PDA

View Full Version : Autosomal analysis of Yamna, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples



Maciamo
04-03-15, 12:01
Here is a summary of my observations posted in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG) regarding the autosomal analysis of the Mesolithic and Bronze Age samples from Haak et al 2015 (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433).

Eurogenes K15 analysis

The K15 admixtures for all the Yamna, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples can be found in this spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QPTmyarOBBEZfXnLI5L64ueJNG34jgy4QgQ_1nSYtnM/edit#gid=917906623).

As I predicted no Red Sea admixture in the Yamna (nor Corded Ware) samples, and only traces (<1%) in the German Bell Beaker ones. I have linked this admixture to haplogroup E1b1b and T.

The K15 doesn't have the Gedrosian, but the South Asian is a bit similar and is quite high in Yamna samples (6-7%) but progressively decreases to 3% in Corded Ware and 0 to 3% in German Bell Beakers. It doesn't necessarily mean that R1b people came from South Asia, but just that modern South Asians carry a similar admixture through haplogroup R1a and R2. South Asian was already found in the Mal'ta boy (hg R*) from Siberia.

Likewise, the relatively high Amerindian admixture in the Karelia and Samara samples (16% and 12%) stems from the phylogenetic link between haplogroups Q and R. This admixture progressively decreases to 4-5% in Yamna, 1.5-3.5% in Corded Ware, and 1-3% in Bell Beakers.

The Eastern European admixture is highest in the Mesolithic Karelia and Samara samples (40%), then drops to 25-33% in Yamna, 14-23% in Corded Ware, and 5-18% in German Bell Beakers. This admixture is linked more specifically to haplogroup R1 (EHG).

The West European admixture of Dodecad is divided in North Sea and Atlantic in K15. It is really interesting to see that the Karelia, Samara, Yamna and Corded Ware samples had between 18% and 30% of North Sea (average 25%), but only the Corded Ware had significant levels of Atlantic admixture (20% to 27% except one sample at 8%). Yamna ranged from 0% to 9.7% of Atlantic. German Bell Beaker samples have between 21% and 33%. So it looks like the North Sea admixture is associated with R1b Indo-Europeans, while the Atlantic one could be more widely Mesolithic European.

The East and West Mediterranean admixtures were both at 0% in all samples except Bell Beakers. This is just like the Red Sea admixture. That confirms that the Mediterranean and Red Sea admixtures are both associated with Neolithic farmers, but not Proto-Indo-Europeans. This also proves that the German Bell Beaker samples had already mixed to a considerable extent with Neolithic Europeans.

In contrast, the West Asian admixture was completely absent from Mesolithic HG from Karelia and Samara, but high in Yamna samples (15% to 22.5%), then also decreases progressively. This is the best proof that R1b-M269 people had partial ancestry from the Caucasus/Kurdistan region, which older R1b from Eastern Europe didn't have. It confirms my theory that some R1b people settled in West Asia in the late Palaeolithic, then domesticated cattle around northern Mesopotamia (Assyria/Kurdistan), then moved back across the Caucasus to use the vast expanse of grassland for their cattle. During the few millennia they stayed in West Asia they had married women from neighbouring tribes and acquired West Asian admixture. This happened before Levantine cereal farmers (G2a) moved in the region, or at least before they mixed with R1b people in West Asia, which explains why Yamna people do not have any Mediterranean admixture. Their ENF is purely West Asian (linked to hg J2 rather than G2a, E1b1b). This also means that it is not impossible that a minority of J2 people (J2b2, and maybe also some J2a) were part of the Yamna population. I proposed this several years ago, although I couldn't decide whether J2b came from the Balkans to the steppe, or from West Asia. Now it appears it is from West Asia.

The Baltic admixture doesn't show big variations between Mesolithic (18%), Yamna (10-16%), Corded Ware (12-20%) and Bell Beaker (6-18%) samples. It is the only stable component. It might be linked to the ubiquitous mtDNA U5 (and Y-haplogroup I), found in all Mesolithic Europeans and absorbed by Neolithic farmers too. Nowadays U5 is most common in the Baltic region. I would think that this admixture was named Baltic because U5 genes survived best in this region, not because the Baltic was the source region (which it certainly wasn't since northern Europe was under ice until the end of the Würm glaciation 10,000 years ago).


How close are modern Saami to Mesolithic samples ?

I checked the population averages for K15 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19c_bZjUV_RouKyGyLHmMDw57WwAVabXFJOaso_gcuRE/edit#gid=1872836177) and the Saami of Finland also lack East Med, West Med, Red Sea, West Asian and South Asian, like Karelia and Samara. However they differ in a big way in that the Saami have 12% of Atlantic, where the Mesolithic Karelia and Samara had 0%. Motala12 (Mesolithic Sweden) also had the Atlantic admixture though.




North Sea

Atlantic

Baltic

Eastern_Euro



Finnish Saami
17.7
12.2
20.1
27.0


Mesolithic Karelia
23.7
0.1
18.9
40.4


Mesolithic Samara
25.5
0
17.7
41.7


Mesolithic Sweden
34.3
10.1
26.9
27.5



Interestingly Mesolithic R1a and R1b from Russia both have more 'North Sea' than modern Saami, even though Mesolithic Scandinavians had the most 'North Sea' (about 33%). If percentages don't seem to add up, it's because the Saami have also 20% of Siberian admixture. If we take that out, we get:





North Sea

Atlantic

Baltic

Eastern_Euro



Pre-Uralic Saami
22.1
15.3
25.1
33.8



The Atlantic admixture might have come from a Mesolithic migration from Iberia, perhaps the one that brought mt-haplogroup V.


Dodecad admixtures


Genetiker ran the samples in various Dodecad calculators. Here are the results for Karelia (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-mesolithic-genome-from-karelia/), Samara (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-hunter-gatherer-genome-from-samara/), Yamna (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-yamna-genome/), Corded Ware (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-corded-ware-genome/) and Bell Beaker (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/analyses-of-a-bell-beaker-genome/) samples (actually just one of each, not an average).

The results for the Gedrosian admixture (K12b) are:



Sample

Gedrosian admixture



Mesolithic Karelia
6.05


Mesolithic Samara
12.98


Yamna
26.29


Corded Ware
21.94


German Bell Beaker
9.62



This is just what I expected for Yamna. I am a bit perplexed over the two Mesolithic samples through. I shows that the Gedrosian admixture already existed in basal R1a and R1b with no West Asian admixture. That points to a Palaeolithic R1* origin of some of the Gedrosian. However, since Yamna and Corded Ware people have much more of it, it means that some Gedrosian also came from West Asia. That would mean that Gedrosian is not a pure admixture, but a compound, most likely of West Asian, South Asian, and perhaps also what K15 reports as Amerindian, which would be a sort of ANE. That explains why Gedrosia and ANE do not match at all in regions like Northeast Europe, which have a lot of ANE, but little Gedrosian.

Here is where the Gedrosian admixture is found today.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif

Dodecad K12 analysis

Here is a comparison of the Dodecad K12 (aka dv3) frequencies - the ones I used most for the autosomal maps (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml) on this site.




Admixture

Karelia

Samara
Yamna
Corded Ware

Bell Beaker










West European
50.02%
52.07%
49.08%
48.97%
61.53%


East European
33.82%
30.85%
20.88%
21.05%
8.94%


Mediterranean
0%
0%
0.47%
9.04%
19.21%


West Asian
0%
0%
17.42%
15.65%
2.61%


Southwest Asian
0%
0%
0%
0.02%
5.29%


South Asian
3.48%
8.75%
8.42%
5.27%
0.01%


Southeast Asian
0%
0.05%
0%
0%
0%


Northeast Asian
12.68%
8.27%
3.74%
0%
0%


Northwest African

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


East African

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


Neo African

0%
0%
0%
0%
0.69%




First of all, it looks like the Amerindian admixture from K15 becomes Northeast Asian in dv3. I assumed that this admixture was a shared component with haplogroup Q, since Q and R evolved from a same Siberian ancestor. Nevertheless, I can't explain why modern West Europeans and even Bell Beaker samples completely lack that admixture if it was present in all R1a and R1b population, including Yamna and Corded Ware. If modern Northwest Europeans inherited about half of their genes from Yamna people, then they should at least have 1 or 2% of Northeast Asian, but it is closer to 0.1%. One explanation is that this Amerindian or Northeast Asian admixture wasn't part of the Mesolithic R1a and R1b gene pool, and that it is only found in the Volga region and Karelia because R1a and R1b people intermarried with Siberian people (Proto-Uralic or pre-Uralic). The R1b people from the Black Sea region, who moved to the Balkans then up to the Danube to Germany (Bell Beaker, then Unetice) almost certainly lacked that Amerindian/Siberian/Northeast Asian admixture. There is no other way to explain its sudden drop to 0% in the Bell Beaker R1b.

What is also surprising is how different the Bell Beaker sample is from the Yamna and Corded Ware. It looks like over half of the Bell Beaker genes came from the Neolithic population of Germany, particularly high in Mediterranean (linked to G2a) and Southwest Asian (linked to J1 and T1a), but comprising also Mesolithic genes (hg I1 and I2, or mtDNA U4 and U5) reported as West European.

Another remarkable thing is that Yamna and Corded Ware people both had 50% of West European admixture, and only 20% of East European. I expected that for R1b Yamna Indo-Europeans, since they brought their genes from the steppe to Western Europe.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/West-European-admixture.gif

It is less clear why the R1a population of the Corded Ware wasn't closer to the modern Balto-Slavic R1a people. It suggests that Balto-Slavic people do not descend mostly from the Corded Ware, but rather from other cultures further north like the Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatyanovo%E2%80%93Balanovo_culture). Although archaeologically it looks like an eastern extension of th Corded Ware, there may only have been a minority of Corded Ware R1a-M458 moving into an essentially R1a-Z280 + I2a1 territory. The Corded Ware itself would have been created by a movement of R1b-L23 people into R1a-M458 territory. Therefore Fatyanovo–Balanovo may have been mainly R1a-Z280 and I2a1 with substantial minorities of R1a-M458 and R1b-L23 from Corded Ware.

I always said that R1b Yamna people were pushed out of the Pontic Steppe by R1a people from the north during the Catacomb culture. These R1a people would have come from the Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture. We only have mtDNA samples from the Catacomb culture (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/catacomb_culture.shtml), but they are a radical shift from Yamna and Corded Ware samples. Haplogroup U4 jumps from 5% in Yamna and CW to 25% in Catacomb, which I believe is a sign of the arrival of a mostly R1a population with more East European admixture. Catacomb samples are characteristic by their absence of mt-haplogroup K, T, W and X, all West Asian haplogroups that would have come from the South Caucasus/Kurdistan. I expect that these Catacomb samples will lack West Asian admixture just like the Mesolithic Karelia and Samara HG. On the other hand they have 10% of mtDNA C4, which is surely the source of the Amerindian/Siberian admixture in Mesolithic Karelia and Samara.

This is where the East European admixture is found today.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif

So even Karelia and the Samara region of the Volga are not in the core, but in the 40-50% zone. However the modern frequency in these regions is mostly the result of Slavic Russians moving into the region and mixing with local Uralic people. The Mesolithic samples had only 31% and 34% of East European, about 10-15% less than today.

ElHorsto
04-03-15, 13:55
The Mesolithic samples had only 31% and 34% of East European, about 10-15% less than today.

One must also not forget that both, West-Euro and East-Euro are modern components, which means they must have been less differentiated back then. West-Euro in particular is hybrid today due to additional EEF (or Atlantic), that's why ancient russian samples can principally not exceed modern West-Euro levels. Bell-Beakers are high in it because they have more med admixture.
Atlantic itself must be a hybrid component too, probably a unique mix of certain WHG and EEF. Atlantic peaks in Basques, who are ~2/3 EEF + ~1/3 WHG, and it stretches along the mediterranean being significant still in Cyprus.

Armoricain
04-03-15, 14:01
One must also not forget that both, West-Euro and East-Euro are modern components, which means they must have been less differentiated back then. West-Euro in particular is hybrid today due to additional EEF (or Atlantic), that's why ancient russian samples can principally not exceed modern West-Euro levels. Bell-Beakers are high in it because they have more med admixture.
Atlantic itself must be a hybrid component too, probably a unique mix of certain WHG and EEF. Atlantic peaks in Basques, who are ~2/3 EEF + ~1/3 WHG, and it stretches along the mediterranean being significant still in Cyprus.

Atlantic is hybrid, in k8, this one is composed of 45,81 of WHG
42,17 of ENF and 12,01 of ANE

Tomenable
04-03-15, 14:13
One must also not forget that both, West-Euro and East-Euro are modern components

Aren't the boundaries of these components also a bit arbitrarily defined ???

For example what is called "Eastern European" appears to be in fact "North-Eastern European":

http://s13.postimg.org/jczqp7ffb/Eastern_Europe.png

ElHorsto
04-03-15, 14:24
Aren't the boundaries of these components also a bit arbitrarily defined ???

For example what is called "Eastern European" appears to be in fact "North-Eastern European":

http://s13.postimg.org/jczqp7ffb/Eastern_Europe.png

Completely agree, but that's how it was named in dv3 unfortunately.

arvistro
04-03-15, 14:34
The dark spot seems to corellate to late (iron age) Balt cultures.

Sile
04-03-15, 19:38
The dark spot seems to corellate to late (iron age) Balt cultures.

exactly


goes with the linguistic fact , that slavic branched out of its parent , Baltic , on the modern borders of belarus and ukraine

Tomenable
04-03-15, 21:01
slavic branched out of its parent, Baltic

This is totally wrong. Most likely there was never even such a thing as a unified Baltic language. Let alone "parent" to Slavic.

There was Balto-Slavic which split into Slavic, West Baltic and East Baltic (see Kromer 2003 - the most recent theory):

http://s21.postimg.org/r6k2ijrjr/Modele.png

LeBrok
05-03-15, 04:11
Here is a summary of my observations posted in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30936-Yamna-quot-25-ENF-30-35-ANE-quot-and-40-45-WHG) regarding the autosomal analysis of the Mesolithic and Bronze Age samples from Haak et al 2015 (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433).


The results for the Gedrosian admixture (K12b) are:



Sample

Gedrosian admixture



Mesolithic Karelia
6.05


Mesolithic Samara
12.98


Yamna
26.29


Corded Ware
21.94


German Bell Beaker
9.62



This is just what I expected for Yamna. I am a bit perplexed over the two Mesolithic samples through. I shows that the Gedrosian admixture already existed in basal R1a and R1b with no West Asian admixture. That points to a Palaeolithic R1* origin of some of the Gedrosian. However, since Yamna and Corded Ware people have much more of it, it means that some Gedrosian also came from West Asia. That would mean that Gedrosian is not a pure admixture, but a compound, most likely of West Asian, South Asian, and perhaps also what K15 reports as Amerindian, which would be a sort of ANE. That explains why Gedrosia and ANE do not match at all in regions like Northeast Europe, which have a lot of ANE, but little Gedrosian.

Here is where the Gedrosian admixture is found today.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif


I think we need some more explanation about Gedrosia.

According to the table above NE hunter gatherers, Yamna and Corded, so every ancient individual from NE Europe had substantial amount of Gedrosia. The most recent of these was Corded Ware who had 21% of it. Fast forward to today and in the same area, they used to live, we have Gedrosia below 1%!

All of the admixtures which existed in Neolithic or Bronze age in this area exist today in modern populations, but strangely Gedrosia completely evaporated?! East Euro existed way back and exists there today, same as West Euro, plus we have new admixtures being added to the picture as the time goes by. They come and they stay, they fluctuate with time but they don't disappear. However Gedrosia is totally gone! Unless we are talking about complete population replacement this shouldn't have happened, right? I can understand it can be diluted somewhat, if Slavs and Balts came from far North Europe like Finland, but Slavs and Balts are not outliers of European population. Genetically they fit their geographical location, therefore we can conclude, there wasn't much of population replacement. We can't have over 20% of the genome (the maximum amount which exists today in Kurdistan, just vanish from such vast population of Corded Ware, unless population was completely replaced since Bronze Age. Or genetic admixtures can physically evaporate.

Was Gedrosia in this map and Gedrosia in the table above done with exactly same admixture calculator?

Alan
05-03-15, 04:29
@Le Brock Gedrosia on the map and the table above are from the Same k12b calculator.

LeBrok
05-03-15, 07:21
@Le Brock Gedrosia on the map and the table above are from the Same k12b calculator.
Do you mind to guess what happened to all the 22% of Corded Ware Gedrosia in Eastern Europe? Corded Ware plote closest to Russians, Finns and Belarusians on PCA, so there was no population replacement. All HG's admixtures are still in East Europeans plus few new ones. However Gedrosia evaporated, all 22% of it. I could understand if Gedrosia dropped down to 10 or even 5% by some delusion since Bronze Age. But it is gone.

Maciamo
05-03-15, 13:33
I think we need some more explanation about Gedrosia.

According to the table above NE hunter gatherers, Yamna and Corded, so every ancient individual from NE Europe had substantial amount of Gedrosia. The most recent of these was Corded Ware who had 21% of it. Fast forward to today and in the same area, they used to live, we have Gedrosia below 1%!

All of the admixtures which existed in Neolithic or Bronze age in this area exist today in modern populations, but strangely Gedrosia completely evaporated?! East Euro existed way back and exists there today, same as West Euro, plus we have new admixtures being added to the picture as the time goes by. They come and they stay, they fluctuate with time but they don't disappear. However Gedrosia is totally gone! Unless we are talking about complete population replacement this shouldn't have happened, right? I can understand it can be diluted somewhat, if Slavs and Balts came from far North Europe like Finland, but Slavs and Balts are not outliers of European population. Genetically they fit their geographical location, therefore we can conclude, there wasn't much of population replacement. We can't have over 20% of the genome (the maximum amount which exists today in Kurdistan, just vanish from such vast population of Corded Ware, unless population was completely replaced since Bronze Age. Or genetic admixtures can physically evaporate.

Was Gedrosia in this map and Gedrosia in the table above done with exactly same admixture calculator?

It is a mystery indeed. I think the explanation is that the Gedrosian admixture originated only with R1b people, and not R1a. The Gedrosian found in the Karelian R1a and Corded Ware R1a must have come from intermarriages with women from R1b tribes. In Corded Ware it is inevitable that R1b and R1a people must have mixed since Corded Ware was culturally descended from Yamna. Anyway the autosomal similarity between Yamna and Corded Ware suggests that there were lots of intermingling between the two, or simply that Corded Ware people were mostly descended from Yamna people originally, and that both R1a and R1b were found in Yamna.

Through founder effects in the male lineages that migrated west, Corded Ware became R1a-dominant, while the southern Danubian branch that spawned Unetice was R1b-dominant. It could happen quickly in a very elitist society where one royal lineage grows exponentially through polygamy and evolves in lots of aristocrat lineages expanding in all directions. This is exactly how the Celts expanded.

As I explained above, the Balto-Slavic branch probably descends from the pure R1a people from around Belarus and central western Russia, who later founded the Catacomb culture. Since their mtDNA shows no West Asian lineages whatsoever (as opposed to 45% of N1a, K, T, W and X in Yamna), they cannot have had West Asian admixture, including Gedrosian.

The R1b that survives among the Slavs must have been diluted several times before it entered their gene pool. But it only takes a few generations of intermarrying with 'foreign' women (from outside one's tribe) to pass from 20% to 1%. Imagine a Yamna R1b lineage having children at each generation with Mesolithic NE European with 0% Gedrosia:

After one generation : 20 => 10% Gedrosia
After two generations : 5%
After three generations : 2.5%
After four generations : 1.25%
After five generations : 0.6%

Only 5 generation. In the Bronze Age that must have been about 100 years. All it means is that R1b men took almost only local wives when they reach Belarus and surrounding regions. Problem solved. By the way, the same process could explain the extreme dilution of R1b autosomes in the Basque population. After all Basque maternal lineages are almost entirely non-Indo-European.

Sile
05-03-15, 19:26
It is a mystery indeed. I think the explanation is that the Gedrosian admixture originated only with R1b people, and not R1a. The Gedrosian found in the Karelian R1a and Corded Ware R1a must have come from intermarriages with women from R1b tribes. In Corded Ware it is inevitable that R1b and R1a people must have mixed since Corded Ware was culturally descended from Yamna. Anyway the autosomal similarity between Yamna and Corded Ware suggests that there were lots of intermingling between the two, or simply that Corded Ware people were mostly descended from Yamna people originally, and that both R1a and R1b were found in Yamna.

