PDA

View Full Version : Ancient DNA from Hungary-Christine Gamba et al



Pages : [1] 2

Angela
21-10-14, 20:29
Thanks to Dienekes for posting the study. Christine Gamba et al:

Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory:

This is the link to the study:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html

This is the direct link to the Dienekes thread:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/10/ancient-dna-from-ancient-inhabitants-of.html

Abstract:

The Great Hungarian Plain was a crossroads of cultural transformations that have shaped European prehistory. Here we analyse a 5,000-year transect of human genomes, sampled from petrous bones giving consistently excellent endogenous DNA yields, from 13 Hungarian Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Age burials including two to high (~22 × ) and seven to ~1 × coverage, to investigate the impact of these on Europe’s genetic landscape. These data suggest genomic shifts with the advent of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, with interleaved periods of genome stability. The earliest Neolithic context genome shows a European hunter-gatherer genetic signature and a restricted ancestral population size, suggesting direct contact between cultures after the arrival of the first farmers into Europe. The latest, Iron Age, sample reveals an eastern genomic influence concordant with introduced Steppe burial rites. We observe transition towards lighter pigmentation and surprisingly, no Neolithic presence of lactase persistence.

Y DNA: ( A total surprise for me...)
Individual KO1, E. Neol Körös (5,650–5,780 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a
Individual NE5, M. Neol. Late ALP (4,990–5,210 BC) = Y-Haplogroup C6
Individual NE6, M. Neol. LBK Culture (4,950–5,300 BC) = Y-Haplogroup C6
Individual NE7, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (4,360–4,490 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a
Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1,110–1,270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1
Individual IR1, Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (830–980 BC) = Y-Haplogroup N

Still no R1b anywhere.

J2a has finally made an appearance, and it's in a Bronze Age context.

First comment on Dienekes:
The oldest neolithic sample KO1 is a dark haired blue eyed man with I2a and "Armenian" mDNA R3.

I'm not going to say another word until I read the entire paper twice! However, that "Armenian" comment is interesting in light of the tweets from Razib Khan (thanks to him) about the new Lazaridis paper saying that Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% Karelian / 50% "Armenian".



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcZAGMEAwrY

Angela
21-10-14, 21:34
The first ancient sample to have fair hair and fair eyes is Neolithic 7:
Individual NE7, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (4,360–4,490 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a

Following is the PCA plot. The Neolithic samples and Sardinia form a sort of Venn Diagram. Neolithic 7 is right in the intersection autosomally if I'm reading it correctly...not too far from Otzi, actually, who is just to the southwest of Neolithic 7, and just outside the Sardinia group.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F2.html

Lactase persistence doesn't show up until the Bronze and Iron Age samples. Amazing.

KO1 plots all the way north with La Brana. Then KO2 plots all the way south. The two groups certainly mingled pretty quick in this part of the world, yes?

Could a moderator please post the diagram itself? I have no more room.

I have to check all of this again.

LeBrok
21-10-14, 22:31
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F2.html

arvistro
21-10-14, 22:55
KO1 plots all the way north with La Brana. Then KO2 plots all the way south. The two groups certainly mingled pretty quick in this part of the world, yes?
I suggest KO2 was replacement. New population. The next samples are north of it, which might be caused by bigger incoming KO2-ish population assimilating really small proportion of KO1-ish type hunters in their ranks. Because of "9 to 1"-ish or similar proportions NE circles went just slightly up.

Angela
21-10-14, 23:06
The first ancient sample to have fair hair and fair eyes is Neolithic 7:
Individual NE7, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (4,360–4,490 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a

Following is the PCA plot. The Neolithic samples and Sardinia form a sort of Venn Diagram. Neolithic 7 is right in the intersection autosomally if I'm reading it correctly...not too far from Otzi, actually, who is just to the southwest of Neolithic 7, and just outside the Sardinia group.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F2.html

Lactase persistence doesn't show up until the Bronze and Iron Age samples. Amazing.

KO1 plots all the way north with La Brana. Then KO2 plots all the way south. The two groups certainly mingled pretty quick in this part of the world, yes?

Could a moderator please post the diagram itself? I have no more room.

I have to check all of this again.

Ed.Since the ancient samples are "projected" onto the modern ones their placement isn't exact. (although it can give us a general idea) So, I don't think we should get too excited by the fact that the Bronze Age samples seem to plot with the French. Interestingly, though, isn't that about where the one decent "Thracian" sample plotted as well?

hope
21-10-14, 23:44
OK I need to ask a question here. I know I have said before I feel two steps behind in this area, but I thought I might have been playing myself a little short, now I`m not so sure. Bronze Age in this area, should be R1.. something...no?

sparkey
22-10-14, 00:49
The Y-DNA is unfortunately missing deep subclade testing. It would be helpful for all of the samples, and maybe would clarify why all of the Neolithic samples look Mesolithic on the Y line. The Iron Age N would also be interesting to know more about.

I'm guessing that the Mesolithic-looking I2a and C6 are just coincidences and that if we had more local samples we'd be seeing more G2a and the like. Well, for every sample but KO1, which seems to be a genuine assimilated hunter-gatherer.

As a minor nitpick, the statement by Dienekes that "two other ones were I2a which is what Loschbour and Swedish hunter-gatherers had" and the statement in the paper that KO1's "Y-chromosome lineage, I2a, matches the only haplogroup reported to date in Mesolithic Central and Northern Europeans" aren't quite correct. Motala 2 was I2 but not I2a, and probably was I2c. Several others may have been something other than I2a, because their calls weren't clear. Also, if we count Pitted Ware as Mesolithic (since they were hunter-gatherers), then we can also add Ajvide 70, which wasn't Haplogroup I at all. I went into more details here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29799-More-DNA-from-stone-age-European%28Swedish%29-farmers-and-hunter-gatherers?p=441144&viewfull=1#post441144).

Angela
22-10-14, 01:44
OK I need to ask a question here. I know I have said before I feel two steps behind in this area, but I thought I might have been playing myself a little short, now I`m not so sure. Bronze Age in this area, should be R1.. something...no?

I'm surprised too, but these are such small sample sizes.

The Neolithic period results are surprising too. Maybe, as has been suggested, it's just because it's a small sample, and at this period Hungary was pretty mixed in terms of yDna.

We aren't getting much resolution either, so who knows what particular flavor of I2a we have at each time period.

We do know that come clades of I2a were incorporated into Neolithic communities and then expanded. Maybe that's what happened here? They're certainly "Neolithic" in autosomal terms.

I'm still plowing through the paper. Life is getting in the way. :)

I see Dienekes has made some comments. He's certainly right about the pigmentation. Pigmentation changes were taking place before the Indo-Europeans ever showed up, I think, and it was happening among people very much like the Sardinians and Otzi.

Why does lactase persistence appear so late in history? Does anyone have any ideas? It must have something to do with pastoralism, yes?( i.e. milk consumption instead of just processed milk products like cheese?) Could that also have speeded up the pigmentation changes? If Bronze Age pastoralists got the light pigmentation alleles from the Neolithic farmers, and their diet was very dairy based, the selection for both would occur, perhaps, given that you need Vitamin D to absorb calcium?
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/vitamin-d-and-your-health.htm

Just thinking out loud, folks...

LeBrok
22-10-14, 02:06
It is fascinating, thanks for posting Angela, and kudos to Hungarian archeologist. Some of these samples are rather surprising. Lot of farmers with hg C and lack of hg G or E!

Individual KO1, E. Neol Körös (5,650–5,780 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a
Individual KO2, E. Neol Körös (5,640 BC) = Y-Haplogroup ?

This is very interesting. Times when Hunter Gatherers met first farmers in Hungary. KO1 plots as extreme HG and KO2 as extreme farmer. These two might reset definitions of EEF and WHG. KO1 bones were found in primitive and short lived agricultural village of very early Neolithic in Hungary. I wonder if he was trying his luck in farming or was he a slave or sacrifice to gods done by farmers? Has dark hair and blue eyes. Typical HG look of this period.
KO2 has brown hair and brown eyes.

Mid Neolithic samples:
Individual NE5, M. Neol. Late ALP (4,990–5,210 BC) = Y-Haplogroup C6
Individual NE6, M. Neol. LBK Culture (4,950–5,300 BC) = Y-Haplogroup C6
Individual NE7, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (4,360–4,490 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a

Wow. Where are the Gs and Es? C6 is still alive and I2a is farming!
The biggest surprise is to find only and very Hunter-Gatherer Y hg I2a and C6 in Neolithic farmers from Hungary! Did HG in Hungary suddenly turned farmers mid Neolithic?
Not really, PCA plot tells very different story. They plot exactly with today's Sardinian pop., the most EEF of all europeans. If not HG haplogroups we wouldn't even know that they had some HG heritage looking at autosomal DNA.
They plot North from older KO2, this might indicate some HG admixture happening with time, but not more than in modern Sardinians. Haplogroups are surprising but autosomally they are typical EEF farmers from Neolithic. NE7 looks very blond though. More blond than the rest of samples from bronze and iron age. Interesting.

Copper Age
Individual CO1, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (2,810 BC) = Y-Haplogroup ?
Plots exactly like the rest of Neolithic farmers. Copper age doesn't seem to bring any population change, at least in Hungary.

Bronze Age
Individual BR1, (2,080 BC) = Y-Haplogroup ?
Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1,110–1,270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1

Too bad that we have 3 thousand year gap from last neolithic Yhg to BR2 individual. Well at least we can say that J2 existed in central Europe way before Romans could introduce it around their empire from Near East, as some stubbornly insisted. I think it will show up in copper age first (Varna and Cucuteni) but we can't learn this from this study. I still can be right, lol.

On the graph we can see a big shift in plotting. Not pure EEF anymore but with admixtures pulling them towards East Europeans and West Asians (ANE?). I would speculate that this is due to Indo-European invasions which started around 2,500 BC. They are also pulled up on a chart toward, I presume, WHG admixture.

Iron Age
Individual IR1, Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (830–980 BC) = Y-Haplogroup N
Weird, plots somewhere between Russians and Caucasus and has hg N. Perhaps he is the true source of Hungarian language? He has blond hair and brown eyes.
Does "Arm" indicate Armeniens?

hope
22-10-14, 02:12
I'm surprised too, but these are such small sample sizes.

The Neolithic period results are surprising too. Maybe, as has been suggested, it's just because it's a small sample, and at this period Hungary was pretty mixed in terms of yDna.
Right, got it now. Thanks Angela..:)

motzart
22-10-14, 02:18
The first ancient sample to have fair hair and fair eyes is Neolithic 7:
Individual NE7, L. Neol. Lengyel Culture (4,360–4,490 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a


Blonde hair, Blue eyes, and Light skin! Preceding Indo-Europeans...

http://i.imgur.com/9TxOjdC.png?1

LeBrok
22-10-14, 02:57
It is fascinating, thanks for posting Angela, and kudos to Hungarian archeologist. Some of these samples are rather surprising. Lot of farmers with hg C and lack of hg G or E!

Individual KO1, E. Neol Körös (5,650–5,780 BC) = Y-Haplogroup I2a
Individual KO2, E. Neol Körös (5,640 BC) = Y-Haplogroup ?

This is very interesting. Times when Hunter Gatherers met first farmers in Hungary. KO1 plots as extreme HG and KO2 as extreme farmer. These two might reset definitions of EEF and WHG. KO1 bones were found in primitive and short lived agricultural village of very early Neolithic in Hungary. I wonder if he was trying his luck in farming or was he a slave or sacrifice to gods done by farmers? Has dark hair and blue eyes. Typical HG look of this period.
KO2 has brown hair and brown eyes.

It will be impossible to infer what KO1 hunter gatherer was doing in agricultural village.

The earliest agricultural communities belong to the Körös culture (Criş in Romania),
which is part of the Balkan Early Neolithic complex, the “First Temperate
Neolithic”10–12. Early Neolithic burials across eastern Europe are characterized by a
lack of cemeteries, in contrast to those of later Neolithic periods. Furthermore, the
majority of burials are found inside what seem to be refuse pits. In most cases it is not
possible to discern whether the artifacts recovered from these pits were simply
deposited or discarded into the pit or were rather interred with the person as grave
goods 44,45. In the specific case of skeletons from Körös culture sites from Hungary
only 13 of the 184 burials were accompanied by objects or fragments of objects that
could be identified to belong to a grave assemblage 46

motzart
22-10-14, 03:07
It will be impossible to infer what KO1 hunter gatherer was doing in agricultural village.

Whatever he was doing there, the Neolithic Farmer's daughters must have liked him because his DNA was still there 1000 years later. :laughing:

Aberdeen
22-10-14, 03:33
I'm not surprised by the shift from a Sardinian like population to one that includes some eastern mix by the Bronze Age, and the skin and eye colour results would suggest a dietary influence. And the Y haplotype I2 isn't surprising but the C certainly is - if C haplotype hunter gatherers made the transition to agriculture, why did C later become rare. And I'm surprised there's no R1a in the Bronze or Iron Age samples. I'd agree that maybe the Y haplotypes aren't going to prove to be typical examples.

LeBrok
22-10-14, 04:14
Whatever he was doing there, the Neolithic Farmer's daughters must have liked him because his DNA was still there 1000 years later. :laughing:
That's why her father thrown him into the garbage, lol, or whatever was left after he was done with him.

Seriously, KO1 lived in primitive farming village, which existed only couple of generations. Was it unsuccesful farming experiment by HGs, or more likely these first farmers/pioneers were wiped out by HGs? Wild West style.

There is a definitive slight shift in later farmers towards HGs. Definitely there was some mixing at the beginning, not much but there was some and it shows on PCA. After this initial mixing there is no change in Neolithic PCA values till Bronze Age. Even this blond farmer NE7 plots like Sardinians. Perhaps there were no more HGs left to mate with? At least in Hungary.

Aaron1981
22-10-14, 04:29
I'm not surprised by the shift from a Sardinian like population to one that includes some eastern mix by the Bronze Age, and the skin and eye colour results would suggest a dietary influence. And the Y haplotype I2 isn't surprising but the C certainly is - if C haplotype hunter gatherers made the transition to agriculture, why did C later become rare. And I'm surprised there's no R1a in the Bronze or Iron Age samples. I'd agree that maybe the Y haplotypes aren't going to prove to be typical examples.

These could be I-M26 haplotypes, or dead branches of I2a, which are not necessarily from the same movement of people as the I2-M423 Dinaric population haplotypes common in Hungary today. If I recall I2a* and I-M26 aren't very common at all in eastern Europe. I did not read the paper yet as I'm still working in the real world... Is there any indication these remains were separate burials from the other farmers of the time? Strange that all the LBK stuff turns up G-P15 or F-M89, then suddenly all this hunter-gatherer YDNA in a group together.

motzart
22-10-14, 05:16
That's why her father thrown him into the garbage, lol, or whatever was left after he was done with him.

Seriously, KO1 lived in primitive farming village, which existed only couple of generations. Was it unsuccesful farming experiment by HGs, or more likely these first farmers/pioneers were wiped out by HGs? Wild West style.

There is a definitive slight shift in later farmers towards HGs. Definitely there was some mixing at the beginning, not much but there was some and it shows on PCA. After this initial mixing there is no change in Neolithic PCA values till Bronze Age. Even this blond farmer NE7 plots like Sardinians. Perhaps there were no more HGs left to mate with? At least in Hungary.

Its probably a situation similar to that of the R1b hotspot in sub-saharan africa (chad/cameroon). It would only take a few generations of a small group of HG's autosomal traits to be diluted out of existence in a much larger population.

Angela
22-10-14, 05:25
That's why her father thrown him into the garbage, lol, or whatever was left after he was done with him.

Seriously, KO1 lived in primitive farming village, which existed only couple of generations. Was it unsuccesful farming experiment by HGs, or more likely these first farmers/pioneers were wiped out by HGs? Wild West style.

There is a definitive slight shift in later farmers towards HGs. Definitely there was some mixing at the beginning, not much but there was some and it shows on PCA. After this initial mixing there is no change in Neolithic PCA values till Bronze Age. Even this blond farmer NE7 plots like Sardinians. Perhaps there were no more HGs left to mate with? At least in Hungary.


Most of them are still south of Otzi though, and the Sardinians, so slightly less WHG even after whatever mixing went on. Until we get the precise figures from the new Lazaridis paper and/or the right ancient samples, we won't know how much of the WHG in modern Europeans is from the groups who were in Europe proper when the farmers arrived, and how much might have been picked up by Yamnaya or come down from the far north east, yes?

If the abstract from the new Sardinia paper is correct, there was very little Bronze Age movement into Sardinia, so their WHG is largely from the first "original" admixture. (Some must have come along with U-152.) I don't think there were any roving bands of fisher hunters left in southern Europe. I'm not sure about Central Europe. Maybe not. I bet there were some left in the far northeast, and maybe Ireland and Scotland?

Personally, in terms of Sardinia, I find it interesting how most Tuscans just look like eastern shifted Sardinians. Can the divergence really have been 10,000 years ago as one of the proposed models would have it? Isn't it more likely that until 2500 BC or even later all of southern Europe and most of Central Europe at least was Sardinian like? Still, of course, that means they've largely been their own breeding group for what,3500 years? (By the way, even though I complained that Hellenthal et al didn't, in their prior paper, explain their sampling conditions, I really want to see their new map...150 clusters in Europe!)


Aberdeen:And the Y haplotype I2 isn't surprising but the C certainly is - if C haplotype hunter gatherers made the transition to agriculture, why did C later become rare.

That "C" is definitely a shocker. Before they found it in a WHG sample, other stray sightings were put down to easterners wandering west but it seems some C is "home grown". I don't know why it disappeared, but Aaron 1981 makes a good point...those I2a lineages may either be of the "Sardinian" variety or an extinct variety. Either way, they may have nothing to do with the I2a in the area now. Without more resolution we just won't know.

I bet they wish they had known about this new extraction procedure for ancient dna. Which reminds me...the Lazaridis authors are still in the process of doing the y DNA analysis, or so the rumor goes, although we know how well that can turn out! Never again. :) Anyway, that may mean it will be a while till we get it.I definitely have a lot of questions about those Razib Khan tweets about Lazaridis' oral presentation.

Oh, doesn't the paper say that it was a very small group in the Mesolithic, or words to that effect? I've always held to the old formulation that it takes a lot of territory to support hunter/gatherers, although I suppose fisher/gatherers might have needed less.

kamani
22-10-14, 07:01
we know r1a and r1b were in bronze age Germany, but nowhere else so far! Not even in bronze-age/Iron-Age Hungary, Ucraine, or Bulgaria! It sure looks like they're not the original IE haplogroups after all, which are leading more towards J2a/J2b.

Sile
22-10-14, 07:41
Table 1: Result summary from 13 Hungarian petrous bone samples. From Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html)

Cristina Gamba (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-1),
Eppie R. Jones (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-2),
Matthew D. Teasdale (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-3),
Russell L. McLaughlin (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-4),
Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-5),
Valeria Mattiangeli (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-6),
László Domboróczki (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-7),
Ivett Kővári (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-8),
Ildikó Pap (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-9),
Alexandra Anders (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-10),
Alasdair Whittle (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-11),
János Dani (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-12),
Pál Raczky (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-13),
Thomas F. G. Higham (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-14),
Michael Hofreiter (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-15),
Daniel G. Bradley (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-16)
& Ron Pinhasi (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html#auth-17)

Nature Communications 5,Article number:5257doi:10.1038/ncomms6257 back to article (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#t1)
Table 1: Result summary from 13 Hungarian petrous bone samples.

Individual
Mean coverage
Human DNA (%)
Period and culture
Site
Age (cal BC)
Sex
mtDNA haplogroup
Y Haplogroup


ALP, Alföld Linear Pottery; E.,early; F, female; KO1, Körös Neolithic; L., late; LBK, Linearbandkeramik; M, male; M., middle; mtDNA, mitochondrial DNA; Neol., Neolithic.




Dates are in calibrated years BC at 2 s.d., 95.4% confidence interval calibrated using OxCal 4.2 and rounded to the decade. For the individual NE4 two dates were obtained.




KO1
1.24
62.80
E. Neol. Körös
Tiszaszőlős-Domaháza
5,650–5,780
M
R3
I2a


KO2
0.13
10.13
E. Neol. Körös
Berettyóújfalu-Morotva-liget
5,570–5,710
F
K1



NE1
22.12
86.85
M. Neol. ALP
Polgár-Ferenci-hát
5,070–5,310
F
U5b2c



NE2
0.19
45.85
M. Neol. ALP Esztár Group
Debrecen Tócópart Erdõalja
5,060–5,290
F
H



NE3
0.13
37.60
M. Neol. Bükk Culture
Garadna
5,010–5,210
F
X2b



NE4
0.10
15.16
M. Neol. Tiszadob-Bükk Culture
Polgár-Ferenci-hát
5,050–5,290
5,030–5,280
F
J1c



NE5
1.04
71.02
M. Neol. Late ALP
Kompolt-Kigyósér
4,990–5,210
M
J1c1
C6


NE6
1.18
80.36
M. Neol. LBK Culture
Apc-Berekalja I.
4,950–5,300
M
K1a3a3
C6


NE7
1.14
62.81
L. Neol. Lengyel Culture
Apc-Berekalja I.
4,360–4,490
M
N1a1a1a
I2a


CO1
1.13
34.57
L. Copper Age, Baden Culture
Apc-Berekalja I.
2,700–2,900
F
H



BR1
0.81
70.85
E. Bronze, Makó Culture
Kompolt-Kigyósér
1,980–2,190
F
K1c1



BR2
21.25
55.31
L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture
Ludas-Varjú-dűlő
1,110–1,270
M
K1a1a
J2a1


IR1
1.31
56.37
Iron Age, Pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture
Ludas-Varjú-dűlő
830–980
M
G2a1
N





The mtdna is interesting...many K's

LeBrok
22-10-14, 09:10
Most of them are still south of Otzi though, and the Sardinians, so slightly less WHG even after whatever mixing went on. Until we get the precise figures from the new Lazaridis paper and/or the right ancient samples, we won't know how much of the WHG in modern Europeans is from the groups who were in Europe proper when the farmers arrived, and how much might have been picked up by Yamnaya or come down from the far north east, yes? Good question. I would guess that around 10% from first contact. The rest came from north and east with tribes movement after Copper Age. It means that all the tribes were of agricultural character already but carrying still substantial 50-75% WHG. Before becoming farmers or pastoralists northern tribes were low on numbers and unable to penetrate and invade populous farmers from south. That's why we don't see any change in neolithic demographics of europe till bronze age.



That "C" is definitely a shocker. Before they found it in a WHG sample, other stray sightings were put down to easterners wandering west but it seems some C is "home grown". I don't know why it disappeared, but Aaron 1981 makes a good point...those I2a lineages may either be of the "Sardinian" variety or an extinct variety. Either way, they may have nothing to do with the I2a in the area now. Without more resolution we just won't know. There is another possibility that C6 was involved in farming from the beginning along G2a folks. C6 were the HGs of south Europe (if sample from Spain and Hungary could indicate it). As such they could also extend into Near East, and came in contact with farmers way back. I2a samples point to different story. KO1 is still pure HG having not much with farming except finding himself in village garbage pit, and NE7 come from almost end of Neolithic. 2k years later after KO1. Ample of time to got mixed finally.


I bet they wish they had known about this new extraction procedure for ancient dna. Which reminds me...the Lazaridis authors are still in the process of doing the y DNA analysis, or so the rumor goes, although we know how well that can turn out! Never again. :) Anyway, that may mean it will be a while till we get it.I definitely have a lot of questions about those Razib Khan tweets about Lazaridis' oral presentation. In mean time, we might get another surprise from the left field, like with this paper. Vacation is over, I'm really hoping for more. :)

Maciamo
22-10-14, 09:28
Very interesting study. A few thoughts.

1) I wasn't too surprised to find I2a among Neolithic farmers. I2a was already found in Neolithic Seribia (Starcevo) and France (Cardium Pottery) alongside G2a. KO1 (c. 5700 BCE) is clearly an assimilated hunter-gatherer based on the autosomal DNA. The other I2a is NE7, who lived 1300 years later, by which time his autosomal DNA had become typically Neolithic, like that of other samples. It is a further confirmation that some I2a lineages were integrated early among Neolithic farmers, and later spread with them. It also confirms my hypothesis that I2a in Sardinia and the Basque country may not be indigenous but came from central or south-east Europe with Neolithic farmers.

2) A bigger surprise was the presence of haplogroup C6. But if other Mesolithic lineages (I2a, I1 and F) were assimilated by Neolithic farmers, why not C6 too ? This was we have the full Paleolithic/Mesolithic European package present among H-G who adopted agriculture.

3) The autosomal data and mitochondrial haplogroups are completely in line with that of previous studies. The only odd piece of data in my eyes is the Iron Age Pre-Scythian sample (IR1), which has typically Siberia Y-DNA (N) and mtDNA (G2a1), but fits right in the middle of modern Armenians autosomally. It is only moderatly strange, since modern Armenians do have 0.5% of Y-haplogroup N, as well as a few percent's of Siberian mtDNA and autosomes. What it means is that this Siberian gene flow into Armenia is probably older than 1000 BCE, or even 1500 BCE, since it takes at least a few centuries for Siberian genomes to get completely diluted and look completely like modern Armenians. I am not a specialist of Armenian history, but I cannot think of any migration from Russia to Armenia around this period. Even before that there was only incursions from the Steppes into the Caucasus during the Yamna and Catacomb periods.

In this case the sample is from Hungary, so that prompts the question: how did an Armenian-looking genome with Siberian Y-DNA and mtDNA end up in Hungary c. 900 BCE ? Did it actually come directly from the Caucasus region ? Through which migration ? If we had only the Y-DNA and mtDNA we could presume that this was a direct migration from the Ural region to Hungary, which happened many times in practically all periods of prehistory. But since the autosomal DNA is not Siberian at all, nor eastern/central European, but South Caucasian, it's a real mystery how it ended up in Hungary undiluted.

4) The data on pigmentation is also in agreement with earlier data. KO1, who is the only Mesolithic-looking genome, has blue eyes, dark hair and probably dark skin, just like La Braña. The only other sample with blue eyes is the other I2a, even though by then he has become more Sardinian-like autosomally and acquired fair hair (apparently a contradiction since Sardinians have the lowest incidence and fair hair and blue eyes in Europe). Hair and skin colour both seems to get fairer over time from the Late Neolithic onwards, but the transition to modern pigmentation is not nearly complete by the early Iron Age.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 10:19
3) The autosomal data and mitochondrial haplogroups are completely in line with that of previous studies. The only odd piece of data in my eyes is the Iron Age Pre-Scythian sample (IR1), which has typically Siberia Y-DNA (N) and mtDNA (G2a1), but fits right in the middle of modern Armenians autosomally. It is only moderatly strange, since modern Armenians do have 0.5% of Y-haplogroup N, as well as a few percent's of Siberian mtDNA and autosomes. What it means is that this Siberian gene flow into Armenia is probably older than 1000 BCE, or even 1500 BCE, since it takes at least a few centuries for Siberian genomes to get completely diluted and look completely like modern Armenians. I am not a specialist of Armenian history, but I cannot think of any migration from Russia to Armenia around this period. Even before that there was only incursions from the Steppes into the Caucasus during the Yamna and Catacomb periods.

In this case the sample is from Hungary, so that prompts the question: how did an Armenian-looking genome with Siberian Y-DNA and mtDNA end up in Hungary c. 900 BCE ? Did it actually come directly from the Caucasus region ? Through which migration ? If we had only the Y-DNA and mtDNA we could presume that this was a direct migration from the Ural region to Hungary, which happened many times in practically all periods of prehistory. But since the autosomal DNA is not Siberian at all, nor eastern/central European, but South Caucasian, it's a real mystery how it ended up in Hungary undiluted.



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

see iron age : the cimmerians

they lived on the western part of the Pontic steppe
7-800 BC they were ousted by the Scyths and they split in 2 :
1 part fled west to the Carpathian basin
another part fled south and crossed the Caucasus :
first they assaulted Urartu (Armenia) and after they started wandering all across Anatolia with their horses and steel swords

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

Maciamo
22-10-14, 10:59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hungary_before_the_Hungarian_Conquest

see iron age : the cimmerians

they lived on the western part of the Pontic steppe
7-800 BC they were ousted by the Scyths and they split in 2 :
1 part fled west to the Carpathian basin
another part fled south and crossed the Caucasus :
first they assaulted Urartu (Armenia) and after they started wandering all across Anatolia with their horses and steel swords

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

Ok, but the Cimmerian invasion of Armenia (Urartu) postdate the IR1 sample by a few centuries. Additionally the Cimmerians came from present-day Ukraine, not from Siberia. Finally, nobody knows what happened of the Cimmerians after their migration to Anatolia and Armenia. But even if they migrated back to central Europe, that would have been many centuries after IR1.

Maciamo
22-10-14, 11:03
we know r1a and r1b were in bronze age Germany, but nowhere else so far! Not even in bronze-age/Iron-Age Hungary, Ucraine, or Bulgaria! It sure looks like they're not the original IE haplogroups after all, which are leading more towards J2a/J2b.

Note that this study did not test any Y-DNA between 4,400 BCE and 1,100 BCE. The Indo-Europeans (mostly R1b branch) would have started invading eastern Romania and Bulgaria from c. 4000 to 3500 BCE, and would have reached Hungary around 3000 to 2500 BCE, which is right in the middle of the period not covered. But we know from Lee et al. (2012) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract;jsessionid=A85EB7928A7552C314EEE7CAF65063 29.f04t04) that R1b was in East Germany (Thuringia) c. 2500 BCE.

Sile
22-10-14, 11:13
Ok, but the Cimmerian invasion of Armenia (Urartu) postdate the IR1 sample by a few centuries. Additionally the Cimmerians came from present-day Ukraine, not from Siberia. Finally, nobody knows what happened of the Cimmerians after their migration to Anatolia and Armenia. But even if they migrated back to central Europe, that would have been many centuries after IR1.

I have said for many years, one group of cimmerains went to pannonia ( hungaria )

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=TA1zVKTTsXUC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=cimmerians+in+pannonia&source=bl&ots=X71Uq3bQBs&sig=h4tXYfzFxAkhWKmpdJTbM5u5SPY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x3RHVNe8EOPCmQXl8oHgCg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=cimmerians%20in%20pannonia&f=false

there are many papers on this



http://historylib.org/historybooks/E-V-YArovoy_Drevneyshie-obshchnosti-zemledeltsev-i-skotovodov-Severnogo-Prichernomorya--V-tys--do-n-e----V-vek-n-e--/58

Sile
22-10-14, 11:17
Note that this study did not test any Y-DNA between 4,400 BCE and 1,100 BCE. The Indo-Europeans (mostly R1b branch) would have started invading eastern Romania and Bulgaria from c. 4000 to 3500 BCE, and would have reached Hungary around 3000 to 2500 BCE, which is right in the middle of the period not covered. But we know from Lee et al. (2012) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract;jsessionid=A85EB7928A7552C314EEE7CAF65063 29.f04t04) that R1b was in East Germany (Thuringia) c. 2500 BCE.

This is Mr. Hammer account that R-U106 began in east Germany

arvistro
22-10-14, 11:32
N + G2a1 are those Syberian autosomally in Modern samples or were they mostly Syberian before 3000 years already?

bicicleur
22-10-14, 11:35
Ok, but the Cimmerian invasion of Armenia (Urartu) postdate the IR1 sample by a few centuries. Additionally the Cimmerians came from present-day Ukraine, not from Siberia. Finally, nobody knows what happened of the Cimmerians after their migration to Anatolia and Armenia. But even if they migrated back to central Europe, that would have been many centuries after IR1.

that is true, but the IR1 sample comes from Mezőcsát Culture who were Iranian tribes, equestrian nomads with iron tools and believed to be under control of the Cimmerians
Cimmerians are believed to descend from Srubnaya culture and Iranian, so probably R1a,
I guess some tribes from the forest-steppe zone (I2a1b and N1c) mixed with them, which would account for the IR1 sample to be N and also for pre-Slavic presence of I2a1b in the Balkan

Maciamo
22-10-14, 12:46
that is true, but the IR1 sample comes from Mezőcsát Culture who were Iranian tribes, equestrian nomads with iron tools and believed to be under control of the Cimmerians
Cimmerians are believed to descend from Srubnaya culture and Iranian, so probably R1a,
I guess some tribes from the forest-steppe zone (I2a1b and N1c) mixed with them, which would account for the IR1 sample to be N and also for pre-Slavic presence of I2a1b in the Balkan


Then another Iranian tribe. But that still doesn't explain the Armenian autosomal DNA. It would be interesting to run this same in Dodecad and Eurogenes to determine the exact admixtures.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 12:56
Then another Iranian tribe. But that still doesn't explain the Armenian autosomal DNA. It would be interesting to run this same in Dodecad and Eurogenes to determine the exact admixtures.

it is simple, the present-day Armenians didn't get their Armenian-looking genoom from Armenians, but (in part) from Cimmerians, and so did the IR1 sample

epoch
22-10-14, 13:30
One interesting thing is that KO2 seems less WHG admixted than the other, later neolithic samples. The Iceman, Sardinians and the NE1 - NE& samples all seem to have similar WHG admixture, whereas GOK4 seem top have even more WHG admixture. Also, pretty much every present day populations show lean more to WHG than their neolithic ancestors. This does mean slow but continuous uptake of WHG genetic material. As Angela keeps telling, hunter-gatherers need a large territory to feed themselves. Furthermore, farmers probably have a larger child survival rate. This means, IMHO, more evidence that parts of Europe's HG survived as (semi-)farmers and fishermen, as continuous gene flow from a community to another doesn't seem feasible if the former isn't thriving, or at least is keeping up.

I think the Körös culture finds are very interesting, in that respect.

Wilhelm
22-10-14, 13:47
Then another Iranian tribe. But that still doesn't explain the Armenian autosomal DNA. It would be interesting to run this same in Dodecad and Eurogenes to determine the exact admixtures.

But what armenian dna are you talking about ? I don't see any prove of that. On the PCa he is not even shifting towards them (in the axis from Hungarians) he is pulling towards northern Caucasus, not armenians, also on the position he is, he could as well be a Balkanite with some siberian admix (given his haplogroups), since on the Admixture anylisis he looks quite european, altough the yellow component (North-east Euro) probably is hiding the east-asian-like admix (since no asian samples are present).

bicicleur
22-10-14, 14:04
Very interesting study. A few thoughts.

