PDA

View Full Version : Eneolithic aDNA from Lake Baikal Siberia



Fire Haired14
03-09-16, 01:11
Maternal and Paternal Polymorphisms in Prehistoric Siberian Populations of Lake Baikal (https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/wm117r51m#.V8oGHE0rLIV)

These new aDNA samples from Siberia are from before Andronovo arrived and most are from before Afanasievo arrived, which is a big deal because as of date most ancient Siberian DNA derives from European immigrants. I'll compare the mtDNA to modern mtDNA later, the results will give insights, so stay tuned.

Lake Baikal mtDNA from the Early Bronze age and Mesolithic have already been published in the past, the new results in this paper are Y DNA. 80% or so had Q1a3, and the rest had C3 and R1a1. There are many reported K Y DNA results but I'm not sure whether it is K(xQ, R) or K(not tested for Q or R). The high frequency of Q1a3 is especially interesting to me because it's reminds me of the high frequency of Q1a2 in Native Americans and single Q1a found in Eneolithic European Russia, I'm pretty sure no one in Siberia today has such high frequencies of Q, and so far most Bronze age Siberian Y DNA that isn't R1a-Z93 is Q1a.

Abstract.

The study of Ancient DNA (aDNA), DNA recovered from archaeological and historic post mortem material, has complemented the study of anthropology and archaeology. There are several challenges in the retrieval and analysis of DNA from ancient specimens including exogenous contamination with modern DNA, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) inhibitors and DNA damage because of environmental factors. Despite all the obstacles, the extraction of aDNA is still possible through reliable extraction methods and highly sensitive PCR-based technologies that facilitated the use of aDNA analysis in revealing the maternal and paternal backgrounds of ancient populations. This dissertation examines prehistoric hunter-gatherer populations that inhabited Siberia, Russia, several thousand years ago. The Lake Baikal of Siberia was home to two temporally distinct populations from Early Neolithic, EN (8000-6800 cal BP) to Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age, LN-EBA (5800-4000 cal BP). The EN group was separated from the LN-EBA group by a 1000-year gap (hiatus). Several cemeteries have been excavated as part of an international Baikal Archaeology Project (BAP). These include one EN cemetery (Shamanka II) and two LN-EBA cemeteries (Kurma XI and Khuzhir-Nuge XIV). Maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) has been examined previously for two EN cemeteries (Lokomotiv and Shamanka II) and one of the LN-EBA cemeteries (Ust’-Ida). mtDNA has not been analyzed before from the Kurma XI cemetery. This dissertation hypothesis focused on the examination of mtDNA from Shamanka II and Kurma XI cemeteries and examination of Y-chromosomal DNA from the four excavated cemeteries (Lokomotiv, Shamanka II, Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI) to identify genetic discontinuity and/or continuity between and within the EN and LN-EBA of prehistoric populations. The project aims were; first, modification of published methods for sample preparation, DNA extraction and PCR amplification for aDNA research. Second, interpretation of mtDNA haplogroup distribution from Kurma XI in the context of other Lake Baikal cemeteries. Third, compare the genetic affinities of the prehistoric populations with the contemporary populations of the area through the maternal lineage. Finally, comprison of mtDNA and Y-chromosomal haplogroup distributions to determine maternal and paternal genetic affinities. Four different mtDNA haplogroups were found in Kurma XI individuals including A, D, F and Z. mtDNA haplogroup Z was not represented before in Lake Baikal’s prehistoric populations. In addition, six extra samples from Shamanka II were analyzed to reveal that Shamanka II and Lokomotiv did not share the same maternal background as was previously suggested. New mtDNA results from Kurma XI and Shamanka II suggested that each of the EN cemeteries and LN-EBA cemeteries had a different maternal origin; however, Kurma XI shared a similar maternal origin with Lokomotiv and also with Shamanka II. Through SNaPshot multiplex PCR amplification, Y-chromosomal haplogroups were obtained from male individuals in the four cemeteries. Individuals from Lokomotiv and Shamanka II were found to possess haplogroups K, R1a1 and C3, and individuals from Ust’-Ida and Kurma XI were found to belong to haplogroups Q, K and unidentified SNP (L914). For those individuals belonging to haplogroup Q, further experimentation to examine sub-haplogroups of Q revealed that these individuals belong to sub-haplogroup Q1a3. There was significant heterogeneity in the males from the Lokomotiv cemetery when compared to the other three cemeteries. Furthermore, the Y-chromosome results showed a discontinuity between the EN and the LN-EBA populations of Lake Baikal. Combining the maternal and the paternal results from the prehistoric populations of Lake Baikal suggested a patrilocal post-marital residence pattern, where females moved to their husbands’ birthplace after marriage. This research highlighted the utility of DNA analysis as an archaeological tool in conjunction with burial practices and artifacts in making inferences about the prehistoric population structure.

holderlin
03-09-16, 05:17
Holy shit
-
-

holderlin
03-09-16, 05:18
Holy holy holy shit

holderlin
03-09-16, 05:27
And a doctoral thesis at that. Holy shit. Comprehensive as all get out. Well if anyone wanted to become an expert on this specific topic in one read this is the best you'll find.

holderlin
03-09-16, 05:47
Consistent with R1a Karelia being the highest contribution to Native American Alleles of all the ancient west eurasian

Alpenjager
03-09-16, 06:07
These Early Neolithic remains from Shamanka II found to belong to K* (xN1c1-TAT, O-M175, P-M45), mostly could belong to T1a haplogroup. Haplogroup T is found among a EN population from Germany and a Neolithic population from Jordan. Also haplogroup T1a has been found in modern populations from this Siberian region like Tuvinians from Ubsunur Hollow, also found among Kazakhs, Khakass and Mongolians.

7972

holderlin
03-09-16, 06:35
These Early Neolithic remains from Shamanka II found to belong to K* (xN1c1-TAT, O-M175, P-M45), mostly could belong to T1a haplogroup. Haplogroup T is found among a EN population from Germany and a Neolithic population from Jordan. Also haplogroup T1a has been found in modern populations from this Siberian region like Tuvinians from Ubsunur Hollow, also found among Kazakhs, Khakass and Mongolians.

7972

Are you a bot?

Sile
03-09-16, 06:47
Are you a bot?

Looks like eurogenes owner

bicicleur
03-09-16, 06:57
R1a1a HG in Karelia and in Lokomotiv
TMRCA 8.5 ka

Tomenable
03-09-16, 10:55
These Early Neolithic remains from Shamanka II found to belong to K* (xN1c1-TAT, O-M175, P-M45), mostly could belong to T1a haplogroup. Haplogroup T is found among a EN population from Germany and a Neolithic population from Jordan. Also haplogroup T1a has been found in modern populations from this Siberian region like Tuvinians from Ubsunur Hollow, also found among Kazakhs, Khakass and Mongolians.

7972

This is K*(xN,O,P) - similar K* was also found in Xiaohe cemetery:

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

From Xiaohe we have 11 samples of R1a and 1 of K* - probably T1a1.

It was K*(xN,O,P) - so it could be either T, L, M, S or some basal K*:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T34tkRC-e2w/Uq2vmJgdKDI/AAAAAAAACS0/eA5voo3WSqc/s1600/EAsiaMetal.PNG

bicicleur
03-09-16, 11:33
This is K*(xN,O,P) - similar K* was also found in Xiaohe cemetery:

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

From Xiaohe we have 11 samples of R1a and 1 of K* - probably T1a1.

It was K*(xN,O,P) - so it could be either T, L, M, S or some basal K*:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T34tkRC-e2w/Uq2vmJgdKDI/AAAAAAAACS0/eA5voo3WSqc/s1600/EAsiaMetal.PNG

one was of exceptionally rare basal paragroup K* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_K-M9#Origins_and_distribution)

why probably T1a1 ?

Tomenable
03-09-16, 14:19
Because they did not test for T. Only for N, O and P. They did not check if it was T or not.

bicicleur
03-09-16, 18:18
Because they did not test for T. Only for N, O and P. They did not check if it was T or not.

ok, but it could as well be a line of K that is now extinct

Sile
03-09-16, 20:50
ok, but it could as well be a line of K that is now extinct

True,
But we have some T -M184 ( xM70) found from further south in Bhutan, so its not far away. ...............T-M184 = T ...and T-M70 = T1a

The question I seek is that the recent Central America paper shows very old T of which 20% is Iberian and the rest indigenous, this indigenous part must have travelled to the Americas via siberia. This means that it was was these east-asian areas.

bicicleur
03-09-16, 22:23
isn't the Buthanese T2 ?

this is Ray Banks :

•T2 PH110 (2913966 G->T) Armenians, ?Bhutanese

I guess in Y Full it is T*

TL452 * CTS573 * CTS11511/PF5582+240 SNPsformed 42600 ybp, TMRCA 26800 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/T/)

T* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/T*/)

id:YF03586


T-L206 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/T-L206/)CTS10618 * Y3821/Z19862 * L490+91 SNPsformed 26800 ybp, TMRCA 16000 ybp


split from T1-L206 26800 years ago

Maciamo
03-09-16, 23:02
These Early Neolithic remains from Shamanka II found to belong to K* (xN1c1-TAT, O-M175, P-M45), mostly could belong to T1a haplogroup. Haplogroup T is found among a EN population from Germany and a Neolithic population from Jordan. Also haplogroup T1a has been found in modern populations from this Siberian region like Tuvinians from Ubsunur Hollow, also found among Kazakhs, Khakass and Mongolians.

7972

That was also my suspicion. I had noticed that mt-haplogroup N1a1a was found in present-day Siberia and Mongolia, probably as descendants of Neolithic farmers. I had wondered (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders) whether the matching Y-haplogroup of these EN farmers who migrated to Northeast Europe, Siberia and Mongolia could have been T1a. After all T1a is found at surprisingly high frequencies along the Volga River, but also around the Russia-Ukraine border and in Estonia, and could represent remnants of Neolithic populations overtaken by the latter Indo-European R1a and R1b, and the Uralic N1c migrations. It could even be argued that mt-haplogroup I (a subclade of N1a1a) descends from the Early Neolithic farmers, as it peaks between the East Baltic and the Volga-Ural, where Y-haplogroup T1a is also found. MtDNA I would then have been carried west by the Indo-European migrations.

So it would be great news if those EN Siberians belonging to Y-haplogroup K were indeed T1a. I also suggested that a minority of T1a was later dispersed by the Indo-European migrations, accompanying the majority of R1a and R1b men with other minorities of G2a-P303 and J2b2.

What is more surprising in this paper is the presence of R1a1 among Early Neolithic farmers. I suppose that they were assimilated along the (very long) way from the Pontic Steppe to Lake Baikal. Haplogroups C3 and Q1a3 were probably both present in the Lake Baikal region before the Neolithic. I seriously doubt that the Bronze Age Q1a3 represent the new migrants that brought the bronze age from the west. They are just assimilated locals.

Alpenjager
03-09-16, 23:11
Interesting coincidences among Kazakhs from Kosh-Agachsky District and Early Neolithic Lokomotiv.

