Yamna: "25% ENF, 30-35% ANE", and 40-45% WHG

Another remarkable thing is that Yamna and Corded Ware people both had 50% of West European admixture, and only 20% of East European. I expected that for R1b Yamna Indo-Europeans, since they brought their genes from the steppe to Western Europe.
That is true, but I expect both R1a and R1b to be more connected to West than East European.
I remember back in the days when you made your Dodcad maps and were confused why Kurds scored more "West European" instead of "East European". I told you that even Ukrainians(pred R1a),North Caucasians and even South_Central Asians(pred R1a) scored more West than East European and therefore it would be better to assume that West European component is genetically more connected to Yamna and Andronovo, since it is also closer to West Asian based on fst distance.


And about the "South Asian" component in v3. As I said it is based on the Reich ANI/ASI model. ANI was basically every West Eurasian admixture in South_Central Asians. And it was remarkebly close to West Asian component. ASI on the other hand is basically everything East Eurasian.

Looking at the Yamna Gedrosia vs South Asian scores, comparing it with my data (which is almost identical in that case) and than taking in mind what Dienekes said, that "South Asian" in Iranians and more so in Kurds is almost completely ANI. I come to the conclusion this South Asian in Yamna is predominantly ANI which is basically a portion of West Asian admixture and reached very early South_Central Asia from Kurdistan. Gedrosia is 92% West Asian +8% ANI(derived from Proto West Asian) because in calculators with a Gedrosia component the South Asian disappears.

Dienekes called this "South Asian" component a zombie. here is the full article
http://dodecad.blogspot.de/2011/05/more-zombies-ancestral-north-indians.html

More Zombies: Ancestral North Indians and Ancestral South Indians reborn

nj.png


Gedrosia might be the component connected to R* all along.
 
I don't understand, i posted my previous message in english and it's translated in french

Good one. That made me laugh. Computers translate of their own will now ? Don't you have Google Translate or a similar Add-on installed on your browser ?
 
Then I suppose the ENF must be hiding behind the Atlantic component. The Karelia and Samara genomes lacked both ENF and Atlantic. It may not be so simple because Motala12 didn't have ENF either but had 10% of Atlantic.

This is because Atlantic also has alot of WHG and little ANE. It's largely of Mesolithic and Neolithic west European origin which is why EEFs and WHGs score in it.
 
In case some of our Board members haven't yet read it, both Patterson and Lazaridis commented on the Eurogenes blog. I think the post from Lazaridis provides some food for thought:

Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said... It's great that our data is finally out there, and I hope it will be useful to the wider community.

Just a quick comment: There are significantly negative f3(Yamnaya; Near East, Karelia_HG) and f4(Karelia_HG, Yamnaya; Near East, Chimp) for many Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. We are clear in our paper that we don't think we have a good surrogate for the admixing population, and we mainly model Yamnaya with Armenians/Iraqi Jews because they top these statistics.

You get a negative correlation like Fig. S9.20 with different Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. Percentages vary (39% BedouinB, 47% Druze, 48% Iraqi Jew, 53% Armenian, 68% Lezgin). African admixture (which many Near Easterners like BedouinB have, see Moorjani et al. 2011) reduces these estimates, while for populations like Lezgins (who have lower Near Eastern ancestry), you need proportionally more Lezgin input into the Yamnaya to account for the same amount of dilution. We estimated (Lazaridis et al. 2014) that Lezgins are 71% Near East, so .68*.71 = 48%, which seems about right.

Overall, I think that ~50% is a good ballpark estimate, but there's only so much you can do without an actual ancient Near Eastern genome.
 
In case some of our Board members haven't yet read it, both Patterson and Lazaridis commented on the Eurogenes blog. I think the post from Lazaridis provides some food for thought:

Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said... It's great that our data is finally out there, and I hope it will be useful to the wider community.

Just a quick comment: There are significantly negative f3(Yamnaya; Near East, Karelia_HG) and f4(Karelia_HG, Yamnaya; Near East, Chimp) for many Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. We are clear in our paper that we don't think we have a good surrogate for the admixing population, and we mainly model Yamnaya with Armenians/Iraqi Jews because they top these statistics.

