PDA

View Full Version : Distribution map of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup in and around Europe circa 8000 BCE



Maciamo
30-11-15, 12:38
It's been a while since I haven't made any new maps. Here is an attempt to show what Europe, the Near East and North Africa looked like in terms of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups some 10,000 years ago. I delimited the (very) approximate borders of the first cereal/legume farmers in the Fertile Crescent, the first cattle herders and the first goat herders.

Of course these Neolithic people eventually expanded. G2a farmers moved west across Anatolia to Europe and east to Iran, where J2 hunter-gatherers eventually became Neolithised. G2b moved south to Egypt and Arabia. J1+T1a goat herders eventually expanded over all the Fertile Crescent, then colonised the mountainous regions of the Mediterranean, well suited for goats.

I believe that R1b cattle herders ended up squeezed between all these other groups, which forced them to move south to Africa (R1b-V88) and north to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (R1b-M269) between 6000 and 5000 BCE.


http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/8000BCE-haplogroups.png

Go to this page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#prehistory) for a larger version (click on the map there).

Tomenable
30-11-15, 13:27
Very interesting map, thanks!

Do you exclude the possibility of some subclades of R1a among First Goat or Cattle Herders ???

IIRC, according to Underhill et al. 2014, R1a originally spread from somewhere around Iran.

And what do you think about N1c - where was it hiding 10,000 years ago? :thinking:

I think N1c could also be present in Mesolithic East Europe, but maybe in its northern part.

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

I find that OP helpful but I got a message: "You may not vote on any more threads today."

Shetop
30-11-15, 13:55
My comments are about G2a, J2, and E-V13.

Firstly, both J2a and J2b had already existed in the Mesolithic, and I believe they should be viewed separately. Among two of them, it only makes sense to place J2a in Anatolia.
J2b is still very hard to understand.

Further, regarding G2a, I'm quite convinced it entered Southeast Europe before J2a. And whereas for J2a it is almost certain it entered SE Europe from Anatolia, for G2a I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Finally I believe E-V13 could also be already in Europe 8000 BCE . Though it would be impossible to say where exactly (I would bet against Balkans).

Maciamo
30-11-15, 15:09
Very interesting map, thanks!

Do you exclude the possibility of some subclades of R1a among First Goat or Cattle Herders ???

IIRC, according to Underhill et al. 2014, R1a originally spread from somewhere around Iran.


I doubt that R1a was among the first cattle and goat herders for several reasons:

1) R1a wasn't part of the cattle-herding Yamna culture.

2) R1a was already all over European Russia in the Mesolithic (also R1b for that matter, but not yet R1b-V88 and R1b-L23).

3) The R1a phylogeny started to explode downstream of M417 from 3500 BCE (TMRCA for M417 according to Yfull (http://www.yfull.com/tree/r1a/)), especially with the formation of the Z283 and Z93 subclades (formed c. 3000 BCE), which is far too recent for a Neolithic expansion.

4) If R1a were goat herders from the Middle East, there was be old R1a subclades alongside J1 and T1a in mountainous regions like southern Italy, Sardinia, North Africa, and even Sudan and Ethiopia, when in fact there is very little to no R1a at all in these regions.


And what do you think about N1c - where was it hiding 10,000 years ago? http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/thinking.gif

I think N1c could also be present in Mesolithic East Europe, but maybe in its northern part.

As I explain in the N1c page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_N1c_Y-DNA.shtml#history), N1c1 appeared in Siberia c. 15000 ybp and probably reached the Volga-Ural region between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago. I once thought that the Kunda culture was the first N1c culture in Northeast Europe, but I have revised my estimate to a later date, with the Comb Ceramic culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture) (4200-2000 BCE). Therefore, around 9000 to 7000 BCE, N1c tribes were making their way across the Ural mountains, and may or may not yet have reached the Upper Volga, but I seriously doubt that they were much further west than that. After the samples from Mesolithic Karelia and Samara lacked N1c and didn't have much Siberian admixture.

Maciamo
30-11-15, 15:23
Firstly, both J2a and J2b had already existed in the Mesolithic, and I believe they should be viewed separately. Among two of them, it only makes sense to place J2a in Anatolia.
J2b is still very hard to understand.

Of course they existed separately, but at present so much remains uncertain about the origins of J2b that I preferred to lumped both subclades under J2. Note that I didn't write J2*. Likewise, when I mention mtDNA H with the subclade, I mean that there are several subclades, either too many or too uncertain to specify.


Further, regarding G2a, I'm quite convinced it entered Southeast Europe before J2a. And whereas for J2a it is almost certain it entered SE Europe from Anatolia, for G2a I wouldn't be so sure about that.


I agree, but this map stops around 7000 BCE, before G2a reached northwest Anatolia or Europe. European Neolithic farmers were overwhelmingly G2a because that was the true Y-DNA lineage of Fertile Crescent farmers. Many other haplogroups pop up here and there because they were just a minority of people assimilated along the way. That includes J2a, E-M78, H2, I1, I2a, and so on. Even the T1a from the LBK culture is surely just descended from a goat herding family that joined the G2a farmers in Anatolia before moving to Europe. It is interesting to note that the big expansion of agriculturalists outside the Fertile Crescent happened when pottery was invented (from 7000 BCE in the Near East). I am not quite sure why that was an essential prerequisite (maybe food storage when advancing to new lands), but there is surely a reason why it was the G2a farmers with pottery who colonised Europe first, and not the J1 and T1a goat herders (who presumably lacked pottery at the time).


Finally I believe E-V13 could also be already in Europe 8000 BCE . Though it would be impossible to say where exactly (I would bet against Balkans).

That's what I have said for several years. I mentioned E-M78 among Mesolithic Southeast Europeans and Southwest Europeans, and that includes E-V13. It isn't only E-V13 though. Europeans also have many indigenous subclades of E-V12 and E-V22 - hence the umbrella term M78.

Shetop
30-11-15, 16:13
I agree, but this map stops around 7000 BCE, before G2a reached northwest Anatolia or Europe. European Neolithic farmers were overwhelmingly G2a because that was the true Y-DNA lineage of Fertile Crescent farmers. Many other haplogroups pop up here and there because they were just a minority of people assimilated along the way. That includes J2a, E-M78, H2, I1, I2a, and so on. Even the T1a from the LBK culture is surely just descended from a goat herding family that joined the G2a farmers in Anatolia before moving to Europe. It is interesting to note that the big expansion of agriculturalists outside the Fertile Crescent happened when pottery was invented (from 7000 BCE in the Near East). I am not quite sure why that was an essential prerequisite (maybe food storage when advancing to new lands), but there is surely a reason why it was the G2a farmers with pottery who colonised Europe first, and not the J1 and T1a goat herders (who presumably lacked pottery at the time).

It is not directly related to your map but this may be a good place to write something I think many would disagree with. It is an opinion I've had for some time about the spread of agriculture - considering a lot of information we have collected about haplogroups, both from modern populations and aDNA, it looks to me as if agriculture was not spread by human migrations, but it was more like a spread of a cultural phenomenon.
This is partly why my view is a bit different when G2a is in question.

Fluffy
30-11-15, 17:25
We spread agriculture. :biggrin:

sparkey
30-11-15, 17:39
This is a tricky time period to reduce to subclades, considering how few actual samples we have for the time period. I'd be interested to see if your predictions for SE Europe are accurate in particular, since we have to extrapolate there without much to extrapolate from. I guess I don't have a better proposal for the region at the moment.

I suppose we're mainly using the Motala samples to guess what Scandinavia would have been like. If so, I think it should include I2c, since that was found there (Motala2). It's a bit misleading to have I2c in Anatolia but nowhere in Europe when it's not clear yet which location is the origin point (and I vote Europe FWIW).

Sile
30-11-15, 18:37
Of course they existed separately, but at present so much remains uncertain about the origins of J2b that I preferred to lumped both subclades under J2. Note that I didn't write J2*. Likewise, when I mention mtDNA H with the subclade, I mean that there are several subclades, either too many or too uncertain to specify.



I agree, but this map stops around 7000 BCE, before G2a reached northwest Anatolia or Europe. European Neolithic farmers were overwhelmingly G2a because that was the true Y-DNA lineage of Fertile Crescent farmers. Many other haplogroups pop up here and there because they were just a minority of people assimilated along the way. That includes J2a, E-M78, H2, I1, I2a, and so on. Even the T1a from the LBK culture is surely just descended from a goat herding family that joined the G2a farmers in Anatolia before moving to Europe. It is interesting to note that the big expansion of agriculturalists outside the Fertile Crescent happened when pottery was invented (from 7000 BCE in the Near East). I am not quite sure why that was an essential prerequisite (maybe food storage when advancing to new lands), but there is surely a reason why it was the G2a farmers with pottery who colonised Europe first, and not the J1 and T1a goat herders (who presumably lacked pottery at the time).



