Estimating the Y-DNA and autosomal admixtures of Yamnaya samples

[Angela]

Take a look at the Basque admixture, they are about as homogenous as a population gets in terms of Y DNA, 85% R1b. If the original R1b entrants to Europe contained any of the beige admixture we would see it there even in some tiny trace, but we don't. The Basques are about 50/50 of the pink and light blue admixture which is why placing them in the Venn diagram between those two groups works so perfectly. Contrary to what Maciamo statead I did not intend for J2 to represent ANE, the term ANE is really just a catch all for all the European DNA we can't attibute to EEF or WHG (or Oetzi-Loschbour/Motala). All of the population admixtures listed there contain the beige admixture on par closely with the amount of J2 Y DNA they posess, in the absence of J2 the existence of R1a contributes a small amout. This is why we can see the beige admixture in Scots and Icelanders who do have R1a vs non in the Basques who have no R1a.

The question posed was what we believe the genetic make up of the Yamna were, you can see from the mtDNA tables I made that there was a lot of the same mtDNA in the Yamna that existed in the Neolithic cultures of Europe. This is a lot of support for them containing high levels of EEF. Wether it is directly from an eastward expansion of Neolithic farmers, or a Northward expansion of Neolithic farmers from the same origin as the European ones is hard to pinpoint but I would say the latter is more likely.

I do follow your logic here (and presumably that of Lazaridis et al), but couldn't it also just be the case for the Basques, for example, that men from surrounding areas were accepted into a basically matrilineal group and R1b rose to these levels just through founder effect and some selective advantage? They can be modeled with some ANE, as well.

A similar situation must have occurred in my own area, where downstream clades of R1b are over 50%, but if these latest Eurogenes figures are to be believed, the people only carry 8% of ANE.

If R1b did not carry ANE, what were they in terms of these three populations, and when did they enter Europe?

 

[Angela]

I do follow your logic here (and presumably that of Lazaridis et al), but couldn't it also just be the case for the Basques, for example, that men from surrounding areas were accepted into a basically matrilineal group and R1b rose to these levels just through founder effect and some selective advantage? They can be modeled with some ANE, as well.

A similar situation must have occurred in my own area, where downstream clades of R1b are over 50%, but if these latest Eurogenes figures are to be believed, the people only carry 8% of ANE.

If R1b did not carry ANE, what were they in terms of these three populations, and when did they enter Europe?

Ed. Upon reflection, this Venn Diagram is getting out a little bit ahead of the facts for an academic paper, unless they had facts, or preliminary facts, to which we don't have access.

 

[Aberdeen]

I'm not sure why this is an issue? Isn't R1a-M458 almost exclusively NE European/N Russian (aka Slavic) except when we see a light distribution in the Balkans from Slavic migration?

P312 - Celtic/Celtiberian/Gaulish
U106- Germanic
U152 - Possibly Italic
L23/L51 - Illyrian/IE Greek/Italic(?)

Several papers have suggested both R1b, and R1a both experienced rapid expansion. The oldest branchings of R1b (xL389) are in India and Iran, and never found in the west. These were nomadic pastoralists. R1b need not have expanded in India for it to have been classified as part of PIE, especially if the earliest tribes were not innovators of farming, many lineages would have just died out.

I'm not quite sure what it is you're trying to say here. I'm aware of the apparent links of specific subclades to certain general areas and specific groups of people. My question was how those links came about. Are you saying that the subclades evolved in situ during the Bronze Age? I can't find anything solid about how old these various subclades are, but I doubt they're that recent. So why is DF27 centred in Iberia, for example?

The distribution of R1a isn't quite as restricted as you seem to think, but it has been focused in Eastern Europe for a long time so, as I said, there's nothing old about its current distribution. It's R1b that puzzles me. Too much geographic specific subclade diversity in an area where it's apparently been for less than 5000 years.

 

[motzart]

Ed. Upon reflection, this Venn Diagram is getting out a little bit ahead of the facts for an academic paper, unless they had facts, or preliminary facts, to which we don't have access.

