Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

^ Back to the issue of "northernness" discussed above:

That North-Eastern Europeans score more North_European in Dodecad, than do North-Western Europeans (including Scandinavians), is correct. This is confirmed by fact, that North-Eastern Europeans score more WHG and more ANE, but less ENF, than North-Western Europeans. As you can see North-Eastern Europeans are shifted to the east (towards ANE) and also to the north (towards WHG), compared to North-Western Europeans, while North-Western Europeans are shifted more to the south (towards ENF):

Iranian-speakers are shifted east towards ANE, and also a bit north towards WHG, compared to Non-IE Near Easterners:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQREh3dTBFS21FREE/view

d9TEKYtkkiPRynF_5yXFhIflER_E0SOsF7jysKfkyhwr6rGkXal9fld3GDsLQpx0qg4AMIxgess5jr4=w1342-h539-rw
 
Sintashta people do not cluster autosomally with Western Europe, but with North-Eastern Europe.

Check this autosomal comparison from Davidski's blog:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/k8-results-for-selected-allentoft-et-al.html


I've added some descriptions so it is more transparent:

http://oi61.tinypic.com/33bflzn.jpg

33bflzn.jpg

Tomenable, I was not expressing myself but the Kozintsev words: I was not precise enough in namings: I agree (I've seen these surveys) Sintashta is closer to Corded than to today Western Europe - But as a whole Kozintsev was right, against every evidence from archeology (see Grigoryev). I believe he thought Northern and NorthCentral Europeans (= Western EurASIA) of the Metals ages, what is not too wrong; Sintashta is drifted towards West compared to Yamanya and towards North compared to Caucasus Central Asia... That said it does not prove Sintashta came from North Europe, but only that it could share a close common source with Corded.
That said I appreciate your good illustrated/documented posts
 
Coincidence, different admixture propotions putting them in the same place. Andronovo is like Central-North Europeans +Tajiks. Since "technically" Northeast Euros are in between North Euros and North_Caucasians and Tajiks, they are close on pca plots. With other words Northeast Euros and Sintashta/Andronovo are related and very close based on fst distance but it's different autosomal DNA creating similar results. Related but not of the same stock.


Same case with Yamna based on fst Distance they cluster close with Mordovians/Lezgians/Russians but based on their autosomal signature they are more like a mixture of Northwest Euros and Georgians/Tajiks(minus the East Eurasian).

Sorry but for me your "coïncidences" are NOT "coïncidences"; your "mixture of Northwest Euros/Georgians or Tadjiks" is an artifice of calculation, I think (I'm not sure, but these couplings of reference populations to produce a mean close to the studied population are artifices and can be replaced by other arbitray couplings)
Even that said, the coïncidences are for a big part justified by common ancestors in farther past in eveyr kind of analysis system. It seems to me autosomals, in these ways of analysis, are not sufficient by themselves to prove the time depth of common ancestry and chronology of crossings so to prove historic facts. But the combination or physical traits and autosomes and haplogroups can help to prove something... we are all blind people trying to find the door opening on daylight... (poetic!)
 
Tomenable,

I've the impression you are taking me for a child discovering old books of old physical anthropology, without any distance with them (humor); some points:
- there are bad anthropologists and good anthropologists
- there are sometimes agendas and modes in the universities
- measurings cannot exclude shapes observations
- I think since a long time changes/differences of morphology within or between close populations (close by geography and time) had some sense when I have more doubts about ressemblances in far separate populations (what does not signify some ressemblances are everytime due to hazard; the first reason for this thought of mine is the ancient links we have all of us one to the other;
- mesologic causes have some imput upon morphology: detailed shapes observations here are more useful than raw measures
- morphology has to be studied and individually and statistically; when two populations show metrically and typologically big statistical ressemblances we are almost sure there is some proximity in past, it is not as studying a few individuals and doing bets
- concerning Amerindians, the unique common origin begins to be questioned, if I red well some abstyracts
- without willing be to unpleasant I had more than a time the impression that American criterias for morphology were a bit simplistic and quickconcluding; maybe I am wrong?
- I consider morphology as a worthful tool when associated to other analysis tools, and used with caution; classical anthropology is not my Bible but a center of interest as an amateur of drawing!
- I think it is stupid not use what classical anthropology can give us, at the level it can do it!

autosomals analysis have their own problems of classification!

no opposition against you, as you know from my precedent posts.
 