That's what I have said for several years. I mentioned E-M78 among Mesolithic Southeast Europeans and Southwest Europeans, and that includes E-V13. It isn't only E-V13 though. Europeans also have many indigenous subclades of E-V12 and E-V22 - hence the umbrella term M78.

Its highly doubtful that T1a where goat herders along with J1 because because there is zero evidence of any T1a in the arabian peninsula or eastern Africa of any T1a older than 2000years.
T-L446 appears to show greater variation in Europe than it does in the middle east. The T-Y7381 branch found in Saudi Arabia (and heavily tested) is relatively young (1400 ybp) so could be the result of a recent migration from further north.
The paper the Levant versus the Horn of Africa also states this.If T1a and J1 where together as goat herders , they would also be together in the Arabian peninsula , which they are not. 44% J1 and 3.5% T1a ..........J1 are the nomadic group. I see T1a as per Haak , that is 95% EEF ( farmers)

The 2 x T1a in early Neolithic Central germany are surrounded by 8 x G2a and 1 x H2 ..............the only conclusion is that T1a was around with G2a in the caucasus .............IMO the ancient T in northern Europe are from the Azeri lands today.
Were there is G2a in the Alps of Tyrol, you find 5% of T1a, where you find G2a in the mountains of central france you find 4% of T1a. Where you find G2a in the mountains of central Italy you find nearly 9% of T1a.

The other factor is that all T men have the marker TL-P326, this union and eventual split still sees T and L in places together in the present and in the ancient times.....Dagestan, Lezkins, Caucasus, levant, Anatolia, Tyrol Alps, Estonia, Bulgaria etc etc...............so where ever T you should also find L nearly
The TL formation first rose in the sind valley of South Asia and the split between T and L somewhere near by.

After being together with L and G2a group , the next marker it is with is J2 ( phoenician main marker )............be it 14000 years ago ( T1-Pages21 ) in the northern Levant or 9000 years ago in northern egypt it also trvelled with the phoenician J2.
Btw there is a lot of L marker in northern Levant.

Maciamo
30-11-15, 19:10
This is a tricky time period to reduce to subclades, considering how few actual samples we have for the time period. I'd be interested to see if your predictions for SE Europe are accurate in particular, since we have to extrapolate there without much to extrapolate from. I guess I don't have a better proposal for the region at the moment.

I suppose we're mainly using the Motala samples to guess what Scandinavia would have been like. If so, I think it should include I2c, since that was found there (Motala2). It's a bit misleading to have I2c in Anatolia but nowhere in Europe when it's not clear yet which location is the origin point (and I vote Europe FWIW).

I2c could have had a wide distribution from Anatolia to Scandinavia via Central Europe. After all I2a and I2a1 had an evene wider distribution all over Europe. Anyway I have added to Scandinavia considering the evidence.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 19:24
1) R1a wasn't part of the cattle-herding Yamna culture.

So far it seems so, however, R1a was part of the cattle-herding Khvalynsk culture.

Such a comparison of R1a vs. R1b samples from the Eurasian steppe known to date:

The first sample of R1a in the steppe appears in Khvalynsk culture, alongside R1b:

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 to this list (1906-855 BC).


2) R1a was already all over European Russia in the Mesolithic (also R1b for that matter, but not yet R1b-V88 and R1b-L23).

That R1a in European Russia was also not yet M198, but some more archaic clades, such as M420*, M459* and YP1272.

Well, maybe M198 was also present among some groups of EHGs - but it has not been found yet, AFAIK.


3) The R1a phylogeny started to explode downstream of M417 from 3500 BCE (TMRCA for M417 according to Yfull (http://www.yfull.com/tree/r1a/)), especially with the formation of the Z283 and Z93 subclades (formed c. 3000 BCE), which is far too recent for a Neolithic expansion.

According to Genetiker, many R1a samples in German Corded Ware were xZ645 - perhaps CTS4385, L664, M417*, M198*.

It seems that some clades of R1a which are rather rare today, could be more numerous in the past. Maybe even M198*.

I was surprised by such results. It now seems that R1a-L664 in Western Europe all came from Western Corded Ware.

elghund
30-11-15, 19:26
Maciamo, thanks for all the hard work you put into making the latest in population genetics accessible to us laymen. The maps and summaries are enjoyable and informative.

Tomenable
30-11-15, 19:48
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.

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

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/

Maciamo
01-12-15, 08:12
So far it seems so, however, R1a was part of the cattle-herding Khvalynsk culture.


Good point, but the Pontic-Caspian Steppes were inhabited by R1a HG tribes when R1b cattle herders crossed over the Caucasus. It wasn't virgin land. Therefore it must have taken a few centuries for R1b herders to occupy the large territory that would become Yamna and drive out the indigenous R1a people.

At first it is to be expected that R1b and R1a lived side by side for a while. In fact, the way I conceived the Indo-European migrations when I started my migration maps in 2009 was that a minority (about 5-10%) of R1a people joined the R1b cattle herders before the Yamna culture, by the time (4200 BCE) the first horse riders started raiding the copper-rich towns of the Balkans. In other words, this was during the Khvalynsk culture (in the Volga) and Dnieper-Donets culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper-Donets_culture) (in Ukraine). The reason that I found it necessary to included an R1a minority among R1b Steppe people is that the horse was domesticated c. 4600 BCE in the Middle Volga region, and that was probably too early for R1b to have been there. So there must have been a merger between cattle-herding R1b with their wagons and copper tools on the one hand, and the R1a horse-riders on the other. Riding horses were the perfect way to manage herds of cows on the open steppe. That's what I wrote in my R1b history (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Indo-European).

The reason that I thought R1a people were just a minority is that the first wave of IE migrations to SE Europe, the one that eventually went up the Danube and invaded Central and Western Europe (Megalithic Bell Beakers) had to be predominantly R1b, as R1b is the dominant haplogroup in Western Europe. However R1b countries settled between 2500 and 2000 BCE (Austria, Czech Rep., Germany, Switzerland, Benelux, France, British Isles) all possess a minority of R1a-L664. That's why I wrote (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#Germanic) that L664 was the R1a branch that got integrated early into R1b tribes and accompanied the R1b migration to Central and Western Europe.



According to Genetiker, many R1a samples in German Corded Ware were xZ645 - perhaps CTS4385, L664, M417*, M198*.

It seems that some clades of R1a which are rather rare today, could be more numerous in the past. Maybe even M198*.

I was surprised by such results. It now seems that R1a-L664 in Western Europe all came from Western Corded Ware.

Another possibility was indeed that L664 wasn't integrated in the Steppe before R1b-L51 went west, but only got absorbed when R1b overran the Corded Ware around Germany c. 2500 BCE.

However since Z283 is so common in Germany and the Scandinavian branch, descended from Corded Ware, is undeniably Z283>Z284, I still stand by my theory that Corded Ware must have possessed Z283. It's also possible that other side lineages were present, including L664 and extinct branches.

Actually the fact that Khvalynsk had some R1a integrated with cattle-herding R1b society reinforces my suspicions that R1a-L644 was integrated into R1b tribes before Yamna. But L644 could have been present both in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and in the northern forested Steppe that would give rise to the Corded Ware. It's the same region so it's only natural that the same lineage should be present in both areas. Additionally Corded Ware could only develop thanks to an influx of R1b-L23 people who brought cattles and copper technology. I always said that Bronze Age R1b tribes possessed a 10% minority of R1a-L644, and R1a tribes a 10-20% minority of R1b-L23. That's also why about 10% of R1b-L23 is found in all Slavic countries today (not including later Celtic R1b-S116 and Germanic R1b-S21).

Danelaw
01-12-15, 10:05
The part about North Africa is complete speculation. Ancient Guance Berber remains had quite a lot of R1b and I. Those were probably the original NW African y-dna haplogroups. E-M81 came with proto-afro asiatics from eastern Africa, alongside mtdna haplotype M1. Some of those guys mixed with R1b-V88 dudes in Marocco and later migrated in Mali as Chadic speakers. One of the neolitich farmer in Spain was V88 but he could have got it from the Levantine farmers (???).

Twilight
01-12-15, 10:10
Very interesting, thank you for posting. Although I got to wonder what the archeologists are going to call the Mesolithic Caucasian culture not to mention Anatolia. I guess time will only tell ^_^



The part about North Africa is complete speculation. Ancient Guance Berber remains had quite a lot of R1b and I. Those were probably the original NW African y-dna haplogroups. E-M81 came with proto-afro asiatics from eastern Africa, alongside mtdna haplotype M1. Some of those guys mixed with R1b-V88 dudes in Marocco and later migrated in Mali as Chadic speakers. One of the neolitich farmer in Spain was V88 but he could have got it from the Levantine farmers (???).

