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

[Greying Wanderer]

Wel Le Brock this is why I said Yamna ancestry can not be explained simply by one component

Yamna might have been ~50% like Caucasus_Gedrosia but there is still the other 50%.

There is actually quite a difference between H&G and pastoralists. Pastoralism was invented in regions were classicaly farming wasn't that much possible. But even classic farmer probably domesticated animals already to some degree.

But to be able for herders to create dairy products from milk you need agricultural knowledge. Simple H&G were hunting/fishing and collecting berries and similar stuff. They were not knowladgeable in how to produce dairy products imo.

That is the critical point about captives from the farmers. They had the knowledge. The steppe hunters didn't have to turn into pastoralists. All they had to do is kidnap some.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

But only if we expect that the admixed individual does always marry one of the other 5% admixed individuals instead of the 95% majority.

The moment when an admixed individual mates with four of the non admixed once, the pastoralist DNA will be extremely dliuted from 50% to ~3%.

And that might be how caste started.

 

[Alan]

I think the best thing to do is wait for the Andronovo samples to be published but as with Yamna. Again people will be suprised that I was right and they were genetically more like the West Eurasian ancestry in modern Central Asians.
The West Eurasian ancestry in most Central Asians is 2/3 Caucasus_Gedrosia 1/3 North European.


Lezgins are 73% Caucasus_Gedrosia + 24% North European.

I expect Andronovo to be like 60-65% Caucaus_Gedrosia and ~ 35-40% North European

North Caucasians already have a number of 20-49% light hair and 20-35% light eyes. That is not that extreme difference to ~60% light eyes and hair of Andronovo. So I think my estimation isn't so wrong.
http://www.europeanunionmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/percentage-of-light-hair-in-europe.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-eqhQhrOT-...-4yE8Ou6i4/s1600/europe-eyes-general--lig.png

 

[Alan]

That is the critical point about captives from the farmers. They had the knowledge. The steppe hunters didn't have to turn into pastoralists. All they had to do is kidnap some.

Ok, but to your own question what do you feel is the more plausible explanation.
If we believe in a simple migration as it was always the case in ancient history. Or some bride kidnapping.

It is obvious that the bride kidnapping story is the much more unlikely theory, because as you admit yourself it needs much more thinks to fit than simply expect a migration.
(caste system, bride kidnapping of 5% over a millennia etc etc).
But I think this is a prime example how people can be ethnocentric that they put aside the most logical explanation for the most satisfying. I am that way sometimes myself.

But let's be simply honest here. The best explanation is a migration everything else is just possible theories and can only be explaned with "if's andmight's"
It is possible that they kidnapped brides but it is also possible that they kidnapped males and forced them to teach the pastoralist system and than included them into their society.

But is it likely? No.

I am simply convinced it was simply a migration. It is not even only the pastoralist lifestyle. The whole Yamna package cries "strong influence from South".
From the pastoralist lifestyle all the way to how they buried (Kurgan) their people is typically copied from Maykop (who themselves copied it from NW Iran according to some rather recent study). Yamna was simply a copy of Maykop.

Why should anyone copy the rituals of kidnapped brides?

The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package (rituals such as Kurgans, pastoralism, genetic ancestry) which reached Maykop and from there came to Yamna and can not simply be explained with "bride kidnapping".

 

[Sile]

It's the other way round; the farmers moved onto the steppe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture#Late_period_.283500-3000_BC.29



The Cucuteni late period expansion strikes me as a plausible catalyst for initiating the transformation of the pre PIE steppe HGs into the PIE.

The model I am suggesting is similar to native Americans taking captives (and domesticated animals) from advancing settlers.

Are you sure?

because this paper below from 2013 has the exact same mtdna in most cases with this recent haak paper ( but haak has refined the mtdna and found the ydna )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/

 

[Drax]

n the fst table Russians follow very close to Lezgins but we also see on the pca plot that Lezgins are slightly closer. We can assume the Yamna people as ~50% Caucasus_Gedrosia + ~ North Euro.

