PDA

View Full Version : Coming In a Few Days: 101 Ancient Genomes from Eurasia.



Fire Haired14
07-06-15, 12:53
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint (https://www.academia.edu/11530946/%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE% D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D 1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0 %B5%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%AE%D0 %B6%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1% 80%D1%8C_%D0%B8_%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0% B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B 8%D1%8E_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82 %D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_2015_-_The_Second_Wave_of_Caucasoid_Migration_to_Souther n_Siberia_and_Central_Asia_presentation_2015_). I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.


Ok, so I've found this news article, in Russian: http://novostink.ru/science-technology/111924-sovremennye-armyane-yavlyayutsya-potomkami-lyudey-naselyavshih-territoriyu-armenii-5-tys-let-nazad.html

The name of the article: "Modern Armenians are descendents of the people who lived on the territory of Armenia 5 thousand years ago".

- 101 sample from different parts of Eurasia were analyzed
- 8 samples from Armenia, from Bronze and Iron Age
- Bronze Age samples are "virtually identical" to modern inhabitansts of Armenia
- 44 authors from 13 countries
- Paper will be published in a few days

Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.

Genetic analysis of 101 DNA samples from different parts of Eurasia was made to clarify the genetic portrait of a man of the Bronze Age.
Most samples are from the Bronze age?


Today Armenians are descendants of people who lived in the territory of Armenia 5 thousand. Years ago
So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.


In turn, the director of the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences Pavel Avetisyan added that the results of this study, conducted at Copenhagen University, will be published a few days later(Article is from 6/5 Friday) in a scientific paper, authored by 44 experts from 13 countries. "Armenia for the first time take part in this kind of program, and the results we got were quite interesting," - said Avetisyan.

5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.

arvistro
07-06-15, 14:34
It seems a lot of new stuff coming in next days. Who knows what surprises or confirmations await us.

Angela
07-06-15, 17:17
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint (https://www.academia.edu/11530946/%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE% D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D 1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0 %B5%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%AE%D0 %B6%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1% 80%D1%8C_%D0%B8_%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0% B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B 8%D1%8E_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82 %D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_2015_-_The_Second_Wave_of_Caucasoid_Migration_to_Souther n_Siberia_and_Central_Asia_presentation_2015_). I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.



Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.

Most samples are from the Bronze age?


So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.



5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.

Thanks, Fire Haired.

Maybe that's getting a bit ahead of the facts, however. We'd have to see the precise dates of the samples and precisely what yDna they carried. Perhaps there was gene flow from the steppe into Armenia sometime between 4,000 and 3,000 BC?

However, if the trees we have for Indo-European are correct, presumably that would have been by speakers of "Anatolian", the most archaic branch of Indo-European, not "Armenian" as such?

Or, perhaps "Anatolian" did develop south of the Caucasus, and the rest of the Indo-European languages developed on the steppe? Are there any linguists reading this? Does "Anatolian" have less of a connection to Uralic languages than the rest of the Indo-European languages?

When is "Armenian" as a language held to have arrived in "Armenia" if it came via the Balkans and the Black Sea?

Strictly on the genetics, and generalizing very broadly it's starting to look to me as if the genetic signature in a lot of places was pretty much set in the Bronze Age and later migrations just tinkered around the edges, accounting for maybe ten percent or less in some areas.

Aaron1981
07-06-15, 23:09
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/6VJS_1ct4-hVqN33zkAx0VVvTVNrE6Y1PJ0qlpb-S8hgFhM4-kEpYULSOXDn99-gMbjQc8_sulawHQg=w1259-h590-rw

Above is a map Davidski posted at Eurogenes in March, it came from this Russian PowerPoint (https://www.academia.edu/11530946/%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE% D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D 1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0 %B5%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%B2_%D0%B2_%D0%AE%D0 %B6%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%A1%D0%B8%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1% 80%D1%8C_%D0%B8_%D0%A6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0% B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%83%D1%8E_%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B 8%D1%8E_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%82 %D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F_2015_-_The_Second_Wave_of_Caucasoid_Migration_to_Souther n_Siberia_and_Central_Asia_presentation_2015_). I think it may be based on these new Eurasian genomes, but not sure. Davidski said the new paper is a "Allentoft paper".

Quote from a Blogger Poster made Several hours ago.



Here are some Google Translated Quotes from the article she linked.

Most samples are from the Bronze age?


So, contemporary to the Samara Yamnaya genomes.



5,000 years of continuation in Armenia probably means there's been continuation in much of North West Asia, not just Armenia. If Armenian-type people existed a few thousand years earlier, they're certainly the source of Samara Yamanaya's Armenian-like side. If IE languages came to Armenia and Anatolia(Hittites, etc.) from Yamnaya-types, the genetic impact by those IEs must be very small. Instead of gene flow from Bronze age Russia/Ukraine into West Asia we're seeing gene flow from Bronze age West Asia into Russia/Ukraine. What that reveals about origins of IE languages is debatable.

I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.

Angela
08-06-15, 00:23
I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.


Yes, well, I don't think it's quite case closed. There's this little problem...the Yamnaya weren't all EHG. They were half "Armenian like" let's not forget. Of course, it's possible that the EHG men on the steppe preferred the women to their south for some reason and went all the way into the mountains and even further south to steal them and bring them back to the steppe. That or traded for them, although in the beginning they were so poor you wonder what they had to trade for them. Well, who knows, maybe they had an unexpected excess of girls in the Caucasus for some reason.

Of course, that isn't a totally satisfactory explanation even if it happened, because that NOT EHG percentage is half MODERN Armenian like, not Mesopotamian like, so somehow those women were already "mixed".

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 02:43
I think it's very straightforward actually. 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since.

Using tools provided by Reich's lab I've seen people use EHG, Yamnaya, and MA1 as Eastern(ANE) references for West and South-Central Asians. They all work fine, from the results I've seen. But based on other data it doesn't seem anyone in West Asia has significant EHG ancestry, or even Yamnaya.

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 03:44
This is from April 1st 2015.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=77235&viewfull=1#post77235 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=77235&viewfull=1#post77235)

Someone with inside information says Armenians have European hunter gatherer ancestry(30%), with hardly any "ANE", and the rest being "Near Eastern". It's getting complicated, there will probably be new terminology. I'm not sure what he means by European hunter gatherer.

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 04:02
I think that guy is confused. I highly doubt Armenians have 30% anything European. Their WHG-affinity is just too low.

Also, here's another leak about the upcoming Ancient DNA paper with 101 Ancient Eurasians.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=87850&viewfull=1#post87850

He's saying Armenians are the best living representative of Near Eastern ancestors of Euros. He obviously isn't talking about EEF, he's talking about the Near Eastern ancestors of Yamnaya. That's surprising. This new study seems to confirm Modern Euros have ancestors in the last 6,000 years who were just like Modern Armenians(and therefore similar to other Northern West Asians).

Alan
08-06-15, 07:18
This is from April 1st 2015.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=77235&viewfull=1#post77235 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=77235&viewfull=1#post77235)

Someone with inside information says Armenians have European hunter gatherer ancestry(30%), with hardly any "ANE", and the rest being "Near Eastern". It's getting complicated, there will probably be new terminology. I'm not sure what he means by European hunter gatherer.


do you mean with European H&G ancestry, EHG? If yes than "hardly" any ANE is misleading because EHG is ~40% ANE. In this case it would mean 13% ANE and 17% WHG. But if he means mostly WHG with "hardly any ANE" than this might mean less of it.

And if 30% EHG is right than as many people have speculated it can't be a 100% continuum.


If there was indeed 20% WHG in the area, than this means the WHG was deluded over time from incoming waves ENF from the Levant with the Semites. I preached many times that the Assyrians and other Semites probably changed the genetic demographics of Mesopotamia and Transcaucasus more than some people expect. And there was probably an slight increase of ANE with later movements of Hurrians and Indo_Iranians.

But the guy seems very confused is he talking about modern Armenians or the ancient inhabidents of the region when he says they have barely any ANE.

