that we don't have Y DNA info for the Iberian farmer. It would be interesting to see if he was R1b. However, the fact that he's apparently close to the Scandinavian farmer and Otzi may make that less likely.

It may make it less likely, but I wouldn't bet on it. He was U5b mtDNA and he is still similar to Gok 4 and Otzi. I just think it's another example of the caution that should be exerted when trying to tie uniparental markers to autosomal DNA results.

Fire Haired
24-04-14, 03:54
Perhaps you need to read Nobody 1's post again. Better yet, go back to the paper...only two pages are devoted to this, so it shouldn't be too taxing for you even though you have claimed you don't like to read.

"There are major genetic similarities between the Scandinavian farmer, the IBERIAN farmer, and Ötzi, who ALL cluster with contemporary southern Europeans (see Figure13B)." How on earth do you go from that to a statement that the Iberian farmer doesn't cluster with Neolithic farmers? What do you think Gok 4 and Otzi were? It's a nonsensical statement. The most you could say is that there were different Neolithic streams, and one of them, the one which produced the Iberian farmer, had a little ANE, contrary to the earlier ones.

And it isn't helpful to conflate the analysis done in this paper or ones done in Lazaridis et al with admixture analyses done by genome bloggers. They have been superseded. All they show is later poolings, to use a Moesan term.

I read those two pages multiple times. All the farmers do cluster with each other but it's a general southern European(have the highest amount of early European farmer or just plain near eastern ancestry in Europe) cluster. I was being more specific when i said the Iberian farmer does not cluster with Otzi and Gokhem, and instead clusters with Tuscans.

Aberdeen
24-04-14, 05:51
I read those two pages multiple times. All the farmers do cluster with each other but it's a general southern European(have the highest amount of early European farmer or just plain near eastern ancestry in Europe) cluster. I was being more specific when i said the Iberian farmer does not cluster with Otzi and Gokhem, and instead clusters with Tuscans.

In what way are you being "more specific"? The comment just seems to be incorrect to me.

Aberdeen
24-04-14, 05:53
It may make it less likely, but I wouldn't bet on it. He was U5b mtDNA and he is still similar to Gok 4 and Otzi. I just think it's another example of the caution that should be exerted when trying to tie uniparental markers to autosomal DNA results.

True. I'm just trying not to get too hopeful that we're finally going to get something that supports the idea of R1b in late Neolithic Iberia.

Angela
24-04-14, 16:02
But you dont know any of that; And the Spanish and Portuguese have a significant amount of NW African admix that is not even present in Neolithic corpses (Stuttgart) so the Tuscans and their SW Asian admix seem more fit to begin with; Lazaridis et al K=20 http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-2.pdf

All what is known is that (and thats the significance) that a 4000BP (~2000BC) Iberian corpse is still closer to the Neolithic farmers than anything else; His precise admixture analysis and his results based on the 3way-admixture model of Lazaridis (EEF/ANE/WHG) is not known; His mtDNA is common amongst Mesolithic Hunter-gatherers but not that odd or unique when compared to the Neolithic Treilles or Avellaner-cave results; The Tuscans result was 74.6% EEF / 13.6% WHG / 11.8% ANE on the Lazaridis model and did not cluster with any of Neolithic corpses in the PCA plot which also had a diff. result for Gök4; p.15 Figure 1.(b) 'Stuttgart clusters with other Neolithic Europeans and present-day Sardinians' p.16 Figure 1. PCA plot - http://www.geo.uni-tuebingen.de/fileadmin/website/arbeitsbereich/ufg/umweltarchaeologie/ufg_paleogenetik/publications/2013/Lazaridis-2013.pdf

Maybe Portalon is not that close to the Tuscans either; And Portalon (~2000BC) being R1b would not be that new given the Kromsdorf (2x R1b) 2600-2500 BC http://www.academia.edu/1596369/Emerging_genetic_patterns_of_the_European_Neolithi c_perspectives_from_a_Late_Neolithic_Bell_Beaker_b urial_site_in_Germany And an Indo-European should first be tested with the 3way Lazaridis admixture model to know what the major (EEF/WHG/ANE) components even are otherwise pure speculation;

Absolutely correct. There's been way too much in the way of unsubstantiated, and in fact, downright incorrect claims on this thread.


All what is known is that (and thats the significance) that a 4000BP (~2000BC) Iberian corpse is still closer to the Neolithic farmers than anything else.

