PDA

View Full Version : The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea



Pages : [1] 2

arvistro
02-02-17, 19:57
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1

Highlights




•A degree of genetic continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Baltic

•Steppe-related genetic influences found in the Baltic during the Neolithic

•No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples

•Steppe ancestry in Latvia at the time of the emergence of Balto-Slavic languages


----


Have not read this yet, but in the picture I see R1b1b in Latvia before 7000 years, together with Narva culture and earliest pottery??

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:10
Fresh news from Anthrogenica, Mesolithic sample of R1b haplogroup in Latvia:

Parastais wrote: "Guys, more fun, more fun -
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php...h-Early-Europea (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?9662-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea)
Mesolithic R1b in Latvia, Zvejnieki burial :)

Link: http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fullte...9822(16)31542-1 (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1)

Highlights:

• A degree of genetic continuity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic in the Baltic
• Steppe-related genetic influences found in the Baltic during the Neolithic
• No Anatolian farmer-related genetic admixture in Neolithic Baltic samples
• Steppe ancestry in Latvia at the time of the emergence of Balto-Slavic language"

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:16
Amazing, two samples out of three in Mesolithic Latvia were R1b1b:


Further, the Y chromosomes of two of our Latvian Mesolithic samples were assigned to haplogroup R1b (the maximum-likelihood sub-haplogroup is R1b1b), which is the most common haplogroup found in modern Western Europeans [36].

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:25
Latvian Mesolithic hunters with R1b were White (unlike Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe):

"tentative evidence for progressive skin depigmentation in Mesolithic Latvia based on mutations in the SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 genes (rs1426654 and rs16891982, respectively"

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:28
R1a in Karelia and Russia, R1b in Latvia and Russia.

Baltic Sea to Russia = Proto-Indo-European homeland.

Check also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer's_Epic_Tales

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

arvistro
02-02-17, 20:29
Latvian Mesolithic hunters with R1b were White (unlike Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe):

"tentative evidence for progressive skin depigmentation in Mesolithic Latvia based on mutations in the SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 genes (rs1426654 and rs16891982, respectively"
Blue eyes too.
So, we have white blue eyed R1b1b guys chilling out near Burtnieks lake (Zvejnieki) in Latvia 7000 years ago.

Must re-read on Narva culture, where it came from.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 20:37
This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.

arvistro
02-02-17, 20:40
This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.
This is not really confirmed that they did it by themselves, it is more about that it did not come from Anatolia, but later with Corded Ware.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:41
Blue eyes too.
So, we have white blue eyed R1b1b guys chilling out near Burtnieks lake (Zvejnieki) in Latvia 7000 years ago.

Must re-read on Narva culture, where it came from.

Sounds almost like a study written by Straight White Male Northern European Supremacist Patriarchs!

ROTFL

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:42
I think we can merge my thread into your thread.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 20:43
This is not really confirmed that they did it by themselves, it is more about that it did not come from Anatolia, but later with Corded Ware.

I should have said 'without demic impact from Anatolia'. Although it might turn out to be quite a bit more complex at the regional level.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:47
So 3 out of 3 oldest samples of R1b are from Pre-Neolithic Europe.

Is there anyone who still believes in West Asian origin of R1b crap?

Moreover, I think R1b-V88 were descended from Villabruna WHG.

Meanwhile, R1b-M269 clade emerged in [North-]Eastern Europe.

Angela
02-02-17, 20:48
This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.

Sorry, Marko, where do you get that they made the transition "by themselves"? Wasn't it already known that the transition took place when Corded Ware arrived? I haven't yet had time to look at the paper. Do they have evidence that it took place before that migration occurred? Other than the R1b1 Mesolithic find, what is it that is new here?

Ed. A bit of a cross posting thing here. I see the issue has already been addressed.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 20:50
R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.

Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.

They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml

If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.

Angela
02-02-17, 20:53
So 3 out of 3 oldest samples of R1b are from Pre-Neolithic Europe.

Is there anyone who still believes in West Asian origin of R1b crap?

Moreover, I think R1b-V88 were descended from Villabruna WHG.

Meanwhile, R1b-M269 clade emerged in [North-]Eastern Europe.

Stop jumping to all sorts of conclusions, as usual. Also, clean up your language.

bicicleur
02-02-17, 20:57
The Neolithic transitions in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids region of Ukraine show very different archaeological and genetic dynamics to those observed in Central and Western Europe. Although in central Europe pottery and agriculture arrive as a package, in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids the onset of the Neolithic is characterized by the appearance of ceramics, with a definitive shift to an agro-pastoralist economy only occurring during the Late Neolithic/Bronze Age [13, 14, 15, 16, 19]. Although the prolonged and piecemeal uptake of Neolithic characteristics in these regions makes it challenging to attribute a definitive shift in ideology or lifestyle, it does, along with evidence for continuities in material culture and settlement patterns, suggest that Neolithic features were predominantly adopted by indigenous hunter-gatherers in this region [13, 14, 15, 16, 37]. We find genetic evidence in support of this in the affinity of the Latvian and Ukrainian Neolithic samples, Latvian_MN1 and Ukrainian_N1, to earlier Mesolithic samples from the same respective regions. However, we also find indications of genetic impact from exogenous populations during the Neolithic, most likely from northern Eurasia and the Pontic Steppe. These influences are distinct from the Anatolian-farmer-related gene flow found in central Europe during this period. It is interesting to note that even in outlying areas of Europe, such as Sweden and Ireland [38, 39], an Anatolian-farmer-related genetic signature is present by the Middle to Late Neolithic period (∼5,300–4,700 cal BP). We conclude that the gradual appearance of features associated with the Neolithic package in the Baltic and Dnieper Rapids was not tied to the same major genetic changes as in other regions of Europe. The emergence of Neolithic features in the absence of immigration by Anatolian farmers highlights the roles of horizontal cultural transmission and potentially independent innovation during the Neolithic transition.

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1

Some think that corded ware and later potapovka/sintashta originated from herders in the steppe/forest area or even further north.
This study makes that more likely.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 20:59
Sorry, Marko, where do you get that they made the transition "by themselves"? Wasn't it already known that the transition took place when Corded Ware arrived? I haven't yet had time to look at the paper. Do they have evidence that it took place before that migration occurred? Other than the R1b1 Mesolithic find, what is it that is new here?

Ed. A bit of a cross posting thing here. I see the issue has already been addressed.

I just skimmed the admixture analysis - Latvia_LN1 (early Corded Ware) does have substantial farmer admixture. Which leaves me wondering why the authors would chose that headline.

My earlier assumption was based on the dates of Corded Ware in Finland and Latvia.

Angela
02-02-17, 21:02
Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.

They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml

If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.

What on earth? The most probable estimate for the arrival of V88 deep in Africa is long after the paleolithic. It probably arrived with herders after the domestication of animals in the Near East.

Perhaps you should contain your joy that another north-east European mesolithic hunter was WHITE skinned. It seems it has made you forget much of the information which has already been discussed here.

halfalp
02-02-17, 21:05
Looks more like R1b with U5b Mtdna was more important in a " epigravettian " context in epipaleolithic / mesolithic than people think. U5b is the main mtdna haplogroup found in Baltic Mesolithic Kunda, Narva, Zedmar cultures, likely comes from south-west europe, maybe linked with R1b and solutrean culture, hypothesis that people would put in a hole, slowely came interessting.

bicicleur
02-02-17, 21:07
Villabruna descendants live in Chad today, and are known as R1b-V88, who came from Paleolithic Europe.

They came to Africa together with Upper Paleolithic European women (such as U6 mtDNA haplogroup):

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U6_mtDNA.shtml

If I recall correctly, at least one sample of U6 was found in Upper Paleolithic, Pre-LGM, Europe.

Villabruna was pré-V88, not V88, it probably branched of from V88 abt 16 ka, while TMRCA of V88 is 11.8 ka
TMRCA of V88 in Africa is only abt 5.5 ka, just before the foundation of Egypt

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:07
Latvian hunters with R1b are not autosomally pure WHG. They are EHG-WHG mixtures:


In keeping with their geographical origins,they are in an intermediate position between Western European hunter-gatherer samples (WHG; from Luxembourg, Hungary, Italy, France, and Switzerland) and Eastern European hunter-gatherer samples (EHG; from Russia).

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 21:10
Latvian hunters with R1b are not autosomally pure WHG. They are EHG-WHG mixtures:

You might want to quote the full text and look at the admixture analysis. Those Mesolithic hunters are less 'EHG' shifted than the hunters from Scandinavia.

Angela
02-02-17, 21:11
I just skimmed the admixture analysis - Latvia_LN1 (early Corded Ware) does have substantial farmer admixture. Which leaves me wondering why the authors would chose that headline.

My earlier assumption was based on the dates of Corded Ware in Finland and Latvia.

We already know that Corded Ware had EEF, and we know they also had CHG, so how precisely could these Latvian Late Neolithic/Corded Ware admixed people not have had "farmer" ancestry? The admixture analysis is just further confirmation of what we would assume to be the case, yes? That's why I asked if the samples were from a period from before the Corded Ware folks arrived. If that were the case then the claim would make sense, but not this way.

Well, I shouldn't say that until I carefully read the whole thing. Maybe there's something else in the paper that explains it. Or maybe they just mean it didn't arrive directly from Anatolia via Central Europe?

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:17
I still remember the "one cannot learn how to farm without having farmer admixture" fallacy: :smile:


(...) It is striking that we did not find evidence for early European or Anatolian farmer admixture in any of our Latvian Neolithic samples using both D statistics (Table 2) and ADMIXTURE (Figure 2A). This lack of admixture is also supported by the mitochondrial haplogroup of the Latvian Neolithic samples (all belong to U; Figure 1), which is prevalent in European hunter-gatherers [1, 35], including our Latvian Mesolithic samples, but not in early farmers. It is interesting that among the grave goods found in the burial of Latvia_LN1 was a chisel made from the bone of a domesticated goat or sheep [17, 21]. The presence of this tool made from a domesticate as well as dietary isotope data (δ15N and δ13C), which show greater reliance on terrestrial resources than in previous periods [17], is consistent with either the adoption of farming without early European farmer-related genetic admixture or the existence of trade networks with farming communities that were largely independent of genomic exchange. Although we find no genetic input from Anatolian or early European farmers in our time series, ADMIXTURE analysis of an Estonian Corded Ware sample [26] (Figure 2B) as suggested that this farmer genetic influence, which is present in contemporary Northern European populations (Figure S2), had arrived in the Baltic by at least the Bronze Age. (...)

I was insisting that cultural transition is possible without genetic admixture. So who was racist?

bicicleur
02-02-17, 21:19
isn't R1b1b M335, a rare clade today a non existing in Europe ?
it is a very old clade, subclade of R1b1, TMRCA 18.8 ka

it confirms my theory of a homeland of R1a/R1b further east (Oxus & Jaxartes rivers) and split into 2 groups westbound, 1 north of the Caspian Sea into Europe and another south of the Caspian into Zagros/Transcaucasia/Eastern Anatolia

arvistro
02-02-17, 21:19
On (somewhat) unrelated topic, we have went so far from XX century main theory that Narva were Finno-Ugric ancestors...

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:21
Those Mesolithic hunters are less 'EHG' shifted than the hunters from Scandinavia.The hunters from Scandinavia are also EHG shifted. They were a mix of WHG and EHG.

There is even archaeological evidence of EHG migration from Russia to Scandinavia:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00293652.2013.770416?journalCode=sarc20&

"The First Eastern Migrations of People and Knowledge into Scandinavia:
Evidence from Studies of Mesolithic Technology, 9th-8th Millennium BC

Abstract:

In this paper a team of Scandinavian researchers identifies and describes a Mesolithic technological concept, referred to as ‘the conical core pressure blade’ concept, and investigates how this concept spread into Fennoscandia and across Scandinavia. Using lithic technological, contextual archaeological and radiocarbon analyses, it is demonstrated that this blade concept arrived with ‘post-Swiderian’ hunter-gatherer groups from the Russian plain into northern Fennoscandia and the eastern Baltic during the 9th millennium BC. From there it was spread by migrating people and/or as transmitted knowledge through culture contacts into interior central Sweden, Norway and down along the Norwegian coast. However it was also spread into southern Scandinavia, where it was formerly identified as the Maglemosian technogroup 3 (or the ‘Sværdborg phase’). In this paper it is argued that the identification and spread of the conical core pressure blade concept represents the first migration of people, technology and ideas into Scandinavia from the south-eastern Baltic region and the Russian plain."

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

Also this:

"MA1 shares more alleles with Motala12 (SHG) than with Loschbour, and Motala12 fits as a mixture of 81% WHG and 19% ANE."

bicicleur
02-02-17, 21:22
this study makes the scenario of herders in the forest/steppe area or even further north being the origin of corded ware and potapovka/sintashta more likely

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:26
Latvian Corded Ware lacks Anatolian Farmer admixture, unlike German Corded Ware:


The LN Latvian apparently is from Corded Ware culture, so its lack of Anatolian Farmer makes it an outlier compared to usual CW.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 21:27
We already know that Corded Ware had EEF, and we know they also had CHG, so how precisely could these Latvian Late Neolithic/Corded Ware admixed people not have had "farmer" ancestry? The admixture analysis is just further confirmation of what we would assume to be the case, yes? That's why I asked if the samples were from a period from before the Corded Ware folks arrived. If that were the case then the claim would make sense, but not this way.

Well, I shouldn't say that until I carefully read the whole thing. Maybe there's something else in the paper that explains it. Or maybe they just mean it didn't arrive directly from Anatolia via Central Europe?

I thought that Latvia didn't 'arrive' in Corded Ware, because Latvian Corded Ware yields older dates than Central European Corded Ware. Latvia would have been the starting point of the Corded Ware expansion. See, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255716945_New_dates_for_the_Late_Neolithic_Corded_ Ware_Culture_burials_and_early_husbandry_in_the_Ea st_Baltic_region

I got excited because of the headline, but the actual data says that the 'autonomous transition' hypothesis is falsified beyond all reasonable doubt.

Edit: Though it's possible that the farming in early Corded Ware was more CHG than Anatolian Farmer mediated - look at those substantial CHG components in both early Corded Ware and the Karelian hunters.

Angela
02-02-17, 21:27
I still remember the "one cannot learn how to farm without having farmer admixture" fallacy: :smile:

I was insisting that cultural transition is possible without genetic admixture. So who was racist?

I don't know if it is possible or not (perhaps possible but difficult), but what I do know is that you haven't carefully read or analyzed this paper.


Please look at posts number 11, 14, and 20 before you make any more ill-judged statements. Please also look at the responses to your statements about V-88 and whether this sample is significantly EHG.

Do you want us to give an award for the number of incorrect statements in one thread?

halfalp
02-02-17, 21:30
Post-swiderians are more likely correlate with R1a ( maybe I* ) and U4, this R1b, is what i have in mind about a long time, an origin in the Solutrean Phenomenon ( Post-Swiderian and Solutrean are found very similar ), this is exacly what i was talking last few times, about genetic take too much often, now everybody thinks R1b originate in Anatolia or Iran... The fact is R1 haplogroups are very dispersed, because they have been very mobile.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:42
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fullte...9822(16)31542-1 (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)31542-1)


The two earliest samples in our Baltic time series, Latvia_HG1 (8,417–8,199 cal BP), associated with the Kunda culture, and Latvia_HG2 (7,791–7,586 cal BP), associated with the Narva culture, derive from the Late Mesolithic period [17, 21].

A third sample, Latvia_HG3 (7,252–6,802 cal BP), dates to the Late Mesolithic/Early Neolithic period, with the burial showing no major departures from the preceding Mesolithic traditions [21].

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666...883532/mmc1.pdf (http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883532/mmc1.pdf)

First R1b:


Latvia_HG2: Burial 93. Adult male. Buried in extended supine position with head facing southwest. Grave
goods included 23 teeth pendants, one beaver bone and three bird bones. Ochre layer surrounded the skeleton.
14C date: Hela-1212, 6840 ±55 BP (7,791-7,586 cal BP).

Second R1b:


Latvia_HG3: Burial 121. Adult. Described as female based on morphology but genetically determined to be
male. Buried in extended supine position with head facing south. Animal teeth pendants were scattered around
the burial as well as on the breast, shoulders and along the legs. Grave goods included a perforated animal
phalange, two bird bones, a stone object (possibly representing an animal) and a flint chip.
14C date: Ua-19883, 6145 ±80 BP (7,252-6,802 cal BP).

Angela
02-02-17, 21:43
I thought that Latvia didn't 'arrive' in Corded Ware, because Latvian Corded Ware yields older dates than Central European Corded Ware. Latvia would have been the starting point of the Corded Ware expansion. See, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255716945_New_dates_for_the_Late_Neolithic_Corded_ Ware_Culture_burials_and_early_husbandry_in_the_Ea st_Baltic_region

I got excited because of the headline, but the actual data says that the 'autonomous transition' hypothesis is falsified beyond all reasonable doubt.

Edit: Though it's possible that the farming in early Corded Ware was more CHG than Anatolian Farmer mediated - look at those substantial CHG components in both early Corded Ware and the Karelian hunters.

Well, sometimes headlines are very misleading. It's happened to everybody. The bolded statement couldn't be any clearer, however, and it would completely contradict the implication of the headline. I guarantee you, however, that some people will continue to repeat it.

As for "farmer" ancestry in Corded Ware, I think some of it is indeed mediated by a "CHG" component. We can see, if I remember correctly, the increases in it in the early Yamnaya samples as time went on, and moving from south to north. It probably spread north into the later "Corded" areas from there. If Corded Ware moved from more northern areas into Central Europe I can see how central European Corded Ware would have more of the Anatolian mediated variety.

@Bicicleur, so, we're still back where we started in terms of the major distributions of R1a and R1b, yes?

I've been saying for I don't know how long that Corded Ware was Indo-Europeanized, not Indo-European. Nothing has yet changed my mind.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 21:46
I don't know if it is possible or not (perhaps possible but difficult)

Seriously?

Iranian, Levantine and Anatolian farmers were all genetically distinct from each other.

Now you have the 4th group - Latvian farmers - also genetically distinct from the rest.

How much more evidence do you need?

Maybe they learned from each other, but they did not mix with each other too much.

Angela
02-02-17, 21:59
Seriously?

Iranian, Levantine and Anatolian farmers were all genetically distinct from each other.

Now you have the 4th group - Latvian farmers - also genetically distinct from the rest.

How much more evidence do you need?

Maybe they learned from each other, but they did not mix with each other too much. I am not going to get into another endless discussion about this. It took thousands of years for those people to become farmers. It was the same in China and the New World. They didn't become farmers overnight. Plus, the ones in the Near East, Anatolian and Iranian Neolithic both, shared a large Basal Eurasian component, and Anatolian Neolithic can be modeled as part Levant Neolithic, part Iranian Neolithic, and part something WHG like. Have you forgotten?

However, this is another off-topic digression from the topic of this discussion. What we are discussing here is whether northeast European mesolithic populations adopted agriculture autonomously, or before any evidence of admixture with farming people. The answer from the data of the paper itself seems to say no, as you would know if you were reading any one else's posts and not just spilling out unconsidered post after post of your own. Oh, and read the paper carefully, as I am trying to do.

Let's get back on track.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 22:01
Interestingly, the admixture analysis at K = 20 also makes a steppic origin of Corded Ware exceedingly unlikely. The muddled minor shades present in the Eneolithic and EBA steppe that probably represent a type of Siberian ancestry are completely absent in Latvian Corded Ware. Instead, Latvian Corded Ware looks like the coalescence of CHG (which constitutes the main component), WHG and an unidentified component that peaks in modern Basques.

arvistro
02-02-17, 22:15
I guess headline at the end of day is correct. Those were CHG not Anatolians that brought agriculture (pastoralist) to Baltics.

However modern Balts do have Anatolian genes, even higher than somewhat later Estonian CW, so there is still some story untold.

Angela
02-02-17, 22:24
Interestingly, the admixture analysis at K = 20 also makes a steppic origin of Corded Ware exceedingly unlikely. The muddled minor shades present in the Eneolithic and EBA steppe that probably represent a type of Siberian ancestry are completely absent in Latvian Corded Ware. Instead, Latvian Corded Ware looks like the coalescence of CHG (which constitutes the main component), WHG and an unidentified component that peaks in modern Basques.

I have to look at this again and think about it some more. The authors say there was admixture between mainly WHG like people and a "steppic" element, yes?. However, isn't "steppic" element commonly understood to be part EHG/part CHG, perhaps on a level like 60/40?

Does that five with what the Admixture graph is showing?

bicicleur
02-02-17, 22:25
We already know that Corded Ware had EEF, and we know they also had CHG, so how precisely could these Latvian Late Neolithic/Corded Ware admixed people not have had "farmer" ancestry? The admixture analysis is just further confirmation of what we would assume to be the case, yes? That's why I asked if the samples were from a period from before the Corded Ware folks arrived. If that were the case then the claim would make sense, but not this way.

