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

[arvistro]

1 in 60 Million to have same mutation independently. Hmm. It is not much for modern world with billions of males living.
But I guess it is compensated by fact that to share TWO mutations independently = 1/(60 Mill * 60 Mill). Impossible.
OK, sorry for offtopic.

 

[Maciamo]

1 in 60 Million to have same mutation independently. Hmm. It is not much for modern world with billions of males living.
But I guess it is compensated by fact that to share TWO mutations independently = 1/(60 Mill * 60 Mill). Impossible.
OK, sorry for offtopic.

Not much too for one mutation. But as you said, to have two identical mutations, the chances are 1 in 3.6 x 10²¹ (60 million squared), that is 3.6 sextillions. For three identical mutations, the chances drop to 2.16 x10³¹, or 21.6 Nonillions. I let you do the calculations for 45 identical mutations. Just a clue, there is no name for numbers past 10 mutations in common. The biggest number that has a name is a googol, which is 10¹⁰⁰.

Now had it been mitochondrial DNA, the sequence is only 16,500 characters long, so chances of aligning several identical mutations are not impossible, and it has actually happened times and again because some regions of the mtDNA (hypervariable regions or HVR) tend to mutate much more often than the rest of the sequence.

 

[Tomenable]

there is one chance in 60 million that two individuals are born with the same mutation on the Y chromosome (which has 60 million characters) the chances that two separate lineages acquire exactly the same 64 mutations in a row is so astronomical as to be unfathomable by the human mind (imagine a number followed by hundreds of zeros).

(...)

I let you do the calculations for 45 identical mutations. Just a clue, there is no name for numbers past 10 mutations in common.

The number you are looking for is kurganillion (now there is name).

 

[Aberdeen]

..............................

By the way, Yfull.com gives an age of 15000 years for the formation of R1b-M153 and a TMRCA of 1300 years. This means that the common R1b patrilineal ancestors of about half of Basque R1b men only lived around 700 CE, during the Early Middle Ages, around the time of the Moorish conquest of Iberia. This means that if we tested Basque sample from 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago, there is a high probability that the majority of samples wouldn't be R1b (but probably in majority I2a1). The replacement of Basque paternal lineages by R1b lineages is very recent.

It's also interesting to see that most of the Catalan R1b-SRY2627 (mostly the Z206 and CTS606 subclades) have a TMRCA of 2700 to 3500 years, meaning that R1b spread in the region in the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age, when most of Western Europe outside Iberia was already Celtic.

Perhaps R1b dominance among Basques is a recent thing. But is it perhaps also possible that Basques were quite few in numbers prior to the Moorish conquest? Perhaps the Moors who were the new ruling class of Spain simply didn't bother much with a small tribe in the Pyrenees, unlike their Spanish predecessors, resulting in a rapid Basque expansion that could have continued after the reconquest of Spain, provided the Basques picked the right time to stop co-operating with the Moors.

The late date for Catalan R1b doesn't surprise me, since there doesn't seem to have been any IE languages in Spain prior to the arrival of the Celts.

 

[Ukko]

Of course not. There was no copper metallurgy is Northeast Europe or the Urals before Yamna.

And Yamna got their technology from Caucasus?

 

[LeBrok]

What you say is possible, and what I used to believe too. But I am not so sure anymore. Yfull.com gives an age of 15900 ybp for R1b-P297 and 15100 ybp for M269 (although the TMRCA of surviving lineages is only 12200 ybp). The HG sample from Samara is only 5000 years old, which means that R1b-P297 lineages had already existed and wandered around Europe and West Asia for over 10,000 years. I know it is tempting to think that because the P297 and M269 samples were tested in the same region at a similar period (some M269 samples are actually older than the P297), the two must be closely related. But that is not necessarily the case, and autosomal DNA shows that they are only distantly related.

I would rather think that the Samara P297 belonged to a branch of R1b that had migrated to Northeast Europe many thousands of years before Yamna, surely before the Early Neolithic and cattle domestication, while the Yamna R1b hailed from the Caucasus region (not because of the Armenian-like admixture, but because of they were cattle herders with copper/bronze technology).

I agree, they don't need to be originally from Samara. They might be as well from Mykop or other region. However, I don't think they came from deep Near East or the places with long history of farmers. If they did they would have more varied Y haplogroups and clades.

