PDA

View Full Version : New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)



Maciamo
18-10-16, 15:58
I finally found some time to make the map of Yamna admixture using the data from Eurogenes Steppe K10. There was no data for some countries, so I had to guess based on neighbouring countries or isolated samples reported on forums. That is the case for Portugal, Ireland, Wales, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Slovenia, Slovakia and Azerbaijan.

I would especially need regional samples from all over Iberia. There are huge variations from nearly 0% of Yamna among some Basques to 16% in some Spaniards (but their region of origin is unknown). The Eurogenes data just shows a lower percentage in northern Spain, but that is not very helpful as Galicia, Cantabria and Catalonia probably have very different levels.

Regional data from Britain, France and Germany are also welcome.


http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture.png


Even though Yamna chieftains from kurgan belonged almost exclusively to R1b, among modern Europeans it is the Uralic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and North Caucasian people who inherited the highest share of Yamna ancestry, not Western Europeans, who now have the highest percentage of haplogroup R1b. One of the reasons for this is that R1b arrived in Western Europe after over a thousand years of genetic dilution through intermarriages with Balkanic and Central European people. In contrast, in the eastern half of Europe, R1b lost its position of dominance and was replaced by R1a and N1c lineages, starting from the Catacomb culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and continuing until the Middle Ages. Nevertheless Yamna ancestry was passed maternally in the Steppe and in neighbouring populations, which explains the high Yamna admixture from the Baltic to the North Caucasus.

berun
18-10-16, 17:23
How do you explain the high percent of Yamnaya among Lapps?

By the way both south Russia and south Ukraine suffered as Spain and Portugal a process of colonization over Muslim territoires that might be taken into account when traveling into the past.

Maciamo
18-10-16, 17:52
How do you explain the high percent of Yamnaya among Lapps?


Not sure. Probably shared ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) ancestry. Yamna originated from the Khvalynsk culture (R1a+R1b), which was adjacent to the Kama culture (N1c) in the Steppe. Finns, Balts and Sami have high N1c levels, which also means high ANE levels shared with R1 and Q1a populations and more recent (c. 5000-4000 BCE) intermingling in the Volga-Ural region, before N1c moved to Fennoscandia. So the high Yamna admixture in the Baltic may only be shared ancestry older than Yamna.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/early_middle_neolithic_map.png

Angela
18-10-16, 19:22
I'm not sure I would take Eurogenes' calculator as the best for computing Yamnaya ancestry, especially when it substantially contradicts academic findings on the subject.

From Haak et al:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/full/nature14317.html

Spanish north is Pais Vasco from what I remember.

https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/727/files/2015/06/Haak-et-al-2015-Figure-3-Admixture-Proportions-in-Modern-DNA-With-Linguistic-and-Historical-Origins-Added.png

Goga
18-10-16, 19:27
So the high Yamna admixture in the Baltic may only be shared ancestry older than Yamna.If that's true than high Yamna admixture in the North Caucasus is also from the shared ancestry. Remember that Yamnaya auDNA was also for a great part NorthWest Asian.

And also, I don't think it has anything to do with ANE. It is more or less related to EHG. There is more ANE in Iran than in Turkey, still Turkey has more Yamnaya ancestry than Iran, according to your map.


So ANE is much more ancient and was not only related to EHG, but also CHG (/Gedrosia). ANE peaks also in the Caucasus, in places where CHG is also very high.

Goga
18-10-16, 19:44
Even though Yamna chieftains from kurgan belonged almost exclusively to R1b, among modern Europeans it is the Uralic, Baltic, Slavic, Germanic and North Caucasian people who inherited the highest share of Yamna ancestry, not Western Europeans, who now have the highest percentage of haplogroup R1b. One of the reasons for this is that R1b arrived in Western Europe after over a thousand years of genetic dilution through intermarriages with Balkanic and Central European people. In contrast, in the eastern half of Europe, R1b lost its position of dominance and was replaced by R1a and N1c lineages, starting from the Catacomb culture in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, and continuing until the Middle Ages. Nevertheless Yamna ancestry was passed maternally in the Steppe and in neighbouring populations, which explains the high Yamna admixture from the Baltic to the North Caucasus.
You are wrong. The reason why Yamnaya ancestry is high in North Central-East Europe is due to Corded Ware ancestry. Corded Ware was directly derived from Yamnaya and from there it spread into the North.

While Southern and Western Europe was more related to the Bell Beaker folks. Bell Beaker folks have much less Yamnaya ancestry than Corded Ware.


https://s10.postimg.org/5rsfunp61/bell_beaker.jpg8117


The most important reason why Uralic, Baltic, Slavic have more of that Yamnaya ancestry is due to they don't have much of Bell Beakers ancestry and more Corded Ware...

Tomenable
18-10-16, 19:48
So the high Yamna admixture in the Baltic may only be shared ancestry older than Yamna.

It isn't. Narva and Kunda cultures were autosomally WHG, not EHG.

Yamna and EHG admixtures came only with Corded Ware culture.

Goga
18-10-16, 20:10
How do you explain the high percent of Yamnaya among Lapps?
That's a very GOOD question. Because they have more of that Yamnaya ancestry than all other Indo-European speaking Scandinavians. His map can be wrong, because of all Indo-European speakers the Norwegians have the most of that Yamnaya ancestry.

But IF it is true that Lapladers have more Yamnaya ancestry than the Norweggians, then at this moment the only argument that comes into my mind is that Indo-European Scandinavians have also some EXTRA Bell Beaker ancestry due to the contacts with the main land (Europe).

arvistro
18-10-16, 20:32
It isn't. Narva and Kunda cultures were autosomally WHG, not EHG.

Yamna and EHG admixtures came only with Corded Ware culture.
Kunda too?
Ok, it is also derived from Swiderian, so, could be.

bicicleur
18-10-16, 21:50
Kunda too?
Ok, it is also derived from Swiderian, so, could be.

Swiderian started in Poland before the youngest dryas, and expanded eastward arfter youngest dryas, so I'd guess WHG/SHG.
But I think Swiderian and Kunda went extinct when EHG arrived in the area.

But Narva, didn't Narva have pottery, coming in from Siberia?

bicicleur
18-10-16, 21:54
I wonder what Yamayan DNA actually is. Could it be a synthesis of CHG and ANE ?
Didn't SHG already have some ANE ?
Do Uralic people have higher ANE ?
This would also have enhanced higher Yamnaya DNA in northeastern Europe.

berun
18-10-16, 22:00
@Maciamo, if so it would be necessary to remove the previous ANE (and EHG) from the Europeans as to know the real impact of Yamnaya, which nowadays is not possible. Also a Yamnayan-like signal could be done by a pop high in ANE expanding. Moreover Finns display less Yamnayan autosomals than Lapps which is unlogical as if Uralics delivered more ANE there it would add up to that of the Corded Ware, not extracting.

In fact the high Yamnaya percentage in the Baltics is by the colonization of HG lands scarcely populated, providing there a major autosomal weight (in farmer lands it would dilute among locals).

Also it is problematic the low share with Caucasians (Armenians and Azeris above all) as half of the autosomal of Yamnayans came from there... so there is another problem with this issue (difficult to solve I guess).

Angela
18-10-16, 22:03
I wonder what Yamayan DNA actually is. Could it be a synthesis of CHG and ANE ?
Didn't SHG already have some ANE ?
Do Uralic people have higher ANE ?
This would also have enhanced higher Yamnaya DNA in northeastern Europe.

Finally! :) I've been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper "Massive Migration from the steppe", was incorrect.

If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven't yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn't that inflate the "Yamnaya" percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?

Fire Haired14
18-10-16, 22:58
Finally! :) I've been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper "Massive Migration from the steppe", was incorrect.

If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven't yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn't that inflate the "Yamnaya" percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?

Hunter Gatherers in the East Baltic were WHG. So the top ranking EHG affinity there today is certainly because of Steppe ancestry not hunter gatherer ancestry. Only location in the north EHG ancestry existed before Corded Ware was probably Scandinavia, Finland, and Karelia.

Corded Ware carries all the EHG-affinity modern Scandinavia/Finland/Karelia needs. This region has a lot of Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry which can only be from outside of the region. Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry came to that region a long with Steppe ancestry(remember the aDNA Baltic abstracts). Mesolithic Northern Europeans simply can't explain much of the EHG/ANE-affinity in modern Northern Europeans. Posters have tried and failed with this theory for two years now. Modern Northern Europeans don't just have EHG-affinity they also have CHG-affinity and at the right proportions to be from Yamnaya.

