PDA

View Full Version : Teal people found: Caucasians!



Pages : 1 [2]

bicicleur
24-11-15, 16:26
Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

Small numbers of men fathered lots of children, most of men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

http://a2.files.psmag.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,w_620/MTI4ODMwNDQ5ODU3MzY5MzYy.png



this same model could be used to calculate and visualise which haplogroup was most succesfull over time

Rethel
24-11-15, 17:11
I have no special attachment to "R1b", Italic or otherwise. I don't even know my father's y dna line, nor do I care. I leave this kind of atavistic nonsense to you guys.

If this is a nonsens why are you occupying yourself by this stuff? :thinking:

But only becasue of that nonsense, you can know such
things, becasue nonsens was a reason and still is, to begin
making reaserch in this subspace of genetics.

If every haplogroup and every subhaplotype would be
spreding in similar persentage on the whole earth - no
one would be interested in that knoledge - exactly as
no one is interested, about haplogroups of the gen of
the smallest toe on the left leg, and this is the reason
also, why mt are much more useless than Y especially
that there is no certain, that mt is in strait female line.
Also noone is claiming that becasue of his mtDNA he is
someone, becasue with mt is not biding any tradition,
tribe, language or even attitude (as your as example).


I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans.

And this is the reason, why we are talking about Indoeuropeans.
Females don't care, and they never created such thing similar to
Indo-European even in relatuvely smaller size. Why they do not
care? Becasue they must be elastic to fit to the clan of husband.


I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive,

No one (ey least I) is claiming, that everything what IEs did was wonderfull.
This is rather a matter of identity. You cannot be noone... :) But you cannot
also be someone who you are not. So if some one is I1, he cannot claim that
he is R1, and this who is R1 cannot claim that he is E1. He can be interestet
in that stuff, learn language, culture, aso - but - be - cannot, one of.


and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell.

It was just the most wonderfull thing which IEs could do for humankind! :)
It was awefull and disguesting civilisation... on the level of pornopeasants.


Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history.

This is evolution in which you claim to belive - as always hypocriticly :rolleyes2:
Bad civilisations must fall, and on their place must be created better one.


So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.

It really dosn't matter where - it could be even in New Zealand.:smile:
I can;t understand, why some want the homland in their place?
Originating of IE in their county doesn't make them Indoeuropeans,
the same, as lthe fact, that neanderthals were living in France,
does not make the Aquitanians a neandertals...


eird combination of "ethnic" or "racialist" ideology combined with macho posturing some of you guys do.

And again... it is really some beg problem for you, becasue you see this everywhere...


As to culture, it's clear to me that other than the domestication of the horse and the marrying of wheeled vehicles and pastoralism, everything else was borrowed either from the Balkans or from Maykop. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually admire the Indo-Europeans for their ability to take technology from other, more advanced cultures, adapt it to their own particular environment and then make further developments on their own.

At least something in wich we can agree...
But if they borrow something, they did better use from this things.
for example Europe borrowed paper and gunpowder from China, and
numerals from India, but europeans made better use from this things.


Perhaps you should stop projecting your own world view, prejudices, agenda, and inability to be objective about history onto other people. I'd also advise using less emotion and more reason when attempting to understand pre-history.

:banghead:

Tomenable is the one, who is very resonable, but not careless like you, and yet to
little focused on his IE identity, what - I hope - he will change after his Y results :)


early graves were communal,

No, they were rather some kind of cementarym. Communal
burial in gimbuts OE it is amassburial. Cementery - this are
individual graves in close space, but it is not communal mass
burial in one huge pit like in one womb of (tfu) Godess Earth...


Perhaps they hadn't imported enough "Teal" wives yet, with their superior culture?

Perhabs.
But this superior culture was not good enaugh.
Principles are more important than beakers.
IE had better principles, so they won, and
made a good use from this superior beakers. :smile:


As for their language, according to Anthony, perhaps by 4,000 BC people in the western steppe tribes were speaking "archaic" dialects of "proto Indo-European" similar to "Anatolian".

They could even speak in some dead language - it does not change the
thing, that they were the same people, whatever language they spoke... :good_job:

Tomenable
24-11-15, 17:24
There's a third group, perhaps the most numerous group, and that's made up of ultra "nationalist" often racialist people with an agenda to prove the superiority of their group because of their closer connection to the "Indo-Europeans". (...)Are you now talking about yourself and your own group (whatever group you identify with), Angela ???

Because you seem to be claiming that Italians have a closer connection to PIE than Balto-Slavs. Though back in times when it was believed that there is Paleolithic Continuity of R1b in Western Europe, superiority was claimed on the basis on Continuity. So it just shows that if someone wants to claim some sort of superiority, he/she can use any, even just moderately good, excuse to do so.

Another thing is that Indo-Europeans have been romanticized and mythologized to make them look like some supermen. The same applies to Vikings etc., but not to some other conquerors (for example Arabs of Khalid ibn Valid, Turkic warriors or Mongols of Genghis Khan have not been romanticized, at least not in Western Europe - perhaps in Mongolia, Arab countries and in Turkic countries they have been romanticized - you know people want their ancestors to be perceived in a good light, but not ancestors of others).


Still, there are compensations. I have quite enjoyed watching as ancient dna has steadily but surely shredded all their certainties.

Yes that's quite enjoyable indeed - for example new findings about CHG or Khvalynsk are enjoyable to me. And by the way, it wasn't me who was certain about anything until recently. I lost my irony because I got convinced about certain things only recently.

I try to work with evidence, not with presumptions. Of course I use my own interpretations, but IMO they are logically coherent.

And please show me which of my claims are not backed up with evidence. Then I will gladly revise them. I noticed that some other people instead are twisting evidence to fit their agenda, for example by claiming that Yamnaya autosomal admixture in Corded Ware is not really from Yamnaya, or that Teal people were not really CHG (even though Lazaridis thinks they were), and so on.

And you haven't answered my question about Teal people and why do you think they were R1b (and not for example J or R1a).

As for "blonde cowboys" - that Samara EHG (pre-Teal admixture times) with R1b was actually blonde. That's a fact.

That's rather irrelevant but you started to drag hair colours, racism and modern politics into this discussion, not me.

BTW - Yamnaya and Catacomb were mostly dark-haired (in a sample of 17 there were 2 blondes - so 12%). Karelian hunter was dark-haired, but various predominantly R1a steppe groups had high frequencies of blonde. Hair colour is not inherited with Y-DNA.

Anyway, there is no (and probably never was) any population that was 100% blonde, or even majority blonde.

Rethel
24-11-15, 18:19
I guess the Semitic tribes arrived from Africa into the Levant during 4th mill BC, they were pastors too.

I would say, that it was rather hamitic who came from Africa, than semitic.
Semitic are J1, and I doubt that even the craziest theory claims that they
were form Africa; prasemitic speakers could of course came from Africa but
Semitic peoples were already on the place. So, this is a poority of language
which make some people do not understand what another is talking about. :smile:

Rethel
24-11-15, 18:36
As you know I'm rather seeing R1a as a bit more than or at least equally Indo-European as R1b.
So Angela can't accuse me of "ethno-genetic chauvinism", as I'm not even R1a myself.

They both are pure indoeuropean. Everything above that, this
are just empty speculations, which will be never ever prooved.

My congratulations, wellcome in the indoeuropean house-clan-tribe :)
Now everyone can call you with clear conscience an Indoeuropean.:good_job:

Rethel
24-11-15, 18:43
none of my relatives in that line have any interest in testing, which probably shows their great good sense. :)


But shows lack of tradition and careless for their
past ascendants and future descendants indentity.


Oh, I did learn that I have a variety of mtDna, U2e, which, wherever it originated, is an mtDna common among EHG and then later in the Indo-Europeans.

So, you are right, that this knowledge give
you nothing. I am agree - mts are useless.

Rethel
24-11-15, 18:47
The problem is that Bell Beakers never advanced that far east. So who "Indo-Europeanized" us?
And perhaps if Aryans were not IEs but Indo-Europeanized, then it's time to change the name from "Indo-European" to "European".
Because India has no R1b, it is full of R1a, which is not an originally PIE marker according to you.
So why the need to keep "Indo-" there ???

We always can return to very nice name Aryans:smile:

bicicleur
24-11-15, 18:57
I would say, that it was rather hamitic who came from Africa, than semitic.
Semitic are J1, and I doubt that even the craziest theory claims that they
were form Africa; prasemitic speakers could of course came from Africa but
Semitic peoples were already on the place. So, this is a poority of language
which make some people do not understand what another is talking about. :smile:

I mean E-M123 tribes.
I was talking about Akkadians and Amorites.
Assyrians were also E-M123.
It is still visible in the distribution map of this clade.

J1-P58 somehow assimilated Semitic language, probably in the Levant before going to West Yemen (+/- 4.3 ka) from where they expanded some 3 ka.

As for Afro-Asiatic IMO origin is somewhere in the Nile valley or Nile delta. It expanded with cattle into Africa.

Rethel
24-11-15, 19:00
There was a study by supporters of the Anatolian Hypothesis, which modeled the spread of IE languages as a spread of an epidemic disease, and they also "forgot" to include Balto-Slavic branch in their analysis (as if those were not even IE languages).

There is a "counter-study" discussing that study, I'm now posting it below:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/53838-mismodeling-indo-european-origins.html#post1382412?postcount=1

Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: the Assault On Historical Linguistics:I loved it! becasue this is one of the most wonderfull examples that scientist are often talking nonsense
but others are biulding upon this their worldview, often beeing missinformed, but blinded by scientyfic
accurate and truth... The second my loviest example came very recently from genetic side. :) The age
of M-253 is simply the best example of scientific madness which is dominated whole science unfortunatly,
because scientists are more interesting in ideologocal stuff than in real facts and knowledge. Of course,
even if this is obvious they never admitt this. They are always right and correct :smile:

Goga
24-11-15, 19:00
We always can return to very nice name Aryans:smile:Aryans spoke Iranic and not other Indo-European languages. So Polish people can't ever be Aryans, because they speaak Slavic and not Iranic. Polish people aren't Aryans at all. The Medes were Aryans, the ancient Persians were Aryans. Polish race has nothing to do with the Aryans of Media and Persia or Aryans of BMAC.


When peoples speak about EHG they seem to forget to mention also N1c1 folks? Why? Are they ashamed of their N1c1 ancestors? Original native EHG folks were N1c1 folks.



This topic has become a spam topic, lol. Some even bringing youtube videos of almost 4 years old.

I will try to stay out of it as much as possible...

Goga
24-11-15, 19:02
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ
This video is from 2012. This Jewish retard lady has been owned for almost 4 years. She spread nothing but nonsense. I'm only interested about how much money they get for this stupid, amateurish presentation..


You seem to be a wannabe Aryan, LMAO!!! I feel sorry for you, just be happy with who you are.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 19:09
This video is from 2012. This Jewish retard lady has been owned for almost 4 years. She is spreading nothing but nonsense.


She isn't even Jewish (AFAIK), but it doesn't mean that your post is not Anti-Semitic. Using Jewish as a slur is.


When peoples speak about EHG they seem to forget to mention also N1c1 folks? Why?

Because no EHG with N1c1 has been found so far. As I wrote, I don't work with presumptions but with evidence.

It's possible that N1c1 existed among EHGs but no samples have been found so far.

You have EHGs with R1b, R1a and J - but none with N1c1.

Rethel
24-11-15, 19:18
But I don't even find Proto-Indo-Europeans to be "superior".

This is very interesting, that people who claim to belive in evolution and
in the survival of the fittest, and also in totally different evolution lines,
are so affraid, that someone can be more evolved than others - but this
is obvious from the very theory in which they belived! Unbelivable! It was
always amazing for me, how they can be incoherent inside themselves! :)
They are even afrraid, that their evolutionist religion claims, that human
on the X islans is more evolved, that human (or maybe yet not?) on the
island Y. How it is possible to have two contradictory world views?

It is really amazing. :)

I am amazed also by this, that no N is claiming that Uralic peoples
were better, or that Vasconic were/are better or had much better
values, prietter language or sexiest women? If I would be a N, I, Q,
J, G or E I would be fighting for my tribe! :) Ten years ago I wanted
had Y with some exotic stuff, but I am unfortunatly not having it :(

Rethel
24-11-15, 19:28
Let's also ask ourselves how numerous could be that entire PIE "tribe" ???
In this forum is thread about that :)


http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.Thanks, I was searching for that, but I couldn't find it.:good_job:


If Khvalynsk tribes numbered around 5000 people,

It is your assumption, or you take this from somewhere?

Brennos
24-11-15, 19:30
Another thing is that Indo-Europeans have been romanticized and mythologized to make them look like some supermen. The same applies to Vikings etc., but not to some other conquerors (for example Arabs of Khalid ibn Valid, Turkic warriors or Mongols of Genghis Khan have not been romanticized, at least not in Western Europe - perhaps in Mongolia, Arab countries and in Turkic countries they have been romanticized - you know people want their ancestors to be perceived in a good light, but not ancestors of others). Holy words! Btw, I see R-L23 as a PIE marker along with R1a and Khvalynsk is a sort of proof. Then, I could mistake: only new ancient a-DNAs will tell. There is a thing that makes me mad: how do we connect a R-L23 PIE marker with a derived R-23 Basque-speaking population ?

Rethel
24-11-15, 19:45
Love that logic of Tomenable and yours. J could have been native to many places because it is so old. But R1a or R1b couldn't have been so widespred because R1a1 and R1b1 (not even basal R1a and R1b) was found in Karelia?

Alan, it was simply an example.

I can say exactly the same about J1, what I am claiming about R1 - and about every another hg which is possible to combine whith basic pralanguage and
sometimes fenotype. This is not, becasue I am a only R1 beliver. Not. If you see this like that, so you can also see me as only J1, J2, I, G, E-V13, E1b1b1,
T, L, O1, O2, O3, C3, G2, aso beliver. :) This is simple - every language family had origin in one small patrylinear tribe, and this clan was usually spreading
this language across some space. Some of this clan are dead (like nearly C1), some were killed totally (like neanderthals???), some were enslaved (as hg I),
some were scattered (like T). So this is not, because R1 is so wonderfull or mine, but because the rule.


Wasn't that exactly what I was preaching you guys a million times? but your refused to accept that R1a and R1b probably exised beyond Samara and adjusting regions?

No, I am not refused. Some people could wandering on their own or even whole
R1-M173 tribe could pass iranian plateau until they came to Samara. Why not?


Nice to see how you guys jump on that horse if it suits the own believes.

As you see - it is not true.


So you are arguing that all male lineages of Yamna was brought by EHG, cause no "J" was found in them, yet EHG themselves had some J. So Yamna who are according to you guys descend of EHG males, "stole" wifes from the Caucasus but their parents the EHG themselves had CHG type J?

I can on present day say, that Yamna was probably brought by R1 people.
They were autosomal EHG, GGG, BHG, QHG, ZHG whatever - doesn't matter.


And all this conclusion is based on two upper paleolithic/Mesolithic CHG samples, who might not even play yet a role for post Neolithic PIE because R1 lineages in the region might have arrived later as bicicleur points, because yet the Caucasus and north of the Black and Caspian Sea was yet still populated by I and J lineages.

And interesting stuff is:
Do kartvelian languages are J2? :smile:
Look at the positives... :P

Rethel
24-11-15, 19:56
As I wrote I would like to see if there was EHG admixture among "Teal people".
Because it could be bride exchanging, and EHGs could be becoming Teal-admixed, while Teals could be becoming EHG-admixed.
It was not necessarily a one-sided gene flow Teal -> EHG without any backflow.

