• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

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

Alan said:
Genetikers CHG component is flawed it is actually Gedrosia renamed. CHG 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)
Click to expand...
. 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.



Samara_Neolithic samples (at least some of them) looked to have 5-25% CHG like admixture. Yamnaya was drasticly more.
Click to expand...
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.
[TABLE="width: 251"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]M411747[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]M218547[/TD]
[TD]I0124[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2"]Kotias CHG[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Samara HG[/TD]
[TD]7.6 kya[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Run time[/TD]
[TD]8.14[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Run time[/TD]
[TD]5.57[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]S-Indian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]S-Indian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Baloch[/TD]
[TD]37.02[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Baloch[/TD]
[TD]14.33[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Caucasian[/TD]
[TD]55.11[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Caucasian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NE-Euro[/TD]
[TD]4.23[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]NE-Euro[/TD]
[TD]75.62[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SE-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]SE-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Siberian[/TD]
[TD]1.35[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Siberian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NE-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]NE-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Papuan[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Papuan[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]American[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]American[/TD]
[TD]9.62[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Beringian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Beringian[/TD]
[TD]0.15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Mediterranean[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Mediterranean[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]SW-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]SW-Asian[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]San[/TD]
[TD]0.24[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]San[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]E-African[/TD]
[TD]0.45[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]E-African[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Pygmy[/TD]
[TD]0.18[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]Pygmy[/TD]
[TD]- [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]W-African[/TD]
[TD]1.42[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]W-African[/TD]
[TD]0.2[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Fire Haired14 said:
10% extra hunter gatherer makes more sense than the 30% global PCA gives. PCA and ADMIXTURE always give Europeans a significantly higher amount of WHG than formal stats do.

We'll have to wait to see what type of R1b the Latvian HGs had but so far the evidence suggests Baltic HG ancestry entered modern Balts mostly via mtDNA/women. I've done the math and Balts' hg U needs an extra 10-15% hunter gatherer added on top of 85-90% normal Northern European. Normal Northern European+10-20% hunter gatherer might not be the exactly correct model for Balts but I think it's pretty accurate.

Seto have twice as much U5a, U4 as other Balts. Wish Seto genomes were available.
Click to expand...

Seto is the the most archaic of the Baltic Finnish languages/dialects, the Pskov, Lake Ilmen, Daugava valley regions are where Western Uralics first arrived and formed in to Baltic Finns with the local population.
 
Tomenable said:
Berun,

Since Narva is part of Comb Ware, you have R1b in Comb Ware - not R1a.
Click to expand...

My logics work different: R1a was in Siberia, Combed Ware Culture came from Siberia, we have R1a after the arrival of Combed Ware in Europe, R1b was already in Europe (Villabruna), these Latvian R1b had a mainly WHG autosomal. So you might show me R1b in Siberia, otherwise no way with me.

By the way Genetiker calculations in Ukraine are interesting and veeeery bad for many: a typical I2 HG, and a R1a Neolithic; no R1b by now.......

So four R1b pockets: Baltic, Armenian, Italian and Samara (only the first is not today R1b).
 
[TABLE="class: cms_table"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]WHG[/TD]
[TD]EHG[/TD]
[TD]CHG[/TD]
[TD]Iran_Neo[/TD]
[TD]EEF
[/TD]
[TD]Levant_Neo[/TD]
[TD]@D[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_HG3:ZVEJ27[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]63.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]36.4[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.011034[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_HG2:ZVEJ25[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]72.15[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]27.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.006894[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_HG1:ZVEJ32[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]71.85[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]21.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.010565[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_MN1:ZVEJ26[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]78.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]7.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]9.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]4.3[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.008507[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_MN2:ZVEJ31[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]14.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]85.2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.011728[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Latvia_LN1:ZVEJ28[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]18.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]39.6[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]41.65[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.023763[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]LatvianModern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]44[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]15.7[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]24.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]15.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.006947[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ukraine_HG1:StPet2[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]36.55[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]57.1[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]6.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.01034[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Ukraine_N1:StPet12[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]37.45[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]49.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12.75[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.020136[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UkrainianEast Modern[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]35.5[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]12.8[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]28.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]23.35[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0.006077[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

CHG in East Europe mesolithics is what would make any comparision of CW with Yamnaya possible...
 
bicicleur said:
I have another reason to believe that R1a in Lokomotiv arrived from the west, and probably all the way from Europe.
Lokomotiv has also mtDNA U5a, which is European, even western European, Gravettian.
I suspect R1a and U5a came as a package to Lokomotiv.
Furthermore both are the minority in Lokomotiv, a loner.

