Early European Lineages

epoch said:
On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.
Click to expand...

One more thought: Such plots are always a projection of multi dimensional information down to two-dimensional (sometimes three-dimensional), which means many informations are being sacrificed in order to be able to make a visually comprehensible representation. In the first plot above I noticed that Hungarians cluster closest with both, Swedes and Romanians. I think this not possible. At the same time, many swedish individuals appear much more distant to other swedes than all hungarian individuals. Not to mention Finns. I guess this map exaggerated the recent isolation effects of populations more than their ancestries. Notably the second plot looks different. It depends on the actual samples which principal components are being selected by the algorithm. They can be different each time.
 
ElHorsto said:
One more thought: Such plots are always a projection of multi dimensional information down to two-dimensional (sometimes three-dimensional), which means many informations are being sacrificed in order to be able to make a visually comprehensible representation. In the first plot above I noticed that Hungarians cluster closest with both, Swedes and Romanians. I think this not possible. At the same time, many swedish individuals appear much more distant to other swedes than all hungarian individuals. Not to mention Finns. I guess this map exaggerated the recent isolation effects of populations more than their ancestries. Notably the second plot looks different. It depends on the actual samples which principal components are being selected by the algorithm. They can be different each time.
Click to expand...

Yep, they are drifting.
 
Maciamo said:
Where did you get that info ? There are very few mtDNA studies on Syria, and all the data I have shows 0% of H1 or H3 in Syria.

No it doesn't since H3 is virtually absent from the Near East and Caucasus, and H1 is pretty rare there too compared to Western and Northern Europe. I have many arguments to disprove that the Indo-Europeans (R1a or R1b) spread H1 and/or H3:

1) H1 and H3 reach one of their highest frequency in Sardinia (31.5%), which is the least Indo-European region in all Europe. Sardinia has one of the lowest percentages of haplogroup R1, close to 0% of East European admixture in the Dodecad, and hardly any ANE in this new study. The only R1b in Sardinia dates from the last 2000 years, notably the Roman and Catalan colonisations.

It is a terrible mistake to lump all H subclades together as belonging either to Mesolithic European or to later Near Eastern arrivals (Neolithic or Bronze Age). Haplogroup H was present both in Europe and the Near East since the Palaeolithic. One of the oldest identified H sample is actually from Russia. H has also been found in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Iberia.

I agree that the Beaker expansion could have spread H1 and H3 around Western Europe, but it was surely already present from earlier (Mesolithic & Megalithic) migrations. It just increased their frequency.
Click to expand...

I meant Lebanon, not Syria. My mistake. H1 is at roughly 2.5% total maternal linages comprising a total of 22% of H* in the area, and it's more than 5% in the Caucasus. It's also 2% total in Mespotamia, whose distribution would probably shift to the right if taking only the Northern half or the Kurdish areas. I think that is significant given the diversity of maternal lines in this area.
The high frequency in highly endogamous populations like the Taureg (70%) are not so impressive, neither is the 27% in Northern Iberia where other factors are probably responsible for the unusual frequencies of haplogroups here.

I have always thought H* began spreading into Europe in the Neolithic (not IE). It makes sense that it would be found with LBK or Rossen Cultures, etc. These cultures spread from the East and brought H* with it.

1) H1 and H3 reach one of their highest frequency in Sardinia (31.5%), which is the least Indo-European region in all Europe. Sardinia has one of the lowest percentages of haplogroup R1, close to 0% of East European admixture in the Dodecad, and hardly any ANE in this new study. The only R1b in Sardinia dates from the last 2000 years, notably the Roman and Catalan colonisations.
Click to expand...