Do you have a source claiming that R1b spread out into Africa as early as Mesolithic times?

Maciamo
01-12-15, 10:40
The part about North Africa is complete speculation. Ancient Guance Berber remains had quite a lot of R1b and I. Those were probably the original NW African y-dna haplogroups. E-M81 came with proto-afro asiatics from eastern Africa, alongside mtdna haplotype M1. Some of those guys mixed with R1b-V88 dudes in Marocco and later migrated in Mali as Chadic speakers. One of the neolitich farmer in Spain was V88 but he could have got it from the Levantine farmers (???).

You are one to talk about speculation by placing R1b in Mesolithic Northwest Africa ! It's possible that I was present (considering the H1, U5 and V maternal lineages), but certainly not R1b.

As Mesolithic Egyptians almost certainly possessed high percentages of E-M78, it is very likely that it was found all over North Africa. Besides, E-V13 was found in Early Neolithic Spain and as far as we know it wasn't brought by Neolithic farmers, as it hasn't shown up anywhere else. So E-M78 must have been present in Southern Europe and North Africa during the Mesolithic.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 11:02
Good point, but the Pontic-Caspian Steppes were inhabited by R1a HG tribes when R1b cattle herders crossed over the Caucasus. It wasn't virgin land. Therefore it must have taken a few centuries for R1b herders to occupy the large territory that would become Yamna and drive out the indigenous R1a people.

Although this theory is plausible, one of problems is the fact that so far there is no proof that HG tribes in the Pontic-Caspian tribes were R1a. Quite the opposite, the only known HG sample from the steppe - Samara HG - was R1b. Two samples of R1a HGs were found far away from the steppe, but they were xM198, so they are about as irrelevant to the Indo-European question as Chadic-speaking R1b-V88 in Neolithic Iberia. The oldest R1a from the steppe appears in Khvalynsk culture and it autosomally distinct from Mesolithic HGs, it is also autosomally the same as R1b sample from Khvalynsk culture (I'm not sure about autosomal DNA of that 3rd sample which was Q1a and was buried without any grave goods, he was also killed by 4 strikes against his head - perhaps he was an intruder from some hostile tribe, and not part of the community, unlike the other two samples).


However since Z283 is so common in Germany and the Scandinavian branch, descended from Corded Ware, is undeniably Z283>Z284, I still stand by my theory that Corded Ware must have possessed Z283. It's also possible that other side lineages were present, including L664 and extinct branches.

Territory occupied by Corded Ware culture was huge, extending from the Rhine to the Volga. Z283 was probably more prevalent in Central and Eastern CW, while xZ645 was probably more numerous in Western CW. Later there took place "in situ" migrations within the former Corded Ware zone, such as Baltic migrations (according to Gimbutas up to the Oder, IIRC) and Slavic migrations (beyond the Elbe). A common Balto-Slavic subclade R1a1a1b1a2 Z280 appears in Germany for the first time in I0099 / HAL36 Urnfield sample from Halberstadt, dated to 1113-1021 BC.


That's also why about 10% of R1b-L23 is found in all Slavic countries today

I think this amount is closer to 5%, at least if we believe N. Myres et al. 2010:

R1b-M269 in Poland according to N. Myres 2010 (n=202):

L51 (= 11,91% of Y-DNA and 64,9% of R1b):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,0594 (= 5,94%)
U152 ---------------------- 0,0347 (= 3,47%)
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,0101 (= 1,01%)
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,0099 (= 0,99%)
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,005 (= 0,5%)

xL51 (= 6,44% of Y-DNA and 35,1% of R1b):

L23(xM412) -------------- 0,0544 (= 5,44%)
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,005 (= 0,5%)
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,005 (= 0,5%)

M269 all ------------------ 0,1835 (= 18,35%)

And in Germany also according to Myres 2010 (n=321):

L51 (= 42,05% of Y-DNA and 95,8% of R1b):

U106(xU198) ------------- 0,19 (= 19%)
U198 ---------------------- 0,0187 (= 1,87%)
U152 ---------------------- 0,1028 (= 10,28%)
S116*(xM529xU152) ---- 0,0685 (= 6,85%)
M529(xM222) ------------ 0,0187 (= 1,87%)
M222 --------------------- 0,0031 (= 0,31%)
L11*(xU106xS116) ------ 0,0187 (= 1,87%)

xL51 (= 1,83% of Y-DNA and 4,2% of R1b):

L23(xM412) -------------- 0,0062 (= 0,62%)
M269(xL23) -------------- 0,009 (= 0,9%)
M412(xL11) -------------- 0,0031 (= 0,31%)

M269 all ------------------ 0,4388 (= 43,88%)

More data in Supplementary Table S4:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/suppinfo/ejhg2010146s1.html

Here a graph (made by user Hereward from The Apricity):

http://s21.postimg.org/bb07dljdz/Myres_Graph.png

http://s21.postimg.org/bb07dljdz/Myres_Graph.png
(http://s21.postimg.org/bb07dljdz/Myres_Graph.png)

Danelaw
01-12-15, 11:19
You are one to talk about speculation by placing R1b in Mesolithic Northwest Africa ! It's possible that I was present (considering the H1, U5 and V maternal lineages), but certainly not R1b.As Mesolithic Egyptians almost certainly possessed high percentages of E-M78, it is very likely that it was found all over North Africa. Besides, E-V13 was found in Early Neolithic Spain and as far as we know it wasn't brought by Neolithic farmers, as it hasn't shown up anywhere else. So E-M78 must have been present in Southern Europe and North Africa during the Mesolithic.Ok so V88 could have arrived with G2 neolitich farmers from the Levant. It makes sense. But I do believe that it arrived earlier than E-M81, which was brought by proto Afro Asiatic speakers from Eastern Africa about 5000 years ago. V88 probably joined these duded in their Southern migration to become proto-Chadic speakers in Mali and Niger.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 11:26
As for Yamnaya culture - so far we have 11x R1b and 1x I2 from this culture, but all of this R1b appears to be "Eastern" ht35 (Z2103), right? In any case, we do not have any "Western" ht15 (L51) so far, just like we do not have any R1a so far. I think that one of problems is that we are getting only samples of chieftains buried in elite kurgans. Maybe all of them belonged to the same "ruling dynasty", descended from a common ancestor, and that's why all of them had Z2103. And later in cultures such as Srubnaya, we find only R1a, no longer any Z2103 - maybe the "ruling dynasty" changed?

Imagine describing British Y-DNA diversity and using only samples from Royalty, or perhaps Royalty + Nobility at best.

We probably need more samples from burials of "simple commoners", to get a more representative picture of Y-DNA diversity.

Another option is that L51 or pre-L51 emigrated westward from the steppe already before the emergence of Yamna culture?

PS: Yamnaya I2 sample was I2a2a1b1b2 - is this subclade common today, where is it most frequent ???

Maciamo
01-12-15, 11:51
Just a quick note. I have replaced the Y-DNA F in the map by H2 as what I have always referred to as the Paleolithic European F-P96 has recently been renamed H2.

C1a2 and H2 are very old haplogroups associated with Cro-Magnon. C1 was found in the 37,000-year-old Kostenki 14 in Russia. C1a2 was found in Mesolithic Iberia and Early Neolithic Anatolia. H2 was present in Early Neolithic Anatolia and Hungary (Starčevo) as well as in Megalithic Spain. In my opinion these were all descended from Paleolithic Europeans. The fact that both haplogroups were found among the first farmers of north-west Anatolia shows that there was a genetic continuity between northwest Anatolia and Europe at the time.

Maciamo
01-12-15, 12:10
As for Yamnaya culture - so far we have 11x R1b and 1x I2 from this culture, but all of this R1b appears to be "Eastern" ht35 (Z2103), right? In any case, we do not have any "Western" ht15 (L51) so far, just like we do not have any R1a so far. I think that one of problems is that we are getting only samples of chieftains buried in elite kurgans. Maybe all of them belonged to the same "ruling dynasty", descended from a common ancestor, and that's why all of them had Z2103. And later in cultures such as Srubnaya, we find only R1a, no longer any Z2103 - maybe the "ruling dynasty" changed?