I made that Venn diagram myself in MS paint lol.

 

[Angela]

I made that Venn diagram myself in MS paint lol.

Ah, you got me! It's you, then, that's gotten ahead of the facts, yes? I thought I must be entering early senility that I didn't remember it from the paper. :grin:

We should see very shortly what yDna was involved.

 

[Alan]

This works I think

This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

 

[Aberdeen]

This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.

 

[Alan]

I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.

There is a reason for this. During mesolithic time there was no I1 it seems, because I1 is pretty young and probably evolved when the WHG people already mixed with the farmer and some ANE guys around Late Neolithic.

 

[LeBrok]

How do you get from Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% Ancient Karelian/50% modern Armenian, and Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya to this? Unless you think that most of the people speaking Indo-European languages who moved into Europe proper (or at least Northern Europe) were actually Indo-Europeanized Karelians?

I was only guessing proportions between WHG and ANE. They were not the only ones in the mix of course, unless we are talking about pre Yamna HGs there. When EEF comes in the mix during Yamna period, it probably fluctuated between 40% in the South and West to 10% in North and East.
I envision the fully fledged IE, or rather European part of them at ratio of 30/45/25 EEF/WGH/ANE respectively. While their cusins Indo/Iranians to the East were probably 10,10,80.

 

[Sile]

This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

Maybe you should test you theory and place people ( friends or collegues) inside these circles.

I will start you off with myself .........put me in next to I1 as per above as my WHG is double my ANE

 

[motzart]

This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

If you actually look at the venn diagram I made you will see that the colors correspond to the admixtures in the lazaridis study, I applaud your effort but you should try to model it after real data.

 

[bicicleur 2]

There is a reason for this. During mesolithic time there was no I1 it seems, because I1 is pretty young and probably evolved when the WHG people already mixed with the farmer and some ANE guys around Late Neolithic.

It seems I1 was not a very succesfull hunter compared to I2. If it hadn't been picked up by EEF, it would probably be extinct, so I1 are EEF.

I'm not sure the genome that was constructed to represent EEF is 100 % representative.
I1 is EEF but seems not to be represented by the EEF genome.

 

[arvistro]

When and where is the earliest I1 found?
Up to my knowledge oldest samples in hunters were I2 (Scandinavia) and I also think Hungarian farmer samples were I2?

 

[Maciamo]

I think I2 generally has more EEF than I1. Other than that, I think your diagram looks good.

Are you trying to attribute admixtures to modern populations or to the ancient populations before they mixed with one another ? I2 people obviously have EEF now because almost all I2 lineages intermingled with G2a farmers during the Neolithic. But the point of ancient DNA tests is to be able to determine who brought which admixture. And I2 were pure WHG, while G2a were pure EEF, by definition since the WHG admixture corresponds to the Loschbour hunter-gatherer and EEF to the Stuttgart farmer.

 

[Maciamo]

This is what I think. gold ANE, blue WHG and violett Early Neolithic farmer.

If you are looking only at ancient admixtures, then the European C1 (not the Japanese one) should be pure WHG. I am pretty sure that R1a people already had more WHG than ANE during the Mesolithic. R1a* might have been relatively pure ANE in the Paleolithic (just after the LGM), but they mixed with WHG when they arrived in eastern Europe. All modern R1a1a populations have WHG, even in India and Siberia.

As for I1, it was surely pure WHG at first but, like I2, it mixed with G2a farmers and absorbed EEF admixture. I1 would not have had any ANE until the Bronze Age. So in all logic I would place it with I2 and C1 in the blue circle only.

If you want to represent modern populations, then they are all in the middle, with all three admixtures.

 

[Aberdeen]

Are you trying to attribute admixtures to modern populations or to the ancient populations before they mixed with one another ? I2 people obviously have EEF now because almost all I2 lineages intermingled with G2a farmers during the Neolithic. But the point of ancient DNA tests is to be able to determine who brought which admixture. And I2 were pure WHG, while G2a were pure EEF, by definition since the WHG admixture corresponds to the Loschbour hunter-gatherer and EEF to the Stuttgart farmer.

