PDA

View Full Version : Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe



Pages : [1] 2 3

motzart
11-02-15, 04:39
5000 B.C. R1b1 in Spain. I think this is rewriting everything. All of the Yamnaya R1b.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

Angela
11-02-15, 04:53
So, Yamnaya is indeed R1b and R1a is probably forest steppe. No wonder they waffled and said that Corded Ware was 75% of a population "related" to Yamnaya. Not only that, but Yamnaya is R1b M-269. The Samara hunter gatherer is earlier R1b. That's more of a surprise.

What's really interesting is that at the same time they have found an R1b1 among early Neolithic samples from Spain. If M-269 is on the steppe then is "modern" European R1b Yamnaya derived and the R1b1 from Spain was a dead end?

Did R1b really have that big a range, or did the earliest clades just straddle the whole Caucasus area, and so some of it got picked up in the Neolithic migrations?

A related question is what's the source of the "Near Eastern" ancestry?

I better get back to reading. Just wanted to give everybody a head's up, although Motzart beat me to it.

motzart
11-02-15, 05:09
The R1b in the Yamnaya is all Z2103, not ancestral to Western European R1b. That means R1b spread into Europe PRIOR the existence of the Yamnaya. So many people were right and yet so wrong, credit to Maciamo for getting the routes and the geography right, but he was so far off on the dates.

Fire Haired14
11-02-15, 05:29
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint) (http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fbiorxiv.org%2Fcontent%2Fearly%2 F2015%2F02%2F10%2F013433&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF1DMa-JFU6E_B2JQpl3U1Cv-4xlg)

I don't know people are discussing this already on other threads, but whatever I think it's start to start a thread dedicated to it. I'v skimmed through it and I can already see there are a lot of surprising Y DNA. Such as R1b1 from Neolithic Spain, R*(xdeep R1b and R1a clades) from Neolithic Germany, all Mesolithic Russians had R1a and R1b, all Y DNA from Yamna is R1b-L23(mostly Z2103 not western L51), derived I2a1b clades all over Neolithic Europe, and T1a from Neolithic Europe.

I have not looked at the Y SNP calls of samples yet. It appears the origin of R1b-L11 and R1a-Z282 the most popular paternal lineages in Europe today, are begging to be resolved with ancient Y DNA.

I like seeing my own lineage and the lineage of over 50% of modern west Europeans R1b-P312 in Bell Beaker Germany 4,5000YBP.

A big congrats to Maciamo and others for predicting R1b-M269 existed in Yamna some 5-10 years ago. It must feel good to finally be confirmed by ancient Y DNA, after debating for so long.

Sile
11-02-15, 05:58
I always wondered why ....If R1a and R1b are the same age , why is western european heavily R1b and eastern europe R1a .........clearly R1b was settling europe and r1a was lollying around in the steppe.

what about T1a in Karsdorf...........now that a turnup

motzart
11-02-15, 06:11
As an I2a1 individual I think its high time you all went back to Siberia. You've quite overstayed your welcome.

LeBrok
11-02-15, 07:15
Thanks, looks like we are going to have some fun now. I read it tomorrow.

Fire Haired14
11-02-15, 09:22
Here are all the Y DNA results from the study organized.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yZT6gFhWfWoOPAcmQe6edjmA-VM6F4BI4ezn0kOU91Q/edit

R1b1* in Mesolithic Karelia and Neolithic Spain, R1a1* in Mesolithic Samara, and R in Neolithic Germany. Pretty amazing.

LeBrok
11-02-15, 09:23
I couldn't resist, so I stayed longer to check the paper. Massive amount of information to consume, I must say. Guys were working hard, but I'm a little disappointed I must say. I was afraid that all the Yamnaya samples might be from one place, and I was a prophet unfortunately. All sample are from Samara region which is located North of Caspian Sea. It is pretty much North East corner of Yamnaya horizon. This doesn't help to have a gemeral picture of Yamnaya genetics. Just a little sliver of a vast culture.
My next complaint is about not testing Neolithic farmer population south of Yamnaya. We know these farmers had direct and meaningful genetic effect on Yamnaya, so it baffles me why there is not even one sample from Cucuteni and Varna, or South of Caucasus?
I hope that this paper will be more interesting that the first impression. I'm going to bed.
See you tomorrow.

Fire Haired14
11-02-15, 09:25
Thanks, looks like we are going to have some fun now. I read it tomorrow.

It looks like me and you being Euro R1bs trace our paternal lineage to the bronze age Russian steppe. Something like 40% of Europeans, 20% of west Asians, and 30% of Indians probably trace their father line back to the bronze age Russian steppe. They're the most successful fathers in history.

epoch
11-02-15, 10:29
The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 all WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can proof is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf


EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.

Maleth
11-02-15, 11:30
They're the most successful fathers in history.

:thinking:I wonder if the mothers have anything to do with it? procreating can be fun, the hard work comes later probably assigned to the female species in many different forms

Maciamo
11-02-15, 11:44
5000 B.C. R1b1 in Spain. I think this is rewriting everything. All of the Yamnaya R1b.


R1b1* could either be R1b-P25 or R1b-V88. Both are unrelated to Yamnaya. It was tested for V35 and V69, but not for V88.

If it is R1b-P25 then it would certainly be a remnant of the Mesolithic population. Nowadays R1b-P25 makes up about 1% of the male lineages in western Europe.

If it is R1b-V88, it would have come from North African Neolithic cattle herders, as I explained many times on the forum and in my Genetic history of Iberia (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/spain_portugal_dna.shtml#stone_age).

Maciamo
11-02-15, 12:11
The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 all WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can proof is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf


EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.

Keep in mind that only a few individuals were tested and they may not be representative of the whole population of a region at the time. Actually if Yamna people moved to central Europe, chances are that many of them remained ethnically separate from the conquered population, a bit like the Indo-Aryans did in India with the caste system. After all both were Bronze Age Indo-Europeans with a similar language and religion, so they must have also shared similar practices with conquered populations. This means that R1b or R1a "upper castes" from the Corded Ware or Unetice may have been pure Yamna. It's only after several millennia of intermixing with indigenous populations that the modern European admixtures appeared. Apparently the elite remained ethnically distinct in central Europe until the Urnfield period (1300-1200 BCE), when some sort of major cultural upheaval took place (e.g. IE funerary practices introduced cremation for the first time).

Maciamo
11-02-15, 12:15
I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a T1a individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).

The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian R1b-Z2103 (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.

Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.



Sample

Y-haplogroup

Mt-haplogroup

Location



I0370
R1b-Z2103
H13a1a1
Ishkinovka, Orenburg


I0429
R1b-Z2103
T2c1a2
Lopatino, Samara


I0438
R1b-Z2103
U5a1a1
Luzhki, Samara


I0439
R1b-P297
U5a1a1
Lopatino, Samara


I0443
R1b-L23
W3a1a
Lopatino, Samara


I0444
R1b-Z2103
H6a1b
Kutuluk, Samara




Female Yamna samples belonged to H2b, K1b2a, U4a1 and W6c.

I had specifically associated H6, U4a1, U5a1a1, W3 and W6 as being of Indo-European origin.

Fire Haired14
11-02-15, 12:45
Anyone notice Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly where I and others at Eurogenes expeted? Also, notice WHG is needed to explain modern Europeans not Yamna+EEF, which is also what we have been saying for months.

epoch
11-02-15, 12:56
Keep in mind that only a few individuals were tested and they may not be representative of the whole population of a region at the time. Actually if Yamna people moved to central Europe, chances are that many of them remained ethnically separate from the conquered population, a bit like the Indo-Aryans did in India with the caste system. After all both were Bronze Age Indo-Europeans with a similar language and religion, so they must have also shared similar practices with conquered populations. This means that R1b or R1a "upper castes" from the Corded Ware or Unetice may have been pure Yamna. It's only after several millennia of intermixing with indigenous populations that the modern European admixtures appeared. Apparently the elite remained ethnically distinct in central Europe until the Urnfield period (1300-1200 BCE), when some sort of major cultural upheaval took place (e.g. IE funerary practices introduced cremation for the first time).

But that's not the issue I refer to. The issue is that *current day*, modern, Europeans show *no WHG at all* in K=20, when WHG become a separate instance (Grey). All modern examples only show dark blue, which is a large part of Yamnaya and half of EHG. I simply don't get that and it defies what the article said, that European are half EEF/WHG mix combined with half Yamnaya.

Where is my grey in the Basques, the English and ze Germans?

Maciamo
11-02-15, 13:08
Anyone notice Yamna, Corded ware, Bell Beaker, and Unetice are clustering on PCAs exactly where I and others at Eurogenes expeted? Also, notice WHG is needed to explain modern Europeans not Yamna+EEF, which is also what we have been saying for months.

Did you predict that Yamna and Corded Ware would cluster closest to the Mordovians ? It makes sense since the Mordovians have one of the highest incidence of red hair and I always sustained that genes of red hair were brought by R1b people (and blond hair by R1a people).

Unetice clusters especially well with Ukrainians, Hungarians and Czechs. That's the supposed geographic route followed by R1b Yamna tribes from Ukraine to central Europe.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 13:25
But that's not the issue I refer to. The issue is that *current day*, modern, Europeans show *no WHG at all* in K=20, when WHG become a separate instance (Grey). All modern examples only show dark blue, which is a large part of Yamnaya and half of EHG. I simply don't get that and it defies what the article said, that European are half EEF/WHG mix combined with half Yamnaya.

Where is my grey in the Basques, the English and ze Germans?

Unless there is a mistake in the K=20 data, it means that all the WHG (like in Motala and La Brana) has now become extinct in modern Europeans (who are a mix of Yamna and EEF).

What is odd is that from K=16 to K=19 Yamna looks half EHG (deep blue) and half Caucasian-Gedrosian (greyish green), but in K=20 Yamna suddenly becomes 80% EHG (sometimes with some WHG) and only 20% Caucasian-Gedrosian.

Aberdeen
11-02-15, 13:33
These are very strange results. I certainly wasn't expecting the Samara results to be all R1b. And yet they seem to be the wrong subclade to be ancestral to most of the R1b in western Europe. Some very strange conclusions by the authors, I would say.

epoch
11-02-15, 14:13
Unless there is a mistake in the K=20 data, it means that all the WHG (like in Motala and La Brana) has now become extinct in modern Europeans (who are a mix of Yamna and EEF).

Exactly. However, all cultures *following* Corded Ware do show WHG admixture. The article even clearly states that a resurge happened. Also it states that modern Europeans could be explained as half Neolithic with a WHG resurge and half Yamnaya. So did that part of WHG go extinct in the Bronze or Iron age?

Even stranger is the fact that Swedish HG show no affinity *at all* to EHG nor to American Indians. However, we know some had quite some ANE admixture. But Loschbourg actually *does* have a tad EHG as well as a tad EEF. The latter would probably mean that a part of EEF actually is connected to Loschbourg. Let's assume that WHG contributed locally to the newly arrived farmers that would make sense. Stuttgart is far closer to Luxembourg than to North Spain or Sweden. It could even explain how Stuttgart got a part EHG. But where did the Caucasus part of Stuttgart come from?

There is a blogpost at Fennoscandia where it's explained that La Brana actually left quite some traces to Basques and Sardianians. Why doesn't that show up in K=20 here?

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2014/03/la-brana-1-closest-to-basque-sardinians.html


What is odd is that from K=16 to K=19 Yamna looks half EHG (deep blue) and half Caucasian-Gedrosian (greyish green), but in K=20 Yamna suddenly becomes 80% EHG (sometimes with some WHG) and only 20% Caucasian-Gedrosian.

Yes, a thing that also happens in the ADMIXTURE runs of the first Lazardis paper. That's why I wonder if I really understand how this works.

Aberdeen
11-02-15, 15:00
If we look at how much Y DNA there is in eastern and central Europe that isn't R1a or R1b, and think about the survival of non-IE languages into the historic period, the idea of such massive population replacement by Indo-Europeans doesn't make sense to me. And if we're talking about massive migrations out of the steppe, why is R1b so much more prevalent in western Europe than in eastern Europe, and why different subclades than found at Samara.

I think the authors of this paper have proven two things; that R1b had a very wide spread distribution across Europe more than 7000 years ago and that it's possible to reach some really erroneous conclusions using PCA charts.

Still not one Iberian BB Y DNA result.

Goga
11-02-15, 15:11
Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!

Tone
11-02-15, 15:22
Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.

Goga
11-02-15, 15:27
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.No, they found R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya, and R1b-Z2103 is native to Anatolia area (very common among Armenians and West Iranic people)

Robert6
11-02-15, 15:34
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.
The Hunter R1b1a in Samara region show that Yamna was Kurganized(Indo-Europeanized) culture,
Leila-Tepe had Kurgans before the Yamna.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 15:59
No, they found R1b-Z2103 in Yamnaya, and R1b-Z2103 is native to Anatolia area (very common among Armenians and West Iranic people)

No, R1b-Z2103 is found in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans today, but that doesn't mean it appeared there. Not anymore than R1b-L51 appeared in Western Europe.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 16:02
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.

It is possible that R1b-P297 was found all around the Caspian Sea in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, both north and south of the Caucasus.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 16:05
Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!

R1a-Z93 arose in the Abashevo culture immediately north of Yamna, which spread east and evolved into the Sintashta culture, which in turn expanded to Central Asia with the Andronovo culture. The Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't solely descended from Yamna, but also from the R1a people of the forest-steppe (Corded Ware + Abashevo). Or are you denying that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian people are Indo-Europeans ?

Goga
11-02-15, 16:17
No, R1b-Z2103 is found in Anatolia, Greece and the Balkans today, but that doesn't mean it appeared there. Not anymore than R1b-L51 appeared in Western Europe.Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!

Goga
11-02-15, 16:17
It is possible that R1b-P297 was found all around the Caspian Sea in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, both north and south of the Caucasus.But it is not really relevant here. If it's relevant that you folks are measuring with double standards. We can also say that the original R1a is from West Asia, since R1a-M420, oldest clades have been found in West Asia and even ancestral clades to R1a-M17 have been found in West Asia. Maciamo, you telling me all the time that only the RECENT sublaced of R1a* are relevant to Indo-European question. Same can be said about R1b*. We have even got an African R1b. What is relevant is the modern clades of R1b. And now we have found direct links and evidences between Anatolia (Maykop) and Yamnaya. There is an Anatolian R1b in Yamnaya, there's an Anatolian auDNA (Caucaso-Gedrosian) in Yamnaya. What do we have need more? Case solved!

Goga
11-02-15, 16:30
R1a-Z93 arose in the Abashevo culture immediately north of Yamna, which spread east and evolved into the Sintashta culture, which in turn expanded to Central Asia with the Andronovo culture. The Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't solely descended from Yamna, but also from the R1a people of the forest-steppe (Corded Ware + Abashevo). Or are you denying that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian people are Indo-Europeans ?There's no evidence at ALL that R1a-Z93 arose in Abashevo. It can be from BMAC or the Iranian Plateau (area between Zagros and BMAC). Balto-Slavic people are NOT the same as Iranic people. True, that Balto-Slaic, Indic and Iranic languages are Satem, but there's no proof that they share direct common ancestors. 1) Iranic people belong to a very different R1a subclade which is absent in Europe. Balto-Slavic people are Z280, while Iranic people are Z93. People found acentral clades of Z93 in West Asia and NOT in Europe. 2) (West) Iranic people live not far from the Armenian people and also in a R1b-Z2103 rich region, maybe Iranic people picked up their language from R1b-Z2103 folks, ha ? Maybe R1b-Z2103 folks picked Indo-European language from R1a-S224 just south of the Caspian Sea.

Alan
11-02-15, 16:42
Seems like most R1b is Z2103 after all. This is the Western Asian variant. But there was also a l25 (modern European variant).
One R1a found in the forrest zone.
But still thats not enough data to take any conclusions because it is said that all the R1b were from one single Samarra valley.


One thing however is true. Maciamo was right with his theory aft all

If we look at the Neolithic m343 in Spain, we can come to the conclusion that R1b reached Europe with a dual source.
First from North Mesopotamia to Maykop and from Maykopt to the Steppes. A second one directly from Mesopotamia to Spain?
This fits Maciamos theory that R1b was in the southern Steppe region of Yamna while R1a more in the Forrest Region.


The paper says this is the proof that some of the Indo European languages reached Europe through Yamna. What makes me wonder if they are not able to explain the Indo European expansion as a whole with the Yamna expansion. Also it says the Anatolian Neolithic expansion lost strongly on weight ( I was never a fan of this theory anyways) but the possibility of the pastrolasit origin from North Mesopotamia/North West Iran and South Caucasus has risen once again.

So the question isn't if Yamna was Indo European (They were without a doubt), but if it's linguistic forefather came with their pastoralist ancestors or not.

Alan
11-02-15, 16:51
I always wondered why ....If R1a and R1b are the same age , why is western european heavily R1b and eastern europe R1a .........clearly R1b was settling europe and r1a was lollying around in the steppe.

what about T1a in Karsdorf...........now that a turnup


And even more interesting that this T1a was allmost as much Yamna like as CW is.

Makes me wonder if this was not a very early Yamna dude who has reached mainland Europe before the other.

Alan
11-02-15, 16:55
The ADMIXTURE graph is very odd. Maybe I don't understand well how ADMIXTURE works but at K=20 all WHG seems to disappear from current day European population and looks like being replaced by Yamnaya/EHG ancestry. That, we can proof is wrong. You see, all LN cultures that followed Corded Ware, in other words that followed the Yamnaya invasion, had substantial amount of the WHG (it's the grey part, which make up 100% of Swedish HG and also La Brana). So how could part not pop up in current day Europeans?

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf


EDIT: Furthermore, Stuttgart is very odd in K=20. She has mostly EHG/Yamnaya admixture and a tad Caucasian.


Wait what? When I look at the graphs. groups such as the Lithuanians with ~50% have suddenly only ~25% WHG while the rest gets eaten up by Yamna.

Doesn't seem to me so odd at all.

Silesian
11-02-15, 16:55
Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!
Goga R1b Z2103 has different branches CTS 7822 some not found around Kurdish region unlike L584 and L277 and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1b
http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213

http://i61.tinypic.com/10mkmxv.png[/QUOTE]

Goga
11-02-15, 17:10
Goga R1b Z2103 has different branches CTS 7822 some not found around Kurdish region unlike L584 and L277 and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1b
http://www.nature.com/news/americas-natives-have-european-roots-1.14213

http://i61.tinypic.com/10mkmxv.pngI think it is from Azerbaijan (NorthWest Iran) where Leyla-Tepe is located. R1b-Z2103 could enter the Balkans through Greece from Western Turkey. My friend, I never said that R1b-Z2103 is from Kurdish region, I think it's from south of the Caspian Sea, Iranian Azerbaijan region...

Alan
11-02-15, 17:14
From the data we have it appears like Yamna was

closest to

1. Mordovians
2. Lezgins

Goga
11-02-15, 17:19
and also remember earliest sample of basal R** is Malta somewhere in North are ancestors come from R1a R1bYeah, R* has somewhere from the same region where also Q* is evolved, homeland of Y-DNA hg. P. But this happened a long, long time ago..

Alan
11-02-15, 17:20
Goga there was a R1a among the Yamna in the forrest zone.

Goga
11-02-15, 17:26
From the data we have it appears like Yamna was

closest to

1. Mordovians
2. Lezgins/Russians
Lezgins are not ethnic Russians. Lezgians are North Caucasian people and live close to Azerbaijan (Caspian Sea), they are related to Adygea, Chechens, Dagestanians, Circassians etc. Capital of the Republic of Adygea is called Maykop !!!

Goga
11-02-15, 17:30
Goga there was a R1a among the Yamna in the forrest zone.Yes, why not? But the question is, was it ancestral to R1a-Z93? There are many different R1a, like there're many different R1b. Before Makop/Yamnaya forest zone was NEVER Indo-European...

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 17:38
So, Yamnaya is indeed R1b and R1a is probably forest steppe. No wonder they waffled and said that Corded Ware was 75% of a population "related" to Yamnaya. Not only that, but Yamnaya is R1b M-269. The Samara hunter gatherer is earlier R1b. That's more of a surprise.

What's really interesting is that at the same time they have found an R1b1 among early Neolithic samples from Spain. If M-269 is on the steppe then is "modern" European R1b Yamnaya derived and the R1b1 from Spain was a dead end?

Did R1b really have that big a range, or did the earliest clades just straddle the whole Caucasus area, and so some of it got picked up in the Neolithic migrations?

A related question is what's the source of the "Near Eastern" ancestry?

I better get back to reading. Just wanted to give everybody a head's up, although Motzart beat me to it.

I think part of the R1b story is related to copper miners / smiths so they may have had a much larger range as minority artisans along trade routes than they had as full populations.

In which case if there was any dramatic demographic impact along the Atlantic coast it may have been due to that region's relative under population at the time.

(Just one of my theories but personally I wonder if part of what we think of as "near eastern" actually comes from central Asia i.e. I wonder if there was a metal age demographic transition there as well.)

epoch
11-02-15, 17:55
Wait what? When I look at the graphs. groups such as the Lithuanians with ~50% have suddenly only ~25% WHG while the rest gets eaten up by Yamna.

Doesn't seem to me so odd at all.

But it doesn't seem to be eaten up by Yamna. It is clearly visible in Bell Beaker and other post Corded Ware cultures. Hell, it is even visible in Yamna itself!

