New Leak: CWC=73% Yamna, modern North Euros=50% Yamna.

Fire Haired14

Fire Haired14

Banned
Messages
2,185
Reaction score
583
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b DF27*
mtDNA haplogroup
U5b2a2b1
Yamna_culture.jpg

​
Davidiski found a new Leak from Reich about his upcoming paper.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...lf-of-our.html

The number of ancient Euro genomes has increased from 65 to 69.

Hopefully we'll learn more via this seminar Riech is having. Anyways it appears the paper won't be online for a very long time, maybe years.

Ancient genomes reveal Yamna-type ancestry arrived in central Europe ~4,500YBP, persisted till at least 3,000YBP(In ancient genomes), and today takes up an estimated ~50% of north Euros ancestry. There are signs of the same ancestry in southwest Europe, where I would guess it is at least 30%. Corded ware though over 4,000YBP is said to have had 73% Yamna ancestry, so continuous admixture with locals must have occurred.

It looks like our "theoretical Yamna" isn't far off because our estimates of Yamna ancestry in Europe are consistent with this leak(see here and here).
 
Fire Haired14 said:
Yamna_culture.jpg

​
Davidiski found a new Leak from Reich about his upcoming paper.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/0...lf-of-our.html

The number of ancient Euro genomes has increased from 65 to 69.

Hopefully we'll learn more via this seminar Riech is having. Anyways it appears the paper won't be online for a very long time, maybe years.

Ancient genomes reveal Yamna-type ancestry arrived in central Europe ~4,500YBP, persisted till at least 3,000YBP(In ancient genomes), and today takes up an estimated ~50% of north Euros ancestry. There are signs of the same ancestry in southwest Europe, where I would guess it is at least 30%. Corded ware though over 4,000YBP is said to have had 73% Yamna ancestry, so continuous admixture with locals must have occurred.

It looks like our "theoretical Yamna" isn't far off because our estimates of Yamna ancestry in Europe are consistent with this leak(see here and here).
Click to expand...

What makes you say that it won't be out for years? Patterson said it was already with the editor, so it should be finished...
 
motzart said:
What makes you say that it won't be out for years? Patterson said it was already with the editor, so it should be finished...
Click to expand...

Oh yeah you're right I forgot about what Patterson said. I said it should be out in years because they keep missing their due date, and just added 4 samples(unless the an editor made a mistake). I pretty dissapointed they didn't at least get one sample related to South-west Asian's ancestry, because you don't need 69 from Europe to discover genetic changes.
 
Yamna 5,000-4,000YBP had 90% brown eyes, likely vast majority dark brown and black hair, and probably dark skin, yet north Euros are mostly Yamna. The HGs of Europe ~4,000-5,000YBP were also dark haired and dark skinned, but blue eyed. The EEFs of Europe ~4,000-5,000YBP were light skinned, mostly dark with some light hair, and mostly brown eyed.

The 4,000YBP Pole had "dark complexion", yet most likely had an east-north Euro genetic makeup. It looks like north Euros not to long ago were darker than south Euros, and possible at a west Asian complexion.
 
Fire Haired14 said:
That's interesting thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...

Magnus Carlsen both recently successfully defended his world chess championship title, and has been clear number one on the world rating list for several years now. Whatever that means.
 
it gives some clues about people moving
it would be much more interesting to know what caused and facilitated these movements, then we could actually identify these migrators
 
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.
 
Aberdeen said:
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.
Click to expand...

if you reduce all populations to just 3 components (EEF WHG ANE) there is a lot you'll never find out
reich et al must have gone further
 
Interesting. Thanks for the info Fire Haired.

Lots of questions, of course.

What happened to the concept that Corded Ware is 66% of a population "related to" Yamnaya? Is the abstract for this conference older than the other leak, or is it that Corded Ware is 75% Yamnaya but 66% a population related to Yamnaya. (This is what happens when there's all this speculation without having the actual paper in front of us.)

In terms of this particular "leak" what comprises northern Europe? Is it everything north of the Alps, Balkans, Pyrennees?

