PDA

View Full Version : 101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online



Pages : [1] 2

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 12:47
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/system/files/images/BA%20Village2_lge.jpg


No paper has been published, but all 101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes are available. We won't know what era and location each genome comes from until the paper is published. Emails have been sent to Felix (http://www.y-str.org/p/ancient-dna.html), and others will probably analysis them.

http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB9021

Here are the eras and locations samples may be coming from 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

Use this link to find when the paper is published.

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


Abstract

The Bronze Age (BA) of Eurasia (c. 3,000-1,000 years BC, 3-1 ka BC) was a period of major cultural changes. Earlier hunter-gathering and farming cultures in Europe and Asia were replaced by cultures associated with completely new perceptions and technologies inspired by early urban civilization. It remains debated if these cultural shifts simply represented the circulation of ideas or resulted from large-scale human migrations, potentially also facilitating the spread of Indo-European languages and certain phenotypic traits. To investigate this and the role of BA in the formation of Eurasian genetic structure, we used new methodological improvements to sequence low coverage genomes from 101 ancient humans (19 > 1X average depth) covering 3 ka BC to 600 AD from across Eurasia.

We show that around 3 ka BC, Central and Northern Europe and Central Asia receive genetic input through people related to the Yamnaya Culture from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, resulting in the formation of the Corded Ware Culture in Europe and the Afanasievo Culture in Central Asia. A thousand years later, genetic input from North-Central Europe into Central Asia gives rise to the Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures. During the late BA and Iron Age, the European-derived populations in Asia are gradually replaced by multi-ethnic cultures, of which some relate to contemporary Asian groups, while others share recent ancestry with Native Americans.

Our findings are consistent with the hypothesised spread of Indo-European languages during early BA and reveal that major parts of the demographic structure of present-day Eurasian populations were shaped during this period. We also demonstrate that light skin pigmentation in Europeans was already present at high frequency during the BA, contrary to lactose tolerance, indicating a more recent onset of positive selection in the latter than previously believed.

arvistro
10-06-15, 15:25
We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
Sample accession - attributes.

Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 15:45
We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
Sample accession - attributes.

Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!

Awesome. Thanks. I'm surprised one is from Estonia, that's in your neighborhood. Maybe it'll be high in WHG. The main ancestors of Balts though could have arrived later from further south.

arvistro
10-06-15, 15:55
Awesome. Thanks. I'm surprised one is from Estonia, that's in your neighborhood. Maybe it'll be high in WHG. The main ancestors of Balts though could have arrived later from further south.
We will know today.

bicicleur
10-06-15, 15:55
would be interesting to know who these maykop people were
i guess they are different from yamnaya people

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 15:58
We know exactly which era and place genomes come from.
The very first one is Corded Ware Estonia.
Sample accession - attributes.

Kudos to Scandinavs for their social democratic approach!

I don't see attributes as an option.

arvistro
10-06-15, 16:03
Click on value for column sample accession.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 16:07
Never mind arvistro I got it now.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 16:22
I'm making a spreadsheet with the year, country, sex, site, and culture of every sample.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit?usp=sharing)

Angela
10-06-15, 17:25
"A thousand years later, genetic input from North-Central Europe into Central Asia gives rise to the Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures. During the late BA and Iron Age, the European-derived populations in Asia are gradually replaced by multi-ethnic cultures, of which some relate to contemporary Asian groups, while others share recent ancestry with Native Americans."

I'll wait to see the paper, but I think this confirms what "Alan" on Anthrogenica (and others) were saying almost two years ago, which is that the route to the east didn't go directly from Yamnaya or even from nearby areas of eastern Europe, at least not for all of the migrations, but occurred later and with a slightly (or more than slightly) different group genetically.

Fluffy
10-06-15, 18:12
Can't wait to see the results. Should be interesting.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 18:53
Samples I didn't know where going to be in this study....

>Remedello culture from Italy. The oldest is from 2908-2578 BC and the youngest is from 2134-1773 BC. SOme are male, so we'll get Y DNA.
>Late Bronze age Montenegro.

The rest are Armenian, a shit load of samples from Russia ranging Yamnya-Iron age, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, LN/BA Scandinavia, LN/BA Hungary. Stuff we've mostly already seen or have a good idea what the results will be.

The Remedello in Italy were chosen because they're suppose to be the earliest IEs of Italy, who gave rise to Italics(got that from Wikipedia), etc. I would rather have Pre-IE DNA from deep in Italy. A good guess is the males will turn out R1b-U152.

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 19:47
"Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture14507.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14507.html)

arvistro
10-06-15, 20:52
I don't have access to text, but found the following quote:
Using D-statistics,
we find that Corded Ware and Yamnaya individuals form a clade to
the exclusion of Bronze Age Armenians (Extended Data Table 1)
showing that the genetic ‘Caucasus component’ present in Bronze
Age Europe has a steppe origin rather than a southern Caucasus
origin. Earlier studies have shown that southern Europeans received
substantial gene flow from Neolithic farmers during the Neolithic9
.
Despite being slightly later, we find that the Copper Age Remedello
culture in Italy does not have the ‘Caucasian’ genetic component and
is still clustering genetically with Neolithic farmers (Fig. 2; Extended
Data Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 6). Hence this region was either
unaffected by the Yamnaya expansion or the Remedello pre-dates
such an expansion into southern Europe. The ‘Caucasian’ component
is clearly present during Late Bronze Age in Montenegro (Fig. 2b).
The close affinity we observe between peoples of Corded Ware and
Sintashta cultures (Extended Data Fig. 2a) suggests similar genetic
sources of the two, which contrasts with previous hypotheses placing
the origin of Sintastha in Asia or the Middle East28. Although we
cannot formally test whether the Sintashta derives directly from an
eastward migration of Corded Ware peoples or if they share common
ancestry with an earlier steppe population, the presence of European
Neolithic farmer ancestry in both the Corded Ware and the Sintashta,
combined with the absence of Neolithic farmer ancestry in the earlier
Yamnaya, would suggest the former being more probable (Fig. 2b and
Extended Data Table 1).

Fire Haired14
10-06-15, 21:02
I added Y DNA frequencies from Fig. 6. Note, It is possible some males didn't find their Y DNA haplogroup.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CIg__h0X8iGBGprX46hKEZGfG6bZhLlZToZSjw1lSns/edit?usp=sharing

Sile
10-06-15, 21:04
As per the released study ...for Italy and The Remedello culture , it found for Remedello only:

yDna = I2 and I2a and I2b

Mtdna = H1 and J1 and X2


so Remedello, sardinia and Illyria are all from I2 and I2a ( and I2b as well )


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf

arvistro
10-06-15, 21:06
Uniparental markers, from same article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf6.jpg
I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color).
Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
Armenia R1b + E1b.

Garrick
10-06-15, 21:34
Uniparental markers, from same article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf6.jpg
I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color).
Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
Armenia R1b + E1b.

I2a + R1b is logical, and for Italy I2 and I2a, also for Scandinavia I1 and I1a.

For Armenia R1b + E1b is logical too. I supposed this result when linked IE Proto Languages in Caucasus, but I had no evidence. Thanks a lot for this, reputation.

And today Armenians have significant R1b ht35 (Armenian haplotype).

Finalise
10-06-15, 21:35
Can someone make a map of all this please? You can share it for other sites too. I'm tired of looking up the location of random Russian villages.

Fluffy
10-06-15, 21:46
What the hell is Bahu? Bronze age...Hungary?

Vukodav
10-06-15, 21:51
Samples I didn't know where going to be in this study....

>Remedello culture from Italy. The oldest is from 2908-2578 BC and the youngest is from 2134-1773 BC. SOme are male, so we'll get Y DNA.
>Late Bronze age Montenegro.

The rest are Armenian, a shit load of samples from Russia ranging Yamnya-Iron age, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, LN/BA Scandinavia, LN/BA Hungary. Stuff we've mostly already seen or have a good idea what the results will be.

The Remedello in Italy were chosen because they're suppose to be the earliest IEs of Italy, who gave rise to Italics(got that from Wikipedia), etc. I would rather have Pre-IE DNA from deep in Italy. A good guess is the males will turn out R1b-U152.

Samples are from Remedello I (3400-2800 BC)

bicicleur
10-06-15, 22:53
i could only read some fragments here and there

it seems R1 was replaced by J2 in Armenia and the steppe with the onset of the iron age
maybe that's why we did not find J2 in neolithic and bronze age Europe

i see only 1 E1b : baArm
the spread of E-V13 is still a mystery

it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?

bicicleur
10-06-15, 23:18
Uniparental markers, from same article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf6.jpg
I2a + R1b in Yamna, with mtdna U4, U5, T1 (or T2 I cant differentiate this color).
Bronze age Italy - I2 and I2a
I1 and I1a show up in Scandinavia bronze age.
Armenia R1b + E1b.

I wonder wether the I2 in Remedello was the same like the I2 in Yamnaya

Eldritch
10-06-15, 23:18
it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?
It's likely it's of the Sardinian variety, looking at autosomals Remedello were basically Sardinians.

sparkey
11-06-15, 00:13
it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?

I'm particularly interested in this. Both Yamna and Italy are just a little out of the range of the highest modern diversity of I2, so it's not an easy guess.

Alan
11-06-15, 01:31
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. This is clearly the geographic distribution of the Scythians during the Iron Age. I have said it in the past already.

Scythians were a mix of R1a*, J2, J1b and some other Haplogroups such as R1b/R2 LT*, G just like any other Indo_Iranic tribe. It gets obvious if you look at the Haplogroup distribution of modern Indo_Iranic speakers. It can't be "acculturated" Haplogroup if it exists among all branches of the Indo_Iranic family.

The Bronze Age individual might have been one of them.

Alan
11-06-15, 01:36
My God why is there no West Asian refference population for comparison.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf5.jpg

Alan
11-06-15, 01:57
Bronze Age Sintashta seems closer to West and EVEN South Europe than East Europe nd BrArmenia.

However with Andronovo it's a different case. This is closer to BrArmenia and East Europe.


Man ancient DNA is so confusing.

Alan
11-06-15, 02:23
From the paper


During the 4th millennium BC, large mega settlements of up to 400 hectares with populations in the ten thousands, known as the Tripolje Culture 2, 9, emerged in the western forest-steppe, bordering the steppe. By the middle of the 4th millennium BC, it seems that such large populations could no longer be sustained and the mega-sites gradually collapsed and were left. The Tripolje populations expanded into the steppe 10 where they encountered Maikop groups and adopted individual burials under barrows and metallurgy. Horse domestication and the development of wheeled vehicles, in the style of later prairie wagons, took place to support a mobile pastoral lifestyle.."

LeBrok
11-06-15, 03:27
From the paper
Are they saying that Yamna is mixture of Cucuteni/Tripojie farmer? Or is it in West Yamna and East Yamna was mixed with Caucasian/Maykop framer? Or these farmers were genetically identical/Armenian like?


Man ancient DNA is so confusing. Yep, they started traveling and mixing big time, lol.

LeBrok
11-06-15, 03:42
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. . They needed to expend earlier. It is so ubiquitous in South Europe and defused in all Europe to justify huge Iron Age expansion through all Europe especially the south. I still think they should be find in bronze age or even copper. I guess by Iron Age they ended up in Russia.

Alan
11-06-15, 04:20
Are they saying that Yamna is mixture of Cucuteni/Tripojie farmer? Or is it in West Yamna and East Yamna was mixed with Caucasian/Maykop framer? Or these farmers were genetically identical/Armenian like?


As far as I have understand, they say a Maikop population was living on the Steppes, those domesticated Horses, invented the wheel, had Kurgan burials etc. and than Cucuteni/Tripojie culture had a "population explosion" and started to migraate to the Steppes mixing and adopting into the local Maikop groups. Going by that

It seems they have this theories.

1. PIE descend from Maikop culture.

2. PIE descend from the invading CT culture

3. PIE is a hybrid of the Maikop and Neolithic CT culture.

Alan
11-06-15, 04:25
They needed to expend earlier. It is so ubiquitous in South Europe and defused in all Europe to justify huge Iron Age expansion through all Europe especially the south. I still think they should be find in bronze age or even copper. I guess by Iron Age they ended up in Russia.

Not as far as Altais. And stiill no sign of J2 during Neolithic. All J appear in connection with Bronze to Iron Age (Indo European) expansion,


By the way Iron Age Russian in this case is actually Siberia. The two samples are from just North of Kazakhstan and the Altais. basically the territory known to us as early Scythia.

Angela
11-06-15, 06:17
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

The same thing applies to the "southern" component in Yamnaya. Do they attempt to define it anywhere? I also don't get how the Yamnaya can be half "modern Armenian like" in Lazaridis terms but have no Near Eastern farmer ancestry. Even according to this group's own admixture chart modern Armenians have Yamnaya ancestry and the Neolithic farmer ancestry that went to Europe.

If these "Caucasus" people who mixed with the more northern "steppe" like people (?) to create Yamnaya weren't farmers, were they still of the same general type of ancestry, .i.e. largely of this type of "Basal" Ancestry mixed with some sort of South Eurasian, but weren't part of the Neolithic revolution? But then how does Maykop fit into all of this?

In order to make sense of this doesn't it seem that we really need a Maykop genome? I mean, they talk about all the culture coming through Maykop, the kurgans, the metallurgy, I think they even said the wheel and wagons if I remember correctly, but who were the Maykop people? Are we meant to assume they were the same as the people on the steppe or different? Did they mix?

I'm also confused by their references to CT spreading east onto the steppe. Wouldn't the people of the CT have been European Neolithic farmers? So, why is there no signal of them in Yamnaya? Is it because most of the Yamnaya samples are from the eastern areas? Was it different in the western areas?

I also don't get why they keep talking about this massive influx of genes at least into certain places in Europe when at the most the admixture charts show about, what, 20%?

It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)

Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.

Alan
11-06-15, 07:16
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

That explains why someone with inside information said Armenians are 30% European H&G. Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense. They also seem to simply put all UHG ancestry under WHG. Not taking into account that EEF is mostly UHG + Basal Eurasian.



Another contradiction in the paper is, that they say "The Caucasus component in Yamna seems to be of native Steppe origin and doesn't come from the South of the Caucasus". Just to say in another statement. "Yamna is based on Maikop groups who merged with incoming CT people". And from where did those Maikop groups come?

Arame
11-06-15, 07:54
Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense.

Agree Alan.

Garrick
11-06-15, 07:55
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

The same thing applies to the "southern" component in Yamnaya. Do they attempt to define it anywhere? I also don't get how the Yamnaya can be half "modern Armenian like" in Lazaridis terms but have no Near Eastern farmer ancestry. Even according to this group's own admixture chart modern Armenians have Yamnaya ancestry and the Neolithic farmer ancestry that went to Europe.

If these "Caucasus" people who mixed with the more northern "steppe" like people (?) to create Yamnaya weren't farmers, were they still of the same general type of ancestry, .i.e. largely of this type of "Basal" Ancestry mixed with some sort of South Eurasian, but weren't part of the Neolithic revolution? But then how does Maykop fit into all of this?

In order to make sense of this doesn't it seem that we really need a Maykop genome? I mean, they talk about all the culture coming through Maykop, the kurgans, the metallurgy, I think they even said the wheel and wagons if I remember correctly, but who were the Maykop people? Are we meant to assume they were the same as the people on the steppe or different? Did they mix?

I'm also confused by their references to CT spreading east onto the steppe. Wouldn't the people of the CT have been European Neolithic farmers? So, why is there no signal of them in Yamnaya? Is it because most of the Yamnaya samples are from the eastern areas? Was it different in the western areas?

I also don't get why they keep talking about this massive influx of genes at least into certain places in Europe when at the most the admixture charts show about, what, 20%?

It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)

Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.

I wrote that model of Lazaridis et al is imprecise/imperfect. I tried to use some mild words. I have stated that conclusions based on this model can be wrong. This model has inconsistencies and approximations, and it will certainly be replaced by a better and more robust models.

...
EEF is hybrid component, ENF is based component, mixed European/Near Eastern Early Farmers

I supposed EEF will be replaced with ENF when scientists have more data.


Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense.

And I think so. Scientists should sequence a genome from Neolithic Near East, and we will know.

We'll know of more ancient European meta-populations as it will be many more studies and many more genomes are sequenced from across Eurasia and Northern Africa.

arvistro
11-06-15, 07:56
I am just having a thought now. If Lith/Lat have 0 farmer ancestry whatsoever, should I call my grandpa and tell him to quit what he is doing, since he is genetically incapable? ;)

bicicleur
11-06-15, 08:42
It's likely it's of the Sardinian variety, looking at autosomals Remedello were basically Sardinians.

where did you find the Remedello autosomals ?

the Sardinian variety would be I2a1a-M26, the Yamnaya I2a1b-L621

Remedello is suposed to be IE (steppe origin) because of its burial customs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remedello_culture

bicicleur
11-06-15, 08:50
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. This is clearly the geographic distribution of the Scythians during the Iron Age. I have said it in the past already.

Scythians were a mix of R1a*, J2, J1b and some other Haplogroups such as R1b/R2 LT*, G just like any other Indo_Iranic tribe. It gets obvious if you look at the Haplogroup distribution of modern Indo_Iranic speakers. It can't be "acculturated" Haplogroup if it exists among all branches of the Indo_Iranic family.

The Bronze Age individual might have been one of them.

there is no J2 whatsoever found amognst the bronze age individuals, Indo-Iranain seems to be exclusively R1
iron age Scythian J2 seems very likely
ultimately iron age J2 was replaced by Turkic and Mongolian N1c and C2 (no skelletons analysed yet)

bicicleur
11-06-15, 09:02
From the paper

do they have some proof to back that up?
there was a large populated steppe area in between Cucuteni and Maykop

bicicleur
11-06-15, 09:06
As far as I have understand, they say a Maikop population was living on the Steppes, those domesticated Horses, invented the wheel, had Kurgan burials etc. and than Cucuteni/Tripojie culture had a "population explosion" and started to migraate to the Steppes mixing and adopting into the local Maikop groups. Going by that

It seems they have this theories.

1. PIE descend from Maikop culture.

2. PIE descend from the invading CT culture

3. PIE is a hybrid of the Maikop and Neolithic CT culture.

the first invasion from the steppe into the Balkans, supposedly IE (Anatolian language?) was 4300-3800 BC, that was before Maykop (3700-3000 BC)

bicicleur
11-06-15, 09:08
Not as far as Altais. And stiill no sign of J2 during Neolithic. All J appear in connection with Bronze to Iron Age (Indo European) expansion,


By the way Iron Age Russian in this case is actually Siberia. The two samples are from just North of Kazakhstan and the Altais. basically the territory known to us as early Scythia.

did you find J2 among the bronze age individuals?

bicicleur
11-06-15, 09:17
Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.

because of their burial customs

IMO Italic languages arrived much later, some 1300 BC from Hungary into N-Italy, later spreading south as being replaced by Celts in the north

bicicleur
11-06-15, 09:20
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but


It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)



I only got some bits and pieces, not the full text

I think it's better to try and absorb some info and draw some conclusions a few days later

btw, there is more to come in the next few years :

https://twitter.com/NatureNews/status/608730560303915009/photo/1

arvistro
11-06-15, 09:28
Speaking of Corded Ware R1a contacts.
It seems that this site, although looking semi-scientific and very pro-Baltic made a lot of sense WITHOUT KNOWING NEW DNA DATA! It is about Finno-Ugric, Baltic and Indo-Iranian ancient linguistic and cultural contacts in relation to proto-Balts.
http://www.suduva.com/virdainas/proto.htm

Arame
11-06-15, 10:28
The mysterious "teal" component is present almost in all BA cultures. Sintashta and Afanasievo also.
So who are this "teal" people?

Arame
11-06-15, 10:31
BA Baltic and Montenegro had virtualy no ENF!. I can understand for Baltics but isn't Montenegro in Balkans?

Tomenable
11-06-15, 10:37
Does anyone know the Y-DNA haplogroups of the following males from this study:

RISE598, Turlojiske (Lithuania), LBA
RISE1, Oblaczkowo (Poland), Corded Ware
RISE139, Chociwel (Poland), Corded Ware
RISE431, Leki Male (Poland), CW / proto-Unetice
RISE596, Velika Gruda (Montenegro), LBA
RISE145, Polwica (Poland), Unetice
RISE150, Przeclawice (Poland), Unetice

As well as Y-DNA of these new German samples and Czech samples of all cultures?

Fire Haired14
11-06-15, 10:43
Does anyone know the Y-DNA haplogroups of the following males from this study:

RISE598, Turlojiske (Lithuania), LBA
RISE1, Oblaczkowo (Poland), Corded Ware
RISE139, Chociwel (Poland), Corded Ware
RISE431, Leki Male (Poland), CW / proto-Unetice
RISE596, Velika Gruda (Montenegro), LBA
RISE145, Polwica (Poland), Unetice
RISE150, Przeclawice (Poland), Unetice

As well as of new German CW and BA samples and Czech samples of all cultures?

Y DNA frequencies.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8&authuser=0

No results given for Unetice. You can do the math by looking at the # of CWC males and how many R1as, R1bs, and R1s they have. An R1 was found in CWC, Sweden, Germany, Poland.

Tomenable
11-06-15, 10:48
Thank you. I have seen frequencies before, but there is no data on each sample.

And for example Corded Ware samples are also from Bavaria (Bergrheinfeld, Tiefbrunn).

I wonder where is this basal R1 Corded Ware sample from, which site and country.

Anyway most of samples from Poland must be R1a, because most of CW samples are R1a.

This one sample of Corded Ware R1b is probably from Bavaria, not from more eastern sites.


No results given for Unetice.

Too bad.

But looking at Unetice samples previously published in other studies, these ones will probably be mostly R1a and I2. Especially that these new samples of Unetice are from more eastern sites (Poland) than previous (Germany):

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe/page8

Tomenable
11-06-15, 10:57
All in all - a striking continuity between Bronze Age Poland and modern Poland. R1a, R1a, R1a everywhere... But we need samples from the Iron Age to see if Germanic tribes invaded and expelled Bronze Age Poles, or never visited that area.

Another possibility is that Bronze Age "Poles" were first Germanized (in the Iron Age), and later Slavicized (in the Dark Ages).

And there was R1a continuity all the time, language changed, but actual migrations of people were not massive.

Anyway - it doesn't look like East Germanic tribes were R1a and later emigrated with that R1a, because there is almost no R1a in North Africa, Iberia, Italy, France, etc. - places to which East Germanic tribes allegedly came from Poland.

So either R1a people were expelled from Poland in the Iron Age, and later returned in the Dark Ages - or there was never actually a massive East Germanic immigration and later emigration from Poland to the Roman Empire.

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

This genetic continuity since the Bronze Age, and throughout the Iron Age, until the Middle Ages and modern times (West Slavic populations) is what prof. Janusz Piontek and prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz of Poznan University have been claiming for years (based on anthropological analysis of skulls, bones and teeth, because DNA was unavailable back then):


Prof. Janusz Piontek made a demographical simulation, taking into account the level of immigration and assimilation. Thereafter he researched osteological material - examining ancient bones. On this basis he estimated what was the dynamics of demographic developments during the period of Roman influences, and during the early Middle Ages. He compared data concerning Wielbark and Przeworsk cultures and that concerning the early Middle Ages. The results of his research were in disagreement with the popular theory of total depopulation and then re-population (...) Piontek's results are consistent with results of research by dr Robert Dąbrowski, who collected rich craniological material from the period of Roman influences and from the early Middle Ages. He used the method of craniological distances of Mahalanobis, as a method taking into account individual skulls (...) It turned out, that skulls of people representing Wielbark, Przeworsk and Chernyakhov cultures were very similar to early Medieval skulls of Slavic populations. (...) According to prof. Piontek and his team, the theory according to which there took place a morphological discontinuity within populations living in what is now Poland in times between the period of Roman influence and the early Middle Ages, is impossible to sustain. Similarities were extraordinarily high.

- We anthropologists do not claim, that we are explaining political, historical, and ethnic-cultural transformations. - said prof. Piontek - We only indicate, that the popular allochthonistic hypothesis, which assumes a total depopulation of the Oder and Vistula basins and then a renewed colonization of those areas by a distinct immigrant population, is not correct.