And the 25% you see there at the Lithuanians is EEF, which is orange, not WHG, which is grey.

EDIT: To be fair, if you zoom in, there is a tiny bit among two Lithuanians and one Ukranian and quite some in one single Unkranian sample.

Alan
11-02-15, 18:01
But it doesn't seem to be eaten up by Yamna. It is clearly visible in Bell Beaker and other post Corded Ware cultures. Hell, it is even visible in Yamna itself!

And the 25% you see there at the Lithuanians is EEF, which is orange, not WHG, which is grey.


I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 18:04
A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
EDIT:
I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.

Alan
11-02-15, 18:05
Acoording to the table on page 26, Yamnaya are closest to:

1-Mordovian 0.018
2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
4-Norwegian/English 0.021
5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
6- Bulgarian 0.023
7- Greek/Turkish 0.026
8-Spanish 0.027
9- Sindhi/Bergamo 0.028
10- Armenian/Sicilian 0.030
11- Basque 0.034

Unfortunately no other North Caucasians on the list for comparison. Some one wrote this somewhere else.

Based on the data we have from West Eurasia K8, I think it would be fair to say that Iranians and Kurds would be placed between Lezgians and Turks.

Alan
11-02-15, 18:09
A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
EDIT:
I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.

Keep in mind the samples are very regional.(actually from the same valley) We can be sure to find allot of different Haplogroups in other regions and with rising numbers of samples R1a might even take the lead.

epoch
11-02-15, 18:10
I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. WHG in step 20 of the ADMIXTURE-run add a WHG component, possibly defined by Moto;a, Swedish HG's and la Brana: All of them are 100% grey. A Hungarian HG too. However, if you look at the ADMIXTURE run some more you'll find that Stuttgart has EHG and Caucasian, but hardly any WHG. And Loschbourg, which is found in between Sweden
and Spain all of a sudden has an EHG component.

This is strange, isn't it?

EDIT: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/02/10/013433.DC1/013433-1.pdf

bicicleur
11-02-15, 18:12
I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a T1a individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).

The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian R1b-Z2103 (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.

Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.



Sample

Y-haplogroup

Mt-haplogroup

Location



I0370
R1b-Z2103
H13a1a1
Ishkinovka, Orenburg


I0429
R1b-Z2103
T2c1a2
Lopatino, Samara


I0438
R1b-Z2103
U5a1a1
Luzhki, Samara


I0439
R1b-P297
U5a1a1
Lopatino, Samara


I0443
R1b-L23
W3a1a
Lopatino, Samara


I0444
R1b-Z2103
H6a1b
Kutuluk, Samara




Female Yamna samples belonged to H2b, K1b2a, U4a1 and W6c.

I had specifically associated H6, U4a1, U5a1a1, W3 and W6 as being of Indo-European origin.

the R1b-P297 could be Z2103 as well, he tested L51-

all 8 are 3300-2600 BC, long after the split of the Anatolian branch

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 18:16
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't R1B in the Mesolithic Samara HG disprove the theory of an Armenian homeland for IE? The Yamnaya have the Ydna of hunter gatherers and it seems they invaded the Armenian highlands and not the other way around? I don't profess to know anything. Just asking questions.


I don't think it disproves it exactly although maybe nudges it a bit.

Given the lowered sea levels I assume there was a lot of wetlands around both the Black and Caspian seas which could have led to large HG populations and a lot of contact across the water so initially the people living in those wetlands around the Black Sea (if that is correct) might have originally been one big population with the northern, steppe half developing into a separate PIE later.

Alan
11-02-15, 18:19
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. WHG in step 20 of the ADMIXTURE-run add a WHG component, possibly defined by Moto;a, Swedish HG's and la Brana: All of them are 100% grey. A Hungarian HG too. However, if you look at the ADMIXTURE run some more you'll find that Stuttgart has EHG and Caucasian, but hardly any WHG. And Loschbourg, which is found in between Sweden
and Spain all of a sudden has an EHG component.

This is strange, isn't it?

reminds of the Thracian samples which some of them were 50% Caucasus Gedrosia like while some other 50% North European like.

Since ANE and WHG have ultimately one source and are close relatives. What if these genes which appear in some Ks as Caucasus_Gedrosia (ANE) like and in some others WHG like is the proof that these genes are close to the source of both WHG and ANE?

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 18:21
A very interesting folk belief in Romania is that the blacksmiths were mostly red-haired people.
If I do remember right,R1B was associated with bringing the metal working in Europe and is pretty likely they also brought red hair genes in Europe.
Maybe there were more waves of migrations from the steppes and R1B bearers,which came later than R1A brought a more advanced technology,like metal working.
And they conquered whole West Europe,including Italy.
You see a very strange thing in Italy, Italy has R1B as dominant paternal line,but in Sardinia,some I2 branch is the dominant branch.
So that place,being a more isolated place,kept from old I2 lines.
EDIT:
I doubt R1B people were carrying hunter gatherer admixture.
Their very advanced technical skills gave them much better possibilities to earn their living,than gathering or hunting.
Think they were making trade,raising cattle,practicing agriculture,raiding other people to earn their living.


Very interesting.

edit:

I wonder if there was a sequence of source regions over time

1st) regions that developed agriculture (or just pastoralism)

2nd) regions that had copper deposits

3rd) regions with arsenic-copper or copper & tin

4th) regions with iron deposits

so there was an ebb or flow as the source regions switched over time

epoch
11-02-15, 18:27
@Alan

According to your graph Benzingerode should have *no* WHG admixture. However, according to ADMIXTURE it should.

Sile
11-02-15, 18:31
I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a T1a individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).

The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian R1b-Z2103 (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.

Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.



Sample

Y-haplogroup

Mt-haplogroup

Location



I0370
R1b-Z2103
H13a1a1
Ishkinovka, Orenburg


I0429
R1b-Z2103
T2c1a2
Lopatino, Samara


I0438
R1b-Z2103
U5a1a1
Luzhki, Samara


I0439
R1b-P297
U5a1a1
Lopatino, Samara


I0443
R1b-L23
W3a1a
Lopatino, Samara


I0444
R1b-Z2103
H6a1b
Kutuluk, Samara




Female Yamna samples belonged to H2b, K1b2a, U4a1 and W6c.

I had specifically associated H6, U4a1, U5a1a1, W3 and W6 as being of Indo-European origin.

whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 18:32
This thread is very interesting but what I do not understand is why R1B is at such high rates in British Isles and Western Europe ,while is at lower rates in South Italy,in Balkans,in Eastern Europe.
And if you look,is clear that even Vikings were bearing R1B,if you take Scandinavia,South Sweden,South Norway,Denmark,Iceland all have a significant percentage of R1B,but as you move to Finland,the percentage of R1B suddenly decrease.
And in the areas that Vikings raided,is hard to tell the R1B brought by them,since people bearing same R1B were already present,but that does not mean Vikings did not brought R1B also.

Alan
11-02-15, 18:34
@Alan

According to your graph Benzingerode should have *no* WHG admixture. However, according to ADMIXTURE it should.


Thats why I said some of the WHG gets probably eaten up by Yamna. Most likely explanation is, that their WHG was brought to them via Yamna. I am also very convinced that 1/3of the ENF geats eaten up by Yamna. I correct my former figures of Yamna to 40/35/25 ENF/ANE/WHG.

But something else. Hasn't anyone of you realized that the Neolithic T1a* sample is almost as much Yamna as CW is?
What if this T1a guy was actually Indo European who arrived in mainland Europe earlier than the major Indo European migration?

epoch
11-02-15, 18:36
reminds of the Thracian samples which some of them were 50% Caucasus Gedrosia like while some other 50% North European like.

Since ANE and WHG have ultimately one source and are close relatives. What if these genes which appear in some Ks as Caucasus_Gedrosia (ANE) like and in some others WHG like is the proof that these genes are close to the source of both WHG and ANE?

I reckon too it's because of the close relatedness. Possibly the software doesn't handle it all that well. Any idea how ADMIXTURE tries to determine admixtures? Would it skew results if two of the admixtures are far closer related than all others?

Sile
11-02-15, 18:38
And even more interesting that this T1a was allmost as much Yamna like as CW is.

Makes me wonder if this was not a very early Yamna dude who has reached mainland Europe before the other.

yes, the karlsdorf is the worst for early neolithic plus this T1a1 had very ancient H1 as his mtdna

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 18:47
I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
...
"The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them Fenni, was by Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), about 98 A.D.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-13) Variants of Finn or Fenni were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni) and Phinnoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinnoi) in classical Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature) and Greek works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_literature). Finn (or variants, such as skridfinn, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddas) and Norse sagas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_sagas) (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse finna, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-14) the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as Finland. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnmark), Finnsnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnsnes), Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
.....
According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.

Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

Sile
11-02-15, 18:49
Thats why I said some of the WHG gets probably eaten up by Yamna. Most likely explanation is, that their WHG was brought to them via Yamna. I am also very convinced that 1/3of the ENF geats eaten up by Yamna.

But something else. Hasn't anyone of you realized that the Neolithic T1a* sample is almost as much Yamna as CW is?
What if this T1a guy was actually Indo European who arrived in mainland Europe earlier than the major Indo European migration?

semagyl the russian site, which uses only 67 markers or above , has TL-P326 only in the caucasus ( north and south ). and P326 is the SNP which pre-dates the T and L haplogroup split........

maybe someone should seperate all the haplogroups from the paper into seperate groups by the chart represented also in the paper.

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 18:50
This thread is very interesting but what I do not understand is why R1B is at such high rates in British Isles and Western Europe ,while is at lower rates in South Italy,in Balkans,in Eastern Europe.

If there was a relatively under populated gap to the west of LBK

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tmp3517_thumb1.jpg

then if they had some advantage that made it possible for them to thrive in that gap they could have expanded rapidly to fill it.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 19:18
Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!

Don't misunderstand me. I have always said that R1b came from West Asia, and even domesticated cattle there before moving to the Pontic Steppe. But that was R1b-P297 or M269, not Z2103, which appeared in the steppe then migrated back to Anatolia.

Aberdeen
11-02-15, 19:23
I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg

So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 19:27
the R1b-P297 could be Z2103 as well, he tested L51-

all 8 are 3300-2600 BC, long after the split of the Anatolian branch

Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 19:36
whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group

If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.

The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 19:36
Well Maciamo and how can you explain the distribution of R1B if it came from West Asia through Pontic Steppe,in Europe,compared with how R1B is in current day Europe?
Romans,Germanics,Celts,all bearers of mainly R1B branches were all great warriors,why is no more R1B in Eastern Europe?
If you look at the distribution of R1B,taking Germanic speaking countries it rather seems that they have came from Northern Europe and spread towards South East Europe,for example in Austria there still is a high percentage of R1B and in the same time the South Eastern border of Germanic speakers .
I am not saying that R1B people did not came through Pontic Steppes into Europe,I am just finding hard to believe this,considering the current distribution of R1b in Europe.

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 19:41
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

I think is correct.
I do not see Finns,in this graph,I think they have even more HG than Estonians.
Would be even more interesting to see some genetic testing of ancient Norwegian vikings,how much Yamnaya they were having.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 19:41
I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
...
"The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them Fenni, was by Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), about 98 A.D.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-13) Variants of Finn or Fenni were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni) and Phinnoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinnoi) in classical Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature) and Greek works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_literature). Finn (or variants, such as skridfinn, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddas) and Norse sagas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_sagas) (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse finna, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-14) the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as Finland. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnmark), Finnsnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnsnes), Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
.....
According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.

Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland


I don't know why the Finns would be upset about that. It's well known that Finnish and Saami languages are closely related (Finno-Samic family) and the two peoples split from one another fairly recently (about 3000 years ago according to Honkola et al. 2013 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.12107/abstract)).

Alan
11-02-15, 19:45
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

No it simply means large majorty of Tuscan WHG came via Yamna while most WHG in Belarusians and Ukrainians is of pre Yamna origin.

Alan
11-02-15, 19:46
Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.

Among the original West Asian R1b was certanly m343, m269 and l23* three which are at least found among Kurds there. l23 is very common among Assyrians and Armenians but they seem to lack m343 and m269.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 19:47
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25619-5000-years-of-migrations-from-the-Eurasian-steppes-to-Europe), almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland.

The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.

Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).

It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.

Alan
11-02-15, 19:49
If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.

The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.


I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Bronze Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...

Tone
11-02-15, 19:58
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

Alan
11-02-15, 20:01
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

Seems like Bell beakers originated in Central Europe?

Maciamo
11-02-15, 20:02
I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Iron Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...

I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.

I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 20:03
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?


Seems like Bell beakers originated in Central Europe?

Give me a break, please:


Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)
Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-amp-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)

Alan
11-02-15, 20:06
I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.

I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.

True but ancient samples have taught us that allot of our understanding of DNA can not be explained with it's modern distribution. The same way with Z2103. If we would have used it's distrbution in modern Europe or South_Central Asia as argument wether it is Indo European or not. We would have drifted completely into the wrong direction.

I do not think J2a was simply picked up by Indo Iranians in Central Asia since the Bronze Age J2a in Hungary doesn't seem very Indo_Iranian to me. Also a Neolithic origin can be excluded. To be honest only an Indo European explanation for it's origin remains.

Alan
11-02-15, 20:08
Give me a break, please:


Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)
Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-amp-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)


I must admit I have not that much knowledge about Bell Beakers thats why the question mark.

But than the chart shows late Bell Beaker was ~50% Yamna like.

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 20:09
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

Personally I think there are two BB from the same original source but one went by sea to Iberia while the over went overland to Central Europe. Time will tell.

Goga
11-02-15, 20:16
I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.I don't agree with you. (proto-)Iranic is closer to Greek than to Balto-Slavic, the Satem link between Iranic and Balto-Slavic is not important here. Origin of the Iranic languages must be very different than the origin of Balto-Slavic. Not only Indo-Iranic (Iranians and Indians) people have J2a, but also Anatolian Indo-Europeans, like Armenians, and Greeks have J2a in them too. Basically more than 20-30% of all modern day Indo-Europeans speakers (mostly who live outside Europe) carry this haplogroup. Also it's one of the most widespread haplogroups among the Indo-European speakers, from NorthWest Europe to SouthEast Asia (India) and has high distribution in Northern Caucasus, Maykop Horizon..

Tone
11-02-15, 20:37
Give me a break, please:


Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)
Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-amp-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)


Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you by asking questions. I'll go now.

bicicleur
11-02-15, 20:41
Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.

that is the most likely explanation

3300-2600 BC, it is before Sintashta
Indo-Iranians went east and south with chariots
somebody must have brought chariots to the Balkans

Sile
11-02-15, 20:46
I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
...
"The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them Fenni, was by Tacitus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus), about 98 A.D.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-13) Variants of Finn or Fenni were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names Fenni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenni) and Phinnoi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinnoi) in classical Roman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_literature) and Greek works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_literature). Finn (or variants, such as skridfinn, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddas) and Norse sagas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_sagas) (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse finna, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#cite_note-14) the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as Finland. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnmark), Finnsnes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnsnes), Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
.....
According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.

Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland

maybe you need to go a bit further back and read this first

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986642/

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 21:08
maybe you need to go a bit further back and read this first

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986642/

Have read it,but I do not see anything told about the Finns autosomal admixture,which should have significant more Hunter-Gatherer admixture,versus Swedish admixture,which should have lots of Yamnaya with more Neolithic.

Anyway,a very strange thing that Norwegians are clustering most close to Yamnaya and I do not know what Norwegians are those tested,I think if you test Norwegians from near sea side,from South Norway,those will cluster even more closed to Yamnaya having fewer HG admixture.
Another question is when Yamnaya people started to move from there towards Western Europe.
I understand that it dates from around 3600-2300 BC.
Maybe in those times Celts and Germans and Italics were speaking same language and as they moved from there,their languages split.
Is a possibility that Italics moved from there by boat,and got into Italy,while Celtic and Germanics traveling on the ground.

Angela
11-02-15, 21:17
Yes, great results. Never expected such a confirmation of my theories. No R1a in Yamnaya, so there's still no evidence that R1a-Z93 in Iranic folks is from Yamnaya or the Pontic-Caspian Steppes in general. I knew it, but didn't expect that they would find Anatolian (Armenian, West Iranic) R1b in Yamnaya. R1b in Yamnaya is Anatolia, which again is a great indication that Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov is right about his Armenian hypothesis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_hypothesis . The latest results are victory for Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov & Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze! It's true that Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya. But folks from NorthWest Asia (from Maykop) Indo-Europized the Yamnaya folks in the Steppes. I was telling this all the time. Indo-Europeanization occured in stages. Best news for me is that R1a-Z93 has nothing to do with the Yamnaya. And this fact is making my thoughts even stronger!

Goga, I think you're jumping the gun a bit if you don't mind me saying so in terms of the actual genetic proof for these things.

The oldest basal R1b is a hunter gatherer from Samara, grouped within EHG, along with the R1a Karelian. There's nothing "Near Eastern" about him.

"The hunter-gatherer from Samara belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (L278:18914441C→T), with
upstream haplogroup R1b (M343:2887824C→A) also supported. However, he was ancestral for both
the downstream haplogroup R1b1a1 (M478:23444054T→C) and R1b1a2 (M269:22739367T→C) and
could be designated as R1b1*(xR1b1a1, R1b1a2). Thus, this individual was basal to most west
Eurasian R1b individuals which belong to the R-M269 lineage as well as to the related R-M73/M478
lineage that has a predominantly non-European distribution."

His culture included ceramics but there was no pastoralism at that time in that area. The Yamnaya samples were from one specific site-Samara, and one of them is one is, and five are It is only these samples which are half "Armenian-like".

At present, the only way I can see for the men of these particular subclades to have come from the Caucasus or south of it bearing Near Eastern ancestry is if R1b was a hunter gatherer lineage which existed both north of the Caucasus mountains and in them (and perhaps a little south of them as well, and came into contact with more "southern" populations.) However, this Samara R1b man was half WHG. How much WHG is present south of the Caucasus? I don't think very much, but I don't have the data right at my fingertips so perhaps someone can provide it. Also, what about within the Caucasus? Of course, we now know modern populations are not good proxies for ancient autosomal components, so there is that to consider, and there's been a lot of traffic in that area. Also, I suppose it's possible that the R1b Samara man got his WHG from mixing with Karelia like people?

Another thing in support of this theory it seems to me is, strangely enough, that R1b1 Neolithic sample in Spain. If R1b when it was still hunter gatherer was more ANE than anything else, was all over the Caucasus area, then it's understandable how some of them were far south of the Caucasus enough to be swept along by the Neolithic and wind up in Spain. Then, the downstream clades could have developed south of the Caucasus and gone back up north as well.


The other possibility is that the downstream clades developed right on the Steppe (never having moved at all),and the Near Eastern like ancestry came either from men (and the women accompanying them) in areas of the Yamnaya horizon not yet sampled (there is that J2a1 Bronze Age Indo-European in central Europe to consider), or it comes only from women.

I discussed this a bit with Greying Wanderer in connection to 6,000 BC interactions. I still think it's a bit of a stretch to see hunter-gatherers males going all the way to the South Caucasus to raid women, but we do have Maykop right on the brink of the Steppes, and a strong argument can be made, I think, that some of the metal working and other parts of the "Yamnya" package came from them. Given the kind of host/patronage relationships characteristic of the Indo-Europeans (and their strongly patriarchal nature), perhaps the women were given to the Steppe men as part of some type of exchange. The bartering of women to cement trade and other economic and political partnerships was part of royal and aristocratic mating virtually down to the present time.

Anyway, until we have more samples from all parts of the Yamnaya horizon and south into the Caucasus, I don't think we can be much more definite than this. Well, I can't be more definite than this at the present time.

(I just realized that this may have been already addressed. Maybe I should start from the end of the thread and work backwards. :))

Sile
11-02-15, 21:25
Note the chart on page 23...zero WHG for tuscans ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture

Maciamo
11-02-15, 21:32
Sorry. I didn't mean to offend you by asking questions. I'll go now.

Don't worry, I am not offended. It's true that you are a relatively new member and we have been discussing the Bell Beaker issue for several years on this forum.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 21:39
I must admit I have not that much knowledge about Bell Beakers thats why the question mark.

But than the chart shows late Bell Beaker was ~50% Yamna like.

Late Beakers in Germany. I am very confident that it wasn't the case at all in Iberia, where Yamna influence was minimal (although probably not entirely absent in some regions after 2000 BCE).

Angela
11-02-15, 21:47
As to what happened to some of the WHG figures in Europe, perhaps this chart would be helpful:
7071

Sile
11-02-15, 21:51
Note the chart on page 23...zero WHG for tuscans ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture

A quick scenario by me, would indicate that etruscan main haplogroup origin is not R1b-U152 but J2

R1b-U152 would be clearly a celtic - gallic -liguri marker

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 21:56
Give me a break, please:


Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)
Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-amp-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)



Copper smiths and miners spreading along the neolithic trade network with some of them settling as artisans among many different cultures including the Atlantic Megalith culture and then setting up mining colonies from that base along the under populated Atlantic coast regions is why they could have spread R1b to specifically the Atlantic coast part of western Europe *separate from* the main source of R1b coming overland.

They would have needed some extra ingredient to explain how a small population could dramatically expand in those under populated regions when LBK couldn't. I wonder what that could be.