It is a very important problem in historical population genetics, especially when looking at the Y-DNA of patriarchal and elitists societies like Proto-Indo-Europeans. Elite Kurgan burials may not be representative of the common folk from the culture in question. If, as you say, there was one ruling dynasty that expanded its territory over time but always placed royal princes as local rulers (like the Mongols did much later), then obviously we get a very skewed view of the Y-DNA in the overall society. That may simply be the reason why R1b-L51 hasn't shown up in Yamna yet. But it also means that there could have been plenty of Mesolithic (R1a, I2a) and Neolithic (G2a, T1a) lineages that were part of Yamna, but that are invisible to us now. The same would also apply to Corded Ware, Sintashta and any other Bronze Age Indo-European culture. If the ruling dynasty lasts long enough in one region, over time it will become the dominant male lineage in that region, even if it starts with in single individual. I think that would explain why R1b got replaced by R1a in Central Asia, and how the overwhelming majority of Indo-European Y-DNA that made it to the Indian subcontinent were R1a and not R1b, even though the European component of Indian genomes is about half Yamna R1b and half EHG R1a.



PS: Yamnaya I2 sample was I2a2a1b1b2 - is this subclade common today, where is it most frequent ???

I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) is also known as Cont3b. It has a very wide distribution all over Europe, and even places like Georgia, but is especially common in Central Europe.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 12:50
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.

But TMRCA of M198 is only 8000 years ago, when also its "son" M417 formed. And we don't know where they came from. In any case M198 split from the rest of R1a over 14 thousand ybp, and both EHG samples (Karelia and that one from Chekunova) found so far are xM198. So it is possible that all EHGs were xM198 and M198 came from somewhere else. It is equally possible that some EHGs were M198. We can't be sure for now.

11 samples from Xiaohe Tomb complex in the Tarim Basin were positive for M198, and negative for Z93. They are mysterious:

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2838831_1741-7007-8-15-1&req=4


(...) The Xiaohe cemetery (40°20'11" N, 88°40'20.3" E) is located in the Taklamakan Desert of northwest China, about 60 km south of the Peacock River and 175 km west of the ancient city of Kroraina (now Loulan; Figure 1). It was first explored in 1934 by Folke Bergman, a Swedish archaeologist, but the cemetery was lost sight of until the Xinjiang Archaeological Institute rediscovered it in 2000. The burial site comprises a total of 167 graves. Many enigmatic features of these graves, such as the pervasive use of sexual symbolism represented by tremendous numbers of huge phallus-posts and vulvae-posts, exaggerated wooden sculptures of human figures and masks, well-preserved boat coffins and mummies, a large number of textiles, ornaments and other artifacts, show that the civilization revealed at Xiaohe is different from any other archaeological site of the same period anywhere in the world [3]. (...)

Also the oldest cheese and the oldest glue found anywhere in the world so far, are from Xiaohe Tomb complex:

Cheese: http://www.livescience.com/43782-mummies-have-oldest-cheese.html

Glue: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-ritual-artifact-xiaohe-cemetery-glue-made-3500-years-020120

I have seen two conflicting versions when it comes to dating of Xiaohe samples: either 2558-2472 BC or 2020-1940 BC:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/16/78

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf

http://students.cis.uab.edu/ggabbert/site/xiaohe.html

http://people.ucas.ac.cn/upload/UserFiles/File/20140623180433180905.pdf

Jean Manco used to have Xiaohe mummies dated to 2020-1940 BC, but have recently changed it to 2558-2472 BC:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr5Kq56heIs

I started a thread about this some time ago, but I assumed that they were M417, while in fact it is not certain:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31576-What-branch-of-R1a-M417-could-Caucasoid-mummies-of-Xiaohe-belong-to

They were only tested for M198 (here positive) and for Z93 (negative), but other types of M417 weren't tested.

Maciamo
01-12-15, 13:33
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your bold association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.

Nevertheless, Indians have a few percents of Motala-like admixture. In some samples(Gujarati and Punjabi) it is as much as the Yamna-like admixture. And I have seen Bengali samples with no Yamna-like admixture, but a few percents of Motala-like and EEF-like admxitures. In contrast, Pathan, Sindhi, Burusho, Balochi and Tajiks all have considerably more Yamna-like than either Motala-like and EEF-like admxitures. It doesn't really make sense that Indians are so different. It's as if they were not descended from the same Indo-Iranian people.

Maybe it is because Pakistani and Afghans have more Proto-Iranian blood, a tribe that came from what is now Turkmenistan (relatively high R1b, so more Yamna-like), while Indo-Aryans descend from a more eastern Andronovo settlement around modern Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where the levels of R1a are much higher. It's not a secret that R1b is much higher in Iran and northern Afghanistan than in India.

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



11 samples from Xiaohe Tomb complex in the Tarim Basin were positive for M198, and negative for Z93. They are mysterious:

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2838831_1741-7007-8-15-1&req=4

Moreover, the oldest cheese and the oldest glue found anywhere in the world so far, come from Xiaohe Tomb complex:

Cheese: http://www.livescience.com/43782-mummies-have-oldest-cheese.html

Glue: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/ancient-ritual-artifact-xiaohe-cemetery-glue-made-3500-years-020120

I have seen two conflicting versions when it comes to dating of Xiaohe samples: either 2558-2472 BC or 2020-1940 BC:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/16/78

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf

http://students.cis.uab.edu/ggabbert/site/xiaohe.html

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml

Thanks for the links. The dating is crucial here, as Andronovo starts from 2300 BCE. So if the Xiaohe tombs date from 2558-2472 BCE, the are older than Andronovo, which would be odd for an R1a tribe. That's barely the start of the Sintashta period. On the other hand, if they date from 2020-1940 BCE, then they could be an Andronovo offshoot. I don't have a problem with the fact that there were negative for Z93. As we discussed above, the different subclade could simply represent a different ruling family.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 13:41
The dating is crucial here, as Andronovo starts from 2300 BCE. So if the Xiaohe tombs date from 2558-2472 BCE, the are older than Andronovo, which would be odd for an R1a tribe. That's barely the start of the Sintashta period. On the other hand, if they date from 2020-1940 BCE, then they could be an Andronovo offshoot.

Indeed!

Jean Manco on her website "Ancestral Journeys" used to have them dated to 2020-1940 BCE, but recently she has changed that information, and now she has them dated to 2558-2472 BCE. I vaguely recall that she has explained why she did that in some thread on Anthrogenica about Tarim mummies, but I can't find that post anywhere now. It seems that some new dating has been carried out, and the mummies have turned out to be older than previously thought (?). Anyway, here is the link to her website with Xiaohe mummies, and they are now dated to 2515 +/- 43 BC (few months ago, they were listed there as 1980 +/-40 BC):

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml

I have asked her about this, but she has not responded so far. Maybe you will be more lucky?

I'm sure there was some good reason for that change.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 14:21
Nevertheless, Indians have a few percents of Motala-like admixture.

Motala are those SHG guys from Sweden, right? Weren't they partially ANE ???

IIRC, the only "pure WHG" are Loschbour+La Brana+Bichon, while SHG had some ANE, and EHG had a lot of ANE.

Maybe "Motala-like" in India is the ANE part of Motala, not the WHG part. And what about possible CHG admixture?

Indians can have some part of CHG, which was shared ancestry of CHG and SHG.

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

As for R1b frequency in Iran - the map posted above shows, that is especially high in Western Iran.

Western Iran is inhabited mostly by Non-Persian ethnic minorities, such as Arabs, Turkic Azeris, but also Iranic Kurds and Lurs:

http://middleeast360.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/The-ayatollahs-empire.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Ethnicities_and_religions_in_Iran.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Ethnicities_and_religions_in_Iran.png

bicicleur
01-12-15, 14:41
Just a quick note. I have replaced the Y-DNA F in the map by H2 as what I have always referred to as the Paleolithic European F-P96 has recently been renamed H2.

C1a2 and H2 are very old haplogroups associated with Cro-Magnon. C1 was found in the 37,000-year-old Kostenki 14 in Russia. C1a2 was found in Mesolithic Iberia and Early Neolithic Anatolia. H2 was present in Early Neolithic Anatolia and Hungary (Starčevo) as well as in Megalithic Spain. In my opinion these were all descended from Paleolithic Europeans. The fact that both haplogroups were found among the first farmers of north-west Anatolia shows that there was a genetic continuity between northwest Anatolia and Europe at the time.

acoording to Genetiker Kostenki was C1b1 - related to the former 'C5'

Barcin neolithic arrived with cattle and ovicaprids 8.6 ka. They came across Anatola overland - at around the same time cattle arrived at Catal Hoyuk and other sites in Central Anatolia (before that they only had ovicaprids)
Before Barcin arrived neolithic there were allready HG on the Marmara coast.
7.8 ka cardial ware arrived at the Marmara coast with pigs.

The NW Anatolian samples were after 8.6 ka but before 7.8 ka and taken from only 2 sites.
IMO the local HG were I and the others - G2a - J2a - H2 - C1a2 were farmers who came from further east.

