PDA

View Full Version : New Leak: CWC=73% Yamna, modern North Euros=50% Yamna.



Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 01:24
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJwjsuS0yRM/UiBps5HuzYI/AAAAAAAAOIY/j_uvU4Y2oWM/s1600/Yamna_culture.jpg

Davidiski found a new Leak from Reich about his upcoming paper.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...lf-of-our.html (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-little-more-teasing-half-of-our.html)

The number of ancient Euro genomes has increased from 65 to 69.

Hopefully we'll learn more via this seminar Riech is having. Anyways it appears the paper won't be online for a very long time, maybe years.

Ancient genomes reveal Yamna-type ancestry arrived in central Europe ~4,500YBP, persisted till at least 3,000YBP(In ancient genomes), and today takes up an estimated ~50% of north Euros ancestry. There are signs of the same ancestry in southwest Europe, where I would guess it is at least 30%. Corded ware though over 4,000YBP is said to have had 73% Yamna ancestry, so continuous admixture with locals must have occurred.

It looks like our "theoretical Yamna" isn't far off because our estimates of Yamna ancestry in Europe are consistent with this leak(see here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3747-Using-the-quot-fateful-traingle-quot-to-discover-who-Euro-s-non-Yamna-ancestors-were) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3694-ANE-K8-oracles-for-Euros-using-ancient-Euros-and-modern-Middle-easterns)).

motzart
31-01-15, 04:16
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJwjsuS0yRM/UiBps5HuzYI/AAAAAAAAOIY/j_uvU4Y2oWM/s1600/Yamna_culture.jpg

Davidiski found a new Leak from Reich about his upcoming paper.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...lf-of-our.html (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/01/a-little-more-teasing-half-of-our.html)

The number of ancient Euro genomes has increased from 65 to 69.

Hopefully we'll learn more via this seminar Riech is having. Anyways it appears the paper won't be online for a very long time, maybe years.

Ancient genomes reveal Yamna-type ancestry arrived in central Europe ~4,500YBP, persisted till at least 3,000YBP(In ancient genomes), and today takes up an estimated ~50% of north Euros ancestry. There are signs of the same ancestry in southwest Europe, where I would guess it is at least 30%. Corded ware though over 4,000YBP is said to have had 73% Yamna ancestry, so continuous admixture with locals must have occurred.

It looks like our "theoretical Yamna" isn't far off because our estimates of Yamna ancestry in Europe are consistent with this leak(see here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3747-Using-the-quot-fateful-traingle-quot-to-discover-who-Euro-s-non-Yamna-ancestors-were) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3694-ANE-K8-oracles-for-Euros-using-ancient-Euros-and-modern-Middle-easterns)).

What makes you say that it won't be out for years? Patterson said it was already with the editor, so it should be finished...

JS Bach
31-01-15, 04:32
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RJwjsuS0yRM/UiBps5HuzYI/AAAAAAAAOIY/j_uvU4Y2oWM/s1600/Yamna_culture.jpg



He looks like Magnus Carlsen.

http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9
http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 04:40
What makes you say that it won't be out for years? Patterson said it was already with the editor, so it should be finished...

Oh yeah you're right I forgot about what Patterson said. I said it should be out in years because they keep missing their due date, and just added 4 samples(unless the an editor made a mistake). I pretty dissapointed they didn't at least get one sample related to South-west Asian's ancestry, because you don't need 69 from Europe to discover genetic changes.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 04:40
He looks like Magnus Carlsen.

http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9
http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9

That's interesting thanks for sharing.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 04:49
Yamna 5,000-4,000YBP had 90% brown eyes, likely vast majority dark brown and black hair, and probably dark skin, yet north Euros are mostly Yamna. The HGs of Europe ~4,000-5,000YBP were also dark haired and dark skinned, but blue eyed. The EEFs of Europe ~4,000-5,000YBP were light skinned, mostly dark with some light hair, and mostly brown eyed.

The 4,000YBP Pole had "dark complexion", yet most likely had an east-north Euro genetic makeup. It looks like north Euros not to long ago were darker than south Euros, and possible at a west Asian complexion.

JS Bach
31-01-15, 04:55
That's interesting thanks for sharing.

Magnus Carlsen both recently successfully defended his world chess championship title, and has been clear number one on the world rating list for several years now. Whatever that means.

bicicleur
31-01-15, 07:35
it gives some clues about people moving
it would be much more interesting to know what caused and facilitated these movements, then we could actually identify these migrators

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 09:12
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.

bicicleur
31-01-15, 11:54
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.

if you reduce all populations to just 3 components (EEF WHG ANE) there is a lot you'll never find out
reich et al must have gone further

Angela
31-01-15, 15:32
Interesting. Thanks for the info Fire Haired.

Lots of questions, of course.

What happened to the concept that Corded Ware is 66% of a population "related to" Yamnaya? Is the abstract for this conference older than the other leak, or is it that Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya but 66% a population related to Yamnaya. (This is what happens when there's all this speculation without having the actual paper in front of us.)

In terms of this particular "leak" what comprises northern Europe? Is it everything north of the Alps, Balkans, Pyrennees?

I'm not surprised at the late 2500 BC entry into Central Europe. I have thought for a long time that the dates of 3500 BC and even earlier were off, and that a number of the "Copper" Cultures that were once considered "Indo-European" were no such thing.

What was the autosomal make up of the 27% non Yamnaya ancestry in Corded Ware? Was it an even mix of EEF and WHG since they said there was a resurgence of WHG in northern Europe from 4,000 to 3,000 BC? Or was it still more EEF?* If it was, and the Yamnaya ancestry was, as they've said before and now, 50% "Near Eastern", then Corded Ware people would be more "ENF" and "ANE" then modern northern Europeans, as someone pointed out on that blog link. If that is the case, then I don't see how Corded Ware people can cluster with modern north Central Europeans, much less so with people from the extreme north east like Baltic peoples, as someone else on that blog pointed out. (In fact, it never made sense to me that they would. As I've pointed out before, Baltic peoples have far too little EEF or ENF to be good proxies for a Corded Ware population that is 73% Yamnaya (which is 50% Near Eastern), and would then have additional ENF from European farmers. The analyses done by bloggers purporting to show that they are don't comport with the evidence, in my opinion.

As for the amount in southern Europe, I wouldn't care to speculate about the final figures. I think the fact that so many "guesstimates" have been wrong should indicate that we just don't have enough data at present.

The fact that there seems to be another major "event" in European genetics around 1000 BC is also interesting, as is the fact that from 2500 BC to 1000 BC, a period of about 1500 years, there was a period of "stasis". I don't buy the idea that it just happened. If Reich and company are correct, it was not a continuous process of mixing, but instead was rather abrupt. Either there was another movement of people (perhaps from more northern areas), or whatever cultural or class "apartheid" that existed broke down around this time. At any rate, whatever it was dropped the similarity to Yamnaya from 73% to approximately 50%.

Finally, they seem to be very cautious about the linguistics side of the equation. Given that David Anthony is a consulting author on the paper, I didn't think that they'd dump the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory, so I'm not surprised to see that they see it as explaining some of the language change, but it's interesting that they are cautious about attributing all the language change to it. This raises the question as to whether the "Centum" languages, or perhaps Greek and Anatolian, had a slightly different (perhaps geographically contiguous) source, and a slightly different trajectory.



Aberdeen: If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe?

