Modern distribution of R1b-Z2103

[Pip]

This is absolutely not true for europe before the neolithic... People tend to keep the same lineages and the same ancestry until populations with multiple lineage and mixtures from the middle-east enter in europe.

On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Why would people from the Middle East mix, but not people from Europe? Why would people coming in from the Middle East then also make them start to mix? I'm not convinced.
Pre-Neolithic Northern European populations were in any case a mix of Western and Eastern Hunter Gatherer lineages. Yamnayans were, in any case, a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherer and Iranian-like DNA. We're even told that some Paleolithics mixed with Neanderthals, leaving a small remnant of Neanderthal in present day European DNA.

[Pip]

Branching doesn't matter, it only tell us prehistoric R1b-Z2103 from eastern europe and modern R1b-Z2103 from Armenia, are different. But they have ultimately a same origin and a same autosomal dna, same mtdna lineage. Pip point doesn't make sense, populations of Africa with R1b-V88 have also mtdna lineage like U5b that are ultimately european. Modern population have obviously different autosomal dna than ancient one.

Chalcolithic Z2103 samples from East Central Europe have both a strikingly different autosomal DNA and a different mitochondrial DNA mix to those from Russia. Russian samples have a significant Iranian-like component, and Balkan samples have a substantial input from indigenous European farmers.
African V88 with European mtDNA lineages shows the women (as well as the men) were prepared to move very long distances away from the Steppe during the Neolithic.

[halfalp]

On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Why would people from the Middle East mix, but not people from Europe? Why would people coming in from the Middle East then also make them start to mix? I'm not convinced.
Pre-Neolithic Northern European populations were in any case a mix of Western and Eastern Hunter Gatherer lineages. Yamnayans were, in any case, a mix of Eastern Hunter Gatherer and Iranian-like DNA. We're even told that some Paleolithics mixed with Neanderthals, leaving a small remnant of Neanderthal in present day European DNA.

WHG and EHG is only the Input of ANE into WHG, it's not a big differentiation, and it lasted maybe even 10'000 millenia. Neolithic was Anatolia_N, Levante_N, Iran_N, Basal Eurasian ( if we imagine it existed somwhere in a very pure form ), CHG... HG's had a very low density population making a population distant of thousands of miles being the same autosomally, but farmers because of demographic explosions had every centuries to migrate somwhere else to encounter new people. The proof is, for 30'000 years, europe had only y-dna C1a,I and R with mtdna U2,u4,U5,U8,R,M ( a part M, all related in ancestry ) while neolithic in only couple of centuries had develop and absorb so many lineages ( mtdna H have like 95 subgroups ) and expanded so intensively, it is absolutely not the same story. Neanderthal addition doesn't change too much because it probably happened in a very small group and only resurface here and there with exchange of ancestry like Goyet -> El Miron.

[halfalp]

Chalcolithic Z2103 samples from East Central Europe have both a strikingly different autosomal DNA and a different mitochondrial DNA mix to those from Russia. Russian samples have a significant Iranian-like component, and Balkan samples have a substantial input from indigenous European farmers.
African V88 with European mtDNA lineages shows the women (as well as the men) were prepared to move very long distances away from the Steppe during the Neolithic.

Ok i'm confused... that autosomal dna between an Ukrainian population and an Armenian one ( with the same haplogroup ) is confusing to you? Because i'm R1b-L2, but i dont have the same autosomal dna than an Iberian R1b-L2, it sounds pretty logic in term of genetic no? Do modern Indian people of R1a-Z93 have the same autosomal dna as the Bulgarian Chalcolithic R1a-Z93? Dont be silly. And your point about men and women having the behavioral reasoning to move long distance, i dont know what to thinka bout it.

[Pip]

I was responding to your post Originally Posted by halfalp - Branching doesn't matter, it only tell us prehistoric R1b-Z2103 from eastern europe and modern R1b-Z2103 from Armenia, are different. But they have ultimately a same origin and a same autosomal dna, same mtdna lineage.

