Estimating the Y-DNA and autosomal admixtures of Yamnaya samples

[motzart]

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.)

I guess that makes sense, they do have a lot of EEF mtDNA, but I still don't see I1 as a farmer population.

 

[LeBrok]

I guess that makes sense, they do have a lot of EEF mtDNA, but I still don't see I1 as a farmer population.

I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age.
Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders.

 

[Aberdeen]

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.

That doesn't make sense to me. The oldest I found in Scandinavia is I and I2 in Sweden 6000 years ago, then there's a big time gap in the DNA data for the area. But the oldest I1 found so far is from the LBK culture in Hungary. And the LBK culture in northern Germany became the Funnel Beaker culture that brought farming to Scandinavia and it moved from there to the Baltic. That's how former LBK I1 got to Scandinavia and the Baltic.

The figures Maciamo has modern I2 are 2% for Denmark, 1.5% for Sweden, and zero for Norway and Finland (although we don't know if I2 was in either of those countries in the Mesolithic). That's why I said I2 was ALMOST completely replaced in Sweden.

 

[motzart]

I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age.
Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders.

If the only Y DNA I that existed today was the result of HGs being absorbed into farmer communities then Y DNA I should exist alongside G2a in a minority wherever it exists. Likewise we know that HGs were not absorbed into farmer communities and that they lived along side them.

 

[motzart]

That doesn't make sense to me. The oldest I found in Scandinavia is I and I2 in Sweden 6000 years ago, then there's a big time gap in the DNA data for the area. But the oldest I1 found so far is from the LBK culture in Hungary. And the LBK culture in northern Germany became the Funnel Beaker culture that brought farming to Scandinavia and it moved from there to the Baltic. That's how former LBK I1 got to Scandinavia and the Baltic.

Then we would see a majority G2a Y DNA in Scandinavia with a minority I1. Look at the Trellis results, any HGs that were absorbed into farmer communities were exceptions and the minority. That doesn't explain a majority I1. Scandinavia was depopulated in the iron age so any modern ratios are completely irrelevant.

 

[LeBrok]

If the only Y DNA I that existed today was the result of HGs being absorbed into farmer communities then Y DNA I should exist alongside G2a in a minority wherever it exists.

Why in minority. It is obvious that uniparental haplogroups and their clades go through explosions and bottlenecking. Their proportions changed every thousand of years, sometimes dramatically. Otherwise you can find G2a and I* alongside through all modern Europe.

Let's make some example of hg C6. It was found in hunter gatherers in Spain, it was also found still doing well in Hungarian Neolithic Farmers. But where is it now?

Likewise we know that HGs were not absorbed into farmer communities and that they lived along side them.

No doubt some resisted and persisted till they were all gone. Please present this one case of I* individual alive today who doesn't have EEF admixture. Otherwise you don't have a case.

 

[Krefter14]

Check out this, Davidski, got ANE K8 scores for his K15 components, of course only the west Eurasian ones. I don;t know how credible it is, but it makes alot of sense. I took my K15 scores and converted them into K8 scores, and it was almost exactly what I scored on K8, except WHG was a little low.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...OCeObVZ0opPVxFLjQ_LPIgPcds/edit#gid=510396291

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQM0lWOGVxdGhBRUk/view

Here are his thoughts on the results

"Eastern Euro = Yamnaya

Baltic = Battle-Axe Corded Ware

North Sea = Single Grave Corded Ware

Atlantic = Bell Beaker

West Asian = Maikop"

 

[Aberdeen]

Then we would see a majority G2a Y DNA in Scandinavia with a minority I1. Look at the Trellis results, any HGs that were absorbed into farmer communities were exceptions and the minority. That doesn't explain a majority I1. Scandinavia was depopulated in the iron age so any modern ratios are completely irrelevant.