Lezgins are ~73% Caucasus_Gedrosia and 24% North Europe based on Dodecad components. That would make them ~74% Yamna like.
Unfortunately I don't have any data on Mordovians but I am pretty sure their Caucasus_Gedrosia figures are slightly higher compare to the figures of Russians like all populations in the Ural Region.

Here is the pca plot. I draw red connection from the closest Mordovian samples to the core of Yamna and a red connection from the North Caucasians to it too.

I also draw a line showing into the direction were the South_Central Asians would cluster.

.

I don't see your point, when I talk about Europeans, north or east, I talk about the actual population, not the WHG or the oldest ones; look I'm not a specialist, but the paper is very clear; they are close to modern Europeans; like Mordovians (don't forget; they are europeans).

I don't think the first guy looks like a French. He looks quite Kurdish. The second person kinda could be a European. The third and fourth however again look quite Kurdish.

No, sorry I think he look like European, I have talked about France because I live in this country and I know a guy with the same face.

I am Kurdish as seen on "ethnicity" part. I am usually just saying it because people of course will think I am using Kurdish people as example just because I am Kurd. Well some ethnocentrism is alwaxys in sure. But the fact is that I am more familiar with my own people and I think a Kurds would make better comparison to the "West Asian like" pigmented Yamna people than most modern Europeans.

Not if we trust this new study; about the pigmentation, we will see with them, maybe that would be the case; but that change the fact that they are closer to the modern Europeans (pigmentation or not).

If we take a look at the position of Andronovo and take a look at all the modern descend of them. The West Eurasian ancestry of them is always 2/3 West Asian like and 1/3 North European like. I am pretty convinced that Caucasus_Gedrosia in Andronovo might even had been higher.

Don't forget light eyes/hair are not connected to H&G ancestry. The very first Europeans were dark by any means the first individual with blonde hair/blue eyes light skin combination was a farmer in Hungary.

Yes, that for that I have make the comparaison with the indo-europeans, and with the modern Europeans population; "North European" for me don't mean WHG, but simply modern North Europeans.

Andronovo is probably not descend of Yamna or vica versa but they are related. Also Andronovo is some thousand years after Yamna. This is enough time for some changes in look. Scientist only found out that Andronovo was 60% light haired and eyed (Not Blonde or Blue eyed per se ) and that they were "West Eurasian". They never specified what they mean under Blight haired and Blue eyed.

Well that make them pretty close physically to the modern Europeans, not the actual west asians.

We also know that allot of Thracian samples turned out halfway Caucasus_Gedrosia and ancient accounts describe their appearance as red haired and blue eyed.

So light features =/= North European ancestry.

I think there are a misandurstanding, I talk about modern North Europeans, not WHG, I don't deny the Caucasian presence among Europeans peoples, I have posted a link for the close relation between Caucasian language and Indo-Europeans, sincerely I don't see your point.

And to the Yamna they are as close to the West Asian core as to Europeans I think this should be clear now from all the data collected. Yamna was more similar to Anatolian Turks than Iberians or people of Bergamo/Armenians. But equally similar to Turks and Greeks. Unfortunately we don't have Kurdish or Iranian comparison. But from the data we have collected earlier. It is a good guess to say Yamna will be as close to Kurds/Iranians as to Bulgarians, French /Croatians or even more.

Kurds have also signficantly higher ANE scores than any of the populations listed above.

The data are very clear for the moment, Yamna are by far closer to modern North/East Europeans, I don't see your problem with that; look I'm not a specialist, I take the words for these studies, for me that pretty clear.

 

[Drax]

Poseidon, Zeus, Hades, Dionysos, Theseus and Odysseus are described as having either dark hair or dark eyes. Hercules, in addition to being described as dark, was said to have a hook nose. So, obviously, there was a mixture of phenotypes, and the dark ones were certainly not relegated to the lower echelons of the celestial world.

I have never said something like that, but the "nordic" physical attribute was not seen like something negative, something you seem to imply in your previous posts.

In terms of commoners I think it is likely that some people are described as having fair hair precisely because it was not all that common a feature among them. That is why it's mentioned. Were they all fair it would not be worthy of comment.

We have no way of knowing the precise percentages. Unless perhaps you know of some scientist who has time traveled back to classical Greece to take a survey of Greek pigmentation and found that they had “a good number” of blondes? I don’t think so.