Because some of Polish anthropologists and even archaeologists question the possibility of researching genetic similarities between human populations based on craniological and odontological features (comparing skulls, bones and teeth), prof. Piontek presented examples from recent global literature which debunk their assertions. He cited several specific examples from literature on the subject, concerning analyses of ethnogenesis based on nonmetrical features - performed by scientists from Japan. Also commonly accepted are studies on teeth, in order to prove or disprove morphological continuity of population in time - for example research by prof. Joel irish concerning the continuity/discontinuity of settlement in Egypt. Piontek proved that standards he used in his studies on ethnogenesis of Slavs are in agreement with standards accepted today in the scientific world. (...)

- Lack of intergroup differences between populations from times of Roman influences and later West Slavic populations, in terms of craniological and odontological features, testifies to the similar genetic structure of both populations - prof. Piontek finished his lecture.

Translated from: http://archeowiesci.pl/2008/11/12/od-kiedy-slowianie-zyja-nad-wisla-i-odra/

The only partial interruptions of genetic and population continuity between the Oder and the Vistula since the Bronze Age until now was first the German "Drang nach Osten" expansion since the Middle Ages onwards, and later the expulsion of German, as well as culturally Germanized (descended from Medieval West Slavs) population after WW2.

And of course we still don't have any Y-DNA samples from the Iron Age - only mtDNA (link below):

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

But skull shapes of the Iron Age population were strikingly similar to skull shapes of the later West Slavs.

Arame
11-06-15, 11:01
I don't know was this table posted here?.

http://abload.de/img/nature14507-sf61rwr50.jpg

arvistro
11-06-15, 11:02
Ok, so now some speculations that I feel pretty confident.

Corded Ware seems to be related to R1a folk linked to Satem language branches (Baltic, Slavic, Indian, Iranian). Baltic linguists had been speculating about (proto) Balts, Slavs, Indo-Iranians living together in forest zone (and touching Finno-Ugric tribes) since ages, based on certain linguistic, cultural and mythological cross-paralels. Nice to see dna proving or at least not contradicting that.

Of course when R1a proto-Indo-Iranians left for their journey South they admixed with many local folks before arriving to India/Iran. But they took language, culture and R1a impulse with them. Same is true for (modern) Balts who mixed with coastal Baltic natives and early Corded pioneers to create modern Balts.


A lot of things where I dont even a have clue now. First, origins of language and developments before Corded. What is the role of Cucuteni, EHG, Caucasus in creation of PIE? Did it came from East and mixed with NW Caucasian as promoted by Kourtland in his Indo-Uralic?

Many swords shall be broken until we get to where it came from :) I like the idea of Yamna culture being a cocktail of many things (farmers, hunters, Caucasians, EHG, and so on). Message it gives is great and modern - Diversity is Power!

Exchange of cultures, ideas and lifestyles that produced a new global impulse.

p.s.
Another quote that I met on one of many forums that I enjoyed (originally from Anthony?), was that IE expansion seems to be rather peaceful and gradual and not Hunn like horde. This fits to what and how I see developments in Baltic.

Arame
11-06-15, 11:10
Another quote that I met on one of many forums that I enjoyed (originally from Anthony?), was that IE expansion seems to be rather peaceful and gradual and not Hunn like horde. This fits to what and how I see developments in Baltic.

Exact! The IE spread was quite different from late Hun like hordes.
We can best see this in Hittite example. Hittite never tried to destroy the culture of their predecessors. They adopted the Hattic/Hurrian religious customs. They adopted even the country name. Their royal archives are the main source of our knowledge about Hattic and Hurrian languages and religion.

Eldritch
11-06-15, 11:13
where did you find the Remedello autosomals ? the Sardinian variety would be I2a1a-M26, the Yamnaya I2a1b-L621 Remedello is suposed to be IE (steppe origin) because of its burial customs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remedello_culture

If you check the map you can see that the three Remedello spots are close to modern Sardinians sample.

Fire Haired14
11-06-15, 11:14
The "R1" was probably not able to be tested for an R1a or R1b SNP. It doesn't mean it's R1*.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 11:17
The mysterious "teal" component is present almost in all BA cultures. Sintashta and Afanasievo also.
So who are this "teal" people?

my guess : the Maykop people

Tomenable
11-06-15, 11:24
According to Patrick Geary (links below), there is no genetic evidence of large-scale Germanic migrations anywhere except for Anglo-Saxon migration to England:

Part 1:

http://video.ias.edu/node/5304

Part 2:

https://video.ias.edu/topology/2013/1002-PatrickGeary

This lecture above says that there is no genetic evidence of large scale emigration of East Germanic tribes from East-Central Europe to the Roman Empire.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 11:29
All in all - a striking continuity between Bronze Age Poland and modern Poland. R1a, R1a, R1a everywhere... But we need samples from the Iron Age to see if Germanic tribes invaded and expelled Bronze Age Poles, or never visited that area.

Another possibility is that Bronze Age "Poles" were first Germanized (in the Iron Age), and later Slavicized (in the Dark Ages).

And there was R1a continuity all the time, language changed, but actual migrations of people were not massive.

Anyway - it doesn't look like East Germanic tribes were R1a and later emigrated with that R1a, because there is almost no R1a in North Africa, Iberia, Italy, France, etc. - places to which East Germanic tribes allegedly came from Poland.

So either R1a people were expelled from Poland in the Iron Age, and later returned in the Dark Ages - or there was never actually a massive East Germanic immigration and later emigration from Poland to the Roman Empire.

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

This genetic continuity since the Bronze Age, and throughout the Iron Age, until the Middle Ages and modern times (West Slavic populations) is what prof. Janusz Piontek and prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz of Poznan University have been claiming for years (based on anthropological analysis of skulls, bones and teeth, because DNA was unavailable back then):



Translated from: http://archeowiesci.pl/2008/11/12/od-kiedy-slowianie-zyja-nad-wisla-i-odra/

The only partial interruptions of genetic and population continuity between the Oder and the Vistula since the Bronze Age until now was first the German "Drang nach Osten" expansion since the Middle Ages onwards, and later the expulsion of German, as well as culturally Germanized (descended from Medieval West Slavs) population after WW2.

And of course we still don't have any Y-DNA samples from the Iron Age - only mtDNA (link below):

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110839

But skull shapes of the Iron Age population were strikingly similar to skull shapes of the later West Slavs.

we should know the subclades of R1a
bronze age Polish R1a may be different from Slavic or present day Polish R1a
maybe even some bronze age Polish R1b is yet to be found

Tomenable
11-06-15, 11:30
Corded Ware seems to be related to R1a folk linked to Satem language branches

You cannot link DNA to Satem, because Satemization took place several times, and it was a very simple sound change. Besides, there is no absolute correlation between R1a and Satem and R1b and Kentum, since the Tocharians were Kentum and R1a (11 out of 12 samples of Tocharian Mummies from the Tarim basin were R1a, one was K*) and the Armenians are Satem but mostly R1b. Also Luvian branch of Anatolian languages was Satem, but everything indicates that the Luvians were mostly R1b haplotype 35 rather than R1a. About Satemization (posted by a linguist on another forum):

"(...) Satemization happened at least twice independently from each other, and maybe more times. The division of Proto-Anatolian languages into Kentum Hittite plus Palaic languages, and Satem Luvian and its descendant languages, had to be independent from the rest of IE. The whole process of Satemization is trivial, by the way, there are many examples for evolution of soft k/g towards s/z. All three Slavic palatalizations, Kashubian pronounciation, for example -szczi instead of -ski, Romance evolution of soft k into cz and c (this is how Latin kentum resulted in French sę), examples in Germanic (English, Swedish), etc. This linguistic mechanism is very common, it could take place repeatedly in multiple times and places. (...)"

Sile
11-06-15, 11:35
I don't know was this table posted here?.

http://abload.de/img/nature14507-sf61rwr50.jpg

what do you mean?

baRem = Remendel of which 66% are I2 and 33% are I2a ..............ydna

baHu = 50% is I2, 25% is G2a and 25% is I2a

baRem for MtDNa = 33% each for H2, J1 and X2


is this what you are after?

Tomenable
11-06-15, 11:38
bronze age Polish R1a may be different from Slavic or present day Polish R1a

Already that R1a from that circa 3100 years old Lusatian Culture's site in East Germany (Halberstadt) was Z280 - the same major subclade as 40%-60% of present-day Polish R1a. I do not expect to find some exotic (and very rare nowadays - for example L664 is mostly North-West European, but quite rare) branches. Most of R1a in Europe today belongs to either Z280 or M458, both of which are abundant in Poles (in roughly equal proportions). Of course you can argue that "truly Slavic is only M558, not M458" - but M558 is very young (still older than the alleged Slavic replacement of the allegedly Non-Slavic populations that allegedly inhabited those areas before the alleged Slavs, though) and is under M458 anyway.

Moreover, M458* and M558 always go in pairs - in Poles as well both of these subclades are common, not just M558.

If you check Y-DNA of Cretans then about 10% of them are R1a and part of this is M458, the other part M558. There was some Slavic settlement on Crete in the Middle Ages according to written records. But part of it could as well be older. M458 is old enough that some of it could come to Greece already with Achaeans, but Slavs could bring yet more of it later.

Anyway I'm not necessarily insisting on linguistic continuity - languages may change even without sweeping migrations.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 11:39
Ok, so now some speculations that I feel pretty confident.

Corded Ware seems to be related to R1a folk linked to Satem language branches (Baltic, Slavic, Indian, Iranian). Baltic linguists had been speculating about (proto) Balts, Slavs, Indo-Iranians living together in forest zone (and touching Finno-Ugric tribes) since ages, based on certain linguistic, cultural and mythological cross-paralels. Nice to see dna proving or at least not contradicting that.

Of course when R1a proto-Indo-Iranians left for their journey South they admixed with many local folks before arriving to India/Iran. But they took language, culture and R1a impulse with them. Same is true for (modern) Balts who mixed with coastal Baltic natives and early Corded pioneers to create modern Balts.


A lot of things where I dont even a have clue now. First, origins of language and developments before Corded. What is the role of Cucuteni, EHG, Caucasus in creation of PIE? Did it came from East and mixed with NW Caucasian as promoted by Kourtland in his Indo-Uralic?

Many swords shall be broken until we get to where it came from :) I like the idea of Yamna culture being a cocktail of many things (farmers, hunters, Caucasians, EHG, and so on). Message it gives is great and modern - Diversity is Power!

Exchange of cultures, ideas and lifestyles that produced a new global impulse.

p.s.
Another quote that I met on one of many forums that I enjoyed (originally from Anthony?), was that IE expansion seems to be rather peaceful and gradual and not Hunn like horde. This fits to what and how I see developments in Baltic.

I don't agree about diversity

There seems to be a lot of cultural and technological (metallurgy) input from different cultures, that was absorbed by just one or few small tribes.
But the genetic picture of BA people is not diverse at all : they are R1a and R1b mixed with a little I2 (from the western Pontic Steppe or from Cucuteni) and a little Q1a (from Karasuk culture west of Altai Mts)

Same happens with the onset of the iron age. That seems to be J2 exclusively.

arvistro
11-06-15, 11:40
You cannot link DNA to Satem, because Satemization took place several times, and it was a very simple sound change. Besides, there is no absolute correlation between R1a and Satem and R1b and Kentum, since the Tocharians were Kentum and R1a (11 out of 12 samples of Tocharian Mummies from the Tarim basin were R1a, one was K*) and Armenians are Satem but mostly R1b. Also Luvian branch of Anatolian languages was Satem, but everything indicates that the Luvians were mostly R1b haplotype 35 rather than R1a. About Satemization (posted by a linguist on another forum):

"(...) Satemization happened at least twice independently from each other, and maybe more times. The division of Proto-Anatolian languages into Kentum Hittite plus Palaic languages, and Satem Luvian and its descendant languages, had to be independent from the rest of IE. The whole process of Satemization is trivial, by the way, there are many examples for evolution of soft k/g towards s/z. All three Slavic palatalizations, Kashubian pronounciation, for example -szczi instead of -ski, Romance evolution of soft k into cz and c (this is how Latin kentum resulted in French sę), examples in Germanic (English, Swedish), etc. This linguistic mechanism is very common, it could take place repeatedly in multiple times and places. (...)"
Ok, replace Satem with Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian in my text.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 11:45
Already that R1a from the Lusatian Culture's site in East Germany (Halberstadt) was Z280 - the same as 40%-60% of modern Polish R1a. I do not expect to find some exotic (and very rare nowadays - for example L664 is mostly North-West European, but very rare) branches. Most of R1a in Europe today belongs to either Z280 or M458, both of which are abundant in Poles (in roughly equal proportions). Of course you can argue that "truly Slavic is only M558, not M458" - but M558 is very young, and is under M458 anyway.

Moreover, M458* and M558 always go in pairs - in Poles as well both of these subclades are common, not just M558.

If you check Y-DNA of Cretans then about 10% of them are R1a and half of this is M458, the other half M558. There was Slavic settlement on Crete in the Middle Ages according to written records, but part of it could as well be older.

I suspected L664 was much wider spread before Slavic settlement, but you're right, Z280 was detected, and L664 not.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 11:52
You cannot link DNA to Satem, because Satemization took place several times, and it was a very simple sound change. Besides, there is no absolute correlation between R1a and Satem and R1b and Kentum, since the Tocharians were Kentum and R1a (11 out of 12 samples of Tocharian Mummies from the Tarim basin were R1a, one was K*) and Armenians are Satem but mostly R1b. Also Luvian branch of Anatolian languages was Satem, but everything indicates that the Luvians were mostly R1b haplotype 35 rather than R1a. About Satemization (posted by a linguist on another forum):

"(...) Satemization happened at least twice independently from each other, and maybe more times. The division of Proto-Anatolian languages into Kentum Hittite plus Palaic languages, and Satem Luvian and its descendant languages, had to be independent from the rest of IE. The whole process of Satemization is trivial, by the way, there are many examples for evolution of soft k/g towards s/z. All three Slavic palatalizations, Kashubian pronounciation, for example -szczi instead of -ski, Romance evolution of soft k into cz and c (this is how Latin kentum resulted in French sę), examples in Germanic (English, Swedish), etc. This linguistic mechanism is very common, it could take place repeatedly in multiple times and places. (...)"

I allready told many times here, there is no proof whatsoever the R1a Tarim mummies are Tocharian.
They are all less then 4000 years old and could very well be part of the Indo-Iranian expansion.
The area were Tocharian writing was found is today still rich in R1b (Uyghurs in the western part of the Tarim basin)

arvistro
11-06-15, 11:54
I don't agree about diversity

There seems to be a lot of cultural and technological (metallurgy) input from different cultures, that was absorbed by just one or few small tribes.
But the genetic picture of BA people is not diverse at all : they are R1a and R1b mixed with a little I2 (from the western Pontic Steppe or from Cucuteni) and a little Q1a (from Karasuk culture west of Altai Mts)

Same happens with the onset of the iron age. That seems to be J2 exclusively.
I agree that Outcome was not as diverse as Inputs :)

Tomenable
11-06-15, 12:11
allready told many times here, there is no proof whatsoever the R1a Tarim mummies are Tocharian.

This is the only IE ancient DNA and the only Caucasoid mummies that we have from that region, so far.

In later burials from the Tarim Basin, mummies look increasingly Mongoloid because they mixed with the locals.

Are you suggesting that Tocharian language was brought into the region by that Mongoloid element?


They are all less then 4000 years old and could very well be part of the Indo-Iranian expansion.

It is commonly accepted that the material culture of the Tocharians descended from the Afanasievo Culture.

This new study (discussed in this thread) IIRC has also samples from Afanasievo - ALL of them seem to be R1a.

Tocharian language is very old - it split from the PIE dialect continuum soon after Anatolian, before Satemization.

If you think that the Tarim Mummies - who had lived in the same area where MUCH LATER Tocharian language was used in writing (4000 years ago they were still illiterate) - were not Tocharian-speakers, then it means that you suggest that the Tocharians actually came there AFTER the Iranians, not that they came there before the Iranians.

Where were the Tocharians hiding 4000 years ago in that "ocean of Iranian peoples", if not in the Tarim Basin?

Everything indicates that they had to be there before the Iranians, even though their language is not attested that early on, because they simply did not have a written language at that time - there were still illiterate at that time, only later they got an alphabet. And the Tarim Mummies are the very earliest Caucasoid mummies from that area.

Before the Tarim Mummies the area was Mongoloid, and after the Tarim Mummies it was mixed race. The only "quite pure" Caucasoids (but not entirely pure, because they already had C4 mtDNA, indicating intermarriage of Indo-European males with local North-East Asian females) were the Tarim Mummies. Please read about this - AFAIK all Xinjiang burials younger than the Mummies of Ürümchi, contain increasingly more and more Mongoloid-looking people.

I already told you, that Satemization was a very trivial sound change - not a change in DNA.


The area were Tocharian writing was found is today still rich in R1b (Uyghurs in the western part of the Tarim basin)

Indo-European Tajiks in the western part of the Tarim Basin are 45% R1a and over 18% J. And they actually speak Indo-European (yes, Iranian, but at least not Turkic), unlike Uyghurs who speak Turkic - and indeed some subclades of R1b could be "originally" Turkic. R1b-M478 doesn't look very Indo-European, neither does R1b-V88.

Tajik Y-DNA (44.7% R1a and 18.4% J): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_Central_and_North_Asian_populat ions#cite_ref-Wells2001_5-5

Tajiks of western China (they also look more Caucasoid than Uyghurs, who have more mixed looks):

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


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

BTW - Tajiks is an "umbrella term" that encompasses several IE-speaking groups, including the Sarikoli:

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

Alan
11-06-15, 12:18
there is no J2 whatsoever found amognst the bronze age individuals, Indo-Iranain seems to be exclusively R1
iron age Scythian J2 seems very likely
ultimately iron age J2 was replaced by Turkic and Mongolian N1c and C2 (no skelletons analysed yet)


There is J2 found among Bronze Age Hungarian. J2 appears not earlier than Bronze Age.

Scythians are an Iron Age phenomenon, Therefore Bronze Age shouldn't play much role for my observation in the previous post.
Only some Bronze Age Andronovo samples have been tested so far. But Indo_Iranians is not equal to Andronovo. Proto Indo_Iranians = Andronovo+BMAC.

Also J2 is far too uniformly found among all Indo_Iranian speakers therefore I have hard time accepting the theory that J2 is "introductive" rather than ancestral part of it.

arvistro
11-06-15, 12:25
Maybe J2 is BMAC then?

Alan
11-06-15, 12:32
the first invasion from the steppe into the Balkans, supposedly IE (Anatolian language?) was 4300-3800 BC, that was before Maykop (3700-3000 BC)

No single evidence to back that up. Only a hypothesis which I strictly doubt. Anatolian branch rather arrived through the (North?)East.

Alan
11-06-15, 12:39
Maybe J2 is BMAC then?

possibility is there. But than why J2a in Bronze Age Hungary in combination with first signs of ANE?

We need more samplings.

Tomenable
11-06-15, 12:45
It is commonly accepted that the material culture of the Tocharians descended from the Afanasievo Culture.

This new study (discussed in this thread) IIRC has also samples from Afanasievo - ALL of them seem to be R1a.

Sorry, this 100% R1a is apparently not Afanesevo culture, but Bronze Age Afontova Gora:

(I thought that baAfGo stands for "Afanasievo something", as I've never heard about Afontova Gora before):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf6.jpg

Do they also have Y-DNA samples from Afanasevo, though? I think I've seen some information, that they do.

Tomenable
11-06-15, 12:55
The "R1" was probably not able to be tested for an R1a or R1b SNP. It doesn't mean it's R1*.

"Probably" - but on what basis is this claim ???

12 Tarim Mummies had 11 R1a and 1 K*, so maybe the Corded Ware had - apart from R1a - also R1*.

Tomenable
11-06-15, 13:04
maybe even some bronze age Polish R1b is yet to be found

I wouldn't be surprised.

Modern Poles have 12-18% R1b and a large part of this is R1b1b2a*-L23(xL51), which rare among Germans.

Most of the rest of Polish R1b is U106 and U152 - see Myres 2010 (Excel file with details in the link):

http://www.speedyshare.com/fXR5N/R1b1b2-excellent-sub-haplogroup-study-Myres-2010.xls

Percent of R1b1b2a*-L23(xL51) is violet color (as many as 5,44% of modern Poles have it according to Myres). By contrast less than one percent of Germans have this branch, so it did not come to Poland with Germans:

http://s28.postimg.org/ltbvvlfct/R1b_PL_GER.png

Tomenable
11-06-15, 13:34
Czechoslovakian R1b - unlike German R1b - also has a large share of R1b1b2a*-L23(xL51):

http://img814.imageshack.us/img814/1572/image001z.png

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/1654/image001p.png

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/7271/image001l.png

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/9094/image001c.png

From: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?21940-R1b-pie-charts&p=313496&viewfull=1#post313496
(http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?21940-R1b-pie-charts&p=313496&viewfull=1#post313496)
Myres 2010: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html

(http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?21940-R1b-pie-charts&p=313496&viewfull=1#post313496)

Silesian
11-06-15, 14:24
we should know the subclades of R1a
bronze age Polish R1a may be different from Slavic or present day Polish R1a
maybe even some bronze age Polish R1b is yet to be found
Polish L23[51] R1b is just starting to get defined into various branches. For example R1b-9219/7822 is found among Ossets/Jászság population- https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jaszsag/about perhaps as far away as Pakistan. Here are a few snapshots.

Poland
7286

Ossetian/Jász
7287

East
7288

Pakistan

7289

Balkans

7290

bicicleur
11-06-15, 14:38
Sorry, this 100% R1a is apparently not Afanesevo culture, but Bronze Age Afontova Gora:

(I thought that baAfGo stands for "Afanasievo something", as I've never heard about Afontova Gora before):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf6.jpg

Do they also have Y-DNA samples from Afanasevo, though? I think I've seen some information, that they do.

according to the list Fire Haired posted, all Afanasievo samples were female

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=1004304005

have a look at this map made by Maciamo :

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_R1b_World.png

I think this map shows the pockets where the Afanasievo did hide for the Indo-Iranian invasion.
Notice there is a large pocket in the western Tarim Basin, that is the area where Tocharian writings were found, the Tarim mummies were found in the eastern Tarim Basin.

Also have a look here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majiayao_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qijia_culture

these cultures existed before Indo-Iranians, IMO the Tochars had contact through Tarim Basin with NW China.

Check this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Xiajiadian_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Xiajiadian_culture

IMO the Jinggouzi on the Mongolian steppe got cattle from the Tochars

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23249313

The Jinggouzi were haplogroup C2e and invaded northern China 3000 BC

The Tochars must have had a tremendous influence over a very large area, but genetically they dissapeared into a few pockets.

They were mostly R1b.
Todays presence of R1a in Asia is almost all Z93 which is to young to be Tochar.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 14:47
Polish L23[51] R1b is just starting to get defined into various branches. For example R1b-9219/7822 is found among Ossets/Jászság population- https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/jaszsag/about perhaps as far away as Pakistan. Here are a few snapshots.

Poland
7286

Ossetian/Jász
7287

East
7288

Pakistan

7289

Balkans

7290

it seems a lot is left to be discovered about IE and about R1a/R1b
also check post #76 here above

Tomenable
11-06-15, 14:54
Todays presence of R1a in Asia is almost all Z93 which is to young to be Tochar.

But Tarim Mummies were not Z93 - all 11 males were positive for M198 but negative for Z93.

Probably they were under M417, maybe the paragroup M417* itself.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 15:01
No single evidence to back that up. Only a hypothesis which I strictly doubt. Anatolian branch rather arrived through the (North?)East.

4300-3800 BC lifestyle in Balkans changed completely, population became less dense and shifted from agriculture to husbandry ; hilltop settlements appeared, as well as steppe cultural elements
there are indications climate had shifted, which struck agriculture ; but this climate shift could also have triggered migration from the steppe
I admit the picture is not clear.
Anatolian is estimated 6000 years old, but the only recorded writings are less then 4000 years old. What happened in between is not sure.
You cllaim Anatolian branch rather arrived through the (North?)East. Do you have any proof?

bicicleur
11-06-15, 16:24
But Tarim Mummies were not Z93 - all 11 males were positive for M198 but negative for Z93.