I told earlier I think R1a/R1b arrived in Europe in the Volga area with Butovo culture, near the end of youngest dryas.
Many took local European wives instead of their own mtDNA C.
Check post 104.
Click to expand...

For the time we speak it was not such direction but the contrary; climatology delivered R1a to the Altai refuge first, once the ice retracted they had free way.

The Butovo is not possible, Villabruna was before...

Archaeology again must be taken into account.
 
Angela said:
Well, EDAR was in the SHG, yes?
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

I would guess that was perhaps EHG related and ANE related before that? The Russian anthropologists were pretty sure that Mal'ta boy had it or something similar. (Did they have a tooth or only part of the skull? I forget.) There was an outcry when I suggested on the Board that perhaps they were right, but I think more recent papers and analyses provide some support for that idea. I think that after the split into West Eurasian and East Eurasian there was some intrusion from East Eurasia toward the west, as there was into Central Asia and across the steppe many millennia later.

According to this latest paper on East Asian ancient dna, it's in the ancient hunter-gatherer. They also said in that paper that American Indians were pretty close to this ancient population (and the Ulchi?) so I think this may be a set of mutations that occurred after the split between East and West Eurasians, but before Neolithization, and thus would have gone to Siberia and then North America?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33517-Neolithic-east-asian-dna-5700-bc?highlight=East+Asian

I think I remember reading somewhere that EDAR is on an increasing south/north cline, which makes sense given the thick hair aspect. I've never understood the selective advantage some of these things would have in an arctic climate however, especially something like more sweat and oil glands. The smaller breast size thing is a mystery too.

The Jomon are said to derive from this ancient line as well. I've never investigated their traits much. This paper promises information about it in the abstract, but it's behind a paywall. Maybe someone who reads this has the information from the paper or elsewhere and can share it.
http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v60/n10/full/jhg201579a.html

This is all just off the top of my head and two minutes research, so take it for what it's worth. :)
Click to expand...

Thx Angela, and sorry, we're off topic here.
I think EDAR reached Europe with pottery, but EDAR seems to be extinct amongst modern day Europeans now.

As for Malta being Mongolid, this is my post in another thread :

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33526-To-everyone-who-claims-that-Malta-Boy-was-Mongoloid

Malta split from R 28.2 ka.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R/
R lived north of the Hindu Kush, not in Siberia.
Haplo Q lived in Siberia, like AF2 (17 ka)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/Q-L472/
Malta mingled amongst them.
The Malta branch got extinct.

Mongoloid traits started to devellop in Siberia, Mongolia & N. China 30 ka.


So 31.9 ka haplo Q and R split, and Q got Mongoloid and R not.
At least, that is my interpretation.

1 of the 3 Khvalynsk was Q1a.
Also mtDNA X came west from eastern Siberia, even before pottery.
Ain Ghazal 10 ka had mtDNA X. It probably arrived there along with Y-DNA T from the Zagros/Taurus Mts,
and it arrived in the Zagros/Taurus Mts along with Y-DNA R2 or R1b-V88 or the like.
Haplogroup_X_%28mtDNA%29.PNG


Exchange of mtDNA all across Siberia, late paleolithic, after LGM acording to estimated TMRCA for X.

I think the Mongolid tribes 30 ka were Q, C2, C1a1, N and O
During LGM O and C1a1 settled most southern of all these tribes and lost Mongolid through admixture with D.

By the way, I think haplo D1 were the first inventors of pottery in the now flooded Yangzi delta, maybe some 25 ka.
Probalby for cooking some fish and seashells. Some 10.000 years later they started cooking wild rice and further north millet.
Only later they started making a dough of millet and baking it like cereals.

In early SW Asian neolithic, cereals don't need cooking, but how they prepared the pulses, it is unknown, probably a time- and resource consuming process with hot stones to boil the water.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
here is some more Y-DNA calls from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/201...-mesolithic-and-neolithic-latvia-and-ukraine/

there was R1b-pré-M473 amongst the R1b-M297, just like the Samara HG
IMO Yamna was both R1b-M269 and R1b-M473, and Afanasievo R1b-M473

Ukraine HG was not R1, but I2a2a, a remnant of the earlier WHG , but autosomal he is half EHG, so I guess R1 was already in that area too.
Would the I2a2a in Yamna have been a remnant of this branch?