Fire Haired14
18-10-16, 23:02
I'm not sure I would take Eurogenes' calculator as the best for computing Yamnaya ancestry, especially when it substantially contradicts academic findings on the subject.


The dude isn't perfect(eg, girl-snatching ANEs) but he's smart. He doesn't contradict academic findings.

Fire Haired14
18-10-16, 23:10
@Maciamo, if so it would be necessary to remove the previous ANE (and EHG) from the Europeans as to know the real impact of Yamnaya, which nowadays is not possible. Also a Yamnayan-like signal could be done by a pop high in ANE expanding. Moreover Finns display less Yamnayan autosomals than Lapps which is unlogical as if Uralics delivered more ANE there it would add up to that of the Corded Ware, not extracting.

It is possible. Many methods can do that. We know ANE-affinity in Europe today is from only Yamnaya except for some ANE-affinity in Southern Europe which is from Bronze age West Asian migrations and maybe some ANE-affinity in Finland/Northern Scandinavia is from Mesolithic Finland/Northern Scandinavia.


In fact the high Yamnaya percentage in the Baltics is by the colonization of HG lands scarcely populated, providing there a major autosomal weight (in farmer lands it would dilute among locals).

Exactly.


Also it is problematic the low share with Caucasians (Armenians and Azeris above all) as half of the autosomal of Yamnayans came from there... so there is another problem with this issue (difficult to solve I guess).

BTW, modern Caucasians trace maybe half of their ancestry to the ancient Caucasians who contributed ancestry to Yamnaya. They aren't exactly the same as the ancient Caucasian ancestors of Yamnaya. Anyways, modern Europeans do have affinity to modern Caucasians. They have the amount of affinity to Caucasians you would expect them to have if they had Yamnaya ancestry.

Maciamo
18-10-16, 23:15
I'm not sure I would take Eurogenes' calculator as the best for computing Yamnaya ancestry, especially when it substantially contradicts academic findings on the subject.


Unfortunately I can't make a map with data for just a handful of countries.


Spanish north is Pais Vasco from what I remember.

There is data for the Basque country (0-5%), and other data for Northern Spanish (5-10%).

Maciamo
18-10-16, 23:18
You are wrong. The reason why Yamnaya ancestry is high in North Central-East Europe is due to Corded Ware ancestry. Corded Ware was directly derived from Yamnaya and from there it spread into the North.

It's true that I forgot to mention the Corded Ware among the reasons for higher Yamna among Slavic and Germanic populations. I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted this as I had to go somewhere. It's definitely one main reason. Thanks for bringing that up.

Maciamo
18-10-16, 23:30
@Maciamo, if so it would be necessary to remove the previous ANE (and EHG) from the Europeans as to know the real impact of Yamnaya, which nowadays is not possible. Also a Yamnayan-like signal could be done by a pop high in ANE expanding.

Good idea in theory, but it's not just ANE, but also EHG. The problem is that there are so many ways of calculating admixtures, and the EHG or ANE in one test does not necessarily equals that of another test. You'd think that by comparing modern genomes to a few Yamna genomes you'd get similar percentages in all calculators, but Haak and Eurogenes got very different results for some populations like the Basques. IMO the Eurogenes data makes for sense for the Basques (0-5% Yamna, against about 25% according to Haak). But it also depends on one calibrates the calculator, how sensitive the differences can be, etc.


Moreover Finns display less Yamnayan autosomals than Lapps which is unlogical as if Uralics delivered more ANE there it would add up to that of the Corded Ware, not extracting..

If the Lapps got any DNA from the Corded Ware people, the impact must have been rather limited, and definitely smaller than for Germanic Scandinavians, Slavs and Balts. So I don't think that the Yamna admixture in the Lapps/Sami comes from Yamna. It can only be explained by some older shared ancestry in the Volga-Ural region, Siberia (ANE) or Northeast Europe (EHG).

Maciamo
18-10-16, 23:36
Finally! :) I've been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper "Massive Migration from the steppe", was incorrect.

If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven't yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn't that inflate the "Yamnaya" percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?

That is indeed possible. Like I said for the Sami, they couldn't have got their ANE from Yamna (nor even their so-called Yamna admixture from Yamna people).

It would be interesting to run WHG, SHG and EHG genomes in Steppe K10 and see how high they score for Yamna. This way we have a better idea of what Steppe migration really added, especially in Fennoscandia and the Baltic.

Angela
18-10-16, 23:57
The dude isn't perfect(eg, girl-snatching ANEs) but he's smart. He doesn't contradict academic findings.

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes? The percentages from his calculator are very different from the ones in Haak et al. Or didn't you bother to compare them?

As for your post #14, who said the Baltics and Finland don't have Corded Ware ancestry? Stop creating straw man arguments.

Angela
19-10-16, 01:00
On page 122 of the supplement, Haak et al provide the EN/WHG/Yamnaya precise percentages for 29 European populations. The Tuscans are 27% Yamnaya, the French 37.6%, the English 41%, the Basques 27 %, the Estonians 49.5, the Scottish 48.6, the Lithuanians 51%, the Norwegians 53.5%, the Finns 67.8% and so on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14317-s1.pdf

Alan
19-10-16, 03:21
Using a Eurogenes calculator to make a map of Yamnaya admixture is a little naiv. Look at the Yamnaya numbers of Haak et al.
and than compare it to the map and where "Yamnaya ancestry " peaks. Is it the Baltics? coincidence? isn't the author also from the Baltics?

:smile:


How do you explain the high percent of Yamnaya among Lapps?

By the way both south Russia and south Ukraine suffered as Spain and Portugal a process of colonization over Muslim territoires that might be taken into account when traveling into the past.

There is no high percentage of Yamnaya in the Lapps, it's just that the authors methods are Northeast Europe biased, and as consequence therefore even groups such as Lapps score extremely high. But in reality it is just similar/ shared ancestry or this calculator is simply catching up more EHG ancestry as Yamnaya.

Alan
19-10-16, 03:24
Good idea in theory, but it's not just ANE, but also EHG. The problem is that there are so many ways of calculating admixtures, and the EHG or ANE in one test does not necessarily equals that of another test. You'd think that by comparing modern genomes to a few Yamna genomes you'd get similar percentages in all calculators, but Haak and Eurogenes got very different results for some populations like the Basques. IMO the Eurogenes data makes for sense for the Basques (0-5% Yamna, against about 25% according to Haak). But it also depends on one calibrates the calculator, how sensitive the differences can be, etc.





I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.

Alan
19-10-16, 03:33
Unfortunately I can't make a map with data for just a handful of countries.



There is data for the Basque country (0-5%), and other data for Northern Spanish (5-10%).


I remember there was a whole table of ethnic groups compared with Yamnaya based on fst distance. It was in one of those studies, if we find it, it could be usefull it doesn't tell you how much Yamnaya contributed to an ethnic group (that is impossible to say for 100% anyways) but it tells how small the genetic distance of certain groups is to Yamnaya.

MarkoZ
19-10-16, 04:19
Hunter Gatherers in the East Baltic were WHG. So the top ranking EHG affinity there today is certainly because of Steppe ancestry not hunter gatherer ancestry. Only location in the north EHG ancestry existed before Corded Ware was probably Scandinavia, Finland, and Karelia.

Corded Ware carries all the EHG-affinity modern Scandinavia/Finland/Karelia needs. This region has a lot of Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry which can only be from outside of the region. Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry came to that region a long with Steppe ancestry(remember the aDNA Baltic abstracts). Mesolithic Northern Europeans simply can't explain much of the EHG/ANE-affinity in modern Northern Europeans. Posters have tried and failed with this theory for two years now. Modern Northern Europeans don't just have EHG-affinity they also have CHG-affinity and at the right proportions to be from Yamnaya.

Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

Fire Haired14
19-10-16, 05:45
Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they're WHG. Before that I thought they'd be EHG admixed as well.

Fire Haired14
19-10-16, 05:51
Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes? The percentages from his calculator are very different from the ones in Haak et al. Or didn't you bother to compare them?

I realize his admixture test used by Maciamo to make his Steppe ancestry map is inconsistent with academic results. I made the statement I did because you've shown what is in my opinion unjustified distrust of him in general not in this test in particular.


As for your post #14, who said the Baltics and Finland don't have Corded Ware ancestry? Stop creating straw man arguments.