Where I have said that ? I have clearly said they were (probably; I don't know, that depend of the tribes) more brown haired, and despite that, they don't see the nordics physical attributes (blond hairs), like something bad or inferior to them; and their Gods were a big arguments for that

As for the Budini, they were nomads. Herodotus tells us that in the area of the Budini there was a people who were farmers who spoke a half Scythian/half Greek language. He believed they were Greek colonists (and obviously of the Classical Age, since we're talking about Herodotus here) who migrated inland from the port communities. He further says that they were not like the Budini in either form nor coloring.

the "all mightily" blue eyes term don't seem really negative; it was the point.

There is no ancient Greek source which contradicts Galen in terms of Greeks describing themselves as generally looking like Scythians. So you have no evidence that this was not the common perception.

Their gods for lot of them were blond hairs, for me that the proof that the ancient greeks don't see these hairs colors like something negative, unlike Galen comment.

The quote about body forms underscores that the Greeks did not consider the Scythians (or the Arabs or Egyptians) as models for perfection. Like most peoples they modeled perfection on themselves. This can also be seen in their descriptions of the "perfect" face. The low forehead, high rooted, large, straight nose almost joined to the forehead, the oval face and large eyes of the classical ideal did not exist among the Scythians, and does not normally show up in northern Europeans.

Bottom line is that there were a mixture of phenotypes, but we have no way of knowing the percentages. What we do know is that at least some ancient Greeks did not consider the Scythians to possess the "ideal" characteristics.

The fact they bleach their hairs, to have a good portion of blond gods speak for themselves, now I don't have said they were ethnomasochists, of course they probably see themselves probably like better (bust most of them don't have seen lot of North Europeans); specially during this time; but that don't change fact they seem to really like the "light hairs", I also have posted another quote from the arabic traveller just to show, that not always the case, that peoples don't seem themselves like the best.

You have posted blurbs from the Daily Mail and Fox News. You have not posted papers so that an analysis can be done of their sampling strategy or their methodology.

Not every study are in internet, and I don't have said too that these studies are true, you have asked the links; I have posted them.

I presume you are aware that both Britain and the U.S. have very mixed populations groups. In addition, were I the type to equate intelligence or accomplishment with pigmentation traits, I might find it very interesting that the people who developed animal husbandry, metallurgy, writing, and the first great civilizations were most probably dark haired and eyed. Now we discover that the Yamnaya and Catacomb people were also predominantly dark haired and dark eyed. Of course, I'm not at all so simplistic in my thinking.

That not my point of view; you have asked about the study, I have posted the link of the articles; and their studies are not about the ancient civilizations, but about individuals modern peoples, I don't see the point of your comparaison (also apparently during ancient civilizations, nobody were blonde with blue eyes, so there are no comparaison possible); yes I'm aware that britain and USA have mixed populations groups, but I think also that peoples in these University are not idiots, so I think they have done their studies relatively seriously.

I don't have time to post extensively today, which is just as well, as I would undoubtedly wind up saying something very rude. This is all Nordicist nonsense, and, in my opinion, unworthy of being part of intellectual discourse. I will not be responding to any further such posts.

If you talk about me, first I'm not nordicist (I'm not European for the record); for the "Nordicist nonsense", well that your point of view, and of course if you can't stay polite, I'm agree with you, don't reply to such posts.

 

[Alan]

I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just means that Yamna is more shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.

Have you even taken a look at the data?

Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing the general genetic closeness but is not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks... Iberians... Armenians and so on.

The Yamna core is equally distant from Mordovians/Russians as from North Caucasians.

The Yamna is equally distant from North and East European as it is from northern West Asians like Kurds/Iranians/Turks.

No, sorry I think he look like European, I have talked about France because I live in this country and I know a guy with the same face.

I respect your opinion but for me he has a very Kurdish face.

Yes, that for that I have make the comparaison with the indo-europeans, and with the modern Europeans population; "North European" for me don't mean WHG, but simply modern North Europeans.

