PDA

View Full Version : How far were ANE/EHG/WSHG spread?



ratchet_fan
27-06-20, 17:42
I've always been curious on how far the West Eurasian population that contributed to Yana was spread.
What about EHG?
ANd WHSG? Did they extend into the Tarim Basin?

And what languages and y lineages were in NW Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Federal_District) before Uralics? What about before Indo-Europeans?

ratchet_fan
27-06-20, 18:08
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5204334/

Interesting paper.

So is Uralic the language of West Siberians or East Siberians? And if East Siberians were N1c carriers what were West Siberians?

Ygorcs
28-06-20, 19:06
EHG and WSHG were drifted and admixed population clusters of much earlier admixtures, so I think they spread far less than an older and more basal admixture like ANE. ANE is extremely widespread since it contributed significant ancestry to EHG, Iran_N, CHG, WSHG and Paleo-Siberians and Proto-Amerindians. So, it's now certainly found from Africa to the Americas (considering only native populations) and from Iceland to Sri Lanka. A huge dispersal though only indirectly.

Ygorcs
28-06-20, 19:10
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5204334/

Interesting paper.

So is Uralic the language of West Siberians or East Siberians? And if East Siberians were N1c carriers what were West Siberians?

My personal favorite hypothesis is that, since Uralic seems to have some uncanny if only sparse similarities with basic PIE roots (pronouns, verb conjugation, some basic words) Proto-Uralic was the language of northern EHG (quite drifted apart from the southern EHG under heavy CHG influence that I think ultimately gave origin to PIE), and it was originally associated mainly with R1a and I2 clades, but N1c carriers contributed a minor WSHG and EA ancestry to them, without causing a significnt language shift in Northeastern Europe, though. I think Proto-Uralic should be found somewhere in the Upper Volga-Kama-Oka rivers a bit north of the PIE-speaking steppe tribes, and it's probably more linked to Northeastern European cultures like Volosovo and Netted Ware.

ratchet_fan
29-06-20, 01:39
My personal favorite hypothesis is that, since Uralic seems to have some uncanny if only sparse similarities with basic PIE roots (pronouns, verb conjugation, some basic words) Proto-Uralic was the language of northern EHG (quite drifted apart from the southern EHG under heavy CHG influence that I think ultimately gave origin to PIE), and it was originally associated mainly with R1a and I2 clades, but N1c carriers contributed a minor WSHG and EA ancestry to them, without causing a significnt language shift in Northeastern Europe, though. I think Proto-Uralic should be found somewhere in the Upper Volga-Kama-Oka rivers a bit north of the PIE-speaking steppe tribes, and it's probably more linked to Northeastern European cultures like Volosovo and Netted Ware.

I think you're reading too much Carlos Quiles. I'm not buying it.

Doesn't Volosovo contain R1b-L51?

Ygorcs
02-07-20, 00:15
I think you're reading too much Carlos Quiles. I'm not buying it.

Doesn't Volosovo contain R1b-L51?

Me? Not at all. Carlos Quiles has a ridiculous idea that CWC was Proto-Uralic from Sredny Stog, Yamnaya was PIE from Khvalynsk/Repin, and both PIE and PU derived from a common Indo-Uralic language from around the 6th millennium B.C., which IMO is just unbelievably implausible. What I am saying has nothing to do with that. Volosovo, Netted Ware and other such NE cultures were not of steppe origin and not (originally at least) pastoralist. They're probably linked to the earlir Comb Ceramic culture.

AFAIK no R1b-L51 was found in the steppe or in its vicinity from before the CWC and Yamnaya times. What's your source about that? That'd be really interesting if it's from before the steppe expansion to Northern Europe.

ratchet_fan
02-07-20, 00:21
Me? Not at all. Carlos Quiles has a ridiculous idea that CWC was Proto-Uralic from Sredny Stog, Yamnaya was PIE from Khvalynsk/Repin, and both PIE and PU derived from a common Indo-Uralic language from around the 6th millennium B.C., which IMO is just unbelievably implausible. What I am saying has nothing to do with that. Volosovo, Netted Ware and other such NE cultures were not of steppe origin and not (originally at least) pastoralist. They're probably linked to the earlir Comb Ceramic culture.

AFAIK no R1b-L51 was found in the steppe or in its vicinity from before the CWC and Yamnaya times. What's your source about that? That'd be really interesting if it's from before the steppe expansion to Northern Europe.

Ok. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that Uralic was the language of Northern EHG. Uralic is a recent intrusion from east of the Urals from a probably predominantly ENA population that picked up EHG ancestry while moving west. A lot of people (not you) have an agenda to make Uralic be the language of an EHG population or Andronovo like population. That isn't the case.

Source on Volosovo R1b-L51? Same as the source on Ancient Egypt. I believe Eurogenes blog owner found that there was L51 in the forest zone.

Anfänger
03-07-20, 18:37
Ok. I'm just disagreeing with the idea that Uralic was the language of Northern EHG. Uralic is a recent intrusion from east of the Urals from a probably predominantly ENA population that picked up EHG ancestry while moving west. A lot of people (not you) have an agenda to make Uralic be the language of an EHG population or Andronovo like population. That isn't the case.

Source on Volosovo R1b-L51? Same as the source on Ancient Egypt. I believe Eurogenes blog owner found that there was L51 in the forest zone.