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 10:45
He's talking about Bronze age and Modern Armenians. They're exactly the same as each other. There's no way Armenians are 30% European hunter gatherer(didn't specfiy what type, EHG, SHG, etc.). That guy must have miss interpreted something. IMO, no reason to discuss his statement.

arvistro
08-06-15, 10:55
Statement from April 1?

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 12:24
Statement from April 1?

Yes that's the one.

arvistro
08-06-15, 14:33
That was a rhetoric question :) about date

Arame
08-06-15, 14:51
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)

Fire Haired14
08-06-15, 15:16
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)

It would be Mesolithic Russia/Ukraine men. Yamnaya are about 50/50 Mesolithic East European/Armenian-like. That's a possible scenario. Yamnaya and Corded Ware mtDNA is mostly Near Eastern, and their Y DNA was (probably)mostly Mesolithic Russia/Ukraine. Although R1b-Z2105 in Yamnaya may be from the Caucasus.

I don't know anything about archaeology but that scenario kind of seems crazy to me. In my opinion there had to of been a movement of people from the Caucasus into Russia/Ukraine for Yamnaya to have such a large amount of Armenian-like ancestry. If not, EHG men must have been constantly moving south to find female-mates in the Caucasus, and bringing them back home(instead of moving in with their Caucasus wife's family). They would have to of hated their own women, because Yamnaya mtDNA was mostly Near Eastern.

As unlikely as that scenario sounds, something similar might have happened in Finland recently. Finnish are most similar to North Europeans, not to Saami and other Finno-Urgics in Russia. Finnish Y DNA though is mostly N1c, and their mtDNA is very similar to North Europeans. What might have happened is over many centuries Finnish men continuously married Baltic, Slavic, Germanic women, and gradually Finnish became more and more Baltic/Slavic/Germanic/etc.

Alan
08-06-15, 15:58
He's talking about Bronze age and Modern Armenians. They're exactly the same as each other. There's no way Armenians are 30% European hunter gatherer(didn't specfiy what type, EHG, SHG, etc.). That guy must have miss interpreted something. IMO, no reason to discuss his statement.

I have learned that the samples are from 1500 Bc can we really consider that Bronze Age? Also I doubt there would be a 100 percent continuity for 3500 years. I have heard many contradicting stories until now. Some speaking of allot of continuity other even saying identical. I think I will wait for the actual results

Angela
08-06-15, 16:57
Ok I see. Yamna men liked Armenian-like women.
Later some of their children moved to the South and brought IE. :)

Well, if it happened that way, i.e. they moved directly south, then what I.E. language were they speaking? So far as I know, they're supposed to have been speaking Hurrian or Hattian or something at those early dates.

One current theory is that Armenian is related to Balkan languages (Greek, Albanian, Phrigian) and is supposed to have moved from the Balkans into Anatolia from the west. The dates I've seen say it "emerged" around 2800 BC. How long it would have taken to get to eastern Anatolia, I don't know.

If the route and the dates are correct, yet the genetics of the Armenians are still the same as they were in 3,000 BC or thereabouts, then the late arrival of that particular Indo-European language might have had virtually no effect on their genetics. (Is that 3,000 BC a firm date, btw?)

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

Of course, there's also the older movement of the "Anatolian" languages, which are the "first" and most archaic Indo-European languages (proto Anatolian dating to around 4200 BC), but according to the proposals by Anthony and Ringe, they also came by way of the Black Sea supposedly, and entered from the west. Mallory also favors that route but doesn't close down the possibility that it came directly from north of the Caucasus.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Et6SS_bTFtc/VM740osEIeI/AAAAAAAAJ5I/3JmZBNHvNFU/s1600/annurev-linguist-030514-124812.f2.jpeg

I think there are some problems with this theory of an early arrival of "Anatolian" languages from the west. If the Caucasus mountains were so little of an impediment to travel that the EHG went into and south of them to get women, then why didn't the "Anatolian" languages go directly south? Why did they make that long, tortuous route west and then south and then east instead? Also, I spent some time once combing through Anthony to see if there is any archaeology to back up his claim of a movement from the steppe down the western Black Sea Coast and then into western Anatolia, and he neither claims there is any, nor could I independently find any archaeologically attested such movement at that time. The steppe trail goes cold in the Balkans for that period.

Doesn't it seem as if something is wrong either with the dates or the routes, and maybe even with analysis of the language itself? Maybe some of the older proposals for the genesis of Armenian were more accurate.

There's also controversy about the Anatolian language root itself. Some linguists felt that "Anatolian" was so different from the other "Indo-European" languages, that perhaps it did not develop from Proto-Indo European at all, but rather evolved from a Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor. David Anthony mentions it in his magnum opus.
https://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=Anatolian+languages+David+Anthony&source=bl&ots=DEKjb6tQ5i&sig=m_qs2TYI_qou3CqmsBv9-Swm9RA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4Jx1VcOyO8KbyATs74CYCg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Anatolian%20languages%20David%20Anthony&f=false

If that's the case, then is it possible that this Pre-Proto-Indo-European ancestor language to Anatolian was spoken in the Armenian Highlands? Furthermore, could "Anatolian" then actually have developed in situ in Anatolia? Is it perhaps even possible that the pre-proto-Indo-European language moved to the steppe from there, and it was there that Proto-Indo-European developed while coming into contact with the Proto-Uralic languages? Or does the Central Asian hypothesis have any merit, with "Anatolian" moving into Anatolia and the remainder going onto the steppe.

I know linguists get out their garlic and and make signs to ward off evil whenever Grey and Atchinson are mentioned, but might this not go a little way toward incorporating their findings?

Ed. It seems that I took too long to post. :) This reminds me of the fiasco with the Hinxton abstract. I think we'd better wait to see the paper and the precise dates and the actual make up of these ancient samples.

Fire-Haired, it's not all that unusual for the yDna of an incoming group to become disconnected from its original autosomal signature when you have an elite male population moving into a densely populated area, yes? In this case, though, we have men whom many would hold stayed put and yet the autsomal dna changed, although not totally. That's what I find strange.

Auld Reekie
08-06-15, 18:07
Maybe they traded their horses for foreign women? There are stories and myths in multiple Indo-European societies about bride prices for horses. Then there is the guest/ghosti connection with guest and host found in all PIE languages where there are reciprocal duties of hospitality and where mutual exchange relationship is very important to their society. Steppes peoples imposed this hierarchy on those they were in contact with or conquered. All strangers or foreigners were expected to give gifts to a lord in exchange for hospitality. It made assimilation less burdensome to both groups.

Maybe they stole women? There are many stories where the men steal women including the rape of the Sabine women and references to raids with cattle and raids with women like the Brown Cow of Cooley. A lack of women in a society where they favored men might not be out of the question.

arvistro
08-06-15, 18:41
About Indo-Uralic theory quoted from relevant wiki:
Alwin Kloekhorst, author of the Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, and student of Frederik Kortlandt, endorses his teacher's Indo-Uralic grouping (2008b). He argues that, when features differ between the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) and the other Indo-European languages, comparisons with Uralic can help to establish which group has the more archaic forms (2008b: 88) and that, conversely, the success of such comparisons helps to establish the Indo-Uralic thesis (2008b: 94). For example, in Anatolian the nominative singular of the second person pronoun comes from *ti(H), whereas in the non-Anatolian languages it comes from *tu(H); in Proto-Uralic it was *ti, which agrees with evidence from internal reconstruction that Anatolian has the more archaic form (2008b: 93).

Angela
08-06-15, 19:01
Maybe they traded their horses for foreign women? There are stories and myths in multiple Indo-European societies about bride prices for horses. Then there is the guest/ghosti connection with guest and host found in all PIE languages where there are reciprocal duties of hospitality and where mutual exchange relationship is very important to their society. Steppes peoples imposed this hierarchy on those they were in contact with or conquered. All strangers or foreigners were expected to give gifts to a lord in exchange for hospitality. It made assimilation less burdensome to both groups.

Maybe they stole women? There are many stories where the men steal women including the rape of the Sabine women and references to raids with cattle and raids with women like the Brown Cow of Cooley. A lack of women in a society where they favored men might not be out of the question.