Through founder effects in the male lineages that migrated west, Corded Ware became R1a-dominant, while the southern Danubian branch that spawned Unetice was R1b-dominant. It could happen quickly in a very elitist society where one royal lineage grows exponentially through polygamy and evolves in lots of aristocrat lineages expanding in all directions. This is exactly how the Celts expanded.

As I explained above, the Balto-Slavic branch probably descends from the pure R1a people from around Belarus and central western Russia, who later founded the Catacomb culture. Since their mtDNA shows no West Asian lineages whatsoever (as opposed to 45% of N1a, K, T, W and X in Yamna), they cannot have had West Asian admixture, including Gedrosian.

The R1b that survives among the Slavs must have been diluted several times before it entered their gene pool. But it only takes a few generations of intermarrying with 'foreign' women (from outside one's tribe) to pass from 20% to 1%. Imagine a Yamna R1b lineage having children at each generation with Mesolithic NE European with 0% Gedrosia:

After one generation : 20 => 10% Gedrosia
After two generations : 5%
After three generations : 2.5%
After four generations : 1.25%
After five generations : 0.6%

Only 5 generation. In the Bronze Age that must have been about 100 years. All it means is that R1b men took almost only local wives when they reach Belarus and surrounding regions. Problem solved. By the way, the same process could explain the extreme dilution of R1b autosomes in the Basque population. After all Basque maternal lineages are almost entirely non-Indo-European.

IIRC, the karafet 2014 paper states, R haplogroup created in south-east asia.
R1 created in north india/tibet/bhutan area
one R1 branch heading NW direction into central Asia and the other into Eastern Iran/afghanistan area .................only this afghan/east iranian would have any Gedrosian

Sile
05-03-15, 19:29
This is totally wrong. Most likely there was never even such a thing as a unified Baltic language. Let alone "parent" to Slavic.

There was Balto-Slavic which split into Slavic, West Baltic and East Baltic (see Kromer 2003 - the most recent theory):

http://s21.postimg.org/r6k2ijrjr/Modele.png

impossible that slavic and baltic are created together, because you would have an equal dispersal. Slavic came from the baltic family in the southern part/border of the baltic language area

MOESAN
06-03-15, 01:43
to SILE
some big bits of 'gedrosia' component were present more than 20000 or 30000 or 40000 years ago, in Russia and Siberia (Ust'Ishim, Mal'ta, K14-
are we sure all 'gedrosia' genes of today are from India or Pakistan, either North or South???

I know, I repeat myself sometimes...

JS Bach
06-03-15, 05:55
All it means is that R1b men took almost only local wives when they reach Belarus and surrounding regions. Problem solved. By the way, the same process could explain the extreme dilution of R1b autosomes in the Basque population. After all Basque maternal lineages are almost entirely non-Indo-European.


Yes, that surprises me that the Els Trocs R1b sample could be so completely opposite in Eurogenes 15 from the Samara R1b samples of around the sample time period. But I guess that would be the reason, with the Els Trocs and Basque R1b’s mating with an autosomally Sardinian-like population – although how the Basques got a different language would be another question. Here are the results of these R’s for Eurogenes 15:




Eurogenes 15









Population
Mal'ta
Siberia
Samara
Russia
Els Trocs
Spain
Yamnaya
Samara
Russia
Corded
Ware
Germany
Bell
Beaker
Germany
Me
Canada


Age
24,000 ybp
7,500 ybp
7,000 ybp
5,000 ybp

4,400 ybp
4,250 ybp
0 ybp


Y-dna Haplogroup
R*
R1b1a*
R1b1*
R1b1a2a*
R1a1a1
R1b1a2a1a2
R1b1a2a1a1


North_Sea
15.91%
25.51
0.01
22.57
25.93
36.57
34.08%


Atlantic

0.01
25.14
5.55
27.79
29.08
28.20%


Baltic
6.54%
17.68

13.9
12.84
12.89
6.18%


Eastern_Euro
38.02%
41.73

28.6
17.26
7.22
6.84%


West_Med


61.98



9.76%


West_Asian



19.61
11.6
12.34
5.22%


East_Med


11.98



5.53%


Red_Sea


0.89

0.01
0.04
2.38%


South_Asian
20.31%
1.99

5.59
3.09
0.57
0.56%


Southeast_Asian






-


Siberian





0.18
1.03%


Amerindian
18.62%
12.02

4.18
1.49
1.09
-


Oceanian
0.12%
1.07

0.01


-


Northeast_African






0.20%


Sub-Saharan
0.47%





-




From the new samples, I look somewhat more like a Bell Beaker than a Corded Ware dude, and have nearly all NorthWestern European ancestry that’s mostly English, with the other one-sixteenth being Jewish. Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more genes to modern NorthWest Europeans than Corded Ware / Yamna did.

LeBrok
06-03-15, 06:01
It is a mystery indeed. I think the explanation is that the Gedrosian admixture originated only with R1b people, and not R1a. The Gedrosian found in the Karelian R1a and Corded Ware R1a must have come from intermarriages with women from R1b tribes. In Corded Ware it is inevitable that R1b and R1a people must have mixed since Corded Ware was culturally descended from Yamna. Anyway the autosomal similarity between Yamna and Corded Ware suggests that there were lots of intermingling between the two, or simply that Corded Ware people were mostly descended from Yamna people originally, and that both R1a and R1b were found in Yamna.

Through founder effects in the male lineages that migrated west, Corded Ware became R1a-dominant, while the southern Danubian branch that spawned Unetice was R1b-dominant. It could happen quickly in a very elitist society where one royal lineage grows exponentially through polygamy and evolves in lots of aristocrat lineages expanding in all directions. This is exactly how the Celts expanded.

As I explained above, the Balto-Slavic branch probably descends from the pure R1a people from around Belarus and central western Russia, who later founded the Catacomb culture. Since their mtDNA shows no West Asian lineages whatsoever (as opposed to 45% of N1a, K, T, W and X in Yamna), they cannot have had West Asian admixture, including Gedrosian.

The R1b that survives among the Slavs must have been diluted several times before it entered their gene pool. But it only takes a few generations of intermarrying with 'foreign' women (from outside one's tribe) to pass from 20% to 1%. Imagine a Yamna R1b lineage having children at each generation with Mesolithic NE European with 0% Gedrosia:

After one generation : 20 => 10% Gedrosia
After two generations : 5%
After three generations : 2.5%
After four generations : 1.25%
After five generations : 0.6%

Only 5 generation. In the Bronze Age that must have been about 100 years. All it means is that R1b men took almost only local wives when they reach Belarus and surrounding regions. Problem solved. By the way, the same process could explain the extreme dilution of R1b autosomes in the Basque population. After all Basque maternal lineages are almost entirely non-Indo-European.

Could you check Alan's hypothesis about missing Gedrosia in East Euro and missing Caucasus in West Euro.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30944-Autosomal-results-of-Neolithic-genome-from-Iberia?p=451375&viewfull=1#post451375

Sile
06-03-15, 08:40
to SILE
some big bits of 'gedrosia' component were present more than 20000 or 30000 or 40000 years ago, in Russia and Siberia (Ust'Ishim, Mal'ta, K14-
are we sure all 'gedrosia' genes of today are from India or Pakistan, either North or South???

I know, I repeat myself sometimes...

never heard of gedrosia in russia and siberian ...gedrosia is on the coast of the india ocean in modern eastern iran

http://www.antiquaprintgallery.com/ancient-persia-iran--parthia-carmania-gedrosia-sw-asia-arrowsmith1828-map-198924-p.asp

north of Gedrosia was ancient ARIANA ....................some say means home of Aryans

Makran is the "capital" of Gedrosian ..............some say origin of LT-P326 marker

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/359318/Makran

Alan
06-03-15, 18:38
It is a mystery indeed. I think the explanation is that the Gedrosian admixture originated only with R1b people, and not R1a.

Corded Ware has not any sign of R1b but R1a, G2a and probably J.

Also take in mind Reich said R1b and R1a where brought to Europe by Yamna or Yamna related people. Remember they have over 50 of Yamna samples and only published 6(?) so far.
They will probably publish the other samples with new studies. I am very convinced they have come across R1a too, otherwise Reich wouldn't say that.

Sile
06-03-15, 19:45
Corded Ware has not any sign of R1b but R1a, G2a and probably J.

Also take in mind Reich said R1b and R1a where brought to Europe by Yamna or Yamna related people. Remember they have over 50 of Yamna samples and only published 6(?) so far.
They will probably publish the other samples with new studies. I am very convinced they have come across R1a too, otherwise Reich wouldn't say that.

I hope you are not referring to the CW was brought to Europe .........but created in central Europe. it is made my all haplogroups livng in germany at the time plus merging of the migrating Yamnya haplogroups

Alan
06-03-15, 20:03
I hope you are not referring to the CW was brought to Europe .........but created in central Europe. it is made my all haplogroups livng in germany at the time plus merging of the migrating Yamnya haplogroups

I think you misunderstand me. Since there is no known R1b in CW, R1a(and the J sample) must have brought it there, because there is no pre Bronze Age R1a in Central Europe.

Also Reich clearly said R1b and R1a both were brought to Europe by Yamna or Yamna related groups. And they have 50+ Yamna samples and only published 6 of them. Probably witholding the other for further studies to be published.

Angela
06-03-15, 20:06
As this is related to the Gedrosia component, I thought it should probably be posted in this thread as well as in the thread about the Neolithic R1b sample from Spain:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ElHorsto http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=451423#post451423)
To me it rather looks like a ~50% population change happened in NE europe since Corded Ware, not only because Gedrosia disappeared, but also the 27% Eurogenes15 'Atlantic' dropped to about 12%, and 'Baltic' increased from 13% to >21%. Finally also R1b lineages are very sparse in NE Europe compared to the rest.
One reason is probably the migration of mesolithic scandinavian hunter-gathers who increased I2a and WHG (~'Baltic') in NE europe. I also wonder how densely populated this region was. If sparse, then populations can be altered more easily.
Why Gedrosia disappeared completely though, is not completely explained yet.
That theory makes some sense to me as well, as I've been saying for a long time. I think there was probably migration from the north post Yamnaya, but I also think it needs to be remembered that Corded Ware moved northwest off the more southern regions. It was only later that it moved east and incorporated what I think will turn out to be more EHG like people who were living in the forest steppe, EHG like people who probably had next to no Gedrosia. (I think it has to be kept in mind that the populations in eastern Europe were probably on a cline from north to south. Here we're talking about Yamna, which was to the south and a population-Corded Ware-related to Yamnaya.)While I know that some people will find it disappointing, it may be that Corded Ware really doesn't equal modern northeast European or even eastern European. It just isn't a very good match for those populations.

(The recent paper on these forest steppe populations, which discusses this movement east by Corded Ware is discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...213#post451213 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30923-6000-yo-EHG-pile-dwellings-near-lakes-and-rivers-in-NW-Russia-R1a1-M17?p=451213#post451213))

Since we've been talking about K12b, here are the K12b figures for Corded Ware, Lithuanians and Russians. In both of the modern populations, North Euro increased by 20 points and Gedrosia dropped by 20 points. Atlantic Med dropped by 7 points in both, and in Lithuanians, Caucasus stayed about the same, but in Russians, it increased.
Corded Ware:



50.54% North_European
21.94% Gedrosia
20.47% Atlantic_Med
6.82% Caucasus
0.22% South_Asian
0.02% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Sub_Saharan



Lithuanians:
77.1 North European
0 Gedrosia
13.7 Atlantic Med
8 Caucasus
1 S.W.Asian
.1 S Asian

Russians:
66.5 North Euro
.2 Gedrosia
13.1 Atlantic Med
14.3 Caucasus
.8 South Asian
.6 SW Asian
0 E.African
1.2 E.Asian
.1 Northwest African
2.7 Siberian
.4S.E.Asian
0 SSA

The Germans actually seem like a better fit with Corded Ware:
48.2 North Euro
7.3 Gedrosia
33 Atlantic Med
9.8 Caucasus
1.7 S.W.Asian

In their case it seems like the rise in Atlantic Med and S.W. Asian cut into the Gedrosia.

I think those more central European populations were formed by different migrations, which may have started off from the steppe at an earlier time, and they also probably experienced more admixture from the prior Neolithic farming communities.

Sile
06-03-15, 20:38
As this is related to the Gedrosia component, I thought it should probably be posted in this thread as well as in the thread about the Neolithic R1b sample from Spain:
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ElHorsto http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=451423#post451423)
To me it rather looks like a ~50% population change happened in NE europe since Corded Ware, not only because Gedrosia disappeared, but also the 27% Eurogenes15 'Atlantic' dropped to about 12%, and 'Baltic' increased from 13% to >21%. Finally also R1b lineages are very sparse in NE Europe compared to the rest.
One reason is probably the migration of mesolithic scandinavian hunter-gathers who increased I2a and WHG (~'Baltic') in NE europe. I also wonder how densely populated this region was. If sparse, then populations can be altered more easily.
Why Gedrosia disappeared completely though, is not completely explained yet.
That theory makes some sense to me as well, as I've been saying for a long time. I think there was probably migration from the north post Yamnaya, but I also think it needs to be remembered that Corded Ware moved northwest off the more southern regions. It was only later that it moved east and incorporated what I think will turn out to be more EHG like people who were living in the forest steppe, EHG like people who probably had next to no Gedrosia. (I think it has to be kept in mind that the populations in eastern Europe were probably on a cline from north to south. Here we're talking about Yamna, which was to the south and a population-Corded Ware-related to Yamnaya.)While I know that some people will find it disappointing, it may be that Corded Ware really doesn't equal modern northeast European or even eastern European. It just isn't a very good match for those populations.

(The recent paper on these forest steppe populations, which discusses this movement east by Corded Ware is discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...213#post451213 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30923-6000-yo-EHG-pile-dwellings-near-lakes-and-rivers-in-NW-Russia-R1a1-M17?p=451213#post451213))

Since we've been talking about K12b, here are the K12b figures for Corded Ware, Lithuanians and Russians. In both of the modern populations, North Euro increased by 20 points and Gedrosia dropped by 20 points. Atlantic Med dropped by 7 points in both, and in Lithuanians, Caucasus stayed about the same, but in Russians, it increased.
Corded Ware:



50.54% North_European
21.94% Gedrosia
20.47% Atlantic_Med
6.82% Caucasus
0.22% South_Asian
0.02% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Southeast_Asian
0.00% Sub_Saharan



Lithuanians:
77.1 North European
0 Gedrosia
13.7 Atlantic Med
8 Caucasus
1 S.W.Asian
.1 S Asian

Russians:
66.5 North Euro
.2 Gedrosia
13.1 Atlantic Med
14.3 Caucasus
.8 South Asian
.6 SW Asian
0 E.African
1.2 E.Asian
.1 Northwest African
2.7 Siberian
.4S.E.Asian
0 SSA

The Germans actually seem like a better fit with Corded Ware:
48.2 North Euro
7.3 Gedrosia
33 Atlantic Med
9.8 Caucasus
1.7 S.W.Asian

In their case it seems like the rise in Atlantic Med and S.W. Asian cut into the Gedrosia.

I think those more central European populations were formed by different migrations, which may have started off from the steppe at an earlier time, and they also probably experienced more admixture from the prior Neolithic farming communities.

which mix are we "playing" with in these dicussion, because IIRC Maciano was using dv3
K12b or the K=12 which id dv3

Angela
06-03-15, 21:05
which mix are we "playing" with in these dicussion, because IIRC Maciano was using dv3
K12b or the K=12 which id dv3

I guess since I wrote that the results are all from K12b, it's K12b.

arvistro
08-03-15, 15:17
Fascinating stuff. I hope someone helps me to get this fixed.

Similar as lack of WHG in some Asian IE populations put Yamna origin of PIE under question, also lack of Gedrosia in Balts/East Slavs is a problem when Yamna had 30% of it. So going same style I would say that PIE originated in Baltics and then moved into Yamna :)
Because those German Corded samples (and Yamna samples) do not look like ancestors of Balts. Too much of goodies they have that we dont. But we can easily be partial ancestors to Yamna, Corded...

I am obviously missing something, because Yamna - Corded - Balts cultural archeological chain is mainstream and logical.
OK, those were German Corded samples, would be interesting to look at Middle Dnieper Culture (also Corded, according Gimbutas one of centers for Corded migrations in different directions) admixtures.

Angela
08-03-15, 17:48
Fascinating stuff. I hope someone helps me to get this fixed.

Similar as lack of WHG in some Asian IE populations put Yamna origin of PIE under question, also lack of Gedrosia in Balts/East Slavs is a problem when Yamna had 30% of it. So going same style I would say that PIE originated in Baltics and then moved into Yamna :)
Because those German Corded samples (and Yamna samples) do not look like ancestors of Balts. Too much of goodies they have that we dont. But we can easily be partial ancestors to Yamna, Corded...

I am obviously missing something, because Yamna - Corded - Balts cultural archeological chain is mainstream and logical.
OK, those were German Corded samples, would be interesting to look at Middle Dnieper Culture (also Corded, according Gimbutas one of centers for Corded migrations in different directions) admixtures.

I don't think the "story", in so far as we're talking about the genetics and the language is as clear as it appeared it might be when the Haak et al paper first came out, do you? I've just reread it all, including the supplement, and I think the paper itself is pretty cautious about all of this; it's we hobbyists who have made some pretty unsupported (so far ) comments.

As you say, I think the archaeological, "cultural" progression is pretty clear...Yamnaya, Corded, Balts. But, also as you say, the Corded samples that we have are not a very good fit for Balts. The fact that they score "high" in terms of correlation with Yamnaya samples is, in my opinion, a function of their high EHG scores, which "pull" them toward Yamnaya, not that they are necessarily "sons" of Yamnaya. Indeed, I don't know that I would think that Corded itself is a "son of" Yamnaya...perhaps a brother, however.

I do think that it is important to get samples from the Middle Dnieper culture, but I have a feeling that they might be higher in EHG as well, higher perhaps than the "Yamnaya" samples.

I suppose what I'm badly expressing is that I think it all depends on how you define the "Indo-Europeans". If you define them as this specific group of people, with a specific genetic makeup, whose culture coalesced on the Pontic Caspian steppe between 4,000 and 3,000 BC, then perhaps these other groups aren't these specific "Indo-Europeans", although they are definitely part of the same phenomenon?

Also, I think it's informative to take a look at the stats in Haak et al that model the migrations not in terms of Yamnaya, but in terms of EHG. I think this has to be considered in light of the fact that Haak et al are talking about a massive migration of genes from eastern Europe coming into the rest of Europe. These might not all be specifically "Indo-European" genes or Yamnaya genes, in my opinion. My only quarrel with the paper might be that they don't make these subtleties sufficiently clear, which leads to a lot of confusion.

Looking at it from the linguistic angle, they are similarly careful to say that this movement of "people" from the area of the steppe may be responsible for the spread of some Indo-European languages, not all of them.

As to your point about the lack of WHG in some " Asian Indo-Europeans" ( a la the leak from Patterson) we'll have to wait and see what their next paper shows, I think. They obviously have samples they haven't yet published, perhaps from the Caucasus or south of it. Indeed, they have Yamnaya samples they haven't yet published, apparently. So, time will tell. If indeed that turns out to be the case when the ancient samples are examined, then perhaps the source and trajectories of these expansions may have to be altered to accommodate the additional complexities?