 

[Angela]

Yes, we may never know exactly what they looked like but it can't be random most both EEF and Yamna samples lack mutations associated with light skin in modern Europe. Remember even the 4,000YBP Pole had "dark complexion", something's going on. Looking at it from a world or west Eurasian view it is very strange that so many north Euros have yellow hair, and it makes sense this is a recent phenomenon. 5,000YBP most of the ancestors of north Euros(mostly Yamna and EEF) probably had similar pigmentation as west Asians and or south Europeans.

rs16891982 and rs1042602 are the two skin-color related SNPs in Hirisplex that Euros and west Asians differ the most in. Looking at ancient DNA Yamna and EEF are just like west Asians in terms of those two SNPs. Whatever diversity in skin color west Asians have Yamna and EEF may have also had it. Bronze age Euro samples are more similar to modern Euros in terms of those SNPs. I suspect those two SNPs are key to understanding why west Asians and Europeans have different skin color. Sardinians have the lowest amount of derived alleles in rs16891982 in Europe and could easily pass as west Asian.

Sorry, I just got back to this...
I don't mean to nitpick, but I don't think that's totally accurate. The EEF don't lack the mutations associated with light skin in Europe. It's true that Stuttgart was only derived for SLC24A5, which has reached fixation in both Europe and much of the Near East, but Oetzi, 3300 BC, had both SLC24A5 and SLC42A5.

Both appeared even earlier than 3300 BC. You can see the data in this Christina Gamba et al grapic:

(Interestingly, the hunter gatherer had one derived copy of SLC 24A5 and one for TYRP1. Doesn't he show up somewhere as having a bit of EEF or ENF? Was that from a paper or "internet" modeling? I can't remember right now. Then there was that stray derived allele for SLC42A5 in one of the northeastern HGs. The WHG were different.)

It's sort of hit or miss with the Neolithic samples but you can definitely see how the trend is for more and more of them to have two derived alleles for SLC24A5 as time goes one, as you can see with Neolithic6 from 4900 to 5300 BC. Then with Neolithic 7 the derived allele for SLC42A5 makes its first appearance. (4360-4490 BC) I don't think we see a change autosomally in these people until the Baden CO1 sample from 2700 to 2900 BC, correct? Even that was very small. Of course, we don't know what y Dna lineage is involved here either. Nor do we know what was going on in other parts of Europe.

An abstract was published from a paper that was supposed to take a broad look at all of this but who knows when it's going to come out.

Ed. Wild Speculation Alert!
Some older papers saw a star like phylogeny for the derived SLC24A5 from the Caucasus. Is it possible it arose in certain mtDna lineages near there and sort of diffused outward long before the actual large migration of people in the Copper and Bronze Ages? Could the SLC42A5 have occurred in the far northeast at a relatively late date and diffused south into Middle Neolithic cultures in Central Europe? That's one of the theories for the increase in WHG before the Yamnaya migrations. Perhaps the meeting of these two derived snps in Europe is what created European "fair" skin?

 

[Maciamo]

Perhaps R1b dominance among Basques is a recent thing. But is it perhaps also possible that Basques were quite few in numbers prior to the Moorish conquest? Perhaps the Moors who were the new ruling class of Spain simply didn't bother much with a small tribe in the Pyrenees, unlike their Spanish predecessors, resulting in a rapid Basque expansion that could have continued after the reconquest of Spain, provided the Basques picked the right time to stop co-operating with the Moors.

What are you talking about ? The Moors didn't conquer the Basque country. I was just placing the historical context. I could just as well have said it was the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, with Pepin the Short and Charlemagne.

 

[Maciamo]

I agree, they don't need to be originally from Samara. They might be as well from Mykop or other region. However, I don't think they came from deep Near East or the places with long history of farmers. If they did they would have more varied Y haplogroups and clades.

We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked.

Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.

To summarize there were at least 3 distinct Neolithic populations from the Near East, who may not have mixed with one another for several millennia:

1) G2 cereal farmers
2) J1 & T1a goat herders
3) R1b cattle herders

There might have been a 4th group made of J2a, but I still don't know where they originated. I think they were rather Near Eastern HG during the Neolithic, and might have thrived from the Chalcolithic onwards, just like R1a.