I don't think we can be talking about mutual trading of women here, because we don't have the EHG mtDna lines showing up in the south. In terms of stealing the women or trading horses for them, I'm sure some of that could have gone on.

However, we're not talking about some introgression of Near Eastern mtDna; this is an almost total replacement of the mtDna lineages. Elite men can come into a less advanced culture and kill or otherwise prohibit the "native" men from mating, and therefore come to represent even 50-75% of the yDna, a la the Latin American model, but what would cause imported foreign women to come to be the dominant mtDna source? The native women didn't all die off, did they? Why are their offspring so un-represented? The ratio of foreign "Near Eastern" women to "EHG" women must have been very high. Why did they keep importing so many of them? Unless, perhaps, the Near Eastern women had some sort of advantage in terms of number of offspring, or number who survived?

I don't know. It's a bit of a puzzle.

Angela
08-06-15, 19:04
About Indo-Uralic theory quoted from relevant wiki:
Alwin Kloekhorst, author of the Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, and student of Frederik Kortlandt, endorses his teacher's Indo-Uralic grouping (2008b). He argues that, when features differ between the Anatolian languages (including Hittite) and the other Indo-European languages, comparisons with Uralic can help to establish which group has the more archaic forms (2008b: 88) and that, conversely, the success of such comparisons helps to establish the Indo-Uralic thesis (2008b: 94). For example, in Anatolian the nominative singular of the second person pronoun comes from *ti(H), whereas in the non-Anatolian languages it comes from *tu(H); in Proto-Uralic it was *ti, which agrees with evidence from internal reconstruction that Anatolian has the more archaic form (2008b: 93).

So, might this support that the Pre-Proto-Indo-European did develop in the south (and the "Anatolian" languages developed in situ) and then moved to the Steppe where the rest of the Indo-European languages developed?

arvistro
08-06-15, 19:48
So, might this support that the Pre-Proto-Indo-European did develop in the south (and the "Anatolian" languages developed in situ) and then moved to the Steppe where the rest of the Indo-European languages developed?
It supports that IE developed from Indo-Uralic. It is ignorant to where this happened.

Alan
08-06-15, 20:39
I think there are some problems with this theory of an early arrival of "Anatolian" languages from the west. If the Caucasus mountains were so little of an impediment to travel that the EHG went into and south of them to get women, then why didn't the "Anatolian" languages go directly south? Why did they make that long, tortuous route west and then south and then east instead? Also, I spent some time once combing through Anthony to see if there is any archaeology to back up his claim of a movement from the steppe down the western Black Sea Coast and then into western Anatolia, and he neither claims there is any, nor could I independently find any archaeologically attested such movement at that time. The steppe trail goes cold in the Balkans for that period.



Good point, I also see a double standard here. On one hand you suppose a "Western route" of Anatolian-IE arrival into Anatolia because it would be so "hard" to cross the Caucasus Mountains (Why actually if Indo Europeans were mountainous people and even Stepe nomds on horseback such as Cimmerians and Scythians could cross it), but on the other hand you favor for the theory that "EHG" went all the way down through the Caucasus mountains for the females and see that as "ultimate explanation" for the ~50% "Armenian/Georgian like" ancestry.

I don't believe in both stories. I see the Hittites arriving through the Caucasus or possibly even directly from Iranian plateau rather than the Balkans. At least we have evidence of early Hittite settlements in Mesopotamia and Iran. But we don't have the same for the Balkans.

Also the bride theory is just ridiculous in my ears and I gave several reasons for why. We would need to assume that EHG COMPLETELY replaced their females with foreign brides. That is so disturbing and so unrealistic in my ears.

Aaron1981
08-06-15, 20:58
Yes, well, I don't think it's quite case closed. There's this little problem...the Yamnaya weren't all EHG. They were half "Armenian like" let's not forget. Of course, it's possible that the EHG men on the steppe preferred the women to their south for some reason and went all the way into the mountains and even further south to steal them and bring them back to the steppe. That or traded for them, although in the beginning they were so poor you wonder what they had to trade for them. Well, who knows, maybe they had an unexpected excess of girls in the Caucasus for some reason.

Of course, that isn't a totally satisfactory explanation even if it happened, because that NOT EHG percentage is half MODERN Armenian like, not Mesopotamian like, so somehow those women were already "mixed".

The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.

Sile
08-06-15, 21:12
The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.

The LBK_EN ( 5000BC to 5600 BC ) where entirely orange. but paper states they initially came from south-caspian area through Anatolia and into germany.

These armenians seemed to arrived where they are AFTER this LBK_EN migration.

Angela
08-06-15, 21:43
The ancestry of the immigrant population to Armenia was likely to be predominantly Teal with minor Dark blue (EHG). Yamnaya was roughly half and half but also hundreds of miles to the north. The further south-east you go from Yamnaya, the more Teal it becomes.

I don't know why there is still a debate when the Early European farmers had no Teal in their ancestry. You could be fairly certain the "Teal" arrived in the Middle East with invasions during the late Neolithic/copper age. It's not entirely correct to call "Teal" Middle Eastern, but Central Asian is a closer approximation.

I'm not following you at all. Where did I ever say that the EEF had "teal" in their ancestry? Indeed, where did I discuss in this thread anything to the effect of when the "teal" component arrived in the Middle East?

You said that " 2+ populations are involved in the Bronze Age Armenians- 1 is very Mesopotamian, 1 is similar to Yamnaya/EHG. Case closed. The later was intrusive to the region and brought IE languages and some genetic input. Overall they are still predominantly "Near Eastern". They formed around the Bronze Age and haven't changed (much) since."

What I have been trying to point out is that the Yamnaya were not just EHG. They were an admixed people by the time they started migrating and spreading their languages. If Anthony and Ringe are correct, Armenian didn't emerge until 2800 BC in the Balkans, long after the Yamnaya people had admixed with "Armenian like" people, and probably after admixture in the Balkans as well, so it could not have been a case of a pure EHG people bringing Armenian to the Armenians, as it were. If you're talking about the "Anatolian" languages, they're much older, but again are held to have entered Anatolia after having passed through the Balkans. They would hardly have been pure EHG by that time. Unless you're saying that the speakers of Anatolian were pure EHG and moved south from the steppe over the Caucasus around 4500 BC before any Armenian like ancestry appeared on the steppe. Where is your evidence for that? The fact that Anatolian has the least correlation with Uralic would seem to mitigate against that. Plus, we don't know precisely when the "Armenian like" ancestry arrived.

Unless you meant to just say "Yamnaya like" people, without the EHG tag, were intrusive and brought Indo-European languages. That would make logical sense even if there are problems with it, as for example the fact that you would think any appreciable amount of gene flow from the Yamnaya would have left some WHG behind.

Plus, as I pointed out, none of that explains how the Yamnaya became half MODERN "Armenian like", which is what my post was actually about. It was most definitely not about the EEF, or even when the "teal" component arrived in the Near East.

Angela
08-06-15, 21:48
The LBK_EN ( 5000BC to 5600 BC ) where entirely orange. but paper states they initially came from south-caspian area through Anatolia and into germany.

These armenians seemed to arrived where they are AFTER this LBK_EN migration.

Could you please provide a page number and quotations where that is said in the paper?

Auld Reekie
09-06-15, 04:16
I'm not sure I believe what I wrote myself about raiding and brides, just a thought looking back into myth and roots in the language that show similarities throughout the IE world. David W. Anthony did mention a West Asian culture from Anatolia living in Ukraine that interacted with steppes people that shows clear signs of intermarriage and Maykop culture from south settling in what is now Crimea but I'm not sure if that was more material wealth and elites. I dunno. I wish my time machine wasn't broken so we could find out.

Fire Haired14
09-06-15, 04:47
I wish my time machine wasn't broken so we could find out.

Don't go back. It sucked back then. Trust me. Everyone was miserable, 2 feet tall, and smelled like @#$%.

Fire Haired14
09-06-15, 08:43
Where to see if this paper has been published yet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/research/biological-sciences.html

Locations, cultures, and Time Periods where the samples probably are coming from(besides Armenia) according to Davidski.