LBK map (note gap to west and north of LBK range)

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tmp3517_thumb1.jpg

LP map (note peaks along those same gaps)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k4oPZEUaufc/T-PYttOk-HI/AAAAAAAAAZc/_q2crvb2LOk/s1600/Predicted+Old+World+LP+phenotype+frequencies+based +on+all+genotype+frequencies..png

Aberdeen
11-02-15, 22:01
Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25619-5000-years-of-migrations-from-the-Eurasian-steppes-to-Europe), almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland.

The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.

Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).

It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.

Actually, according to your own tables, Norwegians don't have that much more R1a + R1b than Belarusians or Ukranians. What they do have is a lot more I1 and I2 haplotype material than Belarusians or Ukranians. So, although I know that Y haplotype frequency doesn't necessarily tell us about autosomal content, I would expect Norwegians with all that I1 and I2b to be fairly high in WHG, higher in fact than Belarusians and Ukrainians. Perhaps there's a reason for Nowegians apparently having minimal WHG in spite of having 31.5 I1 and 4.5 I2b, but I suspect the reason is that the calculation method doesn't distinguish properly between WHG and Yamnaya.

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 22:03
Note the chart on page 23...zero WHG for tuscans ..............what does that do for tuscan admixture

I am supposing that Tuscans are most closed from Ancient Romans,from populations sampled there.

Is interesting the legend of Europe which is described in old Greek legends,Zeus is seducing a maiden from an island ,the maiden being called Europe and being of Phoenician ancestry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_%28mythology%29
Europa is an Middle East woman,in the legend.
And Zeus come as a white bull.
So the supposition is that Zeus is representing the R1/R1B people who are coming and conquering the old farmers (Early Neolithic) people from Europe.
Is just a supposition.
Look at the Greeks,they are having lots of Early Farmers admixture.
And we can suppose old Greeks were even higher on Early Neolithic admixture (farmers) and lower on Hunter Gatherer and Yamnaya,which were brought by mixing with Slavs,with some Goths ,that settled in Greece and so on.
It should also be noticed that in Greece we have highest percentage of J2 so is quite clear I think that Greeks between Europeans have most from Early Neolithic people,the farmers people.
And R1A and R1B are representing the barbarians.
(which are represented by Zeus and other Olimp deities,probably an Old Greeks irony at the fact that lots of Indo-Europeans had in their religion the belief they are descending from gods :D ).

Wonder how Ancient Romans admixture was,I am inclined to believe that Ancient Romans were mostly J2 also and since lots died in wars they replaced with assimilated Gaulish-Celtic people the lost people,this is why R1B is at such high rates in Italy.

Maciamo
11-02-15, 22:04
True but ancient samples have taught us that allot of our understanding of DNA can not be explained with it's modern distribution. The same way with Z2103. If we would have used it's distrbution in modern Europe or South_Central Asia as argument wether it is Indo European or not. We would have drifted completely into the wrong direction.

I do not think J2a was simply picked up by Indo Iranians in Central Asia since the Bronze Age J2a in Hungary doesn't seem very Indo_Iranian to me. Also a Neolithic origin can be excluded. To be honest only an Indo European explanation for it's origin remains.

I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.

We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture.

No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.

In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.

Greying Wanderer
11-02-15, 22:07
@Angela


I still think it's a bit of a stretch to see hunter-gatherers males going all the way to the South Caucasus to raid women

Yes, a follow-on of that theory is (edit: it implies) the "Armenian-like" population may have moved south to get away from them i.e. they were originally in the north and close enough to be raided (or traded with) earlier.

mihaitzateo
11-02-15, 22:30
Lol Maciamo are you serious when you are saying that R1b were displaced from Eastern Europe by raiding Central Asians?

I rather think that somehow not too many R1B people do not got into the area of South Eastern Europe. And the area was already very likely quite populated with Neolithic farmers.
For example,we are seeing lots of E-V13 and J2 and I2 in Balkans and even Romania,well the area had dense forests,lots of mountains,it was hard to get there,from where Yamna home was.
A very interesting thing would be to get at least a clue about how the forests were spread in those times,in this part of Europe.

Yetos
11-02-15, 22:42
I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.

We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture.

No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.

In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.

hmm

in such case , Varna necropolis, Rudna Glava, and generally Vinca and para-Vinca cultures had no J2a,
I mean if J2a is upsent from Balkans before 1200 BC, they should be upsent also from copper mettalurgy, not bronze, but copper,
in such case who brought copper mettalurgy to balkans?
we know Vinca and para-Vincas are before bronze, meaning before R1*****, and Mycenae where build before 4000 BC 1500 years before arsenic bronze from steppe, theoritically start to enter south Balkans
beside in many settlements in Greece as the newly Platamon metaneolithic we see no arsenic bronze, in many areas till even after 1500 BC.
but Vincas knew copper and gold very well.


so then if J2xyz did not exist in Vincas, neither R1xyz, could copper spread there by? G2a? Ixyz, ?

Goga
11-02-15, 22:53
I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.

We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture.

No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.

In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.Close, but no cigar. Although it's a very fascinating theory. Nice try, respect! J2a folks were actually MOUNTAIN people and not SEA people. J2a peaks in the Caucasus, Zagros Mountains and SouthCentral Asia. There's lots of ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component in the Caucasus region. ANE is highest there in the whole Europe and West Asia. I think that J2a is also correlated with ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosia component. Ancient J2a should be full of ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component. What you're talking about is a massive replacement of folks in South Europe around 1200 BCE. I don't think it was the case, because if such a huge migration of so called Sea People with J2a occured in South Europe, there would be much more ANE and Caucaso-Gedrosian component in Southern Europe, even more than in Northern Europe. There's a lot of J2a in modern MAYKOP and it's not from recent times! When R1b migrated from Maykop into Yamnaya, there was already J2a in Maykop!

Angela
11-02-15, 22:57
As to what happened to some of the WHG figures in Europe, perhaps this chart would be helpful:
7071

Sorry it's not bigger. However, I think it's worth giving it a look.

I think that these figures have to be unpacked a bit.

What has to be kept in mind is that the EHG figure includes WHG as well as ANE. That is partly why the WHG in modern Europeans in this paper is lower than the WHG in the prior Lazardis et al paper. For example, in this paper the Southwestern French, two-thirds (?) of the Spaniards, the Tuscans, and the Sicilians have 0% WHG, whereas in the prior paper, the Southwestern French were 20% WHG, the Tuscans were 14%, and the Spaniards were 7% WHG.

So, effectively, the WHG in this chart might be the amount of native WHG left in these areas before some new WHG was brought in by the Yamnaya people.

This would explain why the authors say there was a near 100% wipe out of hunter gatherers in some areas by the Neolithic farmers. It would also indicate that there was probably no "resurgence" in southern Europe of the WHG component, which makes it more likely, in my opinion, that, as I had speculated before, the "resurgence" in northern and central Europe is probably the result of hunter gatherers from the peripheral refuges moving south during a climate worsening event, or at least of the additional admixture resulting from contacts along that northern border where the farmers had not penetrated.

Of course, the proportion of WHG (and not some UHG from the Near East) in the early neolithic farmers should be added to this new number as well, yes?

The EN figure probably includes, therefore, not just the EEF like people but also the "Near Eastern" portion of the Yamnaya people.

Ed. Any resurgence in Spain and Northern Italy, given that they have 2-3% WHG of perhaps the "original" variety, might come from WHG who took refuge in the Pyrenees and the Alps.

Also, it should be noted that later gene flows could have further decreased WHG levels. For example, in order to get this close a fit, the authors had to add Nganasans and Bedouins.

Sile
11-02-15, 22:58
I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.

We are talking about one of the most unstable period in European and Near Eastern history here. Most East Mediterranean civilizations collapsed around 1200 BCE due to the mysterious Sea Peoples. Even the Haak el al. paper discussed here mentions that 1200 BCE is the turning point for the domination of Yamna-like admixture in central European graves. As I mentioned above, this also happen to correspond to the sudden adoption of cremation instead of kurgan/tumulus burial in central Europe for only one hundred years (Urnfield culture), before the traditional tumulus burial resumed with the Hallstatt culture.

No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

1200 BCE also coincides with the arrival of the Dorians in Greece, the Phrygians in western Anatolia and the Armenians in eastern Anatolia, who I think were all predominantly R1b-L23 tribes from the Balkans, with assimilated Neolithic lineages (E-V13, G2a, I2...). Their departure from the Balkans left place for a northward expansion of Greek lineages, among which J2a.

In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.

Mycenea also fell when the trojans fell.......they too can be sea peoples , even more so since identical burial mounds have been found in istria which are same as pellopenne mycenea.
As some state....are myceneans really greek or something else, is the Greek we know today only originate from dorians a NW greek people?

yes I believe R1b was hittitie and also hurrians ( NE of hittities ) with J2 and I

Sile
11-02-15, 23:00
Sorry it's not bigger. However, I think it's worth giving it a look.

I think that these figures have to be unpacked a bit.

What has to be kept in mind is that the EHG figure includes WHG as well as ANE. That is partly why the WHG in modern Europeans in this paper is lower than the WHG in the prior Lazardis et al paper. For example, in this paper the Southwestern French, two-thirds (?) of the Spaniards, the Tuscans, and the Sicilians have 0% WHG, whereas in the prior paper, the Southwestern French were 20% WHG, the Tuscans were 14%, and the Spaniards were 7% WHG.

So, effectively, the WHG in this chart might be the amount of native WHG left in these areas before some new WHG was brought in by the Yamnaya people.
This would explain why the authors say there was a near 100% wipe out of hunter gatherer lineages by the Neolithic farmers. It would also indicate that there was no "resurgence" in southern Europe of the WHG component, which makes it more likely, in my opinion, that as I had speculated before, the "resurgence" in northern and central Europe is probably the result of hunter gatherers from the peripheral refuges moving south during a climate worsening event or at least of the additional admixture resulting from contacts along that northern border where the farmers had not penetrated.

Of course, the proportion of WHG (and not some UHG from the Near East) in the early neolithic farmers should be added to this new number as well, yes?

The EN figure probably includes, therefore, not just the EEF like people but also the "Near Eastern" portion of the Yamnaya people.

The chart on page 23 is split into modern and ancient ...........only the modern is WHG free for tuscans.

the 69 samples on page 25 deal only with the ancient part of the chart on page 23

Goga
12-02-15, 00:01
Don't misunderstand me. I have always said that R1b came from West Asia, and even domesticated cattle there before moving to the Pontic Steppe. But that was R1b-P297 or M269, not Z2103, which appeared in the steppe then migrated back to Anatolia.Yeah I thought a little bit about it and I do believe you. I think that this theory might be the right and only one! Congratulation you persuaded me on this point and as you know I can be a very stubborn person. It's possible that Z2103 entered with the same people who brought R1a-Z282 and I2a with then. I think I'm not the only person who ignored R1b-Z2103 until now, I didn't even pay attention on this subclade. But it is right now one of the most spoken haplogroups, lol! It was for me hard to realise that there could be actually a back migration of 'R1b' into West Asia. I was thinking that R1b-Z2103 entered Yamnaya and the Balkans at the same time. But if that was the case, there would be also some of it in Greece. Is there some R1b-Z2103 in Greece?

Sile
12-02-15, 00:09
whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group

@maciano

I have the same marker as the T1a - PF5604+

PF5604+, PF5607+, PF5608+, PF5609+, PF5610+, PF5612+, PF5613+, PF5657+, PF5659+, PF5660+, PF5661+, PF5664+, PF5666+, PF5673+, PF5674+, PF5678+, PF667+, PF719+, PF725+, PF7460+, PF7463+, PF7464+, PF7465+, PF7466+, PF7480+, PF7481+, PF779+, PF796+, PF803+, PF815+, PF821+, PF840+, PF844+, PF892+, PF937+, PF951+, PF970+, V186+, V189+, V205+, V52+, V9+, L298+,

what would it mean....only same age or maybe same place?

Finalise
12-02-15, 00:41
What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.

LeBrok
12-02-15, 01:05
I had a quick look at the paper and I am glad to see that a T1a individual was found in the LBK culture, confirming what I had said for years : the Near Eastern Neolithic farmers were predominantly G2a but with J1 and T1a minorities (+ R1b-V88 in North Africa and Iberia).

The biggest surprise so far is that 4 out of 6 Yamna men tested belonged to the Balkano-Anatolian R1b-Z2103 (the other two were P297 and L23). This may simply be because they are all from the Volga-Ural region. They would therefore have been among the last to move to the Balkans. In contrast, western Yamna people from southern Ukraine would have been the first to move out of the steppe, and that should in theory be where the ancestors of modern Western Europeans came from.

Here is a table showing the mtDNA of the six R1b Yamna men.



Sample

Y-haplogroup

Mt-haplogroup

Location



I0370
R1b-Z2103
H13a1a1
Ishkinovka, Orenburg


I0429
R1b-Z2103
T2c1a2
Lopatino, Samara


I0438
R1b-Z2103
U5a1a1
Luzhki, Samara


I0439
R1b-P297
U5a1a1
Lopatino, Samara


I0443
R1b-L23
W3a1a
Lopatino, Samara


I0444
R1b-Z2103
H6a1b
Kutuluk, Samara




Female Yamna samples belonged to H2b, K1b2a, U4a1 and W6c.

I had specifically associated H6, U4a1, U5a1a1, W3 and W6 as being of Indo-European origin.
The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 01:08
It is disappointing that the Janisławice Culture and the Globular Amphora Culture were not covered by this study.

Greying Wanderer
12-02-15, 01:10
No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Island,_Killarney

The BB who landed at Ross island in Ireland appear to have been copper miners and smelters.

Maybe they brought women with them.

But what if they didn't?


edit: I agree they were (dairy) farmers.

LeBrok
12-02-15, 01:22
These are very strange results. I certainly wasn't expecting the Samara results to be all R1b. And yet they seem to be the wrong subclade to be ancestral to most of the R1b in western Europe. Some very strange conclusions by the authors, I would say.
I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b-borders.png

North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.

Fire Haired14
12-02-15, 01:40
The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.

U4 is typical in Scandnavian and Russian hunter gatherers, also it was very popular in Catacomb, Andronovo, Corded ware, Bell beaker, and Unetice. In Europe it's probably most an EHG lineage.

sparkey
12-02-15, 01:59
Very interesting (to me) is the confirmation that Motala 2, as well as a Unetice sample, is I2c2. That's the subclade that used to be called I2c-B; it's the one with a bizarre modern pattern that includes expansions in the Caucasian nobility, among Eastern European Jews, and among Cretans, along with a widely distributed pattern across Europe. It seems to be confirming my original thought that I2c2 originally developed alongside the rest of I2c somewhere around Germany. Admittedly, I had been hedging my bets, supposing that I2c2 could be a more Southern Europe-centered subclade, but it's looking like my original thought was correct. It's interesting to note that the Unetice sample is apparently older than the TMRCA of modern I2c2, and Motala 2 is barely younger than the estimated split between I2c1 and I2c2, so we could be seeing a picture of I2c2's ancient origins already. Although, these still don't quite explain how its modern distribution became so odd.

Angela
12-02-15, 02:06
I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b-borders.png

North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.

I think ancient dna tells us that modern frequencies may be of limited probative value. That particular area has seen populations come and go. There could be a hole there in terms of R1b because that's where Slavic speaking populations were settled relatively late in history after some de-population events. Or, going back in time, R1b might have largely moved into western Europe and R1a moved south to fill the "hole".

On the other hand they might have been there in Yamnaya times, or they could have been just north in the forest steppe. Until we have more samples I don't think that there's any way of knowing.

sparkey
12-02-15, 02:11
U4 is typical in Scandnavian and Russian hunter gatherers, also it was very popular in Catacomb, Andronovo, Corded ware, Bell beaker, and Unetice. In Europe it's probably most an EHG lineage.

I think it depends on the subclade. U4 isn't as old as U5, but it's still old enough to be associated with multiple autosomal clusters. Looks like the Yamnaya sample from Ekaterinovka carried U4a1, which seems to agree with Maciamo's assessment of it as IE. Meanwhile, other U4 subclades (I think just U4d and U4* so far) have been found in Mesolithic Europe, namely in Sweden and Lithuania.

Finalise
12-02-15, 02:15
What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.Can someone answer this? Maciamo's dates were obviously very wrong.

Goga
12-02-15, 02:21
What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called 'Armenian Model' of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right!

" 4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north and north-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible. "

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

LeBrok
12-02-15, 02:25
I think ancient dna tells us that modern frequencies may be of limited probative value. That particular area has seen populations come and go. There could be a hole there in terms of R1b because that's where Slavic speaking populations were settled relatively late in history after some de-population events. Or, going back in time, R1b might have largely moved into western Europe and R1a moved south to fill the "hole".

On the other hand they might have been there in Yamnaya times, or they could have been just north in the forest steppe. Until we have more samples I don't think that there's any way of knowing.
Sure, I've jumped the gun too soon. It is more that I wanted to find them, and not that we actually found them.

Angela
12-02-15, 02:26
The chart on page 23 is split into modern and ancient ...........only the modern is WHG free for tuscans.

the 69 samples on page 25 deal only with the ancient part of the chart on page 23

I don't understand the relevance of this comment. Tuscans are by definition a modern population, not an ancient one. The authors didn't include Etruscan or Villanovan samples, so obviously we don't know what their proportions of these components might have been. My analysis attempts to give some context for why the WHG figures for modern Tuscans, Spaniards, and other Southern Europeans are different in this paper than they were in the prior Lazaridis paper. (There are other factors as well.)

Angela
12-02-15, 02:36
This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called 'Armenian Model' of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right!

" 4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible. "

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

Has anyone noticed that the authors of Supplementary Section 11, which is where the Indo-European languages question is discussed, and where this quote appears, are:
Iosif Lazaridis, Wolfgang Haak, Nick Patterson, David Anthony and David Reich*.

With all due respect to Dr. Anthony, was he holding his nose or crossing his fingers? :grin: I would love to have been present during their discussions!

Seriously, you're overstating things, Goga. The comments are very cautious. Note that while the Armenian Plateau hypothesis may be gaining in plausibilty, " the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open." Also, "both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible."

Finalise
12-02-15, 02:38
This is what the latest paper that we're discussing right now is saying about the so called 'Armenian Model' of Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov. They are practically saying that he is right! " 4. The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility by the fact that we have discovered evidence of admixturein the ancestry of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists, including gene flow from apopulation of Near Eastern ancestry for which Armenians today appear to be a reasonable surrogate (SI4, SI7, SI9). However, the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open. Examining ancient DNA fromthe Caucasus and Near East may be able to provide further insight about the dynamics of the interaction between these regions and the steppe. Our results show that southern populations diluted the ancestry of populations from the steppe, but also that ancestry related to Ancient North Eurasians forms a major ancestral component of the populations of the present-day Caucasus25. Thus, both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible. "http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdfhttp://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpgMaciamo's map would therefore be rendered useless. The "Armenian" component surely is R1b-Z2013 farmers moving up, while L23 downstream moved to the Balkans to form L51.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 02:45
I'm confused about this paper - there are contradictory opinions about its credibility, for example here:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?f=85&p=23613#p23613


David Reich and his associates have published a paper containing a lot of new genetic data from prehistoric Europe. These data utterly refute the Kurgan hypothesis, and yet Reich and his associates are so stupid that they actually think the data support the hypothesis.

Goga
12-02-15, 02:47
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1b-migration-map.jpgMaciamo's map would therefore be rendered useless. The "Armenian" component surely is R1b-Z2013 farmers moving up, while L23 downstream moved to the Balkans to form L51.Yes you're very right. Respect that you have discovered actually such a huge mistake, but Maciamo did his best, and he was VERY close about this issue. On this map we can see R1b-Z2103 is entering Turkey from Greece, which is proven not to be true! And it is older than '2000-1200' BCE, because it was already in Yamnaya much earlier...

Goga
12-02-15, 03:00
Has anyone noticed that the authors of Supplementary Section 11, which is where the Indo-European languages question is discussed, and where this quote appears, are:
Iosif Lazaridis, Wolfgang Haak, Nick Patterson, David Anthony and David Reich*.

With all due respect to Dr. Anthony, was he holding his nose or crossing his fingers? :grin: I would love to have been present during their discussions!

Seriously, you're overstating things, Goga. The comments are very cautious. Note that while the Armenian Plateau hypothesis may be gaining in plausibilty, " the question of what languages were spoken by the “Eastern European hunter-gatherers” and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open." Also, "both south-north andnorth-south genetic influence across the Caucasus is plausible."I think that the 'Armenian Model' is somehow acceptable for David Anthony, because it has many similarities with the 'Pontic-Caspian Steppe Model'. Everything is almost the same, only PIE is more to the south! This is what they're saying about it:

" 4. The “Armenian plateau hypothesis”7,16 which resembles the Steppe hypothesis in postulating a role for the steppe in the dispersal of languages into Europe, but places the homeland of Proto-Indo-European speakers south of the Caucasus. "

Goga
12-02-15, 03:12
With other words they are giving the Russian academic Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov indirectly credits (for his so called 'Armenian Model') without admitting that he is right. Some people are just such a bad losers and too proud to admit that they're wrong!

Aberdeen
12-02-15, 04:44
Since we now know that 12.5% of all the ancient Y DNA ever found in Spain is R1b, we can no longer dismiss the idea of R1b having a long history in Spain - we know that, at the very least, it's been there for over 7000 years.