Yea it could be, but I would guess, that Khvalinsk
guys did not so easy were sharing their women... :laughing:


Modern inhabitants of Caucasus are definitely admixed by people from the north of Caucasus (and by those from the south too).

Yes, now they are, but even in present day, they are
for avarage european on the north of Dunay consider
as dark looking people. But yet in times of Herodotus,
Kolkhians were exaxctly as egiptians - and Herodotus
thought, that they were the same people, because of
that similarity - they were dark in the same level. So
Did EHG were on the same level 5000 ya in caucasus?
maybe... or maybe later phnotype of Causacians were
changed agian and again couple of times... who knows :)
5000 years it is a huge period of time...

Rethel
24-11-15, 20:18
I mean E-M123 tribes.
I was talking about Akkadians and Amorites.
Assyrians were also E-M123.

Bicicleur,
this is really not some shocking news for me.
I know this since I was about 8 years old. :smile:


It is still visible in the distribution map of this clade.
J1-P58 somehow assimilated Semitic language, probably in the Levant before going to West Yemen (+/- 4.3 ka) from where they expanded some 3 ka.

They were probably conquerd.

For me, the most interesting thing is, (if really J1 take their language from hamites
(because I am not sure on 100% that hamito-semitic language family exist). Even
according to Le, 10.000 should not left any evidence of common pre-tounge, but
afroasiatic is claiming to be 16.000 years, so to late :) ) hwat language was original
to J1. Caspian? Or same totaly dead and unrelated who is not preserve until our time?

Rethel
24-11-15, 20:24
Because no EHG with N1c1 has been found so far.

Ugrofinian european N1c is only 3500 years old. No chance.
And even 3.500 yrs ago, they lived yet probably in Syberia,
because with Ugrians they had common ancestor less than
4300 years ago... much less, besause Yacuts split 3300 ya.

Angela
24-11-15, 20:58
Are you now talking about yourself and your own group (whatever group you identify with), Angela ???

Because you seem to be claiming that Italians have a closer connection to PIE than Balto-Slavs. Though back in times when it was believed that there is Paleolithic Continuity of R1b in Western Europe, superiority was claimed on the basis on Continuity. So it just shows that if someone wants to claim some sort of superiority, he/she can use any, even just moderately good, excuse to do so.

Another thing is that Indo-Europeans have been romanticized and mythologized to make them look like some supermen. The same applies to Vikings etc., but not to some other conquerors (for example Arabs of Khalid ibn Valid, Turkic warriors or Mongols of Genghis Khan have not been romanticized, at least not in Western Europe - perhaps in Mongolia, Arab countries and in Turkic countries they have been romanticized - you know people want their ancestors to be perceived in a good light, but not ancestors of others).



Yes that's quite enjoyable indeed - for example new findings about CHG or Khvalynsk are enjoyable to me. And by the way, it wasn't me who was certain about anything until recently. I lost my irony because I got convinced about certain things only recently.

I try to work with evidence, not with presumptions. Of course I use my own interpretations, but IMO they are logically coherent.

And please show me which of my claims are not backed up with evidence. Then I will gladly revise them. I noticed that some other people instead are twisting evidence to fit their agenda, for example by claiming that Yamnaya autosomal admixture in Corded Ware is not really from Yamnaya, or that Teal people were not really CHG (even though Lazaridis thinks they were), and so on.

And you haven't answered my question about Teal people and why do you think they were R1b (and not for example J or R1a).

As for "blonde cowboys" - that Samara EHG (pre-Teal admixture times) with R1b was actually blonde. That's a fact.

That's rather irrelevant but you started to drag hair colours, racism and modern politics into this discussion, not me.

BTW - Yamnaya and Catacomb were mostly dark-haired (in a sample of 17 there were 2 blondes - so 12%). Karelian hunter was dark-haired, but various predominantly R1a steppe groups had high frequencies of blonde. Hair colour is not inherited with Y-DNA.

Anyway, there is no (and probably never was) any population that was 100% blonde, or even majority blonde.


I'm sorry to see a poster for whom I've felt a great deal of respect go down this path. I actually wasn't including you in that third group although perhaps I was mistaken.

For the last time, I don't have a dog in this fight. My interest is intellectual, not emotional. I'm interested in the history and pre-history of Europe. I've been following this interest since university and graduate school. It was at that time that I discovered Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and realized that his and similar researches might be used to answer some of those questions.

What could have led you to believe that I give a darn about the relationship of Italians to PIE? I've already told you that I don't identify with any of these ancient groups. It's all too long ago, and we're all too mixed by now. Plus, everything I've seen in terms of autosomal analyses indicates that Italians in fact have a lot less Yamnaya ancestry than people in northern and eastern Europe. So how could I possibly think that Italians are closer to PIE than Balto Slavs even if I had such a bizarre view of the world?

It's apparently difficult for you and your side kick Rethel to understand it, but this isn't personal for me. I just try to follow the papers, and I also try not to get too far ahead of the data. So, sometimes I agree with your interpretation of the data, and sometimes I agree with the interpretation of the data of other posters like Alan. I often agree with Bicicleur or Maciamo or Le Brok, but sometimes not. I call it as I see it in each individual case, and not to fit any "side".

As to "substance", if you're now "certain" about all of this, good for you. I'm not. I don't see why that should be such a problem for you and throw you into this emotional turmoil. You claim to KNOW that Corded Ware represents a movement of Yamnaya people into later Corded Ware areas. I don't believe the academics made that claim, nor do I think there's any proof for that in the archaeology. Rather the opposite. The genetics also show that they were not identical to Yamnaya people. But hey, if you want to go with that, fine with me.

In that same vein, I'd like to direct your attention to your post number 238 in this thread where you have a statement in quotes presumably by me to the effect that:
"And Angela's idea that Balto-Slavs in terms of Y-DNA are "direct descendants of EHGs, not Indo-Europeans" is wrong."

I don't remember saying that, although I might have in a moment of carelessness, so if you can direct me to the thread and post where I said that I would appreciate it as I would like to edit the post. If you can't do that I would appreciate it if you could edit your post to more clearly reflect my opinion on the matter.

What I said in this thread and what is my opinion, is the following:

"I believe, as I said at the time, that the people who helped to form Corded Ware, in particular, could have been a "related" population to Yamnaya and not a descendent of Yamnaya, and therefore an "Indo-Europeanized" population. In either case, however, they were heavier in EHG, and with some EEF, and therefore carrying less "CHG". Further north, some of the Indo-Europeanized groups might have been very heavily EHG. Further south the Indo-European groups might have been more heavily CHG."

As to your comments about the CHG, I'm not sure if you're addressing me. Almost everything I've posted in this thread has been in the form of a question, so I don't understand what you could possibly find that is so upsetting in my comments. I haven't actually made up my mind about some of the implications of this paper. Is that ok with you? When I have, which will probably be after Thanksgiving as I'm cooking for eighteen, I'll undoubtedly post about it.

Fwiw I also don't see what's so upsetting about the comments others have made about it, but I'm beginning to realize that there is sub-text to some of these discussions of which I'm not aware.

arvistro
24-11-15, 21:32
CW most likely is a product of two main sources:
1) just a Mid-late Neolithic EEF with resurged WHG as the first source population for Corded.
2) Yamna like folk as the second source

If you think that CW got their input not from Yamna, but alternative Yamna like, but more EHG heavy folk - then it must be something Khvalinsk like (75% EHG and 25% CHG).

But then, well Khvalinsk is father not a son to Yamna, is not it? So, it is an open q, who Indo-Europeanized who :)

Anyway would love to see EHG, WHG, CHG and EEF ratios done for modern folk in one go.

Alan
24-11-15, 21:38
Aryans spoke Iranic and not other Indo-European languages. So Polish people can't ever be Aryans, because they speaak Slavic and not Iranic. Polish people aren't Aryans at all. The Medes were Aryans, the ancient Persians were Aryans. Polish race has nothing to do with the Aryans of Media and Persia or Aryans of BMAC.




Thats not quite correct, if Poles are Indo Europeans(what they are) than they do have something to do with Aryans(elated), even if they are not "Aryan" themselves. Aryan is simply a noble title used by Indo_Iranic speakers and has become synonym for a branch of Indo Europeans (Indo Iranic speakers) and not Indo Europeans as a whole.

So today Aryan is basically an "ethno_cultural" term nothing more.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 22:08
Aryans is how R1a-Z93 (and whatever else they had) Indo-Iranians called themselves.

It was Hitler & Co. who extended the name also to other Indo-European tribes, including R1b-L51 ones.


But then, well Khvalinsk is father not a son to Yamna, is not it?Yes, either father or uncle, but not son - because Yamna is younger.

Also let's note that Khvalynsk samples are apparently from 4700-3800 BC, which might be too early for M269 to be its main lineage, because according to YFull's age estimates (if we assume that they are correct*), TMRCA of M269 is just 4400 BC.

It doesn't mean that M269 did not exist in Khvalynsk tribe(s), but it could be few in numbers (and only multiplied later).

We have a sample of R1b from Khvalynsk, but we don't know if it was already M269, or something more basal.

On the other hand R1a M198 has TMRCA of 6000 BC according to YFull, so it could be more numerous in Khvalynsk than M269.

And we have 1 sample of R1a from Khvalynsk, but again - we don't know if it was M198 or something more basal.

I'd not be surprised if it turns out, that R1a-Tarim = R1a-Khvalynsk, or a lineage descended from R1a-Khvalynsk.

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

*According to some people, YFull notoriously underestimates age by 10% to 20%. But that's just their opinion.

epoch
24-11-15, 22:38
You are probably right, but interesting thing is, that in some volgian republics (NOT IN ALL!) middle-eastern Y-hg's (J+E+T)
are on quite high percentage level. If they slowly were coming into that area, hwen IE were still small in number, then they
could have some genetic influance on still small IE-R1 population. This of course dooes not mean, as some people would say
that this make from J,E,T-people IEs - no, they simply settle in that area, and after when IEs go on their own, they stayed
there - and luckily do not increased in number, and probably were not mingled with IE - otherwise, they would be large part
migration and population. So, if they were not slaves or travelers, they could live side by side but have different identity.

Only this ones, who have a weapon.
Rest of them was prefere to enslaved :)

Or EHG managed to become to top layer, having fancy burials and whatnot. The Caucasians become lower castes, having different ways of life. Not necessarily enslaved. Basically what all IE societies looked like. The top layer marries the entire population, the lower layers don't. Think Avar in Hungary. You don't hear of the Gepids, even as some archaeological evidence point to continuation. But I gather the Avars married their daughters.

There is some evidence of cremations in prehistoric Caucasus. Suppose this caste, layer, class kept cremating their dead. We will never find Y-DNA J then.

Rethel
24-11-15, 22:46
Aryans is how R1a-Z93 (and whatever else they had) Indo-Iranians called themselves.

It was Hitler & Co. who extended the name also to other Indo-European tribes, including R1b-L51 ones.
No, Tomenable, no.
It was name using in XIXth century as normal name, like Semitic, Hamitic, Slavic, germanic aso.
In american books still you can find that naming Aryans = Indoeuropeans. At least, there is no
doubts, what is talking about - about language or people. In polish you have two different names
for Indoiranians and for this pseudo-racial stuff.

Btw, name Aryan is claimed to be at leat 3500 years, but Hindus claimed that is much older :)
If it is so old, and it was knowing that Aryans have 3500 years, but Slavs are much younger,
and are satem with scytho-sarmation heritage, and by some theories came from the stepp,
and scythians and Sarmatians were indoiranian people, that Slaves are Aryans too. Aren't
indo-iranian people Aeyans? So Scythians and Sarmatians too. Were Slavs were 3500 years
ago - somewhwere in forest-steppe? So scientiests came to coclusion, that this name 3500
years ago were for example Slaves name too - if not, then what name and where they were?
(accordning to the knolegde from XIX cenruty? In that time it was the oldest known IE name
so it is not so strange that they used her to named whole Indoeuropeans.

Btw, not only Iranians and Hindus were using that name. Tocharians named themselves Arśi,
Arminians - Aria-men, in Poland was one lugians tribe (h)Arii, Hibernia is named Erie, in Greece
the elite was called "the bests" "aristos" and their rules aristocracy - so who was ruling class
if not Achayans and Dorians - both who conquerd Pelazgians: indoeuropeans?, and even some
remain existed in germanic peoples as Herr (lord) Heer (army) and earl - yarl - herul; The very
name Alan came from form of Arian and name of Osetians Iron. So, they connected not only
east stepp peoples, and time of existing name, but also Ireland with Iran, and concluded that
this oldest tribe name is not so strange. Today, after missusuing this word by Hitler, who was
not even an Indoeuropean, but Hamite, politcorecct people are havingwhite fever hearing that
word - but this is normal tribal name. Is he accurate to whole IE? It is a matter of debate.
Btw, this name is still using as equvalent of the term Indoeuropeans, maybe now rarer, but
until 1980s it was normal and very often.

Word is nice, or maybe someone have better option. Hyperboreans? :laughing:



*According to some people, YFull notoriously underestimates age by 10% to 20%. But that's just their opinion.

Good to know.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 22:46
Not sure how reliable is Genetiker, but here are his calls for Khvalynsk samples of R1b and R1a (about which I wrote above):

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/more-y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/

I0122 Russia Khvalynsk R1b1-M415(xP297) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/)
I0433 Russia Khvalynsk R1a1-M459(xM198) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0433/)

So according to Genetiker, Khvalynsk R1b sample was not only xM269 but even xP297, and Khvalynsk R1a was xM198.

As we know Genetiker is pushing an agenda of Paleolithic Continuity of R1b in Western Europe, though.

Do you remember his claims about El Portalon cave and that - allegedly - M269 was there? Here:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/09/08/y-snp-calls-from-copper-and-bronze-age-spain/

ATP3 Pre-Beaker Copper Age 3516–3362 BC R1b1a2-M269 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-atp3/)

Other researchers did not confirm that M269 call from Genetiker, as far as I know.

So I'm probably going to wait until someone else analyses Khvalynsk samples and checks if Genetiker is right.

Rethel
24-11-15, 22:59
It was name using in XIXth century as normal name,

I foget yet, that Kimmerians were consider as iranian people, and they
are or their part an ancestors of western R1b people, so spreading the
name on the west IEs was perfectly logical and understandable.

bicicleur
24-11-15, 23:11
he has an agenda but as long as he publishes his calls, I trust him
even ATP3 has been confirmed by researchers afterwards

Tomenable
24-11-15, 23:13
It is also astonishing that so many of Corded Ware guys were M417 but xZ645, according to Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/more-y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/

I1532 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1532/)
I1538 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1538/)
I1540 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1540/)
I1541 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1541/)
I1542 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1542/)
I1544 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1544/)

So all these lineages aren't dominant today, because most of Eurasian R1a is under Z645 (also Z93 is).

In case of M417, only rare M417* and rare Western European subclade CTS4385 aren't under Z645.

So it looks like most of Corded Ware male lineages got extinct too.