Only amateurs think that way. From David Anthony to Bomhard basically all experts say that Uralic was spoken close to PIE--> Northern EHG.

ratchet_fan
03-07-20, 19:10
Only amateurs think that way. From David Anthony to Bomhard basically all experts say that Uralic was spoken close to PIE--> Northern EHG.

So Proto Uralic speakers were composed of R1a, R1b and J males? What happened to them?

Anfänger
11-07-20, 16:13
So Proto Uralic speakers were composed of R1a, R1b and J males? What happened to them?

I have the same hypothesis like Ygorcs. The autosomal impact was very little even if N males took over most parts. The same could be said about Iberia. R1b took over but the language didn't change to IE.

MOESAN
12-07-20, 20:44
Old school in Hungary, interested in Uralic story, thought the first Uralic people were of old Eurasian stock (the famous 'proto-Europoid' type or 'east-Cromagnoid') and mixed only later with tribes from more eastern lands (East of Ourals?), with more than a subtype of East-Asian origin..
The most ancient Uralic (and even Ugric) lexicon seems pointing to a society of fishers/hunters/
gatherers and words for a wet and cold environment with a lot of fishes and trees kinds, but the words for horse, stirrup, whip, saddle are part of ancient Ugric (later than the Finnic/Ugric break).
We can suppose Y-R1a was already well respresented among the old Uralics.
Concerning Y-haplo's, Y-N3 at least could be older in eastern Europe than in South Siberia! So it could have played a role very soon too?
But we know that association between language and Y-haplo's is not so evident as time passes, even if this association seems more evident than language-mtDNA.

ratchet_fan
17-07-20, 00:58
Old school in Hungary, interested in Uralic story, thought the first Uralic people were of old Eurasian stock (the famous 'proto-Europoid' type or 'east-Cromagnoid') and mixed only later with tribes from more eastern lands (East of Ourals?), with more than a subtype of East-Asian origin..
The most ancient Uralic (and even Ugric) lexicon seems pointing to a society of fishers/hunters/
gatherers and words for a wet and cold environment with a lot of fishes and trees kinds, but the words for horse, stirrup, whip, saddle are part of ancient Ugric (later than the Finnic/Ugric break).
We can suppose Y-R1a was already well respresented among the old Uralics.
Concerning Y-haplo's, Y-N3 at least could be older in eastern Europe than in South Siberia! So it could have played a role very soon too?
But we know that association between language and Y-haplo's is not so evident as time passes, even if this association seems more evident than language-mtDNA.

R1a was not well represented among the old Uralics. Nobody believes that besides Carlos Quiles. R1a in Uralics comes from Indo-Europeans.
Also N and probably N1c-tat is clearly a lineage from Neolithic Baikal/North China.

Ygorcs
17-07-20, 01:11
R1a was not well represented among the old Uralics. Nobody believes that besides Carlos Quiles. R1a in Uralics comes from Indo-Europeans.
Also N and probably N1c-tat is clearly a lineage from Neolithic Baikal/North China.

I happen to think R1a was ONCE very common among PRE-Uralic speakers, who were mainly along the cline from EHG to WSHG... but that would've been centuries if not millennia before Proto-Uralic itself was last spoken in its latest undiverged stage and was starting to expand, which was probably not that long ago, I mean, after the start of the IE expansion, so ~4000-5000 years ago according to some more recent dating estimates I read some months ago (IIRC). By that time, a lot of things may have happened, including the creation of a completely different Y-DNA makeup due to all the not so agreeable aspects that cause Y-DNA haplogroups to have a particularly strong drift in many ancient societies, particularly those with small spopulations.

Ygorcs
17-07-20, 01:15
I have the same hypothesis like Ygorcs. The autosomal impact was very little even if N males took over most parts. The same could be said about Iberia. R1b took over but the language didn't change to IE.

Precisely my hypothesis. Proto-Uralic has BOTH Late PIE and early Indo-Iranian loanwords in abundant quantity, and it also has some really intriguing parallels with PIE in the most stable part of the language, which is the basic structure of the sentence-building blocks (like pronouns, conjugation particles). Because of that I just can't assume a language that had developed for a long time very far away, in China or Mongolia, and only became widespread in Northeastern Europe after it expanded to that region crossing almost all the vast expanse of Eurasia. It was probably a language that developed and was spoken in very close and enduring contacts with PIE and later Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic speakers. The best explanation is: a EHG population north of the steppe and afterwards north and east of the CWC-derived cultures like Fatyanovo and Abashevo. Indeed, if you model Uralic populations today, the majority of them (not all, though) show a very significant amount of EHG in excess of CHG-admixed steppe ancestry.

ratchet_fan
17-07-20, 01:30
I happen to think R1a was ONCE very common among PRE-Uralic speakers, who were mainly along the cline from EHG to WSHG... but that would've been centuries if not millennia before Proto-Uralic itself was last spoken in its latest undiverged stage and was starting to expand, which was probably not that long ago, I mean, after the start of the IE expansion, so ~4000-5000 years ago according to some more recent dating estimates I read some months ago (IIRC). By that time, a lot of things may have happened, including the creation of a completely different Y-DNA makeup due to all the not so agreeable aspects that cause Y-DNA haplogroups to have a particularly strong drift in many ancient societies, particularly those with small spopulations.

