New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)

The dude isn't perfect(eg, girl-snatching ANEs) but he's smart. He doesn't contradict academic findings.

Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes? The percentages from his calculator are very different from the ones in Haak et al. Or didn't you bother to compare them?

As for your post #14, who said the Baltics and Finland don't have Corded Ware ancestry? Stop creating straw man arguments.
 
On page 122 of the supplement, Haak et al provide the EN/WHG/Yamnaya precise percentages for 29 European populations. The Tuscans are 27% Yamnaya, the French 37.6%, the English 41%, the Basques 27 %, the Estonians 49.5, the Scottish 48.6, the Lithuanians 51%, the Norwegians 53.5%, the Finns 67.8% and so on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/extref/nature14317-s1.pdf
 
Using a Eurogenes calculator to make a map of Yamnaya admixture is a little naiv. Look at the Yamnaya numbers of Haak et al.
and than compare it to the map and where "Yamnaya ancestry " peaks. Is it the Baltics? coincidence? isn't the author also from the Baltics?

:)

How do you explain the high percent of Yamnaya among Lapps?

By the way both south Russia and south Ukraine suffered as Spain and Portugal a process of colonization over Muslim territoires that might be taken into account when traveling into the past.

There is no high percentage of Yamnaya in the Lapps, it's just that the authors methods are Northeast Europe biased, and as consequence therefore even groups such as Lapps score extremely high. But in reality it is just similar/ shared ancestry or this calculator is simply catching up more EHG ancestry as Yamnaya.
 
Good idea in theory, but it's not just ANE, but also EHG. The problem is that there are so many ways of calculating admixtures, and the EHG or ANE in one test does not necessarily equals that of another test. You'd think that by comparing modern genomes to a few Yamna genomes you'd get similar percentages in all calculators, but Haak and Eurogenes got very different results for some populations like the Basques. IMO the Eurogenes data makes for sense for the Basques (0-5% Yamna, against about 25% according to Haak). But it also depends on one calibrates the calculator, how sensitive the differences can be, etc.

I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.
 
Unfortunately I can't make a map with data for just a handful of countries.



There is data for the Basque country (0-5%), and other data for Northern Spanish (5-10%).


I remember there was a whole table of ethnic groups compared with Yamnaya based on fst distance. It was in one of those studies, if we find it, it could be usefull it doesn't tell you how much Yamnaya contributed to an ethnic group (that is impossible to say for 100% anyways) but it tells how small the genetic distance of certain groups is to Yamnaya.
 
Hunter Gatherers in the East Baltic were WHG. So the top ranking EHG affinity there today is certainly because of Steppe ancestry not hunter gatherer ancestry. Only location in the north EHG ancestry existed before Corded Ware was probably Scandinavia, Finland, and Karelia.

Corded Ware carries all the EHG-affinity modern Scandinavia/Finland/Karelia needs. This region has a lot of Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry which can only be from outside of the region. Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry came to that region a long with Steppe ancestry(remember the aDNA Baltic abstracts). Mesolithic Northern Europeans simply can't explain much of the EHG/ANE-affinity in modern Northern Europeans. Posters have tried and failed with this theory for two years now. Modern Northern Europeans don't just have EHG-affinity they also have CHG-affinity and at the right proportions to be from Yamnaya.

Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

Capture.JPG

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.
 
Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

View attachment 8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they're WHG. Before that I thought they'd be EHG admixed as well.
 
Now whom should I believe? You or my lying eyes? The percentages from his calculator are very different from the ones in Haak et al. Or didn't you bother to compare them?

I realize his admixture test used by Maciamo to make his Steppe ancestry map is inconsistent with academic results. I made the statement I did because you've shown what is in my opinion unjustified distrust of him in general not in this test in particular.

As for your post #14, who said the Baltics and Finland don't have Corded Ware ancestry? Stop creating straw man arguments.

Sorry I should have worded my post better. I know you agree there's Corded Ware ancestry in the Baltic and Finland(and Scandinavia because 80% isn't traditionally Nordic territory). I was arguing against your opinion local hunter gatherer ancestry might be significantly inflating Steppe ancestry percentages there.
 
Before making claims like this, look into where the Oleni Ostrov burials are situated a little more than not at all. Looks pretty close to the Baltics to me:

View attachment 8119

It also looks like a good place of origin for some of the excess hunter-gatherer seen in outlying groups like the Sami, Estonians or Finns.