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

The remaining two Corded Ware samples from this most recent analysis by Genetiker:

I1534 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a-M198 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/)
I1536 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1536/)

Potapovka:

I0246 Russia Potapovka R1a1a1-M417 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0246/)

Timber Grave:

I0361 Russia Timber Grave R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0361/)

LeBrok
24-11-15, 23:19
It is also astonishing that so many of Corded Ware guys were M417 but xZ645, according to Genetiker:

I1538 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1538/)
I1540 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1540/)
I1541 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1541/)
I1542 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1542/)
I1544 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1544/)

So all these lineages aren't dominant today, because most of Eurasian R1a is under Z645 (also Z93 is).

In case of M417, only rare M417* and rare Western European subclade CTS4385 is not under Z645.

So it looks like most of Corded Ware male lineages got extinct too.
Do we have a CW Thread for this news?

Tomenable
24-11-15, 23:26
Nope, but CW people were also heavily CHG / Teal autosomally:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5590-Volga-Steppe-Khvalynsk-culture-(Copper-Age)-from-5200-4000-BC-R1a-and-R1b-together!&p=122425&viewfull=1#post122425



Unless Khvalynsk included a mixture of different R1a lineages with only one of them being successful and contributing to CWC.The probability to find the R1a ancestor of modern Indo-Europeans during this period in a single grave is close to zero. Maybe it is from there and maybe it is not from there but a single R1a sample not ancestral to Corded Ware R1a is not disproving this in my opinion. Corded Ware had CHG and to get it their ancestors had to live north of the Caucasus in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. I don't really see how else we can explain their CHG admixture unless we assume that CHG people existed in East Europe what does not really sound likely for me. So Corded Ware R1a is certainly from the Eneolithic steppe but the exact location needs to be found if possible.

So we can discuss them in a thread about Teal people, I guess.

Maybe even R1a M198/M417 or R1a Z645 came with Teal people.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 01:44
It is also astonishing that so many of Corded Ware guys were M417 but xZ645, according to Genetiker:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/more-y-haplogroups-for-prehistoric-eurasian-genomes/

I1532 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1532/)
I1538 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1538/)
I1540 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1540/)
I1541 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1541/)
I1542 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1542/)
I1544 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417(xZ645) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1544/)

So all these lineages aren't dominant today, because most of Eurasian R1a is under Z645 (also Z93 is).

In case of M417, only rare M417* and rare Western European subclade CTS4385 aren't under Z645.

So it looks like most of Corded Ware male lineages got extinct too.

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

The remaining two Corded Ware samples from this most recent analysis by Genetiker:

I1534 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a-M198 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1534/)
I1536 Germany Corded Ware R1a1a1-M417 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1536/)

Potapovka:

I0246 Russia Potapovka R1a1a1-M417 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0246/)

Timber Grave:

I0361 Russia Timber Grave R1a1a1b2a2-Z2124 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0361/)

Info from Fire Haired - we have CTS4385 / L664 in Corded Ware:


West European R1a-L664 in Corded Ware.

RISE446 2829-2465 BC Corded Ware: R1a1a1a(1a). L664>S3477.

S3477 is a popular form of L664. Added with Z284 from Swedish Corded Ware, that's prove Western R1a is from Corded Ware.

It's unexpected we've found Western R1a before Eastern R1a in Corded Ware.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 02:18
D-stats with Kotais(Mesolithic Caucasus) and Neolithic Anatolia. It confirms a connection both have with modern and ancient West Asians. However amoung West Asians, Kotais-EEF relation is about the most distant.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/11/qpadm-tour-of-eneolithicbronze-age.html?showComment=1448408985581#c12898669888984 15385

Notice Anatolia_Neolithic is significantly closer to Hungarian WHG than Luxembourg WHG!!

I'm going to use more D-stats and other methods to unravel what ancient/modern West Asians are. I suspect that they're mostly something related to Loschbour, not very Basal Eurasian, and that modern West Asians are mostly a mixture of Anatolia_Neolithic+CHG types. Also, that CHG is the source of most ANE in West Asia.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:36
An autosomal map for Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) - or "Teal" - admixture:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!/page42

http://s019.radikal.ru/i619/1511/96/6a5d57f4d459.png

And here a map for IBD sharing with Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers / Teal people:

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/kotiassnpc-100ibdext.png?w=1304

Seems to correlate well with Indo-European speakers (look e.g. at Germano-Slavic levels vs. Finno-Ugric levels).

Not only Finnic-speakers have low levels of CHG / Teal admixture & IBD sharing, but also for example Sardinians.

In India North Indians (who are IE-speakers) have high levels, while South Indians (Dravidian-speakers) not.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 03:39
Note that Uyghurs - who are thought to be Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians - have high CHG / Teal levels too.

I guess this CHG allows for distinguishing "pure Turks" from "Turks who assimilated genetic Indo-Europeans".

arvistro
25-11-15, 08:17
Hmm. Autosomally Baltic states have equal CHG with neighbors, but by IBD we have it lower.
So, there is some extra layer of CHG like admixture in Baltics that is not identical by descent to CHG proper.
Same is true for Germany, Denmark, Benilux.

Maybe just noise.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 14:46
Angela,


For the last time, I don't have a dog in this fight. My interest is intellectual, not emotional. I'm interested in the history and pre-history of Europe. I've been following this interest since university and graduate school. It was at that time that I discovered Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and realized that his and similar researches might be used to answer some of those questions.

Angela mine too is intellectual, really!


What could have led you to believe that I give a darn about the relationship of Italians to PIE? I've already told you that I don't identify with any of these ancient groups. It's all too long ago, and we're all too mixed by now. Plus, everything I've seen in terms of autosomal analyses indicates that Italians in fact have a lot less Yamnaya ancestry than people in northern and eastern Europe. So how could I possibly think that Italians are closer to PIE than Balto Slavs even if I had such a bizarre view of the world?

Well, then I'm sorry, I misjudged your intentions.


It's apparently difficult for you and your side kick Rethel to understand it, but this isn't personal for me. I just try to follow the papers, and I also try not to get too far ahead of the data. So, sometimes I agree with your interpretation of the data, and sometimes I agree with the interpretation of the data of other posters like Alan. I often agree with Bicicleur or Maciamo or Le Brok, but sometimes not. I call it as I see it in each individual case, and not to fit any "side".

I agree that you are not getting ahead of the data (with one exception in which you did get ahead of the data, but about this - read below), but it seems that you are sometimes also slightly lagging behind it. ;)

As for me - I am open to all possibilities even if I get ahead of the data sometimes (but I don't go against the data).


As to "substance", if you're now "certain" about all of this, good for you. I'm not. I don't see why that should be such a problem for you and throw you into this emotional turmoil. You claim to KNOW that Corded Ware represents a movement of Yamnaya people into later Corded Ware areas. I don't believe the academics made that claim, nor do I think there's any proof for that in the archaeology. Rather the opposite. The genetics also show that they were not identical to Yamnaya people. But hey, if you want to go with that, fine with me.

Let's clarify something - I'm not saying that Corded Ware for sure descended from Yamnaya, but that it either descended from Yamnaya, or had a recent common ancestor with Yamnaya (for example Khvalynsk, but maybe something else). And by the way - it seems quite probable that the westward movement of R1b-L51 (or pre-L51 which later gave birth to L51) into Europe also preceded the emergence of Yamnaya culture, so if we are going to claim that PIE did not exist before Yamnaya, and Yamnaya were the VERY FIRST PIEs, then it is possible that L51 was not part of the PIE culture.

So far Yamnaya appears to be overwhelmingly Z2103, which is "Eastern" R1b.


In that same vein, I'd like to direct your attention to your post number 238 in this thread where you have a statement in quotes presumably by me to the effect that:

"And Angela's idea that Balto-Slavs in terms of Y-DNA are "direct descendants of EHGs, not Indo-Europeans" is wrong."

I don't remember saying that, although I might have in a moment of carelessness, so if you can direct me to the thread and post where I said that I would appreciate it as I would like to edit the post. If you can't do that I would appreciate it if you could edit your post to more clearly reflect my opinion on the matter.

What I said in this thread and what is my opinion, is the following:

"I believe, as I said at the time, that the people who helped to form Corded Ware, in particular, could have been a "related" population to Yamnaya and not a descendent of Yamnaya, and therefore an "Indo-Europeanized" population. In either case, however, they were heavier in EHG, and with some EEF, and therefore carrying less "CHG". Further north, some of the Indo-Europeanized groups might have been very heavily EHG. Further south the Indo-European groups might have been more heavily CHG."

I'm not sure if Corded Ware was formed by a Pre-Yamnaya group (ancestral to both Corded Ware and to Yamnaya - that could be for example Khvalynsk), or by some part of Yamnaya who emigrated in that direction. But you are definitely going ahead of the data when you assert with such boldness that "more CHG-like" = Indo-European and "more EHG-like" = Indo-Europeanized. I'm also not sure if Corded Ware were heavier in EHG - weren't they 75% Yamnaya and 25% EEF + WHG ??? So where is that "more EHG", they had just as much EHG as Yamnaya, their additional amount of "some HG" came from local Central European EEF + WHG, not from EHG.

Or maybe I'm missing something and you are more up-to-date with this autosomal stuff.

Although Khvalynsk was more EHG than CHG, even Yamnaya was still slightly more EHG (Yamnaya_Samara appears as 47% CHG and 53% EHG in Mathieson 2015). So why this assumption that CHG were the "original" PIEs, and EHG were "Indo-Europeanized" ??? Of course a smaller group can sometimes assimilate a more numerous group, but in this case EHG has some numerical advantage. And as you know, R1b was present already in Samara EHG, who did not have any CHG admixture. So once again, we don't know if R1b in Yamnaya originated from EHGs, or from CHGs, or yet from someone else (both EHGs tested so far were J).

In Iran there are both basal R1a clades and basal R1b clades. Underhill in his 2014 study on R1a, suggested that R1a perhaps originated from Iran. So if "Teal people" or CHGs came from to the steppe from areas to the south of Caucasus, we cannot exclude the possibility that they carried R1a with them, just like we cannot exclude the possibility that R1b-M269 emerged among EHGs (not among CHGs), because we know for sure, that some R1b existed among EHGs.


As to your comments about the CHG, I'm not sure if you're addressing me. Almost everything I've posted in this thread has been in the form of a question, so I don't understand what you could possibly find that is so upsetting in my comments. I haven't actually made up my mind about some of the implications of this paper. Is that ok with you? When I have, which will probably be after Thanksgiving as I'm cooking for eighteen, I'll undoubtedly post about it.

It is ok with me.


Fwiw I also don't see what's so upsetting about the comments others have made about it

Nothing. We just all got too emotional. But was it my fault? Rather collective fault, if not just Goga's fault.


I'm sorry to see a poster for whom I've felt a great deal of respect go down this path. I actually wasn't including you in that third group although perhaps I was mistaken.

Angela I also feel a great deal of respect for you and I don't want to argue any longer.

I apologize if negative emotions made my posts appear "hostile" or "aggressive".

Tomenable
25-11-15, 14:55
I think that PIE language emerged only when EHG mixed with CHG / Teal.

Before they mixed, both groups spoke other languages (PIE is simply not so old).

Maybe Teal / CHG spoke something Kartvelian-like, and EHG maybe Uralic-like.

PIE emerged as a kind of a "pidgin language", for lack of a better term.

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

But already Khvalynsk was a mix of EHG and Teal / CHG. It did not start with Yamna.

bicicleur
25-11-15, 15:03
Info from Fire Haired - we have CTS4385 / L664 in Corded Ware:


could it be, CW were L664 but were later replaced by Slavic Z645 ?
L664 still exists west of Slavic countries

Tomenable
25-11-15, 15:06
Some parts of CW were under Z645 as well - for example Scandinavian Z284.

Not to mention, that Indo-Iranian Z93 is also descended from Z645.

So not all Z645 is Balto-Slavic.

bicicleur
25-11-15, 15:11
Note that Uyghurs - who are thought to be Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians - have high CHG / Teal levels too.

I guess this CHG allows for distinguishing "pure Turks" from "Turks who assimilated genetic Indo-Europeans".

Uyghurs are not Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians, Uyghurs were a Turkish tribe who were defeated by rival Turkish tribe on the steppe and fled into the Tarim basin.
But before that, Tocharians and Iraninas were allready there. Uyghur nationalists denie this and claim they were the original aborignees fo Tarim basin.
Teal must have been in Tarim basin before Uyghur.

bicicleur
25-11-15, 15:15
Some parts of CW were under Z645 as well - for example Scandinavian Z284.

Not to mention, that Indo-Iranian Z93 is also descended from Z645.

So not all Z645 is Balto-Slavic.

ok, but I suspect L664 was much more common and wider spread, especially east during CW than it is today

Tomenable
25-11-15, 15:18
ok, but I suspect L664 was much more common and wider spread

Yes it seems so. But who replaced it ???

Before Slavic expansion, there were several other expansions into that region.

Maybe L664 was replaced by (mostly) R1b, and later R1b was again replaced by R1a - but Z645.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 15:21
@Angela,

I don't understand why you are angry at Tomenable. He isn't a Balto-Slavic=Superior IE race. He hasn't posted anything suggesting that's what he thinks.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 15:24
Uyghurs are not Turkicized Tocharians and Iranians, Uyghurs were a Turkish tribe who were defeated by rival Turkish tribe on the steppe and fled into the Tarim basin.

But when they fled into the Tarim Basin, they assimilated many Tocharians and Iranians.

Also aren't Uyghurs almost identical genetically with Tajiks, who are Iranians (both in language and genes) ??? This would imply that Turkic genetic influence is either low in Uyghurs, or high in Tajiks - the former being much more likely than the later.

Edit:

I think I confused Uyghurs with Kyrgyz people - Kyrgyz people are similar genetically to Tajiks (IIRC). Uyghurs are different.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 15:33
I'm going to make a YouTube video describing the basics we've learned with 230 ancient genomes in the last 2 years. You'll get to hear my voice :).

If you look at a map. South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe. It's the three peninsulas: Iberia, Italy, and Balkans. The rest of Europe genetically can be labelled "North Europe", including countries as far south as Hungary and Croatia.
7526

North Europe is essentially EEF/WHG+Yamanya. They're all very closely related. However Italy/Iberia/Balkan have no recent ancestors. What makes South Europe a genetically defined region is they're united in being differnt from North Europe because they have less Yamnaya. The "EF" signal is strongest there, but those common ancestors lived some 8,000 years ago.

North Europe was not Isolated

Yamnaya and EEF/WHG were not the same people at all. Yamnaya wasn't European, EEF/WHG was the European of 3000 BC. Today Yamnaya is considered European, because North Europeans have so much Yamnaya. It doesn't make sense to describe North Europe as isolated region. It was the least isolated region of Europe. It faced massive non-European migrations. South Europe, especially Sardinia, was isolated. Also, just as Yamnaya came into North Europe, as did West Asians come into South Europe. The West Asian migrations into South Europe are more mysterious because of a lack of ancient DNA from there.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 15:38
North Europe is essentially EEF/WHG+Yamanya. They're all very closely related. However Italy/Iberia/Balkan have no recent ancestors. What makes South Europe a genetically defined region is they're united in being differnt from North Europe because they have less Yamnaya. The "EF" signal is strongest there, but those common ancestors lived some 8,000 years ago.Isn't there also a divide for North-West and North-East, defined by less EEF and more WHG in North-East ???

Yamnaya levels are similar all the way from Ireland to Latvia, but there are differences in the other two components.

IIRC Germans, and even Scandinavians (except for Finns and maybe Swedes), have more EEF than Balts or North-East Slavs.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe these differences aren't significant enough to justify another division apart from south/north.


