The Neolithic Transition in the Baltic Was Not Driven by Admixture with Early Europea

[berun]

*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?

disappointment, where are the promised R1b in the western steppe?
8)

 

[berun]

 

[arvistro]

remember these Latvian people here are not PIE but might be ancestral to CW and Sintashta, and they may have inherited older IE words through contact with Yamna

Why not?
Although they could be para-PIE, that does not matter that much

 

[bicicleur 2]

*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?

early CW didn't have EEF admixture, but CHG reached Latvia allready 6 ka, possibly along with herding
R1b-P297 was widespread in Mesolithic Eastern Europe and probably ancestral to Yamna
I2a2 was already on Pontic Steppe 10.8 ka, and he did have some CHG too
Maykop remains out of the picture, a mystery, all we know about DNA can be explained without Maykop

very interesting IMO

 

[bicicleur 2]

From Anthrogenica, CWC can be modeled as a mix of Latvia_LN1 and EEF (blue arrows):

And Latvia_LN1 can be modeled as a mix of Ukraine HG plus Caucasus HG (red arrows):

http://s29.postimg.org/m3x0zm307/pca12_Baltic_All2.png

indeed, nice visualization
I wouldn't draw the 2nd blue lines though, I'd represent Sintashta/Andronovo and late CW as a mix of early CW and Yamna/Poltavka

we don't know where the CHG in Latvia neolithic came from though, from the Khvalynsk newcomer, from Ukraine, directly from Transcaucasia ??

 

[Alan]

. Well, I think it is more like 50% Armenian Chalcolithic, but we have to remember that armenian Chalcolithic contained 20% of NE Euro, which came from Yamnaya. Making both of them more alike.



This is a bit misleading as CHG and EHG contained ancient Baloch component. This could mean that they didn't need to exchange genetic material "recently" to be somewhat related. They are 20% related, but it doesn't mean they ever met. Their relation might be as old as LGM.

M411747		M218547	I0124
Kotias CHG		Samara HG	7.6 kya
Run time	8.14		Run time	5.57
S-Indian	-		S-Indian	-
Baloch	37.02		Baloch	14.33
Caucasian	55.11		Caucasian	-
NE-Euro	4.23		NE-Euro	75.62
SE-Asian	-		SE-Asian	-
Siberian	1.35		Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-		NE-Asian	-
Papuan	-		Papuan	-
American	-		American	9.62
Beringian	-		Beringian	0.15
Mediterranean	-		Mediterranean	-
SW-Asian	-		SW-Asian	-
San	0.24		San	-
E-African	0.45		E-African	-
Pygmy	0.18		Pygmy	-
W-African	1.42		W-African	0.2

Actually the ~50% ancestry they based on the CHG samples. Back than there wasn't really any Armenian Caolcolthic samples. Also the Armenian Calcolthic sample has less affinity to NE Europeans than the former mesolithic CHG samples. So there is no way it has any.

I have realized that you are doing a big mistake. As I have explained previously this NE European ancestry showing up is actual CHG ancestry in modern and even ancient NE Europeans. This is why components like NE European are based on modern populations and only used in OLD calculator. And this is why I am saying we can't use calculators using modern components based on modern populations to tell the ancestry of ancient populations. This is like trying to explain the ancestry of two parents of different background by their childrans DNA and saying parent x has inherited 40% of it's child DNA while parent y 60%. No any DNA found in this child (modern NE Europeans) is coming from his parents and not vica versa. So there is no NE European ancestry in CHG to begin with. NE Europeans have some additional CHG ancestry that has become so specific to them that the population used as model for this NE European component is catching up CHG ancestry.
The CHG showed ~15% shared ancestry with EHG, but as the studies already pointed out and as we discussed that is actual CHG ancestry in EHG that pops up in CHG as EHG like because we don't have any better pure sample to use as proxy for EHG. Even the Mesolithic_Iranian sample showed around 10% EHG like ancestry.

But the main point is, even while using Dodecad K12b calculator that is so old and based on mixed modern populations that are not purely CHG or Iran_Neo therefore does not catch all CHG/IranCHL ancestry, we scored 27% Gedrosia. So how on earth comes Genetiker to an estimation of 24% that guy is insane. Insanely biased towards European ancestry, so biased that he not even a year ago was still claiming R1b is a paleolithic West European lineage.

 

[Ukko]

 

[Alan]

It's the same story with Mal'ta boy. Man it is really tiring to see some people making over and over again the same mistake (on purpose or not) that you sometimes feel it just doesn't make sense to explain it.


There are two possibilities with how we can explain Mal'ta.

