Isn't some of this just a function of how ADMIXTURE works? The "North Euro" cluster is the set of alleles "modal" or most common in Northern Europe today. It "hides" within it alleles from past migrations and more "basal" groups. Wouldn't any "Gedrosia" or "West Asian" or any other cluster of alleles show up only if they were in addition to or excess over whatever is aggregated into the North Euro cluster? Take a look at the second graphic: K12b expressed as a mixture of K7b components. "North Euro" there looks to have about 10% "West Asian". Or look at K12b for a comparison in terms of the World 9 components. So far as I know, in these runs "North Euro" is actually Northeast Euro. So, doesn't it stand to reason that "Northwest Euro" would show an excess of some more southern or southeastern "components"? What is showing in these runs could just be the excess.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some differences based on different migration patterns and the gradual dilution of the Yamnaya Indo-European autosomal signature as time went on, as Maciamo pointed out. There's also the explicit statement in the body of the Haak et al paper that there was a "resurgence" in pre-Yamnaya ancestry. Some of that "resurgence" might just be that the "autochonous" stock as they would be defined at that time weren't being buried in tombs that would have survived.

As to the Baltic area, Finland in particular, or even some of the northern forest steppe areas, I do think that their actual "Yamnaya Indo-European" descent genetically might not be as high as it appears in Figure 3 of the paper, because that's partly just reflecting their high levels of EHG. They seem to have gotten some effect from Yamnaya, however. Some of their 44% EN has to come via Yamnaya. I don't think the TRB got that far, and even if they did, I doubt they were numerous enough to have that kind of impact all the way into the Baltics and Finland. Plus, the mtDna in that part of the world is different from that in western Europe. It has a more specifically "West Asian" cast, as opposed to Cardial and LBK, as if it came due north from the Near East.

Culturally, of course, they adopted the "Yamnaya Indo-European" package of the groups to their south. I'm not sure about the language. Could it have been Uralic? This is wild speculation, but look at the EDAR results in SHG. If that is accurate, it's far too early to be attributed to recent gene flow from Siberia.

I'm not married to any of these ideas, of course. I'm just trying to use what I know of admixture to correlate those results with what I know is closer to the "truth"...i.e. the formal stats in Haak et al.

So it could simply be that Northeast Europeans are "Indo Europinized" local H&G and Farmers. That is a possibility. I don't think Uralic had yet evolved.
 
Last edited:
I feel as if I'm watching a dog chasing its tail. And why are these ancient remains being classified as part Armenian-like if Armenians are more recent? Why aren't we saying that Armenian is Yamnaya-like?

This is because, as already pointed out quite a few times, Even if you replace Armenian with any other Western Asian group the genetic closeness to Yamna still remains. If you actually replace it with Iraqi Jew it is higher. And there is no other group in the Steppes which could be the source for it. Therefore this must be real "West Asian" input into Yamna.
 
This is because, as already pointed out quite a few times, Even if you replace Armenian with any other Western Asian group the genetic closeness to Yamna still remains. If you actually replace it with Iraqi Jew it is higher. And there is no other group in the Steppes which could be the source for it. Therefore this must be real "West Asian" input into Yamna.

I'm well aware that some west Asian groups seem to be a mixture of Middle Eastern early farmer and EHG. I'm just saying it seems strange to me to call this mixture Armenian or Armenian like when found among Yamnaya, considering that Yamnaya seems to have preceded the existence of Armenians. It's similar to the point I was making about Corded Ware - CW is genetically connected to Yamnaya but I think it's a mistake to call it Yamnaya like when it preceded Yamnaya and embodied a different cultural package
 
I'm well aware that some west Asian groups seem to be a mixture of Middle Eastern early farmer and EHG. I'm just saying it seems strange to me to call this mixture Armenian or Armenian like when found among Yamnaya, considering that Yamnaya seems to have preceded the existence of Armenians. It's similar to the point I was making about Corded Ware - CW is genetically connected to Yamnaya but I think it's a mistake to call it Yamnaya like when it preceded Yamnaya and embodied a different cultural package

You still didn't seem to have understand it. I agree that the notion "Armenian like" might be wrong. But it is right to call it Near Eastern.
Why don't you understand that if a genetic component which is found in ALL Near Easterners, but not in any other group beside Yamna, must have been from the Near East.
We cant call a component "Yamna" if we actually try to break up the Yamna genome. There is no other source which might have possibly given this admixture to Yamna.

