Estimating the Y-DNA and autosomal admixtures of Yamnaya samples

Nah :bigsmile: thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme. First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer. Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer) in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East. When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG and the further West and North they went, the higher it became.

Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.

Well, EEF has the benefit of being an actual ancient sample. It remains to be seen how much correlation there will be between the ENF figure in these most recent Eurogenes runs and an actual ENF genome.

I have seen a 39% Eurogenes ENF figure being discussed as a "guesstimate" for Yamnaya Indo-Europeans. Since the figure for Armenians is 78% and Yamnaya is supposedly 50% Armenian like, I can see the logic in that, I suppose. How do you arrive at a 45% guesstimate for the western Yamnaya areas?

Also, given the comment by Nick Patterson recently, do you think there is indeed WHG present in India, for example, to go along with all the R1a?
 
Angela;447685 Also said:
re HG R1a in India ?
are these real anciant R1a clades or is this R1a which was not tested for subclades ?
there is R1a-Z93 in India too. I would be surprised if they were HG. They arrived much to late to find new virgin hunting grounds in India.
 
Nah :bigsmile: thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme.
At this moment 20/60/20 whg/ane/enf is likely too for East Yamna, supposed source of Indo-Iranians. Less than 60% ANE can't explain elevated ANE levels in Middle East where Indo-Iranians settled.


First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer.
Maybe it is not pure admixture, but it is real, from a real person who lived 7k years ago. On other hand ENF doesn't come from a real physical source.


Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer)
I think it is still within a viable guess.
in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East.
I don't think they were much of farmers farther East. They were herders. Besides if they took farming from Cucuteni they should have gotten EEF as last and less, being farthest away. Therefore I don't see them having more ENF than 20%. When they have arrived to Middle East they didn't need to bring ENF there. It was already there in huge proportion.

When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG
Do you mean they caught more WHG from Neolithic Hungarian farmers? You know they came from part of Europe where WHG is still dominant today.

Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.
Right. Slavs came from place where used to be West part of Yamna. It might be proof how much WHG was there to start with. West Ukrainians and Belorussians might be a good proxy for West Yamna.
 
It seems I1 was not a very succesfull hunter compared to I2. If it hadn't been picked up by EEF, it would probably be extinct, so I1 are EEF.

I'm not sure the genome that was constructed to represent EEF is 100 % representative.
I1 is EEF but seems not to be represented by the EEF genome.

If I2 hadn't learned farming from EEF, it would have gone extinct. In fact, it pretty much did in Sweden.
 
It is impossible that I1 expanded with indo european farmers, look at the y dna of Finland.
 
It is impossible that I1 expanded with indo european farmers, look at the y dna of Finland.

Did anyone say that the Y haplogroup I1 didn't begin to expand until the European Bronze Age? Between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age, there's a small period of time called the Neolithic, when EEF farmers entered Europe and some Mesolithic groups managed to learn farming from them. Whether or not us current I1 haplogroup folks are descended from that earliest I1 found in Hungary, Maciamo has suggested that at some point I1 adopted farming and therefore greatly increased in numbers. And, for whatever reason, I1 then moved north into Scandinavia, largely displacing the I2 hunters that had previously dominated the area. We don't have enough data yet to know exactly when I1 expanded in Scandinavia or the Baltic but the I1 adoption of agriculture that made the expansion possible probably happened during the Neolithic.
 
Did anyone say that the Y haplogroup I1 didn't begin to expand until the European Bronze Age? Between the Mesolithic and the Bronze Age, there's a small period of time called the Neolithic, when EEF farmers entered Europe and some Mesolithic groups managed to learn farming from them. Whether or not us current I haplogroup folks are descended from that earliest I1 type found in Hungary, Maciamo has suggested that at some point I1 adopted farming and therefore greatly increased in numbers. And, for whatever reason, I1 then moved north into Scandinavia, largely displacing the I2 hunters that had previously dominated the area. We don't have enough data yet to know exactly when I1 expanded in Scandinavia or the Balkans but the I1 adoption of agriculture that made the expansion possible probably happened during the Neolithic.