I never said North European means WHG. I didn't even use the WHG/ANE/ENF components and exclusively the Dodecad once. I don't mix those two calculators because it is impossible to mix them accurately. Caucasus_Gedrosia is 2/3 ENF + 1/3 ANE. North European is something like 5/9 WHG, 3/9 ANE and 1/9 ENF.

So if modern Europeans means for you North Europeans. Than allot of Europeans are not European and even in that case Yamna is not like North Europeans because they share allot more ancestry with modern West Asians than any modern North European.

The point is you can't describe ancient cultures with modern ethno_geographic terms. We only can tell which part of their ancestry reached when Europe.

WHG most likely during mesolithic, ENF during early Neolithic and most of ANE (and Caucasus_Gedrosia as hybrid of this and ENF) during late Neolithic/Bronze Age.

There is no genetic Europe. There is an ethno_geographic term which describes populations with similar culture, history, politics and to some degree looks.

Well that make them pretty close physically to the modern Europeans, not the actual west asians.

In modern peoples eyes they would have looked like Europeans, and pimgentationwise like modern Central, East and North Europeans yes. But to be exactly more like, those light Iranic people. And in genetic sense this doesn't matter. Otherwise we could argue that Yamna were all West Asians.

The point is that looks does not correlate with genetics for 100%. And especially not among genetic groups which are so close.

I mean the genetic difference between northern West Asia and Europe is so extremely small in global comparison that it is negligable. It is so small I remember all Kurds, Turks, Iranians and Armenians on Global Similarity charts in 23andme appearing closer to South Europeans and even North Europeans as to Arabians. And Arabians themselves are genetically very close to what we would call "European" in global perspective. So now you can imagine how close West Asian and European really are.

West Asia and Europe are genetically like two siblings who have diverged very recently. so a genetic Europe doesn't really exist. The only reason why there is a fluent connection from South to North or North to East Europe is because there was never an event which could have created a gab. This was not the case in the Steppes.

As I said in the past and as many ancient samples have proven me over time as right. There was once a fluent genetic transition from northern West Asia to Europe and Central Asia with the North Iranic tribes.

It is no wonder that Yamna and other ancient samples seem to be on "no mans land".

Just recently I opened a thread about this and explaining how the Turkic and later Slavic expansion changed the demographics of the Steppes and created this gap.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

And here is a map to make clear how close actually Western Asia and Europe are in comparison to East Eurasian and Sub Saharan diversity.
http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Xing2010PCA.jpg

 

[Goga]

I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just measn that Yamna is mroe shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.

Have you even taken a look at the data?

Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing soe general genetic closeness but not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks and so on.

The Yamna core is equally distant from Mordovians/Russians as from North Caucasians.

The Yamna is equally distant from North and East European as it is from northern West Asians like Kurds/Iranians/Turks.

As you can see here Northern Caucasian Maykop Adygei folks are closer to Kurds, than they are to Persians and the Turks. Kurgan Maykop Adygei folks are children of the Kurds. All over the world there're 6 million Adygeans/Circassians, while there're 50 million Kurds (Medes). Like Kurds, they and other Northern Caucasians have a lot 'Gedrosia' component in them, I think it's from the Kurds (Medes)...

 

[epoch]

There is actually quite a difference between H&G and pastoralists. Pastoralism was invented in regions were classicaly farming wasn't that much possible. But even classic farmer probably domesticated animals already to some degree.

But to be able for herders to create dairy products from milk you need agricultural knowledge. Simple H&G were hunting/fishing and collecting berries and similar stuff. They were not knowladgeable in how to produce dairy products imo.

That is a broad sweeping statement, and possibly untrue. You need to check the Pitted Ware Culture, or the Ertebolla culture; HG cultures contemporary to LBK. From genetic data (mtDNA) of pig remains we know those cultures started keeping pigs that had a high affinity with current day Turkeys wild boar. LBK also kept those, considered yet another clue that early farmers were settlers from that area, so the HG's pigs were probably traded from them. After contact with farmers the HGs appear to have learned the trick and domesticated their own. After a short while the pigs they keep show a high affinity with local wild boar. In the middle Neolithic all European pigs have a high local wild boar affinity.

EHG learned from farmers.