Or are you saying we should assume that Bedouins in Arabia are Yamna admixed, because this genes are also found in same.
 
You still didn't seem to have understand it. I agree that the notion "Armenian like" might be wrong. But it is right to call it Near Eastern.
Why don't you understand that if a genetic component which is found in ALL Near Easterners, but not in any other group beside Yamna, must have been from the Near East.
We cant call a component "Yamna" if we actually try to break up the Yamna genome. There is no other source which might have possibly given this admixture to Yamna.

Or are you saying we should assume that Bedouins in Arabia are Yamna admixed, because this genes are also found in same.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying that Yamnaya was a mixture of Russian hunter gatherer types and a Middle Eastern population that no longer exists. The fact that the Armenians are one of the populations that are somewhat similar to that vanished population doesn't mean we should call it Armenian. And when I say that some west Asians seem to be a mixture of that Middle Eastern population and other populations so may be partly Yamnaya, I'm talking about groups like Iranians. I don't know why you're classifying Arabian Bedouins as west Asians.
 
never heard of gedrosia in russia and siberian ...gedrosia is on the coast of the india ocean in modern eastern iran

http://www.antiquaprintgallery.com/...rosia-sw-asia-arrowsmith1828-map-198924-p.asp

north of Gedrosia was ancient ARIANA ....................some say means home of Aryans

Makran is the "capital" of Gedrosian ..............some say origin of LT-P326 marker

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/359318/Makran

genes are genes and poolings are poolings
so genes present in Siberia 40000 BC were come there from Baluchis of today after a quick travel back in time???
or are they not rather allover spred old genes we find today concentrated in Pakistan and NW Europe pooled with truly southern genes?
 
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. I'm saying that Yamnaya was a mixture of Russian hunter gatherer types and a Middle Eastern population that no longer exists. The fact that the Armenians are one of the populations that are somewhat similar to that vanished population doesn't mean we should call it Armenian. And when I say that some west Asians seem to be a mixture of that Middle Eastern population and other populations so may be partly Yamnaya, I'm talking about groups like Iranians. I don't know why you're classifying Arabian Bedouins as west Asians.

I don't see the issue here. According to formal stats the mystery ancient population which admixed with the EHG to produce the Samara Yamnaya Indo-Europeans can best be described as a population similar to modern Iraqi Jews and Armenians. If we didn't have an EEF genome, I'm sure the Reich group would have been able to model the peopling of Europe as involving a population that is very " modern Sardinian like". We all know now that indeed the EEF are very "Sardinian like" or vice versa.

What's the problem, therefore, with describing the Near Eastern mystery population as "Armenian like"? Do the authors or hobbyists really have to say every single time that Yamnaya can best be modeled as a population that is approximately 50% "ancient Karelian like" and 50% an ancient Near Eastern population that is most like modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews?

Perhaps this is one of those points on which we have to agree to disagree.
 
I don't see the issue here. According to formal stats the mystery ancient population which admixed with the EHG to produce the Samara Yamnaya Indo-Europeans can best be described as a population similar to modern Iraqi Jews and Armenians. If we didn't have an EEF genome, I'm sure the Reich group would have been able to model the peopling of Europe as involving a population that is very " modern Sardinian like". We all know now that indeed the EEF are very "Sardinian like" or vice versa.

