PDA

View Full Version : The genomic history of southeastern Europe-Mathiesen et al



Pages : [1] 2

Angela
10-05-17, 16:05
All I can say is Wow!
See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf

This is the abstract.

"Farming was first introduced to southeastern Europe in the mid-7th millennium BCE - brought by migrants from Anatolia who settled in the region before spreading throughout Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between the first farmers and the indigenous hunter-gatherers remain poorly understood because of the near absence of ancient DNA from the region. We report new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 204 individuals-65 Paleolithic and Mesolithic, 93 Neolithic, and 46 Copper, Bronze and Iron Age-who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between about 12,000 and 500 BCE. We document that the hunter-gatherer populations of southeastern Europe, the Baltic, and the North Pontic Steppe were distinctive from those of western Europe, with a West-East cline of ancestry. We show that the people who brought farming to Europe were not part of a single population, as early farmers from southern Greece are not descended from the Neolithic population of northwestern Anatolia that was ancestral to all other European farmers. The ancestors of the first farmers of northern and western Europe passed through southeastern Europe with limited admixture with local hunter-gatherers, but we show that some groups that remained in the region mixed extensively with local hunter-gatherers, with relatively sex-balanced admixture compared to the male-biased hunter-gatherer admixture that we show prevailed later in the North and West. After the spread of farming, southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between East and West, with intermittent steppe ancestry, including in individuals from the Varna I cemetery and associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological complex, up to 2,000 years before the Steppe migration that replaced much of northern Europe's population.""

Angela
10-05-17, 17:27
Some nuggets:

Globular Amphora is 75% farmer and 25% HG, like Iberian Neolithic...no steppe.

As to LBK, Cardial, and Balkan Neolithic, " These three populations form a clade with Northwest Anatolians as an outgroup, consistent with a single migration from a population closely related to the northwestern Anatolian Neolithic farming population into the Balkan peninsula, which then367 split into two populations that followed the Danubian and Mediterranean routes."

I knew it.

Early Greek Neolithic was different: "four southern Greek (Peloponnese) Neolithic individuals – three from Diros Cave and onefrom Franchthi Cave, plus one previously published individual from Diros – are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers...have less WHG related ancestry than Anatolia Neolithic ones...suggesting an independent migration into Europe from a population that split off from the ancestors of the northwest Anatolian individuals from which we have data... their Near Eastern ancestry is derived from a lineage that is close, or basal, to the non-WHG component of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry. One possibility is that this independent migration is related to an earlier Aceramic Neolithic in Greece that was derived from the pre-pottery Neolithic(PPNB) of Cyprus and the Levant. Under this model, the earliest Neolithic populations in Greece migrated from the Levant, perhaps via the southwestern Anatolian coast as early as7000 BCE, but the majority of Neolithic ancestry arrived around 500 years later via a route that passed through northwestern Anatolia... Populations related to the Peloponnese Neolithic potentially made a small contribution to the ancestry of other Mediterranean Neolithic populations like Early NeolithicIberia and Neolithic farmers from northern Greece but we do not strongly reject models395 without such a contribution (Supplementary Information, section 3).

LeBrok
10-05-17, 17:28
early farmers from southern Greece are not descended from the Neolithic population of northwestern Anatolia

Are they saying that Greece had distinct and earlier farming population, not related to ENF?!!!

Looks like we will get Cucuteni genomes finally. :)

LeBrok
10-05-17, 17:35
Some nuggets:

Globular Amphora is 75% farmer and 25% HG, like Iberian Neolithic...no steppe.

As to LBK, Cardial, and Balkan Neolithic, " These three populations form a clade with Northwest Anatolians as an365 outgroup, consistent with a single migration from a population closely related to the366 northwestern Anatolian Neolithic farming population into the Balkan peninsula, which then367 split into two populations that followed the Danubian and Mediterranean routes."

I knew it.

Early Greek Neolithic was different: "four southern Greek (Peloponnese) Neolithic individuals – three from Diros Cave and onefrom Franchthi Cave, plus one previously published individual from Diros – are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers...have less WHG-379 related ancestry than Anatolia Neolithic ones...suggesting an independent migration into Europe from a population that split off from the ancestors of the northwest Anatolian individuals from which we have data... their Near Eastern ancestry is derived from a lineage that is close, or basal, to the non-WHG component of Anatolian Neolithic ancestry. One possibility is that this independent migration is related to an earlier Aceramic Neolithic in Greece that was derived from the pre-pottery Neolithic(PPNB) of Cyprus and the Levant. Under this model, the earliest Neolithic populations in Greece migrated from the Levant, perhaps via the southwestern Anatolian coast as early as7000 BCE, but the majority of Neolithic ancestry arrived around 500 years later via a route that passed through northwestern Anatolia... Populations related to the Peloponnese Neolithic potentially made a small contribution to the ancestry of other Mediterranean Neolithic populations like Early NeolithicIberia and Neolithic farmers from northern Greece but we do not strongly reject models395 without such a contribution (Supplementary Information, section 3).
Thanks, picture is getting clearer now. I wonder if early farming in Cyprus was also related to Greece Neolithic and Levant?

I wonder if this first Greek population was totally or almost totally replaced, as we are not getting much of levant signal from modern Greeks at all. Well, except Cyprus.

Angela
10-05-17, 17:51
"In the Balkan Neolithic there is no evidence of sex bias. However, in the Middle Neolithic and later populations, this effect reverses. In the Balkan Copper Age there is weak evidence of bias (Z=1.77) but in Iberia and central Europe Middle409 Neolithic there is clear bias is in favor of male hunter-gatherer ancestry This result is independently supported by uniparental markers (Figure 3C). Proportions of typically hunter-gatherermitochondrial haplogroups (haplogroup U) are low in all populations. On the other hand, hunter-gatherer Ychromosomes (haplogroups I2, R1 and C1) are much more common: 6/7 in the Iberian415 Neolithic/Copper Age and 7/8 in Middle-Late Neolithic central Europe (Central_MN andGlobular_Amphora)...in the central European Middle Neolithic population that shows the strongest evidence of sex bias, 35-50% of the male ancestors were hunter-gatherers, compared to 0-5% of the female ancestors (Extended Data Figure 4)."

"1 The merging of hunter-gatherer and farmer populations was a dynamic process that unfolded over thousands of years, and proceeded in a profoundly different way in different parts of Europe... in some places – for example at Malak Preslavets in Bulgaria – there was extensive mixing between hunter-gatherers and farmers, likely driven by the high local hunter-gatherer population density. In other places–in particular in western, central and northern Europe–hunter-gatherers and farmers lived in close proximity for long periods oftime with minimal mixture. When they did finally mix...admixture was male-biased, implying a different dynamic. Farming was initially unable to expand widely in central and northern Europe because early farming techniques were only suitable for specific regions within the loess belt of the northern European plain.Thus, northern and central European hunter-gatherers were protected from the demographic impact of farming migrations, resulting in persistent frontiers between farmers and huntergatherers.This may have given hunter-gatherers and farmers time to learn from each other434 and interact in a different way than during the more rapid expansion of the first farmers in the435 South."

That still doesn't explain why it was male mediated. What happened to their women?

Apsurdistan
10-05-17, 18:01
Did they get any ydna, mtdna?

Apsurdistan
10-05-17, 18:11
Hunter gatherer women didn't get much love in west,central and northern Europe? Or does this mean that those male hg were more aggressive to the farmers, raped a bunch of their women and the farmers in those regions were in smaller number.

Angela
10-05-17, 18:25
Cold water is indeed thrown on the Anatolian branch of IE entering Anatolia through the Balkans.

"While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, whileBronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they haveneither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.

The following is in Wow territory, particularly in light of the fact that so many of the world's foremost geneticists, and not just the Reich lab, have signed on, and that they know what the Caucasus samples will show. I guess I wasn't crazy years ago when I kept on arguing with Aberdeen and others about data from Grigoriev.

"An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral tomany of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."

I predict that in addition to a spike in prescriptions for xanax we will shortly see protestations that it never mattered to anyone where it arose, just the launching point to Europe. :)

Angela
10-05-17, 19:01
"Mesolithic and Neolithicindividuals from Ukraine, Latvia and the Iron Gates have, like Scandinavian and Easternhunter-gatherers, intermediate to high frequencies of the derived skin pigmentation allele atSLC24A5. However, unlike Scandinavian and Eastern hunter-gatherers, they have lowfrequency of the derived SLC45A2 allele. The derived HERC2 allele that is associated withlight (particularly blue) eye color is common in WHG, SHG, and hunter-gatherers fromLatvia, but at low frequency in hunter-gatherers from Ukraine and the Iron Gates. This alleleappears to be differentiated in a North-South gradient, as it is today. The apparent WHGphenotype of light eye and dark skin pigmentation therefore appears to be restricted towestern Europe, with light skinpigmentation being common in Northern and Eastern Europe before the appearance ofagriculture."

Well, that's a relative term. CHG had derived SLC 24A5. Anatolian farmers had a similar profile, as did Yamnaya, as do some South Asians. It's additive, so the total mix of depigmentation snps is important.

Blonde hair is from ANE:
"The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causalfor – blond hair in Europeans4,5 is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motalaand Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppeancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggeststhat its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, weobserve that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the ANE individual Afontova Gora."

LP:
"The WHG individual Ibousierres-25 appears to carry the derived allele at the SNP rs4988235that is strongly associated with lactase persistence in present-day Northern Europeans. Fourreads at this SNP all carry the derived allele, although we caution that this is a C>T SNP in anon-UDG treated sample and so might be affected by deamination, and two reads atneighboring SNPs do not support the persistence haplotype, at least in a homozygous state(Supplementary Figure S2.3). The observation of this allele, long before domestication anddairying, would be surprising, but might be consistent with observation of lactase persistencein early Neolithic populations in Iberia and Sweden – observations that were themselvessurprising based on the absence of persistence in large samples of Anatolian Neolithic andLBK individuals. One possibility is that the allele was widely distributed at low frequenciesbefore being strongly selected in the Bronze Age, perhaps due to changes in use or cattle."

Only one example of EDAR.

Angela
10-05-17, 19:06
"Anatolian Neolithic and Bronze AgeNorthwest Anatolian Samples from Barcın can be modeled as a mixture of a populationrelated to WHG, and a diverged population that is related to Iran Neolithic (and also to theNeolithic Levant)4. Neolithic samples from Tepecik Ciflik3 are very similar, possibly withless WHG ancestry, while those from Kumtepe5 can be modeled as having 12% additionalIran Neolithic related ancestry compared to 29% additional in the Anatolian Bronze Age."

Yetos
10-05-17, 19:13
Hunter gatherer women didn't get much love in west,central and northern Europe? Or does this mean that those male hg were more aggressive to the farmers, raped a bunch of their women and the farmers in those regions were in smaller number.

Hallo

the virgin huntress is a supreme deity to all ancient cultures.

http://www.mother-god.com/images/britomartis.jpg


I wonder,
did they remained virgins?

the story of virgin huntress Atalante
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atalanta

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/8/3/1/66831_v1.jpg

IronSide
10-05-17, 19:25
An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex.

I don't know, the problem with this westward movement giving rise to Anatolians idea is Y-dna, I can't think of a possible clade of R1b or R1a that could possibly fit this movement, except if Anatolian IE's weren't R1b or R1a but were something else, then maybe, but then what is that ?

MarkoZ
10-05-17, 19:30
Hunter gatherer women didn't get much love in west,central and northern Europe? Or does this mean that those male hg were more aggressive to the farmers, raped a bunch of their women and the farmers in those regions were in smaller number.

The most obvious explanation is that early farming was volatile and prone to crop failure so the Y-DNA lineages that spread with it were more likely to decline in frequency. The HGs were better adapted to the environment which put them at an advantage even after they adopted agricultural economies.

Just stop with the rape stuff for god's sake.

LeBrok
10-05-17, 19:33
Cold water is indeed thrown on the Anatolian branch of IE entering Anatolia through the Balkans.

"While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, whileBronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic.Ah, so this Bronze Age Anatolia/Armenia invasion, that increased so much Caucasian admixture in Balkans, happened before IE invasion from North Europe to Balkans. Possibly this Anatolia invasion is IE Mycenaean and some others.



The following is in Wow territory, particularly in light of the fact that so many of the world's foremost geneticists, and not just the Reich lab, have signed on, and that they know what the Caucasus samples will show. I guess I wasn't crazy years ago when I kept on arguing with Aberdeen and others about data from Grigoriev.

"An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of the population associated with the Yamnaya complex. These steppe pastoralists plausibly spoke a “Late Proto-Indo European” language that is ancestral tomany of the non-Anatolian branches of the Indo-European language family. On the other hand, our data could still be consistent with the Steppe-Balkans-Anatolia route hypothesis model, albeit with constraints. It remains possible that populations dating to around 1600 BCE in the regions where the Indo-European Luwian, Hittite and Palaic languages were spoken did have European hunter-gatherer ancestry. However, our results would require that such ancestry was not ubiquitous in Bronze Age Anatolia, and was perhaps tightly linked to Indo-European speaking groups. We predict that additional insight about the genetic origins of the potential speakers of early Indo-European languages will be obtained when ancient DNA data become available from additional sites in this key period in Anatolia and the Caucasus."

I predict that in addition to a spike in prescriptions for xanax we will shortly see protestations that it never mattered to anyone where it arose, just the launching point to Europe. :)I never had problem with this. One of the sources of IE language could have been Iranian Farmer (like) to whom I "rewarded" quarter of Yamnaya ancestry. Questing is still open. However the IE package came later from BA Steppe.

Sile
10-05-17, 20:21
The IE language first split from PIE in Anatolia ~4000BC ...........it has been said that it came from PIE in the north-caucasus and not from the balkans

Diomedes
10-05-17, 20:28
Then the Ancient Greeks are indeed the most ancient in Europe. Makes perfect sense.

Apsurdistan
10-05-17, 20:52
The most obvious explanation is that early farming was volatile and prone to crop failure so the Y-DNA lineages that spread with it were more likely to decline in frequency. The HGs were better adapted to the environment which put them at an advantage even after they adopted agricultural economies.

Just stop with the rape stuff for god's sake
Ok the farmer women married the hg men and the farmer men just gave them away to the gentrified hunter gatherers.

Angela
10-05-17, 20:54
Ah, so this Bronze Age Anatolia/Armenia invasion, that increased so much Caucasian admixture in Balkans, happened before IE invasion from North Europe to Balkans. Possibly this Anatolia invasion is IE Mycenaean and some others.


I never had problem with this. One of the sources of IE language could have been Iranian Farmer (like) to whom I "rewarded" quarter of Yamnaya ancestry. Questing is still open. However the IE package came later from BA Steppe. I'm not sure about the Greek part.

None of the IE Package originated on the steppe except the domesticated horse and possibly the spoked wheel chariot.

All the models seem to put CHG "like" or "southern" ancestry at 40-50%

Angela
10-05-17, 21:06
The ydna and mtdna are in Table 1. These are just some I noticed. There are some big surprises.

Iberia H/G 10,000 BC: J:P209:19179335T->C; IJ:P126:21225770C->G

Harmonren Turkey 1 J1a
One J2 in LBK

Barcin 3 H2, 1J2a, 6 G2a2a1a2a, 1C1a2V20, 1 I2c, L596, 9 no result

Cardial, Croatia E1b1b1a1b1

Iron Gates Hunter- Gatherers: 3 R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1a:CTS8436:18026855G->A; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R:CTS8311:17930099C->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C;

One sample goes all the way back to about 10,000 BC. I wonder what Gioiello is doing. J

Lepinski Vir Neolithic 6222-5912 calBCE (7179±73* BP, OxA-25211)
: R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1:L822:7960019G->A; R:F652:23631629C->A; R:M799:23134896C->T

Greece Final Neolithic Kletios-G2a2a1a2

Greek Peloponnesus Neolithic- no results

Ukraine Mesolithic 8825-8561 BC- R1a

Ukraine “Neolithic”, which is much more WHG, has a lot of R1b1a

Globular Amphora is mostly I2, plus one each of:

BT


CT






Varna: CT-I think this is the gold encrusted one, but someone check, R1, G2a2b2b, G2a




Tryphilia: 3 G2a2...…and one E



Smyadova Bulgaria 4545-4400 B C- 1 Late Chalcolithic R1b1a:A702, R P280:2184

Vucedol: R1b1a1a2a2, G2a2a1a2a

Croatia: EM Bronze-J2b

Can this be right? Ust-Isham 45530-40610 calBCE : R1a1a1b

And look at this: Iran Neolithic:


R:M718:17334694G->T



R:CTS2426:14300457G->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C




Now, my brain is fried.

MarkoZ
10-05-17, 21:30
The Ust-Ishim one has to be a mistake. They left the SNP column blank too.

This one is interesting as well:



Iboussieres31-3 - France ~11725 BP mtDNA: U5b1 y-DNA: R

Apsurdistan
10-05-17, 22:45
I don't see I1 anywhere, of course. It's basically non existent in ancient DNA before bronze age.

Angela
10-05-17, 23:06
I'm not sure about the Greek part.

None of the IE Package originated on the steppe except the domesticated horse and possibly the spoked wheel chariot.

All the models seem to put CHG "like" or "southern" ancestry at 40-50% The Olade et al admixture plot shows what looks to be about 35% for Yamnaya-Samara.

Promenade
10-05-17, 23:20
I don't see I1 anywhere, of course. It's basically non existent in ancient DNA before bronze age.

And what's the explanation for all the R1b in the Balkan hunter gatherers?

berun
10-05-17, 23:20
Now it's seems quite clear the R1b was really a Paleolithic clade as thought some years ago: it pops up in Italy (Villabruna), Romania (Iron Gates), Germany, Samara, Latvia... all LGM refuges were used (Italy, Balkans, Caucasus).

The papers provides 36 Y-DNA samples from Ukraine, only 8 are R1b, mainly from the outliers of Dereivka. It seems that the western steppe origin for L51 is fading...

When I was pointing out that IE languages were based on R1a pops is now more certain after finding a R1a in Kairyaka necropolis (1750-1625), as by such dates Greeks and Hitties where in their places.

Milan.M
10-05-17, 23:27
The ydna and mtdna are in Table 1. These are just some I noticed. There are some big surprises.

Iberia H/G 10,000 BC: J:P209:19179335T->C; IJ:P126:21225770C->G

Harmonren Turkey 1 J1a
One J2 in LBK

Barcin 3 H2, 1J2a, 6 G2a2a1a2a, 1C1a2V20, 1 I2c, L596, 9 no result

Cardial, Croatia E1b1b1a1b1

Iron Gates Hunter- Gatherers: 3 R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1a:CTS8436:18026855G->A; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R:CTS8311:17930099C->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C;

One sample goes all the way back to about 10,000 BC. I wonder what Gioiello is doing. J

Lepinski Vir Neolithic 6222-5912 calBCE (7179±73* BP, OxA-25211)
: R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1:L822:7960019G->A; R:F652:23631629C->A; R:M799:23134896C->T

Greece Final Neolithic Kletios-G2a2a1a2

Greek Peloponnesus Neolithic- no results

Ukraine Mesolithic 8825-8561 BC- R1a

Ukraine “Neolithic”, which is much more WHG, has a lot of R1b1a

Globular Amphora is mostly I2, plus one each of:

BT


CT






Varna: CT-I think this is the gold encrusted one, but someone check, R1, G2a2b2b, G2a




Tryphilia: 3 G2a2...…and one E



Smyadova Bulgaria 4545-4400 B C- 1 Late Chalcolithic R1b1a:A702, R P280:2184

Vucedol: R1b1a1a2a2, G2a2a1a2a

Croatia: EM Bronze-J2b

Can this be right? Ust-Isham 45530-40610 calBCE : R1a1a1b

And look at this: Iran Neolithic:


R:M718:17334694G->T



R:CTS2426:14300457G->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C




Now, my brain is fried.

So basically we have R1b all over Balkans,pure gold.

Angela
10-05-17, 23:33
I'm not sure I'm reading the PCA correctly, and of course it's not formal stats, but does Balkan Bronge Age land right on Northern and Central Italy? Is Vucedol a little south of that or parallel? Is Varna about where Southern Italy starts?

8693

I used to speculate that Latin came from the Balkans, maybe with the Apennine culture, and Ligurian, which used to be much more widely spread, and Venetic languages from the North, before getting laughed down. I guess we'll see.

Ed. fix attachment

Maciamo
10-05-17, 23:36
Ah, so this Bronze Age Anatolia/Armenia invasion, that increased so much Caucasian admixture in Balkans, happened before IE invasion from North Europe to Balkans. Possibly this Anatolia invasion is IE Mycenaean and some others.


Early Bronze Age Anatolia was an offshoot of the Kura-Araxes culture, which I believe was dominated by Y-haplogroups J2a1, then (Caucasian branches of) G2a, J1 and T1a. This study is the first confirmation of it since it shows J1 in EBA Anatolia, long before the Arabic expansion. I also think that the Kura-Araxes expansion was the source of the Minoan civilisation, not the Mycenaean.

Angela
10-05-17, 23:37
Supervised Admixture:

8673

Clusters constrained to 753 include individuals from Anatolia_Neolithic (grey), WHG (blue), EHG (red), 754 Yamnaya_Samara (orange), Ukraine_Mesolithic (purple), Motala_HG (green).

As I've been saying for awhile, it seems as if in some cases what moved into Southeastern Europe and perhaps beyond, Italy and maybe even Iberia if the Rui paper is correct, is a Ukrainian Mesolithic type ancestry as much as actual Steppe ancestry, at least in the Bronze Age. I've often said Tuscans look like eastern but not much northern shifted Sardinians.

Apsurdistan
10-05-17, 23:39
And what's the explanation for all the R1b in the Balkan hunter gatherers?

I don't know why you're asking me, I don't get any of this. I'm hoping to see some I1s here and there but they got nothing... It's just been living with reindeer in Scandinavia for all eternity. Then it starts to spread out a little probably in the late iron age- early middle age.

Maciamo
10-05-17, 23:41
Interesting to see J2b1a (L283) make its appearance in EMBA Croatia (c. 1600 BCE). I have linked that clade to the Indo-European migrations (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b), but that is the first time is turns up in ancient samples. That individual's mtDNA is I1a1, a lineage that is undeniably of Steppe/Yamna origin.

Another point of interest is the Q1a2 sample from Mesolithic Latvia (6000-5000 BCE). This also confirms what I wrote in my last update on haplogroup Q (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml#Scandinavian_Q1a) a few months ago, namely that Q1a2 arrived in NE Europe during the late glacial period or the Mesolithic period.

The Cucuteni-Trypillian samples are all G2a (P303) apart from one low coverage sample belong to hg E (presumably E1b1b). I have postulated that E-V13 could have been assimilated by the PIE people right before or at the beginning of the IE invasions. One hypothesis is that E-V13 was among the Late Trypillian lineages that abandoned their towns and joined the nomadic lifestyle of their Yamna neighbours in the Steppe around 3500 BCE. Haplogroup E1b1b still hasn't been found in Neolithic European samples outside SE Europe, apart from a single one in Catalonia.

Neolithic Ukraine (Dereivka, Volniensky, Vovnigi) had a mix of R1a, R1b and I2a2 (including CTS10057, ancestral to the L699 found in Yamna). Maternal lineages were exclusively U2, U4 and U5, unlike Yamna which had a much greater diversity (including unique lineages like H2a1, H8, H15, I1, I3, I4, J1b1a and W).

MarkoZ
10-05-17, 23:44
And what's the explanation for all the R1b in the Balkan hunter gatherers?

The more interesting question is why some people thought R1b wouldn't be in the Balkan HGs :wink:

It's the place where it naturally would have piled up after spreading westwards from Iran-Anatolia at a time when travel along the northern route would have been significantly less pleasant than today.

Angela
10-05-17, 23:54
J2b was already in Sopot, so no surprise it's in Croatia, although I didn't check the subclades.

We have a I1 autosomally farmer sample from the Hungarian Neolithic.

Maciamo
11-05-17, 00:14
J2b was already in Sopot, so no surprise it's in Croatia, although I didn't check the subclades.

No, Sopot was J2a (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33700-More-Neolithic-Y-DNA-and-mtDNA-from-Hungary-Germany-and-Spain-(Lipson-et-al-2017)?highlight=neolithic+hungary+history). It wouldn't make any sense if J2b was in Neolithic Central Europe, as J2b came from the Iranian Neolithic and migrated to the Volga-Ural region, where it is still common today.

anthropico
11-05-17, 00:21
Iboussieres31-2, WHG France, 10090-9460 BCE, Y-DNA J?
Iboussieres25-1, WHG France, 10090-9460 BCE, Y-DNA R

Really?

Angela
11-05-17, 00:30
An interesting section to me:

"We report new data from hunter-gatherers from France, Sicily and Croatia, as well as higher coverage data from three previously published hunter-gatherers from France and Germany. 18 The Sicilian and Croatian individuals dating to 12,000 and 6100 BCE cluster closely with western hunter-gatherers, including individuals from Loschbour24 (Luxembourg, 6100 BCE), Bichon20 (Switzerland, 11,700 BCE), and Villabruna18 (Italy 12,000 BCE). These results demonstrate that the “western hunter-gatherer” population24 was widely distributed from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in the West, to Sicily in the South, to the Balkan Peninsula in the Southeast, for at least six thousand years, strengthening the evidence that the western hunter- gatherers represent a population that expanded from a southeastern European refugium following the last Ice Age around 15,000 years ago–in the process displacing or admixing with the existing population of western Europe."