Well, I shouldn't say that until I carefully read the whole thing. Maybe there's something else in the paper that explains it. Or maybe they just mean it didn't arrive directly from Anatolia via Central Europe?

I have to read it further, Angela, but for now the title seems correct to me.
If what Markoz says is rigth about CW originating in the Baltic, there is no EEF admixture.
But EEF itself becomes a very misleading term now.

bicicleur
02-02-17, 22:30
another question
could white skin and blue eyes have originated in the Latvian mesolithic and further spread with corded ware & sintashta ?

Tomenable
02-02-17, 22:39
However modern Balts do have Anatolian genes

Did low coverage sample RISE598 (Late Bronze Age Lithuania) already have them?

I think Trzciniec culture already had Anatolian genes. PL_N17 was part of Trzciniec:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33508-Poland-EBA-R1a-Z280?p=500822&viewfull=1#post500822

This is a high coverage sample - which calc. is the best for checking EEF admixture?

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

Davidski modeled PL_N17 as:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?8066-DISCUSSION-THREAD-FOR-quot-Genetic-Genealogy-and-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-quot&p=211240&viewfull=1#post211240

Yamnaya_Samara 0.677
Lengyel_LN 0.252
Western_HG 0.065
Nganasan 0.006

Or in another model:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/02/first-look-at-polish-early-bronze-age.html

Yamnaya_Samara 0.687±0.040
Lengyel_LN 0.249±0.037
Western_HG 0.064±0.028

Yamnaya_Samara 61.9
Lengyel_LN:I1495 25.6
Western_HG 12.6

More about Lengyel sample I1495 can be found here:

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



Lengyel
Hungary
Apc-Berekalja I [I1495/NE 7]
M
4490-4360 BC

I2a

N1a1a1a

Angela
02-02-17, 22:40
I have to read it further, Angela, but for now the title seems correct to me.
If what Markoz says is rigth about CW originating in the Baltic, there is no EEF admixture.
But EEF itself becomes a very misleading term now.

I actually meant the conclusion that agriculture was autonomously arrived at in northeastern Europe, although I also hadn't considered Corded Ware starting out that far north.

If, as Marko is suggesting, it started out this far north, then that could explain the lack of Anatolian derived "farmer". The Corded Ware samples which have it picked it up then in central Europe,yes?

Still, as I asked above:

The authors say there was admixture between mainly WHG like people and a "steppic" element, yes?. However, isn't "steppic" element commonly understood to be part EHG/part CHG, perhaps on a level like 60/40?

Does that five with what the Admixture graph is showing?

As for the bolded part of your comment, maybe it's better to talk about LBK like EN for the Anatolian contingent. It's interesting to look at the Haak formulation based on d-stats in this context. The EN would then have arrived in the northeast later.
Also, it's an interesting reminder of how different modern populations are from the Corded Ware, etc. people.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images_article/nature14317-f3.jpg

berun
02-02-17, 22:46
Interesting surprise, now the game is quite clear: the region was peopled first by WHG from some refugium and thereafter it was peopled by Siberians. We know about a WHG which was R1b 14000 years ago (Villabruna), and we know also that there was a lot of R1a HG in the Altai...

arvistro
02-02-17, 22:47
another question
could white skin and blue eyes have originated in the Latvian mesolithic and further spread with corded ware & sintashta ?
I would not say in Latvian Mesolithic, but Dnieper-Donetsk should be something very similar to what we see in Latvia, and would make more sense.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 22:54
and we know also that there was a lot of R1a HG in the Altai

The oldest sample of R1a, is Mesolithic Karelian EHG (6850-6000 BC; avg. 6425 BC).

The two Kitoi culture Lokomotiv samples are younger (6125-4025 BC; avg. 5075 BC).

There is around 1000 years of difference between those samples.

Mooder et. al. 2006 gives dates for Lokomotiv: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16323184

Fu et al. 2016 for Karelian EHG: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301742169_The_genetic_history_of_Ice_Age_Europe

Karelian EHG is dated to 6850-6000 BC - http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/mesolithicdna.shtml

Two out of seven Kitoi culture samples from Lokomotiv were R1a, four were K, one was C3:

https://i.imgur.com/Skryxis.png

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 22:55
I have to look at this again and think about it some more. The authors say there was admixture between mainly WHG like people and a "steppic" element, yes?. However, isn't "steppic" element commonly understood to be part EHG/part CHG, perhaps on a level like 60/40?

Does that five with what the Admixture graph is showing?

The tentative timeline for Latvia based on these samples looks like this:

Mesolithic: HGs nestled inbetween WHG and Scandinavian HGs
Middle Neolithic: EHG in the proper sense, complete with American & Siberian ancestry components and something Bedouin-like
Late Neolithic (Corded Ware): disappearance of the Siberian shades & Bedouin, CHG becomes main ancestral component. The remaining ancestry comes from WHG and the mysterious 'dark blue' component.

Eneolithic & EBA steppe come from varying mixtures of CHG and EHG, but they like the Karelians have those minor Eastern components as well as Bedouin. They also lack substantial admixture from the 'dark blue' component that peaks in Latvian Corded Ware and a single WHG.

I guess this would indicate that CHG bypassed much of the Pontic steppe and for some reason managed to arrive relatively undiluted in the Baltic region.

Alan
02-02-17, 23:05
R1a in Karelia and Russia, R1b in Latvia and Russia.

Baltic Sea to Russia = Proto-Indo-European homeland.

Check also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltic_Origins_of_Homer's_Epic_Tales

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_VedasR1b in mesolithic Italy and Neolithic Spain. R1 in Paleolithic Siberia. Iberia to Italy to Siberia Proto_Indo European homeland confirmed.
Sarcasm off.

Contrary these two Haplogroups being so widespred confirm what I have been speculating and saying all along, that these Haplogroups outside of Indo European connection were already widespred at least by mesolithic/neolithic. And in fact this actually makes these two Haplogroups less specifically Indo European than previously and adds more support to Angelas theory that modern Northeast Europeans do not have allot of actual real Yamna ancestry but it is shared forager ancestry from the Baltics already by that time.

Coriolan
02-02-17, 23:06
Latvian Corded Ware lacks Anatolian Farmer admixture, unlike German Corded Ware:
But wasn't that already the case of the Estonian Corded Ware sample (RISE1)?

Alan
02-02-17, 23:07
This definitely confirms two of my long-held prejudices. The well-founded one that North-Eastern Europeans made the transition to agriculture by themselves, and the more contentious one that R1b1 became a Villabrunna-WHG marker in the European context.

Very unlikely, it actually looks more like Northeast Europeans adopted it from Farmers/herders groups by cultural exchange. However how else are we going to explain the 25-30% EEF in Northeast Europe today?

Edit. As I see in previous comments it could be from CHG.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:08
We know about a WHG which was R1b 14000 years ago (Villabruna)

Villabruna R1b was a dead-end, just like that Lokomotiv R1a (that K* was also dead-end).

You look at peripheries (Villabruna, Lokomotiv) instead of at the centre (Eastern Europe).


However how else are we going to explain the 25-30% EEF in Northeast Europe today?

Early Bronze Age sample from Poland is already 25% Lengyel Neolithic (see my post above).

But he clusters with modern Balts, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians. Poles have more EEF.

Alan
02-02-17, 23:10
So 3 out of 3 oldest samples of R1b are from Pre-Neolithic Europe.

Is there anyone who still believes in West Asian origin of R1b crap?

Moreover, I think R1b-V88 were descended from Villabruna WHG.

Meanwhile, R1b-M269 clade emerged in [North-]Eastern Europe.

How many samples mesolithic Europe alone do you have in comparison to the sample size in total even Neolithic, mesolithic, Bronze and Iron Age combined from West Asia? Exactly. Three if not four times the size.

Let alone South and Central Asia.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:11
R1b in mesolithic Italy and Neolithic Spain.And both of those samples are more closely related to African R1b-V88 than to modern Eurasian R1b-M269.

Neolithic Spanish sample was R1b-V88, and Italian hunter-gatherer was a branch ancestral to R1b-V88.

This is why I think that Neolithic Iberian with R1b-V88 was descended from Italian WHGs with R1b.

arvistro
02-02-17, 23:18
Contrary these two Haplogroups being so widespred confirm what I have been speculating and saying all along, that these Haplogroups outside of Indo European connection were already widespred at least by mesolithic. And in fact this actually makes these two Haplogroups less specifically Indo European than previously and adds more support to Angelas theory that modern Northeast Europeans do not have allot of actual real Yamna ancestry but it is shared EHG ancestry from Foragers living in the Baltics already by that time.
I could bet that is actually Dnieper-Donetsk ancestry (Latvian neighborhood) that we have in NE Europe a lot. And if we find some nice R1b (ancestral to West Euros) samples in Dnieper-Donetsk, then PIE question becomes quite clear.

Having R1b in Baltics, makes R1b in Dnieper-Donetsk very likely..

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:19
Iberia to Italy to Siberia Proto_Indo European homeland confirmed.Of course not all of R1b and not all of R1a is related to PIEs. For example R1b-V88 is not.

Related to PIEs are R1b-L23 and probably already R1b-M269, as well as R1a-M417 and probably already R1a-M198. Let me remind you that one of Corded Ware samples from Germany was confirmed as basal paragroup R1a-M198*. Caucasoid mummies from Xiaohe in the Tarim Basin were also confirmed as R1a-M198, but they have not been tested for R1a-M417. Supposedly they were tested negatively for R1a-Z93, which is surprising, but they could be some other M417(xZ93).

I'm waiting for autosomal DNA of Xiaohe R1a mummies to confirm that they were Yamna-related.

We have both R1a (Karelia, Samara) and R1b (Latvia, Samara) among the EHG and Khvalynsk.

We still don't have any ancient DNA samples from Ukraine, and nothing from Ukrainian Yamnaya.

In terms of ancient DNA Ukraine is a much worse "desert" than the Middle East.

Alan
02-02-17, 23:23
another question
could white skin and blue eyes have originated in the Latvian mesolithic and further spread with corded ware & sintashta ?

If that was the case we wouldn't see light skin genes and blue eyes in Anatolian Neolithic samples (yes even Blue eyes were found). Even Iranian_Meso sample had the genes for Blue eyes. And CHG had light skin and some light eyes too. The only "ancestry" that actually connects all these is something CHG like, that has been found in those East European and Steppe foragers as well Anatolian_Farmers.

In comparison pure WHG samples were dark skinned, so was "pure" ANE sample from Siberia. EHG seems to be nothing more than WHG like with ANE like and some CHG like ancestry.

berun
02-02-17, 23:23
The oldest sample of R1a, is Mesolithic Karelian EHG (6850-6000 BC; avg. 6425 BC).

The two Kitoi culture Lokomotiv samples are younger (6125-4025 BC; avg. 5075 BC).

There is around 1000 years of difference between those samples.

"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)." All R1a are EN.

And sure you know about Comb-Ware culture and its epicenter...

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:27
And sure you know about Comb-Ware culture and its epicenter

There is no way that Comb-Ware culture was not N1c, and more specifically N1c-L708+ in Europe.

N1c-L708 entered Europe, crossing the Ural Mountains, no later than 7500 years ago (or 5500 BC).

The oldest currently known sample is 4500 years old, from the area of Smolensk (Chekunova 2014).

berun
02-02-17, 23:27
You look at peripheries (Villabruna, Lokomotiv) instead of at the centre (Eastern Europe).

Italy and the Altai were refugia... you might look also at archaeology: to drive with an eye is not straight for much time.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 23:29
We have both R1a (Karelia, Samara) and R1b (Latvia, Samara) among the EHG and Khvalynsk.

Your defintion of 'EHG' seems to be getting more expansive. Why don't you read the paper again?

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:31
Your defintion of 'EHG' seems to be getting more expansive.

Many papers lump EHG together with Khvalynsk, because Khvalynsk was mostly EHG.

Anyway, the oldest R1a from the Steppe is in Khvalynsk. Samara EHG sample was R1b.

If we want to be pedantic:

1) Karelian "pure" EHG - 1x R1a
2) Samara "pure" EHG - 1x R1b
3) Smolensk Mesolithic* - 1x R1a
4) Latvian EHG-WHG mix - 2x R1b
5) Khvalynsk - 1x R1a and 1x R1b

Total 1) to 5): 3x R1a and 4x R1b

*No autosomal DNA was published.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 23:42
Many papers lump EHG together with Khvalynsk, because Khvalynsk was mostly EHG.

Anyway, the oldest R1a from the Steppe is in Khvalynsk. Samara EHG sample was R1b.

I'm talking about the Latvians. The authors explicitly state that they are much more related to WHG than to EHG. Looking at Fig. S4 it's obvious that SHG is more related to EHG. The Baltics were a WHG stronghold despite their eastern position.

MarkoZ
02-02-17, 23:47
Many papers lump EHG together with Khvalynsk, because Khvalynsk was mostly EHG.

Anyway, the oldest R1a from the Steppe is in Khvalynsk. Samara EHG sample was R1b.

If we want to be pedantic:

1) Karelian "pure" EHG - 1x R1a
2) Samara "pure" EHG - 1x R1b
3) Smolensk Mesolithic* - 1x R1a
4) Latvian EHG-WHG mix - 2x R1b
5) Khvalynsk - 1x R1a and 1x R1b

Total 1) to 5): 3x R1a and 4x R1b

*No autosomal DNA was published.


Yeah no, these are decidedly not an 'EHG-WHG' mix. Samara and the Karelians have ancestry from a CHG source, which is found at exactly zero percent in WHG and SHG. An intermediate position on the PCA is not the same as admixture.

Tomenable
02-02-17, 23:49
In total, there are 11 known samples of R1a and R1b which are at least 6000 years old.

The vast majority - seven - among the oldest samples of R1a and R1b are from this area:

http://i.imgur.com/2u0YnBn.png

Outside of this area - 1x R1b in Villabruna, 1x R1b-V88 in Spain, 2x R1a in Lokomotiv.

And that's all when it comes to R1a/b samples older than 6000 or at least 6000 years old.

So the odds are that R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 both originated in East Europe.

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 00:14
@Tomenable,

I added the new Latvian and Ukrainian samples to my pigmentation spreadsheet.. I combined them with Sweden because Sweden, Latvia, Ukraine were a WHG and EHG mix to some extent and had similar pigmentation alleles.
Pre-Historic Pigmentation (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1798287387)

The Latvian HGs have a mixture of derived/ancestral alleles in rs1426654 and rs16891982. More ancestral than derived. The two Ukrainians had rs1426654 derived/derived=2, rs16891982 had derived/derived=1, derived/ancestral=1.

You shouldn't be so excited to call them white anyways, white people have ancestry from each ancient European population sampled and each population except WHG had some light skin alleles and some dark skin alleles. I really doubt any of them can be called THE white people and there's no special badge of honor in calling them THE white people.

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 00:23
mHGs U5a, U4 have a strangely high frequency in the modern East Baltic and some other NorthEast Europeans. This is definitely in part due to assimilation of Baltic forgers into Late Neolithic/Bronze age newcomers.

Tomenable
03-02-17, 00:23
All known R1a/b samples older than 6000 years, chronologically:

1) Villabruna, ca. 14180-13780 (avg. 13980) years ago - R1b
2) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago - R1a
3) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a
4) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a
5) Latvia, ca. 7800-7600 (avg. 7700) years ago - R1b
6) Samara, ca. 7650-7560 (avg. 7605) years ago - R1b
7) Iberia, ca. 7180-7060 (avg. 7120) years ago - R1b-V88
8) Latvia, ca. 7250-6800 (avg. 7025) years ago - R1b
9) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1b
10) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1a
11) Smolensk, around 6000 (avg. 6000) years ago - R1a

Tomenable
03-02-17, 01:47
Latvia_LN1 is a Corded Ware sample dated to 5,039–4,626 cal BP (so around 3000-2600 BC).

This Corded Ware sample clusters with Yamnaya Steppe samples, and has no EEF admixture:


The latest Neolithic sample in our Baltic time series, Latvia_LN1 (5,039–4,626 cal BP), which was found in a crouched burial of the type associated with the Late Neolithic Corded Ware culture [21], falls near other Late Neolithic and Bronze Age European and Steppe samples in PCA analysis (Figure 2A).

Figure 2A:

Latvia_LN1 is autosomally identical as Steppe Early/Middle BA:

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883527/gr2.jpg

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883527/gr2.jpg

Tomenable
03-02-17, 01:51
Latvia_LN1 does not have any "CHG admixture". He is simply a Yamnaya-descended person:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33521-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea?p=500908&viewfull=1#post500908

He is Corded Ware without any EEF. Autosomally identical as EMBA Steppe (such as Yamnaya).

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:01
Latvian Corded Ware LN1 = EMBA Steppe transplanted straight into Latvia:

http://i.imgur.com/l5sKJ7v.png

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:02
LN1 and EMBA Steppe are identical in K19. In K20, LN1 is very similar to two of the EMBA samples:

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:15
From "Ancestral Journeys":



Latvia; Zvejnieki ; [B]R1b1a1a P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree; Jones 2017; additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev



Latvia; Zvejnieki ; [B]R1b1a1a P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree; Jones 2017; additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:20
From Anthrogenica, Ukrainian HG is now officially the oldest known "white person":

Apparently it was a woman, because no Y-DNA haplogroup is listed for this sample:

"Note that the Ukrainian HG is dated to 11143-10591 ybp so about 9193 BC-8641 BC and yet is derived for both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 making it the oldest sample derived for both light skin mutations. "

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883530/gr1_lrg.jpg

MarkoZ
03-02-17, 02:27
Latvia_LN1 does not have any "CHG admixture". He is simply a Yamnaya-descended person.

These statements are mutually exclusive.

The Latvian is quite a bit differentiated from the Bronze Age steppe, see Figure 4 in the supplementary. Mind you, Yamnaya affinity will pop up whereever Caucasus HGs and European HGs converge. Though this early Corded Ware woman didn't have the Siberian components found in Karelia and the Steppe, was a farmer and her European HG ancestry was rather different from those found in the Pontic steppe.

I'd think these points together are quite interesting considering the generally difficulty in connecting those two archaeological cultures.

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:30
These statements are mutually exclusive.Not in that context.

You were discussing the possibility that CHG people spread agriculture into Latvia. But there was no any migration of 100% CHG people into Latvia. Those who migrated were Steppe people, and therefore 50/50 EHG/CHG Yamna immigrants.

Also note that Latvian HG with R1b-P297 did not have any CHG. Those were Corded Ware with R1a who had it.

Latvian HG only had some ANE admixture, but no any CHG (it has just been discussed on Anthrogenica).

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

That particular LN1 was a woman. But more Baltic Corded Ware samples are to be published soon.

And according to what I have heard, they are all going to be autosomally similar to LN1.

And they are going to have R1a haplogroup.

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 02:30
From "Ancestral Journeys":



Latvia; Zvejnieki ; [B]R1b1a1a P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree; Jones 2017; additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev



Latvia; Zvejnieki ; [B]R1b1a1a P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree; Jones 2017; additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev



Thanks for the info. Mesolithic Samara HG had pre-R1b1a1, a EBA Armenian had R1b1a1b.

MarkoZ
03-02-17, 02:36
Those who migrated were Steppe people, and therefore 50/50 EHG/CHG Yamna immigrants.



Those steppe people didn't have the kind of 'EHG' we know, then.

http://i.imgur.com/2ep29bW.png

Tomenable
03-02-17, 02:50
The Latvian is quite a bit differentiated from the Bronze Age steppe, see Figure 4 in the supplementary.

They are identical in K19, and in K20 the Latvian sample is very similar to two of the EMBA samples:

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

johen
03-02-17, 02:59
They are identical in K19, and in K20 the Latvian sample is very similar to two of the EMBA samples:

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

http://i.imgur.com/DZNw4qc.png

If so, do they look like paleo people?


Debetz (1936), and Alexeev and Gokhman (1987) identified a so-called CroMagnon variety among the Bronze and Iron Age skeletal materials of European Russia and southern Siberia. This variety that combined the cranial robustness with a broad face, had its roots in the local Upper Palaeolithic

MarkoZ
03-02-17, 03:04
They are identical in K19

No - my point was mainly about the minor Siberian ancestry which shows even at lower K. The component showing at K = 20 is interesting in that it indicates that we haven't fully captured the Mesolithic European landscape just yet.


in K20 the Latvian sample is very similar to two of the EMBA samples.