I'm not surprised at the late 2500 BC entry into Central Europe. I have thought for a long time that the dates of 3500 BC and even earlier were off, and that a number of the "Copper" Cultures that were once considered "Indo-European" were no such thing.

What was the autosomal make up of the 27% non Yamnaya ancestry in Corded Ware? Was it an even mix of EEF and WHG since they said there was a resurgence of WHG in northern Europe from 4,000 to 3,000 BC? Or was it still more EEF?* If it was, and the Yamnaya ancestry was, as they've said before and now, 50% "Near Eastern", then Corded Ware people would be more "ENF" and "ANE" then modern northern Europeans, as someone pointed out on that blog link. If that is the case, then I don't see how Corded Ware people can cluster with modern north Central Europeans, much less so with people from the extreme north east like Baltic peoples, as someone else on that blog pointed out. (In fact, it never made sense to me that they would. As I've pointed out before, Baltic peoples have far too little EEF or ENF to be good proxies for a Corded Ware population that is 73% Yamnaya (which is 50% Near Eastern), and would then have additional ENF from European farmers. The analyses done by bloggers purporting to show that they are don't comport with the evidence, in my opinion.

As for the amount in southern Europe, I wouldn't care to speculate about the final figures. I think the fact that so many "guesstimates" have been wrong should indicate that we just don't have enough data at present.

The fact that there seems to be another major "event" in European genetics around 1000 BC is also interesting, as is the fact that from 2500 BC to 1000 BC, a period of about 1500 years, there was a period of "stasis". I don't buy the idea that it just happened. If Reich and company are correct, it was not a continuous process of mixing, but instead was rather abrupt. Either there was another movement of people (perhaps from more northern areas), or whatever cultural or class "apartheid" that existed broke down around this time. At any rate, whatever it was dropped the similarity to Yamnaya from 73% to approximately 50%.

Finally, they seem to be very cautious about the linguistics side of the equation. Given that David Anthony is a consulting author on the paper, I didn't think that they'd dump the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory, so I'm not surprised to see that they see it as explaining some of the language change, but it's interesting that they are cautious about attributing all the language change to it. This raises the question as to whether the "Centum" languages, or perhaps Greek and Anatolian, had a slightly different (perhaps geographically contiguous) source, and a slightly different trajectory.

Aberdeen: If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe?
Click to expand...

In order to infer migration movements and subsequent admixture I think they're comparing whole genomes of ancient people. So, they'd be comparing samples from Yamnaya to samples from Corded Ware areas pre and post Yamnaya influence, and possibly more late Hungarian plain genomes as well. At least, that's what I hope they're doing. I do hope they'll give EEF/WHG/ANE percentages for each group as well. I'm sure they are using the samples already gathered for ancient mtDna analysis in Hungary and Germany. To see if there is a cline in northern Europe it would seem to me that they need samples from further west as well, but I don't know if they have analyzed any or not. I think it's especially important in figuring out how the "Celtic fringe" areas got or retained higher levels of ANE than some areas further east.
 
Last edited:
bicicleur said:
if you reduce all populations to just 3 components (EEF WHG ANE) there is a lot you'll never find out
reich et al must have gone further
Click to expand...

I agree that it's more complicated than that, but to me Reich's theory seems even more simplistic than the three components theory that at least has some basis in genetic admixture formulae. I still don't see where the "50 percent Yamnaya" idea comes from. But there was in fact a continued process of admixture that went on into the Iron Age and the Migration Age, so I'm skeptical of the idea that we should think in terms of one big changeover consisting of a massive input of "steppe ancestry" that is hopefully better defined in the actual paper. But, as usual, Angela has done a better job of outlining some of the complexities than I could. I will note that the 1000 BC date is just 200-300 years after the Bronze Age Collapse that hit Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, Cyprus and Greece. I wonder whether whatever happened in that part of the world was mirrored further north at the same time or slightly later but perhaps there hasn't been enough archeology happening for that time period in northern Europe?
 