"A particularly important hunter-gatherer population that we newly report in this study is from the Iron Gates region that straddles the border of present-day Romania and Serbia. This region is close to the route taken by farmer migrants on their way from the Balkans to central Europe...they are – as expected given their geographic location and the hunter-gatherer ancestry cline – intermediate between WHG (87%) and EHG (13%). However, this qpAdm model does not fit well (p=0.0003, Supplementary table 3) and we note that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers carry mitochondrial haplogroups K1 (8/36) as well as other subclades of haplogroup U (27/36) and haplogroup H (1/36). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter- gatherers who almost all carry haplogroup U5 or U2. Therefore the Iron Gates hunter- gatherers have ancestry that is not present in WHG or EHG. This suggests either genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and hunter-gatherers from Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split off during a post-LGM re-expansion into Europe."

"In contrast, the two individuals (I4665 and I4666, dated to 6205-5907 calBCE and 6222-5912 calBCE respectively) that we sampled from Iron Gates site of Lepenski Vir are genetically farmers rather than hunter-gatherers, despite having been buried in the local Mesolithic tradition. Strontium isotope data shows that many of the individuals buried after ~6100 BCE at Lepenski Vir–including one of the two that we sampled (I4665, burial 54E)–were not originally from the Danube Gorges. These observations, combined with one individual from Padina (I5232), dated to 6061-5841 calBCE that has both farmer and hunter-gatherer ancestry, demonstrates that the Iron Gates region was one where farmer and hunter-gatherer groups interacted both genetically and culturally, and provides a window into the first few generations of interactions between these disparate groups."

"The Ukrainian Neolithic population has significant differences in ancestry compared to the Ukrainian Mesolithic population–specifically that ANE ancestry decreases and WHG ancestry increases… Individuals associated with the Bronze Age Yamnaya Complex from Ukraine, like previously reported Yamnaya individuals from Samara7 and Kalmykia16 , have little evidence of WHG ancestry, but do have a third source of ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus 20 (CHG) and early Iranian farmers23,35 (Supplementary Data Table 3). Two Yamnaya individuals – one from Ozera in Ukraine and one from Bulgaria (I1917 and Bul4, both datedto ~3000 BCE) – in addition have evidence of early European farmer related admixture, which is the first evidence of such ancestry in Yamnaya individuals (Figure 1B,D, Supplementary Data Table 2). Similarly, one Copper Age individual (I4110) dated to ~3600-3400 BCE from Dereivka in Ukraine has both CHG and farmer ancestry (Figure 1D, Supplementary Data 229 Table 2). This is by far the earliest appearance of farmer ancestry this far East in Eurasia, 230 which was previously not known on the Steppe until the Srubnaya Complex after ~1800 BCE.

The Ukrainian Mesolithic individuals, although they fall autosomally between SHG and EHG, so towards the Eastern end of the cline, carry the following haplogroups:

I2a1


R1a


R1b1a2

Angela
11-05-17, 00:58
The more interesting question is why some people thought R1b wouldn't be in the Balkan HGs :wink:

It's the place where it naturally would have piled up after spreading westwards from Iran-Anatolia at a time when travel along the northern route would have been significantly less pleasant than today.The refugium from which WHG derives seems to be in the southeast, not Franco- Cantabria. Only the small Goyets related ancestry in them would seem to come from FC. So much also for the thousands of words dedicated to trying to prove R1b was from Siberia or was EHG. The abuse meted out over this was incredible.

Honestly, the more I look at Admixture, the less steppe I see in the Balkans. It's the exact opposite of northern Europe: it's really substantial in only one person, and half have very little, so I think that 30% figure is misleading. Goodness, there's not much even in the Iron Age, 400 BC. Sorry to the real aficionados, but the whole traditional steppe/kurgan hypothesis is a bit of a dud there, as it may be in Iberia if Rui is correct and there's no steppe in them, only EHG.

Oh, I forgot to mention, I3948 5600-5470 BCE Balkans_Neolithic E1b1b1a1b1(L618+) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/)

@ Maciamo...
Yes, Sopot is M172. However, J2a is from the same general area as J2b.In general, the steppe doesn't seem to have had allthat much influence even in the Bronze Age.

Promenade
11-05-17, 02:12
The more interesting question is why some people thought R1b wouldn't be in the Balkan HGs :wink:

It's the place where it naturally would have piled up after spreading westwards from Iran-Anatolia at a time when travel along the northern route would have been significantly less pleasant than today.

I just wanted to entertain a conversation since it goes against the beliefs of most here and elsewhere, that it spread from the Yamnaya. I understand that some people have strong opinions regarding where it spread from though.

So now the two main hypotheses are that it spread from Anatolia to the Balkans and then to the rest of Europe or that it represents lineages from the paleolithic rebounding sometime after the LGM?

LeBrok
11-05-17, 02:24
I'm not sure about the Greek part.

None of the IE Package originated on the steppe except the domesticated horse and possibly the spoked wheel chariot.

All the models seem to put CHG "like" or "southern" ancestry at 40-50%I mean, when package was finished/collected and started to spread with steppe population.
Are you saying that Yamnaya is 40-50% CHG? We know genetics of CHG, it is impossible. When they say Yamnaya was 50% BA Armenian like, it was because stepped moved into Armenia during Bronze age, and made locals more similar to steppe.

Angela
11-05-17, 02:30
There was no "Paleolithic" rebound in the sense of Franco-Cantabrian refugia ancestry rebounding. That was largely replaced by WHG like ancestry from either the Balkans or ultimately Anatolia. WHG is different from Paleolithic Aurignacian ancestry.

A possibility is that R1b came from east into the Balkans, from there onto the steppe, and then L23 came back west.

Trojet
11-05-17, 03:09
Interesting to see J2b1a (L283) make its appearance in EMBA Croatia (c. 1600 BCE). I have linked that clade to the Indo-European migrations (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J2_Y-DNA.shtml#J2b), but that is the first time is turns up in ancient samples.

You mean J2b2a-L283, precisely the one that peaks among Albanians.

Apsurdistan
11-05-17, 03:23
J2b was already in Sopot, so no surprise it's in Croatia, although I didn't check the subclades.

We have a I1 autosomally farmer sample from the Hungarian Neolithic.

Yeah that one and only sample ever found allegedly, like two years ago. Really explains a lot.

Promenade
11-05-17, 03:37
We have a I1 autosomally farmer sample from the Hungarian Neolithic.

We have is autosomal ancestry? He doesn't have any hunter gatherer ancestry? And if he does how does it compare to the others he was found with?

Angela
11-05-17, 03:44
I mean, when package was finished/collected and started to spread with steppe population.
Are you saying that Yamnaya is 40-50% CHG? We know genetics of CHG, it is impossible. When they say Yamnaya was 50% BA Armenian like, it was because stepped moved into Armenia during Bronze age, and made locals more similar to steppe.They never said Yamnaya was about 50% Bronze Age Armenian like.

This is what they said in Haak et al:
"This was likely due to admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners, as the most negative f3-statistic in the Yamnaya (giving unambiguous evidence of admixture) is observed when we model them as a mixture of EHG and present-day Near Eastern populations like Armenians (Z = -6.3; SI7).

That's a far different thing.

When more ancient Dna became available, this is what Lazaridis et al stated:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

" We model each Test population (purple) as a mixture (pink) of a fixed reference population (blue) and a ghost population (orange) residing on the cline defined by two other populations (red and green) according to the visualization method of Supplementary Information, section 10. a, Early/Middle Bronze Age steppe populations are a mixture of Iran_ChL and a population on the WHG→SHG cline. b, Scandinavian hunter–gatherers (SHG) are a mixture of WHG and a population on the Iran_ChL→Steppe_EMBA cline. c, Caucasus hunter– gatherers (CHG) are a mixture of Iran_N and both WHG and EHG. d, Late Neolithic/Bronze Age Europeans are a mixture of the preceding Europe_MNChL population and a population with both EHG and Iran_ChL ancestry. e, Somali are a mixture of Mota49 and a population on the Iran_ChL→Levant_BA cline. f, Eastern European hunter–gatherers (EHG) are a mixture of WHG and a population on the Onge→Han cline."

Iran Chalcolithic according to his calculations represents 43 % of EM Bronze Age steppe people. Iran Chalcolithic itself is 63% CHG, 17% Iran Neolithic, and 20% Levant Neolithic.

http://i63.tinypic.com/11kavwx.jpg
So, according to the Reich Lab, not CHG, no, but a population from south of the Caucasus which moved north onto the steppe.

It went in all directions:
"Admixture from populations related to the Chalcolithic people of western Iran had a wide impact, consistent with contributing around 44% of the ancestry of Levantine Bronze Age populations in the south and about 33% of the ancestry of the Chalcolithic North-West Anatolians in the west."

@Absurdistan,
Has it occurred to you yet to wonder why almost no one responds to you positively?

The only reason I do is to correct your constant misstatements of fact.

@ Promenade,
Yes, he's been analyzed autosomally. You can't depend on yDna. After a number of generations, the autosomal signature originally tied to a certain y line, in this case Mesolithic H/G, may disappear.

LeBrok
11-05-17, 04:31
What baffles me is that all of the sudden they have found tons of R1b in Balkans. I guess, the Hungarian Neolithic samples from 2 years ago where somewhat misleading. Well, not complete at least. Now, surprise, surprise, tons of R1b!!! lol This is most mobile and ubiquitous haplogroup in Europe and West Asia, period, and since LGM!
I'm fine with that. I thought we are going to find western clades of R1b in South West Yamnaya, close to Cucuteni. You know, the last white spot on the map. So I wasn't too far off.
So, I guess, we can expect Baden Culture or bit lower South to be the IE source of invasion to the South-West of Europe, carrying R1b. Maybe proto Italo-Celtic homeland? Autosomally Baden was different than Yamnaya and CW or Unetice. More ENF with WHG, with much less steppe.
Unfortunately I don't have time to read the paper today or tomorrow.
Later.

Azzurro
11-05-17, 04:46
Early Bronze Age Anatolia was an offshoot of the Kura-Araxes culture, which I believe was dominated by Y-haplogroups J2a1, then (Caucasian branches of) G2a, J1 and T1a. This study is the first confirmation of it since it shows J1 in EBA Anatolia, long before the Arabic expansion. I also think that the Kura-Araxes expansion was the source of the Minoan civilisation, not the Mycenaean.

Maciamo its nice to see that your predictions are coming true, so in your opinion are all J2a-L558 related to Kura-Araxes expansion?

Burashid
11-05-17, 04:47
We need Genetiker to check the J and R sample

Angela
11-05-17, 06:39
The only Anatolia Bronze Age "y" we have in this paper is J1a.

As for Kura Araxes, wasn't there something about 11635 Armenia EBA, which turned out to be R1b1-M415(xM269) actually being in a Kura Araxes context?

Or am I misremembering that?

berun
11-05-17, 07:30
. I thought we are going to find western clades of R1b in South West Yamnaya, close to Cucuteni.

Keeping the faith...
;)

Now we need to look in the southwest steppe! each time it's more easy! (not in the east, now not in the northwest steppe, which is not existent de facto)...

bicicleur
11-05-17, 09:21
What baffles me is that all of the sudden they have found tons of R1b in Balkans. I guess, the Hungarian Neolithic samples from 2 years ago where somewhat misleading. Well, not complete at least. Now, surprise, surprise, tons of R1b!!! lol This is most mobile and ubiquitous haplogroup in Europe and West Asia, period, and since LGM!
I'm fine with that. I thought we are going to find western clades of R1b in South West Yamnaya, close to Cucuteni. You know, the last white spot on the map. So I wasn't too far off.
So, I guess, we can expect Baden Culture or bit lower South to be the IE source of invasion to the South-West of Europe, carrying R1b. Maybe proto Italo-Celtic homeland? Autosomally Baden was different than Yamnaya and CW or Unetice. More ENF with WHG, with much less steppe.
Unfortunately I don't have time to read the paper today or tomorrow.
Later.

the Danube Gorge was an interesting ecological niche for HG fishers, which seem to have been skipped by the Villabrunans
it was exploited only after the youngest dryas by people who came from elsewhere
appearently a R1b tribe

mesolithic Europe still seems to be shaped by Villabrunans I2 invading from the southeast and R1a/b coming from the Volga area (along with some Q1a2 from eastern Siberia)
it even looks like the I2 Villabrunans were in western Ukraine and in Karelia before the R1 tribes, but R1 kept seeping in to the west all the time

and yes, R1 seems to have been a very mobile tribe, I would even say R, as R2 and R1b-V88 seem to have been the first herding hunters in yet another place, the Zagros Mountains

and around 13 ka mesolithic G2a must have spread along the eastern Mediterranean and into Greece

Hauteville
11-05-17, 10:11
The Sicilian and Croatian individuals dating to 12,000 and 6100 BCE cluster closely with western hunter-gatherers, including individuals from Loschbour24 (Luxembourg, 6100 BCE), Bichon20 (Switzerland, 11,700 BCE), and Villabruna18 (Italy 12,000 BCE). These results demonstrate that the western hunter-gatherer population24 was widely distributed from the Atlantic seaboard of Europe in the West, to Sicily in the South, to the Balkan Peninsula in the Southeast, for at least six thousand years, strengthening the evidence that the western hunter gatherers represent a population that expanded from a southeastern European refugium following the last Ice Age around 15,000 years agoin the process displacing or admixing with the existing population of western Europe."

Alan
11-05-17, 12:11
So basically we have R1b all over Balkans,pure gold.

There we have the origin of Villabruna.

But there seems to be allot of R1 clades during the mesolithic in Balkans. It rivals Mal'ta. As I argued in the past. R1 is far too old to be just the lineage of one group, and must have been spred around the globe much earlier. Also it is far to widespred outside of the Indo European context, so that we can determine Indo European ness with yDNA. Interestingly because these Paleolithic/Mesolithic R1 lineages show no Steppe ancestry.

Alan
11-05-17, 12:30
The only Anatolia Bronze Age "y" we have in this paper is J1a.

As for Kura Araxes, wasn't there something about 11635 Armenia EBA, which turned out to be R1b1-M415(xM269) actually being in a Kura Araxes context?

Or am I misremembering that?

You are not misremembering. That is correct R1b1 and L1a as far as I remember. This West Anatolian Bronze Age samples are from the province of Isparta. A little later Anatolian IE language Sidetic was spoken there, seems to be connected to that because beyond the Neolithic pops only Indo Europeans are attested in that region.

Alpenjager
11-05-17, 12:36
I have made a bar chart showing the mtDNA H frequency among all tested Early Neolithic populations. I have excluded H5 results because this is found in Anatolia and is not found in Karsdorf.

Interesting findings is that Karsdorf match pretty well with Eastern Balkans while starcevo-koros and LBK from southwestern Germany match with Anatolia.

I have not included any unreliable sample and I decided count as H5 an ambiguous H vs H5 sample from Barcin. I have not included two samples from Portugal.

8369 8370


As Predicted by my bar chart 4 month ago, T1a1a have been found in a Criş culture settlement.

And as I showed in this map 3 months ago: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Genetic_landscape_of_Europe_7000_YBP.png

Alan
11-05-17, 12:52
And look at this: Iran Neolithic:


R:M718:17334694G->T



R:CTS2426:14300457G->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C




Now, my brain is fried.


I didn't quite understand this one. Are their some IranNeolithic samples in it. And do these mean yDNA T, A, C where found or that a R haplogroup was found and these are the calls for it? or is it something completely different.

Alpenjager
11-05-17, 13:05
I didn't quite understand this one. Are their some IranNeolithic samples in it. And do these mean yDNA T, A, C where found or that a R haplogroup was found and these are the calls for it? or is it something completely different.

T = Thymine
A = Adenine
C = Citosine

holderlin
11-05-17, 15:43
What a glorious paper

LeBrok
11-05-17, 16:23
Keeping the faith...
;)

Now we need to look in the southwest steppe! each time it's more easy! (not in the east, now not in the northwest steppe, which is not existent de facto)...I see, we should stop looking and depend on your fantazy. This is how science is done, lol. If you ever cared for what I'm saying , try to find my idea about who I say invaded Iberia in BA.
PS. Unlike yours, my predictions are never based on faith.
I predict now that in 2 years you will stop showing up on Eupedia, from all the shame that none of your fantasies turned right. Though, if you do, you will keep blaming the "bad" papers, "bad" scientists, "bad" interpretations and us not understanding your "brilliant" visions. Unfortunately no amount of evidence will ever change your mind, because people of strong faith never forsake their religion.

holderlin
11-05-17, 16:52
OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this
We have R1b and I2a among European hunter gatherers. Nothing surprising especially after 1) Villabruna and 2) Baltic HG samples. Given the range of the epigravettian people should have expected R1b HGs in the Balkans. It is a little interesting that Latvian HG appears to have more AG reflecting pre-EHG contacts with "ANE".
R1b and R1a still appear to have arisen in Europe and Siberia among hunter gatherers prior to Bronze age dispersals.
R1b and R1a is still associated with the spread of IE. This doesn't change that despite what people are posting, but I guess given the pervading white supremacy in this whole discussion I'll be accepting of this in so far as it doesn't degenerate into complete denial.
We do see a very early interaction zone between HGs on the WHG-EHG cline and Balkan farmers, which is what I've always said would be the evidence of early departures of Anatolian and Italo-Celtic. I would bet that this signals the development of Anatolian.
The Anatolian bronze age samples are too old to disprove that Hittite came from the Balkans. The Hittite language itself is the oldest of IEs, but the Hittites aren't even in their historical seat until 2000BC at the earliest.
I will say that the J1a and the increase in Iran Neo/CHG in the Anatolian bronze age samples is consistent with a Caucasian/Iranian plateau PIE Homeland, but it's still highly unlikley given all the data we have and I don't think we need to spell it all out for the millionth time.
There was recently talk about Mycenean haplogroups and how they could or could not be R1a. We have an R1a in MLBA Bulgaria.
Maykop will be telling. There has been some discussion as to the possibility that Anatolian came from Maykop itself, which could be the case.


Let's say we see a bunch of R1b in Maykop with mostly CHG samples. This would open things up, but it would still present problems. It would be hard to interpret and I think it would muddy things more that it would clarify.

Alright gotta go to work.

Angela
11-05-17, 17:09
Razib Khan's take on it:

http://gnxp.nofe.me/2017/05/11/when-conquered-greece-took-captive-her-rude-conqueror/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

For the record, I don't necessarily agree with everything he says.

Btw, I highly recommend the books he showcases there.

MarkoZ
11-05-17, 19:00
Btw, I highly recommend the books he showcases there.

However the author of this blogpost appears to omit that Robert Drews argues for an Armenian homeland and a Greek migration from Anatolia into Greece in the Middle Bronze Age. That's why the main focus of his books is West Asia and the interaction between Indo-European & non-Indo-European populations in Anatolia.

Sile
11-05-17, 19:30
However the author of this blogpost appears to omit that Robert Drews argues for an Armenian homeland and a Greek migration from Anatolia into Greece in the Middle Bronze Age. That's why the main focus of his books is West Asia and the interaction between Indo-European & non-Indo-European populations in Anatolia.

and greek fables also states that the "rude" dorians came via the Pamir mountains

Sile
11-05-17, 19:36
There we have the origin of Villabruna.

But there seems to be allot of R1 clades during the mesolithic in Balkans. It rivals Mal'ta. As I argued in the past. R1 is far too old to be just the lineage of one group, and must have been spred around the globe much earlier. Also it is far to widespred outside of the Indo European context, so that we can determine Indo European ness with yDNA. Interestingly because these Paleolithic/Mesolithic R1 lineages show no Steppe ancestry.

latest chit-chat on Villabruna is that he has no WHG and only has EHG ,,,,,,,,,,,,,I do not know the difference


Mal`ta boy died at less than 10 years old

Angela
11-05-17, 20:13
However the author of this blogpost appears to omit that Robert Drews argues for an Armenian homeland and a Greek migration from Anatolia into Greece in the Middle Bronze Age. That's why the main focus of his books is West Asia and the interaction between Indo-European & non-Indo-European populations in Anatolia.Yes, I know. That's why I said I don't agree with Khan totally. He needs to re-read Drews.

@ Sile,
Do you know who is stating Villabruna is EHG? A link would be great too.

ThirdTerm
11-05-17, 21:16
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ffh8xKukltA/WQUa3urgXlI/AAAAAAAAFhw/XWcXJK0zen8uzcBJqiDLavopUbg58aa0ACLcB/s450/Reich_screenshot.png

David Reich recently stated that there is no evidence of steppe migration through the Balkans into Anatolia and Reich was citing this paper (Mathieson et al. 2017) he co-authored. The steppe hypothesis of IE language origins suggests that IE languages were spread to Asia Minor by the movements of steppe people through the Balkans around 4000 BCE. However, steppe ancestry in the Balkan Peninsula is sporadic or low from the Copper Age to the Bronze Age and there is no evidence of mass migration from the steppes to the Balkans during the period. The Balkan mountain range was probably the geographical barrier for Yamnaya steppe herders from the north, while the Balkan Peninsula was readily accessible for Neolithic farmers from Anatolia.



If this were correct, then one way to detect evidence of it would be the appearance of large amounts of characteristics teppe ancestry first in the Balkan Peninsula and then in Anatolia. However, our genetic data do not support this scenario. While we find steppe ancestry in Balkan Copper Age and Bronze Age individuals, this ancestry is sporadic across individuals in the Copper Age, and at low levels in the Bronze Age. Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG / Iran Neolithic related ancestry, they have neither the EHG ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG ancestry that is ubiquitous in southeastern Europe in the Neolithic (Figure 1A, Supplementary Data Table 2, Supplementary Information section 1). This pattern is consistent with that seen in northwestern Anatolia and later in Copper Age Anatolia, suggesting continuing migration into Anatolia from the East rather than from Europe.

LATGAL
11-05-17, 22:35
Holderlin, thanks for the reasonable summary. Do you mean "until 2000 BC at the latest" rather than earliest, though? The Assyrian linguistic attestation of the Hittite presence at Kanesh can't be the earliest possible date Anatolian appears in Central Anatolia and thereabouts but the latest. I think Trevor Bryce's careful comments and summary about potential origins in 'The Kingdom of the Hittites' are relevant here.

It's a shame we have no samples from further south in the Balkans though. We know the area had potential Anatolian and Balkan connections depending on the specific part and, as mentioned, there's also the question of whether proto-Greek was an intrusion from the Balkans or Anatolia. I guess the Aegean will have to wait for another day.

@Sile, the Pamirs...say what?

Jason Neuharth
11-05-17, 22:48
Paper was good for I-M223 finds
I2165 3020-2895 calBCE (4340±30 BP, Beta-432797) Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1b
I2175 3328-3015 calBCE (4445±35 BP, Ly-5515) Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b
ILK001 2899-2706 calBCE Globular_Amphora_Ukraine I2a2a1b
ILK002 2890-2694 calBCE Globular_Amphora_Ukraine I2a2a1b2 Z161
I2441 3400-2800 BCE Globular_Amphora_Poland I2a2a1b
I4914 6355-5990 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4878 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a
I4880 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4881 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4882 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG_brother_of_I4880 I2a2a1b
I4551 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1
I4553 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1
I4596 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1b
I3717 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1
S5875.E1.L1 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b
I3714 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a
I3715 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1
I1738 5473-5326 calBCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1b
Falkenstein ThisStudy (New data; Individual first published in FuNature2016)
7460-7040 calBCE (8185±80 BP, ETH-7615) WHG I2a2a
Bul4 3012-2900 calBCE (4333±20 BP, MAMS-26834) Yamnaya_Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b

Jason Neuharth
11-05-17, 22:50
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135962.figures-only
this was also good for I-M223
I0518 England_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2
I0520 England_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1
I3134 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1a1a
I3135 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a
I2657 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a...
I2655 Scotland_MBA Great Britain I2a2a1a1a1
I2933 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1a1a2
I2650 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1b
I2660 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1a1a
I2691 Scotland_Neolithic Great Britain I2a2a1
I1767 BB_Britain Great Britain I2a2a1a1a
I2786 BB_Central_Europe Hungary I2a2a

Fire Haired14
11-05-17, 23:06
Yes a lot of I2a2a. For a long time it seemed I2a1 dominated ancient European I2a but at least in Eastern Europe there was more I2a2a than I2a1.

berun
11-05-17, 23:15
I see, we should stop looking and depend on your fantazy. This is how science is done, lol. If you ever cared for what I'm saying , try to find my idea about who I say invaded Iberia in BA.
PS. Unlike yours, my predictions are never based on faith.
I predict now that in 2 years you will stop showing up on Eupedia, from all the shame that none of your fantasies turned right. Though, if you do, you will keep blaming the "bad" papers, "bad" scientists, "bad" interpretations and us not understanding your "brilliant" visions. Unfortunately no amount of evidence will ever change your mind, because people of strong faith never forsake their religion.

bla, bla, bla about me, but still without L-51 in your steppe.

What is worst, this paper is havoc against IE popping from the steppe.

LeBrok
11-05-17, 23:35
However the author of this blogpost appears to omit that Robert Drews argues for an Armenian homeland and a Greek migration from Anatolia into Greece in the Middle Bronze Age. That's why the main focus of his books is West Asia and the interaction between Indo-European & non-Indo-European populations in Anatolia.Analyzing admixtures just recently I came to the conclusion that this scenario is very realistic.

holderlin
12-05-17, 01:01
Holderlin, thanks for the reasonable summary. Do you mean "until 2000 BC at the latest" rather than earliest, though? The Assyrian linguistic attestation of the Hittite presence at Kanesh can't be the earliest possible date Anatolian appears in Central Anatolia and thereabouts but the latest. I think Trevor Bryce's careful comments and summary about potential origins in 'The Kingdom of the Hittites' are relevant here.

Thanks, yes I'm saying historically attested seat was around 1800-1700BC. To say when they got there prior to historical attestation would be something different. My point was that we don't need a chalcolithic migration from the Balkans. It could have easily been much later.

holderlin
12-05-17, 01:06
bla, bla, bla about me, but still without L-51 in your steppe.

What is worst, this paper is havoc against IE popping from the steppe.