That makes sense because H1 is a Middle Eastern lineage found in a population (at 31%) autosomally closest to (NNE) Neolithic Near Easterners, not Mesolithic Hunter Gatherers who re-populated Europe from Spain.

edit. answer to first question. Roostaul et al, 2007
 
Maciamo said:
That's a possibility. It's just a bit hard to imagine how I1 remained isolated from the numerous LBK-related Neolithic cultures in Germany and Poland for nearly three millennia (c. 5500 to 2800 BCE), then that the R1a expansion of the Corded Ware culture picked up almost exclusively I1 and I2a2 lineages with them to Scandinavia, while the majority of Neolithic lineages in the region must have been Near Eastern (E, G, J, T). Even if I1 and I2a2 did maintain their hunter-gathering lifestyle, living in completely secluded communities side-by-side with the Neolithic farmers, how could I1 lineages have become so numerous in comparison to all other haplogroups, even exceeding the R1a of the Chalcolithic invaders at a ratio of 2:1 ? It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Do we have an idea of the absolute regional population size at the beginning of the Chalcolithic vs. at the end? Without looking, I would guess it to be a significant change, which may mean that the original ratios would not tell much. YDNA looks really susceptible to drifting away from original ratios, particularly during periods of rapid expansion and decline.

I'm wondering if there is a clue about YDNA ratio changes in our new-found evidence that the local I2a1b not only got to a smaller percentage, but was wiped out.

Maciamo said:
If I2a-Din had a relatively southern expansion some time after the adoption of farming, then it makes more sense that I2a-Din spread relatively early, first with the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture (4800-3000 BCE), then with the Proto-Thracians of the Multi-cordoned ware culture (2200-1800 BCE), and eventually with the Daco-Thracians and Illyrians, rather than with the Slavs several millennia later. Wouldn't it ?
Click to expand...

I don't think the data precludes either scenario yet. My point was only about when your proposed STR dating failures would kick in. If your "Cucuteni-Tripillian etc." scenario is true, wouldn't the STR dating failures have stopped by the beginning of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture? Meaning that I2a-Din ought to date older than it does using conventional STR dating models?
 
sparkey said:
I don't think the data precludes either scenario yet. My point was only about when your proposed STR dating failures would kick in. If your "Cucuteni-Tripillian etc." scenario is true, wouldn't the STR dating failures have stopped by the beginning of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture? Meaning that I2a-Din ought to date older than it does using conventional STR dating models?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand what you meant. The problem is that we don't know for sure that I2b1 became Neolithic farmers (Cucuteni-Tripillian culture or other), and without knowing that it is impossible to know how to adjust the age. Even if we knew it is still hard to estimate the true historical population size. Not all Neolithic populations were equal. Some grew faster because they lived in unusually fertile lands or experience few periods of wars or diseases. But even that is not set firmly neither in space, nor in time. Climate evolves over the centuries and millennia. The natural environment gets depleted. Epidemics happen...

There are such a long list of unknown factor for each region century after century that I do not see how it is possible to make accurate age estimations using the same method for every region, every type of society (hunter-gatherers vs farmers vs herders) and every historical period. It's far more complicated than to try to predict the evolution of the stock exchange. Both have a lot of data to take into account, but at least for the modern economy we have reliable facts and data, whereas for prehistory we hardly know 1% of what the climatic, political and economic circumstances were for each generation before the invention of writing.

Just to give one practical example, how do you compute the age of I2a1 subclades if some subclades remained hunter-gatherers in parts of Europe, while others adopted agriculture during the same period and develop much faster ? Without knowing that at least one of the two ages will be completely wrong.
 
epoch said:
On fennoscandia they have an interesting comparison:

http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-1-and-modern-european-variation.html
http://fennoscandia.blogspot.no/2013/09/la-brana-2-and-modern-european-variation.html

La Brana 2 clusters with Swedes there.

EDIT: With Sami shown separate from Swedes, that is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, yet one third thought on this: The Saami have some siberian admixture (~14%), whereas the Swedes and La Brana have almost none. This siberian could represent an additional obstacle for La Brana to cluster with Saami and an incentive to cluster with Swedes instead (in certain specific plots only), even if their shared ancestry else were major, like 90%.
 