Probably they were under M417, maybe the paragroup M417* itself.

It is possible. I've read the mummies would have been tested for Z93, but I have not seen confirmation of the results yet.
Anyway the fact that there is a lot of R1a in Asia today does not prove Tocharians (IMO Afanasievo) were R1a. There is much more R1b in Asia than R1aZ93-
Todays genetical footprint of Tochars is small.

Angela
11-06-15, 16:52
That explains why someone with inside information said Armenians are 30% European H&G. Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense. They also seem to simply put all UHG ancestry under WHG. Not taking into account that EEF is mostly UHG + Basal Eurasian.



Another contradiction in the paper is, that they say "The Caucasus component in Yamna seems to be of native Steppe origin and doesn't come from the South of the Caucasus". Just to say in another statement. "Yamna is based on Maikop groups who merged with incoming CT people". And from where did those Maikop groups come?

I agree. It seems as if some of the conclusions here don't necessarily flow from the evidence they present or are at times even in contradiction with it, unless I'm not understanding it.

Where did Maykop come from, and more importantly, what were they like? They don't have a Maykop genome.

I'm particularly puzzled by some of the stuff in the admixture analysis. Was it just the same old Admixture Program? It wasn't done like the one based on f4 stats like Haak et al, right?

Did you guys take a look at this?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images_article/nature14507-f3.jpg

He has Yamnaya as basically made up of two components, but they were both already present in Malta? No wonder he says nothing came from south of the Caucasus.

Then take a look at the this one:
7291

Half of Yamnaya is now exactly the same as the WHG. The neolithic European farmers are half Bedouin and half WHG (which may or may not be correct). So, when Yamnaya comes into Europe, the WHG goes way up. The "green" Yamnaya portion, which they mean us to believe has been around since Malta, gets halved.

Isn't this just more of Willerslev's thinking that there is continuity of Europeans, or at least northern Europeans, since 20,000-30,000 years ago? He did the same thing in the last paper with which he was associated.


I'm glad we have more ancient dna, and Willerslev's lab may be absolutely great at handling and sequencing ancient dna, but I'm not convinced by some of the things they say.

Angela
11-06-15, 17:02
Ok, so now some speculations that I feel pretty confident.

Corded Ware seems to be related to R1a folk linked to Satem language branches (Baltic, Slavic, Indian, Iranian). Baltic linguists had been speculating about (proto) Balts, Slavs, Indo-Iranians living together in forest zone (and touching Finno-Ugric tribes) since ages, based on certain linguistic, cultural and mythological cross-paralels. Nice to see dna proving or at least not contradicting that.

Of course when R1a proto-Indo-Iranians left for their journey South they admixed with many local folks before arriving to India/Iran. But they took language, culture and R1a impulse with them. Same is true for (modern) Balts who mixed with coastal Baltic natives and early Corded pioneers to create modern Balts.


A lot of things where I dont even a have clue now. First, origins of language and developments before Corded. What is the role of Cucuteni, EHG, Caucasus in creation of PIE? Did it came from East and mixed with NW Caucasian as promoted by Kourtland in his Indo-Uralic?

Many swords shall be broken until we get to where it came from :) I like the idea of Yamna culture being a cocktail of many things (farmers, hunters, Caucasians, EHG, and so on). Message it gives is great and modern - Diversity is Power!

Exchange of cultures, ideas and lifestyles that produced a new global impulse.

p.s.
Another quote that I met on one of many forums that I enjoyed (originally from Anthony?), was that IE expansion seems to be rather peaceful and gradual and not Hunn like horde. This fits to what and how I see developments in Baltic.

Well, I hope so. That's why I was a little disturbed about that quote in the paper about the evidence they found about the butchered family. Was it fifteen of them, something like that?

I sincerely doubt any takeover of territory by one human group at the expense of another human group would ever have been devoid of violence. I have a too poor opinion of human nature to believe that.

epoch
11-06-15, 17:49
I like the idea of Yamna culture being a cocktail of many things (farmers, hunters, Caucasians, EHG, and so on). Message it gives is great and modern - Diversity is Power!

Exchange of cultures, ideas and lifestyles that produced a new global impulse.



Please note that that is just as much an agenda as the nationalistic ones that are scolded here so much. It blurs the view just as much, in similar ways.

Angela
11-06-15, 17:55
Is it settled that one out of the three ancient Armenian samples was E-M123 and two were L23+?

We need more samples to clarify the route and timing of E-V13, I think, but we're heading in the right direction.

I'm still not sure that the L23+ came to Armenia by way of the Balkans, however. Isn't this too old for the "Armenian" language?

We have a lot of L23 in Italy. I wonder if it came directly from the Balkans, or there was a sweep of L23 across Anatolia as well?

No U-152 anywhere right? Perhaps the best bet is indeed that it came to Italy quite a bit later from Hungary?

Angela
11-06-15, 18:09
Please note that that is just as much an agenda as the nationalistic ones that are scolded here so much. It blurs the view just as much, in similar ways.

Indeed, if Willerslev is right, and all of the genetic elements of Yamnaya were around in northern Eurasia since Malta (if I'm interpreting him correctly) then the main contribution of the "southern" regions was all the cultural hallmarks of advanced civilization. As I've said before and as the authors here seem to state, the only contribution of the steppe peoples was the domestication of the horse.

To be fair, of course, innovations were made after that.

Silesian
11-06-15, 18:21
it seems a lot is left to be discovered about IE and about R1a/R1b
also check post #76 here above
Some with a little more expertise parsed 2 R1b samples.

RISE397_Kapan_LBA_Armenia L23+ > Y4371/Z8128+ > Z2106+ CTS9219-
RISE555_Stalingrad Quarry_EBA_Russia PF6399/S10+ > CTS7340/Z2107+ > Z2106+


Z2106+ for RISE397_Kapan_LBA_Armenia is interesting. Wonder if he is PF7763+ or Z2109+. Then again he could be negative for both like K2015-GS000018396-Tabas17 (Tabasarans, Dagestan_Makhachkala) is

Also some early results with Eurogenes K7

Yamana green and blue samples R1b-2105

Kit Number: M951285 Iteration: 1000 Delta-Q: 4.795874e-05 Elapsed Time: 21.28 seconds
Population
ANE 35.26%
ASE 4.10%
WHG-UHG 53.76%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.31%
East_African -
ENF 6.57%

Kit Number: M020637 Iteration: 1000 Delta-Q: 5.830124e-02 Elapsed Time: 15.98 seconds
Population
ANE 34.26%
ASE 4.80%
WHG-UHG 50.78%
East_Eurasian -
West_African 0.38%
East_African -
ENF 9.77%

Take with a grain of salt until Eurogenes does a full K7+Andronovo results+Sintashta results.

Sintashta looks like the beginning of the bridge to South Central Asia. It could be modeled as half Yamnaya and half a population that was 27.22 ANE, 12.05 ASE, 33.83 WHG, 23.51 ENF, 2.99 West African. That's like one admixture event away from some modern South Asians. Half this non-Yamnaya-half-of-Sintashta and half Gedrosian component (35 ANE, 9.28 ASE, 55.11 ENF) results in "31.315 ANE, 10.665 ASE, 16.915 WHG, 39.31 ENF, 1.5 West African" which is almost at modern Haryana Jatt (about 3-4% swing in WHG and ASE).

Andronovo results+Sintashta red


Sintashta
30.99% ANE
8.25% ASE
43.05% WHG-UHG
0.05% East_Eurasian
1.84% West_African
0.00% East_African
15.84% ENF

RISE505 Andronovo results in the ancient DNA news thread. Here are the results:
ANE K7
30.01% ANE
8.04% ASE
37.56% WHG-UHG
5.03% East_Eurasian
0.00% West_African
0.00% East_African
19.36% ENF

Alan
11-06-15, 18:26
"Probably" - but on what basis is this claim ???

12 Tarim Mummies had 11 R1a and 1 K*, so maybe the Corded Ware had - apart from R1a - also R1*.

If it's R1* than as Fire Head said they probably weren't able to test further, cause if it was R1, they would label it as R1. R1* indicates downstream.

Alan
11-06-15, 18:33
4300-3800 BC lifestyle in Balkans changed completely, population became less dense and shifted from agriculture to husbandry ; hilltop settlements appeared, as well as steppe cultural elements
there are indications climate had shifted, which struck agriculture ; but this climate shift could also have triggered migration from the steppe
I admit the picture is not clear.
Anatolian is estimated 6000 years old, but the only recorded writings are less then 4000 years old. What happened in between is not sure.

So this is just an assumption based on vague events which don't really need to have anything to do with the Anatolian branch.




You cllaim Anatolian branch rather arrived through the (North?)East. Do you have any proof?


This is one of the main hypothesis of scientists. I have heard them arriving through the Western Caucasus. Even Maciamo seems to go with that theory as seen on his maps.

Alan
11-06-15, 18:38
Isn't this just more of Willerslev's thinking that there is continuity of Europeans, or at least northern Europeans, since 20,000-30,000 years ago? He did the same thing in the last paper with which he was associated.


I'm glad we have more ancient dna, and Willerslev's lab may be absolutely great at handling and sequencing ancient dna, but I'm not convinced by some of the things they say.


I knew the paper would be political when one of the individuals behind it made a statement like "We don't fear our history in contrast to our neighbors".

It seems European "continuity" has reappeared on the scientific table. This paper almost spasmodically tries to hold any "Near Eastern" admixture at bay.
Despite having enough West Asian data, they don't use any population of it for fst comparison with Bronze Age cultures.

the conclusion they come to often contradict themselves.

The paper says the "Caucasus" portion is native Steppe component, than it says the Steppes were populated by Maikop groups. Maikop as by recent papers is based on Uruk and Northwest Iranian techniques and migration. Also known as the "Uruk Migration".

Going by this paper there has been more migration into West and SouthCentral Asia as there was out.

Alan
11-06-15, 18:51
I'm still not sure that the L23+ came to Armenia by way of the Balkans, however. Isn't this too old for the "Armenian" language?



It is too old.

Angela
11-06-15, 18:58
It is too old.

So, perhaps L23 came south to Armenia early on, but some L23 also went west somehow into Europe. Or, perhaps L23 came earlier through the Balkans with the Anatolian languages, but the coming of the "Armenian" language much later wasn't accompanied by very much genetic change.

Is anyone testing Yamnaya dna from further west on the steppe?

Tomenable
11-06-15, 19:37
R1* indicates downstream.

They actually labeled is as R1, I added * in my post. Because R1* indicates R1 paragroup, right?:

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

Regio X
11-06-15, 19:40
Is it settled that one out of the three ancient Armenian samples was E-M123 and two were L23+?

We need more samples to clarify the route and timing of E-V13, I think, but we're heading in the right direction.

I'm still not sure that the L23+ came to Armenia by way of the Balkans, however. Isn't this too old for the "Armenian" language?

We have a lot of L23 in Italy. I wonder if it came directly from the Balkans, or there was a sweep of L23 across Anatolia as well?

No U-152 anywhere right? Perhaps the best bet is indeed that it came to Italy quite a bit later from Hungary?Coincidentally, I just read an hypothesis on it, in which Maciamo considered, time ago, the possibility of a Trojan origin: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28657-Breakdown-of-R1b-subclades-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)

(forget the attached image)

Angela
11-06-15, 19:55
Coincidentally, I just read a theory about it, in which Maciamo considered, time ago, the possibility of a Trojan origin: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28657-Breakdown-of-R1b-subclades-in-Italy-(Boattini-et-al-)

(forget the attached image)

Maybe the old papers were right and some E1b1b was around in Europe since the Mesolithic, but it was definitely in Europe in the Neolithic (Cardial), and we're now finding it in a Bronze Age Near Eastern setting.

It will be interesting to see if they have gotten yDna from the ancient northwest Anatolian farmer...and what it is, of course. That won't necessarily tell us what was in Troy later, even if the two sites are so close to each other, since yDna can change so quickly, but it will be a start. What I'm also very interested to see is what will show up in the ancient Greeks.

Sile
11-06-15, 20:16
They actually labeled is as R1, I added * in my post. Because R1* indicates R1 paragroup, right?:

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

the * indicates a "dead line" no more mutations

Sile
11-06-15, 20:21
I do not know where genetiker finds his markers , but he found a K in Poland as per the paper

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/


he most likely means............... Haplogroup K2, also known as K-M526 (formerly known as K(xLT) and macrohaplogroup MNOPS (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K2#cite_note-Chiaroni2009-2)), is a human Y-DNA Haplogroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_Haplogroup).


which seems odd as Karafet 2014 states this M526 formed in south-indian to sundaland area
(https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/)

epoch
11-06-15, 20:28
Indeed, if Willerslev is right, and all of the genetic elements of Yamnaya were around in northern Eurasia since Malta (if I'm interpreting him correctly) then the main contribution of the "southern" regions was all the cultural hallmarks of advanced civilization. As I've said before and as the authors here seem to state, the only contribution of the steppe peoples was the domestication of the horse.

To be fair, of course, innovations were made after that.

The reason this is done is that we get to verify theories, not to check out who contributed the most. And the very fact that there actually is a window to the past is wildly exciting. But to keep a clear head one needs to rid oneself of *all* believes and ideologies concerning this.

The concept of Indo-European languages coming from migrations from the area proposed by both this paper and Haaks paper is far from new. Linguists have proposed it for decades, for completely different reasons. Archeologists from before the war have proposed it. Only after the war the doubt set in, partly because of backlash against fascist identifying with Aryans. Now we have reasonable evidence this doubt was wrong.

Alan
11-06-15, 20:39
They actually labeled is as R1, I added * in my post. Because R1* indicates R1 paragroup, right?:

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

the * indicates a "dead line" no more mutations
Ah so R1* would mean it is tested downstream and has no further mutations, while R1 simply means they couldn't or didn't test downstream.

My mistake. thought the * indicates downstream.

Alan
11-06-15, 21:01
@Angela

I found a comment which might explain why the Allenloft conclusions and methods are slightly off.



I find it strange that they didn't include published EHG genomes in their dataset. Instead they use MA-1 to calculate f3 stats for Yamnaya and then they wonder that the admixture signal for Armenian-like admixture is so weak...


The paper was sent to Nature on 14 February 2015, before Haak published genomes, so they apparently couldn't compare them at that time.


So the analyses might have started before Haak published the EHG results.

Angela
11-06-15, 21:22
The reason this is done is that we get to verify theories, not to check out who contributed the most. And the very fact that there actually is a window to the past is wildly exciting. But to keep a clear head one needs to rid oneself of *all* believes and ideologies concerning this.

The concept of Indo-European languages coming from migrations from the area proposed by both this paper and Haaks paper is far from new. Linguists have proposed it for decades, for completely different reasons. Archeologists from before the war have proposed it. Only after the war the doubt set in, partly because of backlash against fascist identifying with Aryans. Now we have reasonable evidence this doubt was wrong.

Is accurately deciphering the direction of flow of cultural innovations "checking out who contributed the most"? I thought it was called intellectual analysis.

I didn't know we are supposed to have teams. Epoch, "It's not personal, it's just business.":grin:

Well, that's not quite accurate. I am keeping score, although I keep the tallies to myself. I am keeping score of how often I've been right (and wrong), so I guess to that extent it's personal. Very egotistical, I know, but there you have it.http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/smile.gif

arvistro
11-06-15, 21:33
Please note that that is just as much an agenda as the nationalistic ones that are scolded here so much. It blurs the view just as much, in similar ways.
That is not an agenda. That is a fact, that when you get together many different ideas and cultures you combine and produce something better (or one kills the other :D). Sitting there on one place alone among same like you people doing your own business does not teach you much.
This is why internet today is so big thing. This is why horses back then was so big thing. Connecting people.

Angela
11-06-15, 21:51
@Angela

I found a comment which might explain why the Allenloft conclusions and methods are slightly off.







So the analyses might have started before Haak published the EHG results.

That might be it. It just made no sense to me to be using Mal'ta to model people who lived tens of thousands of years later, and to be so dogmatic when they don't have a Maykop sample, much less an early near eastern farmer.

Rushing to get into print isn't helpful.

Have you seen these?

RISE416.txt
Dodecad K12b

12 ancestral populations
166770 total SNPs
523 flipped SNPs
2 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
163733 absent SNPs
0.018211 genotype rate
mode genomewide

163733 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

23.69% Gedrosia
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Southeast_Asian
33.20% Atlantic_Med
19.53% North_European
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_Asian
23.57% Caucasus
0.00% Sub_Saharan


Eurogenes K7

7 ancestral populations
229157 total SNPs
18 flipped SNPs
2 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
225068 absent SNPs
0.017844 genotype rate
mode genomewide

225068 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

11.03% ANE
0.00% ASE
44.71% WHG-UHG
0.00% East_Eurasian
2.64% West_African
0.00% East_African
41.61% ENF



Eurogenes Steppe K10

10 ancestral populations
101647 total SNPs
1 flipped SNPs
0 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
99765 absent SNPs
0.018515 genotype rate
mode genomewide

99765 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

33.27% Near_Eastern
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Oceanian
25.74% WHG-UHG
1.64% Sub-Saharan
25.85% Hindu_Kush
13.51% Steppe
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Southeast_Asian

HarappaWorld

16 ancestral populations
188173 total SNPs
1 flipped SNPs
1 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
184719 absent SNPs
0.018355 genotype rate
mode genomewide

184719 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

0.00% S-Indian
22.02% Baloch
29.76% Caucasian
20.04% NE-Euro
0.00% SE-Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
0.00% American
0.00% Beringian
26.41% Mediterranean
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% San
0.00% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
1.77% W-African
RISE416.txt
Dodecad K12b

12 ancestral populations
166770 total SNPs
523 flipped SNPs
2 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
163733 absent SNPs
0.018211 genotype rate
mode genomewide

163733 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

23.69% Gedrosia
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Northwest_African
0.00% Southeast_Asian
33.20% Atlantic_Med
19.53% North_European
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% East_African
0.00% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_Asian
23.57% Caucasus
0.00% Sub_Saharan


Eurogenes K7

7 ancestral populations
229157 total SNPs
18 flipped SNPs
2 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
225068 absent SNPs
0.017844 genotype rate
mode genomewide

225068 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

11.03% ANE
0.00% ASE
44.71% WHG-UHG
0.00% East_Eurasian
2.64% West_African
0.00% East_African
41.61% ENF



Eurogenes Steppe K10

10 ancestral populations
101647 total SNPs
1 flipped SNPs
0 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
99765 absent SNPs
0.018515 genotype rate
mode genomewide

99765 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

33.27% Near_Eastern
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% Oceanian
25.74% WHG-UHG
1.64% Sub-Saharan
25.85% Hindu_Kush
13.51% Steppe
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Southeast_Asian

HarappaWorld

16 ancestral populations
188173 total SNPs
1 flipped SNPs
1 heterozygous SNPs
0 no-calls
184719 absent SNPs
0.018355 genotype rate
mode genomewide

184719 SNPs missing (no-call or absent)

----------------------------
FINAL ADMIXTURE PROPORTIONS:
----------------------------

0.00% S-Indian
22.02% Baloch
29.76% Caucasian
20.04% NE-Euro
0.00% SE-Asian
0.00% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
0.00% American
0.00% Beringian
26.41% Mediterranean
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% San
0.00% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
1.77% W-African

sparkey
11-06-15, 23:08
Ok, so Genetiker (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/) has that I2 sample from Italy (RISE486) as I2-M26>L672, which is the Sardinian subclade, unsurprisingly.

bicicleur
11-06-15, 23:30
Ok, so Genetiker (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/) has that I2 sample from Italy (RISE486) as I2-M26>L672, which is the Sardinian subclade, unsurprisingly.

unsurprising to find it in Italy at that time, maybe
but not in a Remedello context

Alan
11-06-15, 23:31
@Angela the results of which sample is that?

I see it is BaArmenia

Interesting 20% of North European? Nowadays not more than 10% and among Armenians even 4$%.

I think I know what happened as I was saying the Semite (Assyrian) expansion probably happened.

And these results don't really look "identical" to modern Armenians and neither to other populations in the region.

holderlin
11-06-15, 23:43
Indeed, if Willerslev is right, and all of the genetic elements of Yamnaya were around in northern Eurasia since Malta (if I'm interpreting him correctly) then the main contribution of the "southern" regions was all the cultural hallmarks of advanced civilization. As I've said before and as the authors here seem to state, the only contribution of the steppe peoples was the domestication of the horse.

To be fair, of course, innovations were made after that.

This is the most likely mechanism. Whether or not most of the farming lexicon and technology came via CT or through the Caucasus could be debated, but metallurgy seems firmly grounded in the Caucasus.

holderlin
11-06-15, 23:46
4300-3800 BC lifestyle in Balkans changed completely, population became less dense and shifted from agriculture to husbandry ; hilltop settlements appeared, as well as steppe cultural elements
there are indications climate had shifted, which struck agriculture ; but this climate shift could also have triggered migration from the steppe
I admit the picture is not clear.
Anatolian is estimated 6000 years old, but the only recorded writings are less then 4000 years old. What happened in between is not sure.
You cllaim Anatolian branch rather arrived through the (North?)East. Do you have any proof?

Thank you.

Alan
12-06-15, 00:08
A post the user "Sein" made on Anthrogenica


For what it's worth, using formal modelling (based on f-4 stats), modern Indo-Iranians have very substantial levels of Yamnaya-related ancestry.

There is a tendency to look at ADMIXTURE output in these cases, but I think that leads us nowhere. Looking at Chad's ADMIXTURE experiments, that software is very sensitive to slight population/component additions. Drift wrecks havoc with the clusters. At the end of the day, interpreting the output tends to involve a lot of unsubstantiated speculation. Most importantly, there is just no real mechanism for deciding whether the output reflects reality or not.

By contrast, the f4-stat based modelling used in Haak et al. is very robust to things like drift, and doesn't need the "tinkering" involved in ADMIXTURE. Most importantly, the output can be judged on a statistical basis, and is construable as robust, weak, or even as a failure ("infeasible").

I requested David to model the Pashtun and Kalash samples from the HGDP data-set, using the method utilized in Haak et al. (only 10 Pashtun samples, the ones that cluster tightly together, and show some distance to Sindhis and Punjabi Jatts on PCA plots). As always, he was very generous with his time, and was kind enough to try to fit Pashtuns and Kalash as Starcevo_EN + Yamnaya + Dai. The results:

Pashtun
46.7% Yamnaya + 44.1% Starcevo_EN + 9.2% Dai

chisq=0.435

tail probability=0.80468

Kalash
50.1% Yamnaya + 40.1% Starcevo_EN + 9.8% Dai

chisq=0.845

tail probability=0.655534

As you can see, the largest component of Pashtun and Kalash ancestry is Yamnaya. But one also needs to look at the chisq and tail probs. In this case, what we are seeing is exceedingly good. The Pashtun fit has an exceptionally low chisq, and the lower the chisq, the better. It is very hard to get such a good fit. Also, the tail prob is quite high, which is also very good. Interestingly, Pashtuns and Kalash are better modeled as Yamnaya + European Neolithic than most Europeans! This is of considerable importance.

For comparison, David has previously modeled Assyrians as 2% Yamnaya, Armenians as 11% Yamnaya, and Georgians as 22% Yamnaya. Everest was able to model Iranians as 33% Yamnaya. So, the software is showing us a cline that makes a lot of sense. It has Assyrians at only 2%, and then has the Kalash (at the other extreme) at 50%, with Iranians in the middle (but closer to Kalash levels). This is what we would expect, based on linguistics, history, and geography.

Even though I just bashed ADMIXTURE, it is worth noting that Chad's runs consistently had the Yamnaya hijack all the West Eurasian ancestry in peninsular South Asia. They always acted as an "ANI" component for Indians. Surely that gives us some hints, from an ADMIXTURE-based view on things.

