Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

[ebAmerican]

I would guess R1b-M269 is part of the EHG cline like it's cousin in Samara. The near eastern influence referred to by Haak of Yamna I suspect would be the Leyla-Tepe culture around 4000BC. Maykop seems to be highly influenced by Anatolian and Mesopotamian people. R1b-V88 in Africa is thought to be 3000BC. It probably descended from the Steppe into Syria, the Levant and Egypt during or before Maykop (along trade routes). We don't know what type of R1b (R1b1 basal) was found in Spain. The R1b sample in Spain was probably an outlier who wondered with some R1a through Central Europe and found it's way to the LBK and Pyrenees 5000BC. I like the idea of the Indo-European language being a mash-up of this cultural womb of nations from Tepe in the south and EHG in the north. It would make both hypothesis correct. The Anatolian version being 4000 years later that originally thought.

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf

We do not expect that the history of Indo-Europeans followed the same clear model as that of the North Caucasians. It is therefore even more interesting to apply the same methodology to the IE case. So far, we have performed only one, but the most important kind of analysis — the correlation analysis of genetic, linguistic and geographic distances between the Indo-European populations of Europe. (We did not include Indo-Iranian populations because the Indian gene pool is much too different from the European one). This kind of analysis had already been performed earlier, in 2000 [Rosser et al., 2000], where it was found that both correlations are about r = 0.3. Twelve years later we repeated this analysis using a dataset that was ten times as large (Table 1). We found correlations that were twice as high (0.67 between genetics and linguistics and 0.70 between genetics and geography). In contrast with the case of the Caucasus, the partial correlation indicates a more important role of geography (genetics and geography r = 0.32, while genetics and linguistics only r = 0.21). However, the high pair correlation with linguistics (r = 0.67) allows to use the statistical data as good predictors of genetic similarity between populations

A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of mitochondrial DNA between major IE groups):

We notice that:

1) Generally languages correlate well with genetic distances.
2) There are some sharp exceptions from this rule, including:

a) Hungarians - they are genetically like Slavonic group, yet speak a Non-IE language
b) Romanians - genetically half-way between Slavonic & Germanic, yet speak Romance
b*) Aromuns - genetically (mtDNA) most similar to Slavonic group, yet speak Romance
c) Sicilians - genetically far away from all other groups, yet speak Romance

3) Some other quick observations:

d) Albanians - genetically in the middle between Germanic, Romance, Slavonic, and Baltic
e) Norwegians & Germans - genetically closest to Slavonic & Romance out of all Germanic groups
f) Icelanders and Austrians - relatively close to Celtic group (even closer than English)
g) Slavonic - genetically about half-way between Baltic and Germanic (interesting!)
h) Icelanders - mitochondrial DNA is very Celtic (pretty consistent with other studies).
i) Germanic group - in the middle between Celtic, Romance & Balto-Slavonic (fits with geography)

Remember that this is mitochondrial only (so Y-DNA and autosomal DNA was not compared).

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - here is an interesting paper, which reveals a correlation between genetics and linguistics among Indo-European speakers:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(105)jlr2013-9(23-35).pdf

A very interesting chart from page 5 (genetic distances of mitochondrial DNA between major IE groups):

We notice that:

1) Generally languages correlate well with genetic distances.
2) There are some sharp exceptions from this rule, including:

a) Hungarians - they are genetically like Slavonic group, yet speak a Non-IE language
b) Romanians - genetically half-way between Slavonic & Germanic, yet speak Romance
b*) Aromuns - genetically (mtDNA) most similar to Slavonic group, yet speak Romance
c) Sicilians - genetically far away from all other groups, yet speak Romance

3) Some other quick observations:

d) Albanians - genetically in the middle between Germanic, Romance, Slavonic, and Baltic
e) Norwegians & Germans - genetically closest to Slavonic & Romance out of all Germanic groups
f) Icelanders and Austrians - relatively close to Celtic group (even closer than English)
g) Slavonic - genetically about half-way between Baltic and Germanic (interesting!)
h) Icelanders - mitochondrial DNA is very Celtic (pretty consistent with other studies).
i) Germanic group - in the middle between Celtic, Romance & Balto-Slavonic (fits with geography)

Remember that this is mitochondrial only (so Y-DNA and autosomal DNA was not compared).

One more thing - Latvians, so far away from Germanic (quite surprising).

Perhaps this is because this study is on mtDNA, not on Y-DNA or autosomal.

