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

[MarkoZ]

They have admixture from Afontova Gora, not from Mal'ta.

Mal'ta could be ancestral only to ANE in Native Americans.

Afontova Gora is a better fit for ANE in Europe than Mal'ta.

It cannot be more than a few tiny percentages, then. Else this would be quite easy to detect.

 

[bicicleur 2]

we arrived at page 12 in this thread
I think we are starting to overanalyse

 

[Angela]

According to Chad Rohlfsen they were all Upper Paleolithic Europeans + various levels of ANE admixture.

Chad Rohlfsen (from Anthrogenica) thinks that WHG also had ANE - just not as much as SHG and EHG.



For some reason it is nationalism only when you claim that there were migrations from North to South.

When you claim that there were migrations from South to North, it is no longer hyper-nationalism. Huh.

My dear young man, I have spent my entire professional life rigorously examining data from all possible angles, while equally rigorously removing my own personal feelings, inclinations, prejudices, if you will, from the equation, as much as humanly possible, at least. It's been my job, and my professional integrity demanded it. I do the same with this data. I start with the data and follow wherever it leads. You just don't like the conclusions I reach.

Oh, and as to the particulars, in so far as I can see, there was movement south to north, and north to south through the Caucasus. There was movement east to west and west to east across Europe too. Who can doubt it?

 

[berun]

It was surely Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mtDNA:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-was-Mongoloid?p=501250&viewfull=1#post501250

The next step would be to check if SHG and EHG are WHG with less or more Siberian admixture so.

 

[Alan]

I have created a proxy for Ukrain HG/N and Latvian HG in one of David's D-stat spreadsheets based on the EHG/WHG proportions David posted for them earlier.

D-stats do a better job at differentiating EEF, CHG, WHG, EHG than PCA and the ADMIXTURE test Basal rich K7. In those methods EEF absorbs WHG and CHG, CHG absorbs EEF and EHG. D-stats don't have that problem.

Here's a spreadsheet with results using Ukraine HG/N, Latvian HG.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1n1K24L3y6ZpUG6p1VFHurJPcvB-PoQ0HOOd7eWU4Ris/edit#gid=0

Corded Ware Germany scores 20% Ukraine N when modelled with early Neolithic/Mesolithic genomes. But they score only 6% when modeled with Yamnaya Samara and Esperstedt MN. Hungary BA probably has a lot of Ukraine HG-type stuff but we've already known that for a while.

FH EEF does not absorb WHG from my observation of past calculators, if some component absorbs another it is WHG that absorbs some of the WHG like ancestry in EEF. How can EEF absorb something it doesn't have? The point is WHG predates EEF so if you use EEF as a proxy component it will only take that WHG like ancestry that is already part of it since the beginning. It's the same story with CHG. CHG does not absorb EEF a little of shared Basal Eurasian ancestry in CHG get's absorbed by EEF and some of the ANE get's absorbed by EHG. As we know Anatolian_Neo does have some IranNeo/CHG like ancestry. This is the major issue here with confronting theories and what I have been explaining with the Khvalnysk samples. They had some CHG not CHG had some EHG. If anything EHG eats up some of the ANE like portion (Gedrosia like) of CHG/Iran_Neo.

 

[LeBrok]

The next step would be to check if SHG and EHG are WHG with less or more Siberian admixture so.

Siberian admixture starts showing up in Late Bronze Age and Iron Age in the Steppe. Maybe sooner in North around Finland. The closest ancient genome in this area is Karelia EHG 5,000 BC, and he didn't have Siberian admixture yet.
Pure WHG, EHG, SHG didn't have it either.

M643041	I0061
Karelia, OleniyOstrov N Russia	7.25 kya
Run time	9.88
S-Indian	-
Baloch	9.46
Caucasian	-
NE-Euro	72.66
SE-Asian	-
Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-
Papuan	-
American	12.6
Beringian	5.16
Mediterranean	-
SW-Asian	-
San	-
E-African	-
Pygmy	0.07
W-African	-

American and Beringian is ancient for Central and North Eurasia and already existed in Siberia in Mal'ta boy 24kya.

F999914	R
Mal'ta	24kya
Run time	8
S-Indian	10.13
Baloch	24.09
Caucasian	-
NE-Euro	40.14
SE-Asian	-
Siberian	-
NE-Asian	-
Papuan	0.7
American	17.71
Beringian	6.74
Mediterranean	-
SW-Asian	-
San	0.3
E-African	-
Pygmy	0.19
W-African	-

But even he, a man from Siberia, didn't have Siberian admixture. Siberian admixture didn't show up sooner than Bronze age in Europe with N1c people in the North and Iron Age Scythians in the Steppe.