That's the crux of the matter isn't it? Also, remember the findings about the Balkan sample that also was very "Sardinian" like very late in the game?

I think the changes in the genetic landscape in southern Europe, at least, on an autosomal level, happened much later than has been postulated by previous popular theories.

LeBrok
24-04-14, 16:49
I think the changes in the genetic landscape in southern Europe, at least, on an autosomal level, happened much later than has been postulated by previous popular theories. Do you mean changes to of modern autosomal landscape, the bronze age changes?
Yes, it looks more like gradual mixing or actual ad-mixing (with IEs?), than population replacement of EEF style. Process continuing till great migration time when hordes of North/Central Europeans (with higher ANE) invaded South.

Another nail to the coffin of the theory portraying vicious IEs of Bronze Age conquering and killing everyone.

Angela
24-04-14, 17:27
Do you mean changes to of modern autosomal landscape, the bronze age changes?
Yes, it looks more like gradual mixing or actual ad-mixing (with IEs?), than population replacement of EEF style. Process continuing till great migration time when hordes of North/Central Europeans (with higher ANE) invaded South.

Another nail to the coffin of the theory portraying vicious IEs of Bronze Age conquering and killing everyone.

I'm not even sure about the invasions after the fall of Rome. Look at the IBD analysis done by Ralph and Coop. Or look at the EEF values for Spain and Italy, although there may have been additional input in certain areas closer in time to the modern era. Regardless, I think the observation is generally apt. France is also much more diverse than people realize, and other than the very northeastern areas, I doubt it changed a whole lot. I just don't think densely populated areas were as highly impacted. The only exception for southern Europe is, I think, the Balkans, which were impacted by the "Slavic" migrations. The only way that I can account for that is that the Plague of Justinian had more of an effect there than elsewhere in Europe, leaving the area more depopulated. (I do think depopulation also occurred in Italy, and that may account for some differences, particularly in the north, but not to the extent that it happened in the Balkans.)

That whole chariot riding (never mind the fact that most of Europe was densely forested at the time and even carts would have had rough going) sword wielding view of these "Indo-Europeans" charging into Europe has had, in my opinion, such a stranglehold on the imagination of, forgive me, the men in this field, and the occasional woman (Gimbutas), even when she deplored it, that it has never been systematically examined point by point. Just more proof, in my opinion, that emotionally laden ideas often have much more power than does logic.

Aberdeen
24-04-14, 20:07
.............

That whole chariot riding (never mind the fact that most of Europe was densely forested at the time and even carts would have had rough going) sword wielding view of these "Indo-Europeans" charging into Europe has had, in my opinion, such a stranglehold on the imagination of, forgive me, the men in this field, and the occasional woman (Gimbutas), even when she deplored it, that it has never been systematically examined point by point. Just more proof, in my opinion, that emotionally laden ideas often have much more power than does logic.

So, how do you explain the almost complete dominance of IE languages in Europe? Perhaps IE folk specialized as language teachers. Or perhaps the stereotype was partly true. The Celtic legends of old Ireland and the Roman descriptions of the Celts both conjure up images of a stratified warrior society where chariots played an important role in battle.

Fire Haired
24-04-14, 22:20
So, how do you explain the almost complete dominance of IE languages in Europe? Perhaps IE folk specialized as language teachers. Or perhaps the stereotype was partly true. The Celtic legends of old Ireland and the Roman descriptions of the Celts both conjure up images of a stratified warrior society where chariots played an important role in battle.

That's a great question to ask Maciamo. There was a huge genetic shift in western Europe during the metal ages and Indo Europeans are probably responsible. The Celts probably whipped out the natives of the British isles, since Irish(Gealic) and Welsh(Briton) are almost impossible to differentiate from each other with autosomal DNA, pigmentation, Y DNA, mtDNA, you name it.

Aberdeen
25-04-14, 00:07
That's a great question to ask Maciamo. There was a huge genetic shift in western Europe during the metal ages and Indo Europeans are probably responsible. The Celts probably whipped out the natives of the British isles, since Irish(Gealic) and Welsh(Briton) are almost impossible to differentiate from each other with autosomal DNA, pigmentation, Y DNA, mtDNA, you name it.