There's nothing to support that at the current time. The R1a assertion as well as assuming pre-Uralic speakers were 80 to 100% West Eurasian. TBH I've only ever heard these theories from believes Finns trying to distance themselves from the Asiansness of their ancestors haplogorups and autosomal DNA. These are the people who argue pre-Uralics were essentially a steppe Andronovo population or argue y N was common in the steppes or even that Uralics were mostly y R1 and I.

And honestly if there were any R1 lineages within Uralic speakers its likely to be R1b. Its the older, numerous and more widespread haplogroup. There are are subclades of it restricted to east of the Urals. Its also popped up in Volosovo and Botai (besides y N actually although I imagine Botai was mostly R1b)

Ygorcs
17-07-20, 06:31
There's nothing to support that at the current time. The R1a assertion as well as assuming pre-Uralic speakers were 80 to 100% West Eurasian. TBH I've only ever heard these theories from believes Finns trying to distance themselves from the Asiansness of their ancestors haplogorups and autosomal DNA. These are the people who argue pre-Uralics were essentially a steppe Andronovo population or argue y N was common in the steppes or even that Uralics were mostly y R1 and I.

And honestly if there were any R1 lineages within Uralic speakers its likely to be R1b. Its the older, numerous and more widespread haplogroup. There are are subclades of it restricted to east of the Urals. Its also popped up in Volosovo and Botai (besides y N actually although I imagine Botai was mostly R1b)

Could've been a majority of R1b too (maybe the M343 found in Botai). It still wouldn't change the hypothesis on the autosomal DNA and geographical motivations for that position. What would've happened to Proto-Uralics in my opinion was similar to what happened with Chadic speakers: they expanded a lot to Central Asia spreading very high frequencies of R1b-V88 even though they V88 probably came ultimately from EEF and ANF settled in North Africa and gradually more and more admixed with (first) indigenous North Africans and (later) indigenous Sahelians and West Africans until you got people who have extremely high R1b frequencies, but very little ANF/EEF-related admixture.

ratchet_fan
17-07-20, 14:50
Could've been a majority of R1b too (maybe the M343 found in Botai). It still wouldn't change the hypothesis on the autosomal DNA and geographical motivations for that position. What would've happened to Proto-Uralics in my opinion was similar to what happened with Chadic speakers: they expanded a lot to Central Asia spreading very high frequencies of R1b-V88 even though they V88 probably came ultimately from EEF and ANF settled in North Africa and gradually more and more admixed with (first) indigenous North Africans and (later) indigenous Sahelians and West Africans until you got people who have extremely high R1b frequencies, but very little ANF/EEF-related admixture.

It still requires a very convoluted way of thinking to explain away how N is ubiquitous in Uralic speakers from the Sammi to Nganasan, R1a and R1b in the populations are all young Indo-European clades and all of these populations have significant East Eurasian ancestry.

If we go by this logic Proto Indo-Europeans could have been y J CHG carriers too.

halfalp
17-07-20, 14:54
I think you're reading too much Carlos Quiles. I'm not buying it.

Doesn't Volosovo contain R1b-L51?

Where did you get this information of Volosovo with R1b-L51? The recent paper only talks about Q1a2.

halfalp
17-07-20, 15:05
Whats interesting is that R1a even if in Eastern Europe since the Mesolithic, shows signs of contact with Siberia and ANE ancestry as shown with mtdna R1b and C1g in Karelia HG. The story of R1a seems as complicated as the one of the R1b.

We will need way more datas, but i'm starting to consider that the Eastern components of the so-called " Post-Swiderian Cultures " might be more linked with Q1a2 than with R1. We will have to see. With the idea that somehow R1a even tho similar in admixture to R1b in the Mesolithic ( EHG ), would have receive some Eastern ancestry through the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in the North-Eastern Forest/Taiga Zone linked with Q1a2.

ratchet_fan
17-07-20, 17:32
Where did you get this information of Volosovo with R1b-L51? The recent paper only talks about Q1a2.

There's been mention of this on other sites about unreleased samples being L51.

ratchet_fan
17-07-20, 17:34
Whats interesting is that R1a even if in Eastern Europe since the Mesolithic, shows signs of contact with Siberia and ANE ancestry as shown with mtdna R1b and C1g in Karelia HG. The story of R1a seems as complicated as the one of the R1b.

We will need way more datas, but i'm starting to consider that the Eastern components of the so-called " Post-Swiderian Cultures " might be more linked with Q1a2 than with R1. We will have to see. With the idea that somehow R1a even tho similar in admixture to R1b in the Mesolithic ( EHG ), would have receive some Eastern ancestry through the Mesolithic/Neolithic transition in the North-Eastern Forest/Taiga Zone linked with Q1a2.

Why do you think the Q1a2 is more recent? Couldn't R1a, R1b and Q all have a similar chronological history in Eastern Europe? Also I would expect the Taiga zone to have some N too.

halfalp
17-07-20, 19:42
Why do you think the Q1a2 is more recent? Couldn't R1a, R1b and Q all have a similar chronological history in Eastern Europe? Also I would expect the Taiga zone to have some N too.

More recent, in the sense of more recent in Eastern Europe? As i said, we need way more samples to get a story down. Proper Swiderian samples would be nice. DNA of Bullet-Shaped Core Cultures of Western Siberia would be also nice.