Basically, modern Indo-Iranians have very high levels of ancestry from the Indo-European steppe. As is noted in this new paper:

"A genetic link between the Kalash and the steppe through Yamnaya-related people." (Supplementary Information, page 38)

But, it seems that this ancestry didn't come from Sintashta/Andronovo, as those samples look more like the Indo-European ancestors of Europeans than the Indo-European ancestors of West and South/Central Asians. This is all very unexpected, and counter-intuitive. It seems to fly in the face of geography, but we've learned to expect the unexpected whenever it comes to aDNA.

I don't know what to make of the fact that Yamnaya are better proxies for steppe Indo-European ancestry in Asia, rather than Sintashta/Andronovo? Who knows, perhaps the Caucasus route for Indo-Iranian dispersal makes more sense? Also, we don't have autosomal aDNA from people like the Scythians, who might be the direct ancestors of living South Central Asians like Pashtuns. Perhaps they were much more Yamnaya-like, or maybe even closer than Yamnaya are to living South Central Asians? I wouldn't be surprised.

For what it's worth, Afanasievo are almost identical to Yamnaya.

It only remains one thing to say.

"Ancient DNA"
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58458067.jpg

Alan
12-06-15, 00:15
Another interesting comment.



The title of Haak et al. (2015) writes of the steppe as “a source for Indo-European languages in Europe” [emphasis added], and the abstract claims “These results provide support for the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo‐European languages of Europe.” But this is not the established Steppe theory for Indo-European, which is instead that the steppe is the origin of all Indo-European languages, and not just of Europe, but everywhere else too: Iran, India, (formerly) Anatolia, and so on. So if the steppe is the source of only some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, then that contradicts the steppe hypothesis.

Allentoft et al. (2015), likewise, make statements such as “Our genomic evidence for the spread of Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe to both northern Europe and Central Asia (Fig. 1) corresponds well with the hypothesized expansion of the Indo-European languages”, when it does not. Northern Europe and Central Asia fit only with a subset of those languages, which is not the Steppe hypothesis. Their title is “Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia”, but it too only really addresses northern Eurasia.

Mediterranean Europe, and Asia south of the Black Sea, Caspian and Himalayas, are core areas of Indo-European speech, the large majority of the family, and crucial to answering the Indo-European question. Neither paper does justice to these areas, and neither reports any significant new genetic data for them for the appropriate time-periods.





http://dlc.hypotheses.org/807

Sile
12-06-15, 00:21
unsurprising to find it in Italy at that time, maybe
but not in a Remedello context

The conclusion is that I2 is in sardinian, northern-italy, "illyria" and Pannonia ( hungary ) was in majority I2 and this got diluted over time my other migrating younger haplogroups ( not all areas though )

Alan
12-06-15, 01:02
The 20% North European in the BaArmenian is mostly WHG. Thats the weird part. The sample has like 10% ANE and 25% WHG. more than 5 times as much WHG as modern populations in the same region.

Thats an indication that proto farmers might had already significant percentage of WHG.

Also the ENF is Atlantic_Med/Caucasus which points that this can't have come from the Steppes, because those "lacked" Atlantic_Med and had low Caucasus.

It seems to be the remnant of early farmers.

As said quite often. It really seems when the Afro_Asiatic speakers/Semites expanded (Assyrians in the case of Mesopotamia and TransCaucasus), they significantly changed the genetic make up of the region, by bringing a Red Sea like component from the Proto Afro_Asiatic homeland around Egypt.


Just look at it, there is no Southwest Asian component among the Bronze Age Armenian sample. We also heard that during late Neolithic a slow genetic replacement happened in Anatolia. This component which is nowadays common in the Middle East and North Africa must be the Red Sea component. The Semites logically reached Anatolia earlier as the Transcaucasus.

This new Red Sea component reached Europe probably with continues waves of farmers during Late Neolithic. Since we know some Neolithic European farmers also had some Red Sea component but in much smaller percentage.

The Bronze Age sample appears like 70% EEF and ~30% WHG/ANE.

sparkey
12-06-15, 01:12
The conclusion is that I2 is in sardinian, northern-italy, "illyria" and Pannonia ( hungary ) was in majority I2 and this got diluted over time my other migrating younger haplogroups ( not all areas though )

That still doesn't match the modern Sardinian phylogeny, though. Modern Sardinian I2-M26 has less diversity than most other haplogroups in Sardinia. Now, we'll need to get the timing right to see if we're looking at a possible relative to the source population of a later expansion of I2-M26 in Sardinia, or what.

Fire Haired14
12-06-15, 03:14
Angela,

You're confused about the ADMIXTURE from Allentoft 2015, because you're not interpreting it the right way. The authors did not create each K-test. They let the modern samples create components. They then got scores in these components for the ancient samples.

EEF scoring 50% in a Bedouin-centered component, doesn't mean the authors think Bedouin are a good proxy for early farmers. At a low K, all Euro_HG is going to be in the same modern component. This is why Yamnaya appears to be high in "WHG" in some tests. A component that is most popular in a certain people isn't their component.

LeBrok
12-06-15, 03:54
The 20% North European in the BaArmenian is mostly WHG. Thats the weird part. The sample has like 10% ANE and 25% WHG. more than 5 times as much WHG as modern populations in the same region.

Thats an indication that proto farmers might had already significant percentage of WHG. Till Red sea deluge from Mediterranean Sea, there was an easy passage form Europe to Asia. I was expecting that WHG might have ventured to Anatolia. This could have been the first place Farmers met WHG. Or possibly WHG trickled down to Fertile Crescent pre Neolithic?



As said quite often. It really seems when the Afro_Asiatic speakers/Semites expanded (Assyrians in the case of Mesopotamia and TransCaucasus), they significantly changed the genetic make up of the region, by bringing a Red Sea like component from the Proto Afro_Asiatic homeland around Egypt.

It seems very likely now.


Just look at it, there is no Southwest Asian component among the Bronze Age Armenian sample. We also heard that during late Neolithic a slow genetic replacement happened in Anatolia. This component which is nowadays common in the Middle East and North Africa must be the Red Sea component. The Semites logically reached Anatolia earlier as the Transcaucasus. What do you think, J1 and J2 folks? I'd say first wave was J2 around bronze age/late neolithic, J1 was later (Iron?).

Alan
12-06-15, 04:31
What do you think, J1 and J2 folks? I'd say first wave was J2 around bronze age/late neolithic, J1 was later (Iron?).

I have been saying this for very long and now many people start to realize it and agree. I thinK Haplogroup J expanded from the Iranian Plateau (Zagros mountains) as herder Haplogroup as a mixture of EEF and ANE what is basically "Caucasus_Gedrosia. J2 migrated in all directions while J1 less into North and more towards South and West(Levant, Arabia and some Europe).



Till Red sea deluge from Mediterranean Sea, there was an easy passage form Europe to Asia. I was expecting that WHG might have ventured to Anatolia. This could have been the first place Farmers met WHG. Or possibly WHG trickled down to Fertile Crescent pre Neolithic?

Or more likely imo, WHG existed in Western Asia already in a more basal form (UHG) part of it mixed with Basal Eurasian becoming farmers. While another part stayed H&G.
This new farmer component expanded into every direction such as North Africa. In Northeast Africa it most likely absorbed some Sub Saharan genes, EEF and WHG became slightly deluted and a Red Sea component.
was born. Those Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers were predominantly (70-75%) Early farmer, 10% WHG with 15-20% SSA admixture.

Angela
12-06-15, 05:03
A post the user "Sein" made on Anthrogenica



It only remains one thing to say.

"Ancient DNA"
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/58458067.jpg

What he said. :smile:

As for Professor Heggarty's article, I think he's being a little unfair to the Haak authors. Allentoft may be making a claim about all the Indo-European languages, but Haak is very circumspect. It looks as if Heggarty is just going by the abstract and a few statements in the paper rather than by the section in the supplement that discusses the Indo-European languages. I do think he may have a point about the fact that many of the people moving into northeast Europe might not necessarily have been Indo-European speakers, and he's right that it's really not clear how and when the languages other than Balto-Slavic spread. Saying that they spread during the Neolithic is something else again.

Angela
12-06-15, 05:22
The 20% North European in the BaArmenian is mostly WHG. Thats the weird part. The sample has like 10% ANE and 25% WHG. more than 5 times as much WHG as modern populations in the same region.

Thats an indication that proto farmers might had already significant percentage of WHG.

Also the ENF is Atlantic_Med/Caucasus which points that this can't have come from the Steppes, because those "lacked" Atlantic_Med and had low Caucasus.

It seems to be the remnant of early farmers.

As said quite often. It really seems when the Afro_Asiatic speakers/Semites expanded (Assyrians in the case of Mesopotamia and TransCaucasus), they significantly changed the genetic make up of the region, by bringing a Red Sea like component from the Proto Afro_Asiatic homeland around Egypt.


Just look at it, there is no Southwest Asian component among the Bronze Age Armenian sample. We also heard that during late Neolithic a slow genetic replacement happened in Anatolia. This component which is nowadays common in the Middle East and North Africa must be the Red Sea component. The Semites logically reached Anatolia earlier as the Transcaucasus.

This new Red Sea component reached Europe probably with continues waves of farmers during Late Neolithic. Since we know some Neolithic European farmers also had some Red Sea component but in much smaller percentage.

The Bronze Age sample appears like 70% EEF and ~30% WHG/ANE.

Alan, the SW Asian was already in Europe in the early Neolithic, so presumably it was in the border region between south east Anatolia and the Levant coast near Syria even earlier. Whether it was initially in the Armenian highlands is another issue.

I also don't think those ANE7 numbers are gospel. I was glad to see that someone on Anthrogenica is pointing out what seemed pretty clear to me, which is that the WHG/UHG component "eats up" some of the ENF.

I'm going to put off making any judgments about many of these things until we have analyzed genomes from Maykop, Central Asia, and from an early Near Eastern farmer as well, and I want to see conclusions using the best statistical methods, not relying totally on ADMIXTURE.

Alan
12-06-15, 07:23
Alan, the SW Asian was already in Europe in the early Neolithic, so presumably it was in the border region between south east Anatolia and the Levant coast near Syria even earlier. Whether it was initially in the Armenian highlands is another issue.

Yes but this "Southwest Asian" which shows up in all neolithic farmers is the portion of it which is not contained with Red Sea. It is basically the part of EEF which became Southwest Asian by mixing with Red Sea. Just like how "ASI" in the Mal'ta boy is not a sign that he was admixed with ASI but that ASI itself probably contains some Mal'ta related ancestry.

Southwest Asian is basically EEF with some (10-15%) SSA admixture.

Also keep in mind the geneflow kept going it didn't stop when the genetic shift happened. So it is very likely that some of the Red Sea arrived in Europe during the Late Neolithic- Bronze Age from Anatolia too. And ancient DNA does show European farmer do have a much smaller percentage (1/3 of modern Northern West Asians) of the Red Sea component. So it got deluted after reaching the Levant, than Anatolia and from Anatolia to Europe.
Take in mind Anatolia is actually easier to reach from the Levant than Mesopotamia (The Syrian Desert) and Transcaucasus(Mountains) is. Therefore no wonder that the genetic shift happened in Anatolia already during Late Neolithic while in Transcaucasus very late probably through the Assyrians.


I also don't think those ANE7 numbers are gospel. I was glad to see that someone on Anthrogenica is pointing out what seemed pretty clear to me, which is that the WHG/UHG component "eats up" some of the ENF.

I can only agree.


I'm going to put off making any judgments about many of these things until we have analyzed genomes from Maykop, Central Asia, and from an early Near Eastern farmer as well, and I want to see conclusions using the best statistical methods, not relying totally on ADMIXTURE.

Another Armenian sample was tested and it did also not contain any Southwest Asian/Red Sea. But I agree we should wait for more Results.

Iron Age Armenian

Armenian 397 is giving me too much of a noise. Figures given the SNP count:

14.62% S-Indian
34.51% Baloch
41.86% Caucasian
5.53% NE-Euro
0.00% SE-Asian
0.91% Siberian
0.00% NE-Asian
0.00% Papuan
2.48% American
0.08% Beringian
0.00% Mediterranean
0.00% SW-Asian
0.00% San
0.00% E-African
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% W-African

This particular result here looks Iranian than anything and is even slightly more eastern and less Southern(Southwest Asian) shifted than modern Iranians!

Alan
12-06-15, 08:05
RISE416 sample from Bronze Age Armenia appears roughly like an even mix of modern Basque and Adygei/Lezgians.

Sile
12-06-15, 08:30
That still doesn't match the modern Sardinian phylogeny, though. Modern Sardinian I2-M26 has less diversity than most other haplogroups in Sardinia. Now, we'll need to get the timing right to see if we're looking at a possible relative to the source population of a later expansion of I2-M26 in Sardinia, or what.

which is the older I2 found, hungarian, remendello or steppe one?

bicicleur
12-06-15, 09:28
I do not know where genetiker finds his markers , but he found a K in Poland as per the paper

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/


he most likely means............... Haplogroup K2, also known as K-M526 (formerly known as K(xLT) and macrohaplogroup MNOPS (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K2#cite_note-Chiaroni2009-2)), is a human Y-DNA Haplogroup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_Haplogroup).


which seems odd as Karafet 2014 states this M526 formed in south-indian to sundaland area
(https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/06/11/y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/)

he even found 3x CT, 1 BT, 1 P and 1 P1

I would take these resulte with a grain of salt

Maciamo
12-06-15, 09:31
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

The same thing applies to the "southern" component in Yamnaya. Do they attempt to define it anywhere? I also don't get how the Yamnaya can be half "modern Armenian like" in Lazaridis terms but have no Near Eastern farmer ancestry. Even according to this group's own admixture chart modern Armenians have Yamnaya ancestry and the Neolithic farmer ancestry that went to Europe.

If these "Caucasus" people who mixed with the more northern "steppe" like people (?) to create Yamnaya weren't farmers, were they still of the same general type of ancestry, .i.e. largely of this type of "Basal" Ancestry mixed with some sort of South Eurasian, but weren't part of the Neolithic revolution? But then how does Maykop fit into all of this?

In order to make sense of this doesn't it seem that we really need a Maykop genome? I mean, they talk about all the culture coming through Maykop, the kurgans, the metallurgy, I think they even said the wheel and wagons if I remember correctly, but who were the Maykop people? Are we meant to assume they were the same as the people on the steppe or different? Did they mix?

I'm also confused by their references to CT spreading east onto the steppe. Wouldn't the people of the CT have been European Neolithic farmers? So, why is there no signal of them in Yamnaya? Is it because most of the Yamnaya samples are from the eastern areas? Was it different in the western areas?

I also don't get why they keep talking about this massive influx of genes at least into certain places in Europe when at the most the admixture charts show about, what, 20%?

It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)

Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.

Angela, I completely agree with all your remarks. My mind exactly.

Arame
12-06-15, 09:39
30% percent of Atlantic med in BA Armenians :)
The ancient DNA is so confusing and exciting.
At last Basque cognates question will resurface :)

bicicleur
12-06-15, 09:44
The conclusion is that I2 is in sardinian, northern-italy, "illyria" and Pannonia ( hungary ) was in majority I2 and this got diluted over time my other migrating younger haplogroups ( not all areas though )

I2 spread all over Europe, from east to west before LGM
finding anciant I2 in Europe is telling nothing new unless you know which subclade it is

Arame
12-06-15, 09:56
I knew the paper would be political when one of the individuals behind it made a statement like "We don't fear our history in contrast to our neighbors".

Alan
Sometimes the truth must be said. And this remark was not about Iranian people. You know who he mean.
Europeans are financing aDNA research are providing freely data to everybody who wants to make calculations.
And what are doing Near Eastern nations who swim in petrodollars? How much study they financed and put public?
If some nations don't fear their past why there is so little information from Azerbaijan. Where the last time You here news from there? Why the 18th dinasty of Egypt Y dna is kept secret?

And he is right Armenians don't fear their past. Armenian history is so badly written that everything that shakes it's foundations is good for us. I know that Iranian people also don't fear their past.

Maciamo
12-06-15, 10:18
According to Patrick Geary (links below), there is no genetic evidence of large-scale Germanic migrations anywhere except for Anglo-Saxon migration to England:

Part 1:

http://video.ias.edu/node/5304

Part 2:

https://video.ias.edu/topology/2013/1002-PatrickGeary

This lecture above says that there is no genetic evidence of large scale emigration of East Germanic tribes from East-Central Europe to the Roman Empire.

Germanic migrations since when ? It is pretty obvious that Germanic people migrated en masse from Scandinavia to Germany, the Benelux, and to a lower extent also Switzerland, Austria, Bohemia and northern France, then later also to Iceland. So it's not just Britain.

Arame
12-06-15, 10:19
Maciamo

Yes it is the summary from Alentoft paper.
I got it from Antrogenica.

Arame
12-06-15, 10:26
Concerning this paper.
Overall I agree with what Angela says, I also agree with Alan's remarks.
I must add that this paper created much more confusion than resolved questions. They don't even bother to create a simple table where Y DNA SNPs will be visible in clear manner. It is now the bloggers who are doing this job.

Hopefully they put the data public and further studies will clear this confusion adding also the Haak data.

Vukodav
12-06-15, 10:50
Iron Age Britons were significantly more Northern Shifted than modern Britons, so the Anglo Saxon and Viking genetic legacy in the UK is quite insignificant.Also going by y-dna lineages parts of Italy and parts of the Balkans have more recent Germanic ancestry than Northern French. The Franks themselves were already Romanized before settling in France.Austrian and German Swiss are full blooded Bavarians and Swabians with a touch of Saxon admixture, so I don't get how people can say that they have a "Germanic influence".

Maciamo
12-06-15, 10:56
I just got my copy of the Allentoft paper. I haven't had time to read it yet, but at first sight I see some interesting data on lactase persistence (extended data figure 7), which shows particularly high percentages for Bronze Age IE cultures :

- Mezhovskaya (samples from what is now Udmurtia) : 50% of LP
- Yamnaya : 30%
- Corded Ware : 20%
- Karasuk : 10%

In contrast Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures are at 0%. Oddly enough, the Bell Beaker, Unetice and Nordic Bronze Age are also at 0% of LP, despite the fact that modern Germans and Scandinavians have over 70% of LP.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images/nature14507-sf7.jpg

Arame
12-06-15, 10:59
The surprise that was expected is the BB with full of R1b.
Do this mean that BB spread IE in West Europe?
But then the question is why is BB autosomal data different from Yamna? Or it isn't?

arvistro
12-06-15, 11:04
Bb was closer to Yamna than Corded or so I read.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 11:14
Germanic migrations since when?

Sorry for being imprecise.

Of course my post was about Germanic migrations into territories of the Roman Empire (and later after it disintegrated into territories of the former Roman Empire) between the 300s AD and the 500s AD. Patrick Geary claimed that there are virtually no traces in DNA, though that could actually be due to a relatively small number of newcomers compared to huge numbers of the locals.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic-Roman_contacts

Especially important would be to find traces of settlemet of East Germanic tribes in DNA of modern populations. East Germanic languages are now extinct, but the Crimean Goths preserved their language for a long time, until the Late Middle Ages or even the Early Modern Era - testing ancient DNA samples from their burials (if such burials of Crimean Goths exist) would be a very good idea.


(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic-Roman_contacts)

Tomenable
12-06-15, 11:26
Iron Age Britons were significantly more Northern Shifted than modern Britons, so the Anglo Saxon and Viking genetic legacy in the UK is quite insignificant.

If that was a response to my post - in England about 30% (regional differences between various regions of England range from 10% to 40%) of autosomal DNA is from post-Ancient immigration, according to the most recent (2015) study. This is not all Anglo-Saxon, but also Danish Viking (Danelaw), Norman (those guys were ethnically mixed with local French guys by the time of coming to England), Breton (who came with the Normans in the 11th century - ironically they were to some extent descendants of earlier 4th-6th century Briton immigration from Britain to Bretagne), etc. I would not call that "insignificant" - it is at least noticeable, and a relatively large proportion.

By contrast Patrick Geary claimed that he didn't notice anything like that in Iberia, Italy, or North Africa (Vandals).

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

Map showing settlements with names of Scandinavian origin (mostly Danish) in England:

https://www.uni-due.de/SHE/Scandinavian_Settlement_Names.gif

Compared to the Danelaw:

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

http://extechops.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/england-danelaw-map.jpg

I suppose, that Danish DNA is almost indistinguishable from DNA of Angles and Jutes (who came from Denmark). So I find it suspicious that authors of this new study claimed, that Anglo-Saxon admixture is 10%-40%, but Danish admixture is almost non-existent.

Most likely they assumed that all of this is Anglo-Saxon, while in reality some share of this 10%-40% came later with the Danes.

Another possibility is, that the Angles and the Jutes were indeed different genetically from the Danes, who replaced them.

There are archaeological traces of depopulation in parts of Jutland and parts of Angeln, dating back to Anglo-Saxon-Jute migrations.

So after the Angles and the Jutes emigrated to Britain, Danish tribes replaced them and assimilated the leftovers.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 11:50
The surprise that was expected is the BB with full of R1b.
Do this mean that BB spread IE in West Europe?
But then the question is why is BB autosomal data different from Yamna?

BB autosomal is different probably because they were a male-biased immigration (much more males than females) and mostly married local women. Moreover, R1b in Western Europe is a founder effect - the number of BB immigrants was rather relatively small.

Let's remember that Megalithic, Neolithic Western Europe was rather among the sparsely populated parts of Europe. It was inhabited mostly by farmers, but there existed also groups who were still hunter-gatherers, IIRC especially near the Atlantic coast, in the British Isles, and in Ireland. So in those places inhabited mostly by hunter-gatherers, R1b had the best chance of replacing previous Y-DNA, and so it did (Ireland has the highest % of R1b in Europe, IIRC, and vast majority of that is L21, most likely due to a founder effect).

As for the size of Europe's population at the onset of IE expansion - they had just experienced a demographic crisis:

"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

Check also estimated population density (based on intensity of archaeological findings) in Neolithic Europe, by region:

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

http://i57.tinypic.com/2ivobcz.png

Or maybe the number of BB immigrants was large, but only some lineages - of the most influential individuals - achieved such a reproductive success, while other individuals were no more successful in spreading their Y-DNA than local Megalithic males.

They managed to mostly replace the Megalithic Y-DNA and father most of their children (with their women), because Megalithic people had low population density, and BB came with new technology, horses, new ideas, etc., above all with alcohol (we know how destructive was alcohol on Native Americans in North America - perhaps it worked the same way on Megalithic males in Western Europe). They also apparently became chieftains of Megalithic people, and had unlimited access to their women, so they could spread their Y-DNA fast:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmHXBXG7Loo

Alan
12-06-15, 13:19
Eurogenes K15 analysis of RISE407 = Armenia 895 BC using Sergei's file on Gedmatch:

North_Sea 14.11%
Atlantic 8.97%
Baltic 12.69%
Eastern_Euro 8.56%
West_Med 5.08%
West_Asian 43.73%
East_Med 3.66%
Red_Sea 2.22%
South_Asian 0.97%
Southeast_Asian -
Siberian -
Amerindian -
Oceanian -
Northeast_African -
Sub-Saharan -

By 900 BC thats the time when Assyrians were starting to conquer regions North of Mesopotamia and other Semites started to appear North and East of the Levant such as the Amorites and Phoenicians. And now we see a slow appearance of Red Sea. coincidence? I don't think so.

Modern People of the region have 5-6% Red Sea.

Alan
12-06-15, 13:40
From Eurogenes:

Here the same pattern we see Red Sea Southwest Asian slowly leaking into the region in connection to Late Bronze Age (1200BC)-Iron Age, when the first Semite appearances in the Transcaucasus are well documented.

Dodecad K12b for RISE407 (LBA Armenian):

Code:
# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 29.44
2 Gedrosia 28.53
3 North_European 23.1
4 Atlantic_Med 12.46
5 Southwest_Asian 3.84
6 Sub_Saharan 1.5
7 Northwest_African 1.12


Code:
# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85

And this one again appears genetically like a typical individual from prehistoric Khorasan (Iranic tribe).

Alan
12-06-15, 14:53
And another sample from Armenia.