If you mean "wiped out", no, that doesn't necessarily follow, in my opinion. The Celts could have been and I think probably were a small warrior aristocracy imposed on a larger population. In that case, there would probably have been a dramatic increase in the prevalence of the Y haplotype of the Celtic invaders over time, but the autosomal DNA could still include a lot of Neolithic ancestry, as well as some Mesolithic and even Paleolithic ancestry.

Fire Haired14
25-04-14, 00:16
If you mean "wiped out", no, that doesn't necessarily follow, in my opinion. The Celts could have been and I think probably were a small warrior aristocracy imposed on a larger population. In that case, there would probably have been a dramatic increase in the prevalence of the Y haplotype of the Celtic invaders over time, but the autosomal DNA could still include a lot of Neolithic ancestry, as well as some Mesolithic and even Paleolithic ancestry.

That's not what the autosomal DNA of modern west Europeans suggests. The fact Irish and Welsh are no differnt is evidence Celts from Britain exterminated the previous people of Ireland.

Angela
25-04-14, 00:26
So, how do you explain the almost complete dominance of IE languages in Europe? Perhaps IE folk specialized as language teachers. Or perhaps the stereotype was partly true. The Celtic legends of old Ireland and the Roman descriptions of the Celts both conjure up images of a stratified warrior society where chariots played an important role in battle.


I didn't mean to imply that there was no population flow into southern Europe after the Neolithic. Just looking at the Tuscan score for EEF, it is about 75%. The score for the North Italians is about 70%. Something obviously happened, but it wasn't significant enough to move the needle very far in southern Europe. Just take a look at the PCA from Lazaridis et al. Even Northern Italians aren't all that different from these EEF.
6391



The question for me is when and under what circumstances did the actual changes occur. If I again look at the Italian genetic landscape, it seems to me that there was indeed some admixture after the fall of Rome, in northern Italy for example, and perhaps tapering off in the south around Campania. It doesn't seem to have been very large, however, if we go by IBD analysis, and even if we look at the distribution, in Italy, of what I think most people would see as the unambiguously northern yDNA lineages like I1, or even R U-106.

The period of the Celtic migrations was, I think, a different story, but those date, in Italy, to the first millennium B.C., not to 3000 B.C. which is when these "kurgan" theories posit that the Indo-European invasions occurred. We have direct evidence of these Celtic incursions not only in the written record, but in the archaeological record as well, and they may be responsible for a good part of the change in the genetic landscape, although many of these marauding bands of warriors went back to Central Europe (the Boii, for example) and so we still aren't talking about population replacement.

So, we're basically looking, in Italy, at least, at the period from 2300 B.C. to about 500 B.C., if we take into account the IBD analysis in Ralph and Coop. See:
6390

That indicates to me the middle and late Bronze Age or even the early Iron Age. As far as Italy is concerned, Gimbutas thought that the Villanovan culture brought the "Italic" languages to Italy. I've seen later formulations that seek to tie it to Urnfield or Hallstatt. My speculation would be that we should be looking perhaps at the Terramare and the Apennine cultures in terms of local manifestations. Frankly, I don't know and I don't pretend to know. I think we need a lot more evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture
http://condor.depaul.edu/sbucking/apennine_culture.jpg


I'm just saying that in the advance of none of these cultures do we see evidence of mass genocide in Italy, not even of the men. Also, had such a thing occurred, how can one explain that the EEF component remains what it is? Unless you are positing that the "Indo-Europeans" were themselves not very different from the people already in Italy? That's possible, but wouldn't this kind of invasion show in the archaeological record?

As for chariots, the earliest known "actual" chariots are from Sintashta, in 2000 B.C., a long time, and a long way away from central Europe in 3500 B.C.. I'm also not aware of any in the context of even the second millennium B.C. movements. I suppose you could have driven chariots across the narrow opening between the Alps and the sea in northeastern Italy through which the Lombards also came, but I don't know of any evidence of it. They certainly weren't driving them across the western Alps in the time of Hallstat etc., at least not to my knowledge. (And Hannibal notwithstanding, http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif)

I guess what I'm saying is that I think that cultural artifacts and other indicators that date to the Iron Age in the steppes that are connected with people like the Scythians were transposed and attributed to a far earlier period, and perhaps different people, at least by hobbyists. As much as some bloggers might like it, I don't think these incoming people were "blonde cowboys of the steppes."