I believe that a Venn diagram is about relationships between different sets of data, not an attempt to show admixture percentages, although the two are obviously connected. I was merely suggesting that, in modern populations, there's a stronger relationship between I2 and EEF than there is between I1 and EEF, because the average I2 person has more EEF than the average I1 person.

 

[bicicleur 2]

If you are looking only at ancient admixtures, then the European C1 (not the Japanese one) should be pure WHG. I am pretty sure that R1a people already had more WHG than ANE during the Mesolithic. R1a* might have been relatively pure ANE in the Paleolithic (just after the LGM), but they mixed with WHG when they arrived in eastern Europe. All modern R1a1a populations have WHG, even in India and Siberia.

As for I1, it was surely pure WHG at first but, like I2, it mixed with G2a farmers and absorbed EEF admixture. I1 would not have had any ANE until the Bronze Age. So in all logic I would place it with I2 and C1 in the blue circle only.

If you want to represent modern populations, then they are all in the middle, with all three admixtures.

IMO you should split I :

EEF : I1 and I2-CTS595 who beame EEF 8000 years ago, they have no WHG offspring
I1 expanded much later than 8000 years ago, so either the Hungarian neolithic I1 got extinct or the Hungarian neolithic I1 is ancestral to all present I1
I2 CTS-595 has never been detected in WHG skelletons, it is ancestral to I2-M26 the main component of Basque and Sardinian

as for the EEF genome, see http://www.eupedia.com/europe/autosomal_maps_dodecad.shtml#Neolithic_farmers
I don't think this genome represents all EEF, there is no link with I1

as for European C1 , do you mean C1a2-V20 as oposed to Japanese C1a1?
IMO the La Brana WHG was a relict of Aurignacian, almost pushed out of Europe by Gravettian I-tribes.
The Hungarian EEF C1a2 came from the Levant, a surviving tribe from Levantine Aurignacian.
C1a2 is almost 50.000 years old, and La Brana WHG and Hungarian EEF C1a2 split more than 40.000 years ago IMO.
I would think La Brana WHG got extinct and present day European C1a2-V20 are descendants of Hungarian EEF C1a2

 

[Alan]

I was only guessing proportions between WHG and ANE. They were not the only ones in the mix of course, unless we are talking about pre Yamna HGs there. When EEF comes in the mix during Yamna period, it probably fluctuated between 40% in the South and West to 10% in North and East.
I envision the fully fledged IE, or rather European part of them at ratio of 30/45/25 EEF/WGH/ANE respectively. While their cusins Indo/Iranians to the East were probably 10,10,80.

Nah :bigsmile: thats FAR too high ANE. I think both estimates are unlikely but the 80% ANE part is even too extreme. First of all we should stop using EEF for our estimations because it is not " real" component but more 1/5 WHG and 4/5 Near Eastern Farmer. Considering that the mtDNA of Yamnaya were very farmer like. And Yamnaya could be explained as Karelian/Armenian like. I think Proto Indo Europeans were like 30/25/45 WHG/ANE/ENF(Near Eastern farmer) in the West and 15/35/50 WHG/ANE/ENF in the East. When the Western part already arrived in Hungary they catched up additional WHG and the further West and North they went, the higher it became.

Later the Slavic expansion brought additional WHG to Ukraine and the Balkans.

 

[bicicleur 2]

forgot to tell,

neolithic La Treille were I2-CTS595

 

[Angela]

The first ancient I1 sample was found in an LBK context along with a G2a2b sample.
See: Szecsenyi-Nagy et al 2014 (Guido Brandt is a co-author)
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/09/03/008664.full.pdf

Of course, we don't yet know, imo, and as Bicicleur pointed out, whether this particular "Hungarian neolithic I1 got extinct [and modern I1 descends from another group that expanded only after being incorporated by Indo-European speaking peoples]* or the Hungarian neolithic I1 is ancestral to all present I1.

* my insert