What I do know is that it seems to me that the Reich group researchers are correct to limit themselves to models based on ancient samples, and to adjust those models as new samples become available. I think we've seen what incorrect conclusions can be drawn when models do not only include ancient samples.

bicicleur
08-03-15, 18:40
there is only one definition for Indo-Europeans : people who speak an Indo-European langauge
Reich has said nothing about IE, anciant DNA doesn't say what language these people spoke
he talks about a massive migration during corded ware, replacing 75 % of the indogenous people, mainly by R1a people
he also shows at the same time a lot of BB R1b people arrived in Western Europe
those R1a corded ware and R1b BB are not the same as the EHG or neolithic R1b who arrived earlier and lacked the 'Armenian-like' admixture
I repeat, Reich didn't say anything about IE
but he proved a lot of theories about the spread of IE - most notable the Anatolian origin theory - to be wrong

MOESAN
08-03-15, 22:36
the cradle of first individualized PIEan language (and the population speaking it, mixed or not) is NOT the same thing as the path taken by one or more of the subsequent sets of IEan speakers who spred the language later and farther - if we focalize too much on a single launching, perhaps we never shall find the answer...
the genetic (and phenotypic) influence of a Southern population upon the Steppes tribes is sufficiently proved even if the too localized 'armenian' hypothesis and the two heavy weight given to it are out of play - "southerners" influenced Steppes tribes through West (Cucuteni, Balkans-Carpathians), through East (BAMC) and surely through Caucasus (Maykop) - physycally, the southern element would be rather a kind of 'cappadocian-indo-iranian' type with high enough level of autosomes 'west-asian' ('gedrosia' could have been in Steppes before that) - ANE is to largely spred to give us a clue here - what we have as bones remnants don't disprove this analysis at all, it's the opposite - same for DNA - it's true all that points more in the direction of S-E Caspian than to Anatolia... (the types in Cucuteni were more "western" or "south-anatolia" at first, 'danubian' type, but at Metal Ages I don't know, too unprecise abstracts, and people travel) -

now, the language...? a well developped culture had more chances to pass its language bit it is hard to be sure, it depends on a lot of conditions -

arvistro
09-03-15, 17:01
I suppose what I'm badly expressing is that I think it all depends on how you define the "Indo-Europeans". If you define them as this specific group of people, with a specific genetic makeup, whose culture coalesced on the Pontic Caspian steppe between 4,000 and 3,000 BC, then perhaps these other groups aren't these specific "Indo-Europeans", although they are definitely part of the same phenomenon?
I think Indo-Europeans are well defined, any people who speak one of IE languages. Proto Indo Europeans are also defined I guess - people who spoke the scientifically reconstucted PIE.
For those folk who went all directions from Yamna it makes sense to find a new name. Because a) it is not known if they cover all IEs; b) it is not known if they spoke PIE. Yamnoids? :) or "Yamna Indo Europeans".

Btw - modern Samara folk (where Yamna's samples were taken) has <1% Gedrosia.

I guess next good question is when and how did they loose it?
Cultures in Samara:
Yamna, Catacomb... - and maybe there is no need to move any further. This is what Maciamo comments (bold mine):

As I explained above, the Balto-Slavic branch probably descends from the pure R1a people from around Belarus and central western Russia, who later founded the Catacomb culture. Since their mtDNA shows no West Asian lineages whatsoever (as opposed to 45% of N1a, K, T, W and X in Yamna), they cannot have had West Asian admixture, including Gedrosian.

So initial Gedrosia IE folk were pushed away from Yamna. Btw didn't they (pushed folk) all turn out Centum? And was replaced by Balto-Slavic Catacombs that lacked Gedrosia. Satem?

Could "Yamna Original" be already Centum?
Could Satem speaking Balts live in North before Yamna and therefore would not need any Yamna direct ancestry to speak IE?
Could Catacombs be part of development of Satem Indo-Iranians, originally from North?

Angela
09-03-15, 20:02
[QUOTE=arvistro;451725]I think Indo-Europeans are well defined, any people who speak one of IE languages.

Great, for a literal, but, forgive me, not all that helpful definition in terms of the holy grail of Indo-European studies, i.e. the location of the linguistic, cultural, and genetic Indo-European homeland. The assumption has been that there is total overlap of all those elements. I'm not so sure about that. I'm also not sure Haak and Lazaridis et al have proved that Yamnaya is it. What they have proved, in my opinion, is that Yamnaya type genetics have had a large influence in Europe, more, at least as it looks now, in northern than in southern Europe. Otherwise, how could Corded Ware be 73% Yamnaya or modern northern Europeans 50% Yamnaya? I know all this might seem pedantic, but my business is words. Words matter. Definitions matter. Imprecision of language is a result of fuzzy thinking and leads to misinterpretations.


For those folk who went all directions from Yamna it makes sense to find a new name. Because a) it is not known if they cover all IEs; b) it is not known if they spoke PIE. Yamnoids? :) or "Yamna Indo Europeans".

I agree with all your qualifiers, and I like that definition. :) From now on I will call them Yamnaya Indo-Europeans.




Btw - modern Samara folk (where Yamna's samples were taken) has <1% Gedrosia.

I guess next good question is when and how did they loose it?
Cultures in Samara:
Yamna, Catacomb... - and maybe there is no need to move any further. This is what Maciamo comments (bold mine):
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Maciamo http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=451341#post451341)
As I explained above, the Balto-Slavic branch probably descends from the pure R1a people from around Belarus and central western Russia, who later founded the Catacomb culture. Since their mtDNA shows no West Asian lineages whatsoever (as opposed to 45% of N1a, K, T, W and X in Yamna), they cannot have had West Asian admixture, including Gedrosian.



I don't know about their not having had West Asian, but as I have been saying, I think the Baltic area's "Yamnaya Indo-European" scores may be inflated to a degree because of excess EHG/SHG, especially in the case of Finland, for example. That doesn't mean they don't have influence from Corded Ware and thus Yamnaya to some degree. Corded Ware moved into Latvia and Lithuania rather early didn't it? At any rate, the culture definitely came from Corded Ware. The language I don't know. I'm sure you know a great deal more about this than I do. Could it have been a more Uralic type language? That's one of the supports for the location of the "homeland" on the Pontic Caspian steppe isn't it...i.e. that this would explain the Kartvelian and Uralic influences on Indo-European?

In terms of genetics, the formal stats in Haak and Lazaridis et al are pretty unambiguous in showing that the northern populations cannot be modeled solely as prior Europeans plus a big influx of EHG. That "West Asian" component is a necessary ingredient.

Let's take a look at the Dodecad K7b for another vantage point on the genetics, although of course there isn't going to be a complete correspondence between this type of blunt tool and formal stats.
This is Corded Ware


66.02% Atlantic_Baltic
27.10% West_Asian
3.73% South_Asian
3.13% Southern
0.02% Siberian
0.00% African
0.00% East_Asian


These are the scores for "West_Asian" for modern European populations. (this term means different things in different runs, of course)

Belorussians: 11.7
Germans: 11.9
Lithuanians 10.4
Finns 6.9

We're seeing the same phenomenon as with "Gedrosia". What happened to the "West Asian"? Clearly, the further north you go with modern populations, the more that West Asian drops. It also drops as you go west. Perhaps it's partly because at the margins of Corded Ware there was more mixing with pre-existing populations. Also, as Haak and Lazaridis specifically state in the paper, there was a resurgence of prior existing genes after the Bronze Age invasions, just as there was a resurgence of WHG in Europe between the early and the late Neolithic. Whether it was a resurgence in either case or just a question of the types of burials that survived (i.e.elite or dominant burials) is, I think, an open question.

Then, Admixture is going to "aggregate" gene alleles slightly differently depending on what is present and the modal population chosen.

(Armenians are about 53% West Asian in this calculator by the way. About half would be about 27%? Has anyone run Yamnaya through K=7b?)

Anyway, for what it's worth, this is what Dienekes discovered about the relationship between the components in his runs.

7134

7135
7136


As to this interrelationship between K12b and World this is what he had to say. Clearly, some more recent discoveries put some of these into question, but some still seem to be pretty accurate. Also, these are all more recent "clusters" formed of more ancient layers of more "Basal" groups.



Gedrosia appears to be Caucasus + a slice of Siberian
Both Siberian and Southeast Asian appear to be wholly East Asian
East Asian on the other hand, appears to be mostly Southeast Asian + minority Siberian
Northwest African appears to be Caucasus + a minority Sub Saharan
Atlantic Med appears to be Caucasus + a slice of North European
North European appears to be Atlantic Med + Gedrosia with a slice of Siberian
South Asian appears to be Caucasus + East Asian
East African appears to be Sub Saharan + minority Caucasus
Southwest Asian appears to be Caucasus
Sub Saharan appears to be East African
Caucasus appears Atlantic Med + Gedrosia + slices of Northwest African and Southwest Asian


Anyway, I'm not at all saying that we should be relying on these or any other calculators, not when we have formal stats based on ancient samples. It's just that if we're going to discuss them we should try to understand how they relate to each other.

Aberdeen
09-03-15, 22:13
Good post, Angela. But some of your comments make a non-science person like myself all the more skeptical of some of these terms. If Gedrosia is Caucasian + a slice of Siberian and Atlantic Med is Caucasian + a slice of North European, how can North European be a slice of Atlantic Med + Gederosia with a slice of Siberian? I feel as if I'm watching a dog chasing its tail. And why are these ancient remains being classified as part Armenian-like if Armenians are more recent? Why aren't we saying that Armenian is Yamnaya-like?

Just on the basis of the genetic data available, I'd be inclined to question whether the Yamnaya were just a Corded Ware derived group, rather than CW being Yamnaya derived. It's actually the archeological evidence and the subclades of R1a and R1b currently found in both India and Europe that have always made me a believer in the steppe hypothesis.

Maciamo
10-03-15, 11:13
Could "Yamna Original" be already Centum?
Could Satem speaking Balts live in North before Yamna and therefore would not need any Yamna direct ancestry to speak IE?
Could Catacombs be part of development of Satem Indo-Iranians, originally from North?

That is exactly how I see it.

That's also why I always refer to Yamna people as PIE speakers, like many serious linguists.

Maciamo
10-03-15, 12:09
We're seeing the same phenomenon as with "Gedrosia". What happened to the "West Asian"? Clearly, the further north you go with modern populations, the more that West Asian drops. It also drops as you go west. Perhaps it's partly because at the margins of Corded Ware there was more mixing with pre-existing populations. Also, as Haak and Lazaridis specifically state in the paper, there was a resurgence of prior existing genes after the Bronze Age invasions, just as there was a resurgence of WHG in Europe between the early and the late Neolithic. Whether it was a resurgence in either case or just a question of the types of burials that survived (i.e.elite or dominant burials) is, I think, an open question.


I think I can explain why Northern Europeans have low frequencies of West Asian despite their high Yamna ancestry. I think it mostly has to do with the way various populations mixed in Scandinavia between 4000 and 1000 BCE.

Around 4000 BCE, two distinct groups lived side by side in Scandinavia. Mesolithic HG (similar to modern Saami) and Neolithic farmers who were quite Sardinian- or Basque-like (mix of South European HG and Near Eastern farmers).

What we can tell from modern mtDNA and Y-DNA frequencies is that modern Scandinavians inherited genes from both, but their pre-IE Y-DNA is ultimately of Mesolithic origin (I1), while their mtDNA is overwhelmingly from the West European Neolithic blend (H, J, K, T, U5b, V) and only in minority from Mesolithic HG (U4, U5a).

Notice that Neolithic Swedes (Gökhem) and modern Sardinian and Basque people are just as low in West Asian admixture as modern Scandinavians. Yet modern Scandinavians also have considerable Mediterranean (15%) and EEF (35%) admixtures - much higher than Baltic or Uralic NE Europeans.

The Indo-Europeans first moved into Scandinavia with the Corded Ware culture (R1a), but only had a moderate impact based on the 15% of R1a in Denmark and Sweden (a founder effect in Iron Age or medieval nobility could account for the higher R1a in Norway). When R1a got there, Yamna genes had already been diluted through intermingling with locals in western Ukraine, Poland and Germany, then got progressively diluted further at each generation it took for R1a to advance from Denmark to Sweden, then to Norway.

The same thing happened with R1b, except that R1b arrived much later in Scandinavia, probably from 1700 BCE when the culture changed to the Nordic Bronze Age, when more Yamna-like and Celtic-like elements start to appear, like burial mounds with chariots and bronze shields. These R1b people would be descended from the Unetice culture, which came to replace the Bell Beaker culture in Germany, Bohemia and West Poland.

So when Unetice R1b Proto-Germanics moved into Scandinavia, the locals only had a little Gedrosia/West Asian from heavily diluted Corded Ware R1a immigrants, and the R1b newcomers brought even more diluted Yamna genes. Since the Mesolithic-Neolithic blend remained dominant (over 50%) in Scandinavia, it's only logical that ancient Germanics and modern Scandinavians should have so little West Asian admixture. And indeed the Hinxton genomes showed that ancient Anglo-Saxons had extremely low levels of West Asian (about 1%).

It should be expected that Germanic migrations lowered the overall West Asian and Gedrosian admixture in the northern half of Europe.

It isn't so surprising that the ANE and Gedrosian admixtures should be higher today in the British Isles than in Germany, since Germany received far more Scandinavian immigrants in the Iron Age than the Britain. Within Britain, both the ANE and Gedrosian admixtures peak in Scotland (probably more in the Highlands). Unfortunately we don't have much data from Wales, and especially remote places like Anglesey and Pembrokeshire. That ought to be interesting.

Alan
10-03-15, 18:00
[QUOTE]



Gedrosia appears to be Caucasus + a slice of Siberian
Both Siberian and Southeast Asian appear to be wholly East Asian
East Asian on the other hand, appears to be mostly Southeast Asian + minority Siberian
Northwest African appears to be Caucasus + a minority Sub Saharan
Atlantic Med appears to be Caucasus + a slice of North European
North European appears to be Atlantic Med + Gedrosia with a slice of Siberian
South Asian appears to be Caucasus + East Asian
East African appears to be Sub Saharan + minority Caucasus
Southwest Asian appears to be Caucasus
Sub Saharan appears to be East African
Caucasus appears Atlantic Med + Gedrosia + slices of Northwest African and Southwest Asian


Anyway, I'm not at all saying that we should be relying on these or any other calculators, not when we have formal stats based on ancient samples. It's just that if we're going to discuss them we should try to understand how they relate to each other.

So North European might have absorbed Gedrosia type DNA? Could this in support why East Europeans don't have any Gedrosia, because Northeast Europeans merged with it?

If not, than I honestly doubt modern Balto_Slavs are descend of PIE. More likely they are "Indo Europinized" farmers+H&G. Because let's be serious now. 2/3 of Indo Europeans have it. Even R1a rich South_Central Asians have it. Thracian samples had allot of it (they also had Caucasus and North European), also populations of the Urals and North Caucasus have it.

giuseppe rossi
10-03-15, 18:11
[QUOTE=Angela;451730]

So North European might have absorbed Gedrosia type DNA? Could this in support why East Europeans don't have any Gedrosia, because Northeast Europeans merged with it?

If, than I honestly doubt modern Balto_Slavs are descend of PIE. More likely they are "Indo Europinized" farmers+H&G. Because let's be serious now. 2/3 of Indo Europeans have it. Even R1a rich South_Central Asians have it. Thracian samples had allot of it (they also had Caucasus and North European), also populations of the Urals and North Caucasus have it.

Gedrosia and North Euro have ANE affinity, while Atlantic Med don't. That's why Sardinians have zero Gedrosian and North European admixture on Dodecad k12b.

Angela
10-03-15, 23:27
[QUOTE=Angela;451730]

So North European might have absorbed Gedrosia type DNA? Could this in support why East Europeans don't have any Gedrosia, because Northeast Europeans merged with it?

If not, than I honestly doubt modern Balto_Slavs are descend of PIE. More likely they are "Indo Europinized" farmers+H&G. Because let's be serious now. 2/3 of Indo Europeans have it. Even R1a rich South_Central Asians have it. Thracian samples had allot of it (they also had Caucasus and North European), also populations of the Urals and North Caucasus have it.

Isn't some of this just a function of how ADMIXTURE works? The "North Euro" cluster is the set of alleles "modal" or most common in Northern Europe today. It "hides" within it alleles from past migrations and more "basal" groups. Wouldn't any "Gedrosia" or "West Asian" or any other cluster of alleles show up only if they were in addition to or excess over whatever is aggregated into the North Euro cluster? Take a look at the second graphic: K12b expressed as a mixture of K7b components. "North Euro" there looks to have about 10% "West Asian". Or look at K12b for a comparison in terms of the World 9 components. So far as I know, in these runs "North Euro" is actually Northeast Euro. So, doesn't it stand to reason that "Northwest Euro" would show an excess of some more southern or southeastern "components"? What is showing in these runs could just be the excess.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some differences based on different migration patterns and the gradual dilution of the Yamnaya Indo-European autosomal signature as time went on, as Maciamo pointed out. There's also the explicit statement in the body of the Haak et al paper that there was a "resurgence" in pre-Yamnaya ancestry. Some of that "resurgence" might just be that the "autochonous" stock as they would be defined at that time weren't being buried in tombs that would have survived.

As to the Baltic area, Finland in particular, or even some of the northern forest steppe areas, I do think that their actual "Yamnaya Indo-European" descent genetically might not be as high as it appears in Figure 3 of the paper, because that's partly just reflecting their high levels of EHG. They seem to have gotten some effect from Yamnaya, however. Some of their 44% EN has to come via Yamnaya. I don't think the TRB got that far, and even if they did, I doubt they were numerous enough to have that kind of impact all the way into the Baltics and Finland. Plus, the mtDna in that part of the world is different from that in western Europe. It has a more specifically "West Asian" cast, as opposed to Cardial and LBK, as if it came due north from the Near East.

Culturally, of course, they adopted the "Yamnaya Indo-European" package of the groups to their south. I'm not sure about the language. Could it have been Uralic? This is wild speculation, but look at the EDAR results in SHG. If that is accurate, it's far too early to be attributed to recent gene flow from Siberia.

I'm not married to any of these ideas, of course. I'm just trying to use what I know of admixture to correlate those results with what I know is closer to the "truth"...i.e. the formal stats in Haak et al.

Angela
10-03-15, 23:58
Good post, Angela. But some of your comments make a non-science person like myself all the more skeptical of some of these terms. If Gedrosia is Caucasian + a slice of Siberian and Atlantic Med is Caucasian + a slice of North European, how can North European be a slice of Atlantic Med + Gederosia with a slice of Siberian? I feel as if I'm watching a dog chasing its tail. And why are these ancient remains being classified as part Armenian-like if Armenians are more recent? Why aren't we saying that Armenian is Yamnaya-like?

Just on the basis of the genetic data available, I'd be inclined to question whether the Yamnaya were just a Corded Ware derived group, rather than CW being Yamnaya derived. It's actually the archeological evidence and the subclades of R1a and R1b currently found in both India and Europe that have always made me a believer in the steppe hypothesis.

All of this analysis arises out of attempts to verify the Pontic Caspian steppe lands as the uhrheimat of the "Indo-European" peoples. The oldest ancient samples in the Yamnaya area show hunter gatherers (EHG) on the steppe with a certain genetic profile. Then, later, around the time of the "genesis" of the Indo-European cultural and linguistic "package", they found ancient people who are only 50% similar to these EHG. The authors are clear that they haven't found a good ancient genome which would supply the other 50%, although they know there must be resemblances to Near Eastern populations. After exhaustive modeling, the formal stats spit out a few modern populations that would "statistically" fit. Modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews came out at the top of the list, so this ancient population, for which we don't yet have a sample, must be similar to these groups. Now, as these groups are highly EN, that ancient population must have been highly EN as well. The stats are complicated, but I think the theory is as simple as that.

If I made an error, I know people won't be shy about pointing it out.:smile:

How can Yamnaya be a Corded Ware derived group if the innovations appear first in Yamnaya? Unless I'm not following you here. I'm not 100% positive that Corded Ware is genetically derived from Yamnaya in that Corded Ware people are descended from Yamnaya people who literally moved from the steppe around Samara to Corded Ware areas.The yDna signatures would, for the present, seem to indicate that wasn't the case. Perhaps there were people to the west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, or slightly northwest, however, who were R1a but had a similar autosomal signature. They had to have some "Near Eastern" ancestry, however, because they are 73% Yamnaya with the rest what they picked up in Corded areas. Also, although, as I said, they are blunt tools, look at the West Asian numbers or Gedrosia numbers in the admixture runs for Corded Ware compared to the modern people in the area. Remember also that Haak et al call them a "related" group. So, while they may or may not be a "son" group, they're at least a "brother" group, I think.

The archaeology and culture are clear however. As far as Europe is concerned, the innovations came from Yamnaya.

In your honor...:laughing:

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/dogs/dog-chasing-tail-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

LeBrok
11-03-15, 04:28
Isn't some of this just a function of how ADMIXTURE works? The "North Euro" cluster is the set of alleles "modal" or most common in Northern Europe today. It "hides" within it alleles from past migrations and more "basal" groups. Wouldn't any "Gedrosia" or "West Asian" or any other cluster of alleles show up only if they were in addition to or excess over whatever is aggregated into the North Euro cluster? Take a look at the second graphic: K12b expressed as a mixture of K7b components. "North Euro" there looks to have about 10% "West Asian". Or look at K12b for a comparison in terms of the World 9 components. So far as I know, in these runs "North Euro" is actually Northeast Euro. So, doesn't it stand to reason that "Northwest Euro" would show an excess of some more southern or southeastern "components"? What is showing in these runs could just be the excess. I used to think that admixtures were more precisely defined. After spending some time on them, seeing how they blend and disappear I think it is exactly the way you eloquently have put it above.


