New map of Yamna admixture (Eurogenes Steppe K10)

[arvistro]

Anthropologyst Raisa Denisova on Baltic populations (1997). It is just WOW how correct she seems to be in light of (upcoming) dna.
On WHG I guess:

Thus archaeological data indicate that the migration of the Maglemosian people concluded several chronologically successive migrations of late Paleolithic peoples from the West to the East. This suggests that at the end of that period, a genetic fund was being established in populations resident in the territory that is southwest of Latvia -- the Pripet basin and the Upper Dnieper valley. This genetic fund was part of a larger genetic system of late Paleolithic residents in Northern Europe. For that reason, people who settled on lands around the Upper Dnieper and the Upper Daugava during the late Paleolithic period had close genetic links to the most ancient populations of the Middle European lowlands. That could mean that during the Mesolithic period, an anthropologically similar group of peoples lived from the Netherlands in the West to the Middle Russian highlands to the East. Local residents may have been possessed of the morphological elements of ancient Northern European peoples, whose roots were linked to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe.

A curious detail (more WHG to the East??):

Even though the Niemen and the Daugava are separated only by a few hundred kilometers of dry land, the territory between the two rivers remained uninhabited for quite a long time. The most ancient settlements in southern Lithuania are some 2,000 years older than the first settlements on the shores of the Daugava. Moreover, the first residents in Latvia arrived not through Lithuania, as would seem logical, but rather from the Southeast, using the Dnieper river and the Upper Daugava for this purpose.
OR
Searching for indications of Kundian culture in the late Paleolithic period, Dr. Jaanits has pointed to two possible conclusions. First of all, distinct post-Svidrian traditions in the Kundian culture can be interpreted as pointing to a direct genetic link with Svidrian culture in Poland. Secondly, characteristics of the Svidrian culture flint artifacts are typical of the late Paleolithic period across a fairly vast section of Eastern Europe (including the Dnieper-Don-Desna, the Volga and the Oka regions). This allows specialists to see roots of the Kundian culture in the late Paleolithic period in Eastern Europe (K. Jaanits 1990).

On arrival of EEF to Baltics:

Differences in facial width in Europe became particularly distinctive at the beginning of the Atlantic period, when farming was begun in Europe. At this time, facial width distinctly separated morphological forms in Northern Europe from those in the Mediterranean region -- two distinct geographic regions. Massive, broad-faced morphological forms dominated in northern and northeastern Europe, while gracile, narrow-faced forms are found most often in Middle Europe and the continent's southeastern reaches. During the Atlantic period, narrow-faced populations gradually moved in the northerly and northeasterly direction. They reached the Baltic region only during the Bronze Age.

But here Eastern vibes (EHG? R1a or N1c?), caught by Denisova, but apparently missed from upcoming Baltic aDNA study:

around the mid-5th century BC there was a new migration of people into Latvia, people who were characterized by the metisized anthropological type. An analysis of anthropological elements in these inhabitants points to distinctly eastern components. Skulls of anthropologically similar inhabitants have been found in the Olenij Ostrov Mesolithic burial ground, where some of the buried individuals unquestionably had typical eastern components.

Even though no ceramics have been found in the Zvejnieki burial grounds (mid-5th century BC), there is no reason to doubt that the burial grounds belonged to the early Neolithic period. Evidence of this is given by other early Neolithic graves in the Zvejnieki burial grounds (4500-3000 BC), where there was also no tradition of placing clay pots in people's graves.

Full English text here:
http://estudijas.lu.lv/mod/page/view.php?id=30367

edit: for Eastern vibes missed by study. Perhaps they focused more on Lithuania. Which indeed did not have those. Let's see wht will be their samples.

[arvistro]

This is what I wrote on the new version of the N1c page last year already. However, the Narva culture had pottery, so it's not impossible that N1c had already reached the Baltic by that time, even if Narva people still predominantly belonged to Y-haplogroup I.

When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."???
This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department. Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

[Ukko]

N1c in Finno-Ugrians correlates with Siberian & East Asian rather than Steppe admixtures.

But Lithuanians despite having a lot of N1c have not much of N1c-related autosomal DNA.

Wishful thinking taken to the extreme.

[Dagne]

When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."??? This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department.

Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

I absolutely agree!

[Ukko]

N1c carriers have mainly used this same corridor as all other groups that have spread across Eurasia, they did not follow the Arctic Ocean.
Siberian peoples are not "super-Finns", they are people they encountered in Northern Eurasia.