As for C1a2, the TMRCA between La Brana and the neolithic C1a2 according to YFull is 43200 years, that is at the onset of the Aurignacian.
IMO this was a split between European C1a2 (La Brana) and SW Asian C1a2 (neolithic)

Admixture between Anatolia and the Balkans started 13 ka when obsidian from Melos and Anatolian pulses seeds arrived at Franchthi cave in the Argolis Bay, Greece.
Those same people reached Cyprus 12.5 ka and Sicily 9.5 ka.

bicicleur
01-12-15, 15:07
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.

from LGM till youngest dryas (12.7-12.6 ka) there was eastern epigravettian north and east of the Black Sea
Satsurblia was eastern epigravettian, and it was haplo J, IMO all eastern epigravettian was haplo J
IMO first R1 tribes arrived north of the Caucasus right after youngest dryas, not earlier
till Maykop culture, new R1 tribes kept arriving north of the Caucasus
David Anthony, in his book mentions 10 ka at Dnjepr rapids there were 3 tribes (1 dolicephalic, 2 brachhyophalic) fighting for hegemony (flint tips were inside skeletons)
by 9 ka 1 brachhyophalic had won and started to conquer the whole area
so 10 ka first R1 tribes arrived at Dnjepr rapids
I suspect J in EHG Karelia is J*, it would be interesting to verify this

bicicleur
01-12-15, 15:16
11 samples from Xiaohe Tomb complex in the Tarim Basin were positive for M198, and negative for Z93. They are mysterious:

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2838831_1741-7007-8-15-1&req=4



Tomenable, where does it say they were not Z93 ?

Tomenable
01-12-15, 15:36
Tomenable, where does it say they were not Z93 ?

In the comment section professor Zhou (corresponding author of the study) wrote, that they were not Z93:

Check "The origin of Xiaohe Bronze Age mummy" comment (2014-07-18 16:14):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments#2168698

Here is the most important fragment:


Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried HgR1a1in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch(our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians.

Here is his e-mail address, you can ask him about details if you want: [email protected]

Tomenable
01-12-15, 15:46
Tomenable, where does it say they were not Z93 ?

In the comment section prof. Hui Zhou (corresponding author of the study) wrote, that they were not Z93:

Check "The origin of Xiaohe Bronze Age mummy" comment (posted 2014-07-18 16:14):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments#2168698

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

Here is the most important fragment:


(...) Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M* in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which [is] mainly found in Asians. (...)

Here is his email address, you can ask him about details if you want: [email protected]

This comment is already over one year old, so I hope that they will soon publish that unpublished data. :smile:

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

It seems that Xiaohe people emigrated westward, and their descendants now live in Western Eurasia.

Because there is not much of non-Z93 R1a left in the Tarim Basin today, AFAIK.

DuPidh
01-12-15, 17:33
It's been a while since I haven't made any new maps. Here is an attempt to show what Europe, the Near East and North Africa looked like in terms of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups some 10,000 years ago. I delimited the (very) approximate borders of the first cereal/legume farmers in the Fertile Crescent, the first cattle herders and the first goat herders.

Of course these Neolithic people eventually expanded. G2a farmers moved west across Anatolia to Europe and east to Iran, where J2 hunter-gatherers eventually became Neolithised. G2b moved south to Egypt and Arabia. J1+T1a goat herders eventually expanded over all the Fertile Crescent, then colonised the mountainous regions of the Mediterranean, well suited for goats.

I believe that R1b cattle herders ended up squeezed between all these other groups, which forced them to move south to Africa (R1b-V88) and north to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (R1b-M269) between 6000 and 5000 BCE.


http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/8000BCE-haplogroups.png

Go to this page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#prehistory) for a larger version (click on the map there).

Its been speculated in previous forums that E-m78 and J2b entered the Balkans at the same time. There is the same proportion of E-M78 and J2b throughout the continent. Which, according to the new map, would mean these mixed population was formed in Anatolia and then moved to the Balkans.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 17:47
When it comes to haplogroups of Xiaohe mummies:

Y-DNA = R1a (11 samples = ca. 92%) and K (one sample = ca. 8%)
mtDNA = H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, C4, C5, B, D, G2a, M5 and maybe M*

Authors claim that C4 and C5 are "East Asian", but in fact they are native Siberian, and also present in Europe:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/09/european-specific-mtdna-c-from.html

arvistro
01-12-15, 19:43
from LGM till youngest dryas (12.7-12.6 ka) there was eastern epigravettian north and east of the Black Sea
Satsurblia was eastern epigravettian, and it was haplo J, IMO all eastern epigravettian was haplo J
IMO first R1 tribes arrived north of the Caucasus right after youngest dryas, not earlier
till Maykop culture, new R1 tribes kept arriving north of the Caucasus
David Anthony, in his book mentions 10 ka at Dnjepr rapids there were 3 tribes (1 dolicephalic, 2 brachhyophalic) fighting for hegemony (flint tips were inside skeletons)
by 9 ka 1 brachhyophalic had won and started to conquer the whole area
so 10 ka first R1 tribes arrived at Dnjepr rapids
I suspect J in EHG Karelia is J*, it would be interesting to verify this
That makes a lot of sense.
So, those Euros would be J* and visitors from East (having Mongoloid/Syberian features) would be R1a.
Soviet anthros described J* EHG guy as Euro, but R1a EHG guy as mixed Euro/ Mongoloid (alternatively as not a mix but specific Uralid race).

I am now puzzled re Swiderians. J? I? IJ?

Tomenable
01-12-15, 19:47
How do you know which one was which, though?

I remember that I saw signatures of those guys somewhere, but I can't find it again.

Does the genetic paper say which was which ???

BTW - there were more than just 2 men there. There are at least 142 people buried there.

We have reconstructions of two of them, but do you know which exactly are they?

The majority of skulls from that cemetery were Caucasoid, Mongoloid were a few of them:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2012/11/yuzhnyi-olenii-ostrov-ancient-mtdna-evidence-for-amerindian-admixture-in-europe/


(...) Craniologically, the Yuzhnyi Olenii Ostrov burial is dominated by Caucasoid morphology but, importantly, there is a small number of skulls that display Mongoloid traits. (...)

EDIT:

I have found those signatures - they are in this link:

files.figshare.com/485787/Table_S2.pdf (http://files.figshare.com/485787/Table_S2.pdf)

R1a + C1g hunter (sample UzOO 74) is this one:

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-74
Grave number: 142

And J + U4a hunter (sample UzOO 40) is this one:

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-40
Grave number: 39/1

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

Are they the same guys as those two reconstructed by Gerasimov ???

BTW - isn't C1g a "typically Native American" mtDNA haplogroup ???

arvistro
01-12-15, 20:03
Most likely not Gerasimov's models, for individual descriptions and discussion (of those descriptions) please see here deeper in thread:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31380-Mesolithic-Karelians-Which-one-is-EHG

Tomenable
01-12-15, 20:04
Soviet anthros described J* EHG guy as Euro, but R1a EHG guy as mixed Euro/ Mongoloid

The R1a EHG guy had mtDNA haplogroup C1g - suggesting his mother could be Mongoloid:

See this thread:

http://eng.molgen.org/viewtopic.php?t=1935&p=24119

Maciamo counts C among East Asian mtDNA haplogroups (though C4 and C5 are rather "Siberian", not "East Asian"):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_mtdna_haplogroups.shtml#Mongoloid

arvistro
01-12-15, 20:12
He simply arrived from Syberia together with mom and dad.
The anthro type of Samara EHG was most likely also Uralid. He was R1b.

Tomenable
01-12-15, 20:15
The anthro type of Samara EHG was most likely also Uralid. He was R1b.But the Samara EHG had blonde hair, according to FireHaired14:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1993675580

At least according to previous info, because now it turns out that he also had a red hair mutation:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31766-Update-Natural-Selection-in-the-Last-8-000-Years

Maybe he had what is called reddish-blonde / strawberry-blonde?

Karelian EHG had darker hair, maybe due to that Mongoloid admixture?

Hair colors of EHG samples according to FireHaired14 (Brown/Black = Karelia; Brown/Blonde = Samara):

http://s2.postimg.org/fgs7dfmi1/HG_Hair_Colours.png

On the other hand, autosomal results are similar, Karelian "East Asian" portion is only slightly larger:

They can be modeled as WHG + ANE mix, with very minor South Asian + East Asian admixtures:

http://s22.postimg.org/8tdnp06xd/EHG_Autosomal.png

Maybe blonde hair is indeed an originally Uralid trait then ???

arvistro
01-12-15, 20:49
For this particular Samara EHG Russian users of molgen could not find description. "Most likely Uralid" comes from description of other same culture graves.
Hmm, do you have an autosomal comparison for Karelia J and Karelia R1a?