As to the Baltic area, Finland in particular, or even some of the northern forest steppe areas, I do think that their actual "Yamnaya Indo-European" descent genetically might not be as high as it appears in Figure 3 of the paper, because that's partly just reflecting their high levels of EHG. They seem to have gotten some effect from Yamnaya, however. Some of their 44% EN has to come via Yamnaya. I don't think the TRB got that far, and even if they did, I doubt they were numerous enough to have that kind of impact all the way into the Baltics and Finland. Plus, the mtDna in that part of the world is different from that in western Europe. It has a more specifically "West Asian" cast, as opposed to Cardial and LBK, as if it came due north from the Near East.
By quick glance of admixtures of Corded Ware, it looks like Yamnaya was responsible for 50% of population replacement in North East and Central Europe. However these samples might have come from the Invaders elite burials, who were not mixed very well with locals yet. The true numbers of Invaders might have been much lower. On other hand, the invasions from steppe usually happen during population decline in Europe, like at the end of Roman Empire times. In this case locals are not very numerous and therefore ratio of invaders is much higher, than it would be in "normal" times.

Aberdeen
11-03-15, 04:45
All of this analysis arises out of attempts to verify the Pontic Caspian steppe lands as the uhrheimat of the "Indo-European" peoples. The oldest ancient samples in the Yamnaya area show hunter gatherers (EHG) on the steppe with a certain genetic profile. Then, later, around the time of the "genesis" of the Indo-European cultural and linguistic "package", they found ancient people who are only 50% similar to these EHG. The authors are clear that they haven't found a good ancient genome which would supply the other 50%, although they know there must be resemblances to Near Eastern populations. After exhaustive modeling, the formal stats spit out a few modern populations that would "statistically" fit. Modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews came out at the top of the list, so this ancient population, for which we don't yet have a sample, must be similar to these groups. Now, as these groups are highly EN, that ancient population must have been highly EN as well. The stats are complicated, but I think the theory is as simple as that.

If I made an error, I know people won't be shy about pointing it out.:smile:

How can Yamnaya be a Corded Ware derived group if the innovations appear first in Yamnaya? Unless I'm not following you here. I'm not 100% positive that Corded Ware is genetically derived from Yamnaya in that Corded Ware people are descended from Yamnaya people who literally moved from the steppe around Samara to Corded Ware areas.The yDna signatures would, for the present, seem to indicate that wasn't the case. Perhaps there were people to the west on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, or slightly northwest, however, who were R1a but had a similar autosomal signature. They had to have some "Near Eastern" ancestry, however, because they are 73% Yamnaya with the rest what they picked up in Corded areas. Also, although, as I said, they are blunt tools, look at the West Asian numbers or Gedrosia numbers in the admixture runs for Corded Ware compared to the modern people in the area. Remember also that Haak et al call them a "related" group. So, while they may or may not be a "son" group, they're at least a "brother" group, I think.

The archaeology and culture are clear however. As far as Europe is concerned, the innovations came from Yamnaya.

In your honor...:laughing:

http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/dogs/dog-chasing-tail-smiley-emoticon.gif (http://www.sherv.net/)

Thanks for the hilarious graphic. It's a pretty good visual of how my head feels when I try to understand the interplay between these various admixtures.

I was just joking about Yamnaya being possibly a CW derived group in the genetic sense, but I don't think it's any more off than describing CW as a Yamnaya derived group. I think the reality is, as you say, that they were more like brother groups. I think perhaps CW is just ENG mixed with European Neolithic while Yamnaya got its Middle Eastern component from elsewhere, either the Caucasus or Neolithic farmers from the Ukraine. More data will eventually clarify things. But it's clear that CW and Yamnaya were related but separate phenomena, and that Yamnaya was distinctly Bronze Age with far reaching influence in both Europe and Asia. I was mostly making the point that I don't think people should refer to CW as Yamnaya, despite the genetic connection.

Alan
11-03-15, 18:32
I hope you are not referring to the CW was brought to Europe .........but created in central Europe. it is made my all haplogroups livng in germany at the time plus merging of the migrating Yamnya haplogroups

Of course Yamna was created in Europe. My comment might gave the impression I meant something different. What I meant ist that Yamna and CW might be related groups but CW not necessary descending from Yamna.

What I meant is there might have been one group of Pastoralist who played a role in forming both Yamna and CW.

Alan
11-03-15, 18:38
Isn't some of this just a function of how ADMIXTURE works? The "North Euro" cluster is the set of alleles "modal" or most common in Northern Europe today. It "hides" within it alleles from past migrations and more "basal" groups. Wouldn't any "Gedrosia" or "West Asian" or any other cluster of alleles show up only if they were in addition to or excess over whatever is aggregated into the North Euro cluster? Take a look at the second graphic: K12b expressed as a mixture of K7b components. "North Euro" there looks to have about 10% "West Asian". Or look at K12b for a comparison in terms of the World 9 components. So far as I know, in these runs "North Euro" is actually Northeast Euro. So, doesn't it stand to reason that "Northwest Euro" would show an excess of some more southern or southeastern "components"? What is showing in these runs could just be the excess.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some differences based on different migration patterns and the gradual dilution of the Yamnaya Indo-European autosomal signature as time went on, as Maciamo pointed out. There's also the explicit statement in the body of the Haak et al paper that there was a "resurgence" in pre-Yamnaya ancestry. Some of that "resurgence" might just be that the "autochonous" stock as they would be defined at that time weren't being buried in tombs that would have survived.

As to the Baltic area, Finland in particular, or even some of the northern forest steppe areas, I do think that their actual "Yamnaya Indo-European" descent genetically might not be as high as it appears in Figure 3 of the paper, because that's partly just reflecting their high levels of EHG. They seem to have gotten some effect from Yamnaya, however. Some of their 44% EN has to come via Yamnaya. I don't think the TRB got that far, and even if they did, I doubt they were numerous enough to have that kind of impact all the way into the Baltics and Finland. Plus, the mtDna in that part of the world is different from that in western Europe. It has a more specifically "West Asian" cast, as opposed to Cardial and LBK, as if it came due north from the Near East.

Culturally, of course, they adopted the "Yamnaya Indo-European" package of the groups to their south. I'm not sure about the language. Could it have been Uralic? This is wild speculation, but look at the EDAR results in SHG. If that is accurate, it's far too early to be attributed to recent gene flow from Siberia.

I'm not married to any of these ideas, of course. I'm just trying to use what I know of admixture to correlate those results with what I know is closer to the "truth"...i.e. the formal stats in Haak et al.

So it could simply be that Northeast Europeans are "Indo Europinized" local H&G and Farmers. That is a possibility. I don't think Uralic had yet evolved.

Alan
11-03-15, 18:40
I feel as if I'm watching a dog chasing its tail. And why are these ancient remains being classified as part Armenian-like if Armenians are more recent? Why aren't we saying that Armenian is Yamnaya-like?



This is because, as already pointed out quite a few times, Even if you replace Armenian with any other Western Asian group the genetic closeness to Yamna still remains. If you actually replace it with Iraqi Jew it is higher. And there is no other group in the Steppes which could be the source for it. Therefore this must be real "West Asian" input into Yamna.

Aberdeen
11-03-15, 20:13
This is because, as already pointed out quite a few times, Even if you replace Armenian with any other Western Asian group the genetic closeness to Yamna still remains. If you actually replace it with Iraqi Jew it is higher. And there is no other group in the Steppes which could be the source for it. Therefore this must be real "West Asian" input into Yamna.

I'm well aware that some west Asian groups seem to be a mixture of Middle Eastern early farmer and EHG. I'm just saying it seems strange to me to call this mixture Armenian or Armenian like when found among Yamnaya, considering that Yamnaya seems to have preceded the existence of Armenians. It's similar to the point I was making about Corded Ware - CW is genetically connected to Yamnaya but I think it's a mistake to call it Yamnaya like when it preceded Yamnaya and embodied a different cultural package

Alan
12-03-15, 00:57
I'm well aware that some west Asian groups seem to be a mixture of Middle Eastern early farmer and EHG. I'm just saying it seems strange to me to call this mixture Armenian or Armenian like when found among Yamnaya, considering that Yamnaya seems to have preceded the existence of Armenians. It's similar to the point I was making about Corded Ware - CW is genetically connected to Yamnaya but I think it's a mistake to call it Yamnaya like when it preceded Yamnaya and embodied a different cultural package

You still didn't seem to have understand it. I agree that the notion "Armenian like" might be wrong. But it is right to call it Near Eastern.
Why don't you understand that if a genetic component which is found in ALL Near Easterners, but not in any other group beside Yamna, must have been from the Near East.
We cant call a component "Yamna" if we actually try to break up the Yamna genome. There is no other source which might have possibly given this admixture to Yamna.

Or are you saying we should assume that Bedouins in Arabia are Yamna admixed, because this genes are also found in same.

Aberdeen
12-03-15, 02:31
You still didn't seem to have understand it. I agree that the notion "Armenian like" might be wrong. But it is right to call it Near Eastern.
Why don't you understand that if a genetic component which is found in ALL Near Easterners, but not in any other group beside Yamna, must have been from the Near East.
We cant call a component "Yamna" if we actually try to break up the Yamna genome. There is no other source which might have possibly given this admixture to Yamna.

Or are you saying we should assume that Bedouins in Arabia are Yamna admixed, because this genes are also found in same.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying that Yamnaya was a mixture of Russian hunter gatherer types and a Middle Eastern population that no longer exists. The fact that the Armenians are one of the populations that are somewhat similar to that vanished population doesn't mean we should call it Armenian. And when I say that some west Asians seem to be a mixture of that Middle Eastern population and other populations so may be partly Yamnaya, I'm talking about groups like Iranians. I don't know why you're classifying Arabian Bedouins as west Asians.

MOESAN
12-03-15, 20:23
never heard of gedrosia in russia and siberian ...gedrosia is on the coast of the india ocean in modern eastern iran

http://www.antiquaprintgallery.com/ancient-persia-iran--parthia-carmania-gedrosia-sw-asia-arrowsmith1828-map-198924-p.asp

north of Gedrosia was ancient ARIANA ....................some say means home of Aryans

Makran is the "capital" of Gedrosian ..............some say origin of LT-P326 marker

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/359318/Makran

genes are genes and poolings are poolings
so genes present in Siberia 40000 BC were come there from Baluchis of today after a quick travel back in time???
or are they not rather allover spred old genes we find today concentrated in Pakistan and NW Europe pooled with truly southern genes?

Angela
12-03-15, 21:46
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying that Yamnaya was a mixture of Russian hunter gatherer types and a Middle Eastern population that no longer exists. The fact that the Armenians are one of the populations that are somewhat similar to that vanished population doesn't mean we should call it Armenian. And when I say that some west Asians seem to be a mixture of that Middle Eastern population and other populations so may be partly Yamnaya, I'm talking about groups like Iranians. I don't know why you're classifying Arabian Bedouins as west Asians.

I don't see the issue here. According to formal stats the mystery ancient population which admixed with the EHG to produce the Samara Yamnaya Indo-Europeans can best be described as a population similar to modern Iraqi Jews and Armenians. If we didn't have an EEF genome, I'm sure the Reich group would have been able to model the peopling of Europe as involving a population that is very " modern Sardinian like". We all know now that indeed the EEF are very "Sardinian like" or vice versa.

What's the problem, therefore, with describing the Near Eastern mystery population as "Armenian like"? Do the authors or hobbyists really have to say every single time that Yamnaya can best be modeled as a population that is approximately 50% "ancient Karelian like" and 50% an ancient Near Eastern population that is most like modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews?

Perhaps this is one of those points on which we have to agree to disagree.

Aberdeen
12-03-15, 22:44
I don't see the issue here. According to formal stats the mystery ancient population which admixed with the EHG to produce the Samara Yamnaya Indo-Europeans can best be described as a population similar to modern Iraqi Jews and Armenians. If we didn't have an EEF genome, I'm sure the Reich group would have been able to model the peopling of Europe as involving a population that is very " modern Sardinian like". We all know now that indeed the EEF are very "Sardinian like" or vice versa.

What's the problem, therefore, with describing the Near Eastern mystery population as "Armenian like"? Do the authors or hobbyists really have to say every single time that Yamnaya can best be modeled as a population that is approximately 50% "ancient Karelian like" and 50% an ancient Near Eastern population that is most like modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews?

Perhaps this is one of those points on which we have to agree to disagree.

There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.

Angela
12-03-15, 23:14
There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.

Now I understand you. We indeed don't yet know where it came from, and I too have considered whether it could have entered the steppe from the west. The ANE portion of that ancestry would have to be explained, however, or "West Asian", Gedrosian or whatever, which has not shown up in any "farmers" from Europe.

I know, it's tail chasing time, yes?:grin:

Aberdeen
13-03-15, 02:22
Now I understand you. We indeed don't yet know where it came from, and I too have considered whether it could have entered the steppe from the west. The ANE portion of that ancestry would have to be explained, however, or "West Asian", Gedrosian or whatever, which has not shown up in any "farmers" from Europe.

I know, it's tail chasing time, yes?:grin:

Well, we know that Y haplotype R probably originated somewhere in Asia and had thousands of years to develop, so some parts of it could have migrated to just about anywhere. I suspect most of the R1a portion just drifted north and west to end up mostly in eastern Europe, without a lot of mixing, so remained high in ANE until some R1a mixed with Neolithic farmers in eastern Europe to become Corded Ware. The R1b could have moved west across the steppe to mix with farmers in the Ukraine and/or Balkans, then moved east back on to the steppe when a drought made pastoralism a better bet.

Yah, I'm making me dizzy. And that isn't the only possible scenario, but I think it is one possible scenario. I've decided that the big problem with the Mykop idea, beloved by many, is that although there's considerable evidence of cultural flow, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of significant population flow in archeological terms. And we don't yet have the DNA data needed to test that idea. But those mountains may well have been a significant barrier to gene movement.

Alan
13-03-15, 04:49
There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.


I think you are actually having a reading comprehension problem. I have tried to explain a few times that it is not wrong to assume a component must have come from an area where modern Armenians live, if this signal is strong with whatever population of the Near East you replace them with. However that doesn't mean Armenians originate ultimately in the Near East and have not received any additional Yamna ancestry. It's just that this genes which connect Armenians to Yamna also occur in other Near Easterners who have absolutely nothing to do with Yamna, so therefore this must be a Near Eastern component.

In the words of Dienekes. "If we assumed that this signal is actually Yamna showing up in Armenians, we wouldn't see the same signal in Iraqi Jews and even Bedouins."

However if you are assuming that all Middle Easterners are partly descend of Yamna or at least a large portion of their genes might have come from somewhere outside the region. Than this might work.

But than may I ask why is it reasonable to assume that a component, which was not found in any other ancient samples, might have originated somewhee else, but totally blend out or ignore the possibility that we will find EHG like ancestry in South_Central Asia and therefore this might have it's ultimate origin there?


Back to the "Near Eastern" ancestry in Yamna. We know this kind of genes today peak in Southeastern Iran(Southwestern Asia), and get weaker in any directions. We know that this component is by some majority ENF.

We know that there is no other component in South_Central Asia sharing close relationship to it (Gedrosia), but we know that it has a very close relationship to Caucasus. Therefore a logical conclusion would be, most of these both components origin must have emerged somewhere in close range to each other.

I hope you could follow my bad English until here.


So therefore it doesn't really matter for it's origin, which route this component took. Even if it went through South_Central Asia instead of Caucasus. It must have started somewhere were Caucasus was nearby and where it could have picked up most of it ENF ancestry.

Of course there is still a possibility that this component emerged somewhere else. But the possibility for this is even weaker than the possibility WHG emerged somewhere outside Europe, because we have actual data from Europe, North Eurasia which rather refute the theory that this "Near Eastern" DNA in Yamna might have come from somewhere else, but no ancient data from Western or South_Central Asia which would yet refute the possibility that some of the "WHG" ancestry might have come from somewhere else.

So I kinda feel it is one sided to speculate about the origin of a rather typical Western Asian component . But never come to the idea to do the same with the EHG like ancestry in Yamna. What if this EHG ancestry in Yamna came from somewhere else outside of North Eurasia_Russia?

Alan
13-03-15, 04:56
And to finalize my statement here is the exact quote from Dienekes. For the case my arguments appear too amateurish.


The WHG group has an Fst=0.086 with Armenians, but the LBK farmers have only 0.023. The EHG group has an Fst=0.067 with Armenians, but the Yamnaya steppe people have only 0.030. Someone might argue that it is the Armenians that are receiving genes from Europe, but the same pattern holds even for the Bedouins, for which admixture with Europeans seems far-fetched: 0.106 to 0.043 and 0.093 to 0.060.

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html

Aberdeen
13-03-15, 05:24
I didn't say anything about Yamnaya in Middle Eastern populations. I said that we shouldn't assume that the ancient Middle Eastern part of Yamnaya came from where modern Armenia is just because some people are calling that ancient Middle Eastern portion of the Yamnaya mix Armenian like. Armenians are to a considerable extent ancient Middle Eastern like but that doesn't really tell us why Yamnaya was partly ancient Middle Eastern like. That ancient Middle Eastern influence could have reached the Yamnaya from Anatolia by way of the Balkans and Ukraine, which is why I don't think it should be called Armenian like until the route of transmission can be clarified. And you seem to me to be using exactly the kind of sloppy logic I was warning against.

Alan
13-03-15, 15:57
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type, which genetically evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe(that doesn't mean that pastoralism didn't exist earlier, just that it changed genetically in the late Bronze Age).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.

Aberdeen
13-03-15, 16:28
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type (which evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.

The fact that the Middle Eastern component of Yamnaya doesn't show up in admixtures as EEF (which is something quite specific) does not prove that it could not have come from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.

Alan
13-03-15, 20:42
The fact that the Middle Eastern component of Yamnaya doesn't show up in admixtures as EEF (which is something quite specific) does not prove that it could not have come from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.

It actually does. If we asume that Cucuteni_Trypilian culture is related to other farming cultures of Europe. Than it should show EEF type farmer DNA just like all the other farming cultures there. Even Iron Age Balkan farmer DNA was typically EEF. There is not much room left.

I remember Reich (not sure if it was Eurogenes quoting him or his own opinion) said the fact that the farmer DNA is typical for modern Near Easterners. Speaks for a direct introduction from the Near East and not a detour through Europe.

The only possibility left for a CT origin of this farmer DNA, is to assume that this culture was a rather recent wave of farmer migrants from the Near East, who differed from the early Neolithic farmers who reached Europe earlier.

Sile
13-03-15, 21:39
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type, which genetically evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe(that doesn't mean that pastoralism didn't exist earlier, just that it changed genetically in the late Bronze Age).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.

The EEF found in germany in the haak paper must surely only have come form north of the Zargos mountains, maybe south-caucasus, because no J or E farmers have been found in Germany.
unless they ( J and E ) where happy to stay in the levant and arabian peninsula

MOESAN
20-03-15, 02:42
just a point (maybe someone already said it?)
Yamnaya of Samara are perhaps not the first Yamnaya culture people? Not fully typical? Target and not source? it could explain the break between their Y-R1b and our Y-R1b? (I avow it destroys one of my ancient hypothesis about Y-R1b road towards West, at first sight)
apart: some autosomes plottings concerning Unetice are interesting: one shows 1 Unetice man among the Cordeds, 1 other man among BBs, the most numerous in the middle! it confirms the statute of new osmosis culture for Unetice (as said Henri HUBERT and others archeologists)
nos vad deoc'h oll!

JS Bach
22-03-15, 20:48
The average of the 7 Bell Beaker samples is close to South_Dutch on the Eurogenes K15_population_averages spreadsheet:



Population
Bell Beaker Average
South_Dutch


North_Sea
30.75714
29.95333


Atlantic
27.08
26.93


Baltic
12.53571
10.5


Eastern_Euro
10.63571
9.053333


West_Med
9.06
11.43333


West_Asian
5.017143
4.74


East_Med
0.732857
4.516667


Red_Sea
0.29
1.396667


South_Asian
0.925714
0.673333


Southeast_Asian
0.01
0.116667


Siberian
0.605714
0.316667


Amerindian
1.814286
0.153333


Oceanian
0.131429
0.043333


Northeast_African
0.081429
0.113333


Sub-Saharan
0.317143
0.06



Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.

The Bell Beakers also carried a bit of the Siberian component. One was 2.43% and another was 1.51%. This is very uncommon from what I've seen of Ancient DNA of Western Eurasians to have this much Siberian. I have a little over 1% percent Siberian in Eurogenes K15, which is a complete mystery to me. And I have zero Southeast Asian, Amerindian and Oceanian there, and just 6.84% Eastern Euro. Maybe much of my Siberian has been floating around in Western Europe since the Bell Beakers - or maybe it wouldn't be so high if I got more markers tested.