It is not just EHG, look at this, in the Murmansk area


RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-3, 57-1]
3500 BP

U4a1Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-1, 72-11]
3500 BP

U5aDer Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-9, 72-10, 72-14, 78-8]
3500 BP

U5a1Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-4]
3500 BP

T*Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-2, 49-4, 57-3, 72-2, 72-7, 72-12]
3500 BP

C*Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-5, 72-6]
3500 BP

C5Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-6, 72-13, 72-15]
3500 BP

D*Der Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 49-5, 72-3]
3500 BP

Z1aDer Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013

RussiaBolshoy Oleni Ostrov [BOO 72-1]
3500 BP

Z1aDer Sarkissian 2011; Der Sarkissian 2013


this is Siberian mtDNA, probably bringing some ANE along
 
I disagree, imo it makes more sense that Basques got their ~80+ of R1b from 25% of their ancestry than just 0-5% of it. So much founder effect is just ridiculous. Not even in India is the aDNA of the R1a bearers so low.

No it doesn't make sense because the Basque R1b-M153 is only 2800 years old and has a TMRCA of 2500 years. Most Basques belong to the subclade just under that, with a TMRCA of 2100 years. This means that the Basque R1b is a very recent phenomenon starting in Roman times. But who knows, R1b might have continued to expand little by little each generations among the Basques for over 1000 years before reaching today's frequencies. I now believe that the Basque only got their R1b very gradually over the last 2500 years and that it has nothing to do with Bronze Age PIE invasions. That has the benefit to explain why they kept speaking Basque. I don't know why R1b increased gradually. Maybe increased fertility compared to the native male lineages (I2-M26 + G2a ?), or a noble lineage of some sort. It was probably a combination of factors. Anywau, if R1b entered the Basque gene pool from, say, neighbouring Aquitaine or Castille c. 500 BCE or even 100 BCE, it could have been autosomally low in Yamna ancestry (say 15-20%). After diluting it slowly over 1000 to 2000 more years with relatively pure Basque women, there would be very little Yamna left, surely under 5%. If Haak et al. are right and the Basque have 27% of Yamna, then it becomes much harder to explain with such a young TMRCA for their R1b, especially that Haak found 5% less Yamna among other Spaniards (22%). Spanish branches of DF27 are between 3500 and 4400 years old, so Late Bronze Age, and match the arrival of foreign Bronze Age cultures like El Argar. So there is no doubt that R1b was in many parts of Spain long before it spread among the Basques.

It's good that you mention India. Indian Brahmins have at most 15-20% of Steppe DNA. In fact, since they descend from Sintashta rather than Yamna, their Steppe DNA should be higher in EHG than CHG. Using Dodecad K12, they have about 18% of East European + West European + Mediterranean, but the latter also includes non-IE Neolithic ancestry. Using K12b, they have only 5% of Atlantic_Med + North European, but that doesn't include the Gedrosian that came with the IE. So depending on the calculator, we get somewhere between 7 and 18% of Steppe admixture. Unfortunately neither the Haak paper nor the Steppe K10 data have any Indian sample. But the Indo-Aryans invaded India from 1800 BCE, almost exactly at the same time as IE invaded Iberia with El Argar. And we get a similar percentage of Steppe admixture (10-20%) both in Spaniards and upper-caste Indians. But it took another 1500 years before R1b-M153 started spreading among the Basques, so a considerably lower Steppe admixture is to be expected.
 
Basque have more than 5% Yamnaya. PCA and stat comparison(what Haak did) analysis always get about 25-30% for Basque. In analysis I've seen Basque are similar to Southern French and what makes them different from Spanish is a lack of post-Neolithic West Asian and North African ancestry.
 
People with Baltic Hunter Gatherer genomes said they're WHG. Before that I thought they'd be EHG admixed as well.

The error lies in assuming that the Baltic populations are the result of a simple coalescence of Neolithic Corded Ware and Mesolithic elements. We already know that North-Eastern Europe received substantial input from further east by way of Russia, since N1c is the dominant paternal marker in all North-Eastern populations barring Belarusians. The preponderance of this marker transcends linguistic and national affiliation.
 
In Baltics proper there are layers
A) Meso WHGs
B) Battle Axe (non BS IEs, yet R1a)
C) Balts (BS IEs)
D) Baltic Finns (emerged on Fatyanovo substrate)
The B-C-D are all rich in direct Yamna (or Sredny Stog) ancestry.
 
Finally! :) I've been saying this since Haak et al came out, but so far no one has seen that possibility. I said then that maybe the title of the paper "Massive Migration from the steppe", was incorrect.

If there was a large reservoir of SHG (which was an admixture, supposedly, of WHG and the EHG) in the north, or maybe other groups we haven't yet sampled, or EHG further west elsewhere, wouldn't that inflate the "Yamnaya" percentages beyond what actual Yamnaya people brought who moved there?


YES. What I don’t get it is why every time I raise those options I get immediately eviscerated by ten guys (especially at eurogenes!).

Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit. If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

Also how do we know that CWC = massive Yamnya migration (sort of) if the region where they thrived might have been loaded up with EHG and even guys that were R1a?
 
In Baltics proper there are layers
A) Meso WHGs
B) Battle Axe (non BS IEs, yet R1a)
C) Balts (BS IEs)
D) Baltic Finns (emerged on Fatyanovo substrate)
The B-C-D are all rich in direct Yamna (or Sredny Stog) ancestry.

Baltic Finns emerged in to Fatyanovo from the East or South East, there is the problem for many here.
 
I'm not sure I would take Eurogenes' calculator as the best for computing Yamnaya ancestry, especially when it substantially contradicts academic findings on the subject.

There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures (e.g. Siberian for the Finns and Sami). The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

I also don't think that Haak et al. are less biased or more professional than David from Eurogenes. After all, Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Kraus recently proposed that ludicrous theory that Indo-European languages spread both with Anatolian Neolithic farmers and with Bronze Age Steppe invaders, as if they were unable to let go of their fetish Neolithic theory that contradicts all genetic and linguistic evidence, not to mention common sense and logic. I wonder how they haven't got fired from their university yet. Why would they get paid to come up with theories that spit in the face of scientific evidence?
 
Hunter Gatherers in the East Baltic were WHG. So the top ranking EHG affinity there today is certainly because of Steppe ancestry not hunter gatherer ancestry. Only location in the north EHG ancestry existed before Corded Ware was probably Scandinavia, Finland, and Karelia.

Corded Ware carries all the EHG-affinity modern Scandinavia/Finland/Karelia needs. This region has a lot of Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry which can only be from outside of the region. Anatolia Neolithic and WHG ancestry came to that region a long with Steppe ancestry(remember the aDNA Baltic abstracts). Mesolithic Northern Europeans simply can't explain much of the EHG/ANE-affinity in modern Northern Europeans. Posters have tried and failed with this theory for two years now. Modern Northern Europeans don't just have EHG-affinity they also have CHG-affinity and at the right proportions to be from Yamnaya.

The area was settled by Uralic peoples in the Bronze Age that developed to Finns, Karelians, Lapps, Estonians, Livonians... and by sure they carried a lot of ANE / EHG DNA, so Yamnaya is not the unique possible answer for such situation; in fact the Lappland case is a red alarm as to don't take all red colour as Yamnayan...
 
BTW, modern Caucasians trace maybe half of their ancestry to the ancient Caucasians who contributed ancestry to Yamnaya. They aren't exactly the same as the ancient Caucasian ancestors of Yamnaya. Anyways, modern Europeans do have affinity to modern Caucasians. They have the amount of affinity to Caucasians you would expect them to have if they had Yamnaya ancestry.

Of course Armenians and Azeris are different from the their CHG ~ Calcholithic_Iran ancestors, but even accepting that such nations have lost half of their primitive DNA the share with Yamnayans might be more (if we accept that Yamnayans were 50% C_Iran then Armenians might have at least a 25% of Yamnayan DNA... and even more as they are IE spaking so that they must have received some genetic "Yamnayan" influx)
 
Maybe you Angela can enlighten me a little bit. If Karelia was EHG (and already R1a). If there is SHG which is a mix of EHG and WHG, if apparently there is even EHG and SHG in the Balkans 7000bc… why in hell people insistently talk about a bunch of guys that show up near the freaking urals, as a uber event in Europes ancestry?

I think a better way to frame it would be that WHG, SHG & EHG are Mesolithic specimens with differing levels of affinity to the Siberians from Afontova Gora on a genetic backbone best represented by the Epipaleolithic Villabruna hunters from Italy. Looking at the specimens individually, it is apparent that they are far from uniform for their age. I have mentioned before that, for example, the Stora Förvar 11 individual already has a distinct affinity to the Caucasus, in all likelihood a relic of his Balkanic provenance. Subtleties like these are lost if you try to fit everything into a small number of categories.
 
Last edited:
There is a very easy explanation to the discrepancy in percentages. Haak et al. are only using 3 populations (EEF, WHG, Yamna), while Eurogenes uses 10 populations. Inevitably the breakdown will be more detailed with 10 populations and some DNA that was classified as Yamna in Haak may end up being Hindu Kush or other admixtures. The Basques, for example, have as much Hindu Kush as Yamna/Steppe in the Steppe K10. Some individuals have 5% of Hindu Kush and 0% of Steppe.

The main difference between Haal et al. 2015 and Eurogenes is that the former is a peer-reviewed study, the latter no. We always forget that. At least it would be useful a Yamna admixture map with all the Haak et al percentages of 29 European populations.
 

This thread has been viewed 74284 times.

Back
Top