Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 58

Thread: How far were ANE/EHG/WSHG spread?

  1. #26
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    I still have a hard time understanding what WHG/Villabruna really is. It's not Magdalenian (El Mirón people seem to be the main descendants of that culture), but Villabruna cluster is also very divergent, if distantly related, to the Gravettian samples. And it's of course not Aurignacian either. Was Epigravettian not directly connected to Gravettian at all? Or is WHG/Villabruna already yet another demographic and cultural wave expanding throughout Europe from a much smaller area? It mustn't have come from Anatolia, because AHG and WHG though related were also very diverged.

  2. #27
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    I still have a hard time understanding what WHG/Villabruna really is. It's not Magdalenian (El Mirón people seem to be the main descendants of that culture), but Villabruna cluster is also very divergent, if distantly related, to the Gravettian samples. And it's of course not Aurignacian either. Was Epigravettian not directly connected to Gravettian at all? Or is WHG/Villabruna already yet another demographic and cultural wave expanding throughout Europe from a much smaller area? It mustn't have come from Anatolia, because AHG and WHG though related were also very diverged.
    I wonder too. What differentiate Villabruna from Dzudzuana? Vestonice-like ancestry or ANE, or both? Dzudzuana ancestry could have come in Southeast Europe either through Anatolia, or through Eastern Europe. We need more samples from Epipaleolithic Eastern Europe and Anatolia. And we need Lazaridis to releasing the Dzudzuana paper.

    Edit: Also what about this Paleolithic mtdna N1b individual from Crimea.

    In terms of archeology, i think epigravettian is related to gravettian in terms of lithic facies, but they are comprised in what french scholars used to call " L'âge du Renne ". Mammoth is not the dominant big game hunting at this time, but reindeer and buffalos are, it's the Epipaleolithic, with it's high climatic fluncuations comprising warm interstadials like the Bolling and Allerod oscillations and cold stadials like the Dryas. Probably born on the Danube, they maybe have some other influences in some part.

  3. #28
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    72
    Posts
    4,912

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    From what I understood, the simplified synthesis about Dzudzuana was it was very close to ancient Anatolia HG's, so close to mean WHG augmented by Basal Eurasian, the result being ATW neatly distinct from CHG, so at those times, still poor in ANE. Maybe I read to quickly?

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    From what I understood, the simplified synthesis about Dzudzuana was it was very close to ancient Anatolia HG's, so close to mean WHG augmented by Basal Eurasian, the result being ATW neatly distinct from CHG, so at those times, still poor in ANE. Maybe I read to quickly?
    Yes ~70% ancestry in common with Villabruna into the so-called " Common West Eurasian " group. And ~30% from the so-called " Basal Eurasian " ancestry.

  5. #30
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I wonder too. What differentiate Villabruna from Dzudzuana? Vestonice-like ancestry or ANE, or both? Dzudzuana ancestry could have come in Southeast Europe either through Anatolia, or through Eastern Europe. We need more samples from Epipaleolithic Eastern Europe and Anatolia. And we need Lazaridis to releasing the Dzudzuana paper.

    Edit: Also what about this Paleolithic mtdna N1b individual from Crimea.

    In terms of archeology, i think epigravettian is related to gravettian in terms of lithic facies, but they are comprised in what french scholars used to call " L'âge du Renne ". Mammoth is not the dominant big game hunting at this time, but reindeer and buffalos are, it's the Epipaleolithic, with it's high climatic fluncuations comprising warm interstadials like the Bolling and Allerod oscillations and cold stadials like the Dryas. Probably born on the Danube, they maybe have some other influences in some part.
    Dzudzuana already had significant Basal Eurasian ancestry, which the WHG lacked. And Anatolia_HG and WHG, though related, have very high genetic distances between themselves. So, I'd say the two groups diverged very early and lived apart, because Dzudzuana was exposed to BE people, while pre-WHG weren't. I have seen ancestry models in genetic studies calculating Gravettian-like ancestry in the WHG... So were they perhaps an "early" Dzudzuana without BE and mixed with Gravettians/Epigravettians? What I find fascinating is that the Magdalenians still survived to originate El Mirón, and in some models later (post-Neolithic) still had and have a tiny bit of El Mirón.