Early Neolithic Lokomotiv
57.1% K* (xN1c1-Tat, O-M175, P-M45) most likely T1a or N*(xN1c1-Tat)
28.6% R1a1
14.3% C3*

Kazakhs from Kosh-Agachsky District (Southeast Altai Republic). Source: Gubina 2012
40.8% C3c
38.8% K* (xL-M20, N-M231, O-M175, R-M207, Q-M242) likely T1a-M70 previously found positive in Kazakhs from southwest Altai (Dulik 2011)
6.1% R1a1
14.3% Others

Alan
03-09-16, 23:36
If Eneolithic Siberia was Q1a before R1a1 or anything else. How can some individuals still claim R1 Haplogroups reached the Steppes directly from Siberia via the "North Eurasian route"? I bet my money on South_Central Asia being the homeland of R1a in the Steppes.

Alpenjager
04-09-16, 00:30
That was also my suspicion. I had noticed that mt-haplogroup N1a1a was found in present-day Siberia and Mongolia, probably as descendants of Neolithic farmers. I had wondered (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders) whether the matching Y-haplogroup of these EN farmers who migrated to Northeast Europe, Siberia and Mongolia could have been T1a. After all T1a is found at surprisingly high frequencies along the Volga River, but also around the Russia-Ukraine border and in Estonia, and could represent remnants of Neolithic populations overtaken by the latter Indo-European R1a and R1b, and the Uralic N1c migrations. It could even be argued that mt-haplogroup I (a subclade of N1a1a) descends from the Early Neolithic farmers, as it peaks between the East Baltic and the Volga-Ural, where Y-haplogroup T1a is also found. MtDNA I would then have been carried west by the Indo-European migrations.

So it would be great news if those EN Siberians belonging to Y-haplogroup K were indeed T1a. I also suggested that a minority of T1a was later dispersed by the Indo-European migrations, accompanying the majority of R1a and R1b men with other minorities of G2a-P303 and J2b2.

What is more surprising in this paper is the presence of R1a1 among Early Neolithic farmers. I suppose that they were assimilated along the (very long) way from the Pontic Steppe to Lake Baikal. Haplogroups C3 and Q1a3 were probably both present in the Lake Baikal region before the Neolithic. I seriously doubt that the Bronze Age Q1a3 represent the new migrants that brought the bronze age from the west. They are just assimilated locals.

Maciamo, haplogroup T-M184 has been only found in some Lithuanian populations but not Estonian. In Estonia is found L2-L595 and L1-M22.

About mtDNA in Kazakhs from Kosh-Agachsky District are found:
R = 43.7% (R0 = 13.1%, R10 = 1.4%, F = 3,5%, U = 14%, JT = 5.5%, B = 6.2%) and N = 17.8% (N1 = 5.5%, N9 = 6% and A= 6.3%).


R = 43.7%

R0 = 13.1%
13.1% H

1.4% R10

3.5% F =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

U = 14%
3.5% pre-K
0.7 U
0.7 U1b
1.4% U3
0.7% U4
5.6% U5 =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
1.4% U7

JT = 5.5%
0.7 J
4.8% T2a

6.2% B

N = 17.8%

N1 = 5.5%
3.4% I
2.1% N1a

N9 = 6%
5.3% N9
0.7% Y

6.3% A =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=

Alpenjager
04-09-16, 01:27
mtDNA modern Buryats from Lake Baikal (Pakendorf 2003);

Sample 1 = 61
R = 8.1%
F = 1.6% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
B = 4.9%
H = 1.6%

N = 1.6%

Sample 2 = 25
R = 28%
B = 4%
H = 4%
V = 4%
J = 4%
U = 12% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

Sample 3 = 295
R = 21.7%
B = 3.4%
F = 3.1% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
R* = 0.3%
H = 6.8%
HV = 1%
J = 0.7%
T = 1%
UK = 5.4% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

N = 9.4%
N* = 2.4%
A = 5% =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=
Y = 1.4%
I = 0.3%
X = 0.3%

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 02:48
The R1a1 in EN Lokomotiv may be the oldest R1a found to date, with a rather typically East Eurasian mtdna profile. I think these findings should induce many people to rethink their assumptions about the dispersal of this haplogroup.

Fire Haired14
04-09-16, 03:07
What is more surprising in this paper is the presence of R1a1 among Early Neolithic farmers. I suppose that they were assimilated along the (very long) way from the Pontic Steppe to Lake Baikal. Haplogroups C3 and Q1a3 were probably both present in the Lake Baikal region before the Neolithic. I seriously doubt that the Bronze Age Q1a3 represent the new migrants that brought the bronze age from the west. They are just assimilated locals.

I think they were Neolithic hunter gatherers. Also, it's unlikely IMO that farmers from West Asia would make it to Lake Baikal unadmixed. mtDNA from Neolithic Lake Baikal is mostly East Asian and has no West Asian lineages. West Asian lineages; T, J, H, etc, don't appear till Andronovo(who was like 50% West Asian) arrived. The R1a1 just looks to be reflective of their genetic relationship to hunter gatherers in European Russia(EHG) as does their mtDNA U5a. It isn't a suprise, infact it would be suprising if they had no R1, considering they have some mtDNa U5a .

Fire Haired14
04-09-16, 03:10
The R1a1 in EN Lokomotiv may be the oldest R1a found to date, with a rather typically East Eurasian mtdna profile. I think these findings should induce many people to rethink their assumptions about the dispersal of this haplogroup.

The one in Karelia is the oldest. The finding of R1a1 in Neolithic Lake Baikal was expected and changes nothing about our opinons about R1a1 origins.

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 04:43
The one in Karelia is the oldest. The finding of R1a1 in Neolithic Lake Baikal was expected and changes nothing about our opinons about R1a1 origins.

Can you provide a source for that? The rc-dates for Lokomotiv I've seen range from 8100-6900 BP.

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 04:57
I think they were Neolithic hunter gatherers. Also, it's unlikely IMO that farmers from West Asia would make it to Lake Baikal unadmixed. mtDNA from Neolithic Lake Baikal is mostly East Asian and has no West Asian lineages. West Asian lineages; T, J, H, etc, don't appear till Andronovo(who was like 50% West Asian) arrived. The R1a1 just looks to be reflective of their genetic relationship to hunter gatherers in European Russia(EHG) as does their mtDNA U5a. It isn't a suprise, infact it would be suprising if they had no R1, considering they have some mtDNa U5a .

So your evidence for an alleged 'EHG' (that's awfully specific for a haplogroup of this age) migration all across Eurasia is a single U5a in Lokomotiv? Just stop.

Fire Haired14
04-09-16, 05:12
So your evidence for an alleged 'EHG' (that's awfully specific for a haplogroup of this age) migration all across Eurasia is a single U5a in Lokomotiv? Just stop.

There's also loads of U4 and U2e from other pre-farming Siberians. Those are the signature EHG mtDNA haplogroups. R1a1 and R1b1 are the signature EHG Y DNA haplogroups, so it is no surprise to find R1a1 Y DNA in the same people who had some U5a mtDNA.

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 05:27
There's also loads of U4 and U2e from other pre-farming Siberians. Those are the signature EHG mtDNA haplogroups. R1a1 and R1b1 are the signature EHG Y DNA haplogroups, so it is no surprise to find R1a1 Y DNA in the same people who had some U5a mtDNA.

Cheddar Gorge/Loschbour are 'EHGs'?

R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker?

I'd ask you to explain your reasoning behind these claims, but that's just too absurd.

GloomyGonzales
04-09-16, 07:05
If Eneolithic Siberia was Q1a before R1a1 or anything else. How can some individuals still claim R1 Haplogroups reached the Steppes directly from Siberia via the "North Eurasian route"? I bet my money on South_Central Asia being the homeland of R1a in the Steppes.

Surely R1 folks migrated from Siberia via Central Asia and entered Europe from the Iranian Plateau.

http://savepic.ru/11216045.jpg

Maciamo
04-09-16, 10:06
Maciamo, haplogroup T-M184 has been only found in some Lithuanian populations but not Estonian. In Estonia is found L2-L595 and L1-M22.

About mtDNA in Kazakhs from Kosh-Agachsky District are found:
R = 43.7% (R0 = 13.1%, R10 = 1.4%, F = 3,5%, U = 14%, JT = 5.5%, B = 6.2%) and N = 17.8% (N1 = 5.5%, N9 = 6% and A= 6.3%).


R = 43.7%

R0 = 13.1%
13.1% H

1.4% R10

3.5% F =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

U = 14%
3.5% pre-K
0.7 U
0.7 U1b
1.4% U3
0.7% U4
5.6% U5 =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
1.4% U7

JT = 5.5%
0.7 J
4.8% T2a

6.2% B

N = 17.8%

N1 = 5.5%
3.4% I
2.1% N1a

N9 = 6%
5.3% N9
0.7% Y

6.3% A =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=


mtDNA modern Buryats from Lake Baikal (Pakendorf 2003);

Sample 1 = 61
R = 8.1%
F = 1.6% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
B = 4.9%
H = 1.6%

N = 1.6%

Sample 2 = 25
R = 28%
B = 4%
H = 4%
V = 4%
J = 4%
U = 12% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

Sample 3 = 295
R = 21.7%
B = 3.4%
F = 3.1% =>Found together R1a1 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=
R* = 0.3%
H = 6.8%
HV = 1%
J = 0.7%
T = 1%
UK = 5.4% =>Found in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<=

N = 9.4%
N* = 2.4%
A = 5% =>Found together C3 in Early Neolithic Lokomotiv<= =>Found together K* in Early Neolithic Shamanka II<=
Y = 1.4%
I = 0.3%
X = 0.3%



It's interesting that HV and U3 also show up in that region alongside N1a and I. These are the haplogroups that I linked to the original T1a Neolithic tribes based on data from Northeast Africa (see above link).

Y-haplogroup T was found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant and in the LBK culture, so it surely played a major role in the early development of agriculture, or more specifically goat/sheep domestication as it is found at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa, where people have been goat/sheep and cattle herders since the Neolithic (cattle would have been brought by R1b-V88, found at high frequency in the Hausa of Sudan).

Silesian
04-09-16, 17:12
Surely people are aware of R1b-L754 and its relation to R1a on the R1 tree? Since finding Neadertal admixture in Villabruna L754+[12 200-11 800 BC] sample in non trivial amounts. Suggesting an area inhabited by Neadertal. Villabruna (Italia), Epigravettian, 12 200-11 800 BC I0122, Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara (Russia), 5200-4000 BCE

Angela
04-09-16, 18:18
Has this paper been posted yet? It's 2016, so pretty up to date...

See:
"Biogeochemical data from the Shamanka II Early Neolithic cemetery on southwest Baikal: Chronological and dietary patterns.""AbstractA data set of 116 AMS radiocarbon dates on human skeletal remains from an Early Neolithic (c. 7500–6700 cal BP) Shamanka II cemetery on Lake Baikal, Siberia, and associated carbon and nitrogen stable isotope values are analyzed for insights about site chronology and dietary variation of this group of hunter–gatherers. All dates are corrected for the Freshwater Reservoir Effect (FRE) according to the correction equations developed using paired radiocarbon dates on human and terrestrial faunal remains from the same graves (Bronk Ramsey et al., 2014; Schulting et al., 2014). Further examination of the data set provides the following main findings. First, it identified the presence of two phases of cemetery use at Shamanka II, each of quite different duration, separated by a relatively long period of disuse lasting as much as 300–550 years. Second, it demonstrated presence of four groups of people during the long Phase 1 each with a slightly different dietary pattern: three displaying a temporal change toward greater reliance on aquatic foods and one group, which apparently did not experience a diet shift. Third, the results show that all individuals from the short Phase 2 evince a clear chronological trend towards increased dietary contribution of aquatic food and that this pattern repeats closely one of the three trends present in Phase 1. While a generally similar chronological dietary trend has been found recently also among the Early Neolithic groups from the nearby Angara valley (Weber et al., 2015), the Shamanka II population appears to be much more diverse in dietary terms than its neighbours to the northeast."