Yes, I've also noticed this and it's really interesting.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 03:42
Just came home and have merged 3 threads on same subject. Don't get lost. :)

LeBrok
03-02-17, 04:00
I just skimmed the admixture analysis - Latvia_LN1 (early Corded Ware) does have substantial farmer admixture. Which leaves me wondering why the authors would chose that headline.

My earlier assumption was based on the dates of Corded Ware in Finland and Latvia. It actually confirms my hypothesis, that there is no farming without farmer genes. ;)

Alan
03-02-17, 04:08
All known R1a/b samples older than 6000 years, chronologically:

1) Villabruna, ca. 14180-13780 (avg. 13980) years ago - R1b
2) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago - R1a
3) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a
4) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a
5) Latvia, ca. 7800-7600 (avg. 7700) years ago - R1b
6) Samara, ca. 7650-7560 (avg. 7605) years ago - R1b
7) Iberia, ca. 7180-7060 (avg. 7120) years ago - R1b-V88
8) Latvia, ca. 7250-6800 (avg. 7025) years ago - R1b
9) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1b
10) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1a
11) Smolensk, around 6000 (avg. 6000) years ago - R1a Yes and you know what is so fascinating about the Iberian sample. It has absolutely zero signs of Steppic like admixture. Infact it is a very typical Anatolian_Farmer.

Alan
03-02-17, 04:10
Latvia_LN1 does not have any "CHG admixture". He is simply a Yamnaya-descended person:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33521-The-Neolithic-Transition-in-the-Baltic-Was-Not-Driven-by-Admixture-with-Early-Europea?p=500908&viewfull=1#post500908

He is Corded Ware without any EEF. Autosomally identical as EMBA Steppe (such as Yamnaya).

The two statements contradict each other.

Alan
03-02-17, 04:13
Not in that context.

You were discussing the possibility that CHG people spread agriculture into Latvia. But there was no any migration of 100% CHG people into Latvia. Those who migrated were Steppe people, and therefore 50/50 EHG/CHG Yamna immigrants.

Also note that Latvian HG with R1b-P297 did not have any CHG. Those were Corded Ware with R1a who had it.

Latvian HG only had some ANE admixture, but no any CHG (it has just been discussed on Anthrogenica).

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

That particular LN1 was a woman. But more Baltic Corded Ware samples are to be published soon.

And according to what I have heard, they are all going to be autosomally similar to LN1.

And they are going to have R1a haplogroup.


The Steppe people themselves were already an agricultural people (herders) like their CHG ancestors, they were no foragers like their EHG ancestors. So the conclusion is obvious in itself. For what do they need extra farmer ancestry? Though they seem to had even some EEF.

Tomenable
03-02-17, 04:18
agricultural people (herders) like their CHG ancestors

However, CHG stands for Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer.


The two statements contradict each other.

What I meant is that she has no any Non-Yamnaya CHG.


It actually confirms my hypothesis, that there is no farming without farmer genes. ;)

What is "farmer genes" ??? Is there a specific gene associated with farming abilities?

Can you be a truck driver without truck driver genes? :laughing:

Alan
03-02-17, 04:20
CHG stands for Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer.

My bad I should have written CHG like, because it is unlikely that the CHG directly contributed to the Steppes since they are a mesolithic people and by mesolithic everyone was a H&G. However we know by fact that the descends of these CHG people became herders since we have herders from the Iranian Plateau and even Caucasus that are CHG like. And this is why Lazaridis goes rather with the Iran_CHL+additional CHG / EHG theory rather than the CHG/EHG one, because it makes historically and archeologically more sense. Or who else do you think brought them the Herding. Their Samara EHG ancestors certanly not.

And this is why I say we need Bronze Age and Neolithic samples from Caucasus too. Still waiting for Maykop samples to be published.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 04:21
I thought that Latvia didn't 'arrive' in Corded Ware, because Latvian Corded Ware yields older dates than Central European Corded Ware. Latvia would have been the starting point of the Corded Ware expansion. See, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255716945_New_dates_for_the_Late_Neolithic_Corded_ Ware_Culture_burials_and_early_husbandry_in_the_Ea st_Baltic_region

I got excited because of the headline, but the actual data says that the 'autonomous transition' hypothesis is falsified beyond all reasonable doubt.

Edit: Though it's possible that the farming in early Corded Ware was more CHG than Anatolian Farmer mediated - look at those substantial CHG components in both early Corded Ware and the Karelian hunters.


Edit: MN Latvia and HG Latvia might be the same as LN Estonia genome of CW.

This LN Estonia is like pure hunter gatherer. I don't see any farming admixture in him. He is like WHG + step Baloch/ANE. If he was mixed with farmers, he should have had some Caucasian and SW Asian. If he has some farmer genes it is not more than 5 percent, and mostly through increased Med from EEF. Very likely, he is one more type of European hunter gatherer. Here is bunch of known european h-gs and he fits with them perfectly.


M913021
Rise00

F999918
I-L460

M218547
I0124

F999924
Ajvide 58, I-CTS772

F999917
I-L416

M643041
I0061


Corded Estonia,
4 kya

Loschbour, Luxembourg
7 kya

Samara HG
7.6 kya

Sweden
5kya

Motala 12 Östergötland, Sweden
7 kya

Karelia, OleniyOstrov N Russia
5.25 kya


Run Time
8.05

Run time
14.93

Run time
5.57

Run time
9.7

Run time
8.67

Run time
9.88


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
14.27

Baloch
-

Baloch
14.33

Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
9.46


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
59.09

NE-Euro
77.83

NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
70.71

NE-Euro
90.24

NE-Euro
72.66


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.44

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
1.54

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.8

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.34

Siberian
0.07

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
0.84

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.57

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
9.62

American
1.37

American
1.58

American
12.6


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
-

Beringian
0.68

Beringian
5.16


Mediterranean
25.26

Mediterranean
20.66

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
23.22

Mediterranean
6.83

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.19

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.07


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.17

W-African
0.2

W-African
1.63

W-African
-

W-African
-

Tomenable
03-02-17, 04:22
It would be nice to upload Latvian LN1 to GEDmatch.

Angela
03-02-17, 04:41
My bad I should have written CHG like, because it is unlikely that the CHG directly contributed to the Steppes since they are a mesolithic people and by mesolithic everyone was a H&G. However we know by fact that the descends of these CHG people became herders since we have herders from the Iranian Plateau and even Caucasus that are CHG like. And this is why Lazaridis goes rather with the Iran_CHL+additional CHG / EHG theory rather than the CHG/EHG one, because it makes historically and archeologically more sense. Or who else do you think brought them the Herding. Their Samara EHG ancestors certanly not.

And this is why I say we need Bronze Age and Neolithic samples from Caucasus too. Still waiting for Maykop samples to be published.

I know there are some who desperately want to believe it, but the idea that some pure CHG Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were the ones who mixed into the steppe Eneolithic is not very persuasive to me. We know it was already there by Kvalynsk, but it increased with time. Those people were most probably already herding domestic animals. Time will tell though.

From Iain Mathieson et al:
"The Samara_Eneolithic from Khvalynsk II (~5,200-4,000BCE) predates the Yamnaya by at least 1,000 years but had already begun admixingwith this population, although the individuals of this population appear to be heterogeneous(Fig. 1) between EHG and Yamnaya. Taken as a whole, we estimate that they have ~74%EHG and ~26% Armenian related ancestry."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

As I said above, this increased with time, with people even less likely to be some sort of fossil Caucasus hunter-gatherers.

Ed. Plus, CHG is mostly Iran Neolithic like anyway.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 04:57
I have to read it further, Angela, but for now the title seems correct to me.
If what Markoz says is rigth about CW originating in the Baltic, there is no EEF admixture.
But EEF itself becomes a very misleading term now.CW have EEF admixtures, except some of them like from Estonia lack it.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 05:04
The tentative timeline for Latvia based on these samples looks like this:

Mesolithic: HGs nestled inbetween WHG and Scandinavian HGs
Middle Neolithic: EHG in the proper sense, complete with American & Siberian ancestry components and something Bedouin-like
Late Neolithic (Corded Ware): disappearance of the Siberian shades & Bedouin, CHG becomes main ancestral component. The remaining ancestry comes from WHG and the mysterious 'dark blue' component.

Eneolithic & EBA steppe come from varying mixtures of CHG and EHG, but they like the Karelians have those minor Eastern components as well as Bedouin. They also lack substantial admixture from the 'dark blue' component that peaks in Latvian Corded Ware and a single WHG.

I guess this would indicate that CHG bypassed much of the Pontic steppe and for some reason managed to arrive relatively undiluted in the Baltic region.
No Siberian and NE Asian admixtures yet. EHG had American and Beringian admixtures.


M643041
I0061

M218547
I0124


Karelia, OleniyOstrov N Russia
5.25 kya

Samara HG
7.6 kya


Run time
9.88

Run time
5.57


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
9.46

Baloch
14.33


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
72.66

NE-Euro
75.62


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
12.6

American
9.62


Beringian
5.16

Beringian
0.15


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.07

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
0.2

LeBrok
03-02-17, 05:14
I'm talking about the Latvians. The authors explicitly state that they are much more related to WHG than to EHG. Looking at Fig. S4 it's obvious that SHG is more related to EHG. The Baltics were a WHG stronghold despite their eastern position.You might be right.
Can we get this dude genome to GedMatch quickly. :) and the Smolensk R1a.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 05:19
@Tomenable,

I added the new Latvian and Ukrainian samples to my pigmentation spreadsheet.. I combined them with Sweden because Sweden, Latvia, Ukraine were a WHG and EHG mix to some extent and had similar pigmentation alleles.
Pre-Historic Pigmentation (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1798287387)

The Latvian HGs have a mixture of derived/ancestral alleles in rs1426654 and rs16891982. More ancestral than derived. The two Ukrainians had rs1426654 derived/derived=2, rs16891982 had derived/derived=1, derived/ancestral=1.

You shouldn't be so excited to call them white anyways, white people have ancestry from each ancient European population sampled and each population except WHG had some light skin alleles and some dark skin alleles. I really doubt any of them can be called THE white people and there's no special badge of honor in calling them THE white people.
Good job FH. We already knew that modern white is conglomeration of many alleles from many separate populations. It was a long process and culminated around Baltic Sea where these mutations were the most needed.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 05:40
What is "farmer genes" ??? Is there a specific gene associated with farming abilities?

Can you be a truck driver without truck driver genes? :laughing:Nope. Not everybody can drive a truck, you know that, right? Some people are missing necessary genetic predispositions for driving. Coordination, attention, memory, obedience to traffic law, long attention span, and liking driving enough to take it as a job. You might even have all the skills but no natural excitement to driving, nobody is going to make you a driver. This is why h-gs don't do farming. They love hunting and they hate farming. Unless you standing close by with a whip or a gun they won't do it. Simple like that.
On top of it, you know how it is when someone comes to your country and wants to change your culture. You are so ecstatic to embrace it, right?

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 05:41
Good job FH. We already knew that modern white is conglomeration of many alleles from many separate populations. It was a long process and culminated around Baltic Sea where these mutations were the most needed.

This is off topic so this discussion shouldn't go much further but why the Baltic sea? Europeans far away from the Baltic sea are basically as pale as Europeans surrounding the Baltic sea.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 06:37
This is off topic so this discussion shouldn't go much further but why the Baltic sea? Europeans far away from the Baltic sea are basically as pale as Europeans surrounding the Baltic sea.Think in statistical terms, don't generalize all Europeans.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 07:11
I know there are some who desperately want to believe it, but the idea that some pure CHG Mesolithic hunter-gatherers were the ones who mixed into the steppe Eneolithic is not very persuasive to me. We know it was already there by Kvalynsk, but it increased with time. Those people were most probably already herding domestic animals. Time will tell though.

From Iain Mathieson et al:
"The Samara_Eneolithic from Khvalynsk II (~5,200-4,000BCE) predates the Yamnaya by at least 1,000 years but had already begun admixingwith this population, although the individuals of this population appear to be heterogeneous(Fig. 1) between EHG and Yamnaya. Taken as a whole, we estimate that they have ~74%EHG and ~26% Armenian related ancestry."
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/10/10/016477.full.pdf

As I said above, this increased with time, with people even less likely to be some sort of fossil Caucasus hunter-gatherers.

it makes the theory that Khvalynsk were the 1st horse herders more likely
Khvalynsk would be a merging of local HG horse hunters with incoming herders

bicicleur
03-02-17, 09:10
oh, oh



Narva
Latvia
Zvejnieki [Burial 93; HG2]
M
7791-7586 cal BP
172,707,718
R1b1a1a
P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree
U2e1

Jones 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Jones2017); additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf)



Latvia
Zvejnieki [Burial 121; HG3]
M
7252-6802 cal BP
37,749,963
R1b1a1a
P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree
U5a2d

Jones 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Jones2017); additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf)




Y-DNA would be R1b-P297 which is ancestral to both R1b-M473 and R1b-M269

that changes a lot, because these are IE clades and ancestral to Yamna and Afanasievo

TMRCA 13.4 ka

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/

and also the Samara HG belonged to the same clade, he was pré-M473 and in view of the dating may even have been ancestral to R1b-M473

http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf




Russia
Sok River, Samara [I0124/SVP 44]
M
5650-5555 BC

R1b1a
M343+, L278+, [P297 equivalent PF6513+], M478-, [M478 equivalent Y13872+, Y13866- (The presence of positive and negative markers in the M478 node can reflect an intermediate stage of its formation.)], M478-, M269-
U5a1d
C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249d, 290-291d, T489C, A769G, A825t, A1018G, A2758G, C2885T, T3552a, T3594C, G4104A, T4312C, A4715G, G7146A, C7196a, T7256C, A7521G, T8468C, A8577G, G8584A, T8655C, A9545G, C10400T, T10664C, A10688G, C10810T, C10915T, A11605t, A12217G, G13105A, A13263G, G13276A, T13506C, T13650C, T14318C, T14783C, G15043A, G15301A, A15487t, A16129G, T16187C, G16230A, T16278C, T16298C, C16311T, T16325C, C16327T, C16519T, A8577G, A11605t, A12217G, T16189C!
Haak 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Haak2015); Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf); Mathieson 2015



Yamna Y-DNA came from mesolithic Eastern Europe and it was there at least since 7.5 ka and probably much earlier

we might be getting on to something now

bicicleur
03-02-17, 09:48
Nope. Not everybody can drive a truck, you know that, right? Some people are missing necessary genetic predispositions for driving. Coordination, attention, memory, obedience to traffic law, long attention span, and liking driving enough to take it as a job. You might even have all the skills but no natural excitement to driving, nobody is going to make you a driver. This is why h-gs don't do farming. They love hunting and they hate farming. Unless you standing close by with a whip or a gun they won't do it. Simple like that.
On top of it, you know how it is when someone comes to your country and wants to change your culture. You are so ecstatic to embrace it, right?

you're making things unnecessary complicated again,
everybody can learn to drive a truck unless he/she has a disorder
and nobody likes to be stuck in traffic jams all day
but some do it for a living

today there are no HGs any more, because you can't make a living from it
that is what happened
not because they liked farming so much

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 10:15
New mtDNA from Stone age Eastern Europe(Latvia, Ukraine) (http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/2017/02/new-mtdna-from-stone-age-eastern.html)

Post at my blog where I argue high frequencies of U5a, U4 in Eastern Europe today is partially due to ancestry from Eastern European hunter gatherers.

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 10:23
As Tomenable just showed all the Latvian hunter gatherers cluster closest to WHG in PCA except Latvia_MN2 who clusters closest to EHG. Latvia_MN2 is also the only Latvian HG with brown eyes and light skin mutation 374F. This is probably not a coincidence because so far most Ukrainian and Russian HGs have brown eyes and the 374F mutation while most WHGs have blue eyes and lack the 374F mutation.

8445

bicicleur
03-02-17, 11:14
I actually meant the conclusion that agriculture was autonomously arrived at in northeastern Europe, although I also hadn't considered Corded Ware starting out that far north.

If, as Marko is suggesting, it started out this far north, then that could explain the lack of Anatolian derived "farmer". The Corded Ware samples which have it picked it up then in central Europe,yes?

Still, as I asked above:


As for the bolded part of your comment, maybe it's better to talk about LBK like EN for the Anatolian contingent. It's interesting to look at the Haak formulation based on d-stats in this context. The EN would then have arrived in the northeast later.
Also, it's an interesting reminder of how different modern populations are from the Corded Ware, etc. people.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/images_article/nature14317-f3.jpg

indeed, it looks like WHG increased in the Baltic/Scandinavia after CW, and along with the WHG also came some EEF
early Latvian CW doesn't have any EEF, Estonian CW RISE00 has, but it is not dated, I guess it arrived in late CW, and not from Anatolia but west/central Europe

bicicleur
03-02-17, 11:39
the EHG was brought to Eastern Europe in late paleolithic/early mesolithic by R1a/R1b
that was right after the Caspian Sea spillover
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_of_Extreme_Inundations
http://www.paleogeo.org/Flood_big_en.jpg
it is the Butovo culture which gradually admixed with the Swiderian WHG folks by taking their wives (U5, U4, U2e contrary to C)

in the mean time R2, R1a and R1b also arrived south of the Caspian into Transcaucasia area, they admixed with CHG
it was the time of the early domestication of goat/sheep by selective culling hunting techniques in the Zagros and Taurus Mts
it is just before the 11.8 ka TMRCA expansion of R1b-V88, and R2 is identified in earliest Iran Neolithic

then CHG and mtDNA H starts to spill over into Eastern Europe from across the Caucasus
we have this in Khvalynsk culture (the R1b-pré-V88 and mtDNA H sample), Dnjepr-Donets culture (mtDNA H) and now 6 ka middle neolithic Latvia

the origin of R would be TMRCA of P 31.9 ka in Aq Kupruk, north of the Hindu Kush, from where R2 expanded into Iran and toward the Zagros Mts in early mesolithic
https://www.academia.edu/5738814/Paleolithic_Afghanistan
R1 would have moved slightly north, upstream of the Oxus & Jaxartes rivers, which was the highway into Aral Sea at the end of the Caspian Sea spillover, and then further via the Volga river into Europe

Tomenable
03-02-17, 12:34
indeed, it looks like WHG increased in the Baltic/Scandinavia after CW, and along with the WHG also came some EEF"Increased" and "came" are not the same thing here. It is like saying that Amerindian "increased" in, or "came" to, Mexico after Spaniards started intermarrying with native aristocracy. When CW came, there were two autosomally distinct groups - CW immigrants, native WHG. Gradually, those groups started mixing, producing "Mestizos".

Corded Ware Latvia_LN1 is like those early Spanish settlers in Mexico.

Not yet mixed with local WHG, but those WHG were there.

MarkoZ
03-02-17, 13:38
Weren't there rumors as of recent that the Balkans hosted a SHG-WHG population? This would make an Balkanic origin of European R1b by way of West Asia increasingly likely, as many suspected due to the distribution of L23*.

berun
03-02-17, 14:54
So the odds are that R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 both originated in East Europe.

Again you don't look at archaeology...

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2016/youngerdryas.png
much of Eastern Europe was barren, density was very low.



2) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago - R1a
3) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a
4) Lokomotiv, ca. 8125-6025 (avg. 7075) years ago - R1a

So the Karelian sample just can be after the Lokomotiv men... just add up archaeology (Combed Ware origin) and you get who was first. Apply the same for the R1b from its European or Anatolian refuge.

Ukko
03-02-17, 14:58
There is no way that Comb-Ware culture was not N1c, and more specifically N1c-L708+ in Europe.

N1c-L708 entered Europe, crossing the Ural Mountains, no later than 7500 years ago (or 5500 BC).

The oldest currently known sample is 4500 years old, from the area of Smolensk (Chekunova 2014).


http://img.freepik.com/free-icon/first-prize-trophy_318-63597.jpg?size=338&ext=jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rvQsqKVOgZw/UJVO867ctrI/AAAAAAAAE4Q/dVEAmU9e5kQ/s1600/LOL+Meme+(25).gif

berun
03-02-17, 15:16
With the actual samples available we have now a pocket of I2 in Scandinavia, a pocket of R1b in the Baltics, and a pocket of R1a (with a J1) in European Russia. Too much climatic changes in Europe meant big migrations.