Sorry I should have worded my post better. I know you agree there's Corded Ware ancestry in the Baltic and Finland(and Scandinavia because 80% isn't traditionally Nordic territory). I was arguing against your opinion local hunter gatherer ancestry might be significantly inflating Steppe ancestry percentages there.

bicicleur
19-10-16, 07:58
Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

It is not just EHG, look at this, in the Murmansk area





Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-3, 57-1]


3500 BP




U4a1
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-1, 72-11]


3500 BP




U5a
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-9, 72-10, 72-14, 78-8]


3500 BP




U5a1
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-4]


3500 BP




T*
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-2, 49-4, 57-3, 72-2, 72-7, 72-12]


3500 BP




C*
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-5, 72-6]


3500 BP




C5
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-6, 72-13, 72-15]


3500 BP




D*
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-5, 72-3]


3500 BP




Z1a
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




Russia
Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-1]


3500 BP




Z1a
Der Sarkissian 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2011); Der Sarkissian 2013 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#DerSarkissian2013)




this is Siberian mtDNA, probably bringing some ANE along

Maciamo
19-10-16, 08:55
I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.

No it doesn't make sense because the Basque R1b-M153 is only 2800 years old and has a TMRCA of 2500 years. Most Basques belong to the subclade just under that, with a TMRCA of 2100 years. This means that the Basque R1b is a very recent phenomenon starting in Roman times. But who knows, R1b might have continued to expand little by little each generations among the Basques for over 1000 years before reaching today's frequencies. I now believe that the Basque only got their R1b very gradually over the last 2500 years and that it has nothing to do with Bronze Age PIE invasions. That has the benefit to explain why they kept speaking Basque. I don't know why R1b increased gradually. Maybe increased fertility compared to the native male lineages (I2-M26 + G2a ?), or a noble lineage of some sort. It was probably a combination of factors. Anywau, if R1b entered the Basque gene pool from, say, neighbouring Aquitaine or Castille c. 500 BCE or even 100 BCE, it could have been autosomally low in Yamna ancestry (say 15-20%). After diluting it slowly over 1000 to 2000 more years with relatively pure Basque women, there would be very little Yamna left, surely under 5%. If Haak et al. are right and the Basque have 27% of Yamna, then it becomes much harder to explain with such a young TMRCA for their R1b, especially that Haak found 5% less Yamna among other Spaniards (22%). Spanish branches of DF27 are between 3500 and 4400 years old, so Late Bronze Age, and match the arrival of foreign Bronze Age cultures like El Argar. So there is no doubt that R1b was in many parts of Spain long before it spread among the Basques.

It's good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG. Using Dodecad K12, they have about 18% of East European + West European + Mediterranean, but the latter also includes non-IE Neolithic ancestry. Using K12b, they have only 5% of Atlantic_Med + North European, but that doesn't include the Gedrosian that came with the IE. So depending on the calculator, we get somewhere between 7 and 18% of Steppe admixture. Unfortunately neither the Haak paper nor the Steppe K10 data have any Indian sample. But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar. And we get a similar percentage of Steppe admixture (10-20%) both in Spaniards and upper-caste Indians. But it took another 1500 years before R1b-M153 started spreading among the Basques, so a considerably lower Steppe admixture is to be expected.

Fire Haired14
19-10-16, 09:35
Basque have more than 5% Yamnaya. PCA and stat comparison(what Haak did) analysis always get about 25-30% for Basque. In analysis I've seen Basque are similar to Southern French and what makes them different from Spanish is a lack of post-Neolithic West Asian and North African ancestry.

MarkoZ
19-10-16, 10:42
People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they're WHG. Before that I thought they'd be EHG admixed as well.

The error lies in assuming that the Baltic populations are the result of a simple coalescence of Neolithic Corded Ware and Mesolithic elements. We already know that North-Eastern Europe received substantial input from further east by way of Russia, since N1c is the dominant paternal marker in all North-Eastern populations barring Belarusians. The preponderance of this marker transcends linguistic and national affiliation.

arvistro
19-10-16, 11:15
In Baltics proper there are layers
A) Meso WHGs
B) Battle Axe (non BS IEs, yet R1a)
C) Balts (BS IEs)
D) Baltic Finns (emerged on Fatyanovo substrate)
The B-C-D are all rich in direct Yamna (or Sredny Stog) ancestry.

Olympus Mons
19-10-16, 11:53
Finally! :) I've been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper "Massive Migration from the steppe", was incorrect.

If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven't yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn't that inflate the "Yamnaya" percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?


YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).

Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit. If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

Ukko
19-10-16, 12:44
In Baltics proper there are layers
A) Meso WHGs
B) Battle Axe (non BS IEs, yet R1a)
C) Balts (BS IEs)
D) Baltic Finns (emerged on Fatyanovo substrate)
The B-C-D are all rich in direct Yamna (or Sredny Stog) ancestry.

Baltic Finns emerged in to Fatyanovo from the East or South East, there is the problem for many here.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 13:08
I'm not sure I would take Eurogenes' calculator as the best for computing Yamnaya ancestry, especially when it substantially contradicts academic findings on the subject.


There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures (e.g. Siberian for the Finns and Sami). The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

I also don't think that Haak et al. are less biased or more professional than David from Eurogenes. After all, Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Kraus recently proposed that ludicrous theory that Indo-European languages spread both with Anatolian Neolithic farmers and with Bronze Age Steppe invaders, as if they were unable to let go of their fetish Neolithic theory that contradicts all genetic and linguistic evidence, not to mention common sense and logic. I wonder how they haven't got fired from their university yet. Why would they get paid to come up with theories that spit in the face of scientific evidence?

berun
19-10-16, 13:24
Hunter Gatherers in the East Baltic were WHG. So the top ranking EHG affinity there today is certainly because of Steppe ancestry not hunter gatherer ancestry. Only location in the north EHG ancestry existed before Corded Ware was probably Scandinavia, Finland, and Karelia.

Corded Ware carries all the EHG-affinity modern Scandinavia/Finland/Karelia needs. This region has a lot of Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry which can only be from outside of the region. Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry came to that region a long with Steppe ancestry(remember the aDNA Baltic abstracts). Mesolithic Northern Europeans simply can't explain much of the EHG/ANE-affinity in modern Northern Europeans. Posters have tried and failed with this theory for two years now. Modern Northern Europeans don't just have EHG-affinity they also have CHG-affinity and at the right proportions to be from Yamnaya.

The area was settled by Uralic peoples in the Bronze Age that developed to Finns, Karelians, Lapps, Estonians, Livonians... and by sure they carried a lot of ANE / EHG DNA, so Yamnaya is not the unique possible answer for such situation; in fact the Lappland case is a red alarm as to don't take all red colour as Yamnayan...

berun
19-10-16, 13:30
BTW, modern Caucasians trace maybe half of their ancestry to the ancient Caucasians who contributed ancestry to Yamnaya. They aren't exactly the same as the ancient Caucasian ancestors of Yamnaya. Anyways, modern Europeans do have affinity to modern Caucasians. They have the amount of affinity to Caucasians you would expect them to have if they had Yamnaya ancestry.

Of course Armenians and Azeris are different from the their CHG ~ Calcholithic_Iran ancestors, but even accepting that such nations have lost half of their primitive DNA the share with Yamnayans might be more (if we accept that Yamnayans were 50% C_Iran then Armenians might have at least a 25% of Yamnayan DNA... and even more as they are IE spaking so that they must have received some genetic "Yamnayan" influx)

MarkoZ
19-10-16, 13:32
Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit. If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?


I think a better way to frame it would be that WHG, SHG & EHG are Mesolithic specimens with differing levels of affinity to the Siberians from Afontova Gora on a genetic backbone best represented by the Epipaleolithic Villabruna hunters from Italy. Looking at the specimens individually, it is apparent that they are far from uniform for their age. I have mentioned before that, for example, the Stora Förvar 11 individual already has a distinct affinity to the Caucasus, in all likelihood a relic of his Balkanic provenance. Subtleties like these are lost if you try to fit everything into a small number of categories.

Pax Augusta
19-10-16, 13:39
There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures. The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

The main difference between Haal et al. 2015 and Eurogenes is that the former is a peer-reviewed study, the latter no. We always forget that. At least it would be useful a Yamna admixture map with all the Haak et al percentages of 29 European populations.

berun
19-10-16, 13:45
But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar.

Which proofs do you have for this statement about El Argar culture?

@all, for the Basque issue it is naive to go on without knowing the primary sources in each paper: they were got from rural Basques with Basque surnames or they included all actual Basques? (about a 50% with a recent migratory history and with usual Spanish surnames).