 

[Drax]

I don't know the difficulty about to understand that the distance of Yamna from modern Europeans is equally big as the distance from any northern West Asians to them. That the Yamna samples cluster "north" of East Europeans doesn't mean Yamna was more North European it just means that Yamna is more shifted towards ANE. It is a 2 dimensional map.

Have you even taken a look at the data?

Here the map once again . But take in mind this is only a 2 dimensional map showing the general genetic closeness but is not about the real actual Yamna ancestry and therefore not 100% accurate. It only shows a rough impression on how Yamna clusters. In general we can say the closest are Mordovians/North Caucasians/Russians second by Norwegians, Lithuanians, Kurds, Iranians, French, Croatians, Bulgarians followed by Greeks, Turks... Iberians... Armenians and so on.

The Yamna core is equally distant from Mordovians/Russians as from North Caucasians.

The Yamna is equally distant from North and East European as it is from northern West Asians like Kurds/Iranians/Turks.

Look, I'm not a specialist, and honestly I find your text and your map, extremely confusing; I will post this link, imo far more clear:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3840-Genetic-distance-of-Yamnaya-samples-to-other-groups

1-Mordovian 0.018
2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
4-Norwegian/English 0.021
5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
6- Bulgarian 0.023
7- Greek/Turkish 0.026
8-Spanish 0.027
9- Sindhi/Bergamo 0.028
10- Armenian/Sicilian 0.030

You see there are a clear order or hierarchy, first North Europeans (I count the North East like "North") and the other European, and in the bottom; South Europeans and Armenians.

I don't have said they are 100% North Europeans, or that they don't have any "west asians" composent; I have simply said; what the specialists have said:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.fr/2015/01/a-little-more-teasing-half-of-our.html

. "This steppe ancestry persisted in all sampled central Europeans until at least ~3,000 years ago, and comprises about half the ancestry of today’s northern Europeans. These results support the theory of a steppe origin of at least some of the Indo-European languages of Europe, and show the power of genome-wide ancient DNA studies to document human migrations."


Look that not my words, I repeat what the studies have said nothing more nothing less; also from your previous message about North Caucasus like Chechen or Lezgian with light features and Andronovo, well they are closest to Europeans than to West Asians, that seem logical; they look like Europeans (light hairs, features etc...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechens

Chechens clustered closest to Azeris, Georgians and Kabardins. They clustered closer to European populations than Middle Eastern populations this time, but were significantly closer to Western European populations (Basques and Britons) than to Eastern European populations (Russians and other Slavs, as well as Estonians), despite living in the East. They actually clustered about as close to Basques as they did to Ingush (Chechens also cluster closer to many other populations than Ingush, such as Armenians and Abazins)

I respect your opinion but for me he has a very Kurdish face.

agree to disagree

I never said North European means WHG. I didn't even use the WHG/ANE/ENF components and exclusively the Dodecad once. I don't mix those two calculators because it is impossible to mix them accurately. Caucasus_Gedrosia is 2/3 ENF + 1/3 ANE. North European is something like 5/9 WHG, 3/9 ANE and 1/9 ENF.

So if modern Europeans means for you North Europeans. Than allot of Europeans are not European and even in that case Yamna is not like North Europeans because they share allot more ancestry with modern West Asians than any modern North European.

No, see the order, and the paper, I don't see why you argue against that; again see the list; north European for me mean also "North East"; they are no "west asians"; that your theory.

The point is you can't describe ancient cultures with modern ethno_geographic terms. We only can tell which part of their ancestry reached when Europe.

WHG most likely during mesolithic, ENF during early Neolithic and most of ANE (and Caucasus_Gedrosia as hybrid of this and ENF) during late Neolithic/Bronze Age.

There is no genetic Europe. There is an ethno_geographic term which describes populations with similar culture, history, politics and to some degree looks.

Lol; completly wrong for the "no genetic Europe"; are you serious ? but you don't hesitate to create a big west asians group with Caucasians peoples (North or South); kurd, turkish, Greek; Iranian etc...?