Even when we look at Early Bronze Age samples, it looks like intermarriages between locals and newcomers was not very common. I think it is especially from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age that we really see frequent intermingling and a homogenization of the regional populations. It makes sense from an anthropological point of view too. The Neolithic was all about extended families and local communities. The Bronze Age was extremely hierarchical with a ruling elite that didn't mix much with the rest of the population (except through concubines). But the Iron Age was much more egalitarian age, where most men could afford cheap iron weapons, unlike the extremely expensive bronze weapons. Many historians think that the great upheavals of the East Mediterranean c. 1200 BCE are linked to the adoption of iron weapons by the populace, who then overthrew their oppressing ruling elite.

 

[Alan]

Yesterday after thinking about it, I came across another third theory. Many people said the fact that Reich speaks about CW as "Yamna LIKE" and not Yamna descend.
Could indicate and explain something. It could explain why Reich said not every Indo European expansion can be explained with the Yamna.
It is very well possible that we have it here to do with three related cultures (Yamna, Andronovo, Corded Ware) instead of one being descend of the other.

If that turns out to be the case, than this is in my opinion the biggest indiciation that Yamna was not PIE but one of the earliest Indo European cultures descend of PIE.
We might ask ourselves now, who could be the PIE? Well what is it, that connects Yamna, CW and very likely Andronovo too?

It is the significant appearance of the Caucasus_Gedrosia component.

But this is just one of some other theories.

 

[Sile]

We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked.

i once believed this between J and T but I discover this is not so

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/

T and L are in union and their early areas where basically from india, afghan, caspian sea and caucasus ......then they went to the levant via syria and anatolia. noted in paper.

the african and arabian peninsula are all young in age for the T marker as per the paper.



J on the other hand is purely locked in as the "founders" of the fertile crescent with later influence in the levant and anatolia, and later still into arabia

the problem is the association of I and J .............where does I marker come in if they (IJ ) broke off from one another

 

[Alan]

@Lebrok

There are many other reasons why I am convinced Gedrosia is part of this green component and maybe even slightly more than Caucasus. Take a look at North Caucasus. Populations with more Gedrosia over Caucasus are also naturally closer to Yamna. See Lezgins vs Adygei or Ingush vs Georgians.

What is nowadays the case doesn't mean it had to be the same in the past. We have learned this several times in history. Who would have thought that R1b would be one of the dominant Haplogroups (well I thought about this possibility but we are talking about the average Anthroboard member) if we would have gone with the modern distribution of this Haplogroup there? Also Yamna was genetically very different from the modern people of this region by beeing halfway "West Asian".


Gedrosia is definitely ~50% ENF. Both Caucasus_Gedrosia are ENF. Only that ENF is higher in Caucasus (~75%) compared to Gedrosia (~60%).
We know that from the fact that South_Central Asians who have very low Caucasus have yet ~35-40% ENF This can largely be explained with Gedrosia.


Now to the "Maykop brides" theory. Angela and I have completly discussed about this theory and why it is close to impossible. Please take a look.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=450113&viewfull=1#post450113

Yamna is halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia. To assume this component was brought by "Maykop brides" we would need to assume that EHG almost completely replaced their femalse with these. Otherwise we can't come to the ~50%. To assume that females were able to impose their pastoralist lifestyle on Yamna we would need to assume that Yamna had some matriachal structures. But Indo Europeans are some of the most patriachal groups of the ancient world. And additional to that there was never in human history an all single gender migration, let alone all female one.

People usually migrated either with their families or alone. We know that even from patrichal India where we can find Indo European maternal DNA. Even if it is only half that much as paternal lineages. Which again speaks of my theory that migration took place with families and single males.

So now back to R1b.

Considering that most of the diversity and the basal clade M343 is found in Western Asia, between Kurdistan and Iran to be more specific. I go with the theory of pastoralists from there to Caucasus and than to Yamna. While it was also recently proven that an expansion from Kurdistan, Iraq and South Caucasus brought this "Kurgan" and many other elements to Maykop.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.

according to Yful, http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

R1b-V88 is some 16700 years old
I think estimating ages for R1b-subclades is more dificult than estimating ages for R1a-sublcades where more snp's are known
Still, I think this age estimate is realistic and I suppose R1b-V88 adopted cattlebreeding separated from R1b-P297, alltough it is obvious both did
both R1b-V88 and T entered Africa with cattle, I wonder who was first, probably both around the same period (7-8000 years ago)
For R1b-P297, where did they adopt cattle raising - north or south of the Caucasus ? Or was it R1b-M269? Did R1b-M73 ever raise cattle? The 2 EHG sampled certainly didn't.

 

[Sile]

according to Yful, http://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

R1b-V88 is some 16700 years old
I think estimating ages for R1b-subclades is more dificult than estimating ages for R1a-sublcades where more snp's are known
Still, I think this age estimate is realistic and I suppose R1b-V88 adopted cattlebreeding separated from R1b-P297, alltough it is obvious both did
both R1b-V88 and T entered Africa with cattle, I wonder who was first, probably both around the same period (7-8000 years ago)
For R1b-P297, where did they adopt cattle raising - north or south of the Caucasus ? Or was it R1b-M269? Did R1b-M73 ever raise cattle? The 2 EHG sampled certainly didn't.

I already posted a paper recently ( academia paper) on R1b-v88 and T1a-pages21 as entering egypt via the levant, it was noted R1b-v88 entered first and T1a-pages21
entered later and did not proceed further south than sudan, while R1b-v88 went further.

edit: here it is

http://www.academia.edu/3642572/Unr..._An_Archaeogenetic_Approach_to_Neolithisation

 

[Drax]

We have over 50 Eneolithic-bronze age Pontic steppe samples from many different sites with calls in key pigmentation SNPs. 90% most defiantly had brown eyes(or maybe some grey). Other calls suggest they had pigmentation most similar to modern west Asians. In terms of skin-pigmentation the same is true for EEF, but EEF had more light eyes because of alot of WHG ancestry. We have a pretty good idea what-type of pigmentation both had.

If I remember correctly, It seem that the report about the neolithic/bronze age samples tested has a problem, we still don't know their Y haplogroup (correct me if I'm wrong); in fact they could have been "siberians" (with a kurgan culture), mixed with them or with the Neolithic farmer; lot of peoples have pointed the big difference between them and the "all fair skins, light hairs and eyed" from the other indo-europeans place (Andronovo, Tocharians etc...); if these Pontic/yamna samples have been mixed, that could explain this difference.

Also I think now we know that Yamna peoples have lot of WHG ancestry, no ? I don't think EEF poples had more WHG ancestry than them; and don't seem to have "more" light eyes", it was very rare among them with WHG or not (according their sample); in comparaison, it was around 16% of light eyes among the Yamna/Pontic steppes peoples tested and 43% of them with light skins (these numbers are not really "too weak"); I guess the 16% of light eyes was among these 43% of Yamna with light skins.

for the WHG with dark skin and light eyes, I'm not a specialist and that just my opinion, but I find that really weird simply because today light eyes are exclusively related to peoples with very fair skins (or peoples mixed with them); if I remember correctly the WHG like Labrana, Motola etc... has just 50% chance to have blue eyes (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for the light eyes), so it was apparently more a probability; and honestly, I don't think we can make conclusion with that.

I don't think we can associate the change in pigmentation in Europe in the last 6,000 years with one genetic group(like Yamna-types) but that it was more of a gradual change that involved many different and related people.

If anyone though it can be associated with the Yamna-types and later CWC and BB-types.

Yes but in the same time you seem to give the light eyes "exclusively" to WHG; when in fact, not lot of them (just 3/4 WHG) had this gene and it was very late during the neolithic, in general they were all brown eyed with brown hairs and dark skin, so maybe they has the gene for light eyes from the EHG from Pontic steppes (they have mixed alot, the same mtdna etc...). If I remember correctly there were a paper (by V. Caufield) posted in this forum aboute the very strong association the light skin gene have with the Indo-Europeans; that seem, imho, more "logical" that light eyes are born among light skinned peoples.

Sorry if I'm confused and sorry for my poor english.

 

[Aberdeen]

What are you talking about ? The Moors didn't conquer the Basque country. I was just placing the historical context. I could just as well have said it was the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty, with Pepin the Short and Charlemagne.

What I'm saying is that a Moorish conquest of Spain that didn't include the Basque country could have been the opportunity for a rapid population expansion by the Basques, and I think that's sufficient to explain that recent R1b bottleneck among Basques. It's an explanation that doesn't require all the Basque women to suddenly start cohabitating with Spanish men around the time of the Moorish conquest, an event that doesn't appear anywhere in the historical record. I'm saying that the Basques could have already been R1b but few in number prior to the Moorish conquest.

I don't actually know anything about Basque history, but I think it's fairly obvious that if the R1b bottleneck among Basques is that recent, it didn't involve a wholesale change in Y haplotype. And it certainly didn't have anything to do with Bronze Age IE invaders, unless they were time travelers.

 

[Fire Haired14]

If I remember correctly, It seem that the report about the neolithic/bronze age samples tested has a problem, we still don't know their Y haplogroup (correct me if I'm wrong); in fact they could have been "siberians" (with a kurgan culture), mixed with them or with the Neolithic farmer; lot of peoples have pointed the big difference between them and the "all fair skins, light hairs and eyed" from the other indo-europeans place (Andronovo, Tocharians etc...); if these Pontic/yamna samples have been mixed, that could explain this difference.

Yamna and the light-pigmented people from Bronze-Iron age North asia had very similar mtDNA. Also, their Y DNA(R1) connects them. We will have to wait for Samara Yamna pigmentation results. They might come out like Andronovo. My guess is they will be relatively tan-skinned, brown eyed, and dark haired.

Also I think now we know that Yamna peoples have lot of WHG ancestry, no ? I don't think EEF poples had more WHG ancestry than them; and don't seem to have "more" light eyes", it was very rare among them with WHG or not (according their sample); in comparaison, it was around 16% of light eyes among the Yamna/Pontic steppes peoples tested and 43% of them with light skins (these numbers are not really "too weak"); I guess the 16% of light eyes was among these 43% of Yamna with light skins.

for the WHG with dark skin and light eyes, I'm not a specialist and that just my opinion, but I find that really weird simply because today light eyes are exclusively related to peoples with very fair skins (or peoples mixed with them); if I remember correctly the WHG like Labrana, Motola etc... has just 50% chance to have blue eyes (except HERC2, I'm not sure they have the other genes for the light eyes), so it was apparently more a probability; and honestly, I don't think we can make conclusion with that.




Yes but in the same time you seem to give the light eyes "exclusively" to WHG; when in fact, not lot of them (just 3/4 WHG) had this gene and it was very late during the neolithic, in general they were all brown eyed with brown hairs and dark skin, so maybe they has the gene for light eyes from the EHG from Pontic steppes (they have mixed alot, the same mtdna etc...). If I remember correctly there were a paper (by V. Caufield) posted in this forum aboute the very strong association the light skin gene have with the Indo-Europeans; that seem, imho, more "logical" that light eyes are born among light skinned peoples.

Sorry if I'm confused and sorry for my poor english.

All 5/5 WHG so far have light eyes. It could have been a uniform trait, and a legacy of WHG. The oldest and youngest samples have it. Most are about 8,000 years old. Also, a paper not yet published confirmed blue eyes existing in Europe some 15,000 years ago.

WHG seems to be the original source for light eyes in Europe, but that was a gazillion years ago. After WHG admixed with Middle easterns, their admixed descendants evolved to have light skin.

Pigmentation today is mostly the result of natural selection. It can change within a few hundred years.

 

[Robert6]

 

[LeBrok]

We have no idea when populations of different haplogroups started to mix heavily with one another in the Near East. Based on ancient European Neolithic samples, it looks like Near Eastern Neolithic farmers only belonged to G2 and T1a, although if T1a is there then J1 will also turn up as the two are intricately linked.

Obviously R1b were cattle herders, and the simple fact that R1b-V88 expanded from the Near East to North Africa is proof enough that it was really a Neolithic lineage too - but one that was clearly separate from G2a as R1b-V88 is very rare in Europe today. We still can't exclude that the R1b1* from Neolithic Spain was V88+ as they didn't test for it. If so, it is not impossible that it came through North Africa, which would explain why no R1b-V88 has been found in Neolithic sites outside Iberia.