But i just think Q1a2 didn't came in Europe in the same time, or along R1. All this is matter of founding the outliers in the good time frame inside the whole EHG population.

ratchet_fan
18-07-20, 02:25
More recent, in the sense of more recent in Eastern Europe? As i said, we need way more samples to get a story down. Proper Swiderian samples would be nice. DNA of Bullet-Shaped Core Cultures of Western Siberia would be also nice.

But i just think Q1a2 didn't came in Europe in the same time, or along R1. All this is matter of founding the outliers in the good time frame inside the whole EHG population.

What do you think the autosomal composition of R1a/R1b carriers was when they arrived in Europe before mixing with WHG to form EHG? What about Q1a2 carriers?

Ygorcs
18-07-20, 04:33
It still requires a very convoluted way of thinking to explain away how N is ubiquitous in Uralic speakers from the Sammi to Nganasan, R1a and R1b in the populations are all young Indo-European clades and all of these populations have significant East Eurasian ancestry.

If we go by this logic Proto Indo-Europeans could have been y J CHG carriers too.

What do you mean by "significant"? Most Uralic populations have less than 5-10% East Eurasian ancestry, and Hungarians and Estonians have barely anything (>1-2%). What the large majority of them do have in common is excess EHG.

Not so convoluted. It's happened before and even in historical times (e.g. Hungarian itself in Pannonia). Also, consider the fact that genetics is not the only thing that's used to ascertain what hypotheses are more likely. Linguistics and archaeology matters just as much.

halfalp
18-07-20, 11:21
What do you think the autosomal composition of R1a/R1b carriers was when they arrived in Europe before mixing with WHG to form EHG? What about Q1a2 carriers?

I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.

R1 seems definitely linked with ANE. But we still dont know who came to birth first between WHG,EHG and CHG. I'm sure we will get samples from early Epigravettian that will show an ancestry similar to Dzudzuana, closer to Vestonice than Villabruna, but not exactly like Villabruna at some point. From there will be the question of what is really Villabruna 1, and if the difference is a lack of ancestry of an ANE like population. There new questions will have to be responded.

Ygorcs
18-07-20, 13:31
I still have a hard time understanding what WHG/Villabruna really is. It's not Magdalenian (El Mirón people seem to be the main descendants of that culture), but Villabruna cluster is also very divergent, if distantly related, to the Gravettian samples. And it's of course not Aurignacian either. Was Epigravettian not directly connected to Gravettian at all? Or is WHG/Villabruna already yet another demographic and cultural wave expanding throughout Europe from a much smaller area? It mustn't have come from Anatolia, because AHG and WHG though related were also very diverged.

halfalp
18-07-20, 14:59
I still have a hard time understanding what WHG/Villabruna really is. It's not Magdalenian (El Mirón people seem to be the main descendants of that culture), but Villabruna cluster is also very divergent, if distantly related, to the Gravettian samples. And it's of course not Aurignacian either. Was Epigravettian not directly connected to Gravettian at all? Or is WHG/Villabruna already yet another demographic and cultural wave expanding throughout Europe from a much smaller area? It mustn't have come from Anatolia, because AHG and WHG though related were also very diverged.

I wonder too. What differentiate Villabruna from Dzudzuana? Vestonice-like ancestry or ANE, or both? Dzudzuana ancestry could have come in Southeast Europe either through Anatolia, or through Eastern Europe. We need more samples from Epipaleolithic Eastern Europe and Anatolia. And we need Lazaridis to releasing the Dzudzuana paper.

Edit: Also what about this Paleolithic mtdna N1b individual from Crimea.

In terms of archeology, i think epigravettian is related to gravettian in terms of lithic facies, but they are comprised in what french scholars used to call " L'âge du Renne ". Mammoth is not the dominant big game hunting at this time, but reindeer and buffalos are, it's the Epipaleolithic, with it's high climatic fluncuations comprising warm interstadials like the Bolling and Allerod oscillations and cold stadials like the Dryas. Probably born on the Danube, they maybe have some other influences in some part.

MOESAN
18-07-20, 17:47
From what I understood, the simplified synthesis about Dzudzuana was it was very close to ancient Anatolia HG's, so close to mean WHG augmented by Basal Eurasian, the result being ATW neatly distinct from CHG, so at those times, still poor in ANE. Maybe I read to quickly?

halfalp
18-07-20, 17:58
From what I understood, the simplified synthesis about Dzudzuana was it was very close to ancient Anatolia HG's, so close to mean WHG augmented by Basal Eurasian, the result being ATW neatly distinct from CHG, so at those times, still poor in ANE. Maybe I read to quickly?

Yes ~70% ancestry in common with Villabruna into the so-called " Common West Eurasian " group. And ~30% from the so-called " Basal Eurasian " ancestry.

Ygorcs
18-07-20, 18:47
I wonder too. What differentiate Villabruna from Dzudzuana? Vestonice-like ancestry or ANE, or both? Dzudzuana ancestry could have come in Southeast Europe either through Anatolia, or through Eastern Europe. We need more samples from Epipaleolithic Eastern Europe and Anatolia. And we need Lazaridis to releasing the Dzudzuana paper.

Edit: Also what about this Paleolithic mtdna N1b individual from Crimea.

In terms of archeology, i think epigravettian is related to gravettian in terms of lithic facies, but they are comprised in what french scholars used to call " L'âge du Renne ". Mammoth is not the dominant big game hunting at this time, but reindeer and buffalos are, it's the Epipaleolithic, with it's high climatic fluncuations comprising warm interstadials like the Bolling and Allerod oscillations and cold stadials like the Dryas. Probably born on the Danube, they maybe have some other influences in some part.

