The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

[Tomenable]

It says Bride kidnapping was quite uncommon but became common as a protest against the Soviets who forbid that.

OK but among Proto-Indo-Europeans it could be more common, check this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I#t=4m23s

 

[Fire Haired14]

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

The amount of ANE in Northern Europe is so high it needs a big chunk of EHG. Some methods aren't capable doing some models well. PCA isn't good at modelling CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF ancestry. The reason is West Eurasian diversity in PCAs is determined by Basal Eurasian, WHG, and ANE. Because of this Basal Eurasian in CHG can be absorbed by EEF and vice versa. Non-Basal Eurasian stuff in EHG can be absorbed by WHG.

That's what happened in the results from Anthrogencia. HungaryHG is absorbing EHG ancestry and Kotias is absorbing EEF ancestry. Also Kotias is absorbing ANE from EHG. Formal stats will quickly reject 24%+ CHG ancestry in Northern Europe.

We literally have documentation of extremely Yamnaya-like people all over Eastern Europe during the Late Neolithic; Corded Ware. I doubt the current narrative of Yamnya-like people bringing EHG and CHG to Europe will change. It has been a mystery why Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans need extra doses of WHG which can't be explained by Middle Neolithic farmers. UkraineHGs might help to explain this. So there might be some UkraineHG type stuff in Europe but the current narrative isn't going to change much.

 

[Tomenable]

So mtDNA haplogroups W6a and W6c among the PIE were most certainly from CHG.

Are there any other mtDNA haplogroups present among the PIE that could be from CHG?

and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups

Do you think that farmers of the Trypillian culture could be highly WHG admixed?

Is there a chance that we will ever get some DNA samples from that culture?

IIRC, they usually practiced cremation.

 

[Tomenable]

Basically all of non-U mtDNA among the Yamnaya could be from CHG.

Because nearly all of EHG were U, except for two C1g from Karelian EHG:

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

Some of EHG mtDNA could be originally from ANE (including Karelian C).

There are also samples of C (including C4a2) in Dnieper-Donets culture:

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

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

We can divide mtDNA of Early Bronze Age Steppe people into 3 groups:

1) All of U = WHG/EHG origin
2) All of C = ANE/EHG origin
3) Others = CHG/EEF origin

What percentages of Yamnaya mtDNA belonged to groups 1), 2) and 3)?

 

[MarkoZ]

The amount of ANE in Northern Europe is so high it needs a big chunk of EHG. Some methods aren't capable doing some models well. PCA isn't good at modelling CHG, EHG, WHG, EEF ancestry. The reason is West Eurasian diversity in PCAs is determined by Basal Eurasian, WHG, and ANE. Because of this Basal Eurasian in CHG can be absorbed by EEF and vice versa. Non-Basal Eurasian stuff in EHG can be absorbed by WHG.

That's what happened in the results from Anthrogencia. HungaryHG is absorbing EHG ancestry and Kotias is absorbing EEF ancestry. Also Kotias is absorbing ANE from EHG. Formal stats will quickly reject 24%+ CHG ancestry in Northern Europe.

We literally have documentation of extremely Yamnaya-like people all over Eastern Europe during the Late Neolithic; Corded Ware. I doubt the current narrative of Yamnya-like people bringing EHG and CHG to Europe will change. It has been a mystery why Late Neolithic/Bronze age Europeans need extra doses of WHG which can't be explained by Middle Neolithic farmers. UkraineHGs might help to explain this. So there might be some UkraineHG type stuff in Europe but the current narrative isn't going to change much.

I think that flogging the dead ANE horse doesn't make much sense at this point. ADMIXTURE analyses have shown that the Karelian hunters are but Scandinavian hunters with some South-West Asian and minor non-West-Eurasian input, perfectly explaining their behaviour in the PCA. Statistical models involving moderns are necessarily going to fall short because the right ancestral populations haven't been sampled in most cases and, also, due to the general loss of heterozygosity. You and others should care less about the narrative and more about the data.

 

[MarkoZ]

Basically all of non-U mtDNA among the Yamnaya could be from CHG.

Because nearly all of EHG were U, except for two C1g from Karelian EHG:

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

Some of EHG mtDNA could be originally from ANE (including Karelian C).

There are also samples of C (including C4a2) in Dnieper-Donets culture:

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

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

We can divide mtDNA of Early Bronze Age Steppe people into 3 groups:

1) All of U = WHG/EHG origin
2) All of C = ANE/EHG origin
3) Others = CHG/EEF origin

What percentages of Yamnaya mtDNA belonged to groups 1), 2) and 3)?

Have you actually looked up the mtDNA of Kotias & Satsurblia?

 

[Tomenable]

Steppe people had a lot of T1a, H6 and I - which could be from CHG (in addition to W6a and W6c):

http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com

Have you actually looked up the mtDNA of Kotias & Satsurblia?

They are just two samples, so not representative at all.

Yamna were a mix of EHG + CHG, and all WHG/EHG belong to haplogroups U and C.

So we can conclude, that anything which was neither U nor C, was from CHG or EEF.