Last edited:
bicicleur said:
My guess : R arrived in Ukraine 15000 years ago (coming from Mal'ta?) :

http://archaeology.about.com/od/ancienthouses/g/mammoth_huts.htm

They were mammoth hunters, in summer they went hunting more north.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezine

That is how ANE and WHG first met.
Click to expand...

Unlikely, More likely this Mal'ta individual came from somewhere in Central Asia.

Since his autosomal DNA is 3/10% North European, 3/10% Caucasus-Gedrosia, 3/10% Amerindian and 1/10% ASI.

There is no R* in Ukraine. And it probably reached Ukraine only as R1a and R1b in two waves.

Since R* is so close to the common origin P* to which also Q belongs to, it is no surprise to find Amerindian like connection in him. I don't use the term admixture on purpose because it is not admixture but a common genetic origin before P* split entirely into East and West Eurasian, so it is no surprise to find in the earliest clades of R* Amerindian genes and I am sure the same will be the case with the earliest forms of Q*.

And this is a good sign for my theory that early Indo-Europeans had likely North Euro and Caucasus-Gedrosia genes.
 
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...
 
Last edited:
When we think of wholesale population replacement, we often attribute it to victory in warfare or some esoteric cultural advantage. One needs only to travel the Deep South in the U.S. to see that population growth can have a unique and unpredictable pathway when DNA is writing the script.

In the Southern U.S., slavery served an enormous boost (genitically speaking-- going by offspring produced in the Americas) to paternal lines previously found in sub-Sahara Africa (mainly hg's A and E). Obviously there are tremendous disadvantages that come with this method of expansion. My point only is that we need to examine all possible scenerios when examing the mysteries of historical population growth.
 
LeBrok said:
This actually shows that old clads can be replaced with new "improved" (more adapted) ones rather quickly and without big difficulties. It can explain quick dominance of some R1bs and I2a-Dinaric. Pretty much in agreement what you were always suspecting.
Click to expand...

But wait a minute-- doesn't I1 enjoy a number advantage in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Western Finland? (compared to the R1b's). Huh, I guess that would make hg. I1 the "new and improved version". Thank you Lebrok, I didn't know you had it in you! :)
 
nordicquarreler said:
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...
Click to expand...

Wait for the Aryan/Sarmatian/Slav attack. :LOL:
 
nordicquarreler said:
I've been trying to come up with a solution that would cover both the autosomal findings of this paper and the y-dna maps that we find today... the way I see it is that there are only two possible solutions.

1. R1b in it's various clades have actually been in Europe far longer than the current estimates show. (Possible under the parameters of this paper because the authors prove only that hg. I was present in Europe during the mesolithic, not that R1b or R1 wasn't present too). OR


2. R1b (and R1a for that matter) somehow dribbled into the European theater much more slowy than we had previously imagined. This idea may sound pretty far outside of the box, but what if early R clades were brought westward as captured slaves? This event would have allowed small founding population of R males to establish (like slow burning embers) while not impacting the European autosomal admixture to a large degree. You can laugh if you want, but isn't this what we have see in Iceland? And what about the Scottish males that were captured by the Vikings... who then successfully grafted onto the Norway populations over time?

Food for thought...
Click to expand...

The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?
 
epoch said:
The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?
Click to expand...

As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.
 
Idun said:
As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.
Click to expand...

Or possibly Uralic and Indo-Europeans were basically of the same stock. On a high level connections between the language families have been found, possibly beyond simple loanwords. The hunter-gatherer bearing mtDNA H comes from the neighbourhood of Karelia.

Where we need to keep in mind that language similarities not always mean genetic ties.
 
Idun said:
As Finnics are basically proto Indo-European in their haplogroups, what is your theory on how the Uralic elite dominated and assimilated them? With threat of violence or just the pure prestige of their beautiful language.
Click to expand...


I doubt that most of the ancient time Indo-Europeans were dominated by Uralic speakers. It appears more like Indo-Europeans more and more replaced Uralic speakers in East Europe. From Corded Ware in Northeast Europe to Scythians in the steppes and Ural mountains.

