Genome diversity in the Neolithic Globular Amphorae culture and the spread o IE

Ah, I was talking about the usual suspect who has his own blog. He was adamant that modern Tuscans are nothing like Chalcolithic Iberians. It was a terrible study and PCA and should be forgotten :) Wrong again; what else is new when it comes to him and Southern Europe?

As for the mini-usual suspect, is he quoting (without attribution) and twisting my ideas as he's been doing since 23andme days? :)

@Ros,
I'm afraid you've gotten confused. I don't disagree, in general terms, with the computational population genetics analysis in the paper or the explanation of it, for that matter, which I would bet was done and written by Lazaridis. No one with any standing in academia has found any fault with its general parameters, although newer data has refined certain things around the edges, and more data might do the same. Even in 2015, though, the data analysis and the essays clearly show that the steppe input is much smaller in southern Europe than in Central and Northern Europe.

What I objected to then and now is the title, which implies there was "massive migration" from the steppe to all parts of Europe. It was an overstatement and it doesn't fit with the body of the paper itself, as others upthread have also pointed out, and I would bet it wasn't Lazaridis' idea.

Of course, anyone whose posts are worthy of being read knows that the body of the paper itself makes no such claim. As you immerse yourself in the data and the comments on it, you'll discover whom it is best to ignore.

It is certain internet bloggers and posters who have promoted a sort of "Indo-Europeans for dummies" version of the data since the beginning and continue to do so. You have to be careful whom you read. Even in the very early days of 2013 and before some of us were aware that certain archaeological papers were being ignored, and that certain dna data was being massaged.

Sarcasm and misplaced analogies are not going to change hard genetic data, I'm afraid.

The Spanish have WHG, as other analyses by Lazaridis have shown. On this particular graphic it is all hidden in the EN, which is based on Central European Neolithic farmers like Stuttgart, who are about 94% Anatolian farmer and 6% WHG. People like Spanish Basque have more. This was all discussed on the original thread for the HaaK 2015 paper.


Here are the actual percentages. Tuscans have zero on this too in this particular model. This isn't engraved in tablets of stone like the one Moses brought down from the mount. The percentages will change a little bit based on the particular ancient samples available. However, the parameters are as you see them. No new samples have changed the general picture.

Haak graphic EN WHG Yamnaya
Norway - 30, 16, 54
Lithuania - 18, 30, 52
Estonia - 12, 37, 51
Iceland - 32, 19, 49
Scotland - 28, 23, 49
Czech - 35, 16, 49
Belarus - 25, 28, 47
Hungary - 39, 16, 45
Ukraine - 28, 27, 44
England - 44, 14, 42
Orkney - 34, 25, 41
South French - 57, 4, 39
Croatia - 44, 17, 37
French - 51, 12, 37
North Spanish - 59, 10, 31
Bulgaria - 55, 14, 31
Tuscany - 72, 0, 28
Basque - 54, 19, 27
Bergamo - 63, 13, 24
Spain - 78, 0, 22
Greece - 66, 14, 20
Albania - 65, 18, 17
Sardinia - 88, 7, 5

Remember, at least 40% of most of those steppe numbers are Caucasus or "southern" or heavily "Basal Eurasian" in origin.


In the supplement there's extensive modeling which tries to get a better fit. You really should read it for yourself.

Here is the link to where we originally discussed the Haak 2015 paper. I went on record saying the rest of Europe might be very different. There are a lot of other threads where we discussed it. Just use the search engine.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...opean-languages-in-Europe?highlight=Haak+2015



I want to qualify one thing about the analysis in Haak. You'll see that the Finns are not included. That's because they couldn't be modeled with only those three populations. They needed Siberian. There's something else about the very North Eastern European samples like Finland, Estonia, and maybe even beyond that I've speculated about, and that is that the "steppe" component in them may be more heavily EHG/SHG like than is the case for other populations. I've always held out the possibility that as the far northeastern areas were refugia for hunter-gatherers similar to the hunter-gatherer element in steppe peoples, that might be skewing the analysis a bit, and that therefore the number of invading IE might be smaller to some degree than the percentages might indicate.

As time goes on, we'll see if that's correct or not.
 
[video]http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/blankmapeurope57nabwr3eh.png[/video]

Who do we believe?
 
Only read ACADEMIC papers, and papers after the advent of ancient dna testing. That's papers from Max Planck, Johane Strause, Kurt Alt, Wolfgang Haak, David Reich, Patterson, Lazaridis, Mathiesen, and others.

I've provided this link at least three times before. It's a good start. If you want more I can provide them.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...es-to-Population-Genetics?p=524330#post524330

As Pax says, that darn thing you posted isn't even based on ancient samples. It's just guesswork. Why would you turn to that?

Ed. It just goes to show that when I said it was junk even before ancient genomes were available I was right.
 
Last edited:
Was there a paper about Globular Amphora about half a year ago, having GAC as all I2a farmers with about 30% of WHG?
 
Right on. So no surprises here, generally continuation of EEF, with traces of EHG/Yamnaya. Surely there was some contact, but no big migration yet from the Steppe. But obviously some cultural and material exchange happened. Though hardly one can make a conclusion about language here.
On other hand, looking at Matieson figure 1, this 30% WHG looks rather like a fresh admixture, not the one that happened to EEF farmers when they entered Europe for the first time, but something recent. Might be the WHG who were pushed by expanding Steppe into central Europe, from Belarus area. Might solve the puzzle, what happened to Latvia H-G, when they were replaced by Yamanya type. Might explain change in culture too.
Here is another thought, was the fresh WHG responsible for ubiquitous I2a2 in Globular Amphora? But that's another story. Would be nice to have a sample from 4k BC for comparison.
 
Lebrok.
Where do you see Steppe in GAC? how do yo unknow if Iron gates HG in the region already were WHG with a percentage of EHG why is that Steppe in there?.

There are jumps of thousands of years that are unknown. who is to say that one of these days we will not find "neighbors" of all of these that were full of CHG, and EHG and SHG and Mix of...
 
[video]https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/European_hunter-gatherer_admixture.png[/video]
 
Lebrok.
Where do you see Steppe in GAC? how do yo unknow if Iron gates HG in the region already were WHG with a percentage of EHG why is that Steppe in there?.

There are jumps of thousands of years that are unknown. who is to say that one of these days we will not find "neighbors" of all of these that were full of CHG, and EHG and SHG and Mix of...
Enlarge the Mathieson figures and this paper's and you will see. It is there, unless you don't want to see it. ;)
 
[video]https://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/European_hunter-gatherer_admixture.png[/video]

NOT BASED ON ANCIENT GENOMES...

I wonder if I can just program the computer to spit out certain sentences. :)

It's true, however, that in most analyses the Spanish have more WHG than Central and Southern Italians, which is why they plot where they do on PCAs of European variation.
 
NOT BASED ON ANCIENT GENOMES...

I wonder if I can just program the computer to spit out certain sentences. :)

It's true, however, that in most analyses the Spanish have more WHG than Central and Southern Italians, which is why they plot where they do on PCAs of European variation.

You should buy a few textbooks on NLP and basic programming ;)
 

This thread has been viewed 15228 times.

Back
Top