  6. #31
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Dzudzuana already had significant Basal Eurasian ancestry, which the WHG lacked. And Anatolia_HG and WHG, though related, have very high genetic distances between themselves. So, I'd say the two groups diverged very early and lived apart, because Dzudzuana was exposed to BE people, while pre-WHG weren't. I have seen ancestry models in genetic studies calculating Gravettian-like ancestry in the WHG... So were they perhaps an "early" Dzudzuana without BE and mixed with Gravettians/Epigravettians? What I find fascinating is that the Magdalenians still survived to originate El Mirón, and in some models later (post-Neolithic) still had and have a tiny bit of El Mirón.
    It was actually implied that similar ancestry as Villabruna was found in individuals of the Vestonice and El Miron clusters. Wich means it already radiated in Europe in the final phase of Upper Paleolithic. So we will found individuals older than Villabruna 1 with something Villabruna/Dzudzuana. We might even found in Southeastern Europe, something Villabruna + BA. A lot of admixture/outliers can be discovered.

  7. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    What do you mean by "significant"? Most Uralic populations have less than 5-10% East Eurasian ancestry, and Hungarians and Estonians have barely anything (>1-2%). What the large majority of them do have in common is excess EHG.

    Not so convoluted. It's happened before and even in historical times (e.g. Hungarian itself in Pannonia). Also, consider the fact that genetics is not the only thing that's used to ascertain what hypotheses are more likely. Linguistics and archaeology matters just as much.
    That's just Baltic Finns right? Does that apply to the Saami, Mansi, Khanty,Komi, Mari, and Mordvins?

  8. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.

    R1 seems definitely linked with ANE. But we still dont know who came to birth first between WHG,EHG and CHG. I'm sure we will get samples from early Epigravettian that will show an ancestry similar to Dzudzuana, closer to Vestonice than Villabruna, but not exactly like Villabruna at some point. From there will be the question of what is really Villabruna 1, and if the difference is a lack of ancestry of an ANE like population. There new questions will have to be responded.
    The earliest Q carriers would have been like AG3 before mixing with East Eurasians too though?

  9. #34
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    The earliest Q carriers would have been like AG3 before mixing with East Eurasians too though?
    I mean, ultimately they were from an ANE core. But for exemple if they were the carriers that brought Pit-Comb Ceramic in eastern europe, they could have come from everywhere between Korea, Lake Baikal and Western Siberia. And therefore were probably a mix between ANE and East Asian.

  10. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I mean, ultimately they were from an ANE core. But for exemple if they were the carriers that brought Pit-Comb Ceramic in eastern europe, they could have come from everywhere between Korea, Lake Baikal and Western Siberia. And therefore were probably a mix between ANE and East Asian.
    Maybe. But I thought the Pit-Comb people were predominantly EHG and carried R1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_C...lture#Genetics

    Also it seems hard to believe if they came from near Korea the only haplogourp they would have carried would be Q. But then again I think the earliest Native Americans were mostly or entirely Q no?

  11. #36
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    Maybe. But I thought the Pit-Comb people were predominantly EHG and carried R1
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_C...lture#Genetics

    Also it seems hard to believe if they came from near Korea the only haplogourp they would have carried would be Q. But then again I think the earliest Native Americans were mostly or entirely Q no?
    I said the following earlier.

    I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.


    In terms of archeology, it's clear Comb Ceramic came from east asia, and they didn't came into eastern europe as EHG. There is also the question of Elshanka Pottery coming apparently from Central Asia. Both probably brought some new y-dna to eastern europe, R1a, Q1a2, N... we just need to found the samples and the east asian ancestry. We already have Late hints of Baikal_Neolithic ancestry in Eastern Europe, but we dont know since when it was there, or if there wasn't already a similar ancestry earlier. But looking at how many outliers came in papers the last few years, we probably gonna found some in the future.