That one R1b1 sample may be an anomaly but we just don't have enough data to be certain. At this point, we can't completely rule out the possibility that P-25, P297 and L-23 were widely distributed, with L51 and its downstream subclades possibly developing in Western Europe.

Aberdeen
12-02-15, 04:48
I think that the 'Armenian Model' is somehow acceptable for David Anthony, because it has many similarities with the 'Pontic-Caspian Steppe Model'. Everything is almost the same, only PIE is more to the south! This is what they're saying about it:

" 4. The “Armenian plateau hypothesis”7,16 which resembles the Steppe hypothesis in postulating a role for the steppe in the dispersal of languages into Europe, but places the homeland of Proto-Indo-European speakers south of the Caucasus. "

While some people have assumed that Proto-Indo-European must have evolved in the same place that the IE cultural package came together, a lot of other people have suggested that the original linguistic homeland may not have been the same as the homeland of the people who developed the cultural package that lead to the expansion of IE languages and which could therefore be in one sense considered the Indo-European homeland, even if the language didn't start there. That idea has already been discussed on this forum.

Silesian
12-02-15, 05:27
................ I was thinking that R1b-Z2103 entered Yamnaya and the Balkans at the same time. But if that was the case, there would be also some of it in Greece. Is there some R1b-Z2103 in Greece?

I believe these will be your R1b-Z2103 samples

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/11/69


The dominant haplogroups in both Phokaia and Smyrna are E-V13 (19.4% and 12.1%) and R1b-M269 (22.6% and 27.8%) respectfully

LeBrok
12-02-15, 07:11
I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg

I think you are right about Yamnaya being a mixture of other/basic admixtures. Definitely a mixture of ANE with WHG, and even some EEF. I don't want to speculate too much because I'm yet to find some time to read the paper. Yesterday I just skimmed it.
Do they say that they have built their Yamnaya admixture based on one Yamnaya hunter gatherer, or this admixture was compiled based on all 9 of them, some pastoralist/farmers?

Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.

bicicleur
12-02-15, 08:19
I think you are right about Yamnaya being a mixture of other/basic admixtures. Definitely a mixture of ANE with WHG, and even some EEF. I don't want to speculate too much because I'm yet to find some time to read the paper. Yesterday I just skimmed it.
Do they say that they have built their Yamnaya admixture based on one Yamnaya hunter gatherer, or this admixture was compiled based on all 9 of them, some pastoralist/farmers?

Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.

have a look at figure 2b (underneath the PCA chart) : the K=16 admixture chart
there is very little variation among the Yamnaya individuals

bicicleur
12-02-15, 08:36
I thought we will see R1a-Z93 in the far East of Yamnaya, not only R1b. However, I was hoping they can finally localize pre-european R1b somewhere, and finally they were found. I thought they were located on east side of Caspian Sea or more north where the dot on this map is way north of Caspian Sea.
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

Or on this map close to the right edge north of Caspian.
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b-borders.png

North of Black Sea where the sort of whole is in frequency of R1b, might be the location of R1a part of Yamnaya. Unfortunately there are no samples from this location.

I wonder how R1a split into western Z283 - L664 and eastern Z83.
Maybe they were in the zone north of the Caucasus where R1b first came into the Pontic Steppe and R1b came in between them.

Maciamo
12-02-15, 09:26
hmm

in such case , Varna necropolis, Rudna Glava, and generally Vinca and para-Vinca cultures had no J2a,
I mean if J2a is upsent from Balkans before 1200 BC, they should be upsent also from copper mettalurgy, not bronze, but copper,
in such case who brought copper mettalurgy to balkans?
we know Vinca and para-Vincas are before bronze, meaning before R1*****, and Mycenae where build before 4000 BC 1500 years before arsenic bronze from steppe, theoritically start to enter south Balkans
beside in many settlements in Greece as the newly Platamon metaneolithic we see no arsenic bronze, in many areas till even after 1500 BC.
but Vincas knew copper and gold very well.


so then if J2xyz did not exist in Vincas, neither R1xyz, could copper spread there by? G2a? Ixyz, ?

There is also the possibility that J2a expanded from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. But that remains to be proven as so far not a single J2a has been found in Copper Age Europe.

Maciamo
12-02-15, 09:31
Close, but no cigar. Although it's a very fascinating theory. Nice try, respect! J2a folks were actually MOUNTAIN people and not SEA people.

One does not preclude the other. Would you say that the Greeks are mountain people or sea people ? I'd say both. Anyway the Minoans, Phoenicians, classical Greeks, medieval Venetians and even Renaissance Portuguese all had a lot of J2a and were all seafaring peoples.

Other West Asian J2a may not have had the opportunity to become navigators and sea traders because they lived far from the sea. That was their original homeland. But J2a expanded best across the sea.

This is not true of all people who lived in coastal areas. The Indians or East Asians never really cared about creating maritime empires. Neither did the Sardinians or the North Africans, nor even the Basques/Gascons or the Illyrians - all people with no or little J2a. Celtic people were also never very interested by the sea.

The only other major maritime ethnic group were Germanic people (Vikings, Dutch, English). What differentiated them from Italic, Celtic or Slavic people is the presence of haplogroup I1.

There must have been some character traits in the J2a and I1 gene pools that encouraged maritime exploration. I am not saying that the genes were located on the Y-chromosome. Just that the genes for that character were found at higher frequency among I1 and J2a populations (just like genes for individualism are found at higher frequency among R1b populations today).

bicicleur
12-02-15, 09:41
There is also the possibility that J2a expanded from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. But that remains to be proven as so far not a single J2a has been found in Copper Age Europe.

copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian

7072

and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91

furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30863-the-origin-of-the-early-european-farmer

so copper melting in the Balkans might be brought by G2a2 as well

Maciamo
12-02-15, 09:52
The U4 is a bit of mystery. It wasn't found in Yamnaya and neither in iron age and medieval Poland. On the other hand it was found in Lombards settlement in Hungary.

U4 was originally a forest-steppe lineage. We can know this because it was found in the Corded Ware, Catacomb and Andronovo cultures, all cultures that I have associated with the R1a branch of Indo-Europeans. Archeologically it is almost certain that the Catacomb culture originated in the forest-steppe and expanded south, taking over the territory of the Yamna culture. That is probably the main turning point for the high incidence of R1b from the Pontic Steppe, and it's progressive replacement by R1a lineages.

Sile
12-02-15, 10:08
I was just wondering if the gothic, burgundian, vandals, lombards and other "germanic" peoples of poland and old east germany where in majority R1b ..............they vacated their lands completly. .....more so than any other area of Europe.................Its the only way I can see a replacement of the early R1b by a leter R1a people

Maciamo
12-02-15, 10:12
I wonder how R1a split into western Z283 - L664 and eastern Z83.
Maybe they were in the zone north of the Caucasus where R1b first came into the Pontic Steppe and R1b came in between them.

The way I see it is that:

- L664 was present in the Pontic Steppe (southern Ukraine and southern Russia) when R1b people arrived from the Caucasus region. R1a-L664 became a minority lineage accompanying R1b-L11 to western Europe.

- Z283 was the main Corded Ware lineage originating in northern Ukraine and Belarus. It experienced a mainly westward expansion.

- Z93 originating in the Russian forest-steppe between Belarus and the Urals. It had an eastward expansion with Abashevo and Sintashta.

This is how the three R1a branches split from one another.

arvistro
12-02-15, 10:14
Ok. My initial assumption that whatever was living in/near Baltics got overpopulated by Yamna-> Corded Ware was oversimplistic. It seems that whatever was living in/near Baltics could have been Yamna-like already before Yamna :)
Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.

Maciamo
12-02-15, 10:16
copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian

7072

and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91

furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30863-the-origin-of-the-early-european-farmer

so copper melting in the Balkans might be brought by G2a2 as well

The fact that one Copper Age individual (Ötzi) was G2a2 like Neolithic Europeans doesn't prove anything. It only shows that at least some Neolithic lineages survived until the Copper Age, but why wouldn't it ? It doesn't mean that other people didn't bring copper-working technology from the Near East. We'll know once we have more Chalcolithic samples from the Balkans (and Anatolia).

Anyway, Yetos was saying that J2a came from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. I only said that it's possible but so far no data supports this hypothesis.

Maciamo
12-02-15, 10:20
Ok. My initial assumption that whatever was living in/near Baltics got overpopulated by Yamna-> Corded Ware was oversimplistic. It seems that whatever was living in/near Baltics could have been Yamna-like already before Yamna :)
Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.

As far as admixtures are concerned, millennia of intermixing between neighbours (even from village to village) could easily have introduced EEF admixture to the Baltic without requiring any major migration. Admixtures even out amazingly well across regions and even continents given enough time and open borders (or changing borders, which was often the case in European history).

Sile
12-02-15, 11:11
copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian

7072

and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91

furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30863-the-origin-of-the-early-european-farmer

so copper melting in the Balkans might be brought by G2a2 as well

well another 4 x oetzi found in central germany G2a2a ...........but I think the a and b split ( g2a2 ) means either anatolia or caucasus

Tomenable
12-02-15, 12:51
they vacated their lands completly. .....more so than any other area of Europe.................Its the only way I can see a replacement of the early R1b by a leter R1a people

Well - G2a2 (the dominant hg in much of Neolithic Western Europe) did not vacate anywhere, and yet got replaced by other HGs. Also R1b could be replaced without vacating anywhere. Though it is considered that during the mid-Neolithic there was a huge population decline most likely caused by deadly infectious diseases contracted from domestic animals.

According to Shennan 2009, "Evolutionary Demography and the Population History of the European Early Neolithic", in the 5th millenium BC there was a dramatic fall in the population level which remained low for nearly a millenium (so until this massive immigration from the steppe - it seems). That was probably something like the Medieval Black Death.

Goga
12-02-15, 14:00
- Z93 originating in the Russian forest-steppe between Belarus and the Urals. It had an eastward expansion with Abashevo and Sintashta.Forget about R1a-Z93. I'm almost certain that Z93 is native to the Iranian Plateau and just evolved there. And from there migrated into Central Asia and India. R1a-S224 could enter the Steppes from the Caucasus region together with R1b. It's possible that pre-Balto-Slavic people were just I2 and N1c1 fellas...

Angela
12-02-15, 14:33
Dienekes has decided to opine:
http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html

Some quotes:
"The EHG (Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers) are likely Proto-Europeoid foragers and the Yamnaya (a Bronze Age Kurgan culture) were a mixture of the EHG and something akin to Armenians.The "attraction" of later groups to the Near East is clear in the PCA: hunter-gatherers on the left side, the Near East (as grey dots) on the right side, and Neolithic/Bronze Age/modern Europeans in the middle. The second migration may very well be related to the Uruk expansion (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/uruk-migrants-in-caucasus.html) and the presence (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/05/anthropological-types-of-corded-ware.html) of gracile Mediterranoids and robust Proto-Europeoids in the Yamna:"

"The estimate of Yamnaya related ancestry in the Corded Ware is consistent when using either present populations or ancient Europeans as outgroups (SI9, SI10), and is 73.1 ± 2.2% when both sets are combined (SI10). [...] The magnitude of the population turnover that occurred becomes even more evident if one considers the fact that the steppe migrants may well have mixed with eastern European agriculturalists on their way to central Europe. Thus, we cannot exclude a scenario in which the Corded Ware arriving in today’s Germany had no ancestry at all from local populations."


He also takes the opportunity to show what he obviously feels was the prescience of some of Coon's observations by quoting the following from Coon:

"We shall see, in our survey of prehistoric European racial movements, 8 that the Danubian agriculturalists of the Early Neolithic brought a food-producing economy into central Europe from the East. They perpetuated in the new European setting a physical type which was later supplanted in their original home. Several centuries later the Corded people, in the same way, came from southern Russia but there we first find them intermingled with other peoples, and the cul-tural factors which we think of as distinctively Corded are included in a larger cultural equipment. [...] On the basis of the physical evidence as well, it is likely that the Corded people came from somewhere north or east of the Black Sea. The fully Neolithic crania from southern Russia which we have just studied include such a type, also seen in the midst of Sergi's Kurgan aggregation. Until better evidence is produced from elsewhere, we are entitled to consider southern Russia the most likely way station from which the Corded people moved westward.

He also quotes Coon as to language development:
"Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated. The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages. 5 The plants and animals on which the Somewhere in the plains of southern Russia or central Asia, the blending of languages took place which resulted in Indo-European speech. This product in turn spread and split, and was further differentiated by mixture with the languages of peoples upon whom it, in one form or other, was imposed. Some of the present Indo-European languages, in addition to these later accretions from non-Indo-European tongues, contain more of the A element than others, which contain more of the B. The unity of the original " Indo- Europeans," could not have been of long duration, if it was ever complete.

I think this is very important. Yamnaya was a big place. Who knows what lineages will show up around its entire expanse.

On Urheimat (or not) :)
If PIE=EHG (as Anthony and Ringe (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/strong-linguistic-and-archaeological.html) suggest), then "from the crib", PIE got half its ancestry from a non-IE, Near Eastern source. Conversely, if PIE=Near East (as I suggested (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html)) then "from the crib", PIE got half of its ancestry from a non-IE, Eastern European source. The "Yamnaya" seems to max out in Norwegians at around half, which means that they are about a quarter Proto-Indo-European genetically, regardless of which theory is right.

Dienekes goes on further to say:
"These two possibilities (as well as the third one of PIE being neither-nor, but rather a linguistic mixture of the languages of the EHG and Near East) are testable. The Anthony/Ringe (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/strong-linguistic-and-archaeological.html) version of the steppe hypothesis predicts pre-Yamnaya expansions from the steppe. Whether these happened and what was their makeup can be tested: if they did occur and they did lack "Near Eastern" ancestry, then the steppe hypothesis will be proven. PIE in the Near East, on the other hand, predicts that some PIE languages (certainly the Anatolian ones) will be a "within the Near East" expansion. If such migrations did occur and they lacked "EHG" ancestry, then some variant of the Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model will be proven. Or, the truth might be that everywhere where Indo-Europeans arrive they carry a blend of "West Asian" and "EHG", supporting the third possibility. Time will tell."

He also cautions against too much certainty at this point:
In the interim, I am curious about how much Yamnaya ancestry existed in different parts of Europe (all of the post-5kya samples in this study come from Germany, with a couple from Hungary (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/10/ancient-dna-from-prehistoric.html)). In northern Europe, all populations seem to have less Yamnaya ancestry than the Corded Ware: there it must have declined. But, modern Hungarians have more than Bronze Age Hungarians: there it must have increased.
Germany and a slice of Hungary is a very narrow window through which to see the whole of Europe and these results must be tested by looking at samples from beyond the "heartland". I do hope that some kind of Moore's law operates in the world of ancient DNA, and in three more years we'll be reading studies about thousands of ancient individuals.

Djordjo
12-02-15, 14:59
This is the giant leap.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 15:13
Another interesting discovery in this study, is R1a Z280 from the site of the Lusatian Culture at Halberstadt:


Thesis of Reich was released. Found R1a's :

R1a1-M459 from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov, Karelia, Russia, Mesolithic. 5500 - 5000 BCE
R1a1a1-M417xZ282 from Corded Ware site at Esperstedt 2473 - 2348 cal BCE
R1a1a1b1a2-Z280 from Late Bronze Age Germany, Halberstadt, Lusatian Culture. 1113 -1021 cal BCE

No R1a from Yamna, Unetice, Bell Beakers

So now - with previous samples from Eulau and Liechtenstein cave - we have in total 4 places (and 7 males) in Germany with ancient R1a:

- Eulau (x 3 males) ----------------------------------- Corded Ware Culture
- Esperstedt (x 1 male) ------------------------------ Corded Ware Culture
- Halberstadt (x 1 male) ----------------------------- Lusatian Culture
- Liechtenstein cave near Dorste (x 2 males) ------ Urnfield Culture

Right ??? Interestingly, all of these sites are located very close to each other:

http://s4.postimg.org/cl6m24ty5/R1a_places.png

And we also have this new hunter-gatherer R1a from Karelia.

I added these new places (Halberstadt, Esperstedt, Karelia) to the map of ancient R1a samples that I had made previously:

Red points = places where ancient R1a has been discovered so far:

http://s18.postimg.org/qrqeg88tl/Ancient_R1a.png

Map shows aDNA samples + modern frequency of R1a according to Underhill 2014.

But we still have a huge "black hole" in the middle (between Germany and Russia, as well as in much of Russia).

All ancient European R1a samples are from peripheries of modern distribution of R1a.

It is high time to finally start digging for ancient Y-DNA in areas between Germany and Russia !!!

Tomenable
12-02-15, 15:28
From the new paper, about this individual in Els Trocs, north-eastern Spain (pretty close to the Basques):


(...) I0410 (Spain_EN):

We determined that this individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1 (...) The occurrence of a basal form of haplogroup R1b1 in both western Europe and R1b1a in eastern Europe (I0124 hunter-gatherer from Samara) complicates the interpretation of the origin of this lineage. (...)

================================

Check this - Indo-European Tocharians from Xiaohe were R1a, and also European R1a (not Z93):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

The paper is from 2010, but in the comments section there is a 2014 comment by one of its authors:


Hui Zhou (2014-07-18 16:14) Jilin University

Archaeological and anthropological investigations have helped to formulate two main theories to account for the origin of the populations in the Tarim Basin. The first, so-called “steppe hypothesis”, maintains that the earliest settlers may have been nomadic herders of the Afanasievo culture (ca. 3300-2000 B.C.), a primarily pastoralist culture distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions of the steppe north of the Tarim Basin. The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, it maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Oxus civilization (ca. 2200-1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and Turkmenistan. These contrasting models can be tested using DNA recovered from archaeological bones. Xiaohe cemetery contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region. Genetic analysis of these mummies can provide data to elucidate the affinities of the earliest inhabitants.

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belonging to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which is mainly found in Asians. mtDNA Hgs H, K, C4 primarily distributed in northern Eurasians. Though H, K, C4 also presence in modern south Asian, they immigrated into South Asian recently from nearby populations, such as Near East , East Asia and Central Asia, and the frequency is obviously lower than that of northern Eurasian. Furthermore, all of the shared sequences of the Xiaohe haplotypes H and C4 were distributed in northern Eurasians. Haplotype 223-304 in Xiaohe people was shared by Indian. However, these sequences were attributed to HgM25 in India, and in our study it was not HgM25 by scanning the mtDNA code region. Therefore, our DNA results didn't supported Clyde Winters’s opinion but supported the “steppe hypothesis”. Moreover, the culture of Xiaohe is similar with the Afanasievo culture. Afanasievo culture was mainly distributed in the Eastern Kazakhstan, Altai, and Minusinsk regions, and didn’t spread into India. This further maintains the “steppe hypothesis”.

In addition, our data was misunderstand by Clyde Winters. Firstly, the human remains of the Xiaohe site have no relation with the Loulan mummy. The Xiaohe site and Loulan site are two different archaeological sites with 175km distances. Xiaohe site, radiocarbon dated ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present, was a Bronze Age site, and Loulan site, dated to about 2000 years before present. Secondly, Hgs H and K are the mtDNA haplogroups not the Y chromosome haplogroups in our study. Thirdly, the origin of Xiaohe people in here means tracing the most recently common ancestor, and Africans were remote ancestor of modern people.

This is according to new (not yet officially published) data by Hui Zhou from Jilin University.

=========================

Check also (about Tocharians):

http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/tokol-0-X.html

http://www.oxuscom.com/eyawtkat.htm

Kristiina
12-02-15, 15:51
Also if Yamna/Corded did not bring EEF to Baltics, then who did? We apparently have non-Yamna EEF according those admixture tables, since Baltic folk (Lit, Est) is modelled as EEF+WHG+Yamna.

It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.

mihaitzateo
12-02-15, 16:31
It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.

Maybe I1 was taken by Germanics after they moved from Yamna region towards NW Europe.
What ancient finds are you talking about,Germanics came in Northern Europe after Neolitic period,Yamna culture is estimated to have been between 3600 BC and 2300 BC.

Neolithic ended in Sweden at around 2000 BC.
Till these new findings it was supposed that the Battle-Axe invaded those Neolithic farmers from Scandinavia and brought with them IE languages.
However,according to these new Yamna facts,that Norwegians are most closed to Yamna,Yamna Germanic people moved towards NW Europe and got till Scandinavia.

Aberdeen
12-02-15, 16:58
The thing that strikes me about this study is that the authors seem to be arguing for massive replacement of the Neolithic population on the basis of very few actual samples. There are results from four Copper Age sites, two of which produced "Neolithic" results, and results from only a few Bronze Age sites, one of which produced a "Mesolithic" result. I know they're also relying on admixture tests that are producing results that in some cases I think are rather strange, but I think more data is needed before a definite conclusion can be reached. If Corded Ware was a complete replacement, why do half of the CW results look "Neolithic"?

Certainly the discover of multiple R1b results in Yamnaya is very interesting and not what I expected but I think the Spanish results are more interesting. Many people had decided, on the basis of results from a single Neolithic site, that R1b wasn't in Spain during the Neolithic but now we have results from a second site and guess what - R1b appears. I think it's difficult to say how significant that is but I find the result interesting.

sparkey
12-02-15, 17:24
Certainly the discover of multiple R1b results in Yamnaya is very interesting and not what I expected but I think the Spanish results are more interesting. Many people had decided, on the basis of results from a single Neolithic site, that R1b wasn't in Spain during the Neolithic but now we have results from a second site and guess what - R1b appears. I think it's difficult to say how significant that is but I find the result interesting.