How? People keep saying this, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps if you've argued for genesis exclusively on the steppe proper, but even then it's still very strong. R1b and R1a are still dispersing during the bronze from the Steppe/Eastern Europe, which is still associated with IE speakers.

holderlin
12-05-17, 04:34
I had heard that Villabruna looked more like a proto-EHG minus the ANE components than a WHG. I believe it was on here. I don't have a source or data.

berun
12-05-17, 07:23
Yes, in the Bronze Age the steppes were already IE, with the ancestors of Iranians and by some time by Greeks and Indic.

sparkey
12-05-17, 07:44
Yes a lot of I2a2a. For a long time it seemed I2a1 dominated ancient European I2a but at least in Eastern Europe there was more I2a2a than I2a1.

I agree with this, I2-M223 (aside from British-local subclades and the like) seems more broadly eastern and I2a1 seems more broadly western in the ancient context, which is an interesting contrast to modern frequencies, thanks to the expansion of I2a-Din in between. On the other hand, these results map well to what we would expect based on modern subclade diversity.

Sile
12-05-17, 07:56
ID# i0700 ...........T1a1a - CTS4916 ............mtdna = T2e

and

ID# i1108............T1a1 - PF5658 ............mtdna = T2e


Both are found in Bulgaria ......

Apsurdistan
12-05-17, 08:55
there's T too? so pretty much everything except I1
this is bullshit

Milan.M
12-05-17, 09:52
Paper was good for I-M223 finds
I2165 3020-2895 calBCE (4340±30 BP, Beta-432797) Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b1b
I2175 3328-3015 calBCE (4445±35 BP, Ly-5515) Bulgaria_EBA I2a2a1b
ILK001 2899-2706 calBCE Globular_Amphora_Ukraine I2a2a1b
ILK002 2890-2694 calBCE Globular_Amphora_Ukraine I2a2a1b2 Z161
I2441 3400-2800 BCE Globular_Amphora_Poland I2a2a1b
I4914 6355-5990 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4878 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a
I4880 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4881 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG I2a2a1b2 Z161
I4882 6200-5900 BCE Iron_Gates_HG_brother_of_I4880 I2a2a1b
I4551 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1
I4553 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1
I4596 6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a2a1b
I3717 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1
S5875.E1.L1 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b
I3714 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a
I3715 5500-4800 BCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1
I1738 5473-5326 calBCE Ukraine_Neolithic I2a2a1b1b
Falkenstein ThisStudy (New data; Individual first published in FuNature2016)
7460-7040 calBCE (8185±80 BP, ETH-7615) WHG I2a2a
Bul4 3012-2900 calBCE (4333±20 BP, MAMS-26834) Yamnaya_Bulgaria I2a2a1b1b

8753–8351 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2a1
5780-5640 calBCE Koros_Hungary_ I2a1
4491-4357 calBCE Lengyel_LN Hungary I2a1
6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a1
6000-5100 BCE Latvia_HG I2a1
8280-7967 calBCE Vasil'evka .. Ukraine I2a1
3360-3086 calBCE Esperstedt Germany I2a1b1a1
2900-2679 calBCE El Mirador Cave, Atapuerca, Burgos Spain I2a1a1a
5310-5078 calBCE Iberia_EN I2a1b1


6655-6225 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG Serbia I2
7340-6640 calBCE Iron_Gates_HG Romania I2

There is also some I and IJ on some sites,i think i missed some but most of them are here.

Milan.M
12-05-17, 10:00
Only one R1a as i can see from South-East Europe (Balkans) to be found in the Bronze age;
Merichleri, Kairyaka necropolis burial mound 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP, Beta-432796) Bulgaria Balkans_Bronze Age R1a1a1b2

By that time the Thracian ethnogenesis were done. One hypothesis states Thracians to be mixture from "indegenous people" and mixture with Multi-cordoned ware culture ( Middle Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age) (22nd – 18th centuries b.c.) Tribes of this culture inhabited an area stretching from the Don to Moldavia, including Dnieper Ukraine, Right-bank Ukraine, and part of the modern Ternopil oblast, and was bordered by the Volga to the east. The culture succeeded the western Catacomb culture.

Alan
12-05-17, 10:09
Thanks, yes I'm saying historically attested seat was around 1800-1700BC. To say when they got there prior to historical attestation would be something different. My point was that we don't need a chalcolithic migration from the Balkans. It could have easily been much later.

It is so in general that people arrive before they are historically attested. And the main linguistic point is, if Hittite came from the Steppes via Balkan route it needs to have arrived in Anatolia already by 4000 BC, due to several reasons.

One being Hittites very archaic- ness so the divergence from Proto Indo European must be very recent.

Second being that the divergence within the Anatolian languages being quite significant (Luwian, Lydian, Hittite) and therefore has to have happened around 5000 years. What that means is Anatolian Branch HAS to have arrived in Anatolia prior to 3000 BC, since it is to be expected that the Anatolian Branch diverged on the Anatolian Plateau because A: there are no other languages of the Anatolian Branch outside Anatolia (with the exception of very early Hittite sites in Kurdistan and Iran(among the Kassites and Subarians)

And B: it is extremely unlikely that all the Anatolian branches arrived in Anatolia one by one.

So yes going by science, the Anatolian branch has to had arrived there prior to 2000 BC, more around 3000-4000 BC.

Alan
12-05-17, 10:18
I had heard that Villabruna looked more like a proto-EHG minus the ANE components than a WHG. I believe it was on here. I don't have a source or data.


How can Villabruna look like EHG minus the ANE, if the whole difference of WHG to EHG is the extend of ANE admixture ;)
That is not possible.

EHG, SHG, WHG all seem to be the same with only their ANE admixture being the differenting point. And Balkan H&G seem to be something of their own too. Predominantly WHG (93%) with little ANE admixture (~7%).

Alpenjager
12-05-17, 14:31
ID# i0700 ...........T1a1a - CTS4916 ............mtdna = T2e

and

ID# i1108............T1a1 - PF5658 ............mtdna = T2e


Both are found in Bulgaria ......


Criş culture is not boundared to modern Country boundaries. They belong to the Criş culture, Malak Preslaviets is in the Romanian-Bulgarian border, on the Danube banks.

They belong to mtDNA T2e but:
1-T1a settlements can integrate other mtDNA lineages as previously seen in Karsdorf (not necessarily originally linked to T1a)
2-T2e have not been found outside Europe yet.

Malak Preslavets ( Criş Culture )
40% T1a1a (Found in Central and Eastern Europe) Most Ancient found in Eastern Europe.
40% G2a2b2a (Found in Europe and Anatolia) Most Ancient found in Northwest Anatolia.
20% C1a2 (Found in Europe and Anatolia) Most Ancient found in Europe.

20% H+H5b (Found in Europe and around the Black sea)
20% U5a1c + U5a2 (Paleolithic European lineages)
20% T2e (not found outside Europe yet)
10% T2b (Found around the Black sea)
20% J2b1 (Found in Mesolithic Sardinia)
10% J1c (Found in West Asia)

Angela
12-05-17, 15:48
there's T too? so pretty much everything except I1
this is bullshitCut out the profanity. This isn't the corner pub.

epoch
12-05-17, 15:49
There was no "Paleolithic" rebound in the sense of Franco-Cantabrian refugia ancestry rebounding. That was largely replaced by WHG like ancestry from either the Balkans or ultimately Anatolia. WHG is different from Paleolithic Aurignacian ancestry.

A possibility is that R1b came from east into the Balkans, from there onto the steppe, and then L23 came back west.

I don't think you can tell that yet. Pure unadmixted UP WHG has now been found from Switzerland to Serbia, from Sicily to Villabruna, right? The Iron Gates have a tad EHG and something else, unknown. They also have the first k1 mtDNA. So let's call a perimeter there. El Miron has 2/3 Goyet admixture and 1/3 WHG. That is also a perimeter.

WHG can be modeled as half El_Miron + half Vestonice 16 + a tad ANE. That doesn't mean El_Miron or Vestonice 16 are necessarily its ancestors but I still think that LGM Italian samples may yield its ancestors.

EDIT: Come to think of it, those Peloponesse Neolithics have even less WHG than Anatolians. The Admixture graphs shown in the Supp Info shows it to have a common origin to the non-WHG part of Anatolians. The text mentions it shies away from WHG in comparison to Anatolian. While this is not proof, my feeling is that this points to Anatolians being on te receiving end of WHG admixture.

Angela
12-05-17, 15:52
It is so in general that people arrive before they are historically attested. And the main linguistic point is, if Hittite came from the Steppes via Balkan route it needs to have arrived in Anatolia already by 4000 BC, due to several reasons.

One being Hittites very archaic- ness so the divergence from Proto Indo European must be very recent.

Second being that the divergence within the Anatolian languages being quite significant (Luwian, Lydian, Hittite) and therefore has to have happened around 5000 years. What that means is Anatolian Branch HAS to have arrived in Anatolia prior to 3000 BC, since it is to be expected that the Anatolian Branch diverged on the Anatolian Plateau because A: there are no other languages of the Anatolian Branch outside Anatolia (with the exception of very early Hittite sites in Kurdistan and Iran(among the Kassites and Subarians)

And B: it is extremely unlikely that all the Anatolian branches arrived in Anatolia one by one.

So yes going by science, the Anatolian branch has to had arrived there prior to 2000 BC, more around 3000-4000 BC.That's my understanding of it as well. Ditto for the categorization of Villabruna. Also, has anyone checked whether the following is legit or a typo? It's in Table 1.

And look at this: Iran Neolithic:


R:M718:17334694G->T



R:CTS2426:14300457G->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C

epoch
12-05-17, 16:02
The most interesting part is the fact that ANE related ancestry pops up all over Eastern Europe and West-Asia post LGM.

MarkoZ
12-05-17, 16:06
I don't think you can tell that yet. Pure unadmixted UP WHG has now been found from Switzerland to Serbia, from Sicily to Villabruna, right? The Iron Gates have a tad EHG and something else, unknown. They also have the first k1 mtDNA. So let's call a perimeter there. El Miron has 2/3 Goyet admixture and 1/3 WHG. That is also a perimeter.

WHG can be modeled as half El_Miron + half Vestonice 16 + a tad ANE. That doesn't mean El_Miron or Vestonice 16 are necessarily its ancestors but I still think that LGM Italian samples may yield its ancestors.

EDIT: Come to think of it, those Peloponesse Neolithics have even less WHG than Anatolians. The Admixture graphs shown in the Supp Info shows it to have a common origin to the non-WHG part of Anatolians. The text mentions it shies away from WHG in comparison to Anatolian. While this is not proof, my feeling is that this points to Anatolians being on te receiving end of WHG admixture.

Here we go again :rolleyes2:

bicicleur
12-05-17, 16:16
That's my understanding of it as well. Ditto for the categorization of Villabruna. Also, has anyone checked whether the following is legit or a typo? It's in Table 1.

And look at this: Iran Neolithic:


R:M718:17334694G->T



R:CTS2426:14300457G->A; R:FGC1168:15667208G->C





what is the dating?

only basal R, no subclades identified
my guess would be R2 or R1b-V88

holderlin
12-05-17, 16:16
Cut out the profanity. This isn't the corner pub.

It is sort of BS though. What is up with the I1 in Germanic? I was hoping for some as well in this paper.

LeBrok
12-05-17, 16:22
there's T too? so pretty much everything except I1
this is bullshitIt was found in Hungarian Neolithic. Control your crazy outbursts!

The earliest sign of haplogroup I1 emerged from the testing of Early Neolithic Y-DNA from western Hungary (Szécsényi-Nagy et al. (2014) (http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664)). A single I1 sample was identified alongside a G2a2b sample, both from the early Linear Pottery (LBK) culture (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/linear_pottery_culture.shtml), which would later diffuse the new agricultural lifestyle to most of Poland, Germany and the Low Countries. This means that haplogroup I1 was present in central Europe at the time of the Neolithic expansion.
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml

LeBrok
12-05-17, 16:26
Only one R1a as i can see from South-East Europe (Balkans) to be found in the Bronze age;
Merichleri, Kairyaka necropolis burial mound 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP, Beta-432796) Bulgaria Balkans_Bronze Age R1a1a1b2 Shortage of R1a in Balkans? I bet, most of it have spread late with Slavs.

Milan.M
12-05-17, 16:33
Shortage of R1a in Balkans? I bet, most of it have spread late with Slavs.

It isn't that much of shortage considering the samples from bronze age we have and no iron age,this period to be look for it in my opinion,more are neolithic,there is also just one of J2b (bronze age) and E1b1b1 (neolithic) from Croatia i bet they too spread with Slavs later.There was two of "early Slavs" tested in Czech republic but no Y DNA.

LeBrok
12-05-17, 16:45
I don't think you can tell that yet. Pure unadmixted UP WHG has now been found from Switzerland to Serbia, from Sicily to Villabruna, right? The Iron Gates have a tad EHG and something else, unknown. They also have the first k1 mtDNA. So let's call a perimeter there. El Miron has 2/3 Goyet admixture and 1/3 WHG. That is also a perimeter.

WHG can be modeled as half El_Miron + half Vestonice 16 + a tad ANE. That doesn't mean El_Miron or Vestonice 16 are necessarily its ancestors but I still think that LGM Italian samples may yield its ancestors.

EDIT: Come to think of it, those Peloponesse Neolithics have even less WHG than Anatolians. The Admixture graphs shown in the Supp Info shows it to have a common origin to the non-WHG part of Anatolians. The text mentions it shies away from WHG in comparison to Anatolian. While this is not proof, my feeling is that this points to Anatolians being on te receiving end of WHG admixture.
WHG admixtures are very "refined", they needed to develop in isolation for few thousand of years, and went through sharp bottlenecking. If they have developed in Anatolia we could expect some Caucasian or SW Asian in them. I'm betting for Italy now as WHG refugium.

holderlin
12-05-17, 16:46
It is so in general that people arrive before they are historically attested. And the main linguistic point is, if Hittite came from the Steppes via Balkan route it needs to have arrived in Anatolia already by 4000 BC, due to several reasons.

One being Hittites very archaic- ness so the divergence from Proto Indo European must be very recent.

Second being that the divergence within the Anatolian languages being quite significant (Luwian, Lydian, Hittite) and therefore has to have happened around 5000 years. What that means is Anatolian Branch HAS to have arrived in Anatolia prior to 3000 BC, since it is to be expected that the Anatolian Branch diverged on the Anatolian Plateau because A: there are no other languages of the Anatolian Branch outside Anatolia (with the exception of very early Hittite sites in Kurdistan and Iran(among the Kassites and Subarians)

And B: it is extremely unlikely that all the Anatolian branches arrived in Anatolia one by one.

So yes going by science, the Anatolian branch has to had arrived there prior to 2000 BC, more around 3000-4000 BC.

I said historically. Meaning "as far as we know for sure". Of course they had to have been there before then, but I disagree with your time frames. Don't espouse science with your claims as if you're using pure logic, please. Luwain is really the only sub-group and it isn't as diverges from Hittite as you claim.

I agree that Anatolian/proto-Hittite, or whatever you want to call it must have diverged from PIE by 4000BC, but these would have been mobile people with horses and chariots. They could have moved into Anatolian suddenly, just as the Mycenaeans did in Greece. In fact they could have been displaced from the Balkans by migrating Greek speakers, which is what appears to be happening on the Balkan peninsula.

The Hittite people also appear to have originally been seated away from where this bronze age sample was taken, in the East around Hattusa, from which Luwic would likely have diverged from later. And it's only one sample. I'd like to see a few more younger samples. That's all.

It's possible that Anatolian came from the East, but I don't think it's more likely than the Balkans given all of the other evidence we have about IE dispersals.

holderlin
12-05-17, 16:48
How can Villabruna look like EHG minus the ANE, if the whole difference of WHG to EHG is the extend of ANE admixture ;)
That is not possible.

EHG, SHG, WHG all seem to be the same with only their ANE admixture being the differenting point. And Balkan H&G seem to be something of their own too. Predominantly WHG (93%) with little ANE admixture (~7%).

Whoa, slow down. I was saying that I "heard something like this". Someone else brought it up and I was corroborating the rumor.

LeBrok
12-05-17, 16:50
It is sort of BS though. What is up with the I1 in Germanic? I was hoping for some as well in this paper.Wherever it was hiding in h-gs, at one point was picked up by proto germanic farmers, and afterwards exploded with germanic population. In one of most successful tribes. Unless you think it landed in IA Europe with Martians?

epoch
12-05-17, 17:03
WHG admixtures are very "refined", they needed to develop in isolation for few thousand of years, and went through sharp bottlenecking. If they have developed in Anatolia we could expect some Caucasian or SW Asian in them. I'm betting for Italy now as WHG refugium.

Exactly my point.

epoch
12-05-17, 17:15
Here we go again :rolleyes2:

O we had our quibbles on this before and will not agree on this anytime soon I reckon. Although on my part it is not stubborness but seriously failing to see how it could have worked. But on one thing I think we may agree: This epic paper is splendid in every aspect. But it doesn't provide the game changer on account of the LGM or pre-LGM roots of WHG.

MarkoZ
12-05-17, 17:20
Wherever it was hiding in h-gs, at one point was picked up by proto germanic farmers, and afterwards exploded with germanic population. In one of most successful tribes. Unless you think it landed in IA Europe with Martians?

I think the proportion of I1 relative to haplogroups associated with Germanic migrations (U106) in Finnish populations and particularly the Finnish I-L287 would indicate that I1 had a star-patterned expansion before the arrival of the Germanics. How this happened I don't know.

Maciamo
12-05-17, 17:36
I think the proportion of I1 relative to haplogroups associated with Germanic migrations (U106) in Finnish populations and particularly the Finnish I-L287 would indicate that I1 had a star-patterned expansion before the arrival of the Germanics. How this happened I don't know.

I have written a long explanation about how and when I1 might have spread to Finland in my history of haplogroup I1 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml#suomi).

Maciamo
12-05-17, 17:37
what is the dating?

only basal R, no subclades identified
my guess would be R2 or R1b-V88

I agree with that. It might even be some extinct R*. After all I* also shows up a bit everywhere in Europe during the Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Maciamo
12-05-17, 17:43
there's T too? so pretty much everything except I1
this is bullshit

Why do you expect to find I1 in Mesolithic orEarly Neolithic samples ? I1 didn't exist back then. It was just I* (or pre-I1, meaning that only some of the 300+ defining mutations existed). The I1 reported by Szécsényi-Nagy 2014 in the LBK culture is almost surely pre-I1. That pre-I1 would have spread from Hungary to Germany with the advance of LBK, then maybe to to already Scandinavia with Funnelbeaker farmers.

I1 as we know it appeared less than 5000 years ago, either during the late Funnelbeaker or the early Corded Ware/Battle-Axe culture. One likely scenario is that the ancestor of all modern I1 was one lucky man assimilated by Corded Ware tribes who adapted well, rose to prominence, and whose descendants expanded quickly as Corded Ware tribes spread over Scandinavia. An alternative scenario is that I1 was a founder lineage among a small group of Funnelbeaker farmers who expanded to Scandinavia, eventually reaching Finland before the Corded Ware. Since the TMRCA of I1 is just at the limit of the Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware cultures, and that it is just an estimate that could be off by a few centuries, it is not possible to know for sure at present. However there is no reason to expect any I1 among the Balkans, Baltic or Steppe samples tested in this paper.

Angela
12-05-17, 18:14
It's my understanding that almost all the R1a in the Balkans, certainly in Greece, is Balto-Slavic, so Medieval. There is a respectable amount of Yamnaya type R1b. The ancient samples for the Bronze Age show little downstream R1a or R1b in the Balkans, although there's I2a.

In terms of autosomal dna, there's about 10% "steppe" in the Early Bronze Age Balkans. There's more later, but as I said before, I think the 30% figure is misleading because it includes the one Z93 sample with very high steppe. I don't know if most of the Indo-European speakers took a different route, or just passed through, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any mass migration there in the Bronze Age. We only have one Iron Age Sample, but it has even less steppe.

Maybe more samples will change the situation, but that's what we have for now, and we have quite a few Bronze Age samples; I quickly counted 11, with a lot from Bulgaria, right on the path.

For accuracy, nobody had chariots in 4000 BC.

For now I'm going with the idea that there was a WHG related population in Anatolia.

As to the relationships between the hunter-gatherers, there is this from the paper.

8676

The Neolithic R in Iran is from Ganj Dareh, Iran, as they all are, and is dated 8000 to 7700 BC. The other male is listed as CT. It's all in Table 5, right after the Globular Amphora and Iron Gates samples.

Ed. The Mycenaeans could still be Z93, of course, but a very small autosomal impact?

We are now reaching mental breakdown territory. Italic is related to Iranic, not Celtic? "Say it ain't so, Joe!":rolleyes2:

holderlin
12-05-17, 19:02
Wherever it was hiding in h-gs, at one point was picked up by proto germanic farmers, and afterwards exploded with germanic population. In one of most successful tribes. Unless you think it landed in IA Europe with Martians?

Of course it can be explained without magic or aliens, but it's unique. There's barely any sign of it before IA, then it explodes in Germanic speakers.

epoch
12-05-17, 19:07
For now I'm going with the idea that there was a WHG related population in Anatolia.

As to the relationships between the hunter-gatherers, there is this from the paper.

8676

The Neolithic R in Iran is from Ganj Dareh, Iran, as they all are, and is dated 8000 to 7700 BC. The other male is listed as CT. It's all in Table 5, right after the Globular Amphora and Iron Gates samples.



The attachment is broken

holderlin
12-05-17, 19:09
How can Villabruna look like EHG minus the ANE, if the whole difference of WHG to EHG is the extend of ANE admixture ;)
That is not possible.

EHG, SHG, WHG all seem to be the same with only their ANE admixture being the differenting point. And Balkan H&G seem to be something of their own too. Predominantly WHG (93%) with little ANE admixture (~7%).

And actually I don't think the only difference is "ANE", at least it doesn't appear that way in some runs.

Maybe people mean to say that EHG descends from Villabruna where as WHG descends from a Villabruna cousin, or something like that? I dunno, but it's the 2nd or 3rd time I've heard it.

holderlin
12-05-17, 19:15
But it doesn't provide the game changer on account of the LGM or pre-LGM roots of WHG.

Exactly. It's what we would have expected given Villabruna and Baltic HGs. It's good. There is order in the universe.

Angela
12-05-17, 20:00
The attachment is broken

I've just clicked on it, Epoch, and it works for me. Maybe you have to be logged in? If not, it's here on Iosif's twitter.

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis

bicicleur
12-05-17, 20:50
I said historically. Meaning "as far as we know for sure". Of course they had to have been there before then, but I disagree with your time frames. Don't espouse science with your claims as if you're using pure logic, please. Luwain is really the only sub-group and it isn't as diverges from Hittite as you claim.

I agree that Anatolian/proto-Hittite, or whatever you want to call it must have diverged from PIE by 4000BC, but these would have been mobile people with horses and chariots. They could have moved into Anatolian suddenly, just as the Mycenaeans did in Greece. In fact they could have been displaced from the Balkans by migrating Greek speakers, which is what appears to be happening on the Balkan peninsula.

The Hittite people also appear to have originally been seated away from where this bronze age sample was taken, in the East around Hattusa, from which Luwic would likely have diverged from later. And it's only one sample. I'd like to see a few more younger samples. That's all.

It's possible that Anatolian came from the East, but I don't think it's more likely than the Balkans given all of the other evidence we have about IE dispersals.

as there is no clear sign of migration, neither intermediate DNA, and as you suggest Luwian split from Hittite rather late, the Anatolians moving into Anatolia were probably just a small group which subsequently expanded within Anatolia

they were probably just simple herders, early Hittites didn't have charriots neither any specific technology

MarkoZ
12-05-17, 20:52
I have written a long explanation about how and when I1 might have spread to Finland in my history of haplogroup I1 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I1_Y-DNA.shtml#suomi).

Thanks, I think you've hit the nail on the head, either Funnelbeaker or Battle Axe it is. Related to that it just occurred to me that we have no samples whatsoever from Finland, do we?

Apsurdistan
12-05-17, 20:53
Why do you expect to find I1 in Mesolithic orEarly Neolithic samples ? I1 didn't exist back then. It was just I* (or pre-I1, meaning that only some of the 300+ defining mutations existed). The I1 reported by Szécsényi-Nagy 2014 in the LBK culture is almost surely pre-I1. That pre-I1 would have spread from Hungary to Germany with the advance of LBK, then maybe to to already Scandinavia with Funnelbeaker farmers.

I1 as we know it appeared less than 5000 years ago, either during the late Funnelbeaker or the early Corded Ware/Battle-Axe culture. One likely scenario is that the ancestor of all modern I1 was one lucky man assimilated by Corded Ware tribes who adapted well, rose to prominence, and whose descendants expanded quickly as Corded Ware tribes spread over Scandinavia. An alternative scenario is that I1 was a founder lineage among a small group of Funnelbeaker farmers who expanded to Scandinavia, eventually reaching Finland before the Corded Ware. Since the TMRCA of I1 is just at the limit of the Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware cultures, and that it is just an estimate that could be off by a few centuries, it is not possible to know for sure at present. However there is no reason to expect any I1 among the Balkans, Baltic or Steppe samples tested in this paper.

So was I1 found then in Funnelbeaker samples and CW? You're just basically saying I1 has to be a really young hg. Well that's the only way to make sense out of it, until some samples are found pre-metal age. If they found I1 in neolithic Hungary why would you not expect it to be found more in the same area, Balkans, Ukraine, pre-neolithic or post... it would only make sense. Unless that Hungary sample was not really I1. Was I* or I2 the ancestor of I1?

Also what happened to the C? Seems like that hg was widespread through Europe. Does anyone have a clue what happened to it along with the other ones like F and H? They're not common in modern Europe. They just went extinct? Ok but why and I guess it can't be explained yet.