Yamnaya and EEF/WHG were not the same people at all. Yamnaya wasn't European, EEF/WHG was the European of 3000 BC. Today Yamnaya is considered European, because North Europeans have so much Yamnaya. It doesn't make sense to describe North Europe as isolated region. It was the least isolated region of Europe. It faced massive non-European migrations. South Europe, especially Sardinia, was isolated.Yes it seems that it was easier for Yamnaya to replace previous population in the north, because it had been less numerous to begin with. Southern regions with higher population density and more sophisticated cultures were affected as well, but not so much.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 16:10
@Tomenable,

There's lots of diversity in North Europe. Lots of that diversity is defined by differnt ratios of Yamnaya/EEF+WHG. Other diversity is drift and non-North Euro admixture(eg, Siberian admixture in Russia, Finland).

This type of stuff was more the focus before Lazardis 2013 came out. ADMIXTURE detects Balto-Slavic centered components which differentiate them from NorthWest Europe. There could be a lot of other differences. I don't trust a simple NorthWest/East divide. The West/East divide after World War 2 might be influencing people's thinking. And uniform Slavic speaking East Europe today might also be influencing people's thinking. Nothing connects Germans and Celts, except R1b-L11. The Romans saw them as two distinct people. Maybe because English are Celto-Germanic, British and Anglo-Americans liked the idea of Celto-Germanic. I don't know.

I don't want to give the impression I think everything suddenly stopped 4,000 years ago. Most of Europe is North Europe. So, there were lots of migrations but among closely related people. In the Early Middle Ages alone, you had Germans and Slavs going everywhere. Even 4,000 years ago it was culturally diverse, the new hybrids(EEF/WHG+Yamnaya) were not an ethnic group.

Tomenable
25-11-15, 16:10
@Angela,

I don't understand why you are angry at Tomenable. He isn't a Balto-Slavic=Superior IE race. He hasn't posted anything suggesting that's what he thinks.

Exactly!

I would even admit that Southern Europeans are superior in a way, if they resisted Yamnaya invaders for so long and managed to "remain themsevles". :) Plus - arguably - all of Classical civilization in Europe is from Greece and Italy, inherited by Celto-Germanic barbarians who thus "civilized themselves", and then Greco-Roman cultural achievements were mediated via the Holy Roman Empire to other barbarians living more in the east... :) Of course we might argue that the Proto-Italics had - at least initially - a Yamnaya-derived leadership and language, but still they were the ones who created the largest empire, not more Yamnaya-admixed folks in the north.

Well it seems that Northern Europe did not put up much resistance but fell pretty quickly to Yamnaya invaders, while in the Mediterranean world Non-IE speakers existed for a longer time (Carthage, Etruscans, etc.) and some of them still exist today (Basques).

And while Northern Europeans today are more Yamnaya-admixed, they are still at least ca. 50% Non-Yamnaya (IIRC).

So Angela is right, that nobody today can claim that they are "pure and superior Proto-Indo-Europeans".

bicicleur
25-11-15, 17:19
Yes it seems so. But who replaced it ???

Before Slavic expansion, there were several other expansions into that region.

Maybe L664 was replaced by (mostly) R1b, and later R1b was again replaced by R1a - but Z645.

that is possible, but it seems L664 survived better in the west than in the east

if the R1b were Bell Beakers, they were more forming an elite without replacing the whole population

Angela
25-11-15, 17:21
Tomenable:
Let's clarify something - I'm not saying that Corded Ware for sure descended from Yamnaya, but that it either descended from Yamnaya, or had a recent common ancestor with Yamnaya (for example Khvalynsk, but maybe something else). And by the way - it seems quite probable that the westward movement of R1b-L51 (or pre-L51 which later gave birth to L51) into Europe also preceded the emergence of Yamnaya culture, so if we are going to claim that PIE did not exist before Yamnaya, and Yamnaya were the VERY FIRST PIEs, then it is possible that L51 was not part of the PIE culture. So far Yamnaya appears to be overwhelmingly Z2103, which is "Eastern" R1b.
.

That's logical in my opinion.


Tomeable:I'm not sure if Corded Ware was formed by a Pre-Yamnaya group (ancestral to both Corded Ware and to Yamnaya - that could be for example Khvalynsk), or by some part of Yamnaya who emigrated in that direction. But you are definitely going ahead of the data when you assert with such boldness that "more CHG-like" = Indo-European and "more EHG-like" = Indo-Europeanized. I'm also not sure if Corded Ware were heavier in EHG - weren't they 75% Yamnaya and 25% EEF + WHG ??? So where is that "more EHG", they had just as much EHG as Yamnaya, their additional amount of "some HG" came from local Central European EEF + WHG, not from EHG.

Tomenable, you are once again attributing to me things I never said. Words are my business. I choose them very deliberately. I really would urge you to read my posts a little more carefully. If you're interested in what I think, of course. :)

I absolutely never said that more CHG = more Indo-European. What I have been saying for a couple of years is that, assuming the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the uhrheimat, the people who spread the Indo-European languages and culture may not have been, based on the data we have available so far, one genetically identical group who spread around the world. Even in the Yamnaya horizon there may have been variation (see the interesting work done by Kurd on Anthrogenica among other things). Then, as these groups spread out, I think they probably mixed with slightly different groups, depending on the path of the migration. So, within a rather short amount of time in terms of world history, the "Indo-Europeans" of these later periods might have been quite different depending on the place and the time. So, indeed, the people spreading the Indo-European language and culture in the far north might have been EHG heavy, while the people spreading the Indo-European language and culture in the south or southeast might have been more CHG heavy and probably more EEF heavy. That's why I've said repeatedly that I'm very interested to see Mycenean genomes, for example.

Now it's fine to disagree with my speculations, which by definition are getting ahead of the data :), but please disagree with what I actually said.

This doesn't mean that I don't agree with Anthony that if you're going to locate the Indo-European language, culture and people north of the Caucasus, you're looking at 4200-3000 BC in the Yamnaya horizon.



Tomenable: Although Khvalynsk was more EHG than CHG, even Yamnaya was still slightly more EHG (Yamnaya_Samara appears as 47% CHG and 53% EHG in Mathieson 2015). So why this assumption that CHG were the "original" PIEs, and EHG were "Indo-Europeanized" ??? Of course a smaller group can sometimes assimilate a more numerous group, but in this case EHG has some numerical advantage. And as you know, R1b was present already in Samara EHG, who did not have any CHG admixture. So once again, we don't know if R1b in Yamnaya originated from EHGs, or from CHGs, or yet from someone else (both EHGs tested so far were J).

For the first part of your statement, see my prior comment. As to the latter part, this is precisely what I stated has not yet been established to my satisfaction, but which I thought you had decided was clear, to wit that R1b in Yamnaya was from EHGs, and all the "teal" was from women.


Tomenable: In Iran there are both basal R1a clades and basal R1b clades. Underhill in his 2014 study on R1a, suggested that R1a perhaps originated from Iran. So if "Teal people" or CHGs came from to the steppe from areas to the south of Caucasus, we cannot exclude the possibility that they carried R1a with them, just like we cannot exclude the possibility that R1b-M269 emerged among EHGs (not among CHGs), because we know for sure, that some R1b existed among EHGs.


Indeed. As far as I'm concerned there is no certainty yet.

bicicleur
25-11-15, 17:30
I'm going to make a YouTube video describing the basics we've learned with 230 ancient genomes in the last 2 years. You'll get to hear my voice :).

If you look at a map. South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe. It's the three peninsulas: Iberia, Italy, and Balkans. The rest of Europe genetically can be labelled "North Europe", including countries as far south as Hungary and Croatia.
7526

North Europe is essentially EEF/WHG+Yamanya. They're all very closely related. However Italy/Iberia/Balkan have no recent ancestors. What makes South Europe a genetically defined region is they're united in being differnt from North Europe because they have less Yamnaya. The "EF" signal is strongest there, but those common ancestors lived some 8,000 years ago.

North Europe was not Isolated

Yamnaya and EEF/WHG were not the same people at all. Yamnaya wasn't European, EEF/WHG was the European of 3000 BC. Today Yamnaya is considered European, because North Europeans have so much Yamnaya. It doesn't make sense to describe North Europe as isolated region. It was the least isolated region of Europe. It faced massive non-European migrations. South Europe, especially Sardinia, was isolated. Also, just as Yamnaya came into North Europe, as did West Asians come into South Europe. The West Asian migrations into South Europe are more mysterious because of a lack of ancient DNA from there.

I look forward to your presentation.
There are more differences between north and south than just Yamnaya tough.
Neolithic didn't spread all the way north in the first instance, which makes there is more WHG left in the north.
Yamanaya spread first in the Carpathian basin and northern Europe, but it also spread from north to south Europe
Italic people probably arrived from the Carpathian basin and also had Yamnaya
Furthermore there were Celts in Iberia and northern Italy

Angela
25-11-15, 17:55
Fire-Haired: If you look at a map. South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe. It's the three peninsulas: Iberia, Italy, and Balkans. The rest of Europe genetically can be labelled "North Europe", including countries as far south as Hungary and Croatia

Sorry, Fire-Haired, I hate to break it to you, but empty or almost empty tracts of land don't count. You're good with numbers, and seem to have the time, so why don't you tally up population numbers for Iberia, Italy, southern France and the Balkans and compare that total to the rest.

Rethel
25-11-15, 18:09
So Angela is right, that nobody today can claim that they are "pure and superior Proto-Indo-Europeans".

Tomenable,
do you have right % of polish gemone? If not, you cannot call yourself a Pole... :innocent:
Do you have right % of Tomenable-surname aDNA? If not, you cannot bear your surname. :smile:
This is exactly the same, what you are agree now with Angela, and if more you'll be submissive
to such ideas, then less sens the whole thing will have. Angela has an agenda "I am noone" like
Le who is from "the whole earth" - so for such people this all stuff = meaningless percentages...

And it is even maybe very well, because such people maybe really are a little more objective, and
something good can came from their thougts also, but it does not mean that their whole view and
definitions are correct, especially if they do not share any traditional values or care about priciples.

It doesn't mean that in elementary stuff they are wrong, no, becasue as I mentioned, it can
bring some good, like Gimbutess's hatred for men and blind adoration of females gave pretty
good side effect in kurgan theory. Everything else, what she liked was probably wrong, but
in this what she hated the most - she was right. :)

Agenda titled "noone is noone" - is very bad agenda, at least sensless... on the same level of
badness (in wich this first agenda is very helpfull[!]), is agenda titled: "I am C, but whole life I
was thinking that I am R, so R must be EHG, and I am superman, because I have 2% more ehg
than avarage person, end even If I am not R, then now I am becasue I have persentage" - it's
so stupid, but the agenda "noone" tells such a person, that he's right, because its meaningless.

This two are even worse agendas than "I am R so R must be EHG or WHG".

It does not matter how big percentage of whatever aDNA, R could be, or what
percentage had in the past because could had even pygmy, but still will be R.

What can have matter it is simply curiousity what % had at the beginning or how it was changing
during time and space, but if you are curious, you will be call racist or having some agenda which
is bad in the eyes of noagnenda agenda. And it seems to me, that now you are capitulating before
that warped viewpoint, becasue you want be nice. But it leads to borg collective. Wish be one? :rolleyes2:

LeBrok
25-11-15, 19:56
Yamnaya and EEF/WHG were not the same people at all. Yamnaya wasn't European, EEF/WHG was the European of 3000 BC. Today Yamnaya is considered European, because North Europeans have so much Yamnaya. It doesn't make sense to describe North Europe as isolated region. It was the least isolated region of Europe. It faced massive non-European migrations. South Europe, especially Sardinia, was isolated. Also, just as Yamnaya came into North Europe, as did West Asians come into South Europe. The West Asian migrations into South Europe are more mysterious because of a lack of ancient DNA from there.
Last time I checked Yamnaya was in Europe. Refresh your geography dude.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 20:00
@Angela,

I don't understand why you are angry at Tomenable. He isn't a Balto-Slavic=Superior IE race. He hasn't posted anything suggesting that's what he thinks.
Sometimes he is biased towards his home region, but I agree, never in sense of racial superiority.

LeBrok
25-11-15, 20:03
Isn't there also a divide for North-West and North-East, defined by less EEF and more WHG in North-East ???

Yamnaya levels are similar all the way from Ireland to Latvia, but there are differences in the other two components.

IIRC Germans, and even Scandinavians (except for Finns and maybe Swedes), have more EEF than Balts or North-East Slavs.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe these differences aren't significant enough to justify another division apart from south/north.
I agree, there is no strong division, but rather gradual change. I would have a problem where to draw the line.

Angela
25-11-15, 21:04
@Angela,

I don't understand why you are angry at Tomenable. He isn't a Balto-Slavic=Superior IE race. He hasn't posted anything suggesting that's what he thinks.

As I said, I have great respect for Tomenable as a poster here. I also have never seen any indication whatsoever that he's some sort of Nordicist racist. I'm sorry if that was the impression I gave; it certainly wasn't my intention.

At any rate, we have smoked the peace pipe, or whatever might be in keeping with "Indo-European" culture (a virtual exchange of gifts? reciprocal virtual feasts?), and are now in perfect amity, if not in perfect agreement. :)

Thank-you for your concern. (I mean that, by the way. I'm not condescending to you. )

Angela
25-11-15, 21:07
I think that PIE language emerged only when EHG mixed with CHG / Teal.

Before they mixed, both groups spoke other languages (PIE is simply not so old).

Maybe Teal / CHG spoke something Kartvelian-like, and EHG maybe Uralic-like.



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

But already Khvalynsk was a mix of EHG and Teal / CHG. It did not start with Yamna.

That's how it seems to me as well, at least for now.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 21:09
Sorry, Fire-Haired, I hate to break it to you, but empty or almost empty tracts of land don't count. You're good with numbers, and seem to have the time, so why don't you tally up population numbers for Iberia, Italy, southern France and the Balkans and compare that total to the rest.

Population size doesn't matter. I'm talking about land. In that sense South Europe is three peninsulas. Each is kind in it's own world, like British Isles and Scandinavia. The rest of Europe is a continuous piece of land like Siberia.


Last time I checked Yamnaya was in Europe. Refresh your geography dude.

Remember, Europe is a man made location, like England or Canada. According to geography Georgians are European. But we don't consider them European genetically.

Fire Haired14
25-11-15, 21:12
Not a post

Angela
25-11-15, 21:19
An autosomal map for Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) - or "Teal" - admixture:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!/page42

http://s019.radikal.ru/i619/1511/96/6a5d57f4d459.png

And here a map for IBD sharing with Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers / Teal people:

https://verenich.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/kotiassnpc-100ibdext.png?w=1304

Seems to correlate well with Indo-European speakers (look e.g. at Germano-Slavic levels vs. Finno-Ugric levels).

Not only Finnic-speakers have low levels of CHG / Teal admixture & IBD sharing, but also for example Sardinians.

In India North Indians (who are IE-speakers) have high levels, while South Indians (Dravidian-speakers) not.

I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why would there be such a disparity between the admixture and the IBD analysis for Italy. It's much less for IBD, plus, the results are reversed north vs south.

Angela
25-11-15, 21:36
Fire Haired14:Population size doesn't matter. I'm talking about land. In that sense South Europe is three peninsulas. Each is kind in it's own world, like British Isles and Scandinavia. The rest of Europe is a continuous piece of land like Siberia.

