Coming In a Few Days: 101 Ancient Genomes from Eurasia.

@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna significant percentage of ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.

Therefore it is save to assume that not all of Baltic ANE is Yamna.

I think the best component pin point Yamna ancestry in Europe is "South Eurasian". Yamna had 5%, Balts have mostly around 1-1.5% Therefore a good assumption is 20-30% direct Yamna ancestry.
Ukrainians for example have 2% "South Eurasian" therefore a ~40% Yamna ancestry fits for them.
For West and South_Central Asia we should take WHG as signal.
It buffles me how David didn't take this into consideration when he made his Yamna scores.
 
Last edited:
arvistro said:
That, Garrick, is not a problem. As long as it is done by amateurs in forums, it is fine.
Problem would be if scientists did so :)

btw, we are having the farmer from Anatolia in like 2-3 weeks, if I understand correctly. So, how do you think will modern Finns score more on that admixture than Yamna had?
Click to expand...

Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.
 
Alan said:
@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna some ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.

Therefore it is save to assume that not all of Baltic ANE is Yamna.

I think the best component pin point Yamna ancestry in Europe is "South Eurasian". Yamna had 5%, Balts have mostly around 1-1.5% Therefore a good assumption is 20-30% Yamna ancestry.
Ukrainians for example have 2% "South Eurasian" therefore a ~40% Yamna ancestry fits for them.
For West and South_Central Asia we should take WHG as signal.
It buffles me how David didn't take this into consideration when he made his Yamna scores.
Click to expand...
I agree. It means our EEF/ENF does not come from Yamna too.
So, for Baltic population:
20% of genes were derived from Yamna:
5 percentpoints EEF
7 percentpoints WHG
7 percentpoints ANE.
What we have to explain with remaining 80% of genes is:
30 percentpoints EEF
40 percentpoints WHG
10 percentpoints ANE

So, the proportion (of pre Yamna Baltic ancestors?) on 100%:
37.5% EEF
50% WHG
12.5% ANE
(Yamna folk decreased EEF and increased ANE)

Which itself looks like combination of
33% original EHG
67% of EEF/WHG mix at ratio ~ 58/42 or so.

If they ever catch pre-Yamna Baltic person, will be fun to check how close/far I was.

Btw I cant find google Corded WHG/ ANE/ EEF estimates. Corded should be in between Yamna and my calculations.
What is also South Eurasian for Corded?
 
Alan said:
@Arvisto

Don't forget the 5% "South Eurasian". Balts hve 1-2% of it. We know that Pre Yamna some ANE already existed in far North Europe and East Europe.
Click to expand...

Some Corded Ware individuals score 0% in South Eurasian some score 4%, and all were mostly Yamnaya. It's an inconsistent component. ANE is the main signal of Yamnaya ancestry in Europe. I and other posters have spent hours exhausting every possible ancestry composition using ANE K8 scores since January, and SHG doesn't fit as a significant source of ANE.

IMO, we need Ancient Genomes from West Asia before talking about Yamnaya-type ancestry there. There's certainly "Teal" ancestry in West Asia, which they share with Yamnaya. It's possible the Antolian IE languages and Armenian didn't come from North of the Caucasus, and PIE originated with "Teal" people.
 
BTW, I doubt EUrogenes created ANE K8 to weed out unwanted Near Eastern ancestry in Yamnaya and or Europeans. I watched the evolution of ANE K8. After the EEF/WHG/ANE scores in Laz, Eurogenes wanted to make a more accurate version, which takes out the WHG-admixture in EEF and gives an Ancient Near Eastern score.

First he estimated ANE ancestry for all his world populations. Second he created "Mammoth Steppe" tests, in which he used La Brana-1(Before Laz 2014 genomes were public) in one version and MA1 in another version as the "Mammouth Steppe" source. He used Bedouin as the Near Eastern source. The scores were noisy, but very similar to ANE K8. He tried to create tests just like ANE K8(With all ANE and WHG going into one "Mammoth" component), but only with the genomes available at the time. It never worked out perfectly.