What's the problem, therefore, with describing the Near Eastern mystery population as "Armenian like"? Do the authors or hobbyists really have to say every single time that Yamnaya can best be modeled as a population that is approximately 50% "ancient Karelian like" and 50% an ancient Near Eastern population that is most like modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews?

Perhaps this is one of those points on which we have to agree to disagree.

There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.
 
There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.

Now I understand you. We indeed don't yet know where it came from, and I too have considered whether it could have entered the steppe from the west. The ANE portion of that ancestry would have to be explained, however, or "West Asian", Gedrosian or whatever, which has not shown up in any "farmers" from Europe.

I know, it's tail chasing time, yes?:grin:
 
Now I understand you. We indeed don't yet know where it came from, and I too have considered whether it could have entered the steppe from the west. The ANE portion of that ancestry would have to be explained, however, or "West Asian", Gedrosian or whatever, which has not shown up in any "farmers" from Europe.

I know, it's tail chasing time, yes?:grin:

Well, we know that Y haplotype R probably originated somewhere in Asia and had thousands of years to develop, so some parts of it could have migrated to just about anywhere. I suspect most of the R1a portion just drifted north and west to end up mostly in eastern Europe, without a lot of mixing, so remained high in ANE until some R1a mixed with Neolithic farmers in eastern Europe to become Corded Ware. The R1b could have moved west across the steppe to mix with farmers in the Ukraine and/or Balkans, then moved east back on to the steppe when a drought made pastoralism a better bet.

Yah, I'm making me dizzy. And that isn't the only possible scenario, but I think it is one possible scenario. I've decided that the big problem with the Mykop idea, beloved by many, is that although there's considerable evidence of cultural flow, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of significant population flow in archeological terms. And we don't yet have the DNA data needed to test that idea. But those mountains may well have been a significant barrier to gene movement.
 
There is no problem when professional geneticists refer to an Armenian like population, after having explained what it means. There isn't too much of a problem when amateurs refer to an Armenian like population. There is a problem when some amateurs assume that the "Armenian" (rather than "Armenian like") component must have come from a particular location because it's close to where modern Armenians live. I realize some people think the "Armenian like" component probably came from the Caucasus simply because the Caucasus is fairly close to Samara. But after looking at the archeological evidence, I've slowly come to the conclusion that the Armenian like portion of Yamnaya may have entered the steppe from the west, and I don't think calling the Middle Eastern originating influence in Yamnaya "Armenian like" should blind us to that possibility.


I think you are actually having a reading comprehension problem. I have tried to explain a few times that it is not wrong to assume a component must have come from an area where modern Armenians live, if this signal is strong with whatever population of the Near East you replace them with. However that doesn't mean Armenians originate ultimately in the Near East and have not received any additional Yamna ancestry. It's just that this genes which connect Armenians to Yamna also occur in other Near Easterners who have absolutely nothing to do with Yamna, so therefore this must be a Near Eastern component.

In the words of Dienekes. "If we assumed that this signal is actually Yamna showing up in Armenians, we wouldn't see the same signal in Iraqi Jews and even Bedouins."

However if you are assuming that all Middle Easterners are partly descend of Yamna or at least a large portion of their genes might have come from somewhere outside the region. Than this might work.

But than may I ask why is it reasonable to assume that a component, which was not found in any other ancient samples, might have originated somewhee else, but totally blend out or ignore the possibility that we will find EHG like ancestry in South_Central Asia and therefore this might have it's ultimate origin there?


Back to the "Near Eastern" ancestry in Yamna. We know this kind of genes today peak in Southeastern Iran(Southwestern Asia), and get weaker in any directions. We know that this component is by some majority ENF.

We know that there is no other component in South_Central Asia sharing close relationship to it (Gedrosia), but we know that it has a very close relationship to Caucasus. Therefore a logical conclusion would be, most of these both components origin must have emerged somewhere in close range to each other.

I hope you could follow my bad English until here.