What you said is that: "South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe." That isn't true even in terms of land mass, much less in terms of population, as you would discover if you did the math. This kind of imprecise language isn't helpful.


Fire-Haired:Remember, Europe is a man made location, like England or Canada. According to geography Georgians are European. But we don't consider them European genetically.


As far as I'm concerned, "Europeans" didn't really exist genetically until about 2000 BC when the major part of this tripartite admixture occurred. So, if the Yamnaya people weren't yet Europeans then neither were the MN or the WHG or the EEF. The definition of "Europeans" is very much time dependent.

arvistro
25-11-15, 22:08
I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why would there be such a disparity between the admixture and the IBD analysis for Italy. It's much less for IBD, plus, the results are reversed north vs south.
I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why is there such a disparity between the admixture and I
Same with Balts and Germans.
Technically I understand it this way:
IBD ("identical by descent"?) is some hypothetical degree up to which population might be descendant of CHG (or CHG like) population.
Admixture is what portion of genes could be assigned to CHG (or CHG like) population box versus being put into other reference populations/clusters boxes used in analysis.

If what I think is right, IBD should not change by adding other reference populations into equation.
On other hand Admixture should be very sensitive to what other reference populations (other boxes) are.
For example, if only WHG was used together with CHG to find admixture, then all Euros would show increased CHG (because EEF and ANE portion would split between WHG and CHG), because any units used in analysis would be put by model into either CHG or WHG box.
If however a lot of reference populations were used, then CHG ratio would decrease as it may be eaten by other references.

So, to your question, disparity might be because part of what is considered CHG by admixture is assigned to CHG for lack of better reference population. Apparently some other reference folk is needed, the closest to which (of used folks) is CHG.
Alternatively it is drift - used to be CHG, drifted away enough to become non-recognized as IBD, but still being closest to CHG of all other available choices.

bicicleur
25-11-15, 22:28
Population size doesn't matter. I'm talking about land. In that sense South Europe is three peninsulas. Each is kind in it's own world, like British Isles and Scandinavia. The rest of Europe is a continuous piece of land like Siberia.



Remember, Europe is a man made location, like England or Canada. According to geography Georgians are European. But we don't consider them European genetically.

geographical border is Greater Caucasus, north of Georgia

bicicleur
25-11-15, 22:30
well Fire Hair , it looks like you will have to work very secure and use proper definitions , or you'll get lots of critics ..

Angela
25-11-15, 22:50
Same with Balts and Germans.
Technically I understand it this way:
IBD ("identical by descent"?) is some hypothetical degree up to which population might be descendant of CHG (or CHG like) population.
Admixture is what portion of genes could be assigned to CHG (or CHG like) population box versus being put into other reference populations/clusters boxes used in analysis.

If what I think is right, IBD should not change by adding other reference populations into equation.
On other hand Admixture should be very sensitive to what other reference populations (other boxes) are.
For example, if only WHG was used together with CHG to find admixture, then all Euros would show increased CHG (because EEF and ANE portion would split between WHG and CHG), because any units used in analysis would be put by model into either CHG or WHG box.
If however a lot of reference populations were used, then CHG ratio would decrease as it may be eaten by other references.

So, to your question, disparity might be because part of what is considered CHG by admixture is assigned to CHG for lack of better reference population. Apparently some other reference folk is needed, the closest to which (of used folks) is CHG.
Alternatively it is drift - used to be CHG, drifted away enough to become non-recognized as IBD, but still being closest to CHG of all other available choices.


Great explanation, Arvistro. Thanks.

Alan
25-11-15, 23:30
She isn't even Jewish (AFAIK), but it doesn't mean that your post is not Anti-Semitic. Using Jewish as a slur is.



Because no EHG with N1c1 has been found so far. As I wrote, I don't work with presumptions but with evidence.

It's possible that N1c1 existed among EHGs but no samples have been found so far.

You have EHGs with R1b, R1a and J - but none with N1c1.


Goga had his moments again it seems. Sometimes things he says make some sense but sometimes it's better to ignore him.

Alan
25-11-15, 23:39
But when they fled into the Tarim Basin, they assimilated many Tocharians and Iranians.

Also aren't Uyghurs almost identical genetically with Tajiks, who are Iranians (both in language and genes) ??? This would imply that Turkic genetic influence is either low in Uyghurs, or high in Tajiks - the former being much more likely than the later.

Edit:

I think I confused Uyghurs with Kyrgyz people - Kyrgyz people are similar genetically to Tajiks (IIRC). Uyghurs are different.
You have confused both Uyghurs, Kyrgyz for Turkmens who are indeed very similar to Tadjiks autosomally and most likely the most "pure " Iranic group being absorbed or turkified.

However even Uyghurs and Krygyz have a decent amount of Iranic and Tocharian admixture.

Alan
25-11-15, 23:46
I'm going to make a YouTube video describing the basics we've learned with 230 ancient genomes in the last 2 years. You'll get to hear my voice :).

If you look at a map. South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe. It's the three peninsulas: Iberia, Italy, and Balkans. The rest of Europe genetically can be labelled "North Europe", including countries as far south as Hungary and Croatia.
7526

North Europe is essentially EEF/WHG+Yamanya. They're all very closely related. However Italy/Iberia/Balkan have no recent ancestors. What makes South Europe a genetically defined region is they're united in being differnt from North Europe because they have less Yamnaya. The "EF" signal is strongest there, but those common ancestors lived some 8,000 years ago.

North Europe was not Isolated

Yamnaya and EEF/WHG were not the same people at all. Yamnaya wasn't European, EEF/WHG was the European of 3000 BC. Today Yamnaya is considered European, because North Europeans have so much Yamnaya. It doesn't make sense to describe North Europe as isolated region. It was the least isolated region of Europe. It faced massive non-European migrations. South Europe, especially Sardinia, was isolated. Also, just as Yamnaya came into North Europe, as did West Asians come into South Europe. The West Asian migrations into South Europe are more mysterious because of a lack of ancient DNA from there.

Croatia, Serbia, Albania and Romania definitely belongs to South Europe. The rest what you consider as "North Europe" I would put into a "Central_North European" cluster.

Central_North Europe "vs" South Europe.

But Inside those cluster there is also a smaller divide. Central-Northwest with more EF and less WHG compared to Central_Northeast with more WHG and less EF.

And Southwest Europe with slightly more EF and less Yamna and Southeast with slightly less EF and more Yamna.


Isn't there also a divide for North-West and North-East, defined by less EEF and more WHG in North-East ???

Yamnaya levels are similar all the way from Ireland to Latvia, but there are differences in the other two components.

IIRC Germans, and even Scandinavians (except for Finns and maybe Swedes), have more EEF than Balts or North-East Slavs.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe these differences aren't significant enough to justify another division apart from south/north.




I don't know about Finns but Swedes(~37%) definitely have more EF than Balts(~25%?). Looking at their stats I would consider and place Sweden, Denmark and Norway as the Northwest part of the cluster. Interestingly they are also geographically considered as part of Northwest Europe while Finnland not.


Yes it seems that it was easier for Yamnaya to replace previous population in the north, because it had been less numerous to begin with. Southern regions with higher population density and more sophisticated cultures were affected as well, but not so much.

As I said in the past, Central and South Europe was more attractive for the early farmers in comparison to Northeast Europe as extreme example, which is colder and less suited than even the green highlands of the Scottland. Must be another reason why the Northwest has more EF than Northeast. Even most of Scandinavia (especially the South) should have been better for farming. Therefore the population density in those regions must have been allot higher. And because of that especially South Europe via contact to Western Asia had early Civilizations and should have been more isolated from nomadic herders. I don't think the Early PIE were really warlike people I imagine them more like the "typical immigrants" leaving their homeland for better land/life in every possible direction, and "overpopulating over time regions of Europe, West Asia and South_Central Asia. And as we know the newcomers are always likely to breed more and sometimes bring disseases only they are "immune" to. I kinda think this is how they seriously expanded their language. Not very different from how the Early farmers expanded in search of new land.

Alan
26-11-15, 00:25
I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why would there be such a disparity between the admixture and the IBD analysis for Italy. It's much less for IBD, plus, the results are reversed north vs south.

Maybe one part of Italy has more post Yamna CHG like ancestry which will show up as CHG like/Descend admixture. This might have come from a post CHG source thousands of years later.

Angela
26-11-15, 03:51
Maybe one part of Italy has more post Yamna CHG like ancestry which will show up as CHG like/Descend admixture. This might have come from a post CHG source thousands of years later.

Maybe, except look at the admixture graph again. Not only southern Italy, but also Iberia and part of Aquitaine in France have very low levels in terms of admixture with CHG. It's not something particular to southern Italy. Perhaps, given that the "Indo-European" speaking groups might have arrived in these areas quite a bit later than they arrived in central and northern Europe, their genetics were slightly different, and they didn't have much CHG left. Then, in the IBD sharing map, the southern parts of Italy wind up with higher IBD sharing than northern Italy, but still, particularly in terms of mainland southern Italy, lower than you would think they would have if there was a significant relatively recent input from the Near East. They don't even have the same amount as Greece, not even Sicily, although it has more. I would say that's down to Greek colonies, but coastal southern Italy also had Greek settlements, and it doesn't have the same levels. Plus, in all the old calculators, Sicily and mainland Greece and even parts of the Balkans were just about tied for "West Asian", and southern Italians sometimes had a little less. What was that all about? Why doesn't it correlate? How can Greece have the same amount of "West Asian" as Sicily, but more CHG in admixture? Another interesting thing I noticed is that Cyprus has a lot of CHG, but Crete doesn't. Were those subsequent cultural changes in Crete more a matter of cultural diffusion than a lot of migration. Might that also apply to southern Italy? Are these just "older" populations?

As for northern and central Italy, they have as much CHG in admixture as the French in so far as I can tell from the map, but less in IBD than the French. That's why I think Arvistro may be on to something when he says that some of this may be due to drift. In other parts of Europe there's been continuous mixing, but according to Ralph and Coop Italians haven't mixed with others for a very long time, not even with each other. The Alps were a greater barrier than is sometimes thought, perhaps, and provided enough isolation for a good deal of drift in those areas. The political fragmentation of Italy also played its part, and the mountainous terrain.

Italian genetics are still a puzzle to me even after a couple of years of poring over every paper on the subject and population genetics in general. I have yet to find a really good amateur analysis either.

Even the PUNT one, which seems to work very well for most nationalities, is awful for me. Every other calculator I've ever tried, and 23andme too, have me as midway between Bergamo and Firenze, which makes perfect sense both in terms of my genealogical records and my "location" on the map of Italy. (Some do have better Fsts than others.) Yet the PUNT analysis doesn't give me any Italian population as first choice. (Maybe in this case he just doesn't have enough Italian reference populations.)

I just don't think Italian genetics can be explained until we get a lot of ancient samples.

Anyway, to be continued this week end.

Regio X
26-11-15, 03:59
I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why would there be such a disparity between the admixture and the IBD analysis for Italy. It's much less for IBD, plus, the results are reversed north vs south.Someone in Anthrogenica posted these averages of Eurasia K11 CHG-NAF (GedrosiaDNA in GEDmatch): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ObXiVfL-RzOEpDQ2U3MTJzNTA/view Compared to that autosomal map, they are a bit different.

LeBrok
26-11-15, 04:37
As I said in the past, Central and South Europe was more attractive for the early farmers in comparison to Northeast Europe as extreme example, which is colder and less suited than even the green highlands of the Scottland. Must be another reason why the Northwest has more EF than Northeast. Even most of Scandinavia (especially the South) should have been better for farming. Therefore the population density in those regions must have been allot higher. And because of that especially South Europe via contact to Western Asia had early Civilizations and should have been more isolated for nomadic herders. I don't think the Early PIE were really warlike people I imagine them more like the "typical immigrants" leaving their homeland for better land/life in every possible direction, and "overpopulating over time regions of Europe, West Asia and South_Central Asia. And as we know the newcomers are always likely to breed more and sometimes bring disseases only they are "immune" to. I kinda think this is how they seriously expanded their language. Not very different from how the Early farmers expanded in search of new land. Keep in mind that every one thousand years or so, there were farmer population crashes due to colder climate and crop failure. These were the best time for invasions from the Steppe, better adapted populations to harsher climate over depopulated farmer Central and North Europe, and because they were pushed out of Steppe by even harsher conditions. It could have been the same mechanism which has brought down the Roman Empire and pushed more tribes from Steppe to Central Europe. Likewise pushed Slavs from Eastern Europe to depopulated the Center and Balkans. Almost exactly mimicking Corded Ware expansion.

holderlin
26-11-15, 08:38
Eurasian Basil

holderlin
26-11-15, 08:40
http://i.imgur.com/pXys2gS.jpg

bicicleur
26-11-15, 09:45
Same with Balts and Germans.
Technically I understand it this way:
IBD ("identical by descent"?) is some hypothetical degree up to which population might be descendant of CHG (or CHG like) population.
Admixture is what portion of genes could be assigned to CHG (or CHG like) population box versus being put into other reference populations/clusters boxes used in analysis.

If what I think is right, IBD should not change by adding other reference populations into equation.
On other hand Admixture should be very sensitive to what other reference populations (other boxes) are.
For example, if only WHG was used together with CHG to find admixture, then all Euros would show increased CHG (because EEF and ANE portion would split between WHG and CHG), because any units used in analysis would be put by model into either CHG or WHG box.
If however a lot of reference populations were used, then CHG ratio would decrease as it may be eaten by other references.

So, to your question, disparity might be because part of what is considered CHG by admixture is assigned to CHG for lack of better reference population. Apparently some other reference folk is needed, the closest to which (of used folks) is CHG.
Alternatively it is drift - used to be CHG, drifted away enough to become non-recognized as IBD, but still being closest to CHG of all other available choices.

admixture is not an absolute yardstick, it is a relative yardstick

bicicleur
26-11-15, 09:49
You have confused both Uyghurs, Kyrgyz for Turkmens who are indeed very similar to Tadjiks autosomally and most likely the most "pure " Iranic group being absorbed or turkified.

However even Uyghurs and Krygyz have a decent amount of Iranic and Tocharian admixture.

what about the R1b in Turkmenistan?
was it a safe haven when Turkish tribes conquered the steppe?

Fire Haired14
26-11-15, 12:05
What you said is that: "South Europe takes up a small minority of Europe." That isn't true even in terms of land mass, much less in terms of population, as you would discover if you did the math. This kind of imprecise language isn't helpful.

I just proved that land wise it is a small minority. It depends how you define South Europe. In genetics it's three peninsulas. There's no point in arguing about this.




As far as I'm concerned, "Europeans" didn't really exist genetically until about 2000 BC when the major part of this tripartite admixture occurred. So, if the Yamnaya people weren't yet Europeans then neither were the MN or the WHG or the EEF. The definition of "Europeans" is very much time dependent.

Ancient DNA in summary tells us.
>First Europeans(at 14,000yo) were WHG.
>Farmers from the Aeagan set up settlements in every-part of Europe. They mixed with WHG but remained mostly non-WHG. They became the new European.
>People in Russia who themselves were native/West Asian hybrids, immigrated into Europe and mixed with EEF/WHG.

This is why I see WHG in 6000 BC and EEF/WHG in 3000 BC as Europeans. Russia was never apart of Europe genetically. Europe was more so what today we call West and South Europe. Today putting all people that live in Europe under the same genetic title makes more sense than it did back then.