1) I wasn't too surprised to find I2a among Neolithic farmers. I2a was already found in Neolithic Seribia (Starcevo) and France (Cardium Pottery) alongside G2a. KO1 (c. 5700 BCE) is clearly an assimilated hunter-gatherer based on the autosomal DNA. The other I2a is NE7, who lived 1300 years later, by which time his autosomal DNA had become typically Neolithic, like that of other samples. It is a further confirmation that some I2a lineages were integrated early among Neolithic farmers, and later spread with them. It also confirms my hypothesis that I2a in Sardinia and the Basque country may not be indigenous but came from central or south-east Europe with Neolithic farmers.

2) A bigger surprise was the presence of haplogroup C6. But if other Mesolithic lineages (I2a, I1 and F) were assimilated by Neolithic farmers, why not C6 too ? This was we have the full Paleolithic/Mesolithic European package present among H-G who adopted agriculture.


1) It's a pitty we don't have subclades, as I2a was and is all over Europe, but each subclade of I2a is confined over a specific area of Europe

2/ C6 appears to have been more frequent than it is today. But because it is so rare today, we don't know much about it, and there are not many subclades.
I doubt these 2 C6 have much to do with the mesolithic La Brana sample.
These 2 e.g. may have their origin in neolithic Anatolia, the probably didn't come from Iberia.
The La Brana C6 may well have split from these 2 neolithic C6 before the last ice age, each surviving in their own refuge.
Anyway, much of the C6 is extinct today.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 14:19
The data on pigmentation is also in agreement with earlier data. KO1, who is the only Mesolithic-looking genome, has blue eyes, dark hair and probably dark skin, just like La Braña. The only other sample with blue eyes is the other I2a, even though by then he has become more Sardinian-like autosomally and acquired fair hair (apparently a contradiction since Sardinians have the lowest incidence and fair hair and blue eyes in Europe). Hair and skin colour both seems to get fairer over time from the Late Neolithic onwards, but the transition to modern pigmentation is not nearly complete by the early Iron Age.

The spread of pigmentation / lactase persisistance and probably also other alleles seem very difficult to grasp
Natural selection must have played a bigger role than for SNP spread

R1 is said to be the origin of light pigmentation. That origin would lie in the Pontic steppe, some 6500 years ago. R1 is spread pretty much all over Europe today.
Yet I is also omnipresent in Europe.
I suspect I also played a role in the spread of light pigmentation, which is only confirmed by blue eye colour uptill now.
On the other hand, the 8000 year old La Brana is supposed to be mixed with I neighbours, and he was still darkhaired and darkskinned.

kamani
22-10-14, 14:36
Note that this study did not test any Y-DNA between 4,400 BCE and 1,100 BCE. The Indo-Europeans (mostly R1b branch) would have started invading eastern Romania and Bulgaria from c. 4000 to 3500 BCE, and would have reached Hungary around 3000 to 2500 BCE, which is right in the middle of the period not covered. But we know from Lee et al. (2012) (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract;jsessionid=A85EB7928A7552C314EEE7CAF65063 29.f04t04) that R1b was in East Germany (Thuringia) c. 2500 BCE.

The common belief so far has been that R1b came from Caucasus/Anatolia/Balkans into Western Europe with the Indo-Europeans, since the older/parent clades of West-Euro R1b are in Caucasus/Anatolia/Balkans. The current problem with that theory is that we're not finding any R1b in Bronze-Age/Iron-Age Balkans or Ukraine, which should have been there by that time. So maybe R1b in Balkans came from Germany sometime between 2500-500 BC, and it's the older clades because that is what was around at that time. And since it's a "late" arrival, it never made it past 20-30%, which is currently common in that area. It is >50% in Germany, because it has always been like that since 2500 BC. Just rearanging theories to fit the recent data...

bicicleur
22-10-14, 15:19
The common belief so far has been that R1b came from Caucasus/Anatolia/Balkans into Western Europe with the Indo-Europeans, since the older/parent clades of West-Euro R1b are in Caucasus/Anatolia/Balkans. The current problem with that theory is that we're not finding any R1b in Bronze-Age/Iron-Age Balkans or Ukraine, which should have been there by that time. So maybe R1b in Balkans came from Germany sometime between 2500-500 BC, and it's the older clades because that is what was around at that time. And since it's a "late" arrival, it never made it past 20-30%, which is currently common in that area. It is >50% in Germany, because it has always been like that since 2500 BC. Just rearanging theories to fit the recent data...

just wait for DNA from Unetice culture and maybe also some more Bell Beker DNA

Alan
22-10-14, 15:47
So now is the final prove that I was right. The first appearance of J2 in Europe came during Bronze-Iron Age most likely with Indo Europeans. J2 and R1a/B are probably pastoralist Haplogroups and reached Europe with the Indo Europeans.

Also that the Iron Age Hungarians end up somewhere between Europeans and Caucasians is another bullet prove that the "West Asian" like component reached Europe probably with Indo Europeans for the first time.

The proto Indo Europeans were probably something like a cross between modern Europeans and northern West Asians.

Imagine a half Lezgian half Russian or half Georgians half Lithuanians Individual. There you have your proto Indo Europeans.



The two Bronze Age samples are more like modern continental Europeans but not exactly like modern Hungarians. The Iron Age sample is in the no-man's land between Europe and the Caucasus and his "Asian" Y chromosome and mtDNA seems to agree that this is no ordinary European.


http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2014/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric.html


First the Thracian individuals which showed a strong Caucasus_Gedrosia signature and now Hungarian Iron Age individuals which appear like a crossing between Europeans and Caucasians.

For at least 5 years have I preached that Indo Europeans must have been something between modern Northern West Asian and Europeans simply out of the logic that most Indo European groups in Western Asia do have significant amount of North European genes while most Indo Europeans in Europe show significant amoung of Caucasus_Gedrosia like genes, while both groups have significant Mediterranean farmer genes. This can only be explained the way that Proto Indo Europeans had both Caucasus-Gedrosia and North European (ANE impact!) like genes in combination with farmer component of course.

arvistro
22-10-14, 16:25
On Dianekes they discuss that it could be just mistype error with iron age sample. It could rather be ydna G and mtdna N :)
Which would make some more Caucasian sense.

Alan
22-10-14, 16:29
On Dianekes they discuss that it could be just mistype error with iron age sample. It could rather be ydna G and mtdna N :)
Which would make some more Caucasian sense.


Are you readiny my mind I was just about to post that too :laughing:

Yes it looks like they mixed up mt with yDNA. The individual was probably G2a1 yDNA and N mtdna makes much more sense.

Aberdeen
22-10-14, 16:36
I don't think we should draw too many conclusions on the basis of these samples, unless we want to conclude that the population of Hungary changed massively since the Iron Age, which admittedly is a good possibility. Half of the individuals have Y haplotypes (C and N) that are rare in Hungary today and the other half have haplotypes that are minority haplotypes in Hungary today and are now more common in the Balkans (I2 and J). Without deep subclade analysis, it's pointless to speculate whether these particular I2 individuals belong to a subclade that thrived or became extinct, so I see the presence of I2 in a farming village during the Neolithic simply as more proof that I2 hunter gatherers did take to farming fairly early. But if Hap C folk did as well, why did they more or less disappear later? And what do the Bronze Age and Iron Age samples have to tell us about the levels of ANE in Europe - that part is a mystery. I think it's best to assume that these results aren't typical for Hungary unless and until we get confirmation in the form of more samples.

Maciamo
22-10-14, 16:41
On Dianekes they discuss that it could be just mistype error with iron age sample. It could rather be ydna G and mtdna N :)
Which would make some more Caucasian sense.

That would indeed make more sense, especially since it would be the Caucasian G2a1 Y-DNA !

kamani
22-10-14, 17:41
I don't think we should draw too many conclusions on the basis of these samples, unless we want to conclude that the population of Hungary changed massively since the Iron Age, which admittedly is a good possibility. Half of the individuals have Y haplotypes (C and N) that are rare in Hungary today and the other half have haplotypes that are minority haplotypes in Hungary today and are now more common in the Balkans (I2 and J). Without deep subclade analysis, it's pointless to speculate whether these particular I2 individuals belong to a subclade that thrived or became extinct, so I see the presence of I2 in a farming village during the Neolithic simply as more proof that I2 hunter gatherers did take to farming fairly early. But if Hap C folk did as well, why did they more or less disappear later? And what do the Bronze Age and Iron Age samples have to tell us about the levels of ANE in Europe - that part is a mystery. I think it's best to assume that these results aren't typical for Hungary unless and until we get confirmation in the form of more samples.

some good observations! For sure their y-dna has changed massively since the Iron Age, to name a few factors: the huns, the germanic migrations, the slavic migrations, numerous plagues etc. Why is C completely gone, is a mystery to me. N is still found around that area in low %. The young I2a-din, probably the descendant of this I2a, now has moved more South (maybe pushed by the Huns). What I'm not sure is, is their R1a from the Huns or the Slavs? or are they the same population at different points in time?

LeBrok
22-10-14, 17:59
some good observations! For sure the population has changed massively since the Iron Age, to name a few factors: the huns, the germanic migrations, the slavic migrations, numerous plagues etc. Why is C completely gone, is a mystery to me. N is still found around that area in low %. The young I2a-din, probably the descendant of this I2a, now has moved more South (maybe pushed by the Huns). These I2a lineages might be extinct as well as C6. There is still 4 thousand years till I2a Dinaric showed up.



What I'm not sure is, is their R1a from the Huns or the Slavs? or are they the same population at different points in time? There are no records telling us that Slavs were Huns, or the Huns spoke Slavic. On other hand we know that Slavs came from agricultural culture, and Huns were nomads, horse riding warriors. If Huns spoke IE language it would have been some Iranic dialect like Scythian or Sarmatian.

Aberdeen
22-10-14, 18:10
I've been thinking about the J2 sample. I have been assuming that J spread from the Middle East via the Phoenicians and from the Balkans via the Greeks, being later spread around Europe by the Romans. But what if J2 was a major factor in the IE movement into Europe, as some people have suggested in the past? Although obviously the northern IE folk were mostly and perhaps completely R1a. Nah, I'm going to go with this J2 sample being an anomaly.

Alan
22-10-14, 18:10
These I2a lineages might be extinct as well as C6. There is still 4 thousand years till I2a Dinaric showed up.


There are no records telling us that Slavs were Huns, or the Huns spoke Slavic. On other hand we know that Slavs came from agricultural culture, and Huns were nomads, horse riding warriors. If Huns spoke IE language it would have been some Iranic dialect like Scythian or Sarmatian.


Huns were basically a nomad community of Sycthians and Mongols. The once which moved into Europe (White Huns) were probably the Scythian portion.

Aberdeen
22-10-14, 18:16
These I2a lineages might be extinct as well as C6. There is still 4 thousand years till I2a Dinaric showed up.

.........


Pointless speculation, IMO. Those I2a Dinarics didn't appear out of nowhere, and estimates for the ages of subclades have often turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Without knowing what subclade these I2 samples are, there's no reason to assume they belonged to an extinct subclade, except for the fact that they were living with C type farmers.

ebAmerican
22-10-14, 18:39
I've been thinking about the J2 sample. I have been assuming that J spread from the Middle East via the Phoenicians and from the Balkans via the Greeks, being later spread around Europe by the Romans. But what if J2 was a major factor in the IE movement into Europe, as some people have suggested in the past? Although obviously the northern IE folk were mostly and perhaps completely R1a. Nah, I'm going to go with this J2 sample being an anomaly.

Dienekes has been advocating the J2 Indo-European connection for a long time. It wouldn't be a surprise if modern Armenia and Lake Sevan was the original PIE homeland. Hittites were believed to be a mountain folk. Could explain the full about face and movement back to Anatolia by the Celts (folk memory). All the new recent information about the interaction between Northern Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, and Steppe during the early Bronze Age helps. Could help to prove that both R1b and R1a were assimilated PIE folk in the Steppe (Yamna). It would explain the Basque connection with R1b (the original language of R1b).

Yetos
22-10-14, 19:12
I've been thinking about the J2 sample. I have been assuming that J spread from the Middle East via the Phoenicians and from the Balkans via the Greeks, being later spread around Europe by the Romans. But what if J2 was a major factor in the IE movement into Europe, as some people have suggested in the past? Although obviously the northern IE folk were mostly and perhaps completely R1a. Nah, I'm going to go with this J2 sample being an anomaly.

why?

it is possible. we play with %

and if R1b pass from gedrosia to south west caucas and then to steppe, it is possible to get IEized.

we speak about possibilities, and wits fits most.

Taranis
22-10-14, 19:21
These I2a lineages might be extinct as well as C6. There is still 4 thousand years till I2a Dinaric showed up.


There are no records telling us that Slavs were Huns, or the Huns spoke Slavic. On other hand we know that Slavs came from agricultural culture, and Huns were nomads, horse riding warriors. If Huns spoke IE language it would have been some Iranic dialect like Scythian or Sarmatian.


Huns were basically a nomad community of Sycthians and Mongols. The once which moved into Europe (White Huns) were probably the Scythian portion.

The linguistic (and ethnic) affiliation of the Huns is a matter that has to my knowledge gone back and forth, mainly due to the scarcity of data. I agree that a Scytho-Sarmatian language is a very real possibility (these languages dominated a large swath of Eurasia for centuries, after all), but so is - in my opinion - Turkic. We don't even know for certain if the Xiongnu of Chinese sources are even the same as the Huns that show up a bit later in Western sources.

What is clear about the Slavs, and I agree unanimously here with LeBrok, is that their language is not one of invaders from the steppe.

Goga
22-10-14, 20:04
At last we can for certainly say that J2a in Europe is not from the Romans, lol. From the very first beginning I was telling you guys that the J2a was actually a proto-Indo-European marker that migrated together with R1 from the Iranian Plateau into the Maykop horizon and from there into the Yamna horizon before migrating into the Europe. Indo-Europeans that Indo-Europized the Europe were already heavily diluted with native the Pontic-Caspian Steppes people. They were no more proto-Indo-European at all. J2a folks that mixed with R1a* folks on the Iranian Plateau and South Central Asia, became later known as 'Irani' or simply 'Aryans'. With other words, proto-Iranic, ancient Iranic folks were most probably of Caucaso-Gedrosia admixture. Those people invaded Northern India and raided the Pontic Caspian Sea Horizon. The homeland of the Iranic tribes, Aryana Verta, was a mountainous area. So I'm sure it was located somewhere between the Kurdistan Zagros Mountains and the South-Central Asia.

Goga
22-10-14, 20:11
It is also possible that J2a migrated into the Pontic Caspian Steppes together with the R1a* and NOT R1b* at all!
But it's also possible that J2a came into Europe with the 'Iranic' people. Because Iranic people sometimes invaded Europe. Think about the Alanians. J2a in Europe can be from the Massagetae (proto-Alanians) or even the Medes (Mitanni) or simply the Sauromatians, the Solar Medes…

Robert6
22-10-14, 20:11
it is simple, the present-day Armenians didn't get their Armenian-looking genoom from Armenians, but (in part) from Cimmerians, and so did the IR1 sample

In Hungary there were also Sigynes (Iranian tribe? or proto-Slavic tribe, the reconstruction of proto-Slavic shows that they came from the Steppes), possibly before the Cimmerians

Goga
22-10-14, 20:15
In Hungary there were also Sigynes (Iranian tribe?), possible before the CimmeriansBingo! I'm proposing exactly the same thing. J2a in Hungary is most probably from the Massagetae, or the Solar Medes, the Sauromatians. J2a in Hungary can be already a fully evolved 'Iranic' marker, that has nothing to do with so called proto-Indo-Europeans.

Robert6
22-10-14, 20:21
In Hungary there were also Sigynes (Iranian tribe? or proto-Slavic tribe, the reconstruction of proto-Slavic shows that they came from the Steppes), possibly before the Cimmerians
I checked he's positive for NO and N snps so he have N haplogroup, Slavic populations in Balkans have haplogroup N1a (also in Slovakia you may find N1a)
And he was there before the Cimmerians,
the Sigynes is a good proposal

Robert6
22-10-14, 20:31
It is not strange that he was Armenian like
in central Asia you may find Y-Dna haplogroup N,
and in Caucasus and Cent.Asia you find mtdna G.
In Iron age the Cent.Asians wasn't so diferent from South Caucasians

bicicleur
22-10-14, 20:33
I checked he's positive for NO and N snps so he have N haplogroup, Slavic populations in Balkans have haplogroup N1a (also in Slovakia you may find N1a)
And he was there before the Cimmerians,
the Sigynes is a good proposal

who are the Sigynes? what is their origin?

bicicleur
22-10-14, 20:39
Bingo! I'm proposing exactly the same thing. J2a in Hungary is most probably from the Massagetae, or the Solar Medes, the Sauromatians. J2a in Hungary can be already a fully evolved 'Iranic' marker, that has nothing to do with so called proto-Indo-Europeans.

not the J2a1 sample mentioned in the study, which is dated +/- 1200 BC
the tribes you mention arrived in the west much later, after the Cimmerians and after the Scyths

Angela
22-10-14, 20:47
I remember that somewhere on Dienekes' site there is a thread(s) which discusses the fact that a few Armenians plot pretty far away from the mass of Armenians, and there was some speculation that perhaps it was because of Russian admixture. (I just spent a half hour trying to find it, but I couldn't. If I have time later, I'll try again.) I'm just suggesting that those may be the few Armenians among whom IR plots. If you look closely at the mass of samples in the Near East you'll find that most of the Armenians plot down there somewhere around eastern Turkey, which makes sense.)

However, given the tweets from Razib Khan about the upcoming Lazaridis paper on Samarra, I don't see why the fact that IR plots near a "possibly" mixed Armenian/Russian sample is either surprising or upsetting.
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) eastern hg from Karelia and sammara. ANE related to Eastern hg. yamnaya had near East and Caucasus
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) ANE in Europe from eastern hg groups? (via yamnaya)
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya better source for intrusive group into north Europe late Neolithic bronze age
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry. Karelian. low bound
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya modeled as 50/50 Armenian Karelian. corded ware 75% yamnaya
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya % peaks in north Europe. lower in south Europe. lowest in Sardinia
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya = proto-indoeuropean

Perhaps there was Caucasus influence even back in the Bronze Age. much less the Iron Age. I'm told there is now a mad scramble to analyze his data. Of course, I don't know what he'll turn out to be...I'm willing to wait for analyses to be done, and I have no personal stake in the outcome. Anyway, I'm not going to get into speculating based on fragmentary results or rumors posted by people on other sites. I had enough of that. I'll wait for the paper. All I'm saying is that the plotting of IR shouldn't be a total surprise.

I don't think we can make any judgments about the I2a or the C6 because the subclades aren't resolved enough for either the Mesolithic samples or the ones under discussion. We don't even know if all the I2a in these samples is the same one.


Epoch:One interesting thing is that KO2 seems less WHG admixted than the other, later neolithic samples.

We don't know if the y dna of the two samples, K01 and K02, are the same.
Koros 1: I2a subclade unknown
Koros 2: Y dna unknown


What we do know is that Koros 1 looks like a Mesolithic hunter/fisher-gatherer. I'm leaning toward LeBrok's speculation that he was either a hunter-gatherer trying to learn how to farm, or a local absorbed into a very early attempt at settlement by Neolithic farmers. Koros2 is a very southward plotting Neolithic farmer. He looks to me like an example of what these people were like when they first arrived.

Also, take a look at the dates:
Koros 1:5,650–5,780
Koros 2: 5,570–5,710

They're also two different sites.

The rest of the Neolithic samples are from a later time period. Enough time to have absorbed a little hunter gatherer. However, it's not as much as was absorbed apparently by the farmers in the west, because quite a few of them plot south of Otzi. Or maybe it was just a little bit over the centuries? Otzi and the Copper Age sample from this study plot at about the same latitude don't they? Also, can anybody find Stuttgart on there? Even my bifocals aren't working that well. :)

Oh, and of the NE 1-7, two of them are C6, and 1 is I2a, but who knows of what variety. Four of them are missing Y dna.

Ed. to remove some rumour mongering of my own. Also, thanks to Epoch for checking the gender identification of these Neolithic samples, and catching that Koros 2 was female, as were NE 1-4. Thanks to Arvisto as well.

We don't know what the ydna of their fathers might have been.

Goga
22-10-14, 20:51
not the J2a1 sample mentioned in the study, which is dated +/- 1200 BC
the tribes you mention arrived in the west much later, after the Cimmerians and after the ScythsYeah, you're right. I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting me. Somehow I thought that Sauromatians were older than the Cimmerians. But it's actually vice versa! Never came into my mind that the Cimmerians lived around at the same time as Mitanni (proto-Medes). Althought Mitanni (proto-Medes) existed already second millennium BC. But if this is true, then Cimmerians were actually related or even the same as Mitanni, and therefore related to the ancient Medes, or in this case Sauromatians, the Solar Medes. So, what I'm trying to say is that the Cimmerians were basically the same as the Mitanni. But later on Cimmerians became known as the Sauromatians and the Mitanni became known simply as Medes.

Robert6
22-10-14, 21:04
who are the Sigynes? what is their origin?
Sigynes lived close to Danube, to the north from Enetians, they had Horses, and they wear Median(Iranic) clothes

http://books.google.gr/books?id=ZuUaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Sigynes+herodotus&source=bl&ots=Zo27C9oCaC&sig=FFB8Nt4BsfN_lhOTNdIj2FV2DNs&hl=el&sa=X&ei=fP5HVMyIGqmu7AauyYHwDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sigynes%20herodotus&f=false

Angela
22-10-14, 21:08
I checked the legend. Annoyingly, they didn't project Stuttgart onto the PCA.

I also forget to post this quote:
Affinities of our observed Y-chromosome lineages (I2 and C6 haplogroups, Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#t1)) with a Mesolithic background5 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref5), 7 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref7) and our mtDNA haplogroups with farming communities (especially the N1a haplogroup, Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#t1))24 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref24) tentatively support the incorporation of local male hunter-gatherers into farming communities during the Central European Neolithic (Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#t1)), in contrast to the male-dominated diffusion of farmers suggested for the Mediterranean route25 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref25).

I don't know if I buy this. Over-interpretation? There's no Y dna for 5 of the Neolithic samples. Plus, one of the I2a is obviously a hunter at the very beginning of the encounter, we don't know the ydna of Koros 2, and we also don't know the ydna of NE 1-4. Also, what do they imagine happened? The H/G men couldn't stand their own women, traveled to southern Europe and stole Neolithic ones who then taught them all about farming? It's not just one brand of mtDna either, although mtDna "K" has a very strong presence.

This is another important quote in light of the tweets about Lazaridis et al:
A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref26). Modern Hungarians occupy an intermediate position between the IR1 and more Western Bronze Age genomes, most likely reflecting the continuation of admixture in the Central European gene pool since this time.

Ed.Ed. I want to be clear that all I'm trying to say about the plotting of IR is that it shouldn't be all that surprising that he plots near "possibly" part Russian/part Armenian samples. Influence from the Caucasus on some Iron Age groups is known. Perhaps the Samarra paper will show that there was some Caucasus like or at least eastern end of the Black Sea farmer influence on Yamnaya. I don't know, but I think we have to let go of all our pre-conceptions, based, perhaps, even unconsciously, on late 19th century formulations of the peopling of Europe.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 21:17
Sigynes lived close to Danube, to the north from Enetians, they had Horses, and they wear Median(Iranic) clothes

http://books.google.gr/books?id=ZuUaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=Sigynes+herodotus&source=bl&ots=Zo27C9oCaC&sig=FFB8Nt4BsfN_lhOTNdIj2FV2DNs&hl=el&sa=X&ei=fP5HVMyIGqmu7AauyYHwDw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Sigynes%20herodotus&f=false

Could it be that the Cimmerians and the Sigynes are the same?
Herodotus reports of the Cimmerians being expelled by the Scyths, and fleeing across the Caucasus.
But he does not report about Cimmerians fleeing west.
Archeological evidence suggests a group of the same origin settled in the Balkans.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 21:24
Yeah, you're right. I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting me. Somehow I thought that Sauromatians were older than the Cimmerians. But it's actually vice versa! Never came into my mind that the Cimmerians lived around at the same time as Mitanni (proto-Medes). Althought Mitanni (proto-Medes) existed already second millennium BC. But if this is true, than Cimmerians were actually related or even the same as Mitanni, and therefore related to the ancient Medes, or in this case Sauromatians, the Solar Medes. So, what I'm trying to say is that the Cimmerians were basically the same as the Mitanni. But later on Cimmerians became known as the Sauromatians and the Mitanni became known simply as Medes.

Indo-Iranic split into Indic and Iranic, around 2000 BC, probably on the steppe, just east of the Urals. (Andronovo culture)
Indic moved south. They replaced the BMAC culture.
The Mitanni arrived 1500 BC and were Indic.
Cimmerians, Scyths, Saromats were Iranic. They appeared in history later.

arvistro
22-10-14, 21:33
Angela, y-dna of other samples is not known because those girls never had it. You must have missed their gender :)

C6 is quite intrigue.

Goga
22-10-14, 21:37
Indo-Iranic split into Indic and Iranic, around 2000 BC, probably on the steppe, just east of the Urals. (Andronovo culture)
Indic moved south. They replaced the BMAC culture.
The Mitanni arrived 1500 BC and were Indic.
Cimmerians, Scyths, Saromats were Iranic. They appeared in history later.BMAC was an East-Iranic culture. Indic culture NEVER replaced East-Iranic culture in South-Central Asia!

No, it's a misconception that Mitanni were Indic. This is pure propaganda. Mitanni were actually proto-Iranic and were descendants of the Sumerians. Later, the Mitanni in Kurdistan became known as the Medes. Like the Sumerians they were the 'Sun' worshippers. I have still that native Iranic religion, and I'm still the 'Sun' worshipper to. We call our God, Xode Shems (Ezide Sor), translated: the Sun God. Mitanni were native to the Iranian Plateau. 1 part stayed in Kurdistan and became the Medes, while the other part went to the South-Central Asia and became 'East Iranic' and then invaded Northern India and mixed with the Dravidians.

epoch
22-10-14, 21:38
We don't know if the y dna of the two samples, K01 and K02, are the same.
Koros 1: I2a subclade unknown
Koros 2: Y dna unknown

KO2 is a female. So no Y-DNA.


What we do know is that Koros 1 looks like a Mesolithic hunter/fisher-gatherer. I'm leaning toward LeBrok's speculation that he was either a hunter-gatherer trying to learn how to farm, or a local absorbed into a very early attempt at settlement by Neolithic farmers. Koros2 is a very southward plotting Neolithic farmer. He looks to me like an example of what these people were like when they first arrived.

Also, take a look at the dates:
Koros 1:5,650–5,780
Koros 2: 5,570–5,710

They're also two different sites.

Yes, hardly conclusive proof. However, these were people from the same Kőrös culture, a culture sprouting at the fringes of a major neolithic culture positively associated with migration, the Starčevo culture.


The rest of the Neolithic samples are from a later time period. Enough time to have absorbed a little hunter gatherer. However, it's not as much as was absorbed apparently by the farmers in the west, because quite a few of them plot south of Otzi.

Exactly my point. However, KO2 plots the most south of them all. Distinctly so even. Maybe that Kőrös culture is one of these mixture cultures. Remember we talked about that before? I think this fits the idea.


Or maybe it was just a little bit over the centuries? Otzi and the Copper Age sample from this study plot at about the same latitude don't they? Also, can anybody find Stuttgart on there? Even my bifocals aren't working that well. :)

Oh, and of the NE 1-7, two of them are C6, and 1 is I2a, but who knows of what variety. Four of them are missing Y dna.

Alan
22-10-14, 21:42
The linguistic (and ethnic) affiliation of the Huns is a matter that has to my knowledge gone back and forth, mainly due to the scarcity of data. I agree that a Scytho-Sarmatian language is a very real possibility (these languages dominated a large swath of Eurasia for centuries, after all), but so is - in my opinion - Turkic. We don't even know for certain if the Xiongnu of Chinese sources are even the same as the Huns that show up a bit later in Western sources.

What is clear about the Slavs, and I agree unanimously here with LeBrok, is that their language is not one of invaders from the steppe.

At the times of the Huns there wasn't yet a language or people known as Turkic. Huns were basically a confederation of Scythian and Mongolian tribes and might have give birth to the first Turkic speakers. The Huns might have give birth to the Turkic speakers. But they weren't Turkic themselves yet.

Goga
22-10-14, 21:43
BMAC was an East-Iranic culture. Indic culture NEVER replaced East-Iranic culture in South-Central Asia!

No it's a misconception that Mitanni were Indic. This is pure propaganda. Mitanni were actually proto-Iranic and were descendants of the Sumerians. Later, the Mitanni in Kurdistan became known as the Medes. Like the Sumerians they were the 'Sun' worshippers. I have still that native Iranic religion, and I'm still the 'Sun' worshipper to. We call our God, Xode Shems (Ezide Sor), translated: the Sun God. Mitanni were native to the Iranian Plateau. 1 part went to the West and became the Medes, while the other part went to the South-Central Asia and became 'East Iranic' and then invaded Northern India and mixed with the Dravidians.But I never realized that the Cimmerians were almost as old as the Mitanni and therefore much older than the East Iranic tribes, like the East Iranic Scythians (aka Saka) in the Pontic-Caspian Steppes!

Alan
22-10-14, 21:45
It is also possible that J2a migrated into the Pontic Caspian Steppes together with the R1a* and NOT R1b* at all!
But it's also possible that J2a came into Europe with the 'Iranic' people. Because Iranic people sometimes invaded Europe. Think about the Alanians. J2a in Europe can be from the Massagetae (proto-Alanians) or even the Medes (Mitanni) or simply the Sauromatians, the Solar Medes…


The sample is from Bronze Age. The Indo Europeans hadn't yet evolved into different groups.

bicicleur
22-10-14, 21:46
I remember that somewhere on Dienekes' site there is a thread(s) which discusses the fact that a few Armenians plot pretty far away from the mass of Armenians, and there was some speculation that perhaps it was because of Russian admixture. (I just spent a half hour trying to find it, but I couldn't. If I have time later, I'll try again.) I'm just suggesting that those may be the few Armenians among whom IR plots. If you look closely at the mass of samples in the Near East you'll find that most of the Armenians plot down there somewhere around eastern Turkey, which makes sense.)

However, given the tweets from Razib Khan about the upcoming Lazaridis paper on Samarra, I don't see why the fact that IR plots near a "possibly" mixed Armenian/Russian sample is either surprising or upsetting.
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) eastern hg from Karelia and sammara. ANE related to Eastern hg. yamnaya had near East and Caucasus
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) ANE in Europe from eastern hg groups? (via yamnaya)
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya better source for intrusive group into north Europe late Neolithic bronze age
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) corded ware 36% nonlocal ancestry. Karelian. low bound
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya modeled as 50/50 Armenian Karelian. corded ware 75% yamnaya
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya % peaks in north Europe. lower in south Europe. lowest in Sardinia
#ASHG14 (https://twitter.com/hashtag/ASHG14?src=hash) yamnaya = proto-indoeuropean

Well, I could speculate that maybe the idea that Yamnaya people were half "Armenian like" is anathema on "racial" grounds to some people, in addition to falsifying years of opinions and conclusions about the nature of the "Indo-Europeans". I don't like to think that's the case, however. Maybe that's just rumor mongering too. I'm told there is now a mad scramble to analyze his data. Of course, I don't know what he'll turn out to be...I'm willing to wait for analyses to be done, and I have no personal stake in the outcome. Anyway, I'm not going to get into speculating based on fragmentary results or rumors posted by people on other sites. I had enough of that. I'll wait for the paper. All I'm saying is that the plotting of IR shouldn't be a total surprise.

I don't think we can make any judgments about the I2a or the C6 because the subclades aren't resolved enough for either the Mesolithic samples or the ones under discussion. We don't even know if all the I2a in these samples is the same one.



We don't know if the y dna of the two samples, K01 and K02, are the same.
Koros 1: I2a subclade unknown
Koros 2: Y dna unknown

What we do know is that Koros 1 looks like a Mesolithic hunter/fisher-gatherer. I'm leaning toward LeBrok's speculation that he was either a hunter-gatherer trying to learn how to farm, or a local absorbed into a very early attempt at settlement by Neolithic farmers. Koros2 is a very southward plotting Neolithic farmer. He looks to me like an example of what these people were like when they first arrived.

Also, take a look at the dates:
Koros 1:5,650–5,780
Koros 2: 5,570–5,710

They're also two different sites.

The rest of the Neolithic samples are from a later time period. Enough time to have absorbed a little hunter gatherer. However, it's not as much as was absorbed apparently by the farmers in the west, because quite a few of them plot south of Otzi. Or maybe it was just a little bit over the centuries? Otzi and the Copper Age sample from this study plot at about the same latitude don't they? Also, can anybody find Stuttgart on there? Even my bifocals aren't working that well. :)

Oh, and of the NE 1-7, two of them are C6, and 1 is I2a, but who knows of what variety. Four of them are missing Y dna.

How about BR2 - Y DNA J2a1?
Wouldn't you expect such a haplogroup somewhere in the Near East on the PCA chart?
No he is not, he is somewhere in France - Italy - Spain.

Alan
22-10-14, 21:47
I remember that somewhere on Dienekes' site there is a thread(s) which discusses the fact that a few Armenians plot pretty far away from the mass of Armenians, and there was some speculation that perhaps it was because of Russian admixture. (I just spent a half hour trying to find it, but I couldn't. If I have time later, I'll try again.) I'm just suggesting that those may be the few Armenians among whom IR plots. If you look closely at the mass of samples in the Near East you'll find that most of the Armenians plot down there somewhere around eastern Turkey, which makes sense.)


Exactly I saw and red the same. Those few Armenian samples were out of the mass and were probably mixed. They ended up among North Caucasians.

Goga
22-10-14, 21:50
The sample is from Bronze Age. The Indo Europeans hadn't yet evolved into different groups.This is what it is saying: "Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1,110–1,270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1". At that time (around 1250 BC) even the West Iranian people were fully evolved. Same time when the Mitanni became the Medes in Kurdistan.

Alan
22-10-14, 21:54
The Mitanni arrived 1500 BC and were Indic.


Thats not an accepted fact but more of a good theory. The Mitanni Elite spoke a very archaic Indo_Iranic dialct which tended more towards the Indo_Aryan group but can simply be explained with the fact that Proto Indo_Iranic would come closer to Indo_Aryan because Indo_Aryan has obtained much more archaic features like Lithuanian.