MOESAN
23-03-15, 00:58
The average of the 7 Bell Beaker samples is close to South_Dutch on the Eurogenes K15_population_averages spreadsheet:



Population
Bell Beaker Average
South_Dutch


North_Sea
30.75714
29.95333


Atlantic
27.08
26.93


Baltic
12.53571
10.5


Eastern_Euro
10.63571
9.053333


West_Med
9.06
11.43333


West_Asian
5.017143
4.74


East_Med
0.732857
4.516667


Red_Sea
0.29
1.396667


South_Asian
0.925714
0.673333


Southeast_Asian
0.01
0.116667


Siberian
0.605714
0.316667


Amerindian
1.814286
0.153333


Oceanian
0.131429
0.043333


Northeast_African
0.081429
0.113333


Sub-Saharan
0.317143
0.06



Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.

The Bell Beakers also carried a bit of the Siberian component. One was 2.43% and another was 1.51%. This is very uncommon from what I've seen of Ancient DNA of Western Eurasians to have this much Siberian. I have a little over 1% percent Siberian in Eurogenes K15, which is a complete mystery to me. And I have zero Southeast Asian, Amerindian and Oceanian there, and just 6.84% Eastern Euro. Maybe much of my Siberian has been floating around in Western Europe since the Bell Beakers - or maybe it wouldn't be so high if I got more markers tested.

I agree for the most concerning components %s - THIS BB AVERAGE shows a bit more central asian elements, -
the question for me is: what is BB people? at what time AND WHERE? we credit what was firstable a small number of pioneers fo the populating of all Western Europe: but I suppose the BBs we find in Germany are partly acculturated tribes and not the genuine previous prospectors - they mixed with local people and took their females in more than a place - the homogeneization in Central Europe between Atlantic populations and Central Europe populations was begun, I think, during the mMegalithic,

JS Bach
23-03-15, 02:04
I agree for the most concerning components %s - THIS BB AVERAGE shows a bit more central asian elements, -
the question for me is: what is BB people? at what time AND WHERE? we credit what was firstable a small number of pioneers fo the populating of all Western Europe: but I suppose the BBs we find in Germany are partly acculturated tribes and not the genuine previous prospectors - they mixed with local people and took their females in more than a place - the homogeneization in Central Europe between Atlantic populations and Central Europe populations was begun, I think, during the mMegalithic,


After seeing the Eurogenes K15 breakdown of the 8,000 ybp R1b1* from El Trocs, Spain, which I posted on the first page of this thread, and seeing how starkly different it is from other ancient R1b's, I find what you said much easier to believe - perhaps especially with R1b's.

Alan
23-03-15, 03:53
After seeing the Eurogenes K15 breakdown of the 8,000 ybp R1b1* from El Trocs, Spain, which I posted on the first page of this thread, and seeing how starkly different it is from other ancient R1b's, I find what you said much easier to believe - perhaps especially with R1b's.

As Maciamo said, there is not really a BB culture. There is only lose cultural contact between the Iberian BB and Central European BB.

Greying Wanderer
23-03-15, 03:54
Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.



If LP was at very low frequencies and then increased dramatically to 70%+ along the Atlantic coast then might whoever had LP initially have benefited from a huge founder effect?

Aberdeen
23-03-15, 17:23
It actually does. If we asume that Cucuteni_Trypilian culture is related to other farming cultures of Europe. Than it should show EEF type farmer DNA just like all the other farming cultures there. Even Iron Age Balkan farmer DNA was typically EEF. There is not much room left.

I remember Reich (not sure if it was Eurogenes quoting him or his own opinion) said the fact that the farmer DNA is typical for modern Near Easterners. Speaks for a direct introduction from the Near East and not a detour through Europe.

The only possibility left for a CT origin of this farmer DNA, is to assume that this culture was a rather recent wave of farmer migrants from the Near East, who differed from the early Neolithic farmers who reached Europe earlier.

But I'm not assuming that Cucuteni-Trypilian culture is the same genetically as other farming cultures in Europe, such as LBK. I'm assuming that it could have been formed by a somewhat different wave of Middle Eastern farmers mixing with a specific group of European hunter gatherers. We can't know for certain at present, it's just an idea.

Sile
23-03-15, 21:05
As Maciamo said, there is not really a BB culture. There is only lose cultural contact between the Iberian BB and Central European BB.

What do you think of Vadim's K14 model for this topic...........it seems to me he has found something

Aberdeen
23-03-15, 21:22
As Maciamo said, there is not really a BB culture. There is only lose cultural contact between the Iberian BB and Central European BB.

And that is based on what evidence?

JS Bach
27-03-15, 06:13
I've been trying to model NorthWestern European populations from the Eurogenes 15 spreadsheet as a combination of the Bell Beaker and Hinxton genomes from their Eurogenes 15 results.

The two Celtic Hinxton samples were said to be Hinxton 1 and Hinxton 4, so I averaged them; the three Anglo-Saxon samples were said to be Hinxton 2, 3 and 5, so I averaged them; and I also averaged the seven Bell Beaker samples. I first weighted them as 1/4 Hinxton Celts, 1/4 Hinxton Anglo-Saxons, and 1/2 Bell Beakers, and got quite similar results to the SouthEast English results. I then weighted them with equal weights (1/3 each) and the results looked perhaps even closer the SouthEast English:





















Hinxton 1 and 4 Average
37.83
29.635
10.16
9.215
6.555
4.445
0.005
0.705
0.95
0.02
0.06
0.005
0
0.15
0.255


Hinxton 2, 3 and 5 Average
41.37333
28.59333
8.85
9.483333
6.163333
3.236667
0.306667
0.28
0.36
0.233333
0
0.033333
0.133333
0.273333
0.686667


Bell Beaker Average
30.75714
27.08
12.53571
10.63571
9.06
5.017143
0.732857
0.29
0.925714
0.01
0.605714
1.814286
0.131429
0.081429
0.317143


Southeast_English
35.52
29.86
9.89
8.36
8.77
3.35
2.5
0.33
0.58
0.03
0.05
0.35
0.31
0.06
0.03




















.25, .25, .5 proportions
35.1794
28.09708
11.02036
9.99244
7.709583
4.428988
0.444345
0.39125
0.790357
0.068333
0.317857
0.916726
0.099048
0.146548
0.393988


.33, .33, .33 (equal) proportions
36.65349
28.43611
10.51524
9.778016
7.259444
4.232937
0.348175
0.425
0.745238
0.087778
0.221905
0.61754
0.088254
0.168254
0.419603




I then did a linear regression analysis modeling different NorthWestern European populations with the three averaged ancient samples, and got the following results:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


Southeast_English
0.992643
0.09091
0.586855
0.32388
-0.01117


Southwest_English
0.987226
0.291528
0.172233
0.548788
-0.0828


South_Dutch
0.977876
0.015984
0.069705
0.863734
0.337549


Irish
0.996459
-0.23411
1.134745
0.112403
-0.08599


West_Scottish
0.997614
0.035514
0.883953
0.092273
-0.077



They all seemed to be very good fits, with the West-Scottish having the highest R-square value. The South Dutch had the largest coefficient for the Bell Beakers; the Irish had the largest coefficient for the Hinxton Celts; and the SouthWest English had the largest coefficient for the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons, although its Bell Beaker coefficient was higher. And the Hinxton Celt Average had the largest coefficient for the SouthEast English.

JS Bach
28-03-15, 07:38
I've been trying other populations from Eurogenes 15 with this model, and here are a couple more:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


Danish
0.995665
0.57223
-0.02596
0.452749
0.006023


North_Dutch
0.995606
0.672777
-0.1185
0.450742
-0.03299


These two seem to fit the model very well, and come out as a mixture of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons and the Bell Beakers, with a bit less of the Bell Beakers. Maybe they correspond to the Angle, Frisian, Jute and Danish Viking invasions of England. The West Scottish and Irish come out as the opposite, with the same components but the large majority being the Hinxton Celts.


Now here are the Germans:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


North_German
0.991923
-0.19132
0.663382
0.505257
0.151681


West_German
0.962378
1.570118
-1.66584
0.991526
0.692574


East_German
0.965777
0.686971
-1.81043
2.148594
-0.1685


Looking at the North Germans, I thought maybe the Saxons brought over a Hinxton Celtic-Bell Beaker mix. (The South Dutch and French were also high in Bell Beakers) But then, the West and East Germans had more of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon component and less of the Hinxton Celts -- although their models didn't fit as well.


Now for the Scandinavians:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


West_Norwegian
0.990316
2.251309
-1.97525
0.757186
-0.22386


Norwegian
0.986636
2.07966
-2.0498
0.991973
-0.14615


Icelandic
0.993988
0.742832
-0.2822
0.58937
-0.33384


Orcadian
0.998015
0.547285
0.498763
-0.06765
0.144096


Swedish
0.970309
1.96859
-1.97326
1.019808
-0.10206


The Norwegians, Icelanders and Swedes had lots of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons plus some Bell Beakers, and were low in Hinxton Celts. However, the intercepts were higher, thus suggesting additional components and confounding the results more. The Orcadians had a more even blend of the two Hinxton groups and had less of the Bell Beakers, which made sense to me, seeing how different from the rest of Britain they come out as on other genetic population measures. I don't see much evidence against them being largely a mixture of the West Norwegian and West Scottish samples. All the other populations I tried had lower R-squared values.

Greying Wanderer
29-03-15, 01:23
I've been trying other populations from Eurogenes 15 with this model, and here are a couple more:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


Danish
0.995665
0.57223
-0.02596
0.452749
0.006023


North_Dutch
0.995606
0.672777
-0.1185
0.450742
-0.03299


These two seem to fit the model very well, and come out as a mixture of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons and the Bell Beakers, with a bit less of the Bell Beakers. Maybe they correspond to the Angle, Frisian, Jute and Danish Viking invasions of England. The West Scottish and Irish come out as the opposite, with the same components but the large majority being the Hinxton Celts.


Now here are the Germans:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


North_German
0.991923
-0.19132
0.663382
0.505257
0.151681


West_German
0.962378
1.570118
-1.66584
0.991526
0.692574


East_German
0.965777
0.686971
-1.81043
2.148594
-0.1685


Looking at the North Germans, I thought maybe the Saxons brought over a Hinxton Celtic-Bell Beaker mix. (The South Dutch and French were also high in Bell Beakers) But then, the West and East Germans had more of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon component and less of the Hinxton Celts -- although their models didn't fit as well.


Now for the Scandinavians:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


West_Norwegian
0.990316
2.251309
-1.97525
0.757186
-0.22386


Norwegian
0.986636
2.07966
-2.0498
0.991973
-0.14615


Icelandic
0.993988
0.742832
-0.2822
0.58937
-0.33384


Orcadian
0.998015
0.547285
0.498763
-0.06765
0.144096


Swedish
0.970309
1.96859
-1.97326
1.019808
-0.10206


The Norwegians, Icelanders and Swedes had lots of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons plus some Bell Beakers, and were low in Hinxton Celts. However, the intercepts were higher, thus suggesting additional components and confounding the results more. The Orcadians had a more even blend of the two Hinxton groups and had less of the Bell Beakers, which made sense to me, seeing how different from the rest of Britain they come out as on other genetic population measures. I don't see much evidence against them being largely a mixture of the West Norwegian and West Scottish samples. All the other populations I tried had lower R-squared values.

interesting ty

MOESAN
29-03-15, 01:37
If LP was at very low frequencies and then increased dramatically to 70%+ along the Atlantic coast then might whoever had LP initially have benefited from a huge founder effect?

I'm interested but don't understand well here - could you tell me what you call LP please (I missed something?)

skaheen15
29-03-15, 07:17
I'm interested but don't understand well here - could you tell me what you call LP please (I missed something?) He means lactase persistence.

Greying Wanderer
29-03-15, 19:51
I'm interested but don't understand well here - could you tell me what you call LP please (I missed something?)

Yes, LP = milk drinking.

It was assumed previously that either neolithic farmers or steppe pastoralists brought it to the Atlantic fringe in sizable frequencies and it expanded from there but so far it's not being found among the farmers at all and only in very low frequencies among the steppenwolfs (IIRC one corded ware and one BB and a group in Iberia near the Basques).

So if, wherever it came from, it only existed at frequencies of c. 1% until it arrived at the Atlantic coast and then dramatically expanded along the Atlantic coast then either it happened fast or slow. If it happened fast then that could imply a very dramatic founder effect.

So possibly not a migration wave in itself but 1% of a wave that had a lucky gene (for that environment) which led to them having a higher TFR than their neighbors.

This is in response to JS Bach's point


Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.

If the frequency of LP among the people who arrived at the Atlantic coast was tiny, 1-2% for example, then a lot of the homogeneity of western Europe might be because of that 1-2% founder effect.

MOESAN
29-03-15, 20:47
Yes, LP = milk drinking.

It was assumed previously that either neolithic farmers or steppe pastoralists brought it to the Atlantic fringe in sizable frequencies and it expanded from there but so far it's not being found among the farmers at all and only in very low frequencies among the steppenwolfs (IIRC one corded ware and one BB and a group in Iberia near the Basques).


So if, wherever it came from, it only existed at frequencies of c. 1% until it arrived at the Atlantic coast and then dramatically expanded along the Atlantic coast then either it happened fast or slow. If it happened fast then that could imply a very dramatic founder effect.

So possibly not a migration wave in itself but 1% of a wave that had a lucky gene (for that environment) which led to them having a higher TFR than their neighbors.

This is in response to JS Bach's point



If the frequency of LP among the people who arrived at the Atlantic coast was tiny, 1-2% for example, then a lot of the homogeneity of western Europe might be because of that 1-2% founder effect.

Thanks Greying Wanderer
that said, I stay very often amazed in front of these founder effects - except for a very advantageous gene submitted to strong straightforwards selection pressure, I consider it as very unexpected (not "impossible") event in already well populated regions - we have to imagine empty regions but Atlantic regions were rather the opposite of that I think

Greying Wanderer
29-03-15, 21:50
Thanks Greying Wanderer
that said, I stay very often amazed in front of these founder effects - except for a very advantageous gene submitted to strong straightforwards selection pressure, I consider it as very unexpected (not "impossible") event in already well populated regions - we have to imagine empty regions but Atlantic regions were rather the opposite of that I think

Yes it does seem very dramatic but the fact remains *if* the rate of LP among ancient dna remains at the 1-2% mark then there must (?) be a dramatic founder effect in populations that are now 90%+.

edit:

for example was Niall (or his wife)

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

particularly tough or particularly LP?

edit:

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/recent-radiation-of-r-m269-males-in.html

MOESAN
03-04-15, 18:48
I post that here, even if it could be placed in an anthropology thread -
we are sepaking in more than a thread of the affinities of Yamanya people - maybe are you aware of it but I mention here the Aleksey KAZARNITSKY

MOESAN
03-04-15, 19:03
... KAZARNITSKY 's paper (sorry):On the Bilological Distinctness of the Pit Grave (Yamnaya) People in the Northwestern Caspian - Cranial Evidence
as very often I am not fully statisfied by this kind of paper where no grouping typology is proposed, only means and distances with principal composants (lack of precious details): the new mode in anthropology - but there are some things spite that:
shortly, the paper shows the Yamnaya Culture sharing population were not homogenous, at least the N-W Caspian (Kalmykia) one is well distinct from the more northern and largely spred other Pit Grave ones, owing to the Neolithic (but not commonly 'mediter') people of Lower Dniepr region more than to any other predecessors, and well distinct too from the Armenian and Maykop contemporaneous populations, spite a "Pan-Armenian" paper we red sometime ago -
some other good points can be obtained from this paper concerning the links of Sredny Stog and Khvalinsk with a different population of the Mesolithic (resurgence) and with other Pit Grave culture sites (# Kalmykia) and the demic changes in this region (N-Caucasus Pontic steppes, and even more noerthernly) between Mesolithic and Neolithic (>> 2500 BC) -
so what we say (autosomes, Y-DNA, mt-DNA) about Yamnaya has to be cautiously looked at according to sites -

MOESAN
05-04-15, 00:17
The EEF found in germany in the haak paper must surely only have come form north of the Zargos mountains, maybe south-caucasus, because no J or E farmers have been found in Germany.
unless they ( J and E ) where happy to stay in the levant and arabian peninsula


answering SILE and ALAN
we lack big enough samples of Late Neolithic people in Eastern (and Western) Balkans to be sure of our thoughts -(or I ignore it) - but I think the metals ages (early enough in E-Balkans) saw a new wave of southerners partly different from the "danubian" and "cardial" first EEF, passed there across Anatolia but coming from farther East- it would be the cause of 'west-asian-c

MOESAN
05-04-15, 00:20
sorry-
it could be the cause of 'west-asian-caucasus' form poor for 'gedrosia', and present today in Southeastern Europe when it was absent during the plain Neolithic there - but it does not evocate a Yamnaya nor any other I-Ean colonization through North the Caspian See, at first sight - for language I don't risk any bet -

JS Bach
28-06-15, 05:32
The autosomal dna for the R1b-U106 individual who lived 3736 years ago on the Southern tip of the Swedish peninsula is now available. This is the oldest U106 sample I’m aware of. Today U106 peaks in North Holland, if I’m not mistaken, and is pretty common in England as well – where I believe my U106 patrilineal ancestors came from.

The Eurogenes K15 results gave me some surprises:

98.44% of the genes came from the first 5 of the 15 categories: North Sea, Atlantic, Baltic, Eastern Euro, and West Med. And another 1.07% was South Asian. This was like the older Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana 1 individuals in that way, although with different proportions of those components and the older samples didn’t have any of the West Med component, which today peaks in Sardinians.

There was no West Asian component. I thought there would be some Yamna / Corded Ware influence there, thus leaving at least a trace of the West Asian component, but no there wasn’t any! In the table below I averaged the seven Yamna samples and 4 Corded Ware samples from a Eurogenes K15 spreadsheet and got 18.85% West Asian for the Yamna, and 11.2% West Asian for the Corded Ware samples. And the Bell Beaker average even had 5.02% West Asian. The Hinxton Celt average (samples 1 and 4) had 4.45% West Asian, which was more than the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon average (samples 2, 3 and 5) of 3.24. Todays Swedes have 2.54% of the West Asian component. How did this Swedish U106 guy miss out on all the fun?

There was no East Med component either, of which today Swedes and SouthEast English have 1.06% and 2.5% of, respectively. Many ancient European farmers had this component. Stuttgart had 25.91% of it, and Gokhem 2 had 4.66%.

This makes me think this U106 guy may not have spoken a Germanic language or have had a Norse religion. I suspect those things probably came with the West Asian component. Although I think he may have had smaller parts of those things. But if that were the case, what Y-haplogroup did those conquering tribes have? Were they R1a, and then over time some leaders became U106 and I1?




Eurogenes_K15
Population
North_Sea
Atlantic
Baltic
Eastern_Euro
West_Med
West_Asian
East_Med
Red_Sea
South_Asian
Southeast_Asian
Siberian
Amerindian
Oceanian
Northeast_African
Sub-Saharan


U106_Southern_
Sweden_3736_ybp
39.93%
18.64%
15.82%
16.41%
7.64%
0
0
0
1.07%
0
0
0
0.12%
0
0.36%


Swedish
39.32
22.58
15.55
10.95
5.23
2.54
1.06
0.3
0.52
0.2
0.39
0.49
0.4
0.2
0.28


Norwegian
39.74
23.47
13.26
11.48
6.36
2.24
0.8
0.14
0.81
0.08
0.5
0.72
0.32
0.06
0.04


North_Swedish
36.66
21
15.78
15.37
4.02
1.35
0.68
0.34
0.69
0.55
2.21
0.64
0.62
0.07
0.03


Motala12
34.36
10.06
26.87
27.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.97
0.25
0
0


Loschbour
29.69
29.57
31.49
8.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.93
0
0


La_Brana-1
29.05
27.26
27.78
14.1
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
0
0


Gokhem2
16.74
27.71
3.78
0
45.34
0
4.66
0.78
0
0
0
0
0.98
0.01
0


Bell_Beaker_Avg
30.76
27.08
12.54
10.64
9.06
5.02
0.73
0.29
0.93
0.01
0.61
1.81
0.13
0.08
0.32


Corded_Ware_Avg
28.44
19.01
15.38
19.30
0.00
11.20
0.00
0.00
3.45
0.00
0.12
2.07
0.43
0.62
0.00


Yamnaya_Average
24.73
4.05
13.05
28.68
0.00
18.85
0.00
0.00
5.89
0.00
0.00
4.57
0.03
0.00
0.15


Hinxton_AS_Avg
41.37
28.59
8.85
9.48
6.16
3.24
0.31
0.28
0.36
0.23
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.27
0.69


Hinxton_Celt_Avg
37.83
29.64
10.16
9.22
6.56
4.45
0.01
0.71
0.95
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.15
0.26


Southeast_English
35.52
29.86
9.89
8.36
8.77
3.35
2.50
0.33
0.58
0.03
0.05
0.35
0.31
0.06
0.03


North_Dutch
37.63
27.09
12.32
9.19
6.80
3.69
1.51
0.77
0.37
0.04
0.08
0.21
0.20
0.08
0.04


Ust'-Ishim
0
11.24
0
3.08
4.82
0
0
3.36
30.76
15.25
2.02
2.2
10.96
10.08
6.22


Kostenki_14
18.81
12.39
6.52
9.71
9.77
0
0
5.7
17.42
1.33
0.66
4.74
5.11
5.19
2.66


Mal'ta
15.91
0
6.54
38.02
0
0
0
0
20.31
0
0
18.62
0.12
0
0.47

JS Bach
28-06-15, 06:07
If I may add another thing: this Eurogenes K15 West Asian component seems to have appeared out of nowhere. I haven’t seen it in hardly any ancient samples that are dated before Yamnaya. And it's missing in Ust'-Ishim, Kostenki_14 and the Mal'ta boy. This is similar for the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b and to a lesser extent the West Asian component in Dodecad V3. I wonder if there was some isolated population (probably carrying some forms of y-dna R1) that then had a big population explosion with the Yamnaya people? -- Or maybe it will show up in ancient dna samples from parts of West- and Central Asia that we have yet to sample from.

