How far were ANE/EHG/WSHG spread?

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
If you believe y N and ENA are post Neolithic phenomenons what was between the Urals and Baikal?
 

This thread has been viewed 20397 times.

Back
Top