You seemed to be saying that Z2103 from Eastern Europe and Z2103 from Armenia had the same autosomal DNA and mtDNA.
That is my point - even within Eastern European Z2103, the autosomal DNA and mtDNA is strikingly different. By 3,000-2,800 BC, although these people had a male ancestor in common, they were living within families drawn from very different ancestral roots. I only raised this point as circumstantial evidence to indicate that their most recent common male ancestor might have been earlier than some imagine, and pre-dated the emergence of the Yamnayan culture.

We are straying off the point a bit, which is the modern distribution of Z2103. There seem to be two major strands of it - the European one and the Eastern one centred around the Caucasus/Northern Turkey. I am interested in whether the Eastern strand descends from a section of Caspian Yamnaya, Maykop and/or the Hittites. Is there any DNA evidence in relation to this?

[Silesian]

I would have to disagree. Snp/str/autosomal branching + carbon dating samples are extremely informative. For example z-2103 and L-51 branch from L-23+, it would make sense to place L23+ L51+ Z2103+ in the same geographic region, str/snp/autosomal connection.
Until very recent we did not have a proper understanding of Caucasus and speculated on the main Yamanaya autosomal components.
With each new sample our understanding is improved[we can ask proper questions]. For example, we can see that Georgia @26000+/- [basal Caucasian]years ago had different composition than CHG; all located in a region near Yamnaya and Maykop burials. While WHG represented by Villabruna cluster is a R1b branch.

To address this imbalance and to better understand the relationship of Europeans and Near Easterners, we report genome-wide data from two ~26 thousand year old individuals from Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia in the Caucasus from around the beginning of the LGM. Surprisingly, the Dzudzuana population was more closely related to early agriculturalists from western Anatolia ~8 thousand years ago than to the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus from the same region of western Georgia of ~13-10 thousand years ago. Most of the Dzudzuana population's ancestry was deeply related to the post-glacial western European hunter-gatherers of the 'Villabruna cluster', but it also had ancestry from a lineage that had separated from the great majority of non-African populations before they separated from each other, proving that such 'Basal Eurasians' were present in West Eurasia twice as early as previously recorded. We document major population turnover in the Near East after the time of Dzudzuana, showing that the highly differentiated Holocene populations of the region were formed by 'Ancient North Eurasian' admixture into the Caucasus and Iran and North African admixture into the Natufians of the Levant. We finally show that the Dzudzuana population contributed the

Dzudzuana Ice Age foragers: a different type of Caucasus hunter-gatherer (Lazaridis et al. 2018 preprint)

[halfalp]

I was responding to your post Originally Posted by halfalp - Branching doesn't matter, it only tell us prehistoric R1b-Z2103 from eastern europe and modern R1b-Z2103 from Armenia, are different. But they have ultimately a same origin and a same autosomal dna, same mtdna lineage.

You seemed to be saying that Z2103 from Eastern Europe and Z2103 from Armenia had the same autosomal DNA and mtDNA.
That is my point - even within Eastern European Z2103, the autosomal DNA and mtDNA is strikingly different. By 3,000-2,800 BC, although these people had a male ancestor in common, they were living within families drawn from very different ancestral roots. I only raised this point as circumstantial evidence to indicate that their most recent common male ancestor might have been earlier than some imagine, and pre-dated the emergence of the Yamnayan culture.

We are straying off the point a bit, which is the modern distribution of Z2103. There seem to be two major strands of it - the European one and the Eastern one centred around the Caucasus/Northern Turkey. I am interested in whether the Eastern strand descends from a section of Caspian Yamnaya, Maykop and/or the Hittites. Is there any DNA evidence in relation to this?

