Distribution map of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup in and around Europe circa 8000 BCE

Just a quick note. I have replaced the Y-DNA F in the map by H2 as what I have always referred to as the Paleolithic European F-P96 has recently been renamed H2.

C1a2 and H2 are very old haplogroups associated with Cro-Magnon. C1 was found in the 37,000-year-old Kostenki 14 in Russia. C1a2 was found in Mesolithic Iberia and Early Neolithic Anatolia. H2 was present in Early Neolithic Anatolia and Hungary (Starčevo) as well as in Megalithic Spain. In my opinion these were all descended from Paleolithic Europeans. The fact that both haplogroups were found among the first farmers of north-west Anatolia shows that there was a genetic continuity between northwest Anatolia and Europe at the time.
 
Tomenable said:
As for Yamnaya culture - so far we have 11x R1b and 1x I2 from this culture, but all of this R1b appears to be "Eastern" ht35 (Z2103), right? In any case, we do not have any "Western" ht15 (L51) so far, just like we do not have any R1a so far. I think that one of problems is that we are getting only samples of chieftains buried in elite kurgans. Maybe all of them belonged to the same "ruling dynasty", descended from a common ancestor, and that's why all of them had Z2103. And later in cultures such as Srubnaya, we find only R1a, no longer any Z2103 - maybe the "ruling dynasty" changed?
Click to expand...

It is a very important problem in historical population genetics, especially when looking at the Y-DNA of patriarchal and elitists societies like Proto-Indo-Europeans. Elite Kurgan burials may not be representative of the common folk from the culture in question. If, as you say, there was one ruling dynasty that expanded its territory over time but always placed royal princes as local rulers (like the Mongols did much later), then obviously we get a very skewed view of the Y-DNA in the overall society. That may simply be the reason why R1b-L51 hasn't shown up in Yamna yet. But it also means that there could have been plenty of Mesolithic (R1a, I2a) and Neolithic (G2a, T1a) lineages that were part of Yamna, but that are invisible to us now. The same would also apply to Corded Ware, Sintashta and any other Bronze Age Indo-European culture. If the ruling dynasty lasts long enough in one region, over time it will become the dominant male lineage in that region, even if it starts with in single individual. I think that would explain why R1b got replaced by R1a in Central Asia, and how the overwhelming majority of Indo-European Y-DNA that made it to the Indian subcontinent were R1a and not R1b, even though the European component of Indian genomes is about half Yamna R1b and half EHG R1a.


PS: Yamnaya I2 sample was I2a2a1b1b2 - is this subclade common today, where is it most frequent ???
Click to expand...

I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) is also known as Cont3b. It has a very wide distribution all over Europe, and even places like Georgia, but is especially common in Central Europe.
 
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.

But TMRCA of M198 is only 8000 years ago, when also its "son" M417 formed. And we don't know where they came from. In any case M198 split from the rest of R1a over 14 thousand ybp, and both EHG samples (Karelia and that one from Chekunova) found so far are xM198. So it is possible that all EHGs were xM198 and M198 came from somewhere else. It is equally possible that some EHGs were M198. We can't be sure for now.

11 samples from Xiaohe Tomb complex in the Tarim Basin were positive for M198, and negative for Z93. They are mysterious:

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2838831_1741-7007-8-15-1&req=4

(...) The Xiaohe cemetery (40°20'11" N, 88°40'20.3" E) is located in the Taklamakan Desert of northwest China, about 60 km south of the Peacock River and 175 km west of the ancient city of Kroraina (now Loulan; Figure 1). It was first explored in 1934 by Folke Bergman, a Swedish archaeologist, but the cemetery was lost sight of until the Xinjiang Archaeological Institute rediscovered it in 2000. The burial site comprises a total of 167 graves. Many enigmatic features of these graves, such as the pervasive use of sexual symbolism represented by tremendous numbers of huge phallus-posts and vulvae-posts, exaggerated wooden sculptures of human figures and masks, well-preserved boat coffins and mummies, a large number of textiles, ornaments and other artifacts, show that the civilization revealed at Xiaohe is different from any other archaeological site of the same period anywhere in the world [3]. (...)
Click to expand...

Also the oldest cheese and the oldest glue found anywhere in the world so far, are from Xiaohe Tomb complex:

Cheese: http://www.livescience.com/43782-mummies-have-oldest-cheese.html

Glue: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...t-xiaohe-cemetery-glue-made-3500-years-020120

I have seen two conflicting versions when it comes to dating of Xiaohe samples: either 2558-2472 BC or 2020-1940 BC:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/16/78

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf

http://students.cis.uab.edu/ggabbert/site/xiaohe.html

http://people.ucas.ac.cn/upload/UserFiles/File/20140623180433180905.pdf

Jean Manco used to have Xiaohe mummies dated to 2020-1940 BC, but have recently changed it to 2558-2472 BC:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml


I started a thread about this some time ago, but I assumed that they were M417, while in fact it is not certain:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...7-could-Caucasoid-mummies-of-Xiaohe-belong-to

They were only tested for M198 (here positive) and for Z93 (negative), but other types of M417 weren't tested.
 