I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b of any kind wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.

Aberdeen
12-02-15, 17:40
I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b of any kind wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.

I don't think the results from one site prove or disprove anything, and I hadn't actually been expecting R1b to turn up in Spain until the BB era. However, at this point we have results from one Mesolithic site and two Neolithic sites, one of which has an early form of R1b - I think that's grounds for not making a decision until we have more results to go on.

The same could be said for the Yamnaya results. I wasn't expecting that. And the fact that none of the "Western European" subclades turned up may simply mean that we need more results from more westerly Yamnaya sites. Or that the "Western European" subclades are VERY recent - I haven't seen any time estimates for them.

bicicleur
12-02-15, 17:58
The fact that one Copper Age individual (Ötzi) was G2a2 like Neolithic Europeans doesn't prove anything. It only shows that at least some Neolithic lineages survived until the Copper Age, but why wouldn't it ? It doesn't mean that other people didn't bring copper-working technology from the Near East. We'll know once we have more Chalcolithic samples from the Balkans (and Anatolia).

Anyway, Yetos was saying that J2a came from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Copper Age. I only said that it's possible but so far no data supports this hypothesis.

there are many places where no anciant DNA has been tested yet, that is true
as far as I know, uptill now, the only J2a was the Hungarian BR2 : http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html
acording to Genetiker J2a-M67 , this clade has 2 centers of highest diversity : the Levant and the Caucasus
Kyjatice Culture : they were horseriding nomads , +/- 1200 BC
They probably came from the Caucasus

there is also J2a-M319 which could be the Minoans
then there is J2a1-L24 and subclades, of which I know nothing

Tomenable
12-02-15, 17:59
I've found a reconstruction by Gerasimov of that Mesolithic R1a male from Karelia:

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_04.jpg

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_03.jpg

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_02.jpg

And also here is the distance between those early Karelia R1a and Samara R1b:

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

http://s4.postimg.org/t5sd42jyl/R1b_R1a.png

bicicleur
12-02-15, 18:12
I'm the other way around: I find the Yamnaya samples more interesting, simply because they're closer to the branch that modern European R1b is on. That informs us more than the presence of a basal subclade in the Neolithic. The Spanish result is an interesting result, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't disprove people's hypotheses. Not many people predicted that R1b of any kind wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, rather many predicted that modern-European-type R1b wasn't in Spain in the early Neolithic, and that seems to be playing out so far. This study gives us R1b1 M478-, I2a1b1 (a.k.a I2a-Isles), and an "F*" that could actually be a lot of different things.

R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today

bicicleur
12-02-15, 18:17
[QUOTE=Tomenable;449644]I've found a reconstruction by Gerasimov of that Mesolithic R1a male from Karelia:

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_04.jpg

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_03.jpg

http://www.kunstkamera.ru/images/g/11_02.jpg

/QUOTE]

this man is dated 5000 - 5500 BC
4200 BC Pit-comb ware arrives
I wonder wether they were still the same people
Pit-comb is considered to be Uralic - haplogroup N1c

Sile
12-02-15, 18:27
Another interesting discovery in this study, is R1a Z280 from the site of the Lusatian Culture at Halberstadt:



So now - with previous samples from Eulau and Liechtenstein cave - we have in total 4 places (and 7 males) in Germany with ancient R1a:

- Eulau (x 3 males) ----------------------------------- Corded Ware Culture
- Esperstedt (x 1 male) ------------------------------ Corded Ware Culture
- Halberstadt (x 1 male) ----------------------------- Lusatian Culture
- Liechtenstein cave near Dorste (x 2 males) ------ Urnfield Culture

Right ??? Interestingly, all of these sites are located very close to each other:

http://s4.postimg.org/cl6m24ty5/R1a_places.png



Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )

clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area

bicicleur
12-02-15, 19:06
Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )

clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area

it is a löss ground, which was interesting for early farmers
many sites were found by accident, during road works
maybe the soil is also favourable to preserve skeletons ?
i guess the researchers have certain criteria, they investigate the skeletons which have the best chance for high DNA coverage

sparkey
12-02-15, 19:08
R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today

H2-P96 (formerly called F3 before its relationship with H was established) is uncommon nowadays, and mostly European and West Asian. It does seem to be popping up here and there in ancient DNA, so I'm not too surprised to see it.

Alan
12-02-15, 19:09
R1b1 is a surprise indeed, but he is M269- so he left very few descendants in Europe, and he is very unlikely the source for Iberian Bell Beaker or anything else
the biggest surprise to me was to find 2 x H2 , alltough 1 of them is ambiguous
H is is an Indian clade, many Gipsies in Europe are H, but they are not H2
allways keep in mind : whatever anciant DNA 3000 years and older, there is 90 % chance, it is extinct today

H is a close cousin of G, Wasn't there a Thracian individual who was also H?
H is also found in Central Asia. There was even a neolithic Syrian sample with H.

Seems like one of those Haplogroups which were once more widespred than nowadays (similar case with C).

Sile
12-02-15, 19:30
H is a close cousin of G, Wasn't there a Thracian individual who was also H?
H is also found in Central Asia. There was even a neolithic Syrian sample with H.

Seems like one of those Haplogroups which were once more widespred than nowadays (similar case with C).

yes there was and note that ALL the old ydna F3 are renamed as H1b............which this thracian was

Tomenable
12-02-15, 19:32
By the way:


R1a1a1b1a2-Z280 from Late Bronze Age East Germany, Halberstadt, Lusatian Culture. 1113 -1021 BCE

So we have Balto-Slavic Y-DNA in Lusatian Culture:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml


R1a-Z280 is also an Balto-Slavic marker, found all over central and Eastern Europe, with a western limit running from East to south-west Germany and to Northeast Italy. It can be divided in many clusters: East Slavic, Baltic, Pomeranian, Polish, Carpathian, East-Alpine, Czechoslovak, and so on.

Moreover, it was found in the westernmost peripheries:

http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

Yaan
12-02-15, 19:33
yes there was and note that ALL the old ydna F3 are renamed as H1b............which this thracian was

Dude there is no Thracian male lines tested, for the last time it is MT DNA

Alan
12-02-15, 19:59
[QUOTE]I wouldn't read too much into the Late Bronze Age J2a1 sample from Hungary (c. 1200 BCE). The Indo-Europeans had been in the region for nearly 2000 years by then, and it could very well have been a foreigner or an assimilated person from a non-IE culture. After all three Unetice samples tested in this new study turned out to be assimilated local I2 lineages, not steppe lineages.


That could be but which non neolithic farmer population could have come before the Indo Europeans and brought this Haplogroup? There is always a likelyhood for other scenarios but from the data we have so far, an Indo European origin looks like the most likely one.


.


No one knows precisely what cataclysmic events took place around 1200 BCE, but I would bet that this corresponds to an expansion of J2a people in the Eastern Mediterranean, and that the Sea Peoples were probably predominantly J2a people. After all, all the great ancient seafaring civilizations all presumably had high percentages of J2a, including the Phoenicians who just happen to emerge around 1200 BCE.

Yes but as you said yourself, Sea People emerged later. And I don't know of any other possible migration to Hungary which could have brought J2a there.

One hypothesis of mine is that the Sea Peoples were descended from the Minoan civilization, which had just collapsed c. 1450 BCE. The fall of the Minoan state might have led to Minoan people turning to piracy and raiding the coasts of the East Mediterranean, from Sardinia to the Levant. The Trojans, whose city had been destroyed by the Mycenaeans c. 1200 BCE, may well have been a mixture of R1b-L23 and J2a people, and Trojans who escaped may also have been among the Sea Peoples who sought revenge on Mycenaean Greece and caused its downfall less than 100 years later.

I don't see why Minoans would end up in Hungary especially not just 100 years after their collapse and be able to mix so much with the local population in Hungary, that their genetic make up turns totally French like. Also are we speculating that Sea People gave this J2a individual his ANE- That doesn't seem very likely to me, especially not if all the other late Neolithic, Bronze Age samples from the same region are a mix of WHG and ENF, but have no ANE yet. From who should the J2a individual have gained it's ANE?




In such a context, it would be unreasonable to label a Hungarian J2a1 as necessarily Indo-European.

Not necessary yes, but allot more speaks for an Indo European, than any other theoretical origin.

The point here is, we having two Bronze Age samples from Hungary and only the J2a sample showing ANE admixture and the arrival of ANE admixture in Hungary beeing connected with the arrival of J2a.

Note I am not claiming that J2a came exclusively with Indo Europeans. There are multiple origins of J2a for sure.
But we will see in future with more samples.

Tomenable
12-02-15, 20:42
And soon we will probably have Y-DNA from Bronze Age Poland! Dr Monika Abreu-Głowacka is extracting DNA from this guy:

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,403555,twarza-w-twarz-z-wojownikiem-sprzed-kilku-tysiecy-lat.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&max-results=21

They found a Bronze Age warrior in Rogalin near Hrubieszow. Here is facial reconstruction:

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452245.JPG

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452249.jpg

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452252.jpg

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452250.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BztVmHCajGk/VMAApOI-haI/AAAAAAAAJ4U/wGUx6uCIP98/s1600/54beb3108f37f_p.jpg

Tomenable
12-02-15, 20:58
OK, I found more info about this project. DNA results will be published in April.

Here is a thread about this:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?156613-DNA-and-facial-reconstruction-of-post-Corded-Ware-Strzy%C5%BC%C3%B3w-Culture-PRELIMINARY-results

Yetos
12-02-15, 21:53
does anybody knows the results of william Parkinson search in Diros cave?

some DNA tests I heard started at 2012, but still I haven't found any summarry.

epoch
12-02-15, 21:55
OK, I found more info about this project. DNA results will be published in April.

Here is a thread about this:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?156613-DNA-and-facial-reconstruction-of-post-Corded-Ware-Strzy%C5%BC%C3%B3w-Culture-PRELIMINARY-results

Nice. We'll be able to see how it fits then. U5b1, Y-DNA not known yet.

epoch
12-02-15, 22:00
Your point is taken , but the fasinating thing is that, using your map above
4 x G2a2a found at Halberstadt and
1 x T1a at Jena ( south of Eulau )

clearly the focus should be ...........why this congregation of people in this area

I vaguely recall that area (Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt) was explicitly sampled because it's at the cross roads of many big trans-European cultures. I recall user FrankN saying something of the likes.

MOESAN
12-02-15, 22:27
I think part of the R1b story is related to copper miners / smiths so they may have had a much larger range as minority artisans along trade routes than they had as full populations.

In which case if there was any dramatic demographic impact along the Atlantic coast it may have been due to that region's relative under population at the time.

(Just one of my theories but personally I wonder if part of what we think of as "near eastern" actually comes from central Asia i.e. I wonder if there was a metal age demographic transition there as well.)

I have some doubt about tight links between overall numerous populations and some working corporations, whatever the prestige attached to these last ones (it recall me the amber theories or others) - it's right that metallurgists at these times were very important and if I had to attach some special people to these kind of professional rovering I would think in BBs, sure - but are we sure FIRST BBs were Y-R1b? very possible but not sure, and hard to explain the today R1b domination in whole West -
that said I thought it was possible R1B took at least two roads into Europe westwards: one South, without too much descendants (South Italy H35) and Valencia, and ONE or TWO other roads: principal: Danube/Donau - second: South Baltic (look at the variance in South Sweden and old SNPs and the clear separation (at first) between P312 and U106... but who knows?

arvistro
12-02-15, 22:45
Did some brutal mathematics using the admixture table of modern pop vs Yamnaya in this thread and admixture (WHG, EEF, ANE) from http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30123-Makin-a-map-of-EEF-WHG-and-ANE-admixtures-in-Europe-Please-post-your-data

Gives that Yamnaya ~ 33% EEF + 33% WHG + 33% ANE

Math is academically wrong, I simply substracted non-Yamna parts from this thread and checked what is left as Yamna :)

Like this - Lithuania
036 EEF 046 WHG 017 ANE - LIT (earlier topic)
or
20 EEF 30 WHG 50 Yamnaya - LIT (this topic)
Now I substract
36-20 = 16 EEF (left unexplained by EEF being only 20 in this topic)
46-30 = 16 WHG (-//-)
17-0 = 17 ANE (-//-)
So 16 : 16 : 17 or 1:1:1 relationship

Works charming for Lithuania and Czech Republic,

but for Estonia and Norway gives different results... Estonian Yamna would eat 22 EEF+ 9 WHG + 18 ANE (estimating EEF twice as much as WHG in Yamna), Norwegian Yamna would eat 6 EEF + 24 WHG + 16 ANE (estimating WHG four times as much as EEF in Yamna).

So apparently simple calculus does not work, but I still think 1:1:1 proportion might not be far from truth.

epoch
12-02-15, 23:01
Wow. How does anyone fit Y-DNA of QLB15D (Quedlinburg, Baalberge Culture, 3645-3537 BC) in this story?


QLB15D: R*(xR1a1a, R1b1a2a1a)-P224 Quedlinburg, Germany: 3645-3537: Baalberge, MN, :: P1 P230+, R P224+: R1a1a M515-, R1b1a2a1a L151-:


EDIT: Marija Gimbutas considered Baalberge culture a IE culture. This R* may point to that as well. But that would make the "massive migration from the steppe" story even more complicated.

MOESAN
12-02-15, 23:04
Well Maciamo and how can you explain the distribution of R1B if it came from West Asia through Pontic Steppe,in Europe,compared with how R1B is in current day Europe?
Romans,Germanics,Celts,all bearers of mainly R1B branches were all great warriors,why is no more R1B in Eastern Europe?
If you look at the distribution of R1B,taking Germanic speaking countries it rather seems that they have came from Northern Europe and spread towards South East Europe,for example in Austria there still is a high percentage of R1B and in the same time the South Eastern border of Germanic speakers .
I am not saying that R1B people did not came through Pontic Steppes into Europe,I am just finding hard to believe this,considering the current distribution of R1b in Europe.

every culture can have its daybreak and its crepuscule - and at these times (and even later) tribes took through some corridors and did not eliminate or conquire whole territories: very often we see the rivers or the shores used as highways or settlements, and some mountains passes giving way to other rivers and staying near good metallic ores ressources - It seems to me the continental Y-R1b were not so numerous at first and that they took strength between Hungary and Switzerland and around: here it seems their demography brutally encreased - for Y-R1B U106 I'm not sure but we see the Danube corridor leading to Moravia South Poland, and to Bohemia where by mountains passes we get to the Saale and Weser, in a region rich for metals - the Corded I believe they were more Y-R1a took the South Baltic plain, rather - the point of meeting with Y-R1b and northern BBs (R1b or not) about the 2500 I think was this Eastern germany Thuringen-Sax-Anhalt "metallic" region, were was found later the frontier between Celts and Germanics before Germanics took the strong side (confirmation of the beginning of my post): I believe future Germanics took even some lessons from Celts at these times.
I know placing Celts there so early is debated; nevertheless the future gaelic speakers (british BBs?) could very well be gone away from Westfalen-South-
Lower-Saxony -
that to say Y-R1b maybe did not hold the whole eastern Europe from Baltic to Black Sea, and that even a strong society can be swept off by an other strong one (Rome badly finished) -

MOESAN
12-02-15, 23:22
Give me a break, please:


Why R1b couldn't have been spread around Western Europe by the Bell Beaker people (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29290-Why-R1b-couldn-t-have-been-spread-around-Western-Europe-by-the-Bell-Beaker-people)
Bell Beakers were a multicultural phenomenon & trade network, not an ethnic culture (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29565-Bell-Beakers-were-a-multicultural-phenomenon-amp-trade-network-not-an-ethnic-culture)




YOu have far more tools in your hands than I've and you made a good job until now -
At first I was against a R1b assignation for BBs but if we consider some early forms of Y-R1b took the South maritime road (the R1b in North-Africa is an element to think about?) so these southern maritime R1b could have been cousins of more numerous brethren of Central Europe, vanguard prospectors (old theory, but old theories can revive)
who made a few time later the junction with the "brothers" in Rhine/Rhône knot before colonising lower Rhine???
only a precaution suggestion I don't hold too much on -

bicicleur
12-02-15, 23:24
Wow. How does anyone fit Y-DNA of QLB15D (Quedlinburg, Baalberge Culture, 3645-3537 BC) in this story?




EDIT: Marija Gimbutas considered Baalberge culture a IE culture. This R* may point to that as well. But that would make the "massive migration from the steppe" story even more complicated.

tell me, why did Gimbutas consider Baalberge IE ?

epoch
12-02-15, 23:26
tell me, why did Gimbutas consider Baalberge IE ?

You need to google that yourself ;) I just saw it on Wiki. The only thing that struck me is the R* in the middle Neolithic in Germany.

MOESAN
12-02-15, 23:35
copper age Hungarian was very related to early Neolithic Hungarian

7072

and ötzi 3300 BC was G2a2b-L91

furthermore Catal Hoyuk knew metallurgy and they were related to early Hungarian Neolithic, but not to Levantine/southeast Anatolian PPNB :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30863-the-origin-of-the-early-european-farmer

so copper melting in the Balkans might be brought by G2a2 as well


no offense but we cannot rely upon a lonesome man - I believe at these brutal times when metals confere military superiority to their owners the dominant ethny passed a maximum of its Y-DNA to descendants: in Balkans, Y-G is not too dominant nor even non-neglictible, as almost nowhere in Europe except some points in Italy or Austria (maybe in Portugal too) often in mountainous region - I don't speak here of Caucasus - Y-J2 and even Y-E1b have a very heavier role in Balkans as a whole - in Balkans the competitors agairnst Y-J2 are Y-R1a, Y-E1bV13 and Y-R1b, except in montainous western Dinaric Alps -
tremendous thread all the way!!!

epoch
12-02-15, 23:41
does anybody knows the results of william Parkinson search in Diros cave?

some DNA tests I heard started at 2012, but still I haven't found any summarry.

Can you elaborate on that?

Greying Wanderer
12-02-15, 23:52
I think R1b = copper and copper working could have started anywhere there were copper deposits and so the assumption that copper working spread from the near east might be wrong.

MOESAN
12-02-15, 23:55
What if L23 split east of Anatolia with 1 branch mostly going north to the steppes, some in Anatolia, and another going through Anatolia to the Balkans, and this latter one eventually turning into L21. That would explain "Anatolian" R1b-Z-whatever being the dominant Y-Dna of Yamna people, and Yamna people having new "Near Eastern" or "Armenian like", not found in hunter gatherers. ANE in Europe was most likely due to spread of R1a people. The percentages across Europe don't matter much, as y-dna is useless when it comes to analysing modern ethnic make up, due to founder effect.One thing is clear though. No matter how R1b spread into Europe, the massive founder effect could only be due to farming, not IE stealing women, or other fairy tales. I1's concentration in the north for example is all down to farming, probably picked up from Hungary, not simply 100% remnants of hunter gatherers.

the chances for strong founder effects diminish with number - concerning "stealing women" I think it existed in a soft form (elite prestige and priority, and polygamy perhaps) but I agree it cannot explain everything, it can have noticeable effects after generations of successive conquests - for Yamnaya, I have not a firm opinion today because Yamanya horizon is large and the Samara sample can abuse us very well - I'm tempted to think that closer Yamanya stellements had more Y-R1a, as you, without any proof it's true - but we know Yamnaya was not homogenous: the more southern parts had surely more descendants from S-Caucasus or from Balkans - the 'armenian theory' concerning kurgans ans steppes (anthropology) admit the 'armenan' traits were not so strong in far settlements - other surveys opposed different regions of the steppes, more or less 'cro-magnoid' (unprecise term) more or less 'southern' or 'armenian' (as unprecise) ...
concerning Y-I adn Y-I1 peculiarly I thin its bearers were dissiminated averyplace in central-northern Europe at first between the agricultors net, and mixed partially with them later -

MOESAN
13-02-15, 00:15
It has been argued that y line I1 brought farming to North Europe as well as blondism. Such combination would never have occurred to me only a year ago. However, I took note that there is still no I1 in ancient finds in Germany and Scandinavia but only in Neolithic Hungary where they had EEF.

me (and others) are arguing about what is found: easier to find numerous remnants from farmers communauties than from HGs poor open sites - easier to find remnants of a warlike elite than of low class population, before christianity - easier to find remnants in some grounds than in granitic acide grounds and so on ...
don't forget it's found some Y-I1 and Y-I2a2 in Northern Russia too - it's not the first time than archeologists notice a so called "return" of older populations thought to have been eliminated; sometimes it's only the result of less "visibility" (I think here in the HGs)... we need more and more ancient DNA FROM DIFFERENT SITES - what shall we say if a survey would publish states about a today 5 or even 20 persons of a same region???