No, we wouldn't see a majority of G2a in Scandinavia as a result of Funnel Beaker Culture. And the Trellis results have nothing to do with it. Funnel Beaker, IMO, represents I1 farmers breaking away from the majority G2 LBK culture, which may explain why I1 Funnel Beaker Culture expanded north into Scandinavia to displace the I2 hunter gatherer types there.

 

[Angela]

Absent ancient dna I don't know how we can have any certainty about these things.

However, I personally feel that the conclusions in Bollongino et al were far too broad for what the data actually showed. This is one burial site and it was used by the two groups of people for a very short time period. To extrapolate from that to say that the hunter-gatherer people and the farmer people lived side by side in all of central Europe for thousands of years, and thereby implying, I think, that the hunter gatherer groups flourished in large numbers in central Europe throughout the Neolithic is a vast over-generalization. It might be true for all I know, but this study doesn't prove it. I also don't know of any proof for that in archaeological data showing thriving hunter/fisher camps throughout that area for thousands of years.

That hunter-gatherer groups continued to live beyond the northern (and perhaps western) limit of the LBK and related groups does make sense. Occasional forays south by some bands to fishing grounds would explain the Bollongino data. That's how Jean Manco sees it, or at least she did, and I think it's the more conservative stance to take, given the current data.

That's why I said upthread that I wondered if there was a possibility that the I1 farmer lineage found at the western Hungary LBK site died out, and that the I1 which survived descends from a hunter gatherer group of the northern fringe which was picked up by Corded Ware groups and then underwent its expansion.

Ed.
Whether it was LBK or Corded, the fact still remains that only the adoption of agriculture (and/or herding of domestic animals) allowed for major population growth.

Also, there was clearly some incorporation of hunter-gatherer people by the EEF Neolithic farmers, both through mtDna and yDna.

 

[Sile]

I think, nobody disputes the fact that most man of I1, during Neolithic, were hunter, same as I2a hunter gatherers. They all eventually died off, and only few of the guys who got in contact with farmers transferred their paternal I1 or I2a, and restarted this haplogroups and made them successful. To this effect we can see quite strong bottlenecking in both groups. The other proof for it is that all of known and alive hg I carriers, you included, have a genome containing about 40% farmers genes. If you were only WHG/ANE I would say that you are right and I2a is not farmer population. However all of them are now, and it is true for all at least since bronze age.
Do you know at least one hg I* person who is lacking the EEF component? Let's stay within European borders.

What are the SNP's for this extinct I* ?

 

[Aberdeen]

Absent ancient dna I don't know how we can have any certainty about these things.

However, I personally feel that the conclusions in Bollongino et al were far too broad for what the data actually showed. This is one burial site and it was used by the two groups of people for a very short time period. To extrapolate from that to say that the hunter-gatherer people and the farmer people lived side by side in all of central Europe for thousands of years, and thereby implying, I think, that the hunter gatherer groups flourished in large numbers in central Europe throughout the Neolithic is a vast over-generalization. It might be true for all I know, but this study doesn't prove it. I also don't know of any proof for that in archaeological data showing thriving hunter/fisher camps throughout that area for thousands of years.

That hunter-gatherer groups continued to live beyond the northern (and perhaps western) limit of the LBK and related groups does make sense. Occasional forays south by some bands to fishing grounds would explain the Bollongino data. That's how Jean Manco sees it, or at least she did, and I think it's the more conservative stance to take, given the current data.

That's why I said upthread that I wondered if there was a possibility that the I1 farmer lineage found at the western Hungary LBK site died out, and that the I1 which survived descends from a hunter gatherer group of the northern fringe which was picked up by Corded Ware groups and then underwent its expansion.

Ed.
Whether it was LBK or Corded, the fact still remains that only the adoption of agriculture (and/or herding of domestic animals) allowed for major population growth.

Also, there was clearly some incorporation of hunter-gatherer people by the EEF Neolithic farmers, both through mtDna and yDna.

