What happened to CHG Ydna in Yamna

pedassa

Newbie
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
I am a complete novice, so please excuse this simple question.

I keep reading that Yamna and especially early Yamna is a 50/50 blend of EHG and CHG.

I understand that the CHG component is based upon the genome of two individuals, both male from Georgia, Satsurblia (13.300 years BP) and Kotais Kide (9,700 years BP). Their Y dna is Haplo Group J, J1 (FT34521) and J2 (Y12379) respectively.

I am puzzled therefore when it turns out that this haplogroup is present in only a very small percentage of modern European males.

How can this have happened? R1b via EHG seems to maintained its dominance in the male line throughout thousands of years.
 
I keep reading that Yamna and especially early Yamna is a 50/50 blend of EHG and CHG.

I understand that the CHG component is based upon the genome of two individuals, both male from Georgia, Satsurblia (13.300 years BP) and Kotais Kide (9,700 years BP). Their Y dna is Haplo Group J, J1 (FT34521) and J2 (Y12379) respectively.

I am puzzled therefore when it turns out that this haplogroup is present in only a very small percentage of modern European males.

Those are their male haplogroups.
Their female haplogroups were K and H. Most likely also U, J and T.

Yamnaya being 50% CHG means that their first admixing outside of haplogroup U5 (and U4 and U2e) was with H,J,T,V,I and K from the (northern) Middle East/Caucasian range.
 
Those are their male haplogroups.
Their female haplogroups were K and H. Most likely also U, J and T.

Yamnaya being 50% CHG means that their first admixing outside of haplogroup U5 (and U4 and U2e) was with H,J,T,V,I and K from the (northern) Middle East/Caucasian range.

So does that mean that male CHG contributed almost nothing in that first admixture Yamna event?

Maybe I am dim but it sounds like a dominant EHG bunch of males taking CHG brides\concubine
 
The language and dominant patrilineages came from local forager clans, due to founder effects of these dominant males, which took the coastal communities with more CHG over, and either eliminated or bred out most of their males. R-Z283 and R-L51 became the leading haplogroups due to secondary founder events form the PIE community.

You could ask the same about the percentage of R-Z93 vs. R-Z282. R-Z93 was once much more widespread in Europe, but absent from Central-South Asia. Now its the opposite around with R-Z93 being very common in Central-South Asia, but pretty rare in Europe. Why? Because the Iranian nomadic pastoralists lost and the R-Z282 agro-pastoralists won demographically.

Yet autosomally, they came from the same stock. The very same applies to the mixed coastal communities of EHG-CHG. Those with the forager clans won, and replaced the CHG dominated clans. This is also the primary reason why I think that PPIE was spoken by the foragers, not the fishers-early pastoralists with high CHG.
 
So does that mean that male CHG contributed almost nothing in that first admixture Yamna event?

There's a J1 in Russia/Finland (Popovo sample) mixed with U4 haplogroup.
There's also another J(don't remember if J1 or J2) in the Tarim Basin.

But yeah, it's MOSTLY R in the Steppe, and mostly J in the Southern Arc.
 
There's a J1 in Russia/Finland (Popovo sample) mixed with U4 haplogroup.
There's also another J(don't remember if J1 or J2) in the Tarim Basin.

But yeah, it's MOSTLY R in the Steppe, and mostly J in the Southern Arc.

And its not just J, we know Q lurked around as well and many of the sampled R branches, like the Khvalynsk R1a, are dead ends. Khvalynsk was as much a dead end as the coastal-Southern CHG patrilineages - even more so. So its not like all initial R branches among PPIE did well. Its just specific founders which did particularly well, like R-Z93 in Central-South Asia, R-L51 in Western Europe and R-Z282 in Eastern Europe.
 
Wow this is complicated! Thanks to both of you.

I am particularly interested in Hittite and Hurrian\Mittani, especially with regard to the IE language.

If there is negligible Steppe ancestry in Anatolia, then explaining how this arose becomes very difficult. Prof Anthony's view which he still seems to adhere to (described in this book, Horse Wheel and Language) is surely dead in the water of the Bosphorus, isn't it?
 
Wow this is complicated! Thanks to both of you.

I am particularly interested in Hittite and Hurrian\Mittani, especially with regard to the IE language.

If there is negligible Steppe ancestry in Anatolia, then explaining how this arose becomes very difficult. Prof Anthony's view which he still seems to adhere to (described in this book, Horse Wheel and Language) is surely dead in the water of the Bosphorus, isn't it?

In my opinion the Proto-Anatolians were part of the Cernavoda horizon in the Balkans and moved into Anatolia over Troy. The samples which were remotely related to the Cernavoda group were the most Balkan Neolithic shifted ones from the steppe expansion horizon we got. Therefore, even before they reached Anatolia, they would have had a lower steppe level. Thousands of years later, deeper in Anatolia, there is no reason to expect them to have a high steppe ancestry, even if they came from Cernavoda.
 