You get a negative correlation like Fig. S9.20 with different Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. Percentages vary (39% BedouinB, 47% Druze, 48% Iraqi Jew, 53% Armenian, 68% Lezgin). African admixture (which many Near Easterners like BedouinB have, see Moorjani et al. 2011) reduces these estimates, while for populations like Lezgins (who have lower Near Eastern ancestry), you need proportionally more Lezgin input into the Yamnaya to account for the same amount of dilution. We estimated (Lazaridis et al. 2014) that Lezgins are 71% Near East, so .68*.71 = 48%, which seems about right.

Overall, I think that ~50% is a good ballpark estimate, but there's only so much you can do without an actual ancient Near Eastern genome.

So Lezgians are actually 68% "Yamna like". Explains why they are closest to Yamna just next to Mordovians. I hope they will bring out a second paper in which they use more populations and clarify some things.
 
In case some of our Board members haven't yet read it, both Patterson and Lazaridis commented on the Eurogenes blog. I think the post from Lazaridis provides some food for thought:

Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said... It's great that our data is finally out there, and I hope it will be useful to the wider community.

Just a quick comment: There are significantly negative f3(Yamnaya; Near East, Karelia_HG) and f4(Karelia_HG, Yamnaya; Near East, Chimp) for many Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. We are clear in our paper that we don't think we have a good surrogate for the admixing population, and we mainly model Yamnaya with Armenians/Iraqi Jews because they top these statistics.

You get a negative correlation like Fig. S9.20 with different Near Eastern/Caucasus populations. Percentages vary (39% BedouinB, 47% Druze, 48% Iraqi Jew, 53% Armenian, 68% Lezgin). African admixture (which many Near Easterners like BedouinB have, see Moorjani et al. 2011) reduces these estimates, while for populations like Lezgins (who have lower Near Eastern ancestry), you need proportionally more Lezgin input into the Yamnaya to account for the same amount of dilution. We estimated (Lazaridis et al. 2014) that Lezgins are 71% Near East, so .68*.71 = 48%, which seems about right.

Overall, I think that ~50% is a good ballpark estimate, but there's only so much you can do without an actual ancient Near Eastern genome.

I don't see the point of getting into a lather about the precise ENF and ANE numbers in the ANE 8 run. In the case of ANE who knows if it will any longer be useful. Perhaps the Mal'ta genome is too old*? The ENF from that run may be off for all we know. When we get a Near Easter farmer we'll know.

That said, these are the ENF numbers for the populations Lazaridis mentioned:
Iraqi Jews: 83%
Druse:80%
Armenians:77%
Lezgin:58%

*Ed. and too poor quality, as well as too widespread all over the world, and so not very helpful for tracking migrations into Europe.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand, i posted my previous message in english and it's translated in french

is this site in french for you when you enter?

check bottom left bar ...does it say english
 
Thanks for your help.
I don't understand, the site is in English when I enter.
Certainly a wrong manipulation, but the problem is resolved
 
Thanks for pointing that out. Here are the analyses of the Karelia, Samara, Yamna, Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples (actually just one of each, not an average).

The results for the Gedrosian admixture (K12b) are:

Sample
Gedrosian admixture
Mesolithic Karelia6.05
Mesolithic Samara12.98
Yamna26.29
Corded Ware21.94
German Bell Beaker9.62

This is just what I expected for Yamna. I am a bit perplexed over the two Mesolithic samples through. I shows that the Gedrosian admixture already existed in basal R1a and R1b with no West Asian admixture. That points to a Palaeolithic R1* origin of some of the Gedrosian. However, since Yamna and Corded Ware people have much more of it, it means that some Gedrosian also came from West Asia. That would mean that Gedrosian is not a pure admixture, but a compound, most likely of West Asian, South Asian, and perhaps also what K15 reports as Amerindian, which would be a sort of ANE. That explains why Gedrosia and ANE do not match at all in regions like Northeast Europe, which have a lot of ANE, but little Gedrosian.

