Southern Neolithic route brought Megaliths from the Levant to Western Europe

[MarkoZ]

Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):

[berun]

Now, some "modelers" in the online community, using other methods, claim there might be some CHG in EHG. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. No disrespect to these people, but my instinct is to wait for the papers from the major labs to see if there are changes. Different programs are sensitive to different inputs.

Programs and labs must take into account archaeology: the Caucasus was a climatic refuge and a bridge in the Neolithic expansion. What archaeological proofs we have for EHG going south?

[bicicleur]

I want to say, that in human history, things like racism or xenophobia is clearly going with some kind of civilization, before, in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic, people always interchange, without real racial or cultural appreciation but it was in a female way ( a female going in another tribe, not a man going in another tribe, in majority ) without some kind of patriarcal issue or something, else. So if we really want to understand population movements through history, focus on mtdna haplogroups, seems more important for understand admixtures in population to me ( but it dont have to be a generic rule ). But other than that what i would to ask is, if by the graphic we see that EHG contributed to CHG and Iran_Hotu Cave, if steppe contains something like Iran_Chl wich itself contain EHG contribution, how do we know wich direction the primordial contribution by those really comes ? Or do we take for postulat that A give to B, B become C and C gonna give to D wich is A becoming D ? ( I dont know if my explication is understandable ).

if you'd say we let only immigrants in with big boobs, wouldn't that be racist or xenophobe ?
maybe that was the mechanism at work in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic

[bicicleur]

EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture

Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 36]	M	5557–4792 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 45]	M	5471–5223 BC			C	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012;Lillie 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 64]	M	5479–5064 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012

Samara Eneolithic

Russia

Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]

M

4700-4000 BC

R1b1

M415

H2a1

Mathieson 2015

the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/

[halfalp]

if you'd say we let only immigrants in with big boobs, wouldn't that be racist or xenophobe ?
maybe that was the mechanism at work in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic

I'm pretty sur that hunter-gatherers, at least apart of individual physical attirance for big boobs, never raisonning like that ! But who knows.

[halfalp]

EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture

Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 36]	M	5557–4792 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 45]	M	5471–5223 BC			C	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012;Lillie 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 64]	M	5479–5064 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012

Samara Eneolithic

Russia

Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]

M

4700-4000 BC

R1b1

M415

H2a1

Mathieson 2015

the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/

This is also the hypothesis that i have in mind for now.

[halfalp]

Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):

Could it be linked by far-east pottery coming in central asia, and raising in Iranian Plateau with genetic ( demic diffusion ) but not in Eastern Europe, because Central Asia and Eastern Europe, were related people and transmited pottery with culture ( cultural diffusion ) ?

[Angela]

EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture

Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 36]	M	5557–4792 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 45]	M	5471–5223 BC			C	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012;Lillie 2012
Dnieper-Donets	Ukraine	Yasinovatka [Ya 64]	M	5479–5064 BC			H	Newton 2011;Nikitin 2012

Samara Eneolithic

Russia

Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]

M

4700-4000 BC

R1b1

M415

H2a1

Mathieson 2015

the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/

So, in your hypothesis how did Steppe EMBA become 43% something like Iran Chalcolithic?

[bicicleur]

So, in your hypothesis how did Steppe EMBA become 43% something like Iran Chalcolithic?

different ancestral reference frames will give different figures
put CHG in the corner instead of Iran N and you'll have to inverse some arrows and get other percentages

in my theory EHG should represent the people in the Pamir mountains before they split into group 1/ and 2/
if group 2/ EHG came south of the Caspian some 12 ka there would likeley have some EHG gotten into Iran N
by seperating Iran N from EHG you give another definition to EHG, EHG would not be the ancestors coming from the Pamir and spliting in 2 groups, EHG would be represented solely by group 1/

furthermore in my theory the EHG of group 1/ in Europe is not pure EHG any more, it is mixed with some WHG (see also the mtDNA U2e, U4 and U5a found in the European EHG people)
again, by seperating EHG from WHG and labeling the admixed form as EHG is creating a different frame

you could say I'm not accurate by not defining EHG exactly the same way as in the study about the first farmers, but I don't know how I should label the DNA of those tribes coming the Pamir mountains then, more accurate would be to say that EHG is derived from them and admixed with some WHG

oh, and some R1 came east earlier than 12 ka, see the Villabruna R1b 14 ka
but 12 ka, after the flooding of the Caspian Sea finished, the Butovo culture started to spread from the Volga all over Eastern Europe upto Karelia
and TMRCA of R1b-V88 who spread over SW Asia is 11.8 ka

the Villabruna R1b was pré-P297 which means it could have seperated from the main R1b-P297 branch as early as 16.5 ka