I think the difference may have been based on regional resource variation.

There's also this book with a nice section on the Lake Baikal Neolithic settlements. The craniometry seems to indicate the arrival of a new group in the late Neolithic, which they date to 6200 BP.

https://books.google.com/books?id=QNqtYsH4EScC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Lake+Baikal+Neolithic+settlements&source=bl&ots=sLrAYXFnOe&sig=KAbqDNXG9nBREcaa6c3i6e4wIqw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvmKzlsfTOAhWHPB4KHaZKCwoQ6AEIKDAC#v=on epage&q=Lake%20Baikal%20Neolithic%20settlements&f=false

There doesn't seem to have been any substantial change in lifestyle or culture with the advent of the metal ages, other than that they incorporated some copper alloy tools and ornaments.

Tomenable
04-09-16, 18:27
The rc-dates for Lokomotiv I've seen range from 8100-6900 BP.

Where did you see these dates ??? I've seen 7250–6040 years BP (6125–4885 years BC).

This is from Mooder et al. 2006 who published some mtDNA from the Lokomotiv cemetery:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323184

Quote: "Noncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Isotrace, University of Toronto) from Lokomotiv suggest that this cemetery was used from approximately 7250–6040 BP. These dates correspond to the period between 6125–4885 BC when calibrated with the methodology of Stuiver et al. (1998)"


Can you provide a source for that?

See Extended Data Table 1 from Fu et al., "The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe", 2016:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301742169_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

Karelian R1a is dated to 8800–7950 years BP in this study: https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

"Ancestral Journeys" dates it to 6850–6000 years BC: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

Tomenable
04-09-16, 18:47
R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker?

Yes.

Samples from Haak 2015, Mathieson 2015 and Lazaridis 2016:

https://s13.postimg.io/8bzf0tdw7/EHG_R1b.png

Samara HG was genetically an EHG (identical to Karelian HG).

Khvalynsk culture was in vast majority EHG-descended as well.

https://s13.postimg.io/8bzf0tdw7/EHG_R1b.png

Screenshots from: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org

============
Edit:

For some reason I cannot add attachments to my posts any more.

Do you, other users, also have this problem?

Sile
04-09-16, 20:55
isn't the Buthanese T2 ?

this is Ray Banks :

•T2 PH110 (2913966 G->T) Armenians, ?Bhutanese

I guess in Y Full it is T*

TL452 * CTS573 * CTS11511/PF5582+240 SNPsformed 42600 ybp, TMRCA 26800 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/T/)

T* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/T*/)

id:YF03586


T-L206 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/T-L206/)CTS10618 * Y3821/Z19862 * L490+91 SNPsformed 26800 ybp, TMRCA 16000 ybp


split from T1-L206 26800 years ago

T2 - PH110 and all the others SNP's found with it is a new line only discovered this year.................too early to decipher anything

Sile
04-09-16, 21:00
It's interesting that HV and U3 also show up in that region alongside N1a and I. These are the haplogroups that I linked to the original T1a Neolithic tribes based on data from Northeast Africa (see above link).

Y-haplogroup T was found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant and in the LBK culture, so it surely played a major role in the early development of agriculture, or more specifically goat/sheep domestication as it is found at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa, where people have been goat/sheep and cattle herders since the Neolithic (cattle would have been brought by R1b-V88, found at high frequency in the Hausa of Sudan).

The only "herder" marker which makes sense due to age and geography from the ancient times is R1b-V88 .......they came from north of the zargos mountains and travelled through the levant into egypt, east-africa, north africa, sub-sahara, west africa, arabian peninsula and more..................its the only marker which could have herded cattle, sheep and goats and has no "farming" finds to them.

MarkoZ
04-09-16, 21:14
Where did you see these dates ??? I've seen 7250–6040 years BP (6125–4885 years BC).

This is from Mooder et al. 2006 who published some mtDNA from the Lokomotiv cemetery:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323184

Quote: "Noncalibrated radiocarbon dates (Isotrace, University of Toronto) from Lokomotiv suggest that this cemetery was used from approximately 7250–6040 BP. These dates correspond to the period between 6125–4885 BC when calibrated with the methodology of Stuiver et al. (1998)"



See Extended Data Table 1 from Fu et al., "The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe", 2016:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301742169_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

Karelian R1a is dated to 8800–7950 years BP in this study: https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

"Ancestral Journeys" dates it to 6850–6000 years BC: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

https://s21.postimg.io/4z3cnibiv/Karelian_HG.png

Fair enough, I think I had the uncalibrated dates in mind. However, I could not confirm the dates postulated in this image of yours for the hunter gatherer from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery. The actual date appears to be 7,500 BP.

Also, R1b1 is emphatically not an 'EHG' marker - it's too old to be assigned to any kind of autosomal makeup. The fact that you insist that it is only reveals your bias.

Alpenjager
04-09-16, 21:53
Y-chromosome data from different localities of Hulun Buir Aimak, Inner Mongolia (Malyarchuk 2016):

Barghuts (n=76)


C2c1a1a1-M407
55.3%


N1c1-Tat
27.6%


C2-M217
10.5%


T1a-M70
1.3%


R2a-M124
1.3%


O2-M122
1.3%


J2a-M410
1.3%


G-M201
1.3%



"In the 12–13th centuries, the Barga (Barghuts) Mongols appeared as tribes near Lake Baikal, named Bargujin."

Tomenable
04-09-16, 22:16
Fair enough, I think I had the uncalibrated dates in mind. However, I could not confirm the dates postulated in this image of yours for the hunter gatherer from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery. The actual date appears to be 7,500 BP.

This is inaccurate, obsolete dating. More recent dating done with more accurate techniques shows 8800-8000 BP.

Let's stick to the most recent available dates. This 8800-8000 BP has been published in 2016, a few months ago.

By the way - even 7500 BP would be still older than Lokomotiv (which was dated to 7250-6040 BP).


Also, R1b1 is emphatically not an 'EHG' marker - it's too old to be assigned to any kind of autosomal makeup.

The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age. The majority of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age samples of R1b are from Russia. The "Big Picture" which emerges from aDNA when it comes to dominant haplogroups in various regions prior to the Neolithization of Europe, is this:

Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3

*Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.

The most mysterious - due to their scarcity in aDNA so far - are haplogroups J1 and N1c. We have J1b in a hunter-gatherer from Georgia, but then there is a long "gap" and the next relevant sample - J1a dated to 2500-1950 BC - is from the Levant (Ain Ghazal, Early Bronze Age). When it comes to N1c the oldest sample in Europe, dated to 2500 BC, is from the region of Smolensk.

It seems, that J1 was a relatively minor lineage until it became associated with Proto-Semitic people and then spread with them. Today, many subclades of J1a and also some subclades of J1b correlate strongly with populations of Semitic origin.


any kind of autosomal makeup.

I used the term "EHG" in its geographical meaning. EHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. No matter what autosomal makeup someone had, if he lived in Eastern Europe (including the European part of Russia) and was a hunter-gatherer (or descended primarily from local Eastern hunter-gatherers), then I use the term "EHG" to denote such a prehistoric person. It is possible indeed, that there were several hunter-gatherer groups with different autosomal makeups living in prehistoric Easternmost Europe.

So I'm not saying that "autosomally EHG people" were the only group of hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Eastern Europe. There could be some autosomally Non-EHG groups in that region as well. However, there is no evidence for this so far.

Alpenjager
04-09-16, 23:09
Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3

*Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.


I would do some changes to your list:


1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I2c, C1a2, C1b
2. Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: G2, I1, T1a, H2, L1a, I2c, R1b, C1a2
3. Scandinavia: I2a, I2c
4. European part of Russia: J1, R1a, R1b
5. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
6. Western Asia: R2, G1, J2
7. Africa / Levant: E1b

Tomenable
04-09-16, 23:14
3. Scandinavia: I2a, I2c

And I1 as well. Stora Förvar sample StF11 dated to 5500-5250 BC has been confirmed to be I1-M253.


European part of Russia: J1, R1a, R1b

Why is J1 listed first when we have more samples of both R1a and R1b? And we have one Q1a sample as well.

That J1 singleton / outlier was probably an extinct subclade - so I didn't consider it as part of the "Big Picture".


2. Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: G2, I1, T1a, H2, L1a, I2c, R1b

There are actually no any samples of either I1 or R1b from Anatolia that are older than the Bronze Age.

I2c in Anatolia was the result of admixture with WHG (Western Anatolians had ~15% of WHG ancestry).

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

StF11 from Scandinavia has been confirmed to be I1-M253 by several researchers (including Genetiker).

Here is a list of several samples of I and C (it doesn't include most recent samples from Fu et al. 2016):

The two oldest samples of I1 are from Scandinavia (Stora Karlsö) and from Central Europe (Hungary):

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

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

https://s22.postimg.io/pq0hfpgqp/HG_samples.png

Tomenable
04-09-16, 23:29
Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: (...) I2c (...) C1a2

Please open Google Maps and check where are Mentese and Barcin located.

These are two places in westernmost Turkey, almost at the gates of Europe.

I consider I2c and C1a2 in that area as the result of gene flow from Europe.

This gene flow is confirmed in autosomal DNA, which shows 10-15% WHG.

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

As for C1a2 - it was probably Southern European (from Iberia to the Balkans).


C1b

Which sample was C1b ??? :thinking:


Southeastern Europe / Anatolia

IMHO there is not enough evidence that people in those regions were similar to each other to count them as one.

A few samples of I2c and C1a2 in Anatolia only prove that there was some limited gene flow, but nothing more.

We actually have not enough samples from Southeastern Europe. That single R1b from Villabruna was buried in Northern Italy, so it doesn't count as Southeastern Europe (even if his lineage originated from that region, as David Reich speculated).

Tomenable
04-09-16, 23:59
BTW - I2a1a and I2a1b could be treated as two separate haplogroups, because:

I2a1a-L158 is 18300 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L158/
I2a1b-M423 is 18300 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-M423/

So I2a1a separated from I2a1b almost as long ago as R1a from R1b, for example.

And I2c-L596 is 21700 years old - https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-L596/

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 02:32
This is inaccurate, obsolete dating. More recent dating done with more accurate techniques shows 8800-8000 BP.

Let's stick to the most recent available dates. This 8800-8000 BP has been published in 2016, a few months ago.

By the way - even 7500 BP would be still older than Lokomotiv (which was dated to 7250-6040 BP).



The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age. The majority of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age samples of R1b are from Russia. The "Big Picture" which emerges from aDNA when it comes to dominant haplogroups in various regions prior to the Neolithization of Europe, is this:

Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3

*Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.

The most mysterious - due to their scarcity in aDNA so far - are haplogroups J1 and N1c. We have J1b in a hunter-gatherer from Georgia, but then there is a long "gap" and the next relevant sample - J1a dated to 2500-1950 BC - is from the Levant (Ain Ghazal, Early Bronze Age). When it comes to N1c the oldest sample in Europe, dated to 2500 BC, is from the region of Smolensk.