 

[berun]

You say it: even Malta was not Siberian... Don't mind but I don't rely much on autosomals, much less in autosomals with modern populations (to me is to try to put the actual English language in a branch: Romance? Germanic? Greek? Celtic? and so on; you would get crazy)

 

[LeBrok]

PCA graph points to other solution for composition of LN1, which could have been 2/3rd of Yamnaya and 1/3 of Latvia HG.

Did anyone find information what quality is the LN1 sample?

 

[LeBrok]

You say it: even Malta was not Siberian... Don't mind but I don't rely much on autosomals, much less in autosomals with modern populations (to me is to try to put the actual English language in a branch: Romance? Germanic? Greek? Celtic? and so on; you would get crazy)

You mean you don't rely on DNA to learn what kind of people they were?

 

[Fire Haired14]

Alan, of course doesn't WHG contains EEF and CHG doesn't contains EEF and so on. But a PCA has only a certain number of PCs. In PCAs of West Eurasia which include ancient genomes there are three primary directions the samples go. These directions samples go are so precise they're comparable to components in ADMIXTURE tests.

These are the primary directions the samples go...
South: The more basal Eurasian the farther south a sample goes.
North: The least basal Eurasian a sample has the farther north it goes.
West: The more WHG and EEF a sample has the farther west it goes.
East: The more ANE; EHG and CHG, a sample has the farther east it goes.

EEF and WHG can cause samples to go one of the same directions. EEF and CHG can do the same. WHG and EHG can do the same. WHG, EEF, CHG, EHG are made up of the same "directions" aka components. Therefore a southern directional pull EEF ancestry gives a modern sample can be confused as CHG ancestry. I could give other examples of how EHG is confused as CHG, how CHG is confused as EEF, how WHG is confused as EHG.

The argument I made and still stand by is that ancestry proportions drawn from PCAs give less relaible WHG, EHG, EEF, EHG ancestry proportions than formal stats. This is because formal stats better differentiate between those four types of ancestry.

 

[Fire Haired14]

*I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.

The divisions were never rigid. We always knew there was ANE was higher the further east you went and WHG higher the further west you went. They might basically be mixtures of the same two things but that doesn't mean we can't determine if a modern population has ancestry from one of them and not the other. The non-EEF and non-CHG ancestors of modern Europeans had more ANE than SHG, LatvianHG, and it seems UkrainianHG. That's what tests say.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Plus, where have I ever personally denied that the major story is that Yamnaya like people brought EHG and CHG to Europe? That's a total straw man argument. The proportions need not have been identical in each case, however.

I agree with this. The proportions were probably pretty similar though.

 

[berun]

You mean you don't rely on DNA to learn what kind of people they were?

For ancient DNA compared with more ancient DNA I rely more as more samples are available (to prevent partial results), for actual pops as source pops for ancient DNA... doing so I could link English with medieval Romanian and suggest weird migrations or sharing sources.

 

[bicicleur 2]

*I'm also starting to think that this whole rigid division into WHG/SHG/EHG is flawed. It's basically the same people. It's just that as you move east they picked up more "other" ancestry.

WHG develloped in Gravettian Europe
I suspect till 12 ka it was all over Europe ; by then Y-DNA I was reduced to I2 and some pockets of I from which later I1 emerged.
12 ka EHG entered via the Volga basin
then mixing started
Loschbourg is still 100 % WHG
SHG 7.5 ka Motala with pottery is actualy a simple mixture of WHG and EHG with maybe a dash of Siberian
Samara is in the Volga basin where EHG entered and which was scarcely populated before.
Karelia and Latvia was populated by Swiderian tribes before EHG entered.
Samara HG has very little WHG, Karelian has some more and Latvia a lot more.
There is some logic in all this, but I don't know why Latvia has more WHG than SHG has.

WHG U5a, U4 and U2e wives must have been very popular. U5a even made it till lake Bajkal in 8 ka Lokomotiv.