I agree - this 'gedrosia' question is what I tried to explain in my fuzzy english in some post: modern 'gedrosia' in central South Asia is MORE THAN the old 'gedrosia' we find among Siberia or Russia ancient skeletons (Mal'ta, Ust'Ushim and co) - spite what was said I think some of the N-W Europe modern 'gedrosia' is from the most ancient one found in Northern Eurasia, the same PARTIAL modern 'gedrosia' in today Central Southern Asian, maybe carried there by Y-R descendants and now mixed with other labelled 'gedrosia' of more southern origin - so whan we speak today of 'gedrosia' among modern populations, we cannot be sure it's the SAME 'gedrosia'

 
here a metric aspect but we can link it to the present topic rather than to put in in "anthropology"
A. Kazarnitsky « Onthe biological distinctness of the Pit Grave / Yamanaya people in theNorthern Caspian : cranial evidence »
He shows differencesbetween the populations of different sites labelled 'PitGrave'/'Yamnaya' and focalizes on the today Kalmykia-Astrakhan regionand surroundings North-West the Caspian Sea.
According to him the'yamnaya' people of N-W Caspian were very different from the peopleof Maykop and the people of Shengavit in Armenia, these last onesvery apart from all the others.
As always nowadaysin metrics abstracts there is no more measures or indexesgiven nor typology, I even did not see words like 'dolichocephalic'or 'brachycephalic', but on what I thought understand the N-W Caspian'yamanya' were rather brachycephalic and euryprosop (broad-faced),with a projecting enough nose – compared to the Neolithic steppicpeople of Lower Dniepr region, they were broader skulled, shorterskulled (perhaps higher skulled : « simotic » ???not found in dictionary), with skulled a bit smaller : not toofar from some people in the Southern Siberia (Andronovo too?) butwith higher orbits and more projecting noses and more profile facesthan them.
Still according tohim, even if less broad-skulled – but not less broad-faced - thanthe N-W Caspian 'yamnaya' , the Neolithic people of Lower Dnieprwere more broad-skulled (or less long-skulled) than the ancientMesolithic people of the North Caspian Steppes. These neolithic menwere from North the Pont to the Baltic sea and the Upper Volga,and would have expanded in the Steppes about 2500 BC (?).
He put in the gametoo the Chalcolithic people of Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk and alsopeople of Khlopkov-Bugor and Dzhangar in N-W Caspian : he foundthe Sredny-Stog & Khvalinsk chalco people halfway to Mesoliticpeople and to Pit Grave epople (not the specific N-WCaspian ones here!) and the N-W Caspian chalco between theNeolithic Dniepr people and the N-W Caspian Pit Grave people.
Without any picturenor indexes it's very uneasy to speak of types and to extract somelesson from all that : all the way it seams the Pit Grave peopleof N-W Caspian region were different from other Pit Gravepeople and a bit different from Neolithic Lower Dniepr people, beingthe farther outlayers the Maykop and South Caucasus sites people. Itseems that at Chalcolithic the Dniepr Neolithic people approached theN-W Caspian area. The russian scholar excludes a mesologic importantimput to explain the partial brachycephaly of the Neolithic Dnieprmen compared to the Mesolithic people of the same regions and ratherput it on the account of a demic influx.
My poorconclusions : the mesolithic people of the North Pontic regionwould have contained a lot of 'brünnoid' types ; either a lotof them emigrated eastwards towards the Donets and Volga region, orwere pushed, and the new people were more on the side of a'cromagnoid' partiallybrachycephalized type (so kind of 'borrebylike' type, forming thespinal column of the badly defined 'east-baltic' type of oldanthropology, a mean type without too much consistance) ; Ithink what Coon called his 'neo-danubian' type was for the most acrossing of southern 'danubian' types from Anatolia (throughCucuteni/Tripolje?) with a 'borrebylike' type. This mix was surelygiven birth at Neolithic times... inmore eastern parts of Europe the 'borrebylike' type was the dominantone. The finnic-ugric specialists saw also this type as the principalelement among their ancestors, before mongoloid elements wereincorporated. True ? False ? I don't know. The steppictribes sent a mix where dominated the high statured dolichocephals,among them the ancient Mesolithic people. The raw description givenpush me to think the N-W Caspian Pit Grave people already had someaspects recalling the 'dinaric' type (as noted in ancient works inmore than a place among the Steppes people themselves). Come therefrom where ? Old question ! (I cannot expell theCarpathians of my mind ! By the way I visited the partlyhungarian Mara Muresh region in N-W Carpathians Romania and I saw aclear 'dinaric' influence among them, mixed with other types ;almost no typical 'mediterranean' look – but the more often highskulls doesn't exclude the 'danubian' influence, maybe one of the'dinaric complex' element).
Tocome again on this very subject, we see here the so widely spred'yamnaya' people were not completely homogenous and their genesis isnot too clear. Moves West-East and East-West and North-South andSouth-North seem having taken place at different times, and telling the hane from the egg is not so easy. Aside of that, I should bet thefirst eastern and northern HGs (more on the 'brünn' side) wererather of Y-I(2)affiliation and perhaps they took part in the 'dinaric' typeelaboration if this one is only a genetic complex crossings result asit seems it is (plus a bitof brachycephal like 'alpine' or'borreby A' both of 'cromagnoid' filiation plus a bit of some kind ofhigh skulled 'mediterranean'.