A: Mal'ta (the ANE) proxy is actually mixed himself from two more older populations. One that I think was something very ancient South_Central Asian (that was predominantly of R Halplogroup) and that mixed with something East Eurasian like(25%).

OR

B: Mal'ta like DNA is simply found in modern South_Central Asians, West Asians, Europeans on one hand and Amerindians, some East Eurasians on the other hand. Mal'ta was freakn R* Haplogroup. Some people easily forget that this is the brotherclade of Q. At some point East and West Eurasians had one ancestor. How on earth can East Eurasian people with Q1a for example have completely different ancestry to West Eurasian people with for example R1 if they did not have at one point allot of shared ancestry? At the end of the day Q and R are brotherclades aren't they? So from this scenario it makes completely sense that Mal'ta R guy shows shared ancestry with East Eurasians too (~25%).

 

[Alan]

uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.

That is what many people have been speculating and that is what some bloggers fear most, CHG like ancestry in every Indo European or Indo European like culture popping up independently from Yamnaya in different propotions. The reason why they fear this, is because as the studies had been speculating it coul turn out that a CHG like herder population independently brought all this stuff to various Steppe and EUropean cultures which turned out to became suddenly Indo Europeans.

So CW is not descend from Yamnaya but CW is partly descend from a group that contributed also to Yamnaya.

I am excited about the Maykop and South_Central Asian samples. We need some more throughout the Caucasus (At best around Leyla Tepe and North Iran too).

 

[Angela]

Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG like admixture in Yamnaya is around 40-50% why in the world would someone take the numbers of Genetiker before any of the real studies plus even most of the bloggers (many of them being actually biased towards EHG) giving also numbers like 40-50%. Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.

The problem with genetikers CHG component is, it uses modern Caucasians as proxy, but modern Caucasians have Anatolian_Neo and even some Levant_Neo admixture.

Exactly so, which is why it can be misleading to use calculators based on modern populations. One also has to use formal stats in addition to ADMIXTURE.

Aren't some of the newest Middle Bronze Age steppe samples close to 60% CHG? It seems that the flow was a continuing one.

 

[arvistro]

Anyone found what was the main difference between Yamna and Latvian CW genetically? Or they were same people?

 

[MarkoZ]

Anyone found what was the main difference between Yamna and Latvian CW genetically? Or they were same people?

If you look at the K=20 run in the supp. material, the differences seem to be that the European HG components are quite different and the Latvian CW lacks the small non-West-Eurasian components that Yamnaya has.

It'll be interesting to see what the Finnish CW turn out to be, as they appear to be even older than the Latvian CW.

 

[Angela]

uptill now I believed CW got herding and CHG from Yamna people, but now it appears they got it directly from people coming from across the Caucasus
and soon after that they also got some EEF from western/central Europe

the J in Karelia didn't have any substantial CHG, he was coming along with EHG R1a/R1b and his tribe probably got extinct
J derives from eastern Epigravettian, which spread into Transcaucasia and the Crimea right after LGM
the northern, European branch got extinct, maybe when EHG arrived there, while the Transcaucasian branch expanded into Anatolia and the Zagros Mts.

How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

 

[MarkoZ]

How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

I'd say that the route across the Caucasus is an unlikely one. The general trajectory of the early herders seems to have been Namazgadepe -> Kelteminar -> Siberia & Europe. The Turkemenistan & Eastern Iran area is where the people who came to the steppe must have come from, tracking through Central Asia.

 

[bicicleur 2]

How could that have happened, though, Bicicleur? I don't know of any archaeological trail, do you?

Isn't it possible it was a movement of one particular group in Yamnaya that broke off and headed north?

yamna started 5.5 ka and CHG arrived in Latvia 6 ka
both could have gotten it from a common group though, north or south of the Caucasus, I don't know
CHG may have been in ancestral Yamna/Afanasievo folks before Yamna actually started, and Yamna and Afanasievo were just triggered by the invention of the wheel

there seems to be an analogy between CW and Yamna, both started with CHG admixture, but without EEF

the archeological trail seems lost, indeed

 

[bicicleur 2]

I'd say that the route across the Caucasus is an unlikely one. The general trajectory of the early herders seems to have been Namazgadepe -> Kelteminar -> Siberia & Europe. The Turkemenistan & Eastern Iran area is where the people who came to the steppe must have come from, tracking through Central Asia.

CHG is already in 10.8 ka Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, I believe that is before Kelteminar

 

[MarkoZ]

CHG is already in 10.8 ka Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, I believe that is before Kelteminar

No doubt, but the arrival of the bulk of the southern ancestry in the steppe must have coincided with the spread of the herding economy.