    It's also quite possible, Q1a2 migrated along R1, but it's hard to believe that Comb Ceramics and Pottery Hunter-Gatherers came from East without any Y-dna, what y-dna tho?

  12. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    I said the following earlier.

    I dont know at all, we are only speculating for the sake of speculating here. But i think Q1a2 probably was originally from a population with both Western and Eastern Eurasian ancestry in good proportions. Something similar to Botai or Okunevo. Something that will be hard to found in Eastern Europe in the Mesolithic/Neolithic, but could be found at some point.


    In terms of archeology, it's clear Comb Ceramic came from east asia, and they didn't came into eastern europe as EHG. There is also the question of Elshanka Pottery coming apparently from Central Asia. Both probably brought some new y-dna to eastern europe, R1a, Q1a2, N... we just need to found the samples and the east asian ancestry. We already have Late hints of Baikal_Neolithic ancestry in Eastern Europe, but we dont know since when it was there, or if there wasn't already a similar ancestry earlier. But looking at how many outliers came in papers the last few years, we probably gonna found some in the future.

    It's also quite possible, Q1a2 migrated along R1, but it's hard to believe that Comb Ceramics and Pottery Hunter-Gatherers came from East without any Y-dna, what y-dna tho?
    Obviously they didn't come as EHG since that is formed from a mixture only within Europe but they could have come from a WSHG like population. I think that was also found in the Caucasus.

    From where and when is Bakial_Neoltihic ancestry found? I missed that development.

    Also on a related note I read somewhere that pottery was invented in East Asia. Did all West Eurasian populations get their pottery from an eastern source?

  13. #38
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    That's just Baltic Finns right? Does that apply to the Saami, Mansi, Khanty,Komi, Mari, and Mordvins?
    Most of the Uralic people in or west of the Urals have far more EHG than East Asian ancestry. Those to the east, honestly I don't believe are truly representative of the early Uralic genetic makeup with all the profound changes we know that happened (shifting it toward Northeast Asians) in Central Asia and Central Siberia since the Neolithic. Nganassans, for example, are genetically much closer to Kets and other Yeniseians than to any Uralic population. My hunch is that the original PU admixture got extremely diluted the further east they went. In any case, linguistically there are many reasons to believe PU was spoken near PIE and Proto-Indo-Iranian even before it split, which must mean that PU expanded after PIE and probably only in the last 4,000-4,500 years from a place under strong IE influence, and the typological similarities to PIE also indicate if not a shared origin many millennia before a very strong interaction with pre-PIE languages since a long time before PU itself. A homeland in China or Mongolia makes no sense under these linguistic considerations.

  14. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Most of the Uralic people in or west of the Urals have far more EHG than East Asian ancestry. Those to the east, honestly I don't believe are truly representative of the early Uralic genetic makeup with all the profound changes we know that happened (shifting it toward Northeast Asians) in Central Asia and Central Siberia since the Neolithic. Nganassans, for example, are genetically much closer to Kets and other Yeniseians than to any Uralic population. My hunch is that the original PU admixture got extremely diluted the further east they went. In any case, linguistically there are many reasons to believe PU was spoken near PIE and Proto-Indo-Iranian even before it split, which must mean that PU expanded after PIE and probably only in the last 4,000-4,500 years from a place under strong IE influence, and the typological similarities to PIE also indicate if not a shared origin many millennia before a very strong interaction with pre-PIE languages since a long time before PU itself. A homeland in China or Mongolia makes no sense under these linguistic considerations.
    I have trouble disassociating Uralics from y N and ENA. It requires a lot of founder effects and for N to be explained away as a result of something else.

    Do you have a breakdown of the ancestry of Uralics?