Then quickly after the Laz 2014 genomes came out he made ANE K7, which had inaccurate Near Eastern and WHG scores. Near Eastern scores were way too low for Europeans. Balts and Finns were scoring 0%. After that he made ANE K8. The estimated amount of Stuttgart ancestry(A Euro's ENF divided by Stuttgart's ENF) are consistent with EEF scores in Laz 2014.

He theorized Yamnaya would be mostly Near Eastern, with the remaining being mostly ANE back in November. That's what most posters thought. It wasn't till Haak 2015 leaks that posters changed their minds. There's no reason to believe IMO, that ANE K8 was created to fit people's wishful thinking. You can argue it isn't accurate though.
 
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.

It's a reasonable assumption but not a conclusive one imo.

An alternative might be an early population of herders from region X with one branch moving onto the steppe and bumping into Samara while a second branch moved into the near east thus becoming what we now think of as the "Near Eastern" component.

#

Separate to that I had another thought about the Samara mtdna puzzle based on the recent Danish BB girl being found to have traveled a lot. If there was a copper workers network who maintained contact long distances along the trader routes perhaps that's how the mtdna could travel long distances.

For examples miners from region A (with region A mtdna) move up a copper producing mountain in region B (marrying region B women) and some move up a copper-producing mountain in region C (and marry region C women) but then the resulting groups travel back and forth between the three sites and marry between themselves.

This would require 1) initial settlements being mostly male (which isn't hard to imagine if they were mining colonies) and 2) maintained connections between the colonies and 3) endogamous marriage within the network after the initial settlement.

Something like this could come close to the pattern seen at Samara (maybe).

#

A related thought about the "Anatolian" branch of IE is what if the Armenian branch wasn't a tribe but a crew of miners who settled among a non-IE population. Might the seeming archaic-ness of Anatolian be connected to having a non-IE substrate?

#

The above points are not necessarily connected or compatible - just thoughts.
 
arvistro

I read somewhere that there will be aDNA from Estonia and Lithuania. So perhaps we will find why Baltic countries have an excess of ENF compared to Yamna.
 
As far as I understood the Paper coming in next two weeks has found two Anatolian farmers. One (similar to those who colonised Europe during Neolithics) and the bit later one with "other" admixture which was not common for Euro Neolithics.
There is a discussion if "other" admixture is or is not ANE. We will find that pretty soon.

Also I hope we may be able to check on Balts/Baltic Finns (and Volga Finns for comparison) which wave Farmer genes we have. "Neolithic" or "Indo-Euros".

I used to think Indo-Euros brought farmer genes to Baltics. Since they did bring farming. But looks like it is more complicated.
 
Arame said:
arvistro

I read somewhere that there will be aDNA from Estonia and Lithuania. So perhaps we will find why Baltic countries have an excess of ENF compared to Yamna.
Click to expand...
Fingers crossed! I read about Latvian Zvejnieki site being researched.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
IMO, we need Ancient Genomes from West Asia before talking about Yamnaya-type ancestry there.
Click to expand...

Yes we need Ancient Genomes from Near East, West Asia etc. I think the part of problem is that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect/incomplete and maybe our conclusions based on this model can be wrong. With more data scientists will create better, robust models.
 
Greying Wanderer said:
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.
Click to expand...

The "Near East" component in ANE K8 is not based on Modern Near Easterns. It's basically an Early European farmer minus like 30% WHG. So, similar to some Neolithic Near Easterns. It's supposedly what the Near East was before admixture with ANE, South Asians, East Asians, and Africans.
 
Greying Wanderer said:
The problem I have with the "Near Eastern" component is the assumption that modern "Near Eastern" is the same as ancient "Near Eastern" i.e. that there wasn't a population turnover in the near east also.

It's a reasonable assumption but not a conclusive one imo.

An alternative might be an early population of herders from region X with one branch moving onto the steppe and bumping into Samara while a second branch moved into the near east thus becoming what we now think of as the "Near Eastern" component.