[Ukko]

Arvistro, are there R1a sub-groups you would connect to the N1c in spread and timeline?

[Maciamo]

When are you going to fix that page?
"The merger of the two groups, Indo-European R1a and Uralic N1c1, gave rise to the hybrid Kiukainen culture (2300-1500 BCE). Modern Baltic people have a roughly equal proportion of haplogroup N1c1 and R1a, resulting from this merger of Uralic and Slavic cultures."???
This little text has more bugs or unprofessional wordings than anything prepared by our IT department. Role of Kiukainen in modern Balts = 0. What Slavic culture 2000 BCE? Even Balto-Slavs might be too early (NW IE-an would fit better). Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE and already participated in Baltic ethnogenesys via Kiukanen?

You are right. I have fixed the wording. Sorry about that. I was probably tired and overwork again when I wrote it.

[Maciamo]

I started to think that to, before I realized that this map is WRONG on many levels. After seeing his map I started to believe that Saami have more Corded Ware admixture than Norwegians, lol. But I was mislead by a wrong map. It was stupid of me, not to make additional examination of data.

So, hold on a minute. The map of Maciamo doesn't hold any ground and is at least misleading. I don't think Maciamo tried to mislead us on purpose. He is still making mistakes by using sources from people with hidden twisted agenda.


His map is not about Yamnaya but the Steppes. And there IS a correlation between the Steppes admixture AND Y-DNA hg. like N1c1 & Q.

Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all. I have now renamed it 'Steppe admixture'. Sorry for the confusion. It's true that I should be less trusting of other people's work. I can't understand how people have 'hidden agendas' or agendas of any kind. That's just not how my mind work. I only care about finding the truth, whatever it is. I don't understand why people have difficult to accept data that contradict their preconceived ideas or why people can't admit that they are wrong when faced with undeniable facts. I readily admit my mistakes, learn from them and try not to make them again.

[Maciamo]

Have you added the N1c samples that were found by Chekunova et al in the Late Neolithic Serteya culture of Western Russia? They appear to be dated to roughly 2500-2000 B.C. .

Source: https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Arc...olbunova_E._ed (p. 290)

From the supplemental material:

Attachment 8120

RC-Dates:

Attachment 8121

Thanks. I hadn't seen it. I will add it to the N1c page.

[arvistro]

Arvistro, are there R1a sub-groups you would connect to the N1c in spread and timeline?

I have not studied those.
Difficult to say, given what I know of Latvian R1a and N1c, there seems to not be a particular R1a line that would correlate with N1c.
It is more like a cocktail or different R1a and one young N1c. Same in Lithuania.
In comparison FU Estonians seem to have cocktails in both R1a and N1c. Although I am not sure.
Would be useful to investigate, but too many subbranches :))

[Pax Augusta]

what can we conclude ?

What can we conclude then?

[Kristiina]

Proto-Uralic is dated ~ 2000 BCE [/FONT][/COLOR]

Jaakko Häkkinen who has given the most recent dating for different protolanguage levels based on linguistic criteria does not propose that Proto-Uralic is dated 2000 BCE.

Häkkinen kielentasot.PNG

In his model pre-Proto-Uralic and Proto-Uralic is dated between 3500 and 2800. The late Proto-Uralic is dated 2300 BC. However, the early history is quite blurred and the time margins are wide, but, by 2000 BC, Proto-Uralic had probably already disintegrated.

[arvistro]

Late proto-Uralic is still mom to all survived Uralics.
Hardly we would find them in Kiukanen.

[Tomenable]

Thanks. I hadn't seen it. I will add it to the N1c page.

And this is the oldest known sample of N1c in Europe.

The oldest known Q in Europe is that Khvalynsk sample.

[Tomenable]

Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all.

Apart from Steppe K10, there is also Eurasia K14 calculator, which is available on Gedmatch.

Here is how several ancient samples score in Eurasia K14 (I merged K2 and K3 in the table):

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png

[Maciamo]

Apart from Steppe K10, there is also Eurasia K14 calculator, which is available on Gedmatch.

Here is how several ancient samples score in Eurasia K14 (I merged K2 and K3 in the table):

http://s16.postimg.org/xktrcr9px/Eurasia_K14_Steppe.png

Interesting, but is there a spreadsheet for modern populations?

What's the difference between Neolithic Balkan farmers and Early European farmers?

[Angela]

I have no idea what samples, if any, Eurogenes used for Balkan Neolithic farmers, because I didn't know an autosomal analysis of Balkan farmers had been done. Which paper presented samples, where were they collected, and where is the autosomal analysis?

