epoch;434967]If I recall correctly partly from Indo-European influx but also because Swedish Hunter-Gatherers also had substantial amount of ANE.
The Swedish Hunter-Gatherers had 19% ANE. When we get ANE/WHG/EEF data not just from Samara but for more accuracy from the steppe groups at the time period when they would actually have been entering Europe (which may have already been substantially different), we'll know more about possible relative contributions to that, say, 16% ANE that is present in modern day Central Europeans.
There's also another factor to consider, I think. We don't have, and may never have, data sufficiently detailed enough to prove one way or another whether that specific autosomal ANE of the Swedish Hunter Gatherers actually made it into modern peoples, or whether perhaps it was an isolated group that ultimately did not leave much trace any further west. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't their yDNA clades extinct?
Certainly. However, history shows that few men can father children at a lot of women. The other way around does not seem plausible. So I had the impression that mtDNA should follow autosomical DNA more than Y-DNA.
Not only do I agree that mtDNA should correlate better with autosomal DNA, I think it
does correlate better; it just isn't a perfect correlation, partly, I think, because of drift, and perhaps partly because of possible selective advantage for certain mtDNA alone, or in combination with certain yDNA lineages.
Since EEF itself is about 20%-30% WHG, if I understand well, that would mean that the 50% EEF consists of 10%-15% WHG added to the 33%. Although EEF possibly picked *that* WHG up in south-east Europe so it wouldn't actually mean local ancestry.
Exactly. I think we can sometimes get caught up in the weeds with this discussion of the percentage of WHG buried within EEF. For anything definitive about the genetic signature of the first farmers who took off from the Levant we’re going to have to wait for ancient samples from that area.
I think that in this discussion we’re trying to figure out what happened to the WHGs who were not among those initially incorporated in, probably, south-east Europe, or even before. Were they all, or substantially all, pushed to the far northeast, far northwest or northern coastal regions that were unattractive to the Neolitic farmers, with only remnants remaining in Central Europe, in a sort of North American Indian model, to filter back in following the Neolithic population crash in Central Europe, which I am persuaded did happen, and perhaps with Indo-European populations? (We can speculate, I think, that some, at least, did remain, and were absorbed, because the Gok samples show additional WHG compared to Stuttgart, or Oetzi, for that matter.)
Or did, alternatively, a substantial number of them remain in Central Europe, living side by side with, but separate from, the Neolithic farmers in their midst. I currently tend toward the first alternative, partly because, as I’ve said before, given the amount of territory it takes to support the hunter-gatherer life style, or even the fisher/gatherer lifestyle, which may be more apropos, and the reproductive advantage the steadily advancing farmers would have had, I think the remaining WHG numbers would likely have been small. How large a population could even the bogs or swampy areas have sustained? Using the American Indian analogy again, imperfect as it is, the Mexican and South American Indians had a much larger population, giving them a greater chance of survival, because they had already experienced their own Neolithic Revolution. Also, I’m far from being a Y DNA expert, but hasn’t there been speculation that yDNA I1, for example, was bottlenecked until it adopted farming? Perhaps one of our more knowledgeable posters can chime in.
I’m keeping an open mind about this whole topic, however, particularly as there might have been many regional variations.
As I stated before: A third local ancestry is quite a substantial amount.
I understand that you believe that; I just don't think the data yet exists to prove it.
If I am right the Baltic states never had significant neolithic immigration that kickstarted the neolithicum there. However, Baltics still do have significant EEF. They also have significant ANE and speak a Indo-European language. This might serve as evidence that there possibly the expanding Indo-Europeans carried an lot of EEF as well as WHG. Although possibly the EEF the Baltics show affinity to might be the exact bit in Stuttgart that was derived from WHG. Lazardis discusses that, and suggests a 20% WHG admixture.
Are you saying that there was no gene flow from Neolithic groups into the Baltic areas? If the Neolithic spread to the Baltic region from Neolithic cultures to their south, cultures that were already mixed WHG/EEF, then how would that be possible? More importantly, how could that be proved?
As to your comment about Lazaridis et al, I don’t remember the paper concluding that the EEF in Baltic peoples was any different than the EEF in any other Europeans, (which may be, say 20% WHG) or, to say it another way, that they were able to segregate the buried WHG in EEF people, and say that only those genes appear in people in the Baltics. Could you point me to the relevant passage?
Yes, you stated that before. I deliberately used the term "studies
suggest". However, we know of more HG's living alongside farmers for a substantial time: Swifterband and Vlaardingen in the Netherlands, Pitted Ware in Sweden.
Also in the same article that spends attention to that Bollongio study Dienekes spends attention to another study of ancient mtDNA, called Brandt en Haak. They see HG mtDNA reappear slightly at the end of LBK, and staronger after LBK. I think that is consistent with my suggestion.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t_KXpJ8f80w/Ulbx5NVzpmI/AAAAAAAAJLE/4ygZg4byqIc/s1600/timeline.jpg[/QUOTE]
I think Pitted Ware might fit well into a scenario where WHG were mainly isolated to the far northern or northeastern areas, yes? As to Swifterband and Vlarrdingen, I’m assuming you’re basing this on archaeological evidence, because I don’t believe there’s anything available in terms of genetics data.
This is an interesting area for exploration. Do you have any links to papers that show radiocarbon dated HG sites that post-date the arrival of the Neolithic in the area? How many of them are there in relationship to the Neolithic sites? Is there other data that, in your opinion, would indicate that there were substantial numbers of WHG remaining in the area?
Yes, the Brandt et al paper is very interesting. However, the way I read the graphic is that there is, as you say, a slight resurgence in this particular area of HG lineages from around 4600 BC to around 4100 BC (from virtually 0 to about 10% of the total?). However, by 3400 BC it's virtually back to square one, and they only start increasing again with the SMC culture to reach a high of about 30% in 3100 BC? They then see-saw a bit (it looks as if each new culture, CWC, BBC, Unetice, decreases them a bit) to finally level off at about 18%?
Interestingly enough, although there are earlier trickles, the big spike of "new" mtDNA lineages that might specifically be tied to an Indo-European migration (I, U2, T1, R ) really make their appearance around the time of Corded Ware and Unetice, reaching a high of about 20%, but they "settle" at an average of what looks to be less than 10%.