MOESAN
13-02-15, 00:30
And soon we will probably have Y-DNA from Bronze Age Poland! Dr Monika Abreu-Głowacka is extracting DNA from this guy:

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/aktualnosci/news,403555,twarza-w-twarz-z-wojownikiem-sprzed-kilku-tysiecy-lat.html

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2015-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&updated-max=2016-01-01T00:00:00%2B02:00&max-results=21

They found a Bronze Age warrior in Rogalin near Hrubieszow. Here is facial reconstruction:

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452245.JPG

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452249.jpg

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452252.jpg

http://www.naukawpolsce.pap.pl/Data/Thumbs/_plugins/information/403555/MTAyNHg3Njg,18452321_18452250.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BztVmHCajGk/VMAApOI-haI/AAAAAAAAJ4U/wGUx6uCIP98/s1600/54beb3108f37f_p.jpg

trahison!! LOL -
in the reconstitution I saw first, the above profile, i was abused by the "dress" of the skull: I would be glad to see the nude skull from profiel (lateral view) -
from face, it seems far less ' eurafrican' than I found - I think the nose root is to flat and to high, just under glabella, compared to skull (but I need the profiel, again) -
as this, from face, the skull evocate some 'cro-magnoid' gracilized heritage, on the way to a kind of 'eurafrican' (the true nose root here can be of worth) , something finally not to far from the 'long barrows' of Coon (I supposed to be a mix of 'eurafrican' from around Mesopotamia and 'cromagnoids' descendants of Atlantic) -
but I don't affirm a long-barrow filiation here, because same crossings from same parent races give the same results...
for now, my post is still "litterature", not science...

MOESAN
13-02-15, 00:35
some disgression I've not red all post nor the complete study (some runs are too small for i can read them with my poor eyes)

I saw some of the tables and thoughtsof some of ours -
what puzzles me is the differences ofinterpretations according to definition of autosomes groups(poolings) ; ancient and current -
I never had the certitude to have wellunderstood the way 'components' are made by scientists and lobbyists– my first thought was they were tracking among today populationsthe portions of DNA which were typical (by denser presence thanelsewhere) to local population : a first step on a half blindempiric way to understand the between populations links – thereliability of this method is uncertain but I see no toher way tobegin with – I don't know if the scientists can track thegenealogic chain of genes at a so big scale (hundreds of thousands ofautosomal genes), which could be a very valuable way, as they do forsome haplogroups – I ever found a book explaining all thesepoolings -
in some studies they took an ancientpopulation as an unique « pure » component, what enablesus to see the DNA shared by between this old population and todaypopulations but the anteriority of the ancient population push us tobelieve this ancient source was homogenous, what is not proven -
&: if we find a certain % of say,'gedrosia' in an ancient population (more tha a man!) , I'm not sureit's a complete « panoramic » 'gedrosia' we find in a% of the ancient population members, but rather a certain % ofthe 'gedrosia' genes kit, common to the old and the currentpopulations – the other 'gedrosia' DNA, found in the current oneand not in the ancient one, can be : 1) mutated genes which werepresent among the ancient population / 2) new genes incorporated bycrossings with (an) other population(s) of other roots, « new »genes that became geographically « typical » to thecurrent 'gedrosia' component, by proportional and geographical moreor less recent concentration -
The way people assign a DNA portion toan « initial » population then considered as 'basiccomponent' changes completely the result of the diverse componentsdistribution – we saw that with the Neolithic 'Stuttgart' taken bysomeones as pure 'neolithic' EEF when it appeared further that hecould have some WHG DNA in him, according to method and criteria,arbitrary choice finally -
so we see a go-and-return between theconcept of 'population' and the concept of 'component', some supposed'basic populations' taken entirely as 'component' ? (I'm notsure of what I understood, by lack of pedagogy, so i take a taste ofdrink) -
in the work about Yamnaya
« Early Neolithic » (LBK_EN) : component with surelysome taste of WHG ?
« Western European Hunter-Gatherer » (Loschbour) :pure WHG ?
« Yamnaya » : ??? mystery ! It is basal inthe survey, but composed if i red well elsewhere by almost 50%EHG/WHG (?) and almost 50% of mixture ANE-Eastern Neolithic ? (Iavow I'm drown under all these changing namings) called« Armenian » by someones...


I found as you some apparent discrepancies or surprises :

modern : Orcadians and even Norwegians more LBK-EN than Scottish– Greeks neatly less Yamnaya than Bulgarian and less LBK-EN thanSpanish – Spanish without any WHG – Ukrainian less Yamnaya thanHungarian and Czech and than almost ALL Northern Europe -
past : Karsdorf shows very little of LBK-EN and a lot ofYamnaya, with some WHG : surprising for a Neolithic site (lateit's true) : but the dates are of weight here :« neolithic » could be replaced by « chalcolithic » ?- funny to see almost NO WHG in Halberstadt, Alberstedt, Benzigerodein a same region -
soI wonder if the part of WHG present among Yamnaya population (here :Samara in fact) has not been labelled « Yamanya »component ina kind of try to increase the weight of Yamnaya people in Europeanpopulations : a bias, volontary or not ??? -sorry for my naïveté,I lack clear explanations about poolings... because I find hard tofind very more 'yamanya' among northern Europeans than among easternEuropeans, spite the fact that Yamnaya ought to have more 'westernasian' or a bit more 'ANE' among them (as today easterners) than havenorthern Europeans ?
So the borders between poolings old and new are moving and a bitconfusing, I think -






Zoffmann found in her work about the Carpathian Basin that the AlföldALP culture members had strong 'protonordic cro-magnoid' influencesbefore they became gracilized by the precedent people of theKörös-Cris culture of 'mediterranian' type ('danubian' of Coon?),the result becoming the « autochtonous » population ofCentral-Europe – these new element there were not by force camefrom to far eastern places, they could have been mounts HGs (Y-I2?)acculturated to farming – but later, Zoffmann sees the arrival of'cro-magnoid' types in Tiszapolgàr culture, she links to eastern PitGrave people before the constated archeologic changes inCarpathians : so for her, infiltrations ; they wereabsorbed for the most after – in fact some authors speak of a« carpatho-ukrainian » culture close to Tiszapolgar andin contact with Copper cultures of N-Black Sea ! - otherspopulations moves seem having occurred acccording to metricanthropology : in middle-late Copper Age, Baden, Cotofeni,Kostolac show all (as constated by archeology) the arrival of newpopulations, physically of evident south-southeastern features, ofmix economy – here we deal with an opposition of new types, notalready to deeply mixed, as we could expect at these times if comingfrom the Tripolje area, if the surveys conclusions are right :'cro-magnoid' on one side, roughly said 'southern' or 'mediterranian'(broad sense) on the other – all the way, new people andmoves at the artoculation Copper/Bronze Age !!! -
more northernly concerning the 2800/2500 BC, Coon had developped hisviews concerning Corded people, the most exemplar being those of EastGermany (less mixture with 'dinaroids' and gracile 'danubians' thanin South Ukraina) : he gave them a « type » :leptodolichomorphic, very high skulled, large long faced, very talland long legged (or longiligne, what is not exactly the same) withstron jaws and chin – I have a skull picture at hand from Yamnayahorizon (helas the palce is not given) which could roughlycorrespond : all the way nothing of little or robust'mediterranian', even 'irano-afghan' : my thoughts (still) :the types are for the most typical 'nordics' (not archaic at all),maybe the first ones in Western Europe, mixed with some other strongdolichos = a good bit of 'brünn' descendants (brutal features,compressed temporals, ruggish long faces with broad cheekbones) witha taste of some kind of 'eurafrican', it's to say something presentamong 'irano-afghan' and 'cappadocian' means... (more fronto-nasalprofile, but some ressemblances, perhaps by common descent at somepoint???) -

Alan
13-02-15, 00:59
@Maciamo

When I look at this map of L-23
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

And compare it to this one of total R1b
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b-borders.png

And when I compare them to Kurdish data, I think the gab of L23 vs R1b total in the heartland of Kurdistan is to huge.

In any data about Kurds I see most [~65%) of downstream tested R1b being actually l23

see here.


2x R1b-M343 (Kurdish village Dogukoy*/Central Anatolia in Gokcumen et al., 2011)
1x R1b-M343 (Iranian Kurds in Grugni et al., 2012)
13x R1b-M343 (Iraqi Kurds in Stenersen et al., 2004; based on Athey's Haplogroup predictor (http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5a/hapest5.htm))
1x R1b1a2*-M269 (Kurmanji from Zakho/Iraq)
2x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Zaza from Turkey)
1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Zaza from Lebanon, originally from Dersim)
1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Kurd from Dersim)
1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Zaza from Dersim)
1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Zaza from Dersim)
1x R1b1a2a-L23/L49 (Kurd from Turkey)
2x R1b1a2a-L23 (Kurdistan-Iran in Cristofaro et al., 2013)
1x R1b1b2a1a-L52,P311,L11,P310 (Zaza from Sivas, originally from Dersim)
1x R1b1 (P25+)(Kurmanji from Maras/Elbistan/Turkey)

16x R1+R1b+R2 a.k.a. hg1 (Iraqi Kurds in Nebel et al., 2001)
54x R1+R1b+R2 a.k.a. hg1 (Yezidis from Armenia in Yepiskoposian et al., 2006)

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.de/search?updated-max=2014-10-11T05:50:00-07:00&max-results=7&reverse-paginate=true

Or here 23andMe


R1b1b2* (M269) - Zaxo, Kurmanji
R1b1b2a (L23) - Dêrsim, Kurmanji
R1b1b2a (L23) - Dêrsim, Kurmanji
R1b1b2a (L23) - Dêrsim, Zaza
R1b1b2a1a (L11) - Dêrsim, Zaza

http://corduene.blogspot.de/2014/04/northern-kurds-paternal-haplogroups_1.html

The reason why all 13 R1b samples in the Stenersen et al study from 2004 turned out as m343 is because there wasn't any downstream test and it is based on Athey's Haplogroup predictor. No doubt that a good chunk of R1b belong other branches such as M343 or M269 but most individual samples with downstream test turned out as l23 with only 1/3 being M343/M269/L11

The trend seems more like 3/5 of samples belong to L23 and 2/5 of samples belong to m343/M269 + some minor lineages.

Tomenable
13-02-15, 01:16
Fig. 2: Distribution of mitochondrial lineages in the Altai region.
Green: lineages today mainly found in modern Europe; blue: lineages today mainly found in modern East Asia:

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/Illustrationen/CentralAsiaPieChartsWeb.png

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/Illustrationen/CentralAsiaPieChartsWeb.png

From: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html


(2) Sub-project “Steppe Nomads” (Martina Unterländer)

This study addresses the population dynamics in the Eurasian steppe during the Iron Age. It is carried out in collaboration with H. Parzinger (Director Preußischer Kulturbesitz), A. Nagler (German Archaeological Institute, Berlin), Z. Samachev (Margulan Institut für Archäologie, Akademie der Wissenschaft Kazakhstan, Almaty) and V.I. Molodin (Sibirisches Institut für Archäologie und Ethnographie, Akademgorodok, Russia). Beginning with the 9th century BC, there is evidence for clans of horse nomads from the Altai in the East to as far as North of the Black Sea. Because of the astounding uniformity of their material culture, life style and death rituals, they are often summarised under the term Scythians. The name ‘Scythian’ derives from a people mentioned in Herodotus’ Histories that populated the area north of the Black Sea in the 7th century BC. Their only material legacy is found in the form of kurgans, the impressive burial mounds of the Scythian elite. The earliest archaeological evidence of this culture stems from the region of Tuva, with the kurgan Arzan 1 dating to the 9th century BC. Until the 2nd century BC there are a number of populations in the area of the Eurasian steppe belt which can be assigned to that Scythian culture.

Together with our partners, we want to answer whether the obvious cultural homogeneity of these groups points to a common origin or rather to the phenomenon of acculturation. The intention is to understand the ethnogenesis and the population historical connections of these groups called Scythians.

Our data show highly diverse maternal lineages whose composition changes over time within the different populations. At the outset of the 1st century BC the examined populations of the Altai region show a relatively high number of lineages which today are found predominantly in Europe. Over time a change takes place which is reflected in an increased number of maternal lineages predominantly found today in East Asia.

Angela
13-02-15, 01:43
there are many places where no anciant DNA has been tested yet, that is true
as far as I know, uptill now, the only J2a was the Hungarian BR2 : http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/fig_tab/ncomms6257_T1.html
acording to Genetiker J2a-M67 , this clade has 2 centers of highest diversity : the Levant and the Caucasus
Kyjatice Culture : they were horseriding nomads , +/- 1200 BC
They probably came from the Caucasus

there is also J2a-M319 which could be the Minoans
then there is J2a1-L24 and subclades, of which I know nothing



I don't know if this Wiki entry is current, or what the FTDNA projects show, but going by this, a steppe origin near the north Caucasus would make sense wouldn't it?

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)).

Angela
13-02-15, 01:53
I think R1b = copper and copper working could have started anywhere there were copper deposits and so the assumption that copper working spread from the near east might be wrong.

What paper(s) dealing with metallurgy lead you to that conclusion?

Tomenable
13-02-15, 02:15
Check pages 26 and last posts on 25 here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159505-Reich-Yamnaya-brought-R1b-to-Europe/page26

It seems that Samara R1b hunter-gatherer was autosomally EHG (EHG being a mixture of 60% WHG and 40% ANE).

Karelian R1a hunter-gatherer was also autosomally EHG. Both were similar autosomally, despite one being R1b and the other one R1a.

But the later Late Copper-Early Bronze Age Yamnaya guys from Samara were autosomally distinct - with "Armenian-like" Near Eastern admixture.

So - question is - what haplogroup(s) did those "Armenians" bring, given that both R1b and R1a were native to EHGs prior to their arrival ??? It seems that Indo-Europeans emerged when R1a hunters (who either went southward to the steppe or were native to the steppe) and R1b hunters (native to the steppe) mixed with "Armenians" (who - as it seems - were 80% "Near Eastern" + 15% ANE + 5% "minor components" autosomally).

But who were those Armenian-like immigrants, and what were their hg-s? It could be R1a and / or R1b (maybe different clades than those of Karelia-Samara hunters), but could be something else. We need more samples of Y-DNA from Yamnaya, and from more sites - not just one.

Tomenable
13-02-15, 02:19
"Armenians" (who - as it seems - were 80% "Near Eastern" + 15% ANE + 5% "minor components" autosomally).
Or, actually a different DNA than that of Neolithic farmers:

"Well they apparently weren't like the Near Easterners that brought farming to Europe, and they apparently had Caucasus and Gedrosia like autosomal ancestry."

But what Y-DNA and what mtDNA could they bring?

Alan
13-02-15, 02:43
Anyway, they sort of had to develop Yamnaya autosomal package/admixture to see how this package correlates with the rest of Europe. At quick glance their Yamnaya admixture is 40-40-10 ANE-WHG-EEF respectively.


More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF

According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.

If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.

Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Mordovians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).

arvistro
13-02-15, 08:07
More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF
I like ~1:1:1 proportion that comes out in most cases if you look at what ANE/WHG/EEF says for modern folk and what Yamna/WHG/EEF says for modern folk in this topic (So, all ANE + WHG/EEF that got eaten by Yamna component).
I like it because of its symbolic value - three different currents met to develop major river.

LeBrok
13-02-15, 08:27
More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF

According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.

If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.

Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Mordovians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).
I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though.
Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.

LeBrok
13-02-15, 08:32
Fig. 2: Distribution of mitochondrial lineages in the Altai region.
Green: lineages today mainly found in modern Europe; blue: lineages today mainly found in modern East Asia:

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/Illustrationen/CentralAsiaPieChartsWeb.png

From: http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Biologie/Anthropologie/MolA/English/Research/CentralAsia.html

Interesting turnover after 7th century BC. Interestingly things didn't change much from 4th century BC till now. Even with such dominance of Russians over the region of last 300 years and million of east Europeans sent to Siberia.

Sile
13-02-15, 08:38
By the way:



So we have Balto-Slavic Y-DNA in Lusatian Culture:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml



Moreover, it was found in the westernmost peripheries:

http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png


you also have 5 much older samples in the same spot , they range from 5300 to 5050 , they are all G2a and one T1a . What would that mean if they are far far older?

Sile
13-02-15, 08:42
Dude there is no Thracian male lines tested, for the last time it is MT DNA

Pal, when they test ancients they do not get every SNP. They make a sound call with what they find.
now, the Thracian known as K8 ( the royal one from crimea ) had contaminated DNA and his test was ruled out.

the other thracian 192-1 was shown to have SNP 's for ydna H1b1 and also was found his mtdna which is U3b


don't rule out all 4 thracian samples because one was found contaminated

bicicleur
13-02-15, 08:51
Check pages 26 and last posts on 25 here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?159505-Reich-Yamnaya-brought-R1b-to-Europe/page26

It seems that Samara R1b hunter-gatherer was autosomally EHG (EHG being a mixture of 60% WHG and 40% ANE).

Karelian R1a hunter-gatherer was also autosomally EHG. Both were similar autosomally, despite one being R1b and the other one R1a.

But the later Late Copper-Early Bronze Age Yamnaya guys from Samara were autosomally distinct - with "Armenian-like" Near Eastern admixture.

So - question is - what haplogroup(s) did those "Armenians" bring, given that both R1b and R1a were native to EHGs prior to their arrival ??? It seems that Indo-Europeans emerged when R1a hunters (who either went southward to the steppe or were native to the steppe) and R1b hunters (native to the steppe) mixed with "Armenians" (who - as it seems - were 80% "Near Eastern" + 15% ANE + 5% "minor components" autosomally).

But who were those Armenian-like immigrants, and what were their hg-s? It could be R1a and / or R1b (maybe different clades than those of Karelia-Samara hunters), but could be something else. We need more samples of Y-DNA from Yamnaya, and from more sites - not just one.

I don't think Yamnaya brought Armenian-like admixture to the steppe.
Armenians arrived 1200 BC and have quite someR1b-L23
Maybe Armenians have Yamnaya-like admixture

7073

Maciamo
13-02-15, 10:50
@Maciamo

When I look at this map of L-23
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-R1b-L23.gif

And compare it to this one of total R1b
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b-borders.png

And when I compare them to Kurdish data, I think the gab of L23 vs R1b total in the heartland of Kurdistan is far to huge.

In any data about Kurds I see the majority of downstream tested R1b being actually l23

see here.



http://kurdishdna.blogspot.de/search?updated-max=2014-10-11T05:50:00-07:00&max-results=7&reverse-paginate=true

Or here 23andMe



http://corduene.blogspot.de/2014/04/northern-kurds-paternal-haplogroups_1.html

The reason why all 13 R1b in the Iraqi Kurds sample turned out m343 is because there wasn't any downstream test as far as I know. Most individual samples with downstream test turned out as l23.
The trend seems more 2/3 L23 and 1/3 m343/M269 + some minor lineages.

You are right. Most Kurdish R1b are probably L23+ and Z2103+.

Angela
13-02-15, 15:19
I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though.
Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.

The grey is "Near Eastern", it seems to me. Look at the PCA above it. The grey dots to the right are the Near East. The Karelia and ancient Samara HGs are all the way to the left. The "Yamnaya" samples (by which they mean the later samples from that area) are in the middle.

Neither the R1a1 Karelia sample nor the R1b1 Yamnaya sample are farmers, neither one of them have any ENF, and neither one of them are anything like modern Europeans. The R1b1 man is not even very much like the R1b downstream men buried in the same vicinity. We are not our ancient ancestors, and we are particularly not our "y" line or "mt" dna line ancestors.

Furthermore, if you compare the Karelia man with the Samara hunter gatherer you'll also see that they are the same autosomally. Not for you, but for others who may read this post, I'll repeat it...The R1b1 Samara man and the R1a1 Karelia man are almost the same autosomally.

So far as I can see, the purpose and thrust of the paper was to determine if genetic proof existed for a movement from the steppe area into Europe that changed the autosomal signature of Europeans, and to try to document the magnitude of that change.

They found evidence that it did happen, and that the change was substantial, substantial enough that some northern Europeans are autosomally 50% descended from this steppe group.

They did not, and, given the samples they had, they could not document every nuance of these migrations, and pin specific clades of specific y dna R1a or R1b to specific migrations. Indeed, given the limited geographical range of the samples, they can't even say whether or not other y dna lineages are involved.

It doesn't matter to the broad findings, because, as I stated above, the hunter gatherer lineages in the area, R1a and R1b, were almost the same autosomally, and although I think Corded Ware may have picked up more "pure" EHG as it traveled, which is why they were careful to say it was a population "related to" Yamnaya, I think we will see that the Yamnaya people will all have this mystery "Near Eastern" component, because we can see its presence in all areas of Europe.

I think this excerpt from the paper is very important in this regard:
"Thus, it appears that before ~4,500 years ago, the frequency of R1a and R1b in Europe outside Russia was very low, and it rose in the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age period. The young, star-like phylogenies of these two haplogroups24 also suggest relatively recent expansions. The ubiquity of these haplogroups in Russia, Siberia, and Central Asia suggest that their rise in Europe was likely to have been due to a migration from the east, although more work is needed to trace these migrations and also to correlate them with regions of the world that have not yet been studied with ancient DNA (such as southern Europe, the Caucasus, the Near East, Iran, and Central and South Asia). Nonetheless, the Y-chromosome results suggest the same east-to-west migration as our analysis of autosomal DNA."

Given all of this, the internecine warfare on the net from some enthusiasts for their own particular y lineage (what about all the other y lines from which they no doubt descend?) as to who can most claim the glory(their value systems, not mine) of bringing these changes to Europe is both irritating and depressing.

Both R1b and R1a were originally EHG's. Both of them are on the steppe. Both of them have a massive presence in Europe. For good or ill both of them were involved in whatever happened.

The details will come later. As for the L23 found in Yamnaya, it is not just West Asian in its

distribution. It is also found in significant numbers in southern Italy (Calabria, for one), Greece, the Balkans, and into eastern Europe in general and Russia in particular. This kind of commentary is the type of impulsive, careless, reductionist thinking that so mars discussions of population genetics on the web.