In order to infer migration movements and subsequent admixture I think they're comparing whole genomes of ancient people. So, they'd be comparing samples from Yamnaya to samples from Corded Ware areas pre and post Yamnaya influence, and possibly more late Hungarian plain genomes as well. At least, that's what I hope they're doing. I do hope they'll give EEF/WHG/ANE percentages for each group as well. I'm sure they are using the samples already gathered for ancient mtDna analysis in Hungary and Germany. To see if there is a cline in northern Europe it would seem to me that they need samples from further west as well, but I don't know if they have analyzed any or not. I think it's especially important in figuring out how the "Celtic fringe" areas got or retained higher levels of ANE than some areas further east.

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 15:49
if you reduce all populations to just 3 components (EEF WHG ANE) there is a lot you'll never find out
reich et al must have gone further

I agree that it's more complicated than that, but to me Reich's theory seems even more simplistic than the three components theory that at least has some basis in genetic admixture formulae. I still don't see where the "50 percent Yamnaya" idea comes from. But there was in fact a continued process of admixture that went on into the Iron Age and the Migration Age, so I'm skeptical of the idea that we should think in terms of one big changeover consisting of a massive input of "steppe ancestry" that is hopefully better defined in the actual paper. But, as usual, Angela has done a better job of outlining some of the complexities than I could. I will note that the 1000 BC date is just 200-300 years after the Bronze Age Collapse that hit Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, Cyprus and Greece. I wonder whether whatever happened in that part of the world was mirrored further north at the same time or slightly later but perhaps there hasn't been enough archeology happening for that time period in northern Europe?

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 17:56
Angela, people have been discussing those issues you mentioned alot over the last several months. Most of us think Yamna was 25% ANE, 40% ENF, and 35% WHG in terms of ANE K8. The reason we think this is because of the gazillions of scenarios we've played out. When we use this theoretical Yamna north euros always fit best as 50% or more Yamna, which is consistent with this leak. Many of us have known north Euros are mostly Yamna for a long time, by connecting the dots from other leaks.

Yamna was not 50% near eastern, they were 50% something similar to modern Armenians, who are a little more near eastern than Stuttgart. The reason north euros today have less ENF than Yamna is because of Late Neolithic farmers like Gok2(who had as much WHG as Balts) and then also late Neolithic hunter gatherers like Ajv58, who had no near eastern ancestry. We have to remember most of northeastern Europe when IEs arrived was hunter gatherer country.

Balts actually fit better as a mix of something similar to Motala12 and theortical Yamna, with no EEF in the equation. CWC was not Yamna+EEF, it was Yamna+HG+EEF.

The last thing I want to say is you're not the first person to give those doubts. People have disected those ideas, and there's no doubting anymore Yamna-types made a very big genetic impact on Europe, largely or mostly in the early bronze age. Reich knows this because he has central Euro genomes ranging from 7,000-3,000YBP, right before historical times, and Yamna ancestry stayed and was probably at a modern-like level. If ANE 3,000YBP was much lower than it is today, he would say something.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 18:01
I agree that it's more complicated than that, but to me Reich's theory seems even more simplistic than the three components theory that at least has some basis in genetic admixture formulae. I still don't see where the "50 percent Yamnaya" idea comes from. But there was in fact a continued process of admixture that went on into the Iron Age and the Migration Age, so I'm skeptical of the idea that we should think in terms of one big changeover consisting of a massive input of "steppe ancestry" that is hopefully better defined in the actual paper. But, as usual, Angela has done a better job of outlining some of the complexities than I could. I will note that the 1000 BC date is just 200-300 years after the Bronze Age Collapse that hit Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, Cyprus and Greece. I wonder whether whatever happened in that part of the world was mirrored further north at the same time or slightly later but perhaps there hasn't been enough archeology happening for that time period in northern Europe?

He has the 50% Yamna idea partly because he has Euro genomes almost stretching to historical times(Early ancestor of Gauls and Hallstatt?), and so if Yamna-ancestry dropped and rose again he would say something. Bronze age genomes from central Europe will be shown to be basically the same thing as present-day central-north Euros. This is true for a 2,000YBP Celt from Britain too, and so population continuation since the bronze age makes more sense.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 18:03
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.

In the title post I linked to experiments I did with theoretical Yamna. It fits very nicely as contributing 50% or more ancestry to modern north Europeans. All your questions should be answered with this links.

ElHorsto
31-01-15, 18:52
He looks like Magnus Carlsen.

http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9
http://www.chessvibes.com/sites/default/files/styles/article-image/public/articles/300asDsa.jpg?itok=9Plz5Or9


There is some very slight resemblance, but far from perfect imho. Carlsen has much stronger bizygomatics and an uptilt nose, and he has much more robust bones. The Yamna guy has a downward pointing nose and is more gracile.

In my eyes the mentioned Yamna guy more looks like Caligula, although Caligula goes a bit into the dinaroid direction:
70547055

bicicleur
31-01-15, 18:54
I'm not surprised at the late 2500 BC entry into Central Europe. I have thought for a long time that the dates of 3500 BC and even earlier were off, and that a number of the "Copper" Cultures that were once considered "Indo-European" were no such thing.

What was the autosomal make up of the 27% non Yamnaya ancestry in Corded Ware? Was it an even mix of EEF and WHG since they said there was a resurgence of WHG in northern Europe from 4,000 to 3,000 BC? Or was it still more EEF?* If it was, and the Yamnaya ancestry was, as they've said before and now, 50% "Near Eastern", then Corded Ware people would be more "ENF" and "ANE" then modern northern Europeans, as someone pointed out on that blog link. If that is the case, then I don't see how Corded Ware people can cluster with modern north Central Europeans, much less so with people from the extreme north east like Baltic peoples, as someone else on that blog pointed out. (In fact, it never made sense to me that they would. As I've pointed out before, Baltic peoples have far too little EEF or ENF to be good proxies for a Corded Ware population that is 73% Yamnaya (which is 50% Near Eastern), and would then have additional ENF from European farmers. The analyses done by bloggers purporting to show that they are don't comport with the evidence, in my opinion.

As for the amount in southern Europe, I wouldn't care to speculate about the final figures. I think the fact that so many "guesstimates" have been wrong should indicate that we just don't have enough data at present.

The fact that there seems to be another major "event" in European genetics around 1000 BC is also interesting, as is the fact that from 2500 BC to 1000 BC, a period of about 1500 years, there was a period of "stasis". I don't buy the idea that it just happened. If Reich and company are correct, it was not a continuous process of mixing, but instead was rather abrupt. Either there was another movement of people (perhaps from more northern areas), or whatever cultural or class "apartheid" that existed broke down around this time. At any rate, whatever it was dropped the similarity to Yamnaya from 73% to approximately 50%.

Finally, they seem to be very cautious about the linguistics side of the equation. Given that David Anthony is a consulting author on the paper, I didn't think that they'd dump the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory, so I'm not surprised to see that they see it as explaining some of the language change, but it's interesting that they are cautious about attributing all the language change to it. This raises the question as to whether the "Centum" languages, or perhaps Greek and Anatolian, had a slightly different (perhaps geographically contiguous) source, and a slightly different trajectory.


Yamna starts 3500 BC, but is only in the steppe.
Corded ware started 2900 BC, which is not to far of the 2500 BC mentioned. Maybe there were several consecutive waves.
As for the remaining 27 %, my understanding was these were the people who lived in Europe before the Corded Ware invasion.

It indeed seems a confirmation of the Pontic Steppe as the origin for IE, except the Anatolian branch which remains a mysterie and doesn't seem to have arrived in Anatolia the way David Anthony describes (invasion through the Balkans 4000 - 4200 BC)

bicicleur
31-01-15, 18:59
And the date 1000 BC, there is no evidence that Europe was affected by the invasion of the Sea Peoples, so I guess the main event was the start of the iron age.
This brought some more invaders from the steppe, there is even some DNA known of some specimens found on the Hungarian graveyards (mentioned in the study with the Hungarian neolithic Starcevo specimens)

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 19:34
He has the 50% Yamna idea partly because he has Euro genomes almost stretching to historical times(Early ancestor of Gauls and Hallstatt?), and so if Yamna-ancestry dropped and rose again he would say something. Bronze age genomes from central Europe will be shown to be basically the same thing as present-day central-north Euros. This is true for a 2,000YBP Celt from Britain too, and so population continuation since the bronze age makes more sense.