Dzudzuana already had significant Basal Eurasian ancestry, which the WHG lacked. And Anatolia_HG and WHG, though related, have very high genetic distances between themselves. So, I'd say the two groups diverged very early and lived apart, because Dzudzuana was exposed to BE people, while pre-WHG weren't. I have seen ancestry models in genetic studies calculating Gravettian-like ancestry in the WHG... So were they perhaps an "early" Dzudzuana without BE and mixed with Gravettians/Epigravettians? What I find fascinating is that the Magdalenians still survived to originate El Mirón, and in some models later (post-Neolithic) still had and have a tiny bit of El Mirón.

halfalp
18-07-20, 19:00
Dzudzuana already had significant Basal Eurasian ancestry, which the WHG lacked. And Anatolia_HG and WHG, though related, have very high genetic distances between themselves. So, I'd say the two groups diverged very early and lived apart, because Dzudzuana was exposed to BE people, while pre-WHG weren't. I have seen ancestry models in genetic studies calculating Gravettian-like ancestry in the WHG... So were they perhaps an "early" Dzudzuana without BE and mixed with Gravettians/Epigravettians? What I find fascinating is that the Magdalenians still survived to originate El Mirón, and in some models later (post-Neolithic) still had and have a tiny bit of El Mirón.

It was actually implied that similar ancestry as Villabruna was found in individuals of the Vestonice and El Miron clusters. Wich means it already radiated in Europe in the final phase of Upper Paleolithic. So we will found individuals older than Villabruna 1 with something Villabruna/Dzudzuana. We might even found in Southeastern Europe, something Villabruna + BA. A lot of admixture/outliers can be discovered.

ratchet_fan
18-07-20, 23:26
What do you mean by "significant"? Most Uralic populations have less than 5-10% East Eurasian ancestry, and Hungarians and Estonians have barely anything (>1-2%). What the large majority of them do have in common is excess EHG.

Not so convoluted. It's happened before and even in historical times (e.g. Hungarian itself in Pannonia). Also, consider the fact that genetics is not the only thing that's used to ascertain what hypotheses are more likely. Linguistics and archaeology matters just as much.

That's just Baltic Finns right? Does that apply to the Saami, Mansi, Khanty,Komi, Mari, and Mordvins?

ratchet_fan
18-07-20, 23:31
I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.

R1 seems definitely linked with ANE. But we still dont know who came to birth first between WHG,EHG and CHG. I'm sure we will get samples from early Epigravettian that will show an ancestry similar to Dzudzuana, closer to Vestonice than Villabruna, but not exactly like Villabruna at some point. From there will be the question of what is really Villabruna 1, and if the difference is a lack of ancestry of an ANE like population. There new questions will have to be responded.

The earliest Q carriers would have been like AG3 before mixing with East Eurasians too though?

halfalp
19-07-20, 08:34
The earliest Q carriers would have been like AG3 before mixing with East Eurasians too though?

I mean, ultimately they were from an ANE core. But for exemple if they were the carriers that brought Pit-Comb Ceramic in eastern europe, they could have come from everywhere between Korea, Lake Baikal and Western Siberia. And therefore were probably a mix between ANE and East Asian.

ratchet_fan
19-07-20, 13:32
I mean, ultimately they were from an ANE core. But for exemple if they were the carriers that brought Pit-Comb Ceramic in eastern europe, they could have come from everywhere between Korea, Lake Baikal and Western Siberia. And therefore were probably a mix between ANE and East Asian.

Maybe. But I thought the Pit-Comb people were predominantly EHG and carried R1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture#Genetics

Also it seems hard to believe if they came from near Korea the only haplogourp they would have carried would be Q. But then again I think the earliest Native Americans were mostly or entirely Q no?

halfalp
19-07-20, 15:37
Maybe. But I thought the Pit-Comb people were predominantly EHG and carried R1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_Ceramic_culture#Genetics

Also it seems hard to believe if they came from near Korea the only haplogourp they would have carried would be Q. But then again I think the earliest Native Americans were mostly or entirely Q no?

I said the following earlier.

I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.


In terms of archeology, it's clear Comb Ceramic came from east asia, and they didn't came into eastern europe as EHG. There is also the question of Elshanka Pottery coming apparently from Central Asia. Both probably brought some new y-dna to eastern europe, R1a, Q1a2, N... we just need to found the samples and the east asian ancestry. We already have Late hints of Baikal_Neolithic ancestry in Eastern Europe, but we dont know since when it was there, or if there wasn't already a similar ancestry earlier. But looking at how many outliers came in papers the last few years, we probably gonna found some in the future.

It's also quite possible, Q1a2 migrated along R1, but it's hard to believe that Comb Ceramics and Pottery Hunter-Gatherers came from East without any Y-dna, what y-dna tho?

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 01:47
I said the following earlier.

I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.


In terms of archeology, it's clear Comb Ceramic came from east asia, and they didn't came into eastern europe as EHG. There is also the question of Elshanka Pottery coming apparently from Central Asia. Both probably brought some new y-dna to eastern europe, R1a, Q1a2, N... we just need to found the samples and the east asian ancestry. We already have Late hints of Baikal_Neolithic ancestry in Eastern Europe, but we dont know since when it was there, or if there wasn't already a similar ancestry earlier. But looking at how many outliers came in papers the last few years, we probably gonna found some in the future.