So therefore it doesn't really matter for it's origin, which route this component took. Even if it went through South_Central Asia instead of Caucasus. It must have started somewhere were Caucasus was nearby and where it could have picked up most of it ENF ancestry.

Of course there is still a possibility that this component emerged somewhere else. But the possibility for this is even weaker than the possibility WHG emerged somewhere outside Europe, because we have actual data from Europe, North Eurasia which rather refute the theory that this "Near Eastern" DNA in Yamna might have come from somewhere else, but no ancient data from Western or South_Central Asia which would yet refute the possibility that some of the "WHG" ancestry might have come from somewhere else.

So I kinda feel it is one sided to speculate about the origin of a rather typical Western Asian component . But never come to the idea to do the same with the EHG like ancestry in Yamna. What if this EHG ancestry in Yamna came from somewhere else outside of North Eurasia_Russia?
 
And to finalize my statement here is the exact quote from Dienekes. For the case my arguments appear too amateurish.

The WHG group has an Fst=0.086 with Armenians, but the LBK farmers have only 0.023. The EHG group has an Fst=0.067 with Armenians, but the Yamnaya steppe people have only 0.030. Someone might argue that it is the Armenians that are receiving genes from Europe, but the same pattern holds even for the Bedouins, for which admixture with Europeans seems far-fetched: 0.106 to 0.043 and 0.093 to 0.060.

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2015/02/a-story-of-69-ancient-europeans.html
 
I didn't say anything about Yamnaya in Middle Eastern populations. I said that we shouldn't assume that the ancient Middle Eastern part of Yamnaya came from where modern Armenia is just because some people are calling that ancient Middle Eastern portion of the Yamnaya mix Armenian like. Armenians are to a considerable extent ancient Middle Eastern like but that doesn't really tell us why Yamnaya was partly ancient Middle Eastern like. That ancient Middle Eastern influence could have reached the Yamnaya from Anatolia by way of the Balkans and Ukraine, which is why I don't think it should be called Armenian like until the route of transmission can be clarified. And you seem to me to be using exactly the kind of sloppy logic I was warning against.
 
Last edited:
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type, which genetically evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe(that doesn't mean that pastoralism didn't exist earlier, just that it changed genetically in the late Bronze Age).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.
 
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type (which evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.

The fact that the Middle Eastern component of Yamnaya doesn't show up in admixtures as EEF (which is something quite specific) does not prove that it could not have come from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.
 
The fact that the Middle Eastern component of Yamnaya doesn't show up in admixtures as EEF (which is something quite specific) does not prove that it could not have come from Cucuteni-Trypillian culture.

It actually does. If we asume that Cucuteni_Trypilian culture is related to other farming cultures of Europe. Than it should show EEF type farmer DNA just like all the other farming cultures there. Even Iron Age Balkan farmer DNA was typically EEF. There is not much room left.

I remember Reich (not sure if it was Eurogenes quoting him or his own opinion) said the fact that the farmer DNA is typical for modern Near Easterners. Speaks for a direct introduction from the Near East and not a detour through Europe.

The only possibility left for a CT origin of this farmer DNA, is to assume that this culture was a rather recent wave of farmer migrants from the Near East, who differed from the early Neolithic farmers who reached Europe earlier.
 
Last edited:
@Aberdeen

But that question should have been answered already by the HAAK,Reich papers.
It is unlikely that the "Near Eastern" portion came from West (via Europe) because it was atypical for European farmers (Yamna had close to zero EEF) and was more of the late Neolithic highlander type, which genetically evolved with ANE admixture after some ENF had already left for Europe(that doesn't mean that pastoralism didn't exist earlier, just that it changed genetically in the late Bronze Age).

The Farmer DNA in the Balkans was pred. EEF even up until the Iron Age.
Thats the point that makes a Balkan gateway unlikely and direct through Caucasus or even Central Asia more likely. However we could be all wrong and in future some yet unknown pastoralist population turns up in the Balkans.