That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.
 
That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.

So, what's your explanation for why I1 folk went from apparently not existing in Scandinavia to greatly outnumbering the I2 folk who had previously dominated the area? Any time a haplogroup has increased dramatically in numbers, agriculture has been part of it, since that permits larger families than the hunting and gathering lifestyle does. There are still a lot of gaps in our knowledge of exactly how the modern population of Scandinavia was created, and even more with respect to the Baltic, but can you show me any evidence of a large I1 population that was pre-agriculture?
 
I1 is more diverse in Finland than anywhere else

Where did you get that idea? Finnish I1 is dominated by I1 L22>L287, which is a young branch with a TMRCA of only 2000 years or so. The center of diversity of I1 is certainly south of Finland. The outlier branches (DF29-) are not present in Finland, but are rather found in Germany, Austria, France, Britain, the Czech Republic...
 
I1 is more diverse in Finland than anywhere else

Is that so.
That would be interesting.
Do you have a source for that info?

2700 till 600 BC was a warm climate period, cattle farming was possible in southern Finland, corded ware came till southern Finland
600 BC climate became colder, farmers left southern Finland and Saami and Fennic hunters replaced them
German tribes,who were farmers started to move south
 
If I2 hadn't learned farming from EEF, it would have gone extinct. In fact, it pretty much did in Sweden.

I1 and I2-CTS595 adopted farming 8000 years ago, together with EEF

I2a2 and I2a1b adopted farming much later, together with IE expansion
 
Where did you get that idea? Finnish I1 is dominated by I1 L22>L287, which is a young branch with a TMRCA of only 2000 years or so. The center of diversity of I1 is certainly south of Finland. The outlier branches (DF29-) are not present in Finland, but are rather found in Germany, Austria, France, Britain, the Czech Republic...

Sparkey, if I recall well, you mentioned once I1 was most diverse in southern Denmark.
Is that correct? Do you have a source for that?
 
First of all I1 & I2 did not adopt farming, hunter gather societies lived side by side with farmers as late as 3000 B.C. do I need to post that study too?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...rers-and-immigrant-farmers-lived-side-by-side

"It is commonly assumed that the European hunter-gatherers disappeared soon after the arrival of farmers”, said Dr Ruth Bollongino, lead author of the study. “But our study shows that the descendants of the first European humans maintained their hunter-gatherer way of life, and lived in parallel with the immigrant farmers, for at least 2,000 years. The hunter-gathering way of life only died out in Central Europe around 5,000 years ago, much later than previously thought." - See more at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-arti...rmers-lived-side-by-side#sthash.79K5Dnva.dpuf

That would mean Hunter Gatherers ceased to exist at the same time the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures arose in Europe.


Here is the source for the diversity of I1 in Finland. 9/12 subclades listed here are present in Finland. You can see it is very diverse in Finland.

http://www.goggo.com/terry/HaplogroupI1/y-Haplogroups_I1_and_I2_STR_Branches.pdf

Gvxi67f.jpg
 
That theory is more full if holes than swiss cheese. The only record of farmers moving in to Scandinavia is Funnelbeaker who were EEF autosomally, EEF admixture is completely absent in Finns with 40% I1.

I think you may be misremembering. Even in the new Eurogenes runs they are 26.7% ENF, although I understand there are only 3 samples. (The EEF was close to 30% to the best of my recollection.)
 
So, what's your explanation for why I1 folk went from apparently not existing in Scandinavia to greatly outnumbering the I2 folk who had previously dominated the area? Any time a haplogroup has increased dramatically in numbers, agriculture has been part of it, since that permits larger families than the hunting and gathering lifestyle does. There are still a lot of gaps in our knowledge of exactly how the modern population of Scandinavia was created, and even more with respect to the Baltic, but can you show me any evidence of a large I1 population that was pre-agriculture?