21.61% Gedrosia
0.08% Siberian
0.76% Northwest_African
1.28% Southeast_Asian
9.74% Atlantic_Med
22.53% North_European
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% East_African
7.18% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_Asian
35.02% Caucasus
1.80% Sub_Saharan



Now again back to the conclusions. What we see here is a steady increase of Red Sea like /Southwest Asian genes over time. First from 2% to 4% and now 7% Southwest Asian.
And this probably went on until we reach the 14% average nowadays found in the region.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 15:06
Do we already know which samples are which Y-DNA haplogroups ???

Fire Haired14
12-06-15, 15:46
Sintashta/Andronovo are looking just like Polish and BeloRussian. A back migration from Central Europe certainly did occur.

Sintashta RISE386 Gedmatch ID M690970

Dropbox for Ancient DNA download. (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mqp4gxtzpng3kom/AAAYJ7dvojikMCF-q75NRi_Ca?dl=0)

ANE K7
WHG: 68.27
ANE: 20.62
ENF: 7.46
East African: 3.23

K15
North Sea: 40.16
Atlantic: 22.94
Baltic: 12.34
East Euro: 14.68
West Asian: 7.74
Sub Saharan: 2.14

Vukodav
12-06-15, 15:52
If that was a response to my post - in England about 30% (regional differences between various regions of England range from 10% to 40%) of autosomal DNA is from post-Ancient immigration, according to the most recent (2015) study. This is not all Anglo-Saxon, but also Danish Viking (Danelaw), Norman (those guys were ethnically mixed with local French guys by the time of coming to England), Breton (who came with the Normans in the 11th century - ironically they were to some extent descendants of earlier 4th-6th century Briton immigration from Britain to Bretagne), etc. I would not call that "insignificant" - it is at least noticeable, and a relatively large proportion.

By contrast Patrick Geary claimed that he didn't notice anything like that in Iberia, Italy, or North Africa (Vandals).

You are mixing stuff. Patrick Geary's claim is from 2013, well before Iron Age Briton samples became available.

Modern Britons are much less Northern shifted than Iron Age Britons, so we must assume that the "Germanic" ancestry has actually decreased in the last 2000 years or so in the British isles.


And another sample from Armenia.


21.61% Gedrosia
0.08% Siberian
0.76% Northwest_African
1.28% Southeast_Asian
9.74% Atlantic_Med
22.53% North_European
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% East_African
7.18% Southwest_Asian
0.00% East_Asian
35.02% Caucasus
1.80% Sub_Saharan



Now again back to the conclusions. What we see here is a steady increase of Red Sea like /Southwest Asian genes over time. First from 2% to 4% and now 7% Southwest Asian.
And this probably went on until we reach the 14% average nowadays found in the region.

Modern Armenians are not native of Armenia. They are mostly Indo Europeized Mesopotamians who were pushed North by the Arabic and Turkic expansions. Hence their hight SWA for Caucasian levels.

Angela
12-06-15, 16:38
Here are the K12b results for an LBK Early European farmer from 7500 years ago or 5500 BC. This is not late Neolithic or Middle Neolithic, it's early Neolithic.

Kit F999916

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Atlantic_Med 54.92
2 Caucasus 30.3
3 Southwest_Asian 10.78
4 Northwest_African 3.79
5 North_European 0.14
6 Southeast_Asian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian (HGDP) 17.48
2 TSI30 (Metspalu) 24.05
3 Tuscan (HGDP) 24.21
4 North_Italian (HGDP) 24.41
5 Andalucia (1000Genomes) 24.7
6 C_Italian (Dodecad) 24.93
7 Murcia (1000Genomes) 25.93
8 Sicilian (Dodecad) 26.56
9 Baleares (1000Genomes) 26.69
10 S_Italian_Sicilian (Dodecad) 26.83

That's quite a bit more SW Asian than exists today in parts of Italy (of which some percent would be Red Sea). So, there are two possibilities in terms of the Bronze Age Armenians versus modern Armenians. Either the Bronze Age Armenians were relative newcomers to the area and picked up additional elements as they admixed with the locals by the time of the modern era, or, as Alan says, the "SW Asian" component arrived later. There's no way to know for sure until you have a genome from the Armenian Neolithic/Copper Age. Maybe the Reich lab has one for their new paper, and I think there is supposed to be a paper coming out with more ancient Armenian genomes, yes?

If SW Asian wasn't present in the Armenian Neolithic, then there was some substructure in ancient Anatolia, which shouldn't be a surprise. For the EEF, we are talking about a group (if Paschou et al are correct) that followed the Levantine coast and then took off by sea. Even if some left directly from northwest Anatolia that's still quite a ways from the Armenian highlands all the way to the east, where the population might have been slightly different. After all, both Lazaridis et al and Haak et al pointed out that all the EEF are pretty homogenous in terms of autosomal composition.
See:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

Something else also occurs to me when thinking about when the various "Indo-European" peoples might have entered Italy. The latest Remedello sample is from around 1700 BC and is still I2a and EEF. If it turns out that the "Indo-Europeans" or at least the U-152 portion (which we now know was near the northeastern Alps in the Bronze Age thanks to Allentoft et al) of them didn't come down into the peninsula until quite a bit later, perhaps around 1300 BC with Urnfield related cultures, and reached more central areas even later, is it then such a stretch to imagine that the locals around the later "Etruria" in 1000-800 BC might still have been speaking a "farmer" language? Just a thought...I don't want to derail the thread.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/images/Europe/Barbarians/Map1000BC_Cultures01_big.jpg

Down stream U-152, (the L2) variety, might have come even later.

As for the L23 variety of R1b in Italy there are at least two possibilties: they might have entered from the south with Mycenean Greeks or with Cretans (?) or from the Balkans, forming the Apennine Culture, which was definitely "Indo-European" in nature .

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

Vukodav
12-06-15, 17:37
I agree with you Angela. Although Etruscans were much more Northern and Eastern shifted than Remedello farmers, so their language must have been a mixture of both Neolitich language and some other one from North of the Alps.

Fire Haired14
12-06-15, 18:15
EEF surviving in Northern Italy until at 3,700YBP is surprising. I want to see that 3,700YBP North Italian's genome's ADMIXTURE results pronto, because he's the best proxy for the native-EEF-ancestors of Italians. That Remedello guy+the U152 Bell Beaker guy+something in the East Mediterranean can probably explain modern Italians. Based on ANE K8: Tuscans(only ones I've done 4mix with) are 20%+ Remedello-like and around 40%+ Bell Beaker-like(They were diverse, so I used their avg.), and the rest East Mediterranean.

Although that's a bit simplistic. The Bell Beaker we have may not be good proxies for the people who went over the Alps and brought R1b-U152 to Italy. There's was a lot of diversity in Late Neolithic/Bronze age Germany and Hungary. We have a good idea though what Remedello will score in ANE K8.

Also, ANE K8 isn't law. There are many differnt methods.

sparkey
12-06-15, 18:35
Do we already know which samples are which Y-DNA haplogroups ???

Depends on how much you trust Genetiker: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/

Tomenable
12-06-15, 19:32
Rather not much. Besides, his list in that link is incomplete anyway.

Angela
12-06-15, 19:33
EEF surviving in Northern Italy until at 3,700YBP is surprising. I want to see that 3,700YBP North Italian's genome's ADMIXTURE results pronto, because he's the best proxy for the native-EEF-ancestors of Italians. That Remedello guy+the U152 Bell Beaker guy+something in the East Mediterranean can probably explain modern Italians. Based on ANE K8: Tuscans(only ones I've done 4mix with) are 20%+ Remedello-like and around 40%+ Bell Beaker-like(They were diverse, so I used their avg.), and the rest East Mediterranean.

Although that's a bit simplistic. The Bell Beaker we have may not be good proxies for the people who went over the Alps and brought R1b-U152 to Italy. There's was a lot of diversity in Late Neolithic/Bronze age Germany and Hungary. We have a good idea though what Remedello will score in ANE K8.

Also, ANE K8 isn't law. There are many differnt methods.

I never thought any of those calculators was the law, so you're preaching to the converted. I want to see all of these genomes analyzed by the methods used in Haak et al.

As far as the "East Med" is concerned, how much "East Med" does Oetzi have? Or even Stuttgart going further back? Then we have to see how much "East Med" is in the Remedello genome. How much room does that leave for additional "East Med"?

Have you broken down the "East Med" into component parts? Is it just EEF with the additional ANE that moved into the Near East in the Bronze Age? How much is drift involved in differentiating West Med from East Med?

Also, I want to see a Mycenaean genome and one from Crete. Did the Mycenaeans come down from the Balkans, or did they sweep across coastal northern Anatolia? What about the people of Crete pre and post the secondary migrations from Anatolia? Both the Mycenaeans and the Cretans impacted Italy, mostly diffusing from the south to the north, but also moving along the coastlines straight to the north.

If you look at Tuscans on most PCA's, they just look like eastern shifted Sardinians. Tuscans are also not exactly synonymous with central Italians. They're sort of between northern Italians and central Italians like the people of Lazio, and I think that might be because of their higher levels of R1b. (And yes, I know a PCA is just one method. The real answers will come from statistical modeling in my opinion. )

Oh, almost forgot, the ancient Etruscan genomes have to be run through all these tools as well.

Then we'll see what's what even though those might only be elite genomes.

There's also this to consider...
7293

MOESAN
12-06-15, 20:00
Y-I2 Remedello?
the "sardinian one": not for sure. ZI red somewhere the sardinian Y-I2a1a were maybe from N-E Iberia, possibly of Neolithic culture. if Remedello is a first introgression of I-Eans we can expect a male elite dominated culture so more eastern Y-I2: I2a1b? Y-I2a2 (ex I2b ex I2c)? I've stil this weird card in my hand : presence in N-E Russia (but Goths are challenging), presence near the Black Sea Moldavia, ancient Cucuteni-Tripolje center, spotty presence in metals ores regions, stronger in Portugal than in eastern Spain, presence in N-ireland and Scotland and Brittany and Bohemia and ... in Scandinavia apart for North-East (repopulated from South, relatively recently) it seems heavy in South-West in bronze Age / Iron colonized regions (maybe BBs and Celts - if Celts are not defnetely a 'beakerized' culture -, surely Germans. It's true the spotty distribution in mountainous regions, for the most, could also be the mark of a dominated refugied population; but Urnfields Liechtenstein people did not seem slaves...

Sile
12-06-15, 20:03
Depends on how much you trust Genetiker: https://genetiker.wordpress.com/

he does not even use the current y dna usage of haplogroup markers as per the people who create the ydna and mtdna trees.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258117220_Seeing_the_Wood_for_the_Trees_A_Minimal_ Reference_Phylogeny_for_the_Human_Y_Chromosome

his corded ware can indicate anything between haplogroup C through to haplogroup T ................

Sile
12-06-15, 20:11
I agree with you Angela. Although Etruscans were much more Northern and Eastern shifted than Remedello farmers, so their language must have been a mixture of both Neolitich language and some other one from North of the Alps.

Remedello culture is from north-italy , from near Brescia in Eastern Lombardy .....................you also have Polada culture for north-italy

Villanova culture is from Etruscan lands

although Etruscan have some northern affinity they should be treated as central italians like their neighbours the ancient Umbrians.

Angela
12-06-15, 20:28
Y-I2 Remedello?
the "sardinian one": not for sure. ZI red somewhere the sardinian Y-I2a1a were maybe from N-E Iberia, possibly of Neolithic culture. if Remedello is a first introgression of I-Eans we can expect a male elite dominated culture so more eastern Y-I2: I2a1b? Y-I2a2 (ex I2b ex I2c)? I've stil this weird card in my hand : presence in N-E Russia (but Goths are challenging), presence near the Black Sea Moldavia, ancient Cucuteni-Tripolje center, spotty presence in metals ores regions, stronger in Portugal than in eastern Spain, presence in N-ireland and Scotland and Brittany and Bohemia and ... in Scandinavia apart for North-East (repopulated from South, relatively recently) it seems heavy in South-West in bronze Age / Iron colonized regions (maybe BBs and Celts - if Celts are not defnetely a 'beakerized' culture -, surely Germans. It's true the spotty distribution in mountainous regions, for the most, could also be the mark of a dominated refugied population; but Urnfields Liechtenstein people did not seem slaves...

If the early reports are correct, all three of them are indistinguishable from early Neolithic farmers autosomally.

Angela
12-06-15, 20:28
I rather skipped over this part of the text in Allentoft's Supplementary Info in my first go round:

"Despite the general Yamnaya expansion stalling at Ural, some groups must have been looking for more distant grazing grounds, because in the eastern steppe of Western Siberia we find an outlier culture that seems related to early Yamnaya. The archaeological explanations for this phenomenon diverge: traditionally it has been considered the result of a remarkable, long distance migration that took place at an early stage of the pre-Yamnaya (known as the Repin culture) of the western steppe. A two-thousand kilometer trek across the central steppe to the Altai mountains, rich in good grazing and suited to transhumance. The settlers introduced a fully developed kurgan/barrow culture and the pastoral economy known from the western steppe. This migratory route, with a few stations along the way, was maintained and used and later Yamnaya groups continued to use it. This phenomenon led to the formation of the Afanasievo culture near the Altai. An alternative explanation links Afanasievo to the southwest, linking Afanasievo to the southwest, being part of the Inner Asian Corridor from Pamir to Altai-and a southwest Asian/Near Eastern source of pastoralism.It has been proposed that groups from the Afanasievo Culture migrated south to Xinjang and the Tarim basin, bringing with them the Tocharian language, the second oldest to break off from Proto-Indo European, with a western Europan origin, while others would see this being part of the above mentioned interaction zone with the southwest Pamir and Hindu Kush. The later Okunevo Culture was a local south Siberian Early Bronze Age adaptation of Afanasievo influences, and is characterized by stone stelae with expressive art of a shamanistic nature. "

Perhaps some of the particularities of the Afansievo genomes can be better explained by looking at the migration path using the Inner Asian Corridor. It would tie things up nicely if they found some R1b there.

I think Frachetti's analysis deserves another read...it makes sense to me in terms of the chronology and archaeology.

https://www.academia.edu/6106267/Frachetti_2013_Bronze_Age_Pastoralism_and_Differen tiated_Landscapes_along_the_Inner_Asian_Mountain_C orridor

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/281/1783/20133382.full.pdf

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f-6Ab59uDfQ/T0gPbHpw1xI/AAAAAAAAEjU/T7prY7oa_OY/s1600/steppe.jpg

sparkey
12-06-15, 20:34
Y-I2 Remedello?
the "sardinian one": not for sure. ZI red somewhere the sardinian Y-I2a1a were maybe from N-E Iberia, possibly of Neolithic culture. if Remedello is a first introgression of I-Eans we can expect a male elite dominated culture so more eastern Y-I2: I2a1b? Y-I2a2 (ex I2b ex I2c)?

I'd like more data than Genitiker's calls as well, but I don't think that it's a stretch to say that he's probably right about this one. "Sardinian" I2-M26 is indeed called "Sardinian" due to modern frequency and no other reason. We know from other ancient samples, including several Neolithic samples from France, that it was many places in Europe by Remedello. Remedello is easily within range (and Neolithic looking, as Angela points out), and the I2-M26 there could be either native or brought in. I2-M26 is old and widespread enough that either hypothesis works fine. I2a1b, on the other hand, has a northern (even more so than eastern) geographical bias that would make it a bit more surprising in Italy. I2-M223, although less known in ancient samples, seems to be similar to I2a1b, if a little more central.

Vukodav
12-06-15, 21:14
EEF surviving in Northern Italy until at 3,700YBP is surprising. I want to see that 3,700YBP North Italian's genome's ADMIXTURE results pronto, because he's the best proxy for the native-EEF-ancestors of Italians. That Remedello guy+the U152 Bell Beaker guy+something in the East Mediterranean can probably explain modern Italians. Based on ANE K8: Tuscans(only ones I've done 4mix with) are 20%+ Remedello-like and around 40%+ Bell Beaker-like(They were diverse, so I used their avg.), and the rest East Mediterranean.

Although that's a bit simplistic. The Bell Beaker we have may not be good proxies for the people who went over the Alps and brought R1b-U152 to Italy. There's was a lot of diversity in Late Neolithic/Bronze age Germany and Hungary. We have a good idea though what Remedello will score in ANE K8.

Also, ANE K8 isn't law. There are many differnt methods.

Are you talking about the Eurogenes Yamnaya K6 run? If yes, then I don't know how much reliable is it. Sardinians get 25% of recent Middle Eastern admixture compared to early Neolitich farmers.

Tuscans look fairly close to Bronze Age Montenegrins. Of course more samples from Italy and the Balkans are needed.

MOESAN
12-06-15, 21:16
If the early reports are correct, all three of them are indistinguishable from early Neolithic farmers autosomally.

OK - I was just waking up an old dream of mine, for the game - that said, "indistinguishable autosomally" in a very strong word for a not too precise tool of knowledge: I remember the 'block' of Gokhem, Stuttgart and other Neolithic people wihch showed later some trends towards different directions, avowing so some little differences in admixture - male elite mediated hold on land can leave evaporate quickly enough its intruding aDNA according to the weight of the successfull newcomers -
but here I have no certitude nor theory: only remarks - where found you the aDNA reports for the matter? thanks beforehand

MOESAN
12-06-15, 22:28
there is some imprecistion in all these statements, every scientist using his own vocabulary, what is confusing where comparing several surveys - it's my opinion.
from the metrics surveys it appears, left some scholars contradictions aside, that a lot od the populations studied in this large region in this span of time were crossings, without too extreme types nor within homogeneity. Even in the SAME culture, there were differences according to places (Kalmykia very apart from Samara for Pit Grave, and apart from Maykop and Armenia;
some of the studies concluded the Dniestr culture was the place of the most 'cromagnoid' people, maybe got down from Baltic or East Baltic region; nevertheless they were neighbors and even part of the Cucuteni-Tripolje territory, and send people to the Carpathian Bassin more than a time later. the Kalmykia Pit Grave showed some links with the Dniestr people but were different (my guess: something more 'dinaroid', some southern influence upon 'borrebyied cromagnoids'?) - the Sredny Stog and the first Khvalinsk people seems halfway between Maykop/Armenia, Dniestr and the ancient "Mesolithic" people (mesolithic: I try to devine: more 'brünnoid'?)- the Khvalinsk 2 , mixed too, seemed closer to ancient forms, 'cromagnoid' Neolithicized people (see above) and more Mesolithic people ... I want not go further on on this way because scientists are bit too secret for me, but you can see the reality is far from to be simple and "pure"; just: the second easternwards into far Asia wave would have been more on the Khvalisnk 2 side (more archaic).
concerning DNA, what is sure is that into Eurogenes K15 in ancient DNA of Corded, Yamnaya Samara the 'west-asian' is not accompanied by 'red sea', nor 'east-mediter' nor 'west-mediter' showing only a litlle 'southasian': so if I try to understand this PART of 'westasian' - a modern people based component, remember - I have: 2 theoric possibilities: ANCIENT Armenians inherited some DNA from North the Caucasus at Bronze Ages or around, OR inherited it from Southeast the Caspian (proto-Hurrians?) before pass it to North Caucasus, what could please to supporters of "Anatolian I-Ean" and Uruk-Araxes ancestry for Maykop; I avow I have some difficulty to admit these "Armenians" even ancient would not have picked with them some ancient Neolithic southern people rich in 'mediter' and surely in some part in 'red sea'...
no conclusion here only a try tu disintangle this question concerning a region which has been a "boulevard" as the Donaw-Danube.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 22:30
Richard Littauer, "On Tocharian Exceptionality to the centum/satem Isogloss":

http://www.slideshare.net/RichLitt/on-tocharian-exceptionality-to-the-centumsatem-isogloss


(http://www.slideshare.net/RichLitt/on-tocharian-exceptionality-to-the-centumsatem-isogloss)

MOESAN
12-06-15, 22:38
I'd like more data than Genitiker's calls as well, but I don't think that it's a stretch to say that he's probably right about this one. "Sardinian" I2-M26 is indeed called "Sardinian" due to modern frequency and no other reason. We know from other ancient samples, including several Neolithic samples from France, that it was many places in Europe by Remedello. Remedello is easily within range (and Neolithic looking, as Angela points out), and the I2-M26 there could be either native or brought in. I2-M26 is old and widespread enough that either hypothesis works fine. I2a1b, on the other hand, has a northern (even more so than eastern) geographical bias that would make it a bit more surprising in Italy. I2-M223, although less known in ancient samples, seems to be similar to I2a1b, if a little more central.

it was not an affirmation of mine but a "warning" concerning male Y-DNA at this stage of History - the aDNA here is not the only criteria - I have nothing at all against a Y-1a-m-26 but the ancient ones we had found until today were rather western ones, linked to Neolithic (by absorbtion, maybe rather megalitic Neolithic?) - wait and sea: Metals Ages DNA West of Adriatic and Germany is seldom except Iberia...

Angela
12-06-15, 22:40
OK - I was just waking up an old dream of mine, for the game - that said, "indistinguishable autosomally" in a very strong word for a not too precise tool of knowledge: I remember the 'block' of Gokhem, Stuttgart and other Neolithic people wihch showed later some trends towards different directions, avowing so some little differences in admixture - male elite mediated hold on land can leave evaporate quickly enough its intruding aDNA according to the weight of the successfull newcomers -
but here I have no certitude nor theory: only remarks - where found you the aDNA reports for the matter? thanks beforehand

Moesan, for now the ones making the calls are posters on various internet sites, so I wouldn't take any of it to the bank quite yet. You can take out "indistinguishable autosomally" and substitute "if reports are correct, all 3 Remedello samples seem to be EEF autosomally". :)

We'll see if there's a devil in the details.

Tomenable
12-06-15, 22:44
^ Check the presentation by Richard Littauer linked above.

He suggests that Tocharian could be originally a Satem language, and that the merge into [k] was caused by neighbouring non-IE languages, which influenced Tocharian. He states that by the time of first texts in Tocharian (so called Tocharian A), it was already a decaying or even a dead language, only used in liturgical texts like Latin in the Middle Ages, or Hebrew in Ashkenazi Jewish communities of Medieval Europe. Littauer also writes (quoting Atkinson 2011) that the "original Tocharian" population was never large, which may explain small amount of Non-Z93 R1a in the area today.

arvistro
12-06-15, 23:05
Wait, couple of posts back you preached against using Satem/Centum to classify languages and now go ahead with Tocharian as "originally a Satem language" :)
Maybe I am missing smth...

MOESAN
12-06-15, 23:07
Moesan, for now the ones making the calls are posters on various internet sites, so I wouldn't take any of it to the bank quite yet. You can take out "indistinguishable autosomally" and substitute "if reports are correct, all 3 Remedello samples seem to be EEF autosomally". :)

We'll see if there's a devil in the details.

OK, that doesn't change my remark concerning Y-DNA - some more news will come some day - I avow I'm glad : we are living a very exciting time now, and I hope the DNA samples will still grow up - good nigh, I 'll go to rest my "first generation" brain!

Tomenable
13-06-15, 00:32
Wait, couple of posts back you preached against using Satem/Centum to classify languages and now go ahead with Tocharian as "originally a Satem language" :)
Maybe I am missing smth...

That's because you guys apparently keep insisting that the Tarim Mummies weren't Tocharians just because they turned out to be R1a. So if you think that Kentum is inherently linked to R1b, and Satem to R1a, I decided to find an alternative explanation, and - voilà! - I've found it. A Kentumization or a Re-Kentumization could occur in Tocharian.

So if you can't believe that R1a could be Kentum, then maybe you can believe that they were Satem (originally).


quote: "Tocharian language, the second oldest to break off from Proto-Indo European, with a western Europan origin"

And apart from the Kentum character (which could actually be derivative - resulting from [Re-]Kentumization under the influence of local non-IE languages, as Littauer suggests) - what other evidence exists, if any, that Tocharian language was "with a western European origin" ??? And this implies neglecting R1a in Tarim Mummies.

Before Tarim Mummies have turned out to be R1a (which was a few years ago) - if I remember correctly - Eupedia's website was claiming that they were surely Tocharians, that they were most certainly R1b, and that red hair was spread by R1b (because some of them were gingers and were still believed to be R1b at that time).