But I thought that was already a wide known thing.

The EEF found in germany in the haak paper must surely only have come form north of the Zargos mountains, maybe south-caucasus, because no J or E farmers have been found in Germany.
unless they ( J and E ) where happy to stay in the levant and arabian peninsula
 
just a point (maybe someone already said it?)
Yamnaya of Samara are perhaps not the first Yamnaya culture people? Not fully typical? Target and not source? it could explain the break between their Y-R1b and our Y-R1b? (I avow it destroys one of my ancient hypothesis about Y-R1b road towards West, at first sight)
apart: some autosomes plottings concerning Unetice are interesting: one shows 1 Unetice man among the Cordeds, 1 other man among BBs, the most numerous in the middle! it confirms the statute of new osmosis culture for Unetice (as said Henri HUBERT and others archeologists)
nos vad deoc'h oll!
 
The average of the 7 Bell Beaker samples is close to South_Dutch on the Eurogenes K15_population_averages spreadsheet:

PopulationBell Beaker AverageSouth_Dutch
North_Sea30.7571429.95333
Atlantic27.0826.93
Baltic12.5357110.5
Eastern_Euro10.635719.053333
West_Med9.0611.43333
West_Asian5.0171434.74
East_Med0.7328574.516667
Red_Sea0.291.396667
South_Asian0.9257140.673333
Southeast_Asian0.010.116667
Siberian0.6057140.316667
Amerindian1.8142860.153333
Oceanian0.1314290.043333
Northeast_African0.0814290.113333
Sub-Saharan0.3171430.06

Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.

The Bell Beakers also carried a bit of the Siberian component. One was 2.43% and another was 1.51%. This is very uncommon from what I've seen of Ancient DNA of Western Eurasians to have this much Siberian. I have a little over 1% percent Siberian in Eurogenes K15, which is a complete mystery to me. And I have zero Southeast Asian, Amerindian and Oceanian there, and just 6.84% Eastern Euro. Maybe much of my Siberian has been floating around in Western Europe since the Bell Beakers - or maybe it wouldn't be so high if I got more markers tested.
 
The average of the 7 Bell Beaker samples is close to South_Dutch on the Eurogenes K15_population_averages spreadsheet:

PopulationBell Beaker AverageSouth_Dutch
North_Sea30.7571429.95333
Atlantic27.0826.93
Baltic12.5357110.5
Eastern_Euro10.635719.053333
West_Med9.0611.43333
West_Asian5.0171434.74
East_Med0.7328574.516667
Red_Sea0.291.396667
South_Asian0.9257140.673333
Southeast_Asian0.010.116667
Siberian0.6057140.316667
Amerindian1.8142860.153333
Oceanian0.1314290.043333
Northeast_African0.0814290.113333
Sub-Saharan0.3171430.06

Maybe the Bell Beakers contributed more to modern Western Europeans than we give them credit for.

The Bell Beakers also carried a bit of the Siberian component. One was 2.43% and another was 1.51%. This is very uncommon from what I've seen of Ancient DNA of Western Eurasians to have this much Siberian. I have a little over 1% percent Siberian in Eurogenes K15, which is a complete mystery to me. And I have zero Southeast Asian, Amerindian and Oceanian there, and just 6.84% Eastern Euro. Maybe much of my Siberian has been floating around in Western Europe since the Bell Beakers - or maybe it wouldn't be so high if I got more markers tested.

I agree for the most concerning components %s - THIS BB AVERAGE shows a bit more central asian elements, -
the question for me is: what is BB people? at what time AND WHERE? we credit what was firstable a small number of pioneers fo the populating of all Western Europe: but I suppose the BBs we find in Germany are partly acculturated tribes and not the genuine previous prospectors - they mixed with local people and took their females in more than a place - the homogeneization in Central Europe between Atlantic populations and Central Europe populations was begun, I think, during the mMegalithic,
 

This thread has been viewed 126258 times.

Back
Top