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maqueto

For the case of the "non-Yamnayan EHG" DNA, the best solution would be to take into account only the Calcho_Iran and then double such percent (the other half of EHG origin) to know the real Yamnayan DNA.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 14:01
I have made a map based on the very scarce data from Haak et al. (2015). There was so little data that I had to lump Scandinavians together, and I did the same for Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Slovenes. Anyway the map cannot be anywhere near accurate without data for all countries and regions.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture_Haak.png


It doesn't look that different from Eurogenes Steppe K10, except that Haak's estimate are twice higher because they use only 3 populations instead of 10. With no reliable regional data for large countries and so many unsampled countries, it's hard to get a clear picture. Both peak in northern and eastern Europe. The main difference is that Haak reports more Yamna in the Basques and comparatively less in South Italians and Albanians.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture.png

Tomenable
19-10-16, 14:02
Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

Fire Haired was talking about these two cultures: Kunda, Narva:

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

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

They were 100% WHG according to soon-to-be-published data.

This explains where "actual WHG" admixture in Balts came from.

bicicleur
19-10-16, 14:02
YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).

Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit. If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/18/029421.full.pdf+html

Our results provide new links between modern and ancient inhabitants of Eurasia. Siberians share 38% of ancestry with descendants of the 45,000-year-old Ust-Ishim people, who were previously believed to have no modern-day descendants. Western Siberians trace 57% of their ancestry to the Ancient North Eurasians, represented by the 24,000-year-old Siberian Malta boy. In addition, Siberians admixtures are present in lineages represented by Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Samara, Karelia, Hungary and Sweden (from 8,000-6,600 years ago), as well as Yamnaya culture people (5,300-4,700 years ago) and modern-day northeastern Europeans. These results provide new evidence of ancient gene flow from Siberia into Europe.

8 ka HG DNA in Europe is already diluted

if you want pure WHG, look at Bichon

Tomenable
19-10-16, 14:04
so how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?

Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I.

Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.

Pax Augusta
19-10-16, 14:10
I have made a map based on the very scarce data from Haak et al. (2015). There was so little data that I had to lump Scandinavians together, and I did the same for Croats, Serbs, Bosnians and Slovenes. Anyway the map cannot be anywhere near accurate without data for all countries and regions.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture_Haak.png

Sorry and thanks. I did not see it.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 14:13
Fire Haired was talking about these two cultures: Kunda, Narva:

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

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

They were 100% WHG according to soon-to-be-published data.

This explains where "actual WHG" admixture in Balts came from.


Undoubtedly linked to the migration of mtDNA U5b and V from Southwest Europe during the Mesolithic.

Goga
19-10-16, 14:25
There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures (e.g. Siberian for the Finns and Sami). The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

I also don't think that Haak et al. are less biased or more professional than David from Eurogenes. After all, Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Kraus recently proposed that ludicrous theory that Indo-European languages spread both with Anatolian Neolithic farmers and with Bronze Age Steppe invaders, as if they were unable to let go of their fetish Neolithic theory that contradicts all genetic and linguistic evidence, not to mention common sense and logic. I wonder how they haven't got fired from their university yet. Why would they get paid to come up with theories that spit in the face of scientific evidence?You fail to understand that Hindu Kush auDNA in the Basques IS from the Yamnaya Horizon. HinduKush is correlated to the Gedrosia and those early PIE people who invaded Yamnaya from the south and Indo-Europized it were full of Gedrosia/Hindu Kush.

Maybe 'Anatolian Neolithic farmers Model' is wrong, but the 'Armenian Model' combined with the 'Yamnaya Model' makes a lot more sense and in agreement with archeologic and genetic evidence.

berun
19-10-16, 14:33
For the case of the "non-Yamnayan EHG" DNA, the best solution would be to take into account only the Calcho_Iran and then double such percent (the other half of EHG origin) to know the real Yamnayan DNA.

Well, even that way wouldn't be reliable: what prevents that Calcho_Iran DNA stopped in Samara leaving the best unoccupied (forest-steppe and forest)?

Goga
19-10-16, 14:33
If you compare this :

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture.png


to this :

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/East-European-admixture.gif


and these :

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif
http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Caucasian-admixture.gif

what can we conclude ?

Goga
19-10-16, 14:49
It's good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG.I don't know where you got your info from, but Indo-Aryans that invaded India were from BMAC and NOT from the Steppes at all. IMO: BMAC was mostly CHG-GEDROSIA, belonged to R2a, R1a-Z93, J2a, G2a etc. folks..

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kVXB4_I0_Ec/VZ-7AnvI8NI/AAAAAAAAHSA/YKIvPumA0E8/s1600/Indo-Aryan%252BMigration%252BInto%252BNepal.jpg

http://balkhandshambhala.blogspot.nl/2015/07/bmacoxus-civilization1600-bc.html



Or do you think that Indo-Aryans had AIRPLANES and other flying machines and FLEW directly from the Steppes into India, by skipping the SouthCentral Asia / BMAC? There is no LOGOS in your story..

arvistro
19-10-16, 15:00
Fire Haired was talking about these two cultures: Kunda, Narva:

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

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

They were 100% WHG according to soon-to-be-published data.

This explains where "actual WHG" admixture in Balts came from.
I would not rush things. WHG were even further to East as well and something tells me most modern WHG in Balts arrived together with Balts from somewhere Dnieper, already R1a-ized.
Like we discuss when whg was picked by euro farmers, on way or on spot or both.

bicicleur
19-10-16, 15:02
Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I.

Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.

well, pré-WHG I guess, haplo I*

WHG is Villabruna haplo I2 and mtDNA U5b

so, Narva as well ?

when was Kunda replaced by EHG then ?

Dagne
19-10-16, 15:37
Kunda and Narva cultures = no any R1a and no any EHG, 100% WHG and their Y-DNA was haplogroup I.

Today areas formerly occupied by Kunda and Narva cultures are dominated by R1a and N1c haplogroups.
This is really interesting, Tomenable! Does that mean that N1c arrived to present Lithuanian territory with CWC, not Kunda, as previously believed?

Maciamo
19-10-16, 15:46
This is really interesting, Tomenable! Does that mean that N1c arrived to present Lithuanian territory with CWC, not Kunda, as previously believed?

This is what I wrote on the new version of the N1c page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_N1c_Y-DNA.shtml) last year already. However, the Narva culture had pottery, so it's not impossible that N1c had already reached the Baltic by that time, even if Narva people still predominantly belonged to Y-haplogroup I.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 15:59
You fail to understand that Hindu Kush auDNA in the Basques IS from the Yamnaya Horizon. HinduKush is correlated to the Gedrosia and those early PIE people who invaded Yamnaya from the south and Indo-Europized it were full of Gedrosia/Hindu Kush.

Maybe 'Anatolian Neolithic farmers Model' is wrong, but the 'Armenian Model' combined with the 'Yamnaya Model' makes a lot more sense and in agreement with archeologic and genetic evidence.

I know that Hindu Kush is from PIE Steppe people too. But the map I made was only for the 'Steppe' component, which I think correlates more with the EHG admixture of Proto-Indo-Europeans, while the Hindu Kush correlates more with their CHG or Gedrosia admixture. I explained above that Eurogenes's Yamna admixture was about half lower than Haak's, because the Steppe K10 calculator has 10 populations instead of 3, and a lot of Haak's Yamna ended up being Hindu Kush or Siberian in Eurogenes. So Haak's Yamna admixture is a composite of the various ancestries that make up Yamna (EHG, ANE, CHG), while Eurogenes split them apart.

One question that hasn't been clearly answered yet is why do Western Europeans have so much more Hindu Kush or Gedrosian than Northeast Europeans? Did it only come with R1b PIE? J2 people could also have brought some when they migrated from West Asia to Greece and Italy, but ironically Greece and Italy have less Gedrosia than Western Europe, and especially the British Isles.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 16:06
I don't know where you got your info from, but Indo-Aryans that invaded India were from BMAC and NOT from the Steppes at all. IMO: BMAC was mostly CHG-GEDROSIA, belonged to R2a, R1a-Z93, J2a, G2a etc. folks..

Or do you think that Indo-Aryans had AIRPLANES and other flying machines and FLEW directly from the Steppes into India, by skipping the SouthCentral Asia / BMAC? There is no LOGOS in your story..

Of course they came from the BMAC, but a few centuries earlier they came from Sintashta. That's proven. R1a-Z93* was found in EBA Russia. Deal with it.