The reason Russians today fit in Europe genetically, is because of at least two back migrations into Russia from Central Europe, one in 2500 BC and one in 500 AD.

Alan
26-11-15, 13:13
what about the R1b in Turkmenistan?
was it a safe haven when Turkish tribes conquered the steppe?

Most likely local Iranic R1b. The whole Region from West to Northeast Iran has a significant percentage of R1b too.

Greying Wanderer
26-11-15, 15:03
Angela


I haven't had time to think this through yet. Why would there be such a disparity between the admixture and the IBD analysis for Italy. It's much less for IBD, plus, the results are reversed north vs south.

Concentration?

If admixture measures the total amount and IBD measures levels of related DNA then maybe in Germany the DNA got spread out evenly whereas in Italy the mountains divided the population into regional segments.

The north (edit: of Italy) showing high admixture and low IBD in the Po valley vs both high admixture and high IBD in the alps may be a microcosm of this.

I wouldn't be surprised if an IBD map of Italy had separate regional hotspots for most of the disparate components that have been discovered all neatly separated into bowls by the various mountain ranges.

Alan
26-11-15, 15:36
Someone in Anthrogenica posted these averages of Eurasia K11 CHG-NAF (GedrosiaDNA in GEDmatch): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ObXiVfL-RzOEpDQ2U3MTJzNTA/view Compared to that autosomal map, they are a bit different.

Interesting looking at the fst tables.


Closest to CHG

1. Kalash 0.074
2. WHG 0.084
3. Neolithic Anatolian Farmers 0.087
4. South Indian 0.089
5. EHG 0.107



Closest to EHG

1. CHG 0.107
2. Kalash 0.112
3. WHG/South Indian 0.122
4. Anatolian Farmers 0.123


Closest to WHG

1. CHG 0.084
2. Kalash 0.101
3. South Indian 0.107
4. Anatolian Farmer 0.109
5. EHG 0.122


Closest to Kalash

1. CHG 0.074
2. South Indian 0.082
3. WHG 0.101
4. Anatolian Farmer 0.106
5.EHG 0.112


closest to South Indian

1. Kalash 0.082
2. East Asian 0.087
3. CHG 0.089
4. WHG 0.107
5. Anatolian Farmer 0.115


Closest to Anatolian Farmer

1. CHG 0.087
2. Kalash 0.106
3. WHG 0.109
4. East African 0.114
5. South Indian 0.115

Conclusions out of this?


CHG is literally the only component that shows significant closeness to any of the other major West Eurasian type components. It shares closest relation to Kalash, WHG, Anatolian Farmer and South Indian. It is also the only component that shows at least some closeness to EHG. Almost like the center of all.


EHG is literally not very close to any component beside some to CHG. It is even closer to Kalash than to WHG. And South Indian is equal close to it as is WHG!


expected or unexpected, WHG shows it's closest relation to CHG. Than followed by Kalash (everything that shows close relation to CHG seems to show also to Kalash), South Indian and Anatolian farmer. EHG again not very close and beside general West Eurasian affinities nothing to show close relationship.
Makes me wonder if some people were right with their theory that "ANE" is not a real component and just hiding some WHG like ancestry in South_Central Asians. So "South Indian" and "Kalash" might indeed hide some WHG like ancestry in it. We know that Anatolian farmers are halfway "WHG-UHG" like no suprise that they show affinities.

Kalash as expected very close to CHG, followed than by South Indian. My explanation for that is, Kalash represents slightly drifted version of CHG which settled in South_Central Asia, and a part of that new Kalash component moved into the Indian subcontinent and merged with the local H&G creating the "South Indian" component. And again opposite to what you would expect geographically, Kalash is closer to WHG as to EHG.


The South Indian component seems to be a hybrid of West and East Eurasian DNA (as we knew for long). It must be something "Proto Dravidian" + Something Proto Southeast Asian. This is why they score as second closest "East Asian". And again despite geographic closeness, even South Indian scores better with WHG than with EHG.


Anatolian Farmer scores best with CHG of course followed by the "CHG like" Kalash component. Than we have WHG next, most likely due to the WHG-UHG like ancestry in them. After that comes East African which is quite easy to explain as we know from the recently tested ancient East African skeletons. The East African component is a hybrid of Levant farmers and pre Neolithic Africans.

Greying Wanderer
26-11-15, 17:52
Bunch of stuff

#

Tomenable


So your "massive migration from the steppe to Western Europe which entirely omitted Eastern Europe even though they had to cross it on their way to Western Europe because - hey - that's geography" theory still has some major flaws.I think this ties in with thinking about PIE and IE as two stages when I think it was more likely three stages, that is PIE was a collection of components which may have come from multiple sources but all somehow ended up together somewhere north of the Black/Caspian Seas - stage one. Then over time these components developed into the full IE package which included lots of tattooed dudes on chariots with bronze weapons - stage two (or stage three imo).

I think there was an interim stage two between PIE and the full IE package which had most of the elements but critically *not* the full military component.

My personal labels for the three stages are PIE, wagon IE (or copper IE) and horse IE (or bronze IE).

So to me wagon IE passing through eastern Europe (and the middle east and central Asia etc) as traders/artisans without conquering anybody (but becoming very influential) seems perfectly plausible.

Stage 1) PIE
Stage 2) wagon/copper IE spreading all over as traders/artisans
Stage 3) horse/bronze IE spreading all over as conquerors

#

Goga


Aryans spoke Iranic... The Medes were Aryans, the ancient Persians were Aryans.

It only occurred to me a few months back but "Eire", "Erin", "Eireann" are old words for Ireland - which was quite mind blowing at the time.

#


Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

Women who have all sons still pass on their mtdna but men who have all daughters don't pass on their y dna. Seems to me this must be a factor somehow.

This process must always have existed but what might cause a sudden increase in the severity of the process with agriculture?

Inheritance?

#


north vs south europe

These definitions vary with context but in the context of ancient migrations I think you need four divisions because of the different physical routes in and out of Europe:

1) coastal south (including southern France)
2) central-danubian - danube, hungary, northern France, southern Germany
3) northern - north of the Carpathians to Baltic and North sea
4) atlantic coast - where the other three streams merged

LeBrok
26-11-15, 18:53
Interesting looking at the fst tables.


CHG is literally the only component that shows significant closeness to any of the other major West Eurasian type components. It shares closest relation to Kalash, WHG, Anatolian Farmer and South Indian. It is also the only component that shows at least some closeness to EHG. Almost like the center of all Well, it is in geographical center of all. Though I didn't expect to correlate with center so nicely, better than expected.



EHG is literally not very close to any component beside some to CHG. It is even closer to Kalash than to WHG. And South Indian is equal close to it as is WHG!Yep, I'm surprise that EHG is so far away from all of them, even from WHG.



expected or unexpected, WHG shows it's closest relation to CHG. Than followed by Kalash (everything that shows close relation to CHG seems to show also to Kalash), South Indian and Anatolian farmer. EHG again not very close and beside general West Eurasian affinities nothing to show close relationship.
Makes me wonder if some people were right with their theory that "ANE" is not a real component and just hiding some WHG like ancestry in South_Central Asians. So "South Indian" and "Kalash" might indeed hide some WHG like ancestry in it. We know that Anatolian farmers are halfway "WHG-UHG" like no suprise that they show affinities.

Kalash as expected very close to CHG, followed than by South Indian. My explanation for that is, Kalash represents slightly drifted version of CHG which settled in South_Central Asia, and a part of that new Kalash component moved into the Indian subcontinent and merged with the local H&G creating the "South Indian" component. And again opposite to what you would expect geographically, Kalash is closer to WHG as to EHG. I can't believe Kalash is closer to WHG than to EHG! I guess because it is close to CHG, which is related to WHG.



The South Indian component seems to be a hybrid of West and East Eurasian DNA (as we knew for long). It must be something "Proto Dravidian" + Something Proto Southeast Asian. This is why they score as second closest "East Asian". And again despite geographic closeness, even South Indian scores better with WHG than with EHG.That's another surprise. There might be a lot of ENF and CHG material in S Indians from all the migrations. If ancient S Indian was tested, we would have had way different results perhaps.

LeBrok
26-11-15, 18:58
Bunch of stuff

#

Tomenable

I think this ties in with thinking about PIE and IE as two stages when I think it was more likely three stages, that is PIE was a collection of components which may have come from multiple sources but all somehow ended up together somewhere north of the Black/Caspian Seas - stage one. Then over time these components developed into the full IE package which included lots of tattooed dudes on chariots with bronze weapons - stage two (or stage three imo).

I think there was an interim stage two between PIE and the full IE package which had most of the elements but critically *not* the full military component.

My personal labels for the three stages are PIE, wagon IE (or copper IE) and horse IE (or bronze IE).

So to me wagon IE passing through eastern Europe (and the middle east and central Asia etc) as traders/artisans without conquering anybody (but becoming very influential) seems perfectly plausible.

Stage 1) PIE
Stage 2) wagon/copper IE spreading all over as traders/artisans
Stage 3) horse/bronze IE spreading all over as conquerors
I like it.

Angela
27-11-15, 17:20
Someone in Anthrogenica posted these averages of Eurasia K11 CHG-NAF (GedrosiaDNA in GEDmatch): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ObXiVfL-RzOEpDQ2U3MTJzNTA/view Compared to that autosomal map, they are a bit different.

He didn't even include northern Italy as a sample? No wonder I wind up in the Balkans. France isn't there either, so I can't compare the CHG for northern Italy and France on the PUNT calculator with the CHG admixture map done by the other blogger.

However, at least here in this PUNT calculator the CHG figures for mainland Greece and Sicily are identical, which correlates with every other analysis which has been done which measures "West Asian". Given that mainland Greece to one degree or another was influenced by the Slavic migrations, which must have diluted some of these "components" to some degree, the CHG must once have been even higher. I guess the Romans dumped a lot of Near Eastern, and/or, what was it, oh yes, Parthian slaves in Greece, too. (Sarcasm Alert)

Also, once again, Albanians and Tuscans are very similar in terms of the admixture percentages. I guess some very West Asian like ancient Etruscans also colonized Albania. (Another Sarcasm Alert)

I also don't understand the EHG and WHG figures in that calculator. The Yamnaya, Corded Ware etc. are, correct me if I'm wrong, still being modeled with EHG and CHG in about equal proportions. I see the CHG alright, but lower than you would expect if northern Europeans can be modeled as 50% Yamnaya, and the EHG numbers are lower yet. Also, why are the WHG numbers so high all of a sudden? This doesn't correlate with any other analysis, does it? Everyone was using an ancient genome for WHG, none of this ghost population stuff, and they never showed any figures like this. I don't see how the addition of Bichon should change things, given how homogeneous they were as a group. Might the number be inflated because it is showing the additional WHG picked up in Europe by the farmers? Still, I don't think that would account for all of it. Is the calculator failing to discriminate properly between EHG and WHG?

Also, while it's interesting seeing the percentages for these "components", it's not very helpful in terms of figuring out what happened with the Bronze Age migrations into Europe. The newcomers weren't mixing with Anatolian farmers. They were mixing with MN people.

Just generally in terms of the CHG, it's still not clear to me that all of it came with "Yamnaya like" groups. I'll speak to it more directly in the thread about the Greek Neolithic, but prior work has suggested that in Greece the big change autosomally was from the early Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic, and there was no big change in the Bronze Age. It's possible that's true for other parts of southern Europe too.

Alan
27-11-15, 17:36
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

Angela
27-11-15, 18:16
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

I don't know who made the maps, but isn't this the calculator made by Kurd on Anthrogenica? I also think it's off, as I said in post #336.

"I also don't understand the EHG and WHG figures in that calculator. The Yamnaya, Corded Ware etc. are, correct me if I'm wrong, still being modeled with EHG and CHG in about equal proportions. I see the CHG alright, but lower than you would expect if northern Europeans can be modeled as 50% Yamnaya, and the EHG numbers are lower yet. Also, why are the WHG numbers so high all of a sudden? This doesn't correlate with any other analysis, does it? Everyone was using an ancient genome for WHG, none of this ghost population stuff, and they never showed any figures like this. I don't see how the addition of Bichon should change things, given how homogeneous they were as a group. Might the number be inflated because it is showing the additional WHG picked up in Europe by the farmers? Still, I don't think that would account for all of it. Is the calculator failing to discriminate properly between EHG and WHG?"

Alan
27-11-15, 20:10
Yep it is probably from the user "Kurd" generally his calculations make sense. He even calculated that yamna is 50/50 CHG/EHG. But he seems to have some.errors in his calculator yet.

I think the main reason for that is, that his calculator eats up shared ancestry which probably came from chg to ehg but is shown here as ehg ancestry in chg. This might be one of the main reasons.

As a side effect the EHG scores of virtually everyone are too high.

MOESAN
27-11-15, 23:16
He didn't even include northern Italy as a sample? No wonder I wind up in the Balkans. France isn't there either, so I can't compare the CHG for northern Italy and France on the PUNT calculator with the CHG admixture map done by the other blogger.

However, at least here in this PUNT calculator the CHG figures for mainland Greece and Sicily are identical, which correlates with every other analysis which has been done which measures "West Asian". Given that mainland Greece to one degree or another was influenced by the Slavic migrations, which must have diluted some of these "components" to some degree, the CHG must once have been even higher. I guess the Romans dumped a lot of Near Eastern, and/or, what was it, oh yes, Parthian slaves in Greece, too. (Sarcasm Alert)

Also, once again, Albanians and Tuscans are very similar in terms of the admixture percentages. I guess some very West Asian like ancient Etruscans also colonized Albania. (Another Sarcasm Alert)

I also don't understand the EHG and WHG figures in that calculator. The Yamnaya, Corded Ware etc. are, correct me if I'm wrong, still being modeled with EHG and CHG in about equal proportions. I see the CHG alright, but lower than you would expect if northern Europeans can be modeled as 50% Yamnaya, and the EHG numbers are lower yet. Also, why are the WHG numbers so high all of a sudden? This doesn't correlate with any other analysis, does it? Everyone was using an ancient genome for WHG, none of this ghost population stuff, and they never showed any figures like this. I don't see how the addition of Bichon should change things, given how homogeneous they were as a group. Might the number be inflated because it is showing the additional WHG picked up in Europe by the farmers? Still, I don't think that would account for all of it. Is the calculator failing to discriminate properly between EHG and WHG?

Also, while it's interesting seeing the percentages for these "components", it's not very helpful in terms of figuring out what happened with the Bronze Age migrations into Europe. The newcomers weren't mixing with Anatolian farmers. They were mixing with MN people.

Just generally in terms of the CHG, it's still not clear to me that all of it came with "Yamnaya like" groups. I'll speak to it more directly in the thread about the Greek Neolithic, but prior work has suggested that in Greece the big change autosomally was from the early Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic, and there was no big change in the Bronze Age. It's possible that's true for other parts of southern Europe too.


I don't know if it can help but I have since a long time the impression (confirmed by the little aDNAwe have) that Copper and even Bronze Age in Europe ought in some part to a very southern population without too much Yamnayalike imput. We have Montenegro people and Copper of Hungary and Spain. Could these people be akin to the last wave of Neolithic? either someones from Neolithic, acculturated to metallurgy skills or reinforced their auDNAb by new waves from S-East with beginning metallurgy, new waves of same human stock? largely EEF plus some evolved CHGlike imput from East? Cyprus and Egea people of the time?