I think that I1 were the hunters that moved into Scandinavia from Finland and lived along the North Coast, I2 were the continential ones that lived along the southern coast of Scandinavia and the North Sea. I2a2 isn't extinct in Scandinavia also, there is still I2a2 and some I2a1. I2a2 exists at in around 10% in some regions of Sweden as does I2a1, together they make up about 7% of the total population. This isn't much but consider that hunter gather mtDNA U5b/a also make up less than 10% of the overall total population. Mesolithic Scandinavia & Nothern Europe in general was entirely different geographically from modern day, maybe I1 even came from Doggerland who knows. The existence in Finland though shows that it expanded independent from any other group.

The Nordic Bronze Age was characterized first by a warm climate that began with a climate change around 2700 BC (comparable to that of present-day central Germany and northern France). The warm climate permitted a relatively dense population and good farming; for example, grapes were grown in Scandinavia at this time. A wetter, colder climate prevailed after a minor change in climate between 850 BC and 760 BC, and a more radical one around 650 BC.

The cultural change that ended the Bronze Age was affected by the expansion of Hallstatt culture from the south and accompanied by a deteriorating climate, which caused a dramatic change in the flora and fauna. In Scandinavia, this period is often called the Findless Age due to the lack of finds. While the finds from Scandinavia are consistent with a loss of population, the southern part of the culture, the Jastorf culture, was in expansion southwards. It consequently appears that the climate change played an important role in the southward expansion of the tribes, considered Germanic, into continental Europe [1]. There are differing schools of thought on the interpretation of geographic spread of cultural innovation, whether new material culture reflects a possibly warlike movement of peoples ("demic diffusion") southwards or whether innovations found at Pre-Roman Iron Age sites represents a more peaceful cultural diffusion. The current view in the Netherlands hold that Iron Age innovations, starting with Hallstatt (800 BC), did not involve intrusions and featured a local development from Bronze Age culture.[13] Another Iron Age nucleus considered to represent a local development is the Wessenstedt culture (800 - 600 BC).

The bearers of this northern Iron Age culture were likely speakers of Germanic languages. The stage of development of this Germanic is not known, although Proto-Germanic has been proposed. The late phase of this period sees the beginnings of the Germanic migrations, starting with the invasions of the Teutons and the Cimbri until their defeat at the Battle of Aquae Sextiae in 102 BC, presaging the more turbulent Roman Iron Age and Age of Migrations.
 
I think you may be misremembering. Even in the new Eurogenes runs they are 26.7% ENF, although I understand there are only 3 samples. (The EEF was close to 30% to the best of my recollection.)

I don't know about Eurogenes, but in the admixtures published with the Kotenski study (see below) Gokhem & Stuttgart looks exactly Oetzi & Sardinia.

KKdHayp.png
 
Sparkey, if I recall well, you mentioned once I1 was most diverse in southern Denmark.
Is that correct? Do you have a source for that?

Back when we only had STRs, southern Denmark/northern Germany seemed to have the most diversity, because that area has a large variety of different L22 and Z58 subclades. Now we have lots of SNPs, though, which show that Z58 and L22 are more closely related to each other than they are to some other minor clades that tend to push the center of diversity a little south and/or east of there (Nordtvedt thinks Pomerania; I think that may be a bit too far north though given the outliers in Austria, the Czech Republic, etc.).

Robb's analysis, cited here by motzart, doesn't really address SNP outliers, nor the cline of the clades other than I1 L22>L287 in Finland (AFAIK they all point into Finland instead of out).
 
I don't know about Eurogenes, but in the admixtures published with the Kotenski study (see below) Gokhem & Stuttgart looks exactly Oetzi & Sardinia.

KKdHayp.png

Sorry, I obviously wasn't sufficiently clear...it's the Finns who are 26.7% Early Near Eastern Farmer on the Eurogenes ANE 8 run. (I think the estimate by Lazaridis et al was close to 30% for EEF, although they didn't fit into a three population model because of their Siberian.)
 

This thread has been viewed 104824 times.

Back
Top