Goga
19-10-16, 16:21
Of course they came from the BMAC, but a few centuries earlier they came from Sintashta. That's proven. R1a-Z93* was found in EBA Russia. Deal with it.
Huh? Do you have any evidence that Sintashta folks migrated into BMAC? BMAC culture is actually OLDER than and pre-date Sintashta, like Maykop is older than and pre-date Yamnaya. Actually, they have found BMAC influences in the Andronovo Horizon.

BMAC = 2300 BCE , AT LEAST
Sintashta = 2100 BCE


They found also J1 in pre-Neolithic Karelia, that doesn't mean that J1 is from Finland..


That R1a-Z93* in EBA Russia was an invader from the Iranian Plateau who brought Gedrosia auDNA into the Steppes. How do you think there is so much Gedrosia auDNA in the ancient Steppe samples? Exactly, that R1a-Z93* was NATIVe to the Iranian Plateau and therefore to the BMAC culture. Has NOTHIGN to do with the Steppes at the first place.

+ there is almost no ancient Y-DNA N & Q in Northern India (some of it is from late Turkic tribes), so there was no migration from the Steppes into the BMAC.


You have to deal it.


You said first that Indo-Iranians went directly to India from Sintashta by AIRPLANES. I truly don't know what your sources are. No LOGOS at all.


Aryans that invaded India were from BMAC and NOT Sintashta/Steppes. FACT! BMAC was an Eastern Iranian culture full of Iranian Plateau auDNA! FACT! Aryans that invaded India from BMAC were mostly Iranian Plateau folks. CHECK!


And it is in agreement with nowadays findings. Modern Iranian & Indian people have still a lot Iranian Plateau (Caucaso-Gedrosia) auDNA. FACT! This means that ancient Iranian (Aryan) and Indic people were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks. They had NOTHIGN to do with Europe or EurAsian Steppes, it is YOU that have to deal with it

Dagne
19-10-16, 16:25
This is what I wrote on the new version of the N1c page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_N1c_Y-DNA.shtml) last year already. However, the Narva culture had pottery, so it's not impossible that N1c had already reached the Baltic by that time, even if Narva people still predominantly belonged to Y-haplogroup I.

Oh I am confused now... I know that one culture in the early neolithic in Lithuania did not have pottery and they were very much into rein deer hunting, it may be them who gave current Lithuanians our N1c ?

MarkoZ
19-10-16, 16:25
This is what I wrote on the new version of the N1c page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_N1c_Y-DNA.shtml) last year already. However, the Narva culture had pottery, so it's not impossible that N1c had already reached the Baltic by that time, even if Narva people still predominantly belonged to Y-haplogroup I.

Have you added the N1c samples that were found by Chekunova et al in the Late Neolithic Serteya culture of Western Russia? They appear to be dated to roughly 2500-2000 B.C. .

Source: https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbuno va_E._ed (p. 290)

From the supplemental material:

8120

RC-Dates:

8121

Tomenable
19-10-16, 16:32
This soon-to-be-publushed paper on East Baltic aDNA has ~80 samples spanning from Mesolithic to Iron Age.

I only know snippets of information but supposedly they did not find any N1c until the end of the Bronze Age.


Does that mean that N1c arrived to present Lithuanian territory with CWC, not Kunda, as previously believed?

Nope, no any N1c in CWC. It looks like N1c arrived to present Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian territory after CWC.

But let's wait until the publication because these are "unconfirmed rumours".


when was Kunda replaced by EHG then ?

It was never replaced by "pure EHG". Kunda-Narva WHG was replaced by CWC in Copper / Early Bronze Age.

LeBrok
19-10-16, 17:04
This soon-to-be-publushed paper on East Baltic aDNA has ~80 samples spanning from Mesolithic to Iron Age.

I only know snippets of information but supposedly they did not find any N1c until the end of the Bronze Age.



Nope, no any N1c in CWC. It looks like N1c arrived to present Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian territory after CWC.

But let's wait until the publication because these are "unconfirmed rumours".
Great news.



It was never replaced by "pure EHG". Kunda-Narva WHG was replaced by CWC in Copper / Early Bronze Age.Rather coexisted for 700 years and were slowly assimilated.

Ukko
19-10-16, 17:15
This soon-to-be-publushed paper on East Baltic aDNA has ~80 samples spanning from Mesolithic to Iron Age.

I only know snippets of information but supposedly they did not find any N1c until the end of the Bronze Age.



Nope, no any N1c in CWC. It looks like N1c arrived to present Lithuanian-Latvian-Estonian territory after CWC.

But let's wait until the publication because these are "unconfirmed rumours".



It was never replaced by "pure EHG". Kunda-Narva WHG was replaced by CWC in Copper / Early Bronze Age.


So the paper will confirm what I have posted all this time based on the present linguistic and genetic data.

N1c was also connected to the fortified settlements and metallurgy appearing in to the region, hard pill to swallow for those spreading theories of Uralic hunter gatherers invading armed with bone arrows and riding reindeer.

I still expect Tacitus quotes about Fenni from time to time, they still carry entertainment value.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 17:19
I have made a map of the Hindu Kush admixture. Oddly enough the Basque have more of it than other North Spanish and South French people.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Hindu_Kush-admixture.png


The Hindu Kush admixture is very similar to the Gedrosian admixture, but very strangely exhibits the opposite gradient in Italy.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif

Ukko
19-10-16, 17:26
I have made a map of the Hindu Kush admixture. Oddly enough the Basque have more of it than other North Spanish and South French people.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Hindu_Kush-admixture.png


The Hindu Kush admixture is very similar to the Gedrosian admixture, but very strangely exhibits the opposite gradient in Italy.

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Gedrosian-admixture.gif


Gedrosian was carried by Celts?

Angela
19-10-16, 17:53
There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures (e.g. Siberian for the Finns and Sami). The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

I also don't think that Haak et al. are less biased or more professional than David from Eurogenes. After all, Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Kraus recently proposed that ludicrous theory that Indo-European languages spread both with Anatolian Neolithic farmers and with Bronze Age Steppe invaders, as if they were unable to let go of their fetish Neolithic theory that contradicts all genetic and linguistic evidence, not to mention common sense and logic. I wonder how they haven't got fired from their university yet. Why would they get paid to come up with theories that spit in the face of scientific evidence?

This "calculator" was an experiment, according to its own creator, designed to look at specific issues. Steppe does not equal Yamnaya here. Yamnaya included a lot of the ancestry that was broken out in the calculator, including Hindu Kush, which is the Gedrosia element of Yamnaya. It's also totally outdated in other ways as it was created before the release of the most recent ancient genomes. It just cannot be used.

The Haak et al data and genome analysis, which hasn't been challenged by anyone, to my knowledge, is based on actual complete Yamnaya genomes. That paper was a joint effort of the Reich Lab as well as the Haak people, the two premier genetics labs in the world; they're not going to falsify data. Plus, as I said, no one has challenged it. Indeed the results have been replicated by other people.

You may disagree with Krause's analysis of the data in terms of proposing a modified theory of IE expansions, and you may agree with that of Anthony. That doesn't mean that the Krause hypothesis is contrary to science. They are merely interpreting the data in a different way. They may be right or they may be wrong. That poster, which is all that the speculation is based upon, may be a work in progress. Or, they may have already analyzed ancient dna data to which we're not privy. We just don't know yet.

As to the creator of this calculator, I'll just say that you don't know whom you're dealing with...


.

Fire Haired14
19-10-16, 18:29
I knew N1c couldn't be a Baltic hunter gatherer. N1c, Siberian admixture, and Uralic languages in Northeast Europe all probably have the same post-CWC source. Then again its arrival might be different for different regions.

Goga
19-10-16, 18:48
But the map I made was only for the 'Steppe' component,
Then you should rename it into the 'map of Steppe admixture'. Since it doesn't correspondent well with the 'Yamnaya admixture'. At this moment your map is MISLEADING and full of contradictions. Like now according to your map there is more Yamnaya admixture in Finno-Ugric/Saami people than European Indo-Europeans. Like you said Yamnaya Admixture is more than Steppe Admixture.

Steppe admixture in NorthEastern Europe existed even before the arrival of late second stage Yamnaya PIE.
So, a lot Steppe ancestry in NorthEastern Europe has nothing to do with second stage Proto-Indo-European speakers from Yamnaya.

Yamnaya = Steppe + NorthWest Asia.