It's also quite possible, Q1a2 migrated along R1, but it's hard to believe that Comb Ceramics and Pottery Hunter-Gatherers came from East without any Y-dna, what y-dna tho?

Obviously they didn't come as EHG since that is formed from a mixture only within Europe but they could have come from a WSHG like population. I think that was also found in the Caucasus.

From where and when is Bakial_Neoltihic ancestry found? I missed that development.

Also on a related note I read somewhere that pottery was invented in East Asia. Did all West Eurasian populations get their pottery from an eastern source?

Ygorcs
20-07-20, 02:19
That's just Baltic Finns right? Does that apply to the Saami, Mansi, Khanty,Komi, Mari, and Mordvins?

Most of the Uralic people in or west of the Urals have far more EHG than East Asian ancestry. Those to the east, honestly I don't believe are truly representative of the early Uralic genetic makeup with all the profound changes we know that happened (shifting it toward Northeast Asians) in Central Asia and Central Siberia since the Neolithic. Nganassans, for example, are genetically much closer to Kets and other Yeniseians than to any Uralic population. My hunch is that the original PU admixture got extremely diluted the further east they went. In any case, linguistically there are many reasons to believe PU was spoken near PIE and Proto-Indo-Iranian even before it split, which must mean that PU expanded after PIE and probably only in the last 4,000-4,500 years from a place under strong IE influence, and the typological similarities to PIE also indicate if not a shared origin many millennia before a very strong interaction with pre-PIE languages since a long time before PU itself. A homeland in China or Mongolia makes no sense under these linguistic considerations.

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 02:26
Most of the Uralic people in or west of the Urals have far more EHG than East Asian ancestry. Those to the east, honestly I don't believe are truly representative of the early Uralic genetic makeup with all the profound changes we know that happened (shifting it toward Northeast Asians) in Central Asia and Central Siberia since the Neolithic. Nganassans, for example, are genetically much closer to Kets and other Yeniseians than to any Uralic population. My hunch is that the original PU admixture got extremely diluted the further east they went. In any case, linguistically there are many reasons to believe PU was spoken near PIE and Proto-Indo-Iranian even before it split, which must mean that PU expanded after PIE and probably only in the last 4,000-4,500 years from a place under strong IE influence, and the typological similarities to PIE also indicate if not a shared origin many millennia before a very strong interaction with pre-PIE languages since a long time before PU itself. A homeland in China or Mongolia makes no sense under these linguistic considerations.

I have trouble disassociating Uralics from y N and ENA. It requires a lot of founder effects and for N to be explained away as a result of something else.

Do you have a breakdown of the ancestry of Uralics?

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 02:34
If you believe y N and ENA are post Neolithic phenomenons what was between the Urals and Baikal?

halfalp
20-07-20, 12:13
Obviously they didn't come as EHG since that is formed from a mixture only within Europe but they could have come from a WSHG like population. I think that was also found in the Caucasus.

From where and when is Bakial_Neoltihic ancestry found? I missed that development.

Also on a related note I read somewhere that pottery was invented in East Asia. Did all West Eurasian populations get their pottery from an eastern source?

Baikal_Neolithic represent the eastern ancestry in the WSHG admixture, if i'm not wrong, so if we found something related to WSHG in Mesolithic/Neolithic eastern europe, it's our link. It's all question of proximate. Between different populations.

For exemple, if we found something related to Baikal_Neolithic in Mesolithic Eastern Europe, it will not be Baikal_Neolithic, but a population with related east asian ancestry.



Pottery was invented in East Asia in an independant developpement. But it's probably unrelated with the middle-eastern one.

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 14:33
Baikal_Neolithic represent the eastern ancestry in the WSHG admixture, if i'm not wrong, so if we found something related to WSHG in Mesolithic/Neolithic eastern europe, it's our link. It's all question of proximate. Between different populations.

For exemple, if we found something related to Baikal_Neolithic in Mesolithic Eastern Europe, it will not be Baikal_Neolithic, but a population with related east asian ancestry.



Pottery was invented in East Asia in an independant developpement. But it's probably unrelated with the middle-eastern one.

Most maps of pottery show an origin in NE Asia (NE China specifically) and a slow diffusion from there. Is it actually diffusion to the west or something invented later on? What did ANE people have?

The other thread said pottery in the Middle East came from Sudan. How likely is that?

halfalp
20-07-20, 16:52
Most maps of pottery show an origin in NE Asia (NE China specifically) and a slow diffusion from there. Is it actually diffusion to the west or something invented later on? What did ANE people have?

The other thread said pottery in the Middle East came from Sudan. How likely is that?

No, the oldest pottery used was in east asia, it doesn't mean it's the only place it was invented. As far as i know, there is no concensus for an archeological link between ceramics of east asia and the middle-east.

I think you speak about the post of MarkoZ from a few years back? I don't know too much about it.

ratchet_fan
20-07-20, 17:09
No, the oldest pottery used was in east asia, it doesn't mean it's the only place it was invented. As far as i know, there is no concensus for an archeological link between ceramics of east asia and the middle-east.

I think you speak about the post of MarkoZ from a few years back? I don't know too much about it.

That makes sense. Is there a link between the pottery of Siberia/Steppe/NE Europe and NE Asia?