So the more archaic the Indo_iranic language is, the more it will tend towards Indo_Aryan, because IndoAryans has preserved itself better.

Angela
22-10-14, 21:55
[QUOTE=epoch;442476]KO2 is a female. So no Y-DNA.

Thanks for that correction Epoch. I missed that.

Alan
22-10-14, 21:56
This is what it is saying: "Individual BR2, L. Bronze, Kyjatice Culture (1,110–1,270 BC) = Y-Haplogroup J2a1". At that time (around 1250 BC) even the West Iranian people were fully evolved. Same time when the Mitanni became the Medes in Kurdistan.


OK but it is unlikely that the Medes had yet reached any part of this area if even Scythians weren't yet there.

epoch
22-10-14, 21:58
Thanks for that correction Epoch. I missed that. I better go back and check on NE 1-4. I'm getting sloppy.

No you don't ;-)

Goga
22-10-14, 22:02
OK but it is unlikely that the Medes had yet reached any part of this area if even Scythians weren't yet there.
No, not the Medes, but the relatives of the Mitanni reached that part of the area (Hungary?) . Cimmerians can be older than the Medes, and if this true then the Cimmerians actually could be closely related to the Mitanni. That's why I'm saying that the Cimmerians could evolve into the Saomartians and the Mitanni simply evolved into the Medes. That also explains why there are many links between Saomartians (Solar Medes) and the Medes, simply because they share the same ancestors (Cimmerians/Mitanni)!

Alan
22-10-14, 22:05
No, not the Medes, but the relatives of the Mitanni reached that part of the area (Hungary?) . Cimmerians can be older than the Medes, and if this true then the Cimmerians actually could be closely related to the Mitanni. That's why I'm saying that the Cimmerians could evolve into Saomartians and the Mitanni simply evolved into the Medes. That also explains why there are many links between Saomartians (Solar Medes) and the Medes, simply because they share the same ancestors (Cimmerians/Mitanni)!

Scythians, Sarmatians, Medes, Cimmerians etc they all share same ancestors. The question is how far back those ancestors go. And it is hard to tell and we can only speculate.

Goga
22-10-14, 22:08
Scythians, Sarmatians, Medes, Cimmerians etc they all share same ancestors. The question is how far back those ancestors go. And it is hard to tell and we can only speculate.
From what I learned today is that the Cimmerians are OLDER than Scythians (East Iranians) and the Medes (West Iranians). Cimmerians lived almost at the same times as Mitanni!; before the Medes, Saomartians, Scythians (Saka) etc.

Angela
22-10-14, 22:13
Angela, y-dna of other samples is not known because those girls never had it. You must have missed their gender :)

C6 is quite intrigue.

Thanks, Arvistro. I credited both you and Epoch in ed. to the post upthread. :)

Robert6
22-10-14, 22:42
Could it be that the Cimmerians and the Sigynes are the same?
Herodotus reports of the Cimmerians being expelled by the Scyths, and fleeing across the Caucasus.
But he does not report about Cimmerians fleeing west.
Archeological evidence suggests a group of the same origin settled in the Balkans.
I don't think so, there are many Cimmerian and Scythian Kurgans in West Caucasus, and they influenced also South Caucasus. But no N haplogroup is there.
Sigynes had different Horses, than Scythians and Cimmerians

epoch
22-10-14, 22:45
Exactly I saw and red the same. Those few Armenian samples were out of the mass and were probably mixed. They ended up among North Caucasians.

Indo-European languages must have originated from an area between the Caucasus and where ever the proto Finn-Ugrians were. We know that for sure since both North Caucasian languages as well as Finn-Ugrian langueages have loanwords from proto-IE.

sparkey
22-10-14, 23:27
Pointless speculation, IMO. Those I2a Dinarics didn't appear out of nowhere, and estimates for the ages of subclades have often turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Without knowing what subclade these I2 samples are, there's no reason to assume they belonged to an extinct subclade, except for the fact that they were living with C type farmers.

Kamani was being much more speculative than LeBrok by suggesting that I2a-Din is "probably the descendant of this I2a." LeBrok was correctly pointing out that these could be an extinct subclade. Or they could be I2a-M26. Or something else. There's no reason to assume that they belonged to any particular subclade, extinct or not. We've already seen some I2 diversity among hunter-gatherer samples (although farmers seem to have been I2a-M26 as a whole so far).

By the way, have "estimates for the ages of subclades" "turned out to be wildly inaccurate" for anything that used the Nordtvedt method so far? I can only recall errors on the order of 30% for it when compared against SNP estimates and the like. Certainly there has been nothing to suggest that I2a-Din is anywhere near as old as these samples. And if we're talking about I2a-Din's origins, why not take the actual I2a1b ancient samples in Luxembourg and Sweden as pointers to its origin rather than these that may not even be on that branch?

Alan
22-10-14, 23:44
Indo-European languages must have originated from an area between the Caucasus and where ever the proto Finn-Ugrians were. We know that for sure since both North Caucasian languages as well as Finn-Ugrian langueages have loanwords from proto-IE.

Not necessary because most of the Indo European lones in Finno Ugric are of Indo_Iranian and Germanic origin and could simply be from Scythians/Cimmerians and Vikings. But than Finno_Ugric, Caucasian and Indo European have a common origin.

But I agree with you and yet would extend it from Caucasus_ Finno_Ugric homeland to Mesopotamia/Iranian Plateau all the way into South Central Asia.

LeBrok
23-10-14, 00:44
This is another important quote in light of the tweets about Lazaridis et al:
A third genomic shift occurs around the turn of the first millennium BC. The single Iron Age genome, sampled from the pre-Scythian Mezőcsát Culture (Iron Age (IR1), 830–980 cal BC), shows a distinct shift towards Eastern Eurasian genotypes, specifically in the direction of several Caucasus population samples within the reference data set. This result, supported by mtDNA and Y-chromosome haplogroups (N and G2a1, respectively, both with Asian affinities) suggests genomic influences from the East. This is supported by the archaeological record which indicates increased technological and typological affinities with Steppe cultures at this time, including the importation of horse riding, carts, chariots and metallurgical techniques26 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref26). Modern Hungarians occupy an intermediate position between the IR1 and more Western Bronze Age genomes, most likely reflecting the continuation of admixture in the Central European gene pool since this time.

So indeed IR1 individual had Y hg G2a1 and mt hg N. Or is it still unsure thing?

LeBrok
23-10-14, 00:48
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Angela http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=442468#post442468)
We don't know if the y dna of the two samples, K01 and K02, are the same.
Koros 1: I2a subclade unknown
Koros 2: Y dna unknown



KO2 is a female. So no Y-DNA.

Perhaps another misspel?
Quote from the paper, sup. page 30:

Grave 44 (specimen KO2,
Supplementary Table 1) is of an adult male, which was excavated at the western
border of the main area

LeBrok
23-10-14, 02:35
So indeed IR1 individual had Y hg G2a1 and mt hg N. Or is it still unsure thing?
Looks like it is really Yhg N.
Check table 13 page 23.

Angela
23-10-14, 03:36
Looks like it is really Yhg N.
Check table 13 page 23.

I agree. It's plainly part of the Y Dna Table. They must have just reversed it in the body of the paper.

Also, on Supplementary Table 12 pg. 22, labeled Mitochondrial Haplogroups, it shows:
Ir1: G2a1-95.5%

Angela
23-10-14, 03:43
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Angela http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=442468#post442468)
We don't know if the y dna of the two samples, K01 and K02, are the same.
Koros 1: I2a subclade unknown
Koros 2: Y dna unknown

http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by epoch http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=442476#post442476)
KO2 is a female. So no Y-DNA.

LeBrok: Perhaps another misspel?
Quote from the paper, sup. page 30:
Grave 44 (specimen KO2,
Supplementary Table 1) is of an adult male, which was excavated at the western
border of the main area

I know, confusing, right?

It seems pretty clear they're saying it's a male. Then on the chart in the body of the paper they list KO2 as female.

Either it's another error, this time in the supplement perhaps, or maybe it's because they had so few snps to work with for this specimen that when it came to the chart itself, they couldn't put down "Male".

If I'm reading it right...
Number of snps"
KO1 305,000
IR1 305,000
K02 39,000

Ed. Did you see where they said they have the skull of Koros 1? I wonder if they'll put a picture up on the net? Oh, and it's pretty specifically dated: 5800-5650 BC

Angela
23-10-14, 04:44
I found the PCA's pretty interesting. DISCLAIMER: I know the ancient samples are projected onto the modern samples, so it isn't exact. I get it. However, if it didn't give a general idea...if it was worthless, they wouldn't be doing it. Also, people have to be consistent. We can't use them when we like the results and discard them when we don't.

The one on Page 6 is for NE1 and Br2 and projects them onto the HGDP data set:
NE1 is Southeast of Sardinians
BR2 (J2a1) is at the tail end of the French, but it looks as if the sample is south of the Hungarians...parallel to some Bulgarians and Romanians, but west of them.

In the PCA on page 9, interestingly enough, BR1 plots quite a bit north of approximately where BR2 was...still with the French, but this time parallel to the Basques, just east of them. Nowhere near the Orcadians, however, much less north eastern populations like the Lithuanians.

Isn't this strangely reminiscent of the results for the "Thracians" in that paper that were felt to be too badly analyzed, or so fragmentary, or unreliable once again because they were "projected" onto modern samples, or whatever it was, to be taken seriously? Maybe there were problems with them, but when seen in the light of these new samples, there's a definite western European signature to these new Bronze Age people who show up in the Balkans and also in Hungary.

The one on Page 8 projects a number of the ancient samples onto the 1000 Genomes data set:
NE1 is far to the south by itself. This population no longer exists.
KO1, the sample from a Neolithic context, but who is H/G autosomally, is up near the Finns although he doesn't land on them. The Finns really occupy a whole section of the PCA by themselves. Interestingly, a tweet from the Conference said that the new Hellenthal paper will show that they break out first from Europe, then the Scandinavians, and then the Irish? Is that right?
BR2 lands practically on top of the southernmost CEU sample. There's that NW European thing going on again.
IR1 doesn't land on any of the European clusters, but he is to the left of the Northern European one, and nowhere near the Southern European one.

I'm reminded of all those F3 statistics showing the link between Northern Europeans and West Asians that Dienekes used to post.

Anyway, I'm coming to no hard and firm conclusions, but it's certainly interesting.

kamani
23-10-14, 05:12
BR2 (J2a1) is at the tail end of the French, but it looks as if the sample is south of the Hungarians...parallel to some Bulgarians and Romanians, but west of them.

In the PCA on page 9, interestingly enough, BR1 plots quite a bit north of approximately where BR2 was...still with the French, but this time parallel to the Basques, just east of them. Nowhere near the Orcadians, however, much less north eastern populations like the Lithuanians.

Isn't this strangely reminiscent of the results for the "Thracians" in that paper that were felt to be too badly analyzed, or so fragmentary, or unreliable once again because they were "projected" onto modern samples, or whatever it was, to be taken seriously? Maybe there were problems with them, but when seen in the light of these new samples, there's a definite western European signature to these new Bronze Age people who show up in the Balkans and also in Hungary.


I've been saying this for years. But now we have some autosomal evidence conferming what the ancient Greek mythology says: "Illyrians, Celts and Gauls, are the 3 sons of Polyphemus and Galatea" (assuming that Thracians and Illyrians were close enough genetically and their signature extended all the way up to Hungary)

Sile
23-10-14, 06:56
I am a bit stunned, why, basically no R1 has been found recently in these ancients ( on the continent) , yet 2 out of 2 for the latest britons ( hinxton ) where R1, I was wondering why nothing from a period of 5500BC to 880BC for R1 on the continent

I then found
The published Y haplogroup for KO1 was I2a, but the calls below further show that he was I2a1*.

but he has also some R positive markers with in him ( as well as T markers)
R1b1a2a1a2c1k-S730
R1b1a2a2c-L150.2!/PF6274.2!
T-PF5607
T1a-PF5604


I am confused on what this all means, any ideas?

I can understand having markers of A, B, C etc .........but positive markers for R and T which are younger than I is puzzling

sparkey
23-10-14, 07:12
I am a bit stunned, why, basically no R1 has been found recently in these ancients ( on the continent) , yet 2 out of 2 for the latest britons ( hinxton ) where R1, I was wondering why nothing from a period of 5500BC to 880BC for R1 on the continent

Seriously? The Britons are from a much later time period (A.D. in fact).


I then found
The published Y haplogroup for KO1 was I2a, but the calls below further show that he was I2a1*.

I can tell from the wording that you're referencing Genetiker. For those interested, here is his Y-DNA analysis of KO1: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-early-neolithic-hungarian-genome/

As for KO1 being I2a1*, Genetiker is not quite right. Based on those calls, KO1 could be I2a1*, I2a1c*, or I2a1e. But either way, he was for sure not on the same branch as I2a-Din or I2a-M26.


but he has also some R positive markers with in him ( as well as T markers)
R1b1a2a1a2c1k-S730
R1b1a2a2c-L150.2!/PF6274.2!
T-PF5607
T1a-PF5604

I am confused on what this all means, any ideas?

False positives. We can tell because lots of upstream and phyloequivalent SNPs are negative for those. On the other hand, the I2a1 calls are consistent.

bicicleur
23-10-14, 07:16
Scythians, Sarmatians, Medes, Cimmerians etc they all share same ancestors. The question is how far back those ancestors go. And it is hard to tell and we can only speculate.

of course, they are all the same age,
but they entered history through Greek historians or Assyrians writings
Cimmerians came into history first because they were in the Pontic steppe
the others came later inot history when they moved west and became known to the Greek historians

bicicleur
23-10-14, 07:29
I can tell from the wording that you're referencing Genetiker. For those interested, here is his Y-DNA analysis of KO1: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-early-neolithic-hungarian-genome/

As for KO1 being I2a1*, Genetiker is not quite right. Based on those calls, KO1 could be I2a1*, I2a1c*, or I2a1e. But either way, he was for sure not on the same branch as I2a-Din or I2a-M26.



so the most likely is some line of I2a1 that is now extinct ?

sparkey
23-10-14, 07:39
so the most likely is some line of I2a1 that is now extinct ?

The possibilities are (1) extinct or unknown branch, (2) related to the somewhat rare, Western Europe-oriented I2a1c* branch, or (3) related to the very rare France-oriented I2a1e branch. I'm not sure I'm ready to guess which is most likely.

epoch
23-10-14, 08:06
Another thing: What does the fact that a clear HG (Y-DNA as well as autosomal) man shows up among clear farmers say about patrilocality of either HG of farmers?

bicicleur
23-10-14, 08:09
The possibilities are (1) extinct or unknown branch, (2) related to the somewhat rare, Western Europe-oriented I2a1c* branch, or (3) related to the very rare France-oriented I2a1e branch. I'm not sure I'm ready to guess which is most likely.

technically I2a1c and I2a1e do not exist : M26, I2a1c, I2a1d and I2a1e have a common SNP : CTS595
it's time ISOGG updates the tree

LeBrok
23-10-14, 09:18
Another thing: What does the fact that a clear HG (Y-DNA as well as autosomal) man shows up among clear farmers say about patrilocality of either HG of farmers? If his bones were found in a proper grave it would mean that he was a valid member of this farming community. However his bone were found in village's garbage pit. He might have been a discarded slave.
This particular village only existed for couple of generations. What does this mean? Unsuccessful experiment of HGs in farming? A village of pioneer farmers who went into HGs territory and was wiped out by unhappy HGs?

kamani
23-10-14, 12:53
The possibilities are (1) extinct or unknown branch, (2) related to the somewhat rare, Western Europe-oriented I2a1c* branch, or (3) related to the very rare France-oriented I2a1e branch. I'm not sure I'm ready to guess which is most likely.

what about: I2a2 M423, I2a2a M359 / P41.2 ?

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 15:42
I'm surprised too, but these are such small sample sizes.

The Neolithic period results are surprising too. Maybe, as has been suggested, it's just because it's a small sample, and at this period Hungary was pretty mixed in terms of yDna.

We aren't getting much resolution either, so who knows what particular flavor of I2a we have at each time period.

We do know that come clades of I2a were incorporated into Neolithic communities and then expanded. Maybe that's what happened here? They're certainly "Neolithic" in autosomal terms.

I'm still plowing through the paper. Life is getting in the way. :)

I see Dienekes has made some comments. He's certainly right about the pigmentation. Pigmentation changes were taking place before the Indo-Europeans ever showed up, I think, and it was happening among people very much like the Sardinians and Otzi.

Why does lactase persistence appear so late in history? Does anyone have any ideas? It must have something to do with pastoralism, yes?( i.e. milk consumption instead of just processed milk products like cheese?) Could that also have speeded up the pigmentation changes? If Bronze Age pastoralists got the light pigmentation alleles from the Neolithic farmers, and their diet was very dairy based, the selection for both would occur, perhaps, given that you need Vitamin D to absorb calcium?
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/vitamin-d-and-your-health.htm

Just thinking out loud, folks...

"Why does lactase persistence appear so late in history? Does anyone have any ideas?"

Atlantic coast imo.

1) The Atlantic coast is its own ecozone.
2) LBK didn't spread all the way west to the Atlantic coast.
3) The Atlantic Megalith culture originally stuck to the coast (seafood).

Those imply to me that the Atlantic climate zone was unsuitable for the original neolithic crops producing a low yield. If correct this would have led to a HG zone between LBK and Megalith on the continent and in the interior of the Isles. As soon as a way of expanding into that climate zone was found the population that found it could expand into that whole zone very rapidly.

Maybe mixing the low yielding cereals with milk was the solution found.

(edit: the same argument might also appliy to the Funnelbeaker zone)

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 15:50
OK I need to ask a question here. I know I have said before I feel two steps behind in this area, but I thought I might have been playing myself a little short, now I`m not so sure. Bronze Age in this area, should be R1.. something...no?

If R1 was originally west and north of the Black Sea and wanted to move west but LBK (or equivalent relatively high population density farmers) were in the way then maybe initially they had to go around them i.e.

1) north of the Carpathians
2) along the Danube then divert through Croatia into northern Italy -> Southern France -> Iberia
3) maritime route to Iberia
etc

various options but all initially forced to divert around that central bloc

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 15:59
I'm not surprised by the shift from a Sardinian like population to one that includes some eastern mix by the Bronze Age, and the skin and eye colour results would suggest a dietary influence. And the Y haplotype I2 isn't surprising but the C certainly is - if C haplotype hunter gatherers made the transition to agriculture, why did C later become rare. And I'm surprised there's no R1a in the Bronze or Iron Age samples. I'd agree that maybe the Y haplotypes aren't going to prove to be typical examples.

"why did C later become rare"

If there was a conquest and a two-tier society developed with y dna C as part of the lower layer then maybe it declined gradually over time through "droit de seigneur" i.e. in each generation a higher percentage of the lower layer females had kids by the upper layer males than vice versa.

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

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 16:15
Ok, but the Cimmerian invasion of Armenia (Urartu) postdate the IR1 sample by a few centuries. Additionally the Cimmerians came from present-day Ukraine, not from Siberia. Finally, nobody knows what happened of the Cimmerians after their migration to Anatolia and Armenia. But even if they migrated back to central Europe, that would have been many centuries after IR1.

Could Armenians have originally come from the same place? If Cimmerians took that route to Armenia after being displaced from the steppe maybe the Armenians did too i.e. what if the Armenians used to live on the west pontic steppe and crossed over to Armenia after some event or other?

Just a thought.

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 16:19
One interesting thing is that KO2 seems less WHG admixted than the other, later neolithic samples. The Iceman, Sardinians and the NE1 - NE& samples all seem to have similar WHG admixture, whereas GOK4 seem top have even more WHG admixture. Also, pretty much every present day populations show lean more to WHG than their neolithic ancestors. This does mean slow but continuous uptake of WHG genetic material. As Angela keeps telling, hunter-gatherers need a large territory to feed themselves. Furthermore, farmers probably have a larger child survival rate. This means, IMHO, more evidence that parts of Europe's HG survived as (semi-)farmers and fishermen, as continuous gene flow from a community to another doesn't seem feasible if the former isn't thriving, or at least is keeping up.

I think the Körös culture finds are very interesting, in that respect.

One possibility might be a conquest leading to a two-tier society. Remains from the early days of the conquest might be definitely identifiable as individuals from either one of the two tiers but remains from a later period might be mixed.

Robert6
23-10-14, 16:23
IR1 in Iron Age Hungary was N1a, he have these snps of haplogroup N1a tested
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

Robert6
23-10-14, 16:29
IR1 in Iron Age Hungary was N1a, he have these snps of haplogroup N1a tested
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

So the IR1 is parental to Balkanian N1a haplogroup


The Administrator of YFull compared his results from BAM File with other N1a
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,7459.msg261520.html#msg261520
And he shares these snps with other N1a
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+

But he is negative for these snps that N1a from Serbia do have
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 17:29
I am a bit stunned, why, basically no R1 has been found recently in these ancients ( on the continent) , yet 2 out of 2 for the latest britons ( hinxton ) where R1, I was wondering why nothing from a period of 5500BC to 880BC for R1 on the continent

I then found
The published Y haplogroup for KO1 was I2a, but the calls below further show that he was I2a1*.

but he has also some R positive markers with in him ( as well as T markers)
R1b1a2a1a2c1k-S730
R1b1a2a2c-L150.2!/PF6274.2!
T-PF5607
T1a-PF5604


I am confused on what this all means, any ideas?

I can understand having markers of A, B, C etc .........but positive markers for R and T which are younger than I is puzzling

If the Carpathian basin was heavily populated maybe initially R1 had to go around it and the big fight came later.

sparkey
23-10-14, 18:14
what about: I2a2 M423, I2a2a M359 / P41.2 ?

We're using the ISOGG 2014 tree, so M423 is "I2a1b" and M359 is "I2a1b1". Several phyloequivalent SNPs to M423 were negative and M359 was tested directly and was negative. So we can say pretty comfortably that KO1 is not I2a1b.

Alan
23-10-14, 18:46
The Thracian individuals were also descriped as more "French, Tuscan like". And turned out 50% Caucasus_ Gedrosia. This could be in context to other ancient samples, which completely lacked anything West Asian like beside the one Tuscan individual which showed first signals. Also keep in mind Gedrosia among Europeans peaks in Western Europeans.

LeBrok
23-10-14, 18:57
Maybe mixing the low yielding cereals with milk was the solution found. That's right. I think Lactose Persistence developed in Northern Europe during Bronze Age collapse, when climate got cooler and cereal crops were failing. LP fully developing during Dark Ages, another period of cooler and drier spells, when Europe got depopulated again. In last cooling phase of Little Ice Age we don't see drop in demographics of North and no signs of civilization decline. That means that by Little Ice Age lactose tolerance was spread already in most of populations, plus variations of northern cereals like rye was suitable to grow even in colder weather.

Farming technologies and transportation network were more advanced too, helping food production and even growth of economies and demographics in 19th century in particular. It is a good sign, that we crossed the threshold in technological development to keep food production even in worst times and prevent civilization from collapsing anymore. A bit of topic, but very optimistic note. :)

LeBrok
23-10-14, 19:20
The Thracian individuals were also descriped as more "French, Tuscan like". And turned out 50% Caucasus_ Gedrosia. This could be in context to other ancient samples, which completely lacked anything West Asian like beside the one Tuscan individual which showed first signals. Also keep in mind Gedrosia among Europeans peaks in Western Europeans.
IIRC one of them (P192-1) was plotting as typical Neolithic Farmer. Meaning that even 2k years after IE (or other influences from West Asia and Eastern Europe), populations of Old Europe and new IE tribes were not very well mixed. I think we are going to start finding this phenomenon lasting to pretty much modern times, when resolution of samples increases.
The other one K8 didn't plot as Neolithic Farmer but more like Modern European. They mentioned that sample was too damaged, possible contaminated, with inconclusive results. As Angela mentioned before, perhaps K8 is in line with recent finding of IR1 from Hungary. To bad they didn't try to plot K8 on PCA chart. We could see if both Iron Age guys go together.

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 19:26
That's right. I think Lactose Persistence developed in Northern Europe during Bronze Age collapse, when climate got cooler and cereal crops were failing. LP fully developing during Dark Ages, another period of cooler and drier spells, when Europe got depopulated again. In last cooling phase of Little Ice Age we don't see drop in demographics of North and no signs of civilization decline. That means that by Little Ice Age lactose tolerance was spread already in most of populations, plus variations of northern cereals like rye was suitable to grow even in colder weather.

Farming technologies and transportation network were more advanced too, helping food production and even growth of economies and demographics in 19th century in particular. It is a good sign, that we crossed the threshold in technological development to keep food production even in worst times and prevent civilization from collapsing anymore. A bit of topic, but very optimistic note. :)

"plus variations of northern cereals like rye was suitable to grow even in colder weather"

Yes, over time the crops were adapted. It might have only been critical at a particular moment in time (and then occasionally later with famines etc).

Angela
23-10-14, 19:47
"Why does lactase persistence appear so late in history? Does anyone have any ideas?"

Atlantic coast imo.

1) The Atlantic coast is its own ecozone.
2) LBK didn't spread all the way west to the Atlantic coast.
3) The Atlantic Megalith culture originally stuck to the coast (seafood).

Those imply to me that the Atlantic climate zone was unsuitable for the original neolithic crops producing a low yield. If correct this would have led to a HG zone between LBK and Megalith on the continent and in the interior of the Isles. As soon as a way of expanding into that climate zone was found the population that found it could expand into that whole zone very rapidly.

Maybe mixing the low yielding cereals with milk was the solution found.

(edit: the same argument might also appliy to the Funnelbeaker zone)

That's a very plausible argument for why there would be a strong selective sweep for lactase persistence along the Atlantic (climate favoring dairying not farming, plus low sunlight), but in the context of this paper we're talking about a very late sample in Hungary. The sweep there must have been affected by slightly different although perhaps related factors, yes?

According to the author of this paper:
Selection on this variant was undoubtedly driven by dairying, but despite evidence for milk residues in ceramic vessels from a Körös context in the 6th millenium BC (ref. 36 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref36)) this variant remains absent throughout the 10 Neolithic/Copper Age stages of our transect. Absence of the lactase persistence allele has been reported before from Neolithic specimens37 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref37), 38 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref38), although the selective sweep has been modelled as originating between Central Europe and the Balkans ~4–6,000 years BC (ref. 34 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref34)). Its absence here until the late Bronze Age, ~1,000 years BC, suggests a more recent dating of this extremely interesting episode in the dynamic history of European genomes.

The paper that did that modelling is:
Itan, Y., Powell, A., Beaumont, M. A., Burger, J. & Thomas, M. G. The origins of lactase persistence in Europe. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000491 (2009).

Where the sweeps occurred and why is also, of course, different from where the mutation first occurred, although that's of much less importance. The human genome mutates all the time. Most are irrelevant, some are harmful, and some turn out to come in handy given certain environmental conditions, and there is selection for those

Unless you're suggesting that the mutation and the first sweep took place along the Atlantic and then went all the way east to reach Hungary?

Ed.


LeBrok: That's right. I think Lactose Persistence developed in Northern Europe during Bronze Age collapse, when climate got cooler and cereal crops were failing. LP fully developing during Dark Ages, another period of cooler and drier spells, when Europe got depopulated again. In last cooling phase of Little Ice Age we don't see drop in demographics of North and no signs of civilization decline. That means that by Little Ice Age lactose tolerance was spread already in most of populations, plus variations of northern cereals like rye was suitable to grow even in colder weather.

Farming technologies and transportation network were more advanced too, helping food production and even growth of economies and demographics in 19th century in particular. It is a good sign, that we crossed the threshold in technological development to keep food production even in worst times and prevent civilization from collapsing anymore. A bit of topic, but very optimistic note. :)

Sorry, LeBrock, cross post.

Yes, that makes sense. The sweep would not have been as complete where climate didn't change as much and where large cow herds could not be maintained, although migration into those areas from more northern zones would have introduced it whether it was really necessary or not.

(I depend on you to provide the optimism, LeBrok. :))

Aberdeen
23-10-14, 21:47
That's right. I think Lactose Persistence developed in Northern Europe during Bronze Age collapse, when climate got cooler and cereal crops were failing. LP fully developing during Dark Ages, another period of cooler and drier spells, when Europe got depopulated again. In last cooling phase of Little Ice Age we don't see drop in demographics of North and no signs of civilization decline. That means that by Little Ice Age lactose tolerance was spread already in most of populations, plus variations of northern cereals like rye was suitable to grow even in colder weather.

Farming technologies and transportation network were more advanced too, helping food production and even growth of economies and demographics in 19th century in particular. It is a good sign, that we crossed the threshold in technological development to keep food production even in worst times and prevent civilization from collapsing anymore. A bit of topic, but very optimistic note. :)

That seems like a very logical explanation, which doesn't necessarily mean that it's completely correct. Lactase persistence could originally have been brought to Europe by people with a Y haplotype of the R sort, and the genetic adaptation could have gradually spread into the general population because people with lactase persistence had a better chance of survival, for the reasons you mentioned. There are no R haplotype folk in these samples.

arvistro
23-10-14, 22:01
So the IR1 is parental to Balkanian N1a haplogroup
I could not find anything on google re Balkanian N1a. It is all full with mtd N1a..
Can you share a good link on Balkan N1a?

Greying Wanderer
23-10-14, 22:07
That's a very plausible argument for why there would be a strong selective sweep for lactase persistence along the Atlantic (climate favoring dairying not farming, plus low sunlight), but in the context of this paper we're talking about a very late sample in Hungary. The sweep there must have been affected by slightly different although perhaps related factors, yes?

According to the author of this paper:
Selection on this variant was undoubtedly driven by dairying, but despite evidence for milk residues in ceramic vessels from a Körös context in the 6th millenium BC (ref. 36 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref36)) this variant remains absent throughout the 10 Neolithic/Copper Age stages of our transect. Absence of the lactase persistence allele has been reported before from Neolithic specimens37 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref37), 38 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref38), although the selective sweep has been modelled as originating between Central Europe and the Balkans ~4–6,000 years BC (ref. 34 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html#ref34)). Its absence here until the late Bronze Age, ~1,000 years BC, suggests a more recent dating of this extremely interesting episode in the dynamic history of European genomes.

The paper that did that modelling is:
Itan, Y., Powell, A., Beaumont, M. A., Burger, J. & Thomas, M. G. The origins of lactase persistence in Europe. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5, e1000491 (2009).

Where the sweeps occurred and why is also, of course, different from where the mutation first occurred, although that's of much less importance. The human genome mutates all the time. Most are irrelevant, some are harmful, and some turn out to come in handy given certain environmental conditions, and there is selection for those

Unless you're suggesting that the mutation and the first sweep took place along the Atlantic and then went all the way east to reach Hungary?

Ed.


Sorry, LeBrock, cross post.

Yes, that makes sense. The sweep would not have been as complete where climate didn't change as much and where large cow herds could not be maintained, although migration into those areas from more northern zones would have introduced it whether it was really necessary or not.

(I depend on you to provide the optimism, LeBrok. :))

"Unless you're suggesting that the mutation and the first sweep took place along the Atlantic and then went all the way east to reach Hungary?"

I think the mutation could have come from anywhere - random mutation - but the chance of finding it among the limited remains of a long ago population with a low percentage must be pretty low.

On the other hand given the later Celtic advance down the Danube from the west it could have spread back that way i.e. it might have come up the Danube as a low frequency adaptation, expanded greatly along the Atlantic coast and then spread back down the Danube again in the opposite direction.

But as you say I don't think where it arose matters that much. The critical part is the environment (or environments) that produced the sweep. Plus there may have been more than one stage i.e. an increase on the steppe due to pastoralism but not quite as life or death so not reaching NW Euro levels and then some of those people fetching up along the Atlantic coast pre-prepared for that environment and a rapid expansion.


edit: misunderstood your point - yes i think it quite possible LP existed at lower frequencies moving west and then came back east with the Celts at higher frequencies.

Sile
24-10-14, 20:01
IR1 in Iron Age Hungary was N1a, he have these snps of haplogroup N1a tested
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

Is this N1a the same type as found in the croatian islands of Krk etc.............home of the liburnians?

Kristiina
24-10-14, 20:32
I could not find anything on google re Balkanian N1a. It is all full with mtd N1a..
Can you share a good link on Balkan N1a?

I do not know if these are the best available links but here you go:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=572 (a bit old but anyway...)

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/N%20Russia%20%20DNA%20Project/

bicicleur
24-10-14, 21:21
IR1 in Iron Age Hungary was N1a, he have these snps of haplogroup N1a tested
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-


where did you get that info?

I have N1c2b2-L665

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-iron-age-hungarian-genome/

sparkey
24-10-14, 21:40
where did you get that info?

I have N1c2b2-L665

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-iron-age-hungarian-genome/

You're wrong too. :wary2:

Read Genetiker more closely: "The calls show that IR1 belonged to haplogroup N, but not to N1a or N1c." L665 is downstream of several SNPs that were negative, so it must be considered a false positive.

Looks like IR1 could be N1b-L732. Seems rare but within range (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1546/).

Sile
24-10-14, 23:01
You're wrong too. :wary2:

Read Genetiker more closely: "The calls show that IR1 belonged to haplogroup N, but not to N1a or N1c." L665 is downstream of several SNPs that were negative, so it must be considered a false positive.

Looks like IR1 could be N1b-L732. Seems rare but within range (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1546/).

some state origins as gulf of bothnia

a Finnish particular clade that emerges after the Uralic mtDNA Z contribution) and an Y-DNA legacy (e.g. Y-DNA haplogroup N1b and N1c1).
also
18% in the lands of the Veps
Veps or Vepsians are Finnic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnic_peoples) people that speak the Veps language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veps_language), which belongs to the Finnic branch of the Uralic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralic_languages).

Robert6
24-10-14, 23:09
where did you get that info?

I have N1c2b2-L665

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-an-iron-age-hungarian-genome/
The Administrator of YFull compared his results from BAM File with other N1a
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,7459.msg261520.html#msg261520
And he shares these snps with other N1a
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+

But he is negative for these snps that N1a from Serbia do have
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

Angela
24-10-14, 23:10
The admixture run from the paper hasn't been referenced yet. I think it's interesting when you look at the comparison between the "Hunter-Gatherer", the Neolithic sample, the Bronze Age samples, and the Iron Age sample:
6786

The green component is modal in the Neolithic samples, the royal blue in Armenians (and the Druze, but present at large levels throughout the Middle East), and the red component is strongest in the Bedouin. The yellow orange color is obviously the "hunter-gatherer".