So, you should rename your map into 'map of Steppe admixture' or change your percentages about the Yamnaya ancestry.

berun
19-10-16, 19:04
Absolutely crazy, no way to deal with it, if I have understood well Gedrosia was the actual Chalco_Iran component... but it is near to absent in the steppe, but the worst is to check how the Yamnayan component in the Baltic countries is high there but devoid of Gedrosian (so it came there Yamnayans pure-EHG??). I usualy see admixture calculations with low confidence but such data is providing a mad situation, something must go wrong.

Goga
19-10-16, 19:04
I knew N1c couldn't be a Baltic hunter gatherer. N1c, Siberian admixture, and Uralic languages in Northeast Europe all probably have the same post-CWC source. Then again its arrival might be different for different regions.I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.

So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn't hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don't think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.


His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.

Tomenable
19-10-16, 19:07
N1c in Finno-Ugrians correlates with Siberian & East Asian rather than Steppe admixtures.

But Lithuanians despite having a lot of N1c have not much of N1c-related autosomal DNA.

berun
19-10-16, 19:07
Gedrosian was carried by Celts?

and by gypsies!
;)

Goga
19-10-16, 19:14
Absolutely crazy, no way to deal with it, if I have understood well Gedrosia was the actual Chalco_Iran component... but it is near to absent in the steppe.
Very simple. Modern European Steppe folks (like Russians) have NOTHING to do with the ancient Iranic Central Asian Steppe folks. Only the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks were full of Gedrosia. While modern Eastern Europeans don't have that admixture, sicne Eastern Europeans have nothing in common with the ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks. The only common thing between ancient Indo-Iranized tribes and modern day Eastern Europeans is the Steppes admixture.

Those ancient Indo-Iranized Steppes folks are now Turkified and speak Turkic language as their native language and do consider themselves as Turks/Tatars.


With other words. Eastern Europeans (Balto-Slavs) are NOT directly related to Indo-Iranized cultures in the Steppes. And those ancient Indo-Iranized folks of the Steppes are now native Turkic/Tatar people of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan.


https://s16.postimg.org/dhbdnrcx1/Caucasus_central_asia_political_map_2000.jpg


Those Shintashta/Androno Steppes folks who were once Indo-IRANIZED by people (Aryans) from the Iranian Plateau were later Turkified and those Indo-Iranized Steppe cultures became Tatars/Turks.

Goga
19-10-16, 19:22
N1c in Finno-Ugrians correlates with Siberian & East Asian rather than Steppe admixtures.

But Lithuanians despite having a lot of N1c have not much of N1c-related autosomal DNA.Lithuanians are like Estonians. And Estonians are Finno-Ugric people. That's why I believe that N1c is correlated to the Steppes admixture.

Many people say that the Baltic countries are populated by NATIVE Steppes folks, and they are only Indo-Europized people by language and not genetically. So, actually they don't have much of the Yamnaya admixture.

Dagne
19-10-16, 20:12
Lithuanians are like Estonians. And Estonians are Finno-Ugric people. That's why I believe that N1c is correlated to the Steppes admixture.

Many people say that the Baltic countries are populated by NATIVE Steppes folks, and they are only Indo-Europized people by language and not genetically. So, actually they don't have much of the Yamnaya admixture.

Goga, relax, you and the rest of Kurds can be the purest Arians in you want so.
I have never met a real Arian, but I know some real Finno-Ugric people, they are nice, so I don't mind being like Estonian, or like Steppe folk and I am very proud of having more hunter gather heritage than the rest of the Europeans.

arvistro
19-10-16, 20:13
Anthropologyst Raisa Denisova on Baltic populations (1997). It is just WOW how correct she seems to be in light of (upcoming) dna.
On WHG I guess:



Thus archaeological data indicate that the migration of the Maglemosian people concluded several chronologically successive migrations of late Paleolithic peoples from the West to the East. This suggests that at the end of that period, a genetic fund was being established in populations resident in the territory that is southwest of Latvia -- the Pripet basin and the Upper Dnieper valley. This genetic fund was part of a larger genetic system of late Paleolithic residents in Northern Europe. For that reason, people who settled on lands around the Upper Dnieper and the Upper Daugava during the late Paleolithic period had close genetic links to the most ancient populations of the Middle European lowlands. That could mean that during the Mesolithic period, an anthropologically similar group of peoples lived from the Netherlands in the West to the Middle Russian highlands to the East. Local residents may have been possessed of the morphological elements of ancient Northern European peoples, whose roots were linked to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe.

A curious detail (more WHG to the East??):



Even though the Niemen and the Daugava are separated only by a few hundred kilometers of dry land, the territory between the two rivers remained uninhabited for quite a long time. The most ancient settlements in southern Lithuania are some 2,000 years older than the first settlements on the shores of the Daugava. Moreover, the first residents in Latvia arrived not through Lithuania, as would seem logical, but rather from the Southeast, using the Dnieper river and the Upper Daugava for this purpose.
OR
Searching for indications of Kundian culture in the late Paleolithic period, Dr. Jaanits has pointed to two possible conclusions. First of all, distinct post-Svidrian traditions in the Kundian culture can be interpreted as pointing to a direct genetic link with Svidrian culture in Poland. Secondly, characteristics of the Svidrian culture flint artifacts are typical of the late Paleolithic period across a fairly vast section of Eastern Europe (including the Dnieper-Don-Desna, the Volga and the Oka regions). This allows specialists to see roots of the Kundian culture in the late Paleolithic period in Eastern Europe (K. Jaanits 1990).

On arrival of EEF to Baltics:



Differences in facial width in Europe became particularly distinctive at the beginning of the Atlantic period, when farming was begun in Europe. At this time, facial width distinctly separated morphological forms in Northern Europe from those in the Mediterranean region -- two distinct geographic regions. Massive, broad-faced morphological forms dominated in northern and northeastern Europe, while gracile, narrow-faced forms are found most often in Middle Europe and the continent's southeastern reaches. During the Atlantic period, narrow-faced populations gradually moved in the northerly and northeasterly direction. They reached the Baltic region only during the Bronze Age.

But here Eastern vibes (EHG? R1a or N1c?), caught by Denisova, but apparently missed from upcoming Baltic aDNA study:



around the mid-5th century BC there was a new migration of people into Latvia, people who were characterized by the metisized anthropological type. An analysis of anthropological elements in these inhabitants points to distinctly eastern components. Skulls of anthropologically similar inhabitants have been found in the Olenij Ostrov Mesolithic burial ground, where some of the buried individuals unquestionably had typical eastern components.

Even though no ceramics have been found in the Zvejnieki burial grounds (mid-5th century BC), there is no reason to doubt that the burial grounds belonged to the early Neolithic period. Evidence of this is given by other early Neolithic graves in the Zvejnieki burial grounds (4500-3000 BC), where there was also no tradition of placing clay pots in people's graves.


Full English text here:
http://estudijas.lu.lv/mod/page/view.php?id=30367

edit: for Eastern vibes missed by study. Perhaps they focused more on Lithuania. Which indeed did not have those. Let's see wht will be their samples.

arvistro
19-10-16, 20:26
This is what I wrote on the new version of the N1c page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_N1c_Y-DNA.shtml) last year already. However, the Narva culture had pottery, so it's not impossible that N1c had already reached the Baltic by that time, even if Narva people still predominantly belonged to Y-haplogroup I.
When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."???
This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department. Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

Ukko
19-10-16, 21:15
N1c in Finno-Ugrians correlates with Siberian & East Asian rather than Steppe admixtures.

But Lithuanians despite having a lot of N1c have not much of N1c-related autosomal DNA.


Wishful thinking taken to the extreme. :laughing:

Dagne
19-10-16, 21:20
When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."??? This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department. :cool-v:

Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

I absolutely agree!

Ukko
19-10-16, 21:41
N1c carriers have mainly used this same corridor as all other groups that have spread across Eurasia, they did not follow the Arctic Ocean.
Siberian peoples are not "super-Finns", they are people they encountered in Northern Eurasia.

http://www.la.utexas.edu/dsena/courses/common/geography/historical/map-eurasiansteppe.jpg

Ukko
19-10-16, 21:46
Arvistro, are there R1a sub-groups you would connect to the N1c in spread and timeline?

Maciamo
19-10-16, 22:02
When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."???
This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department. Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

You are right. I have fixed the wording. Sorry about that. I was probably tired and overwork again when I wrote it.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 22:08
I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.

So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn't hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don't think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.


His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.

Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all. I have now renamed it 'Steppe admixture'. Sorry for the confusion. It's true that I should be less trusting of other people's work. I can't understand how people have 'hidden agendas' or agendas of any kind. That's just not how my mind work. I only care about finding the truth, whatever it is. I don't understand why people have difficult to accept data that contradict their preconceived ideas or why people can't admit that they are wrong when faced with undeniable facts. I readily admit my mistakes, learn from them and try not to make them again.

Maciamo
19-10-16, 22:16
Have you added the N1c samples that were found by Chekunova et al in the Late Neolithic Serteya culture of Western Russia? They appear to be dated to roughly 2500-2000 B.C. .

Source: https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Archaeology_of_lake_settlements_IV-II_mill._BC_Mazurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbuno va_E._ed (p. 290)

From the supplemental material:

8120

RC-Dates:

8121

Thanks. I hadn't seen it. I will add it to the N1c page.

arvistro
19-10-16, 23:59
Arvistro, are there R1a sub-groups you would connect to the N1c in spread and timeline?
I have not studied those.
Difficult to say, given what I know of Latvian R1a and N1c, there seems to not be a particular R1a line that would correlate with N1c.
It is more like a cocktail or different R1a and one young N1c. Same in Lithuania.
In comparison FU Estonians seem to have cocktails in both R1a and N1c. Although I am not sure.
Would be useful to investigate, but too many subbranches :))

Pax Augusta
20-10-16, 01:48
what can we conclude ?

What can we conclude then?

Kristiina
20-10-16, 14:53
Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE [/FONT][/COLOR]

Jaakko Häkkinen who has given the most recent dating for different protolanguage levels based on linguistic criteria does not propose that Proto-Uralic is dated 2000 BCE.

8125

In his model pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic is dated between 3500 and 2800. The late Proto-Uralic is dated 2300 BC. However, the early history is quite blurred and the time margins are wide, but, by 2000 BC, Proto-Uralic had probably already disintegrated.

arvistro
20-10-16, 15:12
Late proto-Uralic is still mom to all survived Uralics.
Hardly we would find them in Kiukanen.

Tomenable
20-10-16, 15:32
Thanks. I hadn't seen it. I will add it to the N1c page.

And this is the oldest known sample of N1c in Europe.

The oldest known Q in Europe is that Khvalynsk sample.

Tomenable
20-10-16, 15:37
Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all.

Apart from Steppe K10, there is also Eurasia K14 calculator, which is available on Gedmatch.

Here is how several ancient samples score in Eurasia K14 (I merged K2 and K3 in the table):

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png

Maciamo
20-10-16, 19:37
Apart from Steppe K10, there is also Eurasia K14 calculator, which is available on Gedmatch.

Here is how several ancient samples score in Eurasia K14 (I merged K2 and K3 in the table):

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png


Interesting, but is there a spreadsheet for modern populations?

What's the difference between Neolithic Balkan farmers and Early European farmers?

Angela
21-10-16, 00:27
I have no idea what samples, if any, Eurogenes used for Balkan Neolithic farmers, because I didn't know an autosomal analysis of Balkan farmers had been done. Which paper presented samples, where were they collected, and where is the autosomal analysis?

A paper by Iain Mathieson of the Reich Lab which examined the genomes of 65 Balkan Neolithic farmers was presented yesterday at the AHIG conference, as I mentioned on another thread. Hopefully it will go on the net in pre-print form very soon.

"Abstract:
The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region.

We generated new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. The population admixture was patchy across both space and time, varying in magnitude between 0% and 30% for different early Balkan farming populations. The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.
We also analyze the data to generate new insights about natural selection. The first farmers of the Balkans were in the initial stages of adaptation to environments that were dramatically different from those that their ancestors had encountered. We show that many of the adaptations related to diet and immunity that later become common in Europe were already present in early Balkan farmer populations, but not at high frequency. Thus, the adaptation of the first European farmers to their local environment was driven to a substantial extent by pre-existing variantion.

https://ep70stage.eventpilot.us/web/...6&id=160122024 (https://ep70stage.eventpilot.us/web/page.php?page=IntHtml&project=ASHG16&id=160122024)

So, this indicates to me that perhaps there were at least two Neolithic migrations into the Balkans. The one that formed Cardial and LBK may have reached Europe by way of the Greek islands, splitting there, and then one continued west by sea and one moved into the Greek mainland and the western Balkans and on into central Europe. This group did not mix, for whatever reason, with any Balkan type hunter-gatherers who might be more SHG or EHG like going by the comment that they resembled Scandinavian and eastern hunter-gatherers. They did eventually, and slowly, mix with WHG they encountered. After 2,000 years, approximately 20-25% of the MN genome in most of Europe came from these WHG.

Another Neolithic wave did mix with the Balkan hunter gatherers, apparently. It's not clear to me where these hunter-gatherers were located. Were they more to the east, and that's where those particular farmers settled? Was it a later migration when new types of hunter-gatherers had moved in? We'll have to wait for the paper.

I particularly don't understand this part:

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Okay, so the LBK and related cultures didn't have ancestry from these people. What happened to these Balkan farmers and their "different" hunter-gatherer dna? Did they die out? Did the steppe people kill them all? How could that hunter-gatherer dna not be in modern Europeans if it's related to eastern hunter-gatherers and we have EHG? Do they just mean it didn't enter our genomes through the farmers? Could this group have flowed to some degree into steppe populations and entered our genomes through them? Do they know what Greek and Italian neolithic farmers looked like, other than Remedello? Is that why they can say that this Balkan hunter-gatherer didn't go into any modern Europeans? I ask because a late Neolithic flow of farmer plus EHG might explain some things about Italian dna.

I didn't think Mathieson's last paper was all that clearly written. I hope this one is better.

Oh, of course, the rumor mill is busy and it says no R1b in the male samples found.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 12:17
Very confuse, as often enough in scientific papers (mysterious phrases, no pedagogy) - tables are more useful than "explications"?
Are they sure today WHG components in Europe are so level everywhere concerning nature (I don't speak of % here)?
A way to see that: namings of ancient pops are confusing: EHG for one is WHG+EHG for an other, WHG+ANE for an other more...
I said the most of HGs in today Northern Europe whatever WHG or "pure" EHG, are newcomers, come from North-East and East as Steppic components or pushed ahead by them on their way to Occident - they are no more the "reduced" HGs of Western Europe, or at least they added to these previous ones in N-West (not so in S-West).
Concerning past, it seems confirmed the first waves of Anatolian farmers, labelled EEF not so long ago, did not mix too much with local HGs found on their route to Central and Northern Europe.
The southern HGs were not exactly the same ones as the Western or North/Northeastern ones: the little mt DNA we have seems saying this.
Hard to be sure, but don't think the crossings between farmers and hunters in Balkans implies by force a new wave of farmers; it 's sufficient they crossed densely only later? But I have not the dates and the farmers studied here were perhpas from different periods, not from only one? I would be glad to know more.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 13:43
Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all. I have now renamed it 'Steppe admixture'. Sorry for the confusion. It's true that I should be less trusting of other people's work. I can't understand how people have 'hidden agendas' or agendas of any kind. That's just not how my mind work. I only care about finding the truth, whatever it is. I don't understand why people have difficult to accept data that contradict their preconceived ideas or why people can't admit that they are wrong when faced with undeniable facts. I readily admit my mistakes, learn from them and try not to make them again.

positive and necessary attitude to acquire and spread knowledge I think.

berun
21-10-16, 14:06
"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

I think that they have not taken into account what is already known: Balkan Farmers spread till reaching Paris and Berlin (LBK) till meeting Cardials in the west and meeting "rich" Mesolithics in the North. Of course the Balkan Farmers got their EHG autosomal that lately would be blended with the let's say "steppe" DNA which already had EHG DNA. The WHG autosomal in western Europeans must be taken somewhere in Italy and/or Iberia as the Mediterranean wave was jumping from uninhabited island to island (Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia?).

Fire Haired14
21-10-16, 17:14
The Balkan Neolithic DNA abstract is too unspecfic to really understand what the results are but......

Our Hungarian Hunter Gatherer genome has EHG admixture as Balkan Hunter gatherers seem to have had. Later Neolithic Hungarians don't have a higher affinity to him than other "WHGs"(not completely uniform group) as maybe Balkan farmers did. However, many of our Bronze age Hungarians do. One of our Bronze age Hungarians is basically an Early Neolithic European with a tint of EHG or Steppe. One is mostly Mesolithic Hungarian-ish with some Steppe and EEF as well. And the rest are mostly EEF with a huge amount of Mesolithic Hungarin(25-30%) and some Steppe.