Ed. Ah, I see that you answered your own question, and in much fewer words. Indeed, how could there have been population replacement even in far western Europe, if the people remain close to 50% EEF. :)

Aberdeen
25-04-14, 01:14
That's not what the autosomal DNA of modern west Europeans suggests. The fact Irish and Welsh are no differnt is evidence Celts from Britain exterminated the previous people of Ireland.

I don't understand what you're saying. There are in fact some differences between the two populations, and the substantial similarities would be explained by the fact that the population of ireland could have been and probably was fairly similar to the population of Britain during the Neolithic period. So why assume that Celts from Britain exterminated the previous people of Ireland? The "Celts" as a genetic group that arrived from the continent, probably weren't that large a group in Britain or Ireland, but succeeded in imposing their language and culture on the existing population. And not the same language, because the Irish spoke Gaelic, not Welsh, so the Celts who conquered Ireland probably arrived in Ireland from somewhere on the continent, rather than from Britain. The reason parts of Scotland became Gaelic speaking is because of an invasion from Ireland.

Aberdeen
25-04-14, 01:22
Angela, I don't want to repeat your long post, but I think it does a good job of advancing the argument that these Bronze Age invaders who imposed their IE language and culture on the Neolithic population of western Europe may not have got around to it until the iron Age. So, did the Bronze Age arrive in western Europe before the IE folk? Should we think of IE invaders of western Europe as Iron Age, maybe as a result of a pause after they over-ran eastern Europe during the Bronze Age" That would require a substantial rewrite of the chronology of IE western Europe. And while it does seem unlikely that those charioteers could have swept out of the Russian steppes and ridden their chariots through the forests of western Europe and across the English Channel, how do we explain the existence of a warrior culture that seems to have embodied nomadic cultural values as western Europe emerged into recorded history? Your view makes sense in genetic terms, but raises a host of other issues, I think.

Angela
25-04-14, 02:35
Angela, I don't want to repeat your long post, but I think it does a good job of advancing the argument that these Bronze Age invaders who imposed their IE language and culture on the Neolithic population of western Europe may not have got around to it until the iron Age. So, did the Bronze Age arrive in western Europe before the IE folk? Should we think of IE invaders of western Europe as Iron Age, maybe as a result of a pause after they over-ran eastern Europe during the Bronze Age" That would require a substantial rewrite of the chronology of IE western Europe. And while it does seem unlikely that those charioteers could have swept out of the Russian steppes and ridden their chariots through the forests of western Europe and across the English Channel, how do we explain the existence of a warrior culture that seems to have embodied nomadic cultural values as western Europe emerged into recorded history? Your view makes sense in genetic terms, but raises a host of other issues, I think.


I wouldn't say that the change began in the Iron Age in southern Europe. I'm comfortable with saying, based on the genetics, that it started in the Bronze Age, but I think we're talking about layers here, and it was added to in the Iron Age.

In Spain also, by the way, we're talking about population movements around 2000 B.C., not 3500 B.C.

Regardless, my main point was that unless these Indo-Europeans were very EEF by the time they got to southern Europe, there wasn't any population replacement going on. There couldn't have been, because these southern Europeans are still 70-75% EEF, and even in central Europe, we have the Germans at around 50% EEF.

The biggest fly in the ointment you might say is how did Spain become so highly yDNA R1b then, and yet so highly EEF, or northern Italy become so high in R1b U-152 and remain 70% EEF. I don't know.

Either the P312 clades are not the Indo-Europeans of the Kurgans, but instead perhaps a slightly older population that entered Europe through the Balkans, or each man who came to Europe during the Bronze Age took twenty wives, or there is something about these lineages, like a slight propensity to father more boys, that led to it.

Aberdeen
25-04-14, 02:49
I agree that R1b is, in many respects, a puzzle. But I find the continued EEF of northern Italy to also be quite puzzling, if the percentages in fact that constant over the millennia. There does appear to be some evidence of waves of invaders duing the Bronze and Iron Ages, followed by the creation of the Roman empire, which resulted in the importation of large numbers of slaves to work plantations (and although that probably affected southern and central Italy more than the north, it's difficult to imagine that it didn't have an impact in the north). Then the Germanic invasions and the fall of Rome, which led to the Lombards settling in northern Italy, followed by the chaos of the Dark Ages, with various massacres of populations, different groups being conquered, etc. And northern Italy still comes out 70% EEF? It's a bit of a puzzle to me. Maybe a higher birth rate among the peasants kept returning northern Italy to a high EEF level.