Apsurdistan
12-05-17, 21:06
Thanks, I think you've hit the nail on the head, either Funnelbeaker or Battle Axe it is. Related to that it just occurred to me that we have no samples whatsoever from Finland, do we?

My best guess would be that if I1 is older it's place of origin would most likely be in the northeast Europe area and it migrated west into Scandinavia north Europe and dispersed from there perhaps sometime after the mesolithic, who knows when.
I just think I1 is one of the most puzzling HGs yet it barely gets any attention. Apparently it's not too important or interesting, I guess only the ones like R1 that happens to be the majority of Europeans is.

epoch
12-05-17, 21:11
I've just clicked on it, Epoch, and it works for me. Maybe you have to be logged in? If not, it's here on Iosif's twitter.

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_eLId5XoAA_wXl.jpg

This?

Angela
12-05-17, 21:23
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_eLId5XoAA_wXl.jpg

This?Yes. Disappointed? I didn't mean to imply it was the Ten Commandments fresh from the mountain top! :)

To the board:

Is this still correct?
Single Grave?, Denmark, RISE61 [4], R1a

Battle-Axe, Sweden, RISE94 [4], R1a
Battle-Axe?, Sweden, RISE98 [4], R1b

Alan
12-05-17, 21:23
I don't think you can tell that yet. Pure unadmixted UP WHG has now been found from Switzerland to Serbia, from Sicily to Villabruna, right?

I think she can, since we have studies that exactly prove this. A study a year ago clearly stated that Paleolithic mainland Europeans were distinct from any known modern population. And WHG pops up just by mesolithic.


EDIT: Come to think of it, those Peloponesse Neolithics have even less WHG than Anatolians. The Admixture graphs shown in the Supp Info shows it to have a common origin to the non-WHG part of Anatolians. The text mentions it shies away from WHG in comparison to Anatolian. While this is not proof, my feeling is that this points to Anatolians being on te receiving end of WHG admixture.

A clear distinction needs to be made here between WHG and WHG like. Anatolian farmers as well South Levantine farmers all the way to Natufian H&G have WHG like ancestry. It is unlikely that they received it. What the paper is actually trying to tell us is, that Peloponesse farmers derive from a different wave of farmers a merging of farmers coming from South Anatolia/the Levant as well Iranian Plateau. That is the reason it has less WHG like ancestry

Alan
12-05-17, 21:33
I said historically. Meaning "as far as we know for sure". Of course they had to have been there before then, but I disagree with your time frames. Don't espouse science with your claims as if you're using pure logic, please. Luwain is really the only sub-group and it isn't as diverges from Hittite as you claim.

Holderin the problem is you seem to have weak knowledge on some of these things you open up. A corner stone of the Kurgan Hypothesis is that the Anatolian branch reached Anatolia by 4000 BC because of linguistics, this are not my claims this is part of the theory, just because it doesn't taste you, don't claim it is a lie someone made up. Linguists date the arrival to 4000 BC. Your linguistic understanding is very low


I agree that Anatolian/proto-Hittite, or whatever you want to call it must have diverged from PIE by 4000BC, but these would have been mobile people with horses and chariots. They could have moved into Anatolian suddenly, just as the Mycenaeans did in Greece.
Yep they went on a long journey with their ultra advanced chariots (chariots are an Indo_Iranian thing by the way. 4000 BC Indo Europeans didn't had the spoked wheel charriots) without even the need to stop anywhere.


In fact they could have been displaced from the Balkans by migrating Greek speakers, which is what appears to be happening on the Balkan peninsula.

by migrating Greek speakers who according to the Kurgan hypothesis should have brought Steppe admixture with them. So you are telling me the reason why there is no or only sporadic Steppe admixture, is that they were replaced by another.... Steppe people? Please...

MOESAN
12-05-17, 22:47
Yes a lot of I2a2a. For a long time it seemed I2a1 dominated ancient European I2a but at least in Eastern Europe there was more I2a2a than I2a1.

in my quest towards BB's and towards a link with Y-I2a2 I was longing for a place between far West and far North-East, not too far from Vucedol and close to Moldavia and Tripolje, and I thought in the Carpathians: they are not too far from Balkans (at this date I did not know about I2a2 in Balkans) and we find some old I2a2 in Ukraina too - sure it proves nothing about BB's and some Y-I2a2 lineages have surely an other story,but my bet concerning geography was not to bad it seems -

MOESAN
12-05-17, 22:54
[QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this [QUOTE]

the possible PPNB colonisation hypothesis had been already put by someones, without DNA, supposing at least 2 early different waves of farmers into S-E Europe - I wonder if Y-E1b upstream to E-V13 was not already among them (Pelopponese is a hotspot for E-V13 in Europe)

MOESAN
12-05-17, 23:19
in my quest towards BB's and towards a link with Y-I2a2 I was longing for a place between far West and far North-East, not too far from Vucedol and close to Moldavia and Tripolje, and I thought in the Carpathians: they are not too far from Balkans (at this date I did not know about I2a2 in Balkans) and we find some old I2a2 in Ukraina too - sure it proves nothing about BB's and some Y-I2a2 lineages have surely an other story,but my bet concerning geography was not to bad it seems -

I answer myself (sorry): in fact spite some lineages could be interesting about Chaclo-Bronze, it seems Y-I2a2 was spred in Western Europe (long enough) before metal ages, as well In Iberia and Britain: have we the dates for the 11 ones of Britain Neolithic? Megalithic cultures specificity? A profane question.

Angela
12-05-17, 23:24
Yes. Disappointed? I didn't mean to imply it was the Ten Commandments fresh from the mountain top! :)

To the board:

Is this still correct?
Single Grave?, Denmark, RISE61 [4], R1a

Battle-Axe, Sweden, RISE94 [4], R1a
Battle-Axe?, Sweden, RISE98 [4], R1b Their cluster for WHG in that graph is composed of Loschbour, La Brana, and Villabruna, as far as I can remember. I can't find the quote. If it's wrong, please post so I can correct the record.

The supplement and tables can be accessed here:
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/09/135616.figures-only

This is unexpected: The gold encrusted Varna King's ydna is listed as CT. The R1 sample has no grave goods.

"ANI152 / VAR43Supine inhumation of a mature-senile male (50-65 years). The grave is extraordinary richlyfurnished with seven heavy copper implements, more than 1000 single gold items, jewelrymade out of the shells of Spondylus and imported minerals, and highly sophisticated flinttools. The social interpretation of VAR43 is mainly based on the rich grave goods and only insmall part based on the so far reported anthropological data. Muscle marks on the skeletonshow that the bones were exposed to great physical stress until shortly before his death. The 12strong muscles of his lower arm even suggest continuous work. The bones from VAR43 showarthritis on the cervical spine, the hands, and the feet. The left hip and especially the left kneewere also affected. A squatting facet on the left tibia of the individual can be seen as anindication for preferentially sitting in squatting position, which hints at a working position.The presence of calculus on the teeth points to a diet containing protein. However, there is noevidence of cavities or so-called enamel hypoplasia, which is typically seen as an indicator ofstress during childhood development and could point to periods of malnutrition. This impliesa continuously good diet and could in itself be taken as a sign of higher social status of theindividual. Due to its outstandingly rich inventory, the grave shows strong interactions in asocial network analysis with many others in the course of the chronological development ofthe cemetery. Within this network the strongest relations are given to some symbolic gravesat the very end of the development of Varna I, which is confirmed by positioning of VAR43into the 6st phase of the cemetery in the correspondence analysis.• ANI153 / VAR44Partially destroyed probably supine burial of a young male (13+ years). No grave goodsreported."

Ed. The y is listed specifically as: CT:M5578:6619341C->A; CT:M5738:17909505G->A;

Promenade
12-05-17, 23:46
This is unexpected: The gold encrusted Varna King's ydna is listed as CT.

So he had direct paternal ancestry from hunter gatherers? Wonder how his family eventually came into power over time. His haplogroup seems to have been fairly rare by that time, so it's not a surprise that we no longer see it today. Dynastic lines can disappear quickly. I remember reading somewhere that 60 percent leave no heirs after just two centuries.

Angela
12-05-17, 23:47
[QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this

[QUOTE] the possible PPNB colonisation hypothesis had been already put by someones, without DNA, supposing at least 2 early different waves of farmers into S-E Europe - I wonder if Y-E1b upstream to E-V13 was not already among them (Pelopponese is a hotspot for E-V13 in Europe)That's a good bet I think.

These people did lean a bit more Neolithic Iran than the Anatolia farmers, with less WHG like ancestry.

The authors maintain that ancestry from this group did not go north into Central Europe in any significant way, and the AN like farmer ancestry did get to Central Europe and took the maritime Cardial route. They do propose some of this Peloponnesus farmer ancestry could have seeped into Cardial, which is interesting in that someone just told me he heard the Avellenar sample has tested positive for the E-V13 snp. It would be great if someone could confirm that. They should re-test the Sopot one too.

I have always leaned toward believing that the precursor to E-V13 came to Europe with the farmers, an opinion which was strengthened by the Cardial find and then the Sopot find. Now we have three examples of at least precursors.

Ed. I had suggested an earlier PPNB farmer migration linked to the one that went to Cyprus. I also said on the thread here about Gamba et al and when the Thracian samples were discussed that I thought that the Balkans remained "farmer" heavy into the Iron Age.

Ed.Ed. Avellenar is listed as E-V13 in Jean's site, with a link to a table. She still has Sopot as M78. Let's see what happens with thisc Croatian one.

Apsurdistan
13-05-17, 00:33
Oh another shocker the R1 sample isn't royal just merely a peasant? How is that possible?

holderlin
13-05-17, 06:53
It's my understanding that almost all the R1a in the Balkans, certainly in Greece, is Balto-Slavic, so Medieval. There is a respectable amount of Yamnaya type R1b. The ancient samples for the Bronze Age show little downstream R1a or R1b in the Balkans, although there's I2a.

In terms of autosomal dna, there's about 10% "steppe" in the Early Bronze Age Balkans. There's more later, but as I said before, I think the 30% figure is misleading because it includes the one Z93 sample with very high steppe. I don't know if most of the Indo-European speakers took a different route, or just passed through, but there certainly doesn't seem to be any mass migration there in the Bronze Age. We only have one Iron Age Sample, but it has even less steppe.

Maybe more samples will change the situation, but that's what we have for now, and we have quite a few Bronze Age samples; I quickly counted 11, with a lot from Bulgaria, right on the path.

For accuracy, nobody had chariots in 4000 BC.

For now I'm going with the idea that there was a WHG related population in Anatolia.

As to the relationships between the hunter-gatherers, there is this from the paper.

8676

The Neolithic R in Iran is from Ganj Dareh, Iran, as they all are, and is dated 8000 to 7700 BC. The other male is listed as CT. It's all in Table 5, right after the Globular Amphora and Iron Gates samples.

Ed. The Mycenaeans could still be Z93, of course, but a very small autosomal impact?

We are now reaching mental breakdown territory. Italic is related to Iranic, not Celtic? "Say it ain't so, Joe!":rolleyes2:


Yes, there's no evidence of Chariots before 2000BC, or whatever, but I'm talking within the notion that Anatolian need not be in Anatolia by 4000BC, so I allowed myself the freedom of including chariots. Hittites definitely had chariots, probably as early as 1700BC, so anyway.

Greek is much younger than Italo-celtic, for starters, and what this paper is showing is a very old interaction zone between HGs on the WHG-EHG cline and Balkan farmers. This is where I see Anatolian and later on Italo-celtic originating. Greek is a latter IE language and so it makes perfect sense that it would displace Anatolian. The Mycenaeans DID have chariots so one could easily see them driving populations across the Hellespont.

And there is clear archaeological evidence of expansion into the Balkans during what one would presume would be the time frame for Mycenaean movement into the Greece.

holderlin
13-05-17, 06:56
[QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this

[QUOTE] the possible PPNB colonisation hypothesis had been already put by someones, without DNA, supposing at least 2 early different waves of farmers into S-E Europe - I wonder if Y-E1b upstream to E-V13 was not already among them (Pelopponese is a hotspot for E-V13 in Europe)

Well there you have it. In so many cases the archaeology is being confirmed by the genetics.

epoch
13-05-17, 08:05
I think she can, since we have studies that exactly prove this. A study a year ago clearly stated that Paleolithic mainland Europeans were distinct from any known modern population.

In all models it is highly related to the Vestonice cluster. A sister clade. It is entirely possible that is spawns from it. As I said, it can be modeled as a mixture.


And WHG pops up just by mesolithic.

That is a matter terminology. Fu et al lobbed Loschbour in their Villabruna cluster


A clear distinction needs to be made here between WHG and WHG like. Anatolian farmers as well South Levantine farmers all the way to Natufian H&G have WHG like ancestry. It is unlikely that they received it. What the paper is actually trying to tell us is, that Peloponesse farmers derive from a different wave of farmers a merging of farmers coming from South Anatolia/the Levant as well Iranian Plateau. That is the reason it has less WHG like ancestry

True. However, in formal stats WHG picks Anatolian over any other old Middle-Eastern.

Milan.M
13-05-17, 08:13
My best guess would be that if I1 is older it's place of origin would most likely be in the northeast Europe area and it migrated west into Scandinavia north Europe and dispersed from there perhaps sometime after the mesolithic, who knows when.
I just think I1 is one of the most puzzling HGs yet it barely gets any attention. Apparently it's not too important or interesting, I guess only the ones like R1 that happens to be the majority of Europeans is.

I'll say that contrary to everyone I1 has it's origin in lower Danube and place where was found in Hungarian Neolithic from where migrated north,just look at Norse bronze age the Trundholm sun chariot is full with Danubian influence or the much later Gundestrup cauldron which many admit it's Thracian origin.This connection shouldn't be disregarded.Your haplogroup arosed much more near where your origin is,from where migrated north.Just my opinion.

epoch
13-05-17, 08:40
Yes. Disappointed? I didn't mean to imply it was the Ten Commandments fresh from the mountain top! :)


On the contrary. Did you notice they model KO1 (Hungarian HG) as ANE admixted? That is either mistake or there is going to be an update. KO1 has mtDNA R3 it shares with AG3


To the board:

Is this still correct?
Single Grave?, Denmark, RISE61 [4], R1a

Battle-Axe, Sweden, RISE94 [4], R1a
Battle-Axe?, Sweden, RISE98 [4], R1b

If I understand well the R1b of the Swedish Battle-Axe is U106.

EDIT: One of the Dutch Tuithoorn Bell Beaker samples has U106 as well.

epoch
13-05-17, 08:43
Yes. Disappointed? I didn't mean to imply it was the Ten Commandments fresh from the mountain top! :)

It makes one wonder how far ANE stretched before LGM.

EDIT: It makes one realise how very few truly unadmixted ANE samples we have. One 1 Y-DNA (R*) and 2 mtDNA's (U and R3)

holderlin
13-05-17, 08:53
Holderin the problem is you seem to have weak knowledge on some of these things you open up. A corner stone of the Kurgan Hypothesis is that the Anatolian branch reached Anatolia by 4000 BC because of linguistics, this are not my claims this is part of the theory, just because it doesn't taste you, don't claim it is a lie someone made up. Linguists date the arrival to 4000 BC. Your linguistic understanding is very low

The problem is that you ignore the vast swath of data that supports what I say, then arrogantly champion the few exceptions as if they carry the weight to actually change the whole picture.

It looks like my low linguistics knowledge was enough to tell that Iranian speakers were most certainly from the steppe. Scythian Paper et al :laughing::laughing: "THEY'RE EASTERN SHIFTED! THAT'S ALL!" Yeah with BHG. lulz

Linguists date the FORMATION of Anatolia to 4000BC. An early arrival in Anatolia itself just helps everything else fit. It's not a "corner stone". It just fits Greek nicely into a latter "wave", but of course none of this was that simple. And I'm not even a Kurgan subscriber entirely. If you read what I wrote you would know that. I think The Baltic was speaking PIE as well, or a version of it, which probably pisses you off even more. What do you take to be the "Kurgan Hypothesis"? Gimbutas in the 70s, and that's it? Like it's an equation?


Yep they went on a long journey with their ultra advanced chariots (chariots are an Indo_Iranian thing by the way. 4000 BC Indo Europeans didn't had the spoked wheel charriots) without even the need to stop anywhere.

Yeah I'm suggesting a latter arrival, so chariots were on the table. Mycenaeans and Hittites definitely had chariots that's for sure, probably by 1700BC.

Perhaps this came from Iranians in the East? I dunno. This is more likely to be the case with the Hittites than with the Greeks though.


by migrating Greek speakers who according to the Kurgan hypothesis should have brought Steppe admixture with them. So you are telling me the reason why there is no or only sporadic Steppe admixture, is that they were replaced by another.... Steppe people? Please...

We don't even have the right samples. Most of these were way too old to say anything about Greek.

Notice that one of the two samples from the Balkans that dates to the time period for Mycenaean expansions is R1a. And remember that known historical Greek speakers extended North. I would like to see Shaft Grave samples that have no steppe, unfortunately I think we only have mtDNA.

Milan.M
13-05-17, 09:53
The R1a was found in Bulgaria in burial mound,near what much later will be known as valley of Thracian kings and if anything this should be connected to Thracians,don't know why people keep bringing Mycenaeans, this two groups were distinct people.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 10:50
Linguists date the FORMATION of Anatolia to 4000BC. An early arrival in Anatolia itself just helps everything else fit. It's not a "corner stone". It just fits Greek nicely into a latter "wave", but of course none of this was that simple. And I'm not even a Kurgan subscriber entirely. If you read what I wrote you would know that. I think The Baltic was speaking PIE as well, or a version of it, which probably pisses you off even more. What do you take to be the "Kurgan Hypothesis"? Gimbutas in the 70s, and that's it? Like it's an equation.

The steppe 'works' because there's ample opportunity for Kartvelian & Semitic (or Afrasian?) contacts - i. e. the only languages that had definite influence on PIE per historical linguistics. These would be hard to explain in the case of a Baltic homeland.

Anthony believes that these influences arrived north of the Caucasus with Maikop.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 11:16
True. However, in formal stats WHG picks Anatolian over any other old Middle-Eastern.

You still don't understand that heavily West Eurasian Middle Easterners haven't been sampled yet - the oldest West Asian is the epi-Zarzian Hotu cave individual from northern Iran. Jones et al. model the Caucasus-Iranian influence that unambiguously appears in Villabrunna as having diverged from West Eurasian ~45 kya (though this figure might be slightly inflated due to Basal Eurasian ancestry):


Here, we extend our view of the genetic makeup of earlyEuropeans by both looking further back in time and samplingfrom the crossroads between the European and Asian continents.We sequenced a Late Upper Palaeolithic (‘Satsurblia’ fromSatsurblia cave, 1.4-fold coverage) and a Mesolithic genome(‘Kotias’ from Kotias Klde cave, 15.4-fold) from Western Georgia,at the very eastern boundary of Europe. We term these twoindividuals Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG). To extend ouroverview of WHG to a time depth similar to the one available forour samples from the Caucasus, we also sequenced a westernEuropean Late Upper Palaeolithic genome, ‘Bichon’ (9.5-fold)from Grotte du Bichon, Switzerland. These new genomes,together with already published data, provide us with a muchimprovedgeographic and temporal coverage of genetic diversityacross Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)8. We showthat CHG belong to a new, distinct ancient clade that split fromWHG B45 kya and from Neolithic farmer ancestors B25 kya.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

Of course WHG would show higher affinity to the heavily West Eurasian Anatolians. The Caucasus-Iran admixture in both the Anatolians & the Villabrunna cluster is rather negligible.

Alpenjager
13-05-17, 12:06
Karsdorf Map
8680

Malak Preslavets Map
8681

bicicleur
13-05-17, 12:16
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C_eLId5XoAA_wXl.jpg

This?

I've been telling many times that CHG admixture on the steppe had already started with Khvalynsk.

Apsurdistan
13-05-17, 12:18
I'll say that contrary to everyone I1 has it's origin in lower Danube and place where was found in Hungarian Neolithic from where migrated north,just look at Norse bronze age the -Trundholm sun chariot is full with Neo Danubian influence or the much later Gundestrup cauldron which many admit it's Thracian origin.This connection shouldn't be disregarded.Your haplogroup arosed much more near where your origin is,from where migrated north.Just my opinion.

Yeah you might be right, that's why I'm hoping to see some I1 in these ancient samples in the Danube region or anywhere for that matter. But I don't see any M253, only I and I2's.

bicicleur
13-05-17, 12:20
[QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this

[QUOTE] the possible PPNB colonisation hypothesis had been already put by someones, without DNA, supposing at least 2 early different waves of farmers into S-E Europe - I wonder if Y-E1b upstream to E-V13 was not already among them (Pelopponese is a hotspot for E-V13 in Europe)

Upstream E-V13 was also in cardial ware Avelaner Cave, no need for different waves to explain that.
Upstream E-V13 could have been in any wave, after all the E-V13 founder was 1 single man.

bicicleur
13-05-17, 12:28
[QUOTE=MOESAN;508384][QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this

That's a good bet I think.

These people did lean a bit more Neolithic Iran than the Anatolia farmers, with less WHG like ancestry.

The authors maintain that ancestry from this group did not go north into Central Europe in any significant way, and the AN like farmer ancestry did get to Central Europe and took the maritime Cardial route. They do propose some of this Peloponnesus farmer ancestry could have seeped into Cardial, which is interesting in that someone just told me he heard the Avellenar sample has tested positive for the E-V13 snp. It would be great if someone could confirm that. They should re-test the Sopot one too.

I have always leaned toward believing that the precursor to E-V13 came to Europe with the farmers, an opinion which was strengthened by the Cardial find and then the Sopot find. Now we have three examples of at least precursors.

Ed. I had suggested an earlier PPNB farmer migration linked to the one that went to Cyprus. I also said on the thread here about Gamba et al and when the Thracian samples were discussed that I thought that the Balkans remained "farmer" heavy into the Iron Age.

Ed.Ed. Avellenar is listed as E-V13 in Jean's site, with a link to a table. She still has Sopot as M78. Let's see what happens with thisc Croatian one.

afaik the Avellaner was typed E-V13 by STR, but he is actualy to old to be E-V13
considering the geography he is unlikely to be the father of E-V13, but he might be an uncle

bicicleur
13-05-17, 12:37
Yes, there's no evidence of Chariots before 2000BC, or whatever, but I'm talking within the notion that Anatolian need not be in Anatolia by 4000BC, so I allowed myself the freedom of including chariots. Hittites definitely had chariots, probably as early as 1700BC, so anyway.

Greek is much younger than Italo-celtic, for starters, and what this paper is showing is a very old interaction zone between HGs on the WHG-EHG cline and Balkan farmers. This is where I see Anatolian and later on Italo-celtic originating. Greek is a latter IE language and so it makes perfect sense that it would displace Anatolian. The Mycenaeans DID have chariots so one could easily see them driving populations across the Hellespont.

And there is clear archaeological evidence of expansion into the Balkans during what one would presume would be the time frame for Mycenaean movement into the Greece.

afaik the early Hittites didn't have charriots, the first ones in the area were the Mittani
the Hittites and the Egyptians learned about the charriots from the Mittani
they started a cold war and a war industry to produce charriots and swords, culminating in the Kadesh battle

IMO the Anatolians, when they arrived in Anatolia were simple herders, but with some social structure which finaly made them rule over or make alliances with other local farmer tribes. The Hittites were a federation with more or less independant allies. Some of them spoke even other non-IE (Hurrian) languages.

epoch
13-05-17, 13:01
You still don't understand that heavily West Eurasian Middle Easterners haven't been sampled yet - the oldest West Asian is the epi-Zarzian Hotu cave individual from northern Iran. Jones et al. model the Caucasus-Iranian influence that unambiguously appears in Villabrunna as having diverged from West Eurasian ~45 kya (though this figure might be slightly inflated due to Basal Eurasian ancestry):

You are talking about this figure (fug. 2) (https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912/figures/2) I presume? Cause that doesn't have an "influence that unambiguously appears in Villabrunna", that shows both split off a long time ago from each other. It does OTOH show exactly what I proposed, WHG (Bichon in this case) influx in EEF. However, the EEF they used is Stuttgart and that had extra WHG over Anatolians so it could be that. After the Anatolian paper came out people played with those and D-stats showed WHG affinity to those and both Lazaridis 2016 and Fu 2016 model Satsurblia as some sort of Basal Eurasian with ANE or ANE+WHG admixture.




https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

Of course WHG would show higher affinity to the heavily West Eurasian Anatolians. The Caucasus-Iran admixture in both the Anatolians & the Villabrunna cluster is rather negligible.

Anatolians are chosen over Natufians as well.

bicicleur
13-05-17, 13:43
In all models it is highly related to the Vestonice cluster. A sister clade. It is entirely possible that is spawns from it. As I said, it can be modeled as a mixture.



That is a matter terminology. Fu et al lobbed Loschbour in their Villabruna cluster



True. However, in formal stats WHG picks Anatolian over any other old Middle-Eastern.

I agree, Villabruna is a sister clade of El Miron, which got extinct when Villabruna expanded.
Paleolithic Europe was in part WHG.
In other words, WHG is a combination of paleo Europe with admixture Villabrunans picked up in their southeastern refuge.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 13:45
You are talking about <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912/figures/2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">this figure (fug. 2)</a> I presume? Cause that doesn't have an "<em>influence that unambiguously appears in Villabrunna</em>", that shows both split off a long time ago from each other. It does OTOH show exactly what I proposed, WHG (Bichon in this case) influx in EEF. However, the EEF they used is Stuttgart and that had extra WHG over Anatolians so it could be that. After the Anatolian paper came out people played with those and D-stats showed WHG affinity to those.

No, I mean the Fu paper. The admixture they detect is similar to Kotias-Satsurbalia.


Anatolians are chosen over Natufians as well.