Now after they've turned out to be R1a, all claims get reversed - "no they weren't Tocharians, no, no." :)

Tomenable
13-06-15, 00:56
I also remember old good times when it was believed that R1b has a Paleolithic LGM continuity from Iberia:

"Of you Eastern Europeans, you are evil steppe invaders, you don't belong, we are true native Europeans!".

Later came Haak with his "massive migration" of R1b, while R1a might actually be local (see Karelia, WHG):

"Oh you Eastern Europeans, you are primitive local hunter-gatherers, we are true PIEs from the steppe!".

:)

Of course I'm only joking. ;o

It's just interesting how at first Western Euros got excited that they are from Iberian LGM refuge, and that - "thankfully Eastern Euros are the steppe newcomers". And now they are excited that they came from the steppe. 8-)

Except that there is R1b from Els Trocs in Iberia. Which, however, was not M269, but an upstream paragroup.

Like R1b from Els Trocs, Karelian R1a is also a rare paragroup, well prior to M198 in the phylogenetic tree.

So before you definitely relocate Eastern Euros to the forest zone "since times immemorial" (as Arvistro has already suggested in this thread - in his statement about "Paleolithic Balts", or something), wait for more samples.

Angela
13-06-15, 02:57
That's because you guys apparently keep insisting that the Tarim Mummies weren't Tocharians just because they turned out to be R1a. So if you think that Kentum is inherently linked to R1b, and Satem to R1a, I decided to find an alternative explanation, and - voilà! - I've found it. A Kentumization or a Re-Kentumization could occur in Tocharian.

So if you can't believe that R1a could be Kentum, then maybe you can believe that they were Satem (originally).



And apart from the Kentum character (which could actually be derivative - resulting from [Re-]Kentumization under the influence of local non-IE languages, as Littauer suggests) - what other evidence exists, if any, that Tocharian language was "with a western European origin" ??? And this implies neglecting R1a in Tarim Mummies.

Before Tarim Mummies have turned out to be R1a (which was a few years ago) - if I remember correctly - Eupedia's website was claiming that they were surely Tocharians, that they were most certainly R1b, and that red hair was spread by R1b (because some of them were gingers and were still believed to be R1b at that time).

Now after they've turned out to be R1a, all claims get reversed - "no they weren't Tocharians, no, no." :)

Tomenable, you're aware that was a quote from the paper, not my own conclusion, necessarily, yes? I have no stake in this R1b versus R1a contest; I don't even know my father's yDna line. (Given his ancestral area, U-152 is a good bet, but there's some J2 and G2 up there as well, and in Italy pretty much anything can show up.) Nor am I much interested, to be honest, since I think it's our autosomal composition that makes us who we are. Well, maybe our mtDna to some extent, since there are health implications, but that's it.

My only interest in figuring out the yDna lines in some of these cultures on the steppe is because it's an intellectual puzzle, and also because I always like to get it right. That's it. This attachment of men to their y lines is destined to remain a mystery of the male psyche to me, I'm afraid. :)

As for people lauding one culture over another, maybe part of what's going on is that it's just human nature to want to see one's ancestry in a positive light. There's nothing wrong with that; it's part of our identity after all. There's nothing wrong, that is, so long as it doesn't lead to denigration of someone else's ancestry, and so long as one maintains one's intellectual honesty. I agree with you, though, that a little consistency would be nice. :)

Johannes
13-06-15, 07:30
http://abload.de/img/nature14507-sf61rwr50.jpg
Can someone please tell me what baBb is? Also baRem?

Sile
13-06-15, 08:21
http://abload.de/img/nature14507-sf61rwr50.jpg
Can someone please tell me what baBb is? Also baRem?

Bb = bell beaker

BaRem = Remendello culture which is only in North-Italy

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf

bicicleur
13-06-15, 10:22
That's because you guys apparently keep insisting that the Tarim Mummies weren't Tocharians just because they turned out to be R1a. So if you think that Kentum is inherently linked to R1b, and Satem to R1a, I decided to find an alternative explanation, and - voilà! - I've found it. A Kentumization or a Re-Kentumization could occur in Tocharian.

So if you can't believe that R1a could be Kentum, then maybe you can believe that they were Satem (originally).



And apart from the Kentum character (which could actually be derivative - resulting from [Re-]Kentumization under the influence of local non-IE languages, as Littauer suggests) - what other evidence exists, if any, that Tocharian language was "with a western European origin" ??? And this implies neglecting R1a in Tarim Mummies.

Before Tarim Mummies have turned out to be R1a (which was a few years ago) - if I remember correctly - Eupedia's website was claiming that they were surely Tocharians, that they were most certainly R1b, and that red hair was spread by R1b (because some of them were gingers and were still believed to be R1b at that time).

Now after they've turned out to be R1a, all claims get reversed - "no they weren't Tocharians, no, no." :)

you told me the Tarim mummies were not R1a-Z93
can you tell me more?

Tocharian has been discovered by coincidence
I'm sure many more IE languages existed which were never discovered
And many different IE tribes made their way into China, only to be expelled again later

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

they too have been identified as Tocharians, allthough they spoke Bactrian
argueing they might have switched from Tocharian into Bactrian language is IMO far-fetched
there is no proven connection with the Tarim mummies either
IMO they were probably R1a-Z93 (they settled in Bactria and in India)

there was also R1a in Xiongnu :

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

how do you think cattle, horses, bronze and copper entered China?

arvistro
13-06-15, 10:28
That's because you guys apparently keep insisting that the Tarim Mummies weren't Tocharians just because they turned out to be R1a. So if you think that Kentum is inherently linked to R1b, and Satem to R1a, I decided to find an alternative explanation, and - voilà! - I've found it. A Kentumization or a Re-Kentumization could occur in Tocharian.

So if you can't believe that R1a could be Kentum, then maybe you can believe that they were Satem (originally).
Some consistency is needed. If you quote author who objects Centum/Satem with good reasons, then you should not quote another author who builds on Centum/Satem.

As to Tocharians, I had never argued anything about them on this topic, and probably on other topics either, simply because I know nothing on that subject.

My quote about Satems (or if we disagree to Satem/Centum split, then BSII - Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranians for lack of better term) was just that new data are surprisingly consistent with Mr Pashka's website www suduva com topic on proto-Balts. About how in Corded Ware and its derived cultures proto-Baltic, Slavic, Indic, Iranic, Germanic (as substrate), Uralic folk interacted in the forest area.
It has some outdated genetic data and it is a bit emotional/pro-Baltic in presenting info, but with all that it seems like being very close to the reality.

This is what he says about Fatyanovo Balts and contacts with Sintashta:
Fatyanovo developed from an early Northern poly-ethnic variant of the Middle Dnieper culture horizont. It is here that pottery displays a unique Fatyanovo Baltic style of mixed Corded Ware and Globular Amphora features and exhibits a trademark "checked" hatched diamond rhombus motif design ornamentation not found with the steppe cultures, thus allowing their contacts with those cultures to be tracked - even into Sintashta and beyond.

He also argues linguistic mythological paralels attested in Sanscrit and Baltic people and Uralic beliefs.

Interesting note. He takes for granted in his website that Globular Amphora Culture was early Centum. And it is Globular Amphora migrations/substrate into Corded that left linguistic Centum-ish tracks into early West Baltic and less noticeable into East Baltic. I wonder if that could turn out right or is seriously outdated :)

bicicleur
13-06-15, 10:41
I'd like more data than Genitiker's calls as well, but I don't think that it's a stretch to say that he's probably right about this one. "Sardinian" I2-M26 is indeed called "Sardinian" due to modern frequency and no other reason. We know from other ancient samples, including several Neolithic samples from France, that it was many places in Europe by Remedello. Remedello is easily within range (and Neolithic looking, as Angela points out), and the I2-M26 there could be either native or brought in. I2-M26 is old and widespread enough that either hypothesis works fine. I2a1b, on the other hand, has a northern (even more so than eastern) geographical bias that would make it a bit more surprising in Italy. I2-M223, although less known in ancient samples, seems to be similar to I2a1b, if a little more central.

IMO the first expansion of I2-M26 went hand in hand with the Cardial expansion and probably more consecutive expansions followed.
There is no link between Cardial and copper working, except maybe Ötzi whose subclade (L91) points toward Sardegna/Sicily, allthough it has been found in Germany too now. L91 is also older than the spread of G2a into Europe so the forefathers of Ötzi might have entered Europe via the Balkans as well.
The Remedello burial rituals were certainly not neolithic at all, they are more IE like.

bicicleur
13-06-15, 11:29
by the way,

Haak et al listed Motola 9 as I2a1
Now some people claim Motola 9 as I2a1a1-L672
Does anybody now where this claim came from?
I'm very skeptical about this

bicicleur
13-06-15, 12:03
I rather skipped over this part of the text in Allentoft's Supplementary Info in my first go round:

"Despite the general Yamnaya expansion stalling at Ural, some groups must have been looking for more distant grazing grounds, because in the eastern steppe of Western Siberia we find an outlier culture that seems related to early Yamnaya. The archaeological explanations for this phenomenon diverge: traditionally it has been considered the result of a remarkable, long distance migration that took place at an early stage of the pre-Yamnaya (known as the Repin culture) of the western steppe. A two-thousand kilometer trek across the central steppe to the Altai mountains, rich in good grazing and suited to transhumance. The settlers introduced a fully developed kurgan/barrow culture and the pastoral economy known from the western steppe. This migratory route, with a few stations along the way, was maintained and used and later Yamnaya groups continued to use it. This phenomenon led to the formation of the Afanasievo culture near the Altai. An alternative explanation links Afanasievo to the southwest, linking Afanasievo to the southwest, being part of the Inner Asian Corridor from Pamir to Altai-and a southwest Asian/Near Eastern source of pastoralism.It has been proposed that groups from the Afanasievo Culture migrated south to Xinjang and the Tarim basin, bringing with them the Tocharian language, the second oldest to break off from Proto-Indo European, with a western Europan origin, while others would see this being part of the above mentioned interaction zone with the southwest Pamir and Hindu Kush. The later Okunevo Culture was a local south Siberian Early Bronze Age adaptation of Afanasievo influences, and is characterized by stone stelae with expressive art of a shamanistic nature. "

Perhaps some of the particularities of the Afansievo genomes can be better explained by looking at the migration path using the Inner Asian Corridor. It would tie things up nicely if they found some R1b there.

I think Frachetti's analysis deserves another read...it makes sense to me in terms of the chronology and archaeology.

https://www.academia.edu/6106267/Frachetti_2013_Bronze_Age_Pastoralism_and_Differen tiated_Landscapes_along_the_Inner_Asian_Mountain_C orridor

http://royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/281/1783/20133382.full.pdf

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-f-6Ab59uDfQ/T0gPbHpw1xI/AAAAAAAAEjU/T7prY7oa_OY/s1600/steppe.jpg

Angela,
this corridor was very important in paleolithic times, through this corridor the first modern humans reached the Altaï mountains and Siberia ; the forefathers of Ust-Ishim (45 ka) probalby came through this corridor , in the Obi-Rakhmat cave near Tashkent blade stone tools (made by modern humans) were found in layers 48800 years old
herding as a subsistence economy existed in Anatolia at least 9000 years ago
8000 years ago first cereal farmers arrived in the Kopet Dag area, and later herders followed
the Kelteminar people arrived 7500 years ago around the Kyzil Kum desert 7500 years ago, but they were HG who adopted stockbreeding later
but is there any solid proof of herding in this corridor during 4th mill BC or earlier?
i checked you Frachetti paper very quick, just reading diagonally, so I may have missed some important details
it is easy to say that the connection between Afanasievo and the Pontic steppe is speculative and then to replace it by an even more speculative theory
as long as there is no solid evidence, the first theory gets my benefit of doubt

Johannes
13-06-15, 12:48
Bb = bell beaker

BaRem = Remendello culture which is only in North-Italy

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14507-s1.pdf

Thats what I suspected. Thank you Sile. So why is it that so many earlier posts in my Iberian blog argued that BB were not R1b but Middle Eastern and now it states they were 100% R1b??? It also shows that they were part of the Yamnaya culture???? Also 25% of Yamnaya are I2a??? Either European Iberians were R1b, or ME cocktail, or I2a or perhaps a mix of all.

Angela
13-06-15, 15:38
IMO the first expansion of I2-M26 went hand in hand with the Cardial expansion and probably more consecutive expansions followed.
There is no link between Cardial and copper working, except maybe Ötzi whose subclade (L91) points toward Sardegna/Sicily, allthough it has been found in Germany too now. L91 is also older than the spread of G2a into Europe so the forefathers of Ötzi might have entered Europe via the Balkans as well.
The Remedello burial rituals were certainly not neolithic at all, they are more IE like.

This is no different than the situation for the Baden sample from Gamba et al, is it?

Haak et al showed that the "steppe" ancestry was minimal even though the culture was changing. What was it? 10%?

As to the y-line, I don't know. Maybe it had been in place for a long time, maybe it came from central Europe.

I think the larger point is that, as I've said ad nauseam :), pots don't always mean tons of people. The situation in Hungary and perhaps in the Balkans was very different compared to more north central and northern regions where the steppe people were entering a more empty landscape.

There's this PCA from the paper, for instance...

7294

Fire Haired14
13-06-15, 17:50
Thats what I suspected. Thank you Sile. So why is it that so many earlier posts in my Iberian blog argued that BB were not R1b but Middle Eastern and now it states they were 100% R1b??? It also shows that they were part of the Yamnaya culture???? Also 25% of Yamnaya are I2a??? Either European Iberians were R1b, or ME cocktail, or I2a or perhaps a mix of all.

Less than 25% of Yamnaya Y DNA samples so far are I2a, if you include what Haak found which was all R1b. I2a in Yamnaya is no suprise, because it;s such an old paternal lineage that was dominate in Mesolithic Central-West Europeans. At sompoint it would have found it's way to Russia. Bell beaker was not apart of the Yamnaya culture. Central European(no other region has been tested) Bell Beaker had ancestry from Yamnaya-type people.

We only have DNA from Central European Bell Beaker folk. There's a good chance the Bell beaker folk in Iberia were 100% Neolithic-descended, and therefore no R1b1a2. They would have been mostly I2a and G2a. The "Iberians" are an Iron age ethnic group. You can make theories about their origins and say they derive from earlier Iberians, but there's no prove. We can only speak of them in Iron age sense, and word of their existence in anyother era should be treated as theory. By the Iron age R1b-L11 had probably already mades it's way to the "Iberians".

Fire Haired14
13-06-15, 17:53
Moesan, for now the ones making the calls are posters on various internet sites, so I wouldn't take any of it to the bank quite yet. You can take out "indistinguishable autosomally" and substitute "if reports are correct, all 3 Remedello samples seem to be EEF autosomally". :)

We'll see if there's a devil in the details.

Everyone should read this quote again.

Fire Haired14
13-06-15, 18:01
Germanic migrations since when ? It is pretty obvious that Germanic people migrated en masse from Scandinavia to Germany, the Benelux, and to a lower extent also Switzerland, Austria, Bohemia and northern France, then later also to Iceland. So it's not just Britain.

So, there's very good evidence Germanic languages originated specifically in Scandinavia? Not including northern Central Europe, at all? Then why is Scandinavian R1a-Z284 so rare outside of Scandinavia? From what I've read, most continental Germanic R1a is of typical Balto-Slavic clades.

Also, here's a spreadsheet with the site, country, sex, culture, year, and Y DNA(From Geneticker's analysis) of all the Allentoft samples.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit?usp=drive_web

So, far Late Neolithic Scandinavians have produced R1a1a1-M417(Including one from CWC and ~2800BC) and "I"(I1?). Bronze age Scandinavians have produced R1b1a2 and I1. In Allentoft's ADMIXTURE Late Neolithic Scandinavians score similar to Corded Ware, and Bronze age Scandinavians score similar to Norwegians(the only Scandinavian reference they had) and Bell Beaker. There could have been some-type of genetic-shift. What's your take on this?

Johannes
13-06-15, 18:43
Less than 25% of Yamnaya Y DNA samples so far are I2a, if you include what Haak found which was all R1b. I2a in Yamnaya is no suprise, because it;s such an old paternal lineage that was dominate in Mesolithic Central-West Europeans. At sompoint it would have found it's way to Russia. Bell beaker was not apart of the Yamnaya culture. Central European(no other region has been tested) Bell Beaker had ancestry from Yamnaya-type people.

We only have DNA from Central European Bell Beaker folk. There's a good chance the Bell beaker folk in Iberia were 100% Neolithic-descended, and therefore no R1b1a2. They would have been mostly I2a and G2a. The "Iberians" are an Iron age ethnic group. You can make theories about their origins and say they derive from earlier Iberians, but there's no prove. We can only speak of them in Iron age sense, and word of their existence in anyother era should be treated as theory. By the Iron age R1b-L11 had probably already mades it's way to the "Iberians".

Then why does it show in the areas were the Iberians lived 60-80% R1b???? Has it ever occurred to you that if Iberians were not R1b, then how did it all that massive R1b DNA get there??? They did not have jets or cars then. Your opinions is all guesses and poor ones at that. The Iberian peninsula has more R1b than France, Germany, and England. This clearly shows that the Iberians (both Celtic and Iberian) are a homogeneous population.

How do you know they were Iron Age people??? You treat the "Iberians" as if they were not important. Yet they occupied almost half the Iberian peninsula and the Celts the other. That's larger than France. So it is obvious that R1b had something to do with the Iberians.

Sile
13-06-15, 19:55
Less than 25% of Yamnaya Y DNA samples so far are I2a, if you include what Haak found which was all R1b. I2a in Yamnaya is no suprise, because it;s such an old paternal lineage that was dominate in Mesolithic Central-West Europeans. At sompoint it would have found it's way to Russia. Bell beaker was not apart of the Yamnaya culture. Central European(no other region has been tested) Bell Beaker had ancestry from Yamnaya-type people.



some people are saying the I2 in the steppe came from the west

Sile
13-06-15, 19:59
So, there's very good evidence Germanic languages originated specifically in Scandinavia? Not including northern Central Europe, at all? Then why is Scandinavian R1a-Z284 so rare outside of Scandinavia? From what I've read, most continental Germanic R1a is of typical Balto-Slavic clades.

Also, here's a spreadsheet with the site, country, sex, culture, year, and Y DNA(From Geneticker's analysis) of all the Allentoft samples.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit?usp=drive_web

So, far Late Neolithic Scandinavians have produced R1a1a1-M417(Including one from CWC and ~2800BC) and "I"(I1?). Bronze age Scandinavians have produced R1b1a2 and I1. In Allentoft's ADMIXTURE Late Neolithic Scandinavians score similar to Corded Ware, and Bronze age Scandinavians score similar to Norwegians(the only Scandinavian reference they had) and Bell Beaker. There could have been some-type of genetic-shift. What's your take on this?

who's chart is this ?

why is early Neolithic ydna missing from it , is it not important or does it ruin peoples theories/fantasies?

bicicleur
13-06-15, 20:03
some people are saying the I2 in the steppe came from the west

they probably did, in pre-neolithic times or at the onset of the neolithic invasion into Europe
others probably were there, even before that
no western Yamnaya dna samples yet, nor cuccuteni samples

Fire Haired14
13-06-15, 20:10
who's chart is this ?

why is early Neolithic ydna missing from it , is it not important or does it ruin peoples theories/fantasies?

These are only the samples from Allentoft. It's my spreadhseet.

Fire Haired14
13-06-15, 20:23
Then why does it show in the areas were the Iberians lived 60-80% R1b???? Has it ever occurred to you that if Iberians were not R1b then how did it all that massive R1b DNA get there??? They did not have jets or cars then. Your opinion is all guesses and poor ones at that. The Iberian peninsula has more R1b than France, Germany, and England. This clearly shows that the Iberians are a homogeneous population.

How do you know they were Iron Age people??? You treat the "Iberians" as if they were not important. Yet they occupied almost half the Iberian peninsula and the Celts the other. That's larger than France. So it is obvious that R1b had something to do with the Iberians.

Y DNA is just a paternal lineage which are prone to founder effects. R1b-L11 in West Europe is estimated to be 6,000 years or less old. One man who probably lived 6,000YBP, is the common ancestors of ~50% West European paternal lineages. It's a founder effect, and isn't representative of overall genetic makeup. Over 50% of Finns have an East Asian/Siberian paternal lineage, but less than 10% of their ancestry is East Asian/Siberian. Y DNA percentages usually tell very little about overall ancestry.

The Iberian language is probably from people who didn't have R1b1a2. R1b-L11 was obviously brought to Iberia from the east(originally Russia/Ukraine). Ancient DNA speaks for itself. If Iron age Iberians had R1b, which they probably did, it still came originally from the east.

I say Iberians are an Iron age people, because that's the only time period we have prove they existed. Iberian is a language. Their language is what defines them. Their language could descend from Neolithic Iberians, or at least earlier than the Iron age. But we have no prove. It's all theory.

Tomenable
13-06-15, 20:45
So, far Late Neolithic Scandinavians have produced R1a1a1-M417(Including one from CWC and ~2800BC) and "I"(I1?). Bronze age Scandinavians have produced R1b1a2 and I1. In Allentoft's ADMIXTURE Late Neolithic Scandinavians score similar to Corded Ware, and Bronze age Scandinavians score similar to Norwegians(the only Scandinavian reference they had) and Bell Beaker. There could have been some-type of genetic-shift. What's your take on this?

As I have speculated before in my "Mesolithic-Neolithic vs. Eneolithic-Bronze Age European DNA", R1a came to Scandinavia with Corded Ware culture (Battle Axe = Corded Ware, it's the same), while R1b came later to Scandinavia, with Bell Beaker culture.

Link to my thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

Allentoft's study confirms my assumption.


ronze age Scandinavians have produced R1b1a2 and I1.

In my opinion I1 came to Scandinavia before both R1a and R1b.

I1 most certainly came to Scandinavia with Funnelbeaker culture, who were Neolithic farmers.

Why do I think so? Because Funnelbeaker people were direct descendants of earlier LBK culture (also farmers).

And the oldest sample of I1 to date, was found in Hungary in a burial of LBK Transdanubian.


Late Neolithic

In this link:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=2120948378

Sample designated as "Late Neolithic" is from roughly the same period as samples described as "Corded Ware" and "Battle Axe". In fact the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) is often referred to as "Eneolithic" or "Late Neolithic" (the latter name is rather erroneous).

And Battle Axe was just another name for Corded Ware, or one of its branches.

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

So I hold to my previous assumpton that the sequence of migrations into Scandinavia was as follows:

- I1 came with Funnelbeaker farmers
- R1a came with Corded Ware culture
- R1b came with Bell Beaker culture

In this chronological order (though R1b could enter only very shortly after R1a, or maybe at the same time).

Tomenable
13-06-15, 20:58
The thing is that Corded Ware culture expanded deeper into Scandinavia (as far as western Norway).

By contrast Bell Beaker culture initially stayed mostly in Denmark, generally more in the south.

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

LBK Transdanubia samples from Hungary contained not only I1, but also other haplogroups. However, they later spread into different directions from that Transdanubian homeland, and different lineages could spread in different directions.

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

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

Northern group of the Funnelbeaker culture (dark green) - they could be mostly I1 due to a founder effect:

http://www.geocities.ws/reginheim/funnelbeakerculture.gif

Funnelbeaker farmers expanded into areas inhabited by Pitted Ware hunter-gatherers, who were not I1.

We have samples of Y-DNA from Kongemose culture and from Pitted Ware culture - they were all I2a1 and I2c:

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

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

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

Stone Age Hunter-Gatherer DNA from Scandinavia:

http://s17.postimg.org/yqhw32nnz/Sweden_DNA.png

http://s17.postimg.org/ielmikdhr/Sweden_mt_DNA.png

Another source gives slightly different frequencies for modern haplogroups though:

For U2 - 0,8% (not 0,3)
For U4 - 3,0% (not 2,9)
For U5 - 13,2% (not 12,1)
For K - 7,5% (not 6,4)
For U - 3,3% (not 2,8)
For T2 - 4,3% (not 4,0)

This adds in total 3,6% more to the combined frequency of Hunter-Gatherer haplogroups.