Here are the Dodecad: K12b and V3 results for the R1b-U106 3,736 ybp Swedish fellow from Southern Sweden. He has none of the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b, but he does have a substantial portion (3.83%) of the West Asian component from Dodecad V3:



Dodecad K12b


Dodecad V3



Gedrosia
10.01%

East_European
16.69%


Siberian
-

West_European
60.70%


Northwest_African
-

Mediterranean
16.06%


Southeast_Asian
-

Neo_African
0.61%


Atlantic_Med
34.45%

West_Asian
3.83%


North_European
54.19%

South_Asian
1.35%


South_Asian
0.47%

Northeast_Asian
-


East_African
-

Southeast_Asian
0.20%


Southwest_Asian
-

East_African
-


East_Asian
-

Southwest_Asian
-


Caucasus
-

Northwest_African
-


Sub_Saharan
0.86%

Palaeo_African
0.58%

MOESAN
29-06-15, 00:44
If I may add another thing: this Eurogenes K15 West Asian component seems to have appeared out of nowhere. I haven’t seen it in hardly any ancient samples that are dated before Yamnaya. And it's missing in Ust'-Ishim, Kostenki_14 and the Mal'ta boy. This is similar for the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b and to a lesser extent the West Asian component in Dodecad V3. I wonder if there was some isolated population (probably carrying some forms of y-dna R1) that then had a big population explosion with the Yamnaya people? -- Or maybe it will show up in ancient dna samples from parts of West- and Central Asia that we have yet to sample from.

Here are the Dodecad: K12b and V3 results for the R1b-U106 3,736 ybp Swedish fellow from Southern Sweden. He has none of the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b, but he does have a substantial portion (3.83%) of the West Asian component from Dodecad V3:



Dodecad K12b


Dodecad V3



Gedrosia
10.01%

East_European
16.69%


Siberian
-

West_European
60.70%


Northwest_African
-

Mediterranean
16.06%


Southeast_Asian
-

Neo_African
0.61%


Atlantic_Med
34.45%

West_Asian
3.83%


North_European
54.19%

South_Asian
1.35%


South_Asian
0.47%

Northeast_Asian
-


East_African
-

Southeast_Asian
0.20%


Southwest_Asian
-

East_African
-


East_Asian
-

Southwest_Asian
-


Caucasus
-

Northwest_African
-


Sub_Saharan
0.86%

Palaeo_African
0.58%




in this two runs, the (right side) West-Asian is I think a bit of 'gedrosia', the other 'gedrosia' being dispatched among East Euro and South Asian?

MOESAN
29-06-15, 01:06
The autosomal dna for the R1b-U106 individual who lived 3736 years ago on the Southern tip of the Swedish peninsula is now available. This is the oldest U106 sample I’m aware of. Today U106 peaks in North Holland, if I’m not mistaken, and is pretty common in England as well – where I believe my U106 patrilineal ancestors came from.

The Eurogenes K15 results gave me some surprises:

98.44% of the genes came from the first 5 of the 15 categories: North Sea, Atlantic, Baltic, Eastern Euro, and West Med. And another 1.07% was South Asian. This was like the older Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana 1 individuals in that way, although with different proportions of those components and the older samples didn’t have any of the West Med component, which today peaks in Sardinians.

There was no West Asian component. I thought there would be some Yamna / Corded Ware influence there, thus leaving at least a trace of the West Asian component, but no there wasn’t any! In the table below I averaged the seven Yamna samples and 4 Corded Ware samples from a Eurogenes K15 spreadsheet and got 18.85% West Asian for the Yamna, and 11.2% West Asian for the Corded Ware samples. And the Bell Beaker average even had 5.02% West Asian. The Hinxton Celt average (samples 1 and 4) had 4.45% West Asian, which was more than the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon average (samples 2, 3 and 5) of 3.24. Todays Swedes have 2.54% of the West Asian component. How did this Swedish U106 guy miss out on all the fun?

There was no East Med component either, of which today Swedes and SouthEast English have 1.06% and 2.5% of, respectively. Many ancient European farmers had this component. Stuttgart had 25.91% of it, and Gokhem 2 had 4.66%.

This makes me think this U106 guy may not have spoken a Germanic language or have had a Norse religion. I suspect those things probably came with the West Asian component. Although I think he may have had smaller parts of those things. But if that were the case, what Y-haplogroup did those conquering tribes have? Were they R1a, and then over time some leaders became U106 and I1?




Eurogenes_K15
Population
North_Sea
Atlantic
Baltic
Eastern_Euro
West_Med
West_Asian
East_Med
Red_Sea
South_Asian
Southeast_Asian
Siberian
Amerindian
Oceanian
Northeast_African
Sub-Saharan


U106_Southern_
Sweden_3736_ybp
39.93%
18.64%
15.82%
16.41%
7.64%
0
0
0
1.07%
0
0
0
0.12%
0
0.36%


Swedish
39.32
22.58
15.55
10.95
5.23
2.54
1.06
0.3
0.52
0.2
0.39
0.49
0.4
0.2
0.28


Norwegian
39.74
23.47
13.26
11.48
6.36
2.24
0.8
0.14
0.81
0.08
0.5
0.72
0.32
0.06
0.04


North_Swedish
36.66
21
15.78
15.37
4.02
1.35
0.68
0.34
0.69
0.55
2.21
0.64
0.62
0.07
0.03


Motala12
34.36
10.06
26.87
27.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.97
0.25
0
0


Loschbour
29.69
29.57
31.49
8.31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.93
0
0


La_Brana-1
29.05
27.26
27.78
14.1
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
0
0


Gokhem2
16.74
27.71
3.78
0
45.34
0
4.66
0.78
0
0
0
0
0.98
0.01
0


Bell_Beaker_Avg
30.76
27.08
12.54
10.64
9.06
5.02
0.73
0.29
0.93
0.01
0.61
1.81
0.13
0.08
0.32


Corded_Ware_Avg
28.44
19.01
15.38
19.30
0.00
11.20
0.00
0.00
3.45
0.00
0.12
2.07
0.43
0.62
0.00


Yamnaya_Average
24.73
4.05
13.05
28.68
0.00
18.85
0.00
0.00
5.89
0.00
0.00
4.57
0.03
0.00
0.15


Hinxton_AS_Avg
41.37
28.59
8.85
9.48
6.16
3.24
0.31
0.28
0.36
0.23
0.00
0.03
0.13
0.27
0.69


Hinxton_Celt_Avg
37.83
29.64
10.16
9.22
6.56
4.45
0.01
0.71
0.95
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.00
0.15
0.26


Southeast_English
35.52
29.86
9.89
8.36
8.77
3.35
2.50
0.33
0.58
0.03
0.05
0.35
0.31
0.06
0.03


North_Dutch
37.63
27.09
12.32
9.19
6.80
3.69
1.51
0.77
0.37
0.04
0.08
0.21
0.20
0.08
0.04


Ust'-Ishim
0
11.24
0
3.08
4.82
0
0
3.36
30.76
15.25
2.02
2.2
10.96
10.08
6.22


Kostenki_14
18.81
12.39
6.52
9.71
9.77
0
0
5.7
17.42
1.33
0.66
4.74
5.11
5.19
2.66


Mal'ta
15.91
0
6.54
38.02
0
0
0
0
20.31
0
0
18.62
0.12
0
0.47







Interesting post. This "virginity" of Y-R-U106 of Sweden concerning West Asian could prove some Y-R1b were in Europe before indo-europeanization (I think since a long time Y-R1b-U106 was separated form other R1b early enough, making its way North from ??? ( here I don't know, maybe from South Baltic lands?); its 'south-asian' would be an old set of genes from Central Asia, not by force from SCW Asia. or I-Eanization is not linked to 'west-asian'? Or 'west-asian' bearers were southeastern caspian people transmitting their metallurgist skills but not the language??? (always this language cradle question!) -
the 'west-asian' of most poolings are a mix of Northern 'east-mediter' + 'gedrosia' itself a mix of ancient ANE 'gedrosia' and new 'gedrosia' ANI people of Pakistan
concerning Y-R1b U106 and R1a Battel Axes C. Eurogenes found the former very close for aDNA to today Scandinavians whe the second is closer to Mordvins and surrounding populations of today...

Tomenable
29-06-15, 15:55
There are 3 R1a samples, 3 R1b samples and 2 I1 samples from Sweden and Denmark in Allentoft's study:

R1a:

RISE61 - Kyndeløse, Denmark - 14C date 4071 BP, cal BC: -2851 to -2492
RISE94 - Viby, Sweden - 14C date 4025 BP, cal BC: -2621 to -2472
RISE42 - Marbjerg, Denmark - 14C date 3681 BP, cal BC: -2191 to -1972

R1b:

RISE98 - Lilla Beddinge, Sweden - 14C date 3736 BP, cal BC: -2275 to -2032
RISE47 - Sebber Skole, Denmark - 14C date 3153 BP, cal BC: -1499 to -1324
RISE276 - Trundholm Mose, Denmark - 14C date 2525 BP, cal BC: -794 to -547

I1:

RISE207 - Angamollan, Sweden - 14C date 3130 BP, cal BC: -1493 to -1302
RISE175 - Abekas, Sweden - 14C date 3025 BP, cal BC: -1395 to -1132

Tomenable
29-06-15, 16:02
Thanks Greying Wanderer
that said, I stay very often amazed in front of these founder effects - except for a very advantageous gene submitted to strong straightforwards selection pressure, I consider it as very unexpected (not "impossible") event in already well populated regions - we have to imagine empty regions but Atlantic regions were rather the opposite of that I think

Many of Atlantic regions were actually sparsely populated.

Farming came to those regions late, and some groups of hunter-gatherers survived there for a long time (even until PIE arrival).

The limit of the expansion of farmers (and farming) in Europe by ca. 6500 years ago:

http://s14.postimg.org/h0d02iq81/Agriculture2.png

Based on this map:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166.figures-only

http://s22.postimg.org/dzpy03odd/Neolithic_transition.png

Check also:

https://www.academia.edu/677271/Expected_Regional_Patterns_of_Mesolithic-Neolithic_Human_Population_Admixture_in_Europe_bas ed_on_Archaeological_Evidence

http://s12.postimg.org/uh8c7ckp9/Pop_Density_Stone_Age.png

As well as:

"Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe":

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/pdf/ncomms3486.pdf

Greying Wanderer
30-06-15, 00:34
@Tomenable

Yes, and wheat not liking acid soil (which the Atlantic coast has) is a possible explanation for why.

JS Bach
01-07-15, 06:25
[QUOTE=Tomenable;461155]There are 3 R1a samples, 3 R1b samples and 2 I1 samples from Sweden and Denmark in Allentoft's study:


R1b:

RISE98 - Lilla Beddinge, Sweden - 14C date 3736 BP, cal BC: -2275 to -2032
RISE47 - Sebber Skole, Denmark - 14C date 3153 BP, cal BC: -1499 to -1324
RISE276 - Trundholm Mose, Denmark - 14C date 2525 BP, cal BC: -794 to -547



Yes, the RISE98 was the one I was referring to as being R1b-U106. And that’s right, the actual date estimates are as you said.

Regarding where I speculated that the conquering tribes were R1a, and that some of the leaders became U106 and I1 over time, I’m leaning further away from that now. For instance, on this page http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25236-Haplogroups-of-European-kings-and-queens where it lists haplogroups of many European Kings and Queens, I only found one R1a listed there, and that was for Grand Princes of Kiev, Ukraine; while R1b was dominating on the post, with many of them U106. (As well as some I1’s in Sweden, Denmark and Norway.)

Maybe the Bell Beaker R1b’s were the source of much of the language, religion and culture of NW Europe, and they in turn were partially descended from a pre-Yamna culture of some sort. Hopefully genetics will sort this out in the future. That may not be what most people on this forum think, but that’s how science often works – continually adjusting frameworks. And this site was one of the places that got me interested in this subject area to begin with.

ElHorsto
01-07-15, 11:12
If I may add another thing: this Eurogenes K15 West Asian component seems to have appeared out of nowhere. I haven’t seen it in hardly any ancient samples that are dated before Yamnaya. And it's missing in Ust'-Ishim, Kostenki_14 and the Mal'ta boy. This is similar for the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b and to a lesser extent the West Asian component in Dodecad V3. I wonder if there was some isolated population (probably carrying some forms of y-dna R1) that then had a big population explosion with the Yamnaya people? -- Or maybe it will show up in ancient dna samples from parts of West- and Central Asia that we have yet to sample from.

Here are the Dodecad: K12b and V3 results for the R1b-U106 3,736 ybp Swedish fellow from Southern Sweden. He has none of the Caucasus component in Dodecad K12b, but he does have a substantial portion (3.83%) of the West Asian component from Dodecad V3:



Dodecad K12b


Dodecad V3



Gedrosia
10.01%

East_European
16.69%


Siberian
-

West_European
60.70%


Northwest_African
-

Mediterranean
16.06%


Southeast_Asian
-

Neo_African
0.61%


Atlantic_Med
34.45%

West_Asian
3.83%


North_European
54.19%

South_Asian
1.35%


South_Asian
0.47%

Northeast_Asian
-


East_African
-

Southeast_Asian
0.20%


Southwest_Asian
-

East_African
-


East_Asian
-

Southwest_Asian
-


Caucasus
-

Northwest_African
-


Sub_Saharan
0.86%

Palaeo_African
0.58%




But he has K12b Gedrosia. 10% is like modern NW-Euro levels, the highest in Europe. Gedrosia was never found in any pre-bronze sample from europe, so also this result supports the link between R1b and Gedrosian. It is autosomally not that far from Yamna. Maybe west Russia or Baltics is the place of origin like MOESAN suggested.
West Asian(Caucasus) is more complex with ENF being very important.

arvistro
01-07-15, 20:29
Baltics and West Russia is place of 0 Gedrosia..

JS Bach
01-07-15, 21:40
But he has K12b Gedrosia. 10% is like modern NW-Euro levels, the highest in Europe. Gedrosia was never found in any pre-bronze sample from europe, so also this result supports the link between R1b and Gedrosian. It is autosomally not that far from Yamna. Maybe west Russia or Baltics is the place of origin like MOESAN suggested.
West Asian(Caucasus) is more complex with ENF being very important.




Sample


Gedrosian admixture




Anzick 1


7.83




Corded Ware


21.94




German Bell Beaker


9.62




Mal’ta


24.39




Mesolithic Karelia


6.05




Mesolithic Samara


12.98




Yamna


26.29





Good point. Notice also how the Bell Beakers have just the right amount of Gedrosia for NW Europe.

I’m not so sure RISE98 is autosomally not far from Yamna. I guess it depends how you look at it. It certainly doesn’t look close to Yamna on Eurogenes15.

@arvistro: That’s right, e.g. Lithuanians have zero Gedrosia, but have about 9% Caucasus. A Corded Ware individual had 6.82% Caucasus and a Bell Beaker fellow had 2.71% Caucasus. Although a Yamna guy had just 2.12% Caucasus. It looks more and more to me like Bell Beakers tend to approximate modern Western Europeans, and Corded Ware folk in some ways tend to approximate modern Eastern Europeans and in other ways don’t. It’s strange to me how little Gedrosia they have.

Angela
01-07-15, 21:54
Many of Atlantic regions were actually sparsely populated.

Farming came to those regions late, and some groups of hunter-gatherers survived there for a long time (even until PIE arrival).

The limit of the expansion of farmers (and farming) in Europe by ca. 6500 years ago:

http://s14.postimg.org/h0d02iq81/Agriculture2.png

Based on this map:

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166.figures-only

http://s22.postimg.org/dzpy03odd/Neolithic_transition.png

Check also:

https://www.academia.edu/677271/Expected_Regional_Patterns_of_Mesolithic-Neolithic_Human_Population_Admixture_in_Europe_bas ed_on_Archaeological_Evidence

http://s12.postimg.org/uh8c7ckp9/Pop_Density_Stone_Age.png

As well as:

"Regional population collapse followed initial agriculture booms in mid-Holocene Europe":

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/pdf/ncomms3486.pdf

That Royal Society Map for the spread of agriculture is great. I'm going to steal it for my files. :)

ElHorsto
01-07-15, 22:19
Baltics and West Russia is place of 0 Gedrosia..

But was it 0 in the past too? For instance there was Corded Ware which was found to be rich in Gedrosia.

Tomenable
01-07-15, 22:55
The autosomal dna for the R1b-U106 individual who lived 3736 years ago on the Southern tip of the Swedish peninsula is now available. This is the oldest U106 sample I’m aware of. Today U106 peaks in North Holland, if I’m not mistaken, and is pretty common in England as well – where I believe my U106 patrilineal ancestors came from.

The Eurogenes K15 results gave me some surprises:

98.44% of the genes came from the first 5 of the 15 categories: North Sea, Atlantic, Baltic, Eastern Euro, and West Med. And another 1.07% was South Asian. This was like the older Motala 12, Loschbour and La Brana 1 individuals in that way, although with different proportions of those components and the older samples didn’t have any of the West Med component, which today peaks in Sardinians.

There was no West Asian component. I thought there would be some Yamna / Corded Ware influence there, thus leaving at least a trace of the West Asian component, but no there wasn’t any! In the table below I averaged the seven Yamna samples and 4 Corded Ware samples from a Eurogenes K15 spreadsheet and got 18.85% West Asian for the Yamna, and 11.2% West Asian for the Corded Ware samples. And the Bell Beaker average even had 5.02% West Asian. The Hinxton Celt average (samples 1 and 4) had 4.45% West Asian, which was more than the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon average (samples 2, 3 and 5) of 3.24. Todays Swedes have 2.54% of the West Asian component. How did this Swedish U106 guy miss out on all the fun?

There was no East Med component either, of which today Swedes and SouthEast English have 1.06% and 2.5% of, respectively. Many ancient European farmers had this component. Stuttgart had 25.91% of it, and Gokhem 2 had 4.66%.

This makes me think this U106 guy may not have spoken a Germanic language or have had a Norse religion. I suspect those things probably came with the West Asian component. Although I think he may have had smaller parts of those things. But if that were the case, what Y-haplogroup did those conquering tribes have? Were they R1a, and then over time some leaders became U106 and I1?

I think your surprises / doubts can be explained by this theory from Anthrogenica forum:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93532&viewfull=1#post93532

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44375-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia?p=1198743&viewfull=1#post1198743


I have this theory of native component recovery after admixture. Some native markers are selected for and they bring along with them the recovery of their associated component. Recovery of WHG after admixture would therefore be expected in areas where WHG was native and similarly EEF would recover where EEF was native. The converse is also true - Euro WHG type markers would not be selected for in South Asia, and the component would reduce over time in South Asia.

Another suggested explanation:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93464&viewfull=1#post93464



Sorry if im being ignorant here, but this Sintashta admixture in Pashtuns doesn't make any sense to me. Sintashta are 45% WHG, whereas Pashtun are only 1-2%. So if Pashtuns were 40% Sintashta, that would make them aroud 20% WHG...