"- Late Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Germany, Poland and/or Scandinavia
- Copper, Bronze and Iron Age remains from Bulgaria
- Bronze and/or Iron Age remains from Hungary
- Sintashta from Kazakhstan
- Maikop from Russia
- Yamnaya from Russia
- Afanasevo from Russia"

Bulgaria and Maikop are the most unknown here, because they(or close relatives) haven't been sampled yet.

arvistro
09-06-15, 09:42
Can someone remind me please how Yamna looked?
I mean not this phrase of 50% Modern Armenian + 50% EHG, but rather using admixtures such as EEF, ENF, ANE, WHG, EHG.

Fire Haired14
09-06-15, 09:47
Can someone remind me please how Yamna looked?
I mean not this phrase of 50% Modern Armenian + 50% EHG, but rather using admixtures such as EEF, ENF, ANE, WHG, EHG.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/bell-beaker-corded-ware-ehg-and-yamnaya.html

You should follow this blog to get the most up to date info for ancient DNA.

arvistro
09-06-15, 10:43
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.

Fire Haired14
09-06-15, 11:01
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.

Yamnaya scored on average 36% WHG and 34% ANE. So, 55-60% EHG according to ANE K8, unless their Near Eastern side had some WHG.

arvistro
09-06-15, 13:24
Thanks!
I see one big unknown in ANE, when it arrived to the Near East. Apparently it was not there when ENF went to neolithize Europe.
So, let's wait for new data, that are coming in shortly.

Alan
09-06-15, 14:19
Many thanks. So, Yamna according Davitsky has ANE ~ 35%, ENF ~25%, but I could not find in text what is up with other 40%. WHG?
EHG was what 60/40 WHG/ANE?

If so, and if we believe all 40% whg came with ehg, then arithmetically Yamna is 67% (2/3) EHG + 33% (1/3) of folk with 1:3 ANE to ENF ratio.

Or alternatively Yamna was 3/4 of more ANE rich EHG + 1/4 pure farmer.



Yamna = 35% ANE, 25% ENF, 5% SE (South Eurasian) and 35% WHG.

It was 50% EHG like and 50% Armenian/Georgian like (which includes a third of ANE).

Alan
09-06-15, 14:25
Plus, as I pointed out, none of that explains how the Yamnaya became half MODERN "Armenian like", which is what my post was actually about. It was most definitely not about the EEF, or even when the "teal" component arrived in the Near East.

Some people throw with terminologies around without actually having a clue about it.

The Teal admixture itself is predominanlty ENF with some ANE in it. And this ANE arrived very early from the Iranian Plateaeu_SouthCentral Asia. It was FAR before the Indo Europeans formed and therefore it doesn't really matter where a part of it "originally came from". Going by that logic, we shouldn't call EHG European since at some point in time it arrived there from the Near East. SOme people will do anything in their power to play down the role of Near Eastern genes in Europe. This double standards are just getting ridiculous.

arvistro
09-06-15, 14:47
Do you have a source that "this ANE arrived very early..." or is that your educated guess?

Angela
09-06-15, 14:57
Don't go back. It sucked back then. Trust me. Everyone was miserable, 2 feet tall, and smelled like @#$%.

Well, the Bronze Age Indo-European was about 5'5 or so I think, (I'd top him by about an inch, not that I have anything against men shorter than I am, mind you, but it's not quite how I pictured them.) Still, I get your point. :grin:

The "smell" factor would be a definite "no go" for me in terms of time travel... until the Greeks at least. Well, let's make it the Romans. They had to smell better, what with going to the baths everyday, soap or no soap! :smile: That's part of why I have no desire to go back to the Middle Ages: a sad regression in terms of hygiene!

Maleth
09-06-15, 15:06
The "smell" factor would be a definite "no go" for me in terms of time travel... until the Greeks at least. Well, let's make it the Romans. They had to smell better, what with going to the baths everyday, soap or no soap! :smile: That's part of why I have no desire to go back to the Middle Ages: a sad regression in terms of hygiene!

Good article here

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/05/why-bathing-was-uncommon-in-medieval-europe/

Angela
09-06-15, 15:19
Yamna = 35% ANE, 25% ENF, 5% SE (South Eurasian) and 35% WHG.

It was 50% EHG like and 50% Armenian/Georgian like (which includes a third of ANE).

They're supposed to be 50% "modern" Armenian like, yes? Is that how modern Armenians show up on those calculators that were done? I mean did they come out as one third ANE? I didn't think it was that high.

Anyway, color me skeptical about any of these calculators until we get an ancient ENF sample from the Near East. Even after extensive and sophisticated modeling the academics wouldn't put a precise figure on the ENF in EEF, so I'll wait for the exact number.

Not that it much matters, or that it changes the fact that the Samara Yamnaya were half Near Eastern. Unless we're going to see a reversal, and all of a sudden the Armenians are going to get honorary "European" status to make things all right? :) No wonder no one mentions the fact that according to the academic paper the Iraqi Jews are an even better fit!

Color me jaded and suspicious but I wonder sometimes if all this slicing and dicing is just to get that "foreign" component, in the eyes of some, as low as possible. It's like all that verbiage in the beginning about "hunter-gatherer" versus "farmer", when the farmers were hunter-gatherers too, until they figured out the whole plant and animal domestication thing. Also, of course, hunter-gatherers went to Europe from the Near East in prior eras, at least the WHG probably did from everything I know.

Maybe it's just that I remember posts on related matters on sites like Stormfront. After all there is always redemption, and leopards may perhaps change their spots, yes? :)

Alan
09-06-15, 15:35
They're supposed to be 50% "modern" Armenian like, yes? Is that how modern Armenians show up on those calculators that were done? I mean did they come out as one third ANE? I didn't think it was that high.

I meant the "teal" admixture, it is just as Caucasus_Gedrosia 1/3 of ANE it seems.




Not that it much matters, or that it changes the fact that the Samara Yamnaya were half Near Eastern. Unless we're going to see a reversal, and all of a sudden the Armenians are going to get honorary "European" status to make things all right? :) No wonder no one mentions the fact that according to the academic paper the Iraqi Jews are an even better fit!

I know eve when you take Bedouins the overlap is still there!


Color me jaded and suspicious but I wonder sometimes if all this slicing and dicing is just to get that "foreign" component, in the eyes of some, as low as possible.
^this


It's like all that verbiage in the beginning about "hunter-gatherer" versus "farmer", when the farmers were hunter-gatherers too, until they figured out the whole plant and animal domestication thing. Also, of course, hunter-gatherers went to Europe from the Near East in prior eras, at least the WHG probably did from everything I know.

Definitely as WHG is predominantly linked to I and partly to C, and I ultimately comes from IJ on the Iranian plateau(West Asia) and C from Central Asia not far away.


Maybe it's just that I remember posts on related matters on sites like Stormfront. After all there is always redemption, and leopards may perhaps change their spots, yes? :)
Don't know about Stormfront but posts on other boards are not forgotten.

Alan
09-06-15, 15:39
Do you have a source that "this ANE arrived very early..." or is that your educated guess?

But do you hve any evidence that ANE arrived "very late" in that area so I have to agree with the guess of other users? I am pretty convincedĀ“ANE was on the Iranian Plateau (West Asia) alrready during Mesolithic times, maybe even earlier and reachd by (late) Neolithic the rest of the Near East. It must have reached during the Neolithic simply CAUSE it is found uniformly everywhere in the Near East and the only movement I see which could have brought it as far South as Arabia, is the Neolithic movement.

Or do you know of any other event which might have brought ~5% ANE to Arabia during and after the Bronze Age?

Angela
09-06-15, 16:02
Good article here

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2011/05/why-bathing-was-uncommon-in-medieval-europe/
:petrified::sad-2:Horrifying, isn't it? I sometimes take two showers a day!