That's not too surprising given that Natufians are at the extreme end of the WHG <-> Meso-Neolithic Levantine continuum in Lazaridis 2016 paper. The Natufians are estimated to have ~45% Basal Eurasian, whereas the Anatolians have roughly 25%, only marginally more than the EN_European cluster (~22%-23%). These seem to be the incipient stages of West Asian diversity, i. e. what differentiates present day Anatolians from either Iranians or Arabs.

http://i.imgur.com/ozKHTk7.png>

bicicleur
13-05-17, 13:48
It makes one wonder how far ANE stretched before LGM.

EDIT: It makes one realise how very few true unadmixted ANE samples we have. One 1 Y-DNA (R*) and 2 mtDNA's (U and R3)

I don't think it was in Europe before LGM.
IMO it was brought by Q from Siberia.
Khvalynsk had Q1a, and in this paper there was a Q1a2.

And I don't know whether this is correct :



Körös
Hungary
Vörs 52


5500 BC




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





MtDNA C5 in Hungary?

A. Papadimitriou
13-05-17, 15:45
Notice that one of the two samples from the Balkans that dates to the time period for Mycenaean expansions is R1a. And remember that known historical Greek speakers extended North. I would like to see Shaft Grave samples that have no steppe, unfortunately I think we only have mtDNA.
What do you mean exactly?

MOESAN
13-05-17, 17:50
the Cardial foreign type which took foot in Southern France (among HGs) and climbed up towards North along the Garonne and the Rhône was a bit different from the 'danubian' type come from/across Southern Balkans until Alsace, Parisian bassin and Normandy; not fully foreign, but different as an average : so even damned physical anthropology did not tell us too much bullshit, finally, helped by archeology -

berun
13-05-17, 18:28
Don't forget the expansion of the Megalithic cultures in a good chunk of Western Europe from Portugal (linked to I2a). Reich's lab is not capable to find a trace of it, or as with the Catalan BB, have not so much interest to know.

holderlin
13-05-17, 19:07
The steppe 'works' because there's ample opportunity for Kartvelian & Semitic (or Afrasian?) contacts - i. e. the only languages that had definite influence on PIE per historical linguistics. These would be hard to explain in the case of a Baltic homeland.

Anthony believes that these influences arrived north of the Caucasus with Maikop.

Yes I'm aware of these, but the only "definite" we have is loan words or theorized loanwords, which only prove contact. I notice you conveniently leave out Uralic as well, which of course is also disputed. Please don't try to Tr0ll me with "Afrasian". My views really have nothing to do with white supremacy, and the Semitic connection is the weakest. I don't know why you would include that in your point, much less among the "definite".

I understand the problems with the Baltic though. This is for the most part based on an archaeological argument, and fitting that to the larger picture. The Y-HG lines and the WHG-EHG cline certainly suggest long standing contacts from the Vistula to the Urals, then an interaction zone as the farmer expanded into the North Balkans, which also fits right into the archaeology.

holderlin
13-05-17, 19:09
What do you mean exactly?

Macedonians.

holderlin
13-05-17, 19:15
afaik the early Hittites didn't have charriots, the first ones in the area were the Mittani
the Hittites and the Egyptians learned about the charriots from the Mittani
they started a cold war and a war industry to produce charriots and swords, culminating in the Kadesh battle

IMO the Anatolians, when they arrived in Anatolia were simple herders, but with some social structure which finaly made them rule over or make alliances with other local farmer tribes. The Hittites were a federation with more or less independant allies. Some of them spoke even other non-IE (Hurrian) languages.

Yes, yes this is highly likely as well, but there is an early record of a siege (1700BC or around there) where Hittites speak of "teams of horses". So who knows.

Angela
13-05-17, 19:42
Don't forget the expansion of the Megalithic cultures in a good chunk of Western Europe from Portugal (linked to I2a). Reich's lab is not capable to find a trace of it, or as with the Catalan BB, have not so much interest to know.

Could we cut out the conspiracy theory references, Berun? Nobody is out to get Iberians. I see a lot of Iberians on both the Olalde and Rui Martiniano teams. The data is what it is.

To the Board as a whole, could we have a little less heat and no more insults? We can respectfully agree to disagree.

LeBrok
13-05-17, 19:59
On the contrary. Did you notice they model KO1 (Hungarian HG) as ANE admixted? That is either mistake or there is going to be an update. KO1 has mtDNA R3 it shares with AG3It was a big surprise to me too. Till now all WHG (together with SHG) were presented as variations of same European source, without "foreign" admixtures like, SW Asian, Caucasian, Baloch or gedrosia. EHGs were the ones, WHGs who ventured East and mixed with ANE Baloch/Gedrosia and American.
Soon, population geneticists need to get together and define admixtures! I don't want every time figure out "their interpretations" of ancient genomes.

LeBrok
13-05-17, 20:17
I've been telling many times that CHG admixture on the steppe had already started with Khvalynsk. Can you tell how old is this S2 sample (samara)? The rest guys with green are from Yamnaya. S2 must be from the time the Neolithisation process started in steppe, together with mixing with Transcaucasian people.

epoch
13-05-17, 20:20
No, I mean the Fu paper. The admixture they detect is similar to Kotias-Satsurbalia.



That's not too surprising given that Natufians are at the extreme end of the WHG <-> Meso-Neolithic Levantine continuum in Lazaridis 2016 paper. The Natufians are estimated to have ~45% Basal Eurasian, whereas the Anatolians have roughly 25%, only marginally more than the EN_European cluster (~22%-23%). These seem to be the incipient stages of West Asian diversity, i. e. what differentiates present day Anatolians from either Iranians or Arabs.

http://i.imgur.com/ozKHTk7.png>

That is a Basal versus Neanderthal graph. I fail to see how that represents a "WHG <-> Meso-Neolithic Levantine continuum". I also fail to detect incipient grades of differentiation in it. Even worse, the oldest Iranian sample from Hotu has the largest distance to WHG, the neolithic Iranians are a tad closer and chalcolithic Iranians even more closer.

Listen, Marko, you're not defending your case very well. Shall I help a bit. I assume that what you want to defend is something like this: At the onset of the Gravettian, or even earlier, the whole area from Iran to Europe had a similar Kostinki-14 like population. Drift caused the Iranians to differentiate from Europeans. Later, but LGM and arrival of Basal Eurasians, part of these Iranians moved to, say, the Balkans, weathered the LGM there and thus became isolated only to remerge to become WHG. So they share a part drift with the descendant of the remaining Iranians.

That about it?

Angela
13-05-17, 20:24
The hypothesis that the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian etc.) came into Anatolia from the steppe via the Balkans is looking increasingly dubious imo.

I don't know of a single linguist, or even non-linguist, like Anthony, who doesn't date Anatolian to around 4500-4000 BC. based on many factors, including relative chronology.

There was never any archaeological evidence for any movement from the Balkans to Anatolia around that time; indeed, the movement went in the opposite direction.

Now we discover that there was very little steppe ancestry in the Balkans around that time. (You have to look at the dates and Admixture among other things.)

The argument has been made that perhaps these languages didn't enter Anatolia until long after 4000 BC., when there was some more steppe. Ok, let's look at that scenario.

If the Anatolian speakers weren't in Anatolia, where were they? We have to have a rational alternative. They can't have been on the steppe, because then these languages wouldn't be so archaic; they would exhibit the changes present in late PIE. They couldn't have been in the Balkans either for the same reason. Plus the diversity of the Anatolian languages is in Anatolia, and it took place by 1800 BC. It takes at least 1-2000 years for that kind of diversity to develop. I don't see anything in what we know about how languages develop, or what we know about the Anatolian languages that would lend support to the idea that they weren't in Anatolia by 4000 BC.

Now, one could say that maybe it was a very small group which moved through the Balkans into Anatolia. However, could a very small group of simple herders, in a migration too small to leave any archaeological trace, have spawned so many Indo-European speakers? It's starting to seem like special pleading.

The other part of the genetics piece of the puzzle is that steppe has to show up in Anatolia at an appropriate time.

As Hittite is attested in actual documents in the 19th century BC, any steppe found in the Balkans or Anatolia after that time isn't probative of anything. The authors of the paper state they find neither WHG nor EHG in their Bronze Age Anatolian samples. Now that's a problem because you can't have steppe without them. It's true that Hittites burned their dead. However, they weren't the only Anatolian language speakers. There are the Luwians, for example. Does anyone know if any of the samples come from any of the Indo-European speaking areas?

I find it hard to believe that the Reich Lab, given the thousands of samples they have, and given the Lazaridis West Asian paper that is soon to come out, is deliberately steering us in the wrong direction.

I used to think that the Anatolian languages could have come south from the steppe through the Caucasus, but if they find no steppe in any Indo-European speaking areas at the proper time, what then?


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

Here's a direct link to the map below so it's larger.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

Fire Haired14
13-05-17, 20:53
With the data in this paper there's no reason to support or not support a IE Steppe migration from to Anatolia through the Balkans. There simply aren't enough genomes. Basically all of the "Balkan" genomes in this paper come from Bulgaria. Furthermore they pretty much only come from three time periods; 6000-5500 BC, 4500 BC, and 3400-2900 BC. They sampled nothing from Bulgaria dating between 2900 and 1700 BC and nothing between 1700BC and 500 BC. That's a huge gap in time.

One of the Bulgarian genomes dating 3400-2900 BC did have Steppe ancestry! And coincidentally he was buried under a tumulus, indicating he was an early Indo European. He dates to 2900 BC and is therefore older than any Corded Ware genomes.

And the single Bulgarian genome from 1700 BC is basically a Srubnaya man. Also, all three of the Croatian genomes dating to about 1500 BC had Steppe ancestry.

So yes there was a Steppe presence in the Balkans. It may not have been as strong as in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker but it was definitely there. Until we get DNA from ancient Hittites we have no reason to doubt IE speaking Steppe groups went through the Balkans to Anatolia.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 21:26
That is a Basal versus Neanderthal graph.

I know, that's why I posted it :bigsmile:


I fail to see how that represents a "WHG <-> Meso-Neolithic Levantine continuum". I also fail to detect incipient grades of differentiation in it.

It can be seen in this plot from Lazaridis (2016):

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

WHG and Natufian form an almost perfect cline despite the extremely divergent Basal Eurasian component in the latter. Most European farmers plot neatly on this cline in accordance with their varying degrees of additional WHG admixture. Some have slight pull towards highland West Asians due to their minor Iran-Caucasus admixture.


Even worse, the oldest Iranian sample from Hotu has the largest distance to WHG, the neolithic Iranians are a tad closer and chalcolithic Iranians even more closer.

The Iranian samples are hardly relevant to the West Eurasian <-> Levantine continuum since they derive large chunks of their ancestry from another source (i. e. not Basal Eurasian or WHG). Can we agree on this point? I don't see what's controversial about this - recent publications don't leave room for doubt in this regard.


Listen, Marko, you're not defending your case very well. Shall I help a bit.

The only case I have is my agreement with Fu et al. with regards to additional West Asian admixture starting with Villabruna or Miron as you correctly pointed out to me. But please do try to help me a bit.


I assume that what you want to defend is something like this: At the onset of the Gravettian, or even earlier, the whole area from Iran to Europe had a similar Kostinki-14 like population. Drift caused the Iranians to differentiate from Europeans.

No, I don't think any of this works. The component that makes Kotias-Satsurbalia distinctive must have arisen further to the east. Since it seems to be associated with P lineages which weren't present in West Eurasians before its arrival I assume the distant origins should be sought in South-East Asia or Central Asia. South-East Asia would be the place where the ancient paternal ancestor of most West Eurasian must have lived at one point. Iran is merely the crossroads where such migrations naturally end up, as seems to have happened early with the West Eurasians. Without DNA from these pivotal regions the details are murky.


Later, but LGM and arrival of Basal Eurasians, part of these Iranians moved to, say, the Balkans, weathered the LGM there and thus became isolated only to remerge to become WHG. So they share a part drift with the descendant of the remaining Iranians.

I don't think it's possible to narrow it down in any meaningful way without ancient samples. All we can say is that this type of ancestry appears in Villabrunna when before it wasn't there.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 21:33
With the data in this paper there's no reason to support or not support a IE Steppe migration from to Anatolia through the Balkans. There simply aren't enough genomes. Basically all of the "Balkan" genomes in this paper come from Bulgaria. Fu

I think what Gimbutas & Mallory meant by an Anatolian migration from the Balkans is actually an Anatolian migration from Bulgaria specifically. So there's some method to their sampling with regards to the Indo-European question. I wish they'd focus on other things for once, but they seem to know what they're doing.

Angela
13-05-17, 21:36
With the data in this paper there's no reason to support or not support a IE Steppe migration from to Anatolia through the Balkans. There simply aren't enough genomes. Basically all of the "Balkan" genomes in this paper come from Bulgaria. Furthermore they pretty much only come from three time periods; 6000-5500 BC, 4500 BC, and 3400-2900 BC. They sampled nothing from Bulgaria dating between 2900 and 1700 BC and nothing between 1700BC and 500 BC. That's a huge gap in time.

One of the Bulgarian genomes dating 3400-2900 BC did have Steppe ancestry! And coincidentally he was buried under a tumulus, indicating he was an early Indo European. He dates to 2900 BC and is therefore older than any Corded Ware genomes.

And the single Bulgarian genome from 1700 BC is basically a Srubnaya man. Also, all three of the Croatian genomes dating to about 1500 BC had Steppe ancestry.

So yes there was a Steppe presence in the Balkans. It may not have been as strong as in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker but it was definitely there. Until we get DNA from ancient Hittites we have no reason to doubt IE speaking Steppe groups went through the Balkans to Anatolia.Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. We have written Hittite from 1800 BC. The spoken language has to be older. So, any steppe ancestry after 2000 BC doesn't prove anything. Neither is steppe ancestry in the Balkans 3400-2900 BC probative of anything in terms of this hypothesis. Anatolian formed around 4000 BC. So, the only data about steppe in the Balkans that's pertinent would be from before that time.

Nobody said there was no steppe in the Balkans, certainly not me. That's a straw man argument.

Please read my last post.

@Marko,
Indeed.

Fire Haired14
13-05-17, 21:57
Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. We have written Hittite from 1800 BC. The spoken language has to be older. So, any steppe ancestry after 2000 BC doesn't prove anything. Neither is steppe ancestry in the Balkans 3400-2900 BC probative of anything in terms of this hypothesis. Anatolian formed around 4000 BC. So, the only data about steppe in the Balkans that's pertinent would be from before that time.

All I'm saying is there aren't enough Balkan genomes across space and time to say there's evidence or a lack of evidence of a Steppe movement to Anatolia through the Balkans.

There definitely could have been Steppe groups moving through the Balkans that lived side by side native groups without outbreeding. Hungarian genomes dating to the 3rd millenium BC demonstrate this is possible. One is 73% Yamnaya(and carries R1b Z2103), one is something like 90% Anatolia Neolithic, another looks like a UkrainNeolithic and AnatoliaNeolithic mixture.


Nobody said there was no steppe in the Balkans, certainly not me. That's a straw man argument.

Reich's team seems think if there wasn't a Corded Ware or Neolithic Farmer-like mass migration then there was no migration. That's where I have a problem.

epoch
13-05-17, 22:01
The hypothesis that the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian etc.) came into Anatolia from the steppe via the Balkans is looking increasingly dubious imo.

I don't know of a single linguist, or even non-linguist, like Anthony, who doesn't date Anatolian to around 4500-4000 BC. based on many factors, including relative chronology.

There was never any archaeological evidence for any movement from the Balkans to Anatolia around that time; indeed, the movement went in the opposite direction.

Now we discover that there was very little steppe ancestry in the Balkans around that time. (You have to look at the dates and Admixture among other things.)

The argument has been made that perhaps these languages didn't enter Anatolia until long after 4000 BC., when there was some more steppe. Ok, let's look at that scenario.

If the Anatolian speakers weren't in Anatolia, where were they? We have to have a rational alternative. They can't have been on the steppe, because then these languages wouldn't be so archaic; they would exhibit the changes present in late PIE. They couldn't have been in the Balkans either for the same reason. Plus the diversity of the Anatolian languages is in Anatolia, and it took place by 1800 BC. It takes at least 1-2000 years for that kind of diversity to develop. I don't see anything in what we know about how languages develop, or what we know about the Anatolian languages that would lend support to the idea that they weren't in Anatolia by 4000 BC.

Now, one could say that maybe it was a very small group which moved through the Balkans into Anatolia. However, could a very small group of simple herders, in a migration too small to leave any archaeological trace, have spawned so many Indo-European speakers? It's starting to seem like special pleading.

The other part of the genetics piece of the puzzle is that steppe has to show up in Anatolia at an appropriate time.

As Hittite is attested in actual documents in the 19th century BC, any steppe found in the Balkans or Anatolia after that time isn't probative of anything. The authors of the paper state they find neither WHG nor EHG in their Bronze Age Anatolian samples. Now that's a problem because you can't have steppe without them. It's true that Hittites burned their dead. However, they weren't the only Anatolian language speakers. There are the Luwians, for example. Does anyone know if any of the samples come from any of the Indo-European speaking areas?

I find it hard to believe that the Reich Lab, given the thousands of samples they have, and given the Lazaridis West Asian paper that is soon to come out, is deliberately steering us in the wrong direction.

I used to think that the Anatolian languages could have come south from the steppe through the Caucasus, but if they find no steppe in any Indo-European speaking areas at the proper time, what then?


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

Here's a direct link to the map below so it's larger.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

One - I admit rather farfetched - option could be that Anatolian was spoken by a group in the Balkans who were themselves only slightly Steppe admitted. More or less like the Turks today. We *do* have slight Steppe admixture in a Varna sample. After 10 generations 1 persons genetic legacy is about 0.1%. If a slight tiny ruling class managed to impose their language on a large neolithic populace, and that populace would enter Anatolia after a few 100 years we may explain the lack of Steppe admixture.

epoch
13-05-17, 22:14
I know, that's why I posted it :bigsmile:



It can be seen in this plot from Lazaridis (2016):

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

WHG and Natufian form an almost perfect cline despite the extremely divergent Basal Eurasian component in the latter. Most European farmers plot neatly on this cline in accordance with their varying degrees of additional WHG admixture. Some have slight pull towards highland West Asians due to their minor Iran-Caucasus admixture.



The Iranian samples are hardly relevant to the West Eurasian <-> Levantine continuum since they derive large chunks of their ancestry from another source (i. e. not Basal Eurasian or WHG). Can we agree on this point? I don't see what's controversial about this - recent publications don't leave room for doubt in this regard.



The only case I have is my agreement with Fu et al. with regards to additional West Asian admixture starting with Villabruna or Miron as you correctly pointed out to me. But please do try to help me a bit.

You may want to reread the paper.




No, I don't think any of this works. The component that makes Kotias-Satsurbalia distinctive must have arisen further to the east. Since it seems to be associated with P lineages which weren't present in West Eurasians before its arrival I assume the distant origins should be sought in South-East Asia or Central Asia. South-East Asia would be the place where the ancient paternal ancestor of most West Eurasian must have lived at one point. Iran is merely the crossroads where such migrations naturally end up, as seems to have happened early with the West Eurasians. Without DNA from these pivotal regions the details are murky.



I don't think it's possible to narrow it down in any meaningful way without ancient samples. All we can say is that this type of ancestry appears in Villabrunna when before it wasn't there.

So you can't verify your claims because of lack of samples. I second that.

Angela
13-05-17, 22:16
One - I admit rather farfetched - option could be that Anatolian was spoken by a group in the Balkans who were themselves only slightly Steppe admitted. More or less like the Turks today. We *do* have slight Steppe admixture in a Varna sample. After 10 generations 1 persons genetic legacy is about 0.1%. If a slight tiny ruling class managed to impose their language on a large neolithic populace, and that populace would enter Anatolia after a few 100 years we may explain the lack of Steppe admixture.I agree. I also agree it's rather far fetched. :)

bicicleur
13-05-17, 22:30
I agree. I also agree it's rather far fetched. :)

I see 3 options :

- from the steppe across the Caucasus to Anatolia
- from the steppe across the Balkans to Anatolia
- PIE 6 ka south of the Caucasus, where Anatolian branched of, other PIE (maybe Maykop?) cross the Caucasus to the steppe

there is no trace for either of these 3 options

I still think Anatolians were a small group, expanding inside Anatolia end of 3rd mill BC.
So Anatolina branched off 6000 years ago, but I would like to know, when did Luwian, Hittite and other Anatolian languages split?

I think we all agree PIE minus Anatolian 5.5 ka = Yamna + Afanasievo, later also adopted by CW people

Angela
13-05-17, 22:36
Reich's team seems think if there wasn't a Corded Ware or Neolithic Farmer-like mass migration then there was no migration. That's where I have a problem.

That is absolutely not what they're saying or implying: it's another straw man argument.

What you also seem to forget is that they have hundreds and hundreds of samples, and they have a good sense of what will be in the new West Asian paper. Why would they deliberately steer everyone in the wrong direction?

It's a side issue anyway. Maybe it came down through the Caucasus. Goodness, some people are acting as if there's been a death in the family. Should I arrange for bereavement counseling? :) Maybe we can all hug it out.

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 22:48
You may want to reread the paper.

I don't think so. One only has to look at the extended data. In their f3 analysis (ex. Fig. 2) Natufian prefers WHG over Mesolithic and Neolithic Iranians. This affinity increases in other Levantine samples.


So you can't verify your claims because of lack of samples. I second that.

I didn't make any claims. Do you disagree that P originated in South-East Asia?

Perhaps you may want to consider publishing response to Fu et al. and have them lay out their case for you. I'd love to read it.

epoch
13-05-17, 23:10
I agree. I also agree it's rather far fetched. :)

There was some I2a in Sredny Stog. It may be that not the entire Steppe environment was R1b or R1a. This is admittedly even more far fetched :-) Although, the back and forth movement of WHG vs EHG admixture should indicate that if we find R1b in WHG after a while, we may find other minority paternal lines in EHG anytime soon.

epoch
13-05-17, 23:14
I don't think so. One only has to look at the extended data. In their f3 analysis (ex. Fig. 2) Natufian prefers WHG over Mesolithic and Neolithic Iranians. This affinity increases in other Levantine samples.

Only that doesn't make your case.




I didn't make any claims. Do you disagree that P originated in South-East Asia?

Perhaps you may want to consider publishing response to Fu et al. and have them lay out their case for you. I'd love to read it.

Where are the oldest N and/or K found? Ust'Ishim and Oase 1.

berun
13-05-17, 23:28
Could we cut out the conspiracy theory references, Berun? Nobody is out to get Iberians. I see a lot of Iberians on both the Olalde and Rui Martiniano teams. The data is what it is.

To the Board as a whole, could we have a little less heat and no more insults? We can respectfully agree to disagree.

I'm providing data to sustent a possible biased take of the data. But you might look more about how holy cows behave: they just look to the grass and think that all the world is green, the blue patch above it is simply dismissed.

epoch
13-05-17, 23:29
I see 3 options :

- from the steppe across the Caucasus to Anatolia
- from the steppe across the Balkans to Anatolia
- PIE 6 ka south of the Caucasus, where Anatolian branched of, other PIE (maybe Maykop?) cross the Caucasus to the steppe

there is no trace for either of these 3 options

I still think Anatolians were a small group, expanding inside Anatolia end of 3rd mill BC.
So Anatolina branched off 6000 years ago, but I would like to know, when did Luwian, Hittite and other Anatolian languages split?

I think we all agree PIE minus Anatolian 5.5 ka = Yamna + Afanasievo, later also adopted by CW people

Agamemnon on Anthrogenica stated that there is not a trace of Caucasian language substrates in Hittite and stated that it is therefore hardly possible they took the caucasian route. Very readable thread, really worth your time:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10574-Weird-phenomena-in-Southeast-Europe-during-EBA-and-implications-for-IE-spread

MarkoZ
13-05-17, 23:49
Only that doesn't make your case.

It does mean that the HGs of the Levant were WHG-like. This is what Alan tried to explain earlier in the thread.


Where are the oldest N and/or K found? Ust'Ishim and Oase 1.

The question is where P and its ancestor lived. Refined structure in haplogroup K-M526 (Karafet et al. 2014) suggests that the case is quite simple.

epoch
14-05-17, 00:03
It does mean that the HGs of the Levant were WHG-like. This is what Alan tried to explain earlier in the thread.

The question is where P and its ancestor lived. Refined structure in haplogroup K-M526 (Karafet et al. 2014) suggests that the case is quite simple.

If there is one thing ancient DNA learns, it is that the ones that distill ancient movements from modern day distributions are guesswork.

epoch
14-05-17, 00:07
I don't think so. One only has to look at the extended data. In their f3 analysis (ex. Fig. 2) Natufian prefers WHG over Mesolithic and Neolithic Iranians. This affinity increases in other Levantine samples.

Exactly what fig 2 you mean?

epoch
14-05-17, 00:19
It does mean that the HGs of the Levant were WHG-like. This is what Alan tried to explain earlier in the thread.



The question is where P and its ancestor lived. Refined structure in haplogroup K-M526 (Karafet et al. 2014) suggests that the case is quite simple.

So your case is Villabruna came for SE-Asia?

Sile
14-05-17, 00:22
The question is where P and its ancestor lived. Refined structure in haplogroup K-M526 (Karafet et al. 2014) suggests that the case is quite simple.

if you read the paper it states P formed in south-east asia.........R as well, but not R1 ( R1a and R1b ) or R2

Angela
14-05-17, 01:15
There was some I2a in Sredny Stog. It may be that not the entire Steppe environment was R1b or R1a. This is admittedly even more far fetched :-) Although, the back and forth movement of WHG vs EHG admixture should indicate that if we find R1b in WHG after a while, we may find other minority paternal lines in EHG anytime soon.I don't think it's all that far-fetched, but the problem isn't just the y, it's the autosomal: no EHG or WHG, just, presumably, lots of CHG in Bronze Age Anatolia. Who knows, that could change, though.

holderlin
14-05-17, 04:27
I've been telling many times that CHG admixture on the steppe had already started with Khvalynsk.People sort of ignore this for some reason. We also have it in Dnieper Donets I believe.

holderlin
14-05-17, 04:54
The hypothesis that the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian etc.) came into Anatolia from the steppe via the Balkans is looking increasingly dubious imo.