  15. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    If you believe y N and ENA are post Neolithic phenomenons what was between the Urals and Baikal?

  16. #41
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    Obviously they didn't come as EHG since that is formed from a mixture only within Europe but they could have come from a WSHG like population. I think that was also found in the Caucasus.

    From where and when is Bakial_Neoltihic ancestry found? I missed that development.

    Also on a related note I read somewhere that pottery was invented in East Asia. Did all West Eurasian populations get their pottery from an eastern source?
    Baikal_Neolithic represent the eastern ancestry in the WSHG admixture, if i'm not wrong, so if we found something related to WSHG in Mesolithic/Neolithic eastern europe, it's our link. It's all question of proximate. Between different populations.

    For exemple, if we found something related to Baikal_Neolithic in Mesolithic Eastern Europe, it will not be Baikal_Neolithic, but a population with related east asian ancestry.



    Pottery was invented in East Asia in an independant developpement. But it's probably unrelated with the middle-eastern one.

  17. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    Baikal_Neolithic represent the eastern ancestry in the WSHG admixture, if i'm not wrong, so if we found something related to WSHG in Mesolithic/Neolithic eastern europe, it's our link. It's all question of proximate. Between different populations.

    For exemple, if we found something related to Baikal_Neolithic in Mesolithic Eastern Europe, it will not be Baikal_Neolithic, but a population with related east asian ancestry.



    Pottery was invented in East Asia in an independant developpement. But it's probably unrelated with the middle-eastern one.
    Most maps of pottery show an origin in NE Asia (NE China specifically) and a slow diffusion from there. Is it actually diffusion to the west or something invented later on? What did ANE people have?

    The other thread said pottery in the Middle East came from Sudan. How likely is that?

  18. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    Most maps of pottery show an origin in NE Asia (NE China specifically) and a slow diffusion from there. Is it actually diffusion to the west or something invented later on? What did ANE people have?

    The other thread said pottery in the Middle East came from Sudan. How likely is that?
    No, the oldest pottery used was in east asia, it doesn't mean it's the only place it was invented. As far as i know, there is no concensus for an archeological link between ceramics of east asia and the middle-east.

    I think you speak about the post of MarkoZ from a few years back? I don't know too much about it.

  19. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by halfalp View Post
    No, the oldest pottery used was in east asia, it doesn't mean it's the only place it was invented. As far as i know, there is no concensus for an archeological link between ceramics of east asia and the middle-east.

    I think you speak about the post of MarkoZ from a few years back? I don't know too much about it.
    That makes sense. Is there a link between the pottery of Siberia/Steppe/NE Europe and NE Asia?

    Also do you have any idea on whether K2b/P originated in an ENA or ANE population? People have been saying those originated in SE Asia or in NE China in an ENA population (TIanyuan).

    These are the ages I got from yfull. I didn't adjust for yfull typical 10-15% underestimation.

    K2b- TMRCA 43000-45400 ybp
    P - TMRCA 40900-42000 ybp
    Tianyuan K2b - 36880- 38170 ybp

    P was born at least 2000 years before Tianyuan according to this.

  20. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    That makes sense. Is there a link between the pottery of Siberia/Steppe/NE Europe and NE Asia?

    Also do you have any idea on whether K2b/P originated in an ENA or ANE population? People have been saying those originated in SE Asia or in NE China in an ENA population (TIanyuan).

    These are the ages I got from yfull. I didn't adjust for yfull typical 10-15% underestimation.

    K2b- TMRCA 43000-45400 ybp
    P - TMRCA 40900-42000 ybp
    Tianyuan K2b - 36880- 38170 ybp

    P was born at least 2000 years before Tianyuan according to this.
    We have no ways to know.

  21. #46
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    I have trouble disassociating Uralics from y N and ENA. It requires a lot of founder effects and for N to be explained away as a result of something else.

