Contradictory maps of Yamnaya contribution to modern European populations

Roi

Regular Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Hi

I have just found this study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...pulations-of-Europe-data-taken_fig2_318751121 which shows a different map for the Yamnaya admixture than the one included in this site... interestingly, in the map here linked the highest density of Yamnaya seems to be in the extreme North of Europe, and not in the Baltic area as other maps show... on the other hand, north western Iberia shows here higher levels of Yamnaya admixture than the Eupedia map, that represents the highest density on the eastern half of Iberia... Eupedia map shows higher densities in Italy and Greece than in western Iberia. Which do you thing is most accurate Yamnaya admixture map?
 
There is no such thing as "Yamnaya" admixture.

They carried several components: North Euro combined with CHG and some Asiatic components. It was weeded out in several areas, also populations carrying similar admixture ratios(minus any CHG) taking over different areas many years later are not to be counted.

These admixture theories have all been debunked.

Their yDNA survived in a few populations:

Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png
 
Hi

I have just found this study: https://www.researchgate.net/figure...pulations-of-Europe-data-taken_fig2_318751121 which shows a different map for the Yamnaya admixture than the one included in this site... interestingly, in the map here linked the highest density of Yamnaya seems to be in the extreme North of Europe, and not in the Baltic area as other maps show... on the other hand, north western Iberia shows here higher levels of Yamnaya admixture than the Eupedia map, that represents the highest density on the eastern half of Iberia... Eupedia map shows higher densities in Italy and Greece than in western Iberia. Which do you thing is most accurate Yamnaya admixture map?

I don't know what you mean by the map in this site.

As for what you've posted, Kristiansen says he got the data from Haak et al, which is what I usually use. However, Kristiansen's graphic seems a little off to me because he's imputing levels to areas which weren't specifically tested.
 
There is no such thing as "Yamnaya" admixture.

They carried several components: North Euro combined with CHG and some Asiatic components. It was weeded out in several areas, also populations carrying similar admixture ratios(minus any CHG) taking over different areas many years later are not to be counted.

These admixture theories have all been debunked.

Their yDNA survived in a few populations:

Haplogroup-R1b-Z2103.png

There definitely is Yamnaya/CWC admixture, it just seems to be inflated by additional Siberian and WHG input in some analyses. Hence Finns get like 70% in Haak's initial model.
 
There definitely is Yamnaya/CWC admixture, it just seems to be inflated by additional Siberian and WHG input in some analyses. Hence Finns get like 70% in Haak's initial model.
Finns have little-to-none CHG, so they cannot be linked to Yamnaya ancestry. Yamnaya had more than 30% CHG admixture.

Regardless if they are 70% similar, does not matter one bit. The CHG admixture is empty in Finns, since Finns aren't Indo-European.
 
Finns have little-to-none CHG, so they cannot be linked to Yamnaya ancestry. Yamnaya had more than 30% CHG admixture.

Regardless if they are 70% similar, does not matter one bit. The CHG admixture is empty in Finns, since Finns aren't Indo-European.

You might want to back that up with some numbers.
 
You might want to back that up with some numbers.
Not before you post the numbers you claimed in your initial response.

Finnic groups have little-to-none Caucasus.
 
@Roi,

I think you should read Haak et al. Markod's comment about additional WHG and Siberian in Finns skewing the percentage upwards is also accurate. You can ignore the rest.

In the paper and supplement you can ind the exact percentages, but this should give you and idea.

Haak et al 2015
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

The WHG percentage is the EXCESS WHG over and above what is present in the early farmers of Europe. The "Yamnaya" percentage includes both EHG and "CHG", ranging up to 40%.

Haak_et_al_Fig_3.png
 
Angela, I meant this map:
View attachment 10457

Which areas you say that weren't specifically tested? beg you pardon, but couldn't access the full study... it's just that the map sounded very different from the one I pasted here of the Steppe admixture... aren't they measuring the same components? if not, which one better reflects the Indoeuropean input? Yamnaya or Steppe? Is it true that in northern Spain there is a greater IE input than in Mediterranean coast of Spain? this would make sense to me, since IE languages (Lusitanian & Celtiberian) were spoken on the west; since non IE Iberians occupied the Mediterranean coast... in fact is the Steppe admixture that I don't understand for this particular area.
 
Sorry, don't now if the map is visible, I meant the Steppe admixture map, called in Eupedia "Yamna admixture": https://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Yamna-admixture.png

Look at the Basques! Regardless of how accurate this calculator is (probably pretty bad!) - that is so insignificant. Matches this too: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34175224

With the Basques being roughly 75% R1b (definitely more if you exclude any inevitable Spanish and French influences), how does that match up with the Steppe origin of L51? Even with an elite male system dominated by P312 individuals, it would surely leave more of a trace, right? Why is there less of a sign of Steppe admix among the Basques than, say, the Spanish, where the dominating P312 folk surely blended a lot more with the local population?