It seems, that J1 was a relatively minor lineage until it became associated with Proto-Semitic people and then spread with them. Today, many subclades of J1a and also some subclades of J1b correlate strongly with populations of Semitic origin.



I used the term "EHG" in its geographical meaning. EHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. No matter what autosomal makeup someone had, if he lived in Eastern Europe (including the European part of Russia) and was a hunter-gatherer (or descended primarily from local Eastern hunter-gatherers), then I use the term "EHG" to denote such a prehistoric person. It is possible indeed, that there were several hunter-gatherer groups with different autosomal makeups living in prehistoric Easternmost Europe.

So I'm not saying that "autosomally EHG people" were the only group of hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Eastern Europe. There could be some autosomally Non-EHG groups in that region as well. However, there is no evidence for this so far.

It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.

holderlin
05-09-16, 04:10
It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.

Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

**EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 05:18
Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

**EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.

The Epigravettian is a partial continuance of the Central European Gravettian. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Villabruna is much closer to the hunter gatherers of Western Europe. In fact, it is the later Western Hunter Gatherers that show closer affinity to the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe and ultimately something related to the Afontova Gora specimen relative to the Epigravettians. This is even more evident in the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who represent the next gradation with yet more eastern affinity. The hunter gatherers from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery are the most eastern transitional population within the geographic boundaries of Europe, as is expected from their location. It's only a matter of finding the right ancestral populations, although somewhere in the middle of the Villabruna-Afontova pole appears to be accurate enough.

I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the Mal'ta-Buret burial. Clearly, a single R* in the Siberian fridge is hardly informative. This environment favours preservation too well, so all kinds of odd things pile up there. You wouldn't argue that K2* is Siberian because of Ust'-Ishim, would you?

Tomenable
05-09-16, 08:24
MarkoZ,
However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored. You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. The vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.
I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 08:46
MarkoZ, You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. Remember that the vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.

I am well aware of the subclades - if you took the time to read the last few posts you'll notice that I was contesting the supposition that R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker.

You followed up on with an even more extremist position:


The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age.

Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 08:55
As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 09:10
Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.

I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.

Then M269+ (but already mostly Z2103) "suddenly" shows up in Yamnaya culture.

Where did that M269>L23>Z2103 found in Yamnaya come from ???

There is no evidence of any M269+ outside of Russia before Yamnaya.

So IMHO it was just one particularly succesful EHG lineage / "clan".

As for R1a M198>M417 - it can't be found in EHG either, it only shows up - also very "suddenly" - in Corded Ware for the first time. However, just like in case of M269>L23, I assume that M198>M417 was a particularly successful EHG lineage. Some other EHG lineages became extinct.

That was probably due to the violent nature of Early PIE societies.

There was constant competition between "clans" and many EHG lineages got extinct, while a few succeeded.

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 09:19
Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.


It's a gross simplification to say that language is usually transmitted from father to son. The imposition of languages by elite dominance of males became common from the iron age onwards, but this was a function of advanced military & political organization rather than paternity.

Regarding Khvalynsk: there's nothing about the material culture that indicates any kind of linguistic affiliation. Though I'm sure you've made up your mind already.


As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.

History and pre-history can hardly be compared in this case. But thanks for stating what everyone knows already.




I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.



Read again.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 09:47
It's a gross simplification to say that language is usually transmitted from father to son. The imposition of languages by elite dominance of males became common from the iron age onwards, but this was a function of advanced military & political organization rather than paternity.


OK - so you are claiming that it was the case from the Iron Age onwards.

And PIE expansions had been already in the Bronze Age, in times when language was still strongly correlated with Y-DNA, as you admit.


Though I'm sure you've made up your mind already.


That was Marija Gimbutas, not me. A nice summary of Gimbutas and other archaeologists is provided by Grzegorz Jagodziński here:

http://grzegorj.interiowo.pl/lingwpl/pochie2.html#hip6

Cultures often linked with the earliest/deepest PIE origins according to the Steppe Hypothesis, are either all or just some of these:

- Seroglazovo culture (11th-9th millennia BC)
- Bug-Dnieper culture (6300-5500 BC)
- Dnieper-Donets culture (5400-4200 BC)
- Samara culture (6th-5th millennia BC)

After that, in the mid-6th millennium BC, that early PIE population emigrated towards the Middle Volga, and formed Samara culture there. The reason of that migration was probably the great flooding of the Black Sea by water from the Mediterranean Sea (which took place ca. 5600 BC) - as the result of which sea level in the Black Sea rised by even 150 meters and large areas of previously dry land became parts of the Black Sea. In their new homeland at the Middle Volga, PIE gradually learned from their neighbours to the east and to the south about the domestication of horses and about copper metallurgy. In 5200-4000 BC Khvalynsk culture existed between Saratov, Northern Caucasus, the Azov Sea and the Ural River.

Khvalynsk culture was a continuation of Samara culture and a predecessor of fully developed kurgan cultures from later times. It was a Copper Age culture. They had domesticated horses. Proto-kurgans also emerged already in Khvalynsk culture. Around 4500/4200 BC people of Khvalynsk culture started to expand westward (Phase I of PIE expansions according to Gimbutas), forming Sredni Stog culture (4500/4200 - 3300 BC). Sredni Stog people established contact with people of agricultural Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (5500–2750 BC) from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine.

During the existence of Sredni Stog culture, PIE dialect continuum gradually started to split into various IE language families.

The earliest group which split from PIE of Sredni Stog culture, were Proto-Anatolian speakers of Cernavodă culture (4000-3200 BC). Around 3300 BC two other cultures - Yamnaya (Phase A) and Corded Ware (Middle Dnieper = Early Corded Ware) - emerged from Sredni Stog.

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 10:01
OK so you are claiming that it was the case from the Iron Age onwards.

And PIE expansions had been already during the Bronze Age, in times when language was still strongly correlated with Y-DNA, as you admit.




That was Marija Gimbutas, not me. A nice summary of Gimbutas and other archaeologists is provided by Grzegorz Jagodziński here:

http://grzegorj.interiowo.pl/lingwpl/pochie2.html#hip6

Cultures often linked with the earliest/deepest PIE origins according to the Steppe Hypothesis, are either all or just some of these:

- Seroglazovo culture (11th-9th millennia BC)
- Bug-Dnieper culture (6300-5500 BC)
- Dnieper-Donets culture (5400-4200 BC)
- Samara culture (6th-5th millennia BC)

After that, in the mid-6th millennium BC, that early PIE population emigrated towards the Middle Volga, and formed Samara culture there. The reason of that migration was probably the great flooding of the Black Sea by water from the Mediterranean Sea (which took place ca. 5600 BC) - as the result of which water level in the Black Sea rised by even 150 meters and large areas of previously dry land became part of the Black Sea. In their new homeland at the Middle Volga, PIE gradually learned from their neighbours to the east and to the south about the domestication of horses and about copper metallurgy. In 5200-4000 BC Khvalynsk culture existed between Saratov, Northern Caucasus, the Azov Sea and the Ural River.

Khvalynsk culture was a continuation of Samara culture and a predecessor of fully developed kurgan cultures from later times. It was a Copper Age culture. They had domesticated horses. Proto-kurgans also emerged already in the Khvalynsk culture. Around 4500/4200 BC people of Khvalynsk culture started to expand westward (Phase I of PIE expansions according to Gimbutas), forming Sredni Stog culture (4500/4200 - 3300 BC). Sredni Stog people established contact with people of agricultural Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (5500–2750 BC) from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine.

During the existence of Sredni Stog culture, PIE dialect continuum gradually started to split into various IE language families.

The earliest group which split from PIE of Sredni Stog culture, were Proto-Anatolian speakers of Cernavodă culture (4000-3200 BC). Around 3300 BC two other cultures - Yamnaya (Phase A) and Corded Ware (Middle Dnieper = Early Corded Ware) - emerged from Sredni Stog.

Thanks again, but I'm well aware of Gimbutas 'research'. However, since progress has been made in the archeology of the Transcaucasus during the last few decades we now know that the definite chronology of the Kurgans is Leyla-Tepe -> Maykop -> Yamnaya. Whether this tells us anything about the languages of said cultures I don't know.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 10:09
We already have mtDNA from Maykop and it does not match mtDNA from the Steppe / Yamna.

Moreover, the issue of PIE is all about expansions of language and people, not cultural trends.

Maykop culture were most certainly speakers of one of languages of the Caucasus, not of IE:

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

Tomenable
05-09-16, 10:20
Leilatepe - or at least their metallurgy - seems to be derived from Sumerian-speaking Uruk (see: Uruk expansions):


(...) The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. This is attributed to migrants from Uruk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk), arriving around 4500 BCE. Leilatepe metalwork tradition was very sophisticated right from the beginning, and featured many bronze items. Yet later, the quality of metallurgy declined with the Kura–Araxes culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kura%E2%80%93Araxes_culture). (...)

Sumerian language was Non-Indo-European:

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

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 10:43
We already have mtDNA from Maykop and it does not match mtDNA from the Steppe / Yamna.

Why should it?


Moreover, the issue of PIE is all about expansions of language and people, not cultural trends.

More specifically, it is only about the expansion of language. Although I'm not sure why you'd endorse Gimbutas if you really hold that opinion.


Maykop culture were most certainly speakers of one of languages of the Caucasus, not of IE:

Since the Caucasus is home to at 3 distinct language families not found elsewhere, I'd think that the mountains functioned as a refuge for languages that once had a wider distribution in the Circumpontic. There's little reason to assume continuity with an archeological culture that flourished in the region 5,000 years earlier. Also, the cultural impetus that lead to Maykop clearly lies outside of the modern range of the various Caucasian families, with no relatives attested further south.

bicicleur
05-09-16, 10:48
it is clear Maykop came from south of Caucasus and was trading with Uruk
IMO Yamnaya people were already on the steppe before Maykop

around LGM Caspian Sea expanded upto Khvalynsk area, Aral Sea flooded into Caspian Sea and Caspian Sea via Manych depression into Black Sea, maybe around time of Seraglazovo
flooding of Black Sea from Mediterranean probably was 10 ka or earlier

maybe R1a1a was born in Seraglazovo and from there expanded to EHG and to EN Bajkal, this was not IE

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 10:49
Leilatepe - or at least their metallurgy - seems to be derived from Sumerian-speaking Uruk (see: Uruk expansions):



Sumerian language was Non-Indo-European:



More specifically, it derives from Ubaid which in a later phase would give way to Uruk. However, there is no reason to assume that they spoke Sumerian only because they came from the area of Mesopotamia. Ubaid predates the first attestation of Sumerian by 2,000 years.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 12:09
More specifically, it is only about the expansion of language.

It was about expansions of people as well. This "Anti-Migrationist" approach that you represent has been smashed by genetic evidence.

There were some sweeping migrations:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

It is funny now, but at one point in time some genetic scholars used to think that farmers expanded to Europe from Sardinia. Nobody back then expected that Sardinians are just genetic remnants of a once larger whole, from times when Europe used to be populated by Sardinian-like people:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/09/01/072926.full.pdf

"European population "outliers" and "farming out of Sardinia" ???

(...)