A paper by Iain Mathieson of the Reich Lab which examined the genomes of 65 Balkan Neolithic farmers was presented yesterday at the AHIG conference, as I mentioned on another thread. Hopefully it will go on the net in pre-print form very soon.

"Abstract:
The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region.

We generated new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. The population admixture was patchy across both space and time, varying in magnitude between 0% and 30% for different early Balkan farming populations. The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.
We also analyze the data to generate new insights about natural selection. The first farmers of the Balkans were in the initial stages of adaptation to environments that were dramatically different from those that their ancestors had encountered. We show that many of the adaptations related to diet and immunity that later become common in Europe were already present in early Balkan farmer populations, but not at high frequency. Thus, the adaptation of the first European farmers to their local environment was driven to a substantial extent by pre-existing variantion.

https://ep70stage.eventpilot.us/web/...6&id=160122024

So, this indicates to me that perhaps there were at least two Neolithic migrations into the Balkans. The one that formed Cardial and LBK may have reached Europe by way of the Greek islands, splitting there, and then one continued west by sea and one moved into the Greek mainland and the western Balkans and on into central Europe. This group did not mix, for whatever reason, with any Balkan type hunter-gatherers who might be more SHG or EHG like going by the comment that they resembled Scandinavian and eastern hunter-gatherers. They did eventually, and slowly, mix with WHG they encountered. After 2,000 years, approximately 20-25% of the MN genome in most of Europe came from these WHG.

Another Neolithic wave did mix with the Balkan hunter gatherers, apparently. It's not clear to me where these hunter-gatherers were located. Were they more to the east, and that's where those particular farmers settled? Was it a later migration when new types of hunter-gatherers had moved in? We'll have to wait for the paper.

I particularly don't understand this part:

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Okay, so the LBK and related cultures didn't have ancestry from these people. What happened to these Balkan farmers and their "different" hunter-gatherer dna? Did they die out? Did the steppe people kill them all? How could that hunter-gatherer dna not be in modern Europeans if it's related to eastern hunter-gatherers and we have EHG? Do they just mean it didn't enter our genomes through the farmers? Could this group have flowed to some degree into steppe populations and entered our genomes through them? Do they know what Greek and Italian neolithic farmers looked like, other than Remedello? Is that why they can say that this Balkan hunter-gatherer didn't go into any modern Europeans? I ask because a late Neolithic flow of farmer plus EHG might explain some things about Italian dna.

I didn't think Mathieson's last paper was all that clearly written. I hope this one is better.

Oh, of course, the rumor mill is busy and it says no R1b in the male samples found.

[MOESAN]

Very confuse, as often enough in scientific papers (mysterious phrases, no pedagogy) - tables are more useful than "explications"?
Are they sure today WHG components in Europe are so level everywhere concerning nature (I don't speak of % here)?
A way to see that: namings of ancient pops are confusing: EHG for one is WHG+EHG for an other, WHG+ANE for an other more...
I said the most of HGs in today Northern Europe whatever WHG or "pure" EHG, are newcomers, come from North-East and East as Steppic components or pushed ahead by them on their way to Occident - they are no more the "reduced" HGs of Western Europe, or at least they added to these previous ones in N-West (not so in S-West).
Concerning past, it seems confirmed the first waves of Anatolian farmers, labelled EEF not so long ago, did not mix too much with local HGs found on their route to Central and Northern Europe.
The southern HGs were not exactly the same ones as the Western or North/Northeastern ones: the little mt DNA we have seems saying this.
Hard to be sure, but don't think the crossings between farmers and hunters in Balkans implies by force a new wave of farmers; it 's sufficient they crossed densely only later? But I have not the dates and the farmers studied here were perhpas from different periods, not from only one? I would be glad to know more.

[MOESAN]

Actually I was misled too. I thought that this Steppe K10 was really based on Yamna genomes, but the discussion here has convinced me that it is only something like the EHG component of Yamna, if the Yamna genomes were used at all. I have now renamed it 'Steppe admixture'. Sorry for the confusion. It's true that I should be less trusting of other people's work. I can't understand how people have 'hidden agendas' or agendas of any kind. That's just not how my mind work. I only care about finding the truth, whatever it is. I don't understand why people have difficult to accept data that contradict their preconceived ideas or why people can't admit that they are wrong when faced with undeniable facts. I readily admit my mistakes, learn from them and try not to make them again.

positive and necessary attitude to acquire and spread knowledge I think.