I saw today a post of EUROGENES with comparisons between ancient Armenians and current Armenians: it seems confirming mt thought about the mixed nature of ancient Armenians, taken by someones as possible ancestors of Steppes tribes.
I don't give any link because it's very easy to go on Eurogenes: if we can rely on these comparisons of auDNA, we can state:
- today Armenians of diverse places are rather close to today Turcs of Anatolia;
- the Iron Age Armenian clusters with today Georgians and Abkhazians;
- the same for Late Bronze Age Armenians;
- the Middle Bronze Age Armenians (so the first ones) are close to today Lezgins and Chechens, North Cuacasus people, even a bit shift towards far Steppic people of Afanasyevo, Sintashta, Yamnaya and also today Kalashs;
so I'm tempted to suppose Bronze Age Armenians were rather "steppicized" Armenians and that Steppic people owes very little to South-Caucasus Armenians ot their time.
The fact that later BA Armenians were closer to todat Armenians could confirm the dilution of steppic "blood" with time and reverse the direction of genetic imputs?
said like that, at first thought... maybe someone could explain it otherwise?
 
Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.

I agree. There is a lacko of "bridge" populations between Armenians, S-Caucasians an LN Early BA Steppes populations, and of course with N-E Europe...
The Y-R1a link between Corded, Sintashta and Andronovo seems very possible (but it deserves being backed by phylogeny.
concerning the "cousin" Y-R1b, Yamnaya cannot be the link between a supposed cradle and W-Europe; but the lack of auDNA link with ancient Armenians seems at first sight exclude an important South >> North move through Caucasus; so the Y-R-L23 people could have turned North the Caspian, coming from East or South-East? the auDNA of ANCIENT Western Y-R1b elites seems showing an East >> West trail in Europe, so after crossing Steppic lands, not by force after a Caucasus tour... the L23 of Southern Europe could be a males populations stayed long enough in a small number when their more northern brothers were more numerous? maybe a very different story??? uneasy to answer, so dense the W>>E / E>>W movements had been in History!
 
What are you talking about? What "thousands of years"? Common ancestor of both R1a Z93 and R1a Z283, was of course R1a Z645 - and according to YFull, TMRCA of Z645 was ca. 4900 years ago, Z283 formed ca. 4900 years ago, and Z93 formed also ca. 4900 years ago. It doesn't necessarily mean, that first Z93 and first Z283 were brothers, but definitely there were not many generations between them, and they both formed from their common ancestral Z645 population around the same time:

This shows very clearly, that is no need for tens of thousands of
years between subhaplotypes as some people trying to convince.
 
Interesting hole in the middle of this PCA graph.

I believe the "hole" is geographic. The Black Sea, Caucus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Karakum Desert, and Altai Mountains form a roughly continuous barrier between the Iranian/Kurdish peoples and the peoples of Europe. There is definitely gene flow but the population centers remain largely separate.

For example, the Yamnaya, as a blend of a Caucus population and EHG, seem to be in the right spot on the chart.
 
I believe the "hole" is geographic. The Black Sea, Caucus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Karakum Desert, and Altai Mountains form a roughly continuous barrier between the Iranian/Kurdish peoples and the peoples of Europe. There is definitely gene flow but the population centers remain largely separate.

For example, the Yamnaya, as a blend of a Caucus population and EHG, seem to be in the right spot on the chart.