The whole chart can be found as Supplementary Figure 10, page 10:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf


It's interesting that there seems to be the beginning of a genetic change in the Copper Age, but the changes in culture in this area, at least, seem to stem more from cultural diffusion for that period, not migration, as LeBrok alluded to upthread. Of course, we're only looking at one sample, so it may not be representative, but according to the authors the archaeology does not show the arrival of intrusive elements.

The change in the Bronze Age is obvious, and then again in the pre-Scythian Iron Age sample.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that like any of the other admixture components they are made up of the three ancestral populations as per Lazaridis et al. So, that royal blue component is made up of EEF and perhaps larger percentages of ANE than we have currently in Europe? Perhaps some UHG as well? I know Lazaridis said that their algorithm couldn't be used for Near Easterners, so I don't know if we have a good handle on that. The Sardinians have, in this run, a bit of the blue "West Asian" and they have the yellow HG, at levels which seem similar to the levels for them in Lazaridis et al.

In this regard I searched this site for the discussion about the "Thracian" late Iron Age sample, K8. In that discussion, Sile published some admixture results which were apparently produced by Genetiker. These are the Dodecad K7 results for K8:
K7b


46.44% Atlantic_Baltic
36.25% West_Asian
17.30% Southern
0.00% African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian

Ed. The attachment is drawn from Figure 10 of the supplement, not Figure 4 of the body of the paper. The link is now correct.

Robert6
24-10-14, 23:12
The Administrator of YFull compared his results from BAM File, with other N1a
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,7459.msg261520.html#msg261520
And he shares these snps with other N1a
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+

But he is negative for these snps that N1a from Serbia do have
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

bicicleur
24-10-14, 23:22
You're wrong too. :wary2:

Read Genetiker more closely: "The calls show that IR1 belonged to haplogroup N, but not to N1a or N1c." L665 is downstream of several SNPs that were negative, so it must be considered a false positive.

Looks like IR1 could be N1b-L732. Seems rare but within range (http://www.semargl.me/en/dna/ydna/map-snp/1546/).

ok, I see
you're right
he hasn't been tested for N1b, and neither for N1
he couldn't have been pre-N1c either, as N1c1 is estimated 14000 years old
why do you think N1b and not simply N* or N1*?
is it because of present-day distributions?

sparkey
24-10-14, 23:47
ok, I see
you're right
he hasn't been tested for N1b, and neither for N1
he couldn't have been pre-N1c either, as N1c1 is estimated 14000 years old
why do you think N1b and not simply N* or N1*?
is it because of present-day distributions?

N1b was the only alternative I saw at the project link Kristiina gave. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on haplogroup N. Where are N* and N1* found? China?

ElHorsto
25-10-14, 00:51
The whole chart is Figure 4 in the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_F4.html

It's interesting that there seems to be the beginning of a genetic change in the Copper Age, but the changes in culture in this area, at least, seem to stem more from cultural diffusion for that period, not migration, as LeBrok alluded to upthread. Of course, we're only looking at one sample, so it may not be representative, but according to the authors the archaeology does not show the arrival of intrusive elements.

The change in the Bronze Age is obvious, and then again in the pre-Scythian Iron Age sample.

Of course, we have to keep in mind that like any of the other admixture components they are made up of the three ancestral populations as per Lazaridis et al. So, that royal blue component is made up of EEF and perhaps larger percentages of ANE than we have currently in Europe? Perhaps some UHG as well? I know Lazaridis said that their algorithm couldn't be used for Near Easterners, so I don't know if we have a good handle on that. The Sardinians have, in this run, a bit of the blue "West Asian" and they have the yellow HG, at levels which seem similar to the levels for them in Lazaridis et al.


It looks to me like this admixture analysis in Figure 4 tends to group the "West-Asian EEF-ANE" mix under blue rather than EEF-like orange, which is misleading for Sardinians and neolithic farmers who likely posess no real ANE. Probably this blue is just a common mediterranean ancestry of both, "West Asian" and EEF farmers.
At the same time it tends to group other ANE mixtures with the orange WHG (approximation) color, as happened for BR1/2, French and Orcadians, which might be a hint for an admixture in these peoples from north-east (steppe? R1b?), because in the PCA plot (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg) they are actually heavily eastern-shifted compared to Sardinians, Basques and neolithic farmers.
In summary: I believe it subsumes north-eastern admixtures as orange and over-amplifies south-eastern admixture as blue (= false-positive "West Asian").

Also that WHG part which is part of K15 "Atlantic" seems to be subsumed under the green color (as happened in KO1 for example), indicating false-positive EEF-farmer admixture.

Sile
25-10-14, 01:58
as per angela's post......the K8 thracian is contaminated due to modern human intervention, only focus on other 3 thracians

both gok4 and P192-1 form a clade with Sardinians like the Iceman, although with less bootstrap support (gok4 83%, P192-1 56%). Finally, although K8 clusters with Northern European populations, its position in the tree is not resolved (3% Bootstrap). We note however that despite the reduced number of SNPs for K8, the relationships among the modern populations are consistent with the full dataset and generally well supported (bootstrap >90%), except within the Southern European group (minimum bootstrap 53%). It is therefore possible that the inconclusive pattern for K8 either reflects a possible higher level of modern DNA contamination (see Table S4 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014435/#pgen.1004353.s014) in [15] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014435/#pgen.1004353-Carpenter1)) or a more complex relationship to the modern populations included in the analysis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4014435/

Angela
25-10-14, 02:24
It looks to me like this admixture analysis in Figure 4 tends to group the "West-Asian EEF-ANE" mix under blue rather than EEF-like orange, which is misleading for Sardinians and neolithic farmers who likely posess no real ANE. Probably this blue is just a common mediterranean ancestry of both, "West Asian" and EEF farmers.
At the same time it tends to group other ANE mixtures with the orange WHG (approximation) color, as happened for BR1/2, French and Orcadians, which might be a hint for an admixture in these peoples from north-east (steppe? R1b?), because in the PCA plot (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg) they are actually heavily eastern-shifted compared to Sardinians, Basques and neolithic farmers.
In summary: I believe it subsumes north-eastern admixtures as orange and over-amplifies south-eastern admixture as blue (= false-positive "West Asian").

Also that WHG part which is part of K15 "Atlantic" seems to be subsumed under the green color (as happened in KO1 for example), indicating false-positive EEF-farmer admixture.

I'm sorry, El Horsto, in my original post I carelessly linked to Figure 8 in the body of the paper but was discussing Figure 10, p. 10 of the Supplement. I went back later and edited the post, but I guess you saw the original link. This is the correct one here:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14...mms6257-s1.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf)

I deliberately was talking about Figure 10 because it made more sense to me than Figure 4.

If you have a chance to take a look at it I'd be interested to know your interpretation of it.

Robert6
25-10-14, 10:54
The Administrator of YFull, compared IR1 results from BAM File with other N1a
http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,7459.msg261520.html#msg261520
And he shares these snps with other N1a
Y6503+, Y6511+, Y6559+, Y6560+, Y6561+, Y6562+, Y6564+, Y6566+, Y6470+, Y6482+, Y6494+, Y6515+, Y6518+, Y6521+, Y6523+, Y6525+, Y6536+, Y6537+, Y6541+, Y6542+, Y6543+, Y6544+, Y6546+, Y6548+, Y6549+, Y6553+, Y6557+, Y6569+, Y6570+, Y6571+, Y6572+, Y6576+, Y6577+, Y6586+, Y6587+, Y6589+

But he is negative for these snps that N1a from Serbia do have
P189-, Y6466-, Y6498-, Y6504-, Y6505-, Y6508-, Y6509-, Y6512-, Y6565-, Y6468-, Y6471-, Y6473-, Y6476-, Y6478-, Y6481-, Y6486-, Y6488-, Y6514-, Y6522-, Y6528-, Y6533-, Y6539-, Y6540-, Y6550-, Y6551-, Y6556-, Y6558-, Y6573-, Y6580-, Y6581-, Y6583-

ElHorsto
25-10-14, 11:58
I'm sorry, El Horsto, in my original post I carelessly linked to Figure 8 in the body of the paper but was discussing Figure 10, p. 10 of the Supplement. I went back later and edited the post, but I guess you saw the original link. This is the correct one here:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/14...mms6257-s1.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf)

I deliberately was talking about Figure 10 because it made more sense to me than Figure 4.

If you have a chance to take a look at it I'd be interested to know your interpretation of it.

Yes, Supplementary Figure 10 makes more sense to me as well. It shows the eastern admixture (blue) in BR1/2 and contemporary West Europeans (excl. Basques, Sardinians) in accordance with their east-shift in the PCA plot and our historic model. Also the blue traces still visible in Basques makes sense considering their R1b and assuming our theory of eastern R1b origin is true. I remember K12b was suggesting this too by showing lower WGH/EEF ("North-euro"/"Atlantic-med") ratio than the neighbours, indicating a more northern than southern east-admixture in non-basques, while basques probably possess rather local WHG.
In general I find the results not surprising and well supportive of our main theory here of bronze-age expansion into west and east europe, while mostly omitting the Basques and Sardinians. Although PCA plots reduce information, this one makes much sense.

The iron age IR1 was already WHG admixed, but his ancestors were probably dinaric looking I guess (not having seen his skull), somewhat similar to some carpathian East-Europeans and Armenians, and probably also South-Eastern europe in general, incl. Greece and Italy, and some continental celts. Such iron age people are probably the main responsibles for the much higher "West Asian" admixture in SE europe, although dinarics were also already present during Bronze-Age, as attested by Bell-Beaker skeletons.

ElHorsto
25-10-14, 12:21
The iron age IR1 was already WHG admixed, but his ancestors were probably dinaric looking I guess (not having seen his skull), somewhat similar to some carpathian East-Europeans and Armenians, and probably also South-Eastern europe in general, incl. Greece and Italy, and some continental celts. Such iron age people are probably the main responsibles for the much higher "West Asian" admixture in SE europe, although dinarics were also already present during Bronze-Age, as attested by Bell-Beaker skeletons.

IR1 lacks EEF (green) admixture like a caucasian.

bicicleur
25-10-14, 14:14
N1b was the only alternative I saw at the project link Kristiina gave. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on haplogroup N. Where are N* and N1* found? China?

N* is Chinese
N1* moved north toward Manchuria probably long time ago, also some Turkic people are N1*, but Turkic probably hadn't reached Europe by 1100 BC
so, it depends whether the IR1 tribe survived or not
I guess, if they have descendants today, they probably were N1b, if not N1*

bicicleur
25-10-14, 14:15
Turkic probably hadn't reached Europe by 800 BC that should be

Angela
25-10-14, 14:56
Yes, Supplementary Figure 10 makes more sense to me as well. It shows the eastern admixture (blue) in BR1/2 and contemporary West Europeans (excl. Basques, Sardinians) in accordance with their east-shift in the PCA plot and our historic model. Also the blue traces still visible in Basques makes sense considering their R1b and assuming our theory of eastern R1b origin is true. I remember K12b was suggesting this too by showing lower WGH/EEF ("North-euro"/"Atlantic-med") ratio than the neighbours, indicating a more northern than southern east-admixture in non-basques, while basques probably possess rather local WHG.
In general I find the results not surprising and well supportive of our main theory here of bronze-age expansion into west and east europe, while mostly omitting the Basques and Sardinians. Although PCA plots reduce information, this one makes much sense.

The iron age IR1 was already WHG admixed, but his ancestors were probably dinaric looking I guess (not having seen his skull), somewhat similar to some carpathian East-Europeans and Armenians, and probably also South-Eastern europe in general, incl. Greece and Italy, and some continental celts. Such iron age people are probably the main responsibles for the much higher "West Asian" admixture in SE europe, although dinarics were also already present during Bronze-Age, as attested by Bell-Beaker skeletons.

I think this admixture chart correlates very well with the Lazaridis figures for EEF if you add up the green, blue and red. The Hungarians are at about 50% (the Germans would be about the same then if the pattern holds?), the North Italians and Bulgarians at 71-72%, the Tuscans at 75%, the Ukrainians here look about 40% when they're actually at about 46%, but it's pretty darn close.

Interesting also that the "Bedouin" component is at roughly similar levels? The really nice part is that it shows the varying proportions of what perhaps we could call a more "LBK" and "Cardial" like EEF, and a more eastern "shifted" EEF? Perhaps, as you say, more Caucasus like? I'm not sure how to interpret that though. From everything we've seen so far, the EEF are a pretty homogenous group. Is it just drift? Unless, just as Stuttgart has some small percentage of WHG, the eastern shifted farmers picked up some small portion of ANE? I think there might have been some ANE there in the east before the "Indo-Europeans" started moving east.

In that regard, this article purportedly recounts a conversation with Lazaridis:
"By examining admixture levels in these groups, they found that an early European farmer split off from the rest of the European farmers early on and mixed with eastern European hunter-gatherers to form the Yamnaya population, which lived on the Steppes, Lazaridis said."

Now, I'm always a little leery of reports from journalists, even science journalists, plus it's a little vague. Does he mean that the EEF component in Yamnaya came only from the west, or was some of it from the Caucasus region?

As to the "Dinaric" component, (if it can be partly identified with the "blue" component) I'm not sure that it came only from Iron Age migrations. As you pointed out, that blue is already present in the Bronze Age, and Beaker skulls show it, as do the ones in the early northern Italian sites. The Iron Age might just have increased it. I do think it was present in the Continental Celts as well, going by the proportions in the French. I think what the chart also shows is that since it came from the east it grows progressively less as you move west. Note how the proportions in Ukraine, and the Balkans, which would have been the first affected, are higher for the "eastern" component. (Interestingly enough, though, in this admixture chart the Spaniards and the Northern Italians have about the same amount.)

The Russians and the northeastern Europeans seem to have gotten the great majority of their farmer ancestry from these later migrations, although I don't know offhand whether the archaeology would show when more of it came, the Bronze Age migrations or the Iron Age ones. Btw, I think we have a clue now as to how those "African" mtDna haplogroups wound up all the way in Finland. Speaking of mtDna, although I don't have time to go back over all the papers and the frequency distributions, I think we can see why there is an "eastern" type of farmer mtDna, and a "western" type in Europe.

Physical Anthropology is not my forte, but isn't "Dinaric" supposed to fit with "mountain" origin? The Caucasus would certainly fit with that.

arvistro
25-10-14, 16:42
Interesting that modern Lithuanians in that chart is the only population that absolutely lacks Bedoine red.
Modern Russians roughly equal IR1.
Modern Central Europeans - BR1 and BR2.
Since I am Baltic as well, what is this shiny red bedoine thing that everyone has except Lithuanians? If I read chart correct half of Basques, Orcadians, Belarussians also dont have it.

Angela
25-10-14, 17:08
Interesting that modern Lithuanians in that chart is the only population that absolutely lacks Bedoine red.
Modern Russians roughly equal IR1.
Modern Central Europeans - BR1 and BR2.
Since I am Baltic as well, what is this shiny red bedoine thing that everyone has except Lithuanians? If I read chart correct half of Basques, Orcadians, Belarussians also dont have it.

Actually, a few Lithuanians do have a smidgen of it, but generally that's correct. (I think it's the Ukrainians, and therefore central Russia probably by implication that's so much like IR1, but even then there is a difference in that they do have some of the "green" component.) I don't know what the red is. It can't be the "Red Sea" component that Dienekes was chasing, can it? It's a huge portion of the Bedouin genome. Maybe just far southwest Asian?

At any rate, when you have such a small component, and then you have small, isolated populations, it's easy to lose it just through drift, I think. I understand all of this in the far northeastern and northwestern populations. What I don't understand is the Basques. I've been in the Pyrennees. They're by no means impassable. Unless they were isolated by their language.

What puzzles me is how the Bronze Age people coming in from the steppe can be so similar to, as you say, modern central Europeans. Were the population crashes so extreme that there were very few people of any variety left there when the incursions began? I guess we'll get a better handle on it when the Lazaridis paper comes out.

LeBrok
25-10-14, 17:53
What puzzles me is how the Bronze Age people coming in from the steppe can be so similar to, as you say, modern central Europeans. Were the population crashes so extreme that there were very few people of any variety left there when the incursions began? I guess we'll get a better handle on it when the Lazaridis paper comes out.
For that reason I believe that BR1&2 are not fresh arrivals from the East. They have been their for few generations (beginning of Bronze Age) and already had mixed with locals well, same way modern Europeans are. If they were the fresh arrivals they would have looked more like IR1, the extreme outlier.

LeBrok
25-10-14, 18:19
In that regard, this article purportedly recounts a conversation with Lazaridis:
"By examining admixture levels in these groups, they found that an early European farmer split off from the rest of the European farmers early on and mixed with eastern European hunter-gatherers to form the Yamnaya population, which lived on the Steppes, Lazaridis said."

Now, I'm always a little leery of reports from journalists, even science journalists, plus it's a little vague. Does he mean that the EEF component in Yamnaya came only from the west, or was some of it from the Caucasus region?


Yamnaya is heck of a interesting case. It is at the northern frontier which Farmers never completely breached and didn't fully assimilate Hunter Gatherers living there. We have very successful Cucuteni farmers to the west and north-west of Black Sea, and Yamnaya HGs to the North. Were the HGs too numerous around these big rivers' fishing grounds? Were winters there too long and too harsh for ancient farmers and their crops? Probably the combination. Some historians (like David Anthony) believe that Corded Ware culture arose from combination of Cucuteni and Yamnaya. They've become farmers who could supplement their diet by hunting wild games, in case their crops failed. Perhaps the beginning of Indo Europeans? I think these Bronze Age Corded folks' genom will be very close to modern North-Eastern European one. I don't think there was huge population change afterwards, although some shift towards more ANE could have happened with time.

LeBrok
25-10-14, 20:07
Another interesting and baffling at same time is how modern Near East plots so far away from EEF. Supposed origin of EEF is in Fertile Crescent (~80%?). Why then the distance of EEF to Near East is as vast as to Eastern Europeans who has 40% EEF ancestry?
Does this indicate huge invasions from the east, from central Asia? Inversions and mixing which pulled original population so much towards central Asian admixtures, ANE included.

Eastern European case is easier to decipher, because they never became fully Neolithic Farmers, unlike central and south Europeans, and experienced known invasions from the east, to shift them east on PCA plot. Near Easterners however started as original farmers, closely related to EEF, but still managed to build up similar distance as Eastern Europeans. The only population who resisted too much pull are some Bedouins, who plot exactly south to EEF.

Actually going by separate axis is more understandable, and I should correct myself somewhat. On North-South axes Near East and Caucasus plots very close to EEF, especially KO2, denoting similar farming past and admixture, I guess. However on West-East axes, they were pulled extremely to the East, same or more than Eastern Europeans, and even more than Russians.

Where the original NEF farmers coming from very small population over imposing themselves over already diversified population of Near East HGs? But in this case shouldn't we see the effect of almost total population replacement, like in Southern Europe? EEF like farmers all around the whole area. I believe this is most likely the scenario.
Following this logic, the strong pull to the East started after Neolithic in Bronze Age, through Indo Iranian invasions, Scythians, Turks, who else, ending with last Mongol invasion. Deep penetration of R1b folks in Near East, Egypt and Sub Saharan Africa fit the bill. Later colonialists, Russians included, could only pull it back West, so they don't count.
Surprisingly Lebanese and Syrians are having as strong pull to the east as Ukrainians and Lithuanians. In this case, we might be talking about Huge, really huge, invasions into Near East, on a scale of partial population replacement.

In this case IR1 invader from the east is nothing weird at all. He is just a fresh arrival and didn't have time to mix with locals yet to get the "proper" admixtures for the region. By the same process pulling the region East.

Can't wait for any samples from Near East already!





http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

Angela
25-10-14, 23:17
LeBrok:For that reason I believe that BR1&2 are not fresh arrivals from the East. They have been their for few generations (beginning of Bronze Age) and already had mixed with locals well, same way modern Europeans are. If they were the fresh arrivals they would have looked more like IR1, the extreme outlier.

I see your point, but for the percentages to work out wouldn't the Indo-Europeans have had to move across Europe in the course of a generation or two? Otherwise, if it were in stages, with the BR1's and BR2's moving from Hungary after a couple of generations and then mixing in the west, the end result in France wouldn't still look like BR1 and BR2. Does that make sense?



Some historians (like David Anthony) believe that Corded Ware culture arose from combination of Cucuteni and Yamnaya. They've become farmers who could supplement their diet by hunting wild games, in case their crops failed. Perhaps the beginning of Indo Europeans?

From what I know generally about the Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya is the Indo-Europeans. Everything radiated out from there. Also, there was that tweet from the conference that literally said it: Yamnaya=Indo-Europeans. Then there was the tweet that said Corded really only applied to North Europe and part of Central Euope. I think they're only part of the story. I know Anthony has icon status, and he's consulting or whatever on the Samarra paper. I think that's both a very good and a questionable thing. I know I'm always saying geneticists should pay more attention to historians and archaeologists, but I think when they're in the room, so to speak, and are going to be listed as co-authors, politics becomes part of the equation. You would think they would want to look at it "clean", with no preconceptions, at least at first.



Actually going by separate axis is more understandable, and I should correct myself somewhat. On North-South axes Near East and Caucasus plots very close to EEF, especially KO2, denoting similar farming past and admixture, I guess. However on West-East axes, they were pulled extremely to the East, same or more than Eastern Europeans, and even more than Russians.


The Near East and the Caucasus are both pulled east and slightly north. The populations that resisted the pull the most are, I think, those that in the more southern regions (Bedouins, Palestinians, etc.)got additional SSA in more recent millennia. (Or maybe that SSA admixture pulled the Bedouin south?)They're also the populations that got a lot less ANE. ANE levels in the Caucasus, for example, which was pulled the furthest to the north and east, are very high. I think it's an infusion of a much more ANE admixed group or groups. Then, as you say, you have to add in the Turks, and the Mongols as well, and perhaps some backflow from Indic regions as well. It has seemed to me for a long time, and I've said it often enough to be really boring I'm sure, that the modern Near Easterners are not the same as the original farming populations that went to settle in Europe.

LeBrok
26-10-14, 01:11
I see your point, but for the percentages to work out wouldn't the Indo-Europeans have had to move across Europe in the course of a generation or two? Otherwise, if it were in stages, with the BR1's and BR2's moving from Hungary after a couple of generations and then mixing in the west, the end result in France wouldn't still look like BR1 and BR2. Does that make sense? I might not understand you correctly. Neolithic Europe looked very consistent from West to East, all same EEF, so no matter where bronze age warriors would have mixed with locals they would have ended up looking the same, genetically speaking. That's why even if they mixed in ancient Hungary, they look like French. This is them who pulled modern Europe to the east, except for isolated Basques and Sardinians. Eastern Europe and Balkans are pulled more east than the rest, due to consecutive encroachments of Huns, Bulgars, Mongols, Avars, Scythians and alike.
I'm not sure if IE came in one huge wave, few waves or constant trickle. One is sure that these particular two BRs were already mixed with locals and in proportions even to modern French. They are both from same small geographic region. After initial mixing of BR1 there was not much change in population dynamics, therefore BR2 has almost the same spot on the plot.




From what I know generally about the Indo-Europeans, Yamnaya is the Indo-Europeans. Everything radiated out from there. Also, there was that tweet from the conference that literally said it: Yamnaya=Indo-Europeans. Then there was the tweet that said Corded really only applied to North Europe and part of Central Euope. I think they're only part of the story. I know Anthony has icon status, and he's consulting or whatever on the Samarra paper. I think that's both a very good and a questionable thing. I know I'm always saying geneticists should pay more attention to historians and archaeologists, but I think when they're in the room, so to speak, and are going to be listed as co-authors, politics becomes part of the equation. You would think they would want to look at it "clean", with no preconceptions, at least at first.
Right, I agree that Yamnaya or Yamna, especially in second half of existence, is already mixed Farmers/HGs, and with IE character and ready for expansion and actually expending. I think the mixing with Cucuteni farmers started earlier in previous culture.




The Near East and the Caucasus are both pulled east and slightly north. The populations that resisted the pull the most are, I think, those that in the more southern regions (Bedouins, Palestinians, etc.)got additional SSA in more recent millennia. (Or maybe that SSA admixture pulled the Bedouin south?)They're also the populations that got a lot less ANE. ANE levels in the Caucasus, for example, which was pulled the furthest to the north and east, are very high. I think it's an infusion of a much more ANE admixed group or groups. Then, as you say, you have to add in the Turks, and the Mongols as well, and perhaps some backflow from Indic regions as well. It has seemed to me for a long time, and I've said it often enough to be really boring I'm sure, that the modern Near Easterners are not the same as the original farming populations that went to settle in Europe.
For fan I made a dot with NEF letters by it, where I think original Near Easter Farmer fits.

6787

ElHorsto
26-10-14, 02:43
Eastern Europe and Balkans are pulled more east than the rest, due to consecutive encroachments of Huns, Bulgars, Mongols, Avars, Scythians and alike.

That's not the only reason. The mere lack of EEF also causes an eastward shift. Balts for instance appear east of Orcadians, but not because they have more ANE (they don't, when divided by the WHG amount), but because they have less EEF.
It's more the Balkan populations and south Italians who experienced Caucasic, Iranian and alike admixtures. As we know, mongol admixture is only relevant in Finns, Uralics and Russians, but even there it is still very minor and also it is not known which shift east-asian admixture would cause (East Asians have less ANE than most europeans, see here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4zYizoWtsoW1MNBN7SUrLf8R62NHPbMRySUJ2J48_Q/edit?pli=1#gid=1410860471) (reference (http://polishgenes.blogspot.de/2014/09/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-admixture.html)).). East asian is very different from "West-Asian" and would be an own dimension, almost impossible to squeeze into the two-dimensions of a PCA plot. The PCA plot looks quite nice because it mostly represents approximately the three main populations from Lazaridis' et al paper, which still are easy enough to fit into a two-dimension plot.

And then ANE has more than one source. In northern Europe it is more often of mesolithic origin, especially in NE-Europe, as can be seen by the ANE/WHG ratio which is not at all higher in NE Europe than elsewhere. Only in SE-central Europe and Italy (skyrocketing ANE/WHG ratio) but also (to a lesser extent) NW-Europe it also more-or-less came as "West-Asian" package from Caucasus-like and iranic peoples or IEans. Mongols are completely different.

ElHorsto
26-10-14, 03:04
Modern Russians roughly equal IR1.


I believe this is because the blue bar does not differentiate between mesolithic ANE, which is usually "shipped" together with WHG, and "West-Asian" blended ANE. The Russians, who are heavily admixed by Finns and Uralics, certainly possess more of mesolithic ANE than Near-Eastern/Caucasian ANE.

EDIT: now I recall that IR1 possessed Y-HG N. Could it be that IR1 was not Caucasian-like but rather Russian-like, coming from NE-Europe? That would be too strange. I rather keep the Caucasus origin hypothesis for now, despite the finnic hints. Afterall, the PCA plot shows that IR1 is closer to Bulgarians and Romanians than Russians.

ElHorsto
26-10-14, 03:39
The Russians and the northeastern Europeans seem to have gotten the great majority of their farmer ancestry from these later migrations, although I don't know offhand whether the archaeology would show when more of it came, the Bronze Age migrations or the Iron Age ones.

I'm inclined towards Iron Age.
By the way, here is a thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29405-Predicted-%28Indo-%29European-faces?highlight=georgian+armenian+russian+lithuani an+spanish) about an interesting experiment done by somebody. Mixing an average Armenian (as 'West-Asian' ANE representative) with an average Spaniard (EEF) and Lithuanian (WHG) results in a russian-looking face. When using Georgian instead of Armenian, the result is more average-central european, probably because Georgians are much less dinarid-looking than Armenians (armenian 'dinarid' is called 'armenid', but it is fundamentally the same in my opinion).



Physical Anthropology is not my forte, but isn't "Dinaric" supposed to fit with "mountain" origin? The Caucasus would certainly fit with that.

My anthropology is amateurish, so caution! But I still feel safe enough to make statements in light of the vast amount of aged pseudo-scientific literature.
Yeah, 'dinaric' is remarkably strong in mountains: Caucasus (although diversity there is huge with completely un-dinaric populations neighbouring; many separating valleys probably created different populations; some say that Armenia actually experienced balkanic migrations!), Carpathian, Balkans-Greece-Anatolia (very mountainous as a whole), Alpes (Tyrolians are often dinarid, for instance the Duke of Liechtenstein (http://theroyalcorrespondent.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/2050506171.jpg)). But in more western and northern mountains 'dinarid' seems to become rare (Coon has shown some english dinarids, but they are exceptions). I personally think they didn't completely disappear, they just blended out, resulting in some particular types, often falsely classified as cro-magnoids because of their squareish skulls for instance.

Angela
26-10-14, 17:21
El Horsto:It's more the Balkan populations and south Italians who experienced Caucasic, Iranian and alike admixtures.

I'm sorry, El Horsto, but I don't see how this applies to southern Italians at all, or even necessarily to the Greeks, although they are nearby at least, and this is ignoring the documented presence in Ukraine, the Hungarian plain and even other areas.

Just for reference purposes so we know what areas we're talking about, I did a little research on Wiki. Yes, I know, but I checked a lot of the citations where they were available and they seem fine. Where there were none, the statements comported with everything I remember about the various groups. Of course, if someone has some papers which challenge these views, I think it's important that we see them.

Let's start with the pre-Scythians, and see what the paper under discussion has to say:
“Iron metallurgy first appeared in central Europe during the lst millennium BC. During the early phase of the Iron Age the regions east and west of the Danube were parts of two separate cultural provinces 53 The Eastern variant of the Central European Hallstatt culture prevailed in Transdanubia, while pre-Scythian, and later Scythian, cultures inhabited the Great Hungarian Plain and the northern mountainous regions.

Despite decades of extensive excavations there are only a handful of Iron Age settlements on the Great Hungarian Plain. This is due to the fact that the pre-Scythian populations practiced a form of nomadic stockbreeding and their transient settlements left few traces in the archaeological record 54.

The origin of the pre-Scythian populations of the Great Hungarian Plain (the so called ‘Mezőcsát communities’) remains unclear. The excavation of Early Iron Age burials from this region has provided important new information as burial rites resembled the mortuary practices of the pre-Scythian period in the steppe, suggesting that the Mezőcsát communities were not descendants of the local Late Bronze Age population but most likely arrived to the Great Hungarian Plain from the East 54 in the last phase of the Neolithic, around 4,500 BC, at the end of the Atlantic Period.


Here are some excerpts from Wiki on the Scythians.

The region known to classical authors as Scythia included:
The Pontic-Caspian steppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic-Caspian_steppe): Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine), southern Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Federal_District) and western Kazakhstan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan) (inhabited by Scythians from at least the 8th century BC)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia#cite_note-5)
Sarmatia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarmatia), corresponding to Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine) and the eastern Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia#cite_note-6)
Scythia Minor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia_Minor): corresponding to the lower Danube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube) river area west of the Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea), with a part in Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) and a part in Bulgaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria)
The northern Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) area

Where do you see Italy mentioned here, or even Greece for that matter, although Greece is at least nearby?

In the second half of that century, Scythians succeeded in dominating the agricultural tribes of the forest-steppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest-steppe) and placed them under tribute.Written sources tell that expansion of the Scythian state before the 4th century BC was mainly to the west.

An area of Thrace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrace) was subjugated and levied with severe duties. During the 90 year life of Ateas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ateas), the Scythians settled firmly in Thrace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrace) and became an important factor in political games in the Balkans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans). At the same time, both the nomadic and agricultural Scythian populations increased along the Dniester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dniester) river.

From the story of Polyaenus and Frontin, it follows that in the 4th century BC Scythia had a layer of dependent population, which consisted of impoverished Scythian nomads and local indigenous agricultural tribes, socially deprived, dependent and exploited, who did not participate in the wars, but were engaged in servile agriculture and cattle husbandry.

So, from all of that, I see a Scythian influence on the greater Hungarian plain, extending northwards into the mountains, and even beyond that, because the forest-steppe people were a subject, exploited population, and in Thrace, i.e. the eastern Balkans, Bulgaria and Romania.

If you have papers that refute of all this, could you provide some links? I don’t pretend to have a specialty in the Scythians.

Ed. For spelling and spacing.
I'm not saying that it couldn't have moved further west and then south into northern Italy. However, as an analysis in a subsequent post shows, the northern Italian and even Tuscan numbers are in line with the rest of eastern and central Europe. We have no data on southern Italy.

Angela
26-10-14, 17:27
You also mentioned the Avars, so let’s take a look at them.

From the Wiki article on the European Avars:

The Avars / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)æ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)v (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɑr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English) were a group of equestrian warrior nomads[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-1) of Altaic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altaic) extraction[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-2) who established an empire spanning considerable areas of Central and Eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_and_Eastern_Europe) from the late 6th to the early 9th century.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-Pohl26-3)
Although the name Avar first appeared in the mid-5th century, the Avars of Europe enter the historical scene in the mid-6th century AD,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-Curta2006-4) having formed as a mixed band of warriors in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontic-Caspian_steppe) wishing to escape Göktürk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6kturks) rule. Their linguistic affiliation may be tentatively deduced from a variety of sources, betraying a variety of languages spoken by ruling and subject clans. Oghur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oghur_languages), a distinct branch of the Turkic languages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages), figures prominently for the original Avar language.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-books.google.com-5) In any event, Slavic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages) ultimately became the lingua franca in the Avar Khaganate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_Khaganate).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-Curta2004-6)

1. Many steppe empires were founded by groups who had been defeated in previous power struggles but had fled from the dominion of the stronger group. The Avars were likely a losing faction previously subordinate to the (legitimate) Ashina clan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashina_%28clan%29) in the West Turk khanate (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Turk_khanate&action=edit&redlink=1), this fled west of the Dnieper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper).


2. These groups usually were of mixed origin, and each of its components was part of a previous group.


Anthropological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological) research has revealed few skeletons with Mongoloid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid)-type features, although there was continuing cultural influence from the Eurasian nomadic steppe. The late Avar period shows more hybridization, resulting in higher frequencies of Euro-Mongoloids (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euro-Mongoloids&action=edit&redlink=1).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-15) Mongoloid and Euro-Mongoloid types compose about one-third of the total population of the Avar graves of the eighth century.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-16) According to Pál Lipták (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A1l_Lipt%C3%A1k) the early Avar anthropological material was almost exclusively Europoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europoid) in the 7th century, while grave-goods indicated Middle and Central Asian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian) parallels.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-F.C3.B3thi-17) On the other hand, cemeteries dated for the 8th century contained Mongoloid elements among others.