I won't go into detail as I've taken us off topic, but take a look at these sites. We resisted this pernicious trend of not bathing for much longer and recovered sooner than other Europeans, whether because of ancestral memory or trade with the East or both, I don't know. :smile: I particularly like how the half Medici Princess Marguerite not only found Henri IV totally sexually unappealing, but also couldn't bear to live with him, purportedly partly because while she bathed every day, he only bathed once a year. Plus, she said he always stank of garlic. Tsk, tsk. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/laughing.gif Her mother was made of sterner stuff, although she also had baths with hot water built for her. Just part of the reason she was so hated, no doubt. I guess Marguerite felt that there was a limit to what she was supposed to be willing to do for the dynasty!

https://books.google.com/books?id=PQP2AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA253&lpg=PA253&dq=bathing+in+renaissance+italy&source=bl&ots=7AeLK7jHAv&sig=s5oTa_-13Sa8CUahttp://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Catherine_de_Medici.aspxQrIIqLkLh9V4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bel2VfyeIcSbyATy8oLwBg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=bathing%20in%20renaissance%20italy&f=false

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Catherine_de_Medici.aspx

https://books.google.com/books?id=5qTHtBShOqEC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=Catherine+de+Medici+and+bathing&source=bl&ots=7uKTT3a74i&sig=5jmXetcoNCX9AA3fQWsHx5crRTc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Gux2VfiGGPDbsASvoYGQCg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Catherine%20de%20Medici%20and%20bathing&f=false

Fire Haired14
09-06-15, 16:05
Not that it much matters, or that it changes the fact that the Samara Yamnaya were half Near Eastern.

In D-stats when ranking relation to Ust_Ishim Yamnaya is towards the top for West Eurasians, but less than the ENF score would suggest. They might have another type of Basal besides what's in ENF. Also, D-stats can't be used as a perfect way to rank baselness.ANE K8 was made before Yamnaya genomes came out.

The 50% Armenian/Iraqi_Jew thing is inconsistent with ANE K8. But it's the same pattern as in ADMIXTURE tests(inclu. ANE K8) Yamnaya was EHG+Something Caucasus/West Asian. Tests can also replace MA1 with EHG for West Asians and Native Americans as an ANE ancestor, even though they have low or no WHG.

arvistro
09-06-15, 16:24
But do you hve any evidence that ANE arrived "very late" in that area so I have to agree with the guess of other users? I am pretty convincedĀ“ANE was on the Iranian Plateau (West Asia) alrready during Mesolithic times, maybe even earlier and reachd by (late) Neolithic the rest of the Near East. It must have reached during the Neolithic simply CAUSE it is found uniformly everywhere and the only movement I see which could have brought it as far South as Arabia, is the Neolithic movement.

Or do you know of any other event which might have brought ~5% ANE to Arabia after during and after the Bronze Age?
So, it is a guess then.

arvistro
09-06-15, 16:31
It's like all that verbiage in the beginning about "hunter-gatherer" versus "farmer", when the farmers were hunter-gatherers too, until they figured out the whole plant and animal domestication thing. Also, of course, hunter-gatherers went to Europe from the Near East in prior eras, at least the WHG probably did from everything I know.
Well, some Farmer Nazi stated that hunters were Genetically Incapable to farming. That statement was to put their genetically superior nose down to Earth.

Nothing to do with Near East :) Most if not every humans North of Africa arrived via Near East and was a hunter gatherer.

Angela
09-06-15, 16:49
Well, some Farmer Nazi stated that hunters were Genetically Incapable to farming. That statement was to put their genetically superior nose down to Earth.

Nothing to do with Near East :) Most if not every humans North of Africa arrived via Near East and was a hunter gatherer.

Of course, none of what I posted was meant to apply to you Arvistro. We have a different caliber of poster on this site usually, thank goodness. :smile:

Also, I don't think your first statement is really the take away from those discussions, is it? At least that's not how I see it. I think that farming favored or "selected" for certain traits, and more so as time went on. The only difference that might have existed between the hunter gatherers in that area versus some in other places might have been that because they had larger population numbers given their luck in living in a place that was so blessed not only in plant life but in animal life, there might have been more variation on which to select. Most of that is based on pretty standard evolutionary theory, yes?

Not that I'm totally convinced of that, mind you. Skepticism is pretty much my constant frame of reference.

Angela
09-06-15, 16:55
So, it is a guess then.

Personally, I don't know when the ANE arrived. I don't think it's impossible that the Saudis could have gotten their 5% of ANE from some J2 men they incorporated. Does anyone know off hand how much J2 there is in Saudi Arabia?

Plus, as always, people forget the women. When you have sanctioned polygamy and had an empire spanning the region from the Atlantic to the Caspian and more, I don't think they can be seen as any sort of "pure" group from the Neolithic anymore than anyone else can be seen that way.

It could have been there since the Neolithic, however.

Time will tell, and pretty quickly, perhaps. Those northwest Anatolian genomes should be interesting, especially if they do date to 4500 BC.

arvistro
09-06-15, 19:00
Btw, speaking of EEF...
There is one big enigma about Balts and Farmer genetics. I will formulate the question:
How much EEF did Baltic folk have BEFORE Yamna?

Because...
Modern Lithuanian
36-46-17
Yamna
25-35-35

EEF-WHG-ANE

First, maximum Yamna ancestry to Lithuanian is no more than 50% (only 17% ANE vs 35% ANE).
If we model Lit as 50% Yamna + 50% something else. Then arithmetically this something else must look smth like this:
45 EEF+ 55WHG +0 ANE
Even Estonians would look like 50% of Yamna + 50% of WHG/EEF combination.

Second, in Mesolithic Baltics was EHG land.

Ultimately the population that mixed with Yamna to create Balts had more EEF than Yamna itself and was a 50/50 combination of WHG/EEF...

How do you like this twist? :)

arvistro
09-06-15, 19:59
If above is correct then North/North-West of Yamna after Mesolithic (but before Yamna) there could have been more of Near East genetics than in Yamna itself...

Need to check how Corded looked like in ANE-WHG-EEF. If my guess is correct it should be more EEF than Yamna?

Garrick
09-06-15, 20:10
We should have in mind EEF is hybrid component:

EEF = ENF + WHG

ENF: Early Neolithic Farmers (European/Near Eastern Neolithic Farmers).


If someone have (data for one Englishman):

EEF = 47.14
WHG = 37.31
ANE = 15.54

it means:
ENF + WHG = 47.14
WHG = 37.31
ANE = 15.54

It is very possible that in total he will have the biggest WHG, bigger than ENF.

In the Internet someone can find that proportion somewhere in Europe can be 5:1 or similar for Neolithic farmers with regard to WHG, but of course conclusion is not appropriate, it can be very different and it depends of location, it is not possible according this model to know precise proportion for some location.

If we use this model for Near East, Anatholia and Southern Caucasus we can get ilogical results, for example for one Assyrian:

EEF (ENF + WHG) 101%
WHG -7.61%
ANE 6.6%


You can see > 100 for EEF and < 0 for WHG.

People from Near East, Anatholia and Southern Caucasus can have EEF > 100 and WHG < 0.

I will not call this model is wrong, it is based on data which sicientists had in the moment when they finished their study. Yes, this model is imperfect and it is only one of iteration while we arrive to more robust model. It is significant for creating next, better models, when there will be more data. It should be borne in mind that the conclusions drawn on the basis of this model can be wrong.

Unfortunately authors of models created imperfect model because they couldn't better in moment when they finished their study, we'll probably know of more ancient European (and not only European) meta-populations as it will be many more studies and many more genomes are sequenced from across Europe, Asia and Africa.

With better robust model we will know more admixtures (European, Asian, African) and we will calculate more precise.

arvistro
09-06-15, 20:38
This is true, yet if one population has higher EEF than other it means this population has higher ENF, right?
So, Lithuanians still have more ENF than Yamna. And Yamna must be mixed with even more ENF population to create Lithuanians. Or Estonians.

But I think main point from my calculations is - we jumped from Mesolithic EHG into Yamna, but we ignored Neolithic gene changes in North East. Or assumed those did not happen.

Angela
09-06-15, 21:12
We should have in mind EEF is hybrid component:

EEF = ENF + WHG

ENF: Early Neolithic Farmers (European/Near Eastern Neolithic Farmers).