 

[MOESAN]

FH EEF does not absorb WHG from my observation of past calculators, if some component absorbs another it is WHG that absorbs some of the WHG like ancestry in EEF. How can EEF absorb something it doesn't have? The point is WHG predates EEF so if you use EEF as a proxy component it will only take that WHG like ancestry that is already part of it since the beginning. It's the same story with CHG. CHG does not absorb EEF a little of shared Basal Eurasian ancestry in CHG get's absorbed by EEF and some of the ANE get's absorbed by EHG. As we know Anatolian_Neo does have some IranNeo/CHG like ancestry. This is the major issue here with confronting theories and what I have been explaining with the Khvalnysk samples. They had some CHG not CHG had some EHG. If anything EHG eats up some of the ANE like portion (Gedrosia like) of CHG/Iran_Neo.

what a demonstration! with all these "somethings" and "somethinglikes" we can go very far - everyone holds on with his personal theory... I find it very uneasy to define the directions of some DNA sharings, so we can all of us keep on with our prejudices...

 

[bicicleur 2]

this is K = 13 from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/201...-and-neolithic-latvian-and-ukrainian-genomes/
Sample Period Culture Date BC
Latvia_HG1 Mesolithic Kunda 6467–6249
Latvia_HG2 Mesolithic Narva 5841–5636
Latvia_HG3 Early Neolithic Unassigned 5302–4852
Latvia_MN1 Middle Neolithic Unassigned 4251–3976
Latvia_MN2 Middle Neolithic Comb Ware 4229–3800
Latvia_LN1 Late Neolithic Corded Ware 3089–2676
Ukraine_HG1 Mesolithic Unassigned 9193–8641
Ukraine_N1 Neolithic Dnieper-Donets 4519–4343

navy blue = WHG like
medium blue = EHG like
light blue = EEF like
red = Karitiana like
teal = CHG like

he ascribes MN2 to comb ware culture, hence the Karitiana component, which is also in Karelia and Samara HG and in Khvalynsk

Latvia is the only CW without EEF

corded ware, sintashta, bell beaker, Unetice and Nordic LN are all quite similar

 

[berun]

I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (CW, Sintashta, Andronovo).

 

[johen]

I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (CW, Sintashta, Andronovo).

I think CW people and the others are totally different people. CW R1a-M417 people is not related with even horse-riding, unlike the others. Moreover, CW people looks like modern Nordic people, the others archaic cromagnon type.
R1a-93 Srubna, sintashta and andronovo are culturally and anthropologically connected to Afanasievo-okunevo.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...o-European-history-they-are-just-paleo-people

 

[LeBrok]

this is K = 13 from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/201...-and-neolithic-latvian-and-ukrainian-genomes/
Sample Period Culture Date BC
Latvia_HG1 Mesolithic Kunda 6467–6249
Latvia_HG2 Mesolithic Narva 5841–5636
Latvia_HG3 Early Neolithic Unassigned 5302–4852
Latvia_MN1 Middle Neolithic Unassigned 4251–3976
Latvia_MN2 Middle Neolithic Comb Ware 4229–3800
Latvia_LN1 Late Neolithic Corded Ware 3089–2676
Ukraine_HG1 Mesolithic Unassigned 9193–8641
Ukraine_N1 Neolithic Dnieper-Donets 4519–4343

View attachment 8460

navy blue = WHG like
medium blue = EHG like
light blue = EEF like
red = Karitiana like
teal = CHG like

he ascribes MN2 to comb ware culture, hence the Karitiana component, which is also in Karelia and Samara HG and in Khvalynsk

Latvia is the only CW without EEF

corded ware, sintashta, bell beaker, Unetice and Nordic LN are all quite similar

Does that mean that genomes of Latvians were publically released? Can we get them in GedMatch, please.

 

[LeBrok]

I also was looking at this K13; it confirms some thinkings: 3 HG R1b were WHG (Villabruna and two Latvians), no trace of EHG or Siberian; for such people there was not a detectable Asian origin. The promised western steppe HG grandfather-of-all-Europeans was R1a being half WHG half EHG, he was not even able to provide a seed for their eastern steppe brethren of Yamnaya (80% EHG, 20% CHG). A (2nd?) Siberian footprint is in red in the Latvian Corded Ware, Karelian HG and Samara HG. The sure Indoeuropean cultures display a chunk of WHG and EEF admixture (CW, Sintashta, Andronovo).

Berun, stop obsessing with uniparental haplogroups. All it takes is one traveler to the tribe or one adopted child from another tribe to get new haplogroups. In smaller tribes of few hunter gatherers one haplogroup can become very dominant very quickly if bottleneck or founder effect happens. Imagine, there are 10 warriors in a tribe of many haplogroups. After a battle with other tribe only two warriors are alive, and it happened that they are brothers. When they "rebuild" the tribe all of the future males will have their haplogroup, and only this one haplogroup. Small tribes, under some circumstances, can change their dominant Y haplogroup in couple of generations. Keep it in mind.