We are not off the point, it's exactly what i'm talking about. The autosomal dna of modern Caucasus/Nothern Turkey, cannot tell you anything about Yamnaya, Maykop and especially not the Hittites. See it's pretty simple, like i said the Pontic Zone is an Horseshoe, if we take from base the North Caucasus, we can roam and turn until arrive in the South Caucasus into a circum-pontic trail. R1b-Z2103* probably originate in that Horseshoe. But then, how do we know if R1b-Z2103 from Yamnaya is local and did not came from Caucasus/North Turkey? Or how do we know that modern Caucasus/North Turkey R1b-Z2103 didn't come from Eastern Europe? Well there is an easy reponse. The response is autosomal dna. But! Autosomal DNA from modern populations is completely irrelevent, Caucasus/North Turkey till Yamnaya and now, have recieved so much genetic impact from totally and distant admixtures than the genetic makeup is too complicate to see an origin for. However, prehistoric samples is absolutely not the same story, because every pop's that were not FIRST ultimately touch by the demic advance of EEF, like in Eastern Europe, were still almost in a pure form. Yamnaya had different ancestry, the big ancestry was EHG, the second CHG. They had mtdna lineage linked with neolithic europe ( EEF ) who didn't give them substantial farmer genetic makeup, then the only link from the south in Yamnaya is CHG. The problem with CHG in Yamnaya, it's too big, it doesn't fit the lineage that we know south of the caucasus or maikop with it, it is completely out of link with R1b-Z2103. If R1b-Z2103 would come from south, it would also bring minority of EEF and Iran_Neolithic, the genetic makeup of Yamnaya would be bigger, we only see suck link in the steppe area were EHG exchange dna with Maikop. Conclusion, ultimately, R1b-M269 could came to south caucasus from the Balkans sometimes in the mesolithic, get CHG ancestry and back migrate into eastern europe where they would encounter older R1b lineages and become dominant. But isn't it a complicate hypothesis? Looks like an hypothesis to fit modern ethnic agenda, like Armenian or Turk, Kurdish... Isn't?

[Pip]

I wouldn't discard any data as 'completely irrelevant', nor see any data as 'pure'.

We can identify at least 3 very different types of historic Z2103 individuals:
1. Eastern Yamnaya - broadly Steppe mtDNA, autosomal Caucasian component, hardly any EEF or WHG
2. Ukraine - broadly Steppe mtDNA, autosomal WHG component, hardly any Caucasian or EEF
3. Balkan - mixed mtDNA, autosomal EEF component, hardly any Caucasian

The core DNA to all three looks Northern - perhaps Poland or Northern Ukraine?

Might Maykop and/or the Hittites have incorporated Z2103? Do we have any historic Maykop or Hittite DNA with which to compare to the other three types of Z2103 mentioned?

What data do we have to best help identify the source of the major branches of Z2103 found today in Turkey and the Caucasus? Based on the limited data that we have, could the principal sources for this Z2103 be the Hittites, Maykop, Russian Yamnaya, Ukrainian pre-Yamnaya and/or Balkan?

[markod]

I wouldn't discard any data as 'completely irrelevant', nor see any data as 'pure'.

We can identify at least 3 very different types of historic Z2103 individuals:
1. Eastern Yamnaya - broadly Steppe mtDNA, autosomal Caucasian component, hardly any EEF or WHG
2. Ukraine - broadly Steppe mtDNA, autosomal WHG component, hardly any Caucasian or EEF
3. Balkan - mixed mtDNA, autosomal EEF component, hardly any Caucasian

The core DNA to all three looks Northern - perhaps Poland or Northern Ukraine?

Might Maykop and/or the Hittites have incorporated Z2103? Do we have any historic Maykop or Hittite DNA with which to compare to the other three types of Z2103 mentioned?

What data do we have to best help identify the source of the major branches of Z2103 found today in Turkey and the Caucasus? Based on the limited data that we have, could the principal sources for this Z2103 be the Hittites, Maykop, Russian Yamnaya, Ukrainian pre-Yamnaya and/or Balkan?

There's an Iron Age Hurrian with Z2103 or something under it IIRC.

I wouldn't put too much stock in autosomal DNA when it comes to the origin of haplogroups though. Lots of mixing in the metal ages.

[Pip]

I have checked some samples that show a heavy Eastern Hunter Gatherer component (i) in Northern Maykop as far back as 3,500 BC, (ii) within 60 or so miles of Maykop city by 2,800 BC and (iii) on the Northern foothills of the Caucasus mountains by 2,750 BC. There are samples with heavy EHG all along the Western side of the Northern Caucasus.