Nobody1
25-04-14, 02:52
I wrote this before on other threads and will gladly repeat;
That the Indo-Europeans did not wipe out the pre-existing pops. was already evident from Archaeology and mostly also from Linguistics; That a new people emerged is however likewise evident from Archaeology and Linguistics and it spanned a good thousand years of continual expansion towards east and west likewise; And Genetics is manifesting all of it especially the common pattern of the pre-existing female pop. remaining (more) intact than the pre-existing male pop. and the Indo-European society was a patriarchal society;

And Indo-Europeans have first to be tested via the 3way-mixture (Lazaridis) model of EEF/ANE/WHG in order to fully understand that impact; For none of the corpses used to create this 3way-mixture models were Indo-Europeans;

The Indo-European expansion was individual from area to area so for the mentioned Italy the emerging of the Indo-Europeans is signalized by the expansion of the Bronze-age Urnfield-complex (~1200BC) of Canegrate/Scamozzina (proto-Golasecca/Golasecca) and expanding further south into proto-Villanova/Villanova of the Indo-European Umbrians (proto-Italic/Italic) and a second-wave forming into the Iron-age Este/Atestine-cultre of the Indo-European Veneti;

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img214/6537/estecultureck9.jpg

Arnoaldi-situla (Villanova-culture / Po-valley) - a chariot race [5th cen BC]
http://www.lessingimages.com/w1/070103/07010352.jpg

Italy than also experienced a new-wave (following the Bronze-age collapse) of the non-Indo-European Pelasgians from the East Aegean (Tyrsenoi/Etruscans); As described by Herodotus (I/XCIV) as migrating into the land of the Ὄμβροι [Umbrians]; And the Terremare-culture (~1500BC) most prob. was already a first Indo-European wave expanding into the Po-valley for it bears all the markers; And who is Sapsuta?

Paul MacKendrick - The Mute Stones Speak (1962)
The terremare are important: they preserve the memory of an immigrant population, distinct in culture from the aborigines. The distinguishing marks of this new culture are knowledge of metal-working, a pottery identifiable by its exaggerated half-moon handles, and the practice of cremation rather than inhumation. On the evidence, we must suppose that this new culture emerged about 1500 B.C. as a fusion of indigenous hut-dwellers and immigrant lakedwellers. Bronze (Horse) bits found in their settlements show that they had domesticated the horse, and there is some evidence, outside the terremare, for dogs as well, described by Randall-Maclver as "doubtless good woolly animals of a fair size."

Angela
25-04-14, 03:58
I wrote this before on other threads and will gladly repeat;
That the Indo-Europeans did not wipe out the pre-existing pops. was already evident from Archaeology and mostly also from Linguistics; That a new people emerged is however likewise evident from Archaeology and Linguistics and it spanned a good thousand years of continual expansion towards east and west likewise; And Genetics is manifesting all of it especially the common pattern of the pre-existing female pop. remaining (more) intact than the pre-existing male pop. and the Indo-European society was a patriarchal society;

And Indo-Europeans have first to be tested via the 3way-mixture (Lazaridis) model of EEF/ANE/WHG in order to fully understand that impact; For none of the corpses used to create this 3way-mixture models were Indo-Europeans;

The Indo-European expansion was individual from area to area so for the mentioned Italy the emerging of the Indo-Europeans is signalized by the expansion of the Bronze-age Urnfield-complex (~1200BC) of Canegrate/Scamozzina (proto-Golasecca/Golasecca) and expanding further south into proto-Villanova/Villanova of the Indo-European Umbrians (proto-Italic/Italic) and a second-wave forming into the Iron-age Este/Atestine-cultre of the Indo-European Veneti;

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img214/6537/estecultureck9.jpg

Arnoaldi-situla (Villanova-culture / Po-valley) - a chariot race [5th cen BC]
http://www.lessingimages.com/w1/070103/07010352.jpg

Italy than also experienced a new-wave (following the Bronze-age collapse) of the non-Indo-European Pelasgians from the East Aegean (Tyrsenoi/Etruscans); As described by Herodotus (I/XCIV) as migrating into the land of the Ὄμβροι [Umbrians]; And the Terremare-culture (~1500BC) most prob. was already a first Indo-European wave expanding into the Po-valley for it bears all the markers; And who is Sapsuta?