Angela, people have been discussing those issues you mentioned alot over the last several months. Most of us think Yamna was 25% ANE, 40% ENF, and 35% WHG in terms of ANE K8. The reason we think this is because of the gazillions of scenarios we've played out. When we use this theoretical Yamna north euros always fit best as 50% or more Yamna, which is consistent with this leak. Many of us have known north Euros are mostly Yamna for a long time, by connecting the dots from other leaks.

Yamna was not 50% near eastern, they were 50% something similar to modern Armenians, who are a little more near eastern than Stuttgart. The reason north euros today have less ENF than Yamna is because of Late Neolithic farmers like Gok2(who had as much WHG as Balts) and then also late Neolithic hunter gatherers like Ajv58, who had no near eastern ancestry. We have to remember most of northeastern Europe when IEs arrived was hunter gatherer country.

Balts actually fit better as a mix of something similar to Motala12 and theortical Yamna, with no EEF in the equation. CWC was not Yamna+EEF, it was Yamna+HG+EEF.

The last thing I want to say is you're not the first person to give those doubts. People have disected those ideas, and there's no doubting anymore Yamna-types made a very big genetic impact on Europe, largely or mostly in the early bronze age. Reich knows this because he has central Euro genomes ranging from 7,000-3,000YBP, right before historical times, and Yamna ancestry stayed and was probably at a modern-like level. If ANE 3,000YBP was much lower than it is today, he would say something.
 
Aberdeen said:
I agree that it's more complicated than that, but to me Reich's theory seems even more simplistic than the three components theory that at least has some basis in genetic admixture formulae. I still don't see where the "50 percent Yamnaya" idea comes from. But there was in fact a continued process of admixture that went on into the Iron Age and the Migration Age, so I'm skeptical of the idea that we should think in terms of one big changeover consisting of a massive input of "steppe ancestry" that is hopefully better defined in the actual paper. But, as usual, Angela has done a better job of outlining some of the complexities than I could. I will note that the 1000 BC date is just 200-300 years after the Bronze Age Collapse that hit Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia, Cyprus and Greece. I wonder whether whatever happened in that part of the world was mirrored further north at the same time or slightly later but perhaps there hasn't been enough archeology happening for that time period in northern Europe?
Click to expand...

He has the 50% Yamna idea partly because he has Euro genomes almost stretching to historical times(Early ancestor of Gauls and Hallstatt?), and so if Yamna-ancestry dropped and rose again he would say something. Bronze age genomes from central Europe will be shown to be basically the same thing as present-day central-north Euros. This is true for a 2,000YBP Celt from Britain too, and so population continuation since the bronze age makes more sense.
 
Aberdeen said:
The wording of the abstract doesn't make much sense to me. If Europe prior to this "steppe ancestry" was some mixture of WHG and EEF, what change did this massive incursion of "steppe ancestry" cause other than the addition of ANE to the mixture? So what is it that adds up to 50% "steppe ancestry" in the modern northern European population? And do we have enough Corded Ware samples to be sure of exactly what CW was and how similar it was to Yamnaya? Is there some sort of cline involved in this high level of "steppe ancestry" in modern northern Europe? Exactly what parts of Europe are being referred to? How does the dominance of R1b in some parts of western Europe figure into this 50%? So many questions, at least in my mind.
Click to expand...

In the title post I linked to experiments I did with theoretical Yamna. It fits very nicely as contributing 50% or more ancestry to modern north Europeans. All your questions should be answered with this links.
 
Last edited:
Angela said:
I'm not surprised at the late 2500 BC entry into Central Europe. I have thought for a long time that the dates of 3500 BC and even earlier were off, and that a number of the "Copper" Cultures that were once considered "Indo-European" were no such thing.