If someone have (data for one Englishman):

EEF = 47.14
WHG = 37.31
ANE = 15.54

it means:
ENF + WHG = 47.14
WHG = 37.31
ANE = 15.54

It is very possible that in total he will have the biggest WHG, bigger than ENF.

In the Internet someone can find that proportion somewhere in Europe can be 5:1 or similar for Neolithic farmers with regard to WHG, but of course conclusion is not appropriate, it can be very different and it depends of location, it is not possible according this model to know precise proportion for some location.

If we use this model for Near East, Anatholia and Southern Caucasus we can get ilogical results, for example for one Assyrian:

EEF (ENF + WHG) 101%
WHG -7.61%
ANE 6.6%


You can see > 100 for EEF and < 0 for WHG.

People from Near East, Anatholia and Southern Caucasus can have EEF > 100 and WHG < 0.

I will not call this model is wrong, it is based on data which sicientists had in the moment when they finished their study. Yes, this model is imperfect and it is only one of iteration while we arrive to more robust model. It is significant for creating next, better models, when there will be more data. It should be borne in mind that the conclusions drawn on the basis of this model can be wrong.

Unfortunately authors of models created imperfect model because they couldn't better in moment when they finished their study, we'll probably know of more ancient European (and not only European) meta-populations as it will be many more studies and many more genomes are sequenced from across Europe, Asia and Africa.

With better robust model we will know more admixtures (European, Asian, African) and we will calculate more precise.

From Lazaridis et al:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/extref/nature13673-s1.pdf

"Determining the precise levels of Near Eastern admixture in Stuttgart must await further ancient DNA studies from both Europe and the Near East, but we can at least reasonably suggest that most of the sample's ancestry was Near Eastern."

That was from the Supplementary Information section; elsewhere, they estimated it to be at least 80% Near Eastern.

Plus, we don't know where the admixture took place. It might have happened in Anatolia, as they point out. Since they are academics and not hobbyists they prefer to have proof before they make autocratic statements.

The best place to look for people with more WHG than ENF is northeastern Europe, but the population density there is not very high. I can't find the post right now, but someone ran all the numbers weighted for population, and the average EEF figure for Europe as a whole is 67 or 68%. I'm sure everyone can take 80% of that.

I'm personally always very cautious about purported EEF/WHG/ANE figures for the Near East given that the academics specifically said that component doesn't really "fit" the demographic history of West Asia. If we ever get that "holy grail", an early Neolithic farmer from the Near East, then everything can be recalibrated if people are so interested in the percentages.

Angela
09-06-15, 21:33
If above is correct then North/North-West of Yamna after Mesolithic (but before Yamna) there could have been more of Near East genetics than in Yamna itself...

Need to check how Corded looked like in ANE-WHG-EEF. If my guess is correct it should be more EEF than Yamna?

I'm not sure what was west of Samara/Yamnaya, either in terms of their autosomal make-up or their yDna make up. Were they R1a people who moved north west to form Corded Ware, and when they left R1b moved west and then into Europe, or were they more and perhaps downclade R1b, and the people who created Corded Ware were always located northwest of Yamnaya proper?

You would think that perhaps the further west you went the more admixture there was with the farming people, yes?




First, maximum Yamna ancestry to Lithuanian is no more than 50% (only 17% ANE vs 35% ANE).
If we model Lit as 50% Yamna + 50% something else. Then arithmetically this something else must look smth like this:
45 EEF+ 55WHG +0 ANE
Even Estonians would look like 50% of Yamna + 50% of WHG/EEF combination.

It needn't have been there before. Couldn't it have come after?



Well, some Farmer Nazi stated that hunters were Genetically Incapable to farming.

I had meant to respond to this statement in particular. Are you familiar with the Seinfeld TV show? They had a character called the "Soup Nazi". :)

arvistro
09-06-15, 22:03
I'm not sure what was west of Samara/Yamnaya, either in terms of their autosomal make-up or their yDna make up. Were they R1a people who moved north west to form Corded Ware, and when they left R1b moved west and then into Europe, or were they more and perhaps downclade R1b, and the people who created Corded Ware were always located northwest of Yamnaya proper?
You would think that perhaps the further west you went the more admixture there was with the farming people, yes?
That sounds correct.



It needn't have been there before. Couldn't it have come after?
It is a good question. And since nobody has checked what happened between Mesolithic EHG and post-Yamna in Baltics, Belarus or Ukraine, nobody knows.

Yet I think mathematically it is difficult. If we had EHG and then came Yamna, we would never get to current levels of EEF. Especially if we were "accultured Indo-Europeans" with minimum Yamna impact (so EHG + like 5% EEF, to raise it to 35% in Baltic isolation... hard... not impossible probably, but hard...)
At least mythology is that we are very isolated archaic population that speaks rather archaic IE.
+ I vaguely remember reading anthropology about migrations from Central Europe into Baltics before Corded Ware. Need to check my source. If/when I find it I will quote here for reference. Because I might misremember.




I had meant to respond to this statement in particular. Are you familiar with the Seinfeld TV show? They had a character called the "Soup Nazi". :)
:)

Garrick
09-06-15, 22:47
From Lazaridis et al:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v513/n7518/extref/nature13673-s1.pdf

"Determining the precise levels of Near Eastern admixture in Stuttgart must await further ancient DNA studies from both Europe and the Near East, but we can at least reasonably suggest that most of the sample's ancestry was Near Eastern."

That was from the Supplementary Information section; elsewhere, they estimated it to be at least 80% Near Eastern.

Plus, we don't know where the admixture took place. It might have happened in Anatolia, as they point out. Since they are academics and not hobbyists they prefer to have proof before they make autocratic statements.

The best place to look for people with more WHG than ENF is northeastern Europe, but the population density there is not very high. I can't find the post right now, but someone ran all the numbers weighted for population, and the average EEF figure for Europe as a whole is 67 or 68%. I'm sure everyone can take 80% of that.

I'm personally always very cautious about purported EEF/WHG/ANE figures for the Near East given that the academics specifically said that component doesn't really "fit" the demographic history of West Asia. If we ever get that "holy grail", an early Neolithic farmer from the Near East, then everything can be recalibrated if people are so interested in the percentages.

Thanks Angela, you're still explained what I started. The problem is that people read something and make half-cooked conclusions. This is young science, it will take a lot of studies to some relevant conclusions be made.

arvistro
10-06-15, 00:06
That, Garrick, is not a problem. As long as it is done by amateurs in forums, it is fine.
Problem would be if scientists did so :)

btw, we are having the farmer from Anatolia in like 2-3 weeks, if I understand correctly. So, how do you think will modern Finns score more on that admixture than Yamna had?

Alan
10-06-15, 00:51
So, it is a guess then.

Yes it is a guess with some incidences to back it up. As I wrote above ANE is found uniformly in the Near East and the only source I think of which might have brought it into Arabia is a late Neolithic (herders yDNA J) expansion.

Yetos
10-06-15, 00:58
That, Garrick, is not a problem. As long as it is done by amateurs in forumshttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#50403617), it is fine.
Problem would be if scientists did so :)

btw, we are having the farmer from Anatolia in like 2-3 weeks, if I understand correctly. So, how do you think will modern Finns score more on that admixture than Yamna had?

that would be an earthquake, of 11 richter scale, and also will bring a tsunami of 34 meter high (100 feet), :thinking:

I am shaking :wary2:

is the end of world near?

Alan
10-06-15, 01:01
@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna significant percentage of ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.

Therefore it is save to assume that not all of Baltic ANE is Yamna.

I think the best component pin point Yamna ancestry in Europe is "South Eurasian". Yamna had 5%, Balts have mostly around 1-1.5% Therefore a good assumption is 20-30% direct Yamna ancestry.
Ukrainians for example have 2% "South Eurasian" therefore a ~40% Yamna ancestry fits for them.
For West and South_Central Asia we should take WHG as signal.
It buffles me how David didn't take this into consideration when he made his Yamna scores.