[MOESAN]

My compagnon is the real fact and figures man. He's working on it. Here some pre- elementary collection:
http://e-v22.net/webpage/E1b-V22Studies-list.html

Thanks, but all that is about E-V22 - what I look for is SNPs confirmed Y-haplos found in a proved megalithic environement in Europe.
The 2 lone ones I know are from France and are Y-I1a1... -

[LeBrok]

Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):

In HarappaWorld run it is called Baloch admixture. It is ancient ancestral admixture which already existed in Kostenki and Mal'ta boy. EHG and Iranian Farmer/CHG had shared this affinity even before mixing into Yamnaya.

[Angela]

different ancestral reference frames will give different figures
put CHG in the corner instead of Iran N and you'll have to inverse some arrows and get other percentages

in my theory EHG should represent the people in the Pamir mountains before they split into group 1/ and 2/
if group 2/ EHG came south of the Caspian some 12 ka there would likeley have some EHG gotten into Iran N
by seperating Iran N from EHG you give another definition to EHG, EHG would not be the ancestors coming from the Pamir and spliting in 2 groups, EHG would be represented solely by group 1/

furthermore in my theory the EHG of group 1/ in Europe is not pure EHG any more, it is mixed with some WHG (see also the mtDNA U2e, U4 and U5a found in the European EHG people)
again, by seperating EHG from WHG and labeling the admixed form as EHG is creating a different frame

you could say I'm not accurate by not defining EHG exactly the same way as in the study about the first farmers, but I don't know how I should label the DNA of those tribes coming the Pamir mountains then, more accurate would be to say that EHG is derived from them and admixed with some WHG

oh, and some R1 came east earlier than 12 ka, see the Villabruna R1b 14 ka
but 12 ka, after the flooding of the Caspian Sea finished, the Butovo culture started to spread from the Volga all over Eastern Europe upto Karelia
and TMRCA of R1b-V88 who spread over SW Asia is 11.8 ka

the Villabruna R1b was pré-P297 which means it could have seperated from the main R1b-P297 branch as early as 16.5 ka

I think I'll stick with the academic papers, Bicicleur.

I'm aware that some bloggers refuse to acknowledge that anything related to Iran Neolithic or Iran Chalcolithic or Iran "anything" admixed into the EHG populations of the steppe, particularly at anything other than very minor percentages. Given other statements they've made in the past, I think some skepticism is warranted concerning their conclusions.

Usually, this admixture is labeled as CHG, which is based on genomes which are very ancient indeed, and I'm not aware of any evidence that a "pure" CHG population existed at the time of this admixture . Regardless, CHG is mostly Iran Neolithic, whether these bloggers like it or not, so I don't see the point of this refusal to acknowledge the ties with Iran. Also, the authors of this paper have proved to my satisfaction that the mixing agent was not Iran Neolithic "like", but Iran Chalcolithic "like" or perhaps various waves of migration of people whose impact is Iran Chalcolithic "like", which includes some Levant Neolithic.

[bicicleur]

I think I'll stick with the academic papers, Bicicleur.

I'm aware that some bloggers refuse to acknowledge that anything related to Iran Neolithic or Iran Chalcolithic or Iran "anything" admixed into the EHG populations of the steppe, particularly at anything other than very minor percentages. Given other statements they've made in the past, I think some skepticism is warranted concerning their conclusions.

Usually, this admixture is labeled as CHG, which is based on genomes which are very ancient indeed, and I'm not aware of any evidence that a "pure" CHG population existed at the time of this admixture . Regardless, CHG is mostly Iran Neolithic, whether these bloggers like it or not, so I don't see the point of this refusal to acknowledge the ties with Iran. Also, the authors of this paper have proved to my satisfaction that the mixing agent was not Iran Neolithic "like", but Iran Chalcolithic "like" or perhaps various waves of migration of people whose impact is Iran Chalcolithic "like", which includes some Levant Neolithic.

the problem is that WHG, EEF, CHG and the like were defined when only a few anciant genomes were known

today more anciant genomes are known and better 'ancestral components' could be defined
and probably within 1 or 2 years more anciant genomes will be known that will qualify as even better 'ancestral components'

and yet, even if you would find the perfect 'ancestral components' after abt 4-8 ka everything becomes admixed with everything and things become so complicated that these models don't matter any more