I don't know of a single linguist, or even non-linguist, like Anthony, who doesn't date Anatolian to around 4500-4000 BC. based on many factors, including relative chronology.

There was never any archaeological evidence for any movement from the Balkans to Anatolia around that time; indeed, the movement went in the opposite direction.

Now we discover that there was very little steppe ancestry in the Balkans around that time. (You have to look at the dates and Admixture among other things.)

The argument has been made that perhaps these languages didn't enter Anatolia until long after 4000 BC., when there was some more steppe. Ok, let's look at that scenario.

If the Anatolian speakers weren't in Anatolia, where were they? We have to have a rational alternative. They can't have been on the steppe, because then these languages wouldn't be so archaic; they would exhibit the changes present in late PIE. They couldn't have been in the Balkans either for the same reason. Plus the diversity of the Anatolian languages is in Anatolia, and it took place by 1800 BC. It takes at least 1-2000 years for that kind of diversity to develop. I don't see anything in what we know about how languages develop, or what we know about the Anatolian languages that would lend support to the idea that they weren't in Anatolia by 4000 BC.

Now, one could say that maybe it was a very small group which moved through the Balkans into Anatolia. However, could a very small group of simple herders, in a migration too small to leave any archaeological trace, have spawned so many Indo-European speakers? It's starting to seem like special pleading.

The other part of the genetics piece of the puzzle is that steppe has to show up in Anatolia at an appropriate time.

As Hittite is attested in actual documents in the 19th century BC, any steppe found in the Balkans or Anatolia after that time isn't probative of anything. The authors of the paper state they find neither WHG nor EHG in their Bronze Age Anatolian samples. Now that's a problem because you can't have steppe without them. It's true that Hittites burned their dead. However, they weren't the only Anatolian language speakers. There are the Luwians, for example. Does anyone know if any of the samples come from any of the Indo-European speaking areas?

I find it hard to believe that the Reich Lab, given the thousands of samples they have, and given the Lazaridis West Asian paper that is soon to come out, is deliberately steering us in the wrong direction.

I used to think that the Anatolian languages could have come south from the steppe through the Caucasus, but if they find no steppe in any Indo-European speaking areas at the proper time, what then?


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

Here's a direct link to the map below so it's larger.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

I don't entirely disagree. We just didn't get the samples we NEED yet. The Anatolian bronze age samples pre-date attestation and they're pretty far away from the Hittite epi-center. I agree that they still show not steppe, but it may be an over simplification to expect steppe to appear ubiquitously in Anatolian at such an early date, especially if they were intrusive.

My main problem with PIE in West Asia, as many of you may have heard me ramble on about, is that we have a VERY old historical record in West Asia. Where are the Indo-Europeans? They're no where to be found until the apearance of the Hittites when they're already in Anatolia in around 1800BC, Then shortly after we have Greek attestations.

I don't friggin know.

Hittite is a problem. I realize that, but I this paper doesn't really push me in either direction. Perhaps a little in the Eastward direction I guess I'll admit. But where?

We have Hurrians to the East and Hattic IN Anatolia, which are attested through Assyrians who HAD COLONIES in Anatolia itself by 2100BC. I think we would know of Anatolian Speakers if they were seated in or around these regions, or moving through.

holderlin
14-05-17, 04:58
With the data in this paper there's no reason to support or not support a IE Steppe migration from to Anatolia through the Balkans. There simply aren't enough genomes. Basically all of the "Balkan" genomes in this paper come from Bulgaria. Furthermore they pretty much only come from three time periods; 6000-5500 BC, 4500 BC, and 3400-2900 BC. They sampled nothing from Bulgaria dating between 2900 and 1700 BC and nothing between 1700BC and 500 BC. That's a huge gap in time.

One of the Bulgarian genomes dating 3400-2900 BC did have Steppe ancestry! And coincidentally he was buried under a tumulus, indicating he was an early Indo European. He dates to 2900 BC and is therefore older than any Corded Ware genomes.

And the single Bulgarian genome from 1700 BC is basically a Srubnaya man. Also, all three of the Croatian genomes dating to about 1500 BC had Steppe ancestry.

So yes there was a Steppe presence in the Balkans. It may not have been as strong as in Corded Ware or Bell Beaker but it was definitely there. Until we get DNA from ancient Hittites we have no reason to doubt IE speaking Steppe groups went through the Balkans to Anatolia.

I was looking at that R1a comparing to Srubnaya thinking the same thing.

The question isn't amenable to these samples, but we clearly have an interaction zone that could be interpreted as early evidence of movement in the Balkans.

holderlin
14-05-17, 05:03
That is absolutely not what they're saying or implying: it's another straw man argument.

What you also seem to forget is that they have hundreds and hundreds of samples, and they have a good sense of what will be in the new West Asian paper. Why would they deliberately steer everyone in the wrong direction?

It's a side issue anyway. Maybe it came down through the Caucasus. Goodness, some people are acting as if there's been a death in the family. Should I arrange for bereavement counseling? :) Maybe we can all hug it out.

Come on now. I'm pretty sure there were people all but celebrating this "lack of steppe" long before others chimed in :rolleyes2: maybe even you......

holderlin
14-05-17, 05:06
All I'm saying is there aren't enough Balkan genomes across space and time to say there's evidence or a lack of evidence of a Steppe movement to Anatolia through the Balkans.

There definitely could have been Steppe groups moving through the Balkans that lived side by side native groups without outbreeding. Hungarian genomes dating to the 3rd millenium BC demonstrate this is possible. One is 73% Yamnaya(and carries R1b Z2103), one is something like 90% Anatolia Neolithic, another looks like a UkrainNeolithic and AnatoliaNeolithic mixture.



Reich's team seems think if there wasn't a Corded Ware or Neolithic Farmer-like mass migration then there was no migration. That's where I have a problem.

I would say that these conclusions, or comments, in these papers about languages seem sort of amateurish. I know, I know the irony coming from the archetypal amateur forum poster, but still. Why would they say stuff like that? It almost seems like academic tr0lling.

holderlin
14-05-17, 05:11
Agamemnon on Anthrogenica stated that there is not a trace of Caucasian language substrates in Hittite and stated that it is therefore hardly possible they took the caucasian route. Very readable thread, really worth your time:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10574-Weird-phenomena-in-Southeast-Europe-during-EBA-and-implications-for-IE-spread

This is another thing. Uralic is more useful when comparing Hittite to other IE languages.

Sile
14-05-17, 05:25
Hittite is a problem. I realize that, but I this paper doesn't really push me in either direction. Perhaps a little in the Eastward direction I guess I'll admit. But where?

We have Hurrians to the East and Hattic IN Anatolia, which are attested through Assyrians who HAD COLONIES in Anatolia itself by 2100BC. I think we would know of Anatolian Speakers if they were seated in or around these regions, or moving through.

What hittite problem?

all there 30000 written tablets show
1- non-semetic langauge
2- origin of a hatti mix
3- luwian and palaic language partly included

their original gods are the same as north-caucasian ones and all their new gods are the ones from peoples they "annexed"

holderlin
14-05-17, 05:44
I got caught up in all this Anatolian BS and I forgot the most splendid part about this paper: The Sredny Stog genomes.

If you recall my musing, whether you like them or not, I see Sredny Stog as the basis for Bell Beaker and perhaps even Corded Ware, since it does hold the first example of cord ornamented pottery. "West Yamnaya" would have arose from these people. There's no reason for a source in the East. I do think Samara was the epi-center early on, and I would assign a measure of priority, but Sredny Stog became Yamnaya just as Khvalynsk did on a material culture basis.

Along with the nice mix of R1b and R1a we see in the latter phase, just before Yamnaya what is a 4 way mix of Steppe-WHG(iron gates no doubt)-Ukraine Mesolithic-and EEF.

Then when it becomes "West Yamnaya" we have Steppe and EEF mix

And here's the kicker: Among "West Yamnaya" samples in the balkans itself (Bulgaria) we have a 3 way mix of Steppe-Ukrainian Mesolithic-EEF.

Yes, that's right. It's not only steppe in the balkans, but an actual Yamnaya grave in the Balkans that is 40% steppe, 40% EEF, and 20% Iron gates (WHG).

If I had to make a brazen amateurish guess I would say that these guys were speaking Anatolian, and offer a clear, real explanation as to why there may be a less than massive influx of steppe into the Aegean.

Even a Yamnaya sample itself in the Balkans was only 40% steppe. Think about that.

holderlin
14-05-17, 05:45
What hittite problem?

all there 30000 written tablets show
1- non-semetic langauge
2- origin of a hatti mix
3- luwian and palaic language partly included

their original gods are the same as north-caucasian ones and all their new gods are the ones from peoples they "annexed" Then why didn't they speak Caucasian?

Boreas
14-05-17, 06:14
their original gods are the same as north-caucasian ones and all their new gods are the ones from peoples they "annexed"

North Caucasian ???

That supposes to be North Mesopotamia desn't it?

Hurrians then Hatti, then Hitties
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Orientmitja2300aC.png

holderlin
14-05-17, 07:06
North Caucasian ???

That supposes to me North Mesopotamia desn't it?

Hurrians then Hatti, then Hitties
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Orientmitja2300aC.png

What are you getting at here? (forgive my previous post)

Boreas
14-05-17, 07:58
wtf
.
.
..
.
..
..
.
.

La Bu Ne
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

and all other versions which means same and somekind of Turkish version of WTF

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/88/30/94/883094e7219cff0961305a4789e41e6e.jpg

I am not native speaker of english so be more specific, if you don't understand.

(probably 99% it was my fault but your post won't help in our conversation)

I believe that main deities of Hitties come from Hatti culture and actually those are coming from Hurrian Culture

bicicleur
14-05-17, 08:22
People sort of ignore this for some reason. We also have it in Dnieper Donets I believe.

judging from the mtDNA available, I'd say yes, they had some CHG admixture too

Alan
14-05-17, 14:05
Basically all of the "Balkan" genomes in this paper come from Bulgaria..


That is because Bulgaria is the only possible route how they could have reached Anatolia if the Balkan route was correct, that is such an easy explanation don't know how some missed that.

Or are you propossing that the proto Anatolians went to Croatia and later settled in Bulgaria. It's just hilarious how and with what kind really the most ridiculous explanations some Steppe supporters try to defend their believes ( They came with Charriots..... only from Bulgaria better test some from Hungary too since they are such an important archeological route to reach Anatolia from the Steppes..... ).

It's also absolutely incredible how some people still ask for more Samples from parts of Europe and the Steppes while other places like South Asia, Central Asia or West Asia have not even got 1/10!!! of the samples we have already collected from Europe and the Steppes!! Some bloggers and their followers are fast in making up their conclusions on roughly ~10 samples collected from the Iranian Plateau and Caucasus. But say they have not yet collected enough samples from parts of the world which are important to them. So if some people want solve this debate by oversampling one area ( in the hope to finally find what they are searching for or something they can use as evidence) than there is no reason to debate anyways.

Alan
14-05-17, 14:19
Most of what you wrote is irrelevant. We have written Hittite from 1800 BC. The spoken language has to be older. So, any steppe ancestry after 2000 BC doesn't prove anything. Neither is steppe ancestry in the Balkans 3400-2900 BC probative of anything in terms of this hypothesis. Anatolian formed around 4000 BC. So, the only data about steppe in the Balkans that's pertinent would be from before that time.

Nobody said there was no steppe in the Balkans, certainly not me. That's a straw man argument.

Please read my last post.

@Marko,
Indeed.
Considering that by 2000 BC and probably even a little earlier we have archeological evidences of Steppe groups in that region such as Cimmerians, Scythians in Urartu, Subaru and the Mitanni.

Alan
14-05-17, 14:29
Agamemnon on Anthrogenica stated that there is not a trace of Caucasian language substrates in Hittite and stated that it is therefore hardly possible they took the caucasian route. Very readable thread, really worth your time:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10574-Weird-phenomena-in-Southeast-Europe-during-EBA-and-implications-for-IE-spread

Now the question is what does he mean with Caucasian languages? There is no single Caucasian language family.

2. Who says "these Caucasian languages" were already in the Caucasus during the Late Neolithic? For example Kartvellian looks more like an Anatolian_Farmer language.

3. Kartvellian as well Semitic influence is attested in Proto Indo European as even by Anthony. So how can Hittite not have it?

4. Most peeps (especially their Mods and Admins) on Anthrogenica are high nosed kids that can't deal with opposing ideas and criticism. "Caucasian language substrata" yeah sure

MarkoZ
14-05-17, 14:35
Looking at the paper again I guess what needs to be addressed are Anatolian Bronze Age samples from the lake district. These are early advanced metallurgical provinces right in the epicenter of the Anatolian languages: at the intersection of historical Sidetic, Luwian & Carian regions. The timeframe is rather on point for early Anatolian, too. I'm inclined to believe that those guys spoke a form of early Anatolian/Para-Anatolian or some such.

Though perhaps this shows the limited usefulness of ancient DNA in falsifying origin hypotheses, since there's always the possibility of Y-DNA/aDNA turnovers and hidden unsampled populations.

bicicleur
14-05-17, 15:41
That is because Bulgaria is the only possible route how they could have reached Anatolia if the Balkan route was correct, that is such an easy explanation don't know how some missed that.

Or are you propossing that the proto Anatolians went to Croatia and later settled in Bulgaria. It's just hilarious how and with what kind really the most ridiculous explanations some Steppe supporters try to defend their believes ( They came with Charriots..... only from Bulgaria better test some from Hungary too since they are such an important archeological route to reach Anatolia from the Steppes..... ).

It's also absolutely incredible how some people still ask for more Samples from parts of Europe and the Steppes while other places like South Asia, Central Asia or West Asia have not even got 1/10!!! of the samples we have already collected from Europe and the Steppes!! Some bloggers and their followers are fast in making up their conclusions on roughly ~10 samples collected from the Iranian Plateau and Caucasus. But say they have not yet collected enough samples from parts of the world which are important to them. So if some people want solve this debate by oversampling one area ( in the hope to finally find what they are searching for or something they can use as evidence) than there is no reason to debate anyways.

I don't think the researcher have any choice. They are investigating whatever uncontaminated human remains they can get with good prospects to recover enough DNA.
As for the route from the steppe to Anatolia, there is a 3rd route. It is the overseas route. Check Usatovo culture and contacts between Black Sea and Aegean. There is a reason why Troy was built 5 ka. It was in order to get controll over that route, which already existed some centuries before.

bicicleur
14-05-17, 15:46
3. Kartvellian as well Semitic influence is attested in Proto Indo European as even by Anthony. So how can Hittite not have it?


very good question indeed
I can imagine these influences came with Maykop, that is after the split of Anatolian from the main IE branch

Angela
14-05-17, 16:43
Come on now. I'm pretty sure there were people all but celebrating this "lack of steppe" long before others chimed in :rolleyes2: maybe even you......Why would I celebrate it, Holderlin? When I joined the amateur community I was astonished to find that the PC steppe hypothesis had become such a hotly and bitterly contested idea. This is no reflection on you personally, I assure you, but it has seemed to me that part of the problem is that the uncritical and sometimes dishonest championship of it by racists on various racist anthroflora and blogs has "poisoned the well". Truthfully, it has always had that aspect, ever since it was proposed in Germany in the late 19th century. Some of the resistance is probably due to that. I suppose certain "national" groups have their own ax to grind. Personally, I don't care if it all came from the pen of Hitler and Goebbels. I'm only interested in whether its accurate.

That the steppe was the vector for the branches of PIE which led to Balto-Slavic and Germanic seems to be settled. The same is probably true for Celtic/Italic. The Anatolian languages are a puzzle and always have been, and so is the actual source of Indo-European for anyone who takes a balanced approach. Grigoriev and Ivanov have to be read as well as Anthony. No less a source than the dean of Indo- European studies, Mallory, has always been aware of that, but the amateur community hasn't paid any attention.

My personal opinion, to the extent anybody cares, is that no one has yet come up with a totally satisfactory solution to the actual "origin" question. Anatolian is a big part of the puzzle, but so is the presence of agricultural vocabulary.

See:
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdf

Angela
14-05-17, 17:10
Now the question is what does he mean with Caucasian languages? There is no single Caucasian language family.

2. Who says "these Caucasian languages" were already in the Caucasus during the Late Neolithic? For example Kartvellian looks more like an Anatolian_Farmer language.

3. Kartvellian as well Semitic influence is attested in Proto Indo European as even by Anthony. So how can Hittite not have it?

4. Most peeps (especially their Mods and Admins) on Anthrogenica are high nosed kids that can't deal with opposing ideas and criticism. "Caucasian language substrata" yeah sureI don't know why we would assume that this group would have spent any appreciable time in the North Caucasus even if they passed through the Caucasus.

Plus, isn't there a school of thought that Hattic is related to the Caucasian languages? If that's the case how could there be no influence on Hittite by Caucasian languages? Unless they're speaking specifically about North Caucasian?

holderlin
14-05-17, 17:13
La Bu Ne
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

and all other versions which means same and somekind of Turkish version of WTF

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/88/30/94/883094e7219cff0961305a4789e41e6e.jpg

I am not native speaker of english so be more specific, if you don't understand.

(probably 99% it was my fault but your post won't help in our conversation)

I believe that main deities of Hitties come from Hatti culture and actually those are coming from Hurrian Culture

ha

I've read this too, and actually this is motivating me to read up on Hittites. It's been awhile.

holderlin
14-05-17, 18:47
Why would I celebrate it, Holderlin? When I joined the amateur community I was astonished to find that the PC steppe hypothesis had become such a hotly and bitterly contested idea. This is no reflection on you personally, I assure you, but it has seemed to me that part of the problem is that the uncritical and sometimes dishonest championship of it by racists on various racist anthroflora and blogs has "poisoned the well". Truthfully, it has always had that aspect, ever since it was proposed in Germany in the late 19th century. Some of the resistance is probably due to that. I suppose certain "national" groups have their own ax to grind. Personally, I don't care if it all came from the pen of Hitler and Goebbels. I'm only interested in whether its accurate.

That the steppe was the vector for the branches of PIE which led to Balto-Slavic and Germanic seems to be settled. The same is probably true for Celtic/Italic. The Anatolian languages are a puzzle and always have been, and so is the actual source of Indo-European for anyone who takes a balanced approach. Grigoriev and Ivanov have to be read as well as Anthony. No less a source than the dean of Indo- European studies, Mallory, has always been aware of that, but the amateur community hasn't paid any attention.

My personal opinion, to the extent anybody cares, is that no one has yet come up with a totally satisfactory solution to the actual "origin" question. Anatolian is a big part of the puzzle, but so is the presence of agricultural vocabulary.

See:
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(112)jlr2013-9(145-154).pdfI was mostly joking. And of course I agree that it's problematic, or else no one would really be discussing it. I think that the agricultural vocabulary can be explained by the fact that there was clearly domestic animals in the Ukraine/steppe before Yamnaya as well as grain processing tools. The Western Steppe practically overlaps the farming communities of the Balkans and contacts have always been evidenced in the material cultures. But of course we have this CHG influx, so what's that about? I'm just trying to keep everything coherent.

MarkoZ
14-05-17, 18:53
Why would I celebrate it, Holderlin? When I joined the amateur community I was astonished to find that the PC steppe hypothesis had become such a hotly and bitterly contested idea. This is no reflection on you personally, I assure you, but it has seemed to me that part of the problem is that the uncritical and sometimes dishonest championship of it by racists on various racist anthroflora and blogs has "poisoned the well". Truthfully, it has always had that aspect, ever since it was proposed in Germany in the late 19th century. Some of the resistance is probably due to that. I suppose certain "national" groups have their own ax to grind. Personally, I don't care if it all came from the pen of Hitler and Goebbels. I'm only interested in whether its accurate.


Don't blame the German - German language research barring a brief interlude of Nordicist extremism (imported from France & England) was always significantly more balanced when compared to English attempts. An Asian homeland was seriously considered in continental Europe, however English researchers did not like the notion that they were related to the 'so-called ******s of India'. The English also deemed the idea of white conquerors politically expedient as a justification of their colonial holdings in South Asia.

As recently as the 1990s no serious historian would quote the JIES of Mallory, Ivanov, Anthony et al. because it was considered an Aryanist rag founded by well-known Hitlerite Pearson. He received millions from rich amateurs and organizations like the Pioneer Fund which gave them the quasi-monopoly in anglophone Indo-European research. We're not talking about a quaint old racist here, but a proponent of Nordicist eugenics who actually wants to exterminate brown people. Mallory apparently had no qualms about working with or more accurately for the guy :laughing:

Tomenable
14-05-17, 20:11
Who predicted R1b in Mesolithic and Post-Mesolithic Balkans? I did. A year ago.

epoch
14-05-17, 20:16
Now the question is what does he mean with Caucasian languages? There is no single Caucasian language family.

2. Who says "these Caucasian languages" were already in the Caucasus during the Late Neolithic? For example Kartvellian looks more like an Anatolian_Farmer language.

3. Kartvellian as well Semitic influence is attested in Proto Indo European as even by Anthony. So how can Hittite not have it?

Read the highly interesting thread


4. Most peeps (especially their Mods and Admins) on Anthrogenica are high nosed kids that can't deal with opposing ideas and criticism. "Caucasian language substrata" yeah sure

No they are not.

Tomenable
14-05-17, 20:27
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy/page3?p=508566&viewfull=1#post508566

(http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32264-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy/page3?p=508566&viewfull=1#post508566)http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7069-R1b-M269-L23-and-the-diffusion-of-early-metallurgy&p=234967&viewfull=1#post234967

Sile
14-05-17, 20:39
Then why didn't they speak Caucasian?

Who said they did not carry caucasian.........North-caucasian is PIE , before Anatolian got a branch of PIE ~4000BC

BTW, stop deflecting and changing what I said .............I did not say caucasus, I said north-caucasus

Sile
14-05-17, 20:43
North Caucasian ???

That supposes to be North Mesopotamia desn't it?

Hurrians then Hatti, then Hitties
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Orientmitja2300aC.png

no they learnt extra from hatti and mitanni language to create hittite .................Anatolia was the first branch from PIE in the north caucasus , Hatti was not the first branch from PIE

And as you study hittite, they also incorporated other anatolian scripts, Palaic and carien to name 2..........both from PIE

Tomenable
14-05-17, 20:43
We have a I1 autosomally farmer sample from the Hungarian Neolithic.

Mesolithic SHG from Stora Forvar, StF11, was I1 as well.

Tomenable
14-05-17, 20:46
The more interesting question is why some people thought R1b wouldn't be in the Balkan HGs.

I suggested that R1b was in Mesolithic Balkans on Anthrogenica one year ago (May 2016).

I also suggested that the Balkan HGs were not overran by Anatolian farmers, and that their R1b survived in the Balkans until the Copper Age, and was present in Varna culture. I was ridiculed back then (especially my idea that Balkan R1b could survive the onslaught of farmers was ridiculed). But this paper confirms what I suggested.

This paper proves that the Balkan HGs survived the initial expansion of farmers.

Sile
14-05-17, 20:59
The hypothesis that the Anatolian languages (Hittite, Luwian, Lycian, Lydian etc.) came into Anatolia from the steppe via the Balkans is looking increasingly dubious imo.

I don't know of a single linguist, or even non-linguist, like Anthony, who doesn't date Anatolian to around 4500-4000 BC. based on many factors, including relative chronology.

There was never any archaeological evidence for any movement from the Balkans to Anatolia around that time; indeed, the movement went in the opposite direction.

Now we discover that there was very little steppe ancestry in the Balkans around that time. (You have to look at the dates and Admixture among other things.)

The argument has been made that perhaps these languages didn't enter Anatolia until long after 4000 BC., when there was some more steppe. Ok, let's look at that scenario.

If the Anatolian speakers weren't in Anatolia, where were they? We have to have a rational alternative. They can't have been on the steppe, because then these languages wouldn't be so archaic; they would exhibit the changes present in late PIE. They couldn't have been in the Balkans either for the same reason. Plus the diversity of the Anatolian languages is in Anatolia, and it took place by 1800 BC. It takes at least 1-2000 years for that kind of diversity to develop. I don't see anything in what we know about how languages develop, or what we know about the Anatolian languages that would lend support to the idea that they weren't in Anatolia by 4000 BC.

Now, one could say that maybe it was a very small group which moved through the Balkans into Anatolia. However, could a very small group of simple herders, in a migration too small to leave any archaeological trace, have spawned so many Indo-European speakers? It's starting to seem like special pleading.

The other part of the genetics piece of the puzzle is that steppe has to show up in Anatolia at an appropriate time.

As Hittite is attested in actual documents in the 19th century BC, any steppe found in the Balkans or Anatolia after that time isn't probative of anything. The authors of the paper state they find neither WHG nor EHG in their Bronze Age Anatolian samples. Now that's a problem because you can't have steppe without them. It's true that Hittites burned their dead. However, they weren't the only Anatolian language speakers. There are the Luwians, for example. Does anyone know if any of the samples come from any of the Indo-European speaking areas?

I find it hard to believe that the Reich Lab, given the thousands of samples they have, and given the Lazaridis West Asian paper that is soon to come out, is deliberately steering us in the wrong direction.

I used to think that the Anatolian languages could have come south from the steppe through the Caucasus, but if they find no steppe in any Indo-European speaking areas at the proper time, what then?