OK a s a whole even if the (imperfect) mapping of genetical distances is not a geographic map -
you say EHG and Caucasus, not Armenians: I agree!
concerning the "hole", geography does not explain anything here; look at Sintashta among N-E-Europeans! Even Andronovo, not so far, genetically closer than geographically closer Yamnaya! there is not geographic barrier for Man - how had I-Ean languages travelled? through phone? (LOL)
 
there is not geographic barrier for Man - how had I-Ean languages travelled? through phone? (LOL)
Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.
 
Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.
Keep in mind that for most people on Eupedia English is a second language. People, me included, make silly mistakes or can't express themselves precisely in English. Also it is hard to convey intentions, some humor and sarcasm in written form on blogs. Many of us are geeks, which by definition is a socially awkward creature, and we can hurt someone not realizing it.
I know Moesan for some time and I can swear he is the nicest person in the world.
 
Thanks Lebrok. I'm surprised by the Tone 's reaction, apparently not used to humor; my tentative of "humor" concerned facts, and not Tone himself. If Tone read well my post, he 'll see I was agreeing with him for the most. I see I 'll have to be carefull in choosing my words in future.
 
Lately every time I post on a board somewhere the response is invariably rude and sarcastic. People suck.

I'm sorry you took my post as a sarcasm. Do read my answer to Lebrok. My post was not a "tackle" to your one.
 
Thanks Lebrok. I'm surprised by the Tone 's reaction, apparently not used to humor; my tentative of "humor" concerned facts, and not Tone himself. If Tone read well my post, he 'll see I was agreeing with him for the most. I see I 'll have to be carefull in choosing my words in future.

It's hard to avoid doing it by accident online as irl people judge words spoken with facial expressions etc.
 
3LEaQry.png

[h=1]Distribution of the 'Yamnaya' genetic component in the populations of Europe (data taken from Haak et al., 2015). The intensity of the colour corresponds to the contribution of this component in various modern populations. The scale of intervals is to the right. The purple line represents the borders of the Yamnaya area. The brown arrow shows the direction of migration postulated by the proponents of a Yamnaya origin for the Indo-Europeans of Europe. The red arrows show the direction of the movement of the 'Yamnaya' component in accordance with the gradient shown on this distribution. The map shows that the 'Yamnaya' genetic component is hardly Yamnaya in origin; rather it is a more ancient component originating in the populations of northern Europe from whence it spread both to the steppes and to the cultures of central Europe and elsewhere. Map by O.P. Balanovsky. [/h]
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...pulations-of-Europe-data-taken_fig2_318751121

What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?

Distribution of Yamnaya, along with neo/ChL Italian farmer groups:

yQMXfCW.png
 
What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?

The data, as written, were taken from Haak 2015. So the data was largely adjusted, and invented to make the map and a point, because in Haak 2005 the results were based on only a few samples, and many national and regional populations were not even present.


The results of Haak 2015 are those published many times over.


41586_2015_Article_BFnature14317_Fig3_HTML.jpg
 
3LEaQry.png

[h=1]Distribution of the 'Yamnaya' genetic component in the populations of Europe (data taken from Haak et al., 2015). The intensity of the colour corresponds to the contribution of this component in various modern populations. The scale of intervals is to the right. The purple line represents the borders of the Yamnaya area. The brown arrow shows the direction of migration postulated by the proponents of a Yamnaya origin for the Indo-Europeans of Europe. The red arrows show the direction of the movement of the 'Yamnaya' component in accordance with the gradient shown on this distribution. The map shows that the 'Yamnaya' genetic component is hardly Yamnaya in origin; rather it is a more ancient component originating in the populations of northern Europe from whence it spread both to the steppes and to the cultures of central Europe and elsewhere. Map by O.P. Balanovsky. [/h]
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...pulations-of-Europe-data-taken_fig2_318751121

What's up with the spike of yellow in Molise/North Apulia?

Distribution of Yamnaya, along with neo/ChL Italian farmer groups:

yQMXfCW.png


yellow spike is linked with liburnian and histrian lands in the north adriatic sea..........follows the Daunian paper explanations and the later J2b ancient samples from the area which also link with Foggia j2b samples
 

This thread has been viewed 366766 times.

Back
Top