When the first genomic data from early European farmers was obtained from a Scandinavian skeleton and a mummy from the Alps, commonly known as Otzi or the Tyrolean Iceman. Researchers were surprised that they showed a strong population affinity to modern-day Sardinians [6, 69]. This observation was even more puzzling since archaeological investigations demonstrate that farming started in the Fertile Crescent [59]. Later studies confirmed those affinities for early farmers from the areas of modern-day Sweden [22], Germany [24], Hungary [50], Spain [52, 51] and Ireland [53], which all showed particularly strong affinities to modern-day Sardinians and not to modern-day Near Eastern populations. Ancient genomic data from Neolithic Anatolia [27, 56, 58] resolved the puzzle by showing that Neolithic individuals from Anatolia were genetically similar to Neolithic farmers from across Europe and modern-day Sardinians. (...)"

bicicleur
05-09-16, 12:20
Leilatepe - or at least their metallurgy - seems to be derived from Sumerian-speaking Uruk (see: Uruk expansions):



Sumerian language was Non-Indo-European:

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

Uruk had big food surplus and traded for luxury goods and metals
but I doubt they had knowledge of metallurgy and mining themselves

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 12:55
It was about expansions of people as well. This "Anti-Migrationist" approach that you represent has been smashed by genetic evidence.

Your confused attacks are misplaced - I subscribe to no particular paradigm. I merely stated that the PIE-question is indeed linguistic in nature. Any attempt to construe the evidence to fit one's favorite archeological site is putting the cart before the horse.

You on the other hand seem to favour the conveniently ecletic approach - your insistence that the development of the Kurgan mound in the southern Caucasus and its subsequent spread to the north is meaningless with regard to the question of socio-linguistic affiliation is textbook diffusionism.

Angela
05-09-16, 15:54
Please open Google Maps and check where are Mentese and Barcin located.

These are two places in westernmost Turkey, almost at the gates of Europe.

I consider I2c and C1a2 in that area as the result of gene flow from Europe.

This gene flow is confirmed in autosomal DNA, which shows 10-15% WHG.

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

As for C1a2 - it was probably Southern European (from Iberia to the Balkans).



Which sample was C1b ??? :thinking:



IMHO there is not enough evidence that people in those regions were similar to each other to count them as one.

A few samples of I2c and C1a2 in Anatolia only prove that there was some limited gene flow, but nothing more.

We actually have not enough samples from Southeastern Europe. That single R1b from Villabruna was buried in Northern Italy, so it doesn't count as Southeastern Europe (even if his lineage originated from that region, as David Reich speculated).

You have no way of knowing how far down into Anatolia and the Levant ydna haplogroup I2c penetrated. The autosomal data would indicate that it probably went further south than far northwestern Anatolia.

You have no way of knowing where the refuge for WHG was located, or whether, as the Reich Lab paper indicated was a possibility, whether the refuge was in the Near East.

Ditto for C1a2.

In post after post you are presenting speculations, and not particularly well supported speculations, as fact.

It's not at all persuasive. The only thing that is extremely clear is that you are not objectively trying to analyze the data. Instead, every fact is interpreted always and solely to support a very clear agenda.

Movement of technology for you always means gene flow unless that gene flow comes from south of the Caucasus.

What you have not addressed is why we find these R clades all the way in Siberia a long time indeed before, according to your hypothesis, they should have arrived there from their homeland in eastern Europe.


Bicicleur: around LGM Caspian Sea expanded upto Khvalynsk area, Aral Sea flooded into Caspian Sea and Caspian Sea via Manych depression into Black Sea, maybe around time of Seraglazovo
flooding of Black Sea from Mediterranean probably was 10 ka or earlier

maybe R1a1a was born in Seraglazovo and from there expanded to EHG and to EN Bajkal, this was not IE




Certainly makes more sense than that R formed in the far northeast and then went straight to Eastern Europe where all subsequent development took place always and only in eastern Europe.

I suggested this long ago, but as always the "usual suspects" shot it down.

berun
05-09-16, 18:11
@Tomenable

It's a surprise to me the labeling of R1b as EHG when such haplo was found in Villabruna and considered as "Levantine", as must be the Chadian V88 clade. Now we know about "Armenian" R1b before Indoeuropeans in the Caucasus, and we know that Yamnayans and co. received a good genetic influx from the south... so that all evidence is delivering R1b around the Euphrates. Moreover EHG in east Europe usualy are in the R1a side, leaving not so much space for his bro.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 18:14
Angela,


You have no way of knowing how far down into Anatolia and the Levant ydna haplogroup I2c penetrated. The autosomal data would indicate that it probably went further south than far northwestern Anatolia.

Here is a map of modern distribution of I2c - as you can see, it is still a mostly European lineage:

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p546/meon_/1.jpg

http://i1155.photobucket.com/albums/p546/meon_/1.jpg


Ditto for C1a2.

This haplogroup is so rare today that accusing me that I want to "steal it for hunters" because I don't want to acknowledge that large part of European ancestry is from "farmers" is just silly. :smile: Angela, who even cares about C1a2 ???

It is probably less than 0,1% of modern Europeans. I already explained my reasoning - if something was in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe (and C1a2 was), then I counted it as native European hunters. My criteria are coherent.

This is why I did not count T1a as European - even though it was found only in Europe, but in a Neolithic context. So I classified I2c and C1a2 as European and T1a as Near Eastern. I actually could classify T1a as European as well.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 18:26
Berun,


considered as "Levantine", as must be the Chadian V88 clade.

V88 was found in Neolithic Iberia and modern Sardinians also have some of its more basal subclades:

So it is possible that V88 expanded to Africa from Southern Europe. Not necessarily from the Levant:

https://s9.postimg.io/7ctc5tc6n/R1b_V88.png


Now we know about "Armenian" R1b before Indoeuropeans in the Caucasus

You mean the Kura-Araxes sample? Well, Kura-Araxes culture is sometimes considered as IE-speaking.

However, that samples was not M269+ but another subclade, which is rare today.


and we know that Yamnayans and co. received a good genetic influx from the south...

When you say that it was "from the south" you might be falling into a trap of "farming out of Sardinia" fallacy. :smile:

Just because some autosomal signature looks "southern" today, doesn't mean that it was the case 6000 years ago.

By the way - no matter from which direction was that gene flow, there is no proof that R1b was part of it.

There was enough of R1b in Russia already long before Yamnaya culture emerged. Samara HG, Khvalynsk, etc.


Moreover EHG in east Europe usualy are in the R1a side

Hah! "Usually" ?! There is currently a 3:2 ratio. :smile: Three samples with R1a and two samples with R1b:

https://s22.postimg.io/baarhhftt/EHG_samples.png

https://s22.postimg.io/baarhhftt/EHG_samples.png

holderlin
05-09-16, 18:44
The Epigravettian is a partial continuance of the Central European Gravettian. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Villabruna is much closer to the hunter gatherers of Western Europe. In fact, it is the later Western Hunter Gatherers that show closer affinity to the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe and ultimately something related to the Afontova Gora specimen relative to the Epigravettians. This is even more evident in the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who represent the next gradation with yet more eastern affinity. The hunter gatherers from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery are the most eastern transitional population within the geographic boundaries of Europe, as is expected from their location. It's only a matter of finding the right ancestral populations, although somewhere in the middle of the Villabruna-Afontova pole appears to be accurate enough.

Of course populations sharing common ancestors with EHG that are closer in time and space to EHG will look more like the EHG that we see 8000 years ago. EHG is descended mostly from populations like Villabruna. The small minority of EHG ancestry is AG like, MA-1 like, or whatever else.


I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the Mal'ta-Buret burial. Clearly, a single R* in the Siberian fridge is hardly informative. This environment favours preservation too well, so all kinds of odd things pile up there. You wouldn't argue that K2* is Siberian because of Ust'-Ishim, would you?

This comparison is bad. Ust-Ishim's population doesn't appear to have any significant descendants.

When the single R* is taken among all of the other ancient data in Europe/steppe along with modern descendant populations in Europe and Pre-columbian America it becomes very informative.

Yeah, the steppe preserving stuff too well is really screwing up the data

Tomenable
05-09-16, 18:46
Genetic talks on Eupedia always deteriorate into "hunters vs. farmers" battle! :smile:

But Angela, this battle is always lost for you, "pro-farmers". Do you know why?

Because everyone was a hunter before farming, at some point in the past!

So we win. Hunters of the world should unite. We were all hunters anyway. :good_job:

holderlin
05-09-16, 19:23
the definite chronology of the Kurgans is Leyla-Tepe -> Maykop -> Yamnaya. Whether this tells us anything about the languages of said cultures I don't know.

Why do people keep saying this? It's completely untrue. I'm so tired of seeing this on here.

Tomenable
05-09-16, 19:24
Here is a good lecture by Mallory, in which he debunks the "Southern" Hypothesis of PIE origins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HCs6PVnzI

Fire Haired14
05-09-16, 19:24
@holderlin,

MA1-like(more than like. Almost exact) ancestry is not a small minority in EHG, it is about as big as Villabruna-like.

holderlin
05-09-16, 19:43
@holderlin,

MA1-like(more than like. Almost exact) ancestry is not a small minority in EHG, it is about as big as Villabruna-like.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure EHG is more closely related to WHG than to MA-1. Maybe it's not by much?

berun
05-09-16, 19:49
@Tomenable
The V88 clade appears in Africa around 5000 BC if the TMRCA of the local subclades are taken into account, and such date is too recent as to expect an European migration, being the easy route the Levantine, but here it's not a matter of routes, it is a matter of geography as the Sardinian V88, the Cardial Pyrinean V88 and the Chadian V88 all were coming from Euphrates, and that is not Eastern Europe.


You mean the Kura-Araxes sample? Well, Kura-Araxes culture is sometimes considered as IE-speaking.

Sorry but it's not serious, or you are a "Yamnayist" or you are a "Renfewist" but both thinks are not compatible... even so such R1b, speaking IE or not, was there in the Copper Age and there are not known migrations in the area (other than the Uruk?), so it's to expect that also such R1b would be from an ancient HG pop, and it was not in Eastern Europe.


Just because some autosomal signature looks "southern" today, doesn't mean that it was the case 6000 years ago.

It's southern because it's southern: Eastern HG had not the Caucasian / Iranian signature till farming and herding, and such techniques were coming from the south, as the kurgans of Leylatepe or Maykop.


By the way - no matter from which direction was that gene flow, there is no proof that R1b was part of it.

No proof? The Armenian R1b poped up in Yamnayans... there was not Caucasian autosomals when the region was HG... which direction it took so? Sorry but Occam's Razor is quite heavy to don't cut it.

You show two R1b in the steppes in the Copper Age, but you are aware that the Copper Age is not the Mesolithic or the Paleolithic? By the way you forget to add R1a from Anashkino (Psov oblast) and two other R1a from Lokomotiv (near Lake Baikal), even if this is not Europe it points that Russia was not home for R1b in the Mesolithic.

Angela
05-09-16, 19:58
Genetic talks on Eupedia always deteriorate into "hunters vs. farmers" battle! :smile:

But Angela, this battle is always lost for you, "pro-farmers". Do you know why?

Because everyone was a hunter before farming, at some point in the past!

So we win. Hunters of the world should unite. We were all hunters anyway. :good_job:

Indeed, all of our ancestors were once hunters. If you're anyone except a Pygmy or a native from the Amazon rain forest or a few other such primitive groups, your ancestors have been farmers for at least 5000 years. Time to lose your nostalgia for living in a cave or a yurt, eating half raw meat, and scratching yourself under your furs, especially as every single one of the attributes of modern civilization which I'm sure you cherish, including your computer, your tv, your phone and whatever device you use for your music would have been impossible without that transition.