The Sintashta-like ancestry in Pashtuns is covered under components other than WHG. ADMIXTURE clusters are not absolutes, but dependant on the number and type of samples used in the initial run. They don't need to correlate with qpAdm results or Haak et al fit results for them to work, and should not be expected to considering all the different ADMIXTURE runs around.

An example of what I mean: Han can be represented as unmixed or significantly mixed in ADMIXTURE if an East Asian component isn't allowed to form. In the recent Eurogenes ancient genome runs they are a mix of East Asian and ASE, in Verenich's newest calculator they are a mix of East Siberian and Oceanian and in the analysis below they are a mix of Native American, SSA and West Eurasian.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/f4pquu.jpg



A few points on Pakhtoon, Sintashta, Dai etc.

1. Modern Pakhtoons as an input to Sintashta has to fail as Pakhtoons have ASI which is near South Asia specific. Non HGDP Pakhtoons as an input may look better as they have less ASI, but then they have higher SW Asian which would create the same problem as ASI. Folk should be careful with ASI - it is a very old 40000+year separation from ASI ancestors which included the Dai, Ongee, ANE etc., and ASI is not extant in an unadmixed form (the Dai is representing ASI here much as Reich uses the Santhal).

2. The R1a1 Y chromosome overlap of the Pakhtoons and Sintashta folk are in line (along with their xM xU2i mtDNA).

3. Moorjani et al. noted that the Pathan show a single pulse admixture dated to 2,117ybp (73+-9 gens) between ANI and ASI at 71% of the former. Again this is very consistent with the Sintashta Dai type admixture.

4. I think WHG may be a red herring. While Sintashta may indeed turn out to a have a North Central Euro WHG type component, I have not yet seen good evidence as to how Sintashta's WHG differs from shared ancestry among all western hunter gatherers.

I would add a couple more points in general.

I have this theory of native component recovery after admixture. Some native markers are selected for and they bring along with them the recovery of their associated component. Recovery of WHG after admixture would therefore be expected in areas where WHG was native and similarly EEF would recover where EEF was native. The converse is also true - Euro WHG type markers would not be selected for in South Asia, and the component would reduce over time in South Asia.

And yet another explanation:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93340&viewfull=1#post93340


Sintashta was R1a-Z93-Z2124, right? If so, it's extremely likely they are the direct ancestors of most R1a-Z93 Afghans (and a sizable chunk of Indian R1a, mostly from the South/Southwest) since they're mostly Z2124. We'd need next generation level sequencing of ancient Sintashta Y-DNA to confirm it (along with FGC/Big Y of Afghan R1a).

It is weird to think that Admixture might be totally screwing this up though. There's like none of the WHG admixture of Sintashta left, it's not even at Tajik or Haryana levels in what we've seen so far. One explanation is that 3000 years is a long time and while being descended from Sintashta, the Pashtun people were heavily autosomally influenced by other West Asian populations ("Gedrosian"? Either as a late arrival or what the local contribution was. It's ground zero of a WHG "sink", and WHG goes up around it in all directions except west and south). qpAdm could just be picking up the connection that Admixture isn't best equipped for.

The other is that Admixture is totally unreliable here and the WHG autosomal signature is there but being picked up as ENF, ANE, and/or something else. This seems exceedingly unlikely (because, for instance, WHG is found throughout South Asia in a more discernible spread) but it has to be a possibility since we can be fairly certain the end solution should be Sintashta -> Pashtun.

Getting ancient DNA from Iran and Afghanistan would be a huge help.

WHG is still there in higher quantities among some groups like Pamiri Tajiks, there since probably before the population movements of the last 2000 years. Has there been any study on their haplogroups? Are they R1a-Z2124 too?

Makes me wonder when we'll find out who brought L657 into South Asia. I wouldn't be surprised if they're autosomally similar to Sintashta.

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

More about Pashtun - Sintashta links (Sintashta DNA has recently been published in Allentoft's paper):

Pashtuns seem to have at least 40-45% of their ancestry derived from people of that culture, and in male lineages (Y-DNA lineages) actually even more, well over half. "Population X" represents a hypothetical local substrate population who had lived there before Sintashta-like people came, or some later immigrants absorbed by those Sintashta-like guys - explaining how Pashtuns plot genetically nowadays:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93441&viewfull=1#post93441


I have used an input ancestral population with similar admixture as modern Armenians. This change from above results in repositioning of Population X. Under this scenario, Pashtuns can be modeled as 43% Sintashta + 38% BA population similar in admix to modern Armenians + 19% Pop X, with Pop X's position being shifted from above.

http://s22.postimg.org/47gffo5yp/ful5lry.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture


The Sintashta culture, also known as the Sintashta-Petrovka culture[1] or Sintashta-Arkaim culture,[2] is a Bronze Age archaeological culture of the northern Eurasian steppe on the borders of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, dated to the period 2100–1800 BCE.[3] The earliest known chariots have been found in Sintashta burials, and the culture is considered a strong candidate for the origin of the technology, which spread throughout the Old World and played an important role in ancient warfare.[4] Sintashta settlements are also remarkable for the intensity of copper mining and bronze metallurgy carried out there, which is unusual for a steppe culture.[5]

Because of the difficulty of identifying the remains of Sintashta sites beneath those of later settlements, the culture was only recently distinguished from the Andronovo culture.[2] It is now recognised as a separate entity forming part of the 'Andronovo horizon'.[1]

(...)

The people of the Sintashta culture are thought to have spoken Proto-Indo-Iranian, the ancestor of the Indo-Iranian language family. This identification is based primarily on similarities between sections of the Rig Veda, an Indian religious text which includes ancient Indo-Iranian hymns recorded in Vedic Sanskrit, with the funerary rituals of the Sintashta culture as revealed by archaeology.[11]

The Kalash and the Tajiks also speak Indo-Iranian languages, and share many genetic similarities with the Pashtuns. All these groups also show ancestral genetic similarities with various North-Eastern and Eastern Europeans, such as for example Lithuanians:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93207&viewfull=1#post93207


Also, [B]the IBD links [of ancient Sintashta people and modern Pashtuns] are pretty strong, despite the fact that the samples aren't of ideal quality for IBD analysis, and despite the fact that it is very hard to detect IBD over the time scale which currently concerns us. I don't know where this notion stems from.

In addition, Sintashta have the right R1a1a subclades. We can be 100% certain that 50%-70% of Pashtun males are direct descendants of Sintashta and/or it's descendant/related steppe cultures. Even the mtDNA shows links. Taking this into consideration, it is of no real surprise that Pashtuns are predominantly steppe-derived in terms of genome-wide ancestry.

Edit: Also, Pashtuns came out as 66% Lithuanian-admixed in ALDER*, not qpAdm. This was more than a year ago. At the time, I dismissed the results. But now, it seems that Everest was on to something.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?4640-Population-genomics-of-Bronze-Age-Eurasia-%28Allentoft-et-al-2015%29&p=93179&viewfull=1#post93179


3) The Pashtun-Sintashta fits are always the best fits produced by this software, probably because Sintashta are directly ancestral to Pashtuns and company (a fact borne out by the presence of R1a1a lineages in Sintashta which are the exact same lineages found in anywhere from around 50% to 70% of Pashtun males. Also, Sintashta and Andronovo in Allentoft et al. have a hefty share of mtDNA U2 lineages, which constitute the largest share of the modern Pashtun mtDNA gene pool). If they were a broad proxy for general steppe admixture, the fits would be great, but not as amazingly excellent as they are now.

Just something to think about.

(...)

Edit: Everest once used ALDER (another piece in the ADMIXTOOLS package) on the HGDP Pashtuns. With Lithuanians, he got Pashtuns to be 66% Lithuanian-admixed. That is quite close to the Sintashta percentages. Here is what he wrote to me:

"Interesting. Alder can calculate admixture % using just 1 reference samples. I tried computer admixture % for Pashtuns using Georgians, Sindhis and then Lithuanians. The admixture using Lithuanian was a whopping 66%."

*ALDER is this software: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/cb/alder/

IBD = Identity By Descent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_by_descent


A DNA segment is identical by state (IBS) in two or more individuals if they have identical nucleotide sequences in this segment. An IBS segment is identical by descent (IBD) in two or more individuals if they have inherited it from a common ancestor without recombination, that is, the segment has the same ancestral origin in these individuals.

"The IBD links are pretty strong" = they share a lot of common ancestors, or one is descended from the other one.

Tomenable
01-07-15, 23:11
where it lists haplogroups of many European Kings and Queens

Dynasties from which monarchs listed there by Maciamo originated, were established thousands of years after Indo-European expansions into Europe - so there is no direct connection whatsoever. Some of those dynasties were established on their thrones even as late as the 19th century (for example George I of Greece from Maciamo's list was elected king by the Greek National Assembly in 1863):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Greece

BTW - here some more royal Y-DNA and mtDNA can be found: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/royaldna.shtml

arvistro
01-07-15, 23:28
But was it 0 in the past too? For instance there was Corded Ware which was found to be rich in Gedrosia.
It is Mystery to me. Just like many things related to Balts :)
Perhaps someone should run two Altentoft samples from Baltics for Gedrosia - the Estonian CW and Lithuanian 500 bce. To check for dynamics.
(There was another surprise for Lithuanian 500 bce was less SHG/WHG than modern... Crazy...).

Gedrosia used to be in Meso Karelia and Samara as noted couple of posts up and very rich in (German) Corded Ware. It looks like Balts landed from ??? moon?? to avoid it.
Or its just a glitch in calculators.

ElHorsto
01-07-15, 23:49
It is Mystery to me. Just like many things related to Balts :)
Perhaps someone should run two Altentoft samples from Baltics for Gedrosia - the Estonian CW and Lithuanian 500 bce. To check for dynamics.
(There was another surprise for Lithuanian 500 bce was less SHG/WHG than modern... Crazy...).

Gedrosia used to be in Meso Karelia and Samara as noted couple of posts up and very rich in (German) Corded Ware. It looks like Balts landed from ??? moon?? to avoid it.
Or its just a glitch in calculators.

Balts start to resemble the Basques in terms of mystery :)

I do think that certain significant autosomal changes did happen in NE Europe. Perhaps a necessary question would be: how much of which admixture is necessary to transform Gedrosia into something else.

Gedrosia is also a mystery in Basques. They shouldn't have it, given their low ANE and West-Asian scores in all other calculators.

arvistro
01-07-15, 23:56
Perhaps a necessary question would be: how much of which admixture is necessary to transform Gedrosia into something else.
I agree, this makes perfect sense. Maybe it somehow overlaps with Caucasus?

Tomenable
02-07-15, 00:06
There was another surprise for Lithuanian 500 bce was less SHG/WHG than modern

This might be a confirmation of Anthrogenica Parasar's theory (see quotes from my post above).

Or a gene flow from Estonian-like population (Estonians have even more Hunter-Gatherer autosomal).

BTW - I wonder if Mesolithic Lithuania was inhabited by WHG or by EHG (Eastern Hunter-Gatherers).

EHG can be modelled as roughly 50-55% WHG + 35-40% ANE (proportions 6:4), but it was a thing on its own:

http://s12.postimg.org/aky4fbwgd/Autosomal.png

arvistro
02-07-15, 00:32
It looks like we were mostly WHG not EHG. But I believe most likely we were Motala like folk with some Neolithic blood, before Corded Ware arrived.

Davidsky wrote this on May on Lithuanians:
"I've already pointed out the unusually high WHG affinity in the East Baltic, so these stats aren't surprising.

EHG WHG Yamnaya Yoruba 0.0371 10.902
EHG WHG Corded_Ware_LN Yoruba 0.0205 5.393
EHG WHG Bell_Beaker_LN Yoruba -0.0054 -1.495
EHG WHG Lithuanian Yoruba -0.013 -4.365
SHG WHG Lithuanian Yoruba -0.0004 -0.158

And they don't mean that Lithuanians are a mixture of EEF, WHG and Pashtun-like people from Central Asia, but rather that there weren't any EHG or even SHG populations in the East Baltic, and all of the ANE, and probably Near Eastern admixture, among Balts comes from the Corded Ware/Battle-Axe people.

The apparent lack of SHG and EHG in the East Baltic might seems surprising, but not the fact that Balts are in large part of Corded Ware origin. That was already suspected a long time ago from archaeological data."

I quote him, but I do not necessarily agree. Since there is more recent post by Krefter June 29:
Lithuanian using Corded Ware Estonia, WHG/SHG, and MNs.

74% CWC_Est + 18% SHG + 0% WHG + 8% Gokhem_MN @ D = 0.0146
74% CWC_Est + 18% SHG + 0% WHG + 8% Baalberge_MN @ D = 0.0144
73% CWC_Est + 19% SHG + 0% WHG + 8% Esperstedt_MN @ D = 0.0145

So, we are like 3 parts of Corded Ware Estonia (who is localised Corded Ware in itself, more WHG) + 1 part of mix (70% SHG + 30% Middle Neolithic Germans)).

Tomenable
02-07-15, 00:34
In this new doctoral dissertation by Anna Szécsényi-Nagy (link):

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf

In point 4.3.5 the author writes about TPC (Test for Population Continuity).

There is a 2013 math formula for this: https://github.com/joepickrell/tpc

JS Bach
02-07-15, 04:22
Thanks Tomenable. Your responses made me more confused, but I guess that's probably a good thing in the long run.

arvistro
02-07-15, 09:06
Apparently when I feel smthg is wrong, it is wrong. David checked Lithuanian ba again and this is his latest statement:
The Lithuanian BA sample is very similar to Lithuanians, except it's a little more northern, suggesting more HG ancestry.

Which is what I would expect.

MOESAN
03-07-15, 00:28
Agree until the 4000 BC and around, because after the 4000 BC we see an increasing densitiy of megalithic momuments on Ataltnic façade, sepultures and territories marks, all of which needed a dense enough population, for I think. Some tries for archeodemography estimated the bigger increase in Germany was around the megalithic period, not the BB's one, before Urnfields; perhaps this new science requires some more time to publish more accurate results. But I think the introgression of Western megaliths into West Germany between 4000 and 3000 BC, along Loire and East France trail is sufficient to prove Atlantic shores were not a desert. By the way, physical changes occurred among future Brittany people at theses times, before others changes at and after BBs times. Megalithic types on the way to Long Barrows types, with some cromagnoid accretions, and what seems an other HG people from West of France (more 'capelloid') would have left the Atlantic shores to take along Garonne river towards North Mediterranea, maybe pushed by the new.comers or coming with them? the problem of Western France for skeletal remnants is its soil acidity.

MOESAN
03-07-15, 01:00
Balts start to resemble the Basques in terms of mystery :)

I do think that certain significant autosomal changes did happen in NE Europe. Perhaps a necessary question would be: how much of which admixture is necessary to transform Gedrosia into something else.

Gedrosia is also a mystery in Basques. They shouldn't have it, given their low ANE and West-Asian scores in all other calculators.

I agree things are not too easy. But 'gedrosia' is not so low among Basques compared to other SW Europeans. and 'ANE' is an older concept a sa whole, based upon Mal'ta if I'm not wrong. 'ANE' is "larger" than 'gedrosia'. possibly, the all 'ANE' for Basque was in its 'gedrosia', almost as in Celts, when in east Europe, the former 'ANE' component was split into more than a new component. and I repeat, old 'gedrosia' IS NOT EQUAL to new 'gedrosia' of Baluchis. these components are a bit unsteady products of diverse poolings. By the way, Basques should not have Y-R1b in the proportions they have, but they have!

MOESAN
03-07-15, 01:39
[QUOTE=arvistro;461350]Baltics and West Russia is place of 0 Gedrosia..[/QUOTE

We are speaking of Past. Things changed more than a time meanwhile. As I already said in ancient times some countries could have been run across by more than an ethny before these ethnies begun to cross one with another, aside some females rapts. I see Y-R1b-U106 or future U106 passing South the Baltic, maybe without too much contacts with sedentary ex HGs neolithicized population which had NO 'gedrosia' when the U106's had. its possible the most of ex-HGs Y-R1a of North did not have ancient 'gedrosia'. And perhaps it was the same cas with Y-N1 people speaking finnic-uralic, who could have reinforced this lack of 'gedrosia'
The today Baltic speaking people are not only primary I-Ean speakers and their 'ANE' was without 'gedrosian ANE', possibly.
I see Corded entering Scandinavia, at first without too much contacts with the stayed aback populations of South Baltic shores (Y-I1?) and no more contacts with first Y-R1b-U106. More than a wave entered Scandinavia after first Neolithic people. I think the most of the fusion between Y(R1b, Y-R1a and Y-I1 occurred in or around southern Scandinavia during Bronze, before creating Jastorf culture? the 'west-asian- or 'gedrosia' component were perhaps stronger in Scandinavia before the Germanic concretion and diminshed by I1 (0%)+ R1b (smaller %?) actions?
concerning ancient and current components; I think they have all of them their advantages and defects. Porosity between 'Caucasus', 'east-med', 'gedrosia' and even 'south-asian' in 'west-asian' by instance. old 'south-asian' surely split off into some of 'west-asian', 'gedrosia', even 'caucasus according to runs.

JS Bach
12-07-15, 03:44
Gedrosia used to be in Meso Karelia and Samara as noted couple of posts up and very rich in (German) Corded Ware. It looks like Balts landed from ??? moon?? to avoid it.
Or its just a glitch in calculators.

Yeah, I think a glitch in the calculator is the most likely explanation for Lithuanians have 0% Gedrosia. I guess the algorithm just doesn't do its job in picking up a similar component in them. Since the ancient Western European Hunter Gatherers don't have it either though, maybe that suggests that Balts are the modern populations most closely related to them.

I'm glad to see that heated debate between Dienekes and Davidski trashing each others' calculators. I doubt any of those calculators are perfect by any stretch. And I don't know which of them is the best. I would by no means want to discard the whole K12b calculator based on that, though. I hope someone else comes along with a different calculator.

One thing I think that the new 4,000 ybp Swedish U106 sample has shown about the calculators though, is that when the Eurogenes K15 West Med (Sardinian-like Ancient Farmers) component shows up, the Dodecad K12b Gedrosia component shows up as well. Or rather, the algorithm distinguishes it from the other components.


Afterthought: Actually, those ancient Swedish Hunter-Gatherers didn’t have Y-dna R. They were all Y-dna I, as far as I know. So the Gedrosia may well have come with the Y-dna R. Mal’ta (Y-dna R*) had 24% Gedrosia, Anzick 1 (Y-dna Q) had 8% Gedrosia, and the 4000 ybp Paleo-Eskimo (Y-dna Q) had 5%, so Gedrosia may well be associated with Y-dna R and maybe Q too. But how did the current East Europeans end up with so little of it? Polish: 0.5%, Ukranians: 0.3%, Belorussians: 0%. I guess another explanation might be they heavily mixed with a different population that was associated with Y-dna I or another haplogroup. I don’t understand how they could have selectively lost Gedrosia otherwise.

MOESAN
16-07-15, 20:02
'gedrosia' was well represented among very ancient people or Central Asia South Siberia, not to different from some of the famous ANE - I think in Ust-Ishim, Mal'ta, Kostentki14 -
but this 'gedrosia' component of Central Asia Eastern Eurasia is NAMED 'gedrosia' because TODAY its more high frequence is among Baluchis, ALONG with other genes labelled 'gedrosia' too for the same present days reasons, even if these last ones had never been present in Central Asia and around (all that if I have well understood the pooling work).
So, a set of genes maybe has been common in a huge territory between Northeast Europe, East Eurasia Central Asia and after some separations of tribes they has been kept by every new population but not all of them and not allways the same ones; some of the most southern ones became 'gedrosia' in nomenclature when some of the more northern did not: a "washing" of ancient DNA by modern namings? surely they were some old asian 'gedrosia' in North (see Karelia) but less tha in South, and some more mutations plus exchanges of genes with foreign population achieved to "clean" definitely?
for these reason, I would be glad to know if the N-W Europe (Celtic, Germanic) 'gedrosia' elements are sharedthe with the S-Caucasus-Near-Eastern 'gedrosia'...
sorry for my laborious english and the noise maid by my brain gering. In some way I repaet myself, trying to be clearer, what is not sure!

MOESAN
16-07-15, 20:04
gearing, repeat - sorry

MOESAN
16-07-15, 20:21
IN fact I partly agree with JS Bach.