No, we don't have enough information to be certain, and your alternative scenario is certainly plausible. I just find it interesting that the oldest I1 found to date was found with LBK folk, Funnel Beaker seems to have grown out of LBK culture, and Funnel Beaker apparently brought agriculture to Scandinavia. So I think my scenario works, but I agree that any other plausible scenario that involve hunter gatherers in Denmark or Germany adopting agriculture then spreading north could also explain the I1 expansion.

 

[Krefter14]

Check out this, Davidski, got ANE K8 scores for his K15 components, of course only the west Eurasian ones. I don;t know how credible it is, but it makes alot of sense. I took my K15 scores and converted them into K8 scores, and it was almost exactly what I scored on K8, except WHG was a little low.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...OCeObVZ0opPVxFLjQ_LPIgPcds/edit#gid=510396291

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQM0lWOGVxdGhBRUk/view

Here are his thoughts on the results

"Eastern Euro = Yamnaya

Baltic = Battle-Axe Corded Ware

North Sea = Single Grave Corded Ware

Atlantic = Bell Beaker

West Asian = Maikop"

In west Asia ANE is mostly expressed by the "West Asia" component, while their other two components are pretty much pure ENF, with a little African. This might mean ANE came to west Asia through one main source, which distributed their ANE genes throughout most of the region.

In Europe there are three very similar components with significant ANE; Baltic, North Sea, and Atlantic, and it looks like all three were formed somewhere in east-central Europe during the early bronze age. Most European ANE is expressed via these components, suggesting most ANE in Europe spread out of east-central Europe during the bronze age.

East Euro is basically the same as those three components, except it has extra ANE, and probably can be traced back to the proto-Indo Europeans and Yamna, and a good guess is that it spread along with the three other European-specific components during the bronze age.

It's amazing how everything from PCAs based on genotype data, to ancient genomes, to parental markers are giving the same narrative. Yamna, WHG/BHG, and EEF mixed during the bronze age in east-central Europe to create central-north European-type populations, and then these admixed people spread to ever inch of Europe,and pretty much repopulated some regions.

 

[Angela]

QUOTE=Sile;447721]What are the SNP's for this extinct I* ?[/QUOTE]

See the following paper for the I1 found in the LBK site:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/09/03/008664.full.pdf

The results are discussed on page 12. It was M253.

There are also tables in the Supplementary Data through the link below, but the resolution isn't more precise.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664.figures-only

 

[LeBrok]

See the following paper for the I1 found in the LBK site:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/09/03/008664.full.pdf

The results are discussed on page 12. It was M253.

There are also tables in the Supplementary Data through the link below, but the resolution isn't more precise.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664.figures-only

I remember Sparkey's comment that by his estimation most found I2a in Scandinavia (Ajvide?) HGs were of extinct kind.

 

[Krefter14]

I remember Sparkey's comment that by his estimation most found I2a in Scandinavia (Ajvide?) HGs were of extinct kind.

Ajv58 was tested in a SNP for every I2a1-P37 clade, except I2a1c. So, maybe he doesn't belong to an extinct I2a1 clade.

Northern Europeans high WHG can't be explained by anything else except hunter gatherers like Ajv58, being a significant part of their ancestry. They can't be explained as a mix of late Neolithic central-north Euro and Yamna. I1, I2a2, I2a1b, and I2a1c are all clearly lineages from those high-WHG people(they could have been farmers or HGs), and U5b is found at a higher rate in modern central-west Euros than in Neolithic ones.

C01 from copper age Hungary had around as much WHG as Basque, Gok2 from Neolithic Sweden had around as much as Balts and Scandinavians, and Gok4 probably had more than any modern Europeans. There were people running around in the Baltic and east European plain who were over 60% WHG as recently as 4,000 years ago. This is why there are people today like Balts, who are obviously mostly of Mesolithic east European decent, via IE or native non-IE ancestry.

 

[Sile]

Ajv58 was tested in a SNP for every I2a1-P37 clade, except I2a1c. So, maybe he doesn't belong to an extinct I2a1 clade.