Look there are "genetic Europe":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Europe

"It suggested that the English and Irish cluster with other Northern and Eastern Europeans such as Germans and Poles, while some Basque and Italian individuals also clustered with Northern Europeans. Despite these stratifications, it noted the unusually high degree of European homogeneity: "there is low apparent diversity in Europe with the entire continent-wide samples only marginally more dispersed than single population samples elsewhere in the world."^[46]

In modern peoples eyes they would have looked like Europeans, yes. But more like, those light haired Iranic people. And in genetic sense this doesn't matter. Otherwise we could argue that Yamna were all West Asians.

Iranic peoples with light features are probably (I have no doubt); the descent from ancient Indo-Europeans groups from Andronovo etc...you have some in village in Pakistan like that (peoples with Europeans features); or with the Uyghur, that simply that they are migration from Russia (see Kurgan hypothesis; Indo-Europeans invasion/migration from Russia etc...).

Don't understand your Yamna /West Asians comparaison, they are in Russia and close to European modern group;

The point is that looks does not correlate for 100% with genetics. And especially not among genetic groups which are so close.

I mean the genetic difference between northern West Asia and Europe is so extremely small in global comparison that it is negligable. It is so small I remember Kurds, Turks, Iraniands and Armenians on Global Similarity charts in 23andme. Appearing closer to South Europeans and even North Europeans as to even Arabians. And Arabians themselves are genetically very close to what we would call "European" in global perspective. So now you can imagine how close West Asian and European really are.

West Asia and Europe are genetically like two siblings who have diverged very recently. so a genetic Europe doesn't really exist. The only reason why there is a fluent connection from South to North or North to East Europe is because there was never an event which could have created a gab. This was not the case in the Steppes.

As I said in the past and as many ancient samples have proven me over time as right. There was once a fluent genetic transition from northern West Asia to Europe and Central Asia with the North Iranic tribes.

It is no wonder that Yamna and other ancient samples seem to be on "no mans land".

Just recently I opened a thread about this and explaining how the Turkic and later Slavic expansion changed the demographics of the Steppes and created this gap.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30706-Europe-West-and-South_Central-Asia-and-the-unnatural-gap

And here is a map to make clear how close actually Western Asia and Europe are in comparison to East Eurasian and Sub Saharan diversity.
http://i760.photobucket.com/albums/xx249/Aletheia14/Xing2010PCA.jpg

I know that West Asian and Europeans are close, but there are still a clear difference; see my link with the genetic connection of all the Europeans (specially the comparaison with other population); that will prove my point; there are in fact a "genetic Europe".

For the migration of "North Iranic tribes"; you talk about the Indo-Europeans ? Or a very old previous migration ? Well the Reich paper have proven the Kurgan Hypothesis more than before; R1 were already in the Steppes (or in Siberia), see the articles and the comments in Eurogenes; I'm not fluent in english, they would explain that better than me.

There are the language evidence; most linguist think the oldest Indo-Europeans languages are among the Baltic peoples (specially now that we know that they are close genetically to the ancient yamna peoples):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages

I think that help to know that the steppes hypothesis is the most logical and the most proven.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Alan,

Thanks for pointing out that Yamna on Haak 2015 PCAs is as close to north West Asians as he is from northeast Europeans. I didn't notice that at first.

This leaves room for significant Yamna-related ancestry in north west Asia. Yamna and Caucasins have similar ANE levals, while Yamna has a lot more WHG and less ENF. Although Caucasians have more WHG and less ENF than other west Asians, which increases their affinity to Yamna.

Northeast Europeans have a less ANE than Yamna, more WHG, and less ENF.

Considering the ANE-WHG model may be wrong and changed in the future, there's room for EHG and Yamna-related ancestry in west Asia. We already know Yamna was around 50% West Asian-like, but we don't know all the directions gene flow went, and there may be Yamna-like ancestry in west Asia. The argument that Asians can't have significant Yamna ancestry because they have little WHG doesn't work anymore because we're looking for EHG now.

We have genomes from Europe before mass migrations by Yamna-like people, but we don;t have the same thing for west Asia.