The male EHG to female CHG was disproved by Lazaridis if I recall correctly. Think he used some statistical method on the X and Y chromosomes that showed no bias that would indicate that scenario of a breeding of EHG males to CHG females.
In my eyes this leaves only one viable scenario.

EHG mixes with CHG in equal measure in the steppe right by the Caucasus. But only one offshoot of this larger population proceeds to spread across, and by chance this offshoot was rich in EHG Y lineages, which through founder effects lead to the imbalance of Y between EHG CHG in Yamnaya.

So in other words, the initial mixed population would have been 50 50 in Y between EHG and CHG. But this population might have been small, and then only an even smaller part of this whole, coincidentally rich in EHG Y would have been the one to experience a population boom and spread.
1699880936392.png


The whole thread is way more interesting:

 
Last edited:
We might deal with not just one but multiple mixture events. Like e.g. the initial spread of the CHG component along the coast with those fisher-pastoralist population which reached the Lower Don might have been dominated by CHG on both the male and the female side, but male totally. They could have incorporated local EHG females (no or very few males) and this mixed population with say 75 : 25 (CHG : EHG) could then have been taken over by male foragers from the North.

The end result is pretty clear not just because of the patrilineages, but also the culture they developed, which looks, in my opinion, decisively more local/Northern. However, the same can't be said about all layers and sites, which means that the initial regional CHG dominance could show.

But whatever, we need many samples from the Lower Don-Sea of Azow region, from sites like R. yar in particular. Otherwise its all conjecture.
 
We might deal with not just one but multiple mixture events. Like e.g. the initial spread of the CHG component along the coast with those fisher-pastoralist population which reached the Lower Don might have been dominated by CHG on both the male and the female side, but male totally. They could have incorporated local EHG females (no or very few males) and this mixed population with say 75 : 25 (CHG : EHG) could then have been taken over by male foragers from the North.

The end result is pretty clear not just because of the patrilineages, but also the culture they developed, which looks, in my opinion, decisively more local/Northern. However, the same can't be said about all layers and sites, which means that the initial regional CHG dominance could show.

But whatever, we need many samples from the Lower Don-Sea of Azow region, from sites like R. yar in particular. Otherwise its all conjecture.

Your first paragraph is exactly what Lazaridis is arguing against. The way I understood that twitter thread the multiple admixture events did happen, but in Lazaridis own words:
"In other words, the fact that a novel patriline became very successful during the 4th millennium before the late 4th millennium BCE emergence of the Yamnaya tells us nothing about the chrY composition of the late 5th millennium BCE population of the steppe."
An offshoot of this initial populations success lead to a founder effect in the Yamnaya, rather than a population overtaking the other. Keep in mind the movement was not west to east (steppe to Caucasus), but east to west. And even the exception was steppe to Altai (not Caucasus).
 
Last edited:
I think that's pretty unlikely, because we have multiple, old lineages in PPIE/PIE, and all of the important ones, ALL, were forager derived.
Therefore its not chance, but if you calculate the age and branches, its a larger group of foragers Europeans, and no CHG related/Caucasus-West Asian ones.

Like R-Z2103, R-Z93, R-L51, R-Z283 and that's not even all, if you include the branches of Q, I2 and R1a (like the ones from Khvalynsk) which were less successful. Therefore we're dealing with 4-7 : 0 for EHG/European foragers/Neolithics vs. the CHG-West Asian side. Hardly a coincidence, regardless of what Lazaridis says. It just doesn't look like a stochastic event.
 
I think that's pretty unlikely, because we have multiple, old lineages in PPIE/PIE, and all of the important ones, ALL, were forager derived.
Therefore its not chance, but if you calculate the age and branches, its a larger group of foragers Europeans, and no CHG related/Caucasus-West Asian ones.

Like R-Z2103, R-Z93, R-L51, R-Z283 and that's not even all, if you include the branches of Q, I2 and R1a (like the ones from Khvalynsk) which were less successful. Therefore we're dealing with 4-7 : 0 for EHG/European foragers/Neolithics vs. the CHG-West Asian side. Hardly a coincidence, regardless of what Lazaridis says. It just doesn't look like a stochastic event.
Explain me the logic, how does what you said negate anything Lazaridis is arguing about?
Like R-Z2103, R-Z93, R-L51, R-Z283 and that's not even all, if you include the branches of Q, I2 and R1a (like the ones from Khvalynsk) which were less successful. Therefore we're dealing with 4-7 : 0 for EHG/European foragers/Neolithics vs. the CHG-West Asian side. Hardly a coincidence, regardless of what Lazaridis says. It just doesn't look like a stochastic event.
Lazaridis:
"In other words, the fact that a novel patriline became very successful during the 4th millennium before the late 4th millennium BCE emergence of the Yamnaya tells us nothing about the chrY composition of the late 5th millennium BCE population of the steppe."
 