Tomenable
01-12-15, 20:55
Hmm, do you have an autosomal comparison for Karelia J and Karelia R1a?

Nope, not yet.

Greying Wanderer
01-12-15, 21:39
cool maps as always

but

1. I think it's pretty clear now R1b were originally HG from the steppe (although they may have spread elsewhere as well) in which case they got displaced from the steppe at some later date and their dramatic survival in western Europe resulted from LP.

2. I think the fixation with the fertile crescent because of later history is where things have been going wrong. I don't believe the fertile crescent would have been fertile until after farming was developed and the land drained. Instead I think people should maybe be looking at a fertile Aegean or fertile Black/Caspian Sea coast before the sea level rose.

Alan
01-12-15, 22:57
It is a very important problem in historical population genetics, especially when looking at the Y-DNA of patriarchal and elitists societies like Proto-Indo-Europeans. Elite Kurgan burials may not be representative of the common folk from the culture in question. If, as you say, there was one ruling dynasty that expanded its territory over time but always placed royal princes as local rulers (like the Mongols did much later), then obviously we get a very skewed view of the Y-DNA in the overall society. That may simply be the reason why R1b-L51 hasn't shown up in Yamna yet. But it also means that there could have been plenty of Mesolithic (R1a, I2a) and Neolithic (G2a, T1a) lineages that were part of Yamna, but that are invisible to us now. The same would also apply to Corded Ware, Sintashta and any other Bronze Age Indo-European culture. If the ruling dynasty lasts long enough in one region, over time it will become the dominant male lineage in that region, even if it starts with in single individual. I think that would explain why R1b got replaced by R1a in Central Asia, and how the overwhelming majority of Indo-European Y-DNA that made it to the Indian subcontinent were R1a and not R1b, even though the European component of Indian genomes is about half Yamna R1b and half EHG R1a.




I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) is also known as Cont3b. It has a very wide distribution all over Europe, and even places like Georgia, but is especially common in Central Europe.

Place yDNA J, J1 and J2a among these and I completely agree with you.

What seems to be a possibility here, as Fire Heared once said, we are dealing here with one patriachal branch which turned out as R1b-l23 it mere coincidence that ths one "Elite" paternal lineages was not some of the other R1b branches, some sort of J or R1a, G2a, T for that matter.

Since we have yDNA J in EHG and CHG, both said to be the main groups to merge to form Yamna, it is unlikely that one of the two groups stole wives from the other or some other very unlikely scenario.

All it appears to me like, After some time when these CHG and EHG groups merged and became Yamna. One dominant paternal lineage took the power and became Elite, much like a Royal family. And after a long time they were overthrown by a new "Royal family" who were in this case R1a-z93 and more present in the rich Kurgan burials from now on in the Steppes.

We only have 2 CHG samples so far and I don't even think the CHG is the non EHG ancestry of Yamna. But something very closely related/similar to CHG. Much like how WHG is to EHG. A Herder group brought R1b-l23 to the Steppes and they most likely came from Western Asia.

The only difference here is I place them somewhere in the region between the Zagros and Alborz mountains.

Alan
02-12-15, 00:49
But the Samara EHG had blonde hair, according to FireHaired14:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1993675580

At least according to previous info, because now it turns out that he also had a red hair mutation:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31766-Update-Natural-Selection-in-the-Last-8-000-Years

Maybe he had what is called reddish-blonde / strawberry-blonde?

Karelian EHG had darker hair, maybe due to that Mongoloid admixture?

Hair colors of EHG samples according to FireHaired14 (Brown/Black = Karelia; Brown/Blonde = Samara):

http://s2.postimg.org/fgs7dfmi1/HG_Hair_Colours.png

On the other hand, autosomal results are similar, Karelian "East Asian" portion is only slightly larger:

They can be modeled as WHG + ANE mix, with very minor South Asian + East Asian admixtures:

http://s22.postimg.org/8tdnp06xd/EHG_Autosomal.png

Maybe blonde hair is indeed an originally Uralid trait then ???
Calling those R1 tribes "mongoloid" or "Uralid" is simply so wrong. Uralic people are dominant in N Haplogroup. All Uralic people have a significant real Han like/modern Sibirian admixture. R1 tribes not(exceptions are there always).

People who still don't understand that reconstructions made in the past without DNA, especially by Gerasimov are not realiable when it comes to facial features, only the skull shape is mostly accurate. I have seen all his reconstructions. Virtually all of them have an asiatic touch. Even the H&G reconstruction of him, which are from Central Europe.


People need to also understand that Brachycephalic =/= "Mongoloid". Just as there are mesocephalic and even Dolichocephalic East Asians there are also Brachycephalic Caucasians.

arvistro
02-12-15, 06:56
Alan, flat(tened) face bones are flat(tened) face bones.

If you have two populations always participating in genesys around Baltics (Zvejnieki, Oleniy Ostrov), one older with Caucasian crania with analogous South/South-West and other group from East with flat face and analogous from Syberia, then what are your versions?

Maciamo
02-12-15, 08:05
That R1a EHG had mtDNA haplogroup C1g - suggesting that his mother could be the "Mongoloid" part to that mix:


MtDNA C was also present in Neolithic Ukraine and in the Catacomb culture. It is still found in Eastern Europe today. That doesn't mean any of these people had a Mongoloid mother. I explained in the R1a page's mtDNA correspondence (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#mtDNA) that mtDNA probably originated with Y-DNA R* as Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mammoth hunters during the late Paleolithic. The subclades of C found in Europe are C1, C4a and C5, and all of them are found in the Altai region, southern Siberia and above all western Siberia. That's pretty much were R1* and R1a* originated. In other words, just like U2e and U4, haplogroups C1, C4a and C5 would have come with R1a to Eastern Europe and could have been present there thousands of years before the Mesolithic sample you mention.

bicicleur
02-12-15, 08:44
MtDNA C was also present in Neolithic Ukraine and in the Catacomb culture. It is still found in Eastern Europe today. That doesn't mean any of these people had a Mongoloid mother. I explained in the R1a page's mtDNA correspondence (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#mtDNA) that mtDNA probably originated with Y-DNA R* as Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mammoth hunters during the late Paleolithic. The subclades of C found in Europe are C1, C4a and C5, and all of them are found in the Altai region, southern Siberia and above all western Siberia. That's pretty much were R1* and R1a* originated. In other words, just like U2e and U4, haplogroups C1, C4a and C5 would have come with R1a to Eastern Europe and could have been present there thousands of years before the Mesolithic sample you mention.

CZ was Siberian.
I don't know when they split.
IMO C arrived with pottery which started to spread all over Siberia from Manchuria 13 ka.
So during LGM C would have been together with N

Maciamo
02-12-15, 08:50
acoording to Genetiker Kostenki was C1b1 - related to the former 'C5'

Barcin neolithic arrived with cattle and ovicaprids 8.6 ka. They came across Anatola overland - at around the same time cattle arrived at Catal Hoyuk and other sites in Central Anatolia (before that they only had ovicaprids)
Before Barcin arrived neolithic there were allready HG on the Marmara coast.
7.8 ka cardial ware arrived at the Marmara coast with pigs.

The NW Anatolian samples were after 8.6 ka but before 7.8 ka and taken from only 2 sites.
IMO the local HG were I and the others - G2a - J2a - H2 - C1a2 were farmers who came from further east.


That is very interesting. It looks like there was a convergence of different tribes and/or technologies/domesticates around 7000-6500 BCE that kickstarted the Neolithic expansion to Europe. Suddenly, instead of having cereal farmers, ovicaprid herders and cattle herders separately, these Neolithic people had all three + pottery.

Only Cardial farmers brought one additional element to the package: pigs.

I don't think, however, that tribes from different ethnic groups (e.g. Basal Eurasian G2a vs Caucasian J1) really merged in any significant way. There may have been a few intermarriages. But considering that all European farmers were predominantly G2a, be them descendants of the Thessalian Neolithic or of the Cardium Pottery culture, I imagine that what could have happened is that G2a farmers developed pottery and started trading grain and legumes in ceramic pots for domesticate animals, be it goat, sheep, cattle or pigs. So they ended up with the full Neolithic package which greatly facilitated their adaptation to different environments, made them more resilient in case of bad harvest, and allowed them to migrate with food stored in pots and animals to provide milk and meat until the new land has been cleared for farming and the new crop harvested.



As for C1a2, the TMRCA between La Brana and the neolithic C1a2 according to YFull is 43200 years, that is at the onset of the Aurignacian.
IMO this was a split between European C1a2 (La Brana) and SW Asian C1a2 (neolithic)

Are you sure it is the TMRCA between La Brana and the Neolithic samples, or is it the overall TMRCA for all known C1a2, including modern samples ?

bicicleur
02-12-15, 10:39
Are you sure it is the TMRCA between La Brana and the Neolithic samples, or is it the overall TMRCA for all known C1a2, including modern samples ?