#

Separate to that I had another thought about the Samara mtdna puzzle based on the recent Danish BB girl being found to have traveled a lot. If there was a copper workers network who maintained contact long distances along the trader routes perhaps that's how the mtdna could travel long distances.

For examples miners from region A (with region A mtdna) move up a copper producing mountain in region B (marrying region B women) and some move up a copper-producing mountain in region C (and marry region C women) but then the resulting groups travel back and forth between the three sites and marry between themselves.

This would require 1) initial settlements being mostly male (which isn't hard to imagine if they were mining colonies) and 2) maintained connections between the colonies and 3) endogamous marriage within the network after the initial settlement.

Something like this could come close to the pattern seen at Samara (maybe).

#

A related thought about the "Anatolian" branch of IE is what if the Armenian branch wasn't a tribe but a crew of miners who settled among a non-IE population. Might the seeming archaic-ness of Anatolian be connected to having a non-IE substrate?

#

The above points are not necessarily connected or compatible - just thoughts.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not understanding your point, and you're aware of this, Greying Wanderer (It's early for me, after all. :), but the statistical fit is 50% Ancient Karelian like plus 50% modern Armenian like, so they're not talking about ancient Near Easterners. They didn't have an ancient Near Easterner, so they're making do with modern samples. I'm sure when they get one their model will change. They're talking about a population that resembles modern Near Easterners. Unless, of course, it turns out that Armenians today are not only pretty much what they were like 3500 years ago, but what they were like 5500 years ago.
 
Garrick said:
Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.
Click to expand...

Most of the time I argued for a propotion of 4:1 or 5:1
 
Last edited:
Garrick said:
Sorry, Arvistro, maybe I wasn't precise, it didn't apply to you. And you set good question.

I only wanted to say that model of Lazaridis et al is imperfect, and when there will be more data, this model will be replaced with better, more robust model. Maybe, it will not change the results, but proportion ENF:WHG in EEF will not be everywhere 5:1. This is changeable category and it depends of location. It is not irrelevant in which range it can be changed.
Click to expand...

In my opinion part of the problem is that hobbyists have either imperfectly understood the Lazaridis and Haak papers, and/or made sweeping claims and drew dogmatic conclusions that can't be found in the papers. The other part of the problem is that people have confused the computations on the internet with those actually made in the papers.

The hallmark of the Reich team all the way back since the days when they adjusted the findings of Moorjani et al in subsequent papers like Lipson et al is that they always state upfront that their findings are provisional based on the currently available data/samples, and that the models will be adjusted as time goes on. That's the hallmark of a top notch academic team.

The only word that they may come to regret is "massive", as in "massive" flow of genes with the Yamnaya incursions, at least for certain parts of Europe, and I have my suspicions about who was probably responsible for that. I'll leave it at that. :)
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Some Corded Ware individuals score 0% in South Eurasian some score 4%, and all were mostly Yamnaya. It's an inconsistent component. ANE is the main signal of Yamnaya ancestry in Europe. I and other posters have spent hours exhausting every possible ancestry composition using ANE K8 scores since January, and SHG doesn't fit as a significant source of ANE.
Click to expand...


Lack of SE in some Corded Ware samples is not argument for that SE being inconsistent. That might be one of the reasons why the study is questioning if CW is really descend of Yamna or just a related culture.

ANE can't be taken as signal simply because ANE DID exist in East (EHG) and North Europe already. So how can this be taken as signal?

Also it is not important if some lacked it and some not. Important is how much on average they had. it is very well possible that some CW inividuals were natives(Having WHG, ENF and ANE) while other more like Yamna (ANE,ENF,WHG, SE).
 
Fire Haired14 said:
The "Near East" component in ANE K8 is not based on Modern Near Easterns. It's basically an Early European farmer minus like 30% WHG. So, similar to some Neolithic Near Easterns. It's supposedly what the Near East was before admixture with ANE, South Asians, East Asians, and Africans.
Click to expand...


Which neolithic near easterns is it similar to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 36975 times.

Back
Top