None of that should have anything to do with how you analyze scientific material. You should do that as divorced from your own prejudices and biases as possible.

Also, one of the things that happens with age is that you learn not to project your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies onto others. Hopefully, you'll gain that insight as well.

As to your post upthread about I2c, really, you're going to post a map of modern distribution? Not good enough, I'm afraid.

Fluffy
05-09-16, 21:19
Indeed, all of our ancestors were once hunters. If you're anyone except a Pygmy or a native from the Amazon rain forest or a few other such primitive groups, your ancestors have been farmers for at least 5000 years. Time to lose your nostalgia for living in a cave or a yurt, eating half raw meat, and scratching yourself under your furs, especially as every single one of the attributes of modern civilization which I'm sure you cherish, including your computer, your tv, your phone and whatever device you use for your music would have been impossible without that transition.

None of that should have anything to do with how you analyze scientific material. You should do that as divorced from your own prejudices and biases as possible.

Also, one of the things that happens with age is that you learn not to project your own prejudices and idiosyncrasies onto others. Hopefully, you'll gain that insight as well.

As to your post upthread about I2c, really, you're going to post a map of modern distribution? Not good enough, I'm afraid.

Good post! What's with this anti farmer stuff anyway.

MarkoZ
05-09-16, 21:33
Of course populations sharing common ancestors with EHG that are closer in time and space to EHG will look more like the EHG that we see 8000 years ago. EHG is descended mostly from populations like Villabruna. The small minority of EHG ancestry is AG like, MA-1 like, or whatever else.

Wrong, the hunters from Karelia ar roughly halfway between Villabrunna and AG3 - you could almost call them a hybrid population.



This comparison is bad. Ust-Ishim's population doesn't appear to have any significant descendants.

When the single R* is taken among all of the other ancient data in Europe/steppe along with modern descendant populations in Europe and Pre-columbian America it becomes very informative.

Yeah, the steppe preserving stuff too well is really screwing up the data

Mal'ta Buret is a dead end as well. Moreover, the isotope analyses of Richards et al showed that almost 20% of the boy's diet consisted of marine animals. This hardly sounds like a highly mobile population.


Why do people keep saying this? It's completely untrue. I'm so tired of seeing this on here.

This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.

Angela
05-09-16, 21:33
It all stems from the fact that a lot of the anthrofora people expected to find, and in fact had long insisted, that the hunter gatherers would turn out to look like albinos, and the farmers from the Middle East would be much "swarthier". So, the goal was to be as hunter-gatherer as possible. I suppose they also think they're more "indigenous" to Europe.

I'm afraid some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that the WHG were darker than the farmers. The few EHG samples are pretty light, of course, but I increasingly think they got that trait from people coming from the Caucasus, or at any rate the selective sweep for those snps was very late. The latest shock has been that the WHG might have had their refuge either in the Near East or somewhere in Greece, perhaps spilling over into part of Anatolia. (as per the Reich Lab paper and subsequent comments by Reich himself)

Anyway, it's all very silly, but there you have it. That's how some people approach population genetics.

Oh, I think it may have something to do with the male/female ratio of amateurs interested in this topic. I can't imagine a woman romanticizing a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Yeah, right, moving constantly with an infant at your breast and a couple of older ones pulling at your clothes as you walk endlessly, having to rebuild the shelter constantly while the men trade hunting stories, foraging for miles again hampered by young children, nursing until they're freaking three years old to cut down on how many you have because otherwise they'll starve...

Not that living in the early Neolithic was any picnic, or anytime other than the present, but everything is relative. The book I posted upthread talks about survival of children in these societies. Not for me, thank-you. These communities were always on the verge of extinction.

johen
05-09-16, 23:28
This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.
I have one question.
Do you know why or how the kurgan was in there?
As far as I know, the kurgan was just like pit house in siberia. So it is normal that the kurgan appeared, being developed in the steppe, but in south Caucasus?

Arkaim in Sintashta culture pit houses, which are just kurgan, if gate is closed.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%A0%D0%B5% D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BA%D1 %86%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%89%D0% B0_%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B 3%D0%BE_%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0_-_panoramio.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B8%D0%BC_%D0%98%D1%81% D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0 %B8%D0%B9_%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA_-_panoramio.jpg

Tomenable
06-09-16, 00:17
Well, a good big chunk of that EHG and SHG is actually WHG, isn't it?

No they aren't. They were related groups with common ancestry.

But we could as well claim that everyone in West Eurasia is Kostenki14.

Because "Kostenki-like" groups were ancestral to all Western Eurasians:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1113.full?keytype=ref&siteid=sci&ijkey=ffYwENZRGSBmI

We can see this here, where Kostenki14 has a bit of each component:

https://s11.postimg.io/7htqiikw3/K14.png

Blue (ancestral to WHG), grey (ancestral to EHG) and orange (to ENF).

Angela
06-09-16, 00:21
That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.



During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

You really don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with my ethnicity, and it should have nothing to do with yours. It should be based on facts, evidence, evaluated as honestly as possible. I've been studying world history, and pre-history, since before you were born, no doubt, and genetics for ten years, and that's what informs my opinions.

With the Holocene, there were numerous developments in many fields, including microliths, and they took place in the Near East. Farming developed there, and herding, and metallurgy, and cities, and literacy, all of the hallmarks of civilization. I learned all those things in American universities from professors who were almost all "generic" American. I actually don't remember a single professor who had an Italian last name. Those are just facts. It's too bad if that conflicts with some idiotic racist notion of yours that the EHG are the supermen of human civilization because that group forms the largest portion of your own ancestry. OUR WHG ancestors, and OUR EHG ancestors were totally removed from all of that. Later on, the centers of civilization moved elsewhere. Those are the breaks. Groups are on top and then on bottom and who knows what will happen in the future.

I find virtually everything you post lately totally biased, poorly reasoned, and often deliberately designed to mislead. Not to mention that you have an appalling lack of knowledge of ancient history. Your latest post is no exception.

You think that people should or even do apportion their ancient ancestry in their minds, pick the ancient ancestral group that is present at a higher percentage, and then interpret all of genetics and world history so as to make that particular ancient ancestry "look" better?

Really, Tomenable? I find it hard to credit that you really think this way, and even harder to fathom how you could have arrived at such a point.

What I do know is that other than pointing out the blatant mistakes in your posts I'm not interested in debating someone with this mind set. It's a waste of time, because you have no interest in figuring out the truth. You just want to promote your noxious agenda.

Fair warning, I'm not having this Board go on a watchlist. You continue to post things taken from some white racist, eastern European playbook and there will be consequences.

Angela
06-09-16, 00:27
That paper is specifically about European hunter-gatherers. Don't pretend that you don't know it.

It is not about any types of hunter-gatherers living anywhere in the world.

Why are you so stubborn to prove that everything in Europe came from the Middle East?

Don't you identify as a European? Italians also have some WHG and EHG. Embrace your HG part too.

All Europeans are a mix of the same ancestral populations, only in different proportions.

That's why in PCA all Europeans cluster together and are away from North Africans or Middle Easterners.

Italians are also genetically closer to other Europeans than they are to present-day MENA populations.



During some period of time, progress in the Middle East indeed tended to be faster.

However, progress did not start only with farming. It had started already in the Upper Paleolithic period.

And progress had been faster among northern hunters than among southern hunters:

https://unsafeharbour.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/the-origins-of-inequality/

Quote:

"(...) We all know that the early development in agriculture and civilization began in Eurasia - but it goes back much earlier than that. At a somewhat atemporal level, toolkits of hunter-gatherers have been shown to increase in size and complexity with latitude [larger and more complex toolkits in northern latitudes] (Oswalt, 1976) - the driving cause seeming to be the risk of resource failure (Collard et al., 2005). Developments necessary for cold, risk of resource failure… whatever the cause, Foley (1987) writes: 'although there is a general and global technological development during the Pleistocene, it is in high latitudes that it is most marked; in parts of the tropics the artefacts remained simple.' (...)"

You really don't get it, do you? This has nothing to do with my ethnicity, and it should have nothing to do with yours. It should be based on facts, evidence, evaluated as honestly as possible. I've been studying world history, and pre-history, since before you were born, no doubt, and genetics for ten years, and that's what informs my opinions.

With the Holocene, there were numerous developments in many fields, including microliths, and they took place in the Near East. Farming developed there, and herding, and metallurgy, and cities, and literacy, all of the hallmarks of civilization. I learned all those things in American universities from professors who were almost all "generic" American. I actually don't remember a single professor who had an Italian last name. Certainly none of them were Middle Eastern. Those are just facts. It doesn't diminish Europeans to acknowledge it. It makes Europeans look ridiculous when they pretend it isn't so. It's just too bad if that conflicts with some idiotic racist notion of yours that the EHG are the supermen of human civilization because that group forms the largest portion of your own ancestry. OUR WHG ancestors, and OUR EHG ancestors had nothing to do with those achievements. Later on, the centers of civilization moved elsewhere. Those are the breaks. Groups are on top and then on bottom and who knows what will happen in the future. We may wind up becoming the serfs of Chinese companies, dying our hair black, and getting eye surgery.

I find virtually everything you post lately totally biased, poorly reasoned, and often deliberately designed to mislead. Not to mention that you have an appalling lack of knowledge of ancient history. Your latest post is no exception.

You think that people should or even do apportion their ancient ancestry in their minds, pick the ancient ancestral group that is present at a higher percentage, and then interpret all of genetics and world history so as to make that particular ancient ancestry "look" better?

Really, Tomenable? I find it hard to credit that you really think this way, and even harder to fathom how you could have arrived at such a point.

What I do know is that other than pointing out the blatant mistakes in your posts I'm not interested in debating someone with this mind set. It's a waste of time, because you have no interest in figuring out the truth. You just want to promote your noxious agenda.

Fair warning, I'm not having this Board go on a watchlist. You continue to post things taken from some white racist, eastern European playbook and there will be consequences.

holderlin
06-09-16, 03:21
Wrong, the hunters from Karelia ar roughly halfway between Villabrunna and AG3 - you could almost call them a hybrid population.

AG3 already has WHG admixture. I'm talking about MA-1, and I know I'm right about EHG being closer to WHG than to MA-1



This is pretty straightfoward - the Soyugbulag Kurgans are definiely the first distinct burial mounds of this type. If you are aware of even older Kurgans, please provide your evidence.

I've posted countless times about the archaeological continuity on the steppe from Samara/Dnieper Donets -> Khvalynsk/Sredny Stog-> Yamnaya. I don't really feel like doing it again tonight.

The reaches being made with burial practices are absurd. Lets say that the steppe was completely overtaken by these so-called Uruk expansionists. Why then do these cultures all of a sudden look like the same steppe cultures that had been there thousands of years prior?

**EDIT** and of course everyone ignores the glaring piece of evidence that is the use of ochre

holderlin
06-09-16, 03:36
I don't really care where Tomenable and the other so called racists are coming from.