 

[Alan]

Look, I'm not a specialist, and honestly I find your text and your map, extremely confusing; I will post this link, imo far more clear:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?3840-Genetic-distance-of-Yamnaya-samples-to-other-groups

1-Mordovian 0.018
2-Lezgian/Russian 0.019
3- Czech/Belarusian/Estonian/Hungarian/Icelandic 0.020
4-Norwegian/English 0.021
5-Croatian/French/Lithuanian/Orcadian 0.022
6- Bulgarian 0.023
7- Greek/Turkish 0.026
8-Spanish 0.027
9- Sindhi/Bergamo 0.028
10- Armenian/Sicilian 0.030

Drax I have totally lost the energy to try explaining you something so simple and appears like I am trying to explain the string theory.

Which part of you can't take this list as hirarchy because there is no Iranian, Kurdish, Azeri or Adygai, Chechen, Ingish or whatever, can't you understand.

The Reich paper only used Turks and Armenians as samples for comparison.

So no there is no hirarchie if you don't have other samples for comparison.

We know from the PCA plot and from the fact the Lezgins are genetically close to other North Caucasians, Kurds, Azeris and Iranians. That these groups would equally be close to Yamna as the North and Northeast Europeans.

If already one North Caucasian population is genetically closer to Yamna than North and Northeast Europeans. The logical conclusion is that the other genetically close North Caucasians populations are closer to Yamna too. And populations like Kurds, Iranians and Azeris which are genetically as close to Lezgins, as North Europeans to Mordovians/Russians, will cluster as close to Yamna as North Europeans.

That is the whole point.

Now did you understand that or is it still too confusing.

 

[Alan]

It might be my bad english. I am sorry if it is sometimes hard to understand what I mean. At the end of the day it is my fourth language I am fluent in. And heck I am not even an expert on languages lol.

But Drax, if you had red more into the side you have taken the table from you would see exactly what I am trying to explain you.


This is what the guy says who actually made this list

Based on the data we have from West Eurasia K8, I think it would be fair to say that Iranians and Kurds would be placed between Lezgians and Turks.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...-9-February-2015&p=68461&viewfull=1#post68461


He is exactly saying what I tried to tell you. That there is not enough West Asian samples for comparison. So this list is not a "hirarchy" but simply a direct comparison of the populations used in the study.

 

[Alan]

Drax and than a answer to a question which should actually answer your question too.

Out of curiosity why do the Sindhi show up? Among south asian and central asian groups Tajiks, Pamiris, Pashtuns, Burusho, dardic speakers (including the Kalash), Nuristanis, Kashmiris, Punjabis should al be higher up.

The results are out of the samples they have. It would have been interesting if they had collected samples from Kashmir, Punjab, and other places. But they have not.

They have samples from many more Caucasus and S-C Asian groups but decided to include just a few non-European populations in the fst-comparison.

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...-to-other-groups&p=69902&viewfull=1#post69902


it's not like these samples are the closest to Yamna, it's just that they are the closest from the samples published

I serious smell Eurocentrism in this decision otherwise I can't explain why they wouldn't inclue other non European populations which would show Yamna as what they are.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Alan Haak 2015 is not Eurocentric. Two of the leading authors; David Reich and Isoif Laz(aridis), are Jewish and Greek. This is an unbiased paper. They didn't estimate Yamna admixture in west Asians because they have 0 genomes from ancient west Asia and over 60 from ancient Europe. We don't know who exactly who lived in west Asia in 3,000BC so we can't get an accurate idea how much Yamna-related ancestry is there today.

 

[Alan]

Alan,

Thanks for pointing out that Yamna on Haak 2015 PCAs is as close to north West Asians as he is from northeast Europeans. I didn't notice that at first.

This leaves room for significant Yamna-related ancestry in north west Asia. Yamna and Caucasins have similar ANE levals, while Yamna has a lot more WHG and less ENF. Although Caucasians have more WHG and less ENF than other west Asians, which increases their affinity to Yamna.

Northeast Europeans have a less ANE than Yamna, more WHG, and less ENF.

Considering the ANE-WHG model may be wrong and changed in the future, there's room for EHG and Yamna-related ancestry in west Asia. We already know Yamna was around 50% West Asian-like, but we don't know all the directions gene flow went, and there may be Yamna-like ancestry in west Asia. The argument that Asians can't have significant Yamna ancestry because they have little WHG doesn't work anymore because we're looking for EHG now.