Tomenable said:
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your bold association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, Indians have a few percents of Motala-like admixture. In some samples(Gujarati and Punjabi) it is as much as the Yamna-like admixture. And I have seen Bengali samples with no Yamna-like admixture, but a few percents of Motala-like and EEF-like admxitures. In contrast, Pathan, Sindhi, Burusho, Balochi and Tajiks all have considerably more Yamna-like than either Motala-like and EEF-like admxitures. It doesn't really make sense that Indians are so different. It's as if they were not descended from the same Indo-Iranian people.

Maybe it is because Pakistani and Afghans have more Proto-Iranian blood, a tribe that came from what is now Turkmenistan (relatively high R1b, so more Yamna-like), while Indo-Aryans descend from a more eastern Andronovo settlement around modern Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, where the levels of R1a are much higher. It's not a secret that R1b is much higher in Iran and northern Afghanistan than in India.

Haplogroup_R1b_World.png


11 samples from Xiaohe Tomb complex in the Tarim Basin were positive for M198, and negative for Z93. They are mysterious:

https://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=2838831_1741-7007-8-15-1&req=4

Moreover, the oldest cheese and the oldest glue found anywhere in the world so far, come from Xiaohe Tomb complex:

Cheese: http://www.livescience.com/43782-mummies-have-oldest-cheese.html

Glue: http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...t-xiaohe-cemetery-glue-made-3500-years-020120

I have seen two conflicting versions when it comes to dating of Xiaohe samples: either 2558-2472 BC or 2020-1940 BC:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/16/78

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp185_silk_road.pdf

http://students.cis.uab.edu/ggabbert/site/xiaohe.html

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. The dating is crucial here, as Andronovo starts from 2300 BCE. So if the Xiaohe tombs date from 2558-2472 BCE, the are older than Andronovo, which would be odd for an R1a tribe. That's barely the start of the Sintashta period. On the other hand, if they date from 2020-1940 BCE, then they could be an Andronovo offshoot. I don't have a problem with the fact that there were negative for Z93. As we discussed above, the different subclade could simply represent a different ruling family.
 
Maciamo said:
The dating is crucial here, as Andronovo starts from 2300 BCE. So if the Xiaohe tombs date from 2558-2472 BCE, the are older than Andronovo, which would be odd for an R1a tribe. That's barely the start of the Sintashta period. On the other hand, if they date from 2020-1940 BCE, then they could be an Andronovo offshoot.
Click to expand...

Indeed!

Jean Manco on her website "Ancestral Journeys" used to have them dated to 2020-1940 BCE, but recently she has changed that information, and now she has them dated to 2558-2472 BCE. I vaguely recall that she has explained why she did that in some thread on Anthrogenica about Tarim mummies, but I can't find that post anywhere now. It seems that some new dating has been carried out, and the mummies have turned out to be older than previously thought (?). Anyway, here is the link to her website with Xiaohe mummies, and they are now dated to 2515 +/- 43 BC (few months ago, they were listed there as 1980 +/-40 BC):

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/silkroaddna.shtml

I have asked her about this, but she has not responded so far. Maybe you will be more lucky?

I'm sure there was some good reason for that change.
 
Maciamo said:
Nevertheless, Indians have a few percents of Motala-like admixture.
Click to expand...

Motala are those SHG guys from Sweden, right? Weren't they partially ANE ???

IIRC, the only "pure WHG" are Loschbour+La Brana+Bichon, while SHG had some ANE, and EHG had a lot of ANE.

Maybe "Motala-like" in India is the ANE part of Motala, not the WHG part. And what about possible CHG admixture?

Indians can have some part of CHG, which was shared ancestry of CHG and SHG.

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

As for R1b frequency in Iran - the map posted above shows, that is especially high in Western Iran.

Western Iran is inhabited mostly by Non-Persian ethnic minorities, such as Arabs, Turkic Azeris, but also Iranic Kurds and Lurs:

The-ayatollahs-empire.png


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Ethnicities_and_religions_in_Iran.png

Ethnicities_and_religions_in_Iran.png
 
Maciamo said:
Just a quick note. I have replaced the Y-DNA F in the map by H2 as what I have always referred to as the Paleolithic European F-P96 has recently been renamed H2.