Their points are data driven. Shall we all ignore whats in front of us and follow the social justice script?

holderlin
06-09-16, 03:37
its so weird, but i guess thats what moves this forum, which is why I suspect a ton of fake accounts e.g. Goga, the perfect euro hater

Fluffy
06-09-16, 03:40
I don't really care where Tomenable and the other so called racists are coming from.

Their points are data driven. Shall we all ignore whats in front of us and follow the social justice script?


Oh so I guess only Haplogroup's R1b and R1a are white right?

holderlin
06-09-16, 03:49
Oh so I guess only Haplogroup's R1b and R1a are white right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about and I'm sick of it.

If you were to tell me that R1a and R1b seem to be the main paternal lines associated with the depigmentation of europe sometime after 2500BC then I would have to agree, and so would you.

Fluffy
06-09-16, 04:00
No I would not agree. I see whites as having many different haplogroups. Though I would say J1 and Q are non white. What makes a neolithic farmer less white than an Indo European?

Angela
06-09-16, 04:38
I don't really care where Tomenable and the other so called racists are coming from.

Their points are data driven. Shall we all ignore whats in front of us and follow the social justice script?

Tomenable's points are data driven? Have you been reading all of them and the responses to them?

What do my posts have to do with a "social justice script"? I'll tell you what...nothing.

I can't help it if new kinds of points for hunting small game developed in the Near East, or farming, or animal husbandry, or metallurgy, or irrigation, or cities, or literacy. It is what it is. I'm sure neither you nor Tomenable have a problem with saying industrialization started in Great Britain, that the Enlightenment was a western European philosophical movement, that computerization began in the U.S.? I don't think so. Why do Tomenable and his ilk have a problem admitting what anyone who has ever taken an ancient history course knows? Are we supposed to ignore all of the achievements of the ancient Near East because the EHG weren't part of them?

As for pigmentation, maybe you have a short memory just like Tomenable. Blonde, blue eyed, fair skinned people existed in MN cultures in central Europe, and these cultures didn't carry R1b or R1a. The Anatolian farmers who came to Europe were lighter than the WHG they encountered in Central Europe. THOSE ARE FACTS, but facts that Tomenable, and perhaps you, are unwilling to acknowledge.

As for the haplogroups that appear in Europe, they all came from elsewhere. Do you doubt it? I'm not sure of the exact movements of the yDna R people, and neither should you be. It's just as likely that with the onset of the LGM they moved south and then spread out from the areas around the Caspian Sea as that they stayed for all of that time somewhere in eastern Europe. Jean Manco promoted that idea of a spread north and south of the Caspian years ago in her book. Is she pursuing a "social justice agenda"? It's absurd. What does it matter, anyway, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity? Is it better to have stayed in eastern Europe than to have spread out from the Caspian? Why?

You didn't read that bunk he posted about the original white people were the EHG? How about the people in MN Central Europe and Anatolia who had the same depigmentation snps? They weren't "white"?

Wow, I really expected better from you, at least.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 07:36
If we compare Mesolithic EHG with present-day inhabitants of Ural-Volga part of Russia, we can see that there has been a significant eastward shift. Modern Uralic-speakers are more eastern genetically than the EHG used to be. Here is a comparison using DNA Land: Samara EHG - 92% European [all 92% of it North-East European], 8% Native American Komi person - 77% European [incl. 70% North-East], 3% Central Asian, 20% East Asian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komi_peoples Though I suppose that there are differences in % of Asian between individual Komis. Anyway, claiming that the EHG were "Asian" is ridiculous considering that they were not even 1/3 as "Asian" as some modern peoples who are still considered "Caucasoid". ========================= Samara EHG (his Y-DNA haplogroup was R1b and his pigmentation SNPs show that he had blonde hair color and white skin - but I'm not sure about his eye color): https://s18.postimg.io/gzfabn95l/Samara_EHG.png A modern Komi person (see post #382 in the thread linked below), when you look at phenotypes of modern Komi, some of them look European, others look intermediate, and some look rather Asian; there is also a large diversity of pigmentation: http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,8508.465.html http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160410/un7dybhu.png

Tomenable
06-09-16, 07:56
If we compare Mesolithic EHG with present-day inhabitants of Ural-Volga part of Russia, we can see that there has been some eastward shift. Modern Uralic-speakers are more eastern genetically than the EHG used to be. Here is a comparison using DNA Land:

Samara EHG - 92% European [all 92% of it North-East European], 8% Native American*
Karelia EHG - 87% European [all 87% North-East Euro], 12% Native American, 1% Tubalar
Komi person - 77% European [incl. 70% North-East], 3% Central Asian, 20% East Asian**

*This Native American is likely "extra ANE" beyond of what is found in modern Europe.

**His 20% East Asian is: 12% East Turkic + 8% Northeast Asian (Tubalar + Nganasan).

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

Though I suppose that there are differences in % of Asian between individual Komis.

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

Karelia EHG (6850-6000 BC):

https://s9.postimg.org/ov5ogzswf/Karelian_HG.png

Samara EHG (5650-5550 BC):

https://s18.postimg.io/gzfabn95l/Samara_EHG.png

Komi (post #382 in this link):

http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,8508.465.html

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160410/un7dybhu.png

Tomenable
06-09-16, 08:58
If we compare Mesolithic EHG with present-day inhabitants of Ural-Volga part of Russia, we can see that there has been some eastward shift. Modern Uralic-speakers are more eastern genetically than the EHG used to be. Here is a comparison using DNA Land:

Karelia EHG (6850-6000 BC) - 87% European [all 87% North-East Euro], 12% Native American, 1% Tubalar

Samara EHG (5650-5550 BC) - 92% European [all 92% of it North-East European], 8% Native American

A present-day Komi person - 77% European [incl. 70% North-East], 3% Central Asian, 20% East Asian*

*His 20% East Asian is: 12% East Turkic + 8% Northeast Asian (Tubalar + Nganasan).

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

Though I suppose that there are differences in % of Asian between individual Komis.

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

Karelia EHG (6850-6000 BC):

https://s9.postimg.org/ov5ogzswf/Karelian_HG.png

Samara EHG (5650-5550 BC):

https://s18.postimg.io/gzfabn95l/Samara_EHG.png

Komi (post #382 in this link):

http://forum.molgen.org/index.php/topic,8508.465.html

http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160410/un7dybhu.png

Alpenjager
06-09-16, 09:13
The claim that R1a and R1b or even all R are the true "whites" is absolutly ridiculous. Unsupported by Science. There are so many places with insignificant or none R with tons of "west eurasian traits" including fair skin.

Perhaps and only perhaps, R could be responsible of the red pigmentation together with their other linked physical traits. R can't appropriate all traits found in each one west eurasian population. Just look to R in Cameroon and see what happens when you admixed too much, the same thing happens with E in Germany and the same thing happens with every lineage in every place.

Tomenable
06-09-16, 11:08
Each mutation emerges originally in one person - either male or female. And each person is a carrier of one or two haplogroup(s). So if we know which haplogroup(s) did the original "mutant" have, we can associate early history of a particular trait with a particular haplogroup, as Maciamo did. Western Eurasian lightening mutations are much older than either Anatolian Neolithic or European Mesolithic populations - they date back to the Upper Paleolithic period, as Genetiker wrote (providing a source):

"This paper from last year dated the coalescence of the SLC24A5 mutation at 28,000–22,000 years ago"

28,000-22,000 years ago was before haplogroups such as R1a and R1b even emerged. However, haplogroups R and R1 - which were ancestral to R1a and R1b (as well as to R2 in case of R) - already existed. So it is not unreasonable to assume that at least one of the two major skin lightening mutations emerged in a carrier of haplogrup R1 or R - assuming that it emerged in a male person.

The "first White" could be a woman as well. But maybe she married a guy with R1.

Mutations can be inherited from both parents, so of course other Y-DNA lineages could become carriers of lightening mutations after inheriting those mutations from their mothers. And daughters could get them from fathers as well.

bicicleur
06-09-16, 11:09
who had the first alleles for white skin does not matter, the alleles were present long before white skin became common

what matters it to understand when, where, how and why white skin was favoured by natural selection
the same goes for LP and so many other traits

we don't have enough data yet to understand the selection

easier to understand should be LP, and even there we don't know the when, the where and the how

Tomenable
06-09-16, 11:35
Yes Bicicleur, you are right.

And the idea that white skin became common only after farming has been proven wrong.

The following evidence shows that this idea is wrong:

1) Already some of Pre-Farming groups had high frequencies of lightening mutations (including the EHG, the SHG and to a smaller extent also the CHG - and probably ancestors of Anatolian farmers had also been relatively light-skinned already before they became farmers).

2) Scientists estimate that light skin was being selected for already longbefore the invention of farming: "and this paper from 2012 estimated that the selective sweep for the SLC24A5 mutation started 19,000–11,000 years ago. These estimates are consistent with the Afontova Gora 2 finding."

berun
06-09-16, 12:08
There was enough of R1b in Russia already long before Yamnaya culture emerged. Samara HG, Khvalynsk, etc.

First, they were not EHG even:


Srednestog culture sites lie to the west of the Volga,
in the Don and Dnieper areas (Telegin 1973; Kotova
2006). It has been established that the second
stage of the Samara culture was contemporaneous
with Khvalynsk and Srednestog cultures. The populations
of these three cultures were engaged in settled
cattle husbandry (Telegin 1973; Vasilyev 1981;
Morgunova 1995; 2014).

Second, they were the product of a mix... and do you guess which Y-DNA carried the outliers?


As to the ceramics of the first type,
they are supposed to indicate that people of some
outlandish culture had entered the areas near the
Volga and the Urals. As bearers of different cultural
traditions, as evidenced by the pottery excavated at
Sjezheye burial ground, the outlandish group appeared
to be in a vulnerable position because it was not
numerous (Vasilyeva 2006). It had to be assimilated
into the local environment by the group that produced
the second type of pottery which is found at other
sites in the Volga area, such as at the Lebjazhinka III
settlement. Consequently, the Samara culture emerged,
which marked the onset of the Eneolithic period
in the Volga area.

ref (http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/42.22): "Pottery from the Volga area in the Samara and South Urals region from Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age"

bicicleur
06-09-16, 12:48
First, they were not EHG even:



Second, they were the product of a mix... and do you guess which Y-DNA carried the outliers?



ref (http://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/42.22): "Pottery from the Volga area in the Samara and South Urals region from Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age"

IMO at one point, the whole Pontic steppe became dominated by only 2 tribes : R1b-M269 and R1b-M73
all the others moved or got extinct

R-P297YSC0000269/PF6475/S17 * PF6498 * PF6463+45 SNPsformed 16800 ybp, TMRCA 13400 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-P297/)

R-P297* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297*/)
R-M478 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M478/)Y13204 * Y13208 * Y13202+34 SNPsformed 13400 ybp, TMRCA 7300 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-M478/)

R-M478* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M478*/)
R-Y14051 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y14051/)Y14051 * Y14062 * L1433+46 SNPsformed 7300 ybp, TMRCA 1450 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-Y14051/)

id:YF03179
UKR [UA-05]
id:YF03139


R-Y20747 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y20747/)Y20779 * Y20759 * Y20757+42 SNPsformed 7300 ybp, TMRCA 1100 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-Y20747/)

R-Y20747* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y20747*/)

id:YF05962


R-Y22195 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y22195/)Y22195 * Y22196formed 1100 ybp, TMRCA 900 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-Y22195/)

id:YF06175
id:YF02940




R-M269 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M269/)CTS11468/PF6520 * PF6495 * PF6437+82 SNPsformed 13400 ybp, TMRCA 6400 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-M269/)