I'm not sure, it would be interesting to test the neolithic C1a2 for further subclades. (C-V86 or V182)

YFull is clear : La Brana split 43.2 ka from C-V86

http://www.yfull.com/tree/C-V20/

Ray Banks estimates the C1a split even older and all European samples are V182 with TRMCA 17.4 ka
he also has an Algerian Berber branch, not V182

C1a2V20 (6845955 G->A) 55.0 KY
• • • •C1a2a V182 (14249991 C->T)
• • • • •C1a2a1V222 (7589937 G->C) 17.4 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1aZ31793(7245632 C->T) Brits 6.5 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1bZ31808(14811561 G->A) 6.5 KY
• • • • • • •C1a2a1b1 Z31798(6655569 T->C) Brits 6.0 KY
• • • • • • •C1a2a1b2 Z31815(8491711 C->T) Hungarians 6.0 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1c Y12157/Z30466(14415244 C->A) 6.5 KY
• • • • • • •C1a2a1c1Z30362(2753960 T->C) Ukrainians 6.0 KY
• • • • • • •C1a2a1c2Z31803(6717952 C->T) Greeks 6.0 KY
• • • • •C1a2a2Z29329 (2777695 G->C) 17.4 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a2aZ31819(7617913 A->T) Spaniards 2.4 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a2bZ31824(6655370 A->T) Poles 2.4 KY
• • • •C1a2b Z38886 (2800547 G->A) Algerian Berbers


proto-Aurignacian was in Italy and Catalunia 45 ka
Aurignacian started along Austrian Danube 43.5 ka and conquered all European tundra-steppe 40 ka
Levantine Aurignacian and Baradostian (Zagros Mts) are later aurignacian-like cultures (<40 ka), IMO result of backmigration to SW Asia, even possibly the same for Dabbian (Cyrenaica 40 ka)

Danelaw
02-12-15, 11:28
Its been speculated in previous forums that E-m78 and J2b entered the Balkans at the same time. There is the same proportion of E-M78 and J2b throughout the continent. Which, according to the new map, would mean these mixed population was formed in Anatolia and then moved to the Balkans.No most likely E-M78 was already present in Italy and Spain before neolitich revolution, going by diversity. No E-M78 has been found so far in Neolitich Balkans/Anatolia.

LeBrok
02-12-15, 15:58
That is very interesting. It looks like there was a convergence of different tribes and/or technologies/domesticates around 7000-6500 BCE that kickstarted the Neolithic expansion to Europe. Suddenly, instead of having cereal farmers, ovicaprid herders and cattle herders separately, these Neolithic people had all three + pottery.
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31446-G2a-didn-t-have-domesticated-animals?p=463311#post463311

Alpenjager
03-12-15, 00:43
Its highly doubtful that T1a where goat herders along with J1 because because there is zero evidence of any T1a in the arabian peninsula or eastern Africa of any T1a older than 2000years.
T-L446 appears to show greater variation in Europe than it does in the middle east. The T-Y7381 branch found in Saudi Arabia (and heavily tested) is relatively young (1400 ybp) so could be the result of a recent migration from further north.
The paper the Levant versus the Horn of Africa also states this.If T1a and J1 where together as goat herders , they would also be together in the Arabian peninsula , which they are not. 44% J1 and 3.5% T1a ..........J1 are the nomadic group. I see T1a as per Haak , that is 95% EEF ( farmers)

The 2 x T1a in early Neolithic Central germany are surrounded by 8 x G2a and 1 x H2 ..............the only conclusion is that T1a was around with G2a in the caucasus .............IMO the ancient T in northern Europe are from the Azeri lands today.
Were there is G2a in the Alps of Tyrol, you find 5% of T1a, where you find G2a in the mountains of central france you find 4% of T1a. Where you find G2a in the mountains of central Italy you find nearly 9% of T1a.

The other factor is that all T men have the marker TL-P326, this union and eventual split still sees T and L in places together in the present and in the ancient times.....Dagestan, Lezkins, Caucasus, levant, Anatolia, Tyrol Alps, Estonia, Bulgaria etc etc...............so where ever T you should also find L nearly
The TL formation first rose in the sind valley of South Asia and the split between T and L somewhere near by.

After being together with L and G2a group , the next marker it is with is J2 ( phoenician main marker )............be it 14000 years ago ( T1-Pages21 ) in the northern Levant or 9000 years ago in northern egypt it also trvelled with the phoenician J2.
Btw there is a lot of L marker in northern Levant.


I agree, Is very unlikely that T1a traveled together to J1. T1a subclade distributions in Europe doesn't match to J1 distribution.

Angela
03-12-15, 00:54
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31446-G2a-didn-t-have-domesticated-animals?p=463311#post463311

The most recent papers claim the opposite.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

"Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."

This makes sense as it seems that the earliest farmers to leave the Near East, those who went to Cyprus, already had domesticated animals.

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=domesticated+animals++in+the+early+Neolithic+of +Europe&source=bl&ots=e44lIXh4Kg&sig=ew7v2CzmSEzsutY3zIIWYmWqzjY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih3LLyl77JAhUBeT4KHQLFAWo4ChDoAQgbMAA#v =onepage&q=domesticated%20animals%20%20in%20the%20early%20N eolithic%20of%20Europe&f=false

The Neolithic in Cyprus:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/swiny.pdf

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.

LeBrok
03-12-15, 02:34
The most recent papers claim the opposite.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

The paper I was citing is from 2013.



"Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."
Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.




This makes sense as it seems that the earliest farmers to leave the Near East, those who went to Cyprus, already had domesticated animals.

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gcGSn0eVs2oC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=domesticated+animals++in+the+early+Neolithic+of +Europe&source=bl&ots=e44lIXh4Kg&sig=ew7v2CzmSEzsutY3zIIWYmWqzjY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih3LLyl77JAhUBeT4KHQLFAWo4ChDoAQgbMAA#v =onepage&q=domesticated%20animals%20%20in%20the%20early%20N eolithic%20of%20Europe&f=false

The Neolithic in Cyprus:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/swiny.pdf

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.

Some site dating could be off? I'll be glad to get to the bottom of this conundrum. Intriguing anyway. :)

bicicleur
03-12-15, 13:57
"Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16)) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17),30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14)). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-31) and SI Appendix (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-32), 33 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-33)), polished stone axes (34 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-34)), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-35)) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)"

I have to admit I made a little assumption that these first Neolithic Farmers in Hungary were G2a. I'm not sure if DNA from Lepenski Vir site skeletons were sequenced. However most of Early Neolithic farmers from Europe were G2a carriers, so it is most likely these folks were G2a too.

Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka

LeBrok
03-12-15, 16:50
Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka
It was a farmer society heavily hybridized with locals.

Angela
03-12-15, 18:49
LeBrok: The paper I was citing is from 2013.

Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.

This is the paper to which you're referring, right?

""Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16)) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17), 30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14)). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-31) and SI Appendix (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-32), 33 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-33)), polished stone axes (34 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-34)), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-35)) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)"

I've just re-read the paper, which I should have done before I responded to you, so my apologies. Nowhere in the paper can I see that the authors address the issue of the presence of domesticated animals in the early Neolithic in Greece or generally in the Balkans. They are addressing only one specific area, that around the Danube Gorges, where there was a relatively large group of sedentary fisher gatherers. The authors, through strontium isotope analysis, show that starting from around 6200 BC there were several waves of newcomers. Some new settlements were started on land more amenable to the agricultural package, and these vastly increased over time. However, a few of the prior fisher-gatherer settlements continued to be occupied for some time. It is those settlements whose subsistence strategies they discuss. Even those settlements show some genetic admixture based on the variety of skeleton types, and this increased over time. Eventually, the fisher/hunters, if they did not flee, were totally absorbed by the farmers. This may be the place where the Anatolian farmers picked up their 10% KO1 like European Mesolithic WHG like ancestry.

The paragraph which you cited is referring to the very earliest time of contact, when these people had apparently started to trade for new kinds of goods, and perhaps some wives, but as they were in a phase of "cultural hybridity", according to the authors, they had not yet adopted domesticated animals. They hadn't even adopted farming yet, as the authors make a point of saying that their subsistence strategies hadn't changed.

""The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16)) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17),30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14)). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-31) and SI Appendix (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-32), 33 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-33)), polished stone axes (34 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-34)), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-35)) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)""

The paper is very confusingly written, but I think if you read it again you'll see what I mean. These people held onto to their prior subsistence patterns for quite a while, before eventually, within a few hundred years, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers around them.