I add that spite believing some 'danubian mediterranean' (neol, Y-G2?) came into Steppes from the Cucuteni-Tripolje last periods, I give the first place of 'southerners' into the I-E mix to the South-Central Asian people (by origin): that doesn't exclude they lately came across Caucasus after being passed South the Caspian Sea, coming from East, as some cultural aspects could show - more than a move took place in History, sometimes on opposite directions (W>>E at early Neolithic south the Caspian, but E>>W after...
 
I agree that the 'South Asian' is only one part of Gedrosia. The rest is probably hidden within 'West Asian'. If Gedrosia is exactly 'South Asian' + 'West Asian' (unlikely it is a perfect match though), the Yamna samples would have 22 to 29% of Gedrosian. 25% is a reasonable average, which corresponds to what is found in eastern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia and the Northeast Caucasus.

English and Scottish people have 11% to 13% of Gedrosian respectively, presumably about half of the Yamna people. That makes sense since English people have 40% of Yamna DNA, and Scottish people 50% according to Haak et al. 2015.

A high percentage of R1b isn't always a sign of high Yamna ancestry as demonstrated by the case of the Spaniards, and the Basques. Spaniards have only 25 to 30% of Yamna DNA despite having similar R1b levels as British people. Their Gedrosia ranges from 5% (Galicia) to 7.5% (Catalonia). The Basques reach 9%. So there is a correlation to the total R1b percentage in Iberia too, but the ratio isn't the same as in Britain because R1b arrived later and in a more diluted form in Iberia. At equal R1b frequency, the Spanish Gedrosian admixture is half that of the British, and so is their total Yamna admixture. However one looks at it, the Gedrosia to Yamna ratio remains stable though, about 1:4. This means that Yamna people did indeed have approximately 25% of Gedrosian admixture. Everything checks out.
I find this model for Gedrosia very weird. many people had pointed out that besides EHG(ANE), most of Yamna ancestry should be CHG, which makes sense, but I don't see how there could so much as 25% gedrosian admixture, more than CHG? unless one corresponds to the other? in the samples we see exclusively R1b for paternal lineages and varied mtDNA, 1/4-1/3 of mtDNA was still ANE, depending on the sample and the others middle eastern(K, T, H etc). H, which was pretty common among indo-european maternal lineage is quite rare in India and similar places.

Besides, current south asian populations would have much more southeastasian genes and even red sea/north african genes than europeans or Yamnayans. There is something wrong with this modelling. These names are very imprecise, especially gedrosian, ancient north eurasians and western hunter gatherers are better names than gedrosian. Even if we know that Paleolithic ancestors to indo-europeans were roaming across central asia, this level of a such southern location like Gedrosia doesn't make much sense.