If we apply this alternaive data, then we get 63,2% totally new post-HG branches (instead of 66,8%).

LeBrok
13-06-15, 21:17
As I have speculated before in my "Mesolithic-Neolithic vs. Eneolithic-Bronze Age European DNA", R1a came to Scandinavia with Corded Ware culture (Battle Axe = Corded Ware, it's the same), while R1b came later to Scandinavia, with Bell Beaker culture.

Link to my thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

Allentoft's study confirms my assumption.



In my opinion I1 came to Scandinavia before both R1a and R1b.

I1 most certainly came to Scandinavia with Funnelbeaker culture, who were Neolithic farmers.

Why do I think so? Because Funnelbeaker people were direct descendants of earlier LBK culture (also farmers).

And the oldest sample of I1 to date, was found in Hungary in a burial of LBK Transdanubian.
. Exactly my thoughts too.

Tomenable
13-06-15, 21:21
By "post-Neolithic" that second graph means "post-Pitted Ware hunter-gatherer".

Funnelbeaker farmer immigration is already included in "Other mtDNA" (dark grey).

Of course they could also bring in some of lineages which were already present among hunters.

So the replacement of hunter-gatherer lineages was at least 60% and perhaps greater than 2/3.

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

Edit:

I think that there already exists some study with samples of Funnelbeaker mtDNA from Scandinavia.

MOESAN
13-06-15, 22:32
That's because you guys apparently keep insisting that the Tarim Mummies weren't Tocharians just because they turned out to be R1a. So if you think that Kentum is inherently linked to R1b, and Satem to R1a, I decided to find an alternative explanation, and - voilà! - I've found it. A Kentumization or a Re-Kentumization could occur in Tocharian.

So if you can't believe that R1a could be Kentum, then maybe you can believe that they were Satem (originally).



And apart from the Kentum character (which could actually be derivative - resulting from [Re-]Kentumization under the influence of local non-IE languages, as Littauer suggests) - what other evidence exists, if any, that Tocharian language was "with a western European origin" ??? And this implies neglecting R1a in Tarim Mummies.

Before Tarim Mummies have turned out to be R1a (which was a few years ago) - if I remember correctly - Eupedia's website was claiming that they were surely Tocharians, that they were most certainly R1b, and that red hair was spread by R1b (because some of them were gingers and were still believed to be R1b at that time).

-

Now after they've turned out to be R1a, all claims get reversed - "no they weren't Tocharians, no, no." :)


I'm sorry no offense in my post, but a re-kentumization after satemization seems to me very weird, according to my lingiuistic experience! linguistic is not electricity nor ahything close to mechanics only - without historical examples wa cannot elaborate theories like it -
seemingly, if I rely upon some surveys, the ancestors of first inhabitants oF Tarim Basin (supposedly got southwards from Afanasyavo) were different from subsequent populations in the same place; I-Eans all of them, but from a different subgroup (the last: Indo6iranians?).
Just my point without considering it as Bible!

MOESAN
13-06-15, 22:40
Then why does it show in the areas were the Iberians lived 60-80% R1b???? Has it ever occurred to you that if Iberians were not R1b, then how did it all that massive R1b DNA get there??? They did not have jets or cars then. Your opinions is all guesses and poor ones at that. The Iberian peninsula has more R1b than France, Germany, and England. This clearly shows that the Iberians (both Celtic and Iberian) are a homogeneous population.

How do you know they were Iron Age people??? You treat the "Iberians" as if they were not important. Yet they occupied almost half the Iberian peninsula and the Celts the other. That's larger than France. So it is obvious that R1b had something to do with the Iberians.

You ought to look again at your %s: Iberian Peninsula doesn't show higher %s of Y-R1b than overall France (except Basque country; common to both), at fist. and soemtimes ago in History Celtic languages occupied larger territories than genuine Iberians.

MOESAN
13-06-15, 23:09
Exactly my thoughts too.

my point is that different subclades of Y-I1 moved to Scandinavia, and a lot of them later than Y-R1a (most of R1a: 2900/2500 BC?). It's hard to link Y-I1 to a time or to a culture only.
I suppose at some time even if issued from different clans, some Y-R1b-U106 and Y-I1 were neighbors south the Baltic, as Y-R1a were.. it's true that if we imagine I-Eans were pure male clans we are obliged to consider Y-I1 came before or after but... hard to become this well represented ligneage in Scandinavia of today.
concerning Tricher-Funnelbeaker culture I think it was a melting pot of diverse influences, and different from place to place. Megaltihers of Atlantic (from where in remote times?), southeast Europeans (LBK) and maybe some Steppes precursors... it's not a bunch of mt-DNA's (present situation) which could learn us too much things.

arvistro
13-06-15, 23:13
Any thoughts or known genetics for Globular Amphora Culture?

Tomenable
14-06-15, 00:09
Any thoughts or known genetics for Globular Amphora Culture?

Only mtDNA is available, IIRC.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 00:24
Wait, there is probably Y-DNA as well.

According to Maciamo - Gworys et al. samples from Jagodno could be Globular Amphora people:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28424-Y-Chromosomes-of-Corded-Ware-at-Wroclaw-Jagodno-%28SW-Poland%29?p=404430&viewfull=1#post404430

Tomenable
14-06-15, 01:36
This is autosomal DNA, right?:

Similarity of Corded Ware mostly from Poland + Germany (baCW) and Unetice from Poland + Czech Rep. (baUne) to modern populations:

"Supplementary Figure 2. Example of principal component analysis of individuals subsampled to 10,000 SNPs. Arrows indicate the shift in position for each ancient individual compared to the full dataset."

It is a real shame that Poles were not even included in compared modern populations, given that most of the samples are from Poland.

Anyway - it turns out that modern Croats (cro), Bulgarians (bul), Czechs (cze) and Hungarians (hun) are very similar:

http://s28.postimg.org/oz9v6z3qj/Autosomal.png

I also gathered some info on mtDNA haplogroups:

Lithuania:

RISE 598 LBA Turlojiske remains 1755 - H2a2

Poland:

RISE 1 Corded Oblaczkowo burial E8-A - K1b1a1
RISE 109 Unetice Wojkowice grave 1044 - U4
RISE 139 Unetice Chociwel grave 20/2011 - U2e1f1
RISE 145 Unetice Polwica grave 1603 - H6a1b
RISE 150 Unetice Przeclawice grave 02 - U5a1b1
RISE 154 Unetuce Szczepankowice grave 3 - K1a4a1
RISE 431 Corded/proto-Unetice Leki Male barrow 4 skeleton 2 - T2e

Germany:

RISE 434 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 1/3 - U4
RISE 435 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 2/3 - J1b1a1
RISE 436 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 3/3 - U5b1c2
RISE 446 Corded Bergrheinfeld burial 13 m - J1c1b

Czech Rep.:

RISE 577 Unetice Velke Prilepy F0565, gr. 238 - T2b
RISE 586 Unetice Moravska Nova Ves F0597, gr. 6 - K1b1a

Tomenable
14-06-15, 02:04
BTW - those two willow-green arrows (r505 and r395) are Sintashta and Andronovo respectively. :) The one located above (r395) - almost exactly between Unetice samples from Poland-Czechia and Corded Ware samples from Poland-Germany - is Sintashta.

So Corded Ware, Unetice, modern Croats, modern Czechs, modern Bulgarians, and Proto-Indo-Iranians - were all very similar. :)

Too bad, that modern Poles were not included in the comparison. They would appear somewhere in the vicinity as well.

Czechs are more towards the upper-right corner compared to Croats - they are similar to baSca, or Nordic Bronze Age (violet arrow r98).

So Czechs and Hungarians are Nordic-shifted (shifted towards baSca, or the Nordic Bronze Age) compared to Croats.

By contrast, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Estonians are shifted to the lower-right end - towards Finns, Mordvins and Russians (you can't see all of the chart, but if I showed more of it towards the lower-right corner, you would see Russians, Finns, Mordvins there).

Bulgarians are more shifted to the left - towards Greeks and Albanians - when compared to Croats.

So where do you think would Poles appear?

Certainly they don't have as much Finno-Ugric admixture as Ukrainians-Belarusians-Lithuanians-Estonians-Russians and not as much Nordic (baSca / Nordic Bronze Age) admixture as Czechs and Hungarians. Certainly also not as much Greek-Albanian as Bulgarians. :)

Poles would appear to the lower-left of Czechs, to the upper-left of Ukrainians-Belarusians and to the right of Bulgarians.

Probably below Croats, maybe to the lower-right of Croats, below Hungarians, quite close to these ancient Polish-Czech-German samples.

Sile
14-06-15, 02:14
This is autosomal DNA, right?:

Similarity of Corded Ware mostly from Poland + Germany (baCW) and Unetice from Poland + Czech Rep. (baUne) to modern populations:

"Supplementary Figure 2. Example of principal component analysis of individuals subsampled to 10,000 SNPs. Arrows indicate the shift in position for each ancient individual compared to the full dataset."

It is a real shame that Poles were not even included in compared modern populations, given that most of the samples are from Poland.

Anyway - it turns out that modern Croats (cro), Bulgarians (bul), Czechs (cze) and Hungarians (hun) are very similar:

http://s28.postimg.org/oz9v6z3qj/Autosomal.png

I also gathered some info on mtDNA haplogroups:

Lithuania:

RISE 598 LBA Turlojiske remains 1755 - H2a2

Poland:

RISE 1 Corded Oblaczkowo burial E8-A - K1b1a1
RISE 109 Unetice Wojkowice grave 1044 - U4
RISE 139 Unetice Chociwel grave 20/2011 - U2e1f1
RISE 145 Unetice Polwica grave 1603 - H6a1b
RISE 150 Unetice Przeclawice grave 02 - U5a1b1
RISE 154 Unetuce Szczepankowice grave 3 - K1a4a1
RISE 431 Corded/proto-Unetice Leki Male barrow 4 skeleton 2 - T2e

Germany:

RISE 434 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 1/3 - U4
RISE 435 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 2/3 - J1b1a1
RISE 436 Corded Tiefbrunn burial 3/3 - U5b1c2
RISE 446 Corded Bergrheinfeld burial 13 m - J1c1b

Czech Rep.:

RISE 577 Unetice Velke Prilepy F0565, gr. 238 - T2b
RISE 586 Unetice Moravska Nova Ves F0597, gr. 6 - K1b1a

So, 75% of R1a1 of CW are germans.............do you have a subclade for these?..........all I see is M417

Alan
14-06-15, 02:33
Take a look at this.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31301-J2a-J2-in-Iron-Age-Altais-and-Russia?p=459658#post459658

Tomenable
14-06-15, 02:38
Actually Czechs are "more Nordic" than the Nordic Bronze Age itself, which is located to the left of the Czechs, and above Hungarians. ^^

Tomenable
14-06-15, 02:41
So, 75% of R1a1 of CW are germans

Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia southward only during the Iron Age, staring from the 4th century BC onwards.

These are Copper-Bronze Age East-Central European samples which are a few thousands of years older than Germanic migrations.

And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.

It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.

South Slavs are shifted genetically towards Greeks-Albanians and East Slavs towards Finns, Mordvins and Estonians. Quite obvious.

Fire Haired14
14-06-15, 03:47
And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.


Where are you getting this information? Allentoft's ADMIXTURE and PCA? If so, that isn't enough. No one has thoroughly analysed the Allentoft genomes. Even if Nordic Bronze age people were not most similar to modern people there, that doesn't mean Germanic language's ancestor wasn't there. How do you explain the I1 in Nordic LN and BA? Germanic language may be young, but its language evolved in that region for some 2,000 years and the genes of its first speakers mostly arrived in that region in the Late Neolithic and Bronze age from Central and East Europe. Slavic is even younger than Germanic, but we can see the ancestors of the first Slavic speakers in Corded Ware and Neolithic groups some 3,000 years before the language spread.

In Allentoft's admixture Nordic LN is similar to Corded Ware and Bronze age LN to Bell Beaker. Overall what we're seeing is a replacement of most of the previous Gok-2(Funnel beaker) gene pool, by Corded Ware and Bell beaker-types. The Late Neolithic Scandinavians are R1a1a1 and I1. The Bronze age ones are R1b1a2 and I1. We're watching the current paternal gene pool form.

Considering there is a Scandinavian-specific branch of R1a1a1b1-Z283 that certainly arrived with Corded Ware, that I1 is popular in LN/BA Swedes, and the R1b -L11 clades specific to Germanic peoples, it's safe to say early Germans were mostly a mix of Corded Ware, Bell beaker, etc. types who arrived in Scandinavia(and near by areas) in the Late Neolithic and Bronze age.

Sile
14-06-15, 06:23
Germanic tribes expanded from Scandinavia southward only during the Iron Age, staring from the 4th century BC onwards.

These are Copper-Bronze Age East-Central European samples which are a few thousands of years older than Germanic migrations.

And they show the greatest similarity to modern Czechs, Croats, Bulgarians and Poles plus Hungarians. Not Germanic groups.

Czechs and Hungarians also show the greatest (greater than any modern Germanic group) similarity to Nordic Bronze Age (baSca). LOL.

So probably Proto-Germanic was Iron Age Jastorf culture, not the Nordic Bronze Age.

It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.

South Slavs are shifted genetically towards Greeks-Albanians and East Slavs towards Finns, Mordvins and Estonians. Quite obvious.

I do not know what you are talking about.....I said germans to represent germanic tribes..............in regards to your bulgars, they did not enter Europe until 700AD, the hungarians 400AD, the croats 600AD.
I do not know how they are related to hungarians.

All I see is CW being people who became germanic first, later changes do not count.

Greying Wanderer
14-06-15, 06:45
You are mixing stuff. Patrick Geary's claim is from 2013, well before Iron Age Briton samples became available.

Modern Britons are much less Northern shifted than Iron Age Britons, so we must assume that the "Germanic" ancestry has actually decreased in the last 2000 years or so in the British isles.



Modern Armenians are not native of Armenia. They are mostly Indo Europeized Mesopotamians who were pushed North by the Arabic and Turkic expansions. Hence their hight SWA for Caucasian levels.


Alternatively

1) The Iron age Britons from the east of England were more Germanic while the west of England stayed mostly Celtic with a Saxon elite (which is what all the writers closest to the time say is what happened) and then the east and west halves of the country mixed later.

2) Modern Armenians are the result of an original mixture of an indigenous mountain population and intrusive copper age miners from the steppe which mixture was then further battered down the centuries from the west (Hittites) and later the south (Arabs and Turks).

epoch
14-06-15, 10:59
1) The Iron age Britons from the east of England were more Germanic while the west of England stayed mostly Celtic with a Saxon elite (which is what all the writers closest to the time say is what happened) and then the east and west halves of the country mixed later.


But Iron age Britain is pre-germanic invasions.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 11:08
in regards to your bulgars, they did not enter Europe until 700AD, the hungarians 400AD, the croats 600AD.

Modern Bulgarians have not much to do with Proto-Bulgars and modern Hungarians not much to do with Magyars genetically. Croats and their ancestors always (at least since Corded Ware) lived in Europe, and entered the Balkans around 600 AD. They came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located to the north of the Carpathians Mountains.

Original Hungarian-speakers were of N1c haplogroup (Y-DNA) and Tat C haplogroup (mtDNA).

Here you can see their DNA:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2008.00440.x/abstract

High-status Magyar burial from Szabadkigyos-Palliget ca. 950 AD = N1c and Tat C.

High-status Magyar burial from Ormenykut ca. year 950 AD = again N1c and Tat C.

By contrast modern sample of 197 Hungarians = only one person with Tat C.

Magyars were a small group who imposed their language on much larger Indo-European local population.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 11:19
All I see is CW being people who became germanic first

Only CW in Scandinavia - R1a Z284 and R1a L664 - became Germanic, and that only under R1b influence.

All other CW and its subclades of R1a became Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian (+ maybe some extinct IE branches).

This study says that Indo-Iranians emerged from eastward migration of CW. As for J2 in Iranians - look at Gworys et al. samples from Jagodno, there was one J there, it was impossible to test it further downstream though:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28424-Y-Chromosomes-of-Corded-Ware-at-Wroclaw-Jagodno-%28SW-Poland%29?p=404421&viewfull=1#post404421

Eastern and East-Central Europe as a bifurcation hotspot for R1a:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/02/eastern-europe-as-bifurcation-hotspot.html

Tomenable
14-06-15, 11:35
But Iron age Britain is pre-germanic invasions.

Exactly.

According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels), Belgians, and Picts.

Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales.

There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. That was a Celtic-speaking tribe but probably immigrants from Iberia, or with high local Neolithic ancestry.

Gaels originally lived only in Ireland - Scottish Gaelic emerged when Irish Gaels invaded and mixed with Picts.

Hallstatt Nordid anthropological type is named after the proto-homeland of the Celts.

Keltic Nordid is named after other groups of Celts, who lived later than Hallstatt proto-Celts.

So because Iron Age Celts in Britain were "more Nordic" than modern English, doesn't mean that they were Germanic.

It only means that some of Celtic tribes were more Nordic genetically than some of Germanic tribes.

epoch
14-06-15, 11:35
Actually Czechs are "more Nordic" than the Nordic Bronze Age itself, which is located to the left of the Czechs, and above Hungarians. ^^

The Scandinavians seem to be pulled towards HGs (Los in the PCS) compared to Czechs and BaSca . But the Scandinavians in that PCA are Icelandic and Norwegian who have more HG than Swedes and Danes *at this moment*. So I think you compare BaSca with the wrong Scandinavians.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 12:06
So I think you compare BaSca with the wrong Scandinavians.

Oh, OK - thank you, this explains everything. :) Anyway my point with that was that Czechs are not so similar to ancient samples of Sintashta, Polish-Czech Unetice and Polish-German Corded Ware only because they are shifted more towards Nordic Bronze Age. Bulgarians are shifted towards Greeks-Albanians. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Estonians are shifted towards Finns, Russians and Mordvins (Ukrainians more to Mordvins and Russians, the other three more towards Finns and northern Russians). But Croats are the most similar to all those ancient samples. And Poles were unfortunately not even included in the comparison, but they are not as close to Greeks as Bulgarians, not as close to Russians-Finns-Mordvins as East Slavs and Balts, not as close to Scandinavian Bronze Age as Czechs and Hungarians (both of whom have more R1b than Poles, and Czechs also more I1) - which implies in what part of the graph would Poles most likely plot. :)

There is a 2009 anthropological-genetic study which compared Croats to Poles, and says that they are similar:

https://ariets.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/15311416.pdf

"(...) Our results showed marked craniometrical similarities between early medieval Croat and medieval Polish series. Among all of the 39 analyzed European sites, the two exhibiting the greatest similarities were Nin, a site representing the nucleus of the early medieval Croat state (72), and Cedynia, a Polish early medieval site located approximately 75 km south of the Baltic Sea. (...) These results suggest that early medieval Croats were of Slavic ancestry, and that early medieval Croats and Poles at one time shared a common homeland. Recent genetic analyses of the nonrecombining Y chromosome from 25 extant European and Middle Eastern populations support the Slavic affiliation of the Croats, and also indicate significant genetic similarities between modern Croats and Poles (1). (...)"

So Croats came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located somewhere near the Carpathian Mountains.

Croats are also descended from the same group of Old Slavic-speakers as Poles, and presumably Czechs.

arvistro
14-06-15, 13:07
When I asked similar question re PCA and modern popukation, I was told it was distorted scale and ancients/modern could not be comparable that way. I read similar note by Davitsky.

Garrick
14-06-15, 13:15
It also shows that Proto-Indo-Iranians originated from the very same population as West Slavs and White Croats / Croats.





So Croats came to the Balkans from White Croatia, which was located somewhere near the Carpathian Mountains.


Only clarification, because sometimes is hard to split myths and facts.

Because White Croatia is myth. Of course and White Serbia is myth.

Someone can read serious scientists, for example: Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats, by Daniel Dzino:

Danijel Dzino is Australian scientist, Macquarie University. He is Croatian origin.

page 112

The story of the arrival of the Croats and Serbs from 'White Croatia' and 'White Serbia' is nothing more than away to explain and rationalise the social and cultural change through a misinterpretation of the events from Late Antiquity. The narrative is no different from too obviously fictive story that Diocletian founded Diocleia, or that he instigated the Roman colonisation of Dalmatia, which was the origo gentis of the Dalmatian Romani. If Constantine indeed used the existing origo gentis of the Croats in chapter 30, we cannot see it is realistic, or even original, especially because an almost identical myth of the arrival of Bulgars was mentoined in Theopanes the Confessor, as well as the patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople.

page 114

Therefore, if the story of the arrival of the Croats in the DAI is indeed part of the Croat oral discourse, then we can see it as politically and ideologically motivated myth that legitimated the existing situation and the political domination the group over Dalmatia and Pannonia through common ancestors: the imaginary brothers and sisters mentoined in the DAI.

DAI = De Administrando Imperio

Tomenable
14-06-15, 13:27
Your Daniel Dzino is exactly the same sort of a scholar as Stephen Oppenheimer.

And Dzino's "Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats" is simiar to Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British".

They are both denying all kinds of migrations and claiming Paleolithic continuity for Croats and for English people.

In other words - nutters. Croat and Serb/Sorb migrations are NOT mythical, just like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, etc.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 13:34
especially because an almost identical myth of the arrival of Bulgars

Except that the arrival of Bulgars (as well as of Bulgarian Slavic tribes) is also not a myth...

Fire Haired14
14-06-15, 14:30
I added Allentoft's and Geneticker's analysis to my spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit#gid=1630708280

Garrick
14-06-15, 14:49
Your Daniel Dzino is exactly the same sort of a scholar as Stephen Oppenheimer.

And Dzino's "Becoming Slav, Becoming Croats" is simiar to Oppenheimer's "The Origins of the British".

They are both denying all kinds of migrations and claiming Paleolithic continuity for Croats and for English people.

In other words - nutters. Croat and Serb/Sorb migrations are NOT mythical, just like Celtic and Anglo-Saxon, etc.


Except that the arrival of Bulgars (as well as of Bulgarian Slavic tribes) is also not a myth...

Sorry Tomenable. It wasn't offense. Yes, they probably came from somewhere. But with the passage of time there was a need for mythical countries of origin.

Every South Slavic nation has own myths, and unfortunately they do not correspond to the truth.

Yet, the facts are not in accordance with myths. All these researches may just help us to come to more objective pictures of the past.

Tomenable
14-06-15, 15:29
It seems that new Early Medieval DNA from Poland - including Piast dynasty DNA from 340 graves of dynasty members - is coming soon!:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31303-Where-did-Great-Moravians-go-after-the-collapse-of-Great-Moravia?p=459699#post459699

bicicleur
14-06-15, 15:50
Exactly.

According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels), Belgians, and Picts.

Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales.

There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. That was a Celtic-speaking tribe but probably immigrants from Iberia, or with high local Neolithic ancestry.

Gaels originally lived only in Ireland - Scottish Gaelic emerged when Irish Gaels invaded and mixed with Picts.

Hallstatt Nordid anthropological type is named after the proto-homeland of the Celts.

Keltic Nordid is named after other groups of Celts, who lived later than Hallstatt proto-Celts.

So because Iron Age Celts in Britain were "more Nordic" than modern English, doesn't mean that they were Germanic.

It only means that some of Celtic tribes were more Nordic genetically than some of Germanic tribes.

IMO Britons, Picts and Gaels were Goidels who spoke Goidelic and entered the British Isles 3000 years ago. They were certain subclades of R1b-L21.
Belgians and Gauls where iron-age LaTene Celts.

Problem with those anhropological types is they are zombies made by mixing some genomes and after creation they try to stick a label on them to express what they are supposed to represent.
In reality they represent nothing.

bicicleur
14-06-15, 15:53
Where are you getting this information? Allentoft's ADMIXTURE and PCA?

hello, can you please provide me with a link to these?

Alan
14-06-15, 16:13
nevermind...