The Avar army was composed from numerous other groups: Slavic, Gepidic and Bulgar military units.

The Carpathian basin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_basin) was the centre of the Avar power-base. The Avars re-settled captives from the peripheries of their empire to more central regions. Avar material culture is found south to Macedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_%28region%29)

Initially, the Avars and their subjects lived separately, except for Slavic and Germanic women who married Avar men. Eventually, the Germanic and Slavic peoples were included in the Avaric social order and culture, itself Persian-Byzantine in fashion.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-History_of_Transylvania-19) Scholars have identified a fused, Avar-Slavic culture, characterized by ornaments such as half-moon-shaped earrings, Byzantine-styled buckles, beads, and bracelets with horn-shaped ends.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-History_of_Transylvania-19) Paul Fouracre (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Fouracre&action=edit&redlink=1) notes, "[T]here appears in the seventh century a mixed Slavic-Avar material culture, interpreted as peaceful and harmonious relationships between Avar warriors and Slavic peasants. It is thought possible that at least some of the leaders of the Slavic tribes could have become part of the Avar aristocracy".[20]


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-20)

Angela
26-10-14, 17:54
We can then turn to the Alans and the Huns:

As to the Alans, here is what I have found:
"Archaeological finds support the written sources. P. D. Rau (1927) first identified late Sarmatian sites with the historical Alans. Based on the archaeological material, they were one of the Iranian-speaking nomadic tribes that began to enter the Sarmatian area between the middle of the 1st and the 2nd centuries."

"By the beginning of the 1st century, the Alans had occupied lands in the northeast Azov Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Sea) area, along the Don (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River,_Russia) and by the 2nd century had amalgamated or joined with the Yancai of the early Chinese records to extend their control all the way along the trade routes from the Black Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea) to the north of the Caspian and Aral seas. The written sources suggest that from the end of the 1st century to the second half of the 4th century the Alans had supremacy over the tribal union and created a powerful confederation of Sarmatian tribes.

From a Western point-of-view the Alans presented a serious problem for the Roman Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire), with incursions into both the Danubian and the Caucasian provinces in the 2nd and 3rd centuries."

Also,
"Roman sources first mention the Alani in the 1st century and later describe them as a warlike people who specialized in horse breeding. They frequently raided the Parthian empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_empire) and the Caucasian provinces of the Roman Empire. In the Vologeses inscription[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans#cite_note-17) one can read that Vologeses I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologeses_I), the Parthian king c. AD 51-78, in the 11th year of his reign, battled Kuluk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuluk&action=edit&redlink=1), king of the Alani."

Here is a map of the Alan incursions. It does show some pillaging, or whatever, into northern Italy, but it's similar to the rest of western Europe, and there's nothing in southern Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans#mediaviewer/File:Alani_map.jpg*

Now let's look at the Huns. In that regard, some of the comments in the Avar article bear repeating.
"Such views are mirrored by Csanad Balint (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Csanad_Balint&action=edit&redlink=1). "The ethnogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis) of early medieval peoples of steppe origin cannot be conceived in a single linear fashion due to their great and constant mobility", with no ethnogenetic "point zero", theoretical "proto-people" or proto-language.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars#cite_note-13)

The name for a new group of steppe riders was often taken from a repertoire of prestigious names which did not necessarily denote any direct affiliation to or descent from groups of the same name; in the early middle ages, Huns, Avars, Bulgars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgars), and Ogurs, or names connected with -(o)gur (Cutrigurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cutrigurs&action=edit&redlink=1), Utigurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utigurs), Onogurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onogurs), etc.), were most important. In the process of name-giving, both perceptions by outsiders and self-designation played a role. These names were also connected with prestigious traditions that directly expressed political pretensions and programmes, and had to be endorsed by success. In the world of the steppe, where agglomerations of groups were rather fluid, it was vital to know how to deal with a newly-emergent power. The symbolical hierarchy of prestige expressed through names provided some orientation for friend and foe alike."

"The Huns were a nomadic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomad) people or peoples, who are known to have lived in Eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe), the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) and Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) between the 1st century AD and the 7th century. They were first reported living east of the Volga River (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_River), in an area that was part of Scythia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia) at the time; the Huns' arrival is associated with the migration westward of a Scythian people, the Alans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-Sinor1990-1) They were first mentioned as Hunnoi by Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus). In 91 AD, the Huns were said to be living near the Caspian Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea) and by about 150 AD had migrated southeast into the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-2) By 370 AD, the Huns had established a vast, if short-lived, dominion in Europe.

There is no scholarly consensus on a direct connection between the dominant element of the Xiongnu and that of the Huns.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-4) Priscus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscus) mentions that the Huns had a language of their own (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunnic_language); little of it has survived and its relationships have been the subject of debate for centuries. Numerous other languages were spoken within the Hun Empire, including Gothic (East Germanic) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_language). Their main military technique was mounted archery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_archery).

Their descendants, or successors with similar names, are recorded by neighbouring populations to the south, east and west as having occupied parts of Eastern Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe) and Central Asia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia) approximately from the 4th century to the 6th century. Variants of the Hun name are recorded in the Caucasus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus) until the early 8th century.

Contemporary literary sources do not have a clear consensus of the Hun origins. The Huns seem to "suddenly appear", first mentioned during an attack on the Alans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alans), who are generally connected to the River Don (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_River_%28Russia%29) (Tanais). Scholarship from the early 20th century literature connected the sudden and apparently devastating Hun appearance as a predatory migration from the more easterly parts of the steppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppe), i.e. Central Asia.

More recent theories view the nomadic confederacies, such as the Huns, as the formation of several different cultural, political and linguistic entities that could dissolve as quickly as they formed, entailing a process of ethnogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnogenesis).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-Pohl-9)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-10) A group of "warrior" horse-nomads would conquer and/or be joined by other warrior groups throughout western Eurasia, and in turn extracted tribute over a territory that included other social and ethnic groups, including sedentary agricultural peoples. In steppe society, clans could forge new alliances and subservience by incorporating other clans, creating a new common ancestral lineage descended from an early heroic leader. Thus, one cannot expect to find a clear origin. "All we can say safely," says Walter Pohl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Pohl), "is that the name Huns, in late antiquity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_antiquity) (4th century), described prestigious ruling groups of steppe warriors."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-Pohl-9)

This is the Hunnic empire at its height.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Huns_empire.png

In 451, Attila's forces entered Gaul (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaul), accumulating contingents from the Franks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks), Goths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths) and Burgundian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians) tribes en route. Once in Gaul, the Huns first attacked Metz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metz), then his armies continued westwards, passing both Paris and Troyes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troyes) to lay siege to Orléans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orl%C3%A9ans).

Many Huns were employed as mercenaries by both East and West Romans and by the Goths. Uldin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uldin), the first Hun known by name,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns#cite_note-Thompson1996-15) headed a group of Huns and Alans fighting against Radagaisus in defense of Italy.

Leading his horde across the Alps and into Northern Italy, he sacked and razed the cities of Aquileia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquileia), Vicetia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicetia), Verona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verona), Brixia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixia), Bergamum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergamum) and Milan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan). Hoping to avoid the sack of Rome, Emperor Valentinian III sent three envoys, the high civilian officers Gennadius Avienus and Trigetius, as well as Pope Leo I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I), who met Attila at Mincio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincio) in the vicinity of Mantua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantua), and obtained from him the promise that he would withdraw from Italy and negotiate peace with the emperor.

That tangential reference is the only one that I can find with regard to the Huns, and it applies only to northern Italy, and involves only a battle and some raiding.

So, if you want to leave out the Mongols, go ahead for now. There's plenty of "eastern" "Iranic" ancestry pumping into Russia, the Slavic areas, central Hungary, and the Balkans without them.

Ed.*There is a little offshoot after much traveling into Sicily.

Angela
26-10-14, 18:07
So, we’re going to have to look elsewhere for the source of any heightened “Iranic” or “West Asian” gene flow into Southern Italy.

I think it’s highly problematic, by the way, to take the figures in the Dodecad runs, for example, as any precise estimation. In those runs, even the Northern Italians have quite a bit more than the Spaniards, for example, yet here, when we have actual ancient genomes, the Northern Italians and the Spaniards have the same amount of "blue", which while not necessarily the exact same thing, is highly suggestive. It remains to be seen what percentage the southern Italians actually have…too bad they weren’t included in this run. Still, as I said, it certainly didn’t come from these migrations that you mentioned.

Btw, I hope I don't come across as hectoring you about all this, or trying to "pound a nail into a coffin". It's just that as we're going to be thinking about and talking about the Iron Age as well as Bronze Age migrations in the coming weeks and months, it's as well to get it clear where these people settled and therefore had their most important genetic impact.


Now turning to your formulation about the “blue bar”. If we go with the tweets coming out about the upcoming papers on Corded Ware and Samarra, I think it’s pretty clear that both the “orange” component on this admixture chart and the blue component probably have some ANE, and I would guess the orange component has more . However, how can the “blue bar” be seen as anything but highly EEF? I don’t put too much stock on the various calculators for Near Easterners, but many people do, and they are “highly” EEF even if there are other elements that have shifted them from being precisely like the farmers who first set sail for Europe.


As for the Baltics, perhaps it’s my fault, but I don’t get your point precisely. How do you know that the ANE that was present in the Mesolithic Scandinavian hunters is the same ANE that is present in Baltic populations today? What if that was a small outlier group that died out? I think it’s a pretty good bet that some of it hung around, but we don’t know that yet. What would prevent the proportions in the Baltics today from stemming from the particular mix that arrived there from further south? I don't necessarily think that the "Indo-European" groups were necessarily uniform from north to south.


As for the eastward pull of the Caucasus and Asia Minor, the excerpts I have posted show that these Iranic groups had much more influence in those areas than even in eastern Europe and the Balkans, so I think the explanation is still valid.


We also don’t know how “eastern” these eastern HG’s were. If they were heavily ANE they might indeed plot more "eastern" in comparison to WHG and EEF.


Finally, it’s pretty clear from mtDna lineages that the “farmer” component in a lot of eastern Europe contains a much larger percentage of "eastern" types than those that can be attributed to LBK and Cardial. I don't see why hypothesizing that some of it came with Iron Age migrations is so outlandish.

Ed. I think it's informative to look at the "blue bloc" in a population like the Tuscans. It's much less than the amount present in the Russians, less than in most Hungarians and Romanians, about the same as in the Ukrainians, and pretty close to the amount in the Belorussians. Even about half the French seem to have about the same amount. (As I said, the North Italian and Spanish levels on this run are about equal, the French are variable but some are a little less, and the Orcadians less again, not to mention the Basques and the Sardinians, of course.) So, did some of it bleed down from northern Italy and increase a bit from perhaps some elite migration from Anatolia in the Bronze Age? But then, if there is an appreciable increase in southern Italy (we don't know how much using these ancient samples), where did it come from? Was there some movement of some more "blue" shifted peoples during the Copper and Bronze Ages? During the Iron Age, the only at all large folk type migrations into the south were from Greece, but where did they get it? Did it seep down from the Balkans? Were the Dorians involved? There is some documentation that the Dorians did have a presence in Sicily.

Wouldn't it be a kick if the so-called "Nordic" invaders of Greece turn out to have had a large "Iranic" component in them? One more surprise if that's the case.

I think there are still a lot of open questions here.

Ed. Just a note to add that Otzi on some of the old Dodecad runs had a bit of "Caucasus". Was the composition of the Indo-Europeans different depending on their north/south position along the front? If that was the case, were the Bronze Age people (and maybe Copper Age peoples before them) who went into southern Europe slightly different than the ones who went north? Maybe more J2a1?

Alan
26-10-14, 18:24
In this regard I searched this site for the discussion about the "Thracian" late Iron Age sample, K8. In that discussion, Sile published some admixture results which were apparently produced by Genetiker. These are the Dodecad K7 results for K8:
K7b


46.44% Atlantic_Baltic
36.25% West_Asian
17.30% Southern
0.00% African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian

Ed. The attachment is drawn from Figure 10 of the supplement, not Figure 4 of the body of the paper. The link is now correct.

Regarding his results, they look like a Lezgian with Ukrainian admixture (Ukrainian admixed because he tends more towards Lezgin direction).
Lezgin


Atlantic Baltic 24.90%
West Asian 56.70%
Southern 13.90%



Ukrainian

Atlantic Baltic 74.80%
West Asian 14.50%
Southern 7.8%

Angela
26-10-14, 18:32
Regarding his results, they look like a Ukrainian admixed Adygei sample (Ukrainian admixed because they tend more towards Adygei direction).
Adygei


Atlantic Baltic 23.40%
West Asian 52.50%
Southern 18.70%



Ukrainian

Atlantic Baltic 74.80%
West Asian 14.50%
Southern 7.8%



Thanks. As I said, I recognize that there was some degree of contamination in this sample, but given what we see with IR1, I doubt it was all that contaminated. This kind of result makes perfect sense.

Alan
26-10-14, 18:35
Angela I edited my post because it seems Lezgin does fit better.

Contamination can cause weird results like Austranesian or SSA admixture but with what should it be contaminated to give more West Asia if it is a well documented part of ANE and reaches higher levels in that samples than any possible Balkanian individual might have.

Angela
26-10-14, 19:18
Angela I edited my post because it seems Lezgin does fit better.

Contamination can cause weird results like Austranesian or SSA admixture but with what should it be contaminated to give more West Asia if it is a well documented part of ANE and reaches higher levels in that samples than any possible Balkanian individual might have.

Interesting. Wasn't Dienekes chasing the Lezghins for a while in his runs?

LeBrok
26-10-14, 21:24
That's not the only reason. The mere lack of EEF also causes an eastward shift. Balts for instance appear east of Orcadians, but not because they have more ANE (they don't, when divided by the WHG amount), but because they have less EEF.

The PCA plot looks quite nice because it mostly represents approximately the three main populations from Lazaridis' et al paper, which still are easy enough to fit into a two-dimension plot.
First, as you noticed yourself, the admixtures are just approximated on PCA plot. Second point is that, if you find lower EEF admixture it automatically increases other admixture in whole genome. If lower EEF doesn't increase ANE or WHG then we can deduct that there is one more, or few more admixtures in play in PCA. In case of Balts versus Orcadians, there is 4th (or more) admixture in play, the unknown admixture which pulls Balts to the east, or pulls Orcadians west.

Lower EEF might also result in pull straight north if only WHG increases and ANE and other eastern admixtures are constant. Increased African admixtures might result in pull south-west like in Beduins. If one admixture decreases, some other admixture(s) MUST increase.

ElHorsto
27-10-14, 02:35
First, as you noticed yourself, the admixtures are just approximated on PCA plot. Second point is that, if you find lower EEF admixture it automatically increases other admixture in whole genome. If lower EEF doesn't increase ANE or WHG then we can deduct that there is one more, or few more admixtures in play in PCA. In case of Balts versus Orcadians, there is 4th (or more) admixture in play, the unknown admixture which pulls Balts to the east, or pulls Orcadians west.

Lower EEF might also result in pull straight north if only WHG increases and ANE and other eastern admixtures are constant. Increased African admixtures might result in pull south-west like in Beduins. If one admixture decreases, some other admixture(s) MUST increase.

By the last sentence you disprove your initial statement about a 4th admixture necessary for the more north-eastern shift of Balts. In fact just adding more ANE and WHG to Orcadians (or BR1&2) would already do the job, because it MUST reduce EEF.

Getting again more down-to-earth: What I meant is that you can draw a straight line from Sardinians to Lithuanians and you'll find BR1&2 and Orcadians situating at this line. Coincidentally their positions at that line correspond to their EEF values:
Lith.: 0.364
Orc.: 0.457
Sard.: 0.817

I wonder whether this tells us something.
Since there is enough EEF in all these populations available to sacrifice in favour of ANE+WHG, I don't think there is a significant 4th admixture in Lithuanians necessary. Afterall, I never saw such exotic admixtures like Siberian or East-Asian for Lithuanians in any admixture analysis. You also might remember this map for asian admixture, where there is none in Lithuanians:
6796

@Angela: Draw a straight line from Sardinians to Nogays, and you'll find Bulgarians, Tuscans and IR1 about at the same line in between. This is what I meant. Regarding Italian history I'm a nobody, I'm mostly looking at admixtue numbers. You know much more about Italy and I won't argue.
Regarding mongol invasions into east-europe, I know all this. But look at the map above, if it is correct, then there are not many genetic traces left.

ElHorsto
27-10-14, 02:59
We can then turn to the Alans and the Huns:
.
.
.
That tangential reference is the only one that I can find with regard to the Huns, and it applies only to northern Italy, and involves only a battle and some raiding.

So, if you want to leave out the Mongols, go ahead for now. There's plenty of "eastern" "Iranic" ancestry pumping into Russia, the Slavic areas, central Hungary, and the Balkans without them.

Ed.*There is a little offshoot after much traveling into Sicily.

Thank you, but I don't know why you are telling me all this. I have only two questions:
1. How much mongol genetic traces are still in Europe?
2. I know about iranic admixture in slavs, some medieval historians even equal Antes and Slavs. But why are Russians relatively close to Lithuanians, Hungarians and other Europeans, while being still distant from Caucasians and even IR1? Note that PCA projections often diminish distances, but never create false distances out of nothing, so this distance must be real. Also note that in other PCA plots Russians appear close to Finns. Significant Iranic, Caucasian, IR1-like, Near-eastern, whatever, I can not be more specific at the moment admixtue, is visible mostly in Balkans, especially Bulgaria and Romania, which are distant from Russians.

I'm just describing what I see. You are welcome to make historical interpretations.

Angela
27-10-14, 03:44
El Horsto:@Angela: Draw a straight line from Sardinians to Nogays, and you'll find Bulgarians, Tuscans and IR1 about at the same line in between. This is what I meant. Regarding Italian history I'm a nobody, I'm mostly looking at admixtue numbers. You know much more about Italy and I won't argue.
Regarding asian invasions into east-europe, I know all this. But look at the map above, if it is correct, then there are not many genetic traces left.

Who's talking about East Asians? These are admixed people who are probably predominantly of Central Asian ancestry and/or very eastern hunter gatherer ancestry and an eastern type of EEF. Oh, and they have a lot of ANE probably.



Thank you, but I don't know why you are telling me all this. I have only two questions:
1. How much mongol genetic traces are still in Europe?
2. I know about iranic admixture in slavs, some medieval historians even equal Antes and Slavs. But why are Russians relatively close to Lithuanians, Hungarians and other Europeans, while being still distant from Caucasians and even IR1? Note that PCA projections often diminish distances, but never create false distances out of nothing, so this distance must be real. Also note that in other PCA plots Russians appear close to Finns. Significant Iranic (Caucasian, IR1-like, Near-eastern, once can not be more specific at the moment) admixtue is visible only in Balkans, especially Bulgaria and Romania.

I'm just describing what I see. You are welcome to make historical interpretations.

Who is talking about the Mongols? I said I was leaving them out. You are raising things that aren't part of the discussion. For the other steppe groups, the quotes explain how they were amorphous ever shifting ethnicities. As for the Russians, isn't that sample the one from the far northwest? Of course they'd be relatively close to Finns. The ones in the path would be the Ukrainians.

I also don't get how you can say that there is no influence in Ukraine, or Hungary, etc. etc. That IR1 sample has a huge chunk of "eastern" blue EEF. (The Bronze Age groups had some of it too.) That's the only kind of EEF the north eastern Europeans possess. It's not the green "western" Cardial, LBK type, so they had to get it from people who got it in the same place that IR1 did.

Look, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree about this. I just think the influence from the east (whether "West Asia" or a "Caucasus" shifted EEF and a portion of Central Asian-heavy in ANE) can be seen all the way through Europe. Obviously, where it blended with already EEF heavy people, the final "mix" is going to look different than if it blended with people who had proportionally more WHG. I also don't see anything in these Iron Age Migrations that explains higher levels in southern Italians, (which you brought up) unless it went from the Balkans into Greece and from there into southern Italy. Who knows, did the Sea Peoples add their little bit? Or, as I said, perhaps the Indo-Europeans differed in composition even in the Bronze Age depending on whether they were from the north Pontic Caspian steppe or the southern Pontic Caspian steppe.

I'm hopeful that the papers will make things a little clearer. I'm not married to this analysis. It's too murky right now for any kind of certainty, so I'd be fine with whatever answer turns out to be correct.

I suppose I'd just say, however, that I'm afraid genetics, i.e. admixture percentages, PCA's whatever, cannot be interpreted in a vacuum. History and archaeology have to be part of the equation.

LeBrok
27-10-14, 04:20
By the last sentence you disprove your initial statement about a 4th admixture necessary for the more north-eastern shift of Balts. In fact just adding more ANE and WHG to Orcadians (or BR1&2) would already do the job, because it MUST reduce EEF.
If they have same ANE level, as you mentioned, how one can be more eastern than the other?


I wonder whether this tells us something.
Since there is enough EEF in all these populations available to sacrifice in favour of ANE+WHG, I don't think there is a significant 4th admixture in Lithuanians necessary. Afterall, I never saw such exotic admixtures like Siberian or East-Asian for Lithuanians in any admixture analysis. You also might remember this map for asian admixture, where there is none in Lithuanians:
6796 This admixture can also pull samples to the east on the PCA plot. ANE is a main one, I believe, but there could be few minor ones.

Thanks for the map, this East Asian admixture can fully explain why Turkey is pulled much farther east than the rest of Near East. I guess, the invasion of Turks.
The East Europe could have gotten it from Huns, Mongols and Tatars.

Sile
27-10-14, 07:43
results from Felix

Ancient Hungarian genome (BR2) Y-DNA and mtDNA
I was able to peek into Y-DNA and mt-DNA of Ancient Hungarian genome - BR2 (SRR1186791 (http://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?run=SRR1186791)) before the completion of the processing. Since it is processed with BAM Analysis Kit 1.5 (http://www.y-str.org/2014/04/bam-analysis-kit.html) which has upgraded lobSTR 3.0.2 (http://melissagymrek.com/lobstr-code/index.html), it has more accurate Y-STR values as well.

Y-Haplogroup The Y-Haplogroup is J-M67 (or J2a1b as per ISOGG tree). The authors has mentioned it as J2a1. However, it is also positive for M67 and


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2bmgv9hI6SI/VE1P4XPoQTI/AAAAAAAAeoI/r2zYg6Emvwo/s1600/J2a1b.PNG (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2bmgv9hI6SI/VE1P4XPoQTI/AAAAAAAAeoI/r2zYg6Emvwo/s1600/J2a1b.PNG)

Kristiina
27-10-14, 09:31
If you want to know the extent of Mongol or Turkic ancestry in West Eurasia, you should study this admixture analysis: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/07/30/005850.DC1/005850-1.pdf

In K14, the specifically Turkic-Mongol ancestry is the light orange component. The highest frequencies are found in Kalmyks, Kyrgyz, Karakalpaks, Kazakhs, Altaians, Tuvans, Buryats and Mongols). Its frequency in Europe is marginal, usually it is non-existant. It is nearly non-existant also in Karelians and Russians. It is more frequent in Asia. There is a small amount in Turks, Azeris, Balkars and Adyge, and a clearly higher amount in Bashkirs. This recent Turkic-Mongol ancestry does not explain the East Asian component of Norteast Europeans.

Angela
27-10-14, 20:04
Genetiker has posted results from runs of Dodecad and MDLP for both BR1 and IR1.

Felix has not yet posted results for them, so I'll use the Genetiker ones. I'm not sure if they're exactly precise, but I wanted to do a comparison between them, and for that purpose it's not that important. I just want to see how they differ. As I don't know where the population averages are for every MDLP run, I used the Dodecad ones. (This is just an editorial comment, but how are you supposed to check if the results are accurate if you don't have easily accessible population averages?)

Anyway, these are the K-7b results for the two ancient samples:

K7b BR1


75.40% Atlantic_Baltic
16.21% Southern
4.94% West_Asian
1.69% African
1.34% East_Asian
0.28% Siberian
0.15% South_Asian

K7b-IR1


50.15% Atlantic_Baltic
25.61% West_Asian
12.04% Southern
6.55% Siberian
2.56% South_Asian
1.78% East_Asian
1.32% African


IR1 has much lower Atlantic Baltic, and much, much higher "West Asian". (The Iron Age man has 25 points less Atlantic-Baltic, and 20 points more "West Asian". Now, whether this is because the Bronze Age peoples of the Steppe were different from the get go, (with perhaps more Atlantic-Baltic and less West Asian from the beginning), or because they had already spent quite a bit of time in central Europe, admixing with the people already there, or both, I don't know.

The "Southern" scores aren't that different. (The Bronze Age person has 4 points more.)

BR1 has East Asian, (1.34) but only a trace of Siberian. (.28)

It's reversed for IR1, who has about the same amount of East Asian (1.78), but who has quite a bit more Siberian (6.55) If these IR Age people came back down from around Andronovo, wouldn't this make sense?

Then I looked at the populaton averages for modern peoples. Here the analysis is "iffier", because I don't know how accurate the Genetiker runs are going to prove to be...

I don't think the French Basque are a good match for any of the ancient samples, but not even for BR1:
Southern 26.8
Atlantic Baltic: 73.2
See Ed. below

Here are the French:
Atlantic Baltic 69.7
Southern 19.9
West Asian 10.4

When compared to the BR1 sample, they lost 5 points of Atlantic Baltic, gained 4 points of Southern, and gained 5 points of West Asian. All the minority East Asian and Siberian is gone.
So, did both Metal Ages Waves reach France, or is subsequent migration during the Roman era, for example.

Just for comparison, here the scores for the Hungarians, who were in the path of both waves:
Atlantic Baltic 69.2
Southern 14.7
West Asian 14.5
Siberian 1.5
E.Asian .1
S. Asian .1

Could we say that there's perhaps more influence from BR1, but that both Metal Ages migrations had an impact here?

Now let's look at the English:
Atlantic Baltic 76.6
Southern 13.1
West Asian 9.7

For Southern, they have 7 points less than the French, but only 3 points less than BR1. They have about the same Atlantic Baltic as the Bronze Age sample, which makes sense because they have less Southern. Tey have about the same amount of West Asian, which is about 5 points more than BR1.

Finally, the Bulgarians:
Atlantic Baltic 54.3
Southern 22.7
West Asian 21.5
Siberian 1.1
East Asian .4

The higher "Southern" impacts all the other numbers, of course, but can we see a mixture here as well but perhaps more balanced in terms of the two migrations, i.e. slightly more Iron Age influence?

Just a reminder that all these "Admixture" components obscure the levels of the 3 ancient civilizations within them, except perhaps for "Southern".
The K-7b Atlantic Baltic, for example, is about 1/3 Atlantic Med, 2/3 North Euro from the K=12b run.

I did these on the run, so if anyone looks at them and I got something wrong, please correct as necessary.

If I have time later maybe I'll fo the same thing for K-12b or Globe 13.

This is not supposed to be gospel, folks, just give us clues.

Ed. The French Basque are not a perfect fit, but not bad.

LeBrok
27-10-14, 20:38
Great job Angela. Can we have, for comparison, one of NE samples run with calculators? Even Ice Man would do, as his genome fits neatly with other Neolithic samples.

Angela
27-10-14, 21:48
Great job Angela. Can we have, for comparison, one of NE samples run with calculators? Even Ice Man would do, as his genome fits neatly with other Neolithic samples.

All of this comes from this thread on the Dienekes Blog, which also discusses the Portalon Iberian farmer:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/11/iberian-neolithic-farmer-dna.html

Be aware I think we now how better quality reads of his genome and a new Gok genome, but I think this should still be OK for general comparisons.

Otzi-K7b
At/Baltic 43.1
Southern 51.9
West Asian 1.4
E.Asian 2.8
African .8
Siberian 0

Gok 4 K-7b
At/Baltic 59.1
Southern 40.9

Just for fun:
Sardinians:
At/Baltic 52.7
Southern 47.3

French Basques again:
At/Baltic 73.2
Southern 26.8

North Italians: (Just because Italians are my main area of interest :))
At/Baltic 55.7
Southern 30.2
West Asian 14.1

No wonder Italians plot near Gok 4 on some analyses. Southern and West Asian could perhaps be see as just "western" and
"eastern" versions of EEF?

El Horsto may be onto something in positing that Italy was subject to the Iron Age Migrations, even if it doesn't show up in the historical record. I don't know if it's a trickle down from Central Europe-the Hungarians have the same amount of West Asian. It's just that Northern Italians have more of the Stuttgart type EEF and therefore less At/Baltic.

Or did some come up from the south? The Romans did a lot of founding of colonies in the north.

Here are the Greeks for comparison
At/Baltic 41.2
Southern 33.9
West Asian 24.8

The West Asian scores for the volunteer Greek Dodecad population and the volunteer Southern Italians/Sicilians are .6% apart. Of course, neither are scientifically representative samples.

Oh, since someone brought up the Lithuanians:
At/Baltic 87.6 (Remember, about 1/3 of this is Atlantic Med with buried Stuttgart farmer)
West Asian: 10.4
Siberian: 1.3
S. Asian .3

Does it look like a larger WHG refugia than other places in Europe (maybe the same thing went on in the far northwest), with some farmer coming with central Med farmers and the West Asian with the Metal Ages?

I've going to edit the prior post. The French Basque actually aren't a bad fit for the BR1 sample.

Oh, for the sake of completeness, a Portuguese sample:
At/Baltic 59.8
Southern 29.8
W. Asian 6.5
S. Asian 1.3
African 2.5

By the time you get to the Atlantic Coast, some of the "Indo-European" distinctiveness has sort of what, washed out?

LeBrok
27-10-14, 21:50
I was musing somewhat at the PCA chart with various pullings in relation to 3 major admixtures.

1. Why Basques are located exactly above EEF/NE farmers, and not to the east? When the former contain substantial ANE, which EEF shouldn't have at all. Basques should be east from NE samples, much closer to Spanish ones.
2. Sardinian and NE farmers don't have ANE admixture, however Sardinians plot to the West from NE but on same latitude. Actually they, with extra WHG mixture, should have plotted exactly North off NE samples. In place of Basques.
3. La Brania HG, Bra2 sample, plots way to the West from the rest of Hunter Gatherers.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg
I came up with this explanation. There is one extra component in the game. The "Western" component which pulls samples, not affected by ANE, along West-East axes. It causes EEF samples to fluctuate West-East while ANE admixture is completely missing, therefore unable to perform such action. Farthermore, I think that this Western component (possibly related to ancient North African Hunter Gatherer admixture?) is contained in WHG admixture. I suppose there are 2 major elements in WHG admixture. One is strongly pulling West the other North, with compounded vector of pull towards North-West.
Hunter Gatherers in Iberian refuge during LGM met HGs from west Africa? Completing creation of WHG from their combine genome, if I may unleash my fantasy. :)

This Western in WHG component is strong in Basques, equalises ANE easterly pull and holds them on par with EEF on W-E axes. It pulls Sardinians and Ice Man to the West from EEF (although Sardinians might gotten some extra pull West from more recent migrations from Africa?). It pulls HG Bra2, born in Spain, most westernly in regards to the rest of HGs.

The effect of West component seems to be 3-5 times weaker than pull of North component. WHG genome = 75% North, 25% West. Mind that North and West are not locations but directions of pull.

LeBrok
27-10-14, 22:47
The effect of West component seems to be 3-5 times weaker than pull of North component. WHG genome = 75% North, 25% West. Mind that North and West are not locations but directions of pull.

Measuring West WHG component in Baque.
Typical Basque: EEF .60, WHG .30, ANE .10

In Basques all ANE pulling East is totally counterbalanced, and rendering it virtually nonexistent, by West element in their WHG admixture. That why Basques plot exactly as Neolithic Farmers on West-East axes. If ANE in Basque equals 0.10 of whole genome, then I suppose, it is counterbalanced by West WHG , which is also 0.10 of genome. Full WHG admixture equals to 0.30, therefore West in it must be 0.10, one third of whole WHG component.

ElHorsto
27-10-14, 23:03
If they have same ANE level, as you mentioned, how one can be more eastern than the other?


I said, they have the same ANE level when divided by WHG level.



This admixture can also pull samples to the east on the PCA plot. ANE is a main one, I believe, but there could be few minor ones.

Thanks for the map, this East Asian admixture can fully explain why Turkey is pulled much farther east than the rest of Near East. I guess, the invasion of Turks.
The East Europe could have gotten it from Huns, Mongols and Tatars.

But how much? In this map east european levels of 'mongol' are only ~1.5% average (<0.5% in Poles, Lithuanians and Latvians), while Turks have 5%-10%. So Turks have above 10 times more than Poles and Balts. You are not convincing me that this <0.5% is responsible for most of the east shift. Also Turks are primarily shifted towards east because they share so much "West-Asian" with neighbouring Georgians and Armenians, the latter having the most "West-Asian" (look at any admixture analysis you prefer, I'll not dig out again the numbers, sorry. There are good hyperlinks already provided in this thread.). Turks are primarily Caucasians, second Near-Easteners and third Mongol/Siberian. It is possible that Mongol adds a little bit more to the east, I don't care for now, because most important is "West-Asian", which is the main carrier of ANE, accompanied by specific EEF. On the other hand, look at Ir8 and how close Lithuanians are. They could pass as almost pure north-eastern Hunter-Gatherers, with perhaps a very very tiny bit of "West-Asian" admixture from IR1-like peoples, or some older unknown origin.

In general the Hunter-Gatherers at the top are most likely a spectrum created by different ANE levels (not West-Asian exactly, because we still must assume lack of farmer admixture in HG), which is impossible to stem from recent metal ages. It is likely that the hunter-gatherers further east had even more ANE, eventually showing up as "Siberian" admixture, just because ANE is also part of "Siberian".

ElHorsto
27-10-14, 23:07
Measuring West WHG component in Baque.
Typical Basque: EEF .60, WHG .30, ANE .10

In Basques all ANE pulling East is totally counterbalanced, and rendering it virtually nonexistent, by West element in their WHG admixture. That why Basques plot exactly as Neolithic Farmers on West-East axes. If ANE in Basque equals 0.10 of whole genome, then I suppose, it is counterbalanced by West WHG , which is also 0.10 of genome. Full WHG admixture equals to 0.30, therefore West in it must be 0.10, one third of whole WHG component.