Alan
03-02-17, 15:30
oh, oh



Narva
Latvia
Zvejnieki [Burial 93; HG2]
M
7791-7586 cal BP
172,707,718
R1b1a1a
P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree
U2e1

Jones 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Jones2017); additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf)



Latvia
Zvejnieki [Burial 121; HG3]
M
7252-6802 cal BP
37,749,963
R1b1a1a
P297; reported as R1b1b, using Karafet et al. 2008 tree
U5a2d

Jones 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Jones2017); additional info on Y-DNA from Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf)




Y-DNA would be R1b-P297 which is ancestral to both R1b-M473 and R1b-M269

that changes a lot, because these are IE clades and ancestral to Yamna and Afanasievo

TMRCA 13.4 ka

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/

and also the Samara HG belonged to the same clade, he was pré-M473 and in view of the dating may even have been ancestral to R1b-M473

http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf




Russia
Sok River, Samara [I0124/SVP 44]
M
5650-5555 BC

R1b1a
M343+, L278+, [P297 equivalent PF6513+], M478-, [M478 equivalent Y13872+, Y13866- (The presence of positive and negative markers in the M478 node can reflect an intermediate stage of its formation.)], M478-, M269-
U5a1d
C146T, C152T, C195T, A247G, A249d, 290-291d, T489C, A769G, A825t, A1018G, A2758G, C2885T, T3552a, T3594C, G4104A, T4312C, A4715G, G7146A, C7196a, T7256C, A7521G, T8468C, A8577G, G8584A, T8655C, A9545G, C10400T, T10664C, A10688G, C10810T, C10915T, A11605t, A12217G, G13105A, A13263G, G13276A, T13506C, T13650C, T14318C, T14783C, G15043A, G15301A, A15487t, A16129G, T16187C, G16230A, T16278C, T16298C, C16311T, T16325C, C16327T, C16519T, A8577G, A11605t, A12217G, T16189C!
Haak 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Haak2015); Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf); Mathieson 2015



Yamna Y-DNA came from mesolithic Eastern Europe and it was there at least since 7.5 ka and probably much earlier

we might be getting on to something now

What I find fascinating, despite all these old R1b clades we have yet to find any R1b p25 let alone M343 there. Despite us having allot of samples from Europe and the Steppes, These two have yet to be found. Up to date they are only found in West and South Central Asia.

Alan
03-02-17, 15:33
you're making things unnecessary complicated again,
everybody can learn to drive a truck unless he/she has a disorder
and nobody likes to be stuck in traffic jams all day
but some do it for a living

today there are no HGs any more, because you can't make a living from it
that is what happened
not because they liked farming so much


Yes but to learn how to drive a truck you need someone who knows how to do it and teach you, you can't learn to drive a truck by simply watching from far distance.

Tomenable
03-02-17, 17:13
So the Karelian sample just can be after the Lokomotiv men... just add up archaeology (Combed Ware origin) and you get who was first. Apply the same for the R1b from its European or Anatolian refuge.

Again, you have no proof that Combed Ware were R1a instead of N1c. Combed Ware existed in times when N1c could already be present in Europe. N1c has East Asian origin and is less native (shorter presence) in Europe than R1a and R1b. L708 is the oldest subclade of N1c that can be found in Europe. TMRCA of L708 was 7500 ybp. But the oldest European N1c known so far, is the one from Smolensk region dated to around 4500 ybp (Chekunova 2014).

It seems that N1c replaced I2, R1a, even R1b (like these 2 cases from Latvia) in some areas. But in Latvia it was probably R1a which replaced R1b, and then, much later, N1c came and mixed with R1a.

Modern Finns have Corded Ware substrate, but it looks like they were conquered by N1c men.

L708 is the oldest subclade that can be found in Europe, but it can also be found in Asia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural–Altaic_languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural%E2%80%93Altaic_languages)

So N1c most probably entered Europe either around 7500 years ago, or a bit later.

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

BTW, the Narva culture used to be associated with Uralic-speakers:

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


For a long time archaeologists believed that the first inhabitants of the region were Finno-Ugric, who were pushed north by people of the Corded Ware culture.[4] ... There is an academic debate what ethnicity represented the Narva culture: Finno-Ugrians or other Europids, preceding arrival of the Indo-Europeans.[6]

So Latvian R1b-P297 = Narva culture = Finno-Ugric speakers with R1b?

More likely people of the Narva culture were not Finno-Ugric.

Here is a more recent theory on expansion of Uralic languages in Europe:

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi1.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi1.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi2.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi2.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi3.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi3.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi4.jpg

http://www.elisanet.fi/alkupera/Suomi4.jpg

Angela
03-02-17, 17:17
It just occurred to me that the authors might be confusing people when they describe samples in Latvia as "Middle Neolithic". There is no real "Neolithic" in Latvia. The authors have adopted the confusing habit of Russian researchers of calling hunter-gatherer societies with pottery "Neolithic". The Neolithic, as in "agriculture" and "animal domestication", didn't arrive in these far Northeastern European areas until it was brought by Corded Ware.

@Bicicleur,


Bicicleur: in the mean time R2, R1a and R1b also arrived south of the Caspian into Transcaucasia area, they admixed with CHG
it was the time of the early domestication of goat/sheep by selective culling hunting techniques in the Zagros and Taurus Mts
it is just before the 11.8 ka TMRCA expansion of R1b-V88, and R2 is identified in earliest Iran Neolithic

So this would explain why no J2 y dna, and why there is a "Caucasus" component without resorting to bride exchange or theft across the Caucasus as the only explanation?

Which R1b clades do you speculate would have wound up south of the Caspian initially versus north of it, or were they the same, other than R2?

Since the admixture increased over a thousand year time period was it just a function of more such people crossing the Caucasus?

Tomenable
03-02-17, 17:24
Weren't there rumors as of recent that the Balkans hosted a SHG-WHG population? This would make an Balkanic origin of European R1b by way of West Asia increasingly likely, as many suspected due to the distribution of L23*.

Balkanic origin of R1b-L23 is what I supported before I started supporting Indo-European R1b-L23.

Back then I thought that R1b-M269/L23 came to the Steppe spreading the knowledge of metallurgy:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy

The earliest known evidence metallurgy is from the Balkans (the Vinca culture to be precise):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_culture#Industry

Of course then I assumed that R1b-M269 were originally Non-IE and adopted IE language from R1a.

Angela
03-02-17, 17:41
Balkanic origin of R1b-L23 is what I supported before I started supporting Indo-European R1b-L23.

Back then I thought that R1b-M269/L23 came to the Steppe spreading the knowledge of metallurgy:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy

The earliest known evidence metallurgy is from the Balkans (the Vinca culture to be precise):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_culture#Industry

Of course then I assumed that R1b-M269 were originally Non-IE and adopted IE language from R1a.

Absolutely untrue as stated. All the latest papers indicate the Near East or near simultaneously in both places. Please use our search engine to research metallurgy.

MarkoZ
03-02-17, 18:26
Balkanic origin of R1b-L23 is what I supported before I started supporting Indo-European R1b-L23.

Back then I thought that R1b-M269/L23 came to the Steppe spreading the knowledge of metallurgy:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy

The earliest known evidence metallurgy is from the Balkans (the Vinca culture to be precise):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinča_culture#Industry

Of course then I assumed that R1b-M269 were originally Non-IE and adopted IE language from R1a.

If you're referring to intentionally produced tin-bronze, then no. There is but one tin-bronze plate in Vinca that might as well have been accidentally produced. The origin of copper metallurgy lies in the Levant.

I think it's becoming more & more obvious that European R1b in its earliest stages doesn't have a lot to do with either Indo-European languages or any kind of technological advances - it looks more like a random H&G lineage that got successful.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 18:49
What I find fascinating, despite all these old R1b clades we have yet to find any R1b p25 let alone M343 there. Despite us having allot of samples from Europe and the Steppes, These two have yet to be found. Up to date they are only found in West and South Central Asia.

yes, well, read my post 104

bicicleur
03-02-17, 18:51
Yes but to learn how to drive a truck you need someone who knows how to do it and teach you, you can't learn to drive a truck by simply watching from far distance.

ah, yes, indeed, but that has nothing to do with genes

Angela
03-02-17, 18:55
As Tomenable just showed all the Latvian hunter gatherers cluster closest to WHG in PCA except Latvia_MN2 who clusters closest to EHG. Latvia_MN2 is also the only Latvian HG with brown eyes and light skin mutation 374F. This is probably not a coincidence because so far most Ukrainian and Russian HGs have brown eyes and the 374F mutation while most WHGs have blue eyes and lack the 374F mutation.

8445

So, let me see if I understand your chart. The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2 , which had dark hair and dark eyes, and which you say was closer to EHG in autosomal composition?

What of the sample with blonde hair and blue eyes? What is its status with regard to SLC45A2? Was it ancestral, or they couldn't get a read? If either of these were true, then we really don't have a blonde, blue-eyed, "European white" skinned person at all, do we?

Never mind the fact that we don't see evidence here of a real sweep yet, just a one off as Gamba et al found in Central Europe. Speaking of one offs, do you have in your files the snps for the Ain Ghazi samples? Someone claimed here that there was also a sample from there which was derived for both of the skin snps and also had the blue eye gene and was predicted to have light hair.

LeBrok
03-02-17, 19:08
Yes but to learn how to drive a truck you need someone who knows how to do it and teach you, you can't learn to drive a truck by simply watching from far distance.And where I didn't agree with it? The genetic point is, that even if you teach some people they either won't be able or they will hate it and won't do it. I've asked you many times before to give us one example of modern h-gs doing switching from hunting to farming by observing and learning. Real life example can prove your point. And yet you couldn't find this one tribe.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 19:09
It just occurred to me that the authors might be confusing people when they describe samples in Latvia as "Middle Neolithic". There is no real "Neolithic" in Latvia. The authors have adopted the confusing habit of Russian researchers of calling hunter-gatherer societies with pottery "Neolithic". The Neolithic, as in "agriculture" and "animal domestication", didn't arrive in these far Northeastern European areas until it was brought by Corded Ware.

@Bicicleur,



So this would explain why no J2 y dna, and why there is a "Caucasus" component without resorting to bride exchange or theft across the Caucasus as the only explanation?

Which R1b clades do you speculate would have wound up south of the Caspian initially versus north of it, or were they the same, other than R2?

Since the admixture increased over a thousand year time period was it just a function of more such people crossing the Caucasus?

little is known along with what Y-DNA this CHG crossed the Caucasus

I would say the Khvalynsk newcomer was a carrier of the CHG.



Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015

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



these are the Y-calls acording to Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/

positive for R1b and R1b1,
1 positive and 17 negative for R1b-V88 which means the positive is either a false one or this sample is early pré-V88
negative for R1b-P297

this is the only early sample I know with CHG admixture in Eastern Europe of which Y-DNA is known
the CHG in this sample is higher than in the Yamna individuals

which other clades brought CHG to Eastern Europe I don't know, but I would guess R1b and/or J2

it seems like the Y-ancestor of the Yamna population both sampled and hypothysised, R1b-P297 was allready in Eastern Europe before admixture with CHG occured ; I guess the carriers of the CHG were rather small in numbers and their Y-DNA got extinct by the time of Yamna and Afanasievo

the same goes for the R1b that arrived in Transcaucasia : they were very small in numbers and the autosomal DNA shifted from EHG to CHG quite rapidly ; that is why I mentioned that R1b-V88 expanded after arrival in Transcaucasia : the autosomal DNA would allready have shifted before the Y-DNA started to expand ; it is even so that the autosomal of the R1b-V88 in Els Trocs is EEF with some WHG and no EHG nor CHG ; of course that was almost 5.000 years later than arrival in Transcaucasia ; you see the same in R1b Villabruna who was 100 % WHG, he was a loner in his Y-DNA and his mtDNA was European

it's all just a theory of mine, but in this study I find some confirmation

p.s. you're right about the middle neolithic being mesolith with pottery, alltough the transition from HG to farmer in this area is not very clear
the late neolithic sample coïncides with the onset of CW herders

bicicleur
03-02-17, 19:50
So, let me see if I understand your chart. The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2 , which had dark hair and dark eyes, and which you say was closer to EHG in autosomal composition?

What of the sample with blonde hair and blue eyes? What is its status with regard to SLC45A2? Was it ancestral, or they couldn't get a read? If either of these were true, then we really don't have a blonde, blue-eyed, "European white" skinned person at all, do we?

Never mind the fact that we don't see evidence here of a real sweep yet, just a one off as Gamba et al found in Central Europe. Speaking of one offs, do you have in your files the snps for the Ain Ghazi samples? Someone claimed here that there was also a sample from there which was derived for both of the skin snps and also had the blue eye gene and was predicted to have light hair.

indeed, the blue eyes or blond hair or white skins found uptill now seem rather one offs and these here too

still I think these people in this study have a chance of being ancestral to the 'European' white people as they seem ancestral to the CW and Sintashta expansion
how else would 'European' looking people have made it till the Tarim Basin 3.5-4 ka?
just a hunch, no proof of course

berun
03-02-17, 21:02
Again, you have no proof that Combed Ware were R1a instead of N1c. Combed Ware existed in times when N1c could already be present in Europe. N1c has East Asian origin and is less native (shorter presence) in Europe than R1a and R1b. L708 is the oldest subclade of N1c that can be found in Europe. TMRCA of L708 was 7500 ybp. But the oldest European N1c known so far, is the one from Smolensk region dated to around 4500 ybp (Chekunova 2014).

It seems that N1c replaced I2, R1a, even R1b (like these 2 cases from Latvia) in some areas. But in Latvia it was probably R1a which replaced R1b, and then, much later, N1c came and mixed with R1a.


just in the wiki, there are papers and even maps but not time...


In the east the Comb Ceramic pottery of northern Eurasia extends beyond the Ural mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ural_mountains) to the Baraba steppe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraba_steppe) adjacent to the Altai-Sayan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altai-Sayan) mountain range, merging with a continuum of similar ceramic styles.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit%E2%80%93Comb_Ware_culture#cite_note-1) It would include the Narva culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narva_culture) of Estonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia) and the Sperrings culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sperrings_culture&action=edit&redlink=1) in Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland), among others.

If we have HG R1a in the Baikal, if we know that Comb Ware Culture extended westwards by then, and knowing that after such cultural expansion we get in Eastern Europe HG R1a... just it's to use logics, a little, because the R1a clans are not so old.

For the N history, nice but it's a young clade which poped up in the Amur valley, they represent a later Siberian wave.

Angela
03-02-17, 21:33
indeed, the blue eyes or blond hair or white skins found uptill now seem rather one offs and these here too

still I think these people in this study have a chance of being ancestral to the 'European' white people as they seem ancestral to the CW and Sintashta expansion
how else would 'European' looking people have made it till the Tarim Basin 3.5-4 ka?
just a hunch, no proof of course

I agree it's certainly possible.

There's just still a lot that we don't know, I think. I never would have imagined that it could have increased as much as it apparently did, and in just, what, 1000 years in most places? Unless, in terms of the far eastern populations at least it was a really massive founder effect in which the people who left happened to have these alleles in a higher percentage and then there was just drift and some form of natural selection? Also, in terms of the Gamba sample from Hungary which was both derived for the two "skin" snps and blue eyes, and also was predicted to have light hair, I suppose one could say some genes drifted down into this area, but it could as well have come with the Anatolian Neolithic if they were also present there (and these are very Anatolian Neolithic like samples). Then, how did it get to Anatolia?
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images_hires/m685/ncomms6257-f3.jpg

It has to be, as one paper suggested, something in the background genome of perhaps the WHG and the EHG and then there was selection.

They're eventually going to have to do another paper on this.

Angela
03-02-17, 21:41
little is known along with what Y-DNA this CHG crossed the Caucasus

I would say the Khvalynsk newcomer was a carrier of the CHG.



Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015

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



these are the Y-calls acording to Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0122/

positive for R1b and R1b1,
1 positive and 17 negative for R1b-V88 which means the positive is either a false one or this sample is early pré-V88
negative for R1b-P297

this is the only early sample I know with CHG admixture in Eastern Europe of which Y-DNA is known
the CHG in this sample is higher than in the Yamna individuals

which other clades brought CHG to Eastern Europe I don't know, but I would guess R1b and/or J2

it seems like the Y-ancestor of the Yamna population both sampled and hypothysised, R1b-P297 was allready in Eastern Europe before admixture with CHG occured ; I guess the carriers of the CHG were rather small in numbers and their Y-DNA got extinct by the time of Yamna and Afanasievo

the same goes for the R1b that arrived in Transcaucasia : they were very small in numbers and the autosomal DNA shifted from EHG to CHG quite rapidly ; that is why I mentioned that R1b-V88 expanded after arrival in Transcaucasia : the autosomal DNA would allready have shifted before the Y-DNA started to expand ; it is even so that the autosomal of the R1b-V88 in Els Trocs is EEF with some WHG and no EHG nor CHG ; of course that was almost 5.000 years later than arrival in Transcaucasia ; you see the same in R1b Villabruna who was 100 % WHG, he was a loner in his Y-DNA and his mtDNA was European

it's all just a theory of mine, but in this study I find some confirmation

p.s. you're right about the middle neolithic being mesolith with pottery, alltough the transition from HG to farmer in this area is not very clear
the late neolithic sample coïncides with the onset of CW herders

To the best of my recollection all the papers indicate an increase in "CHG" from the time of the sample you cited. On what do you base that reasoning?

Tomenable
03-02-17, 21:50
Berun,

Since Narva is part of Comb Ware, you have R1b in Comb Ware - not R1a.

Tomenable
03-02-17, 21:57
The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2

Nope. Neither the only one, nor the oldest one.

Ukraine_HG1 had both of the major skin lightening alleles + brown eyes + brown hair:

"Note that the Ukrainian HG is dated to 11143-10591 ybp so about 9193-8641 BC and yet is derived for both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 making it the oldest sample derived for both light skin mutations."

So something like this (assuming that it was a woman, because no Y-DNA is reported):

https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12126398_f520.jpg

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883530/gr1_lrg.jpg

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883530/gr1_lrg.jpg

bicicleur
03-02-17, 22:14
To the best of my recollection all the papers indicate an increase in "CHG" from the time of the sample you cited. On what do you base that reasoning?

in the K = 14 admixture of Genetiker I check, there is a CHG-like component of which this sample has about 23 % while yamna in average some 15 % and CW/Sintashta has substantialy less, the Poltavka newcomer has less as well (but they have an EEF-like component which Yamna don't have)
the early European HG have very little of this component, upto 4 %, just like the 2 other Khvalynsk samples
I don't have the Dnepr-Donets admixture, but there I see mtDNA H appear

I started checking this when I noticed the contrast of this 1 Khvalynsk compared to the 2 others

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-lapita-genomes/

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 22:21
So, let me see if I understand your chart. The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2 , which had dark hair and dark eyes, and which you say was closer to EHG in autosomal composition?

That chart was created by the paper not me. All of the pre-Corded Ware Latvians appear to be pure WHGs except MN2 who might surprisingly be pure EHG. The pigment alleles for the pre-Corded Ware Latvians match their autosomal makeup, the (mostly)WHGs have blue eyes and dark skin alleles the (mostly)EHGs have brown eyes and light skin alleles.


What of the sample with blonde hair and blue eyes? What is its status with regard to SLC45A2? Was it ancestral, or they couldn't get a read? If either of these were true, then we really don't have a blonde, blue-eyed, "European white" skinned person at all, do we?

She(?) was predicated to have blonde hair because she(?) wasn't tested for rs16891982. If she was she'd certainly be ancestral and would have probably received a black/dark brown hair prediction.


Never mind the fact that we don't see evidence here of a real sweep yet, just a one off as Gamba et al found in Central Europe. Speaking of one offs, do you have in your files the snps for the Ain Ghazi samples? Someone claimed here that there was also a sample from there which was derived for both of the skin snps and also had the blue eye gene and was predicted to have light hair.

I agree. To me the results just display pigmentation difference between WHG and EHG. One of the Ain Ghazi samples(Levant Neolithic?) had a single derived allele in rs16891982 and may have also had one in rs12913832. He/She wouldn't be predicted to have light hair. I bet some in Levant Neolithic had derived alleles for both SNPs because some in Anatolia Neolithic did.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 22:24
"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)." All R1a are EN.

And sure you know about Comb-Ware culture and its epicenter...

I have another reason to believe that R1a in Lokomotiv arrived from the west, and probably all the way from Europe.
Lokomotiv has also mtDNA U5a, which is European, even western European, Gravettian.
I suspect R1a and U5a came as a package to Lokomotiv.
Furthermore both are the minority in Lokomotiv, a loner.

I told earlier I think R1a/R1b arrived in Europe in the Volga area with Butovo culture, near the end of youngest dryas.
Many took local European wives instead of their own mtDNA C.
Check post 104.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 22:32
I agree it's certainly possible.

There's just still a lot that we don't know, I think. I never would have imagined that it could have increased as much as it apparently did, and in just, what, 1000 years in most places? Unless, in terms of the far eastern populations at least it was a really massive founder effect in which the people who left happened to have these alleles in a higher percentage and then there was just drift and some form of natural selection? Also, in terms of the Gamba sample from Hungary which was both derived for the two "skin" snps and blue eyes, and also was predicted to have light hair, I suppose one could say some genes drifted down into this area, but it could as well have come with the Anatolian Neolithic if they were also present there (and these are very Anatolian Neolithic like samples). Then, how did it get to Anatolia?
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images_hires/m685/ncomms6257-f3.jpg

It has to be, as one paper suggested, something in the background genome of perhaps the WHG and the EHG and then there was selection.