=============================

BTW:

Czechs & Swedes - looks like Czechs like Swedish women (or the other way around).

Or rather female stock in both countries have some common deep ancestry ???

In terms of Y-DNA Swedes and Czechs are very different.

 

[Tomenable]

From page 6 - hotspots of Neolithic ancestry in Picardy and North-Eastern Ukraine ???:

 

[Alan]

@LeBrok

So you think it is possible that some of the Caucasus_Gedrosia genes were much more widespred in Northern Eurasia in the past. I agree it is very possible, but naturally I think ancient Eurasians should be closer to populations of ancient Western Asian because at the end of the day at some point thex reached the North fom the South.

But this is all mere speculation. Kosetnki even had some early "Basal Eurasian.

But the point here is that at least native mesolithic H&G were different from the Yamna population by not having (or having less of it) genes which are nowadays typical for populations of Caucasus, Mesopotamia and Iranian Plateau.

 

[Alan]

I do not know for sure, but I think they made a mistake. Karelian you can also find 6000+/- year R1b-Z2103 in15%+/- (Arkhangelsk region and amongst the Komi at 16%the same for Iraqi Jews they also have 15 -20% R1b-Z2103 so they are sampling all R1b-Z2103 and using R1b-Z2103 population regions in their models. Of course the oldest to date now is in the center of these two poles of R1b-Z2103 5-6.4K+/- the Yamnaya R1b1 sample at 7.6 K +/-

So as I thought they are assuming that R1b-Z2103 was brought to the Steppes from Western Asia.

 

[Alan]

For my logic the dark green came from Caucasus. If it was truly old Near Eastern it would have spread to Europe with EEF, but it didn't. It was stuck in Caucasus till copper/bronze age.

But the problem is, as Dienekes wrote even with Bedoins this affinity still strongly exists, which makes it doubtful that this "pastoralist" DNA is not from there. As I said the most logical conclusion i that this green Yamna component is not a real component but ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + WHG and ANE (additional to the ANE already in Caucasus_Gedrosia).

 

[Alan]

It would have had to have been going on for quite a long while for this sample to be almost 100% EHG.

Alan:

I actually wouldn't find it at all surprising if the "farmers" were matrilineal in terms of descent. That might go some way toward explaining the incorporation of hunter-gatherer men in Europe. We also have the example of the American Indians. Men took on the cultural identity of their mothers.

However, in Europe the "Near Eastern" yDna lineages are also present. That isn't to say that we won't find some "G" and "J2" on the steppe, but we don't have them yet.

Also, it seems that these intrusive "Near Eastern" lineages were pastoralist, and pastoralist societies today are almost always patrilineal and patrilocal, yes?


Never to my knowledge, although there are some mostly male migrations.



I tend to doubt it as well. I mean, I'm very familiar with the Rape of the Sabines and all of that, but the scale in this case would have had to have been huge, I think.

I understand what you mean and the point was actually that pastoralists in Western Asia are very patriachal.

If it was all womens bringing their genes to Yamna and the pastoralist lifestyle to Yamna, we would expect the Yamna Indo Europeans to have become a matriachal society. But we all know it is exactly the opposite.
Also in History I have yet to see any migration only taken by one gender on it's own. It seems it was always family migrations. Heck even among the Indo_Aryans who migrated into India and have been very much patriachal, as seen on the founder effect there, we can find allot of typical Indo European mtDNA which supports a at least some female migration too. I would say the Indo_Aryan migration was something like a quarter female.

What means half of the migration was taken by families and another half by single males who definitely took local wifes. And with time this mixing went on and on.

And last but not least, if there was not a single male migration into Yamna we would have to expect that the EHG completely replaced there natives females with proto-pastoralist brides. Which doesn't seem very logical to me.

And as you I am sure we will find allot of other yDNA lineages in Yamna. And I am still not 100% convinced that R1b Z2103 was an all "EHG" lineage.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Actually orange/farmer guys inserted themselves into population of blue and green hunter gatherer in Yamnaya first. Only after mixing with farmers/orange in Yamnaya the population of Yamnaya stopped being HG, grew in numbers as new farmers (West Yamnaya), and expanded into central europe as farming community of Corded Ware. East Yamnaya stayed as HG/horseback herders/ and a bit of farmers and expanded into East Steppe as Andronovo Indo-Iranians.

i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side

 

[arvistro]

One more thing - Latvians, so far away from Germanic (quite surprising).