David Anthony speaks in his book about a war between 3 tribes for control over the Dnjepr-Rapids area some 10 ka.
 
Just a note, in Figure 2 in the paper the Latvia Late Neolithic sample (who belongs to the CW culture) has 50% CHG and 50% European HG, this is identical to the Yamnayan samples, but after admixing this sample with previous Central Europeans (some 15% WHG and 85% EEF) it delivers the typical CW autosomals... this sample is dated around 2800 BC, so Yamnayans are older... but it could be got a "Yamnayan-like admixture" in CW and from an archaeological perspective there are not proofs of pure Yamnayans going there, but we have some CHG autosomals in regional HG and even J Y-DNA in Karelia...
 
Latvian MN1 was also R1b likely, which means at least over 1,500 years of presence in Latvia. (5500 BCE- 4000 BCE). So, it is 3 R1b guys in Zvejnieki.
They were believed to be sedentary folk.

Ukrainians were likely I2 and R1a (Meso and Neo).
 
berun said:
Just a note, in Figure 2 in the paper the Latvia Late Neolithic sample (who belongs to the CW culture) has 50% CHG and 50% European HG, this is identical to the Yamnayan samples, but after admixing this sample with previous Central Europeans (some 15% WHG and 85% EEF) it delivers the typical CW autosomals... this sample is dated around 2800 BC, so Yamnayans are older... but it could be got a "Yamnayan-like admixture" in CW and from an archaeological perspective there are not proofs of pure Yamnayans going there, but we have some CHG autosomals in regional HG and even J Y-DNA in Karelia...
Click to expand...

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.
 
bicicleur said:
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
Click to expand...
Btw, not having EEF in early CW makes some sense in light of linguistic theory that early PIE had extensive shared herding vocabulary, but comparatively scares and disputed farming one.
Then there is shared agricultural word layer for Euro IEs, so, perhaps of EEF origin. Balts in the end are derived from those EEF admixed IEs, not the first Baltic pioneers.
The only issue is that EEF was present in Indo-Iranians too, who got lot of their farming words from BMAC-ish people.
 
arvistro said:
Btw, not having EEF in early CW makes some sense in light of linguistic theory that early PIE had extensive shared herding vocabulary, but comparatively scares and disputed farming one.
Then there is shared agricultural word layer for Euro IEs, so, perhaps of EEF origin. Balts in the end are derived from those EEF admixed IEs, not the first Baltic pioneers.
The only issue is that EEF was present in Indo-Iranians too, who got lot of their farming words from BMAC-ish people.
Click to expand...

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
 
bicicleur said:
here is some more Y-DNA calls from Genetiker

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/201...-mesolithic-and-neolithic-latvia-and-ukraine/

there was R1b-pré-M473 amongst the R1b-M297, just like the Samara HG
IMO Yamna was both R1b-M269 and R1b-M473, and Afanasievo R1b-M473

Ukraine HG was not R1, but I2a2a, a remnant of the earlier WHG , but autosomal he is half EHG, so I guess R1 was already in that area too.
Would the I2a2a in Yamna have been a remnant of this branch?

David Anthony speaks in his book about a war between 3 tribes for control over the Dnjepr-Rapids area some 10 ka.
Click to expand...

bicicleur said:
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.
Click to expand...


R1a is as EHG as could be J1, in fact EHG was an admixed population (At least, autosomal contributions from: I2, J1, R1a and R1b populations). This subclade is not necessarily extinct: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y6305/ look for J-F2306 found in Finland.
 
R1a is as EHG as could be J1, in fact EHG was an admixed population (At least, autosomal contributions from: I2, J1, R1a and R1b populations).
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Latvia-Ukraine-Russia HG have been R1, with only singleton I2a2a, singleton J1 and singleton Q1a.

But that I2a2a was later found also in Catacomb culture in Ukraine, so it survived and became part of the PIE community.

Also, we have the 1st sample of R1a in the Western Steppe - Ukraine_N1 with R1a1-M459* was Dnieper Donets culture:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper–Donets_culture
 
Ukraine_HG1 (Vasilyevka, age 11143-10591 ybp) = I2a2a-M223, mtDNA U5b2
Ukraine_N1 (Vovnigi, age 6469-6293 years ago) = R1a1-M459*, mtDNA U4

I must add Ukraine_N1 to my map of R1a and R1b samples older than 6000 years.
 
delted deleted
 
*wondering about the essence after all those chit chat and different postings*

what is the lasting impression of this paper? anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top