The levels for "West-Asian" or ANE in Basques are AFAIK conflicting, even within the Laz paper (big difference between French Basque and Spanish Basque), so it is inconclusive. In the recent admixture analysis, incl. from Laz., they show only tiny traces of ANE/West-Asian, similar to Sardinians, and I'm inclined to think that this makes more sense, at the moment. Earlier I had a different opinion, because they showed much "Gedrosian" in K12b. Afterall, Basques actually appear slightly more east than Sardinians in this PCA plot.

Alan
27-10-14, 23:41
Genetiker has posted results from runs of Dodecad and MDLP for both BR1 and IR1.

Felix has not yet posted results for them, so I'll use the Genetiker ones. I'm not sure if they're exactly precise, but I wanted to do a comparison between them, and for that purpose it's not that important. I just want to see how they differ. As I don't know where the population averages are for every MDLP run, I used the Dodecad ones. (This is just an editorial comment, but how are you supposed to check if the results are accurate if you don't have easily accessible population averages?)

Anyway, these are the K-7b results for the two ancient samples:

K7b BR1


75.40% Atlantic_Baltic
16.21% Southern
4.94% West_Asian
1.69% African
1.34% East_Asian
0.28% Siberian
0.15% South_Asian

K7b-IR1


50.15% Atlantic_Baltic
25.61% West_Asian
12.04% Southern
6.55% Siberian
2.56% South_Asian
1.78% East_Asian
1.32% African


IR1 has much lower Atlantic Baltic, and much, much higher "West Asian". (The Iron Age man has 25 points less Atlantic-Baltic, and 20 points more "West Asian". Now, whether this is because the Bronze Age peoples of the Steppe were different from the get go, (with perhaps more Atlantic-Baltic and less West Asian from the beginning), or because they had already spent quite a bit of time in central Europe, admixing with the people already there, or both, I don't know.
.

The IR1 results are quite similar to the Thracian K8 individual with a bit more Atlantic_Baltic and a bit less West Asian.

So this is why I would go with the second theory, that he had been around in Central Europe for quite some time and absorbed some additional farmer+H&G admixture (Atlantic_Baltic is not completely H&G, it is significantly farmer admixed).


The results of IR1 look like what an Ossetian and Russian mixed individual would look like.


@Angela

West Asian can be explained as Early Near Eastern farmer with 1/3 ANE admixture. West Asian is highland-herder DNA imo.

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 02:33
I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I don't know nearly as much about genetics as most of the people posting in this thread. But I'm increasingly wondering whether the ANE classification is really relevant for discussing the genetics of Bronze Age Europe and what impact the Indo-Europeans had on the genetics of different parts of Europe. If Mal'ta Boy and his relatives who presumably had descendants = ANE, there were a lot of millennia for those descendants to spread and mingle with others. So West Asian is apparently 1/3 ANE. But I suspect that at least some of the Eastern Hunter Gatherers had high levels of ANE, and in fact we know that the Corded War people had a lot of ANE. I don't think saying "proto-IE" explains it. The hunter gatherers living in the Russian forest probably had high levels of ANE and many of them probably had Y haplotype R1a. And now we're hearing of tweets from the big conference saying that the Yamna folk who were probably proto-IE test genetically as a mixture of EHG and Armenian. I suspect that a lot of the ANE found in eastern European populations doesn't come from Indo-Europeans but from the EHG folk they conquered. So comparing ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians may not make sense if it came from different populations. And any ANE in R1b types in Anatolia may have gotten there by a very different route than the ANE in the Baltic.

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 03:51
If ANE was originally simply a marker for people with some kind of Y haplotype R before they spread out and mixed with other people, we might expect to find some ANE wherever we find R1a or R1b, although of course I realize that the amount of ANE in a particular population can't necessarily be predicted by the frequency of the R1a or R1b haplotype since ANE is an autosomal measurement. Nevertheless, I wonder whether ANE could be detected in a West African tribe such as the Oldeme, which has over 90% R1b. ANE would probably still be detectable, but that wouldn't tell us anything about the Indo-European expansion. So why assume that all the ANE found in Lithuania or Poland was brought by Indo-Europeans?

Angela
28-10-14, 04:56
The IR1 results are quite similar to the Thracian K8 individual with a bit more Atlantic_Baltic and a bit less West Asian.

So this is why I would go with the second theory, that he had been around in Central Europe for quite some time and absorbed some additional farmer+H&G admixture (Atlantic_Baltic is not completely H&G, it is significantly farmer admixed).


The results of IR1 look like what an Ossetian and Russian mixed individual would look like.


@Angela

West Asian can be explained as Early Near Eastern farmer with 1/3 ANE admixture. West Asian is highland-herder DNA imo.

Do you mean that BR1 had been around eastern and central Europe for a while but the original Yamnaya folks were more like IR1? Or do you think that IR1 was different from what the original Yamnaya people would have been like?

As to "West Asian" in K7b I'm not sure if it's one third ANE. How did you arrive at that precise figure? Is that a blogger computed figure?

Also, could you take a look at these Lithuanian figures and tell me what you think?

EEF: 36.4
WHG: 46.4
ANE: .172

K7b: (This is the academic sample. The Dodecad sample is slightly different. )
At/Baltic 87.6
Southern .4
W.Asian 10.4
Siberian 1.3
South Asian .3

If you take 2/3 of the West Asian, plus Southern, you have to take a certain amount of points from Atlantic/Baltic and label it EEF to get to that 36.4 number. Does that number fit with your view of the proportions in Atlantic/Baltic?

There's also the fact that in the admixture chart, I think all the "farmer" in the Lithuanians was blue, correct?
I had always assumed the EEF in Atlantic/Baltic was Stuttgart.

Ed. People are going back to equating Atlantic/Baltic with H/G. There's an EEF component in there. Even Otzi had 43.1 Atlantic/Baltic. (See post #162)

LeBrok
28-10-14, 05:38
Afterall, Basques actually appear slightly more east than Sardinians in this PCA plot.
I can only see 2 workarounds to consolidate Basque position on PCA chart. Either they didn't have ANE at all, therefore match Neolithic Farmers on the plot on WE axes, or something else is pulling them West counteracting ANE pull East.
Knowing that ANE was already found in Basques and that they were fairly secluded group in mountains, second scenario is more plausible. I think it is lurking inside some of WHG admixture.

LeBrok
28-10-14, 05:47
I said, they have the same ANE level when divided by WHG level. Sorry, didn't get that at first. Do you mean proportional? I can see what you mean now. It make sense in most of the cases, but only when ANE component is present. In case of Sardinians, lowering EEF level, therefore increase of WHG, can cause a pull to the West instead.

What about UHG in NE Europeans? This 4th admixture might have NE pull on PCA chart too. Distorting the simple story of 3 main admixtures.

Angela
28-10-14, 05:51
I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I don't know nearly as much about genetics as most of the people posting in this thread. But I'm increasingly wondering whether the ANE classification is really relevant for discussing the genetics of Bronze Age Europe and what impact the Indo-Europeans had on the genetics of different parts of Europe. If Mal'ta Boy and his relatives who presumably had descendants = ANE, there were a lot of millennia for those descendants to spread and mingle with others. So West Asian is apparently 1/3 ANE. But I suspect that at least some of the Eastern Hunter Gatherers had high levels of ANE, and in fact we know that the Corded War people had a lot of ANE. I don't think saying "proto-IE" explains it. The hunter gatherers living in the Russian forest probably had high levels of ANE and many of them probably had Y haplotype R1a. And now we're hearing of tweets from the big conference saying that the Yamna folk who were probably proto-IE test genetically as a mixture of EHG and Armenian. I suspect that a lot of the ANE found in eastern European populations doesn't come from Indo-Europeans but from the EHG folk they conquered. So comparing ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians may not make sense if it came from different populations. And any ANE in R1b types in Anatolia may have gotten there by a very different route than the ANE in the Baltic.





If ANE was originally simply a marker for people with some kind of Y haplotype R before they spread out and mixed with other people, we might expect to find some ANE wherever we find R1a or R1b, although of course I realize that the amount of ANE in a particular population can't necessarily be predicted by the frequency of the R1a or R1b haplotype since ANE is an autosomal measurement. Nevertheless, I wonder whether ANE could be detected in a West African tribe such as the Oldeme, which has over 90% R1b. ANE would probably still be detectable, but that wouldn't tell us anything about the Indo-European expansion. So why assume that all the ANE found in Lithuania or Poland was brought by Indo-Europeans?

Before I respond, I don't know if you saw Razib's comment on all of this in his blog:
http://www.unz.com/gnxp/r1a1a-what-is-best-in-life/

In it he says...
Over at Greg Cochran’s blog he’s been posting (http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/centum-and-satem-2/) on Indo-Europeans (http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/yamna-and-corded-ware/). He’s had many of these ideas for a long time, but after I recounted to him some more information from ASHG 2014 it crystallized a lot in terms of specifical detail. For example, the Kalash of Pakistan share a lot of drift with “Ancestral North Eurasians” (ANE). By “a lot”, I mean in the same range as North Caucasus and Eastern European groups. Other HGDP samples from Pakistan are somewhat lower in their signals, but it still noticeable.* In Iosif Lazaridis’ presentation at ASHG 2014 he outlined the likelihood that the widespread distribution of ANE ancestry in Europe probably had something to do with the migrations of the Yamna culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture), from which derived the Battle Axe Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture). The genetic variation you see in eastern and central Europe today is representative of the Yamna people. They know because they have ancient samples from those regions. The Yamna themselves are a mix of an Armenian-like Middle Eastern population, and “Eastern Hunter-Gatherers” (EHG) which resemble those to the west but have a higher fraction of ANE (so the are WHG + ANE, while the Armenian-like population is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the “European First Farmers” (EFF).

First thing is that the people from the Reigh lab, if the tweets were accurate, definitely seem to be saying that Yamnaya equals the Indo-Europeans.

If Razib is right in his interpretation, and as Alan proposed, the farmer portion of the Yamnaya was very similar to, but not exactly the same as EEF. As I had speculated, while EEF had some WHG, the "Armenian like" farmer population probably had some ANE. I'm not sure it's 33%, however. I guess we'll see when the paper comes out.

The more interesting portion to me is the "Hunter-Gatherer". We know the WHG are far in the West. Thousands of years before the ANE were far to the east. Motala, whom we could call a Scandinavian Hunter Gatherer, was 19% ANE? (So, I agree with you that we don't know which migration delivered exactly what percent of ANE. However, given there was no ANE in the western Mesolithic, couldn't we say that for western Europeans it came from the east, whether from Scandinavia or Yamnaya? Also, since the Lithuanians have, according to this paper, virtually no Stuttgart ancestry the blue bloc would have had to have come with the Indo-Europeans? So doesn't it make sense that some of their ANE also came from them? This would suggest to me that the level of ANE in that area might not have been at 19% levels when the Indo-Europeans arrived.)

Now, this EHG is really an ancient Karelian. I'm sure you know where Karelia is, but for anyone reading this who doesn't know...
http://www.balticuniv.uu.se/images/stories/images/Karelia/Karelia.png

More interestingly, this is their mtDNA from the Dersarkassian paper:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FTrvKmfSuWg/UKu2bjfUS1I/AAAAAAAABTI/OUA0Xer8CFI/s1600/DersarkissianT1Kar.png

This may be why, as has been reported, Reich and company, while believing that the ancient Karelians had "lots" of ANE, are having a problem figuring out the precise number. (This comes from Fire-Haired's thread. I have no personal knowledge of it.) To me, there's a definite "East Asian" flavor in the mtDNA.

So, these EHG were, I think, quite different from the WHG. Maybe the ultimate model will be WHG, EHG, Early Near Eastern farmer (if we ever get the genome of one).

Anyway, I have no idea where the boundary line between WHG and EHG would have existed. Perhaps there was a sort of mixed no man's land in the border areas? As I said, however, I don't know where that border area would have been located. It's clear that the ANE exists all the way south into Central Asia.( the Kalash as Razib Khan pointed out ) Whether that was there before the Indo-European migration, or as a result of the Indo-European migrations I also don't know, and I don't know how anyone else can know either.

I will say that I have been surprised at how different the Indo-Europeans are from the way that people had envisioned them. Is it my imagination, or is the bloom off the rose for some people as a result? I could swear I get the sense that all of a sudden being descended from them doesn't have quite the cachet it used to have, although they changed the world in a major way. Of course, I tend to think the worst of people. You never go wrong that way. :)

Oh, and the Iron Age people fit the lifestyle that people imagined for them far more, I think, than the Yamnaya folk do...

This is all what I think tonight. I may reconsider tomorrow. :)

arvistro
28-10-14, 10:43
Well I've always posted here that I did not believe my Baltic ancestors coming to current lands on their chariots and shiny weapons :)
Some clans figured out how to do simple but somewhat better farming + animals in forests. This let them populate huge areas in North Europe as corded.
However this is only (first bunch of r1a) half of IE story, history of r1b + later Iranic r1a could be much more violent...

Robert6
28-10-14, 10:55
BR2 from Hungarian Bronze Age is J2a1b-Y3021*
His clade is Parental to Vainakhs(Chechens and Ingushs) and to Toscanian man
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/168jduUNpiWNc7Y2X8lDrMpM8svuPDdwJq5w-g2fQz-0/edit#gid=856950630

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 12:06
Thanks for your comments, Angela, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying. I'm not at all surprised that IE=EHF + farmers from the Caucausus. Nor am I surprised that the farmers from the Caucausus are a mixture of early Middle Eastern Farmer and ANE. But I'm also not surprised that EHF seems to be a mixture of WHG (or something similar and ANE - that was kind of my point. ANE may tell us less than we'd hoped about the IE dispersal in Eastern Europe, simply because ANE was already present in Eastern Europe before the Bronze Age. Whereas it presumably wasn't present in Western Europe until the spread of R1b. So I'm not sure it's helpful to compare ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians in order to try to figure out anything about the Indo-European dispersal. As for the idea that the replacement of earlier languages by IE languages in Europe happened in many cases during the Iron Age, history already tells us that. But, IMO, that calls into question the idea that IE folk raced across Europe on horseback to create the massive amounts of R1b in Atlantic Europe. IMO, either that happened during the Iron Age or Atlantic R1b arrived during the late Neolithic and wasn't IE.

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 15:01
I guess my problem with referring to EHG as Karelians is that modern Karelians are a linguistic group who speak a language that didn't yet exist when Proto-IE was being developed. I think that if someone wants to plot modern population groups based on older groups, it should be based on WHG, EEF, EHG and West Asian, while recognizing that the latter two both included ANE. And while I wouldn't be too quick to reject the bloody image of IE warriors, given that they were apparently the first people to manufacture large amounts of bronze weapons, the dominance of IE in Europe seems to have been created by the Celtic expansion, the Greek colonization of Italy, the Roman Empire, the creation of the German language and subsequent German expansion and the Slavic expansion. The first two are a mixture of Bronze Age and Iron Age and the last three are Iron Age events.

Angela
28-10-14, 15:27
Well I've always posted here that I did not believe my Baltic ancestors coming to current lands on their chariots and shiny weapons :)
Some clans figured out how to do simple but somewhat better farming + animals in forests. This let them populate huge areas in North Europe as corded.
However this is only (first bunch of r1a) half of IE story, history of r1b + later Iranic r1a could be much more violent...


I'm not sure I follow. If the advance notice about the Corded Ware paper is correct, Corded Ware culture was an offshoot of Yamnaya, yes? I'm not saying, of course, that their advance wouldn't have incorporated northern "hunter-gatherer" types who perhaps already had some ANE. Plus, people like the Lithuanians had to get their 36% EEF from somewhere, and if the Admixture chart on this paper is correct, none of it is Stuttgart.

I totally agree that chariots would not have been part of the original advances. As I've pointed out before, chariots were only "invented" about 2,000 BC, and I think it's still an open question whether the whole idea came from south of the Caucasus. Regardless, you're right, they wouldn't have been of much use in dense forest, or in the Alps, for example. :)

arvistro
28-10-14, 16:13
There is a post under Ancient DNA which says Corded was 70% Yamnaya which is more than any modern pop, and of modern populations Balts (+Estonians) are the closest to Yamnaya.
Hence my wild assumption. Yamnaya -> Corded -> Balts. I believe this is where we got our r1a dads and our Balt language.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 16:31
Yamnaya is heck of a interesting case. It is at the northern frontier which Farmers never completely breached and didn't fully assimilate Hunter Gatherers living there. We have very successful Cucuteni farmers to the west and north-west of Black Sea, and Yamnaya HGs to the North. Were the HGs too numerous around these big rivers' fishing grounds? Were winters there too long and too harsh for ancient farmers and their crops? Probably the combination. Some historians (like David Anthony) believe that Corded Ware culture arose from combination of Cucuteni and Yamnaya. They've become farmers who could supplement their diet by hunting wild games, in case their crops failed. Perhaps the beginning of Indo Europeans? I think these Bronze Age Corded folks' genom will be very close to modern North-Eastern European one. I don't think there was huge population change afterwards, although some shift towards more ANE could have happened with time.

"Were the HGs too numerous around these big rivers' fishing grounds?"

There were pottery using sedentary HG cultures around the Black Sea before agriculture so I think that implies high food density and therefore relatively high population density (for foragers).

As a secondary thought sedentary pottery using foragers would be partially pre-adapted for farming.

My guess is with lower sea levels the current rims of the Black, Caspian and Baltic seas were actually dense wetlands supporting large forager populations.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 16:36
That's not the only reason. The mere lack of EEF also causes an eastward shift. Balts for instance appear east of Orcadians, but not because they have more ANE (they don't, when divided by the WHG amount), but because they have less EEF.
It's more the Balkan populations and south Italians who experienced Caucasic, Iranian and alike admixtures. As we know, mongol admixture is only relevant in Finns, Uralics and Russians, but even there it is still very minor and also it is not known which shift east-asian admixture would cause (East Asians have less ANE than most europeans, see here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1v4zYizoWtsoW1MNBN7SUrLf8R62NHPbMRySUJ2J48_Q/edit?pli=1#gid=1410860471) (reference (http://polishgenes.blogspot.de/2014/09/ancient-north-eurasian-ane-admixture.html)).). East asian is very different from "West-Asian" and would be an own dimension, almost impossible to squeeze into the two-dimensions of a PCA plot. The PCA plot looks quite nice because it mostly represents approximately the three main populations from Lazaridis' et al paper, which still are easy enough to fit into a two-dimension plot.

And then ANE has more than one source. In northern Europe it is more often of mesolithic origin, especially in NE-Europe, as can be seen by the ANE/WHG ratio which is not at all higher in NE Europe than elsewhere. Only in SE-central Europe and Italy (skyrocketing ANE/WHG ratio) but also (to a lesser extent) NW-Europe it also more-or-less came as "West-Asian" package from Caucasus-like and iranic peoples or IEans. Mongols are completely different.

"And then ANE has more than one source."

I think it may turn out that there is an IE segment of ANE (which expanded dramatically and became the biggest) and various non-IE segments tucked away in regions that weren't suitable for horse pastoralists with the various segments having a substrate layer in common e.g. bits of their mythology.

Angela
28-10-14, 16:51
Aberdeen;443000] ANE may tell us less than we'd hoped about the IE dispersal in Eastern Europe, simply because ANE was already present in Eastern Europe before the Bronze Age. Whereas it presumably wasn't present in Western Europe until the spread of R1b. So I'm not sure it's helpful to compare ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians in order to try to figure out anything about the Indo-European dispersal.

I agree that it's not going to be as informative a "marker" as we'd hoped, especially as Reich and company are having problems figuring out how much was present in the Ancient Karelians, and I don't know if they'd be able to figure out if any ANE remained from the SHGs.



As for the idea that the replacement of earlier languages by IE languages in Europe happened in many cases during the Iron Age, history already tells us that. But, IMO, that calls into question the idea that IE folk raced across Europe on horseback to create the massive amounts of R1b in Atlantic Europe. IMO, either that happened during the Iron Age or Atlantic R1b arrived during the late Neolithic and wasn't IE.

Hopefully, the Samarra paper should be able to tell us if the yDna in Yamnaya included R1a and R1b or not. For all we know, other people are testing Yamnaya remains as well.

Wherever R1a and R1b were, I don't think they could have been too separated spatially. Also from Razib Khan's blog:
" One showed a Bayesian skyline plot (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1185.full) which illustrated that many of the Y chromosomal lineages you know and love went through very rapid population expansion on the order of 5 to 10 thousand years ago. A second poster had a phylogeny of Y chromosomes derived from high coverage whole genome sequencing. They had four individuals from the R1 lineages, two of them from R1a1a. One individual was Indian and the other was Russian. The coalescence was ~5,000 years ago. The individual who did this analysis was not aware of the Bayesian skyline plot poster, so she immediately ran off to look at it when I told her. The coalescence with R1b for the R1a individuals was ~10,000 years ago."

I could see both of them on the steppe, perhaps with R1a slightly north of R1b. However, there are other possibilities. Perhaps R1b was more toward the Caucasus and also a bit south of the Caucasus (We certainly have R1b V88 south of the Caucasus, although that split off earlier.) and R1a initially just north of the Caucasus. Whether R1b headed west earlier, I don't know.


Aberdeen: I think that if someone wants to plot modern population groups based on older groups, it should be based on WHG, EEF, EHG and West Asian, while recognizing that the latter two both included ANE.

My proposal was WHG, EHG, and an early Near Eastern farmer (when we get a good sample), plus ANE. You may be right, and ANE won't prove as helpful as a category, and shouldn't be part of the model, although we'd have to keep in mind that EHG contained "lots" of ANE. Now that you bring it up, I do think that EEF is important as a category as well, as that gives us a way to track the movement of groups like LBK all through Europe. I think we agree that the model will change. The Lazardis paper said that it would change as they got more ancient samples. The important one will be getting a good quality sample for one of the first Near Eastern farmers, hopefully before they set sail for Europe. At the same time, different models are helpful for tracking different population movements. What we have to get our heads around is that there's been admixture upon admixture in western Eurasia, jumbling up the genes so that disentangling it is very difficult.


I guess my problem with referring to EHG as Karelians is that modern Karelians are a linguistic group who speak a language that didn't yet exist when Proto-IE was being developed.

Maybe the entire area from near Finland to the Black Sea and east from there was populated by ancient Karelian type people. Uralic languages and Indo-European languages developed near each other, Uralic to the north and Indo-European in the rest of the area.


Aberdeen...the dominance of IE in Europe seems to have been created by the Celtic expansion, the Greek colonization of Italy, the Roman Empire, the creation of the German language and subsequent German expansion and the Slavic expansion. The first two are a mixture of Bronze Age and Iron Age and the last three are Iron Age events.

Again, we agree here. I even think we've already discussed it on this site. It has always seemed to me that a lot of this changed very late, especially in terms of language. When the Romans conquered Iberia, a huge chunk of it was still not speaking Indo-European languages. Even genetically, that central European signal into Iberia is dated to around 2,000 BC. The genetics of southern Italy was heavily impacted, perhaps, by Greek colonization starting around, what, 800 BC? What about the impact of the various Gothic tribes and Lombard tribes on Central Europe and perhaps eastern Europe? (By the time they got to Italy and Spain, it seems that they were too few in number and too admixed to have made much of an autosomal impact.)Then we have changes genetically going on in certain parts of Europe into the early Medieval period, i.e. Anglo-Saxons and then Vikings into Britain. Then look at the huge impact the Slavic migrations had on the Balkans and east into places like Germany perhaps. The paper that included the "Thracian" individuals showed that we still had groups of very "Otzi" like people living among very IR1 steppe nomad like people very late in European history.

I know you didn't raise this issue, but as to this "catchphrase" about the revenge of the hunter-gatherers, I'm afraid it misses the point. Had the H/G's of Europe not adopted agriculture, whether through incorporation into EEF communities or admixture with EEF communities, or because they were later "Indo-Europeanized" and therefore learned farming and herding (which after all is an outgrowth of farming) along with getting an infusion of some new genes, they would have wound up as few in number and as isolated as the SAAMI. Once they did adopt it, their numbers were able to increase. Now, how many of the HG's in far northeastern and far northwestern refugia came south over thousands of years in a sort of steady drip, how many were incorporated in far eastern Europe and came west with the Indo-Europeans, and how many came into Central and northwestern Europe via the Goths etc. (and how admixed they were by that time) in the early medieval period, I don't know.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 16:53
I've tried to stay out of this discussion because I don't know nearly as much about genetics as most of the people posting in this thread. But I'm increasingly wondering whether the ANE classification is really relevant for discussing the genetics of Bronze Age Europe and what impact the Indo-Europeans had on the genetics of different parts of Europe. If Mal'ta Boy and his relatives who presumably had descendants = ANE, there were a lot of millennia for those descendants to spread and mingle with others. So West Asian is apparently 1/3 ANE. But I suspect that at least some of the Eastern Hunter Gatherers had high levels of ANE, and in fact we know that the Corded War people had a lot of ANE. I don't think saying "proto-IE" explains it. The hunter gatherers living in the Russian forest probably had high levels of ANE and many of them probably had Y haplotype R1a. And now we're hearing of tweets from the big conference saying that the Yamna folk who were probably proto-IE test genetically as a mixture of EHG and Armenian. I suspect that a lot of the ANE found in eastern European populations doesn't come from Indo-Europeans but from the EHG folk they conquered. So comparing ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians may not make sense if it came from different populations. And any ANE in R1b types in Anatolia may have gotten there by a very different route than the ANE in the Baltic.

A simple explanation would be if EHG were all ANE and then IE derived from one segment of EHG before expanding dramatically. If so there would be both IE clades of R1a and non-IE clades of R1a.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 16:58
I was musing somewhat at the PCA chart with various pullings in relation to 3 major admixtures.

1. Why Basques are located exactly above EEF/NE farmers, and not to the east? When the former contain substantial ANE, which EEF shouldn't have at all. Basques should be east from NE samples, much closer to Spanish ones.
2. Sardinian and NE farmers don't have ANE admixture, however Sardinians plot to the West from NE but on same latitude. Actually they, with extra WHG mixture, should have plotted exactly North off NE samples. In place of Basques.
3. La Brania HG, Bra2 sample, plots way to the West from the rest of Hunter Gatherers.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg
I came up with this explanation. There is one extra component in the game. The "Western" component which pulls samples, not affected by ANE, along West-East axes. It causes EEF samples to fluctuate West-East while ANE admixture is completely missing, therefore unable to perform such action. Farthermore, I think that this Western component (possibly related to ancient North African Hunter Gatherer admixture?) is contained in WHG admixture. I suppose there are 2 major elements in WHG admixture. One is strongly pulling West the other North, with compounded vector of pull towards North-West.
Hunter Gatherers in Iberian refuge during LGM met HGs from west Africa? Completing creation of WHG from their combine genome, if I may unleash my fantasy. :)

This Western in WHG component is strong in Basques, equalises ANE easterly pull and holds them on par with EEF on W-E axes. It pulls Sardinians and Ice Man to the West from EEF (although Sardinians might gotten some extra pull West from more recent migrations from Africa?). It pulls HG Bra2, born in Spain, most westernly in regards to the rest of HGs.

The effect of West component seems to be 3-5 times weaker than pull of North component. WHG genome = 75% North, 25% West. Mind that North and West are not locations but directions of pull.


I'm wondering about this as well - two components in WHG, a northern one and a southern, possibly NW African related, one, not huge but big enough to distort.

Angela
28-10-14, 17:02
There is a post under Ancient DNA which says Corded was 70% Yamnaya which is more than any modern pop, and of modern populations Balts (+Estonians) are the closest to Yamnaya.
Hence my wild assumption. Yamnaya -> Corded -> Balts. I believe this is where we got our r1a dads and our Balt language.

You're making a few leaps here. What is the Y Dna break down for the Balts and Estonians? Subclades for R1a would be very important in trying to figure out the source and timing for the different types of R1a.

Of course, we don't even know the precise breakdown for the Yamnaya Y DNA yet.

Also, let's not forget that autosomally, it's been leaked that the Yamnaya were 50% ancient Karelian type hunter and 50% Armenian type farmer.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 17:09
Thanks for your comments, Angela, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough about what I was saying. I'm not at all surprised that IE=EHF + farmers from the Caucausus. Nor am I surprised that the farmers from the Caucausus are a mixture of early Middle Eastern Farmer and ANE. But I'm also not surprised that EHF seems to be a mixture of WHG (or something similar and ANE - that was kind of my point. ANE may tell us less than we'd hoped about the IE dispersal in Eastern Europe, simply because ANE was already present in Eastern Europe before the Bronze Age. Whereas it presumably wasn't present in Western Europe until the spread of R1b. So I'm not sure it's helpful to compare ANE levels in Basques and Lithuanians in order to try to figure out anything about the Indo-European dispersal. As for the idea that the replacement of earlier languages by IE languages in Europe happened in many cases during the Iron Age, history already tells us that. But, IMO, that calls into question the idea that IE folk raced across Europe on horseback to create the massive amounts of R1b in Atlantic Europe. IMO, either that happened during the Iron Age or Atlantic R1b arrived during the late Neolithic and wasn't IE.

"But, IMO, that calls into question the idea that IE folk raced across Europe on horseback to create the massive amounts of R1b in Atlantic Europe. IMO, either that happened during the Iron Age or Atlantic R1b arrived during the late Neolithic and wasn't IE."

Or maybe that the IE label needs sub-dividing into two?

Stage 1) PIE where steppe HGs transition into pastoralists
Stage 2) Full IE horse culture package

so maybe R1b from stage (1) and R1a from stage (2).

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 17:14
I guess my problem with referring to EHG as Karelians is that modern Karelians are a linguistic group who speak a language that didn't yet exist when Proto-IE was being developed. I think that if someone wants to plot modern population groups based on older groups, it should be based on WHG, EEF, EHG and West Asian, while recognizing that the latter two both included ANE. And while I wouldn't be too quick to reject the bloody image of IE warriors, given that they were apparently the first people to manufacture large amounts of bronze weapons, the dominance of IE in Europe seems to have been created by the Celtic expansion, the Greek colonization of Italy, the Roman Empire, the creation of the German language and subsequent German expansion and the Slavic expansion. The first two are a mixture of Bronze Age and Iron Age and the last three are Iron Age events.

"the creation of the German language and subsequent German expansion ... and the last three are Iron Age events"

I think the first stage of this was pre Iron Age hidden away north of the Carpathians with Globular Amphora etc. The bit (currently) known to history is the Iron Age bit.

bicicleur
28-10-14, 17:49
There is a post under Ancient DNA which says Corded was 70% Yamnaya which is more than any modern pop, and of modern populations Balts (+Estonians) are the closest to Yamnaya.
Hence my wild assumption. Yamnaya -> Corded -> Balts. I believe this is where we got our r1a dads and our Balt language.

IMO corded ware were R1a Yamnaya people moving north and northwest
and some of their tribes spoke proto-Baltic
but i don't know :
did they come all the way till Latvia some 2900 BC, or did they arrive later, in a subsequent move?

arvistro
28-10-14, 18:04
You're making a few leaps here. What is the Y Dna break down for the Balts and Estonians? Subclades for R1a would be very important in trying to figure out the source and timing for the different types of R1a.

Of course, we don't even know the precise breakdown for the Yamnaya Y DNA yet.

Also, let's not forget that autosomally, it's been leaked that the Yamnaya were 50% ancient Karelian type hunter and 50% Armenian type farmer.
It is only my intuition.
On the points raised:
R1a in Balts should be OK for that reason. Different (Euro) clades and subclades according to some study.

I calculated a bit based on wild assumptions and figure 10 from Hungarian Paper.
I assumed
Karelians would look 50/50 orange/blue
Armenians from paper 50/16/16/16 blue/red/green/orange
Yamna assumed as 50/50 of above then looks 50/33/8/8 blue/orange/green/red. Which is actually according same paper most similar to ...... Adygeys. And capital of Adygea is ........ Maykop.
Cool, is not it? :) I googled Adygeys and my mouth opened wide :)

As to Balts (Lithuanians), if we assume 50% of average Yamna related ancestry then other 50% would on average come from folk 80% orange/20% green to match figure 10 proportions. If Karelian assumption is wrong in orange/blue proportions, then the Other 50% folk would have to also be more blue/orange.

Angela
28-10-14, 18:18
Arvistro:There is a post under Ancient DNA which says Corded was 70% Yamnaya which is more than any modern pop, and of modern populations Balts (+Estonians) are the closest to Yamnaya.
Hence my wild assumption. Yamnaya -> Corded -> Balts. I believe this is where we got our r1a dads and our Balt language.


[QUOTE]Angela: You're making a few leaps here. What is the Y Dna break down for the Balts and Estonians? Subclades for R1a would be very important in trying to figure out the source and timing for the different types of R1a.

Of course, we don't even know the precise breakdown for the Yamnaya Y DNA yet.

Also, let's not forget that autosomally, it's been leaked that the Yamnaya were 50% ancient Karelian type hunter and 50% Armenian type farmer.

As to Corded Ware, if they were 70% Yamnaya, and Yamnaya was 50% "Armenian type" farmer, then Corded Ware would have been 35% "Armenian type" farmer? Some of that might be going into the ANE category. Still, that is pretty close to the 36% EEF number for the Lithuanians.

However, what was the remaining 30% of Corded Ware? What combination of farmer and hunter gatherer? I suppose the upcoming Lazaridis paper will tell us.

Interesting that they found "G" and "I" or "J" in two Corded remains from 2800 B.C. I had assumed it was "G2a" of Stuttgart variety and maybe I2a of WHG variety. However, given that there's "G" of a more Caucasus type and we now have a Bronze Age Indo European with J2a1, maybe not.

See Jean Manco's page on Copper Age ancient dna:
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

Off topic, but it just occurred to me that the royal houses of Europe may have preserved the yDna signatures (and maybe even the phenotype) of these steppe people more than the rest of us. If the Bourbons were really G2a, maybe it was G2a of a type that arrived with Iron Age people, and not with the early European farmers. There was that paper, which I can't put my hands on now, that found G2a in knights of the Medieval period.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 18:20
For what it's worth my model is (currently)

Stage 1)
I think ANE = mammoth steppe HG and WHG = coastal rim HG and if you look at a map of the extent of the mammoth steppe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe#mediaviewer/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

you can see although the center of gravity is far to the east the edges reach right into western Europe so as the ice retreated it wouldn't be surprising that the northwest of Europe would be repopulated by both WHG and ANE while the northeast was repopulated by mostly ANE.