 

[Angela]

Well, I thought I'd see what some other people are saying.

This is a very interesting analysis from anthrogenica, and from a poster who seems very knowledgeable and capable, Gravetto-Danubian. I hope he doesn't mind my reposting it.

"Corded_Ware_Estonia:RISE00
Hungary_HG:I1507 31 %
Samara_HG:I0124 21.4 %
Kotias:KK1 18.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 18.75 %
Iran_Hotu:I1293 9.95 %
Villabruna:I9030 0.05 %


Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28
Kotias:KK1 42.5 %
Motala_HG:I0012 34.1 %
Samara_HG:I0124 23.4 %
Villabruna:I9030 0 %
Loschbour:Loschbour 0 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0049
Kotias:KK1 32.25 %
EHG:I0124 25.9 %
Motala_HG:I0012 17.7 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 11.95 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 11.9 %

Corded_Ware_Germany:I0103
Kotias:KK1 32.45 %
EHG: 23.25
Hungary_HG:I1507 15.1 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 13.7
Loschbour:Loschbour 5 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE566
Hungary_HG:I1507 32.95 %
Kotias:KK1 31.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 27.2 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 7.85 %


Bell_Beaker_Czech:RISE569
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 21.9 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 18.4 %
Kotias:KK1 17.05 %
Samara_HG:I0124 5.85 %
Hungary_N:I1498 4.25 %

Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0060
Loschbour:Loschbour 32.7 %
Kotias:KK1 29.95 %
Barcin_Neolithic: 21.60
Karelia_HG: 10.9
Hungary_N:I1498 5.35 %


Bell_Beaker_Germany:I0108
Hungary_N:I1498 40.75 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.45 %
Kotias:KK1 21.7 %
Bichon:Bichon 6.75 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 6.3 %


Vatya:RISE479
Loschbour:Loschbour 41.55 %
Hungary_N:I1498 33.65 %
Kotias:KK1 14.25 %
Karelia_HG:I0061 5.3 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 3.95 %

Hungary_BA:I1502
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 37.85 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 24.25 %
Motala_HG:I0012 19.5 %
Kotias:KK1 14.45 %


BattleAxe_Sweden:RISE94
Motala_HG:I0012 44.7 %
Kotias:KK1 32.9 %
Barcin_Neolithic:I1097 20.65 %
Ukraine_HG1:StPet2 1.15 %


Nordic_MN_B:RISE61
Samara_HG:I0124 33.65 %
Mentese_Neolithic:I0723 31.5 %
Kotias:KK1 15.5 %
Hungary_HG:I1507 12.45 %
Motala_HG:I0012 3.9 %
Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31 2.15 %


I will check later with weighted data and see how it differs - (results might be more optimal).

But it looks the main source of population movement in the Late Copper - early Bronze Age was something Kotias-like ("CHG") - which mixed into middle Neolithic central European populations with high WHG (i'd look to yet unsampled cultures from the northern Balkans, Ukraine and Poland - eg GAC) as far as BB Czech & Hungary BA go.

Motala admixture also comes into play in some recipients. Whilst some would query this, it makes sense given the presence of haplogroup I in Nordic LNBA and Hungary BA. Shall see when we get Balkan Meso-Neolithics.

EHG is most pertinent for CWC, in conjunction with CHG , but EHG is also evident in some of the BBs and NordicLNBA. Otherwise it isn't as expansive

Surprisingly, the Ukrainian individuals don;t really feature as sources. It could be quality issues, but maybe they were not R1's ?"

As I said about two years or more ago, as the actual Indo-Europeans, 50% and more "CHG" (some of the newer samples seem to be almost 60% "CHG") moved into northern and central Europe, they encountered, and admixed with, large groups of remnant WHG groups, and in some places highly WHG admixed MN groups, which is why the "CHG" component dropped. These people were certainly inclusive in their mating practices.

As for Latvian Corded Ware, it looks to me like an admixed CHG/EHG group that then mixed with WHG. It was indeed heavier on CHG than some other groups, so on balance I'd say a steppe group that was perhaps heavier CHG than others.

 

[bicicleur 2]

CHG in the Ukraine Dnjepr rapids, it makes sense to me
I expected it to be in the Dnjepr-Donets culture because of presence of mtDNA H

 

[bicicleur 2]

No doubt, but the arrival of the bulk of the southern ancestry in the steppe must have coincided with the spread of the herding economy.

afaik Kelteminar were origainaly HG who gradualy adopted herding
their origin would be the Hisar culture, HG who brougth geometric microliths from the Zagros to the Hindu Kush 10 ka

do you know more abt Kelteminar ?