Northern Europeans high WHG can't be explained by anything else except hunter gatherers like Ajv58, being a significant part of their ancestry. They can't be explained as a mix of late Neolithic central-north Euro and Yamna. I1, I2a2, I2a1b, and I2a1c are all clearly lineages from those high-WHG people(they could have been farmers or HGs), and U5b is found at a higher rate in modern central-west Euros than in Neolithic ones.

C01 from copper age Hungary had around as much WHG as Basque, Gok2 from Neolithic Sweden had around as much as Balts and Scandinavians, and Gok4 probably had more than any modern Europeans. There were people running around in the Baltic and east European plain who were over 60% WHG as recently as 4,000 years ago. This is why there are people today like Balts, who are obviously mostly of Mesolithic east European decent, via IE or native non-IE ancestry.

Sparkey stated in december 2011

I2a1* is very very old, nearly 20,000 years old per Nordtvedt's latest estimates. Its location and movement so long ago is too tough to guess right now IMHO. One thing that simplifies the "Y-I2a1* in N-E Italia" is that the only I2a1 clade that seem to be ancient there is the ~4000 year old I2a1c*-Alpine clade, which has a fairly close relative, I2a1c1-Western, which also has a center of diversity not too far from the Rhine. That makes me think that the haplogroup mixture along the Rhine just before the beginning of the Neolithic in the area was a pretty good mix of I2a1c, I2a2b, and I2c. As for I2a1a, who knows... it's about 18,000 years from I2a1c. I guess it would have just been a normal East-West walking migration.

Did he come from the I2a1c alpine area .............an Oetzi neighbour?

 

[Krefter14]

Ajv58 was from Gotaland Sweden. I've heard people who know alot about archaeology say his culture; PWC, migrated there from eastern Europe. Ajv58 is very similar to Mesolithic Scandinavians, but Mesolithic east Euros were also probably very similar to SHGs, so I guess maybe his I2a1 came from Scandinavia or east Europe. I2a1-P37 was the dominate paternal lineage of all WHGs, even as far southeast as Hungary.

 

[bicicleur 2]

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).

thank you Sparkey
where do you get the best info re geographical spread of subclades nowadays?

 

[Goga]

East Euro is basically the same as those three components, except it has extra ANE, and probably can be traced back to the proto-Indo Europeans and Yamna, and a good guess is that it spread along with the three other European-specific components during the bronze age.

Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Leyla-Tepe, Yamna was astop between Leyla-Tepe/Mayko and Europe. ANE has been always present in WestAsia, since ANE is from Asia. The distribution of ANE was always like that in(West) Asia. West Asia borders Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. ANE was a geneflow from those areas into West Asia for thousands of years, even before Indo-Europeansexisted. ANE in West Asia is much older than the Indo-Europeans.
While ANE in Europe came from Indo-Europeans. Becauseproto-Indo-Europeans who cam from Leyla-Tepe already had ANE in them. But aftermoving into Northern Caucasus they got even MORE ANE before migrating intoEurope.

1. Proto-Indo-Europeansareform Leyla-Tepe/Maykop.
2. ANE in West Asia(Leyla-Tepe) existed there thousands of years before proto-Indo-Europeans evenexisted.


Kurgans in Maykop and Leyla-Tepe are OLDER than in Maykop !!!

 

[Goga]

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.

I think you're wrong! Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Leyla-Tepe, Yamna was just a stop between Leyla-Tepe/Mayko and Europe. ANE has been always present in West Asia, since ANE is from Asia. Proto-Iranians were originally also from Leyla-Tepe. When proto-Iranians evolved into proto-Iranians between Zagros and Leyla-Tepe there was already ANE in Leyla-Tepe. ANE is West Asia is older and predate proto-Iranians.

West Asia / Iranian Plateau borders Caucasus and SouthCentral Asia. ANE was a gene flow from those areas into the Iranian Plateau for thousands of years, way before Indo-Europeans existed. ANE around Iranian Plateau is much older than the Indo-Europeans.