Regarding Spaniards and Scotts, well, I don't see that much difference. Besides later Arab/north african invasions in Iberia, there isn't any other way that R1b got there if not by indo-european invasions, you can argue that they arrived more "diluted" or anything, but I would say that the middle eastern component got diluted in Europa before spreading to western Europe(compare the Caucasian and middle eastern rates for Yamnaya, Corded Ware and Unetice for example, it gets smaller), 17% for Yamnaya then 10% for Unetice, it is natural that mixing with western european groups, plus the environment the percentage would get lower, these genes might have died out in one way or another. I see the gedrosian or middle eastern genes getting more diluted than R1b itself, and of course the maternal U lineages. The other mtDNA besides H are somewhat rare in western Europe, good part of this H mtDNA was also brought by indo-europeans. The celtiberians were somewhat "less celtic" than the gauls, but I would say this was more due to absorbing local populations in Iberia than anything else. In Britain, maybe the local population was smaller and/or got more exterminated, possibly it was colonized earlier also.
 
W
I checked the population averages for K15 and the Saami of Finland also lack East Med, West Med, Red Sea, West Asian and South Asian, like Karelia and Samara. However they differ in a big way in that the Saami have 12% of Atlantic, where the Mesolithic Karelia and Samara had 0%. Motala12 (Mesolithic Sweden) also had the Atlantic admixture though.

North SeaAtlanticBalticEastern_Euro
Finnish Saami17.712.220.127.0
Mesolithic Karelia23.70.118.940.4
Mesolithic Samara25.5017.741.7
Mesolithic Sweden34.310.126.927.5

Interestingly Mesolithic R1a and R1b from Russia both have more 'North Sea' than modern Saami, even though Mesolithic Scandinavians had the most 'North Sea' (about 33%). If percentages don't seem to add up, it's because the Saami have also 20% of Siberian admixture. If we take that out, we get:


North SeaAtlanticBalticEastern_Euro
Pre-Uralic Saami22.115.325.133.8


The Atlantic admixture might have come from a Mesolithic migration from Iberia, perhaps the one that brought mt-haplogroup V.
What exaclty would this North Sea be? I1? It makes sense for eastern hunter gatherers from Russia to have more North Sea, North Sea is western hunter gatherer(I1 and I2), you must remember that Eastern Hunter Gatherers had about 25-30% Western Hunter Gatherer admixture.
 
These (selected) geographical groups of auDNA ar based on modern pops, I think. When we compare the distrbutions in Great Europe and Near-East, we see a very unequal ratio of 'gedrosia'/caucasus'. The supposed steppic part of north-western (and Basques) seem very more 'gedrosia' than 'caucasus'. The contrary for Slavs Greeks and partly Italians. I wonder if 'gedrosia' is not the more eastern (or northeastern) part of 'west-asian', more ANE, and less crossed with a 'levant'like part (or 'Basal Euro' part?). If we look at some amateurs DNA breakings for very ancient pop's of north-Asia we see 'gedrosia' too. So surely 'gedrosia' doesn't contain a lot of 'south-asian' elements... If we take all that seriously, we could think the most of our supposed I-Ean ancestors came at first from a rather eastern position or picked their 'caucasus' element, close to Caspian, maybe eastern or northeastern Caspian..Some russian metrics found (uncomplete) ties with S-E Caspian people among BA Steppic.
ATW it's curious analysing ancient pops with modern pops auDNA? in some way...
With this last same problematic, we can suppose diverse (by drift) WHG parts in 'northsea' and 'atlantic'.
 
These (selected) geographical groups of auDNA ar based on modern pops, I think. When we compare the distrbutions in Great Europe and Near-East, we see a very unequal ratio of 'gedrosia'/caucasus'. The supposed steppic part of north-western (and Basques) seem very more 'gedrosia' than 'caucasus'. The contrary for Slavs Greeks and partly Italians. I wonder if 'gedrosia' is not the more eastern (or northeastern) part of 'west-asian', more ANE, and less crossed with a 'levant'like part (or 'Basal Euro' part?). If we look at some amateurs DNA breakings for very ancient pop's of north-Asia we see 'gedrosia' too. So surely 'gedrosia' doesn't contain a lot of 'south-asian' elements... If we take all that seriously, we could think the most of our supposed I-Ean ancestors came at first from a rather eastern position or picked their 'caucasus' element, close to Caspian, maybe eastern or northeastern Caspian..Some russian metrics found (uncomplete) ties with S-E Caspian people among BA Steppic.
ATW it's curious analysing ancient pops with modern pops auDNA? in some way...
With this last same problematic, we can suppose diverse (by drift) WHG parts in 'northsea' and 'atlantic'.
well, I will try to be concise and straight to the point. I think we all should try to be as synthetic as possible and as precise as possible, since, although modern genetics have supposedly more precision than some older anthropological and racial studies, it lacks in concrete representations, it is too abstract(haplogroups and such are just random acronyms combined), we can't precise geographic origins of genomes and sometimes even physical apperance get lost. It must be representative in order to be useful, many papers and articles talk about percentages and create computadorized calculation models(still suppositions), but lack in describing appearance or approximating the genetic data to more concrete racial groups and populations.