Actually, it doesn't make sense because Yamnaya apparently differs from European Neolithic only by being part ANE, and the level of ANE varies across Europe. Also, some of the ANE in western Europe must have come from R1b and we have as yet no proof that R1b has anything to do with Yamnaya - I'm still of the view that it entered Europe from Anatolia mainly by way of the Adriatic, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. So, while we all knew that the IE Bronze Age Expansion had a major genetic impact on Europe, I see no basis for an assumption that a consistent 50% of the genetic material of modern northern Europe is from Yamnaya. As Angela pointed out, previous views were that CW was from a Yamnaya-like population, which is not the same thing, and calling early Copper Age people Bronze Age doesn't make them Bronze Age.

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 19:46
If someone wants to argue that R1b is Yamnaya, I'd like to see them explain why Norway has more ANE than the Basque country in Spain. IMO, that stuff about "founder effect" doesn't really cut it, considering that Iberia was much more of a genetic highway than Norway ever was. IMO, the explanation is partly that the ANE level of R1b was watered down more than it was in R1a because they had very different histories and took very different routes into Europe. But there also seems to be higher ANE in areas with higher levels of WHG, so I don't think we have the whole story on ANE and northern Europe yet.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 19:53
Aberdeen. I know it sounds simplistic to say 50% of north Euros blood derive from the ancient Pontic steppe, but it is most certainly the case.

Me and others have played out every admixture possibility after the Neolithic, including recent middle eastern and hunter gatherer admixture. We came up with the same conclusion as Reich, North euros are 50%(most are more) Yamna-like. Did you look at my links?

Doubt is not evidence. Nothing from modern Asia and pre-bronze age north, central, and west Europe can explain north Euros, you need 50% Yamna in there. One way or another it got there.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 19:55
Aberdeen, R1b doesn't matter, autosomes matter. The Yamna-like(No one ever said it came directly from Yamna, just people who were similar!!) ancestry is in Irish(Over 50%), there's no debating this. How R1b got there is another debate, but we know for sure Yamna-like ancestry is very high there.

Sile
31-01-15, 20:05
This is clearly a mess, they are fishing , they now ,...... to make the numbers work have eliminated the concept of a central european marker and made it part of north European. The recent hungarian samples are now northern samples because they found N1 , but what about the J2

Byt he way, watch for K8 to be replaced by K7 for this in the future

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 20:12
Aberdeen, R1b doesn't matter, autosomes matter. The Yamna-like(No one ever said it came directly from Yamna, just people who were similar!!) ancestry is in Irish(Over 50%), there's no debating this. How R1b got there is another debate, but we know for sure Yamna-like ancestry is very high there.

You seem to have totally missed the point of everything I said. Someone could have a mixture of WHG, EEF and ANE that appears to be consistent with 50% Yamnaya without in fact being 50% Yamnaya. There are lots of ways that could happen, especially if we don't know the whole story of ANE and northern Europe.

It definitely seems that Yamnaya DNA isn't distinct enough to say "this particular set of European DNA is 50% Yamnaya".

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 20:13
Aberdeen. I know it sounds simplistic to say 50% of north Euros blood derive from the ancient Pontic steppe, but it is most certainly the case.

Me and others have played out every admixture possibility after the Neolithic, including recent middle eastern and hunter gatherer admixture. We came up with the same conclusion as Reich, North euros are 50%(most are more) Yamna-like. Did you look at my links?

Doubt is not evidence. Nothing from modern Asia and pre-bronze age north, central, and west Europe can explain north Euros, you need 50% Yamna in there. One way or another it got there.

I did look at those links. Inaccurate assumptions in, false verification of inaccurate assumptions out.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 21:04
You seem to have totally missed the point of everything I said. Someone could have a mixture of WHG, EEF and ANE that appears to be consistent with 50% Yamnaya without in fact being 50% Yamnaya. There are lots of ways that could happen, especially if we don't know the whole story of ANE and northern Europe.

It definitely seems that Yamnaya DNA isn't distinct enough to say "this particular set of European DNA is 50% Yamnaya".

Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.

Templar
31-01-15, 21:11
Why are people still using ENF as a category? ENF are a "hybrid" population of near eastern farmers and SE hunter gatherers. There is already data out there that has separated the two different components of ENF.

Fire Haired14
31-01-15, 21:11
I did look at those links. Inaccurate assumptions in, false verification of inaccurate assumptions out.

Acting like a critical snob, who doesn't believe anything is not how you win an argument. My "inaccurate assumptions" from weeks ago is what the academics with real genomes are saying today. You have no evidence just doubt and a horrible attitude. I can't believe you're British and German, because you have the attitude of a snobby-ass Frenchman. The shallow, dark, and inmoral way people like you see the world is sad.

Decades from now when this is in the history books, you'll look back and wished you listened more to what I'm saying.

Sile
31-01-15, 21:21
Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.

It was ENF + UHG

MOESAN
31-01-15, 21:29
thank you for French people, Ô! Fire Haired - the ever doubting attitude is well known too among British people (less among Americans, I suppose) - all the way these puttings people of a country all in the same bag is risked I think - I believe as you Yamna horizon people have had some imput in some part of Europe but the absolute proofs will came someday, they are not already here - these general autosomes subdivisions are not sufficiant even if very interesting - well defined lignages are required to confirm it

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 22:26
Why are people still using ENF as a category? ENF are a "hybrid" population of near eastern farmers and SE hunter gatherers. There is already data out there that has separated the two different components of ENF.

ENF does not mean what you think it means. And we were actually using EEF (early European farmers as a category - it's a mixture of hunter gatherers and ENF (early Near Eastern farmers). But there is no sample of ENF that I know of.

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 22:31
Yes, but we know what type of ancestry was in pre-Bronze age west Europe; ENF and WHG. So ENF/WHG+X=Euros. That fits best as Yamna. Maybe when the paper comes out you'll be connived.

No, I won't be "connived" or convinced unless the paper can produce detailed subclade information proving that certain modern DNA lineages could only have come from Yamnaya. What you have to understand is that Yamnaya isn't a genetically unique group - they seem to have been a mixture of EEF, WHG and ANE. But Neolithic Europe was already a mixture of EEF and WHG. And I'm not convinced that all ANE in Europe comes from Yamnaya because ANE levels in northern Europe seem to be partly dependent on levels of WHG.

Please learn the difference between EEF and ENF.

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 22:35
thank you for French people, Ô! Fire Haired - the ever doubting attitude is well known too among British people (less among Americans, I suppose) - all the way these puttings people of a country all in the same bag is risked I think - I believe as you Yamna horizon people have had some imput in some part of Europe but the absolute proofs will came someday, they are not already here - these general autosomes subdivisions are not sufficiant even if very interesting - well defined lignages are required to confirm it

I knew I could count on a Frenchman to be the voice of reason and logic. LOL.

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 22:53
Acting like a critical snob, who doesn't believe anything is not how you win an argument. My "inaccurate assumptions" from weeks ago is what the academics with real genomes are saying today. You have no evidence just doubt and a horrible attitude. I can't believe you're British and German, because you have the attitude of a snobby-ass Frenchman. The shallow, dark, and inmoral way people like you see the world is sad.