[berun]

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

I think that they have not taken into account what is already known: Balkan Farmers spread till reaching Paris and Berlin (LBK) till meeting Cardials in the west and meeting "rich" Mesolithics in the North. Of course the Balkan Farmers got their EHG autosomal that lately would be blended with the let's say "steppe" DNA which already had EHG DNA. The WHG autosomal in western Europeans must be taken somewhere in Italy and/or Iberia as the Mediterranean wave was jumping from uninhabited island to island (Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia?).

[Fire Haired14]

The Balkan Neolithic DNA abstract is too unspecfic to really understand what the results are but......

Our Hungarian Hunter Gatherer genome has EHG admixture as Balkan Hunter gatherers seem to have had. Later Neolithic Hungarians don't have a higher affinity to him than other "WHGs"(not completely uniform group) as maybe Balkan farmers did. However, many of our Bronze age Hungarians do. One of our Bronze age Hungarians is basically an Early Neolithic European with a tint of EHG or Steppe. One is mostly Mesolithic Hungarian-ish with some Steppe and EEF as well. And the rest are mostly EEF with a huge amount of Mesolithic Hungarin(25-30%) and some Steppe.

Most of the "Steppe" in Bronze age Hungarians might be from Balkan hunter gatherers. It has been confusing why in ADMIXTURE and D_stats why they score high in EHG but not CHG. It could be because of Balkan_HG admixture. Modern Europeans though all score big amounts of EHG and CHG. The Balkans today have the highest amounts of CHG in Europe. There was a genetic shift in Hungary to something like it is today during the Early Iron age, maybe people with Balkan_HG ancestry disappeared.

[Angela]

I think that they have not taken into account what is already known: Balkan Farmers spread till reaching Paris and Berlin (LBK) till meeting Cardials in the west and meeting "rich" Mesolithics in the North. Of course the Balkan Farmers got their EHG autosomal that lately would be blended with the let's say "steppe" DNA which already had EHG DNA. The WHG autosomal in western Europeans must be taken somewhere in Italy and/or Iberia as the Mediterranean wave was jumping from uninhabited island to island (Cyprus, Crete, Sardinia?).

Berun, they are claiming that the data shows that the Neolithic farmers who went through the Balkans into central Europe to form LBK and then west to the Paris Basin to meet their Cardial "relatives" picked up little or no hunter-gatherer dna in the Balkans themselves. The admixture was picked up in central and northern Europe.

There were Neolithic farmers in the area of Bulgaria (which is mainly where the samples were collected, I think) who seem to have picked up hunter-gatherer dna there, but that hunter-gatherer dna seems to have been more SHG and EHG like than WHG like.

What will be interesting to find out is whether the hunter-gatherers were there initially or arrived later, and what yDna they carried. I say that because there's very little evidence for hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, although perhaps Bulgaria was slightly different.

I also want to know if these farmers were part of the original stream or represent a later wave.

I furthermore wonder if the samples come strictly from Neolithic cultures in the area or if they analyze some Copper Age and early Bronze Age samples. If they did analyze the Copper Age and early Bronze Age samples, and find some EHG, how will they know if it's new EHG from the steppe, or "EHG like" ancestry that was there since the Neolithic? I suppose if it's present with CHG they could say it's steppe related, except that even some of the Hungarian Neolithic samples showed some CHG, so I would think the Balkan Neolithic would as well.

I would suggest that maybe this group of Balkan farmers might have had some influence further west, except that Mathieson makes a point of saying this particular H-G ancestry doesn't make it into modern European genomes.

[bicicleur]

we need a list of the sampled individuals, their culture and locality as well as their age, and their DNA and admixtures
without that, it is all speculation

[berun]

@Angela, the abstract says

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

They say what is already known, the Balkan farmers were not the colonizers of north and west Europe, so their HG share didn't spread there. But if they conclude that only the unmixed Balkan farmers reached these regions... they would do a bad bussiness.

[MOESAN]

@Angela, the abstract says

The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

They say what is already known, the Balkan farmers were not the colonizers of north and west Europe, so their HG share didn't spread there. But if they conclude that only the unmixed Balkan farmers reached these regions... they would do a bad bussiness.

I think I red more than a time that the first waves of Neolithic farmers expanded relatively quickly from Greece and Central (rivers) Balkans into Central and Northern Europe without too evident mixture with local HGs; the farmers stayed in Balkans mated after some time with local people (modestly at first), what occurred later in Central and North Europe; the more mobile the less stable and the less mating with local pops before stabilization? ... A try.