Paul MacKendrick - The Mute Stones Speak (1962)
The terremare are important: they preserve the memory of an immigrant population, distinct in culture from the aborigines. The distinguishing marks of this new culture are knowledge of metal-working, a pottery identifiable by its exaggerated half-moon handles, and the practice of cremation rather than inhumation. On the evidence, we must suppose that this new culture emerged about 1500 B.C. as a fusion of indigenous hut-dwellers and immigrant lakedwellers. Bronze (Horse) bits found in their settlements show that they had domesticated the horse, and there is some evidence, outside the terremare, for dogs as well, described by Randall-Maclver as "doubtless good woolly animals of a fair size."

I agree with most of this, Nobody 1, as I pointed out in my post, although there's no proof of any of it yet, and particularly, no proof that the Etruscans were not, in the main, "natives". (We've discussed this many times, and you still haven't convinced me.:smile:)

The fact remains that either these Indo-Europeans were not very numerous, or they were heavily EEF by the time they got to Italy. The genetic results are what they are; the northern Italians are still 70% EEF, (and the Spaniards score even higher, I think) and the Germans are still about 50% EEF. The theories about population movements into Europe have to account for that.

Angela
25-04-14, 04:33
I agree that R1b is, in many respects, a puzzle. But I find the continued EEF of northern Italy to also be quite puzzling, if the percentages in fact that constant over the millennia. There does appear to be some evidence of waves of invaders duing the Bronze and Iron Ages, followed by the creation of the Roman empire, which resulted in the importation of large numbers of slaves to work plantations (and although that probably affected southern and central Italy more than the north, it's difficult to imagine that it didn't have an impact in the north). Then the Germanic invasions and the fall of Rome, which led to the Lombards settling in northern Italy, followed by the chaos of the Dark Ages, with various massacres of populations, different groups being conquered, etc. And northern Italy still comes out 70% EEF? It's a bit of a puzzle to me. Maybe a higher birth rate among the peasants kept returning northern Italy to a high EEF level.

According to Ralph and Coop, the answer lies in the large population sizes in Italy from the time of the Neolithic. Some wandering bands of warriors, as with the Ostrogoths, or even a group of 100,000 Lombards are not going to massively change the overall genetic composition. The Celtic migrations, although they fall into the period when the data shows there was population movement into Italy, were probably not that much larger in terms of the number who stayed. The Bronze Age migrations and early Iron Age migrations probably account for the biggest proportion.

Still as you point out, that moved the needle only down to 70%.

As for the Roman era, from the IBD analysis, there isn't any appreciable increase in gene flow into Italy during that period. It seems counter-intuitive to me too, believe me, but it doesn't show up. Maybe a study will come out tomorrow that presents a different picture, but so far, that's what we have. Also, I don't see how big infusions of genes from slaves makes sense considering the definite cline in Italy in terms of autosomal and uniparental DNA. After all, slaves didn't only come from the Levant or Greece or Anatolia. Huge numbers of them also came from Gaul and Germania and Britain. Caesar's vast fortune, that he used to buy the favor of the Roman mobs, came from the sale of his Gallic slaves. Those slaves weren't apportioned in Italy according to ethnicity, either. By that, I mean, all the eastern slaves didn't go to the north and all the northern slaves to the latifundia of the south and Sicily. And there were slaves all over the empire, not just in Italy.

If the data isn't invalidated, it must be that the latifundia system, and slavery in general in the ancient world was not like the slavery of the American south with which many people are more familiar. There was an endless supply of slaves, so there was no need to breed them. Many of them also were sent to the mines, or the galleys or to those latifundia where they were worked to death. Many of the female slaves wound up in brothels, and how long could they have lasted there? The babies, if any, and if the remains found in places in Britain are any indication, were killed at birth. It was a horrible, cruel world in many ways, no matter where your allegiances lay. Yes, there was class movement in the Roman empire. Slaves were manumitted, became prosperous clients, but what was their number compared to the total population? It's also important to remember that a good number of the slaves as time passed were Italian peasants who sold themselves into slavery.

That isn't satisfactory for me, either, but it's the best I can manage.:smile:

Nobody1
25-04-14, 05:09
I agree with most of this, Nobody 1, as I pointed out in my post, although there's no proof of any of it yet,

Language and Archaeology for starters;
Not just the modern/current language but also the ancient languages themselves which are attested by inscriptions which in turn of course further manifest the Archaeological scenario;


The fact remains that either these Indo-Europeans were not very numerous, or they were heavily EEF by the time they got to Italy. The genetic results are what they are; the northern Italians are still 70% EEF, (and the Spaniards score even higher, I think) and the Germans are still about 50% EEF. The theories about population movements into Europe have to account for that.