Also do you have any idea on whether K2b/P originated in an ENA or ANE population? People have been saying those originated in SE Asia or in NE China in an ENA population (TIanyuan).

These are the ages I got from yfull. I didn't adjust for yfull typical 10-15% underestimation.

K2b- TMRCA 43000-45400 ybp
P - TMRCA 40900-42000 ybp
Tianyuan K2b - 36880- 38170 ybp

P was born at least 2000 years before Tianyuan according to this.

halfalp
21-07-20, 09:51
That makes sense. Is there a link between the pottery of Siberia/Steppe/NE Europe and NE Asia?

Also do you have any idea on whether K2b/P originated in an ENA or ANE population? People have been saying those originated in SE Asia or in NE China in an ENA population (TIanyuan).

These are the ages I got from yfull. I didn't adjust for yfull typical 10-15% underestimation.

K2b- TMRCA 43000-45400 ybp
P - TMRCA 40900-42000 ybp
Tianyuan K2b - 36880- 38170 ybp

P was born at least 2000 years before Tianyuan according to this.

We have no ways to know.

Ygorcs
21-07-20, 20:05
I have trouble disassociating Uralics from y N and ENA. It requires a lot of founder effects and for N to be explained away as a result of something else.

Do you have a breakdown of the ancestry of Uralics?

Uralic expansion definitely happened together with the expansion of N and ENA. What I mean is that the ancestral roots of the language must have been in a EHG group in Northwestern Eurasia, not a ENA group. It's like PIE: the people that spread it to other parts of the world was almost certainly a mixture of EHG with CHG in various different proportions, but the language itself must've come from one of those 2 originally unmixed groups.

ratchet_fan
21-07-20, 20:37
Uralic expansion definitely happened together with the expansion of N and ENA. What I mean is that the ancestral roots of the language must have been in a EHG group in Northwestern Eurasia, not a ENA group. It's like PIE: the people that spread it to other parts of the world was almost certainly a mixture of EHG with CHG in various different proportions, but the language itself must've come from one of those 2 originally unmixed groups.

So in your opinion proto uralics carried R1 and mt U2e, U4, and U5 and were entirely EHG?

How likely is it the maternal side is at the root of the language?

Ygorcs
21-07-20, 22:53
So in your opinion proto uralics carried R1 and mt U2e, U4, and U5 and were entirely EHG?

How likely is it the maternal side is at the root of the language?

No, not Proto-Uralics, but pre-PU before the late stage of Proto-Uralic, i.e. long before it started splitting concomitantly to the Uralic people's expansion itself. I think Proto-Uralics had mostly N1a-Tat and perhaps a few other N1 lineages.

I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but it happens. You also need to consider that it didn't necessarily come from the maternal side, it may simply be that the foreign paternal lines were more successful after some generations, but they were initially amidst a population that still had many of the males of the population they admixed with, and they shifted to the local language very soon, so that their numerous descendants with foreign paternal lines grew up already speaking another language. It's unlikely that Basque/Aquitanian is originally linked to R1b-P312. It's also unlikely that Chadic is originally linked to R1b-V88. Many North American indigenous tribes also have a lot of R1b, and it's IMHO very implausible that that large % of R1b predates the Pre-Columbian era. You also have, on a different note, males not being overwhelmed by the foreigners, but acquiring the foreign language and going on to spread that language even without the paternal lineages originally linked to it (e.g. a lot of Turkic groups and perhaps even the Proto-Turkic themselvees).

ratchet_fan
22-07-20, 01:20
No, not Proto-Uralics, but pre-PU before the late stage of Proto-Uralic, i.e. long before it started splitting concomitantly to the Uralic people's expansion itself. I think Proto-Uralics had mostly N1a-Tat and perhaps a few other N1 lineages.

I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but it happens. You also need to consider that it didn't necessarily come from the maternal side, it may simply be that the foreign paternal lines were more successful after some generations, but they were initially amidst a population that still had many of the males of the population they admixed with, and they shifted to the local language very soon, so that their numerous descendants with foreign paternal lines grew up already speaking another language. It's unlikely that Basque/Aquitanian is originally linked to R1b-P312. It's also unlikely that Chadic is originally linked to R1b-V88. Many North American indigenous tribes also have a lot of R1b, and it's IMHO very implausible that that large % of R1b predates the Pre-Columbian era. You also have, on a different note, males not being overwhelmed by the foreigners, but acquiring the foreign language and going on to spread that language even without the paternal lineages originally linked to it (e.g. a lot of Turkic groups and perhaps even the Proto-Turkic themselvees).

Its unlikely as you said.

Ygorcs
22-07-20, 02:43
Its unlikely as you said.

Not more unlikely than Uralic and PIE sharing so much evidences of long-term contact and a few evidences even of shared genealogical root if one evolved in Eastern Europe and the only arrived in Europe from China in the Early Bronze Age or even later.

No homeland hypothesis must be based on solely one factor, let alone only something as strongly subjected to rapid drift as Y-DNA haplogroups.

Since it's happened multiple times as far as we know, there is no reason to believe that everything else must be reconciled to keep a wrong idea that the language of males whose lineage became dominant through selection and drift always prevails.

Ygorcs
22-07-20, 21:11
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.

ratchet_fan
22-07-20, 21:44
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.

That guy could easily be a outlier. I would bet Botai and most WSHG were R1b. And I also doubt this guy was ancestral to the wave of N that hit Europe.

ratchet_fan
22-07-20, 22:19
We have no ways to know.