The last of these three samples was identified as R1b-L23 (I would say most likely Z2103), and was located less than 200 miles from Armenia.

In the absence of other evidence, is it more likely that this (rather than a Balkan variety of Z2103) is the source of the Iron Age Hurrian Z2103 and the Armenian branch of modern Z2103?

[halfalp]

Not sure to get you. Eastern Steppe was mostly WHG component through EHG than Caucasian. About Maikop, Maikop Steppe, North Caucasus HG's were autosomally mostly from the Steppe, the North Caucasus Eneolithic wich Maikop " Culture " is part of was CHG / Iran_Neolithic. Maikop Steppe was mostly R1b and Q1a2 while Maikop Culture was mostly J1,J2 and G, with some L if i recall, exactly like the southern counterpart Kura-Araxes. It is possible that R1b-Z2103 from Armenia was already at this time from the North Caucasus part and already more CHG shifted, then at late Yamnaya or Catacomb, they migrated through the Darial Pass with pretty much the same genetic makeup as Maikop. Catacomb Culture was also mostly R1b-Z2103 but i think the ancestry shows a more northern origin that Yamnaya, so maybe late Yamnaya people " run away " Catacomb people

[Pip]

From the data I have seen:
1. Eastern Steppe had very little WHG in comparison to Ukrainian Steppe.
2. Northern Maykop had a greater EHG component than subsequent Z2103 Yamnaya did, suggesting a development area for Z2103 proto-Yamnaya and the addition of its Caucasian DNA principally within Maykop.
3. The southwards movement of Z2103 and other Northern Steppe DNA into Anatolia and Armenia seems to have happened gradually - (i) firstly into Northern Maykop (perhaps 3,500 BC), (ii) then branching away from Yamnaya and replacing Southern Maykop (perhaps 3,000 BC), (iii) then moving into the Western side of the Caucasus (perhaps 2,800 BC), (iv) then replacing Kura-Araxes (perhaps as a mixed ethnicity component or relative of Trialeti) in Armenia and North Eastern Anatolia (perhaps 2,400 BC).
4. As both the Yamnayans and the North Anatolian Hittites were probably Indo-European, I would suggest they most likely had some common paternal origins (including Z2103) within Northern Maykop, and that there was (and is) too little WHG in Anatolia for the proto-Hittites to have migrated into Anatolia from the Balkans.

Any thoughts?

[halfalp]

From the data I have seen:
1. Eastern Steppe had very little WHG in comparison to Ukrainian Steppe.
2. Northern Maykop had a greater EHG component than subsequent Z2103 Yamnaya did, suggesting a development area for Z2103 proto-Yamnaya and the addition of its Caucasian DNA principally within Maykop.
3. The southwards movement of Z2103 and other Northern Steppe DNA into Anatolia and Armenia seems to have happened gradually - (i) firstly into Northern Maykop (perhaps 3,500 BC), (ii) then branching away from Yamnaya and replacing Southern Maykop (perhaps 3,000 BC), (iii) then moving into the Western side of the Caucasus (perhaps 2,800 BC), (iv) then replacing Kura-Araxes (perhaps as a mixed ethnicity component or relative of Trialeti) in Armenia and North Eastern Anatolia (perhaps 2,400 BC).
4. As both the Yamnayans and the North Anatolian Hittites were probably Indo-European, I would suggest they most likely had some common paternal origins (including Z2103) within Northern Maykop, and that there was (and is) too little WHG in Anatolia for the proto-Hittites to have migrated into Anatolia from the Balkans.

Any thoughts?

The thing is, the Maikop Proper samples that we have are from Late Maikop, not Early Maikop. So R1b-Z2103 have absolutely nothing to do with Maikop originally. But there is always a possibility that some steppe foragers neighboring Maikop actually take the whole cultural package of Maikop at some point and migrate slowely south of the Caucasus. If you look at the table of " Ancient genomes from Caucasus " you will see that Caucasus Yamnaya have more CHG than EHG, so no the CHG ancestry was gradual with a high admixture South-East ( Caucasus ) and a low admixture North-West ( CWC ), wich make sense if you think about it. The problem with the Caucasus hypothesis, is that we dont see a clear culture, there is no Yamnaya Anatolia or Maikop Anatolia, we dont see any culture to be link with a North -> South migration. So the migration probably happened with Boats or from the Balkans. I think the highest point of Z2103 in Anatolia is actually Sinop, wich could be consistant with a migration by sea.

[Pip]

Yes, migration by sea is certainly a possibility, often ignored. But from where? Central Anatolia does not display sufficient WHG to suggest a migration from Ukraine or the Balkans, unless it occurred after WHG-heavy Steppe people had been decimated by Eastern invaders. More likely from Azov, perhaps in response to incursions from R1a-Z93-dominated groups?

Also, branching within Z2103 would suggest that the Anatolian varieties most likely arose in the East. Despite being more numerous perhaps at Sinop, it looks most diverse (both in terms of SNPs and STRs within SNPs) around Armenia.

As Hittite is also considered the earliest offshoot of Indo-European, this means it most likely predates the separation (and possibly even the preceding admixture) between R1b-M269 (Yamnayan and Bell Beaker) and R1a-M417 (Corded Ware) peoples, i.e. Anatolian sections would have branched off very early indeed or would have emerged from populations relatively untouched by R1a admixture (such as the Eastern Pontic).

[halfalp]

Yes, migration by sea is certainly a possibility, often ignored. But from where? Central Anatolia does not display sufficient WHG to suggest a migration from Ukraine or the Balkans, unless it occurred after WHG-heavy Steppe people had been decimated by Eastern invaders. More likely from Azov, perhaps in response to incursions from R1a-Z93-dominated groups?

Also, branching within Z2103 would suggest that the Anatolian varieties most likely arose in the East. Despite being more numerous perhaps at Sinop, it looks most diverse (both in terms of SNPs and STRs within SNPs) around Armenia.

As Hittite is also considered the earliest offshoot of Indo-European, this means it most likely predates the separation (and possibly even the preceding admixture) between R1b-M269 (Yamnayan and Bell Beaker) and R1a-M417 (Corded Ware) peoples, i.e. Anatolian sections would have branched off very early indeed or would have emerged from populations relatively untouched by R1a admixture (such as the Eastern Pontic).

That or Coastal People from Ukraine run away some sort of flood or natural catastrophe and happened all around the black sea shores. Azov sea was one day some proper lands, and that time is not that far away in time. The Anatolian question is obviously the most tricky about all the IE question. I dont have any hypothesis in mind for now, obviously i lean more toward a northern origin, but we dont see some clear pattern of migration like CWC, BB, Sintashta, so the question remain.

[Pip]

Looking at the branching of eastern/Armenian Z2103, I do not really see many early pan-Anatolian indicators, so I think R-PF7562 might be a better candidate for a Hittite/Luwian source. Modern eastern Z2103 looks most likely to be Caucasian leakage from proto-Yamnayan/Steppe Maykop that has remained fairly localised around Armenia, apart from a little southward spread into the Levant and Iraq.

Another question is what happened to Samaran/eastern Yamnayan Z2103. I cannot see any signs that it survived to any significant degree, and it looks instead as if it was its immediate ancestor (root Z2103) that survived in the West, although largely by being subsumed into R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 dominated populations.

[berun]

I think the Z2103 in Hajji Firuz has been confirmed by others. It hasn't been dated directly however.

good this one
:)

when facts are against steppe homeland then there are so many objections... that my red and orange alarms are like sparks.

[markod]

good this one
:)

when facts are against steppe homeland then there are so many objections... that my red and orange alarms are like sparks.

Wrong guy, I give slightly more chance to Armenia/Anatolia being confirmed in the future. I don't feel like arguing for the possibility anymore now that Reich and others are considering it.