It's true that the L51 lineages of more central and western Europe, including the dominant U-152 of my own area, do not descend from this particular small group. However, somewhere in Yamnaya or in adjacent areas of Europe we will undoubtedly find the trail. To pretend that the lack of L51 in this particular small group means that R1b is not responsible for bringing steppe ancestry to Europe is nonsense, in my opinion.

Likewise, as has been pointed out in posts at Anthrogenica, the only way that the lone upstream R1b1 Neolithic farmer in Spain could be the ancestor of all the L51 lineages in central and western Europe is if the same exact sequence of mutations happened to two basal R1bs from opposite ends of Europe. This is highly unlikely to have happened, to put it mildly. The only other possibility is that a basal R1b man from inland, isolated Russia managed to join up with the G2a men, caught one of the Neolithic boats to Spain (becoming a 100% "farmer" genetically along the way) ,and then his extremely close descendent reversed the journey along the Mediterranean, and then hiked his way inland to rejoin his long lost cousins and participate in the genesis of the Yamnaya culture and the subsequent movement into Europe. Oh, and all of this had to be accomplished in a very short time frame. These people must have had an imbedded GPS system.

I think we can toss these scenarios and concentrate on more important things.

Ed. LeBrok, the emphatic "tone" is not directed at you, of course. It's just that your question was a good vehicle to address some of these things.

Aberdeen
13-02-15, 15:34
I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though.
Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.

Very good observation, IMO. That could explain why WHG seems to be under-represented in some populations (such as Norwegian) that are shown as having a lot of Yamnaya. But that and details about how and when the Armenian population formed suggests that we need to forget about the idea of G2 or J2 reaching Europe from the Caucasus via Yamnaya. Which makes the persistence of high levels of EEF all the more puzzling in some cases.

Aberdeen
13-02-15, 16:01
I do find it interesting that over 7000 years ago, R1b was already spread from Samara to the Pyrenees and that over 4000 years ago R1b P312/S116 had already reached Germany. If we think on this, and the fact that R1b distribution is generally strongest the closest one gets to the sea, I think we can conclude that there was in fact already a sea change in the DNA makeup of Europe 4500 years ago but it didn't necessarily all come sweeping out of the steppes on horseback. I would like to see some BB Y DNA samples from some place other than Germany But of course we need to also keep in mind subsequent population changes if we want to fully understand the DNA structure of modern Europeans. IE languages didn't take over many parts of Europe until the historic period, and that must be a factor in how much Yamnaya is in modern populations. And some modern countries, such as Greece, look more Middle Eastern than Yamnaya in DNA content. That needs to be explained.

Alan
13-02-15, 16:50
I didn't have time to touch the paper today, so I'm not sure if I should open my mouth. Can you explain the K16 run. It shows Yamnaya guys with only grey and blue, about 50/50. Is the grey ANE? Blue is WHG though.
Anyway these Yamnaya folks are not farmers, they have no ENF. They look like pure HGs.

No there is no ENF in this chart to begin with :)

It is EEF. And we all know EEF was uncommon among Yamna and their pastoralist(farmer) DNA was more of "West Asian" type. EEF is also rarer among modern West Asians (except some Levantines), because it is ENF + ~20% WHG.

This is why Reich said the "Near Eastern pastoralist DNA from the Near East differs from that we already know from Europe, with having more affinities to Caucasus and South Asia". This Basically indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia. This is why the Yamna individual shows no ENF. They used "Yamna" as a native component which in itself contains allot of ENF (The sort of ENF you would find in northern West Asia as part of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" component). It seems Bronze Age was the time when "Caucasus_Gedrosia" was given birth for the first time. When ENF mixed with incoming ANE. Everything speaks for that because Reich also said the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich. Which total indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia (especially Gedrosia).

The same reason why WHG (blue) seems absent in Tucans- But we all know Tuscans have WHG. This is because almost all of their WHG was brought post Neolithic. It simply gets eaten up by the "Yamna component".

This is why Reich said in some of his earlier speeches. That there was a time when almost all WHG completely died out in late Neolithic and suddenly turned up to become stronger during Bronze Age again. What he was implying was that Yamna gave WHG new live in Europe. If it wasn't for Yamna, the WHG in Europe would only be half of what it is nowadays.

So we have to be cautios here. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which has evolved either somewhere on the Balkans or in the Near East during the Neolithic but later "died out" or was replaced to "West Asian" by admixing with ANE.

Sile
13-02-15, 17:05
No there is no ENF in this chart to begin with :)

It is EEF. And we all know EEF was uncommon among Yamna and their pastoralist(farmer) DNA was more of "West Asian" type. EEF is also rarer among modern West Asians (expect some Levantines), because it is ENF + ~20% WHG.

This is why Reich said the "Near Eastern pastoralist DNA from the Near East differs from that we already know from Europe, with having more affinities to Caucasus and South Asia". This Basically indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia. This is why the Yamna individual shows no ENF. They used "Yamna" as a native component which in itself contains allot of ENF (The sort of ENF you would find in northern West Asia as part of the "Caucasus_Gedrosia" component). It seems Bronze Age was the time when "Caucasus_Gedrosia" was given birth for the first time. When ENF mixed with incoming ANE. Everything speaks for that because Reich also said the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich. Which total indiciates Caucasus_Gedrosia (especially Gedrosia).

The same reason why WHG (blue) seems absent in Tucans- But we all know Tuscans have WHG. This is because almost all of their WHG was brought post Neolithic. It simply gets eaten up by the "Yamna component".

This is why Reich said in some of his earlier speeches. That there was a time when almost all WHG completely died out in late Neolithic and suddenly turned up to become stronger during Bronze Age again. What he was implying was that Yamna gave WHG new live in Europe. If it wasn't for Yamna, the WHG in Europe would only be half of what it is nowadays.

So we have to be cautios here. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which has evolved either somewhere on the Balkans or in the Near East during the Neolithic but later "died out" or was replaced to "West Asian" by admixing with ANE.

your mixing up the data from pages 23 and 25
page 23 has modern and ancient charts. The page 25 refers to the ancient chart on page 23

It states the LBK_EN for all these indviduals are aged over 5000 years old but all are 100% EN and all in central Germany

also note these 4 G2a2 men from central germany are all the same age as oetzi

I never saw any mention that these G2a2a and T1a people in central Germany with 100% EN came from anywhere except yamnya to germany via hungaria

Alan
13-02-15, 17:08
I don't think Yamnaya brought Armenian-like admixture to the steppe.
Armenians arrived 1200 BC and have quite someR1b-L23
Maybe Armenians have Yamnaya-like admixture

7073

the reason why Reich used the notion "Armenian like" is because
Armenians speak a Indo European language, and he wanted to indicate that their is a high possibility that the Indo European language was brought to Yamna actually from there.

From what I heard from other Users, there are other groups as well fitting as Armenians. This is why they used "Armenian like". Undoubtley half of Armenian ancestry probably came with the Phrygians.

This "Armenian like" population which contributed to Yamna must have been a nowadays died out population who have contributed into the ethnogenesis of Armenians, as well others of the region.

Alan
13-02-15, 17:10
your mixing up the data from pages 23 and 25
page 23 has modern and ancient charts. The page 25 refers to the ancient chart on page 23


I am using figure 3. Which has a "Yamna component" to show how much of their ancestry Europeans inherited from Yamna. In this figure they use EEF, WHG and Yamna. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which is nowadays less common in Western Asia and not equivalent to ENF.
http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg.html

Sile
13-02-15, 17:18
I am using figure 3. Which has a "Yamna component" to show how much of their ancestry Europeans inherited from Yamna. In this figure they use EEF, WHG and Yamna. EEF is a specific type of farmer DNA which is nowadays less common in Western Asia and not equivalent to ENF.
http://s1133.photobucket.com/user/jeanlohizun/media/Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg.html

yes I too am using figure 3, but the bottom part which states ancient


look at page 25...pop label for analysis .............this is used for the ancient part of the figure 3 ancients

Aberdeen
13-02-15, 17:44
I definitely think there's a danger that a lot of people will get confused about the difference between:

(a) the question of where the Indo-European language may have originated from;

(b) the original spread of R1a and R1b around Europe by BB and CW people; and

(c) the arrival of the Bronze Age cultural package in Europe.

I think it's helpful to remember that those things are related but they are not the same things. And we have no proof that BB or CW spoke IE languages.

Yaan
13-02-15, 19:18
Pal, when they test ancients they do not get every SNP. They make a sound call with what they find.
now, the Thracian known as K8 ( the royal one from crimea ) had contaminated DNA and his test was ruled out.

the other thracian 192-1 was shown to have SNP 's for ydna H1b1 and also was found his mtdna which is U3b


don't rule out all 4 thracian samples because one was found contaminated

Once again, there is not a ancient Y DNA from the Balkans, not a single, and H was never in Europe, before 16th century, so pls stop with this

bicicleur
13-02-15, 19:30
I definitely think there's a danger that a lot of people will get confused about the difference between:

(a) the question of where the Indo-European language may have originated from;

(b) the original spread of R1a and R1b around Europe by BB and CW people; and

(c) the arrival of the Bronze Age cultural package in Europe.

I think it's helpful to remember that those things are related but they are not the same things. And we have no proof that BB or CW spoke IE languages.

they are not the same but they are connected
I have little doubt that the clades downsrtream of R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 spoke IE
that includes BB and CW people
the difference between BB and CW is that CW came en masse, so they were the majority when they arrived and imposed their language
first BB may have arrived in small groups, and I guess they learned to speak the language of their hosts

Sile
13-02-15, 19:46
Once again, there is not a ancient Y DNA from the Balkans, not a single, and H was never in Europe, before 16th century, so pls stop with this

I do not know what your agenda is but the paper also confirms a ydna H




I0110174 (Starcevo_EN)

This individual was assigned to haplogroup H2 (L281:8353840T→G). Upstream haplogroup F was also supported (P142:7218079G→A, P145:8424089G→A, P138:14199284T→C,P316:16839641A→T, P14:17398598C→T, P159:18097251C→A). An individual bearing mutation P96 which also defines Haplogroup H2 was found in the Netherlands ; while haplogroup H is rare inpresent-day Europeans, its discovery in I0174 suggests that it was present in Neolithic Europe


mtdna of this individual is N1a1a1b

his age is between 5710 - 5550 years

Yaan
13-02-15, 19:51
I do not know what your agenda is but the paper also confirms a ydna H




I0110174 (Starcevo_EN)

This individual was assigned to haplogroup H2 (L281:8353840T→G). Upstream haplogroup F was also supported (P142:7218079G→A, P145:8424089G→A, P138:14199284T→C,P316:16839641A→T, P14:17398598C→T, P159:18097251C→A). An individual bearing mutation P96 which also defines Haplogroup H2 was found in the Netherlands ; while haplogroup H is rare inpresent-day Europeans, its discovery in I0174 suggests that it was present in Neolithic Europe


mtdna of this individual is N1a1a1b

his age is between 5710 - 5550 years


No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.

Yetos
13-02-15, 20:09
No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.

there is 1 in Thracian

Sile
13-02-15, 20:09
No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.

Argue with the people who wrote the Haak paper about your agenda that H ydna is not in europe until the date you claim

sparkey
13-02-15, 20:17
No I do not know what ur agenda is but there is not a single Y DNA from the Balkans and there is not a single H Y DNA tested.

To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.

There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.

Yaan
13-02-15, 20:20
Argue with the people who wrote the Haak paper about your agenda that H ydna is not in europe until the date you claim


No there is not, I do not care if ancient Thracian were A, the fact is that they are not tested!, I do not want to argue with u, u seem really nice guy, just there is not a single Y DNA from Ancient Balkans, not a single one, and there is not a single ancient human tested for Y DNA H, as for when H entered we can discuss ofc, but there is not data from Balkans!!

So when there is data from Balkans I will be more then happy to discuss it with knowledge guy like u, u seem to know a lot , up to then I leave u guys to discuss the R1b, for me it just proves when we already knew that it comes from Anatolia :)

Yaan
13-02-15, 20:21
To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.

There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.
Well, this is something totally different, but Hungary is not Balkans, there are no Thrachians there and F* is not H. :)

Sile
13-02-15, 21:14
To be clear, the H2 Starcevo sample that Sile is referring to was from Hungary, not the Balkans.

There have also been samples from earlier studies, mostly LBK and mostly from Germany, that were reported as F* but did not test P96, making H2 a very likely possibility for them as well. But again, nothing from the Balkans.

his post #206 stated...no H in europe befor ethe 16th century

Alan
13-02-15, 21:49
I think he is being "Gypsophobic" but let me help abit against his H* phobia. The H found in the Thracian and Neolithic European samples is H2(former known H1b) while Roma H is H1a?. There was also a Syrian neolithic? sample who turned out as H. So this can't be coincidence.

H was definitely part of the neolithic movement.

Alan
13-02-15, 22:32
I even started to think for long time now. Is it possible that it was some of Haplogroup H who brought farming to India?

Robert6
13-02-15, 22:40
Is there any link for Thracian H2 (old F3, new H1b) ????
Where can I read about this?
Also H2 (old F3, new H1b) in Neolithic Syria?

Finalise
13-02-15, 22:43
I can't believe Reich all of a sudden revamped the entire WHG component. A few months ago, there were discussions of how Europeans have this deep ancestry from Loschbur related WHG, and all of a sudden now it's only 10% or so, and Yamna-EHG is the new component.I have a feeling that the "Yamna" component will be taken apart and divided again.

Robert6
13-02-15, 22:46
Well, this is something totally different, but Hungary is not Balkans, there are no Thrachians there and F* is not H. :)

Yaan
the H2 (old F3, new H1b) is European + West Asian haplogroup
the H1 (old H, new H1a) is Indian and Roma haplogroup

bicicleur
13-02-15, 23:00
I even started to think for long time now. Is it possible that it was some of Haplogroup H who brought farming to India?

H is paleolithic in India
H started to split very early , more than 40.000 years ago , and all subclades are present in India
so it is very unlikely that H brougth farming to India
it is very likely tough that once farming was introduced in the Indus valley, subclades of H helped to spread farming further south
the people who spread farming further south were the Dravidians

Alan
13-02-15, 23:05
H is paleolithic in India
H started to split very early , more than 40.000 years ago , and all subclades are present in India
so it is very unlikely that H brougth farming to India
it is very likely tough that once farming was introduced in the Indus valley, subclades of H helped to spread farming further south
the people who spread farming further south were the Dravidians


Thats actually what I meant, if you look at my post I edited it. With some of Haplogroup H I meant some subclades of H might have been brought to India via farmers.


@Robert

I remember reading several times rumors that H was found in Syrian neolithic but people thought it must be wrong because no one was expecting H.

Sile
13-02-15, 23:20
Is there any link for Thracian H2 (old F3, new H1b) ????
Where can I read about this?
Also H2 (old F3, new H1b) in Neolithic Syria?

The 4 Thracian samples where analysed as per this link .........and continuation of this link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/

Sile
13-02-15, 23:27
The 4 Thracian samples where analysed as per this link .........and continuation of this link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/

testers found



Z14091

H1b1 (http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpH14.html)


17129345 (http://ybrowse.isogg.org/cgi-bin/gb2/gbrowse/chrY/?name=chrY:17129345-17129345)

A->G

Angela
13-02-15, 23:41
If you look at the chart on page 25, the division is very clear. The orange is Neolithic Farmer, although I don't know if it's exactly the same as the component in the prior Lazardis paper. Here, the standard is Starcevo and LBKT, and thus Stuttgart shows a little WHG, as does the Spanish early Neolithic. Still, it's Early Neolithic Farmer in Europe and EEF is the closest term, as Alan pointed out above. The blue is, of course, WHG, based on Loschbour. The green is Yamnaya. That component is not based on the R1b1 hunter gatherer who was so similar to the R1a1 hunter gatherer but who was, indeed, found in the Samara Valley. The green Yamnaya component is based on the later and downstream R1b samples from Yamnaya, and thus autosomally are half Eastern Hunter Gatherer and half "Near Eastern". I agree with Alan that this is the "West Asian" component that Dienekes has been chasing all these years. In my opinion, however, it should not be seen as some totally foreign component. I think they could have extracted the majority EEF like component.
http://sarkoboros.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Haak-et-al.-2015-Figure-3.png

(Alan is also right that ENF has no place in the discussion. That is a component found through modeling by Eurogenes. It is not, unlike these components, based on an ancient set of genomes.)

It's interesting that a little sliver of Yamnaya made it into the Gamba samples. You can also see how the blue WHG component made something of a comeback in the MN of Germany. Obviously, that didn't happen in other areas. Then there's the big explosion of it with Corded Ware, and lower levels in Bell Beaker.

There are all sorts of questions that arise as to why individual groups have their own particular set of percentages, as well. The Greeks (I believe the samples were taken in a northern part of the mainland) and the Albanians, for instance, why do they have less Yamnaya, when in addition to what might have come originally, they were invaded by Slavic speaking tribes who would have carried some with them? Also, why do they have more WHG than their immediate neighbors? The PCA is also interesting:

The PCA is also interesting:
7074
You can see how the later Yamnaya samples cluster right between the EHGs and the Near Easterners.

Does anyone know, by the way, where the authors talk about the percentage of population replacement in the south?

Angela
14-02-15, 00:06
the reason why Reich used the notion "Armenian like" is because
Armenians speak a Indo European language, and he wanted to indicate that their is a high possibility that the Indo European language was brought to Yamna actually from there.

From what I heard from other Users, there are other groups as well fitting as Armenians. This is why they used "Armenian like". Undoubtley half of Armenian ancestry probably came with the Phrygians.

This "Armenian like" population which contributed to Yamna must have been a nowadays died out population who have contributed into the ethnogenesis of Armenians, as well others of the region.

I'm not sure about their motivations but these are some of the good "fits" for Yamnaya.
52% Iraqui Jews + 48% Karelia
47% Armenian + 53% Karelia

Angela
14-02-15, 01:42
Someone has helpfully provided the actual percentages for the European populations in terms of EN (European Neolithic Farmers), WesternHunterGatherers (old WHG or pre-the Yamnaya migrations) and Yamnaya.
(For those interested in the breakdown, Yamnaya would be very roughly 1/4 WHG like, 1/4 ANE like, and half "Armenian like". )


Norway - 30, 16, 54
Lithuania - 18, 30, 52
Estonia - 12, 37, 51
Iceland - 32, 19, 49
Scotland - 28, 23, 49
Czech - 35, 16, 49
Belarus - 25, 28, 47
Hungary - 39, 16, 45
Ukraine - 28, 27, 44
England - 44, 14, 42
Orkney - 34, 25, 41
South French - 57, 4, 39
Croatia - 44, 17, 37
French - 51, 12, 37
North Spanish - 59, 10, 31
Bulgaria - 55, 14, 31
Tuscany - 72, 0, 28
Basque - 54, 19, 27
Bergamo - 63, 13, 24
Spain - 78, 0, 22
Greece - 66, 14, 20
Albania - 65, 18, 17
Sardinia - 88, 7, 5

Stuttgart - 94, 6, 0
Bell Beaker - 38, 16, 46
Unetice - 24, 33, 43
Corded Ware - 17, 4, 79

Finalise
14-02-15, 02:07
I think the Yamna component, just like WHG, will be revised after data north of the Black Sea in Ukraine comes along, as some of these percentages don't make sense. How could Albania have more WHG than France, Spain, England when the Loschbour cavemen was found in Western Europe? Maybe they're mixing up WHG with Yamnaya (who have EHG = ANE + WHG). I think Western Yamnaya will be different than Samara. (Sorry for my ignorance if I miss anything, as I haven't looked at the admixtures in detail)

Tomenable
14-02-15, 02:42
Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=31366#.VN6CYp2G9g0[COLOR=#333333]


"... the IE speakers (R1a) arrived in the Balkans and further in Europe between the 10th - 8th millennia bp. Gimbutas’ theory is in error when it proposes the formation of territorial, nomadic, pastoral populations speaking PIE languages (collectively named the Kurgan culture), in the 7th millennium bp in the area of the Dnepr and Don basins, the middle and lower Volga basin, the Caucasus and the Ural mountains. In fact, there were no PIEs (R1a) at those times in those territories. The Kurgan theory apparently has inverted the roles of the NIE (R1b) and the IE (R1a). Instead, these cultural features should be ascribed to NIEs (R1b) who migrated westward. Gimbutas claims that IE speakers migrated to Europe three times--first, between 6400 and 6300 ybp; second, around 5500 ybp (from the area North of the Black Sea); third, between 5000 and 4800 ybp (allegedly from the Volga steppes). These claims are unsupportable. There were no IEs (R1a) in the Volga steppes between 5000 and 4800 ybp or earlier; they arrived between 4600 and 4300 ybp. Had they been in the steppes, they would have been moving from Europe eastward."

But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?

This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).


there were no PIEs (R1a) at those times in those territories.
Just because they did not find R1a in 7 Samara burials (very localized), doesn't mean they were not there.

We have 9 x R1a in Andronovo (which is descended from Yamna) and 4 x R1a in Corded Ware (also descended from Yamna).

So logically there should be some R1a among Yamnaya as well, just not among those 7 x R1b from Samara.