IMO Iran Neolithic or Chalcolithic are allready hard to define because they are allready a complicated mixture themselves

there are some archeological arguments too to back up my theory, but the story becomes to long to tell
and I'm sure, in the best case I'll have to adapt that theory when more data become available, in the worst case it will prove wrong
for the moment, to me, taking everything into consideration what I know uptill now, it is the most parsimonious explanation

In the K=14 model of Genetiker I can see a CHG-like component in the Khvalynsk newcomer genome which is absent in the 2 other Khvalynsk genomes.
This Khvalynsk newcomer has mtDNA H, which is also new in Eastern Europe, except in Dnjepr-Donets.
So probably allready since ca 7.5 ka people were crossing the Caucasus into the Pontic Steppe and mixing with the local EHG.
But probably, later (5.7 ka) also Maykop would have brought more extra CHG or Iran Chalcolithic or something similar to the steppe. But that era already coincides with Yamna.

and let me remind you, after this study about the first farmers, I told there would be need for at least a 5th ancestral component with haplo G2a2 to explain the distribution of farming into Europe
soon after that was confirmed by the study with the Tepecik-Ceftlik and Boncuklu genomes

[MarkoZ]

In HarappaWorld run it is called Baloch admixture. It is ancient ancestral admixture which already existed in Kostenki and Mal'ta boy. EHG and Iranian Farmer/CHG had shared this affinity even before mixing into Yamnaya.

I think that's more likely to be due to the limitations of admixture. If the 'green' component was ancient, I'd think it would also show up in the Villabruna-WHG-SHG continuum, which looks to be equally related to K14.

Edit: Another interesting thing I've just noticed looking at Lazaridis' admixture run is the distribution of the WHG component in the Near East. Did a WHG-like population inhabit Eastern Anatolia, Armenia and perhaps Transcaucasia as a whole?

[LeBrok]

I think that's more likely to be due to the limitations of admixture. If the 'green' component was ancient, I'd think it would also show up in the Villabruna-WHG-SHG continuum, which looks to be equally related to K14.

It did show up there, however due to local drift (the distance, mutations, bottlenecking, refugia, etc) they developed different alleles and old Baloch became something else, like Mediterranean admixture for example. While in Central Asia new Baloch is still classified and connected to old Baloch. It is a measure of similarities than anything elses, perhaps in relativistic way. In this case Baloch in Steppe is cousin (same common source, more similar alleles?) of Baloch in Iran, but not "old Baloch" in WHGs. They are only two options in this case. Baloch in step might be from recent contact with CHG/Iranian Farmer, or it might be from very ancient common relative. If it was from recent contact we would have seen some Caucasus being transfer too, because CHG and Farmer is very rich in it. We don't, however. So only second option is valid, they did have a common ancestor who gave them Baloch. Judging by distribution of Baloch, it was some sort of Central Asian h-g, and most likely from its expansion after LGM.

[MarkoZ]

It did show up there, however due to local drift (the distance, mutations, bottlenecking, refugia, etc) they developed different alleles and old Baloch became something else, like Mediterranean admixture for example. While in Central Asia new Baloch is still classified and connected to old Baloch. It is a measure of similarities than anything elses, perhaps in relativistic way. In this case Baloch in Steppe is cousin (same common source, more similar alleles?) of Baloch in Iran, but not "old Baloch" in WHGs. They are only two options in this case. Baloch in step might be from recent contact with CHG/Iranian Farmer, or it might be from very ancient common relative. If it was from recent contact we would have seen some Caucasus being transfer too, because CHG and Farmer is very rich in it. We don't, however. So only second option is valid, they did have a common ancestor who gave them Baloch. Judging by distribution of Baloch, it was some sort of Central Asian h-g, and most likely from its expansion after LGM.

Hold on, I am of course talking about the 'green' component in the ADMIXTURE run by Lazaridis. I am not convinced that the 'Baloch' component is all the same. Isn't the latter based on modern populations?

[LeBrok]

Hold on, I am of course talking about the 'green' component in the ADMIXTURE run by Lazaridis. I am not convinced that the 'Baloch' component is all the same. Isn't the latter based on modern populations?

Yes, it looks like green is mostly Baloch with some Caucasian.

Admixtures are derived from modern populations.

Do note that the admixture components do not necessarily represent real ancestral populations. Also, the names I have chosen for the components should be thought of as mnemonics to ease discussion. I chose them based on which populations in my data these components peaked in. They do not tell anything directly about ancestral populations. The best way to look at these admixture results is by comparing individuals and populations.

http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/ha...rld-admixture/