What would you guess though?

halfalp
23-07-20, 13:19
What would you guess though?

I'm really the least person here that can help you with that.

MOESAN
25-07-20, 22:56
I think we cannot affirm all Y-R1a bearers in N-E Europe came from I-Ens. We even don't know what languages spoke the HG's South Finland and the E-Baltic lands before the first Finnish speakers arrival. It seems some of them spoke a not-I-E not Uralic language (from post-Swiderian people come from West?)? Seemingly Saami Finnic absorbed words of this language plus some of a Satemlike language. In West, Finnic seems appearing rather lately (Iron? or a bit sooner?) so it doesn't prove that this Satemlike I-E (CWC?) language was very old there. I think some specific old subclades of Y-R1a could have been absorbed by the Uralic "rulers" there or even earlier in more eastern lands, or at least a great autosomal (EHG) DNA part has been absorbed even if the males lineages (R1a) have been swept off. Maybe some Y-R1b pop's from Baltic HG's could have had the same destiny. So if not-I-E Y-R1a markers were rare among Uralic or Uralicized pop's, these not-I-E Y-R1a had transmitted the autosomes and mt- markers of their pop to the mix formed by the crossings with Uralic speakers pop's at diverse ages.

MOESAN
30-07-20, 23:11
R1a was not well represented among the old Uralics. Nobody believes that besides Carlos Quiles. R1a in Uralics comes from Indo-Europeans.
Also N and probably N1c-tat is clearly a lineage from Neolithic Baikal/North China.

Short answer before I dig deeper in the question and data.
I don't know if we have the samples to affirm or contradict this about old Uralics. Y-R1a was present West the Ourals long ago I think, it was in Karelia. But it's not by force the same clades as the future IE Y-R1a clades (like CWC by instance). ATW the genesis of first speakers of Finnic-Ugric dialects is uncertain and complicated. It's possible that these 'europoids' (maybe Y-R1a, not sure) of Volga-Kama were not true Uralic speakers and were "teached" in Uralic by some Y-N1 ou -N3 clade (I'm lost for Y-N because they changed the namings more than a time!), who knows? the relatively late Seyma-Turbino "people" or rather cultural profile had strong influence but are we sure they were the first bearers of Finnic-Ugric languages? The genesis of the languages requires longer time.

ratchet_fan
01-08-20, 00:39
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.

There's apparently samples on the way indicating Proto Uralics were basically Nganasan like not WSHG like. SO they probably looked like this.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/1EtcTOQUpBBj8_cN9yoB4A0v26mloKTfINZ84_mvKMgo5D2AY1 uxFSBbxWV9fjSyKEV6s9EELBLTwW1JX7Sj7r0OsXhNYiFE8fMF vCoVxf5tb9__2wTYiCIkx-y6Cb05I-PO68v9BwqzPiWmxmc
https://joshuaproject.net/assets/media/profiles/photos/p15299.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/14/a3/9a14a3fa32c4c55e9ce73dad3258620a.jpg

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44343&d=1391920298
https://www.sciencesource.com/Doc/TR1_WATERMARKED/8/7/0/e/SS2489057.jpg?d63642421767
https://www.pggpopulation.org/images/population/Nganasan.jpg
https://a.radikal.ru/a42/1808/88/915c8dc2ebae.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Z6vuHGMMXu1i14o0wJ8YfKnF6GspiHWaOeWJU_aBtfb9joeJPM qKUl9D8L-YRJFOBR_2qFAUhPEkUA6cSj85knCspsEM8eMWukyY1wu3g7VI9 5NOMCwxLlu_3aGMwsZ5tgu2IhQqpOzq

MOESAN
01-08-20, 12:14
There's apparently samples on the way indicating Proto Uralics were basically Nganasan like not WSHG like. SO they probably looked like this.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/1EtcTOQUpBBj8_cN9yoB4A0v26mloKTfINZ84_mvKMgo5D2AY1 uxFSBbxWV9fjSyKEV6s9EELBLTwW1JX7Sj7r0OsXhNYiFE8fMF vCoVxf5tb9__2wTYiCIkx-y6Cb05I-PO68v9BwqzPiWmxmc
https://joshuaproject.net/assets/media/profiles/photos/p15299.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9a/14/a3/9a14a3fa32c4c55e9ce73dad3258620a.jpg

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=44343&d=1391920298
https://www.sciencesource.com/Doc/TR1_WATERMARKED/8/7/0/e/SS2489057.jpg?d63642421767
https://www.pggpopulation.org/images/population/Nganasan.jpg
https://a.radikal.ru/a42/1808/88/915c8dc2ebae.jpg
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/Z6vuHGMMXu1i14o0wJ8YfKnF6GspiHWaOeWJU_aBtfb9joeJPM qKUl9D8L-YRJFOBR_2qFAUhPEkUA6cSj85knCspsEM8eMWukyY1wu3g7VI9 5NOMCwxLlu_3aGMwsZ5tgu2IhQqpOzq


Thanks.
The people whose pics you show us are current era period, not the ancient one possibly involved in proto-Uralic people genesis. Some of them show evident traces of crossings with 'europoids' (surely modern Russians, byt perhaps more ancient), as well in the pigmentation aspect as in the bones aspect.
And the fact that Nganassans people should have been the principal sources of Uralic ancestors is far to be proved.