They're eventually going to have to do another paper on this.

It would be interesting to see what natural selection did kick in.
There were ample random alleles, be it in the minority background.
All it took was natural selection and a subsequent expansion of the folks that had undergone the selection.

bicicleur
03-02-17, 22:41
Angela, something else.
Just before this paper was published I was trying to figure out where and when mongoloid traits started to devellop.
Mongoloid traits are also recognized in Amerindian tribes like the Bororo who live in the tropics in Brazil, so it is not a local adaptation of them, so it must allready have been in Siberia prior to the population of America.
Do you have any hints?

8447

Angela
03-02-17, 23:10
That chart was created by the paper not me. All of the pre-Corded Ware Latvians appear to be pure WHGs except MN2 who might surprisingly be pure EHG. The pigment alleles for the pre-Corded Ware Latvians match their autosomal makeup, the (mostly)WHGs have blue eyes and dark skin alleles the (mostly)EHGs have brown eyes and light skin alleles.

She(?) was predicated to have blonde hair because she(?) wasn't tested for rs16891982. If she was she'd certainly be ancestral and would have probably received a black/dark brown hair prediction.

I agree. To me the results just display pigmentation difference between WHG and EHG. One of the Ain Ghazi samples(Levant Neolithic?) had a single derived allele in rs16891982 and may have also had one in rs12913832. He/She wouldn't be predicted to have light hair. I bet some in Levant Neolithic had derived alleles for both SNPs because some in Anatolia Neolithic did.

Thank-you for the response, FH.

So, in fact, we don't have blonde, blue-eyed, "European" white skinned people in this area in the mesolithic. It's still blue-eyed, dark skinned people, and brown haired, brown eyed and light skinned people, which might be an EHG trademark at that time. I could put my own picture up as an example of the latter, but no, I don't think it's because of my U2e mtDna, despite the fact that my closest ancient mtDna match is from German Corded Ware. :)

It gets tiring spending all this time cleaning up incorrect information on this thread.

Oh, in this case, the Hungarian Neolithic sample is still our first example of that combination.

http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images_hires/m685/ncomms6257-f3.jpg

Fire Haired14
03-02-17, 23:39
@Angela,

The oldest example of that combination is the Samara HG.

Sile
03-02-17, 23:40
Nope. Neither the only one, nor the oldest one.

Ukraine_HG1 had both of the major skin lightening alleles + brown eyes + brown hair:

"Note that the Ukrainian HG is dated to 11143-10591 ybp so about 9193-8641 BC and yet is derived for both SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 making it the oldest sample derived for both light skin mutations."

So something like this (assuming that it was a woman, because no Y-DNA is reported):

https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12126398_f520.jpg

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883530/gr1_lrg.jpg

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2082666371/2072883530/gr1_lrg.jpg

When are the slavs going to stop minimising the impact of the west-balts and east-balt people from poland to estonia ................clearly these are baltic people in the north

I find a very high % of slavs are racists against baltic people

Megalophias
03-02-17, 23:45
So something like this (assuming that it was a woman, because no Y-DNA is reported)

Both the Ukrainians are men, of robust build. Probably their haplogroup-finding program could not find an answer because they are relatively low coverage. However, we have Y haplogroup results from other ancient samples with similar coverage, so I expect the usual suspects can give us at least low-resolution results for these, and for Latvia_MN1. Also, Latvia_HG2 is fairly good coverage so a more detailed assignment should be possible for this one too, whether he is related to Samara_HG, or if he is on the M269 branch.

Latvia_MN1 is not east-shifted so is not too likely to show any newly arrived Comb Ware haplogroup, but you never know. Latvia_MN2, the EHG-like one, is a woman, as is the Corded Ware Latvia_LN1.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 00:18
Both the Ukrainians are men, of robust build.Do you have photos of their skulls or face reconstructions?

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 00:21
Both the Ukrainians are men, of robust build. Probably their haplogroup-finding program could not find an answer because they are relatively low coverage. However, we have Y haplogroup results from other ancient samples with similar coverage, so I expect the usual suspects can give us at least low-resolution results for these, and for Latvia_MN1. Also, Latvia_HG2 is fairly good coverage so a more detailed assignment should be possible for this one too, whether he is related to Samara_HG, or if he is on the M269 branch.

Latvia_MN1 is not east-shifted so is not too likely to show any newly arrived Comb Ware haplogroup, but you never know. Latvia_MN2, the EHG-like one, is a woman, as is the Corded Ware Latvia_LN1.

Since no one seems to be asking, what's the verdict regarding the reliability of those results? Did the White God disclose which program he uses for variant calling?

Megalophias
04-02-17, 00:35
Since no one seems to be asking, what's the verdict regarding the reliability of those results? Did the White God disclose which program he uses for variant calling?
genetiker's raw results basically always agree with what other people get; occasionally there is a difference of opinion over whether an ambiguous result should be interpreted one way or the other, or whether some particular call is due to DNA damage or whatnot, but usually everyone's results are in agreement.

Megalophias
04-02-17, 00:43
Do you have photos of their skulls or face reconstructions?
No. There are several references in the supp info, but most are rather old.

Fire Haired14
04-02-17, 00:52
Ancient and modern Latvia and Ukraine modeled using a global PCA created by David Wesoloski.

It's difficult to model moderns well with PCA, CHG and WHG scores are exaggerated. When modeled this way German Corded Ware scores 14% EEF so maybe Latvian Corded Ware doesn't have EEF admixture.




WHG
EHG
CHG
Iran_Neo
EEF
Levant_Neo
@D


Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ27
63.7
36.4
0
0
0.25
0
0.011034


Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25
72.15
27.85
0
0
0
0
0.006894


Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ32
71.85
21.75
6.3
0
0
0
0.010565


Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26
78.75
7.3
9.55
4.3
0
0
0.008507


Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31
14.8
85.2
0
0
0
0
0.011728


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
18.75
39.6
41.65
0
0
0
0.023763


LatvianModern
44
15.7
24.8
0
15.5
0
0.006947


Ukraine_HG1:StPet2
36.55
57.1
6.35
0
0
0
0.01034


Ukraine_N1:StPet12
37.45
49.8
12.75
0
0
0
0.020136


UkrainianEast Modern
35.5
12.8
28.35
0
23.35
0
0.006077

arvistro
04-02-17, 01:13
Seems like modern Latvians don't have majority of genes from those Latvians of old.
15.5 Anatolian.
Hmm, to model arithmetically (I know it is wrong, still doing it just to give direction):
lets try 3 model
1 part of Latvia_MN1 - adds 25 WHG, 2.4 EHG, 3.1 CHG
1 part of Latvia_LN1 - adds 6.25 WHG, 13 EHG, 14 CHG
then the remaining 1 part should add
44-31.25 = 12-13% WHG, 15.7-15.4 = no EHG, 24.8 - 17.1 = 7.7 CHG, and 15.5 EEF.

Which means a population that looks something like this arrived to Latvia to complement existing cocktail:
37% WHG, 23% CHG, 40% EEF = GAC folk??? From around Poland?

Angela
04-02-17, 01:18
Angela, something else.
Just before this paper was published I was trying to figure out where and when mongoloid traits started to devellop.
Mongoloid traits are also recognized in Amerindian tribes like the Bororo who live in the tropics in Brazil, so it is not a local adaptation of them, so it must allready have been in Siberia prior to the population of America.
Do you have any hints?

8447

Well, EDAR was in the SHG, yes?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

I would guess that was perhaps EHG related and ANE related before that? The Russian anthropologists were pretty sure that Mal'ta boy had it or something similar. (Did they have a tooth or only part of the skull? I forget.) There was an outcry when I suggested on the Board that perhaps they were right, but I think more recent papers and analyses provide some support for that idea. I think that after the split into West Eurasian and East Eurasian there was some intrusion from East Eurasia toward the west, as there was into Central Asia and across the steppe many millennia later.

According to this latest paper on East Asian ancient dna, it's in the ancient hunter-gatherer. They also said in that paper that American Indians were pretty close to this ancient population (and the Ulchi?) so I think this may be a set of mutations that occurred after the split between East and West Eurasians, but before Neolithization, and thus would have gone to Siberia and then North America?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33517-Neolithic-east-asian-dna-5700-bc?highlight=East+Asian

I think I remember reading somewhere that EDAR is on an increasing south/north cline, which makes sense given the thick hair aspect. I've never understood the selective advantage some of these things would have in an arctic climate however, especially something like more sweat and oil glands. The smaller breast size thing is a mystery too.

The Jomon are said to derive from this ancient line as well. I've never investigated their traits much. This paper promises information about it in the abstract, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone who reads this has the information from the paper or elsewhere and can share it.
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v60/n10/full/jhg201579a.html

This is all just off the top of my head and two minutes research, so take it for what it's worth. :)

Fire Haired14
04-02-17, 01:28
In the Global PCA Latvia clusters a little closer to European HGs than Lithuanians and Estonians do. Here are U frequencies for Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland.

Lithuania=162, Latvia=110, Estonia=116, Seto=54, Poland=840

U4: Lithuania(2.4%), Latvia(9.1%), Estonia(4.3%), Seto(7.4%), Poland(4%)
U5a: Lithuania(9.3%), Latvia(10%), Estonia(9.5%), Seto(24.1%), Poland(6.2%)
U5b: Lithuania(2.5%), Latvia(3.6%), Estonia(4.3%), Seto(1.9%), Poland(4.4%)
U2e: Lithuania(3.7%, founder effect?), Latvia(5.4%), Estonia(2.6%), Seto(0%), Poland(0.8%).

% more U5a, U4, U2e than Poland.
Lithuania(4.4%), Estonia(5.4%), Latvia(13.5%), Seto(20.5%).

Latvian
"Polish" 76.8
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 13.15
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 10.05
"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00" 0
"Salzmuende_MN:I0551" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0559" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0560" 0
"Esperstedt_MN:I0172" 0
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:Avg" 0
"Iberia_MN:Avg" 0

distance=0.004909"

Lithuanian
"Polish" 83.7
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 8.55
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 7.75
"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00" 0
"Salzmuende_MN:I0551" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0559" 0
"Baalberge_MN:I0560" 0
"Esperstedt_MN:I0172" 0
"Iberia_Chalcolithic:Avg" 0
"Iberia_MN:Avg" 0


distance=0.002685"

Estonian
"Polish" 79.65
"Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25" 10.65
"Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31" 9.7

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 01:36
Does this really make sense if you squeeze modern Poles in there?

Tomenable
04-02-17, 01:56
Maybe it would be better to use PL_N17 instead of modern Poles?

Fire Haired, I can send you this genome (raw data) if you want.

It was Trzciniec culture, which is likely ancestral to modern Balts.


Does this really make sense if you squeeze modern Poles in there?

Not really.

But Poles minus some EEF + extra HG + extra Steppe = kinda Balts.

Which is why modern Balts can be modeled as Poles + HG2 + MN2.

MN2 already had some Steppe admixture, but not as much as LN1.

Dov
04-02-17, 02:08
WHG
EHG
CHG
Iran_Neo
EEF
Levant_Neo
@D


Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ27
63.7
36.4
0
0
0.25
0
0.011034


Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25
72.15
27.85
0
0
0
0
0.006894


Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ32
71.85
21.75
6.3
0
0
0
0.010565


Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26
78.75
7.3
9.55
4.3
0
0
0.008507

























































As expected, the obvious descendants of the final Palaeolithic Swiderian and Mesolithic Kunda WHG.
R1b probably came there from the north-eastern EHG. Although, who knows.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 02:11
Davidski posted this:

Modern Latvian:

Poland_EBA 0.753
Lengyel_LN 0.111
Western_HG 0.112
Nganasan 0.024

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 02:23
Though at 5,039-4,626 cal BP the Latvian Corded Ware woman is older than any Polish Corded Ware settlement. So I don't see you'd want to model modern Latvians with Bronze Age Poles.

Fire Haired14
04-02-17, 02:40
Davidski posted this:

Modern Latvian:

Poland_EBA 0.753
Lengyel_LN 0.111
Western_HG 0.112
Nganasan 0.024

10% extra hunter gatherer makes more sense than the 30% global PCA gives. PCA and ADMIXTURE always give Europeans a significantly higher amount of WHG than formal stats do.

We'll have to wait to see what type of R1b the Latvian HGs had but so far the evidence suggests Baltic HG ancestry entered modern Balts mostly via mtDNA/women. I've done the math and Balts' hg U needs an extra 10-15% hunter gatherer added on top of 85-90% normal Northern European. Normal Northern European+10-20% hunter gatherer might not be the exactly correct model for Balts but I think it's pretty accurate.

Seto have twice as much U5a, U4 as other Balts. Wish Seto genomes were available.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 02:41
Did the White God disclose which program he uses for variant calling?

Is Genetiker really from Peru?

If so then I suspect that he is the Mestizo God suffering from OWGD identity crisis.

Or maybe he is 100% White:

http://i.imgur.com/UsdO7pv.png

Tomenable
04-02-17, 03:17
From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

LeBrok
04-02-17, 05:28
It just occurred to me that the authors might be confusing people when they describe samples in Latvia as "Middle Neolithic". There is no real "Neolithic" in Latvia. The authors have adopted the confusing habit of Russian researchers of calling hunter-gatherer societies with pottery "Neolithic". The Neolithic, as in "agriculture" and "animal domestication", didn't arrive in these far Northeastern European areas until it was brought by Corded Ware.
Right on, I wanted to mention it too.

Alan
04-02-17, 06:45
ah, yes, indeed, but that has nothing to do with genes

Well yes, you need contact to learn something from another people and as we know contact always meant at least a little mixing in human history. Even if it was only as low as 5%.

Also as Angela stated some Eastern archeologists have a weird understanding of the term "Neolithic and agriculture" for them people are already agricultural if they have pottery.

Alan
04-02-17, 06:47
So, let me see if I understand your chart. The only sample that had both of the major depigmentation snps was MN2 , which had dark hair and dark eyes, and which you say was closer to EHG in autosomal composition?

What of the sample with blonde hair and blue eyes? What is its status with regard to SLC45A2? Was it ancestral, or they couldn't get a read? If either of these were true, then we really don't have a blonde, blue-eyed, "European white" skinned person at all, do we?

Never mind the fact that we don't see evidence here of a real sweep yet, just a one off as Gamba et al found in Central Europe. Speaking of one offs, do you have in your files the snps for the Ain Ghazi samples? Someone claimed here that there was also a sample from there which was derived for both of the skin snps and also had the blue eye gene and was predicted to have light hair.

One of those Levant_Neo samples is said to had Red hair.

Alan
04-02-17, 06:49
And where I didn't agree with it? The genetic point is, that even if you teach some people they either won't be able or they will hate it and won't do it. I've asked you many times before to give us one example of modern h-gs doing switching from hunting to farming by observing and learning. Real life example can prove your point. And yet you couldn't find this one tribe.

I think you have quoted the wrong person? At least my statement was not directed towards you. I was actually not disagreeing with you ^^

Alan
04-02-17, 06:57
in the K = 14 admixture of Genetiker I check, there is a CHG-like component of which this sample has about 23 % while yamna in average some 15 % and CW/Sintashta has substantialy less, the Poltavka newcomer has less as well (but they have an EEF-like component which Yamna don't have)
the early European HG have very little of this component, upto 4 %, just like the 2 other Khvalynsk samples
I don't have the Dnepr-Donets admixture, but there I see mtDNA H appear



I started checking this when I noticed the contrast of this 1 Khvalynsk compared to the 2 others

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-lapita-genomes/

Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG like admixture in Yamnaya is around 40-50% why in the world would someone take the numbers of Genetiker before any of the real studies plus even most of the bloggers (many of them being actually biased towards EHG) giving also numbers like 40-50%. Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.

The problem with genetikers CHG component is, it uses modern Caucasians as proxy, but modern Caucasians have Anatolian_Neo and even some Levant_Neo admixture.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 07:01
From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):
http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png


I like this graph. I wish they didn't miss Samara/Kvalisk h-gs, and KO1. Interesting part is how all the hunter gatherers lined up. Like they are composed only of two ancestral components, just different amounts of them. Like Med and NE Euro in Harappa but not exactly.

Latvia LN1, seems like it is composed of Latvia MN2 and Stuttgart/Hungarian Neo. We can draw a straight line through 3 of them. I don't understand (the red arrows) how it is possible that CHG, at amount of 25-40% could have ended up in Latvia in Bronze Age. Pure CHG should not exist anymore by this time. If some groups crossed Caucasus at this time they were like Iranian and Armenian Bronze Age. In this case it is more likely that LN1 happened of Latvia MN2 (which already in the area) and Neolithic Farmer who is in "Poland" at this time. Close by and easy mix. 75% Latvia MN2 and 25% Stuttgart.

This table here must be wrong then, if it comes to CHG component (from post 141). This component must contain EEF.:





WHG
EHG
CHG
Iran_Neo
EEF
Levant_Neo
@D


Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ27
63.7
36.4
0
0
0.25
0
0.011034


Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25
72.15
27.85
0
0
0
0
0.006894


Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ32
71.85
21.75
6.3
0
0
0
0.010565


Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26
78.75
7.3
9.55
4.3
0
0
0.008507


Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31
14.8
85.2
0
0
0
0
0.011728


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
18.75
39.6
41.65
0
0
0
0.023763


LatvianModern
44
15.7
24.8
0
15.5
0
0.006947


Ukraine_HG1:StPet2
36.55
57.1
6.35
0
0
0
0.01034


Ukraine_N1:StPet12
37.45
49.8
12.75
0
0
0
0.020136


UkrainianEast Modern
35.5
12.8
28.35
0
23.35
0
0.006077



Few Notes:

Seems like Latvia HG went extinct, and was replaced by Latvia MN2 type hunter gatherer, who was closer genetically to Samvara/karelia EHG. I don't see how Latvia HG fits to Bronze age equation. Edit: I found need for them. If we make a straight line from Latvia h-g to Hungarian Neolithic we will get Hungarian Bronze Age. Sweet.
I'm not saying that they came from Litva, but perhaps Litva like h-gs occupied area from Western Ukraine to Estonia? Ukraine HG1 comes from East Ukraine, right?

Estonian LN, Rise00, looks like composed of 70% Ukrainian HG and 30% EEF. I was convinced this was almost pure h-g, but it turned to be not the case.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 07:04
I think you have quoted the wrong person? At least my statement was not directed towards you. I was actually not disagreeing with you ^^I did quoted the wrong person. :)

Alan
04-02-17, 07:16
Something else. Why are they holding back the Maykop samples? I mean they have published even allot of samples that they sampled after Maykop. Are the results so
big or why are they waiting. The same with the Harrapa samples.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 07:17
Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG in Yamnaya is around 40-50% why in the world would someone take the numbers of Genetiker before any of the real studies plus even most of the bloggers (many of them being actually biased towards EHG). Well, I think it is more like 50% Armenian Chalcolithic, but we have to remember that armenian Chalcolithic contained 20% of NE Euro, which came from Yamnaya. Making both of them more alike.




Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.This is a bit misleading as CHG and EHG contained ancient Baloch component. This could mean that they didn't need to exchange genetic material "recently" to be somewhat related. They are 20% related, but it doesn't mean they ever met. Their relation might be as old as LGM.


M411747

M218547
I0124


Kotias CHG

Samara HG
7.6 kya


Run time
8.14

Run time
5.57


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
37.02

Baloch
14.33


Caucasian
55.11

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
4.23

NE-Euro
75.62


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
1.35

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
9.62


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
0.24

San
-


E-African
0.45

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.18

Pygmy
-


W-African
1.42

W-African
0.2

Ukko
04-02-17, 08:24
10% extra hunter gatherer makes more sense than the 30% global PCA gives. PCA and ADMIXTURE always give Europeans a significantly higher amount of WHG than formal stats do.

We'll have to wait to see what type of R1b the Latvian HGs had but so far the evidence suggests Baltic HG ancestry entered modern Balts mostly via mtDNA/women. I've done the math and Balts' hg U needs an extra 10-15% hunter gatherer added on top of 85-90% normal Northern European. Normal Northern European+10-20% hunter gatherer might not be the exactly correct model for Balts but I think it's pretty accurate.

Seto have twice as much U5a, U4 as other Balts. Wish Seto genomes were available.

Seto is the the most archaic of the Baltic Finnish languages/dialects, the Pskov, Lake Ilmen, Daugava valley regions are where Western Uralics first arrived and formed in to Baltic Finns with the local population.

berun
04-02-17, 08:58
Berun,

Since Narva is part of Comb Ware, you have R1b in Comb Ware - not R1a.