Exactly;
But the fact also remains that none of us know what the Indo-European result actually is; So how is it than possible to determine an impact or lack of it; Bulgarians have 71% EEF and Bulgaria (Varna/Karanovo-VI) was one of the first contacts and presence of the Indo-Europeans in the west; What can be concluded from that is pure speculation in both ways; Let the corpses do the talking and so i am waiting until someone tests the 3way-mixture (Lazaridis) model on to actual Indo-Europeans i.e. Andronovo corpses (Keyser et al) / Corded-ware corpses (Haak et al) / Yamna/Catacomb corpses (Wilde et al);


(We've discussed this many times, and you still haven't convinced me.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif)

http://media.giphy.com/media/12dA9Gei6U4in6/giphy.gif

Aberdeen
25-04-14, 15:20
One blogger's perspective on the IE expansion into Europe.

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html

I agree with those who think it's all speculation until the ancient bones tell us more about who the IE folk from the steppes were genetically, and we also have more DNA results from Europe before and after the IE expansion into Europe. And that map, even if it's correct, doesn't really tell us anything about western Europe. Nevertheless, I think it's relevant to the discussion, up to a point. I've always assumed that the subsequent IE expansion into western Europe had a fair bit of eastern Europe genetic material because of mixing between the original IE folk and the people they conquered or influenced in eastern Europe.

Angela
25-04-14, 15:54
[
QUOTE=Nobody1;430350]Language and Archaeology for starters;
Not just the modern/current language but also the ancient languages themselves which are attested by inscriptions which in turn of course further manifest the Archaeological scenario

We've gone from pots are just pots, not people, to pots mean lots of people. It's all much more complicated than that, and site specific. As for linguists, they give me a headache. :grin: I'll wait for the DNA, thank-you very much.




Exactly;
But the fact also remains that none of us know what the Indo-European result actually is; So how is it than possible to determine an impact or lack of it; Bulgarians have 71% EEF and Bulgaria (Varna/Karanovo-VI) was one of the first contacts and presence of the Indo-Europeans in the west; What can be concluded from that is pure speculation in both ways; Let the corpses do the talking and so i am waiting until someone tests the 3way-mixture (Lazaridis) model on to actual Indo-Europeans i.e. Andronovo corpses (Keyser et al) / Corded-ware corpses (Haak et al) / Yamna/Catacomb corpses (Wilde et al);

You're preaching to the already long converted. You should be addressing this point to Firehaired.

As for the mass of the Etruscans, you'll convince me when you show me an ancient DNA result that couldn't have come to Italy with the Neolithic, or the results from a Villanovan compared to an Etruscan, preferably both commoners, that shows a major difference in DNA. I don't have any preference either way, I should note, as to the ultimate origin of the Etruscans. I always quite liked the idea, as inaccurate as it now seems, that I was partly descended from the Trojans. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif I've read way too much in the Classics, no doubt.

epoch
25-04-14, 22:18
I agree that R1b is, in many respects, a puzzle. But I find the continued EEF of northern Italy to also be quite puzzling, if the percentages in fact that constant over the millennia. There does appear to be some evidence of waves of invaders duing the Bronze and Iron Ages, followed by the creation of the Roman empire, which resulted in the importation of large numbers of slaves to work plantations (and although that probably affected southern and central Italy more than the north, it's difficult to imagine that it didn't have an impact in the north). Then the Germanic invasions and the fall of Rome, which led to the Lombards settling in northern Italy, followed by the chaos of the Dark Ages, with various massacres of populations, different groups being conquered, etc. And northern Italy still comes out 70% EEF? It's a bit of a puzzle to me. Maybe a higher birth rate among the peasants kept returning northern Italy to a high EEF level.

The influx of slave genes may be smaller than first guessed. Back before the impact of hygiene, the onset of the consumption of potatoes and the discovery of penicilline child mortality was high, and far higher among the lowest class. Nutrition was a harsh environmental pressure. Add to that a population shrinkage in late antiquity, which tends to favour majority genes if I recall correctly and you see that slavery actually may not have added that much.