How far were ANE/EHG/WSHG spread?

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.
 
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.

That guy could easily be a outlier. I would bet Botai and most WSHG were R1b. And I also doubt this guy was ancestral to the wave of N that hit Europe.
 
I think we cannot affirm all Y-R1a bearers in N-E Europe came from I-Ens. We even don't know what languages spoke the HG's South Finland and the E-Baltic lands before the first Finnish speakers arrival. It seems some of them spoke a not-I-E not Uralic language (from post-Swiderian people come from West?)? Seemingly Saami Finnic absorbed words of this language plus some of a Satemlike language. In West, Finnic seems appearing rather lately (Iron? or a bit sooner?) so it doesn't prove that this Satemlike I-E (CWC?) language was very old there. I think some specific old subclades of Y-R1a could have been absorbed by the Uralic "rulers" there or even earlier in more eastern lands, or at least a great autosomal (EHG) DNA part has been absorbed even if the males lineages (R1a) have been swept off. Maybe some Y-R1b pop's from Baltic HG's could have had the same destiny. So if not-I-E Y-R1a markers were rare among Uralic or Uralicized pop's, these not-I-E Y-R1a had transmitted the autosomes and mt- markers of their pop to the mix formed by the crossings with Uralic speakers pop's at diverse ages.
 
R1a was not well represented among the old Uralics. Nobody believes that besides Carlos Quiles. R1a in Uralics comes from Indo-Europeans.
Also N and probably N1c-tat is clearly a lineage from Neolithic Baikal/North China.

Short answer before I dig deeper in the question and data.
I don't know if we have the samples to affirm or contradict this about old Uralics. Y-R1a was present West the Ourals long ago I think, it was in Karelia. But it's not by force the same clades as the future IE Y-R1a clades (like CWC by instance). ATW the genesis of first speakers of Finnic-Ugric dialects is uncertain and complicated. It's possible that these 'europoids' (maybe Y-R1a, not sure) of Volga-Kama were not true Uralic speakers and were "teached" in Uralic by some Y-N1 ou -N3 clade (I'm lost for Y-N because they changed the namings more than a time!), who knows? the relatively late Seyma-Turbino "people" or rather cultural profile had strong influence but are we sure they were the first bearers of Finnic-Ugric languages? The genesis of the languages requires longer time.
 
Incidentally, I've just read that N1 was already present in one Botai individual (another population that was mainly EHG + extra ANE + a bit of ENA), so it seems the westward spread of N lineages into West-Central Asia and later Eastern Europe had already begun before the Bronze Age.

There's apparently samples on the way indicating Proto Uralics were basically Nganasan like not WSHG like. SO they probably looked like this.

1EtcTOQUpBBj8_cN9yoB4A0v26mloKTfINZ84_mvKMgo5D2AY1uxFSBbxWV9fjSyKEV6s9EELBLTwW1JX7Sj7r0OsXhNYiFE8fMFvCoVxf5tb9__2wTYiCIkx-y6Cb05I-PO68v9BwqzPiWmxmc

p15299.jpg

9a14a3fa32c4c55e9ce73dad3258620a.jpg


attachment.php

SS2489057.jpg

Nganasan.jpg

915c8dc2ebae.jpg

Z6vuHGMMXu1i14o0wJ8YfKnF6GspiHWaOeWJU_aBtfb9joeJPMqKUl9D8L-YRJFOBR_2qFAUhPEkUA6cSj85knCspsEM8eMWukyY1wu3g7VI95NOMCwxLlu_3aGMwsZ5tgu2IhQqpOzq
 
There's apparently samples on the way indicating Proto Uralics were basically Nganasan like not WSHG like. SO they probably looked like this.

1EtcTOQUpBBj8_cN9yoB4A0v26mloKTfINZ84_mvKMgo5D2AY1uxFSBbxWV9fjSyKEV6s9EELBLTwW1JX7Sj7r0OsXhNYiFE8fMFvCoVxf5tb9__2wTYiCIkx-y6Cb05I-PO68v9BwqzPiWmxmc

p15299.jpg

9a14a3fa32c4c55e9ce73dad3258620a.jpg


attachment.php

SS2489057.jpg

Nganasan.jpg

915c8dc2ebae.jpg

Z6vuHGMMXu1i14o0wJ8YfKnF6GspiHWaOeWJU_aBtfb9joeJPMqKUl9D8L-YRJFOBR_2qFAUhPEkUA6cSj85knCspsEM8eMWukyY1wu3g7VI95NOMCwxLlu_3aGMwsZ5tgu2IhQqpOzq


Thanks.
The people whose pics you show us are current era period, not the ancient one possibly involved in proto-Uralic people genesis. Some of them show evident traces of crossings with 'europoids' (surely modern Russians, byt perhaps more ancient), as well in the pigmentation aspect as in the bones aspect.
And the fact that Nganassans people should have been the principal sources of Uralic ancestors is far to be proved.
 

This thread has been viewed 20347 times.

Back
Top