[halfalp]

I'm not sure to understand you both, are we talking about R1b-Z2103 or about PIE? origins? Because both are not the same.

[halfalp]

I dont think the Reich Lab have any sample that matter. Why make 2 papers on the Caucasus, wich is basically the place we are targeting for a southern origin of both R1b-M269 and PIE ; and not give all the samples? I think they overestimated their Maikop paper, i think most of the linguists and archeologists that were working with them, were so autocenter to their Renfrew narrative, that they didn't think to the extra passionnate amateurish community, exactly like the Hajji Firuz sample. If one day they make a Shulaveri-Shomu or Leila-Tepe paper wich confirm a southern origin for both, they gonna have to quote numbers of amateurs.

[halfalp]

Areni1: y-dna L1a - mtdna H2a1 / Khvalynsk: y-dna R1b1 - mtdna H2a1 / Sredni Stog: y-dna R1a - mtdna H2a1a.

[Silesian]

..........Another question is what happened to Samaran/eastern Yamnayan Z2103.

They are related to Bashkirs

http://suyun.info/userfiles/bulletin..._paleo_dna.png

I cannot see any signs that it survived to any significant degree, and it looks instead as if it was its immediate ancestor (root Z2103) that survived in the West, although largely by being subsumed into R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 dominated populations.

Comparing apples with oranges.Neither R1b-L51 or R1a-M417 covered the geographical distance-time frame 5000YBP +- - R1b-Z2103/Yamnaya.
https://www.britannica.com/place/the-Steppe

The Steppe, belt of grassland that extends some 5,000 miles (8,000 kilometres) from Hungary in the west through Ukraine and Central Asia to Manchuria in the east

[markod]

I dont think the Reich Lab have any sample that matter. Why make 2 papers on the Caucasus, wich is basically the place we are targeting for a southern origin of both R1b-M269 and PIE ; and not give all the samples? I think they overestimated their Maikop paper, i think most of the linguists and archeologists that were working with them, were so autocenter to their Renfrew narrative, that they didn't think to the extra passionnate amateurish community, exactly like the Hajji Firuz sample. If one day they make a Shulaveri-Shomu or Leila-Tepe paper wich confirm a southern origin for both, they gonna have to quote numbers of amateurs.

The Maykop paper definitely weakens the southern hypothesis of PIE as formulated by Reich and Lazaridis. Hopefully they have some kind of strong evidence that will bring some closure one way or the other - if that's all they have that would be very disappointing.

It all hinges on samples from Anatolia, India & Greece anyway, and those are still few and far between.

[halfalp]

The Maykop paper definitely weakens the southern hypothesis of PIE as formulated by Reich and Lazaridis. Hopefully they have some kind of strong evidence that will bring some closure one way or the other - if that's all they have that would be very disappointing.

It all hinges on samples from Anatolia, India & Greece anyway, and those are still few and far between.

My guess goes this way, we found R1b-V88 in mesolithic Balkans and Eastern Europe and modern Africa. It's an obvious means that north and south eurasia migrated in the other direction. So, sampling the good cultures, we can have some surprise. The thing about PIE and the Maikop paper, i suppose they take that stance " it's basically southern civilized guys and northern steppe foragers, the first probably have bring civilization to the second ". It's a bias like one another. Also, i've read by Carlos Quiles that apparently there is a future paper of Greece Neolithic with a Steppe Outlier in Neolithic Greece, that he link with a maybe Proto-Anatolian migration. Let's see the future.

[Joey37]

I wouldn't believe anything Carlos Quiles wrote. His crackpot idea of the R1a people speaking Uralic invalidates any other work. Any Uralic population with R1a is a result of Slavic introgression; the haplogroup of the Uralics is N1c. Sanskrit and Lithuanian are too pure to have been the descendants of an Indo-European Uralic pidgin which would have been, in his theories, their parent. It is the Centum languages, the R1b tongues, that have the innovations. And the frequency of R1b-L51 drops precipitously east of the old Iron Curtain; it certainly has no part in spreading Indo-European tongues out of the steppe.