Garrick
10-06-15, 04:06
That, Garrick, is not a problem. As long as it is done by amateurs in forums, it is fine.
Problem would be if scientists did so :)

btw, we are having the farmer from Anatolia in like 2-3 weeks, if I understand correctly. So, how do you think will modern Finns score more on that admixture than Yamna had?

Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.

arvistro
10-06-15, 08:10
@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna some ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.

Therefore it is save to assume that not all of Baltic ANE is Yamna.

I think the best component pin point Yamna ancestry in Europe is "South Eurasian". Yamna had 5%, Balts have mostly around 1-1.5% Therefore a good assumption is 20-30% Yamna ancestry.
Ukrainians for example have 2% "South Eurasian" therefore a ~40% Yamna ancestry fits for them.
For West and South_Central Asia we should take WHG as signal.
It buffles me how David didn't take this into consideration when he made his Yamna scores.
I agree. It means our EEF/ENF does not come from Yamna too.
So, for Baltic population:
20% of genes were derived from Yamna:
5 percentpoints EEF
7 percentpoints WHG
7 percentpoints ANE.
What we have to explain with remaining 80% of genes is:
30 percentpoints EEF
40 percentpoints WHG
10 percentpoints ANE

So, the proportion (of pre Yamna Baltic ancestors?) on 100%:
37.5% EEF
50% WHG
12.5% ANE
(Yamna folk decreased EEF and increased ANE)

Which itself looks like combination of
33% original EHG
67% of EEF/WHG mix at ratio ~ 58/42 or so.

If they ever catch pre-Yamna Baltic person, will be fun to check how close/far I was.

Btw I cant find google Corded WHG/ ANE/ EEF estimates. Corded should be in between Yamna and my calculations.
What is also South Eurasian for Corded?

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 08:24
@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna some ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.

Some Corded Ware individuals score 0% in South Eurasian some score 4%, and all were mostly Yamnaya. It's an inconsistent component. ANE is the main signal of Yamnaya ancestry in Europe. I and other posters have spent hours exhausting every possible ancestry composition using ANE K8 scores since January, and SHG doesn't fit as a significant source of ANE.

IMO, we need Ancient Genomes from West Asia before talking about Yamnaya-type ancestry there. There's certainly "Teal" ancestry in West Asia, which they share with Yamnaya. It's possible the Antolian IE languages and Armenian didn't come from North of the Caucasus, and PIE originated with "Teal" people.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 08:39
BTW, I doubt EUrogenes created ANE K8 to weed out unwanted Near Eastern ancestry in Yamnaya and or Europeans. I watched the evolution of ANE K8. After the EEF/WHG/ANE scores in Laz, Eurogenes wanted to make a more accurate version, which takes out the WHG-admixture in EEF and gives an Ancient Near Eastern score.

First he estimated ANE ancestry for all his world populations. Second he created "Mammoth Steppe" tests, in which he used La Brana-1(Before Laz 2014 genomes were public) in one version and MA1 in another version as the "Mammouth Steppe" source. He used Bedouin as the Near Eastern source. The scores were noisy, but very similar to ANE K8. He tried to create tests just like ANE K8(With all ANE and WHG going into one "Mammoth" component), but only with the genomes available at the time. It never worked out perfectly.

Then quickly after the Laz 2014 genomes came out he made ANE K7, which had inaccurate Near Eastern and WHG scores. Near Eastern scores were way too low for Europeans. Balts and Finns were scoring 0%. After that he made ANE K8. The estimated amount of Stuttgart ancestry(A Euro's ENF divided by Stuttgart's ENF) are consistent with EEF scores in Laz 2014.

He theorized Yamnaya would be mostly Near Eastern, with the remaining being mostly ANE back in November. That's what most posters thought. It wasn't till Haak 2015 leaks that posters changed their minds. There's no reason to believe IMO, that ANE K8 was created to fit people's wishful thinking. You can argue it isn't accurate though.

Greying Wanderer
10-06-15, 10:08
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.

It's a reasonable assumption but not a conclusive one imo.

An alternative might be an early population of herders from region X with one branch moving onto the steppe and bumping into Samara while a second branch moved into the near east thus becoming what we now think of as the "Near Eastern" component.

#

Separate to that I had another thought about the Samara mtdna puzzle based on the recent Danish BB girl being found to have traveled a lot. If there was a copper workers network who maintained contact long distances along the trader routes perhaps that's how the mtdna could travel long distances.

For examples miners from region A (with region A mtdna) move up a copper producing mountain in region B (marrying region B women) and some move up a copper-producing mountain in region C (and marry region C women) but then the resulting groups travel back and forth between the three sites and marry between themselves.

This would require 1) initial settlements being mostly male (which isn't hard to imagine if they were mining colonies) and 2) maintained connections between the colonies and 3) endogamous marriage within the network after the initial settlement.

Something like this could come close to the pattern seen at Samara (maybe).

#

A related thought about the "Anatolian" branch of IE is what if the Armenian branch wasn't a tribe but a crew of miners who settled among a non-IE population. Might the seeming archaic-ness of Anatolian be connected to having a non-IE substrate?

#

The above points are not necessarily connected or compatible - just thoughts.

Arame
10-06-15, 10:29
arvistro

I read somewhere that there will be aDNA from Estonia and Lithuania. So perhaps we will find why Baltic countries have an excess of ENF compared to Yamna.

arvistro
10-06-15, 10:53
As far as I understood the Paper coming in next two weeks has found two Anatolian farmers. One (similar to those who colonised Europe during Neolithics) and the bit later one with "other" admixture which was not common for Euro Neolithics.
There is a discussion if "other" admixture is or is not ANE. We will find that pretty soon.

Also I hope we may be able to check on Balts/Baltic Finns (and Volga Finns for comparison) which wave Farmer genes we have. "Neolithic" or "Indo-Euros".

I used to think Indo-Euros brought farmer genes to Baltics. Since they did bring farming. But looks like it is more complicated.

arvistro
10-06-15, 10:55
arvistro

I read somewhere that there will be aDNA from Estonia and Lithuania. So perhaps we will find why Baltic countries have an excess of ENF compared to Yamna.
Fingers crossed! I read about Latvian Zvejnieki site being researched.

Garrick
10-06-15, 11:29
IMO, we need Ancient Genomes from West Asia before talking about Yamnaya-type ancestry there.

Yes we need Ancient Genomes from Near East, West Asia etc. I think the part of problem is that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect/incomplete and maybe our conclusions based on this model can be wrong. With more data scientists will create better, robust models.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 11:50
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.

The "Near East" component in ANE K8 is not based on Modern Near Easterns. It's basically an Early European farmer minus like 30% WHG. So, similar to some Neolithic Near Easterns. It's supposedly what the Near East was before admixture with ANE, South Asians, East Asians, and Africans.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 11:53
As far as I understood the Paper coming in next two weeks

Two weeks!! Can you confirm this?

arvistro
10-06-15, 12:18
Two weeks!! Can you confirm this?
Sorry :(
Not sure about paper. Conference is in two weeks that will present that Neolithic thing among others:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/isabs-2015-abstracts.html?m=1

In meantime, found this on anthrogenica:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB9021

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 12:32
Sorry :(
Not sure about paper. Conference is in two weeks that will present that Neolithic thing among others:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/isabs-2015-abstracts.html?m=1

In meantime, found this on anthrogenica:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB9021

Thanks I guess the genomes came out before the study was published.

Garrick
10-06-15, 12:43
Sorry :(
Not sure about paper. Conference is in two weeks that will present that Neolithic thing among others:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/isabs-2015-abstracts.html?m=1


Thanks. There are more interesting papers.

Angela
10-06-15, 15:15
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.

It's a reasonable assumption but not a conclusive one imo.

An alternative might be an early population of herders from region X with one branch moving onto the steppe and bumping into Samara while a second branch moved into the near east thus becoming what we now think of as the "Near Eastern" component.

#

Separate to that I had another thought about the Samara mtdna puzzle based on the recent Danish BB girl being found to have traveled a lot. If there was a copper workers network who maintained contact long distances along the trader routes perhaps that's how the mtdna could travel long distances.