Angela
29-11-15, 01:44
I don't know if it can help but I have since a long time the impression (confirmed by the little aDNAwe have) that Copper and even Bronze Age in Europe ought in some part to a very southern population without too much Yamnayalike imput. We have Montenegro people and Copper of Hungary and Spain. Could these people be akin to the last wave of Neolithic? either someones from Neolithic, acculturated to metallurgy skills or reinforced their auDNAb by new waves from S-East with beginning metallurgy, new waves of same human stock? largely EEF plus some evolved CHGlike imput from East? Cyprus and Egea people of the time?

I can't locate the study right now, but my recollection is that it said that the change in Greece came between the early to late Neolithic, or something to that effect, and that there was no change in the Bronze Age. I, like you, think it's possible this was a last, slightly different wave of the Neolithic, perhaps from Cyprus, but perhaps also through the Aegean, of people who might indeed have brought more advanced metallurgy with them. If CHG ancestry had been filtering into the western areas of Anatolia, this migration might have contained CHG that wasn't previously present, or perhaps present in very small frequencies.

If some of these newer calculators are correct, Oetzi has a bit of CHG, and he may have been a copper worker, if we go by the amount of arsenic they found in his blood.

At any rate, contrary to what some misinformed people are posting on the internet, the CHG levels in Sicily, Southern Italy, and mainland Greece are virtually identical. (These posters seem to be unaware that the Greek sample being used is from Thessaly, so it's not a question of only the Greek islands having similar levels.) The "Balkan" countries score three points lower, 25 versus 28, and that's after the Slavic migrations.

The "West Asian" levels of prior calculators showed exactly the same pattern. So, whatever processes were involved, they had to affect all these areas. That's why I think we're on the right track for a good part of it, although later internal European migrations might have redistributed it. There's also, in the case of southern Italy and Sicily, the Moorish migrations, even if it was minor in comparison, but that would have brought the single digit North African. There's precious little CHG in Tunisia, from which most of the Moorish settlers came.

Danelaw
29-11-15, 10:05
Where can I find a spreadsheet with all the populations?

Silesian
29-11-15, 16:59
Where can I find a spreadsheet with all the populations?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-ObXiVfL-RzOEpDQ2U3MTJzNTA/view

Angela
29-11-15, 17:49
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

Wait, so the person who modeled Yamnaya as 50% EHG/50% CHG now has Yamnaya as 83% EHG and 3% CHG? Well, there's definitely some dissonance there. Generally, I think that not only is CHG too low, but WHG seems to be too high, as I pointed out above.

As you say, the East African scores make no sense. He must be using some Horn of Africa populations that are more than 50% West Eurasian in ancestry. Is it picking up "East African" in southern Europeans and Near Easterners, or, per some implications from the Mota paper, Neolithic style ancestry that moved south toward the Horn as well as other parts of Africa?

At any rate, in terms of possible use as a personal calculator at gedmatch, it's not going to be very helpful for any southern Europeans if the only Italian reference populations are the Tuscans and the Sicilians, the only Spanish reference is half Catalan and half eastern Andalucian, and the only Greek sample is from Thessaly.

Silesian
29-11-15, 22:00
One thing I realized about this calculator again, it must be flawed if the source for CHG(Satsurbila) is only ~80% CHG and 15% EHG by this calculator. This is not possible if the CHG samples are older than the EHG samples and what seems to have happened here. The CHG ancestry in EHG is been shown as EHG ancestry in CHG.

Therefore the real CHG frequency might be slightly higher for all populations.


EDIT: Yep obviously this calculator is biased towards EHG, that gets visible when looking at the Yamna frequency. This can't even be Caucaso_Gedrosia. Yamna is shown as 83% EHG and 3% CHG. A good chunk of CHG is gettting eaten up by EHG. No way that 12.000 BC Satsurbila has 20% of EHG ancestry. This calculator shows even me as 11% East African. Sorry but the scores on this calculator are simply out of place. Reminds me once again to never give too much trust in most amateur calculators.

May I inquire what calculator you prefer to use with Yamnaya samples that reflects their true component levels; if any?

Alan
30-11-15, 02:03
May I inquire what calculator you prefer to use with Yamnaya samples that reflects their true component levels; if any?
There isn't yet any CHG using, close to 100% accurate calculator out there. I would prefer the admixture calculators used by the most recent Lazaridis paper but even the puntDNAL K11 is quite accurate even if not 100%(because they didn't had any CHG samples yet).

But I surely can tell you this calculator has some major issues, if it shows the 50/50 EHG/CHG Yamna as 83% EHG, 3% CHG and the rest as WHG. ~90% of the WHG ancestry in Yamna is already included in EHG and the other ~10% come via CHG. No need for extra WHG and never seen any calculator showing extra WHG and only 3% CHG

Than we have Satsurbila who is the pure source of CHG labeled as ~80% CHG? How can a sample be only 80% of a component which is modeled after himself? Thats like saying I am only 80% of myself. He might have used the obviously Anatolian farmer admixed and less pure Kotias sample as refference for CHG and therefore the rest of Satsurbilas (the older and most pure sample according to the study) ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG.

I also noticed how on that other forum the "experts" always seemed to use and argue about Kotias as comparison and refference for their CHG ancestry not realizing that this individual has obvious Anatolian Farmer ancestry as by the study stating it so itself.

Obviously some of the CHG ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG.

Than we have Sintashta which is said to have, in comparison to Yamna, 40% of real Anatolian Farmer ancestry and 60% Yamna.
However in this calculator Sintashta is shown as only 6% Anatolian farmer 22% CHG, 27% EHG (which doesn't fit quite well as 60% Yamna model but close enough) and again 42% real WHG admixture.

Again WHG ancestry outside of EHG, where shouldn't be any. Obviously Anatolian farmer ancestry is getting eaten up as WHG, even the Basal Eurasian portion of it.

In this Calculator allot of CHG ancestry is getting eaten up as EHG and allot of Anatolian Farmer ancestry as WHG and East African.

Reason for that could simply be that he is using not so suitable reference populations.

He is probably taking some East Africans(who are 50/50 Farmer/SSA mixed) as "source" population and modeling other ethnic groups after that. Also he is probably taking EHG as source population as modeling CHG after them while logically seen if anything that EHG should have CHG ancestry because 1. CHG is significantly older sample 2. There are strong signs of direct CHG influx into EHG groups (yDNA J).


As I have red even the author "Kurd" says Yamna can be modeled as 50/50 CHG and one of the EHG samples with most ANE admixture.

I think his calculaor just catched up some few error unintentionally and he should be able to correct them.

Alan
30-11-15, 02:25
Yep as I thought here the final proof that the reason for his calculator flaws is the source populations he uses as refference and models other after them.

His ~5000 BC "Eneolithic_Samara" samples are calculated as 99,99% EHG, while according to the per reviewed studies they are ~20-25% CHG. So since this Samara samples are shown as 100% themselves that means they are used as source population. And CHG which is 5-7000 years older is modeled after them, as ~20% EHG like and 80% something unknown (labeled as CHG).

Here one of the major flaws comes from. And I bet he has used some hybrid samples (East Africans) as source population too which creates a zombie component and makes any West Asian and South Europeans with EEF ancestry be labeled as signficiantly "East African" mixed. In other calculators I score ~23-30% EF while in this calculator I am ~17% EF and 11% "East African". I have yet to see a calculator which models me as more than a percent African. Obviously a whole lot of my EF is eaten up here.

Fire Haired14
30-11-15, 03:29
Mr. Kurd's calculator results are not meant to be interpreted as ancestral percentages. Yamnaya's CHG score is not an estimate of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya. The components are based on ancient genomes, reveal trends about ancestral related to those genomes, but is not literally percentages of ancestry.

holderlin
30-11-15, 06:42
Mr. Kurd's calculator results are not meant to be interpreted as ancestral percentages. Yamnaya's CHG score is not an estimate of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya. The components are based on ancient genomes, reveal trends about ancestral related to those genomes, but is not literally percentages of ancestry.

I think everyone here needs to think about this fact for quite some time before posting again. A Nietzsche quote comes to mind about the seduction of metaphor.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 14:19
His ~5000 BC "Eneolithic_Samara" samples are calculated as 99,99% EHG, while according to the per reviewed studies they are ~20-25% CHG. So since this Samara samples are shown as 100% themselves that means they are used as source population. And CHG which is 5-7000 years older is modeled after them, as ~20% EHG like and 80% something unknown (labeled as CHG).

Alan,

Which Samara do you mean - Eneolithic (= Copper Age), or Hunter-Gatherer ???

Eneolithic Samara = 3 Khvalynsk samples, and it was indeed ~25% CHG, but it was 4700-4000 BC.

There is also 1 Hunter-Gatherer Samara, which is older - from 5650-5555 BC - and it is ~0% CHG.

In terms of Y-DNA Khvalynsk samples were R1a, R1b and Q. Hunter-Gatherer Samara was R1b.

That hunter-gatherer from Samara had pottery, but had no copper, so it was not Eneolithic.

Alan
30-11-15, 18:48
Alan,

Which Samara do you mean - Eneolithic (= Copper Age), or Hunter-Gatherer ???

Eneolithic Samara = 3 Khvalynsk samples, and it was indeed ~25% CHG, but it was 4700-4000 BC.

There is also 1 Hunter-Gatherer Samara, which is older - from 5650-5555 BC - and it is ~0% CHG.

In terms of Y-DNA Khvalynsk samples were R1a, R1b and Q. Hunter-Gatherer Samara was R1b.

That hunter-gatherer from Samara had pottery, but had no copper, so it was not Eneolithic.

Tomenable I am talking about the Samara samples which are labeled as "Eneolithic_Samara" in the Spredsheet. So yes they are the Eneolithic_Samara samples and they are listed as ~100% EHG (used as a source population). And as you state yourself they are 25% CHG therefore the calculator eats up CHG ancestry as EHG.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 21:32
Such a comparison of R1a vs. R1b samples from the Eurasian steppe known to date:

Abbreviations used:

EHG = Eastern Hunter-Gatherers
EBA = Early Bronze Age
LBA = Late Bronze Age



Steppe culture:
R1a samples:
R1b samples:
Dates of samples:
Approximate location:


Samara EHG
(other EHG)
0 (2)
1
5650-5555 BC
Samara region


Khvalynsk
1
1
4700-3800 BC
Samara region,
Khvalynsk II


Yamnaya
0
11
3340-2620 BC
Samara region,
Buribay, Elista


Poltavka
1
4
2925-2200 BC
Samara region


Stalingrad EBA
0
1
2857-2497 BC
Stalingrad Quarry


Xiaohe Tomb complex
11
0
2558-1940 BC
Tarim Basin


Potapovka
2
0
2469-1900 BC
Samara region


Sintashta
2
0
2298-1896 BC
Orenburg,
Chelyabinsk


Srubnaya
6
0
1850-1200 BC
Samara region


Andronovo
3
0
1800-1298 BC
Barnaul, Uzhur,
Abakan


Mezhovskaya
1
1
1598-700 BC
Kapova Cave


Karasuk
2
0
1416-1261 BC
Altai Krai


Altai Scythians
4
0
1371-1011 BC
Mongolian Altai


Tanais Scythians
1
0
older than
1000 BC
Maeotia,
Azov steppe


Afontova Gora LBA
1
0
926-815 BC
Krasnoyarsk region


Tagar
6
0
800 BC -
100 AD
Khakassia, Krasnoyarsk


Pazyryk
1
0
450 BC
Sebystei Valley


Sabinka II
Iron Age
1
0
396-209 BC
Altai Krai


Volga Scythians
1
0
380-200 BC
Balakovo region


Tashtyk
1
0
100-400 AD
Khakassia


Caucasus Alans
1
0
400-600 AD
Krasnyy Kurgan region


Saltovo-Mayaki
1
0
800-900 AD
eastern part of
Belgorod Oblast


TOTAL:
47 (2)
19
5650 BC -
900 AD
Eurasian steppes



We can also add 2 Bronze Age R1b samples from the Armenian Plateau (1906-855 BC).

I think that R1a from Xiaohe Tomb complex is going to surprise us!

I can't wait until they finally publish more precise data on subclades.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 22:21
The 2nd oldest (after Khvalynsk) R1a sample from the steppe - Poltavka, dated 2925-2536 BC - is R1a1a1b2a Z94.

According to YFull Z94 formed 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC) and its TMRCA was also 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/

Fire Haired14
30-11-15, 22:42
The 2nd oldest (after Khvalynsk) R1a sample from the steppe - Poltavka, dated 2925-2536 BC - is R1a1a1b2a Z94.

According to YFull Z94 formed 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC) and its TMRCA was also 4800 ybp (ca. 2800 BC):

http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1a/

It was luck we got his genome. He represents the first West to East migration of R1a-Z93/proto-Indo Iranians.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 23:10
^ How do we know that got from West to East ??? Due to his autosomal DNA ???

oriental
30-11-15, 23:43
One must consider geography of the period. For instance Europe was heavily forested and stones axes wouldn't do the job of clearing the forest. I don't think fire was used to clear the forest either. Most likely it would be the iron age when trees were cut for ships and coke for smelting. So in Bronze Age I doubt the trees were cut. So it would benear water where most of the people lived. It would probably take a whole day or more for a big guy to cut down a 5-foot-diameter or bigger tree as they were probably like that since the end of the Ice Age 5,000 to 10,000 years to Bronze Age.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 16:45
But what is your point, Oriental ???

LeBrok
01-12-15, 18:23
But what is your point, Oriental ???
Often he doesn't make one. He is just very social and loves talking to people. ;)

oriental
01-12-15, 22:51
Often he doesn't make one. He is just very social and loves talking to people. ;)

Thank You, LeBrok

Tomenable:
Yes, I am an odd ball. I mostly surf for music and I sometimes respond to posts way back which seems out of place. Anyway, try to picture people in Europe occupying confined spaces so there is going to be a lot of fighting and mixing as well or even isolation for those wanting to find a peaceful existence. The forest would be a good hiding place.

The outcome could be:
1. Male replacement from conflict
2. Mixing of genes
3. Inbreeding from isolated communities that didn't want to fight but hid deep in the forest.
4. There would be frequent temporary and permanent visitors from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa and Middle East.

That is the kind of mix I can see.

MOESAN
03-12-15, 21:06
Tomenable I am talking about the Samara samples which are labeled as "Eneolithic_Samara" in the Spredsheet. So yes they are the Eneolithic_Samara samples and they are listed as ~100% EHG (used as a source population). And as you state yourself they are 25% CHG therefore the calculator eats up CHG ancestry as EHG.

Is not there a mistake? I don't think Eneolithic/Chalcolithic Samara was classified 100% EHG, or who did that? 100% EHG was the Hunter-Gatherer of 5650/5555 BC I think...
we know 'teal' was already among the Copper Age Yamanya of Samara in other surveys...

Alan
03-12-15, 21:44
Is not there a mistake? I don't think Eneolithic/Chalcolithic Samara was classified 100% EHG, or who did that? 100% EHG was the Hunter-Gatherer of 5650/5555 BC I think...
we know 'teal' was already among the Copper Age Yamanya of Samara in other surveys...

thats the point. But the calculator takes the Eneolithic Samara samples as refference population for EHG. Therefore the EHG component in this calculator includes CHG ancestry.

Fire Haired14
03-12-15, 22:28
^ How do we know that got from West to East ??? Due to his autosomal DNA ???

Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

oriental
04-12-15, 00:01
in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

Ha, ha those cold Siberian winters help one to decide to move.

The Turkish expansion and the Mongol empire right up to the doorsteps of Europe changed the genetic landscape especially the Mongols as they sold those inhabitants to slavery or they left to more friendlier lands.

Don't forget the Milankovitch cycles for climate change.

Every 20,000 years the Sahara and the Middle east turned green for 5,000 years. The last time the Sahatra and Mid East was green 5,000 years ago i.e. 3,000 BC. From 8,000 BC to 3,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green. Before that 28,000 BC to 11,000 BC Sahara and Mid East were green and so on.

Alan
04-12-15, 15:56
Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.


Actually the Iron Age Scythian does differ significantly form the very early Sintashta samples, he plots much further south and slightly east, don't believe everything Eurogenes tries to make you believe. He has started his crusade of making Yamna once again "less Near East" by publishing an article that contrary to what all the scientific papers say, Yamna could be explained by "extra WHG" by replacing some of the CHG ancestry with WHG. He even tried to sell the audience the Iron Age Scythians as Latvian/Lithuanian like (his dream and claim since 4-5 years) by saying they share most drift with them, not mentioning that all ancient Steppic groups share most drift with them and letting out that the rest(large part) of their genome is very different which places them somewhere in between modern East Europeans, North Caucasians and South_Central Asians.

And this can not be explained by "PCA bias" cause this only happens if two samples with very different autosomal DNA are plotted next to each other because the one is so mixed from two distinct groups which coincidencly ends up plotting next to an pure sample of a different component which is naturally in between the other two components of which the Sample is a mix off.

But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

And we don't have yet any of these samples.

And to what happened to these people. I have explained it over a year ago. here => http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

It is the lack of East and North Iranic groups that causes the gap between North Caucasus, South_Central Asia and Steppes. Even before them their predecessors in the region, Yamna and related groups were closing the gap as we see on PCAs.

Danelaw
04-12-15, 16:46
Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian. It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.They were butchered by Altaic mongoloids.

Alan
04-12-15, 17:07
They were butchered by Altaic mongoloids.


Actually not, they were overrun by the Hunoi who are originally an East Iranic tribe, mentioned as far back as in the Avesta, who started a tribal confederation with Altaic groups and those went into the Steppes. simultanously among those Altaic groups were the first Turkic tribes which slipped in. Later the Slavs went into the Steppes and pushed back the Turkic groups. So we now had a gap created between two unrelated groups (Slavs and Turkic groups), which caused a genetic gap and discontinuity in the region. Before that there was just one large ethno-linguistic family (North and East Iranic tribes).

Danelaw
04-12-15, 18:10
Turkic groups were butchered by Genghiz Khan's mongols. Most Central Asian Turks and even few Iranics like Hazara are Mongols who shifted to Turkic and Iranic languages.

MOESAN
04-12-15, 22:57
Turkic groups were butchered by Genghiz Khan's mongols. Most Central Asian Turks and even few Iranics like Hazara are Mongols who shifted to Turkic and Iranic languages.

If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.

Fire Haired14
05-12-15, 01:11
Actually the Iron Age Scythian does differ significantly form the very early Sintashta samples, he plots much further south and slightly east, don't believe everything Eurogenes tries to make you believe.

In CHG K8 admixture he looks like Sintashta with some Siberian which pulls him east.


He has started his crusade of making Yamna once again "less Near East" by publishing an article that contrary to what all the scientific papers say, Yamna could be explained by "extra WHG" by replacing some of the CHG ancestry with WHG.

He isn't manipulating data.


He even tried to sell the audience the Iron Age Scythians as Latvian/Lithuanian like (his dream and claim since 4-5 years) by saying they share most drift with them, not mentioning that all ancient Steppic groups share most drift with them and letting out that the rest(large part) of their genome is very different which places them somewhere in between modern East Europeans, North Caucasians and South_Central Asians.

He never said the Sycthian was the same as Lithuanians. He doesn't have to explain Lithuanians/Latvians have the most Steppe while explaining the Sycthian shares most drift with them.


And this can not be explained by "PCA bias" cause this only happens if two samples with very different autosomal DNA are plotted next to each other because the one is so mixed from two distinct groups which coincidencly ends up plotting next to an pure sample of a different component which is naturally in between the other two components of which the Sample is a mix off.

I don't know anything about this, but i do know other methods are more relatible than PCA and that academic studie's PCAs do look goofy often times. And they are not more reliable than ADMIXTURE and formal stats.



But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

That could be but this Sycthian in ADMIXTURE at least doesn't seem to have Southern input. It should be investigated but he is certainly mostly from Sintashta.



And to what happened to these people. I have explained it over a year ago. here => http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

[QUOTE=Alan;472096]It is the lack of East and North Iranic groups that causes the gap between North Caucasus, South_Central Asia and Steppes. Even before them their predecessors in the region, Yamna and related groups were closing the gap as we see on PCAs.

That idea makes a lot of sense. And it made a lot more sense back then. But now we have ancient Steppe DNA and they didn't fill the gap. Their relation to Northern West Asia and S/C Asia is mostly due to shared CHG.

LeBrok
05-12-15, 03:03
If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.
It is rather transparent that he doesn't like Mongols.

Danelaw
05-12-15, 10:37
If Mongols were the strong element, why did some of them return to defeated people languages? So Mongols did not "butchered" all Iranians and Turks? maybe the term "butchered" is to be limited to some vanquished tribes only? In fact we see very often the steppic invaders, physically and linguistically mongoloid / mongolic or not, slaughtering at first step but later that taking other ethnies in their confederations as mercenaries or inferior allies (the study of Middle Ages cemeteries in Hungary shows that, with different physical types in the tombs, according to social class... Not to contradict you but to put some nuances in the sketche.Because centuries later they converted to Islam and so decided to better blend in the Islamic world, by adopting the languages of Muslims. Not all of them were Mongols, but also Manchus, Khitans, etc... even many Chinese converted to Islam and adopted the native languages. Some groups like the Dungans are still there. One big example are Kalmuks who are Mongol speakers and buddhist, while other Mongols in the Caucasus/Pontic steppe shifted to Kipchak Turkic after converting to Islam. They mixed with other people and became Nogais, Tatars, Chuvash, etc...

Greying Wanderer
05-12-15, 21:35
Yes obviously. He was like 50% MN_European. An amazing thing is 2200 years after in 300 BC, a Sycthian genome has the same R1a-Z94 and same autosomal makeup except for 10% Siberian.

It's remarkable how long R1a-Z93 groups remained in North Eurasia with very little foreign admixture and how wide of an area they lived. Lots were very mixed but some weren't. The Sycthians, Sarmatians, Alans, etc. are quite obviously simple the various descendants of Sintatashta/Timber Grave. They weren't a single ethnicity.

A mystery is what happened to them. Did they get absorbed and replaced by North Asian people? Modern Volga/Steppe pops are the most mixed in Europe. They're part Slavic, part Norse, part Indo Iranian, part Finno-urgic(whatever it is), part Turkic, part Yamnaya, etc. after Steppe>Europe migrations, there were a million Europe>Steppe and Asia>Steppe migrations. In that area they were obviously absorbed/mixed with people, but in North Asia it looks like they were simply replaced/exterminated, there's barely a signal of Steppe ancestry there.

I think the early steppe expansions were west to east but switched east to west later so that explains half of it.

My guess on the mixture in the west is by taking captives, raider populations autosomally gradually turn into the people they raid.

Tomenable
05-12-15, 23:04
raider populations autosomally gradually turn into the people they raid.

Good point. Of course this happens only to some extent.

MOESAN
06-12-15, 00:31
Because centuries later they converted to Islam and so decided to better blend in the Islamic world, by adopting the languages of Muslims. Not all of them were Mongols, but also Manchus, Khitans, etc... even many Chinese converted to Islam and adopted the native languages. Some groups like the Dungans are still there. One big example are Kalmuks who are Mongol speakers and buddhist, while other Mongols in the Caucasus/Pontic steppe shifted to Kipchak Turkic after converting to Islam. They mixed with other people and became Nogais, Tatars, Chuvash, etc...

It's not the whole explanation, there is not any nation that was completely slaughtered, even if males payed an heavy tribute. And Hungary show us an other story about the relations between winners and loosers... the mt DNA in today Steppes show a stronger europaisan (europoid) imput, and even some not turkc not mongol Y lignages survived in lands sacked by Turks and Mongols.

MOESAN
06-12-15, 00:53
But this is all just Scythians yet, we know about the Sarmatians, even by archeologists, anthropologists and historians that they had a more significant(even compared to Scythians) "southern" inpiut.

And we don't have yet any of these samples.




in fact on plottings I saw Sarmatians, some Alans, and Roxolans and Iazyges are situated halfway between Scot Orcadians and Pathans, but are not very shifted towards South Europe and even less towards Bedawins. they are closed to Cimmerians, these last ones closer yet to North Europeans. So more South Central Asia than true South

Alan
06-12-15, 03:00
In CHG K8 admixture he looks like Sintashta with some Siberian which pulls him east.

As I have said in your thread already. CHG k8 Eurogenes is not perfectly reliable. It has it's issues some of the EEF ancestry is getti ng eaten up as CHG, therefore Sardinians turn out with a whole chunk of CHG. While CHG ancestry is getting eaten up by EHG and EHG by WHG.

On the PCA of the study. The Scythian samples did not only cluster further east (due to their ~10% East Eurasian) but also further South from Andronovo and Sintashta that can only be explained with further Southern admixture.




He isn't manipulating data.


You are being too naive if you believe he hasn't an agenda. Everyone of the bloggers have. In every of his calculators so far always Southern Admixture decreases in favor of Northern admixture. Why this kind of "errors" never happen to the opposite. His work is good but he is making himself not very reliable because of these kind of things.






I don't know anything about this, but i do know other methods are more relatible than PCA and that academic studie's PCAs do look goofy often times. And they are not more reliable than ADMIXTURE and formal stats.

No they didn't look goofy just because some individuals don't like them. PCAs are not reliable for populations with very mixed origin. They can often plot on region they don't really belong but PCAs can show you a trend. And the trend is visible.





That could be but this Sycthian in ADMIXTURE at least doesn't seem to have Southern input. It should be investigated but he is certainly mostly from Sintashta.

I am absolutely stunned how the Scythians can be Sintashta if even Andronovo (said by some to be Proto-Scythian) differs significantly enough from Proto Sintashta by having slightly less EF and more CHG/EHG. You haven't seen any other professional admixture analyses on the Scythian samples so far.





That idea makes a lot of sense. And it made a lot more sense back then. But now we have ancient Steppe DNA and they didn't fill the gap. Their relation to Northern West Asia and S/C Asia is mostly due to shared CHG.


:thinking: In what way does this contradict what I said. They fill the gap exactly because they have more of the Caucasus and Central Asian component compared to modern East Europeans which fits them in between East Europeans and North Caucasians-Central Asians. This is how they are placed on all PCAs. You are not blind haven't you seen it or are you just ignoring it. Who on freakny earth has a ~50/50 EHG/CHG ancestry in modern Europe? This kind of population has died out. Therefore there is a gap. Before this this gap was closed by Yamna, Afaniesevo and especially North iranic groups.

Alan
06-12-15, 03:09
in fact on plottings I saw Sarmatians, some Alans, and Roxolans and Iazyges are situated halfway between Scot Orcadians and Pathans, but are not very shifted towards South Europe and even less towards Bedawins. they are closed to Cimmerians, these last ones closer yet to North Europeans. So more South Central Asia than true South

Yes, but I didn't lost a word about Bedouins or akine. They couldn't plot close to them because they obviously were a mxiture of a Steppe and modern Caucasus /South Central Asian like group.

But I haven't yet seen any PCA of Alans or Sarmatians (are their even any results published yet). Would love if you could share the PCAs want to have a look at them.

MOESAN
06-12-15, 19:43
Yes, but I didn't lost a word about Bedouins or akine. They couldn't plot close to them because they obviously were a mxiture of a Steppe and modern Caucasus /South Central Asian like group.

But I haven't yet seen any PCA of Alans or Sarmatians (are their even any results published yet). Would love if you could share the PCAs want to have a look at them.

I've the "map" at hand but not the source (ir could be a hobbyist re-worked one so not so reliable as a scientist work; I'm looking for the source and send it to you.

moore2moore
12-12-15, 19:28
I noticed a spike in 3-letter acronym use coinciding with the "discovery of teal." Might I respectfully suggest something?

First the deficiencies, as I respectfully see them, at least:

1. Before farming, every culture was a Hunter Gatherer. Thus, every component of a certain age will have -HG as part of its acronym, i.e., CHG, WHG, EHG, etc.

2. When we use such broad terms, it gives the mistaken impression that some scientist somewhere did a broad sample, and is comparing moderns with all, or a large group of, for example Western Hunter Gatherers.

In fact (look it up!), when we say WHG, we mean just Loschbour. When we say ANE, we mean just Mal'ta, when we say EEF, we mean Stuttgart, etc.

Why not just say that a modern (individual or population) has (whatever percentage) affinity with the sample itself, and when found?

For example, instead of saying "CHG," we would say, "Kotias2015." (The find, and year).

That would not give the false impression that this was a broad comparison to a large population. It's not. And it would also reduce the redundancy of adding Hunter Gatherer to all ancient remains past a certain age.

MOESAN
18-12-15, 01:25
I noticed a spike in 3-letter acronym use coinciding with the "discovery of teal." Might I respectfully suggest something?

First the deficiencies, as I respectfully see them, at least:

1. Before farming, every culture was a Hunter Gatherer. Thus, every component of a certain age will have -HG as part of its acronym, i.e., CHG, WHG, EHG, etc.

2. When we use such broad terms, it gives the mistaken impression that some scientist somewhere did a broad sample, and is comparing moderns with all, or a large group of, for example Western Hunter Gatherers.

In fact (look it up!), when we say WHG, we mean just Loschbour. When we say ANE, we mean just Mal'ta, when we say EEF, we mean Stuttgart, etc.

Why not just say that a modern (individual or population) has (whatever percentage) affinity with the sample itself, and when found?

For example, instead of saying "CHG," we would say, "Kotias2015." (The find, and year).

That would not give the false impression that this was a broad comparison to a large population. It's not. And it would also reduce the redundancy of adding Hunter Gatherer to all ancient remains past a certain age.

You're right for most cases, but in other cases we have several individuals of the same region and not too far in time and with the same culture broadly said (Neolithic etc...) - the better way to do is to cite every individual with time and localization as you say, what doesn't exclude to make means when sensible. by the way the individual comparisons are interesting because they show great individual variations spanning short periods among the same culture, not everytime, not everywhere, and it helps to catch some mutations periods in History and some social practices(political intermariages and so on). We see variations in Hungary BA and BBs, and 'east-asian' rising at iron Age.

to Alan: sorry, I don't find the origin of my PCA about Sakas, Scythians and other Cimmerians; but the space distribution on the PCA I have doesn't point to an Eurogenes product at first glance. By the way the mentioned Eurogenes wrote a post about a Scythian drift towards N-E and N Europe if I'm right (you can check it): the commentaries are interesting as someones mention big differences between different Scythians according to location... Evrybody can go to read it on Eurogenes blog; no surprise: I think the most of the Scythians studied were from IA, a very human crossings time in Central Asia at least, maybe elsewhere.