C1a2 and H2 are very old haplogroups associated with Cro-Magnon. C1 was found in the 37,000-year-old Kostenki 14 in Russia. C1a2 was found in Mesolithic Iberia and Early Neolithic Anatolia. H2 was present in Early Neolithic Anatolia and Hungary (Starčevo) as well as in Megalithic Spain. In my opinion these were all descended from Paleolithic Europeans. The fact that both haplogroups were found among the first farmers of north-west Anatolia shows that there was a genetic continuity between northwest Anatolia and Europe at the time.
Click to expand...

acoording to Genetiker Kostenki was C1b1 - related to the former 'C5'

Barcin neolithic arrived with cattle and ovicaprids 8.6 ka. They came across Anatola overland - at around the same time cattle arrived at Catal Hoyuk and other sites in Central Anatolia (before that they only had ovicaprids)
Before Barcin arrived neolithic there were allready HG on the Marmara coast.
7.8 ka cardial ware arrived at the Marmara coast with pigs.

The NW Anatolian samples were after 8.6 ka but before 7.8 ka and taken from only 2 sites.
IMO the local HG were I and the others - G2a - J2a - H2 - C1a2 were farmers who came from further east.

As for C1a2, the TMRCA between La Brana and the neolithic C1a2 according to YFull is 43200 years, that is at the onset of the Aurignacian.
IMO this was a split between European C1a2 (La Brana) and SW Asian C1a2 (neolithic)

Admixture between Anatolia and the Balkans started 13 ka when obsidian from Melos and Anatolian pulses seeds arrived at Franchthi cave in the Argolis Bay, Greece.
Those same people reached Cyprus 12.5 ka and Sicily 9.5 ka.
 
Tomenable said:
Maciamo I'm still not so convinced by your association of all of R1a with EHG. About 99% of R1a alive today is under M198 branch, which emerged ca. 14300 years ago (per YFull), while that EHG Karelian sample of R1a, who lived 7000-7500 years ago, was negative for this clade (xM198). Ancestors of EHG R1a split from ancestors of M198 R1a over 14 thousand years ago, and then over 7 thousand years ago we discover M459* in Karelia. M459 itself emerged 17700 years ago, and the most basal form of R1a - M420 - emerged 22000 years ago, and TMRCA of both M420 and M459 was 14300 years ago. Therefore M420*, M459* as well as YP1272 (formed 14300 years ago as well) had a lot of time to migrate all over Eurasia as hunters.
Click to expand...

from LGM till youngest dryas (12.7-12.6 ka) there was eastern epigravettian north and east of the Black Sea
Satsurblia was eastern epigravettian, and it was haplo J, IMO all eastern epigravettian was haplo J
IMO first R1 tribes arrived north of the Caucasus right after youngest dryas, not earlier
till Maykop culture, new R1 tribes kept arriving north of the Caucasus
David Anthony, in his book mentions 10 ka at Dnjepr rapids there were 3 tribes (1 dolicephalic, 2 brachhyophalic) fighting for hegemony (flint tips were inside skeletons)
by 9 ka 1 brachhyophalic had won and started to conquer the whole area
so 10 ka first R1 tribes arrived at Dnjepr rapids
I suspect J in EHG Karelia is J*, it would be interesting to verify this
 
bicicleur said:
Tomenable, where does it say they were not Z93 ?
Click to expand...

In the comment section professor Zhou (corresponding author of the study) wrote, that they were not Z93:

Check "The origin of Xiaohe Bronze Age mummy" comment (2014-07-18 16:14):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments#2168698

Here is the most important fragment:

Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried HgR1a1in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M*in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch(our recently unpublished data) which mainly found in Asians.
Click to expand...

Here is his e-mail address, you can ask him about details if you want: [email protected]
 
bicicleur said:
Tomenable, where does it say they were not Z93 ?
Click to expand...

In the comment section prof. Hui Zhou (corresponding author of the study) wrote, that they were not Z93:

Check "The origin of Xiaohe Bronze Age mummy" comment (posted 2014-07-18 16:14):

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15/comments#2168698

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15

Here is the most important fragment:

(...) Our results show that Xiaohe settlers carried Hg R1a1 in paternal lineages, and Hgs H, K, C4, M* in maternal lineages. Though Hg R1a1a is found at highest frequency in both Europe and South Asia, Xiaohe R1a1a more likely originate from Europe because of it not belong to R1a1a-Z93 branch (our recently unpublished data) which [is] mainly found in Asians. (...)
Click to expand...

Here is his email address, you can ask him about details if you want: [email protected]

This comment is already over one year old, so I hope that they will soon publish that unpublished data. :)

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

It seems that Xiaohe people emigrated westward, and their descendants now live in Western Eurasia.

Because there is not much of non-Z93 R1a left in the Tarim Basin today, AFAIK.
 
Maciamo said:
It's been a while since I haven't made any new maps. Here is an attempt to show what Europe, the Near East and North Africa looked like in terms of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroups some 10,000 years ago. I delimited the (very) approximate borders of the first cereal/legume farmers in the Fertile Crescent, the first cattle herders and the first goat herders.