Or is this all outdated. It makes little sense, even with a non-Steppe origin of L51, that the Basques would have such little Steppe admix
 
That's not based on the data of an academic paper.

By the time the Central European Beaker people arrived in Iberia, they would have been more than 50% farmer.

Sorry Angela, if it's not based on any study, which are the sources for that map?
Anyway, even though Eupedia ("Steppe admixture") map seems odd to me in the Iberian Peninsula, it makes more sense in Eastern / North-Eastern Europe, where it places the "Steppe admixture" hotspots on the Eastern Baltic and gives higher Steppe admixture levels for the Danubian basin and Ukraine, that is, the alleged homeland of the IE peoples.
 
Sorry Angela, if it's not based on any study, which are the sources for that map?
Anyway, even though Eupedia ("Steppe admixture") map seems odd to me in the Iberian Peninsula, it makes more sense in Eastern / North-Eastern Europe, where it places the "Steppe admixture" hotspots on the Eastern Baltic and gives higher Steppe admixture levels for the Danubian basin and Ukraine, that is, the alleged homeland of the IE peoples.

Roy, it's based on the work of Eurogenes, the Polish blogger. He's gotten some things right in the past, and a lot wrong. As we've touched on above, there was a WHG refuge in the Baltics as we now know, and perhaps even south of that, so it artificially inflated some of the Yamnaya numbers.

As for the Ukraine, the people there now are not representative of the people who were there in the times we're discussing. There was massive depopulation and then repopulation by Slavic people moving south.
 
Hm, i didn't know that Maciamo did a Steppe Admixture map, did he? The Steppe admixture is pretty much following the ANE and Gedrosia admixture in modern populations. And Maciamo have multiple time said that Baltic countries were the most WHG-like people of modern Europe, while " Steppe " was mostly concentrated in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe.
 
^^You'll never convince certain people that the steppe populations had Caucasus.
 
Yep. This proves my point again. Nothing can be Yamnaya-derived without any Caucasus component.

Huh, Portuguese Bronze Age has no Green component? Thanks for adding to my anti-Yamnaya collection - there's no way that's from the Steppe, even accounting for dilution. I'd also like to point out that the transformation from the local German Corded Ware to Bell Beaker genomes must have been through admixture with a population roughly 3/5 Hunter-Gatherer and 2/5 Farmer (allowing for small amounts of Caucasian) assuming a 50-50 admix. Even when assuming any other admix proportion, the population admixed with Corded Ware to make Bell Beaker must still have been roughly 3/5 Hunter-Gatherer, as both Corded Ware and Bell Beaker have the same proportion of Hunter-Gatherer ancestry.

This only really leaves two possibilities for the source of the ancestry (assuming a roughly even split of ancestry, from 1/3 to 2/3 contribution either way) - Hungary or Iberia - however in neither case can the population be Yamnaya-derived, leading to the ultimate conclusion that as this non-Corded population must have been R1b-L51 (as we also know Bell Beaker was R1b-L51), the R1b-L51 cannot have come from a Steppe source, but is more consistent with some mixture of Farmer and Hunter-Gatherer ancestry. Analysis of the distribution of archaic L51 heavily favours an Iberian hypothesis. Note that Steppe here refers to some mixture of Hunter-Gatherer (always meant to be European here) and Caucasian.

In the hypothesis that Bell Beaker is derived through Yamnaya + admix (and not related to Corded Ware), then it can be said that Yamnaya admixed with a population also about 3/5 Hunter-Gatherer and 2/5 Farmer (also with small amounts of Caucasian permitted), but in this case it cannot be explained why the Portuguese Bronze Age samples have no Caucasus component, assuming it to be derived in part from Central European Beaker invaders, as is the current hypothesis.

However, there are still scenarios where a Steppe-origin of R1b-L51 is possible - you just have to say that things like the Portuguese Bronze Age samples are part of some separate aboriginal (presumably lower) farmer caste, which is perfectly possible. But still, this approach is fundamentally flawed by the fact that people are ultimately taking Caucasian components (present with Hunter-Gatherer ancestry) to indicate Steppe-ancestry. In this case, even Sicilians are pretty heavily Steppe, which obviously isn't true.

The point is, though, that admixture changes so often when a population migrates, but their Y DNA does not, which is why IT should be used primarily instead of autosomal analysis to determine the origin of particular populations.
 

This thread has been viewed 13504 times.

Back
Top