Decades from now when this is in the history books, you'll look back and wished you listened more to what I'm saying.

Given that I'm finding this conversation amusing and you seem to be getting upset about it, maybe you should ask yourself which one of us has a problem.

Perhaps I could have stated the issue a trifle more diplomatically but the reality is this - if you perform a calculation based on a flawed premise, the results will be flawed.

And, FYI, real English people are often far snobbier and far more sarcastic than I'll ever be, so perhaps you should avoid England.

Templar
31-01-15, 22:56
ENF does not mean what you think it means. And we were actually using EEF (early European farmers as a category - it's a mixture of hunter gatherers and ENF (early Near Eastern farmers). But there is no sample of ENF that I know of.

Ah okay, I got ENF and EEF confused. The sample for ENF is Stuttgart I think. Haven't really been keeping up with these new autosomal categories as of late. What is the sample population for EEF?

Aberdeen
31-01-15, 23:46
Ah okay, I got ENF and EEF confused. The sample for ENF is Stuttgart I think. Haven't really been keeping up with these new autosomal categories as of late. What is the sample population for EEF?

Actually, Stuttgart had a small amount of hunter gatherer ancestry. You can read about Europe being a mixture of three groups (WHG, EEF and ANE) here, although a lot of people think the reality is a bit more complicated than that.

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 01:14
No, I won't be "connived" or convinced unless the paper can produce detailed subclade information proving that certain modern DNA lineages could only have come from Yamnaya. What you have to understand is that Yamnaya isn't a genetically unique group - they seem to have been a mixture of EEF, WHG and ANE. But Neolithic Europe was already a mixture of EEF and WHG. And I'm not convinced that all ANE in Europe comes from Yamnaya because ANE levels in northern Europe seem to be partly dependent on levels of WHG.

Please learn the difference between EEF and ENF.

No one ever said Yamna-type ancestry in Europe is from Yamna. It is statistically impossible for Mesolithic HGs like Motala12 and anyone in west Asia to have given Europeans any substantial ANE. The next place to look is east Europe, and ~5k ones fit very nicely as the main source. No one besides Yamna or a close relative could have done this.

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 01:16
Given that I'm finding this conversation amusing and you seem to be getting upset about it, maybe you should ask yourself which one of us has a problem.

Perhaps I could have stated the issue a trifle more diplomatically but the reality is this - if you perform a calculation based on a flawed premise, the results will be flawed.

And, FYI, real English people are often far snobbier and far more sarcastic than I'll ever be, so perhaps you should avoid England.

The calculation wasn't far off because I came to the same conclusion as Reich.

Templar
01-02-15, 02:06
No one ever said Yamna-type ancestry in Europe is from Yamna. It is statistically impossible for Mesolithic HGs like Motala12 and anyone in west Asia to have given Europeans any substantial ANE. The next place to look is east Europe, and ~5k ones fit very nicely as the main source. No one besides Yamna or a close relative could have done this.

What do you think about Finnic people bringing ANE to the baltic?

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 03:41
What do you think about Finnic people bringing ANE to the baltic?

They probably brought alot. Finno-Urgics come from the same area as Yamna, so they could have been similar genetically.

Goga
01-02-15, 04:31
Finno-Ugric people were and are Mongoloid, while Yamnaya people were a mix of Mongoloid race and folks from the Maykop Horizon (Caucasus) and Iranian Plateau (South Caspian Sea). Remember that Yamnaya people were Indo-Europized by folks from the Maykop / Leyla-Tepe before some of them migrated into Europe...

Goga
01-02-15, 04:35
Yamnaya folks were NOT early, but rather LATE proto-Indo-Eauropeans that gave birth to most Indo-European languages inside Europe, while EARLY or very first proto-Indo-Europeans gave birth to Greco-?Anatolian, Tochtarian, Iranian (Aryan) and Indic languages. Those first proto-Indo-Eruopeans came from an area between Maykop and Leyla-Tepe...

Sile
01-02-15, 04:45
Ah okay, I got ENF and EEF confused. The sample for ENF is Stuttgart I think. Haven't really been keeping up with these new autosomal categories as of late. What is the sample population for EEF?

ENF = early neolithic farmer
UHG = unknown hunter gather
ANE

go to gedmatch and under eurogenes ANE 7 ....there is documentation as well

these represent you most ancient numbers,

AFTER this comes your mutation into
EEF
WHG
ANE

so, I went from 50% UHG to 20% WHG
from 36% ENF to 69% EEF
from 11% ANE to 10.5% ANE

so as explaine dto me, ENF, UHG etc is older than EEF and WHG

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 04:54
Yamnaya folks were NOT early, but rather LATE proto-Indo-Eauropeans that gave birth to most Indo-European languages inside Europe, while EARLY or very first proto-Indo-Europeans gave birth to Greco-?Anatolian, Tochtarian, Iranian (Aryan) and Indic languages. Those first proto-Indo-Eruopeans came from an area between Maykop and Leyla-Tepe...

That could be, and none of us know for sure were PIE came from and were all historical IE languages spread from(Caucasus, steppe?).

Indo Iranian languages though are connected to Yamna. Don't take this personally, and no one is being Eurocentric about IEs. North Europe being less densely populated and having less complex societies(IEs in Asia could have simply become the upper-class and overtime blended in with locals) before Indo Europeans could be why Indo Europeans were most successful in spreading their genes there than Indo Iranians were in Asia. Sycthians were Indo Iranian and we have their mtDNA, which was very similar to Yamna. There's really no way around that, Indo Iranians have a similar steppe origin as IE languages in Europe.

Goga
01-02-15, 05:07
That could be, and none of us know for sure were PIE came from and were all historical IE languages spread from(Caucasus, steppe?).

Indo Iranian languages though are connected to Yamna. Don't take this personally, and no one is being Eurocentric about IEs. North Europe being less densely populated and having less complex societies(IEs in Asia could have simply become the upper-class and overtime blended in with locals) before Indo Europeans could be why Indo Europeans were most successful in spreading their genes there than Indo Iranians were in Asia. Sycthians were Indo Iranian and we have their mtDNA, which was very similar to Yamna. There's really no way around that, Indo Iranians have a similar steppe origin as IE languages in Europe.Of course there's a link between Yamnaya on one side and Greco-Anatolian, Tochtarian, Iraninic and Indic languages on other side. Because, proto-Indo-Europeans that gave birth to Iranic, Indic, Tochtarian etc. migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon LATER. And no, Scythians were very late EAST Iranic (Iranized) tribes that migrated from Central Asia into the Steppes and mixed with the locals. Some other ancient original Iranic tribes (and their ancestors) never lived around Yamnaya Horizon in their existence. I mean Iranian tribes like the Mitanni & Kassites, Medes, Sagartians, Persians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Parthians, Kambojas, Drangiana, Dahaeans, Massageteans, etc. never had any connection (or direct links) with the Yamnaya Horizon...

Goga
01-02-15, 05:21
Unlike Yamnaya Horizon people, ancient original Iranic tribes (from Leyla-Tepe) were neither Mongoloid nor WHG folks. Yamnaya had some WHG and were partly Mongoloid, while proto-Iranic folks lacked both of those components. Also ancient (proto-)Iranic languages had close ties with the Caucasian languages, and culturally/archeologically there were very much links with Near-Eastern (Mesopotamian) cultures...

Aberdeen
01-02-15, 05:59
No one ever said Yamna-type ancestry in Europe is from Yamna. It is statistically impossible for Mesolithic HGs like Motala12 and anyone in west Asia to have given Europeans any substantial ANE. The next place to look is east Europe, and ~5k ones fit very nicely as the main source. No one besides Yamna or a close relative could have done this.

Your thinking is far too simplistic. Nobody said that the apparent link between WHG and ANE comes from Mesolithic hunter gatherers like Motala 12. Modern Finns have the highest level of WHG in Europe but that doesn't make them all descendents of Motala.

Aberdeen
01-02-15, 06:06
What do you think about Finnic people bringing ANE to the baltic?

That seems to be a possible source of ANE in modern northern European populations that is other than Yamnaya. If you look at the Genetics section of this website, you'll find that Finns are not at all like Yamnaya and have very little of the Y haplotype R that was found in the remains that were used as a model for ANE. And yet there is a band of elevated ANE across northern Russia and into Finland. I think it may come from the mtDNA side, since the original model for ANE was mtDNA U and Finns have a lot of U5. But that can't be the full story because ANE is also elevated across other northern European countries that don't have DNA similar to Finns and probably have varying levels of Yamnaya ancestry. All we can say for certain is that claiming that modern northern Europeans have 50% Yamnaya ancestry on the basis of ANE is far too simplistic.

motzart
01-02-15, 06:45
Unlike Yamnaya Horizon people, ancient original Iranic tribes (from Leyla-Tepe) were neither Mongoloid nor WHG folks. Yamnaya had some WHG and were partly Mongoloid, while proto-Iranic folks lacked both of those components. Also ancient (proto-)Iranic languages had close ties with the Caucasian languages, and culturally/archeologically there were very much links with Near-Eastern (Mesopotamian) cultures...

Yamnaya were not partly Mongoloid. For this reason I don't believe we will see N in their y dna.

The Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe is recorded for an enormous territory between the North-Western Pontic area and Trans-Uralia. Its sites are known here in the basin of the Emba and Tobol rivers, the Karaganda region and further eastward (Merpert 1974). The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2006/05/anthropological-types-of-corded-ware.html

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 09:09
Of course there's a link between Yamnaya on one side and Greco-Anatolian, Tochtarian, Iraninic and Indic languages on other side. Because, proto-Indo-Europeans that gave birth to Iranic, Indic, Tochtarian etc. migrated into the Yamnaya Horizon LATER. And no, Scythians were very late EAST Iranic (Iranized) tribes that migrated from Central Asia into the Steppes and mixed with the locals. Some other ancient original Iranic tribes (and their ancestors) never lived around Yamnaya Horizon in their existence. I mean Iranian tribes like the Mitanni & Kassites, Medes, Sagartians, Persians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Parthians, Kambojas, Drangiana, Dahaeans, Massageteans, etc. never had any connection (or direct links) with the Yamnaya Horizon...


Goga, languages can be learned without heavy gene flow. Indo Iranian speakers don't have to have alot of Yamna ancestry to speak a language derived from Yamna.

No one is trying to insult west Asians. Why can't you get this. Stop denying you think this, it's obvious. Try to think about this objectively.

Goga
01-02-15, 13:21
Goga, languages can be learned without heavy gene flow. Indo Iranian speakers don't have to have alot of Yamna ancestry to speak a language derived from Yamna.

No one is trying to insult west Asians. Why can't you get this. Stop denying you think this, it's obvious. Try to think about this objectively.LMAO, the only person here in denial is you! First you came up with the Scythians who were actually VERY LATE East Iranians and originally from SouthCentral Asia. Scythians are not a good example to search for the origins of the Iranic people. Scythians were just a very small part of a greater Iranic race. Scythians were one of the very few who expanded. 99.99% of all Iranic tribes have never been in the Steppes nor around the Yamanya Horizon. Iranian (Aryan) race has nothing to do with Yamnaya. There's 0 evidence that Iranians came from Yamnaya. Some believe they came from BMAC, and some believe they came from an area between Northern Zagros mountains and Leyla-Tepe. I believe that they came from West Asia due to their language and culture similarities with other West Asian peoples. Just STOP linking yourself with the ancient Iranian. It's becoming ridiculous! You have nothing to do with the ancient Iranic at all. You don’t even speak our language for God sake. You don't speak Iranic, you don't have an Iranic culture, brother, you're not Iranic (Aryan), and stop making yourself ridiculous...

Goga
01-02-15, 13:44
Yamnaya were not partly Mongoloid. For this reason I don't believe we will see N in their y dna.

The Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe is recorded for an enormous territory between the North-Western Pontic area and Trans-Uralia. Its sites are known here in the basin of the Emba and Tobol rivers, the Karaganda region and further eastward (Merpert 1974). The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2006/05/anthropological-types-of-corded-ware.html Just wait and see. Yamnaya Horizon was a huge terrotory. People who lived North of it were partly Mongoloid, people who lived near the Caspian Sea were partly Caucasoid. I think some people North of Yamnya Horizon belonged to the 'Mongoloid' haplogroups like N1c1, C, while some people South of Yamnaya belonged to West-Central Asian R1b, R1a, R2a, J2a etc. haplogroups. The only EUROPOID haplogroup was hg. 'I', 'I1', 'I2' etc. I think a lot of Yamnaya people belonged to those Europoid haplogroups. But ANE component is NOT Europoid. Also, EUROPID people are light in complexion, while Yamnaya folks were dark in complexion. But maybe very first Europoid folks had also dark complexions, I don't know that...

Angela
01-02-15, 16:00
Angela, people have been discussing those issues you mentioned alot over the last several months. Most of us think Yamna was 25% ANE, 40% ENF, and 35% WHG in terms of ANE K8. The reason we think this is because of the gazillions of scenarios we've played out. When we use this theoretical Yamna north euros always fit best as 50% or more Yamna, which is consistent with this leak. Many of us have known north Euros are mostly Yamna for a long time, by connecting the dots from other leaks.

Yamna was not 50% near eastern, they were 50% something similar to modern Armenians, who are a little more near eastern than Stuttgart. The reason north euros today have less ENF than Yamna is because of Late Neolithic farmers like Gok2(who had as much WHG as Balts) and then also late Neolithic hunter gatherers like Ajv58, who had no near eastern ancestry. We have to remember most of northeastern Europe when IEs arrived was hunter gatherer country.

Balts actually fit better as a mix of something similar to Motala12 and theortical Yamna, with no EEF in the equation. CWC was not Yamna+EEF, it was Yamna+HG+EEF.

The last thing I want to say is you're not the first person to give those doubts. People have disected those ideas, and there's no doubting anymore Yamna-types made a very big genetic impact on Europe, largely or mostly in the early bronze age. Reich knows this because he has central Euro genomes ranging from 7,000-3,000YBP, right before historical times, and Yamna ancestry stayed and was probably at a modern-like level. If ANE 3,000YBP was much lower than it is today, he would say something.

With all due respect, Fire Haired, that 50% scenario was floated here on this site based on simple arithmetic. Also, from what I can tell, and this is not addressed to you personally, all those "gazillian" scenarios and playing around with the data had, as perhaps their primary purpose, it seems to me, the desire to cluster Corded Ware in north central Europe, and based on this last leak, it can't cluster there, or in Poland for that matter. Corded Ware is 75% (or 66%) Yamnaya according to Reich and Company. Northern Europeans are now, according to them, 50% Yamnaya. Surely you see that the calculations were off? Corded Ware is both more eastern and more southern in all likelihood. Nor are northeastern Europeans majority Yamnaya, as was also proposed. They can't be, as they have the least "West Asian" or "Near Eastern" ancestry in Europe. So, two out of three of the "conclusions" were incorrect, unless I'm missing something.

Furthermore, the intermarriage that occurred with the prior inhabitants is what made Corded Ware 75% Yamnaya, and not 100% Yamnaya. According to Reich, that 75% figure remained constant for 1500 years. It didn't change and become 50% because of mixture with Gok type people, who are EEF with only a bit of additional WHG by the way. The change occurred after that, and I'm not convinced some of the change didn't happen after 1000 BC. We'll know for sure if they get samples after that date for autosomal analysis.

Finally, Fire Haired, critical, skeptical thinking is very important in any intellectual endeavor, and should be applied to internet bloggers and academics alike. There's nothing nefarious about it.

Kristiina
01-02-15, 16:01
LMAO, the only person here in denial is you! First you came up with the Scythians who were actually VERY LATE East Iranians and originally from SouthCentral Asia. Scythians are not a good example to search for the origins of the Iranic people. Scythians were just a very small part of a greater Iranic race. Scythians were one of the very few who expanded. 99.99% of all Iranic tribes have never been in the Steppes nor around the Yamanya Horizon. Iranian (Aryan) race has nothing to do with Yamnaya. There's 0 evidence that Iranians came from Yamnaya. Some believe they came from BMAC, and some believe they came from an area between Northern Zagros mountains and Leyla-Tepe. I believe that they came from West Asia due to their language and culture similarities with other West Asian peoples. Just STOP linking yourself with the ancient Iranian. It's becoming ridiculous! You have nothing to do with the ancient Iranic at all. You don’t even speak our language for God sake. You don't speak Iranic, you don't have an Iranic culture, brother, you're not Iranic (Aryan), and stop making yourself ridiculous...

I understand your feelings about this, and I have to say that I feel the same frustration for my own folks. When people claim that I am a demongolicized Swede, I feel annoyed. I am just quite regular north European, and a result of even tens of thousands of years' of admixtures. I surely carry a considerable chunk of Corded Ware and my EEF (33%) may come in part from Yamnaya. My East Asian ancestry which is emphasized ad nauseam is small (7%) and most of it is Native American like and probably linked with the Siberian microblade cultures.

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 16:54
Angela, It can't be random with theoretical Yamna that posters at Eurogenes came to the same conclusion as Reich. We're not far off. It's not you guys being critcal I don't like, it's that you act as if everything but what I'm saying is true. It seems biased.

>Not all north Euros are the same. Northeast are surely more than 50% Yamna-like, probably 60-70% for some. 50% is probably a low-bound estimate for someone at the southern end of north European genetics like Germans.

>Yamna+EEF=xCWC or north Euros. Yamna+EEF+SHG/BHG=CWC and north Euros. You've forgotten about hunter gatherer admixture. Much of east Europe was hunter gatherer country when IEs arrived. This is why north Euros have as much WHG as Gok2 and Basque, but significantly less ENF.

>Corded ware does cluster in north-central Europe on PCAs, this is what Laz said.

>There appears to have been mostly genetic stagnation in north Europe starting with Corded ware samples, to 3,000YBP samples, to present-day samples. Corded ware will probably cluster around east Europe or a little east of them.

> Mathematically it is impossible for Mesolithic Scandinavians and modern west Asians to be the main source of ANE in Europe.

>We know from now over a dozen genomes from pre-bronze age west Europe that everyone was ENF+WHG, and were mostly something in-between Stuttgart and Gok2. We also have a pretty good idea what Samara Yamna was based on leaks. So ENF/WHG+Yamna+x=Euros.X fits as being something in-between Loschbour and EHG(65 WHG, 35 ANE).

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 17:10
An annoying thing is I was saying this stuff last year and even the year before.

When everyone else thought Mesolithic Russians were 100% ANE(I said they were mostly WHG which is true), Yamna had little to no WHG(I said they had significant WHG which is true), or that SHG-types and west Asian-types gave Europe ANE(I said Yamna-types were the main source which is true).

On Eurogenes half a year ago when Davidski created is PIE zombie, I was telling everyone Yamna had significant WHG and was not 50% ANE, but they ignored me.

Post after Post I said Lithuanian-types replaced most of the Neolithic pops of Northwest Europe(Which is true), and people ignored me because my ideas were simplistic. Most of what I said was true, while the complex theories many other gave were wrong. Yet, people on these forums people have forgotten I believed this stuff long before Reich leaks, and they still think my ideas are coming out of my ass.

Aberdeen
01-02-15, 17:32
An annoying thing is I was saying this stuff last year and even the year before.

When everyone else thought Mesolithic Russians were 100% ANE(I said they were mostly WHG which is true), Yamna had little to no WHG(I said they had significant WHG which is true), or that SHG-types and west Asian-types gave Europe ANE(I said Yamna-types were the main source which is true).

On Eurogenes half a year ago when Davidski created is PIE zombie, I was telling everyone Yamna had significant WHG and was not 50% ANE, but they ignored me.

Post after Post I said Lithuanian-types replaced most of the Neolithic pops of Northwest Europe(Which is true), and people ignored me because my ideas were simplistic. Most of what I said was true, while the complex theories many other gave were wrong. Yet, people on these forums people have forgotten I believed this stuff long before Reich leaks, and they still think my ideas are coming out of my ass.

I have never ever read one comment about Russian hunter gatherers being "100% ANE". You misread something I said recently about how the ANE portion of Russian hunter gatherers affected the ANE level of Yamnaya and you wrongly concluded that I was suggesting that Russian hunter gatherers were 100% ANE. If you could misread my comments that badly, you probably misread what other people have said. Nobody has ever suggested that Russian hunter gatherers are only descended from people who lived thousands of years ago - that wouldn't be possible. Please stop with the simplistic misinterpretations and tendency to see different viewpoints as personal attacks.

kosmonomad
01-02-15, 18:10
As one person at forumbiodiversity called it the revolution of indo-europeanisation, still rolling today.

If there were any early N in Yamnaya, they left no descendants.

Fire Haired14
01-02-15, 18:12
not meant to be post.

Alan
02-02-15, 00:41
It looks like our "theoretical Yamna" isn't far off because our estimates of Yamna ancestry in Europe are consistent with this leak(see here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3747-Using-the-quot-fateful-traingle-quot-to-discover-who-Euro-s-non-Yamna-ancestors-were) and here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3694-ANE-K8-oracles-for-Euros-using-ancient-Euros-and-modern-Middle-easterns)).

If modern North Euros are 50% Yamna than Krefters "Theoretical Yamna" is indeed off a bit as I and some others have told him few times.

Since when does the speculated 35% WHG fit 50% of ancestry? Considering that WHG would have increased towards West and since we know North Euros who are on average 46% WHG are half way Yamna. WHG estimation should be around 20-25%, simply because 20-25% * 2 = 40-50%. This fits the modern WHG in North Europe. However 35% *2 = 70% far too high.
And the ~20% ANE estimation doesn't make much sense alone from the fact that Northeast Euros score 18% ANE already. movement towards West should decrease ANE scores to almost half. Is he speculating that ANE stayed almost the same throughout the western movement ? I don't get it. Another fact which makes this estimation of 25% rather unlikely is that Reich said that Yamna had allot more ANE than modern Europeans. Why should he say this if the ANE scores of Yamna were close to that of North Europeans? Does that make sense? :)

Since we know ANE in Yamna was stronger and got weaker while moving towards West and we know North Euros are halfway Yamna. The Avergae North Euro ANE, which is around 17% should be doubled.

So 16%*2 =34%

And the rest is ENF since Corded already clusters slightly Southwest of modern North Euros because those got additional Baltic Hunters like ancestry after. And Yamna is even slightly further Southeast of CW.

This looks much more like Angelas and my estimation of 20-25% WHG, 30% ANE and 45-50% ENF.

50 /2 = 25% ENF
~23*2= 46% WHG
~34/2= 18% ANE

Add 4% more to WHG and 3% more to ENF and you got the typical Lithuanian scores.