So, I guess my point is that there is no contradiction between this paper and all of the other archaeological work that has been done in the Balkans on this topic.

Ed. Sorry, this was prepared last night and I forgot to post it.

MOESAN
03-12-15, 19:54
It is not directly related to your map but this may be a good place to write something I think many would disagree with. It is an opinion I've had for some time about the spread of agriculture - considering a lot of information we have collected about haplogroups, both from modern populations and aDNA, it looks to me as if agriculture was not spread by human migrations, but it was more like a spread of a cultural phenomenon.
This is partly why my view is a bit different when G2a is in question.

aDNA could give a part of the answer I think, but we have the more precise metrics surveys that show a sharp and quick change in central Balkans at the deabreak of european agriculture, neatly separating last HGs and first Farmers; no way-of-life nor climatic explanation can explain it, only demic new arrivals. the same for other regions of Europe at the time of this transition.

LeBrok
04-12-15, 04:34
This is the paper to which you're referring, right?

""Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16)) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17), 30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14)). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-31) and SI Appendix (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-32), 33 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-33)), polished stone axes (34 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-34)), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-35)) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)"

I've just re-read the paper, which I should have done before I responded to you, so my apologies. Nowhere in the paper can I see that the authors address the issue of the presence of domesticated animals in the early Neolithic in Greece or generally in the Balkans. They are addressing only one specific area, that around the Danube Gorges, where there was a relatively large group of sedentary fisher gatherers. The authors, through strontium isotope analysis, show that starting from around 6200 BC there were several waves of newcomers. Some new settlements were started on land more amenable to the agricultural package, and these vastly increased over time. However, a few of the prior fisher-gatherer settlements continued to be occupied for some time. It is those settlements whose subsistence strategies they discuss. Even those settlements show some genetic admixture based on the variety of skeleton types, and this increased over time. Eventually, the fisher/hunters, if they did not flee, were totally absorbed by the farmers. This may be the place where the Anatolian farmers picked up their 10% KO1 like European Mesolithic WHG like ancestry.

The paragraph which you cited is referring to the very earliest time of contact, when these people had apparently started to trade for new kinds of goods, and perhaps some wives, but as they were in a phase of "cultural hybridity", according to the authors, they had not yet adopted domesticated animals. They hadn't even adopted farming yet, as the authors make a point of saying that their subsistence strategies hadn't changed.

""The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16)) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17),30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14)). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2 (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-31) and SI Appendix (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-32), 33 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-33)), polished stone axes (34 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-34)), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-35)) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-30)). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig (http://www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1211474110/-/DCSupplemental/sapp.pdf)""

The paper is very confusingly written, but I think if you read it again you'll see what I mean. These people held onto to their prior subsistence patterns for quite a while, before eventually, within a few hundred years, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers around them.

So, I guess my point is that there is no contradiction between this paper and all of the other archaeological work that has been done in the Balkans on this topic.

Ed. Sorry, this was prepared last night and I forgot to post it.
I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later

PS. In same article about Sesklo, an archaeologist claimed that in "Pre-potery" phase they used more primitive pottery kind. I lost a link, but I think it was a book from 80s available online.

PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

bicicleur
04-12-15, 08:35
I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later

PS. In same article about Sesklo, an archaeologist claimed that in "Pre-potery" phase they used more primitive pottery kind. I lost a link, but I think it was a book from 80s available online.

PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

what's more, strontium isotope analysis suggests the males were local HG while many of the females were farmers daughters coming from elsewhere
these HG probably had a better life than the farmers ; the reason was the rich fishing grounds in the Danube Gorge

bicicleur
04-12-15, 09:36
When it comes to haplogroups of Xiaohe mummies:

Y-DNA = R1a (11 samples = ca. 92%) and K (one sample = ca. 8%)
mtDNA = H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, C4, C5, B, D, G2a, M5 and maybe M*

Authors claim that C4 and C5 are "East Asian", but in fact they are native Siberian, and also present in Europe:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/09/european-specific-mtdna-c-from.html

if they are not Z-93 then they probably were not Andronovo

there are signs of contacts between China and Indo-Europeans before Andronovo (horses, cattle herders, bronze ...)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/From_Neolithic_to_Bronze_Age_in_China.jpg/1280px-From_Neolithic_to_Bronze_Age_in_China.jpg

the contacts came 2 ways : north via Manchuria and through the Gansu corridor
contact was not allways direct, it was via middle men
Q1a1-M120 arrived in NW China > 3 ka, they became part of the aristocracy of the early Han Chinese
N arrived from Manchuria, often as cattle herder , it is also a component of early Han Chinese (3 ka)
Lower Xiajidian culture (3-2.4 ka) involves arrival of cattle herders from Mongolia, probably C2 people who had been in contact with Tochars before Andronovo
Those C2 did not become part of the Han Chinese though.
The peasants in central China prior to the Han were O and many of them had allready moved south for more farming lands into Indochina prior to the formation of the Han Chinese.

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

Maleth
04-12-15, 11:01
That's what I have said for several years. I mentioned E-M78 among Mesolithic Southeast Europeans and Southwest Europeans, and that includes E-V13. It isn't only E-V13 though. Europeans also have many indigenous subclades of E-V12 and E-V22 - hence the umbrella term M78.

Lets not forget however that 85% of all E-M78 in Europe are E-V13 and the origins and frequencies outside of Europe visa vi of E-V12 and E-V22 tell different mutation locations, dates and migration stories

bicicleur
04-12-15, 11:31
Lets not forget however that 85% of all E-M78 in Europe are E-V13 and the origins and frequencies outside of Europe visa vi of E-V12 and E-V22 tell different mutation locations, dates and migration stories

E-L618 (ancestral to E-V13) and E-V22 are brother clades

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/

while E-V13 is Eurasian, E-V22 is mixed with African and Eurasian subclades

IMO they were in the Nile Delta during the 8.2 ka climate event
some E-V22 went alongside E-V88 into Africa as cattle herders
the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

Shetop
04-12-15, 12:46
the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

If that had been the case, then we would have E-L618 in Northeast Africa today. But it does not exist there, which makes your scenario unfounded.

bicicleur
04-12-15, 13:55
If that had been the case, then we would have E-L618 in Northeast Africa today. But it does not exist there, which makes your scenario unfounded.

and where is E-L618 today? do you have data?

according to YFull E-L618 and E-V13 split 7600 year ago

Shetop
04-12-15, 14:05
and where is E-L618 today? do you have data?

according to YFull E-L618 and E-V13 split 7600 year ago

So far, it had only been found in the Northern half of Europe: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/E3b?iframe=yresults

Maleth
04-12-15, 14:31
E-L618 (ancestral to E-V13) and E-V22 are brother clades

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/

while E-V13 is Eurasian, E-V22 is mixed with African and Eurasian subclades

IMO they were in the Nile Delta during the 8.2 ka climate event
some E-V22 went alongside E-V88 into Africa as cattle herders
the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

Bicicleur, I suggest you read the individual migration routes of the three subclades under E-78. Example it states that it is believed that E-V13 mutated in West Asia contrary to say E-V12 that it is believed to have mutated in North Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

Shetop
04-12-15, 14:35
Example it states that it is believed that E-V13 mutated in West Asia

It was believed. Not any more...

Maleth
04-12-15, 14:41
It was believed. Not any more...

And what we believe now?

Shetop
04-12-15, 14:49
And what we believe now?

:smile: Well, I'm sure that what I believe is not something everyone would agree with.
So, my opinion is that E-V13 SNP originated in Europe. There are multiple reasons for that, but presence of E-L618(xV13) in Europe is one of the main ones.

Maleth
04-12-15, 14:54
:smile: Well, I'm sure that what I believe is not something everyone would agree with.
So, my opinion is that E-V13 SNP originated in Europe. There are multiple reasons for that, but presence of E-L618(xV13) in Europe is one of the main ones.

Ok so we are on the same lines, by the way it has also been suggested in one of the papers :)

bicicleur
04-12-15, 15:47
that is what I meant
somewhere around 8 ka E-L618 and a few subclades of E-V22 were picked up near the Nile delta along the shores of the Mediteranean into Eurasia
E-L618 and E-V13 split a little bit later, 7.6 ka
acording to YFull E-V13 didn't split before 4.3 ka , maybe E-L618* split even later

Shetop
04-12-15, 16:09
that is what I meant
somewhere around 8 ka E-L618 and a few subclades of E-V22 were picked up near the Nile delta along the shores of the Mediteranean into Eurasia
E-L618 and E-V13 split a little bit later, 7.6 ka
acording to YFull E-V13 didn't split before 4.3 ka , maybe E-L618* split even later

One thing is certain - L618 mutation happened before V13. That is why L618 geographic distribution is very important for understanding V13.