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

Here's a direct link to the map below so it's larger.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Ancient-Anatolian-Languages-Map.png

north of the Palaic are non-IE languages of the kaska people

Kaskian (Kaskean) was a non-Indo-European language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_language) of the Kaskians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaskians) of northeastern Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) Anatolia, in the mountains along the Black Sea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea) coast.

........................

North-west of Palaic and west of the kaska are the only Thraki lands in Anatolia ..............west of these Thraki is the troad, what did they speak , no ones knows except that they found some Luwian texts in Troy

.........................

north Levant as per map was non-semitic luwian populace under hittite reign ..............the first semitic people in the north levant where the phoenicians ~1000bC

bicicleur
14-05-17, 21:12
I suggested that R1b was in Mesolithic Balkans on Anthrogenica one year ago (May 2016).

I also suggested that the Balkan HGs were not overran by Anatolian farmers, and that their R1b survived in the Balkans until the Copper Age, and was present in Varna culture. I was ridiculed back then (especially my idea that Balkan R1b could survive the onslaught of farmers was ridiculed). But this paper confirms what I suggested.

This paper proves that the Balkan HGs survived the initial expansion of farmers.

bear in mind that mesolithic Balkans were uninhabited except some few coastal areas
the Danube Gorge, just north of the Balkans were inhabited since 9-10 ka
it was a very good ecological niche for HG fishers
and they developped a unique culture when they came in contact with farmers ca 8.3 ka till 8 ka
their main diet remained fish
they lived in huts with plastered floors
they had sculptures, half-human, half-fish
their living conditions was much better than that of the farmers

check this out

http://www.donsmaps.com/lepenski.html

A. Papadimitriou
14-05-17, 23:32
I suggested that R1b was in Mesolithic Balkans on Anthrogenica one year ago (May 2016).

I also suggested that the Balkan HGs were not overran by Anatolian farmers, and that their R1b survived in the Balkans until the Copper Age, and was present in Varna culture. I was ridiculed back then (especially my idea that Balkan R1b could survive the onslaught of farmers was ridiculed). But this paper confirms what I suggested.

This paper proves that the Balkan HGs survived the initial expansion of farmers.


That's good. In the table I see it labeled as R1 though (R1:M306). In the PCA I think it's closer to people from Hungary to UK, whatever that means. The rest from Varna are closer to Sicilians to Tuscans or EEFs or something.

Edit: Sorry, I'm wrong the outlier that clusters somewhere between modern Hungarians to people from UK is a female. So, even the R1 guy was farmer shifted. (?)
I would like to see if he's the one that clusters with Tuscans.

Maciamo
14-05-17, 23:33
I got caught up in all this Anatolian BS and I forgot the most splendid part about this paper: The Sredny Stog genomes.

If you recall my musing, whether you like them or not, I see Sredny Stog as the basis for Bell Beaker and perhaps even Corded Ware, since it does hold the first example of cord ornamented pottery. "West Yamnaya" would have arose from these people. There's no reason for a source in the East. I do think Samara was the epi-center early on, and I would assign a measure of priority, but Sredny Stog became Yamnaya just as Khvalynsk did on a material culture basis.

Along with the nice mix of R1b and R1a we see in the latter phase, just before Yamnaya what is a 4 way mix of Steppe-WHG(iron gates no doubt)-Ukraine Mesolithic-and EEF.

Then when it becomes "West Yamnaya" we have Steppe and EEF mix

And here's the kicker: Among "West Yamnaya" samples in the balkans itself (Bulgaria) we have a 3 way mix of Steppe-Ukrainian Mesolithic-EEF.

Yes, that's right. It's not only steppe in the balkans, but an actual Yamnaya grave in the Balkans that is 40% steppe, 40% EEF, and 20% Iron gates (WHG).

If I had to make a brazen amateurish guess I would say that these guys were speaking Anatolian, and offer a clear, real explanation as to why there may be a less than massive influx of steppe into the Aegean.

Even a Yamnaya sample itself in the Balkans was only 40% steppe. Think about that.

Did I miss something? Where did this paper test Sredny Stog genomes? There were plenty of Neolithic Ukraine, but they date from 5500 to 4800 BCE, while Sredny Stog only starts from 4500 BCE. All the R1b in Neolithic Ukraine were very old L754 and L388 (not even P297 like in Latvia). None were M269+, let alone L23+.

Angela
15-05-17, 01:45
Don't blame the German - German language research barring a brief interlude of Nordicist extremism (imported from France & England) was always significantly more balanced when compared to English attempts. An Asian homeland was seriously considered in continental Europe, however English researchers did not like the notion that they were related to the 'so-called ******s of India'. The English also deemed the idea of white conquerors politically expedient as a justification of their colonial holdings in South Asia.

As recently as the 1990s no serious historian would quote the JIES of Mallory, Ivanov, Anthony et al. because it was considered an Aryanist rag founded by well-known Hitlerite Pearson. He received millions from rich amateurs and organizations like the Pioneer Fund which gave them the quasi-monopoly in anglophone Indo-European research. We're not talking about a quaint old racist here, but a proponent of Nordicist eugenics who actually wants to exterminate brown people. Mallory apparently had no qualms about working with or more accurately for the guy :laughing:I certainly knew about the rabid racists like Gobineau and Chamberlain (for those who don't, see the link below), but I thought that was a thing of the past.

See:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human/Hereditarian-ideology-and-European-constructions-of-race

I knew nothing of this Pearson person and his funding of the JIES. Are you sure about it?

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Pearson_(anthropologist)
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/roger-pearson

How very disappointing. I've wondered for years why the obvious contradictions and gaps weren't more vigorously investigated, and why alternate theories weren't more discussed. Follow the money perhaps, and it may be true today as well. It doesn't mean large parts of the kurgan hypothesis aren't correct, but it does explain why the more romanticized, "value-added" portions are still in circulation despite more recent research showing a lot of it is nonsense.

Angela
15-05-17, 03:07
bear in mind that mesolithic Balkans were uninhabited except some few coastal areas
the Danube Gorge, just north of the Balkans were inhabited since 9-10 ka
it was a very good ecological niche for HG fishers
and they developped a unique culture when they came in contact with farmers ca 8.3 ka till 8 ka
their main diet remained fish
they lived in huts with plastered floors
they had sculptures, half-human, half-fish
their living conditions was much better than that of the farmers

check this out

http://www.donsmaps.com/lepenski.html

Yes, we have discussed before that this was the only attested large hg community in the Balkans, (well, maybe not really the Balkans depending on the person to whom you're speaking, but close enough) and any interaction would have taken place there. Even so, going by the Admixture runs in this paper, there was extremely little genetic exchange until the Middle Neolithic/Chalcolithic, as is the case for all of Europe.

I usually leave the fanciful stuff to other people, but might this be related to population crashes? The authors note that in the EN it was hg women who were absorbed, but in the MN it was hg men, hence the I2 that starts showing up. The first is understandable; perhaps slightly more men than women migrated from Anatolia, but what about the second? Could this be related to crop failures and population crashes? In that kind of environment, a man who knew all the best fishing holes and where the animals were hiding would start to look more attractive. It might not matter if he wasn’t much of a farmer. That would explain not only all the autosomally farmer I2a men who start showing up but the R1b1a Lepinski Vir farmer too. Do you see any autosomally hg I2a and R1b1a people surviving into the Middle Neolithic? Not from these samples, right?

(In North American Indian societies, the men are primarily hunters, fishers and warriors, and the rest of the time they loaf around and tell stories. The original couch potatoes. It’s mostly the women who farm. Not a system of which I approve. :))

Missing from the graphic are the tv remote, headphones, and laptop. :)

https://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/couch_potato.jpg

Fire Haired14
15-05-17, 07:44
Heaps of new ancient European DNA (http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/2017/05/heaps-of-new-ancient-european-dna.html)
Britain Neolithic mtDNA is most similar to Iberia Neolithic mtDNA. Northern Bell Beaker had lots lots lots of Steppe mtDNA, more than modern Irish or British. British U5a=6%, Northern BBC U5a=15%. U5a1a and U5a1b run a monapoly on modern European U5a1. In the huge array of ancient European mtDNA out there U5a1a hasn't been found outside of Steppe-influenced cultures. Outside of Steppe-influenced cultures U5a1b has only been found in Ukraine Neolithic.

Starting last year I began to be tempted by the idea that the descendants of the N1a1a-rich farmers in Germany and Hungary left little legacy in modern Europeans. That the farmers from Iberia and Eastern Europe left the biggest legacy.

The new data from Eastern Europe and Iberia doesn't strongly stupport this idea but it definitly doesn't refute it. Northern Bell Beaker's WHG levels can't be explained by currently available Middle Neolithic German or Hungarian genomes. Northern Bell Beaker's farmer ancestor had similar WHG levels to Globular_Amphora and Iberia Chalolithic.

0% of the Bulgarian farmers, British farmers, Polish farmers, and post-Early Neolithic Iberians have N1a1a. I already have found plenty of mtDNA links between Neolithic Atlantic/Eastern Europe with many modern European populations. The European EEF=East Europe and Atlantic is just an idea I flirt with, I don't strongly support it.

I'm on the brink of an explosion in European mtDNA knowledge. In the next couple of weeks there will probably be lots of interesting posts on my blog.

bicicleur
15-05-17, 08:18
Yes, we have discussed before that this was the only attested large hg community in the Balkans, (well, maybe not really the Balkans depending on the person to whom you're speaking, but close enough) and any interaction would have taken place there. Even so, going by the Admixture runs in this paper, there was extremely little genetic exchange until the Middle Neolithic/Chalcolithic, as is the case for all of Europe.

I usually leave the fanciful stuff to other people, but might this be related to population crashes? The authors note that in the EN it was hg women who were absorbed, but in the MN it was hg men, hence the I2 that starts showing up. The first is understandable; perhaps slightly more men than women migrated from Anatolia, but what about the second? Could this be related to crop failures and population crashes? In that kind of environment, a man who knew all the best fishing holes and where the animals were hiding would start to look more attractive. It might not matter if he wasn’t much of a farmer. That would explain not only all the autosomally farmer I2a men who start showing up but the R1b1a Lepinski Vir farmer too. Do you see any autosomally hg I2a and R1b1a people surviving into the Middle Neolithic? Not from these samples, right?

(In North American Indian societies, the men are primarily hunters, fishers and warriors, and the rest of the time they loaf around and tell stories. The original couch potatoes. It’s mostly the women who farm. Not a system of which I approve. :))

Missing from the graphic are the tv remote, headphones, and laptop. :)

https://healthhabits.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/couch_potato.jpg

I don't know. During and right after LGM European HG were mobile reindeer hunters. They were following their prey on thier journeys between summer and winter pastures.
Then the forests started to grow and along came the Villabrunans who conquered large parts of Europe. Once they found an intersting spot they settled down. Their prey wasn't so mobile either and fishing and gathering (done by the women?) became an important supplement to their diet.
The drowning of Doggerland must have caused overpopulation in areas like the southern Baltic where many tribes lived very close to each with their onw rituals but without intermingling. In fact they were probably at war with each other most of the time, very frequently quareling over territories and women.

I've always had the impression the EHG remained somewhat more mobile, moving up and down streams and lakes with canoes.

Lepenski Vir is a very intersting story and I am glad we finally have some DNA now, but it will take some time for me to digest.

Megalithism was already in Evora, Portugal 8 ka, before the arival of the first cardial ware farmers. In Brittany it emerged in HG territory ca 6.9 ka , but these HG probably already had contacts with LBK farmers further inland. Both areas were quite densely populated by HG, relying heavily on sea food.
In southern Portugal, new cardial ware settlements emerged 7.4-7 ka and the HG sea food settlements seem to slowly dissapear, as if the HG population becomes extinct. That is what archeologists taught, but now DNA proves them wrong.
Megalithic people became farmers, but if you check, they have a very high percentage of I2 versus G2a and a very high percentage of U5 versus farmers mtDNA.
Apart from an initial move from the LBK and Swifterbant area in eastern England, the British Isles were colonised by megalithic farmers.
Later megalithism also spread more inland with Michelsberg culture and north to the southern Baltic into the late TRB culture.

But megalithism is just something on the western fringes of Europe.
Also in central Europe there was a resurgence of haplo I2.
I have no clue how this came about.
We have the story of the Blatterhöhle HG who remained fisher HG for almost 2000 years next to the incoming farmers.

Swifterbant is another story, it is in the western Netherlands, you should check these guys too. It is about HG coming into contact with the LBK further inland and through trade creating a new, very diversified economy. We should get their DNA, but I guess it will be hard to find in these soils.

I can't cite big papers, I'm just telling you some impressions I get after reading little things here and there.
When I'll check and digest these new papers further, I'm sure more stories will start to grow in my head.

P.S. I think women were very often regarded as just servant slaves by both farmers and HG.

How about this pic :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8684&d=1494832914


it reminds me of the findings in the Catal Hoyuk graveyard, as well as in Abu Huryera, with old males and young females with wornout joints, probably from hard labour, something I brought up elsewhere

Catal Hoyuk was nevertheless seen as a matriarchal society, with the fertile mother earth as goddess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk

Angela
15-05-17, 14:15
I don't know. During and right after LGM European HG were mobile reindeer hunters. They were following their prey on thier journeys between summer and winter pastures.
Then the forests started to grow and along came the Villabrunans who conquered large parts of Europe. Once they found an intersting spot they settled down. Their prey wasn't so mobile either and fishing and gathering (done by the women?) became an important supplement to their diet.
The drowning of Doggerland must have caused overpopulation in areas like the southern Baltic where many tribes lived very close to each with their onw rituals but without intermingling. In fact they were probably at war with each other most of the time, very frequently quareling over territories and women.

I've always had the impression the EHG remained somewhat more mobile, moving up and down streams and lakes with canoes.

Lepenski Vir is a very intersting story and I am glad we finally have some DNA now, but it will take some time for me to digest.

Megalithism was already in Evora, Portugal 8 ka, before the arival of the first cardial ware farmers. In Brittany it emerged in HG territory ca 6.9 ka , but these HG probably already had contacts with LBK farmers further inland. Both areas were quite densely populated by HG, relying heavily on sea food.
In southern Portugal, new cardial ware settlements emerged 7.4-7 ka and the HG sea food settlements seem to slowly dissapear, as if the HG population becomes extinct. That is what archeologists taught, but now DNA proves them wrong.
Megalithic people became farmers, but if you check, they have a very high percentage of I2 versus G2a and a very high percentage of U5 versus farmers mtDNA.
Apart from an initial move from the LBK and Swifterbant area in eastern England, the British Isles were colonised by megalithic farmers.
Later megalithism also spread more inland with Michelsberg culture and north to the southern Baltic into the late TRB culture.

But megalithism is just something on the western fringes of Europe.
Also in central Europe there was a resurgence of haplo I2.
I have no clue how this came about.
We have the story of the Blatterhöhle HG who remained fisher HG for almost 2000 years next to the incoming farmers.

Swifterbant is another story, it is in the western Netherlands, you should check these guys too. It is about HG coming into contact with the LBK further inland and through trade creating a new, very diversified economy. We should get their DNA, but I guess it will be hard to find in these soils.

I can't cite big papers, I'm just telling you some impressions I get after reading little things here and there.
When I'll check and digest these new papers further, I'm sure more stories will start to grow in my head.

P.S. I think women were very often regarded as just servant slaves by both farmers and HG.

How about this pic :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=8684&d=1494832914


it reminds me of the findings in the Catal Hoyuk graveyard, as well as in Abu Huryera, with old males and young females with wornout joints, probably from hard labour, something I brought up elsewhere

Catal Hoyuk was nevertheless seen as a matriarchal society, with the fertile mother earth as goddess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk


Thanks for your insights, Bicicleur.

There I am, perpetually cooking. :) For me, though, it's a choice, as is spending hours in my garden, and I'm happy doing it.

Seriously, the posture, the grinding, this could be a woman in rural Mexico, or India, or Africa. For most women today not much has changed, although life is difficult for both men and women in the Third World.

Angela
15-05-17, 14:20
With regard to the discussions upthread about the Villabrunians/WHG, there is this bit from the paper.

"we note that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers 269 carry mitochondrial haplogroups K1 (8/36) as well as other subclades of haplogroup U 270 (27/36) and haplogroup H (1/36). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter- gatherers who almost all carry haplogroup U5 or U2. Therefore the Iron Gates hunter- gatherers have ancestry that is not present in WHG or EHG. This suggests either genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and hunter-gatherers from Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split off during a post-LGM re-expansion into Europe."

bicicleur
15-05-17, 14:36
Thanks for your insights, Bicicleur.

There I am, perpetually cooking. :) For me, though, it's a choice, as is spending hours in my garden, and I'm happy doing it.

Seriously, the posture, the grinding, this could be a woman in rural Mexico, or India, or Africa. For most women today not much has changed, although life is difficult for both men and women in the Third World.

It's only the first generation and only in the western world where different roles for men and women are abolished which is a good thing.
Modern jobs don't require physical skills any more for which men or women are more fit.

That being said, upto a certain level, men should still be men and women be women.
They have a different way of thinking and they have different interests.
It's in the DNA and that won't and shouldn't change, otherwise the world will become much more boring.

Angela
15-05-17, 14:40
I've read again that the epicardial Avellanar sample snp tested positive for E-V13. If that's correct, could someone post a reliable source for that?

Anyway, the Croatian Cardial samples:


C1a2:V20:6845955G->A; C1a2:V86:6909957G->A; C1:CTS6773:17100606C->T; C1:F3393:23023974C->A; C:CTS2377:14281450G->A; C:CTS2550:14359235G->A; C:CTS2955:14587658T->C; C:CTS3221:14742373C->T; C:CTS3223:14755880C->T; C:CTS4676:15762839A->G; C:CTS5813:16490115G->A; C:CTS6266:16780809G->A; C:CTS7301:17412198T->C; C:CTS7930:17748163T->C; C:CTS10442:19457443A->G; C:CTS10707:22714249G->A; C:CTS10720:22726491C->T; C:CTS10782:22775162C->A; C:CTS11544:23158264C->G; C:CTS11598:23185632A->G; C:CTS11820:23294948T->C; C:F847:6879365C->T; C:F1241:8482631G->C; C:F1288:8537273G->A; C:F1367:8640245C->G; C:F1804:14603298C->T; C:F1911:15097043C->T; C:F2253:16757900C->T; C:F2434:17270957A->C; C:F2449:17341195G->T; C:F2485:17457010C->T; C:F2606:17820514C->T; C:F2678:18030738C->T; C:F2858:18832816T->C; C:F2869:18843140C->T; C:F2888:18890063C->T; C:F2969:19182853C->G; C:F3043:19411754G->A; C:F3319:22575539A->G; C:F3395:23031841G->A; C:F3462:23553006C->T; C:F3537:23769373A->G; C:F3703:16409159C->A; C:F3712:17957903T->C; C:F3719:22937380C->A; C:IMS-JST029149:2803297C->T; C:P255:8685038G->A; C:V1234:7584247G->C; C:Y1767:21186558A->G; C:Y2798:13865051G->T; C:Y2799:21875538T->C; C:Y4496:8127435A->G; C:Y6691:15896404A->G; C:Z3958:7869808C->T; C:Z3977:8673832C->T; C:Z3986:9076205C->T; C:Z4004:13228027G->T; C:Z4014:13656195T->A; C:Z4059:21291275G->A; C:Z4073:21566042C->T; C:Z4083:21809035G->A; C:Z4099:22168468A->G; C:Z7177:8668533C->T;


E1b1b1a1b1:CTS3287:14801129A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5291:16189080T->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5527:16345952A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS7273:17396160C->T; E1b1b1a1b1:L618:15339697T->C; E1b1b1a1b1:PF2215:8262442A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:PF2246:22073053G->A; E1b1b1a:CTS8899:18538216C->A; E1b1b1a:L546:17516070C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2108:7804308C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2114:8232450C->A; E1b1b1a:PF2173:21036413C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2178:21583211C->A; E1b1b1a:PF2188:22080316G->A; E1b1b1:CTS2216:14221285G->T; E1b1b1:CTS3637:15089380A->G; E1b1b1:CTS6298:16808859A->G; E1b1b1:CTS6834:17138251A->G; E1b1b1:CTS7154:17325559G->T; E1b1b1:CTS9956:19170454C->T; E1b1b1:CTS10184:19316389A->T; E1b1b1:L796:21358197T->C; E1b1b1:M5041:21491115A->G; E1b1b1:M5047:21977569C->T; E1b1b1:M5078:7721674G->A; E1b1b1:M5108:8880108G->A; E1b1b1:M5322:22181731G->A; E1b1b1:M5360:23618826C->T; E1b1b1:PF1575:9389773T->G; E1b1b1:PF1619:13848122T->C; E1b1b:CTS225:2827409C->T; E1b1b:CTS8479.1:18045601C->T; E1b1b:CTS9049:18637397C->G; E1b1b:CTS10513:19503700T->C; E1b1b:CTS10679:22700429G->A; E1b1b:CTS11223:23021729G->A; E1b1b:L336:21903853G->A; E1b1b:M5082:7905833C->T; E1b1b:M5083:7906010A->G; E1b1b:M5101:8692771C->T; E1b1b:M5305:21658631G->C; E1b1:P2:21610831G->A; E1:CTS955:7104553C->T; E1:CTS5913:16550700G->A; E1:CTS9083:18662674G->A; E1:CTS9753:19058376G->A; E:CTS860:7052802A->T; E:CTS2893:14545105G->A; E:CTS3199:14718400A->G; E:CTS4685:15768559C->T; E:CTS4994:15945309G->A; E:CTS5316:16203354A->G; E:CTS6755:17092499G->T; E:CTS8631:18118658C->G; E:CTS10296:19379113T->C; E:CTS10344:19414935G->T; E:CTS10894:22823374A->C; E:CTS11504:23142339C->G; E:L339:6931856C->Thet; E:L504:21385724C->G; E:L507:22688731G->C; E:L614:23249378C->T; E:M40:2663943C->T; E:M5382:6631743C->A; E:M5406:7913358G->A; E:M5416:8469322C->T; E:M5417:8532844C->T; E:M5418:8612630C->G; E:M5422:8703052T->G; E:M5425:8799243T->C; E:M5431:9394763A->T; E:M5527:21256219G->A; E:M5529:21314704T->C; E:M5533:21408046G->C; E:M5545:21747107T->C; E:M5569:24399592C->T; E:M5571:24437979C->T; E:P154:19500107G->T; E:P169:22918577C->T; E:P171:23443971G->T; E:P172:6965215C->T; E:P174:15809326G->A; E:PF1608:13559017G->T; E:PF1620:13883812C->A; E:PF1843:22270345G->A; E:PF1844:22270687T->G; E:PF1864:22469799A->C; E:Z15669:13424256G->T; E:Z15670:13470384C->G; E:Z15673:13828327G->A; E:Z15674:13841166G->A; E:Z15681:22271529A->C;

The link with the Cardial Neolithic for this branch of "E" is established, I think.

bicicleur
15-05-17, 14:44
With regard to the discussions upthread about the Villabrunians/WHG, there is this bit from the paper.

"we note that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers 269 carry mitochondrial haplogroups K1 (8/36) as well as other subclades of haplogroup U 270 (27/36) and haplogroup H (1/36). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter- gatherers who almost all carry haplogroup U5 or U2. Therefore the Iron Gates hunter- gatherers have ancestry that is not present in WHG or EHG. This suggests either genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and hunter-gatherers from Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split off during a post-LGM re-expansion into Europe."

The Basal K is linked with CHG, but K1 is linked with mesolithic Greece, Boncuklu and Tepecik, that is Y-DNA G2a.
Do we have the autosomal of the Iron Gates population? Of course the neolithic does, but also the mesolithic should contain EEF.

I also don't understand how U5 spread over both EHG and WHG.
It seems to me that R1 was linked with mtDNA C, but they soon took over U5, which I suspect was already all over Europe before R1 arrived there.
R1 were wanderers who prefered the local U5.

Maciamo
15-05-17, 15:01
I've read again that the epicardial Avellanar sample snp tested positive for E-V13. If that's correct, could someone post a reliable source for that?

If I remember well it was only estimated to be V13 based on the STR, but was not SNP-tested. So it's probably not V13. That would be too early. Probably just M78.

bicicleur
15-05-17, 15:01
I've read again that the epicardial Avellanar sample snp tested positive for E-V13. If that's correct, could someone post a reliable source for that?

Anyway, the Croatian Cardial samples:


C1a2:V20:6845955G->A; C1a2:V86:6909957G->A; C1:CTS6773:17100606C->T; C1:F3393:23023974C->A;


E1b1b1a1b1:CTS3287:14801129A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5291:16189080T->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5527:16345952A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS7273:17396160C->T; E1b1b1a1b1:L618:15339697T->C; E1b1b1a1b1:PF2215:8262442A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:PF2246:22073053G->A; E1b1b1a:CTS8899:18538216C->A; E1b1b1a:L546:17516070C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2108:7804308C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2114:8232450C->A; E1b1b1a:PF2173:21036413C->T; E1b1b1a:PF2178:21583211C->A; E1b1b1a:PF2188:22080316G->A; E1b1b1:CTS2216:14221285G->T;

The link with the Cardial Neolithic for this branch of "E" is established, I think.




the Cardial pre-L619 fits nicely with TMRCA dates of YFull (Cardial ware spread over the Adriatic ca 8 ka)

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/

I guess Avelaner was pre-L619 too, unless you find a reliable source (although pre-V13 would just fit the 7.6 ka TMRCA of L618 compared to 7.5 ka arival of Cardial Ware in Iberia)

a European origin for E-V13 seems almost certain.

note that the neolithic C1a2-V86 split 42.8 ka from the mesolithic La Brana C1a2-V20*, compared to 43.5 ka as the earliest date for the Aurignacian in Willendorf

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

H2 is almost extinct, C1a2 is less than 1 % of the European population
it shows that most neolithic branches got extinct, only a few branches re-expanded later, E-V13 being one of them

Shetop
15-05-17, 15:36
I've read again that the epicardial Avellanar sample snp tested positive for E-V13. If that's correct, could someone post a reliable source for that?