So in simple terms after the LGM i think the population of Europe was split into roughly four quadrants:
SW Europe = WHG
SE Europe = WHG
NW Europe = WHG + ANE
NE Europe = ANE

(although as a separate issue i think there's also two components buried inside WHG)

Stage 2)
Farmers from somewhere expanded into Europe displacing the HGs almost everywhere except the peripheries (Atlantic coast and northern forests) and some interior regions that were too mountainous or swampy to farm and became c. 90% of the population of Europe. This eventually leading to a densely settled southern and central Europe and a much more lightly settled northern forest and western Atlantic coastal periphery.

Stage 3)
Something happened on the edge of the steppe that led to R1b moving south and west - possibly being pushed by forces from the east - but not as conquerors (as the distribution of R1b and R1a doesn't fit that imo) so instead of attacking densely settled Cardium and LBK instead they went around them by three routes:
a) north of the Carpathians
b) up the Danube but then diverted away from LBK through Croatia into northern Italy and southern France
c) maritime
with either one or other of (b) or (c) or both at different times leading to their arrival in Iberia and movement along the Atlantic coast.

Stage 4)
It's only when R1b - possibly pre-adapted with LP from their steppe or near-steppe origins - arrive in the northern forest and Atlantic coastal zones on the periphery of Europe where crop farming is weak that they experience a major population explosion (and LP sweep) through a cattle-centric dairying form of farming and it's that population explosion (incorporating HG survivors) that leads to the big fight with LBK and a significant bouncing back of the original displaced HGs. The last echoes of this west to east and north to south expansion extending into historical times with the eastward Celtic expansion down the Danube.

Stage 5)
Not really a separate stage but ongoing during stages (3) and (4) is an ongoing gradual push of R1a (at least the IE variants of R1a) westwards into the Balkans and eastern Europe.

Angela
28-10-14, 18:36
BR2 from Hungarian Bronze Age is J2a1b-Y3021*
His clade is Parental to Vainakhs(Chechens and Ingushs) and to Toscanian man
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/168jduUNpiWNc7Y2X8lDrMpM8svuPDdwJq5w-g2fQz-0/edit#gid=856950630

What "Toscanian" man?

Angela
28-10-14, 18:38
"But, IMO, that calls into question the idea that IE folk raced across Europe on horseback to create the massive amounts of R1b in Atlantic Europe. IMO, either that happened during the Iron Age or Atlantic R1b arrived during the late Neolithic and wasn't IE."

Or maybe that the IE label needs sub-dividing into two?

Stage 1) PIE where steppe HGs transition into pastoralists
Stage 2) Full IE horse culture package

so maybe R1b from stage (1) and R1a from stage (2).

Which flavor of R1a? Were the R1a forest steppe people a different type of R1a from the Yamnaya Indo European R1a, presuming it's there? Or was there an R1a which was the original Yamnaya R1a and then a more "Iranic" type of R1a that showed up with the Iron Age invasions?

Robert6
28-10-14, 19:24
What "Toscanian" man?
J-Y3021*


id:NA20534 TSI


TSI=Toscani in Italia
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 19:43
Which flavor of R1a? Were the R1a forest steppe people a different type of R1a from the Yamnaya Indo European R1a, presuming it's there? Or was there an R1a which was the original Yamnaya R1a and then a more "Iranic" type of R1a that showed up with the Iron Age invasions?

Yes quite - labeling on this is a nightmare.

I think "IE" may need three sub-divisions or three labels:
1) a very early mammoth steppe HG version with some cultural similarities extending over a huge area from Europe to America
2) a pastoralist but pre horse culture version which expanded over the steppe and near the edges
3) a specific population within (2) that developed the full horse pastoralist culture, expanded, and probably displaced most of (2) who weren't protected by terrain.

So I think there may be HG descended R1a clades tucked away in very remote regions, early pastoralist clades tucked away in semi-remote regions and the main IE clades which came to dominate the space originally shared with lots of other ANE sub-groups.

In the context of my previous comment I was talking about the latter - the traditional full horse pastoralist version of IE.

Sile
28-10-14, 20:03
J-Y3021*


id:NA20534 TSI


TSI=Toscani in Italia
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/

what is this TSI mean?

Is it the old system of 4 years ago when it meant , Italy, Alps and Balkans or is it something different?

some of the old ones below

ASW - African ancestry in Southwest USA
CEU - Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection
CHB - Han Chinese in Beijing, China
CHD - Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
GIH - Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas
JPT - Japanese in Tokyo, Japan
LWK - Luhya in Webuye, Kenya
MXL - Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California
MKK - Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya
TSI - Toscani in Italia
YRI - Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria
and more

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 20:19
Yes quite - labeling on this is a nightmare.

I think "IE" may need three sub-divisions or three labels:
1) a very early mammoth steppe HG version with some cultural similarities extending over a huge area from Europe to America
2) a pastoralist but pre horse culture version which expanded over the steppe and near the edges
3) a specific population within (2) that developed the full horse pastoralist culture, expanded, and probably displaced most of (2) who weren't protected by terrain.

So I think there may be HG descended R1a clades tucked away in very remote regions, early pastoralist clades tucked away in semi-remote regions and the main IE clades which came to dominate the space originally shared with lots of other ANE sub-groups.

In the context of my previous comment I was talking about the latter - the traditional full horse pastoralist version of IE.

Indo-European is a specific cultural and linguistic term, and Proto-Indo-European is probably much younger than the split of R1 into R1a and R1b. And if Yamna culture is a mixture of EHG and a Caucasian group, it probably has more than one Y haplotype. You can't just equate R1a with IE, even though I think it likely that the EHG part of Yamna was predominantly R1a.

Aberdeen
28-10-14, 20:28
For what it's worth my model is (currently)

Stage 1)
I think ANE = mammoth steppe HG and WHG = coastal rim HG and if you look at a map of the extent of the mammoth steppe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth_steppe#mediaviewer/File:Last_glacial_vegetation_map.png

you can see although the center of gravity is far to the east the edges reach right into western Europe so as the ice retreated it wouldn't be surprising that the northwest of Europe would be repopulated by both WHG and ANE while the northeast was repopulated by mostly ANE.

So in simple terms after the LGM i think the population of Europe was split into roughly four quadrants:
SW Europe = WHG
SE Europe = WHG
NW Europe = WHG + ANE
NE Europe = ANE

(although as a separate issue i think there's also two components buried inside WHG)

................






No. EHG is only partly ANE and WHG doesn't contain ANE.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 21:06
Indo-European is a specific cultural and linguistic term, and Proto-Indo-European is probably much younger than the split of R1 into R1a and R1b. And if Yamna culture is a mixture of EHG and a Caucasian group, it probably has more than one Y haplotype. You can't just equate R1a with IE, even though I think it likely that the EHG part of Yamna was predominantly R1a.

I think you can if the full package was developed in one place by one patrilineal clan or more likely by a small number of related patrilineal clans with only one lineage avoiding extinction over time. I agree it's after the fact though i.e. it's an association with a *surviving* lineage and not necessarily a *founding* lineage.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 21:15
No. EHG is only partly ANE and WHG doesn't contain ANE.


I'm not saying WHG contains ANE I'm saying if ANE represents the mammoth steppe HGs then given how far west that ecozone would have extended after the LGM then the repopulation of the northwest as the ice retreated could easily have involved groups from both WHG and ANE. This could explain the relatively high levels of ANE in places like Scotland and Scandinavia separately from IE expansion (if the clades were different from the IE clades - if they weren't different then the theory would be wrong).

Robert6
28-10-14, 21:18
what is this TSI mean?

Is it the old system of 4 years ago when it meant , Italy, Alps and Balkans or is it something different?

some of the old ones below

ASW - African ancestry in Southwest USA
CEU - Utah residents with Northern and Western European ancestry from the CEPH collection
CHB - Han Chinese in Beijing, China
CHD - Chinese in Metropolitan Denver, Colorado
GIH - Gujarati Indians in Houston, Texas
JPT - Japanese in Tokyo, Japan
LWK - Luhya in Webuye, Kenya
MXL - Mexican ancestry in Los Angeles, California
MKK - Maasai in Kinyawa, Kenya
TSI - Toscani in Italia
YRI - Yoruba in Ibadan, Nigeria
and more
If you will put your cursor into the "TSI" after 2-3 seconds in a small white window you will see the "Toscani in Italia"


Same for "RUS" If you will put your cursor into it, after 2-3 seconds you will see in the small window "Russia"

Angela
28-10-14, 21:28
J-Y3021*


id:NA20534 TSI


TSI=Toscani in Italia
http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y3021/

Thanks for responding Robert 6. Well waddaya know? The J2a1 in a bunch of Tuscans from a little town north east of Florence have a J2a1 lineage specifically associated with Bronze Age steppe people.

Didn't one of those Thracian samples supposedly plot somewhere near Tuscans? Was it the Bronze Age sample or one of the Iron Age ones?

I'm telling you, the hits just keep a comin'. :)

Angela
28-10-14, 22:05
Yes quite - labeling on this is a nightmare.

I think "IE" may need three sub-divisions or three labels:
1) a very early mammoth steppe HG version with some cultural similarities extending over a huge area from Europe to America
2) a pastoralist but pre horse culture version which expanded over the steppe and near the edges
3) a specific population within (2) that developed the full horse pastoralist culture, expanded, and probably displaced most of (2) who weren't protected by terrain.

So I think there may be HG descended R1a clades tucked away in very remote regions, early pastoralist clades tucked away in semi-remote regions and the main IE clades which came to dominate the space originally shared with lots of other ANE sub-groups.

In the context of my previous comment I was talking about the latter - the traditional full horse pastoralist version of IE.


I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. Those are just ancient ANE type HG's who wound up speaking a bunch of different languages, including North American Indian ones. As Aberdeen pointed out, many of them in Europe wound up speaking Uralic languages.

The Indo-Europeans are a specific linguistic and cultural group. If we lose sight of that then the term becomes meaningless. It was that package which so changed the world, and the people who created that package were mixed "ethnically". As I've annoyed people by insisting before, no hunter/ gatherer or fisher/gatherer living in a cave or a yurt or a brush shelter in a marsh is going, imo, to magically transform into a pastoralist (which of course is just an off-shoot of a farmer) and a highly sophisticated bronze worker, without input from prior cultures that did farm, and keep domestic animals, and experiment with metallurgy.

I hope I can find some time to go back and re-read Michael Frachetti and listen to his lecture again too. I think he's the go to person for that Central Asian type pastoralist, "horse" culture.

This is the link to one of his seminal papers: From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement of Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan)
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/ant0831023.htm

A discussion of it:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/horse-not-important-for-emergence-of.html

His lecture at Penn (don't let the title fool you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qq9__GWN0

He's had a book out for quite a while called Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia, but it's pricey. I doubt my library can get it even on loan, but maybe I'll try.

I sure hope they're factoring his findings into the Samarra paper.

Greying Wanderer
28-10-14, 22:36
I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. Those are just ancient ANE type HG's who wound up speaking a bunch of different languages, including North American Indian ones. As Aberdeen pointed out, many of them in Europe wound up speaking Uralic languages.

The Indo-Europeans are a specific linguistic and cultural group. If we lose sight of that then the term becomes meaningless. It was that package which so changed the world, and the people who created that package were mixed "ethnically". As I've annoyed people by insisting before, no hunter/ gatherer or fisher/gatherer living in a cave or a yurt or a brush shelter in a marsh is going, imo, to magically transform into a pastoralist (which of course is just an off-shoot of a farmer) and a highly sophisticated bronze worker, without input from prior cultures that did farm, and keep domestic animals, and experiment with metallurgy.

I hope I can find some time to go back and re-read Michael Frachetti and listen to his lecture again too. I think he's the go to person for that Central Asian type pastoralist, "horse" culture.

This is the link to one of his seminal papers: From sheep to (some) horses: 4500 years of herd structure at the pastoralist settlement of Begash (south-eastern Kazakhstan)
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/083/ant0831023.htm

A discussion of it:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/05/horse-not-important-for-emergence-of.html

His lecture at Penn (don't let the title fool you):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7qq9__GWN0

He's had a book out for quite a while called Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia, but it's pricey. I doubt my library can get it even on loan, but maybe I'll try.

I sure hope they're factoring his findings into the Samarra paper.

"I can see where you're going with 2 and 3, but I don't think number 1 has anything to do with the Indo-Europeans except as one of the "feeder" populations that went into their ethnogenesis. "

Yeah it's translating the private labeling in my head to the "page" that causes the issues.

re Frachetti

The idea of a first wave of wagon-based pastoralists expanding over a range and then somewhere within that range a horse-culture develops which eventually turns into the traditional IE second wave makes a lot of sense to me. My only quibble is I think the first wave were sort-of-IE-but-not-quite.

arvistro
28-10-14, 23:16
IMO corded ware were R1a Yamnaya people moving north and northwest
and some of their tribes spoke proto-Baltic
but i don't know :
did they come all the way till Latvia some 2900 BC, or did they arrive later, in a subsequent move?
I can't find exact chronology of corded ware in Latvia. It seems they estimated graves age by pottery types mostly...
According to Gimbutas, since 2000 BC Corded Ware same Baltic culture continued in around same area.
As noted here in Violet http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/East_europe_5-6cc.png
Initial 2000 BC and/or before area was wider, I think she believes Fatyanovo (also Corded) was East Baltic.
So, Balts are children of Corded. If Corded is child of Yamna, Balts are grandsons of Yamna. But has lower Yamna related ancestry than Corded.

Sile
29-10-14, 08:57
If you will put your cursor into the "TSI" after 2-3 seconds in a small white window you will see the "Toscani in Italia"


Same for "RUS" If you will put your cursor into it, after 2-3 seconds you will see in the small window "Russia"

This means nothing as they do not have for swiss or austrians or french etc..............as I said what area of europe does TSI incorporate , Italy and ?

edit - do not bother replying , they use the same system as I mentioned

Sile
29-10-14, 10:40
This means nothing as they do not have for swiss or austrians or french etc..............as I said what area of europe does TSI incorporate , Italy and ?

edit - do not bother replying , they use the same system as I mentioned

Only european ones

TSI
RUS = russians
IBS = iberians
CEU = western atlantic

I do not know of any others

Alan
29-10-14, 16:15
As to "West Asian" in K7b I'm not sure if it's one third ANE. How did you arrive at that precise figure? Is that a blogger computed figure?



On Eurogenes blogspot under an article about Mal'ta genome. Davidski commented to a question that West Asian is probably 40% ANE derived and the rest beeing Early Near Eastern Farmer. I think 40% is a little bit too high so I think it might actually be 1/3.

Angela
29-10-14, 18:47
K12b analysis based on the Genetiker runs: The usual disclaimers apply. I don’t know if these percentages are exact, but since I’m just comparing one sample to another sample using an analysis done by one person and using the same calculator it should give us some clues. I’ve removed anything below .5%. I think it’s good to keep in mind that the K12b “North Euro” component is mostly At/Baltic (which has some At/Med in it) plus some West Asian. The K12b “Caucasus” component is about 50% of the K7b West Asian, a chunk of Southern, plus a bit of Atlantic Baltic. For our purposes I think we could perhaps view it as mostly an eastern shifted EEF, yes?

AJV70

North Euro 76.4
At.Ned 20.6
Siberian 1.6
SSA 1.3


AJV52

North Euro 77.5

At Med 13.3

S.Asian 4.9
SSA 4.3

K01 Mesolithic HG part of Neolithic Farming Community at Koros



70.14% North_European
27.50% Atlantic_Med
1.72% Sub_Saharan
0.40% Siberian
0.21% Southeast_Asian

Otzi

North Euro 0
At/Med 57.7

Caucasus 22.3
S.W.Asian 7.6
NWAfrican 5.7
East African 24
S.E.Asian 2
S.Asian 1.5
E,Asian .7


Gok 4

North Euro 5.5
At/Med 81
Caucasus 4.2
S.W.Asian 8.6
E. African .7


K02 Early Neolithic Körös 5570–5710 BC.



47.77% Atlantic_Med
27.46% Caucasus
13.95% Southwest_Asian
10.17% Northwest_African
0.60% East_Asian
0.05% Southeast_Asian


C01-Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900



51.30% Atlantic_Med
22.93% Caucasus
9.69% Southwest_Asian
9.25% North_European
5.77% Northwest_African
0.78% Sub_Saharan
0.22% Siberian
0.05% Southeast_Asian

CO1 had more of the North European components and less of the Caucasus components than KO2. Like KO2, CO1 didn’t have any of the K12b Gedrosia component,

BR1 Early Bronze Age Mako Culture 1980-2190 BC (roughly 800 years later)



48.74% North_European
34.34% Atlantic_Med
9.46% Caucasus
3.87% Southwest_Asian
1.12% Sub_Saharan
0.78% South_Asian
0.77% East_African
0.63% East_Asian
0.25% Southeast_Asian


BR2 Late Bronze Kyjatice culture dated to 1110–1270 BC (800 years later)




41.61% North_European
35.99% Atlantic_Med
16.30% Caucasus
3.51% Southwest_Asian
1.34% Sub_Saharan
1.12% Gedrosia
0.10% Northwest_African


IR1- pre-Scythian Iron Age Mezőcsát culture of Hungary. 830–980 BC.



34.63% North_European
19.54% Atlantic_Med
16.66% Caucasus
15.22% Gedrosia
4.90% Siberian
3.30% East_Asian
2.38% Southwest_Asian
1.53% Northwest_African
1.08% Sub_Saharan
0.77% South_Asian

KO1, the Mesolithic HG who became part of the Early Neolithic at Koros, is within a few points of Ajv 70 and 52, so basically the same..

The KO2 sample, the southern most early Neolithic farmer, definitely seems to have a slightly more “eastern” tilt than Oetzi, and certainly more than the more admixed Gok 4.


Otzi’s Atlantic Med is roughly 58%, to KO2’s 48%, (and Gok 4’s 81%). Otzi has 22% Caucasus, KO27% and Gok 4 4%. Gok 4 has 9% S.W.Asian, Otzi 8%, but KO2 14%. Now it’s clear why most of these Neolithic farmers plot Southeast of Otzi.


This raises an interesting question. Otzi was a Copper Age person from around 3200 B.C.and Gok 4 a TRB farmer from 3100 BC. Is the change in her numbers because of more admixture?Dienekes had speculated that perhaps this group was related to Coon’s Long Barrow Group. I don’t know. (Of course, her admixture has nothing to do with the amount of EEF in modern people. That’s supposedly based on a comparison with Stuttgart (and Otzi?), and KO2 still seems pretty similar to Otzi, although definitely a little to the south and east of him.)


Then, in the 3,000 years from the early Neolithic Koros culture to the Copper Age Baden Culture the change was very minimal.

The only change, which appears to have taken place around the time of the Copper Age, is that there was an infusion of about 10% “North Euro”.

This increased the Atlantic Med by 3, lowered the “Caucasus” by 4, and lowered the Southwest Asian by 4. You also suddenly get a smidgeon of Siberian, .22, and surprisingly, .78 of SSA.
I think it may be that the first steppe people were starting to arrive, but, in this part of Europe, it was about 10% of the total genome.

What’s more amazing to me is that for about 3,000 years, the people in Hungary didn’t change. Whatever WHG they had was incorporated very early, perhaps further south near the Danube Gorges, and after that there seems not to have been any admixture with hunter-gatherers. Whether that’s because a sort of strict apartheid was enforced after the first admixture, as happened in parts of the Spanish New World, for example, or whether there just weren’t any left in the vicinity, I don’tknow.


(I don’t understand why it’s so hard to locate a good carbon dated map of Neolithic and forager settlements in central Europe in, say, the Neolithic, so this doesn’t all have to be guesswork. I’ve tried, and I can’t find it.)


The Early Bronze sees a much greater change. Eight hundred years later, the “North Euro” has jumped from 9% to 49%. Atlantic Med has dropped from 51% to 34%. Caucasus has dropped from 23 to 9%, S.W.Asian has dropped from 10 to 4%. Also, there are trace amounts of south, southeast and east Asian, a bit of East African, and SSA increases. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Is Genetiker’s run just too noisy? These are all over .5%, however. Is it possible it’s telling us these Bronze Age invaders were both more “eastern” shifted and more “southern” shifted than the EEF and WHG of Europe? I don’t know.


Eight hundred years later in the late Bronze things have slightly shifted again. North Euro has dropped by 7 points. Atlantic Med has stayed about the same, but “Caucasus” has gone back up by about 7 points. Southwest Asian and SSA stay about the same, but the really “Asian” traces have disappeared. Interestingly, Gedrosia has shown up for the first time, but only to the tune of 1%.So, what happened? Did a fresh wave, somewhat different from the first, come in from the steppes, or was the change the product of admixture with the prior inhabitants, or a little of both?


(Just to isolate North Euro for a moment, it went from 0 in the Early Neolithic to 9% in the Copper Age, to 49% in the early Bronze, back down to 42% in the Late Bronze Age.)


The Iron Age steppe person is from another eight hundred years later. (He is a child with a G2a1 mtDna, so it seems these people from the steppe did bring some of their own women with them, as was also clear with some mtDna studies. )His North Euro drops from 42 to 35, Atlantic Med from 36 to 20. Caucasus and SW Asian and SSA stays the same, but Gedrosia jumps from 1% to 15%. Interestingly, Siberian now shows up at 5% and East Asian at 3%.




I’m not sure how to interpret this change, other than to point out the obvious that Gedrosia seems to appear mostly during the Iron Age. Also, there's definitely a more southern, but also again a more eastern shift in these people. Is it because we’ve sort of “captured” someone “fresher” off the steppe? Or, did the steppe population itself change slightly between the Bronze and the Iron Age, in that it became even more “eastern”? I do think that the EEF in the steppe populations was more eastern and southern shifted compared to central European EEF. Their hunter gatherer was also much more eastern shifted.


I don’t think we’ll know much more until we see the Samarra samples and the Yamnaya samples

I did this in a rush, so if anyone sees errors just let me know.

The only other thing I'll do is take a look at the modern populations to see if it's the same pattern as for the K7b analysis.

Sile
29-10-14, 19:26
On Eurogenes blogspot under an article about Mal'ta genome. Davidski commented to a question that West Asian is probably 40% ANE derived and the rest beeing Early Near Eastern Farmer. I think 40% is a little bit too high so I think it might actually be 1/3.

And how did he work out 40% and West Asian for the siberian Mal'ta boy, when Mal'ta boy is neither in the R1 nor R2 branches ?:kaioken:

Alan
29-10-14, 19:46
And how did he work out 40% and West Asian for the siberian Mal'ta boy, when Mal'ta boy is neither in the R1 nor R2 branches ?:kaioken:

Mal'ta boys genome itself showed 26% West Asian related genes. That means at least 26% of WA is ANE derived. How he came to the 40% conclusion I don't know. But 1/3 doesn't look that wrong at all. Also the fact that Near Eastern groups which almost completely lack North European with some 50% "West Asian", yet have 12-14% ANE speaks for it. How else could they end up with so much ANE if there is no other source it might have come from?

LeBrok
29-10-14, 19:59
KO1, the Mesolithic HG who became part of the Early Neolithic at Koros, is within a few points of Ajv 70 and 52, so basically the same..
What surprises me is higher Atl_Med in KO1 and yet he ended up farther North on PCA plot.



I’m not sure how to interpret this change, other than to point out the obvious that Gedrosia seems to appear mostly during the Iron Age. Also, there's definitely a more southern, but also again a more eastern shift in these people. Is it because we’ve sort of “captured” someone “fresher” off the steppe? Or, did the steppe population itself change slightly between the Bronze and the Iron Age, in that it became even more “eastern”? I do think that the EEF in the steppe populations was more eastern and southern shifted compared to central European EEF. Their hunter gatherer was also much more eastern shifted.
Bronze Age invaders came from East, from the Steppe. Iron Age invasions came from Caucasus through Anatolia?

Angela
29-10-14, 21:56
Just quickly eyeballing the population averages for K12b, BR1 doesn't look bad for German D population, and BR2 approaches the Dutch D population. IR1 looks like it could have definitely been a feeder population into the Bulgarians, but the Bulgarians have 10 points more Caucasus and a lot less Gedrosia. Gedrosia shows up more in the more western populations. K12b may not be as good as K7b for these purposes. At least, the K7b gets you closer to the PCA in Cristina Gamba's paper.

Anyway, this is from just quickly looking over the K12b spreadsheet at Dodecad. Someone who likes to play with the numbers could produce much more accurate results.

Personally, I'm wondering about the Tuscans, as I'm sort of half quasi-Tuscan, and I usually plot midway between Bergamo and Firenze in all the Dodecad runs. (I'm also a project member.) R1b is the most common y lineage in Toscana, but there's quite a bit of J2a as well. People have speculated that this is the Etruscan lineage, as some people have claimed there was at least an elite migration from Anatolia, which has a lot of J2a, in the first millenium BC. I have no idea if that's accurate. The other factor that has to be considered is that Etruscan related languages have been found in the eastern Med and in the Alps. Most people have speculated that the Raetic in the Alps comes from Etruscans to the south. I don't know if that's the case either.

However, a finding of J2a1 in the BR2 sample, and an actual y dna match between that sample and a Tuscan in the TSI sample opens up some other possibilities, including, I suppose, that a Caucasus heavy steppe group came through central Europe and down into Italy. Given the language difference, we would have to suppose that some of the early steppe groups actually didn't speak an Indo-European language. Something similar has been posited, I think, for the Basques, i.e. that it is a Copper Age language of the Caucasus.

I don't know what the story is...the language is just a problem for me with this theory. Of course, I may be resisting this new idea because I've always preferred to think that they were a remnant of Old Europe, or at least connected to Crete or something. However, as I keep saying, you have to try and be as objective about the data as possible. Someone is just going to have to fund full genomes sequences of some ancient Etruscans. I feel as if I should start an online fund drive or something! :)

@LeBrok
I think some of the migrations may have gone south through the Caucasus, or from the Steppe, down through the Balkans, then into Anatolia, and then who knows, maybe back west along a southern route, but I think some, at least, probably came straight across and then either west through Central Europe (explaining the Gedrosia all the way in the Northwest, a Gedrosia that only makes a big appearance with IR1) or south, southwest into the Balkans and Greece, i.e. the Dorians. From Greece it could have spread all over. The impression I am getting is that in the Bronze Age there were movements in all directions, as there was in the Neolithic thousands of years before. The movements continued in the Iron Age all the way into the early Medieval period. Europe has only been "at rest" in terms of major population migrations for about 1000 years.

arvistro
29-10-14, 22:10
Mal'ta boys genome itself showed 26% West Asian related genes. That means at least 26% of WA is ANE derived.
I am not sure it works that linearly. What were other 74% of Mal'ta?
Although I don't argue the estimate you mentioned (30-40%), just I think this reasoning might not always be true.
Then again I could be wrong.

Alan
29-10-14, 23:17
............

Alan
29-10-14, 23:49
I am not sure it works that linearly. What were other 74% of Mal'ta?
Although I don't argue the estimate you mentioned (30-40%), just I think this reasoning might not always be true.
Then again I could be wrong.


the rest of the genome was 30% North Euro like, 25% Amerindian like and some 20% Southeast Asian, ASI like.
Another example for my estimation. ANE in North Caucasians reaches levels of 23 to 30%.

Lets take 26% as average.

On Dodecad k12b average "North European" in North Caucasus is 23% and average West Asian of K7b is 55%. If we take that 1/3% of "North European" is ANE. That would make roughly ~8% out of 23%.

If we assume 1/3 of West Asian is ANE that would make ~19% out of 55%. 8%+19%= 27% ANE.

Thats very simplistic and definitely not 100% accurate of course, but it gives a good picture imo.

arvistro
30-10-14, 00:26
On a second thought maybe it makes sense mathematically. Since we are going from 3 (ANE+WHG+EEF) to 12 (West Asian + North Euro + ...). In most scenarious your logic would fit.
It would not fit going from 12 to 3. Also it would not work in some extreme 3 to 12 cases. If ANE ancestry was really low in all 12, say max 10% in one population and present only in few of those, so that adding % points from all is less than 100%.


I read some more about these things, and I would like to check my understanding.
The whole thing I picture as kind of red+blue+yellow turned into 7 (K7) or 12 (K12) colors. And then we go by saying something like red is 40% of Dark Orange, 20% of Light Orange and 40% of Violet (ANE is x% of West Asian + ...).
Although since it all is still young, maybe we are not talking about red+blue+yellow. Maybe we are talking "light orange"+"green"+"violet". Who knows?

ElHorsto
30-10-14, 01:34
I can only see 2 workarounds to consolidate Basque position on PCA chart. Either they didn't have ANE at all, therefore match Neolithic Farmers on the plot on WE axes, or something else is pulling them West counteracting ANE pull East.
Knowing that ANE was already found in Basques and that they were fairly secluded group in mountains, second scenario is more plausible. I think it is lurking inside some of WHG admixture.

To me all data until now are part-positive and part-negative for ANE-related admixture in Basques. Look for instance at Figure 10 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf) from this Gamba et al paper: It's Basques and Sardinians who almost have no blue ("caucasic") color, while all other contemp. populations do have it. If you really have proof that there is similar high ANE in Basques as in other europeans, I'd be interested to learn about it.

By the way, I have to correct my initial statement where I said that Basques are slightly east-shifted when compared to Sardinians in the PCA plot. They actually look north/up-shifted due to their higher WHG compared to Sardinians, which also much better fits to the admixture analysis from Fig. 10.

ElHorsto
30-10-14, 01:51
Sorry, didn't get that at first. Do you mean proportional? I can see what you mean now. It make sense in most of the cases, but only when ANE component is present. In case of Sardinians, lowering EEF level, therefore increase of WHG, can cause a pull to the West instead.


I'm not sure but to me it looks like adding WHG to Sardinians would shift them to the upper-middle, in the directions where Basques are, because all WHG samples seem to accumulate at the top-middle. It would be a poor PCA analysis if major components like EEF and WHG would occupy the same direction (left). I think there is a triangle-like structure: bottom-left: EEF, top-middle: WHG, somewhere in the right: ANE-related.



What about UHG in NE Europeans? This 4th admixture might have NE pull on PCA chart too. Distorting the simple story of 3 main admixtures.

Well, the 'U' in UHG stands for "unknown", right? :) So I don't know either.

Of course I also think there are other admixtures in play besides those three. The fact that Mal'ta is so much older than EEF and WHG samples is also a bit unperfect I think.

Yet I personally don't expect any big surprises anymore with regards to western Hunter-Gatherers from the mesolithic/neolithic. They look surprisingly similar despite they come from very distant locations (Spain-Hungary-Scandinavia), or at least there is no clear east-west cline which would corresponds to their finding locations (Karelian HG probably will look more eastern though). The strong "northern" WHG composition of the Hungarian H-G KO1 also reduces somewhat the chances of a special, perhaps more EEF-like Hunter-Gatherer population in the Balkans (Hungary is almost Balkans), as I once speculated.
I'm not claiming they were all the same, but I think that we already have a crude impression of their diversity and that they were all mostly WHG and ancestral to many later admixture components. I also think that Hunter-Gatherers were more ready to admix with other tribes while farmers were more conservative I guess, that's why I don't expect another hidden isolated and very different Hunter-Gatherer population in mesolithic Europe. But this is just my current opinion, ready to be adapted by future knowledge.

LeBrok
30-10-14, 02:30
To me all data until now are part-positive and part-negative for ANE-related admixture in Basques. Look for instance at Figure 10 (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf) from this Gamba et al paper: It's Basques and Sardinians who almost have no blue ("caucasic") color, while all other contemp. populations do have it. If you really have proof that there is similar high ANE in Basques as in other europeans, I'd be interested to learn about it. From Lazaridis paper 2013, Basques have same level of ANE as Tuscans and slightly less than Spanish (1/10th less). Yet they plot with Neolithic and HGs (east-west).

Let's assume ANE in Basque is a mistake. We still need good explanation why Bra2 plots as far from Bra1 as Sardinians from rest of Europe.
Granted the older the sample the less dna can be recovered in good shape. Smaller the genome for statistical runs, the bigger are errors and discrepancies.

LeBrok
30-10-14, 02:45
I'm not sure but to me it looks like adding WHG to Sardinians would shift them to the upper-middle, in the directions where Basques are, because all WHG samples seem to accumulate at the top-middle. It would be a poor PCA analysis if major components like EEF and WHG would occupy the same direction (left). I think there is a triangle-like structure: bottom-left: EEF, top-middle: WHG, somewhere in the right: ANE-related.
ANE - pulls straight East, WHG - North, EEF - South, additionally something is pulling North East, and something is pulling West, and something from Africa is pulling beduins SW. I think these additional pulls are making whole picture a bit muddy, except central Europe and Neolithic Farmers.

If EEF is pulling South-West (bottom-left) it would mean that Bedouins are closest to the pure ENF, first farmers?

LeBrok
30-10-14, 03:22
From Lazaridis paper 2013, Basques have same level of ANE as Tuscans and slightly less than Spanish (1/10th less). Yet they plot with Neolithic and HGs (east-west).

Let's assume ANE in Basque is a mistake. We still need good explanation why Bra2 plots as far from Bra1 as Sardinians from rest of Europe.
Granted the older the sample the less dna can be recovered in good shape. Smaller the genome for statistical runs, the bigger are errors and discrepancies.

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html

In K7 runs Bra have about 9% African admixture. I think they run 2 la brania together, Bra2 might have even more African, I'm not sure though. It might be the case that Bra2 is 91% WHG and 9% East African HG. This African admixture pulls it West on PCA.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c85cMFdDxb8/T_Agm5HYwCI/AAAAAAAAE7Y/jJgDnywjhUk/s1600/ancientdna.png

In this Blog Bra1 is shown with 1.2 African admixture, therefore Bra2 might have it much more than 9%.
http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/10/ancient-european-dna-assessment-with.html

Aberdeen
30-10-14, 03:44
From Lazaridis paper 2013, Basques have same level of ANE as Tuscans and slightly less than Spanish (1/10th less). Yet they plot with Neolithic and HGs (east-west).

Let's assume ANE in Basque is a mistake. We still need good explanation why Bra2 plots as far from Bra1 as Sardinians from rest of Europe.
Granted the older the sample the less dna can be recovered in good shape. Smaller the genome for statistical runs, the bigger are errors and discrepancies.

Given the high levels of R1b among Basques, I would expect more ANE and more certainty that it actually is there. So, regardless of how Basque R1b got there, it must be very diluted. The same would apply to Sardinian R1b, so I don't think it arrived there recently unless it was already very diluted when it arrived.