We have genomes from Europe before mass migrations by Yamna-like people, but we don't have the same thing for west Asia.

Some good points. Just that I would add WHG is like 2.5 as much as among North Caucasians and half of what modern North/Northeast Europeans have.

which is basically around ~27% as I have said so many times in the past. And has been proven by the fact that Norwegians minus their Yamna ancestry have ~25% WHG. That brings us to the conclusion that Yamna added ~25% of WHG to Norwegians.

North Caucasians have roughly 10% WHG. At the end of the day I always said WHG in Yamna would be something in between 20-30% but no way much more or much below, you know that from my comments on Eurogenes. But David and some other on Eurogenes had to disagree. Now we see who was right once again. As much as I actually like Davids work.
I always love it how David bets on ancient samples being as much European as possible and than fails and has to admit that he was wrong. He argued about 40-50% WHG for Yamna and total ignored my arguments why this is impossible. And now we see who was once again completely wrong and who was right.

 

[Alan]

Alan Haak 2015 is not Eurocentric. Two of the leading authors; David Reich and Isoif Laz(aridis), are Jewish and Greek. This is an unbiased paper. They didn't estimate Yamna admixture in west Asians because they have 0 genomes from ancient west Asia and over 60 from ancient Europe. We don't know who exactly who lived in west Asia in 3,000BC so we can't get an accurate idea how much Yamna-related ancestry is there today.

People say they have allot of West Asian samples but didn't include them for whatever reason. Might be because they are witholding it for further studies to publish.
The whole point is that it gives many people who are not that knowledgeable about the topic the impression that Yamna is all like North and Northeast Europeans.

I would love them to publish the actual aDNA so people can start comparing it to modern populations. Look at Sindhis from Pakistan they have almost as much Yamna ancestry as Bergamo has. Now imagine how much Yamna ancestry Kurds, Iranians, Georgians, Pashtuns and Tajiks with some East Eurasian DNA will show.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Are you sure?

because this paper below from 2013 has the exact same mtdna in most cases with this recent haak paper ( but haak has refined the mtdna and found the ydna )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3978205/

Am I sure about which bit?

I think both sides of the argument accept there was a farmer migration onto the steppe which came into contact with the steppe HGs. The questions are:

1) Was there a peaceful merger or a conflict?
2) If there was a conflict who won?

I'm suggesting the PIE culture that resulted implies the answers to those questions.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Ok, but to your own question what do you feel is the more plausible explanation.
If we believe in a simple migration as it was always the case in ancient history. Or some bride kidnapping.

It is obvious that the bride kidnapping story is the much more unlikely theory, because as you admit yourself it needs much more thinks to fit than simply expect a migration.
(caste system, bride kidnapping of 5% over a millennia etc etc).
But I think this is a prime example how people can be ethnocentric that they put aside the most logical explanation for the most satisfying. I am that way sometimes myself.

But let's be simply honest here. The best explanation is a migration everything else is just possible theories and can only be explaned with "if's andmight's"
It is possible that they kidnapped brides but it is also possible that they kidnapped males and forced them to teach the pastoralist system and than included them into their society.

But is it likely? No.

I am simply convinced it was simply a migration. It is not even only the pastoralist lifestyle. The whole Yamna package cries "strong influence from South".
From the pastoralist lifestyle all the way to how they buried (Kurgan) their people is typically copied from Maykop (who themselves copied it from NW Iran according to some rather recent study). Yamna was simply a copy of Maykop.

Why should anyone copy the rituals of kidnapped brides?

The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package (rituals such as Kurgans, pastoralism, genetic ancestry) which reached Maykop and from there came to Yamna and can not simply be explained with "bride kidnapping".

"The point is there is an whole West Asian highland package"

Bride kidnapping is part of that package.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Central_Asia

"Approximately half of all Kyrgyz marriages include bride kidnapping"

So like all of this the question is simply which direction did it come from. Did it originally come from the farmers or did it originally come from mounted steppe HGs raiding farmer settlements.