R-M269* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M269*/)
R-PF7562 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7562/)PH1631/V2850 * Z29759/FGC31957/BY1713 * Z29761/FGC31966/BY2098+10 SNPsformed 6400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-PF7562/)

R-PF7562* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7562*/)

id:YF02895
TUR [TR-61]


R-PF7563 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7563/)PF7563/V2347formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 3600 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-PF7563/)

R-PF7563* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7563*/)

id:YF03278
BLR [BY-HO]


R-Z29758 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29758/)Z29758

R-Z29758* (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z29758*/)
R-PF7566 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7566/)Z29760 * PF7566 * Z29785+1 SNPs

id:ERS256986
ITA [IT-CA]


R-V3286 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V3286/)V3870/Z29776 * Z29767 * Z29771+6 SNPs

id:ERS256983
ITA [IT-CA]
id:ERS256985
ITA [IT-CA]





R-L23 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/)PF6404 * L478/PF6403 * L23/S141/PF6534formed 6400 ybp, TMRCA 6300 ybpinfo (https://www.yfull.com/tree-info/R-L23/)



R-P297 is 16800 years old, but only 2 tribes survived, TMRCA 7300 and 6400, both on the Pontic steppe


as for pottery, chack arrival of mtDNA C, D and Z1a in Karelia and Dnjepr Donets culture, and even Hungary



Körös
Hungary
Vörs 52


5500 BC




C5
Guba 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Guba2011)



it was women who spread pottery to Eruope, not men

Tomenable
06-09-16, 13:15
Berun,

Karelian EHG and Samara EHG were pretty much identical autosomally.

We have known about this already since their genomes were published.

But I checked them also with "DNA Land" to confirm this:

https://s21.postimg.io/m41djj66f/EHG_autosomal.png

Karelia: 87% North-East European + 12% Native American
Samara: 92% North-East European + 8% Native American

https://s21.postimg.io/m41djj66f/EHG_autosomal.png

By comparison - here is Villabruna WHG with "DNA Land":

Villabruna: 77% North-East European + 23% West European

https://s17.postimg.io/gu483mxxb/Villabruna.png

Tomenable
06-09-16, 13:33
By the way, the name "North Slavic" is a bit misleading.

This component peaks in Lithuanians and Belarusians, but is also common in Germanics.

For example this is a modern Austrian from Lavanttal:

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

Austrian: 25% North-West Euro + 49% North-East Euro + 24% Southern Euro

https://s21.postimg.io/85gxajk9z/Austrian.png

And this is Swedish Battle Axe RISE98 (with R1b-U106):

RISE98: 50% North-West Euro + 46% North-East Euro + 3% Southern Euro

https://s10.postimg.io/x56q5ogbt/RISE98.png

Austrian is more southern and relatively (compared to % of North-West component) more eastern.

berun
06-09-16, 14:45
@bicicleur

Neolithic women alone don't go to dwell among hunter gatherers

@Tomenable
Better this figure then:

7977

You can look at the 10% of the greenish Caucasian in Samara_HG... maybe his grand-grand-grandfather was a Caucasian.

By the way someone could run an admixture test for the I0124 guy with the recent Iranian and Caucasian old DNA published?

Tomenable
06-09-16, 14:47
Better this figure then:

Karelia HG also has this "greenish" component there, just a bit less.

Bogomir
06-09-16, 15:24
Hallo to all,
I am new and I'm not expert in the area, but I find Geneaology forum very informative and I enjoy reading it. THANKS TO ALL PARTICPANTS!

I dont't like to differ from the main subject, but I have seen the ma of Y - I2c where Slovenia is empasised and I have some questions.
What happened with I2Din North and IDin Souh? Are they reduced or renamed? Do we have somewhere maps of them? I am not aware of I2c being in the range 1-5 % in Slovenia.

bicicleur
06-09-16, 15:40
@bicicleur

Neolithic women alone don't go to dwell among hunter gatherers



By the way someone could run an admixture test for the I0124 guy with the recent Iranian and Caucasian old DNA published?

most HG were exogamous, which means they look for brides outside the tribe

neolithic in Siberia were not farmers, they were HG with pottery

berun
06-09-16, 16:00
You can get a paper checking the exchange of mtDNA between Bantus and Pygmies (also exogamous) and you will find out that it's not so: there is exchange between Pygmi women to Bantus, but no Bantu women to Pygmies.

The HG with pottery was the Elshanka culture, the Samara and Khavalynsk were already herders.

@Tomenable, if the Karelian has the greenish mark will be because we don't know all the picture, but a possible track could be a J in Mesolithic Russia.

Aaron1981
06-09-16, 16:28
The claim that R1a and R1b or even all R are the true "whites" is absolutly ridiculous. Unsupported by Science. There are so many places with insignificant or none R with tons of "west eurasian traits" including fair skin.

Perhaps and only perhaps, R could be responsible of the red pigmentation together with their other linked physical traits. R can't appropriate all traits found in each one west eurasian population. Just look to R in Cameroon and see what happens when you admixed too much, the same thing happens with E in Germany and the same thing happens with every lineage in every place.


I am not sure if we can say R1b and R1a are true "whites" and the others not, but I would say that at minimum R1b, R1a, and I are the true Europeans. It is quite clear that G-P303 for instance originates in the Middle East, where as it is far more difficult to construct an argument that the former three did.

At what point do you get considered European? I don't know...will I ever be considered a Native American? Doubtful

bicicleur
06-09-16, 16:35
pottery came through HG on the Siberian steppe to Europe

http://archaeology.org.az/pdf/AASIA&E%20presentation7.pdf

Alan
07-09-16, 14:26
Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

**EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.

:laughing:

Where did you catch this up? Do you have any evidence for that. As far as I remember Villabruna can be modeled as WHG with some EEF and ANE like admixture that resembles the one more that has contributed to CHG and Iran_Neo than EHG.

more correct it would be to say Iran_Neo is Basal Eurasian+ something Villabruna like.

Mark my words you pro EHG dudes will make a 180 degree turn when mesolithic samples from South_Central Asia turn out to be this Villabruna like cluster that contributed to both EHG and Iran_Neo/CHG.

R1b and R1a in EUrppe and the Steppes are the oldest samples because these regions are the most sampled. Not because the samples found are actually basal. I have yet to see a single basal R1a l62 or R1b m343 from Europe or the Steppes.

Kura-Araxes certanly has no real EHG admixture so does not the Tepe Hasanlu sample.

Alan
07-09-16, 14:34
We already have mtDNA from Maykop and it does not match mtDNA from the Steppe / Yamna.

Moreover, the issue of PIE is all about expansions of language and people, not cultural trends.

Maykop culture were most certainly speakers of one of languages of the Caucasus, not of IE:

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

All these mtDNA prove up to date is that the CHG like admixture did not came via bride exchange/kidnapping as some bloggers claimed. But if not from Maykop where did the CHG came from to Yamnaya? Somewhere it must have come? Maykop culture is certanly proto Yamna and the Kurgans there are said to predate those in Yamnaya and be Leyla Tepe derived. Something doesn't fit there, now does it?

I think there are only three explanations for this.

1. the CHG came via South_Central Asia and in fact the whole Yamnaya package formed even there when Neolithic Iran_Neo like farmers met EHG like herders in South_Central Asia
2. CHG was on the Steppes prior to the EHG and is very old there.
3. CHG didn't actually come via females rom Maykop (absurd theory knowing that whole Yamna looks just like a copy of Maykop) but via males and R1b l23 is actually a Maykop marker and came from the same source as the R1b in Kura Araxes.

Alan
07-09-16, 14:44
Wrong, the hunters from Karelia ar roughly halfway between Villabrunna and AG3 - you could almost call them a hybrid population.





This^. People still take EHG as a proxy while after the finding of Villabruna the scientists are pretty much convinced that EHG is basically a merge of something Villabruna like and AG3. While Iran_Neo and CHG seem to be a merge of something Villabruna like and Basal Eurasian.

Alan
07-09-16, 14:59
But the WHG lived in Western Europe. Eastern European EHG and Scandinavian SHG were much lighter.

Some people haven't quite absorbed the fact that Eastern Europe - and not Western Europe - was the "cradle of White people".

Also, the WHG contribution to modern European gene pool seems to be very limited, if we look at this:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

Grey component was present in Mesolithic Russia among the EHG, and later in the Pontic Steppe
Blue component was present in Mesolithic Western Europe among the WHG, and in Scandinavia

Bronze Age Europeans had much more of grey component (ultimately derived from the EHG). Also as a matter of fact the EHG and the later Steppe groups (Copper Age and Bronze Age) were generally lighter-pigmented than Anatolian farmers.

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

So Northern European pigmentation does not come from Anatolia, but from those "Aryans" in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.

Look at modern Sardinians or Sicilians - their moderately light pigmentation indeed comes from Anatolian farmers.

Some people apparently still haven't quite absorbed the fact that, originally, "White" = "Indo-European".

OK, OK, you are going to respond: "but the Yamnaya were still in fact quite swarthy!". Maybe they were.

But there were other Bronze Age Steppe groups, such as Srubnaya or Sintashta, who were much lighter.

The Grey component is not EHG. Grey component EHG/Iran_CHL+CHG. I think you know that.

Alpenjager
09-09-16, 08:19
It's interesting that HV and U3 also show up in that region alongside N1a and I. These are the haplogroups that I linked to the original T1a Neolithic tribes based on data from Northeast Africa (see above link).

Y-haplogroup T was found in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Levant and in the LBK culture, so it surely played a major role in the early development of agriculture, or more specifically goat/sheep domestication as it is found at high frequencies in the Horn of Africa, where people have been goat/sheep and cattle herders since the Neolithic (cattle would have been brought by R1b-V88, found at high frequency in the Hausa of Sudan).

I remembered that Flegontov 2016 found 1% of T among Estonians together with L but all other Estonian studies show only L haplotypes.

MOESAN
11-09-16, 17:56
At the mergin I put my foot on this unsteady ground. Only to say my point until I know more.
1- "white" for me is not the US standard definition; 'caucasoids' - based upon the majority of other genes - are not all of them purely "white"; but true near-eastern people and even original Arabs are "whire for me" because the most of them share the same skin colour mutations as western Europeans; what makes a distinction is the overdepigmentation concerning less skin than eye and hairs, overduepigmentation which is not level among Europeans according to regions spite absent in almost NO region;
2- the mutations giving way to this overdepigmentation seem born in relatively southern countries (Anatolia by instance, even Iran perhaps); but the today distribution of blondism and also in light eyes for the most in Europe is selfspeaking: it is not a late effect of selection, but the effect of colonization (unlevel) apparently come from North-East or East, after some kind of selection there I ignore its precise causes; so I think in Northwestern Steppes and Southeast Baltic; it could be STATISTICALLY linked to the kind of Y-R1a and Y-R1b which reached Europe between 4000 and 2500 BC; Southern Europe and Western Europe were previously dark pigmented as a whole with some exceptions concerning only eyes colour; it's not the effect of Sarrasins invasions or other colonisation for me;
3- I will not make offense to anybody by saying Y-haplos have some direct link with pigmentation! I speak here of result of History: selection of any sort, hazards, collective moves and so on.