Tomenable
14-06-15, 16:26
IMO Britons, Picts and Gaels were Goidels who spoke Goidelic

Britons spoke Brythonic languages, similar to modern Welsh and (already extinct) Cornish, but not to Goidelic Scottish and Irish languages. Pictish was rather Celtic, but not Goidelic - it was probably either Brythonic or a branch of its own. Gauls spoke Gaulish, one of continental Celtic languages.

Belgians most probably spoke a continental Celtic, but a distinct language than Gauls.

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

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

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

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

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

Angela
14-06-15, 17:33
Fire Haired:
Where are you getting this information? Allentoft's ADMIXTURE and PCA? If so, that isn't enough. No one has thoroughly analysed the Allentoft genomes.

I would second that. If I were to go just by the PCA it would seem that Tuscans are very close to Bronze Age Hungarians (who may have changed only minimally since perhaps the Middle Neolithic). However, I'm not going to make that leap right now; those ancient samples are projected onto the modern populations. When a better PCA is provided, we'll see.

72957295

As for the yDna calls, I wouldn't go to the bank with any of this yet. Allentoft says they weren't very interested in the Ydna! Their calls are very general. The calls are being made by bloggers on sometimes very poor samples, and there's still a lot of confusion from what I can see.

Plus, people should be aware that the statistical analysis is providing slightly different results from those in the ADMIXTURE program run, and when the latest tools are used, which it appears weren't used by the authors of Allentoft et al it may be different yet.

We've waited a long time for more ancient samples. I think it's prudent to not rush into conclusions on some of these issues.

Angela
14-06-15, 18:01
I see that Dienekes has provided some analysis of the paper:

http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/06/into-out-of-and-across-eurasian-steppe.html

It bears close reading, I think.

"The first conclusion of the new study is the detection of the migration from the steppe to Europe that was the title piece of the earlier study. The authors do not present quantitative estimates of the amount of demographic replacement effected by the Yamnaya-to-Corded Ware migration, so it will be interesting to see if there are any minor significant differences in these. But, the two papers have different Yamnaya and Corded Ware samples, and yet arrive at qualitatively similar conclusions, so at least this part of the story should be considered firmly "settled"."

"The second conclusion is the migration from the European steppe to the Afanasievo culture of the Altai... This confirms movement #2 of the Anthony/Ringe model (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/strong-linguistic-and-archaeological.html), although I doubt that this migration had anything to do with Tocharians as detailed below. But, it did happen."

"The third conclusion is that the later steppe cultures of the Sintashta and Andronovo (putative Indo-Iranians according to some), were not a continuation of the Yamnaya-Afanasievo people, but had extra Neolithic farmer ancestry. So, it seems that Neolithic farmers entered the steppe, and the development of steppe cultures did not happen in isolation.
Whether this involved migration of Corded Ware people (as the authors prefer), who were already a mixture of Yamnaya and Neolithic farmers, or some other mixture of Neolithic farmers with steppe populations (e.g., Tripolye plus Yamnaya) remains to be seen."

"As for the Yamnaya, the authors do not find a very strong signal of admixture (as did the earlier study), which they attribute quite plausibly to the lack of eastern hunter-gatherers in their dataset. On the other hand, they claim that the "Caucasus" genetic component in the steppe populations was of steppe ancestry rather than Near Eastern/Caucasian origin as was claimed in the earlier paper. This is based on the statistic D(Yoruba, Armenia BA; Yamnaya, Corded Ware) that is not significantly different from zero. However, Corded Ware is a mixture of Yamnaya and European Neolithic, so the sign of this statistic is determined by the sign of the statistic D(Yoruba, Armenia BA; Yamnaya, European Neolithic). If Yamnaya was simply a steppe population, descendants of local people without ancestry from the Middle East/Caucasus, then this statistic would be positive because of the shared Middle Eastern ancestry of Armenia BA and European Neolithic. Whereas, if Yamnaya is a mixture of a steppe population and a Middle Eastern/Caucasian one, then the statistic would be positive/negative for the respective parts, which would be consistent with an average not different from zero. I am sure that when the new data is re-analyzed together with the eastern hunter-gatherers it will be clear that the Yamnaya are not a pure steppe population."



http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ue5gkpXXotU/VXtEDEM81FI/AAAAAAAAKI4/BaayI9zV4e8/s400/nature14507-sf1.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ue5gkpXXotU/VXtEDEM81FI/AAAAAAAAKI4/BaayI9zV4e8/s1600/nature14507-sf1.jpg)
"Speaking of the Caucasus/Middle East, it seems clear as a first approximation that the Bronze Age Armenians are quite similar to modern Armenians. Whether the genetic continuity of Armenians extends beyond the Bronze Age, or Armenians were formed by mixture in the Bronze Age (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/bronze-age-mixing-of-multiple.html) remains to be seen. The question of Armenian linguistic origins is of course separate as it is commonly understood that the Armenian language is unrelated to Anatolian languages and may have arrived in Armenia from the Balkans at around the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition."

"The story of the Y-chromosomes seems very interesting, although these are not resolved to fine detail. The most interesting aspect of this part of the work is the appearance of haplogroup J in Iron Age samples from Russia, Armenia, and the Altai. This may tie in to the question of the Tocharian origins, which I have claimed were associated with R1b, rather than R1a (as the Indo-Iranians were). The modern Uygurs (who are partially of Tocharian origin) have both J2 and R1b, so were the recipients of West Eurasian elements other than the R1a that so seem to have dominated the eastern steppe, including the Afanasievo. I continue to think there's no evidence that the Afanasievo is Proto-Tocharian, as it's in the wrong place and 3,000 years before the attestation of Tocharian. "

So, there is no necessary conflict between the findings of Haak et al and Allentoft et al. Allentoft just didn't have the EHG genomes (and had different Yamnaya samples...there was some variation from site to site, afterall), nor did they have the latest statistical tool.

LeBrok
14-06-15, 20:27
I see that Dienekes has provided some analysis of the paper:

http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/06/into-out-of-and-across-eurasian-steppe.html

It bears close reading, I think.

"The first conclusion of the new study is the detection of the migration from the steppe to Europe that was the title piece of the earlier study. The authors do not present quantitative estimates of the amount of demographic replacement effected by the Yamnaya-to-Corded Ware migration, so it will be interesting to see if there are any minor significant differences in these. But, the two papers have different Yamnaya and Corded Ware samples, and yet arrive at qualitatively similar conclusions, so at least this part of the story should be considered firmly "settled"."

"The second conclusion is the migration from the European steppe to the Afanasievo culture of the Altai... This confirms movement #2 of the Anthony/Ringe model (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/02/strong-linguistic-and-archaeological.html), although I doubt that this migration had anything to do with Tocharians as detailed below. But, it did happen."

"The third conclusion is that the later steppe cultures of the Sintashta and Andronovo (putative Indo-Iranians according to some), were not a continuation of the Yamnaya-Afanasievo people, but had extra Neolithic farmer ancestry. So, it seems that Neolithic farmers entered the steppe, and the development of steppe cultures did not happen in isolation.
Whether this involved migration of Corded Ware people (as the authors prefer), who were already a mixture of Yamnaya and Neolithic farmers, or some other mixture of Neolithic farmers with steppe populations (e.g., Tripolye plus Yamnaya) remains to be seen."
I really like this, and it fits with population movements of Cucuteni and Corded described by Anthony, which theories I'm a big fan of. I was expecting, as mentioned in other threads, to find differences in population admixtures between West and East Yamnaya. West being more EEF farmers and East more HG/Nomadic horse breeding. What is interesting and surprising that both groups took part in eastern expansion, and that they stayed distinct, not mixing. Though Tarim mummies, more of farmers than horse herders was kind of giveaway. Well, we knew there was some movement from West Yamna/Corded into the far East, but not on a scale of Sintashta/Andronovo. I'm yet to find time to go through new data. At the end of a day we need to accommodate not 2 but 3 distinct groups/sub cultures of Yamnaya, R1a Z93 and Z282, and R1b.

Edit:
I just had a look at Y haplogroups of these cultures. So Afanasievo is R1b, with sbuclades looking so far very IndoEuropean indeed. I think it is a great news to finally find them. I thought they were stationed, before migration to Europe and Near East, closer to East Side of Caspian Sea. However it was 500 to 1,000 years before Andronovo (R1a Z 93) culture, so at this time they might have had Central Asia completely to themselves.

Andronovo is Z93, and contains more farmer admixture than R1b. I wonder what part of Yamnaya they come from? How were they positioned in relation to Z283 so they didn't mix together. If East Yamnaya was full of of R1b, this doesn't leave much room in West Yamnaya for both of them. Unless the split from mother clade Z645 is younger than expected. Younger than 3,000 BC?

Edit:
I'm too fast on a trigger. Now I can see that Afanasievo were just females, no R1b discovered. Though if there is great affinity to Yamnaya R1b, they should turn out the same. Will see.

Fire Haired14
14-06-15, 21:36
RISE00: M913021: Corded Ware Estonia.

ANE K7.
ANE: 19.34
WHG: 74.48
ENF: 5.61
East African: 0.57

M966366: Corded Ware Germany. Haak 2015.
ANE K7.
ANE: 24.68
WHG: 59.61
ENF: 12.55

There was variation in Corded Ware.

Alan
14-06-15, 23:16
RISE00: M913021: Corded Ware Estonia.

ANE K7.
ANE: 19.34
WHG: 74.48
ENF: 5.61
East African: 0.57

M966366: Corded Ware Germany. Haak 2015.
ANE K7.
ANE: 24.68
WHG: 59.61
ENF: 12.55

There was variation in Corded Ware.

In ANE K7 the component is called for a reason WHG-UHG, because it is not exclusively WHG but also eats up the UHG portion of ENF :)

arvistro
14-06-15, 23:16
Variation makes sense. Estonia is Estonia and Germany is Germany :)
In Baltics Corded mixed and assimilated (under Daugava) or got assimilated (above Daugava) by local folk.

More precisely borders for assimilation can be found here
7296

Tomenable
15-06-15, 02:58
RISE00: M913021: Corded Ware Estonia.

ANE K7.
ANE: 19.34
WHG: 74.48
ENF: 5.61
East African: 0.57

M966366: Corded Ware Germany. Haak 2015.
ANE K7.
ANE: 24.68
WHG: 59.61
ENF: 12.55

There was variation in Corded Ware.



Nice! Where did you get this from? Can you check admixtures for CW samples from Poland and Germany?

BTW - I've heard that Davidski has published Y-DNA results but I can't find where.

Anyway, this one sample of R1b from Corded Ware seems to be RISE1 (Genetiker has it only as P so far).

Fire Haired14
15-06-15, 03:57
Nice! Where did you get this from? Can you check admixtures for CW samples from Poland and Germany?

BTW - I've heard that Davidski has published Y-DNA results but I can't find where.

Anyway, this one sample of R1b from Corded Ware seems to be RISE1 (Genetiker has it only as P so far).

Both Corded Ware dudes are uploaded to GEDmatch. Find their IDs, here (https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fsh%2Fmqp4gxt zpng3kom%2FAAAYJ7dvojikMCF-q75NRi_Ca%3Fdl%3D0&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHYZxn-1QWA8aGDpzHYCum8TvGpXQ)(Allentoft) and here (https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dropbox.com%2Fsh%2Fcnnmb7c ym9aer09%2FAAB-l36I2WjMXNhZYFe6wN3pa%3Fdl%3D0&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEVANRtd6zU0Aa9Ce9j9mcK75v4jg)(Haak)

Here's Ancient West Eurasian Y DNA(Including Allentoft data). I don't know about the Corded Ware R1b. Geneticker says he doesn't think it's R1b, and says it's of very low coverage. I don't think anyone has uploaded the Polish CWCs to GEDmatch or analyzed them in anyway yet. BTW, Sintashta/Andronovo are more EEF than German Corded Ware. Basically they were immigrants from Late Neolithic Europe. So, maybe R1a1a1b-S224 originated in Ukriane or something.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit#gid=0

bicicleur
15-06-15, 12:45
RISE504 is J2a2-L581
together with RISE602 that makes 2 x J2a2 in Iron age Russia

arvistro
15-06-15, 12:47
RISE504 is J2a2-L581
together with RISE602 that makes 2 x J2a2 in Iron age Russia
How those J2 look autosomally?

Tomenable
15-06-15, 13:11
^ Here it is:

"Davidski said...

I've just updated the post with a link to the official (from the lead author) Y-HG list for the samples from the study. Here it is again...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQaU54RWc0eEV2WUU/view

June 14, 2015 at 6:05 AM"

Alan
15-06-15, 13:24
Yeah, these Bronze Age Armenians look like they had recent ancestors from the steppe and/or northeast Caucasus. This is a pretty good fit for them using qpAdm (chisq 2.140, tail prob 0.543766).

baArm
Yamnaya 0.312
LBK_EN 0.688

But then again this is an awesome fit for Yamnaya (chisq 0.573, tail prob 0.902514).

Yamnaya
EHG 0.427
baArm 0.573

So working out the precise details of the nature of gene flow between Yamnaya and the Bronze Age Caucasus is gonna be tricky.


I gave at least 3! reasonings on Eurogenes comment section itself why is this blatanly wrong. He didn't bother to tackle it.


Yamna did not have Atlantic_Med type ancestry and had only 5% of Caucasus. This is the major difference to modern West Asians and what causes the "European" shift not freakn Yamna type ancestry.

The major "European" shift in this samples is the much smaller frequency of Southwest Asian and the significantly higher Atlantic_Med ancestry (over 30% vs modern populations with ~10%) and Caucasus (30%).

He is like trying to explain the blueness of the sky with greenhouse effect. Ancient Armenia was populated by Northeast Caucasian type people and every freakn linguist believed that Northeast Caucasians arrived from further South and not the opposite. My god sometimes his agenda makes him lose totally common sense.

How can a population (Yamna) be a source for something (EEF) in another population (BaArmenia) which they lack themselves(Yamna) I will never understand this logic.



Fortunately I am not the only one who realized that.



Thanks for that Admixture run. Very interesting.

Regarding the BA Armenian, the oldest one (ca. 1800 BC):

baArm (RISE413)
Amerindian: 2.5%
EEF: 14.2%
Euro_HG: 6.5%
BA_Cauc: 74.5%

Karelia_HG
Amerindian: 12%
EEF: 0%
Euro_HG: 88%
BA_CAUC: 0%

baYam (RISE552)
Amerindian: 2.8%
EEF: 0%
Euro:HG: 49%
BA_Cauc: 46%

The BA Armenian, apart from getting some EEF admixture during the 1500-2000 years they must have been on the area, it doesn't look to me it has any steppe admixture.

On the other hand, it looks like a great fit for Yamnaya with the EHGs. The fact that he's the oldest one we have (though not old enough), and that he's R1b, shouldn't it be giving a strong clue as to what really happened? Sure, we'll need an older sample for 100% confirmation, but the odds are that we found the direct descendants of the "Armenian-like" population from Haak et al.

bicicleur
15-06-15, 14:15
How those J2 look autosomally?

sorry, only this

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153383262614324&set=pcb.10153358223627769&type=1&theater

it's confirmed by Chris Rottensteiner

Tomenable
15-06-15, 15:17
Thanks for the info Fire Haired, but at the moment... :

http://gedmatch.com/

"GEDmatch is down while we deal with a major data loss caused by a recently introduced software bug. We are working to restore data. We apologize for the inconvenience, and ask for your understanding."

Johannes
15-06-15, 16:00
Exactly.

According to Julius Caesar Britain was a hodge-podge of Britons, Gauls (don't confuse with Gaels), Belgians, and Picts.

Of course most of Gauls and Belgians were in what is now England, Picts in Scotland, Britons in England and Wales.

There were also those mysterious swarthy-pigmented Silures in one part of Wales, who were the strongest of Welsh tribes. That was a Celtic-speaking tribe but probably immigrants from Iberia, or with high local Neolithic ancestry.

The Silures were not Celtic. They could not be. They had woolly hair and dark complexions. Had to have been Neolithic people -- possibly Berbers. They just adopted Celtic language. Iberia was heavily populated by Celts and Iberians. They were not woolly-haired and swarthy. Anyways I have seen Spaniards and the majority are light skinned.

sparkey
15-06-15, 17:52
The Silures were not Celtic. They could not be. They had woolly hair and dark complexions. Had to have been Neolithic people -- possibly Berbers. They just adopted Celtic language. Iberia was heavily populated by Celts and Iberians. They were not woolly-haired and swarthy. Anyways I have seen Spaniards and the majority are light skinned.

The idea that the Silures were Iberians is based on one piece of speculation by Tacitus. Placing them as another dark-complexioned people, like the Berbers as you do, doesn't have any precedence as far as I know.

My opinion is that the Silures were definitely Celts. Archaeology in the area settled by the Silures points to very similar patterns to other Brythonic Celts, like the use of British-style roundhouses. Modern Southeastern Welsh are genetically about as we would expect. They may be a local maximum for dark complexion, but IMO don't share many other phenotypic traits with non-British populations. There are also no notes, in Tacitus or otherwise, of the Silures speaking an unusual language, or having unusual cultural patterns (other than being warlike).

Angela
15-06-15, 18:17
Alan: Fortunately I am not the only one who realized that.


http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Alberto
Thanks for that Admixture run. Very interesting.

Regarding the BA Armenian, the oldest one (ca. 1800 BC):

baArm (RISE413)
Amerindian: 2.5%
EEF: 14.2%
Euro_HG: 6.5%
BA_Cauc: 74.5%

Karelia_HG
Amerindian: 12%
EEF: 0%
Euro_HG: 88%
BA_CAUC: 0%

baYam (RISE552)
Amerindian: 2.8%
EEF: 0%
Euro:HG: 49%
BA_Cauc: 46%

The BA Armenian, apart from getting some EEF admixture during the 1500-2000 years they must have been on the area, it doesn't look to me it has any steppe admixture.

On the other hand, it looks like a great fit for Yamnaya with the EHGs. The fact that he's the oldest one we have (though not old enough), and that he's R1b, shouldn't it be giving a strong clue as to what really happened? Sure, we'll need an older sample for 100% confirmation, but the odds are that we found the direct descendants of the "Armenian-like" population from Haak et al.



http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/clear.gif (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/editpost.php?p=459760&do=editpost)

That certainly seems suggestive to me. If we get similar or even better fits with dna from Maykop or perhaps from older Neolithic era dna from Armenia (which we should be getting soon,yes?) then it will seal the deal, as we say. If that earlier dna or Maykop dna is also an upstream form of R1b then it would validate hypotheses proposed on this site for a very long time.

I suppose that would mean the end of the saga of the overwhelmingly attractive south Caucasus women and the incredible allure that drove steppe men to either steal them or madly round up every horse in sight in order to buy them. :) I guess we'll soon know the answer.

Btw, what is the closest modern population to the earliest ancient Armenian samples?

Silesian
15-06-15, 18:50
Zoomed in Armenian sample. Plots near modern Ossetian/Georgian region.


SAMEA3325367
RISE397
Kapan
LBA
Armenia
Male
1048 BC
855 BC
R1b1a2a2
R1b




RISE397 Armenia LBA R1b1a2a2-Y4371/Z8128

http://i.imgur.com/0K6JrL7.png

7300

arvistro
15-06-15, 18:58
Btw, we have Yamna mtdna. Do they look Caucasian?

Alan
15-06-15, 19:06
That certainly seems suggestive to me. If we get similar or even better fits with dna from Maykop or perhaps from older Neolithic era dna from Armenia (which we should be getting soon,yes?) then it will seal the deal, as we say. If that earlier dna or Maykop dna is also an upstream form of R1b then it would validate hypotheses proposed on this site for a very long time.

I suppose that would mean the end of the saga of the overwhelmingly attractive south Caucasus women and the incredible allure that drove steppe men to either steal them or madly round up every horse in sight in order to buy them. :) I guess we'll soon know the answer.

Btw, what is the closest modern population to the earliest ancient Armenian samples?

The Bronze Age Armenian samples looks like a cross of North Caucasians, Iranic groups and South Europeans (Italians, Bulgarians, Iberians etc).


With time southern shift happenes and an Eastmed/Red Sea component ( I am so convinced it is Semite signal) replaces the West Mediterranean ancestry.

This are the closest populations to the Late Bronze Age Armenian.

# Population (source) Distance
1 Turkmens (Yunusbayev) 18.6
2 Lezgins (Behar) 18.72
3 Tajiks (Yunusbayev) 19.18
4 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 20.32
5 Iranian (Dodecad) 21.6
6 Kurd (Dodecad) 22.07
7 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 22.15
8 Iranians (Behar) 22.35
9 Chechens (Yunusbayev) 23.96
10 Turks (Behar) 24.65
11 Nogais (Yunusbayev) 24.85
12 Turkish (Dodecad) 25.18
13 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 27.71
14 Bulgarian (Dodecad) 27.72
15 Adygei (HGDP) 28.54
16 O_Italian (Dodecad) 28.64
17 Romanians (Behar) 28.72
18 Greek (Dodecad) 28.95
19 Bulgarians (Yunusbayev) 29.6
20 Balkars (Yunusbayev) 29.85



A Kurdish user on Anthrogenica build a tool which compares your genome to that of the Armenian samples. And you know what Angela? An Italian user (Passa) is the closest (slightly closer than Kurd, Azeri and Iranian users) to the older Bronze Age sample from Armenia of all the West Asian groups :)


http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2120-quot-DNA-and-the-Origins-of-Peoples-The-Armenians-quot-Lecture&p=89690&viewfull=1#post89690

Angela
15-06-15, 19:17
Zoomed in Armenian sample. Plots near modern Ossetian/Georgian region.


SAMEA3325367
RISE397
Kapan
LBA
Armenia
Male
1048 BC
855 BC
R1b1a2a2
R1b




RISE397 Armenia LBA R1b1a2a2-Y4371/Z8128

http://i.imgur.com/0K6JrL7.png

7300

Thanks. Was one done for Middle Bronze Age?

arvistro
15-06-15, 19:25
Btw, we have Yamna mtdna. Do they look Caucasian?
U4, U5 and T.
I am not strong in mtdna, I know that 1/4 of Latvian mtdna consists of those, but where they are originally from no idea.

Alan
15-06-15, 19:32
Zoomed in Armenian sample. Plots near modern Ossetian/Georgian region.


SAMEA3325367
RISE397
Kapan
LBA
Armenia
Male
1048 BC
855 BC
R1b1a2a2
R1b




RISE397 Armenia LBA R1b1a2a2-Y4371/Z8128

http://i.imgur.com/0K6JrL7.png

7300

But it's not exactly like modern Ossetians, Georgians just that the overal ancestry makes them plot. The Armenian samples are something in between modern Iranic groups (Turkmens/Tajiks), modern North Caucasians, and South Europeans. That doesn't mean the Bronze Age samples are a mix of them, rather that those groups received admixture similar to that what is found among the ancient Armenian samples.

arvistro
15-06-15, 19:35
U4, U5 and T.
I am not strong in mtdna, I know that 1/4 of Latvian mtdna consists of those, but where they are originally from no idea.
Maciamo in Eupedia links U4 to R1a, in general Meso. U5 is meso Euro.
T is Meso and maybe Neo, in modern map T1 hotspot is West of Yamna, Cucuteni?

Alan
15-06-15, 19:36
Maciamo in Eupedia links U4 to R1a, in general Meso. U5 is meso Euro.
T is Meso and maybe Neo, in modern map T1 hotspot is West of Yamna, Cucuteni?

U4,U5 Mesolithic

T Neolithic

arvistro
15-06-15, 19:40
U4,U5 Mesolithic

T Neolithic
Am I right to assume that no Caucasian haplo woman was found in Yamna?
T seems to come from Cucuteni, based on modern distribution.

Alan
15-06-15, 19:44
Am I right to assume that no Caucasian haplo woman was found in Yamna?
T seems to come from Cucuteni, based on modern distribution.

In this new bunch of samples, yes. Seems no Caucasus type mtDNA.

arvistro
15-06-15, 19:50
In this new bunch of samples, yes. Seems no Caucasus type mtDNA.
If we count together all mtdna we know from Yamna, do we get Caucasus type? If yes, then what % approximately?