+ We can also see things otherwise
there were 'gedrosia' and 'gedrosia' and there is new 'gedrosia' - my above explanation plays a role in the question, I think. But we could say: old 'gedrosia' was for the most an Eastern component for Eurasia (it seems confirmed with some East Asian populations) and the introgression in Eastern Europe (not Eurasia) came by SOutheast, through Caucasus, and did not concern northernmost populations accultured later, before they became Balts and Slavs???
I avow I think the first explanation (ancient N and new S 'gedrosia') has more weight but?
I recall if it can be useful that Balts and Slavs favor 'sardinian' at the depend of 'basque' when Scandinavians, Western Europeans do the opposite; even Finland is more 'basque' and less 'sardinian' than Balts and Slavs... W

arvistro
16-07-15, 23:35
Interesting. In one source Gimbutas derived Balts from Lower Dnieper and related folk in Fatyanovo from middle Dnieper. Which is basically Sredny Stog.
But also GAC folk was there.
Anyway those all were Gedrosia rich populations. Maybe "East European" eats "Gedrosia".
I ve seen different estimates from 75% (with additional SHG and ENF) to 98% Lithuanians from CW Estonia. Archeologically there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Will re-read anthropology study by Raisa Denisova on Balts.

JS Bach
17-07-15, 04:08
I can think of a third possible explanation now for why Lithuanians have 0% Gedrosia. I was reading one of the comments on the Eurogenes site where the poster was providing an explanation for why the admixture results of the Bell Beaker samples varied so widely among the samples. And he said the reason for that was because the algorithm had to randomly choose what categories to place the SNPs in because the mutations hadn’t occurred yet, at that point in history. And if a better algorithm were used, there wouldn’t be as much variance among those Bell Beaker samples in their results. I think that’s what may be happening with the ancient DNA samples here. That is, the Gedrosia in the Mal’ta boy may actually just be phantom Gedrosia, since the algorithm is guessing between the North_European and Gedrosia sister clades. And likewise for Anzick 1 (18% North_European) and the Paleo Eskimo (12% North_European). And likewise also for Karelia, Yamna and Corded Ware. And since those aforementioned Eastern European countries have so little R1b, maybe that’s the answer. I definitely like this one better than my second explanation, and now it’s a toss-up between whether I like this explanation better than my first explanation of there being a glitch in the calculator. A question is, are NorthWest European and NorthEast European languages so different as to warrant such a stark contrast in Gedrosia?

LeBrok
17-07-15, 05:29
I can think of a third possible explanation now for why Lithuanians have 0% Gedrosia. I was reading one of the comments on the Eurogenes site where the poster was providing an explanation for why the admixture results of the Bell Beaker samples varied so widely among the samples. And he said the reason for that was because the algorithm had to randomly choose what categories to place the SNPs in because the mutations hadn’t occurred yet, at that point in history. And if a better algorithm were used, there wouldn’t be as much variance among those Bell Beaker samples in their results. I think that’s what may be happening with the ancient DNA samples here. That is, the Gedrosia in the Mal’ta boy may actually just be phantom Gedrosia, since the algorithm is guessing between the North_European and Gedrosia sister clades. And likewise for Anzick 1 (18% North_European) and the Paleo Eskimo (12% North_European). And likewise also for Karelia, Yamna and Corded Ware. And since those aforementioned Eastern European countries have so little R1b, maybe that’s the answer. I definitely like this one better than my second explanation, and now it’s a toss-up between whether I like this explanation better than my first explanation of there being a glitch in the calculator. A question is, are NorthWest European and NorthEast European languages so different as to warrant such a stark contrast in Gedrosia?
I also think there is some problem with calculators. It is impossible that generosity could disappear completely from Eastern Europe, being at pretty high level few thousand years.

MOESAN
17-07-15, 21:24
I also think there is some problem with calculators. It is impossible that generosity could disappear completely from Eastern Europe, being at pretty high level few thousand years.

Maybe, but reread my 104# 106# - maybe too a part of the explanation -
and about 'basque' and 'sardinian' components of some poolings: as a matter of fact, Basque population is not void of 'gedrosia' when Sardinian population is...
a population of the region comprised between SE Poland, E Carpathians and NW Ukraina could have been left a moment aside the great first changes, a population with high %s of WHG + a bit lowest %s of classical EEF ('sardinianlike') ? So Y-I2a(1) + some Y-G2a, later impacted by Y-R1a northeastern people, themselves rich enough in WHG/EHG + ANE ??? No 'gedrosia ' with the northeastern Y-R1a people and no 'gedrosia' with the former EEF and WHG ???

LeBrok
17-07-15, 21:51
Maybe, but reread my 104# 106# - maybe too a part of the explanation -
and about 'basque' and 'sardinian' components of some poolings: as a matter of fact, Basque population is not void of 'gedrosia' when Sardinian population is...
a population of the region comprised between SE Poland, E Carpathians and NW Ukraina could have been left a moment aside the great first changes, a population with high %s of WHG + a bit lowest %s of classical EEF ('sardinianlike') ? So Y-I2a(1) + some Y-G2a, later impacted by Y-R1a northeastern people, themselves rich enough in WHG/EHG + ANE ??? No 'gedrosia ' with the northeastern Y-R1a people and no 'gedrosia' with the former EEF and WHG ???
I would agree that we could see Gedrosia diminishing to lower numbers through times, but not vanishing completely. There was no total population replacement there. Therefore problem needs to be the calculators.

MOESAN
18-07-15, 00:09
I would agree that we could see Gedrosia diminishing to lower numbers through times, but not vanishing completely. There was no total population replacement there. Therefore problem needs to be the calculators.

So, let's wait for other calculators... the two explanations can converge to the present apparent result?

JS Bach
18-07-15, 02:54
So, let's wait for other calculators... the two explanations can converge to the present apparent result?

I agree. I guess we'll wait and see in the next 5 or 10 years what the results will bring. No way modern Germans can have 7% Gedrosia, Corded Ware 22%, and then Lithuanians and Belorussians 0%. I can see maybe 3 percent but not zero.

arvistro
18-07-15, 11:24
Do we know Gedrosia for RISE000? The Estonian CW sample?
If this guy had Gedrosia, then Lithuania must have one too.

JS Bach
18-07-15, 17:37
Do we know Gedrosia for RISE000? The Estonian CW sample?
If this guy had Gedrosia, then Lithuania must have one too.

Is this the one you mean?



RISE00 (http://www.y-str.org/2015/06/101-ancient-eurasian-dna.html)
Sope, Estonia
F999955
F

H5a1
~2000 years




http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html




Population



Gedrosia
9.76%


Siberian
0.27%


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
32.02%


North_European
56.99%


South_Asian
0.96%


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
-


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
-


Sub_Saharan
-

arvistro
18-07-15, 18:53
Million thanks! Can you add modern Lithuanians and Estonians with same calc!

JS Bach
18-07-15, 19:44
Million thanks! Can you add modern Lithuanians and Estonians with same calc!

I didn't find Estonians for Dodecad K12b, but I found two Lithuanian samples there.

Here are the Dodecad K12b results, and also the Eurogenes K15 results.

I guess since more than 93% of the genes of these modern Balts comes from the first four categories in Eurogenes 15, maybe they are the most closely related to the ancient European hunter-gatherers.

Actually, the Caucasus component in the modern samples looks like the Gedrosia component in the 2,000-year-old sample.




Dodecad K12b





Population
Lithuanian_D
Lithuanians
RISE00


Source
Dodecad
Behar
y-str.org


N
9
9
1


Gedrosia
0
0
9.76%


Siberian
0
0
0.27%


Northwest_African
0
0
-


Southeast_Asian
0
0
-


Atlantic_Med
13.9
13.7
32.02%


North_European
73.7
77.1
56.99%


South_Asian
0.7
0.1
0.96%


East_African
0
0
-


Southwest_Asian
1.6
1
-


East_Asian
0
0
-


Caucasus
10.1
8
-


Sub_Saharan
0
0
-






Eurogenes K15





Population
RISE00
Estonian
Lithuanian


North_Sea
37.87%
26.23
20.15


Atlantic
30.48%
16.33
15.72


Baltic
18.50%
30.12
36.36


Eastern_Euro
13.16%
20.68
21.18


West_Med
-
1.83
2.5


West_Asian
-
0.56
1.63


East_Med
-
0.01
0.61


Red_Sea
-
0.00
0.34


South_Asian
-
0.53
0.61


Southeast_Asian
-
0.02
0.06


Siberian
-
2.13
0.13


Amerindian
-
1.09
0.36


Oceanian
-
0.46
0.19


Northeast_African
-
0.00
0.11


Sub-Saharan
-
0.00
0.06

arvistro
18-07-15, 20:52
Rise00 is marked late Neolithic or bronze age. It should therefore be 2000 bce (4000 years old) not 2000 BP.

If we go by blindly by stats:
K15 stats show that CW was more Western than modern Balts.
North Sea + Atlantic higher than Baltic + East European in RISE 00.

K12b. Either CW population in Baltics got major replaced by something North Euro + Caucasus rich.
Or Gedrosia ~ Caucasus and CW simply assimilated some more North Euros.

MOESAN
25-07-15, 01:26
I didn't find Estonians for Dodecad K12b, but I found two Lithuanian samples there.

Here are the Dodecad K12b results, and also the Eurogenes K15 results.

I guess since more than 93% of the genes of these modern Balts comes from the first four categories in Eurogenes 15, maybe they are the most closely related to the ancient European hunter-gatherers.

Actually, the Caucasus component in the modern samples looks like the Gedrosia component in the 2,000-year-old sample.




Dodecad K12b





Population
Lithuanian_D
Lithuanians
RISE00


Source
Dodecad
Behar
y-str.org


N
9
9
1


Gedrosia
0
0
9.76%


Siberian
0
0
0.27%


Northwest_African
0
0
-


Southeast_Asian
0
0
-


Atlantic_Med
13.9
13.7
32.02%


North_European
73.7
77.1
56.99%


South_Asian
0.7
0.1
0.96%


East_African
0
0
-


Southwest_Asian
1.6
1
-


East_Asian
0
0
-


Caucasus
10.1
8
-


Sub_Saharan
0
0
-






Eurogenes K15





Population
RISE00
Estonian
Lithuanian


North_Sea
37.87%
26.23
20.15


Atlantic
30.48%
16.33
15.72


Baltic
18.50%
30.12
36.36


Eastern_Euro
13.16%
20.68
21.18


West_Med
-
1.83
2.5


West_Asian
-
0.56
1.63


East_Med
-
0.01
0.61


Red_Sea
-
0.00
0.34


South_Asian
-
0.53
0.61


Southeast_Asian
-
0.02
0.06


Siberian
-
2.13
0.13


Amerindian
-
1.09
0.36


Oceanian
-
0.46
0.19


Northeast_African
-
0.00
0.11


Sub-Saharan
-
0.00
0.06





Thanks. It's interesting to notice all the Corded people seem richer for North Sea (element among the 'nordic' classic type I think) than today Balts and Estonians, spite being lower for other northern component ('baltic') and even 'east-euro'; higher for 'atlantic' - at the contrary, no 'caucasus' component in them in these calculations.
It could confirm the passage of Corded people throught South before reaching the northern lands of Europe and the origin somewhere around the North-East of Caspian Sea of some elements contributing ot the 'nordic' dolichocephalic phenotype ("nordic" today, geographically speaking); it could explain also the shorter distance between 'northwest-euro' and 'westasian' (without separating, helas, 'gedrosia' from 'caucasus') than between 'baltic' and 'westasian', in some poolings.... the %s dominating depigmentation among the 'nordic' phenotype nad the longiligne skeleton could have been picked in central Eurasia of ancient times, not in North Europe...

MOESAN
30-07-15, 23:57
all the way the ancient (perhaps ghosty) 'gedrosia' is in fact more linked to a northern component than to modern 'caucasus'; even above
I cannot put on the algorythms errors the fact that modern 'gedrosia' and 'caucasus' show very different absolute but also relative %s in TODAY populations of Eurasia:
is it an hazard if almost everytime you can link a lot of regions relatively rich either for ratio 'basque'/'sardinian' or 'gedrosia'/'caucasus'? Then 'gedrosia' seems relatively "northern" and 'caucasus' : "southern" and it does not seem an error betweeb 'gedrosia' abd 'caucasus' - 'gedrosia 'seems to me "steppic" and linked to Y-R1b more than to Y-R1a or otehrs;
could it be linked to a kind of 'tadjik' ancient population ?

Northener
17-01-17, 23:12
Yes, that surprises me that the Els Trocs R1b sample could be so completely opposite in Eurogenes 15 from the Samara R1b samples of around the sample time period. But I guess that would be the reason, with the Els Trocs and Basque R1b’s mating with an autosomally Sardinian-like population – although how the Basques got a different language would be another question. Here are the results of these R’s for Eurogenes 15:




Eurogenes 15









Population
Mal'ta
Siberia
Samara
Russia
Els Trocs
Spain
Yamnaya
Samara
Russia
Corded
Ware
Germany
Bell
Beaker
Germany
Me
Canada


Age
24,000 ybp
7,500 ybp
7,000 ybp
5,000 ybp
4,400 ybp
4,250 ybp
0 ybp


Y-dna Haplogroup
R*
R1b1a*
R1b1*
R1b1a2a*
R1a1a1
R1b1a2a1a2
R1b1a2a1a1


North_Sea
15.91%
25.51
0.01
22.57
25.93
36.57
34.08%


Atlantic

0.01
25.14
5.55
27.79
29.08
28.20%


Baltic
6.54%
17.68

13.9
12.84
12.89
6.18%


Eastern_Euro
38.02%
41.73

28.6
17.26
7.22
6.84%


West_Med


61.98



9.76%


West_Asian



19.61
11.6
12.34
5.22%


East_Med


11.98



5.53%


Red_Sea


0.89

0.01
0.04
2.38%


South_Asian
20.31%
1.99

5.59
3.09
0.57
0.56%


Southeast_Asian






-


Siberian





0.18
1.03%


Amerindian
18.62%
12.02

4.18
1.49
1.09
-


Oceanian
0.12%
1.07

0.01


-


Northeast_African






0.20%


Sub-Saharan
0.47%





-




From the new samples, I look somewhat more like a Bell Beaker than a Corded Ware dude, and have nearly all NorthWestern European ancestry that’s mostly English, with the other one-sixteenth being Jewish. Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more genes to modern NorthWest Europeans than Corded Ware / Yamna did.

I've been trying other populations from Eurogenes 15 with this model, and here are a couple more:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


Danish
0.995665
0.57223
-0.02596
0.452749
0.006023


North_Dutch
0.995606
0.672777
-0.1185
0.450742
-0.03299


These two seem to fit the model very well, and come out as a mixture of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons and the Bell Beakers, with a bit less of the Bell Beakers. Maybe they correspond to the Angle, Frisian, Jute and Danish Viking invasions of England. The West Scottish and Irish come out as the opposite, with the same components but the large majority being the Hinxton Celts.


Now here are the Germans:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


North_German
0.991923
-0.19132
0.663382
0.505257
0.151681


West_German
0.962378
1.570118
-1.66584
0.991526
0.692574


East_German
0.965777
0.686971
-1.81043
2.148594
-0.1685


Looking at the North Germans, I thought maybe the Saxons brought over a Hinxton Celtic-Bell Beaker mix. (The South Dutch and French were also high in Bell Beakers) But then, the West and East Germans had more of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxon component and less of the Hinxton Celts -- although their models didn't fit as well.


Now for the Scandinavians:




R-Squared
Anglo-Saxon
Celt
Bell Beaker
Intercept


West_Norwegian
0.990316
2.251309
-1.97525
0.757186
-0.22386


Norwegian
0.986636
2.07966
-2.0498
0.991973
-0.14615


Icelandic
0.993988
0.742832
-0.2822
0.58937
-0.33384


Orcadian
0.998015
0.547285
0.498763
-0.06765
0.144096


Swedish
0.970309
1.96859
-1.97326
1.019808
-0.10206


The Norwegians, Icelanders and Swedes had lots of the Hinxton Anglo-Saxons plus some Bell Beakers, and were low in Hinxton Celts. However, the intercepts were higher, thus suggesting additional components and confounding the results more. The Orcadians had a more even blend of the two Hinxton groups and had less of the Bell Beakers, which made sense to me, seeing how different from the rest of Britain they come out as on other genetic population measures. I don't see much evidence against them being largely a mixture of the West Norwegian and West Scottish samples. All the other populations I tried had lower R-squared values.

Spot on Bach!!!

My Northern Dutch K15



Population



North_Sea
39.01


Atlantic
27.71


Baltic
12.19


Eastern_Euro
10.20


West_Med
5.86


West_Asian
2.80


East_Med
0.51


Red_Sea
-


South_Asian
1.02


Southeast_Asian
-


Siberian
-


Amerindian
-


Oceanian
0.48


Northeast_African
0.22


Sub-Saharan
-



In every analysis this comes close to the Bell Beaker (especially the North Sea component) too. But especially with higher and Eastern Euro the Corded Ware component is higher than in the Bell Beaker (or yours).

I think that's the North Sea gene pool, or a Zoned Beakers in which Corded Ware (CW) an Bell Beaker (BB) both played a part. This area is Northern Dutch, Northwest Germany and Southwestern Scandinavia (Denmark/Norway).

In K15 represented with on one hand typically Bell Beaker components like 1/3 and more North Sea ánd a relative higher Southwestern Europe component like West Med (CW=0!) than CW on the other with a relative bigger East-European component than in BB which is typically CW.

The genetics of this area has the same genetic 'matrushka' within this cultural complexes:
1. Ertebølle, HG culture (about 50% in these region!)
2. Funnelbeaker, Early Neolithic (influx from EEF)
3. Corded ware/ single grave, Neolithic
4. Bell Beaker, Late Neolithic


As stated elsewhere I think C.S. Coon has a case when he stated in Races of Europe (1948), page 156: 'The Bell Beaker people who remained in the Rhinelands, however, came into intimate contact with the Corded people, who had invaded from the east and northeast, and with the corridor-tomb megalithic population to the north, whose domain extended down into the Netherlands. These three, of which the Bell Beaker element formed perhaps the dominant one, amalgamated to form an Early Bronze Age cultural unit, the so-called Zoned Beaker people who invaded England an Scotland as the first important carriers of metal.'

MOESAN
20-01-17, 18:23
I don't remember in which thread Tomenable or Northerners gave me auDNA admixt K15 for 5 Scandinavian CWC - but their results show neat differences with 4 CWC from Espersetdt, the Scandinavians seeming more Northwestern (so with a bit of local input taken on the road?

4 Esperstedt CWC: N-Sea / Atlan / Balt / EEuro / WMed / WAsia / SthAsia / EMed / RSea / Siber / Amer / SEAsi / Ocean / NEAfri / SSA
28,44 / 19,01 / 15,38 / 19,30 / 0,00 / 11,20 / 3,45 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,12 / 2,07 / 0,00 / 0,43 / 0,62 / 0,00 /
5 Scandinavian(?) CWC: same order
41,61 / 26,79 / 11,60 / 8,65 / 5,52 / 2,94 / 0,21 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,02 / 0,00 / 0,50 /

Northener
20-01-17, 22:13
I don't remember in which thread Tomenable or Northerners gave me auDNA admixt K15 for 5 Scandinavian CWC - but their results show neat differences with 4 CWC from Espersetdt, the Scandinavians seeming more Northwestern (so with a bit of local input taken on the road?

4 Esperstedt CWC: N-Sea / Atlan / Balt / EEuro / WMed / WAsia / SthAsia / EMed / RSea / Siber / Amer / SEAsi / Ocean / NEAfri / SSA
28,44 / 19,01 / 15,38 / 19,30 / 0,00 / 11,20 / 3,45 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,12 / 2,07 / 0,00 / 0,43 / 0,62 / 0,00 /
5 Scandinavian(?) CWC: same order
41,61 / 26,79 / 11,60 / 8,65 / 5,52 / 2,94 / 0,21 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,00 / 0,02 / 0,00 / 0,50 /

Thanks Moesan. Must have been Tomenable. But when I compare my aDNA with CW Eperstedt and CW Scandinavia my aDNA comes very close to the Scandinavian in stead of Eperstedt. I guess Ertebølle and Funnelbeaker, your 'local input' make the difference to Eperstedt.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
21-01-17, 13:54
I think in your case and the Scandinavian CWC 's case that the Ertebölle pops had a stronger input than FBK had, wta doesn't totally exclude FBK of course. Personal thought.

Northener
21-01-17, 21:20
I think in your case and the Scandinavian CWC 's case that the Ertebölle pops had a stronger input than FBK had, wta doesn't totally exclude FBK of course. Personal thought.

I'am curios why you take the HG of Ertebølle more in account than Funnelbeaker. But I must admit I'am like the Scandinavians pretty high in HG about 50% that would-be support your thoughts/intuitions....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)