To summarize there were at least 3 distinct Neolithic populations from the Near East, who may not have mixed with one another for several millennia:

1) G2 cereal farmers
2) J1 & T1a goat herders
3) R1b cattle herders

There might have been a 4th group made of J2a, but I still don't know where they originated. I think they were rather Near Eastern HG during the Neolithic, and might have thrived from the Chalcolithic onwards, just like R1a.

Even when we look at Early Bronze Age samples, it looks like intermarriages between locals and newcomers was not very common. I think it is especially from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age that we really see frequent intermingling and a homogenization of the regional populations. It makes sense from an anthropological point of view too. The Neolithic was all about extended families and local communities. The Bronze Age was extremely hierarchical with a ruling elite that didn't mix much with the rest of the population (except through concubines). But the Iron Age was much more egalitarian age, where most men could afford cheap iron weapons, unlike the extremely expensive bronze weapons. Many historians think that the great upheavals of the East Mediterranean c. 1200 BCE are linked to the adoption of iron weapons by the populace, who then overthrew their oppressing ruling elite.

Neolithic farmers ENF were most expansionists of their age, unlike Hunter Gatherers who were rather local isolationists. Wherever we test HGs in certain region, they belong to one haplogroup or handful of similar clades. On other hand ENF in Europe incorporated local HGs haplogroups rather early during their expansion becoming EEF. The best example is Neolithic genetics from Hungary where we can find not only farmer's hgs but also HGs like I1,I2 C, F, H2. For few tested Neolithic Hungarians we found 4 or 5 distinct haplogroups. And we know they were not HGs but real farmers with farmer autosomal DNA, just hunter gatherer hgs. This multi Y-DNA mixture is a signature of farmers in Europe, after couple of millenia.
I would be very surprised, if this situation was different in Middle East. I suspect ENF, at the end of Neolithic, incorporated few HGs haplogroups around Middle East too. Therefore they became Y-DNA mixed population by the end of Neolithic, before copper age.
According to this scenario, if Yamnaya R1b folks came from Middle East farming horizon, as farmers/herders, they wouldn't be pure R1b anymore. Instead of seeing only R1b clades in Yamnaya we would have gotten also G2a, J2, J1, T, E and more, bunch. But it is not the case at all. We have only R1b and mostly of the same clad. By this token I think they look like HGs folks, but with half Armenian like admixture. In this case, I suspect that, if they came from somewhere, it wasn't too far away, and definitely not from Middle East. I think this Armenian mix is from close by Caucasus area, and it is Caucasus admixture. Perhaps this admixture came with acquired women only but men being from Samara afterall.

Farthermore, there is a strong case that Caucasian admixture came to Yamnaya before Gedrosia reached Caucasus. On this chart below we can see that Yamnaya admixture still exists today in modern populations of Lithuania and Belarus, the regions which have no Gedrosia whatsoever. In such elevated levels of Yamnaya admixture, over 50%, there is no chance that gedrosia didn't show up in these populations, if it was present in Yamnaya dudes.
In this case the 50% Armenian like admixture has to consist of Caucasian and some ENF admixtures, I guess.

 

[LeBrok]

@Lebrok

There are many other reasons why I am convinced Gedrosia is part of this green component and maybe even slightly more than Caucasus. Take a look at North Caucasus. Populations with more Gedrosia over Caucasus are also naturally closer to Yamna. See Lezgins vs Adygei or Ingush vs Georgians.

Populations of Belarus and Lithuania is rich in Yamnaya, over 50%, but they don't show gedrosia whatsoever. Chart in post above.

What is nowadays the case doesn't mean it had to be the same in the past.

It can mean that in the past Gedrosia wasn't mixed with Caucasus as it is today. Once they are mixed you can't separate them to spread in different ways around. When we look at gedrosia and caucasian admixture they have different patterns in Europe. it can only mean that they didn't spread together.
If it was one mixed admixture the pattern would be the same for both, but it is not, right?
The only explanation for the different distribution is that they came separately, and it could only happened before they mixed in Near East.

Gedrosia is definitely ~50% ENF. Both Caucasus_Gedrosia are ENF. Only that ENF is higher in Caucasus (~75%) compared to Gedrosia (~60%).
We know that from the fact that South_Central Asians who have very low Caucasus have yet ~35-40% ENF This can largely be explained with Gedrosia.

Today yes, but not in Copper and Bronze Age.