But EEF admixture was either absent or very minor in Yamnaya, see Davidski's posts:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/yamnaya-khvalynsk-extra-chg-maybe.html

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html

 

[MarkoZ]

Steppe people had a lot of T1a, H6 and I - which could be from CHG (in addition to W6a and W6c):

Please stop referring me to these blogs.

Neither Kotias nor Satsurblia had any of these. W6 is widely dispersed, and W6a looks like a generic Eastern European mtDNA.

 

[Tomenable]

Neither Kotias nor Satsurblia had any of these.

These are just TWO samples! This is not representative at all.

W6 is widely dispersed

Greatest diversity and highest frequency is in Caucasus region:

"W6 reaches its highest concentration in modern-day Georgia (5.2% of the population)."

W6a looks like a generic Eastern European mtDNA.

100% of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europeans belonged to:

U8
U6
U5
U4
U2
C1g

There was no any W6a among Mesolithic WHG, EHG or SHG.

 

[MarkoZ]

These are just TWO samples! Not representative at all.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316301091

My tentative hypothesis is that West Asians acquired W6 by kidnapping steppe brides.

 

[Tomenable]

U8 in North Caucasus is from WHG admixture. U8 was also present in Upper Paleolithic Western Europe.

Georgia is a different story because it is separated from Europe by mountains. Unlike North Caucasus.

 

[Tomenable]

Show me Maykop autosomal DNA. I'm sure that they were not 100% CHG.

Just the fact that they had U8 indicates that they had to be WHG-admixed.

 

[MarkoZ]

U8 in North Caucasus is from WHG admixture. U8 was also present in Upper Paleolithic Western Europe.

Georgia is a different story because it is separated from Europe by mountains. Unlike North Caucasus.

But you just said your idea about bridal abduction was based on the mtDNA frequency in modern day Georgia.

 

[Tomenable]

But you just said your idea about bridal abduction was based on the mtDNA frequency in modern day Georgia.

No. At least not primarily on this. It was based on the absence of W6 in EHG, and the presence of W6 in Yamnaya.

Since Yamnaya were a mix of EHG and CHG, and there was no W6 in EHG, this indicates that W6 is from CHG.

Just like T1a, H6 and I - which were also mtDNA haplogroups common in Yamnaya, but absent from EHG.

 

[Tomenable]

All evidence so far indicates that U is the only "native European" mtDNA haplogroup.

All non-U and non-C mtDNA haplogroups entered Europe during the Neolithic or later.

One exception is C, which entered Europe with ANE and was present among the EHG.

So everything which is not U and not C among the Yamnaya, is very likely from CHG.

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

Maybe X is also "native European" (Pre-Neolithic), but there is no evidence for this.

 

[MarkoZ]

All evidence so far indicates that U is the only "native European" mtDNA haplogroup.

All non-U and non-C mtDNA haplogroups entered Europe during the Neolithic or later.

One exception is C, which entered Europe with ANE and was present among the EHG.

So everything which is not U and not C among the Yamnaya, is very likely from CHG.

How many 'EHG' of which we have uniparental markers are there? 8? Out of which 3 are C and 1 is H. Not very homogeneous.

 

[Tomenable]

There is no any certain H in EHG. There is a question mark there ("H?"):

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

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

How many 'EHG' of which we have uniparental markers are there? 8?

Much more than 8. Even from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov alone there are more.

BTW, I'm using EHG in a geographical sense. Pre-Neolithic Eastern Europe.

Out of which 3 are C

And there is more C in Dnieper-Donets later on. This C is obviously from ANE.

 

[MarkoZ]

There is no any certain H in EHG. There is a question mark there ("H?"):

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

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



Much more than 8. Even from Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov alone there are more.

BTW, I'm using EHG in a geographical sense. Pre-Neolithic Eastern Europe.



And there is more C in Dnieper-Donets later on. This C is obviously from ANE.

That's why I wouldn't use sites run by amateurs.

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296&type=printable

 

[Tomenable]

Kotias CHG was H13+, and H13+ was later found in the Steppe (Yamnaya I0370, Poltavka I0374).

Yet more evidence of CHG / Caucasus origins of large part of Yamnaya mtDNA.

Is there any evidence that some of Iranian Neolithic mtDNA was ancestral to some of Yamna mtDNA?

That's why I wouldn't use sites run by amateurs.

Even if that H is true, it is still not specific enough to conclude anything from it.

Which subclade of H was that? This singleton H is as irrelevant as Y-DNA singleton J1 from Karelia.

The vast majority of mtDNA in Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Europe were U.

 

[Alan]

OK but among Proto-Indo-Europeans it could be more common, check this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I#t=4m23s

Friend you are giving Bride kidnapping too much credit and it doesn't work in the sense you would need it to work for your theory. Bride kidnapping was quite common among my people and still happens but it is not the way you think. Bride kidnapping happens especially among people of the same or nearby villages/towns. The guy knows the girl, but her parents are against it or he wants her but can't afford the bride money (in the past it was usual in my region to pay with gold as exchange for the bride, generally their was/is a weird fettish for gold). In the past I assume it was gold and or other goods like horses or cattle. In the North Caucasus they do that too in the same way. There was a video I can't find anymore.

But as I pointed out above, for that to happen the groups need to had interacted with each other already in that much way that they definitely had mixed earlier.