For examples miners from region A (with region A mtdna) move up a copper producing mountain in region B (marrying region B women) and some move up a copper-producing mountain in region C (and marry region C women) but then the resulting groups travel back and forth between the three sites and marry between themselves.

This would require 1) initial settlements being mostly male (which isn't hard to imagine if they were mining colonies) and 2) maintained connections between the colonies and 3) endogamous marriage within the network after the initial settlement.

Something like this could come close to the pattern seen at Samara (maybe).

#

A related thought about the "Anatolian" branch of IE is what if the Armenian branch wasn't a tribe but a crew of miners who settled among a non-IE population. Might the seeming archaic-ness of Anatolian be connected to having a non-IE substrate?

#

The above points are not necessarily connected or compatible - just thoughts.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, and you're aware of this, Greying Wanderer (It's early for me, after all. :), but the statistical fit is 50% Ancient Karelian like plus 50% modern Armenian like, so they're not talking about ancient Near Easterners. They didn't have an ancient Near Easterner, so they're making do with modern samples. I'm sure when they get one their model will change. They're talking about a population that resembles modern Near Easterners. Unless, of course, it turns out that Armenians today are not only pretty much what they were like 3500 years ago, but what they were like 5500 years ago.

Alan
10-06-15, 15:29
Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.

Most of the time I argued for a propotion of 4:1 or 5:1

Angela
10-06-15, 15:36
Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.

In my opinion part of the problem is that hobbyists have either imperfectly understood the Lazaridis and Haak papers, and/or made sweeping claims and drew dogmatic conclusions that can't be found in the papers. The other part of the problem is that people have confused the computations on the internet with those actually made in the papers.

The hallmark of the Reich team all the way back since the days when they adjusted the findings of Moorjani et al in subsequent papers like Lipson et al is that they always state upfront that their findings are provisional based on the currently available data/samples, and that the models will be adjusted as time goes on. That's the hallmark of a top notch academic team.

The only word that they may come to regret is "massive", as in "massive" flow of genes with the Yamnaya incursions, at least for certain parts of Europe, and I have my suspicions about who was probably responsible for that. I'll leave it at that. :)

Alan
10-06-15, 15:39
Some Corded Ware individuals score 0% in South Eurasian some score 4%, and all were mostly Yamnaya. It's an inconsistent component. ANE is the main signal of Yamnaya ancestry in Europe. I and other posters have spent hours exhausting every possible ancestry composition using ANE K8 scores since January, and SHG doesn't fit as a significant source of ANE.



Lack of SE in some Corded Ware samples is not argument for that SE being inconsistent. That might be one of the reasons why the study is questioning if CW is really descend of Yamna or just a related culture.

ANE can't be taken as signal simply because ANE DID exist in East (EHG) and North Europe already. So how can this be taken as signal?

Also it is not important if some lacked it and some not. Important is how much on average they had. it is very well possible that some CW inividuals were natives(Having WHG, ENF and ANE) while other more like Yamna (ANE,ENF,WHG, SE).

Greying Wanderer
10-06-15, 19:02
The "Near East" component in ANE K8 is not based on Modern Near Easterns. It's basically an Early European farmer minus like 30% WHG. So, similar to some Neolithic Near Easterns. It's supposedly what the Near East was before admixture with ANE, South Asians, East Asians, and Africans.


Which neolithic near easterns is it similar to?

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 19:22
Which neolithic near easterns is it similar to?

Probably from the Western side.

Greying Wanderer
10-06-15, 19:37
Probably from the Western side.

There haven't been any ancient near eastern genomes yet - hence my point about the assumption.

Alan
10-06-15, 22:02
As far as I understood the Paper coming in next two weeks has found two Anatolian farmers. One (similar to those who colonised Europe during Neolithics) and the bit later one with "other" admixture which was not common for Euro Neolithics.
There is a discussion if "other" admixture is or is not ANE. We will find that pretty soon.

Also I hope we may be able to check on Balts/Baltic Finns (and Volga Finns for comparison) which wave Farmer genes we have. "Neolithic" or "Indo-Euros".

I used to think Indo-Euros brought farmer genes to Baltics. Since they did bring farming. But looks like it is more complicated.



They said "other admixture" is similar to what is found in the Middle East and North Africa. sounds like Red Sea to me.

bicicleur
10-06-15, 23:11
Well, the Bronze Age Indo-European was about 5'5 or so I think, (I'd top him by about an inch, not that I have anything against men shorter than I am, mind you, but it's not quite how I pictured them.) Still, I get your point. :grin:

The "smell" factor would be a definite "no go" for me in terms of time travel... until the Greeks at least. Well, let's make it the Romans. They had to smell better, what with going to the baths everyday, soap or no soap! :smile: That's part of why I have no desire to go back to the Middle Ages: a sad regression in terms of hygiene!

Germanic people would swim in their rivers regularly, even in winter time
If that is true, I suppose it would have helped

Any idea how they could could manage the water quality of the Roman baths?

arvistro
10-06-15, 23:14
...and Balts had their pirtis (~wet sauna) since like forever :)
Never have I heard it stopped being used this side of Baltics.

Angela
11-06-15, 01:21
Germanic people would swim in their rivers regularly, even in winter time
If that is true, I suppose it would have helped

Any idea how they could could manage the water quality of the Roman baths?

Do you mean how could they be kept sanitary without chlorine? A lot of them were fed by hot mineral springs. When they weren't, the water was heated by hot air from under the floor. Either way, the water was constantly being replaced, fed either by a stream or by the water from pipes running from the aqueducts. Plus, the patrons were clean by the time they went in usually. Don't modern Japanese bathing pools run on the same principles?

I also read that they were scrubbed periodically with vinegar and salt.

The water for Rome and many other cities, including small ones like Pompeii, came from clean springs many kilometers from the cities themselves, all brought in by the aqueducts, hundreds of kilometers of them. In Rome even today the water that flows from the nasoni or potable drinking fountains still comes from the same areas and from some of the same underground aqueducts.

arvistro
11-06-15, 22:34
This is true, yet if one population has higher EEF than other it means this population has higher ENF, right?
So, Lithuanians still have more ENF than Yamna. And Yamna must be mixed with even more ENF population to create Lithuanians. Or Estonians.

But I think main point from my calculations is - we jumped from Mesolithic EHG into Yamna, but we ignored Neolithic gene changes in North East. Or assumed those did not happen.

Davidsky solved my Lithuanian issue (unintentionally probably, I dont have influence on what he is doing :) ), we got our Near Eastern in Bronze Age, but not from Yamna. We got it from Corded which had more of that goodies than Yamna:

Blogger Davidski said...
I compared the levels of Near Eastern admixture among Yamnaya, Corded Ware and Lithuanians in the supervised West Eurasia K8 test and the unsupervised ASI K7 test.
They're fairly similar, and actually show the same patterns:
K8
Yamnaya 0.2396
Corded_Ware_LN 0.31696666666667
Lithuanian 0.27684322222222
K7
Yamnaya 0.20304428571429
Corded_Ware_LN 0.25734433333333
Lithuanian 0.23223233333333
So Corded Ware have the most Near Eastern ancestry in both tests, and Yamnaya the least.
In fact, the Yamnaya score as a percentage of the Lithuanian score in both tests is almost the same: 86.54717933013902 vs 87.43153151841888 (difference of only 0.88435218827986).
However, the Lithuanian score as a percentage of the Corded Ware score is less similar: 87.3414309250869 vs 90.24186789942902 (difference of 2.90043697434212).
I think there are two reasons for this:
- the K7 Near Eastern component is more Basal Eurasian (in other words, the K7 Euro_HG component contains more hunter-gatherer type stuff from the Near East than the K8 WHG component, which is more purely European)
- the Near Eastern admixture in the Corded Ware contains more of the hunter-gatherer type stuff from the Near East, while the Near Eastern admixture in the Yamnaya is more Basal Eurasian.
Here's a text file with all of the stats:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o...ew?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQS2pDZ3NRYVF2Vzg/view?usp=sharing)