MOESAN
02-02-15, 00:59
[QUOTE=Goga;448868]Unlike Yamnaya Horizon people, ancient original Iranic tribes (from Leyla-Tepe) were neither Mongoloid nor WHG folks. Yamnaya had some WHG and were partly Mongoloid, while proto-Iranic folks lacked both of those components. Also ancient (proto-)Iranic languages had close ties with the Caucasian languages, and culturally/archeologically there were very much links with Near-Eastern (Mesopotamian) cultures...[/QUOTE

Where did you pick Yamnaya people were heavily 'mongoloid'??? are you not confusing with some remnants of the Altaï region? (and yet there were near there also stations almost without any 'mongoloid' components... by the way, WHG notion cannot be compared the same time as a 'mongoloid' notion -
and the theory you defend (with some good but not definitive arguments) of the origin of ancient Iranians speakers in or around the Zagros, you consider as certain, put you to emit suppositions about the ?HG absence in them... and also to consider Yamnaya could not have any link with these ancient Iranian speakers - I'm not as sure as you! I'm tempted to think Yamanya people were speaking an already satemized I-Ean language or a language on the way to satemization (But I'm not sure)

Alan
02-02-15, 01:20
Why are people still using ENF as a category? ENF are a "hybrid" population of near eastern farmers and SE hunter gatherers. There is already data out there that has separated the two different components of ENF.

I think you are confusing ENF with EEF. ENF is the Near Eastern with hunter&Gatherers admixture already been taken out.

Alan
02-02-15, 01:26
ENF does not mean what you think it means. And we were actually using EEF (early European farmers as a category - it's a mixture of hunter gatherers and ENF (early Near Eastern farmers). But there is no sample of ENF that I know of.

There is Eurogenes K8 did extract the WHG like portion (which was close to 1/5 of total EEF) out of EEF and called this ENF/Near Eastern.

Alan
02-02-15, 01:32
Yamnaya were not partly Mongoloid. For this reason I don't believe we will see N in their y dna.

The Yamna culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe is recorded for an enormous territory between the North-Western Pontic area and Trans-Uralia. Its sites are known here in the basin of the Emba and Tobol rivers, the Karaganda region and further eastward (Merpert 1974). The Yamna population generally belongs to the European race. It was tall (175.5cm), dolichocephalic, with broad faces of medium height. Among them there were, however, more robust elements with high and wide faces of the proto-Europoid type, and also more gracile individuals with narrow and high faces, probably reflecting contacts with the East Mediterranean type (Kurts 1984: 90).

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2006/05/anthropological-types-of-corded-ware.html

Sorry dude gave you a negative rep. while was trying to give you thumps up. Definitely agree Yamna=Mongoloid link is totally, absolutely ridiculous no place for debate there.

Goga
02-02-15, 02:40
Unlike Yamnaya Horizon people, ancient original Iranic tribes (from Leyla-Tepe) were neither Mongoloid nor WHG folks. Yamnaya had some WHG and were partly Mongoloid, while proto-Iranic folks lacked both of those components. Also ancient (proto-)Iranic languages had close ties with the Caucasian languages, and culturally/archeologically there were very much links with Near-Eastern (Mesopotamian) cultures...

Where did you pick Yamnaya people were heavily 'mongoloid'??? are you not confusing with some remnants of the Altaï region? (and yet there were near there also stations almost without any 'mongoloid' components... by the way, WHG notion cannot be compared the same time as a 'mongoloid' notion -
and the theory you defend (with some good but not definitive arguments) of the origin of ancient Iranians speakers in or around the Zagros, you consider as certain, put you to emit suppositions about the ?HG absence in them... and also to consider Yamnaya could not have any link with these ancient Iranian speakers - I'm not as sure as you! I'm tempted to think Yamanya people were speaking an already satemized I-Ean language or a language on the way to satemization (But I'm not sure)
Look at the Saami. Saami are the most aboriginal folks in Europe. I believe that the native Northern Europeans, before Indo-Europization by language, were already partly 'Mongoloid'. The most ancient haplogroup they found in Europe is C and C is one of the most popular haplogroups among the so called 'Mongoloid' people in East Asia. And N1c1 is also native to Saami. So, the so haplogroups that you can find in East Asia, also have been found in Europe. And they're very old and ancient. So that's why I tend to believe that native (Northern) Europeans were partly Mongoloid. WHG is native to Europe, so WHG has to be partly Mongoloid too. People who have some of WHG are therefore also partly 'Mongoloid'. If we assume that Yamnaya folks in North of Yamnaya Horizon had more WHG than Yamnaya folks south of it, than we can assume that they were more 'Mongoloid'.

Proto-Iranians had almost no WHG in them. There's no WHG in Central Asia among the East-Iranic speakers. And there's no WHG at all among the Indic people etc. But there's WHG in Yamnaya, that's why the latest scientific paper comes to the conclusion that proto-Iranians were NOT from Yamnaya. It's not my conclusion, but the conclusion of the scientists who from Cambridge who did the reseach.

People who lived in Yamnaya gave birth to Celto-Italic and Germanic etc. languages, but those who migrated into Yamnaya came from Maykop & Leyla-Tepe. Yamnaya was not proto-Satem. It it's possible that a group that migrated into the Yamnaya and gave birth to Balto-Slavic could be related to a group that stayed around the Mayko & Leyla-Tepe that gave birth to proto-Iranic languages, or even Graeco-Aryan. There're also very close links between ancient Iranic and ancient Greek, think about Graeco-Aryan family: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan . So, satemization could occure in the Maykop Horizon. Those people who NEVER migrated into Yamnaya, gave birth to Graeco-Anatolian (like Hittites, Armenian etc. or maybe even so called Graeco-Aryan), Tocharian, Indic and Iranic languages...

Aberdeen
02-02-15, 03:07
There is Eurogenes K8 did extract the WHG like portion (which was close to 1/5 of total EEF) out of EEF and called this ENF/Near Eastern.

I know, but a calculation is not the same as an actual set of bones that can be studied, such as Motala 12 or MA1 from Mal'ta. If someone ever finds those early Near Eastern Farmers who were the source for the majority of DNA that went into creating the EEF samples found in Europe, their DNA will probably resemble the theoretical results but at point nobody has found the bones yet, and those people don't exist anymore because of changes to Near Eastern populations. So at this point those ancient Near Eastern farmers are still theoretical, even though they must have actually existed at one time.

JS Bach
02-02-15, 05:06
The most ancient haplogroup they found in Europe is C and C is one of the most popular haplogroups among the so called 'Mongoloid' people in East Asia.

Most of the 4,000-year-old, fair-haired, caucasoid mummies found in the Tarim Basin in NorthWestern China belonged to mtdna C4: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Tarim_mummies I think C is both Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

Fire Haired14
02-02-15, 05:52
Most of the 4,000-year-old, fair-haired, caucasoid mummies found in the Tarim Basin in NorthWestern China belonged to mtdna C4: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Tarim_mummies I think C is both Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

I haven't found any legit academic research on the tarim mummies, mostly bloggers(often raciest) who say they were blonde hair blue eye gods. On Jean Manco's site it says all had black and brown hair. I want to learn who these people really were. without anti-east Asian propaganda and race stuff. I heard on Eurogenes Blog all their R1a was negative for Z93, which is interesting. I tend to think they were IE immigrants from the steppe and closely related to Samara Yamna with significant east Asian ancestry.

Aberdeen
02-02-15, 06:05
They should test late natufian skulls for the first Near Eastern Farmers.

They do seem like the most logical candidates. But, as we all know, the most logical answer isn't always the right one. Still, it would be interesting to see what the results of such tests would be.