My logics work different: R1a was in Siberia, Combed Ware Culture came from Siberia, we have R1a after the arrival of Combed Ware in Europe, R1b was already in Europe (Villabruna), these Latvian R1b had a mainly WHG autosomal. So you might show me R1b in Siberia, otherwise no way with me.

By the way Genetiker calculations in Ukraine are interesting and veeeery bad for many: a typical I2 HG, and a R1a Neolithic; no R1b by now.......

So four R1b pockets: Baltic, Armenian, Italian and Samara (only the first is not today R1b).

berun
04-02-17, 09:02
WHG
EHG
CHG
Iran_Neo
EEF

Levant_Neo
@D


Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ27
63.7
36.4
0
0
0.25
0
0.011034


Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25
72.15
27.85
0
0
0
0
0.006894


Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ32
71.85
21.75
6.3
0
0
0
0.010565


Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26
78.75
7.3
9.55
4.3
0
0
0.008507


Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31
14.8
85.2
0
0
0
0
0.011728


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
18.75
39.6
41.65
0
0
0
0.023763


LatvianModern
44
15.7
24.8
0
15.5
0
0.006947


Ukraine_HG1:StPet2
36.55
57.1
6.35
0
0
0
0.01034


Ukraine_N1:StPet12
37.45
49.8
12.75
0
0
0
0.020136


UkrainianEast Modern
35.5
12.8
28.35
0
23.35
0
0.006077




CHG in East Europe mesolithics is what would make any comparision of CW with Yamnaya possible...

berun
04-02-17, 09:06
I have another reason to believe that R1a in Lokomotiv arrived from the west, and probably all the way from Europe.
Lokomotiv has also mtDNA U5a, which is European, even western European, Gravettian.
I suspect R1a and U5a came as a package to Lokomotiv.
Furthermore both are the minority in Lokomotiv, a loner.

I told earlier I think R1a/R1b arrived in Europe in the Volga area with Butovo culture, near the end of youngest dryas.
Many took local European wives instead of their own mtDNA C.
Check post 104.

For the time we speak it was not such direction but the contrary; climatology delivered R1a to the Altai refuge first, once the ice retracted they had free way.

The Butovo is not possible, Villabruna was before...

Archaeology again must be taken into account.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 09:26
@Angela,

The oldest example of that combination is the Samara HG.

Samara HG was also R1b-P297.
I have the impression lots of R1b-P297 had it.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 09:39
Well, EDAR was in the SHG, yes?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

I would guess that was perhaps EHG related and ANE related before that? The Russian anthropologists were pretty sure that Mal'ta boy had it or something similar. (Did they have a tooth or only part of the skull? I forget.) There was an outcry when I suggested on the Board that perhaps they were right, but I think more recent papers and analyses provide some support for that idea. I think that after the split into West Eurasian and East Eurasian there was some intrusion from East Eurasia toward the west, as there was into Central Asia and across the steppe many millennia later.

According to this latest paper on East Asian ancient dna, it's in the ancient hunter-gatherer. They also said in that paper that American Indians were pretty close to this ancient population (and the Ulchi?) so I think this may be a set of mutations that occurred after the split between East and West Eurasians, but before Neolithization, and thus would have gone to Siberia and then North America?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33517-Neolithic-east-asian-dna-5700-bc?highlight=East+Asian

I think I remember reading somewhere that EDAR is on an increasing south/north cline, which makes sense given the thick hair aspect. I've never understood the selective advantage some of these things would have in an arctic climate however, especially something like more sweat and oil glands. The smaller breast size thing is a mystery too.

The Jomon are said to derive from this ancient line as well. I've never investigated their traits much. This paper promises information about it in the abstract, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone who reads this has the information from the paper or elsewhere and can share it.
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v60/n10/full/jhg201579a.html

This is all just off the top of my head and two minutes research, so take it for what it's worth. :)

Thx Angela, and sorry, we're off topic here.
I think EDAR reached Europe with pottery, but EDAR seems to be extinct amongst modern day Europeans now.

As for Malta being Mongolid, this is my post in another thread :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33526-To-everyone-who-claims-that-Malta-Boy-was-Mongoloid

Malta split from R 28.2 ka.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
R lived north of the Hindu Kush, not in Siberia.
Haplo Q lived in Siberia, like AF2 (17 ka)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
Malta mingled amongst them.
The Malta branch got extinct.

Mongoloid traits started to devellop in Siberia, Mongolia & N. China 30 ka.


So 31.9 ka haplo Q and R split, and Q got Mongoloid and R not.
At least, that is my interpretation.

1 of the 3 Khvalynsk was Q1a.
Also mtDNA X came west from eastern Siberia, even before pottery.
Ain Ghazal 10 ka had mtDNA X. It probably arrived there along with Y-DNA T from the Zagros/Taurus Mts,
and it arrived in the Zagros/Taurus Mts along with Y-DNA R2 or R1b-V88 or the like.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG

Exchange of mtDNA all across Siberia, late paleolithic, after LGM acording to estimated TMRCA for X.

I think the Mongolid tribes 30 ka were Q, C2, C1a1, N and O
During LGM O and C1a1 settled most southern of all these tribes and lost Mongolid through admixture with D.

By the way, I think haplo D1 were the first inventors of pottery in the now flooded Yangzi delta, maybe some 25 ka.
Probalby for cooking some fish and seashells. Some 10.000 years later they started cooking wild rice and further north millet.
Only later they started making a dough of millet and baking it like cereals.

In early SW Asian neolithic, cereals don't need cooking, but how they prepared the pulses, it is unknown, probably a time- and resource consuming process with hot stones to boil the water.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 09:55
here is some more Y-DNA calls from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/y-snp-calls-from-mesolithic-and-neolithic-latvia-and-ukraine/

there was R1b-pré-M473 amongst the R1b-M297, just like the Samara HG
IMO Yamna was both R1b-M269 and R1b-M473, and Afanasievo R1b-M473

Ukraine HG was not R1, but I2a2a, a remnant of the earlier WHG , but autosomal he is half EHG, so I guess R1 was already in that area too.
Would the I2a2a in Yamna have been a remnant of this branch?

David Anthony speaks in his book about a war between 3 tribes for control over the Dnjepr-Rapids area some 10 ka.

berun
04-02-17, 10:17
Just a note, in Figure 2 in the paper the Latvia Late Neolithic sample (who belongs to the CW culture) has 50% CHG and 50% European HG, this is identical to the Yamnayan samples, but after admixing this sample with previous Central Europeans (some 15% WHG and 85% EEF) it delivers the typical CW autosomals... this sample is dated around 2800 BC, so Yamnayans are older... but it could be got a "Yamnayan-like admixture" in CW and from an archaeological perspective there are not proofs of pure Yamnayans going there, but we have some CHG autosomals in regional HG and even J Y-DNA in Karelia...

arvistro
04-02-17, 10:54
Latvian MN1 was also R1b likely, which means at least over 1,500 years of presence in Latvia. (5500 BCE- 4000 BCE). So, it is 3 R1b guys in Zvejnieki.
They were believed to be sedentary folk.

Ukrainians were likely I2 and R1a (Meso and Neo).

bicicleur
04-02-17, 11:16
Just a note, in Figure 2 in the paper the Latvia Late Neolithic sample (who belongs to the CW culture) has 50% CHG and 50% European HG, this is identical to the Yamnayan samples, but after admixing this sample with previous Central Europeans (some 15% WHG and 85% EEF) it delivers the typical CW autosomals... this sample is dated around 2800 BC, so Yamnayans are older... but it could be got a "Yamnayan-like admixture" in CW and from an archaeological perspective there are not proofs of pure Yamnayans going there, but we have some CHG autosomals in regional HG and even J Y-DNA in Karelia...

uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.

arvistro
04-02-17, 11:32
uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe
Btw, not having EEF in early CW makes some sense in light of linguistic theory that early PIE had extensive shared herding vocabulary, but comparatively scares and disputed farming one.
Then there is shared agricultural word layer for Euro IEs, so, perhaps of EEF origin. Balts in the end are derived from those EEF admixed IEs, not the first Baltic pioneers.
The only issue is that EEF was present in Indo-Iranians too, who got lot of their farming words from BMAC-ish people.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 12:30
Btw, not having EEF in early CW makes some sense in light of linguistic theory that early PIE had extensive shared herding vocabulary, but comparatively scares and disputed farming one.
Then there is shared agricultural word layer for Euro IEs, so, perhaps of EEF origin. Balts in the end are derived from those EEF admixed IEs, not the first Baltic pioneers.
The only issue is that EEF was present in Indo-Iranians too, who got lot of their farming words from BMAC-ish people.

remember these Latvian people here are not PIE but might be ancestral to CW and Sintashta, and they may have inherited older IE words through contact with Yamna

Tomenable
04-02-17, 12:47
More Y-DNA haplogroups:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/y-snp-calls-from-mesolithic-and-neolithic-latvia-and-ukraine/

Ukraine_HG1 (this is a man, not a woman) is I2a2a-M223
Ukraine_N1 (Dnieper-Donets culture) is R1a1-M459*
Latvia_MN1 is R1b1a1a-P297 (3rd R1b from Latvia)

So we have the first R1a in Western Steppe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture

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

I2a2a was also found much later in Catacomb culture.

Alpenjager
04-02-17, 13:00
here is some more Y-DNA calls from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/y-snp-calls-from-mesolithic-and-neolithic-latvia-and-ukraine/

there was R1b-pré-M473 amongst the R1b-M297, just like the Samara HG
IMO Yamna was both R1b-M269 and R1b-M473, and Afanasievo R1b-M473

Ukraine HG was not R1, but I2a2a, a remnant of the earlier WHG , but autosomal he is half EHG, so I guess R1 was already in that area too.
Would the I2a2a in Yamna have been a remnant of this branch?

David Anthony speaks in his book about a war between 3 tribes for control over the Dnjepr-Rapids area some 10 ka.


uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.


R1a is as EHG as could be J1, in fact EHG was an admixed population (At least, autosomal contributions from: I2, J1, R1a and R1b populations). This subclade is not necessarily extinct: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y6305/ look for J-F2306 found in Finland.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 13:11
R1a is as EHG as could be J1, in fact EHG was an admixed population (At least, autosomal contributions from: I2, J1, R1a and R1b populations).

The vast majority of Latvia-Ukraine-Russia HG have been R1, with only singleton I2a2a, singleton J1 and singleton Q1a.

But that I2a2a was later found also in Catacomb culture in Ukraine, so it survived and became part of the PIE community.

Also, we have the 1st sample of R1a in the Western Steppe - Ukraine_N1 with R1a1-M459* was Dnieper Donets culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture

bicicleur
04-02-17, 13:11
R1a is as EHG as could be J1, in fact EHG was an admixed population (At least, autosomal contributions from: I2, J1, R1a and R1b populations). This subclade is not necessarily extinct: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y6305/ look for J-F2306 found in Finland.

further study is required, but you're right, J-Y6305 could be the Karelian J, it would have seperated from the Satsurblia branch 14.6 ka

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i0211/

Tomenable
04-02-17, 13:38
Ukraine_HG1 (Vasilyevka, age 11143-10591 ybp) = I2a2a-M223, mtDNA U5b2
Ukraine_N1 (Vovnigi, age 6469-6293 years ago) = R1a1-M459*, mtDNA U4

I must add Ukraine_N1 to my map of R1a and R1b samples older than 6000 years.

berun
04-02-17, 14:28
delted deleted

Northener
04-02-17, 14:29
*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?

berun
04-02-17, 14:33
*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?

disappointment, where are the promised R1b in the western steppe?
8)

berun
04-02-17, 14:35
https://s32.postimg.org/icxxjzfqt/Capture.png

arvistro
04-02-17, 14:50
remember these Latvian people here are not PIE but might be ancestral to CW and Sintashta, and they may have inherited older IE words through contact with Yamna
Why not? :)
Although they could be para-PIE, that does not matter that much :)

bicicleur
04-02-17, 14:56
*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?

early CW didn't have EEF admixture, but CHG reached Latvia allready 6 ka, possibly along with herding
R1b-P297 was widespread in Mesolithic Eastern Europe and probably ancestral to Yamna
I2a2 was already on Pontic Steppe 10.8 ka, and he did have some CHG too
Maykop remains out of the picture, a mystery, all we know about DNA can be explained without Maykop

very interesting IMO

bicicleur
04-02-17, 15:17
From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

indeed, nice visualization
I wouldn't draw the 2nd blue lines though, I'd represent Sintashta/Andronovo and late CW as a mix of early CW and Yamna/Poltavka

we don't know where the CHG in Latvia neolithic came from though, from the Khvalynsk newcomer, from Ukraine, directly from Transcaucasia ??

Alan
04-02-17, 15:23
. Well, I think it is more like 50% Armenian Chalcolithic, but we have to remember that armenian Chalcolithic contained 20% of NE Euro, which came from Yamnaya. Making both of them more alike.



This is a bit misleading as CHG and EHG contained ancient Baloch component. This could mean that they didn't need to exchange genetic material "recently" to be somewhat related. They are 20% related, but it doesn't mean they ever met. Their relation might be as old as LGM.


M411747

M218547
I0124


Kotias CHG

Samara HG
7.6 kya


Run time
8.14

Run time
5.57


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
37.02

Baloch
14.33


Caucasian
55.11

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
4.23

NE-Euro
75.62


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
1.35

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
9.62


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
0.24

San
-


E-African
0.45

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.18

Pygmy
-


W-African
1.42

W-African
0.2




Actually the ~50% ancestry they based on the CHG samples. Back than there wasn't really any Armenian Caolcolthic samples. Also the Armenian Calcolthic sample has less affinity to NE Europeans than the former mesolithic CHG samples. So there is no way it has any.

I have realized that you are doing a big mistake. As I have explained previously this NE European ancestry showing up is actual CHG ancestry in modern and even ancient NE Europeans. This is why components like NE European are based on modern populations and only used in OLD calculator. And this is why I am saying we can't use calculators using modern components based on modern populations to tell the ancestry of ancient populations. This is like trying to explain the ancestry of two parents of different background by their childrans DNA and saying parent x has inherited 40% of it's child DNA while parent y 60%. No any DNA found in this child (modern NE Europeans) is coming from his parents and not vica versa. So there is no NE European ancestry in CHG to begin with. NE Europeans have some additional CHG ancestry that has become so specific to them that the population used as model for this NE European component is catching up CHG ancestry.
The CHG showed ~15% shared ancestry with EHG, but as the studies already pointed out and as we discussed that is actual CHG ancestry in EHG that pops up in CHG as EHG like because we don't have any better pure sample to use as proxy for EHG. Even the Mesolithic_Iranian sample showed around 10% EHG like ancestry.

But the main point is, even while using Dodecad K12b calculator that is so old and based on mixed modern populations that are not purely CHG or Iran_Neo therefore does not catch all CHG/IranCHL ancestry, we scored 27% Gedrosia. So how on earth comes Genetiker to an estimation of 24% that guy is insane. Insanely biased towards European ancestry, so biased that he not even a year ago was still claiming R1b is a paleolithic West European lineage.

Ukko
04-02-17, 15:30
http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2014/09/05/101975945-200355511_001.530x298.jpg?v=1409938679

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/SNP-N-TREE-FIN.jpg

Alan
04-02-17, 15:36
It's the same story with Mal'ta boy. Man it is really tiring to see some people making over and over again the same mistake (on purpose or not) that you sometimes feel it just doesn't make sense to explain it.


There are two possibilities with how we can explain Mal'ta.

A: Mal'ta (the ANE) proxy is actually mixed himself from two more older populations. One that I think was something very ancient South_Central Asian (that was predominantly of R Halplogroup) and that mixed with something East Eurasian like(25%).

OR

B: Mal'ta like DNA is simply found in modern South_Central Asians, West Asians, Europeans on one hand and Amerindians, some East Eurasians on the other hand. Mal'ta was freakn R* Haplogroup. Some people easily forget that this is the brotherclade of Q. At some point East and West Eurasians had one ancestor. How on earth can East Eurasian people with Q1a for example have completely different ancestry to West Eurasian people with for example R1 if they did not have at one point allot of shared ancestry? At the end of the day Q and R are brotherclades aren't they? So from this scenario it makes completely sense that Mal'ta R guy shows shared ancestry with East Eurasians too (~25%).

Alan
04-02-17, 15:50
uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.

That is what many people have been speculating and that is what some bloggers fear most, CHG like ancestry in every Indo European or Indo European like culture popping up independently from Yamnaya in different propotions. The reason why they fear this, is because as the studies had been speculating it coul turn out that a CHG like herder population independently brought all this stuff to various Steppe and EUropean cultures which turned out to became suddenly Indo Europeans.

So CW is not descend from Yamnaya but CW is partly descend from a group that contributed also to Yamnaya.

I am excited about the Maykop and South_Central Asian samples. We need some more throughout the Caucasus (At best around Leyla Tepe and North Iran too).

Angela
04-02-17, 16:15
Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG like admixture in Yamnaya is around 40-50% why in the world would someone take the numbers of Genetiker before any of the real studies plus even most of the bloggers (many of them being actually biased towards EHG) giving also numbers like 40-50%. Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.

The problem with genetikers CHG component is, it uses modern Caucasians as proxy, but modern Caucasians have Anatolian_Neo and even some Levant_Neo admixture.

Exactly so, which is why it can be misleading to use calculators based on modern populations. One also has to use formal stats in addition to ADMIXTURE.

Aren't some of the newest Middle Bronze Age steppe samples close to 60% CHG? It seems that the flow was a continuing one.

arvistro
04-02-17, 16:17
Anyone found what was the main difference between Yamna and Latvian CW genetically? Or they were same people?

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 16:41
Anyone found what was the main difference between Yamna and Latvian CW genetically? Or they were same people?

If you look at the K=20 run in the supp. material, the differences seem to be that the European HG components are quite different and the Latvian CW lacks the small non-West-Eurasian components that Yamnaya has.

It'll be interesting to see what the Finnish CW turn out to be, as they appear to be even older than the Latvian CW.

Angela
04-02-17, 16:55
uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.

How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 17:05
How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

I'd say that the route across the Caucasus is an unlikely one. The general trajectory of the early herders seems to have been Namazgadepe -> Kelteminar -> Siberia & Europe. The Turkemenistan & Eastern Iran area is where the people who came to the steppe must have come from, tracking through Central Asia.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 17:18
How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

yamna started 5.5 ka and CHG arrived in Latvia 6 ka
both could have gotten it from a common group though, north or south of the Caucasus, I don't know
CHG may have been in ancestral Yamna/Afanasievo folks before Yamna actually started, and Yamna and Afanasievo were just triggered by the invention of the wheel

there seems to be an analogy between CW and Yamna, both started with CHG admixture, but without EEF

the archeological trail seems lost, indeed

bicicleur
04-02-17, 17:23
I'd say that the route across the Caucasus is an unlikely one. The general trajectory of the early herders seems to have been Namazgadepe -> Kelteminar -> Siberia & Europe. The Turkemenistan & Eastern Iran area is where the people who came to the steppe must have come from, tracking through Central Asia.

CHG is already in 10.8 ka Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, I believe that is before Kelteminar

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 17:26
CHG is already in 10.8 ka Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, I believe that is before Kelteminar

No doubt, but the arrival of the bulk of the southern ancestry in the steppe must have coincided with the spread of the herding economy.

Angela
04-02-17, 17:30
Well, I thought I'd see what some other people are saying.

This is a very interesting analysis from anthrogenica, and from a poster who seems very knowledgeable and capable, Gravetto-Danubian. I hope he doesn't mind my reposting it.

"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00
Hungary_HG:I1507 31 %
Samara_HG:I0124 21.4 %
Kotias:KK1 18.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 18.75 %
Iran_Hotu:I1293 9.95 %
Villabruna:I9030 0.05 %


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
Kotias:KK1 42.5 %
Motala_HG:I0012 34.1 %
Samara_HG:I0124 23.4 %
Villabruna:I9030 0 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0049
Kotias:KK1 32.25 %
EHG:I0124 25.9 %
Motala_HG:I0012 17.7 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 11.95 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 11.9 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0103
Kotias:KK1 32.45 %
EHG: 23.25
Hungary_HG:I1507 15.1 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 13.7
Loschbour:Loschbour 5 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE566
Hungary_HG:I1507 32.95 %
Kotias:KK1 31.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 27.2 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 7.85 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 21.9 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 18.4 %
Kotias:KK1 17.05 %
Samara_HG:I0124 5.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 4.25 %

Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0060
Loschbour:Loschbour 32.7 %
Kotias:KK1 29.95 %
Barcin_Neolithic: 21.60
Karelia_HG: 10.9
Hungary_N:I1498 5.35 %


Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0108
Hungary_N:I1498 40.75 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.45 %
Kotias:KK1 21.7 %
Bichon:Bichon 6.75 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 6.3 %


Vatya:RISE479
Loschbour:Loschbour 41.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 33.65 %
Kotias:KK1 14.25 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 5.3 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 3.95 %

Hungary_BA:I1502
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 37.85 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.25 %
Motala_HG:I0012 19.5 %
Kotias:KK1 14.45 %


BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94
Motala_HG:I0012 44.7 %
Kotias:KK1 32.9 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 20.65 %
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 1.15 %


Nordic_MN_B:RISE61
Samara_HG:I0124 33.65 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Kotias:KK1 15.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 12.45 %
Motala_HG:I0012 3.9 %
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31 2.15 %


I will check later with weighted data and see how it differs - (results might be more optimal).