According to the study it was tested for the V13 SNP:


Y-Chromosomal Results. For the six male samples, two complete and four partial Y-STRs haplotypes were obtained (Table 3). They allowed classification of individuals into two different haplogroups:G2a (individuals ave01, ave02, ave03, ave05, and ave06, which seem to share the same haplotype) and E1b1b1 (individualave07). The four markers chosen to confirm belonging to these haplogroups (Y-E1b1b1-M35.1, Y-E1b1b1a1b-V13, Y-G2-M287, and Y-G2a-P15) were typed with a rate of 66%, which permitted confirmation that four males were G2a and one was E1b1b1a1b (Table 3).

source: Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by menin the Neolithic dissemination (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255.full.pdf)


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

bicicleur
15-05-17, 16:11
According to the study it was tested for the V13 SNP:



source: Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by menin the Neolithic dissemination (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255.full.pdf)


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

this is STR, not SNP for four of them (which ones?)
and at the time of this study, the split between L618* and E-V13 was not even known

Shetop
15-05-17, 16:37
this is STR, not SNP for four of them (which ones?)
and at the time of this study, the split between L618* and E-V13 was not even known


Y-Chromosomal Results. For the six male samples, two complete and four partial Y-STRs haplotypes were obtained (Table 3). They allowed classification of individuals into two different haplogroups:G2a (individuals ave01, ave02, ave03, ave05, and ave06, which seem to share the same haplotype) and E1b1b1 (individualave07). The four markers chosen to confirm belonging to these haplogroups (Y-E1b1b1-M35.1, Y-E1b1b1a1b-V13, Y-G2-M287, and Y-G2a-P15) were typed with a rate of 66%, which permitted confirmation that four males were G2a and one was E1b1b1a1b (Table 3).


The four mentioned markers are SNP markers: Y-E1b1b1-M35.1, Y-E1b1b1a1b-V13, Y-G2-M287, and Y-G2a-P15. All samples were tested for these SNPs.

Regarding L618 they do not mention it in the study, so I don't understand how knowing or not knowing about L618 is relevant here? As they state in the study they tested only 4 SNPs.

holderlin
15-05-17, 16:52
Did I miss something? Where did this paper test Sredny Stog genomes? There were plenty of Neolithic Ukraine, but they date from 5500 to 4800 BCE, while Sredny Stog only starts from 4500 BCE. All the R1b in Neolithic Ukraine were very old L754 and L388 (not even P297 like in Latvia). None were M269+, let alone L23+.

Dereivka is a Sredy Stog site. We have a bunch of Y DNA, I'm only seeing one autosomal sample in the admixture runs though, from a late period.

davef
15-05-17, 16:55
How very disappointing. I've wondered for years why the obvious contradictions and gaps weren't more vigorously investigated, and why alternate theories weren't more discussed. Follow the money perhaps, and it may be true today as well. It doesn't mean large parts of the kurgan hypothesis aren't correct, but it does explain why the more romanticized, "value-added" portions are still in circulation despite more recent research showing a lot of it is nonsense.

Yeah, and if a study reveals that the steppe people were short, intellectually slow, and dark, it's under the rug in most stormfront/"anthro" circles. It's slightly different from setting books on fire.

MarkoZ
15-05-17, 19:11
I knew nothing of this Pearson person and his funding of the JIES. Are you sure about it?

Yes, unfortunately I'm sure about it. He founded it, funded it and actively published until the mid-1990s. One of the major contributors used to be Franz Altheim from the SS-Ahnenerbe :good_job:

W. H. Tucker, author of The Funding of Scientific Racism, has investigated these things in some detail. Pearson's definitely a charming fellow:


RogerPearson, for example, one of Pioneer's major recipients, waspreviously the pseudonymous publisher and editor of a journaldedicated to the view that World War II had been an attempt by theJews to bring about the complete "extermination or genocide of theGerman nation." After becoming a Pioneer grantee, Pearson's first two publications-extolling the importance of Nordic racial purityand praising the virtue of killing "the weaklings and misshapen"-appeared on the front page of White Power: The Revolutionary Voiceof National Socialism just under the large swastika serving as theperiodical's logo.

Another journal spearheaded & founded by Pearson is Mankind Quartery which is responsible for much of the research concerning race and intelligence that's being disseminated lately (Lynn & others). This one's being cited regularly on various anthrofora and blogs.

Angela
15-05-17, 20:48
Yes, unfortunately I'm sure about it. He founded it, funded it and actively published until the mid-1990s. One of the major contributors used to be Franz Altheim from the SS-Ahnenerbe :good_job:

W. H. Tucker, author of The Funding of Scientific Racism, has investigated these things in some detail. Pearson's definitely a charming fellow:



Another journal spearheaded & founded by Pearson is Mankind Quartery which is responsible for much of the research concerning race and intelligence that's being disseminated lately (Lynn & others). This one's being cited regularly on various anthrofora and blogs.Good Lord! More fool I for not knowing any of this. As an excuse I certainly never saw any discussion of this in the respectable blogs. Perhaps the point was to keep this quiet. Even here we're not popular with some of our fellow members for discussing this. Too bad. Let the light in. At the very least, in other settings this would be called impeaching the witness. Any "facts" transmitted would be subject to the highest scrutiny.

Angela
15-05-17, 21:29
The Basal K is linked with CHG, but K1 is linked with mesolithic Greece, Boncuklu and Tepecik, that is Y-DNA G2a.
Do we have the autosomal of the Iron Gates population? Of course the neolithic does, but also the mesolithic should contain EEF.

I also don't understand how U5 spread over both EHG and WHG.
It seems to me that R1 was linked with mtDNA C, but they soon took over U5, which I suspect was already all over Europe before R1 arrived there.
R1 were wanderers who prefered the local U5.I'm still plowing through the Supplement. :) Take a look at Supp. Table 2. It's the d-stats, and they've helpfully explained the results for the less numerate.

"

Ukraine Mesolithic, Neolithic and Iron_Gates_HG could be admixed relative to WHG and EHG. Iron_Gates_HG shares ancestry with Anatolian Neolithic.



Trypillia has more HG ancestry than Balkans Chalcolithic and no Steppe ancestry



























Varna has similar HG ancestry to Balkans Chalcolithic and no Steppe ancestry



Varna and Trypillia outliers, and possibly Balkans Chalcolithic outlier (1 sample each) have Steppe ancestry















The Anatolia Neolithic to Anatolia Bronze Age shift is driven by changes in CHG and Iran Neolithc ancestry not by migration from Steppe populations that have EHG ancestry















An increase in CHG/Iran_N in Chalcolithic Anatolia is mirrored by a similar shift in the Balkans Chalcolithic, but not in Central Europe or Iberia Middle Neolithic













So, as I speculated, was there already a movement of CHG/Iran Neo into southeastern Europe in the Chalcolithic?

All I can say is WOW! This is the real Behemoth paper. I guess there's going to be even more goodies in the upcoming Lazaridis paper.

MOESAN
15-05-17, 21:37
[QUOTE=MOESAN;508384][QUOTE=holderlin;508219]OK, so.

This is very interesting and clarifies a lot of things, but it's nothing earth shattering to me:



We have an early group of Levantine/South Anatolian farmers in the Peloponnese. This is interesting, but the fact that there were more than one population of farmers moving into the Balkan peninsula isn't too surprising. It would be more strange if there was only a single source. I wish we had their Y-HGs, but we can probably make a good guess with this



Upstream E-V13 was also in cardial ware Avelaner Cave, no need for different waves to explain that.
Upstream E-V13 could have been in any wave, after all the E-V13 founder was 1 single man.

If you read well one of my posts I wrote the Cardial people were physically partly distinct from the most of Balkans farmers: so yes some differences in proportions of lineages could explain this - but we need more Y-DNA from diverse cardial places (and rather before too much crossings with local WHG's) to assert this - I agree with you some Y-E1b could have been found in more than a group but I believe the proportions (%) between Y-G2a and Y-E1b were not the same ; I would bet very much more E1b among PPNB - cardial people having taken maritime+littoral routes westwards could have implied some mix of PPNB and farmers more anatolianlike spite staying rather anatolianlike -

bicicleur
15-05-17, 21:41
what is steppe ancestry as opposed to EHG ancestry ?

Angela
15-05-17, 21:48
what is steppe ancestry as opposed to EHG ancestry ?EHG + CHG/Iran Ch. like is how it's commonly been defined I think.

Read the tables, that's where they lay out all the proof for their conclusions

Jason Neuharth
16-05-17, 00:29
8691I have put I-M223 I2a2a on a map you may have a better perspective with dates Moesan

in my quest towards BB's and towards a link with Y-I2a2 I was longing for a place between far West and far North-East, not too far from Vucedol and close to Moldavia and Tripolje, and I thought in the Carpathians: they are not too far from Balkans (at this date I did not know about I2a2 in Balkans) and we find some old I2a2 in Ukraina too - sure it proves nothing about BB's and some Y-I2a2 lineages have surely an other story,but my bet concerning geography was not to bad it seems -

Angela
16-05-17, 01:36
EHG + CHG/Iran Ch. like is how it's commonly been defined I think.

Read the tables, that's where they lay out all the proof for their conclusionsSome of the modelers insist it's pure CHG, which would have to have been hiding out for thousands of years somewhere totally unchanged. Patterson, at least, seems to have the patience to occasionally sift through all those nonsense posts on Eurogenes. I would bet he's seen the discussions, and yet he's one of the authors of this paper and the paper very clearly says:

"

The Anatolia Neolithic to Anatolia Bronze Age shift is driven by changes in CHG and Iran Neolithc ancestry not by migration from Steppe populations that have EHG ancestry
















An increase in CHG/Iran_N in Chalcolithic Anatolia is mirrored by a similar shift in the Balkans Chalcolithic, but not in Central Europe or Iberia Middle Neolithic"




I would place more faith in the people who created some of these algorithms than people who just try to use them, even the ones who are well intentioned. Either way, it's a highly "Basal Eurasian" component.

The Lazaridis paper is the one which formulated it as a mix of EHG and something like Iran Chalcolithic, so perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will clarify matters.

davef
16-05-17, 03:26
Check out pearsons Wikipedia page...what's with the stupid robe he's wearing in the photo...is he some member of a top secret English kkk division? Lolz.
Stupid skinhead.

Aaron1981
16-05-17, 03:48
Modern Anatolia is more than just EEF + Iran_Neo/CHG though. A lot of upheavals and changes happened to the Mid East in the later Bronze Age, perhaps with the entrance of the Hittites. Suddenly R1b appears, and no, it's not from central asian Turks.

LeBrok
16-05-17, 04:37
I'm still plowing through the Supplement. :) Take a look at Supp. Table 2. It's the d-stats, and they've helpfully explained the results for the less numerate.

"




An increase in CHG/Iran_N in Chalcolithic Anatolia is mirrored by a similar shift in the Balkans Chalcolithic, but not in Central Europe or Iberia Middle Neolithic













So, as I speculated, was there already a movement of CHG/Iran Neo into southeastern Europe in the Chalcolithic?

All I can say is WOW! This is the real Behemoth paper. I guess there's going to be even more goodies in the upcoming Lazaridis paper.










I found a model I did few months ago when deciphering composition of Hungarian BA. I couldn't get it right without lots of Caucasian admixture. Here is one with 15% of Chalcolithic Armenian. Also it works well with Anatolian Chalcolithic, because they were quite similar.
So, first 3 are the source with proportions at the top, 4th is the composed model, and 5th actual Hungarian Bronze to compare how close I got. Almost a perfect match!



0.5


0.35


0.15









M325047
KO1




M536324
I1658

Modeled






Hungarian, h-g
7.7 kya

NE7 Hungary

Armenia EBA

BA Hungary

BR1 Hungary


Run time
9.43

Population

Run time
8.22

Run time


Population


S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0.27

S-Indian
0.0405

S-Indian
0


Baloch
0

Baloch
0

Baloch
25.53

Baloch
3.8295

Baloch
3.15


Caucasian
0

Caucasian
19.04

Caucasian
56.75

Caucasian
15.1765

Caucasian
14.73


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
16.69

NE-Euro
4.79

NE-Euro
46.745

NE-Euro
46.18


SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.2


Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
0.265

Papuan
0.18


American
0

American
0

American
0

American
0

American
-


Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
56.18

Mediterranean
5.88

Mediterranean
29.84

Mediterranean
31.73


SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
7.96

SW-Asian
6.45

SW-Asian
3.7535

SW-Asian
3.33


San
0

San
0

San
0

San
0

San
-


E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
-


Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.11

W-African
0.33

W-African
0.338

W-African
0.48

Angela
16-05-17, 04:40
Modern Anatolia is more than just EEF + Iran_Neo/CHG though. A lot of upheavals and changes happened to the Mid East in the later Bronze Age, perhaps with the entrance of the Hittites. Suddenly R1b appears, and no, it's not from central asian Turks.First of all we're not talking about modern Anatolia, we're talking about Copper and Bronze Age Anatolia.

Second of all, the only question is do they have the WHG/EHG which is important for the steppe hypothesis? The three published so far don't, correct.? They're from an upcoming Lazaridis paper. Probably there will be more in that paper and others coming out.

I don't know where they'll be from or what they'll show and neither do you. So, we'll have to wait and see. Whatever they show, they show.

Angela
16-05-17, 05:02
I found a model I did few months ago when deciphering composition of Hungarian BA. I couldn't get it right without lots of Caucasian admixture. Here is one with 15% of Chalcolithic Armenian. Also it works well with Anatolian Chalcolithic, because they were quite similar.
So, first 3 are the source with proportions at the top, 4th is the composed model, and 5th actual Hungarian Bronze to compare how close I got. Almost a perfect match!



0.5


0.35


0.15









M325047
KO1




M536324
I1658

Modeled






Hungarian, h-g
7.7 kya

NE7 Hungary

Armenia EBA

BA Hungary

BR1 Hungary


Run time
9.43

Population

Run time
8.22

Run time


Population


S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0.27

S-Indian
0.0405

S-Indian
0


Baloch
0

Baloch
0

Baloch
25.53

Baloch
3.8295

Baloch
3.15


Caucasian
0

Caucasian
19.04

Caucasian
56.75

Caucasian
15.1765

Caucasian
14.73


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
16.69

NE-Euro
4.79

NE-Euro
46.745

NE-Euro
46.18


SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.2


Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
0.265

Papuan
0.18


American
0

American
0

American
0

American
0

American
-


Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
56.18

Mediterranean
5.88

Mediterranean
29.84

Mediterranean
31.73


SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
7.96

SW-Asian
6.45

SW-Asian
3.7535

SW-Asian
3.33


San
0

San
0

San
0

San
0

San
-


E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
-


Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.11

W-African
0.33

W-African
0.338

W-African
0.48


So, contrary to what they say, it could have reached up to Hungary, yes, which counts as Central Europe, in my book? Great work, Le Brok! Could that have something to do with the J2a in Sopot and later in BR2?

It's Hungary Bronze Age which seems to be correlated with Southern Europe.

Wait a minute. Wouldn't that mean Hungary Bronze Age has no real "steppe"?

Ed.There's steppe in Balkans Bronze Age, although it's sporadic, late, and much less than in northern Europe, so it should show up in Bronze Age Hungary? Anyone have d-stats for those samples?

LeBrok
16-05-17, 05:41
So, contrary to what they say, it could have reached up to Hungary, yes, which counts as Central Europe, in my book? Great work, Le Brok! Could that have something to do with the J2a in Sopot and later in BR2? I can't explain it by any other way than a mass migration/invasion from Anatolia/Armenia. The amount of Caucasian needed to explain is huge, and it is in short supply in Yamnaya/Steppe.


It's Hungary Bronze Age which seems to be correlated with Southern Europe.I would say so, because CW and Unetice is very different and contain a lot of Steppe/Yamnaya.


Wait a minute. Wouldn't that mean Hungary Bronze Age has no real "steppe"?I wish I knew for sure that if they say Steppe they know it is Steppe, and not just CHG admixture. Because if it is the latter then it could easily came from Anatolia to Balkans and not through the Steppe cultures.

Angela
16-05-17, 05:59
I can't explain it by any other way than a mass migration/invasion from Anatolia/Armenia. The amount of Caucasian needed to explain is huge, and it is in short supply in Yamnaya/Steppe.

I would say so, because CW and Unetice is very different and contain a lot of Steppe/Yamnaya.

I wish I knew for sure that if they say Steppe they know it is Steppe, and not just CHG admixture. Because if it is the latter then it could easily came from Anatolia to Balkans and not through the Steppe cultures.Perhaps some also to steppe cultures early on, through the Balkans? At least some of it ? Is that even possible?

I can't think; I'm too tired. Like Scarlet O'Hara in Gone With The Wind, I'll think about it tomorrow. : )

holderlin
16-05-17, 06:17
I know everyone's like a deer in the headlights right now, but the Sredny Stog and the Yamnaya Ukraine genomes are a big deal.

I must give myself a little credit as I've been saying this all along, but look at the autosomes of late Sredny Stog and Yamnaya Ukraine. We're seeing the genesis of Corded Ware and Late Bronze Age Steppe. It's not just my theory anymore.

We all know that Corded Ware and the LBA Steppe have EEF that wasn't in Yamnaya. It wasn't obvious where and when this EEF spread throughout the steppe. We only saw it in Corded Ware and then it suddenly covered the entire steppe at the end of the bronze age. Now we can see the origin, which is augmented by what looks like proto-corded ware pottery in the latter stages of Sredny Stog.

Bam

holderlin
16-05-17, 06:38
I can't explain it by any other way than a mass migration/invasion from Anatolia/Armenia. The amount of Caucasian needed to explain is huge, and it is in short supply in Yamnaya/Steppe.

I would say so, because CW and Unetice is very different and contain a lot of Steppe/Yamnaya.

I wish I knew for sure that if they say Steppe they know it is Steppe, and not just CHG admixture. Because if it is the latter then it could easily came from Anatolia to Balkans and not through the Steppe cultures.

Well we know that CHG/Iranian_Neo moved into Anatolia in the Chalcolithic from the Genetic Structure of The First Farmers Paper, so it's not a huge stretch to see this in the Balkans.

The SE Europe paper is using Yamnaya for steppe. The orange in the admixture plot is in-fact steppe.

holderlin
16-05-17, 06:54
How bout Ust-Ishim being listed as R1a1a1b?

LeBrok
16-05-17, 07:04
Perhaps some also to steppe cultures early on, through the Balkans? At least some of it ? Is that even possible?

I can't think; I'm too tired. Like Scarlet O'Hara in Gone With The Wind, I'll think about it tomorrow. : )My model doesn't need it to explain, but I doubt it is a complete model, and I would be surprised if there was no steppe admixture in Balkans, even only through mixing Yamnaya with CT culture. I'm almost sure the researches included all CHG which came through Balkans also as Steppe admixture.
I wish I could check all the samples they introduced now in GedMatch admixtures.


Sorry, I just notice a mistake. This above admixture modeling is for RB2. Which is late Bronze Age in Hungary. RB1 is with low caucasian and looks like 40/60 EEF/WHG, no baloch no steppe. Later we see some Baloch showing and jump in Caucasian, though all of them are fairly similar, with Anatolian/Armenia influance. The big change came in Iron Age with invasion from NE, the steppe arrived. Baloch and NE Euro like in CW/Unetice like, and lower Med. Thracians?



F999933
BR2, J-M67
M681225
BR1

M631469 RISE349

M974598
RISE374 and 373
F999929
IR1, N-M231


Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

EBA Hungary
1,980–2,190 BC
Hungary MBA [2034-1748 BC] T2b3 -
Maros Hungary [1866-1619 BC] T2 G2a-P287>P15>PF3178
IR Hungary
900 BC


Run time
15.13

Run time
10.55

Run time
3.16

Run time
5.26

Run time
6.96


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
3.15

Baloch
-

Baloch
5.64

Baloch
-

Baloch
14.83


Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
5.45

Caucasian
13.81

Caucasian
18.58

Caucasian
15.12


NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
56.15

NE-Euro
38.22

NE-Euro
39.65

NE-Euro
43.91


SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0.49

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
2.97


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.18

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-

American
2.03


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
34.48

Mediterranean
34.63

Mediterranean
40.09

Mediterranean
21.14


SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
3.1

SW-Asian
3.94

SW-Asian
0.98

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.17

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.15

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.48

W-African
0.3

W-African
3.75

W-African
0.39

W-African
-

Maciamo
16-05-17, 08:02
Dereivka is a Sredy Stog site. We have a bunch of Y DNA, I'm only seeing one autosomal sample in the admixture runs though, from a late period.

Then their dating is wrong because they mention 5500-4800 BCE for Dereivka and Sredny Stog is 4500-3500 BCE. Any none of the three Dereivka samples have anything to do with Yamna. They belong to R1*, R1b1* and I2a2. None of these could be ancestral for R1b1a1a2a (L23). In fact there wasn't even any P297 in Neolithic Ukraine like those found in Mesolithic Latvia. It's just a coincidence that the Mesolithic/Neolithic Ukrainian also possessed some R1b lineages. But in fact Yamna R1b-L23 or Z2103 is close to the African R1b-V88 than to R1* or R1b1*. At least both L23 and V88 descend from L754.

Maciamo
16-05-17, 08:14
"

The Anatolia Neolithic to Anatolia Bronze Age shift is driven by changes in CHG and Iran Neolithc ancestry not by migration from Steppe populations that have EHG ancestry














That's easily explained by the Kura-Araxes expansion. Like the Yamna expansion, people from the Kura-Araxes culture left the boundaries of the actual culture and spread in every direction, IMO going as far west as the Balkans and Crete (Minoan civilisation) and as far east as Pakistan (Harappa civilization). Those migrations increased CHG and brought with them mostly J2a1 lineages and to a lower extent also G2a1 (L293), J1a2a (Z1828) and T1a-P77. All those lineages are found in Crete, by the way. There might have been some L1a and some old R1b subclades too, but they were minor lineages, just like in the South Caucasus today.

The Hungarian BA J2a1 from the Kyatice culture belongs to the Y11202 clade, which is found chiefly in the Caucasus. Therefore I believe that he also descended from the Kura-Araxes expansion.

Nik
16-05-17, 10:58
[QUOTE=bicicleur;508424][QUOTE=MOESAN;508384]

If you read well one of my posts I wrote the Cardial people were physically partly distinct from the most of Balkans farmers: so yes some differences in proportions of lineages could explain this - but we need more Y-DNA from diverse cardial places (and rather before too much crossings with local WHG's) to assert this - I agree with you some Y-E1b could have been found in more than a group but I believe the proportions (%) between Y-G2a and Y-E1b were not the same ; I would bet very much more E1b among PPNB - cardial people having taken maritime+littoral routes westwards could have implied some mix of PPNB and farmers more anatolianlike spite staying rather anatolianlike - Could you elaborate more on the physical distinction? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

Dov
16-05-17, 12:54
I know everyone's like a deer in the headlights right now, but the Sredny Stog and the Yamnaya Ukraine genomes are a big deal.

I must give myself a little credit as I've been saying this all along, but look at the autosomes of late Sredny Stog and Yamnaya Ukraine. We're seeing the genesis of Corded Ware and Late Bronze Age Steppe. It's not just my theory anymore.

We all know that Corded Ware and the LBA Steppe have EEF that wasn't in Yamnaya. It wasn't obvious where and when this EEF spread throughout the steppe. We only saw it in Corded Ware and then it suddenly covered the entire steppe at the end of the bronze age. Now we can see the origin, which is augmented by what looks like proto-corded ware pottery in the latter stages of Sredny Stog.

Bam

Yes you are right. Now I also see that Vovnigi and Derevka are the most likely candidates for PIE.
These people from the Vovnigi and the Dereivka probably ancestors of all the existing Indo-European peoples.
http://s019.radikal.ru/i644/1705/b6/8ed96e825fbe.jpg

CW and BB (geneticly and partly culturaly in BB case) probably come from there. And even the historical Hittites, which some researchers derive from the Sredniy Stog. And languages we are speaking now, began to disintegrate precisely there and in those times. The rest of the vast territory of possible PIE languages ​​(as the eastern yamnaya), did not have offspring of historical IE speakers. Therefore, we can not say in what language they spoke, although their cultural characteristics were identical to IE.

The source of these burials Vovnigi and Derevka is somewhere on the Popovo-Zvejnieki mesolite line.
Apparently, there began process of absorbing EEF genes, which are presented in CW.
Probably, they took women as trophies during the devastating raids on the neighboring Tripolye and the killing of their population.

Therefore, the people of Corded Ware:
-the presence of EEF genes
-pronounced horizontal profiling of the face in the upper part (more pronounced than in their Mesolithic ancestors)
-prevalence farmer-Middle Eastern mtDNa in all descendants of CW in Europe.
- burial form as "tower of silence" among the Iranians, has its roots in the Tripolye and possibly introduced by the Trypollian women in Indo-European culture (although, it could be just borrowing)

Also worth noting, from here probably there is an old confusion among paleoanthroologists, who indicates that people of CWC are often metrically similar to the Mediterranean.

Alan
16-05-17, 14:57
Modern Anatolia is more than just EEF + Iran_Neo/CHG though. A lot of upheavals and changes happened to the Mid East in the later Bronze Age, perhaps with the entrance of the Hittites. Suddenly R1b appears, and no, it's not from central asian Turks.

Modern Anatolia is more than just EEF+ Iran_Neo/CHG not neccessary because of the Bronze Age but predominantly because of the Iron and Middle Ages. many Steppe and Central Asian groups moved into Anatolia during that timeframe (Cimmerians, Sarmatians, Alans, Scythians, Mitanni-Medes-Parthians, Persians, Seljuks-Ottomans).