The single R-Z2103 is not as important for the debate of this thread, but the fact that about 4-7 or even more local forager lineages began to diversify around 3.500 BC is highly relevant, because that's the PIE stage and start of the expansion. And like I said, 7:0 is a ratio to consider in favour of an EHG male dominated origin.
In Yamnaya its R-Z2103 and that's just a single lineage, that's irrelevant indeed, but the others are significant too and if you look at their branching events and TMRCA, they all start earlier and spread rapidly with PIE people/tribes. One EHG/European lineage is pure chance, but 4-7 rather not.
 
The CHG mixture began to expand from the Caucacus mountains after 8,000 BC. How much they expanded into the Pontic steppe can be brought to light with ancient samples. Around 6,000 BC EHG would have expanded from the north clashing with CHG. The Black sea flood was likely a decisive moment (5,700 BCE) with CHG losing their strongholds and part of their people to the flood. This lead to EHG victory or set in motion a sequence of EHG victories/expansion and annihilation of most of CHG male lines in this region. This new EHC population with CHG trophy wives are the forebears of PIE.
 
Я полный новичок, поэтому извините за простой вопрос.

Я продолжаю читать, что Ямна, и особенно ранняя Ямна, представляет собой смесь ЭГГ и ХГГ в соотношении 50/50.

Я понимаю, что компонент CHG основан на геноме двух особей, мужчин из Грузии, Сацурблии (13 300 лет назад) и Котаиса Киде (9 700 лет назад). Их Y-ДНК представляет собой гаплогруппу J, J1 (FT34521) и J2 (Y12379) соответственно.

Поэтому я озадачен, когда оказывается, что эта гаплогруппа присутствует лишь у очень небольшого процента современных европейских мужчин.

Как это могло произойти? R1b через EHG, похоже, сохранял свое доминирование по мужской линии на протяжении тысячелетий.
There is an opinion that there was an exchange of women between Caucasian hunter-gatherers and Eastern European hunters, this was clearly ritual exchanges, since both Eastern European hunters and Caucasian hunters were extremely patriarchal populations, in support of my words, in Dagestan, where the Yamnaya dominates in the Caucasus, more than 70 a percentage of indigenous peoples have haplogroup J1, other haplogroups are less common, but are also Caucasian (J2, G2), but some people also have R1b-Z2103, R1a-Z93, it is quite possible they were introduced later
 
There is an opinion that there was an exchange of women between Caucasian hunter-gatherers and Eastern European hunters, this was clearly ritual exchanges, since both Eastern European hunters and Caucasian hunters were extremely patriarchal populations, in support of my words, in Dagestan, where the Yamnaya dominates in the Caucasus, more than 70 a percentage of indigenous peoples have haplogroup J1, other haplogroups are less common, but are also Caucasian (J2, G2), but some people also have R1b-Z2103, R1a-Z93, it is quite possible they were introduced later

Some Caucasus people have clearly steppe and even Western haplogroups (including E-V13) which were introduced later.
 
Some Caucasus people have clearly steppe and even Western haplogroups (including E-V13) which were introduced later.
1700232584296.png

Here the Dagestan peoples are represented. Please note that the Yamnaya component dominates in all of them and the distances turned out to be extremely good despite the fact that this is the Stone Age (and Early Bronze Age), but at the same time, all of the represented peoples are dominated by j1 from 50 percent (Tabasarans) to 100 percentage ( Akhvakh Kubachi Dargin Tindal and others)
 
Mesolithic Caucasus Hunter Gatherer (CHG) J2b2 sample from Kotias Klde (NEO281) is undergoing analysis for final placement on YFull YTree:


Late Neolithic similarity map shows affinity with Meshoko Darkveti people from NW Caucasus and Black Sea coast near Sochi, Russia.

IMG_0451.jpeg
 
Mesolithic Caucasus Hunter Gatherer (CHG) J2b2 sample from Kotias Klde (NEO281) is undergoing analysis for final placement on YFull YTree:


Late Neolithic similarity map shows affinity with Meshoko Darkveti people from NW Caucasus and Black Sea coast near Sochi, Russia.

View attachment 14483
Also didn't both the J2b2 and the J1 Kotias Klde samples share the same maternal haplogroup?
Found in the same cave, with the same dating. Seems like the smoking gun that J2b2 was part of the CHG (which no one doubted anyways). The bigger question now is where was the European J2b2 when L283 first developed. It could have already been closer to the Balkans.
 

This thread has been viewed 2281 times.

Back
Top