But it looks the main source of population movement in the Late Copper - early Bronze Age was something Kotias-like ("CHG") - which mixed into middle Neolithic central European populations with high WHG (i'd look to yet unsampled cultures from the northern Balkans, Ukraine and Poland - eg GAC) as far as BB Czech & Hungary BA go.

Motala admixture also comes into play in some recipients. Whilst some would query this, it makes sense given the presence of haplogroup I in Nordic LNBA and Hungary BA. Shall see when we get Balkan Meso-Neolithics.

EHG is most pertinent for CWC, in conjunction with CHG , but EHG is also evident in some of the BBs and NordicLNBA. Otherwise it isn't as expansive

Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don;t really feature as sources. It could be quality issues, but maybe they were not R1's ?"

As I said about two years or more ago, as the actual Indo-Europeans, 50% and more "CHG" (some of the newer samples seem to be almost 60% "CHG") moved into northern and central Europe, they encountered, and admixed with, large groups of remnant WHG groups, and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups, which is why the "CHG" component dropped. These people were certainly inclusive in their mating practices.

As for Latvian Corded Ware, it looks to me like an admixed CHG/EHG group that then mixed with WHG. It was indeed heavier on CHG than some other groups, so on balance I'd say a steppe group that was perhaps heavier CHG than others.

bicicleur
04-02-17, 17:32
CHG in the Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, it makes sense to me
I expected it to be in the Dnjepr-Donets culture because of presence of mtDNA H

bicicleur
04-02-17, 17:43
No doubt, but the arrival of the bulk of the southern ancestry in the steppe must have coincided with the spread of the herding economy.

afaik Kelteminar were origainaly HG who gradualy adopted herding
their origin would be the Hisar culture, HG who brougth geometric microliths from the Zagros to the Hindu Kush 10 ka

do you know more abt Kelteminar ?

bicicleur
04-02-17, 17:46
Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don;t really feature as sources. It could be quality issues, but maybe they were not R1's ?"



Angela, I don't see the composition of the Ukrainians in your list.

Maybe the 10.8 ka Ukrainian HG was pré-EHG, see my post 168 :

Ukraine HG was not R1, but I2a2a, a remnant of the earlier WHG , but autosomal he is half EHG, so I guess R1 was already in that area too.
Would the I2a2a in Yamna have been a remnant of this branch?

David Anthony speaks in his book about a war between 3 tribes for control over the Dnjepr-Rapids area some 10 ka.

The Ukrainian N1 isn't any more EHG than the HG though.

Angela
04-02-17, 17:59
Angela, I don't see the Ukrainians in your list

That's all there was in that post, Bicicleur. He may have done others later; I didn't take the time to read the whole thread.

I've wondered if perhaps the "CHG like" ancestry went up along the Caspian or Black Sea coasts, although there are passes through the Caucasus as well. It's like the Alps. It's a barrier, but not an impermeable barrier. In Italy, along with the passes, you can make an end run around the mountains, especially along the eastern border. That's the route the Langobards took.

"

Darial Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darial_Pass)
Marukhis Ugheltekhili (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marukhis_Ugheltekhili&action=edit&redlink=1) https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png43.38°N 41.37°E (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Greater_Caucasus&params=43.38_N_41.37_E_&title=Marukhis+Ugheltekhili))
Pereval Klukhorskiy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pereval_Klukhorskiy&action=edit&redlink=1) 2,786 m (9,140 ft), https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png43.26°N 41.80°E (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Greater_Caucasus&params=43.26_N_41.80_E_&title=Pereval+Klukhorskiy)
Mamison Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamison_Pass) 2,820 m (9,250 ft), https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png42.72°N 43.80°E (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Greater_Caucasus&params=42.72_N_43.80_E_&title=Mamison+Pass)
Jvris Ugheltekhili (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jvris_Ugheltekhili&action=edit&redlink=1) 2,379 m (7,805 ft), https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png42.50°N 44.45°E (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Greater_Caucasus&params=42.50_N_44.45_E_&title=Jvris+Ugheltekhili)
Dübrar Pass (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%C3%BCbrar_Pass&action=edit&redlink=1) 2,209 m (7,247 ft), https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/WMA_button2b.png/17px-WMA_button2b.png40.96°N 48.63°E (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?pagename=Greater_Caucasus&params=40.96_N_48.63_E_&title=D%C3%BCbrar+Pass)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Caucasus#Passes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Caucasus#/media/File:Kaukasus.jpg

johen
04-02-17, 18:45
http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png
The blue zone yamna related people are the most archaic people than EHG. So Russian anthropologist named them Paleo European. (Cromagnoid or proto-Europid by western scholars)
Even if they have the same hg or gene with the other East Hunter gatherer, I think the EHG or other HG could not be ancestors of yamna and afanasievo group.


Afanasievo Culture
an Aeneolithic culture of Southern Siberia found in the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai from themiddle of the third to the beginning of the second millennium B.C.; contemporary with theKelteminar culture, the Pit culture, and the Catacomb culture. Named for a burial ground atMount Afanasievo near the village of Bateni in the Khakass Autonomous Oblast. Unlike thesurrounding Mongoloid population, the tribes of the Afanasievo culture were of the so-called Paleo- european type.
Kiselev, S. V. Drevniaia istoriia luzhnoi Sibiri, [2nd ed.]. Moscow, 1951.
Istoriia Sibiri s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, vol. 1. Leningrad, 1968.

The oldest anthropological objects from the Altai and Minusinsk, attributed to about 2,000 B.C. and belonging to the period of the Afanas'evo culture are characterized by pronounced traits of the Europoid peoples. Twenty-four skulls from Afanas'ev sites possess similar characters. In addition to such Europoid traits as a prominent nose and anorthognathous, relatively short and unflattened face, the Afanas'evo skulls have an elongated for and are massive. The latter is expressed in a greater facial breadth, a greater slant of the forehead, and in highly developed supraorbital crests. This combination of characters is unknown among the modern European races but occurs in the Upper Paleolithic period. The closest analogy to the Afans'evo skulls offered by the Cro-Magnon type of western Europe. Since all Afanas'evo skulls belong to this type with no Mongoloid admixture, it is most probable that the ancient inhabitants of western Siberia belonged to this type.

Debetz (1936), and Alexeev and Gokhman (1987) identified a so-called CroMagnon variety among the Bronze and Iron Age skeletal materials of European Russia and southern Siberia. This variety that combined the cranial robustness with a broad face, had its roots in the local Upper Palaeolithic

This afanasievo one is so peculiar:
1. elongated
2. 2 sample with EDAR mutation
3. two strains of yersinia pestis
4. anthropologically extremely close to Aryan R1a-z93 (srubna) and Tarim basin R1a 2,000bc
5. to have botai horse domestication culture
6. coexist with okunevo before 3,500bc
7. BUT not local culture (the most important part,"culture" than anthro or genetics.)

Tomenable
04-02-17, 20:32
In total, there are 11 known samples of R1a and R1b which are at least 6000 years old.

The vast majority - seven - among the oldest samples of R1a and R1b are from this area:

http://i.imgur.com/2u0YnBn.png

Outside of this area - 1x R1b in Villabruna, 1x R1b-V88 in Spain, 2x R1a in Lokomotiv.

And that's all when it comes to R1a/b samples older than 6000 or at least 6000 years old.

So the odds are that R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 both originated in East Europe.

Update:

http://i.imgur.com/S8mZq20.png

1) Karelia, ca. 8850-8000 (avg. 8425) years ago - R1a
2) Latvia, ca. 7800-7600 (avg. 7700) years ago - R1b
3) Samara, ca. 7650-7560 (avg. 7605) years ago - R1b
4) Latvia, ca. 7250-6800 (avg. 7025) years ago - R1b
5) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1b
6) Khvalynsk, ca. 7200-6000 (avg. 6600) years ago - R1a
7) Ukraine, ca. 6470-6290 (avg. 6380) years ago - R1a
8) Latvia, ca. 6200-5930 (avg. 6065) years ago - R1b
9) Smolensk, around 6000 (avg. 6000) years ago - R1a

Tomenable
04-02-17, 20:33
This new find increases the chances that Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna will be full of R1a.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine. Only from Russia.

johen
04-02-17, 20:56
This new find increases the chances that Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna will be full of R1a.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine. Only from Russia.

I think so. Continually R1a and R1b would be found in East Europe and middle East

In Hotu cave of Iran, (where J was found. The J might be related to Karelian J.)
Candian professor mentioned that lots of the same pottery type were found in middle East as I remembered.
https://s21.postimg.org/mn8tnjkhj/Capture.png
https://s32.postimg.org/icxxjzfqt/Capture.png

==> However, important thing is the blue and green line, not Karelia and Latvia HG line, b/c the blue yamna related peoples are related to IndoEuropean as cromagnon-type European being close to 2 ANEs.

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

http://s16.postimg.org/d5v0tx1et/PCA_described.png

Tomenable
04-02-17, 21:02
So far there is no any Pre-Bronze Age R1b in the Middle East.

We have a lot of Neolithic samples, but no R1b among them.

The only R1b samples from the Middle East known so far are:

I1635 - Kura Araxes culture, Armenia, 2619-2465 BC
RISE417 - Middle Bronze Age Armenia, 1906-1698 BC
RISE397 - Late Bronze Age Armenia, 1048-855 BC
F38 - Iron Age Teppe Hasanlu, Iran, 971-832 BC

You should start getting used to East European origin of R1b.

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

Stage IV of Indo-European expansions (I added the main haplogroups for each culture):

It is also possible, that Vucedol was just R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 was in Corded Ware:

http://s18.postimg.org/f8tbforpl/RISE_98.png

http://i.imgur.com/dAHaBAv.png

Here is my map showing the earlier stages of IE expansions (including Proto-Anatolians):

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

Vucedol was the main source of R1b-P312 - ancestral to R1b found in Bell Beakers:

http://i.imgur.com/m4DaHZc.jpg

johen
04-02-17, 21:06
So far there is no any Pre-Bronze Age R1b in the Middle East.

We have a lot of Neolithic samples, but no R1b among them.

The only R1b samples from the Middle East known so far are:

I1635 - Kura Araxes culture, Armenia, 2619-2465 BC
RISE417 - Middle Bronze Age Armenia, 1906-1698 BC
RISE397 - Late Bronze Age Armenia, 1048-855 BC
F38 - Iron Age Teppe Hasanlu, Iran, 971-832 BC

You should start getting used to East European origin of R1b.
Cromagnon UP type of R1b could not originate in the Middle East.

My issue here is where the UP type appeared even if the type discontinued after LGM.

Craniometric analysis of European Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic samples supports discontinuity at the Last Glacial Maximum:

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) represents the most significant climatic event since the emergence of anatomically modern humans (AMH). In Europe, the LGM may have played a role in changing morphological features as a result of adaptive and stochastic processes. We use craniometric data to examine morphological diversity in pre- and post-LGM specimens. Craniometric variation is assessed across four periods—pre-LGM, late glacial, Early Holocene and Middle Holocene—using a large, well-dated, data set. Our results show significant differences across the four periods, using a MANOVA on size-adjusted cranial measurements. A discriminant function analysis shows separation between pre-LGM and later groups. Analyses repeated on a subsample, controlled for time and location, yield similar results. The results are largely influenced by facial measurements and are most consistent with neutral demographic processes. These findings suggest that the LGM had a major impact on AMH populations in Europe prior to the Neolithic.

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 21:12
You should start getting used to East European origin of R1b.


Surely by R1b you mean P297?

halfalp
04-02-17, 21:19
Why people continually linked admixtures and y-dna ?

LeBrok
04-02-17, 21:21
Well, I thought I'd see what some other people are saying.

This is a very interesting analysis from anthrogenica, and from a poster who seems very knowledgeable and capable, Gravetto-Danubian. I hope he doesn't mind my reposting it.

"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00
Hungary_HG:I1507 31 %
Samara_HG:I0124 21.4 %
Kotias:KK1 18.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 18.75 %
Iran_Hotu:I1293 9.95 %
Villabruna:I9030 0.05 %


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
Kotias:KK1 42.5 %
Motala_HG:I0012 34.1 %
Samara_HG:I0124 23.4 %
Villabruna:I9030 0 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0 %



I will check later with weighted data and see how it differs - (results might be more optimal).

But it looks the main source of population movement in the Late Copper - early Bronze Age was something Kotias-like ("CHG") - which mixed into middle Neolithic central European populations with high WHG (i'd look to yet unsampled cultures from the northern Balkans, Ukraine and Poland - eg GAC) as far as BB Czech & Hungary BA go.

Motala admixture also comes into play in some recipients. Whilst some would query this, it makes sense given the presence of haplogroup I in Nordic LNBA and Hungary BA. Shall see when we get Balkan Meso-Neolithics.

EHG is most pertinent for CWC, in conjunction with CHG , but EHG is also evident in some of the BBs and NordicLNBA. Otherwise it isn't as expansive

Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don;t really feature as sources. It could be quality issues, but maybe they were not R1's ?"

As I said about two years or more ago, as the actual Indo-Europeans, 50% and more "CHG" (some of the newer samples seem to be almost 60% "CHG") moved into northern and central Europe, they encountered, and admixed with, large groups of remnant WHG groups, and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups, which is why the "CHG" component dropped. These people were certainly inclusive in their mating practices.

As for Latvian Corded Ware, it looks to me like an admixed CHG/EHG group that then mixed with WHG. It was indeed heavier on CHG than some other groups, so on balance I'd say a steppe group that was perhaps heavier CHG than others.
I think they made Kotias/CHG the main feature here. The way they calculate Kotias, the Samara should had Kotias at 20% already (due to Baloch and some NE), EEF should have Kotias at 25% (due to high Caucasian), Yamnaya at 50%, Iranian Farmer at 75%. In this case big part of Kotias could have come to Latvia via EEF. That's why their stats show only 15% EEF in modern Latvians and only 23% in Ukrainians. Also 0% of Iranian Neolithic. Their Kotias like admixture is already subtracted from EEF and Iranian Farmer. I'm not too thrilled with that.

If we add Kotias from Samara 20% to Kotias of EEF 25%, we get 45% of combine Kotias in their mixture. Pretty much what Latvia LN1 has. The road to LN1 is probably more complicated than that, but in jest I don't see how pure Kotias like h-g could have survived till Mid Neolithic in trans caucasia, surrounded by farmers, and wandered North to Latvia to mix with WHG?

Tomenable
04-02-17, 21:21
Westward expansion of R1b-P312 from Vucedol:

http://i.imgur.com/5m6BMOf.png


Surely by R1b you mean P297?

And P297 is directly ancestral to M269.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 21:25
Why people continually linked admixtures and y-dna ?Haplogroups are part of admixture, and indication of people movement.

halfalp
04-02-17, 21:30
Yes, but why y-dna and not mtdna haplogroups ?

Alpenjager
04-02-17, 21:36
The vast majority of Latvia-Ukraine-Russia HG have been R1, with only singleton I2a2a, singleton J1 and singleton Q1a.

But that I2a2a was later found also in Catacomb culture in Ukraine, so it survived and became part of the PIE community.

Also, we have the 1st sample of R1a in the Western Steppe - Ukraine_N1 with R1a1-M459* was Dnieper Donets culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture

Frequency doesn't matter in this stage, really only matters when these populations firstly intermingled each other.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 21:51
Yes, but why y-dna and not mtdna haplogroups ?MtDNA as well, but mtDNA is more mixed and it is much harder to determine how those migrated.

MarkoZ
04-02-17, 22:14
Yes, but why y-dna and not mtdna haplogroups ?

Part of it because amateurs like to imagine all kinds of licentious scenarios involving mass rape & extreme polygamy (I recently encountered one such amateur speculating about ancient 'breeding dynasties' :unsure:).

Another reason is that the mutation rates in the regions pertaining the Y-DNA & mtDNA haplogroups respectively are so different. mtDNA haplogroups acquire mutations at a much slower rate, so they allow for only a very general picture of pre-historic migrations.

Alpenjager
04-02-17, 22:18
CHG in the Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, it makes sense to me
I expected it to be in the Dnjepr-Donets culture because of presence of mtDNA H


Perhaps, you want to see my mtDNA H (xH5) and HV (xH5, HV0) charts:

84538452

halfalp
04-02-17, 22:20
Part of it because amateurs like to imagine all kinds of licentious scenarios involving mass rape & extreme polygamy (I recently encountered one such amateur speculating about ancient 'breeding dynasties' :unsure:).

Another reason is that the mutation rates in the regions pertaining the Y-DNA & mtDNA haplogroups respectively are so different. mtDNA haplogroups acquire mutations at a much slower rate, so they allow for only a very general picture of pre-historic migrations.

So whats the most logical correlation between autosomal admixtures and both y-dna and mtdna haplogroups ?

Brennos
04-02-17, 22:39
This new find increases the chances that Western Yamna / Ukrainian Yamna will be full of R1a.

Remember, that so far we do not have any Yamnaya samples from Ukraine. Only from Russia.

It was quite obvious that we would find R1a in Ukraine Yamna-like cultures. The problem - and I think to advocate many people's thought - is where we will find R1b-L51.

You wrote that, probably, R1b-P312 would have started in Vucedol and R1b-P297 would have started in Eastern Europe... but R1b-M343? And R1b-L51? And what about R1b-V88? Too many problems...

I suppose, from your maps, that R1b-M269 could have been hiding somewhere in the middle between the Ukrainian R1a and the Khvalynsk samples. It remains the problem of that italian R1b from Villabruna... which Genetiker stated as pre-P297, so apparently ancestral to those Latvian samples.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 22:41
Well, I thought I'd see what some other people are saying.

This is a very interesting analysis from anthrogenica, and from a poster who seems very knowledgeable and capable, Gravetto-Danubian. I hope he doesn't mind my reposting it.

"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00
Hungary_HG:I1507 31 %
Samara_HG:I0124 21.4 %
Kotias:KK1 18.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 18.75 %
Iran_Hotu:I1293 9.95 %
Villabruna:I9030 0.05 %


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
Kotias:KK1 42.5 %
Motala_HG:I0012 34.1 %
Samara_HG:I0124 23.4 %
Villabruna:I9030 0 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0049
Kotias:KK1 32.25 %
EHG:I0124 25.9 %
Motala_HG:I0012 17.7 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 11.95 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 11.9 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0103
Kotias:KK1 32.45 %
EHG: 23.25
Hungary_HG:I1507 15.1 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 13.7
Loschbour:Loschbour 5 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE566
Hungary_HG:I1507 32.95 %
Kotias:KK1 31.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 27.2 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 7.85 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 21.9 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 18.4 %
Kotias:KK1 17.05 %
Samara_HG:I0124 5.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 4.25 %

Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0060
Loschbour:Loschbour 32.7 %
Kotias:KK1 29.95 %
Barcin_Neolithic: 21.60
Karelia_HG: 10.9
Hungary_N:I1498 5.35 %


Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0108
Hungary_N:I1498 40.75 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.45 %
Kotias:KK1 21.7 %
Bichon:Bichon 6.75 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 6.3 %


Vatya:RISE479
Loschbour:Loschbour 41.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 33.65 %
Kotias:KK1 14.25 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 5.3 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 3.95 %

Hungary_BA:I1502
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 37.85 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.25 %
Motala_HG:I0012 19.5 %
Kotias:KK1 14.45 %BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94
Motala_HG:I0012 44.7 %
Kotias:KK1 32.9 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 20.65 %
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 1.15 %


Nordic_MN_B:RISE61
Samara_HG:I0124 33.65 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Kotias:KK1 15.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 12.45 %
Motala_HG:I0012 3.9 %
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31 2.15 %

I will check later with weighted data and see how it differs - (results might be more optimal).

But it looks the main source of population movement in the Late Copper - early Bronze Age was something Kotias-like ("CHG") - which mixed into middle Neolithic central European populations with high WHG (i'd look to yet unsampled cultures from the northern Balkans, Ukraine and Poland - eg GAC) as far as BB Czech & Hungary BA go.

Motala admixture also comes into play in some recipients. Whilst some would query this, it makes sense given the presence of haplogroup I in Nordic LNBA and Hungary BA. Shall see when we get Balkan Meso-Neolithics.