Perhaps this is because this study is on mtDNA, not on Y-DNA or autosomal.

Latvians also autosomally are outliers. I think there was one chart where we were in the very corner, the usual Finn place With Estonians and even Finns being somewhat closer to other Europe.
On Y-dna we are also not very much Germanic ~40% N1C, ~40% R1A... We have some R1B and probably some I1, unfortunately not much statistics is available on Latvian subclades. But we have huge influence on our culture and language from Germans.

 

[Ukko]

Latvians also autosomally are outliers. I think there was one chart where we were in the very corner, the usual Finn place With Estonians and even Finns being somewhat closer to other Europe.
On Y-dna we are also not very much Germanic ~40% N1C, ~40% R1A... We have some R1B and probably some I1, unfortunately not much statistics is available on Latvian subclades. But we have huge influence on our culture and language from Germans.

You have a lot of Baltic Finnic genes, most likely language and culture also.

 

[Yetos]

I think that the early Kurgan people(Leila-Tepe Maykop and Kurganized Yamna) had Satem languages
Albanians + Armenians have many Z2103 and Albanians + Armenians are Satem.
Kurgan people invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages.
Like the Satem, Sarmatians Alanians and European Huns(with Leto-Slavic or Iranian words "Med" "Strava" etc)
also invaded the Europe but didn't change the Languages


But Satem languages existed before the Kurgan people.
The ancestor cultures to Kurgan cultures are Gawra Ubaid Samarra(not to be confused to Samara) and Halaf, all four cultures were in Mesopotamia-Syria.
There is Euphratian substratum in Sumerian.
Euphratian languages possibly were IE, and possibly were ancestors of Satem languages.
Luvian languages were Satem according to some scholars, while the Hittite "newcomer" from Europe was Kentum.

Hettit was no satem no centum.
so yamnaa was neither centum, neither satem,
besides the linguistic group among Greco-Aryan, and German-Slavic shows also that PIE were not divided in such.

only Armenian Hypothesis can support a satem PIE

 

[Alan]

Hettit was no satem no centum.
so yamnaa was neither centum, neither satem,
besides the linguistic group among Greco-Aryan, and German-Slavic shows also that PIE were not divided in such.

only Armenian Hypothesis can support a satem PIE

If you mean the West Asian herders theory, than I would say contrary this theory would explain why Hittite was not yet Satem or Kentum, because it would be close to the supposed PIE homeland.

I wished we had any Hittite sample. It's aDNA would shed allot of light on all this PIE discussion.

 

[Yetos]

If you mean the West Asian herders theory, than I would say contrary this theory would explain why Hittite was not yet Satem or Kentum, because it would be close to the supposed PIE homeland.

I wished we had any Hittite sample. It's aDNA would shed allot of light on all this PIE discussion.

possible Ydna H
the full hettit theory is called Indo-Hettit,
homeland, Afganistan/Pakistan, out of India.

 

[LeBrok]

i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side

Because we don't have samples from West Yamanaya. This is where Yamnaya mixed with Cucuteni farmers.

 

[LeBrok]

But the problem is, as Dienekes wrote even with Bedoins this affinity still strongly exists, which makes it doubtful that this "pastoralist" DNA is not from there. As I said the most logical conclusion i that this green Yamna component is not a real component but ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + WHG and ANE (additional to the ANE already in Caucasus_Gedrosia).

Definitely not Gedrosia. Gedrosia came late (Bronze Age) from East side of Caspian Sea. It came on South side of Caspian. This map shows how it flows from lower right corner and diminishes towards Balkans. It didn't have epicenter in Near East, not even existed there during Neolithic. It is a latecomer.
Caucasian admixture was hiding in Caucasus till Bronze Age too.
Yamnaya received mostly Caucasian admixture, some West Asian, and no Gedrosia.

There is no Gedrosia in half of Yamnaya and Corded Ware territory. Gedrosia in Western Europe corresponds to R1b IE invasion, through Near East.

 

[Alan]

@Lebrok


Reich called it a component characteristic for populations of "Caucasus and South_Central Asia".

This is definitely Caucasus_Gedrosia and more so Gedrosia. Gedrosia peaks in the Baloch groups who live in Southwestern Asia and are known to have hailed from Zagros/Northern Mesopotamia.

I think you might have confused something. "Caucasus, Gedrosia and West Asian" are not three different components. from your statement it appears like you think that way.