    Do you have a breakdown of the ancestry of Uralics?
    Uralic expansion definitely happened together with the expansion of N and ENA. What I mean is that the ancestral roots of the language must have been in a EHG group in Northwestern Eurasia, not a ENA group. It's like PIE: the people that spread it to other parts of the world was almost certainly a mixture of EHG with CHG in various different proportions, but the language itself must've come from one of those 2 originally unmixed groups.

  22. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Uralic expansion definitely happened together with the expansion of N and ENA. What I mean is that the ancestral roots of the language must have been in a EHG group in Northwestern Eurasia, not a ENA group. It's like PIE: the people that spread it to other parts of the world was almost certainly a mixture of EHG with CHG in various different proportions, but the language itself must've come from one of those 2 originally unmixed groups.
    So in your opinion proto uralics carried R1 and mt U2e, U4, and U5 and were entirely EHG?

    How likely is it the maternal side is at the root of the language?

  23. #48
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    So in your opinion proto uralics carried R1 and mt U2e, U4, and U5 and were entirely EHG?

    How likely is it the maternal side is at the root of the language?
    No, not Proto-Uralics, but pre-PU before the late stage of Proto-Uralic, i.e. long before it started splitting concomitantly to the Uralic people's expansion itself. I think Proto-Uralics had mostly N1a-Tat and perhaps a few other N1 lineages.

    I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but it happens. You also need to consider that it didn't necessarily come from the maternal side, it may simply be that the foreign paternal lines were more successful after some generations, but they were initially amidst a population that still had many of the males of the population they admixed with, and they shifted to the local language very soon, so that their numerous descendants with foreign paternal lines grew up already speaking another language. It's unlikely that Basque/Aquitanian is originally linked to R1b-P312. It's also unlikely that Chadic is originally linked to R1b-V88. Many North American indigenous tribes also have a lot of R1b, and it's IMHO very implausible that that large % of R1b predates the Pre-Columbian era. You also have, on a different note, males not being overwhelmed by the foreigners, but acquiring the foreign language and going on to spread that language even without the paternal lineages originally linked to it (e.g. a lot of Turkic groups and perhaps even the Proto-Turkic themselvees).

  24. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    15-06-20
    Posts
    512


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    No, not Proto-Uralics, but pre-PU before the late stage of Proto-Uralic, i.e. long before it started splitting concomitantly to the Uralic people's expansion itself. I think Proto-Uralics had mostly N1a-Tat and perhaps a few other N1 lineages.

    I don't think it's the most likely scenario, but it happens. You also need to consider that it didn't necessarily come from the maternal side, it may simply be that the foreign paternal lines were more successful after some generations, but they were initially amidst a population that still had many of the males of the population they admixed with, and they shifted to the local language very soon, so that their numerous descendants with foreign paternal lines grew up already speaking another language. It's unlikely that Basque/Aquitanian is originally linked to R1b-P312. It's also unlikely that Chadic is originally linked to R1b-V88. Many North American indigenous tribes also have a lot of R1b, and it's IMHO very implausible that that large % of R1b predates the Pre-Columbian era. You also have, on a different note, males not being overwhelmed by the foreigners, but acquiring the foreign language and going on to spread that language even without the paternal lineages originally linked to it (e.g. a lot of Turkic groups and perhaps even the Proto-Turkic themselvees).
    Its unlikely as you said.

  25. #50
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,253


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by ratchet_fan View Post
    Its unlikely as you said.
    Not more unlikely than Uralic and PIE sharing so much evidences of long-term contact and a few evidences even of shared genealogical root if one evolved in Eastern Europe and the only arrived in Europe from China in the Early Bronze Age or even later.

    No homeland hypothesis must be based on solely one factor, let alone only something as strongly subjected to rapid drift as Y-DNA haplogroups.

    Since it's happened multiple times as far as we know, there is no reason to believe that everything else must be reconciled to keep a wrong idea that the language of males whose lineage became dominant through selection and drift always prevails.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •