Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

Thats why I said some of the WHG gets probably eaten up by Yamna. Most likely explanation is, that their WHG was brought to them via Yamna. I am also very convinced that 1/3of the ENF geats eaten up by Yamna.

But something else. Hasn't anyone of you realized that the Neolithic T1a* sample is almost as much Yamna as CW is?
What if this T1a guy was actually Indo European who arrived in mainland Europe earlier than the major Indo European migration?

semagyl the russian site, which uses only 67 markers or above , has TL-P326 only in the caucasus ( north and south ). and P326 is the SNP which pre-dates the T and L haplogroup split........

maybe someone should seperate all the haplogroups from the paper into seperate groups by the chart represented also in the paper.
 
This thread is very interesting but what I do not understand is why R1B is at such high rates in British Isles and Western Europe ,while is at lower rates in South Italy,in Balkans,in Eastern Europe.

If there was a relatively under populated gap to the west of LBK

http://what-when-how.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tmp3517_thumb1.jpg

then if they had some advantage that made it possible for them to thrive in that gap they could have expanded rapidly to fill it.
 
Caucaso-Gedrosian component among R1b (Yamnaya & Anatolian folks) is not from the Balkans, or is it? R1b-Z2103 is full of Caucaso-Gedrosian component, what means it's NATIVE to Anatolia!

Don't misunderstand me. I have always said that R1b came from West Asia, and even domesticated cattle there before moving to the Pontic Steppe. But that was R1b-P297 or M269, not Z2103, which appeared in the steppe then migrated back to Anatolia.
 
I see ~30% WHG (blue) in this chart.

Haaketal2015-Figure-3_zpsf94c99b9.jpg

So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.
 
the R1b-P297 could be Z2103 as well, he tested L51-

all 8 are 3300-2600 BC, long after the split of the Anatolian branch

Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.
 
whats you opinion then, that in the chart , karlsdorf is second only to corded ware for Yamnya ( and worst for early neolithic ) and yet this T1a ( with his H1 mtdna ) is part of this group

If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.

The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.
 
Well Maciamo and how can you explain the distribution of R1B if it came from West Asia through Pontic Steppe,in Europe,compared with how R1B is in current day Europe?
Romans,Germanics,Celts,all bearers of mainly R1B branches were all great warriors,why is no more R1B in Eastern Europe?
If you look at the distribution of R1B,taking Germanic speaking countries it rather seems that they have came from Northern Europe and spread towards South East Europe,for example in Austria there still is a high percentage of R1B and in the same time the South Eastern border of Germanic speakers .
I am not saying that R1B people did not came through Pontic Steppes into Europe,I am just finding hard to believe this,considering the current distribution of R1b in Europe.
 
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

I think is correct.
I do not see Finns,in this graph,I think they have even more HG than Estonians.
Would be even more interesting to see some genetic testing of ancient Norwegian vikings,how much Yamnaya they were having.
 
I know that some Finns will get upset about this,but check this interesting theory about the name of Sami which could also be related to the name of Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sami_people#Etymologies
...
"The first known historical mention of the Sami, naming them Fenni, was by Tacitus, about 98 A.D.[13] Variants of Finn or Fenni were in wide use in ancient times, judging from the names Fenni and Phinnoi in classical Roman and Greek works. Finn (or variants, such as skridfinn, "striding Finn") was the name originally used by Norse speakers (and their proto-Norse speaking ancestors) to refer to the Sami, as attested in the Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas (11th to 14th centuries). The etymology is somewhat uncertain, but the consensus seems to be that it is related to Old Norse finna, from proto-Germanic *finthanan ("to find"),[14] the logic being that the Sami, as hunter-gatherers "found" their food, rather than grew it. It has been suggested, however, that it may originally have been a more general term for "northern hunter gatherers", rather than referring exclusively to the Sami, which may explain why two Swedish runestones from the 11th century apparently refer to what is now southwestern Finland as Finland. Note that in Finnish, Finns (inhabitants of Finland) do not refer to themselves as Finns. As Old Norse gradually developed into the separate Scandinavian languages, Swedes apparently took to using Finn exclusively to refer to inhabitants of Finland, while Sami came to be called Lapps. In Norway, however, Sami were still called Finns at least until the modern era (reflected in toponyms like Finnmark, Finnsnes, Finnfjord and Finnøy) and some Northern Norwegians will still occasionally use Finn to refer to Sami people, although the Sami themselves now consider this to be a pejorative term."
.....
According to the history,Vikings were not only raiding,but they were raising animals (goats,pigs,etc) ,fishing and even practice agriculture.
Think that Scandinavia is good example of how Indo-European speaking population interacted with native population,here we have Northern Germans (Vikings) interacting with native Fino-Ugric people,which included also Sami people.

Here some archeological proof,that Vikings were practicing agriculture 1000 years ago,even in Greenland:
http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland


I don't know why the Finns would be upset about that. It's well known that Finnish and Saami languages are closely related (Finno-Samic family) and the two peoples split from one another fairly recently (about 3000 years ago according to Honkola et al. 2013).
 
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

No it simply means large majorty of Tuscan WHG came via Yamna while most WHG in Belarusians and Ukrainians is of pre Yamna origin.
 
Then it means that the original Anatolian branch wasn't Z2103, but P297*, M269* or L23*. Perhaps it is the Cimmerians, the Sarmatians or even the European Scythians who brought Z2103 to the Balkans and Anatolia much later.

Among the original West Asian R1b was certanly m343, m269 and l23* three which are at least found among Kurds there. l23 is very common among Assyrians and Armenians but they seem to lack m343 and m269.
 
Last edited:
So, are we to believe that modern Norwegians have more Yamnaya and less WHG than modern Belarusians and Ukranians and that modern Tuscans have zero WHG? That doesn't make any sense to me. The more I see of these kinds of charts, the more I think they're often misleading.

Norwegians have a higher combined percentage of R1a + R1b than Belarussians and Ukrainians. Plenty of Central Asians invaded eastern Europe over the last 5000 years, almost completely eliminating R1b in the region. I explained 5 years ago that this was why R1b was so low today in its original homeland.

The huge Neolithic population of the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture didn't just vanish in thin air. They were gradually absorbed by PIE people (probably already since the Globular Amphora culture). Don't forget that Cucuteni-Trypillian towns were the largest in the world at the time. That explains the very significant percentage of both male and female Near Eastern lineages in western Ukraine and southern Belarus today.

Additionally, Ukrainians also have partial Greek ancestry in the south (lots of J2a).

It is especially northern Belarus and eastern Ukraine that are very high in R1a, and that is just a sign of higher recent Slavic ancestry, not a sign of more surviving Yamna ancestry. The Slavic branch descends from the Corded Ware and Abashevo cultures, not from Yamna.
 
If you remember I mentioned that the Proto-Indo-Europeans weren't just R1a and R1b, but also carried minority lineages like G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a. I am fairly confident that G2a3b1 and J2b2 came to the Steppe from the Balkans/Carpathians during the Chalcolithic (Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, etc.). However I am still unsure regarding T1a, as it is far more common in northern Mesopotamia and the southeast Caucasus than in southeast Europe. My hypothesis has been that T1a came to the steppe as a minority lineage accompanying R1b from West Asia. If that is the case, then we could expect to find some distant similarities, like some West Asian (Caucaso-Gedrosian) admixture in both Neolithic European T1a and Yamna T1a as they originally hailed from the same region.

The mtDNA H1 just shows that T1a men married Mesolithic European women.


I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Bronze Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...
 
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?
 
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

Seems like Bell beakers originated in Central Europe?
 
I would add to J2b, or replace it with J2a. Since J2a is actually the one Haplgroup found in Iron Age Hungary sample which was French like and since we know French are among the groups with strong affinity to Yamna...

I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.

I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.
 
I have also considered J2a, but that would only apply to some subclades, and I haven't been able to determine which ones. In any case a Proto-Indo-European J2a would have come from the South Caucasus or Kurdistan alongside R1b and T1a, not from the Balkans.

I have proposed many years ago that the J2a of Indian Brahmins was picked up in southern central Asia when R1a Proto-Indo-Iranians mixed with the local population in the BMAC complex, before invading India and Iran. That would explain why the Balto-Slavic R1a branch, or northern European R1b for that matter, do not have any meaningful percentage of J2a.

True but ancient samples have taught us that allot of our understanding of DNA can not be explained with it's modern distribution. The same way with Z2103. If we would have used it's distrbution in modern Europe or South_Central Asia as argument wether it is Indo European or not. We would have drifted completely into the wrong direction.

I do not think J2a was simply picked up by Indo Iranians in Central Asia since the Bronze Age J2a in Hungary doesn't seem very Indo_Iranian to me. Also a Neolithic origin can be excluded. To be honest only an Indo European explanation for it's origin remains.
 
So is the theory, stating that the Bell Beakers originated in Portugal, now bunk? Or is there any doubt that the Beakers were R1B?

Personally I think there are two BB from the same original source but one went by sea to Iberia while the over went overland to Central Europe. Time will tell.
 

This thread has been viewed 369182 times.

Back
Top