Of course these Neolithic people eventually expanded. G2a farmers moved west across Anatolia to Europe and east to Iran, where J2 hunter-gatherers eventually became Neolithised. G2b moved south to Egypt and Arabia. J1+T1a goat herders eventually expanded over all the Fertile Crescent, then colonised the mountainous regions of the Mediterranean, well suited for goats.

I believe that R1b cattle herders ended up squeezed between all these other groups, which forced them to move south to Africa (R1b-V88) and north to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (R1b-M269) between 6000 and 5000 BCE.


8000BCE-haplogroups.png


Go to this page for a larger version (click on the map there).
Click to expand...

Its been speculated in previous forums that E-m78 and J2b entered the Balkans at the same time. There is the same proportion of E-M78 and J2b throughout the continent. Which, according to the new map, would mean these mixed population was formed in Anatolia and then moved to the Balkans.
 
When it comes to haplogroups of Xiaohe mummies:

Y-DNA = R1a (11 samples = ca. 92%) and K (one sample = ca. 8%)
mtDNA = H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, C4, C5, B, D, G2a, M5 and maybe M*

Authors claim that C4 and C5 are "East Asian", but in fact they are native Siberian, and also present in Europe:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/09/european-specific-mtdna-c-from.html
 
bicicleur said:
from LGM till youngest dryas (12.7-12.6 ka) there was eastern epigravettian north and east of the Black Sea
Satsurblia was eastern epigravettian, and it was haplo J, IMO all eastern epigravettian was haplo J
IMO first R1 tribes arrived north of the Caucasus right after youngest dryas, not earlier
till Maykop culture, new R1 tribes kept arriving north of the Caucasus
David Anthony, in his book mentions 10 ka at Dnjepr rapids there were 3 tribes (1 dolicephalic, 2 brachhyophalic) fighting for hegemony (flint tips were inside skeletons)
by 9 ka 1 brachhyophalic had won and started to conquer the whole area
so 10 ka first R1 tribes arrived at Dnjepr rapids
I suspect J in EHG Karelia is J*, it would be interesting to verify this
Click to expand...
That makes a lot of sense.
So, those Euros would be J* and visitors from East (having Mongoloid/Syberian features) would be R1a.
Soviet anthros described J* EHG guy as Euro, but R1a EHG guy as mixed Euro/ Mongoloid (alternatively as not a mix but specific Uralid race).

I am now puzzled re Swiderians. J? I? IJ?
 
How do you know which one was which, though?

I remember that I saw signatures of those guys somewhere, but I can't find it again.

Does the genetic paper say which was which ???

BTW - there were more than just 2 men there. There are at least 142 people buried there.

We have reconstructions of two of them, but do you know which exactly are they?

The majority of skulls from that cemetery were Caucasoid, Mongoloid were a few of them:

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudi...-evidence-for-amerindian-admixture-in-europe/

(...) Craniologically, the Yuzhnyi Olenii Ostrov burial is dominated by Caucasoid morphology but, importantly, there is a small number of skulls that display Mongoloid traits. (...)
Click to expand...

EDIT:

I have found those signatures - they are in this link:

files.figshare.com/485787/Table_S2.pdf

R1a + C1g hunter (sample UzOO 74) is this one:

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-74
Grave number: 142

And J + U4a hunter (sample UzOO 40) is this one:

MAE RAS collection number: 5773-40
Grave number: 39/1

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

Are they the same guys as those two reconstructed by Gerasimov ???

BTW - isn't C1g a "typically Native American" mtDNA haplogroup ???
 
He simply arrived from Syberia together with mom and dad.
The anthro type of Samara EHG was most likely also Uralid. He was R1b.
 
The anthro type of Samara EHG was most likely also Uralid. He was R1b.
Click to expand...
But the Samara EHG had blonde hair, according to FireHaired14:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1993675580

At least according to previous info, because now it turns out that he also had a red hair mutation:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31766-Update-Natural-Selection-in-the-Last-8-000-Years

Maybe he had what is called reddish-blonde / strawberry-blonde?

Karelian EHG had darker hair, maybe due to that Mongoloid admixture?

Hair colors of EHG samples according to FireHaired14 (Brown/Black = Karelia; Brown/Blonde = Samara):

HG_Hair_Colours.png


On the other hand, autosomal results are similar, Karelian "East Asian" portion is only slightly larger:

They can be modeled as WHG + ANE mix, with very minor South Asian + East Asian admixtures:

EHG_Autosomal.png


Maybe blonde hair is indeed an originally Uralid trait then ???
 
For this particular Samara EHG Russian users of molgen could not find description. "Most likely Uralid" comes from description of other same culture graves.
Hmm, do you have an autosomal comparison for Karelia J and Karelia R1a?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 47016 times.

Back
Top