Drax
02-02-15, 17:02
I haven't found any legit academic research on the tarim mummies, mostly bloggers(often raciest) who say they were blonde hair blue eye gods. On Jean Manco's site it says all had black and brown hair. I want to learn who these people really were. without anti-east Asian propaganda and race stuff. I heard on Eurogenes Blog all their R1a was negative for Z93, which is interesting. I tend to think they were IE immigrants from the steppe and closely related to Samara Yamna with significant east Asian ancestry.

There are lot of Tarim mummies with light hairs (blond, redhead, light brown) for example Cherchen man, the Uruqmi woman, the Loulan beauty, the Hami mummy etc...lot of pictures around the net can be found with lot of Tarim mummies with light or blond hairs.

And no, there are not just blogger (racist or not), Victor Mair himself describe them with light hairs (but also various historical accounts), so it's very official.

Angela
02-02-15, 17:32
Angela, It can't be random with theoretical Yamna that posters at Eurogenes came to the same conclusion as Reich. We're not far off. It's not you guys being critcal I don't like, it's that you act as if everything but what I'm saying is true. It seems biased.

>Not all north Euros are the same. Northeast are surely more than 50% Yamna-like, probably 60-70% for some. 50% is probably a low-bound estimate for someone at the southern end of north European genetics like Germans.

>Yamna+EEF=xCWC or north Euros. Yamna+EEF+SHG/BHG=CWC and north Euros. You've forgotten about hunter gatherer admixture. Much of east Europe was hunter gatherer country when IEs arrived. This is why north Euros have as much WHG as Gok2 and Basque, but significantly less ENF.

>Corded ware does cluster in north-central Europe on PCAs, this is what Laz said.

>There appears to have been mostly genetic stagnation in north Europe starting with Corded ware samples, to 3,000YBP samples, to present-day samples. Corded ware will probably cluster around east Europe or a little east of them.

> Mathematically it is impossible for Mesolithic Scandinavians and modern west Asians to be the main source of ANE in Europe.

>We know from now over a dozen genomes from pre-bronze age west Europe that everyone was ENF+WHG, and were mostly something in-between Stuttgart and Gok2. We also have a pretty good idea what Samara Yamna was based on leaks. So ENF/WHG+Yamna+x=Euros.X fits as being something in-between Loschbour and EHG(65 WHG, 35 ANE).


I think you're assuming that I disagree with the general proposition that Yamnaya people changed the genomes in Europe, when actually I find the argument pretty convincing. What I object to is this certainty as to specific percentages when it is all based on constructs instead of, as with Lazaridis et al, actual genomes of ancient people.

In addition, it's not as if the predictions have been consistent. These numbers seem to change with every new run. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Nor does it inspire confidence when I read things like, well, we can't have population x have y percentage of z component, because then that would move Corded Ware out of north central Europe. It might ultimately prove that it can cluster there, but these kinds of comments lead to doubts about the process.

Now we have this new leak about northern Europeans being approximately 50% Yamnaya. To repeat, if Corded Ware was 75% Yamnaya like, and northern Europeans are 50% Yamnaya like, they can't cluster together. In your own post above, you say that Corded Ware clusters in north Central Europe, and then in the next breath you say they will cluster east of eastern Europe. Both things cannot be true at the same time. Of course, it would be helpful to know how the authors of the paper are defining "northern" Europe. That's why it's necessary to wait for the paper. Frankly, I don't understand why all these simulations are being done in the first place, when the paper is about to be published.

There is also the leak about Yamnaya being able to be fit as 66% of a population "related to" Yamnaya. If that is the case, then perhaps modern northern Europeans might perhaps be fit as 50% of this "related" Indo-Europeanized (perhaps more northern forest steppe) group rather than Yamnaya Indo-European group. What if, for example, this related group moved into northern Europe and then was Indo-Europeanized later? I don't want to get into the particulars of the archaeology here, but early Corded does not have many of the "signatures" of the Indo-European package.

Also, I don't see how there can have been genetic stagnation in north Europe starting with Corded Ware to the present day when Reich specifically says that the genomes exhibited this 75% Yamnaya signature for 1500 years and then changed to the more modern 50% signature. What caused the change is a separate issue.

As to the make up of the actual Yamnaya Indo-Europeans, if 50% of them was "Armenian like", then whatever was not ANE in these ancient Armenian like people was early Near Eastern farmer. So, perhaps anywhere from 40-50% is feasible. Until we get an Early Near Eastern farmer sample, however, this is all highly speculative. In addition, of course, northern Europeans would have "ENF" from the pre-Yamnaya inhabitants.

Aaron1981
02-02-15, 17:39
LMAO, the only person here in denial is you! First you came up with the Scythians who were actually VERY LATE East Iranians and originally from SouthCentral Asia. Scythians are not a good example to search for the origins of the Iranic people. Scythians were just a very small part of a greater Iranic race. Scythians were one of the very few who expanded. 99.99% of all Iranic tribes have never been in the Steppes nor around the Yamanya Horizon. Iranian (Aryan) race has nothing to do with Yamnaya. There's 0 evidence that Iranians came from Yamnaya. Some believe they came from BMAC, and some believe they came from an area between Northern Zagros mountains and Leyla-Tepe. I believe that they came from West Asia due to their language and culture similarities with other West Asian peoples. Just STOP linking yourself with the ancient Iranian. It's becoming ridiculous! You have nothing to do with the ancient Iranic at all. You don’t even speak our language for God sake. You don't speak Iranic, you don't have an Iranic culture, brother, you're not Iranic (Aryan), and stop making yourself ridiculous...

..And you're not Dutch, and never will be.

Fire Haired14
02-02-15, 18:22
Angela, you're getting stuck on name terms. Remember not all north Euros are the same. Laz mentioned in a leak earlier some north Euros have more Yamna than others. Balts are probably over 60% Yamna. If Corded ware clusters around Balts or just south or east of them, that'll be very close to all north-central Europeans. Laz said himself Corded ware clusters with north-central Euros. So what's the issue? You're disagreeing with the people who actually have CWC DNA.

Fire Haired14
02-02-15, 18:30
Angela, the abstract never said central Europeans remained 75% Yamna up until 3,000YBP. All they said is Yamna ancestry remained in all the samples after Corded ware, up to 3,000YBP, and as we know is obviously still there today. The corded ware samples he had had arrived in central Europe from the steppe only several hundred years before, they were new arrivals, so of course they had more Yamna than anyone nowadays.

With ANE K8 Davidski created a PCA of west Eurasia, which is nearly identical to a PCA based on genotype. What this means is ENF, WHG, and ANE in ANE K8 are very real ancestral components which make up almost all the ancestry of present-day west Eurasians. Also, why did I come up with the same 50% figure as Laz, if ANE K8 was far off? ANE K8 is the best we have. I'm willing to admit it isn't good enough, but that doubt doesn't stop me from trying.

Sile
02-02-15, 18:41
The system proposed is completly wrong when they have to eliminate central europeans and add them into northern european numbers to make it work. This is the proposal and its wrong.........

Fire Haired14
02-02-15, 19:26
The system proposed is completly wrong when they have to eliminate central europeans and add them into northern european numbers to make it work. This is the proposal and its wrong.........

No one is hooked up on those terms. Laz says north Euros have about 15% ANE, even though Balts have close to 20% and central euros have around just over 10%. If most north-central Euros have a certain number, they'll say they all do.

Sile
02-02-15, 19:28
No one is hooked up on those terms. Laz says north Euros have about 15% ANE, even though Balts have close to 20% and central euros have around just over 10%. If most north-central Euros have a certain number, they'll say they all do.

You better ask the people ( you will be surprised) , you will find that they need to mix central and north to make their scenario work