EHG is most pertinent for CWC, in conjunction with CHG , but EHG is also evident in some of the BBs and NordicLNBA. Otherwise it isn't as expansive

Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don;t really feature as sources. It could be quality issues, but maybe they were not R1's ?"
One more thing. The hodgepodge of the variety of ancestry for people even from the same place, makes everybody so unique, like they all migrated from very different places. 31.5% Mentese_Neolithic? I'm sure it is through EEF, otherwise there needed to be big a group of farmers migrating from Anatolia to Nordic Neolithic. Another big group of Barcin_Neolithic migrating to Battle Axe Sweden? They managed to reincarnate Bichon and Villabruna in Bronze Age, but no signs of Natufian. Oh, Iranian Hunter Gatherer showed up on Estonia only. They should clean up their algorithms. Otherwise their admixtures are doing more confusing job than amateurish runs. They are not well defined and grossly overlapping.
Same confusion like describing hunter gatherer cultures as being Neolithic.

PS. I'm yet to start reading this paper, but the first impression is terrible.

Tomenable
04-02-17, 22:46
Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don't really feature as sources.

Maybe the Ukrainian individuals were not even used in that run?

Angela
04-02-17, 22:56
One more thing. The hodgepodge of the variety of ancestry for people even from the same place, makes everybody so unique, like they all migrated from very different places. 31.5% Mentese_Neolithic? I'm sure it is through EEF, otherwise there needed to be big a group of farmers migrating from Anatolia to Nordic Neolithic. Another big group of Barcin_Neolithic migrating to Battle Axe Sweden? They managed to reincarnate Bichon and Villabruna in Bronze Age, but no signs of Natufian. Oh, Iranian Hunter Gatherer showed up on Estonia only. They should clean up their algorithms. Otherwise their admixtures are doing more confusing job than amateurish runs. They are not well defined and grossly overlapping.


LeBrok: I don't see how pure Kotias like h-g could have survived till Mid Neolithic in trans caucasia, surrounded by farmers, and wandered North to Latvia to mix with WHG?

I'm almost positive it didn't. If nothing else, there is Samara HG in that Latvian sample. It's just that it's outnumbered by "CHG like" material.

The purpose of having both Anatolian Neolithic and CHG reference populations in the same run is so that they can "break down" the "southern" component. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to distinguish ancestry picked up from across the Caucasus from ancestry picked up from MN Central European communities. It's not meant to be taken literally from what I can tell.



Marko: Part of it because amateurs like to imagine all kinds of licentious scenarios involving mass rape & extreme polygamy (I recently encountered one such amateur speculating about ancient 'breeding dynasties' :unsure:)

There's a lot of very disturbed minds among the amateurs in this field, imo. Or, if I want to be more charitable, a lot of cases of arrested development in early male adolescence. :) I suppose if you're at an impressionable age watching the Conan the Barbarian movies and others of that ilk too many times can be detrimental to your mental health. To be fair, I guess watching too many Hallmark romance movies wouldn't be very good for young women, either. :)

LeBrok
04-02-17, 23:16
Maybe the Ukrainian individuals were not even used in that run?
BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94
Motala_HG:I0012 44.7 %
Kotias:KK1 32.9 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 20.65 %
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 1.15 %

halfalp
04-02-17, 23:19
There's a lot of very disturbed minds among the amateurs in this field, imo. Or, if I want to be more charitable, a lot of cases of arrested development in early male adolescence. :) I suppose if you're at an impressionable age watching the Conan the Barbarian movies and others of that ilk too many times can be detrimental to your mental health. To be fair, I guess watching too many Hallmark romance movies wouldn't be very good for young women, either. :)[/QUOTE]

Do you understand that your statement means nothing because Cimmerians and Scythians were Barbarians, in the greco-roman way. Plus, this is a very impartial message.

Angela
04-02-17, 23:45
There's a lot of very disturbed minds among the amateurs in this field, imo. Or, if I want to be more charitable, a lot of cases of arrested development in early male adolescence. :) I suppose if you're at an impressionable age watching the Conan the Barbarian movies and others of that ilk too many times can be detrimental to your mental health. To be fair, I guess watching too many Hallmark romance movies wouldn't be very good for young women, either. :)

Do you understand that your statement means nothing because Cimmerians and Scythians were Barbarians, in the greco-roman way. Plus, this is a very impartial message.[/QUOTE]

Has anyone ever told you that you think too literally????

Plus, I think the word you're looking for is biased, and no it's not. It's a reflection of the ludicrous scenarios which some very emotionally stunted young men dream up to explain things which have much more mundane origins.

LeBrok
04-02-17, 23:48
WHG of Latvia had very feminine men.

Latvia_HG3: Burial 121. Adult. Described as female based on morphology but genetically determined to bemale.

But when more EHG/CHG people came, they had more macho women:

Latvia_MN2: Burial 221. Adult. Fragmentary skeletal material. Described as male based on morphology butgenetically determined to be female.
Latvia_LN1: Burial 137. Adult. Fragmentary bone material. Described as male based on morphology butgenetically determined to be female.

bicicleur
05-02-17, 00:03
WHG of Latvia had very feminine men.


But when more EHG/CHG people came, they had more macho women:


aren't you generalizing a bit too much from just 1 skeleton?

Angela
05-02-17, 00:07
aren't you generalizing a bit too much from just 1 skeleton?

Probably. The skeletons may be incomplete or deteriorated. That would make it difficult to tell. Even in modern situations it's not always all that easy. Mistakes have been made in law enforcement situations, costly ones.

halfalp
05-02-17, 00:09
I'm sorry do you put modern ideology in ancient times ? There is no need to rape, for explain that women are the key of propagation no ? Like, i'm pretty sure that in north america, women of a racial type, going more easely with man of another type, that the contrary. A lot of cultures, by paleolithic into iron age show us the mobility of women. Whats all the fuzz about that ?

Northener
05-02-17, 00:26
So far there is no any Pre-Bronze Age R1b in the Middle East.

We have a lot of Neolithic samples, but no R1b among them.

The only R1b samples from the Middle East known so far are:

I1635 - Kura Araxes culture, Armenia, 2619-2465 BC
RISE417 - Middle Bronze Age Armenia, 1906-1698 BC
RISE397 - Late Bronze Age Armenia, 1048-855 BC
F38 - Iron Age Teppe Hasanlu, Iran, 971-832 BC

You should start getting used to East European origin of R1b.

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

Stage IV of Indo-European expansions (I added the main haplogroups for each culture):

It is also possible, that Vucedol was just R1b-P312, and R1b-U106 was in Corded Ware:

http://s18.postimg.org/f8tbforpl/RISE_98.png

http://i.imgur.com/dAHaBAv.png

Here is my map showing the earlier stages of IE expansions (including Proto-Anatolians):

https://media.giphy.com/media/JA4zHDeZ1Jib6/giphy.gif

Vucedol was the main source of R1b-P312 - ancestral to R1b found in Bell Beakers:

http://i.imgur.com/m4DaHZc.jpg

Rokus on the various variants of R1b:

https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-neolithic-advance/

Angela
05-02-17, 00:32
I'm sorry do you put modern ideology in ancient times ? There is no need to rape, for explain that women are the key of propagation no ? Like, i'm pretty sure that in north america, women of a racial type, going more easely with man of another type, that the contrary. A lot of cultures, by paleolithic into iron age show us the mobility of women. Whats all the fuzz about that ?

You didn't write the deleted post, so my comment about it wasn't addressed to you. You don't know what the original post was about, so why are you responding?

As for the other matter, as Marko alluded to there have been amateurs in this field who have expressed great relish at the idea that certain yDna clades expanded massively because these men had hordes of women in harems, and equal relish at first having lopped off the heads of all the men. More prosaic and supported explanations like climate change and disease reducing the population of locals, or movement into never populated areas, in addition to bride exchange or barter in other areas, as well as some degree of polygamy and some degree of removal of local men from the mating pool just won't do.

Is it clear now?

As for the bolded sentence I don't really know what you mean. Do you mean that Native American women were overcome with lust seeing "white" men, but white women weren't attracted to Native American men?

These kinds of decisions are about power, and for women also often about survival. If you're a Native American woman, your own men are killed, or dying of disease, and you're hungry, and your children are hungry, and some white guy shows up with at least a promise of food and some safety, yes, a lot of women would go with him. His looks or sex appeal would be irrelevant, as would your own natural sexual adventurousness or lack of same. Haven't you seen beautiful young women with fat and ugly old men, old men who happen to have a lot of money? Not for me, but I don't have a strong stomach.

Why would a white woman in those days choose to exile herself to the perils of life at the bottom of society to follow her sexual inclinations? It happened I'm sure, but not very often. Women stolen when young and even not so young from North American settlements and incorporated into Native American life are another story. Many of them didn't choose to return even when it became possible.

halfalp
05-02-17, 00:53
You didn't write the deleted post, so my comment about it wasn't addressed to you. You don't know what the original post was about, so why are you responding?

As for the other matter, as Marko alluded to there have been amateurs in this field who have expressed great relish at the idea that certain yDna clades expanded massively because these men had hordes of women in harems, and equal relish at first having lopped off the heads of all the men. More prosaic and supported explanations like climate change and disease reducing the population of locals, or movement into never populated areas, in addition to bride exchange or barter in other areas, as well as some degree of polygamy and some degree of removal of local men from the mating pool just won't do.

Is it clear now?

As for the bolded sentence I don't really know what you mean. Do you mean that Native American women were overcome with lust seeing "white" men, but white women weren't attracted to Native American men?

These kinds of decisions are about power, and for women also often about survival. If you're a Native American woman, your own men are killed, or dying of disease, and you're hungry, and your children are hungry, and some white guy shows up with at least a promise of food and some safety, yes, a lot of women would go with him. His looks or sex appeal would be irrelevant, as would your own natural sexual adventurousness or lack of same. Haven't you seen beautiful young women with fat and ugly old men, old men who happen to have a lot of money? Not for me, but I don't have a strong stomach.

Why would a white woman in those days choose to exile herself to the perils of life at the bottom of society to follow her sexual inclinations? It happened I'm sure, but not very often. Women stolen when young and even not so young from North American settlements and incorporated into Native American life are another story. Many of them didn't choose to return even when it became possible.

Yes i didnt saw the post, in fact i was responding, to the mental defficiency attack. No i mean that both more easily goes in another ethnic population, than mens do apart for exemples of solitary conquistadors. Huns and Mongols both were rapers and esclavagists to there times. The difference between later turco-mongols tribe and proto-indo-europeans, its that horses were not used like that, so the pattern doesn't really fit, but it doesnt mean also if the pattern doesnt fit, that the complete opposite, so an harmonius and multiracial, heavenly population was the case.

Tomenable
05-02-17, 02:22
But when more EHG/CHG people came, they had more macho women:

"Latvia_MN2: Burial 221. Adult. Fragmentary skeletal material. Described as male based on morphology but genetically determined to be female.
Latvia_LN1: Burial 137. Adult. Fragmentary bone material. Described as male based on morphology but genetically determined to be female."

Maybe they were "robust" like Cherchen Woman (reconstruction below)?:

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

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/11/days-of-high-adventure.html

http://i.imgur.com/JB7IDwb.png

Alan
05-02-17, 03:17
Exactly so, which is why it can be misleading to use calculators based on modern populations. One also has to use formal stats in addition to ADMIXTURE.

Aren't some of the newest Middle Bronze Age steppe samples close to 60% CHG? It seems that the flow was a continuing one.

Yep atually CHG admixture was on the rise from early to middle Bronze Age. 24% CHG estimates are absolutely ridiculous in many ways.

Alan
05-02-17, 03:20
If you look at the K=20 run in the supp. material, the differences seem to be that the European HG components are quite different and the Latvian CW lacks the small non-West-Eurasian components that Yamnaya has.

It'll be interesting to see what the Finnish CW turn out to be, as they appear to be even older than the Latvian CW.

Correct, most of their ancestry seem to be independently brought to them. Even their CHG ancestry which is quite amazing considering how far Latvia is from the Caucasus. So a CHG like pop seem to have brought this admixture independently to CW. This population could have come from anywhere between the Caucasus-Iranian Plateau, South_Central Asia and Ukraine.

Alan
05-02-17, 03:23
How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?
There is actually archeoligcal connection between North_Iran, Leyla Tepe culture in Southeast Caucasus, the Samara culture and Yamnaya culture. Actually the oldest Kurgans are from the Leyla Tepe culture while almost simultaneously appearing in the Samara culture too (Maybe few hundred years later).

Tomenable
05-02-17, 03:55
It seems that the flow was a continuing one.

Continuing flow of CHG, but for some reason no any J2 or J1.

In general, no changes in Y-DNA followed that flow of CHG.

So I imagine that the flow of CHG in question looked like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAusMNTNnk#t=12m20s

Tomenable
05-02-17, 03:59
And my own mtDNA is the best evidence that the flow of CHG could be mediated through women.

I have W6, which originated in Caucasus, but entered the Steppe and became part of Yamnaya.

There are two Yamnaya samples with W6, yet there is no any W6 among WHG, EHG or SHG. There is no doubt that W6 is not indigenous to Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe (as long as we don't count Caucasus is Europe):


W6c: Lopatino I, ~3090-2910 BC, Yamnaya culture Russia

W6a: Lopatino II, ~3500-2700 BC, Yamnaya culture Russia

W6a: Esperstedt, ~2566-2477 BC, Corded Ware culture Germany

About W6 and W6a (my W6 is confirmed, and all of my matches are W6a, so most likely I'm W6a):


W6 appeared in the area between the Black and Caspian Seas, perhpas in what is now Georgia, 10,000 years ago.

W6c probably originated in the Georgian W6 homeland. The ancestral W6c1 without the 16192 'flip' is found in Georgia.

W6a, with the 8610 coding region mutation, which emerged in the Russian steppes.

There are 4 known ancient samples of W6, including 3 from Indo-European cultures (listed above).

There is also one W6 (but no specific info about its subclade) from a Non-Indo-European context:


W6: Va7, ~5500-4500 BC, Vinča culture Romania

Alan
05-02-17, 04:02
Continuing flow of CHG, but for some reason no any J2 or J1.

In general, no changes in Y-DNA followed that flow of CHG.

So I imagine that the flow of CHG in question looked like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKAusMNTNnk#t=12m20s

I know that video watch it again. It says Bride kidnapping was quite uncommon but became common as a protest against the Soviets who forbid that.

Tomenable
05-02-17, 04:13
It says Bride kidnapping was quite uncommon but became common as a protest against the Soviets who forbid that.

OK but among Proto-Indo-Europeans it could be more common, check this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I#t=4m23s

Fire Haired14
05-02-17, 04:22
As I said about two years or more ago, as the actual Indo-Europeans, 50% and more "CHG" (some of the newer samples seem to be almost 60% "CHG") moved into northern and central Europe, they encountered, and admixed with, large groups of remnant WHG groups, and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups, which is why the "CHG" component dropped. These people were certainly inclusive in their mating practices.

The amount of ANE in Northern Europe is so high it needs a big chunk of EHG. Some methods aren't capable doing some models well. PCA isn't good at modelling CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF ancestry. The reason is West Eurasian diversity in PCAs is determined by Basal Eurasian, WHG, and ANE. Because of this Basal Eurasian in CHG can be absorbed by EEF and vice versa. Non-Basal Eurasian stuff in EHG can be absorbed by WHG.

That's what happened in the results from Anthrogencia. HungaryHG is absorbing EHG ancestry and Kotias is absorbing EEF ancestry. Also Kotias is absorbing ANE from EHG. Formal stats will quickly reject 24%+ CHG ancestry in Northern Europe.

We literally have documentation of extremely Yamnaya-like people all over Eastern Europe during the Late Neolithic; Corded Ware. I doubt the current narrative of Yamnya-like people bringing EHG and CHG to Europe will change. It has been a mystery why Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans need extra doses of WHG which can't be explained by Middle Neolithic farmers. UkraineHGs might help to explain this. So there might be some UkraineHG type stuff in Europe but the current narrative isn't going to change much.

Tomenable
05-02-17, 04:26
So mtDNA haplogroups W6a and W6c among the PIE were most certainly from CHG.

Are there any other mtDNA haplogroups present among the PIE that could be from CHG?


and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups

Do you think that farmers of the Trypillian culture could be highly WHG admixed?

Is there a chance that we will ever get some DNA samples from that culture?

IIRC, they usually practiced cremation.

Tomenable
05-02-17, 04:39
Basically all of non-U mtDNA among the Yamnaya could be from CHG.

Because nearly all of EHG were U, except for two C1g from Karelian EHG:

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

Some of EHG mtDNA could be originally from ANE (including Karelian C).

There are also samples of C (including C4a2) in Dnieper-Donets culture:

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

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

We can divide mtDNA of Early Bronze Age Steppe people into 3 groups:

1) All of U = WHG/EHG origin
2) All of C = ANE/EHG origin
3) Others = CHG/EEF origin

What percentages of Yamnaya mtDNA belonged to groups 1), 2) and 3)?

MarkoZ
05-02-17, 04:53
The amount of ANE in Northern Europe is so high it needs a big chunk of EHG. Some methods aren't capable doing some models well. PCA isn't good at modelling CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF ancestry. The reason is West Eurasian diversity in PCAs is determined by Basal Eurasian, WHG, and ANE. Because of this Basal Eurasian in CHG can be absorbed by EEF and vice versa. Non-Basal Eurasian stuff in EHG can be absorbed by WHG.

That's what happened in the results from Anthrogencia. HungaryHG is absorbing EHG ancestry and Kotias is absorbing EEF ancestry. Also Kotias is absorbing ANE from EHG. Formal stats will quickly reject 24%+ CHG ancestry in Northern Europe.

We literally have documentation of extremely Yamnaya-like people all over Eastern Europe during the Late Neolithic; Corded Ware. I doubt the current narrative of Yamnya-like people bringing EHG and CHG to Europe will change. It has been a mystery why Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans need extra doses of WHG which can't be explained by Middle Neolithic farmers. UkraineHGs might help to explain this. So there might be some UkraineHG type stuff in Europe but the current narrative isn't going to change much.

I think that flogging the dead ANE horse doesn't make much sense at this point. ADMIXTURE analyses have shown that the Karelian hunters are but Scandinavian hunters with some South-West Asian and minor non-West-Eurasian input, perfectly explaining their behaviour in the PCA. Statistical models involving moderns are necessarily going to fall short because the right ancestral populations haven't been sampled in most cases and, also, due to the general loss of heterozygosity. You and others should care less about the narrative and more about the data.

MarkoZ
05-02-17, 04:58
Basically all of non-U mtDNA among the Yamnaya could be from CHG.

Because nearly all of EHG were U, except for two C1g from Karelian EHG:

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

Some of EHG mtDNA could be originally from ANE (including Karelian C).

There are also samples of C (including C4a2) in Dnieper-Donets culture:

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

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

We can divide mtDNA of Early Bronze Age Steppe people into 3 groups:

1) All of U = WHG/EHG origin
2) All of C = ANE/EHG origin
3) Others = CHG/EEF origin

What percentages of Yamnaya mtDNA belonged to groups 1), 2) and 3)?

Have you actually looked up the mtDNA of Kotias & Satsurblia?

Tomenable
05-02-17, 05:01
Steppe people had a lot of T1a, H6 and I - which could be from CHG (in addition to W6a and W6c):

http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com


Have you actually looked up the mtDNA of Kotias & Satsurblia?

They are just two samples, so not representative at all.

Yamna were a mix of EHG + CHG, and all WHG/EHG belong to haplogroups U and C.

So we can conclude, that anything which was neither U nor C, was from CHG or EEF.

But EEF admixture was either absent or very minor in Yamnaya, see Davidski's posts:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/yamnaya-khvalynsk-extra-chg-maybe.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html

MarkoZ
05-02-17, 05:05
Steppe people had a lot of T1a, H6 and I - which could be from CHG (in addition to W6a and W6c):

Please stop referring me to these blogs.

Neither Kotias nor Satsurblia had any of these. W6 is widely dispersed, and W6a looks like a generic Eastern European mtDNA.

Tomenable
05-02-17, 05:08
Neither Kotias nor Satsurblia had any of these.

These are just TWO samples! This is not representative at all.


W6 is widely dispersed

Greatest diversity and highest frequency is in Caucasus region:

"W6 reaches its highest concentration in modern-day Georgia (5.2% of the population)."

http://i.imgur.com/nW7kGkA.png


W6a looks like a generic Eastern European mtDNA.

100% of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans belonged to:

U8
U6
U5
U4
U2
C1g

There was no any W6a among Mesolithic WHG, EHG or SHG.

MarkoZ
05-02-17, 05:15
These are just TWO samples! Not representative at all.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316301091

My tentative hypothesis is that West Asians acquired W6 by kidnapping steppe brides.