1- I find it very inappropriate to take modern populations as reference for the modelling. If they use current Gedrosian populations that is bad, since these same Gedrosians have partial Yamnaya ancestry and Caucasian ancestry( Caucasian Hunter Gatherers and ANE). Considering Gedrosia was once part of Persia and other eastern indo-european empires, it would make some sense to have it, but then it must be defined what exactly is gedrosian.

2- According to Allentoft and Haak et al(2015), the component in Yamna was like 55-85% EHG, 15-25% CHG(here understood and mixed also the Gedrosian element) and around 6% WHG. The trick here is that this EHG already had from 10-30% WHG, so the overall WHG would be higher. And the CHG is the Gedrosian or whatever you want to call it, associated with paternal haplogroups J1 and J2, especially J2b and maternal H, T and K mostly. So I think after all, the Gedrosian element is the CHG. In his article, besides some neolithic farmers crossing the Caucasus and settling around the Volga region(early neolithic J2b samples), some R1b tribes most likely crossed the Caucasus to the Iranian Plateau/Northwest Iran, and there they absorbed this CHG element, sometimes identified as Gedrosian because they are kind of the same. This would explain why Yamna culture was much more advanced than neighbouring EHG cultures and where it got the copper metallurgy from(from neolithic cultures in Transcaucasia). We have to bear in mind that most samples from Yamna were elite Kurgan samples with almost exclusively only one subclade of R1b(R1b-Z2103), the later subclades associated with Celts, Italics, Germanics etc are absent. It indicates the perhaps this elite had more Caucasian/Gedrosian ancestry than the remaining population, since the percentage is only around 10% in later Bell Beaker and Unetice cultures, a 150% reduction. Part of it can be explained by the absorbing of local populations, but not all, so the gedrosian/caucasian element should have been somewhat unequal in Yamna. The higher Caucasian(especifically caucasian) element in italians, greeks and slavs could perhaps be attributed to two factors: previous neolithic farmers rich in caucasian ancestry, and indo-europeization of caucasian rich peoples, mostly greeks and armenians in this case. Ancient greeks and Hittites had frequently armenoid/caucasian features. We can't explain completely how it happened, armenians and anatolians had Yamnayans coming down the Caucasus, greeks also to an extent with possible other J2 peoples(indo-europeized) going up around the Black Sea. Additionally there seems to have been some introgression of Caucasian genes in elite indo-europeans other than those of Gedrosia, we see that in the somewhat high concentration of J2 in southern Europe and even southern Central Europe(Rome, Venice, Greece, Austria etc), Neolithic farmers almost didn't have J2 in their paternal lines, so these must have arrived there with indo-european migrations. These J2 were indo-europeans and had different physical characteristic of other middle eastern populations, usually lighter skin, warlike cultures, possibly more robust or taller, lactase for the processing of milk(typical of indo-europeans), immunity to certain animal carried diseases, sometimes lighter hair or eyes etc. We know that both EHG and EEF had light skin, WHG not so light and other neas easterners also not so light. So I think we can see a cluster between Yamnayans, EHGs and EEFs regarding light skin, milk processing, immunity and other traits. Indo-europeans are a cultural and linguistical definition with a genetic basis, but this genetic basis is not ANE, but the specific peoples that gathered in the Pontic Steppe during later Neolithic/Chalcolithic.
 

This thread has been viewed 34433 times.

Back
Top