"West Asian" of Dodecad is "Caucasus_Gedrosia", in fact Gedrosia is more "West Asian" than Caucasus.

Gedrosia is 92% West Asian like of K7b + 8% ANI like.
Caucasus is 56% West Asian like of k7b + 38% Southern like and 6% North European like.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-v80ztSRUM9E/UE3JklSVh5I/AAAAAAAAGUg/cUR5Ps2TBA8/s400/_7.png

And the West Asian component itself is ~58% Gedrosia and 42% Caucasus.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iN1EuOd52c4/UE3TT7Ka_kI/AAAAAAAAGWQ/fy53d30H2m0/s400/_12.png

 

[Sile]

i don't see any orange in yamnaya, only blue and green
but on the PCA both orange and green cause a shift toward the right hand side

leBrok is correct, the orange, blue and green mixed in yamnya for a long time and when eventually they began to head from yamnya to central europe and beyond, these haplogroups where already mixed..........basically the thinking that haplogroups entered central europe on their lonesome is 100% boulderdash

Yamnya was a mixing bowl of many many haplogroups

 

[bicicleur 2]

Because we don't have samples from West Yamanaya. This is where Yamnaya mixed with Cucuteni farmers.

do you mean, Yamaya people got EEF (orange) admixture from Cucuteni before getting into Europe ?

 

[Angela]

Aren't we perhaps getting lost in semantics?

The "Armenian like" people who form half of the ancestry of the Yamnaya samples are not EEF. However, I think that when a sample of an early near eastern farmer is found and analyzed, there will be overlap or gene flow from that sample into EEF people and also into "West Asian" or "Caucasus" people or whatever else one chooses to label that drifted cluster.

I think we have learned that "pots are indeed people in most instances", and agriculture and pastoralism are also people. These were changes in technology and culture that were brought from one place to another by the migration of people. Cultural diffusion of agriculture didn't work in Europe as an explanation for the spread of agriculture and I don't think it works for the east either. It spread from the Zagros area (and others) into Iran, and then eventually up around the South Caspian and into Turkmenistan with the people who brought it.
See these maps for the spread of the Neolithic into Iran:

In the case of pastoralism, everything I know indicates that hunter gatherers don't just make a leap into pastoralism. It is embedded in an agricultural context, i.e. it develops in an agricultural context when people find that their crops don't do so well in a certain environment, but their domesticated animals do quite well. This is what happened in the Near East. On the fringes of the agricultural/pastoral world you're going to find more mixed people. The anthropology of Africa makes that clear. The hunter gatherers remain isolated and marginalized people, even if they have some minority ancestry from newcomers. The farmers and/or pastoralists have hunter-gatherer ancestry, meaning that they are a sort of "mestizo" group. Something similar probably happened in the Near East.

When the pastoralists arrived in these areas, they encountered other people who were heavy in ANE and probably traces of other things. Who knows, maybe there was some "Basal" there as well. Here, it gets too speculative for me even under these circumstances.

As to what yDna lineages this involved, I don't know. Y Dna fluctuates. Perhaps it was G or perhaps it was J2. From my reading of Grugni et al J2 seems to have a center of gravity in Iran, but it might have originated in the greater Zagros area as well. We're going to have to wait for ancient dna.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041252

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xY5E4itZf...V8g-b9jWE/s1600/journal.pone.0041252.g002.jpg
The vertical column on the left is frequency...on the right it's diversity.

The Dodecad "clusters", as helpful as they doubtless were to Dienekes in attempting to figure out the population genetics in West Eurasia, are of limited usefulness. Too many layers of migrations went into the creation of them. All of these "clusters" are drifted sets of alleles formed from much more ancient populations.

As to what was in the western steppe, I don't know. Perhaps R1a was there, but if it was, I think it might have had a more northern distribution. I still tend to think that Corded Ware was a "Yamnaya related" group, not Yamnaya proper. I think it's more likely that Yamnaya proper originated and developed in the Samara region, which is why they wanted to sample there. I also think it's pretty likely that the southwestern Yamnaya steppe, at least, was R1b as well, and that it was from there that the older (?) L51 left. If it isn't found there, I think it will be in the Balkans.

Of course, it's possible that some L23 went from the steppe south of the Caucasus, across Anatolia and then into Europe. We'll have to wait and see.

Ed. If R1a is found there, it may be that it moved south later to fill a vacuu.