Angela
30-10-14, 04:22
ANE - pulls straight East, WHG - North, EEF - South, additionally something is pulling North East, and something is pulling West, and something from Africa is pulling beduins SW. I think these additional pulls are making whole picture a bit muddy, except central Europe and Neolithic Farmers.


If EEF is pulling South-West (bottom-left) it would mean that Bedouins are closest to the pure ENF, first farmers?

Lazaridis tried to use them in his models as proxies for the first farmers. They are the most "southern" and have the least ANE, perhaps none. The problem is that they have additional SSA, some much more than others, depending on the tribe or clan,and there's been drift.

I don't know what's going on with the northeast. Does the ancient Karelian genome provide a clue? Or is it later Siberian etc, which makes the Finns impossible to fit into the three population model? (I know that in some runs none shows up in the Baltic countries, but I wonder if some could be hiding in "East European" etc. The other posters may have a better handle on it.

You're right about the ANE in the French Basque in the Lazaridis paper. (There is a slight difference between them and Pais Vasco on the Dodecad runs, by the way), and I think you may be onto something with the "African" in La Brana. I don't think it's actually "East African", however. East African is a mix of "African" and "West Asian".

LeBrok
30-10-14, 04:33
You're right about the ANE in the French Basque in the Lazaridis paper. (There is a slight difference between them and Pais Vasco on the Dodecad runs, by the way), and I think you may be onto something with the "African" in La Brana. I don't think it's actually "East African", however. East African is a mix of "African" and "West Asian". Of course, dyslexia kicked in, I meant West African. Close to Iberia and Bra2.

Greying Wanderer
30-10-14, 14:44
"Yet I personally don't expect any big surprises anymore with regards to western Hunter-Gatherers from the mesolithic/neolithic."

If WHG has two components, a main one and a much smaller one but the much smaller one is particularly divergent would that distort its influence - especially if the smaller component is strongly clustered?

ElHorsto
30-10-14, 14:53
From Lazaridis paper 2013, Basques have same level of ANE as Tuscans and slightly less than Spanish (1/10th less). Yet they plot with Neolithic and HGs (east-west).

Let's assume ANE in Basque is a mistake. We still need good explanation why Bra2 plots as far from Bra1 as Sardinians from rest of Europe.
Granted the older the sample the less dna can be recovered in good shape. Smaller the genome for statistical runs, the bigger are errors and discrepancies.

I now have another idea: before Lazaridis et al, we used to talk about "Amerindian" admixture, which later turned out to be ANE. I was predicing something like ANE for Hunter-Gatherers already before, although I guessed it to be related to Y-HQ Q (which still might turn out to be partially true). Now Basques show condradicting data for ANE possibly because their ANE is of north-eastern origin rather than the usual West-Asian. The smoking gun here could be "Amerindian", which Basques consistently possess, contrary to Sardinians, Bedouins and Palestinians, who have zero (check out for instance the table (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/k-26-admixture-analysis-of-amerindians-and-mestizos/) in the middle of this article from Genetiker; Globe4 also shows it, but I couldn't find data for Sardinians there). So maybe Basque ANE came from North-Eastern EHG, either during Bronze-Age (R1b northern-route), OR maybe yet during the late mesolithic (finnish-basque language similarity?), which would again open the door for a partial mesolithic R1b origin, although much more recent than in Spencer Well's terms of course. Basques also possess some Y-HG Q (0.5%).
Looking at various admixture runs together it could be that Basques were affected only by north-eastern ANE invasion, Bronze-Age and North-Europeans by some north-eastern ANE + West-Asian, and South-East Euros more by West-Asian.

Going back to the PCA plot, comparing Basques and Sardinians: whether Basques are shifted to the top-middle (WHG) or rather top-right (ANE) would barely be visible since they still have much more WHG than ANE, and since top-middle and top-right is not much of a difference.

So maybe "Amerindian"="EHG/North-Eastern ANE" and "West-Asian"="Caucasus/South-Eastern ANE"

What you say about african amixture in Europe is also possible.

Greying Wanderer
30-10-14, 15:08
I now have another idea: before Lazaridis et al, we used to talk about "Amerindian" admixture, which later turned out to be ANE. I was predicing something like ANE for Hunter-Gatherers already before, although I guessed it to be related to Y-HQ Q (which still might turn out to be partially true). Now Basques show condradicting data for ANE possibly because their ANE is of north-eastern origin rather than the usual West-Asian. The smoking gun here could be "Amerindian", which Basques consistently possess, contrary to Sardinians, Bedouins and Palestinians, who have zero (check out for instance the table (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2013/10/27/k-26-admixture-analysis-of-amerindians-and-mestizos/) in the middle of this article from Genetiker; Globe4 also shows it, but I couldn't find data for Sardinians there). So maybe Basque ANE came from North-Eastern EHG, either during Bronze-Age (R1b northern-route), OR maybe yet during the late mesolithic (finnish-basque language similarity?), which would again open the door for a partial mesolithic R1b origin, although much more recent than in Spencer Well's terms of course. Basques also possess some Y-HG Q (0.5%).
Looking at various admixture runs together it could be that Basques were affected only by north-eastern ANE invasion, Bronze-Age and North-Europeans by some north-eastern ANE + West-Asian, and South-East Euros more by West-Asian.

Going back to the PCA plot, comparing Basques and Sardinians: whether Basques are shifted to the top-middle (WHG) or rather top-right (ANE) would barely be visible since they still have much more WHG than ANE.

So maybe "Amerindian"="EHG/North-Eastern ANE" and "West-Asian"="Caucasus/South-Eastern ANE"

What you say about african amixture in Europe is also possible.

A northern coastal flow from the Baltic (and possibly beyond) and a southern coastal flow from northwest Africa (and possibly beyond) would produce some odd results I expect.

ElHorsto
30-10-14, 15:13
"Yet I personally don't expect any big surprises anymore with regards to western Hunter-Gatherers from the mesolithic/neolithic."

If WHG has two components, a main one and a much smaller one but the much smaller one is particularly divergent would that distort its influence - especially if the smaller component is strongly clustered?



I guess this population would require sufficient isolation within WHG.

ElHorsto
30-10-14, 16:34
but I couldn't find data for Sardinians there

Here are the world4 'Karitiana' admixtures for various populations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=1):
(French)Basque: (5.1)4.6
Sardinian:1.7
from Dienekes (http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2012/10/globe4-calculator.html)

So according to this, Sardinians have not exactly zero, but still lowest Amerindian. Bedouins have still zero. Interestingly, Armenians also have zero 0.0 and Lezgin only 4.6, while Finns and Russians have max. (10%-12%), so this really is something north-eastern-european.


EDIT: Now it would be good to know the Amerindian admixture (not ANE directly) in WHG to estimate the possibility of mesolithic ANE influx.

Robert6
30-10-14, 17:44
C01 from Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900
is almost same autosomaly as the Neolithic Europeans,
The Baden culture has some of the earliest attestation of wheeled vehicles in central Europe, the so-called waggon-models in pottery.
Page 10
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf

LeBrok
30-10-14, 19:20
C01 from Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900
is almost same autosomaly as the Neolithic Europeans,
The Baden culture has some of the earliest attestation of wheeled vehicles in central Europe, the so-called waggon-models in pottery.
Page 10
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf
Wagons are known to Neolithic cultures, unlike chariots which are the indication of Indo Europeans.

Angela
30-10-14, 20:26
Robert6;443154]C01 from Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900
is almost same autosomaly as the Neolithic Europeans,
The Baden culture has some of the earliest attestation of wheeled vehicles in central Europe, the so-called waggon-models in pottery.
Page 10
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/extref/ncomms6257-s1.pdf



LeBrok;443156]Wagons are known to Neolithic cultures, unlike chariots which are the indication of Indo Europeans.

That's part of why so many people were convinced that the big changes in genetics would show up in a Copper Age Culture, but it's not there, or at least it's not there in this sample.

This brings us back to all those discussions we had on chariots. (There's even a separate thread on it I think.) There were wheeled vehicles and even wheeled war wagons south of the Caucasus. It's just that they seem to have been solid wheels. The theory by Anthony is that spoked wheels were attached to the carts around 2000 B.C. in Sintashta. Even that is only based on indentations in the ground. No part of those wheels have ever been found.

At any rate, BR1 is dated to 1980-2190 BC. Even that is cutting it pretty close. I couldn't quickly find anything that says the Early Bronze Mako culture had them (Unetice is later (1800–1600) . BR2 Kyjatice culture is dated to 1110–1270 BC. and is certainly late enough, as of course is the pre-Scythian IR1.

If this article and map is correct, it didn't reach the area under discussion until about 1500 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot

Angela
30-10-14, 20:30
Here are the world4 'Karitiana' admixtures for various populations (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGR2ZWRoQ0VaWTc0dlV1cHh4ZUNJR UE#gid=1):
(French)Basque: (5.1)4.6
Sardinian:1.7
from Dienekes (http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2012/10/globe4-calculator.html)

So according to this, Sardinians have not exactly zero, but still lowest Amerindian. Bedouins have still zero. Interestingly, Armenians also have zero 0.0 and Lezgin only 4.6, while Finns and Russians have max. (10%-12%), so this really is something north-eastern-european.


EDIT: Now it would be good to know the Amerindian admixture (not ANE directly) in WHG to estimate the possibility of mesolithic ANE influx.

And the modeling for a Yamnaya person is 50% Ancient Karelian (which is about as far north east you can go and remain in Europe) and an " Armenian like" farmer.

bicicleur
30-10-14, 21:54
That's part of why so many people were convinced that the big changes in genetics would show up in a Copper Age Culture, but it's not there, or at least it's not there in this sample.

This brings us back to all those discussions we had on chariots. (There's even a separate thread on it I think.) There were wheeled vehicles and even wheeled war wagons south of the Caucasus. It's just that they seem to have been solid wheels. The theory by Anthony is that spoked wheels were attached to the carts around 2000 B.C. in Sintashta. Even that is only based on indentations in the ground. No part of those wheels have ever been found.

At any rate, BR1 is dated to 1980-2190 BC. Even that is cutting it pretty close. I couldn't quickly find anything that says the Early Bronze Mako culture had them (Unetice is later (1800–1600) . BR2 Kyjatice culture is dated to 1110–1270 BC. and is certainly late enough, as of course is the pre-Scythian IR1.

If this article and map is correct, it didn't reach the area under discussion until about 1500 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot

don't ask me the source, just read it somewhere ..
Mycenians had chariots 1600 BC
before it was assumed chariots spread from there to the Balkans
now archeologists doubt that and think it was the other way around

Greying Wanderer
30-10-14, 23:09
I guess this population would require sufficient isolation within WHG.

Yes, mountains and swamps.

(I also wonder if the signal from East African / Bedouin in EEF may get mixed up with this (imo) NW African signal scattered along the Atlantic coast (if it exists).

Robert6
30-10-14, 23:48
Wagons are known to Neolithic cultures, unlike chariots which are the indication of Indo Europeans.
Chariots is an Indo-Iranian innovation of two-wheeled carts
Those two-wheeled carts were from local people in southern part of Central Asia (local proto-Burushaski or proto-Dravidian)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altyndepe

Greying Wanderer
30-10-14, 23:54
K12b analysis based on the Genetiker runs: The usual disclaimers apply. I don’t know if these percentages are exact, but since I’m just comparing one sample to another sample using an analysis done by one person and using the same calculator it should give us some clues. I’ve removed anything below .5%. I think it’s good to keep in mind that the K12b “North Euro” component is mostly At/Baltic (which has some At/Med in it) plus some West Asian. The K12b “Caucasus” component is about 50% of the K7b West Asian, a chunk of Southern, plus a bit of Atlantic Baltic. For our purposes I think we could perhaps view it as mostly an eastern shifted EEF, yes?

AJV70

North Euro 76.4
At.Ned 20.6
Siberian 1.6
SSA 1.3


AJV52

North Euro 77.5

At Med 13.3

S.Asian 4.9
SSA 4.3

K01 Mesolithic HG part of Neolithic Farming Community at Koros



70.14% North_European
27.50% Atlantic_Med
1.72% Sub_Saharan
0.40% Siberian
0.21% Southeast_Asian

Otzi

North Euro 0
At/Med 57.7

Caucasus 22.3
S.W.Asian 7.6
NWAfrican 5.7
East African 24
S.E.Asian 2
S.Asian 1.5
E,Asian .7


Gok 4

North Euro 5.5
At/Med 81
Caucasus 4.2
S.W.Asian 8.6
E. African .7


K02 Early Neolithic Körös 5570–5710 BC.



47.77% Atlantic_Med
27.46% Caucasus
13.95% Southwest_Asian
10.17% Northwest_African
0.60% East_Asian
0.05% Southeast_Asian

C01-Baden Copper Age Culture 2700-2900



51.30% Atlantic_Med
22.93% Caucasus
9.69% Southwest_Asian
9.25% North_European
5.77% Northwest_African
0.78% Sub_Saharan
0.22% Siberian
0.05% Southeast_Asian

CO1 had more of the North European components and less of the Caucasus components than KO2. Like KO2, CO1 didn’t have any of the K12b Gedrosia component,
BR1 Early Bronze Age Mako Culture 1980-2190 BC (roughly 800 years later)



48.74% North_European
34.34% Atlantic_Med
9.46% Caucasus
3.87% Southwest_Asian
1.12% Sub_Saharan
0.78% South_Asian
0.77% East_African
0.63% East_Asian
0.25% Southeast_Asian

BR2 Late Bronze Kyjatice culture dated to 1110–1270 BC (800 years later)




41.61% North_European
35.99% Atlantic_Med
16.30% Caucasus
3.51% Southwest_Asian
1.34% Sub_Saharan
1.12% Gedrosia
0.10% Northwest_African


IR1- pre-Scythian Iron Age Mezőcsát culture of Hungary. 830–980 BC.



34.63% North_European
19.54% Atlantic_Med
16.66% Caucasus
15.22% Gedrosia
4.90% Siberian
3.30% East_Asian
2.38% Southwest_Asian
1.53% Northwest_African
1.08% Sub_Saharan
0.77% South_Asian

KO1, the Mesolithic HG who became part of the Early Neolithic at Koros, is within a few points of Ajv 70 and 52, so basically the same..

The KO2 sample, the southern most early Neolithic farmer, definitely seems to have a slightly more “eastern” tilt than Oetzi, and certainly more than the more admixed Gok 4.


Otzi’s Atlantic Med is roughly 58%, to KO2’s 48%, (and Gok 4’s 81%). Otzi has 22% Caucasus, KO27% and Gok 4 4%. Gok 4 has 9% S.W.Asian, Otzi 8%, but KO2 14%. Now it’s clear why most of these Neolithic farmers plot Southeast of Otzi.


This raises an interesting question. Otzi was a Copper Age person from around 3200 B.C.and Gok 4 a TRB farmer from 3100 BC. Is the change in her numbers because of more admixture?Dienekes had speculated that perhaps this group was related to Coon’s Long Barrow Group. I don’t know. (Of course, her admixture has nothing to do with the amount of EEF in modern people. That’s supposedly based on a comparison with Stuttgart (and Otzi?), and KO2 still seems pretty similar to Otzi, although definitely a little to the south and east of him.)


Then, in the 3,000 years from the early Neolithic Koros culture to the Copper Age Baden Culture the change was very minimal.

The only change, which appears to have taken place around the time of the Copper Age, is that there was an infusion of about 10% “North Euro”.

This increased the Atlantic Med by 3, lowered the “Caucasus” by 4, and lowered the Southwest Asian by 4. You also suddenly get a smidgeon of Siberian, .22, and surprisingly, .78 of SSA.
I think it may be that the first steppe people were starting to arrive, but, in this part of Europe, it was about 10% of the total genome.

What’s more amazing to me is that for about 3,000 years, the people in Hungary didn’t change. Whatever WHG they had was incorporated very early, perhaps further south near the Danube Gorges, and after that there seems not to have been any admixture with hunter-gatherers. Whether that’s because a sort of strict apartheid was enforced after the first admixture, as happened in parts of the Spanish New World, for example, or whether there just weren’t any left in the vicinity, I don’tknow.


(I don’t understand why it’s so hard to locate a good carbon dated map of Neolithic and forager settlements in central Europe in, say, the Neolithic, so this doesn’t all have to be guesswork. I’ve tried, and I can’t find it.)


The Early Bronze sees a much greater change. Eight hundred years later, the “North Euro” has jumped from 9% to 49%. Atlantic Med has dropped from 51% to 34%. Caucasus has dropped from 23 to 9%, S.W.Asian has dropped from 10 to 4%. Also, there are trace amounts of south, southeast and east Asian, a bit of East African, and SSA increases. I’m not quite sure what to make of this. Is Genetiker’s run just too noisy? These are all over .5%, however. Is it possible it’s telling us these Bronze Age invaders were both more “eastern” shifted and more “southern” shifted than the EEF and WHG of Europe? I don’t know.


Eight hundred years later in the late Bronze things have slightly shifted again. North Euro has dropped by 7 points. Atlantic Med has stayed about the same, but “Caucasus” has gone back up by about 7 points. Southwest Asian and SSA stay about the same, but the really “Asian” traces have disappeared. Interestingly, Gedrosia has shown up for the first time, but only to the tune of 1%.So, what happened? Did a fresh wave, somewhat different from the first, come in from the steppes, or was the change the product of admixture with the prior inhabitants, or a little of both?


(Just to isolate North Euro for a moment, it went from 0 in the Early Neolithic to 9% in the Copper Age, to 49% in the early Bronze, back down to 42% in the Late Bronze Age.)


The Iron Age steppe person is from another eight hundred years later. (He is a child with a G2a1 mtDna, so it seems these people from the steppe did bring some of their own women with them, as was also clear with some mtDna studies. )His North Euro drops from 42 to 35, Atlantic Med from 36 to 20. Caucasus and SW Asian and SSA stays the same, but Gedrosia jumps from 1% to 15%. Interestingly, Siberian now shows up at 5% and East Asian at 3%.




I’m not sure how to interpret this change, other than to point out the obvious that Gedrosia seems to appear mostly during the Iron Age. Also, there's definitely a more southern, but also again a more eastern shift in these people. Is it because we’ve sort of “captured” someone “fresher” off the steppe? Or, did the steppe population itself change slightly between the Bronze and the Iron Age, in that it became even more “eastern”? I do think that the EEF in the steppe populations was more eastern and southern shifted compared to central European EEF. Their hunter gatherer was also much more eastern shifted.


I don’t think we’ll know much more until we see the Samarra samples and the Yamnaya samples

I did this in a rush, so if anyone sees errors just let me know.

The only other thing I'll do is take a look at the modern populations to see if it's the same pattern as for the K7b analysis.

I think we're looking at a conveyor belt effect with waves coming off the steppes every n hundred years with each wave being replaced from further east.

So the first wave is the western most and very similar to the existing population in the west so the change isn't very noticeable while the later waves have more eastern components.

I also wonder if one of the waves took out Cucuteni and then incorporated them with the combined population moving west.

So something like
1st wave: WHG + ANE (similar to the existing western pop. but with more ANE)
2nd wave: ANE + conquered Cucuteni (with the resulting mix being less SW Asian shifted than the central euro farmers)
3rd wave: ANE + traces of siberia
4th wave: ANE + more Siberia
etc

(This model implies the 1st wave went around Cucuteni)

I think the Siberian component is making people think they came from that far away in one go whereas I think it was more of a glacier effect where dna from a long way away was gradually being sucked west by the vaccuum made as each wave moved off the steppe.

Robert6
31-10-14, 00:22
The waves were not only from the east, but also towards the east.
For example here are the comparisons of Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans with modern populations http://verenich.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D 0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%B2%D1%83%D1%85-%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%85-%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%86%D 0%B5%D0%B2-%D0%B8-%D0%BE/


Here, Neolithic components are reaching Mongols and Yakuts
https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/lbkibd.png


And Mesolithic reaching Uyghurs
https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/loschbouribd.png



----
And the comparison of Malta Boy
https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/maltaibd.png

Angela
31-10-14, 01:09
I think we're looking at a conveyor belt effect with waves coming off the steppes every n hundred years with each wave being replaced from further east.

So the first wave is the western most and very similar to the existing population in the west so the change isn't very noticeable while the later waves have more eastern components.

I also wonder if one of the waves took out Cucuteni and then incorporated them with the combined population moving west.

So something like
1st wave: WHG + ANE (similar to the existing western pop. but with more ANE)
2nd wave: ANE + conquered Cucuteni (with the resulting mix being less SW Asian shifted than the central euro farmers)
3rd wave: ANE + traces of siberia
4th wave: ANE + more Siberia
etc

(This model implies the 1st wave went around Cucuteni)

I think the Siberian component is making people think they came from that far away in one go whereas I think it was more of a glacier effect where dna from a long way away was gradually being sucked west by the vaccuum made as each wave moved off the steppe.

That seems to fly in the face of the data.

The existing western civilizations were heavily EEF, even TRB and especially central European cultures like Baden. The Balkans were probably just as EEF as Baden, if years later in the Thracian Iron Age we still have an Otzi like individual.

Plus, if Yamnaya people were half ancient Karelian like and half modern "Armenian like" they weren't like the populations they encountered and they again weren't like the populations in the west. The Bronze Age samples probably represent, as LeBrok initially pointed out, people who had already admixed. The IR1 sample is different, whether he was "captured" soon after his group came off the steppe, or because his group came from further east, I don't know

In that regard, you might want to take a look at this mission statement and map by Burger and company.

Angela
31-10-14, 01:50
That seems to fly in the face of the data.

The existing western civilizations were heavily EEF, even TRB and especially central European cultures like Baden. The Balkans were probably just as EEF as Baden, if years later in the Thracian Iron Age we still have an Otzi like individual.

Plus, if Yamnaya people were half ancient Karelian like and half modern "Armenian like" they weren't like the populations they encountered and they again weren't like the populations in the west. The Bronze Age samples probably represent, as LeBrok initially pointed out, people who had already admixed. The IR1 sample is different, whether he was "captured" soon after his group came off the steppe, or because his group came from further east, I don't know

In that regard, you might want to take a look at this mission statement and map by Burger and company.

Sorry about that...this is the link...
http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

Unless, of course, the half Ancient Karelian and half modern Armenian model is for the Samara people, and the ones closer to the western steppe had more WHG. The jump in north Euro has to be explained:

K01 70.14
K02 0
C01 Baden 9.25
BR1 48.74
BR2 41.61
IR1 34.63

bicicleur
03-11-14, 20:02
according to Genetiker BR2 is J2a1b-M67
these are Nakh people probably spreading from northeast Caucasus :

J2a1-M67 is the most common subclade in the Caucasus (Vainakhs, Ingushs, Chechens, Georgians, Ossetians, Balkars)

into all directions :

the Levant (Lebanese, Jews). western India, the Arabian Peninsula, Anatolia (esp. north-west), Greece (esp. Crete), Italy (esp. Marche and Abruzzo)

Angela
03-11-14, 21:09
Thanks, Bicicleur.

In this regard, the recent paper on Middle Eastern J2 is interesting:
Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East:New clues from the Y Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

This is a graphic from the paper:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xY5E4itZfp4/UAhdqN0yyII/AAAAAAAAFDY/PBV8g-b9jWE/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.g002.jpg

Interestingly, it looks as if the highest frequency of J2a M67 is in Portugal. The question is, why?

The spread is definitely east/west, no nonsense about it came from North Africa in the Mesolithic or Neolithic. It's also got something to do with the "Indo-European" metal age migrations, at least in eastern Europe, Greece and Italy.

I have to mull this over and look at some more papers but I doubt that it originated north of the Caucasus. The most likely scenario is that it comes from the Iranian plateau, and some of it went north through the Caucasus into the Pontic Caspian steppe. Is this the same migration path responsible for the "Armenian like" ancestry in Samara? From there it seems to go east to Ukraine, Hungary etc. and it looks to me as if it then went south into the Balkans, and from there to Greece and also southwest to Italy through the Balkans or,perhaps, mainland Greece.

I think that has to be the path, doesn't it, for M67, as it is higher in North Central Italy than in southern Italy? So, rather than Cretan flow into Italy, it flowed south into Crete and perhaps, at least partly, separately, into Italy. This would explain the higher levels in Marche and Abruzzo, both in eastern Italy, and across the Adriatic from the Balkans and mainland Greece. There is also the documented trade route for that part of Italy with
the Myceneans to consider, and the Mycenean gene flow into Crete. If J2a in general flowed into Anatolia, as well, it could then have gone west with Sea Peoples etc.

I'm rather amazed that all of this J2a and J2b could be so recent in most of the Middle East.

From Wiki:
J-M67 (Called J2f in older papers) has its highest frequencies associated with Nakh peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples). Found at very high (majority) frequencies among Ingush in Malgobek (87.4%), Chechens in Dagestan (58%), Chechens in Chechnya (56.8%) and Chechens in Malgobek, Ingushetia (50.9%) (Balanovsky 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). In the Caucasus, it is found at significant frequencies among Georgians (13.3%) (Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Iron Ossetes (11.3%), South Caucasian Balkars (6.3%) (Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Digor Ossetes (5.5%), Abkhaz (6.9%), and Cherkess (5.6%) (Balanovsky 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). It is also found at notable frequencies in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including Cretans (10.2%), North-central Italians (9.6%), Southern Italians (4.2%; only 0.8% among N. Italians), Anatolian Turks (2.7-5.4%), Greeks (4-4.3%), Albanians (3.6%), Ashkenazi Jews (4.9%), Sephardis (2.4%), Catalans (3.9%), Andalusians (3.2%), Calabrians (3.3%), Albanian Calabrians (8.9%) (see Di Giacomo 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004) and Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)).

Ed. I have to run through the papers when I have a chance...I've seen higher numbers than that in some southern Italian areas.

ArmandoR1b
03-11-14, 22:18
according to Genetiker BR2 is J2a1b-M67
these are Nakh people probably spreading from northeast Caucasus :

J2a1-M67 is the most common subclade in the Caucasus (Vainakhs, Ingushs, Chechens, Georgians, Ossetians, Balkars)

into all directions :

the Levant (Lebanese, Jews). western India, the Arabian Peninsula, Anatolia (esp. north-west), Greece (esp. Crete), Italy (esp. Marche and Abruzzo)

Per a post by Ted Kandell - "BR2 is a new Y-DNA subclade under J2a-CTS900*, and shares 42 SNPs with a 1000 Genomes Puerto Rican, HG01402. Both the SNPs and the STRs indicate that BR2 is in a new CTS6804- subclade which includes Georgians, Armenians, a North Italian, and Hispanics. "

Do an Internet search of "Ancient Hungarian genome (BR2) Y-DNA and mtDNA" to find the post.

CTS900 is on the YFull tree and it has the HG01402 individual.

bicicleur
03-11-14, 23:54
Thanks, Bicicleur.

In this regard, the recent paper on Middle Eastern J2 is interesting:
Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East:New clues from the Y Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

This is a graphic from the paper:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xY5E4itZfp4/UAhdqN0yyII/AAAAAAAAFDY/PBV8g-b9jWE/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.g002.jpg

Interestingly, it looks as if the highest frequency of J2a M67 is in Portugal. The question is, why?

The spread is definitely east/west, no nonsense about it came from North Africa in the Mesolithic or Neolithic. It's also got something to do with the "Indo-European" metal age migrations, at least in eastern Europe, Greece and Italy.



interesting to see the variance distributions
according to the paper : while the high M67* variance in Central Italy is likely due to a stratification of seaborne migrations of Middle Eastern/Asia Minor peoples, the diversification observed in Iran and the Aegean Islands can be explained by a first Near Eastern, and possibly Anatolian, diffusion of the lineage followed by a Levantine expansion.

according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples the origin of the Nakh people is not very clear
there are theories about arrival from the fertile crescent as early as 8-10000 year BC

IMO the Natufians were J2a, who started spreading agriculture (in a still very primitive form) from the Levant after the end of the youngest dryas (11600 years ago)
Maybe J2a-M67 then split in some tribe staying in the Levant and another expanding over a large area - the Caucasus - Armenia - NW Iran
Nakh people would be a remnant of this 2nd J2a-M67 tribe
(the first tribe could have been part of the 1st neolithic expansion from the Levant to Cyprus 10800 years ago and Crete 9000 years ago)

the BR2 sample would hint toward a much later expansion - late bronze age - from northern Caucasus via the Pontic steppe to the Balkans and further

I know this is very speculative, I'm just figuring out a possible scenario.
It doesn't take into account the expansion times estimates mentioned in the study.
I have the feeling there are almost as many different expansion time estimates as there are different studies. ( I have little faith in them )

Greying Wanderer
04-11-14, 01:58
Thanks, Bicicleur.

In this regard, the recent paper on Middle Eastern J2 is interesting:
Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East:New clues from the Y Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041252

This is a graphic from the paper:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xY5E4itZfp4/UAhdqN0yyII/AAAAAAAAFDY/PBV8g-b9jWE/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.g002.jpg

Interestingly, it looks as if the highest frequency of J2a M67 is in Portugal. The question is, why?

The spread is definitely east/west, no nonsense about it came from North Africa in the Mesolithic or Neolithic. It's also got something to do with the "Indo-European" metal age migrations, at least in eastern Europe, Greece and Italy.

I have to mull this over and look at some more papers but I doubt that it originated north of the Caucasus. The most likely scenario is that it comes from the Iranian plateau, and some of it went north through the Caucasus into the Pontic Caspian steppe. Is this the same migration path responsible for the "Armenian like" ancestry in Samara? From there it seems to go east to Ukraine, Hungary etc. and it looks to me as if it then went south into the Balkans, and from there to Greece and also southwest to Italy through the Balkans or,perhaps, mainland Greece.

I think that has to be the path, doesn't it, for M67, as it is higher in North Central Italy than in southern Italy? So, rather than Cretan flow into Italy, it flowed south into Crete and perhaps, at least partly, separately, into Italy. This would explain the higher levels in Marche and Abruzzo, both in eastern Italy, and across the Adriatic from the Balkans and mainland Greece. There is also the documented trade route for that part of Italy with
the Myceneans to consider, and the Mycenean gene flow into Crete. If J2a in general flowed into Anatolia, as well, it could then have gone west with Sea Peoples etc.

I'm rather amazed that all of this J2a and J2b could be so recent in most of the Middle East.

From Wiki:
J-M67 (Called J2f in older papers) has its highest frequencies associated with Nakh peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakh_peoples). Found at very high (majority) frequencies among Ingush in Malgobek (87.4%), Chechens in Dagestan (58%), Chechens in Chechnya (56.8%) and Chechens in Malgobek, Ingushetia (50.9%) (Balanovsky 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). In the Caucasus, it is found at significant frequencies among Georgians (13.3%) (Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Iron Ossetes (11.3%), South Caucasian Balkars (6.3%) (Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)), Digor Ossetes (5.5%), Abkhaz (6.9%), and Cherkess (5.6%) (Balanovsky 2011 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFBalanovsky2011)). It is also found at notable frequencies in the Mediterranean and Middle East, including Cretans (10.2%), North-central Italians (9.6%), Southern Italians (4.2%; only 0.8% among N. Italians), Anatolian Turks (2.7-5.4%), Greeks (4-4.3%), Albanians (3.6%), Ashkenazi Jews (4.9%), Sephardis (2.4%), Catalans (3.9%), Andalusians (3.2%), Calabrians (3.3%), Albanian Calabrians (8.9%) (see Di Giacomo 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFDi_Giacomo2004) and Semino 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M172#CITEREFSemino2004)).

Ed. I have to run through the papers when I have a chance...I've seen higher numbers than that in some southern Italian areas.

"From there it seems to go east to Ukraine, Hungary etc. and it looks to me as if it then went south into the Balkans, and from there to Greece and also southwest to Italy through the Balkans or,perhaps, mainland Greece."

I have two thoughts with J

1) North Euro I1 seems to me to have become attached to the northern branch of R1b at some point and expanded with them and I wonder if the same happened with J and the G farmers. If so and it arrived in Ukraine (from wherever) with farmers might some of those subsequent movements (if they are subsequent) have been a retreat from the steppe expansions?

2) Mountains and coasts make me think of mining and trade networks so the other thought is a culture somewhere at the center of a trade network with arms reaching out in various directions and small groups settled along those arms among other populations. If correct then one of the current hotspots for J2 may have been that original center or the main center got squished along the way (not surprising if it was the center of a trade network based on a valuable commodity) and the current distribution represents the orphaned branches of the original center.

So the questions that pop into my mind based on those two thoughts are:

1) Are J2 hotspots always correlated with either E1 or G or not?
2) Are any of the current J2 hotspots in places that used to be the center of a valuable early trade good like obsidian, jadeitite, gold, silver, copper etc or alternatively do they create a branching pattern along ancient trade routes which could lead to deducing a possible center point that got squished?

edit: for example in the second case (if it wasn't for such high frequencies in the Caucasus) i'd be thinking maybe somewhere between Crete or Sicily as a possible lost center point.

Sile
04-11-14, 02:38
"From there it seems to go east to Ukraine, Hungary etc. and it looks to me as if it then went south into the Balkans, and from there to Greece and also southwest to Italy through the Balkans or,perhaps, mainland Greece."

I have two thoughts with J

1) North Euro I1 seems to me to have become attached to the northern branch of R1b at some point and expanded with them and I wonder if the same happened with J and the G farmers. If so and it arrived in Ukraine (from wherever) with farmers might some of those subsequent movements (if they are subsequent) have been a retreat from the steppe expansions?

2) Mountains and coasts make me think of mining and trade networks so the other thought is a culture somewhere at the center of a trade network with arms reaching out in various directions and small groups settled along those arms among other populations. If correct then one of the current hotspots for J2 may have been that original center or the main center got squished along the way (not surprising if it was the center of a trade network based on a valuable commodity) and the current distribution represents the orphaned branches of the original center.

So the questions that pop into my mind based on those two thoughts are:

1) Are J2 hotspots always correlated with either E1 or G or not?
2) Are any of the current J2 hotspots in places that used to be the center of a valuable early trade good like obsidian, jadeitite, gold, silver, copper etc or alternatively do they create a branching pattern along ancient trade routes which could lead to deducing a possible center point that got squished?

edit: for example in the second case (if it wasn't for such high frequencies in the Caucasus) i'd be thinking maybe somewhere between Crete or Sicily as a possible lost center point.

10.4% of this marker is in the italian alps as per coia 2013 paper...........more so with G than E , but its not unreasonable if the J was middle-east branch instead of the Caucasus branch like the raetics