The reason why Uralic speakers share Haplogroups with Indo-European speakers is because of related origin. Since Dravidian, Caucasian, Uralic, Indo-European share one origin.
 
Last edited:
epoch said:
The only known mesolithic hunter-gatherer with mtDNA H outside of Iberia and Italy is found in a Northwestern Russian site called "Small Reindeer Island". While most samples from there are actually mtDNA U and its subclades, quite a number also C we do have a known H there.

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296

Now check Mal'ta in K=20: He has a quarter Kalash admixture! The Kalash are pale skinned, blue eyed and there is quite some blonde hair: They are called the Pakistan whites. They are connected to Indo-Europeans, even though their mtDNA as well as Y-DNA shows a lot of other influences.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2013/12/23/001552.DC1/001552-1.pdf

This does not mean that Mal'ta was the forefather of the Kalash. It does mean, however, that a genetic pool existed that connects ancient north-Eurasian from this study - which is baasically Ma'ta - to Indo-Europeans living somewhere in central Eurasia. Since we know that Yamna culture already had H, HV and U combined, was blonde haired and blue eyed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-remains-Y-DNA-mtDNA-hair-color-and-eye-color

Now, we know that at least two examples of mesolithic WHG were darkhaired and of dark pigmentation - I really would like to know if we need to think melanesian of olive skinned here - and that EEF were darkhaired and fair skinned. That leaves only the Indo-Europeans to bring in the blonde blue eyed part of Europe.

We know mal'ta was dark skinned - again, how dark I can't find but he shows slight relation to Andamese and Melanese - but Mal'ta seems like a mixture himself. That would seem to make calculating the admixture percentage of that part a bit skewed. So when we look at a tiny ANE admixture we might actually look at a part of the actual Indo-European admixture. The rest would be looking like WHG: Related to the Karelian samples

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003296.t001/originalimage

Does this sound like a start to a solution?
Click to expand...

What it sounds like is that you are trying very hard to prove blonde hair and blue eyes come from somewhere other than Europe.
 
I know that hair and eye colour aren't dependent on haplotype, but I have Y haplotype I1, and have golden brown hair (now with some grey) and blue eyes. I wonder how many other I1 people who have a predominantly northern European background (as most I1s do) have light hair and blue eyes? I suspect both light hair and blue eyes developed somewhere in Europe, with light hair developing perhaps among blue eyed people who were predominantly I1. Although it's becoming somewhat of a mystery where I1 originated, there's not much doubt that it was somewhere in Europe.
 
Aberdeen said:
I know that hair and eye colour aren't dependent on haplotype, but I have Y haplotype I1, and have golden brown hair (now with some grey) and blue eyes. I wonder how many other I1 people who have a predominantly northern European background (as most I1s do) have light hair and blue eyes? I suspect both light hair and blue eyes developed somewhere in Europe, perhaps among people who were predominantly I1. Although it's becoming somewhat of a mystery where I1 developed, there's not much doubt that it was somewhere in Europe.
Click to expand...

I have medium brown hair and blue eyes (which is pretty typical), although i was blond/light brown until puberty pretty much (which is also fairly typical). The only general thing i can see among the I1's in my family is that they are/were big and robust, and seem to have a talent for unarmed combat. xD My father and grandfather are actually darker than average in terms of skin and hair tone, but both have light eyes and were fair in childhood.
 
Same for my grandfather; italian origin, I2a, hi liter wooly blond hair and extreme light blue/grey eyes. These features seem more common in I lineage males, I actually posted a photo of him in the guess the ethnicity section....remarkably handsome man, my mother passed his looks to me although I have brown hair and brown eyes!
 
It's funny cause in terms of what I know, everything other than my direct paternal T marker is European! (2x mtdna H and 1x y-DNA I2a, although there's much more to a persons genome of course). I look a lot like my maternal grandfather but with straight brown hair and brown eyes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 75979 times.

Back
Top