Most of the "Steppe" in Bronze age Hungarians might be from Balkan hunter gatherers. It has been confusing why in ADMIXTURE and D_stats why they score high in EHG but not CHG. It could be because of Balkan_HG admixture. Modern Europeans though all score big amounts of EHG and CHG. The Balkans today have the highest amounts of CHG in Europe. There was a genetic shift in Hungary to something like it is today during the Early Iron age, maybe people with Balkan_HG ancestry disappeared.

Angela
21-10-16, 18:49
I think that they have not taken into account what is already known: Balkan Farmers spread till reaching Paris and Berlin (LBK) till meeting Cardials in the west and meeting "rich" Mesolithics in the North. Of course the Balkan Farmers got their EHG autosomal that lately would be blended with the let's say "steppe" DNA which already had EHG DNA. The WHG autosomal in western Europeans must be taken somewhere in Italy and/or Iberia as the Mediterranean wave was jumping from uninhabited island to island (Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia?).

Berun, they are claiming that the data shows that the Neolithic farmers who went through the Balkans into central Europe to form LBK and then west to the Paris Basin to meet their Cardial "relatives" picked up little or no hunter-gatherer dna in the Balkans themselves. The admixture was picked up in central and northern Europe.

There were Neolithic farmers in the area of Bulgaria (which is mainly where the samples were collected, I think) who seem to have picked up hunter-gatherer dna there, but that hunter-gatherer dna seems to have been more SHG and EHG like than WHG like.

What will be interesting to find out is whether the hunter-gatherers were there initially or arrived later, and what yDna they carried. I say that because there's very little evidence for hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, although perhaps Bulgaria was slightly different.

I also want to know if these farmers were part of the original stream or represent a later wave.

I furthermore wonder if the samples come strictly from Neolithic cultures in the area or if they analyze some Copper Age and early Bronze Age samples. If they did analyze the Copper Age and early Bronze Age samples, and find some EHG, how will they know if it's new EHG from the steppe, or "EHG like" ancestry that was there since the Neolithic? I suppose if it's present with CHG they could say it's steppe related, except that even some of the Hungarian Neolithic samples showed some CHG, so I would think the Balkan Neolithic would as well.

I would suggest that maybe this group of Balkan farmers might have had some influence further west, except that Mathieson makes a point of saying this particular H-G ancestry doesn't make it into modern European genomes.

bicicleur
21-10-16, 20:50
we need a list of the sampled individuals, their culture and locality as well as their age, and their DNA and admixtures
without that, it is all speculation

berun
21-10-16, 21:56
@Angela, the abstract says

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

They say what is already known, the Balkan farmers were not the colonizers of north and west Europe, so their HG share didn't spread there. But if they conclude that only the unmixed Balkan farmers reached these regions... they would do a bad bussiness.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 22:53
@Angela, the abstract says

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

They say what is already known, the Balkan farmers were not the colonizers of north and west Europe, so their HG share didn't spread there. But if they conclude that only the unmixed Balkan farmers reached these regions... they would do a bad bussiness.

I think I red more than a time that the first waves of Neolithic farmers expanded relatively quickly from Greece and Central (rivers) Balkans into Central and Northern Europe without too evident mixture with local HGs; the farmers stayed in Balkans mated after some time with local people (modestly at first), what occurred later in Central and North Europe; the more mobile the less stable and the less mating with local pops before stabilization? ... A try.

Rethel
22-10-16, 20:41
Q1a

In Chwałyńsk, it was one guy, obviously killed
by locals and through into pit. How can he be
representative for all population...? Especially,
that Q is obviously representative for syberian
populations, and this one was not original to
that local folk.

Mongol
29-10-16, 13:40
So it turns out that some Russian Turkic guys like Tatar, Bashkir might be more Indo-European than the Europeans themselves?

LeBrok
29-10-16, 18:09
So it turns out that some Russian Turkic guys like Tatar, Bashkir might be more Indo-European than the Europeans themselves?Maybe few very secluded groups in Central Asia can resemble original IE genetics better than modern Europeans, perhaps. Definitely not Turkic or Tatar groups. Their ethnogenesis is very late, and happened after East Asian genotype had entered the Steppe. People from Yamnaya don't have East Asian admixture.

Mongol
29-10-16, 18:18
Maybe few very secluded groups in Central Asia can resemble original IE genetics better than modern Europeans, perhaps. Definitely not Turkic or Tatar groups. Their ethnogenesis is very late, and happened after East Asian genotype had entered the Steppe. People from Yamnaya don't have East Asian admixture.

They have higher steppe admixture according to the map. That makes sense since some Indo-European steppe people inhabited the area before Turks came there.

LeBrok
29-10-16, 18:48
They have higher steppe admixture according to the map. That makes sense since some Indo-European steppe people inhabited the area before Turks came there.Turkic from Turkey and Tatars in Eastern Europe are heavily mixed with local population. It would be nice to see this admixture in Tatar tribes in East Asia or Turkic groups from east steppe.

Roi
05-11-16, 21:03
Looking at the map of the Yamnaya admixture in Europe, I recall the situation in North America: In the area that today belongs to USA & Canada, very few original inhabitants DNA was left... but in Mexico; there is a substantial and evident proportion of amerindian admixture. I think this has to do with to causes, both of which could be applied to the expansion of the IE peoples:

a) in the North, the native population was more scarce, and thus, the indoeuropeans wiped off that people, or restricted dramatically their demographics. Further south, in the European SW, there was a more dense population that remained in place in a larger proportion, but that was nevertheless assimilated in many ways to the new comers. So they took the IE speech (with the exception of the basques. But amerindian languages survived in many places of latin-America aswell), but their genetic composition didn't change that much.

b) Interestingly, in Central and Northern Europe there is also a larger proportion of Yamna mtDNA, which suggests a large scale migration that involved entire families -men, women and children. In South America and Southern Europe; the new comers where mainly armored men; that took local wives. This explains the lower occurrence of Yamna mtDNA, and in the basque case, explains the persistence of the pre-IE language.

Twilight
14-11-16, 05:28
I was directed here from the link below. Interesting that Yamna culture is so mixed. I have a sneaking suspicion that either the Eurogene Steepes K10 is not accurate or the WHG percentage in Yamna is a proxy of Near-Eastern Caucasian. My reasoning for the later guesses is that the Caucasus was already a Blend of Ydna J and G tribes in the Early Neolithic and Ydna J is related to Ydna I. If this is the case, the Caucasian Neolithic would have been carrying WHG like admixture



http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#early_neolithic


Ancient Genomes according to Steppes K10
La-Brana: 97.4% WHG, (2.2% Oceanian, .4% South East Asian; note that the Aurignacian Culture was of Ydna C and H2 tribes and the Polynesian and Australian Aborigiones carry a large amount of Ydna C)
LBK: 74.5% Near-Eastern, .3% Oceanian , 24.7% WHG, .3% Steepe



http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33075-Dodecad-Eurogenes-admixture-for-Yamna-genomes


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup#/media/File%3AWorld_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png

Twilight
15-11-16, 23:05
Okay I think I have found the WHG confusion in the Yamna Culture on Steepes K10. It appears that MA1; Mr. Mal'ta Boy carried 16% WHG-SHG; not to mention some Siberian/Amerindian, Steepe and to a smaller extent, Oceanian and Sub-Saharan as well. Now that Mal'ta Boy possessed so much WHG, how did it get there?

Here are some Hypothesis that I've thought off, please feel free to Scrutinize and/or add a more likely scenario.

*What sort of interaction did the Grevittian Culture had with Mr.Mal'ta's ancestors?

* As a side note, Mtdna U was possessed by both Mal'ta Boy and the Mesolithic Europeans but not Ancient Americans; this would explains their lack of WHG if this is correct.
*Steepes K10 could probably have picked up some Genetic noise from Mal'ta Boy; not likely since the percentage numbers are too huge.


Here is the Steepes K10 spreadsheet of the 3 Prehistoric European Genomes.

Ancient Genomes according to Steppes K10
La-Brana: 97.4% WHG, (2.2% Oceanian, .4% South East Asian; note that the Aurignacian Culture was of Ydna C and H2 tribes and the Polynesian and Australian Aborigiones carry a large amount of Ydna C)

LBK: 74.5% Near-Eastern, .3% Oceanian , 24.7% WHG, .3% Steepe


Ma1: Siberian:1.6%, Oceanian:3.3%, WHG:16.3%, Sub-Saharan:0.5%, Hindu-Kush:24.4%, Steepe:33.8%, Amerindian: 20.1%