What was the autosomal make up of the 27% non Yamnaya ancestry in Corded Ware? Was it an even mix of EEF and WHG since they said there was a resurgence of WHG in northern Europe from 4,000 to 3,000 BC? Or was it still more EEF?* If it was, and the Yamnaya ancestry was, as they've said before and now, 50% "Near Eastern", then Corded Ware people would be more "ENF" and "ANE" then modern northern Europeans, as someone pointed out on that blog link. If that is the case, then I don't see how Corded Ware people can cluster with modern north Central Europeans, much less so with people from the extreme north east like Baltic peoples, as someone else on that blog pointed out. (In fact, it never made sense to me that they would. As I've pointed out before, Baltic peoples have far too little EEF or ENF to be good proxies for a Corded Ware population that is 73% Yamnaya (which is 50% Near Eastern), and would then have additional ENF from European farmers. The analyses done by bloggers purporting to show that they are don't comport with the evidence, in my opinion.

As for the amount in southern Europe, I wouldn't care to speculate about the final figures. I think the fact that so many "guesstimates" have been wrong should indicate that we just don't have enough data at present.

The fact that there seems to be another major "event" in European genetics around 1000 BC is also interesting, as is the fact that from 2500 BC to 1000 BC, a period of about 1500 years, there was a period of "stasis". I don't buy the idea that it just happened. If Reich and company are correct, it was not a continuous process of mixing, but instead was rather abrupt. Either there was another movement of people (perhaps from more northern areas), or whatever cultural or class "apartheid" that existed broke down around this time. At any rate, whatever it was dropped the similarity to Yamnaya from 73% to approximately 50%.

Finally, they seem to be very cautious about the linguistics side of the equation. Given that David Anthony is a consulting author on the paper, I didn't think that they'd dump the Pontic-Caspian steppe theory, so I'm not surprised to see that they see it as explaining some of the language change, but it's interesting that they are cautious about attributing all the language change to it. This raises the question as to whether the "Centum" languages, or perhaps Greek and Anatolian, had a slightly different (perhaps geographically contiguous) source, and a slightly different trajectory.
Click to expand...

Yamna starts 3500 BC, but is only in the steppe.
Corded ware started 2900 BC, which is not to far of the 2500 BC mentioned. Maybe there were several consecutive waves.
As for the remaining 27 %, my understanding was these were the people who lived in Europe before the Corded Ware invasion.

It indeed seems a confirmation of the Pontic Steppe as the origin for IE, except the Anatolian branch which remains a mysterie and doesn't seem to have arrived in Anatolia the way David Anthony describes (invasion through the Balkans 4000 - 4200 BC)
 
And the date 1000 BC, there is no evidence that Europe was affected by the invasion of the Sea Peoples, so I guess the main event was the start of the iron age.
This brought some more invaders from the steppe, there is even some DNA known of some specimens found on the Hungarian graveyards (mentioned in the study with the Hungarian neolithic Starcevo specimens)
 
Fire Haired14 said:
He has the 50% Yamna idea partly because he has Euro genomes almost stretching to historical times(Early ancestor of Gauls and Hallstatt?), and so if Yamna-ancestry dropped and rose again he would say something. Bronze age genomes from central Europe will be shown to be basically the same thing as present-day central-north Euros. This is true for a 2,000YBP Celt from Britain too, and so population continuation since the bronze age makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't make sense because Yamnaya apparently differs from European Neolithic only by being part ANE, and the level of ANE varies across Europe. Also, some of the ANE in western Europe must have come from R1b and we have as yet no proof that R1b has anything to do with Yamnaya - I'm still of the view that it entered Europe from Anatolia mainly by way of the Adriatic, the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. So, while we all knew that the IE Bronze Age Expansion had a major genetic impact on Europe, I see no basis for an assumption that a consistent 50% of the genetic material of modern northern Europe is from Yamnaya. As Angela pointed out, previous views were that CW was from a Yamnaya-like population, which is not the same thing, and calling early Copper Age people Bronze Age doesn't make them Bronze Age.
 
If someone wants to argue that R1b is Yamnaya, I'd like to see them explain why Norway has more ANE than the Basque country in Spain. IMO, that stuff about "founder effect" doesn't really cut it, considering that Iberia was much more of a genetic highway than Norway ever was. IMO, the explanation is partly that the ANE level of R1b was watered down more than it was in R1a because they had very different histories and took very different routes into Europe. But there also seems to be higher ANE in areas with higher levels of WHG, so I don't think we have the whole story on ANE and northern Europe yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top