=============================

When it comes to that Non-IE, Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs in north-eastern Spain:

The problem with that R1b from Spain is that it tests negative on P297 mutation, which means that this guy was NOT ancestor of great majority of modern European R1b (which is P297+). On the other hand, hunter-gatherer from Samara (6th millenium BC) tests positive on this mutation.

Here is a map of types of Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA discovered in Europe to date:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png

Sile
14-02-15, 03:46
Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=31366#.VN6CYp2G9g0[COLOR=#333333]



But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?

This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).


Just because they did not find R1a in 7 Samara burials (very localized), doesn't mean they were not there.

We have 9 x R1a in Andronovo (which is descended from Yamna) and 4 x R1a in Corded Ware (also descended from Yamna).

So logically there should be some R1a among Yamnaya as well, just not among those 7 x R1b from Samara.

=============================

When it comes to that Non-IE, Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs in north-eastern Spain:

The problem with that R1b from Spain is that it tests negative on P297 mutation, which means that this guy was NOT ancestor of great majority of modern European R1b (which is P297+). On the other hand, hunter-gatherer from Samara (6th millenium BC) tests positive on this mutation.

Here is a map of types of Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA discovered in Europe to date:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png


thanks for map

maybe you should place ages on any that are over 5000 years like the R1a and R1b

here is the others

G2a in germany = 5206 to 5052

T1a in germany = 5207 to 5070

H2 in hungaria = 5710 to 5500

R1b in spain = 5178 to 5066

Alan
14-02-15, 04:18
Someone has helpfully provided the actual percentages for the European populations in terms of EN (European Neolithic Farmers), WesternHunterGatherers (old WHG or pre-the Yamnaya migrations) and Yamnaya.
(For those interested in the breakdown, Yamnaya would be very roughly 1/4 WHG like, 1/4 ANE like, and half "Armenian like". )



basically what you and I said ~30% ANE/ ~25-30% WHG / ~40% ENF

The thing is the orange component is EEF and differs from the "ENF" in Yamna in that way, that it is the first appearance of the West Asian type. While EEF is WHG admixed (~20%), the farmer DNA in Yamna is ANE admixed. 70% ENF + 30% ANE that is what made the "West Asian" component.


In other words.

Early European Farmer (EEF)= ~80% Proto-Farmer (ENF) + 20% WHG

Caucasus_Gedrosia aka "West Asian= ~70% Proto-Farmer (or possibly even EEF itself) + 30% ANE

Alan
14-02-15, 04:26
And to the question about R1a*.

Don't forget all the samples of Yamna were from one valley in Samarra. If we take a look at cultures descend of Yamna, such as Andronovo, Corded Ware. And even some ancient Indo Europeans such as Tocharians. There is absolutely no doubt that R1a will pop up in Yamna And I am pretty convinced allot of other Haplogroups will pop up also.

Be not suprised if in some regions closer to North Caucasus yDNA T, J and few other pop up.

Isn't there even allot of T* in some modern Uralic speakers in the region?

Sile
14-02-15, 05:46
And to the question about R1a*.

Don't forget all the samples of Yamna were from one valley in Samarra. If we take a look at cultures descend of Yamna, such as Andronovo, Corded Ware. And even some ancient Indo Europeans such as Tocharians. There is absolutely no doubt that R1a will pop up in Yamna And I am pretty convinced allot of other Haplogroups will pop up also.

Be not suprised if in some regions closer to North Caucasus yDNA T, J and few other pop up.

Isn't there even allot of T* in some modern Uralic speakers in the region?

the T is in

M. A. Gubina et al, "Haplotype Diversity in mtDNA and Y�Chromosome in Populations of Altai–Sayan Region," "Russian Journal of Genetics," (2012),



Kazakhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhs)
in
Kosh-Agachski Raion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh-Agachski_Raion)
found 19/49
at 38.8%



Kazkhs announed IIRC that they where Kazakhs in the year 1490...prior to this they where under the Uzbek banner.........really I am usure who or what is a true Kazakh

Yaan
14-02-15, 08:30
his post #206 stated...no H in europe befor ethe 16th century


So u were mistaken, would have been good to admit it

There is not a single ancient Y DNA from the Balkans.

Thrachians do not live in Hungary

F* is not H( and even if it is, it is not Thrachian and from the Balkans), it has nothing to do with Gypsies, it is just Balkans are not tested and u were spreading fake info :)

Alan
14-02-15, 11:45
the T is in

M. A. Gubina et al, "Haplotype Diversity in mtDNA and Y�Chromosome in Populations of Altai–Sayan Region," "Russian Journal of Genetics," (2012),



Kazakhs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhs)
in
Kosh-Agachski Raion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosh-Agachski_Raion)
found 19/49
at 38.8%



Kazkhs announed IIRC that they where Kazakhs in the year 1490...prior to this they where under the Uzbek banner.........really I am usure who or what is a true Kazakh

All this region was once Indo_Iranian speaking. Either Turks themselves are "altaified" Irano_Aryans OR they are Altains who mixed and replaced them.

Diurpaneus
14-02-15, 14:31
Thrachians do not live in Hungary



The Thracians lived almost everywhere,including the eastern half of Hungary,Slovakia, Carpathian Poland or parts of Ukraine;
though,it is quite clear that the Bulgarian ones are the true stars.

See the article from pg.167(and an interesting map at 181):

http://www.academia.edu/823512/H._Ciugudean_and_N._Boroffka_ed._The_Early_Hallsta tt_Period_1200-700_B.C._in_South-Eastern_Europe._Proceedings_of_the_International_S ymposium_from_Alba_Iulia_10-12_June_1993._Bibliotheca_Musei_Apulensis_1_Alba_I ulia_1994_


For chariotry and Mnogovalikovaya(also named Babino), see Kuzmina's article:

http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csen.org%2FBAR%2520Book%2F04% 2520Part%25203.%2520Bronze.Int.pdf&ei=iUrfVLGtNIGsUfShhKgG&usg=AFQjCNELPT9p4MzrZ5SqLQQS29ISm28h1Q&bvm=bv.85970519,d.d24&cad=rja

http://www.academia.edu/7837844/Balkan_Pit_Sanctuaries_-_Retheorizing_the_archaeology_of_Religion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-cordoned_ware_culture

Yaan
14-02-15, 14:39
The Thracians lived almost everywhere,including the eastern half of Hungary,Slovakia, Carpathian Poland or parts of Ukraine;
though,it is quite clear that the Bulgarian ones are the true stars.

See the article from pg.167(and an interesting map at 181):

http://www.academia.edu/823512/H._Ciugudean_and_N._Boroffka_ed._The_Early_Hallsta tt_Period_1200-700_B.C._in_South-Eastern_Europe._Proceedings_of_the_International_S ymposium_from_Alba_Iulia_10-12_June_1993._Bibliotheca_Musei_Apulensis_1_Alba_I ulia_1994_


For chariotry and Mnogovalikovaya(also named Babino), see Kuzmina's article:

http://www.google.ro/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.csen.org%2FBAR%2520Book%2F04% 2520Part%25203.%2520Bronze.Int.pdf&ei=iUrfVLGtNIGsUfShhKgG&usg=AFQjCNELPT9p4MzrZ5SqLQQS29ISm28h1Q&bvm=bv.85970519,d.d24&cad=rja

http://www.academia.edu/7837844/Balkan_Pit_Sanctuaries_-_Retheorizing_the_archaeology_of_Religion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-cordoned_ware_culture

There was never Thrachians civilization outside the Balkan( and to a lesser extend Anatolia) :) I hope they will test for male lines remains fro Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and North Greece, this is what was the Thrachian core :)

Tomenable
14-02-15, 15:01
Corded Ware individual I0104, age 2473 - 2348 BCE, is M417 - which is ancestral to 99% of modern R1a (including Z93 and CTS 4385).

He lived 4350 - 4500 years ago. And according to Underhill 2014, the R-M417 has an estimated TMRCA of 4800 - 6800 years ago, average of 5000.

While according to Haak 2015 it has an estiated TMRCA of 5800 years ago.

Anyway, our M417 from Corded Ware lived between 300 and 2500 years after the common ancestor of 99% of modern R1a.

Moreover, that hunter-gatherer from Karelia from 7000 - 7500 years ago (5000 - 5500 BCE) is ancestral to M417 !!!

So it seems very probable that common ancestor for 99% of all R1a lived in Europe somewhere between Finland-Russia and East Germany.

Let's also check Y-DNA from steppe / nomadic cultures, discovered to date:

Yamnaya - R1b
=============
Corded Ware - R1a
Tocharians - R1a (and Tocharian R1a is M417, but not Z93)
Andronovo - R1a
Scythians - R1a

Angela
14-02-15, 17:20
Gentlemen, I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting very tired of this chest beating for one ydna haplogroup over another, especially in the R1a versus R1b divisional championships. Did any of you get into this because of intellectual curiosity, or is it just about ethnic rivalry?

Europe didn't exist as a concept in these times. The line between Europe and Asia wasn't always drawn at the Urals. Anyway, who cares on what side of some imaginary line some samples were found? I'm sure they roamed the whole steppe.

I mean, it's getting ridiculous. First the Ancient North Eurasians suddenly became Europeans. Then, when it seemed R1 developed in Siberia, that suddenly became Europe. Basal R couldn't have developed in Central or Central/South Asia, even though that's what some academics have said, because then it wouldn't be European. So, it had to develop in "Russia". Never mind that we don't KNOW that yet. If all else fails, then let's just say that R1a and R1b happened to have most of their camps on the west of the Urals, so that definitely makes them European.

Do people have so little self awareness that they don't see the flaws in this kind of reasoning? Enough.

Sile
14-02-15, 17:52
The questions on R1 for the paper is or should be said

1 - R1a/b where once just R1, where is origin

2 - Yamnya as per paper is R1b, did R1a reside north or east of this area

3 - If they ( R1a and R1b ) where together in yamnya at the same time and they migrated westerly into Europe, then why is there no equal % of these 2 big haplotypes in western Europe?


If I had to make a call, I say R1b was earlier into Yamnya than R1a which concludes that R1 origins where further East, maybe SW China..............we know by Karafet 2014 paper than R origins is SE Asia

Sile
14-02-15, 17:55
Klyosov commented: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=31366#.VN6CYp2G9g0[COLOR=#333333]



But how does Klyosov know that R1b were Non-IE speakers ??? This is just an assumption - based on what?

This steppe data confirms that R1b (or at least some of them) were IE speakers, and so were R1a (or at least some of them).


Just because they did not find R1a in 7 Samara burials (very localized), doesn't mean they were not there.

We have 9 x R1a in Andronovo (which is descended from Yamna) and 4 x R1a in Corded Ware (also descended from Yamna).

So logically there should be some R1a among Yamnaya as well, just not among those 7 x R1b from Samara.

=============================

When it comes to that Non-IE, Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs in north-eastern Spain:

The problem with that R1b from Spain is that it tests negative on P297 mutation, which means that this guy was NOT ancestor of great majority of modern European R1b (which is P297+). On the other hand, hunter-gatherer from Samara (6th millenium BC) tests positive on this mutation.

Here is a map of types of Neolithic and Mesolithic Y-DNA discovered in Europe to date:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png


you missed oetzi on your map...........exactly same time frame as the G2a in germany ( on your map )

Aberdeen
14-02-15, 18:47
you missed oetzi on your map...........exactly same time frame as the G2a in germany ( on your map )

He also missed the four Corded Ware samples from Poland (Neolithic looking) and Germany (R1a) and the three Bell Beaker R1b samples from Germany. Including those samples might have complicated things - the two oldest and most easterly CW samples weren't R1a.

Tomenable
14-02-15, 19:32
No, Z93 is from R1a-S224
Entire S224 (including Z93) is from M417:

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a-tree.gif

Aberdeen
14-02-15, 19:46
I considered adding Oetzi as well. But Corded Ware is too late for that map.

Anyway - you can find this data here (they also already added these new samples from Haak 2015):

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

They have aDNA divided into chronological categories, for example:

Mesolithic aDNA
European Neolithic aDNA
Copper-Bronze Age aDNA

Oetzi and Corded Ware are included in "Copper-Bronze Age aDNA".

I added to my map only those from Neolithic and Mesolithic aDNA.

Should I add also Oetzi to the map ???

Sorry - I wasn't thinking about the dates and categories of the finds when I made that comment - call it a mental glitch. And now that I am thinking about Neolithic versus Copper Age, I think Oetzi's copper axe justifies putting him in the Copper Age category, rather than the Neolithic.

Tomenable
14-02-15, 20:36
Native people of Europe were not Indo-European.

This is true for Northern and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we now have Mesolithic people with Indo-European haplogroups.

Adjust your views to these new findings. Take a look at my map of Stone Age haplogroups in Europe again:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png

No IE haplogroups in Western and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we have them, among native hunters of that area.


Saami in Northern Europe are native people of that region

According to most recent studies Saami are a mix of locals with immigrants from North-East Asia. So not entirely native.

Fire Haired14
14-02-15, 21:00
This is true for Northern and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we now have Mesolithic people with Indo-European haplogroups.

Adjust your views to these new findings. Take a look at my map of Stone Age haplogroups in Europe again:

http://s1.postimg.org/hhctxkrtb/Neolithic.png

No IE haplogroups in Western and Central Europe. But in Eastern Europe we have them, among native hunters of that area.



According to most recent studies Saami are a mix of locals with immigrants from North-East Asia. So not entirely native.

Where did you hear the Mesolithic R1b from Samara was R1b1a-P297+. It didn't say that in the paper. If it does that's huge news because it makes it ancestral to M73 and M269.

LeBrok
14-02-15, 21:38
More like 30/30/40 ANE/WHG/EEF

According to the paper the Karelians were 60% WHG and 40% ANE. The Near Eastern portion of Yamna was also ANE rich.

If we now half the 60% WHG we get 30. And since we know the Near Eastern portion was also ANE rich, and they called them "Armenian like" (who have 15% ANE), we can assume 30% WHG also. And the rest was most likely ENF.

Otherwise they couldn't be closest to Moravians and Lezgins who both have significant percentage of ENF (Lezgins more and Mordovians less).

I still don't get why you give them such ingh EEF admixture. According to Figuer 2 they so much autosomally closer to Mal'ta boy MM1 and pure ANE than to Neolithic Farmers of Europe. Yamnaya guys are very close and alike the two EHG samples. Some of Yamnaya are very close to ANE source, and some stretched towards EEF, but not far enough. Note that the grey dots from the background are the location of modern population on the chart. Even Corded Ware individuals don't touch the first grey dots, which represent modern Russians and Finns having almost 30% of EEF. From this chart I would guess that Corded Ware were about 20% EEF and Yamnaya at 10%, EEF some of them much less (the sampled region of Yamnaya).


7076

I'm still yet to read most of the paper. Could you post numbers for pages you are taking your numbers from, please.

LeBrok
15-02-15, 00:42
7077
I finally found the explanation for the colours in the runs.

"The Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the “orange” ancestral
population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from
K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of
“Basal Eurasian” ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age
(LN/BA) groups possess some of the “pink” component that is dominant in Native Americans; this
may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related “Ancient North Eurasian” ancestry in Native
Americans5 or of the same type of ancestry in European hunter-gatherers. An interesting pattern
occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of
the “light green” component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this
component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations and its co-occurrence in late
Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans (but not earlier ones) and South Asians might reflect a degree of
common ancestry associated with late Neolithic migratory movements (e.g., the ~5,800-year old
TMRCA of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417 suggests some gene flow affecting both Europe
and South Asia in this time frame11, although this date is subject to uncertainty due to poor estimates
of the human mutation rate.)
At K=9 a European hunter-gatherer ancestral population (“dark blue”) appears; this was not present in
an earlier analysis of the Human Origins modern populations and a much smaller number of ancient
individuals2. The inclusion of a large number of ancient hunter-gatherers has probably caused such an
ancestral population to appear in this analysis. European farmers now appear to be mixture of a Near
Eastern (orange) and European hunter-gatherer (dark blue) ancestral populations, with an increase in
the hunter-gatherer ancestry during the Middle Neolithic (reflecting the “resurgence” of such ancestry
shown in PCA, Fig. 2a) and also during the Late Neolithic. Note, also, the persistent presence of the
“light green” component that ties LN/EBA groups to South Asia between K=9 and K=15.
A similar
(darker green) component also distinguishes LN/EBA groups from earlier ones at K=16; this
component appears to be highly represented in groups from South Asia, the Near East, and the
Caucasus. The existence of this component may correspond to the evidence for “dilution” of EHG
ancestry in the Yamnaya (SI7), showing them to have evenly split ancestry between the “dark blue”
hunter-gatherer and “dark green” component; the analysis of SI9 also suggests an even split between
an EHG and a Near Eastern component in the ancestry of the Yamnaya. The “dark green” component
seems to have been carried from a Yamnaya-related population to the Corded Ware and other Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of central Europe. A useful topic for future work is to study the
relationship of LN/BA populations to contemporary South Asians, Caucasian and Near Eastern
populations and to see if this affinity (in contrast to earlier Europeans) may be related to the dispersal
of Indo-European languages."

So orange colour is Early Neolithic EEF, almost like from Lazaridis runs. Blue is not WHG, but European Hunter Gatherer, which is sort of amalgamation of of WHG and ANE. Dark Green is something unusual. It persists in modern Caucasus and South Asians, and in 50% of Yamnaya. It was almost completely missing from Samara HG. It is shows also in LN/EBA sites all over Europe.

Tomenable
15-02-15, 00:42
OK, I can see that our discussion got split into another thread - here it is:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30889-Massive-migration-from-the-steppe-extended-discussion

LeBrok
15-02-15, 01:27
7077
So orange colour is Early Neolithic EEF, almost like from Lazaridis runs. Blue is not WHG, but European Hunter Gatherer, which is sort of amalgamation of of WHG and ANE. Dark Green is something unusual. It persists in modern Caucasus and South Asians, and in 50% of Yamnaya. It was almost completely missing from Samara HG. It is shows also in LN/EBA sites all over Europe.
Actually the dark green component was present in Samara HG at about 15% level (if my eyes are not deceiving me looking at this small column in the chart) and then grew to 50% in Yamnaya. I would guess that it was present not to far away feeding Yamnaya with time going by. Influence of population from Caucasus, like Maykop culture?

Sile
15-02-15, 03:24
7077
I finally found the explanation for the colours in the runs.

"The Early/Middle Neolithic European populations belong almost entirely to the “orange” ancestral
population from K=2 to K=8, while hunter-gatherers show a relationship to eastern non-Africans from
K=3 to K=8, consistent with sharing more genetic drift with these populations due to their lack of
“Basal Eurasian” ancestry2. From K=4 to K=6, the hunter-gatherers and late Neolithic/Bronze Age
(LN/BA) groups possess some of the “pink” component that is dominant in Native Americans; this
may reflect either the presence of west Eurasian-related “Ancient North Eurasian” ancestry in Native
Americans5 or of the same type of ancestry in European hunter-gatherers. An interesting pattern
occurs at K=8, with all the late LN/BA groups from central Europe and the Yamnaya having some of
the “light green” component that is lacking in earlier European farmers and hunter-gatherers; this
component is found at high frequencies in South Asian populations and its co-occurrence in late
Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans (but not earlier ones) and South Asians might reflect a degree of
common ancestry associated with late Neolithic migratory movements (e.g., the ~5,800-year old
TMRCA of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a-M417 suggests some gene flow affecting both Europe
and South Asia in this time frame11, although this date is subject to uncertainty due to poor estimates
of the human mutation rate.)
At K=9 a European hunter-gatherer ancestral population (“dark blue”) appears; this was not present in
an earlier analysis of the Human Origins modern populations and a much smaller number of ancient
individuals2. The inclusion of a large number of ancient hunter-gatherers has probably caused such an
ancestral population to appear in this analysis. European farmers now appear to be mixture of a Near
Eastern (orange) and European hunter-gatherer (dark blue) ancestral populations, with an increase in
the hunter-gatherer ancestry during the Middle Neolithic (reflecting the “resurgence” of such ancestry
shown in PCA, Fig. 2a) and also during the Late Neolithic. Note, also, the persistent presence of the
“light green” component that ties LN/EBA groups to South Asia between K=9 and K=15.
A similar
(darker green) component also distinguishes LN/EBA groups from earlier ones at K=16; this
component appears to be highly represented in groups from South Asia, the Near East, and the
Caucasus. The existence of this component may correspond to the evidence for “dilution” of EHG
ancestry in the Yamnaya (SI7), showing them to have evenly split ancestry between the “dark blue”
hunter-gatherer and “dark green” component; the analysis of SI9 also suggests an even split between
an EHG and a Near Eastern component in the ancestry of the Yamnaya. The “dark green” component
seems to have been carried from a Yamnaya-related population to the Corded Ware and other Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age populations of central Europe. A useful topic for future work is to study the
relationship of LN/BA populations to contemporary South Asians, Caucasian and Near Eastern
populations and to see if this affinity (in contrast to earlier Europeans) may be related to the dispersal
of Indo-European languages."

So orange colour is Early Neolithic EEF, almost like from Lazaridis runs. Blue is not WHG, but European Hunter Gatherer, which is sort of amalgamation of of WHG and ANE. Dark Green is something unusual. It persists in modern Caucasus and South Asians, and in 50% of Yamnaya. It was almost completely missing from Samara HG. It is shows also in LN/EBA sites all over Europe.

Thanks

but the orange arrived in central europe before the EHG according to page 25 of the paper, did the blue and green populace mix in yamnya and then follow orange a thousand plus years later?